That's true but I can't think of many careless anachronisms that are actually annoying other than maybe, "You rang?".
I haven't seen "You rang?", but if it's in the game, that's an "Addams Family" reference. It's what Lurch always said first when summoned, and it was a running joke on the show.
Could also be a reference to Bob Denver's character Maynard Krebs on "The Many Loves of Dobie Gillis". It was one of his catchphrases too.
That's true but I can't think of many careless anachronisms that are actually annoying other than maybe, "You rang?".
I haven't seen "You rang?", but if it's in the game, that's an "Addams Family" reference. It's what Lurch always said first when summoned, and it was a running joke on the show.
Could also be a reference to Bob Denver's character Maynard Krebs on "The Many Loves of Dobie Gillis". It was one of his catchphrases too.
Then that's another obscure and parochial cultural reference to a character I've never heard of, played by an actor I've never heard of, in a show I've never heard of. This time I can't even be bothered to look it up, but I guess it's another purely North American reference.
At least in the case of the Addams Family possibility, that's a source fairly well-known in the rest of the world, so it's less of an exclusively-American in-joke.
That's true but I can't think of many careless anachronisms that are actually annoying other than maybe, "You rang?".
I haven't seen "You rang?", but if it's in the game, that's an "Addams Family" reference. It's what Lurch always said first when summoned, and it was a running joke on the show.
Could also be a reference to Bob Denver's character Maynard Krebs on "The Many Loves of Dobie Gillis". It was one of his catchphrases too.
Then that's another obscure and parochial cultural reference to a character I've never heard of, played by an actor I've never heard of, in a show I've never heard of. This time I can't even be bothered to look it up, but I guess it's another purely North American reference.
At least in the case of the Addams Family possibility, that's a source fairly well-known in the rest of the world, so it's less of an exclusively-American in-joke.
Quite. The Addams Family was rerun worldwide in the 60s and 70s. Pretty much everyone knew the catchphrase (and did the finger clicking) I've never heard of Maynard Krabs, but if he used the phrase then I'm pretty sure it was also a reference to the Addams Family.
It's a generic butler trope to be honest. Nothing worth pin pointing to one particular occurrence where it was used.
It wasn't "a generic butler trope" until the Addams Family made it one. It's impossible to ovestate just how massive that program was. The flat tone is a give away, as is the absence of sir/maam/m'lord.
Conversly "yus m'lady" is a Thunderbirds reference.
That's true but I can't think of many careless anachronisms that are actually annoying other than maybe, "You rang?".
I haven't seen "You rang?", but if it's in the game, that's an "Addams Family" reference. It's what Lurch always said first when summoned, and it was a running joke on the show.
Could also be a reference to Bob Denver's character Maynard Krebs on "The Many Loves of Dobie Gillis". It was one of his catchphrases too.
Then that's another obscure and parochial cultural reference to a character I've never heard of, played by an actor I've never heard of, in a show I've never heard of. This time I can't even be bothered to look it up, but I guess it's another purely North American reference.
At least in the case of the Addams Family possibility, that's a source fairly well-known in the rest of the world, so it's less of an exclusively-American in-joke.
Quite. The Addams Family was rerun worldwide in the 60s and 70s. Pretty much everyone knew the catchphrase (and did the finger clicking) I've never heard of Maynard Krabs, but if he used the phrase then I'm pretty sure it was also a reference to the Addams Family.
Since "Dobie Gillis" ran from 1959 to 1963, it would be really hard for Maynard Krebs to be referencing "Addams Family", which premiered in 1964. If anything, it was the other way around.
EDIT: I doubt Lurch is referencing Maynard, as the characters a nothing alike (monster butler vs. jazz-loving beatnik), but the Addams Family writers would certainly have been aware of the character since "Dobie Gillis" was a Top 30 show in the Neilsen ratings at the time Addams Family was in development.
Then that's another obscure and parochial cultural reference to a character I've never heard of, played by an actor I've never heard of, in a show I've never heard of. This time I can't even be bothered to look it up, but I guess it's another purely North American reference.
That actor you've never heard of played Gilligan on Gilligan's Island.
OK, I'll fall for it. I've never heard of Gilligan's Island (and I'd never heard of the Addams Family either before the film came out). Before anyone asks, I've just turned 57.
That actor you've never heard of played Gilligan on Gilligan's Island.
And in that case, it's a show I've vaguely heard of (but only because other people online have mentioned it) but have never seen and know nothing about. I had no idea there was a character actually called "Gilligan" in it, so he's still a character I've never heard of played by an actor I've never heard of. (Until just now, obviously.)
They always get a way to escape and then gilligan messes it up.
Wrt you rang, benefit of the doubt then but not convinced
There were two basic plots, Gilligan messes up the escape, and Gilligan saves them all. This left them in a Kafka-esque dilemma. They could never get off the island as long as Gilligan was alive, but if they killed him, they would all die in the next disaster. So obviously, they had all died in the storm and the island was their private hell.
Then that's another obscure and parochial cultural reference to a character I've never heard of, played by an actor I've never heard of, in a show I've never heard of. This time I can't even be bothered to look it up, but I guess it's another purely North American reference.
That actor you've never heard of played Gilligan on Gilligan's Island.
I've heard of Gilligan's island, but only because characters in other US sitcoms mention it. I certainly have never seen it and don't know who was in it.
Unlike the Addams Family, it never made it across the Atlantic (which seems appropriate, from what I gather it was about).
Back to the OP's concern, I do and don't agree. Modernisms have always been a part of BGs writing. Anachronism is unavoidable, unless you want the entire game written in Middle English. But then again, in a fantasy world like this, you need to maintain immersion through your writing, and making references like this rob the player of all suspended disbelief. BG used to be really good at this, with random easter eggs in the middle of empty wilderness zones (my personal favourite being Bub Snikt). This didn't disrupt the story. Dragon Age is the worst offender - their characters all have perfect teeth and hairgel, and constantly reference Buffy or the Simpsons, while still taking themselves OH. SO. SERIOUS.
I agree, the writing quality was very poor in the enhanced editions. This is the sole reason I've barely touched the new NPC content at all. Anachronisms and references like this are hallmarks of lazy or inexpert writing. I really hope this changes in the expansion, because BG without good writing would be like playing Mario without a jump button. Its integral to what makes BG BG.
Shakespeare is full of pop culture references (and fart jokes). It's not lazy or inexpert, it's just knowing your audience.
Even making it "authentic" wouldn't actually BE authentic. We wouldn't understand the language or get the jokes, we would be overwhelmed by the smell and the bad teeth - things that someone native to that time wouldn't notice. You might as well make it as familiar to us as 15th century England would be to someone born in 15th century England.
Shakespeare is full of pop culture references (and fart jokes). It's not lazy or inexpert, it's just knowing your audience.
Even making it "authentic" wouldn't actually BE authentic. We wouldn't understand the language or get the jokes, we would be overwhelmed by the smell and the bad teeth - things that someone native to that time wouldn't notice. You might as well make it as familiar to us as 15th century England would be to someone born in 15th century England.
No one said anything about being authentic, just believable.
Shakespeare made cultural allusions, yes, but he always respected his audience and made references that were appropriate. He wouldn't, for instance, make the characters in Julius Caesar quote the Bible, because his audience would understand that they were pagans, and that would yank them out of the plot. Quoting anachronistic popular ideas is just a lazy device when done in place of actual characterisation; it reveals nothing about the world or the character, their values, beliefs or motivations. It's just a stupid gag.
To conclude. Dragons and pianos, ilithids, sahuagin and demons show mixes of elements from all fantasies. Perhaps, it's not "black and white" to categorize BG universe in only one fantasy setting.
I agree. Basically what I said a couple of pages back.
FR is an amalgam of various fantasies, periods, influences and eras.
Balors come from the Balrog from the Lord of the Rings lore. Erinyes is a Baatezu (Devil) that comes from Ancient Greece. Same with Medusas or Minotaurs or Sirenes.
Lantan is a steam-punk nation with flying ships.
Druids are ancient Celtic. Monks are oriental. Barbarians were based on Conan.
Back to the OP's concern, I do and don't agree. Modernisms have always been a part of BGs writing. Anachronism is unavoidable, unless you want the entire game written in Middle English. But then again, in a fantasy world like this, you need to maintain immersion through your writing, and making references like this rob the player of all suspended disbelief. BG used to be really good at this, with random easter eggs in the middle of empty wilderness zones (my personal favourite being Bub Snikt). This didn't disrupt the story. Dragon Age is the worst offender - their characters all have perfect teeth and hairgel, and constantly reference Buffy or the Simpsons, while still taking themselves OH. SO. SERIOUS.
I agree, the writing quality was very poor in the enhanced editions. This is the sole reason I've barely touched the new NPC content at all. Anachronisms and references like this are hallmarks of lazy or inexpert writing. I really hope this changes in the expansion, because BG without good writing would be like playing Mario without a jump button. Its integral to what makes BG BG.
OK, so how does having a NPC's first dialog with CHARNAME include "Leapin' Lavender Lizards!" "Holy Kitty Cacophony!" and "Aw... Nut bunnies" help maintain immersion? I'm trying to figure out how references to Depression-era comic characters, 1960s superhero TV shows, and 1990s cartoons about blue-skinned insane superheroes help create suspension of disbelief when meeting a pink-haired halfling.
Back to the OP's concern, I do and don't agree. Modernisms have always been a part of BGs writing. Anachronism is unavoidable, unless you want the entire game written in Middle English. But then again, in a fantasy world like this, you need to maintain immersion through your writing, and making references like this rob the player of all suspended disbelief. BG used to be really good at this, with random easter eggs in the middle of empty wilderness zones (my personal favourite being Bub Snikt). This didn't disrupt the story. Dragon Age is the worst offender - their characters all have perfect teeth and hairgel, and constantly reference Buffy or the Simpsons, while still taking themselves OH. SO. SERIOUS.
I agree, the writing quality was very poor in the enhanced editions. This is the sole reason I've barely touched the new NPC content at all. Anachronisms and references like this are hallmarks of lazy or inexpert writing. I really hope this changes in the expansion, because BG without good writing would be like playing Mario without a jump button. Its integral to what makes BG BG.
OK, so how does having a NPC's first dialog with CHARNAME include "Leapin' Lavender Lizards!" "Holy Kitty Cacophony!" and "Aw... Nut bunnies" help maintain immersion? I'm trying to figure out how references to Depression-era comic characters, 1960s superhero TV shows, and 1990s cartoons about blue-skinned insane superheroes help create suspension of disbelief when meeting a pink-haired halfling.
Seriously, guys. You, that prefere Forgotten Realms as a version of Harry Potter with swords and castles and that renegades the classic Camelot, Midgard or Middle-Earth feeling... You can just be sick.
One or another good joke, is ok. Baldur's Gate had one or another joke. But they were not part of the foundations of the game. And, most of all, they're good jokes. When you use modernisms in something that is fundamental to the story, and they're mainly passable jokes - or neither jokes at all -, then you're undermining the ambiance of the story. That's what trouble me.
Back to the OP's concern, I do and don't agree. Modernisms have always been a part of BGs writing. Anachronism is unavoidable, unless you want the entire game written in Middle English. But then again, in a fantasy world like this, you need to maintain immersion through your writing, and making references like this rob the player of all suspended disbelief. BG used to be really good at this, with random easter eggs in the middle of empty wilderness zones (my personal favourite being Bub Snikt). This didn't disrupt the story. Dragon Age is the worst offender - their characters all have perfect teeth and hairgel, and constantly reference Buffy or the Simpsons, while still taking themselves OH. SO. SERIOUS.
I agree, the writing quality was very poor in the enhanced editions. This is the sole reason I've barely touched the new NPC content at all. Anachronisms and references like this are hallmarks of lazy or inexpert writing. I really hope this changes in the expansion, because BG without good writing would be like playing Mario without a jump button. Its integral to what makes BG BG.
OK, so how does having a NPC's first dialog with CHARNAME include "Leapin' Lavender Lizards!" "Holy Kitty Cacophony!" and "Aw... Nut bunnies" help maintain immersion? I'm trying to figure out how references to Depression-era comic characters, 1960s superhero TV shows, and 1990s cartoons about blue-skinned insane superheroes help create suspension of disbelief when meeting a pink-haired halfling.
Um... it doesn't?
Exactly. Those quotes are from Alora's first dialog in the Hall of Wonders. It's not a "random easter egg in the middle of empty wilderness", and it's not a Beamdog-created NPC. This is an original Baldur's Gate NPC created by Bioware.
If people don't like the EE-NPCs storylines or the writing, I can respect that. But I don't get saying the Beamdog writers are lazy for including "modernisms" while holding up the original BG as some holy grail of immersion nirvana when there are original Bioware NPCs quoting Ren & Stimpy's "Happy happy joy joy!" and Porky Pig's "Th-th-th-that's all folks!".
I love Baldur's Gate, but it is full of anachronisms/modernisms/pop culture references, and not just in one-off wilderness encounters or rare character sounds. When you meet Alora, you're there to steal a telescope, a 17th century invention. The Nashkel mines use post-Industrial Revolution rails. And have you noticed that almost every temple in the game is marked with a Latin cross (no matter if it's a temple of Oghma, Garl Glittergold, Lathander, Helm, or Gond)?
Yup. I agree with AstroBryGuy on this. It's completely fair not to like the "Beamdog NPC'S". It's also completely fair to dislike "modernisms". But considering the amount of modernisms of the original bg1 that have been pointed out in this thread, it does ring a bit hollow saying that beamdog are somehow breaking with the feel of the original bg1 by adding their modernisms.
Personally speaking, I dislike Rasaad simply because I dislike the monk class. I haven't played with him in my party so I don't know about the quests associated with him, but I have played with Neera and Dorn, and not only did I like them, but I also felt that they fit fairly well with the original bg1 content.
Lastly, airing your concerns about said modernisms half a year after the first press release is probably a bit late. In fact they basically said that the game was done except for bug crushing during the same month that the OP voiced his concerns.
Seriously, guys. You, that prefere Forgotten Realms as a version of Harry Potter with swords and castles and that renegades the classic Camelot, Midgard or Middle-Earth feeling... You can just be sick.
One or another good joke, is ok. Baldur's Gate had one or another joke. But they were not part of the foundations of the game. And, most of all, they're good jokes. When you use modernisms in something that is fundamental to the story, and they're mainly passable jokes - or neither jokes at all -, then you're undermining the ambiance of the story. That's what trouble me.
I prefer the Forgotten Realms as it was created.
I have no objection to Grimdark Westeros clones, low magic Middle Earth clones, postapocalyptic Dark Sun, high magic space opera Spelljammer, real world historical, or modern set Harry Potter clones, etc. They are all valid and fun settings. What I don't do is object to an established setting not being the one-and-only setting I consider legitimate.
I like the least modern characters of the game: Minsc, Jaheira, Montaron... Montarons speech sounds pretty oldfashioned with his "ye this" and "ye that". I think it feels right for a D&D game. Quayle, Neera, Alora... they seem a little too modern american to me, when the BG1 atmosphere has a very medieval Europe feel to it. I don't think it matters that much in BG2 because of the steampunk touch to it, which makes everything valid.
I must say that an NPC personality I like for a game like BG1 is Rasaad. He's soooooo New Age. He's like some mystical buddist bloke who just dropped over from Tibet to try a teach mindfulness to show people "the way". It's a real pitty he sucks so much as a fighter.
Comments
At least in the case of the Addams Family possibility, that's a source fairly well-known in the rest of the world, so it's less of an exclusively-American in-joke.
There are soo many references in the game, you should take them light heartedly. the ultimate quote to me is by xzar who quotes oppenheimer.
Conversly "yus m'lady" is a Thunderbirds reference.
EDIT: I doubt Lurch is referencing Maynard, as the characters a nothing alike (monster butler vs. jazz-loving beatnik), but the Addams Family writers would certainly have been aware of the character since "Dobie Gillis" was a Top 30 show in the Neilsen ratings at the time Addams Family was in development.
Before anyone asks, I've just turned 57.
Wrt you rang, benefit of the doubt then but not convinced
Or maybe I'm overthinking this.... nah.
AND
Gillian's Island easter egg confirmed!
Unlike the Addams Family, it never made it across the Atlantic (which seems appropriate, from what I gather it was about).
I agree, the writing quality was very poor in the enhanced editions. This is the sole reason I've barely touched the new NPC content at all. Anachronisms and references like this are hallmarks of lazy or inexpert writing. I really hope this changes in the expansion, because BG without good writing would be like playing Mario without a jump button. Its integral to what makes BG BG.
Even making it "authentic" wouldn't actually BE authentic. We wouldn't understand the language or get the jokes, we would be overwhelmed by the smell and the bad teeth - things that someone native to that time wouldn't notice. You might as well make it as familiar to us as 15th century England would be to someone born in 15th century England.
Shakespeare made cultural allusions, yes, but he always respected his audience and made references that were appropriate. He wouldn't, for instance, make the characters in Julius Caesar quote the Bible, because his audience would understand that they were pagans, and that would yank them out of the plot. Quoting anachronistic popular ideas is just a lazy device when done in place of actual characterisation; it reveals nothing about the world or the character, their values, beliefs or motivations. It's just a stupid gag.
FR is an amalgam of various fantasies, periods, influences and eras.
Balors come from the Balrog from the Lord of the Rings lore.
Erinyes is a Baatezu (Devil) that comes from Ancient Greece.
Same with Medusas or Minotaurs or Sirenes.
Lantan is a steam-punk nation with flying ships.
Druids are ancient Celtic. Monks are oriental. Barbarians were based on Conan.
http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http://www.geocities.com/rgfdfaq/sources.html&date=2007-07-20+21:51:07
If anything, DnD was influenced more by Lord of the Rings, than the Middle Ages.
Jumping? Okay, jumping doesn't exist.
One or another good joke, is ok. Baldur's Gate had one or another joke. But they were not part of the foundations of the game. And, most of all, they're good jokes. When you use modernisms in something that is fundamental to the story, and they're mainly passable jokes - or neither jokes at all -, then you're undermining the ambiance of the story. That's what trouble me.
If people don't like the EE-NPCs storylines or the writing, I can respect that. But I don't get saying the Beamdog writers are lazy for including "modernisms" while holding up the original BG as some holy grail of immersion nirvana when there are original Bioware NPCs quoting Ren & Stimpy's "Happy happy joy joy!" and Porky Pig's "Th-th-th-that's all folks!".
I love Baldur's Gate, but it is full of anachronisms/modernisms/pop culture references, and not just in one-off wilderness encounters or rare character sounds. When you meet Alora, you're there to steal a telescope, a 17th century invention. The Nashkel mines use post-Industrial Revolution rails. And have you noticed that almost every temple in the game is marked with a Latin cross (no matter if it's a temple of Oghma, Garl Glittergold, Lathander, Helm, or Gond)?
It's completely fair not to like the "Beamdog NPC'S". It's also completely fair to dislike "modernisms".
But considering the amount of modernisms of the original bg1 that have been pointed out in this thread, it does ring a bit hollow saying that beamdog are somehow breaking with the feel of the original bg1 by adding their modernisms.
Personally speaking, I dislike Rasaad simply because I dislike the monk class. I haven't played with him in my party so I don't know about the quests associated with him, but I have played with Neera and Dorn, and not only did I like them, but I also felt that they fit fairly well with the original bg1 content.
Lastly, airing your concerns about said modernisms half a year after the first press release is probably a bit late. In fact they basically said that the game was done except for bug crushing during the same month that the OP voiced his concerns.
I have no objection to Grimdark Westeros clones, low magic Middle Earth clones, postapocalyptic Dark Sun, high magic space opera Spelljammer, real world historical, or modern set Harry Potter clones, etc. They are all valid and fun settings. What I don't do is object to an established setting not being the one-and-only setting I consider legitimate.
I must say that an NPC personality I like for a game like BG1 is Rasaad. He's soooooo New Age. He's like some mystical buddist bloke who just dropped over from Tibet to try a teach mindfulness to show people "the way". It's a real pitty he sucks so much as a fighter.