Is Baldur's gate I better then 2?!?!

Genesis

Does any body think that baldur's gate I was better then Baldur's gate II(having played bg2 before 1)
,because i hear alot of people that think Bg I was far better!?,but i personally gave up due to it being boring when i got to the mines.
Does it get better later on or something because i can't see any reason why people would prefer 1 to 2.

Please prove me wrong:D

Pugsley

Never played I, but 2 was a bloody great game

pertinax

i think 1 was better because 2 is claustrophobic. in 1 i could wander around on an entire map and meet 3 kobolds. that was good and bad sometimes boring but a sense of imersion. in bg2 its complete quest, then walk 3 steps and start next quest.

i went through 3 chapters in the space of a week in bg2. pretty and big but poorly designed. id say its becuase after bg1 a load of complaints of the i dont have time to play this change it so its...
well i say im a sad bastard who has nothing better to do then play games and bg2 isnt sad and bastard enough for me.

Lemming

Erm ...this is a bit of a difficult question to answer since the two games are kinda different in their approach.

Baldur's Gate 1 allowed for more widespread "wandering", but this led to complaints of boredom since you could wander about aimlessly for ages.

But its also the start of the BG story. You don't know WHO you are or what the purpose of events surrounding your life are until near the very end of the game.

Baldur's Gate 2's first level (The dungeon) was not liked by many people and even I felt it to be somewhat 'naff. But once you get out of it, things start to kick in albeit slowly for a while. It's a much better game from an implementation point of view. The aimless wandering has been removed and there are much bigger and badder creatures / NPCs in the game too.

Whilst I have not finished the game yet (BG2), I would also say that the fact that you know early on about what's happening to you, there isn't the same air of mystery surrounding events.

I've not played BG2: Throne of Bhaal yet, althoughh I've heard it is really kick-ass and has some final shattering revelations in it.

DrunkLeprachaun

I prefer 2. I think it's pretty much the same game, just more well rounded. I don't like the dungeon bit at the start, but Imoen alone makes 2 better than 1. She's a hell of a lot better. As for the story in 1, I don't think it's mysterious, I think it just doesn't have one for 80% of the game, I like to have more direction than what's in 1, and so I like 2 more in that respect as well. Also the character creation is better in 2 than it is in 1.

Mark

I've not played BG2: Throne of Bhaal yet

BG2 without Throne of Bhaal is like sex without the orgasm

orangerooster

so far i think bg2 is better.the kits are a great addition and the city is much better than baldurs gates boring locales.

Genesis

BG2 without Throne of Bhaal is like sex without the orgasm

pld Mark1million

Genesis

i love! the way they brought in kits in bg2 and the use of more magic,and allowing to take more then 2 hits and not die(believe me it happened alot),it just got soooooo boring!!!!!,did it get better in the middle or near the end????.


Bg2 was a brilliant,the magic and action was brilliant!,and u wouldn't run from kobolds which look like monkeys btw.

P.S
Throne of Bhaal was even better

Squall

BG1 was class but ide have to say 2 was better. Besy thing to do is play them in a series. 1 and tosc then 2 then TOB. If you use the same character its cool.

Hobbes

If you have to play TOB, try the Wild Mage. It's a great laugh.

Pugsley

One thing that always bugged me in BG2 was that dungeon with all the mind flayers,how the hell do you beat them? took me ages to kill em all (i ended up sending in pets them fireballing them to oblivion...) because there has to be an easier way

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

I personally liked both, but in different ways. BG1 is the one I'd probably favor slightly- mainly because you start from level 1 as a new character, and there is so much to quest for (your identity, why ppl are trying to kill you etc). The maps are spread out, but some of them are pure genius- the mines for instance, cloakwood- and Baldur's gate itself is a huge city, 5 zones in all. There are billions of side-quests in BG1, you need to look for them tho- whereas in BG2 they're served up on a silver plate for you 99% of the time. BG1 is better if you like exploring things thoroughly- BG2 is more open to direct and linear plot completion. BG2 is better in that it's more challenging, quests are more cleanly done- and the best part is your character class gets a stronghold- very satisfying for me as I continued my char from BG1.

My recommendation would be to play BG1 first, followed by Tales of the Sword Coast, and then BG2/ToB. That is the most satisfying experience imho. BG I gives you a wondrous plot, with a very satisfying and thrilling climax. BG2 tails off a lot towards the end, and the final reckoning is very disappointing (least it was to me).

Btw Pugs- there is a very easy way to beat that dungeon- you need to find the pool room- there are a bunch of Sea Brine vials there that, when drunk, make you immune to Flayer effects. Or you could just do what I did, invoke the slayer, and rampage through the dungeon (easier if you're evil ) Also helps to have Keldorn or Aerie with you- Keld for his dispells and Aerie for piercing spellshields.


Occy

Illkillya

ya... I had to go slayer twice to get out of that mindflayer dungeon. Btw, I loved BG2 but didn't like TOB much.

Pugsley

Only problem occy - i found them potions AFTER i spend 3 hours wiping them out
I also killed them before i got slayer,lol. (i done them in chapter 3 )

Lemming

Originally posted by Mark1million


BG2 without Throne of Bhaal is like sex without the orgasm

Pld Mark1million

That put a smile on my face!