How come I don't like BG2 ??

I've read lists and post by a lot of RPGWatch members and we agree about almost every game!!! The only game I always see come out on top of peoples list and I cannot understand why is BG2… I tried and wanted to love it so desperately tried from beginning several times, tried different builds, try different story threads! But I never got into the game! I find myself constantly bored with just about every part except for a few conversations!

I just want to know, from all you BG2 lovers what is so good about this game? , and I also want to know if anyone feels the same way as me?

thanks,
GG

Because you're a sick sick person.



Seriously though, I get flamed all the time because of my opinion that KotOR was mediocre, to each their own. I think The Witcher is vastly overrated as well.


I loved BG2 because of how deep the combat is, especially the magic system with all the spells and counter-spells. But I could understand how someone might not like it if they're not a big fan of D&D combat, especially considering how much of BG2 is spent in battle.

To me the worst thing about BG2 is the length of the game, I would love to replay it more, but it takes too much of a commitment because it's so damn long.

While I really liked BG2, I found parts quite tedious and contrived and I've never had a desire to replay it!!

I liked BG2. Not the greatest thing since sliced bread but still quite enjoyable. I really liked the wild mage. I never really played in earnst P&P D&D. My friends were too lazy and we only played every now and then. So my D&D exerience is from reading the books, adventure modules, Dragon and playing the computer games. That is why I liked BG2 and pretty much any TB and semi TB D&D game. Also, the drow were awesome, gotta love the underdark.

Because artistic appreciation is in the eye of the beholder.

BG 2 somehow worked for me - I liked the Characters and the Story, I got angry at Irenicus for murdering Dynaheir and Khalid and I liked the "virtual little Sister" Imoen, wich I really wanted to rescue as fast as possible - the Game simply got me on the emotional level. Now insert interesting love-interests like Jaheira and Vicionia and I was hooked until the end.

Also I like to play "Spellswords" and Wizards and the Spell-Battles were really interesting - and it was the Sequel of one of my favourite Games.

But once again I have to say that Throne of Bhaal was a really stupid ending for a great series

Maybe the Game gets you if you start again with BG 1 (and of cause the tutu and the NPC-Mod) - if not, well, tastes are different

Huh. I hated Imoen and especially Jaheira…I went to great pains in BG to make sure she just happened to be up front all by herself in a major battle and she "accidentally" died. Now I have her back and I have to chase Imoen all over Amn? Bah.

Anyway, some gripes aside, it was a good game. It *was* overly long and had some dull sequences (to be fair to BioWare - "epic" size is exactly what most people ask for) but Chapter 2 was a damn fine experience. The combat is as good as the IE series gets with epic mage and lich battles, there were some alternative paths and freedom ( in ch. 2), a wide range of interesting party members.

It's too long for me to replay these days but overall, it was great.

Originally Posted by Dhruin
It's too long for me to replay these days but overall, it was great.

This is the problem I'm having with many games. I'm dying to replay Morrowind and finally finish it, but who has time to go back to old games with so many new ones being released?

This bugs the hell out of me because I'm a completist that refuses to play a sequel if I didn't finish the previous game. I have Oblivion and all the expansions, but I never started it because I didn't finish Morrowind!

The party mechanics and the well written companions is what I enjoy about BG2.

Originally Posted by Arpyjee
Because artistic appreciation is in the eye of the beholder.

End of topic

Because you are silly of you don't. You must be..you seem to like Gothic.

Honestly, BG was tedius and clunky and it was hard to like if you were playing it for the first time. But IWD had incredible artistry, with its frozen themes and Frazetta like portraits. The music was incredible. A lot of people didn't like the linearity of it but I thought it was much more focussed than BG which side tracked you all over the place.

BG2 added that same artistic quality of IWD to BG. What Bio was doing with BG was to try recapture the games of their youth. The games overall plot was the discovery that you, the main character, was a god. How many 12 year olds played a campaign like this? I'd say a lot. It was also clearly inspired by Ultima and a lot of people were sorely disappointed with U8 and UO: the game was a modern update of the feel of those games.

BG2 was at worst too long. They could have split it up into three games and made oodles of even more money. Throne of Bhaal was just a rush job as Bio moved on to 3D, the one area were non-rpg critics were getting them over.

I suffered boreout from both BG 1 and BG2, GothicGothicness, so you're not alone. Couldn't finish either of them due to the fact that they couldn't keep my attention for more than 15 minutes a piece. I also really disliked most of the characters. These games finally established my opinion that Forgotten Realms must be the most generic c/RPGing franchise in the world, where generic = dull. These games really made me wonder why there were so many people who seemed to like them back in the days, and reinstalling and having a second look didn't help (same as with NWN much later).

Jaz, you simply prefer men with guns, to elves with wands!!

I appreciated BG and BG2 for its scenery and efforts. But neither game is finsihed. BG i got to act IV, then i lost interest. BG2, i got to act III and i just started to get tired of every dialouge.

I also got tired with KOTOR of the same reason. To much talk, talk. And also my favourite overhyped game - Mass Effect.

I guess it all boils down to that i want to do things and experience them by doing stuff. I don't want to read or listen to stuff, cause then i start to think about more important things todo!

If Kotor, BG2 and Masseffect got rid of their boring dialouge stuff and put some cool FMV stuff i probably would have liked them better. Or just put in great play mechanics as seen in POR II.

I always thought myself a bit of an outcast, not thinking so highly of BG2.

They are great games, i can see it, and i do respect people liking them, but i hope my reason why i don't like them is clear. No disrespect intended to anyone.

The reason I consider BG2 the greatest RPG of all time, is because it doesn't lack in any department (from my point of view). The gameplay, for example, varies completely with each playthrough, depending on what kind of character you create, and which companions you bring along. The combat is both fun and challenging on the harder difficulties (there is simply no chance you'll win your first battle with beholders, illithids or dragons). The story and writing is good, as in all BioWare games.

I wouldn't say that BG2 has a single element that makes it a great game - it just has everything. Other games in the same category are either too short for me, or have certain annoying aspects that I just can't ignore.

Short answer: Taste differs.

That said, you are not alone, GothicGothicness. I cannot say it's a bad product especially as a CRPG version of AD&D campaign. Simply, North American fantasy setting is not my cup of tea. Especially in BG2, I felt some characters were even lamer. As for the main plot, it was very transparent that the designers were trying to make the players hate Irenicus. Some may feel like playing their own characters but I felt I was just reading a mediocre fantasy novel with some minor choices. They could make the story much shorter. When Oblivion was out, it was like "You too, the Elder Scrolls." At least, Bioware is good at making above-average game play and it cannot be an easy task to keep high-level AD&D campaign interesting.

Originally Posted by JemyM
The party mechanics and the well written companions is what I enjoy about BG2.

Ditto.

Icewind Dale also pretty cool but lighter in these two aspects. I believe quite few reviewers thought it as hack & slash version of BG series. Still the comparison is relative, especially when BG compared to Planescape:Torment.

I hated BG2 also, GG. For me, it was the terrible spell combat. Counterspells and contigency spells and all that crap was too unbelievable. You had to know exactly what spells a particular creature would cast before fighting against it. High-level D&D is a terrible system. Low level D&D is a wonderful system. My 2¢

While BG2 is a good game, it has several glaring flaws which detract greatly from the game.
One is that it makes significant assumptions about your character, in it's moral compass, emotions and desires. BG2 assumes you care about Imoen and assumes you've traveled with certain NPCs from BG1.
The entire set-up centres on having to rescue Imoen, and pairs you with NPCs whom you are expected to have had a history with. Both can severely impede the enjoyment of the game right off the mark if either or both assumptions are significantly wrong.
Then, having shackled you to the "save Imoen" plot, you're dumped into a completely irrelevant and lengthy series of adventures that have nothing at all to do with saving Imoen, aside from the metagame of becoming more powerful to rescue her. Sure, you need to gather gold to pay for the promised help, but with the colossally bloated loot system (see upcoming point) it takes no time at all to get that money. But by then you're caught up in the sprawling Chapter 2 quests and it would then seem incongruous to just dump those, and even then if you did, you're probably not strong enough to tackle Spellhold.
The loot. It's obscene. I've always maintained that the loot distribution system seemed designed by hyperactive 13 year old boys, wanting to cram in every possible super weapon they could. It doesn't take long before you're selling as junk greater artifacts than the Hall Of Wonders museum houses.

Aside from these flaws, it's a solid game. It's gorgeous to look at, the NPCs are well developed and interesting, and it's entertaining to see the range and depth of inter-party dialogue between the various combinations. Quests are good and all in all keep you in the game.
Combat is debatable. To some it's wonderful, to others it's tedious. There's a ton of rock-paper-scissors magic-centred fights which I personally hate, requiring the player to really have a handle on the D&D magic system (something I've never really had).
Party control is again subjective. Some folks love controlling a full party, to others it's a chore. At the time BG2 came out I liked the system a lot, but now, I tend to prefer one character since it's more RPG-like - I find controlling a whole group to be more gamey and less role-play.

So, why didn't you like BG2? Could be any of those things.

Originally Posted by Gallifrey
One is that it makes significant assumptions about your character, in it's moral compass, emotions and desires. BG2 assumes you care about Imoen and assumes you've traveled with certain NPCs from BG1.
The entire set-up centres on having to rescue Imoen, and pairs you with NPCs whom you are expected to have had a history with. Both can severely impede the enjoyment of the game right off the mark if either or both assumptions are significantly wrong.

I remembered that Imoen was another factor which made me feel that I was just reading a novel rather than role-playing.

Originally Posted by Gallifrey
The loot. It's obscene. I've always maintained that the loot distribution system seemed designed by hyperactive 13 year old boys, wanting to cram in every possible super weapon they could. It doesn't take long before you're selling as junk greater artifacts than the Hall Of Wonders museum houses.

As for the loot (and character development), there are quite many D&D power gamers and I cannot accuse Bioware of making them happy. For me, D&D seems to have this weird tradition of destroying every basis they built for the lower level adventure for the higher level one. I wonder if it is related with what some people call "epic" or not.

Originally Posted by Gallifrey
the NPCs are well developed and interesting, and it's entertaining to see the range and depth of inter-party dialogue between the various combinations. Quests are good and all in all keep you in the game.

Personally, I don't find the NPCs interesting. I haven't changed the party member and/or may haven't played the game enough to judge it, though. Then again, as far as I have seen, I cannot believe they would fit my taste in any way.