>Hey, that enemy is immune to most types of damage
>How was I supposed to know that?
>You weren't, now you need to apply a complex series of debuffs on him to even hit him
>How was I supposed to know that? And how do I know if the debuffs even work
>You wasn't and you don't, oh look, he killed your entire party in one hit with a oneshot spell, you should have used the proper spell protection in advance
>.....
Shit game
True. It’s bad game by 2024 standards.
is this bait or just moronic zoomers?
we had the same thread yesterday
It's a pretty cool game but yeah the gameplay is irredeemable garbage. Only nostalgiagays believe otherwise
So the reason I was filtered by BG1 was not just because I was a scrub, good to know
Little bit of A little bit of B
use bows scrub
No, you're also a scrub if you actually tried to git gud: a non-scrub should be able to handle even bad systems, as demonstrated by BG1&2 being approachable by normalgays of the era. But AD&D is an awful system, being bad at simulation so you can't intuit what's good based on what "should" happen and inconsistent in its level of abstraction, thoroughly inelegant (by which I mean systems that are complex and/or unintuitive but this complexity doesn't pay off in terms of depth), and number-crunchy by its nature. The charitable interpretation would be that you saw it for what it is and rightfully bailed without investing your time into garbage. Planescape: Torment is the only Infinite Engine RPG worth playing, on account of it being combat-light, and having the best and most interesting atmosphere/setting/story/companions, etc, and being fairly compact so it doesn't stay past its welcome.
If planescape is the better game why isn’t it getting the sequels?
>BG1&2 being approachable by normalgays of the era
They weren't really normalgays though. D&D and video games were much much smaller than they are today, and only nerds were into BG1 and BG2.
This isn't a generational thing, it's just that literally every zoomer plays video games so of course most will get filtered on these kinds of games.
None of what OP mentioned is a problem in bg1 though. It's strictly a mid/high-level DnD thing.
Though BG1 does have shit like basilisks 1shotting party members from across the screen, but there are context clues so you know what to expect.
Plus, y'know, they put quicksaves in for a reason. They know they can't pull punches like a real DM can but they can at least let you try again.
nah, you just suck. BG1 is low level shenanigans
BG1 is pretty easy to handle, but BG2 (especially when you get to ToB levels) gets moronic sometimes.
If I could figure it out at 10 years old surely you morons can.
I cant
are you getting filtered by the liches?
you really ought to start any fight against a boss/strong enemy with a dispell or two
Skill issue.
All casters should be hit with debuffs in your first turn.
It's a save anywhere game, there's nothing particularly obnoxious about forcing you to reload. Unlike e.g. Dark Souls which gotchas you and then makes you waste 5 minutes getting back.
>>You wasn't
>beat game when I was like 11 with no guides and no help
>today's zoomers can't even buff their party
Holy frick what an embarrassment you are
played all of it (and bg2 too) at core difficulty without getting too deep into buffs and debuffs, the bare minimum really, with a bit of cheesing here and there (like only luring one enemy at a time in the major encounters, fireballs and Cloudkill from a distance when possible in some encounters....) and grinding (doing all the side content you can do, so you're always at least at the level of the enemy or above) and knowing how to synergize the various weapons/armors you can force your way through the game
i actually found both bg1/bg2 enjoyable overall
you can solo bg2 as a berserker mage Duel class
>duel
>spell breach
>lower resistance
>lower resistance
>lower resistance
>skull trap
>fireball
Zoomer moment, just play BG3.
Funny to think zoomers struggle with a game I beat on my own when I was 15. Soft as shit candy ass motherfrickers.
It is an old game. Tons of them are exactly like that, hardcore.
You young folk should stay with your moderns games and leave old gems like this, you are simply to used to ubisoft new games with their flashy lights and UIs.
It's not old and it's not hardcore. The original Baldur's Gate games are actually very fair and quite easy if you put any effort into learning the mechanics and use your head, unlike old rpgs (80s to mid 90s), which just had artificial difficulty on steroids because they didn't have the technology yet to create challenging AI and combat.
Grandpappys rog was indeed a harsh mistress.
>Go to magic shop
>See lots of protection and debuff scrolls
>loot dungeons
>constantly coming across protection and debuff scrolls
>level up a cleric/druid/sorceror
>many of the available spells are for protection and debuffing
>"Well I'll just ignore all these because it's safe to assume that they were put in the game for no reason."
Old games tended to require foreknowledge. If you didn't go into the battle knowing the solution you had to fail a couple of times until you figured it out. Modern games prefer the approach of giving the player some hints and foreshadowing so that they can adapt and react and only get ganked if they didn't figure it out.
So which of the two is more hardcore? The one where you beat your head against a brick wall until through trial and error you figure out the solution? Or the one where someone with open eyes and a working brain can follow the money without save scumming?
The game came with an extensive manual for dum dums who can't just trial and error like a normal white man.
I beat this game as a literal child by reading spell descriptions and using potions/protection scrolls. Sorry to hear about your moronation though.
Back then you bought a game and played it for 6 months and if you're lucky you might beat it, most of the time you didn't.