It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Which do you think is an overall better game?
2.
avatar
PetrusOctavianus: 2.
Why do you think so?
mapping
Mapping, time travel, quests, classes, skills, dungeons. It's all better in #2.

I'm not a fan of #2's last dungeon and puzzle, but the rest is really quite great.
Okay, just started 2, enjoying it so far. A few questions:
1) Should I also map on paper, or should I just rely on the in game map?
2) Is a high AC good? I know in Baldur's Gate you want a low AC.
3) Is the default party okay for beating the game?
1. Mapping on paper is needed if you are paranoid about missing things, or need to make annotations. Also note that some messages and encounters will only trigger if facing the right direction.

2. Yes

3. Yes. Or you can import a party from MM1.
avatar
PetrusOctavianus: 2.
avatar
advancedhero: Why do you think so?
Automap
Class Quests
Skills
More classes
More tactical combat
Extremely wide variety in items, with items going up to +32, and items (better than +8, I think) being alignment restricted.
Very wide variety in monsters. It's not "realistic" encounter design, but the randomness of monsters and items makes is so that combat rarelt gets boring, and there's nearly always a chance to get better gear.

Only downside is that in most areas and dungeons the upper level of the monsters you meet are scaled to your party's level.
Post edited June 30, 2014 by PetrusOctavianus
I seem to be in a minority in that I have a soft spot for the first game. The second is great as well, but unlike almost everyone else I actually liked the overworld design in the first game, as it really felt like I was exploring haunted forests or mountain ranges or deserts. In the second game, the open map design meant I could more or less wander freely and without boundaries, which made exploring the overworld much less interesting.

The improved graphics and built-in mapping in the second game are appreciated, however. But my advice is to play both, and import your MM1 party into MM2.
avatar
Waltorious: I seem to be in a minority in that I have a soft spot for the first game. The second is great as well, but unlike almost everyone else I actually liked the overworld design in the first game, as it really felt like I was exploring haunted forests or mountain ranges or deserts. In the second game, the open map design meant I could more or less wander freely and without boundaries, which made exploring the overworld much less interesting.

The improved graphics and built-in mapping in the second game are appreciated, however. But my advice is to play both, and import your MM1 party into MM2.
I loved the first game too. Even the paper mapping had its charm. I found the second game only slightly better with mapping being its main advantage.

advancedhero, I thought the purpose of your question was simply to start a discussion about which is better. If you meant "which game should I play first", then I'd say *definitely* start with 1, then play 2 after you finish it...
avatar
PetrusOctavianus: makes is so that combat rarelt gets boring, and there's nearly always a chance to get better gear.

Only downside is that in most areas and dungeons the upper level of the monsters you meet are scaled to your party's level.
Actually, MM1 had some scaling too, although maybe on a smaller scale. I once saw some tables with the scaling details, but can't seem to find them.

Still scaling in both MM1 and 2 was nothing really compared to the horrible scaling you in modern games nowdays. All monsters being always just slightly weaker than you, no matter what your level is... ugh...
Post edited July 01, 2014 by ZFR
I recommended you to start from begining - with the first game, and then import your party to MM2...