I see. It's more that it was changed at all, leading to all sorts of ire. I expect sequels to change in real ways - technology and graphics engines evolve, after all. Sometimes, the difference is so stark that I can't play the original (lack of features, etc), but that is the price you pay.
I see. It's more that it was changed at all, leading to all sorts of ire. I expect sequels to change in real ways - technology and graphics engines evolve, after all. Sometimes, the difference is so stark that I can't play the original (lack of features, etc), but that is the price you pay.
You could say "changed" or you could say it is a more fully realized version of the traditional forgotten realms lore.
Personally, I don't like the art style of BG2. Yes, it is bettar quality than the first game, and no, it's not steampunk, I just prefer the medieval style, which suits BG better in my opinion. I was really disappointed when I first saw BG2: ugly animations and inventory, weird art style, dragons (I find the games that have dragons to be uninteresting, they are the captain obvious of cRPGs, I got tired of them). My dislike of the second game may be only due to the fact that it's so different from BG1, but I will definately play it with IA mod with BG1 animations, and maybe then I will like it more.
Well, bg2 had the high level abilities, so they needed the high level monsters to go with it. It would have been silly for a 12 th level character to be fighting an army of bears and wolves, instead of demons and dragons
A sprinkling of 'steam-age' technology was part of BG1 already. No-one took a tour to look at the artifacts from Gond in the High Hall of Wonders in Baldur's Gate? Then do so and you'll see some definite 'steampunk'.
A sprinkling of 'steam-age' technology was part of BG1 already. No-one took a tour to look at the artifacts from Gond in the High Hall of Wonders in Baldur's Gate? Then do so and you'll see some definite 'steampunk'.
The main question wasn't if it was steampunk or not, but how steampunk it was.
@Treyolen I wouldn't try to convince you or anyone that 3rd edition is a bad game. In fact, I know that it was beneficial not only to the D&D brand, but to the RPG industry (if it can be called an industry) as a whole, with the OGL and the renewed interest that was sparked.
In fact, I don't even think it's a bad game in itself. I just think that at some point, it strayed too far from what Basic D&D and AD&D were, and I'm not really referring to the rules, but to the way the game looked and felt. My biggest problem with 3rd edition is the aesthetics.
My point is that those aesthetic choices did influence how BG2 turned out. No, I don't think it's steampunk, but I think it can be pointed out that it's as close as "core" D&D ever got to it.
Comments
That said, I still love low level fights in bg1
In fact, I don't even think it's a bad game in itself. I just think that at some point, it strayed too far from what Basic D&D and AD&D were, and I'm not really referring to the rules, but to the way the game looked and felt. My biggest problem with 3rd edition is the aesthetics.
My point is that those aesthetic choices did influence how BG2 turned out. No, I don't think it's steampunk, but I think it can be pointed out that it's as close as "core" D&D ever got to it.