Baldur's Gate 2 is considered the seminal RPG experience for good reasons. That is obvious from the reviews of BG2 on GoG.com alone, mine included.

I have invested well over 200 hours in BG2 so far. It is a blast, if horrendously tedious and woefully obnoxious.

Right now I am fuming. I mean the sort of royally @#$% off that makes me want to hurt something because of the way in which a time constraint just screwed me out of the entirety of one of the game's most lucrative quest lines.

You see, some of the quests are timed. If not completed within a certain number of in-game hours the quest will auto-fail. Granted, I had not paid very close attention when dialog hinted at the quest being timed and I hadn't read the journal entry telling me that I had a limited number of in-game days to do it. Instead, I engaged in an extremely involved dungeon delve that took well more than the allotted time to complete.

By the time I was ready to pursue what I hadn't realized was a timed quest, I had already failed it and ended what is arguably the game's most lucrative quest series permanently and without recourse. Now I could have let this go and carry on regardless. There are still major benefits to be reaped even if one doesn't officially close the quest. Mostly an experience loss. Heck I even could have console'd my way around it. But I felt cheated. I think it's arbitrary and it's just one of those @#$% moves designers pull to defeat players without there being any sort of actual legit challenge, and if I have to program the game myself to "win" it's not worth it IMO. I am also a rather obsessive completionist, so I do not appreciate being denied quest rewards. I don't play games to be tripped up, and those who make them have to value the time I put into them as much as I do.

Biowaste is well known for these spectacular little lapses in judgement. I have often referred to them as the ultimate self-defeatests, because no matter what manner of gold they put out they always seem to inevitably end up pulling some stupid stunt (ME3 ending fiasco, anyone?) like this that completely undermines enjoyment of an otherwise spectacular product.

So, in my rage I feel it necessary to inform any concerned good ol' gamers out there. As great an adventure as it is, Baldur's Gate 2 is not without its pit falls and a blunder like this can completely eradicate any enjoyment that will be had from the game. Not to mention hours of time that I feel I have personally wasted on it. Time that would have been otherwise well spent if it were not for this rather common occurrence. Should it stop you from playing Baldur's Gate 2? Absolutely not. It may not even be an issue for some players if they encounter it and if you have no problem using the console to undo a mess that's fine. Heck, I would be if I wasn't already so exhausted with this game. It is just what I feel is a major issue to consider and beware of.

Baldur's Gate offers some seriously legit challenge but it doesn't always play very fair.

I have held off spoiling the ending because I once thought that I would get to see it. Now, after all is said and done and I have run the gauntlet of the game's challenges, read all the stories and reaped as many of the rewards as the game can provide ... I can't stand to look at it anymore. I wish I could remember it more fondly. Sadly, such is the nature of a great majority of Bioware's work.

Nice rant, but there's no reason for anybody to believe any of it. Why? Because you are accusing the game of doing something without pointing out exactly what it is that it's supposed to have done! In all the years I have been playing BG1/2 I have *never* come across a questline that is fail-able by time alone; there is *always* other factors as to why a quest will be considered 'failed' or 'complete'. Even the poisoning of the entire party in BG1 is only failed if you ignore the obvious warning that's part of the quest.

So then, what is this mysterious questline that has you so riled up?

Wow. I didn't think I would need to mention specifics because I figured it'd be obvious to anyone who has been playing Baldur's Gate for years, but since you had to ask it was the very first quest of the paladin questline.

And it's not just timed quests that are problematic. I "failed" to complete the paladin questline "correctly" before for killing the dragon you're sent to kill for quest experience before I even knew the paladin quests existed. In fact, players are much more likely to encounter that dragon *before* the Radiant Heart because an early quest leads players directly to it. Ironically, this time I timed out the quest for pursuing the Cult of the Eyeless quest which I had previously botched by attacking the cult outright and missed out on a ton of experience and some of the game's best loot.

My ultimate point is that the quest design in BG2 is, well ... bad. And it isn't very well suited for roleplay. My initial reaction to the cult of the eyeless quest was that my character, a paladin, wouldn't stand for their behavior and instead of going through the motions of the quest like the game obviously intends I decided to start doling out justice as I saw fit like the journal and dialog blatantly suggests not realizing that I wouldn't be able to reap the benefits of a vast majority of the entire quest by doing so. The game penalizes for roleplaying.

And this hasn't happened so many times for lack of attention, but rather the game's failure to be explicit and flexible.

BTW, you can fail the first quest in the ranger questline by timing out and you can lose Coran, Minsc, Xar and Montaron, Khalid and Jaheira, and most of the companions in BG1 *just* by timing out. So don't tell me that you have been playing Baldur's Gate for years and "have *never* come across a questline that is fail-able by time alone."

Quest design is a far greater issue in BG2, imo.

Look, it' obvious you have something to say, but I think you will be received a lot better if you dial back on the rage and try to state your points as calmly as possible. Lest you think that I am saying this because I am a fan of this game and don't want to hear you talk, rest assured that I don't care for the BG series to say the least; check the forums and you'll see what I mean, if you need reassurances to that effect.

Honestly, I kind of appreciated the idea that BG1 made characters get impatient if you took them in to the party for a quest and then proceeded to not follow up on that quest; it helped reinforce that you really shouldn't expect to pick up a metric buttload of obligations to members of the party without expecting some friction and encouraged, and it encouraged sensible roleplaying (I mean, come on, if you are going to agree to help someone, you don't agree and proceed to make a point of doing the exact opposite). I question how well the execution worked, but that's a whole other can of worms that I don't want to open at this time.

As for BG2... honestly, I can't say too much about it, since I ragequit very early on after I realized that I was going to be held down and forced to do what would ordinarily be background sidequests before I could get back to the main plot, but I did read the SA LP of the game to both (1) not feel cheated out of the money I spent and (2) avoid talking out of my bum should the topic of BG2 come up. I never got to the Paladin quest, so I really don't have anything to contribute there, but I did make it to the Eyeless Cult quest; I wound up destroying the cult, and am still trying to do research on the alternative solutions, but from what I can gather, you missed out on XP for doing stuff associated with the rod. Could you please elaborate?

*snip* You can not fail the ranger quest by timeout. The only time constraint in that quest is that Minsc will get uppity if you don't go in a timely manner. That doesn't mean the quest will be gone; I NEVER do that quest before picking up Imoen.

You can lose Coran, you can lose Minsc, you can lose Xzar and Montaron, Jaheira and Khalid, but you CANNOT lose the quests that they are associated with. They will ALL still be there, no matter how long you take. You are confusing not having it your own way with failing because of time. You cannot lose quests by timeout, period.

I don't give a fig whether you believe I have been playing for years or not. Not my problem.

Correct. I can confirm that when I played, I picked up the quest before going on a many week long in game holiday rescuing Imoen, and...forgot to do it before leaving. Minsc was extremely upset and I was a bit concerned, until he started cycling back to his initial lines on the matter. The quest didn't time out, and given that that was a large proportion of the entire gaming time of BG2...I think it's fair to say it never will. You probably just didn't see an NPC who would advance the quest, or something.

Or perhaps there was some kind of bug which stopped him appearing?

Wait. [SPOILERS] You aren't referring to the fact that the ranger had already died when you arrived, are you? That's normal, and the character is dead from the beginning of the game.

You can of course fail the ranger quest though time out.
Once you get the orog attack quest, you have 2 or 3 days to complete it or you will fail, the mayor will tell you, you are not suitable. (It happened to me when I played a ranger.

This is not a failure in the questline, it is a failure of the player to react to a life or death threat. When Delon approaches you to tell you about the Orog attack, it is quite plainly stated that the village will be attacked in 3 or 4 days. This is an urgent quest, and it is plain that you cannot shelve it. It's not the same as timing out the first quest, the Ranger stronghold acceptance quest. If you're going to accept a quest and ignore it, it the player's fault, not the game's.

First, I know that everyone's instinct is going to tell them that I am raging. And you're right. I am. Or I was, anyway. I am frustrated about this particular issue in spite of how impressed I was with BG. I was having a great time. But telling me to "dial back" isn't going to help matters and I am being calm and objective, so do not assume otherwise. I really hate having to tell people this. I want to have a calm, rational discussion about this. I honestly want to hear what other people think now that I have made my case. And of course remember that just because someone thinks different from you does not necessarily mean that they think less of you.

Okay? Good.

About your question regarding the Cult of the Eyeless quest. Essentially, yes. And I already explained that situation quite extensively so IDK what else there is to say. If you want particulars on the quest itself I suggest you look it up. It is possible to miss out on a bulk of the item and experience rewards by attempting the quest "your way" instead of the "intended" way, even though the dialog and journal suggest doing so, but they imply that it is not the best course of action. To which I have to wonder why the option even exists in the first place.

Good quest design offers multiple ways to achieve the objective ... or even reach a different outcome with different rewards that should all ideally be of relatively equal value. BG2 does not do this. It even goes so far as to suggest alternate courses of action but then penalizes you for taking them.

Of course one of BGs most memorable features is that companions are scripted with lives of their own and the world doesn't always just wait around indefinitely for you to save it.. That is all well and good and it certainly makes it more engaging when the fiction seems real like that, but I would rather have convenience over realism and all these time limits really add is realism and bother, not challenge.

I understand that you are trying to be calm and objective, but it really didn't come across that way (for instance, your "OK? Good." comes off as being a little passive aggressive). Regardless, I share in your frustration with the BG games, albeit for differing reasons, as I mostly rag on them for the uninteresting story, the awful pathfinding, and the butchering of turn based combat, to name a few reasons.

As for your problem, I did more research and it seems that the XP you missed out on was as a result of not doing certain things to try to bluff your way through the cult to gain evidence before killing them, but I can't determine what equipment you missed as a result of jumping straight to the murder. Either way, I actually don't mind that the game gives experience for doing things a certain way. There's only so much that a character can learn from combat, after all, while holding off on combat and playing double agent is a task that is totally appropriate to give experience for. Hell, that's pretty much how I run my P&P game; the players get more experience for doing things in a more challenging manner, and for a character in D&D, holding off on the murder to engage in subterfuge or at the very least taking a minute to gather intelligence before wading in to combat is practically an ordeal.

All in all, it comes down to different expectations. You want to be able to RP your character how you want and have a roughly equivalent outcome, at least as far as rewards and experience go, but the game operates under the school of thought that RP has its consequences. It's not an uncommon difference in expectations; I'm running a Planescape game right now where the PCs can't engage in too much wanton violence without making some serious enemies in the Hive, and the fighter's player expressed some concern that I wasn't respecting the player's freedom. My response is that the player should be free to do what they want, but that they should be prepared for the world to react to their actions in a logical manner, meaning their preferred method of addressing a problem might get them in trouble with the law or peeve off the person who hired them.

Take Planescape Torment, for instance; in that game, if you take on the quest to help Reekwind, you must not under any circumstances kill the mark after he hexes you, or you will be stuck with hiccups forever, which will screw you over. Yes, your character may be the type who ordinarily solves their problems with violence, but making good on a threat to kill him is something you cannot do if you want to avoid the consequences. I get that people like to play their characters however they like, but in this case (a) it tries to drive home the point that TNO should be attempting to curb some of his more violent tendencies for future cases where killing someone will destroy their only lead, and (b) situations like this illustrate that while a character may have a particular way of acting, the circumstances occasionally require the character to adopt a new strategy to prevail; a game world where the universe bends over backwards to accommodate player choice without recognizing that certain options have less than optimal consequences is an inorganic one.

tl;dr: sometimes a quest requiring that a character act in a certain way to get a better reward is ok. Not sure how I feel about the Cult quest, though, since the consequences of not trying to infiltrate the cult doesn't seem to have been signposted, whereas the Reekwind quest provides warning of the consequences.

You make a good point and I like seeing this in RPGs, although I am not so sure it is better to deny players rewards for acting a certain way but rather it is better that the game react appropriately, even with repercussions. In Elder Scrolls, for instance, you can go on crime sprees and reap some serious benefits but you draw the ire of citizens, shop keeps and guards who can levy fines and make it difficult to trade. There is a thrill in getting away with it, but if you get caught it is your fault. The game doesn't say, "Thou Shalt Not." It says, "Here's what can happen."

BG2 just says, "No. That is not the correct way. No soup for you."

If you're referring to missing out on experience, again, that's something that's present in other RPGs, and giving differing amounts of experience for certain actions is something I'm ok with. Take PST again; you could kill the goons who have stolen the monk's prayer beads, but you get far more experience by avoiding bloodshed by tricking them to give the beads back without a fight. Again, one course of action is easier to fall back on than the other, and taking a more unconventional path is rewarded with extra experience. As far as the gear, I can't tell from my research, but is there any way you can get to the ancient temple and get the shield without playing along? I see references to a key, which seems to indicate you should be able to loot one of the cultists for it, but I'm not entirely sure.

Well, that could be the case but I don't know. I don't know if that key drops if you kill the NPC who has it. But I do know that another portion of that dungeon is accessed through dialog with another NPC. Killing him before initiating the dialog that provides access will deny access to that section. I know this for fact because it is what happened to me that time. The cursor does not indicate stairs over the transition area. Contextually that NPC provides access to that area, but as far as I'm concerned if I kill him I shouldn't have to have his permission anymore.
I don't really appreciate this in PST either. I don't see how an unconventional path should net greater reward. It encourages a specific roleplay approach, but if I want to play Nameless as a dumb thug I think that is well within a players right and should not be penalized. And navigating dialog is seldom as easy as combat. The game should give bonus rewards to players who take on additional challenge, not for taking whatever the game deems the 'unconventional' approach.

Because certain approaches are more rewarding to character growth than killing. To grossly misquote Casino Royale, "any PC can kill at the first sign of difficulty", but taking alternative paths inherently demand more of the character in terms of restraint and creative thinking. If experience is supposed to represent what the character has learned (which is the way XP is explained in P&P), I can't see a character learning anything or evolving nearly as fast if all they do is act like a thug. If CRPGs allowed for more creative uses of combat to disable people or otherwise do something other than hitting things until they die, I could see giving more experience for certain combat related actions, but as it stands, killing in these games is a fairly brainless process.

To use your Casino Royale example, Craig's Bond is portrayed as a dumb thug. He is not the witty creative iterations of Bond that have come before, yet he still gets the job done and he is still a proficient killer.

"If CRPGs allowed for more creative uses of combat to disable people or otherwise do something other than hitting things until they die, I could see giving more experience for certain combat related actions, but as it stands, killing in these games is a fairly brainless process."

True, but there is a discrepancy between what the player is capable of and what the character is capable of. Statistical character growth measure's character proficiency. Even if the player doesn't unlock new combat moves or techniques, it can still be said that the character is becoming more proficient at what he does. Hence, as Nameless swings a hammer he becomes better at it. How exactly he becomes better at it doesn't necessarily have to be defined, but one could naturally assume that he learns feints and parries, blocks and other more expert fighting techniques even if the player is not made aware of them. Same can be said for learning how to be a smooth talker. Figuring out how to read facial expressions or perfecting ones poker face. Or breaking locks. Sneaking around. Why should the stealth or diplomacy approach be considered preferable to a violent approach? Just because violence is bad doesn't mean players should be penalized for fighting. I can be just as much of a jerk with words as I can with my fist anyway. And if I want to play a jerk I should be able to.