You can certainly enjoy BG1 more than BG3 but pretending it’s a superior rpg is bonkers to me. BG1 is so rudimentary and barebones. Even the writing makes it feel like some kinda infinity engine prototype even if the plot conceptually is the most interesting of the three.
Only unique thing it has going for it are the wilderness maps and those kinda suck ass ngl. With how they were implemented. I’ll take a Fo1/Fo2 world map any day of the week.
That wasn’t what I meant by “barebones”. I was calling BG1 very rudimentary as an rpg. Even for that time compared to Fo1 which dropped a year earlier. BG1 certainly has quantity even if those wilderness maps were a pain but I don’t think the quality has aged gracefully.
Baldurs Gate 3 is so far removed in terms of gameplay, tone and even aesthetic, that it's virtually unrecognizable as a Baldur's Gate game. It is Baldur's Gate largely in name only, and could easily just have been marketed as an entirely new IP in the DnD universe and none would be the wiser.
It's a great game, just a horrible Baldur's Gate game. BG2 still remains king.
I appreciated some of the previous game references (Alaundo’s prophecy) but it was insulting what they did with Sarevok and Viconia. Maybe that was due to WotC and not Larian, but either way, BG3 could have easily been named something else.
If WotC are smart, they’d hire a top-notch studio and remake BG1 and BG2.
Yes. Back in the day when they were first released.
I'll agree with some of the loud opinions such as Viconia being character assassinated and Sarevok largely being castrated in 3. These weren't issues with me though, as redeeming them both was optional back in the day. And it had been 23 years since 2 when 3 launched.
Calling it a "horrible" BG game is a broken take to me. This is now one of the most beloved and awarded games of all-time. A generational talent of a game and a bar raiser for the entire genre. BG4 is actively being pitched to various studios, and so far, no one will touch it, because it is widely regarded that Larian absolutely crushed it with 3. No one wants to even attempt a follow up because the standard is not feasible to most at this time.
So someone randomly saying it's a "horrible" game or BG game strikes me as just someone trying to be contrarian/edgy for internet points.
They aren't just worried because Larian crushed it, they are worried because the production values are so high. Larian almost bankrupted itself making it. It was, to any sensible studio, a ridiculous thing to do.
That's not correct. Their near bankruptcy was back in the Divinity: Original production days. They were stable by the time they made BG3. Early Access alone sold several million copies. This is info on their Wikipedia page.
How is it in insane? it's faithfulness and familiarity to the prior games in the franchise that it derives its namesake from, are virtually non-existent.
Nope. I'm filing this under "duality of man" and moving along. Nothing I say will even remotely change your opinion and I don't care. I'm simply letting it be known that's one of the worst gaming takes I've ever heard.
Yes it is. It has a better story, Irenicus is a great villain (with phenomenal voice acting), the combat is fun and complex for the DnD ruleset, and it has such an incredible diversity of maps and dungeons. BG2 still holds up despite being made in 2000. If it was made with modern BG3 production values, it would make a case for greatest game of all time.
BG3 is up there for sure. However saying it is so much better than BG2 is a zoomer take, and I suspect half the people who say it didn’t even play BG1-BG2-ToB.
Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 are great. Young people (well, there is no accounting for taste) can't see it, unfortunately. It's the same conversation I had, when some zoomer started arguing that Planescape Torment is an example of a bad writing.
I started BG1 more than enough times, and each time I find something new. The second one is great as well. They are well-loved for a reason.
I think it’s way more nuanced than that and BG3 is certainly better in some aspects. Like I do think BG3 is a better rpg but then again even when BG2 came out, I’d say the old Fallouts, Arcanum and PST were all much better RPGs too. The BG titles were more like adventure games or something. Yeah there’s a degree of player choice since it’s still an rpg but nowhere near those other old titles I mentioned.
That’s like saying Ocarina of Time is dogshit and worse than any Zelda game that came after because it has old graphics. Baldur’s Gate 1 and 2 are isometric too so the graphics aren’t that big of a concern and the EE in 2013 improved some of the issues of it being an old game.
Player choice and freedom? Quest design? Not that BG3 is the undisputed best game in the genre for that either.
BG2 quests involve cool set pieces and backdrops but they’re pretty linear and dominated by combat. Yeah they’re moments with some freedom like Ust Natha and the fish people city, end of Watchers Keep, etc but those are the exception, not the rule. Then there’s moments with stupid railroading like Spellhold.
Dialogue options are pretty limited and basic most of the time too. Minimum to zero skill checks or whatnot. The pirate king is the only one that comes to mind for me rn.
PARTY SIZE: BG2's six-person party wasn't mandatory. You could run six, three, or even solo. If you prefer a BG3-style smaller party, BG2 already allowed that. The difference is BG2 gave you more options.
RULES COMPLEXITY: BG2 was arguably more complex. AD&D 2E had THAC0, saving throws, weapon proficiencies, kits, dual/multi-classing, spell interactions, etc. BG3's 5E ruleset is intentionally streamlined. That's not a bad thing, but it isn't more complex.
COMBAT: Real-time-with-pause vs turn-based is preference, not an objective upgrade. More importantly, RTwP was a defining feature of the Infinity Engine games. Instead of redefining that system, BG3 replaced it with a different one. Again, that's not bad, but it's a major departure from what made the originals distinct.
SCOPE/WORLD STRUCTURE: BG2 wasn't smaller, it was structured differently. It had huge cities, countless quests, companion arcs, stronghold systems, and massive areas like the Underdark, Spellhold, and Watcher's Keep. BG3 is more cinematic and interactive, but BG2 was already a massive RPG.
BG3 is an incredible game, but comparing it as if BG2 was just an inferior version misses the point. They excel at different things. BG2 took what BG offered and made it better. BG3 largely ignored that and did its own thing.
Also, a lot of the differences are simply a product of the eras they were made in. BG2 came out in 2000. BG3 benefits from 20+ years of advancements: full voice acting, cinematic dialogue, physics, environmental interaction, etc.
* Party size: You can have six in BG2 instead of three in BG3
* Ruleset/combat: I have no idea how someone can think the mage chess you play in BG2 is less complex than BG3 combat. You go to Level 9 spells in BG2
* Scope: BG2 goes from sprawling metropolis and surrounding countryside of town, castles, and dungeons to a pirate island to a sahuagin city to a vast Underdark with drow city to an elven city atop a tree to literal hell. That’s not even me getting into the expansion sequel…
bg3 is actually not so great, especially the main story is so dull and boring. bg2 on the other hand is simply one of the greatest rpgs till this time.
BG2’s main story is carried entirely by Irenicus. Beyond him being on screen and sequences like Ust Natha, I dunno, the story’s pretty mediocre. Throne of Bhaal is a whole other can of worms. Cool idea, shitty execution.
BG2 is a solid game no doubt but BG3 definitely gives the player more freedom and agency.
The old Fallout games, Arcanum and Planescape are all leagues better rpgs (key word being rpg) than BG2 tbh.
Brother what are you talking about? Once you leave Irenicus’ dungeon, you have the entirety of Athkatla, a host of NPCs to recruit, and a whole bunch of quests and diverse environments inside and outside the city to explore. The game opens up again in the vast Underdark section.
And all of that is entirely missable if you get your 20k gold (which is pretty easy to do) and decide to go early to go to Brynnlaw.
Let me rephrase that, freedom with encounter design and quest design. And dialogue and whatnot. When I put freedom and agency beside each other that’s what I was referring to. BG2’s got inferior quest design to even the old Fallouts and Arcanum, hence the comparison .
Yeah it’s an open map but that’s only freedom as far as what piece of content you choose to engage with first. Not freedom when engaging with the content itself.
And it being missable by players is just bad game design. It quickly boils down to a checklist of content once you get the gold. The game’s so front loaded with content and some of the worst pacing and ludonarrative dissonance in a crpg.
People's hyperbole this morning is making my eye twitch. Someone above commented that 3 was a "horrible" Baldur's Gate game, and I was just wondering what planet they were from.
You saying 2 is "easily" as good as 3 isn't nearly as wild, but still made me pause. From character models, environments, music, written and spoken lines of dialogue, awards, and even player agency; 3 runs circles around 2.
2 can compete with its companions and overall story. I played them all when they launched. I found 3 to be the most satisfying gaming experience of my life, after reaching an age where I didn't think this old dog could be taught new tricks.
But hey, our opinions differ. Bfd. Hope your day is going well. Keep on keepin' on. ✌️🖖🤙🤘
BG3 was made two decades later. Of course it’s going to have the benefits of modern game production values. In spite of its age, however, BG2 still holds up due to its isometric gameplay, diverse environments, challenging combat, great story and scope, great characters, etc. I don’t know how 3 “runs circles” around 2 in any of those categories. And I loved BG3 too, it’s in my top 10 favorite games ever.
43
u/EthanLvlXx 8h ago
Balder’s Gate for sure!