Baldur's Gate The Baldur's Gate Series Thread

[Non-Edgy Gamer]

That was always one of my problems with BG: I have the obsessive tendency to open every door in, say, Beregost, before leaving the area... and there's really not much there. (Which is of course realistic, if anyone cares about such realism.) Still, some items you could steal from NPCs were just mind-boggling so I always kept doing it instead of moving forward with the game...

Which was a good thing, actually. It encouraged you to take your time and explore. Or would you rather a quest compass or other such highlighting to tell you were the important NPCs are?

If you were a completionist, you'd get some small rewards, and maybe a quest or something. However, you'd also get people telling you to leave and/or threatening to call the guards. It was realistic, and a diversion for the player in a small town that otherwise didn't have much to do.

BG2 tried to strike a balance and marked points of interest on the map for you. There were still things you could find on your own, but it seemed like the devs gave up on hiding random quests for the player to find in hole in the wall taverns or warehouses. They were there, just not nearly as often.

 

[Ludwig von Eisenthal]

The open world exploring in the first BG felt great. It really felt like hiking outdoors analog for CRPGs.

Exactly, that's the reason why BG1 still is one of my favourite RPGs and I do prefer it to BG2. BG2 hat great questdesign but BG1 felt more real, more natural and believable. I very much enjoyed the big maps where you just wandered through, maybe found a secret stash or a cave. Like in real life there isn't a big event happening around every corner, much of it was empty of gameplay elements. And because of that there was that special atmosphere: A lonely buzzard flying high above the party, shrieking its cry into the skies, wild animals shying away from your group, the calming sound of the waves at the Sword Coast, the tender rainfall and the silent snowfall... there was a very specific, serene, almost meditative quality to all of this, something I don't see in any RPG. You could almost go lost in this world. A pity they didn't build on this in the following games and instead chose to go for a kind of movement where you just skipped all these places to get to the locations where the action is.

 

[Ludwig von Eisenthal]

Which was a good thing, actually. It encouraged you to take your time and explore. Or would you rather a quest compass or other such highlighting to tell you were the important NPCs are?

If you were a completionist, you'd get some small rewards, and maybe a quest or something. However, you'd also get people telling you to leave and/or threatening to call the guards. It was realistic, and a diversion for the player in a small town that otherwise didn't have much to do.

I played BG1 at least a dozen of times and every single time I found something new. Often only a detail, a NPC with a funny quote, maybe a hidden secret behind an image, something in a tree stump... it wasn't much, no epic reward, no massive riches, but paradoxically it felt much more rewarding. It's as if the game world opens only part by part and every time you decide to dedicate yourself to explore it you have the chance to discover something.

 

[PapaPetro]

The open world exploring in the first BG felt great. It really felt like hiking outdoors analog for CRPGs.

Exactly, that's the reason why BG1 still is one of my favourite RPGs and I do prefer it to BG2. BG2 hat great questdesign but BG1 felt more real, more natural and believable. I very much enjoyed the big maps where you just wandered through, maybe found a secret stash or a cave. Like in real life there isn't a big event happening around every corner, much of it was empty of gameplay elements. And because of that there was that special atmosphere: A lonely buzzard flying high above the party, shrieking its cry into the skies, wild animals shying away from your group, the calming sound of the waves at the Sword Coast, the tender rainfall and the silent snowfall... there was a very specific, serene, almost meditative quality to all of this, something I don't see in any RPG. You could almost go lost in this world. A pity they didn't build on this in the following games and instead chose to go for a kind of movement where you just skipped all these places to get to the locations where the action is.

Everytime I go hiking I kinda can hear this playing in the background faintly

 

[Nano]

There was nothing good about the empty houses in Beregost and Baldur's Gate. It cheapens the game by encouraging players to act like poor hobos scrounging for every bit of loot they can find. Even more ridiculous was that there were no consequences for knocking people out cold and taking all their stuff.

 

[adddeed]

To me Baldurs Gate 2 is vastly inferior to the original. Its linear, theres no exploration, quests are thrown at you from everywhere, every fight is a stupid mage duel, powerful items all over the place. I think i quit after the second chapter.
There is no sense of adventure compared to BG1.
Others will prefer that and find BG1 boring, so i guess each has its fans.

 

[Swen]

Take off the nostalgia goggles and you will understand BG2 was never good.

 

[onemananadhisdroid]

Yeah, back then playing BG1 almost cost me my degree. A big part of that was that it felt like the Swordcoast recreated (relatively) wholescale, as opposed to just consisting of semi-connected bits all there for the sole purpose of advancing plot and player character. It was a world I got lost in, not just merely a plot. The BG2 school of design has won either way. Even open worlds (minus notable examples such as Kingdom Come) are developed like amusement parks as opposed to actual places. This, to me, makes a lot of game worlds feel gamey, cheap and -- even predictable. If you discover a hut in the forests of KCD (or BG1), you'll never actually know if there's something inside until you step inside. In your average game, you know this very hut is something placed for you to reward you with loot, a quest or enemies from the outset, as else nobody would have bothered to place it there (let alone created the art assets required).

Quest design, characters, etc. all of this is pretty objectively superior and improved upon in the sequel. However, it's also a game that has a completely different structure from the ground-up. It's also more akin to the school of (RPG) that you mostly see to this day, Bioware's own games included. As it's closer to something that you'd get if you'd run a focus group test, where a majority simply would find it boring if there's not much happening for prolonged periods (which is ok). Which is basically what happened back then either way, even if it was called differently. The structure of BG1 was thrown out due to vocal fan feedback. You can see this is still divisive to this day for reason.

And that's gonna to continue, even if there was a majority that actually enjoyed worlds as opposed to movie set pieces / theme parks. Whilst you can create "empty space" by just pasting&copying assets over and over (and BG1 sure did some of this), developing such space still takes development time which can be spend on something else. (Back then it even eat up limited disc space).

 

[Mexi]

I can see now that a lot of you phaggots are autists. BG1 was only good because the low level DnD was challenging compared to breezing through BG2. That's it, really. BG2 was far better overall.

 

[onemananadhisdroid]

One of the reasons why I was eagier to jump into Pathfinder (both games really) is that it sort of strucks a middle ground. You get to explore, wilderness areas included, and to actually travel, albeit on an overland map.

Plus, naturally, it is obviously all rather influenced by the first two Nordlandtrilogie or Realms Of Arkania games, which is always a massively bonus. (RoA's travel feature for Riva was also taken out due to "normie" feedback, btw, though Henkel nowadays argues he'd put it back in in retrospect.)

 

[Melcar]

BG2 is like Aliens. Action packed and shit. It's good, but lacks the atmosphere of the original.

 

[underground nymph]

The open world exploring in the first BG felt great. It really felt like hiking outdoors analog for CRPGs.

Exactly, that's the reason why BG1 still is one of my favourite RPGs and I do prefer it to BG2. BG2 hat great questdesign but BG1 felt more real, more natural and believable. I very much enjoyed the big maps where you just wandered through, maybe found a secret stash or a cave. Like in real life there isn't a big event happening around every corner, much of it was empty of gameplay elements. And because of that there was that special atmosphere: A lonely buzzard flying high above the party, shrieking its cry into the skies, wild animals shying away from your group, the calming sound of the waves at the Sword Coast, the tender rainfall and the silent snowfall... there was a very specific, serene, almost meditative quality to all of this, something I don't see in any RPG. You could almost go lost in this world. A pity they didn't build on this in the following games and instead chose to go for a kind of movement where you just skipped all these places to get to the locations where the action is.

Huge part of that magic you describe owes to the music and the soundscape and specifically to their interactions. The soundscape works decently even on its own so there’s no particular need to fill a gap with a non-stop musical layer. Music kicks in sporadically reinforcing the sounds of an environment. I really appreciate this side of BG1, someone really cared about its atmosphere.

 

[AN4RCHID]

The wilderness areas are great. This game feels huge, and I have the feeling there could be secrets, quests or dungeons all over the place waiting to be found. Compared to the pillars games, where everything is There For a Reason, area maps are small, and progress moves linearly across the overworld map with little need for backtracking. Now I see what the salty PoE-disparagers were talking about. That said, the content that is out there to discover in BG1 is not always the most well designed.

I just started the Firewine Bridge ruins and this place is so fucked up. Whoever designed the map, a) did a great job visually, and b) had no idea how this game plays, because the pathfinding is not up to task in these tight corridors. I'm getting the idea that I will have to split my party up; not for any tactical reason, but just so the AI doesn't go haywire.

You must have missed a lot of quests. It's been a while, but you should be reaching level 2 just before the Neskhel mines, making one shotting much less of an issue. Explore the wilderness areas perhaps? 6 person party will reach the xp cap by the end and should progress through the campaign properly.

If you explore Beregost, there's a good amount of low-level XP there too. Especially with Bassilus' bounty.

Yeah, seems like there is a lot more side content in this game than I was giving it credit for. After scrounging out some more side quests my party is comfortably up to level 3.

 

[Steezus]

Overall, I do like BG1 and its design, both games are among my favorites of all time, but map design in SoA is vastly superior imo. A lot of the wilderness areas in BG1 are just too empty and exploration doesn't feel that rewarding. They're also often not that appealing from a visual art standpoint.

BG2 just feels more alive and is an improvment in all aspects. Better city, better wilderness, better dungeons, but that seems to be the hipster opinion around here. At least according to the vocal minorty.

 

[pomenitul]

Both are great, really, each in its own way.

 

[Jvegi]

Both are great, really, each in its own way.

They're good for what they are.

IWD is great.

 

[Ludwig von Eisenthal]

IWD is a completely different experience. It's well designed, gives the player much possibility to experiment with different parties and spell combinations. But it felt totally on rails, there were almost no quests apart from the main quest, the world was well depicted stylistically (I loved the giant Dorn's Deep complex and the Severed Hand) but there was absolutely no free exploration at all to do. You just followed the main story. That strong focus may be a good characteristic to some but for me it severely limits replay value. I think that's the reason I only played it three times as of yet.

 

[Falksi]

I just recently replayed BG1 for the first time in years and, whilst I still somewhat enjoyed it, it's just spread too thin and too empty to give me anywhere near the satisfaction BG2 does.

BG2 has it's faults, and quest-bombardment is certainly one of them, but it's a much more fulfilling experience for me.

 

[Zboj Lamignat]

I'm sorry, but "ingenious use of useless space" and the like reads like something one can find in the modern "this game is really shite, 9/10" reviews. I don't have anything against open worlds, exploration, sense of adventure, yada yada, but most of those BG1 areas are simply empty and boring. Add to that the fact that the encounter design in them is what it is and the rare quest you can find is... eh... not particularly stellar in its design (10/10, GOTY!) and the bottom line does not look very good. The reality is that it probably wasn't some sort of design goal, but simply the solution they came up with when the game was shifted from rts design to crpg when they already had assets and maps ready. There's some cool stuff to be found in the game, but that part ain't it.

 

[thesheeep]

Mods like Ascension, restoration and others like SCS improve those "empty and bad encounters" aspect of BG1 a lot IMO.
But still I'd say BG2 is overall just the better game.

 

[octavius]

severely limits replay value. I think that's the reason I only played it three times as of yet.

Hmm....

 

[soulburner]

IWD is a completely different experience. It's well designed, gives the player much possibility to experiment with different parties and spell combinations. But it felt totally on rails, there were almost no quests apart from the main quest, the world was well depicted stylistically (I loved the giant Dorn's Deep complex and the Severed Hand) but there was absolutely no free exploration at all to do. You just followed the main story. That strong focus may be a good characteristic to some but for me it severely limits replay value. I think that's the reason I only played it three times as of yet.

When I discovered the Baldur's Gate series and Planescape: Torment during my RPG initiation, I was excited to start IWD... and I was immediately disappointed. I expected side quests, talking to NPCs but quickly discovered it's not that kind of a game. Focused purely on combat, acquiring gear and experimenting with tactics. Never finished either one of the series, but started both and played quite a while before dropping them. It's especially sad, because the areas in both games are beyond beautiful, the overall graphic design of the UI is probably the best I've seen in a game and don't even get me started on the brilliant music.

Regarding the BG1 vs BG2 discussion, I think both games are very different to each other, to the point of deserving different titles. Probably the only complaint I may have about BG1 is the exploration is not rewarding enough. Too many maps are pretty much empty and it feels like removing all of the fog of war is not satisfying. It is also one of the few games which do not annoy me with their music. It's repetitive, but not fatiguing for some reason. I also love the overall audio - especially the voices and the way they were recorded. The low fidelity of the audio is a big part of the charm of these games and the perfectly clear and high quality of the voices added to the new characters in the enhanced editions were more irritating than the additions themselves.

 

[Steezus]

Both are great, really, each in its own way.

They're good for what they are.

IWD is great.

ITT we might disagree about our BG preferences, but at least we, as brothers in christ, can come together and agree that this bozo is wrong.

 

[Swen]

Funny how BG2tards criticize BG3 for being a "theme park", the irony.

 

[underground nymph]

BG2 is in no way a better than BG1 game. And the main reason is its main plot.

BG1 story is about parting with past, maturing, finding inner strength to overcome obstacles; paving the way for the new, instead of longing for good old days.

BG2 story… well it’s about how important to have a girlfriend spiced with incoherent and truistic philosophical themes.