How come I don't like BG2 ??

Originally Posted by Corwin
Jaz, you simply prefer men with guns, to elves with wands!!

Hmmmm… now that you mention it… my favorite games feature more memorable men with guns then elves.

Originally Posted by Gallifrey
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.

That's a great summary of my BG 2 frustrations. In my case both of Bioware's initial assumptions were very much mistaken and broke continuity with my BG 1 game. Personally I'd sooner run a sword through Jar Jar Minsc, Jaheria and Jan Jansen than spend five nano-seconds in their odious company. In anycase I'd already killed them in the previous game.

It's a problem with character-driven RPGs in general. Satisfying intra-party interaction relies on highly subjective concepts such as emotional resonance or sense of humour. With fixed NPCs there's no practical way of pleasing everyone. However it could work if the player was allowed to generate NPC personalities at start-up.

I dunno. I thought BG was okay to decent, but BGII is really a masterpiece in my opinion. Great plot, non-siderailed gameplay except for an act or two, characters that feel alive, believable romances, room to build powerful characters if you're into that, and it was long to boot! You guys are saying that it being too long is somehow bad… That's like saying you can have too much of a good thing. Do you guys really like games you can finish over a weekend?

Well, there's no one answer to this but I can't keep up. Long work hours, running this site, trying to spend time with my other half…a 100+ hour game kills me. I haven't found time yet to play NWN2: MotB (and by all accounts, it's one of the best CRPG experiences in years). I have a list of stuff I'd like to replay but if I can't keep up with the best new releases, there's no hope.

20-40 hours works best for me.

Originally Posted by Dhruin
Long work hours, running this site, trying to spend time with my other half…a 100+ hour game kills me. I haven't found time yet to play NWN2: MotB (and by all accounts, it's one of the best CRPG experiences in years). I have a list of stuff I'd like to replay but if I can't keep up with the best new releases, there's no hope.
20-40 hours works best for me.

Heh, well I guess I'm opposite. If a game is short I often pass it over a weekend, like that newest Call of Duty game for example. I could see how some games would be annoying to play if you don't have much play time. Baldur's Gate II really needs you to sit at it so that you get immersed in its world.

As for NWN2: MotB… It wasn't bad, but I think that game kind of forces you to hurry through it and abondon spellcasting, which took some of the fun out.

Originally Posted by crpgnut
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¢

1) Since when do the intricacies of a mystical magic system, in a high-fantasy game realm, have to be based on 2008 contemporary reality ?

2) And since when is knowledge of your opponents in a video game "off limits" ?


Whew, these criticisms of BG just astound me.

Originally Posted by MudsAnimalFriend
That's a great summary of my BG 2 frustrations. In my case both of Bioware's initial assumptions were very much mistaken and broke continuity with my BG 1 game. Personally I'd sooner run a sword through Jar Jar Minsc, Jaheria and Jan Jansen than spend five nano-seconds in their odious company. In anycase I'd already killed them in the previous game.

It's a problem with character-driven RPGs in general. Satisfying intra-party interaction relies on highly subjective concepts such as emotional resonance or sense of humour. With fixed NPCs there's no practical way of pleasing everyone. However it could work if the player was allowed to generate NPC personalities at start-up.

But you are not mistaking your negative subjective reaction to those NPC's as a universal, objective truth… or are you ?

I personally (as do millions) LOVE Jan, Minsc and most of the recruitable NPC's in BG. They are as close to alive as has ever been done. Look at TOEE, Fallout, and other RPG's with party members… they're always 1 dimensional tag-along sprites. Now I'm not saying my love of them is mandatory for all, just that I find the development, depth, interactivity with those characters as a great and endearing feature of what is imo (and in the opinion of many others) the greatest RPG of all time. But the option was always there to oust them if you didn't like them, and I even did that for my 1st run through of BG2 several years ago, playing it solo for 80-90% of the game.

But again (to revert back to genuine subjectivism), artistic appreciation is in the eye of the beholder. For example, does anyone know that movie, "A Christmas Story" ? I personally find it to be THE unfunniest movie of all time.

Originally Posted by Dusk

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.

Well you can't equate Edwin's company with that of Minsc or Jan : 3 vastly different characters. I believe that many have passed premature judgement on all the characters, based on their subjective reaction to a limited few.

But again, you can remove party members in BG. You can play the overwhelming majority (if not ALL) of the game solo. That, or find 1 of the very diverse characters which you find least unappealing. What I and many others hate are games like NWN2 which prescript mandatory party members at precise times, for an extended time.

Thanks for the overwhelming feedback, I think I see a clearer picture now, I can't get in to the world of BG2, not the story not the characters therefore I do not care what happens to them. I personaly also found the combat rather boring… but I can get through it if I like the other parts of a game.

So the different between the Ultima's, Gothic's, the Wither, Eschalon, Wizardry's, Planescape and all those other games I love and BG2 is just that the developers fail to make me care ( at all ) about anything in the BG world just like they did with NWN 1/2, and Kotor…. but in Jade Empire ( even if it is an inferior game in many ways ) I still cared what happend, which is the reason it is my favourite bioware game! Thanks all for giving me + 10 in perciption ! Suddenly it all became very clear to me!

I think there was enough variety of characters in BG1 and 2 that you could always ditch personalities that you didn't like in favor of those you did.

Imoen I didn't mind because she was a useful thief to me. I disliked it when I got her back and she was part MU.

She didn't get all whiny like that flying elf. Kelgorn was great to have in the party when I had her because he'd start threatening her.

Party interaction without me was simply hilarious at times. A lot of people got the patch early on to romance all three elfs and this was a big mistake. The elves actually start getting jealous with one another if you string them along unpatched and I swear they are ready to scratch each others eyes out.

I was very impressed with that, discovering the conditions and variety that fired different results. I can see now why the one developer had headaches for the two years he had making the Jaheira romance.

On that note, I'd hope to convince you to see it from a different light but I knew it was hopeless. It would be if you were trying to convince me to like Gothic (that would be another thread wouldn't it).

The Ultima characters aren't as developed IMO as the BG characters but it was fun picking them up. Its not the way I like playing RPG's but at least it allows for this kind of character development. Its something you just don't get in IWD.

As well, the combat was something new. Before this we were pretty much stuck with turn based.

Originally Posted by Arpyjee
Well you can't equate Edwin's company with that of Minsc or Jan : 3 vastly different characters. I believe that many have passed premature judgement on all the characters, based on their subjective reaction to a limited few.

But again, you can remove party members in BG. You can play the overwhelming majority (if not ALL) of the game solo. That, or find 1 of the very diverse characters which you find least unappealing. What I and many others hate are games like NWN2 which prescript mandatory party members at precise times, for an extended time.

Reading this thread, I remembered some more details. The inter-companion conversations are NPC-NPC interactions where the player passively read what they are saying, which strengthens my impression that I felt like reading a novel. Compared with this, PS:T and Obsidian products are more focused on PC-NPC interaction, which requires the player's involvements or role-playing. Also, I find their NPCs tend to be deeper and more interesting than those of BGII. Obsidian seem to try to imitate BGII formula with cut-scenes of inter-companion NPC conversations but I found they had come back to their origin with MotB. Maybe, Obsidian became too shy about inter-NPC conversations since they were much less imposing in BGII than those in cut-scenes of NWN2 OC: They normally happen when we leave our computers a while. That said, I think PC-NPC conversations are more important when it comes to role-playing.

As for BG series, I think I had more fun in wondering around and stumbled upon quests than following the main story. The inter NPC conversations worked fine as something similar to a background music when I had breaks rather than as a role-playing factor.

Originally Posted by crpgnut
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¢

I played the BG2 series a very long time ago and not sure if I remember well but I felt something wrong in BG2 SoA fights but vastly fixed in ToB. Learning how manage each category of monsters wasn't my complain but that the magic in the first 1 or 2 seconds of the fight took too much importance in SoA but that was fixed in ToB, still magic over important but not reduced to 1 or 2 seconds of the fight.

In BG1 during most of the game long range weapons dominate too much and low level D&D totally sucks.

Originally Posted by Dasale
In BG1 during most of the game long range weapons dominate too much and low level D&D totally sucks.

Low-level D&D is superb. BG1 was very unbalanced towards ranged combat however, likely because it was a key way to be able to survive against the large amount of combat without resorting to constant reloads.
Low-level table-top D&D is quite different, as is low-level D&D played on-line via a realistically designed NWN persistant world. With low-level adventuring, you have to use tactics, plan, follow the ebb and flow of battle, rather than just blasting through or against foes, many of which are insanely powerful and in such large numbers that any sense of believability is thrown right out the window.

BG2 would have been brilliant had it been more rationally and conservatively designed. But no, they wanted to go big in every respect, and by the end it's a towering, teetering mess of over-wrought absurdity.

Originally Posted by Gallifrey
BG2 would have been brilliant had it been more rationally and conservatively designed. But no, they wanted to go big in every respect, and by the end it's a towering, teetering mess of over-wrought absurdity.

I have to disagree with you on this one Gallifrey, BG2 is indeed considered brilliant by most people, myself included. A lot of people become overwelmed by the high level combat, especially the magic system with nearly 200 spells, but I find it to be a thing of beauty once mastered.

The only drawback, which I can readily understand is a turnoff to many, is the learning curve of the high level combat. Many people simply become frustrated and end up quitting before they realize what a magnificent game it truly is.

I accuse D&D high-level system rather than Bioware. To my eyes, D&D stopped being a role-playing system but a power gamer generator, of which even Gygax complains. I became more interested in other systems quickly and I see the reason more clearly as the time passes. Considering that, I have to admit that Bioware did rather well. At least about the combat system.

With regard to the party characters in BG2 - you don't have to play with any of them just make some of your own to play through the game that you do care about.

I played my own characters from level one (BG) till the end of ToB; they where all mine and my friends characters from when I used to play D&D many years ago. This player character flexibility is quite enjoyable - at least for me anyway.

Originally Posted by JDR13
I have to disagree with you on this one Gallifrey, BG2 is indeed considered brilliant by most people, myself included. A lot of people become overwelmed by the high level combat, especially the magic system with nearly 200 spells, but I find it to be a thing of beauty once mastered.

The problem I have with the magic system is really two-fold. One, I've never, ever, ever in all my years of D&D gotten the hang of magic. It's never appealed to me as it is contradictory to the way in which I play. Second, in BG2, the magic becomes a core mechanic to the game, and everything else is largely secondary and even tertiary. If you love D&D magic, then BG2 will be the best thing ever. If you don't like D&D magic, it's a millstone around the neck of the game.

The only drawback, which I can readily understand is a turnoff to many, is the learning curve of the high level combat. Many people simply become frustrated and end up quitting before they realize what a magnificent game it truly is.

Well, I did finish SOA, but got utterly fed up in disgust with TOB. Not that it was hard, but when every stock enemy I killed was dropping +5 weapons and I could have Viconia dual wielding with magnificent effectiveness without any skill in that combat style, I just lost what shreds of interest I had left. It was too over the top and without any story or character interest at all.

The high level combat isn't hard, it's rather the exact opposite, I find.

Originally Posted by Dusk
I accuse D&D high-level system rather than Bioware. To my eyes, D&D stopped being a role-playing system but a power gamer generator, of which even Gygax complains. I became more interested in other systems quickly and I see the reason more clearly as the time passes. Considering that, I have to admit that Bioware did rather well. At least about the combat system.

In regards to BG2 it's a bit of both. BG2 was built on AD&D, but and I never found AD&D to be particularly geared towards power-gaming. Sure, it could be, as BG2 showed, but in itself it always seemed more moderate. It was BioWare that took it to extremes, really. They tossed in the extremely powerful equipment and then had to toss in extremely powerful creatures to counter that (or vice versa, whichever) and it became a replicating disaster.
BG2 was also made at the time that 3rd Edition came out, so BioWare cobbled in some vaguely 3E-inspired features like High Level Abilities, thus making the system a bit of a hybrid which threw the balance of more.

Low level mages where always weak in D&D, and really powerful at high levels. So the game seems fairly true to the old D&D system. Maybe if you'd taken the mage from it's weak state at level one in BG and leveled to ToB it may seem a bit more gratifying.

Originally Posted by woges
Low level mages where always weak in D&D, and really powerful at high levels. So the game seems fairly true to the old D&D system. Maybe if you'd taken the mage from it's weak state at level one in BG and leveled to ToB it may seem a bit more gratifying.

Absolutely they were. But the Mage is one element of a party, one element of the gameworld. I have no problem with them being powerful, my issue with magic and BG2 is that there's simply so much of it, magic becomes all-important, not just an element of the game.

The Icewind Dale games from Black Isle handled it all so much better. In those, magic is powerful, but it's just one factor.

Originally Posted by woges
Low level mages where always weak in D&D, and really powerful at high levels. So the game seems fairly true to the old D&D system. Maybe if you'd taken the mage from it's weak state at level one in BG and leveled to ToB it may seem a bit more gratifying.

You are right. And 3rd ed, fighter classes became "powerful." However, where are all these things heading?

Originally Posted by Gallifrey
Absolutely they were. But the Mage is one element of a party, one element of the gameworld. I have no problem with them being powerful, my issue with magic and BG2 is that there's simply so much of it, magic becomes all-important, not just an element of the game.
The Icewind Dale games from Black Isle handled it all so much better. In those, magic is powerful, but it's just one factor.

I guess you are right about this but IWD is designed to be more of combat simulator rather than a role-playing game.