Jump to navigation
Advertisement

Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance II Review

Xbox PlayStation 2 Review by Ronan Jennings

18 March, 2004

When Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance was first released, it made more than a few RPG fans uncomfortable. While we were happy to see a new game based on the revered Forgotten Realms universe, we weren't so happy about the choice of genre - unlike the previous games to bear the Baldur's Gate name, Dark Alliance was a straightforward hackandslash. Where 'die' had once been the singular form of 'dice', now it was merely something to scream at hordes of goblin archers...

Yet surprisingly, despite our initial misgivings, Dark Alliance turned out to be a great game. And, in the true spirit of role-playing, was far more fun to play with a friend than alone. So it should surprise no one to see that a sequel has hit the shelves - but does the simplistic gameplay still hold up in the second outing?

Memories To Treasure

'Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance II' Screenshot 1

Dark Alliance II is a game that I waited a long time to play. This anticipation had nothing to do with fantasy, RPGs or pretty Elven women; rather, it was a result of the utterly brilliant time I had playing the first game through with a friend. In fact, during its short lifespan Dark Alliance was probably the most compelling co-op game I've ever experienced.

But, truth be told, while most people probably played the game like a medieval Streets of Rage - working together to kill everything - my friend and I placed much more emphasis on 'loot racing'. Basically, we got far more laughs out of running to treasure and levelling up than simply hacking our way through hundreds of enemies.

The truth is that without the loot and the ability to customise characters, Dark Alliance would have been no more than a very polished, slightly boring slashfest. But though its sequel places even more emphasis on character differentiation and customisation, there's no doubt that some of the fun has been lost along the way.

Uncomfortable Alliance

'Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance II' Screenshot 2

Unlike its predecessor, Dark Alliance II was developed by Black Isle Studios and not Snowblind. Considering their past handling of the Baldur's Gate licence, this was never likely to bother fans of the first game. Yet unfortunately the game has suffered as a result of this transition, Black Isle Studios or no. For the most part this is a worthy sequel, but a few of the changes made - and the changes that weren't - might divide fans of the original.

A perfect example of this lies with the five new characters to choose from. (The original three heroes have been kidnapped by the game's antagonist, a vampire, so they aren't available to select this time around.) There's much more variety in the sequel, with a necromancer, monk and rogue now complimenting the standard warrior and cleric classes. On the plus side, each of these characters plays very differently from the others, and abilities reflect their class far more than in the first game. For instance, the Dwarven rogue is the only character who can forge weapons for cheap, while the necromancer summons creatures to aid him in battle.

The negative side to this though is that it places a bigger gap between players in co-op mode. In other words, the competitive aspect of the two-player game is negated slightly. After all, monks and warriors rarely find themselves racing after the same weapons and armour, or even fighting with the same degree of effectiveness.

Di-looting the gameplay

'Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance II' Screenshot 3

This increased differentiation between characters is something that most people (especially single players) will welcome, because it does prolong the game's lifespan. And, truth be told, I would have welcomed it too were it not for one very silly change made to the game's core engine. In the first game, any gold that was picked up by a player was his and his only. In addition, any cash gained from selling loot was also separated from other players. In other words, each player had his or her own little stockpile of gold. So when you wanted to buy new equipment and items, it was the loot that you had collected that dictated your spending power. You can see where this is going, right? In Dark Alliance II, the gold is shared between players. It doesn't matter if you pick it up on the ground or sell a weapon - any income is made available to both players.

Thus the emphasis has switched from killing enemies and racing for the loot they drop to, well, just killing them. As a result, players now have no option but to work together - it doesn't matter who kills what creature, because there are no benefits to being a step ahead of your friend. So happy-happy friends who like nothing more than to share and share alike will love this change. Meanwhile, my miserly friend and I resorted to a calculator to work out who had earned the most gold - which is more akin to real role-playing than a hackandslash. [And bloody boring in any event. -Ed]

Forging ahead (or not, as the case may be)

'Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance II' Screenshot 4

If the move away from loot racing doesn't bother you, then there's little else Dark Alliance II does wrong. Just like all safe sequels, it lives by the adage 'if it ain't broke don't fix it'. This time around, there are about 80 levels to play through (about ten hours of gameplay), a whole bunch of new enemies, a few optional side quests and some nice tweaks to the controls. In terms of progression, the only real difference between this and Dark Alliance is that the first game felt like it had better structure to it. In fact, DAII feels more like an expansion pack in that regard, with players sometimes given the option to complete quests in any order they choose. As with the removal of loot racing, the developer seems to have misjudged what made the original game so charming.

Another changes that backfires is the new 'forging' option. As you might imagine this lets players take equipment of 'fine' quality and customise it into an enchanted item. To do this however requires the use of gems and rune stones, which are then attached to the item. Finding or buying the stones (and then paying to have them forged into new items) is both expensive and slightly repetitive. After the first few creations, the activity becomes more of a chore than an act of interest. Perhaps a better option would have been to spread an abundance of unique equipment across each mission, but I'm sure many gamers will prefer the idea of making their own. As with the other slight changes, it really depends on how you like to play the game.

Aesthetically, Dark Alliance II is virtually identical to its predecessor. Obviously there are the new characters, enemies and equipment, plus some pretty landscapes, but the engine remains exactly the same. The voice acting and lovely water effects are as good as ever, while the plot is slightly more complex (though unremarkable, nonetheless). Overall, the whole experience just picks up where the first game left off.

A role to play

It's hard not to be disappointed in Dark Alliance II. However, it's equally hard to criticise such a polished effort. On the one hand, it offers more of the great hack and slash gameplay that - for some strange reason - no one has emulated properly since the first Dark Alliance. On the other hand, the magic of the original has definitely been diluted, where it really should have been enhanced.

As it stands, this is still a highly enjoyable two-player affair, but the lack of four-player and online support - even on Xbox - smacks of a by-the-numbers attitude. Meanwhile the forthcoming Champions of Norrath offers both and it was developed by Snowblind. Whether Norrath will take Dark Alliance's mantle remains to be seen, but either way fans of the genre will have plenty to shout about. Even if they just end up shouting 'die'.

7/10

Read our Scoring Policy

Advertisement

Are you excited about Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance II on Xbox?
View Eurogamer readers most anticipated games

Thanks!

Want to comment on this article? Log in, or register!

Comments: 1-32 of 32 in total

Poster
Comment Low-scoring comments hidden. Log in to see them!
squaylor
18/03/04 @ 09:09
#1
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Picked this up in the GAME deal of the day period last month, it's on my shelf waiting for my attention. Will definately try this as co-op first...
Macross
18/03/04 @ 09:15
#2
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
yeah its great ive been playing it through with my housemate, I personally would have given it an 8, it is a vast improvement over the first game. One thing though, if you do play it coop play it on hard mode, we are on normal and it is way too easy (well the first level or so was a bit hard on occasion but later on its a total piece of piss).
UncleLou
18/03/04 @ 09:17
#3
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Doesn't sound too bad, but I'll wait for Champions of Norrath - which, if the reviews are to be believed, is far superior to this one here.
blablabla
18/03/04 @ 09:31
#4
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
I've played it a wee bit. It's fun but Baldurs Gate without all of the customisation and so completely linear is just not the same. :(
Hicksy
18/03/04 @ 09:41
#5
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
i think it is worth an 8 as well - the game definitely gets better as you get into it and by enlarge is a lot of fun : )
spelk
18/03/04 @ 10:06
#6
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
I think people who like to 'loot race' will be in the minority. It's co-operative, not competitive. If you want competition, go play some different game.

Dungeons and Dragons Heroes was a good stab at doing this sort of thing. And it was released before BG:DAII.

BG:DA as a thinking mans action RPG, was such a refreshing change from the revamped Gauntlet series, and it was so well done, that I think BG:DAII just gives more and more, but along the same lines. Anyone who enjoyed the first, will enjoy the second. And in a co-op game, loot sharing is a good thing. Your party are meant to interlock and support each other, with your unique traits - it isn't meant to be a see who can be "the best" because of your unique traits.
Machiavel
18/03/04 @ 10:07
#7
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Loot racing is great - especially when your mate cops it and you get to hear his entreaties of 'let's return to the circle' while you act like a human homicidal dyson. Actually, you make a very good point as I hadn't considered that aspect as being the cause of such fun!
Chris Gardiner
18/03/04 @ 10:11
#8
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Hm. I disagree with this review (gasp!). I thought DA2 was noticeably better than DA1 - the characters are more interesting, their abilities are more diverse, and each level of an ability you buy has more of an impact than in the first game, where putting a point in a skill made very little difference.

A number of Ronan's points are specific to this freaky loot-race game he plays with his friend (weirdo! ;) ), whereas I played with someone I got on with, and found the co-op improvements much better.

Still a fine review, though, since the reviewer's preferences are obvious and discussed.
Chris Gardiner
18/03/04 @ 10:12
#9
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Having said that, I think 7 out of 10 is spot on.
Mugwum [staff]
18/03/04 @ 10:15
#10
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Oh look, I monked up the screenshots/captions! [Fixes]
Abscido
18/03/04 @ 10:35
#11
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
"I think people who like to 'loot race' will be in the minority. It's co-operative, not competitive. If you want competition, go play some different game."

Well, I should clarify that (for me and my friend at least) loot racing only complimented the game's core co-op gameplay - but it was essential to the fun nonetheless!

"Loot racing is great - especially when your mate cops it and you get to hear his entreaties of 'let's return to the circle' while you act like a human homicidal dyson."

Exactly!! :)
Nemesis
18/03/04 @ 10:43
#12
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Loot racing is the core of H&S if you ask me. Many a game of Heroquest was loot racing and it adds that element of greed to proceedings.

/enters room

/skips past monster

/runs to treasure chest
mentat [mod]
18/03/04 @ 11:08
#13
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
of course the other option was to let your mate run past to pick up the treasure, wait for him to start attacking the monsters, then unleash a hail of fireballs at him. He dies, you run around for a while without touching a pillar and you get far more cash than he managed :)
Of course this only worked if you picked the sourceress *snigger*
Abscido
18/03/04 @ 11:45
#14
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
"/enters room

/skips past monster

/runs to treasure chest"


Hahaha! How many times have I done that? ;). Or waiting for my friend to open a chest, then jumping and pressing X to make sure I snatched the 'bouncing' contents from under his nose.
Chris Gardiner
18/03/04 @ 12:47
#15
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Pah! Loot racing (has Ronan just coined a new term there?) is only a good thing in games that let you hack your 'friend' down for being a greedy pig-dog.

;)
Soul_quake
18/03/04 @ 12:49
#16
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Have been playing this with a house mate as well... and am loving it!

Never played it co-op before, but we have only argued about the gold when mate buys weapon as necro and then decides he doesn't like and sells for half the amount!!! Otherwise no complaints!
spelk
18/03/04 @ 13:18
#17
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
"There is nothing better than destroying an enemy and taking all the hard earned cash."

You do realise you are in an adventuring party, its team based if you are playing it co-op. Why not just fire up the single player mode, and you can have ALL the cash you ever wanted. I don't understand this so called thrill of beating your companions to the gold. Do you also get a thrill from racing after the leet bow, that you can't use but your companion can? And you take some pleasure in witholding it from them?

"My and my mate now have to gentlemenly agree on who's gonna buy what?!?!"

Well, it is a party based adventure. The whole point of having different classes is so they compliment each other. "You tank" whilst I zap. That sort of thing. Why then would you make it so that you have to compete for the spoils of the kill? That goes against the whole ethos of party based co-operative adventuring. In fact, online, in say Neverwinter Nights, or Dungeon Siege, you'd be considered a liability to the party.

"Why change this game feature, it's rubbish."

I don't think 'loot race' was originally included in the design of the first game, do you? It seems to be players adding their own silly competitiveness to a co-operative game. Perhaps it is fun to go against the natural flow of the game, but perhaps, the change to share gold was made to enrich the co-operative play. I like it. Its not rubbish. It supports the co-operative gameplay, very nicely indeed.

"I want my own money so I can by the daddy of all daddy weapons, and not have to ask permission like my mates my Dad!!!!!!"

Ah right, so you like the biggest and the best, and you like to brag about it. I can see why you insist on this 'loot racing' being the crux of why BG:DAII has let you down. Why not go play a proper lewt grabbing game, instead of bitching about a feature you claim is essential being ruined by proper co-operative game design?
spelk
18/03/04 @ 13:22
#18
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
"I played through as the neuromancer, which was probably a mistake as 90% of the time I stand at the back holding "circle" (PS2) casting enervation, making the whole game pretty darn dull to be honest."

Well if you will play the vulnerable caster, you have to sacrifice the ability to go at it with melee. There is enough flexibility in the Necro to alter his play style and use different tactics, but if exciting is all out action at the front, then try playing it as a barbarian or another more involved combat character.
infoxicated
18/03/04 @ 13:27
#19
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
With the levels being more expansive than the previous game, it does seem to get a little samey after a while. The "cash pool" is fine by me - last time round we'd end up buying stuff for each other anyway. It's not as if cash is tight, either - you can build up quite a surplus after a while.

Those horrendous "friday afternoon monster" blobs of jelly are back and more dangerous to boot, although they don't re-appear until quite a way into the game. If they were going to keep the "wobbly object" code in there, couldn't we have had a return of the barmaid with the unfeasably wobbly bazongas instead of the jelly monsters?! :o)
Macross
18/03/04 @ 13:41
#20
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
i agree with spelk totally, me and my mate find the game alot more enjoyable now that we share the cash. we dont argue as much, we cooperate more over monsters cos we arent trying to be annoying little buggers and run straight for all the cash, it creates a much nicer atmosphere in the living room :)

we have no trouble with ppl buying stuff they want as we are both low maintenance characters (necro and monk) neither of us use weapons so we only spend on armour and magic stuff and at the moment we have 200k surplus in our bank so we can buy pretty much whatever we like, no arguments :)
Abscido
18/03/04 @ 14:50
#21
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
"That goes against the whole ethos of party based co-operative adventuring. "

Look, Dark Allinace is not co-op adventuring. It's a hackandslash. That's all. If you were playing a more tactical online game, then of course loot racing would be annoying, but in the case of DA the loot is the equivilant to power ups in old side-scrollers. It's an action game, and though the first priority is to work together in order to beat the game, everyone wants the best 'power up' for themselves. It's not done in the name of greed - it's done in the name of fun!

If my friend ever needed money for a better weapon, I'd always give it to him, but I'd want the best stuff for myself :).

Anyway, this leads to one of my bigger criticisms of the game; if the levels were better designed, then more emphasis would be placed on tactics, but as it is the game is just a thoroughly satisfying hackfest. There's no NEED to work together - after all, the game is also designed to be played alone.
mortykun
18/03/04 @ 15:27
#22
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
one thing that is nice about sharing lute - when you're teamed up with that Dark Elf, it makes buying experiance her sister much easier :) - bought 16000 experiance points last time - now we need to get up to 32000 gold for the next one :)
spelk
18/03/04 @ 15:29
#23
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
"Look, Dark Allinace is not co-op adventuring. It's a hackandslash. That's all"

Erm, with more than one player it is a co-op adventure. It's all hack and slash - if you're using that generic term to define an action RPG.

"It's an action game, and though the first priority is to work together in order to beat the game, everyone wants the best 'power up' for themselves. It's not done in the name of greed - it's done in the name of fun!"

I do not believe they designed the game's multiplayer mode, to include this notion of "loot racing" and to berate this game based on the function of gold-sharing between your party is ludicrous.

"If my friend ever needed money for a better weapon, I'd always give it to him, but I'd want the best stuff for myself :)."

The gold sharing is designed to make you play better with your party members. You can easily equip everyone with the stuff they need. Become a better team. Obviously everyone would like the best stuff for themselves, but in the interest of co-op play - the idea is to exploit everyones characters advantages. Tweaking characters in RPG's is all about that.

"Anyway, this leads to one of my bigger criticisms of the game; if the levels were better designed, then more emphasis would be placed on tactics, but as it is the game is just a thoroughly satisfying hackfest. "

How would you design the levels better then?

The majority of the classes available are melee based, so it has been designed to satisfy the most lusty of hack and slashers yes, but there are subtleties to the gameplay that a well oiled team can reveal over a crowd of axe wielding maniacs.

"There's no NEED to work together - after all, the game is also designed to be played alone."

Indeed, you can play it single player. But whack the difficulty up, get a bunch of friends with very different character designs and you can all tweak them up to be a very effective adventuring party. Surely thats what this action RPG serves. Its pick up and play, co-op, dungeons and dragons style action adventuring.
Mugwum [staff]
18/03/04 @ 15:33
#24
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Hello Ian. Gosh, someone really spiked your tea today didn't they? :-)

"Ah right, so you like the biggest and the best, and you like to brag about it. I can see why you insist on this 'loot racing' being the crux of why BG:DAII has let you down. Why not go play a proper lewt grabbing game, instead of bitching about a feature you claim is essential being ruined by proper co-operative game design?"

Surely the "proper" way of handling a delicate point like this would be to have an option in the game to choose how loot is distributed...
EVERYGAMER
18/03/04 @ 15:34
#25
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
"If my friend ever needed money for a better weapon, I'd always give it to him, but I'd want the best stuff for myself :)."

What if your friend wanted the best and had done all the hard work killing the monsters, while you ponced around like a theiving fairy?

Mugwum [staff]
18/03/04 @ 15:35
#26
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
"Its pick up and play, co-op, dungeons and dragons style action adventuring."

I don't think 7/10 is an unreasonable score for an unadventurous sequel that makes a few mistakes in trying to recapture what made the original good for most of the people who played it. Besides, Ronan was quite clear that it simply didn't appeal to him as much as he expected, and he was quite clear about why that was. If we presented this as a definitive opinion (a pretty laughable concept if you ask me) of the game, then I'd understand this backlash, but you seem to be getting all het up for nothing.
Mugwum [staff]
18/03/04 @ 15:36
#27
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
"What if your friend wanted the best and had done all the hard work killing the monsters, while you ponced around like a theiving fairy?"

Reminds me of the time I played Diablo 2 with Spelk...
spelk
18/03/04 @ 16:22
#28
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
"Surely the "proper" way of handling a delicate point like this would be to have an option in the game to choose how loot is distributed..."

I suppose that would cover all bases. Perhaps BG:DAIII then?
spelk
18/03/04 @ 16:23
#29
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
"If we presented this as a definitive opinion (a pretty laughable concept if you ask me) of the game, then I'd understand this backlash, but you seem to be getting all het up for nothing."

Well, I am King of the Wrong End of the Stick. What do you expect?
spelk
18/03/04 @ 16:24
#30
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
"Reminds me of the time I played Diablo 2 with Spelk..."

You cheeky monkey. My fairy's are always healing ones, never thieving ones!
Abscido
18/03/04 @ 16:52
#31
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
"To berate this game based on the function of gold-sharing between your party is ludicrous."

In fairness, I did no such thing - as Tom said, 7/10 is quite a good score. It was simply a criticism (among the positives) based on my own opinion! In every other review I've read, no one mentioned the gold sharing, and I was quite annoyed to discover it myself.

""Surely the "proper" way of handling a delicate point like this would be to have an option in the game to choose how loot is distributed..."

I intended to mention that in the review, but forgot. I'm regretting it now though!!

Spelk, we'll just have to meet up online for a game of Champions of Norrath and I'll show you the joys of loot racing. :)
Daryoon
18/03/04 @ 19:14
#32
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
in the name of fun!

Surely this should be the most important factor? Who cares if it goes against "D&D-style team-based adventuring" as long as its fun?
Edited 2 times, most recently on 18/03/04 @ 23:07

Comments: 1-32 of 32 in total

Want to comment on this article? Log in, or register!

X View gallery