/vr/ - Retro Games

[Anonymous No.5883798]

Man, this did not hold up well.

[Anonymous No.5883805]

>>5883798
I'll never understand boomers who claim that they prefer BG1 over BG2 because they "like low level D&D." I might believe they like low level D&D in the P&P experience, but the translation of it to video games sucks ass.

BG2 is a fucking masterpiece of video gaming, and shifting the leveling from 1-7 to 7-20 works much better in a video game.

[Anonymous No.5883818]

that's because you played the enhanced edition that made a lot of bad changes, op. play the original, it's much better.

[Anonymous No.5883861]

>>5883818
I can appreciate your attempt at gatekeeping amd elitism bro, but nah.

I played the original CD version years before the EEs came out, multiple times. My thread is in response to how I recently replayed BG for the first time in maybe 8 years. I did use the EE this time so I could form my own comparison


>>5883805

Currently installing BG2. And I agree, I remember liking it more, so hopefully it will have held up better.

[Anonymous No.5883870]

>>5883805
Low level D&D has always been shit compared to mid-level D&D. No one likes playing a Warrior that can take 1 hit a day before needing to rest, or a Mage that can cast 1 Magic Missile before he's tapped out.

Levels 5-13 are the meat of the game where players are competent, classes are all pretty well balanced and you're doing proper adventuring.

[Anonymous No.5883908]

>>5883861
>first time in maybe 8 years.
>I did use the EE this time
well there's your problem! apparently you enjoyed the game perfectly fine just 8 years ago, which was already long after the most significant advances in the rpg genre and games in general since its release. baldur's gate is still a fantastic game, but you have to play the right version, ie the original, not the fake 'enhanced' one that just ruins the whole experience. hope this helps :).

[Anonymous No.5883909]

>>5883908
Even if you despise the EE additions and changes the core game design remains unchanged between versions, and the core game design is what makes me feel like it doesn't hold up.

Not sure what your point is besides autistically hating the EEs.

[Anonymous No.5883913]

>>5883909
then i suppose you just have bad and inconsistent taste in games if you were able to enjoy it eight years ago and not so now. but i'd prefer not to assume that. surely there's a much more reasonable explanation, such as you playing the wrong version of the game. just play the original and see. all of those fond memories you had of the game will come flooding back and serve as an antidote to the poison with which the enhanced edition has infected your mind, and you will learn to love the game anew.

[Anonymous No.5883918]

>>5883913
here's your (you) shizo

[Anonymous No.5883959]

>>5883870
I haven't got around to BG2 yet, but this basically seems like the eternal D&D roleplaying vs. "roll-playing" divide. If you get into the story, being up against the shadowy forces of elemental evil as an incompetent peasant scrub with shit equipment who could be killed by a sudden gust of wind adds to the tension / drama, and it feels like an actual accomplishment when you triumph against a pack of popcorn enemies or get your first +1 weapon.

[Anonymous No.5883960]

Hello I am OP, just to say that I enjoy sucking dicks and making blog threads about good games I don't like
I enjoy posting snarky comments about my superior taste and deflections devoid of arguments for hours on end, I hope you will take me seriously and not for a 12 years old trying his hardest to fit in!

[Anonymous No.5883982]

>>5883805
I preffer BG1 because it has better narrative. Also I like the first levels in RPG's (see Gothic as another example), it's cool to find a use for every little thing you find, and that gets completely lost in higher levels since you just start to accumulate shit.
You use more items, potions, scrolls, you spend your money more wisely.

[Anonymous No.5884015]

I think the real time with a pause combat is badly designed. I've gotten to the iron mines and the balance of all the classes is so weird. I don't quite see the point of fielding anyone who fights in melee. It's incredibly risky compared to anyone using magic or ranged attacks.

I've also got an obscene amount of gold because there's nothing worth buying and staying at an inn is only like 2 gold.

[Anonymous No.5884021]

>>5883798
>hold up
>serious replies to the thread
Just nuke the board already

>>5883861
>anti EE is gatekeeping and elitism now
Just when you thought the retardation hit its apex somebody comes along and wows you with something even worse

[Anonymous No.5884031]

>>5884015
there are quite a bit of things worth buying even very early, scrolls, wands, potions in high hedge, equipment at the smithy in beregost and feldepost inn.
classes are all useful at different points in the game, melee is less strong than ranged very early on, but even in late BG1 they catch up and start being better both in damage and durability. Most late game figts (even with arrows of detonation, don't need too many archers to clear the screen) and Durlag's Tower are a lot easier to go through without permadeaths with melee fighters (including multiclass) than with frail ranged classes. Then melee classes completely overpower ranged classes in BG2. Same with multi and dual classes, bad early on, but with a really steep progression curve later.
It honestly takes several playthroughs of the full trilogy to really understand what is good, at what point of the game and how to use it. So don't try to draw too many conclusions about that if you're not even done with BG1.
won't even bother adressing "muh badly designed rtwp" buzzwords because well, literally git gud, and if you really can't, go play literally any of the thousands of turn-based RPGs out there.

[Anonymous No.5884061]

>>5883818
original had lots of flaws also. Slow like molasses if you dn't crank up framerate from 30 to 60 in the config file. But not everybody knew about that possibility.

[Anonymous No.5884091]

>>5884015
>I think the real time with a pause combat is badly designed
I'm sure you'll be able to elaborate on exactly why you think it's """badly designed"""
>>5884015
>I've gotten to the iron mines and the balance of all the classes is so weird. I don't quite see the point of fielding anyone who fights in melee. I
Yeah this is a D&D thing.
>>5884021
>gatekeep
God damnit fuck modern language butchering. Criticizing shit for being shit when it is shit, is not fucking gatekeeping. A few months ago I used the term "gatekeeper" as its traditional metaphor of a company or government was exercising some kind of literal coercive control over access to content and I was confused when some sperg called me reddit. Urban Dictionary shows the reddit version of the term dates to 2012 but now it's fucking everywhere.

[Anonymous No.5884103]

>>5884061
same with the EE, it doesn't affect framerate, you can still change it manually
though since it uses the BG2 engine in BG1, walking speed is a bit faster than vanilla BG1
honestly, best thing to do rather than fucking around with the framerate (which changes the entire game speed) is installing the latest version of the tweaks anthology, one new component allows you to increase movement speed out of combat by 50 or 100% (and deactivate that whenever you want through the special abilities menu).
very comfy tweak

[Anonymous No.5884104]

>>5884091
I just don't find it intuitive in a way that Diablo does real time and Fallout does turn based. Since you end up pausing after each action anyway, they should have just designed it to be turn based from the start.

>>5884031
I think the number of classes and descriptions are silly. Granted, I'm playing the steam version, but you have your warrior, wizard, thief, priest and once you pick that you pick your specialty like fighter, ranger, barbarian, paladin. And that I'm fine with, but then only like 50% of those choices have kits which I still don't quite understand the purpose of, but they feel like they were included in some kind of low quality mod. Some choices have paragraphs explaining what they are, and then some have one sentence. Why is there a samurai kit in this fantasy setting with no other eastern influence? shaking my head desu

[Anonymous No.5884106]

>>5884031
He is obviously a noob and exagerating, but you aren't right either. The balance is off. And the expensive things you can buy are usually not worth it, that is true.

>but even in late BG1 they catch up
They don't, really. Ranged and mages/wands/summon are OP in BG1. And melee is dangerous against Sarevok, often means permadeath, unless you are competent player. Still much easier to range and mage rape him to death.

>Durlag's Tower
no reason to go there, really. Even so:

> easier to go through without permadeaths with melee fighters (including multiclass) than with frail ranged classes

How is a ranged class (a fighter) frailer?? Beats me. Kivan and Coran are anything but frail. For traps you just need Coran with thieving potion that the vendor sells just outside of the tower....

[Anonymous No.5884110]

>>5884104
there is no samurai kit what the fuck are you on about, your list is a clusterfuck that's not even close to the actual list in game, stop bullshitting
pretty much all kits are very interesting to play, and all classes can be played without kits. You can play a non kitted fighter, a non kitted mage, a non kitted cleric and multi classes can't have kits.
Also pretty much all kits are interesting to play, but it takes more than scrolling quickly through text to realize that, it takes actually playing them, or uising kitted companions.
"the descritpitons are silly" "shaking my head" fucking hell, what am I even reading seriously.

[Anonymous No.5884113]

>>5884103
no, I'd rather just change game speed in original, it's much better this way, combat is also better this way. There is enough time to react properly.

[Anonymous No.5884115]

>>5884110
>Kensai being anything but samurai

[Anonymous No.5884117]

>>5884115
Samurais have armors, retard. Go post your retarded shit and assorted shitty reaction pics on /v/

[Anonymous No.5884118]

>>5884113
Not a question of reacton time but buffs and status effects real time durations tbqh
but whatever, each his own

[Anonymous No.5884126]

>>5884118
buffs usually last for one big battle, so meh. When somebody changes tide of battle with charms or stuns or buff potions it has the same effect. And I don't have time in life to see how they swing sword at kobold and all the filler battles in between.

[Anonymous No.5884128]

>>5884106
>They don't, really
they do, a level 8 melee fighter with good gear and stats has higher dps (better thac0 and damage) than its ranged equivalent
>And melee is dangerous against Sarevok
Not really, he will have a really hard time hitting you at -10 AC and you can go down to -14 fairly easily with a non kitted fully buffed fighter, and probably even lower. Last playthrough I did, I sent Kagain melee Sarevok while I was screwing around with the rest of his party with my mage and archers, Kagain didn't lose a single HP (SCS/Insane).
>no reason to go there
It's fun, one of my favorite parts of BG1, I'd say the opposite, there's no reason to skip it if you enjoy it.
>How is a ranged class (a fighter) frailer
Lower AC than a melee fighter (no shield and usually no heavy AC boosting gear, givien to frontliners in priority) and low HP for ranged fighter companions (Kivan, Coran, Shar-Teel, Khalid, etc...). I always struggle like hell to bring Kivan and Coran all the way to the end of BG1 because they often get permakilled by backstabs. Kivan will end up around -3AC, Coran will often wear studded leather+2 or shadow armor to use his thief skills without always switching armor so they are very vulnerable to backstabs. And that's usually around 80 damage, their portrait is immediately gone.

[Anonymous No.5884168]

>>5884128
Shar-Teel and Khalid ranged? Do you just list any character that isn't Kagain?

>Kagain
How did you buff him to -14?

>difficulty
Which version did you play? In original it just raises dmg

>backstab
is there actually backstabbers somewhere? Or are you referring to random battles?

[Anonymous No.5884172]

>>5884128
And I still claim it is easier to wand up or mage up some skeletons to keep melee enemies busy while archering than to raise a competent melee fighter. Hell you can even use wand of paralyzation on Sarevok if you have a bard or mage.

[Anonymous No.5884190]

>>5884168
>How did you buff him to -14?
potion of invulnerability (base AC 0), large shield +2, ring or cloak of prot +2, gauntlets of agility, helm of balduran/the noble, defensive harmony (only time it's worth casting in the entire game imo), potions of mind focusing. Add protection from evil and the multiple bonuses to AC versus slashing (full plate and golden girdle) and you're probably around -20 effective AC against Sarevok. He has 2 thac0, so he will only hit on crits.
>difficulty
again, SCS and insane difficulty. Doesn't affect Sarevok's thac0 anyway as far as i know.
>backstabbers somewhere?
yeah, the Iron Throne fight, at least two ambushes, Undercellar fight, the thieves guild fight, third or forth floor of Durlag's tower (bush labyrinth) and I'm probably forgetting at least a couple. With SCS they will also prioritize attacking your mages and other low AC party members. Once your mage has stoneskin, they will basically always target Coran first.
>>5884172
easier maybe, more effective I'm not sure. Yeah you can summon stuff for some fights, but for many others you can't (Iron Throne, ambushes, etc...) and you're relying on game knowledge to do so so it's not "RP" if you care about that (I somewhat do). So I'd rather count on having a good melee fighter with very low AC to tank effectively. With the gear I preivously mentioned, you're still looking at something like -8AC without buffs, which is more than enough for a lot of things.
Wand of paralyzation never seems to work when I need it to, so I almost never bother wasting a round trying it.

[Anonymous No.5884193]

>>5884104
>Since you end up pausing after each action anyway
Maybe you do, I don't. I typically only pause after spell casts and when targets die. I sure as hell don't need to pause every time a warrior whiffs an attack.

[Anonymous No.5884218]

>>5884190
>Undercellar fight
>but for many others you can't (Iron Throne, ambushes, etc...)
You can always summon with cleric, ambush or not. Wand of summoning is even faster I think.

But I agree ambush is less of a concern in original, since there are no AI tweakings, enemies just target your allies randomly or who is closest(so summoned critters). The only point when I was ambushed in risky configuration was kobold commandos xD in sewers. Not hard enemies by any means, but targeted my mage.

>Iron Throne
you can scout ahead with somebody with sancturay, or more RP way to do it, thief or invcibility potion companion. Then sit in the corner and summon some things in center of the fuckers, then bring the boiiiis from downstairs to help out the critters.

Anyway archers are better at level 8 for most fights, because they don't have to come close to enemy, and can fuck up mages/clerics fast together. The only problems is when you have an AC hoarder(which is your fault/strategy entirely) and you get ambushed, or when you have one enemy that is immune to arrows other than arrow barrier that you can dispell - doomguards.

[Anonymous No.5884227]

>>5884190
>Yeah you can summon stuff for some fights, but for many others you can't (Iron Throne, ambushes, etc...) and you're relying on game knowledge to do so so it's not "RP" if you care about that (I somewhat do). So I'd rather count on having a good melee fighter with very low AC to tank effectively.

I think letting your only guy hoard all protective items, while the others are risking their lives, in comparison with letting a cleric summon skeletons and so on, less RP since I doubt they people would risk their lives since it's more 'strategic' to do stack it on one.

[Anonymous No.5884251]

>>5883805
BG2 feels like some sort of homo jrpg where everyone constantly fellates you or stops in the middle of a dungeon to talk to you about their life problems.

[Anonymous No.5884253]

>>5884218
yeah you can summon but really don't have time for this shit in ambushes.
archers are better for most fights until the late game, where melee surprasses it. I still often use at least two archers late BG1 mind you, they are handy but not as great as they are early on when your frontline is garbage. Having a solid frontline is great honestly, backstabbers will pop your archers anyway because they have lower HP compared to frontliners and no stoneskin. And it's not that big of a deal because there are quite a few replacements, but there aren't many viable frontliners or mages if you lose one permanently.
Don't really use stairs too much, the AI has a really hard time coping with that. If it goes to shit I use them to retreat sure, but I don't really enjoy baiting the poors lads to come get shredded downstairs. Arrows of detonation tbqh.
>>5884227
they don't risk their lives that much, the tank is here to take most of the aggro. Backstabs and unexpected lightning bolts are the most common dangers for them (because on insane it's instant permadeath for their HP pools), but with good placement they won't be in danger of much more, if needed they can suck up a couple of arrows and beat most ranged enemies at their own game.
The tanks have to be able to draw and suck up physical damage, most damage spells, arrows, etc.
There aren't enough good AC items for everyone. Archers can't really use shields and I sure won't waste the +2 ring or cloak or a +1AC helmet on them. They still get their +1 ring, cloak or amulet, an ankheg plate or full plate anyway (except Coran because fuck switching armor constantly), and I buff them against the Iron Throne for example, but they still can get popped.
One good tip though, give your mage all equipment that boosts AC against missile (boots of avoidance, cloak of displacment and girlde of percing) and use shield (level 1 spell), makes them very resilient against arrows and will avoid a lot of interrupted spells.

[Anonymous No.5884258]

>>5884251
It doesn't. Try harder.

[Anonymous No.5884262]

>>5884104
>Why is there a samurai kit in this fantasy setting

Baldur's Gate didn't have the kensai (not samurai) kit, Baldur's Gate II had it since there's oriental swords and stuff like that, also Athkatla is almost an oriental city with people from everywhere, you get a "non-japanese" companion, etc.
Motherfucking Wizardry actually had the samurai class, your complaints are the complaints of someone who seems new to the genre.

[Anonymous No.5884267]

I came here to make a thread about this. Just as i got into it, it disappointed me. Why is it so fucking short? I'm in chapter 7 and apparently it's the last one, and basically there's no other dungeons besides Durlag's Tower, so now all the loot i got from DT will only be usable in this last bit because there's nothing else good to do beside some short side quest about killing one mage or something, since i already finished Balduran's Isle. And still i can barelly hit those fucking doom guards.

And apparently i can't even carry my companions to BGII... What the fuck? So what about all this late game gear?

[Anonymous No.5884268]

"look at me I have such original contrarian opinions, do I fit in yet guys? god I'm so lonely pls respond"

[Anonymous No.5884272]

>>5884268

found the Baldur's gate fan

[Anonymous No.5884274]

>>5884272
ok

[Anonymous No.5884276]

>>5884267
You'll find better gear and better companions early in BG2 anyway, if you're not a complete retard (which I doubt, but still), so don't cry

[Anonymous No.5884285]

>>5884276
My point is: the moment it gets interesting there's almost nothing else to do and you'll have to reset everything in the next game.

[Anonymous No.5884294]

>>5884285
no you won't have to reset everything, and if you like late BG1 more than early BG1 you will probably enjoy BG2 a lot anyway.

[Anonymous No.5884295]

I love the comfiness of D&D crpgs like BG and Icewind Dale, but I have literally no idea what I am doing.

[Anonymous No.5884305]

>>5884295
It comes with time
Try to play low reload (only reload on charname death for example) with SCS, enemies will be more dangerous and it will force you to find answers to the many problems you will encounter and try new things, it's really fun honestly.

[Anonymous No.5884503]

>>5884267
>i already finished Balduran's Isle. And still i can barelly hit those fucking doom guards.
If that's the case, I think you fucked up somewhere.

[Anonymous No.5884620]

when did you realize a berzerker/mage is far superior to a kensage?

zerkermage
>unique ability that helps deal with most frustrating enimies, useful from the start of BG1 to the end of TOB
>can actually use gear, meaning you won't have to babysit him through BG1 like the kensai
>can still use bows, just can't become proficient in them

meanwhile kensage
>useless in BG1 still you get shield amulet, even then you have to micromanage and babysit
>unlike zerker can't use ranged weapons AT ALL, which are incredibly potent in BG1
>by the time he reaches his true potential you're at the end of ToB, where doing extra melee damage is pretty much pointless anyways

[Anonymous No.5884970]

>>5883982
>Beamdog could have made Baldur's Gate city into a single huge map
>they didn't
AAAAAAAAAA

[Anonymous No.5885457]

>>5884620
>when did you realize
9 years ago
>unlike zerker can't use ranged weapons AT ALL, which are incredibly potent in BG1
untrue, Kensai are actually fantastic ranged characters because they have Archer-like damage scaling and can simply use Thrown Axes and Daggers while applying a massive Strength bonus.
>useless in BG1
With ranged proficiencies, Shield Amulet and the ability to melee kite with a Quarterstaff (get Aule's Staff +3), Kensai can do okay.
>doing extra melee damage is pretty much pointless anyways
Not at all, really; especially with SCS on, there are many fights where you're best served with doing a ton of single-target damage and Kensai is best at this.

Kensai also benefits a lot more from waiting with the dual until 13 - one of the main reasons the "meta" (so to speak) changed is because fewer and fewer people dual out at 13; Berserker duals work just fine with level 9 because the lost 1/2 APR is compensated for with Gauntlets (which Kensai can't use) and the class is defensive by nature.
Optimally, Kensai gets -4 THAC0 and +4 Damage and - often overlooked - -3 Speed Factor. Those actually add up.

Note that since I enjoy minimal reloading style I still favor Zerkermage for the safety, but we didn't just pull the Kensage fandom out of our ass;
>Mage dual eliminates the issue with armor
>maximized damage / thac0 potential means enemies simply die much more quickly, which is a big deal particularly in mods that inflate HP totals (SCS, Ascension)
>gauntlets can go to someone else which is an overall damage buff to the party
>Kai on an enemy getting autohit allows you to very precisely calculate whether he will die or not

In ToB, you have to hit bosses with an AC value of -12 to -21 (Yaga-Shura), and while the Berserker maintains a healthy 60%~ hit rate against those in maximized gear, Kensai still has a smoother time here. Often it doesn't matter because Time Stop and other hold spells mean your chance to hit is maxed out.

[Anonymous No.5885484]

>>5885457
There is also one more thing to consider: Berserker rage is great, but Mage already has a way to raise his saving throws up to the point where they won't fail, so with very optimal play (no mistakes that you need to get bailed out of with rage), you're missing out mostly on immunity to Maze and Imprisonment... against which you have Spell Immunities available, or Green scrolls of Prot. from Magic. There's just a few of them, but there also aren't that many enemies that cast Imprisonment.

Anyhow Zerker/Mage is safer and easier to play in most ways. Kensai/Mage has more killing potential, which is sometimes a non-trivial issue if you need to maximize on-demand damage, and it can certainly make your life easier.

Kai kind of loses its luster with Vecna and so on (you could just cast a new spell), but it's still an useful tool particularly if you've just gotten your speed weapons and / or Improved Haste. It's also very, very interesting if you're wielding the Black Blade of Disaster.

Personally I play plain Fighter (7) -> Mage just to nerf myself a little bit.

[Anonymous No.5885604]

>>5883798
It was pretty shit back then too, took a while for most to realize it.

[Anonymous No.5886156]

>>5883959
Except it's not the shadowy forces of elemental evil. It's cleaning giant rats out of the town's inn's cellar. Or clearing out a nest of kobolds that have taken up in the nearby mine.

Mid-level gaming is where you get to face shadowy forces of elemental evil as journeymen adventures just starting to come into their own.

[Anonymous No.5886173]

>>5883982
This.

[Anonymous No.5886296]

>>5883959
maybe low level DnD can be cool in PnP but, that that is deeply romanticizing BG1. You can find magic weapons in about 5 seconds, and unless you are playing with SCS it really isn't that hard to take down basic enemies once you've played the game for about 20 minutes and know to attack with fighters and keep mages in back.

Will never understand BG1tards

[Anonymous No.5886305]

>>5886296
I wouldn't be so harsh with "BG1tards", but in general the wealth-per-level guidelines in most cRPGs are so inflated that I don't get how BG in any way works as a low-level game. You get a best-in-slot longsword like 3 hours into the game from a fairly easy encounter and magic weaponry starts popping up fairly early.

[Anonymous No.5886424]

>>5886305
People don't want to play CRPG where you don't get weapon upgrades. Hell Baldur's Gate was somewhat unusual for AD&D RPGs at the time in that you actually started at level 1 with only one companion (Imoen). Any others I can think of started you with 4 to 6 characters at levels 3-5.
And a single +2 Longsword isn't a huge deal for a 6-person party anyway. If your party can average 7.5 damage per round against a 5HD/6AC brown bear with normal weapons, a +2 longsword might bump that up to 8.5-9 damage per round. Either way, the bear should die in about 3 rounds, depending on luck or special circumstances.

[Anonymous No.5886428]

>>5883818
>play the original, it's much better
I like to see more than 600 pixels in width at a time.

[Anonymous No.5886430]

>>5883982
>I preffer BG1 because it has better narrative
ehhh, I dunno if I agree with that. The hexcrawly "explore random areas in the hope that you find something interesting" can work well, see for instance the Exile series. But I don't think it meshes well with the actual plot that the game is driving for, the Bhaal parentage and Sarevok's machinations at least attempt to give the impression that this is a time sensitive game, at least until you spend a week wandering around in the woods looking for something to happen.

BG2 was much more cohesive.

[Anonymous No.5886437]

>>5886430
The interesting thing about BG1 is how it did manage to pull off a somewhat time-sensitive story without pushing a hard linear narrative. It's a tough balancing act to accomplish and BG1 did it very well by making it kind of a mystery to uncover. Of course, any real-time element is missing because so many events are triggered based on actions of the player rather than on their own, but it's as close to feeling like it "could" have been happening without the player as you can really expect from a game like that.

[Anonymous No.5886448]

>>5886437
>It's a tough balancing act to accomplish and BG1 did it very well by making it kind of a mystery to uncover.
Again, I disagree. I don't think they balanced it very well at all, they did a very poor veiling of the fact that there was in fact no time pressure whatsoever and that any threat was basically meaningless.

>. Of course, any real-time element is missing because so many events are triggered based on actions of the player rather than on their own, but it's as close to feeling like it "could" have been happening without the player as you can really expect from a game like that.
Why not have events trigger based on the in-game timer? The game in fact had an in-game timer, and it would have been nice for it to mean anything. And it's hardly like such a thing would be impossible from a technical standpoint, far older games like Exile 3, Ultima Underworld 2, and Daggerfall could and in fact did make things tied to their in game timers.

[Anonymous No.5886476]

>>5886448
>Why not have events trigger based on the in-game timer
Because this is a cheap and frustrating thing to do to a player who has no idea these rules exist. The fact that developers were smart enough NOT to do this is partly why Baldur's Gate was so successful. The only 90s PC RPGs as successful as Baldur's Gate were Diablo and Everquest.

[Anonymous No.5886483]

>>5886476
>Because this is a cheap and frustrating thing to do to a player who has no idea these rules exist
You could, you know, tell them the rules exist. Shocking concept, I realize.

[Anonymous No.5886490]

>>5886448
Because playing the game and suddenly discovering that some vague arbitrary timer just run out and - whoop-dee-doo, your game is over! - isn't really fun I guess. Shit like mutant invasions in Fallout 1 was dropped for a reason.
If time limit is soft but still has consequences or it triggers on a certain event and player are made aware of it or even can influence, that's another deal.

[Anonymous No.5886584]

>>5886483
You're saying that in order to make uncovering the mystery feel more realistic the player should be given the solution to the mystery right away?

[Anonymous No.5886598]

If anything, this "sense of urgency that isn't actually urgent" issue is much more pronounced In Baldur's Gate 2 where you immediately start with a quest to rescue Imoen that seems very urgent. Yet you can dick around roughly forever recruiting party members and doing side quests and ultimately the game's cop-out excuse for this is that Irenicus was luring you the whole time anyway.

BG1 presents a complex conspiracy that would have had to take months to develop. The events of the story could have all happened over any flexible and lengthy period of time, and the fact that it's keyed to player actions rather than on an arbitrary time just makes for better videogame gameplay content.

[Anonymous No.5886652]

>>5886598
>Yet you can dick around roughly forever recruiting party members and doing side quests
honestly, it takes roughly 30 in game days to clear all the content in chapters 2-3 if you're not resting every 10 seconds
not exactly forever consdering it can take around 60-70 days or more to get to Baldur's Gate city in the first
it's actually pretty well timed imo

[Anonymous No.5886663]

>>5886598
I greatly prefer BG2 in pretty much every way, but I agree with this. The way BG1's plot is structured by the villain hunting YOU, rather than the other way around, cleverly solves the ludo-narrative dissonance present in most video games (including BG2 of course) where you should be focused on the main plot but you can dick around doing sidequests forever.

BG1's plot where you are constantly being hunted and only learn the plot piece by piece solves this quite uniquely and cleverly, despite being pretty underwritten in terms of character and background.

[Anonymous No.5886706]

Baldurs Gate 2 is the superior game, but I really love the first. Unlike the second game, which mostly takes place in one location, it gives you a huge map and lets you free on it. There's a sense of high adventure, and the game really nails the feeling of a great D&D campaign, with all the intrigue and swashbuckling that entails. The companions are super corny, but honestly that reminded me so much of just sitting around the table with my friends, making silly voices trying to bring life to the character sheets.

If I could sum it up, that's the difference. BG1 feels like a real attempt to bring the feel of playing a campaign into game format. BG2 feels much more like a "proper" video game RPG. Its much more streamlined, and there's always a "proper" way to do things which is told to you by the game. BG1 is a lot more freeform, and if you say... run into a field of basilisks turning people to stone, the game just expects you to figure out what to do for yourself; BG2 would almost always explicitly tell you and push you towards a way of dealing with it.

Both awesome games, but both different. I think the BG1fags are completely justified if they prefer it, even though that is not my personal opinion.

[Anonymous No.5886726]

>>5886652
Even if you are measuring by game days and clear chapter 2-3 in 30 days, you wind up with the opposite problem.
"Hey man what did you do last month?"
"Oh nothing much just busted up a slaving ring in the slums, cleared out a Beholder cult in the sewers that was competing with an ancient god for possession of a world-rending artifact, liberated De'Arnise keep and became its new Lord, became the heroes of Trademeet (you can go see my statue in the town square!), and dropped by the Abyss to pick up some Tanar'ri Hearts after getting stuck in a Planar Sphere. I'm probably forgetting some minor things like that time I got stuck in an illusion in that circus tent in the promenade and raided the tombs for the book of Kaza."

[Anonymous No.5886732]

>>5886726
To be fair, you really do advance this fast in D&D without some DM fiat to keep that in check. AD&D 2e was mostly slower early on because it could take quite a few days to recuperate from HP loss.

[Anonymous No.5886741]

>>5886726
well excuuuuuse me princess, takes time to raise that money to pay that trustworthy pirate that took me here
though I play with the scs component raising the price asked by Gaelan Bayle/Bodhi to 80,000 (60,000 after discount)
My autism is then satisfied because you can't just raise that sum right out of de'arnise keep
But regardless, who would try busting someone out of a fortress for the magically deviants without spending some time carefully preparing and training a determined team and equipping them properly
takes time, action and money

[Anonymous No.5886747]

>>5886732
yeah, I guess the main point though is that measuring by in-game days might not be the most reasonable measure of narrative coherency. Technically, sure, you have to raise money and resolve the guild war before trying to rescue Imoen (or pursue Irenicus for vengeance) and can accomplish that in a month. That's the excuse. But other than those dialog options that pop up every time you accept a new party member, it sure as hell doesn't feel like you're pursuing your main objective.
In BG1 this isn't an issue because your main objective is much more ambiguous and your main focus is survival.

[Anonymous No.5886759]

>>5886747
> it sure as hell doesn't feel like you're pursuing your main objective.
You need money, equipment and bodies to bust someone out of an impregnable fortress on a remote island, so of course you're taking as many odd jobs as you can.
Works for me I guess, don't need to be reminded every 5 seconds that AT THIS VERY MOMENT, BRITANNIA BURNS.

[Anonymous No.5886761]

>>5886741
this response basically addresses your complaints also: >>5886747
>takes time to raise the money
This is a transparent excuse. Sure it works, technically, but it's not elegant by any means.
>who would try busting someone out of a fortress for the magically deviants without spending some time carefully preparing and training a determined team and equipping them properly
Most of your time in chapters 2 and 3 is not actually spent doing that. You're just going on a series of completely unrelated adventures. Chapter 3 at least has the guild war. But other than that, you learn next to nothing about Spellhold or Irenicus. The eventual "plan" you come up with is one of two asspulls during Chapter 4.

[Anonymous No.5886764]

>>5883861
>"This game is shit"
>someone offers an opinion to the contrary
>"REEE stop gatekeeping"
It's almost like you made this thread just to vent because you're asshurt about the fanbase.

[Anonymous No.5886772]

>>5886761
>You're just going on a series of completely unrelated adventures.
So what, you do mercenary jobs while raising a team for one big operation. Nothing wrong with that, noting "inelegant" about that.
Makes the world feel alive rather than a setpiece revolving around you and your quest, even though it ultimately is.
There's no information to get on what's basically the most secretive location this side of the sword coast, I don't see anything wrong with that narrative honestly. Your only course of action is to get there and do your best with your now trusted well-equipped lads,

[Anonymous No.5886783]

>>5883798
Stop trying to force yourself to play old games that you have nostalgia for.
Go find old games you have never played before and play those instead of making threads that will go fucking no where.
Try Cadash for the Sega Genesis.

[Anonymous No.5886790]

>>5886759
Yeah again this is a transparent excuse. The complaint about BG1 is that time doesn't move, right? Well the point here is that you can take as long as you fucking want to do anything in BG2, which includes long involved quests, with no consequences whatsoever to the main quest. The only risk you take is the potential of a party member quitting on you if you don't do their personal quest fast enough (which luckily is very generous because this is an annoying mechanic).
No matter how long it takes to get to Spellhold, the events will play out exactly the same way. Irenicus will never take further proactive action to apprehend you. There's no way to get there fast enough to save Imoen from having her soul ripped out.
Unlike the warmongering machinations of Sarevok in BG1 where killing you is just one of his many goals, Irenicus has some very clear objectives that directly involve you.
> you're taking as many odd jobs as you can
The BG2 quests really aren't "odd jobs" though they are solid mid-level adventures.
>Works for me I guess, don't need to be reminded every 5 seconds that AT THIS VERY MOMENT, BRITANNIA BURNS.
Well in this case being reminded every 5 minutes would only make things worse.
Realize I'm not saying this "ruins" BG2 or anything remotely like that. Nor am I even saying that BG1 is, overall, the better narrative. Generally I don't care that much about "ludo-narrative dissonance" except when it really makes me feel confused about what I'm really supposed to be doing in game. But regardless, BG2's contrivances are more heavy-handed than BG1's, despite having just as much if not more narrative dissonance.

[Anonymous No.5886795]

>>5886772
>So what, you do mercenary jobs while raising a team for one big operation. Nothing wrong with that, noting "inelegant" about that.
At this point we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[Anonymous No.5888235]

>>5883818
The original version was filled with bugs and issues. Quit your undeserved elitism.

[Anonymous No.5888292]

>>5883818
Hi, I am 25, playing the Enhanced Edition, having fun.

Why should I swith to vanilla?

I tried but the inventory and menus looks very ugly.

[Anonymous No.5888315]

>>5888292
If you're that young you shouldn't bother. You missed the cutoff for good taste.

[Anonymous No.5888435]

>>5888235
Absolute bullshit, beamdog shill.

[Anonymous No.5888465]

>>5888292
You shouldn't, because the EE finally works fine after 7 fucking years. Except if you really want to try the original BG1 ruleset since BG1EE uses the BG2 ruleset.
Though you should have installed the mod removing the EE NPCs because they and their bullshit quests are completely out-of-place with the original tone and lore of the game.
But you probably have your eyes smeared in shit because the vanilla EE UI looks like trash (lefreut's UI is pretty great though), and the classic BG2 UI is one of the best looking interface ever designed.
>>5888315
I'm his age, having shite taste and being retarded has not much to do with age, gramps. stop larping as an old man or don't forget your meds again.

[Anonymous No.5888760]

>>5883805
I don't get it either but I've seen it enough times to accept that the game is made for an audience that doesn't include me.

[Anonymous No.5890658]

>>5883805
i prefer certain aspects in bg1. i prefer having way more maps in the wilderness versus bouncing around a big city most of the time.

bg2 is more polished. no arguments there. but i don't knock anyone who prefers 1...and anyhow, they're both 1 game to me. you can't play 1 without the other.

now here is an unpopular opinion. i skip throne of bhaal. i've beaten it. it's a slog. exploration is weakest. story ends fine at end of 2 anyways.

[Anonymous No.5890728]

>>5890658
>now here is an unpopular opinion. i skip throne of bhaal.
this is one of the most popular opinions of all time and virtually the main reason everyone ever recommends Ascension as the must-install after the first playthrough, especially in 2019 there's no excuse because you can skip the combat enhancements if you're a storyfag

[Anonymous No.5890770]

>>5890728
damn dude. i never knew this. people always call throne of bhaal the finale in the "trilogy."

i mean, for diehards it's worth playing at least once. but for me, never again.

[Anonymous No.5890774]

>>5890770
of course they always call it a finale in the trilogy because without ToB you don't get any closure on the Bhaalspawn saga whereas, by comparison, stuff from Tales from the Sword Coast is never mentioned.

doesn't mean people like ToB in particular.
Ascension is good because it rewrites it and adds a lot more flavor to it. Also it's worth playing for the high-level high-powered battles.

[Anonymous No.5890820]

>>5886783
why would you recommend the worst version of cadash you stupid fuck