I like BG2 better, although both are great. I'm surprised you (@Ashendil) would say BG1 has a better story because I think the way the story is told is WAY better in BG2, with the dream sequences and the awesome David Warner. To me BG2 just seems more epic in every way (which is impressive, because BG1 with TotSC is a pretty huge game). Longer and better quest, more detailed relationships between the characters, better villain, and of course just the fact that it covers higher levels so you get to fight more impressive monsters like dragons and liches and beholders.
I like BG2 better, although both are great. I'm surprised you (@Ashendil) would say BG1 has a better story because I think the way the story is told is WAY better in BG2, with the dream sequences and the awesome David Warner. To me BG2 just seems more epic in every way (which is impressive, because BG1 with TotSC is a pretty huge game). Longer and better quest, more detailed relationships between the characters, better villain, and of course just the fact that it covers higher levels so you get to fight more impressive monsters like dragons and liches and beholders.
Story and storytelling are two different things. BG2 has better storytelling, no question, but what about the actual story? That's very much debatable.
Like I said in my previous post, I like the BG1 main story more in alot of ways. The intrigue from the beginning about who you are, why people are trying to kill you and why some big guy in armour is trying to get you assassinated. Also, how everything links together with the iron crisis and the bandits and how sarevoks playing a bit of a political game. It all goes back to your heritage. Maybe it was because I was young at the time but everything came as a suprise to me. I remember going to the Nashkel mines thinking I was just helping out the locals, not that it was linked to my character in any way. To me that was awesome.
BG2's main plot is much more straight forward. You know who the bad guy is (yes D.W was awesome as Irenicus), know his motives (stealing your soul) and your own goal is also much clearer. It just doesnt have the intrigue that the first game does. Im not saying that I didnt enjoy the story, cus I did, and the way it was told was alot better than the first , with better relationships, more developed characters etc etc. Also side quests were 1000x better in the second game.
Though the above two paragraphs are why I feel sorry (in a way) for people who played the second game first. Going to play the first game after, you already know who you are, what youre doing, and 90% of the mystery and intrigue is gone . It makes sense why alot of people struggle to play the first game after playing the second.
I felt like the story in BG1 was kind of terrible, actually. It was very standard fantasy affair til you hit Candlekeep again for the second time. "Hey go adventure! Let's help this mine! Let's kill these bandits! Let's go to the really big city and kill those one guys!"
The real plot develops extremely late and therefore isn't very well fleshed out. It's plot is as minimal as the one in Skyrim, yet that gets blasted to pieces for it's plot by a lot of BG1 fans.
I like BG2 better, although both are great. I'm surprised you (@Ashendil) would say BG1 has a better story because I think the way the story is told is WAY better in BG2, with the dream sequences and the awesome David Warner. To me BG2 just seems more epic in every way (which is impressive, because BG1 with TotSC is a pretty huge game). Longer and better quest, more detailed relationships between the characters, better villain, and of course just the fact that it covers higher levels so you get to fight more impressive monsters like dragons and liches and beholders.
Story and storytelling are two different things. BG2 has better storytelling, no question, but what about the actual story? That's very much debatable.
Exactly what I wanted to say. Plus, I also agree with pretty much everything Excalibur_2102 said. Still, I also agree with many things you said, Kaxon. However, I do not think Irenicus was a better villain than Sarevok or that the quests in BG1 were worse. I actually did not like some of the quests in BG2 very much. In BG, I felt more intrigued by the story and more immersed in the world than I did in BG2. I love that BG2 is so big, but there are just some aspects that, to me, feel a bit more like a tasty fast food meal, whereas I enjoyed every last bite in BG1 like a meal at a good restaurant. One aspect that definitely annoys me is some of the artwork in BG2. Another is that there is no free exploration. Someone said something very fitting about that on the previous page. Finally, Throne of Bhaal - while still a good game (I would probably give it about 84%) - took all the things I did not like about BG2 and made those way, way worse (the artwork again being a huge issue). In ToB I enjoyed Watchers Keep the most I think.
This is a hard question for me because both games are great (almost perfect) in their own way. I will give the nod to Baldur’s Gate 2 and Throne of Bhaal, if only because of the added depth.
While Baldur’s Gate offered NPC interaction, Baldur’s Gate 2 vastly expanded and improved upon this formula, with extensive NPC specific questing and a healthy amount of added interparty banter. This made the world seem much more alive to me.
Baldur’s Gate 2 also added more variety in terms of character creation, with more voice options, portraits, kits, and races. Even though I will likely never use the vast majority of these, having the option to choose made me feel in control when creating my character. Sure, you can port these features into Baldur’s Gate, but then the question becomes blurred. If we are looking at it from purely one vs. the other, I think we need to consider the games as they shipped, not after extensive modifications.
Other pluses for Baldur’s Gate 2 were the fantastic strongholds, the high-level combat (with far more variety within each battle, thanks to the plethora of spell-casting options), and the dynamic choices. I felt like my decisions held more weight. While you ultimately wind up finishing in similar ways, regardless of good or evil, Baldur’s Gate 2 offered more player choice. For instance, you get to select between supporting the vampires and Bodhi or the Shadow Thieves. The original Baldur’s Gate felt linear.
All that said, I loved both games, and they would likely go 1-2 if I were to rank out my favorite games all-time. But, if I had to pick, I’d go with the more advanced, customizable, and ultimately fun (for me) game of the two.
I didn't think BG1's story had much suspense, because if you don't figure out the setup from Alaundo's prophecy in the intro of the game, you probably have by the time you've gotten to Gorion's death. It's a really cool setup, but yeah, I think it could have been a lot more impactful if they'd obscured it more.
I bought it from a not to be named web site recently. (I'm not here to pitch for anyone). Do you know what I saw that I had forgotten? The dragon in the intro. After the first few times I bet nearly all of us click three or four times and skip the Black Isle logo, the Boiware logo, the dragon and the Nietzsche quote. I totally forgot about the damn dragon. I don't suppose it will gt a graphics update since that would be messing with someone else's logo. But I would love to see it.
Actually, I forgot that the Alaundo prophecy is in the BG2 intro, not the BG1 intro. BG1 is more suspenseful than I gave it credit for, I think it's just been too long since I played it without knowing the secret.
For me playing BG was like reading a good book. And I was really into this kind of story back then as I was reading The Lord of the Rings at roughly the same time.
While I prefer the polish and general improvement of SoA, I agree with what a previous poster said - everything is there for a purpose. This made the gameplay feel a little too railroaded, a little too deliberate, and a little too small. You spend like 80% of the game in Athkatla. You have this huge outdoors map to explore, but there's only like half a dozen places you go there, and one of them is the endgame sequence.
On the other hand, BG1 annoyed me in the sense that it felt a little TOO unconnected. There's an iron crisis to solve and people getting murdered and plans to disrupt, but you're off fucking around in some Cloudpeaks for no real reason, while everything is put on hold. Then you see your 'time elapsed' clock and realize that it's been like six months since your foster father was killed. Seems it would be getting harder and harder to stop the plot...
Fallout 3 had the same problem. The water purifier is under attack?! Alright I'll get on that in a few weeks. Everything should be just fine.
Lastly my favorite part of any video game is the beginning. The feeling of lack of power and the gratification of upgrading your abilities is awesome. The way you shift from Level 1 to Level 4 is great, you can really see the improvement. Going from Level 14 to Level 17 really didn't have the same effect.
Planescape Torment is easily my favorite Infinity Engine game (pretty much the most jaw-droppingly incredible story ever), but it was being plunged head-first into a rich game world dripping with lore, learning to speak The Chant, the dabus, the undercity, lots of things there were more or less unconnected with the plot but were there just for you to find and experience.
Which is ironic when you consider how the end of PS:T plays out, where EVERYTHING turns out being connected to the main plot
I prefer BG1 in pretty much every aspect in spite of the fact that I think BG2 was a great game as well in spite of all the issues I may have had with it...
I loved the large open BG world and I loved walking through it and being unable to warp into a new area until after I had walked to it once - it made exploring the world more "real" to me (life is a journey not a destination) and I walked every inch of every one of those maps many times... :-)
I loved the fact that there were large and small things to interact with across each map - some of which I might need to run away from until I reached higher levels and I loved the fact that I COULD run away when needed -nothing wrong in making a tactical retreat a combat option IMO especially if you are not babying the player by scaling every encounter to his current level.
Obviously as a result of all that I mostly disliked the handling of the world map in BG2 as a handful of little islands that only opened for a single purpose and I felt BG2 lacked the vast number of small interesting little encounters that were scattered all through BG1 - Is it even possible to estimate the number of mini-quests and small funny or interesting little encounters found in BG City alone - must have been hundreds?
I actually prefer playing D&D style games at lower levels and begin to lose interest once you get into the mid-teen levels - as someone mentioned earlier getting from level 1 to level 4 feels like real growth while getting from level 12 to 16 sometimes not so much.
I really hated the mage buffs/debuffs in BG2 and all the battles that depended so highly on them - it all felt very contrived to me and I never did get "into" them.
(Spoilers for BG2 ahead)
I felt a real disconnect in BG2 when I exited Chez Jon and found myself first losing Imoen - and then found that every Tom Dick and Glendowen I spoke to in the next 10 minutes had what seemed at first to be an URGENT quest for me to complete and that the only thing that didn't really feel urgent was getting Imoen back.
I was also not all that happy to have Imoen - a companion I either might or might NOT have kept with me in BG1 be made into a different class and then forced into the plot line in such a major way - again I felt quite a disconnect there.
All that said - in spite of those issues I loved playing both games and loved the concept of progressing from one to the other altho the super high levels of TOB wasn't very interesting to me and I only finished it once and only started a couple times while I had dozens of games in BG1 & 2 that I at least began and went quite a ways into before suddenly getting distracted by a new character idea (or dying in a no-reload game) and starting over again... :-)
Comments
BG2's main plot is much more straight forward. You know who the bad guy is (yes D.W was awesome as Irenicus), know his motives (stealing your soul) and your own goal is also much clearer. It just doesnt have the intrigue that the first game does. Im not saying that I didnt enjoy the story, cus I did, and the way it was told was alot better than the first , with better relationships, more developed characters etc etc. Also side quests were 1000x better in the second game.
Though the above two paragraphs are why I feel sorry (in a way) for people who played the second game first. Going to play the first game after, you already know who you are, what youre doing, and 90% of the mystery and intrigue is gone
The real plot develops extremely late and therefore isn't very well fleshed out. It's plot is as minimal as the one in Skyrim, yet that gets blasted to pieces for it's plot by a lot of BG1 fans.
However, I do not think Irenicus was a better villain than Sarevok or that the quests in BG1 were worse. I actually did not like some of the quests in BG2 very much. In BG, I felt more intrigued by the story and more immersed in the world than I did in BG2. I love that BG2 is so big, but there are just some aspects that, to me, feel a bit more like a tasty fast food meal, whereas I enjoyed every last bite in BG1 like a meal at a good restaurant. One aspect that definitely annoys me is some of the artwork in BG2. Another is that there is no free exploration. Someone said something very fitting about that on the previous page.
Finally, Throne of Bhaal - while still a good game (I would probably give it about 84%) - took all the things I did not like about BG2 and made those way, way worse (the artwork again being a huge issue). In ToB I enjoyed Watchers Keep the most I think.
While Baldur’s Gate offered NPC interaction, Baldur’s Gate 2 vastly expanded and improved upon this formula, with extensive NPC specific questing and a healthy amount of added interparty banter. This made the world seem much more alive to me.
Baldur’s Gate 2 also added more variety in terms of character creation, with more voice options, portraits, kits, and races. Even though I will likely never use the vast majority of these, having the option to choose made me feel in control when creating my character. Sure, you can port these features into Baldur’s Gate, but then the question becomes blurred. If we are looking at it from purely one vs. the other, I think we need to consider the games as they shipped, not after extensive modifications.
Other pluses for Baldur’s Gate 2 were the fantastic strongholds, the high-level combat (with far more variety within each battle, thanks to the plethora of spell-casting options), and the dynamic choices. I felt like my decisions held more weight. While you ultimately wind up finishing in similar ways, regardless of good or evil, Baldur’s Gate 2 offered more player choice. For instance, you get to select between supporting the vampires and Bodhi or the Shadow Thieves. The original Baldur’s Gate felt linear.
All that said, I loved both games, and they would likely go 1-2 if I were to rank out my favorite games all-time. But, if I had to pick, I’d go with the more advanced, customizable, and ultimately fun (for me) game of the two.
I bought it from a not to be named web site recently. (I'm not here to pitch for anyone). Do you know what I saw that I had forgotten? The dragon in the intro. After the first few times I bet nearly all of us click three or four times and skip the Black Isle logo, the Boiware logo, the dragon and the Nietzsche quote. I totally forgot about the damn dragon. I don't suppose it will gt a graphics update since that would be messing with someone else's logo. But I would love to see it.
On the other hand, BG1 annoyed me in the sense that it felt a little TOO unconnected. There's an iron crisis to solve and people getting murdered and plans to disrupt, but you're off fucking around in some Cloudpeaks for no real reason, while everything is put on hold. Then you see your 'time elapsed' clock and realize that it's been like six months since your foster father was killed. Seems it would be getting harder and harder to stop the plot...
Fallout 3 had the same problem. The water purifier is under attack?! Alright I'll get on that in a few weeks. Everything should be just fine.
Lastly my favorite part of any video game is the beginning. The feeling of lack of power and the gratification of upgrading your abilities is awesome. The way you shift from Level 1 to Level 4 is great, you can really see the improvement. Going from Level 14 to Level 17 really didn't have the same effect.
Planescape Torment is easily my favorite Infinity Engine game (pretty much the most jaw-droppingly incredible story ever), but it was being plunged head-first into a rich game world dripping with lore, learning to speak The Chant, the dabus, the undercity, lots of things there were more or less unconnected with the plot but were there just for you to find and experience.
Which is ironic when you consider how the end of PS:T plays out, where EVERYTHING turns out being connected to the main plot
I loved the large open BG world and I loved walking through it and being unable to warp into a new area until after I had walked to it once - it made exploring the world more "real" to me (life is a journey not a destination) and I walked every inch of every one of those maps many times... :-)
I loved the fact that there were large and small things to interact with across each map - some of which I might need to run away from until I reached higher levels and I loved the fact that I COULD run away when needed -nothing wrong in making a tactical retreat a combat option IMO especially if you are not babying the player by scaling every encounter to his current level.
Obviously as a result of all that I mostly disliked the handling of the world map in BG2 as a handful of little islands that only opened for a single purpose and I felt BG2 lacked the vast number of small interesting little encounters that were scattered all through BG1 - Is it even possible to estimate the number of mini-quests and small funny or interesting little encounters found in BG City alone - must have been hundreds?
I actually prefer playing D&D style games at lower levels and begin to lose interest once you get into the mid-teen levels - as someone mentioned earlier getting from level 1 to level 4 feels like real growth while getting from level 12 to 16 sometimes not so much.
I really hated the mage buffs/debuffs in BG2 and all the battles that depended so highly on them - it all felt very contrived to me and I never did get "into" them.
(Spoilers for BG2 ahead)
I felt a real disconnect in BG2 when I exited Chez Jon and found myself first losing Imoen - and then found that every Tom Dick and Glendowen I spoke to in the next 10 minutes had what seemed at first to be an URGENT quest for me to complete and that the only thing that didn't really feel urgent was getting Imoen back.
I was also not all that happy to have Imoen - a companion I either might or might NOT have kept with me in BG1 be made into a different class and then forced into the plot line in such a major way - again I felt quite a disconnect there.
All that said - in spite of those issues I loved playing both games and loved the concept of progressing from one to the other altho the super high levels of TOB wasn't very interesting to me and I only finished it once and only started a couple times while I had dozens of games in BG1 & 2 that I at least began and went quite a ways into before suddenly getting distracted by a new character idea (or dying in a no-reload game) and starting over again... :-)