>>3835904
Whether you blame BG2 for it or not, as low-IQ trolls like
>>3835531 do, you can't deny that BG2 did emphasize those design elements-- especially when compared to the original BG1. And you can't deny that the crpg revival of BG-inspired games (beginning with Pillars of Eternity) proceeded from the BG2 approach not the BG1 approach.
BG1 had a convergent design where the game starts out very open-ended. The player is presented with some fairly obvious paths to advance the story if they want, but the narrative urgency is minimal and the player is free to explore the world as his own pace, discovering many optional events, side quests and dungeons. This phase is when the player is expected to encounter and recruit party members. Eventually the main story picks up urgency and narrows into Baldur's Gate for the late game.
The BG1 cast is thus spread throughout the world, and the player isn't expected to recruit or even discover many of them on a single playthrough. These characters are designed to be notable and memorable, but also to reinforce the storytelling and verisimilitude of the setting and game world. Although the BG1 characters have personality, motives and goals, the game is not primarily focused on exploring their storylines. Their subplots fit in as a small part of the overall adventure.
BG2 on the other hand, as a linear storyline with a few branches. Instead of an open-ended, free roam world, you have an urgent main narrative. The main narrative is quickly and awkwardly blocked and the player is given a flimsy excuse to pursue elaborate side quests. Each side quest is typically a substantial self-contained storyline and for the most part everything is driven by these quests and storylines. You rarely just discover a location and explore it, you follow a questline through a mostly-linear sequence of encounters and events.
