The Original Baldur's Gate Better than Baldur's Gate II?
WithinAmnesia
Member Posts: 958
I was comparing the two games and I counted the Non-Player Characters
30 + 5 +1 for the Original Baldur's Gate
22 for Baldur's Gate II
It got me thinking, was Baldur's Gate II worse than the Original Baldur's Gate?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Also It seems that Baldur's Gate II has less Areas and far less world map areas than the Original Baldur's Gate along with the game progression being more linear and less 'wild west' and free range. As in one is free to explore most all of the world around the character in the Original Baldur's Gate and can enter 'impossible' areas at low level like Durlag's Tower and the Ice Dungeon and is only really barred from the City of Baldur's Gate and Returning to Candlekeep from after a skippable tutorial level (Candlekeep). While in Baldur's Gate II there is an unskippable 'notorious' prison dungeon that the party must escape and is then more or less fed areas to progress into and cannot openly and freely explore or progress into the world around the character for the areas don't exist. For example there are interesting areas towns outside of Athkatla that the player is forced to never enter and it seems that the developers lost the 'everything on the maps goes into the game' moral decision that is found in the Original Baldur's Gate (Map: http://www.pocketplane.net/volothamp/images/faerunlarge.jpg ). Also did you notice that in the Original Baldur's Gate II there are only 3+1 Evil Non-Player Characters and it is impossible to have a pure evil party unlike in Baldur's Gate One?
The Item BAM [Icon] quality in Baldur's Gate is of higher quality (opinion) for most items are 3D Modeled and or Altered from 3D Models while the items in Baldur's Gate II are just blurry painted icons that look as if they were 'reduced in quality' to create more of them. [The item colour structure and item concepts are not to be confused with technical quality]
I like the advancements in some areas, as in most of the engine changes and the 'more fleshed out' Non-Player Characters in Baldur's Gate II but I feel as if the game is not the same as the Original and it is not an improvement 'across the board'.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'm curious to hear what everyone has to say one the subject and I know I'm missing good and bad points on both sides but I wanted to give some thought provoking material for everything to think of and then write a comment on. So what game is better or worse (maybe they are the same) and for what reasons?
30 + 5 +1 for the Original Baldur's Gate
22 for Baldur's Gate II
It got me thinking, was Baldur's Gate II worse than the Original Baldur's Gate?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Also It seems that Baldur's Gate II has less Areas and far less world map areas than the Original Baldur's Gate along with the game progression being more linear and less 'wild west' and free range. As in one is free to explore most all of the world around the character in the Original Baldur's Gate and can enter 'impossible' areas at low level like Durlag's Tower and the Ice Dungeon and is only really barred from the City of Baldur's Gate and Returning to Candlekeep from after a skippable tutorial level (Candlekeep). While in Baldur's Gate II there is an unskippable 'notorious' prison dungeon that the party must escape and is then more or less fed areas to progress into and cannot openly and freely explore or progress into the world around the character for the areas don't exist. For example there are interesting areas towns outside of Athkatla that the player is forced to never enter and it seems that the developers lost the 'everything on the maps goes into the game' moral decision that is found in the Original Baldur's Gate (Map: http://www.pocketplane.net/volothamp/images/faerunlarge.jpg ). Also did you notice that in the Original Baldur's Gate II there are only 3+1 Evil Non-Player Characters and it is impossible to have a pure evil party unlike in Baldur's Gate One?
The Item BAM [Icon] quality in Baldur's Gate is of higher quality (opinion) for most items are 3D Modeled and or Altered from 3D Models while the items in Baldur's Gate II are just blurry painted icons that look as if they were 'reduced in quality' to create more of them. [The item colour structure and item concepts are not to be confused with technical quality]
I like the advancements in some areas, as in most of the engine changes and the 'more fleshed out' Non-Player Characters in Baldur's Gate II but I feel as if the game is not the same as the Original and it is not an improvement 'across the board'.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'm curious to hear what everyone has to say one the subject and I know I'm missing good and bad points on both sides but I wanted to give some thought provoking material for everything to think of and then write a comment on. So what game is better or worse (maybe they are the same) and for what reasons?
9
Comments
In bg2 Athkathla is a very lively place, there are so many random and timered encounters you can have depending on the time of the day, your quests, or npcs you have. Each time I play I get to discover new things I haven't seen before. It actually feels like a living, bust town with commoners, beggars, random thugs, city criers etc. Feels livelier than baldurs gate. And dungeons/encounters are vast and superiour to Bg1 counterparts, just compare Nalia's Keep with Nashkel Mines, two earliest dungeons you can enter in respectable games. The difference in quality is jarring. And watchers keep is the best dungeon ever made in a crpg, IMHO. Durlag's get annoying after a while with all 'lols, you die!' Traps every where.
BG2 also has more content. In terms of spells, items, classes, enemies, areas, and the kinds of quests available, BG2 has greater variety. The gameplay is considerably more complex. BG1 quests tend to last several minutes and are very local, narrow affairs. Only the BG1 main quest offers much exploration. In BG2, there are many quests like that.
BG2 is more realistic and immersive than BG1. BG1 has a lot of silly and immersion-breaking things. The old man who walks up to you and complains about how everybody always irritates him by asking for his boundless wisdom is a good example. These things exist in BG2, but I personally don't find them so distracting.
BG1 has more annoying parts. Dying is not so random in BG2, simply because you're at a higher level and it takes more than a couple hits or a Lightning Bolt to kill a character. The walking in BG1 also takes more time, and there are more empty spaces.
The characterization is better in BG2. BG1 has more characters, but they are much more shallow. From my experience, the banters are shorter and less interesting.
BG2 has better music and prettier graphics. The scenery is quite unusual and interesting in BG2. In BG1, many of the backgrounds are just sunny forests or dark, blank dungeons. You go to more interesting places in BG2, in general. The GUI in BG2 is also more elaborate and fancy. The BG1 GUI looks like plain rock; the BG2 GUI is very ornate. The voices are also nicer. Edwin's voice in particular in BG1 was very grating, considering the shouting.
I would say they're equal in terms of linearity. At the beginning of the game, both are very wide open, but in the later game, there are fewer areas for you to go to, and the path is more restricted.
As far as areas go, the actual content of the areas is not higher in BG1. BG1 has a lot of maps, but they are mostly empty. What does it matter, how wide open BG1 is, if the wide open spaces aren't as worth visiting? Having the freedom to visit lifeless areas is not very meaningful to me.
The storyline in BG2 is more colorful, and the characters outside the party are more interesting. The dialogue is more extensive. Sarevok is little more than a faceless warrior. Irenicus is a disturbed man with more complex motives, and more complex plans.
In a nutshell, while BG2 has more content, I feel that it also sacrificed much of the fundamental RPing aspects of BG1. BG1 has more freedom to explore, better balanced combat (BG2 is very biased toward magic-users), better balanced story (BG2's opening is very biased toward a good-aligned party), and (IMO at least) more memorable/likable NPCs. And while BG2 has more content, such as weapons, this is counterbalanced by the fact that the game is often structured in a way to make that content less appreciable (for example, enemies are increasingly immune to magic weapons below a certain bonus, which forces you to continually toss aside your current weapons and replace them with "better" ones).
What is the point of it? If you can't get out of it there's no game, so why be forced to go through it time and time again when there's a perfectly good tutorial to help you learn the game mechanics?
I know there's a mod somewhere that allows you to skip this bit but even if I found it I would probably make a mess of installing it (and more to the point, I shouldn't have to).
Also, most of the interesting and variable stuff in BG2 happens in Chapter 2, after which it's pretty much just a rat run to the end with very few choices to make.
In BG1 in the other hand you are faced with choices right from the start that enable you to develop your character in many different ways and pick your quests accordingly. My personal feeling is that from a roleplaying perspective BG2 is like trying to perform gymnastics in a strait jacket.
As of @semiticgod I do feel that you do have some points but.. *rolls mind to words spell: roll - unsuccessful* magic man.. the magic. I feel the whole balance thing is based on higher levels getting more abilities and more 'widgets' for multiple classes and kits (e.g. more magical clubs and Splintmail) although I do agree with @SharGuidesMyHand with Baldur's Gate II being less balanced than Original Baldur's Gate based on magic heavy bias.. Well and this.. I ask you while you watch this.. What 'Other' non-magic classes could do this?
Also I feel that the Original Baldur's Gate is weighed down in the beginning for some classes need time and experience levels to become 'competent' (e.g. Mages) although I feel that the 'golden age / zone' (of Experience Levels) is right near the end of the game when the party is on a 'linear rat race' to exterminate Sarevok. I feel that if the Baldur's Gate had say 3 more experience levels of open world non linear content to adventure upon and explore without heavy experience rewarding enemies, that the game could have been excellent in more regards [plus also in having magical items reflect more viable class options: clubs and spears].
Also I personally like the rugged fantasy stone and gold look of the original interface vs. the Elven tree bark-wood-vines and studs of the sequel.. Although that is just a matter of opinion. As of that subject thank you @SharGuidesMyHand for the thread link and what else does everyone think of what I just said? Do you fine people folks agree in areas, and if so where do you disagree or are there areas where you both agree and disagree? Maybe I missed something or you have something to add; yes, no perhaps? I would love to hear it even if you think that it is insignificant; I or someone else might find it very insightful.
Simply put:
-'Broken' Starter Prison Break / Grind [their should 'never' have to be a mod to skip places to add more fun for the masses]
-"In BG1.. you are faced with choices right from the start that enable you to develop your character in many different ways and pick your quests accordingly [unlike in Baldur's Gate II]."
-After Chapter 2 is a "just a rat run to the end with very few choices to make."
-And this perfection:
"From a roleplaying perspective BG2 is like trying to perform gymnastics in a strait jacket."
*gentle applause*.
I feel that BG2 as a whole is very lineal and repetitive - not only the overall story, but even each individual quest. Almost every standout quest in BG2 feels like a lineal dungeon crawl, following the exact same path and fighting the exact same enemies every time, whereas the quests in BG1 are often more varying - i.e: searching for Brage or Bassilus, which requires some exploration of anonymous forest areas. Plus as you've said, for a solid majority of the game, your character is restricted to following an escape route out of some place (i.e: Irenicus' dungeon, Spellhold, the underwater city, the drow city, etc.).
I can recall enjoying my very first playthrough of BG2 thanks to its impressive visuals and extra content, but once the game had lost its initial novelty, my enjoyment plummeted over subsequent attempted playthroughs. By contrast, BG1 can still feel fresh and original to me even after a far greater number of playthroughs.
BG1 provides a background for your character and the space to develop it. BG2 builds upon that with a great plot and a superb villain. One doesn't mean much without the other to me, but maybe that is because I am so used to both of them.
It reminds me of a movie that builds tension to an exciting finish. Both halves are not required to be the same, nor should they. BG2 with the same pace and environment as BG1 would be repetitive and boring, imo.
I wouldn't change a single thing really. I love them both.
Baldur's Gate is better than the Sequel for it can be played more times due to its' non-linear world and freedom to explore and adventure the way you want in a fan of areas that you mostly choose, not the plot. Baldur's Gate II has deeper, more in-depth companions and side quests with many more 'interesting' 'one-night stand' magical items and the game requires jigsaw puzzle magic duels that are more akin to a mass of reloading save files to create the perfect play in a chess match rather than a chaotic gut spewing brawl [interestingly enough, in real life most serious fights are like the latter for you cannot learn '15 fighting errors' in three minutes while fighting and reload and in real life; thus I feel more immersion and enjoyment of the latter (Opinion)]. Also it seems that the expansion pack for the sequel is like the 'black sheep' of the saga.
It seems that Baldur's Gate II is a flashy bard that comes into town and charms all of the 'ladies' with tricks, songs, dances and jokes, but then wears out its' welcome after all of the tricks, dances and one-liners become so unfreshly repeated over and over that all they turn into an unwelcomed 'one trick pony'. While the Original Baldur's Gate is the unflashy, reliable, capable, sound and deep minded quiet man in the corner who is generally more valued as time goes on; like a sagadic grandparent is to a child who grows older to appreciate the wisdom they received.
They are like comparing Health Food vs. Junk Food: Baldur's Gate II is like Junk Food, it is more popular and tastes better the health food but it looses its appeal over time and is worse in the long run while the Original Baldur's Gate is like Health Food which tastes worse but is always better for one in the long run; thus the people who consume it last longer than the people who don't. That sounds a great deal like the Original Baldur's Gate Replays vs. Baldur's Gate II Replays: The Gameplay of the Original Baldur's Gate has more longevity than the Sequal.
@WithinAmnesia: I've actually gotten the impression that Baldur's Gate is the more popular game, not BG2. And I wouldn't compare either of them to junk food. I've been playing BG2 for over half my life and it still hasn't "lost its appeal over time." It probably never will. Just like BG1 for BG1 fans. And please don't make it sound like BG2 is all cheap tricks and no substance, a "flashy bard" and "one trick pony" that "wears out its welcome." The storyline and characterization of BG2 are at least as deep as in BG1. You don't have to compare BG2 to "junk food" and shallow bards to make BG1 look better.
I agree that TOB is something of a black sheep. Mostly I think it's just a bit short, and people don't get quite as invested in the storyline.
I think a lot of it depends on which you played first. Most people started with BG1 and went on to play BG2, and most people speak more highly of the former. But I played BG2 before BG1, and I prefer the sequel.
Various items can defend a fighter from dragon's breath--there are many scrolls that would help, and armors, and shields, and potions, plus the Negative Plane Protection from the Runehammer or Improved Mace of Disruption for Shadow Dragon breath--and the dragons' physical attacks can be blocked with physical damage resistances. Just use the Defender of Easthaven and cast Hardiness twice for immunity to all physical damage. You won't even need both castings of Hardiness, necessarily, considering not every dragon is going to be able to reach you (those big circles will get in the way) and not every attack will hit, and you'll have the Rod of Resurrection to help. Being a Barbarian will make it even more possible. And, if you're talking about a max-level fighter, like this sorceror seems to be, then you have 20 HLAs to choose from, for a maximum of 100 rounds of immunity to physical damage. Not all of which a fighter will even need, especially if we're using a Barbarian. Plus, SoA dragons are vulnerable to vorpal strikes, which a fighter can land very easily. The only difficulty would be Nizidramanii'yt with his acid breath, and even then, a fighter can survive it, and heal itself with the Rod of Resurrection. It just wouldn't be able to avoid the damage outright.
As for the other non-casting classes--thieves--they can lay enough traps to take down most any enemy, and if 7 Spike Traps aren't enough, they can lay a Time Trap or simply run away to give themselves enough time to lay more. Plus, they can also use vorpal weapons with UAI, and will get automatic hits with Time Traps.
And you might be able to use the Mind Flayer Control Circlets to turn the dragons against each other, and heal the friendly ones with the Rod of Resurrection. I don't know if dragons are immune to charm, but those circlets do bypass MR, and they offer no save.
So... yes. A non-spellcaster can take on stupendously difficult challenges in BG2, if they are given the same attention as the sorceror in your video. Including the challenges that don't actually exist in BG2 in the first place, like the eight dragon battle. It's true that a Sorceror can do that more easily than, say, a Wizard Slayer, but the average fighter and the average mage in BG2 are closer in strength than the average fighter and the average mage in BG1. In BG1, the mage is utterly inferior unless it uses wands or Enchantment magic... at which point it can handle practically all encounters much more easily than a fighter. In BG2, mages are stronger overall, but a fighter can overcome crazy challenges, too. The same cannot be said for BG1, where it's not really realistic for a fighter to take on Sarevok solo--a vanilla battle.
- completely open world
- varied difficulty (some places are very hard for a starter group meaning that you can pick up the level of challenge you want from the start)
- Akatla is a great place (lots of details, lots of side quest,...)
- character level is at the sweet spot: powerful enough to get varied tactics but not yet godlike.
BG1 issues:
- lack of variety/tactics due to being low level
- Most maps feel empty and not very rewarding.
BG2 post chapter 2 issues:
- Quite linear
- Less "realistic" (how many level 20+ mages or liches can you fight in the game? Powerful enemies at every turn).
- characters are too powerful
TOB issues are the same as BG2 post chapter 2 issues but worse:
- completely linear
- completely unrealistic (every guard is a level 15 warrior with +3 weapons)
- characters are godlike
@semiticgod
I see your points but I feel that you take me as a literal translation when I'm simply saying a metaphor or analogies (I'm a bit cryptic at times yes : S). My Baldur's Gate II comparison is 'extreme' Yes (I don't fully agree with it myself) but it highlights points so brightly as to make them as simple to understand as possible (according to me at that moment that is). Yes my comparison is rather "rough and tumble" and non-politically correct but I went for simpleness and general themes, not exact portraits of character of the game.. Consider it as a comedic approach and a well-humoured look at one of my favorite games. I feel that many people also played the games back-to-back originally. I first played the Original Baldur's Gate in 2005 when I was 9 (and mostly literate, I learned much of how to read by playing Baldur's Gate) I forget when I was given Baldur's Gate II as a gift but.. hmm *calculates* I think in 2006 or 2007 (before 'midway through World of Warcraft: The Burning Crusade'). I played Baldur's Gate II with a new character and then I found Original Baldur's Gate Discs (actually my sister's burned Baldur's Gate Discs) and played those until I had to create an import file on day 364 in 3 minutes before insta-dieing in the Bridge District. Then I played Baldur's Gate II up until the elf place with the mage duel. Then *SCRATCH*..
I played a no-reload and did the usual circus-slaver-thieves stronghold-korgan's quest-trademeet quests and died to Unseeing Eye. Next time I started solved Bridge murders, got Hexxat and did her quests-quite different experience from Korgan-went to Nalia's keep, visited Windspear Hills, went to Umar Hills to get Valygar and died to a flesh to stone spell in Planar Sphere quest. Two completely different quest and npc configurations in two different games and there are still places/quests I haven't seen in the early game. The world is big, and very filled wth life, adventure and danger:no empty place or wilderness areas.
The freedom to explore, however, is definitely something that puts the sequel to shame. As soon as you're out of Candlekeep you can walk in literally any direction and find an abundant amount of random encounters, quests and loot in just about every zone. In BGII however you're stuck with "quest hubs" that you can only unlock by stumbling upon the main quest for that area. Want one of those scenic nature zones? Oh allright. You have the choice between Windspear Hills with its annoying railroad murder plot that starts as soon as you enter, Umar Hills and that druid grove which can only be accessed through Trademeet which also has quest unlock criteria. And none of those 3 zones really has much to find in them outside of their associated "main quests".
Mechanically speaking however, BGII is just vastly superior to the first game. It's so much better in fact that I have never completed a second playthrough of BG until EE came around. If we compare both EEs then the gap between both games becomes considerably smaller but the better companions races BGII:EE ahead imo and it's also a lot more fun if you're a spellcaster because being able to cast more than 2 magic missiles a day and surviving a random kobold arrow without having to reload really does make things more enjoyable.
I think mumumomo has it exactly right. Early BG2 is the most entertaining part of the trilogy, the most wide-open and most colorful. It's probably the main reason why so many people restart BG2: the best part of the game is the first half.
It would be very difficult to choose between them, though BG1 would inch ahead as I prefer TOSC to TOB.
This is usually fine in a blind playthrough but as you accumulate metagame data, it becomes increasingly annoying.
Another important part is playing "philosophy". As much as I like exploring worlds, once I know them, it becomes tedious to do the same sidequests again. I place much more emphasis on story telling. When I play a game I want to feel like I'm reading a book of which I'm the hero. If it strays too much from the main story, it feels like reading a rambling/meandering/disjointed story. I'd rather have all the quests related to the main story than loosely explained by: "you need money to get the Shadow Thieves' help".
I like what @subtledoctor said (although I use it as in an imperfect execution within the eyes of relatability)
"BG1 is definitely better. BG1 was a revelation - the D&D rules translated into a computer game that was orders of magnitude more beautiful, compelling, and fun than any earlier effort. It had a great story, with appropriate twists and turns. It opened up lots of areas to explore without making you feel like you were doing something wrong (which was the case with all of the BG2 side-quests).
Basically BG2 gives you more of a lot of things. That's great, but it's not the revelation that BG1 was. And the story is weaker. And many of the kits, abilities, spells and enemies were implemented in horrible/cheesy/munchkiny ways, using crazy house rules rather than sticking to the 2e source material, which would have served perfectly well."
There was only the General Forum for a long time on this site. It wasn't until ~BG2EE (I can't remember the exact timing) was announced that the BGEE forum was created. A lot of the general forum posts pre-BG2EE were BGEE related, a fact which is not communicated by your screenshot." [Thank You @JLee ]
________________________________________________________________________________________________________ My friend.. hold up. Just Chill..
"I've actually gotten the impression that Baldur's Gate is the more popular game, not BG2."
Have use seen the number of posts in the Baldur's Gate II section of this forum vs. the the Original Baldur's Gate?
Look it is mighty a 'rigged landslide' of over 3 to 1!
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Also this: Look at the voting difference over at Metcritic!
16 Critics, and 411 Users [Currently] Voted on: Baldur's Gate ( http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/baldurs-gate )
30 Critics, and 858 Users [Currently] Voted on: Baldur's Gate II ( http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/baldurs-gate-ii-shadows-of-amn )
It is [almost] 2 to 1 across the board!:-P
[Update: @Jlee 's below comment makes Tons of sense! So in regards to popularity, Slash the general discussion by two for Baldur's Gate II?]
There was only the General Forum for a long time on this site. It wasn't until ~BG2EE (I can't remember the exact timing) was announced that the BGEE forum was created. A lot of the general forum posts pre-BG2EE were BGEE related, a fact which is not communicated by your screenshot.