So, Baldurs Gate

[Lancehead]

Obviously, you didn't play Torment, which shows how deep and interesting concept of "substantial" alignment can be.

The half point of PS:T was deconstructing and fucking around with what it couldn't change about the nature of the setting to the point of making shit like alignment nearly meaningless.

That's one of the reasons it inspired such an undying love.

The entire concept of the planes and the factions in sigil are based around alignments.
And we know by now that you fancy your 3d exploration games. Yeah we get it.

But the central theme of Torment is that belief is what can change the nature of man/planes, which is why it didn't matter what alignment TNO had.

 

[Abelian]

" I actually preferred the BG1 because it allowed the player to explore the entire map, rather than have new hotspots added to the map."

Huh? BG1 had entire maps locked out until certain story plot points were completed. LMFAO

I'm not 100% sure, but I think the only place that was locked from exploring was Cloakwood forest. Of course, there's the entire city of Baldur's Gate, but there they at least attempted to have a plot reason for sealing it off.
Other than that, the I could explore to my heart's content, to places such as the Gnolls, magic school, bridge ruins, treasure cave.

 

[Volourn]

Cloakwood, Baldur's Gate, and the bandit camp are all areas locked until the main story progresses. Not a huge deal but it can't be claimed that alla reas are auto free to explor. And, sure there are tons of areas available to explore (of course, realistically, until level 4-5 you'd die within 2 seconds barring chessiness anyways).

The exploration in BG1 is both good and bad. Good that there is lots to explore. the abd is 90% of it is boring shit and you do all that work for 10% of cool shit. ILLOGICAL.

BG2 I 1billion times better. Less areas overall but the areas are 100% awesome. Hell, Athkatla itself has lots of shit to explore . I mean the sewweer systems are awesome, difference buildings have cool stuff, there's even a few liches to fight 9and die) at early on. Plus, while BG1 had its share of them, BG2 is probably the best CRPG based on DnD that does awesome opposing adventuring party duos very well. In fact, I can't think of any game - DnD or otherwise - that does it better.

 

[Grunker]

Don't recall much of that - any examples?

The most famous one is the Aldeth/Druids sidequest in the Cloakwood: http://www.gamebanshee.com/baldursgate/walkthrough/cloakwoodforestar2200.php

Actually, there's A LOT of that stuff scattered throughout BG (tiny C&C/differentiating rewards). Ragefast/Ramazith and the nymph, Nereid and the Ogre Mage, small stuff like that. Also quests that progress differently based on whether you use stealth or not. Combat encounters that can be avoided (Larze the Ogre in the Blushing Mermaid, for instance).

 

[Invictus]

Oh Volly you complete me!

 

[Shadenuat]

But the central theme of Torment is that belief is what can change the nature of man/planes, which is why it didn't matter what alignment TNO had.

Er, it can be easily interpreted opposite. Since TNO had multiple versions of himself, like those you talk at the end (which are good, neutral and "practical"), their differences is what changed many lives and places on Planes.

And it's not special for Torment. Planescape cosmology is shaped by belief of mortals. It's just structured by alignments.

Anomen and Aerie are also irritating to the point where whether they're useful or not skill-wise becomes completely irrelevant.

Play as opposite gender required for their romance and they'll talk a lot less

 

[eremita]

(and if you think Torment is about playing a bearded axe-murderer, or killing everything/everyone you come across, you've clearly never played it. Stop this discussion and do so immediately - it really is that good)

It is Baldurs Gate 1 that had those quotes, not Torment. I finishied Torment a couple times and never noticed any character talking like that.

And while Im relieved to know its an abstraction, it seems the authors of Baldurs Gate didnt interpret it this way.

Well, that "letter" from BG1 is obviously retarded - I personally don't remember it and I also don't remember anything this stupid in the rest of the game. Also, the writing of BG2 is imho far superior. But the concept of alignments stands as I said. Also, you are not true about Torment - characters are aware of their alignment and often describes themselves as creatures of chaos, law (order) etc. Just look at fiends and the Blood War for example. The Sigil itself lies on the Spire of Outlands, the neutral part of Outer planes surrounded by chaotic, ordered, good etc. Planes.

Obviously, you didn't play Torment, which shows how deep and interesting concept of "substantial" alignment can be.

The half point of PS:T was deconstructing and fucking around with what it couldn't change about the nature of the setting to the point of making shit like alignment nearly meaningless.

That's one of the reasons it inspired such an undying love.

This.

Nowhere in Torment you see NPCs talking like that ("Sir, please could you be less evil ?" or "Attention all evil beings in the region! There is a bounty for the head of ...").

Its He-Man and Gummy Bear logic. In a game youre supposed to play a bearded axe-murderer.

Decent D&D writing never does that. Alignment is an abstraction, just like hit points, attacks per round and armour class. Don't think of it as characters viewing themselves as 'evil', 'lawful good' and so on - that's not an alignment issue, that's a retarded comprehension of alignment (it's just as silly for characters to go around saying 'hey, I have 28 hitpoints' or 'wow, this armour lifts my armour class by 3 points!').

It's an abstraction for a vast spectrum of personality types. Some people are more self-centred than others, some people respect authority more than others. If a character is particularly self-centred he might fall within the 'evil' category; if a character hates authority enough he might fall within the 'chaotic' category. No characters consciously apply those labels to each other in game, any more than they do hitpoints or armour class.

'Crap - I better wait before swinging again, I only have 1 attack per round.' 'Damn, I've been stabbed through the chest, severing 3 major arteries and will bleed out in seconds - but don't worry guys, I've still got 22 hitpoints, I'll be fine'.

Abstractions, how do they work?


(and if you think Torment is about playing a bearded axe-murderer, or killing everything/everyone you come across, you've clearly never played it. Stop this discussion and do so immediately - it really is that good)

I disagree. Alignment is not just an abstraction (or a game mechanic like hit points/rounds/abilities etc.) but something present in the world itself.

I think that the reason behind this is that notions in DnD are not ambivalent. In our world, philosophers have lots of concepts about notions - they are present in the world (good/evil exits - Plato's ideas, Neo - Kantianism etc.) or they are concepts created by humans, nonexistent in the nature (utilitarianism) or results of language games (Wittgenstein) etc. In DnD, they are real forces present in the nature of the world. they are part of everyday life. Ultimately, they can't be just abstractions...

 

[eremita]

I forgot to mention the most important thing. Notions are not fixed in our world (different definitions of notions or no definitions at all), but they are in DnD.

 

[DraQ]

The most famous one is the Aldeth/Druids sidequest in the Cloakwood: http://www.gamebanshee.com/baldursgate/walkthrough/cloakwoodforestar2200.php

Neat, but it's still one of very few, very small bits of C&C in this game. By this standard TES games are bursting at seams with C&C.

Most of the "deconstructed" stuff was already present in the setting

Good, but it's still a deconstruction of earlier, more generic D&D.

Alignment also was treated fairly well and interesting, and wasn't meaningless, as it affected dialogue and even items you could use.

Not meaningless as in without influence. Meaningless as in any alignment could in practice mean anything.
Hell, probably the most unambiguously evil, in the most intuitively grasped sense of this word, being in PS:T was not too different from how an LG character could be powergamed in, say, BG1.

Alignments are cool, they are cool for the same reason virtues in Ultima games are cool. And in PnP they can be a good instrument. They make you think about morality and your character's actions.

And lack of codified alignment prevents this somehow?

All the alignments give us is fodder for chaotic stupid and stupid evil overblown stereotypes. Morality prosthetic freeing player from thinking on their own and considering their actions.

Alignment is an abstraction

And it's an abstraction PnPs don't need. It brings nothing new to the table nor does it solve any problems.

 

[Abelian]

I think most evil people in the Forgotten Realms don't "know" that they're evil, but the organized types who worship an explicitly evil god like Cyric do.

*Insert deep philosophical discussion about does the evil man see himself as a good man here*

 

[Silva]

And it's an abstraction PnPs don't need. It brings nothing new to the table nor does it solve any problems.

Not only that, but it also lacks the socio-psych treatment and extrapolations necessary for making the whole thing plausible and verossimile like Ursula Le Guin and other speculative fiction authors are accustomed to do. Resulting in an environment that feels shallow, fake, artificial regarding the extrapolation of its basic premises, and as fragile to a serious excrutinizing as a He-Man or Gummi Bears animated series.

Luckily, BG2 teats the issue a little better if I remember right, and PST only uses it for cosmological explanations and simply ignore it at a personal level (as DraQ said).

 

[Beautiful Clown Painting]

I bought the two Baldur's Gate at the same time they came out and my reaction to them was the same each time: "Meh?". Of course the mechanics and their rendition were quite solid but the overall product was bland, I was skimming like a zombie through their "stories". It was my first contact with Bioware. Then I played Torment, expecting a similar "Meh" experience (for me all these games were Infinity Engine games, not Bioware or Black Isle) and was flabbergasted. My intuitions were spot-on for the more I played through Bioware games the more their shitinness shone through: we're talking here about uber-bland settings and teenage fantasies crap convincing itself that it has a deep meaning about human relationships and morals. It's never been so clear than with Shepard whose renegade behaviour is Bioware's take on the alpha male: they have a love/hate relationship with what they imagine makes tick the jock that humiliated them all through their high-school years that they still inhabit, despite the millions of dollars on their bank accounts. The Obsidian guys didn't have such a rough time through high school (they all look like hipsters on rampage and I imagine that they were the weird creative mavericks that didn't get girls neither in their teenage years but still, they were not as universally despised than the Bioware guys at the same age) so they did get a life and can write plots and characters that are not completely retarded.

 

[a cut of domestic sheep prime]

The Baldur's Gate series is both fantastic and mediocre at the same time. Fantastic compared to most games released since, mediocre compared the the level of freedom offered by Fallout 1, the level of writing in Planescape: Torment, and the level of choices with consequences offered by both of those.

That aside, it really is one of the best cRPG series of all time.

Spoiler

The combat system is far more interesting than 90% of the other games that have ever been on the market. Battles with magic users - especially in BG2 - are fantastic compared to games like Skyrim and Neverwinter Nights. Mages have a number of spell protections that usually need to be removed unless you have the right weapon, clerics have a ton of buffs and debuffs etc. The story is interesting too (for a video game. don't expect a masterwork). It starts small and eventually expands into a true epic, not all at once, but over the course of 3 games (BG1, BG2, TOB - it's an expansion that feels like a whole game length-wise). There are SHITLOADS of quests and things to do and the characters get a lot of development in BG2 and the expansion - though in BG1 they are rather two dimensional as Bioware hadn't figured out that they needed to flesh them out more for people to care about them.

Sure, the Codex loves to hate on the Bauldur's Gate series. The combat is pretty simple once you've played through it once or twice and it is linear compared to Fallout (what game isn't?) and has a few Bioware moments of forced failure (nothing compared to modern games though), but the fact is, imho, compared to Skyrim, Oblivion, Morrowind, or Neverwinter Nights - or any other game released since Arcanum - BG1&2 and TOB are perfect RPGs. I'd honestly pay $600 for another BG2 rather than $60 for another Skyrim or NWN or Dragon Age or whatever...

 

[Malpercio]

I won't say mediocre, but yeah, the best part of BG2 is that it made so many fucking things, and it made them so well. How was it? "The whole is greater than the sum of its parts?"

I mean, take Torment, it may be the best thing written by man, but when it comes to things like characters customization and party-roster is not so great (they are like 6 of them and you can't change them). It's not a fault per se, but it may be a problem for someone.

Now take BG2. Sure the characters aren't that deep, compared to Torment they may be pretty shitty, but damn, you got like what, 16 of them? Even with Bioware-waifu writing you are bound to find someone you like (and even if you don't you can create your own party and murder the rest, it ain't no Mass Erect) Then what are you looking for, battles? BG2 encounter design is exceptional. Story? Irenicus is awesome. Sub-quests? lol. Dungeons? There are dungeons inside dungeons inside dungeons (motherfucking Underdark)

To me, the fact that BG2 exists is a miracle at all, I think even the developers pretty much admitted it was pure luck they managed to fit so much content at the right time in the right place. I think the only game I could compare to it is Chrono Trigger, which is another game where "The whole is greater than the sum of its parts".

 

[Newfag-er]

Sure, the Codex loves to hate on the Bauldur's Gate series. The combat is pretty simple once you've played through it once or twice and it is linear compared to Fallout (what game isn't?) and has a few Bioware moments of forced failure (nothing compared to modern games though), but the fact is, imho, compared to Skyrim, Oblivion, Morrowind, or Neverwinter Nights - or any other game released since Arcanum - BG1&2 and TOB are perfect RPGs. I'd honestly pay $600 for another BG2 rather than $60 for another Skyrim or NWN or Dragon Age or whatever...

That's because those games you compare to BG with BG is the only one with a party base combat (the first NWN you only control a single party member, that's why I don't like it much)

A better comparison would be ToEE, nwn2, IWD's, KoTC and maybe some weebo games like TO:LUCT FireEmblem

As for the game itself, from what I can tell, biowhore is very good at polishing/mixing the things that already has existed. (They are still now, some would argue)

 

[a cut of domestic sheep prime]

NWN2 sucked my balls (edit: except for motb, but the combat was still shit). And you could have party members in NWN, just not under your direct control (? been a while...). ToEE had very little in the plot department and very little party member development (combat system was pretty nice tho'). KoTC was ok, again, no party character writing/development. Heck, even solo'd BG2 is more interesting than Skyrim in every way that matters.

My point is, compared with what's being put out there today and called an RPG, BG1&2 are a cut above. Be grateful for what you had, sir...and cherish the memories.

 

[Shadenuat]

And lack of codified alignment prevents this somehow?

All the alignments give us is fodder for chaotic stupid and stupid evil overblown stereotypes. Morality prosthetic freeing player from thinking on their own and considering their actions.

If you ever GM'ed different types of players, you'd know that while experienced ones can roleplay either by their intuition or by analyzing their characters, many others make same mistake of projecting their own personality into their character or metagaming. By using some sort of easy to understand codified morality system you can make players think on their actions and their character's nature. It's a way to push people to learn how to roleplay.
If you would read old D&D books, particularly class manuals, before they became just a list of prestiges and abilities, you will find many interesting characters there who share same alignment but are completely different and are interesting to play. Even questions people usually go full OCD about like "what if paladin's sire would order him to do evil deed" are actually present there.
What codified morality gives you is a food for thought and some conflict. You can either use it well or run around thinking absolutes until herpaderp EVERYBODY MUST BE HAN SOLO will claim you like Spoony.

Meaningless as in any alignment could in practice mean anything.

They couldn't guess player's intentions, because it's not possible, but developers did judge your actions in PST, and it wasn't obscure. In the end, cruelty and selfishness did lead to evil, while helping people lead to good.
Why did you mix BG1 into it I don't understand. Folks who've written PST clearly put a lot more thought into characters and morality, so you can't compare them to each other.
BG1&2 is about killing fucking everything and getting their stuff. Bioware cannot into morality, even if instead of six they only need to think about 2 - one blue, other red.
They did make some cool characters who fit their alignments 100% though (like absolutely glorious LE Edwin or LG Keldorn).

 

[Abelian]

The combat system is far more interesting than 90% of the other games that have ever been on the market. Battles with magic users - especially in BG2 - are fantastic compared to games like Skyrim and Neverwinter Nights. Mages have a number of spell protections that usually need to be removed unless you have the right weapon, clerics have a ton of buffs and debuffs etc. The story is interesting too (for a video game. don't expect a masterwork). It starts small and eventually expands into a true epic, not all at once, but over the course of 3 games (BG1, BG2, TOB - it's an expansion that feels like a whole game length-wise).

I think one of the reasons the Infinity Engine combat can be fun and interactive rather than a grind is due to the engine being initially developed for the never-completed Battleground Infinity RTS. Of course, that was also the reason why the game was implemented as rtwp. But, somehow... it works. Imagine playing BG2 where every character has a time-stop spell cast during their turn and how long and drawn-out it would make each battle. Disclaimer: I'm a huge fan of turn-based combat since it requires more planning, understanding the rules and doesn't become a click-fest.

In my opinion, BG1 had all the necessary elements in place; all BG2 did was refine them. Of course BG2 is the more polished game since all the initial IE development time could be put to use in crafting interesting encounters, quests, backdrops, spells, items.

 

[DalekFlay]

...

Lambchop pretty much nailed it for me. They're kind of bland and mediocre, but at the same time pretty awesome because not a lot of games like them exist.

 

[Newfag-er]

Somewhat related?

I think one of the reasons the Infinity Engine combat can be fun and interactive rather than a grind is due to the engine being initially developed for the never-completed Battleground Infinity RTS. Of course, that was also the reason why the game was implemented as rtwp. But, somehow... it works. Imagine playing BG2 where every character has a time-stop spell cast during their turn and how long and drawn-out it would make each battle. Disclaimer: I'm a huge fan of turn-based combat since it requires more planning, understanding the rules and doesn't become a click-fest.

"Focus test buyer saids they wanted a rich dark roast coffe when they were asked what type of coffe they want to drink, however when buying habits are observed, the buyers actually buys a weaker milker coffee, because that is what they actually wanted."

Some people admit it, some people don't. Some people just like their dark roasted coffee I suppose. Donno

With that begin said, (vanilla, yes vanilla) Skyrim rapes solo BG2 run and eats it for breakfast (it's the other way around if it's not a solo run)

 

[Surf Solar]

With that begin said, (vanilla, yes vanilla) Skyrim rapes solo BG2 run and eats it for breakfast (it's the other way around if it's not a solo run)

 

[Martius]

And you could have party members in NWN, just not under your direct control (? been a while...).

In NWN without any expansion you could use one henchman (out of 5 or 6) which will level up automatically and get better equipment out of thin air. Yeah there was not direct control over them, you could only tell them to change their weapon or how close they should be. Of course none of that during combat. Expansion fixed that a little but with decreasing number of henchmen to whole two in first one and three in second.

 

[Volourn]

3 in the 1st expansion and had 8 or so in the 2nd expansion with 4 being available in last 2/3rds of games.

 

[Martius]

Oh right, I completely forgot about these secret ones. Right, 2nd had some stupid excuse why you can only take one henchman (of not of your choosing) to next act.

 

[a cut of domestic sheep prime]

3 in the 1st expansion and had 8 or so in the 2nd expansion with 4 being available in last 2/3rds of games.

And every one of them was horrible. I hated them all. Not as much as my NWN2 companions (again, not motb), but I did hate them oh-so-much...

Newfag-er, in a contest of fun for console tards? Sure. In a contest of fun cRPGs, vanilla Skyrim gets the shit kicked out of it.

In BG, there are a plethora of tactics and strategies needed to win a solo game - unless you cheese it with the wand of summoning in BG1. It's challenging, lengthy, has a great story, loads of quests, and some pretty cool characters. Skyrim can only compare in the amount of quests. All the characters in Skyrim are pathetically written, even compared to BG1 standards they barely keep up. The combat is just a clickfest (wat are all those potions for anyway? it's not like you'll ever need them against those easy enemies...). The "story" in Skyrim needs quotation marks to even be mentioned. It's an appallingly lame, short, poorly voice-acted power-fantasy that would only amuse learning disabled children and braindead adults. BG may not have been Torment, but it at least had a decent plot structure, filled with all sorts of interesting twists, revelations, betrayals etc - and you don't need party members to enjoy it (though they do add something, especially in BG2).