Do I have to play the first title in the series??

In theory, you're correct. Obe's training is a neat introduction to combat and party management and the green scholars that are scattered in Candlekeep are full of useful information if you bother to listen to what they say.

In practice, many players don't have the patience to dwell into the aforementioned. They'll just skim through and possibly skip it entirely.

Besides, low level doesn't mean low challenge. BG1 can be much more challenging and unforgiving than BG2, especially during the first chapters. Having low HP and being short of spells and powerful items means you'll get blown to pieces in no time if you don't know what you're doing.

So yeah, the mechanics are introduced a little bit better in BG1. Yet, how many players were prepared for their first melee fight with wolves? How many players were prepared for their first encounter with Tarnesh? How many players were prepared for the bandit ambush trying to go from one map to another? I could go on like this for hours.

The point is, it's ok to die and retry. It's ok to learn by failure. This is true in BG1 just as much as it's true in BG2, so I'm not sure the play value lies in the mechanics.

Rather, it's the story and brutality contained in the first game that build into what comes after. Is is absolutely necessary to enjoyt BG2? Nope. Does it add something of value? Yes. The grandiose stuff in BG2 is much better appreciated if you know where you come from: a simpler world set in a time when you were at the mercy of pretty much anyone if you weren't very careful. Thay way, it becomes something like driving a Ferrari after driving an old battered car. It's classic character development really, you need to feel progress and that you EARNED what you have.

/r/baldursgate Thread Parent