Baldur's Gate Are BG1 and BG2 too dated today?

[Lyric Suite]

Imagine them making Baldur's Gate 3 back then with that line up.

Ho, right:

Don't report me for despair harvesting!

 

[Feargus Jewhart]

Imagine them making Baldur's Gate 3 back then with that line up.

Ho, right:

Don't report me for despair harvesting!

no ill report you for having terrible taste.

 

[Lyric Suite]

That art work alone > Larian's BG3 lul

 

[Cleric of Asmodeus]

Of course. Turn based + bad encounter design = boring slog. But RTwP games get away with that because [recurring argument by RTwP apologists] "RTwP combat makes trash mobs more tolerable due to being faster and less involving from the player". E.G., PST combat can't be fixed just by changing the game to TB because encounter design is a joke. But maybe, just maybe, instead of using crunches to tolerate bad design developers should just address the underlying issue, i.e., make encounters more interesting?

Agreed.

D:OS2 gets shit on for plenty of bad decisions but I actually think they did a pretty good job of having less encounters with more tactical setups and stuff. As opposed to endless blobs of crap on a flat featureless map.

The game I’ve been playing recently, Dungeons of Nahbeulheuk, is turn based as fuck and has really clever encounter design with enemies and terrain setup that totally warp the strategy between encounters

 

[Darkzone]

Your example is ok. But it is about how the RTwP handles exact the behavior scripts of the Agents. There could be a stickiness of Enemies to PC that would prevent enemies running through through your lines towards the glass cannon Character (wizard or sniper or etc). It is how you program the behavior and not the event and time system. I suggest you look into Simulations theory especially into Discrete-event simulation and (event driven vs time driven simulation).

So, "if the game has NPCs capable of finishing your characters very quickly, let's add some scripting limitations to prevent this from happening". Aren't you a Josh Sawyer in disguise, perchance?

Limitations are one fundamental principle of this universe. Your brain and consciousness functions because of it.

That's like telling military tacticians "If you find the enemies always going for your vulnerable artillerists in the back rather than focusing on your well-armed and armored frontliners, you have to convince your enemies to behave less efficiently lmao". Like wtf. Why should an AI act suboptimally? You should instead introduce systems to make these actions less efficient.

It is not about acting suboptimally but about acting realistic. And yes millitary is limited by defence capabilities of the opposite faction, like in teams in soccer or american football (defensive line). In medieval / ancient combat this was managed by different tactics and formations like Pike- Spear Formations (famous Hoplite). When you train martial arts with weapons then you then the first thing that you discover is that it is very difficult to pass / get behind a defending enemy.

 

[DraQ]

Also, BG visuals were always pretty meh. It was IWD 1 & 2 with the pretty visuals.

Lol don't be a retard.

BG visuals were fucking lit when it came out. No shit they were able to build on that later on but come on.

The game being a technical marvel when it came out is part of the reason for its success.

The biggest problem with either games is that the writing is kinda shit all though it's not entirely terrible i guess. Either way, it's nothing modern gaymes can boast to have improved upon so anybody who says the old games have been rendered irrelevant by the nu-shit is a retard.

Is this an elaborate joke that I'm not getting where we pretend BG doesn't look like someone puked on the screen?

Do you have some sort of damage?

About the only bad things you can say about BG1's graphics are too much area taken by UI, a lot of world objects (like buildings) being obvious early 3D era pre-renders and that shitty stippling for transparency.
Other than that it has always looked pretty damn good - and I don't even like BG.

 

[Lawntoilet]

Are BG1 and BG2 too dated today?

You know what's "too dated?"

Spoiler

your mom
Cause she "dated" too many guys

Spoiler

ie. OP's mom is a whore

D:OS2 gets shit on for plenty of bad decisions but I actually think they did a pretty good job of having less encounters with more tactical setups and stuff.

The game I’ve been playing recently, Dungeons of Nahbeulheuk, is turn based as fuck and has really clever encounter design with enemies and terrain setup that totally warp the strategy between encounters

I've heard really good things about it. But how is something "turn-based as fuck?" That makes it sound like it is extra-turn-based but games either are TB or they're not.

 

[Cleric of Asmodeus]

I played IWD 1 again recently and I feel like the party characters can be kind of indistinguishable at early levels. Better graphics definition there is appreciated but also some of it I think was just style because I think even later gold box games had more distinct character graphics

 

[Lyric Suite]

Which top down 2D games existed back then? Maybe a comparison with what was available at the time is in order. You can't certainly argue that Baldur's Gate was shit because IWD looked better unless you are also willing to argue Quake 1 had shit graphics because it didn't look as good as Unreal.

 

[Cleric of Asmodeus]

The game I’ve been playing recently, Dungeons of Nahbeulheuk, is turn based as fuck and has really clever encounter design with enemies and terrain setup that totally warp the strategy between encounters

I've heard really good things about it. But how is something "turn-based as fuck?" That makes it sound like it is extra-turn-based but games either are TB or they're not.

Off the top of my head, initiative/turn order is really important and influenced by character build. Positioning and body blocking are a thing, so you will plan out your next turn based on things like whether you can kill a threat or not and this will go into the decision making of which direction you face (since there is disadvantages for flanking, backstabbing, and you only get AOPs for your front three squares of threat).

Party members who are downed have a 3 turn counter before they are removed from the fight and the game actually has an action economy that’s favorable towards in battle heals so you will be working against that timer in a lot of decisions between eliminating a threat or healing a downed person. Healing a downed person before their Initiative comes up is ideal. If they take further damage while they are down it reduces the counter faster.

Stuff like that. Fine tuned positioning and body blocking typically doesn’t feel the same in most RTwP implementations unless you are literally playing Starcraft, in my experience.

 

[octavius]

Encounter design is weak,

A bizarre claim, since few CRPGs have better encounter design than the BG games. In how many other CRPGs can you fight several enemy parties of unique NPCs, for example?

 

[Murk]

Encounter design is weak,

A bizarre claim, since few CRPGs have better encounter design than the BG games. In how many other CRPGs can you fight several enemy parties of unique NPCs, for example?

Both claims are true, in a sense. Yes, you can find unique enemy compositions spread around -- you can also find hordes of kobolds, gibberlings, xvarts, etc.

 

[octavius]

Encounter design is weak,

A bizarre claim, since few CRPGs have better encounter design than the BG games. In how many other CRPGs can you fight several enemy parties of unique NPCs, for example?

Both claims are true, in a sense. Yes, you can find unique enemy compositions spread around -- you can also find hordes of kobolds, gibberlings, xvarts, etc.

So variety is weak encounter design?

 

[JarlFrank]

When you train martial arts with weapons then you then the first thing that you discover is that it is very difficult to pass / get behind a defending enemy.

Then the game's systems need to reflect that, rather than just gimping the AI to behave as if this were the case without actually making it the case.

 

[Murk]

Encounter design is weak,

A bizarre claim, since few CRPGs have better encounter design than the BG games. In how many other CRPGs can you fight several enemy parties of unique NPCs, for example?

Both claims are true, in a sense. Yes, you can find unique enemy compositions spread around -- you can also find hordes of kobolds, gibberlings, xvarts, etc.

So variety is weak encounter design?

Variety is great when the range of offerings are themselves good/interesting. I'm assuming you don't want a pile of potting soil at a buffet table even if it provides some token 'variety' in and of itself. In BG 1's case, the real problem is there's a ton of filler trash combat which is tedious to deal with when using a level 3 party whose weapons break if you swing them too much. You can avoid them, and you probably should since goblins/xvarts give crap XP and crap loot, but then why bother even having it if it's just to be avoided.

I liked the humanoid encounters, and I think the ambushing kobolds in the mines were used well, but most encounters in the open fields were not on par with "the fastest dart thrower in the lands" or the party of enemies in the southern canyon of gullykin.

I think even Bioware realized that; they didn't include any in Durlag's Tower, where the enemy placement was much more interesting.

 

[DraQ]

When you train martial arts with weapons then you then the first thing that you discover is that it is very difficult to pass / get behind a defending enemy.

Then the game's systems need to reflect that, rather than just gimping the AI to behave as if this were the case without actually making it the case.

For TB (in RT it's easier to make organic):

• give combatants two ranges (depending on weapon reach and other parameters):
• outer range - a distance from which character can step in while executing effective attack.
• inner range - a distance within weapon's reach while remaining stationary.
• entering or staying in inner range provokes AoO
• attacking from outer range is possible but requires character to step into inner range - it does not confer extra movement cost or confers a disproportionally small one and may provide benefits
• when attacking from outer range puts you into enemy inner range initiative is used to determine whose attack is resolved first
• effective attacks are highly lethal and even ineffective ones block remaining movement, may cause severe statuses (like getting hit in armour with no penetration but being knocked off balance) and inadvertent movement
  
• dodging, parrying and ability to execute AoO are finite resources per turn
  
• entering inner range as part of regular movement confers extra penalties against AoO.

So basically if you try to just run past enemy they will hit you - hard - and cut your movement short possibly shoving you around or forcing you to sidestep.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

being obvious early 3D era pre-renders

How early do you guys think the last week of December 1998 was?
BG1 came out months after FO2. You'd think it released in 1991 with the way you guys are talking.

 

[Bah]

Also, BG visuals were always pretty meh. It was IWD 1 & 2 with the pretty visuals.

Lol don't be a retard.

BG visuals were fucking lit when it came out. No shit they were able to build on that later on but come on.

The game being a technical marvel when it came out is part of the reason for its success.

The biggest problem with either games is that the writing is kinda shit all though it's not entirely terrible i guess. Either way, it's nothing modern gaymes can boast to have improved upon so anybody who says the old games have been rendered irrelevant by the nu-shit is a retard.

Is this an elaborate joke that I'm not getting where we pretend BG doesn't look like someone puked on the screen?

I find your take odd. I don't recall ever thinking BG1 graphics looked dated or bad in '98 when I was playing it. By contrast I distinctly remember thinking Diablo II looked like shit compared to other contemporary games in 2000.

I still don't find the above screenshots to look bad when you factor in the screen resolutions they were designed for.

 

[Ol' Willy]

So basically if you try to just run past enemy they will hit you - hard - and cut your movement short possibly shoving you around or forcing you to sidestep.

Similar thing is realized in several different ways in some games already:

Dark Sun SL: makes a distinction between movement points and attacks. If character spends his MP or stays in place and don't use all his attacks he can choose to "guard" - in the next turn any enemies coming into his melee range will receive all spared attacks first, then attack themselves.
Silent Storm: if a character ends his turn with some AP remaining, next turn when an enemy comes into his attack range the interruption chance is rolled - if character interruption stat is high enough the character will interrupt opposite turn and receive a chance to attack.
Age of Decadence: "attack of the opportunity" effect - when a character tries to get close or move away from the enemy, this effect is rolled and the stationary character will hit the moving one.

None of these remove victim's movement points, though, this will be too much pain for the moving side.

 

[Decado]

The answer to the question posed in the title is "No."

 

[Ol' Willy]

It is not about acting suboptimally but about acting realistic. And yes millitary is limited by defence capabilities of the opposite faction, like in teams in soccer or american football (defensive line). In medieval / ancient combat this was managed by different tactics and formations like Pike- Spear Formations (famous Hoplite). When you train martial arts with weapons then you then the first thing that you discover is that it is very difficult to pass / get behind a defending enemy.

Overcoming enemy's defense is one thing - artificially imposed limitations on the offensive side are different. Football has such artificial limitations - offside rule. Real-life combat has them not.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

most systems don't simulate being attacked from behind well enough, the reason you shouldn't run right past the heavily armed guys is because they'll just attack you from behind

 

[jungl]

if anything baldurs gate 3 is dated. Attack or skip a turn wow so much fun mucho triple AAA dumpster fire. The combat is about as brainlet and fun as early jrpg games where the only option is to attack or escape. Fuck divinity gate 3 bg1 and 2 need to be remastered on next gen graphic engine.

 

[Ol' Willy]

next gen graphic engine.

Because graphics is the only thing that matters.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

if anything baldurs gate 3 is dated. Attack or skip a turn wow so much fun mucho triple AAA dumpster fire. The combat is about as brainlet and fun as early jrpg games where the only option is to attack or escape. Fuck divinity gate 3 bg1 and 2 need to be remastered on next gen graphic engine.

Yes, how dare the game actually adapt the rules as written. It should be a shitty RTS frankenstein instead.