Does it get any better? Finished Baldur's Gate
Casters
Member Posts: 20
I've just defeated Sarevok and finished Baldur's Gate 1 and now I'm playing Siege of Dragonspear. The graphics look way better and the new enemies are amazing, I don't understand why the expansion got bad reviews.
I was wondering if these graphics, new enemies and items are used in Baldur's Gate 2? It would be disappointing to play it and everything seems downgraded.
I was wondering if these graphics, new enemies and items are used in Baldur's Gate 2? It would be disappointing to play it and everything seems downgraded.
3
Comments
BG2 had been released many years ago, and because the orignial assets were lost, couldn't be upgraded to look as SoD does.
But BG2 is still a very good game, different from BG1, with many interesting enemies, fights and excellent companions.
Happy playing!
All of the generic items in SoD also appear in BG2 (IIRC). A few of the unique items in SoD can be carried forward into BG2 (by having them in inventory at the end of SoD), but a majority of unique items are SoD-only. However, BG2 has loads of its own unique items - far more than BG1.
As already implied, the graphics of BG2 are more like those of BG1.
Like everybody else is saying though, BG2 is quite different from BG1 artistically, so you'll see *tons* of new enemy types, locations, and so on.
Also, if you're really attached to your SOD gear, there's a mod that carries a lot more of it over to BG2 (the mod also includes a number of install-able components that add and/or enhance already existing BG2 items).
Oh, and bg2 is a much, much better game overall than bg1 and even SoD. Best of the series, really. At least as far as SoA is concerned. ToB is...another story.
But I don't want to start a holy war over it. If you can tell decent writing from purple prose, sandbox from linear, spartan from Monty Haul, then you'll feel the difference between the first game and the sequel. If not, then not. Hey, maybe you like it when there are... what was it, two or three dragons to kill in BG2?
In my opinion, the first Baldur's Gate and Torment were the only games true to the spirit of AD&D. The first Icewind Dale might have been, it had a robust scaffold, but the designers locked themselves in a linear narrative, oversaturated with action. And everything after that - repetitions.
Same with Fallout. The series died after part 2. RIP.
Same with Elder Scrolls. The series died after Morrowind. RIP.
Anyway: +1
I will just say that BG2 is often listed in the top ten (if not top five) games of all time. No on is *required* to like it, of course, but few share your opinion.
Culminating in the speech at the Tree of Life.
1. There was a bit of controversy involving some topics that will not be named.
2. A lot of people are eternally upset at Beamdog that they update a 20 year old game and charge money for their work.
3. The game railroads you pretty hard.
Personally I liked it well enough. They did some amazing work as far as the mass battles, the areas looked pretty darn good, and there's an elevator fight at the end which surprised me because that level of background animation for a 2d game hasn't been seen for a long time. On the other hand, the fan generated resources are somewhat lacking, to the point I don't think Gamefaqs has a guide up, there are like 2 or three clickbait sites with poor information, and 1 very detailed blog that covers just about everything, but has formatting issues and is also hosted on a clickbait website. To top it off, the level cap leaves something to be desired in as much that because BG2 is designed to pick up after BG1, you spend a LOT of time in SoD to get the amount of XP you would get in a quarter of the time in BG2. Magic Item selection also felt pretty bland. Some of the new NPCs are awesome. Love M'khiin.
The problem is #1 killed a lot of potential for organic hype in other gaming communities because no one can discuss it without the whole thing degenerating in to vitriolic mud slinging, and retro-gaming boards tend to have rather draconian entry rules... I mean discussion rules.
Now mind you, I think there are good reasons to criticize SoD. There was a railroad and some decisions were made for the player that really didn't need to be made (i.e. the party composition). It also got a bumpy release. But the player reviews were uncalled for IMO.
"Now mind you, I think there are good reasons to criticize SoD. There was a railroad and some decisions were made for the player that really didn't need to be made (i.e. the party composition). It also got a bumpy release. But the player reviews were uncalled for IMO."
Haven't you just contradicted yourself?
There are good reasons to criticise SOD, so what should players do?
Not review one aspect they found dissappointing because there is another aspect that, if you like, "trouble makers" have made an issue of?
I's well worth playing, some parts are very good.
But I find I can't face playing it again because of what's wrong, so as before, I jump from BG to BG2.
That's quite a fail when you consider that the groundwork for what had to be created was so strong. The idea that because this was an add on to a well established and much loved and respected saga made it more difficult is nonsense.
Any company launching a product would give their eyeteeth to have so much freely available market research about what customers wanted and liked before they started creating a new product.
They have not been expected to invent the wheel, that was already done. I think we just wanted more wheels.
Instead the decision was taken to interfere with the existing parts that people liked. And ignore the almost universal criticism of one particular part and make the same mistake.
In other words, TOB is disliked for being so railroaded, that's not news.
So why on earth do the same with SOD?
But it's not just a matter of side content, it's the difference between the player regularly getting jumped by assassins and bounty hunters in Baldur's Gate and being able to decide how hard you react to that, versus having one group attack you at the Ducal Palace and going along like a slack jawed idiot because Corwin tells you "Caelar Argent totally sent them." At least ToB had the excuse that your destiny was forcing itself upon you. SoD feels like you've been drafted.
But that's one shortcoming of an otherwise pretty ok game.
Of course if you're a player who enjoys linearity (and linearity itself isn't a bad thing, fundamentally) you're less likely to be bothered by that. But for someone who likes BG1 for its relative freedom? It's incredibly frustrating to be treated like an enlisted soldier and not being able to do anything about it.
Whenever SOD is discussed, "in-universe justification" (thanks Korona for that useful phrase) is used as an argument against people saying they are not enjoying or haven't enjoyed the game enough.
It's worth buying definitely, I would have supported it whatever, paid full price ect.
But it is part of a saga, a saga that for some (many? who knows) has you thinking about your new game/Charname as you finish the current game you are playing.
As I said previously, SOD just hasn't achieved that, so I skip it.
The sad part (IMO) is that it could have because all the information needed to achieve that is out there and available. And there are parts of SOD that show that would have been possible.
I think the thing is BG and BGII were very much about not telling you who you are. I mean you have your parentage, which no one can really do anything about in fiction or life, but there was very little sense of "you are so-and-so and have obligations to fulfil!" Excepting of course the ones you got in to yourself but which you could also abandon at your leisure, such as the strongholds.