Baldur's Gate II: Shadows of Amn

"Best RPG? Only among the AD&D games"

GENERAL: Having played Dungeons and Dragons as a child, I was thrilled to hear that a new kind of AD&D RPG was being made -- Balder's Gate. I heard a lot of good stuff about it, bought it, and after a while I regretted my decision. Balder's Gate didn't offer all the character development the reviews and the ads offered, and played like a real-time hack fest which seemed to try too much to emulate Diablo. Sure, it was more complicated, but in the end what you got was a hack fest experience similar to Diablo. The fact that a rather useless multiplayer option seemed to have been ''tacked-on'' almost as an afterthought just gave me the impression that the designer of Balder's Gate was trying to cash in on the popularity of Diablo-style games more than anything else. Balder's Gate was, more or less, a disappointment. Now enter Balder's Gate II. Once again, the reviews and the hype promise a lot of character development, and they claim the game has improved on the original in all ways. Well, once again, I buy the game, play it for a few hours, and realize, ''Holy cow, it's the same thing all over again!''

Well, Balder's Gate II does a great job of emulating AD&D rules; too good, I think. The design team did also did a good job of adapting the rules to the Infinity engine, and they apparently tweaked the rules a bit to balance gameplay. This makes the game good and challenging, which is a good thing, I suppose. The bad side is that people unfamiliar with the AD&D system are totally lost, and esoteric terms (like THAC0) used are not adequately explained. Needless to say, newbiews unfamilar with AD&D will find this game hard to get into technically.

One thing I would like to stress before I go into specifics is that, after almost 20 years of playing Dungeons and Dragons, I'm really starting to see its age. AD&D is so antiquated, it's unfit for today's fast-paced RPG demands. BG2 tries to catch the pace by going real-time, but this just makes the game more action-oriented, and does little to improve the basic system. The problems are numerous.

First off, memorizing spells is so stupid, the mana point system works so much better. Next, no skills! I don't understand why the designers of the Infinity engine did not integrate the non-weapon proficiencies into the game. These would have added a lot of depth to the game, and would enrich character development a lot, allowing you to further customize your character. As it is, ''if you've seen one fighter, you've seen 'em all.'' Generic. Also, the slow, unsatisfying level progression: it takes forever to see a change in your characters. This was bad enough in AD&D as it was, but in BG2 this is worsened by the ''experience cap'' which limits your level. Since there was a level ceiling of about 20, the game is spaced in such a way that you would only gain some 13 levels throughout the entire game; this is ridiculous and utterly unsatisfying, because the best part of an RPG is seeing your character grow. 13 improvements on your character, in a game with over 60 quests on average, is pathetic and totally unappealing.

The Infinity Engine is a good engine -- for real-time strategy. But for a serious RPG, it is downright unwieldy. It was obviously designed to be competitive with real-time games like Diablo and the Dune II-style games, but these games are not serious hard-core RPGs. Real-time fits Diablo-type games because 1.) you control a single character, 2.) use a relatively simple game system, 3.) have an action-oriented hack & slash theme, all of which were integrated first and foremost for multiplayer play. Baldur's Gate 2 is none of these, and multiplayer capability is added onto BGII more as an afterthought than anything else. Real RPGs which focus on story like this should NOT have multiplayer options; it's downright stupid! The designers obviously just wanted to cater to the multiplayer rave; multiplayer is no way integral to the game, and single player would fit it so much better, since the plot really focuses on just the main character.

GAMEPLAY: Real-time is not the only problem; the game is a hack fest with a poorly-construed story mixed in. The only approach to problems in the game is through violence. Just choose how you want to kill -- fighter-oriented or magic-oriented. Thieves don't have much of a role in the game; I suspect that the insane number of traps in the game is just a poor device to get the player to keep a thief with Detect Traps and Open Locks. Why are nearly most of the NPCs stuck with an early dual class thief level, with only those two skills developed? Thieving isn't about opening locks and finding traps; Interplay should look to Looking Glass's Thief for tips on how to make the thief class useful.

There is only one way to do anything, and this almost always involves killing some foozle, and there is always a plethora of traps and often a locked chest with an important item in it. This just lends to a rather artificial world where ''no single character can handle every situation, and you must rely on the strengths of all your party members.'' But sometimes, I like to go the lonewolf and sneak into the wizard's tower to steal that gem and the kidnapped bard; you have no such option to such, though.

The plot is done somewhat better than the original Balder's Gate, and thankfully the awful FMVs which plagued Balder's Gate are gone. But the main plot is handled so unrealistically, with all these side quests popping-up like rabbits, taking your time away from the main plot and making time stretch so unrealistically. You allegedly are just dying to get to Irenicus, there is a sense of urgency for you to finish this task. But you suspend it in limbo, just as you do with most quests in this game. You put things off just like that; it doesn't matter when the ogres are going to arrive to crush this village or so; they'll all just arrive when you damn right have the time to go to the village and kill them.

I'm really getting sick of the quest model in RPGs. Quests supposedly involve PCs and NPCs into events that get the plot going, further character development, and challenge your creative role-playing to come up with solutions. Some games, though, quests are abused as just an excuse to give your PC something to do, for experience. Daggerfall is notorious for this, as the quests are as artificial as the cardboard box you got the game in. Balder's Gate is a little better in this respect, but not much so. The quests in this fashion are rather uninspired, and generally fall into the ''Go here and defend this place'' or the ''Ultimate Artifact'' (get this and bring here) or the ''Kill Foozle'' (slash through minions to kill the boss) type. These basic quest types exist in games everywhere, but in BG2 they just have senseless violence and can only be solved in one fashion. It's only your methodology that is different, and the only variation is that different classes get different quests; that's about it.

I was really thrilled to hear that they were sticking to traditional AD&D rules and giving ''forts'' to the characters. I thought that the environment was going evolve in such a way that you had to manage your own territory, become a lord, run a theatre troup, or what not. I was less than thrilled to discover that these strongholds were nothing more than simple quest extensions which fall into the categories mentioned above, and you basically just do just those things. Sure, it gives you an illusion of owning something, but I don't get the suspension of disbelief that you really are there, governing that stronghold. Why? Because you don't friggin' spend any time there, that's what. You'd much rather go off do quests somewhere else; the only time you really spend at your fort is to do the quests there.

The quest model really needs to be revamped for future RPGs. The last game which made a good effort at the quest system was Fallout 2, which had lots of varied quests doing lots of different things, solvable in various manners. It's sad that the Balder's Gate team didn't learn anything from the Fallout team.

Game mechanics are also dubious. One glaring thing I noticed is that ranged attacks typically have more attacks than normal attacks under core AD&D rules. The Archer class, which specializes in ranged attacks, supposedly has some 3 to 4 attacks per round with a bow. However, when I attack with an archer, I only get one shot on average, two at most, before the enemy closes in and chops me up. Melee attacks, though, seem to follow the number of attacks just fine, and attack rapidly. Also, a long bow supposedly can go over 100 feet in the core rules. In this game, though, you can't see more than 20 feet in front of you, and it is impossible to aim farther than that. I find this ridiculous. Archers are supposed to be snipers; make them useful only at 20 feet forces them to enter melee combat, and that really defeats the purpose of using bows.

The worst aspect of Baldur's Gate 2 gameplay is the use of spell-triggers, which basically turns the game into a rock-paper-scissors setup. Opposing mages all have magic triggers which automatically trigger the moment you appear on screen, casting protective spells which can only be defeated if you have a mage with Breach, Pierce Magic, and similar spells. Mages are a MUST in this game for your party. What this means is that if you have the right spells and strategy, battles are a piece of cake. Don't have them, and you're screwed. Rock-paper-scissors indeed. Jak en Poy anyone?

There is also the matter of forbidden spell-casting. I find this utterly annoying, and it looks nothing more than a cheap plot trick to do some strange plot twist near the start of the game. The Cowled Wizards, as they are called, can apparently sense every single mage spell you or your party cast in the capital, but are totally incapable of sensing the spells cast by slavers and vampires haunting the alleys. In one fight a slaver mage attacked me, casting mirror image and stoneskin before hurling lightning bolts (all in a second!). No cowled enforcer appeared. I suddenly find the time to retaliate and cast a magic missile, and poof! A cowled enforcer appears and starts whacking me. This is a ridiculous inconsistency which really has no place in an RPG; the last time I saw something like this was in Ultima 8. Also annoying is the way everyone -- with exception of the people you are directly involved with -- ignores what you do. There was one instance where I was accosted by a group of fanatics while the city guards were right next to me. I already killed the fanatics and the guards did not even lift a finger. They must really not be payed much. It rather reminds me of Daggerfall or Ultima 9, where you could fight a monster right in the middle of town and no one would even stop to comment. Utterly destroys the illusion that you are in a well-made RPG world.

Another problem I had was with the PC dialogue. While I appreciate the effort made in fleshing out the characters by giving them all these dialogues involving their past, love triangle disputes and what not, I find the timing to be utterly unconvincing. There was one instance when I just walked into a room full of trolls, and I was about to hack their heads off when suddenly one of my party members suddenly gets all sentimental and begins gushing to me about her homeland. Duh. There was another instance when a party memeber suddenly pointed out the sunrise to someone, and it was midnight just after we got out of the graveyard. Stupid. What we need here is a set of triggers keyed to certain events which make such dialogue more likely to occur. They all tend to happen way out of context, and are really nothing more than diversions which are not integral to any emotive effect on the player.

As a final note to the terrible gameplay which plagues this game, there is the issue of linearity. Usually, Japanese console games like Final Fantasy and Suikoden are accused of being ''linear,'' that is, you are led around to follow a plot and can go only one way to do it. You are led by the nose, so to speak, forced to visit locations in a set order. This often turns off traditional PC gamers who like to be able to go where they want, when they want. Well, in BG2 you can basically go where you want, when you want, and do quests in whatever order you see fit. But it is still highly linear once you get into the quests themselves. There is basiclaly only one way to do anything, and the game will force you to do it no matter what you might feel. For instance, there is a quest where someone is ''detained'' by her fiancee because she no longer wants to marry him. I had the striking urge to kill the guy on the spot for his snobbish attitude, but the game would have none of it. Without a choice or even an opportunity to act, my party member is whisked away and I am forced to do a quest to dirty the fiancee's name. Quests and situations like this abound all throughout the game, and I find it pathetic that I am forced to endure such without a good reason. In Japanese RPGs you get a good story that has to happen in a sequence; this is the reason for the linearity. There is no such thing in Balder's Gate, and the linearity of it simply serves to infuriate more than entertain. Why couldn't the BG team learn from the Fallout team, which let you do just about anything you wanted (including massacring an entire town) and still go on with the story? BG2 has the alignment system, but you act out according to the quests, not your alignment. Fallout had no alignments, but I had a greater sense of being ''lawful good'' or ''chaotic evil'' there.

GRAPHICS: The graphics, for the most part, are well done, and look good. However, I do have some complaints. First of all, when people think resolution, they think more is better. 800x600 is always better than 640x480, or so they say. This would be true IF the game took advantage of the increased resoultion to ferret out pixel abberations and such for the purpose of giving a sharper image. But all that BG2 does is put the same graphics and display them smaller into a smaller screen. Thus, you get a smaller picture of the same thing, and that doesn't really count as an improvement. Sure, you get a bigger view of the field, but things are smaller and it really becomes harder to distinguish things.

Which brings me to another point. All the eye candy of BG2 (and all the Infinity games for that matter) don't really do much except make a viewer gawk. I wouldn't normally have a problem with this, but the 3D backgrounds don't really serve any purpose, in fact they even make it difficult to maneuver around and distinguish objects and enemies. I've almost always found that such extravagant ''3D-rendered'' backgrounds don't really add much to play value. Sure, it looks better, but all it really does is distract and often hinder progress. There's a path down there? Oh, I missed it because of all this beautiful shrubbery that's blocking my view. Gasp, there's a dragon hiding behind that bush? Oh my god! While in a real adventure terrain does serve to obscure opponents, the effect is different here. While not quite as bad as Fallout's terrible point-of-view which really obscures all, the Infinity Engine does a pretty good job of obscuring things as well. I get the feel of a cluttered desk-top with a really funky, bizzare wallpaper more than a living picture of a gameworld.

This is one game where details abound, yet do not make the game look sharper. I have trouble distinguishing who's who in my party most of the time, especially when there's a crowd of people all about. Compound that with the 800x600 resolution that everyone is cheering for, I really sometimes have to guess what's going on. I can't imagine people who want to play this on 1200 whatever by 1024, unless they have a 21'' or something.

Another, totally subjective thing I have to complain about are the mugshots. We get some mugshots carried over from BG1, plus some new additions. I'm wondering about the additions, though; is everyone really but ugly that they all have some sort of scar on their face? I heard adventuring life is harsh, but why does everyone seem to have some physical deformity on their face? Ice Wind's mugs were a lot better. It's a good thing you can import your own graphics.

SOUND: Balder's Gate II brings over a lot of sounds from the old BG and adds in a lot of new sounds and music. The music is generally well-done, and fits into the environment well. Music is perhaps the best point of BG2, and the music is not overly orchestral so as to sound cheesy (like Ice Wind Dale). What I don't like about the sounds are the voices. The voice acting is not really all bad; there are some good ones and some bad ones, and subjectivity plays a big role in influencing what you like in this department. However, I definitely have to complain about how NOISY the NPCs, are. The constant chatter is enlivening, somewhat, but after a while it is downright annoying. I don't understand the infatuation the BG team has with giving sounds for everyone. These guys aren't peons in Warcraft or something; why the hell do they sound like 'em!? It is just another evidence of the infatuation with going with the ''in'' thing found in other titles. I have to say, Dune II really made a mess of the PC gaming world with all these voices.

Normally, it wouldn't be such a problem if you liked hearing the voices all the time. But even the best voice acting would probably sound annoying if you kept hearing it over and over and over for 200 hours. And BG2 doesn't exactly have top-notch voice acting in my book. I am especially sick of hearing Yoshimo say ''All the world is blind to my passing'' whenever he uses stealth, and his fake Japanese accent is downright annoying. (Sou desu ne, anyone?)

Another annoying thing with the voices is that everyone person of the same class seems to be born with the same voice and the same lines, even if they are actually saying something totally different. I call it the ''Get me out of this hell-hole'' syndrome. I don't see the point in going over to a barkeep dwarf and click on him, only to hear him say, ''I need a sprig of some dwarven ale'' when he is saying something totally different in the dialog box. Dwarves across the realm all seem to say the same thing. It's totally inconsistent, as well, how some NPCs actually say what they're saying in the dialogue box while some don't.

REPLAYABILITY: The game is easily replayable in terms of trying out all the class combinations, and perhaps cleaning up some quests you missed the first time around. However, since all situations are highly linear, there is only really one way to do things for the most part, so your second trip around will still basically follow the same pattern as the first one. There are a few points in the game which allow you to change the story flow to a limited extent, but it's not something to really want to play again. Bottom line is, if you like the game system, you won't mind replaying the game over and over. If you hate the game system, once around is a struggle enough.

BOTTOMLINE: With that said, Balders Gate II as a whole is an okay game, but not a great game, not something totally new and ingenious that would grip you heart and soul. All of you who do seem to be losing sleep over it... well, I guess we each have our own standards. But this review proposes a rare, alternative view of Balder's Gate II which is contrary to what everyone else seems to think. Take it with a grain of salt.

Baldur's Gate II is definitely the best among the AD&D CRPGs to come out, but as I've made clear I am not impressed by the AD&D system at all, and almost any other RPG system outdoes it, these days. BG2 may blow the old Gold Box games and even its Infinity Engine predecessors, but it certainly doesn't hold a candle to Fallout in terms of gameplay. And in terms of story, it doesn't even do well enough against mediocre console RPGs like Legend of Dragoon, much less masterpieces like Suikoden and Final Fantasy. Overall, disappointing.

OVERALL: 4/10
GAMEPLAY: 4/10
GRAPHICS: 6/10
SOUND: 5/10
REPLAYBILITY: 7/10

Reviewer's Score: 4/10, Originally Posted: 05/29/01, Updated 05/29/01