Another thing that needs to be pointed out is the writing. The writing quality in BG1 is very inconsistent, ranging from decent to just plain bad. Some of the dialogue choices, particularly the evil ones, makes you sound like a retard, which is annoying when you're playing a character with high intelligence. Maybe this was intentional, but intentionally bad is still bad, especially when it fails to be amusing. BG2 has much better writing overall, and although it obviously never reaches the heights of Planescape, there aren't any parts that I would regard as embarrassing.
A problem in both BG1 and BG2 is that you're not ment to play evil. There are very few places in the game where you'll get the best reward for playing evil. If you decline rewards you get the best rewards most of the time, and if you give extra money away for free you'll get loads of experience for that.
well in Dragon Age they fixed it somewhat, by adding bla bla "lie" which meant that you lied. So for ex in Dragon Age you could agree to X or agree to X with a lie. Both worked on the NPC. I think one example in Dragon Age was an oath taken. in Baldurs Gate sometimes, as an evil person, you had to "lie" or rather only YOU knew if you lied or not by a comment. I mean, if you say "oh yes its and honor to meet you!" that can be taken as a good person saying it or an evil person just lying.
I mean, why would you say, time to die sucker!!! better to agree what the npc offer and then backstab him etc.
well in Dragon Age they fixed it somewhat, by adding bla bla "lie" which meant that you lied. So for ex in Dragon Age you could agree to X or agree to X with a lie. Both worked on the NPC. I think one example in Dragon Age was an oath taken. in Baldurs Gate sometimes, as an evil person, you had to "lie" or rather only YOU knew if you lied or not by a comment. I mean, if you say "oh yes its and honor to meet you!" that can be taken as a good person saying it or an evil person just lying.
I mean, why would you say, time to die sucker!!! better to agree what the npc offer and then backstab him etc.
But why would you lie if you got the same reward for telling the truth?
If I swear my loyalty to you, and I never meant it - it would be a lie, correct? But at that moment, the oath would benefit me, correct?
Now a lie could be caught in Dragon Age, but I guess for role playing purpose they left "lies" into the game. Because it really isnt needed as a confirmation about a "lie" but I guess they wanted an option for people to lie.
i'm sure it was awesome in 1998, however this is 2013 and as a newcomer to the game, I don't have any nostalgia to fall back on. Instead I judged it for what I thought it was, in 2013, and I would give it 8/10.
If I claimed it was anything beyond that, I would lie. Also, many games from the 90's are almost unplayable by todays standard, try Lara Croft 1 or 2 and see if you get a headache or not with the camera angles.
Well let me ask you this, would you rather want someone who never played fantasy/rpg to start with Baldur's Gate or Dragon Age for example? I have a hard time thinking that my sister or brother (like casual gamers) would be able to play Baldur's Gate at all, in 2013. In fact, I made sure my sister stick to Nintendo games and Guitar hero, and my brother to shooters (he has played final fantasy though) like Battlefield. Only open-minded people like myself can handle gems like Baldur's Gate.
Also, for us non-english/americans who have english as a second or third language - I'm Swedish after all - much text reading can be hard.
If I swear my loyalty to you, and I never meant it - it would be a lie, correct? But at that moment, the oath would benefit me, correct?
Now a lie could be caught in Dragon Age, but I guess for role playing purpose they left "lies" into the game. Because it really isnt needed as a confirmation about a "lie" but I guess they wanted an option for people to lie.
@raxtoren if you liked that 'lie' feature and other interesting dialogue options you will be amazed by Planescape: Torment's focus on dialogue. I will note that when you choose to 'lie' and other things in that game, the game remembers and it impacts your alignment (which is fluid) and determines certain things you can/can't do.
I'm not saying everyone likes BG1 or FF6 over BG2 and FF7 over nostalgia, but clearly some does.
As I said, Edgar, Locke and Terra are some of my favorite characters, with that said, the real villain in FF7 wasnt really only Sepiroth, but Jenova - the alien that crashlanded on the planet 2000 years ago.Thats what really made me enjoy final fantasy 7 story a bit more, it wasnt really about the terrorist organisation vs shinra, or Clouds revenge against Sepiroth for Neibelheim slaughter but if you pay attention its Jenova, the alien, who has awaken again.
I will say this about FF6 though, you could finish it with Celes and Edgar alone, storywise that is. Which makes me wonder, who was really the main character? I probably say Edgar in the end.
Also, while I love castle's ,knights, princesses, crystals, chocobos, magic and airships, it was a nice twist for final fantasy 7 to try a futuristic steampunk enviornment - this was a big issue for old-school fans about FF7, they felt like the franchise was going in the wrong direction.
Anyway,
"But with BG1 I prefer low level campaigns (not everyone does) I prefer strong magical items to be rare (not everyone does) I prefer wide open wilderness areas to explore (not everyone does!)"
Yeah, and as I said the story thing in BG2 is becoming the true son of bhaal, or rather unlocking the power within, I surely felt that higher levels and way more epic weapons made sense. I also prefer more variation in the world, in a fantasy world that is- which Baldur's Gate 2 clearly offered.
When you consider the special characteristics of BG1, the broad non-linear approach, and as @typo_tilly suggests, excellent low level play, fewer strong magic items, wide open wilderness, it is a Great game, with no buts. To me it's an old friend, who you sometimes miss and go visit, and you slip right back into the relationship comfortably. Great game.
I also prefer FF VI to FF VII purely on gameplay (4 characters over 3!, larger weapon variety!) and story reasons (Kefka over Sephy!, more characters!, bigger worlds to explore!). The cleaner graphics of FF VI certainly help, as I didn't like the muddy world of FF VII.
You prefer FF VII - and that's fine. Very cool to like whatever you like! You have a lot of reasons why you prefer FF VII, and I have a lot of reasons why I prefer FF VI. Just don't tell me that I only like FF VI over VII (or BG1 over BG2) because of some sense of nostalgia, kay? I've been playing games a long time and I can put aside nostalgia if it's there.
... Now if I started arguing that Dragon Warrior 1 is a better game than Final Fantasy 7, you'll know it's nostalgia talking. XD Final Fantasy 1 on the other hand...
I said some people prefer IV over VI and VII because of nostalgia, not VI over VII. VI and VII are generally considered as the best in the series. While I liked IV, it's generally an inferior game to VI in every way.
Maybe I shouldn't have used Roman numerals.... Looks like someone misunderstood me several posts ago and it just kept going from there.
Well obviously I realize that many people wouldn't agree in a BG1 forum, however I do understand and agree why this game was a classic in 1998. I still do think that BG2 is superior to it in every way.
But I stick to my point that, BG1 wasn't really necessary for anyone to play before BG2. I always felt - maybe felt is a wrong word more like suspected- like I missed a big part of the story and companion background for not playing BG1. I was wrong.
BG2 just felt more fleshed out, like everything had more meat on it - story,characters etc while the world was much more sharp and beautiful in BG2 (for being a game in 2000) and offered many diffrent variations.
ANyway, I don't wanna repeat myself for the 10th time so, thats it about my thought on BG1. I would give it an 8/10 for todays standard, remember I never played it in 1998, but in 2013. Which tells me what a great game it must have been in 1998 - more like a 9 probably.
ps! I'm glad I bought it though, I don't regret it a bit. Also, I made 4 of my friends pick it up over steam how many of you guys managed to get 4 people to buy it? Allthough we all 5 bought it under the steam sale for 4.7 euro each, so thats 5x 4.75 euro = 23 euro... maybe not that money for the developers O_o
*I like high level fights because they are more tactical and entertaining. I really like buffing up, having lots of different spells to choose from, special abilities, items, etc. *NPCs are better developed due to banter, intermissions, longer side-quests, etc. It's true that there are less playable NPCs though. *The variety of scenarios is something I appreciate. The Underdark, Hell, forests, mountains, lots of different dungeons, Athkatla being much more interesting than Baldur's Gate, etc. *Everything feels more polished in general, which is normal as well being a solid sequel.
There are things I prefer from the original BG though, like the possibility of exploration.
About the plot, I got mixed feelings. I like the idea of chasing Irenicus, but it feels rather forced. Baldur's Gate plot, while it could have used a more political involvement from the player, is quite interesting. I also like the idea of taking down named Sarevok's minions on the way, who at first is not even the main villain (or so we believe!).
However, if we discard the high level fights (which I really, really like), it may come down to nostalgia, not just for me, but for many people. I discovered Baldur's Gate because a classmate would talk about it every morning before class. He'd be super proud of using a sling and a shield with all characters, or running it to cast a fireball to unsuspecting enemies (I still remember the hand gestures and sound effects). I never completed it because it was too hard for me (I'd eventually play AD&D and understand it better) and I got frustrated from being one shot by kobolds in Nashkel. I eventually got into Baldur's Gate after a long time, and it was too boring...
But then came BG2 and everything just felt smoother. Not at first though, but I finally got into it and completed it a dozen times during the last years. I moved away to a different country and carried the box with me. It's not in English and I'm not sure I can get this dubbed version anywhere, so I treat it like a treasure.
So, to sum up, I feel BG2 is superior and more entertaining, but it could be my nostalgia.
EDIT :
I will add something about TOB. I wrote about high level fights, but not all epic level fights. I feel that epic levels is not good for a videogame...or even table D&D. You either have to balance everything up, which requires a huge amount of suspension of disbelief, or you take a totally different approach which kinda takes away from the essence of the game. So, TOB suffers from this. Too many super epic weapons and highly powered people which makes no sense. But if you need to give a challenge...
I just prefer playing lower level characters and so I really like BG1. By the time I get to HLA in BG2, I have developed characters that still make playing them simplified and specialized so each character I develop has a real sense of identity. For instance: I won't choose a half dozen fighter HLA's but multiple itterations of one or two that go along with my RP scheme.
Well obviously I realize that many people wouldn't agree in a BG1 forum, however I do understand and agree why this game was a classic in 1998. I still do think that BG2 is superior to it in every way.
But I stick to my point that, BG1 wasn't really necessary for anyone to play before BG2. I always felt - maybe felt is a wrong word more like suspected- like I missed a big part of the story and companion background for not playing BG1. I was wrong.
BG2 just felt more fleshed out, like everything had more meat on it - story,characters etc while the world was much more sharp and beautiful in BG2 (for being a game in 2000) and offered many diffrent variations.
I essentially agree BG2 to be a better game when you look at them separately, and I don't think people are trying to shoot you down. Another aspect that's been brought up is that a lot of players who have been enjoying the series for some time look at the trilogy as one long game. Against that backdrop BG1 serves as a good start to the story (in some ways almost like an introduction to BG2) and lets you play through the early and inexperienced days of your character - that's more how I look at it rather than to compare them back to back as separate entities at least.
As for the ToB thing that @Vishnu mentions, I'd say almost everyone would agree ToB is the weakest link of the trilogy by far, for several reasons. For me personally I don't mind the epic gameplay though - even if some things could have been changed - but see it as a natural part of the D&D experience. What good is the prospect of high levels and epic adventures if all you do is read about it, but never get to try it out?
In my opinion the main weak point of ToB lies in the briefness and streamlining of the story, and the lack of a smoother, slower transition from what you do in BG2 to what you do in ToB. You're suddenly dropped in the grove of the talking statues, and then it's a sprint to the finish. It's also problematic as some players use characters or builds that spend a long time being relatively weak or inefficient, only to have a desire for it to pay off once they reach the ToB levels - and then it's important for that content to be fulfilling and extensive.
I like both BG1 and BG2 in equal measure, but for differing reasons. Both managed to capture a particular element perfectly, but both are missing what the other has.
In BG1, the game captures the adventurous nature of the genre, story progression, how the player interacts with the game environment (not as in objects, but as in the game world, it's characters and creatures, etc.; still part of story progression for the most part) and overall exploration. I like that all the areas are linked with the wilderness in between the major points of interest, so it feels like you are actually travelling somewhere; rather than doing a jump of sorts that might only be interrupted by a small area with enemies. This allows for a greater amount of potential when it comes to NPC encounters and other quest points, this was—unfortunately—lacking in BG1 (which is still better than not being in BG2).
In BG2, the game captures character development and interaction, including romance and bonds between party members, something that BG1 sorely missed out on (thought presumably because it was only a short-ish time into the journey and the modularity of the party in the first game). It has good story progression (and, again, game-world interaction) and the ability for the player to get involved with a 'stronghold', along with a set of side quests. Again, something that BG1 sorely missed out on.
BG1 focuses on discovery with its basis in the story (i.e. who CHARNAME is, and their murky past) and locations that you explore along the way, while BG2 focuses on the development of that discovery.
It's difficult to really compare and say one is better than the other, because they both do things differently. BG1 is superior when it comes to exploration and the discovery of CHARNAME's ancestry. Whereas, BG2 is superior when it comes to character interaction and development. It's very hard for me to say "I prefer X more," because this really depends on your own personal preference for gaming.
I like the characters and setting of BG2 a lot, but I'm not a fan of epic level play (i.e., literally godlike levels) and the plethora of high level magic items that you almost can't avoid stumbling over. (Ironically, per Lands of Intrigue, Amn is not a setting that one should so readily find an abundance of magic items. Magic should be scarce.) The story of BG2 is kind of murky and hard to follow with respect to the metaphysics. But the excellent voice acting of David Warner makes up for that, in my book.
The spells and HLAs of BG2 are definitely a lot of fun for me. Not moreso than BG1, for my taste--but still great fun.
BG1 gets just about everything right for me, and about the only thing that it lacks is character interaction. The BG1 NPC Project makes an admirable attempt to add it, although it doesn't always hit the mark. I'd be happy even if just the existing vanilla character interactions scripted for BG1 fired far more often. And if Beamdog were to eventually to be able to add new professionally written and voiced banters to BG1, that would satisfy me completely.
Comments
Planescape torment deals with this much better.
So for ex in Dragon Age you could agree to X or agree to X with a lie. Both worked on the NPC. I think one example in Dragon Age was an oath taken.
in Baldurs Gate sometimes, as an evil person, you had to "lie" or rather only YOU knew if you lied or not by a comment. I mean, if you say "oh yes its and honor to meet you!" that can be taken as a good person saying it or an evil person just lying.
I mean, why would you say, time to die sucker!!! better to agree what the npc offer and then backstab him etc.
Now a lie could be caught in Dragon Age, but I guess for role playing purpose they left "lies" into the game. Because it really isnt needed as a confirmation about a "lie" but I guess they wanted an option for people to lie.
If I claimed it was anything beyond that, I would lie. Also, many games from the 90's are almost unplayable by todays standard, try Lara Croft 1 or 2 and see if you get a headache or not with the camera angles.
Well let me ask you this, would you rather want someone who never played fantasy/rpg to start with Baldur's Gate or Dragon Age for example?
I have a hard time thinking that my sister or brother (like casual gamers) would be able to play Baldur's Gate at all, in 2013.
In fact, I made sure my sister stick to Nintendo games and Guitar hero, and my brother to shooters (he has played final fantasy though) like Battlefield. Only open-minded people like myself can handle gems like Baldur's Gate.
Also, for us non-english/americans who have english as a second or third language - I'm Swedish after all - much text reading can be hard.
As I said, Edgar, Locke and Terra are some of my favorite characters, with that said, the real villain in FF7 wasnt really only Sepiroth, but Jenova - the alien that crashlanded on the planet 2000 years ago.Thats what really made me enjoy final fantasy 7 story a bit more, it wasnt really about the terrorist organisation vs shinra, or Clouds revenge against Sepiroth for Neibelheim slaughter but if you pay attention its Jenova, the alien, who has awaken again.
I will say this about FF6 though, you could finish it with Celes and Edgar alone, storywise that is. Which makes me wonder, who was really the main character? I probably say Edgar in the end.
Also, while I love castle's ,knights, princesses, crystals, chocobos, magic and airships, it was a nice twist for final fantasy 7 to try a futuristic steampunk enviornment - this was a big issue for old-school fans about FF7, they felt like the franchise was going in the wrong direction.
Anyway,
"But with BG1
I prefer low level campaigns (not everyone does)
I prefer strong magical items to be rare (not everyone does)
I prefer wide open wilderness areas to explore (not everyone does!)"
Yeah, and as I said the story thing in BG2 is becoming the true son of bhaal, or rather unlocking the power within, I surely felt that higher levels and way more epic weapons made sense.
I also prefer more variation in the world, in a fantasy world that is- which Baldur's Gate 2 clearly offered.
When you consider the special characteristics of BG1, the broad non-linear approach, and as @typo_tilly suggests, excellent low level play, fewer strong magic items, wide open wilderness, it is a Great game, with no buts. To me it's an old friend, who you sometimes miss and go visit, and you slip right back into the relationship comfortably. Great game.
Maybe I shouldn't have used Roman numerals.... Looks like someone misunderstood me several posts ago and it just kept going from there.
But I stick to my point that, BG1 wasn't really necessary for anyone to play before BG2. I always felt - maybe felt is a wrong word more like suspected- like I missed a big part of the story and companion background for not playing BG1. I was wrong.
BG2 just felt more fleshed out, like everything had more meat on it - story,characters etc while the world was much more sharp and beautiful in BG2 (for being a game in 2000) and offered many diffrent variations.
ANyway, I don't wanna repeat myself for the 10th time so, thats it about my thought on BG1.
I would give it an 8/10 for todays standard, remember I never played it in 1998, but in 2013. Which tells me what a great game it must have been in 1998 - more like a 9 probably.
ps! I'm glad I bought it though, I don't regret it a bit. Also, I made 4 of my friends pick it up over steam
But blame Atari!
*I like high level fights because they are more tactical and entertaining. I really like buffing up, having lots of different spells to choose from, special abilities, items, etc.
*NPCs are better developed due to banter, intermissions, longer side-quests, etc. It's true that there are less playable NPCs though.
*The variety of scenarios is something I appreciate. The Underdark, Hell, forests, mountains, lots of different dungeons, Athkatla being much more interesting than Baldur's Gate, etc.
*Everything feels more polished in general, which is normal as well being a solid sequel.
There are things I prefer from the original BG though, like the possibility of exploration.
About the plot, I got mixed feelings. I like the idea of chasing Irenicus, but it feels rather forced. Baldur's Gate plot, while it could have used a more political involvement from the player, is quite interesting. I also like the idea of taking down named Sarevok's minions on the way, who at first is not even the main villain (or so we believe!).
However, if we discard the high level fights (which I really, really like), it may come down to nostalgia, not just for me, but for many people.
I discovered Baldur's Gate because a classmate would talk about it every morning before class. He'd be super proud of using a sling and a shield with all characters, or running it to cast a fireball to unsuspecting enemies (I still remember the hand gestures and sound effects). I never completed it because it was too hard for me (I'd eventually play AD&D and understand it better) and I got frustrated from being one shot by kobolds in Nashkel. I eventually got into Baldur's Gate after a long time, and it was too boring...
But then came BG2 and everything just felt smoother. Not at first though, but I finally got into it and completed it a dozen times during the last years. I moved away to a different country and carried the box with me. It's not in English and I'm not sure I can get this dubbed version anywhere, so I treat it like a treasure.
So, to sum up, I feel BG2 is superior and more entertaining, but it could be my nostalgia.
EDIT :
I will add something about TOB. I wrote about high level fights, but not all epic level fights. I feel that epic levels is not good for a videogame...or even table D&D. You either have to balance everything up, which requires a huge amount of suspension of disbelief, or you take a totally different approach which kinda takes away from the essence of the game. So, TOB suffers from this. Too many super epic weapons and highly powered people which makes no sense. But if you need to give a challenge...
As for the ToB thing that @Vishnu mentions, I'd say almost everyone would agree ToB is the weakest link of the trilogy by far, for several reasons. For me personally I don't mind the epic gameplay though - even if some things could have been changed - but see it as a natural part of the D&D experience. What good is the prospect of high levels and epic adventures if all you do is read about it, but never get to try it out?
In my opinion the main weak point of ToB lies in the briefness and streamlining of the story, and the lack of a smoother, slower transition from what you do in BG2 to what you do in ToB. You're suddenly dropped in the grove of the talking statues, and then it's a sprint to the finish. It's also problematic as some players use characters or builds that spend a long time being relatively weak or inefficient, only to have a desire for it to pay off once they reach the ToB levels - and then it's important for that content to be fulfilling and extensive.
In BG1, the game captures the adventurous nature of the genre, story progression, how the player interacts with the game environment (not as in objects, but as in the game world, it's characters and creatures, etc.; still part of story progression for the most part) and overall exploration. I like that all the areas are linked with the wilderness in between the major points of interest, so it feels like you are actually travelling somewhere; rather than doing a jump of sorts that might only be interrupted by a small area with enemies. This allows for a greater amount of potential when it comes to NPC encounters and other quest points, this was—unfortunately—lacking in BG1 (which is still better than not being in BG2).
In BG2, the game captures character development and interaction, including romance and bonds between party members, something that BG1 sorely missed out on (thought presumably because it was only a short-ish time into the journey and the modularity of the party in the first game). It has good story progression (and, again, game-world interaction) and the ability for the player to get involved with a 'stronghold', along with a set of side quests. Again, something that BG1 sorely missed out on.
BG1 focuses on discovery with its basis in the story (i.e. who CHARNAME is, and their murky past) and locations that you explore along the way, while BG2 focuses on the development of that discovery.
It's difficult to really compare and say one is better than the other, because they both do things differently. BG1 is superior when it comes to exploration and the discovery of CHARNAME's ancestry. Whereas, BG2 is superior when it comes to character interaction and development. It's very hard for me to say "I prefer X more," because this really depends on your own personal preference for gaming.
That's my take on it, at least.
The spells and HLAs of BG2 are definitely a lot of fun for me. Not moreso than BG1, for my taste--but still great fun.
BG1 gets just about everything right for me, and about the only thing that it lacks is character interaction. The BG1 NPC Project makes an admirable attempt to add it, although it doesn't always hit the mark. I'd be happy even if just the existing vanilla character interactions scripted for BG1 fired far more often. And if Beamdog were to eventually to be able to add new professionally written and voiced banters to BG1, that would satisfy me completely.