Hmmmm, it's like asking what child you love most!!!!
I agree with everything BG2 lovers say, but to me it is waaaaay more satisfying to play a low level character and see and enjoy the development. I mean there is development between level 2-3, in BG2 it doesn't really matter, you already have 384746 different lethal spells, and pray for the poor dragon/lich/demon who tries to hurt you. (A weeeee bit exaggerated, I know .
I think they are both excellent games and are among my favorite games of all time. Baldurs Gate 1 EE has my vote because its harder, its got realistic characters with problems and stats that you have to make work. In bg2 you got nalia having stats on par with imoen. She's not a child of bhaal, what gives? Even some of the classes that used to be decent/fairly ok, are now powerhouses. I also don't like the city deal whereas the first game its the wilderness.
I hope that the 3rd game combines everything I like about both.
If we're talking vanilla, then it's BG2. BG was incredible in terms of being able to explore the game world and low level campaigns are a lot more fun. On the other hand the low resolution, lack of party interaction, clunky UI, and simple game mechanics are limiting. BG2 has a fully realized party experience and is overall a lot more polished.
However, if we're talking modded BG vs. BG2, give me a loaded BGT/Tutu install over BG2 any day of the week.
Hmmmm, it's like asking what child you love most!!!!
I agree with everything BG2 lovers say, but to me it is waaaaay more satisfying to play a low level character and see and enjoy the development. I mean there is development between level 2-3, in BG2 it doesn't really matter, you already have 384746 different lethal spells, and pray for the poor dragon/lich/demon who tries to hurt you. (A weeeee bit exaggerated, I know .
To me, I appreciate the low level beginnings, but all the more so when you see where you ultimately end up. It's about the entire journey from that point where you have 1 spell to cast, to the point where you are controlling godlike (or demonic depending on your bent) forces. You honestly get to say "I remember when Skeletons were a challenge. Now I stand down Liches."
I love the open endedness and exploration of BG 1 but BG 2 offers a more interesting story and protagonist. It has an incredible character creation system (which I know is in TuTu and EE but I came upon in first in BG 2). I also feel it's set in a more intriguing place and the side quests are more enjoyable.
In BG2 you have the Underdark! In BG1, you have a cave.... In BG2 you have Dragons! In BG1 you have wyverns... In BG2 you have NPC interacting openly with the PC and other NPCs! In BG1 you have NPCs sometimes talking to each other in the chat bar then myteriously trying to murder each other... In BG2 you have to destroy a vampire nest! In BG1 you have to destroy a spiders nest... In BG2 you have Haer'Dalis! In BG1 you have Garrick... In BG1 you have to suffer Ajantis winning about justice and all that... In BG2 you kill Ajantis!
BG2 is way more epic in all aspects then BG1, but I really love both games, the epicness in BG2 just let's you do all the things without getting bored, things are different in each dungeons, you just don't have «another free space wilderness area with gnoll/skeletons/hogoblins, a quest to fetch something or save someone and weird guy or a mesenger» BG2 dungeons all have their own unique attributes.
after giving it much thought, I believe BG2 is better. The original developers learned from BG1 a lot. Especially the NPCs, their banter and their quests.
Well Bg2 just for Jon Irencius. I have never played a video game in which I have hated a villain as much as Jon. His dialogue is probably the best I've heard, plus fighting him and the satisfaction of killing him in hell is really great.
after giving it much thought, I believe BG2 is better. The original developers learned from BG1 a lot. Especially the NPCs, their banter and their quests.
BG2 had some pretty significant improvements, it's true. But they also changed some things for the worst. In BG1, you could fully and freely explore the entire Region. In BG2 you are pretty much stuck with the city and a few select areas of note. No wandering off the beaten track and just exploring as Adventurers generally want to do. Just as example.
I think this is something that is very subjective from player to player. I happen to like relatively low level play so I lean toward BG1. I like to watch the game mechanics play out at its most basic levels since I'm interested in the design, and I get a rush knowing that the party might die with a little bit of bad luck so you have to be extra careful. The party members feel more like human beings who can also be vulnerable. Perhaps this may be an element in why some players tend to restart often. Also BG1 engenders more the feeling of exploration, of there being areas that are unknown that you can choose to investigate.
@DJKajuru - Personally I think that is what being an adventurer is all about, exploring the unknown. When NWN - Storm of Zehir came out with it's new map schema came out, I loved the fact that you could stomp around all over the map and explore. There were random encounters and hidden areas to find. it was a significant improvement (in my mind) over the more standard site point encounters.
Way back in the day there was this PnP Module called The Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth where the party had to find the caverns. Hence the name 'Lost'. It wasn't a marked spot on the map. There weren't roads leading there. You had to map out the wilderness and Explore. One of my favorite modules.
BG1 got this all right. You had to explore the world and it FELT like you were exploring. Places weren't merely mapped out for you, or if they were you had to still find your way to them (ala the Gnoll Stronghold). BG2, for it being a Fantastic game, lost this. All in my opinion.
I love both games, but BG2's story has a deeper impact on me. Everything about battling your inner demons while searching for Irenicus is just so well made.
I felt like BG1 was so compelling, but BG2 was even more so. Your main is being fleshed out more as a personality. I felt less like I was just reacting, and more like I was building a life. Helping Nalia get the keep and keep it. Romancing a Drow who had a radically different moral view than my main characters own (NE vs CG). Having an Epic battle with a Red Dragon. Also working with that blacksmith. The political intrigue between the Shadow Thieves and the Vampires. I replayed BG2 way more than I did BG1. Also, I felt like BG1 would have been a awesome game without a sequel, but it would've been "just another" awesome game. With BG2, I felt like BG1 became part of a masterpiece, An Epic! I still to this day felt like the whole BG story rivaled some of the better books I have read in my life.
I'm not a fan of BG2. The overabundance of high level magical items is, for my taste, just ridiculous. Also, by then the spellcasting involves a lot of counterspell chess moves to remove buffs and whatnot, and for me that becomes tedious. The epic level play at insanely high levels is just not my cup of tea in general.
I'm actually not keen about BG2's entire storyline story either. It's well voiced by David Warner, which is a real treat. But the "I've stolen your soul" hook feels self-consciously contrived. The whole plotline is very murky and confusingly told.
On the plus side, I think the ambiance of Athkatla is pretty well done. NPCs (both recruitable and non-recruitable) are well drawn. And Watcher's Keep is well designed.
The game's realization of Amn from canon is poor. It's an opportunity missed. I would have much preferred for high level magic to be available in Amn only such that is quite difficult to come by, and involving much more intrigue to obtain. (Further thoughts on this here.)
Edit: Sorry, I'm surprised as how harsh those criticisms are. I feel like a snobby wine critic. BG2 game is still fun to play. It does have great characters, and the adventure and combat are still a blast. I just think it could (should) have been a lot better game. But that's obviously my own taste.
This took me the whole of 15 minutes to decide. I didn't play BG1, I started at BG2 so naturally I leaned towards BG2. But playing through BG1 EE and almost at the end I think the only thing that seperates it for me is going to see the drow in BG2. Brings back some memories .
I liked the atmosphere of BG1, the feeling of the wide open world to explore, but honestly by the end even of my first playthrough I felt there was probably a little too much wide open exploring. I'd say I preferred everything else about BG2 really, but I always thought it would've been nice if they kept some of that in, given the players a couple large open wilderness areas, with goofy NPCs to meet.
I can't vote since each one has pluses and minuses. BG1 has the vast places that you can explore that I like. BG1 reminds me the most of the old PnP games I used to play. BG2 has the better interaction of characters through dialogs. It also has some neat items as well.
It's a tough one. I liked the open exploration of BG, the aimless wandering and the unexpected encounters. But BG2 made the NPCs so much more alive, and the world so much more varied.
I'm not a fan of BG2. The overabundance of high level magical items is, for my taste, just ridiculous. Also, by then the spellcasting involves a lot of counterspell chess moves to remove buffs and whatnot, and for me that becomes tedious. The epic level play at insanely high levels is just not my cup of tea in general.
I'm actually not keen about BG2's entire storyline story either. It's well voiced by David Warner, which is a real treat. But the "I've stolen your soul" hook feels self-consciously contrived. The whole plotline is very murky and confusingly told.
It's pretty funny because my reason for liking BG2 over BG1 are pretty much the same as your reasons for not liking it. I love how epic BG2 feels and the powerful items are definitely a part of that, also I really enjoy more strategic approach BG2 battles need thanks to, eg. the counterspelling.
I kinda agree though that the whole Irenicus plot is rather poor, and that probably isn't more mainstream opinion simply because how extremely well Warner brings Irenicus alive.
I think they are both excellent games and are among my favorite games of all time. Baldurs Gate 1 EE has my vote because its harder, its got realistic characters with problems and stats that you have to make work. In bg2 you got nalia having stats on par with imoen.
A hundred times this. The one thing in BG2 that really bothers me is that people like Aerie who should have absolutely no experience, and people like Nalia, who should have limited, are inexplicably high level instead. Anomen is as experienced as Keldorn. Given how quickly you can gain XP, especially if you're memorizing tons of spells, I do wish they'd just started some of the characters off at level 2 and let you babysit them for a bit.
On the other hand, there's no way that a pair of experienced Harpers should be level 1, so BG1 isn't perfect in that regard either.
I prefer BG1 in one aspect to BG2 The ablility to adventure, withing minutes of starting the game you're thrown in to a massive world where you can go anywhere at any time. BG2 just doesn't have the same sense of "LET'S GO DO SH*T!" Other than that I prefer BG2
Comments
I agree with everything BG2 lovers say, but to me it is waaaaay more satisfying to play a low level character and see and enjoy the development. I mean there is development between level 2-3, in BG2 it doesn't really matter, you already have 384746 different lethal spells, and pray for the poor dragon/lich/demon who tries to hurt you. (A weeeee bit exaggerated, I know
I hope that the 3rd game combines everything I like about both.
However, if we're talking modded BG vs. BG2, give me a loaded BGT/Tutu install over BG2 any day of the week.
In BG2 you have Dragons! In BG1 you have wyverns...
In BG2 you have NPC interacting openly with the PC and other NPCs! In BG1 you have NPCs sometimes talking to each other in the chat bar then myteriously trying to murder each other...
In BG2 you have to destroy a vampire nest! In BG1 you have to destroy a spiders nest...
In BG2 you have Haer'Dalis! In BG1 you have Garrick...
In BG1 you have to suffer Ajantis winning about justice and all that... In BG2 you kill Ajantis!
BG2 is way more epic in all aspects then BG1, but I really love both games, the epicness in BG2 just let's you do all the things without getting bored, things are different in each dungeons, you just don't have «another free space wilderness area with gnoll/skeletons/hogoblins, a quest to fetch something or save someone and weird guy or a mesenger» BG2 dungeons all have their own unique attributes.
Especially the NPCs, their banter and their quests.
However, i liked the character art for BG1 better, BG2 was a downstep in player models imo
Oh well.
But I know what you mean - I looove exploring areas!
Way back in the day there was this PnP Module called The Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth where the party had to find the caverns. Hence the name 'Lost'. It wasn't a marked spot on the map. There weren't roads leading there. You had to map out the wilderness and Explore. One of my favorite modules.
BG1 got this all right. You had to explore the world and it FELT like you were exploring. Places weren't merely mapped out for you, or if they were you had to still find your way to them (ala the Gnoll Stronghold). BG2, for it being a Fantastic game, lost this. All in my opinion.
Your main is being fleshed out more as a personality. I felt less like I was just reacting, and more like I was building a life. Helping Nalia get the keep and keep it. Romancing a Drow who had a radically different moral view than my main characters own (NE vs CG). Having an Epic battle with a Red Dragon. Also working with that blacksmith. The political intrigue between the Shadow Thieves and the Vampires.
I replayed BG2 way more than I did BG1.
Also, I felt like BG1 would have been a awesome game without a sequel, but it would've been "just another" awesome game. With BG2, I felt like BG1 became part of a masterpiece, An Epic! I still to this day felt like the whole BG story rivaled some of the better books I have read in my life.
I'm actually not keen about BG2's entire storyline story either. It's well voiced by David Warner, which is a real treat. But the "I've stolen your soul" hook feels self-consciously contrived. The whole plotline is very murky and confusingly told.
On the plus side, I think the ambiance of Athkatla is pretty well done. NPCs (both recruitable and non-recruitable) are well drawn. And Watcher's Keep is well designed.
The game's realization of Amn from canon is poor. It's an opportunity missed. I would have much preferred for high level magic to be available in Amn only such that is quite difficult to come by, and involving much more intrigue to obtain. (Further thoughts on this here.)
Edit: Sorry, I'm surprised as how harsh those criticisms are. I feel like a snobby wine critic. BG2 game is still fun to play. It does have great characters, and the adventure and combat are still a blast. I just think it could (should) have been a lot better game. But that's obviously my own taste.
one by one
I kinda agree though that the whole Irenicus plot is rather poor, and that probably isn't more mainstream opinion simply because how extremely well Warner brings Irenicus alive.
On the other hand, there's no way that a pair of experienced Harpers should be level 1, so BG1 isn't perfect in that regard either.
The ablility to adventure, withing minutes of starting the game you're thrown in to a massive world where you can go anywhere at any time. BG2 just doesn't have the same sense of "LET'S GO DO SH*T!" Other than that I prefer BG2
but the character interaction of BG2 wins it for me
if BG1 had the character depth of BG2 id probably prefer BG1