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

[SomeGuyWithAnOpinion]

OP is tl;dr and I'm not reading the rest of the gay bullshit everyone is spouting.

Imagine being proud of adding contextless drivel to the conversation.

 

[Yosharian]

Oh the irony

 

[Nas92]

OP is tl;dr and I'm not reading the rest of the gay bullshit everyone is spouting.

Imagine being proud of adding contextless drivel to the conversation.

As opposed to in context drivel?

 

[BosanskiSeljak]

27 pages vehemently defending a mediocre game...might as well be r/Games or some shit

 

[onemananadhisdroid]

Glad to see there are some other people who had as much disappointment playing the BG series as I did. I never understood why they are so beloved. Sloppy writing, bad characters, annoying world full of samey "locations" that are just backdrops for a few boring characters, and the gameplay can be gotten elsewhere (like the aforementioned Icewind Dale, which has all of the gameplay and none of the crap).

That's because Baldur's Gate 2 is height of the fantasy adventure.

While I wasn't on board with every character in the game, I still liked that they felt like the actual characters, including having their own goals and sort of agency (as limited as it was). Baldur's Gate's party was a party. Icewind Dale's crew was a bunch of golems with no personality. In fact, there wasn't even really a leader there, either, which is yet another point in Baldur's Gate's favour.

Baldur's Gate 2 is also big and filled with people you can talk to and take quests from. It gives the impression of being its own world, where people live.

It's a well done D&D-flavoured theme park, with everything from the (monster) manual crammed into it and you as the main actor and center piece of the very universe around which hit all revolves. Even Athkatla itself (built of blocks that don't actually connect) is built around themes: temples, riches, markets, slums.

And all the NPCs can't wait to give you, The Chosen Visitor To Enterain, a quest. Which is also how you aquire entrance to the areas around Athkatla. They're there from the beginning. But you have to get quest to get entry. And all those places are build primarily around that quest then also, e.g. your amusement. Mind you, I still like BG2. I've never gotten back to it as often as with the original though, clearly still inspired some by Ultima as opposed to JRPGs et all. Gothic is much superior to BG2 in that regard as well -- to name another game of the era. And in general, BG2 paved the way towards the interactive movie-like experiences of future Bioware games (Kotor, Jade Empire, Mass Effect et all).

On neutral terms, the debate as to whether BG1 or BG2 would be a superior game will continue until eternity, despite the sequel's obvious advancements. Much like with Thief 1+2, with the latter getting rid of the supernatural underpinning the rich texture of the The City almost entirelly -- which also has a side-effect on mission variety. Both BG2 and Thief 2 are sequels build fundamentally different to their original games. And at times appear like overreactions to criticisms raised by parts of the audience. What's worked off former Looking Glass staff on Thief 3 has admitted to such. As Deadly Shadows tried to struck a balance rather than tossing it all out.

The opportunity to cash in on BG3 naturally was taken by another studio, so we'll never know. Too bad, Bioware.

 

[Atlantico]

On neutral terms, the debate as to whether BG1 or BG2 would be a superior game will continue until eternity, despite the sequel's obvious advancements.

Good post but:

I can't see a single advancement in BG2 over BG1, so it's not obvious to me. Please list some.

I do see a lot of regressions from BG1 to BG2. I'll list some of them.

such as:

- Chateau Irenicus a regression from the much shorter Chateu Gorion.
- "Paper dolls" in the inventory screen just look worse in BG2 than BG1
- The journal is dumbed down in BG2 compared to BG1
- Exploration is dumbed down and abrogated in BG2 in a bizarre way
- BG2 art style is an obvious downgrade from BG1, from interface to maps, to game world
- BG2 has romances, a huge regression from BG1 which doesn't have that
- BG2 takes itself way too seriously and yet has nothing to do with the plot of BG1
- BG2 frequently takes control of the player agency for drama, from the intro itself and through the game

 

[Nano]

You don't need to make the gameworld an amusement park to make it feel lived in. You think it's realistic to have a quest thrown at you whenever you talk to anyone?

 

[Harthwain]

It's a well done D&D-flavoured theme park, with everything from the (monster) manual crammed into it and you as the main actor and center piece of the very universe around which hit all revolves. Even Athkatla itself (built of blocks that don't actually connect) is built around themes: temples, riches, markets, slums.

Honestly, I don't even consider it a theme park. Athkatla goes into the [fantasy] stereotype of [big] cities having specific districts. Even Conan had a line about them:

He had entered the part of the city reserved for the temples. On all sides of him they glittered white in the starlight - snowy marble pillars and golden domes and silver arches, shrines of Zamora's myriad strange gods.

Are you going to tell me we don't have something like a downtown area nowadays? Or areas where you better not walk around at night? Also, there are a plenty of locations that have their own thing going on, not everything is crammed into the same location, which gives a better sense of space, despite everything being just a bunch of different maps, rather than one large concrete world where you can walk from point A to point B.

And all the NPCs can't wait to give you, The Chosen Visitor To Enterain, a quest.

Show me an RPG where NPCs don't wait for The Player to give him a quest of whatever. If you mean NPCs actively going to you to give you a quest - I actually liked that, because that implied some sense of urgency/agency/interest on the part of the NPC.

Gothic is much superior to BG2 in that regard as well -- to name another game of the era. And in general, BG2 paved the way towards the interactive movie-like experiences of future Bioware games (Kotor, Jade Empire, Mass Effect et all).

 

[skaraher]

While Lilura is a pretentious twat, she was right about BG2.

 

[Nano]

I don't know how you can play BG2 and actually be immersed. Everything about the world design feels so artificial.

Show me an RPG where NPCs don't wait for The Player to give him a quest of whatever. If you mean NPCs actively going to you to give you a quest - I actually liked that, because that implied some sense of urgency/agency/interest on the part of the NPC.

Sure, a sense of urgency on the part of the NPCs to piss me off.

 

[NJClaw]

I don't know how you can play BG2 and actually be immersed. Everything about the world design feels so artificial.

Immersed in elven pussy, obviously

 

[Melcar]

Goddamn immersionfags.

 

[Nas92]

- Exploration is dumbed down and abrogated in BG2 in a bizarre way

I like BG2, however I think a lot of what you said is valid, but being bent out of shape over exploration? Give me a break. BG1 was the overland exploration type adventure, BG2 was focused on dungeon crawling. You may prefer BG1's focus but it doesn't necessarily make BG2 shittier because the devs chose not to pepper the world map with same-y overland maps filled with trash mobs and maybe a couple of special encounters, most of which were unfunny tabletop-esque quests or fights designed to be unfair and frustrating.

 

[Melcar]

Faggots complained about the "empty" maps in BG and unnecessary exploration, so Bioware listened and changed the design. Faggots complained about the NPCs, Bioware listened and changed them. Not sure what faggots suggested romances or complained about them missing.

 

[Dark Souls II]

I like both Baldur's Gate and Baldur's Gate II.

Baldur's Gate I is better though.

Too bad they never did a third one, I wish Baldur's Gate III existed.

 

[Melcar]

Would a Bioware BGIII be better than the BGIII we got?

 

[onemananadhisdroid]

- Exploration is dumbed down and abrogated in BG2 in a bizarre way

You may prefer BG1's focus but it doesn't necessarily make BG2 shittier because the devs chose not to pepper the world map with same-y overland maps filled with trash mobs.

Wait a minute, that's my Owlcat joke right there. If you haven't heard that one before, here goes: Had Owlcat done BG1, the serene wilds (and mostly save main roads) of the Sword Coast would be no more. Instead, you'd run into the same copypaste mob of wolves and skeletons every two feet. At least the game would be twice as long then, Owlcat mission accomplished.

As for BG1's exploration, the last time I was actually reminded of that was Kingdom Come. Different format and all. And as was revealed, a lot of the lack of "content" (industry slang for stuff to keep you interested) wasn't actually intentional on Bioware's behalf. They just ran out of time to include moar stuff. Warhorse meanwhile wanted to make a landscape roughly as you may experience it. On their behaf, it was fully intentional. So a forest may be just a forest. And a hut in the forest may indeed be just a hut. Hope they keep it that way in KCD II. That's what made their world feel like a world rather than something specifically set up and constructed to not possibly bore ANYBODY in the entire galaxy and beyond.

Of course, for the sequel Bioware didn't fix this. They threw out the type of Ultima-like exploration BG1 had entirelly. Personally I find the exploration in BG3 actually more rewarding, despite Larian's heavily compressed maps. As unlike in BG2, where you engage on a completely guided tour de Athkatla, in BG3, you actually discover places for yourself -- and often times, several entry and exit points.

As you also said though, BG1+2 are so different from the ground up here, you can make a case of either game being superior -- wholly depending on personal taste.

 

[Average Manatee]

I like both Baldur's Gate and Baldur's Gate II.

Baldur's Gate I is better though.

Too bad they never did a third one, I wish Baldur's Gate III existed.

I have bad news sir, it's called Throne of Bhaal.

 

[Ivan]

Made it to hell and took a break for r some KCD. BG1 felt like an errand sim in fantasy world. BG2 feels better b/c it's still an errand simulator but contained in a denser environment. Ive found the outer areas to be the weakest part of the game.

 

[SomeGuyWithAnOpinion]

I like both Baldur's Gate and Baldur's Gate II.

Baldur's Gate I is better though.

Too bad they never did a third one, I wish Baldur's Gate III existed.

Username checks out

 

[Mr. Magniloquent]

- Exploration is dumbed down and abrogated in BG2 in a bizarre way

I like BG2, however I think a lot of what you said is valid, but being bent out of shape over exploration? Give me a break. BG1 was the overland exploration type adventure, BG2 was focused on dungeon crawling. You may prefer BG1's focus but it doesn't necessarily make BG2 shittier because the devs chose not to pepper the world map with same-y overland maps filled with trash mobs and maybe a couple of special encounters, most of which were unfunny tabletop-esque quests or fights designed to be unfair and frustrating.

Back in the day, I was also disappointed by the changes in exploration style for BG2, but BG1 style maps just wouldn't have worked. You're no longer a welp stumbling through the wilderness towards your next vague goal. The PC is an accomplished adventurer taking up specific tasks to their ends. Making the player walk across farm lands and deal with wolves, xvarts, and kobolds would have been unwise. The open-ended exploration is Athkatla itself, and then to a lesser extent The Underdark.

 

[Butter]

- Exploration is dumbed down and abrogated in BG2 in a bizarre way

I like BG2, however I think a lot of what you said is valid, but being bent out of shape over exploration? Give me a break. BG1 was the overland exploration type adventure, BG2 was focused on dungeon crawling. You may prefer BG1's focus but it doesn't necessarily make BG2 shittier because the devs chose not to pepper the world map with same-y overland maps filled with trash mobs and maybe a couple of special encounters, most of which were unfunny tabletop-esque quests or fights designed to be unfair and frustrating.

Back in the day, I was also disappointed by the changes in exploration style for BG2, but BG1 style maps just wouldn't have worked. You're no longer a welp stumbling through the wilderness towards your next vague goal. The PC is an accomplished adventurer taking up specific tasks to their ends. Making the player walk across farm lands and deal with wolves, xvarts, and kobolds would have been unwise. The open-ended exploration is Athkatla itself, and then to a lesser extent The Underdark.

Pillars of Eternity struck a perfect balance between the two. You don't have to laboriously walk every foot of the Sword Coast, but there's still a contiguity and you have to pass through Zone A to get to Zone B on the other side of it.

But Codex isn't ready for this one.

 

[Melcar]

Made it to hell and took a break for r some KCD. BG1 felt like an errand sim in fantasy world. BG2 feels better b/c it's still an errand simulator but contained in a denser environment. Ive found the outer areas to be the weakest part of the game.

Most any quest in an rpg is an errand, and if your definition of a boring generic errand is wide enough then any quest can be a boring generic errand. BG1 wasn't that bad and the EE did add some flavor by adding some minor non-cringy stuff to the game. It's not like you were fetching bolts the entire game.

 

[Lagole Gon]

BG2 is nor overrated, Irenicus is.

Cringe stupid edge lord.

Midwit take.
Sure. People often only mention voice acting and can't think of better arguments. But there are other thing they got right.
Irenicus' dungeon is a good introduction to a villain. Storytelling through exploration - look at fucking that, STORYTELLING BY VIDEO GAME MEANS. I know, Irenicus' Dungeon is not loved, but that' because of the replay value. As a first-time story experience, it's good stuff.

Also, I would think most Codexers appriciate a villain who is just a bitter butthurt prick who lives in a basement.

Don't forget surrounded by sex dolls.

He's surrounded by sex slave dryads - who have to roleplay his ex.
He has a cloning lab - dedicated to replicating his ex.
And he has other stuff... like a trapped shapeshifter... for... oh fugg...!

DISCLAIMER: If you are a Larian writer reading this - take heed - this is a stupid crude joke. Do not make Irenicus fucking a shapeshifter in the ass canon lore. Do not patch it into the game. Stop. No. Put down this fucking pen!!!

 

[Nas92]

- Exploration is dumbed down and abrogated in BG2 in a bizarre way

I like BG2, however I think a lot of what you said is valid, but being bent out of shape over exploration? Give me a break. BG1 was the overland exploration type adventure, BG2 was focused on dungeon crawling. You may prefer BG1's focus but it doesn't necessarily make BG2 shittier because the devs chose not to pepper the world map with same-y overland maps filled with trash mobs and maybe a couple of special encounters, most of which were unfunny tabletop-esque quests or fights designed to be unfair and frustrating.

Back in the day, I was also disappointed by the changes in exploration style for BG2, but BG1 style maps just wouldn't have worked. You're no longer a welp stumbling through the wilderness towards your next vague goal. The PC is an accomplished adventurer taking up specific tasks to their ends. Making the player walk across farm lands and deal with wolves, xvarts, and kobolds would have been unwise. The open-ended exploration is Athkatla itself, and then to a lesser extent The Underdark.

Pillars of Eternity struck a perfect balance between the two. You don't have to laboriously walk every foot of the Sword Coast, but there's still a contiguity and you have to pass through Zone A to get to Zone B on the other side of it.

But Codex isn't ready for this one.

Would have been nice had it not been for the atrocious encounter design.