Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

The Weekly/Yearly LOL Baldur's Gate sucks thread!

deamento

Scholar
Joined
Mar 28, 2013
Messages
388
Location
belgium
I recently tried to play Baldur's Gate, having heard how great the game is, and I came back incredibly disappointed. 10 minutes after leaving the friendly arms inn I quit the game, A week later I tried again and quit after 3 minutes. The combat is incredibly boring to me (I've always disliked RTwP, but I thought that IWD was pretty good, so it can be done right), the writing was pretty bad and the characters i met (which are, imoen, jaheira, khalid, montaron and xzar) were either boring or annoying.
So i wonder, does this game get any better later on or is it just over hyped shit?

And please don't post stuff like: BG2 is better.
Atleast explain why BG 2 is better
 
Last edited:

Avellion

Erudite
Joined
Jan 9, 2014
Messages
756
Location
This forum
It isnt particulary great, but you will fight more interesting foes than wildlife and kobolds if you continue.

Regardless, Baldur's Gate didnt truly hit its stride until the sequel.
 

deamento

Scholar
Joined
Mar 28, 2013
Messages
388
Location
belgium
I can just read the 2nd edition monster manuals if i want to see interesting creatures.
But is there any reason to play baldur's gate 1 or can i just skip to BG 2? It doesn't really matter for me, I've got all of the IE games anyway.
 

Avellion

Erudite
Joined
Jan 9, 2014
Messages
756
Location
This forum
By more interesting I meant interesting to fight ;)

But honestly, looking at your situation, it might be best just to skip immediately to BG2. The game does a great job making sure you know what is going on anyway.
 

deamento

Scholar
Joined
Mar 28, 2013
Messages
388
Location
belgium
By more interesting I meant interesting to fight ;)

But honestly, looking at your situation, it might be best just to skip immediately to BG2. The game does a great job making sure you know what is going on anyway.
Fighting interesting enemies isn't really enjoyable for me if the combat is RTwP, I can't really say why but really hate that system
Anyway, what exactly is improved in the sequel?
 

Sensuki

Arcane
Joined
Oct 26, 2012
Messages
9,799
Location
New North Korea
Codex 2014 Serpent in the Staglands Shadorwun: Hong Kong A Beautifully Desolate Campaign
The content density in Baldur's Gate 1 is really thin. Most wilderness areas have about one minor quest each, a bunch of handplaced encounters and some random respawns. The best quest in the game is probably The Bandit Camp, because there's a few different ways to find it, and a few different ways to get through it.

Durlag's Tower is a good dungeon though, among the best in the IE games.

The game itself is a pretty good representation of low-level AD&D though.
 

laclongquan

Arcane
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
1,870,144
Location
Searching for my kidnapped sister
BG1's expansion is alright. I finished it twice.

Of course, I never finished BG1 even once. The one time I grit my teeth and fight to Temple, ie last area, I just abandon it. I couldnt take it anymore.

BG1 is one major reason why you shouldnt trust hype, even Codex hype.

The other major reason is Fallout 1. At least I finished that game once.

BG2 is great. I finished it twice that I remember, MC and expansion.
 

imweasel

Guest
Both are great games, but BG2 is better. I'd still recommend playing BG1 for the story.

The game does improve as you advance, but if you are not having any fun, then it simply isn't for you. If you don't like BG, then I doubt you will like BG2 either.
 

laclongquan

Arcane
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
1,870,144
Location
Searching for my kidnapped sister
Dead wrong!

BG2 is just a different beast compare to BG1. There is no guarantee that fan of this game can like that game.

Ditto with fallout series. no guarantee that fan of F1 like F2 and vice versa. I played F2 first and it took my breath away. After that I tried F1 and I really loved to be able to smash the screen: the rough details that was smoothed and sanded in 2 just stood out in 1
 

Shadenuat

Arcane
Joined
Dec 9, 2011
Messages
11,955
Location
Russia
It gets more interesting if you follow main plot. Starting with parties you meet after mines, I think battles like entrance to mines, Davaeorn, bandit camp, top of Iron Throne, fights against doppelgangers at the castle, fight with Sarevok and Durlag's tower are on a level of Icewind Dale. At least Durlag's Tower certanly is.
But, Icewind Dale is a lot better representing early D&D experience, has better setting, better pacing, more spells, more fleshed out classes, more interesting dungeons and is, overall, a superior dungeon crawling experience.

If you're really suffering, then try installing Sword Coast Stratagems mod with purist options. You might also try installing NPC Project just for the lulz.

As for BG2, it is better because it is better. In everything. First of all, you carry your character from BG1, so you start at respectable levels with respectable amount of health, spells and abilities. That means you meet enemies that are more dangerous and have better spells, abilities and resistances compositions. You will also find real dungeons with difficult enemies and unique backstories, companions that actually have something to do in the world and have unique quests for them, a fairly charismatic villain and a lot of quests. If BG1 has it's content stretched thin, BG2 is entire opposite of it. It is oversaturated with quests to the point that random people on the streets will rush you to give you quests, your companions will have a word to say about it and are tied to quests and sometimes, factions, and so on.
 
Last edited:

SCO

Arcane
In My Safe Space
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
16,320
Shadorwun: Hong Kong
topic is 2 edgy 4 me

(especially if the troll person loves icewind dale 2)
 

Avellion

Erudite
Joined
Jan 9, 2014
Messages
756
Location
This forum
By more interesting I meant interesting to fight ;)

But honestly, looking at your situation, it might be best just to skip immediately to BG2. The game does a great job making sure you know what is going on anyway.
Fighting interesting enemies isn't really enjoyable for me if the combat is RTwP, I can't really say why but really hate that system
Anyway, what exactly is improved in the sequel?
Higher density with less empty space and far superior encounter design. Also, strangely enough, the higher level gameplay in BG2 actually resulted in a better game (normally I prefer low level D&D). Thanks to mages and clerics having access to a lot more magic.

Mage duels are common in BG2.
 

octavius

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
19,182
Location
Bjørgvin
I recently tried to play Baldur's Gate, having heard how great the game is, and I came back incredibly disappointed. 10 minutes after leaving the friendly arms inn I quit the game, A week later I tried again and quit after 3 minutes. The combat is incredibly boring to me (I've always disliked RTwP, but I thought that IWD was pretty good, so it can be done right), the writing was pretty bad and the characters i met (which are, imoen, jaheira, khalid, montaron and xzar) were either boring or annoying.
So i wonder, does this game get any better later on or is it just over hyped shit?

And please don't post stuff like: BG2 is better.
Atleast explain why BG 2 is better

no, it's shit, lol. it will never get better, lol
 

Konjad

Patron
Joined
Nov 3, 2007
Messages
3,930
Location
Strap Yourselves In Codex Year of the Donut Codex+ Now Streaming! Torment: Tides of Numenera Wasteland 2 Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag.
If you don't like it, give up already. It's gonna be about the same for the rest of the game.

And BG2 is much worse, being edgy romance epic awesome journey as all modern Bioware games are. Don't listen to those who say BG2 is better, it's only better if you prefer Dragon Ages to Fallouts.
 

Melan

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Oct 20, 2012
Messages
6,602
Location
Civitas Quinque Ecclesiae, Hungary
PC RPG Website of the Year, 2015 Codex 2016 - The Age of Grimoire Make the Codex Great Again! Grab the Codex by the pussy Insert Title Here RPG Wokedex Strap Yourselves In Codex Year of the Donut Codex+ Now Streaming! I helped put crap in Monomyth
The content density in Baldur's Gate 1 is really thin. Most wilderness areas have about one minor quest each, a bunch of handplaced encounters and some random respawns. The best quest in the game is probably The Bandit Camp, because there's a few different ways to find it, and a few different ways to get through it.
Yeah. There is little reward to the exploration, and most encounters/quests are incredibly generic. The gameplay is largely repetitive, so if OP didn't like the starting areas, it's mostly the same, with slightly more difficult combat encounters. The story doesn't go anywhere interesting either. IWD had somewhat better settings and combat, and I hear BG2 had a more involved and rewarding plotline (never played it). BG1 doesn't do anything really impressive. It is a big ho-hum RPG with high production values.

At least killing Drizzt do'Urden and taking his stuff was funny.
 

kmonster

Augur
Joined
May 24, 2010
Messages
316
No, the game won't get better after the beginning.


If you don't like the NPCs the game throws at you just kick them out and play solo.
Or you could start a multiplayer game, create your party and play with it.
You could even copy your save game from the multiplayer to the single player folder to play without the multiplayer disadvantages.
I wouldn't create more than 4-5 characters however so you can take a look at the npcs the game throws at you and kick them out afterwards. Small parties level faster and are easier to handle.
 

No Great Name

Arcane
Joined
Jan 24, 2014
Messages
572
Location
US
Interesting how you label most of your party members as boring or annoying and yet from I remember playing the game, you shouldn't have even had most of them for more than 15 minutes and heard more than a few lines of dialogue. What were expecting out of them?
 

Sensuki

Arcane
Joined
Oct 26, 2012
Messages
9,799
Location
New North Korea
Codex 2014 Serpent in the Staglands Shadorwun: Hong Kong A Beautifully Desolate Campaign
Yeah Icewind Dale beats BG1 in most areas (encounter design, quest design). There's some weird shit with the IWD version of the IE engine where the dialogue has a lag to it (whereas in the BGs you can skip through at lightning speed).
The content density in Baldur's Gate 1 is really thin. Most wilderness areas have about one minor quest each, a bunch of handplaced encounters and some random respawns. The best quest in the game is probably The Bandit Camp, because there's a few different ways to find it, and a few different ways to get through it.
Yeah. There is little reward to the exploration, and most encounters/quests are incredibly generic. The gameplay is largely repetitive, so if OP didn't like the starting areas, it's mostly the same, with slightly more difficult combat encounters. The story doesn't go anywhere interesting either. IWD had somewhat better settings and combat, and I hear BG2 had a more involved and rewarding plotline (never played it). BG1 doesn't do anything really impressive. It is a big ho-hum RPG with high production values.

At least killing Drizzt do'Urden and taking his stuff was funny.

BG2 is worth a play because the combat/encounters are actually really good. There's a lot of GREAT setpiece fights and stuff.

I still like BG1, but having just recently replayed it I definitely didn't enjoy the content as much as I did when I was younger.
 

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,024
BG1 was a fairly generic game, its main quality was the supah sexy graphics. RPGs used to be but-fucking-ugly and BG went and made them beautiful. In an industry obsessed with looks that was a big fucking deal. They credit BG with reviving the RPG genre and making it popular again, which is true. It wasn't Fallout. The credit goes to Diablo and BG. So, next time you're playing Bethesda's or Bioware's latest offering, remember that it all started with BG.

The expansion (well, the Durlag's tower) was pretty good though. BG2 went more of the same route and is one of the most epic RPGs out there, content-wise. It had it all including bitching mage duels and decent difficulty, but in the end it was a glorified action-adventure game with adjustable stats.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom