Baldurs Gate 2: Capstone to the Golden Era of crpg's?

[corvax]

IMO the 90's can be constituted as the golden era of crpg's. We had gems like RoA series, lands of lore,ultima 7,elder scrolls, wizardry 7 etc games.

Baldurs Gate 2 was in my opinion, a capstone to that era. It didn't do anything truly unique per se, but it was a VERy polished and slick game that brought together everything good of all the rpg's before into an amazing package. (fantastic grafics, amazing music, etc)

Concurrently, the mid-late 80's could be considered the silver era of rpg's, with games like zork, bards tale, EoB, ultima 5, wizardry 6

Thoughts?

I am currenlty playing Baldur's Gate 2 and to my own surprise I am having a blast. I used to be one of the biggest BG haters out there but I have to admit, it was mostly due to my inexperience with D&D. There are still a number of things that bother me like entirely too much combat and the lack of choices. There is plenty of variety on how you want to kill the baddies but very little peaceful or diplomatic alternatives to the quests offered. However, once you know what you're doing the fun factor is tremendous. Baldur's Gate as a series has definitely moved up to my personal top five RPGs list. And please let's not argue that it's an adventure game. I am aware that it does not completely fit the elitist view condoned by some on this forum.

I started playing RPGs in 1997 with no other game but Fallout. I did play other quasi-RPGs in the past but I would not consider myself an RPG gamer back then. I do share your view about the golden era, though my golden era did not start till mid 90's. I would approximate it to around 1995 - 2002. Fallout, Fallout 2, Baldur's Gate, Baldur's Gate 2, Planescape Torment, Arcanum are the pinnacle games of that era. After playing those games I delved even further into RPGs and gave a try to some of the older games like Ultima 6 and 7, ES: Arena, Daggerfall, and Wizardry 7. In all honesty I could not get myself to like those games and saw them as much inferior to the golden era games I mentioned previously. Not to start an fight but a game BG totally kills Wizardry 7 or 8 being that they are the most comparable in terms of gameplay. I do see though how someone can like such games for nostalgic reasons and if they have played those games prior to the games of mid-90's. However, I just could not bring myself to go back that far. I might give Ultima 7 another shot in the near future though.

I would like to see this (or another) discussion to eventually explore the current era of RPGs (2002 - ????). I know it is still too early to define it but I would start with Morrowind as it is clearly a game with the biggest impact on current RPGs. Personally I am a quite a fan of this game and I have been defending it for quite a while in the past. However, I have come to see its numerous flaws (thank you o' mighty codex). Besides all the good things it gave us like: exploration, huge world, character customization, and pretty graphics (if you say they don't matter go back to living under a rock) it also gave negatively affected future games inspiring a number of bad quasi-clones.

Anyway, that's enough of my thoughts for now. Brain is working serous overtime.



P.S. I do miss the days of bringing back home a BIG BOXED game from my local computer store, opening it up and finding all kinds of goodies inside. Come back spiral bound manuals and cloth maps!!! Come back the new box smell!!!

 

[Xi]

I believe the older games required more effort to enjoy. The difference is that if you put in the effort the level of enjoyment was much higher because without the effort the player doesn't see the beautiful oozing depth that those games had. They were more then meets the eye, hardly inferior.

I thought BG2 was pretty sweet. I'm going to replay it eventually(with the expansion as I never played it) but first I'm working my way through ToEE, which I can't stop playing.

Surprisingly it seems like a lot of folks never played Might and Magic. Weird.

 

[Gladi]

BG2 along with M&M6 left me with the most intense "let's turn off the real world and play some" memories. But they are not the best CRPGs I've played. Those would be Fallout, PS:T and Daggerfall. But, as with many other things (music, girls, movies, etc,) the best, even if I do love them, are not my personal favorites. :wink:

Bright day
I agree with this sentiment. BG2 was fun and was fun for many people. Few games since had gotten such recognition.

 

[corvax]

I believe the older games required more effort to enjoy. The difference is that if you put in the effort the level of enjoyment was much higher because without the effort the player doesn't see the beautiful oozing depth that those games had. They were more then meets the eye, hardly inferior.

I see your point. I guess on a certain level you are quite right. From my experience that was not the only case though. I agree about the depth but sometime that extra effort required doing obsolete and convoluted things killing gameplay for some. I guess it was more akin to pen and paper but like I said I stared with the newer games so it's a lot harder to go back than for someone older who played such games first.

 

[Andhaira]

While I agree the golden era could really be constituted mid-late 90's, the thing is one of the most important and defining crpg, perhaps THE most ,came out in early 90's (1992)

Ultima 7.

But then again, it was way, way way ahead of its time. (first game EVER to have NO interface...in 1992! and be totally mouse driven as well.)

 

[Relayer71]

BG2 is miles ahead of anything pre-Fallout, and I'm not talking about graphics or music.

Pre-Fallout, maybe.

It's funny but to me graphics and music are a big part of what made BG2 a great game.

I only put BG2 up there with PS:T and Fallout because the presentation of the game really appealed to me, right down to the box design.

As stupid as that may sound I tend to look at the "whole package" when I form my opinions. So I'm not a graphics whore - Oblivion looks great but that's ALL there is to it and not even mods can't save it - but the general look of a game does affect my opinion of it. And I don't mean on a technical level since Fallout really looked "dated" even at release but to this day I still love the look of it.

And BG2 had it's fair share of faults, no question. But I felt immersed in it due to it's art design and music.

And to a certain degree, it's "epic feel". Sure, not much choice and consequence but the game was pretty lengthy, your quest took you to many different areas and there were a lot of side quests. But take away the soundtrack and art design and I'm not sure I'd think of it so fondly today.

Presentation AND playability play a good part in whether a game achieves greatness (or even competency) - even if the core game is brilliant. For instance I'm attemtping to play Arcanum again and I want to love it but the interface, town layout/design and combat engine really suck.

 

[Jaime Lannister]

The golden age is definitely the early '00s. With action RPGs we had the Gothic series and Morrowind, with hack-n-slash we had the Icewind Dales, Diablo II, and TOEE, and with traditional RPGs we had Arcanum, BG2, and Bloodlines. The 90's were good, but the best years for RPGs were the beginning of this decade.

 

[cardtrick]

Not to start an fight but a game BG totally kills Wizardry 7 or 8 being that they are the most comparable in terms of gameplay. I do see though how someone can like such games for nostalgic reasons and if they have played those games prior to the games of mid-90's.

Ugh, seriously? I first played Baldur's Gate 2 two years ago, and I first played Wizardry 8 less than two months ago, but it's clear to me that Wizardry 8's gameplay is far superior to BG2's. Now, you could argue that BG2 has superior art and music, and I couldn't disagree. You could argue that it has superior story and dialog, and it would be questionable (Wizardry 8's tongue-in-cheek story has a charm to it) but acceptable. But to try and say that BG2 has better gameplay?! BG2 practically doesn't have gameplay; it has rewards, but the process of getting them is inherently uninteresting, much like Diablo. I'll grant you, the combat is better than in other, more recent games, and a few of the battles were interesting, but overall the gameplay was quite weak. In contrast, Wizardry 8 is virtually nothing but gameplay, and it has quite satisfying tactical combat and a fun character development system.

 

[Jaime Lannister]

And to a certain degree, it's "epic feel". Sure, not much choice and consequence but the game was pretty lengthy, your quest took you to many different areas and there were a lot of side quests. But take away the soundtrack and art design and I'm not sure I'd think of it so fondly today.

Yes, but Arcanum had that and choices and consequences.

 

[Naked Ninja]

@ Jaime : "Drab" isn't an art design.

 

[corvax]

Not to start an fight but a game BG totally kills Wizardry 7 or 8 being that they are the most comparable in terms of gameplay. I do see though how someone can like such games for nostalgic reasons and if they have played those games prior to the games of mid-90's.

Ugh, seriously? I first played Baldur's Gate 2 two years ago, and I first played Wizardry 8 less than two months ago, but it's clear to me that Wizardry 8's gameplay is far superior to BG2's. Now, you could argue that BG2 has superior art and music, and I couldn't disagree. You could argue that it has superior story and dialog, and it would be questionable (Wizardry 8's tongue-in-cheek story has a charm to it) but acceptable. But to try and say that BG2 has better gameplay?! BG2 practically doesn't have gameplay; it has rewards, but the process of getting them is inherently uninteresting, much like Diablo. I'll grant you, the combat is better than in other, more recent games, and a few of the battles were interesting, but overall the gameplay was quite weak. In contrast, Wizardry 8 is virtually nothing but gameplay, and it has quite satisfying tactical combat and a fun character development system.

I guess this might come right down to personal preference. I played both Wizardry 8 and Baldur's Gate 2 (I'm actually playing it right now). From what I remember the process of getting to the rewards in Wiz 8 was rather tedious as well. There is as much if not even more combat in that game than in BG2. Yes, you had plenty of tactical options but at times it felt more like a combat simulator than anything else. Character development system? OK Wiz 8 was a lot less restrictive and allowed you for some pretty cool character combinations. Points for you. That's about all I can think of. I really gave up on that game after continuously facing the ridiculous number of respawning monsters. Once again, this is for shits and giggles and I'm not really up for hard core arguing about those two games but I would enjoy if you could run by few things that made the Wizardry gameplay so much more enjoyable than BG2?

 

[Starwars]

I really liked BG2 when it came out, but when replaying it a few months ago I found that I didn't like it nearly as much as I used to. It's absolutely not what I'd call bad, but I don't think there is anything that I found *great* about it.
Choices are not, writing is good but not great, story has a good idea but is not that well-told I think, combat is among the most fun realtime w pause but still suffers from being just that.

The best part of the game is exploring Athkatla, which I think is one of the best city implementations in a game. Great atmosphere. On the other hand, I think the game sorta falls apart once you leave that behind.

Enjoyable game though, and I hold it in fairly high esteem.

 

[Joe Krow]

BG2: Chapter 2 was good but the rest of the game was linear shite. You could say it capped the isometric golden age. For those of us that prefer the first person view the golden age ended with Morrowind. At one point you could buy Gothic 2, Arx Fatalis, and Morrowind off the same game store shelf. How is that not a golden age?

 

[Andhaira]

Wizardry 8 was the capstone ofthe first person golden age.

You have to understand, the silver and golden age rpg's were more about combat and hack and slash; morrowind was more like a simulator.

 

[Edward_R_Murrow]

Nah. Arcanum was. And Bloodlines was the last gasp of the golden age as the genre slid into the three year long drought that was finally broken by Mask of the Betrayer.

 

[MetalCraze]

yep. if team-gizka will finally finish their mod this year we may as well call it the rise of the RPG genre.
MotB - The Witcher - real KotOR2... and hopefully Dragon Age.

 

[Andhaira]

What the heck are you talking about? Arcanum was a broken, buggy game with an irrtating interface. The idea was fantastic however.

You also need to undestand what golden age means" Even if arcanum were the best game ever made it woudl still not be a capstone because it doesn't represent most of the golden era games: (i.e. classical fantasy).

Arcanum was steampunk with fantasy elements.

 

[doctor_kaz]

I agree with the OP, but I would argue that it's a dual award between Deus Ex and Baldurs Gate 2. They both came out at about the same time, and they both were the pinnacle of the decade's advances in gaming. OK, it's a tri-award between DX, BG2, and Divine Divinity. It's really a shame since time and technology should make games better, but instead, role-playing games have gotten worse. I think that all other genres of gaming have gotten better but for some reason, developers don't even try to match what the best RPG's did seven years ago, much less exceed them. In the RPGspace, neutering the game and stripping away gameplay features to make games more "accessible" is considered "progress". Bioware has made a few improvements to their games since then (dialog is better, has more meaningful choices), but everything else besides graphics has been a step backwards. The almost complete disappearance of open-ended RPG's in favor of the semi-linear hub-and-spoke model that NWN introduced is a huge loss for the genre, IMHO.

 

[vrok]

Yeah, Arcanum was broken, buggy and had an irritating interface (WTF?). BG2 on the other hand was perfect, with an interface made of diamonds.

 

[MetalCraze]

The almost complete disappearance of open-ended RPG's in favor of the semi-linear hub-and-spoke model that NWN introduced is a huge loss for the genre, IMHO.

NWN hasn't introduce anything. it was simply your usual hack'n'slash in Faerun starring the emo elf chick.

Yeah, Arcanum was broken, buggy and had an irritating interface (WTF?). BG2 on the other hand was perfect, a flawless diamond.

he was just trolling.

 

[Xi]

This entire debate is relative to age, games played, and definition of cRPG. Having been through most of the discussed era's,(Pre-90's is a little before my time) I believe that the 90's was truly the golden era. Certainly the early 2000's saw some good cRPGs, or some interesting concepts that weren't quite as cRPGish as the 90s, even if they were a slow departure from original concepts. The real question is who can span the proper years to divulge the proper philosophy to let people understand in terms of well-thought opinion? It's all an opinion, but at least an informed opinion holds more weight. What is the scope of the different gaming era's we are discussing? If it's 80's to the present, I would without a doubt pick the 90s.

Edit: Give me the 90's stylistic approach and innovation with modern technological advances. That would be spectacular!

 

[doctor_kaz]

NWN hasn't introduce anything. it was simply your usual hack'n'slash in Faerun starring the emo elf chick.

Yeah, I see what you're saying, and I wasn't really trying to give NWN credit for anything, other than starting Bioware's trend of uninspired hub-and-spoke design.

This entire debate is relative to age, games played, and definition of cRPG. Having been through most of the discussed era's,(Pre-90's is a little before my time) I believe that the 90's was truly the golden era. Certainly the early 2000's saw some good cRPGs, or some interesting concepts that weren't quite as cRPGish as the 90s, even if they were a slow departure from original concepts. The real question is who can span the proper years to divulge the proper philosophy to let people understand in terms of well-thought opinion? It's all an opinion, but at least an informed opinion holds more weight. What is the scope of the different gaming era's we are discussing? If it's 80's to the present, I would without a doubt pick the 90s.

Edit: Give me the 90's stylistic approach and innovation with modern technological advances. That would be spectacular!

Here's my take on this: In the 1980's, there was inspiration, but the technology just wasnt there. The big innovation that changed RPG's (and all PC's for that matter) was Windows and the acceptance of the mouse (and later the two-button mouse) as the leading input tool. That's why even though I played Pool of Radiance until my eyes fell out, I don't consider it to be one of the all time greats or the golden age of the genre. The game could be fun, but it was tedious as fuck. The years between PoR and Baldurs Gate saw huge, huge improvement, like night and day. That was the Golden Age and it ended early this decade. The years since Baldurs Gate 2 and now has seen the release of mostly uninspired mediocrity.

 

[Xi]

The 90's defines good game-play while the 2000's define technological advances at the price of game-play. That is all... Hopefully the upcoming 10's will define both simultaneously.(Game-play and Technology)

 

[doctor_kaz]

The 90's defines good game-play while the 2000's define technological advances at the price of game-play. That is all... Hopefully the upcoming 10's will define both simultaneously.(Game-play and Technology)

I wouldn't define this decade as "technology vs game play". I think that it has been more "console vs PC", "spoonfeed vs learning curve" and "mainstream vs old-school". When I look at a game like Invisible War, I don't see a game that sacrificed gameplay for graphics. It was a game that sacrificed gameplay so that it could be easier for newbies. This is the trend for pretty much the entire genre except for the first two Gothic games and The Witcher.

 

[Jaime Lannister]

@ Jaime : "Drab" isn't an art design.

Actually, I think certain parts of the game were meant to feel drab because that was appropriate for the setting (Tarant, Dernholm) but most of Arcanum had good art design, not as good as the Infinity Engine games, but brilliant in some areas. (Qintarra, Tulla)

Anyway, I was referring to the "epic feel". Arcanum felt much more epic to me than Baldur's Gate 2.