![]() ![]() If you can get past the graphics themselves, and the 2d style with sprites, the story, aesthetics, adventure-experience etc makes all up for that and I would definatly recommend. I would say check out some videos with gameplay really. ![]() BG2 becomes more storyfocussed, and somewhat more linear, though with plenty of sidequests still (Some short and sweet, others involving longer stories and their own seperate areas with dungeons). The first game is based around story buildup and exploration, small side quests and more humour (almost the sort of thing you can expect in Divinity: Original Sin games) and there are fun little easter eggs. Sure, it is not as good as what we have now but once you get used to it, it does work for a CRPG. I think it is closer to 5e than 3rd edition is to 5e. Story, music, atmosphere etc is all worth it in my opinion. The aesthetics however hold up and are top tier still. The graphics themselves are a bit outdated by modern standards, the games use sprites rather than models. Also BG2 has a different antagonist and is set in a different part of the Realms, so it is really accommodating to anyone who hasn't played the first game. I can also say, that I personally started with BG2 and completed it without ever having completed BG1 (though I've played a sizeable chunk of it), and I had a great time, and I didn't find myself lost at all with references regarding what happened in the first game, since everything of significance is pretty much explained by the NPCs. Though BGI is a good game, I do really dislike the amount of goofy "Monty Python-esque" NPCs you encounter in BGI, since I find it really it detracts you from the setting of Forgotten Realms, but BGI was BioWare's first venture into the FR setting. I would also say, that BGII is a far greater game since it has more focused story, and in my opinion, more memorable and unique main quests, subquests and characters, and it also has a more serious tone than the previous game. I find personally that once you've committed yourself to playing an hour or so of it, you don't mind the graphics, and instead become immersed in the story and setting of the game. If you do pull the trigger, I reccomend you try and avoid Beamdog's version-while some of the things they did were great, my understanding is they also added entirely new bugs. If you're interested in games from a design point of view, I would absolutely reccomend you try it, for a game on it's own, a classic, I'd also reccomend it, but there's no obvious connection to Baldur's Gate III, so I'd skip it if you're only thinking of it for that. It doesn't seem necessary however, and unlike Bethesda with Fallout 3 vs fallout 1 and 2, Baldur's Gate III isn't going for a fundemental shift of game types. I think it's worth it because I enjoy the characters and the story is genuinely interesting, the characters are memorable, and the gameplay itself still holds up. I'm also not blind to how western rpgs have moved on inter party dialogue is basically non existent, and while the sprites and maps have a charm, they and the interface definitely show their age. There's going to be a bit of 'culture shock' with the rules however (2nd edition that they run off has a 'low is good, high is bad' system, so your armour class drops when you put on plate mail!). There are references to 'gorians ward' and minature giant space hamsters in some books, but nothing else is mentioned and the description of the protagonist from BG1 is very deliberately nothing beyond "They existed". There's no immediately obvious connection to them and Baldur's Gate III beyond the overall theme of 'how much are you willing to sacrifice for power'. To catch up with some lore and the past, is it worth it to start BG1/BG2 while BG3 progress with patches and content ?No, and yes. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |