It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
avatar
Darkul81: Here are the reasons a person might say the original is better:

1. Nostalgia
2. The crappy aesthetics can be charming in a sense
3. They prefer it because it's simpler
4. They hate things that are mainstream or popular
5. They want to be cool by choosing the less obvious choice
avatar
Hickory: Bigot.
Maybe when the EE came out I would recommend BGtutu, but now it's been out a while and the bugs are corrected. I wouldn't necessarily recommend buying the EE if a person already owns the original, but if a person doesn't own either one, the EE is absolutely the version to go with.

But as to whether or not I'm a bigot, let me just say this:

No matter how good or groundbreaking a game is, you can bet you will have naysayers and whiners everywhere. This is most certainly true the more people that like a game. Their subconscious crybaby kicks in and they automatically hate it, and most don't even know why. In fact, some people hate on popular games without respect to actual merit, but because of other things altogether. For instance, if a game is loved by a lot of people, you are sure to have certain pathetic people whose natural tendency it is to hate on it. It makes them feel cool to buck against the mainstream. They just hate something because so many love it. It really is that simple. There are a lot of douchebags in the gaming community, and it makes me sick that so many gamers can be so utterly childish.

"Is it new? It's garbage!" - the immature douchebag gamer

Then you have the anticorporate and antibusiness morons. If something is released by EA, Activision/Blizzard, Ubisoft, Bethseda, etc, you can rest assured that there will be hate all over the place! People just can't help but channel their "inner-marxist" every time a massive commercial release hits the shelves. They hit the pirate sites, and whine about everything under the sun. Entitlement run amok. People like that make me SICK!

As far as the EE goes, many of the people leveling complaints about it are ridiculous. Maybe when it was first released I can understand, but now that the bugs are corrected there is no reason at all to go with the original if a person is just getting started. A new player is not bound by nostalgia, and the newer qualities are just as valid as the older qualities - it merely depends on which one you play first. All things considered, the EE is superior in every way
Post edited May 24, 2014 by Darkul81
avatar
Darkul81: All things considered, the EE is superior in every way
I'm afraid that that isn't the case. I haven't played it, but I can name one objective and irrefutable way in which the original is superior: price. The EE costs exactly twice as much (on its official website) as the original does here. There are many other more subjective ways in which the original can be considered to be superior. However, I haven't played the EE, so I'm not in a position to make that sort of comparison, and many others have already suggested reasons in this thread. I've given a clear counterexample to your claim, and thus have shown that it's incorrect...rather bringing the validity of the rest of the claims in your post into doubt.
avatar
Illael: Just to make a point clear, the EE never had any DRM...
See the Beamdog Returns Policy which states "Even if the Content has been downloaded it will be removed/disabled from the users' computer." Such a measure would be impossible without DRM, and it means the content will be similarly disabled should Beamdog close down or "do an EA" and cease support.

The BeamDog Developer Page listing their "Proprietary DRM solution" should remove any doubt on this matter.
Post edited May 26, 2014 by AstralWanderer
avatar
Darkul81: *snip*
The naysayers and whiners are everywhere, not just gaming. Sometimes they are just getting attention or to troll others but not always so. You go on to say no matter how good or groundbreaking a game is, there will be whiners. Just out of curiosity, what are these groundbreaking games? Some of the "groundbreaking" games were just hype or failed to deliver on their promises. It surely can't be that hard to understand that a lot of these "whiners" aren't actually whiners? You'll notice that these "whiners" go into detail making it easy to seperate whining with valid criticism. I'll even provide examples.

Back in the early 2000's Halo: Combat Evolved was released on the X-box, it was crowned "The best FPS to date" and "The reason to own an X-box". It went so far as to say it was a breakthrough in the FPS genre. Me being curious picked it up when it came out for PC only to find out there was nothing in there that I haden't seen already, NOTHING!. A boring hero with a run of the mill save the world story, using weapons every other FPS has shooting the same 4 enemies through linear levels all the way till the end. How the hell did a game like that get so much hype? Do I hate it because it's popular? or cos it's cool to hate on popular things? No, I hate it because it was just a rip of every FPS game I ever played and didn't even come close to the hype it was given. I was also mad about getting gipped out of 30 quid.

Starcraft 2: WOL is another example. I played Starcraft 2 in an internet bar because I was interested in continuing the story from Starcraft 1. What I get is Jim Raynor and his intrepid band of Mary Sues running around doing side quests until going to Char as beating the crap out of the zerg in 3 missions. There was no feeling of shifting events in the Koprulu sector like the orignal had, it felt like a badly written fan fic of "Raynor wubs Kerrigan". There was also the problem of the campaign game while fun, was just too easy, even on the hardest difficulty. Do I not like it because it's popular, or because it's by a big name like Blizzard? No, I don't it because it wasn't the product I was hoping for.

How about EA's Medal of Honor: Pacific Assault? That was a horrible game that was so bad, it was one of the few games I started playing but never finished. Was it because of it's popularity? Or that it was by a big name like EA? NO!!! It was because the game itself was a frickin mess. AI enemies popping out of nowhere, pinpoint accuracy through foliage, bad hit detection (apparently japanese soldiers can take a full 30 rounds from the Thompson in the chest and still bayonette you to death), long reload times and stupid AI squadmates made the game a nightmare. However, this game was still given editors choice awards on many major publications.

Fast forward to today, do we even need to have a look at Call of Duty? Do people hate it because it's popular? or cos it's by Activision? Or do they hate it because development time of 9 or so months leaves little in the way of quality or innovation? Or the paid for map packs? Or the bad online community? I mean geez, look at the cover art for the latest COD games, they're all but exact copies of each other. Lone soldier standing in the front, battlefield in the backdrop. Does this not warrent criticism?

I realize that when it comes to gaming is a preference and we each have our own tastes but what I mentioned above, is it blind hate or legit criticism? When you say that people hate on BGEE because of:

1. Nostalgia
2. The crappy aesthetics can be charming in a sense
3. They prefer it because it's simpler
4. They hate things that are mainstream or popular
5. They want to be cool by choosing the less obvious choice

Sorry, but responding in this manner is bigotted and just reeks of condescention. Valid reasons for prefering BG over BGEE have been mentioned in this thread already but of course, you go on to say "All things considered, the EE is superior in every way" implying that those who prefer the original is purely out of nostalgia and the reasons mentioned before is just poeple whining.

You either have expressed your ideas badly or Hickory is right.
avatar
Darkul81: *snip*
avatar
IwubCheeze: The naysayers and whiners are everywhere, not just gaming. Sometimes they are just getting attention or to troll others but not always so. You go on to say no matter how good or groundbreaking a game is, there will be whiners. Just out of curiosity, what are these groundbreaking games? Some of the "groundbreaking" games were just hype or failed to deliver on their promises. It surely can't be that hard to understand that a lot of these "whiners" aren't actually whiners? You'll notice that these "whiners" go into detail making it easy to seperate whining with valid criticism. I'll even provide examples.

Back in the early 2000's Halo: Combat Evolved was released on the X-box, it was crowned "The best FPS to date" and "The reason to own an X-box". It went so far as to say it was a breakthrough in the FPS genre. Me being curious picked it up when it came out for PC only to find out there was nothing in there that I haden't seen already, NOTHING!. A boring hero with a run of the mill save the world story, using weapons every other FPS has shooting the same 4 enemies through linear levels all the way till the end. How the hell did a game like that get so much hype? Do I hate it because it's popular? or cos it's cool to hate on popular things? No, I hate it because it was just a rip of every FPS game I ever played and didn't even come close to the hype it was given. I was also mad about getting gipped out of 30 quid.

Starcraft 2: WOL is another example. I played Starcraft 2 in an internet bar because I was interested in continuing the story from Starcraft 1. What I get is Jim Raynor and his intrepid band of Mary Sues running around doing side quests until going to Char as beating the crap out of the zerg in 3 missions. There was no feeling of shifting events in the Koprulu sector like the orignal had, it felt like a badly written fan fic of "Raynor wubs Kerrigan". There was also the problem of the campaign game while fun, was just too easy, even on the hardest difficulty. Do I not like it because it's popular, or because it's by a big name like Blizzard? No, I don't it because it wasn't the product I was hoping for.

How about EA's Medal of Honor: Pacific Assault? That was a horrible game that was so bad, it was one of the few games I started playing but never finished. Was it because of it's popularity? Or that it was by a big name like EA? NO!!! It was because the game itself was a frickin mess. AI enemies popping out of nowhere, pinpoint accuracy through foliage, bad hit detection (apparently japanese soldiers can take a full 30 rounds from the Thompson in the chest and still bayonette you to death), long reload times and stupid AI squadmates made the game a nightmare. However, this game was still given editors choice awards on many major publications.

Fast forward to today, do we even need to have a look at Call of Duty? Do people hate it because it's popular? or cos it's by Activision? Or do they hate it because development time of 9 or so months leaves little in the way of quality or innovation? Or the paid for map packs? Or the bad online community? I mean geez, look at the cover art for the latest COD games, they're all but exact copies of each other. Lone soldier standing in the front, battlefield in the backdrop. Does this not warrent criticism?

I realize that when it comes to gaming is a preference and we each have our own tastes but what I mentioned above, is it blind hate or legit criticism? When you say that people hate on BGEE because of:

1. Nostalgia
2. The crappy aesthetics can be charming in a sense
3. They prefer it because it's simpler
4. They hate things that are mainstream or popular
5. They want to be cool by choosing the less obvious choice

Sorry, but responding in this manner is bigotted and just reeks of condescention. Valid reasons for prefering BG over BGEE have been mentioned in this thread already but of course, you go on to say "All things considered, the EE is superior in every way" implying that those who prefer the original is purely out of nostalgia and the reasons mentioned before is just poeple whining.

You either have expressed your ideas badly or Hickory is right.
After re-reading my post I can definitely see how I came across as arrogant and dismissive - not that I feel it has a bearing either way on the validity of my argument.

I will say this:

I don't feel that everyone on this thread, or even most of the people on this thread, fall into that category of gamer. There are people who posted comments that had a very valid reason for preferring the original. But you cannot deny that quite literally anytime a remake or re-release hits the market - with just about anything - you have people who thrive on bucking the mainstream and waving their anarchist, anti-corporate, and wannabe-purist flag. It was merely those types of people I was referencing. Why? Because I absolutely loathe those people, and the Bhaalspawn saga is something very dear to my heart.

Also, I just wanted to sort of update this thread. People may be looking to purchase Baldur's Gate and wonder which version is for them. Purists can very easily lead new people astray, and I think that even the most dedicated GoG fanatic must admit that for a modern gamer just making his way to Baldur's Gate, the Enhanced Edition is without a doubt the way to go. These are not the type of people that are going to want to play in 640x480 or be troubled with unofficial patches, compatibility, and setting up mods. Besides all this, this thread is old, and a lot has changed since the opening of this thread. The Enhanced Edition is working nearly flawlessly, and has much better mod-compatibility than it did at the beginning. The new features are also really awesome - I just love the Dragon Disciple and Dwarven Defender, and Baeloth is incredible.

I own both versions, by the way. I own the anthology disc w/ the original BG saga (and other games), and I own the Enhanced Edition. I have played both. Like I said, the Baldur's Gate saga is very close to my heart, and I feel the Enhanced Edition is the best version yet. Here is my Steam profile, BGEE is the first game on the list - look at the time I have put into it:

http://steamcommunity.com/id/BlastXBlast/games/?tab=all

It's not like I don't know what I am talking about. The Enhanced Edition has gotten much, much better. I can't go back to Tutu. 6 months ago, I would have recommended Tutu. Now I recommend BGEE. Especially now that EEkeeper is up and running, along with a lot more cool add-ons and mods.

On the official forum, the general consensus has shifted greatly over the last few months. The overwhelming majority will now tell you it's the EE that is superior.

I realize that people here are loyal to GoG and purists in heart, but I felt I should at least say something to balance out what I feel is outdated and even potentially biased information.
avatar
Darkul81: All things considered, the EE is superior in every way
avatar
pi4t: I'm afraid that that isn't the case. I haven't played it, but I can name one objective and irrefutable way in which the original is superior: price. The EE costs exactly twice as much (on its official website) as the original does here. There are many other more subjective ways in which the original can be considered to be superior. However, I haven't played the EE, so I'm not in a position to make that sort of comparison, and many others have already suggested reasons in this thread. I've given a clear counterexample to your claim, and thus have shown that it's incorrect...rather bringing the validity of the rest of the claims in your post into doubt.
Outdated claims. Play both versions, then talk.
Post edited June 03, 2014 by Darkul81
avatar
Darkul81: But you cannot deny that quite literally anytime a remake or re-release hits the market - with just about anything - you have people who thrive on bucking the mainstream and waving their anarchist, anti-corporate, and wannabe-purist flag. It was merely those types of people I was referencing. Why? Because I absolutely loathe those people,
Just keep digging that hole...
avatar
pi4t: I'm afraid that that isn't the case. I haven't played it, but I can name one objective and irrefutable way in which the original is superior: price. The EE costs exactly twice as much (on its official website) as the original does here. There are many other more subjective ways in which the original can be considered to be superior. However, I haven't played the EE, so I'm not in a position to make that sort of comparison, and many others have already suggested reasons in this thread. I've given a clear counterexample to your claim, and thus have shown that it's incorrect...rather bringing the validity of the rest of the claims in your post into doubt.
avatar
Darkul81: Outdated claims. Play both versions, then talk.
avatar
pi4t: I'm afraid that that isn't the case. I haven't played it, but I can name one objective and irrefutable way in which the original is superior: price. The EE costs exactly twice as much (on its official website) as the original does here.
The quoted part, the main point of my post, is not "outdated": I checked it while typing that post, to make sure the prices hadn't changed. $19.99 from their website, and so presumably the same on distributors like Steam - I'm in the UK so can't check the price in $, or I'd have looked at Steam itself's price. The more subjective issues I explicitely said that I was unable to comment on, since I don't have the money to spare on buying a $20 second version of the same game. I was, however, pointing out that you've made a claim that was objectively incorrect ("The EE is superior in every way"). I assume you're not going to argue that a higher price is somehow superior? The improvements may or may not be worth the extra $10 depending on the buyer, but whether or not they are doesn't change the fact that the original is "superior" in terms of price, and anyone taking your claim at face value would conclude that the EE was cheaper, or the same price, as the original.

The part of my post after the bit I've quoted was just pointing out that since you'd made one incorrect - and potentially misleading - statement in your post, people considering which version to buy should treat the other claims in your post with a pinch of salt.

You will observe that I have carefully avoided using any arguments which require me to have played both versions in this discussion: I've merely used logical reasoning based on your own claims and objective facts in terms of price. Thus, it's invalid to refute my arguments by saying that I haven't tried both games.
Nothing from the EE edition you can't get from mods that are FREE (ok may the new characters, but they definitely don't worth the extra cost), and Beamdog is charging people $20 for it. On top of that, Beamdog has put DRM on the EE eidtion, which is a big no no for me. So, the EE edition is definitely not worth it in my book.
Post edited June 06, 2014 by tcgtqu
avatar
Darkul81: But you cannot deny that quite literally anytime a remake or re-release hits the market - with just about anything - you have people who thrive on bucking the mainstream and waving their anarchist, anti-corporate, and wannabe-purist flag. It was merely those types of people I was referencing. Why? Because I absolutely loathe those people,
avatar
Hickory: Just keep digging that hole...
Digging what hole? You have to have something to dig into, first. All I see on this forum is a lot of air and space. A whole lot of air and a whole lot of empty space.

Certainly nothing for me to fear or respect.
avatar
Hickory: Just keep digging that hole...
avatar
Darkul81: Digging what hole? You have to have something to dig into, first. All I see on this forum is a lot of air and space. A whole lot of air and a whole lot of empty space.

Certainly nothing for me to fear or respect.
The metaphorical hole you are digging for yourself; nobody wants or needs the respect of a bigot.
I own three copies of the BG series: the original discs, the gog version, and the EE versions. I think Beamdog has cleaned up EE quite a bit, and might actually be a more welcoming experience for those who are new to the series. After all, I'm not sure how much a someone new would particularly enjoy 640x480 resolutions, and have to fill their inventory 3x the amount in their inventory.

That said, I find the EE versions much too pricy, and I generally enjoy playing the originals (vanilla even) more. I personally enjoy the 640x480 look, and I can't really find much room in the party for the new EE NPC's, because they just don't seem to "fit" for me. I think someone mentioned nostalgia... and I can find no better nostalgic experience than the original.

If one wants to mod the original to be like EE, I actually find it quite easy for someone who isn't much into mods. Last I checked, the EE does have an active modding community, so it still has time for further refinements. Of course, while EE is a more recent release, it is still ultimately an old game, so I am not sure how the longevity of support the game will get.

Both versions are nice, so choose your poison. I'm more for the original, but I'm just weird like that.
The EE offers slightly better options, and there are numerous small improvements here and there - the one big improvement is, of course, the resolution - but the original animations are still better, and the map of the original is also better looking. In the EE the names in the map have a rather jarring Ariel font, which immediately gave me the association of a work in progress. Trivial stuff, of course, and certainly if you haven't played the original. But I played the original first, and they do matter to me - a bit. I do like the rules revision to add more classes and kits, though.
Like several others, I own 'em all. I have the CD's, I have the GOG versions, and I have EE versions.

I like them both. The biggest enhancement I miss when I switch back to the original is the save/load times. EE saves and loads very fast compared to the original.

I do wish the EE version had an option to disable the gameplay enhancements while keeping the load times and the interface.