RPGWatch - The Nostalgia Files: Baldur's Gate

[Arhu]

For me it was simple: I had been playing Diablo to excess before, with two friends in a LAN and we had a blast. And all the while would we daydream about co-op like gameplay like that, but in a real CRPG. And then the first BG previews popped up in games magazines. We were ecstatic.

Unfortunately the game had its share of problems in MP mode, but it was really great as a single player game. The atmosphere was good, too.

Later on I came to actively dislike the Infinity Engine, AD&D and games that were based on it, which even prevented me from enjoying PS:T when it came out. Luckily that has passed.

 

[Archangel]

If someone ask me, what i remember from my gaming life, i will say "you must gather your party before venturing forth"

"I serve the Flaming Fist!"
"Nobody crosses Shadow Thieves and lives!!"

 

[Drithius]

Pfft. Tiax rules all!

 

[PetrusOctavianus]

I wonder how much of that piece is Aubrielle's nostalgia?

Sure, Baldur's Gate is a classic and it was an important game, and I remember the hype (Dr. Ray himself was a regular in the .rpg newsgroup back then). Still, vanilla BG1 was not the pinnacle of awesomeness (BG2 is much closer to that title) and there were actually other major CRPGs released around the same time or before, like Fallout and Might&Magic 6.
But it's possible that I underestimate BG1's importance since I only grew to love it after I played it using mods like BG1 NPC Project and SCS. I was not impressed with the AI of vanilla BG1 to put it mildly. Using a tank to draw all enemies out one by one an and then have the rest of the party pelt the enemy with arrows, and then rinse and repeat was a sure success formula, but got tired very old. After a while I made my tank advance enough to activate whole monster groups instead of just single monsters.
Thankfully the IE games are very moddable, so a fully modded BG1 is a far more rewarding experience than vanilla BG1 was back in 1998/1999.

Also, BG1 was helped along quite a bit by being an official AD&D computer game. I don't think it would have had the same impact if not.

 

[JDR13]

Also, BG1 was helped along quite a bit by being an official AD&D computer game. I don't think it would have had the same impact if not.

Probably, but I think that applies to any game based on a major IP.

 

[purpleblob]

Pfft. Tiax rules all!

Tiax takes no notice! Tiax rules all!

 

[Archangel]

Also, BG1 was helped along quite a bit by being an official AD&D computer game. I don't think it would have had the same impact if not.

Of course it would not as it would be using some other crappy rules system that is less complex and fun. Just like Pillars of Eternity are trying to invent hot water again with their "improvements" and it blows.

 

[Drithius]

Of course it would not as it would be using some other crappy rules system that is less complex and fun.

As obnoxious as you may sound, you're right

One of the major reasons I never bothered to replay Dragon Age was because the tactics involved paled in comparison to BG's D&D ruleset. It was just so very simplistic and dull...

 

[DArtagnan]

Dragon Age was, indeed, a major step down in the mechanics department. Well, except if you were a mage, I suppose. Spells were pretty cool - but I don't play mages, so...

 

[Archangel]

Not even as a mage in DAO did the game approach same complexity as IE games. No game so far has, not even NWN games (although with them it was more a problem of a control scheme and badly designed encounters).

 

[bjon045]

I'm pretty sure TOEE had superior combat mechanics and a very well designed interface, it's just the rest of the game/design let it down

 

[DArtagnan]

Not even as a mage in DAO did the game approach same complexity as IE games. No game so far has, not even NWN games (although with them it was more a problem of a control scheme and badly designed encounters).

IE games weren't that complex, and NWN definitely had a lot more tactical options (grapple, disarm, etc.) - and much wider arsenals for the characters through feats. NWN also had a much better implementation of stealth and ranged combat. Both of those were too straightforward and boring in IE games, though that's partially because AD&D 2nd Edition has simplistic and inferior implementations of that kind of class.

But the stealth classes, in particular, are awful in IE games, because you have to constantly micromanage everything and backstabbing is unwieldy.

IE pathfinding is atrocious when you're trying to navigate complex buildings, like the dungeons - but I guess that's a separate problem.

ToEE was also better, even if the level limit was quite a bit lower.

Dragon Age was a joke when it comes to character development and tactical options - but the scripts were pretty good and a lot more reliable.

 

[Archangel]

I'm pretty sure TOEE had superior combat mechanics and a very well designed interface, it's just the rest of the game/design let it down

Interface was bad as that circular thingy was barely usable.
Only good thing about it was able to click on all numbers in combat logs to see exact breakdowns and get access to D&D rules explaining them.

Combat was cool but too low level and combat encounters were not varied enough. Which was the main problem of the game (too small, too samey). But it was still one of the best turn based fantasy games ever as far as combat goes.

 

[DArtagnan]

I don't remember having a problem with the ToEE interface - and found the circle interface decent enough, if not ideal. But it didn't really have to be - as the game is turn-based.

I'd say combat was too frequent - and there were too many enemies in some of them, but then again - it was more or less a combat simulator.

 

[Asdraguuhl]

Dragon Age was, indeed, a major step down in the mechanics department. Well, except if you were a mage, I suppose. Spells were pretty cool - but I don't play mages, so…

DA:O is indeed very mage centric and I wouldn't be surprised if people that played fighters ended up with a more negative experience.

This is one of the games where I really "clicked" with the magic system and for me combat was an absolute joy.

As for the comparisons with D&D, I might be biased since I dislike the D&D ruleset, particularly its binary nature and Vancian magic. Though granted, D&D 3rd edition is a huge improvement with respect to AD&D 2nd edition.

Dragon Age was a joke when it comes to character development and tactical options - but the scripts were pretty good and a lot more reliable.

It has been quite some time already but if my memory serves me well, there were plenty of tactical options in DA:O with two mages complementing each other and working in unison.

 

[DArtagnan]

As for the comparisons with D&D, I might be biased since I dislike the D&D ruleset, particularly its binary nature and Vancian magic. Though granted, D&D 3rd edition is a huge improvement with respect to AD&D 2nd edition.

Indeed, 3rd Edition is on a different level entirely, especially when it comes to multi-classing.

It has been quite some time already but if my memory serves me well, there were plenty of tactical options in DA:O with two mages complementing each other and working in unison.

You're probably right.

As I said, I don't play mages - so I can't really say how mages feel compared to other games. I used Morrigan and that old female healer (Wynne?) - and they didn't really work together - so much as inhabit distinct roles. One was healer/protection oriented and the other was control/damage oriented. They worked well enough, but I don't remember making a lot of tatical decisions.

Combat in Dragon Age was extremely samey - and you'd have X amount of "dangerous" enemies that you had to either kill or control, and that was essentially the challenge in 9 out of 10 fights. Then there were the big boss fights, which were almost exclusively straight-up tank and spank fights.

When I talk about tactical options, I'm mostly talking about the classes I prefer to play.

Rogues, for instance, had almost no use of stealth - because there was little point in scouting ahead - apart from a tiny handful of instances with traps. All they did was get behind enemies and backstab over and over. Pickpocketing was all but useless - and lockpicking resulted in 99% junk to sell. You almost never found anything good, because the best items are found in shops or they're quest related (like the Dragon Armor).

Making those rogue skills mostly superfluous made for a very uninteresting game and the fights were too similar.

IIRC, they also went and made rogue-specific skills something you had to pick over combat skills - rather than make them utility skills, as they should be. It's like they didn't learn anything from their time with the D&D ruleset.

Fighters were even worse, because of the MMO formula. It was essentially taunt and stay alive - nothing more.

In NWN, you had a bunch of options to knockdown, disarm or stuff like that. You also had the opportunity to multi-class which made for a much wider arsenal in terms of how to go about fighting and D&D doesn't use the tank/heal/dps trinity - which makes for a more interesting and diverse set of fights.

Dragon Age melee/ranged skills were completely straightforward - and the only decisions you had to make was in what order to pick skills, as you'd end up with all of them eventually.

 

[Moriendor]

Am I the only one who found the first Baldur's Gate quite boring ?

Scratch 'quite' and replace with 'extremely' .

 

[Archangel]

DA:O is indeed very mage centric and I wouldn't be surprised if people that played fighters ended up with a more negative experience.

This is one of the games where I really "clicked" with the magic system and for me combat was an absolute joy.

As for the comparisons with D&D, I might be biased since I dislike the D&D ruleset, particularly its binary nature and Vancian magic. Though granted, D&D 3rd edition is a huge improvement with respect to AD&D 2nd edition.


It has been quite some time already but if my memory serves me well, there were plenty of tactical options in DA:O with two mages complementing each other and working in unison.

In IE games spells worked well in combination with noncasters. So many spells complimented noncasters. Two casters could also work well to help each other as well, there were so many options.

 

[Asdraguuhl]

As I said, I don't play mages - so I can't really say how mages feel compared to other games. I used Morrigan and that old female healer (Wynne?) - and they didn't really work together - so much as inhabit distinct roles. One was healer/protection oriented and the other was control/damage oriented. They worked well enough, but I don't remember making a lot of tatical decisions.

I guess it is different if your own character is a mage in which case you are more invested and interested in exploring your possibilities.

Rogues, for instance, had almost no use of stealth - because there was little point in scouting ahead - apart from a tiny handful of instances with traps. All they did was get behind enemies and backstab over and over. Pickpocketing was all but useless - and lockpicking resulted in 99% junk to sell. You almost never found anything good, because the best items are found in shops or they're quest related (like the Dragon Armor).

Making those rogue skills mostly superfluous made for a very uninteresting game and the fights were too similar.

I guess that since I am less of a rogue "enthusiast" than you that these perceived issues are less pronounced in my experience.

Pickpocketing makes me feel like a filthy thief so I rarely do it, even if it is lucrative .

I find rogue skills and stealth to be more interesting in single character games than in party based games.

IIRC, they also went and made rogue-specific skills something you had to pick over combat skills - rather than make them utility skills, as they should be. It's like they didn't learn anything from their time with the D&D ruleset.

IIRC, skills like pickpocket, lockpicking, trap making were chosen from a different set of points than those for combat oriented skills.

Fighters were even worse, because of the MMO formula. It was essentially taunt and stay alive - nothing more.

I never played any MMO therefore many elements looked new and refreshing to me.

In NWN, you had a bunch of options to knockdown, disarm or stuff like that.

You also had these options in DA:O, something which is severly lacking in the figher class in the IE games.

Dragon Age melee/ranged skills were completely straightforward - and the only decisions you had to make was in what order to pick skills, as you'd end up with all of them eventually.

From what I can remember, you couldn't get all skills and you had to plan accordingly so I disagree here.

 

[DArtagnan]

I guess it is different if your own character is a mage in which case you are more invested and interested in exploring your possibilities.

Yes, indeed it is.

Pickpocketing makes me feel like a filthy thief so I rarely do it, even if it is lucrative .

It can be great fun, especially if you can pick quest related items from people and unique stuff like that.

IIRC, skills like pickpocket, lockpicking, trap making were chosen from a different set of points than those for combat oriented skills.

Stealth was definitely a combat skill. The problem with the other skills is that I felt I absolutely needed "Persuade" or whatever the skill was called. I think it was a mistake to force people to make that choice, because what good is a rogue without them, really, you know? Well, in DA:O those skills were pretty much worthless anyway, so…

I never played any MMO therefore many elements looked new and refreshing to me.

Fair enough. As someone who used to raid at "top level" in WoW, the fights were beyond simplistic and straightforward. The dragon fights were probably the easiest of all "tough" fights for this reason.

You also had these options in DA:O, something which is severly lacking in the figher class in the IE games.

It's true, there were some skills like that. I guess I just never felt the impact of them.

From what I can remember, you couldn't get all skills and you had to plan accordingly so I disagree here.

As a rogue, you could definitely get all skills that belonged to your "style" - as in Dual Wielding skills as a dual wielder fighting in a specific way. There was no reason to pick skills that didn't compliment your build - so there was absolutely no choice involved. You just picked between obvious choices until you had them all.

Same was true for fighters, though you couldn't get all tanking skills as a damage fighter and so forth.