Overall I'd say BG2 gives you a gut busting feast of a game that ultimately doesn't fill, too much is "it's just the way it is". And it wouldn't have taken much more to rectify that, tighter more focused writing of the overall story and perhaps more dialog/exposition.
For instance, in BG Kivan joins you to wreck revenge on Tazok for his wife and you meet him by chance. Very simple, very powerful, look at how fans have reacted over the years, their expansions on something so straightforward. Anomen joins you to become a knight/pass the test, yet you meet him in a dive that very, very obviously uses slaves and prostitution based on slavery. So you just have to shrug and say "it's just the way it is".
BG gives far less but you come away more satisfied.
Maybe Anomen was there to investigate evil......lol. I do get what you mean though. Personally, despite Anomen's unusual starting location, I found his personal story and quests enjoyable. The way you can influence him to become a true knight despite his upbringing and the tragedy that befell him I found very rewarding. But I do see what you mean about Kivan. BG1 did so much with brief interactions, letters entries, etc, that it is quite impressive. Both games have so much to offer and it's nice to be able to discuss the merits of both.
Anomen's joining quest being the slum slavers (instead of just joiningfpr no reason) would make lots of sense, actually. Had never thought of that. Will head-RP it from now on
Anomen's joining quest being the slum slavers (instead of just joiningfpr no reason) would make lots of sense, actually. Had never thought of that. Will head-RP it from now on
Totaly agree, would add depth to Anomen as well rather than the current teeth clenching awfulness of him that comes across before his quest/story unfolds. And that's a shame as @gmazca says, the quest/story and character is very good.
That's exactly the kind of small change that IMO should/would have been picked up had the writing been tighter.
I have always assumed that Anomen was there checking into rumors of nefarious activities. It is the only reason that has ever made sense to me, considering his character.
I have always assumed that Anomen was there checking into rumors of nefarious activities. It is the only reason that has ever made sense to me, considering his character.
I have always assumed that Anomen was there checking into rumors of nefarious activities. It is the only reason that has ever made sense to me, considering his character.
Maybe that's just his excuse for being there.
Nah. It is only the protagonist who is capable of “loosening up” those tight laces of his.
Returning to the forums after a long hiatus and find this thread. It is interesting, talking of bad things of a great game. Nothing is perfect, not even BG2. Here are a few things I find could have been done better.
● BG2 is created in a narrow way, not leaving much room for exploration. Quests are given to you and someone marks its location on the map. It would have been better if a location had been hinted so that you would have to go searching for it. For example; when you find Mazzy’s note in Umar Hills, the location of the temple ruin could be hinted, leaving you to search two or three new areas that open up on your map.
● The plot is reviled too early. It is no mystery, just a long chase from beginning to end. I would appreciate having to do some investigation to found out what is happening. I would also appreciate having to search for the adversary’s background instead of having it explained to me in the last chapters.
● Item spamming. There are far too many powerful items in BG2; this gets even worse in TOB.
● The lack of room for 10th/quest level spells in spellbooks in TOB. They should have their own pages, not occupying 9th/7th spellslots. This is really, really annoying.
In the above areas BG1 is better. In other areas it is the reversed. The side quests in BG1 are shallow, many of “Fed-Ex”-type and the NPC development is none-existent.
I like an open world but also find it irritating that you far too often in BG1 can wander around, suddenly encountering someone or something that totally overwhelms the party. What’s the point of on open world when you are too weak to explore it? When I play BG1 I restrict myself to explore in a “structured” way, saving some areas to later (metagaming).
Anyhow, both games are great games and I will continue playing them.
Comments
Thank you.
The thread title is "The problem with BG2".
Overall I'd say BG2 gives you a gut busting feast of a game that ultimately doesn't fill, too much is "it's just the way it is".
And it wouldn't have taken much more to rectify that, tighter more focused writing of the overall story and perhaps more dialog/exposition.
For instance, in BG Kivan joins you to wreck revenge on Tazok for his wife and you meet him by chance.
Very simple, very powerful, look at how fans have reacted over the years, their expansions on something so straightforward.
Anomen joins you to become a knight/pass the test, yet you meet him in a dive that very, very obviously uses slaves and prostitution based on slavery.
So you just have to shrug and say "it's just the way it is".
BG gives far less but you come away more satisfied.
Maybe Anomen was there to investigate evil......lol. I do get what you mean though. Personally, despite Anomen's unusual starting location, I found his personal story and quests enjoyable. The way you can influence him to become a true knight despite his upbringing and the tragedy that befell him I found very rewarding. But I do see what you mean about Kivan. BG1 did so much with brief interactions, letters entries, etc, that it is quite impressive. Both games have so much to offer and it's nice to be able to discuss the merits of both.
And that's a shame as @gmazca says, the quest/story and character is very good.
That's exactly the kind of small change that IMO should/would have been picked up had the writing been tighter.
Nah. It is only the protagonist who is capable of “loosening up” those tight laces of his.
● BG2 is created in a narrow way, not leaving much room for exploration. Quests are given to you and someone marks its location on the map. It would have been better if a location had been hinted so that you would have to go searching for it. For example; when you find Mazzy’s note in Umar Hills, the location of the temple ruin could be hinted, leaving you to search two or three new areas that open up on your map.
● The plot is reviled too early. It is no mystery, just a long chase from beginning to end. I would appreciate having to do some investigation to found out what is happening. I would also appreciate having to search for the adversary’s background instead of having it explained to me in the last chapters.
● Item spamming. There are far too many powerful items in BG2; this gets even worse in TOB.
● The lack of room for 10th/quest level spells in spellbooks in TOB. They should have their own pages, not occupying 9th/7th spellslots. This is really, really annoying.
In the above areas BG1 is better. In other areas it is the reversed. The side quests in BG1 are shallow, many of “Fed-Ex”-type and the NPC development is none-existent.
I like an open world but also find it irritating that you far too often in BG1 can wander around, suddenly encountering someone or something that totally overwhelms the party. What’s the point of on open world when you are too weak to explore it? When I play BG1 I restrict myself to explore in a “structured” way, saving some areas to later (metagaming).
Anyhow, both games are great games and I will continue playing them.