NPC's for BG2:EE
Edwin_Odesseiron
Member Posts: 226
This has been mentioned before, but as a player who has been playing since these games first ever came out, I want to have my say.
I've played this game since my early teens, both BG1 and BG2, when they came out. Finished them both more times than I can count and they have remained my favourite games of all time. Nothing compares.
Anyway, to the point at hand: NPC's. Lots of people complain that BG2 NPC'S are "so much better" than BG1 NPC's. Lots of people also lament that certain BG1 NPC's are not in BG2. I am of the latter, definitely not the former. So, fix this in BG2:EE. I want to see Dynaheir and Coran and Yeslick and others as joinable NPC's. I also want brand new NPC's. Not a lot of work has to go into this, really. Just make like 10-20 new joinable party members and give them a voiceset, a biography and you're done. Give the player options for more classes. Seems stupid that a game that's like 4 times as large (BG2) has LESS NPC's than its predecessor, which is a lot smaller.
So why do people rag on BG1 NPC'S so much?
I've found that the imagination is a far better thing than a scripted "telling you how it is" thing. Can I say I did not enjoy BG2 NPC's? No, of course not. I love the depth in them and the storylines and the fact that they seemed almost real back then due to this.
However, the "mute" NPC's of BG1 are actually just as good, if not better. For one, you still feel as if you knew them from the voice-acting, portraits, situational one-liners, and biography. But the rest of the stuff was left to you to decide. How did Tiax become a mad priest of Cyric? How did Montaron and Xzar end up working together? What was the real reason for Edwin hunting Dynaheir? What exactly happened with Kivan, his wife and Tazok?
These things were left up to YOU as the player, to decide. You imagined all sorts of different possibilities and in the realm of imagination, everything was possible (especially considering the backdrop you had to work with.)
So all in all, for me, I enjoyed NPC's from both games, but perhaps BG1 more so. The "quality" people are complaining about is actually based on BG1's lack of spoon-feeding. Why does everything have to be spelled out for you? Use your imagination and make up your own stories about them. And in every game, it could be a different tale, depending on your main character, alignment, the party you built for that game, etc. There's versatility in that, unlike in BG2, where all NPC's are set by their quests, interjections, and storylines, so you know every detail.
And I've noticed the many mods out there to put in NPC's like Xzar as playable. Yet in BG1, he was never "developed" like a BG2 NPC. Yet he still left an impression from the voice acting and such, because he left a mark on the player's imagination. Xzar probably has a larger fanbase than Haer'Dalis, who had his own storyline, quests, romance etc. This just one example of many. You do not need to be coddled to enjoy a game.
BG1 was never a game that acted like a babysitter. No, it allowed tonnes of free-roaming (unlike BG2) and was a true adventuring style game, where you weren't led by the nose everywhere. With this generation of gaming, everything is spelled out and done for you, so all it feels like is a zombifying check-list. BG1 trusted that you had enough intelligence and imagination to enjoy the game without knowing every little detail, and it left an impression on you long after you had completed it. It purposely left holes in storyline which your imagination could fill. That's an art.
So if Beamdog can add 3 NPC's who are fully voiced, storylined, etc, then I am sure it's not a huge issue to add a few more who are the "silent" type that will leave a mark in your imagination, as many from BG1 did.
Especially when there are so many more kits/alignments to explore. It seems an utter waste to bring out an enhanced version of this game and NOT address this.
I've played this game since my early teens, both BG1 and BG2, when they came out. Finished them both more times than I can count and they have remained my favourite games of all time. Nothing compares.
Anyway, to the point at hand: NPC's. Lots of people complain that BG2 NPC'S are "so much better" than BG1 NPC's. Lots of people also lament that certain BG1 NPC's are not in BG2. I am of the latter, definitely not the former. So, fix this in BG2:EE. I want to see Dynaheir and Coran and Yeslick and others as joinable NPC's. I also want brand new NPC's. Not a lot of work has to go into this, really. Just make like 10-20 new joinable party members and give them a voiceset, a biography and you're done. Give the player options for more classes. Seems stupid that a game that's like 4 times as large (BG2) has LESS NPC's than its predecessor, which is a lot smaller.
So why do people rag on BG1 NPC'S so much?
I've found that the imagination is a far better thing than a scripted "telling you how it is" thing. Can I say I did not enjoy BG2 NPC's? No, of course not. I love the depth in them and the storylines and the fact that they seemed almost real back then due to this.
However, the "mute" NPC's of BG1 are actually just as good, if not better. For one, you still feel as if you knew them from the voice-acting, portraits, situational one-liners, and biography. But the rest of the stuff was left to you to decide. How did Tiax become a mad priest of Cyric? How did Montaron and Xzar end up working together? What was the real reason for Edwin hunting Dynaheir? What exactly happened with Kivan, his wife and Tazok?
These things were left up to YOU as the player, to decide. You imagined all sorts of different possibilities and in the realm of imagination, everything was possible (especially considering the backdrop you had to work with.)
So all in all, for me, I enjoyed NPC's from both games, but perhaps BG1 more so. The "quality" people are complaining about is actually based on BG1's lack of spoon-feeding. Why does everything have to be spelled out for you? Use your imagination and make up your own stories about them. And in every game, it could be a different tale, depending on your main character, alignment, the party you built for that game, etc. There's versatility in that, unlike in BG2, where all NPC's are set by their quests, interjections, and storylines, so you know every detail.
And I've noticed the many mods out there to put in NPC's like Xzar as playable. Yet in BG1, he was never "developed" like a BG2 NPC. Yet he still left an impression from the voice acting and such, because he left a mark on the player's imagination. Xzar probably has a larger fanbase than Haer'Dalis, who had his own storyline, quests, romance etc. This just one example of many. You do not need to be coddled to enjoy a game.
BG1 was never a game that acted like a babysitter. No, it allowed tonnes of free-roaming (unlike BG2) and was a true adventuring style game, where you weren't led by the nose everywhere. With this generation of gaming, everything is spelled out and done for you, so all it feels like is a zombifying check-list. BG1 trusted that you had enough intelligence and imagination to enjoy the game without knowing every little detail, and it left an impression on you long after you had completed it. It purposely left holes in storyline which your imagination could fill. That's an art.
So if Beamdog can add 3 NPC's who are fully voiced, storylined, etc, then I am sure it's not a huge issue to add a few more who are the "silent" type that will leave a mark in your imagination, as many from BG1 did.
Especially when there are so many more kits/alignments to explore. It seems an utter waste to bring out an enhanced version of this game and NOT address this.
7
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
That aside, it doesn't even make sense from a story perspective: BG2 takes place in a different part of the Sword Coast. Not everyone you could have met in Baldur's Gate will come running down south to Athkatla on your say-so. Every single one of those BG2 NPCs has a storyline, a personal quest, and interactions with other party members. Most BG1 characters do not have these qualities. Enjoy.
No, seriously. The fact that BG1's NPCs are mute, one-dimensional ciphers is down to technical limitations, rather than deliberate artistic choices (as was the case in IWD). If that's the kind of game you prefer, more power to you, but it's not this game. Did you notice that all these questions you're raising have to do with the characters' backgrounds? As in, information you wouldn't necessarily learn in the game anyway? You could just as easily ask how Jaheira became a Harper, why Yoshimo came to the Sword Coast, or how Mazzy learned to fight. Those aspects of the characters typically are left to the imagination - the difference is that BG2's characters develop as the game progresses, while BG1's characters do not. Khalid never grows out of his cowardice, but Jaheira learns to question the Harpers; Dynaheir never develops trust in you, but Minsc eventually accepts his failures and finds a new purpose.
Though it might be an idea to allow people to create more than one PC, without having to do the whole fake multiplayer thing. Shouldn't be much effort in terms of coding to do so, and gives some additional options for people who want to try out some classes or combinations not covered by the existing NPCs.
I would like to see BG:EE NPCs in BG2 too, but unless Beamdog take initiative to get permission to change original content, that's not going to happen for a while.
Safana, Ajantis, Xzar, Tiax, and Faldorn would take some work. Quayle probably couldn't join (would ruin the whole point of him telling Aerie to find her way without him). But there are a bunch of NPCs we don't hear from at all (at least not to my knowledge).
She has the most intriguing story of all above NPCs...
Or Skie and Eldoth have a nice romatic story. Also they've told about leaving Baldur's Gate.
And yes, adding those empty vessels to BG2:EE does affect people. Firstly, it takes resources to put them in, in terms of developer time and money. Those could be put to better use. Second, as noted, they would stick out rather badly among the other NPCs. And you can't just avoid them either, since you have to know about them in the first place. And while that may be no problem for the seasoned BGer, people new(-ish) to the game would have to find out the hard way. Hence my suggestion of making multiple IWD-style PCs an (easy) option. Minimum of developer time, maximum flexibility for the player. And without the misleading veneer of NPC-ness, as well.
Korgan, Keldorn, Cernd, Valygar, Haer'Dalis. I they didn't exist I wouldn't bother to invent them.
BG1 NPCs were "Mute" not because of an attempt to make them better (or worse) in BG2, but because it was not part of the original BG1 design. For me, I assign my own personality to these characters regardless of any additional in game contributions. With that having been said, I like that in BG2, some of the NPCs respond in ways that I might not choose (such as some of the things that Jan says off the cuff, or the fact that Viconia and Firecam will occasionally go at it (yes, I try to get them to work together)). I don't think one is better or worse than the other because at the end of the day I have my imagination to fill in the gaps. But equally I can see how people make a distinction between the two because there IS a distinction.
However, I would not want to see 10-20 new NPCs added to the new game. 3-5 I'd be OK with. there are some very specific gaps that I would like filled to more balance things out. But the more there are, the more stretched they will feel to me. A hand full makes them unique. Dozens make them ordinary and booring. Also, I am one of those types who will ultimately try and incorporate every single one into the game. 3-5 can be done over time. 10-20 is just meaningless to me.
Also, there are some NPCs from BG1 (like Xzar and Montaron) who have a place in BG2. I hope their stories don't get altered merely to make them playable. Although i would LOVE to have Tiax made joinable, characters like Quayle and the above mentioned pair actually have their stories take a different path. I think this is part of the evolution of the story and I wouldn't want to see that change.
However, if a certain bounty hunter could in some way be redeemed, I would be OK with that.
Then Faldorn is out. She is the leader of druids and must be killed.
Otherwise we should make a secondary story option where she can join you - Trademeet is destroyed then and you must kill Cernd. It's to difficult.
Option to save Xzar from the killer - OK. What about Monty?
I meant will he be availible as an NPC or just leave him where he is?
Why the hell is Shar-Teel silent when you first meet Angelo Dosan. (having said that I still love the game.)
While you may not like an NPC's personality (Does anyone think Anomen was written to be liked?)
The fact that you have some sort of emotional reaction whether you like or hate an NPC IMO means they are written well.
Mute NPC's just aren't the same as ones that comment, banter, have there own objectives to complete throughout the game and that grow as characters.
I think it would be extremely odd to have some characters that do this and then some that don't in the same game, would ruin some of the immersion for myself personally.
Even if it was decided to make Xzar "savable," I wouldn't want them to undo Monty's fate, any more than Khalid's or Dynaheir's. I think you'd want to build that into Xzar's story for BG2.
Save Xzar from assassination...
...and he gets a scene where he swears revenge on the Harpers and then goes stark raving madder than he already is... :-)
PS - Am I the only one who hears River Song in my head whenever I use the "spoiler" tag?
Getting Xzar back - ideally an 'evolved' version (specifically: dualed to cleric, as evil counterpart to Aerie; slightly increased stats like the other returning NPCs) would be high on the list.
Shar-Teel would be the second - she's not mentioned at all and could easily be written in. She has a banter where she challenges Dorn and he says he has no time for that crap. She'd hunt him down to get her duel after all. She'd be the evil counterpart to Mazzy, a ranged fighter.
A more grown up Skie, now a Shadowdancer, would be pretty nice, too. As Garrick is already in the game, my last pick would be Eldoth for the sake of having a bard who plays like a bard and not just sounds like one. Haer'Dalis doen't feel very bardy to me. His voiceset is over the top bardy, yet he has the kit that feels way more like a fighter than a bard. So, Eldoth. As Diresinger. Backstory: He thinks Skie is dead and uses the persona of a griefing fiance/husband to con people now. Interesting banters with not-so-dead Skie in the party and this is instant-awesome.
Sucks, there is no Shar-Teel BG2 NPC mod...