But dead is dead. What alternative is there outside of immortality like planescape torment? It's not very logical that a creature will hit you until you are on the ground and then move on.
Given the 25+ npcs you can allow yourself some death in the party.
Or be on your toes to avoid any death, instead of playing absent-mindedly till the next quest giver because there's too little at stake.
The best MMORPG I played took away your whole XP bar on death and could have you drop precious items randomly that could then be stolen by other players. Players could of course ambush, kill and loot other players, but also steal from them if they had enough skill and stat points. Trade could be interfered with as an uninvited third party ran away with both the gold and the item. Shit happened in that game, it was anything but boring
It's okay having different tastes but I'm not gonna agree "less lethality" is an objective improvement, it's just a different design choice. Who knows, maybe games in 20 years will have become more ruthless again.
The thing to note regarding lethality is that it's not really about computer games. The IE games emulate 2nd edition D&D, which is just that deadly in the first place. The tabletop games mechanically evolved from wargaming, in which death is simply expected and rolling up a new character is cheap. Over the years and editions, the tabletop games have shifted toward character-focused roleplaying and less lethality, and the games associated with the brand have followed suit. AD&D/2nd edition is pretty early in that process.
Sure, I get what you're saying here, but just want to note that as Ammar said above, the Gold Box games did it a little different, arguably better, and also did it in a way that was even more faithful to 2nd edition rules.
Again, not trying to dog the games, but veteran player ought to appreciate that if you didn't play these game initially, or games like them, there is a weird difficulty curve, especially in BG1.
The thing to note regarding lethality is that it's not really about computer games. The IE games emulate 2nd edition D&D, which is just that deadly in the first place. The tabletop games mechanically evolved from wargaming, in which death is simply expected and rolling up a new character is cheap. Over the years and editions, the tabletop games have shifted toward character-focused roleplaying and less lethality, and the games associated with the brand have followed suit. AD&D/2nd edition is pretty early in that process.
If you want a tactically challenging computer game, in which your characters could die for the smallest mistake or even just bad luck, that's still out there. Play something like X-COM. You're just not going to find that as a D&D game now, unless you're deliberately playing older games like this one.
Incidentally, the best tool for mitigating that early-game lethality in BG1? Ranged attacks. Play a party with two or three archers, and take down foes before they can ever reach you.
Not being dead until -10 hp is an official optional 2nd edition AD&D rule called "Hovering on Death's Door". That's the same kind of rule as weapon proficiencies. Even more so it's an optional rule just like critical hits is, and that optional rule is one of the factors that aggravates it.
And it still doesn't make the game that much easier since the character will be bleeding out. You can't make tactical retreats for example. Certain monsters like ghouls could continue attacking the unconscious character, etc. Once you fight stronger monsters they could still kill you by bringing you to -10 instantly, etc.
I'm pretty aware of how to avoid getting hit in the game and running archer squads early on. Or just go basilisk hunting with Protection from Petrify and Korgax for some early XP or whatever.
But the point remains that if you play without that optional rule the entire fantasy archetype of the melee fighter is pretty much invalidated for the first part of BG. I'd call that sub-optimal design, especially as the game suggests it is a viable play style.
And my PnP groups back then also tended to use that rule (or start at 2nd level).
As for XCOM - I play that too, but it tends to be consistently deadly (in BG the first level-up basically up to *doubles* your hit points) and soldiers are much more replaceable.
But the point remains that if you play without that optional rule the entire fantasy archetype of the melee fighter is pretty much invalidated for the first part of BG. I'd call that sub-optimal design, especially as the game suggests it is a viable play style.
Wait, playing as a fighter in the first part of BG is not invalidated at all, there is such a thing as AC which can multiply by up to 20 the amount of physical attacks needed to take a character down. The only tense part is up to Friendly Arm, and still not so much if you take Xzar and Montaron or run from some encounters or stick to the road and rush to Friendly Arm as is advised by travellers at every corner. When the protagonist wanders off the road and refuses to team up with weirdos and fights all fights, it is tense for all classes as it should.
Past the Friendly Arm or Beregost for the late bloomers, Fighters have enough AC and mages have meatshields, so no class is invalidated. And as soon as level 2 hits, things are basically rolling.
I think there is a disconnect here in that all of us have been playing the game a long case, e.g. in my case since it was released.
I think for a new player (even one who read the manual and understands the basics of the 2nd edition rules):
You will gain XP very slowly, especially with a full party. It's really easy as a new player to end up at Mulahey at level 1. Level 1 is a significant chunk of the game for a new player. I agree it speeds up afterwards.
Unless you optimise a lot and get lucky with equipment it is really hard to get AC 0 or below early in the game given that it requires Scale Mail and very high dex at the least.
All of us know where to find decent equipment and easy XP unless we make a deliberate effort not to meta-game in any way.
Sure, AC helps a bit, but the issue with AC is that it is very RNGy. Even if you get hit only on a 18-20 - which is really good - it still very easy to die. And with the way the death screen works you might not even see what happened the first few times.
And finally, in the original game it was actually even harder for melee characters since walk speed was slower. So you took more arrows in getting there.
There's really a reason that everyone considers ranged weapons so superior at the start.
One thing to keep in mind with those kind of games, which was very present in nearly all rpg games like Daggerfall and Morrowind (compared them to Oblivion and Skyrim and get what i mean). the d20 or dnd rules were there to make the game hard to predict especially with the wide variety of possible approaches. If you put all your hopes on a chance to hit or miss, the outcome of the situation will also be a hit or a miss. The more you reduce the luck factor (buffs, disablers, immobilization, summons, avoiding attack rolls in the first place...) the highest your chance of success is.
Still just like a level 1 fighter with no fighting experience except castle walls vs a level 7 battle hardened one, the player is also a bit of the same. You can't really expect to use all your assets effectively if you don't have the experience required first, just like an army recruit doesn't have the field experience of a sergeant or a general. Story mode is there up to LoB for this. The higher the difficulty, the more you have to learn how to reduce the luck factor in your actions with your available abilities.
Considering OP post, yes the game design is far from perfect but it's also why it's loved so much. Many points you listed are pretty easy to overcome like:
1-the dice roll one which is just equal odds, appropriate Thac0 will have 95% accuracy. This also illustrate that even a newbie can get lucky while even a pro can miss his shot;
2-spell interruption can be clunky but there are counters to all spells and immobilization/crowd control pretty much always work (scrolls are also impossible to interrupt for the player);
3-charm requires no aggressive action at all toward the charmed creature (and also the charmed creature to stop attacking a friendly unit right after being charmed) or it will turn back hostile at the end of the round;
4-when you'll learn the effect of spells, the 3/4 are worth using but most are situational a bit like a chess move. This is what makes sorcerer an advanced class, you have to know what work on the majority of scenarios to not be left with something that could have been covered by a scroll a few times or something that can be covered by another mean that serve more purpose in the long run;
5-enemy mages follow a logical spell order to be able to cast their spells (buffs, summons, disablers/cc, damage, not following that order would possibly lower their fighting effectiveness, the same applies for the players and it is why pre-buffing is so strong and why it is implemented with AI enhancing mods. Not following this spell order might result interruption or spells being ineffective), still the spells are also limited like in all games so yeah, you'll end up seeing the same buffs and debuffs applies often which in the same way can make them much easier to counter;
6-wisdom being more for balance overall which is still covered by shorty saves, it's just one less ''mandatory'' stat to worry about during the attribute dice roll at creation on top of max dex and 16/18 con + max class attribute. Still constantly fighting perfect saves clerics would become tedious soon enough. Honestly character building, it makes next to no difference in the long run, just less points to waste at creation;
7-Well with invisibility they actually don't see you at all. Still if enemies have to mean to detect, they will use it but they have no way to even know that you're here unless you interact with their environment. Enemies just standing there is pretty common no matter the game. Played Dragon Age Origin, Dragon Dogma, KOTOR, Mass Effect, Divinity: Original Sin and other great titles and most enemies really just stand there waiting to attack. It's not like they're really expecting you anyway most of the time so at best what could they do except being on the high ready for when you show up? Still SCS does change that behaviour and make enemies look for you if you hit and run before retaking their spot, it is implemented by default during Siege of Dragonspear mostly because everybody really knew that the vanilla AI was pretty lacking but hey, it's 20 years old so you've got to expect some dated mechanics. We're pretty lucky to have mods that fixes it and makes it customizable, other RPGs of that era don't all have that same chance.
-For the save scumming part, refer to my second paragraph. As already mentionned some great players finished the game without reloading, a few others on LoB, some even solo, it totally means that the majority of the risks are totally manageable or avoidable for the most part once you become more experimented.
On another note, saw a post yesterday about a player who defeated the undercity party and got one of his fighter turned into stone. No problem as he had stone to flesh scrolls but a mage used chaos on his party before dying which made one of his confused archer shoot at his petrified fighter post fight shattering him. I mean yeah, it's pretty hilarious and unpredictable but this is also why we keep playing the game. If there is a slight chance for something to happen, it will eventually happen and the possibilities are as wide as an ocean. I got as frustrated as you are when i first played but after venting off and restarting my character over 20 times, i discovered one of my favourite game of all time and no, i'm not an OG player so it's totally possible to get into the game nowadays even with it's dated mechanics, started using AI mods only this year. Doesn't mean that it's going to be a game for you either way though.
I think there is a disconnect here in that all of us have been playing the game a long case, e.g. in my case since it was released.
I think for a new player (even one who read the manual and understands the basics of the 2nd edition rules):
You will gain XP very slowly, especially with a full party. It's really easy as a new player to end up at Mulahey at level 1. Level 1 is a significant chunk of the game for a new player. I agree it speeds up afterwards.
Unless you optimise a lot and get lucky with equipment it is really hard to get AC 0 or below early in the game given that it requires Scale Mail and very high dex at the least.
All of us know where to find decent equipment and easy XP unless we make a deliberate effort not to meta-game in any way.
Sure, AC helps a bit, but the issue with AC is that it is very RNGy. Even if you get hit only on a 18-20 - which is really good - it still very easy to die. And with the way the death screen works you might not even see what happened the first few times.
And finally, in the original game it was actually even harder for melee characters since walk speed was slower. So you took more arrows in getting there.
There's really a reason that everyone considers ranged weapons so superior at the start.
I think one of the key points folks are missing about the results of these design decisions is that the game is much, much harder in its first two hours or so than it is in, say, hours 10-20. That is a legitimate, objective flaw in the game design. And it's something that's probably kept quite a large number of new players from getting into the game.
There's nothing wrong with having a game that's punishing, per se. But the difficulty curve should be the opposite. IMO, the difficulty is the right way for BG2.
You will gain XP very slowly, especially with a full party. It's really easy as a new player to end up at Mulahey at level 1. Level 1 is a significant chunk of the game for a new player. I agree it speeds up afterwards.
Isn't it the other way around: Level 1 is the quickest to graduate from, and it slows down violently later on.
harder in its first two hours or so than it is in, say, hours 10-20. That is a legitimate, objective flaw in the game design.
It's a given for all games where you can accumulate capital in the form of allies, equipment, competence and powers as you advance through the game. It's a given, but I'd call that pleasing gameplay rather than an "objective flaw in game design". Accumulating "capital" is rewarding, feeling the progress you made from the early days is satisfying. Losing that capital and having it tough again like in early BG2 is great too. So like, a good game loop is to start with nothing, accumulate, lose most of it from some kind of twist of the fate, claw it back like a true Chad Sarevok, and, well I mean at some point it'll be predictable and repetitive, but IMO less than endless accumulation, and later.
And it's something that's probably kept quite a large number of new players from getting into the game.
Yeah yeah, like having to read text drove out people from Planescape Torment (or BG for that matter). I'd rather not have the size of the target audience used as a metric for game quality.
EDIT: Rereading, the tone may come out somewhat cold or aggressive but that's just a bad editorial choice on my part rather than actual feelings
Eh, I don't think your comparisons work. And I don't think they even hold up to much scrutiny. The first Pillars had a lot of text to read. It attracted alot of new players. Kingmaker also has a lot of non-voiced text, it also attracted players.
Again, the problem with BG1 -- in this specific regard -- is that it encourages new players to save-scum and constantly reload. It's worth repeating, I think this is something veteran players miss because most of us learned how to cope with the early game difficulty. Moreover, save-scumming and constant reloading was a more accepted gameplay style back when these games were released. But it's not something that modern players enjoy as much.
I also don't think the powering-up logic really works either, when you contrast the game with modern CRPG's. Those all have a similar increase in power, but not the same extremely difficult experience of being level one for so long in BG1.
Speaking of difficulty curves, my personal feeling is that the major fights (i.e. the end of chapter encounters in BG) should generally increase in difficulties, but that there should be valley where you fight enemies you fought before and that are easier now that you have become stronger.
The problem with Baldur's Gate again is that there isn't really one difficulty curve. It is affected by too many factors:
Experience with the game - as you learn what options work well the difficulty will decrease for you. I.e. learning how good Sleep is at low levels is a difficulty reducer. People familiar with 1st or 2nd edition rules start at a higher level. Experience increases the more you play, but the first few playthroughs are probably the one where you learn the most.
Meta-knowledge of the game: knowing where to find which items, what areas are dangerous, which quests are easy but give good XP - etc. This will affect everything from your 2nd time through the gate.
For the purpose of discussion let's call the difficulty for a veteran with a couple of playthroughs and good understanding of the game the innate difficulty.
Why I bring all this up: I think there is a genuine game design issue if you front-load the innate difficulty too much.
If it's front-loaded for an experienced player, it is even more front-loaded for a newbie because the content of the game becomes easier at the same time as his knowledge of the game improves. I think it's very difficult to really balance that. Even if you like front-loaded games (and the growth in power has an appeal) you are likely to end up with too little front-loading for a veteran or too much front-loading for a newbie.
Even a constant innate difficulty throughout the game will effectively be front-loaded for a beginner.
One example in my mind of a innately front-loaded games is the Gothic series - in particular Gothic 2 with NOTR installed. As a veteran you get a difficulty that is still quite front-loaded, but is fun in that you see how your power grows and it takes a decent amount of time until it drops off sharply. But still the last half of the game become a cakewalk.
But if you would go into it blind as a complete newbie, then the front-loading is so strong beginning is likely to be very frustrating.
I like the difficulty curve I have with my modded BG setup. It works really well for me, but probably not for other people.
Level 1 in adnd 2e is most boring part for most players (there are some who loves it) and that is where bg2 is shine. You start at higher level, you have options to play. In level 1 there is only 1-2 spells you have, no real combat options nor fancy equipment.
After tons of plays now i jus starting at level 5 (like kill all basilisks in mutamin garden) and i can recruit Khalid and Jaheira far more beleivable level (as old time adventurers).
I like the way that you have to put effort into your first levels. Every level should be challenging.
I don't like early levels where the game obviously patronises you with an introduction npc and you go through one area together and magically you level up at the exact moment that you got through that area.
I like the way that you have to put effort into your first levels. Every level should be challenging.
I don't like early levels where the game obviously patronises you with an introduction npc and you go through one area together and magically you level up at the exact moment that you got through that area.
Like in NWN where you level up before leaving that starting area, yes.
I like the low levels too, you have to use other tactics and strategy. As I said, I'd like to have the Hover at Death's Gate mechanic to make them a bit more forgiving and reasonable for new players, but skipping them totally seems too much.
I get people who want to start at level 2, that doesn't really trivialize anything yet. Level 5 seems a bit much, at that point you have spells like Fireball and Haste (though you'd have to cheat in the scrolls for those).
What always feels appropriate to me in terms of challenges in BG 1 is being level 2 or 3 for Nashkel mines, level 4 for bandit camp, level 5 for Cloakwood mines and level 7 for Durlag's tower. I know you can easily be higher than that, but those levels make the end of chapter battles appropriately balanced IMO.
But dead is dead. What alternative is there outside of immortality like planescape torment? It's not very logical that a creature will hit you until you are on the ground and then move on.
Given the 25+ npcs you can allow yourself some death in the party.
Just a note, as I missed this earlier. It's not a solo RPG. It is quite logical that an intelligent and animal opponents would attack an enemy that is still up and swinging at him over someone incapacitated on the ground.
Only if there's no other active threat he'd start finishing off people on the ground. With undead like ghouls it might be different.
I think the devs know it was bad game design as well. Because they added items like Baldurans shield which makes you immune to beholders, protection from undead scrolls and so on <<< these things are bad game design. The robe of vecna, omg
Let's go to another problem, poison. I decide to memorize cure poison, completely useless if my cleric/druid gets poisoned, because that spell will be interrupted by ... the poison itself
Ah, potions, another problem with the game. That's what battles are, drink potions to get fire giant strength etc
I dont think there are tactics when players cast the sleep spell to win early fights etc. For some reason the sleep wand can be used by class........ i wonder why
- having ranged characters shoot while another one runs around in circles to lure enemies is bad AI
- buffing during tough battles is foolish, you need to buff just before the battle, breaks immersion
^ this means you need to have knowledge of each battle beforehand. This means you get trashed on, reload and then buff up / casts summons etc to beat that battle. Completely immersion breaking
In BG2, the enemy can cast all their buffs instantly at the beginning of the battle
My cleric can't cast chant instantly, no my cleric has a chant spell with a casting time of 9. Most tough battles are all the same, enemy drinks haste potion etc, mages all cast the same spells, and the second a battle starts, the enemy has all their protections and buffs instantly casted for them (including non-mages)
You can have a high AC of -10 or more, doesn't matter, enemies have insane THAC0 and will hit you almost every attack
I tried to play through the game as if I was a "new player", this means not prebuffing fights etc, it's very difficult. Not in a challenging way, but in a "this is stupid" way. It required reloading all the time; enemies make their saving throws 8 out of 10 times, another character is almost dead even though he has -12 AC and is tanking only 2 enemies in SoA. You need to cast haste every battle because the enemy does. FFS this game is dog$***
And one more complaint, although minor. This time regarding EE
A good artist... illustrates... the theme... of the product
This artist, http://isandir.com actually made portraits that looks like it belongs in BG2
But beamdog wants to charge money for portraits that don't even fit the game. They commissioned some "noteworthy" artist to do it. Well that "noteworthy" artist you got to do the portraits is crap, because they drew in their style and not in a style that fit the theme of the product. That is a BAD artist
The new characters are poorly written and do not fit with the game, I did get the impression that Neera is CN, but she also comes across as an American teenage brat from LA or something. It's fine to have a bit of pop culture thrown in, but not as a main character
Then there is the SoD situation. I'm just gonna pick one thing out of that, and it's the writing for Safana, there are women like that, it's not a "toxic male" fantasy. I myself have experienced sexual-harassment from women like that at work
But then who cares if it is a "toxic male" fantasy or whatever that means
Similar to the awful portrait artist, your writers didn't write for the product they were involved in, they wrote and created things they wanted, including retconning things they were "offended" by
Some of the best things in BG were the dialogues. Walking in the streets at night, and some street wench is like, "wanna see mah tits darling". I'm surprised your fat leg-beard writers didn't try censoring that
Because it's reloading to pre-plan a battle you are about to face (or pickpock)
Summoning creatures, buffing etc right before a fight you know is about to take place (but didn't before you died) is immersion breaking
or you try again; until the attack / spell rolls go your way.
And you have to, because there is no "coming back" in a fight.
Save before a fight; reload until you win
It's called save-scumming. And a lot of players hate that, it's indicative of terrible game design
Oh here is a lich, well let's reload. Lay some traps, or cast a scroll (piece of paper) that makes me immune to one of the most powerful creatures in the universe before I encounter that creature
As has been said before, you don't need to reload to win the game, but you do need to plan. If you don't want to reload, use meta-knowledge or use some of the easier methods to win fights, then you need to scout ahead and plan for encounters. You also need to be prepared to withdraw from a combat if it's not going your way - if you decide ahead of time to rely on the rolls and "do or die", then it should be no surprise that some of the time you will die. I would say that's exactly the same in P&P as well ...
As has been said before, you don't need to reload to win the game, but you do need to plan. If you don't want to reload, use meta-knowledge or use some of the easier methods to win fights, then you need to scout ahead and plan for encounters. You also need to be prepared to withdraw from a combat if it's not going your way - if you decide ahead of time to rely on the rolls and "do or die", then it should be no surprise that some of the time you will die. I would say that's exactly the same in P&P as well ...
That doesn't work. It works for you because you know what each fight already is.
Yes scouting is good, but there are so many battles where you are talking to people and then they turn hostile and you have to kill them in order to progress in the game or to complete a quest.
You have characters with a great AC, but it doesn't matter because the enemy THAC0 trashes you
People that haven't played this game 50 times are not gonna put up with that crap.
Enemies get all their buffs instantly at the start of battle, they cast chant instantly followed by strength of one etc and then start attacking. You have a casting time of 9 for chant. That's straight up bullshit
Your option is NOT valid for most of the game. You are talking as if every battle is some "I walked into these hostile characters on the map".
And the most powerful creatures in the game? Use item that makes you immune to them. No epic battle, just "he cant touch me"
I don't get it. If I am that annoyed by a game design I just stop playing it and move on. I would never bother to write walls of text bitching about it for over a month. It must not be 'that' bad of a game design if you're this familiar with a 20 year old game. Just saying...
I don't get it. If I am that annoyed by a game design I just stop playing it and move on. I would never bother to write walls of text bitching about it for over a month. It must not be 'that' bad of a game design if you're this familiar with a 20 year old game. Just saying...
Maybe he died in the middle of a no reload run. I regularly swear I will never play this stupid game again when that happens.
I don't get it. If I am that annoyed by a game design I just stop playing it and move on. I would never bother to write walls of text bitching about it for over a month. It must not be 'that' bad of a game design if you're this familiar with a 20 year old game. Just saying...
I got it because of BG3.
When I played the Witcher 3, I had to stop and go back to play 1 & 2 before finishing 3
Think of it like watching star wars 3 first without seeing 1 and 2
I don't get it. If I am that annoyed by a game design I just stop playing it and move on. I would never bother to write walls of text bitching about it for over a month. It must not be 'that' bad of a game design if you're this familiar with a 20 year old game. Just saying...
I got it because of BG3.
When I played the Witcher 3, I had to stop and go back to play 1 & 2 before finishing 3
Think of it like watching star wars 3 first without seeing 1 and 2
Interesting. I take it that you're enjoying BG3 then? I'm hoping to like it myself when it's finally released, but I have reservations...
Comments
Given the 25+ npcs you can allow yourself some death in the party.
The best MMORPG I played took away your whole XP bar on death and could have you drop precious items randomly that could then be stolen by other players. Players could of course ambush, kill and loot other players, but also steal from them if they had enough skill and stat points. Trade could be interfered with as an uninvited third party ran away with both the gold and the item. Shit happened in that game, it was anything but boring
It's okay having different tastes but I'm not gonna agree "less lethality" is an objective improvement, it's just a different design choice. Who knows, maybe games in 20 years will have become more ruthless again.
Sure, I get what you're saying here, but just want to note that as Ammar said above, the Gold Box games did it a little different, arguably better, and also did it in a way that was even more faithful to 2nd edition rules.
Again, not trying to dog the games, but veteran player ought to appreciate that if you didn't play these game initially, or games like them, there is a weird difficulty curve, especially in BG1.
Not being dead until -10 hp is an official optional 2nd edition AD&D rule called "Hovering on Death's Door". That's the same kind of rule as weapon proficiencies. Even more so it's an optional rule just like critical hits is, and that optional rule is one of the factors that aggravates it.
And it still doesn't make the game that much easier since the character will be bleeding out. You can't make tactical retreats for example. Certain monsters like ghouls could continue attacking the unconscious character, etc. Once you fight stronger monsters they could still kill you by bringing you to -10 instantly, etc.
I'm pretty aware of how to avoid getting hit in the game and running archer squads early on. Or just go basilisk hunting with Protection from Petrify and Korgax for some early XP or whatever.
But the point remains that if you play without that optional rule the entire fantasy archetype of the melee fighter is pretty much invalidated for the first part of BG. I'd call that sub-optimal design, especially as the game suggests it is a viable play style.
And my PnP groups back then also tended to use that rule (or start at 2nd level).
As for XCOM - I play that too, but it tends to be consistently deadly (in BG the first level-up basically up to *doubles* your hit points) and soldiers are much more replaceable.
Past the Friendly Arm or Beregost for the late bloomers, Fighters have enough AC and mages have meatshields, so no class is invalidated. And as soon as level 2 hits, things are basically rolling.
I think for a new player (even one who read the manual and understands the basics of the 2nd edition rules):
All of us know where to find decent equipment and easy XP unless we make a deliberate effort not to meta-game in any way.
Sure, AC helps a bit, but the issue with AC is that it is very RNGy. Even if you get hit only on a 18-20 - which is really good - it still very easy to die. And with the way the death screen works you might not even see what happened the first few times.
And finally, in the original game it was actually even harder for melee characters since walk speed was slower. So you took more arrows in getting there.
There's really a reason that everyone considers ranged weapons so superior at the start.
Still just like a level 1 fighter with no fighting experience except castle walls vs a level 7 battle hardened one, the player is also a bit of the same. You can't really expect to use all your assets effectively if you don't have the experience required first, just like an army recruit doesn't have the field experience of a sergeant or a general. Story mode is there up to LoB for this. The higher the difficulty, the more you have to learn how to reduce the luck factor in your actions with your available abilities.
Considering OP post, yes the game design is far from perfect but it's also why it's loved so much. Many points you listed are pretty easy to overcome like:
1-the dice roll one which is just equal odds, appropriate Thac0 will have 95% accuracy. This also illustrate that even a newbie can get lucky while even a pro can miss his shot;
2-spell interruption can be clunky but there are counters to all spells and immobilization/crowd control pretty much always work (scrolls are also impossible to interrupt for the player);
3-charm requires no aggressive action at all toward the charmed creature (and also the charmed creature to stop attacking a friendly unit right after being charmed) or it will turn back hostile at the end of the round;
4-when you'll learn the effect of spells, the 3/4 are worth using but most are situational a bit like a chess move. This is what makes sorcerer an advanced class, you have to know what work on the majority of scenarios to not be left with something that could have been covered by a scroll a few times or something that can be covered by another mean that serve more purpose in the long run;
5-enemy mages follow a logical spell order to be able to cast their spells (buffs, summons, disablers/cc, damage, not following that order would possibly lower their fighting effectiveness, the same applies for the players and it is why pre-buffing is so strong and why it is implemented with AI enhancing mods. Not following this spell order might result interruption or spells being ineffective), still the spells are also limited like in all games so yeah, you'll end up seeing the same buffs and debuffs applies often which in the same way can make them much easier to counter;
6-wisdom being more for balance overall which is still covered by shorty saves, it's just one less ''mandatory'' stat to worry about during the attribute dice roll at creation on top of max dex and 16/18 con + max class attribute. Still constantly fighting perfect saves clerics would become tedious soon enough. Honestly character building, it makes next to no difference in the long run, just less points to waste at creation;
7-Well with invisibility they actually don't see you at all. Still if enemies have to mean to detect, they will use it but they have no way to even know that you're here unless you interact with their environment. Enemies just standing there is pretty common no matter the game. Played Dragon Age Origin, Dragon Dogma, KOTOR, Mass Effect, Divinity: Original Sin and other great titles and most enemies really just stand there waiting to attack. It's not like they're really expecting you anyway most of the time so at best what could they do except being on the high ready for when you show up? Still SCS does change that behaviour and make enemies look for you if you hit and run before retaking their spot, it is implemented by default during Siege of Dragonspear mostly because everybody really knew that the vanilla AI was pretty lacking but hey, it's 20 years old so you've got to expect some dated mechanics. We're pretty lucky to have mods that fixes it and makes it customizable, other RPGs of that era don't all have that same chance.
-For the save scumming part, refer to my second paragraph. As already mentionned some great players finished the game without reloading, a few others on LoB, some even solo, it totally means that the majority of the risks are totally manageable or avoidable for the most part once you become more experimented.
On another note, saw a post yesterday about a player who defeated the undercity party and got one of his fighter turned into stone. No problem as he had stone to flesh scrolls but a mage used chaos on his party before dying which made one of his confused archer shoot at his petrified fighter post fight shattering him. I mean yeah, it's pretty hilarious and unpredictable but this is also why we keep playing the game. If there is a slight chance for something to happen, it will eventually happen and the possibilities are as wide as an ocean. I got as frustrated as you are when i first played but after venting off and restarting my character over 20 times, i discovered one of my favourite game of all time and no, i'm not an OG player so it's totally possible to get into the game nowadays even with it's dated mechanics, started using AI mods only this year. Doesn't mean that it's going to be a game for you either way though.
I think one of the key points folks are missing about the results of these design decisions is that the game is much, much harder in its first two hours or so than it is in, say, hours 10-20. That is a legitimate, objective flaw in the game design. And it's something that's probably kept quite a large number of new players from getting into the game.
There's nothing wrong with having a game that's punishing, per se. But the difficulty curve should be the opposite. IMO, the difficulty is the right way for BG2.
It's a given for all games where you can accumulate capital in the form of allies, equipment, competence and powers as you advance through the game. It's a given, but I'd call that pleasing gameplay rather than an "objective flaw in game design". Accumulating "capital" is rewarding, feeling the progress you made from the early days is satisfying. Losing that capital and having it tough again like in early BG2 is great too. So like, a good game loop is to start with nothing, accumulate, lose most of it from some kind of twist of the fate, claw it back like a true Chad Sarevok, and, well I mean at some point it'll be predictable and repetitive, but IMO less than endless accumulation, and later.
Yeah yeah, like having to read text drove out people from Planescape Torment (or BG for that matter). I'd rather not have the size of the target audience used as a metric for game quality.
EDIT: Rereading, the tone may come out somewhat cold or aggressive but that's just a bad editorial choice on my part rather than actual feelings
Again, the problem with BG1 -- in this specific regard -- is that it encourages new players to save-scum and constantly reload. It's worth repeating, I think this is something veteran players miss because most of us learned how to cope with the early game difficulty. Moreover, save-scumming and constant reloading was a more accepted gameplay style back when these games were released. But it's not something that modern players enjoy as much.
I also don't think the powering-up logic really works either, when you contrast the game with modern CRPG's. Those all have a similar increase in power, but not the same extremely difficult experience of being level one for so long in BG1.
The problem with Baldur's Gate again is that there isn't really one difficulty curve. It is affected by too many factors:
For the purpose of discussion let's call the difficulty for a veteran with a couple of playthroughs and good understanding of the game the innate difficulty.
Why I bring all this up: I think there is a genuine game design issue if you front-load the innate difficulty too much.
If it's front-loaded for an experienced player, it is even more front-loaded for a newbie because the content of the game becomes easier at the same time as his knowledge of the game improves. I think it's very difficult to really balance that. Even if you like front-loaded games (and the growth in power has an appeal) you are likely to end up with too little front-loading for a veteran or too much front-loading for a newbie.
Even a constant innate difficulty throughout the game will effectively be front-loaded for a beginner.
One example in my mind of a innately front-loaded games is the Gothic series - in particular Gothic 2 with NOTR installed. As a veteran you get a difficulty that is still quite front-loaded, but is fun in that you see how your power grows and it takes a decent amount of time until it drops off sharply. But still the last half of the game become a cakewalk.
But if you would go into it blind as a complete newbie, then the front-loading is so strong beginning is likely to be very frustrating.
I like the difficulty curve I have with my modded BG setup. It works really well for me, but probably not for other people.
After tons of plays now i jus starting at level 5 (like kill all basilisks in mutamin garden) and i can recruit Khalid and Jaheira far more beleivable level (as old time adventurers).
a simple console command can suffice
(You can set a starting XP total, but not a raw level. Characters will automatically level up that far in character creation.)
In fact ... here's a quick override. Starting XP 4500, for level 3 on all single-class characters except mages and shamans.
I don't like early levels where the game obviously patronises you with an introduction npc and you go through one area together and magically you level up at the exact moment that you got through that area.
Like in NWN where you level up before leaving that starting area, yes.
I like the low levels too, you have to use other tactics and strategy. As I said, I'd like to have the Hover at Death's Gate mechanic to make them a bit more forgiving and reasonable for new players, but skipping them totally seems too much.
I get people who want to start at level 2, that doesn't really trivialize anything yet. Level 5 seems a bit much, at that point you have spells like Fireball and Haste (though you'd have to cheat in the scrolls for those).
What always feels appropriate to me in terms of challenges in BG 1 is being level 2 or 3 for Nashkel mines, level 4 for bandit camp, level 5 for Cloakwood mines and level 7 for Durlag's tower. I know you can easily be higher than that, but those levels make the end of chapter battles appropriately balanced IMO.
Just a note, as I missed this earlier. It's not a solo RPG. It is quite logical that an intelligent and animal opponents would attack an enemy that is still up and swinging at him over someone incapacitated on the ground.
Only if there's no other active threat he'd start finishing off people on the ground. With undead like ghouls it might be different.
Let's go to another problem, poison. I decide to memorize cure poison, completely useless if my cleric/druid gets poisoned, because that spell will be interrupted by ... the poison itself
Ah, potions, another problem with the game. That's what battles are, drink potions to get fire giant strength etc
I dont think there are tactics when players cast the sleep spell to win early fights etc. For some reason the sleep wand can be used by class........ i wonder why
- having ranged characters shoot while another one runs around in circles to lure enemies is bad AI
- buffing during tough battles is foolish, you need to buff just before the battle, breaks immersion
^ this means you need to have knowledge of each battle beforehand. This means you get trashed on, reload and then buff up / casts summons etc to beat that battle. Completely immersion breaking
In BG2, the enemy can cast all their buffs instantly at the beginning of the battle
My cleric can't cast chant instantly, no my cleric has a chant spell with a casting time of 9. Most tough battles are all the same, enemy drinks haste potion etc, mages all cast the same spells, and the second a battle starts, the enemy has all their protections and buffs instantly casted for them (including non-mages)
You can have a high AC of -10 or more, doesn't matter, enemies have insane THAC0 and will hit you almost every attack
I tried to play through the game as if I was a "new player", this means not prebuffing fights etc, it's very difficult. Not in a challenging way, but in a "this is stupid" way. It required reloading all the time; enemies make their saving throws 8 out of 10 times, another character is almost dead even though he has -12 AC and is tanking only 2 enemies in SoA. You need to cast haste every battle because the enemy does. FFS this game is dog$***
Why is having to reload bad?
A good artist... illustrates... the theme... of the product
This artist, http://isandir.com actually made portraits that looks like it belongs in BG2
But beamdog wants to charge money for portraits that don't even fit the game. They commissioned some "noteworthy" artist to do it. Well that "noteworthy" artist you got to do the portraits is crap, because they drew in their style and not in a style that fit the theme of the product. That is a BAD artist
The new characters are poorly written and do not fit with the game, I did get the impression that Neera is CN, but she also comes across as an American teenage brat from LA or something. It's fine to have a bit of pop culture thrown in, but not as a main character
Then there is the SoD situation. I'm just gonna pick one thing out of that, and it's the writing for Safana, there are women like that, it's not a "toxic male" fantasy. I myself have experienced sexual-harassment from women like that at work
But then who cares if it is a "toxic male" fantasy or whatever that means
Similar to the awful portrait artist, your writers didn't write for the product they were involved in, they wrote and created things they wanted, including retconning things they were "offended" by
Some of the best things in BG were the dialogues. Walking in the streets at night, and some street wench is like, "wanna see mah tits darling". I'm surprised your fat leg-beard writers didn't try censoring that
Because it's reloading to pre-plan a battle you are about to face (or pickpock)
Summoning creatures, buffing etc right before a fight you know is about to take place (but didn't before you died) is immersion breaking
or you try again; until the attack / spell rolls go your way.
And you have to, because there is no "coming back" in a fight.
Save before a fight; reload until you win
It's called save-scumming. And a lot of players hate that, it's indicative of terrible game design
Oh here is a lich, well let's reload. Lay some traps, or cast a scroll (piece of paper) that makes me immune to one of the most powerful creatures in the universe before I encounter that creature
That doesn't work. It works for you because you know what each fight already is.
Yes scouting is good, but there are so many battles where you are talking to people and then they turn hostile and you have to kill them in order to progress in the game or to complete a quest.
You have characters with a great AC, but it doesn't matter because the enemy THAC0 trashes you
People that haven't played this game 50 times are not gonna put up with that crap.
Enemies get all their buffs instantly at the start of battle, they cast chant instantly followed by strength of one etc and then start attacking. You have a casting time of 9 for chant. That's straight up bullshit
Your option is NOT valid for most of the game. You are talking as if every battle is some "I walked into these hostile characters on the map".
And the most powerful creatures in the game? Use item that makes you immune to them. No epic battle, just "he cant touch me"
Maybe he died in the middle of a no reload run. I regularly swear I will never play this stupid game again when that happens.
I got it because of BG3.
When I played the Witcher 3, I had to stop and go back to play 1 & 2 before finishing 3
Think of it like watching star wars 3 first without seeing 1 and 2
Interesting. I take it that you're enjoying BG3 then? I'm hoping to like it myself when it's finally released, but I have reservations...