Why Baldur's Gate sucks?

[Lumpy]

VD is a rookie, and I don't think he will have this kind of quest.
And I didn't post city quests because I never got so far. Let me ask you something: if you have a pie, and you heard that the center is quite good, but when you taste the crust you realize it's made of shit, do you still eat the pie? When you can have other pies with good crusts and exquisite centers?

 

[Relayer71]

AND FURTHERMORE....

BG gets praise, acclaim because it was a ressurection of the DnD franchise, a rebirth if you will. After a couple of years of lousy DnD titles or an absence of titles (can't remember which should apply more) DnD came back to computer gaming in a bigger way than ever before. Just compare it to all the previous DnD titles.

Too much combat? Lackluster story/writing? Lack of choices/consequences?
Since when were the Gold Box games these grand, literary, thought-provoking titles?
Seriously, computer DnD has always been about looting and dungeon crawling. Planescape was THE exception, and quite a rare title in general.

BG was no masterpiece and it has aged rather poorly but it deserves it's place in the history of RPGs for bringing back DnD and being the massive success it was and possibly introducing many new players to PC RPGs.

BG 2 I will defend - it is nowhere near the top of the RPG shelf with the Fallouts, PS:T, Arcanum, Ultimas, etc., but it was the pinnacle of DnD RPG games and was very worthwhile as far as electronic entertainment goes.

In my opinion it would go on a shelf below Label it an action-adventure and give it a 95% if you will. But if others can call Deus Ex an RPG I guess we can call BG 2 an RPG too.

Still, I can understand why some don't like it. Bioware is definitely overrated in my book and I would have to say BG2 is their only game worth playing.

NWN was crap. KOTOR? As a Star Wars fan I enjoyed the writing and the familiar sights and sounds but it was repetetive, had poor combat, and was even more linear than any of the BGs and just became tedious halfway through.

 

[Section8]

Your example sounds about right. But the thing is, combat was in your control. You chose to bum rush a bear with a melee weapon. Now, considering this bear moves slower than your characters, it can only attack through melee, and it hits hard, wouldn't you want to stay away from it and perhaps use ranged weapons, or retreat? It's not so much the variability that killed you, it's the bad decision of engaging a bear head on, probably at a low level.

So, in other words, if I use ranged attacks and kite the bear, I steamroll it.

To a certain extent, I can see that might qualify as intelligent tactics, but it seems more like metagaming to me. Aggro the bear with your fastest character, and kite it with the rest of your party set on autofire.

That's not necesarily true. Hitting a mage in combat will stop their spells. Having your party switch to ranged weaponry and throwing all their attacks at the mage could stop it. And a quick damage spell could as well. Again, variability could strike here, but missing with every character and then getting hit by the spell would be quite the stroke of bad luck., and most certainly not the norm.

And again, if I interupt the mage, I steamroll him. I just don't think combat should be decided by that sort of singular choice and the chance that accompanies it.

There's plenty of "tactics" to avoid damage in Baldur's Gate. Staying away from the enemies zone of attack is one of them. Like staying far away from the bear or ogre. Or perhaps closing range on the archer to force him to stopping firing and pull out the sword he happens to suck with (how stereotypical). Heck, you can use choke points and even close doors to use as a gated choke-point or a temporary safe haven. Not as great as Fallout, but not godawful.

Okay, the chokepoint bit I can dig, but there's a fine line with resorting to archery and the like. I guess it basically boils down to my personal preferences and views of valiant knights in shining armour charging forth, steel in hand, thieves in the shadows ready to backstab and what not conflicting with the expectations of the game world.

Maybe it's just me, but I really don't see that going on. Only when you are outclassed, outgunned, and/or outnumbered heavily do you ever run into one of these situations. And in these situations a retreat might be better called for, no?

Well, retreat becomes an issue in the instance where something smacks me down in a single blow. But worse still, I know I can win the fight, and I know I can win it with my brave, sword wielding paladin without resorting to cowardly unskilled acts like archery. I just need enough chances.

So in some respects, is it possible I'm ruining Baldur's Gate for myself, or should it be doing more to shepherd me? Is it that unreasonable to avoid archery, which I'm completely unskilled in, in favour of going to toe-to-toe with a bear, knowing I have a pretty good chance of survival?

Challenge? Because you are a man of iron will and great testicular fortitude? Maybe you could choose not to risk it and push on, or just try to retreat back to a town. Nothing is going to be more powerful than save/reload, but let's face it...save/reload is pretty cheesy.

I found most "challenging" fights in Baldur's Gate were a challenge to my patience, more than my skill. And I agree that save/reload is a good way to spoil the game, but I just can't shake the notion that a winnable fight shouldn't be walked away from when the die rolls don't favour me. If your CRPG includes quicksaving and quickloading, I think it's more reasonable to assume that players will use and abuse those features, and adapt the game accordingly. The gulf between success and failure in P&P D&D works because you can't take anything back, and you're forced to deal with any fuckups along the way. CRPGs are a different beast.

Like my Modron Maze example, it's all in your interpretation of things. Minsc, to me at least, fit in with the overall tone of the game. Baldur's Gate was most certainly not taking itself very seriously. It's evident in the goofy characters, silly sideplots/sidequests, a bunch of the things you can say to people, and such. If you didn't like that kind of stuff, you might interpret it as "Fucking retarded" and generally harbor quite a distaste for everything. I guess I could compare it to Army of Darkness, the Rocky Horror Picture Show, or even I'm Gonna Get You Sucka. Anyone expecting something serious, believable, or inspiring is going to be a little disappointed. But if you don't take things too seriously, you could garner some amusement from things, depending on your tastes.

I wouldn't ever compare it to Army of Darkness, which actually features great slapstick and iconic character(s). Hell, I wouldn't even compare it to Robin Hood: Men In Tights. It's more like Flesh Gordon and the Cosmic Cheerleaders. It tries to be funny and fails. But it fails so miserably that if you're really fucking drunk, you can laugh at the stuff that is unintentionally funny. Still, I like my unintentional funnies to come from very serious intent. Like Keanu Reeves in Dracula, or Nicolas Cage in the Wicker Man remake.

I just never found the pathfinding causing me woes. I cranked up the search nodes a bit at the beginning as recommended in the manual and never found a problem. Sure, godawful map design (and I mean awful) caused problems in places like the Firewine Ruins, the Ulcaster School, and the maze, but I never found pathfinding to be that much of a problem on it's own.

Well, my most persistent playthrough, which was my first was on a computer that could barely handle the game. However, since then I've tried it on monstrous rigs with as many of the pathfinding enhancements cranked up, and still take issue with it.

Popular opinion? Sure, Baldur's Gate sold well and a lot of magazines and reviews hyped it to hell...but that's it. There really aren't that many people who were influenced by Baldur's Gate in the grand scheme of "RPG" gaming.

Outside of the Codex, it's still highly regarded, and considered a "hardcore" RPG. I also see endless guff from gaming rags about it reviving the genre, and theres also the undisputable fact that Black Isle and Bioware have cranked out at least 8 full games that don't stray significantly from the Baldur's Gate formula, and don't really learn from it's core failings. And generally when they do, it's done by fairly radical excision rather than improvement. The shit pathfinding continued through the IE games, and NWN until it was finally shed in KOTOR, but only because of the vastly simplified environments and smaller party.

Also, here's a couple of interesting thoughts. In a world without BG:DA, we'd likely have no Fallout:BOS. And god, I would have loved to have seen the brilliant content of Planescape in a halfway decent engine and implementation of a ruleset. Imagine Arcanum in a world where a precedent for a failed RT RPG eliminated the publisher "need" for a RT combat mode.

As for other influences rather than direct descendents - Dungeon Siege? Freedom Force? And outside of the RPG genre, what about the demise of TB tactical games in favour of shallower RT counterparts?

Or the troubling status of Bioware as the biggest name in RPG development, and ergo the "industry leader" in the eyes of many?

Diablo/"akshun-RPGs", "Jap-RPGs", and shit like KOTOR, Neverwinter Nights, and Oblivion have done a lot more damage. Plus, it's not like they (Bioware) utterly lied about features in the game during development a la Neverwinter Nights and Oblivion/Morrowind. Sure, their priorities were a little skewed in the wrong direction, but still. It wasn't that bad for their first effort.

I followed quite a bit of Baldur's Gate's development and you're right, it was very different to the Bioware of today. For instance, as best I can tell, the whole real-time thing emerged from the main hook of co-op multiplayer, for which TB was deemed untenable. So Bioware in the naivety went with a very literal implementation of AD&D's six second rounds, and simply made it all happen in real-time without any real thought. Hence the pause, because the initial design was horribly broken. Unfortunately for RPGers, the game was a runaway success, so all of the obvious design shortcomings - weren't really considered such in the scheme of things. Why learn from your mistakes when they're so profitable?

Of course, after so many years, they probably could have dropped a turd in an AD&D stamped box and it would have been just as successful.

As for the other more damaging games, you're right to some extent, but Baldur's Gate paved the way for that decline. The disregard for the RPG afficionados, the excessive production "values", the inane characters... it all set various precedents as being ultimately successful components.

If Baldur's Gate had tanked hard (which it was never going to do, based purely on the license) then what? I'd take genre death over wretched unlife, but I rather like to romanticise the fact that at that point, the flagship of the then industry leader, was Fallout.

It still stands that he is remembered by association with the action and through no attempt by the developers.

Ah yeah, but so is the comedy act of Keanu Reeves as Jonathon Harker in Dracula. The character isn't memorable, Keanu's hack performance is, through no attempt by the scriptwriters. Or, remember Thích Quảng Đức?

People are typically remembered by things that define them, and mostly their actions. Her action was being damn near useless unless you sold her out. And that is what people remember her for.

Yes, but what I'm trying to get at is that people are not remembering her as a character, they're remembering her as a frustrating gameplay component. Same with Ian. It's like - "Oh, is he that guy who clips through the floor so you can only see him from the knees up, and not actually interact with him as he does a perpetual moonwalk?"

But I highly doubt Tim Cain and crew thought in ten years Dogmeat and Ian will be the most frequently remembered characters. I'm going to venture a guess they figured one of the talking heads would be most fondly remembered as they were far more fleshed out. Turns out the dog and the guy who shoots you in the back are the most memorable, along with Richard Grey, because he is the villian, and he was pretty unique, and still is.

I'm not saying they did. But it's like Hofmann and LSD. It may have been an accidental discovery, but that's no reason why anyone else trying to create hallucinogens shouldn't examine the properties of LSD and learn from them instead of relying on blind luck.

Well, a humorous game can be a good thing. It provides comedy along with gameplay. I'm willing to lower my standards, so to say, in comedy for this game because it is a game first and foremost. And personally, I would much rather take some campy, if unsophisticated, humor over some far too goddamn serious, fantasy bullshit. But that's me.

And I'd take Arcanum over both. Not that I want every game to be Arcanum, but it's a better way of breaking the "too goddamn serious fantasy bullshit" mould without winding up like a fucking Martin Lawrence movie.

I admit the characters were a little on the very unsophisticated side of the humor scale at times, but a ddecent amount of the dialogue and the situations were pretty amusing to me. Call me a boorish prole if you want.

Wouldn't dream of it. As long as you and anyone else reading can happily concede that your "guilty pleasure" in Baldur's Gate is like the gaming equivalent of a Pauly Shore/Carrot Top collaboration to those with differing tastes. By comparison, at least
Fallout 2 had the good grace to have Fallout's great gameplay and open-ended questing as a basis underlying its utterly retarded "comedic" stylings.

Baldur's Gate has horrible, frivolous and absurd personalities acting out a high-fantasy cliche, where all the sets are depthless cardboard cutouts. The underlying mechanics are built to a rarely used specification, and adapted without forethought or design. The only thing that keeps it going are the rubberbands and gaffer tape patching up the most gaping flaws.

Worst of all, it was a runaway success and a template for so many successive games. Oblivion may be a despicable piece of shit, but at least it wasn't the beginning of the end, the prototype that proved that shallow, mass-market turds are a license to print money.

 

[Edward_R_Murrow]

VD is a rookie, and I don't think he will have this kind of quest.

That's an entirely different situation. First off, we *know* that he *knows* what makes RPGs good. So he's out of the rookie ballpark, in my view at least.

Bioware on the other hand probably had no damn idea what made an RPG an RPG. Let's look at what they might have had for inspiration. They had Wasteland, Wizardry, Ultima, the Gold Box, and maybe Arena and Daggerfall. I'm going to doubt that they played Realms of Arkania or Darklands. VD on the other hand has had a lot more games to learn from. Arcanum, Fallout, Torment, Gothic, Prelude, Spiderweb's titles, and even Baldur's Gate itself (at least on how not to do certain things).

They probably drew most from the Gold Box though. They were using an AD&D license after all.

Not to mention they needed to make money, VD's game is more of a personal project with the added bonus of possibly making a decent sum.

Plus, they didn't have David Gaider in Baldur's Gate 1 and were severly lacking in noogies.

And I didn't post city quests because I never got so far. Let me ask you something: if you have a pie, and you heard that the center is quite good, but when you taste the crust you realize it's made of shit, do you still eat the pie? When you can have other pies with good crusts and exquisite centers?

Well....I'd just rip the crust off, maybe throw it at someone, and then eat the center. But I understand your point to a degree (of course I played through Oblivion trying to find something redeeming, so what do I know...). I still however think that the notion Oblivion is better at role-playing than Baldur's Gate is total shit, though.

 

[Section8]

What if I decide my char doesn't care? What if I want to chuck the ring in a bush? Bugger it, the gnomes dead, no ones going to call me out on it.

Can't you do this? I'm fairly sure you can at the very least palm it off to about the third guy you meet. That doesn't excuse the rest of the linear plot points, but the long and short of it is - I'm pretty sure you don't have to care about the ring, and because the whole plot device is "here stranger, take this ring," you're expected to be curious, and that's about it.

That's a far cry from "Heya! It's me Imoen! You're bestest bud who is like a sister to you! We have an extensive and colourful history. We spent our enitre childhood together." That's a slightly more specific expectation of how the character should respond to his best pal.

Here's another thought - a character in Arcanum's gameworld forces the ring upon you. In Baldur's Gate, the game forces Imoen upon you.

There are some pretty significant differences here, but on the whole I thought the railroading in Arcanum was a major shortcoming. Fallout's "unraveling threads" was much more effective.

 

[onemananadhisdroid]

Well, when you start arguing on a forum and all you have to say is "but...but... it's a good game to me..."?...

If that's really all I had to say to you.. well, your bad. Seriously, much more than I see no point in ferociously defending these games against the vocal horde of people who didn't (hey, I already got my fun out of these, so what?), I see no point in arguing over the qualities of a game using home-brewn dogmas as a standard to measure against. Some kind of definitions of whatever, which in actual truth would probably be cookie cutter formulas and strict rules for games I'd like to play. Correction: I'd *think* I'd like to play. You can ask me about what I appreciated (and what I didn't) about "Baldur's Gate" aka the game it is at any time, though. Oops, been there, done that. At least a tiny, little bit.

 

[Vault Dweller]

VD, you're giving BG2 a 70% as an RPG and a 95% as an action-adventure with stats.
Forget the genre/sub-genre classifications. What about as a GAME? I'm curious as to what you think of it overall. Is there some average of the 2? Utlimately this is what counts, no?

Hard to say. Some people play games, just to be entertained; some people play genres, because that's what they really like. One can play (and rate) Deus Ex as a shooter, disregarding all other options, or one can play it and rate it as an RPG. See my point? What you play a game as at the moment is what its value is as a GAME.

 

[Sodomy]

Can't you do this? I'm fairly sure you can at the very least palm it off to about the third guy you meet. That doesn't excuse the rest of the linear plot points, but the long and short of it is - I'm pretty sure you don't have to care about the ring, and because the whole plot device is "here stranger, take this ring," you're expected to be curious, and that's about it.

Yeah, there's at least two people who offer to buy it from you (not counting GB himself).

There are some pretty significant differences here, but on the whole I thought the railroading in Arcanum was a major shortcoming. Fallout's "unraveling threads" was much more effective.

Agreed; the quest structure in general was a major (perhaps the greatest) failing of Arcanum. The main quest was largely linear (it branched briefly in one point depending on whether you were good or evil, and branched again at the end), and the way it handeled side-quests was terrible (it also suffered from the BG2 flaw of "lol, time to do unimportant errands for a million people"). Arcanum's redemption is in that most of these quests offered interesting choices somewhere during the quest that allowed you to roleplay a character; whether it be through the method of completing the quest, or whether you decide to keep that machined plate that you killed an arachnid and an automaton for yourself. Also, many times these sidequests effected other side quests or the world in interesting ways. BG2 didn't have this redemption.

I really wish more games would do like the early parts of Geneforge did, where you didn't really know what was a sidequest and what was mainquest thanks to a lack of information about the goings on at the island, but that's another topic.

 

[Sodomy]

But you picked out one of the beginning towns, which you and I both know to be the worst parts as far as role-playing goes.

Why is the first town always one of the worst? Arcanum's first town kicked ass; the four major quests (find out about the ring, get past the bridge, the ghost of the mine, and shut down the steam engine) all had multiple solutions, and choices with consequences. In FO1, Shady Sands was a bit dull, true, but the second town, Junktown, was one of the game's highlights, IMO. The Mortuary and Sigil in PST were anything but "worst parts". Neither was the Illya Province in Geneforge 4, and neither was the towns of the three factions in Geneforge 1.

 

[Relayer71]

Hard to say. Some people play games, just to be entertained; some people play genres, because that's what they really like. One can play (and rate) Deus Ex as a shooter, disregarding all other options, or one can play it and rate it as an RPG. See my point? What you play a game as at the moment is what its value is as a GAME.

I think everyone plays to be entertained, no matter the genre. But I understand what you're saying.

Still, like films or albums, a video game can entertain regardless of one's expectations - you've proven that yourself by giving BG 2 a 95% when it comes to action/adventure. But BG 2 wouldn't necessarily qualify as an action/adventure to a fan of THAT genre who may say, "well as an RPG I'd give it 95% but as an action/adventure I give it a 70%".

Well then which is it? You said it yourself, "What you play a game as at the moment is what its value is as a GAME". Which proves BG2 is as much an RPG as Fallout to those of us here who are RPG fans and enjoyed it.

Of course those who claim Oblivion is an RPG are definitely delusional.

An RPG is what you expect an RPG to be. It should have some basic attributes, I won't list MY version of what they are but we can all probably agree that story, substantial dialogue, customizable stats, and lack of a "scoring system" are central or the most basic.

Certainly other genres share these characteristics but usually to a lesser extent, to the point where they don't make up the bulk of the gameplay.

 

[Edward_R_Murrow]

So, in other words, if I use ranged attacks and kite the bear, I steamroll it.

To a certain extent, I can see that might qualify as intelligent tactics, but it seems more like metagaming to me. Aggro the bear with your fastest character, and kite it with the rest of your party set on autofire.

I guess you can boil it all down to that, but can't you do that with just about anything? I mean, simple strategies tend to work, especially against a simple enemy. Plus, there are plenty of other things you can do. You can hamper it's movement with an entangle spell, or a hold spell. Heck, you could use a weapon with a long reach like a halbred or spear and poke it and retreat and repeat ad nauseum until said bear dies. But for crying out loud, why must every battle be a constant tactical struggle? Even real combat isn't always. The big guy who does martial arts that complement his strength is going to smash the little guy who does something like TKD. The well prepared strike team is going to rout the guerillas hiking along the road by laying down fire from a higher elevation ambush point.

And again, if I interupt the mage, I steamroll him. I just don't think combat should be decided by that sort of singular choice and the chance that accompanies it.

Not always. Most mages are accompanied by others. You may have had to divert fire from an oncoming threat, like a big guy with an axe, to deal with said mage. Then you could choose to finish him off, or help your front-line fighters out in their fight. Your choice may greatly alter the combat's outcome.

Okay, the chokepoint bit I can dig, but there's a fine line with resorting to archery and the like. I guess it basically boils down to my personal preferences and views of valiant knights in shining armour charging forth, steel in hand, thieves in the shadows ready to backstab and what not conflicting with the expectations of the game world.

Well, ranged combat and melee combat both have their times and places. As does stealth. But you can't expect to get through with just one type of combat skill, unlike Fallout.

Well, retreat becomes an issue in the instance where something smacks me down in a single blow. But worse still, I know I can win the fight, and I know I can win it with my brave, sword wielding paladin without resorting to cowardly unskilled acts like archery. I just need enough chances.

I know I can kill the mutants with my sledgehammer without resorting to cowardly tactics like using guns, I just need enough chances so I can get some criticals..

The moment you employ save/reload tactics, you throw just about everything out the window. Let's face it, RPG combat is save/reload's bitch. Seeing as most combat sysyems rely on randomized numbers augmented by stats to simulate combat, "luck" does play a role. Save/reload let's you put luck in your favor....eventually.

So in some respects, is it possible I'm ruining Baldur's Gate for myself, or should it be doing more to shepherd me? Is it that unreasonable to avoid archery, which I'm completely unskilled in, in favour of going to toe-to-toe with a bear, knowing I have a pretty good chance of survival?

Well....let's look at things this way.

You've got a knight. He's got a low(er) THAC0 than other types of characters. That means he hits stuff with weapons more often, any weapons, than other characters. He is gifted with swords, so he does more damage and hits more often with them. He isn't gifted with bows, and is in fact unskilled with them. But he is still a knight, and is good with any weapons (Game mechanics: because of his low THAC0) because of Knight Basic.

This knight encounters a bear. He knows bears hurt, a lot. He also knows bears can only hit up close. Another fact is that he can consistently and constantly outrun the bear because the bear ate too much trans-fat. The knight has his trusty sword, his chainmail armor, some arrows, and a bow. He can either...

1. Bum rush the bear and likely deal more damage faster, but also place himself in much greater risk.

2. Use the bow and arrow to shoot the bear, and keep out of it's range indefinitely. Very low risk, but slower.

I found most "challenging" fights in Baldur's Gate were a challenge to my patience, more than my skill. And I agree that save/reload is a good way to spoil the game, but I just can't shake the notion that a winnable fight shouldn't be walked away from when the die rolls don't favour me.

Well....sometimes things go bad. If it kills your main character, that's even worse. I can agree at low levels there are a lot of things that can quickly and easily dispatch you, but you have to go and seek those things out in most cases. And anything else can be stopped with some tactics.

If your CRPG includes quicksaving and quickloading, I think it's more reasonable to assume that players will use and abuse those features, and adapt the game accordingly. The gulf between success and failure in P&P D&D works because you can't take anything back, and you're forced to deal with any fuckups along the way. CRPGs are a different beast.

For some reason I'd assume designing a game around save/reload would be incredibly difficult and would produce a pretty bad product. Maybe consider it a little more during design, yes, but I don't think there is much of a way to fight save/reload without negatively impacting the game in doing so.

I wouldn't ever compare it to Army of Darkness, which actually features great slapstick and iconic character(s). Hell, I wouldn't even compare it to Robin Hood: Men In Tights. It's more like Flesh Gordon and the Cosmic Cheerleaders. It tries to be funny and fails. But it fails so miserably that if you're really fucking drunk, you can laugh at the stuff that is unintentionally funny. Still, I like my unintentional funnies to come from very serious intent. Like Keanu Reeves in Dracula, or Nicolas Cage in the Wicker Man remake.

I guess we will just have to agree to partially disagree on this. I'll agree some of the "humor" was shit, but some of it wasn't half bad.

Well, my most persistent playthrough, which was my first was on a computer that could barely handle the game. However, since then I've tried it on monstrous rigs with as many of the pathfinding enhancements cranked up, and still take issue with it.

Fair enough.

Outside of the Codex, it's still highly regarded, and considered a "hardcore" RPG.

Let's be totally honest, it is pretty "hardcore" in relation to the absolutely wussified RPGs of today. About being a "hardcore RPG", well....when over 60% of the people who consider themselves hardcore RPG players have games like Final Fantasy in a top ten RPG list, then yeah, it is by comparison. And we haven't even hit the Diablo clone action RPGs or RPG lites that everyone defines the genre with. Maybe if you only frequented places with a lot of RPG players, you might see a lot of Shadows of Amn loonies....but just go to someplace like Gamefaqs or such. Baldur's Gate hasn't done shit as far as convincing people what an RPG is.

I also see endless guff from gaming rags about it reviving the genre,

The same people who gave Fallout a score of 7 or 8 and then jerked off to Final Fantasy 7 in the same year giving it 9s and 10s? The same people who hailed Neverwinter Nights as a brilliant RPG masterpiece? The same people who consistently give great reviews and scores to Jap-shit that gameplay-wise doesn't even surpass Wasteland? The same people who gave PoS decent scores and said shit like "it stays pretty true to the Fallout setting"?

and theres also the undisputable fact that Black Isle and Bioware have cranked out at least 8 full games that don't stray significantly from the Baldur's Gate formula, and don't really learn from it's core failings.

I guess.

Shadows of Amn
Icewind Dale
Icewind Dale 2
Neverwinter Nights
Neverwinter Nights 2
KOTOR
KOTOR 2
Lionheart
Jade Empire

I bolded the ones that I thought did worse. But still, eight RPG lites versus the endless Diablo clones or grindfest MMOs is nothing.

Also, here's a couple of interesting thoughts. In a world without BG:DA, we'd likely have no Fallout:BOS.

Oh we would have. Except it would have been successful without another Diablo clone to fight for sales.

And god, I would have loved to have seen the brilliant content of Planescape in a halfway decent engine and implementation of a ruleset.

To be honest, I think without the Infinity Engine it would have been worse. They would have had to spend more time on an engine/ruleset and less time on dialogue and choices/consequences. Not to mention Planescape is a Dungeons and Dragons setting. I doubt it would get divorced from the rules.

Imagine Arcanum in a world where a precedent for a failed RT RPG eliminated the publisher "need" for a RT combat mode.

Even if Baldur's Gate failed, Diablo still sold a shit-ton. That influenced publishers.

As for other influences rather than direct descendents - Dungeon Siege? Freedom Force?

Diablo spawned Dungeon Siege. Heck, they're almost exactly alike. And it real-timed Freedom Force.

And outside of the RPG genre, what about the demise of TB tactical games in favour of shallower RT counterparts?

Console kiddies. Not Baldur's Gate.

Or the troubling status of Bioware as the biggest name in RPG development, and ergo the "industry leader" in the eyes of many?

That would be Neverwinter Nights and KOTOR's fault. Neverwinter Nights should have bombed...it had all the problems of Baldur's Gate and none of the "good" (although you most certainly won't agree with what I consider good). Heck, it pretty much made the player make the game. Yet people loved it and it fast outsold Baldur's Gate.

As for the other more damaging games, you're right to some extent, but Baldur's Gate paved the way for that decline.

Again...Diablo did far more and had a far greater impact.

If Baldur's Gate had tanked hard (which it was never going to do, based purely on the license) then what? I'd take genre death over wretched unlife, but I rather like to romanticise the fact that at that point, the flagship of the then industry leader, was Fallout.

If Baldur's Gate had tanked hard it's likely we would be swamped with Diablo clones, The Elder Scrolls (Bethesda is it's own publisher after all), and Jap-shit. I doubt Sierra would have given Arcanum the green light. I doubt Atari would have given Temple of Elemental Evil a go eiither. We wouldn't even have Bioware's RPG-lites. We'd have Jeff Vogel though....

Yes, but what I'm trying to get at is that people are not remembering her as a character, they're remembering her as a frustrating gameplay component. Same with Ian. It's like - "Oh, is he that guy who clips through the floor so you can only see him from the knees up, and not actually interact with him as he does a perpetual moonwalk?"

If you say so. Still...Ian made it into Fallout 2 both in person, and in the Vault Dweller's memoirs...so he was doing something right....or wrong.

I'm not saying they did. But it's like Hofmann and LSD. It may have been an accidental discovery, but that's no reason why anyone else trying to create hallucinogens shouldn't examine the properties of LSD and learn from them instead of relying on blind luck.

But they don't always prove to work. Like the "Dogmeat clone" in Arcanum, or the animal companion in Neverwinter Nights.

Wouldn't dream of it. As long as you and anyone else reading can happily concede that your "guilty pleasure" in Baldur's Gate is like the gaming equivalent of a Pauly Shore/Carrot Top collaboration to those with differing tastes.

Fine enough.

Worst of all, it was a runaway success and a template for so many successive games. Oblivion may be a despicable piece of shit, but at least it wasn't the beginning of the end, the prototype that proved that shallow, mass-market turds are a license to print money.

No. Final Fantasy and Diablo were however.

 

[Edward_R_Murrow]

Why is the first town always one of the worst?

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I was referring exclusively to Baldur's Gate, and not other games.

 

[Sodomy]

Why is the first town always one of the worst?

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I was referring exclusively to Baldur's Gate, and not other games.

I've never played BG1, and never finished BG2, but I somehow have a bit of a hard time believing this. It's inconcievable for any dev to put their worst content at the start, since that's when most gamers are going to get their all-important first impression of the game. Either Bioware were inconcievably stupid, or (more likely) it's like that the whole way through.

 

[Edward_R_Murrow]

I've never played BG1, and never finished BG2, but I somehow have a bit of a hard time believing this. It's inconcievable for any dev to put their worst content at the start, since that's when most gamers are going to get their all-important first impression of the game. Either Bioware were inconcievably stupid, or (more likely) it's like that the whole way through.

In Baldur's Gate 1, they did. As I've said before in the thread, Bioware was an inexperienced developer, hence the really stupid placement of content. It's there, but you won't see it unless you play for awhile or look for it.

 

[hotdognights]

You know, what it boils down to is, I don't care whether Baldur's Gate was a good "RPG", or whether it was an RPG at all. Ditto with Deus Ex. But I had fun with Deus Ex and didn't have fun with Baldur's Gate.

Not because I demand some great literary merit or artistic statement from games-far from it, games are a pretty escapist form of entertainment. Problem is, Baldur's Gate is the aforementioned Modron maze as an ENTIRE GAME. Not the cheeky tone(and how cheeky can a game be that opens with a Nietzsche quote. I guess Baldur's Gate was better about this than BGII, but I'm in the minority who preferred BGI) gameplay, which was kinda boring. Satires of settings, plots, characters can be funny, but when the game is itself a mindless dungeon crawler it gets kinda boring.

Quest for Glory is well-done satire of the hero genre, as well as being a fun game(regardless fo whether it meets the magical definition of an RPG). Baldur's Gate is a poor satire, because it doesn't just lampoon its target, it becomes its target.

 

[Lumpy]

Of course those who claim Oblivion is an RPG are definitely delusional.

An RPG is what you expect an RPG to be. It should have some basic attributes, I won't list MY version of what they are but we can all probably agree that story, substantial dialogue, customizable stats, and lack of a "scoring system" are central or the most basic.

Certainly other genres share these characteristics but usually to a lesser extent, to the point where they don't make up the bulk of the gameplay.

But then Oblivion isn't an RPG because... you would lose "Kodex Kool Points" if you said it was?

 

[Lumpy]

Ok, Bioware was such an inexperienced, rookie, newbie, whatever team, but is that an excuse for the game in relationship with it's popularity?
And making the beginning of the game the worst part is incredibly retarded, even a newbie indie developer should realize that. Hell, if there is some crap content, put it at the end. Because that way, at least the player will play the entire game.

 

[Edward_R_Murrow]

Ok, Bioware was such an inexperienced, rookie, newbie, whatever team, but is that an excuse for the game in relationship with it's popularity?

Not really. Fantasy licensed stuff sells for some reason I really can't fully comprehend and try to maintain a positive outlook on the future at the same time. Heck, Baldur's Gate wasn't a bad game, but I still don't see how it outsold a game like Fallout. It really doesn't make sense. Post-apocalyptic setting with drugs, violence, sex, and awesome role-playing should have sold like hotcakes. I'll never understand the consumer masses.

And making the beginning of the game the worst part is incredibly retarded, even a newbie indie developer should realize that. Hell, if there is some crap content, put it at the end. Because that way, at least the player will play the entire game.

Well....crap is subjective. To us, the fetch quests and railroading are crap, plain and simple. But I'm going to assume Bioware felt the way they developed the story and let it unfold, and "pull you in" was good. I'm going to also assume they thought all the assassins coming after you would add to the intrigue. And I'll admit, it was a decent plot device. But it didn't cover up the fact that pretty much all the quests in the first two settlements were pretty awful.

But then Oblivion isn't an RPG because... you would lose "Kodex Kool Points" if you said it was?

It lacks choices, has no consequences, and can't even stop player reflexive skill from interfering in things beyond combat. Even Neverwinter Nights (which is bottom of the barrel as far as RPGs go) at least wasn't a twitch-fest and actually had some consequences, though scant few.

 

[Naked Ninja]

That's a far cry from "Heya! It's me Imoen! You're bestest bud who is like a sister to you! We have an extensive and colourful history. We spent our enitre childhood together." That's a slightly more specific expectation of how the character should respond to his best pal.

And now you are lying or being stupid. Like I said, all the quest dialogues give you the option to not give one shit about Imoen, to be hunting Irenicus because he tortured you like a dog in a cage, then later because he tears your soul out (Evil guys wouldn't find that motive?).You can specifically insult and degrade Imoen in most if not all of the dialogues. OH NO, I CAN'T PLAY EVIL, WHY BIOWARE DO YOU FORCE THIS ON ME!

But you probably think its unrealistic she follows you around after you say mean things to her hey? Do you actually have siblings? I've called my brother a shithead a million times. Still family. We'd still work together if, for example, an evil mage attempted to rip our souls out.


Your character has a relationship and a connection to Imoen/Irenicus. Whether it's a love or hate relationship. Far better than Arcanums shite. So you can throw away the ring, can you ignore it and the main quest completely? No. All RPGs require you to in some way swallow the plot hook set forth, to compromise for the sake of playing the fucking game.

In Age of Decadence, if I don't want to find the temple thingy what can I do? Some faction quests? When I'm done with those? I demand VD provide game for those of us who don't feel our chars would want anything to do with the premise he has set down! You see? Its stupid. This is a limited medium. Computers can't generate infinite worlds, you have to accept the background at some level. Daggerfall wanted you to accept that your character was a special servent of the empire, trusted enough to be sent on an important mission. But what happens if the player wants to play a reviled outlaw, or a street urchin? You can't. Options limited, you're forced to accept a background that paints you into a corner, background wise. It's simply a reality of the medium, learn to deal with it.

 

[onemananadhisdroid]

Well....crap is subjective. To us, the fetch quests and railroading are crap, plain and simple. But I'm going to assume Bioware felt the way they developed the story and let it unfold, and "pull you in" was good. I'm going to also assume they thought all the assassins coming after you would add to the intrigue. And I'll admit, it was a decent plot device. But it didn't cover up the fact that pretty much all the quests in the first two settlements were pretty awful.

Candlekeep as the tutorial that it was, was way more than decent enough. Even more so considering that many a dev some really odd' ten years later still doesn't give a rat's ass about proper explaining and introducing the players to the game's mechanics out of the box. And just assume they'll already know. Because, you know, hardcore gamer geeks know everything. Obviously not the Miyamoto in those brave coders.

Alternatively they could've made it into an entity of its own, think "Shadows Of Amn", where the tutorial doesn't have anything to do with the actual game's plotline at all, but is implemented as a seperate option available on the main screen. The first approach flowed pretty nicely, though, what with the first major turning point happening right at the end of it, so hey.

Heck, Baldur's Gate wasn't a bad game, but I still don't see how it outsold a game like Fallout. It really doesn't make sense. Post-apocalyptic setting with drugs, violence, sex, and awesome role-playing should have sold like hotcakes. I'll never understand the consumer masses.

Heh. Realistically speaking, maybe the D&D assets weren't at the top of their game when BG came out, but there were still hordes of people already waiting in line. While Fallout, said to be a spiritual successor of a game you and your daddy played like a decade before pretty much had to start from scratch in comparison, so to speak. My first Fallout game was the sequel, which I bought AFTER having played BG, by the way. Even so, this "deeper gameplay which justifies sales ten times those of Baldur's Retarded Gate", as most of the Codex would have it it seems, is nothing that can be displayed on a box. It's something that needs to be seen from first-hand experience or similar, if you get the drift.

 

[Sodomy]

BG 2 I will defend - it is nowhere near the top of the RPG shelf with the Fallouts, PS:T, Arcanum, Ultimas, etc., but it was the pinnacle of DnD RPG games and was very worthwhile as far as electronic entertainment goes.

You apparently haven't played ToEE.

 

[Callaxes]

You apparently haven't played ToEE.

Did you? TOEE was crap in everything else other then combat.

Has for DnD RPGs, PS:T is the pinacle.

 

[elander_]

Daggerfall wanted you to accept that your character was a special servent of the empire, trusted enough to be sent on an important mission. But what happens if the player wants to play a reviled outlaw, or a street urchin?

That's how i played one of my characters. I think it was the first one which was a thief. By accident i misplaced Brisienna letters twice and didn't answered her calls. As a consequence i was outcast from service to the Empire and my influence with the noble families was zero, which means no main quest for me.

No problem, since i become the head of the thieves guild and gathered a good amount of gold to buy my own ship and house without need to go into fights or learn magic. In many ways roleplaying in Daggerfall was like playing a role simulator. In these games the player isn't told a story. He gathers information like the pieces of a puzzle and then assembles them together for the big picture.

There are many ways to create roleplaying opportunities. Some liked more by some groups of people and less by others. Daggerfall doesn't even offer dialog role-playing or choices within quests (at least not much). But it has something inspired from PNPs that is a great reputation and faction system and great reactions.

It's true that crpgs are limited to the amount of text that can be allocated for dialogs so there's always a pratical limit in roleplaying oppourtunities and several balancing issues that need to be addressed.

Should we develop quests more and have an exponential growth of possible choices and their consequences that will eventualy have to be trimmed down and force the player in certain paths? This will annoy the player but quests are more developed.

Should we develop small quests that are thus limited in terms of choices and consequences because of their size so that we have all possible choices without the player feeling forced into certain paths? Having too many choices but under developed will also annoy the player.

Because of space limitations and with more deep and developed quests forcing some paths will become a necessity. The question is how to trim down choices so that the feeling of being forced into a path isn't so annoying like those Oblivion quests. The famous girls gang quest comes to my mind. Probably the most idiotic and noobe quest i have seen in an crpg.

 

[Sodomy]

You apparently haven't played ToEE.

Did you? TOEE was crap in everything else other then combat.

Has for DnD RPGs, PS:T is the pinacle.

ToEE has quite a few good role-playing situations. While most of the quests in Hommlet are pretty damn fed-ex (although even many of these have multiple solutions, some of which have consequences- see the quest with the brewer's apprentice, and the reputation you get, for example), Nulb and the inner temple have some interesting quests. Plus, there are interesting NPC reactions (for instance, Elmo and Otis turn against you when you get to the temple if you're an evil party), and decisions (take Lareth with you?).

PST is better, true, but it's hard to think of it as a DnD RPG given the liberties it takes with its source.

 

[JoKa]

care to elaborate on those liberties? apart from a few spells i'm not aware of too much source-fudging...