I would like to say that in general I agree. The isometric view of BG is more immersive and, indeed, more pretty to me than just about any 3D RPG.
The exception to this is Morrowind which had me fully enthralled, much more so than any of the later titles. Morrowind and BG I and II are the pinnacles of CRPGS!
I agree. I've never been able to immerse myself into any 3D RPG, be it NWN, Sacred 2, Skyrim, etc. I'm not 100% certain of the exact reason(s), but I think it's because the artwork of the original IE games breaths life into the characters and events, whereas the 3D pixels make everything feel cold, mechanical, and repetitive.
I suppose I just feel that something like this,
...conveys a lot more emotion and uniqueness than this:
Which is why you spend most of the game looking at this:
Both series have their strengths and weaknesses; Baldur's Gate has more nuanced tactics and more character depth, while Skyrim brims with atmosphere and more or less gives you a fantasy-themed canvas and brush, and tells you to go wild, and both have fantastically deep and vibrant lore underpinning them. And because the mod support for Skyrim sets the standard for the rest of the industry, you can make it even more like Baldur's Gate. I know of at least one mod which gives you multiple followers (!) and is experimenting with letting you put those followers in formation (!!), and am myself the maker of a mod which gives followers BG-esque location and quest commentary.
I played bg2 first years ago when I was a but a wee thing, at the time it was too hard. I just went back and played it again about a month ago including tob and got so into it that I decided I should play bg1. Personally I think it was the character depth, NPC banter, romances and story line that personally makes bg2 better for me. The character quests and other side quests make it easier to follow for some than in bg1. I also totally agree with Dee in their opinion on actual d&d play. In the beginning of an actual campaign we would start out with sticks and by the end of the campaign be so overpowered that our characters would seem like we used shadow keeper on them. While I think bg1 is a great game in its own right. bg2 is deff a worthy sequel and my personal fav.
I like the portraits and freedom of BG1, but overall I liked the pace, NPCs dialog, item selection, spell selection, and story of the second game + throne of Baal far better. When I play through BG1 I feel like I just want it to end generally. I don't feel that way playing through BG2. Every class in BG1 feels like a fighter. You don't start to get any interesting spells or items until near the very end of the game. The monsters you fight in BG2 are also a lot more interesting IMO. You get to fight a powerful wizard, Liches, Vampires, Dragons, and all manner of nasty beasties. It's also a lot of fun to feel god like near the end of throne of baal.
I played BG2 first, but don't really have a favorite. I think they are both amazing games with their own unique feel.
Although Serevok was an amazing villain and I enjoyed him very much, Irenicus really blew me away. He felt like a legitimate evil mage and the cutscenes really made me feel like he was super powerful. Not to mention, David Warner's voice overs were bad ass. He really captured the essence of Jon Irenicus. Still, that does not take away anything from Serveok. He was still an excellent villain.
I like BG2 more than one due to the power that is given to the characters in 2 and ToB. Of course summoning a Planetar/Deva or calling down a Meteor wouldn't be as satisfying if I hadn't started out summoning wolves and throwing pebbles and Missiles, but I like to feel my characters have power and have become strong. For example, I started my second playthrough a few days ago on another trilogy run. I played about 3 hours of BG1 before feeling bored and that it was busywork which would lead up to BG2 and ToB. Both games are very good in their own right, I just like 2 more because that's when the characters really begin to shine combat and personality wise.
...conveys a lot more emotion and uniqueness than this:
What, a fan's bad edit of a good portrait?
The so-called "bad edit" does a far better job of depicting the character as a drow, and isn't cluttered by shade/glow effects.
I actually really like viconia's bg1 portrait, I don't know why so many people have a problem with it. That said, @Quartz, come on now. It's not *that* bad, especially for a viconia edit.
BG2 just has better quests and better dungeons. The dungeons of BG1 are essentially the Nashkel mines, the Cloakwood mines, Candlekeep and the final dungeon. Aside from that, the side dungeons are super bland, with the exception of Durlag's tower.
BG1 is also not as accepting if you start out as a mage, thief, bard, or druid. The first half of the game is heavily imbalanced towards fighter-type classes. BG2 seems more balanced.
That being said, there are some advantages to BG1. The openness is super appealing. The very slow but steady progression in your first few levels is good. The diverse array of NPCs is great. The one flaw of BG2 is not having enough of certain kinds of NPCs, though the BG2 NPCs have more depth.
Lastly Baldur's Gate in BG1 is mega-disappointing. The area was poorly designed and is loaded with so much useless filler. As fun as the wilderness is to explore in BG1, the eponymous city is tedious. The way Athkatla was done is substantially better.
I used to obsess over details in artwork. "Oh, the artist did this little bit wrong ... It should be fixed!"
When someone else than the original artist fixes it, it just turns said artwork into an amalgamated piece that is at odds with itself. This Viconia edit is no exception.
I tried BG2 first found it far too confusing: I just about struggled out of Irenicus' dungeon and gave up because I couldn't figure out how to exit Waukeen's Promenade. Later I went back and tried BG1 thinking "this will be simpler". After getting slaughtered a couple of times by Tarneesh outside the Friendly Arms Inn I was tempted to give up that too, but I decided "no, I AM going to master this." And eventually I started to enjoy it. Overall I think 1 is the better game: I prefer the open exploration at the start whereas Ankhatla is just too crowded for me -I can never finish a quest without picking up three more. And I find the first game is better balanced between classes whereas 2 is too heavily slanted towards magic. I've finished BG1 many times but I've only ever slogged my way through ToB once. By ToB everything is too big, too exaggerated for my taste, but I can imagine a LOTR-type world in BG1. It's a more internally-consistent world: when BG2 brings in other planes it's mixing sci-fi with faux-mediaeval which just don't fit together IMO.
And I find the first game is better balanced between classes whereas 2 is too heavily slanted towards magic.
I think this is a result of AD&D 2d Edition rules: mages start off super weak and useless at low level and end up being super powerful at high levels. Note, I do not think this is a bad thing: AD&D is designed around the concept of a full-party adventure- the idea of making each class able to hold its own on its own has little to no place.
Hmm, seems I didn't vote the first time around, so:
I first played BG1 and I honestly can't say which I think is the better game.
Two years ago I would have said BG1 without a doubt - for that 'starting from scratch' feeling and the general 'openness' of the game (apart from the main quest line there seems to be less hand-holding than in BG2).
However, since then I have installed Dungeon-Be-Gone and consequently played BG2 (inc. ToB) a lot more. With more experience of BG2 I've reversed my initial opinion that it railroads you and have in fact found that it offers me more variables to play with in terms of party composition and quest sequencing, which in turn gives me more roleplaying opportunities.
But that feeling you get when leaving Candlekeep with just the shirt on your back and not a clue what's going on is still hard to beat.
P.S. I just wish BG1 didn't have the Tomes because it always makes me feel like I'm missing out on something every time I start a game in BG2.
And I find the first game is better balanced between classes whereas 2 is too heavily slanted towards magic.
I think this is a result of AD&D 2d Edition rules: mages start off super weak and useless at low level and end up being super powerful at high levels. Note, I do not think this is a bad thing: AD&D is designed around the concept of a full-party adventure- the idea of making each class able to hold its own on its own has little to no place.
That's not really the result of 2e, that's pretty much bog-standard for D&D, once a Wizard hits Third level spells, their power just skyrockets from there. Only exception may be 4e, but 4e is an exception to a lot of things.
BG2 is technically the better game, so if I had to choose I'd go with that. But I like both games equally but for different reasons.
Yes. BG2 is the better game. I replay BG1 far more often though because I prefer the low level campaign and origin aspect of the game. Love Bg2 also but I generally get through it less often. I really don't like TOB at all and have only forced myself through it twice.
I'm good with ending the adventure after stopping Irenicus.
This is an incredibly hard poll for me. I have always viewed the various BG games as a single experience. If I play through one, I do a full run of them all (unless my crippling restartitis sets in). If I HAVE to choose one, I suppose I'll go with BG2. While the I feel that Sarevok is a stronger vllain overall, BG1's story is severely back loaded. Everything since entering the titular city is full of intrigue, hunting down the iron throne, deciphering their plans, learning about the upstart Sarevok. Everything before that point feels really unfocused. BG2's story feels far more focused than BG1, which I appreciate. The many sidequests are also much better in BG2, each one a complete story in their own right. While Sarevok is better written, I enjoy the performance of Irenicus far more. The kidnapping of Imoen feels far more personal and makes me want to hunt him down more. Yes, Sarevok did murder Gorion, and while I do really like the character, I had far more time to bond with Imoen, giving her crisis more impact.
I like low-level play, I like to be inside the world. In BG2, the world increasingly revolves around the player, in BG1 the player needs to find his/her way in the world. That said, BG tutu and the EE's made the gameplay of BG1 a lot better.
I also like Morrowind and Skyrim for that reason, there's a lot going on in the world, in Morrowind there's the very strange and magical world with its silt striders and mushroom forests, but in Skyrim there's just a lot going on in the background. I sometimes just sit on a bench overlooking a valley, seeing a giant herd his mammoths, and watching a bear hunt a deer.
...but in Skyrim there's just a lot going on in the background. I sometimes just sit on a bench overlooking a valley, seeing a giant herd his mammoths, and watching a bear hunt a deer.
That's one thing I love to do in Oblivion and Skyrim, thanks to the Radiant AI. I'll often pick a spot in a market or other popular place and just watch the citizens be citizens.
I've been playing BG1 a lot more than BG2 because BG1 feels a lot more modable. BG2 and SOD have complicated enough scripts that I feel like if I mess around with them I'm just going to screw something up, maybe break the game. In BG1, it's simple enough to do cool things.
I can imagine I could vote for BG1 if I used the NPC mod. But as the games are, BG2 is my favourite (even though nowadays I cannot do a run that is not complete, so I play it very little)
Comments
The exception to this is Morrowind which had me fully enthralled, much more so than any of the later titles.
Morrowind and BG I and II are the pinnacles of CRPGS!
Both series have their strengths and weaknesses; Baldur's Gate has more nuanced tactics and more character depth, while Skyrim brims with atmosphere and more or less gives you a fantasy-themed canvas and brush, and tells you to go wild, and both have fantastically deep and vibrant lore underpinning them. And because the mod support for Skyrim sets the standard for the rest of the industry, you can make it even more like Baldur's Gate. I know of at least one mod which gives you multiple followers (!) and is experimenting with letting you put those followers in formation (!!), and am myself the maker of a mod which gives followers BG-esque location and quest commentary.
Although Serevok was an amazing villain and I enjoyed him very much, Irenicus really blew me away. He felt like a legitimate evil mage and the cutscenes really made me feel like he was super powerful. Not to mention, David Warner's voice overs were bad ass. He really captured the essence of Jon Irenicus. Still, that does not take away anything from Serveok. He was still an excellent villain.
For example, I started my second playthrough a few days ago on another trilogy run. I played about 3 hours of BG1 before feeling bored and that it was busywork which would lead up to BG2 and ToB. Both games are very good in their own right, I just like 2 more because that's when the characters really begin to shine combat and personality wise.
BG1 is also not as accepting if you start out as a mage, thief, bard, or druid. The first half of the game is heavily imbalanced towards fighter-type classes. BG2 seems more balanced.
That being said, there are some advantages to BG1. The openness is super appealing. The very slow but steady progression in your first few levels is good. The diverse array of NPCs is great. The one flaw of BG2 is not having enough of certain kinds of NPCs, though the BG2 NPCs have more depth.
Lastly Baldur's Gate in BG1 is mega-disappointing. The area was poorly designed and is loaded with so much useless filler. As fun as the wilderness is to explore in BG1, the eponymous city is tedious. The way Athkatla was done is substantially better.
When someone else than the original artist fixes it, it just turns said artwork into an amalgamated piece that is at odds with itself. This Viconia edit is no exception.
Overall I think 1 is the better game: I prefer the open exploration at the start whereas Ankhatla is just too crowded for me -I can never finish a quest without picking up three more. And I find the first game is better balanced between classes whereas 2 is too heavily slanted towards magic. I've finished BG1 many times but I've only ever slogged my way through ToB once. By ToB everything is too big, too exaggerated for my taste, but I can imagine a LOTR-type world in BG1. It's a more internally-consistent world: when BG2 brings in other planes it's mixing sci-fi with faux-mediaeval which just don't fit together IMO.
I first played BG1 and I honestly can't say which I think is the better game.
Two years ago I would have said BG1 without a doubt - for that 'starting from scratch' feeling and the general 'openness' of the game (apart from the main quest line there seems to be less hand-holding than in BG2).
However, since then I have installed Dungeon-Be-Gone and consequently played BG2 (inc. ToB) a lot more.
With more experience of BG2 I've reversed my initial opinion that it railroads you and have in fact found that it offers me more variables to play with in terms of party composition and quest sequencing, which in turn gives me more roleplaying opportunities.
But that feeling you get when leaving Candlekeep with just the shirt on your back and not a clue what's going on is still hard to beat.
P.S. I just wish BG1 didn't have the Tomes because it always makes me feel like I'm missing out on something every time I start a game in BG2.
I'm good with ending the adventure after stopping Irenicus.
BG2's story feels far more focused than BG1, which I appreciate. The many sidequests are also much better in BG2, each one a complete story in their own right. While Sarevok is better written, I enjoy the performance of Irenicus far more. The kidnapping of Imoen feels far more personal and makes me want to hunt him down more. Yes, Sarevok did murder Gorion, and while I do really like the character, I had far more time to bond with Imoen, giving her crisis more impact.
*EDIT* I like the npcs in BG2 more as well.
I also like Morrowind and Skyrim for that reason, there's a lot going on in the world, in Morrowind there's the very strange and magical world with its silt striders and mushroom forests, but in Skyrim there's just a lot going on in the background. I sometimes just sit on a bench overlooking a valley, seeing a giant herd his mammoths, and watching a bear hunt a deer.