Absolute rot! Baldur's Gate, when launched in 1998, was an immediate and smash hit. It was so successful that it spawned a new era of cRPGs. Now tell me again how that was nostalgia?

I am not asking for either. I am attempting to understand why people like the gameplay, the setting, the story, the characters, and all other facets of the game despite some pretty crippling flaws such as the game automatically unpausing when accessing the inventory. All I want is to understand, not to necessarily agree with, but to understand.

>>>>>> *WHOOOOOOOOSH!* >>>>>>

Before you go any further, I would like to point out that in doing research for my next post, I found out that Fallout came out a year before this, so I wouldn't be too quick to assign the whole rebirth of the CRPG genre to a single title. And besides, even if the game was well received then, it doesn't mean that it still holds up today; George Melies did a hell of a lot for film as an art form, but I sincerely doubt that Trip to the Moon would hold up well under modern standards of storytelling.

Making things even more baffling, my research found a number of reviews from when the game was originally released which had more than a few bones to pick with the spotty pathfinding AI and the way that interacting with the game world felt limited. That people several years later are banging on about BG and only mentioning that any of these flaws exist makes me wonder even more exactly what people are seeing that makes them ignore these problems that were acknowledged upon the game's original release if not nostalgia.

The problem is that all people have said is that they like thing X within the game without elaborating, despite there being problems with thing X. If someone were to tell me that, for example, the alignment-centric setting doesn't bother them and give a reason, like, say, it portrays some sort of ideal universe or something, then I might begin to understand it; I'd probably disagree with it because a universe where people think they can do no wrong because they are on the Good side tends to lead to people doing some pretty horrible things to each other, as games like Spec Ops illustrate.

That's all I am after: the why of it all. All I want is some concrete reason for this discrepancy. If people can explain to me why each particular thing in BG appeals to them so much and why each flaw doesn't bug them so much beyond shrugging and marking it off to taste, I will be cry tears of joy at seeing someone on the internet make a rational argument to this effect, even if I disagree with the underlying logic.

Being original, groundbreaking, and inspiring games that come later doesn't mean it was a really good game. And being a commercial success just means it was popular way back when it was released (and has no indication on how it aged).

The games that came later could be better than the original (Dune 2 and RTS genre), or they could be worse (MOM and TBS fantasy 4X genre)

You also seem to completely ignore everything in my post except one word.

It is also obvious that no one here can provide you with an answer to any of your queries, which will satisfy you. Such is life.

I don't have any problems with the way Alignment works - childish to you, simple and nice and Black & White for me.

I don't have any problem with the setting - cliched for you, the kind of Fantasy I like, for me.

I don't have any problem with the game play - problematic for you, satisfying and entertaining for me.

I don't have a problem with turn based and real time being combined - I use the space bar when appropriate and I don't have any problems managing combat, solo or with a party of 6.

I can no more explain why I prefer BG to ToEE or NWN2 than I can explain why I like Brussels Sprouts and don't like Liver.

Many of the things you find to be problems, I desire out of a cRPG and they are present in BG, which is one of the reasons I like it.

As I said at the top, though, I don't think you will ever get an answer that will satisfy you. That may be a shame, but that certainly seems to be the way it is.... given the attempts made by a number of people to address your concerns and queries. Obviously, this is not the thread in which you will discover what it is you are seeking.

I would say Baldurs Gate is rated high in my book is because while it is hard, it was the game that helped me understand d and d rules through reading up on it on internet/and playing it as well. If I was to delve into something like TOEE or a turn based rpg, I would never understand them at all. The fact I can play Avernum and the other turn based games is because baldurs gate had basic things you needed to do in combat to make a successful fight END.

Also on top of that, its got an engaging storyline, a ridiculous 7 foot tall fighter wielding a two-handed sword in 1 hand, and characters that each have a personality of their own. Its also nonlinear meaning you can go anywhere.

You don't need to use a large party if you don't want to. I usually drop Khalid and Jahierra to play monopoly at the friendly arm inn right when I get them. Imoen I drop right away except this play through (4th time).

I usually play with my main character as a single class thief or bounty hunter or other kit class. Then I pick 1 other party member to join, usually someone that can fight even a bit. I then take the party of 2 to take down everything.

Its super easy and super fun. Id try this on ice wind dale 1 but the game is all fucked up. You can't even hide in shadows with your thief as the hide button doesn't work.

Wow...

I knew the 'discussion' in this topic was going to drag into multiple tabs but goodness gracious!

:D

Y'know, what's interesting about Baldur's Gate? ...is that I've played this game so long ago, so often, that it plays like an ordinary, casual Windows game similar to Minesweeper or Chess on my modern day laptop. In fact, Baldur's Gate should be bundled into Microsoft's newest operating system.

:D

That's how cool this game is to me.

Although, now I'm playing Baldur's Gate II: Shadows of Amn in my spare time, not its predecessor.

That's not true - I replied directly to your point about the storyline - you said you wanted to *know* that we were going into the mine to find someone connected to the attack on Gorion and yourself, I said I would find that 'spoon-feeding' and went on to point out that I like the mystery and the fact that you're 'running-scared' seems like a good idea to tag-along with Jaheira & Khalid. If for some reason you don't pick up J&K or Monty&Xzar then you're free to go off exploring for clues on your own. Eventually you'll get to Nashkel and check out the mine anyway.

As for alignment - it's not black&white - i.e. not just 'good' or 'evil' - you have 3 choices for 'good' (Lawful, Neutral, and Chaotic) ranging from a Virtuous Knight who sees things as black&white to a 'Robin-Hood' type who'll kill the lawful tax-collector to spare the villagers from starving. Then there are the same degrees for both 'Neutral' and 'Evil'
It's up to you how you want to role-play it (nobody forces you to stick to your alignment) - I for one have a different gaming experience playing with a different character and different alignment. (and taking on different NPCs).

Side-note: You mention Monty-Python - there's actually a bit of humour around the BG-world that's inspired by MP and the like. It doesn't take itself too seriously all the time.

Hmmm, now I want to go and play it again - might try a shapeshifter (possible by playing it through Tutu or BGT, not vanilla)

Indeed.
This fantastic level of replayability is certainly one of the things I like about the game. Dozens of different racial/class/Alignement combinations *and* a varied palette of NPCs to choose from. These combinations allow one to play the game in many different ways, even within the confines of the overall plot.

And the more you role-play these things, the richer and deeper the experience. Modding the game with TuTu [or BGT for those who like that] and especially the BG NPC project adds much to the game, IMHO.

The mere fact that people are still modding this game, 15 years on, says a lot about the enduring qualities of the essentials of the game. A game doesn't attract and maintain this sort of devotion unless the designers got *something* right. :)

My apologies, should have said *virtually* everyone. As to alignment, I suppose I misworded my issue. My problem is that alignment completely forecloses any discussion of ethics. In many great films and books, the ethics of the situation are not entirely clear and the reader/viewer/person experiencing any work of art is left with questions about the nature of morality, along with what answers or hints the artist had to impart. Alignment rigidly defines morality to the point that there is never any doubt as to what Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos mean; I once created a character for a PNP game that tried to break away from the stereotype of the Lawful Good Paladin being always in the right by having them unknowingly be working for an order of religious fanatics who wanted to make Neutral religions switching to a tune of Good by either attempting to coerce or assassainate religious leaders and frame them as being in league with the Lower Planes in order to discourage Neutrality on a societal scale so as to tip the balance of power in the favor of Good when the end times came, but standard D&D doesn't recognize any moral grey areas in this manner, to the point that there are acts that the game always deems to be evil no matter what. Even if I tried playing loose with my alignment, the rest of the characters stick to it in terms of their characterization to the point that it becomes their key personality trait, with the Evil characters either being giggling maniacs (Xzar) or callous and confrontational in their hatred for life (Montaron, Edwin), and all Good characters being wide eyed innocents (Khalid, Imoen, Minsc); there is no room for Good characters who do horrible things in the name of the greater good, for those who argue that altruism is evil and that selfishness is good, for those that hold that Good is determined via utilitarianism or some other system of ethics, for those that will confess to oppressing a certain minority group because God wills it, or that morality is a purely abstract concept that doesn't exist.

Any and all discussion of the point is rendered moot because the forces of the universe have spoken on the issue. Since I am also playing a Paladin, I am not able to go out of my alignment too much without the game stripping me of my abilities, and here there is no room for the arguing of ethics with a DM; the morality of the world is written in stone, and there is nothing that can be done to change it. The only time I have seen alignment done well, aside from a brief PNP game I was involved in where Paladins were portrayed as unmitigated assholes supporting an oppressive invading regime believing that they were doing Good by protecting the people they were occupying, was in Planescape, where it was revealed that it wasn't the universe that dictated alignment, but that the belief of alignment as a concept imposed it on the world and formed the Planes, and that even the Planes deviated from traditional views of alignment by having characters such as a Deva who planned to bring Fiends to the Upper Planes in an attempt to stop them from providing supplies to the destructive yet strangely beneficial Blood War to an evil incarnation of an immortal who in any game of D&D would have been stomping on puppies who instead was "practical" and played the part of a good leader who inspired those around him and did good deeds to make those who followed him easier to manipulate to his own ends.

tl;dr: alignment removes any semblance of moral complexity from the universe and seems to reduce the proceedings to the simplest and most insulting form of escapism, keeping the story from being in any way something we can relate to or otherwise imparting virtually anything of emotional or cultural significance.

best to - otherwise it looks like you're conveniently ignoring the posts that don't fit your criticism You think there are no bad-guys in the BG world masquerading as good guys? (and vice-versa)? ... keep playing.
...and they don't stomp on puppies to show how bad they are ;) I heartily disagree - sure, the 9-part system simplifies the explanation of moral viewpoints (in the same way that all those psychology tests simplify the human condition to 4 or so pigeon-holes) but there's nothing that says every neutral-good person will view every situation the same and take the same actions. If you want a more rigid code of ethics then you go with Lawful, if you want no code, you go with chaotic [edit: or perhaps their code is just very personalised and different from the norms of society]. But as I said, you can roleplay it any way you want.
Are the dialogue choices limited? Yes, but that'll be the case (for any game) until computers are good enough to handle any and all speech input from the player.

Mysterious figure: "Out of my way old man!"
PC: "Bu**er-off!"
Mysterious figure: "Er...no"

Overall though, it sounds like Planescape is your thing and BG isn't.

tl;dr: alignment is a summary and simplification of one's world-views, like a psych test, not a rigid 'If A then B' block of code.

[edit] Having said that - BG2 has more moral complexity than 1, choosing between the lesser or greater of 2 evil organisations to aid your quest, for example, or killing the castle dogs to make some tasty stew for the monsters so you can sneak past vs. sparing the precious mutts and taking on the danger yourself :p.
It's still not the greatest ever example of such things but then, it's not meant to be. Taken as a whole though, it is still my favourite RPG of all (and I've played newer and older and contemporary ones) - I tend to play it as one big story though (BG1+2) so there's more time to develop characters.

This is exactly my problem with alignment, in that Good aligned characters are always the Good Guys and that Evil aligned characters are always the Bad Guys, like a game of Cops and Robbers that has been moved from the playground indoors to a table or in this case a computer. Maybe a character is able to hide their alignment in some manner, but when/if those methods are bypassed, they go right back to being categorized as Good or Bad; just once I'd like to see the villain of a D&D game be the most strongly Good aligned character who is all too willing to break a few proverbial eggs to make a metaphorical omelette, or an evil character who otherwise is a sympathetic protagonist save for their rather Randian outlook on life. Characters who openly identify as evil are the worst kind of cartoonish dreck, as most evil stems from one believing that one is doing the right thing, unless they are either gibbering insane or are members of the Church of Satan and do so mockingly. The Practical Incarnation was never a Bad Guy in disguise, but a sociopath who did good when it suited his needs and manipulation all other times in pursuit of a goal that ultimately saved countless lives, just as Trias was never a Bad Guy disguised as a Good Guy, but someone who had a firm moral belief as to what constituted good and was willing to lie, betray, and do who knows what else to achieve that goal, despite the fact that ending the Blood War might ultimately result in the Planes crashing down around everyone's ears as the winners proceeded to seek conquest elsewhere once the infighting was done.

Moving away from Spec Ops, let's look at something that existed before the game was released, like, say, Ender's Game. Without spoiling the book or the upcoming film, suffice to say that some pretty damn horrible things are done by the people in charge and those they used to achieve their objectives, but it was done out of a sincere belief that it was necessary to save humanity from extinction at the hands of a second Bugger attack; in the real world, it's debatable if what they did was justifiable, as on the one hand the things that happen are horrifying in their destruction that most people, myself included, think that they were reprehensible, but interviews with Card indicate he wanted to convey a more positive message of the ends justifying the means.

If Ender's Game had existed in setting where D&D alignment was at play, all it would have taken to tell if the military were Good Guys or Bad Guys would be a quick casting of Detect Alignment; any failure to return a definite result wouldn't be an indication from the universe that in these grey areas of morality there be dragons, but that likely the people at issue are wearing rings of non-detection. If any of the military happened to be Paladins, the first definitively Evil act would be flagged by all of those involved losing their abilities as opposed to leaving us to wonder where the line was crossed.

Good things can be done with alignment, as I have mentioned, but all too often, D&D seems content to use it not as broad shorthand for a character's motivation to make it easier for a DM to comprehend, but to firmly establish that the Good aligned party will be in the ethical right if they find themselves in a prisoner dilemma and decide to slaughter the Orc mothers and infants on the basis of them being Evil aligned.