BG vs BG:EE

Sorry, but I'm not seeing that. All I see is you claiming that no classic game is going to make newer gamers feel like it just came out and some other such nonsense.
 
Joined
Oct 21, 2006
Messages
39,393
Location
Florida, US
JDR13 said:
All I see is you claiming that no classic game is going to make newer gamers feel like it just came out
Click to expand...

lolwut

I'll sum up my OP again:

It doesn't really matter if you play through a game of the original (patched, unmodded) BG or BG:EE. The enhancements (well, changes really) of EE aren't so fundamental that it's a different game; it has the same flaws and virtues as the original. I personally wouldn't start over again because IMO BG isn't such a strong game that it warrants multiple playthroughs.

^ That's what got the fanboys raging ITT, but I'm out. For everything else, open a thread called "Is BG a classic?" and give your opinion on that.
 
I don't see that having much to do with what we were just talking about, but then I didn't expect you to reply directly anyways. :)
 
Joined
Oct 21, 2006
Messages
39,393
Location
Florida, US
JDR13 said:
I don't see that having much to do with what we were just talking about, but then I didn't expect you to reply directly anyways. :)
Click to expand...

You can obviously read, but you don't see how I'm answering the OP's question in my post above. I'm baffled.

For everything else, I'm tired of people claiming BG is a classic and can't be replayed often enough without giving any reasons for it, but calling me a troll when I point out the flaws in it.
 
You offer no definition of a classic. Me, I think it's too nebulous and subjective and a personal preference thing to define absolutely, so I can't blame you. But just because a game has kiting doesn't rule it out. For the record, I don't remember kiting in those games.
 
Joined
Aug 18, 2008
Messages
15,682
Location
Studio City, CA
Sacred_Path said:
You can obviously read, but you don't see how I'm answering the OP's question in my post above. I'm baffled.

For everything else, I'm tired of people claiming BG is a classic and can't be replayed often enough without giving any reasons for it, but calling me a troll when I point out the flaws in it.
Click to expand...

You still haven't given a definition of what a classic is or why BG isn't one, and the only flaw you've pointed out is that you can kite, which is debatable as a flaw anyways.
 
Joined
Oct 21, 2006
Messages
39,393
Location
Florida, US
JDR13 said:
You still haven't given a definition of what a classic is or why BG isn't one, and the only flaw you've pointed out is that you can kite, which is debatable as a flaw anyways.
Click to expand...

Others ITT have claimed that BG is a classic; why should I give a definition of it? You don't know how building an argument works ;)
 
o rly

130123_SCI_EvilCats.jpg.CROP.rectangle3-large.jpg
 
Sacred_Path said:
Others ITT have claimed that BG is a classic; why should I give a definition of it? You don't know how building an argument works ;)
Click to expand...

Let me be clear ... If you are claiming to define what is a classic and defending a position, then you need to provide context. Or you are the troll some claim. And sadly your definition and criteria have been changing page to page.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
14,953
Um, I'm pretty sure "burden of proof" does not apply to opinions.

Maybe it's easiest to just stick to discussing what you do/don't like about the game and whether that makes it a "classic" by your definition? Maybe even tell us what your definition is, if you so fancy?

Here, I'll start… For me a "classic" is a game that sticks in my head (in a positive way!) years after I've played it. It doesn't necessarily have to merit replays (though many do) and it doesn't have to stand up to modern standards (though some do). Thus, for me, BG2 achieves classic status, mainly for the quests and NPCs in the first town, while BG1 does not as I found a lot of its plot/characters/world less memorable.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
388
mogwins said:
Um, I'm pretty sure "burden of proof" does not apply to opinions.
Click to expand...

In that case it certainly doesn't apply to people who don't share your opinion.

Here, I'll start… For me a "classic" is a game that sticks in my head (in a positive way!) years after I've played it. It doesn't necessarily have to merit replays (though many do) and it doesn't have to stand up to modern standards (though some do). Thus, for me, BG2 achieves classic status, mainly for the quests and NPCs in the first town, while BG1 does not as I found a lot of its plot/characters/world less memorable.
Click to expand...

Productive! Not much of a basis for argument though. I assume it sticking in your head is a good thing (in this case)?
 
Top tip! Not everything posted on the internet is an "argument."
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
388
wiretripped said:
Hello,

I was contemplating starting a playthrough of BG1. In the past, I've only gotten halfway — up to Cloakwood forest I think it was — but several years have passed and continuing that save proves hard. I have no clue of what is going, nor do I remember what I was doing.

So, I want to start from scratch. I have picked up the EE version during a Steam sale, so I am wondering now… Do I play the original, or the EE?

Any thoughts, suggestions? Do the EE additions dilute the original? And how bug-free is the EE?
Thanks in advance!
Click to expand...

This thread has already been completely ruined, but I just wanted to answer the actual question.

Start over with EE. Honestly. Trying to continue a save game that's several years old is hopeless, and EE is a smoother experience overall which requires no modding or other weird tweaking.

As BG1:EE uses BG2 rules, it might be a bit confusing in the start. If you need any advice, just ask.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
7,586
Location
Bergen
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom