BG:EE makes way more sense as a concept if you consider it as a tablet release of bg, which the developer has released on the pc as well.
Otherwise people seem to expect a lot of things from it which were never actually promised. For some reason people seem to have got it into there heads that an HD version of the artwork was at some pointed promised as a feature, whereas in the very first interviews Trent did after the game was announced, he specifically states that an HD remake is impossible due to lost art assets.
Only thing bad I can say about BG:EE is that they had to replace the old cinematics with new ones, which were quite frankly poorly done and have stuttering audio (not sure if fixed or not). The old cinematics really were amazing..from candlekeep, the kobolds in nashkel to the wyverns in cloakwood and durlag's tower. They were all really special. It's a crying shame they had to replace them
first of all, all of us (... I would expect) realize that the game was made in 1998. Some people have nostalgia trips, and some others are new to BG. I think its important to make people know, that Baldur's Gate 2 is much more friendly to newcomers with its better graphic, storyline etc and easier gameplay.
Also, when you charge X amount for a game that came out in 1998 you must realize that it compete with other, newly games, for the same price.
That's why I said, would anyone in their right mind actually recommend paying 6-10 euro for BGEE over Dragon Age 1 with all dlc+ expansion for someone new to fantasy?
I hope people realize that, I doubt very much the same guy who made this topic would give BG1 a 7/10 in 1998. But you can't expect newcomers to a game released in 1998 be like "Omfg this game rocks!!!!"
My younger cousin tried Final Fantasy 7 recently and she found the graphic horrible and got annoyed that there is no voice acting. people expect more with the years, someone in their early teens wouldnt find Fallout playable by todays standard. They expect better graphic, that everything should be in detail and very crips so you can see what you can interact with. That's a legit criticsm by today standard.
@raxtoren - I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "Baldur's Gate 2 is much more friendly to newcomers with its better graphic, storyline etc and easier gameplay.". Since the IE:EE is a derivative of the BG2 engine, from a graphic and gameplay standpoint there is little difference between the two (said difference being, in fact, in BG:EE's favor).
first of all, all of us (... I would expect) realize that the game was made in 1998. Some people have nostalgia trips, and some others are new to BG. I think its important to make people know, that Baldur's Gate 2 is much more friendly to newcomers with its better graphic, storyline etc and easier gameplay.
Also, when you charge X amount for a game that came out in 1998 you must realize that it compete with other, newly games, for the same price.
That's why I said, would anyone in their right mind actually recommend paying 6-10 euro for BGEE over Dragon Age 1 with all dlc+ expansion for someone new to fantasy?
I hope people realize that, I doubt very much the same guy who made this topic would give BG1 a 7/10 in 1998. But you can't expect newcomers to a game released in 1998 be like "Omfg this game rocks!!!!"
My younger cousin tried Final Fantasy 7 recently and she found the graphic horrible and got annoyed that there is no voice acting. people expect more with the years, someone in their early teens wouldnt find Fallout playable by todays standard. They expect better graphic, that everything should be in detail and very crips so you can see what you can interact with. That's a legit criticsm by today standard.
well for you dragon age could be better for someone else baldur's gate could be better
For me, No. But would I rather introduce my sister,grandma,parents etc with chess over starcraft, then the answere is ofc yes. And you should know that. The same goes for Baldur's Gate 1. If you honestly think that Baldur's Gate, developed in 1998, is just as easy to sell as Dragon Age, in 2013, to gamers new to fantasy/rpg then I would be truly shocked.
obs! I still think Final Fantasy 7 is the best game ever. However, with outdated graphic, no voice audio, turn based combat, tons of text to read etc, its much harder to sell today to a younger generation - I speak for those that arnt in their 20's like me or for maybe guys in their 30's or 40's.
And yes, im sure in 15 years Dragon Age will not be an easy sell either to the next generation as well - when god knows what Bethseda /bioware or any new upcoming fantasy developers has created to compete with it.
@raxtoren - I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "Baldur's Gate 2 is much more friendly to newcomers with its better graphic, storyline etc and easier gameplay.". Since the IE:EE is a derivative of the BG2 engine, from a graphic and gameplay standpoint there is little difference between the two (said difference being, in fact, in BG:EE's favor).
Baldur's Gate 2 looks better then Baldur's Gate 1 - I can show you pictures in comparsions if you wanna see. And yes, BGEE is updated and support better resolutions, but BGEE2 will look much better later as well.
That's why I said, would anyone in their right mind actually recommend paying 6-10 euro for BGEE over Dragon Age 1 with all dlc+ expansion for someone new to fantasy?
Absolutely. In fact, I'd go so far as to say people should try all the old RPGs; the RPGs that have influenced the more modern ones. Everything up to the start of the Ultima series, and perhaps beyond if you can find legitimate copies and the emulators to run them.
I think the big problem is people expect something a little more graphical; they expect 3D, medium-to high definition textures, etc. If a person's only thought is how it looks, then I wouldn't recommend BG/2 or BG/2:EE—or any game pre-dating 2005 (anything prior to seventh generation consoles, as consoles have an impact on PC (XBox, PS2, GameCube, etc)).
Listen, dude, I don't wanna argue- I'm not a BG basher in a BG forum. Clearly we have diffrent friends and family. I know that games such as: "Baldur's Gate", isnt an easy sell to friends of mines, but a game like Dragon Age/Fallout 3 is.
And why do you think Atari/Beamdog decied to release BG again with updated graphic, some voice acting and some extra quest/items in it? If people are so into the old-school, just buy it from GOG.com without the enhancements.
One of the reason people were willing to fork over the cash and go back to BG (beside supporting the franchise and try to resurect the genre) is because they updated the engine and gave widescreen and higher resolution support - previously it was unoffical mods which wasnt really that much betatested and lacked in many ways.
@taltamir - You probably know this, but there is a reason for the limitations: the original BG1 artwork was lost and the dev team was not allowed to alter original content (I'm not sure if this includes NPC banter).
One could argue that with the limitations known in advance, BGEE should never have been made. But I don't agree with this idea. I see BGEE as a stepping stone to BG2EE (assuming legal issues are resolved successfully). I also have not problem with BGEE primarily pleasing older, nostalgic fans - primarily because I are one! :P
Listen, dude, I don't wanna argue- I'm not a BG basher in a BG forum.
I'm not arguing. Clearly there is a difference between generations. Which, while sad to see, I can appreciate where you are coming from. I played Pong back in the 70s at the arcade, but I wouldn't really want to spend hours playing it now. Especially with all the new games.
I still think people should try some of the games that influenced the modern games. Never hurts to have a bit of history and culture where your favourite hobbies are concerned.
I'm not so sure what has the broadest appeal is really the best measure of quality. Seriously, American Idol gets more viewers than The Blue Planet. What does that prove? Nothing. It's a taste issue. So if pretty but simplified games are currently more popular than an older game with a better story and more sophisticated tactical control but with dated graphics; what does that prove? Nothing.
On this site, turn based, isometric, story driven tactical fantasy adventure will be the most popular.
I'm not so sure what has the broadest appeal is really the best measure of quality. Seriously, American Idol gets more viewers than The Blue Planet. What does that prove? Nothing. It's a taste issue. So if pretty but simplified games are currently more popular than an older game with a better story and more sophisticated tactical control but with dated graphics; what does that prove? Nothing.
On this site, turn based, isometric, story driven tactical fantasy adventure will be the most popular.
I find Dragon Age to have much more richer and well written story then Baldur's Gate 1 ( I know that some of the writers worked on both ... so yeah)
And btw, lets not ignore the graphic part. Its a big part in RPG's. Sakaguchi, creator of Final Fantasy, said:graphic means a lot, if the character looks real its easier to feel connected and sympathize with him/her then if the character was in 2d and had a square for a body and head.
That's why he loves new hardware/console's it helps creating the world/characters a bit better they aimed for. And I agree with him, voice acting for ex helps in games.
the plot was allright, and I loved reading letters/diaries from dead bosses and stuff. It was nicely done. And if I only cared about graphic:
A. I wouldnt buy BGEE. B. I wouldnt have played it for 90+ hours.
However, as someone who never played BG1 in 1998 but in 2013, I can look at the game and compare it to other games - and without nostalgia it wasnt "wow omfg awesome".
But Baldur's Gate 2 is one of my favorite games of all times, maybe it wont be as good when I play it as it was in 2000, and that's okay. I know this however, the story will never get worse. And yes, BG2 will always be in my memory as one of the best games ever made.
once again, show people baldurs gate 1 and dragon age 1. see which people pick, and don't do it from a BG forum - do it irl with people or at a gaming forum. see if im wrong or not.
I'm saying that graphic from 1998 and today in 2013 is a huge diffrence.
And in my opinion its easier to get immerse into the story and characters with better graphic. Does that mean graphic is all that matters, clearly not, or else everyone would just play Crysis 2 and 3 etc.
Also, newer games seems to have better focus testing/Q&A teams. There is some places in older games where you can be lost or its just too hard for no good reason beside making the game seem longer because you get stuck in it.
I actually played Dragon Age 1 + DLCs + Awakening before the Baldur's Gate (not EE, but 1+2+ToB). Baldur's Gate series gets better (from ok to super brilliant) in every way as it progresses. But it's quite the opposite in Dragon Age! It's a brilliant game, if you can live with the fact that there are basically only 3 classes. But the expansion, DA:Awakening and most of the dlcs were disappointing, and DA2 got so poor reviews that I never bought it. Unless DA3 proves out to be at least as good as the original DA, it's better to reroll another dnd game character, ha ha ha haaaa!!!
see I suspected you would say something like that.
its not just the graphic I had a problem with in BG1, it was the story,characters and gameplay. I never said it was bad, im saying for me in 2013 I expect more - or atleast if im gonna give it a high score. Dragon Age delivers that today, Baldur's Gate 2 did that in 2000.
Dragon Age's story and characters were interesting but the gameplay was meh. I mean there were so few spells and abilities available (at least that you could actually cast without making a new character) and the different races from a gameplay standpoint provided very little in the way of differences (dwarves can't be mages and get slight magic resistance other than that the races are very similar). On top of that you had extremely boring places like the tunnels around Orzammar (which just go on, and on, and on). 3 races, 3 classes, and required repetitive (and in the case of Orzammar extensive) dungeon crawling made the gameplay kind of meh in my opinion.
I find Dragon Age to have much more richer and well written story then Baldur's Gate 1 ( I know that some of the writers worked on both ... so yeah)
I knew this comparison would come up eventually. My personal opinion is that BG1 had a much better plot with very poor plot presentation (you discover the plot through letters that nobody reacts to or seems to know about, and the big plot exposition letter in chapter 6 is entirely possible and indeed, depending on how you play your character, quite easy to miss. Pick a fight with Rieltar, which for many is the logical choice, and you can't even access it). On the other hand, DA:O had infinitely better plot presentation, but the plot itself was abysmal. Probably the biggest letdown I've ever had in an RPG. Running around recruiting people was tedious, repetitive and frustratingly predictable, and all the while I was expecting it to be the thing leading up to the meat of the game when it turned out it actually was the meat of the game.
Also, the villain. DA:O and FFX both suffer from this. The actual villain is something elemental which cannot be interacted with (Archdemon, Sin) so instead they shunt in a more human sub-villain to provide drama (Loghain, Seymour). Unfortunately, this compromise leads to the player's attention being torn between two conflicts, and as a result, neither are easy to care about.
Don't get me wrong, though. DA:O is, IMHO, easily the best RPG of the past five years.
Baldur's Gate 2 looks better then Baldur's Gate 1 - I can show you pictures in comparsions if you wanna see.
That is not necessary, as I possess both games and have played them multiple times.
My point is that BG:EE already features all graphical enhancements from BG2 (in fact, BG2+1PP), so from an engine point of view BG2:EE won't look much different. If you're talking design, that's another thing altogether—but again, that's a matter of taste.
First of all dragon age doesn't have a better plot than BG1. The one thing that dissapointed me about dragon age was the plot. It had a great world with so many good ideas (Mage tower, templars, etc) but the plot in itself with the gray warden was something you would find in your normal hack and slash of "You're the hero!" .
There are two major difference with the plot in DA and BG1.
In DA you're told that you're a grey warden and you're the only one that can save us from the big bad monster, ooh noo how shalt we survive this monster? It's so overwhelming and powerfu... wait, look it's the grey warden! We're saved!
IN BG1 you have no idea who you are other than Gorian raised you. When Gorian got killed outside candlekeep you knew even less because you start to question what you already know. There is someone very dangerous that wants to kill you, and you're on your own. You have no idea what to do as there is no big monster you're destined to fight or kill, so you walk around the sword coast and eventually get to nashkel and find out something is wrong. The point here is that Nashkel has NOTHING to do with you, and neither does bandit camp. I love games where you aren't the most important thing in the world, and BG1 really let's you play whatever role you want instead of the dashing hero with blonde hair. Even at the end of the game when you figure out what you are, you're not killing sarevok to save the world, you're doing it for your own reasons.
If both games were at 10$ and someone asked me which game was better, i would say that BG1 is the better game. If someone asked me which game would be easier to get into, i would say that DA would be easier to get into but you'll still want to get into BG1 after buying it, so it doesn't matter if you start with DA or BG1.
DA is like an episode of a new flashy TV serie. BG is like an old book that you hear alot of good about.
When you're done with both, you'll look back at the book with a smile on your lips, and you won't think about the TV serie before someone mentions it.
I agree with many of OPs point, but IMO they are all minor. I am not looking for a musical experience when playing an RPG. BG so far has a very immersive world so I am enjoying it.
Diablo was advertised as a RPG, it's something that might not be true but they still put that title there to draw in more people. And as a RPG game Baldur's gate did everything better.
1.) More classes 2.) More customization 3.) NPCS that were actually alive. 4.) Many NPC's 5.) A huge alive world to interact with.
The only thing Diablo did better was the multiplayer part.
I don't consider Diablo 2 a RPG, but I actually disagree with you in there being less character customization in D2. If you're willing to stray from the cookie cutter builds, D2 has an insane amount of possible character builds due to stat points, skill points, and items that have particular abilities. On the other hand, 2nd edition is rather limited in what you can do once you create your character. For example, a fighter is just a fighter and will always play like one unless you dual class him later.
The only thing Diablo 2 has for customization are skill points. Baldur's gate has so much more.
1.) Stats 2.) The looks of your character 3.) Race 4.) Many more classes 5.) Sub classes 6.) Multi and dual class option 7.) Thieving skills 8.) NPC party
Not to mention the storyline and how you proceed with it. I have played Diablo 2 insanely much and for many years but no matter what you do a sorcerer is still a sorcerer and a paladin is a paladin, even with Niché builds like bear sorcerer and bowadin.
Based on what do you call bear sorceress a niche build? It is a very viable build. Diablo 2 hammerdin is as different from a zealadin as hammerdin is different from a cookie cutter barbarian. You dont know anything about D2.
D2 has 7 classes BG has what, 10-12? Now if you count all the builds that are viable in D2 you get between 50-100 "classes". The second part of D2 character customization is items. Both of these aspects are vastly more rich than in BG, IWD, etc.
D2 is an ARPG while BG games are traditional RPGs where your character is made up of a lot of stuff that is not entirely combat based.
Comments
Otherwise people seem to expect a lot of things from it which were never actually promised. For some reason people seem to have got it into there heads that an HD version of the artwork was at some pointed promised as a feature, whereas in the very first interviews Trent did after the game was announced, he specifically states that an HD remake is impossible due to lost art assets.
Some people have nostalgia trips, and some others are new to BG. I think its important to make people know, that Baldur's Gate 2 is much more friendly to newcomers with its better graphic, storyline etc and easier gameplay.
Also, when you charge X amount for a game that came out in 1998 you must realize that it compete with other, newly games, for the same price.
That's why I said, would anyone in their right mind actually recommend paying 6-10 euro for BGEE over Dragon Age 1 with all dlc+ expansion for someone new to fantasy?
I hope people realize that, I doubt very much the same guy who made this topic would give BG1 a 7/10 in 1998. But you can't expect newcomers to a game released in 1998 be like "Omfg this game rocks!!!!"
My younger cousin tried Final Fantasy 7 recently and she found the graphic horrible and got annoyed that there is no voice acting. people expect more with the years, someone in their early teens wouldnt find Fallout playable by todays standard. They expect better graphic, that everything should be in detail and very crips so you can see what you can interact with. That's a legit criticsm by today standard.
do you think that chess is better than starcraft?
"is chess better then starcraft?"
For me, No. But would I rather introduce my sister,grandma,parents etc with chess over starcraft, then the answere is ofc yes. And you should know that. The same goes for Baldur's Gate 1.
If you honestly think that Baldur's Gate, developed in 1998, is just as easy to sell as Dragon Age, in 2013, to gamers new to fantasy/rpg then I would be truly shocked.
obs! I still think Final Fantasy 7 is the best game ever. However, with outdated graphic, no voice audio, turn based combat, tons of text to read etc, its much harder to sell today to a younger generation - I speak for those that arnt in their 20's like me or for maybe guys in their 30's or 40's.
And yes, im sure in 15 years Dragon Age will not be an easy sell either to the next generation as well - when god knows what Bethseda /bioware or any new upcoming fantasy developers has created to compete with it.
And yes, BGEE is updated and support better resolutions, but BGEE2 will look much better later as well.
I think the big problem is people expect something a little more graphical; they expect 3D, medium-to high definition textures, etc. If a person's only thought is how it looks, then I wouldn't recommend BG/2 or BG/2:EE—or any game pre-dating 2005 (anything prior to seventh generation consoles, as consoles have an impact on PC (XBox, PS2, GameCube, etc)).
Clearly we have diffrent friends and family.
I know that games such as: "Baldur's Gate", isnt an easy sell to friends of mines, but a game like Dragon Age/Fallout 3 is.
And why do you think Atari/Beamdog decied to release BG again with updated graphic, some voice acting and some extra quest/items in it?
If people are so into the old-school, just buy it from GOG.com without the enhancements.
One of the reason people were willing to fork over the cash and go back to BG (beside supporting the franchise and try to resurect the genre) is because they updated the engine and gave widescreen and higher resolution support - previously it was unoffical mods which wasnt really that much betatested and lacked in many ways.
One could argue that with the limitations known in advance, BGEE should never have been made. But I don't agree with this idea. I see BGEE as a stepping stone to BG2EE (assuming legal issues are resolved successfully). I also have not problem with BGEE primarily pleasing older, nostalgic fans - primarily because I are one! :P
I still think people should try some of the games that influenced the modern games. Never hurts to have a bit of history and culture where your favourite hobbies are concerned.
So if pretty but simplified games are currently more popular than an older game with a better story and more sophisticated tactical control but with dated graphics; what does that prove? Nothing.
On this site, turn based, isometric, story driven tactical fantasy adventure will be the most popular.
I find Dragon Age to have much more richer and well written story then Baldur's Gate 1 ( I know that some of the writers worked on both ... so yeah)
And btw, lets not ignore the graphic part.
Its a big part in RPG's. Sakaguchi, creator of Final Fantasy, said:graphic means a lot, if the character looks real its easier to feel connected and sympathize with him/her then if the character was in 2d and had a square for a body and head.
That's why he loves new hardware/console's it helps creating the world/characters a bit better they aimed for.
And I agree with him, voice acting for ex helps in games.
And if I only cared about graphic:
A. I wouldnt buy BGEE.
B. I wouldnt have played it for 90+ hours.
However, as someone who never played BG1 in 1998 but in 2013, I can look at the game and compare it to other games - and without nostalgia it wasnt "wow omfg awesome".
But Baldur's Gate 2 is one of my favorite games of all times, maybe it wont be as good when I play it as it was in 2000, and that's okay. I know this however, the story will never get worse. And yes, BG2 will always be in my memory as one of the best games ever made.
I'm saying that graphic from 1998 and today in 2013 is a huge diffrence.
And in my opinion its easier to get immerse into the story and characters with better graphic.
Does that mean graphic is all that matters, clearly not, or else everyone would just play Crysis 2 and 3 etc.
Also, newer games seems to have better focus testing/Q&A teams. There is some places in older games where you can be lost or its just too hard for no good reason beside making the game seem longer because you get stuck in it.
its not just the graphic I had a problem with in BG1, it was the story,characters and gameplay.
I never said it was bad, im saying for me in 2013 I expect more - or atleast if im gonna give it a high score.
Dragon Age delivers that today, Baldur's Gate 2 did that in 2000.
Also, the villain. DA:O and FFX both suffer from this. The actual villain is something elemental which cannot be interacted with (Archdemon, Sin) so instead they shunt in a more human sub-villain to provide drama (Loghain, Seymour). Unfortunately, this compromise leads to the player's attention being torn between two conflicts, and as a result, neither are easy to care about.
Don't get me wrong, though. DA:O is, IMHO, easily the best RPG of the past five years.
My point is that BG:EE already features all graphical enhancements from BG2 (in fact, BG2+1PP), so from an engine point of view BG2:EE won't look much different. If you're talking design, that's another thing altogether—but again, that's a matter of taste.
There are two major difference with the plot in DA and BG1.
In DA you're told that you're a grey warden and you're the only one that can save us from the big bad monster, ooh noo how shalt we survive this monster? It's so overwhelming and powerfu... wait, look it's the grey warden! We're saved!
IN BG1 you have no idea who you are other than Gorian raised you. When Gorian got killed outside candlekeep you knew even less because you start to question what you already know. There is someone very dangerous that wants to kill you, and you're on your own. You have no idea what to do as there is no big monster you're destined to fight or kill, so you walk around the sword coast and eventually get to nashkel and find out something is wrong. The point here is that Nashkel has NOTHING to do with you, and neither does bandit camp. I love games where you aren't the most important thing in the world, and BG1 really let's you play whatever role you want instead of the dashing hero with blonde hair. Even at the end of the game when you figure out what you are, you're not killing sarevok to save the world, you're doing it for your own reasons.
If both games were at 10$ and someone asked me which game was better, i would say that BG1 is the better game. If someone asked me which game would be easier to get into, i would say that DA would be easier to get into but you'll still want to get into BG1 after buying it, so it doesn't matter if you start with DA or BG1.
DA is like an episode of a new flashy TV serie.
BG is like an old book that you hear alot of good about.
When you're done with both, you'll look back at the book with a smile on your lips, and you won't think about the TV serie before someone mentions it.
D2 has 7 classes BG has what, 10-12? Now if you count all the builds that are viable in D2 you get between 50-100 "classes". The second part of D2 character customization is items. Both of these aspects are vastly more rich than in BG, IWD, etc.
D2 is an ARPG while BG games are traditional RPGs where your character is made up of a lot of stuff that is not entirely combat based.