Best of infinitity.

[Lancer]

 

Where were we? I am curious to see what people liked about Baldur's Gate 2 over the first one? It would seem to be more popular over the first one, which is why I ask.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

To tell you the truth.. I don't really know. People have bad taste I guess... "

 

It is true that Baldur's Gate II was longer than the first, although they took out the wilderness exploration that made BG1 feel like a huge world.

 

Baldur's Gate 2:SoA had more developed NPCs although the poorly executed time-triggered dialogue system cancel out the strides made in character interaction.

 

Baldur's Gate 2 had a more developed villain (though not necessarily better), although at the cost of leaving the PC in the background for most of the game.

 

Baldur's Gate 2 had worse music than the first.

 

BG1>BG2.

Edited February 1, 2006 by Lancer

[mr insomniac]

But if you make it unique with your roleplaying that means character is not cardboard cutout enymore .

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yep that's what I'm saying. Just because it's possible to do so, you don't have to make the most bizaarely unique class/race combination to be unique.

[Lancer]

On one level, my preference of BG2 over BG is due alot to the improvements in gameplay and the tweaking of the infinity engine. Also the kits. The variety was nice.

 

It is true that BG2 had several cosmetic improvements over the first though arguably there wasn't much more substance.

[Volourn]

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)

 

 

"It is true that BG2 had several cosmetic improvements over the first though arguably there wasn't much more substance."

 

If one actually likes to role-play it sure has a lot more substance. No comparison, really.

Edited February 1, 2006 by Volourn

[Lancer]

The quests were more interesting in BG2 than BG for the most part, and the story moved along at a decent pace.

 

On the contrary, I remember BG2 being the king of fed-ex quests. With the exception of a few notable ones like the murder mystery and Nalia's stronghold quest there really wasn't much in the way of original and fun side quests. On top of that, every Joe Smith in town had some item (no matter how small) that they asked you to retrieve for them.. That didn't make it any more fun.

Edited February 1, 2006 by Lancer

[Volourn]

"On top of that, every Joe Smith in town had some item (no matter how small) that they asked you to retrieve for them.."

 

Oh really? Outside of item crafting at the one dwarven weaponsmith there are very few fed ex quests in BG2 comapred to BG1. BG1 is almost *all* fed ex other than the main quest.

 

Other examples you forgot to mention are the red dragon quest, and the druidic quest. There's not much if anything in BG1 that even comes to close to that in depth.

 

In conclusion, you simply are remembering wrong.

Edited February 1, 2006 by Volourn

[mr insomniac]

On one level, my preference of BG2 over BG is due alot to the improvements in gameplay and the tweaking of the infinity engine. Also the kits. The variety was nice.

 

It is true that BG2 had several cosmetic improvements over the first though arguably there wasn't much more substance.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree with you that often the instances of character interaction were poorly-timed in BG2, but meh, it was there at least. I didn't mind having to imagine my characters talking with eachother or my character, as we tromped through those open wilderness areas in BG, dispatching gibberlings. But I also enjoyed having the BG2 writers do alot of that for me. It made the characters I was familiar with from BG -- Imoen, Jaheira, Minsc...ummm... Viconia. Who else? -- More interesting.

[mr insomniac]

The quests were more interesting in BG2 than BG for the most part, and the story moved along at a decent pace.

 

On the contrary, I remember BG2 being the king of fed-ex quests. With the exception of a few notable ones like the murder mystery and Nalia's stronghold quest there really wasn't much in the way of original and fun side quests. On top of that, every Joe Smith in town had some item (no matter how small) that they asked you to retrieve for them.. That didn't make it any more fun.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The Eyeless Cult quest was pretty cool, I thought. Whole lot better than bringing a pair of boots, a bottle of wine, and 5 or 6 dead spiders to some gnome(?) 3 towns away.

[Lancer]

On one level, my preference of BG2 over BG is due alot to the improvements in gameplay and the tweaking of the infinity engine. Also the kits. The variety was nice.

 

It is true that BG2 had several cosmetic improvements over the first though arguably there wasn't much more substance.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree with you that often the instances of character interaction were poorly-timed in BG2, but meh, it was there at least. I didn't mind having to imagine my characters talking with eachother or my character, as we tromped through those open wilderness areas in BG, dispatching gibberlings. But I also enjoyed having the BG2 writers do alot of that for me. It made the characters I was familiar with from BG -- Imoen, Jaheira, Minsc...ummm... Viconia. Who else? -- More interesting.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

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.

Edited February 1, 2006 by Lancer

[mr insomniac]

On one level, my preference of BG2 over BG is due alot to the improvements in gameplay and the tweaking of the infinity engine. Also the kits. The variety was nice.

 

It is true that BG2 had several cosmetic improvements over the first though arguably there wasn't much more substance.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree with you that often the instances of character interaction were poorly-timed in BG2, but meh, it was there at least. I didn't mind having to imagine my characters talking with eachother or my character, as we tromped through those open wilderness areas in BG, dispatching gibberlings. But I also enjoyed having the BG2 writers do alot of that for me. It made the characters I was familiar with from BG -- Imoen, Jaheira, Minsc...ummm... Viconia. Who else? -- More interesting.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

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}>

Sure It was s tep down from Torment. In Torment you controlled how much you learned about the other characters, because you always initiated the learning, not them. But it was a step up from BG, is my point.

[Lancer]

On one level, my preference of BG2 over BG is due alot to the improvements in gameplay and the tweaking of the infinity engine. Also the kits. The variety was nice.

 

It is true that BG2 had several cosmetic improvements over the first though arguably there wasn't much more substance.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree with you that often the instances of character interaction were poorly-timed in BG2, but meh, it was there at least. I didn't mind having to imagine my characters talking with eachother or my character, as we tromped through those open wilderness areas in BG, dispatching gibberlings. But I also enjoyed having the BG2 writers do alot of that for me. It made the characters I was familiar with from BG -- Imoen, Jaheira, Minsc...ummm... Viconia. Who else? -- More interesting.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

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}>

Sure It was s tep down from Torment. In Torment you controlled how much you learned about the other characters, because you always initiated the learning, not them. But it was a step up from BG, is my point.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

In this case, I prefer it done right or not at all.

 

Sure SoA had deeper character interaction but the time-triggered system really affected my enjoyment of the dialogue. So much so that I didn't feel like I was roleplaying since I had no control of when I would be able to speak to my characters. Kinda defeats the purpose doesn't it?

[Volourn]

Of course the PST npcs had the opposite problem of the BG series npcs - they almost never initiated dialogue. It was practically robotic how they *always* conviently waited for the PC to approach them.

 

I much prefer the BG2 system of them talking to the PC when they feel like it even if they did start convos at some awkward times. Hehe.

 

Of course, the ultimate approach is both ways combined ala KOTOR series.

 

 

"Kinda defeats the purpose doesn't it?"

 

No. They're not supposed to be 'your' characters. they're supposed to be npc companions ie friends and allies. Do you *always* control convos in RL that way?

Edited February 1, 2006 by Volourn

[Lancer]

Other examples you forgot to mention are the red dragon quest,  and the druidic quest. There's not much if anything in BG1 that even comes to close to that in depth.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The red dragon quest was fun.. I give you that.

[Lancer]

No. They're not supposed to be 'your' characters. they're supposed to be npc companions ie friends and allies. Do you *always* control convos in RL that way?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

In RL I can just start a conversation with anyone I want just by approaching them and talking to them.. just because I want to.

It ain't that hard.

 

 

I could do that in Torment.

 

However, I couldn't do that in BG2. In BG2, I had to wait until some random time-triggered flag told me it was OK for me to hit on Aerie.

Edited February 1, 2006 by Lancer

[mr insomniac]

On one level, my preference of BG2 over BG is due alot to the improvements in gameplay and the tweaking of the infinity engine. Also the kits. The variety was nice.

 

It is true that BG2 had several cosmetic improvements over the first though arguably there wasn't much more substance.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree with you that often the instances of character interaction were poorly-timed in BG2, but meh, it was there at least. I didn't mind having to imagine my characters talking with eachother or my character, as we tromped through those open wilderness areas in BG, dispatching gibberlings. But I also enjoyed having the BG2 writers do alot of that for me. It made the characters I was familiar with from BG -- Imoen, Jaheira, Minsc...ummm... Viconia. Who else? -- More interesting.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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}>

Sure It was s tep down from Torment. In Torment you controlled how much you learned about the other characters, because you always initiated the learning, not them. But it was a step up from BG, is my point.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

In this case, I prefer it done right or not at all.

 

Sure SoA had deeper character interaction but the time-triggered system really affected my enjoyment of the dialogue. So much so that I didn't feel like I was roleplaying since I had no control of when I would be able to speak to my characters. Kinda defeats the purpose doesn't it?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It would have been great/super/wonderful to initiate dialogues with the BG2 characters, yes. But as I think back to it, and it's been a couple of years since I last played BG2 so bear with me, the only times it was really glaringly obvious was in the middle of a fight. And it wasn't all that annoying. What they should have done was give you the option to say something like, "errrrm... fighting a dragon here!"

 

Nah I liked the interactions alot, even if it was flawed it made the characters seem alot less like packmules.

[Volourn]

"In RL I can just start a conversation with anyone I want just by approaching them and talking to them.. just because I want to."

 

I agree. I never said otherwise. I *did* say that was a negative. However, as I pointed out, the reverse is also true... in RL, others also have a chance to start convos with you... that doens't happen in PST.

 

My point is they both have the same problem on the opposite side of the coin. Add them together and they can be really awesome. Seperately, they're dialouge systems are both incomplete.

Edited February 1, 2006 by Volourn

[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.

[mr insomniac]

Of course the PST npcs had the opposite problem of the BG series npcs - they almost never initiated dialogue. It was practically robotic how they *always* conviently waited for the PC to approach them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The way they did it in Kotor was not too bad. They would say "x appears to have something on their mind. You should talk to them." Although that's kinda lame as well.

[Volourn]

Weird. BG2 sure flet PC incentric to me. The whole game was about you. Irenicus was just the PC's main atagnoist. The game still focused on you, your birthright/background, your doings, your fate, and your future.

 

 

"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."

 

This could be true. Youa rne't the first to bring this up. I just find it funny, and shrug. Not perfect; but game wrecking for me.

[mr insomniac]

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.

[Darque]

@Volololipop

 

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

[Llyranor]

Heh. I enjoyed BG1's plot more. Better pace, too.

[Lancer]

"In RL I can just start a conversation with anyone I want just by approaching them and talking to them.. just because I want to."

 

I agree. I never said otherwise. I *did* say that was a negative. However, as I pointed out, the reverse is also true... in RL, others also have a chance to start convos with you... that doens't happen in PST.

 

My point is they both have the same problem on the opposite side of the coin. Add them together and they can be really awesome. Seperately, they're dialouge systems are both incomplete.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I never really thought of it that way..

 

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. But since people like to have full control of their own character in a CRPG, I would think that at least among the PC RPG crowd, players prefer the former to the latter.

Edited February 1, 2006 by Lancer

[Lancer]

Heh. I enjoyed BG1's plot more. Better pace, too.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes, I did like BG1' storyline better too. The whole Irenicus sucking life out of a big tree to achieve immortality just sounded a bit corny to me. It seemed like someone was running out of ideas..

Edited February 1, 2006 by Lancer

[Llyranor]

I didn't particularly care about BG2's plot or Irenicus.

 

I enjoyed the battles and NPC interaction more, of course, but it felt like something was missing.

 

Of course, BG1 was missing even more of a something, I'm just saying I enjoyed the plot more, comparatively.