Part of the difficultly, particularly in the beginning, is just that low level characters are weak. With few hit points, few abilities, and little equipment, it does not take much to kill them. As characters get a few levels, not only do they become individually stronger, but the tactical options available to you expand. That's not just how it works in Baldur's Gate, but that's generally how it works for that edition of the Dungeons & Dragons rules.

Part of the difficultly is figuring out when it's time to fight, and when it is time to run. In the beginning, you may have a few hints. At the start of the game, the story seems to be pretty clear that you are out in danger in the wilderness, and you need to get shelter and allies ASAP before getting involved in fights with wilderness creatures. As the game progresses, it isn't quite as clear as which area or which encounter is beyond your current power level (and that is admittedly frustrating).

Part of the difficultly is not knowing what is coming. Particularly in the early part of the game when you are ambushed by mage-assassins, you're not prepared for the sequence of spells they might use to quickly wipe up your party. Very few battles are so tough, though, that you will have trouble beating it on the first re-load. After you learn from a few of those painful battles, you will develop your mage-killing tactics, and later in the game you will be smacking them down quickly on the first time, even when they ambush you.

In terms of combat, the first few levels of BG1 may be the most difficult part of the entire series (even more difficult than facing the pumped up, godly villains in Throne of Bhaal- because by that point in the game, you will be leading a party of pumped up, godly heroes).

Things get a bit easier if you have a decent Thief scouting ahead in stealth mode, although I admit that having a decent Thief is pretty unlikely in low levels.

But yeah, the first few levels are pretty brutal. A single critical hit from any enemy is often enough to kill or cripple a character, and there's fuck-all you can do about it.

Couple of factors that may be making the NWN2 Reloaded version more difficult than the original:

1) I tihnk perhaps the open areas in the NWN2 engine aren't as large as they are in the original game. That's just a limitation of the game engine though (and I'm obviously only guessing here as well). If this is true, then it really restricts the amount of ground you have to flee from encounters and will tip the balance more in favor of the mobs.

2) I believe the mobs in the NWN games move quicker than those in the BG series, relative to the player character. This would mean in the Reloaded version that the ranged tactics won't be nearly as effective. In the original game, it's really easy to snipe mobs, retreat a short distance - because you can move faster than most mobs - then snipe some more. You can take down some really tough creatures as a level 1 character/party with this type of tactic. I don't believe that will work nearly so well with the NWN2 version. Again, I'm only surmising though.

As far as the graphics go, I can totally understand what you're saying. I've found a few old 'gems' that I just have a real hard time getting into solely due to the dated graphics. However, in the case of the BG and IWD series, I love the art work, so I have no issue with them. But I can see how they could turn someone off.

Another point re the party members leaving because you don't get to Nashkel quick enough: this may be an issue with how they built the Reloaded version. In the original I believe you get 10 game days before they get fed up and leave. The time in the original game passes relatively slowly with respect to real time though (all things considered), while it may pass quicker in the NWN2 engine when compared to the original game. This may be a factor in the issue you're having. But, as twice before, I'm guessing yet again. (A solution is to not recruit the members you want to have as permanent members until after you're done exploring the towns and surrounding areas. Just take Imoen and a couple NPCs that you don't care about keeping with you for the majority of the game. Once you're ready to head to Nashkel, then pick up the members you want to have in your party).

Anyway, I hope you're able to give it another shot and can get into it. It's actually a pretty good story along with all the extra gameplay thrown in as well.

In the original BG the timer stopped as soon as you talked to the Mayor of Nashkel. I do not know if this is how it is done in the NWN2 version. So the standard that everyone did was pick up their crew, race to Nashkel and say hi to the mayor, and then meander back through everything they missed, hitting the mines after leveling a bit because the Nashkel mines are for like level 3 (I think it's 3 and not 2, it's been a while since I've played it.)

Some npc have requirements to stay in your group, if you do not meet those requirements, they leave. Note they said "you promised to go to _____" There is no need to finish the area..... Also there are other npc in the game. There is a lot of exploring time in bg1, you are just at the very beginning of the game.

KiNgBrAdLeY7, like I wrote before, I am playing the RELOADED version, and that's a few gigabytes.

''Well... This game IS a masterpiece, a classic, a point of reference for RPGs''

I don't doubt that. Let me say that I am VERY hard to please when it comes to games. I have played Fallout 3, The Witcher, Oblivion, Morrowind, and in all cases I was disappointed with all of them and deleted all my saves within a few hours of gameplay for each game. I am -very- forgiving about graphics (up to a point), but if battles and character development and dialogues don't cut it, I'll forget about the game after a few hours. The only game I finished in the last few years was Neverwinter Nights Hordes of the Hunderdark. Unless a game grabs me by the balls, I'll give up.
I value my time very highly.....I can't afford to spend dozens of hours on a game unless it completely sucks me into it.
Yeah, a tall order for almost all games. I don't play games. I give a game a shot to suck me into it, and if it doesn't happen, it's goodbye....simple as that.

''One stat of yours, named CHARISMA, is responsible for the disposition of NPCs or party members towards you. The higher it is, the more firm your leadership and image to others.''

Like I wrote, I could not do anything else other than getting to Nashkeel as fast as I could or the party members would leave. I didn't even have the time to look around, let alone finding ways to increase a stat.

''About Nashkel mines, it would be best for you to fly there as soon as possible.''

That's what I did, but I felt it was weird to ignore lots of new places just to get toNaskeel.

''you might need to play an FPS. RPGs have never been about graphics''

man, I started playing games at least 13 years ago. You think I never tried an FPS? The only non-RPG i ever played was Gran Turismo. As for RPGs 'never been about graphics', yeah ask 100 people here how many of them would play a game with 16 year old graphics. Except people who played the game when it came out, I really doubt anyone else would do it.

I am not bitching about the graphics of the original BG. It is what it is, it would be dumb to blame it for it's graphics considering it was made years ago.

''if you do not play BG1 thoroughly, you cannot consider yourself a true RPG fan/player/connoiseur.''

ah ah, please. I don't care about 'being a true RPG fan/connoisseur'. It's a videogame. I know it was an innovative game, but it's just a game.

Being a 'gamer' actually has negative connotations to me. It's just entertainment, and like all entertainment, in the end it's a waste of time. To me, if I am not learning something, I am wasting my time. I like to play an amazing videogame, but I am not aiming to be 'a true RPG fan' or any of that. I would become 'a true RPG fan' if I was actually creating RPGs.

Yeah but when you get killed easily as soon as a battle starts, you kind of want your party to be as big as possible, LOL
ah ah, very well put. PS. i wrote a longer reply but it disappeared or maybe it went into a black hole, don't know

I'd still play Pac-Man, Galaxian or Joust if I had access to a coin-operated cabinet right now and those games are well over 30 years old. Believe it or not, the graphic images on those play screens still hold up to today's enhanced 3-D polygons.


:)

If you create a multiplayer gamer, you can make all six characters yourself. Then save the game. Now go into the multiplayer save directory and copy it over to the save directory. Now you have a single player game with six characters you made! The main character would be the first one in the list.

I suggest just making 4 characters, so you can still have fun with the in game ones, Some require being together, which is why I say 4 and not 5.

Or you can get used to the game and get killed less often :D People have played this game solo before! ( well I doubt they soloed durlag's tower without cheating heh ) Only story line stops you from entering areas, otherwise you can and will enter areas to high for your level, time to make a retreat :D


remember, warriors are tanks, casters either heal buff/debuff or damage form behind the front lines, and rogues scout and flank or use range. Some formations work better than others.

You can only speak for yourself. I remember Galaxian very well, but it's not like 20 years later it gives me the same effect.
I'll give BG Reloaded another shot in the future. After playing for a few hours Divinity II as well, I decided to try a JPRG, called Persona 4 for the PS2. I can't put the damn thing down. Today I played 6 hours straight, it's been years that didn't happen. I was really longing for some good old turn-based battles. The battles are amazing, as is the game. Everything feels intuitive and yet nothing is simplistic.

I think that one will keep me busy for a good while

"Baldur's Gate: why is so highly rated?"
Because it has been given the rating it deserves.

ok thanks ,genius. Are you always so insightful and logical? 'Cause it looks like your amazing research don't count also the average ratings on sites like Amazon

Of course I shall not include data given by mere mortals in my precious research.

It is a great game, but not for everybody nervertheless. It is fine if you do not like the game, but opening a topic and being such a brittle touchy lass to most people who have given their sincere opinion is not, my good sir.

There are two, two-person groups of NPCs who want to get to Nashkel - both groups make it *very* clear that this is not only very important to them, but that it should be accomplished with some haste.

Now, one can certainly choose to ignore the expressly stated agendas of these people, but, obviously, this comes with consequences if you tarry too long. And there is little reason *to* tarry, since everything you pass by on the way to Nashkel will still be there once you have mollified your comrades.

Bottom line is, IMO, if you don't want to have to keep people with agendas happy, don't agree to fulfill their agenda in the first place. Such is the case with Minsc - he makes it abundantly clear that his agenda is rescuing Dynaheir. What do you think his reaction is going to be if the party doesn't attend to this *very* quickly?

Secondly, with regards to the fight that breaks out in the party, was it *really* about getting to Nashkel in a timely manner, or was it based on intra-party squabbles and Alignment differences? If you have Montaron and Xzar, both Evil in a party with Khalid and Jaheira who are on the side of Good [even though Jaheira is ostensibly Neutral], perhaps the conflict was over their incompatibility, rather than on a time issue. It may well have been time, I don't know what happened in your game, but the incompatible Alignment conflict is certainly a more common occurrence than one based simply on time. Truth be told, I've been playing this since it came out and I have *never* seen a case where actual combat breaks out over the length of time it takes to get to Nashkel, while the fight over one side being Evil, and the other being Good can easily break out [and especially the longer these two incompatible groups of NPCs remain in the same group.]

It would be interesting to know the Charisma of the party leader in your situation, since the lower the Charisma of the party leader, the lower the morale and happiness of the party members. Such that any scripted party conflicts will happen sooner, the lower the Charisma of the party leader. Making Imoen party leader, if her 16 Charisma is higher than the player character, can help tamp down in-party discord for a time - but it won't prevent conflicts completely. Nor will an even higher party leader Charisma - even a PC with an 18 Charisma will still see these events if they mix radically different Alignments in their parties, or fail to attend to NPC agendas for too long of a time.

In BG, the NPCs are not all faceless ciphers happy to fulfill the role of meat-sack for the protagonist - many of them *do* have feelings, opinions and agendas, and one has to take this into account when choosing who to adventure with. If you recruit, for example, both a LG Paladin into your party, and a NE Drow priestess, it should come as no surprise that their incompatible world views [as expressed by Alignment] can, and may well, lead to conflicts and problems...

...and the underlined, bolded remark in this quote, I believe, answers the questions to this topic
---"Why is Baldur's Gate so highly rated?"
When playing a role-playing game such as this, a lot of novice gamers do not seem to be accustomed to free will choices and are hesitant to make these kinds of choices.
Are these gamers afraid to make mistakes?
Are these gamers conditioned to other RPGs that don't allow intricate mediation? ...or inter-party intervention of any kind?
I dunno... what I do know is that the gameplay in the Baldur's Gate series is functioning on a more 'evolved' level than those other role-playing games out there.