I'm not sure if this has been mentioned in the thread thus far (there are a ton of entries) but I also hope that Adventure Y offers some additional romance dialogues/options (perhaps some initial ones for viconia, or some more for Neera, perhaps being able to romance some other not currently romancible BGIEE characters) and some more banter/dialogues between the other party members and the main character and between each other. This was something I always really enjoyed about BGII and enhanced the role playing. I hope that they do something similar for Adventure Y...
One day I hope we get the choice to keep Imoen a rogue. There can't be that much to change if she was a rogue. Just have her hold a wand of magic missiles in the starting dungeon then remove one party chatter she has with Nalia in ToB about being archmages.
This. 9 out of 10 small, odoriferous mammals agree!
The evil alternative canon party idea sounds fun. Maybe Dorn and Viconia instead of Minsc and Jaheira. Imoen doesn't seem like she's replacable without breaking the BG2 plot, though.
Last i seen this, there are more than 2 combos, not just a simple evil alternative.
The conjunction of these statements raises some questions. If there are to be alternative canon parties for BG2ee, as asserted by @Avenger_teambg, surely the NPCs involved have to be with you in Irenicus's dungeon when you start BG2ee, else how can it qualify as a "canon party"? But in that case, surely those NPCs have to be re-located from wherever they were before?
The only way I can see to make both of these statements true is to assume that @PhillipDaigle is being very careful in his use of the phrase "BG2 NPCs", which could be construed to mean "original BG2 NPCs" as opposed to the new EE characters.
Let's consider what options are readily available for re-locating the EE NPCs.
Neera and Rasaad are both currently introduced (in BG2ee) with auto-play scenes illustrating their respective difficulties with the Red Wizards and the Sun Soul Monks, and it'd be very awkward to re-locate these.
Hexxat is introduced much more simply and doesn't need to be in the Copper Coronet, but it's essential to the "Clara story" that she's a stranger to us, not a canonical companion with whom we've already travelled.
That leaves Dorn. Aha! Currently we just meet him in the street, and with fairly minor changes to the game text (to remove the dialogue references to the specific location outside the Radiant Heart) it wouldn't be essential for him to be in any particular place - he could simply want us to go to the Radiant Heart rather than be already outside it. This sounds pretty feasible.
So ... what I reckon we might be offered as "alternative canon" is that when we wake up in Irenicus's dungeon, we'll now find that in addition to our own (small) cage and the two (larger) cages holding Jaheira and Minsc, one of the other (small, and already openable, yet currently empty) cages in the same room will hold our old comrade Dorn. Then we'll probably be able to take Imoen plus two of Minsc, Jaheira and Dorn, giving us three different "canon parties" and thereby fulfilling @Avenger_teambg's promise of "more than 2". (We can't take all of them together, because with Khalid and Dynaheir that would've been a seven-person canon party, so they'll invent some reason why we have to leave one to make his own way out.)
The evil alternative canon party idea sounds fun. Maybe Dorn and Viconia instead of Minsc and Jaheira. Imoen doesn't seem like she's replacable without breaking the BG2 plot, though.
Last i seen this, there are more than 2 combos, not just a simple evil alternative.
When I first read that post, I had immediately thought about something else than BG2EE starting party. After re-reading it again in the context, I now see where confusion stems from, so apparently there was misunderstanding/misinterpretation taken place there.
The evil alternative canon party idea sounds fun. Maybe Dorn and Viconia instead of Minsc and Jaheira. Imoen doesn't seem like she's replacable without breaking the BG2 plot, though.
Last i seen this, there are more than 2 combos, not just a simple evil alternative.
The conjunction of these statements raises some questions. If there are to be alternative canon parties for BG2ee, as asserted by @Avenger_teambg, surely the NPCs involved have to be with you in Irenicus's dungeon when you start BG2ee, else how can it qualify as a "canon party"? But in that case, surely those NPCs have to be re-located from wherever they were before?
omissis
I think that they were talking about something else, there. The canon party they are mentioning was not the possible ending party of Adventure Y (and consequently the initial party of BG2). It was, instead, the starting party of Adventure Y. It started with one of the developers saying that, depending on the PG alignment, the player would start with different predetermined parties, if he/she wants.
it can't be. for the following reason: that would mean that you had a seven-member party composed of imoen, minsc, dynaheir, jaheira, khalid and dorn - such a party is a roleplaying near-impossibility - a situation where you have three followers in cages and have an opportunity to take two with you and leave one behind is difficult to imagine
avenger might not have talked about anything that falls within the concept of canon
he said that when your imported party from bg:ee is torn apart****, the party you will continue the game with will not be of a predetermined binary configuration but that you will have more freedom in choosing guys, presumably till the end of the game.
when you think of it, he basically dispelled the idea of an alternative canon
when you count in everything that has been said so far... - locations of bg2 characters unchanged (i agree that my earlier speculation over this point was misguided because too much alternative dialogue would have to be created, some of it voice acted as well, and that, although doable and not increeedibly expensive like some people think, might simply not be achievable to a sufficient standard of quality) - you will have a usual degree of freedom when choosing your "real" party in adventure y (one that you will play through the most of the game with, until the end; it's wrong to suppose like gallowglass does that it will be a token freedom: "to dorn or not to dorn" because that would be infuriatingly lame)
^...it can't be expected that any changes to bg2:ee npcs will be made. that's because: - the old canon remains in bg2:ee - you will finish adY with a party of variable cast so the party that you finish adY will not, in most combinations, be the one that you have the opportunity to start bg2:ee with that means that: - no additonal continuity will be added - any changes that might be made to the bg2:ee npcs (except adding new ones) would only create more potential discontinuity and that would be an unsatisfactory result so it will not be done
to conclude: adding new people to cages while keeping the canon starting situation is impossible because that would mean that you had a more people following you than the traditional number of five followers and i can't imagine else but that it would only create more ugliness
***which is confirmed to happen but maybe not in a form of a single "parting event", but instead of a series of events; however that's hard to imagine and i'm firmly convinced that at a singular point your old followers will leave you; but maybe some that are predetermined to stay will stay - presumably beamdog ones if you have them already)
BUT MAYBE JUST MAYBE:
- it's actually imoen, minsc, dynaheir, jaheira and khalid that are taken from your party at the start of the game (any or all of them depending on the import) - you play adY with all other available bg1:ee NPCs (which ones are to be made available is hard to foresee, maybe even all) - meanwhile the "canon party" is actually not your party but they're on an independent mission; during this time imoen duals independently of your choice - in the final scenes of the game, your party and the canon party converge as allies - some are captured and some are killed - at the start of bg2:ee the cages might be more populated (dorn is realistic, neera and rasaad are not that hard to imagine)
The canon party they are mentioning was not the possible ending party of Adventure Y (and consequently the initial party of BG2). It was, instead, the starting party of Adventure Y.
No, it can't be that. @PhillipDaigle has confirmed that whatever party you end BG1ee with, that'll be imported as your starting party for AdvY ... although it is also implied that events in AdvY will force some changes of line-up (which makes sense if they're trying to provide some explanation for the canonical party/parties).
a situation where you have three followers in cages and have an opportunity to take two with you and leave one behind is difficult to imagine
No it isn't, there are lots of ways it could be explained. For example, various combinations of NPCs already refuse to work together ... it'd be fairly easy to arrange that once you've joined up with two out of three, whichever one hasn't yet been recruited could then say something like "I'm not currently prepared to work with [Name] because [Reason]! Thanks for freeing me, but now I'll make my own way out of here!" and walk off (to be found later in the Copper Coronet or wherever). Or maybe Beamdog could devise a better explanation than that!
avenger might not have talked about anything that falls within the concept of canon
He was replying to a post which was specifically about an "evil alternative canon", so his comment is a complete non sequitur unless it's about canon.
However, I agree that my previous suggestion was (obviously!) speculative, and that there's room for interpretation about exactly what @Avenger_teambg meant.
So yes, he might conceivably be talking about the (restricted) choice of line-ups during the course of AdvY which would nevertheless not necessarily become the starting party for BG2ee (i.e. the canon party) ... but in that case, it surely means that AdvY will not, after all, explain how you got from whatever party you had at end-BG1ee to the party which gets captured by Irenicus and starts BG2ee ... in spite of the fact that everything else so far has implied that explaining the continuity was a major objective of AdvY! Why would they be bothering with all this shenanigans about forcing changes in the line-up, if not as part of an attempt to explain the canonical party(/ies)?
adding new people to cages while keeping the canon starting situation is impossible because that would mean that you had a more people following you than the traditional number of five followers
Not so, as already explained. We know that Irenicus has been kidnapping various other people (particularly Shadow Thieves), so he might well have captured some of the joinable NPCs separately from your party. Some of the captives would be those caught with you, and others would be adventurers who got caught trying to investigate independently, but which ones are which could be made to depend upon who you had with you at the end of AdvY.
Of course I can't remotely claim that my suggested scenario is anything but a speculation about what Beamdog might do, but I'm convinced that it's technically very feasible and could be made tolerably plausible.
BUT MAYBE JUST MAYBE ... the "canon party" is actually not your party but they're on an independent mission ... in the final scenes of the game, your party and the canon party converge as allies ... some are captured and some are killed
Hmm, yes, I reckon that could be done. Complicated and contrived, but not impossible, and it'd achieve an explanation of the canon.
We'll see what Beamdog have actually done fairly soon, of course! I'm crossing my fingers that it'll be a more satisfying solution than either of us have yet imagined.
You can start adventure Y without completing Baldur's Gate or loading in a BG save game.
It will be more in line with how Totsc came with a predetermined starting party of Edwin, Minsc, Jaheria, Vic, and Imoen. Except it will take your character's alignment into consideration.
Good parties will probably have Dyna, Minsc, Khalid, Jaheria, and Imoen.
Where evil parties would have, Eldoth, Skie, Edwin, Vic, and one of Shar-teel, Kagain, or Dorn.
Adventure Y, will take whatever starting party you have and through epic story telling and adventure, turn it into the Canon party of chateaux irenicus.
@deltago - yes, of course it'll be possible to start as a separate game. But we know that any combination of characters is permitted at the start, because it can at least be done by importing even if not by a fresh start ... and the meaning of the canon party arises only in the context of continuity, not when playing a stand-alone game.
If they contrive to explain how any-party-at-all will eventually turn into the original canon party at the start of BG2ee, then personally I'd be okay with that, but lots of other people (perhaps especially those who specialise in playing Evil?) have made it clear that they wouldn't like that outcome. That seemed to be what prompted Beamdog to drop some positive hints about the possibility of "alternative canon", and in particular @Avenger_teambg mentioned "more than 2 combos" to someone who was talking about an "evil alternative canon". That means alternative options for the canonical continuity, or it means nothing.
I've merely been speculating about how they might be able to deliver what they've implied. I suppose an alternative interpretation is that @Avenger_teambg was talking nonsense, but I've assumed that he meant what he said.
@deltago - yes, of course it'll be possible to start as a separate game. But we know that any combination of characters is permitted at the start, because it can at least be done by importing even if not by a fresh start ... and the meaning of the canon party arises only in the context of continuity, not when playing a stand-alone game.
If they contrive to explain how any-party-at-all will eventually turn into the original canon party at the start of BG2ee, then personally I'd be okay with that, but lots of other people (perhaps especially those who specialise in playing Evil?) have made it clear that they wouldn't like that outcome. That seemed to be what prompted Beamdog to drop some positive hints about the possibility of "alternative canon", and in particular @Avenger_teambg mentioned "more than 2 combos" to someone who was talking about an "evil alternative canon". That means alternative options for the canonical continuity, or it means nothing.
I've merely been speculating about how they might be able to deliver what they've implied. I suppose an alternative interpretation is that @Avenger_teambg was talking nonsense, but I've assumed that he meant what he said.
I'm pretty sure he was talking about more than two possibilities to create an evil party in BG1.
And -like I said before- there is no evidence of a change in their contract, so any changes to actual BG2 will be wishful thinking. As far as I understood it, the game has the goal to deliver an explanation for traveling south and for the party line up in BG2.
The evil alternative canon party idea sounds fun. Maybe Dorn and Viconia instead of Minsc and Jaheira. Imoen doesn't seem like she's replacable without breaking the BG2 plot, though.
Last i seen this, there are more than 2 combos, not just a simple evil alternative.
When I first read that post, I had immediately thought about something else than BG2EE starting party. After re-reading it again in the context, I now see where confusion stems from, so apparently there was misunderstanding/misinterpretation taken place there.
I see this argument is quite common: if the Adventure Y sells fine then we'll get a chance for further content for BG games... This is why it's essential to set the price right. From what we know about gamers' evaluations of different games, if people find a game's price too high, this quickly becomes one of the "con" arguments of it. But anyway, I want more BG content in the future;)
Comments
"Early next month".
The only way I can see to make both of these statements true is to assume that @PhillipDaigle is being very careful in his use of the phrase "BG2 NPCs", which could be construed to mean "original BG2 NPCs" as opposed to the new EE characters.
Let's consider what options are readily available for re-locating the EE NPCs.
Neera and Rasaad are both currently introduced (in BG2ee) with auto-play scenes illustrating their respective difficulties with the Red Wizards and the Sun Soul Monks, and it'd be very awkward to re-locate these.
Hexxat is introduced much more simply and doesn't need to be in the Copper Coronet, but it's essential to the "Clara story" that she's a stranger to us, not a canonical companion with whom we've already travelled.
That leaves Dorn. Aha! Currently we just meet him in the street, and with fairly minor changes to the game text (to remove the dialogue references to the specific location outside the Radiant Heart) it wouldn't be essential for him to be in any particular place - he could simply want us to go to the Radiant Heart rather than be already outside it. This sounds pretty feasible.
So ... what I reckon we might be offered as "alternative canon" is that when we wake up in Irenicus's dungeon, we'll now find that in addition to our own (small) cage and the two (larger) cages holding Jaheira and Minsc, one of the other (small, and already openable, yet currently empty) cages in the same room will hold our old comrade Dorn. Then we'll probably be able to take Imoen plus two of Minsc, Jaheira and Dorn, giving us three different "canon parties" and thereby fulfilling @Avenger_teambg's promise of "more than 2". (We can't take all of them together, because with Khalid and Dynaheir that would've been a seven-person canon party, so they'll invent some reason why we have to leave one to make his own way out.)
It started with one of the developers saying that, depending on the PG alignment, the player would start with different predetermined parties, if he/she wants.
I found the message, here it is:
http://forums.beamdog.com/discussion/comment/645249/#Comment_645249
it can't be.
for the following reason: that would mean that you had a seven-member party composed of imoen, minsc, dynaheir, jaheira, khalid and dorn
- such a party is a roleplaying near-impossibility
- a situation where you have three followers in cages and have an opportunity to take two with you and leave one behind is difficult to imagine
avenger might not have talked about anything that falls within the concept of canon
he said that when your imported party from bg:ee is torn apart****, the party you will continue the game with will not be of a predetermined binary configuration but that you will have more freedom in choosing guys, presumably till the end of the game.
when you think of it, he basically dispelled the idea of an alternative canon
when you count in everything that has been said so far...
- locations of bg2 characters unchanged (i agree that my earlier speculation over this point was misguided because too much alternative dialogue would have to be created, some of it voice acted as well, and that, although doable and not increeedibly expensive like some people think, might simply not be achievable to a sufficient standard of quality)
- you will have a usual degree of freedom when choosing your "real" party in adventure y (one that you will play through the most of the game with, until the end; it's wrong to suppose like gallowglass does that it will be a token freedom: "to dorn or not to dorn" because that would be infuriatingly lame)
^...it can't be expected that any changes to bg2:ee npcs will be made.
that's because:
- the old canon remains in bg2:ee
- you will finish adY with a party of variable cast
so the party that you finish adY will not, in most combinations, be the one that you have the opportunity to start bg2:ee with
that means that:
- no additonal continuity will be added
- any changes that might be made to the bg2:ee npcs (except adding new ones) would only create more potential discontinuity and that would be an unsatisfactory result so it will not be done
to conclude: adding new people to cages while keeping the canon starting situation is impossible because that would mean that you had a more people following you than the traditional number of five followers and i can't imagine else but that it would only create more ugliness
***which is confirmed to happen but maybe not in a form of a single "parting event", but instead of a series of events; however that's hard to imagine and i'm firmly convinced that at a singular point your old followers will leave you; but maybe some that are predetermined to stay will stay - presumably beamdog ones if you have them already)
BUT MAYBE JUST MAYBE:
- it's actually imoen, minsc, dynaheir, jaheira and khalid that are taken from your party at the start of the game (any or all of them depending on the import)
- you play adY with all other available bg1:ee NPCs (which ones are to be made available is hard to foresee, maybe even all)
- meanwhile the "canon party" is actually not your party but they're on an independent mission; during this time imoen duals independently of your choice
- in the final scenes of the game, your party and the canon party converge as allies
- some are captured and some are killed
- at the start of bg2:ee the cages might be more populated (dorn is realistic, neera and rasaad are not that hard to imagine)
(minor edit)
However, I agree that my previous suggestion was (obviously!) speculative, and that there's room for interpretation about exactly what @Avenger_teambg meant.
So yes, he might conceivably be talking about the (restricted) choice of line-ups during the course of AdvY which would nevertheless not necessarily become the starting party for BG2ee (i.e. the canon party) ... but in that case, it surely means that AdvY will not, after all, explain how you got from whatever party you had at end-BG1ee to the party which gets captured by Irenicus and starts BG2ee ... in spite of the fact that everything else so far has implied that explaining the continuity was a major objective of AdvY! Why would they be bothering with all this shenanigans about forcing changes in the line-up, if not as part of an attempt to explain the canonical party(/ies)? That's just wishful thinking, unfortunately. Beamdog have done some very good work, but they've also proved that they can deliver lame work. Not so, as already explained. We know that Irenicus has been kidnapping various other people (particularly Shadow Thieves), so he might well have captured some of the joinable NPCs separately from your party. Some of the captives would be those caught with you, and others would be adventurers who got caught trying to investigate independently, but which ones are which could be made to depend upon who you had with you at the end of AdvY.
Of course I can't remotely claim that my suggested scenario is anything but a speculation about what Beamdog might do, but I'm convinced that it's technically very feasible and could be made tolerably plausible. Hmm, yes, I reckon that could be done. Complicated and contrived, but not impossible, and it'd achieve an explanation of the canon.
We'll see what Beamdog have actually done fairly soon, of course! I'm crossing my fingers that it'll be a more satisfying solution than either of us have yet imagined.
You can start adventure Y without completing Baldur's Gate or loading in a BG save game.
It will be more in line with how Totsc came with a predetermined starting party of Edwin, Minsc, Jaheria, Vic, and Imoen. Except it will take your character's alignment into consideration.
Good parties will probably have Dyna, Minsc, Khalid, Jaheria, and Imoen.
Where evil parties would have, Eldoth, Skie, Edwin, Vic, and one of Shar-teel, Kagain, or Dorn.
Adventure Y, will take whatever starting party you have and through epic story telling and adventure, turn it into the Canon party of chateaux irenicus.
If they contrive to explain how any-party-at-all will eventually turn into the original canon party at the start of BG2ee, then personally I'd be okay with that, but lots of other people (perhaps especially those who specialise in playing Evil?) have made it clear that they wouldn't like that outcome. That seemed to be what prompted Beamdog to drop some positive hints about the possibility of "alternative canon", and in particular @Avenger_teambg mentioned "more than 2 combos" to someone who was talking about an "evil alternative canon". That means alternative options for the canonical continuity, or it means nothing.
I've merely been speculating about how they might be able to deliver what they've implied. I suppose an alternative interpretation is that @Avenger_teambg was talking nonsense, but I've assumed that he meant what he said.
And -like I said before- there is no evidence of a change in their contract, so any changes to actual BG2
will be wishful thinking.
As far as I understood it, the game has the goal to deliver an explanation for traveling south and for the
party line up in BG2.
Awesome!
Then... just release it already:)
I see this argument is quite common: if the Adventure Y sells fine then we'll get a chance for further content for BG games... This is why it's essential to set the price right. From what we know about gamers' evaluations of different games, if people find a game's price too high, this quickly becomes one of the "con" arguments of it. But anyway, I want more BG content in the future;)
Must... resist.. speculating on... new spell book and toggle AI... hotkeys!
42
you're clearly trying to mislead us
/me resigns
- Apple Watch
- Oculus Rift
- Microsoft HoloLens
- Actual Holodeck
- Linux
- Google Glass*
* Google Glass may be bumped in favor of Apple Car support
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sword_of_Damocles_(virtual_reality)