Why was BG2. . . subpar?

[DavidBVal]

Baldur's Gate 2 (& Throne of Bhaal)

Pros: Non-linear exploration of a quest-dense urban hub (Athkatla) and its surrounds, tactical mage duels, supreme replayability & crazy meta-gaming potential, a likeable villain in Irenicus (great voice, too), they added more sidequests that spanned chapters and vast areas (Human Flesh Armor, the Tanner), superior pathfinding despite equal search nodes? (congrats on that!), summon cap of five, Spellhold, made numerous incremental improvements to the engine (dozens of convenience tweaks like bulk buy, map doesn't pause game; but nothing ground-breaking), bigger budget reflected in the end-product having more polish.

Cons: Monty haul uber-itemization for small-dicked munchkins who need a compensator (some weapons have on-hit effects the enemy can't even save from and they bypass MR, like FoA's Slow & Fury's Stun), excessive, irrelevant & banal banter that nags at the player and takes the steam out of things, eight fewer companions and now they bore you with their prosaic lifestory and romance you at every turn, Prologue drags on with multiple scripted events & interjections (true of campaign in general), devalued utility roles (clerics & thieves are fifth wheels, even in dungeons), a silly overly emotional plot, can't even dual-class from or to Specialists anymore and replaced by non-core ridiculous rules bloat (e.g, PrCs, HLAs, spells out the ass), a literal adventure mart at the start of the first chapter selling all sorts of OP shit even before patches added the Robe of Vecna, Dak'kon's Zerth blade and a shield that turns a formidable foe into a kitten, a ring that sets your Charisma to 18 at the same point, Watcher's Keep was a cakewalk compared to Durlag's Tower, paperdolls are inferior, false urgency to find Imoen/Irenicus, nerfed overworld waylays & respawns (they're scripted, non-threatening and give generous rewards like hand-placed spell scrolls & Arbane), added newbie-friendly options like Rest Until Healed (rest for weeks!)/Max hit dice on lvlup/100% spell scribing that everyone pretends they're too hardcore to use, still made no concerted effort at choices & consequences (they're illusory), lengthy unskippable cutscenes of Irenicus kicking ass, clicking the rest button cures poison and disease even if it's about to kill you, forgettable after-thought locales like sahuagin city (at least it's optional), strongholds & romances are just insipid mini-games, liches without phylacteries, an unlikeable villain in Melissan, Throne of Bhaal was so bad that Gaider labored to make Ascension in his spare time with a few Wei-Du modders, and it still sucked, Sarevok can join you and be turned to good, turnip waffling, overall embarrassing uber-epicness, and finally BG2 seems to have nurtured a horde of elitist munchkin power-gamers who skipped the first game and falsely think BG2 is the best cRPG ever, better even than Fallout. It isn't, not even close.

for me, the biggest "con" in BG2 compared to BG1 was the lack of exploration. There were a series of outdoor areas/cities but they were there for a reason, and the more important quests nearly guaranteed that you'd see most of the maps.

 

[Black]

BG2 is not perfect but no game is, and it's already 15 years old. CRPG nowadays aren't better as they should be.

Funny, bg2 wasn't better than many older games, as it should've been.

 

[CrawlingDead]

It's simple, if BG2 indeed sucks big balls... how come it hasn't been beaten yet? And if so, when was that? NWN? Mass Effect? The Witcher? Dragon Age? KOTOR?

For one KOTOR is a decent game, which roughly belongs to the same age than BG, of deep games done with love. The second part, although playable, is just a shame compared to what it could have been.

NWN has a silly campaign, otherwise I've played Shadows of Undrentide and it's fairly boring as well. NWN2 is so ugly I can't put up with it.

Mass Effect is just KOTOR with better graphics and done worse, even though I like overpowered Cdr. Sephard. Many issues with the game.

Dragon Age is decent overall but not very replayable (hell, only 3 main classes to choose from) and, instead of being a rushed game, consumed too many years of development to deliver what it did. Still, the way to go.

The Witcher I haven't played but by now the first one is terribly ugly. The third part might just be the big thing of the year, instead of PoE and DA:I. I think CD Projekt is just the new Bioware...

Some things Bioware did improve upon BG2, such as the romances and characters (not all) and general writing, but I really think they screwed up when they created their own IPs instead of adapting the good ol' DnD and Star Wars. Hey, just like Obsidian... and consider this: if Bioware released a SW game every 2-3 years set in the Expanded Universe, wouldn't it sell like hotcakes? Isn't Disney hoping for the same with the new movies?

Just because other games haven't come close to Baldur's Gate 2 in recent years, doesn't mean it was any good in the first place. I mean I loved the game, but it had a lot wrong with it -- combat was trash, many characters were uninspired and boring, and the storyline...same old bullshit.

Great game though, loved it, it's on my top 10 list, but I wouldn't be too surprised if I found someone who did find it sub-par. I know quite a few older players who think the IE titles were the beginning of the end for RPGs, not sure I agree though, but I can see some of where they're coming from.

 

[Lilura]

for me, the biggest "con" in BG2 compared to BG1 was the lack of exploration. There were a series of outdoor areas/cities but they were there for a reason, and the more important quests nearly guaranteed that you'd see most of the maps.

Yeah, BG1 had proper area-linkage so that it felt like you were traveling in a certain direction, map by map; BG2 had "fast travel" to Athkatla surrounds from the city gates (De Arnise, Trademeet, Umar, Windspear etc.)

I really liked the quest density and sheer scope of Athkatla, though. It's just a pity they constantly interrupted the player's exploration with forced interjections: "Here's a quest! Let us shove it down your throat!"

I know quite a few older players who think the IE titles were the beginning of the end for RPGs, not sure I agree though, but I can see some of where they're coming from.

I remember many of the Fallout crowd thought IE RPGs were a step down: RTwP, non-reactive campaigns (-PS:T), RTS-like full control of combat units etc. I find it funny that BG2 elitists exist, and are so commonplace on the Codex.

 

[Lonely Vazdru]

When it comes to the free exploration discussion, I think it's good the way it is. Exploring many huge maps with vast empty, or semi-empty areas is fine for a low level party who may find some measure of excitment in any xp giving encounter, no matter how low, or any piece of loot they can get their hands on. For higher level parties, fewer denser areas seems more appropriate. Then again, who knows, I love the Infinity Engine so my magic items clad party may paintbrush the shit out of dozens of areas with the same enthusiasm as my rags and sticks wielding one, but I wouldn't bet on it.

 

[Lhynn]

Why do people keep saying BG2 combat was bad? i was looking forward to every encounter, even after several replays.
Combat is amazing, its you the one thats crap.

 

[CrawlingDead]

Why do people keep saying BG2 combat was bad? i was looking forward to every encounter, even after several replays.
Combat is amazing, its you the one thats crap.

Combat was shit and "combat was amazing"?...as opposed to fucking what?

 

[Lhynn]

Any other existing implementation of RTwP.

 

[DavidBVal]

Combat was shit and "combat was amazing"?...as opposed to fucking what?

As opposed to the Fallouts, for instance, or Darklands, or Torment.

 

[Lilura]

My issues with IE combat are the twitchy spacebar tapping (pause/unpause) and inaccurate pathfinding routines.

You can justify RTwP all you like by saying combat flows freely and is fairly tactical and satisfying, but at bottom you're just trying to tolerate utter shit and deeply longing for a robust turn-based system as seen in Jagged Alliance 2 & ToEE.

 

[Lonely Vazdru]

While I totally favor turn based over RTwP, I also enjoy the unique sensations created by RTwP simultaneity, like :

Will my poison arrow reach that bastard mage before his shields are up ? Will it ? Will it ?...

Will I cast "time stop" before he does ? Will I ? Will I ?...

This being said I'd really enjoy a true turn based BG 1&2.

As for pathfinding, I agree. I even think the more I replay, the more I rage over it.

 

[Lilura]

IE encounter design within a turn-based system - yes, please!

 

[Roguey]

IE dungeon pacing wouldn't work with a turn based system though.

 

[Lhynn]

My issues with IE combat are the twitchy spacebar tapping (pause/unpause) and inaccurate pathfinding routines.

What? twichy spacebar tapping? That only happened in the hardest of encounters against multiple enemies. as for the pathfinding, i played the hell out of it and literally never had a problem with the pathfinding.

You can justify RTwP all you like by saying combat flows freely and is fairly tactical and satisfying, but at bottom you're just trying to tolerate utter shit and deeply longing for a robust turn-based system as seen in Jagged Alliance 2 & ToEE.

Not really, combat was similar to most RTS combat while microing, it wasnt bad at all.
BGII combat is superior to most forms of TB combat ive seen, mostly due to poor execution and/or simplistic aproach in said TB games, but still, the point stands.
Also ToEE combat system may have been good, but the encounter design was so awful in it, that the combat system was wasted. As for JA2, aye, im gonna agree here, but how many games are JA2?

 

[Neckbeard Shitlord]

Why does everyone hate TOB so badly? I don't think it was bad at all, or anyway no worse than BG 2 as a whole.

 

[Lilura]

What? twichy spacebar tapping? That only happened in the hardest of encounters against multiple enemies.

It wouldn't happen at all under a tactical TB system...

as for the pathfinding, i played the hell out of it and literally never had a problem with the pathfinding.

I have played subpar IE RPGs since they came out - pretty sad, really.. - and my combat units don't always take the surest path, which is never a problem under a tactical TB system wherein trajectories are precise.

Combat units also "stick" to each other once in a while during combat, delaying their command and losing precious seconds; in the original Baldur's Gate and PS:T my units won't budge a single pixel to let an ally take a sure path, the party often jittering in a clusterfuck until I manually jiggle them around. That's just fucking annoying, and also never a problem in TB combat.

BGII combat is superior to most forms of TB combat ive seen, mostly due to poor execution and/or simplistic aproach in said TB games, but still, the point stands.
Also ToEE combat system may have been good, but the encounter design was so awful in it, that the combat system was wasted. As for JA2, aye, im gonna agree here, but how many games are JA2?

I only held up ToEE as a decent example of a tactical TB system, not encounter design. One could also argue the encounter design of BG2 was wasted on a RTwP combat system.

 

[CrawlingDead]

What? twichy spacebar tapping? That only happened in the hardest of encounters against multiple enemies. as for the pathfinding, i played the hell out of it and literally never had a problem with the pathfinding.


Not really, combat was similar to most RTS combat while microing, it wasnt bad at all.
BGII combat is superior to most forms of TB combat ive seen, mostly due to poor execution and/or simplistic aproach in said TB games, but still, the point stands.
Also ToEE combat system may have been good, but the encounter design was so awful in it, that the combat system was wasted. As for JA2, aye, im gonna agree here, but how many games are JA2?

You know, maybe you *really* liked the combat system in Baldur's Gate, I don't see how, but it's whatevs. I like a lot of things people don't like.

 

[Lhynn]

It wouldn't happen at all under a tactical TB system...

Thing is, because it was rare, it kept the combat fairly tense. It only gets annoying when you do that almost every fight, like can be seen in PoE.

I have played subpar IE RPGs since they came out - pretty sad, really.. - and my combat units don't always take the surest path, which is never a problem under a tactical TB system wherein trajectories are precise.

Sure it isnt, but its simply an entirely different gameplay dynamic.

Combat units also "stick" to each other once in a while during combat, delaying their command and losing precious seconds; in the original Baldur's Gate and PS:T my units won't budge a single pixel to let an ally take a sure path, the party often jittering in a clusterfuck until I manually jiggle them around. That's just fucking annoying, and also never a problem in TB combat.

Sure, but we are discussing BG2 here. i know BG1 had problems with pathfinding, and i also know PST was much much worse in that department, but BG2 solved almost all of the problems with pathfinding, other than the odd glitch where theyd take a longer route, but that didnt happen in combat often because the distances travelled werent that long.

I only held up ToEE as a decent example of a tactical TB system, not encounter design.

Sure i guess.

One could also argue the encounter design of BG2 was wasted on a RTwP combat system.

But it wasnt, it elevated RTwP, it made it work.
You gotta understand, BG2 combat played very smoothly, the game gave good feedback to what was going on and made making informed decisions easy.

Sure, RTwP is worse than TB in most ways that matter, but that doesnt mean it has to be bad, or that it doesnt add anything, it makes combat look and flow better if properly executed. And made for an extremely fun experience.

Would BG2 been better if it went turn based? no way to know, these guys already had experience with RTwP from their previous titles, and they took a tried and true formula from RTS for how to handle the combat. And weve certainly seen awful TB games in our time.

 

[Lilura]

Thing is, because it was rare, it kept the combat fairly tense.

Basic combat is flow is: pause the game when enemy sighted, assign commands to your units (move, attack, cast spell, backstab etc.), unpause and observe what unfolds, pause again to make adjustments and assign more commands, rinse n repeat until enemies are dead. Pause toggling is integral to combat; it's hardly rare.

Sure it isnt, but its simply an entirely different gameplay dynamic.

Different, and inferior.

Sure, but we are discussing BG2 here. i know BG1 had problems with pathfinding, and i also know PST was much much worse in that department, but BG2 solved almost all of the problems with pathfinding, other than the odd glitch where theyd take a longer route, but that didnt happen in combat often because the distances travelled werent that long.

Yeah, BG2 somehow managed to improve the routine independent of search nodes; I mentioned that above. Still, trajectories remain hit n miss thanks to pathfinding inadequacies and distance measurement is guesswork in general - in what claims to be a tactical RPG.

Sure i guess.

If ToEE engine was successful and ushered in a new Goldbox era - spawning several quality Greyhawk campaigns on par with what graced the inferior IE - I wouldn't be playing Baldur's Gate and its derivatives, that's for sure. But then, that's just a wishful daydream against the harsh reality of genre decline, and extinction.

But it wasnt, it elevated RTwP, it made it work.

It made it work, yeah. Sort of like how an old man can hobble along with his cane.

You gotta understand, BG2 combat played very smoothly, the game gave good feedback to what was going on and made making informed decisions easy.

Compared to the original conceived in the engine's infancy, yes. But again, ToEE is superior with regard to feedback and info for making informed decisions - far superior. The entire ruleset is linked from the combat log, and measurements are displayed on-screen for movement, spell AoEs and so on; BG2 is guesswork and trial and error.

Sure, RTwP is worse than TB in most ways that matter, but that doesnt mean it has to be bad, or that it doesnt add anything, it makes combat look and flow better if properly executed. And made for an extremely fun experience.

RTwP "looks and flows better" than TB, what do you mean? I think JA2 flows beautifully and ToEE felt ok too if you assign hotkeys instead of relying on the radial menu.

Would BG2 been better if it went turn based? no way to know, these guys already had experience with RTwP from their previous titles, and they took a tried and true formula from RTS for how to handle the combat.

It's easily conceivable that a competent dev could have made IE turn-based.

And weve certainly seen awful TB games in our time.

That has nothing to do with the nature of TB, though; it's just poor design by the devs (two examples: Arcanum having a real-time option and Ruins of Myth Drannor's jaw-dropping slowness).

 

[Jaesun]

I wonder how a turn based Baldurs Gate would have been? I should try this in FRUA one day. I would need to pick some specific areas for a demonstration though.

 

[Lhynn]

Basic combat is flow is: pause the game when enemy sighted, assign commands to your units (move, attack, cast spell, backstab etc.), unpause and observe what unfolds, pause again to make adjustments and assign more commands, rinse n repeat until enemies are dead. Pause toggling is integral to combat; it's hardly rare.

Depends on the encounter, autopausing can take care of most of it. But when you are fighting demogorgon, you are pausing several times between rounds, and it never gets annoying, demanding encounters are fun, just not all the time.

Different, and inferior.

In the same way that oranges are inferior to apples.

Yeah, BG2 somehow managed to improve the routine independent of search nodes; I mentioned that above. Still, trajectories remain hit n miss thanks to pathfinding inadequacies and distance measurement is guesswork in general - in what claims to be a tactical RPG.

Let me repeat, never had a problem with it, and the game didnt punish slight errors in movement like PoE did for example, so its fine.

If ToEE engine was successful and ushered in a new Goldbox era - spawning several quality Greyhawk campaigns on par with what graced the inferior IE - I wouldn't be playing Baldur's Gate and its derivatives, that's for sure. But then, that's just a wishful daydream against the harsh reality of genre decline, and extinction.

Sure, like with any other of troika games i guess. But i still rather be playing BG2 over ToEE any day of the week.

It made it work, yeah. Sort of like how an old man can hobble along with his cane.

I dont understand this analogy. care to explain?

Compared to the original conceived in the engine's infancy, yes. But again, ToEE is superior with regard to feedback and info for making informed decisions - far superior. The entire ruleset is linked from the combat log, and measurements are displayed on-screen for movement, spell AoEs and so on; BG2 is guesswork and trial and error.

Of course turn based is superior, you get to see what each participant does in their turn. That doesnt take away of how good the feedback you got from IE games was. You knew where each character was at a glance because they were easy to differentiate. You knew their remaining hp, their buffs and debuffs, you knew if they could make it to the end of the round or if they had to be moved.
As for BG2 spells, just get good at measuring them, its a skill on its own, and a rewarding one at that.

RTwP "looks and flows better" than TB, what do you mean? I think JA2 flows beautifully and ToEE felt ok too if you assign hotkeys instead of relying on the radial menu.

Cannot compare, we are talking about games were each character takes their own turn in their own special time frame, by its very nature turn based wont allow you to see everything happening at once. TB feels better, but RTwP looks and flows better, more naturally as it were.

It's easily conceivable that a competent dev could have made IE turn-based.

Its also easily conceivable that they could have shit their beds and made an awful turn based game.

That has nothing to do with the nature of TB, though; it's just poor design by the devs (two examples: Arcanum having a real-time option and Ruins of Myth Drannor's jaw-dropping slowness).

My point is that even TB can be fucked up. That while turn based is better, RTwP can be good, and that there is no way of knowing if the result would have been better had they gone TB in BG2s case, theres simply no getting around the fact that BG2 was conceived with a RTS engine, and that it was the very reason it handled so smoothly. Had they gone turn based im not confident it would have been any good, because the engine was not made for it, and because theres a distinct lack of depth in the game mechanics. Complexity and difficulty in IE came from handling several units at once, their positioning and their skills, in turn based all this isnt a challenge. Thus the game as it was would have had to get changed from the ground up.

 

[Lonely Vazdru]

Since I'm replaying BG2+ToB right now, I have to mention that Cespenar doesn't get enough love. The little dude is way cool and the voice acting (at least the french one) is totally excellent.

 

[Kefka1134]

BG2 injected a lot more of the romantic and sub-scenario elements started the trend of having kind of having more hyper-cinematic-dramatic moments at the expense of the game ones. Most of the significant aspects of the game are parts of cutscenes (escape from Irenicus prison, the Underdark sequences, being king in the castle as part of the fighter stronghold quests, etc)

If you look at BG2 it's basically a fan-fic of BG1, the characters are mostly the same (Minsc, Edwin, Viconia, Imoen), and the ones added are more generic and more what you see normally (Samurai Ninja from the east, diffident and dreamy love-lorn girl, quirky gnome, noble human paladin, violent berserker dwarf). The main thrust is again the issues of Bhaalspawn and so forth.

Plus the main enemy boss guy wants to take over the worrrrrrrrrld.

BG2 and to a certain extent ToB also overplayed a lot of the game design elements which were kept relatively sparse in 1. You kept running into llifedraining level draining super vampire shadows or something right at the wrong time, plus dealing with extremely overpowered dragons that could AE stun AE mass damage mind control disintegrate just about everything under the sun. I mean they are supposed to be dragons and all but as a game re-loading shouldn't be a virtual certainty.

The optimal way to play BG2 is really to stack high offense with cleric buffs and melee characters and stuff to the point where the fights are basically over in 5-10 seconds (including like Melissan, who you can actually beat somehow without going through her whole multi-phase thing, or at least, I did one time), which is perhaps sort of exciting in an adrenaline sort of way but not in a strategic sort of way.

1 was prone to the same issues but again had more restraint for example you fight, a group of hobgoblins, a group of kobolds, etc, etc, not going from hobgoblins to Djinn's with barrier resistance and mephits rocketing you from every angle, or maybe those Shadow thief assassin's with infinia-invis potions. Anyway, just lots of things like that, lots of quirks, details, subtleties, some bigger picture stuff though too at the same time.

The best part of BG2 that I can remember was that you could ignore that whole ban on spell-casting to just destroy that mage enforcement guild to the point where they sent in their super squad and suddenly you have this fight with a Balor going down in the middle of the city.

 

[oldmanpaco]

What I always liked about BG2 was once you were out of the Chateau and met up with Gaylen(?) you have the entire world to explore. You have the city, all the wilderness/town areas, a couple of dragons, the strongholds, and WK. All of it is completely optional and the order you do it does not matter one bit. That's a lot of content.

I will say that having some type of custom AI that keeps up stoneskin, auto casts heals, and mass casts buffs is pretty helpful.

edit: Jesus now I want to play it again.

 

[Theldaran]

Why does everyone hate TOB so badly? I don't think it was bad at all, or anyway no worse than BG 2 as a whole.

It's just sketchy in plot and quest terms. Arguably, some encounters may be fun for some. For instance, Saradush is just silly in terms of content -the prison dungeon map ported from BG2 is cringeworthy. I bashed Dragon Age 2 because of content spam, so I bash ToB too.

In ToB though, you get to godly levels of power and that has its appeal. Anyway though, the point has been made -the superb thing about IE games was design overall and encounter design -the latter not being true in IWD. I never ever finished IWD2.