Skip to content

Considerable delay from Sarevok dies until ending cutscene starts

There seems to be a rather lengthy delay (probably 3-5 seconds or so, exact length seems to vary from time to time) from Sarevok dies and until the ending cutscene starts, during which the game continues to run normally.

I'm not sure if this should be considered a bug so much as an engine difference, but it isn't there in the original game, and I can't imagine it was added deliberately.
It's certainly not a huge issue, but it does mean I have to run around or use invisibility to avoid getting nuked by his henchmen until the ending sequence starts, where in the original the ending started instantly after his final dialogue.

Comments

  • DarKelPDarKelP Member Posts: 183
    Request feature: The party should kill all enemies before ending movie starts.

    Only kill Sarevok is nonsense, because you can be killed by the others before escape
  • forbjokforbjok Member Posts: 31
    DarKelP said:

    Request feature: The party should kill all enemies before ending movie starts.

    Only kill Sarevok is nonsense, because you can be killed by the others before escape

    That's a good point, but killing anyone but Sarevok was never a requirement in the original game, and changing original content makes no sense.
  • ArchaosArchaos Member Posts: 1,421
    edited February 2013
    @forbjok
    Gorion didn't cast Mirror Image or Stoneskin or Fireball in the first game, either, but it was changed in BGEE.

    I always thought it was metagamey to ignore the rest and focus on Sarevok so you can win the game. It makes no sense.

    What, do the others go: "Aww crap. They got Sarevok! Wait, wait! We give up!"?

    Changing this, would rebalance the final battle since it's now easier with the kits/items/higher cap.

    By the way, the original game argument is a weak one in a game with the subtitle "Enhanced Edition". Why do people want the original game as it was with BGEE, when they can buy the original one from GoG?
  • forbjokforbjok Member Posts: 31
    Archaos said:

    @forbjok
    Gorion didn't cast Mirror Image or Stoneskin or Fireball in the first game, either, but it was changed in BGEE.

    Hmm, did he actually do those things in the EE version?
    I shall have to pay closer attention next time I watch that scene.
    Regardless, those things are purely cosmetic changes and affect nothing gameplay-wise.
    If you count minor cosmetic changes, then replacing all the movies could also be considered a change.
    Archaos said:

    I always thought it was metagamey to ignore the rest and focus on Sarevok so you can win the game. It makes no sense.

    It's a game. It doesn't need to make sense. Knowing to exploit details such as this is part of what makes games fun.
    Archaos said:

    What, do the others go: "Aww crap. They got Sarevok! Wait, wait! We give up!"?

    Actually, I don't think really matters what happens after Sarevok is dead.
    Sarevok was the sole driving force behind all the troubles on the Sword Coast, and with him dead, it's unlikely that his henchmen would be able to cause any more trouble. His plans and the Iron Throne's involvement were already revealed to the authorities (Belt). Quite simply, his entire operation was already thoroughly busted even before his death.
    And there is nothing in the ending cutscene that makes any implication as to whether the player character survives or not.
  • ArchaosArchaos Member Posts: 1,421
    edited February 2013
    @forbjok
    We have different views. Personally, I don't consider exploits, bugs, glitches and cheese, fun.

    There's another thing: what if at the moment of Sarevok's death, the other guys send an arrow or spell you way and annihilates your party? Or they decide to go for the cheap shot when you're distracted and kill you? Then you haven't won.

    And the last sentence is really rules-lawyer-y to me. Obviously you're supposed to have won.
    If you have died, then you haven't finished the game properly, you just defeated the final boss.

    It's like saying that you should be able to continue the game without CHARNAME, since the others can do it without you.
    If CHARNAME dies in the final battle, it's game over, whether or not you could take out Sarevok and the opposite should be true.
  • forbjokforbjok Member Posts: 31
    Archaos said:

    @forbjok
    We have different views. Personally, I don't consider exploits, bugs, glitches and cheese, fun.

    You must never have seen a good RPG speedrun.
    Archaos said:

    There's another thing: what if at the moment of Sarevok's death, the other guys send an arrow or spell you way and annihilates your party? Or they decide to go for the cheap shot when you're distracted and kill you? Then you haven't won.

    And the last sentence is really rules-lawyer-y to me. Obviously you're supposed to have won.
    If you have died, then you haven't finished the game properly, you just defeated the final boss.

    Defeating the final boss is the objective of the game.
    Of course you're supposed to have won, but I was just pointing out that there isn't really anything in the ending that implies it.
    Archaos said:

    It's like saying that you should be able to continue the game without CHARNAME, since the others can do it without you.

    Not really. Once the main objective is achieved, your job is done and you are no longer needed. Before that, you are the main character, and there isn't really any point in the game continuing if you are dead. Your party would be lost without your guidance and inevitably fail since you are supposed to be the leader.
  • ArchaosArchaos Member Posts: 1,421
    edited February 2013
    @forbjok
    You didn't notice my last sentence, though I added it later.
    "If CHARNAME dies in the final battle, it's game over, whether or not you could take out Sarevok and the opposite should be true."

    Can't the party take out Sarevok without you if you fall there? Instead, it's game over even if he was one arrow or magic missile away from death.

    And I enjoy seeing speedruns. But do I want to abuse the game like that? Nope. Was that cheese and exploits intended? Nope.

    The BG1 game and it's speedrun for example, used the Potion duplication glitch. And that was fixed in later games and BGEE.
  • forbjokforbjok Member Posts: 31
    Archaos said:

    @forbjok
    You didn't notice my last sentence, though I added it later.
    "If CHARNAME dies in the final battle, it's game over, whether or not you could take out Sarevok and the opposite should be true."

    Well, if Sarevok goes down, the game is over regardless of your survival, since the main objective has been achieved.
    Archaos said:

    Can't the party take out Sarevok without you if you fall there? Instead, it's game over even if he was one arrow or magic missile away from death.

    In my case, there generally is no party. Soloing is so much more fun.
    But in the hypothetical situation of there being a party, and others in it still being alive, then I suppose they could.
    Archaos said:

    And I enjoy seeing speedruns. But do I want to abuse the game like that? Nope. Was that cheese and exploits intended? Nope.

    Even though I'm not a competitive speedrunner myself, I find that watching speedruns is a good way to learn creative and interesting ways to play games that give them more replayability.
    Archaos said:

    The BG1 game and it's speedrun for example, used the Potion duplication glitch. And that was fixed in later games and BGEE.

    Yeah, but the potion duplication glitch is not necessary to take out Sarevok, as there are enough invisibility potions in the game to do that legitimately.
  • ArchaosArchaos Member Posts: 1,421
    edited February 2013
    @forbjok
    Meh, I just consider it really stupid and cheesy that the game ends when you take out Sarevok, only.

    I would prefer if the game ended when you killed all of them. It seems more fitting and conclusive to me and it increases the challenge, even a bit, since you are stronger with the BGEE stuff, anyway.

    Aren't people complaining that you're stronger in BGEE with the BG2 kits and stuff? This would help in the right direction to increase the challenge of the final battle.
  • forbjokforbjok Member Posts: 31
    I think the main reason you're slightly more powerful is because of minor internal engine differences rather than kits and such (which I've never used in either game anyway). Backstabs seem to do slightly higher damage in BG2/Tutu/BGT/BGEE than in BG1, and you move slightly faster in relation to the NPCs and monsters.

    There are other things that work against you though, such as enemies being able to pass through doors and hide in shadows seemingly having a somewhat higher failure rate in BGEE (not sure how it compares to BG2, but probably the same) even with higher skills, so it's not really as simple as one version being in every way easier than the other.
  • DarKelPDarKelP Member Posts: 183
    Furthermore, if the main character dies, then BG2 and ToB would not exist. You can kill Sarevok, but if Angelo, Tazok or Semaj defeat you, then it is game over.
  • forbjokforbjok Member Posts: 31
    DarKelP said:

    Furthermore, if the main character dies, then BG2 and ToB would not exist. You can kill Sarevok, but if Angelo, Tazok or Semaj defeat you, then it is game over.

    BG2 makes a lot of assumptions, such as you having used a specific party, even though you could have gone through BG1 without even seeing most of them.

    That's really the only way to handle it in a sequel to a game that is as open as BG.
  • DarKelPDarKelP Member Posts: 183
    That is true, but you are a bhaalspawn, if you see the whole saga as a game, your death is nonsense, and you must not die after beating Sarevok.
  • forbjokforbjok Member Posts: 31
    DarKelP said:

    That is true, but you are a bhaalspawn, if you see the whole saga as a game, your death is nonsense, and you must not die after beating Sarevok.

    That is the assumed overall storyline, yes.
  • ArchaosArchaos Member Posts: 1,421
    I don't think that it would be a bad thing to change the script of the ending cutscene when you take out all of them, instead of Sarevok.
    It would only add some more reasonable challenge.
  • forbjokforbjok Member Posts: 31
    If it had been like that originally, it would have been fine, but I don't think it should be changed.
  • ArchaosArchaos Member Posts: 1,421
    edited February 2013
    @forbjok
    Why does it matter if it has been like that originally? Many things were tweaked. I believe the animals run faster now too, you get BG2 stuff, the Gorion scene was improved.

    The game isn't the same and that's a good thing. The whole point of BGEE is to improve and add stuff.
    The original untouched is on GoG.
    Post edited by Archaos on
Sign In or Register to comment.