Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
6 
Report this post
SOD's prologue serves as a bridge from end of BG1 to events in SOD. Some of the BG1 companions will leave, yes, and items in inventory will show up in a chest at Ducal Palace later, but you may need to apply some meta-gaming to avoid losing equipped stuff. As before in BG1 and as in BG2 whenever you take items from a companion and send him/her away naked just because PLAYER is a like a god who can just do that. With more complex role-playing choices with regard to companions, some sort of barter trade would be required, since companions would not simply give away their equipment.
I tried Pathfinder Kingmaker. That I want to play.But SoD. ugh. Just want it to end.
And they put in Irenicus? Gross. It's ruining the whole BG saga for me.
Sounds like a weak argument. What precisely does the "Hooded Man" ruin for you? BG2's start is extremely poor. Whereas BG1 tells and shows the assassination of Gorion and his ward, BG2 starts within a rather nonsensical prison dungeon without telling how an entire party of heroes has managed to get imprisoned. It's extra lame that Minsc and Jaheira are still alive for no reason other than to offer a few story companions while other companions not limited to Dynaheir and Khalid either reappear dead or don't reappear at all.
I just would rather they don't touch the original story for new players. It's like trying to discuss the book version of Hobbit with someone who has only seen the movies. It doesn't work. Though its not as bad, haha.
I played BG2 when it came out. I didn't mind starting fresh. Only loss over one I felt was the world was smaller, and you started too high a level iirc.
And losing npc's between the two games was okay, I don't see why they should vanish in BG1 though. It's still same game. And for evil characters it hurts having to group with all these others who are upset my reputation is 3. Haha.
No, it isn't. It is cheap and cheesy. Just like it isn't okay for NPCs killed in BG1 to reappear in BG2. Like Edwin, and player then can say "But I've killed you in BG1". OMG! Sure, someone may have resurrected a killed Edwin, but it's a cheap solution, and the same can't be done with Khalid and Dynaheir. If player has had Ajantis as a fulltime companion in BG1, it is just lousy that Ajantis can't be saved in BG2. This is not a movie where authors kill important characters just for fun. It's a role-playing game. On the contrary, if creating up to five custom companions, those are not affected by the story telling penalties - it's really odd.
With regard to quest design, story progression and protagonist's role, a full evil aligned party with truely evil choices has never been a good idea in BG1/BG2. The games are meant to be played with a good, neutral or balanced party.
---
I meant it's okay to lose npc's between games because of game development logistics. It's not the same design team exactly, and even if so they've grown as artists and want to try new things. I for one hated Faldorn was only an enemy in BG2. She was a great teammate to me in game one, because I had to learn how to use her properly to defeat the game, and her personality and back story were interesting enough to me. So I know what you mean. But since it's same .exe and supposedly just more chapters for game one, why not throw everybody in?
---
And Nah, evil was fine in original games. The main character is child of an evil god, and original writers always gave a reason to stay on main path beyond helping anyone for good reasons. There's also a ton of treasure to hoard. And if anyone insults your main npc, he can kill him. Basically an evil pc can 'live' in the game world of BG1 and 2. But SoD, they just disabled any real penalties from being evil, and didn't give us good evil party members to play with beyond Viconia and Edwin. It's just a lesser game.
The system for game 1 was also supposed to take reputation for just attacking and not killing an innocent. But it wasn't coded properly. Charm spells were supposed to allow for abuse of shopkeepers. Not sure if the code never worked right or if the original devs broke the code because people could clear out a shopkeep at too low a level. And compared to other games, I think overall BG1, 2, and ToB allows for much more sinister characters than most rpgs. Fallout 2 was worse with the whole slaving and criminal enterprise thing. And maybe that Tyranny game or what's it called is better, I don't know.
I do notice that SoD devs put in evil dialogue. But it feels an afterthought. Like nothing major happens if you say the stuff. In game one it's fun pushing the limit and running from the authorities.
I do agree balanced party can be fun. Having them fight or risk losing some npcs is good time tho.My evil run thru and first attempt at SoD just came to a crashing halt. I really did want to give it a shot.
Not really a viable option without abusing temple donations as to influence reputation, refusing to accept various quests (that would require good deeds) and more sacrifices like rejecting rewards. Bhaal doesn't mandate the alignment of Gorion's ward. The games are meant to be played with a balanced reputation and at most a mix of companions with different alignment - as to experience banter and inter-character quarreling. Of course, there are some explicitly evil options, like Minsc vs Edwin, saving Dynaheir vs eliminating her, or in BG2 choosing the vampires as allies rather than the shadow thieves - but even a brute-force full evil party strictly depends on help from NPCs and an allied faction, and the related role-playing options aren't well implemented in the games. What some players do is they bend the alignment system and apply imaginary role-playing in their heads as to justify their ingame decisions. So, for example, they pretend they help a good aligned NPC just for the cash. Uh! The games would need to offer many more opportunities to apply intimidation, stealing, murdering and other truely evil actions.
I haven't touched BG2EE, did the main story get touched in it because of SoD garbage?
The whole story of SoD is kind of fine too but the very end... both the Calear ending and the forced prison and escape... gosh, those are so terrible plotholes I would cry.
As for evil - even though I did many playthroughts with evil party, BG is not and NEVER was designed for some really evil playthroughts or choices. There is very few of explicitly evil choices and usually comes with very poor reward while reputation system simply dont allow play evil properly or consistently. (after all it is reasonable, it is very very hard to make some "epic adventure" and story for evil characters.. only few games like KOTOR did it well) As Damarr mentioned - roleplay evil (as eg. refuse all good deeds that reward rep) means lock out of half of quests and rewards with in fact nothing in return.
In general BG is not so well designed for "roleplay" - either by alignment or on Lawful - Chaotic scale. At same time though I would say SoD has two very different choices in lot of quests that usually both offer adequate rewards - so imho it is much better than original game in this regard (where evil chocie - if it occasionally exists, usually jsut mean lose quest reward, kill NPC and deal with reputation)
NPC though, evil again got the best - Dorn, Edwin, Baeloth, Viconia - all by far best (stat wise strongest) NPCs in game, there is only not option of evil thief so player is stuck with Safana as closes alignment. Btw there are mods for other chars and it is not hard put any of existing as mod - however they do not have proper interactions in SoD of course.
The manipulated accusation of Iron throne members killing could be somehow justified and had some logic but sentence greatest hero of 3 cities just like it was done.. I can not easily accept.
And that whole Caelar case with holy crusade to hell.. while wreck havoc over the coast and directly cause many innocent dies and suffer... with plan of many more to die for unlikely saving her uncle... it is very poor at least. All the messing with hell by good characters is big disrespect of lore, but I would not hesitate mark it as total zealous idiocy for the character as it dont follow either lawful or good really.. It is more some zerg paladin with INT 3 at best. And selling the soul to devil.. WTF. For me something like Icewind dale 2 twist or simply make her real evil character with plan to open the hell for their own purposes (everyone udnerstand why Sarevok spread chaos and wanted big conflicts - but if explanation would be that he was tricked to that for some fooolish reason.. it would be same meh) instead make her "fooled one divine being" would work here sooo much better.
Not even with friends of Gorion and the tutors. The framing of the party is hardcoded, even if not killing Rieltar and the IT guys as a role-playing choice. Koveras being permitted to move freely within Candlekeep, although the protagonist is warned that Koveras is a strange visitor. Anyone who knows him? Tethoril isn't available to talk about Koveras, although he trusts Gorion's ward as to help him later. Shapeshifters replacing some former tutors and acquaintances, but only some. Others won't listen and won't cooperate. Worse, no witnesses, nobody hearing sounds of battle inspite of various people running around in the library.
No way to enter the catacombs earlier, which are infested with various creatures for no specific reason. And suddenly, you encounter more shapeshifters disguised as former acquaintances, who should have no idea that the party is down there. Oh, and finally on the way out, there is even a party of Sarevok's lackeys waiting in a cave as if they knew exactly where to intercept the bhaalspawn. Of course they took all that effort to avoid basilisks and spiders as to get there.
The game falls apart quite a bit in the chapter. It gets a bit better within the city of Baldur's Gate again, but chasing Sarevok is the next content that feels rushed.
In last chapter it is somehow strange/rushed too - like your are not at all needed to get to bottom of things, get and read Sarevok diary, save Eltan.. And ti can be bit confusing for unaware player what exactly is going on and how to proceed. One could even argue that the main plot twist that PC is child of Bhaal and motives of Sarevok is provided bit subtly and can be even missed by large part (especially if you dont read his diary or talk with Tameko)
Btw in last playthrougth I went with and saw very first time Husam and Amn thieves leading through Ilmater shrine - it is new in 2.6? Never saw it in dozens games in EE or original BG alike.. was somehow hoping they will find their way to ceremony as promsied - that would be truly epic.
Anyway as whole ti worked for me better than SoD ending though - and Beamdog had enough time to do all as they wanted - for me personally it was nice big suprise they even went with something like expand content with SoD and it was unexpected (now I still wish they will find that hidden IWD2 sourcecode on some hidden floppy or whatever:p
And those location design is always bothering if you focus on that in games - eg. how that child party went through Durlag tower to very bottom with all riddles, sealed passages, monsters and traps leaving behind untouched... But other great games had it too (always was curious how exactly Enclove soldiers leave their trapped base in Fallout... and so on)
It is not new content, but one of the better events within the city.