Seems to me that Baldur's Gate 2 has lost most of its weight (ahaha) and just gained alot of flubber since the monstrous beauty of BG1. BG1 had a world with CHOICES that were extra, extra fun and a tasty treat to all of us hardcore-RPGers that rewrite biographies and draw up portraits, make custom scripts, sound voices, and interesting plots to go with the character. In BG2, Diablo II-type intervention has made a straight plotline with shackles around a thin, scrawny freedom, and the excuse of more slightly-brandished character classes and worthless skills has given Norm-Gamers a way to say, "It's worth it for 800X600!" One big city and no outskirts is not enough, I tell you...

Hey man I agree, but to me BG2 is more of a mix between IWD & BG1, the ladder cuz you do actually have lots of freedom when within the city and IWD cuz you can only go where there are quests. But seems to me BG1, you had to go look for the quests, which was good, cuz everytime you played it, you would get one you havent gotten before, you could end up playing it 80 times and perhaps have some you couldnt find..In BG2, they kinda throw them into your lap, unless you play a diff class everytime you play, cuz then you get various ones, by the means of strongholds, romances, playing either good or evil.

And what choices were those? To run around aimlessly in the forest whacking monsters for experience points? Or how about running errands for some old coot you used to know at Candlekeep? Yes, I agree that the lack of wilderness is pretty bad, but this game is more city oriented. Remember that this is Amn, not the untamed Sword Coast. Also, I don't see anything Diablo 2 about BG2. Diablo 2 should never ever be compared to BG2 :nono:. I don't think you could edit your biography in BG1 either; that was something imlemented in BG2. Are you forgeting all the stronghlds that make different classes unique to a point beyond their fighting skills? What about NPC interaction? I'm sorry but the hollow sound bytes of Jaheria complaining to go to Nashkel I got in BG1 really weren't enough for me. Now you see people choosing NPC companions based on their interaction with the party, not just their fighting skill. The plot is much better in my opinion as well. For once in a game you aren't able to think two steps ahead of the game and predict what will happen next. And of course it's more of the same; it's the sequel! I don't see how your argument makes sense if you say it's more of the same and don't like it. If anything BG2 builds on what was great about Baldur's Gate.

[This message has been edited by Lord Sarevok (edited November 17, 2001).]

Different shades, I said.
The two games are not brothers. Like in the bleakly Sci-Fi BG2, clones are apparent, not genetics. Look at the two. Light-hearted Baldur's Gate with its simplicity and hilarious dialogue, beautiful, new, outstanding world. Then there comes disheveled BG2 with its few improvements and introduction movie that spells out the entire game: linear and never unique the second time. If you've forgotten, melord, D&D is about whacking monsters in the middle of a forest and going on simple quests. Do you enjoy picking a fabric out of millions, or having a lazy, jumbled mass of spaghetti? Baldur's Gate One was a better in its time than #2 is now, as Imoen's voice changed and her hair became pink, so did Gorion truly die.

I'd rather have a few large quests than a bunch of brainless adventuring. I like to think of BG1 in two parts, the first one is the main storyline which branches out with other large quests and the rest is aimless wandering in the wilderness that prepares you for some of the final bosses you meet. I enjoyed the former much more and based on feedback from people like me, I think Bioware decided to cut out all of the latter. Yes, yes, I DID enjoy doing small quests in the wilderness for fun and profit but really there aren't many choices to had if you think about it; and when there are they don't affect much in the game. BG2 is a much bigger game depite what everyone says, and as such the quests are much bigger to fit the environment. Making a successful sequel is a very hard thing to do; not only does it have to be as good as the orginal in most all respects, it also has add new features. In this case I think that Bioware not only made an equal, they made a better game. If you like to wander around aimlessly doing small quests, then BG2 isn't the game for you. I suggest you go out and buy yourself Diablo 2, since to you apparenly, games like that have more roleplaying value to you than BG2. :)

[This message has been edited by Lord Sarevok (edited November 17, 2001).]

WELL SAID Sarevok! I agree completly.

I love the fact that you are able to defend your opinion so behemently, but you've butchered mine. I stated that Baldur's Gate 1 had more worth in its time than Baldur's Gate 2 has now. It is not hard for Bioware to create a game. Hundreds of programmers working for extensive paychecks gets the job done, believe it or not.
But...
Understand that while our opinions differ, we do not. We played the game, enjoyed it, and went on to play the second one. Excellent. We are both fans. I believe that the first one was unique and different, you think that the second one was improved and more fitted to the gamers' needs.
I said that #1 outshadows #2, and that goes for this situation also, but we'll never know who shadows who.
I'm no Martin Luther King of PC games. So I give up. Let's play over the internet some time. You choose a game.

No hard feelings man. I'd love to play a game with you exept I don't really know how do it :(. Anyway, we could only play Baldur's Gate until I get BG2 back.

It's a stupid topic to argue about! They're both great games, it's just a matter of preference. BG1 did have more freedom and was less linear but BG2 added a lot of cool new things(weapon variety, graphical effects, etc.) and had a darker and more compelling atmosphere.

Voicing your opinion is never stupid, that's what this forum is all about. Also, we both agreed that they are both great games.