Baldurs Gate II, a console tards shocking discovery

[TheCakeMan]

Clever words are nice, decent grammar is nicer. Why go through all the effort of trying to sound intelligent if you just sound like an arse at the end of the day?

Edit: BG2 was a phenomenal game, I don't feel as though 4 hours is really giving it a chance.

 

[QuadrAlien]

I think from some of your early complaints, you'd definitely be better off playing the original Baldur's Gate first - a level one character to start off so you don't need to spend a month going through the spellbook (and can just select pretty much the list you suggested), and though you have to talk to quite a lot of people to get the tutorials on doing things, it's probably a bit better than dropping you into the more or less universally hated starting dungeon of the second game. And Minsc is in it, of course.

And the interface, on the whole, could be worse - ever tried the original Eye of the Beholder trilogy?

 

[sammyfreak]

Clever words are nice, decent grammar is nicer. Why go through all the effort of trying to sound intelligent if you just sound like an arse at the end of the day?

Edit: BG2 was a phenomenal game, I don't feel as though 4 hours is really giving it a chance.

Yes, I do know my grammar is very poor. But unfortunately it has always been an issue for me.

And please, if you would have read the first line you would have realised I never was trying to give it a fair review, I was providing a personal opinion of the game.

 

[PurpleRain]

Clever words are nice, decent grammar is nicer. Why go through all the effort of trying to sound intelligent if you just sound like an arse at the end of the day?

Edit: BG2 was a phenomenal game, I don't feel as though 4 hours is really giving it a chance.

I didn't find he was being an arse. He shunned your game. It's his opinion and he was being fare with it.

 

[Nerdfury]

Your review stocks from the fact that you a) don't understand the game, b) don't understand the setting, c) don't understand the rules and d) aren't willing to give it more than a short chance. Oh, and e) figure that if you suck at a game you only played for a few hours, it must be the game and not you.

Baldur's Gate is a complex game. Seeing as you view Diablo as an RPG you obviously are used to simplistic games where you run around hacking at things and getting experience to level up in a linear way. I'm not all that good at FPS's, but you don't see me saying that Halo sucks because I'm no good at it and only gave it a few hours.

 

[sammyfreak]

Your review stocks from the fact that you a) don't understand the game, b) don't understand the setting, c) don't understand the rules and d) aren't willing to give it more than a short chance. Oh, and e) figure that if you suck at a game you only played for a few hours, it must be the game and not you.

Baldur's Gate is a complex game. Seeing as you view Diablo as an RPG you obviously are used to simplistic games where you run around hacking at things and getting experience to level up in a linear way. I'm not all that good at FPS's, but you don't see me saying that Halo sucks because I'm no good at it and only gave it a few hours.

I never said BG II sucks, i was merely ranting about how unintuative and complex it was and how i dident enjoy it becuase of that. And not understanding the rules in a game without a tutorial is quite understandable (maybe the manual that i dident have would have explained to me how this etheral world functioned).

 

[Jakkar]

Salutations, folks. My first ever post on the long-tempting Escapist forums.

Merely dropping in to offer a few thoughts.

I... Understand your position, Sammyfreak. You're approaching from a bad angle. You're set up from the very foundation to enjoy immediate gratification, and your introduction to 'RPG' appears rather to have been an introduction to grind-based dungeoncrawlers like Diablo 2 and World of Warcraft - In which the traditional progression through a nonlinear storyline, that characterises the classic RPG, is sacrificed in favour of killing en masse, collecting statistically superior items and equipment, and purchasing new 'powers' for your character to use in killing.

Baldur's Gate is more like playing a fantasy novel and choosing where you go. The atmosphere is thick, the choices you can make are at times intimidatingly or confusingly numerous, and it can at first be hard to realise just how much influence you can have upon the world.

It's possible you're simply not the 'type' to enjoy an RPG, but I don't like to think any person is beyond enjoying a good story and the ability to express themselves. For one thing, if such people exist, the games industry truly is doomed to a future consisting exclusively of Call of Duty sequels and the Xbox 360.

Open your mind, relax, get your headshot fix on the 360, then pick up a game like Baldur's Gate 2, Fallout (more action heavy and adult, with a post apocalyptic storyline, might appeal to you more), or Morrowind and devote a few hours a day to experiencing an interactive world with more depth than how rapidly you can beat zombies with a gemmed mace.

Good luck. There are myriad games out there you've yet to discover that can offer an experience, compared to your action rpgs and FPS games, like Lord of the Rings versus an episode of The Incredible Spiderman.

 

[Logan Westbrook]

then I realised it was based on 2nd Ed D&D, which is pretty much the single most misconcieved and counterintuitive RPG system of all time.

Trust me, there are much worse ones. Look up Hybrid and you'll see what I mean.

 

[BlueMage]

It's threads like this that revive my nostalgia and make me want to play BG2 again. Likely it won't work too well on Vista though.

 

[arguskos]

BG2 is one of my personal all-time fav's. I've logged more than 1500 hours into it (not kidding here, I've beaten it with every single-classed character you can have, all the way from the first frikkin' dungeon all the way to Melissan), and know pretty much everything you can know about the game (it's my only real obsession in gaming, and I play it at least an hour a week, just to keep up with my favorite characters).

This said, it makes me sad to see someone who gave it a try, and decided it wasn't for them. I, along with a number of people here, would definitely tell you to keep giving it a try. You'll quickly find that if you're willing to sort through the truly unintuitive UI and strange game system, and look at what's beneath, it is a gem of a game. The story is unbelievably deep, with more than 200 hours of gameplay to be had in the main game alone if you explore everything you can. I know BG2 isn't for everyone, and that it isn't your style, but I think that if you're willing to give it another go in single player, you might find that the story and characters alone can pull you in, and it'll become a much better experience.

Just my two cents. Take them as you will.

EDIT: It comes to mind that I totally forgot to mention: if you clean up your grammar and other mechanical aspects to this review, it'd be much better to read. You have a decent writing style, and though it's not my favorite, it could really turn out great. I think you may wish to try a slightly less, um, emotional review of games, but overall, a decent piece. Figured I should mention that.







Oh, and "Go for the eyes Boo!!!!! GO FOR THE EYES!!!"

 

[Kikosemmek]

I would like to post again to just say that after reading some of the comments, I am ashamed to rub shoulders with some of you dismissive, self-righteous and arrogant punks. If someone disagrees with your opinion you can live with it and leave it at that. You can discuss it (which is why we have these forums) and your opinions of it, but to judge the merits of a person based on a legitimate, supported opinion (which this 'review' is, to an extent) is just irredeemably pathetic, especially when you resort to picking at someone's grammatical or spelling errors in an attempt to appear superior.

Were it up to me I'd take the lot of you off this message board as I would a tick off my back.

It is not your opinion that is concern here, but your intolerance of a different one.

 

[sathie]

Old games, while rich in story, often fail when you realise that they don't have all the user friendliness of more modern games. It's like when you play a sequel and then think "oh hey, I should play the first game now cause that was great!". When you play the first game you realise a lot of the features in the 2nd game were improvements made specifically because people complained about them in the first game.

It's never a good idea to convince people to play old games that they didn't play when they were new, because more likely than not they will just focus on what's not there rather than what is.

That you gave it a go was awesome though, and that you found some enjoyment from it is surprising. Normally you need to have played it at the time to find any gratification from playing it later on. It's a nostalgia thing mostly

Having played BG2 I found it to be alright. I'm a patient guy so a little user-unfriendliness doesn't bother me as long as the story is moving fast enough to distract me. While I'm not a huge fan of fantasy (more post-apoc person), with a little open-mindedness I enjoyed it up until a bug ruined it for me. Apparently I'm not supposed to do something that I did, and a Beholder wasn't too happy

 

[Nerdfury]

I fail to understand why anyone would find it counter-intuitive. I was introduced to BGII from the deep end, with no knowledge of Dungeons and Dragons, the setting, the rules or anything and I had no trouble whatsoever understanding how to play or how it ran. I found the 'user-friendliness' to be quite user-friendly. How is it harder than any other RPG like Final Fantasy or any of the Elder Scrolls games?

 

[GloatingSwine]

I fail to understand why anyone would find it counter-intuitive.

Because, quite frankly, 2nd Ed AD&D is counterintuitive.

To Hit, calculations, for example. Armour class, an inherent property of the target, is actually used as a modifier to the attacker's roll, whereas the target difficulty to hit any target is a fixed inherent property of the attacker. This is exactly the opposite to what one would expect a randomised to hit calculation to be, hence counter-intuitive.

Likewise, saving throws are a mixed bag of saving against either the effect (like Death), or the specific origin of that effect (Wands).

Also, there's a mix of preference for big numbers (stats, thief skills), or small numbers (THAC0, Armour class), with no logical explanation for the switchover. Pick an end and stick with it!

I remember a noble, if doomed, attempt to dump the BG2 game content into the IWD2 engine, and update the whole thing to the far more sensible 3.5Ed game rules, but it was never really going to work with a game this size, because everything would need to be rebalanced.

 

[McMo0^]

BG II was a cracking game, and the baulder's gate games remain the only rpg's i've truley enjoyed (save a stint with FF VII)

I think the main problem you had was starting on BG II. The reason you start at level 8 is because that roughly where you ended the first game (Think the cap was 9, but you could import your bg 1 character anyways).

The game worked on a script system which meant you had to assign your charcters a script otherwise they were essentially an empty shell. But the game was based on tabletop dnd. So like that when something happens you usually have the dm saying you've encountered x goblins, what do you want to do? likewise in BG you bump into angry goblin types, the game would pause and you could assign your characters to do their will

But i wouldn't worry about it cos rpg's aren't for everyone. But BG II was by far the best. Minsc was a better character in the original though i think. GO FOR THE EYES BOO, GO FOR THE EYES!!

 

[GloatingSwine]

I think the main problem you had was starting on BG II. The reason you start at level 8 is because that roughly where you ended the first game (Think the cap was 9, but you could import your bg 1 character anyways).

The cap in BG1 was either 89,000 or 135,000XP. That gave a different max level for each class. I think BG2 started a new character with 89,000XP; which generally gave you a level in the 7-9 range.

 

[Vortigar]

Really, you all seem to underestimate the complexity of the system. I think that's really all that put our man off here. And yeah, you should've played a melee character. But then again, maybe the game isn't your thing at all. NeverWinter is way easier to get into.

And spacebar being the most important button in the game is also off-putting as hell. Combat isn't done quickly and viscerally, no, when combat starts you'll find yourself pausing every second. I played BG2 back to front several times and when I restarted it the last time I really needed a day course to get back into the game's flow.

Gloating swine:
I'll add some examples of unintiutive:
Lower Armor Class is better (-10 = max).
Your to hit score is called THAC0 (To Hit Armor Class Zero).
Magical properties do not stack, ie. two rings of protection +1 do not confer protection +2.
The game runs in realtime but spells etc are still explained in terms of rounds and turns.
Saving throws against magic are d20 based, whereas magic resistance is a %.
You get a save vs death, which has nothing to do with dying from 0 hp.
Stats are 6 to 18?
More than 16 con is useless unless you are a fighter or a ranger?
There's no mana (oh that one's lovely for most rpg gamers)
Alignment/race/class/stat restricitons and requirements from here to the moon.

Heck, I've found myself explaining to people that there are more types of dice than a d6...
When a stetement like '2d4 is obviously better than d8' takes five minutes to explain there's a long road to go yet.

 

[TheGrue]

GAH!?


First post ever due to someone not enjoying my favorite game...

Listen; 1. Play the Tutorial. Seriously.
2. Read the Manual. PC games used to come in these big boxes with manuals in them yeah? And you have to read the BG2 one for the memorial to one of the developers on the first page.
3. Play the previous game like? It's a sequel!?

However I want to answer your questions fully too, so here goes.

" I had more starting spells to choose between then I ever had on my World of Warcraft mage "

Well to be fair a difference from one game to another (two very different games) is not a warranted criticism. The reason you have more spells is because there is no "mana" system in D'n'D and in BG2. Play the tutorial a bit, or the previous game - and you'll get that. Also, you begin with a lot of spells because you don't start at level one. Why? Notice the neat "2" symbol after the Baldurs Gate part? It's a sequel where you play the same character you played in the previous game.

"How the hell am I supposed to know the game mechanics well enough to carefully select the 10-20 spells I needed, why couldn?t the game give me magic missiles and some defensive spell and introduce the rest to me later(?)"

Well if you read the manual (old game required that), played the tutorial and worked hard and learning how to play the game (old games required that too) then it shouldn't be too tricky. One reason I loved the game was that I was still discovering things about it YEARS later. And as I said, as it's a sequel then developers assume you might be at least familiar with the first game - where you start at level one - with two or three spells if that.

" I was trying to figure out what was going on, where are my spells, how do they work, why cant I just drag them from my spell book to my quickbar? And why the hell was I supposed to control two characters (we had two each), can?t the computer do that for me so I can try to have fun with my mage?"

Your friends aren't that good at teaching then. You seem to misunderstand the fundamental mechanics of spellcasting in the d'n'd universe - assuming it's like a previous game. It isn't! The game *is* poor at teaching, because it assumes you have played the first game.

Controlling two characters? The real game (not multiplayer) asks you to control six. The reason you don't control one is because you have a party. You have a party because this game isn't WOW or Diablo! It's like asking why Peggle doesn't have a gravity gun!

" that the UI was shit, the combat was dull, the controls (were) awful and the fact the game seemed to be laughing at me behind its back."

The UI isn't *amazing*, but it's totally usable. The controls are again nothing special but there isn't a fault with them. The combat may seem dull but that is because it isn't about "hack'n'slash", it's about tactics. When I play the game I pause with space bar every few seconds and plan my next move!.... You *do* know it's turn based right???

" like how apparently I didn?t start on level one (I never did manage to figure out what level I was on my own, but they said it was eight so I decided to trust them) or that the game was less of a sequel and more of an expansion pack to the original?"

Press the "Character Page" Button. Next to your portrait is every possible thing you need to know about your character. Read the manual for explanations of those things. And it's a sequel, definitely, you meet characters from the previous games - and the game itself is HUGE!

"But really, if Baldur?s Gate II is the greatest game of all time, why isn?t it fun?"

A sport isn't fun if you come to it not knowing the rules, and no-one wants to play with someone who doesn't bother to read them - frankly.

"Why does it seem to demand I spend hours understanding it before I can get to the actual fun stuff(?)"

Because games used to be like that young man! If you load up Fallout and start playing you'll be like "what are actions points?" "what is this grid system?" "why to I have to take turns I DONT WANT TO PLAY A BOARD GAME!?!?" .. It is NOT similar to diablo, and you expected (or were told) that. Don't begin a game expecting it to be something it isn't. And older games were more creative and difficult (and better) than they are now.

"Maybe its like a rite of passage, if you can endure the horrible start you can finally stand there with something like Diablo II, but with awesome characters and story."

Wait.. so Baldurs Gate 2 has to work to compare itself to the majesty of Diablo II? *cries*

"But I fear not, for after my impending breaking of fast I shall play Call of Duty 4 and laugh like and idiot while I shoot mindless headshot after mindless headshot"

*sigh* YOU WILL SUFFER, YOU WILL ALL SUFFER!

 

[FaceInTheSand]

Baldur's Gate is your secondary school girlfriend.

You hold her in high regard because she opened your eyes. She exemplified all a girl should be. Never mind the fact that she was acne-ridden, and not as smart or funny as you remember.

Trying to explain to someone who wasn't in that relationship why it was perfect at the time by showing them a picture of a homely 15 year old girl and describing childish moments you shared isn't going to convince them.

Oblivion is the partner that you're currently dating. She's hotter, smarter and more experienced. She's grown up and lost those adolescent complications.
But, the sense of passion and the wonder isn't quite the same as with that girl you dated during your GCSE's, and so your mind occassionally drifts back to the idea of that first love, no matter how unfulfilling it would be if you actually went back to it.