Baldur's Gate came out in 1998. It is one of the defining games of the cRPG genre and one of the first prestigious cRPGs ever released when not considering Gold Box games. What you are saying is akin to someone claiming Lord of the Rings is generic and boring because it has Elves, Dwarves, and Orcs, which is super generic. Baldur's Gate came first, and it is subsequent RPGs that are banal, shit, and boring to the core.
Baldur's Gate invented CRPGs the same way Lord of the Rings invented fantasy: it didn't.
Have you ever heard about Lord Dunsany? What about the American pulp tradition of adventure-fiction inspired fantasy and sci-fi? Robert E. Howard, Clark Ashton Smith, Catherine Lucille Moore, Edgar Rice Burroughs? These authors wrote decades before LotR was released, and their influence shaped the genre long before Tolkien's brand of fantasy took over. Conan the Barbarian, John Carter of Mars, Jirel of Joiry... riveting stories, all of them. You should give them a read. They're really good.
I just happen to prefer that tradition of fantasy fiction over the Tolkien clone tradition. That said, I do appreciate The Lord of the Rings and enjoyed reading it; Peter Jackson's films were good, too. But the books that
followed Lord of the Rings, all these poor attempts of aping its success, like Shannara, are sub-par imitations that lack the soul and detail of Tolkien's work. The 80s and 90s also saw a couple of D&D novels, which are as bland and entry-tier as fantasy gets: even people who enjoyed these in their teens now say that they're too cookie cutter to re-read.
Similarly, in the CRPG space, there was Wizardry, Might and Magic, the Gold Box games, Ultima, Elder Scrolls Arena & Daggerfall, Ultima Underworld, Quest for Glory, Dark Sun... to claim that Baldur's Gate is one of the "first prestigious cRPGs ever released" is disingenuous at best and blatantly ignorant at worst. It did not come first in any sense of the word. Even Fallout pre-dates Baldur's Gate. It is just as much "the first prestigious CRPG" as Lord of the Rings is "the first fantasy novel". Both statements display a gargantuan level of ignorance, and reflect only a surface level normie-tier understanding of the genre.
And just like I prefer the American pulp sword & sorcery tradition in the literary space, I prefer the Ultima Underworld tradition and the Fallout tradition in the CRPG space.
Now, you can argue that LotR was the first
epic fantasy or
high fantasy work, that founded its own sub-genre distinct from the earlier sword & sorcery. That is a fair argument and I would concur with you.
But that same argument does not apply to Baldur's Gate, at least not in the same way. Baldur's Gate may have founded its own sub-genre (isometric RTwP RPG), but the quality of its content cannot be compared to Lord of the Rings in any way. LotR's worldbuilding is on par with or even better than Morrowind and Arcanum, the two best CRPGs when it comes to worldbuilding as you yourself admitted - Baldur's Gate, in contrast, is closer to those cheap D&D novels of the 80s. BG doesn't even remotely compare to the depth of lore, interesting characters, sweeping plot, and poetic prose of Tolkien's work. Just because Baldur's Gate founded a new sub-genre doesn't mean it's a good game, and by comparing it to LotR you reduce Tolkien's work to being a mere progenitor of what came later, which is reductive and insulting.
The funniest part though, is that 1993's Dark Sun: Shattered Lands does many of the things Baldur's Gate did (same exploration with interconnected fixed-sized screens, multiple choice dialog system, etc) but is better in almost every aspect.
Arcanum is arguable but that is also widely considered to be one of the greatest RPGs of all time. Congrats, Baldur's Gate doesn't have as good world building as we see in Arcanum, too bad that is an irrelevant point.
Which is exactly why comparing Baldur's Gate to Lord of the Rings is a bad faith argument.
Lord of the Rings is one of the greatest fantasy works ever written. Baldur's Gate is not one of the greatest RPGs ever designed. You can't pick and mix your arguments like that. "If you think Baldur's Gate is shit then you also think LotR is shit" is one of the dumbest arguments I ever saw on this site, and I've seen plenty of retard takes over the years.
And yes, it is a relevant point because
if better games exist, and
if you played these better games before BG1, then the natural reaction will be disappointment, especially since BG1 has an extremely overhyped reputation. I expected something excellent but found something mediocre. It's just like when some Italian guy told me that Final Fantasy VII is the best RPG ever made, and as an RPG fan - having played Arcanum, Morrowind, Ultima 7, Divine Divinity, Baldur's Gate 2, Ultima Underworld, Arx Fatalis, Wizardry 8, VTM: Bloodlines before - I was eager to check it out. It turned out to barely even qualify as an RPG. Utter shit.
No game, no piece of literature stands alone. If other works exist in a genre, any game will have to stand to comparison against those other works. And plenty of other RPGs tower above Baldur's Gate.
Morrowind feels like a dead husk due to the dogshit that is the gamebyro engine. The streets feel empty and sad, there are barely any people running around, and that is not even mentioning the fact that Morrowind is a shit, first person game, that should not ever be compared to Baldur's Gate. What use is world building when the medium at which you experience the world is a so terrible?
Now it just comes down to a matter of taste. Baldur's Gate didn't feel any more lively than Morrowind to me when it comes to NPC behavior. Do BG's NPCs have schedules, like the excellent Ultima 7? No, they either stand around idly, or walk back and forth in the same place. Just like Morrowind's NPCs. Sometimes, an NPC approaches you to tell you something, but that also happens in Morrowind very occasionally. I don't see how BG is supposed to be any more lively than Morrowind in this regard.
You calling it a "shit first person game" reveals your bias against the first person perspective. It is true that it shouldn't be compared to Baldur's Gate - because BG doesn't stand a chance in comparison. Exploration, Morrowind's main draw, is so infinitely superior it's not even funny. The first person perspective adds a third dimension to explore, so rather than just combing fixed-sized maps until all the fog of war is gone, you actually have to look up and down and left and right and discover things with your own eyes, then find a way to get there. The levitation spell allows you to fly, and the game's level design makes great use of this ability, hiding many unique items in hidden niches far up near the ceiling of a dungeon. The Urshilaku Burial Caverns alone offer 1000 times more interesting exploration than the entirety of Baldur's Gate's wilderness areas combined.
If you can't enjoy first person games (or 3D games in general), I feel sorry for you, because Morrowind, Gothic, Ultima Underworld, Arx Fatalis, Deus Ex, and Thief (not an RPG but still an exploration-heavy RPG-adjacent game) have the best exploration gaming can offer, and it's not even close.
Outside of these two games, which are commonly considered to have some of the greatest world building of any cRPG ever, what cRPGs have superior world building to Baldur's Gate?
Arguably the Ultima series, which often becomes a little silly with Richard Garriott's self-inserts, but Ultima did it first so it set the standard.
Planescape Torment obviously.
Disco Elysium.
Arcanum.
Morrowind.
Deus Ex, if you consider it a CRPG.
Thief, even though it isn't a CRPG.
Dark Sun.
VtM: Bloodlines.
Fallout (especially the original, and New Vegas).
The Witcher.
Gothic 1 & 2.
Oh wow that's a lot, huh?
Your entire argument falls apart because you claim Baldur's Gate 2 isn't bland. If you didn't like the Baldur's Gate series because you thought their traditional fantasy setting was too bland and boring, I would disagree, but at least I could understand it. It's the fact that you praise the sequel while shitting on the original that confuses me.
"We get to visit the Underdark! No freaking way dude! Holy shit is that a Litch?!?!111 Wow I just saw Drizzt! OH MY GOD! The buildings in this city have domed roofs instead of gabled ones!"
It just doens't make sense. Neither Baldur's Gate 2 is anywhere near as interesting and unique as Underrail, Vagrus, Arcanum, Sunless Sea, Planescape: Torment, etc, etc. If that's your required barometer to consider an RPG setting interesting, so be it, but as it stands, it seems like you ruined your brain by playing Baldur's Gate 2 first and are now looking for reasons to rationalize why you can't get into the first movie. This would be like if someone watched The Two Towers first and then claimed Fellowship of the Ring was anticlimatic and boring.
Another fallacy. Come on bro, you can do better. "Wow I just saw Drizzt! OH MY GOD!"
This is a screenshot from BG1:
You can admit you're in love with Drizzt do'Urden, no need to be ashamed about it bro. It's ok if you came in your pants a little when you met him in BG1.
But yes, variety of encounters and locations, and the visual presentation of architecture are important elements of establishing an atmosphere. Go on, watch a Robin Hood movie, followed by an Arabian Nights movie, followed by a swashbuckling pirate movie, and tell me they all feel exactly the same. They don't. Setting matters. BG1 delivers a familiar vibe, BG2 delivers an exotic vibe. I happen to prefer exotic vibes to familiar vibes.
I also prefer Pillars of Eternity 2 to the first game simply due to the more exotic setting (also, it has more barefoot women
). Both are mediocre games at best, and they pale in comparison to the Baldur's Gates (yes, PoE1 is
even more bland and boring than BG1, an amazing achievement), but the setting can make a difference in how you perceive the game world. Claiming that it doesn't is, again, disingenuous.
And again the comparison to LotR. No it is not, in fact, as if someone watched Two Towers first and then thought Fellowship was boring, because the change in atmosphere and tone between the two films isn't as great as the change between BG1 and BG2. In fact, there is no change, because Tolkien wrote Lord of the Rings as a single book which was split into three parts by the publisher for ease of printing and distribution. Similarly, Peter Jackson's movie adaptations were filmed in one go and then released as three separate movies.
Baldur's Gate 1 was made as one game, then released. After that, the devs came up with a sequel. Completely different approach, with a completely different result. Not comparable.
Finding BG1 boring after playing BG2 is more akin to finding 1980s cookie cutter D&D novels boring after reading Clark Ashton Smith's Zothique stories.
@KörangarTheMighty summarized my thoughts quite nicely in his post. These NPCs have no fucking clue who we are. How do they know we are the right man for the job? This doesn't make the world feel alive and unstatic, it makes it feel fake and artificial. And the problem with unlocks is that Athkatla is a fucking city. Why do I need to hear a super specific dialogue if I want to visit the docks? All of the things you name as pros are actually major elements of decline which make the game feel linear and take away the player's agency and harm their immersion.
You just emerged from a madman's laboratory, causing a part of the market promenade building to fucking collapse, and then that madman appears at the collapsed entrance and engages your sister in a wizard duel - in a city where public practice of magic is banned, so this should be a pretty rare sight. Then, cowled wizards appear and imprison both the madman and your sister. Meanwhile you're just standing there yelling "I'll free you, Imoen! Just you wait!"
Yeah, sure makes you wonder why people would approach you. It's not like you just explosively appeared in the middle of the city's most frequented district. You're just a completely unknown dude nobody ever heard about.
Also, have you ever been to a big city you've never been to before and tried to find a district without a map? What did you do to find it? Ask the locals for directions, perhaps?
That's what the unlocks are.
Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 literally feel like they're in the same setting? Just because the city architecture in Athkatla is different than what we'd normally see in a European city, isn't enough to make it feel interesting or unique. The people all speak the same language as us, a lot of them dress the exact same, they talk the exact same, they do the same things. What is so interesting about the second game if the first was so banal and shit? My point is that the difference in how fantastical the two games are is so razor thin, that trying to claim the difference that was present in Baldur's Gate 2 is what made the setting awesome and amazing is ridiculous.
Europe, America, Asia, and Africa literally feel like they're in the same setting? Just because the city architecture in other countries is different than what we'd normally see in a European city, isn't enough to make it interesting or unique. The people can all speak English just like us, a lot of them dress the exact same, they talk the exact same, they do the same things. What is so interesting about traveling the world if staying at home is so banal and shit? My point is that the difference between countries is so razor thin, that trying to claim that seeing different parts of the world is what makes traveling awesome and amazing is ridiculous.
