Aside from that, LOL at complaining about references in the EE content of the game. The original content of the game has plenty of equally ham-handed references. (...) People view the original content through rose-tinted lenses.
Indeed, I was just about say this. Ham-fisted and unsubtle is what the references would've had to be to fit with the earlier writing. Basically half the areas had a LOLSOFUNNEE moment somewhere in them.
To be fair its most game review's sites job to advertise a game these days rather then actually criticize it in any way, so he might be telling the truth.
Not really - even looking only at the reviews collected in this thread, more than a few reviewers knocked points off their score specifically because they felt the new content was either buggy and/or didn't quite feel in sync with the rest of the game. So to go from that to "almost everyone agrees our content fits in seamlessly" is a bit of a stretch.
Aside from that, LOL at complaining about references in the EE content of the game. The original content of the game has plenty of equally ham-handed references.
If Minsc was an EE character, people would be constantly complaining about how he doesn't fit in the setting, that the reference to Spelljammer was out of place and made no sense, that his humour wasn't funny and yes, that he violates lore by being bald. If Edwin was an EE character, there would be howls of outrage over how overpowered he is, how he's better than a charname mage, that his voice is incredibly annoying and that no sane person would ever take him in their party because he openly plots against you all the time.
People view the original content through rose-tinted lenses.
See, the problem for me isn't the lore, or the character concepts, or any of that; I rather like Rasaad, Neera, and Dorn's character concepts. Like, a lot better than many of the original BG1 NPCs even.
My problem is the dialog. It's so off-putting. It's really nothing like the original. Not to mention putting specific NPC-required areas into Baldur's Gate 1? Just no...
I really don't see how their dialogue is anything unlike the original. People rag on Neera but plenty of other characters (very notably Imoen) use modern colloquialisms. Dorn and Rasaad don't seem particularly different at all and I suspect someone playing for the first time (in a modded game where they can't see the screens shilling the DLC characters for Ipad) wouldn't actually realise they were new.
As for being upset that you need Rasaad to get to the Dark Moon Monk temple ... eh. To each their own? It doesn't bother me any more than any other area that is restricted to a specific mission that not all characters will do.
I have to agree that if I were playing Baldur's Gate for the first time with EE I doubt very much if I would guess which were the new characters. The humour seems entirely consistent with the original: one old line I only noticed for the first time very recently, CHARNAME to Peter of the North, "Far be it from me to get between a man and his wood." There are lots of sly in-jokes, references to modern culture, semi-disguised quotes etc. in the original. My only complaints about new content so far (with the caveat that I'm just about to explore evil options in BG2 so there's some I haven't tried yet) are (a) Dorn is a touch over-powered, especially if you play on Normal difficulty and (b) I'm not terribly keen on Neera's voice acting, she sounds too obviously contemporary USA compared to the other characters. But Neera's no worse than Imoen in that respect. I believe the 'Lord of the Rings/Game of Thrones' convention: fantasy characters have British accents.
I really don't see how their dialogue is anything unlike the original. People rag on Neera but plenty of other characters (very notably Imoen) use modern colloquialisms.
It isn't the modern colloquialisms, as such. Mind you, Neera takes it to a new level. The difference in the style of writing between BG1 and BG2 is notable, but not objectionable. The other thing is that with Neera it is clearly meant to be funny, whereas Imoen's writing never made a point of being hilarious. In fact, very little of the writing of BG did make a point of being funny. It had a much drier approach to these things, while BG:EE feels like it's constantly nudging you in the ribs and winking to see if you get the reference, which is just agitating.
Furthermore, there is much in the writing of original content characters that doesn't sit comfortably with me in the EE:
1) Haer'Dalis has just had a dialogue with Neera in which the superfluous use of references to birds literally degenerating into him listing off different species of bird that might best fit Neera for comparison.
2) Nalia, when we discovered the Wild Refuge, exclaimed that she has always wanted to help start up a grassroots organisation that was struggling. Um... Did she? Who has the right to impose this in her character? Furthermore, when did Nalia show absolutely any interest in helping Wild Mages, or turning her agenda towards the liberation of arcane magic users in Amn at any point? It felt like they were actually mocking the original writing of her character when they put this in.
3) Jaheira approached me when she discovered I was romancing Dorn to let me know that "she was more disappointed in me than I could ever know", and pretty much said that it was a good thing Gorion was dead so he couldn't see this. Okay, Jaheira has never been shy to hold back her opinion (furthermore, the only time in the trilogy when she can't express in words her opinion or thoughts is if you don't choose to ascend to the Pantheon at the end of ToB and she is your romance option: that is what makes it so romantic - she finally can't find the words to express herself), but forgiving that error, Jaheira is more eloquent than to say "You. Suck. End of."
It isn't the modern colloquialisms, as such. Mind you, Neera takes it to a new level. The difference in the style of writing between BG1 and BG2 is notable, but not objectionable. The other thing is that with Neera it is clearly meant to be funny, whereas Imoen's writing never made a point of being hilarious. In fact, very little of the writing of BG did make a point of being funny. It had a much drier approach to these things, while BG:EE feels like it's constantly nudging you in the ribs and winking to see if you get the reference, which is just agitating.
I think you somehow missed the character "Minsc" in the original game that had only dry humour. Also the characters "Xzar" and "Montaron". What part of "O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!" and "Tell me about the rabbits!" is not nudging you in the ribs and winking to see if you get the reference?
Those are hardly the only examples (I didn't even start in on Tiax and Alora!), just ones where most of their dialogue is broad, decidedly un-dry humour. And Xzar and Monty are positively stuffed with references, given the low amount of actual dialogue they have.
Furthermore, there is much in the writing of original content characters that doesn't sit comfortably with me in the EE:
1) Haer'Dalis has just had a dialogue with Neera in which the superfluous use of references to birds literally degenerating into him listing off different species of bird that might best fit Neera for comparison.
2) Nalia, when we discovered the Wild Refuge, exclaimed that she has always wanted to help start up a grassroots organisation that was struggling. Um... Did she? Who has the right to impose this in her character? Furthermore, when did Nalia show absolutely any interest in helping Wild Mages, or turning her agenda towards the liberation of arcane magic users in Amn at any point? It felt like they were actually mocking the original writing of her character when they put this in.
I haven't seen the scene in question, but the way you're describing it, that sounds completely in-character for Nalia.
In fact, if Nalia was not keenly interested in helping downtrodden, persecuted wild mages, that would strike me as peculiarly out of character for her barring a hitherto-unknown antipathy towards wild magic.
Perhaps you merely described the scene poorly. I'll eventually see it when the patch-after-next comes in and I do my good-aligned runthrough. If you're not describing it poorly, however, you appear to me to be objecting to anything that adds anything at all to the pristine marble edifice of the original characters, even if it's something that's pretty much completely logical and in-line with said character's primary notable character trait.
3) Jaheira approached me when she discovered I was romancing Dorn to let me know that "she was more disappointed in me than I could ever know", and pretty much said that it was a good thing Gorion was dead so he couldn't see this. Okay, Jaheira has never been shy to hold back her opinion (furthermore, the only time in the trilogy when she can't express in words her opinion or thoughts is if you don't choose to ascend to the Pantheon at the end of ToB and she is your romance option: that is what makes it so romantic - she finally can't find the words to express herself), but forgiving that error, Jaheira is more eloquent than to say "You. Suck. End of."
Except she didn't say that, according to you. And what you described her as saying sounds completely plausible for the situation of charname romancing a bloodthirsty demon-worshipping half-orc.
I'm not certain if you're just terrible at explaining how these scenes went, or we have dramatically differing viewpoints on what is appropriate for the characters to do. Perhaps both. I will say that even giving you the most generous possible interpretation, the EEs have a long way to go to ruin canon characters to the same level that BG2 ruined half the BG1 characters (alas, poor Faldorn).
As for being upset that you need Rasaad to get to the Dark Moon Monk temple ... eh. To each their own? It doesn't bother me any more than any other area that is restricted to a specific mission that not all characters will do.
There were none of these in Baldur's Gate 1. That's my point.
There were none of these in Baldur's Gate 1. That's my point.
Umm, yes there is. That was my point. Try getting to Ice Island without taking Shandalar's quest. If you want to argue that was TotSC, then you're also not getting into the Merchant's League without helping Aldeth Sashenstar (not just having to take a quest, but having to take a specific route on said quest).
There were none of these in Baldur's Gate 1. That's my point.
Umm, yes there is. That was my point. Try getting to Ice Island without taking Shandalar's quest. If you want to argue that was TotSC, then you're also not getting into the Merchant's League without helping Aldeth Sashenstar (not just having to take a quest, but having to take a specific route on said quest).
That's talking to characters in the game, not having to take up space in your party with an NPC. Please don't play dumb and tell me you don't see the difference.
That's talking to characters in the game, not having to take up space in your party with an NPC. Please don't play dumb and tell me you don't see the difference.
Here, let me remind you of what I said:
"It doesn't bother me any more than any other area that is restricted to a specific mission that not all characters will do."
Then you said:
"There were none of these in Baldur's Gate 1."
If you were responding to what I said, you're wrong, as I just showed. If you weren't - well, uh, why'd you quote me in your response? As for not seeing the difference - no, I do not see any meaningful difference.
Either you care about roleplaying or you don't. If you do care about roleplaying, than helping Aldeth Sashenstar is every bit as much a NO for some groups as taking any given character in the party is. If you don't care about roleplaying, then pick up Rasaad for a bit to get his dungeon if it matters that much to you to get some random extra XP and monk equipment.
So, no, the Dark Moon Monk temple being restricted to Rasaad's plotline does not bother me any more than the Merchant's Guild being completely impossible to enter for anyone who didn't help Aldeth Sashenstar. Actually, it bothers me a little less, because I can buy that the temple is hidden and very difficult to find, while the Guild is in the middle of Baldur's Gate and there's no compelling reason you can't get in with thief skills, magic, or kicking the door down.
There were none of these in Baldur's Gate 1. That's my point.
Umm, yes there is. That was my point. Try getting to Ice Island without taking Shandalar's quest. If you want to argue that was TotSC, then you're also not getting into the Merchant's League without helping Aldeth Sashenstar (not just having to take a quest, but having to take a specific route on said quest).
That is absurd. You don't take those characters with you as NPCs. Completely different issue.
Also as far as modern colloquialisms and weird dialogue, you are mentioning Xzar, Edwin and Minsc... all comic relief characters. I agree that Neera is a fun goofy character as well, so it is not so bad for her to be a bit of an oddball as well, but she does take it to a whole new level.
Also, it is not only their dialogue, but I've had many moments where your CHARNAME's response options were all bizarre. For example (just one in an interaction where literally every set of responses had me scratching my head) I see Dorn. I try to figure out what's going on. This happens: Its like: 1st Option: I'm snarky and want to avoid trouble 2nd Option: Herp Derp me curious 3rd Option: I'm an evil person! Burn!
I played a good character, and was hoping for the option to, you know, threaten him away from causing trouble, try to convince him otherwise, try to reason, etc. Yet the only way I could actually have a logical response is if Anomen or Keldorn force my hand AFTER I agree to listen to his obviously evil proposal? In the end, after reloading the conversation a couple of times, I decided the only option the game gives a good character who is not mentally challenged is to just kill him on sight, so I just said "Dorn meet sword, sword meet evil!" and attacked him without saying a word. (and somehow he was alive the next time i visited the area...) Its like, I would just like an option that is neutral and one that is good that don't involve my character being super duper snarky or being like "derp, hey psychotic blackguard, how is the weather on this fine morn?"
I mean, overall I love the game. I think beamdog did a good job updating and improving the general mechanics/interface or whatever you guys call it. I like the fullscreen and the new set up of where all your quickslot and spell options are, etc. Yet I think there is some fair criticism about how you need to take every new NPC to get ANY of the new material and how some dialogue options are weird. Also, there have been some fair points made about the writing of the characters.
If you were responding to what I said, you're wrong, as I just showed. If you weren't - well, uh, why'd you quote me in your response? As for not seeing the difference - no, I do not see any meaningful difference.
Neither; I apologize for mis-reading what you said in the first place.
btw, being late to this conversation, I want to say that I completely agree with @RecklessHeart 's take on Baldur's Gate 3 and that the discussion he linked to was very interesting. I would love to see Beamdog (what is the difference b/w beamdog and overhaul? they seem to be used interchangeably) make a new Infinity Engine game, but I'd prefer it not beat a dead horse, since the story is wrapped up very well in ToB.
I'd rather see a new game that takes place in a different region. It would be awesome if it could maybe have some cool cameos from well loved characters from the Baldur's Gate series, if this is allowed. Or they could create their own world (not FR but still Infinity Engine style), and these inconsistencies that seem to rub some people the wrong way would not be a problem.
I'd like to see either of those two options, but I feel like BG3 just doesn't make much sense.
Furthermore, there is much in the writing of original content characters that doesn't sit comfortably with me in the EE: ...
2) Nalia, when we discovered the Wild Refuge, exclaimed that she has always wanted to help start up a grassroots organisation that was struggling. Um... Did she? Who has the right to impose this in her character? Furthermore, when did Nalia show absolutely any interest in helping Wild Mages, or turning her agenda towards the liberation of arcane magic users in Amn at any point? It felt like they were actually mocking the original writing of her character when they put this in.
I haven't seen the scene in question, but the way you're describing it, that sounds completely in-character for Nalia.
I agree with Ayiekie on this point, that does sound very in-character for Nalia. I have not seen the Jaheira convo either, but that does seem in character as well. However, there are other occasions where characters behave oddly, such as Korgan (who chums it up with Sarevok of all people) pissing his pants during a convo with Hexxat.
I actually like some of the banters b/w new and old characters a lot. The Neera and Imoen trying to find a new name for their "anti-Evil Wizard" squad was particularly entertaining and in-character.
In fairness, @Ayiekie does make excellent critiques of the situations I mention, but I rather loathe the phrasing and method of doing it. It all seems like cheap imitation - which is perhaps unavoidable because they are trying to do BG when BG has been done and dusted for over a decade. Even so, for Nalia to say "I always wanted to help a grassroots organisation!" sounds utterly moronic and almost makes it look like Overhaul are scoffing and giggling at her character. It isn't that she wouldn't plausibly want to do that, but there is no indication that it was on her to-do list, and it is one thing for Overhaul to try and do justice to the original NPCs, but to decide to expand upon them and do their own thing with them does not sit well with me.
Also, whether you enjoy the character of Minsc or not (and I don't particularly, I have to say), there is no denying that his writing is among the most tactless of their writing. Pretty much every phrase he utters involves kicking butts and asking Boo if that's right. It isn't that praiseworthy, but yes, okay; it is enjoyable to a degree. If all the characters were written like Minsc however, or if Minsc interjected in absolutely every conversation in the game, it would be pretty horrific to witness. This silly, tactless kind of writing permeates every dialogue sequence in the EE content of the BG games, or at least 90% of them in case someone is about to call me up on that hyperbole.
A 14 year old game was refined and for the most part improved and introduced to new generations and platforms with expanded content. While it hasn't been perfect, it is what most sane people expected of a small dedicated group revamping a historic franchise.
Thanks to Trent and Beamdog/Overhaul for breathing new life to an epic franchise.
@GoForTheEyesBoo Ummm ... yeah the funny thing is everyone here agrees that the Enhanced Editions are overall good. We are just whining about some specific details we found off-putting. If you want to find people who are complaining that the game in its entirety is crap, a waste of time, etc., they aren't actually that hard to find if you really wish to.
Also as far as modern colloquialisms and weird dialogue, you are mentioning Xzar, Edwin and Minsc... all comic relief characters. I agree that Neera is a fun goofy character as well, so it is not so bad for her to be a bit of an oddball as well, but she does take it to a whole new level.
Half the characters in BG1 are comic relief characters. Xan, for instance, basically never talks like an actual human being ever (yes, I know he's an elf, but you know what I mean):
"We delude ourselves to think that our pitiable band will stand up to our enemies." "Life is so hollow." "Let us save our effort and just lie down and die!" "The sun shines, and I'm amazed we live to see another day!" "Onward, to futility!" "Another death in our hopeless crusade." "While leader, I will endeavor not to get ALL of us killed."
And then there's Alora:
"I don't think you are happy enough! I'll teach you to be happy!" "Happy-happy joy-joy!" "I've heard if you go too long without smiling, your face will crack!" "Oooh! Someone needs a tickle! Someone needs a tickle! Smile already! Yeesh!" "Isn't this great? All of us, doing nice things, being happy. It's great!" "I'm so sweet I've got rotting teeth and gums!" "C'mon people now, smile on your brother. Everybody get together, try to love one another right now."
Neera is a far more believable and fitting-in-setting character than either of those two, or than Tiax, or than Xzar. Her dialogue is actually real dialogue, regardless of what one may think of it quality-wise, rather than a mix of archetype quotes and references to songs and movies (the latter being something almost every original BG1 character does in their dialogue at some point, and let's not get into the fourth-wall breaking that they also commonly do as a cheap gag).
I think you cannot honestly say that if Alora or Xan (beloved fan favourite that he is) were EE characters rather than originals, that they would not be subject to a blistering storm of criticism. Same for several of the original characters already mentioned, and more as well (and for more reasons; Imoen functionally doesn't even have dialogue at any point in the game past her introduction). I can think of few reasons why Neera is singled out for so much criticism other than nostalgia blinding people to the reality of the original game.
Also, it is not only their dialogue, but I've had many moments where your CHARNAME's response options were all bizarre. For example (just one in an interaction where literally every set of responses had me scratching my head) I see Dorn. I try to figure out what's going on. This happens: Its like: 1st Option: I'm snarky and want to avoid trouble 2nd Option: Herp Derp me curious 3rd Option: I'm an evil person! Burn!
I played a good character, and was hoping for the option to, you know, threaten him away from causing trouble, try to convince him otherwise, try to reason, etc. Yet the only way I could actually have a logical response is if Anomen or Keldorn force my hand AFTER I agree to listen to his obviously evil proposal?
Yeah, that's actually fair enough (well, aside from the fact I feel you're being uncharitable to the dialogue choices, which are fine as far as they go, they're just leaving out an option or two that ought to be there). Dorn's introduction in BG2 definitely has issues, even if I hold quite strongly that charname's dialogue options AFTER starting his plotline are actually great and some of the best I'm-evil-but-not-stupid-evil choices the game allows you.
However, you know, it's not like you get a good charname dialogue response to, say, Korgan cheerfully telling you about the time he murdered a previous companion for slowing him down. The problem you note here is real, but hardly unprecedented in the original game.
My dear fellow hamster @GoForTheEyesBoo , To be fair, the original post quoted Oster as saying that without "Without your assistance in the beta testing, localization and general feedback we wouldn't be able to make such a great series of games even better." Constructive criticism is good, and I don't see anyone bashing the games as a whole or writing off the entire project due to a couple problems. There were bugs (though I personally encountered very few) and people do have a problem with some of the characters and dialogue. Pointing out ways to improve the game and where you believed the game came up short is the best way to encourage the creators to improve the content. A lot of the posters here who have voiced their displeasure at various different parts of the game have actually spoken against some of the actual whining people who just say things like "EE sucks" without actually pointing out specifics as to why they are not pleased with the product. Some of these people didn't even buy or play the game (and one bragged about getting it illegally!). If that kind of complaining can be avoided, there should be no problem. I don't see that here. I think this discussion should be encouraged, especially on a topic pertaining to a head creator talking about future plans and how he enjoys hearing feedback (I'm not sure if my boy Bengoshi wanted this to be the focus of his topic, but it is relevant to what was shared).
TLDR: It is constructive criticism, not incessant whining!
I'd like to see either of those two options, but I feel like BG3 just doesn't make much sense.
Oh, it makes perfect sense.
"Baldur's Gate 3" will get a lot more attention from the market than "New IP of retro Infinity Engine-esque games 1" even if they're the exact same game.
Peoples gots to eat. And it's not as if the Baldur's Gate name hasn't been used for non-Bhaalspawn-related games in the past (although I suspect in a hypothetical BG3 that Beamdog would attempt to put some necessarily vague ties to the Bhaalspawn storyline).
However, you know, it's not like you get a good charname dialogue response to, say, Korgan cheerfully telling you about the time he murdered a previous companion for slowing him down. The problem you note here is real, but hardly unprecedented in the original game.
Yes you do. In fact, it can even lead to a confrontation when you offend him.
That is absurd. You don't take those characters with you as NPCs. Completely different issue.
I disagree, and explained why in the post directly above yours. I see them as a pretty much the same issue.
It certainly is *not* the same issue because the majority of the fans I know bought the game *expecting* new content. Limiting their choices in that regard was a bad decision. It may not be an issue you *you* but it is to many other people.
It would be like if you bought Throne of Bhaal and the game says "you need to take Odren in your party to enter Watcher's Keep" or buying Tales of the Sword Coast and not being able to go to the Ice dungeon without traveling with Shandalalalala or whatever his name is in your party. It's unnecessarily restrictive, and I think you know exactly what people mean when they say that.
Yes you do. In fact, it can even lead to a confrontation when you offend him.
My bad for misremembering. Nonetheless, there are plenty of things in the game you can't respond to in a reasonable fashion. If you doubt me, I suppose I can start up a new game for examples.
It certainly is *not* the same issue because the majority of the fans I know bought the game *expecting* new content. Limiting their choices in that regard was a bad decision. It may not be an issue you *you* but it is to many other people.
If you don't care about roleplaying, then the content is easy to get to. If you do, then there is lots of content in the game that is similarly "limited". You can say it's an issue to you, and you're certainly entitled to your opinion, but I don't see any logical reason to regard it as different.
It's unnecessarily restrictive, and I think you know exactly what people mean when they say that.
Do you always assume that anyone who disagrees with you is actually being disingenuous?
I am aware of the argument you are making. I think you're wrong, and looking at something that is not particularly different than the game always was as if it dramatically different. I am not playing a fun game where I pretend to disagree with your self-evidently obvious point to play devil's advocate or because I enjoy winding @booinyoureyes up. I actually disagree with you.
If you don't care about roleplaying, then the content is easy to get to. If you do, then there is lots of content in the game that is similarly "limited".
sure, but in this case it is all of it. I think you are missing the point that people *bought the game for new content*.
sorry, but it is indeed pretty dang obvious. If you can't see how having to take an NPC with you to see all of the new material is more restrictive than having to talk to Hull in order to find his longsword, then I really don't know what I can say to you.
If you bought the game for two mediocre and short dungeons, then you have bigger issues with Beamdog than the method by which you access those dungeons.
Also, the splash screen shilling for the game on the baldursgate.com website promises:
- Ipad, Windows and Mac - Three new characters - The Black Pits scenario - Over 400 improvements to the original game, which upon clicking is shown to be: Enhanced Interface, Improved Multiplayer, Core Game Improvements, Baldur's Gate 2 features in the game, New Cinematics, and ongoing support for the game.
Nowhere does it promise "lots of new dungeons", which is good, since that would be a lie even if you could get to them straight out of Candlekeep. The only new game content of the sort you're talking about that is mentioned is the wholly separate Black Pits scenario.
It does, however, have all the features it actually says it does.
BTW, on Rasaad's page where it mentions "the Cloud Peaks", it specifically says it is Rasaad's adventure through the never seen before Cloud Peaks. So you can't honestly say you weren't warned that you'd need him to do it.
I don't believe Beamdog can be held responsible if your unspecified and unquantifiable "people" bought the game for something it doesn't have and was never advertised to have.
I don't believe Beamdog can be held responsible if your unspecified and unquantifiable "people" bought the game for something it doesn't have and was never advertised to have.
a. I never said Beamdog lied about their material (nor did anyone else for that matter), I just said they made a very bad decision making their material unavailable to everyone who doesn't take the new NPCs. No one is organizing a class-action lawsuit against Beamdog, lol, just disagreeing with their decision. b. The unspecified and unquantifiable "people" have been present on this very thread, expressing similar sentiments or clicking "agree" on posts that expressed them. While the advertisement does not specifically explain the restrictions, it's also not a big jump in logic to assume that a game that is adding new characters and areas would not require you to take the new NPCs to access the new materials.
I don't really see the relevance of saying "Beamdog didn't lie about the new content" in response to people saying "I didn't like x and y about the new content, and wish it was different". You are responding to an argument about what the developers promised that absolutely no one even made.
You said "people bought the game for new content". But the new content you're speaking of was not an advertised feature of the game. If you can't see how that's a relevant counterargument, than I'm not certain how to clarify it for you.
And yes, certainly there's a handful of people on the thread that are upset about it. And there's a handful that aren't. Both groups are statistically insignificant and cannot be used as any serious barometer of the playerbase at large. A few people being angry about something doesn't mean something was wrong. There would be people that would be angry if Beamdog gave the game away and also gave free candy with it.
Everyone else is just giving their opinion on what they did or didn't like. I wasn't aware this was contest to see which opinions are held more commonly, just a forum where people can say what they dislike. So far its: "I dislike that all the new material is inaccessible unless you take the new NPCs followed by: "I don't mind it therefore you are wrong"
As far as advertisement goes, no gnome illusionist is saying "this isn't what was promised to me". Just that it was a bad decision, and that they expected new content to be available without requiring the new characters to be with the party. Despite what you might say, it is not a crazy jump in logic to have expected that when you bought the game, since most quests don't require the NPCs.
I don't see how anyone could disagree that Neera's quest did not need you to have her in your party the same way that Nalia's quest did not require you take her with you. The fact that it wasn't advertised as such is completely irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not it was a bad decision, and pointing it out is just beating around the bush.
Everyone else is just giving their opinion on what they did or didn't like. I wasn't aware this was contest to see which opinions are held more commonly, just a forum where people can say what they dislike. So far its: "I dislike that all the new material is inaccessible unless you take the new NPCs followed by: "I don't mind it therefore you are wrong"
Is that what I said? I think it was actually something more like this:
"As for being upset that you need Rasaad to get to the Dark Moon Monk temple ... eh. To each their own? It doesn't bother me any more than any other area that is restricted to a specific mission that not all characters will do."
...which is sort of the opposite of "I don't mind it therefore you are wrong".
Anyway, it is tiresome to argue with you, the above being a good example of why. I'm done, have fun.
Comments
My problem is the dialog. It's so off-putting. It's really nothing like the original. Not to mention putting specific NPC-required areas into Baldur's Gate 1? Just no...
As for being upset that you need Rasaad to get to the Dark Moon Monk temple ... eh. To each their own? It doesn't bother me any more than any other area that is restricted to a specific mission that not all characters will do.
My only complaints about new content so far (with the caveat that I'm just about to explore evil options in BG2 so there's some I haven't tried yet) are (a) Dorn is a touch over-powered, especially if you play on Normal difficulty and (b) I'm not terribly keen on Neera's voice acting, she sounds too obviously contemporary USA compared to the other characters. But Neera's no worse than Imoen in that respect. I believe the 'Lord of the Rings/Game of Thrones' convention: fantasy characters have British accents.
Furthermore, there is much in the writing of original content characters that doesn't sit comfortably with me in the EE:
1) Haer'Dalis has just had a dialogue with Neera in which the superfluous use of references to birds literally degenerating into him listing off different species of bird that might best fit Neera for comparison.
2) Nalia, when we discovered the Wild Refuge, exclaimed that she has always wanted to help start up a grassroots organisation that was struggling. Um... Did she? Who has the right to impose this in her character? Furthermore, when did Nalia show absolutely any interest in helping Wild Mages, or turning her agenda towards the liberation of arcane magic users in Amn at any point? It felt like they were actually mocking the original writing of her character when they put this in.
3) Jaheira approached me when she discovered I was romancing Dorn to let me know that "she was more disappointed in me than I could ever know", and pretty much said that it was a good thing Gorion was dead so he couldn't see this. Okay, Jaheira has never been shy to hold back her opinion (furthermore, the only time in the trilogy when she can't express in words her opinion or thoughts is if you don't choose to ascend to the Pantheon at the end of ToB and she is your romance option: that is what makes it so romantic - she finally can't find the words to express herself), but forgiving that error, Jaheira is more eloquent than to say "You. Suck. End of."
Those are hardly the only examples (I didn't even start in on Tiax and Alora!), just ones where most of their dialogue is broad, decidedly un-dry humour. And Xzar and Monty are positively stuffed with references, given the low amount of actual dialogue they have. I haven't seen the scene in question, but the way you're describing it, that sounds completely in-character for Nalia.
In fact, if Nalia was not keenly interested in helping downtrodden, persecuted wild mages, that would strike me as peculiarly out of character for her barring a hitherto-unknown antipathy towards wild magic.
Perhaps you merely described the scene poorly. I'll eventually see it when the patch-after-next comes in and I do my good-aligned runthrough. If you're not describing it poorly, however, you appear to me to be objecting to anything that adds anything at all to the pristine marble edifice of the original characters, even if it's something that's pretty much completely logical and in-line with said character's primary notable character trait. Except she didn't say that, according to you. And what you described her as saying sounds completely plausible for the situation of charname romancing a bloodthirsty demon-worshipping half-orc.
I'm not certain if you're just terrible at explaining how these scenes went, or we have dramatically differing viewpoints on what is appropriate for the characters to do. Perhaps both. I will say that even giving you the most generous possible interpretation, the EEs have a long way to go to ruin canon characters to the same level that BG2 ruined half the BG1 characters (alas, poor Faldorn).
"It doesn't bother me any more than any other area that is restricted to a specific mission that not all characters will do."
Then you said:
"There were none of these in Baldur's Gate 1."
If you were responding to what I said, you're wrong, as I just showed. If you weren't - well, uh, why'd you quote me in your response? As for not seeing the difference - no, I do not see any meaningful difference.
Either you care about roleplaying or you don't. If you do care about roleplaying, than helping Aldeth Sashenstar is every bit as much a NO for some groups as taking any given character in the party is. If you don't care about roleplaying, then pick up Rasaad for a bit to get his dungeon if it matters that much to you to get some random extra XP and monk equipment.
So, no, the Dark Moon Monk temple being restricted to Rasaad's plotline does not bother me any more than the Merchant's Guild being completely impossible to enter for anyone who didn't help Aldeth Sashenstar. Actually, it bothers me a little less, because I can buy that the temple is hidden and very difficult to find, while the Guild is in the middle of Baldur's Gate and there's no compelling reason you can't get in with thief skills, magic, or kicking the door down.
Also as far as modern colloquialisms and weird dialogue, you are mentioning Xzar, Edwin and Minsc... all comic relief characters. I agree that Neera is a fun goofy character as well, so it is not so bad for her to be a bit of an oddball as well, but she does take it to a whole new level.
Also, it is not only their dialogue, but I've had many moments where your CHARNAME's response options were all bizarre.
For example (just one in an interaction where literally every set of responses had me scratching my head)
I see Dorn. I try to figure out what's going on. This happens:
Its like:
1st Option: I'm snarky and want to avoid trouble
2nd Option: Herp Derp me curious
3rd Option: I'm an evil person! Burn!
I played a good character, and was hoping for the option to, you know, threaten him away from causing trouble, try to convince him otherwise, try to reason, etc.
Yet the only way I could actually have a logical response is if Anomen or Keldorn force my hand AFTER I agree to listen to his obviously evil proposal?
In the end, after reloading the conversation a couple of times, I decided the only option the game gives a good character who is not mentally challenged is to just kill him on sight, so I just said "Dorn meet sword, sword meet evil!" and attacked him without saying a word. (and somehow he was alive the next time i visited the area...)
Its like, I would just like an option that is neutral and one that is good that don't involve my character being super duper snarky or being like "derp, hey psychotic blackguard, how is the weather on this fine morn?"
I mean, overall I love the game. I think beamdog did a good job updating and improving the general mechanics/interface or whatever you guys call it. I like the fullscreen and the new set up of where all your quickslot and spell options are, etc. Yet I think there is some fair criticism about how you need to take every new NPC to get ANY of the new material and how some dialogue options are weird. Also, there have been some fair points made about the writing of the characters.
I would love to see Beamdog (what is the difference b/w beamdog and overhaul? they seem to be used interchangeably) make a new Infinity Engine game, but I'd prefer it not beat a dead horse, since the story is wrapped up very well in ToB.
I'd rather see a new game that takes place in a different region. It would be awesome if it could maybe have some cool cameos from well loved characters from the Baldur's Gate series, if this is allowed. Or they could create their own world (not FR but still Infinity Engine style), and these inconsistencies that seem to rub some people the wrong way would not be a problem.
I'd like to see either of those two options, but I feel like BG3 just doesn't make much sense.
I actually like some of the banters b/w new and old characters a lot. The Neera and Imoen trying to find a new name for their "anti-Evil Wizard" squad was particularly entertaining and in-character.
Also, whether you enjoy the character of Minsc or not (and I don't particularly, I have to say), there is no denying that his writing is among the most tactless of their writing. Pretty much every phrase he utters involves kicking butts and asking Boo if that's right. It isn't that praiseworthy, but yes, okay; it is enjoyable to a degree. If all the characters were written like Minsc however, or if Minsc interjected in absolutely every conversation in the game, it would be pretty horrific to witness. This silly, tactless kind of writing permeates every dialogue sequence in the EE content of the BG games, or at least 90% of them in case someone is about to call me up on that hyperbole.
A 14 year old game was refined and for the most part improved and introduced to new generations and platforms with expanded content. While it hasn't been perfect, it is what most sane people expected of a small dedicated group revamping a historic franchise.
Thanks to Trent and Beamdog/Overhaul for breathing new life to an epic franchise.
"We delude ourselves to think that our pitiable band will stand up to our enemies."
"Life is so hollow."
"Let us save our effort and just lie down and die!"
"The sun shines, and I'm amazed we live to see another day!"
"Onward, to futility!"
"Another death in our hopeless crusade."
"While leader, I will endeavor not to get ALL of us killed."
And then there's Alora:
"I don't think you are happy enough! I'll teach you to be happy!"
"Happy-happy joy-joy!"
"I've heard if you go too long without smiling, your face will crack!"
"Oooh! Someone needs a tickle! Someone needs a tickle! Smile already! Yeesh!"
"Isn't this great? All of us, doing nice things, being happy. It's great!"
"I'm so sweet I've got rotting teeth and gums!"
"C'mon people now, smile on your brother. Everybody get together, try to love one another right now."
Neera is a far more believable and fitting-in-setting character than either of those two, or than Tiax, or than Xzar. Her dialogue is actually real dialogue, regardless of what one may think of it quality-wise, rather than a mix of archetype quotes and references to songs and movies (the latter being something almost every original BG1 character does in their dialogue at some point, and let's not get into the fourth-wall breaking that they also commonly do as a cheap gag).
I think you cannot honestly say that if Alora or Xan (beloved fan favourite that he is) were EE characters rather than originals, that they would not be subject to a blistering storm of criticism. Same for several of the original characters already mentioned, and more as well (and for more reasons; Imoen functionally doesn't even have dialogue at any point in the game past her introduction). I can think of few reasons why Neera is singled out for so much criticism other than nostalgia blinding people to the reality of the original game. Yeah, that's actually fair enough (well, aside from the fact I feel you're being uncharitable to the dialogue choices, which are fine as far as they go, they're just leaving out an option or two that ought to be there). Dorn's introduction in BG2 definitely has issues, even if I hold quite strongly that charname's dialogue options AFTER starting his plotline are actually great and some of the best I'm-evil-but-not-stupid-evil choices the game allows you.
However, you know, it's not like you get a good charname dialogue response to, say, Korgan cheerfully telling you about the time he murdered a previous companion for slowing him down. The problem you note here is real, but hardly unprecedented in the original game.
To be fair, the original post quoted Oster as saying that without "Without your assistance in the beta testing, localization and general feedback we wouldn't be able to make such a great series of games even better."
Constructive criticism is good, and I don't see anyone bashing the games as a whole or writing off the entire project due to a couple problems. There were bugs (though I personally encountered very few) and people do have a problem with some of the characters and dialogue. Pointing out ways to improve the game and where you believed the game came up short is the best way to encourage the creators to improve the content.
A lot of the posters here who have voiced their displeasure at various different parts of the game have actually spoken against some of the actual whining people who just say things like "EE sucks" without actually pointing out specifics as to why they are not pleased with the product. Some of these people didn't even buy or play the game (and one bragged about getting it illegally!). If that kind of complaining can be avoided, there should be no problem. I don't see that here.
I think this discussion should be encouraged, especially on a topic pertaining to a head creator talking about future plans and how he enjoys hearing feedback (I'm not sure if my boy Bengoshi wanted this to be the focus of his topic, but it is relevant to what was shared).
TLDR: It is constructive criticism, not incessant whining!
"Baldur's Gate 3" will get a lot more attention from the market than "New IP of retro Infinity Engine-esque games 1" even if they're the exact same game.
Peoples gots to eat. And it's not as if the Baldur's Gate name hasn't been used for non-Bhaalspawn-related games in the past (although I suspect in a hypothetical BG3 that Beamdog would attempt to put some necessarily vague ties to the Bhaalspawn storyline).
It certainly is *not* the same issue because the majority of the fans I know bought the game *expecting* new content. Limiting their choices in that regard was a bad decision. It may not be an issue you *you* but it is to many other people.
It would be like if you bought Throne of Bhaal and the game says "you need to take Odren in your party to enter Watcher's Keep" or buying Tales of the Sword Coast and not being able to go to the Ice dungeon without traveling with Shandalalalala or whatever his name is in your party. It's unnecessarily restrictive, and I think you know exactly what people mean when they say that.
If you don't care about roleplaying, then the content is easy to get to. If you do, then there is lots of content in the game that is similarly "limited". You can say it's an issue to you, and you're certainly entitled to your opinion, but I don't see any logical reason to regard it as different. Do you always assume that anyone who disagrees with you is actually being disingenuous?
I am aware of the argument you are making. I think you're wrong, and looking at something that is not particularly different than the game always was as if it dramatically different. I am not playing a fun game where I pretend to disagree with your self-evidently obvious point to play devil's advocate or because I enjoy winding @booinyoureyes up. I actually disagree with you.
sorry, but it is indeed pretty dang obvious. If you can't see how having to take an NPC with you to see all of the new material is more restrictive than having to talk to Hull in order to find his longsword, then I really don't know what I can say to you.
Also, the splash screen shilling for the game on the baldursgate.com website promises:
- Ipad, Windows and Mac
- Three new characters
- The Black Pits scenario
- Over 400 improvements to the original game, which upon clicking is shown to be: Enhanced Interface, Improved Multiplayer, Core Game Improvements, Baldur's Gate 2 features in the game, New Cinematics, and ongoing support for the game.
Nowhere does it promise "lots of new dungeons", which is good, since that would be a lie even if you could get to them straight out of Candlekeep. The only new game content of the sort you're talking about that is mentioned is the wholly separate Black Pits scenario.
It does, however, have all the features it actually says it does.
BTW, on Rasaad's page where it mentions "the Cloud Peaks", it specifically says it is Rasaad's adventure through the never seen before Cloud Peaks. So you can't honestly say you weren't warned that you'd need him to do it.
I don't believe Beamdog can be held responsible if your unspecified and unquantifiable "people" bought the game for something it doesn't have and was never advertised to have.
b. The unspecified and unquantifiable "people" have been present on this very thread, expressing similar sentiments or clicking "agree" on posts that expressed them. While the advertisement does not specifically explain the restrictions, it's also not a big jump in logic to assume that a game that is adding new characters and areas would not require you to take the new NPCs to access the new materials.
I don't really see the relevance of saying "Beamdog didn't lie about the new content" in response to people saying "I didn't like x and y about the new content, and wish it was different". You are responding to an argument about what the developers promised that absolutely no one even made.
And yes, certainly there's a handful of people on the thread that are upset about it. And there's a handful that aren't. Both groups are statistically insignificant and cannot be used as any serious barometer of the playerbase at large. A few people being angry about something doesn't mean something was wrong. There would be people that would be angry if Beamdog gave the game away and also gave free candy with it.
So far its: "I dislike that all the new material is inaccessible unless you take the new NPCs
followed by: "I don't mind it therefore you are wrong"
As far as advertisement goes, no gnome illusionist is saying "this isn't what was promised to me". Just that it was a bad decision, and that they expected new content to be available without requiring the new characters to be with the party. Despite what you might say, it is not a crazy jump in logic to have expected that when you bought the game, since most quests don't require the NPCs.
I don't see how anyone could disagree that Neera's quest did not need you to have her in your party the same way that Nalia's quest did not require you take her with you. The fact that it wasn't advertised as such is completely irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not it was a bad decision, and pointing it out is just beating around the bush.
"As for being upset that you need Rasaad to get to the Dark Moon Monk temple ... eh. To each their own? It doesn't bother me any more than any other area that is restricted to a specific mission that not all characters will do."
...which is sort of the opposite of "I don't mind it therefore you are wrong".
Anyway, it is tiresome to argue with you, the above being a good example of why. I'm done, have fun.