The issue is largely rhetorical; BG2 could perhaps more rightfully have been called a DLC (this was before the internet made DLCs prevalent) as opposed to a full game/sequel.
in what world? It doesn't require BG1 to be played, it improves the engine and systems, provides far more content then BG1, has it's own self contained story (even if it direct sequel it doesn't require BG1 to be played and be enjoyed. As a matter of fact I always recommed to start with BG2) - overall it's more of and better then BG1.
More rhetoric. How quaint.
Albeit the games could be played independently, the "engine and systems" remained virtually unchanged (slightly refined) contrary to your pretence of significant change to lend credence to your sentiment. I'm not a native English-speaker, but my understanding of a self-contained story is something COMPLETE and SEPARATE with its own ENDING. BG1's story was clearly subordinated to the overriding story arc of the series albeit having different stories tied to different villains.
You seem to have forgotten BG2 was comprised of two games; Shadows of Amn, and Throne of Bhaal. Both titles could be played completely and enjoyed as standalone games. The infinity engine and the system changed rather more for the latter than it had between BG1 (Tales of the Sword Coast) and BG2: Shadows of Amn. The story of Throne of Bhaal was as much "self-contained" from Shadows of Amn as that title was from BG1. It is merely the conclusion to the saga, the ongoing story.
Using your selective logic, your criteria for what constitutes a full game/independent title as opposed to an expansion/DLC, then Bioware was wrong in not naming Throne of Bhaal BG3.
The issue is largely rhetorical; BG2 could perhaps more rightfully have been called a DLC (this was before the internet made DLCs prevalent) as opposed to a full game/sequel.
in what world? It doesn't require BG1 to be played, it improves the engine and systems, provides far more content then BG1, has it's own self contained story (even if it direct sequel it doesn't require BG1 to be played and be enjoyed. As a matter of fact I always recommed to start with BG2) - overall it's more of and better then BG1.
This. Like where did that comment even come from? BG1 had its own expansion that you could argue would now be called DLC; but the only reasonable case you could argue for saying BG2 is not its own title is that it added the amazing feature to port your BG1 characters into the sequel and continue roleplaying. It's like calling John Wick 2 an Extended Directors Cut Bonus Feature of John Wick.
Egg-celent! Moar better rhetoric! Let's pile on the digital static noise! It's not like this was some casual remark, but rather *must* be treated as an affront to the holy grail of RPGs! How very dare you!?
Oh, I didn't argue BG2 wasn't its own title, I casually mentioned that it could have been called an expansion rather than a standalone title. There isn't necessarily some gargantuan difference set in stone y'know?
