It seems to me, though, that your feelings run more along the lines of, "this game doesn't stand up to multiple playthroughs" than "this game is overrated."
I would contend that those complaints overlap, though. For a game to not stand up under multiple playthroughs suggests that, while it may be impressive on the surface, there may be a certain depth or substance lacking once the novelty wears off. Also, I would contend that one of the more notable qualities of an RPG is that it can be made to feel fresh and original even after multiple playthroughs.
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.
Even during the later stages of my initial playthrough of BG2, I became frustrated at being stuck in yet another subterranean dungeon crawl (the drow area, in this case), and also the fact that every battle seemed to follow the same routine of overwhelming my enemies quickly with OP'd magic before they did the same to me, in contrast to the more varied approach of BG1.
And heck, if you're fed up with the Planar Sphere, why not just abandon it? It's optional, right?
Well, for starters, it can't be abandoned once you've already entered.
Besides, if the planar sphere was my only issue with the game, I wouldn't be complaining - I would just stick it out to the end and then move on to the areas that I like better. I've focused on the sphere because I felt that it best depicted the issues that I have with most of the significant quests in the game, plus it happened to be the quest that I was currently playing when I started this thread.
One of the things that struck me when I first played bg2 were all of the places I couldn't walk. In bg1 you pretty much bp get what you see, a big flat area and you can walk all over it. In bg2 there's a lot more cliffs and streams and buildings that make the area seem far smaller. I'd didn't care for that.
Has anyone noticed the GOG version is different to the DVD version? Some of the monsters are different or more powerful. Also mages a more liberal with their high level spells. You can still buy the boxed version. I suggest you do that.
One of the things that struck me when I first played bg2 were all of the places I couldn't walk. In bg1 you pretty much bp get what you see, a big flat area and you can walk all over it. In bg2 there's a lot more cliffs and streams and buildings that make the area seem far smaller. I'd didn't care for that.
Not only that, but a surprising amount of stores only sell "trinkets, foodstuffs, and items of no real value."
It's a wonder that places like those are able to stay in business.
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.
Well, that's my rant for now. Your thoughts?
I am just going to focus on this meta gaming example and how you countered your point in BG2 being overrated.
Baldur's Gate 2 has some of the most memorable battles in an RPG. The majority of the quests are fleshed out with both the right amount of tactical assessment and story that they stick with you. There isn't one or two dungeon crawls with a couple of baddies and a minor boss, there is history: the story of the De'Armise cellars, golems guarding the treasure room, loyal servants, feuding nobles, a powerful flail kept apart for a reason. Just because you ignore this on your umpteenth playthrough doesn't diminish the fact that is fleshed out.
But with that history comes challenging battles that require you think tactically and fight tooth and nail against a Giant Troll while a Yuan ti casts confusion on you. Just as you get the troll to near death (and you are near death as well) it splits into two smaller trolls for you to deal with. And that is a minor boss battle in an side quest that doesn't need to be completed to finish the game.
Baldur's Gate has less of those and is why battles feel fresh when you reach them. You've done them before but you can breeze right by them. They are merely a small obstacle that gets in your way briefly before you get your next cut scene of where you need to go next.
But that isn't even mentioning the different NPC banter with you and each other and during certain parts of the games that keep the BG2 story fresh. It also doesn't include many of the little secret corners of the game that people, who've played the game countless times, still find and go "wow, never saw that before!"
It is the story that makes the RPG and SoA did it right and was (or should of been) the model of how RPGs should be made in the future.
I do get your complaints that BG2 is more magical focused and linear. And this is coming from a guy who refused to memorize Breach because Cloudkill, Hold Monster and Animate Dead were cooler to use. And the game becoming linear after chapter 2 was one of the biggest complaints when the game was released so most people are on the same page with you there. However, I find Baldur's Gate linear once I hit Cloakwood (or even once I hit Larswood) and only opens up a bit in Baldur's Gate only to go linear again returning to Candlekeep and back to Baldur's Gate.
But I do not think it is overrated because I know the battles off by heart and know how to kill the Shadow Dragon instead of using the rune stone. Those are the reason why it is one of the best RPGs.
- I really dislike high level items. I love simple weapons such as Varscona or Ashideena - just a decent enchantment with some flavor damage or property. Once I start getting things like Celestial Fury, Flail of the Ages and vorpal items I pretty much lose interest. I usually just try to avoid using them but banning half of the items isn't much fun either.
- The lack of freedom mentioned in the OP is especially apparent when it comes to the Imoen plot. If you really care about her you would *never* do any Chapter 2 side quests. You get the gold and go rescue her ASAP, which puts you in a no-return road to the final battle. Sure, you could go leisurely kill some dragons and explore Athkatla once you get out of the Underdark but then you would be ignoring the Suldanessellar siege, hoping it will extend as long as you need. BG1 feels a lot less forced in this, none of the chapter transitions feel time-restricted except the last one (you should really go straight from Candlekeep to Sarevok's party).
Has anyone noticed the GOG version is different to the DVD version? Some of the monsters are different or more powerful. Also mages a more liberal with their high level spells. You can still buy the boxed version. I suggest you do that.
Really? Could you point out some specifics? I have bg2 original on discs for windows '98 so of you can point out something's you think don't match up then I can confirm them there, @fanscale
There's an old saying that "familiarity breeds contempt", and I reckon that's what's happening here. If a game is awesome when you're new to it, then of course you'll want to do it again, and again, but eventually you get to a point where you know it so well that it can no longer surprise you, and then it no longer feels so awesome. That can be true of pretty much any game, but you probably experience it only in the very best games because they're the ones you play a lot. When it happens, it's time to go play something else for a few years.
BG1 and BG2 do certainly have somewhat different emphases, which naturally appeal to slightly different tastes. Exploration and character development are essential elements in pretty much every cRPG, but BG1 focuses more on wide-world exploration within a more relaxed story, while BG2 focuses more on character development within a more tightly-driven story. Both are "role-playing adventures", but I'd say BG1 is more "adventure" and BG2 is more "role-playing". (Another way of expressing it might be to say that BG1 is role-playing for power-gamers, while BG2 is power-gaming for role-players ... now I'll wait for someone to argue that it's the other way around! Lol!)
For me, BG2:SoA has always been "the real BG" because I like the deeper characterisation and development, but I can entirely understand that other people have different tastes and may prefer BG1 (or perhaps even BG2:ToB, although that seems rarer).
The main things I like about BG2 are: the dark, sinister, exotic ambiance of Athkatla, a good variety of well developed and creative quests/areas that have a very unique sense of place, dialogues with NPCs (I'm not a fan of the romances, though), a wonderful villain in Irenicus, dragons (!), and the high level spells are fun in themselves. The biggest criticisms I have are, as others have noted, 1) high level magic requires a lot of chess-like countermoves (as @BelgarathMTH observed) which can become a bit tedious for me, 2) as @Xanthul points out, if you're going to roleplay rescuing Imoen you must forgo most of those wonderful sidequests in chapter 2, and 3) you're practically tripping over high level items because they're raining from the sky in SoA/ToB. I'm not that fond of epic level play. Like @BelgarathMTH I prefer the balance of levels 1-10.
Another problem that as @SharGuidesMyHand noted is that the game begins by kind of assuming a specific good aligned party (although IIRC, isn't there a "who the hell are you? I don't know you" dialog option for all but Imoen?). And myself, I don't really want Imoen dualed to mage. Although that is fairly easily solved with EE Keeper. (I sometimes even like to make her a pure class Bard, actually, but that's just a quirk of my own.)
I've gravitated over the years toward a roleplay-intensive (and minimal-meta-gaming) style of play, in which I journal the story in order to develop (in imagination) a set of dynamic and at times unpredictable relationships within the party, in which each NPC has their own personal motivations, concerns, etc., and behaves independently; and I let chance determine a fair number of outcomes (flipping a deck of cards for yes vs. no, or creatively rolling a die for more complicated questions). The mechanical game thereby serves as the platform for an imaginative meta-dimension of creative story development that is going in my head via the journaling (the mechanical game and journaled story are intimately connected, of course, with each reflecting the other). I think I can do this with BG2, but the linearity of the story and smaller pool of NPCs will present a challenge. The approach has surpassed my expectations for BG1. Not sure how well it figures to play out for BG2, though. I can't imagine doing much BG2 sidequesting for the types of characters I typically play, for one thing. And since I won't be collecting a lot of the most powerful high level items from sidequests, the game is going to be a bit more difficult tactically. I play minimal reload, so there's no way I would even attempt such a game with SCS installed.
To be fair, in both games chapters have to be completed in order to advance. This is true in BG1 and BG2, both. But rescuing Imoen in BG2 is such a huge motivation that shapes the type of game that I now play. And so much of BG2's story is built upon that foundation. I mean, I prefer playing good-aligned characters who have a powerful sibling bond with Imoen to begin with. But I could see how this could pose a real problem for players that don't.
I agree with almost all the OP's points, but I think the conclusion is overstated. I think the whole saga is, broadly, terrific. And I think as an immersive, compelling experience, BG2 is the greatest game ever. However, at this point, I enjoy BG1 more, for exactly the reasons first mentioned. The two biggest things to me being the more wide open exploration and lower level play. I would add a few other things, like saying I just generally prefer lower level play. By the time you get to ToB and are getting HLAs, I think the power level is just ridiculous. The fact that the story is too linear, and you can never really tell Mellisan what you think of her, is just an added irritation. From a game design perspective I'm okay with the idea of having god-like power at the end of the saga; but as a gamer it doesn't really interest me much. I don't really mind that a balanced party is most useful, or that different character types shine at different power levels, I think that's all reasonable and fun. But I'm not really into mages very much, and I dislike that they are so critical to so much of the later part of the saga, and that it requires so much of the magic/anti-magic dance.
All is just to say, I've played the whole saga many times and enjoy it all a lot. I see BG2 as the pinnacle of design, truly a gaming masterpiece. But I ALWAYS restart at the very beginning (BG1), in part because I love that very beginning so much, it's one part of the game that just never gets old to me.
Really? Could you point out some specifics? I have bg2 original on discs for windows '98 so of you can point out something's you think don't match up then I can confirm them there, @fanscale
1stly there is no bone golem in the tanner (skinner quest). In the Temple ruins there is no lich. In the Cult quest Temple district when you go into the undead village there use to be a lich. Instead there are some greater mummys. I'm 90% sure that monsters will target your spellcasters more.
I don't know about these examples exactly but BG2 scales enemies based on your level, so the differences could be due to that. For example I've only had the lich spawn on the Temple Ruins when I've run solo - with a party I'm not high enough level and some random mummies and skeleton warriors spawn instead.
Really? Could you point out some specifics? I have bg2 original on discs for windows '98 so of you can point out something's you think don't match up then I can confirm them there, @fanscale
1stly there is no bone golem in the tanner (skinner quest). In the Temple ruins there is no lich. In the Cult quest Temple district when you go into the undead village there use to be a lich. Instead there are some greater mummys. I'm 90% sure that monsters will target your spellcasters more.
It definitely matters what level you are when you hit these areas. Everything will scale up if say you go through Watcher's Keep then complete the SoA quests. Of course then, Watcher's Keep will be easier...
I was about to scream "HERESY! BURN HIM!!!"... and then I read your actual thread, and I can see where you are coming from, though your title is a bit sensationalist :P
I think BG 2 and BG 1 are actually fairly different games that appeal to different kinds of gamers.
BG 1 gives you much more freedom to roam and wander and discover your purpose, which some people love, but others feel lacks focus. BG 2 is much more of a dungeon grind as you are thrown from one crisis to the next, which can feel restrictive for some, but much more fast-paced and purposeful for others.
Personally I don't like how many powerful items you come across in BG2, particularly ToB, and how the game does not really give a roleplayer any good justification to take their time with side quests (my dearest friend/sister is missing! And my soul is missing!), but BG 2 is a superior game because it is when the NPCs truly come alive.
Yes once you know all the NPCs and their personalities, they feel alive to you when you play BG 1 too, but for a new player to the franchise, BG 1 NPCs are painfully silent, so much so that I kinda formed my own mind's eye view of them by the time I got to BG 2 and had to "readjust" to the personality they suddenly had.
You know, I agree, OP. Don't get me wrong - I love both games absolutely to death - but if I had to pick the "favored child" between BG1 and BG2 I would definitely pick BG1, hands down. I appreciate open worlds to a far, far greater degree than linear ones, and while BG2 is not all that linear by modern standards it was a step down from BG1 for sure.
The art style is also a sticking point for me. I preferred the art in BG immensely over BG2 - from the UI itself to the maps, architecture, armor, you name it. I think a lot of that is due to the untimely, still painful death of Daniel Walker, who was lead artist on BG1. He's memorialized in the manual for BG2. I have a feeling a lot of his influence probably shaped the style of BG1 and made it a lot more coherent and realist in its approach to things, something which seems sadly lacking in the sequels.
untimely, still painful death of Daniel Walker, who was lead artist on BG1. He's memorialized in the manual for BG2. I have a feeling a lot of his influence probably shaped the style of BG1 and made it a lot more coherent and realist in its approach to things, something which seems sadly lacking in the sequels.
Here here. His loss was definitely felt. That's for sure.
Still, I have to agree with some of the OP sentiments, I do feel BG1 at least gave you the illusion of more freedom, even if it just an illusion, it's a fairly good one. I think BG2 was a bit more developed in that they had a sense of where you were going to go and how you were going to get there and put in a fair bit off effort to gently steer you in that direction without going LOOK AN ENORMOUS ARROW POINTING AT WHAT YOU NEED. *Cough*Oblivion*Cough*
I also agree that it feels more... DnD like when you start at the lower levels and don't kinda go about level 10ish. I have never had a DnD character get above that, I've always been maliciously and violently slaughtered by the DM who was very much a female G.R.R.M.
But anyway, the art style of the original BG was also much more my style. I do like that the EE's have brought the armour and weapon design somewhat into a line between the two so there isn't a dramatic difference between them.
I do like Athkatla for it's exotic and less kind of "Out of the box European" you might say, design and feel. As well as the visit to the Underdark and the Sahuagin city, those were nice added extras to break up the monotony of endless cityscapes and empty fields you tended to get a bit sick of in BG.
I also agree with @Heindrich that it seems to rain insanely powerful, expensive, incredibly rare enchanted items at every possible chance, I think that could benefit from a LEEEETLE bit of a tone down.
Never the less, they are both AMAZING games and remain my all time favorites, probably will for a LONG LONG time. No other game has kept me coming back atleast once a year for the last 15. I think that is an amazing achievement. It's far from perfect, but then what isn't?
Anyway, not really anything left to say that hasn't already been said but I just thought I'd share my two cents, as always! I'll show myself out, again.
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.
I think you're overstating this one. BG1 has a number of large areas that don't really have that much in them. All you end up doing is walking around lifting the fog of war. While BG2 is more linear in it's approach, the areas in that game are much more meaningful.
In a nutshell, after having played BG2 a few times, the majority of the game ceases to feel fresh or surprising to me.
Don't confuse familiarity of the game with the actual writing of it. Just because you're somewhat jaded having obviously played it a few times, that doesn't mean it's still not one of the best RPGs out there.
By contrast, BG2 basically forces you to be an expert in casting and dispelling magic and make this the forefront of your approach.
That's complete nonsense. The game does not restrict you to a certain type of character, since it based on a party system, just like BG1. There's only more emphasis on magic because, again, you're dealing with much higher level enemies and the few low level spells you had in BG1 just aren't all that effective anymore.
Is BG2 overrated? No. Definitely not. Is it better than BG1? Yes. In my opinion.
I think that BG2 has more personality than BG1. Although I do like the greater abundance of wilderness areas in BG1. In BG2, the closest you get to a wilderness area is either the Abandoned Amphitheater or the Druid Grove.
But the main reason that I like BG2 better is the much, much larger number of enchanted weapons and armor, the higher-level spells, and the (in my opinion) better encounters.
Don't get me wrong, BG1 is incredible. It just doesn't have the feel of BG2.
I love them both. They both have their place, they fit together beautifully, they carry on each others story beautifully. As I've already said, BG2 shows a lot of refinement that BG1 was lacking a little. But both extraordinary titles!
One concession I'll give to BG2 is character design, especially the villains. Sarevok is a bit hammy as an antagonist - it's not to say he has no complexity or depth (though it would have been nice to show it outside his journal and your dialogues with Tamoko) but he only really gets developed in 2. And Irenicus is like, the best villain of all time. I don't think I've ever gotten as angry with a video game antagonist than I did at Irenicus. Amelyssan, as well, I have a big soft spot for - call me a rube but I was genuinely caught off guard by her plot the first time through.
- The lack of freedom mentioned in the OP is especially apparent when it comes to the Imoen plot. If you really care about her you would *never* do any Chapter 2 side quests. You get the gold and go rescue her ASAP, which puts you in a no-return road to the final battle. Sure, you could go leisurely kill some dragons and explore Athkatla once you get out of the Underdark but then you would be ignoring the Suldanessellar siege, hoping it will extend as long as you need. BG1 feels a lot less forced in this, none of the chapter transitions feel time-restricted except the last one (you should really go straight from Candlekeep to Sarevok's party).
You know I always wrestled with this and had to just pretend I didn't have enough gold yet or that my character had some kind of mental or emotional issue that made him feel like he wasn't ready yet to face Irenicus and Spellhold yet... However, i remember reading on some forum years and years ago that the original design was intended so that you DID rush off to get Imoen and thus you only experienced a small number of quests, so that would increase re playability. And also end of game (non modded) Irenicus wouldn't be so easy because you would have less XP. Most of us BG vets are completionists -- we want to experience everything every time. But if you think of chapter 2 as a dash to get Imoen, you will miss out on a lot in a good way -- you have to make impossible choices about what to do and where to go and what quests to abandon. Imagine playing the game for the 4th time and that being the first time you ever finally listened to that Lord Jierden dude and actually did his quest (you not ever playing a Paladin) or never getting to Umar Hills much in chapter 2 the first play through -- and when certain loved one needs resurrection you end up in a haunted temple filled with baddies you hadn't previously cleared out. Out of my way shadows, i have a heart to take care of... Of course I always complete chapter 2 ahead of time, but imagine how different the game would play if you always headed out as soon as possible.
There's an old saying that "familiarity breeds contempt", and I reckon that's what's happening here. If a game is awesome when you're new to it, then of course you'll want to do it again, and again, but eventually you get to a point where you know it so well that it can no longer surprise you, and then it no longer feels so awesome. That can be true of pretty much any game, but you probably experience it only in the very best games because they're the ones you play a lot. When it happens, it's time to go play something else for a few years.
I don't think that it's quite as simple as that. I've played BG1 many more times than BG2 throughout the years, and yet I'm still eager to embark on yet another BG1 run.
For me, I felt a substantial loss of excitement for BG2 even as early as my 2nd playthrough. I believe that this is largely because the game relies a lot on shock value and novelty, but there is a certain lack of depth beneath the surface of that. For example, the first time that I ever entered the circus tent in Waukeen's Promenade and found myself in some other dimension, I said to myself, "Holy crap, where am I??" But in subsequent playthroughs, once I already knew what I would see when I entered the tent, it came to feel like just another lineal routine - release Aerie, a couple levels of annoying shades and werewolf illusions, and then kill the gnome.
The typical format of many of BG1's quests is that you hear stories about someone like Bassilus or Brage, and then at some point in your wanderings, you happen to come across them in some anonymous area. In between, you've presumably fought a number of battles against an assortment of randomly appearing enemies - i.e: bandits, spiders, skeletons, maybe vampiric wolves (yes, they do randomly appear even outside the Beregost temple). By contrast, BG2 would have immediately directed you to some dungeon as soon as you were told about those characters, and then you would have to enter the same repetitive, multi-level crawl, against the same sets of enemies, before finally getting to them at the end.
I understand that BG1 does have some lineal areas of its own - i.e: Firewine, Durlag's - and not coincidentally, these are typically my least favorite areas of BG1. I also understand that at least some lineality is required in order to advance a narrative. However, in BG1, lineality is usually the exception, whereas in BG2, it's the rule.
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.
I think you're overstating this one. BG1 has a number of large areas that don't really have that much in them. All you end up doing is walking around lifting the fog of war. While BG2 is more linear in it's approach, the areas in that game are much more meaningful.
The areas of BG2 may have more meaning and maybe even more enemies, but it's still typically the same sets of enemies every single time - which means that you're still following the exact same path and re-fighting the same battles over and over again every time that you play.
In a nutshell, after having played BG2 a few times, the majority of the game ceases to feel fresh or surprising to me.
Don't confuse familiarity of the game with the actual writing of it. Just because you're somewhat jaded having obviously played it a few times, that doesn't mean it's still not one of the best RPGs out there.
I've played BG1 many more times and still am not jaded - in fact, I've just abandoned my first ever BG2:EE run to revisit BG1:EE.
The fact that BG2 can come to feel so "jading" after only a few playthroughs is a arguably a reflection on its repetitiveness and lineality. More than any other type of PC game, an RPG arguably should offer more ways to feel fresh and original over multiple playthroughs.
so while a +2 weapon is a huge deal in BG1, even +3 weapons come to feel inadequate at certain points in BG2.
And what is your point exactly?
That although BG2 has more content, it's often less appreciable than BG1's. As soon as you exit Irenicus' dungeon, normal and even +1 weapons are already made to feel useless (the vampires that you meet in Athkatla can't be hit by them, for example), and it isn't very far into the game that +2 weapons come to feel that way as well, even though there are a lot of interesting ones in the game (i.e: The Sleeper).
Even the city areas in BG2 come to feel routine and repetitive IMO, because they aren't interspersed with random houses like in BG1.
I'm not sure where you're getting this from as there are no random houses in BG1. Every area in the game is firmly fixed within the game world.
By "random," I mean that they aren't central to the plot and/or serve a specific purpose, like a shop or a temple - they are just average, anonymous citizens' homes. This makes the game much less restrictive and lineal and arguably more immersive.
By contrast, BG2 basically forces you to be an expert in casting and dispelling magic and make this the forefront of your approach.
That's complete nonsense. The game does not restrict you to a certain type of character, since it based on a party system, just like BG1.
As I said, "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."
In other words, you can play as a single class thief - but you'll basically be sitting out many of the major battles while your party of magic-oriented NPCs takes care of business for you.
There's only more emphasis on magic because, again, you're dealing with much higher level enemies and the few low level spells you had in BG1 just aren't all that effective anymore.
And also because the original devs did a lot to nerf physical weapons, and arguably not enough to offset enemy magic other than by counter-magical means.
@SharGuidesMyHand , when you said " By contrast, BG2 would have immediately directed you to some dungeon as soon as you were told about those characters, and then you would have to enter the same repetitive, multi-level crawl, against the same sets of enemies, before finally getting to them at the end."
I thought " But hey, isn't that an essential part of a dungeons and dragons game"?
Honestly, these stronghold quests are so complete and special, that they could be easily sold as D&D adventure books. IMO, along with character development and NPC interaction, with these quests they nailed it right on money.
I just created a little idea thread in the modding section based on this topic. If someone is a skilled modder, I would gladly play through such a version:
Maybe they made the games stylistically different on purpose - If both games were completely similar it would take away from the series. If you like RPG's, BG, SoA and ToB have something to offer you. Some people hate BG1 and only play BG2, and some people are the opposite. It's quite beautiful.
My warmest most nostalgic filled gaming moments have been produced from playing Baldur's Gate. I love all the games
As a archetypal fantasy story, the progression from BG1>SoA>ToB makes perfect sense. The first part of any hero quest is the origin story. Being put in a dire situation you aren't even close to prepared for and holding on by the skin of your teeth. Eventually you find yourself at the center of (relatively) minor event compared to the overall arc, but you begin to discover what you are capable of and develop your powers.
The second act (always the best for the most part) is where things really start to take off, the story grows more complex, and someone who didn't know if they would make it to the first inn on the road earlier is now revealed to be the focal point of the world (think of how simple "A New Hope" is as a story compared to "Empire Strikes Back").
The third act always pushes things over the top, which can be good or bad. The major conflicts and reveals came in the previous chapter, so (almost inevitably) things get taken to the extreme (again to use Star Wars as an example "Return of the Jedi" is in no way comparable to the humble first movie of the transcendent second, but as pure action and visual spectacle it leaves the previous entries in the dust).
Comments
Even during the later stages of my initial playthrough of BG2, I became frustrated at being stuck in yet another subterranean dungeon crawl (the drow area, in this case), and also the fact that every battle seemed to follow the same routine of overwhelming my enemies quickly with OP'd magic before they did the same to me, in contrast to the more varied approach of BG1.
Not well - that's why I started this thread. ;-)
Well, for starters, it can't be abandoned once you've already entered.
Besides, if the planar sphere was my only issue with the game, I wouldn't be complaining - I would just stick it out to the end and then move on to the areas that I like better. I've focused on the sphere because I felt that it best depicted the issues that I have with most of the significant quests in the game, plus it happened to be the quest that I was currently playing when I started this thread.
You can still buy the boxed version. I suggest you do that.
It's a wonder that places like those are able to stay in business.
Baldur's Gate 2 has some of the most memorable battles in an RPG. The majority of the quests are fleshed out with both the right amount of tactical assessment and story that they stick with you. There isn't one or two dungeon crawls with a couple of baddies and a minor boss, there is history: the story of the De'Armise cellars, golems guarding the treasure room, loyal servants, feuding nobles, a powerful flail kept apart for a reason. Just because you ignore this on your umpteenth playthrough doesn't diminish the fact that is fleshed out.
But with that history comes challenging battles that require you think tactically and fight tooth and nail against a Giant Troll while a Yuan ti casts confusion on you. Just as you get the troll to near death (and you are near death as well) it splits into two smaller trolls for you to deal with. And that is a minor boss battle in an side quest that doesn't need to be completed to finish the game.
Baldur's Gate has less of those and is why battles feel fresh when you reach them. You've done them before but you can breeze right by them. They are merely a small obstacle that gets in your way briefly before you get your next cut scene of where you need to go next.
But that isn't even mentioning the different NPC banter with you and each other and during certain parts of the games that keep the BG2 story fresh. It also doesn't include many of the little secret corners of the game that people, who've played the game countless times, still find and go "wow, never saw that before!"
It is the story that makes the RPG and SoA did it right and was (or should of been) the model of how RPGs should be made in the future.
I do get your complaints that BG2 is more magical focused and linear. And this is coming from a guy who refused to memorize Breach because Cloudkill, Hold Monster and Animate Dead were cooler to use. And the game becoming linear after chapter 2 was one of the biggest complaints when the game was released so most people are on the same page with you there. However, I find Baldur's Gate linear once I hit Cloakwood (or even once I hit Larswood) and only opens up a bit in Baldur's Gate only to go linear again returning to Candlekeep and back to Baldur's Gate.
But I do not think it is overrated because I know the battles off by heart and know how to kill the Shadow Dragon instead of using the rune stone. Those are the reason why it is one of the best RPGs.
- I really dislike high level items. I love simple weapons such as Varscona or Ashideena - just a decent enchantment with some flavor damage or property. Once I start getting things like Celestial Fury, Flail of the Ages and vorpal items I pretty much lose interest. I usually just try to avoid using them but banning half of the items isn't much fun either.
- The lack of freedom mentioned in the OP is especially apparent when it comes to the Imoen plot. If you really care about her you would *never* do any Chapter 2 side quests. You get the gold and go rescue her ASAP, which puts you in a no-return road to the final battle. Sure, you could go leisurely kill some dragons and explore Athkatla once you get out of the Underdark but then you would be ignoring the Suldanessellar siege, hoping it will extend as long as you need. BG1 feels a lot less forced in this, none of the chapter transitions feel time-restricted except the last one (you should really go straight from Candlekeep to Sarevok's party).
BG1 and BG2 do certainly have somewhat different emphases, which naturally appeal to slightly different tastes. Exploration and character development are essential elements in pretty much every cRPG, but BG1 focuses more on wide-world exploration within a more relaxed story, while BG2 focuses more on character development within a more tightly-driven story. Both are "role-playing adventures", but I'd say BG1 is more "adventure" and BG2 is more "role-playing". (Another way of expressing it might be to say that BG1 is role-playing for power-gamers, while BG2 is power-gaming for role-players ... now I'll wait for someone to argue that it's the other way around! Lol!)
For me, BG2:SoA has always been "the real BG" because I like the deeper characterisation and development, but I can entirely understand that other people have different tastes and may prefer BG1 (or perhaps even BG2:ToB, although that seems rarer).
Another problem that as @SharGuidesMyHand noted is that the game begins by kind of assuming a specific good aligned party (although IIRC, isn't there a "who the hell are you? I don't know you" dialog option for all but Imoen?). And myself, I don't really want Imoen dualed to mage. Although that is fairly easily solved with EE Keeper. (I sometimes even like to make her a pure class Bard, actually, but that's just a quirk of my own.)
I've gravitated over the years toward a roleplay-intensive (and minimal-meta-gaming) style of play, in which I journal the story in order to develop (in imagination) a set of dynamic and at times unpredictable relationships within the party, in which each NPC has their own personal motivations, concerns, etc., and behaves independently; and I let chance determine a fair number of outcomes (flipping a deck of cards for yes vs. no, or creatively rolling a die for more complicated questions). The mechanical game thereby serves as the platform for an imaginative meta-dimension of creative story development that is going in my head via the journaling (the mechanical game and journaled story are intimately connected, of course, with each reflecting the other). I think I can do this with BG2, but the linearity of the story and smaller pool of NPCs will present a challenge. The approach has surpassed my expectations for BG1. Not sure how well it figures to play out for BG2, though. I can't imagine doing much BG2 sidequesting for the types of characters I typically play, for one thing. And since I won't be collecting a lot of the most powerful high level items from sidequests, the game is going to be a bit more difficult tactically. I play minimal reload, so there's no way I would even attempt such a game with SCS installed.
To be fair, in both games chapters have to be completed in order to advance. This is true in BG1 and BG2, both. But rescuing Imoen in BG2 is such a huge motivation that shapes the type of game that I now play. And so much of BG2's story is built upon that foundation. I mean, I prefer playing good-aligned characters who have a powerful sibling bond with Imoen to begin with. But I could see how this could pose a real problem for players that don't.
I would add a few other things, like saying I just generally prefer lower level play. By the time you get to ToB and are getting HLAs, I think the power level is just ridiculous. The fact that the story is too linear, and you can never really tell Mellisan what you think of her, is just an added irritation. From a game design perspective I'm okay with the idea of having god-like power at the end of the saga; but as a gamer it doesn't really interest me much.
I don't really mind that a balanced party is most useful, or that different character types shine at different power levels, I think that's all reasonable and fun. But I'm not really into mages very much, and I dislike that they are so critical to so much of the later part of the saga, and that it requires so much of the magic/anti-magic dance.
All is just to say, I've played the whole saga many times and enjoy it all a lot. I see BG2 as the pinnacle of design, truly a gaming masterpiece.
But I ALWAYS restart at the very beginning (BG1), in part because I love that very beginning so much, it's one part of the game that just never gets old to me.
Really? Could you point out some specifics? I have bg2 original on discs for windows '98 so of you can point out something's you think don't match up then I can confirm them there, @fanscale
1stly there is no bone golem in the tanner (skinner quest). In the Temple ruins there is no lich.
In the Cult quest Temple district when you go into the undead village there use to be a lich. Instead there are some greater mummys.
I'm 90% sure that monsters will target your spellcasters more.
1stly there is no bone golem in the tanner (skinner quest). In the Temple ruins there is no lich.
In the Cult quest Temple district when you go into the undead village there use to be a lich. Instead there are some greater mummys.
I'm 90% sure that monsters will target your spellcasters more.
It definitely matters what level you are when you hit these areas. Everything will scale up if say you go through Watcher's Keep then complete the SoA quests. Of course then, Watcher's Keep will be easier...
I think BG 2 and BG 1 are actually fairly different games that appeal to different kinds of gamers.
BG 1 gives you much more freedom to roam and wander and discover your purpose, which some people love, but others feel lacks focus. BG 2 is much more of a dungeon grind as you are thrown from one crisis to the next, which can feel restrictive for some, but much more fast-paced and purposeful for others.
Personally I don't like how many powerful items you come across in BG2, particularly ToB, and how the game does not really give a roleplayer any good justification to take their time with side quests (my dearest friend/sister is missing! And my soul is missing!), but BG 2 is a superior game because it is when the NPCs truly come alive.
Yes once you know all the NPCs and their personalities, they feel alive to you when you play BG 1 too, but for a new player to the franchise, BG 1 NPCs are painfully silent, so much so that I kinda formed my own mind's eye view of them by the time I got to BG 2 and had to "readjust" to the personality they suddenly had.
The art style is also a sticking point for me. I preferred the art in BG immensely over BG2 - from the UI itself to the maps, architecture, armor, you name it. I think a lot of that is due to the untimely, still painful death of Daniel Walker, who was lead artist on BG1. He's memorialized in the manual for BG2. I have a feeling a lot of his influence probably shaped the style of BG1 and made it a lot more coherent and realist in its approach to things, something which seems sadly lacking in the sequels.
Still, I have to agree with some of the OP sentiments, I do feel BG1 at least gave you the illusion of more freedom, even if it just an illusion, it's a fairly good one. I think BG2 was a bit more developed in that they had a sense of where you were going to go and how you were going to get there and put in a fair bit off effort to gently steer you in that direction without going LOOK AN ENORMOUS ARROW POINTING AT WHAT YOU NEED. *Cough*Oblivion*Cough*
I also agree that it feels more... DnD like when you start at the lower levels and don't kinda go about level 10ish. I have never had a DnD character get above that, I've always been maliciously and violently slaughtered by the DM who was very much a female G.R.R.M.
But anyway, the art style of the original BG was also much more my style. I do like that the EE's have brought the armour and weapon design somewhat into a line between the two so there isn't a dramatic difference between them.
I do like Athkatla for it's exotic and less kind of "Out of the box European" you might say, design and feel. As well as the visit to the Underdark and the Sahuagin city, those were nice added extras to break up the monotony of endless cityscapes and empty fields you tended to get a bit sick of in BG.
I also agree with @Heindrich that it seems to rain insanely powerful, expensive, incredibly rare enchanted items at every possible chance, I think that could benefit from a LEEEETLE bit of a tone down.
Never the less, they are both AMAZING games and remain my all time favorites, probably will for a LONG LONG time. No other game has kept me coming back atleast once a year for the last 15. I think that is an amazing achievement. It's far from perfect, but then what isn't?
Anyway, not really anything left to say that hasn't already been said but I just thought I'd share my two cents, as always! I'll show myself out, again.
Is BG2 overrated? No. Definitely not.
Is it better than BG1? Yes. In my opinion.
I think that BG2 has more personality than BG1. Although I do like the greater abundance of wilderness areas in BG1. In BG2, the closest you get to a wilderness area is either the Abandoned Amphitheater or the Druid Grove.
But the main reason that I like BG2 better is the much, much larger number of enchanted weapons and armor, the higher-level spells, and the (in my opinion) better encounters.
Don't get me wrong, BG1 is incredible. It just doesn't have the feel of BG2.
You know I always wrestled with this and had to just pretend I didn't have enough gold yet or that my character had some kind of mental or emotional issue that made him feel like he wasn't ready yet to face Irenicus and Spellhold yet... However, i remember reading on some forum years and years ago that the original design was intended so that you DID rush off to get Imoen and thus you only experienced a small number of quests, so that would increase re playability. And also end of game (non modded) Irenicus wouldn't be so easy because you would have less XP. Most of us BG vets are completionists -- we want to experience everything every time. But if you think of chapter 2 as a dash to get Imoen, you will miss out on a lot in a good way -- you have to make impossible choices about what to do and where to go and what quests to abandon. Imagine playing the game for the 4th time and that being the first time you ever finally listened to that Lord Jierden dude and actually did his quest (you not ever playing a Paladin) or never getting to Umar Hills much in chapter 2 the first play through -- and when certain loved one needs resurrection you end up in a haunted temple filled with baddies you hadn't previously cleared out. Out of my way shadows, i have a heart to take care of... Of course I always complete chapter 2 ahead of time, but imagine how different the game would play if you always headed out as soon as possible.
For me, I felt a substantial loss of excitement for BG2 even as early as my 2nd playthrough. I believe that this is largely because the game relies a lot on shock value and novelty, but there is a certain lack of depth beneath the surface of that. For example, the first time that I ever entered the circus tent in Waukeen's Promenade and found myself in some other dimension, I said to myself, "Holy crap, where am I??" But in subsequent playthroughs, once I already knew what I would see when I entered the tent, it came to feel like just another lineal routine - release Aerie, a couple levels of annoying shades and werewolf illusions, and then kill the gnome.
The typical format of many of BG1's quests is that you hear stories about someone like Bassilus or Brage, and then at some point in your wanderings, you happen to come across them in some anonymous area. In between, you've presumably fought a number of battles against an assortment of randomly appearing enemies - i.e: bandits, spiders, skeletons, maybe vampiric wolves (yes, they do randomly appear even outside the Beregost temple). By contrast, BG2 would have immediately directed you to some dungeon as soon as you were told about those characters, and then you would have to enter the same repetitive, multi-level crawl, against the same sets of enemies, before finally getting to them at the end.
I understand that BG1 does have some lineal areas of its own - i.e: Firewine, Durlag's - and not coincidentally, these are typically my least favorite areas of BG1. I also understand that at least some lineality is required in order to advance a narrative. However, in BG1, lineality is usually the exception, whereas in BG2, it's the rule.
I've played BG1 many more times and still am not jaded - in fact, I've just abandoned my first ever BG2:EE run to revisit BG1:EE.
The fact that BG2 can come to feel so "jading" after only a few playthroughs is a arguably a reflection on its repetitiveness and lineality. More than any other type of PC game, an RPG arguably should offer more ways to feel fresh and original over multiple playthroughs.
That although BG2 has more content, it's often less appreciable than BG1's. As soon as you exit Irenicus' dungeon, normal and even +1 weapons are already made to feel useless (the vampires that you meet in Athkatla can't be hit by them, for example), and it isn't very far into the game that +2 weapons come to feel that way as well, even though there are a lot of interesting ones in the game (i.e: The Sleeper).
Why? Since when does being higher level automatically grant some form of immunity to magic weapons of a certain bonus?
By "random," I mean that they aren't central to the plot and/or serve a specific purpose, like a shop or a temple - they are just average, anonymous citizens' homes. This makes the game much less restrictive and lineal and arguably more immersive.
As I said, "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."
In other words, you can play as a single class thief - but you'll basically be sitting out many of the major battles while your party of magic-oriented NPCs takes care of business for you.
And also because the original devs did a lot to nerf physical weapons, and arguably not enough to offset enemy magic other than by counter-magical means.
I thought " But hey, isn't that an essential part of a dungeons and dragons game"?
Honestly, these stronghold quests are so complete and special, that they could be easily sold as D&D adventure books. IMO, along with character development and NPC interaction, with these quests they nailed it right on money.
http://forum.baldursgate.com/discussion/32894/idea-for-a-mod-bg1-at-higher-levels
My warmest most nostalgic filled gaming moments have been produced from playing Baldur's Gate. I love all the games
The second act (always the best for the most part) is where things really start to take off, the story grows more complex, and someone who didn't know if they would make it to the first inn on the road earlier is now revealed to be the focal point of the world (think of how simple "A New Hope" is as a story compared to "Empire Strikes Back").
The third act always pushes things over the top, which can be good or bad. The major conflicts and reveals came in the previous chapter, so (almost inevitably) things get taken to the extreme (again to use Star Wars as an example "Return of the Jedi" is in no way comparable to the humble first movie of the transcendent second, but as pure action and visual spectacle it leaves the previous entries in the dust).