Just chiming in to appreciate both passion and patience of this community
To me, the need to try a certain part of the game over and over again, tweaking new tactics and dying a thousand deaths again has been one of the most fun parts of this game for the past twenty years.
Genuine curiosity, @2hellwBg2 are there any (similar) games that you enjoy? Just for a frame of reference to understand some of your complaints.
I went and played Fallout 1, 2 and tactics. That combat system works, there is no "bad DM" moments or save-scumming to win.
Neverwinter nights; that's old school D&D with real time combat. But it's designed correctly
- Pillars of eternity; if a battle is going bad, you can still turn things around
- Disco Elysium
- Divinity Original Sin
- Shadowrun
I think witcher etc is too different to BG. But almost every other RPG is fun to play, because they are not designed like dogshit.
In this game, you need to save 20,000 gold as part of your main quest. The game makes it sound like it will be an undertaking, but I had 15,000 gold before I left the slums for the first time just by selling stuff I got from killing the slavers etc. That progressed the story straight away, before I did anything else
BG isn't just about meta-gaming, it's save-scumming and more importantly, knowing where all the traps etc already are, thus you are not "playing the game", you are just ticking off checkboxes
Actually, even though the OP isn't being very diplomatic expressing his frustration, I think he may have some good points among all the vitriol.
I sometimes wonder how much of my enjoyment of Baldur's Gate is because of nostalgia, based on how young I was when I played it, and how it brings back feelings of being in that time of my life again. We talk about nostalgia often, but I think it may be even more powerful a thing than we consciously realize.
When I played Baldur's Gate upon release, that and Might and Magic 6 were the only games in town to scratch the D&D itch. I remember being very frustrated with the Tarnesh fight on my first play, having to reload multiple times until I got lucky. I don't even remember how I finally got past it. I save-scummed my way all the way to Sarevok, and couldn't beat him in the final fight in his original incarnation, with his effective magic immunity, no matter how many times I tried.
I shrugged and moved on to something else, still feeling I had had a great experience. The internet wasn't even a big thing yet, and I had no exposure whatsoever to the idea that "save scumming" is bad, and the only honorable way to play a game is as a "no-reload". That came later from internet peer pressure.
I couldn't wait to play BG2 when it came out, and I rushed right out to buy it. I spent many happy hours save-scumming my way through that. It was just how we played back then, and nobody I knew of thought twice about it.
Fast forward many years, to when I tried to play Pathfinder: Kingmaker. I went into it with the mindset of "no or minimal reloading", because again, internet peer pressure. And I got frustrated and angry with one or two encounters somewhere in the middle, said "bad game design, I don't like it", and quit. There were many "gotcha" moments all over the place, that seemed to be there to make a player reload.
I think I've forgotten what it feels like to play Baldur's Gate with no foreknowledge of encounters. The thing is loaded with "gotcha" encounters. But I know exactly where they all are now.
So I do think I can try to be understanding if a new player finds BG impossibly frustrating, and just plain no fun. Games were designed very differently back then, with a different mindset. The whole gaming culture was different. Expectations today are different. Game designers have to design to their market if they want to stay in business.
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...
It has many problems, but many of the problems were present in Divinity Sin before it's final release, and that game turned out amazing, so I'm optimistic
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
It's not not the same at all. You can easily play The Witcher 3 without having played the previous ones.
BG3 is only very loosely connected to 1 & 2. It's not a direct continuation at all. Necessary lore like Bhaal or the Dead Three maybe can be looked up or will be explained again.
Hell, it's not even necessary to have played BG1 to enjoy BG2. I started with BG2 back in the day and never felt like I missed anything. In retrospect I missed out on some of the cameos by BG1 NPCs, but those quests still work well without that knowledge. But what you need to know about the background story is all explained at the start. The BG1 story is really very simple and all the Sarevok stuff can be summed up in a few sentences.
Actually, even though the OP isn't being very diplomatic expressing his frustration, I think he may have some good points among all the vitriol.
I sometimes wonder how much of my enjoyment of Baldur's Gate is because of nostalgia, based on how young I was when I played it, and how it brings back feelings of being in that time of my life again. We talk about nostalgia often, but I think it may be even more powerful a thing than we consciously realize.
When I played Baldur's Gate upon release, that and Might and Magic 6 were the only games in town to scratch the D&D itch. I remember being very frustrated with the Tarnesh fight on my first play, having to reload multiple times until I got lucky. I don't even remember how I finally got past it. I save-scummed my way all the way to Sarevok, and couldn't beat him in the final fight in his original incarnation, with his effective magic immunity, no matter how many times I tried.
I shrugged and moved on to something else, still feeling I had had a great experience. The internet wasn't even a big thing yet, and I had no exposure whatsoever to the idea that "save scumming" is bad, and the only honorable way to play a game is as a "no-reload". That came later from internet peer pressure.
I couldn't wait to play BG2 when it came out, and I rushed right out to buy it. I spent many happy hours save-scumming my way through that. It was just how we played back then, and nobody I knew of thought twice about it.
Fast forward many years, to when I tried to play Pathfinder: Kingmaker. I went into it with the mindset of "no or minimal reloading", because again, internet peer pressure. And I got frustrated and angry with one or two encounters somewhere in the middle, said "bad game design, I don't like it", and quit. There were many "gotcha" moments all over the place, that seemed to be there to make a player reload.
I think I've forgotten what it feels like to play Baldur's Gate with no foreknowledge of encounters. The thing is loaded with "gotcha" encounters. But I know exactly where they all are now.
So I do think I can try to be understanding if a new player finds BG impossibly frustrating, and just plain no fun. Games were designed very differently back then, with a different mindset. The whole gaming culture was different. Expectations today are different. Game designers have to design to their market if they want to stay in business.
I am writing harshly. I would like to add it is directed at the game, and not anyone here. I think every person replying to my frustration is surprisingly level-headed and calm. Maybe you guys are older or something, so you are more mature minded
I'll leave it at that
Thanks to everyone that tried recommendations
PS: my epic battle with sarevok, step by step I revealed his location (so as not to alert his allies) lured him toward the door and had summons tank him while shooting him with arrows. my main character stood there and did nothing, because he couldn't do anything
wand of summoning. it felt unrewarding, i didn't even fight the end boss. and yes; learnt to do that via save-scumming
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
Okay, so now I have a better understanding of your position.
A large part of why I'm willing to "put up with" reload-itis is because I grew up with something called "Trial and Error Gameplay" - where the only way to win is to be patient enough to lose about five thousand times. Is it bad design? By modern sensibilities, yes, but judging the past by the standards of the present is a good way to end up enjoying nothing at all (since twenty years from now you'll be in the position I'm in now, defending the design decisions of the games you like that were made now from people who have decided that those design decisions are also bad)
I get that you don't like reloading, because it's immersion-breaking and disruptive to the narrative. This is why games have moved away from this in general. But you're playing a game that was, essentially, first made in 1996. All those innovative changes to game design that you're lusting after didn't exist yet.
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...
Heh, to be fair, he ain't the only here guilty of this.
Reloading isnt necessarily bad. But reloading at the beginning of a game you are playing for the first time is often an experience most players don't find very fun. Again, players were much more tolerant of this in the past.
@2hellwBg2
Thank you for your post about the direction of your frustration. I did clarify things for me.
I also think it has to do something with age - not we that we are a bunch of old geezers (at least not admitting to it).
I played the “Eye of the beholder” triolgy and Ultima underworld 1 & 2 when they came out (in the nineties). Especially Eye of the beholder made strong claims to being an AD&D game. Both gameplays where completely broken and you had to rely on a constant retreating and engaging tactics in both games to survive. I still loved them - for the lack of better alternatives.
When Bg2 came out I was introduced to the game and has never not loved it. It may be broken and other games may surpass it, but the impression it left on me was immense amd for life. The gameplay was so amazing comaired to its predecessors and to me its the epitome of how AD&D rules and battle should be.
So yes, age is an issue imo. The people who where introduced to AD&D by the BG trilogy do think highly of the games, beside it’s flaws. To me (and likely others) it’s often the other games who got it wrong.
I am glad you finished the first part of the great game - no small feat. The other games are just as punishing …. and fun. I hope you can come to a point where the game doesnt irk you all the time. And remember, you can always ask for pro tips - from someone better than me.
I am seeing four separate concerns expressed by the OP. One is, at low levels it is too easy to die. The second is, you stay at low levels so long that you are vulnerable for a pretty long stretch of the game. The third is, BG requires more planning/pre-buffing/thought than some of its spiritual successors. And the last is, BG is significantly harder than some of its spiritual successors.
I actually think he's right on every one of these points. I don't necessarily agree they are "bad game design," but they're certainly things people should be aware of if they buy the game expecting the kind of easy run-through you'd typically have with Pillars or DAO/NWN.
If that's really what OP said, then the 2nd point is wrong.[1] The 4th point also is IMO. I don't recall Dragon Age: Origins being easier or harder for instance. It was significantly tougher to solo it early game in particular, and after a while you can become invincible in both games.
Remain point 1: I would say "easy to die", not "too easy to die", it's a good thing IMO; and point 3: Not sure.
[1] Levelling up in D&D is slower than in some games, but one level up is worth more power up. In BG you're rolling good at level 2 and safe at level 3. Level 3 is reached at 3 to 5K XP, level cap is at 89 to 161K.
As long time players, we know how to level quickly and safely to get past 1. But first time players with no pre-knowledge? Its very easy to still be level 1 going into the Nashkel Mines. I certainly was the first few times I played through the game. So point 2 is 100% valid.
Can't generalise our own play styles. My first playthrough as a kid, my mages levelled up to 3 by the end of the Nashkel mines. IIRC, I only did Friendly Arm, Beregost, Bassilius, Nashkel and the mines, clearing each area on my path. Areas are inaccessible unless you reach the edge of the screen that faces their general direction so people can't just jump to Nashkel, I would venture a guess that they have to travel through places and not visit them to reach the mines underlevelled. It could be calculated to know beyond a guess, but... ^_^'
Also, good luck not being level 2 after your nearly first quest "clearing the Nashkel mines". Which is why point 2 is wrong: You don't stay low level for a very long part of the game. A level 1 party dies quick if it wanders off the planned path, but once it survives, it levels up to 2 (and 3) fast.
Edit: A party may stay on the weak side at any level if it fails to get AC equipment though. This might be the one element that makes most of the game easy or hard: Equipment. You die without it. And you're bored if you optimize it too much.
From the prologue to Nashkell IS a long time to be level 1. Its a whole third of the story outside BG.
Yep, especially if you're stopping to talk to everyone in Beregost and Nashkell, and I think alot of new players are going to do this. You can easily spend 10 hours in the game before leveling.
After close to twenty years and multiple no-reload runs I dread to think how much I might’ve played this game if it had been well designed . But joking aside it’s true that gamers in 20 years time will also likely criticise the conventions of modern day games.
After close to twenty years and multiple no-reload runs I dread to think how much I might’ve played this game if it had been well designed . But joking aside it’s true that gamers in 20 years time will also likely criticise the conventions of modern day games.
I already do that now. Does that make me a game hipster?
After close to twenty years and multiple no-reload runs I dread to think how much I might’ve played this game if it had been well designed . But joking aside it’s true that gamers in 20 years time will also likely criticise the conventions of modern day games.
I already do that now. Does that make me a game hipster?
I dont know.
Try answering this hispter spotter question:
Are you wearing an old school hat?
After close to twenty years and multiple no-reload runs I dread to think how much I might’ve played this game if it had been well designed . But joking aside it’s true that gamers in 20 years time will also likely criticise the conventions of modern day games.
I already do that now. Does that make me a game hipster?
I dont know.
Try answering this hisptet spotter question:
Are you wearing an old school hat?
After close to twenty years and multiple no-reload runs I dread to think how much I might’ve played this game if it had been well designed . But joking aside it’s true that gamers in 20 years time will also likely criticise the conventions of modern day games.
I already do that now. Does that make me a game hipster?
I dont know.
Try answering this hispter spotter question:
Are you wearing an old school hat?
After close to twenty years and multiple no-reload runs I dread to think how much I might’ve played this game if it had been well designed . But joking aside it’s true that gamers in 20 years time will also likely criticise the conventions of modern day games.
I already do that now. Does that make me a game hipster?
I dont know.
Try answering this hispter spotter question:
Are you wearing an old school hat?
You have a point, though I pose you a question: Why do you think, 20 years later, that the game is so commended for its replayability?
My answer would be the modding community keeping the game , surely. I mean, the game it self is gold as it is, I find it quite well written (Bioware's part, at least), with a rich story and BG2 revolutionized PC D&D games, but over the years players have enjoyed several mods to fills certain gaps you've mention: Better combat AI, more NPCs, extra quests, new magic items... Truly, without the modding community I doubt we'd still be playing, it would still be memorable but it'd be like reading the same book for years.
I didn't mean to go offtopic so, to conclude, I still think you're judging a 20 year old game with 2021 lenses.
I don't agree with that in two ways: firstly, I think you overstate how much "foresight" BG 1 requires and secondly, in comparison, I think this is actually a larger problem in BG 2.
Starting by looking at the end-of-chapter battles you always have a standard class as the main opponent and usually fight against parties that have a similar composition to your party. You this shouldn't ever come as a surprise. Looking at some of the random exploration areas: basilisks are surrounded by statues of previous adventures. So they are signaled to you as well. For the main siren map you get a specific message when you first enter.
For the expansion content: the ice island is pretty straightforward in what to expect, though I sort of have to say the narrow maps suck with pathfinding. I am glad they got rid of those. Werewolf island can be bad if you don't have the right weapons, but it's signaled pretty strongly. The chess board can be bad. The demon knight is fairly straightforward, since the mirror is very optional. Aac'letec is a pain, though to be honest you get warned about the gaze if you read the dialogue. I don't think that is too bad.
In contrast, BG 2 has the unavoidable death trap in Spellhold, Kangaxx is virtually impossible without knowing exactly what he does, every enemy with immunity to time stop easily kills your party member when you use it, beholders are a pain in the ass without having a specific shield, mindflayers need very specific preparation (they are usually signaled but not always).
And the claim about the d20 system cheating is bogus. Never saw anyone managing to substantiate those claims for either BG 1 or BG 2 (and I have heard them about every single game on the marked!). And especially now that they run in the same engine, it's pretty out there to think BG 2 is fair and BG 1 is not.
EDIT: that is not to say that I think BG 1 is perfect and does not have a few encounters. That siren which kisses you (unavoidably so in the original) is pretty bad and with the chessboard event the first time around you either tend to fall pray to the punishment for moving or you expect the enemies to sort of follow chess rules on their own, while they end up just rushing you.
Starting by looking at the end-of-chapter battles you always have a standard class as the main opponent and usually fight against parties that have a similar composition to your party. You this shouldn't ever come as a surprise. Looking at some of the random exploration areas: basilisks are surrounded by statues of previous adventures. So they are signaled to you as well. For the main siren map you get a specific message when you first enter.
Yeah this is a very well said response. I'd also throw-in that I can't even count some of the TotSC content against BG1, as that was all designed to be extra-hard.
The contrast with BG2 is good too. BG2 simply throws alot, alot more instant death stuff at the party. As someone who comes back to these games once a year or so to try no-reload runs, yeah, you don't really have to have that much foreknowledge to survive. At least not until the very late content in the game, which should be quite hard. You do need to learn some basic principles, so perhaps that's true. Traps tend to be in dungeons, so you have to explore them slowly. And spellcasters are highly dangerous in a fight, so you really need to unload on them without reservations. But these are lessons you really should have adopted by the time you complete the Nashkel mines. The game teaches you, quickly, what the chief challenges are.
As we've both said above, if there's a good critique of BG1's challenge, it's that, in a standard playthrough, grinding up from level one is quite difficult. And does feel like an unfair, tedious challenge, in contrast to much of the rest of the game.
BG2, in contrast, just throws tons of insta, permadeath threats at you. More than even what Ammar just listed above, there are many permadeath traps. Many wizards with permadeath spells equipped. And so many more fights that really do benefit from massive, specific pre-buffing. And thus from foreknowledge.
TBH BG's replay value largely comes from "let me find another way to cheese this guy" moments. Comparing it to check-boxing actually makes sense.
In most fights there's someone in your party does almost nothing. In some situations you don't want to use your previous spells, sometimes it's simply too risky to go melee and it's best to let a mage blow everyone up in Time Stop. That's more obvious at very low levels and in ToB. It's acceptable but I won't say it's very good design.
I played Baldur's Gate when it first came out in the 90's, and yes, it was insanely hard. There are plenty of gotcha moments that feel awfully unfair, like the incident at the Friendly Arm Inn or when you first visit Gullykin. However, I think the reason I didn't go running and screaming is that the game is a pretty faithful adaptation of AD&D during that era.
Which is to say, you can run away from most of these encounters. Most people don't like that, and it does leave a sour note in your mouth, but it's an option in most battles. Baldur's Gate is much less forgiving of playing it "off the cuff", and expects you to be prepared almost anywhere, and that's something newer games don't really enforce. Honestly, the fact that the PC is attacked by assassins in the *PROLOGUE* should give players a clue that this isn't going to be a gentle walk in the woods.
While I will grant some of this is nostalgia, and I did save-scum a lot when I first played it, I also feel like I advanced not only my party, but also myself as a strategist in the game. I generally always have a thief and a mage. The mage can cast invisibility on the thief, who can then set about disarming traps without fear of failing a save for invisibility. Perfect scout.
From there, you can often examine the battlefield. Are there mages? Are there clerics? Are there innocents? The answers to these questions inform your tactics and preparations. Dropping a fireball might be a bad choice if you need to keep innocents alive. If a mage is present, your first action is to interrupt his first spell - which often turns the tide of battle. Similarly for clerics - you want to break their rhythm. Use traps and kite your enemies to them. My last party literally took out Sarevok and his party using traps, letting IMOEN take credit for the win. Those wands of summoning are also insanely useful to give you time to act. In the battle with Ashatiel (SoD) for instance. My PC is a mage and was getting pounded like a cheap steak. So she used a wand of summoning to give her a few seconds to get some spells off - turning the tide of that battle.
The tools are all there, but they aren't always obvious and apparent. That, I think, is what a lot of the frustration is about. Games of that era had a stiff learning curve, and they weren't readily accessible to new players. You were expected to spend some time learning about the tools at your disposal. The problem is that it often amounted to handing a new player Autocad and expecting them to design a skyscraper.
Now I will say that I personally would have started off the party at level 2 for a few reasons. Chiefly, what the heck was PC doing while Mr. S was buffing up in the gym? How did he walk up looking like the destroyer of worlds while your PC practically still has diaper rash? That always bothered me a bit, though it could be explained away by Gorion being overly protective. Still, starting the PC out with enough XP to hit level 2 would make the beginning of the game much less frustrating.
Ultimately, though, I think it comes down to differences in expectations in games then versus games now. Baldur's Gate 1 is an excellent example of this. Practically *EVERY* dungeon is a maze, because that was how a lot of AD&D games were. It was a throwback to P&P in a very literal way - and infuriating when you finally see real dungeons in the sequel. We won't even get into SoD, which has absolutely beautiful dungeon designs that make going into SoA almost painful.
Now, that said, there are bad design decisions throughout the game, but most of the ones I include aren't listed here. They, too, are largely products of their time, but I long felt that not enough time was spent fleshing out the role playing decisions and their consequences. There are some decisions that have far-flung effects, but not many. A lot of quests just... end. No matter how well, or badly, you handled them, they are over.
I know Bioware (and later Beamdog) had to eventually ship a game, but I feel like a bit more time could have been spent fleshing out some of these ideas. I have always been frustrated by the Twisted Rune situation, for example. Then you have the absolutely inane decision to make half of BG2 all about rescuing Imoen, when she might not even have survived BG1. As much as I love SoA, I wish a thousand times over Imoen 4 Ever had been around when I first played it, because it fixes a huge, IMO, problem with the game's pacing. The farcical romances are another thing that probably should have been scrapped in favor of better writing elsewhere. The only complex romance is also the only romance that should have never been written IMO.
I guess as an old school D&D RPer, I'm not so upset over the low-level stuff, like difficulty or prebuffs, etc. I'm more irritated by the lack of flexibility in the RP, the questionable writing, and the (again, IMO) lack of thought about RP decisions. There are too many cases where it feels obvious that there should have been a couple more options. Too many cases where you should have been able to pass a charisma check to talk your way out of a battle, or even turn an enemy into an ally (or vice-versa). You want to talk about bad tastes? How about the fact that, even though your goals align, there is no way to salvage the situation in Amkethran. If there was ever an example of a lack of forethought, that was it. A good-aligned PC with a high charisma should have been able to turn that one around.
THAT, to me, is poor game design. Not having to scout and do your homework before wading into battle.
Comments
To me, the need to try a certain part of the game over and over again, tweaking new tactics and dying a thousand deaths again has been one of the most fun parts of this game for the past twenty years.
I went and played Fallout 1, 2 and tactics. That combat system works, there is no "bad DM" moments or save-scumming to win.
Neverwinter nights; that's old school D&D with real time combat. But it's designed correctly
- Pillars of eternity; if a battle is going bad, you can still turn things around
- Disco Elysium
- Divinity Original Sin
- Shadowrun
I think witcher etc is too different to BG. But almost every other RPG is fun to play, because they are not designed like dogshit.
In this game, you need to save 20,000 gold as part of your main quest. The game makes it sound like it will be an undertaking, but I had 15,000 gold before I left the slums for the first time just by selling stuff I got from killing the slavers etc. That progressed the story straight away, before I did anything else
BG isn't just about meta-gaming, it's save-scumming and more importantly, knowing where all the traps etc already are, thus you are not "playing the game", you are just ticking off checkboxes
I sometimes wonder how much of my enjoyment of Baldur's Gate is because of nostalgia, based on how young I was when I played it, and how it brings back feelings of being in that time of my life again. We talk about nostalgia often, but I think it may be even more powerful a thing than we consciously realize.
When I played Baldur's Gate upon release, that and Might and Magic 6 were the only games in town to scratch the D&D itch. I remember being very frustrated with the Tarnesh fight on my first play, having to reload multiple times until I got lucky. I don't even remember how I finally got past it. I save-scummed my way all the way to Sarevok, and couldn't beat him in the final fight in his original incarnation, with his effective magic immunity, no matter how many times I tried.
I shrugged and moved on to something else, still feeling I had had a great experience. The internet wasn't even a big thing yet, and I had no exposure whatsoever to the idea that "save scumming" is bad, and the only honorable way to play a game is as a "no-reload". That came later from internet peer pressure.
I couldn't wait to play BG2 when it came out, and I rushed right out to buy it. I spent many happy hours save-scumming my way through that. It was just how we played back then, and nobody I knew of thought twice about it.
Fast forward many years, to when I tried to play Pathfinder: Kingmaker. I went into it with the mindset of "no or minimal reloading", because again, internet peer pressure. And I got frustrated and angry with one or two encounters somewhere in the middle, said "bad game design, I don't like it", and quit. There were many "gotcha" moments all over the place, that seemed to be there to make a player reload.
I think I've forgotten what it feels like to play Baldur's Gate with no foreknowledge of encounters. The thing is loaded with "gotcha" encounters. But I know exactly where they all are now.
So I do think I can try to be understanding if a new player finds BG impossibly frustrating, and just plain no fun. Games were designed very differently back then, with a different mindset. The whole gaming culture was different. Expectations today are different. Game designers have to design to their market if they want to stay in business.
It has many problems, but many of the problems were present in Divinity Sin before it's final release, and that game turned out amazing, so I'm optimistic
BG3 is only very loosely connected to 1 & 2. It's not a direct continuation at all. Necessary lore like Bhaal or the Dead Three maybe can be looked up or will be explained again.
Hell, it's not even necessary to have played BG1 to enjoy BG2. I started with BG2 back in the day and never felt like I missed anything. In retrospect I missed out on some of the cameos by BG1 NPCs, but those quests still work well without that knowledge. But what you need to know about the background story is all explained at the start. The BG1 story is really very simple and all the Sarevok stuff can be summed up in a few sentences.
I am writing harshly. I would like to add it is directed at the game, and not anyone here. I think every person replying to my frustration is surprisingly level-headed and calm. Maybe you guys are older or something, so you are more mature minded
I'll leave it at that
Thanks to everyone that tried recommendations
PS: my epic battle with sarevok, step by step I revealed his location (so as not to alert his allies) lured him toward the door and had summons tank him while shooting him with arrows. my main character stood there and did nothing, because he couldn't do anything
wand of summoning. it felt unrewarding, i didn't even fight the end boss. and yes; learnt to do that via save-scumming
Okay, so now I have a better understanding of your position.
A large part of why I'm willing to "put up with" reload-itis is because I grew up with something called "Trial and Error Gameplay" - where the only way to win is to be patient enough to lose about five thousand times. Is it bad design? By modern sensibilities, yes, but judging the past by the standards of the present is a good way to end up enjoying nothing at all (since twenty years from now you'll be in the position I'm in now, defending the design decisions of the games you like that were made now from people who have decided that those design decisions are also bad)
I get that you don't like reloading, because it's immersion-breaking and disruptive to the narrative. This is why games have moved away from this in general. But you're playing a game that was, essentially, first made in 1996. All those innovative changes to game design that you're lusting after didn't exist yet.
Heh, to be fair, he ain't the only here guilty of this.
Reloading isnt necessarily bad. But reloading at the beginning of a game you are playing for the first time is often an experience most players don't find very fun. Again, players were much more tolerant of this in the past.
Thank you for your post about the direction of your frustration. I did clarify things for me.
I also think it has to do something with age - not we that we are a bunch of old geezers (at least not admitting to it).
I played the “Eye of the beholder” triolgy and Ultima underworld 1 & 2 when they came out (in the nineties). Especially Eye of the beholder made strong claims to being an AD&D game. Both gameplays where completely broken and you had to rely on a constant retreating and engaging tactics in both games to survive. I still loved them - for the lack of better alternatives.
When Bg2 came out I was introduced to the game and has never not loved it. It may be broken and other games may surpass it, but the impression it left on me was immense amd for life. The gameplay was so amazing comaired to its predecessors and to me its the epitome of how AD&D rules and battle should be.
So yes, age is an issue imo. The people who where introduced to AD&D by the BG trilogy do think highly of the games, beside it’s flaws. To me (and likely others) it’s often the other games who got it wrong.
I am glad you finished the first part of the great game - no small feat. The other games are just as punishing …. and fun. I hope you can come to a point where the game doesnt irk you all the time. And remember, you can always ask for pro tips - from someone better than me.
I actually think he's right on every one of these points. I don't necessarily agree they are "bad game design," but they're certainly things people should be aware of if they buy the game expecting the kind of easy run-through you'd typically have with Pillars or DAO/NWN.
Remain point 1: I would say "easy to die", not "too easy to die", it's a good thing IMO; and point 3: Not sure.
[1] Levelling up in D&D is slower than in some games, but one level up is worth more power up. In BG you're rolling good at level 2 and safe at level 3. Level 3 is reached at 3 to 5K XP, level cap is at 89 to 161K.
Also, good luck not being level 2 after your nearly first quest "clearing the Nashkel mines". Which is why point 2 is wrong: You don't stay low level for a very long part of the game. A level 1 party dies quick if it wanders off the planned path, but once it survives, it levels up to 2 (and 3) fast.
Edit: A party may stay on the weak side at any level if it fails to get AC equipment though. This might be the one element that makes most of the game easy or hard: Equipment. You die without it. And you're bored if you optimize it too much.
Yep, especially if you're stopping to talk to everyone in Beregost and Nashkell, and I think alot of new players are going to do this. You can easily spend 10 hours in the game before leveling.
I already do that now. Does that make me a game hipster?
I dont know.
Try answering this hispter spotter question:
Are you wearing an old school hat?
If so, you are a hispter.
Uh oh.
Does an Irish flat cap count?
Hmm. That one is not clear and obvious - at least acoording to my 90 second Google research:
https://spotlightnews.com/thespot/2020/03/11/hipsters-old-men-women-wear-them-too-the-flat-cap-is-a-trend-that-wont-go-away-soon/
Apparantly, you are either
1) Old,
2) Peaky Blinders fan, or
3) Hipster - but late to the party.
Ps. Sorry for derailing - my bad. Lets get back to the topic..
My answer would be the modding community keeping the game , surely. I mean, the game it self is gold as it is, I find it quite well written (Bioware's part, at least), with a rich story and BG2 revolutionized PC D&D games, but over the years players have enjoyed several mods to fills certain gaps you've mention: Better combat AI, more NPCs, extra quests, new magic items... Truly, without the modding community I doubt we'd still be playing, it would still be memorable but it'd be like reading the same book for years.
I didn't mean to go offtopic so, to conclude, I still think you're judging a 20 year old game with 2021 lenses.
Starting by looking at the end-of-chapter battles you always have a standard class as the main opponent and usually fight against parties that have a similar composition to your party. You this shouldn't ever come as a surprise. Looking at some of the random exploration areas: basilisks are surrounded by statues of previous adventures. So they are signaled to you as well. For the main siren map you get a specific message when you first enter.
For the expansion content: the ice island is pretty straightforward in what to expect, though I sort of have to say the narrow maps suck with pathfinding. I am glad they got rid of those. Werewolf island can be bad if you don't have the right weapons, but it's signaled pretty strongly. The chess board can be bad. The demon knight is fairly straightforward, since the mirror is very optional. Aac'letec is a pain, though to be honest you get warned about the gaze if you read the dialogue. I don't think that is too bad.
In contrast, BG 2 has the unavoidable death trap in Spellhold, Kangaxx is virtually impossible without knowing exactly what he does, every enemy with immunity to time stop easily kills your party member when you use it, beholders are a pain in the ass without having a specific shield, mindflayers need very specific preparation (they are usually signaled but not always).
And the claim about the d20 system cheating is bogus. Never saw anyone managing to substantiate those claims for either BG 1 or BG 2 (and I have heard them about every single game on the marked!). And especially now that they run in the same engine, it's pretty out there to think BG 2 is fair and BG 1 is not.
EDIT: that is not to say that I think BG 1 is perfect and does not have a few encounters. That siren which kisses you (unavoidably so in the original) is pretty bad and with the chessboard event the first time around you either tend to fall pray to the punishment for moving or you expect the enemies to sort of follow chess rules on their own, while they end up just rushing you.
Yeah this is a very well said response. I'd also throw-in that I can't even count some of the TotSC content against BG1, as that was all designed to be extra-hard.
The contrast with BG2 is good too. BG2 simply throws alot, alot more instant death stuff at the party. As someone who comes back to these games once a year or so to try no-reload runs, yeah, you don't really have to have that much foreknowledge to survive. At least not until the very late content in the game, which should be quite hard. You do need to learn some basic principles, so perhaps that's true. Traps tend to be in dungeons, so you have to explore them slowly. And spellcasters are highly dangerous in a fight, so you really need to unload on them without reservations. But these are lessons you really should have adopted by the time you complete the Nashkel mines. The game teaches you, quickly, what the chief challenges are.
As we've both said above, if there's a good critique of BG1's challenge, it's that, in a standard playthrough, grinding up from level one is quite difficult. And does feel like an unfair, tedious challenge, in contrast to much of the rest of the game.
BG2, in contrast, just throws tons of insta, permadeath threats at you. More than even what Ammar just listed above, there are many permadeath traps. Many wizards with permadeath spells equipped. And so many more fights that really do benefit from massive, specific pre-buffing. And thus from foreknowledge.
In most fights there's someone in your party does almost nothing. In some situations you don't want to use your previous spells, sometimes it's simply too risky to go melee and it's best to let a mage blow everyone up in Time Stop. That's more obvious at very low levels and in ToB. It's acceptable but I won't say it's very good design.
Which is to say, you can run away from most of these encounters. Most people don't like that, and it does leave a sour note in your mouth, but it's an option in most battles. Baldur's Gate is much less forgiving of playing it "off the cuff", and expects you to be prepared almost anywhere, and that's something newer games don't really enforce. Honestly, the fact that the PC is attacked by assassins in the *PROLOGUE* should give players a clue that this isn't going to be a gentle walk in the woods.
While I will grant some of this is nostalgia, and I did save-scum a lot when I first played it, I also feel like I advanced not only my party, but also myself as a strategist in the game. I generally always have a thief and a mage. The mage can cast invisibility on the thief, who can then set about disarming traps without fear of failing a save for invisibility. Perfect scout.
From there, you can often examine the battlefield. Are there mages? Are there clerics? Are there innocents? The answers to these questions inform your tactics and preparations. Dropping a fireball might be a bad choice if you need to keep innocents alive. If a mage is present, your first action is to interrupt his first spell - which often turns the tide of battle. Similarly for clerics - you want to break their rhythm. Use traps and kite your enemies to them. My last party literally took out Sarevok and his party using traps, letting IMOEN take credit for the win. Those wands of summoning are also insanely useful to give you time to act. In the battle with Ashatiel (SoD) for instance. My PC is a mage and was getting pounded like a cheap steak. So she used a wand of summoning to give her a few seconds to get some spells off - turning the tide of that battle.
The tools are all there, but they aren't always obvious and apparent. That, I think, is what a lot of the frustration is about. Games of that era had a stiff learning curve, and they weren't readily accessible to new players. You were expected to spend some time learning about the tools at your disposal. The problem is that it often amounted to handing a new player Autocad and expecting them to design a skyscraper.
Now I will say that I personally would have started off the party at level 2 for a few reasons. Chiefly, what the heck was PC doing while Mr. S was buffing up in the gym? How did he walk up looking like the destroyer of worlds while your PC practically still has diaper rash? That always bothered me a bit, though it could be explained away by Gorion being overly protective. Still, starting the PC out with enough XP to hit level 2 would make the beginning of the game much less frustrating.
Ultimately, though, I think it comes down to differences in expectations in games then versus games now. Baldur's Gate 1 is an excellent example of this. Practically *EVERY* dungeon is a maze, because that was how a lot of AD&D games were. It was a throwback to P&P in a very literal way - and infuriating when you finally see real dungeons in the sequel. We won't even get into SoD, which has absolutely beautiful dungeon designs that make going into SoA almost painful.
Now, that said, there are bad design decisions throughout the game, but most of the ones I include aren't listed here. They, too, are largely products of their time, but I long felt that not enough time was spent fleshing out the role playing decisions and their consequences. There are some decisions that have far-flung effects, but not many. A lot of quests just... end. No matter how well, or badly, you handled them, they are over.
I know Bioware (and later Beamdog) had to eventually ship a game, but I feel like a bit more time could have been spent fleshing out some of these ideas. I have always been frustrated by the Twisted Rune situation, for example. Then you have the absolutely inane decision to make half of BG2 all about rescuing Imoen, when she might not even have survived BG1. As much as I love SoA, I wish a thousand times over Imoen 4 Ever had been around when I first played it, because it fixes a huge, IMO, problem with the game's pacing. The farcical romances are another thing that probably should have been scrapped in favor of better writing elsewhere. The only complex romance is also the only romance that should have never been written IMO.
I guess as an old school D&D RPer, I'm not so upset over the low-level stuff, like difficulty or prebuffs, etc. I'm more irritated by the lack of flexibility in the RP, the questionable writing, and the (again, IMO) lack of thought about RP decisions. There are too many cases where it feels obvious that there should have been a couple more options. Too many cases where you should have been able to pass a charisma check to talk your way out of a battle, or even turn an enemy into an ally (or vice-versa). You want to talk about bad tastes? How about the fact that, even though your goals align, there is no way to salvage the situation in Amkethran. If there was ever an example of a lack of forethought, that was it. A good-aligned PC with a high charisma should have been able to turn that one around.
THAT, to me, is poor game design. Not having to scout and do your homework before wading into battle.