Why Baldur's Gate sucks

[Xandax]

I remember very well when BG first came out. At that time the graphics were considered awsome. They were second to none. However, the game was critisized at that time for scarceness of magic weapons (yes!) and too little action on large maps depicting various pretty landscapes but very few monster encounters. This is not my opinion, I am just telling you how it was. I am sure older dudes remember all this and more.
Heeding this outcry of the gaming community, even before BG II was released, Black Isle promised that the above mentioned issues would be resolved. Indeed, they stuffed the game with powerful items up to the hilt and added some "action" to more of the map pixels. The gaming community was ecstatic.
The game has become an all time RPG classic but please don't make a sacred cow out of it.

You actually mentioned all the reasons why I personally have fonder memories of BG1, and view it a better game then BG2 overall.
It fitted as VonDondu nicely into the AD&D feel, where I feel that BG2 is borderlining going overboard with quests and monsters and where ToB is just to .... well - action RPGish.
I do remember critique of BG1 here as well - that it was slow to play (meaning large, non critical areas with some monsters ... boy I loved the feeling from explorering thoese ), but I scarcely recall critique of the "lack of magical" equipment. If one wants something like that - one would typically not select a (true) (A)D&D game. The fact that companies have to cater to these "gimme a hackmaster +12 of world slaying and 20 monsters at the time" crowd saddens me.

[sinbad71]

I have just started bg1 again after several years of absence in a bid to complete the series from beginning to end. Yes, the resolution is low,but just means that it quite happily runs on my laptop when i have multiple applications running in the background.

The story is just as engaging as i remember and is about as close as am going to get to play ad&d without trying to find a dedicated group in my area.

[Lady Dragonfly]

I do remember critique of BG1 here as well - that it was slow to play (meaning large, non critical areas with some monsters ... boy I loved the feeling from explorering thoese ), but I scarcely recall critique of the "lack of magical" equipment. If one wants something like that - one would typically not select a (true) (A)D&D game. The fact that companies have to cater to these "gimme a hackmaster +12 of world slaying and 20 monsters at the time" crowd saddens me.

I personally did not have a problem with the "lack of magical stuff". In my opinion magical items should be rare; you are not supposed to find them in your local Wal-Mart in the "discounted merchandise" section. But I remember the critique very well, maybe because it struck me as curious at the time. I think it was in PC Gamer.
Another critical point was that when you use an area spell like a fireball on your foes while they are under "fog of war", they would just stand there and die. It was also corrected with better AI in BG2.
My only tiny complain was about a few annoying, dark, hard to navigate dungeons with nothing but pesky kobolds.
But what the heck?
I played BG1 seven times in a raw and it was fun.

[Boris]

Just wanted to say...

...that I reckon it's *nice* that an "old" game like BG still has active fora, long-time players posting above, etc. Ofc, chess is quite an old game, so...

BTW, my biggest gripe about BG & BGII is how a party can't walk down a straight corridor without someone wandering off somewhere stupid, can't walk in line without chars trying to overtake each other, or doubling-back coz they think the way is blocked, etc. How/why they didn't sort out such basics in initial testing is beyond me...
Am looking forward to trying Neverwinter shortly (memo to self - go pick up the discs!) & I hope to the gods they've addressed the issue there...

Should also mention that BG/BGII are quite outstanding in their storyline - only after playing BGII does one fully understand how the Big Theme was obviously in the plan all along (eg. Prophesies of Alaundo (sp?) in Candlekeep). TBH, I don't play many other PC games to compare - but as a feat of storytelling I reckon it stands out in any medium.

B.

(edited to include final para after reading some stuff above)

[Faerun]

I remember very well when BG first came out. At that time the graphics were considered awsome. They were second to none. However, the game was critisized at that time for scarceness of magic weapons (yes!) and too little action on large maps depicting various pretty landscapes but very few monster encounters. This is not my opinion, I am just telling you how it was. I am sure older dudes remember all this and more.
Heeding this outcry of the gaming community, even before BG II was released, Black Isle promised that the above mentioned issues would be resolved. Indeed, they stuffed the game with powerful items up to the hilt and added some "action" to more of the map pixels. The gaming community was ecstatic.
The game has become an all time RPG classic but please don't make a sacred cow out of it.

All the things that were apparently criticized, are the things that made me love the game. By the way, it got a rave review from PC Gamer (the only games magazine worth a damn) and also won RPG of the year. I'm having trouble remembering this supposed "outcry" though.

[Faerun]

BTW, my biggest gripe about BG & BGII is how a party can't walk down a straight corridor without someone wandering off somewhere stupid, can't walk in line without chars trying to overtake each other, or doubling-back coz they think the way is blocked, etc.

That's the only thing that they should have "fixed" for the rest of the series.

[Faerun]

I could criticize much about BG - lack of actual roleplaying

You could definitely roleplay. More so than in any other game I'v played. There was hardly anything that you couldn't do, or attempt to do. Murder, theft, choosing to help the weak or not, robbery, embracing your "taint" or rejecting it, being nice, being an *******, choosing your company... etc. etc.

lack of choices and consequences

This is very much related to the above. You could do almost anything and there were very big consequences! I could go on a killing spree and finish the entire game while being hunted by bounty hunters. Not my thing but I could if I wanted to. I could infiltrtate the bandit camp or bust in an ahhilate it head on. Not sure what kind of consequences you're looking for exactly. Short of pen and paper DnD, it had the most choices and consequences of any game.

bland quests, that it's overly centered on combat.

I didn't find the quests bland. A lot of them were smaller, less spectacular quests and I enjoyed that. It gave the world a nice believability while keeping the spectacular for the main plot. As it should be.

Funny you should say it's overly centered on combat, that was the biggest gripe the action button spammers were complaining about! There was plenty of combat but it wasn't action combat, it was based on tactics and decision making - the way it should be in an RPG.

[Lady Dragonfly]

All the things that were apparently criticized, are the things that made me love the game. By the way, it got a rave review from PC Gamer (the only games magazine worth a damn) and also won RPG of the year. I'm having trouble remembering this supposed "outcry" though.

This is just a word, Faerun. And I used it in a sarcastic way, in case you did not notice.
I remember the first previews from PC Gamer (including multiplayer; they put a few PCs side by side and had their dwarves fight each other), and consequent reviews (some of them at least) and yes, you are absolutely right, the game was acclaimed as the best RPG. I can sign my name under this too. *signing*. Here.
There were some critical comments made at the same time and the issues were addressed for better or for worse in PotSC and later in BG2. It is just a simple fact and I chose to point it out. No offence meant.

[Faerun]

Don't worry, I didn't take any offense.

[Celacena]

Vond has it right, IMO.

BG1 was a much better implementation of D&D than other games - although the plots seemed to have a bias towards "let's kill something", there was at least an element of RPG. the scarcity of powerful magic weapons didn't really matter - I've been quite happy with the +2 longsword I got from the bounty hunter near Nashkel. the monsters are populous enough for the player to not be complacent and the bands of Black Talon and Hobgoblins start out being quite fearsome. Ghasts, ghouls whatever are not nice, but at least in BG1, you are not getting level-drained all the time. dealing 40+ damage with a thief's backstab is a lot of damage (I think I've done about 60 max with 19 STR, 19 Dex and +2 longsword so 15x4 at a guess) - stronger weapons could make it ridiculous.

BG1 does seem slower, but that makes it a change from BG2 where most action is indoors and the mines are frustrating because there are dead ends - but isn't that realistic? the kobolds are a nuisance, which they are supposed to be and the commando ones are dangerous. if you are an experienced gamer - the end-bosses are not too bad - there tends to need to be a bit of save/load, but it generally isn't that difficult to devise a strategy that will get rid within a few tries. nothing like the Twisted Rune encounter, which can be a nightmare if you are not prepared.

the scarcity of treasure and weapons and OTT armour makes it quite similar to the experience of starting out with PnP - a weak character who has to learn before he can walk around reasonably comfortably. the party ambushes between areas can be pretty tough, so I try to have enough carrying space in the inventory to allow a fallen party-member's kit to be picked up. having to take your NPC to a temple and pay a hefty price to get them back is quite different from having a cleric or wand or resurrection handy.

Having used the xp cap remover and having a dual fighter (8) thief (11), as a result of sleeping in dangerous places, the game is still challenging - even with 100 HP it is pretty dangerous with the limited healing facilities available. so really, as an implementation, despite some problems, it was a good interpretation of a D&D quest and not badly balanced.

anybody who thinks that 'it sucks' is clearly missing what the developers and players expected - a D&D style quest in a vaguely realistic fantasy world.

BG2 picked up from there and gave the opportunity for power-gaming. which going into ToB is virtually a necessity.

[Lady Dragonfly]

All things considered, I can't help wondering: what are we arguing about? And with whom?

[Faerun]

I don't know about you but I wasn't arguing.

[Lady Dragonfly]

I thought you were, but never mind.

[Edar Macilrille]

Arguing?

I think you guys are not arguing, you are in fact exchanging views/opinions on BG 1-2-ToB. This is all good, everybody enjoys different things and comparing experiences only enhances one's own. The mere fact that there ARE different things to enjoy that people has different aspects of the game to love proves that BG is indeed a great game.