The Inside Scoop on Gaming

Unlike most Baldur's Gate-fans, I am dissapointed with the sequel to perhaps the best fantasy RPG for the PC ever. While there are more quests to complete, the overall impression is that it has little of that special magic the original game possessed. Why, you cry?

First, there are so few maps to explore. One of the great things about the original was that you could explore many maps, strolling in the Sword Coast countryside hoping to meet exciting NPCs or enemies to defeat. In "Shadows...", you are limited to much fewer areas to explore, and most city areas don't even need exploring; no fog of war there. While the game IS bigger than the original, you keep doing quests on the same maps. The areas themselves are great; better graphics and sounds, but all areas are more difficult to traverse - for example, the area known as the Druid's Grove restricts your character's movement choices severely.

Second, the story is weaker. Much weaker. In the course of the first ten hours I understood most of the plot point "secrets", no surprises here. So obvious, it made me actually want to do something else than play (never happened with the original).

Third, the quests are very similar, both to those found in the original, and compared to each other within the game itself. In the end, all you do is run from point A to point B, sometimes via point C, over the few maps you have. Click on this NPC, click on that NPC, kill that monster, go back to this NPC etc.

Those were my three negative points. Of course, I cannot be entirely negative about this game - oh no, because it's still damn likeable.

First, there are the improvements in gameplay. Things you couldn't do in BG: write in your journals yourself (very handy), add text to any maps you explore (handy when you plan to kill that dragon another time, and want to remember the location of its lair), the characters have less trouble interacting with the environment, and things like this. One of the better improvements found in "Icewind Dale", watching the characters move across your map, has not been implemented, to my great dissapointment. Speaking of "Icewind Dale", I feel that "Shadows..." is cheapened by the appearance of approximately every creature originally appearing in that game. All the "Icewind" monsters, like the trolls, ice trolls, goblins, orcs etc. Of course, they needed some of the beasts, but still...

In the end, "Shadows..." is a fantastic game on it's own, but for those who have played the other Bioware-products, it feels like a quick mix of "BG", "Tales of the Sword Coast", "Icewind Dale" and the "Fallout"-games.

I do enjoy much of the game - when the atmosphere is there - but mostly, I feel it lacks. I played "BG" 3 times in succession, but I struggled to keep up my interest for "SOA".

Style: 2 (Needs Work)
Substance: 4 (Meaty)

Baldur's Gate 2: Shadows of Amn
Author: Bioware Category: CRPG Company/Publisher: Interplay/WotC Line: Forgotten Realms Cost: varies Page count: n/a Playtest Review by Remy Verhoeve on 10/16/00. Genre tags: Fantasy	Unlike most Baldur's Gate-fans, I am dissapointed with the sequel to perhaps the best fantasy RPG for the PC ever. While there are more quests to complete, the overall impression is that it has little of that special magic the original game possessed. Why, you cry? First, there are so few maps to explore. One of the great things about the original was that you could explore many maps, strolling in the Sword Coast countryside hoping to meet exciting NPCs or enemies to defeat. In "Shadows...", you are limited to much fewer areas to explore, and most city areas don't even need exploring; no fog of war there. While the game IS bigger than the original, you keep doing quests on the same maps. The areas themselves are great; better graphics and sounds, but all areas are more difficult to traverse - for example, the area known as the Druid's Grove restricts your character's movement choices severely. Second, the story is weaker. Much weaker. In the course of the first ten hours I understood most of the plot point "secrets", no surprises here. So obvious, it made me actually want to do something else than play (never happened with the original). Third, the quests are very similar, both to those found in the original, and compared to each other within the game itself. In the end, all you do is run from point A to point B, sometimes via point C, over the few maps you have. Click on this NPC, click on that NPC, kill that monster, go back to this NPC etc. Those were my three negative points. Of course, I cannot be entirely negative about this game - oh no, because it's still damn likeable. First, there are the improvements in gameplay. Things you couldn't do in BG: write in your journals yourself (very handy), add text to any maps you explore (handy when you plan to kill that dragon another time, and want to remember the location of its lair), the characters have less trouble interacting with the environment, and things like this. One of the better improvements found in "Icewind Dale", watching the characters move across your map, has not been implemented, to my great dissapointment. Speaking of "Icewind Dale", I feel that "Shadows..." is cheapened by the appearance of approximately every creature originally appearing in that game. All the "Icewind" monsters, like the trolls, ice trolls, goblins, orcs etc. Of course, they needed some of the beasts, but still... In the end, "Shadows..." is a fantastic game on it's own, but for those who have played the other Bioware-products, it feels like a quick mix of "BG", "Tales of the Sword Coast", "Icewind Dale" and the "Fallout"-games. I do enjoy much of the game - when the atmosphere is there - but mostly, I feel it lacks. I played "BG" 3 times in succession, but I struggled to keep up my interest for "SOA". Style: 2 (Needs Work) Substance: 4 (Meaty)

Baldur's Gate 2: Shadows of Amn