Comparing PoE to BG is unfair

[Eisenheinrich]

Am I the only one who thinks that Icewind Dale + Heart of Winter + Trials of the Luremaster is far superior to the BG-Saga? I guess so ... b2t, there are many parts in PoE, that did remind me more of IWD than the BG-Saga, even when IWD has the better dungeon-delving atmosphere of dread and terror, hands down. I'll never forget the epicness that was the Dragon's Eye. 

Edited April 27, 2015 by Eisenheinrich

[Namutree]

 

BG was awful. BG2 was better.

BG2 was awful. BG was better.

 

In some ways this absolutely true. Overall I think BG2 is better, but not by a whole lot.

 

BG2 introduced a lot of cool things (sub kits, half-orcs as a playable race, ect.), but it also introduced some bad things (made dual classing way too OP, level scaling, ect.).

 

Not to mention it got rid of the big open areas to explore. I also like the soundtrack of BG2 less than BG1.

 

Still , I think BG2 is better.

 

So, how does PoE compare to these games? I'm going to wait for the expansion to say.

[anameforobsidian]

as BG was a horrible game as such. What was great about BG was its amazing art + spell FX. The rest was cringeworthy: Story, Chars and combat were horrible in general. BG2 at least improved upon quest density. 

 

Also, BG was~15 years ago. If a game made today is NOT better than BG then what's the point of making it?

 

What made this thread possible? The continuous claims that POE > BG and somehow that being a metric of good games. 

Discuss your opinions!

 

Don't trash the classics because people are trashing a game you like.  BG1 was an excellent game.  PE is too soon to label, but my 100 hours are leaning towards pretty damn great.

 

It's entirely fair.  The story and characters were serviceable, if not nearly as ambitious as PE.  

The combat was quite entertaining; right now my feelings are modded BG combat > PE combat > unmodded BG2 combat (too many early dead spots, but that SCS AI is sexy).  

 

The exploration was much better in BG2 (less gates, although there were completely unnecessary ones at the bandit camps, cloakwood, and most egregiously Baldur's Gate - L2Fallout).  The content was much more expansive even if a few areas stank (Ulcaster, Firewine, Peldville, the area between BG and Ulgoth's Beard).  

 

Both had memorable fights:  BG had the chessboard, gnoll stronghold, and Sarevok.  PE has

the Ardra Dragon and Raedric 2.  (And the awful lighthouse fight).

 Of the two games, I think the chessboard board fight comes on top.

Edited April 27, 2015 by anameforobsidian

[Namutree]

Am I the only one who thinks that Icewind Dale + Heart of Winter + Trials of the Luremaster is far superior to the BG-Saga? I guess so ... b2t, there are many parts in PoE, that did remind me more of IWD than the BG-Saga. 

No, Sarex likes IWD more than BG if I recall correctly. Why do you like IWD better than BG anyway? To me IWD has always seemed really constrained and soulless. Still decent games, but nothing to brag about.

[Eisenheinrich]

 

Am I the only one who thinks that Icewind Dale + Heart of Winter + Trials of the Luremaster is far superior to the BG-Saga? I guess so ... b2t, there are many parts in PoE, that did remind me more of IWD than the BG-Saga. 

No, Sarex likes IWD more than BG if I recall correctly. Why do you like IWD better than BG anyway? To me IWD has always seemed really constrained and soulless. Still decent games, but nothing to brag about.

 

 

Dunno, maybe it's the less epic scope. IWD really feels more like something I could experience at a real D&D session, while BG II is over the top epic. I especially like the dungeons in IWD, those are some great examples on well done megadungeons. The battles were mostly demanding, I hat my fair share of TPKs. Plus, I dig the setting. Icy planes, always a winner for me.

[Cronstintein]

Huh you prefre IWD?  I thought the combat was good but that's all there was to it.  BG2 has much better story, exploration and characters.  The npc companions alone are worth the price of admission.  Edwin, Minsc, Korgan... love those guys!  And Anomen's character quest is actually compelling and has consequences.  PoE could have taken some lessons from that...

[Stun]

I'd have to rank Baldur's Gate 1 as the better game all around than PoE.

 

What PoE does better than BG1 is 1)Writing and 2)Art. These two include plot, subquests, companions and dungeon design. But that is all.

 

BG1 does everything else better. Miles better. Its Exploration is better; Its loot itemization is better; Its combat is a lot better; It does its city/villages better. Its pacing is better; Its encounter design is better; Its magic system is better; And its game mechanics on the whole are more polished. It's just a better game.

Edited April 27, 2015 by Stun

[Sabin Stargem]

I am going to wait for the expansions and their patching before casting a verdict on POE.  For me, I typically don't play games until their life cycle has ended - so the end result is much more important than the stepping stones that lead to it.

[Cronstintein]

I let my enthusiasm get the best of me but Sabin has the right idea.  Waiting for patches (and hopefully mods) is definitely the smart way to go.

[Captain Shrek]

Visuals can get old. Good design doesn't get old. By your logic, basketball is a bad game because it's old. Surely there must be something better by now. Or Discworld is trash because it's old.

 

 

Can you highlight what was 'good design' in BG exactly? 

[b0rsuk]

 

Visuals can get old. Good design doesn't get old. By your logic, basketball is a bad game because it's old. Surely there must be something better by now. Or Discworld is trash because it's old.

 

 

Can you highlight what was 'good design' in BG exactly? 

 

 

While I like Pillars of Eternity more overall, I have to admit Baldur's Gate 1 had more interesting encounters. You had groups of all ranged enemies (kobolds, especially in Firewine Ruins), some powerful mages, big monsters (PoE has a few groups of ogres and that's it), spiders/slimes whose poison was actually dangerous, battle horrors. Encounters were more diverse.

[FlintlockJazz]

Comparing is unfair?  Maybe that's why people get upset when I compare how good their moms are in the sack?

[fgalkin]

as BG was a horrible game as such. What was great about BG was its amazing art + spell FX. The rest was cringeworthy: Story, Chars and combat were horrible in general. BG2 at least improved upon quest density. 

 

Also, BG was~15 years ago. If a game made today is NOT better than BG then what's the point of making it?

 

What made this thread possible? The continuous claims that POE > BG and somehow that being a metric of good games. 

Discuss your opinions!

Thing is, the genre basically existed for like 5 years in total, then went bust. There were a few developers still making games, like Spiderweb Software, but for the most part, the genre was dead.

 

It's like if everybody stopped making muscle cars for 30 years, then they made a Corvette. Of course, people are going to compare it to the classic cars, because that's the last important point of reference that they have.

 

Have a very nice day.

-fgalkin

[Captain Shrek]

 

 

Visuals can get old. Good design doesn't get old. By your logic, basketball is a bad game because it's old. Surely there must be something better by now. Or Discworld is trash because it's old.

 

 

Can you highlight what was 'good design' in BG exactly? 

 

 

While I like Pillars of Eternity more overall, I have to admit Baldur's Gate 1 had more interesting encounters. You had groups of all ranged enemies (kobolds, especially in Firewine Ruins), some powerful mages, big monsters (PoE has a few groups of ogres and that's it), spiders/slimes whose poison was actually dangerous, battle horrors. Encounters were more diverse.

 

 

Heh. Alright, agree to that. Unfortunately, the encounter design in BG is not that great. Except in PoE it is not there mostly. For great encounter design, refer to Blackguards.

[Amentep]

and that's fine, but an homage can be complete different than the original.

Of course; I'd never argue anything else. Mind you I'd argue a Spiritual Successor can be completely different as well (David People's SOLDIER and BLADE RUNNER for example - set in the same universe, similar themes but different movies). Heck an actual successor can be completely different as well, depending on how the story goes.

[Gromnir]

 

and that's fine, but an homage can be complete different than the original.

Of course; I'd never argue anything else. Mind you I'd argue a Spiritual Successor can be completely different as well (David People's SOLDIER and BLADE RUNNER for example - set in the same universe, similar themes but different movies). Heck an actual successor can be completely different as well, depending on how the story goes.

 

that is why we noted that everybody gots a different notion as to what is needed in a spiritual successor.  what qualities amentep recognizes as integral or even recommended for a successor, spiritual or otherwise, is gonna be different than others.

 

an homage?  spend five minutes discussing what is homage and any rational or reasonable person is gonna agree that homage is... less.  homage may be a minor metaphorical nod.  

 

now, in the present situation, we agree that the kinda homage we referenced with the marvel movies and severed hands wouldn't be enough for many poe backers.  obsidian did observe that the ie games were inspiration and they did name those games.  even so, to suggest that use o' term "homage" is what created or increased those expectations is unfair.  

 

regardless, we do believe that perpetuating the spiritual successor claim is not helpful.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Noin]

If PoE cannot be better than 15 year old games then it's even more crappy then i thought.

But the thing is, almost none of the games released since BG were better than it. BG2 aside. So by itself it doesn't say anything.

[Ohioastro]

I enjoyed Baldurs Gate at release, but it certainly wasn't something that I loved so much that I played it over and over again.  Morrowind was probably the game that I spent the most time on.  I love the way that they do stealth and thieves in the Elder Scrolls games.  The house quests and the guild quests in Morrowind just really drew me in, along with the alien landscape.

 

In general for RPGs I will get them, play them through for a while, and then eventually put them down once I crack them.  There aren't many with stories interesting enough to repeat for their own sake.  The 4X games (Civilization / GalCiv / Total War / Europa Universalis etc.) have far more repeatability for me.  But the fact that I didn't spend hundreds of hours on BG but did on Morrowind (but less on Oblviion or Skyrim) doesn't make one game better or worse, and I don't worry about ranking them.  I just want something new that I like.  And I like PoE.

[Captain Shrek]

 

If PoE cannot be better than 15 year old games then it's even more crappy then i thought.

But the thing is, almost none of the games released since BG were better than it. BG2 aside. So by itself it doesn't say anything.

 

 

What are you talking about? Unless you mean RtwP this is untrue. Games like fallout, DX, Morrowind etc were superior to BG. Most of the fascination for IE games comes from their precedence to other games that were inspired from them and their aesthetic appeal. 

 

 

For RTwP itself, I would rank DAO and DAS:RoT higher than BGs. 

[Noin]

 

 

If PoE cannot be better than 15 year old games then it's even more crappy then i thought.

But the thing is, almost none of the games released since BG were better than it. BG2 aside. So by itself it doesn't say anything.

 

 

What are you talking about? Unless you mean RtwP this is untrue. Games like fallout, DX, Morrowind etc were superior to BG. Most of the fascination for IE games comes from their precedence to other games that were inspired from them and their aesthetic appeal. 

 

 

For RTwP itself, I would rank DAO and DAS:RoT higher than BGs. 

 

1st and 2nd Fallouts were released before BG. To me, they are the ones which matter. Fallout NV is okey, but it's a completely different type of the game.

Also, I don't like Morrowind and it's a completely different genre. I tried to play it multiple times and despite it's amazing (at that time) graphics, I just couldn't. BG's graphics survived the tides of time much better than morrowind as well.

DaO - struggled through the middle game, never finished. Too gamey and mainstream to me, definitely not better than BG. 

What's DAS:RoT? 

Edited April 28, 2015 by Noin

[Namutree]

 

 

For RTwP itself, I would rank DAO and DAS:RoT higher than BGs. 

 

DAO isn't close to as good as BG.

[Ink Blot]

What's DAS:RoT? 

 

. 

I'm guessing Drakensang:River of Time?

[Captain Shrek]

DAO has ***WAY*** better C&C than BG. Equally bad encounter design and slightly better story. 

[Amentep]

 

What's DAS:RoT? 

 

. 

I'm guessing Drakensang:River of Time?

 

 

Isn't Drakensang based on The Dark Eye, which would be Das Schwarze Auge (DSA)?  I admit Drakensang was my first thought and DAS could just be a typo...

[lazyman]

DAO has ***WAY*** better C&C than BG. Equally bad encounter design and slightly better story. 

Well, it should, shouldn't it? Look at the time difference between releases of those 2 games. Why are you people so hell bent on trying to pretend that all new(ish) games were made without any history, with no reference, no previous (similar) work to take inspiration from, etc.

Was BG perfect? Hell no, but at the _time_ it was made it really breathed fresh air into dying RPG genre (and no, Fallouts didn't have the same impact because of settings that a lot of people didn't like)