The Icewind Dale series vs. the Baldurs Gate series

Dangerous10K · Post by **Dangerous10K** » Sun Jun 24, 2001 6:20 am

wut IYO is better ive never played icewind dale so i cant comment on this

Sojourner · Post by **Sojourner** » Sun Jun 24, 2001 8:35 am

The BG series is better. Icewind Dale is very linear, combat-intensive, and really buggy compared to the BG series.

Manveru · Post by **Manveru** » Sun Jun 24, 2001 1:47 pm

IWD : fine locations, music (I used some in my Add-on) poor story, boring

BG series : Really good story I like also music and locations.

The answer is only one : BG rules

The Regent · Post by **The Regent** » Sun Jun 24, 2001 1:51 pm

I like the beautful scenary of snow in IWD.. but its basicly a dungeons crawler that very boring....

nice to get back with your kobold roots though...

Baldurs Gate!!!!! for one reason: Minsc (and Boo)

.
(In Bg2 he is sooooo funny

.

Bylandt · Post by **Bylandt** » Sun Jun 24, 2001 3:26 pm

All right, I' going to get in trouble with this one: BGI is better than IWD. IWD is better than BGII.

Manveru · Post by **Manveru** » Sun Jun 24, 2001 11:01 pm

Hmm.. you are indeed in trouble because I think that BG2 is better that BG1 (story, dialogues, graphics, possibilities , etc...)

CM · Post by CM » Mon Jun 25, 2001 2:30 am

I have played IWD and BG 1 and 2.
The BG series is better, it has a better story line.
The story line is the best thing about the BG series.
But it is good that they made IWD distinct.
It would have been a bore if it was another BG.

Dangerous10K · Post by **Dangerous10K** » Mon Jun 25, 2001 6:13 am

do most of you guys make a new charecter for icewind dale

i mean a different class/name etc

or do you use the same class/name
or do you even go farther and use something like gatekeeper so that you have the exact same experience as in baldurs gate?

if i got icewind dale which i probally wont for the fact that pool of radiance 2 is coming out and i have the original pool of radiane for good old 8 bit nintendo (its unbelievable fun i played it before i got baldurs gate to prepare for baldurs gate)

but anyway i would probally be a druid in the Icewind dale series and a different name

Manveru · Post by **Manveru** » Mon Jun 25, 2001 7:16 am

My favourte character from IWD (he was supposed to be main character by me, even when there are no main character in IWD) wa the cleric named Manvelen ("Who is as the star" from Quenya language one of elvish languages in JRRT books)

Edwin · Post by **Edwin** » Tue Jun 26, 2001 6:08 am

IMO there's no match between the two series...BG is unbeatable!!!!!!!!!!

Bylandt · Post by **Bylandt** » Tue Jun 26, 2001 6:34 am

I enjoyed IWD very much, though. It must be the wargamer in me.

True, there's not much in the story-line. That doesn't make it "hack and slash". The fun was in trying differentely composed parties and, most of all, in inventing and perfecting new tactics for the different battles.

And no boring and unrewarding missions like "Find my son and give him this amulet" ...

Denethorn · Post by **Denethorn** » Tue Jun 26, 2001 9:45 am

Originally posted by Manveru:
<STRONG>Hmm.. you are indeed in trouble because I think that BG2 is better that BG1 (story, dialogues, graphics, possibilities , etc...)</STRONG>

aboloutly - BG2 is far better than BG1 (excluding story line in which they are equa).

I am currently finding it a trial actually trying to get through BG1 so i can play BG2.

Denethorn · Post by **Denethorn** » Tue Jun 26, 2001 9:46 am

Originally posted by Manveru:
<STRONG>Hmm.. you are indeed in trouble because I think that BG2 is better that BG1 (story, dialogues, graphics, possibilities , etc...)</STRONG>

aboloutly - BG2 is far better than BG1 (excluding story line in which they are equa).

I am currently finding it a trial actually trying to get through BG1 so i can play BG2.

Bylandt · Post by **Bylandt** » Tue Jun 26, 2001 3:54 pm

All right, this is a discussion I wanted to avoid. I'm new on this board and don't want to be tarred and feathered out. But the gauntlet has been thrown down and a gentleman needs to defend his honour.

Reasons I like BGI better than BGII:

1. More NPC's and thus more combinations possible. The best ones (Coran and Kivan) are gone in BGII.
2. Possibility to start from scratch in building your character and the other characters of your team (if your NPC in BGII is specialised in axes you're pretty much stuck with it and you wont waste points to try another specialisation). No tomes in BGII to change the stats either.
3. Medieval, more real, feel of BGI. Less silly monsters.
4. More attractive paper dolls in BG I. As an elf, I look pretty ugly in BGII. I have the head of a squirel.
5. No 1001 different weapon specialisations in BGI. Why is a high master in long swords completely useless with scimitars?
6. Magic in BGI is basic and simple to use, yet judging what magic to use and where to use it needs carefull consideration. BGII has 1001 different sorts of magic. Most of them you'll never memorise, let alone use. You need to know what situation you're going to confront before you know what te memorise.
7. Some monsters (the special Lych, Firkraag, ...) in BG II can only be killed if you reload 50 times or read the board. BGII is to generally to difficult to be any fun.
8. This Jon Irenicus really annoys me in these dreams. I'm now in the asylum and still don't have any idea what the storyline is about.
9. More human warparties to fight in BGI.

In conlusion: BGI is simple and elegant.

Well, maybe it's all subjective. I seem to be the only one to prefer BGI. I've started BGII three times and got bored or annoyed and didn't finish. Maybe the best part is at the end? I've finished BG I at least six times.

Let the pelting begin!

Manveru · Post by **Manveru** » Tue Jun 26, 2001 10:50 pm

Originally posted by Bylandt:
[QB]Reasons I like BGI better than BGII:

1. More NPC's and thus more combinations possible. The best ones (Coran and Kivan) are gone in BGII.

You have forgot that these NPCs are just walking/fighting dolls without any interactions that could be interesting. As for NPCs that are gone in BG2 SoA - I have made them for this game - just download them and put in the override directory (www.worldzone.net/games/manveru).

2. Possibility to start from scratch in building your character and the other characters of your team (if your NPC in BGII is specialised in axes you're pretty much stuck with it and you wont waste points to try another specialisation).

It means only that Player should choose abilities carefully.

No tomes in BGII to change the stats either.

no tomes ? however using Grimuars is the same effect as using Gatekeeper or Shadowkeeper - If you like such a PCs then just use one of these programs.

3. Medieval, more real, feel of BGI. Less silly monsters.

Here I agree with second part. About game feel anyone could have differen opinion : just BG1 is different than BG2. As for medieval atmosphere of BG1 - it is just dependent on the history of given part of Forgotten Realms. In BG2 we have Amn that reminds me rather Spain, Italy or Portugal in 16th century.

4. More attractive paper dolls in BG I. As an elf, I look pretty ugly in BGII. I have the head of a squirel.

Yes you're absolutely right in this case

5. No 1001 different weapon specialisations in BGI. Why is a high master in long swords completely useless with scimitars?

I have no idea.

6. Magic in BGI is basic and simple to use, yet judging what magic to use and where to use it needs carefull consideration. BGII has 1001 different sorts of magic. Most of them you'll never memorise, let alone use. You need to know what situation you're going to confront before you know what te memorise.

I do not agree. as Minsc said "magic is impresive" - I like to have wide selection of spells, even if I don't use them all.

7. Some monsters (the special Lych, Firkraag, ...) in BG II can only be killed if you reload 50 times or read the board. BGII is to generally to difficult to be any fun.

LOL,

almost everyone things here that BG2 is generally easier than BG1 (because of more options that could be used mainly)

8. This Jon Irenicus really annoys me in these dreams. I'm now in the asylum and still don't have any idea what the storyline is about.

It is good

, he should annoy you - he is the main bad character.

9. More human warparties to fight in BGI.

It doesn't make any difference how many parties do you want to kill - BG2 offers you special possibilities : (my favourite) Try to kill all inhabitants in Drow City in underdark (has no effect on reputation)

In conlusion: BGI is simple and elegant.

And quests are not so complicated as in BG2, there are no interactions - these are really good "features" of BG1. However it is my oppinion and other people have theirs.

[ 06-27-2001: Message edited by: Manveru ]

Rail · Post by **Rail** » Wed Jun 27, 2001 12:33 am

BG1 had many good points. I too liked the selection of NPCs in BG1 even if their interraction wasn't up to the same quality as BG2.

I loved the amount of wilderness there was in BG1 to simply explore. Others hated this, but to each his own.

I loved the early levels, struggling to figure out how to beat simple kobolds, knowing a couple of hits would be your doom. In BG2, you start out pretty powerful, and I never had that fear of dying like you had starting in BG1.

The story was better in BG1, IMHO, though the setting and NPCs were far deeper.

However, BG2 is definitely an improvement on BG1, in gameplay, overall storyline, and character development.

Back to the original question, though. IWD had it's strong points, though overall I certainly prefer BG series. IWD had far better artwork and music. The score for IWD is truly beautiful, not even taking into account it is made for a game. IWD was more combat intensive and I liked that in some wasy, but I missed the deeper storyline and character development of BG. IWD ran far better on my machine than either BG1 or 2, so gameplay and combat was better for me. I, too, enjoyed trying different character combinations (such as all elven party and an all dwarven party) as this was such a strategy intensive game that just changing your characters changed the gameplay tremendously.

However, overall, BG2 is definitely deeper, richer, more immersive, and better. IWD was more a strategy game for me. BG1 and 2 was more a roleplaying game.

Gruntboy · Post by **Gruntboy** » Wed Jun 27, 2001 1:10 am

Ah Rail, will you ever be anything less than the voice of reason and balanced argument?

I don't think the games are comparable. You can't neccessarily say one is better than the other b/c they do different things.

It must be the wargamer in me too (Bylandt

) but I enjoyed IWD more for the full-on pitched battles.

Rail · Post by **Rail** » Wed Jun 27, 2001 2:42 am

@GB- I'm glad you still remember me

I choose to be the voice of reason rather than the cudgel of reason, I guess. Less mess.

I'm with you. I love strategy games and IWD is a good one. It's hard to compare the two, but each was good for different reasons.

RA · Post by RA » Wed Jun 27, 2001 10:45 am

What do you mean with strategie rail?
i tought it was an crpg not something like red alert or am I missing something.

Rail · Post by **Rail** » Thu Jun 28, 2001 12:39 am

@RA- IWD is about combat. Yes, it has a story, but very little interraction with NPCs of any kind. Mainly, it's about effectively using the party you have to defeat the upcoming foes. It's about spell and weapon selection and finding the right party to match your playing style. It's about tactics of small unit combat rather than roleplaying. You don't have to worry about having a party of compatible characters, cuz their all yours (unless playing multi-player with other players). You don't have to worry about going down a different path and missing parts of the story, cuz there's only one storyline. But, the battles are great! There's lots of it and it's fast and furious. Quite challenging.