both
and flip a coin

There's no bad games, only bad players. -bioware.
No wait..

@BladeofBG

Absolutely right about the frailty of the party at 1st through 5th level (when you got FIREBALL!) on BG and anything except 4th Ed.
I think that some of the grumblings at the difference between BG and PnP 2nd Ed boils down to the speed at which critters are thrown at the party - much like my book-to-film reference above, it's all about pacing.
And to me, BG does a good job of throwing tough stuff at you at the right time - no easy feat in a CRPG. I'd be damned if I'd shell out good money to sit in front of a screen for hours while I seek out a party of 6 or 8 kobolds to hunt down so I'd get the correct time frame for my Mage's spells.
In PnP you can elide that time - it is just assumed that you've been trekking for hours through the swamp or whatever. But we're diverging from the thread topic a bit here...

BG is a good game, BG2 is a great game, PS:T is a great stand-alone game (though I so totally want another game set in Sigil, sequel or not). It is impossible to go wrong with any of them, IMO.

^
Re: ...speed at which critters are thrown at the party...

For real man! I remember juss a few months ago, travelling in the wilderness areas surrounding Nashkel, having to find the perfect 'safest' situation to rest a weary party, then get hurt some more in adventuring, and then the satisfaction after taking a 29 hour trip back to Nashkel, and arriving safely! Given the constant dangers & no stores nearby to replenish supplies, low hp, and only having a limited number of 1st & 2nd spells at the party's disposal, it's quite a feat to even return to the village! At least that's the satisfaction I felt upon coming back!

Amen brother! BG at least kept me on the edge of my proverbial seat, hoping I wouldn't get the random 'your party has been waylaid and must defend itself" screens while trying to hotfoot it back to the Friendly Arm Inn. Part of what, for me, was similar to being in a real PnP game - was the DM a 'killer DM' or was he going to be merciful and let you rest.

So because I don't enjoy a game where I get raped simply because the game felt like it, I'm a bad player.. ahuh.

BG fails to strike the balance between 'challenging' and 'aggravating', a challenge is fights that you need to consider your tactics and how you fight them, and you might lose. Aggravating is fights that even with all the right tactics, it's still purely about luck if you win it or not.

Occasional losses due to dumb luck are one thing. But when WINS are more often due to dumb luck than anything else at the beginning that makes for bad game mechanics. Realism? Maybe. Last I checked though most people don't play fantasy games for realism, we play them to have fun.

Old D&D based RPGs were driven under the idea of 'killer DMs', which most of us have a slightly different term for a killer DM, and that is 'Bad DM'. In the tabletop world, if a DM constantly kills PCs, and becomes known for killing PCs all the time, people will go in tot hat campaign looking at it purely from the combat side, and not caring at all about the story, because they know their character probably won't survive long enough to have any real role in the story.

Somehow though, that's acceptable in CRPGs, but only D&D based ones. In any other RPG, if you started with 5 HP, and most thing dealt 2-7 damage in one hit, people would pan it. In any other RPG if your character gets killed 5 minutes in to the game, because the game decides to pit you against something that no first level character should ever be fighting, people would pan it. In any other RPG, if your mage can cast 3 weak spells per 'day', forcing you to practically rest between every fight, people would pan it for the worst class balance ever.

Somehow though, because it's D&D based, that's OK.

THAT is my reasoning for my stance that D&D mechanics are not good mechanics for video games.

Well that, and the fact that D&D mechanics are overly simplified for human brains to figure out quickly, as opposed to built for computers, so able to have a lot more variables.

I challenge you.. put aside your love of BG and/or D&D 2E, and stop and think about it. Think about how the mechanics of the game work and ask yourself if, in the game industry, that is really a good thing.

While I see your point, if it were so unreasonably difficult, why isn't everyone else saying the same thing?

There is a fundamental difference between tabletop and crpg and that is the ability to save and load. While wiping out and having to roll a new character is frustrating in tabletop, reloading in a crpg is not on the same level. Primarily tabletop is a social event, while crpg is about, generally, story and tactics. If nothing ever posed enough threat for you to re-think your strategy the game wouldn't pose the challenge that makes it fun. I commiserate that you don't enjoy this (but can always turn the difficulty down), but for me that challenge is a great enjoyment, I want to think that my first level character, a youth sheltered from the world, will die from a single arrrow (as we would) or swipe from a bear (as we would) I want to see that rise to power as their potential is untapped and developed. The gameplay in BG1 and 2 is as incredible and epic as the storyline.

There is no reason you shouldn't play both of these and PST, many, many times :) If you haven't played either I would say PST is more unique an experience so I would play that first (it really is something else), but if you don't go back to BG as well you're missing out :)

Rethink tactics is not the same as "Keep trying and pray that the dice like you this time around."
Now, I will admit it's been a long time since I gave BG a shot, and will actually be doing so again soon. (I intend to review it for my blog)

No matter how good the game is though, I stand firmly by D&D mechanics being a bad choice for video games. D&D should be left to pen and paper. :p (Other than 4E, because that's already a video game anyways.)

Hope it goes better this time around, the story was really compelling for me :)

Bought all three, and Fallout 1 + 2 :D

Should keep me busy for a while.

Didn't read the whole thread, wise choice. I hope Arcanum was one you've also purchased.

I never mentioned you by name nor did I say you, or anyone of your viewpoint, were "a bad player." That is your assumption, not mine. It is unfortunate if you took offense to it, but I was merely pointing out that your critique shared similarities to people who say "the movie was okay, but the book is better." I even indicate in my first post that PnP playing is definitely better.

I disagree with you about 'In any other RPG, if you started with 5 HP, and most thing dealt 2-7 damage in one hit, people would pan it.' I've played Bard's Tale and the rats in the cellar had a penchant for doing you, well one party member, in right off the bat. Similarly, Arcanum starts you off typically poorly armed, in a field with a weak companion and rather uppity critters (KITES!) attacking you in RT making for the very real possibility of death. Similarly, in Fallout the first gang you come across can do you in with one full auto burst of their 10mm Submachine guns while you *pap* at them with the 10mm pistol you stole from the Vault. In Elder Scrolls:Arena goblins and rats could find you mid-nap and eat your lunch. In Elder Scrolls: Morrowind, cliffracers will kick your ass right off the bat. And the list goes on, yet these games were (and still are) raved about as classics and great games.

I am, however, perplexed by your assertion that ' D&D mechanics are overly simplified for human brains to figure out quickly' - I read your posts as having the opposite stance; that CRPG mechanics are overly simple (lots of critters really quickly, for example) while the PnP variety had more complexity.

@ Zolgar (long post b/c you sought discussion for alot of points)

I don't think anyone said it's purely about luck if you win or not. Sorry if you feel that way or if you felt I or others implied you're a bad player, mate. I was simply celebrating the game w/others here who like it as much as I do, pointing out where I feel differently from them. :OD

Remember your enemies are developing & refining their own tactics as well. In AD&D lore, hobgoblins are well known for having tactics akin to military precision (it's worth saying given the game & situation in question)! Even in real life, a wolfpack has tactics, and against the 'wrong' opponents, failure to properly assess the situation can lead to their own deaths. Like in pro ball, a player can juss go home after losing a game based on dumb luck. But in the adventuring profession, losing by dumb luck means dying n stuff. Thankfully in Baldur's Gate, you can reload after dying by dumb luck!! So the situation isn't as dire as your post makes it out to be! Most people have to re-load after dying, Zolgar!

But of course, if your WINS are happening more due to dumb luck as opposed to good tactics or A-1 battle instincts (like an ace ball coach can give you good tactics, but then there are players like Dirk Nowitski, Jason Kidd, Dwayne Wade & Chris Bosh who juss have A-1 ball instincts - something you can't really teach b/c it's an intangible knack), then there's something wrong w/the way you're approaching the game, mate!

Perhaps it's as something as simple as not playing a class that's a good fit for you, Zolgar. Like me personally, I started out playing D&D w/a paladin (I even finished Dungeons of Moria *AND* Nethack with one!), only to later find, within my 1st yr of owning my 1st BG2 copy (which I played before BG1, and any other D&D game w/graphics), that my approach to battle & roleplaying is much more that of a bard! And I've played a bard ever since, never been happier thereof, and even feel like my bard can sometimes be like Dirk & DWade, able to carry my teammates now & then! Of course, I'm not comfortable w/o my party members! Ha!

Re: "In any other RPG if your character gets killed 5 minutes in to the game, because the game decides to pit you against something that no first level character should ever be fighting, people would pan it."

The thing is, most of the fights to start BG1 are completely optional. Like no one told PC to go where all those black bears are, where that hungry lone wolf is, or engage those diseased gibberlings in battle, or go see if you can strike a deal w/the tempermental ogre that has a belt fetish. Rather, the best thing to do is run away as hard as you can! And even in the 1st challenging unavoidable fight of the game, Tarnesh at the Friendly Arm Inn, even in that fight the Inn's guards are right there to help (I've had them kill him before, robbing my party of the experience gained thereof! Now THAT's the game's fault, b/c I did the right thing & shoulda gained xp!). And if they aren't in immediate line of vision to help & you aren't refined enough to beat'em, you're supposed to run to the Inn's guards walking around the field for help, juss like a normal non-adventurer would (b/c at 1st level anything, let's be honest: we're not adventurers; we're wanna-be's! ;oD). And while that's not 'fun,' it does add realism to the game, which is a roleplaying game, which is a genre that always strives for realism (to make real decisions), no matter the fantasy, sci-fi or Earth-based settings they're in.

Re: "In any other RPG, if your mage can cast 3 weak spells per 'day', forcing you to practically rest between every fight, people would pan it for the worst class balance ever."

I think that adds realism, as opposed to other rulesets that allow wizards to cast powerful spells (of themselves, as opposed to wands or spell components) shortly upon slapping the wizard title to their class. I feel that way b/c based on the Forgotten Realms magic descriptions, it makes perfect sense that a low level wizard can only 'carry' a low amount of 'mana' on themselves, and then grow thereof (leveling up). Really, it stops the option to powergame at the beginning of the game ---which is a cRPG, not a FPS or sports sim; both of which are fine gaming catagories, but cRPG's like the 2e AD&D games require a different approach. Of course, the option to powergame becomes available later on in the game (FIREBALL!), provided you've selected the preternaturally high ability scores at character creation for the class, multi-class, or dual-class you've chosen your PC to be (ie-18 Intelligence for mage & mage variants, 18+ Strength for fighter & fighter sub-classes).

Re: "Well that, and the fact that D&D mechanics are overly simplified for human brains to figure out quickly, as opposed to built for computers, so able to have a lot more variables.
I challenge you.. put aside your love of BG and/or D&D 2E, and stop and think about it. Think about how the mechanics of the game work and ask yourself if, in the game industry, that is really a good thing."

Dude, if it's overly simplified for human brains to figure out, then why haven't you figured it out yet? Yes the BG rules were adopted from 2e AD&D tabletop gaming, which allowed versatility based on a DM & player's 'house rules,' but I think its versatile enough even in the computer game, w/a little thinking ie-Critical Hits in the game always refer to a blow to the head, but you can roleplay, juss like in tabletop, that the critical blow was to the chest, neck, scrotum, etc..

And judging by what's good for the game industry, most BG fans agree that there's yet to be a game that even comes close to the greatness of that series (ie- while Dragon Age 1 is a good game, most BG fans still prefer BG over it). The combat rules & the challenge they present are a big part of that. The story is fine & dandy, but the game wouldn't be nearly as memorable, if not for the plethora of challenging fights & character (and party) customization.

Anyways, save your game, and reload to try again. Very few players of any game, including the BG series, can play without their PC dying. :OD

OK, so the overly simplified rules, allow me to clarify:

D&D mechanics are, by nature, created for a human brain to be able to run the numbers and determine the outcome of an action within a very short amount of time.

A computer has far more processing power than most humans could even dream of having (when everything is predefined, mind you, computers still lack imagination), allowing it to determine outcomes using much more complex systems.

In D&D, everything is driven based off of (D20+/- X) vs Y to determine what happens. Occasionally a d100 is thrown in. There are -very- few exceptions (possibly more in 2E than 3E).

A computer though can, with ease, run numerous checks, and numerous types of checks, to compare results on a much more complex scale, in still less time than it takes a human to even realize what the outcome of the action is.

This is what I mean by D&D mechanics being overly simplified for a computer.

And on the point of saving and loading. Yes, I have to reload from deaths occasionally, but I've never experienced so many deaths so early in a game as BG :p

To counter Fallout and Arcanum as references:
Arcanum, yes, you can get killed early on, especially if you're trying to play it in real time (Real Time in Arcanum is broken. Low levels it kills you, high levels you raep everything in sight) If you're playing in turnbased mode, if you approach the wolves and kites tactically, or just have a tank build, they pose little real threat. And your "weak" first cohort? He's a healer :p
Also to counter Arcanum: for the most part, Arcanum was an utter failure, that people only realized was awesome after it had flopped and Sierra trashed it.
(I've also gotten through entire games of Arcanum with less deaths than I had in trying to play BG.)

Fallout, is much like Arcanum in that regard. The first band of thugs you face can kill you, yes. And sometimes it happens to sheer dumb luck, but you can vastly reduce the chances of that with a tactical approach.

Fallout and Arcanum, by the way, also allow for a lot more options on how you handle things than early BG does.

Also.. as a final point: Party customization in BG? Joke.
You have 1 PC and then pick and choose between predefined NPCs. That's not party customization. True party customization is a full party of characters entirely defined by the player, in order to create a proper synergy.

Seriously? I can't even remember if I died in Fallout once, on normal difficulty level.