I love the beginning portion of BG1.
To be honest, I don't think highly of BG1. I don't deny its monumental importance in gaming history, but compared to BG2, BG1 lacks in many parts even when played with EE. However, I find myself playing BG1 more often than BG2 and I realized its because I love the beginning part of BG1 after you leave candlekeep.
Having Imoen killed by a wolf and getting your entire party wiped out by a direwolf are too fun and it is nowhere to be found in modern gaming. I've seen lots of people complaining BG1 has no regards towards balance at the beginning, but don't you love it when your wimpish character who struggled against a wolf later literally becomes a god rather than having the exactly same challenge from the beginning to the end as in scaled enemies?
I miss BG1's beginning of having less than 10 HP and having to struggle to survive because it is both immersive and perfectly fits the in game narrative. I dislike modern RPGs that give you tutorial level at the beginning in combats; despite its story telling you you are in a grave danger, you roflstomp everyone and earn enough gold to afford all gears needed at the beginning. I wish more games focus on synchronizing narratives to gameplay experience rather than focusing on game difficulty balance that makes casuals angry if not equal throughout the game.
Does anyone like this part of BG1 for the same reason?
22
Comments
Yes, I think that a true RPG should be the same in the level of danger for early levels.
Although I like BG1 as a whole and can't say that BG1 is worse than BG2:)
BTW, after you finish a prologue in PoE, your character becomes nearly as vulnerable as the Bhaalspawn is in the start of BG1. This is one of the things I've liked a lot in PoE.
Is this a new addition to BGEE? I don't like it... 1 hit death is fun and should be fully expected at low levels, including perma death. And is dismemberment gone in EE?
What makes BG1, and to an even stronger degree D&D, so great is that it is about facing situations with the cards you have been dealt. Sometimes your hand is going to suck, and the odds are going to be stacked heavily against you. All that means is you haven't figured out a way to win. There is ALWAYS a way to win, you just need to be willing to look beyond your usual notions and strategies to find it. If you're unable to find a way to win, then you lose; simple as that.
It's an argument I've had with my friends many times about games, and other areas of life. I know that a part of my thinking comes from how I was raised in my youth. My father, being a marine drilled a saying into my that has helped me throughout my entire life. "Adapt and overcome" From his explanation, failure isn't an option. Whatever you're given, ideal or not, you must adapt your tactics and overcome your hurdles. In his line of work, if you don't, you can literally be killed.
BG1, especially the beginning, presents this better than almost any game I've played since. So.... I agree, I guess is what I'm saying... <.<
As for why Xzar and Monty cannot be chunked, your guess is as good as mine. (edit: I was wrong!)
My in-game theory is that they're under some sort of modified geas, which would explain why they work together despite hating each other.
* The only other game I can think of is the Mass Effect trilogy, which is perhaps unsurprising as it shares the feature of importing your character into the sequels.
I was wrong about not being able to chunk Montaron and Xzar after 1st level. I just tested a 5th level Monty and Xzar against Sarevok on insane difficulty and he chunked them both. ^.^
The 2-hit kill and no chunking at 1st level still applies though. Xzar only took 3 HP from Sarevok at 1st level.
I always solo so I guess I struggle more with these fights, but when 1 x magic missile (cast time 1) or 1 x lightning bolt/ flame arrow can kill charname it seems a bit sucky to me.
http://forum.baldursgate.com/discussion/comment/630200/#Comment_630200