Why are there so few areas in bgII rather than bgI?

Sorry, Crawl. I didn't mean to give you a complex. I just meant that they received a lot of feedback from others who have a similar view. They then tailored the sequel to suit the overall feelings of the majority of players. This is as it should be. They are in the business to sell games, and if most people want a more streamlined wilderness crossing, then that is what the company will give them, and did. See Crawl, you are in the majority this time, as was evidenced by how the sequel was done, and IWD too, I might add.

Back to my point, they could have allowed the streamlined travel, with only the odd random encounter, while also allowing for the detailed crossing. I realize that this would have increased the size of the game, but it could have been done. In this way, those who wish a streamlined game can play that way, and those who wish to walk over every inch of Faerun are allowed to do that too.

[This message has been edited by Baldak Oakfist (edited October 29, 2001).]

 

What? Getting way-layed by slavers in Athkatla isn't good enough for you guys?

 

Weighing each game, I think BG1 actually had a more powerful grip on my gaming time, at least at first. Once I got past certain points in BG2 I was equally hooked. The thing about BG1 was, if you played it first I suppose, you just had no freaking clue as to what was going on or what you were doing. You just cruised around, meeting people and finally figuring out how to get to the next chapter. I don't genrally have a whole lot of time to play these games, and BG1 took me almost a year to finish. I left no stone unturned, I suppose. Bg2 felt overly scripted at points and directed you more to the next sub-plot, but it was awesome. SOA was totally incredible I thought, too.