Baldur's Gate vs. Diablo

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



CorderaMitchell
Which is the better rpg, discuss poll and debate.

CorderaMitchell
Yello?

Lord_Andres
My favorite color is blue NO YELLOW! hehe nah I love''em both, infact I'm gonna play them both very soon, I'm gonna write long review here on the videogme borads about all the great RPG's, so stay tuned

CorderaMitchell
Lol, I do to, but I lean towards BG overall, more on this later too.

RoyMC
diablos cool

SaTsuJiN
Diablo.. more arcade like, and the gameplay is more in-depth... crafting new properties through the useage of runes, gems, magic items using the horadric cube.. magic finding bosses to get leet drops.. it only sux0red when they nerfed the cow level >_> but the synergy system is friggin awesome

CorderaMitchell
Diablo doesn't have more depth than baldurs gate its hit and run, a game thats easy to pick up and play loses depth as a tradeoff,

Have you seen BG manuals, they're like tomes.

You have all types of items, characters, quests, freedoms that diablo doesn't, i really can't list them all.

Dizzle
I assume you mean real baldur's Gate, not Dark Alliance... And Baldur's Gate wins. That games freaking long! And Sarevok's a pimp.

SaTsuJiN
the game that I played on ps2 for baldurs gate was boring and repetetive.. slash slash slash mob dies.. move to the next 'room' that looks like the last 50 you went through.. I just got tired of it..

RaventheOnly
Originally posted by SaTsuJiN
the game that I played on ps2 for baldurs gate was boring and repetetive.. slash slash slash mob dies.. move to the next 'room' that looks like the last 50 you went through.. I just got tired of it..

hysterical that is not BG big grin we are talking BG and BG and the Shadows of Amn and BG and the Throne of Baul the computer realtime RPG big grin its what Diablo was kinda based on

CorderaMitchell
The console baldurs gate was much like Diablo, unlimited exp. , severely limited gameplay.

I had a sarevok avvy, remember it?

Lord_Andres
I agree, BG is more deep then diablo, its also alot bigger game, but I dont know Diablo has something special, I'm currently playing soem of the great RPG's i'l catch up to BG and Diablo in awhile, i'l get back to this thread then

CorderaMitchell
Baldur's gate has more deep gameplay and customizability, and the ability to walk in any room you want.................

Reason 1

SaTsuJiN
so then how can you compare it to diablo?.. why dont you compare it to morrowind or another elderscrolls game? that makes more sense to me at least

Lord_Andres
Quite true, but then again The Elder Scolls has even more deepth so that wouldint really be fair, Elder can be compared to the Might and Magic series, Baldurs gate is kinda like someware inbetween I guess

CorderaMitchell
People like the feel of diablo

but elderscrolls can lack the funfactor after a while.

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.

SaTsuJiN
Originally posted by CorderaMitchell
People like the feel of diablo

but elderscrolls can lack the funfactor after a while.

feel and gameplay depth are 2 different things.. I'm sure this thread was started in "which is better overall".. and if diablo just doesnt have what baldur's does, how can they be judged against one another? Its true that gameplay features make up the feel in the end, but diablo is more action /arcade oriented RPG than an actual roleplaying experience, which Im sure baldur's is supposed to be... this thread is like comparing dungeons and dragons pen and paper to dungeon seige or something equally lacking

Moritsune
Good Point, Good Point. I For One Like Diablo. Yes, I Have Played BG, And It Does Have That One Thing About It. But, Look At Diablo. I Mean, Seriously, Look At The Game Type. If You Wanted To Make A Good Comparison, Do Neverwinter Nights Against Something Like Might And Magic Games. Yes, That One May Seem Lopsided, But It's The Only Game I Can Think Of Right Now.

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.

CorderaMitchell
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.

CorderaMitchell
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.

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....

Creshosk
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. . .

RagnaViper
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.

CorderaMitchell
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...

CorderaMitchell
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...

Hit_and_Miss
woops

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.

CorderaMitchell
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...

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

CorderaMitchell
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.

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.

Creshosk
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.

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

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

Creshosk
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.

Fire
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.

Creshosk
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. I sure have, that's why I said that BG is a fair adaptation. . . it's not as open, but there isn't a whole lot of choice considering the possabilities from the traditional.

Originally posted by Fire
If you are interested I'll explain what is better about a real RPG. I know how a "real" RPG is better. there are more options available. . hell I've even played "pokemon" characters . . .

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

Originally posted by Fire
BG for a comp is a great rpg indeed, but for a comp usually means I hate it. ah, a platform gamer are you? Me? I like anything.

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. Like which ones?

Fire
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 smile

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 smile

Creshosk
Originally posted by Fire
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 smile

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 smile
1.) No problem.
2.) And even more when you get add-ons for it. You know handbooks and such for more/more specific information
3.) I see.
4.) Oh um, not platform, I meant console. My bad.
5.) Yeah you can reroll as much as you want, you can even "shift" points to other attributes.

Fire
Yip too bad they all are bloody expensive.

I had a PS1 and my bro has a PS2 don't play on it too often tho.

Well that's one of the reasons why I think the game sucks.

Creshosk
Originally posted by Fire
Yip too bad they all are bloody expensive.

I had a PS1 and my bro has a PS2 don't play on it too often tho.

Well that's one of the reasons why I think the game sucks. Yeah the console versions of BG are sorely lacking.

Fire
lol that well was applied to the stats thingy, not the console.

I played it on comp.

Creshosk
Originally posted by Fire
lol that well was applied to the stats thingy, not the console.

I played it on comp. Oh well, still the console version paled in comparison. . .

Character creation for the console involved picking among one of several premade characters. . .

And then you played a very linear game with a scant few sidequests . . .

The options were sorely limited to make it more of an action/adventure game than a real RPG. . . sure you leveled up and all but it wasn't much.

CorderaMitchell
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.

I disagree, diablo was a good game, but BG was better, 5 hours of gameplay in BG don't equate to much though....

Fire
diablo didn't have any real roleplay in it, all it was was walking around with a character clearing a dungeon. Sure you had that little village and stuff. But that still doesn't make it a role playing game.

5 hours was enough to see that the game is far from being able to call itself a role playing game.

Now Cresh that totally sucks.

Creshosk
Originally posted by Fire
diablo didn't have any real roleplay in it, all it was was walking around with a character clearing a dungeon. Sure you had that little village and stuff. But that still doesn't make it a role playing game.

5 hours was enough to see that the game is far from being able to call itself a role playing game.

Now Cresh that totally sucks. Yeah, it's just like the console version of BG.

More of an action adventure game like Gauntlet than an actual RPG.

CorderaMitchell
Originally posted by Fire
diablo didn't have any real roleplay in it, all it was was walking around with a character clearing a dungeon. Sure you had that little village and stuff. But that still doesn't make it a role playing game.

5 hours was enough to see that the game is far from being able to call itself a role playing game.

Now Cresh that totally sucks.

CorderaMitchell
Originally posted by Fire
diablo didn't have any real roleplay in it, all it was was walking around with a character clearing a dungeon. Sure you had that little village and stuff. But that still doesn't make it a role playing game.

5 hours was enough to see that the game is far from being able to call itself a role playing game.

Now Cresh that totally sucks.

I agree Diablo was the McDonalds version of Baldur's Gate.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.