Since I deleted Starfield (maybe I’ll redownload it one day) from Steam I’m thinking of getting Baldurs Gate 3. I hear it can be fun if you ignore the gay stuff. Are 1 and 2 worth it? Also gonna look for some older RPGs on Steam or hack and slash
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (101)
sorted by:
The GOG BG1 original installer on torrents is 700 mb smaller, the BG1:EE installed folder is 400 mb smaller, and the BG1:EE data/ folder containing BIF game files is 400 mb smaller (the gay BG2:EE content looks like just a small fraction of that).
Areas:
483 BG1
355 BG2
So you're right about number of areas, wrong about the size. Most of the difference is because BG1 has lots of tiny filler areas; twice as many random encounter areas, Nashkel Carnival has 9 tents, and there's 119 Generic Homes - going to floor 2 to get the 3 gp in generic home, what great content!
"You must gather your party before venturing forth to Generic Home 22..." /wrist
What you call "linear" other people call "story". The areas in BG2 have a story reason to exist and stories are told from start to finish. You can tell a story not in linear order, like Pulp Fiction, but it rarely works out so well.
You may be right about the digital versions (have no clue since I haven't checked), but for the original CD-ROM versions, the file sizes were quite different.
For BG1, discs 2 and 3 were for the middle of the map filler areas you mentioned, both took up more than 600mb. Disc 5 was solely dedicated to the various areas of Baldur's Gate at the end of the game. Not sure how they managed to squeeze the file sizes down so much for the digital versions, but I guess that's just advancements in compression these days.
You're right about that -- BG2 definitely had more story in fewer zones. I preferred the more free-form nature of BG1 where there was less hand-holding, and you could venture to more areas and explore more locations on your own time, and do some semi-grinding to level up at your own pace. But that's all preference -- some people prefer more linear, hand-holdy games.
Maybe I wasn't clear, but BG2 had more story and more actual zones. If you only played it twice there may be a lot of the game you haven't seen.
Way too linear for my tastes and I abhorred the teammates, characters, and overall story. The added romance elements also was a massive turnoff for me. And making Imeon play such a vital role in the story of the sequel made me not only hate her but hate the first couple hours of the game since they forced her on your team (along with a few other people like Minsc, who I also couldn't stand); the whole dungeon crawl in the beginning was also just too obnoxious and annoying. I prefer when games start you off with a bit of freedom before locking you in the way BG2 does.
I get why younger people like BG2 and other newer BioWare games, but the restricted style of play was just never my cup of tea. Same reason I can't stand the Firaxis XCOM games, since they're way too restrictive compared to the Microprose X-Com trilogy.
I really have no idea what you are talking about. Looking at an end game save file, 60% of the quests were right after the intro with no story progression at all. Over half the game completely optional and in the order I chose, available right after the intro. It sounds like you just followed the main quest line.
Some of the teammates are in fact annoying. Minsc, Jaheira. You don't have to take them.
If you want to give BG2 another chance, try a solo run. I did swashbuckler rogue to level 8 and then dual class to fighter. Only spoiler is you'll want to pickpocket a ring of regeneration from Ribald Barterman right off.