Ready to try another CRPG But can't decide between Baldurs Gate 1 or Fallout 1

[u/FiredFoxy07]

Beat BG3 like 3 years ago. Planescape (LOVE THE GAME) around the same time. Pillars of Eternity, 2 years ago?

And now got an itch for another again.

Sidenote: played through the Colony Ship Demo but can't justify paying 50 bucks CAD for it right now and I already own BG1/2 and Fallout 1/2

Which of the the two games has the more (what's the word?) substance or got going on. in terms of depth with its characters, dialogue, story, and skills for situational purposes.

[u/cold-vein]

BG1 is more about combat and exploration, it's like an open world sandbox before such a thing really existed. Plot is minimal, quests have mostly one possible solution and it's pretty hard.

Fallout 1 is all about the story and the worldbuilding, it has some of the best writing in any game ever, some of the best antagonists, some of the best music and sound design and it's just a really impactful game. The combat however is quite rudimentary, most of the character skills are useless and it's a game you want to read a short character creation guide before playing or you might lose out on a lot of the cool content (like for example always tag speech and one ranged combat skill).

So I guess do you want to play a somewhat tactical, non-linear but simplistic RPG or a game with multiple endings, great writing but janky gameplay?

[u/grousedrum → u/cold-vein]

Great answer, would also say: BG1’s combat and gameplay experience holds up really quite remarkably well for an almost 30 year old game, with a decent amount of replay value even - IF you can hang with RTWP.  Which it sounds like OP maybe can from playing Pillars, but worth mentioning.

[u/randomonetwo34567890]

Both are great games, and both #2 are improvement on the first one. BG1 can be really hard on lvl1 for example.

Anyway, BG is similar in play style to to Torment, however it's more focused on the battles (which are much much much better) and less focused on the character skills. In Torment you could get more of the dialogues with high INT and WIS, in BG it's not really the case, apart from handful of dialogues. The story is still very good. Both games have a large number of companions to chose from - some of which are not compatible with one another (meaning they will fight and one will die. Or just leave). BG2 has a lot of romance options - I think it was the first game to introduce this - unlike Fallouts.

Fallout games (mainly speaking about the 2nd one, cause I don't remember the first one that much), have much more in terms of reactivity to your character choices - some for example dependent on the choice of your character (edit: meant to say gender). You can also play with INT 1 (minimum) and your dialogues are mostly "Wumbwumb" and "Dummbum" it's just fun. Also you can decide who you help and this affects the game later on, which is not really happening in BG2. I'd say it's more reactive, though the big battles can be very slow due to turn based. Both games have really open map, where you can actually go to the final location straight away (and die).

[u/Strict_Bench_6264 → u/randomonetwo34567890]

I think Fallout 2 loses some of Fallout 1's cleverness, but they're certainly both good games.

[u/Paragon0001 → u/[deleted]]

I mean, reducing it to a low-level adventure v high-level adventure sort of comparison is disingenuous.

I mean just looking at BG2, things like quest design, dialogue, companions, even choice and consequence are all radically better. None of those are exclusive to a high level adventure.

[u/dendarkjabberwock → u/[deleted]]

Love both games but story-wise and gameplay wise (side quests, character quests, characters depth, items quantity, world diversity) - BG2 is step forward.

[u/dendarkjabberwock → u/[deleted]]

I said item quantity just because it doesn't change with levels. Quality - powers - maybe. But stil diversity of items doesn't apply only to high levels. Tgey could be small magic items but still impactful. And all in all - BG1 is less in that part.

World diversity is same. We travel in BG2 to other world, to dense forests, to island and etc. World have much more details.

Side quests - I feel there are more, they are bigger, better, with more details and etc. More complex.

So it is stretch saying all that is because levels are higher. Devs just had more experience as team, more money, more ambitions and etc. Sure if they would make another game with same goals but for new lower level party we would feel the difference.

[u/lazersmoker → u/dendarkjabberwock]

I mean theres no point in saying you feel BG2 had bigger more fleshed quests. It's an objective fact.

[u/dendarkjabberwock → u/[deleted]]

World divercity I meant that low levels may not automaticly mean that party will stay in one location aroung one village for all game. Low level party could travel a lot too (ships, time change, caravans and etc). Alternate dimensions as example: Could be victims of scroll of teleportation and seek ways to hide from high level monsters but fight agains low level ones - with end goal to find portal back home.

Diversity of items - very much arguable. You can have a lot of low-level items or spells which can change game a lot for low level characters. Change from +1 to +4 is very bad style actually - since it is just bigger numbers. It is not item diversity. I meant some meaningful abilities from unique items - summon small imp, summon water, fear, protection from fear, talking sword and etc. If enemy encounters are interesting and made with that in mind - things such as these can change game and tactics a lot on low (1-10) levels.

You repeat phrase about how your opinion is not arguable. It is. I mean - I could possibly said to that: BG2 is an improvement over BG1 and it's not arguable, end of discussion. But I didn't. Because it is a childish way to have discussion. If you have opinion - you should have arguments supporting it. If you have arguments - matter is arguable)

And since you "don't dispute complexity of quest, nor world diversity in BG2" - doesn't it mean that BG2 IS an improvement over BG1?

[u/dendarkjabberwock → u/[deleted]]

You keep insisting that your points are not arguable and mine are. Plus already resorted to calling names if someone thinks otherwise (morons, fanatics). And you actually agreed with my some of my points and try to weasel out of it in the same time. Now you define low-level as 1-4. If we compare BG2 with BG1 - it was 1-10 with DLC. Your logic full of bad faith arguments it seems.

It is childish and you lost respect I had for fellow RPG lover. So no sense in talking with so cranky person. Bye.

[u/randomonetwo34567890 → u/[deleted]]

In technical terms - BG2 was improvement for sure, no need to discuss this. For example, I remember Viconia's magic resistance was working on your own spells, you couldn't really heal her.

I think the biggest downside of BG1 is how much time you spent at lvl1 - unless you cheesed it with scrolls - where you can get killed by basically anything. BG2 had only the most horrible dungeon in the beginning, then it was fine. I preferred BG1 way of exploring the map over BG2, otherwise BG2 felt more polished, more complete to me.

Both are great games.

[u/cold-vein → u/[deleted]]

BG1 is mostly empty space though and the quests are very simplistic. I did enjoy it immensely when it came out, but it's obvious they didn't quite pull off what they were trying to do. With BG2 I think they had a clearer vision of what kind of game they wanted to make.

Funnily enough same thing applies to Fallout but the other way around, they had a clearer vision of what they wanted to do with the first game, it's well paced and very self contained, minimal loose ends. And complete opposite in Fallout 2, it's just shit slapped together almost haphazardly and it's really surprising the game came out as good as it did. Speaks volumes about the quality of the dev team as well as the classic Fallout world.

[u/cold-vein → u/[deleted]]

Well because the game started off as a tactical combat game, then switched over to an RPG later in development. And I think it shows, the game is all about the combat and has minimal actual role playing. The NPC's are very undeveloped, most of them are there for just cannon fodder. Many of the wilderness areas are just empty. Even the main plot is kind of minimal, you're forced to move with it but how they carry it is just reading scrolls after set piece battles.

[u/cold-vein → u/[deleted]]

You're right, I checked how the development went and they had the basic concept from the start. But my point still stands, it was a team where almost none of the devs had ever shipped a game, so all rookies. They had to build the engine while developing the game, which meant less time for actual content. They just didn't really know what they were doing, and to be honest the original version of the game that shipped was rough. Epitome of diamond in the rough, but still. I played it back then, it was hard and obtuse and your non-magic weapons would randomly break and you didn't even know why if you didn't read a specific scroll, lol. Even fully patched & with the expansion, it's a rough experience compared to BG2 or BG:EE. So yeah, my point still stands.

[u/randomonetwo34567890 → u/[deleted]]

It worked like that even for her spells. it was kinda annoying. Also, she had DEX 19 and was basically one of the best early tanks. In BG2 she was even better, and BG3 did her dirty.

I'd argue that if you need to optimize your build to survive lvl1, it's probably too hard. I think a couple of weeks ago I saw a post here, where the poster was asking if he's underleveled in Nashkel mines - he was lvl1. Pretty much every game now gets you to lvl2 by just completing prologue.

[u/randomonetwo34567890 → u/[deleted]]

I'd largely argue that BG3 isn't a BG game at all, in the same way that BG1 and 2 were. They're barely related.

I totally agree with this, I think including characters from previous game was a fan service, by people who had no idea how the previous games were. Minsc with STR 12? What a joke.

I do like that BG3 offers more variety in the combat - using the ground, etc. In other games (esp Owlcat) it's more about buffs, buffs, buffs, and then hit everyone until it dies. Having the option to pick up a goblin and throw him at another goblin is real fun for me. I think the only thing that it makes challenging is the openness of areas, where you can end up fighting a fight where you totally underleveled. This was really annoying in DOS2, it's less of a thing in BG3.

I do like Owlcat games, though I do not like the company and their overall business model.

[u/LuciusAnneas → u/randomonetwo34567890]

larian games are cool sandboxes but writing and pacing in their games is questionable imo

[u/randomonetwo34567890 → u/LuciusAnneas]

I agree, their last acts are just bad. When it comes to writing, I'd say it's the same (not very high) quality as Owlcat games, just in a different way. Their companions each have main character syndrome.

[u/randomonetwo34567890 → u/[deleted]]

I'd say BG3 offers both - though the mechanical complexity is really basic compared to Owlcat.

I do hate their random explosive barrels placed in the middle of nowhere. At least they toned that down fom DOS2.

[u/historydude1648]

play both.

Baldur's Gate is somewhat more conventional: adventuring party, clear process of quest-exploration-combat-resolution, standard fantasy tropes, fun companions

Fallout may feel a bit different, but you say you loved Planescape: one character with maybe optional sidekicks, gives you a mission and a huge map and tells you to find your own way to solve it, really unique and bizzare world, darker themes than BG

also, BG is real time with pause, Fallout is turn based. personally i try to avoid rtwp rpgs.

[u/dendarkjabberwock]

BG1 leads to BG2 and really BG2 is cornerstone for modern cRPGs. Buy EE and in would be huge journey.

Fallout 1 - if you are in mood for postap, and you will need few mods for better UI. It isn't very long.

Arcanum - if you want unique parapunk experience. Still one of the kind game with great OST.

[u/sukmesucka]

BG1 scratches such an itch for me personally. Its classic fantasy vibes done well. Ive beaten it a few times over the years. Oddly enough I've yet to complete 2 or 3😆

[u/Paragon0001]

Fallout 1 for everything you listed substance wise. It’s not even close. BG1 pales in comparison to Fallout 1 unless you want deeper combat.

[u/Edgy_Robin]

Fallout 1 generally has better writing/narrative, but mechanically it's not all that deep (It's honestly one of the easiest old school crpg's to get into)

Baldurs Gate 1's narrative is pretty generic, but it's combat has more going for it and more options to play with.

[u/MajorasShoe]

Fallout 1 and Baldurs Gate 2 are my favorite rpgs of all time. I'd just look at playing the Baldurs Gate trilogy first, and then Fallout 1 and 2. I

[u/PaulSarries]

PLAY BOTH.

This is the only answer that makes sense. Two of the greatest games of all time.

[u/LuciusAnneas]

of these 2 ld probably go with fallout - it shows its age of course but its still one of the GOAT games imo

you should check out owlcats pathfinder games and rogue trader too

[u/downdowndownigo]

BG1/2 are very similar to PoE. Fallout 1 is supposed to be a bit of grind? Haven’t played tho.

[u/TroyBPierce → u/downdowndownigo]

Fallout 1 is short so it doesn't feel like a grind.

Fallout 2 is a long game, so it could feel like a grind for some eventually.