I tried re-doing BG2 again some time ago, but whilst a good game with superior technicals and quest design, it reminded me that everybody seems to think about the 2nd chapter when gushing about it most of the time. The entire middle section is a fairly linear combat heavy dungeon romp not lending itself as well to replayability imo, which technically, Icewind Dale also did better, as far as I am concerned.
I enjoyed most of BG2 with only couple exceptions and did multiple runs of it, but I do agree that replayability isn't its strong point - neither it is in BG1 I don't think. Areas are less structured, but I never felt BGs offered a nice variety of approaching the situation, nor had much reactivity to our character. Replayability for me came from different party compositions, and content being enjoyable enough to warrant returning to it throughout the years.
To me BG2 also marked the beginning of Bioware moving away from recreating a TT adventure feel and going into a more "interactive movie" kind of direction
Absolutely. I also thought that BG2 was better for it, as BG1 just wasn't systemic enough to result in anything interesting. I see it as Bioware trying to create TT adventure simulator in BG1, then looked at worked and what didn't and created a better sequel. There are of course those lovely small touches in BG1 that I missed in the sequel, but overall the trade off was well worth it. Success of BG2 also shaped the company going forward, with exceptiong of NWN1 which approached TT simulator from a different angle. That's pretty much why playing WItcher3 game me vibes of playing BG2 for the first time in early 2000s, more so then any actual BG-wanna-be.
That's of course my personal perception - one thing I learned in recent years, is that people liked those games for variety of reasons. Pathfinders have their audience, and to me they miss every good thing about BG1&2.
