26 replies to this topic

[Daulmakan]

Daulmakan, just a friendly warning, low-content posts are a no-no here.

Low content as determined by whom? You? Every moderator on the site? What happens the next time I post a "low content" post? You'll delete it? Ban me?

I actually found Almateria's post so 'low in content' that I was going to post a harsher (but of higher content) response at first, but figured a tongue in cheek reply was more appropriate. Apparently not.

[Kaeloree]

We don't ban people or delete posts without very good reason.

Almateria's allowed to have an opinion, even if not everyone agrees with it. Personally, I would have liked to read a real response, as long as it was civil, because I don't agree with it either. It's more that posts containing a single image really don't add anything to the discussion at hand.

[Eleima]

I think K said it all, Daulmakan. We're not going to use and absue the ban hammer, we'd just like to see a more structured, coherent response. We're all allowed to have opinions, but a gif is not enough to voice it. 'Tis all.

[Scars Unseen]

This is a difficult question for me. Ultimately I decided on SoA, but BG nearly beat it out. It really came down to characters vs game design. The biggest mistake, IMO, that was made with SoA was taking the game all the way to level 20(ish). The original showed admirable restraint in sticking to low level play, and that is a feat that Bioware never duplicated afterward in any of its franchises(lol at Shepard being level 1-5 at the beginning of ME2). I think that ToB would be a far more enjoyable experience for me(not that it's bad as it is) had SoA ended at around level 15-16 and let ToB take things from there. Additionally, I think that I prefer BG's exploratory travel style, and I remember the twinge of disappointment I felt when I realized I could only go to specific locations in SoA. They both may have been fairly linear games, but I feel that BG did a good job of hiding that fact.

But then there are the characters. Between the romances, the banter, the personal quests, and just the personality that some of these characters had, there really is no comparison between the two games. And in the end, that's what keeps me coming back to play the games year after year. Minsc, Haer'Dalis, Viconia... even Edwin... They're like old friends that may not be part of your life anymore, but always make you smile when you have a chance to visit. And that's why I pick SoA as my favorite part of the saga.

[Cal Jones]

This thread has inspired me to revisit BG (vanilla, I might add), which I'm playing through at the moment. On reflection, it is more like a forefather to the sandbox games like Elder Scrolls (although of course, Elder Scrolls is actually older than BG) with its exploration. And I have to say, stomping around every corner of the map in an attempt to lift the fog of war just in case something interesting is hiding there is actually pretty tedious. It does have a lot of charm, still, but I do prefer BG2 by a long way.

[Cal Jones]

Also, I think Scars Unseen is quite right about ToB - you're just too high level and that is compounded by too many boss fights. The series is at its most fun from level 7 - 15, really.

[Western Paladin]

I just got to ToB in my current playthrough, and I'm finding it more enjoyable than I remembered, maybe partly because I hadn't played it for a while. This playthrough I also paid a lot more attention to the Town Crier in Athkatla - you guys probably knew about this already, but his updates tell a surprisingly long story about the disputes between Amn and Tethyr which becomes about the march of the Sythsillisian Empire and their destruction of several cities (Esmeltaran was one; I forget the others offhand).

Edited by Western Paladin, 08 May 2012 - 03:14 PM.