So, Baldur's Gate 2

[Jaesun]

the Goldbox games had the better combat system?

I hesitate to use the word "better" but personally, yes. I get far far more enjoyment in combat from the Gold Box Games than with the Baldur's Gate series (which I still enjoy).

I'm probably more guilty of nostalgic feelings of OMFG!!! I AM PLAYING D&D ON A COMPUTER WITH GRAPHICS! OMFG!!! When first playing the Gold Box Games back in the day. It was mind blowing.

Still, the Gold Box Games are vastly more enjoyable than Dragon Turd....

 

[.Sigurd]

I have either very badly fucked up the way I have explained this or you just refuse to understand. My moneys on the first, so I will try again here. Yes, I played Oblivion and at the time thought it was the best shit ever. My only experience with games or RPG's in general is what I could get my hands on. Other then some old demo discs lying around, this is whatever was coming out at the time. Yes, I enjoyed the mainstream Console RPG's. But you know what else I used to like? Shitty mindless action movies, and books by Emily Rodda.

You see, this miraculous thing can happen over time where-in someones tastes change, and they drift towards different forms of entertainment, or lose interest in things they used to enjoy. See, other time this happened with me an RPG's. I got more and more into Console RPG's, and yes, I did love them, I am even on record as having said Oblivion was the best RPG I had ever played. But, I started to find other games, and enjoy different games, which was what lead me to the Codex. Not the reverse. So, what now? Liking Fallout 1/2 before finding the Codex is caused by what, ever? Your all powerful group think? Incidentally, I would like to point out that yes, I was mocking you with that quote about my choices, you've clearly missed that.

If you want to preach about group think and a pack mentality, go ahead, that's your perogative. But you grasping on to things said in a joking manner, poorly as it was put forth, doesn't mean you are winning an argument or revealing some grand conspiracy.

To cut it short: your standards went higher. The exactly same thing happened with me.

 

[someone else]

He is saying Goldbox doesn't have badly implemented real-time combat.

OH I SEE.

See my brain must have skipped that part because I thought it was simply impossible for someone to be so lackwitted as to find the Goldbox engine combat to be better than Infinity Engine combat.

My apologies, to you sirs. My work in this thread is now complete.

He didn't say Goldbox combat is necessary better, just that it isn't real-time with pause. So someone who prefers turn-base combat might prefer Goldbox, like him maybe.

 

[Azrael the cat]

Right. So I've recently picked up Baldur's Gate 2, as I have been going through the Codex's favourite RPG's on Jaesun's awesomly helpful list. Only in the last couple of years have I started playing proper, non-shit, cRPG's after finding the Codex. I used to love Oblivion, Fallout 3 all that shit, yeah, I hate myself too, thanks. Long story short, been working through that list, love PS:T, Arcanum, Fallout, the works. Loved them all more or less of the very get go.

But not Baldur's Gate 2. I've tried several times, unsuccessfully to get into this game, but I am very clearly missing something. The dialogue and interaction with Jan Iranicus is quite sweet, but everything else is just... mediocre. Setting is bland as fuck, party members make me want to rage quit, and combat is, at least at this point... decent at best. I've spent 3, 4 hours on this thing so far, and it just isn't doing it for me, I just really can't get into it.

So, what the fuck am I missing?

inb4 Volourn
inb4 "Joined: 20 Mar 2011"

Ok, the first dungeon is infamously overlong and dull, unless you've just come from playing BG1 (which I don't really recommend - wiki the plotline, so that you know why Irenicus is interested in you, and which dead and evil god just might be speaking to you through another character or two, llater on). You're rescuing characters from the first game, finding dead ones from the first game, and finding the first NPC (your adopted sister) of BG1 seriously experimented upon and fucked up. It's an important dungeon, in that it foreshadows a LOT about who Irenicus is, so unfortunately it shouldnt really be skipped on your first game. Or your second (because then you'll slap yourself when you see just how obvious some of the foreshadowing info is that you probably overlooked the first time around). But for someone coming straight into the BG plotline, the combo of characters you don't know and foreshadowing info that you don't recognise, just isn't enough to make the dungeon decent.

BUT....once you leave the dungeon, the game opens up bigtime. It is no longer linear (it will grow more linear for a period much later on, but most of the game is very open), and the variety of classes, massive variety of NPCs, and sheer goddamn amount of content (and I mean detailed, designed, proper quest content - not 'kill x foozles' or sandbox mapping) is what makes the game memorable. Well that and two (possibly 3 if you think about it once you've finished the game) decent villains - decent more in the way they are are designed and voice-acted, rather than the game's plot being spectacular. My biggest complaint with computer game villains has always been their passivity - you typically meet them at the start of the game, and then only again at the end boss fight, as though they've just been waiting for you to come kill them. Not in this game. You'll have running fights against these two, sometimes with you having the situational advantage/numbers, sometimes them, throughout the game (I think you have about 7-8 encounters with one or the other in total). It should have set the standard for how crpg villains are handled, but unfortunately it's almost unique, with virtually every other crpg that followed (even Bioware's) going the 'start and end' villain design (notable exceptions: KoTOR2 by Obsidian with the restoration patch, VtM:Bloodlines by Troika).

I'd definitely play it through until chapter 3 - that will have given you a taste of the 'open content' of the game, rather than the starting dungeon (which isn't typical of the game). But if you don't like it at that point, don't force yourself - BG2 is a controversial high-ranking game in Codex popularity lists. Lots of folks love it, quite a few hate it. Personally, I'm on the 'pro-BG2' side, and find it to be easily the best Bioware game (and by a massive margin at that). It's also the only Bioware game that doesn't have the same plot as all the others (you know, you're the chosen one/Specter/champion/whatever on your way to fulfill your destiny, with a twist near the end). In BG2 it's like someone wrote the typical Bioware plotline, and then someone else decided to change it so that a couple of characters come in, fuck over both the champion and the guy ('thing') that would ordinarily be the villain, and write their own destiny over the top of it.

 

[jiujitsu]

Right. So I've recently picked up Baldur's Gate 2, as I have been going through the Codex's favourite RPG's on Jaesun's awesomly helpful list. Only in the last couple of years have I started playing proper, non-shit, cRPG's after finding the Codex. I used to love Oblivion, Fallout 3 all that shit, yeah, I hate myself too, thanks. Long story short, been working through that list, love PS:T, Arcanum, Fallout, the works. Loved them all more or less of the very get go.

But not Baldur's Gate 2. I've tried several times, unsuccessfully to get into this game, but I am very clearly missing something. The dialogue and interaction with Jan Iranicus is quite sweet, but everything else is just... mediocre. Setting is bland as fuck, party members make me want to rage quit, and combat is, at least at this point... decent at best. I've spent 3, 4 hours on this thing so far, and it just isn't doing it for me, I just really can't get into it.

So, what the fuck am I missing?

inb4 Volourn
inb4 "Joined: 20 Mar 2011"

It's better if you play Baldur's Gate 1 first, I think. Then you could appreciate the extra detail added to BG2.

Also, you could try a solo playthrough as a sorcerer. Not accepting any party members and soloing the entire game as a sorcerer is a lot of fun. It really lets you experience magic to its fullest.

 

[MicoSelva]

BG2 is a very character-centered game, with the little twist that the central character is not You, but Jon Irenicus, the villain. It's his story You uncover during the game (while in PST, for example, it's Your own story). It's all wrapped up in multiple sidequest RPG goodness with kind of a meh combat system on top.
I would definitely give it a try if I were You, but if You don't like it, don't force Yourself to play it.

 

[sea]

Baldur's Gate 2 is alright... not the greatest game ever, but it improves significantly on the original by killing most of the filler content and at least bringing in a decent story. Combat is kind of clusterfucky, as is all Infinity Engine combat when you have a large party, but it's something you're able to manage with some practice. I disagree with the sentiment that it's the "Witcher 2 of its day", but there's some truth in that it's sort of a combination of a lot of trends in CRPGs of the time, while executing well enough without necessarily raising the bar for the genre. The bland Forgotten Realms setting certainly doesn't do it any favours either.

I wouldn't try to force yourself to get into it, if you don't like it too much after trying several times I don't think there's anything that can make it work for you. Baldur's Gate II is kind of a take it or leave it thing, and for you it sounds like it's better to leave it behind.

 

[bloodlover]

I started BG 2 about 5-6 times before actually playing it. The first dungeon was a real mood killer so I kind of had to force myself to make it past that (some friends kept pushing me onward) but once that is over with the game becomes way better. In the end it became one of my fav. RPG's and definitely the one with the most enjoyable party members.

 

[SoupNazi]

@ever: it's perfectly normal to realize the flaws of a game (movie, song, book, sex) only after they've been pointed out. stop trolling faggot.

 

[ZbojLamignat]

BG II is a nice game, but it does have some serious flaws so there are a few things I'd personally recommend to enjoy it fully:

- forget BG, it's pretty bad on its own and especially do not play any of those all-in-one mods - you're almost certain to get bored before even reaching II
- forget all the romance, party banter, epic story stuff - it might be tons better than what bioware comes up with today, but it's still gay, use multiplayer mode to create your own party and don't be afraid to create 6 members if you wish too - the quests you miss on by not being able to join premade npcs are very non-significant and mostly shit
- install fixes, tweaks, widescreen mod, be careful with extra content and class kits mods - most of them are awful and completely unbalanced, I'd definitely avoid them on the first playthrough
- I recommend installing some increased difficulty mods or at least pushing the difficulty bar to the max, but note that the game might be a bit tricky if you're playing for the first time

Then you can enjoy the real good things about this game - long, interesting, well-designed quests, possibilities to customize your party with tons of different loot, very varied combat encounters that make up for the shitty combat system.

Oh, and note that the official add-on is mostly very bad, but it does have one of the best (and very long) side quests - Watcher's Keep. It also breaks the balance, the tweaks application has an option to delay the completely op special abilities - use it.

 

[Black]

Yup, BGs have bad gameplay and bad writing. They were basically dragon ages of their time.

 

[Angthoron]

I'm one of those backwards people of the Codex that considers BG1 to be better than BG2. I've tried figuring out what it is that makes me feel so distanced from BG2 and why it is that simplistic BG1 feels like it's better to me, but the conclusions have always been rather vague.

Regardless, OP, I have always had the same feel with BG2. For some reason, the story never picked up for me, yes, there were some nice encounters, and there were some nice quests (Dancer in the Flesh in particular was rather neat, but nearly not paranoid enough as it should've been), but by and large, I felt that the pacing was fucked, the character development (the narrative sort, not the mechanics) was half-assed (it was non-existant for the most part in BG1 but that was excuseable as it did not exist and thus couldn't bother me with being half-assed), and the whole trudging around the city felt nowhere as exciting as it should have. This while I loved running around the Gate in BG1.

Why? I don't know. Maybe it's the first steps on the road of streamlining that spoilt it for me. The game, after all, lost its outdoors exploration completely, and while the zones were now more detailed within the city proper, the exploration felt lacklustre and devoid of sense of wonder. It became too centered around the protagonist, a Disneyland world of Fantasy, the feeling that was less present in BG1, where the player was merely a part in the Iron Crisis events (and only later would you learn that you're omg important).

I still like BG2 well enough I suppose, but it's the sort of liking I've been reserving to games like Half-Life, where I feel completely lukewarm when playing them. I know I *should* probably like BG2 and HL a lot more, but instead I like BG1 and Unreal heaps better. To me, they once gave a sense of wonder and tickled the imagination. Neither BG2 nor HL managed this for me - BG2 (and HL, to a lesser extent) left nothing to wonder about, no question unanswered, no mystery unresolved (or interesting enough to think about), and I do like me some unanswered questions so I can ponder them when not actually playing.

 

[Seven-headed Gentleman]

I'd advice against playing U7 if you planning to complete any BG series games. The difference in exploration and gameworld interactivity is unbelievable. On the other hand if you manage to get through U7 despite the non-responsive combat then even the awful IE engine combat will feel better.

It's okey to not like the BG series though. They don't actually have any stand-out features, it's sort of decent to poor across the board (depending on your preferences). I understand BG2 has some interesting monster groups along the way so maybe that counts as something its especially good at, but I can't bear my self to suffer through the gameplay long enough to find out.

 

[syllopsium]

BG2 has nothing remarkable about it other than its scope, but what scope! Theres so much variety that at least some of it should be enjoyable.

major pacing issues exist though - mid game is far too flabby and stops you caring about your quest. Throne of Bhaal is vastly more linear but more fun to play.

i think i finished it 2-3times so i did enjoy whats there (still enjoy Oblivion too even if im currently finishing KOTOR)

 

[octavius]

I recommend playing BG1 first, but only with mods. The vanilla game is rather bland and the screen resolution looks awfully small on a modern monitor.

Use either Easy TuTu or BGT to play BG1 using the BG2 engine. Install the widescreen mod to get the screen resolution that fits your taste best.
Install the BG1 NPC Project to make the NPCs more interesting (more banters, interjections and quests). The writing is very good and it fits it very well with the rest of the game.
Install the Sword Coast Stratagems mod to make enemies more intelligent and combat much more interesting. This mod is highly configurable, so if it's your first time playing BG1 you may not want to install all the components.

Installing these mods improves BG1 dramatically, IMO.

 

[CorpseZeb]

Gold Box? Of course! Dark Sun? Definitely! But Eye of the Beholder? Seriously? Eye of the Beholder was basically The Witcher of its day.

Huh? What's wrong with first two EOB's? Third one was the bit boring, but... but... ah! The joy... no! The art of the mapping! Still had all of my EOB's maps boxed in basement somewhere.

Ps. Psst... everyone taking about BG.... psst... there is one guy in our asylum... the one in white power armor of some sort... with evil red led... and... he... he... can do terrible, terrible... ignorum galorum castorum... on all of you...

 

[DwarvenFood]

So,

I found this nice mod (heard about it before) Ascension, for BG2, apparently David Gaider made it in his free time ?

Section VII. Tougher Illasera
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In David Gaider's words: "It is not very high difficulty...as a battle
right at the beginning of the game shouldn't be...but it does make Illasera
a credible opponent and member of the Five. She's a ranger/archer now,
which was her original concept before we were forced to make the battle
much, much easier (since people could potentially meet her with a single,
newly-created sorcerer...and since the fight was unavoidable, those who
couldn't get past it would be quite frustrated). This version makes it so
that you always meet the tougher Illasera as well as all her companions, so
those who go into ToB with a weak character might want to stick with the
original version."

Weimer's comments: Despite what Gaider is saying, the Tougher Illasera
battle is widely regarded as insanely difficult (although certain tactics,
like the shield of reflection, physical mirror or a mordy jail can make it
too simple). It's much harder than the Yaga-Shura or Gromnir fights.

Sounds very promising, I wonder what he *really* thinks about his recent games.

Readme of mod

 

[Krash]

Ascension is an absolute must for any second+ playthrough of ToB, vastly improves many encounters and fleshes out some parts which were a bit stale in the original. Be advised though that the revamped last battle is VERY hard, prolly the toughest infinity engine fight I've had.

 

[SCO]

BG2 has nothing remarkable about it other than its scope, but what scope! Theres so much variety that at least some of it should be enjoyable.

major pacing issues exist though - mid game is far too flabby and stops you caring about your quest. Throne of Bhaal is vastly more linear but more fun to play.

i think i finished it 2-3times so i did enjoy whats there (still enjoy Oblivion too even if im currently finishing KOTOR)

Did you just say something favorable about throne of cheese?

 

[Ebonsword]

BG2 has nothing remarkable about it other than its scope, but what scope!

What about it's magic system? All of the cool things like spell sequencers, contingencies, etc add a layer of complexity to magical combat that few (if any) games have matched.

 

[Butcer]

The same logic can be replied in the reverse though ever. These were the games I was playing because they were there, and they were what I thought I wanted. What ACTUALLY brought me here though is kind of important though, right? And hey, turns out that was buying the Fallout Collection and having a: "holy shit this is good shit, I need more games like this!" moment, which led me to No Mutants Allowed, and then the Codex.

Has the game changed? Of course fucking not, but I just didn't know anything better. I had never been given the chance to try or like anything different. I made do with what I had, and I enjoyed it. At the time, without knowing there was better games out there.

Unless of course my recent attempts to play Oblivion and Fallout 3 again, and the writing seeming shit, the combat seeming mediocre and the game overall not being as interesting is purely my nut case mind convincing itself that I don't like it any more because of what a group of people on the internet who apparently like the same kinds of games I found out I really liked, told me think.

So, that's my choice is it? I either like the old shit because I am insecure about liking it because of people on the internet, or like the new shit because I know nothing else? Well, I guess I go with having more fun, and having experiences that are actually challenging mentally and emotionally through the power of group think, then having less fun and thinking for myself.

I like both , heck i like some of the games most codexers hate, Yeah you heard me i liked Dragon age Mass effect and gasp i enjoyed Obilvion but still my fav rpg of all time is planescape torment, followed by the might and magic series

 

[GarfunkeL]

Do NOT install SCS or any other game-balance altering mods for your first playthrough - ESPECIALLY if you are a rookie to AD&D.

 

[Needles]

But not Baldur's Gate 2. I've tried several times, unsuccessfully to get into this game, but I am very clearly missing something.

So, what the fuck am I missing?

Nothing....this is sparta Baldur's Gate.... click away the dialogue fast, enjoy the loot and the occasional slightly above average fight. That's it. Don't expect greatness of any kind.[/code]

 

[Serious_Business]

Right. So I've recently picked up Baldur's Gate 2, as I have been going through the Codex's favourite RPG's on Jaesun's awesomly helpful list. Only in the last couple of years have I started playing proper, non-shit, cRPG's after finding the Codex. I used to love Oblivion, Fallout 3 all that shit, yeah, I hate myself too, thanks. Long story short, been working through that list, love PS:T, Arcanum, Fallout, the works. Loved them all more or less of the very get go.

But not Baldur's Gate 2. I've tried several times, unsuccessfully to get into this game, but I am very clearly missing something. The dialogue and interaction with Jan Iranicus is quite sweet, but everything else is just... mediocre. Setting is bland as fuck, party members make me want to rage quit, and combat is, at least at this point... decent at best. I've spent 3, 4 hours on this thing so far, and it just isn't doing it for me, I just really can't get into it.

So, what the fuck am I missing?

inb4 Volourn
inb4 "Joined: 20 Mar 2011"

Ok, the first dungeon is infamously overlong and dull, unless you've just come from playing BG1 (which I don't really recommend - wiki the plotline, so that you know why Irenicus is interested in you, and which dead and evil god just might be speaking to you through another character or two, llater on). You're rescuing characters from the first game, finding dead ones from the first game, and finding the first NPC (your adopted sister) of BG1 seriously experimented upon and fucked up. It's an important dungeon, in that it foreshadows a LOT about who Irenicus is, so unfortunately it shouldnt really be skipped on your first game. Or your second (because then you'll slap yourself when you see just how obvious some of the foreshadowing info is that you probably overlooked the first time around). But for someone coming straight into the BG plotline, the combo of characters you don't know and foreshadowing info that you don't recognise, just isn't enough to make the dungeon decent.

BUT....once you leave the dungeon, the game opens up bigtime. It is no longer linear (it will grow more linear for a period much later on, but most of the game is very open), and the variety of classes, massive variety of NPCs, and sheer goddamn amount of content (and I mean detailed, designed, proper quest content - not 'kill x foozles' or sandbox mapping) is what makes the game memorable. Well that and two (possibly 3 if you think about it once you've finished the game) decent villains - decent more in the way they are are designed and voice-acted, rather than the game's plot being spectacular. My biggest complaint with computer game villains has always been their passivity - you typically meet them at the start of the game, and then only again at the end boss fight, as though they've just been waiting for you to come kill them. Not in this game. You'll have running fights against these two, sometimes with you having the situational advantage/numbers, sometimes them, throughout the game (I think you have about 7-8 encounters with one or the other in total). It should have set the standard for how crpg villains are handled, but unfortunately it's almost unique, with virtually every other crpg that followed (even Bioware's) going the 'start and end' villain design (notable exceptions: KoTOR2 by Obsidian with the restoration patch, VtM:Bloodlines by Troika).

I'd definitely play it through until chapter 3 - that will have given you a taste of the 'open content' of the game, rather than the starting dungeon (which isn't typical of the game). But if you don't like it at that point, don't force yourself - BG2 is a controversial high-ranking game in Codex popularity lists. Lots of folks love it, quite a few hate it. Personally, I'm on the 'pro-BG2' side, and find it to be easily the best Bioware game (and by a massive margin at that). It's also the only Bioware game that doesn't have the same plot as all the others (you know, you're the chosen one/Specter/champion/whatever on your way to fulfill your destiny, with a twist near the end). In BG2 it's like someone wrote the typical Bioware plotline, and then someone else decided to change it so that a couple of characters come in, fuck over both the champion and the guy ('thing') that would ordinarily be the villain, and write their own destiny over the top of it.

Tell me more about how Irenicus is a well crafted antagonist, cat

 

[Reptilian Shapeshifter]

Long story short.

When I first played BG2, I didn't have any preconceived opinion about it. I didn't play BG1 beforehand either.

Played it, finished it and sold it on eBay a few days later (yeah, sometimes I used to pay for games back then).

I thought it was well-made, generic fantasy fare. The story never pulled me in, and I didn't find any of the characters interesting. Coming from PS:T, I thought the art quality (especially the character models) was rather poor as well.

Played it again a few years later with ToB and it tasted the same as before - bland.