I think that as well and yet think DA is worse than ... Well, worse than BG 2, BG1 was really kind of weak.

If I ever do play BG:Enhanced, it'll probably be some time in the future. The memory needs to fade a bit before I put additional hours into the (extended?) series.

Bg1 wasn't weak when it was released. It was one of the biggest, deepest, most entertaining RPGs ever made in that time. But yeah, it didn't age well.

Bg2 can still be pretty entertaining and user friendly, while Bg1 can be very painful for beginners, and people used to modern gaming.

Fallout was released an year earlier and IMO it did so many things so much better than BG. The only parts of BG better than in Fallout were exploration and group tactics (understandable, since Fallout wasn't really party based game)

And it wasn't as buggy as Fallout initial release ;P

You honestly have no idea how much nostalgia and timing effects you, you can't possibly discount it. Not saying your whole opinion is flawed, not at all, but dismissing nostalgia is silly.

I for one have actually always hated Baldur's Gate, until I got it running using BG: Trilogy and got some actual NPC banter into it. Yea I get it, now it's not actually comparing BG to DA, but I must say I have enjoyed the original game and a big part of the second game much more than DA and I have finished the first game for the first time last year.

I really grew tired of Bioware's restrictive level design in their more modern games, I think that alone is a very strong and objective point for BG games. DA's world also felt incredibly uninspired to me, as dull as you can possibly get, and only few characters caught my interest - but not nearly enough to get me trough the fairly boring story, boring world and IMO overly complex gameplay (and I actually like tactical games like Jagged Aliance or UFO.)

Anyone going to kill me after I point out that, tactically, they both suck? And they're both overrated, though BG less-so than DA:O. I didn't outright detest either game but, especially with DA:O, I'm not sure why people fuss over them as much as they do. There are far better RPGs out there.

I really don't see this as a good deal at all. All they did was add a few characters and increase the resolution options (both of which can be done using mods for the classic BG). Seriously, it baffles me that this is going for the price it's going.

It doesn't baffle me that they're trying it, what will baffle me is if the PC version sells in any great numbers (I fully expect the iPad version to sell like hotcakes, given how well Spiderweb Software's games seem to have done there).

As you say, terrible deal for the PC version.

Thank you!

I am really not understanding what is supposed to be so great about the enhanced edition. As far as I can tell, the only changes of any import are adding subraces and allowing BG I characters to start as BG II classes. The large base price tag combined with the new characters being sold as DLC just makes me think 'cash grab'.

To be fair, the characters seem to only be sold as DLC on the mobile versions. From the FAQ:

"Q: Baldur's Gate: Enhanced Edition costs more than the iPad and Android versions! What are you tryin' to pull here, ya palooka?

A: The PC and Mac versions of BG:EE have all of the content that we've created for the game, along with all of the enhancements to the base game. The iPad and Android versions have some of the new content held back as in-app purchases. If you purchase all of the extra content on iPad and Android, the end price matches up to the PC and Mac versions."

It's still a cash grab, but the base iPad game costs 9.99, same as on GOG. They just don't realize that their shitty new content is about as valuable as fan fiction and not worth anything close to what they're charging for it.

Yeah, that's the big deal here honestly. They could have just made that, but then people would have freaked out for no reason about it not coming to PC.