So which do you like better, Baldur's Gate (with or without TotSC) or Shadows of Amn (ToB)? Tell it here in any size.

I'd have to say that BG2 is better, although I'll always remember BG1 fondly as it was the first RPG I played. The features that I feel that make BG2 better than BG1: far greater NPC interaction/romances, story line (I feel BG2 had a better developed story and villain), dragons (fighting dragons is awesome), strongholds (although the stronghold quests are a bit of a let down), and the BG2 engine (I find it hard to go back to BG1). That being said theres some things that I miss from BG1 - the variety of NPCs, Wilderness areas and the true sense of adventure you get from completely dropping the story and going out into the wild where a random encounter with a simple bear could spell doom for the party.

In my highly bias opinion BG1 with TUTU and BG1NPC beats BG2 hands down. I see no conceptual flaws to it in this combination. It has wonderful BG1 story, enormous world and all the advantages of BG2 gameplay and pretty even richness of interaction with 25 characters. Even the glitches that irritated me before (Tazok not recoginizing Kivan etc) are the thing of the past now.

I do not play BG2 any longer, because in all honesty I grew bored of it after first 2 times through the game and even wonderful mods cannot rekindle my interest when I think that I have to do Nalia's Castle all over again or chase Irenicus... I played ToB just once, and rushed through it to such a degree that I had to make all the challenges right before going to the Throne of Bhaal - I simply did not realize they were there...

I however by now replayed the beginning of BG1 about 6 times testing, and I never tire of it.

Of course one can say that I do not grow bored because I am not playing a demi-god, I am playing a god who can put words in character's mouth or start adding romance because my male PC felt bored... to a degree that's very true. On another hand, I look forward to the day when we put BG1NPC out, and I sit down and replay the whole game without diving into D or BAF's to correct this, and change that and redo something else.

I like BG1 much better than BG2, from a gamer's perspective. The medium-low level parties and the classic feel is much better done in the first game. Not mentioning the fact there is more than just a main plot line plus a major sidequest or two.

I don't really like the massive amount of cheese in BG2, especially in the Throne of Blood expansion, the shortcomings mentioned above in the last few posts, as well as the epic part would more suitable in a Planescape setting. They have only included 2 mini-planes. While medium and low level gameplaying usually takes place in the prime material plane, epic level gameplay involves mostly events taking place on different planes that might even involve the dieties themselves (despite you cannot fight against a diety on their home plane).

From a modder's perspective, Baldur's Gate II: Shadows of Amn is more superb, because the amount of modifications you can make to the game. Almost anything is possible, using a few mod tools and your wits.

That's my view of the 2 games compared.

-Galactygon

It's a very difficult question. There are many things to swing it for both games.

Graphics wise, that doesnt influence things for me. I still play BG1 as it originally was. I just love the look. Also, the gameplay is still great. The simplicity helps the game, rather than hinder it, which using the BG2 engine could do.

So the real way to weigh which is better comes down to the gameply really. Which one you prefer. BG1 was great in different ways. The areas were huge, and it felt a lot less linear. Able to explore areas not connected to the story, and being able to wander the whole sword coast. Also, quests were more 'stubled upon'. It made it feel more like an exploration adventure.

But then Bg2 has many things which are an improvement. One of the best bits is the NPC banters. You really get to know your party members. Also, the quests generally felt 'deeper' and more involving. Whilst it was more linear as a plot, it felt like there was a more defined goal, and purpose to it as well.

Weighing up the pros and cons for each, I'd personally say that BG2 has the edge over BG1, though I still adore them both.

I'd post a giant message too but I don't have time but I think BG II is better for the gamer but if your an RPG lover or a modder you can't go without BG I.

I think the comparison/contrast between BG1 and BG2 could be summed up as "options" vs. "depth".

In BG1 many more options were available for your character. The freedom of travel, conversations with charmed characters and so on. However, after all avenues of play have been taken, you basically always end up at the same place.

In BG2 you have fewer options on how to approach the game, but there is far more characterization and a bit deeper overall plot as you get, in my opinion, a better sense that what you do affects the whole world.

I think that the choice between BG1 and BG2 is decided by which overall style of game one prefers.

That having been said, I would have to say that I enjoy them equally. I think a direct comparison between the two games has the inherent "apples and oranges" problem.

If I want a fun, tactical game against the beautiful backdrop of an RPG story, I lean toward BG1.

If I want to develop a character and put him into new situations I lean toward BG2.

I would respectfully disagree with the plot statement: BG1 plot imo is more logical, cohesive and 'realistic'. While it is based off the 'you are special!' premise, it has the internal consistency (ie Sarevok tries to start the War of Sacrifice and eliminate you on the side, and you slowly get sucked into his schemes). The final discovery that he is your brother adds the dimension to the conflict. Sarevok occupies his position of a villain with diabolic persistency and continously tries to bring upon your demise.

BG2 plot to me seemed like a pile of accidental things. You were doing what with whom? When Irenicus abducted you why? Imoen is a mage now? He went to Spellhold taking Imoen why? You decided to follow why? His agent (Bodhi) made you scour around the countryside collecting money why? Shadow Thieves decided to help you why? Irenicus then taken your soul but did not kill you why? Bodhi did not kill you why? You lost their trace so completely when? Underdark was right next door to the Underwater city why? The Bodhi abducted your love interest insterad of you and told you to bugger off why? Instead of keeping the love interest alive and blackmailing you into leaving them alone she killed him(her) thus precipitating the confrontation for sure? What the hell is Drizzt doing there? What had happened in the Nine Hells? Did you die or did not you die? And I do not even want to start on the Throne of Bhaal.

Sure, BG2 characters had a bit more banter than BG1'ers, and 4 of them even got the romances! BUT imo they dropped all the best characters from BG1 leaving you with the least interesting ones and franckly added rather mixed contingent in BG2. Despite their assurance that they sacrificed 'quantity for quality' it is simply not true - in BG1 the quality between the characters was consistent. In BG2 you had 'Jaheira vs Cernd' issue, where they 'deeply' developped in truth no more than what? Five characters (ie romanceables and Minsc)? So that is rather scewed. Try playing with the parties I play with and you will get a maximum of a couple of banters between the NPCs and maybe one or two talks with the PC from everyone but Anomen. That's not such a significant improvement over BG1.

Mine was a general characterization of the two games based on my overall opinion. I think there are times when BG1 wins out on plot and story, and BG2 wins out on play options (i.e. the evil options are better, marginally).

In BG2 I felt that the overall plot had a grander aire to it. The individual stories and subplots are not unassailable and vary in quality, but I feel they contributed to a larger scheme of things.

Individual examples could be plucked out of both games to support or rebuke any opinion, but those are my feelings on the two games overall.

Personally, I think Planescape:Torment spanks both BG1 and BG2 in the plot and story department.

As far as the banters/character development issue, you don't think that the NPC development was enough. I agree, but compared to BG1- could there be a comparison? The character development in BG1 was virtually non-existant. In BG2 it was at the very least, noticeable.

BG1 character development while minimal still was comparable in enabling you to imagine what the characters are like. BG1 also did far better job in allowing you to find characters to your liking personality wise. So I'd say it balances out (which does not prevent me from enjoying a more expanded version of BG1 w BG1NPC, which is of course the best of both worlds).

As for PST... it is too little material for a novel and too much forcing for a computer game, and the quality of dialogues in PST is horrid.

While I agree with you the Dionerra encounter wasn't the best of PS:T, the game gets better during the second half, when you finally walk the planes.

I am guessing you didn't get too far in that game; I was tempted to stop playing before getting to the lower/clerk's ward in Sigil, but after getting there, the game became quite different (and significantly less-grotesque, in terms of the setting).

-Galactygon