This may be because Baldur's Gate is an adaptation from the pencil & paper game, Dungeons & Dragons... ...the first role-playing game... ...the standard bearer of all role-playing games.

You'll be glad to hear that BG2 addresses that. :)

Had you read my entire post, you would have known that the whole running thing is only one thing I do not like about the game, as I also brought up the problems I had with the storytelling and the characters. Furthermore, if you had read the second sentence of my post, you would have known that I would be addressing all the other responses I got, and I assure you that they raise points that involve more than the running issue. That said, when the running issue interferes with gameplay to such a significant degree, especially at a level when a wolf can take out half of my 14 hit points, I'd chalk that up as a fairly notable problem.

Furthermore, I am responding with criticism because that's how I operate. The things said to me do not compute, so I respond by pushing back to try to acquire responses that will tell me how people react to the things I criticize, be it that they don't mind them, that they haven't thought about them, or that they recognize them as a flaw but the rest of the game makes up for it in some undefined way. I intend no offence in doing so, but in order to fully understand the people who have responded, I need to probe further.

Finally in the interest of objectivity, I have restarted the game (and am in the process of trying to play it to the end this time around) and found a way to increase the game speed. It is helpful insofar as it gets me from place to place faster, but as the monsters now move at the same speed, I still face problems in trying and failing to flee from combat.

I agree with you that merely dismissing interest in old games as nostalgia gets bloody annoying. However, I put that forth as a hypothesis because I have attempted playing the game (and am in the process of playing now), and have encountered several things that make it hard for me to understand why people like this game. Hence why I posted in this thread in the first place.

Now we seem to be getting further into the heart of the disconnect I seem to be experiencing. I have already said what I have to say at this time about the rules, story, and characters, but have yet to really address the other things you brought up. I have already mentioned that I like the backgrounds, but I like them so much that I believe it bears mentioning again. I had some concerns about the mods, but a prior post has informed me that it is purely cosmetic in nature and does drastically alter the game or UI, so I think we can consider those dropped.

However, the setting is something that I think I have no hope of enjoying. One of my growing pet peeves is how standard fantasy has become a thing, particularly in the case of D&D. Fantasy is capable of doing any number things, and yet so much of fantasy in general and D&D seems to have a fetish for setting itself in Medieval Tolkein-esque world where any semblance is left out in the cold at the door by the allmighty bouncer of alignment. I adored Planescape particularly because it got away from the cliched type of setting that most standard fantasy takes place in and bought the rest of the Infinitty Engine D&D games after seeing their high ratings, thinking that they must have done something similar. I was incorrect in my assessment as I almost immediately found out as I took my first few steps out of Candlekeep and started running into peasants who wouldn't have been out of place in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. I guess I have to chalk this one up to differing tastes, as I can't understand what the appeal of a standard fantasy setting such as this holds.

Working on it right now, I can assure you.

I think I understand you to mean that some time is needed to get acquainted with the UI and game mechanics; if so, great, I agree, this is often the case with older games to the point that the first thing I do when booting up an old game is mess around in it until I get the hang of the controls before starting over.

However, I can't help but feel reminded of a theological debate I witnessed where someone stated that they were sure that [INSERT RELIGIOUS FAITH THAT IS LEAST LIKELY TO OFFEND THE INTERNET] was the one true religion and absolutely flawless because he had spent time "forming a relationship with it" and said so with a stare that were it any more glassy could have refracted light onto a wall; spending an amount of time with something until you at least understand its core basics is one thing, but sticking with it until one is unable to spot flaws in it is another.

Again, I *REALLY* do not think that you meant to convey that, I cannot stress that enough, but I bring it up because I initially thought of that moment when I came to the forum to see what I was missing and saw that most people didn't seem to acknowledge that the problems I had existed, which in turn prompted to try and dig deeper and see if I was really missing something or if the whole thing was pointless.
If there is one thing that I hate more than the baseless allegations of nostalgia for enjoying older games, it's the allegation that one is too used to modern gaming to enjoy them. I have already mentioned that I have played many old games, several of which are older than I am, not to mention older than Baldur's Gate, and I enjoyed them immensely. Hell, what with most of my gaming being done on GOG these days to avoid the cancer of DRM platforms, almost all of my games are ancient in comparison to the select few modern games I let into my house (and by few, I mean the one copy of Spec Ops the Line that I bought before finding out it required Steam). Rest assured, my problem with Baldur's Gate is not that it's too old for me to appreciate or that the gameplay is too slow-paced, but that it seems to have flaws that noone is talking about.

I see we agree on one thing, but I'm not sure I understand how the game garners nigh perfect praise if this is the case (again, hence why I first posted)

And now we get to it: this is not an RPG. It looks like one, with the paper dolls that slowly get filled up with more magic gear over time (except in cases where new magic gear is incompatible for some reason the game impishly refuses to explain), but the gameplay is less RPG and more RTS, trying to force turn based combat to mate with real time actions in a way that often feels awkward. If the game ran on real time combat, that would be fine. Had this been a truly turn based game, a la Fallout, I would have taken infinite glee in turning each combat into an exceptionally violent game of chess, planning my moves carefully and striking with precisely targeted spellcasting.

However, the RTWP format demands that I give simple orders and pray that the pathfinding doesn't do me in. On more than one occassion, I sent Khalid, Jaheira, and my min-maxed as hell Paladin into melee against a target, at which point they started whaling on the target and missing most of the time while my character with the superior THAC0 stood next to them twitching in place as she attempted to move to attack the enemy she was close enough to to be able to breathe on. After that, I tried micromanaging each PCs path, but quickly found out that they would collide with each other en route to those destinations as well and result in the same Three Stooges style of shenanigans. As for targeted spellcasting, that went out the window when I realized that there was no way to determine things like the area of effect or distance from a target, which resulted in me holding off on spellcasting lest doing so caused the caster to automatically move closer in order to cast, resulting in them moving beyond the front line and getting their ass handed to them on a silver tea tray; I didn't acquire the more destructive AOE spells by the time I gave up on BG, nor do I have them now, but I predict being stingy with those as well for fear of not being able to tell if I am about to target my party as well. At least with Planescape, the FOV was restricted to a smaller area which meant most spells could be cast without movement, and AOE spells either didn't harm the party or were much easier to determine the AOE (cast on a screen the party isn't in).

Person1: Why is Ice-CreamX so popular?

Person2: Because so many people think it's really tasty.

Person1: Well, I've only eaten half a cone, but I don't think it's very tasty at all, and it doesn't deserve it's popularity because... [12 page thesis on why Ice-CreamX is not really tasty to Person1]

Person2: I read your... no, I suffered your diatribe, and not one word of it makes any difference to me -- I am not you, and I like the taste of Ice-CreamX... I just do. No matter how much you break it down and analyse it, or try to pursuade me that it's not tasty, this is a fact: I... like... it. If it tasted like you say, so many people wouldn't have bought it over the years, and it wouldn't be so popular. Very few people actually analyse their food in such a way -- it looks good, smells good, tastes good == it's good. Can I go back to eating my ice-cream now?

Person1: Ah, but...

Person2: ... I didn't think so!

You know, Jonesy, I think the bottom line here may be that BG just isn't for you. You don't even like the stock fantasy world setting that the game is in [faux Feudalism], let alone a number of game play aspects. Maybe you just don't like it.

You have a problem with pathfinding. Have you upped the pathfinding in the config screen? By how much? PCs have improved a lot since BG came out and all of them can handle more PF nodes than is the default in the config.file.

Since no one here, as far as I know, ever claimed that BG was "perfect", arguing that it isn't perfect seems like taking on a strawman. It wasn't perfect when it was first published and it isn't perfect now, fifteen years later. Perhaps somewhere you *can* find a thread where people are claiming it's perfect, but that isn't this thread.

I know that this isn't a "tips/help" thread, but I can't resist: why do you have three people rushing into melee? At this stage of the game, i.e. early on, *one* tank is sufficient - as a Paladin your PC can fill this role. Khalid can use the bow - he should be doing so. Jaheira can use the sling - she should be doing so. Indeed, your Paladin should be using a ranged weapon as well, until the enemies get within striking distance. Once they do, or as they do, the rest of the party should be backing away from the enemies such that only your tank will be facing melee, while the rest of the party employs ranged weapons.

In cases where the enemies have ranged weapons [basically just Bandits, Hobgoblins and Kobolds at this stage] then it *does* make sense to have your [single] tank rush in to engage the bow-users in melee [this prevents them from using their ranged weapons - or if they continue to do so, at significant penalties]. But again, only one party member needs advance to melee to accomplish this.

As in real life, killing your enemies before they can even close to your lines is vastly superior to running *at* them with the bulk of your party [50% or more] thus giving them free shots at YOU. With a six person party, all armed with ranged weapons, most fights with enemies *not* armed with ranged weapons will be over before the enemy even reaches the party. [Axes are a good weapon here for your Paladin, since they are one-handed thrown weapons - meaning that you can carry a shield and easily switch between your melee one handed weapon and your throwing axes, via the quick weapon slots]

For those other cases, having only one person - the best armed, best equipped and thus best defended - rushing into melee will save you from having to protect everyone, it will mean you only have to worry about one person being hit and thus healed and they can have all of the healing potions in their quick slot, because they will be the only person ever needing healing, at this stage of the game.

[Now, the rejoinder to this may be, "But it's role playing! And I want Khalid and Jaheira to fight the way I think that they should!" Fair enough - just be warned that the cost of that "role playing" is that your success and chances for survival will be decreased. Ranged weapons are superior - it's just a fact of life in the BG engine. You can choose to reject that, but at a cost - it's your choice.]

And BTW, if you could Run, then your enemies could too. So it's a zero-sum game - being able to run wouldn't mean you could get out of combat any easier, since the enemies could would just chase you as fast as you run. Both sides moving at X2 is functionally no different than both sides moving at X1. I suspect that the problem is not so much the lack of a Run feature, but rather your getting half or more of your party locked up in melee at the same time. See above for thoughts on that... At this stage of the game, the only thing I can think of that moves faster than the party is wolves - everything else either moves the same, or slower. And if you find wolves to be a problem, run away from them *before* they close with the party. [I can't remember right now if vanilla-BG had AutoPause: on enemy sighted, but if it does, be sure to have that on. If it doesn't, then that's another little reason to be playing TuTu {using the BG 2 engine enhancements} rather than the vanilla BG engine]

But perhaps the main problem is just that you don't like enough things about the game, the engine, the NPCs, the Good v Evil paradigm and Forgotten Realms AD&D in general, such that the game just isn't for you. Perhaps your time would be better spent finding a game you *do* like rather than slogging away at, and arguing over, a game that may well *never* entertain you in the way you wish to be entertained?

More like I took a bite and am trying to understand why people like the brand, and when I am told people like it for reasons that I don't, I try to in turn understand why they like those things, and when they give their reasons I point out the things that don't make sense to me in an attempt to get closer to the heart of the issue. But then again, I forgot that I live in a culture where "argument" only has negative connotations as opposed to denoting sincere attempts at discourse, so I might very well be running a fools errand by even trying that. I'm not trying to argue that the game doesn't deserve its popularity, but trying to understand if it's worth me finishing the blasted thing before I can even begin to make that judgment; again, as I have said from the start, I am attempting to understand why people like it, not to get them to stop liking it.

It seems to me that by over analysing you are completely missing the point: it doesn't (or shouldn't) matter what anybody else thinks about it -- understanding what complete strangers think will not tell you if you like it in any way. The only thing that matters is whether you like it. Again and again the point has been made about tastes. Your taste is not going to be exactly the same as anybody else's taste, ergo you must play the game; finish the game (without pre-conceived prejudices either way) and then, and only then, decide whether it was worth your time.

I do not like it thus far for the reasons I have given; what I am trying to do is understand why it gets so much praise. As I have said since the start of my posting in this thread.

I have since tried upping the nodes to 999999999, but this still resulted in someone getting hung up on scenery. Hopefully this will be a rarer occurrence now, but it's still annoying.

I apologize if it seemed like I was arguing against the game being perfect; that would indeed be a highly idiotic strawman to use. What I am trying to convey is frustration that any discussion of the game's flaws that I have seen on this thread generally seem to be the result of someone who doesn't praise the game bringing them up and responses mentioning them but seemingly giving them little weight. Ergo it feels like unless there is some outside force of criticism, the 5 star reviews and the mountains of praise this game gets on the forum make it seem like the game is far closer to perfect than it appears to me upon cursory analysis. My posts are an attempt to understand why this is the case.

At this point, everyone has a ranged weapon, but once the enemy starts getting very close, I break off the ranged attacks of the fighters to swarm the enemy, partly to divide their attention, partly because Khalid's more proficient with a sword than a bow at this point and thus more likely to make things die in melee, and Jaheira is in melee because she can rain more damage down on a distracted enemy with a quarterstaff and be closer to the Khalid and myself in case we need healing. That and I would run out of arrows very quickly otherwise. It also bears mentioning that this is on the overworld; in the mine, I usually have at least 2-3 people who can tank in case we get surrounded and need to keep them at bay in order for the spellcasters to work their magic.

The only problem at this point is that the PC with the lowest natural AC is the main character, and the game ends if they die, hence why I send in additional fighters to keep some of the monsters off of my back and make everything die quicker by dealing more damage and hitting more often in melee.

Not necessarily. To use Planescape as an example, anytime I ran, the enemy usually was either distracted by someone else, allowing the grievously injured party member to run away to heal or the thief to get back in the shadows ASAP, or when the whole party fled, monsters would hesitate a little before running as if getting ready to chase use, which usually gave us time to make enough tracks to keep the party out of danger while I fired Magic Missiles and Reign of Anger spells over my characters shoulders to soften the enemy up while we recoordinated. Don't get me wrong, I'm not expecting the game to have looked into the future and worked off that as a template, but I find it incredible that noone thought that this might be a useful feature in a computer game, a form of interactive media that has allowed characters to run since Wolfenstein 3D if not before.

I am beginning to think that my standards are fundamentally different on these points, yes. I just don't understand what there is to enjoy in a cliche setting such as the Forgotten Realms or the reductionist nightmare that is alignment and its effect on the world, and I had hoped to try to do that in my posts, but all I seem to have done is make people think I am trying to make them not like their game. This is not my goal. I am trying to understand that admiration, nothing more, nothing less. I do not expect to like it more or less as a result, but I hope by the end of it to be a little less baffled by why I seem unable to enjoy what is regarded as one of the best RPGs of all time.

I am in the process of acquiring a degree that takes up my time to the point that I have to make an effort for there to be time to game. Therefore, I think you can appreciate my hesitance to potentially waste untold days worth of cumulative gaming time playing a game that I do not enjoy when I could be playing a different game for the first time or replaying a game that I have already completed and enjoyed. BG's rep is the only thing keeping me from putting it in the bin of games to hold off on until I have a massive amount of free time on my hands (which may never happen), hence why I am trying to understand what people see in this game during the dead periods of my life when I have nothing else to do (like, say, waiting several hours for my car to be serviced or some such).

And again, my goal is not to make me like the game more or less, but to understand why people like the game. That's all.

Well, there you go - as everyone has been saying, it comes down to "taste" - whether that be ice cream, liver and onions or computer games. If you don't like the core components of the game, i.e. the setting, the rules [Alignment, no running, etc] and the flavour/atmosphere, then it is only to be expected that you won't like a game with those elements.
This really shouldn't be that hard to figure out. The fact that other people *do* like it, or even love it, means nothing, as far as your enjoyment of it. Same goes for any form of entertainment. The fact that lots of people enjoy "Reality" TV doesn't mean that I will, that their taste is "bad" or that my taste is "good", it simply means I don't like something that [seemingly] a lot of people do.

Why is this issue of taste and personal preference so [seemingly] difficult for you to accept? Other people like it, in spite of the problems you have with it, either because they don't find the problems you encounter to be worth worrying about, or they play a modded game [like TuTu or BGT] which solves some of the issues you have.

Personally, I don't care that I can't run, because I don't think it would make any difference in the play of the game, since I can't imagine that the designers would have implemented it for my party and not enemies. I *like* "classic 2nd ed AD&D *and* the Forgotten Realms setting, so that is a positive for me, not a negative, as it seems to be for you. I am not bothered that Khalid, a Good with a capital G character is uncomfortable with an Evil with a capital E companion, nor that he brings it up. In my version of AD&D he *should* comment on this [and later there will be more comments between Xzar/Monty and Khalid/Jaheira - as their definitely *should* be in my perception of AD&D].

I don't have a problem with my party getting swarmed because I manage the position of my characters before, and during battles - I'm sure you do too, but besides the random "always surrounded" encounters between maps, I don't seem to get into the same trouble as you do. I imagine this is a play style thing, largely based on experience with the engine and the controls. My single tank [my PC Blade(Bard)] is more than able to hold off all enemies from getting to my other characters, who rarely have to move at all while shooting.

Arrows cost 1 GP per quoit - you should *never* run out of them, even in vanilla BG with its insanely limited ammo stacking. You can collect enough arrows in the mines to keep two or three bow-armed characters firing for at least 1 quarter of the game, if not half. I just left the mines myself, with over a thousand arrows [I am not playing vanilla, so I can carry them all] which shows that they are easily available. When people's backpacks get full of stuff like treasure and ammo, leave the mine, go to the carnival and stash your booty in any of the available chests, bags and/ shelves, till you need it. Myself, I make the Mages tent my own, after I dispatch him - thus I have one shelf for collected weapons, one shelf for collected armor and one shelf for scrolls, potions and other magical junk. There is a barrel right outside where I stash ammo, and a chest by the magical equipment merchant, for anything else I might want to stash. I have a similar stash in Beregost in the spider house - my "base" if you will for the middle of the map. In the north, I keep my stash at Joie's house, which she vacates after you fulfill her request. Each stash contains, if nothing else, a few hundred quoits of whatever ammo it is my NPCs and I require - arrows, bolts, daggers, darts, whatever.

This is all moot though, since the bottom line is you don't like the game and will probably never understand why lots and lots of other people *do* like it. You don't like aspects of the game that others *do* like and you find fault with aspects of the game that others either ignore as unimportant, or fix through modding. The game isn't for everyone - you appear to be one of those people who don't like it. That's pretty much the end of the story, isn't it? It doesn't "grab" you, it is more frustrating than entertaining and it is more of a chore to play than an enjoyable adventure. Find a game more to your liking and just accept that your tastes in this matter are different than some other people's tastes...

Maybe this is a really interesting exercise for you, but I'm really not interested in reading and replying to large walls of text. I, and many others, like the game, and have given you ample reasons for that. You don't like it. That's fine. I'm sure there are many, many others who don't like it. But what is the point with this? Clearly we're not going to convince you it's a good game, and even more clearly, you're not going to convince us it's a crap game. Hickory said it well. Take it to heart. Please.

Nostalgia & modern games are horrifically bad.

It is a good game, its just not nearly as good as some people make it out to be due to their nostalgia and the fact that modern games have lowered the bar to a ridiculously low level.

I think that it's pretty obvious that we have different opinions, but that's not why I posted. It's clear that people like the game, but I do not understand why. The gameplay is riddled with problems that I have listed and people either can't or won't elaborate on why they don't bother them. The setting is cliche and woefully childish in its portrayal of morality, and not a one person has been able to explain why this appeals to them. I get that on some level it comes down to subjective taste, but I had hoped that we wouldn't reach that point for a while; but it seems that most responses are unable to point to things in the game and state that they like them without any further explanation, with the one possible exception of the gameplay, but even then all that was said was that it was "tactical" without any attempt to address the problems that arise from trying to combine turn based and real time combat.

Let's look at Jaheira, at first level [for sake of argument]. She has two proficiency points in Clubs, and two in Slings, if memory serves. With the club, she attacks three times per two rounds with a THAC0 of 19, and does 1d6+2 of damage on a hit. An average of 5.5 damage per hit.
With the Sling, she attacks once per round with a THAC0 of 19, and does 1d4+3 of damage on a hit, an average of 5.5 damage per hit. With the sling, she is also *not* getting damaged, except by the stray arrow before the tank has closed with the enemy.
To my way of thinking, doing the same average damage per hit, but not getting hit yourself, is preferable to going into melee, facing damage to one's self, and doing the exact same average damage.

Khalid. As a 1st lvl Fighter, he has a base THAC0 of 20, with two proficiency points in Large Swords and two points in Bows. With a Bastard Sword he attacks three times per two rounds, hits on a 19 and does 2d4+2 points of damage per hit - an average of 7 points per hit.
With a Long Bow he gets a bonus of -1 to his THAC0 for Dex and another -1 for the weapon [a Long Bow which he can use] plus the -1 for his proficiency. So with a Long Bow, he will get two attacks per round, each at a THAC0 of 17, each hit doing 1-6+2 points of damage, for an average, per hit, of 5.5 points [if both hit, his average dam per round would be 11].
To my way of thinking, attacking twice per round, for an average of 5.5 points of dam per hit, at a THAC0 of 17, is significantly superior to having him wave a sword, three times per two rounds, at a *worse* chance to hit, for an average damage of 7 - especially when in the case of using the Bow, he is virtually immune to damage *if* the tank has closed with the enemies.

In the case of Khalid, the fact that his rate of fire *increases* with the Bow, vs any melee weapon [four attacks per two rounds, vs three attacks per two rounds], is reason enough, for me, to equip him with a bow. The maximum dam he can do with the Bastard Sword is 2d4 +2, or 10 pts [30 over two rounds], while the maximum damage he can do with the Bow is 2x (1d6+2), or 16 [32 over two rounds]. Since he has a two pt THAC0 advantage with the Bow, the odds are that he will hit more often with the Bow than with the Bastard [Large] Sword, as well.

The above is why I keep both Jaheira, and especially Khalid, out of melee. [When I have them in my party, anyway, which is pretty rare... :) The last time I did was probably over 10 years ago.]