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

[Micormic]

I see BG1 vs BG2 tha same way I see F1 vs F2. In both cases, the first entry is tighter, with more coherent world building and story. The second entry in both cases feels more like theme park attractions.

Fair enough, because they wanted BG2 to be flamboyant, almost in a megalomaniac way.

Maybe Irenicus was Gaider's alter ego? It always felt to me like Irenicus was whoever wrote him dreamed of being :s

 

[Theldaran]

I see BG1 vs BG2 tha same way I see F1 vs F2. In both cases, the first entry is tighter, with more coherent world building and story. The second entry in both cases feels more like theme park attractions.

Fair enough, because they wanted BG2 to be flamboyant, almost in a megalomaniac way.

Maybe Irenicus was Gaider's alter ego? It always felt to me like Irenicus was whoever wrote him dreamed of being :s

I don't think so. Irenicus is just your regular high power level villain, arrogant as fuck because he can. Charname is much more of a power fantasy, though he's a blank slate too in most aspects as a character. The ultimate self-insert character.

 

[holla_cabezas_de_mierda]

I have long felt this way, but mostly keep quiet about it because it triggers people. I believe part of the issue is that lower to mid level D&D is far superior to high level D&D in general. It takes a lot of talent and self control by the DM (designer) to have higher level D&D be as interesting and fun as low to mid level. This is why I have never played Throne of Baal, or Mask of the Betrayer or any of the high level D&D stuff.

I hate magic item and loot spam, and that's the only way most designers seem to know how to design higher level D&D...by just throwing all sorts of magical shit everywhere so that even peasants and hobos are completely decked out in +2 and +3 magic garbage. It almost always destroys the narrative previously established as well as makes encounters and treasure finding a mundane chore; and its entirely self inflected damage to the point it feels like designers must believe it is a mandated part of higher level design.

 

[holla_cabezas_de_mierda]

During my last attempt at replaying BG2 I found it way too text heavy compared to the first one. I really think the fact that I've had a chance to memorize all the dialogue in the early 00's, when I was <15, and was skipping it in later playthrougs, has altered my perception of how intrucive and low quality the writing is.

Perhaps it's not that bad, but this impression was so strong after playing the first one, that I had postponed my plans of finishing the whole series with one character, and not picked the game up in like 6 months. Just let me explore the dungeons without interrupting me at every corner. At this point in time IWD1 < BG2.

I might change my mind.

For me it goes

1) IWD+expansions
2) IWD 2
3) BG1+expansions
4)BG2
5)Throne of Baal

 

[Theldaran]

FYI "cabezas de mierda" has no meaning, it's a bad transliteration of "shitheads".

 

[Malpercio]

BG2 is not high level D&D, or at least I never heard people call it that. ToB yeah, it's totally high level D&D.

 

[Black_Willow]

FFS so many bad opinions in this thread I don't know where to start.

Firstly, BG1 had a big, boring and mostly useless world, kinda like Oblivion, but instead of getting attacked by random bandits you had random spiders spawn out of thin air. I wanted to finish exploring it, but I just couldn't make myself to do it.
Secondly, what's so fun about low-level DnD? It's too random to be tactical, one bad roll can fuck you up, and if you add how OP missile weapons (bows and crosbows) are at these level, it all just creates bad, random combat, where the best (and sometimes only) tactical option is reloading and trying the same thing you did a minute ago.
Thirdly, the locations in BG1 (bar Durlag's Tower and the very last location where you fight Sarevok) are simply boring compared to BG2, where we have: a temple of dead god with his ever-living followers, sphere-prison, pirate town, Drow city, Illithid lair and more.
Also, about the writing in BG1: KOVERAS, so smart!
All in all, to people who agree with OP: your opinion is bad and you shoud feel bad.

 

[Theldaran]

Koveras is a bit cringey, especially if you've played some degree of classic D&D before it.

Inverted names are a classic.

Still it's all worthless, because you can't intercept and kill "Koveras" at all, so what gives? Either way you fall in his ploy.

 

[thesheeep]

I have long felt this way, but mostly keep quiet about it because it triggers people. I believe part of the issue is that lower to mid level D&D is far superior to high level D&D in general. It takes a lot of talent and self control by the DM (designer) to have higher level D&D be as interesting and fun as low to mid level. This is why I have never played Throne of Baal, or Mask of the Betrayer or any of the high level D&D stuff.

I hate magic item and loot spam, and that's the only way most designers seem to know how to design higher level D&D...by just throwing all sorts of magical shit everywhere so that even peasants and hobos are completely decked out in +2 and +3 magic garbage. It almost always destroys the narrative previously established as well as makes encounters and treasure finding a mundane chore; and its entirely self inflected damage to the point it feels like designers must believe it is a mandated part of higher level design.

I honestly don't understand how people can think it is not awesome to sling the mightiest of spells, slaying fire and ice giants by the dozens, become an epitome of power and - in the end - ascend to godhood yourself.
After all, the good encounters (especially with mods) always provide an adequate challenge.
If your GM sucks, don't blame the system.

The best experience is playing the whole series in one go, going from lowlife to godlike. Without a doubt one of my strongest memories of gaming in general.
I even created a custom portrait and a custom voice set for my character, ripping early YouTube video sound for snippets of a certain person.
What was it? A fucking monk. Yep. The most boring class to play in the entire series because not only do they lack spells, they also can't really participate in the loot galore. And why? It fit the character I was ripping from YouTube

BG2 was a theme park, no doubt about it.
But it was a very appropriate theme park that made sense within its setting - in contrast to stuff like F3 or F4.

 

[Micormic]

I have long felt this way, but mostly keep quiet about it because it triggers people. I believe part of the issue is that lower to mid level D&D is far superior to high level D&D in general. It takes a lot of talent and self control by the DM (designer) to have higher level D&D be as interesting and fun as low to mid level. This is why I have never played Throne of Baal, or Mask of the Betrayer or any of the high level D&D stuff.

I hate magic item and loot spam, and that's the only way most designers seem to know how to design higher level D&D...by just throwing all sorts of magical shit everywhere so that even peasants and hobos are completely decked out in +2 and +3 magic garbage. It almost always destroys the narrative previously established as well as makes encounters and treasure finding a mundane chore; and its entirely self inflected damage to the point it feels like designers must believe it is a mandated part of higher level design.

It triggers people because a substantial number of codex members dream of being irenicus in their fantasy's. Half the nerds on here listen to his voice acting and think 'if only my power was greater'.





1. BG1 + totsc
2. BG2
3.IWD 1
4. HOW (since it's a standalone campaign)
5.IWD 2/TOB
6. TOB/IWD 2

 

[Micormic]

Thirdly, the locations in BG1 (bar Durlag's Tower and the very last location where you fight Sarevok) are simply boring compared to BG2, where we have: a temple of dead god with his ever-living followers, sphere-prison, pirate town, Drow city, Illithid lair and more.

WOW man, bg2 having a pirate town is obviously such a sure sign of greatness. A DROW CITY holy shit dude I bet that's not gonna lead to linear dungeon crawling against repetitive enemies!



I thought the planar sphere was cool so I'm not gonna be sarcastic about that one.

 

[Cael]

I hate magic item and loot spam, and that's the only way most designers seem to know how to design higher level D&D...by just throwing all sorts of magical shit everywhere so that even peasants and hobos are completely decked out in +2 and +3 magic garbage. It almost always destroys the narrative previously established as well as makes encounters and treasure finding a mundane chore; and its entirely self inflected damage to the point it feels like designers must believe it is a mandated part of higher level design.

That is just bad DM-ing.

Fact of the matter is, DnD has many creatures that run the gamut from CR1 to CR26 (to use a 3.x term) and that is just in the original Monster Manual. In 3.x, there are also rules that allow you to tailor encounters to meet a specific CR, whether by increasing the monster stats, give them class levels or increasing the number of monsters. You don't need to introduce magic items to make your monsters stronger.

Don't blame the system. Blame the incompetents using it.

 

[Theldaran]

Nope, magic items are pretty much mandatory in a D&D campaign that encompasses low-level to high-level. It's part of the progression.

Because a 20-level Fighter with a nonmagical weapon is just sad. Spellcasters, on the other hand, have it better.

Tl;dr magic items are there for a reason, plus they're cool to collect, gotta catch 'em all.

 

[Cael]

Nope, magic items are pretty much mandatory in a D&D campaign that encompasses low-level to high-level. It's part of the progression.

Because a 20-level Fighter with a nonmagical weapon is just sad. Spellcasters, on the other hand, have it better.

Tl;dr magic items are there for a reason, plus they're cool to collect, gotta catch 'em all.

That was not what he said. He is talking about the gratuitous +2/+3 weapons that even peasants seem to have in many high level DnD games. It is like how HotU has all drow warriors equipped with +4 or better weapons (but not lootable).

Otherwise, I would have pointed to the Wealth by Level table in 3.x, which mandates that characters of a certain level have a certain level of loot or the whole CR/XP system gets kicked in the nads.

 

[Theldaran]

Well, if you're bringing out human opponents, the quickest way is to give them similar resources to PCs, i. e. magical equipment.

 

[Cael]

Well, if you're bringing out human opponents, the quickest way is to give them similar resources to PCs, i. e. magical equipment.

Yes, it is, which is why people tend to do it.

However, that throws the entire Wealth By Level table out the window, which is a very bad thing in 3.x as it is an integral part of the whole system.

And that is before the illogic of a peasant running around with a +3 weapon (which is the equivalent of centuries of pay) rears its ugly head.

High level play is best done by going against things that are NOT human. Demons, undead and the like are good substitutes. At high levels, you really shouldn't be dealing with mundane armies and the like that need those magic weapons by the truckload to have a chance against you.

 

[Anomander Rake]

I wanted to write an essay, then I realized you wouldn't change idea, I wouldn't either, so I'm just leaving this post here to remind myself that writing a meaningful post would prove futile.

 

[Ludwig von Eisenthal]

I prefer BG1 for two reasons: That I begin the game as a weak nobody that gets slowly but gradually better is the first reason. The second is the feeling of adventurous exploration of a big and very extensive world. I actually really like the big regions where I could wander for hours without encountering another human or another big event or quest. This feeling of being lost in an overwhelming, wild landscape fascinated me and still fascinates me. Compared to BG1 the second game was more like a Sightseeing-tour from one big event, quest or place of interest to the next for me. I love both games but BG1 a little bit more.

 

[GhostCow]

BG1 has some nice art but being super low level in D&D sucks. Or at least it does in BG1. The first area is all about praying to RNJesus that you don't die for every encounter. There's not much strategy at first. I also didn't find the story as interesting as BG2. I have 115 hours in BG1 according to steam but I can't remember much about the story other than it starts with your adoptive father dying, Jaheira is a bitch, Khalid is a cuck, and Sarevok is a final boss. Oh and I think it might be the first RPG to feature a literal magic negro as a companion.

BG2 had the way more interesting story and the variety of class kits made it the most addicting RPG of all time to me.

 

[Chippy]

BG1 has some nice art but being super low level in D&D sucks. Or at least it does in BG1. The first area is all about praying to RNJesus that you don't die for every encounter. There's not much strategy at first. I also didn't find the story as interesting as BG2. I have 115 hours in BG1 according to steam but I can't remember much about the story other than it starts with your adoptive father dying, Jaheira is a bitch, Khalid is a cuck, and Sarevok is a final boss. Oh and I think it might be the first RPG to feature a literal magic negro as a companion.

BG2 had the way more interesting story and the variety of class kits made it the most addicting RPG of all time to me.

I'm conflicted. This is either a masterful trolling post, or an actual oppinion. So I don't really know how to rate it.

Is this the direction the Codex will apparently be going in now that Lilura has apparently abandoned it?.

 

[d1r]

M-Magic negro? What?

 

[Ludwig von Eisenthal]

Indeed, no question that BG2 has much better developed and deeper main- and sidestories. That fact has direct consequences on the way the world is portrayed though: The Sword Coast in BG1 is basically an giant open-world light, every part leads to a topologically fitting next part of the world. In BG2 I "jump" from one point to another while they don't necessarily have much to do with each other. That kind of world building allows BG2 to tell its countless very varied and rich stories, something BG1 never could - but the world design in BG1 feels just more realistic and organic to me. And I actually enjoy wandering in the countryside and woods along the Sword Coast, just exploring without having to deal with epic gods stuff the whole time.

 

[Thunar]

BG2 has some of the best first 20h in a video game. Then you start giving a crap about saving some dumdum party member and the whole game turns to shit. The story makes no sense, the encounter design becomes absolute trash, the environments become linear and empty corridors, resulting in a lack of exploration and sense of adventuring, even though you do go to the under dark, one of the best DnD locations.
I don't really know how they managed to fuck it up this bad.
BG1 in contrast is much more consistent and provides enjoyment from beginning to end, the stakes are much higher and the story has at least some semblance of coherence.
I don't think any of them are the best RPGs ever, as they are sometimes believed to be, but they're enjoyable.

 

[Tigranes]

BG2 has some of the best first 20h in a video game. Then you start giving a crap about saving some dumdum party member and the whole game turns to shit. The story makes no sense, the encounter design becomes absolute trash, the environments become linear and empty corridors, resulting in a lack of exploration and sense of adventuring, even though you do go to the under dark, one of the best DnD locations.
I don't really know how they managed to fuck it up this bad.
BG1 in contrast is much more consistent and provides enjoyment from beginning to end, the stakes are much higher and the story has at least some semblance of coherence.
I don't think any of them are the best RPGs ever, as they are sometimes believed to be, but they're enjoyable.

Because BG2 is an incredibly fucking large game in every sense and it remains, to date, an incredible outlier in scope given their timeline?

It's actually surprising they still managed to fit quite a bit of cutscenes, questing and even choices into the Underdark. Look at PST and how they had to strip all that out of Curst/etc, even though that's far more important to taht game and far more jarring to run into linear combat dungeons.

 

[GhostCow]

BG1 has some nice art but being super low level in D&D sucks. Or at least it does in BG1. The first area is all about praying to RNJesus that you don't die for every encounter. There's not much strategy at first. I also didn't find the story as interesting as BG2. I have 115 hours in BG1 according to steam but I can't remember much about the story other than it starts with your adoptive father dying, Jaheira is a bitch, Khalid is a cuck, and Sarevok is a final boss. Oh and I think it might be the first RPG to feature a literal magic negro as a companion.

BG2 had the way more interesting story and the variety of class kits made it the most addicting RPG of all time to me.

I'm conflicted. This is either a masterful trolling post, or an actual oppinion. So I don't really know how to rate it.

Is this the direction the Codex will apparently be going in now that Lilura has apparently abandoned it?.

Oh look it's the beta orbiter. As if that blog obsessed cunt with an overinflated ego could keep my from speaking my opinion. It's sad that weak men like you encourage her.

M-Magic negro? What?

Are you not American? It's a very old trope. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_Negro