BG vs BG:EE

Originally Posted by Sacred_Path
I provided an example of a specific enemy and a specific character with a specific weapon and why that fails (although it's the standard approach in RPGs) and why kiting is superior (because it works, and no, not every RPG even allows for kiting even though it has been claimed that these "exploits" are in every game). QQ more.

Which means you've provided absolutely no proof of what you're saying about the game being tailored for kiting. You think every single approach should be equally efficient? That would make for a seriously boring game.

No one has said kiting is superior in every game - but that most RPGs can be exploited.

Try to appreciate the distinction.

I've noted other options, and they're obviously inferior to kiting. Again, you can play the game any which way you want, just don't think it's a great game because with your style you arrive at your preferred results and level of difficulty. The gratification here is just inside your head

Are you saying that because you can kite efficiently it's a bad game? That's all in your head.

But our opinions and responses to any game exists in our heads in general, don't they?

Maybe your opinion exists on your table or on your keyboard?

Yeah, doesn't sound like the resumé of a classic though.

Because perfect adaption of PnP rules is necessary for a classic?

You're not making sense.

Note that I said "possibly games" in my post. Let's take Tetris - that game certainly still works, and is less redundant, than a lot of other games (including BG). This is for several reasons, one being the complexity of RPGs; the combat, the character building, the AI, the level of refinement of the lore - these are heavily subjected to the time of release.
There are a number of older RPGs which I feel work better for a modern audience; let's take Ultima VII. There aren't many RPGs around, even today, that have the same level of interactivity of the world - therefore, you can't get a better offering by playing any random modern RPG.

If your problem with BG is really that it's not as interactive as Ultima 7 - then why do you focus on "kiting"?

Why are you talking about a modern audience? We're not modern around here.

A classic doesn't have to appeal to a modern audience - it just needs to be (largely) untainted by the passage of time. But you still have to enjoy the kind of gameplay it provides - and there's no classic RPG that will make a modern casual gamer into a fan if he or she is not so inclined already.

If you'd been reasonable and you'd explained that you like Ultima 7 for those reasons - then it would make sense to people that you might not enjoy BG as much.

Obviously, for you to be reasonable - it would mean you had to be able to appreciate that some people enjoy BG because world interactivity is not essential for their enjoyment.

That said, I think BG is FAR more appealing to a modern audience than Ultima 7. U7 looks positively archaic at this point - and it has a very awkward interface, not to mention an abysmal combat system. I have no idea why you'd think a modern audience would take to it - but I certainly don't agree.

Personally I can't name a single RPG that's a classic in the sense that you can put it in front of any modern RPGer and he's going to feel like this game could just have come out. Maybe YOU want to enlighten us what you feel are the aspects about BG that make it such a strong title you feel it's timeless

Classic has nothing to do with feeling like it has just come out. Timelessness is about being enjoyable regardless of how much time has passed since release - and about not being outdated to a significant degree.

Timelessness isn't about being 100% contemporary in technical terms. Anyone can see movies like 12 Angry Men, Godfather or Blade Runner are old movies - but they're still strong and their "technical" states don't detract from the quality to a significant degree. That's exactly the same as with BG.

The fact that playing certain builds or exploiting weaknesses in the combat system will lead to victory with greater ease has nothing to do with time. RPGs have always been exploitable. Heck, even the most modern and expensive RPGs are incredibly exploitable. Skyrim, for instance, is VERY easy to break - and even the hardest difficulty level can be a complete pushover if you exploit mechanics - like archery and stealth. It's just par for the course, really.

Sure, I'll go into detail about why I think BG is a timeless classic - but not until you mention RPGs that you can't "break" by exploiting mechanics or powergaming.

That WAS your big problem with BG, remember?

Well, Ultima 7 is superior to BG in every single way expect combat, and BG's combat system is surpassed by some other games.

Still I guess which one you prefer depends on how important you think the combat is for an RPG experience.

However I don't think timeless classic means that it has "never" been surpassed by any other game in terms of some mechanins, however if this is the criteria, surely Ultima 7 qualifies but BG does not. Maybe it is just a different definition of timeless classic….

I like Ultima 7 better than BG as well, but I consider BG to be better in terms of "timelessness".

That said, Ultima 7 did more for the genre overall.

BG did have cooperative multiplayer, however, which is a big deal to me.

Both games are classics - but BG is much better suited for a modern audience.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
Are you saying that because you can kite efficiently it's a bad game?

I think YOU should appreciate distinctions

Quote me where I said "BG is a bad game". I said I don't consider it a classic that you can put in front of any modern RPGer and he'll share your sentiment.

The lack of tactical depth in BG's combat is ONE of its problems. I also mentioned magic; that problem is exacerbated by the problem of rest spamming. Somehow I think your answer to that will be "don't rest".

Because perfect adaption of PnP rules is necessary for a classic?

You're not making sense.

You think a game should be considered a classic because it has a fairly good implementation of PnP rules. Sorta odd.

If your problem with BG is really that it's not as interactive as Ultima 7 - then why do you focus on "kiting"?

Meh. The interactivity is the hallmark of UVII, and its rendition of this hasn't been superceeded by modern games. That's the point.

BG's greatest selling point when it came out was real time party based gameplay; that's what made it fun while it lasted. That's also why I said it has academical value; if you want to look into the evolution of CRPGs, I'd point you to BG as a milestone. It's just one that has quite a bit of moss on it.

Why are you talking about a modern audience? We're not modern around here.

Ain't nobody got time for dat argument.

That said, I think BG is FAR more appealing to a modern audience than Ultima 7. U7 looks positively archaic at this point - and it has a very awkward interface, not to mention an abysmal combat system. I have no idea why you'd think a modern audience would take to it - but I certainly don't agree.

If you're going to play a game that is 20 years old, or one that is 15 years old, you're probably not a graphics whore either way. U7 has flaws, no one argued against that; but IMO it holds up better today with its focus on adventure style gameplay and NPC interaction. The quality of writing is much less subject to aging in this genre than a certain style of combat.

Originally Posted by Sacred_Path
Quote me where I said "BG is a bad game". I said I don't consider it a classic that you can put in front of any modern RPGer and he'll share your sentiment.

Continue that savegame, you don't want to inflict this game on yourself all over.

That's from you.

The lack of tactical depth in BG's combat is ONE of its problems. I also mentioned magic; that problem is exacerbated by the problem of rest spamming. Somehow I think your answer to that will be "don't rest".

There's more tactical depth in BG than in the vast majority of party-based RPGs - certainly MUCH more than in Ultima 7.

Rest spamming? Are you talking about resting and reloading every time monsters spawn because you don't want to risk dying? Yeah, that's called exploiting mechanics - and it exists in nearly every RPG with quick save/load.

You think a game should be considered a classic because it has a fairly good implementation of PnP rules. Sorta odd.

So, because I mention that they did a fine job implementing the rules given limited time and resources - I've also said that's the reason it's a classic?

Wrong.

Meh. The interactivity is the hallmark of UVII, and its rendition of this hasn't been superceeded by modern games. That's the point.

Well, games like Gothic, Ultima Online and others match it pretty well - but the point is that you're now talking about something else that might make sense if you'd mentioned it instead of trying to single out BG as being exploitable.

BG's greatest selling point when it came out was real time party based gameplay; that's what made it fun while it lasted. That's also why I said it has academical value; if you want to look into the evolution of CRPGs, I'd point you to BG as a milestone. It's just one that has quite a bit of moss on it.

It had several good selling points - and I consider the primary point being a "modern" Goldbox game using an expanded ruleset.

It's still one of the best party-based RPGs in existence - all modern games included.

Ain't nobody got time for dat argument.

Not a surprise

If you're going to play a game that is 20 years old, or one that is 15 years old, you're probably not a graphics whore either way. U7 has flaws, no one argued against that; but IMO it holds up better today with its focus on adventure style gameplay and NPC interaction. The quality of writing is much less subject to aging in this genre than a certain style of combat.

What a silly point. You don't have to be a graphics whore to appreciate that some 2D graphics are good and some aren't.

The reason BG still holds up, visually, is because it's using pre-rendered graphics that can match modern 3D graphics to a reasonable degree - in terms visual fidelity. Something that U7 can't do - not by a long shot.

U7 most certainly doesn't hold up as well as BG if you're talking about a modern audience. A modern audience not only expects better visuals - they also expect stuff like a good and intuitive interface and in-game maps that work well.

You've definitely got a weak point here as well.

Oh, and you've failed to mention even a single classic RPG with "unbreakable" mechanics - which I can only interpret as your entire complaint nullified.

Thanks for demonstrating to what degree we should take your issue seriously.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
Continue that savegame, you don't want to inflict this game on yourself all over.

That's from you.

Yes, though of course that's my personal opinion. I played BG first when it came out and wasn't impressed with it (it wasn't my first RPG). I fooled around with it like 5 years ago, and it wasn't better than I remembered. Now I've played the EE and the same problems persist. Note that I still think it's an ok game - but it certainly doesn't become better on subsequent playthroughs when you know both the locales/ story/ dialogue options.

There's more tactical depth in BG than in the vast majority of party-based RPGs - certainly MUCH more than in Ultima 7.

Plz substantiate this claim.

Rest spamming? Are you talking about resting and reloading every time monsters spawn because you don't want to risk dying? Yeah, that's called exploiting mechanics - and it exists in nearly every RPG with quick save/load.

No, I meant resting as soon as you've depleted your spells. Which you can do freely because there's no penalty to resting.

So, because I mention that they did a fine job implementing the rules given limited time and resources - I've also said that's the reason it's a classic?

Plz tell us why you think it's a classic then (if the rules have nothing to do with it).

Well, games like Gothic, Ultima Online and others match it pretty well - but the point is that you're now talking about something else that might make sense if you'd mentioned it instead of trying to single out BG as being exploitable.

Eh, plz quote me where I said that BG is the only problematic RPG in existence.

Some of these problems pervaded the entire Infinity Engine series - but we're talking about BG now.

It had several good selling points - and I consider the primary point being a "modern" Goldbox game using an expanded ruleset.

Really? The rules weren't stepped up much compared to Gold Box. I'd say anyone who was familiar with Pool of Radiance et al could pick up BG without preparation.

Not a surprise

You agree with me then

The reason BG still holds up, visually, is because it's using pre-rendered graphics that can match modern 3D graphics to a reasonable degree - in terms visual fidelity. Something that U7 can't do - not by a long shot.

Of course we both have only our subjective preferences to state here; the question is how the average RPG player will react to both games, graphics wise. I very much doubt that the majority would feel that BG holds up to modern games in terms of graphics when UVII doesn't.

U7 most certainly doesn't hold up as well as BG if you're talking about a modern audience. A modern audience not only expects better visuals - they also expect stuff like a good and intuitive interface and in-game maps that work well.

Eh, I think UVII was one of the first RPGs to feature an in-game map. But that's beside the point; we're talking about wether the central merits of the game can win over players nowadays or not. Also, plz elaborate where you find the interface of UVII lacking - if you're talking about the fact that you have a "real" backpack inventory, this may not be your preference, but it's another feature where UVII stands out even among modern games.

Oh, and you've failed to mention even a single classic RPG with "unbreakable" mechanics - which I can only interpret as your entire complaint nullified.

The question is wether you want to play one specific game, not which games you don't want to play. BG's weaknesses are so obvious and so lame that they won't escape the most casual player; this isn't true for every RPG.

Since you seem to be unable to elaborate on any strengths BG might have, I consider you're just trolling

BG was good because

• it implemented the AD&D very well
• superb background renderings
• good story lines and main plot
• good replay ability
• reviving D&D games
• Infinity engine -> cool games came out of that
• good character development and customization
• memorable characters

BG was bad because

• very bad pathfinding for NPCs
• many boring maps until the final Baldurs's Gate city
• no turn based combat -> RTwP
• mediocre enemy AI
• no challenging combat
• Infinity engine

Good game, but not a classic for me. BG2 and Throne of Baal were better in every way.

- - - Horrible character graphics.

Breaks the game for me every-time.

Originally Posted by HiddenX
BG was good because

• it implemented the AD&D very well
• superb background renderings
• good story lines and main plot
• good replay ability
• reviving D&D games
• Infinity engine -> cool games came out of that
• good character development and customization
• memorable characters

BG was bad because

• very bad pathfinding for NPCs
• many boring maps until the final Baldurs's Gate city
• no turn based combat -> RTwP
• mediocre enemy AI
• no challenging combat
• Infinity engine

Good game, but not a classic for me. BG2 and Throne of Baal were better in every way.

I am likewise a much bigger BG2 fan

Yeah, I too would found BG2 to be an order of magnitude "better" than BG1. Proof that it's not the engine/ruleset/setting which makes a game, but the content you create for it.

Yes, BG2 > BG, even though it suffered from a number of things that BG suffered from. Starting over with BG2 would be recommended for its replayability alone.

Originally Posted by Sacred_Path
Since you seem to be unable to elaborate on any strengths BG might have, I consider you're just trolling

I find that ironic since that's pretty much all you've been doing on these boards for the last two days.

Your entire argument basically boils down to "Baldur's Gate is bad because you can kite". Which is odd because I've never seen anyone else make that claim in the 15 years since it was released.

Regarding BG vs BG2 vs U7…

I like both BG games for different reasons, and I didn't particularly enjoy one more than the other. BG2 is probably a little better overall, but I think it's close. The sequel definitely had a better plot to go along with one of the most memorable antagonists to ever grace a crpg.

I liked the greater non-linearity and low-level gameplay of BG though. Imo BG2 starts to get a little stale near the end when your party begins to reach almost god-like levels.

As far as U7 goes, there's no doubt it had a greater impact on the genre, but that's mostly due to being released 6 years earlier. I also don't think it's aged particularly well, but that's just my opinion. The whole interactivity thing is great, but diehard U7 fans tend to harp on that as if it automatically makes U7 superior to anything else. It was a fantastic game in 1992, but I don't consider it the be-all end-all game that some try to pretend it is.

Having an opinion is not trolling, my friends !

… and he's walking on a sacred path with a big bag of crazy … so everything is all right

Originally Posted by JDR13
I find that ironic since that's pretty much all you've been doing on these boards for the last two days.

Your entire argument basically boils down to "Baldur's Gate is bad because you can kite". Which is odd because I've never seen anyone else make that claim in the 15 years since it was released.

I had to look up 'kiting', as it is apparently a MMO-centric term. Which says a lot.

Originally Posted by JDR13
I find that ironic since that's pretty much all you've been doing on these boards for the last two days.

Your entire argument basically boils down to "Baldur's Gate is bad because you can kite". Which is odd because I've never seen anyone else make that claim in the 15 years since it was released.

The only argument anyone has made for BG in this thread is that it has an ok implementation of AD&D rules. Sorry but that's not my definition of a classic

Originally Posted by Sacred_Path
The only argument anyone has made for BG in this thread is that it has an ok implementation of AD&D rules. Sorry but that's not my definition of a classic

There is no textbook definition for what makes something a classic. It basically comes down to how many people like it and feel it's a classic vs people who don't. In this case, it's overwhelmingly in favor of the former.

Originally Posted by JDR13
There is no textbook definition for what makes something a classic. It basically comes down to how many people like it and feel it's a classic vs people who don't. In this case, it's overwhelmingly in favor of the former.

Everything is a classic as long as you find enough people who say so?

*thumbtwiddle*

Originally Posted by HiddenX
Having an opinion is not trolling, my friends !

… and he's walking on a sacred path with a big bag of crazy … so everything is all right

Quoted for the truth though I'm reminded of the saying don't feed the troll. Just remember everyone has different opinions.

Also remember to keep it civil.

Originally Posted by Sacred_Path
Everything is a classic as long as you find enough people who say so?

Feel free to explain it better.