You could make an argument for either BG1 or BG2 being their peak, I think. Neverwinter nights was superior as a multiplatform but inferior as a CRPG, and by KOTOR they were certainly in decline. I couldn’t even finish Kotor the last time I tried to replay it.
Bg1 and bg2 are good for different reasons, and different people will prefer one over the other based on their personal tastes. We’ve had some discussion on bg1 vs IWD recently, on the same note. Bg1 is enjoyable for its comfy low level DnD campaign vibe, you’re broke and lvl 1 in the woods and almost anything can be a threat and you’re scrounging for gold to get some decent gear. DnD as a system works best at low levels imo. There’s plenty of wilderness to explore, or ignore if you don’t want to. Eventually the story gets moving and ties everything all together. Durlags is a memorable dungeon everyone remembers.
BG2 is the archetype of the modern rpg for better or worse, everything apes its style. Fewer more fleshed out companions, and the unfortunate addition of romances. Party banters, personal quests. The game is more focused on set pieces and one-offs and less exploring a somewhat believable wilderness. The power level is higher which some people enjoy, there’s memorable magic items, Irenicus is carried by the strength of his VA, though one could argue Sarevok is the better chad villain vs the virgin Irenicus. Game stretches into the epic bloat.
I like both games and think they’re still playable and fun today, though dated and clunky. I couldn’t really separate them, I always play the full saga. Knowing what I know today about what happened to the genre, yeah I’d say bg1 is the peak. Gimme Ajantis and Branwen, frick the “origin characters”. >verification not required
You could make an argument for either BG1 or BG2 being their peak, I think. Neverwinter nights was superior as a multiplatform but inferior as a CRPG, and by KOTOR they were certainly in decline. I couldn’t even finish Kotor the last time I tried to replay it.
Bg1 and bg2 are good for different reasons, and different people will prefer one over the other based on their personal tastes. We’ve had some discussion on bg1 vs IWD recently, on the same note. Bg1 is enjoyable for its comfy low level DnD campaign vibe, you’re broke and lvl 1 in the woods and almost anything can be a threat and you’re scrounging for gold to get some decent gear. DnD as a system works best at low levels imo. There’s plenty of wilderness to explore, or ignore if you don’t want to. Eventually the story gets moving and ties everything all together. Durlags is a memorable dungeon everyone remembers.
BG2 is the archetype of the modern rpg for better or worse, everything apes its style. Fewer more fleshed out companions, and the unfortunate addition of romances. Party banters, personal quests. The game is more focused on set pieces and one-offs and less exploring a somewhat believable wilderness. The power level is higher which some people enjoy, there’s memorable magic items, Irenicus is carried by the strength of his VA, though one could argue Sarevok is the better chad villain vs the virgin Irenicus. Game stretches into the epic bloat.
I like both games and think they’re still playable and fun today, though dated and clunky. I couldn’t really separate them, I always play the full saga. Knowing what I know today about what happened to the genre, yeah I’d say bg1 is the peak. Gimme Ajantis and Branwen, frick the “origin characters”. >verification not required
Discussing whether it is just the best Bioware game is fine too. I was just trying to start a conversation on where people rank it in general.
BG1 was a high level production that succeeded at finally showing d&d games could be about more than just walking through dungeon corridors and you could have vibrant wilderness and outdoor adventures. From this stand point, it's a massive milestone in the genre and deserves a lot of praise for what it does well.
However, from a design stand point it is absolutely a shit game. It completely fails to understand that the outdoor adventure is the most important part of its design and fails to give any amount of rules / gamify the experience. The most they could muster is you get tired after a while, and then you just press the rest button and everythin's kay. Time passing means nothing, at worst you're punished by a random encounter but you can just savescum that if it's a big deal. It's boring, meaningless and most of all adds no strategy or fun to the game. For modern games like PoE, Owlcat games and BG3 to still essentially be using this exact same lack of system, just press rest and you're good, is downright embarassing for the genre.
Second, RTWP is inherently shit that doesn't correctly emulate the rules of the game by making movement, one of the most important components of combat, completely divorced from the actual combat economy, leading to dumb kiting strategies that grognards of this genre think is depth. Enough said about this, anybody that defends this garbage system won't hear any arguments anyway.
Lastly, for such a story-lite game, the way it handles it by not giving you any meaningful choice to make is frankly inexcusable. Surely when there's so little story, it's easier to at least give some choices to it.
So no, BG1 is not a well designed game. It's an important game for many reasons, but if it truly was bioware's peak then no wonder they got slaughtered like pigs.
I think it depends on the criteria you use to judge the "best CRPG"
If that criteria is everything that BG1 does well then it is. It does a good job of being a single player computerised adaption of the tabletop game and the fairly low level cap is pretty unique.
If your idea of an ideal CRPG is minimal story and a shitload of companions that never get much depth, then yeah it's pretty good. Icewind Dale is better for gameplay reasons from what I've heard though.
Depends what you like in a game. Iwd has better combat and encounter designs better dungeons. It also has full party creation, which i prefer. Bg1 has more exploration and open wilderness and questing and a better story and plot, it’s a comfy low
level DnD campaign.
One mistake they made, beyond the age old RTwP vs TB which is still debated, was putting WAY too much emphasis on recruitable companions in BG2 compared to the first one. It was novel because you had fleshed out party members, but I prefer the one-note adventures and hirelings of BG1. Not to mention there was also a lot more of them to mix and match based on your alignment, roleplaying choices or class.
> there was also a lot more of them to mix and match based on your alignment, roleplaying choices or class.
This is key and something that the genre suffered for once everything copied bg2.
I have no idea how anyone could say this. You can play BG1 and BG2 back to back, and 2 is literally better in every way. better plot, better pacing, better locations and exploration, better characters, better dialog, better gameplay.
The only way you could claim 1 is better is if you like generic low-level D&D gameplay and don't care about anything else.
>How does 2 have "better pacing"? It is more railroaded
Linear games are always better-paced than open-ended games unless the dev fricked up, since a linear game actually has a hand-crafted pace while in open world games it's just a lot of nothing punctuated by bursts of pointless activity unless you just follow the (linear) storyline.
That said, nostalgiagays have a bad habit of VASTLY overstate how open-ended BG1 really was.
>That said, nostalgiagays have a bad habit of VASTLY overstate how open-ended BG1 really was.
It’s mostly the open world areas that you are free to explore whenever you wish, or to ignore. You could finish the game without stepping foot on 75% of the map. If you wanted to, just beeline the Nashkel mines, then the bandit camp, then the Cloakwood, then Baldurs Gate, then Candlekeep, then back to Baldurs Gate again. Most of those areas are gated by story progression and unfold linearly as you progress through the chapters. When people talk about it being open to explore they mean the rest of the maps.
>You can play BG1 and BG2 back to back, and 2 is literally better in every way.
See my post early in the thread about the pros and cons of both. >better plot
Personally I think bg1 has a better plot. BG2 is simply carried by Irenicus’s excellent VA performance, otherwise it’s his story, not yours. And all of the Bhaal revelations take place in bg1. BG2 is simply revenge and getting your soul back. >better pacing
Imo bg1 is paced better. It starts slowly and then gradually ramps up to the climax. BG2 just kind of hums along. >better locations
Depends what you mean by better. BG2 certainly has more exotic locations, if you feel that is better then that’s fair. >exploration
Imo bg1 has far better sense of explorations there’s a whole world out there, explore it or not. BG2 you are shunted from set piece to set piece, it’s more linear. >better characters
They’re certainly more fleshed out and deeper, this is true. >better dialog
Eh, I think they’re both about the same. There’s definitely more of it in 2. >better gameplay
It’s a higher power level, which can be fun, but it’s also where DnD systems traditionally fall apart. >The only way you could claim 1 is better is if you like generic low-level D&D gameplay and don't care about anything else.
I love both games and still replay them (2 is a direct continuation of 1, how can you separate them?) but I can see arguments for both.
This is true.
BG1 has got that classic dungeon crawling "how far into this unexplored area can I delve" thing going for it, but BG2 is just better. And what makes BG2 a unique step change up from BG1 is that it incorporates the best part of JRPGs - the bold characterisation and personalities - into the classic WRPG system. It's almost a perfect game. Definitely the best CRPG ever made, and a credible candidate for best GAME ever made.
Something I like about 1's low level cap is that you can kind of "route" the game how you think is most fun and not really be missing on anything since the xp from areas you don't feel doing is not necessary.
The schizos have always been there, they're just more active these days since they're in full cope mode over BG3 being more successful than BG1 and 2 combined.
I hope not. I couldn't make it past that first wizard assassin. The game is not user friendly and the combat seems to just rely on saving and hoping you don't die. This is a genre I'd like to play more of, but I absolutely hate BG1 so far.
High level dnd is boring and all the praised character writing has aged really poorly and by aged poorly i mean I'm not a bottom of the barrel dndnerd and have read real books
And I don't like having my time wasted with reading boring junk.
You could make a reasonable argument for BG1 and BG2 being best Bioware's games.
I will not argue "best cRPGs in general" because the genre and its definition is too large for any consensus.
1. NWN - good modding and multiplayer engine, bad game. Okayish expansions.
2. KotOR - people like it because of the comfy standard Star Wars adventure. For many console normies, the first game with some effort in writing. But it was the harbinger of "cinematic experience" trend in RPGs. A horrible curse that twisted the genre. Also, RTwP + friendly fire + console controls = horrible, horrible mess. I dislike, KotOR. A lot. But I understand the people who liked it at the time.
3. Jade Empire - Same as above, with shitty action instead of shitty mangled RTwP.
4. Dragon Age: Origins - high effort attempt at an original setting. Combat mechanics influenced by MMOs are a major problem. Large amount of trash combat makes it even worse.
if its the best "CRPG" then maybe the whole genre is trash
You could make an argument for either BG1 or BG2 being their peak, I think. Neverwinter nights was superior as a multiplatform but inferior as a CRPG, and by KOTOR they were certainly in decline. I couldn’t even finish Kotor the last time I tried to replay it.
Bg1 and bg2 are good for different reasons, and different people will prefer one over the other based on their personal tastes. We’ve had some discussion on bg1 vs IWD recently, on the same note. Bg1 is enjoyable for its comfy low level DnD campaign vibe, you’re broke and lvl 1 in the woods and almost anything can be a threat and you’re scrounging for gold to get some decent gear. DnD as a system works best at low levels imo. There’s plenty of wilderness to explore, or ignore if you don’t want to. Eventually the story gets moving and ties everything all together. Durlags is a memorable dungeon everyone remembers.
BG2 is the archetype of the modern rpg for better or worse, everything apes its style. Fewer more fleshed out companions, and the unfortunate addition of romances. Party banters, personal quests. The game is more focused on set pieces and one-offs and less exploring a somewhat believable wilderness. The power level is higher which some people enjoy, there’s memorable magic items, Irenicus is carried by the strength of his VA, though one could argue Sarevok is the better chad villain vs the virgin Irenicus. Game stretches into the epic bloat.
I like both games and think they’re still playable and fun today, though dated and clunky. I couldn’t really separate them, I always play the full saga. Knowing what I know today about what happened to the genre, yeah I’d say bg1 is the peak. Gimme Ajantis and Branwen, frick the “origin characters”.
>verification not required
Oh, “the best CRPG”? I thought OP said “their best CRPG”. I love bg1 but no, it is not the best CRPG.
I've never played BG. Always been curious. I've only played arcanum pst and fallout.
Yeah not sure why OP phrases it like that at all. His pic is specifically discussing bioware
Discussing whether it is just the best Bioware game is fine too. I was just trying to start a conversation on where people rank it in general.
Quality effort post.
no
no. Reddit game
pretty silly, but it is a good game
BG1 was a high level production that succeeded at finally showing d&d games could be about more than just walking through dungeon corridors and you could have vibrant wilderness and outdoor adventures. From this stand point, it's a massive milestone in the genre and deserves a lot of praise for what it does well.
However, from a design stand point it is absolutely a shit game. It completely fails to understand that the outdoor adventure is the most important part of its design and fails to give any amount of rules / gamify the experience. The most they could muster is you get tired after a while, and then you just press the rest button and everythin's kay. Time passing means nothing, at worst you're punished by a random encounter but you can just savescum that if it's a big deal. It's boring, meaningless and most of all adds no strategy or fun to the game. For modern games like PoE, Owlcat games and BG3 to still essentially be using this exact same lack of system, just press rest and you're good, is downright embarassing for the genre.
Second, RTWP is inherently shit that doesn't correctly emulate the rules of the game by making movement, one of the most important components of combat, completely divorced from the actual combat economy, leading to dumb kiting strategies that grognards of this genre think is depth. Enough said about this, anybody that defends this garbage system won't hear any arguments anyway.
Lastly, for such a story-lite game, the way it handles it by not giving you any meaningful choice to make is frankly inexcusable. Surely when there's so little story, it's easier to at least give some choices to it.
So no, BG1 is not a well designed game. It's an important game for many reasons, but if it truly was bioware's peak then no wonder they got slaughtered like pigs.
I like bg1 in spite of it being RTWP, not because of it, personally.
Good take.
>moron posts a pic of someone's thought that he can't understand
how embarrassing.
I think it depends on the criteria you use to judge the "best CRPG"
If that criteria is everything that BG1 does well then it is. It does a good job of being a single player computerised adaption of the tabletop game and the fairly low level cap is pretty unique.
>It does a good job of being a single player computerised adaption of the tabletop game
It actually doesn't.
Lilura, you Korean troony, stop trying to advertise your shit blog.
No lilura is an irrational woman that likes things like nwn and diablo. Her opinions cannot be taken seriously.
>woman
Lol
Yes, only someone with a functioning vegana could be so obsessed with NWN. Lilura is clearly an actual woman.
If your idea of an ideal CRPG is minimal story and a shitload of companions that never get much depth, then yeah it's pretty good. Icewind Dale is better for gameplay reasons from what I've heard though.
Depends what you like in a game. Iwd has better combat and encounter designs better dungeons. It also has full party creation, which i prefer. Bg1 has more exploration and open wilderness and questing and a better story and plot, it’s a comfy low
level DnD campaign.
One mistake they made, beyond the age old RTwP vs TB which is still debated, was putting WAY too much emphasis on recruitable companions in BG2 compared to the first one. It was novel because you had fleshed out party members, but I prefer the one-note adventures and hirelings of BG1. Not to mention there was also a lot more of them to mix and match based on your alignment, roleplaying choices or class.
> there was also a lot more of them to mix and match based on your alignment, roleplaying choices or class.
This is key and something that the genre suffered for once everything copied bg2.
I have no idea how anyone could say this. You can play BG1 and BG2 back to back, and 2 is literally better in every way. better plot, better pacing, better locations and exploration, better characters, better dialog, better gameplay.
The only way you could claim 1 is better is if you like generic low-level D&D gameplay and don't care about anything else.
They go into it in great detail.
How does 2 have "better pacing"? It is more railroaded and literally 5 times as long.
>How does 2 have "better pacing"? It is more railroaded
Linear games are always better-paced than open-ended games unless the dev fricked up, since a linear game actually has a hand-crafted pace while in open world games it's just a lot of nothing punctuated by bursts of pointless activity unless you just follow the (linear) storyline.
That said, nostalgiagays have a bad habit of VASTLY overstate how open-ended BG1 really was.
>That said, nostalgiagays have a bad habit of VASTLY overstate how open-ended BG1 really was.
It’s mostly the open world areas that you are free to explore whenever you wish, or to ignore. You could finish the game without stepping foot on 75% of the map. If you wanted to, just beeline the Nashkel mines, then the bandit camp, then the Cloakwood, then Baldurs Gate, then Candlekeep, then back to Baldurs Gate again. Most of those areas are gated by story progression and unfold linearly as you progress through the chapters. When people talk about it being open to explore they mean the rest of the maps.
>You can play BG1 and BG2 back to back, and 2 is literally better in every way.
See my post early in the thread about the pros and cons of both.
>better plot
Personally I think bg1 has a better plot. BG2 is simply carried by Irenicus’s excellent VA performance, otherwise it’s his story, not yours. And all of the Bhaal revelations take place in bg1. BG2 is simply revenge and getting your soul back.
>better pacing
Imo bg1 is paced better. It starts slowly and then gradually ramps up to the climax. BG2 just kind of hums along.
>better locations
Depends what you mean by better. BG2 certainly has more exotic locations, if you feel that is better then that’s fair.
>exploration
Imo bg1 has far better sense of explorations there’s a whole world out there, explore it or not. BG2 you are shunted from set piece to set piece, it’s more linear.
>better characters
They’re certainly more fleshed out and deeper, this is true.
>better dialog
Eh, I think they’re both about the same. There’s definitely more of it in 2.
>better gameplay
It’s a higher power level, which can be fun, but it’s also where DnD systems traditionally fall apart.
>The only way you could claim 1 is better is if you like generic low-level D&D gameplay and don't care about anything else.
I love both games and still replay them (2 is a direct continuation of 1, how can you separate them?) but I can see arguments for both.
This is true.
BG1 has got that classic dungeon crawling "how far into this unexplored area can I delve" thing going for it, but BG2 is just better. And what makes BG2 a unique step change up from BG1 is that it incorporates the best part of JRPGs - the bold characterisation and personalities - into the classic WRPG system. It's almost a perfect game. Definitely the best CRPG ever made, and a credible candidate for best GAME ever made.
Something I like about 1's low level cap is that you can kind of "route" the game how you think is most fun and not really be missing on anything since the xp from areas you don't feel doing is not necessary.
is someone having a mental breakdown over people not liking bg1 and 2 lately? seems like the low quality schizo posts are getting worse.
>lately
20 years, anon
The schizos have always been there, they're just more active these days since they're in full cope mode over BG3 being more successful than BG1 and 2 combined.
So by your logic the Star Wars sequel trilogy is better than the original trilogy? It was after all a bigger financial success.
Anon, it’s a seething and dilating bg3 shill, don’t take his bait, just pity him and move on.
I hope not. I couldn't make it past that first wizard assassin. The game is not user friendly and the combat seems to just rely on saving and hoping you don't die. This is a genre I'd like to play more of, but I absolutely hate BG1 so far.
Nah, it's too precise and specific in its implementation of AD&D to be a candidate for representing the whole genre.
High level dnd is boring and all the praised character writing has aged really poorly and by aged poorly i mean I'm not a bottom of the barrel dndnerd and have read real books
And I don't like having my time wasted with reading boring junk.
Kotor was better, only thing I didn't like was the lack of playstyles
No. Next dumb ass fricking question!
You could make a reasonable argument for BG1 and BG2 being best Bioware's games.
I will not argue "best cRPGs in general" because the genre and its definition is too large for any consensus.
1. NWN - good modding and multiplayer engine, bad game. Okayish expansions.
2. KotOR - people like it because of the comfy standard Star Wars adventure. For many console normies, the first game with some effort in writing. But it was the harbinger of "cinematic experience" trend in RPGs. A horrible curse that twisted the genre. Also, RTwP + friendly fire + console controls = horrible, horrible mess. I dislike, KotOR. A lot. But I understand the people who liked it at the time.
3. Jade Empire - Same as above, with shitty action instead of shitty mangled RTwP.
4. Dragon Age: Origins - high effort attempt at an original setting. Combat mechanics influenced by MMOs are a major problem. Large amount of trash combat makes it even worse.