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

[Shaewaroz]

In BG1 you find barely any magical weapons, and the ones you do are generic Long Sword +2 (+1 Cold damage). What is so exciting about that?

This is why we can't have nice thing folks.

That +2 sword was amazing. The minimalism of BG1 when it came to phat loot is what made it great. That +2 sword mattered. BG2 was just excess over excess to the point of being nauseating.

Yea, it was either Long Sword +1 or that one. And you always had to use Long Swords since other weapon types rarely have any enchanted weapons. So you always end up creating a character that uses a Long Sword, since it's also the best backstab weapon. What is so exciting about having only one option instead of multiple equally good options?

Even if BG2 had a lot of magical weapons, there are still some that clearly stand out from others - like Crom Faeyr, Flail of Ages, Staff of Magi and Carsomyr. What about The Human Flesh armor that had an entire associated quest line? How is having these interesting, unique items available making the game worse?

But I understand that minimalism has it's own appeal.

 

[Mark Richard]

In BG1 you find barely any magical weapons, and the ones you do are generic Long Sword +2 (+1 Cold damage). What is so exciting about that?

This is why we can't have nice thing folks.

That +2 sword was amazing. The minimalism of BG1 when it came to phat loot is what made it great. That +2 sword mattered. BG2 was just excess over excess to the point of being nauseating.

Making magical equipment rare and highly prized also made cursed equipment a legitimate threat to the overeager adventurer. BG1 emphasised caution. Wizards started with one spell and 4 hitpoints, some early game enemies reliably caused permadeath (though it hardly matters since reviving a party member at that stage is too costly anyway!), traps were lethal, random encounters often more so, and the story insinuated any stranger could be a devious assassin.

 

[Micormic]

In BG1 you find barely any magical weapons, and the ones you do are generic Long Sword +2 (+1 Cold damage). What is so exciting about that?

This is why we can't have nice thing folks.

That +2 sword was amazing. The minimalism of BG1 when it came to phat loot is what made it great. That +2 sword mattered. BG2 was just excess over excess to the point of being nauseating.

Yea, it was either Long Sword +1 or that one. And you always had to use Long Swords since other weapon types rarely have any enchanted weapons. So you always end up creating a character that uses a Long Sword, since it's also the best backstab weapon. What is so exciting about having only one option instead of multiple equally good options?

http://mikesrpgcenter.com/bgate/melee.html

There's clearly more alternate weapons then long swords and there's several +3 weapons that obviously aren't longswords.
Do morons like you think before you type? Do you even play these games or just read and repeat other people's idiocy?

 

[DragoFireheart]

Romances are well-written and done with good taste, .

What the fuck is this shit

In BG1 you find barely any magical weapons, and the ones you do are generic Long Sword +2 (+1 Cold damage). What is so exciting about that?

This is why we can't have nice thing folks.

That +2 sword was amazing. The minimalism of BG1 when it came to phat loot is what made it great. That +2 sword mattered. BG2 was just excess over excess to the point of being nauseating.

Just when I thought this topic was a disaster, Lyric Suite saves the day. He gets it: the name isn't as fancy but the scarcity of magic weapons in BG1 made them extremely valuable.

God bless people like you.

 

[Jvegi]

BG2 might have plenty of magical weapons, but they are different enough to not be plain. Their magic is a given, the excitment comes from the unique effects they provide.
Unless you install something like Item Upgrade, I don't think it's overwhelming nor boring. It's just a different approach.

Also, if you play BG1 in the BG2 engine, the itemization is fucked due to the new proficiencies.

 

[Lilura]

Also, if you play BG1 in the BG2 engine, the itemization is fucked due to the new proficiencies.

Only full-blown retards do that, though. And only full-blown retards think BG2 > BG.

 

[Curratum]

I thought it was only full-blown retards that are still willing to jump through hoops to make the game look normal on their widescreen monitor.

 

[Lilura]

Only full-blown retards don't play IE games in 4:3 aspect ratio on Trinitron CRTs.

Less hardline approach: Only full-blown retards don't play IE games by utilizing display driver scaling to maintain 4:3 aspect ratio/dev-intended resolutions on widescreen displays.

 

[MajorMace]

BG 2 is objectively better than BG 1 in every single aspect.

Totally agree.
Yet I prefer the first one, for reasons mentioned itt : free roaming at low level is great. And the filler wilderness areas all have a little something for them, their sheer size being only there to emulate the tabletop experience (which indeed, had to go) rather than bloating the hourcount (after all, there's no grinding required in this game, the main quest is generous in xp and items enough).
Also, and tied with this, bg1 character progression feels more meaningful, simply because the difference between level 1 and 8 is much more important than the 10-20 range.

 

[Theldaran]

Amn is supposed to be like the FR-counterpart of Spain, I think, so all the Arab/Middle Eastern fluff is wrong.

Also I think it was, more properly, 15th Century onwards Spain, with firearms and so, so the Reconquista already concluded and it was a completely Christian, Western country.

Now's when you go and say Spain is a nigger country with strong Middle Eastern influences that's located in Africa. The truth is that Spaniards are a mix of races, which makes us genetically superior.

In truth, in its time, I liked BG1 more than BG2. With BG2, I knew what to expect, and so the novelty was gone. Still BG2 was a lot bigger than the first part, more options, more items, more customization, that's all it did better even if thematically or aesthetically it got it somewhat wrong compared to 1.

So, BG1 was a lovely experience and one of the best and more complete DnD experiences on PC. BG2 was more flamboyant and a better game, but still you can like 1 more.

 

[Shaewaroz]

In BG1 you find barely any magical weapons, and the ones you do are generic Long Sword +2 (+1 Cold damage). What is so exciting about that?

This is why we can't have nice thing folks.

That +2 sword was amazing. The minimalism of BG1 when it came to phat loot is what made it great. That +2 sword mattered. BG2 was just excess over excess to the point of being nauseating.

Yea, it was either Long Sword +1 or that one. And you always had to use Long Swords since other weapon types rarely have any enchanted weapons. So you always end up creating a character that uses a Long Sword, since it's also the best backstab weapon. What is so exciting about having only one option instead of multiple equally good options?

http://mikesrpgcenter.com/bgate/melee.html

There's clearly more alternate weapons then long swords and there's several +3 weapons that obviously aren't longswords.
Do morons like you think before you type? Do you even play these games or just read and repeat other people's idiocy?

Almost all of the enchanted weapons are found in Durlag's Tower or other Tales of The Sword Coast content. I played BG when it was released and can remember how dull the game felt with lack of enchanted weapons. The +3 weapons that were available in vanilla BG1 are Drizzt's swords, a +3 cursed Two-Handed Sword that no one ever uses and a Short Sword +3 that you get relatively late in the game. And Moonblade Short Sword (only usable by Xan)

Let's count the +2 weapons that were available in vanilla BG1:

Battle Axe +2
Dagger +2 (3 different ones)
Long Sword +2 (+1 cold)
War Hammer +2 (+1 elec)
Spider's Bane Two-Handed Sword +2

So that's a grand total of 7 different +2 melee weapons in the entire game, 3 of which are daggers. Spider's Bane and Dagger of Venom are the only weapons that have interesting special abilities (Free Action & Poison Damage).

Here are all the melee weapon types that are available only with +1 enchantments in vanilla BG:

Clubs
Flails
Morning Stars
Halberds
Quarter Staffs
Bastard Swords
Spears

So if you wanted to make an effective party, you just had to forget about all these weapon types.

 

[Matticus]

Only full-blown retards don't play IE games in 4:3 aspect ratio on Trinitron CRTs.

Less hardline approach: Only full-blown retards don't play IE games by utilizing display driver scaling to maintain 4:3 aspect ratio/dev-intended resolutions on widescreen displays.

Ah, yes. I first played BG1 on a 14" Trinitron CRT. After years of owning it it would occasionally flicker into a green tint and I had to punch it to make it go away. Those truly were the halcyon days.

 

[a cut of domestic sheep prime]

The truth is that Spaniards are a mix of races, which makes us genetically superior.

 

[Lilura]

shit

Interesting itemization for BG is highlighted here. If you don't think that's enough then you are a munchkin of the first order.

Dagger of Venom is the most encounter impacting weapon on the Infinity Engine (see here). Varscona and Twinkle are top 10 in longblades (see here). Bala's makes the top 10 in Axes (see here). Spider's Bane is 4th in "greatswords" (see here).

And why act like you can only wield from one weapon grouping?

 

[Shaewaroz]

shit

shit

 

[Lilura]

14" Trinitron CRT

I'm sorry to hear that your family was so poor that you only had a 14" Trinitron — in 1998 — when everyone else had at least a 17".

 

[Great Deceiver]

To me, BG 1 is infinitely superior to 2 for many reasons, not least because low level AD&D > high-level AD&D. I don't splurge over mage duels and don't care about romanceable companions, I'd rather they shut up instead of yapping all the time, especially since it can lead to anticlimactic situations just before a boss fight in a crucial dungeon.

I also like the item scarcity (and how it subtly plays into the game's storyline of iron shortage even) and how deadly everything is early on. Of course, rest spamming and savescumming defeat the purpose, but under ideal circumstances, the lethality of low-level combat is certainly an adrenaline rush.

This isn't simple nostalgia either, I was over 18 when I played the first one on release and BG2 a couple of years later didn't manage to hold my attention and I didn't complete it until much later.

Also, Durlag's Tower is the best dungeon in an isometric CRPG, bar none.

 

[logan]

Baldurs gate 1 is the only rpg that i have played where the main quest dont bother me when i doing sidequests.Baldurs gate 2 chapter 2 do the something similiar but 20.000 gold is really easy to get.

 

[Theldaran]

Let's count the +2 weapons that were available in vanilla BG1:

Battle Axe +2
Dagger +2 (3 different ones)
Long Sword +2 (+1 cold)
War Hammer +2 (+1 elec)
Spider's Bane Two-Handed Sword +2

So that's a grand total of 7 different +2 melee weapons in the entire game, 3 of which are daggers.

You forgettin' Zhalimar Cloudwulfe's Halberd there, I think it's a +2.

Equipping Kivan with that was just SWEET (back in the golden time when Halberds counted as Lances).

 

[Shaewaroz]

You're right, I missed that one.

 

[Micormic]

In BG1 you find barely any magical weapons, and the ones you do are generic Long Sword +2 (+1 Cold damage). What is so exciting about that?

This is why we can't have nice thing folks.

That +2 sword was amazing. The minimalism of BG1 when it came to phat loot is what made it great. That +2 sword mattered. BG2 was just excess over excess to the point of being nauseating.

Yea, it was either Long Sword +1 or that one. And you always had to use Long Swords since other weapon types rarely have any enchanted weapons. So you always end up creating a character that uses a Long Sword, since it's also the best backstab weapon. What is so exciting about having only one option instead of multiple equally good options?

http://mikesrpgcenter.com/bgate/melee.html

There's clearly more alternate weapons then long swords and there's several +3 weapons that obviously aren't longswords.
Do morons like you think before you type? Do you even play these games or just read and repeat other people's idiocy?

Almost all of the enchanted weapons are found in Durlag's Tower or other Tales of The Sword Coast content. I played BG when it was released and can remember how dull the game felt with lack of enchanted weapons. The +3 weapons that were available in vanilla BG1 are Drizzt's swords, a +3 cursed Two-Handed Sword that no one ever uses and a Short Sword +3 that you get relatively late in the game. And Moonblade Short Sword (only usable by Xan)

Let's count the +2 weapons that were available in vanilla BG1:

Battle Axe +2
Dagger +2 (3 different ones)
Long Sword +2 (+1 cold)
War Hammer +2 (+1 elec)
Spider's Bane Two-Handed Sword +2

So that's a grand total of 7 different +2 melee weapons in the entire game, 3 of which are daggers. Spider's Bane and Dagger of Venom are the only weapons that have interesting special abilities (Free Action & Poison Damage).

Here are all the melee weapon types that are available only with +1 enchantments in vanilla BG:

Clubs
Flails
Morning Stars
Halberds
Quarter Staffs
Bastard Swords
Spears

So if you wanted to make an effective party, you just had to forget about all these weapon types.

In BG1 you find barely any magical weapons, and the ones you do are generic Long Sword +2 (+1 Cold damage). What is so exciting about that?

This is why we can't have nice thing folks.

That +2 sword was amazing. The minimalism of BG1 when it came to phat loot is what made it great. That +2 sword mattered. BG2 was just excess over excess to the point of being nauseating.

Yea, it was either Long Sword +1 or that one. And you always had to use Long Swords since other weapon types rarely have any enchanted weapons. So you always end up creating a character that uses a Long Sword, since it's also the best backstab weapon. What is so exciting about having only one option instead of multiple equally good options?

http://mikesrpgcenter.com/bgate/melee.html

There's clearly more alternate weapons then long swords and there's several +3 weapons that obviously aren't longswords.
Do morons like you think before you type? Do you even play these games or just read and repeat other people's idiocy?

I played BG when it was released and can remember how dull the game felt with lack of enchanted weapons.

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.

 

[Shaewaroz]

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.

 

[iguana_trader]

I am just going to say that I always use the Short Sword of backstabbing as BG1 is most enjoyable when playing a backstabbing thief. I know that the Staff +3 is better but it is slower and not very assassin-like.
The Dagger of Venom is also just pure sex.

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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

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.