View Full Version : Why Did They Reduce NPCs in BG2?


kasio
Tue, 8th May '01, 10:18am
Why Did They Reduced NPC in BG2?
16 is too few i think. And most of them are useless withou magic modificators...
Where is Coran and Alora with dex over 18?

Ragusa
Tue, 8th May '01, 11:08am
Actually it seems as if the makers wanted to put in more depth into the single NPCs to achieve nmore party interaction - so I guess there wasn´t that much time (and programmers) available to include more NPCs.

Some pure thiefs (good ones) or more fighters to choose of would have been nice.

kasio
Tue, 8th May '01, 11:38am
More NPCs, free global movement.
Seems that only BG2 advantage over BG1 is that max number of arrows is stack now is 40 instead of 20...
BG2 takes 200-300 gaming hours. How long was predecessor?

[This message has been edited by kasio (edited May 08, 2001).]

IronEagle
Tue, 8th May '01, 1:28pm
Again, noone could give you a proper time frame, because some of us can go through the game in less than than 35 game days, which im not sure but i think thats like 3-5 hours? If you know exactly what your doing. And some of us take the actual "approx game time" of about 50 hours, so it just depends where your level of play is.

kasio
Tue, 8th May '01, 2:36pm
bwah.
Just compare BG1 hours to BG2 200-300 hours.
Longer? Shorter? 2 times longer? 2 times shorter? I dont ask you exact hours ofcourse.

Slappy
Tue, 8th May '01, 2:39pm
Kasio, if your feeling down about BG2 v BG1 take a look at this post:
http://www.sorcerers.net/ubb/Forum2/HTML/001760.html

I was feeling a bit miffed although I still really like BG2 I felt they had gone in the wrong direction. However there are some positives about BG2 too, read the post.

kasio
Tue, 8th May '01, 3:31pm
Now thats where I agree with you!!!
Slap: "BG1 always felt like you were exploring a huge area of land and the city itself felt massive. In BG2 everything feels like a small computer game in comparison."
And this is all because of freely explorable world map.
Slap:"Improvements for BG2: better graphics, bigger game, new monsters, more spells."
Well even if BG2 is bigger (more mosters more rooms) it is still more linear. And nobody would dare to object that.

And these new classes: Monk & Kensai. I agree they are interesting to play. But they damage in-game feeling as well as metal sewers, red pianos and similar stuff.
Yea this is all fiction, fantasy and all that, BUT IF a bare handed MONK punches fire breathing DRAGON this is not a fantasy this is DELIRIUM (of a diseased cow, i assume)!
Until this game all classes was more or less Tolkien/European Medieval oriented. Now hells knows where from comes our dear guests from Asia - Monk & Kensai. What will be next? Indians archers and Eskimo pulka rider warriors?!?!?!?!?!
Damn I am mad on this!!!

Parvini
Tue, 8th May '01, 5:33pm
Of course BG2 is a brilliant game.... if you think that it is linear wait until you play "Return to Krondor". At least there is a multitude of options in which direction to take your party and who you can take in your party. Krondor was such a waste, imagine playing BG2 in the Return to Krondor format with a fully explorable world map. That is surely the ultimate RPG