Which is harder, BG or BG2?

Kayless · Post by **Kayless** » Mon Feb 12, 2001 2:03 am

@Kayless...Thank you...you have described just how I felt the first time too. I just don't have the skill to express it in words like you.

Your welcome, Weasel.

On a related note, I personally think that Sarevok was a lot smarter than Irenicus, or at least his plan was. Sarevok’s plot was almost indecipherable until the very end, and when you find out his true intentions; that he plans to have a senseless war of sacrifice in order to ascend to the position of Lord of Murder, he became that much more scarier. Mad and smart, despite a somewhat melodramatic taste in clothing and grammar. (He tended to growl at bit too often for my taste. And did anyone else find it odd that he attended his inauguration as a Duke decked out in full Bhaal armor? I would think that Belt and the others would have found this a tad suspicious. But maybe they just thought he had an eccentric taste in cloths

)
On the other hand, my opinion of Irenicus diminished after I discovered his true intentions. At first I thought he was a priest of Bhaal attempting to unlock your power in order to bring about the return of his god. Instead he’s just a cynical elf with delusions of grandeur. And there’s really no tact to his plan. Steal some Bhaalspawn to restore himself and his sister then it’s off to slay his former people and hug some magic tree

. I guess I just assumed he had something more … complex in mind. Of course David Warner does a great job of providing his voice and I especially loved the various dream sequences in the game. Still I thought Sarevok was a scarier and more convincing villain. (Did anyone else catch the Irenicus reference in Baldur’s Gate? That fat spider lady in the forest cave makes a reference to a wizard named Jon Icarus. I guess Wizard’s of the Coast didn’t like the Greek reference and had them change it)
Another key difference in the games is the townsfolk. If someone caught you pick pocketing in Baldur’s Gate the whole town would descend upon you like a lynch mob. In Shadows of Amn you can wipe out a whole group of Cowled Mages, Shadow Thieves or what have you and no one seems to care. I guess the people of Amn are just really jaded.
My only wish is that my character could open a shop like the Adventure Mart. I had a billion of those little Kobold short swords after playing Baldur’s Gate just once.

------------------
I become death, destroyer of worlds...

samcu · Post by **samcu** » Tue Mar 20, 2001 9:17 pm

I say BG1 is harder because you will die to the most innocent mistake. BG2 is too easy for the equipment that you can get.

Regeneration rings, sword+5, Melf's minute meteor, AC-2 armour, Amulet of power, cloak of mirroring, skeleton warriors, shield of baldurian, sling+4, forged items unbalance the game entirely.

BG1 is hard because you will die on from your own fireball. BG2 you have 1XX hp so getting kill from melee is a rarity. I remember Keldorn surrounded by a horde of monster and yet came out unscathe. If that was Sarevok, he would have die because that's how it killed him.

It doesn't matter which one you play first.0 The simple fact is that in BG2 you are playing a party capable of executing anything that can die, while in BG1 any ambush/fight will just simply kick your butt.

Classic examples in BG1: Fighting the spider lady in Cloakwood, fighting wyvern in their cave, fighting the group of fighters outside the mine in the forrest, stopping Saverok & doppelgangers from killing the counsel members, fighting skeleton warriors when they are equipped with ice arrows, fighting the party in the underworld, fighting Saverok in the end.

Examples in BG2: Bohdi, Kangaxx, Shlangar, dragons, mindflayers.

fable · Post by **fable** » Tue Mar 20, 2001 9:58 pm

I'd say BG1 was harder, first, because it was less interesting. The endless inconsequential random fights you'd have in traveling to distant areas quickly became old. (And the traveling itself became old, too.) Secondly, BG1 was harder because the pathfinding was worse, and the dungeons didn't allow for it. Your party could easily split up in those single-file catacombs--and guess who would always seem to end up in the lead? That's right, the mage.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Tue Mar 20, 2001 10:15 pm

I very much agree with Kayless.

It might be very depending on what kind of party you play, but IMPO BG1 was definitely harder than BG2. I believe the "learning effect" playes a role, but it only makes part of the difference. In BG2, I found the difficult fights like Firkraag and Kangaxx to be sort of bipolar, either I lost an intolerable number of party members, or they managed without a HP lost.
The heavy use of magic in BG2 made it easier, since a human player is always smarter and more flexible than the monster AI, just like Quitch comments. In BG1, I had to redo several fights over and over, like the clerics outside Nashkel mines exit or Sarevok. In BG2, it's more like "too many dead - regroup - rethink - try a 2nd time and the new strategy works perfectly immediately". Less trial and error, thus. I also found that a few strategies worked too well with many different enemies. (Ie summon monsters, lower resistance, magic protection-removing spells like Ruby Ray, attacking with an archer with Haste or Boots of speed, making the monster attack him while rest of the party hit the monster with the heavy stuff before the poor monster even knew what happened.)

I also found BG2 more unbalanced during the course of the game, getting easier and easier. My monk became ridiculously powerful by lvl 14-15. So did my ranger and Anomen with his STR bonus sling. Some of the equipment, like the Cloak of Reflection(?) and the regeneration rings really unbalances the game. And I didn't even use Crom Faer or Carsomyr.

I adore both games anyway, but the way I played them, BG2 was by far the easier with the lovely exeception of battling Firkraag with a lvl 9-10 party. Actually, I was quite dissappointed by the Black Dragon and the final battle, but the story made up for it

[This message has been edited by C Elegans (edited 03-20-2001).]

Sabretooth · Post by **Sabretooth** » Wed Mar 21, 2001 4:45 am

Like most of you guys, I would also have to agree that BG1 was the tougher of the two. Sure the bad guys are stronger in BG2 but the upgraded magic spells and weapons etc more than compensates for this as does the HUGE HP potensial of the partys tank fighters. In the later stages of the game when you're faced with a "tough" melee battle you can simply send in your no.1 tank, let him draw all the flak and just rain down fireballs, arrows, magic missiles and whatever else you can think of on the enemies, killing huge numbers, while your tank just walks away unscratched because he was wearing the Ring of Gaxx and the Red Dragon scales! I never got away with this in BG1. In BG1 I used to have so much trouble with the endless mercenary bands who would attack my below 20 HP party. I would spend half the battle running around the game area trying to escape a certain death, In BG2 there always seems to be a magical weapon,potion, spell or item that will save you and we all know how RARE and weak (excluding Drizzts items) the magical stuff was in BG1. I think we also appreciated those items a LOT more (long sword +1, awesome!). I love magical stuff but maybe BG2 was overkill?
The toughest part in BG1 was the Kobold dungeon underneath the halfling village. Those liitle bastards were ENDLESS! I had an AC of -11 (excellent AC in BG1) with my Paladin and even he used to get drilled going through that area, there were just thousands of fire arrows coming from every direction, as soon as you'd clear one area the Kobolds would respawn in another and hit you from there ARHHHHH!!!! (It was almost impossible to drag my entire party through), and dont get me started on the traps down there ! Did my Cleric have the luxury of a Lvl.5 raise dead spell, NO! and did I have the patience or the $$$ to trek 2 days to the nearest temple just to raise ONE party member, assuming we were'nt ambushed and killed on the way there, NO!
These are luxuries we take for granted in BG2. If I lost a character back then, well, it was time to reload.
The experience of finishing BG1 did admitadly make BG2 all the more easier to complete, overall however BG1 was grittier and knowing when to run made it tougher IMO

------------------
"The Quik-E-Marts a really...DOH!" -Homer trying to keep in tune

Loredweller · Post by **Loredweller** » Wed Mar 21, 2001 5:09 am

Both have their +es and -es. I liked BG I better, though. More alike the traditional AD&D, less dependent on spell selection, more freedom in movement. Plot, IMHO, was better, too. At least the question what and why is seeking your destruction might stay unplain till the very end - or at least till return to Candlekeep.
I like both, though. However i would like if i would have a choice to start BG II with level 1 (with fitting selection of opponents, of course).
As for difficulty - both might be hard and both might be easy, it depends on playing style, elasticity and creativity

Just my 2g,
L.

Manveru · Post by **Manveru** » Wed Mar 21, 2001 5:21 am

I agree that BG1 was harder to finish than BG2. But for what reasons ?
-too many random encounters with monsters (especially in cloakwood)
-cleric hasn't got raise dead spell.
-mages were much weaker than in BG2.
-the dialogues and story weren't as interesting as they are in BG2 (sometimes BG1 was very boring)

So, maybe BG1 was harder but I prefer BG2.

------------------
Elen sila Lumenn' Omentielvo

Sabretooth · Post by **Sabretooth** » Wed Mar 21, 2001 7:13 am

I miss the little movie sequences that would play when you entered a new area. I loved the Wyvern carrying the cow, that was so cool!
The BG1 intro was so much better than the BG2 one as well.

"I will be the last...and you will go first *Crack*"
...Yeah, good stuff!

TheDude · Post by **TheDude** » Wed Mar 21, 2001 7:57 am

i played bg 1 a while but not much (i borrowed it and this friend needed it back very fast)
and i had many problems with monsters i kill in bg2 in 1 strike.
i know this is because u have a higher lvl but still u begin as a very powerful char. so bg2 is much easier.

Satyr · Post by **Satyr** » Wed Mar 21, 2001 9:59 am

I just started BG1 again. Its a LOT easier than the first time (so far), but still at least as much of a challenge as BG2. I'd forgotten what being low-level was like.... Black Talon - run away!

What strikes me the most however is how much I miss the more complex NPC interactions in BG2. Also... why'd they have to kill off Dynaheir?!

------------------
"Pain heals,
chicks dig scars,
glory lasts forever."

Quitch · Post by **Quitch** » Wed Mar 21, 2001 11:46 am

Because she was like a mage form of Jaheira?

The real problem with BG2 as I see it, was that there were always certain magic items for certain situations. For example, the Shield of Baldurian for Beholders, and the monsters had NO understanding of these objects. So you simply sent your lone warrior out and slaughtered them all.

This is also why soloing is so easy, because in the end it usually came down to whichever guy was carrying the magic item for that fight.

Oh and BG2 has almost no respawning monsters, so you can fight, rest, fight, rest (for 10 days), fight.....very very silly.

Oh yes, those Firewine ruins were NASTY. And I did them after clearing out everything in the South as well, so I was tough. But ouch, Kobold Commando's back then...

------------------
Quitch
"Well since you asked, I would like to register a complaint. I want to kill a dragon. Right now. No, don't look. Go kill one now. Go find one and kill it. Right now. That would be SO cool" - Lilarcor

henhen · Post by **henhen** » Thu Mar 22, 2001 6:22 am

I think both Bg & Bg2 is quite all right...with the exception of Bg1 expansion, TOTSC, that's the difficult one...

frelic · Post by **frelic** » Thu Mar 22, 2001 4:23 pm

For Kayless and a few select others - during BG1, once you uncovered an area, you can "auto travel" to that spot similar to in BG2. Some people (and it sounds like you) actually walked the entire world every time you went anywhere. Once the fog of war is gone, point and click and you're there.

As for which is harder - my vote is BG1. BG2 has so many strategies and so much magic that I'm left figuring the 10 ways I can kill a monster, not just praying to get through. My bag of holding is half full of special swords. BG1 was great because you got ambushed, surprised and everything and most turned into a drag out knock down all out fight. In BG2, too many things are "insta-kill" or do so much damage that its just not that fun. Take the greater wolfwere for example. It's widely believed that the &#^&*@$&!!!! actually regenerates all HP in a single round. That's one of the few monsters that really gives challenge, because we can all dish out immense amounts of damage, so that only leaves the ridiculous "insta-kills" to go to - then there's nothing higher - only strategy. How many ways can I kill x. And if you want that, go play Diablo.

I like strategy. I like feeling that I really have been through a fight when I'm finished. So far, that's happened about 5 times in BG2; but it seemed around every corner in BG1. Then again, maybe BG1 had a more forced story line, better developed plot and wasn't so dependent upon NPCs for quests.

fable · Post by **fable** » Thu Mar 22, 2001 4:33 pm

But Quitch, you didn't have to install those bonus merchants, which were a pure marketing gimmick anyway, and obviously bad for game balance. If we look at BG2 without the bonus merchants, I think the game balance is much better--particularly if you move the difficulty level to one of the harder settings, to compensate for some of the AI problems.

Kayless · Post by **Kayless** » Mon Apr 02, 2001 5:42 am

I'm aware of that feature, frelic. Just walking through the areas the first time was the chore I was refering to.

------------------
Assassin of the Shadow Guild

"I am become death, destroyer of worlds..."

"Contrary to popular belief, a barrel full of monkeys is not half as much fun as previously advertised, and is in fact quite horrifying."

Quitch · Post by **Quitch** » Mon Apr 02, 2001 10:17 am

But Quitch, you didn't have to install those bonus merchants, which were a pure marketing gimmick anyway, and obviously bad for game balance. If we look at BG2 without the bonus merchants, I think the game balance is much better--particularly if you move the difficulty level to one of the harder settings, to compensate for some of the AI problems.

I disagree, well, not entirely. The shield of Baldurian was utterly ridiculous wasn't it. Beholder areas became a bit of a joke after that. However, I never found that anything sold by the bonus merchants was of such power that I couldn't have bought something else in another location that would have carried the day for me just as well.

I feel that a combination of too many magical items, and not enough AI, made the game too easy.

However I can't go back to BG, the slow pace, the endless wandering, the complete lack of NPC interactions......

I do reccomend however that those of you who always do every sub-quest in chapter 2, try moving onto chapter 3 as soon as you have the gold. It makes the Underdark a lot harder. I did this the first time through, and Balor kinda kicked my butt....a lot

Frankly, I just wish BG2 had pushed the plot along a bit more. You have complete freedom in chapter 2, but in chapter 4 you have virtually none. Couldn't they have balanced this out a bit better?

------------------
Quitch, being the Ranger known as Skyhawk, is a proud member of The Brotherhood of the Woods

[This message has been edited by Quitch (edited 04-02-2001).]

The Outsider · Post by **The Outsider** » Mon Apr 02, 2001 6:38 pm

My vote goes for BG1 being harder.

My main reason for this is to do with the items available. In BG2, combat is a great deal more about using the appropriate item; in BG1, it was more about using your party successfully. In BG2, your party is a collection of semi-demi-gods, with the inventory of an entire pantheon (Thor had a hammer, King Arthur had a sword and a scabbard (not a god, I know)).

A possible way to offset the "party of doom" approach would be to limit each character to one really powerful item.

Rataxes · Post by **Rataxes** » Sun Nov 03, 2002 2:48 pm

BG definitely. You were MUCH weaker and yet, the bulk of the enemies in BG are not much weaker than those in BG2.

Agree with Kayless on everything he says btw. BG contains very few really powerful items. To acquire the two best of them (Frostbrand +3, The Defender +5), you have to face the greatest single challenge of the entire Baldur's Gate saga. Killing Drizzt at level 7 or possibly 8 is next to impossible without a carefully planned strategy and preparations of gargantuan proportions, or resorting to cheese such as spawning 200 dogs around him or using the "Fog of war border bug", of course. Nothing in either TotSC, SoA or ToB even comes close really.

Koveras · Post by **Koveras** » Sun Nov 03, 2002 4:42 pm

Wow, old topic!

I agree with the others about BG being harder because of 2 things. One is spells, I mean, by the end of BGII, you can scroll about 3-4 times for your spells. In BG you could only barely get 2. The other thing is no. of magical items. In BGII, the world is literally littered with magical items. In BG, you were lucky to have a couple of +2 swords.

VonDondu · Post by **VonDondu** » Sun Nov 03, 2002 10:34 pm

It's not easy to say which game is more difficult. When your character is very low in level and short on cash and equipment, ANY encounter can be deadly. On the other hand, some of the challenges in BG2 are just out of this world, even if your character is high in level and has great equipment. All in all, I think the challenges are probably about the same when you take the character's level of development into account.

But having said that, I will say that a player's skill and knowledge makes a huge difference. After playing BG2 several times and learning how to use spells, items, potions, and tried-and-true tactics effectively, BG1 seemed like a breeze.