I just finished Baldur's Gate I for the first time a few days ago. To summarize my opinion: if anyone other than Bioware had done it, I think it could have been one of the best RPGs around.
yet they did BG 2 afterward, which is one of the best RPG around.
Was... was I just Kanye West'd on the Codex?
Too bad BG 2 isn't BG 1, because I'm not particularly eager to play BG2 now (though I will, eventually).
Your hate for Bioware is irrational,
Pretty sure my "hate" is justified, since:
1. I've played other Bioware games before (NWN, KoToR, first bit of Dragon Age until my good computer died) but they all suffer from the same problems.
2. I never said I hated the game, just that it could have been one of the best if Bioware hadn't been the ones behind it.
2000's bioware has nothing to do with 2010's Bioware, especially after EA bought it.
From what I've gathered from my own experience, the problems they had then have only been exacerbated over time. EA just gave them more rope to hang themselves by.
Drawing conclusion based on current repuation is stupid.
Lucky for you, because otherwise based on my current opinion of you, I'd think you have to be one of the most illiterate posters around if you completely missed the point of my post.
Then again, you seem to be a huge Bioware fan, so maybe reading isn't your strong point.
''if anyone other than Richard Garriot had done it, I think Ultima 7 could have been the best RPG around.''
At least Garriot showed some improvement between Ultimas 1 and 4 (the only ones I've played so far); Bioware haven't ever really improved on their ability to tell a story that didn't bore me.
Ultimas 4 and 5 have a much more engaging story than any of the Bioware games that I've played, even though both are pretty generic fantasy for the main part. I guess the big thing for me is that you have to work for it in Ultima whereas in Bioware it gets thrust down your throat.