Dragon Age - Review @ GameVisions

BG2 is identical to BG1 in terms of linearity. The portion of the game where you have the ability to roam the map is a bit smaller, but it's definetly there.

Maylander said:

BG2 is identical to BG1 in terms of linearity. The portion of the game where you have the ability to roam the map is a bit smaller, but it's definetly there.

Click to expand...

Sounds great

Thanks for info.

I think I'll replay it quite soon.

I was thinking of playing around with LOTRO again - but I really don't have that kind of time.

Hmmm I wouldn't say they're identical in that aspect. In BG1 you can fully uncover the world map in any direction by simply walking to the edge of whatever map section you're on. In BG2 you gain access to more maps by talking to people and gaining new quests. Both ways worked fine imo, I probably prefer the way they did it in BG1, but not significantly.

DArtagnan said:

So, is BG2 non-linear in this way, or isn't it?

Click to expand...

Not really.
The main difference is the free roaming aspect is almost nonexistent in BG2.
You have one big city to explore and that´s basically it. The city rocks though.
Most of the other areas are opened via main quest or side quests.

However, BG2´s side quests are generally much, much more elaborate than those in its predecessor.
I´d say that 3/5 of my BG2 playthrough time consists of sidequesting in its second chapter .

Basically I´d say, BG1 is more open ended, BG2 has better side quests.

True, BG1 does have different exploration - you find new areas by exiting a map in that general direction. Also, there are more open areas that are not specifically tied to a quest in BG1.

Sorry for not being accurate about that. Nowadays I rarely "explore" anymore - it's a matter of going directly to the good loot or NPCs I need on a specific map, hehe.

txa1265 said:

Wow … that is interesting, as I can't think of a SINGLE way that BG1 is better than BG2 …

Click to expand...

Purely subjective, but I found the low level play of BG1 to simply be more fun than the endless can-opening (spend most of the battle dispelling protections) magic boss battles of BG2. A lot of people appreciate the tactical challenges of those battles, but I simply didnt "get it"

DeepO said:

Not really.
The main difference is the free roaming aspect is almost nonexistent in BG2.
You have one big city to explore and that´s basically it. The city rocks though.
Most of the other areas are opened via main quest or side quests.

However, BG2´s side quests are generally much, much more elaborate than those in its predecessor.
I´d say that 3/5 of my BG2 playthrough time consists of sidequesting in its second chapter .

Basically I´d say, BG1 is more open ended, BG2 has better side quests.

Click to expand...

Ah, ok thanks for the clarification.

This means I was basically right in my suspicions - as I've always felt BG2 to have a relatively rigid structure.

It also means I'll probably never have the will to finish it, but maybe one day

Maylander said:

True, BG1 does have different exploration - you find new areas by exiting a map in that general direction. Also, there are more open areas that are not specifically tied to a quest in BG1.

Sorry for not being accurate about that. Nowadays I rarely "explore" anymore - it's a matter of going directly to the good loot or NPCs I need on a specific map, hehe.

Click to expand...

Hehe, this is certainly one area where I'm completely different.

Maybe this is why you can replay games as much as you seem to do. I kinda envy that.

If I could use a single word to describe the foundation of my appreciation for CRPGs - or most games in general - it would be "discovery".

I adore a well realised world and mechanics that are intricate - that I can explore and experiment with at will.

Once I've done that, though, there's basically zero incentive to replay it - and story variations remain as boring to me today as they always were.

I always imagine the Wing Commander games (with two different responses to every question, resulting in the same cutscene with slightly different dialogue) - when I think of this, because that's what C&C often feels like to me - when it's purely story related. To me, it's just the same story from another angle - and nothing excites me less.

It's interesting how we're all so different when it comes to enjoying games

With the same concept of a 100% score as the reviewer I'd be inclined to agree. Still not had the gaming time to finish it yet, but still thoroughly enjoying it & consider it a significant improvement on the BGs.

Actually possibly not quite 100%. Planescape torment or Vampire Bloodlines with dragon age engine & graphics & cinematic aspects would make a 100% game for me, and while such a game is unlikely to ever be made I can use that as a concept of what would deserve 100%, so should put DA in at 95% odd. I'd only rank the BGs somewhere around 85%.

See, I disagree - while you could wander more in BG1, I found the quest structure in BG2 prrovided sucha more massive experience that it felt more open. My playthroughs took about 50% longer for BG2 than BG1 each time I have played.

txa1265 said:

See, I disagree - while you could wander more in BG1, I found the quest structure in BG2 prrovided sucha more massive experience that it felt more open. My playthroughs took about 50% longer for BG2 than BG1 each time I have played.

Click to expand...

Um…. that's because BG2 was simply a longer game.

What I mean is, that has nothing to do with linearity/nonlinearity, BG2 just had more content overall.

txa1265 said:

See, I disagree - while you could wander more in BG1, I found the quest structure in BG2 prrovided sucha more massive experience that it felt more open. My playthroughs took about 50% longer for BG2 than BG1 each time I have played.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure I understand how a massive experience or big quest structure can translate to openness or non-linearity?

Please elaborate.

Yeah, I know (sorry for brevity, typing this on Droid smartphone) ... but I was disagreeing that the first was less linear. In my opinion both were so story centric that there was tons of structure. But because it was so much more massive BG2 felt less linear to me ... but then I don't call Sacred non-linear because I could wander aimlessly.

DArtagnan said:

If I could use a single word to describe the foundation of my appreciation for CRPGs - or most games in general - it would be "discovery".

Click to expand...

Well, to be fair, I think that the "discovery" possibilities are present in quite large quantity in BG2. Meaning, you definitely won´t discover everything in one playthrough. Some side quests are ministories in themselves and chances are you won´t discover them all right away. Plus, there are class based "stronghold" quests, one relatively significant branch in the main quest etc.

Even though BG1 is more open ended, you can exhaust more-or-less all of its content in one playthrough, which is unlikely in the case of BG2.

DArtagnan said:

I adore a well realised world and mechanics that are intricate - that I can explore and experiment with at will.

Click to expand...

You can definitely experiment a lot in BG2 - spell system is a game on its own and while I think that playing fighters and especially rogues is quite significantly more interesting in DAO, you can experiment with BG2´s nonspellcasting classes as well, mainly thanks to its very diverse itemization.

I know I´m probably annoyingly repetitive in this, but if you install some well selected AI/mechanics enhancing mods, you´ll get much more interesting combat scenarios, character development becomes more crucial and generally you´ll have a truckload of new possibilities to experiment with.
Most of NPC mods´ quality is certainly disputable, but some AI/mechanics enhancing mods are of very high quality rather undisputably I´d say .
While playing through vanilla combat scenarios is relatively straightforward in most cases, with Sword Coast Stratagems and Ascension installed you´ll need to employ much more diverse tactics to be succesful, which also means all the experimentation really pays off in this case.

I´d also heartily recommend at least once playing through BG1 in EasyTutu conversion with the NPC Project and BG1 version of Sword Coast Stratagems - I think that, with the exception of side quests, it makes BG1 better than its sequel (in vanilla form) on almost all counts.

DeepO - that is what I was talking about.

You guys make it sound very appealing, and I'm convinced that I have to give it a complete go - meaning a fully modified BG1-BG2 with all expansions.

I hope to find some time for that some day soon, because it sounds like an exhaustive experience - and I don't think it'd be a good thing to try with too many extended breaks. So I'll need quite a few days off before attempting something like that.

But thanks for going into detail.

DArtagnan said:

You guys make it sound very appealing, and I'm convinced that I have to give it a complete go - meaning a fully modified BG1-BG2 with all expansions.

I hope to find some time for that some day soon, because it sounds like an exhaustive experience - and I don't think it'd be a good thing to try with too many extended breaks. So I'll need quite a few days off before attempting something like that.

But thanks for going into detail.

Click to expand...

Yeah, me too ... got it installed on my Mac again and the netbook, just need the time!

I strongly recommend doing a full playthrough of BG1 w/Tales -> BG2 w/Thrones, using EasyTuTu to improve BG1 to the level of BG2. It'll take a good 200 hours (or more? It's hard to estimate), so it's something I never even consider unless I'm on vacation, but man.. it's the best RPG experience I can think of.