Baldur's Gate vs. Diablo

Originally posted by RagnaViper
Overall, Diablo wins.

Though IMO Baldur's Gate is a much more satisfying experience, Diablo has the excellent multiplayer aspect at the end.

So when you think about it, there really is no contest. Though Baldur's Gate can take months to beat, while I beat Diablo in about a week, Diablo always allowed you to come back and kill stuff with your friends. I know Baldurs Gate had an online aspect, but Diablo outclassed it in every way.

Another way to look at it is this:
Baldurs Gate was just like one huge D&D game.
Diablo was like a real video game.

You decide.

Baldur's gate was more complex, and had more options, it was better on almost every level.

As for judging the multiplayer, which game was newer?

Diablo got VERY repetitve, and you can do the same in bg, all in all while the game was easier to pick up and play, Baldur's gates' experience and story, is what made it what it is.

Originally posted by Hit_and_Miss
I loved both of these games.
over all I love to lvl up! im a lvl up addict.... Diablo lvling up was something special... baldors gate did itall for u! u just pressed the button, diablo u got to choose. I know its a minor point but im such a fan of lvling up...

diablo you could waste hours trading and talking and playing in a party. baldors you could waste hours on quests and minor quests.
bladors online takes too much time to get into it.

Like I said, its mostly biased on feel, now if I were actually talking about gameplay aspects, and detail, baldur's gate has the cake.

I got both and loved playing them...

But RPGs online is a mini passion of mine.

I don't wana get everquest otherwise thats would be all that would happen in my life for the next 20 years. (I would go blind after that).

"Like I said, its mostly biased on feel, now if I were actually talking about gameplay aspects, and detail, baldur's gate has the cake."

Thats true but the feel to me is very important.
Take a game called yager for the xbox.... That has to have the worst controls for all time. I like the look and take on the game, but I can't play it with those god awful controls....

Anybody who says that Diablo has better multiplayer. . must only be refering to online.

For BG can have a pretty large multiplayer as well, one for each character slot.

But damn, actually picking between the two. . .

The game I actually managed to influence versus that fantastically in depth game that can just keep being modded and added onto until the cows come home. . .

I can't decide. . .

Originally posted by CorderaMitchell
Baldur's gate was more complex, and had more options, it was better on almost every level.

As for judging the multiplayer, which game was newer?

Diablo got VERY repetitve, and you can do the same in bg, all in all while the game was easier to pick up and play, Baldur's gates' experience and story, is what made it what it is.

Though Diablo got repetitive, the multiplayer was where the real game was. Baldurs Gate had a fine multiplayer, but I was *extremely* disatisfied with the online experience. Diablo beat Baldurs Gate on every level for multiplayer.

Honestly, Diablo was similar to an MMO with its online aspect.

Baldur's Gate was a fine game as well, but it was more about story than the gameplay. Sure, it had more depth. Fine.

Whatever though. They were two very different games anyway as I said before.

Originally posted by RagnaViper
Though Diablo got repetitive, the multiplayer was where the real game was. Baldurs Gate had a fine multiplayer, but I was *extremely* disatisfied with the online experience. Diablo beat Baldurs Gate on every level for multiplayer.

Honestly, Diablo was similar to an MMO with its online aspect.

Baldur's Gate was a fine game as well, but it was more about story than the gameplay. Sure, it had more depth. Fine.

Whatever though. They were two very different games anyway as I said before.

It was about gameplay all the same.

Baldur's gate allowed limitless combos and character development, and to add on to it, you can multiplayer alone, whereas diablo had not that novelty.

I felt that the presence was greater concerning baldur's gate and the options and quests were limitless, detail was astounding, I could kill everyone, or not.

I loved diablo for being easy to pick up and play, and the limitless character development, even though it was minor after a point.

I had a high leveler until my comp screwed...

Originally posted by Hit_and_Miss
I got both and loved playing them...

But RPGs online is a mini passion of mine.

I don't wana get everquest otherwise thats would be all that would happen in my life for the next 20 years. (I would go blind after that).

"Like I said, its mostly biased on feel, now if I were actually talking about gameplay aspects, and detail, baldur's gate has the cake."

Thats true but the feel to me is very important.
Take a game called yager for the xbox.... That has to have the worst controls for all time. I like the look and take on the game, but I can't play it with those god awful controls....

I loved the feel of BG the same, the romances the temples, the reputation, the talking sword lol. I just liked the game itself more...

woops

you liked that sword??? I only kept it for the fact that someone might offer me a quest related to it.... that talking sword sucked more then driz the drow.... talking how great he was..lol I slayed him soo fast only for some genie to tell me I couldn't keep his stuff to show off as trophies and he was gonner revive him....
Other thing that sucked as you had the power to turn into a slayer.... But don't use it!... nope not aloud that, you could stay like that! DAM I WANA! talk about putting your nose in it.

Dam I'm starting to make myself hate that game.

Originally posted by Hit_and_Miss
you liked that sword??? I only kept it for the fact that someone might offer me a quest related to it.... that talking sword sucked more then driz the drow.... talking how great he was..lol I slayed him soo fast only for some genie to tell me I couldn't keep his stuff to show off as trophies and he was gonner revive him....
Other thing that sucked as you had the power to turn into a slayer.... But don't use it!... nope not aloud that, you could stay like that! DAM I WANA! talk about putting your nose in it.

Dam I'm starting to make myself hate that game.

No I don't think the sword was strong, but I liked Ravager +6, it was the games deadliest weapon in terms of offense...

Both games suck beyond belief, but I'm biased so....

Originally posted by Fire
Both games suck beyond belief, but I'm biased so....

Both games rocked beyond belief, but had a high learning curve though, and were for thinker types.

That's not it, I don't mind a challenging game.
I just hate the "role playing" gerne it ain't roleplaying certainly not diablo.

I also liked in BG how you had the option to be evil. . I mean really really evil . . . of course it was kinda annoying how the flaming Fist pansy's kept showing up to get their asses handed to them. . .

I was thinking, dude, you're making my genocide quest that much easier. . .

Of course then they had characters that tried to instant kill you . . . I'm glad I fixed that weakness.

Originally posted by Fire
That's not it, I don't mind a challenging game.
I just hate the "role playing" gerne it ain't roleplaying certainly not diablo.

Well then BG was worth something still not a lot tho.

Originally posted by Fire
Well then BG was worth something still not a lot tho.

"well then"? Was what I told you new information?

How much have you oplayed these games?

BG for the comp is a great RPG. . . as there are tons of side quests. And puzzles you have to solve and everything. I think it's a really good adaptation of Dungeouns and Dragons for the computer.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Technically all games are "Role Playing Games" . . but in the traditional sense, how was it not an RPG?

You never played a real RPG (table version, the only kinda game that has the right to call itself an RPG) have you. If you are interested I'll explain what is better about a real RPG.

Well I played BG for about 5 hours and I played Diablo for about 10 hours.

BG for a comp is a great rpg indeed, but for a comp usually means I hate it. It is not because a game has side quests and puzzles that it is a good RPG. It was a very bad adaptation of Dungeons and Dragons because tons of rules didn't work like they worked in the real game.

Originally posted by Fire
You never played a real RPG (table version, the only kinda game that has the right to call itself an RPG) have you.

Originally posted by Fire
If you are interested I'll explain what is better about a real RPG.

Originally posted by Fire
Well I played BG for about 5 hours and I played Diablo for about 10 hours.

Originally posted by Fire
BG for a comp is a great rpg indeed, but for a comp usually means I hate it.

Originally posted by Fire
It is not because a game has side quests and puzzles that it is a good RPG. It was a very bad adaptation of Dungeons and Dragons because tons of rules didn't work like they worked in the real game.

First: Yea that was before your post, my bad. After you made your second post I should have known you have played real RPGs. Again my bad 🙂

Two: indeed there are more options and there is A LOT more freedom. Personally

Three: Yes only 5 hours, as I said I dislike Computer RPGs, I never ever buy one I only play a tad at friends their houses if I get bored.

Four: No I play RTS and some FPS (altho very slightly)

Five: The problem starts at character creation (that is if I remember correctly -been a while-): But I am fairly sure I remember you could take a reroll on your stats if you were displeased with them the first time. Could be mixing it up with another RPG though in that case my bad 🙂