Admittedly, comparing the original versions of both games is debatable for me: although I consider BG1 to be the fundamentally better game, its engine is so limited and outdated by comparison.
However, I much prefer BG1:EE over any version of BG2, including its EE counterpart.
Hard choice but if I HAD to choose between the two instead of choosing the easy way of saying "both", it's probably BG1.
But, with the BG2/EE engine and the NPC project.
-More companions. -More places to explore. -Using tactics against a wide variety of enemies. -Every little item counts. -You can take your favorite class from the beginning and see how it fairs. -Your first Full Plate or +1 weapon counts.
Generally, I like low-magic, low level campaigns, that make you survive with tactics.
And it has been said that ADnD/3.5E is balanced for parties up to around level 10. After 10 it becomes a casters game. At least in PnP.
Is it a coincidence that the main villains of both BG2 and ToB are casters? And Liches are the biggest pain in the ass? And then there's Draconis and Sendai.
But it doesn't matter which is better. If I'm playing a new campaign, I go through all the games and I enjoy it, each game is unique.
[spoiler] And Carsomyr, Crom Faeyr, Flail of Ages, Ir'revrykal (or however you spell that thing; the weapon dropped by the anti-paladin in the fourth floor of WK in the githyanki encampment). And you get to kill dragons!
The overpowered weapons could be annoying, but you could just sell them. The flail of ages is overpowered if you are in a large party, if you are soloing you really need it. I don't like the min/max style weapons. Have a bonus, have lame damage.
The wilderness areas in BG1 felt boring, it felt like a mowing simulator where you were just going through the motions, trying to clear all the black off of every single map. BG2 was much better put together, had a much better plot, much better dialogue, much better writing, and was much better looking. There is no comparison between the two.
BG2 gives me an overall better experience, but I enjoy BG1 as well of course. If BG2 had some wilderness areas (though not as many as in BG1) it would have been perfect. Today, it's juuuuust shy of perfect.
BG1: I tend to solo it, because there just isn't any NPC interaction. BG2: I can never bring myself to do a solo run, because I love the NPC bantering.
BG2 (without TOB) is better than BG1+ToTSC. Adding in TOB brings BG2 down a peg in my opinion. I'm still going BG2 but the victory isn't as decisive as before.
BG2 (without TOB) is better than BG1+ToTSC. Adding in TOB brings BG2 down a peg in my opinion. I'm still going BG2 but the victory isn't as decisive as before.
I'm with you. I LOVE BG2, but ToB brings it down from "amazingly perfect" to "pretty darn great". BG1 . . . I have yet to finish.
BG2 for me but loved BG1 and have to play both together or BG2 isnt the same. Best game I've played with the entire series together...Sarevok though > Irenicus > Melissan...though the five bhaalspawn make up for it in TOB as best boss battles
BG1 for me. I still remember the awesomeness of how tense and nerve-wracking it was to explore the unknown with a 1st level PC with hardly any HPs at all, and to have to run away from a worg! Love the openness and freedom to explore in that game. Map after map of exploration goodness.
I must say, though, that I've always envied those for whom BG2 is best. They get to play through BG1 while looking forward to playing BG2 afterwards. For me, finishing BG1 is always a let-down of sorts, because BG2 is not nearly as much fun.
The one thing I especially like about BG1 over BG2 is the sheer amount of hidden things buried in the game. Especially dialogue. You can get a lot more of the word on the street in the game and it very much helps to shape what exactly is happening in your current chapter.
Its a shame that it hasn't gotten as much love from modders as BG2 has.
I compare it favorably the the original Star Wars trilogy. BG1 is "A New Hope", simple story of a young hero pushed into a harsh world. BG2 is "The Empire Strikes Back", better, darker and in almost every way more interesting than it's predecessor. ToB is "Return of the Jedi". There is some rehashing, and things go a little over the top and silly, but it is still epic and fun as hell.
Comments
Admittedly, comparing the original versions of both games is debatable for me: although I consider BG1 to be the fundamentally better game, its engine is so limited and outdated by comparison.
However, I much prefer BG1:EE over any version of BG2, including its EE counterpart.
But, with the BG2/EE engine and the NPC project.
-More companions.
-More places to explore.
-Using tactics against a wide variety of enemies.
-Every little item counts.
-You can take your favorite class from the beginning and see how it fairs.
-Your first Full Plate or +1 weapon counts.
Generally, I like low-magic, low level campaigns, that make you survive with tactics.
And it has been said that ADnD/3.5E is balanced for parties up to around level 10.
After 10 it becomes a casters game. At least in PnP.
Is it a coincidence that the main villains of both BG2 and ToB are casters? And Liches are the biggest pain in the ass?
And then there's Draconis and Sendai.
But it doesn't matter which is better. If I'm playing a new campaign, I go through all the games and I enjoy it, each game is unique.
[spoiler] And Carsomyr, Crom Faeyr, Flail of Ages, Ir'revrykal (or however you spell that thing; the weapon dropped by the anti-paladin in the fourth floor of WK in the githyanki encampment). And you get to kill dragons!
BG2: I can never bring myself to do a solo run, because I love the NPC bantering.
So BG2 for me.
I must say, though, that I've always envied those for whom BG2 is best. They get to play through BG1 while looking forward to playing BG2 afterwards. For me, finishing BG1 is always a let-down of sorts, because BG2 is not nearly as much fun.
Its a shame that it hasn't gotten as much love from modders as BG2 has.