thank you! i meant more along the lines of debating whether i should create a pure thief and have it take up a party slot or not. itd be worth it when i could ditch imoen but then again the mods mentioned all seem like they would add a new layer to my game. >_< decisions decisions, thanks again @gorgonzola
one thing i hate about both games is that while gems stack, necklaces and rings dont so the lack of gem bags is a constant frustration in BG1 and chateau irenicus as i cant bear to drop things i can sell.
As a quick response to a minor point, in BGEE Neera comes with a gem bag (and several gems gotten through dubious means). It's the second-best reason to recruit her!
(Neera, incidentally, can also make good use of that Cloudkill spell, as can any charname Wild Mage.)
As a quick response to a minor point, in BGEE Neera comes with a gem bag (and several gems gotten through dubious means). It's the second-best reason to recruit her!
@Ayiekie even with her gem bag i found my last BG EE playthrough gave me so many gems and necklaces as drops that even with neeras gembag i was frequently getting full or very close to full inventories but the bag did help.
i was avoiding her that playthrough so that i could get her when ready and go straight into her quest.
what can she do with cloudkill? id be interested to know how it turns out for her given the magic surge factor
what can she do with cloudkill? id be interested to know how it turns out for her given the magic surge factor
Due to Nahal's Reckless Dweomer, Neera (or a charname Wild Mage) can cast any spell with a level 1 spell slot at the cost of guaranteeing a wild surge.
So, she can actually cast it. A whole bunch of times if she has the "double your first level spells" ring that I always give her. Using Chaos Shield first will make it somewhat less likely that said casting will go horribly wrong.
It IS actually tremendously useful, though I wouldn't do it on a no-reload run. I've had Neera wipe 90% of the bandit camp (for example) by herself.
oh wow @Ayiekie thats pretty awesome! i imagine it would be quite handy to cast higher level spells instead of level 1 spells especially since BG doesnt always give enough exp for those spells to be cast.
its something to consider as im always a bit nervous that shell kill all my gold.
its something to consider as im always a bit nervous that shell kill all my gold.
When you are using a wild mage is wise to convert items and valuable gems into money only when you need that money, and invest the money that you have fast. The tactic of spamming dwehomers with a very low level wild mage, even in a reload allowed context, imo is borderline to cheating, if you don't reload only when something VERY bad happens. Abusing the reloads, doing so almost at every bad surge, make the wild mage OP, he can cast "improved alacrity like" each spell that he knows at the cost of a lev1 slot. And the reloads mean that there are no cons. Reloading only if the surge kills permanently an NPC or Charname, but accepting every other bad surge, maybe running away from the gated demons, with no money and Neera in squirrel form, is different, risky but rewarding. That is only my opinion obviously, everybody is free to reload when and how many times he wishes, is not written in any stone in the game when and why it has to be allowed or forbidden.
They are gone forever, unless you have a mod that allow the thing. I know which it is for not EE, but as I am new to EE don't know which one is used in it for the purpose.
There's a workaround for it: first send them into a building so that they don't see the main character and only after that exclude them from your party. This way when you need them, just enter that building with the main character and in the dialogue choose to continue travelling together.
True, but doing it with Jaheira and Minsk, in not EE, and going to take them after a lot of time, like all SoA chap 2 and more, I had them acting like if they had been dismissed, the dialogue was the one when you recruit again, not the are you sure you get at the moment that you drop them. I don't know if this was a bug, if something like a timer or changing chapter is involved or else, but in my experience is not 100% reliable. But that was with NPCs and not with chars created in multiplayer, I just report it because maybe it can happen also in EE and, if is related to chapter changing or some similar condition it potentially can happen also with a shorter span of time.
I can't not give my two cents on this. Both of these games are truly great pieces of art. They should make a room in the Louvre for Baldur's Gate 1 and 2; maybe even one room for each.
The first game makes me feel a lot more free than the second. It has an atmosphere amd/or general feel to it that has driven me to complete it several times, the last of which happened only a few days ago.
In the second game, everything feels like such a *chore*. The complexity of a single fight calls for more actual thinking than an entire chapter in the first one. It puzzles me to no end that the second installment is hailed as the better of the two, even if it is one of the greatest games published to this date. Baldur's gate 2 is *challenging*, and doesn't successfully provide the insta-gratification that the gamers of today so sorely crave.
@raelcari said: Both of these games are truly great pieces of art. They should make a room in the Louvre for Baldur's Gate 1 and 2; maybe even one room for each.
It puzzles me to no end that the second installment is hailed as the better of the two, even if it is one of the greatest games published to this date.
It doesn't puzzle me at all. The first half of BG1 can be summarized as "aimless stumbling through mostly empty wilderness maps which each have one or at best two points of interest". The game doesn't really pick up until you reach the Cloakwood Forest. BG 2 pits you directly in a sprawling city with a huge variety in terms of both quests and locales. In general, all the areas in BG2 are much more distinct and better designed, both quest- and environmentwise. BG1 is a fun game, but BG2 is definitely on another level. The main thing BG1 has over BG2 is campaign plausibility. The main plot of BG1 makes actually sense, and its world isn't populated by an absurd number of epic level creatures.
Another point in Baldur's Gate 2's favor is that of Jon Irenicus. A complex villain who is just so dang cool and formidable. Seravok was more disconnected and only showed up for brief moments before the final showdown. Irenicus's reminds me of Icarus. He flew too close to the sun and lost everything. His villainy was born of the personal struggle to reclaim what he lost. Seravok's story is painfully straightforward in comparison.
Baldur's Gate 2 did lack in the exploration front when it comes to sheer number of areas. But what the sequel gained was a razor sharp focus with each area teeming with hidden gems as opposed to "one or two points of interest" like @jinxed75 said.
Both incredible games in their own right, but I have to give the edge to Baldur's Gate 2.
Another point in Baldur's Gate 2's favor is that of Jon Irenicus. A complex villain who is just so dang cool and formidable.
Complex? "Hurrdurr, I'm destined to become a god, and I shall have my will". Irenicus is as clichee as it gets concerning megalomaniacs. There's zero depth to his character, he's completely onedimensional. His perceived greatness can be described with two words: David Warner. It's his extraordinary performance which made the character, not its writing.
Another point in Baldur's Gate 2's favor is that of Jon Irenicus. A complex villain who is just so dang cool and formidable.
Complex? "Hurrdurr, I'm destined to become a god, and I shall have my will". Irenicus is as clichee as it gets concerning megalomaniacs. There's zero depth to his character, he's completely onedimensional. His perceived greatness can be described with two words: David Warner. It's his extraordinary performance which made the character, not its writing.
You have to admit he has a lot more going for him than Sarevok who just murders because that's what his daddy did. Irenicus was a self-made man who was unmade for his arrogance and tried to get it all back. I find his arc more compelling than Sarevok. The most complex villain of all time? Not by any stretch. But more complex than Sarevok I would say.
You have to admit he has a lot more going for him than Seravok who just murders because that's what his daddy did. Irenicus was a self-made man who was unmade for his arrogance and tried to get it all back. I find his arc more compelling than Seravok. The most complex villain of all time? Not by any stretch. But more complex than Seravok I would say.
And this lot would be? He gets a lot more exposition, this I can agree on. Sarevok's motives were mostly covered by diary entries in comparison. But his actions followed a clear purpose, actually exactly the same as Irenicus. But I don't see how Irenicus has a lot going for him. He was among the most priviliged and powerful of his people, couldn't get enough, nearly doomed his own folks in the process, and goes on trying while mewling about self-perceived injustices. There isn't a single hint of doubt in him at any time, not a friction of nuance. That makes him a run-of-the-mill villain in my book.
I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. I just don't find Sarevok as interesting as Irenicus. I will admit that my opinion could be persuaded by the performance, or even the powerful first impression that BG2 had on me growing up. But in the end, when I think of both villains, I am immediately drawn to Irenicus over Sarevok. Call me crazy lol.
i think both villians are suited to their games respectively.
the style of sarevok was suited to BG as our CHARNAME is just starting on their journey and isnt a threat (at the time) so sarevok wouldnt need to grace us with his presence or higher level minions. its when we start to become more of a hindrance and start derailing his plans that we learn more about him and he takes steps to shut us down.
in BG2 i feel they were trying for a more 'sophisticated' and complex enemy. our character knows what they are now so it will throw up more issues and avenues to explore and i think irenicus is the attempt at that. i did like how he was shown in SoD which lets us know hes been stalking us for a while
the game evolved so the enemy needed to as well. opinions will always be mixed on whether or not it was achieved however for me personally, one thing will always be the same, i just *LOVE* how sarevok says "im sorry that you feel that way old man" when dealing with gorian. i just love the voice acting and the way sarevok is oozing with contempt, malice, and confidence. its one of my favourite things in the whole game and all these years later its still as awesome as ever. IMO irenicus doesnt have that moment for me and if he did or was given one i think it would vastly improve his character.
Entirely fair. A lot of Irenicus' backstory is flat stated to the player, while Sarevok's takes a little digging and can be missed.
This is true. Irenicus does get more exposition and you get to see more range from him as a character in real time. Sarevok you have to uncover yourself and from a distance. He does have a sort of mysterious allure that Irenicus doesn't, and his story is more personally tied to Gorion's Ward than Irenicus (who is mostly an aside to the Bhaal Spawn plot). Sarevok does have some good things going for him, but ever since Irenicus busts out of his lair and cries "You will suffer, you will all suffer!" I was hooked lol.
I'm afraid I have to disagree. Irenicus should have been a lot more complex but the game itself reduced all the ambaguity about the character, we only have left a very focused short term "bid for power" with not much else. Except for the voice acting.
And that's why in TOB, Sarevok was brought back. Enough backstory had been laid down (in a more subtle and more in the players control to find out which is far better) to make the character and the decisions he made to be questioned. They bothered to ask the question of whether, if Sarevok had been the chosen child by Gorion, he would have turned to following Bhaal.
In BG we meet Centreol, completely abandoned plot point in BG2. BG2 paints Irenicus as a man who is only interested in power, but we never find out why, just that it wasn't "enough". What questions, in the same vein, could be asked of Irenicus?
@UnderstandMouseMagic , good points all. I was merely speaking of the main antagonist of BG1 and that of BG2. I was not taking TOB into account, and you are absolutely correct. It is at this junction that Sarevok's character edges out against Irenicus. But in TOB Sarevok is not the antagonist, he is an ally, and a compelling one at that. If we are speaking of Sarevok's character through the entire series, I will concede to Sarevok being more complex. If we are speaking of purely in terms of "villain of BG1" and "villain of BG2" I would still prefer Irenicus. The Dream sequences alone I found super compelling, though these are possibly whisperings of Bhaal's essence and not Irenicus at all...but still.
Comments
(Neera, incidentally, can also make good use of that Cloudkill spell, as can any charname Wild Mage.)
i was avoiding her that playthrough so that i could get her when ready and go straight into her quest.
what can she do with cloudkill? id be interested to know how it turns out for her given the magic surge factor
So, she can actually cast it. A whole bunch of times if she has the "double your first level spells" ring that I always give her. Using Chaos Shield first will make it somewhat less likely that said casting will go horribly wrong.
It IS actually tremendously useful, though I wouldn't do it on a no-reload run. I've had Neera wipe 90% of the bandit camp (for example) by herself.
its something to consider as im always a bit nervous that shell kill all my gold.
The tactic of spamming dwehomers with a very low level wild mage, even in a reload allowed context, imo is borderline to cheating, if you don't reload only when something VERY bad happens.
Abusing the reloads, doing so almost at every bad surge, make the wild mage OP, he can cast "improved alacrity like" each spell that he knows at the cost of a lev1 slot. And the reloads mean that there are no cons. Reloading only if the surge kills permanently an NPC or Charname, but accepting every other bad surge, maybe running away from the gated demons, with no money and Neera in squirrel form, is different, risky but rewarding.
That is only my opinion obviously, everybody is free to reload when and how many times he wishes, is not written in any stone in the game when and why it has to be allowed or forbidden.
I don't know if this was a bug, if something like a timer or changing chapter is involved or else, but in my experience is not 100% reliable. But that was with NPCs and not with chars created in multiplayer, I just report it because maybe it can happen also in EE and, if is related to chapter changing or some similar condition it potentially can happen also with a shorter span of time.
The first game makes me feel a lot more free than the second. It has an atmosphere amd/or general feel to it that has driven me to complete it several times, the last of which happened only a few days ago.
In the second game, everything feels like such a *chore*. The complexity of a single fight calls for more actual thinking than an entire chapter in the first one. It puzzles me to no end that the second installment is hailed as the better of the two, even if it is one of the greatest games published to this date. Baldur's gate 2 is *challenging*, and doesn't successfully provide the insta-gratification that the gamers of today so sorely crave.
Both of these games are truly great pieces of art. They should make a room in the Louvre for Baldur's Gate 1 and 2; maybe even one room for each.
I agree.
The game doesn't really pick up until you reach the Cloakwood Forest. BG 2 pits you directly in a sprawling city with a huge variety in terms of both quests and locales. In general, all the areas in BG2 are much more distinct and better designed, both quest- and environmentwise.
BG1 is a fun game, but BG2 is definitely on another level. The main thing BG1 has over BG2 is campaign plausibility. The main plot of BG1 makes actually sense, and its world isn't populated by an absurd number of epic level creatures.
Baldur's Gate 2 did lack in the exploration front when it comes to sheer number of areas. But what the sequel gained was a razor sharp focus with each area teeming with hidden gems as opposed to "one or two points of interest" like @jinxed75 said.
Both incredible games in their own right, but I have to give the edge to Baldur's Gate 2.
There's zero depth to his character, he's completely onedimensional. His perceived greatness can be described with two words: David Warner.
It's his extraordinary performance which made the character, not its writing.
But I don't see how Irenicus has a lot going for him. He was among the most priviliged and powerful of his people, couldn't get enough, nearly doomed his own folks in the process, and goes on trying while mewling about self-perceived injustices. There isn't a single hint of doubt in him at any time, not a friction of nuance.
That makes him a run-of-the-mill villain in my book.
the style of sarevok was suited to BG as our CHARNAME is just starting on their journey and isnt a threat (at the time) so sarevok wouldnt need to grace us with his presence or higher level minions. its when we start to become more of a hindrance and start derailing his plans that we learn more about him and he takes steps to shut us down.
in BG2 i feel they were trying for a more 'sophisticated' and complex enemy. our character knows what they are now so it will throw up more issues and avenues to explore and i think irenicus is the attempt at that. i did like how he was shown in SoD which lets us know hes been stalking us for a while
the game evolved so the enemy needed to as well. opinions will always be mixed on whether or not it was achieved however for me personally, one thing will always be the same, i just *LOVE* how sarevok says "im sorry that you feel that way old man" when dealing with gorian. i just love the voice acting and the way sarevok is oozing with contempt, malice, and confidence. its one of my favourite things in the whole game and all these years later its still as awesome as ever. IMO irenicus doesnt have that moment for me and if he did or was given one i think it would vastly improve his character.
I'm afraid I have to disagree. Irenicus should have been a lot more complex but the game itself reduced all the ambaguity about the character, we only have left a very focused short term "bid for power" with not much else.
Except for the voice acting.
And that's why in TOB, Sarevok was brought back. Enough backstory had been laid down (in a more subtle and more in the players control to find out which is far better) to make the character and the decisions he made to be questioned.
They bothered to ask the question of whether, if Sarevok had been the chosen child by Gorion, he would have turned to following Bhaal.
In BG we meet Centreol, completely abandoned plot point in BG2.
BG2 paints Irenicus as a man who is only interested in power, but we never find out why, just that it wasn't "enough".
What questions, in the same vein, could be asked of Irenicus?