Old RPG fans give BG a 10, normal people would give a 5 in 2000 and a 1 or 2 in 2013.
Ok I'll bite. Provide evidence that "normal people" (as if there was such a thing) would give a 5 back in 2000 and a 1 or 2 in 2013.
I have tons of friends that play RPG both electronic and pen and paper. Among ~20 friends that played various games like Diablo, Ultima Online, Elder Scrolls 1 and 2 and other, 3 played Baldur's Gate to the end and 1 was a fanatic that insisted for us to play it too. I could not stand the game back then, actually it took me quite a while to play the game and only after seeing many Bioware good games through years that I decided to give another try BG, my other friends just don't feel like to.
Of course I've seen dozens of reviews through the internet stating that it is the most awesome game ever, great, but in "real life" I don't know many people who actually played the game to the end, and again, I mean among people who actually like RPG games. But of course I can't judge by my circle of friends, well through the internet it is the same, I've played MMORPGs with people from many countries, not once Baldur's Gate was mentioned by party or guild members while discussing about games that we played before entering the MMO world.
I maybe wrong, I just don't think so, I don't have a giant sample to state that my experience is valid as real data about the game but it is big enough to think that it is unlikely that Baldur's Gate is that big hit the fans talk about. Probably you are just too much into the legend of BG to see the real truth, that it is not a big hit, it was just something rare when it came out and now it has nothing special. The most important thing in an RPG for me is the story, what is so great about Baldur's Gate story anyway? It is better than Diablo 3, of course, it can't be worse, but compared to other real RPGs, nothing special at all.
Oh yeah, sure, you probably think that you have to play the game to the end to judge it, I think precisely the opposite, the game have to make you play it to the end to be considered good, it is the least a game should do.
You are right 20 people isn't a large enough sample size. The 4946 user ratings on gamespot (its an example of a website that has been around since the game was released in 1998) that average a 9.1/10 for Baldur's Gate 1 is if nothing else a better indication of how "normal people" view the game.
How many times did you go to a game site to rate a game you don't like? Personally I never did it, even games I completely HATE like Diablo 3, I discuss on forums but never rated it. If you state you regularly do this, ok, you want to win the argument but it is ok, I know it is not usual for people to do this.
Probably 99% of the votes, or even more, are of Baldur's Gate fanatics, but there is no way to know, all I know is that when you are not interested in a game is really rare to go to a website to vote a big ZERO, when you are happy and euphoric about the game it is very common to vote a lovely heroic TEN. Specially when specialized media tell you to, ehich is Baldur's Gate case.
If you have age enough to understand scientific method, my sample and you sample are equally useless because there is no way to verify your sample, and mine is too small. The only way would be to question like thousands of people that played the game for, let's say, at least 5 hours, chosen randomly from a database and then repeat with another group (excluding the ones present in the first sample).
Well, we can't do that, but your "sample" is obviously biased for the reason I stated here, so unless you are shameless enough to state that people equally rate games that they love and games that they don't care at all, I don't see why should I consider "user's ratings" on games sites.
And what do I mean by normal people? People who like (almost) equally, GTA, Counter Strike, Sonic, Final Fantasy, Dance Central, Barbie and Mortal Kombat, in other words, people who like game, have a favorite genre but is not particular dedicated to one genre. It is rare to someone mention Baldur's Gate in RPG circles, outside it I have NEVER seen someone talk about it.
But I will try to bring you to reallity... Final Fantasy VII is know by MUCH more people than Baldur's Gate but still people who don't like J-RPGs did not play FFVII, so I don't consider FFVII a great game, but at least it is a lot better than Baldur's. Diablo 1 can be considered a great game since even people who don't like RPG liked it, the same goes with Diablo 2 (I don't really like Diablo series, too shallow but that's not the point).
When a game is only loved by the ones that got to endure all its flaws to reach a certain point where it becomes interesting or people who already like the genre and thus have a predisposition to like it, well, I can't consider ir a good game.
Again, if you use users ratings, you consider the ratings of people who played the game to the end while I clearly stated that the MAJOR factor while qualifying a game is the ability of the game to make you interested in to play it to the end. So answer me about your post: What about people who didn't finish Baldur's Gate or did not even care about ir enough to vote? It doesn't say anything about the game? Cause I'm pretty sure they did not rate the game on gamespot or any other site.
And, seriously, GOG? It is the definition of Baldur's Gate lovers! Don't make me laugh! It is like asking about rap to Jay-Z fans.
Edit: @copiessold Diablo 3, worst game ever, how many copies? Neverwinter, a poor MMORPG, 2 million users... Anyway compare Baldur's Gate to FFVII and Diablo
Old RPG fans give BG a 10, normal people would give a 5 in 2000 and a 1 or 2 in 2013.
Ok I'll bite. Provide evidence that "normal people" (as if there was such a thing) would give a 5 back in 2000 and a 1 or 2 in 2013.
I have tons of friends that play RPG both electronic and pen and paper. Among ~20 friends that played various games like Diablo, Ultima Online, Elder Scrolls 1 and 2 and other, 3 played Baldur's Gate to the end and 1 was a fanatic that insisted for us to play it too. I could not stand the game back then, actually it took me quite a while to play the game and only after seeing many Bioware good games through years that I decided to give another try BG, my other friends just don't feel like to.
Of course I've seen dozens of reviews through the internet stating that it is the most awesome game ever, great, but in "real life" I don't know many people who actually played the game to the end, and again, I mean among people who actually like RPG games. But of course I can't judge by my circle of friends, well through the internet it is the same, I've played MMORPGs with people from many countries, not once Baldur's Gate was mentioned by party or guild members while discussing about games that we played before entering the MMO world.
I maybe wrong, I just don't think so, I don't have a giant sample to state that my experience is valid as real data about the game but it is big enough to think that it is unlikely that Baldur's Gate is that big hit the fans talk about. Probably you are just too much into the legend of BG to see the real truth, that it is not a big hit, it was just something rare when it came out and now it has nothing special. The most important thing in an RPG for me is the story, what is so great about Baldur's Gate story anyway? It is better than Diablo 3, of course, it can't be worse, but compared to other real RPGs, nothing special at all.
Oh yeah, sure, you probably think that you have to play the game to the end to judge it, I think precisely the opposite, the game have to make you play it to the end to be considered good, it is the least a game should do.
You are right 20 people isn't a large enough sample size. The 4946 user ratings on gamespot (its an example of a website that has been around since the game was released in 1998) that average a 9.1/10 for Baldur's Gate 1 is if nothing else a better indication of how "normal people" view the game.
How many times did you go to a game site to rate a game you don't like? Personally I never did it, even games I completely HATE like Diablo 3, I discuss on forums but never rated it. If you state you regularly do this, ok, you want to win the argument but it is ok, I know it is not usual for people to do this.
Probably 99% of the votes, or even more, are of Baldur's Gate fanatics, but there is no way to know, all I know is that when you are not interested in a game is really rare to go to a website to vote a big ZERO, when you are happy and euphoric about the game it is very common to vote a lovely heroic TEN. Specially when specialized media tell you to, ehich is Baldur's Gate case.
If you have age enough to understand scientific method, my sample and you sample are equally useless because there is no way to verify your sample, and mine is too small. The only way would be to question like thousands of people that played the game for, let's say, at least 5 hours, chosen randomly from a database and then repeat with another group (excluding the ones present in the first sample).
Well, we can't do that, but your "sample" is obviously biased for the reason I stated here, so unless you are shameless enough to state that people equally rate games that they love and games that they don't care at all, I don't see why should I consider "user's ratings" on games sites.
And what do I mean by normal people? People who like (almost) equally, GTA, Counter Strike, Sonic, Final Fantasy, Dance Central, Barbie and Mortal Kombat, in other words, people who like game, have a favorite genre but is not particular dedicated to one genre. It is rare to someone mention Baldur's Gate in RPG circles, outside it I have NEVER seen someone talk about it.
But I will try to bring you to reallity... Final Fantasy VII is know by MUCH more people than Baldur's Gate but still people who don't like J-RPGs did not play FFVII, so I don't consider FFVII a great game, but at least it is a lot better than Baldur's. Diablo 1 can be considered a great game since even people who don't like RPG liked it, the same goes with Diablo 2 (I don't really like Diablo series, too shallow but that's not the point).
When a game is only loved by the ones that got to endure all its flaws to reach a certain point where it becomes interesting or people who already like the genre and thus have a predisposition to like it, well, I can't consider ir a good game.
Again, if you use users ratings, you consider the ratings of people who played the game to the end while I clearly stated that the MAJOR factor while qualifying a game is the ability of the game to make you interested in to play it to the end. So answer me about your post: What about people who didn't finish Baldur's Gate or did not even care about ir enough to vote? It doesn't say anything about the game? Cause I'm pretty sure they did not rate the game on gamespot or any other site.
And, seriously, GOG? It is the definition of Baldur's Gate lovers! Don't make me laugh! It is like asking about rap to Jay-Z fans.
Edit: @copiessold Diablo 3, worst game ever, how many copies? Neverwinter, a poor MMORPG, 2 million users... Anyway compare Baldur's Gate to FFVII and Diablo
So to summarize I think Baldur's Gate was and is a great game. You don't think that is the case.
My samples and your samples are equally statistically irrelevant.
An allegation of yours was that Baldur's Gate was not "a big hit". It and its expansion sold a combined 2.5 million copies. That is the same amount that Diablo 1 had sold by 2001. That is comparable to what the Witcher 1 has sold. Its also very rare for a PC RPG to sell that high a number of units. While its true that sales doesn't necessarily reflect quality, sales are absolutely crucial in determining what is or is not a hit.
You never proved your original allegation that normal people would have given it a 5 in 2000 (2 years after the game was released) or a 1 or 2 in 2013.
And what do I mean by normal people? People who like (almost) equally, GTA, Counter Strike, Sonic, Final Fantasy, Dance Central, Barbie and Mortal Kombat, in other words, people who like game, have a favorite genre but is not particular dedicated to one genre. It is rare to someone mention Baldur's Gate in RPG circles, outside it I have NEVER seen someone talk about it.
I don't think any of those games really fall into the "crpg" genre. The "normal" audience that likes BG1/2 would like "equally" IWD 1/2, Planescape:Torment, NWN 1/2, KoToR 1/2, Witcher 1/2, Mass Effect 1/2, Fallout 3*, Morrowind/Oblivion/Skyrim, and so on. Turn-based combat, NPC interaction, character build system and story line. Well, that's what I look for
Baldur's Gate 1 was the largest RPG hit of its time, and even without nostalgia glasses, it still holds up.
I have just recently played through the game in multiplayer with a friend who has never played it before. He read the story and the dialog for the first time, and I also re-read all of it (something which I don't normally do on my runs). He was blown away by it, and so was I. It's easy to forget just how masterfully vague and thought-provoking BG1's story is. You're handed questions, not answers - those you have to find for yourself. What the writers managed to do is a true feat of storytelling even today. Perhaps especially today, when RPGs are typically more cinematic and the player is not usually expected to figure out anything by themselves.
And that's just one reason why BG1 is an exceptional game - other areas aren't lacking either. Combat is tactical and challenging (although admittedly, not as well executed as it was in BG2), and gameplay has a rich exploration element. I still think the visuals are gorgeous, although others often tell me I'm insane for thinking so, so I guess that might be due to rose-tinted glasses.
So no, I don't think the "legend" of BG1 is overinflated or undeserved in any way. It was one of the greatest games of its time and remains so today.
The quality of a game is not determined by the quantity of it's sales. Point in case; Call of Duty Black Ops.
Final Fantasy got fantastic reviews: EGM gave it 9.5 Gamespot gave it 9.5 IGN gave it 9.5 Famitsu (Japans biggest gaming magazine) gave it 38/40...
They have 4 reviewer who give each game 1-10, so I assume 2 gave it 9/10 and 2 gave it 10/10. It has been rated, by Gamefaqs visitors/members/users as the best game ever. Famitsu did a voting from all their readers, best game of all time: Final Fantasy 7 got second place on their top 100 list.
And yes, it also sold 10 million copies.
When you have this data on a game, or critic and fan praise, there must be a reason.
Yes, I understand that rpg's like Pokemon sells millions but they are just copies of copies and they are for kids that is hooked on the anime/tv-show and no, they arnt getting great reviews and praise by the fans all over the internet.
I'm not sure where we're going with this thread. Are you guys arguing about whether or not BG1 is an all time great game? Well, as much as I like just about every Bioware game that's ever been made, I like BG2 quite a lot more than BG1, but that's probably because I played it first. I support BG1 now because, well, I'm a fan of BG2
Popularity and greatness are not always commensurate. Honestly, though, only one person's vote on any game's quality is of any value whatsoever: the consumer. I've loved games that others hated, and vice-versa. I only care about reviews as they help me understand the 'feel' of games and let me have a little insight on what to expect. User reviews a la Amazon.com are particularly helpful to me (except for the incessant whining about Steam or things of that nature - you know the type: give a game one star just because it is Steam-based).
Other opinions are fine and dandy, but they don't really get a vote on what I feel or think about a game.
Anyway, we need an icon for derailed threads. @FredSRichardson : I know - I am partially to blame. I promise to be better next time.
@reedmilfam - No worries! The thread is still fun to follow, @typo_tilly, especially those nintendogs
I guess you could say games and movies have a lot in common. When someone tells you how great a movie is, you should ask what else they liked. When my wife raves about a movie I'm always a little suspicious...
Opinions are like anal orifices--everyone has one and they typically produce the same end result.
Games which are "good" or "great" are games that you, individually, enjoyed for whatever reason. Games which are "bad" or "awful" or "not a hit" are games that you, individually, did not enjoy for whatever reason.
Any explanation beyond that is rationalization as to why your opinion is somehow more valid than someone else's. I would look forward to BG3 and I hope the developers get a chance to make it. If not, then *shrug* oh well.
This thread began as a discussion about Overhaul's capabilities of making Baldur's Gate III (or anything like that). It was quite interesting.
Now, we have people who cannot see difference between "game I hate" and "worst game ever" (for your information, this is a game considered by many as "the worst game ever":
On the bright side, now I can just shut up, grab some popcorn and keep enjoying the show. It's going to do wonders to my self-steem.
@ZelgadisGW - The advantage of "worst game ever" is that we can all complain in the same direction, otherwise we're all just slinging mud at each others games. Of course sometimes it's fun to watch the mud fly =P
@FredSRichardson Ok, I can understand what do you mean. Still, I don't know why some good games (at least gameplay-wise) are treated like a sh*t by people, just because of some disadvantages, in which at least some of them can be fixed in time. Critique is, in fact, welcomed, but things I sometimes hear have nothing to do with critique.
I know (from seeing gameplay of course) the game New Yorker mentioned. And, of course, it was mentioned on Top 100 Worst Game list on youtube. Check it out, if you're interested.
@ZelgadisGW - It is amazing how strongly people feel about video games. I think this may be because they require a significant amount of time to play.
Hey, I just realized we can even argue about which game everyone hates the most! XD
That's a nice wikipedia article. I may have to see if there's some way I can play the E.T. game just so that I can experience first hand how bad it really is.
Since it's so much fun to change topics in a thread, I have one more pet peeve to bring up. Even with games I've really liked (and this is true of the Bioware games), I've reached a point where I would actually pay more for less. I mean, I don't really want 100's of hours of play time if it means watching my party crawl across the same maps over and over again... This is when I'm ready for a teleportation cube or something. I'd really just like to have the plot progress a bit more quickly and move on.
@FredSRichardson I'm having that problem with Dragon Age right now, actually. I'm enjoying the story and the characters and, yes, even the combat--but I'm also reaching the point where I'm starting to wonder how much longer this whole thing is supposed to go on.
Edgar Allen Poe talked a bit about why he wrote short stories instead of novels. He said he thought of stories as paintings; something that should be enjoyed in an afternoon, rather than over the course of a month or a season. I wonder if publishers could reduce the price of their games if they released games with stories that were only, say, 10 hours long but with greater potential for second or third play-throughs--versus a story that's 30 hours long and is more or less linear. I'd rather buy four games with short plots that I can revisit at a later date, versus one game with a long plot that I'll be less inclined to replay later on solely because of how long it is.
@Dee - Excellent point, DA did this to me too. I don't think I ever actually finished the game even though I enjoyed it quite a bit.
I think the DLC concept is a really good one. I mean, sure, on the one hand it's a transparent attempt at milking the same game for more profit. But on the other hand if the original game engine is well designed and the DLC content is short, sweet and to the point then this can be really enjoyable.
If consumers expectation is unreasonable as to how much quality content a dollar can buy, then the DLC approach might make sense. The only real problem is that the original game has to be quite good for anyone to want to buy DLC's.
Desert Bus is actually kind of fun. It's only got one glaring bug. On the other hand it was never released. So I'd give the victory to Atari's E.T. which was horrible and broken and actually shipped.
Ideally, you'd want a core game that's strong enough to support the DLC, at a price that doesn't make the player feel like they're being cheated out of content.
But I also think that someone needs to dispel the notion that "DLC = cash grab". Ultimately, it starts with the retail price. If you sell the game for $60, it's a lot harder to swallow shelling out another $4 for an extra character or some fancy equipment, or $10 for another adventure that supposedly "should have been in the game in the first place".
If, on the other hand, you sold a (somewhat shorter) game for $30 instead, it A) makes the initial investment a lot easier for gamers to accept, meaning that they're more likely to try a new game that they might not otherwise give a chance; and makes successive DLC a bit more reasonable to purchase down the road as it's released.
You could even have DLC that offers valuable story content. Imagine, for example, if Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood and Revelations had been $10 DLC packs for Assassin's Creed 2. Maybe imagine that Assassin's Creed 2, itself, was about half as long as it is now, for half the price, but with the option to buy the other half for $10.
Now, instead, of paying $60 for a game three times, you pay $30 once, and then buy the other three $10 chapters as expansion content, a bit like Throne of Bhaal. The end result is one game, complete, for $60, that tells Ezio's entire story arc.
Obviously it wouldn't work that way, because each of those games is massive, but on a smaller scale you could do something similar. (You could even sell those expansion packs in separate discs, eliminating the "must be online" factor.)
That's it for me derailing the thread. Something worth thinking about, though.
@Coriander - did you ever get your hands on a copy of Desert Bus? I think that would be pretty cool. The concept is hiarious: how to make a completely non-violent and ultimately somewhat boring video game to prove a point
@Dee - I agree completely. Using DLC's to restore missing content to an expensive game or sell party hats for you characters is one thing, but setting a reasonable base price and selling additional high quality content is quite another. I'm a BL2 fan and so far I've really liked the DLC's. To me, the prices are right and the content is generally quite good.
I agree with you about Assassin's creed. I've reached a point where I just won't pay $60 for a new game. I just wait until the steam price comes down by at least 50% and buy it then. Having said that, I was a bit sad to see what steam did to BG:EE (or maybe it was Atari's doing). I thought they were a little too quick to cut the price so aggresively...
@FredSRichardson I'm having that problem with Dragon Age right now, actually. I'm enjoying the story and the characters and, yes, even the combat--but I'm also reaching the point where I'm starting to wonder how much longer this whole thing is supposed to go on.
Edgar Allen Poe talked a bit about why he wrote short stories instead of novels. He said he thought of stories as paintings; something that should be enjoyed in an afternoon, rather than over the course of a month or a season. I wonder if publishers could reduce the price of their games if they released games with stories that were only, say, 10 hours long but with greater potential for second or third play-throughs--versus a story that's 30 hours long and is more or less linear. I'd rather buy four games with short plots that I can revisit at a later date, versus one game with a long plot that I'll be less inclined to replay later on solely because of how long it is.
TBH I kind of felt that way also, but that is more an issue with the storyline and not the lenght. I mean, there have been final fantasy games in which I was very,very happy I knew I had disc2,3 and 4 left to play even though I sinked 10 hours into it already.
But, speaking of storylines, the best storyline so far, this year that is, has been Bioshock Infinite. And that was a shooter taking, eh, 10-12 hours to complete? Awesome story, great twist at the end, and just a fantastic adventure which also prove that a genre doesnt have to define the story, nor the characters quality.
So yes, when I play a "Bioshock" I get just as much well written story and adventure, as I would get from most rpg's that just stretch out / drag out their game with a couple of hours to reach the 30-40 hour mark.
With that said, a game like Persona 4 had me hooked for 50+ hours.
Ideally, you'd want a core game that's strong enough to support the DLC, at a price that doesn't make the player feel like they're being cheated out of content.
You could even have DLC that offers valuable story content. Imagine, for example, if Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood and Revelations had been $10 DLC packs for Assassin's Creed 2. Maybe imagine that Assassin's Creed 2, itself, was about half as long as it is now, for half the price, but with the option to buy the other half for $10.
Now, instead, of paying $60 for a game three times, you pay $30 once, and then buy the other three $10 chapters as expansion content, a bit like Throne of Bhaal. The end result is one game, complete, for $60, that tells Ezio's entire story arc.
Obviously it wouldn't work that way, because each of those games is massive, but on a smaller scale you could do something similar. (You could even sell those expansion packs in separate discs, eliminating the "must be online" factor.)
That's it for me derailing the thread. Something worth thinking about, though.
Like telltale did with the Walking Dead game? It is proven that this type of setup can work. However, the story really needs to be engaging enough to keep having consumers come back to the title. If not, you are leaving a good chunk of change on the table which I don't think publishers are willing to risk.
But I can also see publishers adopting this to get more money out of consumers by charging more in the long run. If a game has 6 chapters and the first one costs you $20 and each one after that costing $10 (10% off for pre-ordering though!), a game could cost $70 instead of $60. I can also see chapters getting smaller as a game progresses and once again used as cash grabs against consumers that are known completionist (please see achievement thread if not convinced of this) and even though they know the current chapter isn't worth the $10 they will still purchase it to finish the story they may or may not be enjoying. Because if you don't finish the story and you already invested $40 into it, it will feel like that $40 is a waste instead of the next $10. This would also keep the price of the game higher as it ages, as it can be released together (much like the Walking Dead was) all together once the entire game is out and complete, instead of the price dropping to half off after 6 months.
What games need is better replayablity to shorten them than just making games shorter. Take BG2 chapter 2 for example. If an actual hard time limit was placed on the player to get to Spellhold (or another sinister outcome would happen - such as not being able to save Imoen, or Bodhi severely crippling the shadow thieves shortening the quests that they can give you) players would play through game faster, but then replay it, doing different quests a second or third time. But for this to work, the entire game would need to have replayablity, not just a one huge chunked section.
Oh and on Dragon Age, one of the reasons why it maybe feeling long (especially if this is the first time playing it) is you are immersing yourself into the lore too much. It is a very verbose (much like this post is becoming) game as it needs to set up an entire new world with its own history, religion, politics, races and characters and how they all relate to one another. Each of the treaty agreements goes through their own little history that takes up a large amount of dialog in the game. Also, even though the voice acting is superb, it is also drawing out the game as listening to someone speak takes more time than actually reading the dialog as in Baldur's Gate.
Comments
Probably 99% of the votes, or even more, are of Baldur's Gate fanatics, but there is no way to know, all I know is that when you are not interested in a game is really rare to go to a website to vote a big ZERO, when you are happy and euphoric about the game it is very common to vote a lovely heroic TEN. Specially when specialized media tell you to, ehich is Baldur's Gate case.
If you have age enough to understand scientific method, my sample and you sample are equally useless because there is no way to verify your sample, and mine is too small. The only way would be to question like thousands of people that played the game for, let's say, at least 5 hours, chosen randomly from a database and then repeat with another group (excluding the ones present in the first sample).
Well, we can't do that, but your "sample" is obviously biased for the reason I stated here, so unless you are shameless enough to state that people equally rate games that they love and games that they don't care at all, I don't see why should I consider "user's ratings" on games sites.
And what do I mean by normal people? People who like (almost) equally, GTA, Counter Strike, Sonic, Final Fantasy, Dance Central, Barbie and Mortal Kombat, in other words, people who like game, have a favorite genre but is not particular dedicated to one genre. It is rare to someone mention Baldur's Gate in RPG circles, outside it I have NEVER seen someone talk about it.
But I will try to bring you to reallity... Final Fantasy VII is know by MUCH more people than Baldur's Gate but still people who don't like J-RPGs did not play FFVII, so I don't consider FFVII a great game, but at least it is a lot better than Baldur's. Diablo 1 can be considered a great game since even people who don't like RPG liked it, the same goes with Diablo 2 (I don't really like Diablo series, too shallow but that's not the point).
When a game is only loved by the ones that got to endure all its flaws to reach a certain point where it becomes interesting or people who already like the genre and thus have a predisposition to like it, well, I can't consider ir a good game.
Again, if you use users ratings, you consider the ratings of people who played the game to the end while I clearly stated that the MAJOR factor while qualifying a game is the ability of the game to make you interested in to play it to the end. So answer me about your post: What about people who didn't finish Baldur's Gate or did not even care about ir enough to vote? It doesn't say anything about the game? Cause I'm pretty sure they did not rate the game on gamespot or any other site.
And, seriously, GOG? It is the definition of Baldur's Gate lovers! Don't make me laugh! It is like asking about rap to Jay-Z fans.
Edit: @copiessold
Diablo 3, worst game ever, how many copies? Neverwinter, a poor MMORPG, 2 million users...
Anyway compare Baldur's Gate to FFVII and Diablo
My samples and your samples are equally statistically irrelevant.
An allegation of yours was that Baldur's Gate was not "a big hit". It and its expansion sold a combined 2.5 million copies. That is the same amount that Diablo 1 had sold by 2001. That is comparable to what the Witcher 1 has sold. Its also very rare for a PC RPG to sell that high a number of units. While its true that sales doesn't necessarily reflect quality, sales are absolutely crucial in determining what is or is not a hit.
You never proved your original allegation that normal people would have given it a 5 in 2000 (2 years after the game was released) or a 1 or 2 in 2013.
I have just recently played through the game in multiplayer with a friend who has never played it before. He read the story and the dialog for the first time, and I also re-read all of it (something which I don't normally do on my runs). He was blown away by it, and so was I. It's easy to forget just how masterfully vague and thought-provoking BG1's story is. You're handed questions, not answers - those you have to find for yourself. What the writers managed to do is a true feat of storytelling even today. Perhaps especially today, when RPGs are typically more cinematic and the player is not usually expected to figure out anything by themselves.
And that's just one reason why BG1 is an exceptional game - other areas aren't lacking either. Combat is tactical and challenging (although admittedly, not as well executed as it was in BG2), and gameplay has a rich exploration element. I still think the visuals are gorgeous, although others often tell me I'm insane for thinking so, so I guess that might be due to rose-tinted glasses.
So no, I don't think the "legend" of BG1 is overinflated or undeserved in any way. It was one of the greatest games of its time and remains so today.
So can be said about Final Fantasy VII which sold 10 million copies.
EGM gave it 9.5
Gamespot gave it 9.5
IGN gave it 9.5
Famitsu (Japans biggest gaming magazine) gave it 38/40...
They have 4 reviewer who give each game 1-10, so I assume 2 gave it 9/10 and 2 gave it 10/10.
It has been rated, by Gamefaqs visitors/members/users as the best game ever.
Famitsu did a voting from all their readers, best game of all time: Final Fantasy 7 got second place on their top 100 list.
And yes, it also sold 10 million copies.
When you have this data on a game, or critic and fan praise, there must be a reason.
Yes, I understand that rpg's like Pokemon sells millions but they are just copies of copies and they are for kids that is hooked on the anime/tv-show and no, they arnt getting great reviews and praise by the fans all over the internet.
Other opinions are fine and dandy, but they don't really get a vote on what I feel or think about a game.
Anyway, we need an icon for derailed threads. @FredSRichardson : I know - I am partially to blame. I promise to be better next time.
I guess you could say games and movies have a lot in common. When someone tells you how great a movie is, you should ask what else they liked. When my wife raves about a movie I'm always a little suspicious...
Games which are "good" or "great" are games that you, individually, enjoyed for whatever reason.
Games which are "bad" or "awful" or "not a hit" are games that you, individually, did not enjoy for whatever reason.
Any explanation beyond that is rationalization as to why your opinion is somehow more valid than someone else's. I would look forward to BG3 and I hope the developers get a chance to make it. If not, then *shrug* oh well.
Now, we have people who cannot see difference between "game I hate" and "worst game ever" (for your information, this is a game considered by many as "the worst game ever":
On the bright side, now I can just shut up, grab some popcorn and keep enjoying the show. It's going to do wonders to my self-steem.
Now, what is that a screenshot of?
BTW, the New Yorker which is either the authority on everything or nothing (I'm not sure), disagrees with you:
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/07/the-worst-video-game-ever-created.html
Ok, I can understand what do you mean. Still, I don't know why some good games (at least gameplay-wise) are treated like a sh*t by people, just because of some disadvantages, in which at least some of them can be fixed in time. Critique is, in fact, welcomed, but things I sometimes hear have nothing to do with critique.
I know (from seeing gameplay of course) the game New Yorker mentioned. And, of course, it was mentioned on Top 100 Worst Game list on youtube. Check it out, if you're interested.
And, about screencap, it's from E.T game.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E.T._the_Extra-Terrestrial_(video_game)
Hey, I just realized we can even argue about which game everyone hates the most! XD
That's a nice wikipedia article. I may have to see if there's some way I can play the E.T. game just so that I can experience first hand how bad it really is.
Wiki went even further, this is kind of fun:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_video_games_notable_for_negative_reception
I'm having that problem with Dragon Age right now, actually. I'm enjoying the story and the characters and, yes, even the combat--but I'm also reaching the point where I'm starting to wonder how much longer this whole thing is supposed to go on.
Edgar Allen Poe talked a bit about why he wrote short stories instead of novels. He said he thought of stories as paintings; something that should be enjoyed in an afternoon, rather than over the course of a month or a season. I wonder if publishers could reduce the price of their games if they released games with stories that were only, say, 10 hours long but with greater potential for second or third play-throughs--versus a story that's 30 hours long and is more or less linear. I'd rather buy four games with short plots that I can revisit at a later date, versus one game with a long plot that I'll be less inclined to replay later on solely because of how long it is.
I think the DLC concept is a really good one. I mean, sure, on the one hand it's a transparent attempt at milking the same game for more profit. But on the other hand if the original game engine is well designed and the DLC content is short, sweet and to the point then this can be really enjoyable.
If consumers expectation is unreasonable as to how much quality content a dollar can buy, then the DLC approach might make sense. The only real problem is that the original game has to be quite good for anyone to want to buy DLC's.
But I also think that someone needs to dispel the notion that "DLC = cash grab". Ultimately, it starts with the retail price. If you sell the game for $60, it's a lot harder to swallow shelling out another $4 for an extra character or some fancy equipment, or $10 for another adventure that supposedly "should have been in the game in the first place".
If, on the other hand, you sold a (somewhat shorter) game for $30 instead, it A) makes the initial investment a lot easier for gamers to accept, meaning that they're more likely to try a new game that they might not otherwise give a chance; and
You could even have DLC that offers valuable story content. Imagine, for example, if Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood and Revelations had been $10 DLC packs for Assassin's Creed 2. Maybe imagine that Assassin's Creed 2, itself, was about half as long as it is now, for half the price, but with the option to buy the other half for $10.
Now, instead, of paying $60 for a game three times, you pay $30 once, and then buy the other three $10 chapters as expansion content, a bit like Throne of Bhaal. The end result is one game, complete, for $60, that tells Ezio's entire story arc.
Obviously it wouldn't work that way, because each of those games is massive, but on a smaller scale you could do something similar. (You could even sell those expansion packs in separate discs, eliminating the "must be online" factor.)
That's it for me derailing the thread. Something worth thinking about, though.
@Dee - I agree completely. Using DLC's to restore missing content to an expensive game or sell party hats for you characters is one thing, but setting a reasonable base price and selling additional high quality content is quite another. I'm a BL2 fan and so far I've really liked the DLC's. To me, the prices are right and the content is generally quite good.
I agree with you about Assassin's creed. I've reached a point where I just won't pay $60 for a new game. I just wait until the steam price comes down by at least 50% and buy it then. Having said that, I was a bit sad to see what steam did to BG:EE (or maybe it was Atari's doing). I thought they were a little too quick to cut the price so aggresively...
I mean, there have been final fantasy games in which I was very,very happy I knew I had disc2,3 and 4 left to play even though I sinked 10 hours into it already.
But, speaking of storylines, the best storyline so far, this year that is, has been Bioshock Infinite. And that was a shooter taking, eh, 10-12 hours to complete?
Awesome story, great twist at the end, and just a fantastic adventure which also prove that a genre doesnt have to define the story, nor the characters quality.
So yes, when I play a "Bioshock" I get just as much well written story and adventure, as I would get from most rpg's that just stretch out / drag out their game with a couple of hours to reach the 30-40 hour mark.
With that said, a game like Persona 4 had me hooked for 50+ hours.
It is proven that this type of setup can work. However, the story really needs to be engaging enough to keep having consumers come back to the title. If not, you are leaving a good chunk of change on the table which I don't think publishers are willing to risk.
But I can also see publishers adopting this to get more money out of consumers by charging more in the long run. If a game has 6 chapters and the first one costs you $20 and each one after that costing $10 (10% off for pre-ordering though!), a game could cost $70 instead of $60. I can also see chapters getting smaller as a game progresses and once again used as cash grabs against consumers that are known completionist (please see achievement thread if not convinced of this) and even though they know the current chapter isn't worth the $10 they will still purchase it to finish the story they may or may not be enjoying. Because if you don't finish the story and you already invested $40 into it, it will feel like that $40 is a waste instead of the next $10. This would also keep the price of the game higher as it ages, as it can be released together (much like the Walking Dead was) all together once the entire game is out and complete, instead of the price dropping to half off after 6 months.
What games need is better replayablity to shorten them than just making games shorter. Take BG2 chapter 2 for example. If an actual hard time limit was placed on the player to get to Spellhold (or another sinister outcome would happen - such as not being able to save Imoen, or Bodhi severely crippling the shadow thieves shortening the quests that they can give you) players would play through game faster, but then replay it, doing different quests a second or third time. But for this to work, the entire game would need to have replayablity, not just a one huge chunked section.
Oh and on Dragon Age, one of the reasons why it maybe feeling long (especially if this is the first time playing it) is you are immersing yourself into the lore too much. It is a very verbose (much like this post is becoming) game as it needs to set up an entire new world with its own history, religion, politics, races and characters and how they all relate to one another. Each of the treaty agreements goes through their own little history that takes up a large amount of dialog in the game. Also, even though the voice acting is superb, it is also drawing out the game as listening to someone speak takes more time than actually reading the dialog as in Baldur's Gate.