BG2 and POE2 (not what you think)

[Grimo88]

I've had some time lately and did back-to-back runs of both BG2 and POE2. 

 

I have to say, BG2 holds up, but I think it's insane to think that it's still better than POE2. Greater, certainly, but only in the sense that watershed games like this occupy a context in history that allows them to be great. 

 

1) Story.

 

Ok, yep, I think the story is better in BG2. Only because the stakes are more personal and you're pitted against a peerless archvillain who, at least for me, is one the best villains in fantasy fiction. That's not to say I don't love POE2's story. I do. But I think BG2's expertly balances hexcrawl-style exploration while guiding the player along a linear narrative. 

 

2) Choice and RP. 

 

POE2, by a long-shot. There are very few RPing situations in BG2, and they often simply occupy a good and evil binary. Even then, I can't just choose to discard Imoen's rescue. There are no choices carried from BG1 (this system was in its infancy, here, so not a fair comparison). There are no stat or skill checks, and dialogue is very limited and unaffected by your class or race. POE2 trounces BG2 in the RP department without breaking a sweat. 

 

3) Combat

 

I honestly think POE2 has a more refined system. I think BG2 relies far too much on hard counters. Most encounters involve buffing my muscle and sending them off like wind-up dolls, with the occasional counter thrown in. Thieves are useless for anything but traps and the occasional backstab, which is why, I suppose, most of them are multi-classed. Many mechanics, such as level drain, are just speedbumps that take up space in your spellbook. One thing I will say is that BG2 is largely free of the HP-bloated punching bag fights that are all too common in POE2, and that BG2 is far better at pacing out encounters. There is far too much trash in much of POE2, in my opinion. 

 

4) World and Exploration 

 

I honestly think they're quite equal here. BG2 is great at providing diverse dungeons and environments of an unprecedented scale, and with the DLC included, POE2 pretty much matches it. I love BG2s setting, and I've never seen the FR done better, but Eora just has so much more meaning to it. There are distinct cultures and a coherent religion, as opposed to the make-it-up-as-you-go plethora of gods and demons and Hells and whatnot in FR (not a fan of the setting, probably a matter of taste). Eora feels like a real place, with the FR feels like a pastiche theme park. 

 

Anyway, that's my breakdown. Thoughts? Counters? 

 

[Triple - A Foxy Lad]

Hmm okay.

 

Thing is BG2 has v clear goal. It aims to create the ultimate kitchen sink ad&d experience. With mindflayers and the underdark and the undead and dragons and the planes and everything.

 

It aims to be fun, and include everything. Beyond that, it has no great theme to pursue.

 

The writing is brisk and campy. Irenicus is a good laugh bcs of his one-liners and delivery. The internecine elven bull**** that animates him is of no interest or consequence. It doesnt matter.

 

The gameplay is there to portray ad&d with no real care as to whether its 'good'. This is fine. Ad&d's eccentric mayhem is a marvel to behold, and participate in, regardless of how wonky it might be.

 

Im not sure what poe's goals are. Let alone whether it achieves them. Best idea i can come up with is that its doing the REM thing, where its trying to obsessively create 'the best song' according to criteria both popular and particular.

 

Every now and then it gets notions in its head about what it wishes to express, that dont necessarily have much to do with its form.

 

Bg2 using game to express joy of playing ad&d makes sense. Ye, is simple to point of banality but it works.

 

Poe uses nostalgic yet overambitious rpg to explore pitfalls of memory and seeking mastery. Which is... weirdly fitting but its almost as if the game is attacking itself. Even questioning its reason to exist?

 

Okay this is just rambling nonsense on my part here. Take home is that bg2 has a goal and achieves it. Poe is an odd ornery beast that gets weirder and more tangled the closer u look at it.

 

I suppose whichevers better depends on what intrigues u the most at the time.

[Wormerine]

I really dislike comparing a modern title to an 18 years old one. Baldur’s Gate was an inspired and influential title and it’s influence can be traced to this day. It has its shortcomings - some are by choice, some are straight up issues - but overall quality and originality outweighs them. It is still a game which holds up and one I wouldn’t shy from recommending.

 

However, for impovements we don’t even need to dive into Deadfire. I did a straight playthrough PoE1, BG1, BG2 and PoE2, and I only gained respect for design of PoEs.

 

There is a sophistication to PoE on mechanical and artistic level, which simply isn’t in Baldur’s Gate. A big part of it is that people, like Josh, worked on RPGs all the way since BG2 days and they refined and expanded on ideas, techniques introduced there. Technology is also better.

 

But it’s not the competition. Games don’t need to be “better” or “worse” and I do think that both IPs aim to be quite different things, in spite of the surface similarities. And while BioWare used to be my thing in my teen years, nowadays I am more of a fallout (and therefore PoE) person. A straight, black&white colourful adventure just doesn’t do it anymore. The same way as my preference shifted from Kotor1 to Kotor2, even though Kotor1 is a better (at least finished) title.

[Grimo88]

I really dislike comparing a modern title to an 18 years old one. Baldur’s Gate was an inspired and influential title and it’s influence can be traced to this day. It has its shortcomings - some are by choice, some are straight up issues - but overall quality and originality outweighs them. It is still a game which holds up and one I wouldn’t shy from recommending.

 

However, for impovements we don’t even need to dive into Deadfire. I did a straight playthrough PoE1, BG1, BG2 and PoE2, and I only gained respect for design of PoEs.

 

There is a sophistication to PoE on mechanical and artistic level, which simply isn’t in Baldur’s Gate. A big part of it is that people, like Josh, worked on RPGs all the way since BG2 days and they refined and expanded on ideas, techniques introduced there. Technology is also better.

 

But it’s not the competition. Games don’t need to be “better” or “worse” and I do think that both IPs aim to be quite different things, in spite of the surface similarities. And while BioWare used to be my thing in my teen years, nowadays I am more of a fallout (and therefore PoE) person. A straight, black&white colourful adventure just doesn’t do it anymore. The same way as my preference shifted from Kotor1 to Kotor2, even though Kotor1 is a better (at least finished) title.

I agree - my post was largely a response to the many ‘BG2 is still better’ posts I see here and on the subreddit constantly. Edited December 27, 2018 by Grimo88

[gloomseeker]

 

 

It aims to be fun, and include everything. Beyond that, it has no great theme to pursue. 

 

BG is about the struggle between Good and Evil, not as abstract and absolute values (a common trope in fantasy) but as facets of the main character who is struggling to retain his soul or embrace his lineage. 

 

If that's not a great theme I don't know what is. 

 

The Nietzsche quote at the beginning of BG1 is clear enough and puts things into perspective quite nicely. 

 

What makes BG interesting is that it is an inner struggle that is much more significant than the more mundane fights against external foes. 

[Mikeymoonshine]

I feel like there are a lot more things to consider if we are comparing, like the characters. Is POE2 better for having a lot more writing and work going into the companions or is BG2 better for having characters that are quite frankly more interesting more memorable and less annoying? There are a lot more of them to choose from in BG2 and some of them do actually have a lot of their own lines and content.

 

BG2 has some really good side content too IMO where as I would say POE2's side content is for the most part just ok.

 

BG2's story is more personal yes and I agree that the strong villain is a good thing but I think what truly makes it better is that it doesn't rush you through it like POE2 does. POE2 has a very short main story and the side content is supposed to kind of make up for this but it doesn't really and BG2 manages to have decent side content and a lenthy story too.

 

What about stuff like the score? How immersive both games are ect. POE's setting is less generic and more unique true but there is also a lot about it that is just too much, it's overly complicated in ways it doesn't need to be sometimes.

 

I'm not trying to say BG2 is a better game or that POE2 is a bad game, I love both games. BG2 has many issues, some of which are so annoying that I tend to just cheat my way out of them with mods when I replay that game and the first one. I just feel like you are looking only at a few aspects of each game.

Edited December 27, 2018 by Mikeymoonshine

[uuuhhii]

personal stake doesn't work at all in poe1

it was the worst part of the game

poe2 choose a adra giant walk around atleast make some player interested

disposition system in poe may somewhat better than paragon renegade in me or karma in fallout

but weirdly have very little to no effect on ending

gods or thaos doesn't care about player's disposition and have no effect on ending slide

and some part of poe's setting are overly complicated

like how to pronounce sc in aedyran names

Edited December 27, 2018 by uuuhhii

[Boeroer]

Who seriously states that the mechanics of BG are better than PoE's (no matter if I or II) is either trapped in nostalgia dreamworld or has no clue at all.

 

Story and overall experience is hard to judge. My "involvement" with the story of BG I and II was certainly more intense and I was more impressed. I still remember parts of the game's dialogues as if it was yesterday. But I was younger, less experienced and more naive. Easily impressed. I also had much more time to play.

 

And yet I didn't even finish a second playthrough with BG and BG II while I did countless with PoE and several with Deadfire. I restarted BG a lot. But once the story was told it was over for me.

[compleCCity]

2) Choice and RP. 

 

[…] There are no stat or skill checks, and dialogue is very limited and unaffected by your class or race. […]

 

This clearly is wrong – though BG still lags behind the PoE games in terms of diversity and amount of such checks.

Edited December 27, 2018 by compleCCity

[Triple - A Foxy Lad]

 

 

 

It aims to be fun, and include everything. Beyond that, it has no great theme to pursue. 

 

BG is about the struggle between Good and Evil, not as abstract and absolute values (a common trope in fantasy) but as facets of the main character who is struggling to retain his soul or embrace his lineage. 

 

If that's not a great theme I don't know what is. 

 

The Nietzsche quote at the beginning of BG1 is clear enough and puts things into perspective quite nicely. 

 

What makes BG interesting is that it is an inner struggle that is much more significant than the more mundane fights against external foes. 

 

 

dont think bg's too preoccupied with struggle between bhaalspawn heritage and personal values. its largely presented as just another obstacle for MC to overcome. IWD2 flogs that particular horse with a lot more vigour.

[jones092201@gmail.com]

baldurs gate handles characters better- the returning cast (minsc, Imoen, Jaheria) all have a personal stake in the finding Irenicus. By killing off Dynahier and Khalid, and giving Imoen a prominent role in the story, these characters become a key part of the story, if you so choose. viconia and Edwin less so, but they also fit well in how they are introduced. 

 

In PoE II, Eder, Pallegina, and Aloth are just kind of added. They could just as easily been subbed out for any of the other characters in the first game, because they are added to the story and not part of that tapestry.  their companion quests-- with the exception of Aloth (furthering his side quest with the leaden key)-- are not a continuation of established ideas.  there isn't any real feeling of adequate resolution to their narrative arcs. the only reason I felt compelled to take them to the game's ending is since they were there in the first game. Minsc, Imoen, Jaheria  felt like the deserved to be there-- they had a stake in the critical path.

 

also- dropping characters back to level one really hurt the game. One of the best parts of BG trilogy runs, to me, is watching imoen grow from a useful thief with limited combat ability, to a powerful mage/thief. that sense of progression is lacking between PoE and PoE II. I understand the reasoning this was done, but it definitely hurts the duology. It also shows the absolute importance of slowing down the leveling process, and holding back the uber-powerful spells and abilities from certain classes, or at least limiting casting and usage. But that is also contingent on playstyle-- in BG, I don't rest more than once on a map, if once at all.

 

the story of BG is much stronger. it's far more personal and urgent. Yes, you have to raise money in BGII first act, so you're off doing random stuff that highlights the bestiary of AD&D, but for the rest of that game, you're moving towards a tense goal, and it feels like things are happening around you.  The villains are also more active and interesting. Bohdi comes to mind. 

 

In deadfire, all sense of urgency is lost the minute you reach Neketaka. There's no necessity to do anything story-wise in terms of side-content, except the player knows they need levels and equipment. It reduces the critical path narrative, and promotes exploration at the cost of plot.

 

I like both games very much. After a lot of years of playing these games and reading fantasy, the pillars setting is far more interesting to me than plate-mail fantasy settings like the forgotten realms. I think OBS listened to the desire you hear on forums for keywords: 'open-world,' 'choice' and 'freedom,' which makes it hard to retain urgency and focus in the primary goal/quest/narrative. As evidence to that-- see the plots of Skyrim, fallout 4, dragon age inquisition and ME; Andromeda-- all of which have some random BIG BAD at the end who really doesn't do much to affect the plot. 

 

In all honestly, i'd prefer PoE III be a more linear, narrative-focused game that stayed at lower levels and dealt less with gods and world-shaking events, and more with politics and intrigue. that way, when we did get to the ultimate high-level plot and gameplay, (a giant statue going to destroy the wheel, for example), there was more urgency in the moment. And far less sailing around to collect bounties and loot. 

 

but I think all these games are dots on a timeline, one you can look at as the development of a specific genre and style: 3rd person isometric RPG. Viewed in that sense, not as a competition, PoE and PoE II are good steps in a number of ways towards stronger games in the future. Only those steps in UI, combat, visuals, setting came at the expense of story this time. 

Edited December 27, 2018 by jones092201@gmail.com

[Triple - A Foxy Lad]

In PoE II, Eder, Pallegina, and Aloth are just kind of added. They could just as easily been subbed out for any of the other characters in the first game

 

fam, eder's god came back from the dead and nearly killed his best mate.

 

pallegina only vailian companion assigned to VTC last time i checked (checks again). yep still only vailian companion assigned to VTC. and if she got booted out then, yeah, shes trying to get back into her bosses good graces. like shes not just a returning companion, shes the faction representative.

 

that just leaves aloth, who might as well be there cos hes globetrotting doing the leaden key thang. also u have matt mercer on the books anyway and aloth is oestrogen bait. sexy neurotic wizard elf boy.

 

all those have got reason to be there beyond vicky and edwin, not that vicky and edwin needed reasons imo. also prob worth noting jaheira etc dont have world or plot-related reasons to be with u, theyre just about cos they were in ur party and their partners got turned inside out by irenicus. there were barely any plot hooks in bg1 for them anyway. writers were almost starting from scratch.

 

baldurs gate handles characters better- the returning cast (minsc, Imoen, Jaheria) all have a personal stake in the finding Irenicus.

 

 

jaheiras my girl, but they shouldnt have brought back minsc, lol, he was a one-joke comic relief character. stretching that out for additional game silly notion. god knows who dreamt that up. likely fan pressure. him and his stupid hamster can do one.

 

i have an imoen problem, so ye, imoen is fine. dont judge me. actually, go ahead, judge me, its not like i can stop ye.

 

The villains are also more active and interesting. Bohdi comes to mind. 

 

sexy, predatory vampires are fun. but 'interesting' is pushing it a bit.

 

also- dropping characters back to level one really hurt the game. 

 

people keep saying this. fml what a dreary thing to be hung up on. they could drop everyone down to lv 1 a dozen times and i wouldnt give af. just have the watcher and their bloods regenerate like dr who or something. setting allows for it. id rather have that than things spin off into absurdity like world of warcraft.

 

also i feel obliged to point out bg2 shudders to a halt after the underdark. endgame pretty weak. reveal that irenicus' motivation down to him being an elven outcast is a damp squib. thaos driven by combination of ideology, and centuries of existence eroding his humanity and perspective. irenicus got chucked out by his girlfriend-or-sort-of-girlfriend-i-dont-really-care-to-remember so he went dark side. pfft. irenicus' appeal mostly down to great voice actor and one-liners - kudos to David Warner and the writers - but actual substance of character sort of dull.

 

like i dunno. all this hankering for simpler times is understandable, but im glad games are now actually trying to say stuff. bg, for all its assets, was never interested in asking questions or exploring competing interests etc. its world wasnt a world, just a 'setting' for some decent campaigns.

 

its well-executed froth - written with an appropriately light touch - but froth nonetheless. i still have a taste for such on occasion, but my old worn teeth now need something a bit chewier.

 

fwiw, we now have games trying to attain standard of competent genre fiction. u could make argument narrative designers should stay inside their lane and stick to fun times, but id rather they took their chances tbh.

 

columbo 'one more thing': ultimately i think bcs writers are producing and attempting more, theres more stuff for folks to pick at, and crpg players tend towards the pedantic, so rip. best thing might be to do away with writing altogether.

[xzar_monty]

There are skill checks in BG2, and dialogue choices are affected.

 

Mind you, there aren't nearly as many as in PoE, but it's just wrong to say they are not there.

Edited December 28, 2018 by xzar_monty

[gloomseeker]

 

 

 

 

It aims to be fun, and include everything. Beyond that, it has no great theme to pursue. 

 

BG is about the struggle between Good and Evil, not as abstract and absolute values (a common trope in fantasy) but as facets of the main character who is struggling to retain his soul or embrace his lineage. 

 

If that's not a great theme I don't know what is. 

 

The Nietzsche quote at the beginning of BG1 is clear enough and puts things into perspective quite nicely. 

 

What makes BG interesting is that it is an inner struggle that is much more significant than the more mundane fights against external foes. 

 

 

dont think bg's too preoccupied with struggle between bhaalspawn heritage and personal values. its largely presented as just another obstacle for MC to overcome. IWD2 flogs that particular horse with a lot more vigour.

 

 

IMO the struggle within is what informs the essence of the game. Fighting enemies like Sarevok and later Irenicus is just the external representation of that but ultimately what really matters is how the main character is going to deal with who he or she is. 

 

There is an element of growth and the BG saga is nothing if not an initiatic journey for Gorion's ward.

 

IWD2 never becomes so personal because it's more about Isair and Madae than it is about the ragtag band of adventurers who happened to find their way to Targos. It's always been about the twins whereas  BG was never just about Sarevok or Irenicus. In BG what really matters was the character that the player created, that's why it's so personal.

 

But I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that. 

 

The effect of the story in Deadfire entirely depends on how you as a player feel about the whole Eothas situation.

 

They had to make sure the Watcher had a reason to go after him but the lack of urgency is probably the reason why people have been so critical about the story in Deadfire (and frankly any Watcher in is right mind wouldn't be in a hurry to get to Eothas simply because it doesn't look like there is much the Watcher can do in that particular situation). 

 

I think that as enticing the whole Deadfire plot can be (especially if you're into Pillars lore) the lack of urgency is the biggest flaw. 

[Wormerine]

I am not sure if "urgency" is what I would call it, but forward momentum. BG2 suffered from this as well, with the opening act having so many fun aide activities that I would completely forget why I was gathering money in the first place.

 

I do genuily believe that Deadfire issues could have been completely fixed with a longer and more impactful ending. Everything up to this point is pretty good and main story is impressively interwoven with non Eorhas content. But then it just end leaving us confused, unsatisfied and with more questions and answers.

[Hayte]

I'm with Wormerine on this one. BGII is way too bound up with nostalgia and formative gaming experiences for me to really make a comparison with PoE.

 

I will say that when I first played BGII, I was overwhelmed with the scale and scope of the game. The closest feeling I've had since then was in Witcher III. Structurally they are nothing alike, but I had that same feeling when I first stepped into Novigrad that I did when I first stepped into Athkatla - I was just completely overwhelmed by the scale of it.

 

Edit: by scale, I don't just mean the size of the gameworld. BGII was like a Forgotten Realms greatest hits album in a way. At the time I really wanted to see D&D high level abilities, travel to the Underdark, fight beholders etc.

Edited December 29, 2018 by Hayte

[Starwars]

I never had a connection with D&D prior to playing the BGs back in the day (played different P&P games here in Sweden) but I think those games are still pretty much unbeat in one area and that is the sense of adventure and atmosphere. Even today, when I have a hard time with the writing and characters in them, the sense of exploration and... I don't know, texture of the world is still amazing. It's a beautiful world, with a serious sense of danger to it.

 

I prefer Pillars overall but yeah, even though they do a pretty good job of it I still don't feel like they hit that special note. Not even Deadfire which has the open world (which I love and is one of the best things about the game as far as I'm concerned).

 

Even though there is the whole "well, just reload" thing that people do if they might lose a companion or something in BG, I still find that being able to die fairly easily creates a special tension in those games and something like Deadfire just lacks that. Party wipes can happen obviously but death just doesn't "loom" overhead like it does in BG.

Edited December 29, 2018 by Starwars

[Triple - A Foxy Lad]

In BG what really matters was the character that the player created, that's why it's so personal.

 

ye, i dont feel this at all. i think portraying the setting itself is the games priority. ur characters main purpose is to have adequate motivation to get out there and get involved with the setting on a suitably epic scale. making u half-god achieves this quite smartly.

 

IMO the struggle within is what informs the essence of the game. Fighting enemies like Sarevok and later Irenicus is just the external representation of that but ultimately what really matters is how the main character is going to deal with who he or she is. 

 

the problem is, bg gives u no reason to embrace full bhaalspawn, nor spends enough time selling it as a scary inevitability that would require a miracle to overcome. there are loads of things they could have done to develop this theme. they could have had quests ending in horrible bloodshed regardless of ur intentions. they could have made it a necessity for u to go darkside to save companions. they couldve forced isolation upon u as u get blamed more and more for the unavoidable terror in ur wake.

 

like the game had a real chance to pull a blinder with the harper stronghold quest. the harpers come after you because ur bhaalspawn and potentially dangerous - so far so good, maybe u are dangerous - but hey-ho, it was down to infighting and personal politics and theyre not *real* harpers and blah blah. the quest is over, you get experience and nothing really changes.

 

could they have twisted that knife further and made the harpers a steadfast enemy and forced jaheira to abandon everything for ur sake? hell yes, but game ultimately is less interested in that theme and more in giving u to chance to do good work in d&d land.

 

Like imagine if u had a good paladin order chasing u out of every settlement for good reason, and ur only option to keep on trucking was to kill a ton of decent people. yeah, tasty, then we're cooking with gas.

 

also main antagonist of bg2 totes separate from bhaalspawn element. for irenicus, is just a means to acquire power. true, he tries to bait u by selling this power to u, but because the game *as a whole* doesnt sell the power to u, his words are just bond villain stuff. hes an evil **** whos trying to play u is all.

 

Dragon Age pushes the theme of struggling against inner-beast a *lot* harder. the circle of magi are an incredibly powerful weapon for good and ill. the society around them is divided as to how to deal with them. there are arguments for giving the mages autonomy and arguments against it. its the central theme of several main quests. one of the most powerful subclasses - blood mage - can only be unlocked by giving up a child to a desire demon. yeah, reprehensible, but fml is that aoe damage/stun tempting af.

 

amusingly, the grey warden stuff is poorly executed by comparison, but whatevs. really they shouldve made it so all grey wardens inevitably became gibbering amoral murderous lunatics who had to be put down like dogs. i guess they didnt go that route bcs it might have upset players.

 

they sort of started including that angle on the grey wardens later, but by then it was too late to make sense. anyhoo tangent.

 

bg dangles no such fruit. the slayer? **** that, all thats useful for is killing that demilich. immunity to imprisonment, baby!

 

IWD2 never becomes so personal because it's more about Isair and Madae than it is about the ragtag band of adventurers who happened to find their way to Targos. 

 

for me, IWD2's cleverness was this.

 

your group has no choice regarding its involvement in the conflict. regardless of any sympathy u may have for the outcasts of the Legion of the Chimera, ur driven to kill them.

 

by same token, Isair and Madae ultimately had no choice but to succumb to their demonic blood. after everyones good intentions, the world engineered their fall.

 

The games central theme of inevitability plays out on both sides of the board - and is reflected in its linear structure.

 

IWD2 is the nastiest, most pessimistic game BIS ever produced imo and all the better for it. its high up on my list of things that warrant deeper consideration than theyve so far had.

 

BGII was like a Forgotten Realms greatest hits album in a way.

 

thats exactly what it is. greatest hits albums by good artists are often cracking but very few of them have the flow, context and unity of an LP. appraising them as though they *should* have one only works in unique circumstances.

 

i think trying to ascribe a central theme to bg - aside from d&d playground for heroic deeds - overshadows the games actual achievement. it condenses an entire roleplaying tradition into one coherent game. everything else is secondary to that and all the better for it. if bg had been overly concerned with loftier things, it likely wouldve fallen short of its goal.

 

I am not sure if "urgency" is what I would call it, but forward momentum. BG2 suffered from this as well, with the opening act having so many fun aide activities that I would completely forget why I was gathering money in the first place.

 

i was fine with it, cos i wanted to rescue my bff imoen who followed me out of candlekeep. but u werent the only one with this complaint. i heard it a lot back in the day.

 

ye, this cats been lurking for a long-ass time... aaaaaaand if we come back to the present!

 

I think that as enticing the whole Deadfire plot can be (especially if you're into Pillars lore) the lack of urgency is the biggest flaw. 

 

tbh, am starting to come to conclusion that the urgency and motivation argument is not worth having. i swear every game gets accused of lacking both, regardless of what it does. ultimately a certain kind of reader/player will always have tendency to position themselves as above the games concerns.

 

if i were a designer, id be tempted to just do my own fking thing in the face of this. always some people will get emotionally invested and rush crit path while other people will question point of doing crit path at all. whatevs. maybe there some calculation that proves 'if u do more of this, more people will fall into former category' but im not terribly interested in that myself. someone solves that equation, every game will end up looking the same. pfft. i hope they never figure it out.

 

incidentally, if ull indulge me, i have a strange little theory regarding deadfires crit path and urgency, might as well disclose it now

 

*ahem*

 

eothas is not in a great rush. there are few things that can deal with him. despite his objections at the start, he seems eager to have a witness to what hes doing. perhaps he even needs one.

 

i posit that the watcher is actually *hastening* the semi-apocalypse whenever they talk to eothas, who, left to his own devices, might actually kick the can long enough to change his mind or be stopped by the other gods. by chasing him - and giving him the sounding board he craves - ur actually giving him to motivation he needs to carry on and fk everything up. congratulations, u borked the wheel, lol.

 

okay, okay, the 'eothas' challenge' magrans fire counters this, but my reading amuses me so im keeping it.

 

*tangent over*

 

But then it just end leaving us confused, unsatisfied and with more questions and answers.

 

have commented elsewhere that end prob could have been better had josh included that dammed river metaphor of his and let eothas waste a few dozen words explaining the reincarnation cycle prior to construction of wheel but hey-ho. writers appear to have gotten scared of selling their own metaphysics when it was actually necessary.

 

im very aware of tendency toward efficiency in many professional writers. this is reinforced from *every* angle, especially from critics and editors. theres good reason for this, but occasionally, u over-edit, trip urself up and confuse readers. ending of deadfire good example of this i feel.

 

is fine now i know what i know, and a follow up - fingers crossed - should show the consequences quite nicely. but i shouldnt have to be relying on either of those things.

[Verde]

By your own admission TC, BG2 does thing just as good or better than Deadfire and it's an 18 yr old game. I'd say that's impressive. I've replayed BG2 a few times in the last 5 years and I can say with confidence I think everything is better than Deadfire minus the non-magic aspects of combat, the graphics, and quality of life issues. Story, dialogue, characters,quests, conflicts...it all blows Deadfire out of the water (pun intended).

Edited December 29, 2018 by Verde

[daven]

I'd describe BG2 as... more than the sum of it's parts.

 

Yeah it has flaws and weird stuff because of DND. But overall it's a really great game that holds up.

[Bleak]

I used to just prefer the DnD system as I said in another post, but replaying PoE II recently has made me replay Pathfinder again instead and also made me even more nostalgic for the DnD mechanics, especially when it comes to casters they are just terrible in the PoE system. Anyway though, comparing Deadfire with BG2 is ridiculous, there is too large of a time gap. Story/writing-wise is the only aspect they could compete and personally I'd prefer BG, but it's still not fair because BG has only a margin of the content Deadfire has and could focus on it better.

Edited December 30, 2018 by Bleak

[EdwinOdesseiron]

A small thing that bugs me with PoE 2 is that the cities still don't feel alive somehow. The art is so much more beautiful and detailed than in BG but many corners there feel empty. What adds to it is the rather bland sound design. If you disable the music you can experience it better. Sometimes you might hear distant, very quiet chatter but nothing that would compare to the vivid & atmospheric sound of a big city like Athkatla with voices of arguing couples and drunken, burping men echoing in the alleys.

I also enjoyed the characters more in BG. They were exaggerated but more interesting, a recipe the Coen brothers use for their movies too. And I found the progress of power way more satisfying in BG. It was a good decision to keep BG1 low level and expand on it in BG2 instead going high level on both.
The story in BG was more involving because it was more personal and also had an inner conflict with your character. You could argue that stealing a part of your soul and destroying your house is very personal too but I just didn't feel it. The fortress is out of reach anyway and the soul thing wasn't really a problem. Deadfire is pretty straight forward without any twists.

It beats BG in UI & graphics obviously and the combat mechanics in my opinion.
 

Edited January 1, 2019 by EdwinOdesseiron

[Verde]

A thing that still bugs me with PoE is that the cities still don't feel alive somehow. The art is so much more beautiful and detailed than in BG but many corners there feel empty. Another thing that adds to this is the bland sound design. If you disable the music you can experience it better. Sometimes you might hear distant, very quiet chatter but nothing that would compare to the vivid & atmospheric sound of Athkatla with voices of arguing couples and drunken, burping men echoing in the alleys.

 

I also enjoyed the story and characters more in BG and I found the feel of progress of power way more satisfying. It was a good decision to keep BG1 low level and expand on BG2 instead going high level on both, and then resetting in the second game.

I always chuckle when a guard says "For the glory of Amn!" and does a silly spear shuffle. It's the little stuff. Edited December 30, 2018 by Verde

[Grimo88]

By your own admission TC, BG2 does thing just as good or better than Deadfire and it's an 18 yr old game. I'd say that's impressive. I've replayed BG2 a few times in the last 5 years and I can say with confidence I think everything is better than Deadfire minus the non-magic aspects of combat, the graphics, and quality of life issues. Story, dialogue, characters,quests, conflicts...it all blows Deadfire out of the water (pun intended).

 

Don't get me wrong - BG1 and 2 will always be my favourite games. But POE1 and 2 have very much replaced them as my go-to CRPG itch to scratch. The combat in particular in BG2 I just found unbearable in my latest play through fresh off the wonderful Forgotten Sanctum.  

Edited December 31, 2018 by Grimo88

[Verde]

 

By your own admission TC, BG2 does thing just as good or better than Deadfire and it's an 18 yr old game. I'd say that's impressive. I've replayed BG2 a few times in the last 5 years and I can say with confidence I think everything is better than Deadfire minus the non-magic aspects of combat, the graphics, and quality of life issues. Story, dialogue, characters,quests, conflicts...it all blows Deadfire out of the water (pun intended).

Don't get me wrong - BG1 and 2 will always be my favourite games. But POE1 and 2 have very much replaced them as my go-to CRPG itch to scratch. The combat in particular in BG2 I just found unbearable in my latest play through fresh off the wonderful Forgotten Sanctum.

I can understand that.