Baldur's Gate II: Enhanced Edition - do I need to play the first?

[dmoney1980]

I picked up Baldur's Gate II: Enhanced Edition on Steam a few months ago while it was on sale. I actually never played the first BG, so I'm here to ask the AT community if I need to play the first BG prior to jumping into the sequel. Is the story in BG2 a direct continuation of the first?

 

[Fenixgoon]

the story is a continuation, but you really don't need to know anything about BG1.

 

[shortylickens]

You dont need to. But the story will make a LOT more sense.

Also, theres plenty of spoilers in the 2nd game, so playing the first one later will be much less suspenseful.

Oh, and I believe you can import your character from the first game into the second game, so thats kinda fun.

 

[motsm]

More than anything else, I think the established characters from Baldur's Gate add a lot to Baldur's Gate II. Also, the first game is great anyway, no reason to skip it.

 

[dmoney1980]

Thanks everyone. I think I'll go ahead and grab the first BG and play the series in order.

Thanks again!

 

[rivethead]

Thanks everyone. I think I'll go ahead and grab the first BG and play the series in order.

Thanks again!

I don't think you'll be sorry. BG1 is a GREAT game!

 

[StinkyPinky]

IMO you should play 1 first. Lots of companions and plot lines move over from the first. Just be aware that BG1 starts off a bit slow (level 1 characters in D&D aren't that fun and won't even survive walking into a thistle patch)

 

[DefDC]

It's the way to go. Some of the more entertaining PCs are worth watching their characters develop.

BG1 is certainly worth a play though. Make sure you finish it and BG2 before Pillars of Eternity launches on March 26th!

 

[gothamhunter]

Oh God...Pillars launches March 26th. When am I going to find the time...smh.

I can't wait for all my physical goodies

 

[SMOGZINN]

Oh God...Pillars launches March 26th. When am I going to find the time...smh.

I can't wait for all my physical goodies

Right! I need to get on the ball and finish Wastelands 2!

 

[escrow4]

I don't think you'll be sorry. BG1 is a GREAT game!

Not any more. Both of these games are 90s relics. It was a great game back in the 90s, now, meh.

 

[rivethead]

Not any more. Both of these games are 90s relics. It was a great game back in the 90s, now, meh.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on that.

 

[dmoney1980]

So I know what I'll be playing in 2015 - BG 1 and 2, Pillars of Eternity, Witcher 3, wait anxiously for Torment:Tides of Numenera

 

[StinkyPinky]

Not any more. Both of these games are 90s relics. It was a great game back in the 90s, now, meh.

Yep, 90's relics that was actually released late 2000 :\

 

[escrow4]

Yep, 90's relics that was actually released late 2000 :\

The whole DnD dice roll engine crap and horrific difficulty whack doesn't help either.

 

[bystander36]

I remember enjoying the games, and I'm ok with the difficulty. I'm ok with games that force you to retry a scenario multiple times to get it right, as long as i know it is the games difficulty and not my ineptitude. Some of it because the combat is very tactical, and based on luck of the dice.

Which I do agree, relying on a dice system is a bit out dated, and not necessary on PC.

I also understand that nostalgia does cause people to play these games. I'd be interested in trying these games again if they weren't asking $20 for them.

 

[BSim500]

Not any more. Both of these games are 90s relics. It was a great game back in the 90s, now, meh.

Yep, 90's relics that was actually released late 2000 :\

I also understand that nostalgia does cause people to play these games. I'd be interested in trying these games again if they weren't asking $20 for them.

^ I understand where you're all coming from and I have mixed feelings too. I think the problem for many is this : If you played BG back in the 90's / early 2000's, then there's a lot of nostalgia to "hook" you into a replay today and there's also a part of you that's already been "habituated" to the (very) clunky UI. However, if like me you somehow managed to miss them first time around and played the newer games first (Neverwinter Nights, Dragon Age Origins, etc) then it can be a serious struggle trying to play Bioware games "back to front" in time.

Eg, in BG there isn't even a "run" mechanic (you walk slowly everywhere). The character has two annoying "fog of wars" that are only about 6m / 20ft in front of him - a "black fog" (unexplored map) where you can't click outside of the black fog bubble (see mouse cursor in link) meaning you have to click 3 times just to move across each 1080p width screen (doubly annoying when there's no "click-hold to follow mouse pointer"), and an equally annoying "dimmed out fog" (explored) meaning you'll see characters pop-in 1/3rd of the screen away in 1080p even though you can "see" the terrain underneath them. It also means to reveal a large map, you have to run back & forward across the map half a dozen times due to a low line-of-sight (annoyance is multiplied by slow walk speed). This stuff is an obvious leftover from the era of "designed for 800x600 / 1024x768 standard resolution on 14-15" 4:3 monitors", but there's been no attempt to improve it in the EE editions by increasing LOS to match the screen res. The UI still takes up around 25-40% of the screen vs the minimalist 10% of NWN1, NWN2 & DAO (and half of NWN's 10% HUD was 50% transparent and the HUD could even be fully hidden at a keystroke). That combined with BG's fixed "1024x768 fog of war" (even at higher res's) felt artifically "claustrophobic" to play. :\

Other issues - The fixed size character sprites get tiny as resolution goes up and as a result not only was it sometimes hard to tell chars apart but I found the target "hitbox" for spells, attacking, etc, is small (almost "pixel hunting"), some voice actors are surprisingly bad, no quick indication of number of available spells left to cast per day in quickbars, when a character dies they resurrect at a temple but ALL of their equipment, weapons & inventory are dropped, so the other players may have to backtrack and collect the lot (if the dead char has a high strength & inventory capacity whilst the living char have a low encumbrance / full inventory themselves), holding down TAB highlights just objects not people so you have to manually mouseover the name of every single character to find specific people, etc. Even simple things like a natural urge to hit "ESC" to quit a menu didn't work and soon turned into major irritants for me.

A lot of these minor annoyances and "realistic but not necessarily fun" mechanics Bioware "ironed out" in later NWN. I really wanted to like BG but found it quite irritating playing it as a "fresh" new game with no prior replay or nostalgia value. I had no problem with actual D&D combat ("dice throwing" or 6s turn combat thing as I was used to the d20 D&D 3.0 system in NWN) nor the hard difficulty, it really was the clunky UI that killed it for me. The "enhanced" editions could have done so much more (even if they left the option of a "classic UI" option in) but all they really did was just repackage what community patches were already giving for free and slap a premium price on it.

 

[motsm]

^ I understand where you're all coming from and I have mixed feelings too. I think the problem for many is this : If you played BG back in the 90's / early 2000's, then there's a lot of nostalgia to "hook" you into a replay today and there's also a part of you that's already been "habituated" to the (very) clunky UI. However, if like me you somehow managed to miss them first time around and played the newer games first (Neverwinter Nights, Dragon Age Origins, etc) then it can be a serious struggle trying to play Bioware games "back to front" in time.

I've never had this problem, as I missed all of the Infinity Engine games the first time around, yet I still loved them a decade later. I of course realized they could have used a slicker UI, and working pathfinding, but I also realized they were offering something I couldn't get at the time, and really still can't outside of maybe a couple titles. So a few clunky mechanics are worth putting up with, when the modern alternatives are typically so mediocre.

 

[DefDC]

Agreed, the UI is dated and irritating by today's standard, but the combat is unmatched, IMO. You won't find anything like the high level tactical mage standoffs in any other game today. As I am older and don't have the free time I used to, I don't mind the dumbing down and ease of today's games. I recently replayed BG 1 and 2 and still found them to be incredibly fun. I mashed through both games and their expansions. I plan on hitting Icewind Dale 1 and 2 next.

I also was annoyed with the fog of war and painful UI limitations. Since I played them as new releases, I was more forgiving. I always wondered how newcomers would receive these games. Could a millennial play Planescape Torment? Dated and restrictive UI and TONS of reading? (I'm not saying millennials can't read, but put up with so much non-narrated text in a video game. It's just not done that way anymore...) Then again, it wasn't a hot seller as new release either. It needed word of mouth and time to become beloved.

 

[shortylickens]

The whole DnD dice roll engine crap and horrific difficulty whack doesn't help either.

Yeah, if I only played easy games I supposed Baldurs Gate would seem difficult to me as well.

 

[exar333]

Yeah, if I only played easy games I supposed Baldurs Gate would seem difficult to me as well.

LOL this.

Even on 'easy mode' you can't just run into every battle with swords raised and fireballs prepped. It is a tactical game with amazing combat.

I have said this on other threads, but D&D difficulty scales differently as you progress. Levels 1-5 are some of the hardest combat because you have very little HP and limited offensive capabilities. Middle levels provide PCs with a lot more offensive 'oomph' and survivability with more HP. High-level combat gets more difficult as the risks of combat are higher for both sides, due to insane spell synergies and potential for Crits.

You can play the exact same encounter and have COMPLETELY different results. That is sort of the charm of D&D. This is lost on most modern RPGs (IMHO) because you can script the battle before it begins with skill combos, items and resistances. D&D allows for some of that, but is much richer.

The isometric view and beautiful artwork still stand-up great to me, honestly. Path-finding is not the best, but is pretty minor in the overall scheme of things. I know this is a pretty strong statement, but I don't think there will ever be as rich of an RPG as Baldur's Gate 1/2. The combination of lore, spells, characters, quests, story and replayability is unmatched.

 

[rivethead]

LOL this.

Even on 'easy mode' you can't just run into every battle with swords raised and fireballs prepped. It is a tactical game with amazing combat.

Well...you can run into every battle, but you also better be prepared to run out of it!

Seriously, those early levels.....hit and run tactics are your best bet (and sometimes only option).

 

[escrow4]

LOL this.

Even on 'easy mode' you can't just run into every battle with swords raised and fireballs prepped. It is a tactical game with amazing combat.

I have said this on other threads, but D&D difficulty scales differently as you progress. Levels 1-5 are some of the hardest combat because you have very little HP and limited offensive capabilities. Middle levels provide PCs with a lot more offensive 'oomph' and survivability with more HP. High-level combat gets more difficult as the risks of combat are higher for both sides, due to insane spell synergies and potential for Crits.

You can play the exact same encounter and have COMPLETELY different results. That is sort of the charm of D&D. This is lost on most modern RPGs (IMHO) because you can script the battle before it begins with skill combos, items and resistances. D&D allows for some of that, but is much richer.

The isometric view and beautiful artwork still stand-up great to me, honestly. Path-finding is not the best, but is pretty minor in the overall scheme of things. I know this is a pretty strong statement, but I don't think there will ever be as rich of an RPG as Baldur's Gate 1/2. The combination of lore, spells, characters, quests, story and replayability is unmatched.

That scaling doesn't make any sense and I'd say the Witcher series comes very close to the story/character/quest combo. I did suffer through Planescape Torment, now that was worth it.

 

[exar333]

That scaling doesn't make any sense and I'd say the Witcher series comes very close to the story/character/quest combo. I did suffer through Planescape Torment, now that was worth it.

What doesn't make sense? It's D&D.

Low level = low HP. Any character you have can potentially get 1-2 hit-killed. Seriously, it's pretty easy to happen.

High-level = crazy spells. Your opponent can get off a critical spell effect or use crazy-powerful Lvl9 spells like Time Stop, Wish, Prismatic Sphere or Meteor Swarm. Those can kill your entire party if executed right.

TW1/2 had some great stories, but was a very linear game. Not really that similar IMHO...

 

[exar333]

OP - play the first one. You can run through it relatively quickly if you just want to get to BG2, but I would suspect you will enjoy it and take your time.

Seriously, only 10-15% of the game is 'required' but you will need to level enough and get decent items to get through the main game. Just wandering around in a new area is a blast.