Because it is more like icewind dale1-style: linearity and battle-oriented gameplay. It hadn't really the feel of BG-gameplay: mid orientation on conversations (compared with high in P:T), world-exploration and puzzles. Because of that it had been dissapointment, it hadn't really felt like a Baldurs Gate, therefore it felt like a slapdash
Also you can upgrade a Mace of Disruption to + 2 version that will give an Immunity to Level Drain. With this particular item every vampire becomes like a gibberling in a speed he dies - an undead must make a saving throw vs. death (-4 penalty) or be utterly destroyed by this weapon.
That, with what @Schneidend has said, leads the conclusion that vampires are not scary at all.
Baldurs Gate 2 is an amazing game, it has an interesting plot, very appealing characters, beautiful locations, diverse fighting strategies, controversial choices, conquering magic and many, many, many unique dialogs and situations.
You should definitely play the best RPG of all time.
I dont agree that BG2 was the best rpg-Bg1 is my favorite because you can openly explore the wilderness and get involved with quests. I didn't like the city based quests/story in bg2. Sarevok was also badass in that he is just a better bad guy in any sense. I don't think irenicus was that tough as I tanked him in melee with my undead hunter solo. He was kind of just a tool although the voice acting from Warner was excellent.
I hope that Bg3 if it is made will start over with a brand new char instead of just continuing from a previous char. Theres not much more power left to reach from that char. Maybe revisit previous characters.
@FrozenCells I completely agree with you. ToB may have been inferior to BG2 in terms of exploration and gameplay, but I felt that it was at least a satisfying conclusion to the Bhaalspawn arc. BG2 just barely touched upon it, and throughout the whole game I kept thinking, "Who the hell is Irenicus and why does my character really care that Imoen was abducted?" From a roleplaying standpoint, I had just killed my half-brother and saved the Dukes of Baldur's Gate. It was a bitter victory, because even though Sarevok had attempted to kill me on numerous occasions, to some degree it wasn't his fault - and at that point in the game, my character could relate to Sarevok better than any of the friends she'd made in her journey because they shared the same divine blood, the same curse.
And then BG2 just puts that on hold. Which is appropriate, sort of, because the 1st part of any trilogy is the exposition, the 2nd part is usually the "filler", and the 3rd part provides closure. And I thought ToB excelled in that aspect - it accomplished what it set out to do, which was to provide closure for the story of the child of Bhaal.
I liked Sarevok's return in ToB. It reminded me of the "nature VS nurture" conflict buried beneath the main plot in BG, the philosophical question that nagged at your PC: are we products of our heritage or our environment? If Gorion had taken Sarevok instead, what would have been the outcome? These were conundrums that BG2 didn't even bother bringing up. What I really wanted (and expected of ToB) wasn't a game like BG1 (the exposition of a trilogy, where the main goal is to explore the world and become introduced to the central conflict), or BG2 (the "filler" part of a trilogy, where the goal is to enhance the world you've already been introduced to and flesh it out) - what I wanted was the end to the Bhaalspawn saga. And obviously that involves epic, battle-of-the-gods gameplay...FFS, you're the child of a god!
The issue with ToB was definitely the difficulty. True, you have godlike abilities, but shouldn't your enemies do too? Ascension pretty much made that a non-issue. I play ToB with Ascension installed (and pretend that it was how ToB was intended to be shipped).
Perhaps my enjoyment of ToB stems from the fact that I don't criticize BG1, BG2, and ToB on the basis of them being separate games, but rather judge them as a whole. And I have to say, the Baldur's Gate trilogy is pretty damn good.
1. High Level abilities seem tacked on, like they needed more levels, but didn't really know what to tack on, so they tried lifting feats or something from 3rd edition
2. For a game involving 5 rivals/antagonists, the linear approach seems kind of weird. I mean, you could easily pull a megaman approach. Go kill your 5 evil Bhaalspawn sibling in whatever order, get a new power, fight some big bad at the end.
3. The whole Bhaalspawn thing serves better as a backdrop, not a driving force. I mean, being a child of Bhaal is part of your character, but it was never much of a motivation. BG1 could have the same plot minus the whole Bhaal thing with just a few tweaks. (Don't get me wrong, the clues they drop all over the place was fantastic, but they can be tweaked out without affecting the Iron Throne/War with Amn plot). BG2 has you out for revenge on a Wizard who kidnapped you/Finding your Foster-Sister, and then trying to get your soul back. Again, a few tweaks and Bhaal can be taken out. TOB involves about what you would expect: your five asshole siblings causing a mess, and then a big bad once you take them out. It doesn't serve as a back drop, its the whole plot.
I think BG2 was my fav game for a REALLY long time, but I felt TOB was too grindy and repetitive. Also, similar to what some have said, there didn't seem to have as much of a character arc and the adventure was just kinda samey for 100 hrs with BG2 and TOB. However with all the work that has been put into BGEE, if these guys keep adding and adjusting things, by the time it comes out I may like it even better this time.
I enjoyed it more than BG2, less than BG1. It was fun for me to see my meager paladin, once fresh out of Candlekeep and barely able to hold a sword, ascend to the godlike status of an epic character, coming to terms with his heritage and his past, jumping the final hurdles to the prophecy that has plagued his life since he was born. Fun stuff, really. Watching your characters zooming around the screen like super sayians, attacking ten times per round with giant swords and shaking the screen with their spells, has a sense of epicness about it that I feel is a fitting ending for such a grand character such as charname.
I enjoyed it but agree with others on the criticisms regarding linear plot, subpar storytelling and monotony in combat. It simply becomes a grind for me in a way that BG1 and BG2 don't.
Seriously I don't think ToB was very hard. The Irenicus battles gave me far more trouble than Melisan. As I said before, I don't "hate" ToB, but it does get boring sometimes.
I respectfully disagree that BG2 is the best game of the series, but otherwise I find your assessment quite agreeable. I think we have arrived to a reasonable conclusion.
Hate is not the proper word. Disappointed by the length, quality and railroading is the right term. This will likely change with BG2EE.
This is very surprising to hear. BG1:EE's approach to original content has been extremely conservative; making ToB less linear, longer and higher quality would require an extensive overhaul of the existing content. Something like... including Ascension?
ToB just isn't as good--that's why people dislike it.
It's not even debatable really. The product was literally rushed. It's still good. Some of the dislike is probably the knowledge of how much better it could have been.
What was wrong with Throne of Bhaal? My complaint was the expansion was too short. But i LOVED it. Note: Would have love to have had the option of revisiting locations of Amn again. So heres my highlites. It gave me Sarevok as a party member, went deeper into your character history. Uhm you get a really epic ending, plus character endings. Better monster and equipment.
I thought too many of the battles were just over the top cheese. It's not that it's high level combat, it's that they just made so many of the fights who can get off their time stop first, or how many times can the bad guy spam the same instant death move over and over. It just stops being fun at that point. Storyline wise it seems an adequate conclusion to the series, and better than the endings than a lot of other bioware games.
Hate is not the proper word. Disappointed by the length, quality and railroading is the right term. This will likely change with BG2EE.
This is very surprising to hear. BG1:EE's approach to original content has been extremely conservative; making ToB less linear, longer and higher quality would require an extensive overhaul of the existing content. Something like... including Ascension?
Indeed. I doubt that's going to change. The Contractual Immutability will remain. And even with Ascension, it doesn't really make the game less linear. And I'm not sure how many fans really wanted a LONGER battle in the Planes. I know I didn't, and I liked Gaider's writing.
I thought too many of the battles were just over the top cheese. It's not that it's high level combat, it's that they just made so many of the fights who can get off their time stop first, or how many times can the bad guy spam the same instant death move over and over. It just stops being fun at that point. Storyline wise it seems an adequate conclusion to the series, and better than the endings than a lot of other bioware games.
This I agree with. It's not that the battles were High Level. It's that they were rigged against the PC, so you had to invoke Cheese Tactics to win. This was really evident in the Planes. You can't rest, she comes back healed every time. You have to run around killing things that level drain/instadeath characters WHILE she recharges. It wasn't a challenge. It was tedious.
The first Baldur's Gate is probably the best that I like to play over and over. SoA does have some features that upgraded the play of Baldur's Gate. I am also a fan of the lower level play. ToB was the worst part of the series for me. I never had to come to the internet to learn how to beat anything within the two games until I got to ToB. Too frustrating for me. I don't mind a long fight, but spending a week dying over and over because you can't figure out what can hit the opponent is too much for me. I did like Watcher's Keep, and the ending of that dungeon, in that you could decide if you wanted to bypass the end fight. Some things are best moving on from if it frustrates you to beyond belief.
I don't mind the linearity. With the epic levels comes a more narrow field of adventuring; not every forest or town has challenges for a level 20+ party. Also, with the massive war and slaughter, the Bhaalspawn coming together and prophecy blah blah, it makes sense that you don't go traipsing around the countryside saving cows and farmers from ravaging kobolds. (of course, in BG2, either you're letting Imoen get tortured while you sidequest your way to glory, or let the elven city burn while you beat random monsters in random dungeons so there's a precedent for this kind of 'urgency'). I enjoy the ridiculous power level, cutting my way through a dozen fire giants, having a fight with multiple dragons, slaying hordes of demons. It's the ending of a saga about the child of a god. It's supposed to end like this.
My problem is Mellissan and the incredibly hamfisted, stupid attempt to force her into the plot and mke her the villain. She's about as clever as a wet sock and half as interesting. She had no place being the final villain. Basic writing classes should've told the designers this; don't introduce the final villain in the last chapter. It makes no sense.
I've been playing BGT. So I end up playing BG1 to BG2:SOA + Watcher's Keep.
Once I start hitting the HLA levels towards the end of SOA I start to feel not as satisfied. I rarely make it to Suldanessellar before I feel the urge to start anew with a new class / alignment. Of the perhaps hundreds of games I've played, I've defeated Irenicus maybe four or five times. I feel like I am confessing something at an alcoholics anonymous meeting haha.
I've played BG1 and BG2 SOA a whole lot of times over a whole lot of years. I've played through the end of TOB once. I just find it not as fun.
Why is it not as fun? 1) Linear. It's too linear. Go to location X before you can go to Location Y. Do not deviate. There may be endlessly respawning enemies along the way.
2) The big bad villian sucks. Melisan is not the quality of Sarevok or Irenicus.
3) Every guard, beggar and innkeeper is immune to +3 weapons and below and carrying a +5 sword of vorpal hitting.
4) High level micromanagement. By the time you are in TOB, you can have 7ty special abilities and three pages or more of memorized spells on the casting menu. I don't enjoy hunting through the little icons of the casting menus to locate the particular spell needed to get past invincible enemy X's defense because he/she is immune to everything except little used spell X.
5) HLAs. I like HLAs, though perhaps it would be better though if they only occur every 5 levels or so. As it is you can run out of useful ones after three levels. Oh boy you get to pick 17 more
I really like ToB. Of course it's not perfect, but I believe most of the criticism towards it comes from either things that are not Bioware's fault or from the bar being set too high by BG1 and the SoA part of BG2.
So here's what I have to say in defense of ToB:
1) It's an expansion pack after all. One that had a rushed release. You can't really compare it to SoA or BG1 in terms of how developed the story was or sheer amount of content. It's meant to tie up the loose ends and conclude the story rather than being a whole new chapter on the so-called Trilogy. And I think that's for the best, because...
2) High-level play in AD&D (and 3e D&D as well, I believe) is wonky. As your party starts ranking among the most powerful people in the realms, it gets increasingly harder to throw real challenges at you, to the point where it might get ridiculous. I think making that part of the campaign the shortest one is for the best. Keep it short and sweet. That's also why....
3) ...I don't mind it being linear. At this point, you've already had your fair share of exploring and spelunking. Mind you that it still gives you the opportunity to go screw around in Watcher's Keep. The stakes are too high, and the situation you have to deal with makes the Iron Crisis of the Sword Coast look like nothing in comparison. You know when you asked your DM why didn't Elminster take care of the Big Bad Evil Guy in your campaign and he justified it by saying he (and other high-level NPCs) had more urgent things to attend to? Guess what, now you know what keeps them busy. Because you're one of them.
With that said, I do have one criticism:
I think Amelyssan falls short of being a compelling villain. Maybe I've already explained why that is (little time to develop the story, Sarevok and Irenicus setting the bar too high), but for me, she doesn't cut it. The concept is awesome - a high priestess of Bhaal, pulling a Palpatine, creating a huge war and manipulating everyone, but the execution left a bit of a sour taste in my mouth. The fact that you can tell she's lying to your face after a couple of lines of dialogue doesn't help.
But I can live with that. I think there's more than enough good content to compensate for it.
I think the problem is quite similar to what we saw more recently with Mass Effect 3 (yes, I know this is similar to invoking Godwin's Law, at least in the gaming world, but bear with me) Here we had this incredible series, unlike anything that had come before it in terms of size, scope, characterization of npcs, and the freedom of choice for the player character. Then, inevitably, we come to the end, and the limitations of the setting, the designers, and just the concept start to show. With the crisis that's driven the story coming to a head, how realistic would it be to still have the protagonist running fetch quests or merrily gallivanting around exploring at random? The game therefor becomes linear. Things have to be forced to a conclusion, so there are now fewer choices to make. As a result, many players feel like what options they have no longer fit their character and get angry. This is not to say that ToB or ME3 are without flaw, just that they were going to suffer from these problems no matter what.
In short, any game series like this is going to suffer the same problem; it has to end, and with the shear size of the world that has been created, there's never going to be a way to wrap a nice little bow on it and say "there you go, thanks for playing."
So not being able to fetch scrolls for some old man or kill 10 spiders in somebody's basement instantly means that the game must be linear? Are you serious?
Now it was one mans war against armies of enemies. Where are your allies? Why don't you gather anybody to help you? Why don't you plot against and with the Five? Why don't you research your enemies? Why don't you research your origins/powers more? There are thousands of things they could have done to make the game non-linear.
You are a mindless zombie walking through the enemies whom somebody points out for you. That is the best thing they could come up with?
Like I said, it has its problems, what's-her-face prime among them. But my point stands, it would have been very rare for a game series like this to have an ending that pleased the majority of fans.
Comments
Because of that it had been dissapointment, it hadn't really felt like a Baldurs Gate, therefore it felt like a slapdash
I hope that Bg3 if it is made will start over with a brand new char instead of just continuing from a previous char. Theres not much more power left to reach from that char. Maybe revisit previous characters.
I, on the other hand, definitely hate it.
And then BG2 just puts that on hold. Which is appropriate, sort of, because the 1st part of any trilogy is the exposition, the 2nd part is usually the "filler", and the 3rd part provides closure. And I thought ToB excelled in that aspect - it accomplished what it set out to do, which was to provide closure for the story of the child of Bhaal.
I liked Sarevok's return in ToB. It reminded me of the "nature VS nurture" conflict buried beneath the main plot in BG, the philosophical question that nagged at your PC: are we products of our heritage or our environment? If Gorion had taken Sarevok instead, what would have been the outcome? These were conundrums that BG2 didn't even bother bringing up. What I really wanted (and expected of ToB) wasn't a game like BG1 (the exposition of a trilogy, where the main goal is to explore the world and become introduced to the central conflict), or BG2 (the "filler" part of a trilogy, where the goal is to enhance the world you've already been introduced to and flesh it out) - what I wanted was the end to the Bhaalspawn saga. And obviously that involves epic, battle-of-the-gods gameplay...FFS, you're the child of a god!
The issue with ToB was definitely the difficulty. True, you have godlike abilities, but shouldn't your enemies do too? Ascension pretty much made that a non-issue. I play ToB with Ascension installed (and pretend that it was how ToB was intended to be shipped).
Perhaps my enjoyment of ToB stems from the fact that I don't criticize BG1, BG2, and ToB on the basis of them being separate games, but rather judge them as a whole. And I have to say, the Baldur's Gate trilogy is pretty damn good.
1. High Level abilities seem tacked on, like they needed more levels, but didn't really know what to tack on, so they tried lifting feats or something from 3rd edition
2. For a game involving 5 rivals/antagonists, the linear approach seems kind of weird. I mean, you could easily pull a megaman approach. Go kill your 5 evil Bhaalspawn sibling in whatever order, get a new power, fight some big bad at the end.
3. The whole Bhaalspawn thing serves better as a backdrop, not a driving force. I mean, being a child of Bhaal is part of your character, but it was never much of a motivation. BG1 could have the same plot minus the whole Bhaal thing with just a few tweaks. (Don't get me wrong, the clues they drop all over the place was fantastic, but they can be tweaked out without affecting the Iron Throne/War with Amn plot). BG2 has you out for revenge on a Wizard who kidnapped you/Finding your Foster-Sister, and then trying to get your soul back. Again, a few tweaks and Bhaal can be taken out. TOB involves about what you would expect: your five asshole siblings causing a mess, and then a big bad once you take them out. It doesn't serve as a back drop, its the whole plot.
For me, the grind/repetitive feeling can be removed by increasing the difficulty.
ToB is harder than BG2...
This fear leads to hate...
Hate leads to the dark... I don't like it, side.
...
After a pause to steady the rage... I have considered your suggestion more fully.
I rather compare ToB to Return of the Jedi.
Both have 'This is a fully operational Death Star' moments and Ewoks in equal measure.
Both also followed the 'best' in the series. The Empire Strikes Back and Shadows of Amn respectively...
So. ToB is the Return of the Jedi of the BG series. We have come closer to a truth... What this truth is alludes me...
Hmm, yes. Quite.
*sips tea*
It's not even debatable really. The product was literally rushed. It's still good. Some of the dislike is probably the knowledge of how much better it could have been.
My complaint was the expansion was too short. But i LOVED it. Note: Would have love to have had the option of revisiting locations of Amn again.
So heres my highlites. It gave me Sarevok as a party member, went deeper into your character history. Uhm you get a really epic ending, plus character endings. Better monster and equipment.
I enjoy the ridiculous power level, cutting my way through a dozen fire giants, having a fight with multiple dragons, slaying hordes of demons. It's the ending of a saga about the child of a god. It's supposed to end like this.
My problem is Mellissan and the incredibly hamfisted, stupid attempt to force her into the plot and mke her the villain. She's about as clever as a wet sock and half as interesting. She had no place being the final villain. Basic writing classes should've told the designers this; don't introduce the final villain in the last chapter. It makes no sense.
Once I start hitting the HLA levels towards the end of SOA I start to feel not as satisfied. I rarely make it to Suldanessellar before I feel the urge to start anew with a new class / alignment. Of the perhaps hundreds of games I've played, I've defeated Irenicus maybe four or five times. I feel like I am confessing something at an alcoholics anonymous meeting haha.
I've played BG1 and BG2 SOA a whole lot of times over a whole lot of years. I've played through the end of TOB once. I just find it not as fun.
Why is it not as fun?
1) Linear. It's too linear. Go to location X before you can go to Location Y. Do not deviate. There may be endlessly respawning enemies along the way.
2) The big bad villian sucks. Melisan is not the quality of Sarevok or Irenicus.
3) Every guard, beggar and innkeeper is immune to +3 weapons and below and carrying a +5 sword of vorpal hitting.
4) High level micromanagement. By the time you are in TOB, you can have 7ty special abilities and three pages or more of memorized spells on the casting menu. I don't enjoy hunting through the little icons of the casting menus to locate the particular spell needed to get past invincible enemy X's defense because he/she is immune to everything except little used spell X.
5) HLAs. I like HLAs, though perhaps it would be better though if they only occur every 5 levels or so. As it is you can run out of useful ones after three levels. Oh boy you get to pick 17 more
So here's what I have to say in defense of ToB:
1) It's an expansion pack after all. One that had a rushed release. You can't really compare it to SoA or BG1 in terms of how developed the story was or sheer amount of content. It's meant to tie up the loose ends and conclude the story rather than being a whole new chapter on the so-called Trilogy. And I think that's for the best, because...
2) High-level play in AD&D (and 3e D&D as well, I believe) is wonky. As your party starts ranking among the most powerful people in the realms, it gets increasingly harder to throw real challenges at you, to the point where it might get ridiculous. I think making that part of the campaign the shortest one is for the best. Keep it short and sweet. That's also why....
3) ...I don't mind it being linear. At this point, you've already had your fair share of exploring and spelunking. Mind you that it still gives you the opportunity to go screw around in Watcher's Keep. The stakes are too high, and the situation you have to deal with makes the Iron Crisis of the Sword Coast look like nothing in comparison. You know when you asked your DM why didn't Elminster take care of the Big Bad Evil Guy in your campaign and he justified it by saying he (and other high-level NPCs) had more urgent things to attend to? Guess what, now you know what keeps them busy. Because you're one of them.
With that said, I do have one criticism:
But I can live with that. I think there's more than enough good content to compensate for it.
In short, any game series like this is going to suffer the same problem; it has to end, and with the shear size of the world that has been created, there's never going to be a way to wrap a nice little bow on it and say "there you go, thanks for playing."
Now it was one mans war against armies of enemies. Where are your allies? Why don't you gather anybody to help you? Why don't you plot against and with the Five? Why don't you research your enemies? Why don't you research your origins/powers more? There are thousands of things they could have done to make the game non-linear.
You are a mindless zombie walking through the enemies whom somebody points out for you. That is the best thing they could come up with?