What you're really buying
oseaswer
Member Posts: 7
I created this account just to respond to that Hadriel guy about whether you'd get your money's worth or not. The thread got closed so I'll just post my response here.
I think there is a difference between a complete makeover and just some cosmetic enhancements. This product is not a remake with the likes of Resident Evil for Gamecube. This is simply, what appears to be, a well-executed re-release with some cosmetic enhancement.
What you're really buying is an excuse to play the same game you played years ago but with some added features. In my opinion, I'd say it's worth it. I could buy the old product for cheap but I wouldn't' be sure it could run on my laptop as I lack the expertise to configure old windows software. If you're expecting a brand-new experience you're looking in the wrong place.
The most important thing is you're not just buying BG1, you're buying the possibility of additional re-releases and even, the holy grail, BG3. Yes, I believe this is not a one-time thing; that the developer sprung up just to grab some quick cash and disappear. I think if there is enough interest, we might see the possibility of BG3 maybe as a kickstarter project.
Even so, I think this is better than a kickstarter project because you're paying for actual product, not merely the possibility of product like the gloried pre-order system that is basically kickstarter. This product is tangible, it's yours in less than 10 days. For me, it's worth it for the remembrance of my favorites games of all time
With that said, I am saddened there are no additional good-alligned NPCs, the team seemed to focus on evil only. That's the only "complaint" I have. Oh and the level cap is disappointing too. BG1 always felt inferior to BG2 in terms of the leveling system. I like to cast lev 9 spells :O
Thanks for reading.
I think there is a difference between a complete makeover and just some cosmetic enhancements. This product is not a remake with the likes of Resident Evil for Gamecube. This is simply, what appears to be, a well-executed re-release with some cosmetic enhancement.
What you're really buying is an excuse to play the same game you played years ago but with some added features. In my opinion, I'd say it's worth it. I could buy the old product for cheap but I wouldn't' be sure it could run on my laptop as I lack the expertise to configure old windows software. If you're expecting a brand-new experience you're looking in the wrong place.
The most important thing is you're not just buying BG1, you're buying the possibility of additional re-releases and even, the holy grail, BG3. Yes, I believe this is not a one-time thing; that the developer sprung up just to grab some quick cash and disappear. I think if there is enough interest, we might see the possibility of BG3 maybe as a kickstarter project.
Even so, I think this is better than a kickstarter project because you're paying for actual product, not merely the possibility of product like the gloried pre-order system that is basically kickstarter. This product is tangible, it's yours in less than 10 days. For me, it's worth it for the remembrance of my favorites games of all time
With that said, I am saddened there are no additional good-alligned NPCs, the team seemed to focus on evil only. That's the only "complaint" I have. Oh and the level cap is disappointing too. BG1 always felt inferior to BG2 in terms of the leveling system. I like to cast lev 9 spells :O
Thanks for reading.
9
Comments
It's a strong value for a good price. I think if they succeed with the goals they have for this project, it will be a home run. Let's hope the character writing, story writing, and voice acting are topflight for all the new content.
My hope is that they make something strikingly similar in graphical feel and game play--although obviously superior in all the ways that make sense--when they get the chance to make BG3.
Then I pre-ordered it for friends who never played it. This is our chance. Our chance to show an entire generation of gamers what they're missing out on. That makes it more than worth it to me.
I'm not paying for BG3. If it comes to that, I surely will. But I'm paying to support Beamdog in the hope that they continue to produce BG-style--top-down isometric RPGs--games. If it's BG3, even better. But not just for that.
Fantastic post. 10/10
1. Yes there is an additional good NPC. We're not positive who yet but there is a Good, Neutral, and Evil. Which puts the NPC count up to 10 Good, 9 Neutral, and 9 Evil. That's incredibly even and I don't see how you can even be remotely sad with that awesome NPC line up. What IS awful, is BG2's 7 Good, 6 Neutral (one of which who dies), 4 Evil. Blargh.
2. Cry me a river. BG1 plays better BG2 you just get overpowered. To each their own there.
RPG's today just have such lacklustre characters, take Dragon Age for example, all the characters were so ... meh, classic text book fantasy. And considering they have about 1000000+ hours of dialogue that's no mean feat to still make them flat, unlikeable and ultimately forgettable. Which is odd, because although someone like Xzar or even Quayle, who have only a handful of dialogue, both text and voiced, they're ten times more memorable AND original.
What I really dislike about modern Bioworn RPG games are the 'homebase' areas. In Dragon Age: Origins it was that SAME camp (what did you bring the bloody trees, rocks and grass with you as well?!) and in Mass Effect it was the Normandy. I hated the 'oh look here are all my NPCs, spread about the place in nooks and crannies that correspond with their personality types, I can go and initiate dialogue with each before the next mission, oh yay' rinse, repeat. BAH!
Dialogue with your companions should be organic, triggered by your surroundings. I know DA and ME had that too, but that should have been built upon.
Rant over
Botched up romance aside, apparently there was the problem of you having no control over who you will accept into your group. I only played once and grabbed everyone I got, so I didn't notice it, but I read someone complaining that he said over and over that he doesn't want the crazy mage girl with attitude, and she still joined. Another thing was the ranger guy who was only joinable somewhere like 2/3 in the game... and then he betrayed me. Yeah, I totally had the time to get to know him and start to give a dang about him. *eyeroll* Not.
Now compare this to much older BG series - it actually HURT the first time I got to Spellhold. I was carrying the traitor's personal weapon in my backpack for the rest of the game, getting sad every time I looked at it. In BG1, I cried when I discovered what happened in Candlekeep, and later, when upon returning to Baldur's Gate I heard the news about Scar. I even cried out when my NPC got petrified the first time!
DA:O had a some of that emotional impact as well, but to much lesser degree.
It appears that developers of RPG games have a backward learning curve - it's like someone at some point said: "hey, we got it perfectly the first time, now let's dump everything that worked and just bring on more gore and desire demons, people will love that!"
That's right. I never owned my own copy of BG1. Played it and beat it a bajillion times, but it was my brother's copy.
Also, to people bawwwwing over how a lot of what's offered here is done through fan mods: Get over it. How about we have professionals in charge of the IP who can offer ONE STANDARD PRODUCT so multiplayer works smoothly, can continue to provide support for the game on a level better and beyond what fans can do, and can offer potential additional licensed content?
Obviously I have nothing against modders. I love people who mod. They make video games better. But if I have the opportunity to experience a "mod" through the eyes of the actual game devs, it's always better. There are very few exceptions.
It's a relief to know that there's an edition of the game with some of the most prominent mods built-in, the code polished, done by professionals who love the game at least as much as I do, and that made it more mod-friendly - so that I just have to install the game and relax playing it.
Even without all the other reasons (additional content, continuous support, DLCs, overhaul of BG2 too, possibility of BG3, IWD:EE and Torment:EE), that's well worth 18 bucks (14 euros!), for me.
You really only have 3 evil characters in BG2. (Korgan, Viconia, Edwin)
Considering how late you get Sarevok, I really don't count him.
Since Overhaul has already confirmed that the 3 new NPCs will be in BG2 the numbers are this.
8 Good (+Rasaad)
7 Neutral (+Neera, lose Yoshi halfway through)
5 Evil (+Dorn, +Sarevok in ToB)
If they can find a way to get us up to like 9 9 8 or something closer to BG1 I'd be thrilled. As it is they already mentioned in the AMAA that they'd be adding a pure thief in BG2 but really didn't tell us more than that.
I mean, the only mods I actively use are like ... making Ankheg Armor non-magical and Dungeon-Be-Gone. lulz. Good point, and agreed! BG2 needs to be more balanced on NPCs, and have A LOT more ... if you ask me, the excess of NPCs in BG1 is its strength. On top of that, they are almost all balanced with one another except for the thieves. :P
Hasn't been any details beyond that, but still.
Text book fantasy characters in Dragon Age? ...Let's examine this a little more closely.
We've got a...
Sarcastic, slightly foolish ex-Paladin.
Bisexual elven assassin who has never actually killed anybody personally.
Former superspy whose cover was being a minstrel, had a change of heart and became a nun.
Dark witch with an Randian outlook but is not one of the villains, and is in fact is one of your most stalwart allies.
Sentient sociopath golem whose decades-long stasis has given it a psychotic hatred of all birds.
Dwarven berserker who takes the drunkeness to its logical, pathetic extreme and is a completely disgusting, dishonorable, loud-mouthed lout instead of a regal, honorbound, traditionalist bastion.
No, no, I'm afraid I haven't read about any characters like that in Tolkien or Jordan. Please point me to the novels you're reading that so thoroughly turn standard fantasy tropes on their ears.
Moreover, this subversion is also true on a broader scale: sure, dwarves live underground, but their society is also depicted as being so rigid, so hierarchical in its caste structure, that they're basically on the cusp of extinction even without the darkspawn threat. The elves have no innate affinity to nature - they're either living in city slums or wandering around desperately trying to understand just what it is they're supposed to be doing. The templars are hardliners whose actions are, depending on your interpretation, tragically necessary or horrifically excessive. Mages are basically punished for being born, and are extremely vulnerable to possession and corruption at all times - there's no Elminster or Gandalf to show people the wondrous benefits of magic.
No, I would argue DAO is the result of Gaider and friends looking at the Tolkien template, turning it upside down and saying "okay, that's a good starting point, let's keep going."
It started slow. Then again, I can't think of any CPRG without a slow start. BG1 has a slow start if you ask me because until you hit level 2 or 3, you're at the mercy of RNG. I actually like the starter dungeon in BG2 (it was done really well from a train-the-player stand point) but most people seem to hate it. DA:O through Lothering is kind of boring but after that, I thoroughly enjoyed everything.
It had great characters. Alistair is written very well and is quite likable, and he's the one that falls into the typical fantasy trope the most. Wynne is very atypical for the old mage archtype (she has magic breasts!), Morrigan is frustratingly morally grey and ambiguous, Zevrhan is pretty weird as far as assassins go. And you have a GOLEM NPC. Shale is without a doubt one of my favorite characters in RPG history.
Besides, if we're going to get on DA:O for "predictable fantasy RPG characters," the same could be applied to Baldur's Gate. Surly, money grubbing dwarf? Check. Dopey dumb-as-bricks but loyal fighter guy? Check. Shorty with a penchant for stealing things? Check. Amazon? Check. Secretive plotting wizard? Check.
You kind of can't escape cliches anymore. It's said in the world of literature you can't make a story that wasn't written by Homer first; the Iliad and the Odyssey encompass all drama.
Maybe Cassandra. But even that's a stretch.
Sure in hind sight, the BG NPCs certainly look like textbook fantasy characters, but I can't help but feel like they were the first of their kind. Morrigan just seems like a rehash of Viconia, Zevran - Coran, Oghren - Korgan, Aveline- Jaheira, Isabela - Safana.
(I had to google their names because I'd forgotten them!)
I suppose what does irk me about the DA NPCs is how utterly different they each are. They share no similarities to one another, all they do is disagree and argue - without, I must add, any real consequences (I'm thinking Kivan - Viconia, Edwin - Minsc, Jaheira - Xzar etc), they're all at polar ends of this 'spectrum' Bioworn invented. Whereas in BG there were obvious polar personalities (the ones listed above are probably the best examples), but there were also (unlikely) friendships, Shar-Teel and Branwen, Alora and Edwin, Coran and Safana. Forgive me if some of the DA NPCs do form friendships but I don't remember their being any, I only played each game once (the latter through gritted teeth - god that was a terrible game).
Still ... this is, after all my opinion, not saying this is the truth.
As for relationships: Leliana and Morrigan talk about clothes, Shale the golem has a crush on Sten, and, of course, the poster girls for unlikely friendships, Aveline and Isabela.