Baldur's Gate Baldur's Gate 2 is vastly overrated

[Morgoth]

BG2's Irenicus Dungeon and Chapter 2 remain unsurpassed, but as a whole, BG1 was better and more cohesive. James Ohlen just had a better grip on his games than Gaider.

 

[Arbiter]

Neverwinter Nights was not meant to be a successor to Baldur's Gate. Don't quote the BG1 easter egg character and the BG2 mentions of it, because they were rendered as invalid as soon as Vampire The Masquerade Redemption came out. Its DM mode made waves in the gaming scene and entire articles were devoted to it. It could also be seen as one of the main reasons why NWN changed its development halfway through, since they had to stay relevant in the scene and the IE was seen as old news even when Icewind Dale came out, Vampire has its DM mode and on top of that MMORPGs were obliterating the entire genre (to the point that normal rpgs were slowly but surely being seen as a dead genre). It kinda saved the game, to have this emphasis on multiplayer and user generated content. Baldur's Gate's multiplayer is NOT the same than NWN's, in NWN multiplayer *is* the game. You play it to simulate a tabletop experience. And the jump to 3d was seen as revolutionary, especially the lightning and particle effects, which, to be honest, were quite pretty at the time.

NWN was the next BioWare RPG after BG2 so fans had the right to be disappointed, even if BioWare itself did not view the game as a BG successor. Your argument is like saying that Diablo fans should not be raging over Diablo Immortal, because that game is not a spiritual successor to the PC series.

Multiplayer was quickly abandoned by BioWare, following RPGs developed by the studio did not even feature coop mode. Not sure why, NWN multiplayer was said to be very popular.

 

[octavius]

Wasn't MP kind of the selling point, with no party to control in SP?

 

[anvi]

Yeah it needed multiplayer. The editor was the big selling point. It was the first time I knew of a game that let people make more content for the game like that. It's not like Bethesda editor or something, it was really the dev tools for the game itself polished up for the public to use. So when people complained about the graphics I always felt like they were being harsh and stupid and missing the point. It could have looked much better at the time but not with an editor that lets people make new worlds. The editor was the whole point.

Same with the original campaign, it was was pretty crappy but buying it for the campaign was missing the point. They put one in but their focus was making an editor that lets people make their own campaigns. And it worked, there were lots of good user missions pumped out. I always felt sorry for NWN. People were harsh about it but only because they were judging it wrong. The game suffered because it offered so much. It could have been so popular if they just made a dumbass Diablo clone.

 

[ghostlife]

The editor was the big selling point... I always felt like they were being harsh and stupid and missing the point.

"yeah it sucks as shipped, but look you can write the game for us!!!"

 

[ds]

The editor is the explanation for some of NwN's graphical weaknesses but I don't think it's an excuse. Yes, making levels easily editable meant using tile-sets but the ones that shipped with NwN could be a lot better. Fan-made ones have done much better at hiding the inherent blockyness and repetition - and even those could still be improved within the framework. Then there's the characters. NwN's character faced are ridiculously low detailed. Perhaps they assumed people would treat it as a semi-isometric game and stay zoomed out but the camera options and the cutscenes in the DLCs don't reinforce that expectation.

And multiplayer is an entirely separate focus from the editor. I don't think it really needed it and I never got into NwN multiplayer myself but some people seem to have benefited from it.

 

[Arbiter]

The editor was the big selling point. It was the first time I knew of a game that let people make more content for the game like that.

WarCraft 2 came with a map editor in 1995. StarCraft (1998) editor added support for scripting through triggers.

 

[anvi]

The editor was the big selling point. It was the first time I knew of a game that let people make more content for the game like that.

WarCraft 2 came with a map editor in 1995. StarCraft (1998) editor added support for scripting through triggers.

It was different though, they are just editors to help people make maps and mods. But NWN let you make entire new games or campaigns. So a lot of the development time of NWN was on making those tools. But when it came to being judged and reviewed people just treated it like any other RPG.

 

[anvi]

The editor was the big selling point... I always felt like they were being harsh and stupid and missing the point.

"yeah it sucks as shipped, but look you can write the game for us!!!"

That's a retarded take. The whole point of the game was the editor.

 

[ghostlife]

The editor was the big selling point... I always felt like they were being harsh and stupid and missing the point.

"yeah it sucks as shipped, but look you can write the game for us!!!"

That's a retarded take. The whole point of the game was the editor.

What a stupid and gay opinion. The game was marketed and sold as a CRPG, not a creative toolkit. Were you even alive in 2002?

 

[Arbiter]

The editor was the big selling point. It was the first time I knew of a game that let people make more content for the game like that.

WarCraft 2 came with a map editor in 1995. StarCraft (1998) editor added support for scripting through triggers.

It was different though, they are just editors to help people make maps and mods. But NWN let you make entire new games or campaigns. So a lot of the development time of NWN was on making those tools. But when it came to being judged and reviewed people just treated it like any other RPG.

WarCraft 3 was released the same year with an editor that spawned a new genre (MOBA), yet it was a good game in its own right, not a strategy game toolkit.

 

[ghostlife]

It all comes back to the other thread, clearly Bioware was right to resent their writers

 

[smaug]

BG2's Irenicus Dungeon and Chapter 2 remain unsurpassed, but as a whole, BG1 was better and more cohesive. James Ohlen just had a better grip on his games than Gaider.

Huh? All of BG2’s chapter 2 content blows anything in BG1 out of the water. Although, I never played beyond the 4th chapter to play the shittier part of BG2

 

[Rosey]

Multiplayer was really bad. The pause function broke it for the most part. My only attempt was, as a lad, getting a fren to lan party with me on a pirated copy. I swiftly tried to assert dominance with my lvl 22 chaotic evil dragon disciple but he applied poison and stun lock smacked me into the planet with some blackguard bullshit. 0/10 ego death worst experience of my life.

 

[anvi]

The editor was the big selling point. It was the first time I knew of a game that let people make more content for the game like that.

WarCraft 2 came with a map editor in 1995. StarCraft (1998) editor added support for scripting through triggers.

It was different though, they are just editors to help people make maps and mods. But NWN let you make entire new games or campaigns. So a lot of the development time of NWN was on making those tools. But when it came to being judged and reviewed people just treated it like any other RPG.

WarCraft 3 was released the same year with an editor that spawned a new genre (MOBA), yet it was a good game in its own right, not a strategy game toolkit.

Yeah... That doesn't make NWN any less impressive.

 

[Orud]

Problem with NWN's editor from my POV (at least, at launch) was that it felt too limited on content to be seen as a main feature.

Outside of what you saw in the main campaign, there was nothing extra to let your creativity go wild. It felt like you could re-order the main campaign, but that was it.

 

[Chippy]

OP's mother was overrated.

 

[Chippy]

BG2's Irenicus Dungeon and Chapter 2 remain unsurpassed, but as a whole, BG1 was better and more cohesive. James Ohlen just had a better grip on his games than Gaider.

So painful to brofist a post made by a librul spastic. But credit where it's due.

 

[JarlFrank]

The problem with NWN is that it plays so shit, even the best user-made modules are barely bearable to play.

I did enjoy some NWN modules. The infamous Dance With Rogues is good because you can avoid combat (which should be a core D&D gameplay element) most of the time, and NWN's combat sucks.
Swordflight has amazing dungeon design but the combat, again, completely fucking sucks because it's NWN.

Both modules would be 10/10 RPGs if released on their own, or made in an engine that isn't shit (ToEE for example).
Sadly, they're massively held back by the suck of the NWN engine, dragging them down from 10/10 to a mere 5/10 at best (NWN's original campaign is a 1/10).

NWN has the most abysmal gameplay I've seen in RPGs, on par with shitty slavjank shovelware. Utter bottom of the barrel tier.

Even the modules I "enjoyed", I only enjoyed at an abstract level. I can see the genius behind Swordflight's encounter and level design, for example, but actually playing it is completely joyless and feels like a chore, because of how bad NWN plays.
Swordflight and ADwR are good modules and I appreciate their design, but it's fucking depressing to play it because you know this content could be good if it ran in a different engine. Any engine. Anything other than the joy-sucking tedium-generator that is NWN.

 

[Beans00]

I'd say bg2 is overrated but it was still an ok game. I liked bg1 and 2 when I played them as kids, not so much when replaying them recently. IMO trash mob grinding gameplay was much easier to stomach when I was a kid.

I think if you merged the 2nd half of bg1 and the first half of bg2 (the cities of baldurs gate and athkat) it would be one of my favorite games ever. The first half of bg1 and 2nd half of bg2 are....Bad(at least IMO).


NWN was terrible, I never bothered with custom modules but I can't see a way anyone could enjoy NWN gameplay without being sub 90 IQ or insanely bored. I guess it has good menu music?

 

[Volourn]

NWN has some of the best gameplay ever. If you disagree, you are anti rpg and just a plain old fashion retart.

BG2 is one of the top 3 crpgs ever. If you disagree you are moran.

PERIOD.

 

[Jackpot]

I'm playing through BG2 again after like a decade and I'm definitely noticing some more flaws now.
The writing isn't that good. It does do the setting justice, I think, but it really casts a huge net in both tone and scope.
A lot of big events are kind of brushed over and not addressed by anyone, and the game uses the trope of a villain teleporting away before they die more than a JRPG.

Mechanically the game definitely shows its age, but as an adaptation of DnD rules it could have done a lot worse.
I still would not call the combat "fun", but it serves the roleplaying well enough.

 

[Orud]

I always felt Baldur's Gate 2's dialogue was decent, but nothing stellar. What it did do well however, was creating a compelling world and interesting situations you end up in.

While the narrative details can be argued about, the entire journey was awesome... especially to a 10 year old.

 

[deuxhero]

Is anyone working on a turnbased mod for GemRB?

 

[Vic]

While the narrative details can be argued about, the entire journey was awesome... especially to a 10 year old.

Are you saying you beat BG2 at 10 years old? Are you a russian chess grandmaster too?