GameBanshee Forums

I was going to post this on the thread comparing BG1 to BG2. But after thinking about it a bit I thought it's be more appropriate as a separate thread.

I just finished Planescape Torment, following Dan Simpson's detailed walkthrough. The hints and tips there allowed me to finish at a respectable level. So I thought, "Hey! What if I follow his walkthrough for BG1? I'm sure I'll get a helluva lot more out of the game than before." Besides, I always imagine there's some new story line which just the right words to the right character will open.

When I first played the game I tried to follow Gamespot's walkthrough. Adequate, but confusing. And apparently intended more to get the player through the story than character development.

The one thing I like about BG1 is the freedom to wander about many outdoor settings. Sure, they may get to be redundant, almost formulaic. But, Jeez. You can almost feel the breeze in your hair and smell the flower pixels in virtual fields. And then there are those ambient sounds through the earphones. How many times I've looked around for the bird I heard.

But after the swift and easy level-ups in PST the slow pace of BG1 is very frustrating. I've slaughtered half the known world, and I'm still only a level 4 fighter. And I think PST's dialogue options are far more sophisticated and interesting than the simple back and forth in BG1. Oh, and I hate that the game doesn't remain paused when you go into a character's inventory.

And the black bears. I just feel for those poor dumb beasts. I just give them a wide berth, 'cause I really don't want to kill them. I always imagine a den full of cubs somewhere nearby. Brown bears, however . . .

They're two quite different, but equally enjoyable games. PS:T plays more like a novel whereas BG1 allows you a lot of freedom. Gamespot's walkthrough is adequate for the main plot, but you're doing yourself a disservice if you don't explore. This game wasn't designed to handle the really high levels of Torment - if you're at level 4 halfway through the main plot, you're doing fine. If you haven't already, I strongly recommend getting the expansion, Tales of the Sword Coast - it adds a dungeon that rivals Watcher's Keep in BG2 and a bunch of cool items.

Originally posted by Sojourner
They're two quite different, but equally enjoyable games. PS:T plays more like a novel...

I found PS:T very non-linear, within discrete chapters that added new areas. It's only later in the game that you find yourself limited to specific areas and objectives. Admittedly, this makes it more linear than BG1, but still it's a far cry from, say, the IWD series.

The more I read about Ps:T, the more I want to try it. I will probably buy it at some point, but I can't just yet. I am still curious about aspects of it. Apparently, BGI is still the only BIS game with those great open wilderness areas that everyone loves, but how does combat compare? Is it simalar to BG, mostly offering a diversion from the task at had, (save for the occasional vampiric wolf ), or is it more technical and challenging like IwD? Also, is TNO alone, does he meet party members a la BG, or is it a char. free-for-all at the start like IwD? Which game's aspects of the above comparisons do you all prefer?

I'll repeat the message you've been reading: Baldur's Gate and Torment have completely different objectives.

As Sojourner has already said, playing Torment is like reading a novel (an INTERACTIVE novel). Furthermore, Torment reflects the nature of the Planes: anything is possible. Characters can simply will themselves to be stronger, and it actually works. (Look at Dak'kon, Morte, Nordom, and Vhailor as well as the Nameless One.) When it comes to the Nameless One's development, you're essentially dealing with a demi-god who has accumulated experience throughout hundreds of lifetimes. The point of the game, in part, is to put the "broken man" back together again and recover lost memories and awaken lost powers. Recovered memories are worth far more experience than physical combat. On a point-by-point-basis, if all the experience you gained was the value of the individual monsters you killed, you wouldn't advance nearly as far as you do from earning quest experience points. That makes the Nameless One's development unique. You can't really expect the same thing in other role-playing games.

Interplay had the luxury of being able to focus on modifying the game engine rather than having to build it entirely from scratch. Bioware, on the other hand (which is a small company) had to spend most of their resources developing the game engine and making it work the way it was supposed to. Unfortunately, that meant they couldn't spend as much time writing dialogue as they would have liked. What they achieved was a game that brought pen-and-paper D&D to the computer like no other before it. That's a significant achievement.

Baldur's Gate has an interesting plot and interesting characters, but first and foremost, it was intended to be just like a pen-and-paper D&D game, with a strong focus on combat. As such, your progress in the game will be about the same as it would be if you were playing a game of D&D. Look at the experience cap. By the time you finish the game, your character is only supposed to have about 90,000 experience points (160,000 if you install the expansion pack). If you remove the level cap and go beyond that, you're unbalancing the game. It can still be a lot of fun if you do that, but that's not the way it was intended to be played. The monsters are fairly modest and the advancement is slow compared to a game like Torment. In Baldur's Gate, you have to earn your experience blow-by-blow and you have to follow the rules every step of the way. D&D purists like it that way, because it puts things on a scale that they're familiar with.

The makers of Torment felt no such constraint. You can gain special powers just by biting off your own finger or getting a tattoo. You walk side-by-side with fiends and devas and encounter creatures of myth. A game setting that crosses the Planes makes the Sword Coast seem very tiny in comparison. I'm not sure how D&D purists felt about it, but I'm sure a lot of them looked at Torment in dismay and said, "What IS this crap?"

I'm not sure how I would have felt about Baldur's Gate if I had played it after playing Torment. I suppose it might have seemed a bit limited. But I'm sure I still would have enjoyed it, just the same.

First, BG1 is by Bioware, not BIS. BIS did PS:T, and the IWD games. Easy to confuse.

If I understand you correctly, you want to know if the game's orientation is combat-driven, or whether combat is part of several other features such as exploration and character development--right? If so, I'd say that PS:T is closer to the BG series than the IWD series. Some people will tell you that PS:T has less combat than any of 'em, but that's inaccurate. You can configure PS:T to have quite a bit of BG-style combat, or somewhat less depending upon how much weight you give to the Intelligence and Wisdom scores of your character.

Originally posted by Skooter327
The more I read about Ps:T, the more I want to try it... how does combat compare? Is it similar to BG, mostly offering a diversion from the task at had, (save for the occasional vampiric wolf ), or is it more technical and challenging like IwD? Also, is TNO alone, does he meet party members a la BG, or is it a char. free-for-all at the start like IwD? Which game's aspects of the above comparisons do you all prefer?

I'll try not to spoil anything.

First of all, there are seven NPCs who can join your party. IMO, it's to your advantage to have as many of them in your party as possible. In a sense, you're very limited in your choice of main character. You'll always be playing the Nameless One. He always starts the game as a Fighter, and he can't be multi-classed. On the other hand, you can distribute his stat points any way you like, and you can make him any kind of character you want him to be. If you want him to be a gentle-spirited Lawful Good pacifist, you can do that. If you want him to be a mean-tempered, Chaotic Evil warrior who kills everything in his path, you can do that, too. The game is extremely versatile.

I want to emphasize that the game is versatile, but at the same time, it's also linear in some respects. How you meet the joinable NPCs is a good example. You start the game with one NPC in your party. You can meet another one shortly after that by traveling to a different area. You might never meet him if you don't look for him, but he's very easy to find. (Where do you normally meet fellow adventurers? A tavern, right?) The next NPC you meet joins your group by default in the next "chapter". You can meet her earlier than that, but she won't join. (I just love the first thing she ever says to you.) The next NPC can be found in the next "chapter". You have to complete a small quest before she'll join you. In the same "chapter", you can gain another party member by completing a small quest to "rescue" him, and another NPC is hidden away in a place where you might never find him unless you look really hard. The next NPC can be found in the next "chapter". He shouldn't be too hard to find.

The combat seems very tame in comparison to the combat in BG2. I guess it's similar to the combat in BG1, with two exceptions. First of all, only one character in the game can use missile weapons, so that eliminates the strategy a lot of people use in BG1. (I didn't use ranged weapons very much in BG2.) Also, you probably won't be using many spells until you're about a third or maybe even halfway through the game. I really don't think the combat is all that "technical" or evem all that challenging, but a lot of people seem to disagree with me on that. You won't be using Chain Contingency spells or even a lot of multiple buffing spells even if you have a 40th Level Mage, so I don't think it's very "technical". One thing that's different about Torment is that when spells are cast, the game pauses the action to show the spell animations, which are actually short cut-scenes. They're very cool.

As far as plot goes, the Nameless One starts out with a very vague overall goal and a couple of specific short-term goals. You'll learn what the short-term goals are in the first five minutes of the game: look for a man who can answer some questions, and look for your lost journal. You're going to feel very disoriented at first, so clearly, you want to find out what happened to the Nameless One before he lost his memories. IMO, the game creates a sense of urgency by exaggerating non-existent dangers. I suppose the purpose is to motivate you and point you in the right direction, but I say you should relax and take your time. Enjoy the humor, and look at all the angles.

IMO, the game fails to make something clear, but it's important to the plot: the Nameless One has an enemy who sends "assassins" to kill him, and you want to find that enemy. Maybe I was just overlooking the obvious; namely, the Nameless One has been killed (he wakes up on a slab in the Mortuary), so that means he has a killer, and that means you want to find his killer. I never thought it was that big a deal, because the "assassins" aren't like the bounty hunters in BG1. (I don't want to spoil it; you'll see what I mean.) I guess you're supposed to feel like you're being chased or else you might not feel like there's anything for you to do. Trust me, there are plenty of things for you to do, and you don't have to rush.

BTW, when you watch the opening movie where the Nameless One is on a slab and a zombie is pushing it inside the Mortuary, don't assume like I did that the Mortuary had anything to do with the Nameless One's death. Not everyone is trying to kill you. After playing BG1/BG2, I was in the habit of thinking that all undead creatures want to kill you, but they're not like that in Torment. You can even have a great rapport with the undead in Torment if you want. (Look at Morte.) I was really touched when the Nameless One encountered a sad zombie who was crying, and of course I wanted to help her. Think about the way we treat corpses in real life: we have a lot of respect for the bodies of our loved ones. It's a pity we don't have as much respect for creatures we see in role-playing games. Just because they're re-animated in Torment doesn't make them monsters.

In a way, you're supposed to be solving "puzzles" and looking for clues abut the Nameless One's past, but the "big picture" is even bigger than that, and that's what I like the most about the game. You're not just solving typical RPG riddles; you're also getting a genuine education. I really like that.

Originally posted by fable
Some people will tell you that PS:T has less combat than any of 'em, but that's inaccurate. You can configure PS:T to have quite a bit of BG-style combat, or somewhat less depending upon how much weight you give to the Intelligence and Wisdom scores of your character.

Just to clarify things, here's how it works. Except for the street thugs who come after you and the mindless monsters you run into, every encounter begins with a conversation before anyone turns hostile. You can select conversation options that make the other party turn hostile, or alternatively, there are conversation options that let you settle things peacefully (in most cases). Sometimes the peaceful options aren't available unless your WIS or your INT or your CHA is high enough. That's because the game does "stat checks" when you have a conversation. Characters with low WIS, INT, and CHA will tend to end up in more fights than characters who meet the stat requirements for the peaceful options (although everyone is free to be violent if they wish). If you're playing a big, beefy Fighter, you probably WANT to get into more fights.

Stat checks are also made on other stats sometimes. For example, the game might give you the dialogue option, "Reach behind him and snap his neck." If you try to do that, the game will check your DEX. If it's high enough, you'll succeed. If it's too low, you won't succeed. (This means you can kill someone just by selecting a dialogue option; in order to do it, you don't have to get into a fight the normal way.) If you get into, say, an arm-wrestling contest with another opponent, the game will check your STR to determine whether you win or lose. Characters with high DEX and STR will tend to take a different course than characters who are not as strong and nimble. If that's the way you prefer to distribute your character's stat points, then that's probably the way you tend to play them, anyway.

First of all, there are seven NPCs who can join your party. IMO, it's to your advantage to have as many of them in your party as possible. In a sense, you're very limited in your choice of main character. You'll always be playing the Nameless One. He always starts the game as a Fighter, and he can't be multi-classed.

No, but you have something better at your disposal: you can switch among three classes as you will. One class is dependent upon having a certain NPC in your party, while the third follows a rather interesting quest. I don't see this as a limitation, but as an ability to reconfigure your character on-the-fly to meet different challenges. For example, there's one area where you need a sword with guards scattered in pairs throughout a dungeon. You're currently a fighter? No problem! Switch to a thief, and play assassin for a while.

I want to emphasize that the game is versatile, but at the same time, it's also linear in some respects. How you meet the joinable NPCs is a good example. You start the game with one NPC in your party. You can meet another one shortly after that by traveling to a different area. You might never meet him if you don't look for him, but he's very easy to find.

This is no more linear than the BG series, however. And if you're the kind of RPGer who likes to go everywhere, see everything and talk to everybody, you'll find them all easily enough. I did my first run-through without a walkthrough, and met 'em all.

IMO, the game fails to make something clear, but it's important to the plot: the Nameless One has an enemy who sends "assassins" to kill him, and you want to find that enemy.

Honestly, never a problem realizing this was somehow tied in with the NO's destiny. The answer, when finally provided, was at once ghastly and elegant.

Originally posted by fable
You can switch among three classes as you will. One class is dependent upon having a certain NPC in your party, while the third follows a rather interesting quest...

Being able to switch classes on the fly definitely is a benefit. But I'm not sure what you mean by "one class is dependent on having a certain NPC in your party". In order to switch to a new class, you have to find a trainer who can teach you. There are five Thief trainers that I can think of, including an NPC you can have in your party. There are three Mage trainers that I can think of; in addition, one of your party members can help you switch classes to a Mage (although you have to become a Mage somewhere else first). There are four people who can help you switch back to a Fighter, including an NPC you can have in your party, and the other three can teach you to be more proficient with weapons. You don't need to have any particular NPC in your party no matter which path you choose. But as you point out, it's convenient to have them around if you want to switch classes, especially if there's no trainer nearby.

Wow! I wasn't quite expecting a response like this, but thank you all for you time. Truth be told, I was turned off by the setting of Ps:T when I first heard about it. I tend to prefer the "classical" setting games, especially natural terrain maps like those in the IwDs and especially BGI (& sadly missing from BGII...). However, the descriptions above paint a picture of my favorite aspects in RPGs. I heard that there was not enough interest in Ps:T to justify a sequel, and I find this strange, as all of you seem to think highly of it. Did it even get an expansion?

Originally posted by VonDondu
Bioware... had to spend most of their resources developing the game engine and making it work the way it was supposed to. Unfortunately, that meant they couldn't spend as much time writing dialogue as they would have liked.

To Bioware's credit, they were still able to create a polished game despite the task of engine development. There's just some quality about BGI that gives it, for me at least, the richest playing experience to date. Perhaps it is it's simplicity, and it's lower-(Char.)level design. It has been discussed to death elsewhere, but to remeber the joys of finding your first +2 weapon in BGI, ahh, those were the days. Bloody heck, the innkeepers sell +3 weapons in ToB!

Originally posted by VonDondu
I was really touched when the Nameless One encountered a sad zombie who was crying, and of course I wanted to help her.

When a game can cause emotion like that, it is something special, something satisfying and unmarketable. For me, it was killing a campful of Xvarts in BGI. When one of the little guys asked my why, I felt bad! I can also relate to ETAKO TUMANO, with the case of the bears. I too would avoid getting too close, so I wouldn't need to kill them. They almost made you want to hunt down every last hobgoblin (like you didn't want to already ) and kill them just bring peace back to the forest. But wolves on the other hand, they crossed me a few too many times in BGI when I was starting out, especialy those nasty vampiric varieties. I guess I'm all about the immersion of a game, and BG--and sounds like Ps:T as well--has that in spades.

Originally posted by VonDondu
Being able to switch classes on the fly definitely is a benefit. But I'm not sure what you mean by "one class is dependent on having a certain NPC in your party".

You're right, I should have been clearer, and simply stated that switching among any of the three classes is much easier on-the-fly if you've got a pair of specific NPCs in your party.

Originally posted by Skooter327
Wow! I wasn't quite expecting a response like this, but thank you all for you time. Truth be told, I was turned off by the setting of Ps:T when I first heard about it.

So was I - and then by chance I viewed a trailer on one of the BG1 CD's and that piqued my interest. So, I bought a copy and the next thing I knew, I found myself playing through the night to find out what happens next. I also want to mention the music in this game is outstanding, and I would actually pause the game in different areas to listen to it.

Originally posted by Skooter327
Truth be told, I was turned off by the setting of Ps:T when I first heard about it...

I heard that there was not enough interest in Ps:T to justify a sequel, and I find this strange, as all of you seem to think highly of it. Did it even get an expansion?

I guess I'm all about the immersion of a game, and BG--and sounds like Ps:T as well--has that in spades.

I was turned off by PS:T when I first read about it, too. It sounded weird, creepy, and kind of silly. Well, it IS weird and creepy, but in a GOOD way. I bought a copy of it in the "bargain bin" about three months ago and got hooked on it instantly. I had no idea what I was missing.

I don't know much about it other than what I learned by playing it and poking around the dialogue files with Infinity Explorer. I've seen Dan Simpson's walkthrough, but it looks to me like following it would spoil everything, and it calls to mind the echo of Dak'kon: "You have seen the words, but you do not *KNOW* what they mean."

I'm not aware of any expansion, and frankly, I don't see what they could add to the game. I suppose they could release another game set in the same world, but it would probably have to have new characters.

A walkthrough would let you ram your way through the game without really *EXPERIENCING* it. If you want the main benefits of an expansion--enriching the experience and adding extra playing time--then don't use a walkthrough, and you'll probably get the same effect. It took me two months to finish my first game of Torment, which was an awful lot of playing time. I restarted a few times and reloaded a lot to make sure I didn't miss anything, and I did try to shape events the way I wanted them to turn out. I missed a few things the first time around, but I enjoyed going around looking at everything and talking to everybody. Sometimes I had no clue what I was doing, but that added to the sense of realism. It definitely made the game more immersive.

I'm not aware of any expansion, and frankly, I don't see what they could add to the game. I suppose they could release another game set in the same world, but it would probably have to have new characters.

The BIS team of the day was hoping to do a successor, not an expansion, set in the evil dimensions (at least partially) where the NO goes to do his penance. Alas, Interplay decided that though the title made good money, it was just not enough when the same team could be given projects that made even more money. They were put to work doing TORN, an interesting RPG that combined the NWN engine with a PS:T story and structure. Then somewhere along the line, problems developed--whether on BIS' or Interplay's side, I don't know. Suffice to say, the creative team at BIS was fired. The current folks lack the creative edge of that PS:T development group.

Not wishing to go too far afield here I must say that when I played PS:T I actually got misty-eyed toward the end. I'm reluctant to post any more for fear it may be a spoiler, but I think those who have played the game know what I refer to. Anyway, I found it to be immersive in a way that BG1 isn't.

Still, I find myself gravitating toward certain NPC's in BG1. I find it very hard to remove certain characters for reasons that are nor purely tactical. I refuse to let go of Imoen, even though there are other good thieves out there. She was the first to volunteer to go along, and I feel obliged toward her. Weird, I know.

Also, Jaheira. I've removed her from my current group to make room for Dynaheir. But I really don't feel comfortable about it. I think it was that "most-omnipotent authority figure" quip that got to me.

I've tried to reform my group in a small area to make it easier to come back and sweet-talk a character I may need. Bit when I did that with Jaheira in the Friendly Arm Inn she just took off. Now I have no idea where the hell she got off to. Same with Branwen in the Jovial Juggler. She made some dismissive remark and walked out the front door.

By IWD or IwD I presume your talking about the Icewind Dale games. I've played none in the series. Could you say something about them?

Originally posted by ETAKO TUMANO
Also, Jaheira. I've removed her from my current group to make room for Dynaheir. But I really don't feel comfortable about it. I think it was that "most-omnipotent authority figure" quip that got to me.

I know exactly what you mean. The great innovation of the BG series (and especially BG2) is the way dialog events and triggers simulate genuine personalities among your NPC followers. Against all reason, we react just a bit to Minsc or Jaheira or the others as though they were living, thinking, feeling beings. A shame no one else has caught up on this fairly simple trick and thus far incorporated it in any subsequent CRPG. (I'm discounting Arcanum, where the dialog was slight and disappointing.) Bioware's Star Wars title is still a way out, though they've said it will provide the same character detail.

By IWD or IwD I presume your talking about the Icewind Dale games. I've played none in the series. Could you say something about them?

Pros: Excellent combat. Nice game balance. Great interface (particularly in IWD2). Nice adaptation of 3E rules (again, IWD2). Good if aging artwork. Decent musical score. Excellent sense of humor (IWD2)

Cons: Completely linear structure, geography and quests. Entire party created by you.

I like the games, but they admittedly pale for me before PS:T and BG2. The latter pair get my imagination working. Just my POV. Others will feel differently.

@VonDondu, you speak much of walkthroughs in your most recent post. I just wanted to clarify that I meant sequel like BGII is to BG; you know, same plot & characters, new setting (maybe thats just for movie sequels ). I regard to walkthroughs, I personally only use them if I get really stuck on something and tire of trying the same wrong aproach again and again.
By expansion, I meant new content, items, upgrades, and NPCs to interact with. Certanly any game can be expanded, if only to give players more of what they like in the game. IwD's Heart of Winter is an exellent example of what an expansion should be, story-wise. I'll try not to spoil anything, but IIRC your party's actions in the game's beginning supposedly trigger the events that make up the expansion; however, not all players may have done the "triggering event" and the expansion works regardless.
On the other hand, BG (1) has the best expasion, regarding its seamlessness. You can go to the new areas and back at any point in the game (so long as you can reach them). Most other expansions that I can think of don't allow free travel back and forth between the main game and the expansion. Lastly, was BG II designed for an expansion from the beginning? It sure feels like it was.

Originally posted by fable
The great innovation of the BG series (and especially BG2) is the way dialog events and triggers simulate genuine personalities among your NPC followers. Against all reason, we react just a bit to Minsc or Jaheira or the others as though they were living, thinking, feeling beings. A shame no one else has caught up on this fairly simple trick and thus far incorporated it in any subsequent CRPG.

For me, that "life-like" quality of the NPCs' personalities is far and away the best part of both BGs. In the beginning of BG, I staged an accident for Xzar so I could keep Monty--who I subsequently dumped not long after . (Somehow, BG I NPCs just won't stay dead! )I just couldn't get rid of Kivan however; it was like having Clint Eastwood in my party. I would've loved to hear him say, "do you feel lucky, punk?"

Originally posted by ETAKO TUMANO
I've tried to reform my group in a small area to make it easier to come back and sweet-talk a character I may need.

In BG, I invaded Korgan's (sp?) place in Beregost as my CP. There I dumped all manner of items, weapons, and NPCs. I tried to dump NPCs at thier happiest so I could have an "NPC Bank" in that building.

On the IwDs:
Without a doubt they are combat-based games, and they possibly don't even qualify as RPGs. Despite this, I love them for thier setting and battles. While only personal preference, I'd rather be outdoors in natural terrain than in some dark dungeon or alternate plane. I'd also rather fight orcs and other goblinoids to demons and strange floating eyeball monsters any day--just my preference. Certainly the average number of foes per battle is far greater in IwD than any other IE game. It also feels like the developers made great efforts to make the encounters diverse and interesting. You are often forced to use different tactics and techniques to be victorious. In BG I, more often than not foes were waiting for you to find them, allowing you to scout, devise a plan of attack, and prepare for battle. Canversely, I can think of many places in both IwDs were you enter a map surrounded and at a disadvantage. On larger maps in IwD, I always find myself looking for bottlenecks and easily defended ground. You never know when that party of orcs ahead will need to be led back to a bridge to be slaugtered trying to cross To end the rambling and get to the point, don't expect much role-playing, interaction, or even immersion from the IwD games. However, don't overlook them because of that, they are still great games that will keep most players hooked to the end, and offer a change of pace providing new experiences--they're not just BG "up nort."

Originally posted by Skooter327
@VonDondu, you speak much of walkthroughs in your most recent post...

BG (1) has the best expansion, regarding its seamlessness. You can go to the new areas and back at any point in the game (so long as you can reach them). Most other expansions that I can think of don't allow free travel back and forth between the main game and the expansion. Lastly, was BG II designed for an expansion from the beginning? It sure feels like it was.

Regarding my comments about walkthoughs, what I meant is that they reduce playing time and spoil some of the realism if you follow one every step of the way without discovering things on your own. IMO, playing without a walkthrough enriches the experience. Other people who are more concerned about finding all the treasure and getting through the game as quickly as possible would probably disagree. If that's what thrills people, I don't object. To each his own.

I suppose that Tales of the Sword Coast was as "seamless" as you can get, but it didn't seem very realistic to me in some respects. "Sarevok is waiting for us behind that door, but wait! we need to go to Durlag's Tower first and get some treasure!" And walk all the way back through that $%^&* Thief's Maze. I don't think that Durlag's Tower really fits into the main plot. Like the other quests in BG, such as Ulcaster or Firewine, the new areas were just sitting out there, ready for adventurers to come along, but they had nothing to do with the main plot. You could have substituted other quests and you never would have known the difference. It made the game more fun, but it diluted the story. One reason why I liked Dark Side of the Sword Coast (an unofficial expansion) is because it tried to tie all the various areas together into one coherent plot. By necessity, that made things more linear, but I think that sort of trade-off is worth it.

Adding extra areas to Torment that didn't tie into the main plot would only have detracted from it, in my opinion. That's why I can't think of anything Black Isle Studios could have added to Torment to improve it. If you want mindless adventure and lots of experience and treasure, there's always UnderSigil and the Rubikon, which offer unlimited experience and treasure. You want an Aegis of Torment for each member of your party? No problem! (I think the Rubikon made a great statement about the typical dungeon crawl.) Maybe there could have been a few more places where the Nameless One could recover his memories, but again, I don't know if it would be an improvement.

Of course, that kind of thing isn't suited for Torment because Torment isn't that kind of game. Obviously. But it goes to show that "seamless" expansions that add fun-but-superfluous adventures do not really enhance the story. ("Seamless" meaning that you can go to the new areas and come back any time you want to no matter where you are in the story.) In contrast, the expansion to BG2, Throne of Bhaal, adds whole new chapters to the story. Because of that, I don't consider its lack of seamlessness to be a drawback. In fact, I feel like Watcher's Keep is out of place, because I couldn't think of a good reason for going there that had anything to do with the story. But of course I went there, just the same. There's no way I'd pass up all of that experience and treasure.

I hope I'm not doing an injustice to the concept of "seamlessness". As you pointed out, there are a lot of other things involved in an expansion, such as new spells and new abilities. I think that Throne of Bhaal was pretty "seamless" in that respect (and that's a good thing).

Baldur's Gate was designed to have a sequel all along. In fact, judging from comments the developers have made, Baldur's Gate was mainly an attempt to perfect the game engine, and Shadows of Amn was what they wanted to produce all along. They certainly did want to finish the story, and I think they originally planned for a third installment, which ended up being released as an expansion instead. I sure am glad they released Throne of Bhaal. I don't know if there was any doubt that they would release it, but you never know what will happen in the gaming industry.

Adding extra areas to Torment that didn't tie into the main plot would only have detracted from it, in my opinion. That's why I can't think of anything Black Isle Studios could have added to Torment to improve it. If you want mindless adventure and lots of experience and treasure, there's always UnderSigil and the Rubikon, which offer unlimited experience and treasure.

I would agree with this. The game is unusually well-focused on the issue of the NO's amnesia and remarkable existence, and we probably have Guido Henkel, the game's first producer, to thank for it. (He and BIS came to a parting of the ways shortly before it was released. Pity. Others took the lion's share of the credit, as a result.) If additional areas would have been added, they'd have to provide more a reason for their existence than, say, simply areas to explore as in the BG games. They'd have to offer the lure of clues to the NO's identity. Not that hard to do even at this time, I suspect, but the hints leading to those areas would have to be planted in the game as it exists.