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

[Stefan Vujovic]

Good i wish i didn't hate Irenicus Dungeon... I have at least 5-6 perfect different class saves with maximum rolls and i just can't force myself to replay that boring shit, although most ppl keep it in high regard. I spent more time rolling and creating perfect multiclasses then playing BG2...

On the topic both of the games are more or less the same, with BG2 having better high lvl encounter design (it's logical cause BG1 is low lvl entry D&D), and both games have bland main story and a few interesting sidequests...

 

[Bruma Hobo]

Baldur's Gate is incredibly tedious until chapter 5 (Baldur's Gate) and 6 (Return to Candlekeep), and from a game with only seven chapters that's unforgettable. Before that, you will only fight kobolds and wolves in RTwP, if that's your thing then go ahead.

 

[Malpercio]

Good i wish i didn't hate Irenicus Dungeon... I have at least 5-6 perfect different class saves with maximum rolls and i just can't force myself to replay that boring shit, although most ppl keep it in high regard. I spent more time rolling and creating perfect multiclasses then playing BG2...

On the topic both of the games are more or less the same, with BG2 having better high lvl encounter design (it's logical cause BG1 is low lvl entry D&D), and both games have bland main story and a few interesting sidequests...

http://www.pocketplane.net/mambo/index.php?option=content&task=blogcategory&id=98&Itemid=79

Uh?

I played BG2 a bazillion of times now, and I don't think I ever went through Irenicunt's dungeon other than the first 2 times.

 

[octavius]

To , BG1 is one of those games that really benefit from the right mods, even for a first playthrough.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

Shit.

 

[MrMarbles]

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.

This. If you need something to explode every ten meters to keep you engaged, or you're too jacked up to simply explore and enjoy the score, artwork and Forgotten Realms setting, then I'm guessing BG2 won't really float your boat either.

 

[thesheeep]

BG series biggest problem is the godawful ruleset behind it (plus the lackluster way it is implemented).
Low level DnD is just either terribly boring or utterly impossible. 3HP characters with one spell to cast, same HP as a cat or dog... or even less. Seriously, wtf.
And they kept that up to DnD 3.5, 4th edition fixed at least that.

So... if you want to avoid early level ridiculousness, play BG2. It starts at around level 9 (I think) which is fine.

But I have to say, by now I have played so many RPG systems (PnP or not) that I cannot really get into BG anymore.
I just really loathe AD&D 2nd edition, it is a horrible, illogical mess. I didn't care when I first played the game, as I didn't know shit about other systems.
But by now I do, and I cannot face it any more.
Oh, how I long for a 1-to-1 remake of BG with the 3.5 ruleset (plus more starting HP like in NWN). Or the 4th edition. Hey, don't give me that look, 4th sucks for PnP, as it destroys all roleplay and character feeling, but reads and plays like it was designed for a PC RPG with nothing but combat.

 

[Ebonsword]

BG series biggest problem is the godawful ruleset behind it (plus the lackluster way it is implemented).
Low level DnD is just either terribly boring or utterly impossible. 3HP characters with one spell to cast, same HP as a cat or dog... or even less. Seriously, wtf.
And they kept that up to DnD 3.5, 4th edition fixed at least that.

Get out.

 

[deamento]

I just really loathe AD&D 2nd edition, it is a horrible, illogical mess. I didn't care when I first played the game, as I didn't know shit about other systems.
But by now I do, and I cannot face it any more.
Oh, how I long for a 1-to-1 remake of BG with the 3.5 ruleset (plus more starting HP like in NWN). Or the 4th edition. Hey, don't give me that look, 4th sucks for PnP, as it destroys all roleplay and character feeling, but reads and plays like it was designed for a PC RPG with nothing but combat.

 

[Western]

The Codex recommends the enhanced edition of BG.

 

[Sordid MCA/Prosper Hybryd]

Shit. Play Dark Sun instead.
Or ToEE.
Or KotC.

 

[Stefan Vujovic]

Good i wish i didn't hate Irenicus Dungeon... I have at least 5-6 perfect different class saves with maximum rolls and i just can't force myself to replay that boring shit, although most ppl keep it in high regard. I spent more time rolling and creating perfect multiclasses then playing BG2...

On the topic both of the games are more or less the same, with BG2 having better high lvl encounter design (it's logical cause BG1 is low lvl entry D&D), and both games have bland main story and a few interesting sidequests...

http://www.pocketplane.net/mambo/index.php?option=content&task=blogcategory&id=98&Itemid=79

Uh?

I played BG2 a bazillion of times now, and I don't think I ever went through Irenicunt's dungeon other than the first 2 times.

Ty for the link, gotta try it, i am mostly purist when it comes to mods so no wonder i missed this one...

 

[meanwhileInPoland]

bg1 low level party vs party fights were fucking great when one fucking spell like hold person or web could mean death or life. glorious times i remember that finding shit like 20 ice arrows for your ranger was something awesome not some bullshit halabard +6 of destruction everything that moves

Spoiler

i still prefer bg2 over bg1. muhh epic adventure from athkatla to underdark to fucking Watchers Keep they dont make dungeons like that anymore

 

[Excidium]

BG1 is p. banal, I finished it once just to play BG2 knowing the backstory. And it was using BG TuTu, plain BG1 is even worse to play because you move a lot slower and the pathfinding is like a bad joke

 

[octavius]

It looks like the monthly Baldur's Gate thread, recycling the same arguments ad nauseatum, has become a cherished tradition by now.

 

[DalekFlay]

I would never call BG shit, but it's certainly kind of boring.

 

[Abelian]

It looks like the monthly Baldur's Gate thread, recycling the same arguments ad nauseatum, has become a cherished tradition by now.

You're completely right. Jaesun, can you merge this thread into this one?

Spoiler

 

[Lyric Suite]

BG picks up as an RPG the moment you enter Baldur's Gate (and i'd argue that Dulrag's Tower is one of the best dungeons in any IE game). Prior to that it is a good hiking simulator, with beautiful, relaxing visuals and a sense of freedom the second game doesn't have. The underlying idea of course was to make something like a Fellowship of the Ring type of deal. You start out as a lowly nobody who bands together with a couple of friends and sets out in a big new world. You pick up pieces of the plot as you go along but for the most part you have no idea of what you are doing and where your road is going to take you. This is why at the start the game feels so empty, because they are trying to simulate open endedness and freedom.

Personally, what i like best about the game is the sense of restraint compared to later D&D games. Leveling is slow, and you don't get showered by tons of uber powerful equipment. When you find something good (like a simple +2 sword), it stays with you for a long time, which is a nice feel. What i really disliked about the game is that its really full of Bioware derp (but that goes for BG2 as well). The writing in particular isn't that good, with lots of sordid attempts at humor (including a couple of shitty pop culture references) and there's basically almost nothing in the way of dialog choices and stuff like that. The plot isn't bad and the conspiracy is actually relatively interesting once you begin to unravel it, but that happens very late into the game.

My recommendation is to install a couple of mods to spike up the combat (like stratagems), and enjoy the game for what it is.

 

[jdinatale]

Have you ever considered that you are perhaps a homosexual?

 

[Decado]

BGII is better in practically all aspects.

1) Better writing. This was back before BW completely jumped the fucking shark.
2) Better companions. Viconia is cool because she is damaged and is basically just a psychotic bitch. No matter what you do, she hates your guts. Minsc is good comic relief. Mazzy is pretty interesting, for a halfling. Korgan is something you don't get to see very often in 2nd Edition: a rotten evil dwarf. I liked Anomen because he was a pompous fucking jerk. Not all of the companions are great. Aerie is just awful. Jaeheria is a demanding, judgemental pain in the ass. And Valygar has all the personality of a ruined handjob. But still, a lot better than BG1.
3) Kits!
4) A way better villain. Irenicus is the fucking boss, and David Warner should go down in history as one of the best video game voice actors for that role alone.
5) BGII is probably the most complete iteration of 2nd Edition AD&D rules you will ever see in a video game.
6) Some sincerely hard fights. Firkraag, Kangaxx, the Twisted Rune, the Mind Flayer area in the Sewers. And if you play ToB, the Demogorgon can be a real bitch if you don't know what you're doing.
7) Taking your characters from lowly meat bags to demi-gods is a pretty cool experience.
8) Pretty awesome loot, in the best traditions of overpowered 2nd Edition shit.
9) A really great art style, which always struck me as more refined than BG1. And here I might part ways with the Codex, because I think the art in BGII is possibly better than in IWD/IWDII

 

[Decado]

Good i wish i didn't hate Irenicus Dungeon... I have at least 5-6 perfect different class saves with maximum rolls and i just can't force myself to replay that boring shit, although most ppl keep it in high regard. I spent more time rolling and creating perfect multiclasses then playing BG2...

http://www.pocketplane.net/mambo/index.php?option=content&task=blogcategory&id=98&Itemid=79

 

[JarlFrank]

BG1 is like someone's first D&D campaign, boring and uninspired and generic. BG2 is like someone's second campaign, after gaining some DMing experience, and also trying to stuff all the cool shit found in the D&D books into the campaign rather than keeping to the generic parts (Underdark! Dragons! Underwater cities! Planar travel! Spelljammer references!). It's also got better encounters and design, which makes it a more fun and more interesting game.

 

[thesheeep]

... AD&D sucks ... BG would be better with 3.5 or 4.0...

What?
Did I just insult your childhood memories?
I love how this reaction comes up every time I point out the obvious.
And never a single argument against it. As there is none.
DnD in general is not that good. The only reason for its success is that it was pretty much the first plus less ridiculously complex than Rolemaster, for example, and also because by now it is so well known that other, better systems have a hard time just because of that.
DnD pre 3.5 is (I'm going with only few examples, but there are many more)

• horribly unbalanced (characters with less HP than a dog; classes becoming obsolete in late-game as some classes become overpowered, and the other way around in early game (and all of that is supposed to be "realistic".. lawl!)
• illogical (the way multiclassing works is just 100% arbitrary, there is no profound reason not to combine any class with any other - let the GM decide if a monk / druid makes sense, not the system ffs!; the same for the race/class combinations; wizards cannot hold a sword, because, uhm... allergy, I guess!)
  
• ridiculously unintuitive (different XP requirement per class; high number are generally a good thing (that is called intuition), but suddenly some values need to be negative to be good (and with armor no less, higher armor = lower number.. ookaaayy....; try putting 10 (PnP experienced) people in a room with the rules, give them 2 hours, then count the people that are able to explain THAC0. It will be less than 4)
• I do not know a single PnP player that did not play AD&D with house rules. That is no coincidence. It needs those to make any sense and be playable.
  At the same time, I never needed house rules for Shadowrun, Mutants & Masterminds or The Dark Eye. I wonder why.
• Read this, it is a lot of fun.

Now the implementation of AD&D 2nd in the BG series has all the negative stuff, plus a lack of some good combat rules like grabbing, making fighter and rogue types even less interesting than they normalle are rule-wise.

How are you going to argue against all that?
Really, I'm curious. I can see no redeeming quality in this crap. And I hate that it ruins my BG for me.

I'm not talking about the setting, mind you. That is fine, and brought some cool stuff like Planescape.
But... a setting has almost nothing to do with a ruleset.
A ruleset is defined by its rules, that is what you need the book for.
A setting can be made up by any good game master, it is not what matters about a PnP system. Sure, it gives hints and guidelines, but that's about it.

 

[deamento]

Alright then,

... AD&D sucks ... BG would be better with 3.5 or 4.0...

What?
Did I just insult your childhood memories?
I love how this reaction comes up every time I point out the obvious.
And never a single argument against it. As there is none.
DnD in general is not that good. The only reason for its success is that it was pretty much the first plus less ridiculously complex than Rolemaster, for example, and also because by now it is so well known that other, better systems have a hard time just because of that.
DnD pre 3.5 is (I'm going with only few examples, but there are many more)

• horribly unbalanced (characters with less HP than a dog; classes becoming obsolete in late-game as some classes become overpowered, and the other way around in early game (and all of that is supposed to be "realistic".. lawl!)
• illogical (the way multiclassing works is just 100% arbitrary, there is no profound reason not to combine any class with any other - let the GM decide if a monk / druid makes sense, not the system ffs!; the same for the race/class combinations; wizards cannot hold a sword, because, uhm... allergy, I guess!)
  
• ridiculously unintuitive (different XP requirement per class; high number are generally a good thing (that is called intuition), but suddenly some values need to be negative to be good (and with armor no less, higher armor = lower number.. ookaaayy....; try putting 10 (PnP experienced) people in a room with the rules, give them 2 hours, then count the people that are able to explain THAC0. It will be less than 4)
• I do not know a single PnP player that did not play AD&D with house rules. That is no coincidence. It needs those to make any sense and be playable.
  At the same time, I never needed house rules for Shadowrun, Mutants & Masterminds or The Dark Eye. I wonder why.
• Read this, it is a lot of fun.

Now the implementation of AD&D 2nd in the BG series has all the negative stuff, plus a lack of some good combat rules like grabbing, making fighter and rogue types even less interesting than they normalle are rule-wise.

How are you going to argue against all that?
Really, I'm curious. I can see no redeeming quality in this crap. And I hate that it ruins my BG for me.

I'm not talking about the setting, mind you. That is fine, and brought some cool stuff like Planescape.
But... a setting has almost nothing to do with a ruleset.
A ruleset is defined by its rules, that is what you need the book for.
A setting can be made up by any good game master, it is not what matters about a PnP system. Sure, it gives hints and guidelines, but that's about it.

To start of with, I'm 16, so I'm not exactly being nostalgic.
regardless of that, I haven't played a lot of 3.5 so I can't really give a proper opinion on that but I did play a bit of 4th edition and I hated how they revised the spell system, the healing surges made no sense and I think that multiclassing in AD&D works pretty well and shouldn't be changed
I haven't really played enough of either of the editions to counter all of those arguments but I doubt I'll play them again

 

[thesheeep]

Whoa, whoa, I never said that DnD 4 doesn't suck. It does. More than 3.5. Especially for PnP gaming.
But it plays and feels like it was designed for a PC game, so I think it would work very well there.