Baldur's Gate v.s Oblivion Debate *Spoilers?* [Archive]

ArlEammon

2012-12-12, 05:35 PM

This is Baldur's Gate (I or II) v.s "The Elder Scrolls : Oblivion" Debate. Or maybe "Oblivion and Skyrim, but putting Skyrim in with a series that has 5+ games total compared to Baldur's Gate I, and II seems like Cheating.

Which one is your favorite, the Baldur's Gate series for the PC or Oblivion+Skyrim? Please explain your decision.

For me it's probably Baldur's Gate. Baldur's Gate is just so atmospheric that it pulls you in by your metaphorical cajones and forces you participate in the setting, plot and events that will shape Faerun.

Skyrim, granted, is very atmospheric and such, but for me, despite the fact that it's very well presented in most aspects, there is much about Skyrim that seems unfinished. For example, why does the Dragon Born have to choose between the Evil Empire or the Evil Nords?

KillianHawkeye

2012-12-12, 05:49 PM

Daggerfall. It was an open-world sandbox game just like later editions (Oblivion and Skyrim), but the world was MUCH larger and the monsters were actually scary.

Aotrs Commander

2012-12-12, 06:01 PM

They are two fairly fundementally different animals.

BG (especially after it hit it's stride after BG I - and excluding Planescape: Torment, arguably the best out of all the infinity engine games (if not all RPGs period) seems a touch unfair (unfair to whom is another question entirely...!)) is a party-based, story-line RPG, whereas the Elder Scrolls are more of an open sandbox/exploration (with less roleplaying and/or story - unless Skyrim is markedly different to Morrowind/ Oblivion/Fallout 3 - but more individual freedom).

I prefer BG and it's ilk, because I'm far more interest in the story and the characters (especially the interaction between the party) than I am in exploring and finding my own stuff to do. Story is pretty much the only reason I play/watch anything, with only a few exceptions, and if forced to choose, I'd choose story over agency, though obviously, a good balance between the two is best.

Morrowind was fun for a while, but after becoming heads of all the guilds and sutff, and grinding to mechanical optimisation, I found I wasn't really all that bothered about traisping around more to follow the actual main game! Oblivion I found less appealing, and even Fallout 3 didn't hold my interest for very long. I'm just not a sandbox sort of person, I'm afraid. (I haven't even looked at Skyrim; adding a forth game I'll never complete just seemed pointless.)

Eldariel

2012-12-12, 06:06 PM

I don't think the two are really comparable. Elder Scrolls are open worlds you can durdle around in but the stories are eminently forgettable and while the atmosphere is strong, generally the games really serve as mod platforms more than inherently strong products.

Baldur's Gate on the other hand is awesome precisely because of the story. You have a lot of freedom and many paths in the world, of course, but the whole point of BG is the story, the NPCs & the world. Jon Irenicus is one of the most memorable villains of all times (not that either Sarevok or Melissan are bad of course), and the weight of Bhaal really feels throughout the series. The atmosphere, the characters (seriously, Baldur's Gate Trilogy pulled off what Chrono Cross tried; you get a large number of available PCs but they're almost all interesting personalities and most are quite well developed), the story combined with accessible, solid playability and a fantastic, interesting world (I don't think Forgotten Realm's ever felt as alive) makes for a whole that's unbeatable on its own field.

But see, Morrowind/Oblivion/Skyrim's strength is in the open world and the moddability of the games. Baldur's Gate series really doesn't offer either of those; you have a lot of options in what to do, to be sure, but the game still focuses heavily around the story and the NPCs, and while BGII is quite moddable, the mods mostly focus around enhancing the game and the story.

Which...leads me to say BG is a vastly superior story with vastly superior characters but Elder Scrolls offer a more open world and I don't have the scales to weight those against each other.

Chen

2012-12-13, 08:10 AM

The big problem I had with Skyrim (and to a degree Oblivion) is that I like finding shiny nice rewards after digging through a dungeon or killing a big monster. And those games don't really have that. Opening an end of dungeon treasure chest and finding a wheel of cheese and a broom is very disheartening. They needed more unique items that were just stashed away in a dungeon somewhere as opposed to just the handful of daedric artifacts (which were mostly pointless anyway).

Cespenar

2012-12-13, 08:31 AM

Baldur's Gate 2 > Morrowind > Skyrim > Baldur's Gate 1 > Oblivion.

mangosta71

2012-12-13, 01:31 PM

The leveling in Oblivion (the only one of the Elder Scrolls games I've played) was so ass-backwards (if you wanted to optimize) that it left me with a negative impression of the series as a whole. I went in assuming that I should tag the skills I would be using all the time and ended up gimping myself to the point that my character became unplayable halfway through the game.

In contrast, character progression in BG follows a sensible path. Having useful party members is also a huge plus. It's like the commercials - "Can't deal with this? There's an NPC companion for that." Having the capabilities of all the classes available also means there's more variety in the challenges that the game can throw at you. Or, at least, you can complete all the challenges on a single playthrough, instead of saying "I wonder what's back there. Guess I'll have to create a character optimized to surpass the challenge in front of it so I can find out on my next playthrough."

KillianHawkeye

2012-12-13, 05:22 PM

The leveling in Oblivion (the only one of the Elder Scrolls games I've played) was so ass-backwards (if you wanted to optimize) that it left me with a negative impression of the series as a whole. I went in assuming that I should tag the skills I would be using all the time and ended up gimping myself to the point that my character became unplayable halfway through the game.

The skill-leveling system in The Elder Scrolls series actually makes a lot of sense once you realize that the whole idea is to make you naturally get better at the skills you actually use (rather than a D&D-like system where your thief somehow gets better at picking locks even though all he did was backstab a bunch of gnolls).

Weezer

2012-12-13, 05:58 PM

Firstly, I think they are way too different to be accurately compared. But saying that I enjoy BGII far more, simply because the quasi-turn based tactical combat is far superior to either oblivion or skyrim. Both subscribe to the "flail about" style of melee combat which never ceases to infuriate me. BG on the other hand has sufficient abstraction, combined with a very usable tactical system, that makes combat far more interesting. Also mages aren't powerful enough in those Elder Scrolls, I enjoy the power of high level wizards so much.

And that's not even getting into story... The main quest line of those two elder scrolls games are a bit below average for videogame stories (which means that compared to say a good novel, they're crap) and BGII has a storyline on par with slightly below average novel (which when compared to video game storylines, makes it one of the best ever, only behind PS: Torment and maybe one or two others)

Eldariel

2012-12-13, 06:33 PM

The skill-leveling system in The Elder Scrolls series actually makes a lot of sense once you realize that the whole idea is to make you naturally get better at the skills you actually use (rather than a D&D-like system where your thief somehow gets better at picking locks even though all he did was backstab a bunch of gnolls).

It would except for the way it's done in the actual game; nobody spends all their trips jumping in reality 'cause that's just not feasible because of the amount of energy expended and not very sensible either and it'd break your joints. Besides, the best way to get better at jumping is to spend alittle time practicing the theory and mostly training your muscles, for which there are far more efficient means than constant jumping.

KillianHawkeye

2012-12-13, 06:44 PM

It would except for the way it's done in the actual game; nobody spends all their trips jumping in reality 'cause that's just not feasible because of the amount of energy expended and not very sensible either and it'd break your joints. Besides, the best way to get better at jumping is to spend alittle time practicing the theory and mostly training your muscles, for which there are far more efficient means than constant jumping.

A couple of exceptions doesn't invalidate the basic premise of the system. For most skills, it makes perfect sense. The only ways to get better at lockpicking in real life is by studying locks and practicing picking them.

Eldariel

2012-12-13, 07:13 PM

A couple of exceptions doesn't invalidate the basic premise of the system. For most skills, it makes perfect sense. The only ways to get better at lockpicking in real life is by studying locks and practicing picking them.

Aye, but it highlights the gamist issue with that system. While largely sensible, it's not interesting for most players to actually spend on-screen the time learning things for their character, especially if they have to learn everything they want to be competent at when talking about a versatile adventurer.

D&D-type systems assume the training happens off-screen and whatever you happen to use on-screen is sorta on-top-of-that bonus. If making for a realistic learning system, a lot of time (too much for e.g. my taste) is wasted on irrelevant practicing to actually maintain interest in the main game itself. While it can be bearable, I don't feel it is fundamentally a good system from a gamist stand point.

KillianHawkeye

2012-12-13, 10:05 PM

It's interesting that you call that "gamist" when the whole point of improving the skills you actually use seems to me to be a strongly simulationist viewpoint. The very fact that the D&D-style of leveling up requires you to assume that your character has been training in whatever skills you are increasing "off camera" or else it makes no sense proves that it is more gamist than The Elder Scrolls.

Of course, there is absolutely nothing wrong with being gamist (or simulationist, or narrativist for that matter). That's merely an issue of personal preference.

Eldariel

2012-12-14, 12:35 AM

It's interesting that you call that "gamist" when the whole point of improving the skills you actually use seems to me to be a strongly simulationist viewpoint. The very fact that the D&D-style of leveling up requires you to assume that your character has been training in whatever skills you are increasing "off camera" or else it makes no sense proves that it is more gamist than The Elder Scrolls.

Sorry if I was unclear; I meant to say the Elder Scrolls system bad design when observed from a gamist standpoint; that is, by gamist standards the design decisions are questionable (in other words, I don't consider it at all gamist, which I find to be a problem). Gamism and simulationism are both important for an RPG I find; I feel The Elder Scrolls skill system has problems in the gamism part.

factotum

2012-12-14, 02:55 AM

Avilan the Grey

2012-12-14, 03:12 AM

Skyrim is better than Baldur's Gate, and both are better than Oblivion. Mind you, having dentistry done without anaesthetic is better than Oblivion, so the bar isn't really set very high there... :smallwink:

Heh.
I do agree though. Skyrim is better than BGII. BGII is better than BG. BG is better than Morrowind. Morrowind is better than Oblivion. Never played the earlier games.

Eldan

2012-12-14, 07:17 AM

Well, Morrowind is the only one mentioned in the thread so far where I thought hte main quest was at all interesting. On top of that, it has the best music, the most interesting world building and the best exploration.

(My opinion, yadda, yadda).

Chen

2012-12-14, 08:34 AM

The skill-leveling system in The Elder Scrolls series actually makes a lot of sense once you realize that the whole idea is to make you naturally get better at the skills you actually use (rather than a D&D-like system where your thief somehow gets better at picking locks even though all he did was backstab a bunch of gnolls).

The system of using skills to raise said skills makes sense. The way Oblivion worked where you chose major and minor skills and only leveled based on the major ones was a HUGE problem. If you just leveled willy nilly based on your major skills you ended up with horribly gimped stats and eventually got to a point where, due to the world scaling, enemies were FAR stronger than you. And at that point you were pretty much just screwed. In the end it made much more sense (and balance) to put skills you rarely used as Major ones, frequently used skills as minor ones and then after getting a good amount of minor skill boosts, boost one of your majors and gain the level. Extremely counter-intuitive.

Emmerask

2012-12-14, 08:50 AM

Daggerfall. It was an open-world sandbox game just like later editions (Oblivion and Skyrim), but the world was MUCH larger and the monsters were actually scary.

The Elder Scrolls games never where real sandbox games, and I really do not know where this notion is coming from...

They had some very slight sandbox elements here and there but ignoring the main plot and just go out exploring is not what a sandbox game means.

That does not mean that the elder scrolls games are bad, they are very good but they are no sandbox, just rpgs with a big emphasize on exploring.

As for my ranking Baldur's Gate 2 > Morrowind, Skyrim > Baldur's Gate 1 > Oblivion

mangosta71

2012-12-14, 10:06 AM

Aotrs Commander

2012-12-14, 12:58 PM

The system of using skills to raise said skills makes sense. The way Oblivion worked where you chose major and minor skills and only leveled based on the major ones was a HUGE problem. If you just leveled willy nilly based on your major skills you ended up with horribly gimped stats and eventually got to a point where, due to the world scaling, enemies were FAR stronger than you. And at that point you were pretty much just screwed. In the end it made much more sense (and balance) to put skills you rarely used as Major ones, frequently used skills as minor ones and then after getting a good amount of minor skill boosts, boost one of your majors and gain the level. Extremely counter-intuitive.

Morrowind's skill system was only marginally better, but at least the enemies didn't scale so completely out of whack.

Seriously, with Oblivion, I ended up with a massive tick sheet and spending huge amounts of time fracking about just levelling my skills; not actually playing, just grinding my skills (spells mostly) until I'd got the right amount of whatever it was for when you levelled up. Not fun at all. And the finding it was completely pointless, as the enemies scaled to your level. Before I'd gotten very far, I dropped the difficulty to minimum because I was so fed up of a brutal battle to the death with every last goblin and bandit. (And yes, I do suck at that Elder Scrolls style of combat system, I know. Not the point...)

The use-it-or-lose-it skill system (as I tend to term that sort of skill-advancement system) would have been better without a level system at all, I think, and just letting the skills increase at their own rate. And I say that as someone who generally prefer level systems. The one Morrowing and Oblivion used (variants of the same idea) was pretty horrible, combining the worst of both advancement systems, and Oblivion's was by far the worst of the two.

Eldan

2012-12-14, 04:26 PM

Yeah, the major skills system isn't a bad idea. The idea that needs to be dragged behind a shed is the idea of scaling worlds. I don't understand it. It invalidates the entire idea of levelling.

Oblivion had other problems, but that was the main one. Together with the silly Daedric-clad marauders and the total lack of interesting locations on the world map to randomly discover.

And I just want to say: i don't really care about the skill system, or the combat system or any of those things. 90% of all combat in most RPGs is superfluous anyway, only there to keep you from getting to your goal too quickly. Sometimes to set up a mood of danger (appreciated), sometimes for actual plot reasons (far too rare). But all too often, only so that the designers can justify leveling the character up a few more times.

World design and story matter far more to me than how well the combat works. Sure, in a combat heavy game, the combat needs to flow well and be varied enough to keep being entertaining. But I don't like combat heavy RPGs much anyway.

KillianHawkeye

2012-12-14, 04:47 PM

Sorry if I was unclear; I meant to say the Elder Scrolls system bad design when observed from a gamist standpoint; that is, by gamist standards the design decisions are questionable (in other words, I don't consider it at all gamist, which I find to be a problem). Gamism and simulationism are both important for an RPG I find; I feel The Elder Scrolls skill system has problems in the gamism part.

Okay, I understand now. Still, that seems like an odd criticism considering that the system was not intended to be gamist in the first place.

Anyway, I think the system worked a lot better in older games such as Daggerfall and Morrowind. Oblivion's system of scaling monster levels really ruined that game. (Seriously, I stopped playing Oblivion once I realized that the best strategy was to never EVER level up. That was a big let down for sure.) Not sure about Skyrim since I haven't played that or seen much of it on youtube.

But yeah, if you require a degree of gamism in your RPGs, then The Elder Scrolls is not for you and was not intended for you.

Nerd-o-rama

2012-12-14, 05:08 PM

My favorite is Baldur's Gate because I don't like Elder Scrolls' leveling system and stop making Vs. Threads.

factotum

2012-12-15, 01:40 AM

Yeah, the major skills system isn't a bad idea. The idea that needs to be dragged behind a shed is the idea of scaling worlds. I don't understand it. It invalidates the entire idea of levelling.

The overall point of it is that they want you to be able to travel anywhere at anytime--if the enemies when you arrived WEREN'T scaled to your level you couldn't do that. I don't necessarily have a problem with that; the World of Warcraft "each area has its own specific level range" approach isn't really any better from an immersion point of view (heck, you always had to ask yourself why the really nasty high-level monsters in the Plaguelands hadn't overrun the undead starting zone which was right next door!).

Oblivion handled it in a really ham-fisted way, though. Not only did everything scale to your level without limit (so town guards would *always* be stronger than you, despite the fact you're the freakin' saviour of the world or something), it meant that the inhabitants of areas got swapped out without regard for logic. The higher-end Daedra were only supposed to be seen with groups of lower-level ones, for instance, but that would have broken the level scaling so they didn't do that!

Overall, Morrowind did it much better--the monsters scaled with you, but there was a limit to how low or high their level would go; so you could find places where the monsters would curbstomp you with nary a thought, but if you went back a couple of dozen levels later you'd find it a walkover. You barely even notice the level scaling in Skyrim, even though it's there.

Eldan

2012-12-15, 08:12 AM

Leecros

2012-12-15, 09:04 AM

I liked the idea that certain things would just kill you when they saw you.
It adds a certain kind of tension to dungeon crawling that you don't really get otherwise, when there's always the chance that you walk around a corner and run into a Lich.

you may like Daggerfall, if you haven't already played it.

That first imp in the tutorial dungeon....always kills me.:smallfrown:

KillianHawkeye

2012-12-15, 01:57 PM

you may like Daggerfall, if you haven't already played it.

That first imp in the tutorial dungeon....always kills me.:smallfrown:

Hmm...... it's been a really long time, but I don't remember any imps in Privateer's Cove. I remember rats, and bandits, and a pair of TERRIFYING skeletons, but nothing else. I'll admit I may not have completely explored the place, though, since even though it's the tutorial map there are still a lot of secret areas. Where was the imp?

Eldan

2012-12-15, 05:21 PM

you may like Daggerfall, if you haven't already played it.

That first imp in the tutorial dungeon....always kills me.:smallfrown:

Eh, no. I don't want punishing difficulty. Far from it, in fact. But I like the idea that, rarely, there is the possibility of running into something you can't possibly handle.

KillianHawkeye

2012-12-15, 06:54 PM

Eh, no. I don't want punishing difficulty. Far from it, in fact. But I like the idea that, rarely, there is the possibility of running into something you can't possibly handle.

It's not that the difficulty level is trying to punish you. You just have to accept that sometimes there are things you just need to run from. Like werewolves.

I think a game is more interesting when it isn't a forgone conclusion that I should be able to fight my way out of every situation I find myself in (unless it's a Beat'em Up game). I like an RPG that requires thinking of a strategy and sometimes avoiding enemies, rather than just plowing through mindless hordes.

Tengu_temp

2012-12-15, 07:06 PM

ArlEammon

2012-12-15, 07:15 PM

Eldan

2012-12-16, 08:12 AM

I'd say that Dagoth Ur alone is more interesting alone than all Baldur's Gate characters combined. But again, I don't really play those games for the characters. I play them for hte world. And the Forgotten realms just don't interest me much.

Telok

2012-12-16, 05:19 PM

Now now, the title is "Baldur's Gate vs Oblivion." Morrowind and BG are really nice, and different, games that can easily stand beside one another.

Oblivion has that whole thing about getting the main quest out of the way at level 2 or 3 so that you can enjoy the rest of the game. A game where when you level up to the maximum level and the main quest becomes impossible because of it, is a bad game.

Eldan

2012-12-16, 05:58 PM

Well, yeah. Oblivion is crap. I don't think anyone debates that. But this has changed into BG vs. the Elder scrolls now, it seems.

VanBuren

2012-12-16, 06:25 PM

Baldur's Gate, even the flawed and unpolished first game, blows everything from the Elder Scrolls series out of the water. The Elder Scrolls games are so in love with their own open-worldness that they forgot an RPG needs things like interesting characters and storyline.

Prescribing what an RPG "needs" is almost as much of a can of worms as defining what an RPG is. I could find you many people who much prefer Skyrim's open-world fawning to BioWare's cookie-cutter character types that would go on to be recycled ad infinitum.

That's obviously a very slanted view. And I very much tend to enjoy offerings from both companies. But what one player may see as a virtue, another might see as a failing and vice versa.

Neither game is Metal Dungeon. In the end, that's really all we can hope to achieve as a species.

Triaxx

2012-12-16, 11:39 PM

If you hated leveling in Oblivion, then go play Skyrim. They fixed it.

Or just install OOO and pretend the vanilla leveling enemies never happened. He fixed it.

---

Gee, Cespenar likes BG2 best. Didn't see that coming... ;)

---

BG vs Oblivion? BG gets the nod here, even though I spent nearly as much time wandering Cyrodiil as I did chopping, shooting and blasting my way up and down the Sword Coast. BG1 was at least as open as Cyrodiil without all the 'Random murder by suddenly vastly more powerful opponents'.

BG vs Skryim? Tie. Both are interesting in their own unique ways. There are a dozen ways to play BG, and dozens of ways to play Skyrim. I've played both as pure magic types who are quite capable of making every enemy bow down and die for the mere crime of looking in my character's general direction. I've played both as a character who sneaks up behind the enemies and one shots them with a massive sword. Or a tiny little dagger. I've played both with a bow and killed things just by filling them with arrows.

And all at once, where BG brings a single consistent story that makes me hate and rage against the villains. I play it not just to enjoy the game, but because I want to hunt them down, and make them PAY for what they've done. I feel for the characters, and I want to make their lives better by ensuring that the villains get what they so richly, and thoroughly deserve.

Skyrim? I'm stopping the dragon from killing them, because I want to kill them. Why yes, someone did steal my sweetroll, and I jammed my sword through their guts, just like this. *gurk* I don't have to be the child of a dead god. But I can if I want to. I don't have to be a space marine fighting endless hordes of evil monsters. But I can. I can be the mightiest wizard to live since ancient times, or the greatest thief to ever prowl the nights, literally stealing the armor off of guards. But I can be. I don't have to be a hunter, avoiding big cities and living off the pelts of deer and elk traded in small towns. But I have that option.

Sgt. Cookie

2012-12-17, 12:10 AM

Mind you, having dentistry done without anaesthetic is better than Oblivion, so the bar isn't really set very high there... :smallwink:

Speaking as someone who has been through both, Oblivion wins.

factotum

2012-12-17, 03:58 AM

Now now, the title is "Baldur's Gate vs Oblivion."

But the original post also mentions Skyrim, and it's hardly very fair comparing Baldur's Gate to a game that a lot of people consider to be the weakest in the Elder Scrolls series, is it?

Emmerask

2012-12-17, 05:02 AM

Well Baldurs Gate 1 is widely considered to be the weaker part of the bg series too :>

Aotrs Commander

2012-12-17, 06:10 AM

Well Baldurs Gate 1 is widely considered to be the weaker part of the bg series too :>

True: but I think the general consensus is Oblivion was a weaker game compared to it's like than Baldur's Gate was to it's like.

Having played three of Bethsada's games, I think I can say I enjoyed Oblivion the least, as apart from the graphics, I don't think it did anything better than Morrowind (and Morrowind had a more unique landscape, I think.)

So I think it's fair to allow the not-as-poor Elder Scrolls games in, especially as we're comparing apparitions to eidolons.

Leecros

2012-12-17, 11:29 PM

Hmm...... it's been a really long time, but I don't remember any imps in Privateer's Cove. I remember rats, and bandits, and a pair of TERRIFYING skeletons, but nothing else. I'll admit I may not have completely explored the place, though, since even though it's the tutorial map there are still a lot of secret areas. Where was the imp?

I remember two off the top of my head. One was near the beginning. At the start you proceed down to that little room and kill the tutorial rat. After that you head up a set of stairs into a hall with a room on your left, that's where i ran into one imp. The other was in the room with the exit.

KillianHawkeye

2012-12-18, 09:07 AM

I remember two off the top of my head. One was near the beginning. At the start you proceed down to that little room and kill the tutorial rat. After that you head up a set of stairs into a hall with a room on your left, that's where i ran into one imp. The other was in the room with the exit.

Hmmm..... nope, that's not jogging my memory. I'll just have to take your word for it. Or reinstall Daggerfall.

Triaxx

2012-12-18, 10:37 AM

I've never really played Daggerfall or Arena. I never managed to get out of the starting dungeons. And Morrowind is still on my To Play list.

I always enjoyed BG 1 more. I mean, yes, there's more polish in BG2, which is natural for a sequel, but mostly the characters start out as already powerful, so there's none of the fear associated with the early game. Plus the scope is much more limited. The map is almost as large as BG1, but there are far fewer areas to explore. Yes, on the other hand there are fewer to trudge through, but I play to explore for stuff, not necesarily to run from one objective to the next.