Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Categories

New Premium Module: Tyrants of the Moonsea! Read More
Attention, new and old users! Please read the new rules of conduct for the forums, and we hope you enjoy your stay!

The storyline.

The storyline in the I was really nice, and iron's crisi, planned, could sound realistic, in a similar european dark age context, warriors, clerics, mages, adding some spells and creatures. In the II the storyline was really bad, nothing realistic, they did add monks and too many different history context, ending wearing a medieval armor with a monk in a shi-fi looking place. But the gameplay was better. Whitch storyline do you like more.

Comments

  • TuthTuth Member Posts: 233
    I personally prefer the storyline of the first Baldur's Gate for similar reasons. I wouldn't say it is realistic, but more believeable. I do it similarly when preparing adventure for my pen and paper RPGs. The world which lives on its own and the PC is thrown in it to make its own path without the assumed/correct route. I love that there is gossip about the crisis and other stuff in inns and commoners talking mostly about their own problems. Some however, do give some interesting, but vague stories e.g. about Ulcaster in Beregost.

    I like that even though we meet Sarevok early, his plans and person are shrouded in mystery and only much later we learn the in fact he's behind the current problems of that region and his background. The whole scenario would've been played out even without the PC's involvement, though with different ending probably.

    The low level story with traditional medieval-like setting is just what I personally enjoy in a fantasy setting most of the time. Weapons breaking and quite rare magical equipement, mages as glass cannon, people living their lives and wild open areas not connected to any quests - these add to the overall atmosphere of Baldur's Gate. I much prefer the more believeable world to the one focused on gameplay.

  • DJKajuruDJKajuru Member Posts: 3,208
    I understand your opinions, but in BG2 the city of Athkatla offers a greater variety of intrigues and roleplaying opportunities. It does look more "unrealistic" than BG1, but that's the way Faerun is seen in D&D 3rd edition - a world full of races, monsters and LOTS of magical things. There are other campaign sets for D&D which are a more "modest" and (should I say it?) realistic, but that is not Faerun's case.

    If I were a dungeon master in a Forgotten Realms campaign, I would always try make magic and magical creatures/ places more misterious , and alien characteristics such as monks even rarer and exotic.

    If BG1 had more opportuinties for roleplaying and plot twists, I would defend it with tooth and nail.

    sarevok57
  • sarevok57sarevok57 Member Posts: 4,984
    you also have to remember in bg2 the story line is based on the shadow thieves, hence the title SHADOWS of amn, I thought the story line was much stronger in bg2 than bg1 but I love both games just the same

  • AramintaiAramintai Member Posts: 232
    edited August 2015
    I think BG1 seems more realistic because it's a low level campaign - the party doesn't have powerful abilitites yet and seems more like a bunch of normal common people, so to speak. Also devs couldn't just put there most dangerous magical creatures like dragons, illithids, beholders and whatnot and expect a noob party to live. That's why bestiary in BG1 is more timid and easy to kill - mostly bandits and common beasts from the starter set. Even mages are rare and tough in BG1 because many spells at that point could 1-hit kill the whole party.
    But BG2 is a mid-level campaign and things start to become very interesting there with full spectrum of all sorts of enemies and high level magic. Storyline in BG2 is on steroids as well - everything is better and more varied in there, from antagonist to locations and different factions at play. Sure, some iron crisis will look trivial compared to all that, but Forgotten Realms is a high fantasy setting, so it's expected that unrealistic things take place there every day.

    Post edited by Aramintai on
  • DragonKingDragonKing Member Posts: 1,664
    edited August 2015
    Bg2 all the way, bg1 was to boring and generic. When 1 think of DnD, I think of much more then just human this human that. Bg1 just like another boring rpg tossed into yet another Eurocentric setting. Part of the beauty of SoA was some of the places you go. Like when you go into the demonic planes or even to the underdark. Places like that made the game feel different.

    Post edited by DragonKing on
    semiticgodDJKajuru
  • DrHappyAngryDrHappyAngry Member Posts: 1,322
    I think both games have their strengths, and do appreciate the more wandering exploration based aspects of bg1, but I do have to admit, bg2 had the better story, better character development, and the best villain (although Sarevok's pretty badass). For those of us that actually played D&D 2nd ed, the first probably does have a certain resonance, since most D&D games were fairly low level and more explorative. I can see the appeal for the first and low level campaigns, since danger is more real, and death awaits around every corner, even a wolf can be a major battle. All that being said, I still feel like BG2 was more fun, took you to a wider variety of areas, had more interesting stories for it's characters, and David Warner, as seen below in one of his greatest roles as The Lobe

    DJKajuru
Sign In or Register to comment.