Baldur's Gate 2: EE - Editorial @ Kill Screen

First of all, articles like this one are so...so...needed if we're to take games seriously.
Those who have complained about Mr. Yale-this-and-that or the intellectual nature of the work really grate on me. The last thing we need is to be dismissive of thoughful criticism of the genre. It basically verifies the non-gamer community's prejudices of gamers, and it also hold back the genre as a whole from advancing artistically. Quite frankly, I'm through with games being just "games" - I want new, challenging experiences and critical, rational criticism is key to that.

I have to applaud Mr. Saeedy's critical and contextual thought in this article - my problem is it's based on a few flawed premises. I'm posting the reply I posted to the site a few minutes ago.

To be honest, yeah, I had an emotional reaction to his article, so I had to write back quickly!

First of all, I'm always happy to see articles which take video games seriously in an artistic context - and especially articles like this one which are so informed on theory and literary context.

That being said, I have a few problems with the article's basic premise.

1. That a game has to be "fun" to have an artistic merit, or that any work has to have an enjoyment quotient to be seriously examined outside of being a historical curiosity. This is of course, patently absurd. Many of our greatest works, including a number that you mentioned from War and Peace or Heart of Darkness are written to be fun, or even necessarily enjoyable. They are written to provide a new critical perspective on our lives, often ask us to question our assumptions, or provide new illuminations about topics and subjects we can't relate to.

In other words, art doesn't need to be fun to be "good" (which again is a bit of a subjective nicety.

I appreciate you're not having fun with Baldur's Gate - and that your expectations of how to play/approach an RPG has been shaded by evolving technical/design changes (I won't even say improvements, as I easily prefer BG to 75% of this year's releases, still.) That's a relevant remark for a game reviewer who is reviewing it - AS A GAME. But it's not a valid criticism to make when analyzing it as an actual work of expression or art, because enjoyment has never been an intrinsic or necessary quality for a work of expression to be valid or valuable.

2. There are many, many, many games which fall under the umbrella of, what I term, "games as novelty," ie, games where it's not likely be to be that interesting because much of the game's appeal was its breaking new technical background. For instance, I'm currently playing Ultima IV and the amount of combat in the game (btw, this is even more true of the original Wasteland) was meant as a showcase of the game being able to replicate a tactical RPG and it's merely there for a fun level, which now that we can play games like Banner Saga or X-Com is no longer novel.

But I'm not playing U4 for fun, and I'm willing to look past an area of the game that is in there for commercial reasons - and also indicative of a time when games WERE NOT taking themselves seriously as expression. U4 wanted to be as close to tabletop RPG as possible, and very few people claim D&D as art (though I would beg to differ.)

However, I am playing U4 because I'm fascinated by the unconventional way it tells its story - its unconventional approach at interacting with the user - and Garriott's experimentation with morality within the context of a "non-serious" "game." As pop art, it's fascinating. But, I digress.

BG, I don't feel, is nearly as guilty of being game as novelty - sure, at the time, it was pushing boundaries, but perhaps its greatest strength is that to this day is that it offers a truly vivid, compelling recreation of a fantasy landscape sometimes thanks to, and sometimes in SPITE of being a computer game.

That being said, I actually BG1 better, because I still find the narrative in 2, and the lazy, Bioware fall-back of one evil villain that eventually needs to be defeated rather lazy. In fact, I would make the argument U4, despite tons of "game as novelty" features is a better work of art. (I actually found BG2 to be more fun - than artistically relevant.)

I'm not sure how much space I have left, so I'll end by saying that your article is welcome and necessary to advance a medium with so much potential but your assumptions about art and expression I find fault with. And finally - for @(*()* sake - give BG a little more chance. Cause, from a fun point, it really is one of the best experiences you can have.
 
Joined
Dec 15, 2013
Messages
11
"The last thing we need is to be dismissive of though[t]ul criticism of the genre."

Here's where you lost me… Criticism of the genre is one thing, but to me the source of the criticism is critical to taking the criticism seriously. It's called street cred man, and if you don't have it, it's a blog, not an article.

The guy said that he had to borrow a computer to play this game that's now 13 years old. That just showed me a Titanic-sized street cred hole here for a dude that's about to artfully criticize a classic, foundation PC game.

In addition, he wrote another article last summer in which this quote is found:

"There is, however, one genre–which is now all but passé–that embodies all the fortitude of an older way of gaming. It instills values of patience, strategy, and collaboration. I am talking about the Japanese role-playing game, or JRPG, a beloved genre of yesteryear that struggles to find relevance in an age of glitchstep, Pinterest, and Candy Crush Saga."

…really?

Finally, I get that the writer is an educated man and is at least a casual, obviously console-only gamer which was apparently enough for Kill Screen to hand him a typewriter. But gamers are smarter than you think, and this kind of self-appreciating fluff, regardless of actual content, is a major turn-off. He's talking about a game here, yet his writing style has me wondering just who exactly he thinks his target audience is?
 
Joined
Apr 5, 2011
Messages
1,746
Location
San Juan Islands, WA
"The last thing we need is to be dismissive of though[t]ul criticism of the genre."

Here's where you lost me… Criticism of the genre is one thing, but to me the source of the criticism is critical to taking the criticism seriously. It's called street cred man, and if you don't have it, it's a blog, not an article.

The guy said that he had to borrow a computer to play this game that's now 13 years old. That just showed me a Titanic-sized street cred hole here for a dude that's about to artfully criticize a classic, foundation PC game.

In addition, he wrote another article last summer in which this quote is found...

I find the idea of "Street Cred" patently absurd. I am not interested in debating who Andrew Saeedy is to debate his ideas - or whether his other articles make this one invalid. I'm not interested in saying he's smart or not.

And, I don't care if it's an article or a blog - the mode of expression neither validates or invalidates his ideas or analysis. Most of the blogs I read have MUCH better content than most actual sites.

It's a waste of time to make sure an author has "street cred" before you decide to take him seriously. I don't care if someone's a moron if they can write a compelling, well-thought out piece. I couldnt' care less if they've never played a computer game before.

In fact, because of how staunchly intractable the game community can be to new ideas and criticism - I'd often PREFER for new perspectives to come into the field. I'd love to have people who never play games take a look at them as serious expression.

(There's lots of people, btw, who can be repugnant, or even ignorant individuals who create good ideas or works. Immanuel Kant? H.P. Lovecraft? Roman Polanski? My point being attacking the messenger is silly - let's discuss the ideas. His JRPG rant, which I disagree with, too, is irrelevant. We're talking about THIS IDEA - that fun/accessibility will be necessary for works to remain relevant. )

I suppose - in a way - all of this is funny, I mean we are talking about Baldur's Gate 2, but then I'd make the point that our popular art, in gaming, even the kitsch as Brian Moriarty might call it, never gets the due that other popular arts do.

I found his article reasonably well-thought out and informed but based on false premises. Of course, like many on here, I had an emotional reaction simply because I love BG, too. But his point about how games operate in technical, and aesthetic time periods that can make them alien to later interactors/players/users is an excellent one.

It's one of course, I personally relate to as I play Ultima IV or Wasteland 1, or - Might & Magic. How does their accessibility change the relationship to the work - is it possible for classic games still to be considered reasonable and important works of expression. Is the fact that the communities who played them, at one point, were MUCH more marginal than they are today?

How important are those experiences as a shared experience is an important question when dealing with popular art? How a work impacted its time is important historically - the fact that BG2 audience is much, much smaller than WoW is, at least an interesting question.

I think Andrew can write, and I think the questions he's asking are ones that too few of us are asking. I mean the field of game criticism - is soooo....weak! Where's gaming's Lester Bangs? Or Hunter Thompson? Hell, I'd take a Roger Ebert.

So much of our gaming criticism is too much predicated on one of Saeedy's faulty premises, that its value is based on: fun. Bleah. Should Schindler's List have been more fun? and did it suffer because it was a harrowing, difficult experience? (I wish, btw, I'd just picked a better film.) Does Metropolis or The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari suffer as art because they're more difficult to grok than The Notebook? Of course not.

Again - we should keep in mind BG2 pretensions aren't as ambitious, and if AS doesn't find BG2 fun, we should all say, fine. But no, he can't say that that makes it less relevant as an important work in the evolution of gaming, or alternate world creation, or even the evolution of role-playing games.

I mean, for pete's sake, I hate Planescape Torment.
 
Joined
Dec 15, 2013
Messages
11
Well, I too did not like Balders Gate, But I don't feel my opinion of the game should be the beginning of a re-evaluation of a game that has won tons of accolades. And is so well thought of, that they are making remakes today. I don't think anyone here is dismissive of thoughtful criticism, for me, the article came off as more dismissive of CRPG players.
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
1,762
Location
Los Angeles area
Well, I too did not like Balders Gate, But I don't feel my opinion of the game should be the beginning of a re-evaluation of a game that has won tons of accolades. And is so well thought of, that they are making remakes today. I don't think anyone here is dismissive of thoughtful criticism, for me, the article came off as more dismissive of CRPG players.

I think that's valid - although, I also think it's valid that we don't elevate games to so lofty standards that they can't be re-examined for their value. It's not too different than viewing films later to see if their resonance was simply based on an impact that could ONLY be felt by people watching it at that time, or whether the work speaks to an eternal condition.

People thought that Edison's train in The Great Train Robbery might actually come out of the screen and hit them - something that we can't fathom today.

For my money, BG does hold up, in fact, I think its sprawling landscape and responsive worldset - which created a wonderful feeling of real immersion - is better than most games today. I think 1 is better than 2, though - you know what always bothered me how incredibly empty the streets in the main town in BG2 became (what was it called?) after you completed most of the side quests.

I didn't catch his dismissal of CRPG players, but I would certainly take umbrage at that. Baldur's Gate is rightly, a pioneer of RPG play.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Dec 15, 2013
Messages
11
To be fair, you do sort of need an understanding of D&D rules to get anywhere in the game. It was a game made very much for people who played P&P.

I don't know about that. I had never played ANYTHING D&D before playing BG. I did end up reading quite a bit of the manual, but I absolutely loved it.
 
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
4,353
Location
Austin, TX
I became a gamer later in life (mid 30s) and had never played any D&D type game when I was younger. My first foray into gaming was Runescape and I was amazed online worlds existed like this. I soon found single player games and made it my mission to play all the classics. After hanging around enough gaming forums I soon learned what games everyone was talking about. I played Baldurs Gate 1 only a few years ago and I admit it kicked my tail. I had never experienced anything this difficult or so mind numbingly slow. My guys seemed to be wearing concrete boots. Anyway, after spending time with the game I grew to love it and couldnt put it down. Around this time talk of BG 2:EE was coming out and I refrained from trying BG2 until it was released. I still have yet to play it because other real life issues came up and still debating which one to play first. I have the original and the enhanced.

Anyway, the point is for people new to the game and especially from the console world, I can understand frustration and difficulty with the game. I suppose I find satisfaction and fun from meeting difficult and frustration head on and conquering both. My experience is a new generation will not take the time to learn how to play a game like Baldurs Gate and that is their lose.
 
Joined
Aug 18, 2011
Messages
52
I had never experienced anything this difficult or so mind numbingly slow.
You obviously missed the Pools of Radiance remake (which is a good thing). There were several hacks to speed up the game like 5x to make it close to playable.

I've not played through the BG remakes though I did buy the BG1 remake. Waiting for the second one to go on sale as I'm not sure I'll ever have time to play through them. Having said that BG1 was never as fun for me as BG2. It came first so it got most of the novelty love but BG2 was so vastly better in so many ways its not funny (back porting the engine would probably help if they did that). I envy your ability to play it from scratch for the first time I can only recommend that you go slow and savor every bit as you can never play it for the first time again.
 
Joined
Apr 23, 2010
Messages
688
So in conclusion the games will only get more dumbed down because people can't be bothered to learn... boy, that's good to know.
 
I didn't find much to agree with in this article, but I do think the author rightly points out that some aspects of BG2 aren't consistent with the way modern CRPGs are done. Where are the flashing green arrows that tell the player where to move next in a dungeon? The character-creation system that ensures each spell/weapon/build will be equally strong? The pop-up warnings that certain dialogue choices (or NPC deaths) may adversely affect one's progress? The ability to switch from an isometric tactical display to an over-the-shoulder point-and-swing perspective?

Thinking of these and other questions, I don't find it especially difficult to see the author's perspective that BG2 exemplifies a primitive world he neither enjoys nor understands. And I suppose we'll see soon enough, by the reception to more "traditional" upcoming CRPGs like Pillars of Eternity and the new Torment, whether there's still a place for that kind of gaming or whether it is simply an archaic relic of a bygone age.
 
Joined
Aug 2, 2007
Messages
7
I find the idea of "Street Cred" patently absurd.

I appreciate your posts attempts to bring a more genuine, considered approach to the discussion on this article. To elaborate slightly more objectively on my own response: I thought that the writer rambled, inserted somewhat unrelated concepts in a quasi ad-hoc manner and as a consequence lost the logical structure/thread of the piece to the point that it alienated me as a reader.
The argument expressed was also largely one that I've seen expressed many times, only in a much more verbose fashion, which further explains my somewhat annoyed, frustrated reaction.

To expand on Chaos Theory's "street cred" idea, I don't think it's quite as absurd as you make out. I think it's reasonable to want to read articles by those with the relevant experience of the matters at hand. Case in point, I'm more likely to read a journalistic analysis on the War in Syria by a writer in the thick of the action on the ground than someone without that direct experience writing from their couch. That's not to say that I wouldn't value or read both, (as you say, we need a variety of perspectives) but I do suggest it's only natural to expect or desire a degree of hands-on expertise and investment in the subject being explored.

But his point about how games operate in technical, and aesthetic time periods that can make them alien to later interactors/players/users is an excellent one.
It is a good point; but it's hardly anything new. This idea is often discussed at RPGWatch - you only have to search for threads on Ultima VII or discussions on other older mechanics from cherished classics. Again, the way the writer explores this point is a little frustrating, for it doesn't appear to mention the human capacity to overcome these problems from a simple change of mentality.
I think Andrew can write, and I think the questions he's asking are ones that too few of us are asking. I mean the field of game criticism - is soooo….weak! Where's gaming's Lester Bangs? Or Hunter Thompson? Hell, I'd take a Roger Ebert.
Well…it needn't be as pretentious as all that. I'd take some good honest criticism from Joe from the local pub, providing he's somewhat literate and has sufficiently researched his field of interest. I'm so glad you didn't say gaming's version of Leonard Maltin though; not sure I could handle disagreeing so much with someone online! ;)
So much of our gaming criticism is too much predicated on one of Saeedy's faulty premises, that its value is based on: fun. Bleah.
Yes, I agree and I doubt many here would disagree. In fact, Thomas Beekers (Brother None from InXile/NMA, irregular poster here too) quite eloquently refers to this fallacy as the primacy of fun argument. The capacity for games to do much more than the mainstream generally perceives their value for, is a line of thinking that can be explored in more uniquely engaging ways.
I mean, for pete's sake, I hate Planescape Torment.
Hmm. Why's that then I wonder? :)
 
Joined
Jul 12, 2009
Messages
1,973
Location
Australia
Guy doesn't like a game and that's basically all we need to know. I can't say I have any interest in his opinion - seeing as how he doesn't seem to understand the history of the genre, and he doesn't seem to appreciate the strengths most of the fans seem to appreciate.

But everyone is entitled to an opinion.

To me, it's not much different from more established "reviewers" like Angry Joe or that terrible Tom Chick from QT3. They have more insight, but they're still what I would consider neophytes when it comes to the history of gaming. Also, they don't seem to support the concept of striving for objectivity - which is the only approach that makes sense to me when doing a review. Otherwise, you're just letting your emotional response speak for you - and an emotional response can change based on whatever day of the week it happens to be. But if you have enough of an ego - you won't acknowledge that and you'll stick to whatever you've said in public.

Ugh, just thinking about fully subjective reviews makes me slightly sick ;)
 
Imo some credit must be given him for the fact he atleast tried to explain his point of view. That being said, his arguments don't hold much weight.

I'd say: "Ok, i can understand this game isn't for you" IF he had put some proper effort into it before reviewing it. And with effort I imply: reading the manual and researching the subject matter properly (at least if this writing was meant to stand above your standard internet rants). Instead the writer is just rambling from point to point without much focus and imo its clear as midday sky that he simply doesn't know much about the genre or pc gaming.

In a way his opinion piece reminds me of few papers which I have had writen a day before the deadline. I simply had no time to do proper analysis or summarise my thoughts properly. Yet I had to send something just to meet the deadline. So I skimmed through bunch of articles, wrote few random notes here and there. Then I just threw everything on the word document and edited my notes in readable shape. Not my proudest moment :)
 
Last edited:
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
2,468
The argument expressed was also largely one that I've seen expressed many times, only in a much more verbose fashion, which further explains my somewhat annoyed, frustrated reaction.

To expand on Chaos Theory's "street cred" idea, I don't think it's quite as absurd as you make out. I think it's reasonable to want to read articles by those with the relevant experience of the matters at hand. Case in point, I'm more likely to read a journalistic analysis on the War in Syria by a writer in the thick of the action ...

Hmm. Why's that then I wonder? :)

I think for the most part we agree. About street cred - I think investigative journalism is worlds apart (pun intended) from art criticism. As a former sports editor, the most tired argument I always heard was the "you don't play the game! you don't know!" Quite frankly, that's not true - the skills it takes to artisitcially analyze a piece of work (or even an athletic performance) is not predicated on being able to create artistically or perform athletically.

As an aside, the worst sports analysts are always - always ex-athletes (with the exception, maybe of Jim Bouton).

Of course, I'm not going to listen to someone report a war from their couch, but it's not the same thing.

Quickly - you call Bangs and Thompson pretentious. Whoa, now. Those are two of my favorite authors. Bangs was a genius. I'm sure those critiques in games are coming, but I'm tired of waiting. I'm tired of us not asking more than what we get on the main gaming sites. The more supposedly analytical ones, your Kotakus and Polygons, still end up being regurgiators of tired memes which only reinforce stereotypes of gaming and its ambition.

To answer your last question, I know I'm in the minority, but I still don't understand why people like Planescape. It asked a bunch of questions about existence without taking any type of stand - I found it unbalanced gamewise that I routinely found myself breaking immersion by hitting walkthroughs - and ok (get your tomatoes and pies ready - I absolutely found the progression of the narrative a hackneyed, awkward, amateur mess of a story. When I finished, I realized that I couldn't even explain what had happened.

I don't want to de-rail the thread, though. If you want to yell at me about PT, PM me :)
 
Joined
Dec 15, 2013
Messages
11
Saying that one did not, or does not, enjoy Planescape Torment, is treated by many as a heretical statement. Any anti-PT statement made in public is, in turn, often followed by the rapid appearance of a trove of Inquisition priests and soldiers seeking to torture, burn and/or crucify the PT heretic.

I bought PT when it first came out. Tried playing it numerous times. Never found the game interesting or intriguing. Just couldn't get going with the thing. (Is that noise I'm hearing the approaching Inquisition hoard?)

Different people like different things. Those differences make the world an interesting and diverse place. I've absolutely no interest in a society where everyone looks identical, talks identically, where all have identical likes and dislikes, etc .

Beware the Inquisition Hoard who commands, "Conform or perish!"

__
 
Last edited:
Ahh, fear not the horde oh foolish one! You're safe within the confines of our sanctified 'Watch halls. We welcome and cherish all viewpoints in our humble little demesne. *closes the door, latches it, and hides the Dustman's death of desire behind his back, his eyes glinting with malefic intent*. ;)

More seriously, I can readily accept that PS:T isn't for everyone. To this day I've only completed it the one time (loved it though!) yet have subsequently always found reason to delay my intended mage oriented playthrough. The game requires dedication, investment and at times moves quite slowly due to its text heavy nature. Just like the even older classics of yore presenting mechanical and aesthetic difficulties for new fans, I can appreciate its pacing and style not being everyone's cup of tea.
 
Joined
Jul 12, 2009
Messages
1,973
Location
Australia
I liked the original Baldur's gate a lot - apart from its combat. I really didn't understand much how it worked, and it was too much for me anyway.
I just couldn't stand to have to solve almost every encounter through fighting. When I played it - and I think I played it halfway through - I never found any encounter or quest to be solved through other ways than just fighting. This just drained the "fun" aspect from me.
I liked everything else about the game, though.
 
Joined
Nov 5, 2006
Messages
21,893
Location
Old Europe
Saying that one did not, or does not, enjoy Planescape Torment, is treated by many as a heretical statement. Any anti-PT statement made in public is, in turn, often followed by the rapid appearance of a trove of Inquisition priests and soldiers seeking to torture, burn and/or crucify the PT heretic.

I bought PT when it first came out. Tried playing it numerous times. Never found the game interesting or intriguing. Just couldn't get going with the thing. (Is that noise I'm hearing the approaching Inquisition hoard?)

Different people like different things. Those differences make the world an interesting and diverse place. I've absolutely no interest in a society where everyone looks identical, talks identically, where all have identical likes and dislikes, etc .

Beware the Inquisition Hoard who commands, "Conform or perish!"

__






I'm in the same boat. When it came out, I saw it on the shelf but it never intrigued me. Honestly the cover kind of turned me off.



Have tried it a couple times, but can't even get out if the mortuary.



I'm going to give it one more shot. Basically, need a day with nothing else going on to push myself through a few hours and see if it grabs me.
 
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
4,353
Location
Austin, TX
Back
Top Bottom