Why Baldur's Gate sucks

[fugsbunny]

Lol check out this guy ranting about Baldur's Gate
He has some valid points though, I didn't really enjoy BG1 either ...

[DaemonJ]

Unfortunately that poster has very few valid points.

Granted the low-res is irritating to some people but what do you expect from a game that is almost 10 years old? If you must have a high-res then install EasyTutu.

The "slowwalking characters" can be improved by setting the game's refresh rate to 36. Anyone should expect a dungeon crawl to go slowly. You have to check for traps and watch out for ambushes, especially when your entire party is around level 2 possibly 3.

There are only like 4 different swords, a couple of bows and other weapons, plus maybe 5 armors in the whole game! And the magical ones are simply called Bastard Sword +1, or maybe +2 if you're lucky, and indeed only add +1 to damage in most cases.

Being that most characters will max out around level 7 or 8 there shouldn't be any +4 or higher weapons in BG1. That would just be complete overkill.

The poster does not have a clue about the game or how to play it. I will not even cover the lack of knowledge regarding spelling and proper grammer.

In case you cannot tell, I disagree with that post and the opinion it contains.

[dragon wench]

This should probably be in the BG1 forum, if anywhere at all.

Regarding the article, the guy does make a good point about the extremely slow movement. I confess, several years ago when I replayed BG1, after being used to the faster pace of BG2 I cheated in 6 pairs of Boots of Speed.

But, the other remarks seem to suggest this person is something of a power gamer who is very keen to find all kinds of truly uber weapons and armor. IMO, if that is a major requirement, then stick to something like Fable. And, as Daemon states, anything greater than a +2 weapon for the possible character levels would be ridiculous!

I do agree that the Nashkel Mines could have been somewhat more imaginative, but they weren't quite *that* bad! lol!

[fugsbunny]

Originally Posted by DaemonJ

I will not even cover the lack of knowledge regarding spelling and proper grammer.

I think it's grammar. Sorry couldn't resist

[Xandax]

The person does not enjoy (A)D&D, so he thinks the game suck, because it is AD&D.
Apparently (s)he should stay with FPS or fast pace action RPG games which clutter the genre now a days where the "uber sw0rd of slaying +45" exists.

He's entitled to his opinion, but they are subjective and does not mirror my own.
For me for instance, Diablo sucks, but many other likes that game - that's why different genres exists. But expecting a slow playing AD&D game to be fast paced action .... well

Oh, and thread moved to the BG1 forum.

[ensaro dai]

Differences in taste is all I can say, I can enjoy a FPS game as well as a Turn-Based game like Disciples where others might think this is the crappiest game ever around. His points are valid for his own opinion, if that's where his priorities lie in wether to like or dislike a game that's his choice, for me they are as invalid as hell...

[Barrada Kor]

If you don't like a game don't play it.

I wonder how many games that person does like, that will still be as enjoyable to many as BG1 is after 10 years of changing technology.

Quality game, nuff said.

[VonDondu]

I don't see anything wrong with someone telling us how he felt about a game after he played it. That's what opinions are for.

On the other hand, I don't really care what anyone else thinks of BG1. "scx84" has not changed my own opinion of BG1 in the least.

I disagree with his major points, and his message is full of factual errors. For example, every +2 or +3 item I can think of does have a special name (if you bother to read the item descriptions). And he obviously nevered bothered to use his "useless loot" to buy potions which could give him the power he so desperately craves. It makes you wonder what it would take to impress him. A HackMaster +12 with infinite charges of KickAss HackMaster SmackFests? Or the Noobian Orb of World-Destroying Power?

If I seem like I'm making needless attacks on his personal sensibilities (which is what I do to people who have the nerve to say categorically that a favorite game of mine "sucks"), I will offer a concession and say that I do share some of his sentiments to a small degree. For example, I agree that BG1 requires too much searching. You might miss most of the smaller quests in the city of Baldur's Gate if you don't search every single house at random, which is something I don't feel comfortable doing when I'm roleplaying since it makes me feel like an intruder. And most of the wilderness areas require too much time to clear for what they have to offer. Sometimes it seems like the only point in having long, winding trails or making you walk back and forth on minor quests is to slow you down. This leads me to believe that the designers wanted to make the game "life-like" and they never intended for anyone to complete the game 100%. I recall some of them making such statements such as, "We want to give people about 200 hours of playing time when they buy the game," which means they tried to find ways to take up the player's time, pure and simple, and that's not necessarily a good thing. Apparently the designers decided that this was a fair criticism and they changed their minds when they made Shadows of Amn, where walking is faster and searching is kept to a minimum for smoother, faster gameplay. For the same amount of playing time, you get to do a lot more in Shadows of Amn, and that's a good thing.

But does that mean that scx84 might enjoy BG2? I doubt it. As Xandax said, scx84 doesn't like D&D, so I can't imagine him enjoying any game based on true D&D. If you gave him a copy of Throne of Bhaal, he'd probably be too busy criticizing its bad points to learn, say, how to use spells, and even if he knew what amazing things some players can do with them, I still don't think he would be impressed. "What do you mean I have to rest after casting 25 spells? Why doesn't my mana recharge instantly?" It sounds like he'd be better off playing Diablo (a game which satisfies certain kinds of cravings I can understand but which ultimately leaves me feeling empty).

Take his description of the Nashkel Mines and see if it's reasonable for him to say this is why BG1 "sucks":

It's basically a dark labyrinth where your slow walking characters have to guess where the exit is by checking each and every dead end. At the grand screen resolution of 640x480. Occasionally you'll have to fight a kobold or two. That's all you'll be doing here for at least an hour if not more.

Factually, everything he said is true. But he's wrong to say that's why BG1 "sucks", for the simple reason that many players think that areas like the Nashkel Mines make BG1 a great game. If you quoted that description to other players, they'd say, "Hey, that sounds cool. I want to try that." scx84's big mistake is thinking that if he doesn't like something, then it "sucks". He might be an experienced game player and have the most sophisticated taste in the world, but a narrowminded remark like that is a sign of very poor judgment.

[CFM]

He's pretty cool, reviewing a game from 1999 just in the nick of time.

Maybe I can be cool, too. "Why Pong Sucks"

I found the resolution very disappointing in that game too.

[Faerun]

Originally Posted by ensaro dai

His points are valid for his own opinion, if that's where his priorities lie in wether to like or dislike a game that's his choice, for me they are as invalid as hell...

I don't like the notion that everything is an opinion and "everyone is entitled to their own taste "

Yeah, whatever. His points are not valid, because none of them make BG a bad game. That's not an opinion. He just wants something from a game not designed for that purpose. I'm not going to go into a horror movie and complain that it wasn't a comedy.

Baldur's Gate is an exceptional game, even today. It may not be everyone's type of game, but that doesn't make it "suck." The Godfather is not my type of movie, but I sure as hell am not going to say it sucks.

Games with dynamic and substance are getting harder and harder to find these days. The main reason is that a lot of people (like this clown) enjoy dumbed down garbage.

[Thrifalas]

Originally Posted by DaemonJ

Being that most characters will max out around level 7 or 8 there shouldn't be any +4 or higher weapons in BG1. That would just be complete overkill.

Actually, there is a +5 sword in Baldur's Gate 1. Though the stats are more similar to a +3 sword.

[Jordoo]

Originally Posted by Thrifalas

Actually, there is a +5 sword in Baldur's Gate 1. Though the stats are more similar to a +3 sword.

Yes but it is only +3 to hit and the +5 label is misleading since 2 of the 5 are a differnent bonus. Still its arguably the best weapon in the game at least for hand to hand combat.

[fable]

Originally Posted by Faerun

Yeah, whatever. His points are not valid, because none of them make BG a bad game. That's not an opinion. He just wants something from a game not designed for that purpose. I'm not going to go into a horror movie and complain that it wasn't a comedy.

And this answers everything in the article quite effectively. Good job.

[Monolith]

I could criticize much about BG - lack of actual roleplaying, lack of choices and consequences, bland quests, that it's overly centered on combat. It is a RPG after all - and the reviewer totally ignored that fact.

[Thrifalas]

And I could critizise every single game that's out there a lot more. There is no perfect game, it's a matter of style and taste. Sure, BG is lacking on a few points, but so what?

It's still a friggin good game. Considered when it was released.