BG-I vs SoA

Ashendil

I was wondering... which of the two games do the people here on the forum prefer and why?

Baldurs Gate is my favourite game ever. I even like it better than SoA. Why? Mostly because I like the setting and art style of BG-I better. Also, I think BG has an edge in terms of story. Still, I prefer playing BG with Tutu or BGT so I can benefit from SoA's engine.

Bonus question: Does anyone know why they changed Sarevok's appearance so for ToB? He looked very pasty in BG and in ToB he suddenly looks much more exotic.

Quartz

There was a poll on this, I think it ended up as somewhere between SoA 65%, BG1 35% and SoA 60%, BG1 40%.

I agree with you in preferring Baldur's Gate 1. I play it vanilla though.

Cheesebelly

What do you mean by exotic? I mean, we just are able to see his face without the helmet. If you look closely, you'll notice that the BG1 Sarevok had glowing eyes and eye tattoos around his eyes, much like the BG2 portrait.

As for which one I like best, the best answer would be - I love both for different reasons. Exploration, unforgiving lands for the first one, fantastic story and deep characters for the second one

creator1629

can't choose one either, it is true that people really loved them both for different reasons. they each had their unique qualities that the other one didn't have

BelgarathMTH

I love both, but BG1 has an edge for me, just because I think that D&D is at its best at levels 1-8, where you're only *dreaming* about high level powers. Once you actually get them, you wind up fighting beholders, illithids, demons, and dragons. Eeeew. I just wanted to be able to get revenge on the bullies from when I was a pre-first-level, not get consumed into a nightmare of horror.

Actually, "getting consumed into a nightmare of horror", can be kind of interesting. Thus my love of high-level and epic play.

But my heart belongs to the carefree, summer days of youthful innocence in a good old, levels 1-8 game. Owning goblins, kobolds, gnolls, wolves, wargs, and bears, oh my! Those were the days.

Dee

BG1 is like A New Hope. You're young, you don't yet know your place in the world, and you kind of get swept up in the biggest drama the world has ever seen.

BG2 is like Empire Strikes Back. You begin in an unfamiliar place and have to fight your way to get out of it, your friends are all scattered to the four winds, and things are just generally a lot darker than they were back at Candlekeep.

Throne of Bhaal is like...The Phantom Menace. It had some great ideas, but missed on the execution.

I liked BG2, but that's mainly because I like things a little darker in my RPGs.

BelgarathMTH

@Aosaw, I *love* your comparison of the BG trilogy to the Star Wars trilogy. However, I don't think that ToB is quite as much of a fail as you do.

The first two are almost no-brainers to compare. As a teenager relishing New Hope and Empire for the first time, I immediately was struck to the core by the darker tone of the second. I didn't like it at first. How could they torture Han? How could they split Luke from Han and Leia and Chewy and 3PO?

Same for BG - How could they *kill* Dynaheir and Khalid? How could they have Imoen *changed* by being tortured?

Sarevok seems roughly analogous to Vader, and Irenicus seems roughly analogous to the Emperor.

So, I don't know, who would Melissan be analogous to? Darth Maul? Actually, maybe you're right after all. ToB would have been better if Sarevok had somehow ascended to Melissan's place, and had been the big bad driving the ToB story, rather than being a playable NPC. Or, even better, if Irenicus had somehow managed to ascend to Melissan's place instead of simply being thrown into the Lake of Fire in the lowest level of Hell. Now, *that* would have been a story!

Dee

Well, I don't have any problems with the story of ToB. Just like the story of Episode I is fine with me.

The problem is with the actual time and energy spent on it. Episode I was originally supposed to be what is now the first third of Episode III. But they decided to start with Anakin as a child to make it appeal more to younger audiences. It had the unexpected effect of alienating the older audiences, which soured the next two movies.

Throne of Bhaal isn't exactly "dumbed down", but it's definitely scaled back from what it was supposed to be. I hope that they can get David Gaider on the line to see about implementing the Ascension mod (the story content from it, at least) when it comes to that.

creator1629

belgarathmth said:

I love both, but BG1 has an edge for me, just because I think that D&D is at its best at levels 1-8, where you're only *dreaming* about high level powers. Once you actually get them, you wind up fighting beholders, illithids, demons, and dragons. Eeeew. I just wanted to be able to get revenge on the bullies from when I was a pre-first-level, not get consumed into a nightmare of horror.

Actually, "getting consumed into a nightmare of horror", can be kind of interesting. Thus my love of high-level and epic play.

But my heart belongs to the carefree, summer days of youthful innocence in a good old, levels 1-8 game. Owning goblins, kobolds, gnolls, wolves, wargs, and bears, oh my! Those were the days.

that is very true, there is something about those lower levels and dreaming about the higher levels that made it fun. i remember in bg1 looking at page 9 of my spellbook and wondering, or getting my first +1 weapon and thinking "omg this is the best weapon ever!"

Ashendil

Cheesebelly said:

What do you mean by exotic? I mean, we just are able to see his face without the helmet. If you look closely, you'll notice that the BG1 Sarevok had glowing eyes and eye tattoos around his eyes, much like the BG2 portrait.

Hmm, I just rewatched the Baldurs Gate intro and he actually does not look as pasty as I always remembered it. But he also did not look golden-brown like he does in ToB. I don't know, somehow Sarevok always was like this Kurgan (Highlander) type of guy in my mind.

Lemernis

They're both great and they complement each other, really. I prefer BG1, though, via Tutu or BGT and with SCS/SCSII installed. I like the sense of fresh adventure in BG1, and its level of play. It's not that I don't love higher level play as well, though. I love fighting the dragons of BG2.

Dee

I think that BG2 had learned from BG1's weaknesses and took measures to compensate: more NPC interactions, more and bigger side-quests, etc.

I think that if BG1 had had this same level of depth to character and questing, it would probably not even be a question.

ajwz

Sometimes when I see someone pick one game over the other, I like to pick the opposing game and argue it's virtues. Once game being objectively better than the other just doesn't make sense to me. They are both very very good.

jpierce55

Aosaw said:

BG1 is like A New Hope. You're young, you don't yet know your place in the world, and you kind of get swept up in the biggest drama the world has ever seen.

BG2 is like Empire Strikes Back. You begin in an unfamiliar place and have to fight your way to get out of it, your friends are all scattered to the four winds, and things are just generally a lot darker than they were back at Candlekeep.

Throne of Bhaal is like...The Phantom Menace. It had some great ideas, but missed on the execution.

I liked BG2, but that's mainly because I like things a little darker in my RPGs.

I think TOB pretty much did what it had to do. The story line could not be pretty, but it was good. Also, keep in mind it was only an expansion, and the most developed expansion I have ever seen.

Jean_Luc

This thread is very interesting and original.

bigdogchris

BG1 and BG2 were both great games in their own merit. I prefer BG1 because it was more adventure based than BG2, and that I enjoy playing low level character's.

RedGuard

I much prefer BG2 to BG1. Better story telling and setting I felt. Wonderful performance from David Warner as Irenicus.

Caerdon

I love both, but I slightly prefer BG1.

I think Bioware tried to improve on the original by making pretty much every area and character in SoA connected to a quest or the main plot, so that everything would have a purpose and everyone would have something meaninful to do. For me, this backfired: in SoA, everythinig feels like it's specifically placed there just for you to find, and in my case, that breaks the immersion. I love the fact that in BG1 you bump into places and people that aren't connected to you in any way; they are there because they belong there, not because they are coincidentally just the thing you need for the next phase of some particular quest.

Obviously the other part of this is the free roaming and the complete lack of it in SoA. Wandering around the Sword Coast was - and still is - a major part of why I love the series in the first place. In BG1, the world went on without caring about you, and that made everything seem much larger and more wondrous than it probably ever was.

I agree with those who said they prefer low level characters. I like the sense of vulnerability. I like that big, scary ogres and even wildlife actually present a threat - in other words: enemies don't need to be unrealistically high level or well armed to be a threat (ToB anyone?). I loved that in BG1 magical weapons were somewhat rare and that even finding the first +1 weapon was an achievement that actually had an impact on the game.

I also want to specifically mention this: I hate fighting mages in SoA. Layers and layers of protection that you're supposed to peel one by one. And then the contingencies kick in. It's not hard, but it's extremely tedious. (Generally I just hit them with Carsomyr or Flail of Ages until they die.)

Of course, SoA made some huge improvements, too. BG1 had very little banter and characterization, and while the voice acting was good, SoA raised the bar still (and had lots of it). SoA has much better storytelling (although the story itself isn't anything special in comparison and, frankly, a little contrived in places). And ovbiously the engine itself is much better.

That's it, mostly.

Quartz

@Caerdon - Really well put post sir. I agree with you on everything, except perhaps for SoA's mage battles. While tedious, mage battles certainly did become a lot more frightening, like perhaps they should.

Dragonspear

@Creator1629 I remember getting +1 weapons finally and then discovering my weapons would no longer randomly break. I was so happy.

Excalibur_2102

I tend to think both games have different strengths and weaknesses. On the one hand, I love the exploration, open endness and low level play in the first game. I also personnally prefer the main quest in the first game, though I understand that this is a debatable issue.

The second one excelled in story telling (not really the actually plot, but the way it was told (Irenicus/David Warner helped... Though Kevin Michael Richardson was awesome too ), and the side quests were a helluva lot better than they were in the first. I did miss the random wilderness areas of the first, but could understand why they were cut. I guess they would be pretty boring at that level fighting low level encounters. Cant have a dragon round every corner after all.

Its actually difficult for me to decide on which I prefer. But while I think for sure that SoA was a better game, in alot of ways I like the first better!

Dragonspear

Ugh if I have to come down for one side or the other...........It'll be BG2.

My reasoning is that I love the thought of fighting dragons (my favorite class and only one with a complete playthrough up to this point is the Cavalier) and BG2 had that in spades. I also learned to enjoy mage fights but I'll admit it was rather one sided considering I was using Keldorn with Carsomyr +5 and then my own PC Cavalier using Purifier +5 and The Answerer =/

mch202

I made a poll once about it, it ended up 25% for bg1 and 45% for bg2...

http://forum.baldursgate.com/discussion/2551/the-official-baldurs-gate-1-vs-2-poll/p1


I like bg1 more because of the simplicity of low level partys plus the open world /wilderness areas

Shin

Both games have different advantages and disadvantages in my book, but I'd also choose SoA for over-all feeling. In contrast to @bigdogchris and @Ashendil I tend to prefer the long-haul kind of D&D play where characters are allowed to develop and reach the peak of their potential, the antes are up and you get a shot at affecting the core mythology of the setting.

In that perspective BG seems to me a bit like an appetizer/introduction, while SoA is the main course in terms of content, game length, stakes and character development.

Of course, the way I see it the real power of the games become evident mostly when you play them as a trilogy and consider the full scope of your character's journey:

Permidion_Stark

BG1 all the way. It's as close to perfect as you can get (unless, of course, BG:EE gets closer)

BG2 doesn't really work for me. I don't think it looks as good. I think the adventure feel over-programmed. And I find the romances tedious (and sometimes downright embarrassing).

BelgarathMTH

@Shin, I love your picture with your post. It'd be fun to see a full set of pictures like that with a full party of adventurers comprising all the character classes.

Ashendil

ajwz said:

Sometimes when I see someone pick one game over the other, I like to pick the opposing game and argue it's virtues. Once game being objectively better than the other just doesn't make sense to me. They are both very very good.

Well, I was asking about personal preference. not objective evaluation. I can see that BG2 has a lot of great things to offer. It is just that BG1 is more to my taste. In my opinion, BG2 would be better than BG1 if it did not have some aspects that, personally, I consider inferior to how things were in BG1. The artwork being one example for what I mean.

Clearly, bot are great games, BG1 just comes out on top for me personally.

Zeckul

I agree with all points @Caerdon made about what makes BG1 special, and yet, I still prefer BG2. I just crave tactical spell-based combat and BG1 leaves me very frustrated in that area, whereas BG2 practically showers me with options and colorful explosions. There's nothing quite like gating in fiends, erasing lower-level monster with a single word, tripling the damage output of your fighters and raining fiery death.

LordsDarkKnight185

belgarathmth said:

@Shin, I love your picture with your post. It'd be fun to see a full set of pictures like that with a full party of adventurers comprising all the character classes.

This reminds me of 3.5e. If you look at the Players Handbook 1 and 2, every class has its own "character" and if you look at the PHB1 it shows them at low-level and if you look at PHB2 it shows hte same characters as a much higher-level. Looks pretty cool IMHO.

Lemernis

I will add that I love the fact that I can play one, or the other, or both together. And do (or did back when I was playing the game). I love that I can get that variety of experience from the series. From the humble beginnings standing in front of the Candlekeep Inn to the Throne of Bhaal and the offer of godhood.

fighter_mage_thief

I prefer BG2, mostly because there are more monsters to fight. When IWD came out, I loved seeing orcs and goblins, lizardmen, yaun-ti, trolls, umber hulks, ettins, giants, and elementals. There were also a lot of new spells. BG2 brought a lot of interesting new spells, and a lot of new monsters, in addition to what I saw in BG and IWD. Golems, genies, rakshasas, vampires, liches, beholders, mindflayers, dragons, and a few interesting unique encounters like the demi-lich and certain demons. Both are great games though, no doubt about that, and in all honesty, I prefer both games without their expansions. I couldn't get into ToB, and I thought TotSC was too much of a random addon, which made it feel fake, although I did like the werewolf mission and the frost-themed mage. At least a lot of ToB was driven by the story of the Bhaalspawn war, to the extent that it almost feels like a BG III to me as opposed to an expansion, with the exception of the seemingly random addition of the Watcher's Keep.