Originally posted by skywise I dunno what all you critics like about BG2 so much
I found BG2 was mostly about running around looking for more incredible boring dialogue in the hope of starting a quest or finding some clue...and o my god once every 3 or 4 hours of gameplay there was actually combat
Don't know what game you were playing--maybe you played it for, what, 2 hours?--because there are huge stretches of BG2 that are nothing but combat: the Druid area, the Windspear Hills, the thief quests against Bodhi, Korgan's quest for the necromantic book, the Cult of the Unseeing Eye, the whole Spellhold chapter, all of the Underdark, the Sahaugin City...you know, if you were to say the same thing about PS:T played as a mage, I'd agree with you, but not BG2.
It offered nonstop action, in much greater variety than DS, and with much cleverer puzzles along the way. I have to say, too, I really liked the opportunity to choose among a group of quests and a range of combat/exploration zones, than just be herded in one direction (which is DS). I like that non-linear feeling in BG2. I also like the opportunity to choose sides in a major conflict--which, again, is lacking from DS, but present in BG2.
Not that DS lacks good qualities at all: it's beautiful, the skill system is sweet, spell effects are great, the music is fantastic...but it's just one, long group of hurdles in a single direction, with no choices at all. The charm wears off, all too soon, for me.
No offense to those who enjoy it. But really, it should be possible to prefer DS without badmouthing BG2 is exposing a lack of knowledge about the latter.