Was Baldur's Gate considered popamole at release?

[Decado]

BGII > BGI, anyone who says otherwise is an idiot and does drugs.

 

[Exmit]

BGII > BGI, anyone who says otherwise is an idiot and does drugs.

I was dissapointed with one thing in BG II , it did not have those areas to explore on map like BG 1.

The rest was better in BG 2.

 

[Seolas]

I ran an IRC network when BG1 was closing in on release and through some emails got Interplay to host the official chat channels on said network (there was a BG and Fallout 2 one to start). Not sure if anyone here would have attended those chatrooms which had live dev chats at the time (I remember Feargus being there more than once), but yeah I helped set all that up. Anyway, enough history lessons - I remember the BG chatroom attracting lots of hardcore D&D type players and most of them were very excited for the game and there was no real pessimism/negativity.

 

[tehRPness]

BG was dumbing some stuff down, yes, and it was hard to forgive the lack of true turnbased. However, it was still a total tyranny of stats to newbies, so I guessed it had to be an RPG after all. Personally I love the tyranny, and get a nerdgasm when I see others fail at intoing it.
Learned to not hate the combat and the step (or incline) towards RT action, but now with the web, finding games is easy, so I never have to forgive an RPG for lacking RPGness(?), because I'm never as starved for gameplay.

With all the other shit that's been released, I wonder why people waste so much bile on BG anyway. There's bound to be at least a few titles out there really worth raging over.

 

[Volourn]

"I was dissapointed with one thing in BG II , it did not have those areas to explore on map like BG 1.
"

Oh.. you mean it lacked those billions of empty maps that had no purpose but to be filler as you a fanwanked your way through uncovereing every inch of them to kill every single last monster on the map? Oh.. how could we live without those. LMFAO

 

[sgc_meltdown]

After playing Fallout and Fallout 2, I couldn't imagine that any serious isometric cRPG could ignore the incline that it brought to the genre.

Anyone with a brain who played TA when it was released in 1997 would spend the easy part of a goddamn decade wondering when the fuck would the other RTS names pick up the good shit that TA had. Per-unit movement and engagement behaviours, the ability for construction units to automatically help each other or any project in their patrol route, the ability for construction units to help speed up unit construction, queued build orders, unlimited selection of units, fog of war and 3D ballistics calculation taking terrain and obstacles into account and hence the ability for units to miss, mobile radar jamming, planes and bombers which actually flew and spun and had their missiles and bombs work like the real thing instead of fighting like mutalisks, reclaimable/resurrectable wreckage from dead units, amphibious units I can seriously keep going on for a long fucking bit.

Turns out nobody really cares about that shit because a good interface and less micromanagement means dumbing down elite RTS game interfaces like that of C&C and Starcraft, and everything not being on a flat plane and having terrain height and shit give you an advantage are just gimmicks.

So yes, developers can ignore inclines all the time. They don't want their loyal players to fall off them now do they?

 

[sgc_meltdown]

Oh.. you mean it lacked those billions of empty maps that had no purpose but to be filler as you a fanwanked your way through uncovereing every inch of them to kill every single last monster on the map? Oh.. how could we live without those. LMFAO

Jesus christ I believe I may be completely agreeing with Volourn on something. There's a good reason that nobody bitches that Fallout 1 and 2 didn't have endless squares of dead buildings and desert for you to kill radscorpions and molerats in.

 

[Carlos' Bitch1]

Oh.. you mean it lacked those billions of empty maps that had no purpose but to be filler as you a fanwanked your way through uncovereing every inch of them to kill every single last monster on the map? Oh.. how could we live without those. LMFAO

Jesus christ I believe I may be completely agreeing with Volourn on something. There's a good reason that nobody bitches that Fallout 1 and 2 didn't have endless squares of dead buildings and desert for you to kill radscorpions and molerats in.

Yes. You were forced to uncover the maps weren't you. They actually held quite a number of small quests and unique encounters, but we can forget all that and pretend it is just uncovering maps and killing goblins. They were not the final word in excellence, but the idea was sound, which leads me to my point.

My take is actually different to you and the Princess: Keep the maps, but improve them! Revolutionary idea I know. BG2 followed the first priority of the decline; get rid of things that can potentially be good instead of improving a good idea. Makes the experience a little more....welcoming eh? Very silly thought I know. Improving things instead of getting rid of them died off in the late 80's/early 90's.

 

[sgc_meltdown]

My take is actually different to you and the Princess: Keep the maps, but improve them!

There are more significant things to do to the game rather than improve the non-grassland maps. Do not assume that because I dislike the endless amounts of green that I'm sure everyone gladly uncovers in every of their seven or so playthroughs just to see the little bursts of inspiration that occur, it means I'm happy with the rest of the game and I'm cutting this bit of potential out because I hate the idea more stuff in my game. My isolated comment on that one feature means based on the rest of the game, I don't think they can pull it off anyway. It would be like arguing to improve the ratbots in Transformers 2 instead of removing them so you keep those characters while ignoring that the entire movie also needs work.

Continuous overland maps are just a single low bullet point on a list of flawed design traits that BG has. What was it, "thousands of screens to explore" or so the hype was?

 

[Azrael the cat]

Oh.. you mean it lacked those billions of empty maps that had no purpose but to be filler as you a fanwanked your way through uncovereing every inch of them to kill every single last monster on the map? Oh.. how could we live without those. LMFAO

Jesus christ I believe I may be completely agreeing with Volourn on something. There's a good reason that nobody bitches that Fallout 1 and 2 didn't have endless squares of dead buildings and desert for you to kill radscorpions and molerats in.

Yes. You were forced to uncover the maps weren't you. They actually held quite a number of small quests and unique encounters, but we can forget all that and pretend it is just uncovering maps and killing goblins. They were not the final word in excellence, but the idea was sound, which leads me to my point.

My take is actually different to you and the Princess: Keep the maps, but improve them! Revolutionary idea I know. BG2 followed the first priority of the decline; get rid of things that can potentially be good instead of improving a good idea. Makes the experience a little more....welcoming eh? Very silly thought I know. Improving things instead of getting rid of them died off in the late 80's/early 90's.

I used to hold this view until a friend of mine pointed out that given that BG2 is basically one BIG city - seriously, take Amn and all the dungeons that spring from Amn (all that stuff under the temple district from the dead god and beholder area), the vampire areas, the liches, the various buildings that were essentially dungeons in urban disguise, and you HAVE an improved 'area exploration from BG1'. It's just that the whole thing is urban. Given that, it's more acceptable that some of the places outside of Amn take you straight there (like Firkraag's dungeon, Cernd's wilderness, etc) - it's pretty much one huge urban area to explore + a few additions.

BG2 had plenty of exploration. KoTOR was the decline for that with Bioware games. Ever since KoTOR Bioware games have had one decent hub per game, usually the introductory one, with the others being pretty much dungeon entrances devoid of meaningful exploration.

 

[sgc_meltdown]

It's just that the whole thing is urban.

I don't think it matters however you define the areas. Random encounter based exploration is a far sight better than having to trudge to the same areas you've gone through dozens of times already. Great, so you've added fast travel so you just need to visit an area once. Are there consequences or limitations to fast travel? No? Why the fuck did you give me a spiel about the realism of having to explore manually then?

Follow dotted line to map landmark, get chances of something interesting in between. It's an abstraction but it's a good abstraction. Just don't do what DA did and have the interns build the maps. Oh boy a winding path through hills and steps at the far end to go up the hils who always have mages or archers standing there IT IS LIKE MY OWN PERSONAL SURPRISE ICEWIND DALE.

 

[Volourn]

"Random encounter based exploration "

But, the BG1 maps weren't fukkin' random. And, theyw eren't encounter based either. They were just random monsters thrown in with one or two 'main encounetrs' added with the rare inetresting one thrown in.

BG2 maps - all of them - (except for the 4 'bonus' maps post UD) were all story/quest heavy and because of this were awesome b/c they fukkin' mattered.

Case in point: Firkragg's map could easily have been treated the same as BG1 maps but thankfully it wasn't, and actually fukkin' mattered.

 

[Nael]

"Random encounter based exploration "

But, the BG1 maps weren't fukkin' random. And, theyw eren't encounter based either. They were just random monsters thrown in with one or two 'main encounetrs' added with the rare inetresting one thrown in.

BG2 maps - all of them - (except for the 4 'bonus' maps post UD) were all story/quest heavy and because of this were awesome b/c they fukkin' mattered.

Case in point: Firkragg's map could easily have been treated the same as BG1 maps but thankfully it wasn't, and actually fukkin' mattered.

Does everything have to be a goddamn soap opera for you? Why do we need Penultimate Awesomeness around every fucking corner and Ultimate Awesomeness at the very end of our life's journey? Do you really think you are going to die with your boots on? Good luck with that.

 

[Lonely Vazdru]

As always when discussing BG on the Codex, most people either love it or hate it when in truth it deserves neither.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

"I was dissapointed with one thing in BG II , it did not have those areas to explore on map like BG 1.
"

Oh.. you mean it lacked those billions of empty maps that had no purpose but to be filler as you a fanwanked your way through uncovereing every inch of them to kill every single last monster on the map? Oh.. how could we live without those. LMFAO

BG1 was a good hiking simulator. Removing the ability to explore big pretty maps was removing the strongest part of the game.

Funny how some people around here tend to see FO as the ultimate bringer of incline and BG as a traitor that destroyed the foundations of the bright cRPG's future, as if Fallout wasn't a dumbed down Wasteland in the first place.

Except that Wasteland was a very different game than Fallout.

If anything, Fallout could've spawned as much decline as BG could possibly bring to the genre, if it was a more popular hit: a "no party control" trend. There you go, the shiny cRPGs future with tons of skills, perks, dialog trees with stats check for story fags... and a completely retarded party system with mediocre minimalistic combat and pretty much zero encounter design. God damn Baldur's Gate for preventing this great future!

Fallout wasn't supposed to be a party cRPG. CNPCs were added at the last moment. When BG came out, I expected something that is better than Fallout but at the same time keeps the level when it comes to character development (there were so many stuff from AD&D like skills, talents, combat system improvements, etc. that wasn't used) and interaction. A normal party system and good encounter system could be a part of that "better". And select target and watch the character attacking on autopilot system from Baldur's Gate was even more minimalistic than in Fallout which allowed aiming each attack and doing stuff like conserving APs to get better AC.

 

[crufty]

My impression...

Awesome!

Cool!

Hmm that bucket looks handy so i'll...ah. Its part of the background. As is everything else it seems.

Fight time...woah there genius the goblins are over *here*.

Hmm interesting dialog choice "yes" and "yes". Ok.

Well, its better then ultima ix, but for some reason games made a few years ago have a bit more going on in them.

Maybe bg2 will remedy? No. Nwn. Better but wtf is this...no party?


Its not so much bg is popamole, but that it led to popamole.

 

[Pelvis Knot]

I actually liked BG1 mostly because of low level + those empty maps. Those gave me the feeling they aren't there for me, but because of their place on the Sword Coast, with their set of problems that had nothing to do with you.

I liked the rumors - about Prism, or the guard captain that went berserk - they just said west of Naskhel or east of Beregost, it was up to you to go find them if you wish. For me it really added to the atmosphere and the feeling of a living world (NPC schedules would've helped even more).

In BG2, and most other cRPGs everything feels like it placed there just for you - the mighty Chosen One Hero of World Saving. Every map was filled with loot and Epic quests none of which I felt could be solved by anyone else. That's cool, but I liked BG1 style more.

goblins

I can't remember any goblins in BG1.

 

[Elwro]

Back then, a good Polish mag "Gambler" posted a long and detailed conversation between their two editors regarding BG and Fallout. One of them considered BG as popamole, the other one praised the things that the game is usually praised for. Only now do I see that this was a blueprint for most of future discussions about BG :D

 

[Carlos' Bitch1]

I noticed a couple of people in here claiming that Baldur's Gate combat was better than Goldbox combat. If those people could step forward and explain, in detail, why they believe this to be the case, I would be very happy to debate this issue.

 

[hoverdog]

Back then, a good Polish mag "Gambler" posted a long and detailed conversation between their two editors regarding BG and Fallout. One of them considered BG as popamole, the other one praised the things that the game is usually praised for. Only now do I see that this was a blueprint for most of future discussions about BG :D

RIP GAMBLER NEVER FOSFGET

 

[octavius]

I noticed a couple of people in here claiming that Baldur's Gate combat was better than Goldbox combat. If those people could step forward and explain, in detail, why they believe this to be the case, I would be very happy to debate this issue.

In favour of IE:


Bigger and more varied combat screens.

More variation in spells. In the IE games all spells are potentially useful; in GB most of the spells are never useful. Ever used Detect Invisibility in GB?
Basically I find myself using a much wider range of spells in IE than in GB.

More variation in enemies.
Generic enemies have individual values for HP and there are far more unique enemies with unique equipment, uinque AI and unique spell lists.

Backstabbing is handled in a more "realistic" manner, in that the thief needs to hide in shadows or turn invisible first.

Ability to scout and thereby buff the party without resorting to metagaming.

The games can be modded and every NPC and monster can have combat scripts, which means a much wider array of tactics to use.

Wider array of special abilities and skills.

More detailed. For example Rangers can choose their racial enemy, and armours have different modifiers to different weapon types.

It feels more "realistic". I never liked the idea that in GB monsters could be insta-killed by one dart if becoming helpless due to Sleep, Stinking Cloud or Hold Person.
Although I must admit I'm not sure what is most correct according to the PnP rules.



In favour of GB:


Complete control.
You know excactly where that fireball will hit thanks to the grid. And you are not at the mercy of shitty AI. In the IE games if you order your archer to shoot an enemy, and there is not a clear line of sight you risk your guy moving to point blank instead of taking one step to the side and shoot.

Opportunity attack/zone of control. In the IE games it's harder to pin down archers since they can just step away from your fighters without risk.

It's actually possible to properly target Lightning Bolt spells. In IE they seem to be programmed to bounce back on you no matter at which angle you cast them.

IE games are easier to abuse, especially unmodded BG 1, where enemies just outside your view won't react to their comrades being shot. But I guess that's more a player problem; I used to move my party so close to enemy groups that the whole group was ativated, to keep it fair.


Overall:
I've played and replayed both the GB and IE games many times over the years, and I prefer the IE combat even though it's far from perfect.
I love the fact the GB gives me full control, but it becomes rather simplistic and limited compared to IE.
With auto-pause and rigid use of the Pause key I find the IE combat very enjoyable depsite its flaws. Except for Icewind Dale II, where I found the problems of no grid and no opportunity attack to partially ruin the game.

 

[King Crispy]

Solid post, Octavius.

 

[Carlos' Bitch1]

Bigger and more varied combat screens.

Don't understand this. Please elaborate further.

More variation in spells. In the IE games all spells are potentially useful; in GB most of the spells are never useful. Ever used Detect Invisibility in GB?

I never needed to use it in IE games either to be honest.

Basically I find myself using a much wider range of spells in IE than in GB.

You rattled off one spell. What others do you use that you didn't use in GB? Think the opposite way as well; what spells did you use in GB that you didn't need to use in IE.

More variation in enemies.
Generic enemies have indivual values for HP and there are far more unique enemies with unique equipment, uinque AI and unique spell lists.

First off, the AI in IE games is attrocious. 'Attack nearest enemy' is basically the way it works. I am not saying GB has the greatest AI in history, but unless you can bring up something specific about the IE games I am forgetting, they don't really have an AI. They have prebuffed enemies if that is what you mean?

As for the unique enemies, that may be true. However, it waters down the experience by having too many. If you face a unique enemy in the GB games, you know they are going to be much better than the norm. When you face them in the IE games, they are basically just another named moron, apart from an oddbod here and there. Again, they have no unique AI's that really do anything bar spamming a special ability, unless you can prove differently.

Backstabbing is handled in a more "realistic" manner, in that the thief needs to hide in shadows or turn invisible first.

Yes, and the AI cannot seem to do it themselves unless they are 'pre-invisible' before the battle starts. GB simplifies this and makes it work for the AI as well.

Ability to scout and thereby buff the party without resorting to metagaming.

Well, since the enemies are already pre buffed on virtually all occasions, it would be rotten if this wasn't the case, right?

The games can be modded and every NPC and monster can have combat scripts, which means a much wider array of tactics to use.

You can whip up an entire GB game with the builders out there. Meanwhile, if you wanted to do the same with IE, better bring your art skills with you. As for the scripts, see above.

Wider array of special abilities and skills.

Such as?

It feels more "realistic". I never liked the idea that in GB monsters could be insta-killed by one dart if becoming helpless due to Sleep, Stinking Cloud or Hold Person.
Although I must admit I'm not sure what is most correct according to the PnP rules.

How hard is it to kill a sleeping/paralysed enemy in real life? One stab to the neck? GB is therefore more realistic, yes? It is also closer to second edition rules.

Another question I have to ask: How many times did you really feel challenged in BG/BG2 et al? I can count the real challenging encounters on my hands, and that is pushing things including the 'insta kill' enemies you face in the later IE games. They are not difficult mind you, they just possess the ability to wipe a character out with a power; without this, they are toast in about 5 minutes of combat.

The same cannot be said for the GB games, where there are many difficult battles that do not rely on death rays and mind sucking abilities of enemies.

I await your next post.

 

[Carlos' Bitch1]

Solid post, Octavius.

Excuse me if I am incorrect, but didn't you start your CRPG career with one of the later games? Morrowind or some such?

 

[King Crispy]

No. I'm 43 years old.

I was rolling up Bishops in Wizardry: PGotMO before you were even a zygote.

Bark elsewhere, sir.