Why Baldur's Gate sucks?

[GoldLeader]

I just read that dude's whining thread, and i got interested. I haven't played any BG's but my best friend says that they're the most awesome RPG's ever. He showed me his theater managing quest as a bard, and that mage's school quest as a mage, and they seemed cool. The game appeared to have many dialogue options and interesting storyline. So, WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH BALDUR'S GATE?

I just need some arguments, with which i can make my friend FINALLY stop whining about how bad, in his opinion, fallout was. His fav fallout game was Fallout Tactics. And he keeps pissing me off with this.



No, he doesn't have a cat, and he's not a jew.

 

[thesheeep]

If his fav game was Fallout tactics, why do you give a damn shit about his opinion?
It's obvious he can't be taken for serious

Anyway... I, too, would like to know what people think sucks so much about that brillant game...

And I'm talking about BG2 + ToB... BG1 really wasn't as good as it's sequel.

 

[spacemoose]

unfortunately, since he does not have a cat and is not a jew, you don't have many options

 

[Raapys]

It doesn't.

Probably just a 'popular opinion' on these forums.

 

[Hellraiser]

Because it had all the flaws of a Bioware game?

Like standard bioware dialog options:

I'm good!
I'm teh ebil!
Leave me alone!

Or a retarded interface? Crappy real time combat? A horde of combat on almost every step? Shallow NPCs and TEH ROMANCEZ?

Not to mention all the flaws of AD&D(thank WOTC for the 3rd edition).

Don't get me wrong it has some good sides like the class strongholds and sometimes some nice quests. But it's nowhere near as good as Fallout or Planescape: Torment.

 

[Admiral Rimjob POOBUM]

BG2 Chapter 2+3 were, despite some low points, awesome. It kind of went downhill from there.

 

[Lemunde]

I think most people really like Baldur's Gate and other similar games because it's an attempt to try to bring all the good things about table top RPGs to the PC. A noble enough venture. But once you put the story, dialog, characters and artwork aside there isn't really much game left.

Let me try to explain this another way. There's two types of RPGs and many RPG gamers prefer one or the other. There's the hardcore RPG that focuses as much as possible on letting the player play a role. Baldur's Gate is a good example of this. Then there's the dungeon crawler RPG that focuses as much as possible on letting the player play the game. Diablo is a good example of this.

The real problem is there hasn't really been an RPG that's capable of merging the two. So you end up with a dividing line between the hardcore's and the dungeon crawlers. The dungeon crawlers are not going to like Baldur's Gate very much because it's missing all the elements that they think a good RPG should have.

 

[Baphomet]

Baldur's Gate was alright. I felt it was worth the money I paid. As others have pointed out, it would have been improved if ethical questions weren't resolved down to evil choice / good choice.

 

[The_Nameless_Prick]

Not to bad games. Sure, the dialouge sucks and and the freedom of real choice isn't exactly there (Is there a game really like that anyway?). But the character development and the equipment you can acquire rocks.

I remember back in my deep geeky days I used to read Raymond E. Feist books and play Baldur's Gate 2 constantly.

 

[thesheeep]

Because it had all the flaws of a Bioware game?

Like standard bioware dialog options:

I'm good!
I'm teh ebil!
Leave me alone!

Yes that's true, some dialog options were too... confining. But it really wasn't THAT bad. I mean.. it's no comparison to the good-or-evil options in KOTOR...

Or a retarded interface? Crappy real time combat? A horde of combat on almost every step? Shallow NPCs and TEH ROMANCEZ?

I don't see what was wrong with the interface? I found it quite intuitive...
The combat, well it was the usual real-time with pause. Some people don't seem to like it, I don't know why.
The number of monsters really wasn't too much. I don't know in which corners you stepped, but I played this game through like 4 or 5 times and haven't found so much that it got disturbing.

Shallow NPCs? Irenicus anyone?

Not to mention all the flaws of AD&D(thank WOTC for the 3rd edition).

This is true, some things there really were annoying. But not enough to ruin the game

 

[TalesfromtheCrypt]

@ TNP: Before you became a doubleagent in the Nazi/Zionist movements?

 

[Hümmelgümpf]

1. Generic fantasy plot (TM)
2. Generic fantasy characters (TM)
3. Generic dialogue options

The game is too... generic. You always know what the certain character will say/do, what outcomes the certain quest has, plot "twists" are easy to foretell... And it's strongly focused on combat. Peaceful resolutions are for sissies!

 

[Vault Dweller]

Why was BG2... subpar?

 

[thesheeep]

The game is too... generic. You always know what the certain character will say/do, what outcomes the certain quest has, plot "twists" are easy to foretell... And it's strongly focused on combat. Peaceful resolutions are for sissies!

It's a fucking generic fantasy WORLD! What else can you expect? Such a world has rules and all those rules were obeyed...
If you play a D&D game and don't expect generic figures, there's nobody who could help you...

 

[Hümmelgümpf]

PS:T was a D&D game.

 

[The_Nameless_Prick]

Before you became a doubleagent in the Nazi/Zionist movements?

Secret AAAGENT man
Secret AAAGENT man

Zog must be crushed so we can live free as a white race, to live without fear or guilt, to live as a whole who ourselves command the state.

 

[GoldLeader]

Thanx guys. For a moment i thought that i'm into an actual helpful forum not RPG codex.

 

[Hellraiser]

Irenicus was an exception, the vast majority of NPCs were like clones with almost zero individual characteristics. Compare that to Planescape: Torment with it's distinctive NPCs like the candy mage.

 

[Flink]

BG doesn't suck. It's way better then most of the crap that's been released in the last six years.

 

[Jasede]

That just shows how time has dulled our standards.

 

[Joe Krow]

BG2 wasn't bad. I think all it really lacked was world changing consequences. Also, many of the dialogue choices were illusiory. It was still better then 90% of the games out there though.

 

[GoldLeader]

My friend here, says that Fallout was a dumb macho game. (For that i hit him.) And that Baldur's Gate was more epic, and heroic. While you reply, i'll punch him a few times...

 

[Lemunde]

Your friend's a moron. There's nothing macho about Fallout.

 

[Lumpy]

It's a fucking generic fantasy WORLD! What else can you expect? Such a world has rules and all those rules were obeyed...
If you play a D&D game and don't expect generic figures, there's nobody who could help you...

What kind of retarded excuse is that? It's a great game, because it sucks just as much as all other games of its kind?

Let me try to explain this another way. There's two types of RPGs and many RPG gamers prefer one or the other. There's the hardcore RPG that focuses as much as possible on letting the player play a role. Baldur's Gate is a good example of this. Then there's the dungeon crawler RPG that focuses as much as possible on letting the player play the game. Diablo is a good example of this.

The real problem is there hasn't really been an RPG that's capable of merging the two. So you end up with a dividing line between the hardcore's and the dungeon crawlers. The dungeon crawlers are not going to like Baldur's Gate very much because it's missing all the elements that they think a good RPG should have.

Stupid Bullshit. I'm not a dungeon crawler, and I hate Baldur's Gate because it's ALL about dungeons and not about role-playing or dialogue. It's a stupid shallow mindless game.

 

[Jasede]

Okay, how many old RPGs were about "Role-playing" or "Dialogue"? Don't forget where your roots are. Lands of Lore! Wizardry! Goldbox! Does your fancy new RPG definition suddenly make all the old RPGs non-RPGs?

[I am not saying Fallout-like RPGs are bad, I am merely saying that the word "RPG" isn't limited to those games.]