How come I don't like BG2 ??

Well I am reistalling it now to play it again

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

Without trying to start a debate over levels of class power, high level Mages are significantly more powerful than high level Fighters. Fighters still have to rely on tactical considerations, while Mages are largely conduits of mass destruction.

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

That would be a subjective comment. IWD is still very much an RPG, albeit with a heavier reliance on combat. The fights in BG2 and IWD could be interchanged, it's not as though BG2 needs those particularly magic-reliant battles and IWD needs the more tactical battles. BG2 could've had battles more like IWD's and IWD could've had battles like BG2's.
I'm merely saying that IWD handles combat better, and more evenly in terms of balance of class power, than BG2.

Originally Posted by rune_74
Well I am reistalling it now to play it again

Heh, I know.. Despite my criticisms I'm sorely tempted to reinstall right now!

Originally Posted by Gallifrey
Without trying to start a debate over levels of class power, high level Mages are significantly more powerful than high level Fighters. Fighters still have to rely on tactical considerations, while Mages are largely conduits of mass destruction.

Just like modern weapons, aren't they?

Originally Posted by Gallifrey
That would be a subjective comment. IWD is still very much an RPG, albeit with a heavier reliance on combat. The fights in BG2 and IWD could be interchanged, it's not as though BG2 needs those particularly magic-reliant battles and IWD needs the more tactical battles. BG2 could've had battles more like IWD's and IWD could've had battles like BG2's.
I'm merely saying that IWD handles combat better, and more evenly in terms of balance of class power, than BG2.

That's why I used comparative.

Originally Posted by Gallifrey
Heh, I know.. Despite my criticisms I'm sorely tempted to reinstall right now!

Oddly, not in my case. I guess I am into stories and world simulation than tactical combats. As I wrote, taste differs, talking of the subjectivity.

World simulation is something I would really like to see explored more in crpgs. A world that you can really effect. Games like BG that are story driven at the core don't really seem to care; you only effect the game world in a way that forwards the main plot (acts or opening the city of Baldur's Gate for example). Something with some true complexity would be nice (or even a little complexity).

In response to our OP (GothicGothicness), you don't have to like anything because others do. If you can't get into the world or characters of a story driven rpg then it's going to cause problems for you. It's the same problem I have with NWN2 (and NWN for that matter).

Originally Posted by woges
Games like BG that are story driven at the core don't really seem to care; you only effect the game world in a way that forwards the main plot (acts or opening the city of Baldur's Gate for example).

Personally, I found Planescape: Torment and the Witcher are more "story-driven" or narrativist than BG series are. The clear-cut morality based on D&D alignment turned me off. The Mask of Betrayer made it more tolerable for me but I am not willing to play NWN2 OC or NWN.

Yeah they are, and BG2 is probably more story-driven than BG but they are still story driven (most rpgs have been for a long time). All I'm saying is you can't wander around the game world without unlocking them first. Now if you're not interested in this world or story then you're unlikely to get immersed and enjoy the experience - that's all I'm saying.

I love BG, but again I don't like any of the Halo games much, find the original HL (and HL2) great but over-rated, and so on … I think it all goes back to individual choice and preference.

Hmm it has aged very well I have reinstalled and I am playing itnow.

Originally Posted by rune_74
Hmm it has aged very well I have reinstalled and I am playing itnow.

I agree - I played some on the Mac a few months ago and had a blast.

Hmmm I'm a b it further in and I'm actually enjying BG2 more that I have went back to it at a later time…maybe that says alot about todays software who knows?

Originally Posted by Dusk

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.

I found that the reactions the recruited NPC's (especially Keldorn & Jaheira) had to your actions really enhanced the roleplaying experience and increased the significance of the choices & consequences.

Just a small comment:
A single mage is not even close to the most powerful character you can have in BG2. Fully buffed fighter/mages, for example, will utterly destroy most magic based characters. In fact, quite a few monsters are completely immune to magic, so I really don't think it's correct to say that mages are more important than others. In almost every playthrough I've had where I've had an evil party, Korgans' kill count will vastly outnumber even the main character, unless he's some sort of fighter character as well (the fighter/mage example above is always a winning combination). In good parties, Keldorn or the main character usually wins the kill count (Keldorn starts out a bit slow, but after he gets bracers of dexterity and Carsomyr, he will flatten anything, casters included).

Originally Posted by woges
Yeah they are, and BG2 is probably more story-driven than BG but they are still story driven (most rpgs have been for a long time). All I'm saying is you can't wander around the game world without unlocking them first. Now if you're not interested in this world or story then you're unlikely to get immersed and enjoy the experience - that's all I'm saying.

This doesn't explain why I found MotB tolerable than other FR D&D products. Also, I liked the art direction of IWD much more than the cartoonish BGII counterpart. So, the preference of the world setting may play a certain role but it's not just that.

I think there is a difference in "story-driven"-ness or narrativist aspect of BG series and MotB. The stories of BG series are rather linear generic fantasy ones with a few alignment-based choices while MotB allows the players to be more involved in the story development, offering many more role-playing opportunities. With NWN2 OC, I think Obsidian superficially imitated BG series while, with MotB, they analyzed BG series more carefully and employed their techniques traceable to PS:T (PC-NPC interactions), Fallout (Slide-show at the end) and IWD (Combat). The protagonist is still a chosen one but the players can enjoy much more freedom in how the story develops with the special power rather than just following linear good/evil story paths. Of course, the story of BGII is less linear than that of IWD but still very linear for my standard.

BTW, even in MotB, "evil" motivations seem to mainly come from power-gamers' wet-dream. This reminds me of the trading cards of the Witcher somehow, talking of sad geek desires…

Originally Posted by Arpyjee
I found that the reactions the recruited NPC's (especially Keldorn & Jaheira) had to your actions really enhanced the roleplaying experience and increased the significance of the choices & consequences.

I don't deny that but compared with PS:T and MotB… BGII, indeed, offered more various NPCs if not deep, though. BGII was for me, a king of buffet, where you find almost everything you expect for an AD&D adventure with more-than-average quality (This may be related with what bkrueger pointed out).

Originally Posted by Maylander
Just a small comment:
A single mage is not even close to the most powerful character you can have in BG2. Fully buffed fighter/mages, for example, will utterly destroy most magic based characters.

Anomen was quite strong, too but dual class characters are originally designed for badass NPCs. Also as far as I remember, liches are one of the strongest in the game.

Originally Posted by txa1265
I love BG, but again I don't like any of the Halo games much, find the original HL (and HL2) great but over-rated, and so on … I think it all goes back to individual choice and preference.

I wouldn't simply point out the subjectivity of tastes without exploring the possible reasonings for different preferences. What is the use of game journalism and discussion boards? Preferences are, of course, subjective but reasonings shouldn't be that subjective. In fact, that's what we are doing when we talk of books, films and even TV shows. Then, why not with games? Also, I found the reaction so far in this thread is much more than something like "You dissed my favorite game and I am angry."

Originally Posted by Dusk
I wouldn't simply point out the subjectivity of tastes without exploring the possible reasonings for different preferences. What is the use of game journalism and discussion boards? Preferences are, of course, subjective but reasonings shouldn't be that subjective. In fact, that's what we are doing when we talk of books, films and even TV shows. Then, why not with games? Also, I found the reaction so far in this thread is much more than something like "You dissed my favorite game and I am angry."

Absolutely - it is like me saying "I acknowledge Milton's greatness but find most of his stuff a bit boring". I like Half-Life and see all of the great things, but far prefer many other shooters for personal reasons. There is both objective and subjective analysis possible for all artistic realms … so long as we acknowledge that one doesn't predetermine the other…

Originally Posted by Dusk
…with MotB, they analyzed BG series more carefully and employed their techniques traceable to… IWD (Combat).

What? IWD is a crap from a CRPG point of view because too much unbalanced, but fights design shines (and I don't see anything else shining in IWD). I prefer much more MotB globally but it cannot compare at all to fight quality in IWD. Where are the ambushes, the traps, the multiple waves, and tactical positions of enemies, the tactical position you can get i some fights, the use of long range and close range to setup original fights, and so on?

That thread is a terrible push to make you replay BG2! I replay very recently BG1 and got hurt how fights was fun thanks to a nice difficulty level, at least until later in the game where I build up a too strong team. I also got surprised that I didn't feel it old. The only negative point I didn't expect was that I felt dungeon quality a bit less good than I remembered. That thread makes me wonder how I'll feel a replay of BG2.

I'm totally into bg2 at the moment…I think I like even better this time around.

If you are reinstalling it I believe there is a user made mod if you want to play it with the 3E rules. You would need a copy of IWD2.

Of course, there is a mod to play BG1 and 2 in BG2.

Mostly, I've never been able to get any of those to work. The instructions were full of errors and the people that get them to work already know the arcane methods to make them work on their own machines.

Originally Posted by Dasale
What? IWD is a crap from a CRPG point of view because too much unbalanced, but fights design shines (and I don't see anything else shining in IWD). I prefer much more MotB globally but it cannot compare at all to fight quality in IWD. Where are the ambushes, the traps, the multiple waves, and tactical positions of enemies, the tactical position you can get i some fights, the use of long range and close range to setup original fights, and so on?

I merely described as "traceable". From the game engines of NWN series, we cannot expect all you had on Infinity Engine even if Obsidian tried to make it more feel like IE with the strategy mode. And yet, I think MotB's combat is better than that of NWN2 OC. The flexible item crafting and some "evil" choices toward power-play significantly ruins the balance of combat, though. Also, there is a place where nasty undead creatures ambush and swarm to your party.

I like BG2 for the story telling, NPC interactions, music, romances and heaps of different quests given depending on which NPCs you have and what class you are playing. At the time, game was rather vast and you could never finish all quests at one go. it has heaps of replayability. well at list for me. I think I played this game at least 20 times without any mods, then I added few mods and played like at least 30 times again Oo

and anyway, everyone has different opinion. some ppl just cant understand why bg2 is so good, but then i cant understand why arcanum is so good. ppl just have different taste and besides does it matter whether your fav game is loved by everyone or not? whatever opinion other ppl has, it shouldnt affect your view on your personal favourite game.

and I think sometimes ppl just have to accept the fact their fav game is not neccessarily the best game ever. it this case bg2 is voted as number 1 and everyone should just take it as its well loved game.