Risine said:
I can't believe what I read!
You and me both, sunshine.
1/ Reviewing a game does not consist in listing a few "flaws" - including minor flaws - and evaluating it from that, not more than in listing a few "strong points" ( Wonderful 3D, great 3D and wow 3D, great AI that is cool on paper, facial animation wow ).
Assuming that, anyone could also list Fallout flaws for instance : bugs, 3D tilied iso, pitiful team management - non-existent ? -, bad inventory and awful interface management, bugs,bugs,bugs and so on, and then note it 3 out of 5.
A list of flaws is probably a more informative review than you're likely to get form any "professional" source. If you've followed the game's development
at all then rest assured you'll have heard all about the good stuff.
2/ You take as example the path-finding problem, ok, that's right, it's annoying from time to time but rarely, and it does not spoil the gameplay at all, most of the time ( 95% ) it does its job correctly, unlike for instance recurrent and awful cameras managments we have in many 3D games - including CRPG games -, and that are rarely mentioned as a bad experience. ( a bad camera managment can condemn the best game ).
Actually, in a game where 95% of the gameplay consists of "tactical" combat, pathfinding can be a pretty big Achilles' Heel. Combine that with the fact that the game environments are designed without any regard to gameplay and you've got some serious problems. In my experiences with Baldur's Gate, I spent more time fighting the interface than the enemy.
3/ Considering Baldur as an average game ( 3/5 it's average ) with the influence it had in CRPGs ( just think about it, no Baldur's gate would have probably meant no Planescape Torment ), this is like reviewing Wolfenstein3D or Doom today, games which also revolutionized games ( much, much more ) and explain they were just other fps as we know them so much.
If you want to review an old game, you must place yourself in the context of the time, and understand it. ( and I'm not talking about the visuals ).
Considering Baldur's Gate as an average game that "revolutionised" the genre to be the cesspool of mediocrity that it now stands as isn't far off the mark. What positive advances to Baldur's Gate bring to the fore? What did it inspire? And remember where we are - five discs worth of pretty graphics and campy voice over doesn't count for shit.
You're right about Planescape, but it succeeding in being a quality bit of interactive fiction in spite of its godawful roots, not because of it. I would have been perfectly content to see the same creative minds working from a more solid base - they could have done something truly phenomenal, instead of the rough diamond and commercial failure we got.
4/ Considering Baldur as an Action/RPG or a dungeon crawling game, this is getting very far. isn't it? I mean, with your definition, we can state that Ultima VII and Ultima underworld I&II, which have as much fighting sequences are Action/RPG games fully-fledged.
Why wouldn't you consider the Ultima Underworlds as Action/RPG hybrids? And then take that one step further and realise that they are successful in both hybrid elements? ie, they're fun action games, and solid RPGs. Ultima VII is getting closer to Baldur's Gate territory, where the real-time group combat is an abortion. At least Ultima VII has some RPG chops to back up that shortcoming, and isn't so focused on combat/dungeon crawling.
We can also state that the only CRPG game which can be considered as non action/RPG is ... the famous Planescape Torment. All others are simply Diablo action/RPG clones?
Huh?
5/ The fact that 10 years after, Baldur is still mentionned again and again, each time the word RPG is used for other reviews, the fact that so many players continue to play, replay and talk about this game, preferring it to nowadays RPGs, should have make you try to understand and analyse the reasons, with the advantage of 10 years of stand-back.
Baldur's Gate was a piece of shit then, it's even more of a piece of shit now. If I hadn't played glorious examples of the genre, such as the Ultima series, the Fallouts or even the dungeon crawling goodness of the Wizardry games, then I'd rate Baldur's Gate higher - because I'd have a lesser pool of experience to draw my conclusion from. I might even wax nostalgic about it, like the thousands of other kiddies without the depth of experience to realise that Baldur's Gate was the Oblivion of its day - vacant, shallow, trite, camp, lacking in any worthwhile gameplay - but with lots of shiny stuff and no need for an attention span.
6/ Considering the critics about the fighting system, there's not a good and a bad system, both Fallout and Baldur systems are great, both are fun to play ( what a great brainwave the magic spacebar pause system, Baldur wouldn"t have been Baldur without it. )
Aren't bandaid fixes just divine?