Review GameBanshee Reviews Baldur's Gate: Enhanced Edition

:antibrofist:

 

Hmmm... I've played for quite a while now, and I haven't encountered any of the bugs mentioned in the article, expect the icons (on the character portraits) flickering sometimes.
I don't want to say the article is bullshitting, as obviously many people reported those problems. I just find it strange that I never got any, as usually the gods of fate make sure I encounter every possible bug in a game

But judging from the article and some stuff on their forums, it seems they managed to screw up some stuff that actually worked before (with or without mods... mostly with, though). That's quite a letdown, actually.
The good news is that the game has an auto-patcher, and there's already one patch out, and more incoming. So, despite that article, I can recommend the EE version... but you should probably wait a week or two if you fear that you might encounter some of those nasty bugs. As I said, I haven't and am quite happy with the game so far.

A shame they still follow the ruleset so closely... Someone should've removed the bullshit with not every race being able to take every class. I still wish someone would make a port to 3.5.

About the changed/new content:
Well, the structure of the UI has been improved, that's for sure. But the look of it.. to be honest, I liked the style of the old ones more. So this is better on one side, and worse on another.
The animated sequences are fine, actually. As Harg already said, CG does not age very well, at all. So I understand the decision to replace them. Of course, compared to full 3D animations, "simple" drawn animations do have a "cheaper" feeling about them. So again, better one side, worse on another.
And lastly, the new areas (I'm talking about the ones in the main game, not the arena) do not look as bad as some of the screenshots made them look. Many parts there actually look better than some stuff from the original game (the trees in the new areas, for example, look much better). The only problem is that they have a different style about them. You really get the feeling that someone tried to do the new art in the style of the old one, but just couldn't get it 100% right. It is very noticeable that the new stuff was done by someone else.

 

I hate to say it, but Sea's affiliation with us will be used to discredit him. "Oh, he hangs out at the Codex, so of course anything new is shit."

 

Only one right thing to do: ban sea.

 

But primitive, early 90s, CGI is awesome . . .

 

Considering that the game's narrative and plot are its least remarkable features, I'm amused this cutscene change has generated so much angst.

 

That's because the intro gave some coherence to a game that didn't had a plot for 3/5 of the gameplay. Apart from Gorion's death and some missions at Baldur's Gate, only the Nashkel mines' fight have some actual relevance for the plot, which still is based on killing the bad guy.

 

Remember that BG started life as a fantasy RTS and was changed into an RPG later.

 

Why didn't anyone tell Bioware?

 

But it was all just annoying crap. BG is still a good example of why RPG doesn't mean game with story and dialog. It would be better without them.

IWD you can't really say there is dialog since there's no main character but it's much better than BG 1.

 

This pretty much. The Nietzsche's quote is cliched as hell but it was apropos to what the video was meant to convey. The new one is just about Sarevok being evil trololo and has nothing to do with with the fact the game is supposed to be about Bhaalspawns (most of whom are supposed to be evil) and hints at absolutely nothing concerning the plot.

But that was obviously by design. The intro sets the story, but your character was just an unwilling part of it and after the first attempt Sarevok doesn't even bother going after you personally, due to having bigger things to worry about (he probably thought that after getting rid of Gorion he could simply trust the job to some lowly assassin, which further stresses the fact your character is basically a nobody). Hell, Sarevok wasn't even the leader of the group trying to take control of Baldur's Gate, he was just an henchman with plans of his own. The execution leaved a lot to be desired but i think the idea was pretty solid.

 

It got me thinking...

You know what was the really brilliant cutscene among all the BG games?

It was the end of BG2. The one where that assembly of people gathers (one of them voiced by Commander Shepard, as I recently noticed), and where it is declared, "There is no escape. The child of Bhaal is doomed."

What you spoke about in this post, that scene also captured really well. There is no escape for anyone who is a child of Bhaal. Whether it was the weak and puny young man, Sarevok, or CHARNAME himself, they all end up contributing to the murders that would revive Bhaal and they would all be crushed under heel in the way of a much stronger Bhaalspawn. First that man, then Sarevok, then so many others would rise through use of force before falling to someone more powerful.

 

I don't think anyone at Bioware put that much thought into it.
http://social.bioware.com/profile.forum/forum/1/topic/13/index/7637945/2

 

I got the sense that was less by design and more a result of them just wanting to make a generic fantasy game with bandits, hobgoblins and forests to explore. It's obvious the open, free-roaming nature of the game is fairly at odds with the story it tries to tell, and Sarevok is a very weak villain because he never comes across as being an active force in the world, or the nemesis that he is supposed to be. And then all of a sudden he, uh, stages a coup? And has a temple of evil? Underneath the city? In another ruined city? I guess? Because it's cool and stuff?

To be fair, once you reach Baldur's Gate the story really picks up and actually is fairly interesting and well done. The stuff before, not so much. That fucking chain of henchmen, the bandit groups and mines you have to investigate, it gets old really fast and it becomes easy to completely forget what you're even trying to do or why. Even though Baldur's Gate 2 is not the greatest game ever, at the very least the vast majority of the gameplay is at least tied in some way to the central story - the narrative is delivered far more effectively there.

 

I thought it was obvious that they were trying to recreate a Fellowship of the Ring type of experience. You start as a nobody in a world who's affairs are quite beyond your competence, which you have to trod as a fugitive from a danger which at times seems not to even exist. That's also why there's so much wideness in the game, because that's where Frodo's escape occurred and it has become a standard in most fantasy stories. Fuck, Terry Brooks made a career in recycling this crap over and over.

 

One of my favourite things about Baldur's Gate bar the combat, which I remember very distinctly from my younger years, was the innocent start, oblivious to anything, and then progressively getting more and more intrigued. They even handled this well in BG2; instead of extending that story they focused on a new element, what BG1 had created. BG1 was all about losing innocence so BG2 was all about regaining it or getting vengeance (the regain option was for fags, obviously). The young adventurerer setting out, becoming the hero, winning the external fight, then being captured, coming to a foreign land, losing hero-status, and finally winning the internal fight.

It's all pretty banal and stuffies, but it worked well for what was basically a simple high fantasy game. And most importantly; these stories were supported by the games mechanics, and the game's mechanics told these stories. A lost art today. Neverwinter Nights 2 actually tried to pull off the exact same trick, but they cooked the concept down to such a bare-bones experience it became utterly boring and soulless. Apparantly they learned their lesson with their "regaining innocence/vengeance" story though (MotB).

I'm not saying Baldur's Gate was art or something, but just like a solid action flick it knew what it was, it did it well, and it didn't get pretentious. I wish more games and films were like that.

 

I knew it would be a useless piece of trash. This is horrible, and lol at the hundreds of new bugs. I will never touch anything this studio ever does.

 

Did you even play the game? What temple of evil did he have? Didn't he go over there just minutes before the main character, because it was a large and abandoned place no one knew about and difficult to get into, so he wouldn't get raped by the city guards after failed assassination attempt?

 

I don't know what is worse. The big ass helmet in the original or the way the guy's head inflates like a balloon as his neck is being squeezed.

 

Not to get too axiomatic here, but I think "kill it with fire!" is appropriate here; shame on you, Trent Oster.

IIRC, he intended to ascend to godhood in that temple, so in all likelihood, that temple of Bhaal was probably meant to be the plan B, last-ditch, no-girls-allowed fort by design for quite a while. Hence the floor traps, I reckon.

Is it really necessary for the player to have advance knowledge of all things? Maybe the ruined city is a stretch, but if you're vying to claim your dead father's murder-god mantle, I don't see how a temple of Bhaal is an unfitting locale.

 

It basically was. You can see a huge shift between Baldur's Gate and Baldur's Gate II in terms of the player character's importance to the plot. Yes, you were tied to it in Baldur's Gate, but that only became apparent near the end of the game and for most of it you were just investigating the truth behind the problems plaguing the area. Very low key stuff that slowly escalates. Even the mix between set encounters and random encounters was kind of close to many of the Gold Box games. It had its own charm I guess. It's just a whole let less EPIC and a whole lot less about the CHOSEN ONE with a whole lot less PERSONAL DRAMA than anything BioWare (and most other RPG developers) did afterwards. Removing the stuff about being a bhaalspawn, it would have made for an excellent Gold Box adventure.

 

I don't really think the Bhaalspawn thing went derp until ToB, because it wasn't a chosen one plot. Even in ToB, they highlight the fact that you're one out of a gazillion Bhaalspawns. That you happened to win out had nothing to do with you being the chosen one, you were just strong enough to perservere. You don't even save the world in any form in BG2 or ToB. In BG2 you're basically fighting for personal reasons that happen to involve some elves, and in ToB you're fighting for your own survival (THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE!!!)

I have nothing against these plots, so I gotta disagree with you MMXI, even though I see where you're coming from.

 

I didn't mean "the chosen one" quite literally. I meant that the plots were centred around you being a Bhaalspawn and all that entails. For the majority of the first game you could have been a nobody. In fact, it's only really when you go back to Candlekeep that the plot actually ties you into it for the final stages of the game. Baldur's Gate II, while certainly no Throne of Bhaal, was still centred around you and Imoen being Bhaalspawn. That's why Irenicus does those experiments on you after all. It's also a game very much focused on chasing a villain from beginning to end with plenty of character drama happening along the way. You get can get backstabbed by a party member, you have to rescue a relative for the best part of half the game, there's protagonist only love interests and there's the whole playable dream sequences and slayer super power thing that happens to you.

The way I see it, if you were to play the games multiplayer with a party of six of your own adventurers, Baldur's Gate 1 discriminates far less between the primary character and the other five.