I'm at the end of my rope on this one: BG2.

[LoPan]

Even if you don't like BG II, you gotta admit it is a far more complex & well-done game that any modern RPG.

Define modern RPG.

I'm speaking chronologically, so let's say, games released in the last 10-15 years. I'm yet to see a game with so much content as this one, with the possible exception of MMO's.

How is the quantity of content relevant?

 

[Gord]

I'd even say the quality of the content is in large parts pretty good.

Then again, the last time I've played it was a long time before I was able to refine my tastes by visiting this venerated place here...

 

[felipepepe]

How is the quantity of content relevant?

My point is that BG II NOT ONLY has memmorable encounters, NPCs and itens (as I said before), but it ALSO HAS massive ammounts of it, to the point there's lots of things to do and you will only see a part of it on your first playthrough.

And more important, everything feels interesting and unique. Itens have great art and lore, to the point that you even understand why they are where you found them. The locations are not just hundreds of corridors and warehouses with swapped textures, and the enemies keep changing and always make sense, you're not just killing 3 types of darkspawn or mercenaries over and over. It's a huge and lengthy D&D game, but it has very little filler combat.

BG II, Fallout 2 and Arcanum are game I always replay and always find out more content I never seen before. You don't see that anymore, it's just 10-hours games that you see everything on first try, 'cause they are too boring to be worth a second playthrough anyway.

 

[Andhaira]

Baldurs Gate 2 is one of the finest crpgs of all time. It is the capstone of the golden age of crpg games.

 

[Zed]

Stop spamming bullshit in RPG Discussion Exmit. Fuck off to GD where you belong, shittiest poster on the codex motherfucker. Reported your spam and I hope you get permabanned.

As for BG2, the strengths are
1) NPCs and NPC interaction.
2) Some pretty epics battles (dragons, liches etc. "lol they r ez" well if you figure them out of course they are, nerd).
3) Class specializations, the amount of NPCs and two pretty distinct ways to play through a pretty big portion of the game gives good re-playability.
4) Some really nice side-quests and NPC quests.
5) Music and voice acting.

The story is so-so but better than the average DnD story I suppose. Some dungeons have tedious design, some are better.

Overall my favorite RPG.

1) Where? Who? So far all NPC's have been either generic or perturbing.
2) Coo! Having played BG1 I do doubt any battle will find me finding it epic in due to lack of challenge, but fair enough, here for the story after all and sometimes there is story in a battle.
3)I have no idea what this means, class specializations in the NPC's, in me? I know there is a cavalier out there (or was it an inquisitor?) which is pretty specific, in either case I do not see how this matters as statistics have nothing to do outside combat and meticulous trap detection.
4)The only one I've heard of as universally appreciated is this Firkraag fellow, or however it was spelled.
5)Music is the standard fantasy fare and voice acting is irrelevant in any game that features it in minority, in minority voice acting is little but flare which is nice but ultimately as useless as fancying up the graphics from BG1.

I do feel overly critical, what am I going on here besides hearsay? I'll go on with the game however reluctantly, I have not been supplied with a reason for this game being anything but tedium and drag so I suppose I'll have to investigate much further. Though I see no reason why in this our glorious 21th century no one has yet to give me their explicit reasons for liking the game, we live in the age of deconstruction for goodness sake (though I dare omit Terpsichore and Varn from this outcry).

1) The banter between NPCs when traveling, which of course varies on what NPCs you have in the party. Also PC-NPC interaction (ololol Bioware romance). Sometimes this interaction lead to quests, and sometimes they are based off quests, or what you did to finish quests.

2) Yeah, well BG1 is more challenging than BG2.

3) Well there are a couple of NPCs that can specialize as well (through NPC quests), but I meant the PC character. You can specialize at killing undead as a sub-Pala or sub-Cleric class, you can specialize as anti-mage, as tank, as a specialist in different schools of magic, summoner, thieving, etc.

4) Sure that's a great quest but there are more.
My favorites besides Firkraag:

Spoiler

The shadow dragon one with Mazzy
The political one with that faggy Paladin guy
The murder mystery in the docks

5) Well as far as "standard fantasy fare" music goes, it's quite good
Beautiful tune played at the epilogue: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-CN552hecc
Epic combat music: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUHjdq6SFkQ
As for your other comments I simply don't agree. I actually prefer less voice acting, if it means more dialog. As for the graphics, the only real fancying they did was up the resolution, which is good because it means more on the screen.

 

[Zed]

As for no-one giving you explicit reasons for liking the game, what the fuck, I just wrote you a fucking list.

 

[Black]

Even if you don't like BG II, you gotta admit it is a far more complex & well-done game that any modern RPG.

Define modern RPG.

I'm speaking chronologically, so let's say, games released in the last 10-15 years. I'm yet to see a game with so much content as this one, with the possible exception of MMO's.

Oh, in that case even New Vegas is easily a much better RPG than BG2.

 

[felipepepe]

Oh, in that case even New Vegas is easily a much better RPG than BG2.

Some serious argumentation there. Because it is, so it is, right?

 

[The Wizard]

just recently played it in coop.

bg2 is mediocre at its best, and a stinking pile of shit at its worst.

i don't get why people rave about the encounter design. unless you think just dumping half of the monster manual into one dungeon is good design. i especially liked the firkraag one, where there's werewolves, shadows, vampires, orcs, trolls and (i think) bugbears in one location, working together for a red dragon because, uhhhh, because!
and the only reason there is any challange to the combat is because some monsters and npcs are scripted and can pull bullshit like cast hold at will or have cheat contingencies that give them millions of buffs in the first round.

 

[Black]

Oh, in that case even New Vegas is easily a much better RPG than BG2.

Some serious argumentation there. Because it is, so it is, right?

Because it actually offers different experience depending on how you play, choices and consequences and the differences aren't only "bioware flavour".

 

[MMXI]

choices and consequences

 

[Quilty]

Oh FFS I just read that third quote in Black's signature AND WHAT THE FUCK MAN

nobody can be that stupid

Btw BG2 is a good game. The lack of turn-based combat is annoying but it's still a pretty good game. NPCs are also well done, Viconia 4lyfe

 

[Volrath]

The only point to BG2 was to be the predecessor of DAO.

:/

 

[felipepepe]

i don't get why people rave about the encounter design. unless you think just dumping half of the monster manual into one dungeon is good design. i especially liked the firkraag one, where there's werewolves, shadows, vampires, orcs, trolls and (i think) bugbears in one location, working together for a red dragon because, uhhhh, because!
and the only reason there is any challange to the combat is because some monsters and npcs are scripted and can pull bullshit like cast hold at will or have cheat contingencies that give them millions of buffs in the first round.

BG II is set in Forgotten Realms, where Orcs, Goblins and Bugbears usually work together and may keep a troll as "pet". They were hired by the Dragon to guard his dungeon, that is haunted by some lost souls and has a couple werewolves imprioned. Just like any PnP D&D game, it's a simple set-up that was well explored to offer some chalenge & surprises to the players.

And I rather face the entire Monsters Manual than keep fighting the same 2-3 Darkspawns and mercenaries through all the game. The "hold at will bullshits" come from the various type of enemies you face, each with it's own habilities. You're facing a fucking Lich, should he only cast Burning Hands, but have around 5 billion HP? Of course he can cast high-level magic and time-stop, but so can you, so why is this cheating?

Oh, in that case even New Vegas is easily a much better RPG than BG2.

Some serious argumentation there. Because it is, so it is, right?

Because it actually offers different experience depending on how you play, choices and consequences and the differences aren't only "bioware flavour".

That's the same as saying that BG II is better since it has classes and you can control your party.

They are games with different focus, BG II is way more combat-oriented, with hundreds of magic spells, party management and dungeon-crawling. Fallout: NV is one of the best RPG in the last years, but still isn't as good as BG II, and is a huge decline from Fallout 1 & 2.

 

[Crispy]

Thank you, Zed, for attemptimg to incline the thread, Exmit please GTFO and good post by The Wizard.

Agreed that BG anything is overrated and can only appeal to the D&D faggot (like me) in order to achieve anything beyond meh credit rating as a CRPG.

But, OP, can you elaborate on what you found tedious in the game? I'm almost certain you're referring to the combat in which case you'll get one million and one dissertations on how to excel in it, how to beat it like a red-headed stepchild and, occasionally, by someone like me, how to simply adapt to and mildly enjoy it.

Unlike ToEE, BG's combat is a distraction to the game, not its main attraction. That honor sadly belongs to the game's namesake, thanks only to TSR, and possibly to its story, because there are lots of sickos out there that want to have digital foreplay with Imoen.

I take it from your comments about your character you're a bit of a purist, and so am I. I hate the idea of the ultra-efficient kensai mage too; you couldn't pay me to play a game in that manner. I don't think there's anything wrong with justifying your choice of character based on the game's background. Don't let these non-LARPing fags try to tell you otherwise. I rolled up a standard mage for my first playthrough of BG2 and struggled a bit at first as well. Eventually I learned that there's no compromising when it comes to at least a certain percentage of the fights -- you're going to have to cheese a little to get through them.

Pre-prepping while the enemies are still off-screen is an unfortunate must for these games. Spamming the spacebar also helped me, to where I'd make sure my fireball was single-pixel-placed-to-perfection, and I played on the Hardcore rules with friendly fire on. Once you get used to the way the game throws most encounters at you, this becomes second nature as well as its need to micromanage the NPC's placements in front of you most of the time. You simply have to grow accustomed to it.

There are not many other games that combine the D&D mechanics, ravaged as they have been by BioWare, with a non-vomit-inducing story and cute enough graphics like BG2. Getting through it and becoming a god in the expansion is well worth it, and the feeling of power you attain with your mage in the process is a bit intoxicating. Some of the most memorable, and, surprisingly, most tactical, combat encounters I can recall have come from this game, seen between mage battles. They are truly fun.

So stick with it, try to adapt, and just play out your vision of your character. No more D&D ever again, anyway, so you might as well.

 

[Black]

That's the same as saying that BG II is better since it has classes and you can control your party.

The fuck you're talking about? Classes suddenly make games "more rpgy"? Or controlling many characters in your party? What do those thing have to do with role-playing?

BG II is way more combat-oriented

Except the combat is terrible, since the game uses dumbed down AD&D. Mixing the worst of real-time, turn-based and ad&d, that's BG's combat.

with hundreds of magic spells

That's cool, and how many are actually used frequently?

party management

Yes, "managing" retarded npcs thanks to their retarded AI and even more retarded pathfinding is surely a pro.

dungeon-crawling

Ok, let me explain this to you. Whether a game has a "feature" doesn't mean anything. What matters is if it does it well. BG and BG2 do not. I'd even say BG2 does it worse, since the dungeon crawling can be divided into two parts- terrible combat and collecting ph4t l3wt.

Finally, you can finish NV without killing anything. In BG2 the most meaningful choices you get is: how do you kill stuff and what kind of HQ do you get.

 

[The Wizard]

You're facing a fucking Lich, should he only cast Burning Hands, but have around 5 billion HP? Of course he can cast high-level magic and time-stop, but so can you, so why is this cheating?

because chain contingency only allows 3 spells and you can't put level 9 spells into it? same for the weaker version of it.

if a lich or whatever has a few precast protections on him i wouldn't mind so much, but in bg2 every.goddamn.fruit.fly.of.a.caster has them.

i'm also pretty sure horned devils and stuff have a daily limit of the hold person at will/the combat tactics state that he only uses it a few times. but i don't have the 2ed books available, so i can't check.

 

[felipepepe]

The fuck you're talking about? Classes suddenly make games "more rpgy"? Or controlling many characters in your party? What do those thing have to do with role-playing?

And what has C&C to do with a dungeon-crawling RPG? It's just a feature you like that you miss on the game.

Except the combat is terrible, since the game uses dumbed down AD&D. Mixing the worst of real-time, turn-based and ad&d, that's BG's combat.

It may not be as good as ToEE, but is sure it's better than FPS with AWESHUM V.A.T.S + slow-mo.

That's cool, and how many are actually used frequently?

Well, I played with 2 mages, a cleric and a paladin, it's safe to say that at least 20 spells where used on a regular basics, plus the ones I kept for some encounters. And that's already more than most modern RPGs have.

Yes, "managing" retarded npcs thanks to their retarded AI and even more retarded pathfinding is surely a pro.

Fighters may be lame, but managing casters is the joy of the game. In F:NV party members just do whatever they want and carry stuff around.

Ok, let me explain this to you. Whether a game has a "feature" doesn't mean anything. What matters is if it does it well. BG and BG2 do not. I'd even say BG2 does it worse, since the dungeon crawling can be divided into two parts- terrible combat and collecting ph4t l3wt.

I can divide F:NV into being good/bad and shooting shit in slow-mo. Was my argument any better after this? No.

Finally, you can finish NV without killing anything. In BG2 the most meaningful choices you get is: how do you kill stuff and what kind of HQ do you get.

Each game has a different focus. It's the same as to say that in BG II I can kill in thousands of ways, while you can only shoot or punch in F:NV, so it sucks.

------------

if a lich or whatever has a few precast protections on him i wouldn't mind so much, but in bg2 every.goddamn.fruit.fly.of.a.caster has them.

It's the way mages survive in battle with the shitty HP they have. You can make so that your casters do exactly the same, but you will have to rest after each fight. The enemies are only fighting you today, so it makes perfect sense.

 

[Surf Solar]

By no means I would call the game "a piece of shit", but in my humble opinion, it is just not that good and very overrated. What I find most irritating in the game is the cringeworthy writing, this NPC barter stuff pulled to the extreme with inane ramblings of the characters, or angsty "OMG I think I love you!" stuff in the most unfitting moments (in the middle of a dungeon etc).

I still can't stand the twitchy combat system, although playing Icewind Dale I learned to tolerate it a bit more.

BioWare-esque Fake Choices in Dialoges.

It has sort of a promising start with a few sidequests on different locations on the worldmap, but eventually becomes more and more linear the more you progress in the chapters. I honestly preferred the wildlife roaming in BG I, even though there wasn't that much to find in the forests.

The graphics and enviroments looked good though.

All in all, I never could make it past that "shark people" temple or whatever it was, simply because the writing sucked for me and I wasn't interested at all to continue the story or develop my characters. Maybe the game gets better afterwards, but that's my loss then.

If I want to play a good D&D game, I just put in ToeE or the Icewind Dale games when I want some good fun of the combat and the encounters.

 

[MMXI]

Except the combat is terrible, since the game uses dumbed down AD&D. Mixing the worst of real-time, turn-based and ad&d, that's BG's combat.

Terrible combat like in Fallout?

That's cool, and how many are actually used frequently?

There are more useful spells in Baldur's Gate than combat and non-combat options in Fallout combined.

Yes, "managing" retarded npcs thanks to their retarded AI and even more retarded pathfinding is surely a pro.

Better than not being able to manage retarded NPCs with retarded AI like in Fallout.

Finally, you can finish NV without killing anything. In BG2 the most meaningful choices you get is: how do you kill stuff and what kind of HQ do you get.

And having a choice between killing and not killing doesn't make any difference to New Vegas' RPG credentials considering New Vegas' combat is FPS combat.

 

[Excidium]

What the hell is going on here, people are comparing Baldur's Gate with Fallout?

 

[felipepepe]

What the hell is going on here, people are comparing Baldur's Gate with Fallout?

Worst, they are comparing Baldur's Gate II to Fallout: New Vegas.

 

[MMXI]

No. Only my fourth sentence. The first three were comparing it to Fallout 1/2. Why?

 

[Black]

Terrible combat like in Fallout?

Funny thing, that. While combat in Fallout was terrible, there was very little of it and it was easily avoidable. Same cannot be said about BG's combat.
And I think that small amounts of avoidable shit are better than large amounts of unavoidable shit.

There are more useful spells in Baldur's Gate than combat and non-combat options in Fallout combined.

Going full retard I see, let me know when you stop.

Better than not being able to manage retarded NPCs with retarded AI like in Fallout.

Thank heaves Fallout is not a party-based game and can be played just fine with a lone-wolf character, no?

And having a choice between killing and not killing doesn't make any difference to New Vegas' RPG credentials considering New Vegas' combat is FPS combat.

Actually, it does. Try killing Caesar and then not killing him. Oh, and you can kill him in a totally un-FPSy way.

 

[felipepepe]

Man, don't lower yoursel to

Baldur's Gate and Fallout are different games with completly different focus. Party-based D&D dungeon-crawling Vs lone guy exploring the wasteland.