I've come to feel that BG2 is very overrated as an RPG
SharGuidesMyHand
Member Posts: 2,584
BG2 is often rated as the best PC RPG of all time. Admittedly, I probably felt the same way about it the first time that I played it. However, I've liked the game less and less with each successive playthrough, for the reasons explained below.
The improvements of BG2 over BG1 are obvious and frankly irrefutable - it has more magic weapons and spells, more action, more NPC interactions, and (when comparing the original versions) better graphics and an updated engine. In short, it's better than BG1 in virtually every technical/visual/superficial way.
But I've always felt that, in making such obvious improvements over BG1, the makers of BG2 forsook some of the more fundamental aspects of BG1 that made it such a great game, despite its technical inferiority. Now, with the release of BG:EE, which has "evened out" a lot of the technical disparity between the two games, BG2's limitations have been made even more apparent to me.
My biggest complaint about BG2 is the freedom - or lack thereof, I should say. In BG1, once I had left Candlekeep (which I could theoretically do at any time), I had a great wide world in front of me, with the freedom to explore largely as I pleased. Random assortments of enemies could come jumping out of the fogs of war at any time, and although I've played the game numerous times, I still have trouble keeping track of exactly where certain things and characters are, and am still surprised when I come across them. In short, the game somehow remains fresh and original nearly every time that I play it.
By contrast, BG2 feels very linear, restrictive, and repetitive IMO. It feels more like a series of extended dungeon crawls linked together, rather than the "roaming" feel of BG1. For at least half of the game, my character is trapped somewhere and following an escape route - i.e: Irenicus' dungeon, Spellhold, the ocean city, the drow city, etc. Although I have the freedom to do the Chapt 2 quests in the order that I want, the individual quests themselves also come to feel routine and repetitive after a couple of playthroughs. For example, when I set out on Nalia's quest, I merely leave Athkatla and I arrive at the castle - no need to locate the place, or explore the areas in between, like in BG1. From there, I know that I'm going to find myself on a rooftop full of snake men, a courtyard full of rabid dogs, a room full of golems, another room full of umber hulks, and then in the final battle with the troll king. While I understand that, depending on your character class, quests like this may offer some interesting options for you at the end, I often feel as though I'm being forced to follow an extended, linear -dare I say, perhaps, a bit boring? - routine in order to get to that point. In a nutshell, after having played BG2 a few times, the majority of the game ceases to feel fresh or surprising to me.
Although BG2 has more weapons and spells than BG1, this is undermined by the fact that the game is constantly nerfing these items in order to make the game feel more challenging - so while a +2 weapon is a huge deal in BG1, even +3 weapons come to feel inadequate at certain points in BG2. In other words, the "less is more" approach of BG1 allows you to better appreciate certain aspects of the game IMO.
The slower pacing and "roaming" format of BG1 also allow you to better appreciate the visual aspects of the game IMO. I actually enjoy seeing the lush green landscapes and listening to chirping birds and ocean waves crashing against cliffs. I understand that BG2's more direct structure may provide more excitement during initial playthroughs, but I feel that BG1's approach gives the game better replay value. Even the city areas in BG2 come to feel routine and repetitive IMO, because they aren't interspersed with random houses like in BG1.
Finally, I absolutely, positively cannot stand BG2's bias toward magic. I've always felt that BG1 could be won by virtually any approach if it was just done well enough. By contrast, BG2 basically forces you to be an expert in casting and dispelling magic and make this the forefront of your approach. Consequently, a number of character classes, like single class thieves, are made to feel badly nerfed or relegated to a niche role - a very crippling blow to the RP aspect of the game IMO.
Well, that's my rant for now. Your thoughts?
The improvements of BG2 over BG1 are obvious and frankly irrefutable - it has more magic weapons and spells, more action, more NPC interactions, and (when comparing the original versions) better graphics and an updated engine. In short, it's better than BG1 in virtually every technical/visual/superficial way.
But I've always felt that, in making such obvious improvements over BG1, the makers of BG2 forsook some of the more fundamental aspects of BG1 that made it such a great game, despite its technical inferiority. Now, with the release of BG:EE, which has "evened out" a lot of the technical disparity between the two games, BG2's limitations have been made even more apparent to me.
My biggest complaint about BG2 is the freedom - or lack thereof, I should say. In BG1, once I had left Candlekeep (which I could theoretically do at any time), I had a great wide world in front of me, with the freedom to explore largely as I pleased. Random assortments of enemies could come jumping out of the fogs of war at any time, and although I've played the game numerous times, I still have trouble keeping track of exactly where certain things and characters are, and am still surprised when I come across them. In short, the game somehow remains fresh and original nearly every time that I play it.
By contrast, BG2 feels very linear, restrictive, and repetitive IMO. It feels more like a series of extended dungeon crawls linked together, rather than the "roaming" feel of BG1. For at least half of the game, my character is trapped somewhere and following an escape route - i.e: Irenicus' dungeon, Spellhold, the ocean city, the drow city, etc. Although I have the freedom to do the Chapt 2 quests in the order that I want, the individual quests themselves also come to feel routine and repetitive after a couple of playthroughs. For example, when I set out on Nalia's quest, I merely leave Athkatla and I arrive at the castle - no need to locate the place, or explore the areas in between, like in BG1. From there, I know that I'm going to find myself on a rooftop full of snake men, a courtyard full of rabid dogs, a room full of golems, another room full of umber hulks, and then in the final battle with the troll king. While I understand that, depending on your character class, quests like this may offer some interesting options for you at the end, I often feel as though I'm being forced to follow an extended, linear -dare I say, perhaps, a bit boring? - routine in order to get to that point. In a nutshell, after having played BG2 a few times, the majority of the game ceases to feel fresh or surprising to me.
Although BG2 has more weapons and spells than BG1, this is undermined by the fact that the game is constantly nerfing these items in order to make the game feel more challenging - so while a +2 weapon is a huge deal in BG1, even +3 weapons come to feel inadequate at certain points in BG2. In other words, the "less is more" approach of BG1 allows you to better appreciate certain aspects of the game IMO.
The slower pacing and "roaming" format of BG1 also allow you to better appreciate the visual aspects of the game IMO. I actually enjoy seeing the lush green landscapes and listening to chirping birds and ocean waves crashing against cliffs. I understand that BG2's more direct structure may provide more excitement during initial playthroughs, but I feel that BG1's approach gives the game better replay value. Even the city areas in BG2 come to feel routine and repetitive IMO, because they aren't interspersed with random houses like in BG1.
Finally, I absolutely, positively cannot stand BG2's bias toward magic. I've always felt that BG1 could be won by virtually any approach if it was just done well enough. By contrast, BG2 basically forces you to be an expert in casting and dispelling magic and make this the forefront of your approach. Consequently, a number of character classes, like single class thieves, are made to feel badly nerfed or relegated to a niche role - a very crippling blow to the RP aspect of the game IMO.
Well, that's my rant for now. Your thoughts?
27
Comments
I especially agree about high level magic. For me, it's that I just don't find it fun to have to memorize a huge chain of magical chess moves. Opponent will cast this, this, and this, you must counter with that, that, and that, in order, or you die - I can see the appeal of that kind of game to many, but it's not why I play an rpg.
I play for high fantasy action and adventure, and *roleplaying*. I like the exciting sense of just starting out, not knowing the world or my own potential, and growing to be moderately powerful - but not so powerful that I must fight gods and devils, which I would argue isn't really being powerful at all, since they can do everything you can do at that point, and worse. And they will, because they don't like your being as powerful as they are.
And, you have to learn the magic system to an expert level of understanding to succeed in BG2, in my opinion, regardless of what class you are playing as the player character. If your Charname isn't the magic expert in the party, an npc has to be, which means you the player still have to be. Even a plain fighter has to at least know when to switch to normal weapons and why, and when to quaff what potion or read what scroll and why.
I'm not saying any of that is necessarily bad to all people. But it doesn't appeal that much to *me*.
I'd say my comparative replay rates between BG and BG2 are at least five to one. I've only ever finished SoA twice, and I've only ever finished ToB once. I usually lose interest in any BG2 run I start long before the end, and I almost always lose interest as soon as eighth and ninth level magic come into play. I think eighth and ninth level arcane magic unbalance the game to the point of no fun. You either learn to build and deploy nuclear weapons yourself, or you get nuked.
On the other hand, when I start a BG1 run, which is much more often, I am much more likely to finish.
Once you head off to spellhold, you're basically stuck first on spellhold island, then in the spellhold prison, then in the ocean city, then in the drow city. That's a helluva long stretch of game where you're restricted to a certain area and forced to follow a path to an escape route. My first complete BG2 run was as a barbarian, and I was quite successful as well. But that's because barbarians (and berserkers) are specifically designed to counteract magic. But what if you simply don't want to play as a barbarian? What if you'd rather play as a class that isn't magic-oriented, like a thief or vanilla ranger? In the end, the game basically forces you to have a magic-oriented charname, or else, surround yourself with magic oriented NPCs and be content with a niche role for your charname. If I'm reading this right, you're saying that you have to wait until you are high level, with high saving throws in order to be effective against mages? That would contradict your earlier point that you can roam freely in BG2, since you are likely to encounter powerful magic users even at lower levels.
---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
I also forgot to mention one of the most talked-about complaints about BG2, which is its bias toward good-aligned players. Not only does the game suffer from a lack of evil NPCs (although EE has offset this somewhat with the additions of Dorn and Hexxat), but the game begins with a "canon" party that clearly only a good-aligned player would have ever used. Not only does this undermine the RP immersion for an evil-aligned player, but, as has been discussed numerous times before, completely demolishes the transition between the two games.
Then I read the post, and I agreed with most of it. So good on you original poster.
BG2 is a far too linear adventure. What still makes it more fun for me is the interactions and quests for your NPCs. This is why for me the original BG with the NPC project mod is the truly perfect roleplaying game.
Oh, and you were no doubt raised by woodchucks!
Myself, I happen to like BG2's linearity. I've always thought it tells a better story than just a free-roaming format (which is part of why I enjoy JRPGs so much). It's like reading a good book--you read from one page to the next until you finish.
But even a good book can become tiresome if you've read it a dozen times and you know all the twists and turns that it will take. Is that the book's fault? No. The fact that you read it over and over again proves how much you love it. You just have to take a step back and read something else for a while, and you might appreciate its world again.
Take Irenicus's dungeon. After the third or fourth time, this is an obnoxious part of the game. But the first two times you play it, there's this air of mystery behind the place. Who is this psychopath who managed to actually trap you? Who are these people in these tanks, and why were they put there? Who did these rooms belong to, these beautiful rooms that belong to such an evil man? So many questions, so much intrigue! I never felt trapped; I was uncovering a mystery, peeking into this maniac's mind and trying to make sense of his madness.
I read many posts on the forum about how veterans hated the dungeon when they'd played many years ago. But with their latest EE playthroughs, they thoroughly enjoyed it all over again.
And I will point out--there are places in BG1 that absolutely annoy/terrify me (see: Cloakwood), places that I dread to visit because I know exactly what I'll find there and how much of a pain it will be to journey through. Much like Nalia's Keep, or other dungeons in BG2, if you've played it enough times. You can procrastinate exploring these areas, sure--but in order to advance the story, you have to visit the Cloakwood at some point, or you'll never finish. I don't see how that's any more or less linear than BG2. BG1's just more subtle about the whole thing.
...
They are basically the same, but different at the same time... BG1 can be beaten with a Fighter very easily, while for BG2 you soemtimes need a Mage.
I like both alike, even if they both have terrible plot-holes and are clearly designed to play a Good aligned character. Still, I never played a game that could beat these (for the exception of Planescape Torment, but if you mention the word 'combat' you ruin the game, so...) so I could say that both BG games are the best CRPGs ever made.
What is weird... Is that no one compared BG1 to ToB... Probably because no one would ever defend ToB :P
I think you should change it to - BG2 better than BG1? No! Never!
... Or something similar, as I was about to release my nasty Gnome, who's sight had descended into a red haze of violence. No one wants to see an angry Gnome, do they?
My preference is this. I like both. I like playing with a level 1 character all the way to level 40.
I HAVE NEVER PLAYED BG2 WITH A CHARACTER WHO HAS NOT COMPLETED BG1.
Unless play testing.
I seriously cannot play either separately.
So... Yes and no to your argument...
I guess I'm just going through the motions. I need to install SCS.
As some of you know, I'm doing my Loser/HeroGuy run, and that's a lot of fun(it was better no reload, unfortunately, it doesn't take much to shut that down.)
I pretty mush agree with everything in the OP except the magic in bg2. I love the complex, spell+counterspell+countercounterspell+countercountercountercounterspell Chess game.
I think OP magic makes sense, especially with mages being underpowered early game. It takes a long time to get there, but once you do....
And besides, it's magic. It should
I once spent a whole day trying to get kangaxx in chapter 2(lvl 11ish), try, reload, try again, until I got it all to fall into place.
The canon party thing is dumb, I hate irenicus dungeon too, the portraits are bad, ect.
Bg1 had a Rough Around the Edges feel that's lost in bg2 as well. Bg2 is far more polished, streamlined, and mainstream. It's less hardcore. In bg1 you explored until you found what you needed, the game offered no help or guidance after candelkeep. You where on your own. somebody said you should go to nashkel, so you can go, or not. If you don't, they leave your group, but they can't force you to. You can just walk somewhere else. (To a point. Obviously the plot doesn't continue if you don't get there eventually.) Not so in bg2. You go out of the dungeon, and if you want to leave you can either go to the slums and meet the thieves, or stop playing the game. Somebody is there the whole game, telling you exactly what you need to do, and occasionally letting you out on sidequests.
So yea, bg1>bg2.
The real truth is . . . For well over a decade we have waited for something better to come along. For either game. Nothing. I think D&D rules were at the best with 2.5, though 3 are OK, too. And the beauty of the landscapes, depth of the game, replay value, etc. I am still waiting on something similar. My students love Skyrim. I played it. It was fun for awhile, but it wasn't BG.
The complaint about freedom is, for me at least, a non-issue because I hated wandering through huge forests just to find that one NPC you were looking for. The freedom aspect also felt limited because yeah you COULD wander off wherever you wanted but your chance of dying went up really quickly. In a sense it was also immersion breaking because while there was this big world out there there was very little reason to explore it, especially early on. It would feel too much like I was going, "My foster father was just murdered in front of me! Oh Helm I should head to the Friendly Arm Inn and meet - heyyyyy what's over here?" Arguably I could also be saying, "I need to get stronger to kill whoever killed my evidently powerful foster father" but I don't feel that same push.
I can sort of agree with the idea that the game can be repetitive, but if you break down the large spaces of BG1 it turns into the same. The pivotal fights/dungeons are all the same once you've done them so many times.
As to the less is more approach, I think that's just a natural side effect of getting stronger. They also have to keep upping the power of weapons to allow non-spellcasters to better keep up. It would also be sad to fight harder monsters and still be amazed with your +1 sword. Similarly, killing a heaps of kobolds at higher levels with a plain old sword would be very underwhelming. "I'm level 18, darnit, why am I still being called in to massacre these little threats!?"
I actually found the large areas hurt replay value simply because they suck up so much time. When it came to clearing the Nashkel Mines I've always been a bit "Ugh, another 3 levels of *bleep bleep bleepity bleepbleeping* kobolds when two stray arrows can kill my casters."
I'm on the fence about the magic issue though. Part of me hates devoting so much energy to counter spells because your mages turn into glorified wands of breach, but I also thinks it makes sense. How disappointing would it be to be an archmage and know that a guy with a sharp object and a little determination could rock your socks off? Magic is supposed to be incredible and powerful, and not so easy to just brush aside.
Do your Stronghold quest first also, that will have items specific to your character.
Rescue Imoen as quickly as possible. Only if you do the Jaheira romance do you need to hang around in chapter 2.
After rescuing Imoen do the rest of the quests.
A high level fighter can beat any spellcaster. Make sure you have proficiency in the weapon you are wielding.
One thing I did not before was use the special ability of items. Some give you immune to charm and hold. You can attack more than one opponent with the flail of ages, they will be slowed.
Don't send the protagonist into certain death. Build up one of your other characters as a lich fighter and another for a different type of monster.
Things recently reached a head when I completed my first full playthrough of BG1:EE and imported my party into BG2. From the start, I was filled with feelings of deja vu rather than nostalgia. I was already well familiar with the layouts of most of the areas and how the quests unfold and end, so every task just felt like a chore or a routine rather than an adventure. For example, the sewer quest where you get Lilarcar felt great the first time that I had ever played it, when I had no idea what was going on or how things would turn out, but without the novelty it now just feels like an extended chore.
The part that really led to my disillusionment with the whole game was the Planar Sphere. Not only am I once again trapped in some giant contraption and looking for an escape route (an all-too common theme in BG2), but the OPness of the magic using enemies and demons, who can insta-kill or cripple you, is annoying as well. It's not that I can't necessarily beat them - it's that it forces me to play in a manner that I don't want to. I know that the Planar Sphere also yields some great rewards, but I wasn't enjoying the playing that actually led to those rewards. It was at this point that I felt like I was just "going through the motions" simply because this was a sequel to a game that I love, and not because I'm genuinely enjoying the game itself. Now, I'm thinking about possibly doing another BG1:EE run, or maybe giving Planescape Torment another try, rather than continuing on with BG2.
BG2's predication on OP'd magic makes the battles seem either absurdly hard (when you're not proficient with magic) or ridiculously easy (once you become proficient in magic) - there just doesn't seem to be a middle ground anymore. It's basically, "be cheap or die cheaply."
In BG1, I also felt that I had the room to bring along a superfluous party member or two, either because I wanted to do their associated quest (i.e: Rasaad, Eldoth) or because I simply like the character (i.e: Safana or Alora, even if I already had a thief in the party). This was one of the RPing strengths of BG1 IMO. I feel that BG2 doesn't allow me room to do this, because the game is constantly pressuring me into being a power- or metagamer.
I don't want to beat a game simply for the sake of beating it. I want to actually enjoy the playing as it unfolds.
I can certainly see why you would get tired of playing the same scenarios over and over again, but that doesn't take away from the fact that BG2, the first time through, was freaking awesome. I don't think it's overrated.
I gotta admit, I'm the kind of gamer who likes to carefully design my character, plan my party composition, complete every optional quest possible, etc. so I have no idea what it might be like to just roll with it. But if you've tried this approach with BG2, how did it work out?
And heck, if you're fed up with the Planar Sphere, why not just abandon it? It's optional, right?
Look! A bear! Whoops, Minsc farted and chunked it... I agree SOME exploration would be fun, but realisticly, you've got not many things to worry about. The bigger issue is why are common opponents in Athkatla so much tougher than in the Gate? I know why, just saying.
This scale wonkiness is the reason imo tob feels so weird. You can swat Elminster like a bug, where do you find opponents?? Okay, epic level orcs! That Obould dude should have a talk with Yaga, he clearly is poaching all the orcish talent! One of those orcs could probably take Drizzt.
About the magic, BG2 made sure mages were the best way to fight mages by including all those annoying mid and high level defense spells. In IWD, this isnt an issue I remember, but mages were still great. I can see your point, but I think IWD2 balanced casters better than BG2, though a good caster party still cleaned house. The big difference seems to be the defensive magic; a well run wizard is nearly unbestable without a wizard. I think IWD used casters more offensively, while BG2 made them Easy Buttons.
A valid complaint about BG2 is that Athkatla seems more inorganic compared to BG itself. Not many houses, not many mini sidequests. Athkatla feels more like a JRPG city, or a modern RPG one. BG felt citylike, and alive seperate from you and your playthrough.
That said, loved refusing to pay the Cowled Wizards, and splattering their enforcers until they give up.
You could probably charge past them close a door behind you and carry on with the mission without killing them as well.
I use the save game editor to alter npcs. If you want a sorc with better weapon skill just edit him. You shouldn't have to play the same characters every game.
I remember I quite disliked a lot about BG2 when I first played it. The first thing that struck me were the visuals - I hated how characters looked in the inventory screen, shields were (and still are) really hideous and Athkatla seemed so dirty and ugly compared to Baldur's Gate or Beregost. Weren't the people from the north supposed to be the "uncultured brutes" and such in the eyes of people from Amn? Well, to me it looked like it was the opposite. Even the wilderness looked way worse. In general, some of the visual elements seemed to me like a huge step backwards.
The next thing I hated was the mentioned lack of freedom of exploration. Sure, you can go wherever you want in Athkatla, but to be able to venture outside, you needed someone to point it on your map!
I also weren't quite as amazed with the general atmosphere of BG2. In BG1 you're left alone, without knowing who you are, facing this huge world as a little, seemingly unimportant fragment. From the people you meet, you hear about the iron crisis, bandits on the roads, political tensions beetwen Baldur's Gate and Amn. All of that creates this living world you're only a small part of. You start out as a nobody and proceed to uncover your heritage, becoming a hero in the process. Kind of a cliche, but an enjoyable one. While the story of BG2 is fantastic as well, I just wasn't as riveted by it.
Also, I never really minded what people often brought up as a negative in BG1, namely that it has "boring" items compared to BG2. While it is true that items in BG2 are more interesting (and I seem to be in the minority of people who enjoy ToB, with all the over-the-top stuff it brings), I always thought about it differently. It's part of BG1's charm that you start humble, with just normal, plain equipment and in that situation, during the early game, even a +1 sword is a treasure that makes you smile. You learn to appreciate small things and the fact that you're not showered with great items all the time makes the times when you do get something like Varscona or Ashideena feel more significant and meaningful.
BG2 with a whole set of its own strengths, has since grown on me tremendously and I have always considered it only slightly behind BG1 (I just have A LOT of sentiment towards the first BG), but ultimately I get around the whole issue by saying that the BG SAGA is the best game ever ;+). Because all in all, it's one big, complete adventure that I always play from start to finish. It has different phases, with different elements on the forefront, but that only makes the journey all the more interesting. I love it all - the humble beginnings, great atmosphere and huge charm of BG1, the more condensed epicness and higher level goodness of BG2 and the ridiculousness of ToB. The adventure as a whole is so varied, interesting and of such high quality throughout, that almost no other game can even compare.
But deep down i considered them to be two sides of the same coin. Together they feel complete... BG1 gives me the freedom of exploration while BG2 gives me that deeper character developement.
This makes me think about my love for Ultima 7 series. I love Ultima 7 Black Gate for it murder mystery and exploration while in Ultima 7 Part 2: Serpent Isle i get the epic adventure to save the universe.
From reading the OPs post, to me its maybe just that BG1 has more replayabilty to some of us in alot of ways.
Bioware games are always extremely rigid and linear, but they're pretty clever in hiding it. It's only after you've got the game mechanics down that you begin to realize how limited they are. These games may seem to give the player a lot of choices, but those choices never effect the story much at all. It always unfolds in the exact same way. They're written against a hard script and designed so that almost any player of any skill level will be able to complete them, because Bioware wants everyone to experience the entire story. Sadly, they even got more linear over the years (eg: Dragon's Age).
That said, I do agree with all your complaints. I wish they had built a little more randomness into the game. Not just loot drops, but it would have been nice if minor story elements like assassination attempts happened at different points and different places with each playthrough. The fact that the same guy is *always* waiting for you outside the Friendly Arm Inn gets tedious for experienced players. (As a side note, I really hate that guy).
Magic is way too powerful in BG2, but from what I've read from PnP players on these forums, that's a problem with higher level DnD 2e rules. Characters don't scale well at higher levels. BG1 has the opposite problem: Fighters with ranged weapons are far too powerful for almost the entire game, to point where you can complete most of it without having an arcane caster in your party at all.
PS: Also agree with @Mivsan. Even on my first through playthroughs, I thought parts of BG2 were really, really ugly. Some of the environments are repulsive. I couldn't get through the Planar Sphere and that ocean city fast enough.
Whatever you wrote, is part of my argument too, on why do i prefer the originals over their respective EEs (aesthetically, artistically and gameplay wise). Because they are and they feel, technically, as two different games. With different styles, mechanisms and stuff. I liked the fact that they are the same game, yet they both are and feel so different.
But what i see, is just that. That 2 is simply different. Not restricted, limited, lacking in comparison, missing something that 1 had, etc... I see them as two different sides of the same coin; which is one complementing the other, and not setting them apart.
1) Yes, i liked exploration in 1. But that did not make me feel bad about 2. Instead, i tried to justify it by the strong scenario, the pressure and hurry that burdens you with (time is of the essence, dangerous events are in motion and time is running), and most importantly, to enjoy it as a fresh new experience, different to that of 1. Besides, with all these playthroughs and stuff, i did not even notice that i do not have fun exploring ever.
2) Magic. Well, in RPGs, magic is magic. Usually, it is the most important thing, upon which, even entire worlds are dependent for survival, and its disturbance, can even damage it or even destroy it for good. While it is annoying that you cannot spellcast freely, if you know where to go and whom to see, and you can pretty early in the game too, you get a license for that. From an RP, hardcore, and game difficulty perspective, it was also a nice idea, and something new... Also, this is a great chance to get a magic user main rolling. BG 2 was the first single RPG that "forced" me to try a mage character for the first time (i mostly go warrior on other games), and i enjoyed it pretty much, too! If you do not like the idea, then you can always carry a mage npc anyway!
3) Fog of war, if i remember correctly, and if it indeed did, was removed from 2. Mostly because it would be exploited hard. I liked it in 1. That is why i enjoy it again and again, each and every time i start a new game! In 2, its absence simply "forces" you to develop more efficient strategy... Or that is what i like to think.
4) Ambushing enemies. Yes, on it, i agree wholeheartedly. They could do a better job on this one. Especially inbetween travels between town hubs, ambushes are all the same, and even the loot they carry, is all the same. This one is agreeably and understandably pretty lame and boring.
5) The trapped feeling and the must escape urge. I daresay i liked it, and found it innovating. It gives out a creepy feeling, some abstract horror, a thrill, if you will. Sadly, i do not agree on this one... I like dark environments, being trapped, struggling to both escape and survive. I loved 2 for this priceless experience, throughout the game, i felt like playing in a cult, very bad, d-rate, horror movie with exquisite actors. And i liked it very much!
All in all, you can always enjoy them separately, for what they are as games. Do not play the "find the differences", because you will not enjoy them as much. Instead, play the " forget the differences and do in one of them whatever you cannot do in the other". You are going to enjoy things, much, much more!
While more "open" games give the players more freedom, I find more "closed" games much more interesting, as I think that the plot and action in them feels more personal and involving. That's just a personal thing.
If I was to name the most overrated cRPG, it will be Skyrim. Absolute freedom, absolute boredom, absolutely weak plot, absolutely forgetable NPCs, absolutely what majority of gamers wants.
*In comparison, you felt need to explote many side-areas from BG2, as you needed to earn money to continue with the plot.
On my current playthrough of Baldurs Gate (if I manage - I always try to bring a character through the whole trilogy) I often feel that I'd like to just get to the end of BG1 and be done with that part of the saga. For the most part, the content in the game feels like an absolute chore. This includes main- and side-quests.
Even though there are a lot of wilderness areas, they are, for the most part, devoid of interesing encounters or story-driven-content. Apart from the odd encounter with fortune-tellers, astrologists and the insane (including their minimal 10 second dialogues) every area boasts no-brainer fights against pack of wolves, hordes of xvarts (I can't stand their shrieking), hobgoblins, Gnolls (god are they overused), bandits etc. You can basically turn the Party AI on and watch how they get slaughtered by your melee and ranged fighters. Just throw in the odd healing potion here and there. Additionally, the areas can be a pain to navigate through (Pathfinding AI + random mountains and tree walls).
BG2 may take a more linear approach but the composition of both the main- and side-content boasts interesting dialogue, voice acting, cutscenes, puzzles, enemy variety and challenge. In BG2, I never feel like I am roaming through an emtpy world. In BG1 I often do.