Was Baldur's Gate considered popamole at release?

[Carlos' Bitch1]

No. I'm 43 years old.

I was rolling up Bishops in Wizardry: PGotMO before you were even a zygote.

Bark elsewhere, sir.

You are a few years older than me. Not enough to make a real difference when it comes to gaming however. I must have been thrown by your lust for the rubbish they call CRPG's today. My apologies.

 

[Phelot]

No. I'm 43 years old.

I was rolling up Bishops in Wizardry: PGotMO before you were even a zygote.

Bark elsewhere, sir.

You are a few years older than me. Not enough to make a real difference when it comes to gaming however. I must have been thrown by your lust for the rubbish they call CRPG's today. My apologies.

And so, in a clever ruse, the famed Blackadder reveals his general age... :D

 

[King Crispy]

No apology needed. In fact I owe you one for the miscalculation of your years.

And I hope you can see my appreciation for immurshun hiking simulators for what they are, not necessarily as replacements for proper RPGs.

 

[Black]

No. I'm 43 years old.

Bullshit, you own a ps3 so you're 16-18. And fat and sweating.

 

[Johannes]

GB might have better combat mechanics (well, it's up to preference), but I don't think BG is in any way dumbed down compared to them - poorly implemented maybe, but not dumbed down.

 

[Lyric Suite]

It feels more "realistic". I never liked the idea that in GB monsters could be insta-killed by one dart if becoming helpless due to Sleep, Stinking Cloud or Hold Person.

How the hell is that less realistic?

[EDIT] Opps, didn't notice there was a page six. Disregard.

 

[octavius]

Bigger and more varied combat screens.

Don't understand this. Please elaborate further.

Combat screens in IE are more varied in size, from small crypts to entire wilderness maps, and have more different stuff in them. Also, the maps can be bridges and very narrow corridors.

More variation in spells. In the IE games all spells are potentially useful; in GB most of the spells are never useful. Ever used Detect Invisibility in GB?

I never needed to use it in IE games either to be honest.

So how do you handle invisible thieves, mages and critters like stalkers?

Basically I find myself using a much wider range of spells in IE than in GB.

You rattled off one spell. What others do you use that you didn't use in GB? Think the opposite way as well; what spells did you use in GB that you didn't need to use in IE.

Well, first off the amount of spells are much larger in the IE games.
As for spells I used in GB that I didn't use in IE the only one I can think of is Stinking Cloud, which was basically the default 2nd level spell in GB.
In the GB games the spells I almost exlusively use are:
Charm Person
Enlarge
Magic Missile
Sleep

Knock
Stinking Cloud
Strength

Dispel Magic
Fireball
Haste
Hold Person
Lightning Bolt
Slow

Charm Monster
Confusion
Ice Storm

Cloud Kill
Cone of Cold
Hold Monster

Death Spell

Delayed Blast Fireball
Power Word Stun

Mass Charm
Otto's Irrisistible Dance

Meteor Swarm
Monster Summoning
Power Word Kill

So of the 57 (if I have counted correctly) magic spells in Pools of Darkness I use less half of them.
Since i don't metagame, and there is no way to scout ahead in GB I very rarely use protective/bufing spells like Mirror Image, Globes and Inivsibiliy, except I use Strength and Enlarge since they have a decent duration.



Of the lower level spells (the higher the level the mor fuzze my memory og them) in BG2 I don't use the ones in with an aterisk in front:

Armor
*Blindness
*Burning Hands
Charm Person
*Chill Touch
Chromatic Orb
Color Spray
Find Familiar
Friends
Grease
Identify
*Infravision
Larloch's Minor Drain
Magic Missile
*Nahal's Reckless Dweomer
Protection from Evil
Protection from Petrification
*Reflected Image
Shield
*Shocking Grasp
Sleep
*Spook

Agannazar's Scorcher
Blur
*Chaos Shield
*Deafness
Detect Invisibility
*Ghoul Touch
Glitterdust
Horror
Invisibility
Knock
*Know Alignment
*Luck
Melf's Acid Arrow
Mirror Image
Power Word, Sleep
*Ray of Enfeeblement
Resist Fear
*Stinking Cloud
Strength
Vocalize
Web

*Clairvoyance
Detect Illusion
Dire Charm
Dispel Magic
Fireball
Flame Arrow
Ghost Armor
Haste
*Hold Person
Hold Undead
Invisibility 10' Radius
*Lightning Bolt
Melf's Minute Meteors
Minor Spell Deflection
Monster Summoning I
*Non-Detection
*Protection from Cold
*Protection from Fire
Protection from Normal Missiles
Remove Magic
Skull Trap
Slow
Spell Thrust
*Vampiric Touch

Confusion
*Contagion
Emotion: Hopelessness
*Enchanted Weapon
*Farsight
Fireshield (Blue)
Fireshield (Red)
Greater Malison
Ice Storm
Improved Invisibility
Minor Globe of Invulnerability
Minor Sequencer
Monster Summoning II
Otiluke's Resillient Sphere
*Polymorph Other
*Polymorph Self
*Remove Curse
Secret Word
Spider Spawn
Spirit Armor
Stoneskin
*Teleport Field
*Wizard Eye

Animate Dead
Breach
Chaos
Cloudkill
Cone of Cold
Conjure Lesser Air Elemental
Conjure Lesser Earth Elemental
Conjure Lesser Fire Elemental
Domination
*Feeblemind
Hold Monster
Lower Resistance
Minor Spell Turning
Monster Summoning III
Oracle
Phantom Blade
*Protection from Acid
*Protection from Electricity
Protection from Normal Weapons
Shadow Door
Spell Immunity
Spell Shield
Sunfire

So to conclude I use a much wider variiety of spells in Ie games, for three reasons:
1. There are more of them.
2. Buffing is much more important in IE.
3. Removing enemy buffs is much more important in IE.

More variation in enemies.
Generic enemies have indivual values for HP and there are far more unique enemies with unique equipment, uinque AI and unique spell lists.

First off, the AI in IE games is attrocious. 'Attack nearest enemy' is basically the way it works. I am not saying GB has the greatest AI in history, but unless you can bring up something specific about the IE games I am forgetting, they don't really have an AI. They have prebuffed enemies if that is what you mean?

No, I mean the combat scripts. I agree the general AI is bad in both GB and IE, but that is actually an advantage in IE's case since there is no opporunity attack rules. IWD2 had more advanced AI (I think. Or else the melee types have more advanced scripts than they need) which means enemy melee types would head straight for your mages ignoring any defensive lines you try to (not easy without a grid!) put up.

An NPC/monster can have up to 4 different scripts IIRC, out of which one is a combat script, which can be extremely detailed. Some of the scripts used by DavidW in Sword Coast Strategems make the NPCs very smart indeed, almost human like. Most of the vanilla scripts are rather basic, though, but the scripts means enemies can have a much wider variety in behaviour then their GB counterparts.

So the result in the Baldur's Gate games is that melee types will have a basic AI where they whack away at nearest enemy, while archers and spell casters can be smarter and target your own spell casters, without the chaotic mess that ensues when melee types ignore your fighters.

As for the unique enemies, that may be true. However, it waters down the experience by having too many. If you face a unique enemy in the GB games, you know they are going to be much better than the norm. When you face them in the IE games, they are basically just another named moron, apart from an oddbod here and there. Again, they have no unique AI's that really do anything bar spamming a special ability, unless you can prove differently.

I just think more unique enemies makes the more game immersive/realistic/detailed.

Backstabbing is handled in a more "realistic" manner, in that the thief needs to hide in shadows or turn invisible first.

Yes, and the AI cannot seem to do it themselves unless they are 'pre-invisible' before the battle starts. GB simplifies this and makes it work for the AI as well.

GB enemies never intentionally backstab you. If they do it is by pure chance and the player not paying attention. In IE games thieves can have scripts to make them quaff invisibility potions. If they meet the other requirements (right armour and weapon) their next attack will be an automatic backstab if their next attack hits. Therefor spells like Detect Invisibility are actually very useful in IE, since being backstabbed is a good way of being chunked.
Not many of the vanilla thieves use such a script though, but I believe Slythe in BG 1 does.

Wider array of special abilities and skills.

Such as?

Weapon skills.
All kinds of other class based skills.
Dragon's wind buffs (or whatever it's called).
Innate racial abilities like infravision.

Another question I have to ask: How many times did you really feel challenged in BG/BG2 et al? I can count the real challenging encounters on my hands, and that is pushing things including the 'insta kill' enemies you face in the later IE games. They are not difficult mind you, they just possess the ability to wipe a character out with a power; without this, they are toast in about 5 minutes of combat.

The same cannot be said for the GB games, where there are many difficult battles that do not rely on death rays and mind sucking abilities of enemies.

Vanilla BG 1 was not very challenging. With ScS it's more challenging than the GB games, I think.
BG 2 I found quite challenging first time, but I guess that was because it took a while to get used to all the protections, counter spells and counter counter-spells.
It also suffered from cheese like Balduran's Shield.
But ScS also fixes BG2

Pool of Radiance has only one really tough battle, the Rope Guild.
Curse of Azure Bonds was quite hard; Hap and the caves beneath being one of the hardest areas in the whole series.
Secret of the Silver Blades was only hard at the end.
Pools of Darkness and Dark Queen of Krynn has many very difficult areas.

But the advantage of the IE games is that you can fine tune the challenge to a greater degree, mostly thanks to ScS (I consider Tactics rotten cheese).


BTW, how do actually you feel about the IE games?
Do you hate them, or do just think they are not quite as good as the GB games.

 

[Volourn]

I noticed a couple of people in here claiming that Baldur's Gate combat was better than Goldbox combat. If those people could step forward and explain, in detail, why they believe this to be the case, I would be very happy to debate this issue."

Do a search, dumbo.


"Vanilla BG 1 was not very challenging. With ScS it's more challenging than the GB games, I think. "

Comapred to the GB games, BG1 was hella challenging.


The only thing people could argue in favor of Gb combat over IE combat is it has tb combat. if you love tb combat you'll love GB combat. That's the only reason why I liked the GB games.

GB games were fun went theyw ere out but they were NOTHINg comapred to the BG even BG1 which is also a game that loses out the further in the past it is.

 

[Mastermind]

No. I'm 43 years old.

I was rolling up Bishops in Wizardry: PGotMO before you were even a zygote.

Bark elsewhere, sir.

Ooh blackadder got schooled.

 

[Carlos' Bitch1]

Combat screens in IE are more varied in size, from small crypts to entire wilderness maps, and have more different stuff in them. Also, the maps can be bridges and very narrow corridors.

Indeed, yet it is virtually aesthetics. Without opportunity attacks and a zone of control, you can usually move you characters around the opposing the fighters and get to the mages easily enough. The sheer power of missile weapons in the IE engine also help nullify this.

So how do you handle invisible thieves, mages and critters like stalkers?

Stalkers I click on the 'circle'. Thieves hardly ever make themselves invisible, and when they do, same as stalkers. Mages are the same. I may have used an area effect spell or something else, but at no time did I need to dispell their invisibility.

The spell lists you wrote for IE: I honestly didn't use three quarters of the spells you used. Let us leave it at that, unless we want this to delve into a 'what did you use x spell on?', with the sheer numbers of spells involved making it a large exercise. I appreciate the effort you went to listing them though.

No, I mean the combat scripts....

From mods? I wasn't adding the mods into the mix, but if they are really as good as you claim, I may try them.

I just think more unique enemies makes the more game immersive/realistic/detailed.

To each their own.

GB enemies never intentionally backstab you. If they do it is by pure chance and the player not paying attention. In IE games thieves can have scripts to make them quaff invisibility potions. If they meet the other requirements (right armour and weapon) their next attack will be an automatic backstab if their next attack hits. Therefor spells like Detect Invisibility are actually very useful in IE, since being backstabbed is a good way of being chunked.
Not many of the vanilla thieves use such a script though, but I believe Slythe in BG 1 does.

Some enemies come equipped with all manner of scrolls and potions in GB games as well. I meant thieves 'using' their thief abilities rather than needing scrolls, potions and so on. In this manner, meant or not, GB gets the job done (now and again) without props.

Weapon skills.
All kinds of other class based skills.
Dragon's wind buffs (or whatever it's called).
Innate racial abilities like infravision.

True enough. Again though, usually these are just advantages over a poor AI, not that most games do not have this anyway.

Vanilla BG 1 was not very challenging. With ScS it's more challenging than the GB games, I think.
BG 2 I found quite challenging first time, but I guess that was because it took a while to get used to all the protections, counter spells and counter counter-spells.
It also suffered from cheese like Balduran's Shield.
But ScS also fixes BG2

ScS? I found a couple of encounters in normal BG and BG2 challenging. The top of the Iron Throne HQ, the initial mercenary battle in the Inn in BG2 (don't ask me why, it was just difficult, perhaps because of my characters levels), a few of the Beholder/Mindflayer lucky hits, and in ToB the Dragon battle and the final battle . Nothing else really caused me much grief apart from those. Icewind Dale games were breezy.

You are forgetting the Savage Frontier GB games that had a number of decent encounters as well, same with Buck Rogers, especially Matrix Cubed.

BTW, how do actually you feel about the IE games?

I don't mind them. They were nice at the time, mainly because there was a lot of rubbish that had been released over the previous years. However, much like Fallout, I found them to be lesser, yet prettier versions of games long gone.

 

[octavius]

"Vanilla BG 1 was not very challenging. With ScS it's more challenging than the GB games, I think. "

Comapred to the GB games, BG1 was hella challenging.

Unless you played it real time, what was so challenging about BG1?

 

[Carlos' Bitch1]

Comapred to the GB games, BG1 was hella challenging.

We must have entirely different skillsets. Perhaps I am a master of the New Shit after all if you found BG1 challenging.

 

[Volourn]

I never it was super duper hard or challenging. i said it was more challenging than the GB games.

Besdies, guys, define what 'challenging' iis to you. Is it, coming close to detah but not dying? is it dying here and there? is it dying a billion times per game?

What is yourd efintion of challenging.

 

[Carlos' Bitch1]

What is yourd efintion of challenging.

Having a party wipe constantly suggests a difficult challenge. Having a near dead party/character also suggests a challenge . Having to actually think about what you are doing in order to win without losses is the lowest interesting challenge. Anything easier is boring unless it is bought through hard work through the first three quarters of the game, upon which, so long as some challenging encounters remain, I enjoy unleashing my endgame powah.

BG1 and 2 kept the lowest challenge a number of times, mixed in with a few of the second criteria and none of the former.

The GB games constantly kept the lowest challenge, with quite a number of the second criteria and also a fair amount of the former. This varies somewhat from game to game.

 

[Reptilian Shapeshifter]

I never it was super duper hard or challenging. i said it was more challenging than the GB games.

Besdies, guys, define what 'challenging' iis to you. Is it, coming close to detah but not dying? is it dying here and there? is it dying a billion times per game?

What is yourd efintion of challenging.

If you want of good definition of difficult but not impossible, play King's Bounty: The Legend or Armored Princess on insane (hardest) difficulty as a mage.

It requires planning and a well thought-out strategy to sustain yourself early to mid game. If you take too many losses in battle, it'll put you on a slippery slope fast. In the later stages, the mage becomes extremely powerful, and I found that I was often able to win battles with zero losses, with good planning and some trial and error (reloads).

 

[sgc_meltdown]

Or you can play jagged alliance 2 on 1.13 with ironman and a high difficulty. Every firefight becomes a small series of very important choices and consequences.

 

[visions]

I actually liked BG1 mostly because of low level + those empty maps. Those gave me the feeling they aren't there for me, but because of their place on the Sword Coast, with their set of problems that had nothing to do with you.

I liked the rumors - about Prism, or the guard captain that went berserk - they just said west of Naskhel or east of Beregost, it was up to you to go find them if you wish. For me it really added to the atmosphere and the feeling of a living world (NPC schedules would've helped even more).

This is basically what I like the most about BG as well; that the way the setting was used feels fairly down to earth (disregarding the "you are the son of the murder god" thing, which is more of a main plot, than setting issue).

 

[octavius]

Combat screens in IE are more varied in size, from small crypts to entire wilderness maps, and have more different stuff in them. Also, the maps can be bridges and very narrow corridors.

Indeed, yet it is virtually aesthetics. Without opportunity attacks and a zone of control, you can usually move you characters around the opposing the fighters and get to the mages easily enough. The sheer power of missile weapons in the IE engine also help nullify this.

Well, I actually enforce a no-moving-character-out-of-melee-unless-invisble-rule, to make things more fair.

So how do you handle invisible thieves, mages and critters like stalkers?

Stalkers I click on the 'circle'. Thieves hardly ever make themselves invisible, and when they do, same as stalkers. Mages are the same. I may have used an area effect spell or something else, but at no time did I need to dispell their invisibility.

Hmm...been awhile since I played unmodded BG2 but I could swear there are quite a few enemies, inlcuding backstabbing thieves, that use invisibility.

No, I mean the combat scripts....

From mods? I wasn't adding the mods into the mix, but if they are really as good as you claim, I may try them.

Vanilla enemies also (can) have scripts.
But I can't recommend Sword Coast Stratagems highly enough. It really makes enemies much smarter and combat much more fun and challening. I can't imagine playing BG 1 without it. The Bandit Camp is truly epic with this mod installed.
Definitely one of my all time favourite mods for any game.

GB enemies never intentionally backstab you. If they do it is by pure chance and the player not paying attention. In IE games thieves can have scripts to make them quaff invisibility potions. If they meet the other requirements (right armour and weapon) their next attack will be an automatic backstab if their next attack hits. Therefor spells like Detect Invisibility are actually very useful in IE, since being backstabbed is a good way of being chunked.
Not many of the vanilla thieves use such a script though, but I believe Slythe in BG 1 does.

Some enemies come equipped with all manner of scrolls and potions in GB games as well. I meant thieves 'using' their thief abilities rather than needing scrolls, potions and so on. In this manner, meant or not, GB gets the job done (now and again) without props.

I don't think it's possible for enemy thiveves to use their staelth skill to hide in shadows; some kind of limitation of the IE engine. Which is why giving them invisbility potions (as part of their script) was how DavidW solved the problem when making SCS.
Enemies very rarely use items in the GB games. There were some using wands in PoR, but I can't remember anyone using scrolls or potions.
BTW, this reminds me; there are prebuffed enemies in GB too - the Dark Mages in DQK have Mirror Image, Globe, Fire Shield and Prot Normal Missiles.

Vanilla BG 1 was not very challenging. With ScS it's more challenging than the GB games, I think.
BG 2 I found quite challenging first time, but I guess that was because it took a while to get used to all the protections, counter spells and counter counter-spells.
It also suffered from cheese like Balduran's Shield.
But ScS also fixes BG2

ScS? I found a couple of encounters in normal BG and BG2 challenging. The top of the Iron Throne HQ, the initial mercenary battle in the Inn in BG2 (don't ask me why, it was just difficult, perhaps because of my characters levels), a few of the Beholder/Mindflayer lucky hits, and in ToB the Dragon battle and the final battle . Nothing else really caused me much grief apart from those. Icewind Dale games were breezy.

You are forgetting the Savage Frontier GB games that had a number of decent encounters as well, same with Buck Rogers, especially Matrix Cubed.

SCS is Sword Coast Strategems, for both BG 1 and BG 2. http://www.gibberlings3.net/scs/
EDIT: Heh, funnily enough a new version was released today or yesterday.

Savage Frontier had some of the most boring random encounters of any game I've played. But the end of the first game was truly epic though. Never played Buck Rogers.

For me the IE games are best at lower levels, while at higher levels (from the point when you exterminate whole colonies of Mind Flayers and Beholders in The Underdark in BG 2) there is too much cheese involved. While with the GB it's the opposite - the last games in the Krynn and FR series have the most challenging and interesting battles.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

I actually liked BG1 mostly because of low level + those empty maps. Those gave me the feeling they aren't there for me, but because of their place on the Sword Coast, with their set of problems that had nothing to do with you.

I liked the rumors - about Prism, or the guard captain that went berserk - they just said west of Naskhel or east of Beregost, it was up to you to go find them if you wish. For me it really added to the atmosphere and the feeling of a living world (NPC schedules would've helped even more).

This is basically what I like the most about BG as well; that the way the setting was used feels fairly down to earth (disregarding the "you are the son of the murder god" thing, which is more of a main plot, than setting issue).

Same here. I loved that stuff too. If only someone could connect it with more location details (like Thalantyr's house being actually possible to explore and rob, all the stuff described in the rulebook like inns with their own customs, meals, etc.) good turn-based or RTwP (not "CTB" bullshit) combat, more faithful implementation of magic, more resource management and Fallout-level character development and good stat-based dialogues, it would be heavan.

I remember being amazed with graphics and sound and everything in Candlekeep and loving the sea shore locations . It was a great hiking simulator .

 

[VentilatorOfDoom]

But I can't recommend Sword Coast Stratagems highly enough. It really makes enemies much smarter and combat much more fun and challening. I can't imagine playing BG 1 without it. The Bandit Camp is truly epic with this mod installed.
Definitely one of my all time favourite mods for any game.

I played it some time ago and it was fun. But the kobold onslaught in the Nashkel mines was a bit over the top that early. Shitty poison daggers. I had to finally give up and go back to the nashkel fair to get a necklace of missiles. The other thing that was a bit over the top was on the way back from the mines the thief/mage assassin in Nashkel. Way too powerful for my low level party. Finally I had to use Imoen to backstab him with one of those shitty kobold poison daggers without triggering the convo first. That worked.

 

[Storyfag]

I actually liked BG1 mostly because of low level + those empty maps. Those gave me the feeling they aren't there for me, but because of their place on the Sword Coast, with their set of problems that had nothing to do with you.

I liked the rumors - about Prism, or the guard captain that went berserk - they just said west of Naskhel or east of Beregost, it was up to you to go find them if you wish. For me it really added to the atmosphere and the feeling of a living world (NPC schedules would've helped even more).

This is basically what I like the most about BG as well; that the way the setting was used feels fairly down to earth (disregarding the "you are the son of the murder god" thing, which is more of a main plot, than setting issue).

Same here.

And here. Call it a hiking sim if you must, but it was a damn good hiking sim with RPG elements

 

[Volourn]

"If you want of good definition of difficult but not impossible, play King's Bounty: The Legend or Armored Princess on insane (hardest) difficulty as a mage."

That's not a defintion at all. That's ane xample of a game you found challenging. HUGE difference.

 

[octavius]

But I can't recommend Sword Coast Stratagems highly enough. It really makes enemies much smarter and combat much more fun and challening. I can't imagine playing BG 1 without it. The Bandit Camp is truly epic with this mod installed.
Definitely one of my all time favourite mods for any game.

I played it some time ago and it was fun. But the kobold onslaught in the Nashkel mines was a bit over the top that early. Shitty poison daggers. I had to finally give up and go back to the nashkel fair to get a necklace of missiles. The other thing that was a bit over the top was on the way back from the mines the thief/mage assassin in Nashkel. Way too powerful for my low level party. Finally I had to use Imoen to backstab him with one of those shitty kobold poison daggers without triggering the convo first. That worked.

Well, you don't have to install the Darkside Kobolds module. I don't since I always head straight for the Nashkel Mines, while DavidW who made the mod always does the Gnoll Fortress first.

The thief/mage assassin in Nashkel is outdoors, right? Shouldn't be too hard if you spread out your party and let the guards help you.

 

[octavius]

So how do you handle invisible thieves, mages and critters like stalkers?

Stalkers I click on the 'circle'. Thieves hardly ever make themselves invisible, and when they do, same as stalkers. Mages are the same. I may have used an area effect spell or something else, but at no time did I need to dispell their invisibility.

How do you click on the circle when they are invisible???

 

[VentilatorOfDoom]

See Invisibility might not have been that important, but True Sight was a must have.

Your spell selection is slightly weird anyway. No farsight? No protection from elements spells(100% immunity for a long duration), but you bother to memorize fireball? Phantom blade? Conjure lesser elemental?