To those suffering with rat race syndrome.

I can't think of any game that I've played of that kind, but I have one of those on GOG. So, yes I will give it a try. I rather have the issue with the implementation of that aspect in cRPGs.
Sounds interesting, but I'm not supporting EEs and Beamdog for what they've done. I'm one of the people that contacted them about removing the originals from GOG and they lied to me.
It is a flaw of the system and I don't have the inside knowledge about Bioware's deal with WotC at that time, but I wish they would've re-balanced things a bit more, or design the encounters so that you can finish the game with even a wild party composition, like only thieves.
They had a wide variety of enemies to choose from, yet the went for the most obvious choice. Besides, elves and dwarves don't fly and breathe fire, which makes fighting againt them question the logic of their behaviour.
Both and you prove my point by adding that you can solo the game as a sorcerer, but what about other classes? Furthermore I said that "makes most other classes than a mage/sorcerer almost useless" and that was deliberate choice of words. Yes, other classes are useful, but even Bioware didn't provide a good thief as an NPC, further proving that you don't need one. Mages outpacing other classes on higher levels may be due to AD&D, but it doesn't excuse Bioware from designing the game in the direction they did.
If BG2 was focusing on the dialogues as PS:T did then yes, totally. However, there's quite a lot of combat in BG2, so I need also companions that can fulfill certain roles. On the flipside I prefer when less is more and I mean those few dialogue lines that can really provide attitude of an NPC.

Honestly, I think this sort of game design can work, given the right game.

If a game is structured like Wizardry or Bard's Tale (can create characters later, can leave characters behind and replace them with new ones, no limit on enemy respawning, early game areas are never closed off), this sort of approach can work. In this case, there is the strategy of creating characters who are good early on, and using them to help level up characters who will be good in the long run. Examples include Oubliette (predecessor to Wizardry), where kobold mages level up quickly (and hence get high level spells quickly) but also die of old age faster and have low health, while elven rangers level up much more slowly but eventually can fill every role and never die of old age, as well as Elminage Gothic, where Bishops are lousy early on but are really good at high levels (which you do reach, especially in the post-game which will realistically take you to around level 400).

If a game is structured more like Icewind Dale or Wizardry 8 (can irreversibky replace characters with new ones later, no easy access to easier encounters later on), then you have more trade-offs. In the two games I mentioned, you can create a character who's powerful early, and later replace the character with one who's powerful later, provided that you do so when XP requirements still double at each level (so the new character isn't too far behind) and the rest of the party can effectively protect the newcomer until they're strong enough to meaningfully contribute.

Then there are games where you have to stick with one party for the entire game, in which case you need to decide what balance of early-game and late-game characters you want in the party. Wizardry 8 and Icewind Dale are commonly played this way, and I can add SaGa 2 to the list (which is interesting in that different races have different growth systems, so Robots actually grow faster (until you run out of equipment upgrades), while Humans grow more slowly but aren't limited by item slots)). SaGa 2 doesn't limit enemy encounters, so you can choose whether you want a short or long playthrough by your party composition. (Even then, SaGa 2 robots are still useful late-game; they just lack the ability to blast enemies with high-end spells, though they can at least be faster than the human limit).

So, this sort of game design can work, particularly in party-based CRPGs.

(I think this sort of game design decision isn't so good in TRPGs, however, as it's not fun to be playing a character who can't meaningfully contribute when everyone else can.)

And I would add to this that even Athkatla does not feel like a "real" city, more like a random mix of maps with no connections between them. In comparison, Baldur's Gate city felt like a city, in the sense that the areas where changing in a continuous fashion. In BG1, it really felt like you are really exploring the city.

And taking about towns, it is hard to call Trademeet a town. Sure, it looks pretty, but there are barely any houses there! I contrast, Beregost had the feeling of a small town, with lots of unimportant people doing their business, but also a number of quests that would take you quite far from there.

That's fair enough. While I've played the EE games and think they are decent enough quality to be worth what I paid for them (it should be noted that I waited till one of GoG's big fire sales of like 70+% before buying them ;) ), I do agree that Beamdog should not force people to purchase a bundle version of the EE games + the originals if all they want is the originals. Leave the originals up for sale at a reduced price, and throw in the originals as a freebie bonus to sweeten the deal for anybody thinking about purchasing the EE's. If their main concern is having to maintain legacy code for the older games, then just put a disclaimer on the originals that these are sold "as is" to the point where Bioware/Black Isle stopped maintaining them, and no further patch or support work will be provided for them.

That's a fair point. If you're playing these party-based games using an approach of just adding in and removing party members as and when the need for them arises, then individual discrepancies between different classes isn't a huge issue. I tend to play my party-based RPGs much like an actual tabletop game though, with everybody there participating in the adventure every step of the way, so, as you touched on in your last point, I like to have everybody feeling that they are a useful and productive member of the team from start to finish. :)

Actually the developers threw in us almost everything D&D had to offer at this time. Which enemies do you have in mind? In BG2 we fight with dragons, vampires, beholders, illithids, powerful mages etc.

BioWare did provide a good thief, but we know what happens with him during the main story. I guess this is the reason why they didn't provide other thief. Player was unknowingly forced to take Yoshimo with him and experience the surprise that comes with him. Overpowered mages are a problem of AD&D. BioWare was strictly limited when implementing the rules. Probably the license banned any balance changes.

But again it's not Icewind Dale. BG2 relies even more on storytelling than BG1, so more developed companions are welcome IMHO. If you want to feel the gap, you can always create another character before you start the game. EE allow it. It's also possible in the original versions, but you need to start the game as a multiplayer one.

Honestly, I think that reason is one reason that Bioware *should* have provided another thief.

Another issue is that there are too many interesting classes and kits that are not represented at all in the recruitable character list. In particular, all of the 3e preview classes (Barbarian, Monk, and Sorcerer) have *no* representation among the recruitable characters, so a player who wants to see all of them in one playthrough can't without using the multiplayer trick to create new characters (and I wasn't able to get it working on Wine last time I tried).

Also, the power of mages is dependent on what spells the developer tries to implement; they're much less powerful in (non-EE) Icewind Dale, for example. (Icewind Dale mages suffer from a different issue; scroll scarcity, combined with the fact that, for whatever reason, you don't get to choose new spells at level up; Dungeon Hack and I believe Eye of the Beholder also had that issue.) There's also Pool of Radiance, where spellcasters have lower level caps than non-spellcasters (especially bad for clerics, and exacerbates the game's healing issues, where the fastest way to heal in real-time is to rest for weeks at a time).

I could also mention another issue I have with BG2 and other AD&D-based games; the growth system isn't that good, and may be one of the worst ones I've seen. Level ups occur rarely, and even when they do occur, you don't get much choice for most characters; you get extra proficiency points, but if yon don't know what exists, there really isn't a good reason to choose one weapon over another, and I feel the whole weapon proficiency system is more limiting than interesting. (It's more fun when you can use any class-appropriate weapon you come across, rather than be disappointed that you can't effectively use that neat weapon you came across just because you didn't somehow know there would be a good weapon of that type.) There's also the fact that your stats don't grow *at all* when you level up (except HP, but that's RNG, and RNG on level up in a game with limited advancement is a horrible design decision).

Unfortunately you're right. I'm glad Obsidian didn't make such a mistake when creating companions for PoE. But we have to remember that there are mods which ease this disadvantage.

It complies with the rules of tabletop AD&D, but I agree with you that it's quite annoying. Fortunately EE allow to receive max HP per level, if only you choose that option in the game settings.

And I think the rules for tabletop AD&D (particularly earlier editions like used in this game, though I have issues with later editions as well) are not that good, this rule being one example.