Yes. F1 main quest is so nicely implemented. That urgency was a cherry atop the overall dire atmosphere of the first game. I am sure we are not going to see anything even closely as gorgeous as f1.
You better be trolling.
That's another can of worms, the entire Imoen thing is so convoluted and in such total dissonance with the first game (furthered by the fact that you can import your character but not the state of the game/world from BG) that in my opinion it was the first instance of the slippery slope of Bioware hack writing that would find its logical conclusion with the Mass Effect 3 ending.Pretty good point that it's not even your life in danger in BG2, a lot of people found imoen to be annoying.
Neira isn't Neera, just further proving my point.
This reminds me of a thought I always had but never really looked into, in BG2 is it possible to pay the 20 000 gold upfront and bypass that part of the first act ?
I think this speaks volume about the importance of not overloading the player (and/or the game) with """"""epicness"""""" early on.
the last time they played BG1 was when they were children, you can't expect them to know this
In Fallout 2 you're told you need to find the G.E.C.K., otherwise your village will not survive. And there is a time limit. It's long, but it makes sense in the context of the issue (essentially people trying to live on an irradiated, infertile soil). So I don't agree Fallout 2 doesn't have the sense of urgency.
150 days vs 13 years is not even on the same scale in my opinion.
Sure, 150 days is less than 13 years, but Fallout 2 is bigger, so it makes sense that you are given more time to explore an expansive world (it's so big, in fact, that it really helps to make a car operational again, because it saves you time travelling from one place to another).
That's a fact, however my original point was just that there is no real urgency in Fallout 2 compared to Fallout, it's not a critique of the game or any other aspect, it's just that Fallout tells you we're all dead in 150 days if you don't get the water chip, while Fallout 2 tells you "it would be nice if you get us a GECK before you die of old age".
I'd prefer Fallout 2 had 1 year time limit but after failing it the game wouldn't end and instead there would be some grim alternative ending.
I know this is the codex, and I have at times made posts heavily criticizing BG (and especially BG2) but saying they suck is silly.
That's why BG is arguably better than BG2 and I will awlays use it as the prime example of proper low level D&D videogame. The world is vast, the writing is focused, and the focus for a large part of the game is on the party. The narrative backdrop only takes prominence when you engage with it, and you are encouraged to do so (for example to stop the iron crisis and your weapons breaking at the worst of times) but at your own pace.
Again, I have to disagree. Yes, you are not given an exact time frame. All you are told is: "We are dying, save us, Chosen One". But you do keep getting calls from Hakunin, who tells you to hurry up, because things are getting worse. And if you still decide to ignore it and reach the time limit, you are going to get "The End" cutscene, which is another way to spell "Game Over". So the game DOES try to warn you, multiple times, that the end is approaching.
I think the time limit should have been more constraining but not result in a game over.
Machanically wise, the Fallout 1 time limit was better, narrative wise, Fallout 2 time limit made more sense. If the Vault only really had 150 days, the Overseer would be in panic mode and and would be arranging all the resources of the Vault to find a water chip, not only sending a single dude. 150 days isnt a long time what doesnt make sense but it is great to create real urgency and a feeling of a ominous threat what was great on a post apocalyptic game.
