Skip to content

All you wanted to know about Baldur's Gate: Siege of Dragonspear ("Adventure Y" previously)

18586889091177

Comments

  • killerrabbitkillerrabbit Member Posts: 402

    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!

  • DavideDavide Member, Moderator, Translator (NDA) Posts: 1,698

    On the one hand, we had this a few pages back:

    Adul said:

    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.
    On the other hand, we now have this:

    The location of BG2 NPCs will not be changed.

    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.

    I found the message, here it is:
    http://forums.beamdog.com/discussion/comment/645249/#Comment_645249
  • bob_vengbob_veng Member Posts: 2,308
    edited June 2015
    @Gallowglass

    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)
  • GallowglassGallowglass Member Posts: 3,356
    Davide said:

    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).
    bob_veng said:

    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

    I already addressed that in my previous post. Obviously one of them would be explained to have been captured elsewhere, not travelling with you.
    bob_veng said:

    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!
    bob_veng said:

    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)?
    bob_veng said:

    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

    That's just wishful thinking, unfortunately. Beamdog have done some very good work, but they've also proved that they can deliver lame work.
    bob_veng said:

    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.
    bob_veng said:

    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.
  • deltagodeltago Member Posts: 7,811
    @Gallowglass

    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.
  • GallowglassGallowglass Member Posts: 3,356
    @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.
  • ArcanisArcanis Member Posts: 377

    @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.
  • elminsterelminster Member, Developer Posts: 16,317
    Ardanis said:

    On the one hand, we had this a few pages back:

    Adul said:

    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.
    Yes that would appear to be the case.
  • AstroBryGuyAstroBryGuy Member Posts: 3,437
    Dee said:

    You didn't hear? All of the UI screens are now activated only by Kinect gestures.

    What, no Siri functionality?
  • wubblewubble Member Posts: 3,156

    Dee said:

    You didn't hear? All of the UI screens are now activated only by Kinect gestures.

    What, no Siri functionality?
    No Siri but there is cortana.
  • mlnevesemlnevese Member, Moderator Posts: 10,214
    edited June 2015
    elminster said:

    Dee said:

    You didn't hear? All of the UI screens are now activated only by Kinect gestures.

    And the console is only now activated if you know the secret number.

    1, 2, 3, 4, 5

    Wrong, the secret number is obviously


    42


    you're clearly trying to mislead us :wink:
  • deltagodeltago Member Posts: 7,811
    When is the Google Glass port coming then?
  • mlnevesemlnevese Member, Moderator Posts: 10,214
    edited June 2015
    I'm in for the Holodeck beta test... when do I receive mine? :)
  • DreadKhanDreadKhan Member Posts: 3,857
    What about Dejarik Holotable fuctionality?
Sign In or Register to comment.