Ladies and gentlemen! Boys and girls! Humans and Demihumans! And dragons of all ages! Allow me to point out the title of this topic, " Unpopular opinions," keyword being, "opinions!!'
Honestly I don't fully accept why Jon chose Gorions ward over any of the other 5, hell even over Sarevok. They all more or less walked the same path, and there was always the chance Gorion's ward could've failed. So couldn't Jon achieved his goal with one of the five, or Sarevok?
Personally the monk just seemed like a safer bet to me than charname.
Two for one deal, Charname and Imoen get souls for him and Bodhi. The two are also near by, are high enough level to be visible, but are low enough to not be a threat.
Better than facing a monestary of magic resistant monks, a tribe of fire giants, a dragon, to go into the underdark for a drow...sure Illisera wasn't tough. But two for one deal and she seemed 'trickier' than Charname.
And yet, Gorion's ward handed him his ass on a silver platter... That two for one deal don't look so good to me right now. The Dragon and the fire giant, OK I could understand... But the monestary? And the Drow? I've seen people put him on the same playing field as Elminster on this board, so I have a hard time believing that he would have a hard time dealing with either of those to, or even dealing with Illisera no matter how tricky she maybe.
Then again I don't understand why people view him as so powerful outside of having Gorion's souls. Nothing he's done can be viewed as "undoable" by any other talented mage or Sorcerer. He's just the one who chose to take that path of study. I mean, didn't Szass Tam try to destroy and recreate existence? (Ill have to find where i read thia again.) In the process killing the Zulkir of Divination and even causing the Zulkir of conjuration to be trapped inside the lowest forms of demon?
Only thing I find impressive about Jon is the choosing the direction he went, but I am far from believing he is the only caster in all the realms beside the lady's favored, capable of taking that exact same action. Elminster's power is backed by a very god so I could believe that there are things that only he can do.
He is an insanely high level wizard that have created his own spells. From a gameplay point of view, just being a that high level wizard, he should easily be able to deal with the five, throw in his instant kill spells and it'll be easy. It's harder to look from a lore perspective as he is only in Baldur's Gate, but unless i remember wrong, he is higher level than Elminster. While Elminster does have a god on his side (mystra) and that silverflame(?) ability, Irenicus have made some very powerful spells on his own.
You'll never see me talk game mechanics when it comes to characters, especially in rpg, its always feats and lore. What evidence is there that that instant kill spell will work outside what it's meant to do? I remember it being seen argued on this bored before, and someone claimed it ignored spell protection, but where does it do this outside of game mechanics? Game mechanics usually break rules and lore, so I don't believe it to be justifiable evidence honestly. Peoe even say Drizzt is stronger in BG game mechanics then he actually is lore/story wise.
I believe h to be a powerful mage no doubt, but in DnD I'm general, those seem to be a dime a dozen. I mean seriously people complain about how powerful sorcerers are and how they get their spells, but it seems to always be mages on another level with the.magic.
We don't have any information on him from outside of the game, so It's not possible to answer that. What can be said with certain is his level (Wizard 30), which is much higher than most other mages including one level above Elminster.
So yes, his level is the only information we have on him. And a few quotes in game, one saying that he is as powerful as you can become without being a god.
So no feats, so no proof, the end. Lolarch, Elminster, and even Sam have feats proving thier prowess. Until we get lore wore speaking on what he has actually done... I won't even put him in the top 10.
You do understand that you're comparing power levels between characters from books, and a final boss in a game, right? Irenicus won't even beat a wet behind the ears goblin in the forgotten realms books, because he doesn't exist there. The only comparing you can do is look at Drizzt and Elminster in the game, both whom he is much more powerful than. .
Oh really? I don't ever remember this stopping... Spyro vs American Dragon Jake Long.. Spawn vs Kratos Alduin vs Deathwing Goku vs superman Mario vs sonic/megaman/link Smaug vs Malefor Anyone in DC vs anyone in Marvel God king Nicol bolas vs the entire final fantasy multivserse..(yes, this actually out there! The majority say that this will be a battle of villians, because alot of FF heros win through pis or plot armor... I mean comeLer Kefka had control over all the magic in his universe... All arcane and divine casters should have been completely useless against him!) Kim possible vs juniper Lee
And every other freaking match up that aren't even IN THE SAME MULTIVERSE! But guess what even if Jon is only in the game, HE IS STILL IN THE DND MULTIVERSE and last time I checked, games have lore and feats JUST LIKE NOVELS, and if you don't believe me, go play... TES series, go play final fantasy series, go play the shadowrun series... I recommend avoiding the horrible shorter that they had on 360...
You reminding of the people on one forum who asked which spyro was stronger, the one from the original platform on ps1 or the one from the ps2 trilogy. People literally claimed the first one because his gameplay allowed you to kill enemies with one hit, while in the trilogy, it had an actual combat system.
I find it highly amusing that you're this biased against him. If you're not going to take the game into consideration, then this discussion stops here. For all you know he doesn't exist in your world, so there is no comparing.
I find it highly amusing that you argue game mechanics and place something that can be so easily change and manipulate over actual feats. Hell I can take a war dog in the game and toss immunities to all but level 9 spells, all kind of scripted triggers and even lets toss a death stare on him for fun. Hell just to be a dick, I'll make it so only +5 weapons are the only way to hurt him... I literally just made him harder to beat then Jon mechanically...
Your literally doing what some people tried to do in a Alduin vs Deathwing topic. Ignoring the fact mechanics can't be used here since they exist in two completely different games. The only way to decide this is through lore and feats. You say Jon doesn't have any, or honestly from what I've seen in BG one where he cursed some sorceress for killing his wife and his scripted actions in BG 2 which COUNTS AS BOTH LORE AND FEATS! I AM NOT IMPRESSED!
Edited] : The only reason Irenicus doesn't kill you, gain your bhaalspawn essence and destroy the five others, ascending to godhood. Is because he is the antagonist and because of that, can't win. He could at any moment have killed you after he took your soul.
.
I don't remember saying killing you and taking your soul, but either way now you just tossed on steel plates plot armor...
Edit: Also, I hate all none draconic races equally... Most the time.
-Minsc does NOT wear full plate or any heavy armor. -Upgraded mace of disruption is the best weapon in the game. -Jan is a solid character and the best thief, despite not being as lesbian as Hexxat. -I liked Imoen better as a pure thief.
- Conjurer is not the superior Specialist Mage; Illusionist and Invoker are better. - Gnomes get the nicest multiclasses and Quayle is a great NPC. - The most powerful property of the Staff of the Magi is not its instant invisibility effect but its dispel on hit. - There's no such thing as cheese; all that matters is the player's personal enjoyment of the game. - It's ok for Cleric/Rangers to be able to cast Cleric and Druid spells. - Morningstars ought to form a weapon class with Maces instead of Flails for proficiency purposes. - There's a serious dearth of female shorty NPCs in the trilogy. (Considering there are hardly any female shorty mod NPCs, this doesn't seem to be a popular opinion.) - Wizard Slayers are cool. - Open Locks is the least essential of the Thief skills. - Hide in Shadows and Move Silently are very useful for Swashbucklers. - The upgrade of the Flail of Ages to +5 isn't necessarily worth it. - It's not fair that the large majority of priest spells, including several offensive spells, take noticeably longer to cast than the large majority of wizard spells. - The fact that wizards, not priests, get a robe that substantially reduces spell casting time makes things even worse. - It's not evil to use the Nymph cloak in Hell, because the Nymph whose skin it is made of, is already dead. - Celestial Fury isn't one of the game's greatest weapons. - Warriors aren't the best tanks after the first few levels. - Ribald Barterman is a really good name.
-Warriors are glass canons, mages are tanks -Time Stop is overrated for Edwin, but underrated for Imoen -Kensai->Mages are overrated, as are the majority of dual-classes. Players prefer dual-classes because they are slightly esoteric and slightly difficult to execute. It's a barriers to entry thing. Latent elitism. Costly signaling -Ranged weapons are still great in ToB- arguably greater since melee becomes so dangerous -Defense matters -Shields are great -The damage per round obsession is hilarious -Tactics are more important than character builds -Bioware got better, not worse, at character development over time -Bioware got worse, not better, at combat system development over time -If your character dies, the game really is over -You must gather your party before venturing forth
- Optimizing the intelligence stat at character creation just "for battling mind flayers" is unnessecary considering the rarity of those creatures. The mind flayer fights are completely optional and it's debatable wether straight out melee is even the best way to defeat them.
- BG2 is better than BG1 in every way possible. It has a better story, better NPC's, actual banter, more interesting encounters, Athkatla is a a hands down better city than Baldur's gate, beating it in everything from design to quests, and finally it has Jon "you shall all suffer!" Irenicus, the best damn video game villain of all time.
- Bounty Hunter is an extremely powerful thief class, it outshines assassin by late SoA and all of ToB because it doesn't rely on backstabs for being useful and it's special traps are more like hand grenades than anything else.
I'm reluctant to reply, since your tone seems adversarial and that strikes me as inappropriate in this context. This was, I believe, intended to be a lightheaded perspective thread: Goofy fun, with the potential to stimulate thought.
I'll take a moment to clarify, as a courtesy. I'll refrain from replying to further comments of a similar nature.
Players frequently celebrate the NPC development in the Baldur's Gate without fully acknowledging that the series represented the beginning of a trajectory, rather than that culmination of an art. This is especially common amongst Baldur's Gate enthusiasts who, inspired by their love of the game, tend to see BG as superior to subsequent Bioware efforts in every respect. Bioware never surpassed BG in totality, in my estimation. And I don't think they ever will. But the development team did, in my opinion, become more sophisticated over time in the domain of character development, and with respect to representation issues within their game worlds.
It's not at all uncommon to hear players say: Baldur's Gate is the best RPG ever! The story and characters are fantastic! Nothing compares! I agree that the story and characters are wonderful. But other games have cultivated equally rich narratives while offering more fully realized characters. Without the story, Baldur's Gate wouldn't be Baldur's Gate, but I think, in the end, the game's lasting appeal is, for many of us, attributable to the richnesses of the combat system more so than the characters and narrative.
Put simply, the story is great, but it's the combat that keeps us around. And BG wasn't the best at everything. It just got some things so right, that players fall in love with it and embrace everything, even in areas where there are comparative lacks.
There are some unpopular views here, I suspect. My statement qualifies, I believe. And in any case, none of this is worth getting ruffled over. We're just floating ideas and having fun.
I'm reluctant to reply, since your tone seems adversarial and that strikes me as inappropriate in this context. This was, I believe, intended to be a lightheaded perspective thread: Goofy fun, with the potential to stimulate thought.
I'll take a moment to clarify, as a courtesy. I'll refrain from replying to further comments of a similar nature.
Players frequently celebrate the NPC development in the Baldur's Gate without fully acknowledging that the series represented the beginning of a trajectory, rather than that culmination of an art. This is especially common amongst Baldur's Gate enthusiasts who, inspired by their love of the game, tend to see BG as superior to subsequent Bioware efforts in every respect. Bioware never surpassed BG in totality, in my estimation. And I don't think they ever will. But the development team did, in my opinion, become more sophisticated over time in the domain of character development, and with respect to representation issues within their game worlds.
It's not at all uncommon to hear players say: Baldur's Gate is the best RPG ever! The story and characters are fantastic! Nothing compares! I agree that the story and characters are wonderful. But other games have cultivated equally rich narratives while offering more fully realized characters. Without the story, Baldur's Gate wouldn't be Baldur's Gate, but I think, in the end, the game's lasting appeal is, for many of us, attributable to the richnesses of the combat system more so than the characters and narrative.
Put simply, the story is great, but it's the combat that keeps us around. And BG wasn't the best at everything. It just got some things so right, that players fall in love with it and embrace everything, even in areas where there are comparative lacks.
There are some unpopular views here, I suspect. My statement qualifies, I believe. And in any case, none of this is worth getting ruffled over. We're just floating ideas and having fun.
Enjoy the thread everyone!
Best,
A.
I happen to think that the BG1 NPCs are better than the ones you find in BG2. This doesn't have to do as much with character development and dialogues, as it has to do with the NPCs in themselves. I find the classes, diversity, special abilities and attribute placements just more realistic and down to earth than BG2. It feels like the BG characters have more personality, just from being more diverse and 'unique' in my opinion.
- The awesome duo (Xzar + Montaron) that stumble across the Sword Coast in an alliance even though they don't like each other.
- You have the man hating woman in Shar-Teel.
- You have the ever brooding Xan who thinks the world is doomed.
- Tiax who thinks he rules the world, perhaps he does?
- Yeslick who made a horrible deal and his entire clan paid for it (something like that)
It feels like you have such a diversity in the NPCs you can pick between and they all seem to have their own personality, even though they very rarely talk or interact with you. I find the NPCs in BG2 much more fairy tale like (Anomen, Keldorn, Aerie) and not nearly as unique, with the exception of Haer'Dalis, Mazzy and Yoshimo. As much as i love Jan, he is pretty much a comic relief, the only serious part he shows you is in his own quest.
I'm reluctant to reply, since your tone seems adversarial and that strikes me as inappropriate in this context. This was, I believe, intended to be a lightheaded perspective thread: Goofy fun, with the potential to stimulate thought.
It was a simple question sheesh, if I wanted to be adversarial. I would've said a lot more than just a simple question. And I've been light hearted so far.
I'm reluctant to reply, since your tone seems adversarial and that strikes me as inappropriate in this context. This was, I believe, intended to be a lightheaded perspective thread: Goofy fun, with the potential to stimulate thought.
I'll take a moment to clarify, as a courtesy. I'll refrain from replying to further comments of a similar nature.
Players frequently celebrate the NPC development in the Baldur's Gate without fully acknowledging that the series represented the beginning of a trajectory, rather than that culmination of an art. This is especially common amongst Baldur's Gate enthusiasts who, inspired by their love of the game, tend to see BG as superior to subsequent Bioware efforts in every respect. Bioware never surpassed BG in totality, in my estimation. And I don't think they ever will. But the development team did, in my opinion, become more sophisticated over time in the domain of character development, and with respect to representation issues within their game worlds.
It's not at all uncommon to hear players say: Baldur's Gate is the best RPG ever! The story and characters are fantastic! Nothing compares! I agree that the story and characters are wonderful. But other games have cultivated equally rich narratives while offering more fully realized characters. Without the story, Baldur's Gate wouldn't be Baldur's Gate, but I think, in the end, the game's lasting appeal is, for many of us, attributable to the richnesses of the combat system more so than the characters and narrative.
Put simply, the story is great, but it's the combat that keeps us around. And BG wasn't the best at everything. It just got some things so right, that players fall in love with it and embrace everything, even in areas where there are comparative lacks.
There are some unpopular views here, I suspect. My statement qualifies, I believe. And in any case, none of this is worth getting ruffled over. We're just floating ideas and having fun.
Enjoy the thread everyone!
Best,
A.
I happen to think that the BG1 NPCs are better than the ones you find in BG2. This doesn't have to do as much with character development and dialogues, as it has to do with the NPCs in themselves. I find the classes, diversity, special abilities and attribute placements just more realistic and down to earth than BG2. It feels like the BG characters have more personality, just from being more diverse and 'unique' in my opinion.
- The awesome duo (Xzar + Montaron) that stumble across the Sword Coast in an alliance even though they don't like each other.
- You have the man hating woman in Shar-Teel.
- You have the ever brooding Xan who thinks the world is doomed.
- Tiax who thinks he rules the world, perhaps he does?
- Yeslick who made a horrible deal and his entire clan paid for it (something like that)
It feels like you have such a diversity in the NPCs you can pick between and they all seem to have their own personality, even though they very rarely talk or interact with you. I find the NPCs in BG2 much more fairy tale like (Anomen, Keldorn, Aerie) and not nearly as unique, with the exception of Haer'Dalis, Mazzy and Yoshimo. As much as i love Jan, he is pretty much a comic relief, the only serious part he shows you is in his own quest.
I agree with this to an extent, the overall design of bg1 npcs do feel more diverse, despite them feeling like nothing less then puppets or rag dolls. But the lack of dialogue development kind of just takes a the potential and tosses out of the window.
Nope! But I would not rate it as particularly good from an RPG standpoint either.
This might be a little bit of topic, but could you explain? Planescape: Torment is one of the true RPGs out there. Your choices make a difference, tons of different dialogues depending on your attributes, party members and even choices earlier on in the game. There are many consequences, especially when you take into consideration the different factions. Your alignment changes depending on your actions, if you keep flirting with zombies in the mortuary you'll gain points towards chaotic. The game is brilliant and one of the true RPGs out there, it even puts Fallout to shame.
It is possible to complete the entire game without killing a single person.
It was a simple question sheesh, if I wanted to be adversarial. I would've said a lot more than just a simple question. And I've been light hearted so far.
It was a simple question sheesh, if I wanted to be adversarial. I would've said a lot more than just a simple question. And I've been light hearted so far.
Restartitis isn't a bad thing. It makes us try new things and ensures that the game stays fresh.
I agree with what you say, but there are a few bad things to it as well. Like getting 200 teams to Baldur's Gate (BG:EE) or the Underdark (BG2:EE) and only complete the game once or twice at the most
Baldur's Gate the city is where Baldur's Gate the game takes off, I think, because that's when you actually get some new and interesting abilities. But for BG2, the Underdark is actually a pretty good place to restart. That's when you've done most of the cool Chapter 2 stuff.
@semiticgod , I think there's something to that. I can't quite click "agree" on it, because for me, Baldur's Gate City is where I start to lose interest in most of my BG1 runs.
But I definitely agree that in BG2, the fun for me is in everything you can do *before* the underdark, and, once I go to rescue Imoen, it's all downhill on the fun scale from there.
BTW, for me, the entirety of ToB is downhill on the fun scale. I almost never play any of my characters that far. I only ever finished ToB once, in an old journaled playthrough I posted in the old Bioware forums, in @SapphireIce101 's minimal reload thread. In fact, as far as I know, @SapphireIce101 's original Bioware minimal reload thread was the "founder of the feast" as far as the entire concept of "minimal reload" as a subset of "no-reload".
How does it feel to be a part of BG history with me, @SapphireIce101 ?
(double post is because my tagging of @SapphireIce101 won't work in an edited afterthought)
Comments
Boys and girls!
Humans and Demihumans!
And dragons of all ages!
Allow me to point out the title of this topic, " Unpopular opinions," keyword being, "opinions!!' Oh really? I don't ever remember this stopping...
Spyro vs American Dragon Jake Long..
Spawn vs Kratos
Alduin vs Deathwing
Goku vs superman
Mario vs sonic/megaman/link
Smaug vs Malefor
Anyone in DC vs anyone in Marvel
God king Nicol bolas vs the entire final fantasy multivserse..(yes, this actually out there! The majority say that this will be a battle of villians, because alot of FF heros win through pis or plot armor... I mean comeLer Kefka had control over all the magic in his universe... All arcane and divine casters should have been completely useless against him!)
Kim possible vs juniper Lee
And every other freaking match up that aren't even IN THE SAME MULTIVERSE! But guess what even if Jon is only in the game, HE IS STILL IN THE DND MULTIVERSE and last time I checked, games have lore and feats JUST LIKE NOVELS, and if you don't believe me, go play... TES series, go play final fantasy series, go play the shadowrun series... I recommend avoiding the horrible shorter that they had on 360...
You reminding of the people on one forum who asked which spyro was stronger, the one from the original platform on ps1 or the one from the ps2 trilogy. People literally claimed the first one because his gameplay allowed you to kill enemies with one hit, while in the trilogy, it had an actual combat system.
I find it highly amusing that you argue game mechanics and place something that can be so easily change and manipulate over actual feats. Hell I can take a war dog in the game and toss immunities to all but level 9 spells, all kind of scripted triggers and even lets toss a death stare on him for fun. Hell just to be a dick, I'll make it so only +5 weapons are the only way to hurt him... I literally just made him harder to beat then Jon mechanically...
Your literally doing what some people tried to do in a Alduin vs Deathwing topic. Ignoring the fact mechanics can't be used here since they exist in two completely different games. The only way to decide this is through lore and feats. You say Jon doesn't have any, or honestly from what I've seen in BG one where he cursed some sorceress for killing his wife and his scripted actions in BG 2 which COUNTS AS BOTH LORE AND FEATS! I AM NOT IMPRESSED! .
I don't remember saying killing you and taking your soul, but either way now you just tossed on steel plates plot armor...
Edit:
Also, I hate all none draconic races equally... Most the time.
Agreed - they may be minority opinions, but that isn't the same as being unpopular.
-Upgraded mace of disruption is the best weapon in the game.
-Jan is a solid character and the best thief, despite not being as lesbian as Hexxat.
-I liked Imoen better as a pure thief.
-Mass Effect 3's ending is not that bad.
- Gnomes get the nicest multiclasses and Quayle is a great NPC.
- The most powerful property of the Staff of the Magi is not its instant invisibility effect but its dispel on hit.
- There's no such thing as cheese; all that matters is the player's personal enjoyment of the game.
- It's ok for Cleric/Rangers to be able to cast Cleric and Druid spells.
- Morningstars ought to form a weapon class with Maces instead of Flails for proficiency purposes.
- There's a serious dearth of female shorty NPCs in the trilogy. (Considering there are hardly any female shorty mod NPCs, this doesn't seem to be a popular opinion.)
- Wizard Slayers are cool.
- Open Locks is the least essential of the Thief skills.
- Hide in Shadows and Move Silently are very useful for Swashbucklers.
- The upgrade of the Flail of Ages to +5 isn't necessarily worth it.
- It's not fair that the large majority of priest spells, including several offensive spells, take noticeably longer to cast than the large majority of wizard spells.
- The fact that wizards, not priests, get a robe that substantially reduces spell casting time makes things even worse.
- It's not evil to use the Nymph cloak in Hell, because the Nymph whose skin it is made of, is already dead.
- Celestial Fury isn't one of the game's greatest weapons.
- Warriors aren't the best tanks after the first few levels.
- Ribald Barterman is a really good name.
-Time Stop is overrated for Edwin, but underrated for Imoen
-Kensai->Mages are overrated, as are the majority of dual-classes. Players prefer dual-classes because they are slightly esoteric and slightly difficult to execute. It's a barriers to entry thing. Latent elitism. Costly signaling
-Ranged weapons are still great in ToB- arguably greater since melee becomes so dangerous
-Defense matters
-Shields are great
-The damage per round obsession is hilarious
-Tactics are more important than character builds
-Bioware got better, not worse, at character development over time
-Bioware got worse, not better, at combat system development over time
-If your character dies, the game really is over
-You must gather your party before venturing forth
Best,
A.
It has a better story,
better NPC's,
actual banter,
more interesting encounters,
Athkatla is a a hands down better city than Baldur's gate, beating it in everything from design to
quests,
and finally it has Jon "you shall all suffer!" Irenicus, the best damn video game villain of all time.
- Bounty Hunter is an extremely powerful thief class, it outshines assassin by late SoA and all of ToB because it doesn't rely on backstabs for being useful and it's special traps are more like hand grenades than anything else.
O.o
I'll take a moment to clarify, as a courtesy. I'll refrain from replying to further comments of a similar nature.
Players frequently celebrate the NPC development in the Baldur's Gate without fully acknowledging that the series represented the beginning of a trajectory, rather than that culmination of an art. This is especially common amongst Baldur's Gate enthusiasts who, inspired by their love of the game, tend to see BG as superior to subsequent Bioware efforts in every respect. Bioware never surpassed BG in totality, in my estimation. And I don't think they ever will. But the development team did, in my opinion, become more sophisticated over time in the domain of character development, and with respect to representation issues within their game worlds.
It's not at all uncommon to hear players say: Baldur's Gate is the best RPG ever! The story and characters are fantastic! Nothing compares! I agree that the story and characters are wonderful. But other games have cultivated equally rich narratives while offering more fully realized characters. Without the story, Baldur's Gate wouldn't be Baldur's Gate, but I think, in the end, the game's lasting appeal is, for many of us, attributable to the richnesses of the combat system more so than the characters and narrative.
Put simply, the story is great, but it's the combat that keeps us around. And BG wasn't the best at everything. It just got some things so right, that players fall in love with it and embrace everything, even in areas where there are comparative lacks.
There are some unpopular views here, I suspect. My statement qualifies, I believe. And in any case, none of this is worth getting ruffled over. We're just floating ideas and having fun.
Enjoy the thread everyone!
Best,
A.
I'll take a moment to clarify, as a courtesy. I'll refrain from replying to further comments of a similar nature.
Players frequently celebrate the NPC development in the Baldur's Gate without fully acknowledging that the series represented the beginning of a trajectory, rather than that culmination of an art. This is especially common amongst Baldur's Gate enthusiasts who, inspired by their love of the game, tend to see BG as superior to subsequent Bioware efforts in every respect. Bioware never surpassed BG in totality, in my estimation. And I don't think they ever will. But the development team did, in my opinion, become more sophisticated over time in the domain of character development, and with respect to representation issues within their game worlds.
It's not at all uncommon to hear players say: Baldur's Gate is the best RPG ever! The story and characters are fantastic! Nothing compares! I agree that the story and characters are wonderful. But other games have cultivated equally rich narratives while offering more fully realized characters. Without the story, Baldur's Gate wouldn't be Baldur's Gate, but I think, in the end, the game's lasting appeal is, for many of us, attributable to the richnesses of the combat system more so than the characters and narrative.
Put simply, the story is great, but it's the combat that keeps us around. And BG wasn't the best at everything. It just got some things so right, that players fall in love with it and embrace everything, even in areas where there are comparative lacks.
There are some unpopular views here, I suspect. My statement qualifies, I believe. And in any case, none of this is worth getting ruffled over. We're just floating ideas and having fun.
Enjoy the thread everyone!
Best,
A.
I happen to think that the BG1 NPCs are better than the ones you find in BG2. This doesn't have to do as much with character development and dialogues, as it has to do with the NPCs in themselves. I find the classes, diversity, special abilities and attribute placements just more realistic and down to earth than BG2. It feels like the BG characters have more personality, just from being more diverse and 'unique' in my opinion.
- The awesome duo (Xzar + Montaron) that stumble across the Sword Coast in an alliance even though they don't like each other.
- You have the man hating woman in Shar-Teel.
- You have the ever brooding Xan who thinks the world is doomed.
- Tiax who thinks he rules the world, perhaps he does?
- Yeslick who made a horrible deal and his entire clan paid for it (something like that)
It feels like you have such a diversity in the NPCs you can pick between and they all seem to have their own personality, even though they very rarely talk or interact with you. I find the NPCs in BG2 much more fairy tale like (Anomen, Keldorn, Aerie) and not nearly as unique, with the exception of Haer'Dalis, Mazzy and Yoshimo. As much as i love Jan, he is pretty much a comic relief, the only serious part he shows you is in his own quest.
It was a simple question sheesh, if I wanted to be adversarial. I would've said a lot more than just a simple question. And I've been light hearted so far. I agree with this to an extent, the overall design of bg1 npcs do feel more diverse, despite them feeling like nothing less then puppets or rag dolls. But the lack of dialogue development kind of just takes a the potential and tosses out of the window.
- The BGs are not particularly good games from an RPG standpoint.
- Pancakes are not breakfast food
It is possible to complete the entire game without killing a single person.
@scriver Pancakes are not food
If I step out of line even once, that charname is gone. GONE, I say.
I'd say the Underdark is the low point of BG2.
But I definitely agree that in BG2, the fun for me is in everything you can do *before* the underdark, and, once I go to rescue Imoen, it's all downhill on the fun scale from there.
How does it feel to be a part of BG history with me, @SapphireIce101 ?
(double post is because my tagging of @SapphireIce101 won't work in an edited afterthought)