BG1 is better than BG2 (?)

Remove all ads!

Warning there are bound to be SPOILERS ahead – don’t read this post unless you have already finished the game.

OK Slappy so how can I justify such an incredibly offensive remark - BG1 better than BG2 surely not. Well here goes:

Improvements for BG2: better graphics, bigger game, new monsters, more spells, higher levels, new areas, NPC interactions, kits, awareness of your role, class & gender. OK all fair enough but…..how many of these actually make the game better? Anything with ‘new’ in front of it can be pretty much ignored. All the monsters, spells, etc where ‘new’ in the first game. New things are not necessarily better, just new. Bigger game, better graphic – OK it’s always nice but does it make the game better and more fun? I think not. I can think of lots of games where big and pretty was just tedious (anyone play Unreal?).

OK Slappy but what about NPC interactions, kits, awareness of your role, etc. OK I admit the kits are an improvement, it gives you more choice about the character and flexibility to play the role you really want. Though I think claiming it adds to the replayability is a bit much – how many different classes did you play through on BG1? Awareness of your character’s gender etc – OK a slight improvement though it didn’t always work with my Halfling character the first time through. NPC interactions – OK I admit that when I first noticed all of the in-party chatter and the romances developing I thought they were absolutely brilliant, richer and more believable than BG1. I still rate them as the best bit of the game now. But…..

These interactions seem to pretty much dry up by the time you’ve reached chapter 3-4. Viconia, for example, has gone through almost the whole of the Underdark without making a comment! Even worse, hardly a word was said about me changing into the Slayer. So, interactions are good and they make a great early impression but they don’t run throughout the game so aren’t a huge improvement over BG1.

So what is better in BG1 than BG2…

NPC – I’ve just told you I like the interactions but unfortunately, it seems to come at the price of reduced NPCs. In BG2 you get 16 (5 of whom you have already met in BG1), in BG1 you had 25. This lower number of NPCs means there is less choice to experiment with party types, evil parties being very tricky in BG2.
Choice – BG1 just gave you so much freedom to wander, explore and adventure. I really dislike the way you can’t just explore the map in BG2. You can’t go to an area unless someone gives you a quest first – that’s not role-playing. In BG1 a few very key areas were off limits to keep the plot tight but in BG2 it’s far too restrictive. What’s wrong with just wandering into a new area to see what happens. This lack of choice becomes most annoying after chapter 3. Basically, when you step on the boat for Spellhold you say goodbye to choice until you get back home. In BG1 this never happened. You were always free to say, ‘hang on, I fancy a change lets go and explore and come back to the plot later.’
Strongholds – great idea that really should add to the replayability of the game. Unfortunately I found out when I did start to play again (Cleric & Mage) that most of the main quests associated with a stronghold are still open to any character class. OK there are a few specialist quests but they are very small and hardly justify a complete rerun.
Iranicus – not bad but hardly in Saverok’s league when it comes to intimidating bad guys. Iranicus was just too bored with everything all the time to ever really get to me like Saverok did. The opening movie in BG1 was enough to leave you feeling intimidated for the rest of the game.
Size – I’ve heard that BG2 is supposed to be three times bigger than BG1. Maybe it is but, it never feels like it. BG1 always felt like you were exploring a huge area of land and the city itself felt massive. In BG2 everything feels like a small computer game in comparison. I think part of this is the fact that no-one seems to live in any of the locations in BG2. Pubs, shops, temples and rich houses are all you seem to get. In BG1 it seemed that every little house, barn, shed etc, could be explored. OK so most had little in them but it made it feel like a bigger more believable world. Often these would also have silly little quests available, which added to the feeling of adventuring.
Difficulty – BG2 feels like it’s cheating more than BG1. In particular, things like Beholders who can cast inflict wounds without touching you or cast spells without a time delay. (OK these are monster specific characteristics but it feels like they are not playing by the same rules). I also found the over-reliance on level drain, mind flayers and magic protection a bit of a pain. I know that all of these things can be overcome but, at times, the combat is a bit tedious because of it.
Personal gripe – what’s with Imoen. If you want to stick to the spirit of role playing, there is no way that you can leave her behind in Spellhold. Unfortunately her complete inability to pick up experience after spending a lot of time with one of the powerful mages ever, makes adopting her a real party sacrifice.

In conclusion, BG2 seems to have been dumbed down to make everything more straightforward and less open-ended. Or from another perspective, bigger and harder isn’t necessarily better (sorry cheap double entendre).

Anyway, at this point I’d better mention a few other things before I get hurled onto Viconia’s barbecue pier and burned as a heretic. I do love BG2, it’s one of my favourite all time games and I recommend it. I just wondered if I was the only one who feels that Bioware have moved in the wrong direction in some areas. I am also open to the possibility that I am looking at BG1 with rose coloured spectacles. However, I think many or the game reviews were written by people who had only got to about Chapter 3 and so missed many of the things I talk about above. I also like to play ‘Bhal’s advocate’ and get everyone thinking from time to time. So please don’t slap the Slappy.

 

Baldur's Gate 2 is better than BG1. This is because they expanded on the story and added more complexity to it. Irenicus' heresy was very good too. The enhanced NPC scripts add character to the NPCs even though there are only a few of them. The NPCs now are not as transparent and actually seem to have a personality now!

Besides, the atmosphere is good. The sound and the sights. BG1 was good for the year it was made. It brought the Sword Coast to life to a newbie to the Forgotten Realms. BG2 is even better (but there are drawbacks). Amn is well fleshed out. The architecture, the culture, the setting etc....

But of course, in terms of storyline Planescape: Torment is still the best. Even BG2's music can't beat it.

 

By the way, did you know that the Mind Flayers, Vampires, Yuan Ti, Beholders, Liches and a few other "tough" creatures had actually been toned down?

The Beholder's eye stalks inflict wounds as a ray weapon. Their flesh to stone, disintegrate etc is a natural ability and not a spell.

The Mind Flayers were DAMN !$#!&%#*. Blasted spell resistance. I'm glad they toned that down in 3rd edition.

The dragons were definitely made simpler to kill too.

And the demons and devils? THEY WERE JOKES!

 

Thanks for reminding me about the story. i agree Planescape has by far the best story of the games so far. As to BG2 v BG1 though. I thought the story in BG2 was less complex and involving with a much weaker plot. Its basically 'quick follow the bad guy.' In BG1 there were lots of semi-major subquests and they interacted so that a huge conspirecy was gradually built up and revealed - far better story telling than the Starwars rip off of BG2 (eg. I have a sister, don't give in to the darkside, my dad was who, etc). OK perhaps that's a bit unfair, but I still think the story in BG1 was much more cleverly interwoven than the linear, predictable BG2 plot.

(remember I still love BG2 so please disband the mob of angry pitchforkers I fear might be gathering)

 

You're right in that regard. However I think that the excellent method of storytelling, cutscenes etc did make up for it.

As I remember it though, even BG1's story had it's weaknesses. I just had an unfulfilling feeling doing all those minor piddling quests.

 

There wheren't nearly enough about Bhaal in BG2. In BG1 there where those creepy dreams...excellent! And besides there was Sarevok who is my favorite villain of all. Irenicus is nothing compared him. He's plan, his characther, his Jekyll/Hyde persona. The best was when he began to quote Alaundos prophecy. I haven't played BG2 through yet, but the plot so far isn't as mysterious as the one in BG2. But all the NPC interaction really makes it a great game. Besides the battles doesn't seem as pointless as the endless hordes of random hobgoblins, xsarts and gnolls in BG1. But still BG2 sucks because of the heavy overload of level-drainers, brain-eating squids (one hit and the characther is ruined forever)and NPC feuds. How the heck where you supposed to know some of them won't cooperate. Its even more annoying if they fight in the middle of a dungeon crawl. And the Yoshimo thing. There was NO WAY you could have known that. But the worst thing is of course the bugs of war.

 

Don't forget, BGI had a lot of balance problems that the second one didn't have.
For instance, I was able to win at least 50% of the battles in the first game with one of two tactics, usually used together: Summon tons of monsters, and equip every character with a missile weapon and pound the monsters with arrows.

The direction of the story is different, but overall I like them both equally. I agree that Sarevok is more of a badass than Irenicus, but Jon just seems more real. Sarevok was just a monster. Besides, Jon is family

The main things about BG2 that made it different, at least for me, was the higher focus on spells and spell casting. Both gmaes had a lot of it, but the second one much more so than the first, what with all the high level spells whizzing around. It seemed like every bad guy had layers of protective spells that you had to unwrap before you could touch him, and once you did that they fell very fast. I wish there was as much emphasis on melee combat as there was on spell casting. When I look back I really can't remember any difficult creatures that didn't cast spells, or have some spell-like abilities.

I like the fact that I felt I had time to do the subquests in the first few chapters, instead of rushing off to save Nantuckett or Pellvale or whatever. The first game was faster paced, in terms of the amount of time you had to do things.

I thought most of the NPCs stats kind of sucked. I wish I could have customized them a little. Next play through I think I will use Shadow Keeper to do that. It was very difficult to make sure I had people to wield the maces, hammers, and other odd weapons. The way the attributes were distributed was not done as well as it could have been. For example Anomen, despite his being a Cleric, didn't have too much wisdom, even after his knighting. And Jan was so weak, he could barely lift a few scrolls. Yes, its "role-playing", so the characters should have weaknesses, but I thought they went a little too far with that idea. Also I really wish there were more evil or neutral NPCs. But the characters personalities seemed much more rounded, with more banter between them.
Dialouge in general was just more expressive and interesting. If there were more characters they wouldn't have been as well developed.

BG2 took longer due to the amount of quests I did, but it didn't seem THAT much bigger area wise. Athlatka is a better city than Baldur's Gate. The quests in 2 are much better than the first one, although 1 wasn't too shabby. I disagree with Scrappy though, in both games you could do a lot of subquests while following the plot, but in the second one there are a lot more of them, they are just restricted to the area you are in.

My personal gripe: Demons who eat your stuff when you are not looking. Fortunately, I had seen a post on this very board about that subject, and would check my inventory everytime one showed up. But still.

Overall, I would say that I enjoyed BG2 more, it was a bigger and better game than 1. The few problems of the first game were mostly fixed, a lot of cool new stuff was added, and the problems I've bitched about here are minor. It definitely gets my vote for game of the year.



[This message has been edited by Lord Balduran (edited March 15, 2001).]

 

You're right about Irenicus. He made a rather poor main antagonist. As a CHARACTER, he was great, but as the main big-baddy he sorta sucked - maybe because we defeated him about 3 times before the game finished, and also because we knew that he was the main baddy from the very start, which sorta ruined the tension for me. With Sarevok, there was always some mystery as to who was calling the shots.

Another gripe I had about the game was Imoen. I agree, after Spellhold there was precious little point to her, which is disappointing for me, as I saw a lot of potential in her plot - I'll explain:

At the start, when we meet Imoen again, and again when we see her in Spellhold, we find that Irenicus is showing her death and torture in an attempt (IMHO) to corrupt and taint her because he knew who she was. So there was always little quotes from her about death (like being "pretty") and the like. however, after Spellhold, they decided to drop that plot entirely, making her just the silly-little innocent girl again. *sigh*

What might have been good, would be if Irenicus was still the major player bad-guy-wise in the game, but was the penultimate to the main plot. What I would have done had I been a writer, would have been to have Irenicus murdered unexplainedly in a cutscene and have the final villain to be a mutated monsterous version of Imoen, the taint of Bhaal corrupting her. That would have been a much more intense final battle and would have opened up many other plot devices. (An Amnesiac Imoen is found in the expansion after you killed her or something)

anyway, just my humble opinion. blah.

 

Hmm, all in all I also think that BG-2 is better than BG-1 BUT:

-BG-1 was a wonderful time for thieves - there were really good thief quests in Balsdur´s Gate (city) and you were able to loot EVERY house
-I really liked Durlag´s tower that was a great place for thieves and mages - very challenging and tricky. I´m looking forward to the watcher´s keep in BG-2...
-I also agree that Jon Irenicus - as the main villain in the game - is disappointing. BG-1 was more thrilling for you had to solve quest for quest to complete your picture against who you´re actually figting and why. I´m missing this in BG-2.
The story was to clear and simple: 1. Jon takes Imoen - chase him; 2. find him and nearly kill him -escape; 3. chase him again and meet him in Sulandessalar -escape and 4. lately final battle in hell BG-1 was more mysteroius. Either Jon is far too much Jeckyl/Hyde, as you said Divine.
-I think that Imoens fate was kinda simple, considering what happened to her before.

What´s cool about BG-2:

-Great character interaction, grat animations cool new spells and a larger game in general made me enjoy this game very much, but I really miss the good things about BG-1 mentioned above.

But that´s all just MHO

 

I'd just like to say, at this point, how pleased I am about the way this post is developing. I was a bit worried that I might suffer a bit of a backlash (I thought it might be a touchy subject). Fortunately, the posts so far have been very reasonable and construction. Some of you have also reminded me of some of the weaker bits in BG1 and the stronger bits of BG2 tha I have overlooked. There also seems to be a bit of a trend developing -

BG1 better story, better bad guy
BG2 better interactions, more varied tactics required in the fighting, bigger (though, as I said, it doesn't 'feel' bigger to me).

Anyway, thanks for the feedback so far, I've found it really interesting. (Too much time on my hands)

PS - of course the other major message - if you have only brought one of the games - quick go and buy the other one. Use this link to make this as easy as possible:
http://www.sorcerers.net/Games/index.php



[This message has been edited by Slappy (edited March 15, 2001).]

 

What I realy like about BG1 is that instead of BG2, not almost everything happened in big cities, but also in forests, at the coasts, in the dessert. There ís more variety in the landscape. Problems was there were not enough weapons, so you could easily give the right profiencies in the game to get the best group with the best items. And there were less races/classes......

But always remember: Without BG1, there can be no BG2.

 

i love both of the games EQUALLY. They both have the most amazing pluses and minuses.

Bg1- Ace amount of action and the plot was wonderfully scripted and slowly revealed. I loved the idea of wandering the wilderness finding answers to many numbers of questions. The problem with all this though was that BG1 had major quest areas that were really tense and hard to get through. BG1 had some of the most toughest fights at the end of these areas that almost made you feel as though they were "Boss" fights like on the consoles. For example Daveaorn and the Bandit Leaders, or the top floor of the Iron Throne. These were such tough fights that you needed to use some really obscure tactics such as the fireball into the fog of war to start the enemy off... or satying back and fires hundereds of missiles at the enemy mages. On the other hand though, i enjoyed BG1 just for the wealth of NPCs you could pick up. I tended to have a different set of NPCs everytime i played with a different Char, just because of the plethora and type of the NPCs available. I also thought that having all the nice Wilderness areas to explore was a nice touch in order to get mor XP and nice weaponry, but going to these areas seemed like such a chore i couldn't be bothered to do half of them, and i just wanted to get on with the plot in the end.

BG2 on the other hand is a completely different beast. I mean, much better looking, nice sound and generally much higher quality of ideas went into it. At the start of the game i did actually think there was a lot of mystery. For crying out loud, i wanted to find out who this insanely powerful mage was, who could whip out so many powerful spells as quickly as he did, and why he was testing me. I thought that quests in BG2 were so much better presented and structured. I so enjoyed the Trademeet quest just because i felt that i was genuinely helping a village. In BG1 i didn't think that the quests were so well thought out, in BG1 there were more "go here and kill this and come back". Yes, there are these types of quest in BG2 too, but they are certainly more fun in my eyes. I soooo enjoy the NPCs in BG2 too. It is one of it's best features. In Bg1 there were only 2 sets that argued and eventually fought each other, otherwise no-one complained until your Reputation went too high or low and even then not much happened. In BG2 there is a huge plethora of conversations, and these are believable. A choatic evil person is never going to get on with a Lawful Good person... so i think Black Isle were quite entitled to write stuff in for NPC arguments. But i do disagree with Keldorn Vs Viconia... but i could never change that...

and about Irenicus... i luv him... the slimy sinewous arse-bandit. I like his voice mainly... he has the voice of a villian.

whoa... longest post i have done for a while...

 

If anyone is interested in this discussion, there is a similar one developing on the Planscape board:
http://www.sorcerers.net/ubb/Forum3/HTML/000078.html

 

Yesterday night I did it: Bored from BG-2 I reinstalled BG-1 on my computer and started to play a fighter I intend to dualclass -to a thief - and hypnotized I played till dawn...

Hell, it is really tough to start with 12 hp and zero xp, and it´s quite frustrating to be beaten up by Xvarts <shakehead>. But now I reached lvl-3 with my char and things are becoming easier now - though tougher foes are waiting...
When I finished this game I take my char to BG-2 and play on...

 

Okay. After completing spellhold and going to chapter 5 I must admit I like the game a LOT better. That dream sequence where Imoen
turns evil...that rocks! I really hoped Imoen would get much more sinister because of Irenicus twisted experiments. Imoen becoming a villain? God that would have rocked. What is it that makes a villain good? I think I liked Sarevok because he was this mysterious black knight. Who was he? What was he doing? Why was he after me? First we learn of him as the charming son of a nobleman. Then we meet him in Candlekeep as a monk. First in the end of the game we learn about his true nature. But the best thing was most definitely when he died laughing insanely.
Why? Why did he not fear death? Had he an escape route? I sure hope he turns up again
in a dream sequence or as a ghost or something. Please don't tell anything.
Bodhi rocks too because she is so inhuman. Kind of like Divine Shadow from Lexx. " Here mousy mousy..." Irenicus is also getting much more interesting. Joneleth? How did the elves know him? Who is he? And again...please don't tell me.

 

I have only played through BG twice and BG2 once. In BG2 it seems that the main plot is stronger, with you being dropped right in it at the start, the plot being constantly driven along etc. etc. In BG1 it felt like you were doing a lot of unrelated stuff at the start - but maybe that's the whole point because you don't *know* who you are and Mr. Sarevok would be hung, drawn and quartered if he was blatant about anything (at least until he had become as powerful as he is at the end). About NPCs I love the increased dialogue, but am disappointed by the lack of NPCs - not enough evil for a party, only one each of dwarf, gnome and halfling (there goes a shorty party). Strongholds are cool. Kits, I can't comment on being an imported MC fighter thief. And one final point. being young and gullible I am a sucker for novelty.

 

I thought BGI had better role-playing in it. The dreams and inate ablities you got varied according to how you played your character. Also I liked the plot better,someone is trying to kill you and you have no idea why.Whereas the plot in BGII was you're a child of Bhaal and people want your power,do quests to get strong enough to defeat them.The encounters in BGII bothered me after the start.You find out by losing Imoen that you are in an area of tightly controlled magic but all the groups you go up against have at least one mage and cleric in them casting spells.You try casting spells and the Cowls appear,you go and buy your permit and are told that if you use it to do evil it will be pulled.(BTW has anybody had this happen?)They are both good games but I feel BGI has much better replayablity.

[This message has been edited by Capt. Tripps (edited March 18, 2001).]

 

Captain Tripps, I agree about replayability of BG-1 - I played it for approx 3/2 years and play it now again. BG-1 still rocks !

 

I kinda dissagree. I must admit BG1 was realy good for it's time. I loved the fact that at the beggining you had no idea why people were trying to kill you, and the fact that you had no idea that you were a demi god until near the end. But in BG2 you knew all about, and they took out the part i likedd most about the first one, sibling rivalry. It was brilliant, like someone said earlier on, you had no idea who Sarevok was, because i played so many games where you think one person is the main bad guy but realy isn't, but that isn't the point. the fact i liked the first one was because you had your own brother after you, well you found that out later on in the game, but there was a huge mystery about it. whereas in BG2 J is just a normal power mad geyser. but i do like the fact that they talk more about the Bhaal childs more often, like the insanity bit, where you turn into a slayer, great plot. but overall I don't think that either is better than the other.

 

Nice subject. I personally think that BG1 is better. Mainly because the storyline wrapped my up and kept me guessing, and second guessing myself. Serevok was awsome, as a main badass, he was very intimidateing. HOWEVER, I have played the P&P game of D&D for a long time and I am a big fan of Mages. Now I agree that BG2 focused too much on giving every little mage a SHITLOAD of protection spells, where as I dont think that should have been how it was. But Jon, in my opinion was awsome. He was a high LVL mage, with power that was unbeleivable. Can anyone sit here and tell me that they beat him the first time they fought him(the real first time in the elven forrest) and beat him no problem??? I thnk not. Anyway, I still think Serevok was better, but Jon was also good and deserves some respect. The story line wasent as detailed and I didnt like the fact that you couldnt explore, the only time you could go anywhere was if you had a side quest, and that is not roleplaying. That is point and click. As far as the the cheating(like the beholdes and everything) if you read the Monsterous Manual for D&D, they acctually made the monsters weaker than they should be. For BOTH games.
Example:
BG1- the only real problem I had with the monsters in this game, where that Ogre Magi are supposed to be a lot stronger that that and were made too weak.
BG2- Beholders, Mind Flayers, and Dragons. All WAY to easy. Now true in the game they are hard as hell, but compared to how they are supposed to be, they are too weak,once again comparerd to P&P. In my opinion the only monster that was made as powerful as they were supposed to be was the Lich. Props to Bioware for that, but they should have done some more research on the other monsters.

NPC's
I like the NPC's talking and argueing back and forth. But Looking at the NPC's, with the alignments. I think that if you are playing a good, or neutral party, you have a very good selection. But there are only 3 Evil Party members you can get. Viconia, Kaigen and Edwin. I mean that just plain sucks. I mean come on there really isnt any GOOD theives in this game. Yoshimo or whatever the hell his name is, is ok, but I really dont like his ability scores. Imoen is ok, but you cant improver her theiving abilities. And I dont like the fact that she is FORCED into your party. That also limites your selection.

Overall I have to say that BG1, is better when you play the first time, and is great for replay bc of all the different party configurations and all that. BG2 is ok the first play through, but has very little replay value. I am however looking forward to playing The Icewind Dale game.