 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Lord Merciless
|
|
I spent a total of 85 hours playing through BG2 the first time without looking up any strategy guides. I think BG2 is far more interesting and challenging than BG1 in terms of combat. But once you know how its magic system works, it's like a cake walk. In the final battle against Irenicus, I beat the crap out of him in my first attempt, something not very common in boss battles.
In BG1, archers(not the Archer kit) rule. Having Coran and Kivan in your party, you can literally kick everything's butt except Doom Guards and Battle Horrors. If they are not enough, let your dual-classed thief->mage Imoen summon a "Wall of Monsters" or your cleric Branwen get a few Skeletons up. Coran and Kivan just have to sit back to pick their targets at pleasure. Aec'Lectec, Demon Knight, Sarevok, all were no match against this tactic. In a sense, it can be said that combats are too monotonic in BG1.
In BG2, magics and spells are dominating to the point at which you can easily solo(play without any NPC in your party) the game with a Sorceror or a Mage. It becomes fairly easy to slay a Dragon with a single mage.
But in Throne of Bhaal(ToB, the sequal to BG2), melee fighters become the dominating class. In my first time though ToB, my party was overly magic oriented, and had to reload several times to beat the final battle. For my second time, I loaded the party with 4 fighters, and the final battle became a cake walk.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:24. Apolyton Time is 00:24. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|