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

[octavius]

Yes, there is a dedication to him in the BG2 manual.

 

[Harthwain]

Personally I think ItsChon has recently discovered the wonders of cocaine.

More like he's so deep in his own ass that he can't see for shit. Early Alzheimer probably plays a role as well.

I mean:

1) Jarl Frank says BG is generic high fantasy and BG1 in particular is mundane for the setting, so BG2 feels more exotic by comparison.

2) ItsChon whines about BG1 and BG2 being the same setting(!), then claims BG2 isn't more exotic than BG1 (because "they're the same setting"...) nor that cRPGs with more exotic settings exist.

3) Jarl Frank proves him wrong on both accounts.

4) ItsChon falls aback to "BG is not exotic", when Jarl Frank said from get-go that BG as a whole is a generic high fantasy setting and BG2 is more exotic than BG1 by comparison, NOT that it's more exotic than some other cRPGs (because it's not).

There has to be something seriously wrong with the guy when he fails so hard at following the conversation. And that's not even touching other issues, which I don't care to list at this point.

 

[Oreshnik Missile]

BG2 is a theme park not a setting and its introduction is the worst cringe of any RPG I have played.

 

[Cat Headed Eagle]

Yes, there is a dedication to him in the BG2 manual.

He was the dude who made the inventory paperdolls for BG1 (among other things, but I always remember him as the guy responsible for that).
Bioware honored him by producing the ugliest paperdolls known to mankind.

 

[PapaPetro]

I just remembered the factoid that BG1 lead artist died between games. Isn't that true?

Is that why the BG2 portraits are so different in style than BG1?

 

[Crispy]

I don't mean to derail the thread but holy shit Stratagems makes BG hard ! I'm having to actually plan on how to take out this asshole kobold shaman because he's firing off lightning bolts at my first-level party from behind Protection from Normal Missiles and Mirror Image!

I wish I had known about this mod a long time ago! It's great! Please feel free to rate this post "old" all you want to!

 

[NecroLord]

Mirror Image can easily defend against Lightning Bolt. I find that it even protects from area of effect damage spells (has anyone tested this properly?).
In BG2, occasionally you would get hit, instead of one of your images. Still don't know if it protects from area of effect damage spells.

 

[Crispy]

No, I meant that HE'S casting Protection From Normal Missiles AND Mirror Image on *himself* THEN casting Lightning Bolts at my ass! FFS! A kobold?!?

 

[ItsChon]

More like he's so deep in his own ass that he can't see for shit. Early Alzheimer probably plays a role as well.

I mean:

1) Jarl Frank says BG is generic high fantasy and BG1 in particular is mundane for the setting, so BG2 feels more exotic by comparison.

JarlFrank outright states that BG2 is "wild and exotic". He outright states that BG2 delivers an exotic vibe. Just because BG2 has a few more exotic elements than BG1 doesn't mean it can be considered a game with an exotic setting because the two games are extremely similar and the few exotic elements in BG2 that you can name aren't enough of a tangible difference for JarlFrank to claim that this is one of the reasons BG2 is superior to BG1. JarlFrank is free to enjoy whatever the fuck he wants, but he is not free to use his arbitrary preferences as evidence of why one setting is superior to another.

2) ItsChon whines about BG1 and BG2 being the same setting(!), then claims BG2 isn't more exotic than BG1 (because "they're the same setting"...) nor that cRPGs with more exotic settings exist.

In the same post where I asked JarlFrank to list RPGs with exotic settings, I listed like five different RPGs with exotic settings. I was just trying to get an understanding of what JarlFrank thinks is exotic so that I can contrast those RPGs with BG2. Sure enough, those games all feature FAR more exotic settings than what we see in BG2, which is why the claim that BG2 is a RPG with an exotic setting and/or vibe is a dumb one.

3) Jarl Frank proves him wrong on both accounts.

'k.

4) ItsChon falls aback to "BG is not exotic", when Jarl Frank said from get-go that BG as a whole is a generic high fantasy setting and BG2 is more exotic than BG1 by comparison, NOT that it's more exotic than some other cRPGs (because it's not).

As I said above, JarlFrank outright states that BG2 delivers an exotic vibe/setting.

BG2 delivers an exotic vibe.

BG2 is wild and exotic

Like I said, you don't know what the fuck is even happening. Are you going to admit you were wrong now?

Also, let it be made clear, there are so many other fucking things I mentioned that BG2 does wrong in my original post. The start of the game in Chateau Irenicus is retarded and complete dogshit. Athkatla feels like a fucking theme park, and within an hour or two of playing the game, I had more quests in my quest log than I ever did playing BG1, not because BG1 has significantly less quests than BG2, but because the way in which you obtain quests in BG1 is far better paced and structured than the way you obtain quests in BG2. Athkatla being split into districts is major decline, and further adds to the theme park nature of the city and game. Logical consistency is thrown out the window constantly, and you have massive Litch and Ilithid spam despite it not making any fucking sense. The far more interesting Iron Shortage/Amn War story line is replaced with the halfbaked Irenicus plotline and the Bahlspawn Saga which feels rushed and comparatively lame. The sound design of BG2 is far worse than the first game. The paper dolls and portraits are far worse than the first game. The companions are far more annoying and decline than the first game. BG2 completely drops the ball as a sequel and invalidates much of the decisions we made in the first game, making it feel as if nothing we did mattered. The list goes on. Instead of addressing these very valid complaints, we somehow made the whole conversation about "setting" when the two games are actually extremely fucking similar to each other in that regard. BG2 is even less grounded than the first game if anything much like FO2 and FO1, and jumps the shark in many ways. Retards here are trying to claim that this is good and adds to the "exotic" nature of the game lmfao.

If someone said they still liked BG2 despite the flaws, I admit I'd probably call them retarded and accuse them of having shit taste, but after my initial edgy reaction wore off I would respect them for at least being able to view the two games objectively. Instead we have a bunch of people that refuse to acknoweldge the many flaws with BG2 while also unfairly shitting on BG1, the predecessor to the sequel and one of the most prestigious cRPGs ever. Sad.

 

[roshan]

The weirdest and stupidest thing about BG2 was adding katanas, wakizashis and ninjatos as weapons when it didn't make any sense having weapons from such a faraway culture all over the place. What would have made more sense is weapons from the Near East. They could have added karabelas, shashqas, shamshirs, killijes, khanjars, kindjals, palas, zaghnals, tabars, saifs, tabarzins, etc. And it would have been congruent with the world since Athkatla, and even more so, Saradush, have strong Near Eastern / Byzantine vibes that were reflected in the art and music of BG2 and TOB.

 

[Oreshnik Missile]

BG2 completely drops the ball as a sequel and invalidates much of the decisions we made in the first game, making it feel as if nothing we did mattered.

I finished BG1 with Dynaheir and Khalid. Was EXTREMELY unimpressed with Jaheira and le ebin hamster man greeting me in the initial crindgeon. Although the main thing that made me drop BG2 initially was how ugly it is in comparison. Still a great game which I returned to later, but the decline is clear.

 

[Cat Headed Eagle]

No, I meant that HE'S casting Protection From Normal Missiles AND Mirror Image on *himself* THEN casting Lightning Bolts at my ass! FFS! A kobold?!?

 

[JarlFrank]

Imagine being entertained by a game where the core gameplay, the combat, is mind numbingly boring and bad. A game that has bad combat is almost certainly a shit game.

That's why I don't like BG1. The combat system is okay, but the encounter design for most of the game is just banal shit boring. That's one of my main issues with how BG plays. It has a decent enough system, but you need more than a raw system for a game's combat to be fun: you need good encounters. And BG1 has mostly boring trash fights. They're not fun to fight, they're just a waste of time. You know what game has fun encounter design? BG2.

Arcanum, a game I love, has the same issue, but it compensates for it in other aspects: a cool setting, plenty of choice & consequence, better writing and dialog mechanics, better overworld exploration. And the combat can be switched between turn based (my preferred way of playing party based isometric RPGs) and very fast real time (gets the trash fights over with quickly), so the trash encounters are less of a time-consuming slog to go through.

And I genuinely enjoy the combat of Gothic, Morrowind, Arx Fatalis etc more than BG1's. Morrowind's combat may be simple, but the magic system is amazing and gives you a lot of tools to handle your enemies. The true core of Morrowind is its exploration, though, not its combat, so no, Morrowind's core gameplay is not mind numbingly boring and bad.

(A game where this applies, though, would be Neverwinter Nights, but I'll refrain from going on an NWN hate rant now )

None of the games you mention do this however, so while they all have their own strengths, it simply doesn't matter because they are flawed products.

Yes, they are flawed products, but so is BG... and BG2, for that matter. Every game beloved by the Codex is flawed.

It's just that different people have different tolerances for different types of flaws. I happen to enjoy the flawed Morrowind more than the flawed Baldur's Gate - and the flawed Baldur's Gate 2 more than the flawed Baldur's Gate 1. You happen to do the opposite.

Retarded statement. Do you actually believe this? I'm genuinely curious. Or is this a snide comment so you don't have to acknoweldge the very legitimate point I am making. Am I supposed to imagine an NPC that doesn't exist? Am I supposed to imagine that I'm in a bustling city when the streets are empty all around me are empty and all the sounds that are emblematic of an urban environment are missing? Get the fuck out of here lmfao. The game feels fucking dead, and no amount of "use your imagination" cope will excuse it.

My comment was directed towards your claim of animations being important for immersion, not the amount of NPCs displayed on screen. Morrowind NPCs do have animations, actually - when there's a storm they will shield their face, but only if they face the direction of the wind. Pretty cool huh? But your problem is that the animations are too wooden, that you can't look past the primitive 3D graphics - while animations of the same rough quality are ok in a zoomed-out isometric game like Baldur's Gate because you don't see them as closely, so it feels more abstract to you. That was your argument.

If you need a first person game to have a certain level of technical fidelity before it becomes immersive to you, that's absolutely a you problem.

Genuine according to you. I'd be more than happy to get into a pedantic argument about what constitutes "genuine" exploration, but I think you'll have a hard time explaining why exploration done in first person is more valid than exploration done from an isometric view due to the addition of multiple directions for things to be hidden/discovered. You might argue that it's better, but they are still both exploration.

The issue is not whether or not BG1's exploration is genuine (it is obviously), but whether or not it is good. BG1 does have good exploration because it manages to create an interesting world that immerses and invests the player, so they are actively interested in it. Although you're just clearing fog of war, every time you find something new or interesting in Baldur's Gate, it feels awesome. The world is becoming more real and interesting with every step, and you are constantly excited about all the things you might discover, whether they be new quests, powerful items to help you on your journey, or just a beautiful building because of how gorgeous the hand drawn backgrounds are. It is fun to exist and find new things in a world that you are invested in, much like it is fun to walk around a city and look at the architecture. I cannot the say the same for Morrowind as an example, because even though the world itself is very interesting, the game feels dead, and I cannot immerse/invest myself in the game, so no matter how cool the things I see are, I am constantly disappointing by how dead everything around said cool things is.

I do consider first person (or close third, like in Gothic) to be a superior perspective for exploration due to factors I already listed (more complex environments with proper height levels rather than flat plane maps) so there's no need to elaborate further - we disagree on that part anyway. That said, I also mentioned how BG's exploration is inferior to, say, Arcanum's where maps don't have artificial borders and you can walk beyond a town's borders to explore the wilderness beyond. Usually there's nothing to find there and you'd just fast travel, but the Tomb of Mannox is a good example of how this feature of Arcanum is used to facilitate interesting exploration and secret hunting.

Baldur's Gate can never have something like "Leave town by the south gate, walk 50 paces to the west, and you will find a hidden tomb." because you cannot leave the boundaries of the maps, and those boundaries are always 100% clear, no mystery about it.

As for the second paragraph here, that's where I have to heavily disagree with you, and I think that's the big point where our opinions differ. You consider BG1 to be interesting, engrossing, beautiful, immersive... I consider it the opposite.
- I don't find BG1's world to be interesting at all; it's basic bitch generic Forgotten Realms fare
- When I explored BG1's maps I discovered few things I would consider interesting, so discoveries never felt awesome.
- The world didn't feel real or interesting to me at all.
- Discovering powerful items is more a thing I associate with BG2, rather than BG1, where the most powerful thing you might find would be a generic +2 sword.
- I'd also disagree with beautiful buildings - I consider BG1's artstyle to be incredibly bland, nothing about it looks beautiful to me. Oh and they're not hand drawn backgrounds btw, they're pre-rendered 3D backgrounds.
- Yes, it is a lot of fun to find new things in a world you're invested in, which is why I love exploring Morrowind and Arcanum but completely check out when exploring BG1. I just can't get invested in its world.
- What you feel about Morrowind is exactly what I feel about BG1. I cannot immerse/invest myself in the game, because I'm constantly disappointed by everything it throws at me.

No, you are just far more easily entertained than I. Good exploration for you requires far less things to work than what is required for exploration to be good for me. I do not care so much for the actual physical act of exploring, so much as I care about why I am exploring, where I am exploring, and what I find when I do explore.

I could claim the same about your view of exploring - you are far more easily entertained than I when uncovering a fog of war is more engaging to you than exploring a fully 3-dimensional worldspace.

Of course, you value other aspects of exploration; the metaphysical rather than the physical, one could say. But that doesn't mean my enjoyment of the act of exploration means I'm "more easily entertained".
My favorite game of all time is Thief, and I love playing its fan missions, many of which are even better than the original. The exploration there is top notch. I can spend 4 hours in a single level, exploring every nook and cranny. And due to the game's mechanics, the physical act of exploration itself is mentally stimulating. You see an open window somewhere above, but there's no direct way to reach it. But there's a narrow ledge leading to it, so you follow the ledge with your eyes... and over there, you spot a wooden surface that can take a rope arrow! You climb up, hop onto the ledge, and go to the open window. From there, you see another opportunity for getting to another place... and so on.

Good exploration in a 3-dimensional space involves reading the environment and finding ways to reach seemingly unreachable places by using your tools. It can be just as stimulating as solving a tough combat encounter in a tactical RPG.

Of course, the why of exploring and the discoveries you make during it are also important. But as stated above, I never got invested in what BG1 offers me there. It never made me feel like I'm exploring and interesting world, so it left me cold both in the physical act of exploration and in the metaphysical act. Exploring Morrowind is interesting to me not only because of the 3D environment and the frequent use of levitation to find hidden nooks and crannies, but also because of the lore of the place, the design of the dungeons, the things you can find, etc. Morrowind feels very much like uncovering mysteries at every step - even some of the main quests are about discovery, like the one where you have to find a rare copy of a banned book and are given only few hints as to where it might be. That's exciting, isn't it? I don't remember anything of the sort from BG1, but to be fair, I remember little of BG1 due to how unmemorable it was for me.

Alright you are definitely right about this, Morrowind does have much better art direction than Baldur's Gate. That being said, I do want to clarify why I made that statement. I said art direction and I did mean it when I said it, so I was definitely wrong, but part of what I was thinking of when I said that is the quality of the art itself in Baldur's Gate 1, and this is magnified when you look at modded/enhanced versions of Baldur's Gate which really highlight how beautiful the hand drawn backgrounds of Baldur's Gate are. Morrowind has far better art direction, but Baldur's Gate looks absolutely gorgeous at higher resolutions, and I do think it is the prettier game even despite Morrowind's excellent art directioin. My issue with Morrowind comes down to it's terrible combat, which is a major problem for any game where combat is a big focus, and how dead the game feels. It's a shame because it has a ton of potential otherwise.

This is interesting. I won't argue with you about taste, it's completely fine to prefer BG's looks over Morrowind's, but I just find it strange. Baldur's Gate's art is not hand-drawn, it was composed of pre-rendered 3D objects. You can clearly see the difference when you compare it to other isometric games that do have hand-drawn art. The 3D of Baldur's Gate's day was even more primitive than Morrowind's, even when pre-rendered, and it is noticeable in the game's final appearance. It does look rather ugly in certain places, especially natural caverns (but so does Morrowind to be fair), and I'm confused how anyone could think that's hand-drawn when it's obviously a crudely carved 3D render with muddy textures.

BG2's graphics are an improvement upon BG1's precisely because graphical technology had progressed at that point, and the pre-rendered 3D backgrounds look a lot less muddy in comparison.
All the Infinity Engine games were made with pre-rendered 3D backgrounds, as was Pillars of Eternity (but they added a lot of hand-drawn details on top of the pre-rendered backgrounds in that one), and it's plainly obvious from how they look.
It's totally fine to like their style - I do enjoy the looks of BG2, PST, and IWD2 myself - but I'm just wondering where the impression that they're hand-drawn comes from.

Yes, and how do you explore all of these things? By walking around a world that feels completely empty. Cities that are devoid of people with the few NPCs in the game barely moving are moving like cardboard cutouts. Just kills all of these things for me, and whether or not you disagree with me getting hung up on this, I'm sure you can understand why someone that does get hung up on this would find themselves incapable of immersing themselves in the world.

Personally I didn't feel like BG was any more alive than Morrowind, but yes I can understand why some people can't get into Morrowind for the reasons you stated. Fair enough.

And I will clarify, the biggest thing that is responsible for getting me immersed into a game is how alive and logically cohesive it feels. [snip]

Okay, sure, I can agree with you there, Baldur's Gate does present a cohesive setting where everything makes sense. But that on its own isn't enough to capture my interest. The detailed portrayal of infrastructure is one aspect of what makes Morrowind so immersive, so I'm totally on board with your line of thinking there.

It's just that, for me, beyond the logical setup of how people live in the Sword Coast, Baldur's Gate doesn't provide anything to hook me into the setting.

Obviously it would be ridiculous for me to ask you to present some sort of statistical analysis where you higlight how many "silly" or "quirky" dialogues there are in BG1 versus BG2 so we can determine which game takes itself more seriously. I guess we're at an impasse here, but I genuienly don't know how you got the impression that BG1 takes itself unseriously. The game is massive, around a hundred hours. There are what, ten, twenty lines that are super jarring and detract from how seriously the game takes itself? This is just such a weird distinction you're drawing, and it seems so minor compared to the actual flaws that I was attributing to BG2.

The silliness is very front-loaded, often appearing in the wilderness areas, and often directly approaching you rather than being hidden in a corner (like in, say, Fallout 1), so it left a pretty big initial impression on me. It's mostly a problem with the writing.

BG1's writing feels like someone's first D&D campaign, a DM who's enamored with the cool new game he found, and is introducing all kinds of quirky fun characters to make his players laugh (happens a lot in pen and paper D&D actually), and also has some lore dump characters (Elminster in BG1) because he's really fond of the setting he's been reading up on. BG1 just gives me those vibes of young and enthusiastic DM playing a super generic Forgotten Realms campaign with beginner D&D players. If you've ever had that experience, you know what I'm talking about.

Yes these are from the Enhanced Edition but that's only because I can't easily find modded high resolution screenshots from Baldur's Gate on google. Baldur's Gate 2 and Baldur's Gate 1 have comparable art direction in my eyes because Baldur's Gate 1 is more consistent in what it does, while Baldur's Gate 2 is all over the place, but I can see why someone would prefer the second game. You saying that there is such a big difference between the two that it is a point in favor of Baldur's Gate 2 being the superior game reeks of hyperbole.

Yeah I'll grant you this point, those upscaled screenshots do look fine, I was comparing old low res screenshots of the original games so perhaps much of the original BG1's muddy looks were due to resolution and color display issues of old hardware, and not an inherent feature of the art itself.

As an example, the Foundry feels totally different from Core City or Camp Hathor in Underrail, and it would feel different even if they had similar looking buildings. The characters dress different, they talk different, they do different things, etc, etc.

True enough. I would argue that there is a similar difference between Baldur's Gate and Athkatla, but I can't back that point up because I never had enough interest in BG1's NPCs to closely read their dialogs, so I can't make the comparison.

You never addressed the biggest problem with BG2, which is how the entire thing feels like a themepark ride where content is shoved into your face, versus an actual organic adventure like an RPG is supposed to be.

Perhaps this can be blamed on me playing BG2 first, many years before I ever got my hands on BG1, and I was a young teen when I did so. But it never felt explicitly theme-parky to me. Even on a replay many years later I didn't get that impression.

Now, I do understand why you would get that impression, especially if you played BG1 first and expected a similar experience. But due to the way the game's story is framed, it doesn't feel very themeparky to me despite the game pushing so many different scenarios on you. For the first half of the game, you're basically a mercenary looking to make money, and what kinds of jobs would a high profile mercenary most likely go for? Yep, dangerous jobs with good pay! Now the second half is a lot more railroaded, but it still makes sense within the narrative structure. You have to go through the Underdark, which might feel like fan service to some degree, but the underwater city is an optional area you only get when you use the ship to travel, and suffer a shipwreck.

BG2's story progression/areas you go through feel very much in line with something an Edgar Rice Borroughs might write in his Mars novels - you know, something pulpy. As a fan of pulp fiction, I never had an issue with BG2's wild and messy structure.

I understand the point you're making but look at all the places you listed and compare the differences, now compare BG1 and BG2, and tell me that these games have differences that are even close to as meaningful as the differences between the places you listed. This is my point, BG2 and BG1 aren't different enough to be considered different settings even though they literally take place in different settings.

To me they do feel different enough to make the difference noticeable. I don't know what else to say about it.

Baldur's Gate 2 has a terrible beginning as well which you glossed over. The Athkatla experience is absolutely terrible, and it is bad because of the theme park nature of the city. NPCs shit out quests without giving you a chance to orient yourself or give a fuck about them, the city itself feels disjointed, confusing, and scattered, especially when compared to Baldur, and the game does not do a good job of making you care about anything. Contrast this with Baldur's Gate, where it eases you into everything, gives you short term immediate goals that you have a vested interest in seeing through. Baldur's Gate is a consistent experience throughout, and while Baldur's Gate 2 might have higher highs (I wouldn't even say that because Durlag's Tower in BG1 is better than anything in BG2), BG1 is the far more consistent experience.

I honestly have the opposite experience. I found BG2's beginning quite great, especially Irenicus' dungeon as an introduction, followed by the massive city of Athkatla where you have so many opportunities right from the get go. Even if you don't care about Imoen, there's plenty of fun stuff to do in Athkatla and its surroundings. The side quests are more involved and do a better job of making you care about what's going on than BG1's more simple side quests. Literally the only BG1 side quest I remember is Minsc wanting to free Dynaheir from gnolls, that's it. From BG2 I remember the circus quest where you free Aerie from a curse, the abandoned temple of Amaunator, Firkraag's dungeon, defeating an underground slave ring below a tavern in Athkatla, investigating an eyeless cult that worships beholders...

BG1 never managed to make me care about anything. You don't spend enough time with Gorion to actually care about him - the game makes the same mistake a lot of novels make: kill off a character important to the protagonist too early, before the reader (or player) had time to become familiar with him. So while Gorion's death is a good motivation for the character to go on an adventure, it isn't really for the player. Imoen's abduction in BG2 does the same thing, but a little more effectively. I played BG2 first so I had no prior connection to Imoen, but you do have her as your main thief and spellcaster throughout Irenicus' dungeon, so you get a little more time to grow attached to her, not only narratively but also gameplay-wise. It's a character from your party - a useful one, even! Same basic initial setup, better execution.

JarlFrank outright states that BG2 is "wild and exotic". He outright states that BG2 delivers an exotic vibe. Just because BG2 has a few more exotic elements than BG1 doesn't mean it can be considered a game with an exotic setting because the two games are extremely similar and the few exotic elements in BG2 that you can name aren't enough of a tangible difference for JarlFrank to claim that this is one of the reasons BG2 is superior to BG1. JarlFrank is free to enjoy whatever the fuck he wants, but he is not free to use his arbitrary preferences as evidence of why one setting is superior to another.

Compared to BG1, BG2 is more exotic, yes. Compared to Morrowind and Planescape Torment, BG2 is less exotic.
When asking whether one prefers either BG1 or BG2, preferring the second game due to its different setting feel is valid.

This does not just regard the two cities of Baldur's Gate and Athkatla, by the way. This is about everything in between, too, all the small locations you visit. BG1 does not have such a wealth of varied dungeons as BG2. Those contribute greatly to the exotic feel of BG2 as compared to BG1, where most of the non-city content is sparse wilderness areas.

Sure enough, those games all feature FAR more exotic settings than what we see in BG2, which is why the claim that BG2 is a RPG with an exotic setting and/or vibe is a dumb one.

Yeah but initially we were only comparing BG1 and BG2, and the claim certainly applies there.

As I said above, JarlFrank outright states that BG2 delivers an exotic vibe/setting.

You don't have to be as exotic as Morrowind or PST in order to qualify as exotic.
Is an underwater city exotic?
Is a planar sphere exotic?
An extensive crypt system that looks like it's taken straight out of ancient Egypt?
A pocket plane accidentally opened by a bunch of actors?
An underground flesh labyrinth populated by beholders?

Yes, at least to some degree, wouldn't you say?

The start of the game in Chateau Irenicus is retarded and complete dogshit.

It's literally one of the better dungeons not only in BG2, but in the RPG genre as a whole. I don't understand why people dislike it so much. It has a sense of constant danger, plenty of things to discover, a bunch of side quests and optional encounters, a sense of mystery... it's a great dungeon overall.

 

[KateMicucci]

The weirdest and stupidest thing about BG2 was adding katanas, wakizashis and ninjatos as weapons when it didn't make any sense having weapons from such a faraway culture all over the place. What would have made more sense is weapons from the Near East. They could have added karabelas, shashqas, shamshirs, killijes, khanjars, kindjals, palas, zaghnals, tabars, saifs, tabarzins, etc. And it would have been congruent with the world since Athkatla, and even more so, Saradush, have strong Near Eastern / Byzantine vibes that were reflected in the art and music of BG2 and TOB.

Hardly the weirdest or stupidest thing, really just a symptom of the time when it was made. Remember this was when people said "superior japanese steel folded 1 million times" unironically.

 

[KateMicucci]

It's literally one of the better dungeons not only in BG2, but in the RPG genre as a whole. I don't understand why people dislike it so much. It has a sense of constant danger, plenty of things to discover, a bunch of side quests and optional encounters, a sense of mystery... it's a great dungeon overall.

The first time I played I didn't like it because it was a decently long and intense dungeon to start the player off with and I would have prefered just plopping down in athkatla at the start and leisurely exploring.

 

[PapaPetro]

A kobold?!?

Did you ever hear the comedy of Pun-Pun the Wise...

 

[Harthwain]

JarlFrank outright states that BG2 is "wild and exotic". He outright states that BG2 delivers an exotic vibe. Just because BG2 has a few more exotic elements than BG1 doesn't mean it can be considered a game with an exotic setting because the two games are extremely similar and the few exotic elements in BG2 that you can name aren't enough of a tangible difference for JarlFrank to claim that this is one of the reasons BG2 is superior to BG1.

Bullshit. "A few more exotic elements"?

In BG2 you:

• See The Underdark, which is pretty much its own world.
• Get the glimpse of the war between the Mind Flayers and Githyanki.
• Visit Spellhold, which houses a plenty of mages and is a pretty cool location considering its puzzles.
• Get stranded in the Underwater City, which is not too big a deal in itself (compared to other locations in BG2), but I don't recall anything even close to something this alien in BG1.
• Are sent to The Nine Hells.
• Explore the Temple of the God of Light (or whatever) overrun by Darkness.

And I didn't even mention a plenty of other locations, all of which are more "wild and exotic" than most of BG1...

JarlFrank is free to enjoy whatever the fuck he wants, but he is not free to use his arbitrary preferences as evidence of why one setting is superior to another.

The pot calling the kettle black.

Sure enough, those games all feature FAR more exotic settings than what we see in BG2, which is why the claim that BG2 is a RPG with an exotic setting and/or vibe is a dumb one.

Not when compared to BG1, which was the whole point. You do seem to be incapable of grasping the idea that even though BG1 and BG2 operate under the same setting - and said setting is not as exotic as settings in some other cRPGs - there is a huge difference in what exactly is shown in BG1 and BG2 respectively.

Like I said, you don't know what the fuck is even happening. Are you going to admit you were wrong now?

I can't, because I am not. But thanks for proving you have no clue what you're talking about.

Also, let it be made clear, there are so many other fucking things I mentioned that BG2 does wrong in my original post. The start of the game in Chateau Irenicus is retarded and complete dogshit.

I could agree it's a bit long, but it's also varied enough to be interesting. You could do much worse than that.

Also, let it be made clear, there are so many other fucking things I mentioned that BG2 does wrong in my original post.

And I addressed them. For example - Athkatla, the party members.

Instead of addressing these very valid complaints

Uh-huh. Bullshit. Or your memory loss strikes again. If you want to make accusation, then at least make sure these accusations are true to begin with.

we somehow made the whole conversation about "setting" when the two games are actually extremely fucking similar to each other in that regard.

Again - you still don't get what the point of talking about "setting" was, especially after I tried to explain it at least twice. Which shows how laughable your capability for judgement is.

If someone said they still liked BG2 despite the flaws, I admit I'd probably call them retarded and accuse them of having shit taste, but after my initial edgy reaction wore off I would respect them for at least being able to view the two games objectively. Instead we have a bunch of people that refuse to acknoweldge the many flaws with BG2 while also unfairly shitting on BG1, the predecessor to the sequel and one of the most prestigious cRPGs ever. Sad.

If someone said they still liked BG1 despite the flaws, I admit I'd probably call them retarded and accuse them of having shit taste, but after my initial edgy reaction wore off I would respect them for at least being able to view the two games objectively. Instead we have a bunch of people that refuse to acknoweldge the many flaws with BG1 while also unfairly shitting on BG2, the sequel and one of the most prestigious cRPGs ever. Sad.

 

[PapaPetro]

If someone said they still liked BG1 despite the flaws, I admit I'd probably call them retarded and accuse them of having shit taste, but after my initial edgy reaction wore off I would respect them for at least being able to view the two games objectively. Instead we have a bunch of people that refuse to acknoweldge the many flaws with BG1 while also unfairly shitting on BG2, the sequel and one of the most prestigious cRPGs ever. Sad.

I personally try to avoid post hoc anachronistic judgements (holding things from the past by today's standards/norms); the fact or the matter is my kid-self was blown away when BG1 & BG2 came out for that time and that's why they are both timeless to me in my own history. 30 years from now, my future-self will probably still do nostalgia runs (with mods) in honor of my past self's appreciation for the game.


Plus I learned Cheat Engine / Assembly Language over the years which allows me to do whatever I want in the game now. My version of NG+++

 

[Harthwain]

I personally try to avoid post hoc anachronistic judgements (holding things from the past by today's standards/norms); the fact or the matter is my kid-self was blown away when BG1 & BG2 came out for that time and that's why they are both timeless to me in my own history. 30 years from now, my future-self will probably still do nostalgia runs (with mods) in honor of my past self's appreciation for the game.

Personally I wouldn't call BG2 "the most prestigious cRPG ever" (I mainly reversed what that guy said, to prove how groundless his statements are).

BG2 has that spirit of fantasy adventure and it being generic high fantasy makes is easier to approach and understand even if you had no prior contact with it, so it ends up being a pretty cool cRPG to play and I am fond of it, despite its flaws. That said, I think there are better contenders for "the most prestigious cRPG ever" title. I already had this kind of debate with ItsChon and nominated either Fallout or Arcanum instead, mainly because I like the way they handle character's stats better and world's reactivity to the player.

 

[PapaPetro]

I personally try to avoid post hoc anachronistic judgements (holding things from the past by today's standards/norms); the fact or the matter is my kid-self was blown away when BG1 & BG2 came out for that time and that's why they are both timeless to me in my own history. 30 years from now, my future-self will probably still do nostalgia runs (with mods) in honor of my past self's appreciation for the game.

Personally I wouldn't call BG2 "the most prestigious cRPG ever" (I mainly reversed what that guy said, to prove how groundless his statements are).

BG2 has that spirit of fantasy adventure and it being generic high fantasy makes is easier to approach and understand even if you had no prior contact with it, so it ends up being a pretty cool cRPG to play and I am fond of it, despite its flaws. That said, I think there are better contenders for "the most prestigious cRPG ever" title. I already had this kind of debate with ItsChon and nominated either Fallout or Arcanum instead, mainly because I like the way they handle character's stats better and world's reactivity to the player.

I understand. Then again planar adventures are both exotic and normal for D&D. It's hard to design high level adventures in a mundane lower fantasy setting since exotic godlike characters require exotic godlike challenges.
Hence why the natural progression of a game series will deviate and become more fantastical than when the PC started as a level 1 scrub in Candlekeep.

The series becomes a meta-Hero's Journey.

What's exceptional to this is what Avellone did by successfully designing a low level adventure in the super exotic Planescape setting. That's a challenge for a writer.

 

[Beans00]

You know what game has fun encounter design? BG2.

Where and when did this happen? I replayed that game 2ish years ago and like 90% of it is trash mobs.

Not that bg1 was any better in the trash mob department.

 

[Cat Headed Eagle]

Sorry to interrupt the lengthy love letters but I have more of a technical q about BG1
This widescreen GUI mod http://athkatla.cob-bg.pl/viewtopic.php?t=3257 Says it supports 1280x768 for 16:9 monitors, but I have a 1080p one. Does that means I'll have to play it windowed? I don't have a real issue with the native resolution right now, but I would like to try a bigger one too..

 

[Tyrion8338]

It's about a dozen times better than BG1 though, but people put BG1 on the same pedestal. So BG1 automatically becomes even more overrated.

I must totally disagree, I liked baldurs gate 1 considerably more compared to bg2 when it comes to world building, exploration and story. Bg1 is more down to earth, focused. One thing that bg2 does much better are companions obviously but bg1npc project alleviates that somewhat.

 

[Hagashager]

I have a bizarre and mercurial relationship with BG 1 and 2. I consciously prefer BG2 but for some reason I've only ever beaten BG 2 once. I've beaten BG 1 four times times and Icewind Dale six times.

BG 1 is one of the few RPGs that doesn't feel like it's revolving around you. The mundanity, the wilderness, the aimlessness are indeed weird, but it does reinforce that the world is not your oyster. Baldur's Gate and The Sword Coast know nothing of you and don't care to. It's on you to find out who killed Gorion, it's on you to find the means to do that and it's on you to stay alive doing it.

It is very much an old achool, low-level campaign, and I really respect that.

Unfortunately, it's also really boring for very long stretches, the enemies are really boring throughout and I find the low-level nature of the game outstays its welcome a bit too long.

BG 2 is the inverse. The world is absolutely your oyster, everything you do is deliberate, dark forces are at play and they're at play over you. That impending responsibility only heightens the deeper you go. It's fun, but does miss a bit of the DnD "goons on an adventure for swag" charm that BG 1 provides.

It's why I mostly prefer Icewind Dale. That game is tailored as a DnD dungeon crawl. You are goons on an adventure.

 

[PapaPetro]

I have a bizarre and mercurial relationship with BG 1 and 2. I consciously prefer BG2 but for some reason I've only ever beaten BG 2 once. I've beaten BG 1 four times times and Icewind Dale six times.

BG 1 is one of the few RPGs that doesn't feel like it's revolving around you. The mundanity, the wilderness, the aimlessness are indeed weird, but it does reinforce that the world is not your oyster. Baldur's Gate and The Sword Coast know nothing of you and don't care to. It's on you to find out who killed Gorion, it's on you to find the means to do that and it's on you to stay alive doing it.

It is very much an old achool, low-level campaign, and I really respect that.

Unfortunately, it's also really boring for very long stretches, the enemies are really boring throughout and I find the low-level nature of the game outstays its welcome a bit too long.

BG 2 is the inverse. The world is absolutely your oyster, everything you do is deliberate, dark forces are at play and they're at play over you. That impending responsibility only heightens the deeper you go. It's fun, but does miss a bit of the DnD "goons on an adventure for swag" charm that BG 1 provides.

It's why I mostly prefer Icewind Dale. That game is tailored as a DnD dungeon crawl. You are goons on an adventure.

Would it be fair to consider BG1 as a type of tutorial for BG2?