Has anyone new to the series tried to play the older BG games?

[Just Another Gamer]

I am curious if anyone tried to play the older games in the series after playing BG3. If so, what was your experience?

I actually tried a few years ago after playing Dragon Age. I found it a little challenging. Early on, I had an evil character in my party ( a crazy mage I think). Jaheria's mate (I think) had some problems with him and the two eventually fought, killing the former.

Wow.

After that, i had a a death and was surprised that they stayed dead (as opposed to Dragon Age where the character dusts themselves off and regens). Never came back after that.

Anyway, interesting to hear how others found the older games. Thank you.

[northernwater]

I have not. I'm worried I'll find the game play engine and graphics disappointing.

[Chaosolous]

Yeah. They’re fine. If you don’t like classic games though don’t bother. They play like old games.

I enjoyed them but I really like retro games and CRPG’s.

They play nothing like BG3. Temper expectations going in and they’re fine. They’re decent enough and classics for a reason but everyone claiming they were better than BG3 is simply wrong.

[tattuvamasi]

I had a tough time with it, mostly because the interface is very clunky and hard to use by present-day standards.

[Jean-Maurice Nya]

Xvar is from Zhentarim and his organization is quite opposed to the Harpers, which Khalid and Jaheira are. There are many interactions like that in BG1, less in BG2. It's where it shines the most, it simulates pretty well what can happen around a table when players have characters that everything opposed. There're more than 20 companions in BG1 with plenty of different interactions between them.
And well, yes, when your character dies on tabletop, it's finished, you have to make another one. Unless some specific rule applies or the DM decides otherwise.

I still have more fun playing BG1 than BG2 or BG3 by far.

[Zeel Ara]

Originally posted by Chaosolous:

They’re decent enough and classics for a reason but everyone claiming they were better than BG3 is simply wrong.

From the perspective of someone who bought BG1 the day it hit the shelves, I largely agree. But there is a caveat: The original Baldur's Gate was more monumental when it came out than BG3 was when it did, purely because the video game industry is a completely different beast today.

Context is important to consider when trying to understand why some people call the originals better. Some part of it is obviously just a case of man-children being unable to accept that things they personally like aren't automatically better than everything else, but times have changed a lot, and that bears taking into account.

[Captain_Narol]

Halsin : Yeah, that bears taking into account !

[Mike Garrison]

You will find that some companions in BG1 (and BG2) are simply incompatible with each other. They will either not agree to join your party as long as their enemy is in it, or they will end up fighting each other to the death.

Also, there are two stages of death in those games: "dead" and "chunked". If a character dies but their portrait is still on your party list, they can be revived (by a priest for a fee, or by your party if you have the spells for it in BG2). If a character takes too much "overkill" they explode into body parts (thus why people call it "chunked"). In that case they are dead forever. Their portrait disappears from your party list.

If you remove a dead (but not chunked) person from your party list, then they are dead forever and you can never revive them. So you need to revive them first if you ever want them again.

And if the player character ever dies, it is game over. No reviving the player character.

There are many mods for the old games. A good place to find them is at https://www.gibberlings3.net

[DeathStroke]

Originally posted by Chaosolous:

Yeah. They’re fine. If you don’t like classic games though don’t bother. They play like old games.

I enjoyed them but I really like retro games and CRPG’s.

They play nothing like BG3. Temper expectations going in and they’re fine. They’re decent enough and classics for a reason but everyone claiming they were better than BG3 is simply wrong.

they are better . There are still similar games today being made with isometric view points like the Pillars of Eternity series ect , and the background is all hand drawn so id say it still holds up fairly well , and the UI is pretty straight forward especially in the Enhanced Editions , its certainly not new player friendly which is why it came with a 200+ page manual with all the spell effects listed ect . The only improvement that BG3 has is modern graphics and mechanics and is more accessible for people who dont have a good understanding of DnD. Theres more depth in the characters , their interactions and party choices . The older editions of DnD are much better than the slop of 5th edition , for example there is literally no comparison between a high lvl wizard from the 2-3.5 editions of DnD compared to 5th. Itd be like putting an amateur in the ring with a prime Ali or Tyson. And most importantly the older games are far more lore accurate with their characters and settings , most of the plot of BG3 is kinda ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ and the whole illithid angle is weird and mostly incorrect , along with other weird ass things like a lvl 5 party going through the Underdark ect . BG3 is bright and shiny but its just riding on the coattails of the previous games , using its name and making a few hamfisted cameos that suck. A lore accurate Jaheria for instance ought to be able to solo that entire tower after how powerful she is after the events of BG1 and 2 .

[Mike Garrison]

Originally posted by DeathStroke:

Originally posted by Chaosolous:

Yeah. They’re fine. If you don’t like classic games though don’t bother. They play like old games.

I enjoyed them but I really like retro games and CRPG’s.

They play nothing like BG3. Temper expectations going in and they’re fine. They’re decent enough and classics for a reason but everyone claiming they were better than BG3 is simply wrong.

they are better . There are still similar games today being made with isometric view points like the Pillars of Eternity series ect , and the background is all hand drawn so id say it still holds up fairly well , and the UI is pretty straight forward especially in the Enhanced Editions , its certainly not new player friendly which is why it came with a 200+ page manual with all the spell effects listed ect . The only improvement that BG3 has is modern graphics and mechanics and is more accessible for people who dont have a good understanding of DnD. Theres more depth in the characters , their interactions and party choices . The older editions of DnD are much better than the slop of 5th edition , for example there is literally no comparison between a high lvl wizard from the 2-3.5 editions of DnD compared to 5th. Itd be like putting an amateur in the ring with a prime Ali or Tyson. And most importantly the older games are far more lore accurate with their characters and settings , most of the plot of BG3 is kinda ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ and the whole illithid angle is weird and mostly incorrect , along with other weird ass things like a lvl 5 party going through the Underdark ect . BG3 is bright and shiny but its just riding on the coattails of the previous games , using its name and making a few hamfisted cameos that suck. A lore accurate Jaheria for instance ought to be able to solo that entire tower after how powerful she is after the events of BG1 and 2 .

Blah blah I liked that high level wizards were gods that completely dominated the game blah.

[Drosta]

Originally posted by Just Another Gamer:

I am curious if anyone tried to play the older games in the series after playing BG3. If so, what was your experience?

I actually tried a few years ago after playing Dragon Age. I found it a little challenging. Early on, I had an evil character in my party ( a crazy mage I think). Jaheria's mate (I think) had some problems with him and the two eventually fought, killing the former.

Wow.

After that, i had a a death and was surprised that they stayed dead (as opposed to Dragon Age where the character dusts themselves off and regens). Never came back after that.

Anyway, interesting to hear how others found the older games. Thank you.

They're excellent. But I'm bias, i played them when they were new and loved them then also. I picked up Neverwinter nights and Icewind Dale as well I just haven't gotten around to playing them. I'm not sure if I'll be able to get into Neverwinter as easily because it's art style is so different and I'm not sure it'll have the same feel in combat.

[Hobocop]

They were pretty revolutionary for the time. Mostly due to the writing and characters. But the combat hasn't held up nearly as well, and is easily the worst part of those games, and sadly, there's a LOT of it.

[Drosta]

Originally posted by Mike Garrison:

Originally posted by DeathStroke:

they are better . There are still similar games today being made with isometric view points like the Pillars of Eternity series ect , and the background is all hand drawn so id say it still holds up fairly well , and the UI is pretty straight forward especially in the Enhanced Editions , its certainly not new player friendly which is why it came with a 200+ page manual with all the spell effects listed ect . The only improvement that BG3 has is modern graphics and mechanics and is more accessible for people who dont have a good understanding of DnD. Theres more depth in the characters , their interactions and party choices . The older editions of DnD are much better than the slop of 5th edition , for example there is literally no comparison between a high lvl wizard from the 2-3.5 editions of DnD compared to 5th. Itd be like putting an amateur in the ring with a prime Ali or Tyson. And most importantly the older games are far more lore accurate with their characters and settings , most of the plot of BG3 is kinda ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ and the whole illithid angle is weird and mostly incorrect , along with other weird ass things like a lvl 5 party going through the Underdark ect . BG3 is bright and shiny but its just riding on the coattails of the previous games , using its name and making a few hamfisted cameos that suck. A lore accurate Jaheria for instance ought to be able to solo that entire tower after how powerful she is after the events of BG1 and 2 .

Blah blah I liked that high level wizards were gods that completely dominated the game blah.

I feel like you haven't played a proper wizard in bg3 if you think they can't also be godlike here... I can one shot almost every enemy in the game with mine..

[Dexter in the Dark]

Originally posted by Mike Garrison:

You will find that some companions in BG1 (and BG2) are simply incompatible with each other. They will either not agree to join your party as long as their enemy is in it, or they will end up fighting each other to the death.

Also, there are two stages of death in those games: "dead" and "chunked". If a character dies but their portrait is still on your party list, they can be revived (by a priest for a fee, or by your party if you have the spells for it in BG2). If a character takes too much "overkill" they explode into body parts (thus why people call it "chunked"). In that case they are dead forever. Their portrait disappears from your party list.

If you remove a dead (but not chunked) person from your party list, then they are dead forever and you can never revive them. So you need to revive them first if you ever want them again.

And if the player character ever dies, it is game over. No reviving the player character.

There are many mods for the old games. A good place to find them is at https://www.gibberlings3.net

Holy hell the Gibberlings 3 are still around.

[Mike Garrison]

Originally posted by Drosta:

Originally posted by Mike Garrison:

Blah blah I liked that high level wizards were gods that completely dominated the game blah.

I feel like you haven't played a proper wizard in bg3 if you think they can't also be godlike here... I can one shot almost every enemy in the game with mine..

I feel like you haven't played the old games if you don't realize the difference in power between a level 25 BG2 wizard and a level 12 BG3 wizard.

[Razorblade]

I played BG1 a few years before BG3, and wasn't particularly impressed. The 2E DnD system is very dated, as is the combat system in general. Real-time with pause has always been a dated relic of its time, and having played Dragon Age: Origins and Pathfinder: Kingmaker before Baldur's Gate, they are simply better alternatives to the incredibly dated Baldur's Gate.

There is certainly a value to old games that do something that modern games don't. For example, if you look at older Elder Scrolls games versus modern ones, the magic systems in the old games are way more fun; they still offer something unique. In the case of Baldur's Gate, however, its modern clones simply do Baldur's Gate better than Baldur's Gate does; the only thing that makes it shine in my eyes is its nostalgia value, and I have no nostalgia for it.