Unfortunate BG3 has less content than BG2....

[Tentacule Un Seigneur]

I am enjoying BG3, beat it twice so far, but I just can't help but compare it to all the times I played BG2, and while it is voiced, and with better graphics...there was just so much MORE in BG2, from places to visit, to characters to interact with, to items and equipment you can obtain.

While I am enjoying it, I cannot help but feel BG3 is a sub par sequel when compared to it's predecessor.

(For reference: My idea of a "Good" sequel, is one that is equal to, or superior to, the game that came before it in a series, in all quantifiable aspects, but in particular those aspects which are the primary draw of the game series in question)

[mapamapa]

There is a lot more content in BG2. Only reason BG3 is long is because the turn based fights take such a long time.

[ShadowDark3]

I kind of appreciate that BG3 didn't have more content. 100 hours is a lot of time to devote to a single play through.

[Ruffio]

Originally posted by Tentacule Un Seigneur:

Originally posted by Ruffio:

If you assume you at around level 10 around Moonrise. Not sure your level 10 dudes want to tangle with a level 18 spell caster that a LICH is in D&D though.

Sure I would, as long as there was some item I could get to give me a fighting chance, or if he had been corrupted by the shadows weakening his undeath spell, that is part of the fun of D&D, you can encounter things higher than your level, but circumstances can lead to it being a viable encounter.....or you can encounter a possessed squirrel that can murder your berserker.

No... just your level 10 dudes, and a level 18 LICH spell caster... How fun would that be? A Lich encounter wouldn't be any special if you had some "Mary Sue" ability. Asking for encounters that is outside the scope of the level of your characters doesn't make for fun.

[Daniel]

Originally posted by Tentacule Un Seigneur:

Originally posted by larhtas:

@OP If you compare how many hours you need to finish both games you will realize that it is not very true.

I am not talking about how many hours you need to finish both games, but the total sum of things to do, places to go, and characters/monsters to encounter.

For instance, a completely optional event in BG2 lets you encounter and fight a Demi-Lich.

You can't even fight a regular Lich in BG3 (I was CONVINCED there would be one hiding in the Shadow Lands around Moonrise somewhere......but nope)

BG3 is a low-level campaign, ofc you don’t fight liches.

[Baldurs_Gate_2]

Both good games. Wouldn't say, BG2 has much more content, except if you count ToB in. The lvl cap hurts BG3, but if they would increase it, they have to buff chapter 3 in terms of difficulty.

[Tentacule Un Seigneur]

Originally posted by Daniel:

Originally posted by Tentacule Un Seigneur:

I am not talking about how many hours you need to finish both games, but the total sum of things to do, places to go, and characters/monsters to encounter.

For instance, a completely optional event in BG2 lets you encounter and fight a Demi-Lich.

You can't even fight a regular Lich in BG3 (I was CONVINCED there would be one hiding in the Shadow Lands around Moonrise somewhere......but nope)

BG3 is a low-level campaign, ofc you don’t fight liches.

And yet you face a Apostle of Myrkul......

[DYNIA]

bg2 was much bigger

[ShadowDark3]

Originally posted by Tentacule Un Seigneur:

Originally posted by Daniel:

BG3 is a low-level campaign, ofc you don’t fight liches.

And yet you face a Apostle of Myrkul......

Exactly, an avatar of Myrkul, not Myrkul himself.

[Tentacule Un Seigneur]

Originally posted by ShadowDark3:

Originally posted by Tentacule Un Seigneur:

And yet you face a Apostle of Myrkul......

Exactly, an avatar of Myrkul, not Myrkul himself.

Pretty sure the level of threat should be something like.
Lich<Apostle of Myrkul<Demi-Lich<Myrkul Himself

Just a apostle of a god of death seems even less of a low level campaign enemy than a Lich with some debuffs.

[phantommail]

Originally posted by mapamapa:

There is a lot more content in BG2. Only reason BG3 is long is because the turn based fights take such a long time.

Without TOB ? Absolutely not. It's hard to say for sure but difference is not that big in any case. Time to beat for both games is roughtly equal ( at least according to howlongtobeat.com )
And battles in BG3 even on tactician are not that long.

[retsam1]

Originally posted by Tentacule Un Seigneur:

Originally posted by Flan:

I don't remember BG2 having that much more, do you mean BG2 with the expansion pack as well?



These things are related.

Examples: You could create your own base, for the wizard you could find a orb shaped inter planar vessel with a menagerie of things within, and claim ownership of it, though that was a quest in it's own right.

You could explore not just the Underdark, but a Drow kingdom, and even a underground water based aquatic kingdom.

Both BG3 and BG2 had a "circus" in Baldur's Gate event........but the one in BG2 was much more interesting with a whole lot of strangeness involved, and could recruit a character there. The circus in BG3 doesn't even have a tent.

FAR more variety in equipment and weapons (Though, that in part was because the models were simpler due to the lesser graphics.)

There are quite a few other things, but will end it there. Though do note, I am enjoying BG3.....just......I keep feeling melancholic, wanting it to be more.

You do know the circus in act 3 has plenty of strangeness, even sending you to chult briefly. A romance arc mini questionaire situation and cuts scenes. A combat encounters. A way to make a perm bless buff for your main with a statue, and plenty more.

Essentially the content differences are just that, differences. And you're basically just not into the differences. No shame in that but declaring there's quantitatively less is not compelling.


Also according to this thread you made today:

https://steamcommunity.com/app/1086940/discussions/0/5374541530386943321/

You've not even reached act 3 year so that also sort of skews your knowledge of the content offered...

Originally posted by Ruffio:

Originally posted by Tentacule Un Seigneur:

Sure I would, as long as there was some item I could get to give me a fighting chance, or if he had been corrupted by the shadows weakening his undeath spell, that is part of the fun of D&D, you can encounter things higher than your level, but circumstances can lead to it being a viable encounter.....or you can encounter a possessed squirrel that can murder your berserker.

No... just your level 10 dudes, and a level 18 LICH spell caster... How fun would that be? A Lich encounter wouldn't be any special if you had some "Mary Sue" ability. Asking for encounters that is outside the scope of the level of your characters doesn't make for fun.

We actually do encounter a lich in act 1 and it can very much go terribly wrong it you tease them that they're not very powerful...

[Quacksalber]

re. Lich, we get the mummy guy in act 3.

[retsam1]

Originally posted by EH!:

re. Lich, we get the mummy guy in act 3.

That's a mummy lord not a gen pop mummy btw. We also get a vampire lord in act 3 but again we encounter a lich in act 1 just some either never realize it or dont seem to count it(as we dont actually kill it but it can kill us) and no im not referrring to withers who is the god of death Jeral either.

[Quacksalber]

Originally posted by retsam1:

Originally posted by EH!:

re. Lich, we get the mummy guy in act 3.

That's a mummy lord not a gen pop mummy btw. We also get a vampire lord in act 3 but again we encounter a lich in act 1 just some either never realize it or dont seem to count it(as we dont actually kill it but it can kill us) and no im not referrring to withers who is the god of death Jeral either.

Who do you mean?

[Quacksalber]

We also get to kill a devil. @ anyone who loves killing Liches, I recommend Pillars of Eternity 1 &2.