What you are saying is akin to someone claiming Lord of the Rings is generic and boring because it has Elves, Dwarves, and Orcs, which is super generic. Baldur's Gate came first, and it is subsequent RPGs that are banal, shit, and boring to the core.
Uh...
1) What he's actually saying is: Hobbit is less cool than Lord of the Rings, despite both being set in the same universe.
2) Just because Baldur's Gate came first doesn't mean the subsequent RPGs are banal, shit and boring to the core. In fact, the opposite is stated - that Baldur's Gate 2 is BETTER in this aspect than Baldur's Gate 1.
Morrowind feels like a dead husk due to the dogshit that is the gamebyro engine. The streets feel empty and sad, there are barely any people running around, and that is not even mentioning the fact that Morrowind is a shit, first person game, that should not ever be compared to Baldur's Gate. What use is world building when the medium at which you experience the world is a so terrible?
Morrowind is no Gothic when it comes to creating the illusion of alive world (which Gothic did brilliantly), but that doesn't change the fact that the world of Morrowind has a lot of character, despite being static. It's one of the reasons why people like it so much, even today.
Outside of these two games, which are commonly considered to have some of the greatest world building of any cRPG ever, what cRPGs have superior world building to Baldur's Gate?
Gothic? Despite being pretty simple, it really sells well the idea of being part of the penal colony, how big it is, how it operates and why it keeps operating.
This would be like if someone watched The Two Towers first and then claimed Fellowship of the Ring was anticlimatic and boring.
JarlFrank did say this was big part of the reason why he was disappointed in BG1... I mean, I found Lord of the Rings to be waaaay better than Hobbit and I did read Hobbit before Lord of the Rings, so I am not sure what are you trying to say here.
Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 literally feel like they're in the same setting?
Yes? So is Hobbit and Lord of the Rings? That's not the issue. For example, in BG1 you don't get to fight a dragon. In BG2 you can fight a few. In Baldur's Gate 1 you don't leave a relatively small area. In BG2 you visit exotic places of the world and even other planes (albeit briefly). That's the difference.
Just because the city architecture in Athkatla is different than what we'd normally see in a European city, isn't enough to make it feel interesting or unique.
Its architecture wasn't really the main reason for it to feel interesting or unique. The fact that it's an urban area alone is good enough to make it more interesting than a middle of nowhere. But what really makes Athkatla interesting (NOT unique!) is the sheer amount of content and places to go within the city. It feels like a bustling metropoly it pretends to be. At least it did that for me.
What is so interesting about the second game if the first was so banal and shit? My point is that the difference in how fantastical the two games are is so razor thin, that trying to claim the difference that was present in Baldur's Gate 2 is what made the setting awesome and amazing is ridiculous.
This. Right here. This is ridiculous. I already said that while BG1 is an adventure, BG2 is an epic adventure. It's a difference between Hobbit and Lord of the Rings. They are not the same merely because the share the setting. Just because both games have Orcs and Goblins doesn't mean they are on the same level.
None of the wilderness regions in Baldur's Gate look samey and this is a flat out false statement. Just go to the Baldur's Gate Wiki and view the collage of the wilderness areas.
...
You might want to open that spoiler in my previous post, because I did post the image of all maps of BG1 combined. And after you've done that do check out how diverse are the locations in BG2 compared to the incredibly various "the wilderness regions" of BG1.
Many of which feel fake and artificial due to the hub nature of Baldur's Gate 2. I'm not against hub style settings, but not in my Baldur's Gate game.
That's not even an argument - that's an opinion. Just because you find it "fake and artificial" (I don't) doesn't diminish the varied nature of locations in BG2, nor diminishes the opinion of others that locations of BG2 feel same-y and boring (because it's mostly the green wilderness).
These NPCs have no fucking clue who we are. How do they know we are the right man for the job? This doesn't make the world feel alive and unstatic, it makes it feel fake and artificial.
Well, I disagree.
As for how they know we are the right man for the job:
First of all - some NPCs do have an idea as to who we are. I guess you don't know that, because by your own admission you stopped playing very early in the game. Some approach you because of your comrades.
Secondly - you have a party with you, and you yourself (as the player) ARE already a seasoned adventurer after your adventures in BG1. Then there is also the matter of your reputation. As you keep doing things it stands to reason for people to flock to you to get a job done.
And the problem with unlocks is that Athkatla is a fucking city. Why do I need to hear a super specific dialogue if I want to visit the docks? All of the things you name as pros are actually major elements of decline which make the game feel linear and take away the player's agency and harm their immersion.
Again - that's just your opinion. In my opinion it made sense for locations to be marked on the map AFTER I learned about them from someone. Would it be great to be able to find them accidentally on my own? Certainly. But it would also be pointless for the most part to dick around the countryside and bump into something, considering that the map isn't THAT populated with unique areas, so I can see why they didn't go for the Fallout-style map.
All of the things you mentioned also happen in the city of Baldur in the first game. And they literally do not cut down the fat. Every single zone in the city of Baldur in the first game is a lean steak, no fat on them. Athkatla would have benefit massively from more zones so all of its quests could be spread out, versus what they did which was have a quest giver and/or encounter every five feet you move.
Again - an opinion, not a fact. I enjoyed Athkatla how it was done in BG2 and adding more zones to "spread out" quests would hurt content density and, as a result, the illusion of a bustling city where there is a plenty of stuff to do.
You're just adding to my argument that Baldur's Gate 2 is the inferior game to Baldur's Gate 1.
Does BG2 has a weak story (because it had to try and link BG2 to BG1)? Sure. Is BG2 "the inferior game"? Fuck no.
Padding out content and having zones which are not filled to the brim with encounters and quests are not the same thing.
This could be true. Unless it was done that way to extend the amount of locations in a relatively cheap way. Which you can't really deny either. But regardless the actual reason - it still doesn't undermine the opinions of people who find these zones boring as there is not much to do in them.
Let me rephrase then. It didn't lack in personality, it's personality was just so obtrusive and obnoxious that it would have been better if it had none at all.
Eh, I don't agree. I appreciated BG companions over ID "companions".
I know. My argument is that Baldur's Gate does those open areas far better.
That's not an argument. That's an opinion.
Thanks for explaining this captain obvious, but it's still decline.
I wouldn't have to "explain it" had it been so obvious. And I wasn't really explaining it - more like I was presenting a different point of view on the matter. Because I don't think it was done that way for the reasons you stated.
Look at what you quoted. More fantastical does not quate to being better. Just because BG2 is more fantastical doesn't mean it's better, which is my point.
I know what I quoted. I was explaning
JarlFrank position as to why BG2 feels more fantastical than BG1. Just beause you think BG2 being more fantastical doesn't mean it's better doesn't change anything about his opinion (or mine). And that was my point.
DnD the ruleset is different from the Dungeons and Dragons Forgotten Realms setting.
But we aren't really talking about the ruleset as such. We're talking about the setting. And Forgotten Realms is a [campaign] setting for DnD. In case of Baldur's Gate we're talking about Advanced Dungeons & Dragons.
It's part of the reason why the movies feel very pointless without the Scouring of the Shire.
1) Arguably saving the world is good enough motivator for Frodo to go to Mordor. Before that he "just" delivers the Ring to Rivendell.
2) Galadriel shows Frodo what happens to the Shire in the scene with The Mirror (it's in the Extended Edition though. Frankly, I feel they should have left most of the scenes uncut, because they were really adding to the movie).
