So, Baldurs Gate

[ZagorTeNej]

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)

Depends on one's taste, personally I can't stand bland hiking/larping sims (the only one I somewhat liked is Morrowind, mostly due to wierd/interesting world design and lore) so for me it's BG2 any day of the week (regardless of whether I solo it, play it with a big party, small party, NPC party, pre-generated party etc.).

 

[NotAGolfer]

Of course BG2 is the better game. The only thing Skyrim has going for it are the first person perspective (immershun,
perspective/POV is less abstracted in a way) and the learning by doing leveling (which is no option for a party based game). I agree about what DraQ wrote, esp BG1 tends to devolve into compulsive and mindless map clearing, but boring area design with pointless wilderness areas and monotonous dungeons (f.i. mines, Baldurs Gate sewers, some dungeons are nearly as dragged out as in Icewind Dale) are to blame too.

After Skyrim I start to wonder if it's really only Bethesdas fault that their sandbox games are always so lacking in the story department. The only Elder Scrolls game I really enjoyed was Daggerfall with its insanely huge labyrinths and huge make believe world that didn't even try to tell immersive stories so I didn't feel cheated afterwards.
Morrowind had a smaller scale with seemingly unique NPCs and everything tied to the story, so I felt cheated afterwards. Wiki NPCs who are not even able to represent their status in the game world pull me out of the game. When I experience something like that while I'm supposed to waste some hundred hours of my life playing a fucking computer game then it's over. And because I don't need that I don't like to play shitty games that feel like chores. Stopped playing Morrowind after my first "audience" with Duke Vedam Dren. I marched in, walked to the fucker and he talked in no way different than a street NPC in Balmora or any other place.
Oblivion was not much better, the setting was shit (Cyrodiil and its inhabitants/politics etc) and RadientCrap™ didn't deliver so the world felt dead again.
But I kinda liked some of the quests. Didnt finish it though.
That level scaling thing everyone is mad about did prevent it from making the same mistake Morrowind did (where I feld godlike way too fast, I remember killing ash vampires with a spoon before exploring even a third of the island), only to screw something else up, making loot and level progression irrelevant.
Skyrim may be a step in the right direction regarding leveling. Imo levelscaling in general is kinda necessary if you can't influence in what order players experience the content (still undecided if Requiem makes Skyrim better or worse, because most of the high level areas/enemies don't really earn their difficulty and first person FPS gameplay combined with poor AI pathfinding tends to undermine any difficulty adjustments one can make so it's still easy as pie if you have a bow or spells ... ok, lots of reloads but still no thinking, strategy or even twitch skill needed). Too bad the loot progression is still broken and enchanting and smithing are completely op making everything else pointless. But at least mods can fix that. What they can't fix are the incredible generic quests and that herpaderp power fantasy back-patting bullshit of a story/stories.
And therefore it's irredeemable shit. I ought to know, because I made the same mistake I made with Oblivion, I tried to save it with mods. But tragically there is no way to repair this mess, the game world is filled with 90% boring filler and 10% derp so it's beyond hope.
Completely different story with BG and BG2. Most mods are in fact far inferior to the vanilla games, which feature decent (if somewhat bland) writing and at least some memorable characters; plus loot and level progression are much better. I wouldn't even recommend to install Stratagems or any other AI "improvements" because the games aren't balanced for any of those so you will have to cheat your way through a lot of battles (wand spam is cheating) if you use them. Some mini quest mods to add flavor and widescreen support should suffice, BG2 doesn't really need mods anyway and most of the BG1 mods either don't fit in or destroy the game balance (op equipment rewards, experience gains).
So yeah, I agree about BG2 being more than the sum of its parts. Unlike Elder Scrolls games it has a huge game world AND interesting content in it, even if it's just another power fantasy in the end.
Maybe it proves that it is possible to still make sth nice and interesting with such generic source material if your writers aren't a bunch of monkeys with typewriters and if you don't forget to add in some interesting and powerful NPCs/enemies so the world doesn't revolve around the player alone.
Or maybe the Elder Scrolls games prove that true sandbox games just cannot into engaging storytelling because giving NPCs more than a few sparse lines of text or even a little bit of character in between all the LAPRing and hiking and exploring and stuff would be way too distracting. Or too hard to remember the next time the player meets them (after 10 hours of dungeon diving) making the effort for added detail a waste of resources.

 

[DraQ]

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.

Surely you jest.

At least when it comes to BG1 it's barely better than Oblivion (just enough to make it actually enjoyable in some circumstances, but not more) and inferior to all the other TES games I've played.

Bad pacing (story pretty much starts some 4/5 of game in or later), infantile writing, lackluster nigh-uncontrollable combat, pathfinding shenanigans, barely some traces of C&C, generic setting, arbitrary travel limitations (Cloakwood doesn't exist until you go there in the MQ) and tedium instead of exploration.

The only good things going for it are party interactions and item descriptions.

 

[DraQ]

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.

Bullshit. The only worthwhile part of alignment system is forcing player to pre-declare and describe their character's personality and you can do it in much more flexible and interesting way by either forcing a write-up in natural language or using some trait system.

3x3 grid is insultingly simplistic, inane and solves nothing.

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.

Except they also fucked around with NPC alignments to the point they became anyone's guess.

Trias, Ravel, etc.

Codifying player being selfish sadistic asshole as evil is the easy part no one needs an alignment system for.

 

[octavius]

I wouldn't even recommend to install Stratagems or any other AI "improvements" because the games aren't balanced for any of those so you will have to cheat your way through a lot of battles (wand spam is cheating) if you use them.

That may be true for the Tactics mod, but SCS is certainly doable without any cheating, and even if you impose your own rules (no wand spamming, no resting after each battle) there is no need to cheat (unless you consider reconnoitering cheating).

Some mini quest mods to add flavor and widescreen support should suffice, BG2 doesn't really need mods anyway and most of the BG1 mods either don't fit in or destroy the game balance (op equipment rewards, experience gains).

I agree with that. BG2 is very good even in its vanilla state, but BG1 really needs a few mods to lift if from mediocrity.

 

[NotAGolfer]

The only worthwhile part of alignment system is forcing player to pre-declare and describe their character's personality and you can do it in much more flexible and interesting way by either forcing a write-up in natural language or using some trait system.

Sure, they could have done that. But why should they when the player's chosen alignment doesn't force him to act true to it? You make it sound like a game changer. It's not, it just adds flavor and makes the story ADnD compatible if you will.

3x3 grid is insultingly simplistic, inane and solves nothing.

Why would I want to "solve" anything? Was there a problem to "solve"?
It's a simplistic way to codify morals in a computer game, a game that unlike PS:T isn't about moral dilemmas or deep philosophocal questions anyway. BG1 and 2 are harmless fun, fantasy stories about a boy/girl turning into a demigod. And unlike Elder Scrolls they take their time to sell those stories (I very much like the slow paced narrative in the first part, even if I despise the forest maps and find low level ADnD gameplay boring).

 

[Silva]

By the way, here is a treatment of the Planes and alignments thats much more interesting (and adult) in my view:

http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?625619-Planescape-without-alignments-(long)

Instead of axis which treats law and chaos as fundamental principles, the outer planes are divided along the lines of social order vs personal freedom. And instead of good heavens and evil hells, the division between the upper planes and lower planes is one of peace vs violence.

Good and evil, then, become positional. Baator is the plane of social order enforced by violence, and they think they are the ultimate good, because they have strong values, and the courage to defend them. They like Mount Celestia, because it is a place where filth and corruption are expunged from the souls of petitioners, but they don't respect it, because Celestia doesn't force anyone to climb its slopes, and it offers its benefits to enemies and allies alike. They view Arborea as the ultimate evil, because it represents decadence, where any perversion is indulged, and the utter lack of discipline has made its residents weak and puerile. The Abyss is hated, because they too represent the destruction of civilization and order, but they are marginally respected, because they at least have the backbone to fight back.

In this imagining, the lower planes view themselves as the armies of the upper planes, holding back the tide of fascism/anarchy that would swallow those peaceful places whole. They view the upper planes as their natural jurisdiction and territory (although in different ways - Baator would unite the "lawful" planes into an Eternal Order ruled from the heart of Malsheem, whereas the Abyss would have the "chaotic" planes as their own borderless playground), and will get around to subjugating them once the threat has passed.

The upper planes view the lower planes as a regrettable necessity, and terrible tragedy. They could all be saved, reformed, and enlightened, if they would just put aside their hatred and fear, but because they can't, it's inevitable that they would find each other to fight. Because they're defined by peace, they don't necessarily wish to exclude the "other side," but they certainly believe that their partisans are closer to salvation (for example, Arborea thinks that the Abyss would be fine if the Tanar'ri could learn to do their own thing without hurting others, whereas Baator is practically built out of the sort of coercion that is anathema to them).

 

[Jim the Dinosaur]

3x3 grid is insultingly simplistic, inane and solves nothing.

It could have actually been somewhat fun if it actually were a 3x3 grid. If it were a universe where lawful characters would temporarily side together against chaotic ones, regardless of good or evil. As it is, it's totally binary, as even neutral characters are almost always "good" in practice and the whole balancing stuff always means beating down the evil that has upset the balance in the force.

 

[NotAGolfer]

That may be true for the Tactics mod, but SCS is certainly doable without any cheating, and even if you impose your own rules (no wand spamming, no resting after each battle) there is no need to cheat (unless you consider reconnoitering cheating).

Might be true, dunno. Not for me though, I remember having lots of trouble with spellcasting opponents in BG1, at least without metagaming. These fights always turned into a mess if I didn't force them to waste their spells on summoned cannon fodder.

Some mini quest mods to add flavor and widescreen support should suffice, BG2 doesn't really need mods anyway and most of the BG1 mods either don't fit in or destroy the game balance (op equipment rewards, experience gains).

I agree with that. BG2 is very good even in its vanilla state, but BG1 really needs a few mods to lift if from mediocrity.

Durlags Tower was kinda nice (but had overpowered equipment too), but a bit too hard for my taste. And it didn't improve the boring parts, i.e. the woods and dragged out dungeons filled with forgettable (ok, the kobolds were memorable, in a bad way) low level mobs so in my book it didn't really improve the game, because you still had to clear those woods and dungeons if you wanted to stand a chance in the deeper levels of that tower.
That was my problem with many of the mods for the BG trilogy, they added content instead of trying to change the dull parts of the vanilla game. And then again most modders are dyslexics so ...

edit:
Oh, I just remembered that Durlag's Tower wasn't even an inofficial mod but a part of the expansion.
So besides the obligatory Mini Quests and Encounters and SCS, what good mods for BG are out there?

 

[eremita]

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.

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)

ToEE is shitty game. Besides combat, it has nothing to BG/Arcanum, not even to IWD. I was so hyped for that game and I was never so disapointed (played it last year). Combat and graphics are great but everything else in that game is fucking GARBAGE. It's more like a Tech Demo.

NWN2 (OC, MoB is great) is mediocre in every single way. Oh wait, encounter design is not even mediocre (a loooot of trash combat).

 

[eremita]

By the way, here is a treatment of the Planes and alignments thats much more interesting (and adult) in my view:

http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?625619-Planescape-without-alignments-(long)

Instead of axis which treats law and chaos as fundamental principles, the outer planes are divided along the lines of social order vs personal freedom. And instead of good heavens and evil hells, the division between the upper planes and lower planes is one of peace vs violence.

Good and evil, then, become positional. Baator is the plane of social order enforced by violence, and they think they are the ultimate good, because they have strong values, and the courage to defend them. They like Mount Celestia, because it is a place where filth and corruption are expunged from the souls of petitioners, but they don't respect it, because Celestia doesn't force anyone to climb its slopes, and it offers its benefits to enemies and allies alike. They view Arborea as the ultimate evil, because it represents decadence, where any perversion is indulged, and the utter lack of discipline has made its residents weak and puerile. The Abyss is hated, because they too represent the destruction of civilization and order, but they are marginally respected, because they at least have the backbone to fight back.

In this imagining, the lower planes view themselves as the armies of the upper planes, holding back the tide of fascism/anarchy that would swallow those peaceful places whole. They view the upper planes as their natural jurisdiction and territory (although in different ways - Baator would unite the "lawful" planes into an Eternal Order ruled from the heart of Malsheem, whereas the Abyss would have the "chaotic" planes as their own borderless playground), and will get around to subjugating them once the threat has passed.

The upper planes view the lower planes as a regrettable necessity, and terrible tragedy. They could all be saved, reformed, and enlightened, if they would just put aside their hatred and fear, but because they can't, it's inevitable that they would find each other to fight. Because they're defined by peace, they don't necessarily wish to exclude the "other side," but they certainly believe that their partisans are closer to salvation (for example, Arborea thinks that the Abyss would be fine if the Tanar'ri could learn to do their own thing without hurting others, whereas Baator is practically built out of the sort of coercion that is anathema to them).

Interesting!

 

[octavius]

Might be true, dunno. Not for me though, I remember having lots of trouble with spellcasting opponents in BG1, at least without metagaming. These fights always turned into a mess if I didn't force them to waste their spells on summoned cannon fodder.

No metagaming is required, only reading the manual and paying close attention to what is actually happening, something which is very hard if you play it real time of course, so make sure you learn how to auto-pause the game.

So besides the obligatory Mini Quests and Encounters and SCS, what good mods for BG are out there?

Widescreen Mod, Unfinished Business and BG1 NPC Project.
I'd avoid any large overhaul mods or quest mods, except maybe Lure of the Sirens Call.

 

[Volourn]

"And every one of them was horrible. I hated them all."

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Abelian]

I think the alignment system was kept in the BG series since it was part of D&D and too many fans would complain if it was left out. The games doesn't restrict your conversation options based on CHARNAME's alignment and there are no penalties for acting out of character (except for NPC's leaving due to the party reputation being too high or too low, but reputation is pretty easy to manipulate and independent of alignment).

The developers didn't want to impose any restrictions on the way players interacted in the games, so players are free to do whatever they like. For example, while NPC could start fights in the party, they would not attack the player character based on alignment, just reputation. So yeah, the alignment system is overly simplistic, but at least it's not enforced in-game.

Spoiler

As for the ToB endings: "whether you are good or evil is oddly enough not determined by your alignment, but rather your responses to the Solar throughout the game." source
I don't think alignment made any difference except for the starting reputation, the cleric stronghold in BG2, and Bhallspawn abilities (though I recall that in BG1 the Bhallspawn abilities were determined simply based on reputation being above or below 10 when you slept at the end of a chapter), .

 

[DragoFireheart]

It's funny that the TC compares BG with some jRPGs considering how much it plays like one.

 

[Volourn]

No, it doesn't

 

[Edward_R_Murrow]

So yeah, the alignment system is overly simplistic, but at least it's not enforced in-game.

Alignment is actually pertinent in a few situations in BG2.

Spoiler

-Whether or not the NPC who offers the alternative solution to the Druid Grove quest spawns is keyed to alignment. He only shows up for evil player-characters.

-Only evil characters can sacrifice the silver dragon's eggs to the demon lord after betraying both Phaere and Ardulace.

-Good characters can't join with either the tanar'ri or baatezu in Watcher's Keep; they have to kill all the fiends because...good or something.

But, yeah, alignment overall wasn't a big deal in terms of character choice. Spell and equipment selection was another matter though.

 

[funkadelik]

I never noticed the romances in BG2...are you all a bunch of fags?

 

[TripJack]

are you all a bunch of fags

yeah, aren't you?

 

[octavius]

I'm a combatfag. What kind of fag are you?

 

[Shadenuat]

Bullshit. The only worthwhile part of alignment system is forcing player to pre-declare and describe their character's personality and you can do it in much more flexible and interesting way by either forcing a write-up in natural language or using some trait system.

Biography is a one time thing. Alignments can be observed during play and used as a reminder.
Trait systems like GURPS can lead to monsters even more horrible than any one made by alignments.

Except they also fucked around with NPC alignments to the point they became anyone's guess.

Trias, Ravel, etc.

I think a question if LG planetar is still LG if he taken his LGness to absolute (by opening portal to hell) or is evil nighthag is still evil if she sits around labyrinth thinking of her scarred immortal boyfriend just makes it more interesting. Companion alignments in PST are also great touch and spice things up. Like Morte is one curious CG of a kind.

 

[Xor]

I never noticed the romances in BG2...are you all a bunch of fags?

At least the BG2 romances have some semblance of depth to them. They take place over 30+ dialogs with an hour gap in between each one, basically stretching the content out over the entire game. It's not like in a modern bioware game where you can talk your way into sex after two conversations.

They're still not very good, but like many aspects of BG2 they're done much better than modern Bioware.

 

[Roguey]

At least the BG2 romances have some semblance of depth to them.

No.

They take place over 30+ dialogs with an hour gap in between each one, basically stretching the content out over the entire game.

Dragon Age 2 was pretty much the same in this regard.

It's not like in a modern bioware game where you can talk your way into sex after two conversations.

Because sex is the climax of a relationship.

...

They're still not very good, but like many aspects of BG2 they're done much better than modern Bioware.

No.

You played BG2 when you were younger and your standards were lower, so that has you confused, but really, it's all trash.

 

[Delterius]

It's not like in a modern bioware game where you can talk your way into sex after two conversations.

Because sex is the climax of a relationship.

It sure is.

<Image found on the epic waifu 3000 page long thread that closed the Mass Effect Romance forum>

 

[Lhynn]

Yes they are Roguey , i dont even know how you can argue th... oh wait, dammit, fell for it again.