So here I am, playing BG2 one more time after quite a few years (this time the EE). And the game despite the passage of time is still fantastic. The amount of diverse quests, dialogue writing, interesting items (most of the magic items have a unique background!) is probably unbeatable by any other cRPG that came out in the past 20 years. At the start of 2nd chapter we're flooded by side quests and it takes some time to get back on the surface. ;) Especially when many of the side quests take an hour or so to complete. This is uncommon for other cRPG's. Main story also has its great moments. It is probably the best cRPG in history of gaming and one of the best games ever. The only thing that's clearly outdated is graphics. But we can live with that, don't we? :) So sorry Namless One, sorry Geralt... There's someone better out there...

I personally still have to give the crown to Planescape: Torment for the best cRPG, but I do agree that BG2 is up there in the Top 5. :)

Is it better than 1? The graphics bother me.

You can play the Enhanced Edition. In lieu of that, you can also try BG: Tutu, or BG Trilogy.

I usually simply avoid talking about BG2, but here it goes:

Baldur's Gate 2: t̶h̶e̶ ̶P̶h̶a̶n̶t̶o̶m̶ ̶M̶e̶n̶a̶c̶e̶ Shadows of Amn is the biggest disappointment since my son... and I don't even have one.

Stop triggering me.

And that's why I tend to avoid discussing BG2.

I wasn't being serious. I was joking.

Oh, okay then. I'm just used to being vastly outnumbered and "not welcome" shall I say, in this regard.

If there's a better cRPG than BG2, it's PT in my opinion. :) You can add Fallout 2 to the list as well. The Witcher 3 is also a good candidate, but it's so different from these three games that I have doubts whether we should compare them directly. It's better in every aspect. The graphics are basically the same, if we're talking about the EE. So what disappointed you so much in BG2? Do you like BG1?

Not to make this post overly long, I'll just make a list. This is just my opinion, I fully acknowledge that this is a beloved game by many. It's just not for me. I do like BG1 though, it's my favourite game and I've been playing it since 1999, that's why I call BG2 a disappointment. This is probably also one of the main reasons, why I don't like it. Anyway, here's a list from the top of my head:

- Dragons - don't like them in pretty much any game. They're overused and boring. Fighting them pretty much always doesn't make sense, why don't they just burn the group from above? I would prefer if in the game there was just one dragon and you can't even fight it that's how poweful it is, just like the Lady of Pain.
- Romances - borderline cringe. I prefer simply companionship between characters than a love story, ugh.
- Irenicus / main story - too much emo (trying too hard to be dark) for my taste. The whole Shadows of Amn feels like a huge sidequest from the Bhaalspawn and Alaundo's prophecy.
- High level mage combat - makes most other classes than a mage/sorcerer almost useless.
- No useful thief NPC, overall a small choice of potential party members. Yes, they're more developed, but this is no PS:T, where you can talk your way out of most situations.
- The artstyle in general: character animations (I still can't wrap my head around the fact that they've made them way inferior to the previous game, they're even mirrored), paperdolls, portraits, areas (why co many circles?), items (why so many spikes?).

I'll stop here, cause this is already too long. I'm not trying to say that BG2 is a bad game. I really tried to enjoy it and did in certain moments, finished it all the way through. It's not for me, unfortunately.

It's definitely my favorite RPG and one of my top favorite games ever. I don't mind the old graphics, while the characters could look a little bit better, some of the background art is just quite gorgeous.

Not trying to convert you or anything, but I just thought it'd be nice to share some discussion over your points. :)

1. Dragons - This I actually agree with! I have yet to play an RPG where I felt they did dragon combat exactly right. So far the closest they've come is the battles against the High Dragons in Dragon Age: Origins (the dragon combats in DA2 and onwards feel a bit too... "action movie" for my taste), but even so it does seem a bit strange that the Dragons, as intelligent as they are, wouldn't simply take to the air and just constantly strafe the ground with their breath weapons and spells until all opposition is destroyed. (I fully admit that it's due to limitations in game engines and "that just wouldn't be fun for the player" reasons, but the DM in me will always be vaguely dissatisfied with dragon fights as a result.

2. Out of curiosity, have you/would you play games that have romance as a central theme of the gameplay (i.e. visual novels) or do you just prefer not to have romances in your games at all?

3. Ironically, you might actually like the SoD's depiction of Irenicus more than the SoA version. In that game, Irenicus is more of a "mysterious stranger" who seems almost beneficent towards you. (Outside of one particular travel encounter, that is.) He provides you with small hints and information that assist you in your quest, and while he may chide or berate you for certain decisions, he seems to want you to succeed for some inscrutable purpose. This is a bit strange considering his goals and motivations in SoA, as if he'd taken a sudden turn for the worst towards Evil. SoD Irenicus seems more "callously Neutral" than outright Evil.

4. This I would say is one of the biggest weaknesses (although some might call it a strength and a selling point) of the 2nd Ed AD&D system; different classes peak at different points in their levels. Rogues and archer types tend to be crazily dangerous at lower levels, while Mages tend to be nigh-indestructible at high levels if given sufficient preparation. While I think that this affords AD&D a unique experience between classes ("Yeah, my mage sucks now, but just wait till I hit level 20!"), I think that from a gameplay and design perspective, it is not an ideal system for constructing a well-balanced RPG, because it means that, at different stages in their play experience, there will be players who are going, "Ugh, why am I struggling so much? This game isn't fun anymore!"

5. I do agree that outside of Yoshimo, there's no real great Thief candidate in BG2 unless you're playing EE (and have access to Hexxat, but she's obviously also out of the running if you're a Good character). The upside is that you generally don't need Thieves beyond a certain level and Imoen can fill in in a pinch when boosted by spells and some potions, but then again, this goes back to my point above about certain classes peaking at certain points.

6. I didn't have many complaints about the artstyle in BG (I liked the BG2 portrait style much more than the BG1 style, for instance), but if you mean that armor and weapons tended to look abnormally spiky or with too many decorations (like the various enchanted staves) to be actually useful in combat, then yeah, I do agree with you there. I like my gear to look stylish, yet functional, not overly exaggerated.

I'll add a couple:

- BG1 is raw exploration where you know you're just a nobody. BG2 is MOAR, BIGGA. Hell, I'm surprised they didn't put girder sized swords in it.

- BG1 is free-roam heaven. BG2 is railroaded. Outside of Athkatla you can't go anywhere (virtually) without discovering it. Trademeet is a town like Beregost. D'Arnise keep is a fort like the Gnoll fortress. But where is the countryside in between? It doesn't exist.

Can't agree more about the sprites, combat, mages... well, everything you said.

Romances are always cringeworthy in games because they're so hard to write well. I wouldn't mind them IF they were written by professional romance (NOT Mills and Boon) writers.

FR is a standard fantasy setting. That's why we see standard dragons during gameplay. It's hardly a flaw. It resembles a situation where you accuse a table of not being a chair. I agree dragons are fantasy cliches, but it's the same for elves, dwarfs and so on.

You can end romances in the first romance dialogue that you encounter. Viconia romance is written quite well however. Keep in mind that BG2 is one of the first cRPGs that introduce romance relationships with companions. And when you're one of the pioneers, not everything can be polished as you want it to be.

Are you talking about mages controlled by player or hostile ones encountered during playthrough? Mages are overpowered in AD&D. That's a fact I'm not going to discuss. It's possible to solo the game with a Sorcerer. But I wouldn't say that other classes become useless. Duel with a high-level hostile mage can get nasty, if you don't have someone to deliver physical blow right after you take down the enemy's protection spells. Of course you can win the duel simply by reloading the game until you kill the mage, but we're not talking here about this particular tactic.

That's probably the biggest disadvantage of original BG2. Jan Jansen and Imoen do their job however. And there's Hexxat in EE. A very interesting companion and a single-class thief. Original BG2 lacks also companions that have newly introduced classes. I'm talking here about Monks, Sorcerers and Barbarians. EE fills the gap only for Monks.

I prefer quality over quantity in this case. BG1 companions had only a few dialogue lines. Those in BG2 are more developed as you pointed and the storytelling profits from it greatly.
That's how it looks in D&D when you get high-level characters. :) Don't expect that a 10th level character will fear some kobolds that get in his way.

It's a matter of a different gameplay style. BG1 exploration can get a little boring after you visit some wilderness areas. Of course there are some quests that you can gather while visiting these areas, but they're mostly simple and don't require you to visit other locations. Locations from BG2 are less generic and thus more interesting for me.

That's a nice idea. I would definitely want to see something like that. :)