Baldur's Gate I was better than Baldur's Gate II

[Micormic]

That might be your ADHD, your aspergers, or your OCD acting up. There were plenty of magical/enchanted weapons in BG1 to where each felt interesting when you found them. In BG2 unless you wanted to horde old crap you routinely threw away anything that wasn't at least +3 or later +4 unless it was a specialized blunt weapon for those golems for example.

Sure, everyone who doesn't agree with you has ADHD. Now gtfo, retard.

Not everyone, just you.

 

[Theldaran]

That might be your ADHD, your aspergers, or your OCD acting up. There were plenty of magical/enchanted weapons in BG1 to where each felt interesting when you found them. In BG2 unless you wanted to horde old crap you routinely threw away
anything that wasn't at least +3 or later +4 unless it was a specialized blunt weapon for those golems for example.

You know... in BG2, equipment was often themed. Like how you get a +5 leather armor in a quest about rangers (Umar Hills). An armor you can slap right away on Valygar, the same companion you find right there.

My point is, when you know the game everything is easy, and you go for what you need. But even if you find cool equipment, your characters might not be able to use it. Like Carsomyr.

Also, to get that cool +3 weapon you have to complete a quest. Seems only logical you get the proper reward.

I still felt, even at the time I played BG2 on release that there was way too much stuff in that game. Maybe it's just me but getting a +3 weapon should be a memorable event, not something I chuck away at the store as soon as I find one.

It's nice to be rewarded but too much is too much.

I mean, isn't the memorable event just completing the damn quest after some trash mobs and maybe a final encounter. +3 weapons are not literally found lying in the garbage bin (not like that Tome of Dexterity in BG1).

Also there's never a thing as "too much" in a videogame:

https://magiccards.info/tp/en/12.html

 

[Lyric Suite]

You know the game went overboard with powerful items when you kill Drizzt and his entire party and all the loot they have is second rate compared to everything else you get.

 

[Theldaran]

You know the game went overboard with powerful items when you kill Drizzt and his entire party and all the loot they have is second rate compared to everything else you get.

Well, in truth... Charname gets to be a more powerful hero even than Drizzt. I don't think it's FR canon but in the games you can be godlike.

 

[octavius]

Am I the only one who has become sick and bloody tired of the BG games?

 

[Theldaran]

Am I the only one who has become sick and bloody tired of the BG games?

It's curious... I have played them dozens of times (that doesn't mean I've squeezed dry all their content, especially fan content), but I still feel the urge to keep playing and trying things.

I guess it's all nostalgia. BG reminds me of my adolescence.

 

[Pizzashoes]

Fast forward BG2, and the design was trash. Item icons are retarded

No, you're retarded.

You wrote so much, but calling item icons retarded was enough to make me skip over everything else. I can easily assume the rest of the post contains as little thought. Jesus, dude.

 

[Kyl Von Kull]

BG1>BG2
BG2 looses a lot upon replays, and when palying BG1 you can go wherever you want after candlekeep without being interrupted by companions and their sob stories.
The other perk of BG1 is that you can form a party of evil shorties.

But you can't go wherever you want. Baldur's Gate itself is locked off until, what act 5? I also think the people who say BG is less linear than SOA are fooling themselves. You never need to go to Trademeet, for example, that whole hub is side content. The Planar Prison is side content, the D'Arnise keep is side content--hell, all of the stronghold acquisition quests are. The Beholder cult zone is side content, the ruined temple with the dragon is side content. You may hate the romances, but the actual companion quests in SOA tend to be pretty great and there are far more of them than in BG. The cringe of the romances is more than offset by, for example, having the option to convince Anomen to murder his family's enemies, which drives him crazy and possibly causes him attack you if you make fun of him. That's the moment I got hooked on my first playthrough.

I could go on and on. The difference is that BG gives you generic wilderness zone #5, this time with ancient bridge!, whereas the non main quest related side content in SOA is almost always part of a side quest. SOA is definitely superior if you like a little more narrative with your exploration, but I could see how a pure explorationfag would prefer BG.

But SOA has just as many optional areas to explore. It just doesn't feel that way if you're a completionist because almost everything is connected to a quest.

 

[Bladeract]

Well you're a godling so of course you can become godlike, that is the whole plotline.

The books about the bhaal stuff are pretty good btw, much better than most of the FR trash books.

 

[MajorMace]

Bg1 main quest is super linear. Doesn't it even gate Cloakwood until you're supposed to go there ?

 

[Theldaran]

I was triggered by the word "act".

BG has "chapters" -> like a book.

POE has "acts" -> like Sonic the Hedgehog.

 

[lukaszek]

deterministic system > RNG

 

[Murk]

Am I the only one who has become sick and bloody tired of the BG games?

I agree, play IWD instead.

 

[Nas92]

It's nice to know I'm not the only one who disliked BG2:SoA's main plotline. The whole plot was about Irenicus, and I was never that into that character. I guess his voice acting was good.
I liked the party banter in BG2, I really missed that in BG1. I agree that the romances were utter garbage though. I tried going through with them for the sake of completion, but I just couldn't.

 

[Jezal_k23]

I was triggered by the word "act".

BG has "chapters" -> like a book.

POE has "acts" -> like Sonic the Hedgehog.

Or like Diablo 2.

 

[Jezal_k23]

It's nice to know I'm not the only one who disliked BG2:SoA's main plotline. The whole plot was about Irenicus, and I was never that into that character. I guess his voice acting was good.
I liked the party banter in BG2, I really missed that in BG1. I agree that the romances were utter garbage though. I tried going through with them for the sake of completion, but I just couldn't.

I always loved Irenicus up until around Spellhold and beyond. He starts out compelling and declines the farther you get in the game because eventually you figure out he is actually a pretty generic villain as the mystery and menace that surrounded him at the start fades. His voice acting is incredible though, and that alongside the dream sequences are what really imprinted him on my memory forever despite how generic he turns out to be.

 

[Micormic]

Bg1 main quest is super linear. Doesn't it even gate Cloakwood until you're supposed to go there ?

Doesn't BG2 gate going to spellhold until you finish the chapter 2 and 3?


Anymore idiotic double standards?

 

[MajorMace]

hmmm
i'm not even talking about bg2 (?)
bg1 main quest is super linear, isn't it ?

was merely reacting to former posts, the game doesn't only close baldur's gate until the player is considered high level enough, it gates pretty much every step. I'm not even sure you can clear the bandit business before nashkel mine.

 

[iguana_trader]

Kyl Von Kull
I guess I see your points, but I think my love for playing BG like a commandos game (single thief or a party of them) stands in the way of looking at BG2 objectively since it nerfed thieves so much (especially ToB, SoA is not as bad in that regard). I guess both games are linear but BG1 masks that a bit better since it is lighter on the story and there are lots of intermittent areas. In every game you can reach checkpoint areas by choosing a bit different path. It is also possible to skip most of the mines (Nashkel, Cloakwood) by going invisible and killing/colleting what you are inclined to - time saved and you are not exhausted to explore the city later.
But I guess I digress now, BG2 definietly expanded upon the BG1 formula, but simplicity of the original game can be alluring.

 

[Generic-Giant-Spider]

When I was younger, I loved BG2 while as I got older I preferred BG1 and IWD.

I kind of understand what the OP is saying when it comes to how there is a bit of an aesthetic shift in BG2 compared to BG1. In BG2, things feel more extravagant and like there's this gilded shine over stuff. BG1 sticks to high fantasy but at the same time feels on a more grounded level. That's probably a result of BG1 being a low level campaign and taking place in rural areas while BG2 is higher level and involves a lot of city seeing/delving into more exotic environments.

One advantage to me is that BG1 allows a lot more flexibility for playing an alignment themed party. BG2 has like, three or four evil party members you can get while BG1 has at least eight or so. I guess the EEs add more potential there, but those companions look like shit and I don't count them because I'm a purist.

I also prefer low level D&D where every kill you get feels earned and less like you're a murder machine. Makes the adventure and power ascension much more satisfying as opposed to starting off being able to cleave through low level monsters like they don't matter.

 

[lukaszek]

deterministic system > RNG

 

[Generic-Giant-Spider]

True, BG2's evil companions had the benefit of being total Terminators but it's fun to have more options and seeing different perspectives. BG2 leaves little breathing room opposed to BG1 which had a better rounded roster. I guess it always annoyed me that BG2 assumes you're playing the shining beacon of hope from the get-go and forces you to team with good aligned characters regardless of what you did in BG1.

With that said, Keldorn is pretty badass and has one of the best character portraits in a video game. That's what a paladin should look like.

 

[lukaszek]

deterministic system > RNG

 

[Murk]

Can also do the 'make your own party in multiplayer -> copy/paste save file into single player' trick.

No dialog, obviously, but in many cases that is for the best.

 

[Shaewaroz]

True, BG2's evil companions had the benefit of being total Terminators but it's fun to have more options and seeing different perspectives. BG2 leaves little breathing room opposed to BG1 which had a better rounded roster. I guess it always annoyed me that BG2 assumes you're playing the shining beacon of hope from the get-go and forces you to team with good aligned characters regardless of what you did in BG1..

BG1 had more evil NPCs, but most of them didnt have any banters and had 0 personality in general. Most of them didnt have any real quest associated with them either. So you might as well make better party members yourself and give them the same character portraits - serves the same function. Basically the only thing you'd be sacrificing is their unique voice sets.

In BG2 all companions are so well fleshed out and unique that you cannot just replace them with random goons you make yourself and still expect to have the same gameplay experience.

People often grossly downplay the importance of NPC interactions in CRPGs. To me theres a huge difference between having a self-generated character and a well-written NPC who reacts to your and other NPCs actions in a believable way. While playing BG1 I always miss the how companions would react to quests and story events in BG2. I actually cannot think of any game where NPC reactivity would have been done better than in BG2. (if you disagree, please give examples of CRPGs with better party member NPC reactivity).