Yeah the synonpsis:

http://www.gamespot.com/baldurs-gate-enhanced-edition/reviews/baldurs-gate-enhanced-edition-review-6401359/ I think GS was on the lower end of reviews in terms of simple score even compared to other sites that agreed the enhancements were underwhelming. But with an enhanced edition of older game, is the site basing the score off the enhancements or the total package including the original game? Beyond does the score matter, which way is "correct"? ::shrugs, leaves to reader to decide::

:)

I said it in my original post but just to make clear, Gamespot is a nice place for me to get descriptions/screenshots/and patch list, but their reviews are suspect at best. I think a problem is that sometimes they have a hardcore FPS player reviewing a strategy game and vice versa, and that is never good. Also the bulk of their EE review is negative only because they saw EE as not much in the way of new and to their credit they kind of see it as dubious to ask a BG owner to fork over $30 for a game they pretty much already have. I submit a DVD example, Terminator 2; that asshole James Cameron puts out the same movie every three years in a different box and ask people to fork over $20 every three years for the same movie with a different box. Having not played EE I can't say this is a fair comparison, but it does appear to someone on the outside, who always felt BG didn't need any improvements, as pretty silly.

The interface. Beamdog used BG2's interface and heavily modified. I finished BGEE then I started a new BG2 game and I can say that BGEE's interface is much better. Also they use BG2's AD&D rules in BGEE.
That's not true.

Why do you think that? If it was true then why there are hundreds of fan made bugfixes for the original BG?
That's not true. BG2's interface is much worse than BGEE's.
Also you can hardly find bugs in BGEE now.

You know, BG aged pretty badly, from most points of view. It wasn't such a great and revolutionary title even when it came out, there were 'better' RPGs out there, and today, aside from exploration which is the only redeeming quality of that game, it has only a very little to offer.

I do think that the score of 6 would be more or less warranted for the game.

meh I read their reviews :) I take all opinion as interesting data, but that's all. I try to judge the strength of the case they make by what they write about the game - why does feature X suck? What makes feature Y so good? If a reviewer explains that clearly, cogently, and convincingly, then that makes it a good review.

I think one of the many problems with game reviews is that we tend to say Gamespot gave the game a score of X and said Y about the game. Well, sort of - one of the many staff or guest game reviewers gave it that score/review. As you mentioned, that could be a large number of people each with their own individual tastes in games. And that's fine as long as you know who the reviewer is and how they, rather than the site, generally rates certain types of games. But generally we lump it all into one gestalt that the site gave it such and such a review.

OK, I'll have to take your word for that since I haven't tried BGEE and probably won't.
But I had no problems with BG2's interface, so how can it be so much worse than BGEE's?
Vanilla BG1, unlike BG2, was never such a great game IMO.
But with the right mods, like the BG1 NPC Project and Sword Cost Stratagems, it's easily one of my all time favourite CRPGs. I can't think of any game besides Oblivion which benefit more from the right mods than BG1.

Agreed, I have enjoyed it with mods immensely. But reviewers can't take fan content into account, all they could do is to write a little note in the end saying 'With mods, it deserves a nice 8!'

I dont like cat's and i have a hangover and the enhanced edition was disappointing really...
Still waiting for the second like no freaking tomorrow

To me, the real prize would be Baldur's Gate II Enhanced. As such, I tend to look at BGEE as creating a solid foundation for the next game by getting the underlying engine in good working order.

Please wait with this statement until after Baldur's Gate: Reloaded has been released. If you don't know what I'm talking about, please read this thread:
http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/167/index/3120312/1

I have to disagree with you completely there having just played the game about a year ago. I don't think it aged badly at all, particularly when you install BGtutu for enhanced visuals. I also installed a fixpack to squash some old bugs and another mod to give me back the original Baldur's Gate UI, at least in appearance because I liked it and wanted it to look true to the original. I found BG2 visuals to be pleasing to the eye, colorful, detailed and with plenty of variety in environments to explore.

The game is challenging and fun because of it. The tactical combat was great. I loved the way I could pause and issue orders and then let the action play out some more, etc. It was very challenging and even scary taking on powerful casters at times.

As a D&D game, character progression and gameplay itself were fun for me. I had never played D&D anything before and had to do a lot of reading before I even began to really get into it. I don't think this was required particularly but it added a lot to my enjoyment of the game, the depth and richness of it.

I enjoyed the story of the game which was good if not particularly complex. There were some very memorable battles along the way that felt like accomplishments to win. In fact, completing that game felt like an accomplishment of sorts since it offers many hours of challenging and entertaining gameplay.

The npc companions you meet and can take with you along the way and their interactions with each other were great and enhanced further by an NPC banter mod that is popular among those who mod the game.

It was in fact a great and revolutionary title when it was released and was credited by more than a few for resurrecting the PC RPG genre at the time. You say there were "better RPGs out there" and I would love to hear about them. Just exactly what RPGs were better than Baldur's Gate on PC in 1998? I can think of only two other RPGs that year which you could argue were in the same league although they were very different games, neither of them being Dungeons and Dragons games: Fallout 2 and Might and Magic VI. Those three make for a pretty good year for role playing games but it isn't like there was tons of greats and BG was just so-so.

I think I've made some case for Baldur's Gate's "redeeming qualities" but perhaps you don't enjoy D&D roleplaying games or maybe you don't like tactical party based combat, etc. That's fine too. We all have our preferences but I really could not bear to read that Baldur's Gate "has only a very little to offer" without replying to it.

The original release in its day earned itself a 9.2 and in my opinion, deserved it. Here is the review for anyone interested: http://www.gamespot.com/baldurs-gate/reviews/baldurs-gate-review-2538129/

As for the review of the remake, they make clear at the outset they are reviewing it in terms of its merits or lack thereof, as a remake. The score of 6.0 indicates "fair." They are not saying it is terrible or bad but simply that the remake is underwhelming in their opinion which many seem to agree with. This mediocre score is not a reflection of the quality of the classic game itself which is good because Baldur's Gate is not a mediocre game. It is a classic.

I feel better now. :D

Oh! I forgot to mention the music is really great too and if you don't love Imoen and Boo there is something wrong with you!

I do not understand the hate for Baldurs Gate EE.. They are going to release it on the tablet!! Baldurs Gate on a freak'n tablet!!!! What is not to like?

The development for other platforms is great to be sure. I'll be happy to have a modded widescreen native version for my Mac too.

I think the hate basically is all about the PC version and the fact that it does so little to distinguish itself at 20 bucks from a modded version you could spend much less on. What is worse, they removed a good number of cutscenes and the ones still there were "updated" with poor quality ones when it would have been better to leave the originals instead (subject to personal opinions of course). The added arena battles module and NPCs with about 12 hours of related quests are a nice little addition but they just don't justify the price tag. Then to throw salt on the wound, they shipped it before it was ready with bugs of their one making in it. So all in all, I can appreciate why a fair number of PC gamers who've played the original and were expecting more here for the money are pissed. It comes off as a half-assed cash grab which is really unfortunate. Again, this is all relating to the PC release.