How come I don't like BG2 ??

Because its one long endless battle…

Originally Posted by magerette
Of the Baldur's Gate series, I enjoyed BG2 the most, but the overwhelming memory I have of it is the ungodly length of the game when you factor in all the possible quests, which of course as an anal completist, I always do and get totally bogged down in the myriad sidequests. My hat's off to anyone who's finished this game through ToB.

lol, then you'd be amazed to know I have had finished al possible quest in SoA and ToB (since I've played it like 50times? tried all different classes etc).

BG2 was the only game that was interesting enough for me to complete game multiple times. I have played number of cRPGs but most of them were abandoned before I've even reached the end of the game or played through once and never ever thought of playing it again.

I think closest thing to bg2 I've played so far is Daggerford and NWN2 OC. Don't think I will play it through more than once though. I'm rather lost in daggerford at the moment coz I cant find thing/place/person for the quests and nwn2…. camera modes really piss me off atm.

And you mentioned the length of bg2… but I thought most of games are that lengthy anyway? I found nwn1 vastly bigger with more side quests than bg2. Ofcourse, I could be wrong since I've never finished the game.

Originally Posted by purpleblob
lol, then you'd be amazed to know I have had finished al possible quest in SoA and ToB (since I've played it like 50times? tried all different classes etc).

Fifty???? *removes hat and bows* yes I am impressed and amazed.
I'd say for whatever reason, BG2 has hit your sweet spot.

I think closest thing to bg2 I've played so far is Daggerford and NWN2 OC. Don't think I will play it through more than once though. I'm rather lost in daggerford at the moment coz I cant find thing/place/person for the quests and nwn2…. camera modes really piss me off atm.

And you mentioned the length of bg2… but I thought most of games are that lengthy anyway? I found nwn1 vastly bigger with more side quests than bg2. Ofcourse, I could be wrong since I've never finished the game.

I never finished NWN1 or HotU either, but did make it all the way thru SoU. To me, I thought the number of sidequests were a lot higher in BG2 than the NWNOC, but it may be because I'm lumping in SoA & ToB in my memory. I'll certainly take your word on it though after 50 plays.

On NWN2, I also had lots of probs with the camera, but at least they fixed it in MotB. I would say NWN2 is nowhere near as long as BG2, tho. It starts out like it's going to be, but trims down and gets pretty linear toward the end.

Originally Posted by Gallifrey
I'm speaking *soley* from the perspective that ToEE's combat model is superior to the IE model. I'm making no claims of superiority based on game content.

ToEE did have a very good combat model, although I wouldn't say either one is better than the other. It really boils down to what an individual prefers, I really enjoyed the fast pace of the IE games, compared to the long tactical battles of ToEE.

Originally Posted by Gallifrey
I found that in BG2, it was the same patterns over and over again with spell "tactics". The IWD games offered more diversity in how one approached a combat scenerio in regards to which spells and which class strengths and abilities were used. I actually liked the spartan spell selection of IWD more than the smorgasboard of magic in BG2, maybe I found it more accessible and less aggrivating.
Now, IWD2 was the more successful in the criteria I'm using here. IWD wasn't quite as diverse, but still I found the combat grittier and more engaging.

Mmm, that is almost the exact same way I would describe combat in IWD, as far as using the same tactics repeatedly is concerned. I remember BG2 having a lot more instances where you really needed to be specific about what spells you used in order to win. There were some battles in BG2 that were so specific that they were almost a trial and error affair, some people complained about that level of difficulty, but I relished it.

Originally Posted by Gallifrey
Yes. But that's not the point of the cartoon, which is what I was commenting on.

I mistakingly thought there was a connecting reference there, but I would never argue with someone sporting a Tom Baker avatar.

Originally Posted by purpleblob
lol, then you'd be amazed to know I have had finished al possible quest in SoA and ToB (since I've played it like 50times? tried all different classes etc).

BG2 was the only game that was interesting enough for me to complete game multiple times. I have played number of cRPGs but most of them were abandoned before I've even reached the end of the game or played through once and never ever thought of playing it again.
.

*Bows down in awe to the magnificence that is purpleblob*

Now THAT is impressive. As much as I love BG2, it is the length that keeps me from replaying it as much as I would like. I also can not bring myself to play any single game that much, in fear that I am missing out on too many other games.

Originally Posted by JDR13
*Bows down in awe to the magnificence that is purpleblob*

Now THAT is impressive. As much as I love BG2, it is the length that keeps me from replaying it as much as I would like. I also can not bring myself to play any single game that much, in fear that I am missing out on too many other games.

well, until recently I had really old computer that would not run anything better than bg2… so yeah! my choices were restricted to: iwd1 & 2, ps:t, bg 1 &,2, diablo1 & 2, arcanum and morrowind…. so I suppose that contributed to my obsession to bg2

Originally Posted by magerette
So, while I got many enjoyable hours of play from the game, I find it to be too sandboxy and non-linear in the long run to hold my interest. I can understand those who put it at the top of their lists, though. It probably comes closer to fulfilling the term 'epic' than most cRPGs.

I certainly appreciate and endorse this criticism against BG2 (though I managed to finish it four times and ToB twice).

In my opinion the best solution wouldnt be more linear, but rather a non-linear game with many more mutually exclusive paths and choices, which would add to replay value. This would however cause an outrage among players who might only see 25% of the content in a playthrough, and isnt very economical for the developers in terms of time invested, and is tough to balance and playtest… But even if I can understand where the design decison is coming from I am quite sick of games that allow me to play all sides in one go even where it wouldnt make sense (TES and Gothic III are maybe even better examples of the problem than BG2).

Originally Posted by JDR13
*Bows down in awe to the magnificence that is purpleblob*

Now THAT is impressive. As much as I love BG2, it is the length that keeps me from replaying it as much as I would like. I also can not bring myself to play any single game that much, in fear that I am missing out on too many other games.

I'm sort of the opposite. I have trouble finding games I really like, so I'm more prone to play something I've done before. I just started U9 again (with the user mod script instead). I never finished it the first time.

Afterwards, I may do BGII again (still never played the Darkest Day user expansion), NWN2 OC, or U7 in exult.

I would never complain that the game I liked was too long. For me it's like a good book - I just don't want it to end

Originally Posted by zahratustra
I would never complain that the game I liked was too long. For me it's like a good book - I just don't want it to end

I understand, and that's how I felt with Gothic, The Witcher, Arcanum, and even ToEE (despite the stuttering and lags in the nodes at the end that drug the game out) I wanted more. Hey--I still want more.

And Zaleukos wrote:

In my opinion the best solution wouldn't be more linear, but rather a non-linear game with many more mutually exclusive paths and choices, which would add to replay value.

Linear is another one of those words that carry a lot of meanings--I like your idea of mutually exclusive paths and choices, but at some point I want my next move in a game to be pretty clear. I like to wander around and check out the NPCs and their back stories and travel the map looking for this or that for awhile, but I can't do it indefinitely… Maybe I enjoy semi-linearity.

Oh, and salute to you as well for finishing four times. You guys obviously have more self discipline than I do.

Originally Posted by magerette
I understand, and that's how I felt with Gothic, The Witcher, Arcanum, and even ToEE (despite the stuttering and lags in the nodes at the end that drug the game out) I wanted more. Hey--I still want more.

And Zaleukos wrote:


Linear is another one of those words that carry a lot of meanings--I like your idea of mutually exclusive paths and choices, but at some point I want my next move in a game to be pretty clear. I like to wander around and check out the NPCs and their back stories and travel the map looking for this or that for awhile, but I can't do it indefinitely… Maybe I enjoy semi-linearity.

Oh, and salute to you as well for finishing four times. You guys obviously have more self discipline than I do.

It's not self discipline you like the game, you want more from it and don't want to miss out on any content! I'm more impressed with other ppl like you, magerette I don't know how you guys manage to finish games like arcanum and morrowind (those games bore me so much I almost cried trying to get through).

And I actually prefer linear games than non-linear… I'm sort of person who gets annoyed unless I finish every single quest available. Which means if there are too many choices *BOOM* I go nuts… because I dont have time nor patience to explore all that options! (now I sound crazy, dont I? Oo)

Originally Posted by bkrueger
I feel exactly the same. It is beyond me that somebody can complain, that a game is too long (except it is bad, of course, but then there is no reason to play it till the end).

I thought it was the fault of the console-kiddies with the short attention span that shooters last only ten hours today, but if even RPG-fans start to complain about games being too long

Ever heard of "too much of a good thing"?

Seriously, though, it's just another one of those personal preference things. I'm certainly no "console-kiddie", but no game is going to keep my interest indefinitely. We all have our limits. For some, it may be 80 hours, for others 30. And, of course, that depends a lot on the game itself.

I'm much more of a game-mechanics & challenge player than an NPC-interaction & story player. So, once I've got a hang of the mechanics and have gotten the upper hand on a game, it begins to lose its luster. If the game isn't providing me with new and interesting challenges and mechanics, it's doubtful the "story" will keep me going if I'm not already near the end. The repetition becomes just too much and the fun-factor fades. But that's just me…

Excellent point, chamr! I completely disagree with you on that, but your point is spot-on!

Yep, chamr puts it well. For me, I have to be both strongly identified with my characters and equally involved in what their doing to want to play the same game for more than say 60 hours. Some of my favorite games I've never finished (Might and Magic 6, my all time favorite behind M&M7, for instance) because I was just through before the game was.

@purpleblob: Nah, you're not crazy. I'm the same way about wanting to finish everything--its when it looks like I can't possibly finish it all--mainly because there are too many choices--that I drop out. Oh, and I never finished Morrowind, either.

Originally Posted by magerette
Oh, and I never finished Morrowind, either.

Same here, and for pretty much the same reasons.