BG2 compared to BG1

[Chrizum]

Hey. I finished BG1 a month or so ago, and now I'm playing BG2, started 2 weeks ago. I'm in Spellhold now, and just got back Imoen. However, how much I loved BG1, I just can't say the same for BG2 so far! I like the high res graphics, character interaction (a LOT, romance hoozay!), and the new stuff, but it seems BG2 just doesn't feel right...

Lemme try to explain.

BG1 was so absorbing, the game felt like a real authentic medieval world, the music was superb, all the taverns and woods and all the like, it was great!
With BG2, however, I just walked through futuristic buildings and the city. The pirate village was nice, but... I just miss the BG1 maps! The music is not nearly as good too.

What I'm wondering is... I'm at chapter 4, I'll soon be in chapter 5 (I think), will BG2 get better after this? Will I go on a real adventure, wandering through woods and over mountains, with beatiful music along the way, are there gonna be some good plot twists, is the game going to get better?
No spoilers please, but so far, BG2 just doesn't do it for me.
Other opinions on this matter? Tell me!

Thanks

[Rhûn]

I agree with al the points you made, its the same for me.

[fable]

[QUOTE=Chrizum]BG1 was so absorbing, the game felt like a real authentic medieval world, the music was superb, all the taverns and woods and all the like, it was great![/quote]

There wasn't a single authentic piece of medievalism in BG1. It was ersatz all the way, just like every other RPG, with the exception of some details in the more-than-a-decade-old Darklands. So if you imagined that BG1 was authentically medieval, then of course anything else, including BG2, wouldn't match this. You've got an image that you like in your head, and nothing else would match this.

The pirate village was nice, but... I just miss the BG1 maps! The music is not nearly as good too.

Did you miss the lack of map labels? I know one of the things I greatly enjoyed in BG2 was the way your automap properly labeled important buildings when you entered an area. I hated the fact that BG1 didn't do this.

What I'm wondering is... I'm at chapter 4, I'll soon be in chapter 5 (I think), will BG2 get better after this? Will I go on a real adventure, wandering through woods and over mountains,

When BG1 appeared, one of the strongest criticisms voiced by players was the need to constantly walk from Spot A to Spot B, over and over; which was why BG2 allowed you to automate the large distance, leaving local areas to be explored. It seems you prefer the way BG1 handles things, but you'll simply not find that in BG2. I suggest a game like Morrowind, where you can always walk through a huge land filled with incident, if you don't wish to take alternate modes of transportation.

What does BG2 offer? Far greater party NPC dialog and involvement in your life: they really seem to have individual personalities, unlike the ciphers who joined you and uttered a single, repetititive line in BG1. Far more in-depth quests, sometimes with genuine branching (which you've yet to encounter). Inventory items to collect those endless arrows, bolts, scrolls and potions within single holding spaces. More professions, including one of my favorite, the Wild Mage; more items; a shopkeeper who will gladly combine some items for you. Somewhat better pathfinding (though Bioware never did get that completely right). A much larger game which has also drawn the attention of a variety of excellent modders, whose work should definitely be seen.

But if none of these elements do it for you, as I mentioned above, consider Morrowind. It's a first-person, single-person game, but with an enormous, beautiful 3D world, excellent interactivity, and probably 100 hours of gameplay if you don't pursue the main quest immediately. Add in tons of mods, and you could triple your gameplay hours. Up to you.

[Chrizum]

Wel, probably BG1 wasn't all that authentic, but even so I think BG1 just had more "feel" to it than BG2 so far has. I'm not really talking about single aspects of the game, but more about the overall feel of the game.

BG1 just had huge parts of NATURE. woods, plains, but also cool little towns (I loved Beregost!) with lots of atmosphere. BG2, as far I've seen, doesn't have this. I walked in a big city and inside buildings. Nothing wrong with that, I like the game, but I just hope the feel "we're on an adventure, we're strolling through vast forests, we're having a drink at a local tavern", is still to come in BG2. I don't know if I'm already halway through the game, or if I have to see 90% of the game still, I just hope it gets more to my liking after chapter 4.

You completed the game, right? Could you tell me if the game's overall feel and locations are going to change much?

[Volever]

While BGII is still very good, I too miss the forest maps of BGI that are now missing. Sneaking through various forrests trying to find Brage and Bassilus (well, the first few times I played anyway, before you had all the maps memorized) was half of the fun. Sometimes it is annoying to have to go through a few maps to get from Beregost to Nashkel or any other two points, but overall I think it added to the game.

As for BGII, I was never able to get past The Underdark (which is right after Spellhold) before my chronic need to start over with a new character took over, so I cant tell you much about the game improving or not. It is something I hope to overcome soon as it has preventing me from ever finishing either BG game

[Faust]

[QUOTE=Chrizum]

You completed the game, right? Could you tell me if the game's overall feel and locations are going to change much?[/QUOTE]


It doesn't really, at least in the way you mean. SoA stays focused on the large city of Athkatla. However, there is more exploration in your future. The Underdark is largely about exploration and has a couple distinct towns with distinct personalities. It certainly doesn't have the medieval fantasy feel you prefer, though. Likewise, you'll get to explore a few wilderness areas and an elven city in the near future.

If you go on to play ToB, there are a few small towns that you may or may not appreciate. Most didn't equal Beregost, in my estimate. However, some are entertaining in their own right. Exploration is really minimal in the expansion, though.

You might check this list of mods. Some are aimed at restoring part of the BG1 exp for BG2. With that said, I am not sure how many do this in exactly the way you mention.

Personally, while there were elements of BG I missed (mailny some of the forest areas), I generally felt BG2 was a much stronger game. Beyond the vast number of interesting quests, I really appreciated the party interaction and NPC development done in the game.

[Chrizum]

True, I love the character interaction, and romancing with Aerie is pretty wicked
Well, I'll just play on, but I'm really dissapointed in BG2 not having forests or anything. Too bad.

[fable]

[QUOTE=Chrizum]Wel, probably BG1 wasn't all that authentic,[/quote]

Completely unauthentic. There's no harm in using the phrase. I could give you a list of 20 or 30 very good books drawing on authentic medieval and early Renaissance source materials, if you'd like to get at the real thing.

...but even so I think BG1 just had more "feel" to it than BG2 so far has. I'm not really talking about single aspects of the game, but more about the overall feel of the game.

As you said elsewhere, it's the feeling of being in cities connected by large, open terrain. This deliberately was left out of BG2, so I can understand why you might prefer what you enjoyed in the original. As I mentioned above, you really ought it to yourself to check out Morrowind, for much that same feeling, if from a very different perspective.

[Faust]

[QUOTE=fable]Completely unauthentic. There's no harm in using the phrase. I could give you a list of 20 or 30 very good books drawing on authentic medieval and early Renaissance source materials, if you'd like to get at the real thing.[/QUOTE]

Ha, that's very true. It's probably fair to say that there is nothing entirely original about the Forgotten Realm's Setting. It's the biggest hodgepodge of fantasy ever produced. There's room for everything in it. Baldur's Gate does the Forgotten Realms setting extremely well, but its still very limited by its lack of originality (and sometimes "congestion").

[Quote=Chrizum] Well, I'll just play on, but I'm really dissapointed in BG2 not having forests or anything. Too bad. [/quote]

Well the good news is that there are at least three forest areas in your future. Sure...there's not a whole lot of point to any of them...but they are still there! And, if you haven't done the quests in Umar Hills or Windspear Hills, they both have some of that BG1 quality you might enjoy.

Fable is right in saying that if exploration is your cup of tea, you'll really enjoy Morrowind. The game is quite huge. Still, personally, I thought Morrowind had a very different feel to it than Baldur's Gate. In my brief failed attempts to enjoy Morrowind, though, I found the game somewhat lacking in terms of personalities. Cities seemed like shades of one another, with the same boring people inhabiting them. To me, that's the antithesis of what Baldur's Gate was. The average joe in a pub would be an interesting partner to interact with, albeit how briefly. Still, there's a whole lot I never saw or did in that game. And, if you really like exploration and discovery, you should give it a whirl.

[Erenor]

Baldur's Gate II just doesn't have the same "feel" as Baldur's Gate. I really didn't like the graphics much except for the spells. The characters look funny too. I think I still have more fun playing Baldur's Gate than its sequal, simply because I like the style more than the variety.

[krunchyfrogg]

They're two very different games. When you boil them both down, I think I prefer BGI more. I just hate having 6 disks to juggle.

I've also always preferred playing lower level (about levels 3-8) in AD&D PnP gaming. I have the most fun at those points, and that's about where BGI is.

[Patrick]

For me it was a real treat to play Bg at all. I had good fun playing BG1. The first time I played BG2 all the way through, believe it or not, I was really scared. I guess I was a computer novice, and learning rabidly, and meeting a lot of new and interesting people. Wierd chemical combinations going on I guess. I knew how to dominate D & D but after BG2 I became a great master of the game. Of course IceWind Dale two was great experiance because it taught me 3.5 rules. I guess being contacted by a exterterestial entity was wierd too.
Minsc is a real charactor. That big, bronzy, scarie guy actually has a seance of humer, and so do the game developers.
As a whole the game is great.

[dj_venom]

[QUOTE=krunchyfrogg]
I've also always preferred playing lower level (about levels 3-8) in AD&D PnP gaming. I have the most fun at those points, and that's about where BGI is.[/QUOTE]

Yes, that was my main problem with Baldur's Gate II. One thing that I did in Baldur's Gate I was get every bit of experience and I would never skip quests or fights that would give me experience.

However in Baldur's Gate II, right at the start you fight goblins, and you do pointless things for what is now considered hardly worth it. It was good that you get level 9 spells, I still prefer being a low level weakling, as if you are just beginning your journey.

[VonDondu]

Here's how I would characterize the differences between BG1 and BG2. In BG1, you play a 1st level "nobody", and even a wolf is a life-threatening menace. You're on the run from an unknown enemy, and unraveling the mysteries of the game is half the fun. There are all sorts of places to go such as woods, wilderness areas, and houses. But the quests are either very short("go kill that for me" or "go get that for me") or not really as interesting as the major quests in BG2.

In BG2, you play a formidible character who has his enemies on the run. I agree that makes the game feel a lot different than BG1. BG2 is also streamlined in the sense that there is much less area (and fewer buildings) to explore. But the major quests are, in my opinion, engaging and terrific. Have you visited the Temple District and completed the quest offered to you by the Temple of Helm? Have you found a way to enter the large object that has embedded itself in the northwest corner of the Slums District? Have you spoken to Lord Jierden in the Copper Coronet or the little boy named Delon in the Government District? (They stand in place repeating, "I have an offer if you wish to hear it.") Have you agreed to assist Nalia, who wants to hire you? Have you visited the basement of the Five Flagons Inn? All of them lead to incredible quests that involve much more than simply killing some monsters and collecting a reward like you did at, say, the Firewine Ruins. "Oh, look, some monsters have infested an old dungeon. Let's go kill them." In BG2, there are grudges and individual motivations and personal issues involved that make them a lot more interesting than boring dungeon crawls, and the stakes are really high if you let yourself get into it.

I enjoy the main storyline in BG2, but I must admit that it seems a bit contrived and it doesn't completely make sense to me. It's as if the designers created some really great individual scenes and then tried to connect them with awkward dialogue that doesn't really explain why things happened the way they did. Why was Bodhi attacking the Shadow Thieves? Why did Irenicus surrender to the Cowled Wizards so easily? So you can move to the next chapters, of course! That's really about the only sense I can make of it, and I'm speaking as someone who has played the game several times and loves it.

If you complete all of the major sidequests before you go to Spellhold (which seems to be the preference of a large majority of players), you might feel a bit "railroaded" in the final chapters, because you'll be on a straight path to finish the game with very little else to do (except to talk to the Town Crier or complete your stronghold quests and visit Cromwell and so forth). I don't really enjoy Spellhold or the main quest (the critical path) in Chapter Six all that much. If you haven't done many of the sidequests before you leave for Spellhold, you'll have plenty of things to do when you finish Spellhold. I save a lot of sidequests for Chapter Six, so for me, that's when the game really intensifies.

[Erenor]

It almost seems that BG2 has way too much going on. I admit that the variety is nice, but when I want to complete a few quests, I don't mean 50 all at once. It's tough to remember things, even with the journal helping out a lot.

[dj_venom]

[QUOTE=Erenor]even with the journal helping out a lot.[/QUOTE]

That is one MAJOR difference in BGII. In Baldur's Gate I, I hated the journal, it would record every stupid rumour, until you would have about 20 rumours all about the stupid tainted ore. In BGII, it marks down important quest information, separates it from other things, removes it when you complete it and you can actually write in your own journal.

The journal was one major improvement.

[fable]

[QUOTE=Erenor]It almost seems that BG2 has way too much going on. I admit that the variety is nice, but when I want to complete a few quests, I don't mean 50 all at once. It's tough to remember things, even with the journal helping out a lot.[/QUOTE]

While I'm sympathetic, I can't say I ever had the problem in BG2. Unlike Morrowind, the journal is extremely easy to read and navigate, and I knew exactly which quests are still pending at a glance, in sufficient detail to continue at any time. The multiplicity of quests, which really only occurs in depth in chapters 2-3, made BG2 feel (for the moment) very open-ended--which is something I like in an RPG.

[Erenor]

[QUOTE=dj_venom]That is one MAJOR difference in BGII. In Baldur's Gate I, I hated the journal, it would record every stupid rumour, until you would have about 20 rumours all about the stupid tainted ore. In BGII, it marks down important quest information, separates it from other things, removes it when you complete it and you can actually write in your own journal.

The journal was one major improvement.[/QUOTE]

Yes, the journal is definately a major improvement from BG to BGII. I hear you on how annoying it could be. After playing the game through the first time I never spoke to peasants again, because I don't want all the little rumors they spill filling up my journal so I forget what quest I'm on. I also never got why someone that said "Git out o' me way, ye crummy log'ead!" would then give you loads of information. It doesn't make sense.

[Faust]

The BG2 experience is going to be its most overwhelming at the beginning of the game, as well. When you first enter Athlaka you have 99 missions thrown at you in the a span of minutes of exploration. As the game progresses, the pace for acquiring new missions becomes much more easy to manage.

Regardless, I'd agree the BG2 journals is fairly well done and a nice improvement over BG1 (though I was thrilled just having a journal when I played that game, it was a fairly novel thing at the time). I do wish it was divided into cities and city sections, though.

[sologdin]

BG1 is superior to its sequels--

1) the exploration factor of BG1 is nearly complete--all buildings are enterable, and the overland map is filled with red herring locales; neither is true of the sequel, where most areas connect to the main plot through a variety of "side quests," and plenty of doors are not openable

2) the story of BG2 is whack. what happened to the plot from BG1? what they wrote in a hurry for ToB should've been the story for SoA. gods, an unforgiveable screwup

3) sequel is more linear than the original

4) the sequel's stronghold mechanism, while innovative, becomes a massive distraction, with no real outcome other than a jounral line

5) it's uhh not really in the city of baldur's gate anymore, so the sequel is mistitled to boot.

but there are good things too--

1) superior graphic design in the sequel

2) superior interface in the sequel

3) very well conceived spell library & magical combat in the sequel; both sucked in the original