Why Baldur's Gate sucks?

[Lumpy]

So, why Baldur's Gate sucks?

Because it's all about combat. The "dialogue", which usually offers no choice except for a few cosmetic ones that bring the same response, is just an excuse for getting more combat.
Because the world is as generic as possible. There is nothing, nothing interesting about the gameworld at all. Castles, villages, peasants and adventurers who raid dungeons.
Because 90% of quests are exactly like this: "<Creatures> have stolen my <item>. Go <directions> of <current>, slaughter the <creatures>, and return my <item>." And this isn't an exaggeration. They really follow this stupid formula.
Because the combat involves going into a location and fighting a large number of a certain creature type. Which, obviously, means that no strategy is required, as soon as you figure out how to kill one of them.
Because the companions are as shallow as possible - they only talk to you when you hire them. Then they become combat units and nothing more. Except some like Minsc who offer you more monster killing quests. Hourah.
And they are either stupid - LOL Minsc - or they don't make any sense. Like Xzar and Montaron. When you meet the EVIL friends they offer you a healing potion as a gift and offer to help you. OH NO EVIL. They tell you to go and clear the Nashkel mines (EEEVIL), but after you do that they complain that what you did wasn't EEEEVVVIIIIILLLL enough for them. For some reason, they offer to help you without asking for anything in return, but if you help others, they hate you because they are EVUUHL.
And finally, because you CAN'T PLAY A ROLE. You can't create a personality for your character, due to the lack of dialogue and other types of choices. The class you take doesn't really matter, because all your companions will be pretty much as strong as you, so if you're a mage you can get an extra fighter, or if you're a fighter an extra mage. So no Role-Playing. At all. Oh, yeah, you can be Good or EVVVVAAAAHHHHLLL, but I have no idea how you can do that, other than asking for money when doing quests (HOW WIKKKID).

 

[spacemoose]

[I am not saying Fallout-like RPGs are bad, I am merely saying that the word "RPG" isn't limited to those games.]

it fuckign should be. or we need a new word

 

[aries202]

I liked BG2 a lot, but I still feel that BG1 is so much better than BG2, simply because BG1 revolves around finding out who you, the pl. ch. are, in that world that is around the Sword Coast etc.

And then there's the really deep and fleshed out political plot in the main quest revolving around some bad ore.

As for the dialoque etc. you need to remember that Bioware had to work with the D&D license wgich basically limited the responses to these three ones 1) good 2) bad) 3) neutral ---- and in the end, unfortunately, it didn't matter much which dialoque option, you took in BG1. This was somewhat remedied in Baldur's Gate 2.

As for the OP's questions: Nothing is wrong with BG. It just isn't a game for you, that's it. I don't much like first person shooters or even certain rpgs
like the witcher (based on the pre-view info) or Vtm: Bloodlines (based on the info and reviews).

Like my old Latin teacher said:

De Gustibus Non Est Disputandum.

 

[Sodomy]

I've never played BG1, but I can help you with why BG2 sucks.

Non-combat related reasons:
You are "teh chosen one".

More railroading than Amtrak. Don't want to deliver the acorns for the faeries because you're playing a Lawful Evil character, and thus have no motivation to help those pansies? Too bad, if you don't agree to help, they'll capture a rather strong fighter until you do, thus forcing any self-interested character to help. Want to use that guy you were sent to kill in the bar for the dude trying to take over the theives guild as a witness that the dude is trying to take over? Too bad, because even though there's a dialogue option to try this, he just has an excuse as to why he can't, and thus has to be killed.

Even though you're in an urgent search for your childhood friend (no option there, either- see above), you take the time to do 20,000 sidequests 20,000 meaningless citizens, just 'cause.

The one choice in the part of the game I played (which was from the start through most of chapter 3) was the choice of guilds. Which was a mostly cosmetic choice, with the only consequence being who you killed in three short quests.

Gimmicky, 1-dimensional, NPCs.

Rarity of scrolls for certain spells. Did you fail to copy breach? You're fucked, because there's exactly 1 scroll of it in the first 4 chapters of the game. Oh, and it's the most important spell in the game, too.


Combat-related problems:
RTwP. Enough said.

High-level D&D. Enough said.

Contingency/Sequencer. Does anyone REALLY think that letting a mage fire off 500,000 spells uninterrupted & out of turn is a good idea? If so, should we really allow them to continue existing?

Ridiculously powerful protection spells.

Phat loot everywhere. There's a +2 weapon in the first dungeon, FFS.

 

[JarlFrank]

I liked Baldur's Gate 2. Maybe because it was my first "real" RPG [with all the C&C stuff and the awesome dialogue, my first RPG was Diablo and I got into some classic dungeon romp stuff beofre, but BG 2 was the first real RPG I've played], but it really had its strong points. The story was less cliché than most shit [I liked the Githyanki or Githzerai or whatever they were, and infiltrating the Drow and all that], and the item descriptions were fabulous. Also, somehow I liked the engine, I dunno why, but it really seems to fit to good story-based RPGs, no matter how crappy the combat might be.

 

[corvax]

Why was BG2... subpar?

Daggerfall and Morrowind with 2 expansions represent first person take on RPG matters: huge world, lotsa places to see, dungeons to loot, monsters to kill. There are a few threads here about Morrowind.

What I can recommend is Fallout, Fallout 2 if you are hooked and have to have more, Arcanum, Geneforge, Prelude, Avernum 3. Insert Morrowind whenever you are tired of isometric view and want to see places and people up close and personal.

There you have it folks! The indisputable proof that VD is a closet Morrowind fan.

 

[Lumpy]

Like my old Latin teacher said:

De Gustibus Non Est Disputandum.

That would pretty much reduce the Codex to silence. Since all we do it tell other people that our tastes are better.
Which they are.

 

[The Feral Kid]

"Because it's all about combat. The "dialogue", which usually offers no choice except for a few cosmetic ones that bring the same response, is just an excuse for getting more combat."

You're a tard. There were quests you could resolve with dialogue. Mostly it was the ones that required combat in order to progress the story that did not have another way out.

"Because the world is as generic as possible. There is nothing, nothing interesting about the gameworld at all. Castles, villages, peasants and adventurers who raid dungeonsBecause 90% of quests are exactly like this: "<Creatures> have stolen my <item>. Go <directions> of <current>, slaughter the <creatures>, and return my <item>." And this isn't an exaggeration. They really follow this stupid formula."

Really? How about being involved in numerous subplots with some of the FR's most (in)famed organizations having no clue where it could possibbly lead and all this in a major city. Should we add the party member related only quests that their outcome could determine if they would stay with you or not? Or the numerous characters you encounter in your journey and how you treat them can affect things later on?

"Because the combat involves going into a location and fighting a large number of a certain creature type. Which, obviously, means that no strategy is required, as soon as you figure out how to kill one of them"

How about the numerous enemy parties that were after you. Did you manage to beat any of them just by hacking your way with no strategy?

And finally, because you CAN'T PLAY A ROLE. You can't create a personality for your character, due to the lack of dialogue and other types of choices. The class you take doesn't really matter, because all your companions will be pretty much as strong as you, so if you're a mage you can get an extra fighter, or if you're a fighter an extra mage

Have you tried playing the game with different class? You're ranting makes me believe you didn't. Maybe playing with a different class won't change much, dialogue or story wise, but surely affects the balance of the party and how you approach combat.

 

[Lumpy]

You're a tard. There were quests you could resolve with dialogue. Mostly it was the ones that required combat in order to progress the story that did not have another way out.

Let me guess. They were "Later on", right? Well, I'm not going to play a game from start to finish, which way boring for the first 40%, because it supposedly gets better later on.

Really? How about being involved in numerous subplots with some of the FR's most (in)famed organizations having no clue where it could possibbly lead and all this in a major city. Should we add the party member related only quests that their outcome could determine if they would stay with you or not? Or the numerous characters you encounter in your journey and how you treat them can affect things later on?

I did Minsc's quest which involved killing dozens of dogmen or whatever. In exchange, I got a dialogueless mage to join my party. She replaced another dialogueless mage which was in my party and who I left behing. Yay.
Numerous characters which I encounter? Who were those? Because besides Elminster, all the guys which I encounter were either extremely bland or killed by me.
And I didn't get to the MAJOR city, because it was locked away and I got too bored by then.

How about the numerous enemy parties that were after you. Did you manage to beat any of them just by hacking your way with no strategy?

What enemy parties? I only met one in the bandit camp, and yeah, they required a little strategy. Big deal.

Have you tried playing the game with different class? You're ranting makes me believe you didn't. Maybe playing with a different class won't change much, dialogue or story wise, but surely affects the balance of the party and how you approach combat.

Yes, I think you're right. I should play a game which I mostly dislike again with a different character, because I will have a different balance in my party. Thanks for the tip!

 

[Callaxes]

Ok, I've just about had my FILL of riddle asking, quest assigning, insult throwing, pun hurling, hostage taking, iron mongering, smart arsed fools, freaks, and felons that continually test my will, mettle, strength, intelligence, and most of all, patience! If you've got a straight answer ANYWHERE in that bent little head of yours, I want to hear it pretty damn quick or I'm going to take a large blunt object roughly the size of Elminster AND his hat, and stuff it lengthwise into a crevice of your being so seldom seen that even the denizens of the nine hells themselves wouldn't touch it with a twenty-foot rusty halberd! Have I MADE myself perfectly CLEAR?!

That's the only time I reread a response 5 times before clicking it - despite being a bad game, Baldur's Gate is the only game to ever impress me this much during a dialog sequence - so... for only 5 minutes this game was tops for me.

 

[The Feral Kid]

"Let me guess. They were "Later on", right? Well, I'm not going to play a game from start to finish, which way boring for the first 40%, because it supposedly gets better later on."

There were many quests early in the game (Beregost for eg) you could resolve in different ways.

"I did Minsc's quest which involved killing dozens of dogmen or whatever. In exchange, I got a dialogueless mage to join my party. She replaced another dialogueless mage which was in my party and who I left behing. Yay."


Minsc's quest is lame and nothing compared with the party-member related quests later in the game. This is rpg we're talking right? You're whining about how BG lacks roleplaying elements but you don't have the patience to explore the game. Like some kiddie watching an action film and just because there is no shooting or killing in the first five minutes decides that it sucks.

"Numerous characters which I encounter? Who were those? Because besides Elminster, all the guys which I encounter were either extremely bland or killed by me"

There is a character I can't remember exactly where, that depending how you solve his quest later when you get to the city you will be able to do another quest and enter a particular building that otherwise would be inaccessible. There is also another one near the end of the game related with game's main villian. Plus many quests that you will not be able to complete if you don't have certain party members with you.

"What enemy parties? I only met one in the bandit camp, and yeah, they required a little strategy. Big deal"

What do you mean, you managed to dodge them? there were numerous bounty hunting parties before the Bandit Camp plus the Iron Throne goons (in Cloakwood) that offer vely challenging both in difficulty and tactically as well as rewarding battles.

You clearly have not seen not 1/3 of what the game has to offer if you didn't get to BG or meet the more interesting NPC's later on in the game. Thus you should reserve your judgement for something you don't know. If you didn't like what you've played its cool, but its very different from going to every BG related thread and acting like an as_s, when you clearly don't have the complete picture of the game.

 

[aries202]

Like my old Latin teacher said:

De Gustibus Non Est Disputandum.

That would pretty much reduce the Codex to silence. Since all we do it tell other people that our tastes are better.
Which they are.

This just proves my point: teh codex are the best

They understand Latin ----

PS:
I knew that the Codex I didn't need to translate the Latin sentence...

 

[Edward_R_Murrow]

Irenicus was an exception, the vast majority of NPCs were like clones with almost zero individual characteristics. Compare that to Planescape: Torment with it's distinctive NPCs like the candy mage.

No offense, but that argument seems pretty worthless. Because there were NPCs with individual characteristics in Baldur's Gate. But then again if I made some argument about how distinctive they were in Baldur's Gate, it would also be equally worthless. Distinction is different for all people. I'm not going to deny that the average Planescape NPC was more developed than the average Baldur's Gate one because that would be silly.

Because it's all about combat. The "dialogue", which usually offers no choice except for a few cosmetic ones that bring the same response, is just an excuse for getting more combat.

Plenty of dialogue choices that bring you options. Just because you didn't see them doesn't mean they aren't there.

Because the companions are as shallow as possible - they only talk to you when you hire them. Then they become combat units and nothing more.

Totally untrue. While I won't argue Baldurs Gate 1 NPCs had much depth at all, certain ones didn't get along and it could end pretty violently. Plus certain ones did cause a few things to happen in certain places.

or they don't make any sense. Like Xzar and Montaron. When you meet the EVIL friends they offer you a healing potion as a gift and offer to help you.

Ok....I just don't get it. In tons of posts people slam the game for being too cookie-cutter good/evil. Now you slam it for being slightly different? Hello? Ever thought perhaps the two saw getting another companion in their trek might help? Bribing people with healing potions as a sign of goodwill, perhaps?

Like standard bioware dialog options:

Weren't in place until Neverwinter Nights. There was a lot of stuff reminiscint of them, but no

1. I'm a good guy. Let me kill thousands of monsters for you then give you some of my swag.
2. I'm a monster. I'm going to kill those monsters and demand money. How evil!

Or a retarded interface?

Am I the only person who doesn't ever really run into this problem? Everywhere I go I see people bitch about Fallout's interface, Torment's, Arcanum's, and Baldur's Gate's.

Not to mention all the flaws of AD&D(thank WOTC for the 3rd edition).

Yeah. I'm just going to not get started on this one.

You are "teh chosen one".

When Baldur's Gate came out....how many RPGs before it were you "the chosen one" in? Because I can only recall the Ultima series and Fallout 2.

Don't want to deliver the acorns for the faeries because you're playing a Lawful Evil character, and thus have no motivation to help those pansies?

Funny. I recall being able to take the seeds and instead of taking them to their destination bring them somewhere else.

Even though you're in an urgent search for your childhood friend (no option there, either- see above), you take the time to do 20,000 sidequests 20,000 meaningless citizens, just 'cause.

Yeah. That made no sense. It was a pretty poor MacGuffin.

Rarity of scrolls for certain spells. Did you fail to copy breach? You're fucked, because there's exactly 1 scroll of it in the first 4 chapters of the game. Oh, and it's the most important spell in the game, too.

Tough noogies.

Personally...you want to know why I think a lot of people here really loathe Baldur's Gate? It had bad timing. It should have been out in 1997 or before. Because anything that comes after Fallout must be held to the most rigid of standards for some reason. Call me a tinfoil hat loon, call me off the deep end, but for some reason it seems like older games with less RPG elements masquerading as RPGs get off scot-free, while everything after Fallout gets torn to shreds.

 

[Human Shield]

The two BG games tried to provide a simulation of being adventurers and solving problems. The problem is that in BG1 and a lot of BG2 being low level adventurers is dull. No one wants to fight more koblods, orcs, and knolls, but it is cool when you can get chances to see the planes and underdark and interact with liches, beholders, and mind flayers on their home turf.

I think Dungeon Crawlers can be good RPGs, you just need good dungeons with lots of interaction.

 

[Naked Ninja]

Baldurs Gate 2 stands as my favorite RPG, no, favorite game, of all time. Oh man it was good.

 

[TalesfromtheCrypt]

Baldurs Gate 2 stands as my favorite RPG, no, favorite game, of all time. Oh man it was good.

Was it heavan?

Anyways, I think the flaws of BGs have been pointed out numerous times already so I wont repeat them.

BG 1 is propably indeed pretty average, and overhyped as "resurecting the genre", but it was still a nice experience for me and has some nostalgic bonus for me.
I dont hate the infinity combat as much as the codex does, so the game is more berabale for me. If you dont like the combat system, there is no way you gonna like this game since combat is a major part of that game.

BG 2 is infinetly better than BG 1. It has some major flaws aswell, and the Imoen plot is really stupid. You can spend literaly years in the game doing sidequests without helping your sister. At least they could have raised the gold amount you need to gather to like 500.000 gold pieces or so, so that you at least have some kind of explanation why youre doing all those sidequests.

Despite this, I love the scope and detail of BG 2, especially when compared with games like NWN 2. Just compare Neverwinter to Athkathla and you see the difference.

In other words, if there were more games like BG 2 today, I would be already pretty happy, although it is by no menas perfect or anywhere near Fallout, Arcanum or Planescape (teh holy trinity)

 

[stargelman]

Okay, how many old RPGs were about "Role-playing" or "Dialogue"? Don't forget where your roots are. Lands of Lore! Wizardry! Goldbox! Does your fancy new RPG definition suddenly make all the old RPGs non-RPGs?

Assumptions are the mother of all fuckups! Those may be your roots, they're certainly not mine. I for one grew up on DSA.

 

[Jasede]

Ah, then you're a young grasshopper. That's nice, DSA is definitely one of the best more modern RPGs, and I'd lie if I said I don't prefer it to Goldbox or the ancient Wizardries. (except for 4. For rocks. And 6 is better than your mom.)

 

[Edward_R_Murrow]

Das Schwarze Auge? Is that DSA?

 

[Jasede]

Yes, DSA 1 = Realms of Arkania 1. And, of course, the famous German P&P system.

 

[Lumpy]

There were many quests early in the game (Beregost for eg) you could resolve in different ways.

Care to give an example?

Minsc's quest is lame and nothing compared with the party-member related quests later in the game. This is rpg we're talking right? You're whining about how BG lacks roleplaying elements but you don't have the patience to explore the game. Like some kiddie watching an action film and just because there is no shooting or killing in the first five minutes decides that it sucks.

So role-playing means going through hours and hours of shit - because that's what the first part of BG was - in the hope that it might get better sometime? No thanks.
I'll role-play the way I know. By choosing a character personality, a role, and playing it. This was possible in PST, and not in BG. Thus BG sucks.

There is a character I can't remember exactly where, that depending how you solve his quest later when you get to the city you will be able to do another quest and enter a particular building that otherwise would be inaccessible. There is also another one near the end of the game related with game's main villian. Plus many quests that you will not be able to complete if you don't have certain party members with you.

So there was a character which was really deep and memorable and cool, but you can't really remember who he was.
On the other hand, me and most people on the Codex could name dozens of memorable PST characters who you meet early on. Off the top of my head, Morte, Dhall and Ei-Vene were in the starting building.

You clearly have not seen not 1/3 of what the game has to offer if you didn't get to BG or meet the more interesting NPC's later on in the game. Thus you should reserve your judgement for something you don't know. If you didn't like what you've played its cool, but its very different from going to every BG related thread and acting like an as_s, when you clearly don't have the complete picture of the game.

No, because I never played until "later in the game", due to the extreme crappiness of "early in the game". If the game was better early on and got worse as it went, it would've been an advantage, but this way, I don't give a fuck what it's like later on because I can't be assed to go through the mass of shit I need to get there.
And somehow, I doubt that someone who was as incompetent as to make the first chapters so annoying could make anything worthwhile at all.
I'd rather play PST again - at least that's a solid experience from the very first event to the final cinematic.

 

[Elwro]

:coming out:

I liked Baldur's Gate enough to have some nostalgic memories about it. I really liked exploring the wilderness and checking what new locations I might discover behind the edge of the map. I didn't like the fact that many times the game promised much and gave less (meaning, quite a few mandatory combats without even a (reasonable) option to talk, the wizard west of Beregost for example). Also, I (then) didn't see a way to survive the beginning of the game with a non-fighter character, and combat is really dull for a fighter in this game. (It was more interesting in BG2 when you had high-level spellcasters in the party.) But I still have some fond memories e.g. from the city of Baldur's Gate itself.

I sometimes think I'd like to replay the whole saga (got bored in ToB the last time) with a Bard, but then I think about the Candlekeep quests and the urge wanes.

 

[Sodomy]

Plenty of dialogue choices that bring you options. Just because you didn't see them doesn't mean they aren't there.

Yeah, too bad all of those options either lead to the same response or have some quick "loopback" into the "expected path" that causes that option to be purely cosmetic.

When Baldur's Gate came out....how many RPGs before it were you "the chosen one" in? Because I can only recall the Ultima series and Fallout 2.

Well, there were loads of console RPGs. Not to mention games in other genres, and probably fucking millenia of it in literature.

Funny. I recall being able to take the seeds and instead of taking them to their destination bring them somewhere else.

Ok, maybe. I never finished that quest at all; maybe there was a choice at "the other end". Still, it's a cheap method of forcing you to accept it.

Personally...you want to know why I think a lot of people here really loathe Baldur's Gate? It had bad timing. It should have been out in 1997 or before. Because anything that comes after Fallout must be held to the most rigid of standards for some reason. Call me a tinfoil hat loon, call me off the deep end, but for some reason it seems like older games with less RPG elements masquerading as RPGs get off scot-free, while everything after Fallout gets torn to shreds.

At least the Ultimas had stories that made some shred of sense.

 

[JarlFrank]

This just proves my point: teh codex are the best

They understand Latin

Oblivionus dedecus Pars-Ludere-Ludorum est.
Per gloriam Codexis pugnamus!
Cogito Pars-Ludere-Ludum in lingua latina bonum esse...

 

[Relayer71]

Can't really argue with most of the flaws mentioned in this post and VD's linked post.
It's all fact, nothing to do with opinion or perspective.

But despite all that, I loved BG2.

To me it was the sum of the parts (even if some of the parts sucked) that made the game. Sure, the game could have been deeper, it could have had a better story (the story was mediocre and I thought Irenicus was dull), it could have had a LOT less looting and fighting and been less linear.

But the bottom line is that I was entertained from beginning to end, I had fun. Some dissappointment but not frustration or disgust (Oblivion).

Presentation isn't everything but it certainly helps and in the case of BG2 it had a big part in my view of it - I thought the music was fantastic and the graphics weren't fancy or "cutting edge" but I LOVED the art design, down to the box art. And the UI worked just fine, it was flexible and easy to use, no issues there either.

BG1 on the other hand was just bland overall, that game is overrated.