This is my first run of the game and i wanted to say that while it was kinda boring at the beginning it has got more interesting. Don't give up on it if you are like me

Are you playing the first Baldur’s Gate? Low level D&D is a strange beast, I can understand how it would not feel great to everyone ;)

When did it get better for you?

Dude, I played BG1 for the first time as a mage. Ah geez, that was a chore! :DDD

BG2 is far better than BG1. BG1 is ok, but feels a lot more dated. It's a very slow game as well - takes ages before you even get into the city of Baldur's Gate, after quite a lot of low-level, fairly dull grinding.

The main benefits to starting with BG1 are to experience the whole story; see where it all started and develop your characters from level 1 (BG2 jump-starts you to level 6/7). It can be good to play some of it if you're totally new to 2nd ed. D&D to ease yourself into the ruleset, although you could also get that from Icewind Dale and probably have more fun. New players could be forgiven for jumping straight to 2, imo.

I disagree ;) The fun part is that I mostly agree with the rest of your post.

This is because of the low level, big wilderness areas and low density of quests that I like the first Baldur’s Gate. The beginning of the second one on the other hand (once you’re out of the introductory dungeon) has too much of everything, that makes it feel "fake".

+1

I finished BG1 5 times (1 Original, 3 BGT, 1 EE) and still yet to finish BG2. BG2 is an excellent game, but it lacks something that denies me the motivation. BG2 doesn't even take place in Baldur's Gate, so I find your 1st statement a little confusing. And the 2nd one is simply wrong. I don't recall a single place where I would call it grinding. Everything you do, everything that touches the character is a vital part of the main story and the lore.

Yes, the low level characters can be frustrating, especially for newbies who don't know how to play. But that's part of the charm. BG1 offers immerse freedom to how you want to do things. And it feels open world. BG2 lacks that terribly. What you can do is usually limited. But of course, since you suggested Icewind Dale, one of the most linear RPGs every created, your statement is understandable.

BG1, BG2, IWD...

I dig all the differences between them. They all compliment each other, imho. They all ROCK!

(And don't forget Planescape Torment!)

Yeah, they are all great games. I don't mean to say BG1 is a bad game and perhaps I was a little harsh on it in some of my comments. I just personally think BG2 is stronger. And yes, of course, Planescape Torment is a fantastic game as well!

I've gotta disagree with you on the whole 'BG2 is more open than BG1' thing. Once you leave Candlekeep at the beginning of the game, almost the entire world map is open to you; I think that the Cloakwood and Baldur's Gate itself are the only areas you flat-out can't enter. Yeah, some parts of the world map are full of enemies you simply can't handle at low levels, but that makes sense. A sheltered kid isn't gonna be able to handle the nastier parts of the Sword Coast.
BG2, meanwhile, straight up doesn't show significant parts of the game world until you've picked up specific quests in those areas. There's even a set of areas that don't appear until you hit Chapter Six, even though they have zero quest relevance and there's no reason you can't walk there. Heck, you can't even go anywhere in Athkatla outside of the Promenade and the Slums until you accept the Shadow Thieve's offer.

I see your point about the overworld travel. Yes, I'd agree that free-foaming overworld is probably the one thing BG1 does better than BG2. I don't know why they did away with that in the sequel - perhaps they wanted to focus more attention on fleshing out the city, dungeons and quest locations, as opposed to wilderness.

I'd say in pretty much every other respect though BG2 is bigger, better and deeper than BG1. For a start, BG2 includes a good portion of the full list of enemies/creatures that exist in Forgotten Realms.

BG2 is very limited in party composition unless you make all characters from scratch. There's no normal thief for the whole game, which is really annoying. You also probably can't finish the game without a mage/sorcerer, and other classes feel kind of useless compared to the arcane casters. To better show what I mean, I finished BG1 with this party when I played it last time: Bard x2 (Charname + Garrick), Thief x2 (Skie + Alora), Fighter (Arkanis - used a trick/glitch to take him from the training party) and Fighter/Druid (Jaheira). This meant no thief until chapter 5, which changed the gameplay a lot, but was fun.

Another thing is that BG2 is filled with too much *epic* stuff and is unfocused, the whole game feels like a huge sidequest-fest. Even the main story is just a side-story to the Bhaalspawn legacy that was only rushed in the expansion. When I see random guards having all +3 equipment, to me that's a signal that something is off.

You get Yoshimo, who is a Bounty Hunter, which is a Thief class kit. Although you do lose him later on, you get Imoen back around the same time. Otherwise, yes, most of the available Thief companions are multi-classers, but I didn't find that to be an issue at all. The multi-class thieves are perfectly fine for the main functions you need a thief for (i.e. spotting traps and scouting ahead).

This is more of an issue with the unbalanced nature of 2nd edition D&D, as opposed to a limitation of BG2. In 2nd Ed, spellcasters are basically next to useless at low levels and practically overpowered at very high levels. So, for most of BG1, mages might as well be carrying around a bag of popcorn (and make sure they have their will in their pocket), whereas at later levels in BG2, spellcasters are godlike and every combat pretty much turns into a complex, high-level mage duel (which can be a lot of fun, if you like that sort of thing).

Not sure what you mean about 'epic stuff'. The higher Epic levels and abilities don't kick in until Throne of Bhaal, otherwise BG2 is just higher levels of the basic 2nd ed D&D game. As far as 'unfocused', again I'm not quite sure what you mean there. There are a lot of side quests in and around Athkatla, but I see that as a good thing that gives a lot of freedom and options to the player. I very much like the fact that in Chapter 2, you are just told to go and raise 20,000 gold, and it is left entirely up to the player to figure out how to do that. You can spend a lot of time in Chapter 2 just doing side quests and the stronghold, as some of the side quests are very substantial. It adds a lot of replay value to the game.

I wouldn't call the main plot a side-story at all. It's a deep, complex, epic plot line that twists and turns and introduces very well the 'legacy' plot in ToB. I'd say it's one of the best plotlines I've played in a CRPG.

Anyway, I don't think there's much point in arguing over which is better over BG1 or 2. I mean, they're in the same series, they are basically the same thing, just that BG2 gives you more of it at a higher level of depth and complexity, for those that want it. BG1 is like the 101, whereas BG2 is the advanced class.

The argument still stands, you don't have a normal Thief throughout the whole game, if the multi-class is enough then it also proves the point that other than arcane casters the remaining classes don't matter.

In BG1 arcane casters are far from useless, even 1st level spell - Sleep is incredibly powerful (borderline overpowered). They are actually really well balanced in the first game, they dictate the combat flow, but need some form of protection (Mirror Image, or other party members for example). The high-level combat however has other classes standing useless, whereas mages use the same spell-combos against others. Maybe having high levels in the game wasn't the best idea? Maybe they could spend more time on the gameplay during the development rather than focusing on dating sim for example?

Well epic as in having a demi-lich in a random house basement for example? The lack of focus is in the fact that player is being bombarded by side-quests rather than discovering them and the main story of BG2 has nothing to do with the Bhaalspawn legacy. The ending of BG1 is about showing that there are others apart from Sarevok, but we have to first take care of Irecnius before we continue with Alaundo's prophecy.

Yes, there's no point of trying to convince anyone that one is better than the other, but don't state that BG2 is better at the end. Just leave it at both titles being different even though they are part of the series and different people prefer different games.

I think you are talking about the gameplay. Because BG1 is far more complex and deep than BG2 when it comes to lore, story, and adventure. It has politics, phycology, love, physics while BG2 has none of that. It is a simple story of a mad man's lust for power. It is neither deep nor complex in any way. Even the side quests are dull and boring.

You said "stronghold quests and a critical choice between joining two opposing factions, which greatly influences the course of the game." This is simply false information. Stronghold quests are straightforward and give you nothing except the satisfaction of having a stronghold that calls you lord. And if by factions you mean thieves and vampires, you are utterly mistaken again. Nothing really changes which side you choose and it doesn't affect the course of the game other than some minor dialogues and what you do for a while. Because BG2 is made for people who found BG1's freedom too complex and swayed to the Icewind dale side, where you are told exactly what to do in every step.

BTW, you keep claiming that BG2 is superior, deep, etc yet in all the messages you wrote, you couldn't state a single part where that's true. Other than the complexity (and imbalance) that comes with higher levels and the superior user interface.