Am I Just Spoiled Or Do Good Games Go Stale?

[Pyro]

So in the past few days I've felt the calling to play a good ole RPG. Looking through my vast collection I spy Baldur's Gate, a game I haven't played in years. I load it up, happily make a character and get started. However to my disappointment, playing a level one character is tedious, boring, and unforgiving. I died many a time through my first hours of play, mostly from the first few encounters outside Candlekeep. It is also more unfocused than how I remember. A majority of the maps are uninhabited wilderness with a fetch quest, but only if you happen to walk across the exact portion where quest lead is standing.

Has Baldur's Gate gone stale or I am too impatient for RPG's now?

[warty goblin]

Yeah, it's always been my observation that game design really has improved with time as a whole, obviously there are still plenty of crap games made. The well designed games are, insofar as I can tell, better designed than they used to be however. Sure the designs have in a lot of ways often become less ambitious, but that just allows for greater focus, making what is there much better. Personally I've always prefered a concentrated dose of awesome than a lot of good to average stuff.

[Emperor Demonking]

Some games go stale but I think quite a lot of awesome games stay awesome.

[Khosan]

In my opinion, BG2 was superior to BG1 in terms of gameplay. Easier to get into and fewer life-or-death situations right at the start.

[factotum]

You've probably just played better RPGs since, that's all. Does depend on the game to some extent--I replayed Might and Magic VI last year and enjoyed myself immensely, but when I bought the complete Baldur's Gate boxed set and tried to play it, I had the same sort of problem you did.

I think part of it is that BG is *too* faithful to the D&D rules, where a level 1 character really was weak as a kitten and could be killed by practically anything that had lucky rolls on the dice. Made the entire game a bit of a crap shoot until you got to level 3 or 4 and had a bit of a HP cushion...

[Om]

Actually I find that BG1 remains as good a play today as it did all those years ago. What usually stops me returning to golden oldies is creaking/obsolete game engines but BG1 cheerily avoids this with the EasyTutu mod. In terms of story, plot, challenge*, setting, etc, I far preferred the original BG. Its only when the actual gameplay mechanics take a major leap forward that I find it hard to return to an original/outdated game

*This is a big one. For all the talk of the game's difficulty I found this far more enjoyable than the sequel where there were less than a handful of genuinely difficult fights. And most of these were optional

[Raistlin1040]

One word. Xan.

Best. Character. Ever.

I loved both Bauldur's Gate games. I own them both, plus expansions.

[Tekar]

I just think it is that games used to be made to present a challenge, whereas now games are made to be easy entertainment. Most players don't like getting stuck or having to start over. Good examples are the 'party members impossible to kill NWN' and the 'impossible to screw up Oblivion'. (Well, unless you level up too much, then you can get screwed)

[warty goblin]

I just think it is that games used to be made to present a challenge, whereas now games are made to be easy entertainment. Most players don't like getting stuck or having to start over. Good examples are the 'party members impossible to kill NWN' and the 'impossible to screw up Oblivion'. (Well, unless you level up too much, then you can get screwed)

Ya'know I hear this a lot, and particularly with some genres I think it is more or less true, namely platformers and their ilk. But look at modern shooters, they are way more complex than their predecessors with only a few exceptions (namely Tribes). Cover systems, destructable terrain, much better AI, customizible weapons, iron sights, the list goes on. Heck, look at something like Enemy Territory: Quake Wars, where just to shoot a gun you have to decide whether or not to use iron sights, and whether you should be moving, croutching and moving, or go prone, then how many shots to fire in a burst, all of which have effects on accuracy. This is to say nothing of choosing what gun to use before you spawn, what class to play, what objective to pursue, how to pursue it, what deployable to use, and whether or not you can effectively resupply from your current location. There's simply more game systems in most serious shooters anymore than there used to be. Same thing with RTS games, used to be very few units had activated special abilities and upgrades were global, but now every unit and it's great aunt Sue have an activated ability and two or three seperate individually applied upgrades.

[Icewalker]

Another thing I've found is that while for many people graphics aren't really important, myself included, I at least find is that when you go back to an older game, maybe even in the same series, sometimes the older graphics are bad enough by current standards to actually detract from the game significantly, even when you didn't notice it back then.

[Tirian]

I think part of it is that BG is *too* faithful to the D&D rules, where a level 1 character really was weak as a kitten and could be killed by practically anything that had lucky rolls on the dice. Made the entire game a bit of a crap shoot until you got to level 3 or 4 and had a bit of a HP cushion...

Yeah, there was that one fight when you were leaving the starting town that kept me down for a long time. Once you got past that, there was a world full of non-story leveling opportunities.

I find that ancient graphics rarely bother me as much as ancient interfaces. To give an example, I love the concept of M&M2 and can play with postage-stamp CGI images, but the gameplay is like solving a Rubik's Cube with one hand tied behind your back.

[Drascin]

Yeah, there was that one fight when you were leaving the starting town that kept me down for a long time. Once you got past that, there was a world full of non-story leveling opportunities.

I find that ancient graphics rarely bother me as much as ancient interfaces. To give an example, I love the concept of M&M2 and can play with postage-stamp CGI images, but the gameplay is like solving a Rubik's Cube with one hand tied behind your back.

Ah, that's a great way of putting it, yeah. I still love sprite graphics and such, and play a lot of old console games happily, but I have to admit that interface design has come a long way. Many older PC games now frustrate me immensely, because I have to study the manual and fight with the game for fifteen minutes just to control my characters right. I've been spoiled by visual, easy-to-understand interfaces, I guess.

[Sebastian]

Ya'know I hear this a lot, and particularly with some genres I think it is more or less true, namely platformers and their ilk. But look at modern shooters, .... There's simply more game systems in most serious shooters anymore than there used to be.

And yet, Doom still rocks. :smallsmile:

[Tengu_temp]

Some things old better than others - Planescape: Torment, Baldur's Gate 2 or Final Fantasy 6 are examples of games that passed the test of time well. Baldur's Gate 1 or Final Fantasy 4... didn't.

[Pyro]

I actually have a bit of a love affair with the ancient 2D isometric games. When the maps are scaled at a resolution they look absolutely beautiful, especially with fantastic art design such as in Planescape. I wish more games would take a risk and go old school. Just imagine what they could do with it now along with spell effects and improved character sprites. While 3D is good, devs have to sacrifice detail that otherwise would bring the world to life. For example Neverwinter Nights was visually unappealing and boring, one of the many reasons I severely disliked it.

[Recaiden]

I think that BG1 was a really good game, but is no longer up to the standard of modern RPGs. Graphics may be a lot of that though. Not really, BG is still awesome.

[Avilan the Grey]

You've probably just played better RPGs since, that's all. Does depend on the game to some extent--I replayed Might and Magic VI last year and enjoyed myself immensely, but when I bought the complete Baldur's Gate boxed set and tried to play it, I had the same sort of problem you did.

I think part of it is that BG is *too* faithful to the D&D rules, where a level 1 character really was weak as a kitten and could be killed by practically anything that had lucky rolls on the dice. Made the entire game a bit of a crap shoot until you got to level 3 or 4 and had a bit of a HP cushion...

Better RPGS? you mean Planescape: Torment?

[Avilan the Grey]

I actually have a bit of a love affair with the ancient 2D isometric games. When the maps are scaled at a resolution they look absolutely beautiful, especially with fantastic art design such as in Planescape. I wish more games would take a risk and go old school. Just imagine what they could do with it now along with spell effects and improved character sprites. While 3D is good, devs have to sacrifice detail that otherwise would bring the world to life. For example Neverwinter Nights was visually unappealing and boring, one of the many reasons I severely disliked it.

I absolutely loathe first person RPGs. I always feel like I am running around in a hostile environment wearing an ancient diver's helmet. I so prefer the isometric view. This is but one reason I am drooling over Diablo III already, although I would never consider it an RPG. It's a TPHS (third person Hack'n slasher).

...Maybe it's time to reinstall Fallout 2...

[Xenogears]

Ya'know I hear this a lot, and particularly with some genres I think it is more or less true, namely platformers and their ilk. But look at modern shooters, they are way more complex than their predecessors with only a few exceptions (namely Tribes). Cover systems, destructable terrain, much better AI, customizible weapons, iron sights, the list goes on. Heck, look at something like Enemy Territory: Quake Wars, where just to shoot a gun you have to decide whether or not to use iron sights, and whether you should be moving, croutching and moving, or go prone, then how many shots to fire in a burst, all of which have effects on accuracy. This is to say nothing of choosing what gun to use before you spawn, what class to play, what objective to pursue, how to pursue it, what deployable to use, and whether or not you can effectively resupply from your current location. There's simply more game systems in most serious shooters anymore than there used to be. Same thing with RTS games, used to be very few units had activated special abilities and upgrades were global, but now every unit and it's great aunt Sue have an activated ability and two or three seperate individually applied upgrades.

Complex does not mean harder (or better for that matter). Old games were more of a challenge than new ones. For one thing you had a LOT less health. A couple hits had you almost dead. There was also a lot less healing. Instead of saving most games gave you a couple of lives and if you lost all of them you had to start over from the beggining of the game. Despite all the advanced options you now have in modern games they just aren't as hard. Hell I remember when they had to rerelease Ninja Gaiden (X-BOX) because "it was too hard." That game has nothing on the original Ninja Gaiden for NES. Now that was a hard game. And that's not even mentioning Ghouls and Ghosts (Or Ghosts and Goblins? I can never remember which was SNES and which was NES but either way I mean the NES one.)

Older games were just harder. They gave you less and forgave you less as well. Harder doesn't always mean better though. Some games that are real easy are just plain awesome.

[Mordokai]

One word. Xan.

Best. Character. Ever.

I loved both Bauldur's Gate games. I own them both, plus expansions.

I beg to differ. But that's just me.

To me, NPCs in BG1 never were all that special. Granted, I never had any mods for BG1, whereas I tried ton of them for SoA. But really, to me, there is no comparison between BG1 and SoA NPCs.

[FMArthur]

I was just thinking about this subject today. I've noticed that there's a bit of a disconnect between me and some of the other gamers in my year at university, and we're never talking about the same games or the same things in games. I usually am just playing through my (rather large) collection of older games, most of which are not that old, but it seems like my peers are compelled to go out every week or so and pick up the newest games, forgetting entirely about previous games and usually never playing them again. It's a bit confusing to me, and I don't understand what it is about these new games that makes the older games less fun to them. Maybe I'm just playing games and genres that don't have an upgraded equivalent coming out every couple months. Is this just an FPS/scrolling brawler thing, where each game is really just an extension of previous games, so it's like... updating?

[Drascin]

Older games were just harder. They gave you less and forgave you less as well. Harder doesn't always mean better though. Some games that are real easy are just plain awesome.

See Portal for an extremely obvious and extremely engaging example. Easy, lasts like four-five hours, but those are among the best hours a person can spend :smallbiggrin:

[Ethdred]

I was just thinking about this subject today. I've noticed that there's a bit of a disconnect between me and some of the other gamers in my year at university, and we're never talking about the same games or the same things in games. I usually am just playing through my (rather large) collection of older games, most of which are not that old, but it seems like my peers are compelled to go out every week or so and pick up the newest games, forgetting entirely about previous games and usually never playing them again. It's a bit confusing to me, and I don't understand what it is about these new games that makes the older games less fun to them. Maybe I'm just playing games and genres that don't have an upgraded equivalent coming out every couple months. Is this just an FPS/scrolling brawler thing, where each game is really just an extension of previous games, so it's like... updating?

I own very few games, and my PC just isn't up to running modern games, but I don't really care. I can still get play value out of something like Alpha Centauri or Rome: Total War (which is about the most recent game I can play - it makes my PC cry if I play it too long). I'm just annoyed that all this BG talk on the forum recently made me get out my old copy of BGI, and it doesn't work any more :( I would try out BG 2 but I can't be bothered to run through that whole starting scenario again - I just want to kill lots of kobolds and bandits.

[SmartAlec]

To me, NPCs in BG1 never were all that special. Granted, I never had any mods for BG1, whereas I tried ton of them for SoA.

Then you missed the most crucial mod of them all: http://www.gibberlings3.net/bg1npc/index.php


I would try out BG 2 but I can't be bothered to run through that whole starting scenario again - I just want to kill lots of kobolds and bandits.

And this one is pretty useful too: http://www.pocketplane.net/mambo/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=98&Itemid=79

[elliott20]

I have found myself having far less patience for games now a days. If a game can't grab me within the first 20 minutes of play, it might never get played again. This means a lot of the older design flaws that I used to put up with I now absolutely can't.

one of the biggest ones is time. For one thing, as a family man, I just don't have time to play games, so I don't want to spend my game time doing stuff I just don't find interesting, be this FMVs or grinding.

For this reason, now a days, the games I play start leaning more and more towards emulations or games that allows you to get to the action right away like fighting games or platformers such as metal slug.

[valadil]

Some games go stale some don't. It's hard to say until the game has aged a bit. I still play through Mario 2 and World semi-anually. Much as I love Portal, I was bored on the second play through.

[RPGuru1331]

Has Baldur's Gate gone stale or I am too impatient for RPG's now?

I think it's that Baldur's Gate is DnD, yeah. That level 1 lack of cushion is plain brutal by anyone's standards.

As to this old/new argument that's cropping up.. when did new shooters become harder then old ones? I can actually play Halo or other new games. I suck at FPS, and I know it; I also can not play older games (That is to say, I die constantly, and do badly). Granted, maybe dedicated FPS fans can say otherwise, but I at least had a much harder time clearing hte older games.

[Hzurr]

Complex does not mean harder (or better for that matter). Old games were more of a challenge than new ones. For one thing you had a LOT less health. A couple hits had you almost dead. There was also a lot less healing. Instead of saving most games gave you a couple of lives and if you lost all of them you had to start over from the beggining of the game. Despite all the advanced options you now have in modern games they just aren't as hard. Hell I remember when they had to rerelease Ninja Gaiden (X-BOX) because "it was too hard." That game has nothing on the original Ninja Gaiden for NES. Now that was a hard game. And that's not even mentioning Ghouls and Ghosts (Or Ghosts and Goblins? I can never remember which was SNES and which was NES but either way I mean the NES one.)

Older games were just harder. They gave you less and forgave you less as well. Harder doesn't always mean better though. Some games that are real easy are just plain awesome.

A few things:

Ninja Gaiden Black had both an easier version (which they called "Ninja Dog" and more or less called you a pansy to your face when you played it), but it had several harder difficulties, and harder challenges. Not nearly as much of a "appeal to the whining masses who think it's too hard" as it was "the hardcore crowd who loves this game want more"

Also, a factor of the games being "harder" were to increase play time. Most games for the SNES and NES (with a few notable exceptions) are very short. As in, could-be-beaten-in-a-couple-of-hours short. To artificially extend the length of these games, they did things like having only x number of lives or continues, then forcing you to start a game over from scratch. Thus a game like...eh, the origional Contra or Ninja Turtles could entertain for weeks, even though the actual game wasn't that hard.

[warty goblin]

I think it's that Baldur's Gate is DnD, yeah. That level 1 lack of cushion is plain brutal by anyone's standards.

As to this old/new argument that's cropping up.. when did new shooters become harder then old ones? I can actually play Halo or other new games. I suck at FPS, and I know it; I also can not play older games (That is to say, I die constantly, and do badly). Granted, maybe dedicated FPS fans can say otherwise, but I at least had a much harder time clearing hte older games.

Halo on the lower difficulties, up to Legendary actually, isn't that bad, but in a lot of ways Halo is something of a throwback out of the latest generation or two of shooters.

Now the hardcore modern shooter can be pretty brutal. Check out S.T.A.L.K.E.R. to see what I mean. You can be killed by about three bullets, less if your armor is in bad shape, your guns jam, there are tons of enemies, and you occasionally bleed to death. There's no onscreen effects to warn you that you are running out of health, so you can go around a corner and literally be killed before you even know you are being attacked. It really is quite a lot more difficult than a lot of other FPS games in the past. Nothing sucks worse than having an invisible ghoul decloak to start tearing your face off, and then your gun jams on you.

[Kranden]

Also, a factor of the games being "harder" were to increase play time. Most games for the SNES and NES (with a few notable exceptions) are very short. As in, could-be-beaten-in-a-couple-of-hours short. To artificially extend the length of these games, they did things like having only x number of lives or continues, then forcing you to start a game over from scratch. Thus a game like...eh, the origional Contra or Ninja Turtles could entertain for weeks, even though the actual game wasn't that hard.

I think those SNES Starwars games had a pretty good system. The game was brutally hard but it let you save keys to return to later stages.

[Tekar]

See Portal for an extremely obvious and extremely engaging example. Easy, lasts like four-five hours, but those are among the best hours a person can spend :smallbiggrin:
What made portal good was it's humor. Most games don't have that and in that case a good light show can't intrigue me, I like to have a chalange.

[busterswd]

Baldur's Gate I was just pretty unforgiving early on, much like actual DnD, except it was only you and Imoen instead of a full party of 6, and your actual character dying meant TPK. If you know what you're doing, it goes well, but if not... Let's just say that first set of assassins in friendly arm kept magic missiling my Ranger, causing somewhat less than desirable results.

[Avilan the Grey]

Baldur's Gate I was just pretty unforgiving early on, much like actual DnD, except it was only you and Imoen instead of a full party of 6, and your actual character dying meant TPK. If you know what you're doing, it goes well, but if not... Let's just say that first set of assassins in friendly arm kept magic missiling my Ranger, causing somewhat less than desirable results.

BG1 IS a game where you really benefit from the Hit Dice bonus if you are playing a fighter / paladin / ranger (basically anything but mage).
Oh and I don't know what people consider being the "first hard fight", but I would assume it's the... ...Mage at the Inn entrance. If you can't beat him (personally I always threw the two evil NPCs you pick up at him as meat shields and distractions) just run like hell and the guards will kill him for you. Quickly.

[Tirian]

Oh and I don't know what people consider being the "first hard fight"[...]

Huh. I'm not getting any love from the online walkthroughs, but my memory is that you have to fight your way out of Gorion's ambush despite having only the experience you picked up in Candlekeep.

[Avilan the Grey]

Huh. I'm not getting any love from the online walkthroughs, but my memory is that you have to fight your way out of Gorion's ambush despite having only the experience you picked up in Candlekeep.

...Not that I remember. Gorion kills the Orgres, and send you running. The only fight before the Inn (if you go the right way and not south as I did first time and died) is the sometimes-wolf* that shows up even if you don't stray off the road, and the Gibberings that only shows up if you start exploring off the road.

*The wolf is always there, but it does not always spot you and attack if you stay on the road

[Pyro]

Yeah I kept dying at the Friendly Arm because of those magic missles. I eventually killed him somehow, but it took about 7 times. There was also a particularly vicious pack of kobolds on one of the roads that I had to avoid to prevent from becoming pin cushions.

[Adeptus]

It's the user interfaces that are really infuriating on older games. Everything is so needlessly hard to do.

Then again, some classics just get better and better. Click on my banner :smallamused:

[Moonshadow]

One word. Xan.

Best. Character. Ever.

I loved both Bauldur's Gate games. I own them both, plus expansions.


We're all DOOMED! *waves Moonblade*

Yeah, Xan was fricking awesome.

[Ethdred]

a particularly vicious pack of kobolds

Isn't that a great phrase :)

Originally Posted by Ethdred
I would try out BG 2 but I can't be bothered to run through that whole starting scenario again - I just want to kill lots of kobolds and bandits.

And this one is pretty useful too: http://www.pocketplane.net/mambo/ind...d=98&Itemid=79

Thanks for that - looks interesting, though now I will have to re-load BG2 and lose more hours of fmy life, you swine!!! Also, there is the problem of not having any kobolds and bandits to kill, IIRC. Still, bound to be some mindless hack'n'slash I can find somewhere round there.

[Avilan the Grey]

It's the user interfaces that are really infuriating on older games. Everything is so needlessly hard to do.

Funny thing, I don't agree. I guess it depends on what older games you used to play, but unfortunately I think the trend goes the other way. WAY too many games these days are suffering from Consolitis. :smallyuk: