Best of infinitity.

[Lancer]

@Volololipop

 

BG2 definately had some improvements, structurally.... but that doesn't make it a better game.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

And that's the thing.. Most of the improvement BG2 had over 1, were all of the structural/aesthetic type..

 

And the few real improvements like character interaction were offset by some crappy implementations.

[Lancer]

I think one's enjoyment of BG2 was really contingent upon (to some extent) how much the time-triggered dialogue system bothered you. If it didn't, then you probably enjoyed it more than someone that it did bother.

 

Also, if you weren't expecting  a PC-centered game after BG1, then you would probably enjoy BG2 more.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

About the only thing I remember expecting from BG2 when I first installed it was, "it better be good or I'm going back to Torment."

 

It was good, and I went back to Torment anyway. Win-win.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

haha!

[alanschu]

I kinda prefer the first one.

 

I like my games to be about me

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

DING DING DING!!!! :D (w00t)

 

I love you Darque!

 

Finally, someone understands!

 

I have been harping on this point for years!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

At the same time, many people like their characters to be unique. I can see the merit in Gromnir's stance that focusing on the antagonist could create for better stories.

[Volourn]

"BG2 definately had some improvements, structurally.... but that doesn't make it a better game."

 

Except, for the fact that it is better in every way that matters.

 

 

"But in the most general sense, I would have to agree with you that both dialogue systems were incomplete. However, if you place more weight on the PC initiating the conversation as opposed to the NPCs doing the initiating, than Torment would have the better dialogue system to you. OTOH, If you prefer your NPCs to do the initiating (like in JRPGs) than BG2 might have the better dialogue system"

 

True.

 

 

"The whole Irenicus sucking life out of a big tree to achieve immortality just sounded a bit corny to me."

 

As opposed to the psycho who plotted to kill all his siblings to become a god? I think BG1 wins the corny award here. LOL

 

 

Though, I like both stories because they are FANTASY. They aren't supposed to be 'realistic'.

 

 

"I like my games to be about me"

 

Eh? BG2 is all about the player.

Edited February 1, 2006 by Volourn

[Lancer]

I kinda prefer the first one.

 

I like my games to be about me

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

DING DING DING!!!! :D (w00t)

 

I love you Darque!

 

Finally, someone understands!

 

I have been harping on this point for years!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

At the same time, many people like their characters to be unique. I can see the merit in Gromnir's stance that focusing on the antagonist could create for better stories.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If it is a story about the antagonist I have no problem with this. However, the BG series was not about the antagonist but about YOU and YOUR story as a Bhaalspawn, Child of the Lord of Murder.

 

Maybe people saw it differently, but to me, after BG1, I felt that it was pretty firmly established that the series was going to be about your character and his/her role in the prophecy to either fulfill his/her destiny as the next Lord of Murder or destroy him.

 

It wasn't about Sarevok's rise to power(which is why I felt it was the right thing to not have overly developed Sarevok's character in BG1), or Irenicus' rise to power, or Melissan's rise to power.. It was about you. SoA broke that mold... broke that pattern. And to me it was the anomaly of the series.

[mr insomniac]

"The whole Irenicus sucking life out of a big tree to achieve immortality just sounded a bit corny to me."

 

As opposed to the psycho who plotted to kill all his siblings to become a god? I think BG1 wins the corny award here. LOL

 

 

Though, I like both stories because they are FANTASY. They aren't supposed to be 'realistic'.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, but they made the Sarevok story cool in ToB. Kinda redeemed it as an expansion in my eyes.

[mr insomniac]

I kinda prefer the first one.

 

I like my games to be about me

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

DING DING DING!!!! :D (w00t)

 

I love you Darque!

 

Finally, someone understands!

 

I have been harping on this point for years!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

At the same time, many people like their characters to be unique. I can see the merit in Gromnir's stance that focusing on the antagonist could create for better stories.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If it is a story about the antagonist I have no problem with this. However, the BG series was not about the antagonist but about YOU and YOUR story as a Bhaalspawn, Child of the Lord of Murder.

 

Maybe people saw it differently, but to me, after BG1, I felt that it was pretty firmly established that the series was going to be about your character and his/her role in the prophecy to either fulfill his/her destiny as the next Lord of Murder or destroy him.

 

It wasn't about Sarevok's rise to power(which is why I felt it was the right thing to not have overly developed Sarevok's character in BG1), or Irenicus' rise to power, or Melissan's rise to power.. It was about you. SoA broke that mold... broke that pattern. And to me it was the anomaly of the series.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I always kinda wondered if at least some of the reason for that was because, when they made SoA, they planned on ToB to be a full game, in concluding a trilogy, rather than just an expansion. :shrug:

[alanschu]

You mention the interaction in Torment. Well, I played BG2 knowing fully well how the interaction in Torment was. Going from the interaction in Torment to the time-triggered blahblah in BG2 was a big step down for me. Apparently, the time-triggered system in BG2:SoA bothered me a lot more than it did others.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If you played Torment first, then yeah...probably. I (and probably many other people) played Torment long after both Baldur's Gate games. Especially compared to the first game, the character interaction was way more than anything anyone else had ever really experienced before.

 

 

And IMO, the timed conversations weren't the bad thing. The bad thing was that certain areas were labelled as appropriate for the conversations, but were often at the tail end of the inappropriate areas (like the dragon's lairs). Someone somewhere was sloppy when they said where it was and was not OK to initiate the conversations.

 

For instance, the timed conversations would not happen in a dungeon. But the timed trigger would still get flagged, and the second you step out of the dungeon it would finally start off. This actually works not too bad, as it keeps the conversations during poor times (like questing through a dungeon) from happening. And I could see many of the conversations happening upon exit of a dangerous situation. The main problem was that places like the dragon's lairs (all of them too) were categorized as being places OK to talk. So you'd get someone talking about how much they care about you (or whatever) right before you meet Firkraag.

 

But Baldur's Gate 2 and Torment are two different beasts with different aspirations.

[Gabrielle]

I kinda prefer the first one.

 

I like my games to be about me

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ah little miss selfish.

[Gabrielle]

Things That Make BG2 Better:

 

 

- Better, deeper, and more interesting companions

 

- more full quests that had more than one way to complete them (usually)

 

- less pure fed ex quests

 

- ehancements including but not limited to kits, graphics, and proficiencies

 

- superior main villain whose main goal was not to antagonize the PC; Irenicus was also deeper than Sarevok (not that Sarevok was the most shallow villain ever as he wasn't)

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree on some of this. It had better dialogues, through your npcs, through the npcs that you meet on the way. It also had romances.

 

I like fed ex quests those really don't bother me.

[CoM_Solaufein]

BG2 Had it's romances, but it seemed that the female players got shafted with Anomen as their romance from the game. Thankfully there are mods to remedy this flaw.

 

It had a better more detailed villian in Irenicus and Bhodi.

 

Better scripting, AI and creature spawns.

 

Better detailed areas but limited in number compared to BG1.

 

Better minor quests. They were not simple fetch quests.

[Moose]

I enjoyed BG2 more than BG1. Looks like that makes me the odd one out

[CoM_Solaufein]

I prefer BG1 over the second, probably a nostalgia thing, but it's good fun. BG2 is advanced in many ways though, compared to the first. But being advanced doesn't always mean it's better.

[Jorian Drake]

I enjoyed BG2 more than BG1. Looks like that makes me the odd one out

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

me too

[mr insomniac]

Me three, but Torment and IWD were better than both of them.

[Gabrielle]

Me three, but Torment and IWD were better than both of them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

*Laughs uncontrollably. *

 

Good one. Icewindale is good but I wouldn't call it better than those two. PST?? LOLOOLOO

[Jorian Drake]

besides the story of each of the Infinity Engine games the game mechanics for each were basically the same.  PST had the same combat style as Bg and IWD.  IWD had the same combat style of PST and BG.  BG had the same combat style of IWD and PST.  I mean I don't see the difference between any of the IE games when game mechanics and game play are only observed.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I point only to one diff: story

[Gabrielle]

Stating the obvious aren't we?

[Jorian Drake]

Stating the obvious aren't we?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Query: Should I kick the pitiful meatbag into space, Master? :cool:

 

 

 

EDIT: thanx Alanschu

Edited February 1, 2006 by jorian

[alanschu]

Should be:

 

Query: Should I kick the pitiful meatbag into space, Master?

 

"

[Volourn]

"PST had the same combat style as Bg and IWD."

 

No, it was different. It had FFish spells, it had FFish equipment making the characters in combat the same.

 

There's also the fact that PST's combat was EASY. And, don't tell me the focus of PST wans't combat because it's irrelevant as PST had quite a bit of combat and 99.9% of it plainly sucked.

 

Same combat engine sure; but horribly used. Even IWD2 had wayyyy better combat.

[Lancer]

"PST had the same combat style as Bg and IWD."

Same combat engine sure; but horribly used. Even IWD2 had wayyyy better combat.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I am not even going to attempt to answer this one. Same ol' same ol' Volourn.

 

I for one enjoyed the combat in PS:T and was bored to tears with IWD's combat. There was just TOO much of it in IWD.

Edited February 2, 2006 by Lancer

[Lancer]

There's also the fact that PST's combat was EASY. And, don't tell me the focus of PST wans't combat because it's irrelevant as PST had quite a bit of combat and 99.9% of it plainly sucked.

 

IWD's combat was easy too.. The only difference was that in IWD you were scarfed down the throat with it and it came out the other end... and then some more.. and then some more... and more.. and more...ad nauseum.

Edited February 2, 2006 by Lancer

[Gabrielle]

IWD combat wise was alright. I think it had the worst character AI in the game. You travel through an area and your party goes off in different directions and gets lost.

[Nick_i_am]

PST had horrible combat, and the inability to cistimise your dudes to any significant level (only, one character with ranged weapons and nothing else lolol) was pretty annoying.

 

It's my favorate example of anything in any medium ever, but only because of the most satisfying story of all time.

 

Anyone who didn't like it was perfectly justified in doing so, they just have different priorities to myself, whch isn't even my way of calling them idiots, as I am sure they would do that for themselves if applicable.