What's better BG1 Or BG2

Stilgar · Post by **Stilgar** » Fri Oct 05, 2001 1:58 pm

I started BG1 agan after finishing ToB and i have to admit that BG1 is a much better game then 2. The small amount of hit points makes the game more intresting, and BG1 has much more intresting NPC's. Also I love to explore area's and kill every enemy around even if it's a gibberling. That's another point, the amount of monsters. I fnd 1000 Gibberlngs much more chalange then 1 Dragon. Also the story is much more intresting then SoA. To bad that TotSC isn't that great of an ad-on. I'm realy enjoyng BG1 again, more then I did the first time.

Quitch · Post by **Quitch** » Fri Oct 05, 2001 2:44 pm

Not a chance. I enjoy BG1, but it can't compete with BG2.

BG2 wins on NPCs hands down. BG1 may have more, but in BG2 they have a lot more depth, and feel more like characters, and less like people who are there just to take hits.

There's more to BG2 combat as well. Magic comes into play straight away, but never pushes out sword play. You have a greater range of options to play with in that area.

BG2 is more about YOU than BG1. I really felt nothing for my character in BG, in BG2 I started caring about him a bit, but he was put in the shade by the excellent NPCs. ToB was brilliant in terms of making you finally notice your own character (at least I thought so).

The only area I feel BG wins in, is the balance between the linear plot, and the freedom of adventure. BG2 shoved it all into chapter 2.

That, and BG feels more like a world. You get ambushed on the roads reguarly. If you want to hit that Gnoll Fortress you have to fight through the wilderness to do it (unlike say the BG2 Druid Grove, which youa rrive at instantly). Cloakwood was especially memorable for this.

Overall though, BG2 simply blows BG out of the water.

fable · Post by **fable** » Fri Oct 05, 2001 4:36 pm

Granted, the lower experience cap in BG1 makes leveling and goodie-finding a lot more realistic. (None of that "Look--over in the grass--yet another broadsword +3 with fire crits. Yawn.") In every other way, though, BG2 surpasses its predecessor.

You find the party NPCs more interesting in BG1? How could you tell? Those NPCs had virtually no background, since he only never spoke. Instead, the BG2 party members come along frequently with their own quests, sometimes changing alignments, or betraying you, or romancing you, or fighting one another; and always with interesting comments to make in passing, almost of those they consciously aware of other party members.

The exceptionally well-hidden linearity of much of BG2 is also great. Consider all the quests of chapter 2, most of which can be completed anytime. And the way you can take two different major passages in the alliance fork of chapter 3. Then, there are the teests and machines you encounter that can change attributes or even alignment.

Not to mention the game looks better, runs faster, and the maps actually label important places rather than just leaving it to you to figure out where everything is. For me, it's no question: BG1 was fun but comic-bookish in many respects. BG2 is a real step forward towards a game whose computer-controlled characters actually come to life.

Denethorn · Post by **Denethorn** » Sat Oct 06, 2001 12:08 am

A horde of Giberlings more intresting to fight than a dragon????

Dragons require planning, abnormal tactics and skill.

Giberlings require you to just wade in... and hope there are no kobold commandoes with them as backup.

Admittedly the story is better... but BG2 builds upon that story.

[ 10-06-2001: Message edited by: Alexander Denethorn ]

ThorinOakensfield · Post by **ThorinOakensfield** » Sat Oct 06, 2001 8:28 am

I loved both games. BG1 is alot more realistic, but for most of the earlier fights there was no strategy involved which i missed very much. Ex: the ogre you have to get that girdle from in chap. 1. he was sooo tough, but the only thing i could do was hit him with a larloch's minor drain, and maybe a backsta. It was alot of luck.
I liked the wilderness exploring though.
BG2 npc's were more interesting but also were more equal.
IN BG1 the npc's in the city sucked, but the earlier ones were better. It was too unbalanced.
I loved spell casting of BG2. The story line in both games was good.
BG1 was alot more challenging. For some of the earlier battles there was no strategy and just luck, like the ogre fight. In BG2 there were several ways to kill an enemy.

BG1 was far more realistic, but BG2 was more fun.

matrixviking · Post by **matrixviking** » Sat Oct 06, 2001 9:49 am

Well, we all have our favorites don't we? I've played both games and have enjoyed both. Does one stand out over the other for me? No. They're both uniquely different and both a lot of fun to play. Unfortunately, I haven't complete either game. With BG1, it was a lack of time, so I pulled it off my HD. With BG2, my computer died and has just been recently resurrected. So I'm starting from the beginning, and working my way through it all. Oughta be fun

ki-master2 · Post by **ki-master2** » Thu Oct 11, 2001 1:06 pm

I think that bg1 2 and tob should be seen as a whole,I'm playing bg1 again with a mage and I wanna play him trough bg2 and tob so I can complete the entire saga at once.

fable · Post by **fable** » Thu Oct 11, 2001 2:48 pm

Originally posted by ki-master2:
I think that bg1 2 and tob should be seen as a whole,I'm playing bg1 again with a mage and I wanna play him trough bg2 and tob so I can complete the entire saga at once.

You're welcome to see 'em as you like, but they're two very different games, in intent, structure, and features. For what it's worth, I wouldn't suggest applying most of the strategies we all learned in BG1 to BG2.

Quitch · Post by **Quitch** » Thu Oct 11, 2001 3:12 pm

*Very* different? I disagree with that. The controls are the same, so is the interface. Combat is handled in the same way, and almost all the spells you knew in BG are in BG2 virtually unchanged. So are many of the weapons.

Classes in their pure form do what they did in BG2, but gain even more skills.

So while you may play BG2 differently, it's because of the new skills which are a logical progression from the old.

Biggest change is the swing from ranged to close combat for fighters. I miss me massively overpowered arrows of detonation

Xyx · Post by **Xyx** » Fri Oct 12, 2001 1:00 am

BG2 adds to BG1, of course, but is still based on it. All the stuff that was/worked in BG1 still is/works in BG2, only there's a lot of other stuff as well now.

KaaZe · Post by **KaaZe** » Fri Oct 12, 2001 1:41 am

I think if I had played through BG1 before BG2, my oppinion would be different. But getting out of BG2 and into BG1 was like getting out of a Ferrari and hopping on a bike. Much more micro management, the path fiding was horrible, the characters moved very slow, and you had to walk for ever to get where you needed to be.
But that doesnt mean BG1 isnt fun. I had a blast and it was really cool to pick up my 2 fav bg2 npc's and take them all the way trough the series (Viconia and Edwin). Thoese two are even more funny in BG1.
The combat in BG1 was much more chance like, then BG2. The final battle in BG1 is also so much more harder, then whooping that elf wanna be mage, in BG2.
Ohh, and I love that cleric in BG1 that says, every time you click on him: "DONT TOUCH ME, im super important".. cracks me up

THE JAKER · Post by **THE JAKER** » Fri Oct 12, 2001 10:56 am

I love the friend of the aggro guy in the bar in Beregost, when you click on him he says "Hey, don't click on me, I don't want any trouble!"

I love both 1 & 2 (and 2 including TOB) so much, I don't know if I could really say which one I like better....they are both good in different ways. When I get tired or stuck in one, I go over and play the other! I think that BG 1 is nice for all of the walking around and exploring the world, BG2 is fun because your characters start to become real masters, like if you have a mage they are more fun because they get more power. Your thieves start being able to do things etc. I like both plots, but I love the early stages of BG1, where you don't know what's going on yet, you just know that someone wants you dead! That's such a weird feeling.

I like the battles in BG1 a lot, like the end, the guys in front of cloakwood mines, Nimbul, but I like other big battles in BG2 just as much. I think the games are like someone said, part of a whole, if you played either and liked it you HAVE to get the other!

KaaZe · Post by **KaaZe** » Fri Oct 12, 2001 12:35 pm

Originally posted by THE JAKER:
 I think the games are like someone said, part of a whole, if you played either and liked it you HAVE to get the other!

I totally agree. After finishing SoA, I knew I had to get my hands on BG1 ASAP.

fable · Post by **fable** » Fri Oct 12, 2001 3:39 pm

Originally posted by Quitch:
*Very* different? I disagree with that. The controls are the same, so is the interface. Combat is handled in the same way, and almost all the spells you knew in BG are in BG2 virtually unchanged. So are many of the weapons.

You're referring to the mechanics of the game, @Quitch. I'm referring to its "feel." The party members in BG1 had almost not interaction. They didn't interfere with one another, or even interfere with your responses and actions during quests.

Alignment didn't matter much. In BG2, alignment can change, and has some impact on the game.

The wilderness areas that took so long to move through in BG1 are gone in BG2. You have an overland map, point and click.

You have far more quest choices in BG2, and even the ability to take sides between two major players in chapter 3. (Yes, I know it works out the same way for you, in any case. But you get different items, fight different quests, and it certainly has different results for the Thieves' Guild.

)

There are thought-based puzzles in BG2, both riddles and item-related. I think there was one riddle in BG1.

The map system in BG2 highlights all the important locations on any map. This may seem minor, but it has a major impact on how the game is played, and how some people enjoy it.

There are far more power-ups stat-changing devices, items, and potions in BG2 than in BG1. Many more spells at the higher end, and the introduction of profession-based abilities, too.

BG2 introduces profession-based strongholds, each with its characteristics. Romances, too, were added, for what little that's worth.

The dungeons of BG2 are demonstrably larger, but also broader, and easier to navigate through. This is because Bioware knew that people would still find the movement AI a nightmare with the standard setting (you can raise it, but that slows down many CPUs). Far less cul-de-sacs and snaking passageways, more traps along broad corridors, and in huge mausoleums.

The overall writing in BG2 is much, much superior to BG1. The latter was intended pretty much for an adolescent audience who was expected to be the target purchase group. It surprised Bioware that the product was actually getting a lot of sales out of adults, who had grown up playing D&D, so they skewed BG2 to a more sophisticated audience. Not only is the dialog more clever, but the subject matter is decidedly more mature in a variety of major ways.

Reputation matters more in BG2, in a lot of subtle ways.

So while the mechanics are similar, I find BG1 a much more primitive game than BG2. They are both enjoyable, but quite different, IMO.

humanflyz · Post by **humanflyz** » Fri Oct 12, 2001 5:19 pm

Originally posted by KaaZe:
I think if I had played through BG1 before BG2, my oppinion would be different. But getting out of BG2 and into BG1 was like getting out of a Ferrari and hopping on a bike. Much more micro management, the path fiding was horrible, the characters moved very slow, and you had to walk for ever to get where you needed to be.

I totally agree with you. I played BG2 first and then played BG1. For some reason, I just can't finish BG1. It is always something that made me uninstalled BG1 and replay BG2. I think the reason is that BG2 is more organized than BG1. In BG1, I felt there was too much wilderness exploring, too redundant for me, although each area is filled with interesting characters. I felt that BG2 was more organized, the story is not disjointed like BG1. The map labels also helped out tremendously. I think Bioware decided to make a game that everyone from newbies to experienced gamers can just jump in and play without too much wandering around. However, I have to agree that BG1 was more realistic in terms of true talbe-top roleplaying. BG2 however, is better in terms of technology and replayability. That's my two cents.

Ned Flanders · Post by **Ned Flanders** » Fri Oct 12, 2001 5:40 pm

Many good points thus far.

I for one, have seen this genre of thread before at the banshee. To this day, as I post again, I still cannot decide which game I like better.

BG1 has Durlag's Tower (ok, it's TotSC) which for me is still the supreme area in any of these games, IWD included. The whole concept, size, and difficulty really captivated me. And, as a whole, it provided me with the interface and feel of D&D where so many other computer games failed in the past. Many were good: Gateway to Apshai (that's waaaaaaaaaay back), temple of apshai, bard's tale I, II, III, wizardry's, and all of the SSI AD&D games. But none of them had the magic of baldur's gate, a game I knew I would not get tired of playing. And then they made a bunch more.

Onto BG2: take BG1 and add more to every facet of the game (fable explained it well above). The things that really did it for me were the gem bags, scroll cases, and the bag holding. Also the ability to label maps. The item management added 10 hours playing time minimum to BG1. Durlag's tower, as good as it is, drove me nuts because the whole way through it, I was juggling items around.

So again, I still can't decide which game is better.

[ 10-12-2001: Message edited by: Ned Flanders ]

Quitch · Post by **Quitch** » Sat Oct 13, 2001 5:03 am

@Fable - NPCs did interfre with each other. Try taking Viconia and Kivan and leave the AI on. One moment you're clearing out Kobolds, the next Viconia has taken an arrow in the back. Pain in the ass because there are no announcements.

On the subject of romances, considering this is an RPG, I felt it certinally added to the game, giving the characters another dimension. Could have done with something like that between NPCs to add some sexual tension rather than just the standard alignment friction.

On the subject of wilderness areas, I feel BG2 simplified it too much. You had to track the druids down to their grove.......poof! Grove appears on map, click it, and you're there. All you need to do is fight to a cave, enter tiny cave and win quest. BG had things like the Cloakwood mines, where you had to fight through several dense forest areas. It actually felt like you had to fight your way there.

BG2 felt too compact at times, you wanted to get somewhere, you got there, instantly.

I do agree though, BG2 was a much more advanced game. They had the advantage of not having to create an engine for BG2 of course

Sailor Saturn · Post by **Sailor Saturn** » Sat Oct 13, 2001 9:01 am

Originally posted by Quitch:
@Fable - NPCs did interfre with each other. Try taking Viconia and Kivan and leave the AI on. One moment you're clearing out Kobolds, the next Viconia has taken an arrow in the back. Pain in the ass because there are no announcements.

On the subject of romances, considering this is an RPG, I felt it certinally added to the game, giving the characters another dimension. Could have done with something like that between NPCs to add some sexual tension rather than just the standard alignment friction.

I haven't played BG2 yet, so I don't know which I like better, but I just wanted to make a few comments replying to what Quitch said.

My party consists of 5 good chars and 1 evil. My PC(Chaotic Good), Minsc, Coran, Imoen, Dynaheir, and Viconia. My reputation is 20 and has been since before I found the bandit camp. I'm now back in Candlekeep and Viconia is still with me. Anyway, Dynaheir and Viconia are constantly complimenting each other and Coran, fairly often, flirts with Viconia by telling her how beautiful she looks and Viconia always responds in a way that indicates she is flattered. Perhaps the funniest thing about the Coran/Viconia interaction is that Coran is also female because I have her wearing the Girdle of Femininity.

KaaZe · Post by **KaaZe** » Sat Oct 13, 2001 10:15 am

Originally posted by Sailor Saturn:
Perhaps the funniest thing about the Coran/Viconia interaction is that Coran is also female because I have her wearing the Girdle of Femininity.

LOL!, I gave that to jahiera. Who could tell the difference, i figured

Ned Flanders · Post by **Ned Flanders** » Sat Oct 13, 2001 10:18 am

posted by Quitch

On the subject of romances, considering this is an RPG, I felt it certinally added to the game, giving the characters another dimension. Could have done with something like that between NPCs to add some sexual tension rather than just the standard alignment friction.

Aerie and Haer'dalis provide some of that 'sexual tension'. Korgan flirts with all the ladies (except Aerie) and might be able to have the lot of them if he didn't reek of spirits and vomit.