ARG! does noone like BG1? Noones posted since 2006?
That makes me sad
I like bg1...

*sigh*

I think for most people BG1 has been upgraded with the Tutu mod.

Most of the posting probably goes on at the various Tutu mod forums around the place.

Start a topic on an aspect of BG1 you're interested in - if other people are interested they'll reply.

I loved Baldur's Gate 1 (and it's one of those few games whose expansion I loved as well) so be sure you are not alone.

As Rabain said, very few people play now the unmodded game and I do understand why.

Plotwise (and not only, I might say music-wise also and more...) Baldur's Gate is, in my opinion, a much superior product when compared to the sequel. It has an undeniable advantage though: it starts the whole thing. And it's so much funnier to guide an unexperienced party, to see it mature from level 1 and to plan your strategies without having too powerful spells and so on. The game was never boring (Baldur's Gate 2 and its expansion sometimes were) and mostly never giving you a God-like feeling (Throne of Bhaal).

But TuTu and BGT do add something that Baldur's Gate was missing: a more advanced engine. And if it's true that the original game had never been intended to run with kits and higher resolution graphic, I can only just be happy that this is now possible because it makes an already great experience even better. Mostly when played as a single saga through BGT.

Infinity Engine is dead! Long live Infinity Engine!

I just finished it last week and I was playing unmoded.

I don't agree completely with the views expressed in this thread. Plotwise BG2 is much more complex. Its sub-quests have depth, something that gives meaning to the whole experience. Quests in BG1 where of the FedExpress variety. Many locations where almost empty of action. The most boring thing of all is when you are traveling and all you meet is a couple of monsters only. And what is wrong about feeling god-like? Have you never played high-level campaigns in live P&P role play? If you have, you should know that characters of level30+(in TOB they can reach 40 and even 50!) have powers that can be called almost god-like. So, TOB is just a high-level (the Highest!) campaign and it portraits the powers at that level successfully - i think.

On the other hand BG1 does have the allure of the beginner. It is something nobody can take away. I finished it a couple of weeks ago - without ANY mod and i enjoyed the opportunity to play a low-level campaign once more.

I agree with you that many things are much more detailed, refined in Baldur's Gate II. On the other hand, several good things were "lost" in my opinion. The most important that is missing from BG2 is "realism", something that our common sense would expect.

Words of the Sorcerer (Taluntain):
I wrote a little summary about this in 2005:
http://www.blackwyrmlair.com/Tutorials/bg1vsbg2.php

To each his own I definitely enjoyed the freedom and the gigantic areas, it was realistic and thrilling. You could never know who or what awaits you: a pack of hungry wolves, a well-armed group of bandits, an ancient crypt with terrible ghouls? For me, it wasn't disappointing that the only notable event of an area was the attack of a diseased gibberling. Free wandering was really cool. Of course, I don't deny that I enjoyed BG2 as well, including the lot of quests, but there is no doubt many elements were very unrealistic. Taluntain's words, again:


However, I agree that the gigantic areas of BG1 may look a bit empty of action and content, compared to BG2, or after you finished BG1 many/countless times. I believe it's a very important point whether you're a new player or not! If I was a new player, I'm sure I still would enjoy BG1 exactly with as much content as it had several years ago. On the other hand, players who finished a game more times are open to new content, i.e. official and unofficial expansions or mods. They still like the game in its original form, but since they know it pretty well, it starts to be "boring" when played from the beginning again and again. (BG1 Quest Pack, if ever released, will change on this by adding a lot of new content to BG.)

Indeed. BG2 is cool because you can be the most powerful. That is why very many players enjoy the +5 weapons and other powerful items, regardless if they are original game items or a mod's additions. Often, even without balance. However, many experienced players want more challenge, and this can be accomplished via mods (Improved Anvil).


If "beginners" means "BG1 beginners" i.e. new players, I agree that it's a good choice. (And this is true to BG2 as well.) Once you know the game very well, it won't be so exciting any more. However, if we talk about "beginner" players (who have less experience with difficult games, and RPGs such as BG), BG1 can be relatively hard (both the battles, and the difficulty to advance in the plot). BG2 was created for a wider group of players, which includes the "lazy" generation of players as well. So while they tried to make a very good RPG, they sacrificed things such as "realism" to make it tempting to those players as well who aren't so smart (while players such as myself still purchased and enjoyed it very much, no matter that not as much as BG1). Profit is the primary goal of a commercial game, so it's logical that they've made BG2 the way they did.

I would like two points to be clarified before i answer to your interesting thoughts. What exactly do you mean by "realism"? I want to know the meaning of the word to you, in order to judge your comments properly.

Who is Taluntain that you quote him as an expert? I am a beginner in the forums in general, so i don't know him or of him.

By lack of "realism" I meant it is not realistic. Of course, it's the world of D&D, so it can't be realistic in terms of creatures or science. (So I don't compare it to the real world or to the present world.) What I meant is, for example, that quests normally don't "find" you, not all people run to a bunch of armed people in the open street, telling "help me/save me/find me this and that" or "I would hire you to do this and that". It happens, but not as often as in BG2. (Don't get me wrong, I don't say that adding less quests would have been the solution!) Additionally, a world (or region) is big, and not every corner holds treasure or villains. BG1 offered freedom, while BG2 practically leads you from scene to scene. And what about weapons? I understand that there is war and Saradush is powerful and merchants have good stuff available, but the deepest halls of Durlag's Tower only had a few +3 weapons while Saradush sells a wide variety of +4 (!) stuff! It's there for balance reasons, and it's okay, I also liked the huge battles and power. (As I've said, I like both games very very much, I just liked BG1 better.) So there are things that aren't "realistic", are contrary to the common sense.

Taluntain is the founder of www.sorcerers.net, a site estabilished in 1999, one of the most popular CRPG sites nowadays.

I myself felt that the constant bombardment of "Help me!" in BG2 was a little overwhelming. It's exciting and fun, yes, but I agree that it's not very realistic. I've played BG1 straight through TOB so many times now that I constantly figure new ways to play the game to keep it interesting. Lately my way of playing through is to take a historical character or a particular personality and play through under those parameters. My most recent was the Roman Lucius Cornelius Sulla, which was INCREDIBLY fun. But no matter what I do or who I play as, I try to keep the story in as logical an order as possible, which is EXTREMELY hard to do in BG2 without skipping numerous quests. For instance, if you're truly so worried about Imoen's safety or Irenicus's plans for you, then wouldn't you go to the Shadow Thieves or Bodhi as soon as you had the money and to hell with the rest? And even when you leave the Underdark, there's still no really logical time to finish most quests; after all, you're trying to get your very SOUL back, which rather seems to me to take precedence over finding murderers with stuffed teddy bears or running errands for temples.
Another thing I liked better about BG1 was the more sarcastic/ironic dialogue options for the PC. Though I suppose BG2 makes up for it by giving NPCs more dimension (by which I mean back story, gibes directed at each other, et cetera). I couldn't really say whether I like one better than another unless referring only to specific aspects of the game, and I think that to get a really full experience of the story it's necessary to play them all in order.

...Which makes me a bit wary of mod experimentation.

heh, just all busy. I just finished a run-through (using BGTutu) on a no-reload challenge. Was quite fun.
I posted the run on the bioware forums, though, not here.

BG1>BG2

BGTutu> all!!!

Regarding the selling weapons thing, I believe that's purely because of gaming issues. At that point in the game, a party from SoA has no business with generic +2 weapons (coincidentally, probably not with +4 either, but it's closer to the power level of the party). Plus, a ToB-only party will certainly benefit with the improved supply of Saradush's store.

Classic BG1 never struck a note with me because it looked too dated. When I played through the BG storyline, it was through a very old version of BGT, which was manageable. I cannot call it an authentic experience, though.

That's the "problem" with those who were "brought up" by Shadows of Amn: BG2 spoiled them too much.

Here I am bringing up an old topic again...

I'd have to agree with what Baronius says. I really enjoy the vast expanses of territories that BG1 offers. Exploration is much of the fun of that game - searching around for little stashes of loot while running away from packs of gibberlings. I also like the fact that you have to build up from scratch.


I'll have you know I was "brought up" on SoA and played BG1 later!

"What is wrong with being God-like?" was the question referred to what I wrote before.

Well, it *is* a kick to what Baronius call realism.

For me, both the classic RPG and the CRPG, hold much more charm when the characters are low-level. The choices are few, more human-like. A low-profile party gives me infinitely more fun and makes me feel that some situations are believable.

It's what I call working for "subtraction". To plan a strategy choosing between fewer elements is more rewarding. The amount of power thrown in SoA (but mostly ToB) is, in my opinion, risible.

Just like Baronius said, a tough place like Durlag's Tower would treasure weapons that, compared to what you get to find in BG2, are toothpicks.

And I do love the "emptiness" of the BG1 areas! I share completely Baronius' idea about them. Baldur's Gate 2 is dense. In more than one sense.

Mind you, I did enjoy BG2 (ToB less than SoA) but for me, there is no comparison with the original.

BG2 was better for certain aspects mostly because of the better use of the engine.