- Joined
- Dec 2, 2013
- Messages
- 51
That's the case for me, low level D&D is the only D&D worth playing
yes, but as in New Vegas, it was largely irrelevant
That's what the whole "friend of the people" titles were all about
-
Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.
"This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.
So, Baldurs Gate
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
That's the case for me, low level D&D is the only D&D worth playing
That's what the whole "friend of the people" titles were all about
DraQ
Arcane
Complete opposite of a good game is shit game.
And the way baldurfags circlejerk in this thread essentially saying "don't listen to haters, BG is awesome and we're awesome bros coz we paly it" is just pathetic.
Replace BG with bublivion or any other shit-yet-popular game and you have IGN or some other generic dirty console peasant forum.
Lhynn
Arcane
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2013
- Messages
- 9,933
Complete opposite of a good game is a different game, good or bad we can see by its own merits.
DragoFireheart
all caps, rainbow colors, SOMETHING.
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2007
- Messages
- 23,731
Complete opposite of a good game is a different game, good or bad we can see by its own merits.
Oblivion was a "different" game then.
Sergiu64
Arcane
Heh... it was very-very "different". Almost so different that it wasn't a game anymore, but something called a chore.
DraQ
Arcane
Xor
Arcane
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2008
- Messages
- 9,345
I don't think anyone is arguing that Baldur's Gate is perfect. Personally, I skip it about half the time when I decide to play through BG2 (which is a much better game), but I still think it's good enough to merit it's own existence.
Alignment is an abstraction of behavior or motive, and it's a holdover from waaaaay back in first edition. It serves its purpose - it gives inexperienced roleplayers a set of guidelines by which there characters can behave, it helps define every D&D cosmology, it abstracts something that would otherwise be difficult to track (whether someone is good or evil, and chaotic or lawful can have numerous effects with spells, equipment, environments, etc), and it gives nerds something to argue about endlessly. You don't have to like it, but it's certainly not pointless.
Yes, I agree that Baldur's Gate isn't a very difficult game and the combat isn't particularly challenging, especially if you invest any effort into breaking the game's systems. I did find it much more challenging when I was younger and less experienced breaking RPG combat systems. I don't really see what that has to do with anything, though.
I'm not even sure what we're arguing about here. Baldur's Gate has a very simple (and linear) story, it could have been done better, and it in fact was done better in the sequel, which is the game everyone remembers. I still think it's interesting to look at Baldur's Gate in comparison to BG2 just to see how much the sequel improves over the original.
Alignment is an abstraction of behavior or motive, and it's a holdover from waaaaay back in first edition. It serves its purpose - it gives inexperienced roleplayers a set of guidelines by which there characters can behave, it helps define every D&D cosmology, it abstracts something that would otherwise be difficult to track (whether someone is good or evil, and chaotic or lawful can have numerous effects with spells, equipment, environments, etc), and it gives nerds something to argue about endlessly. You don't have to like it, but it's certainly not pointless.
Yes, I agree that Baldur's Gate isn't a very difficult game and the combat isn't particularly challenging, especially if you invest any effort into breaking the game's systems. I did find it much more challenging when I was younger and less experienced breaking RPG combat systems. I don't really see what that has to do with anything, though.
Morrowind also game out 4 years after BG1, and from everything I can tell it had a larger budget and a much longer development cycle. Forgotten Realms is widely considered to be the McDonalds of D&D settings, so it's no big surprise they don't do anything very interesting with the setting. Bethesda also had their own universe to develop and explore as they wished, where Bioware had to make sure everything met TSR or WotC (whoever owned the licence at that point) approval. I'm not bringing this up to make excuses for BG1, but rather to suggest that it's not really a fair comparison.
Are you dense or did you just intentionally miss the point of that post?
I'm not even sure what we're arguing about here. Baldur's Gate has a very simple (and linear) story, it could have been done better, and it in fact was done better in the sequel, which is the game everyone remembers. I still think it's interesting to look at Baldur's Gate in comparison to BG2 just to see how much the sequel improves over the original.
I already told you why (I agree with Xor, basically). The other reason is the class based system and class/morality walk by of D&D. But since your experience with alignments is so different from mine (guess I was blessed by higher beings with players who can even play stock AD&D paladin and have fun with it), and your total classic OCD to alignments I don't think we'll ever agree here.
By challenge I mean using the setting and it's myth to create great roleplay and drama. You don't have to subvert alignments for that, since stock characters, factions and places are already a ton of fun and are challenging (in a good way) for play. And they are all based on local cosmology, which is based on alignments and concepts of absolute Good & Evil, Law & Chaos. Even transparency alignments and alignments-based spells give can be used for some interesting effects in PS (I don't like alignment detecting spells in "mortal" settings myself, actually).
What's with your love for "deconstruction" anyway? Do you like Evangelion too?
Not even FO or Arcanum have anything like that (maybe with exception of FO1 and it was even coded out by developers in patch). You're moving into "perfect DraQ game" territory here.
Last edited:
Delterius
Arcane
Holy Christ. If you hadn't use this horrifying blue color I probably wouldn't have found where you quoted me. This can't be healthy, man.
Well, the thing is that you and Drago are using linearity as a concept that denotes the game's storytelling itself. His complaint is that you can't change the game's main plot while yours is mostly about the disposition of mutually exclusive content yes?
Well, these are the ideals which fit our ill-defined genre best and I think we are all on the same page here: I'm not disputing the self evident truth that BG doesn't have C&C. There are no mutually exclusive questlines, dungeons or whatever. There's no deviation from the main questchain. Most of the game's very timid 'C&C', if you can call it that, comes from fucking around with systems such as Reputation or randomly murdering people -- which might cut you off of some quests, but they are never the game's focus. There are some notable examples, such as the dynamics tied to the Dynaheir/Edwin/Minsc trio, but those don't really hold a candle to the things that somethings like Morrowind or Daggerfall do.
If anything, BG1 plays like an obsessive GM that gives you a little of freedom in the play pen but still will try to have his way -- if you don't like Jaheira and Khalid he's got Xzar and Montaron; if the first thing you did in game is to go towards the south of the Candlekeep wilderness, then he'll throw random rumours and content that points, inevitably, towards Nashkel. There you can't really miss the plot hook of the trouble in the mines. You'll eventually get back on track and from then on your freedom of exploration will be relatively constrained until you get to Baldur's Gate itself, but you'll never be as potentially lost as you were in the beginning of the game.
Nonetheless, there isn't a quest arrow pointing you every location of note in those wilderness maps or where exactly Gorion told you to go. In fact, and at the very least, party composition is one thing you can change to your pleasure. Sure, the game's content may almost never be mutually exclusive, but you can at least still miss content here and there. This is very basic exploration but is exploration nonetheless, the sort of which you'll have a hard time experiencing in a grand open world like Skyrim's.
Which is why I'd rather use the concept of linearity in regards to quest structure and how it can be spread across a gameworld -- meaning in the sense of an open world -- without necessarily causing the player's experience to change -- which would lead into the next stage, that of a sandbox. After all, a sandbox allows us to play with it, to alter its nature, it is C&C incarnate, be it of a systemic (see CK2; Morrowind) or scripted (AoD) nature. Not every open world is choke full of C&C and not every RPG full of C&C is disposed as a open world. After all, I can be a small developer who wants to make a quasi CYOA with some combat situations, but can't really make a giant 3D world. And etc.
So I make fun of your wall of text and then make my own.
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2013
- Messages
- 51
In Skyrim, if you join Stormcloaks, you can no longer be an Imperial (and lose those quests), and also, if you follow Ralof rather than Hadvar you are given a different quest.
Still, I always perceived Skyrim as even more linear than BG1
Delterius
Arcane
Well, I was talking about BG in that particular sentence.
a cut of domestic sheep prime
Guest
Fix'd.
Seriously, BG was a damn fine game. It sure could have been a lot better if it had incorporated Fallout and Torment elements, but saying it's shit is ridiculous. Play NWN2, Oblivion, or Fallout 3 and tell me it's worse in any way. I don't pretend it's perfect, but I'd at least like people to acknowledge that it was a damn decent title for its day.
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2013
- Messages
- 51
Yes, i was just noticing that a game that supposedly isn't "linear" based on the "mutually exclusive" idea actually felt less linear than a game which, in theory, DOES have "mutually exclusive questlines". More like a stream of consciousness than a reply to you
I'll still take MotB over BG1 though... (not BG2!)
a cut of domestic sheep prime
Guest
MotB is in a league of it's own and nearly on par with Torment. I refuse to include it as part of NWN2.
edit: Have to admit BG2 had better combat than MotB though...
Delterius
Arcane
Yes, i was just noticing that a game that supposedly isn't "linear" based on the "mutually exclusive" idea actually felt less linear than a game which, in theory, DOES have "mutually exclusive questlines". More like a stream of consciousness than a reply to you
In truth, both games have their own special way to manipulate the player into following a specific path. You can always not care for what Gorion tells you to do, but in Skyrim there's the always present quest compass.
Silva
Arcane
Actually, Im playing Baldurs Gate 2. And liking it.
(I cant wait to try AA2 in SoC though)
Delterius
Arcane
By the way. Is there any mod for BGT that changes the initial party of SoA based on your actual choices on the previous game? I don't mind pretending that I never even saw Jaheira and Minsc in there, but it would be sweet to continue the game with other characters. Lack of dialogue notwithstanding.
Isn't that standard in BGT and one of it's seeling points compared to TuTu?
DraQ
Arcane
Yes. Barely.
It is because it doesn't make any of the things you mention (save for maybe nerdy bickering) any easier.
Spells and stuff are a consequence of having alignment system, not its purpose.
So newer is better now on the 'dex?
Why doesn't the same line of argumentation apply to Fallout?
BG2 seems immeasurably better though and TES started as pretty much derpy unofficial D&D spinoff.
You mean:
"Linear!"
"Look, lotsa stuff!"
?
Should I have replied by pasting Oblivion's map to keep with the tone?
Would they have less fun playing the same paladin without associated alignment *system*?
I never got around to watching NGE, and if some boring, trite shit is to be used, I prefer the use to be subversive rather than straight.What's with your love for "deconstruction" anyway? Do you like Evangelion too?
Not really, because I proposed effective reuse of content already there in game forming an overlong and boring breadcrumb trail, just with some different writing.
I'm trying to be subtler than that.
It's not just genuine mutually exclusive content, it's whether you can take a narrative formed by someone's playthrough and rearrange it to describe everyone else's playthroughs.
So if two quests can be done in different order but completion of one influences the another in some way (not necessarily by actual content change) I'm still willing to count it as non-linearity.
I'm also just trying to formalize what does "changing plot" mean, but I don't think there is a reason to narrow non-linearity of the whole game down to just its main plot.
I disagree unless by "content" you mean stashes disguised as copypasted bits of scenery.
Maybe pickpocket items as well.
BG1 has its upsides. Being able to get one half of the party try to murder the other escalating from seemingly regular banter was a genuine highlight and also, AFAIK, a first. I'd genuinely welcome more party based games doing this.
Sleepy, intellectually shallow plot with nice voiced narration between chapters and during dream sequences makes it a nice candidate for relaxing, mind-numbing multibeer game, although TB would be more conductive to playing with tankard in your hand.
Other than that it has shit C&C, shit AI, shit combat, shit plot, shit setting, shit exploration, shit systems (such as reputation) and uninteresting characters.
Slavish obedience of party members in terms of inventory management (also orders, but given how the AI struggled with simple tasks I'll chalk up discerning suicidal orders as completely unrealistic design goal given technology and programming skills of BW then) was also baffling considering their refreshing independence in intraparty interactions.
It could have and should have been better.
I tend to perceive distant objects as blurry - are they?
DraQ
Arcane
No, sorry:Now wait a--
...
If I take in a party member who is independent enough to get into intraparty conflict escalating to the point of trying to stab another party memeber in the face, being able to take them into party (after seeing each other for the first time) strip them of all the useful stuff, then kick them back out *IS* jarring (bonus points if they are an evil halfling sociopath and batshit necromancer).
I'm not calling for strong AI followers capable of running in the background on 1997 or whatever hardware, but stuff like not being able to take NPC's gear off unless by replacing it by something giving more plusses would do.
Factors like being long with party and high enough reputation disabling this limitation to simulate trust (for good and possibly neutral NPCs only) would be a welcome, but not necessary addition.
a cut of domestic sheep prime
Guest
It's an older game and it didn't have an infinite budget or development schedule. What would you devote resources to: adding another quest or programing another AI routine that only a few people will notice, isn't necessary to core gameplay, and will probably cause a slew of bugs that will need to be troubleshooted (most scripting does)?
DraQ
Arcane
I would add a check similar to that done on party member's death to clicking on equippable slots in inventory and something simple like value check when already dragging a weapon.
As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.