Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

poulh · Apr 22, 2003, 03:48 PM

Have any of the updates helped BG2? Or is os9 still the best way to play this game?

Gul Banana · Apr 22, 2003, 06:23 PM

The 1.1 update did increase the speed. Not, however, by a huge amount - if it was too slow for you in OS X before, it may still be.

poulh · Apr 23, 2003, 09:23 AM

Have any of the osX updates helped speed it up? I haven't played it yet (still finishing #1). I'll reboot into 9 if I have to... no worries.

a2daj · Apr 23, 2003, 01:09 PM

As long as you don't use 3D acceleration in OS X, gameplay isn't too bad on midrange machines (around 700 MHz). I haven't tried the game on anything less than 800 MHz for awhile. The game will still run better in OS 9 though.

mac freak · Apr 23, 2003, 10:25 PM

It has always baffled me how poorly BG2 runs. Is it just the Mac port? Or is it an inherent quality of the Infinity engine?

For me (dual-450), at least, the game is basically unplayable in OS X, even with all the patches. I'd reccommend continuing to use OS 9.

juanvaldes · Apr 23, 2003, 11:21 PM

The port.

mac freak · Apr 24, 2003, 10:52 PM

What a shame.

bousozoku · Apr 25, 2003, 12:55 AM

Wasn't this one done by BioWare, as they're doing with NWN?

If that's the case, it's no wonder it's taking so long.

a2daj · Apr 25, 2003, 01:34 AM

?? BG II was ported by members of Contraband Entertainment.

poulh · Apr 25, 2003, 01:53 PM

I'll just play it in 9. Thanks for the comments. Glad I'm not stuck w/ one of the macs that can't boot into 9.

Have an 800mhz g4 iMac gf2mx

ShadowKatana · Apr 25, 2003, 02:05 PM

Originally posted by a2daj:
?? BG II was ported by members of Contraband Entertainment.

That is correct - Chris Jacobson (aka. MaineCoon) when he was at Mumbo Jumbo.

Nicko · Apr 27, 2003, 05:39 AM

Originally posted by juanvaldes:
The port.

Its not the port

BGII ran great on my 233 imac when I got it. The problem is with how BGII uses 3d, it lags just as bad on a pc. Just turn the 3d acceleration off and its good to go.

a2daj · Apr 27, 2003, 10:32 PM

BG II with 3D acceleration works great in OS 9. In OS X, it's crap. The problem is that OS X apparently has performance issues with loading and unloading textures. In a 2D game like Baldur's Gate or Diablo II, textures are typically loaded and unload much more frequently than a game like Quake 3 or Unreal Tournament which can usually load all the textures into RAM during lvl loading.
And there's the whole preemptive/cooperative threading conversion that happened during the port. The PC Infinity Engine makes heavy use of preemtive threading. The Mac version had to be rewritten using cooperative threading since OS 9 can't do preemtive threading. I'm not sure how much of an issue it is though.

Chimpmaster · Apr 29, 2003, 06:34 AM

BG2 ran very well on my g4 imac in osx 10.1.4 and later.

I havent tried it in jaguar yet.

God i loved that game. It kept me entrigued for months and months.

I still have my old characters burnt to cd.

a level 20 human monk, chaotic good
a level 17 or 18 half orc human berserker, neutral evil
also a high level fighter/thief and a thief/mage also.

I clocked it three times from memory. It was so detailed and intricate.

Thanks for reminding me of it

ginoledesma · May 1, 2003, 09:00 AM

Its intolerably slow no my computer (G4/400/1GB RAM/Radeon 8500) under Mac OS X, even at the lowest resolutions. But fact of the matter is, I rarely play games under Mac OS X. I switch to Mac OS 9 to eke out as much performance as possible. My processor is really the bottleneck for newer games anyway.

Never really tried turning 3D acceleration off, though.

a2daj · May 1, 2003, 10:09 AM

Ah yes, turn off 3D acceleration and then come back complaining about the speed. I guarantee you'll have a little less to complain about

poulh · May 1, 2003, 03:17 PM

Do the graphics look worse w/ 3D acceleration off?

bousozoku · May 1, 2003, 03:44 PM

It's interesting that turning off acceleration of any kind would make something faster.

Were they just trying to see if anyone was awake at the time?

a2daj · May 1, 2003, 04:47 PM

I explained what the issue was with 3D acceleration in OS X earlier in this thread.

bousozoku · May 1, 2003, 04:59 PM

Originally posted by a2daj:
I explained what the issue was with 3D acceleration in OS X earlier in this thread.

Yes, you did, and I read it the other day.

It still seems as though they didn't think about the situation properly and tried to compromise. When WebStar was Carbon-ised, they found something similar. Their dual version was not nearly as fast on one operating system as the other.

We can all be thankful that Mac OS 9 is dead and that Mac OS X supports modern (1969 and later) system services.

voodoo · May 3, 2003, 10:15 AM

Ick. BG2 is one of the worst rpg games I have had the misfortune of playing. The slowness of it and numerous bugs didn't help. Nothing like BG1. That is one of the best games ever. So is Diablo 2. Brilliant.

proux · May 3, 2003, 10:44 AM

I don't agree at all. After playing the whole game through, WITH 3D disabled, had only ONE crash and speed was more than acceptable on a 500Mhz iBook. The game has an awsome depth of playing unlike the stupid Diablo (point and click click click click click ). If only they would port Throne of Bhaal... Probably the most wanted non ported game of the last 3 years (with Half Life).

a2daj · May 3, 2003, 07:53 PM

I played through BG2 twice in OS 9 with 3D on and had 1 crash. I blame that crash on my SoundBlaster though.

voodoo · May 4, 2003, 03:43 AM

Originally posted by proux:
I don't agree at all. After playing the whole game through, WITH 3D disabled, had only ONE crash and speed was more than acceptable on a 500Mhz iBook. The game has an awsome depth of playing unlike the stupid Diablo (point and click click click click click ). If only they would port Throne of Bhaal... Probably the most wanted non ported game of the last 3 years (with Half Life).

Depth? HAHAHA I could have written a deeper plot during my lunch break. It was laaaaaaaaaaaaame.
"Oh dear, I've been captured by an evil wizard!"
"Oh I escaped for some stupid reason, certainly not my own inginuity."
"Grr. That evil powerful wizard stole my sister!! Bastard. I'll get him!!"
--
A whole lot of chasing later:
"Gotcha! You are dead evil wizard!"

Pretty much the same plot as Diablo 2 except a lot more pretentious. Unimaginative. Predictable. Booooooring. It didn't even fit in the storyline of a child of Bhaal. The whole point of it was to prevent your other (evil or good) siblings from becoming a god and to assume the role yourself. That is a pretty strong storyline. So it was absurd to make a whole game that was supposed to be a sequel to BG a game about hunting a wizard that had nothing to do with the bigger picture. The plot in BG 1 was brilliant. Fascinating. I was pretty surprised when I realized the plot of that game. You were pretty much kept in the dark about it until the final chapters. The armored figure turns out to be your half brother and the lord of murder your father. Then in BG 2 Imoen turns out to be your half sister. What happened to the plotwriters? Did their brain suffer a mild stroke? How incredibly daft. It makes such a big hole in the plot. Jeez.

ShadowKatana · May 4, 2003, 07:32 AM

Voodoo, interesting points you have made there. I actually agree with you about the role of Irenicus in Baldur's Gate 2 - I was expecting a bit more. It seemed like a departure from the natural story line of the Child of Bhaal. However, Throne of Bhaal brought the story back on track. Nevertheless, I would not dismiss Baldur's Gate 2 that quickly. Sure it deviated from the story somewhat but the idea was to create a role playing experience, at the expense of continuity. From what you have said (and correct me if I am wrong) you like a heavily story driven RPG. The developers have created a game that allows for some non-linear elements - such as acquiring a stronghold.

*Anyway*, having recently purchased a PC to play Throne of Bhaal, I can say we are missing out on a *lot*. It has to come to the Mac.

voodoo · May 4, 2003, 10:45 AM

Shadow Katana: You make very good points. I agree with you in essence. The whole Irenucus chase was a bit "off topic" in the Child of Bhaal saga and it is really only excusable if you play Throne of Bhaal. What Bioware *should* have done was to have ToB included. Not make it an extention. The plot of BG1 didn't really change with Tales of the Sword Coast, but rather it gave more depth to an already rich world. That was fabulous. ToB on the other hand turns out to be a sequel to BG2. That was silly, and even worse it will never ever be made for Mac. It kinda handicaps the game. ToB was the whole point of BG2. Without it the 4 CDs are pointless IMO because you can't finish the story. I feel a tad betrayed here. But such is life and RPGs are not the point of it (though they can be immense fun!)

I think an rpg game needs a good story. It doesn't have to be incredibly detailed (which is why I like Diablo 2 and not BG2) and it certainly doesn't have to be linear. I'd much rather play a non-linear rpg. Diablo 2 is very linear, but it makes up for it with richness of environment and one's own imagination. In Diablo 2 I kinda give my character life and personality when I am playing him. Something must be left to the imgaination right

But the most powerful feature of Diablo 2 it shares with Baldur's Gate. The continuity of the land. For Diablo 2 it makes a lot up for the linearity and in Baldur's Gate it totally makes the game! The fact that you can just walk into the forest due east if you feel like it and get into whatever trouble that awaits you there any time in the game is brilliant. This is lost in BG2 and ID. The map controls so much of the linearity. Even if the plot is rather linear the map can make it feel more non-linear. Take a game like Sundog, an old 80s space trading game. Almost a roleplaying game, but not quite because of little character interaction and rather linear plot but it has such a diverse and continuous universe that you really don't have to follow the linear plot to have fun. There are so many things to see and experience that fall outside of the main plot. It just looms in the background waiting patiently for you to finish it. BG2 offers no such thing. You are forced to jump between place A and F, so you feel like you are missing out on visiting place B, C, D and E. In BG1 and Diablo 2 you travel from place A through E to go to place F.

I think BG2 is flawed as a sequel, not only plotwise but featurewise. It feels more limited than BG1 to me.

voodoo · Sep 15, 2004, 09:18 PM

Well ToB is out for Mac now and it runs damn well in OS X too! Much better than BG2. Enjoy!!