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:
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.
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.
Outdated claims. Play both versions, then talk.