How long to beat this and second game if i do everything in them?

[Frostbite]

And do you really need to do that to understand what will be going on in the third game?

[D'amarr from Darshiva]

First of all, Baldur's Gate 3 is not a sequel in terms of continuing the original story. It takes places 120+ years after the second game and is unrelated - except that the city named Baldur's Gate reappears, but doesn't look like the city in the first game.

Overall playtime of BGEE, SoD and BG2EE can be vastly different depending on your personal preferences & playstyle and how much you find & figure out yourself instead of trying to rush through the game following walkthroughs and choosing one of the easier difficulty modes. There's a learning curve (notice the PDF manuals with hundreds of pages!). While you may search the Internet and find some answers about your questions raised in this topic, there's nothing authoritative.

Furthermore, in BG2EE you cannot "do everything" in a single playthrough.

[Wicket W. Warrick]

Originally posted by Frostbite:

And do you really need to do that to understand what will be going on in the third game?

You don't need it for BG3, it is a complete different story.

To beat BG1 and 2 with a completistionist approach it will take 200-300 hours, but it can be more or lesse depending on how you play.
It is no a fully completitionist approach, since expecially in second game there are some alternative choices to take and some class related quests.

[Frostbite]

Originally posted by Wicket W. Warrick:

You don't need it for BG3, it is a complete different story.

Complete different story but it still takes place on the same universe, right? Not a remake(retold) or retcon situation going on?

Also how important the two DLCs in terms of events happening in them being "historical" in the same universe, or being referenced to in the third game? What percentage you would say its safe to skip them?

For example for the Witcher games, there was a single obscure "out of the way" side quest in the very first game that when you did it, a character in that mission would hint at the events that was going to take place in all the way through the third game. And when the time actually came when you were playing the third game, MC would reference back to that initial character that hinted at things.

Thanks in advance.

[Sstavix]

It took me 141.5 hours to get all the achievements in the first game, and 186.3 hours to get all of them in the second game.

But to discover everything in both games? Maybe a thousand hours... if that. There's quite a bit that I didn't cover in my own playthroughs, and I didn't use every single companion or complete every single quest.

[Frostbite]

Originally posted by Sstavix:

It took me 141.5 hours to get all the achievements in the first game, and 186.3 hours to get all of them in the second game.

But to discover everything in both games? Maybe a thousand hours... if that. There's quite a bit that I didn't cover in my own playthroughs, and I didn't use every single companion or complete every single quest.

Its a bit hard to believe that THIS game has 100+ hours of playtime to it. How much of it is mindless grind and artificial time-pump?

[ruppe27]

Doing both games at a normal pace while doing most quests it will take between 150-200 hours for a single playtrough. Ofcourse like others mentioned to see all content the game has to offer it takes multiple playtroughs. It's not necessry for Baldur's gate 3 but I would recommend you give it a try anyway, I might be biased because they are my favourite games but I think they are more enjoyable then 3.

[ruppe27]

Originally posted by Frostbite:

Originally posted by Sstavix:

It took me 141.5 hours to get all the achievements in the first game, and 186.3 hours to get all of them in the second game.

But to discover everything in both games? Maybe a thousand hours... if that. There's quite a bit that I didn't cover in my own playthroughs, and I didn't use every single companion or complete every single quest.

Its a bit hard to believe that THIS game has 100+ hours of playtime to it. How much of it is mindless grind and artificial time-pump?

Better believe it because it's true, the answer to your question is zero, back then they made games filled to the brim with content without a 1000 man development team taking 8 years.

[Frostbite]

Originally posted by ruppe27:

Better believe it because it's true, the answer to your question is zero

Bro it literally can NOT be zero. But even though your comments are obviously biased and glazed with all that fanboy bodily fluid(?), i still will take what you said at face value.

In any case, old games like these are dime a dozen, play one of them, you have played them all. So it shouldnt take too long to objectively judge whether its trash or else. I can just refund it if thats the case.

[Wicket W. Warrick]

Originally posted by Frostbite:

Originally posted by Wicket W. Warrick:

You don't need it for BG3, it is a complete different story.

Complete different story but it still takes place on the same universe, right? Not a remake(retold) or retcon situation going on?

Also how important the two DLCs in terms of events happening in them being "historical" in the same universe, or being referenced to in the third game? What percentage you would say its safe to skip them?

For example for the Witcher games, there was a single obscure "out of the way" side quest in the very first game that when you did it, a character in that mission would hint at the events that was going to take place in all the way through the third game. And when the time actually came when you were playing the third game, MC would reference back to that initial character that hinted at things.

Thanks in advance.

Nothing like that. Same universe and also some same companions. The point is that the protagonist is dfferent, and everything happens many years later.
If you played BG2 you will find some references, but I wouldn't play 300 hours of a game only to get those references. The game is fully enjoyable without having played the 2 previous ones. And anyway there isn't anything in some hidden quests of BG1 and 2, so also if you decide to play you don't need to do it in a completitionist way. It couldn't be different, after 23 years....

[Wicket W. Warrick]

Originally posted by Frostbite:

Its a bit hard to believe that THIS game has 100+ hours of playtime to it. How much of it is mindless grind and artificial time-pump?

Nothing.
Young gamer? Welcome to old school: not necessary better, but that's what palyin was back in the days. Then if you play at very easy difficulty, without a completitionist approach, with a walkthrough or cheating, wthout reading dialogues (and thus without understanding the story) it can be much faster. Playing by the rules, without preknoweledge and trying to do and understand everything requests this time, even more.

[Centurion]

Originally posted by Frostbite:

Originally posted by Wicket W. Warrick:

You don't need it for BG3, it is a complete different story.

Complete different story but it still takes place on the same universe, right? Not a remake(retold) or retcon situation going on?

Also how important the two DLCs in terms of events happening in them being "historical" in the same universe, or being referenced to in the third game? What percentage you would say its safe to skip them?

For example for the Witcher games, there was a single obscure "out of the way" side quest in the very first game that when you did it, a character in that mission would hint at the events that was going to take place in all the way through the third game. And when the time actually came when you were playing the third game, MC would reference back to that initial character that hinted at things.

Thanks in advance.

OK, for starters, bag the whole "third game" jazz. It's not a sequel. It would be better to say it was "inspired by" the first two. It's like comparing the "Dark Knight" to the 1960s "Batman" TV show. Loose similarities (like a cape and a hood) but no real connections. BG3 is a totally different story and gaming system (5e) that is really just cashing in on the popularity of the originals.

The DLC are just that. Since BG 1&2 were complete stories, neither is remotely necessary to the outcome of the main story. Tales of the Sword Coast (which is not really DLC anymore as it has been included with BG1 since the 2nd issue on DVD) adds three adventure areas to give you more fun and experience killing tougher enemies that the main game (and allows you to pick up some rather better gear.) It was designed for players who wanted more challenge and more, well, more (game that is.) It fits reasonably well, but has nothing to do with the main storyline.

Siege of Dragonspear is a different matter. Its designers attempted to integrate it into the main storyline as a bridge between BG1 and BG2. Most players find it a weak story, and very contrived, with exceptionally poor writing (as in 7th grade remedial English.) But it does add some challenging fights (really challenging.) Purists hate it because of both the terrible writing and because it will unbalance the start of BG2 as your main character will be 3-4 levels higher than that game was designed for.

Tales is just additional and much bigger sidequests like those in the original game. (To answer your original question: you can easily skip 2/3rds of the map areas and it won't affect the core quest/story at all.) Siege is a more complete add-on, but one that you can bypass if you choose.

How much time will it all take is totally up to you. There is a walkthrough from a power-gamer that claims you can complete BG1 in only two hours. If you want to visit every map area and do every bonus quest, or just kill random monsters, it can take hundreds of hours, per game! That's one of the beautiful things about these games: you get to choose how you do them, how long it takes, and how much DLC you really want to play, is totally up to you. Personally, I am a completionist. I leave no area unexplored, no fog of war patches left, play all the DLC (and a few mods to boot), and even do Siege while speed-clicking through the dialogue. Each game takes longer than the last one.

[ruppe27]

Originally posted by Frostbite:

Originally posted by ruppe27:

Better believe it because it's true, the answer to your question is zero

Bro it literally can NOT be zero. But even though your comments are obviously biased and glazed with all that fanboy bodily fluid(?), i still will take what you said at face value.

In any case, old games like these are dime a dozen, play one of them, you have played them all. So it shouldnt take too long to objectively judge whether its trash or else. I can just refund it if thats the case.

I'm not your bro, friend.

It is zero, there is no mindless grinding, you are constantly exploring and completing onjectives without having any timewasting content. Play one of them and you have played them all? What nonsense is this, Infinity engine games are unique there isn't anything like them. Why do you think so many people still play these games?

[Sstavix]

Originally posted by Frostbite:

Originally posted by Sstavix:

It took me 141.5 hours to get all the achievements in the first game, and 186.3 hours to get all of them in the second game.

But to discover everything in both games? Maybe a thousand hours... if that. There's quite a bit that I didn't cover in my own playthroughs, and I didn't use every single companion or complete every single quest.

Its a bit hard to believe that THIS game has 100+ hours of playtime to it. How much of it is mindless grind and artificial time-pump?

Each game requires at least two play-throughs - one to complete the game in story mode, and once in the hardest difficulty setting. I did the first game with three; my third playthrough was with a solo character (which is also an achievement), but on the "Normal" difficulty.

BG2 also has those story ones, as well as one where you complete the game with a solitary character. But you also have to get each "core" class up to level 30, and complete the stronghold quests with nearly every class in the game as well. So that certainly adds some time, too.

Fortunately, there is mercifully very little grinding involved. You can get to level 30 simply by going through BG2 to the end with each of your characters (and it has to be the main character, too). To make it easier, you can then import that character into a new party. i did do that with my bard, primarily so I could have her singing support songs and identifying items, but also to serve as an emergency backup in case the rest of the party got overwhelmed (she was actually level 40 well before the end of my second playthrough).

[Frostbite]

Originally posted by ruppe27:

It is zero, there is no mindless grinding, you are constantly exploring and completing onjectives without having any timewasting content. Play one of them and you have played them all? What nonsense is this, Infinity engine games are unique there isn't anything like them. Why do you think so many people still play these games?

"So many people" = barely 200 players. Lmao.

There is always that one retarded fanboy isnt there. Oh well i will just stop taking you seriously. Happy glazing bro.

[balls]

Originally posted by Frostbite:

Originally posted by Sstavix:

It took me 141.5 hours to get all the achievements in the first game, and 186.3 hours to get all of them in the second game.

But to discover everything in both games? Maybe a thousand hours... if that. There's quite a bit that I didn't cover in my own playthroughs, and I didn't use every single companion or complete every single quest.

Its a bit hard to believe that THIS game has 100+ hours of playtime to it. How much of it is mindless grind and artificial time-pump?

It's both games, including SotD and ToB expansions. Not sure about the arena campaigns, didn't play those.