which one is better

[tussiker]

i never played baldurs gate just heard it so 1 or 2 better?should i start from 1?

[D'amarr from Darshiva]

BG2 is considered better by many, because it doesn't end around level 7-9. Not only can you reach high levels in BG2, which is longer, too, you also run into more dangerous enemies.

I prefer starting in BG1 because of the overall experience related to starting as a level 1 rookie and the items and attribute bonuses one can take over into BG2 for the main player character.

[wulfe]

Although I like BG2 a little more, you'll get the best experience if you start with BG1 and then import your character to BG2

[Hjelpmooglene]

Depends on what you want. Baldur's gate 1 offers more exploration and seems more accurate to the world than BG2. Also, some people like the challenge those first few levels give to the player. Baldur's Gate 2 Shadows of Amn offers more voice acting and has more follower interactions. It also has more diversity in the form of enemes, items, and spells. Both are pretty good, but that's just my own opinion.

[tussiker]

Ok guys thx i added two of my wishlist so i will be waiting for sale

[bise241]

BG2 is much MUCH better. Bg2 also retroactively makes BG1 into a better game. I did not find myself very engaged in BG1 at all the first time I played. Now i'm playing BG2, amazing

[bise241]

Also it is on sale on GOG as is the rest of the infinity engine games right now. Its better to get them there anyways, because there is no drm and you also have access to the original versions of the games

[toast, steven.]

bg 2 is the better but it should be right? play bg 1 to get the humblr beginings and character developement plus you get extra perks like stat increases and certain magics items from continuation unto bg2 which is amazing and still is

[toast, steven.]

also if its your first foray into these type of games icewind dale is a more compact tighter version (which i think came between bg 1&2)

[red255]

Originally posted by Doflamingo:

i never played baldurs gate just heard it so 1 or 2 better?should i start from 1?

BG2 is... better. BG1 was stingy as hell with the XP and quest rewards. its a low level thing. very little magic, you start out and your mages can cast like one spell a day that does like 4 damage.

No banter between the party members few party member quests except for the added characters beamdog added in.

Its a good enough playthru but you'll find the first dunno half of it stingy as hell. Then I went and did the tales of the sword coast piece of it and it got my XP to the cap and had some items. and then siege of dragonspear. before starting BG2.

BG1 basically starts really slow and then picks up around chapter 5 (there are 7 chapters)

Did the trilogy pack (BG1, BG2, and siege) for 14.41 USD on some black friday deal

Had a bunch of forest map areas I explored to see and well, its a forest, theres mostly nothing there in most of them.

BG2 starts well and stays well for the duration.

But I don't regret getting BG1 and will play thru it again. I'd just recommend... rushing thru the main quest for the first bunch of chapters.

[Zenith]

Originally posted by red255:

Originally posted by Doflamingo:

i never played baldurs gate just heard it so 1 or 2 better?should i start from 1?

BG2 is... better. BG1 was stingy as hell with the XP and quest rewards. its a low level thing. very little magic, you start out and your mages can cast like one spell a day that does like 4 damage.

No banter between the party members few party member quests except for the added characters beamdog added in.

Its a good enough playthru but you'll find the first dunno half of it stingy as hell. Then I went and did the tales of the sword coast piece of it and it got my XP to the cap and had some items. and then siege of dragonspear. before starting BG2.

BG1 basically starts really slow and then picks up around chapter 5 (there are 7 chapters)

Did the trilogy pack (BG1, BG2, and siege) for 14.41 USD on some black friday deal

Had a bunch of forest map areas I explored to see and well, its a forest, theres mostly nothing there in most of them.

BG2 starts well and stays well for the duration.

But I don't regret getting BG1 and will play thru it again. I'd just recommend... rushing thru the main quest for the first bunch of chapters.

The stuff you list as negatives for BG1 is actually why I like it better. In BG2 I found it was just too much of everything. You start out with like 5 wands, crap loads of magical equipment and spells, you're level 7 or whatever that I didn't even care. Plus you have major quest overload in the beginning, you can't move more than 10 feet in that city without being bombarded by another quest giver.

It's obviously a personal taste thing, but BG1 hit all the right notes for me and BG2 turned me off to the point that i still haven't got into it.

[Morphic]

Originally posted by Jeniu:

The stuff you list as negatives for BG1 is actually why I like it better. In BG2 I found it was just too much of everything. You start out with like 5 wands, crap loads of magical equipment and spells, you're level 7 or whatever that I didn't even care. Plus you have major quest overload in the beginning, you can't move more than 10 feet in that city without being bombarded by another quest giver.

It's obviously a personal taste thing, but BG1 hit all the right notes for me and BG2 turned me off to the point that i still haven't got into it.

I think this is mostly because BG2 is a direct continuation of BG1. Essentially BG1 is like starting a new Campaign in D&D. Your DM sets the stage and slowly eases your group into it; gradually introducing new NPCs, Quests, etc.

Whereas BG2 is like immediately picking up your last session; you're supposed to know what you were doing, what stuff is what etc. So for people who already played BG1 and were eager for more ... BG2 is essentially what they wanted.

Though, like you said; it's a personal taste issue. I agree BG2 really bombards you right out the First Dungeon. The minute you get to see the light of day; literally everything everywhere in the City has Quests and NPCs available or prompting you. Heck, just walking into the Copper Cornet has, what? 4 NPCs come right up to you are start shouting "Someone help me I have a Quest!1!" lol.

That's why I really liked Planescape: Torment and Icewind Dale better; Player Friendliness wise. With Torment you have no idea wtf is going on; which neither does your Character. So in that case you are both in the same boat and the game branches out organically from there. With IWD you make your own group of Mercenaries and step off the boat in a land rife with danger and need of help. "Go here, do that" is essentially IWD in a nutshell lol.

[Soteria]

I'd agree that the pacing of BG2 is a little off right at the beginning. You have so many timed quests it's hard to decide what to do, because everything seems urgent. And then later you can end up having to rest for days or just waste time so that a quest will progress (I'm thinking of the Harper series).

But overall I thought BG2 was better done. Companions actually have something to say, you don't have the awful level 1-2 combat (miss miss miss miss miss miss hit oops you died), the areas are designed more meaningfully (almost no boring or useless areas, and you're given a reason to visit them beyond "oh, this is a place"). The encounter design is better. What, like 90% of BG's combat is random encounters with crowds of generic enemies?

But, yeah, I do get that some people prefer the more open feel of BG's exploration. Opinions and all that.

[⎛⎝kingj0n⎠⎞]

Both on sale on Bundle Stars.... inc Icewind Dale
I'd skip the DLC though.

[Dunjeon]

Get them all.

[Sebine]

Whatever you do stay away from Siege of Tumblr