Skip to content

I've come to feel that BG2 is very overrated as an RPG

SharGuidesMyHandSharGuidesMyHand Member Posts: 2,579
BG2 is often rated as the best PC RPG of all time. Admittedly, I probably felt the same way about it the first time that I played it. However, I've liked the game less and less with each successive playthrough, for the reasons explained below.

The improvements of BG2 over BG1 are obvious and frankly irrefutable - it has more magic weapons and spells, more action, more NPC interactions, and (when comparing the original versions) better graphics and an updated engine. In short, it's better than BG1 in virtually every technical/visual/superficial way.

But I've always felt that, in making such obvious improvements over BG1, the makers of BG2 forsook some of the more fundamental aspects of BG1 that made it such a great game, despite its technical inferiority. Now, with the release of BG:EE, which has "evened out" a lot of the technical disparity between the two games, BG2's limitations have been made even more apparent to me.

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.

Although BG2 has more weapons and spells than BG1, this is undermined by the fact that the game is constantly nerfing these items in order to make the game feel more challenging - so while a +2 weapon is a huge deal in BG1, even +3 weapons come to feel inadequate at certain points in BG2. In other words, the "less is more" approach of BG1 allows you to better appreciate certain aspects of the game IMO.

The slower pacing and "roaming" format of BG1 also allow you to better appreciate the visual aspects of the game IMO. I actually enjoy seeing the lush green landscapes and listening to chirping birds and ocean waves crashing against cliffs. I understand that BG2's more direct structure may provide more excitement during initial playthroughs, but I feel that BG1's approach gives the game better replay value. Even the city areas in BG2 come to feel routine and repetitive IMO, because they aren't interspersed with random houses like in BG1.

Finally, I absolutely, positively cannot stand BG2's bias toward magic. I've always felt that BG1 could be won by virtually any approach if it was just done well enough. By contrast, BG2 basically forces you to be an expert in casting and dispelling magic and make this the forefront of your approach. Consequently, a number of character classes, like single class thieves, are made to feel badly nerfed or relegated to a niche role - a very crippling blow to the RP aspect of the game IMO.

Well, that's my rant for now. Your thoughts?
BelgarathMTHBlackravenGoturalDragonspearmeaglothjackjackElrandirBrudeSCARY_WIZARDdstoltzfusMivsanDemonoid_LimewirejscohenJuliusBorisovXanthulMontresor_SPchickenhedterzaeriankcwisedunbar[Deleted User]TuthlolienQbertGoodSteveWithinAmnesiaWandering_Minstrel
«13

Comments

  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    edited June 2014
    The user and all related content has been deleted.
    EmpyrialbbearJuliusBorisovlolien
  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
    lolien
  • TheElfTheElf Member Posts: 798
    Interesting. I agree with all your points to some extent,and yet completely disagree.
    DJKajuru
  • SharGuidesMyHandSharGuidesMyHand Member Posts: 2,579

    I've always liked BG1 better, for a lot of the reasons @SharGuidesMyHand‌ describes, and others. I just like D&D the best at levels 1-10.

    I especially agree about high level magic. For me, it's that I just don't find it fun to have to memorize a huge chain of magical chess moves. Opponent will cast this, this, and this, you must counter with that, that, and that, in order, or you die - I can see the appeal of that kind of game to many, but it's not why I play an rpg.

    I play for high fantasy action and adventure, and *roleplaying*. I like the exciting sense of just starting out, not knowing the world or my own potential, and growing to be moderately powerful - but not so powerful that I must fight gods and devils, which I would argue isn't really being powerful at all, since they can do everything you can do at that point, and worse. And they will, because they don't like your being as powerful as they are.

    And, you have to learn the magic system to an expert level of understanding to succeed in BG2, in my opinion, regardless of what class you are playing as the player character. If your Charname isn't the magic expert in the party, an npc has to be, which means you the player still have to be. Even a plain fighter has to at least know when to switch to normal weapons and why, and when to quaff what potion or read what scroll and why.

    I'm not saying any of that is necessarily bad to all people. But it doesn't appeal that much to *me*.

    I'd say my comparative replay rates between BG and BG2 are at least five to one. I've only ever finished SoA twice, and I've only ever finished ToB once. I usually lose interest in any BG2 run I start long before the end, and I almost always lose interest as soon as eighth and ninth level magic come into play. I think eighth and ninth level arcane magic unbalance the game to the point of no fun. You either learn to build and deploy nuclear weapons yourself, or you get nuked.

    On the other hand, when I start a BG1 run, which is much more often, I am much more likely to finish.

    Basically everything that you've said here is also true for me.
  • meaglothmeagloth Member Posts: 3,806
    I'm one the side of bg1. I don't know why, I've played bg1 for as long as I can remember, but I've really only been through bg2 1.99 times, plus some false starts, an bg2 seems like a chore. I dunno why. It always seems like I miss something, Ilike there should be more dialog. Romances never work out.

    I guess I'm just going through the motions. I need to install SCS.

    As some of you know, I'm doing my Loser/HeroGuy run, and that's a lot of fun(it was better no reload, unfortunately, it doesn't take much to shut that down.)

    I pretty mush agree with everything in the OP except the magic in bg2. I love the complex, spell+counterspell+countercounterspell+countercountercountercounterspell Chess game.
    I think OP magic makes sense, especially with mages being underpowered early game. It takes a long time to get there, but once you do....
    And besides, it's magic. It should
    I once spent a whole day trying to get kangaxx in chapter 2(lvl 11ish), try, reload, try again, until I got it all to fall into place.

    The canon party thing is dumb, I hate irenicus dungeon too, the portraits are bad, ect.

    Bg1 had a Rough Around the Edges feel that's lost in bg2 as well. Bg2 is far more polished, streamlined, and mainstream. It's less hardcore. In bg1 you explored until you found what you needed, the game offered no help or guidance after candelkeep. You where on your own. somebody said you should go to nashkel, so you can go, or not. If you don't, they leave your group, but they can't force you to. You can just walk somewhere else. (To a point. Obviously the plot doesn't continue if you don't get there eventually.) Not so in bg2. You go out of the dungeon, and if you want to leave you can either go to the slums and meet the thieves, or stop playing the game. Somebody is there the whole game, telling you exactly what you need to do, and occasionally letting you out on sidequests.

    So yea, bg1>bg2.
    BlackravenGoturalJuliusBorisov
  • meaglothmeagloth Member Posts: 3,806
    And of course it seems like bg is overrated. You hang out on the forums for bg to much. Get a life:P
    JuliusBorisovDJKajurulolien
  • elementelement Member Posts: 833
    well I wouldn't say bg2 is overrated I do agree with pretty much all your complaints though
  • EmpyrialEmpyrial Member Posts: 107
    I would agree with some but not all of the OP's points.

    The complaint about freedom is, for me at least, a non-issue because I hated wandering through huge forests just to find that one NPC you were looking for. The freedom aspect also felt limited because yeah you COULD wander off wherever you wanted but your chance of dying went up really quickly. In a sense it was also immersion breaking because while there was this big world out there there was very little reason to explore it, especially early on. It would feel too much like I was going, "My foster father was just murdered in front of me! Oh Helm I should head to the Friendly Arm Inn and meet - heyyyyy what's over here?" Arguably I could also be saying, "I need to get stronger to kill whoever killed my evidently powerful foster father" but I don't feel that same push.

    I can sort of agree with the idea that the game can be repetitive, but if you break down the large spaces of BG1 it turns into the same. The pivotal fights/dungeons are all the same once you've done them so many times.

    As to the less is more approach, I think that's just a natural side effect of getting stronger. They also have to keep upping the power of weapons to allow non-spellcasters to better keep up. It would also be sad to fight harder monsters and still be amazed with your +1 sword. Similarly, killing a heaps of kobolds at higher levels with a plain old sword would be very underwhelming. "I'm level 18, darnit, why am I still being called in to massacre these little threats!?"

    I actually found the large areas hurt replay value simply because they suck up so much time. When it came to clearing the Nashkel Mines I've always been a bit "Ugh, another 3 levels of *bleep bleep bleepity bleepbleeping* kobolds when two stray arrows can kill my casters."

    I'm on the fence about the magic issue though. Part of me hates devoting so much energy to counter spells because your mages turn into glorified wands of breach, but I also thinks it makes sense. How disappointing would it be to be an archmage and know that a guy with a sharp object and a little determination could rock your socks off? Magic is supposed to be incredible and powerful, and not so easy to just brush aside.
    dstoltzfusBelgarathMTHJuliusBorisovDJKajuru
  • fanscalefanscale Member Posts: 81
    I might suggest you read a walkthrough and plan your BG2 game. Pick which quests you are going to do first. E.g. The items you will need.
    Do your Stronghold quest first also, that will have items specific to your character.
    Rescue Imoen as quickly as possible. Only if you do the Jaheira romance do you need to hang around in chapter 2.
    After rescuing Imoen do the rest of the quests.
    A high level fighter can beat any spellcaster. Make sure you have proficiency in the weapon you are wielding.
    One thing I did not before was use the special ability of items. Some give you immune to charm and hold. You can attack more than one opponent with the flail of ages, they will be slowed.
    Don't send the protagonist into certain death. Build up one of your other characters as a lich fighter and another for a different type of monster.
    SharGuidesMyHandJuliusBorisovDJKajuru
  • AutequiAutequi Member Posts: 403

    I actually debated long and hard with myself about what to title this thread. In the end, I knew that a title like this would seem bold and possibly stir some ill feelings, but at the same time, I felt that I had been bottling up these feelings for far too long and just wanted to let them out.

    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 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.

    I much prefer to not plan my games, take whatever courses of action seem natural at the given time, and then "roll with the punches" as things unfold.

    I gotta admit, I'm the kind of gamer who likes to carefully design my character, plan my party composition, complete every optional quest possible, etc. so I have no idea what it might be like to just roll with it. But if you've tried this approach with BG2, how did it work out?

    And heck, if you're fed up with the Planar Sphere, why not just abandon it? It's optional, right?
    BrudeFredjo
  • DragonspearDragonspear Member Posts: 1,838
    Not gonna lie, my dream game is BG1->BG2 (ok ok and ToB) story wise, but using the 3rd ed implementation of IWD2
    DJKajuru
  • fanscalefanscale Member Posts: 81
    There needs to be some planning. You could have some bolts of biting and crossbow skill, shoot one mage and he is unable to cast spells for several rounds.
    You could probably charge past them close a door behind you and carry on with the mission without killing them as well.
    I use the save game editor to alter npcs. If you want a sorc with better weapon skill just edit him. You shouldn't have to play the same characters every game.
  • VasculioVasculio Member Posts: 469
    I love them both... But i'm kinda of guilty of liking BG2 a bit more... I guess at my age i consider more direct route than exploring.
    But deep down i considered them to be two sides of the same coin. Together they feel complete... BG1 gives me the freedom of exploration while BG2 gives me that deeper character developement.
    This makes me think about my love for Ultima 7 series. I love Ultima 7 Black Gate for it murder mystery and exploration while in Ultima 7 Part 2: Serpent Isle i get the epic adventure to save the universe.
    JuliusBorisov
  • Excalibur_2102Excalibur_2102 Member Posts: 351
    I always said I missed the wilderness areas from BG1 in BG2, and from the very time BGEE was announced, I kept trying to put forward that some wilderness areas should be added in BG2. I have yet to play the EEs to be honest (Im waiting for a few things such as Adventure Y), but I don't think any were added. However I dont really think it takes anything away from what BG2 does well . There are some points in the game where youre strung along on a linear path (underdark etc), but then in chapter 2 for example youre left to do whatever quest in whatever order. There isnt as much exploration as BG1 but all the side quests in BG2 are a helluva lot better than the ones in BG1 in my opinion. The story is also told in a much better way overall and of course Irenicus has earned himself the title of one of the best villains ever in videogame, which also helps.

    From reading the OPs post, to me its maybe just that BG1 has more replayabilty to some of us in alot of ways.
    SharGuidesMyHandJuliusBorisov
  • BrudeBrude Member Posts: 560
    I have to agree with @Autequi. The game really isn't overrated (especially when compared against other RPGs made at the time). You've just played it too much.

    Bioware games are always extremely rigid and linear, but they're pretty clever in hiding it. It's only after you've got the game mechanics down that you begin to realize how limited they are. These games may seem to give the player a lot of choices, but those choices never effect the story much at all. It always unfolds in the exact same way. They're written against a hard script and designed so that almost any player of any skill level will be able to complete them, because Bioware wants everyone to experience the entire story. Sadly, they even got more linear over the years (eg: Dragon's Age).

    That said, I do agree with all your complaints. I wish they had built a little more randomness into the game. Not just loot drops, but it would have been nice if minor story elements like assassination attempts happened at different points and different places with each playthrough. The fact that the same guy is *always* waiting for you outside the Friendly Arm Inn gets tedious for experienced players. (As a side note, I really hate that guy).

    Magic is way too powerful in BG2, but from what I've read from PnP players on these forums, that's a problem with higher level DnD 2e rules. Characters don't scale well at higher levels. BG1 has the opposite problem: Fighters with ranged weapons are far too powerful for almost the entire game, to point where you can complete most of it without having an arcane caster in your party at all.

    PS: Also agree with @Mivsan. Even on my first through playthroughs, I thought parts of BG2 were really, really ugly. Some of the environments are repulsive. I couldn't get through the Planar Sphere and that ocean city fast enough.
    SharGuidesMyHandJuliusBorisovAutequiDJKajuru
  • Demonoid_LimewireDemonoid_Limewire Member Posts: 424
    I somewhat understand what it is you mean. But while i see it, and where it is coming from, i cannot totally agree to it (only partially), especially to the point that BG2 is overrated, or not the best point of reference and an all time classic.

    Whatever you wrote, is part of my argument too, on why do i prefer the originals over their respective EEs (aesthetically, artistically and gameplay wise). Because they are and they feel, technically, as two different games. With different styles, mechanisms and stuff. I liked the fact that they are the same game, yet they both are and feel so different.

    But what i see, is just that. That 2 is simply different. Not restricted, limited, lacking in comparison, missing something that 1 had, etc... I see them as two different sides of the same coin; which is one complementing the other, and not setting them apart.

    1) Yes, i liked exploration in 1. But that did not make me feel bad about 2. Instead, i tried to justify it by the strong scenario, the pressure and hurry that burdens you with (time is of the essence, dangerous events are in motion and time is running), and most importantly, to enjoy it as a fresh new experience, different to that of 1. Besides, with all these playthroughs and stuff, i did not even notice that i do not have fun exploring ever.

    2) Magic. Well, in RPGs, magic is magic. Usually, it is the most important thing, upon which, even entire worlds are dependent for survival, and its disturbance, can even damage it or even destroy it for good. While it is annoying that you cannot spellcast freely, if you know where to go and whom to see, and you can pretty early in the game too, you get a license for that. From an RP, hardcore, and game difficulty perspective, it was also a nice idea, and something new... Also, this is a great chance to get a magic user main rolling. BG 2 was the first single RPG that "forced" me to try a mage character for the first time (i mostly go warrior on other games), and i enjoyed it pretty much, too! If you do not like the idea, then you can always carry a mage npc anyway!

    3) Fog of war, if i remember correctly, and if it indeed did, was removed from 2. Mostly because it would be exploited hard. I liked it in 1. That is why i enjoy it again and again, each and every time i start a new game! In 2, its absence simply "forces" you to develop more efficient strategy... Or that is what i like to think.

    4) Ambushing enemies. Yes, on it, i agree wholeheartedly. They could do a better job on this one. Especially inbetween travels between town hubs, ambushes are all the same, and even the loot they carry, is all the same. This one is agreeably and understandably pretty lame and boring.

    5) The trapped feeling and the must escape urge. I daresay i liked it, and found it innovating. It gives out a creepy feeling, some abstract horror, a thrill, if you will. Sadly, i do not agree on this one... I like dark environments, being trapped, struggling to both escape and survive. I loved 2 for this priceless experience, throughout the game, i felt like playing in a cult, very bad, d-rate, horror movie with exquisite actors. And i liked it very much!

    All in all, you can always enjoy them separately, for what they are as games. Do not play the "find the differences", because you will not enjoy them as much. Instead, play the " forget the differences and do in one of them whatever you cannot do in the other". You are going to enjoy things, much, much more!
    SharGuidesMyHandJuliusBorisovAutequiDJKajuru
  • O_BruceO_Bruce Member Posts: 2,790
    What the OP is saying is a disadvantage of this game, to me it's a advantage. That's because I do not enjoy games with a wide open spaces to explore with hardly anything interesting in them. At that could be said about about first Baldur's Gate. Why should I bother with exploring wide open spaces, when they are not interesting at all? The optional areas hardly had any variety and most of them weren't plot-involved at all. They were just there*. I would rather enjoy roleplaying my character throught the plot, and that's what I do while playing BG, be it 1 or 2.

    While more "open" games give the players more freedom, I find more "closed" games much more interesting, as I think that the plot and action in them feels more personal and involving. That's just a personal thing.

    If I was to name the most overrated cRPG, it will be Skyrim. Absolute freedom, absolute boredom, absolutely weak plot, absolutely forgetable NPCs, absolutely what majority of gamers wants.

    *In comparison, you felt need to explote many side-areas from BG2, as you needed to earn money to continue with the plot.
    Demonoid_LimewireJuliusBorisov
Sign In or Register to comment.