I'm a big fan of Shar-Teel too @DarkDogg and while i see Skie as the most potential BG character to appear in BG2 (Daughter of one of the Grand Dukes that died to Sarevok, main char killed sarevok, naive, young... lot of potential to grow as a character), i can't stand the "i broke a nail" that make me nearly break the screen of my computer.
Wish they both were in BG2. I'd took them both in my party Good strong NPCs and just pretty girls. Sucks, there is no Shar-Teel BG2 NPC mod...
In fact exist one, she's recruitable at the prision on government district, but it's a bit bad ploted if you ask me.
slightly increased stats like the other returning NPCs
Whoa. I never heard of if the devs gonna raise Neera's, Dorn's and Rasaad's stats in BG2EE... An idea for a new topic.
Not them. The others. Not sure about Minsc, but Viconia, Jaheira and Edwin have slightly better stats in BG2. Xzar is only 1 wisdom away from the ability to dual to cleric. If he would get the same treatment as Jaheira, Viconia and Edwin, he'd have legal dual stats for Necromancer/Cleric.
Minsc has greater dexterity and constitution in BG2, also in BG he's neutral good and after the death of Dynaheir he becomes chaotic good (need confirmation this one).
Not them. The others. Not sure about Minsc, but Viconia, Jaheira and Edwin have slightly better stats in BG2. Xzar is only 1 wisdom away from the ability to dual to cleric. If he would get the same treatment as Jaheira, Viconia and Edwin, he'd have legal dual stats for Necromancer/Cleric.
I mean will the devs raise up the stats of the EE NPCs in BG2 - Neera, Dorn and Rasaad, like Vikky, Jaheira, Edwin etc? Thats intriguingly.
I get what you mean, but don't really agree. Giving an NPC banters, conflicts and personal quests is no spoonfeeding the player their personality. People liked the NPC's in BG1 because their portraits and soundsets were well done. There also wasn't much competition or comparison, if half the NPC's had banters and quests (and not just "my personal quest is part of the main quest" quests like Jaheira/Khalid, Xzar/Montaron, Kivan, Branwen, etc) while the other half didn't, the latter NPC's would be condemned for it for. BG2 is another game and people know that so it's held to other standards. That's why there's relatively little "the NPC's in BG1 suck when compared to those in BG2!" going on. But the BG1NPC project is the single more requested mod to be updated. The first question Beamdog got was "can NPC's in BG1 get banters?" (and despite a hundred hundred times "No we can't do that" they still get that question).
Again, this isn't because gamers these days want to be spoonfed or have no imagination. This is because people like these characters and want to know, hear and see more of them. There's no harm in adding more depth to a character beyond the three "Yes sir?" and three "Yes sir!" lines.
Sidetopic: I'd love to see Skie come back. A level 31 Thief wailing about her broken nails and sore feet. Glorious.
Minsc has greater dexterity and constitution in BG2, also in BG he's neutral good and after the death of Dynaheir he becomes chaotic good (need confirmation this one).
Morte50, once again, IWD is not a relevant comparison. Those characters have no random banters between one another and no conflicts. They don't care what choices you make and don't leave the party. Their alignments are purely cosmetic, as is everything else. They are literally created by you, for you, lack a personality, whereas BG1 ones were not. They still had their own personalities, and reactions, and conflicts. Even one-liners towards one another. The only thing BG1 NPC's did not have is the depth of BG2 NPC's.
But as I said, that depth is not needed in order for them to be appreciated. Reading through these comments and seeing the plethora of different ideas people have about how their favourite NPC's of BG1 should be incorporated into BG2:EE only serves to prove my point.
Reading through these comments and seeing the plethora of different ideas people have about how their favourite NPC's of BG1 should be incorporated into BG2:EE only serves to prove my point.
Not really - all it proves is that people want BG1's NPCs to be given the BG2 treatment: namely, expanded characterization and depth.
Not them. The others. Not sure about Minsc, but Viconia, Jaheira and Edwin have slightly better stats in BG2. Xzar is only 1 wisdom away from the ability to dual to cleric. If he would get the same treatment as Jaheira, Viconia and Edwin, he'd have legal dual stats for Necromancer/Cleric.
I mean will the devs raise up the stats of the EE NPCs in BG2 - Neera, Dorn and Rasaad, like Vikky, Jaheira, Edwin etc? Thats intriguingly.
I doubt. Having the license for both BG1 and BG2 as EE, it was clear new NPCs would likely be in both games and get stats that apply to both. It would, however, not surprise me if Rasaad would have the Sun Soul kit in BG2. The kit didn't exist when Rasaad was made for BG1EE, it fits his backstory and he's the only new NPC to not have a new kit.
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.
LOL, although I agree with you 100%, I ALMOST want Dynaheir to be found somewhere after having staged her own death to get away from Minsc. (jokingly...)
Tastes vary, some players like to fill in a lot with their own imaginations while other players like to see what's in the developers' imaginations. Each to his own, there's no point arguing about this.
Personally, I'm in the middle. I find I have an enjoyable gaming experience with either BG1-style or BG2-style NPCs.
Certainly there are a few BG1 NPCs (of those not currently available in BG2) whom I'd enjoy seeing again. For my own taste, I'd particularly enjoy renewing my acquaintance with Alora, Yeslick and Shar-Teel, but I quite understand that other players would be more interested in seeing other NPCs again.
A question for the developers: I realise that Overhaul's licence forbids tinkering with the BG2-availability of numerous characters because the original content already shows us their fates (and therefore they're either available to us in BG2 or they're not, and that's not changeable). However, the original content is silent about what happened to Alora, Branwen, Eldoth, Kagain, Kivan, Shar-Teel, Skie and Xan. So would it be theoretically permissible (in licence terms) for some of those particular characters to be re-introduced (if customer demand and developer resources were hypothetically available), since no original content would be affected? @Kaeloree, can you clarify this point for us?
@Gallowglass: Xan's pretty clear about going back to Evereska when the adventure's over, so that at least explains his absence. And Kagain has his store in Beregost. Other than that, though...
I could live with Kivan returning. No, really. I would be. I wouldn't complain one bit. Give him an actual quest that is half as developed as Jaheira's throughout BG2 and I would be ecstatic.
@shawne - yes, but we don't know for sure that Xan went home or that he stayed home, so there's no original-content canon to forbid his reappearance.
Bearing in mind that several months are supposed to have passed between the end of BG1 and the start of BG2, it'd be quite plausible for Xan to reappear and explain that he did go home, but because of his success (with you, in BG1) in investigating the troubles around Baldur's Gate, he's now been sent back on a new mission to investigate troubles around Athkatla (or in particular, rumours that the drow may be preparing an invasion of Suldanessellar).
Sure, Kagain has his store ... but he happily left it to his staff to run it for months while he adventured with you in BG1. Maybe he developed a taste for the adventuring life and decided to sell his store and travel, in which case he might well visit Athkatla. Or, since the business of his store is hiring out caravan guards, he might decide to escort a caravan to Athkatla himself, and might arrive there around the same time as you. Either way, there's no original-content canon to forbid such a scenario.
My point is that there's no actual conflict with original content if any of the 8 NPCs I listed were to reappear, so I'm wondering if Overhaul could (in theory) bring them (or some of them) into BG2 without breaking their contract conditions.
Morte50, once again, IWD is not a relevant comparison. Those characters have no random banters between one another and no conflicts. They don't care what choices you make and don't leave the party. Their alignments are purely cosmetic, as is everything else. They are literally created by you, for you, lack a personality, whereas BG1 ones were not. They still had their own personalities, and reactions, and conflicts. Even one-liners towards one another. The only thing BG1 NPC's did not have is the depth of BG2 NPC's.
Whereas the BG1 NPCs are bantering all over the place, and their alignment has a profound impact on the game? Sure, there's slightly more content to them. But if you were to put IWD and BG2 on two sides of a scale, the BG1 NPCs are very much on the IWD end of that scale. Which is my point with the IWD comparison: they are almost as blank a canvas as NPCs created entirely by the player him/herself. For the most part, their 'personalities' are just what you project onto the voice set and portrait, something which again the IWD characters have as well.
Thanks, @Kaeloree - so, in principle, the answer to my question is "yes": those BG1 NPCs whose fate was not dictated by the original content could potentially be brought back into BG2ee (if it were commercially justifiable to bother, and obviously provided that you're careful how you go about it). Hmm, very interesting.
Morte50, once again, IWD is not a relevant comparison. Those characters have no random banters between one another and no conflicts. They don't care what choices you make and don't leave the party. Their alignments are purely cosmetic, as is everything else. They are literally created by you, for you, lack a personality, whereas BG1 ones were not. They still had their own personalities, and reactions, and conflicts. Even one-liners towards one another. The only thing BG1 NPC's did not have is the depth of BG2 NPC's.
But as I said, that depth is not needed in order for them to be appreciated. Reading through these comments and seeing the plethora of different ideas people have about how their favourite NPC's of BG1 should be incorporated into BG2:EE only serves to prove my point.
It's pretty much like this, except that in IWD, based on which character started the talk, some classes can have special features, as paladins seeing the evil behind an illusion, or bards answering questions with a song. I don't remember alignment special banters on IWD but the classes, and races if i'm not wrong, sometimes were recognized by the game.
Morte50, once again, IWD is not a relevant comparison. Those characters have no random banters between one another and no conflicts. They don't care what choices you make and don't leave the party. Their alignments are purely cosmetic, as is everything else. They are literally created by you, for you, lack a personality, whereas BG1 ones were not. They still had their own personalities, and reactions, and conflicts. Even one-liners towards one another. The only thing BG1 NPC's did not have is the depth of BG2 NPC's.
Whereas the BG1 NPCs are bantering all over the place, and their alignment has a profound impact on the game? Sure, there's slightly more content to them. But if you were to put IWD and BG2 on two sides of a scale, the BG1 NPCs are very much on the IWD end of that scale. Which is my point with the IWD comparison: they are almost as blank a canvas as NPCs created entirely by the player him/herself. For the most part, their 'personalities' are just what you project onto the voice set and portrait, something which again the IWD characters have as well.
To answer your question: yes, actually. Hell yes. I'd say if you wanted Khalid Jaheira/ Xzar and Montaron in your party, their alignments and banters DO have a profound impact on the game. And not just them, there are others who will fight each other. Kagain/Yeslick, Shar-Teel/Eldoth, Edwin/Dynaheir/Minsc, etc etc.
Reputation changes and leaving the party are issues you have to deal with too. Then you have environmental comments depending if you're in a dungeon/forest, etc. You obviously either haven't played the game much, or simply don't respect the subtle qualities present. Thankfully, just because you don't see them certainly does not mean they aren't there.
So no, all in all, definitely closer to the BG2 scale of NPC. Just didn't have the story-depth, but they're nowhere near a blank canvas. The comparison isn't valid. It's not even in the same universe. IWD characters are purely cosmetic in every regard (aside from the very few arbitrary moments a paladin or a bard or whatever gets acknowledged) whereas BG1 characters have the personality of BG2 ones, just without as much writing attributed to them.
Reading through these comments and seeing the plethora of different ideas people have about how their favourite NPC's of BG1 should be incorporated into BG2:EE only serves to prove my point.
Not really - all it proves is that people want BG1's NPCs to be given the BG2 treatment: namely, expanded characterization and depth.
Yes, they want more information on them because they are interested in them. Why are they interested in them? Because of their personalities and the stories they had in their imaginations about them. Read through and look at the comments. People have actually been upset about the deaths of certain BG1 NPC's in BG2.
Now why would they be upset and create mods to bring them back and go to so much damn effort if these BG1 NPC's were mere blank canvases that didn't interest anyone?
Point of fact: Because they're not. They're just as effective as BG2 ones (in a different way, of course) and it goes to show that more in depth-writing of an NPC does not necessarily mean a better NPC.
Yes, they want more information on them because they are interested in them. Why are they interested in them? Because of their personalities and the stories they had in their imaginations about them. Read through and look at the comments. People have actually been upset about the deaths of certain BG1 NPC's in BG2.
Now why would they be upset and create mods to bring them back and go to so much damn effort if these BG1 NPC's were mere blank canvases that didn't interest anyone?
Point of fact: Because they're not. They're just as effective as BG2 ones (in a different way, of course) and it goes to show that more in depth-writing of an NPC does not necessarily mean a better NPC.
You don't seem to notice that you're contradicting yourself here: first you say the BG1 NPCs are fine just as they are and that more in-depth writing doesn't necessarily make them better, but then you point out that people do want more information and more in-depth writing for those same characters?
The bottom line is this: BG1's NPCs are outlines. It is certainly possible to be intrigued by what's inferred in the game, and to want to see more; that doesn't change the fact that they're flat, static characters. They don't change, they don't grow, they don't develop. BG2's characters do. Even Cernd, arguably the least popular party member in the game, has a storyline that affects his development as a character.
If BG1's cast turned up in BG2, they would have to be written that way as well. That's simply the standard BG2 has established. You don't have to like it, but that's what it is.
Reading through these comments and seeing the plethora of different ideas people have about how their favourite NPC's of BG1 should be incorporated into BG2:EE only serves to prove my point.
Not really - all it proves is that people want BG1's NPCs to be given the BG2 treatment: namely, expanded characterization and depth.
Yes, they want more information on them because they are interested in them. Why are they interested in them? Because of their personalities and the stories they had in their imaginations about them. Read through and look at the comments. People have actually been upset about the deaths of certain BG1 NPC's in BG2.
Now why would they be upset and create mods to bring them back and go to so much damn effort if these BG1 NPC's were mere blank canvases that didn't interest anyone?
Point of fact: Because they're not. They're just as effective as BG2 ones (in a different way, of course) and it goes to show that more in depth-writing of an NPC does not necessarily mean a better NPC.
I believe i got what you sain, the minor things about each NPC, his automatic phrases, biography, minor interaction with other npcs, while they're not indepth worked as BG2, they have something like potential, that only grows faster as the nostalgia for those characters increase.
I would love an Shar-Teel, Skie and Safana with more indepths banters, unfortunally the actual assignment of rights between Beamdog and its partners doesn't allow it ! I would love if the devs after the release of BG2:EE made a banter implemention mod, from their authorship and with not linked to their conditions as developers, but as fans and modders. I don't know if they're binded by the employment or service contract to be forbidden to take this course of action, but an unnoficial mod made by the devs would have a feeling of trust when used.
Yes, they want more information on them because they are interested in them. Why are they interested in them? Because of their personalities and the stories they had in their imaginations about them. Read through and look at the comments. People have actually been upset about the deaths of certain BG1 NPC's in BG2.
Now why would they be upset and create mods to bring them back and go to so much damn effort if these BG1 NPC's were mere blank canvases that didn't interest anyone?
Point of fact: Because they're not. They're just as effective as BG2 ones (in a different way, of course) and it goes to show that more in depth-writing of an NPC does not necessarily mean a better NPC.
You don't seem to notice that you're contradicting yourself here: first you say the BG1 NPCs are fine just as they are and that more in-depth writing doesn't necessarily make them better, but then you point out that people do want more information and more in-depth writing for those same characters?
The bottom line is this: BG1's NPCs are outlines. It is certainly possible to be intrigued by what's inferred in the game, and to want to see more; that doesn't change the fact that they're flat, static characters. They don't change, they don't grow, they don't develop. BG2's characters do. Even Cernd, arguably the least popular party member in the game, has a storyline that affects his development as a character.
If BG1's cast turned up in BG2, they would have to be written that way as well. That's simply the standard BG2 has established. You don't have to like it, but that's what it is.
I am not contradicting myself in the slightest. I can only talk from my point of view. And my point of view is: while the BG2 NPC's are great, BG1 NPC's are nowhere near as flat as people make them out to be. Perhaps you should re-read my original post. I do acknowledge the fact that PEOPLE (not me) want to see them further developed in BG2, due to the fact that they loved them from BG1.
If there was no initial interest in them from BG1, fans would not be so die-hard about having them in BG2, being upset at their deaths, creating mods, requesting it, etc.
The original fans who have loved this game since its onset deserve something from this remake. It would be a shame, as I said, to just "enhance" this game (adding a few arbitrary things like new graphics, new layout, etc) whilst not addressing the perceived problems the fanbase has had for years. One of, which is NPC issues. Lots of people even claim BG2:EE to be a waste of money because of the mods out there.
So give us something new. Improve on the old. Give people what they want. Add more NPC's, return some old ones. It's easy to just say "ahh, we can't," instead of looking for a solution, because you're going to make money either way. Beamdog has not delivered on many things it has promised, and one only needs to peruse its FB page, various negative online reviews, etc to find out there are a lot of dissatisfied people.
Nortorius heroes/villians die, it's when they die they become legendary.
As a great character from The Order of the Stick once said about his role as a villain "That's the beauty of it. If I win, I get to be king. If I lose, I get to be a legend!"
Comments
An idea for a new topic.
I get what you mean, but don't really agree.
Giving an NPC banters, conflicts and personal quests is no spoonfeeding the player their personality. People liked the NPC's in BG1 because their portraits and soundsets were well done. There also wasn't much competition or comparison, if half the NPC's had banters and quests (and not just "my personal quest is part of the main quest" quests like Jaheira/Khalid, Xzar/Montaron, Kivan, Branwen, etc) while the other half didn't, the latter NPC's would be condemned for it for.
BG2 is another game and people know that so it's held to other standards. That's why there's relatively little "the NPC's in BG1 suck when compared to those in BG2!" going on. But the BG1NPC project is the single more requested mod to be updated. The first question Beamdog got was "can NPC's in BG1 get banters?" (and despite a hundred hundred times "No we can't do that" they still get that question).
Again, this isn't because gamers these days want to be spoonfed or have no imagination. This is because people like these characters and want to know, hear and see more of them. There's no harm in adding more depth to a character beyond the three "Yes sir?" and three "Yes sir!" lines.
Sidetopic:
I'd love to see Skie come back. A level 31 Thief wailing about her broken nails and sore feet. Glorious.
But as I said, that depth is not needed in order for them to be appreciated. Reading through these comments and seeing the plethora of different ideas people have about how their favourite NPC's of BG1 should be incorporated into BG2:EE only serves to prove my point.
Personally, I'm in the middle. I find I have an enjoyable gaming experience with either BG1-style or BG2-style NPCs.
Certainly there are a few BG1 NPCs (of those not currently available in BG2) whom I'd enjoy seeing again. For my own taste, I'd particularly enjoy renewing my acquaintance with Alora, Yeslick and Shar-Teel, but I quite understand that other players would be more interested in seeing other NPCs again.
A question for the developers: I realise that Overhaul's licence forbids tinkering with the BG2-availability of numerous characters because the original content already shows us their fates (and therefore they're either available to us in BG2 or they're not, and that's not changeable). However, the original content is silent about what happened to Alora, Branwen, Eldoth, Kagain, Kivan, Shar-Teel, Skie and Xan. So would it be theoretically permissible (in licence terms) for some of those particular characters to be re-introduced (if customer demand and developer resources were hypothetically available), since no original content would be affected? @Kaeloree, can you clarify this point for us?
Bearing in mind that several months are supposed to have passed between the end of BG1 and the start of BG2, it'd be quite plausible for Xan to reappear and explain that he did go home, but because of his success (with you, in BG1) in investigating the troubles around Baldur's Gate, he's now been sent back on a new mission to investigate troubles around Athkatla (or in particular, rumours that the drow may be preparing an invasion of Suldanessellar).
Sure, Kagain has his store ... but he happily left it to his staff to run it for months while he adventured with you in BG1. Maybe he developed a taste for the adventuring life and decided to sell his store and travel, in which case he might well visit Athkatla. Or, since the business of his store is hiring out caravan guards, he might decide to escort a caravan to Athkatla himself, and might arrive there around the same time as you. Either way, there's no original-content canon to forbid such a scenario.
My point is that there's no actual conflict with original content if any of the 8 NPCs I listed were to reappear, so I'm wondering if Overhaul could (in theory) bring them (or some of them) into BG2 without breaking their contract conditions.
http://www.sorcerers.net/Games/BG/bg_npc_conflicts.php
There's a list.
Reputation changes and leaving the party are issues you have to deal with too. Then you have environmental comments depending if you're in a dungeon/forest, etc. You obviously either haven't played the game much, or simply don't respect the subtle qualities present. Thankfully, just because you don't see them certainly does not mean they aren't there.
So no, all in all, definitely closer to the BG2 scale of NPC. Just didn't have the story-depth, but they're nowhere near a blank canvas. The comparison isn't valid. It's not even in the same universe. IWD characters are purely cosmetic in every regard (aside from the very few arbitrary moments a paladin or a bard or whatever gets acknowledged) whereas BG1 characters have the personality of BG2 ones, just without as much writing attributed to them.
Now why would they be upset and create mods to bring them back and go to so much damn effort if these BG1 NPC's were mere blank canvases that didn't interest anyone?
Point of fact: Because they're not. They're just as effective as BG2 ones (in a different way, of course) and it goes to show that more in depth-writing of an NPC does not necessarily mean a better NPC.
The bottom line is this: BG1's NPCs are outlines. It is certainly possible to be intrigued by what's inferred in the game, and to want to see more; that doesn't change the fact that they're flat, static characters. They don't change, they don't grow, they don't develop. BG2's characters do. Even Cernd, arguably the least popular party member in the game, has a storyline that affects his development as a character.
If BG1's cast turned up in BG2, they would have to be written that way as well. That's simply the standard BG2 has established. You don't have to like it, but that's what it is.
I would love an Shar-Teel, Skie and Safana with more indepths banters, unfortunally the actual assignment of rights between Beamdog and its partners doesn't allow it
I am not contradicting myself in the slightest. I can only talk from my point of view. And my point of view is: while the BG2 NPC's are great, BG1 NPC's are nowhere near as flat as people make them out to be. Perhaps you should re-read my original post. I do acknowledge the fact that PEOPLE (not me) want to see them further developed in BG2, due to the fact that they loved them from BG1.
If there was no initial interest in them from BG1, fans would not be so die-hard about having them in BG2, being upset at their deaths, creating mods, requesting it, etc.
The original fans who have loved this game since its onset deserve something from this remake. It would be a shame, as I said, to just "enhance" this game (adding a few arbitrary things like new graphics, new layout, etc) whilst not addressing the perceived problems the fanbase has had for years. One of, which is NPC issues. Lots of people even claim BG2:EE to be a waste of money because of the mods out there.
So give us something new. Improve on the old. Give people what they want. Add more NPC's, return some old ones. It's easy to just say "ahh, we can't," instead of looking for a solution, because you're going to make money either way. Beamdog has not delivered on many things it has promised, and one only needs to peruse its FB page, various negative online reviews, etc to find out there are a lot of dissatisfied people.
So do SOMETHING.
As long as all the current seetings for BG2 are kept in check, I got no problem with bringing more BG 1 into BG2.
I agree with the characters presented here, only one rule should be enforced hard:
Let the dead stay dead!! - no more sarevok revival, cat of nine lives thing.
Something R.A Salvatore should have learned a long time ago.
Nortorius heroes/villians die, it's when they die they become legendary.