Fragamemnon said:
Also, another vote for Baldur's Gate 2 + Throne of Bhaal. It's a robust, well-rounded tour de force that is the crowning achievement of the computer RPG. Other games might do a few specific things better than BG2 does (characterization/writing in Torment, etc.), but no game really comes close to putting all of the aspects of the computer RPG together like BG2 does.
Yeah, Torment is the better game, because of how amazing its story is, how unique it is, and how near-perfectly it pulls off what it tries, but the Baldur's Gate games are better standard RPGs. Torment is the best in the genre, but it's also really in a class by itself. The Baldur's Gate saga is essentially the traditional RPG perfected.
All I've wanted from BioWare since ToB is a game from them that remotely compares to it in depth and quality... we haven't come even close to getting it.
The only thing I'd really add to that is that Baldur's Gate I is every bit as great a game as Baldur's Gate II is, overall. The second game is slightly better, and improves on the first one in interface design -- bags, 40 arrows per stack, notes on the map, etc -- but in gameplay and game design, the first game is just as good. It depends on what you like, the more open world of BG1 or the more linear one of BGII. I know I criticize the TES games for being too open (see my post earlier in this thread), but BG1's style of open-endedness I like. The main quest is always there and is fascinating and very well done. You just also have the option of wandering around in the wilderness or city for pretty much as long as you want, doing sidequests and exploring. BGII removes most of that, getting rid of the first game's numerous mostly-empty zones and replacing them with fewer, much more densely packed zones. And honestly, as amazingly great as BGII was, I often found myself wishing for the more spread out nature of the first game.
The Underdark is amazingly cool... but it's mostly squeezed into one main zone?
Athkatla is great... but you can only visit certain parts of it, and not the whole city like you could Baldur's Gate? And you spend more than half or two thirds of the game not being able to go back to it or anywhere other than the area you're currently in? Things like these make the game much more focused, but really, was having bunches of forest zones with one or two sidequests in them really all that bad? I don't think that BGI suffered from it. Indeed, its main quest is very interesting and well done, just as much so as the second game's is. The game just lets you do more other things along the way.
The subject of your NPC allies who join your party is similarly mixed. On the one hand, BGII has MUCH, MUCH more detailed allies. They have real stories, quests, will leave your party if you don't do things they like or ignore their quests, etc. They talk to eachother and with you. The game has relationships you can form with certain characters. But... it has very few NPCs who can join your party. The first game has only basic characters with minimal characterizations beyond what their voice lines are (with only a few exceptions), but at least it gives you lots of options so you can build your party pretty much exactly as you want it. But BGII? Want a mage? Well, do you mind a dual-classed mage who will level slow? There are two of those... but if you want a real mage, one who will be at full power in a game where mages are incredibly, incredibly powerful... how many choices do you have? Three. And one of those three is gone for the first half of the game. This leaves two. And one of those two is Chaotic Evil and is a horrible character who any Good character will probably kill (particularly if you have Minsc in your party or cared about Dynaheir). That leaves one. Who has low Wisdom.
The Cleric situation is even worse... if you have both Aeire and Jahera it's covered well enough, but the only full cleric is Evil aligned and hard to keep in a Good party...
However, I know that when you're putting that much detail into each character, it's impossible to have as many of them as the first game had. So overall it's an acceptable limitation, and I'd say the second game is better overall in characters thanks to the fact that characters actually develop, unlike in the first game where only yours really did. But the limitations should also be recognized.
