Why are there so few areas in bgII rather than bgI?

Remove all ads!

I looked at a complete map of bg2 and saw that ther isn't even half the areas as in bg1? Whats up with that?

 

Hrm...although it seems there are "less places" by map, I think BGII has more places to go via the mapped places than BGI. It certainly is more intricate...

more places within places, so to speak.

Nalora

 

Really? Hmm, i was gonna get the game anyway but now i want it even more! Thanks!

[Edit: I had typed Thnx!]

[This message has been edited by Meldethar (edited October 17, 2001).]

 

Yeah, it gets pretty hairy. You'll be getting that friggin' '*YOU* must gather your party before venturing forth' message alot.

Plans, within plans, within plans...where does it all end?

 

LOL, good one!

 

Everyone of course always says BG was bigger, and perhaps it was. I won't debate that as it was large. But most of the terrain covered was simpty emply area with one or perhaps two things to do on each large map, with mostly random monster and a few PC encounters in bewteen. In BG2, the areas are fewer in number but contain much more to do in each area. It's a tighter game so to speak with less wandering around involved but with more to see and do IMO. Personally, I liked that more. I know it's less game hours, but at times all that running around through endless wilderness in BG got pretty tirering.

[This message has been edited by Crawl (edited October 17, 2001).]

 

I'm sure you will like BG2. It's BG but on a higher level and less places, but all places have subplaces and much quests.

 

Yea, I think BG1 is more simple than BGII. I think you get a taste of what BGII is like by doing the whole ToSC expansion.

There is a depth of plots and subplots in BGII that is not there in BGI. Granted at first it is a little hard to take the change in artwork of the main screens, but you get used to that and begin to forget what BGI looked like...

Also some of my favorite spells changed, so BEWARE when you use your "tried and true" spells....you find them of less use in BGII.

Nalora

 

Yeah, unfortunately they messed with the mastery-grandmastery bonuses of fighters as well. On the other hand spellcasters are twice as powerfull as before. By the way you can get an idea of how much bigger is BG2 than BG1 if you "count" the lines of dialogue which are even more than in Planescape: Torment. As for the number of areas I think it's also bigger in BG2, since there are many dungeons that doesn't show in main map or new areas that appear as you progress. Though both BGI&II are extremely replayable, once I finished BGII I remembered BG1 as a "poor" beta of BG2, unworthwile to replay it. Unfair? maybe...

 

Or you could be like me and do it backwards, play BG2 than get BG1. And I love them both. Mapwise, I love both maps the only thing I hate about BG2 is when it trys to mimic BG1, for instance the 3 forested areas available after the Underdark. Pitiful. They stick out like a sore thumb. They should have held up with the rest of the BG2 theme and been more in-depth like the rest of it. Brynnlaw was borderline 2-Dimensional also. But this is not so bad in BG, because it does it with style, plus the storyline gets it going and you constantly have to stay alert. Its humbling to beat BG2 and then keep an eye out for a pack of wolves that might slaughter your party

 

nske, don't be too sad about the lack of grandmaster boni - you'll get along excellent even with ** char in BG-2. Personally I regret that as well, but having played BG-2 a few times I found the difference not that important. Yes, the extra attack would come in handy, but, honestly, you don't really need it *that* hard.

I played BG-1 first and BG-2 then and BG-2 has indeed less areas but more aleborate quests and subquests. Though a bit simpler BG-1 has a better general storyline. Anyway, I think the *way* improved magic and the kits will make BG-2 a great gaming experience for you as well go for it !

[This message has been edited by Ragusa (edited October 18, 2001).]

 

BG is inded more basic, start without magic equipment etc etc. in BG2 is spell casting to remove protections etc sooo important. BG is more easy but that makes it all much better. No weapons that set strength to a sick 25 etc. BG rules!

 

The only thing I miss in BG2 is the possibility to just wander about in the wilderness with no clear goal... and the story, of course. I think that BG2 is just as good as the first game, but in another way. It's, for example, certainly more detailed.

 

yes, i noticed that too.
i miss the medieval feel that bg1 had.
and walking about aimlessly..
bg2 strangly reminds me of breath of fire VI or was it IV...
nevertheless, i love both games.

 

Namuras and Faaip, you are so right. I also mentioned that in another topic about the same thing. There's nothing better for an adventurer just to wander in the wilderness without no goal. In BG2 there are too much cities and not enough wilderness area's, in BG there was perfect balance.

 

I just found it boring after a while. I've never been a fan of just walking around without a specific thing in mind. I want direction to my actions. It was those endless wilderness areas that added months onto my BG playtime, which went far too long IMO. It was ok for a while, I suppose. But honestly, there were so many areas to explore that gave you little in the way of interesting things to find. Some of the areas were well done, while others were a waste. I would have prefered less areas with more in depth activities for the party while there. Running around killing gnolls or hobgoblins with no real purpouse isn't my cup of tea in a CRPG. Not that I didn't like BG. Far from it. I just prefered the aproach they took with BG2 areas over BG1.

EDIT: Hehehe, yes they did. And GOD BLESS EM for it Hey Tal

[This message has been edited by Crawl (edited October 28, 2001).]

 

I thought Durags tower was cooler than whatchers.

 

Tal is right. They listened to feedback from people like Crawl, and decided to have fewer actual areas and just include more to do in each. This made the game more streamlined, with the tradeoff being a loss of some reality. Lets face it, there are times when playing that you will simply wander through areas and find nothing. BG recreated this very well. I do however understand the monotony of traveling in this way without being able to speed up the transitions. I think that perhaps they should have allowed players to skip over areas easier.

 

Why does everyone keep saying "from people like Crawl"?!? Come on now; you people are going to give me a complex You'll make the term "people like Crawl" into a bad thing; in truth it's a good thing And besides, a good point to consider here is the party level in BG2. You're extremely powerful. Exactly how many challenging wilderness areas could there have been? For a party with such high levels, everything needs to be more focused and streamlined. I also concede that more wilderness to travel would have been more realistic, but without the element of fun in such areas (even in BG I didn't see a whole lot that interested me), what's the point as one a place was cleared, it's not like you just kept going through it to get to your eventual goal. I would only assume almost everyone just skipped over them once they cleared them, and clearing areas of the random weak mosters that roam the face of Faerun doesn't sound too fun to me when you're over seventh level.