Which Baldurs Gate?

Zillah

mewso wrote: »

Oh yeah shame on you Zillah telling someone to skip the first BG. Doesn't matter which game is better I always say start at the beginning when it comes to games.

I agree in principle, but I and many others found BG1 to be incredibly boring and unrewarding. It would be very easy to burn out on the series during BG1 and miss the chance at playing the far superior later elements.

Pushtrak

I'm loving Planescape. I went somewhere, and got my ass kicked by an enemy, so I've been exploring, wanting to do side quests. I just got someone to join up with me, Dak'kon. You know, in other RPGs, getting a companion is just something that doens't feel like anything special. It's just something that just happens, you know? Here, I was actually excited, it was cool and I'm going to go back see how I get on now.

mewso

Zillah wrote: »

I agree in principle, but I and many others found BG1 to be incredibly boring and unrewarding. It would be very easy to burn out on the series during BG1 and miss the chance at playing the far superior later elements.

I'm a bit surprised to be honest. Loved every minute of it and only made me want to play BG2 more. It would still probably be best maybe to play the first then take a break before jumping into BG2 since it's got so much more in it. Bear in mind anyone buying BG now will get Tales of the Sword Coast which has a fair bit more content and a large dungeon I think.

Sarky

Pushtrak wrote: »

I'm loving Planescape. I went somewhere, and got my ass kicked by an enemy, so I've been exploring, wanting to do side quests. I just got someone to join up with me, Dak'kon. You know, in other RPGs, getting a companion is just something that doens't feel like anything special. It's just something that just happens, you know? Here, I was actually excited, it was cool and I'm going to go back see how I get on now.

Oh, Dak'kon is a fascinating character. The way your relationship with him develops is very, very intriguing. Lots of theological debate, revelations and sworn oaths.

Be sure to get into arguments with hookers. Morte may learn a thing or two! :pac:

quarryman

I love how a discussion on Infinity engine games brings out all the Boards.ie Games veterans.

Creature

I'm shocked and appalled at the negative remarks about BG1. I suppose it's all personal preference really, but I find BG1 to be a much more fulfilling and interesting game than BG2 but don't get me wrong I do love 2 dearly. What I don't like about 2 is that by the end it just gets so ridiculous with all the uber gear and stupidly OTT spells and abilities. I just prefer the more down to Earth nature of the first game, also the more varied locations and the iron crisis plot.
Of course the game engine for BG1 is a bit archaic compared to 2 but the enhanced edition solves that problem nicely. Since its release I've played through it twice now and love the game more than ever.

Zillah wrote: »

Sarevok was basically a villain from a children's cartoon. "Bwahaha I am evil and want to become an evil God"...he could seamlessly stand in for Skeletor when he was off getting his bones bleached. Irenicus was...I suppose I'll spoiler it

an elven mage, exiled from his own people and their wellspring of life, slowly losing all that he was and remembered - his bitterness manifests as a quest for revenge and reconnection with the elemental heart of elven-kind

. I don't know how you can even compare them, one is a cookie-cutter badguy, the other is complex and original.


Not to mention that he's voiced by the amazing David Warner. Ever pathetic, ever fools!

Pfft Irenicus is a whinge bag who is just bitter because he lost his girlfriend and his little elven buddies wont talk to him.
David Warner though, you got me there. If everyone had his voice life would be so much more interesting.

Sycopat

Creature wrote: »

I'm shocked and appalled at the negative remarks about BG1. I suppose it's all personal preference really, but I find BG1 to be a much more fulfilling and interesting game than BG2 but don't get me wrong I do love 2 dearly. What I don't like about 2 is that by the end it just gets so ridiculous with all the uber gear and stupidly OTT spells and abilities. I just prefer the more down to Earth nature of the first game, also the more varied locations and the iron crisis plot.
Of course the game engine for BG1 is a bit archaic compared to 2 but the enhanced edition solves that problem nicely. Since its release I've played through it twice now and love the game more than ever.

I figure a lot of it must be personal preference, because I'm almost the exact opposite and my major issue with BG1 is that pretty much the first 3-4 chapters can be (imo*) an exceedingly dull grind, and the plot is relatively straightforward, whereas the more varied situations that BG2 constantly throws the player into, along with more character development for the rest of the party, keeps it interesting and fresh.

I remember reading somewhere a while back that a lot of BG1 players never even made it to Baldurs Gate. Don't know how much truth there is in that, but I can see how being overrun by gibberlings and kobolds every time you rest up after a fight could be demoralising. I thought it was a shame because it's an excellent game if you stick with it, but having to stick with it for so long is going to lose a lot of people's interest. And that's bad game design.

(*I know there's lots you technically 'can' do, but a lot of it is out of the way or too high level at this stage of the game. Particularly if it's your first time through.)

Tar.Aldarion

I loved the iron shortage plot, and the simple nature to the game, don't understand at all how people found it boring either!

Reekwind

Zillah wrote: »

Sarevok was basically a villain from a children's cartoon. "Bwahaha I am evil and want to become an evil God"...he could seamlessly stand in for Skeletor when he was off getting his bones bleached. Irenicus was...I suppose I'll spoiler it

an elven mage, exiled from his own people and their wellspring of life, slowly losing all that he was and remembered - his bitterness manifests as a quest for revenge and reconnection with the elemental heart of elven-kind

. I don't know how you can even compare them, one is a cookie-cutter badguy, the other is complex and original.

Not to mention that he's voiced by the amazing David Warner. Ever pathetic, ever fools!

Whoah, hold up. Points:

1) Sarevok was far from two dimensional, he just didn't need his backstory doled out to the player. The companions of his that do cross the PC's path (including his lover and mentor) paint a much more nuanced picture of the man than you suggest. But he always remains a shadowy figure in the background, someone to be worked towards rather than an in-your-face antagonist

2) But while Sarevok

kills Gorion and then retreats into the background, leaving it to the PC to slowly unravel his plot

Irenicus simply prances around doing not very much. There was no suspense to his activities, no mystery and no real reason to care about him (

Imoen's kidnapping was of course a great plot hook but that was the wizards, not the Big Bad. After her rescue, well you can't really compare having a soul supposedly stolen to Gorion's death

). Irenicus had far too much screen time

3) I'm sorry but Irenicus' backstory is pretty boring. It's determined to be epic without really relating it to the player.

Hoping to become a new God of Murder through starting a bloody war that will devastate a region is impressive. Poisoning some tree because the elves weren't nice to you... not so impressive

. More to the point, why should I care about that?

4) Everything we learn about Irenicus comes via exposition. We're told that he was X and that he's incredibly powerful. We're told that Y will happen if he succeeds or that the PC needs to stop him because of Z. BG1 isn't free of this sin (particularly with regards motivation) but the key activity of the game is unraveling Sarevok's plot; so that while the key motivations remain hidden until the end, the PC approaches this point from a position of knowledge, having already unpicked the details of the scheme. In contrast, in BG2 you simply

follow Irenicus around until someone explains that he's an ex-elf who's after some magic tree. He could have been building a spaceship to the moon for all you'd know prior to exiting the Underdark

Sycopat wrote:

I remember reading somewhere a while back that a lot of BG1 players never even made it to Baldurs Gate. Don't know how much truth there is in that, but I can see how being overrun by gibberlings and kobolds every time you rest up after a fight could be demoralising. I thought it was a shame because it's an excellent game if you stick with it, but having to stick with it for so long is going to lose a lot of people's interest. And that's bad game design.

I think it's true that BG1 suffers from being the first Bioware RPG and as such it sticks fairly closely to the D&D ruleset. Often that's to the detriment of the game

But I don't think that the challenge was a symptom of this. It was a tough game, one in which you could be killed by wolves on the first non-tutorial map or randomly bump into a high-level band of mercs while exploring. That is not a bad thing. The road to Nashkel was tough but there was a difficulty cure there. By the time you emerged from the mines then you knew that you were equally tough. There was a proper difficulty curve there and a plot that moved you smoothly along it

That wasn't something that I recall people complaining about at the time of release but it does jar with the increasing tendency to hand-hold players

Tar.Aldarion

I have to agree on the mystery of Sarevok behind the scenes was brilliant, you really were anticipating running into him and held him up as a badass mofothat was gonna **** you up without knowing too much bout him first hand. I really got a sense of mystery and accomplishment with the whole investigating iron ore thing.


Also anybody remember the graveyard where the ghosts would rise and **** up your ****?

Kiith

mewso wrote: »

I loved the 3 Gothics. Really really loved them. Gothic 3 patched up was a thing of beauty and obsession for me.

I loved Gothic 3, but it was a buggy mess on release. Have they patched it properly (i.e. is it playable now)?

ZeroThreat

I used to play RPGs like you people, but then I took an arr.....

ok, I'll get my coat and head for the exit..



on a serious note, I bought skyrim just after x-mas, only been playing it the past couple of weeks though. That Cicero character in the Dark brotherhood storyline really freaked me out though, it was a relief to put my enchanted Daedric greatsword through him

In fact, once you make up a legendry dragonbone armour set and daedric weapons, it seems easy to kill anything in game without dying.

nesf

Creature wrote: »

I'm shocked and appalled at the negative remarks about BG1.

Low level AD&D can be painful, even with a modified rules system (I think, it's been 10 years since I played with either). BG1 had a good story but your characters were quite narrowly limited for a long time because of the rules system's nature (be squishy at the start and build slowly into a God basically).

Compared to the older AD&D licenses, it's quite gentle but I can see how BG1 wouldn't agree with a lot of people. AD&D characters under level 5 at best are delicate things not able to do very much and while this is very much a key trope of old school roleplaying games (seriously, rolling Mage when you're starting at L1 was basically saying you had a deathwish in roleplaying games because of your hitpoints but if you got above level 10 you were God-like) it's not something someone fresh into the genre might be comfortable with.

In BG2 you get an advanced start and get a good few interesting powers on each character. While I enjoyed the story of BG1 when I played it when it came out, I had a lot more fun with the higher powered characters of BG2 because combat was a lot more interesting for me.


Edit: I will admit that RPGs, both tabletop and computer based, are often small scale wargames for me rather than things I play for plot and story. While I enjoy a well written RPG if the combat isn't at least somewhat interesting I'll probably never finish it.

Tar.Aldarion

ZeroThreat wrote: »

I used to play RPGs like you people, but then I took a kivan to the knee >_>

ok, I'll get my coat and head for the exit..

fyp >_>

nesf wrote: »

Low level AD&D can be painful, even with a modified rules system (I think, it's been 10 years since I played with either). BG1 had a good story but your characters were quite narrowly limited for a long time because of the rules system's nature (be squishy at the start and build slowly into a God basically).

Compared to the older AD&D licenses, it's quite gentle but I can see how BG1 wouldn't agree with a lot of people. AD&D characters under level 5 at best are delicate things not able to do very much and while this is very much a key trope of old school roleplaying games (seriously, rolling Mage when you're starting at L1 was basically saying you had a deathwish in roleplaying games because of your hitpoints but if you got above level 10 you were God-like) it's not something someone fresh into the genre might be comfortable with.

In BG2 you get an advanced start and get a good few interesting powers on each character. While I enjoyed the story of BG1 when I played it when it came out, I had a lot more fun with the higher powered characters of BG2 because combat was a lot more interesting for me.


Edit: I will admit that RPGs, both tabletop and computer based, are often small scale wargames for me rather than things I play for plot and story. While I enjoy a well written RPG if the combat isn't at least somewhat interesting I'll probably never finish it.

The thing I adore about some RPGs is this weakness at the start and advancing. When we used to lan in galway playing rpgs, I never had so much fun as when a friends mage was so weak at level one that he couldnt hold an empty vial with his clothes. I also pretended to be a barmaid and named my character wench, and ****ed around with people, they had no idea I wasn't an npc. Just kept serving in the tavern naked when one guy was there, he'd tell everybody and I'd put my clothes back on, no one would believe him. Good times. /ramble

Anyway, having that level of control over your stats was great. I admit baldurs gate could have given you a better option to have some strength as a mage, or did it, I can't remember? liked the way I could have some awesome skull that explodes or a cookie thing that boobytrapped chests but I could still die to some wolves or a sword. I don't like the hand holding. Did need better variety though. I can only cast so many magic missiles.


I really cant remember baldurs gate II well, did they do it up like the first one? Must pick it up anyway.

nesf

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

The thing I adore about some RPGs is this weakness at the start and advancing. When we used to lan in galway playing rpgs, I never had so much fun as when a friends mage was so weak at level one that he couldnt hold an empty vial with his clothes. I also pretended to be a barmaid and named my character wench, and ****ed around with people, they had no idea I wasn't an npc. Just kept serving in the tavern naked when one guy was there, he'd tell everybody and I'd put my clothes back on, no one would believe him. Good times. /ramble

I remember in table top games having a lot of fun with "keep the mage alive, in 10 levels we absolutely will need him." Though a strong gust of wind could crit and kill him so it was hard to do.

While I could understand the many, many problems people had with D&D 4th ed, it did fix one thing, in old D&D if you were a Mage and were low level you had a very small number of spells learned and in a long fight you could very quickly find yourself reduced to (very poorly) using a sling to help the party which sucked basically. In 4th ed with the different levels of powers, you always had some basic spell you could cast every round, even at level one, now it'd suck compared to what you'll be able to do at high level so there was still a strong progression element but at least your "core competency" remained relevant throughout fights.

Reekwind

nesf wrote: »

In BG2 you get an advanced start and get a good few interesting powers on each character. While I enjoyed the story of BG1 when I played it when it came out, I had a lot more fun with the higher powered characters of BG2 because combat was a lot more interesting for me

I actually found the opposite. First, because BG1 had plenty of amazing (and really taxing) stand-out party-v-party encounters. BG2 kept some of these but the emphasis was more on party-v-boss fights. You'd still occasionally go up against a named party of fighters, clerics, mages and thieves but not as often as the original and certainly not to the same level of difficulty

This was partly a product of the nature of computer games exerting itself but mostly due to progressing to higher D&D levels where wizards reign supreme. Basically every fight in BG2 became a matter of 'kill the mage first' and most of the key encounters were a wizard plus some mooks. At the same time the fighters in the PC's party were downgraded to tanks, simply existing to soak up damage while the wizards wove their pretty spells. That same dynamic didn't exist when magic missile was about the height of a mage's offensive capabilities

mewso

Kiith wrote: »

I loved Gothic 3, but it was a buggy mess on release. Have they patched it properly (i.e. is it playable now)?

There is a community patch which makes it perfectly playable. The only issue for me was the combat. The patch does it's best but in the end you have 2 options. Very hard combat or very easy combat. I loved the combat in the previous versions where as you got better you could chain swings into a flowing move that depended on your skills in game as well as your play skills but this hasn't been recaptured as of my play through. I opted for the easy combat simply because I wanted to explore the world but next time I might try the hard again especially if future community patches can put in the chained moves as I don't recall that being part of it.

RaZzZz

This sounds fair interesting to me, I've started playing Divinity one and I quite enjoy it, Baldur's Gate looks nicer to me, where is the besht place to buy this games lads? with the best offers of course ^^

Kiith

GOG.com is the best place to get the series. Then use the patch mentoned above (BGTutu or EasyTutu) to import the 1st game into the engine for the 2nd game.

Burgo

Kiith wrote: »

GOG.com is the best place to get the series. Then use the patch mentoned above (BGTutu or EasyTutu) to import the 1st game into the engine for the 2nd game.

Is that not what the enhanced edition basically does?

Kiith

The enhanced edition is only the 1st game. Yes, it improves the graphics and adds a few things, but (imo) playing the original games with BGTutu (or EasyTutu) and the widescreen mod is the definitive way to play the game.

Plus, there are some fantastic npc and item mods that you can add that easily match anything in the Enhanced edition.

Reekwind

It's worth noting that by all accounts the Enhanced Edition is fairly bugged and has regular CTDs

Creature

Reekwind wrote: »

It's worth noting that by all accounts the Enhanced Edition is fairly bugged and has regular CTDs

Really? I got the opposite impression. I'm on my third play through since it was released and it hasn't crashed once.

Kiith

It's been patched a few times iirc, but on launch it was a total mess.

Creature

Like I said, been playing since launch. Maybe I was lucky.

Kiith

Ah, missed that. I didn't play it at all myself, just remember reading on a few game sites that there were some major problems.

Skerries

The bundle is back and on sale for about €6
http://www.gamersgate.co.uk/DDB-DBAMC/dungeons-and-dragons-anthology-the-master-collection

Zulu

Fair play!

Can any of you helpful folks recommend some nice graphic mods? I take it EasyTutu mod is a must, but anything else?

Tar.Aldarion

Sweet pack there, drool. How does the enhanced differ from the original with mods?

quarryman

Zulu wrote: »

Fair play!

Can any of you helpful folks recommend some nice graphic mods? I take it EasyTutu mod is a must, but anything else?

I can never understand why people go looking for mods on a first playthrough.

The game is outstanding in vanilla form. Just get the widescreen mod and you're set.

Play the first game as it was supposed to be experienced and enjoy.

Just be ready for a LONG epic playthrough. The game is not easy and it can be easy to get burnt out. It might take months to get there but all worth it

But honestly, don't worry about mods first time through. There aren't even really that many graphics mods.