BG1 vs BG2 - 20+ years later the debate goes on
HaHaCharade
Member Posts: 1,644
Which game is "Better"? A pointless argument at this stage in our lives, but I found this write-up that likely some of you have seen. I must say I agree with many points, especially the lore of epic weapons and lack of party choices from the game's launchpoint. in BG2. That said, the insulting tone of the article for those who disagree could have been removed.
Thoughts?
https://lilura1.blogspot.com/2020/12/Baldurs-Gate-1-vs-Baldurs-Gate-2-BG1-vs-BG2.html
Thoughts?
https://lilura1.blogspot.com/2020/12/Baldurs-Gate-1-vs-Baldurs-Gate-2-BG1-vs-BG2.html
0
Comments
You are right and I'm with you 100% on your choice
As @BelgarathMTH said, I also prefer low level play and therefore my preference is BG 1. I enjoy making new characters and enjoy the thrill of worrying about that kobold's arrows. Probably the sweet spot for me is mid-BG, where you will not die from kobolds, but still have to think in combat and play it safe sometimes.
I do enjoy early BG2 as you are sort of 'starting over' and trying to rebuild your power. But the amount of magic items available turns me off a bit. I have nothing against spells, but it is the Monty Haul nature of BG2 that bugs me more than anything. And don't even get me started on ToB's magic items
What turns me off BGII in the beginning is how it is assumed that your party was the canon party. I get they have limited options to kick off the new adventure, but how about starting on your own and then encountering people. I dunno. You being captured together with people I wasn't even traveling with kind of ruins some of it. A very minor piece but bothersome.
I think the pre-expansion BG 1 dungeons are pretty bad, especially with how the narrow corridors in places like Ulcaster or Firewine screw up the pathfinding. I often skip them for that reason. It's clear that they had figures it out much better with Durlag's Tower.
I'd also say that BG 2 is more impressive on the first play-through as it has more twists, neat side stories and hidden surprises than BG 1. Things like ending up in the Planar Prison. So I'd say they about equal when replaying them, but BG 2 is better on the 1-3 playthroughs. I know a lot of people will disagree, but I feel that this is partially due to BG 1 being their first real D&D computer games - coming from the Gold Box games it was nice to see the progress, but I think that is because people were impressed by the engine when they first encountered it, not the game in the engine itself.
Post-EE I find that I like Baldur's Gate 1 better--the improvements to the game engine make it a much better experience. I am also more of an "explorer" player than a "dungeon crawl" player--of course, I say that, knowing full well that IWDEE is better than either BGEE or BG2EE and it is primarily "dungeon crawl"....but its story is better. Being low-level also makes it more challenging--eventually all BG2 fights become the same fight using the same tactics (wizards cast Lower Resistance or a fighter whirlwinds with The Answerer, tanks go in to distract, the cleric winds up a Harm spell, then *boom* 1d4 hit points left and the next hit finishes it off).
I play BG2 for an entirely different reason, mostly centered around how my parties members grow or change over the course of the game. BG1 is about the adventure itself.
I remember @semiticgoddess being a BG2 fan over BG1, so shouting out.
It might be worth noting that my preference for BG1 extends to its general aesthetic, with perhaps the exception of a number (but not all) of spell effects—in particular its character sprites, its stony UI, and its inventory paper dolls and icons. In general, I find BG1 captured the AD&D tabeltop adventuring aspect much better than BG2, which went down a different narrative route. I love BG2, mind you—just BG1 lets out a vibe that is more to my general liking.
While she makes a compelling case, on some points I think she's really reaching.
1. What's all the countryside content in BG2 for? I dunno. Fun?
2. Limited caster mobility in BG2 is a great point. BG2 casters would've been much more challenging if they all had Davaeorn's mobility.
3. I found the city of Baldur's Gate to be frustrating due to the difficulty of moving between districts and abundance of simultaneous quests. Athkatla is much easier to navigate.
4. I found the opening dungeon of BG2 to be a nice introduction to the sequel.
5. The lack of height-mapped terrain in BG2 is a really great point that I'd never noticed.
6. New classes, new class kits, romances, familiars, craftable items, strongholds, and npc dialog add variety and replayability.
7. Increased spells and magic items are an inevitable part of high-level D&D. Yes, it can be too much, but that's just a part of the rpg that Baldur's Gate is based on.
8. I agree that high-level abilities were botched. These are based on 3rd edition D&D epic level abilities that are available at level 21, yet in BG2 a multiclassed caster gets them before before getting 8th level spells!
9. She’s correct that liches without phylacteries is a little silly. This could've been avoided by simply making them "undead casters."
10. Why haven't illithids and liches taken over Athkatla? Simple -- the general populace can defend themselves with all the powerful magic items floating around!
She didn't mention recruitable character portraits, which I thought were much better in BG1 than BG2. Jaheira's portraits are a prime example.
In many cases what she calls "feature bloat" or "wasted dev-cycle resources" I call "details," and it's those details that keep the game interesting to me all these years, despite having not played it in over a decade.
I don't think either BG1 or BG2 are superior. They are two parts of one huge saga, each part with its own strengths and weaknesses. Maybe we can just call the whole thing "Baldur's Gate," and enjoy playing.