x x x where she downgrades Jaheira (arguably the best written companion in the series) to a nagging wife
I know I said I won't participate anymore, but I just can't help it sorry. Amber could be referring to the BG1 characters, not the well-written companions in BG2. Why do I think so? She's nobody's wife in BG2, much less a "nagging wife", as there's no marriage to speak of anymore. Moreover, in BG1, all or substantially all of what they have are soundsets, and a very very few banters. The point being, in BG1, all we have is just a "sketch" of her personality, awaiting to be painted. There's no downgrading from a well-written character here; the widow Jaheira as fleshed out in BG2 remains there, separate and distinct from that of the "not so explored" BG1 Jaheira. If anything, just her role as wife (pre-BG2), among others, was explored. That is apart from the fact that SoD is an expansion of BG1, not BG2. Again, there's no downgrading of a well-written [BG2] character here.
So, could the problem be on the adjective "nagging" then? That you don't find her to be a nagging wife? Remember that that's Amber's personal take on Jaheira, perhaps also that of Beamdog. You, me, them, we all have our personal takes on each and every character in the game. To her, she seemed like a nagging wife. Can she not be entitled to that? Don't you have your personal opinion on in-game characters? Why persecute her for her observations, for her opinion?
In fact, Amber's take did not come out from thin air. Khalid at one point, IIRC (and correct me if I'm wrong) said something like Jaheira would just keep on reminding him or won't let him forget of a wrong or a mistake he would commit, or something to that effect. That seems like nagging to me. Also Jaheira mockingly said something about untying Khalid's tongue. That's not nagging really but you get what I mean. Belittling your husband over his speech problems? Yeah that's helpful. You see, she was not portrayed as the ideal wife in BG1 (or as some might put it, she's the nagging type). But that's mainly because of limited interaction in BG1. Beamdog must have thought "surely there's more to her than just that; and maybe that's just because we've only seen a small portion of her."
Perhaps then the problem is that, as others have said, Beamdog is "shitting" on the original game? No, that's not true at all. Why would they shit on a game that some, if not many, of them were a part of? Why would they shit on something that they passionately love? We're all here, players, modders, devs alike becuase we love the game, yes? It just makes no sense. You see, she was not "shitting" on the game; that's just as aforementioned, her personal take, if not Beamdog's take, to which she and all of us are entitled to have. I can see others' argument revolving on this; but please, no more of this! No one's "shitting" on anything here, not Beamdog, not Amber.
Just to give perspective or to illustrate - I personally find certain characters to be abrasive, some dull, some boring. You may not agree, they may even be your favorites, but that's my take on them and you can't take that away from me. Or is there a dichotomy now between devs and players when it comes to opinions? They can't have their own? That's absurd! Or maybe it's because they said it in an interview? Don't go public with your opinions! Is that what people are saying? - that's just as absurd! That's overstretching the problem. And after all, the devs, Beamdog, have to start from somewhere. You know where? From their personal takes on the original series. Where else, right? To reiterate, many of what I see here can be practically translated to "Nagging wife? Are you attacking my Jaheira? Are you attacking my Baldur's Gate, my beloved game?" I repeat, NO, NO, and NO! To make to clear, again, NO ONE'S DOING THAT!
Perhaps what they're saying now is this, if you find her as a nagging wife in BG1, why change her? Don't detract from her character! [Argh, is there an end to this?] Remember like I said, that's most likely because the NPCs have hardly been explored in BG1, they're still that "canvass containing only sketches." We may have already formulated our own imaginations of them in our head, but they remain just that - imaginations; and the fact is, Beamdog can still paint it a whole. In fact, that's precisely what they're here for to begin with, right? That's precisely what SoD is for, right? Again, nothing's "changed" really, only explored, only an added depth to the world, to the characters, to which Beamdog is entitled to explore, they should be given creative freedom. If you have a problem on their choices, that's another topic for discussion. But with respect to the aforesaid issues, there should be none!
x x x where she downgrades Jaheira (arguably the best written companion in the series) to a nagging wife
I know I said I won't participate anymore, but I just can't help it sorry. Amber could be referring to the BG1 characters, not the well-written companions in BG2. Why do I think so? She's nobody's wife in BG2, much less a "nagging wife", as there's no marriage to speak of anymore. Moreover, in BG1, all or substantially all of what they have are soundsets, and a very very few banters. The point being, in BG1, all we have is just a "sketch" of her personality, awaiting to be painted. There's no downgrading from a well-written character here; the widow Jaheira as fleshed out in BG2 remains there, separate and distinct from that of the "not so explored" BG1 Jaheira. If anything, just her role as wife (pre-BG2), among others, was explored. That is apart from the fact that SoD is an expansion of BG1, not BG2. Again, there's no downgrading of a well-written [BG2] character here.
So, could the problem be on the adjective "nagging" then? That you don't find her to be a nagging wife? Remember that that's Amber's personal take on Jaheira, perhaps also that of Beamdog. You, me, them, we all have our personal takes on each and every character in the game. To her, she seemed like a nagging wife. Can she not be entitled to that? Don't you have your personal opinion on in-game characters? Why persecute her for her observations, for her opinion?
In fact, Amber's take did not come out from thin air. Khalid at one point, IIRC (and correct me if I'm wrong) said something like Jaheira would just keep on reminding him or won't let him forget of a wrong or a mistake he would commit, or something to that effect. That seems like nagging to me. Also Jaheira mockingly said something about untying Khalid's tongue. That's not nagging really but you get what I mean. Belittling your husband over his speech problems? Yeah that's helpful. You see, she was not portrayed as the ideal wife in BG1 (or as some might put it, she's the nagging type). But that's mainly because of limited interaction in BG1. Beamdog must have thought "surely there's more to her than just that; and maybe that's just because we've only seen a small portion of her."
Perhaps then the problem is that, as others have said, Beamdog is "shitting" on the original game? No, that's not true at all. Why would they shit on a game that some, if not many, of them were a part of? Why would they shit on something that they passionately love? We're all here, players, modders, devs alike becuase we love the game, yes? It just makes no sense. You see, she was not "shitting" on the game; that's just as aforementioned, her personal take, if not Beamdog's take, to which she and all of us are entitled to have. I can see others' argument revolving on this; but please, no more of this! No one's "shitting" on anything here, not Beamdog, not Amber.
Just to give perspective or to illustrate - I personally find certain characters to be abrasive, some dull, some boring. You may not agree, they may even be your favorites, but that's my take on them and you can't take that away from me. Or is there a dichotomy now between devs and players when it comes to opinions? They can't have their own? That's absurd! Or maybe it's because they said it in an interview? Don't go public with your opinions! Is that what people are saying? - that's just as absurd! That's overstretching the problem. And after all, the devs, Beamdog, have to start from somewhere. You know where? From their personal takes on the original series. Where else, right? To reiterate, many of what I see here can be practically translated to "Nagging wife? Are you attacking my Jaheira? Are you attacking my Baldur's Gate, my beloved game?" I repeat, NO, NO, and NO! To make to clear, again, NO ONE'S DOING THAT!
Perhaps what they're saying now is this, if you find her as a nagging wife in BG1, why change her? Don't detract from her character! [Argh, is there an end to this?] Remember like I said, that's most likely because the NPCs have hardly been explored in BG1, they're still that "canvass containing only sketches." We may have already formulated our own imaginations of them in our head, but they remain just that - imaginations; and the fact is, Beamdog can still paint it a whole. In fact, that's precisely what they're here for to begin with, right? That's precisely what SoD is for, right? Again, nothing's "changed" really, only explored, only an added depth to the world, to the characters, to which Beamdog is entitled to explore, they should be given creative freedom. If you have a problem on their choices, that's another topic for discussion. But with respect to the aforesaid issues, there should be none!
Absolutely think that could be the case and I agree with you that Jaheira didn't really come into her own until BG2, so plenty to play around with when writing her character, lines etc for SoD, she certainly hasn't been downgraded from BG1.
There was already a big difference between Jaheria in BG1 and BG2 (and fair enough, I mean, she's been widowed, amirite?). I always liked Jaheira as she (and to a lesser extent Viconia) actually feel more like mature women and don't grate on me like the girly types did - Imoen, Neera, Skie etc. Safana was always just a cartoon vamp, and it's nice for her to have a bit more depth here. It's not a new point, but I notice people refer to Jaheira as "nagging" but not, e.g. Ajantis? Slightly double standard-ish - both want to push you in the path of righteousness, one happens to be a woman who expresses herself forcefully. And as someone who writes for a living, I also echo the point about the quality of the writing in BG in general, a standard which I personally think SoD has maintained, and it's one of the things that keeps me coming back to the game all these years later. There are some slightly clumsy bits, but they're quite forgiveable in the grand scheme of things IMO.
There was already a big difference between Jaheria in BG1 and BG2 (and fair enough, I mean, she's been widowed, amirite?). I always liked Jaheira as she (and to a lesser extent Viconia) actually feel more like mature women and don't grate on me like the girly types did - Imoen, Neera, Skie etc. Safana was always just a cartoon vamp, and it's nice for her to have a bit more depth here. It's not a new point, but I notice people refer to Jaheira as "nagging" but not, e.g. Ajantis? Slightly double standard-ish - both want to push you in the path of righteousness, one happens to be a woman who expresses herself forcefully. And as someone who writes for a living, I also echo the point about the quality of the writing in BG in general, a standard which I personally think SoD has maintained, and it's one of the things that keeps me coming back to the game all these years later. There are some slightly clumsy bits, but they're quite forgiveable in the grand scheme of things IMO.
Ajantis is a paladin. They are supposed to be self-righteous apes.
Safana was a classic femme fatale. She used seduction and manipulation to get what she wants, and it worked. I agree that she was a bit cartoony, though. But then again so were many of the male characters and they didn't need changing, it seems.
Writing stuff is hard, I agree. Especially if you do it for living, I can't even imagine the struggle. But here's the thing they should've considered before making "Siege of Dragonspear"...
Write your OWN stories.
It's entirely new content, so yes, it actually is THEIR OWN STORY. Approved by the makers of D&D and the Forgotten Realms, Wizards of the Coast.
Adding a new chapter to the Bhaalspawn saga that was originally not your work to begin with is going to make people have high expectations. I finally understand the old Star Wars fans even more after Phantom Menace was released.
The original Star Wars trilogy was made by George Lucas. You know who directed Phantom Menace? George Lucas. As in, it was HIS OWN STORY and he chose to continue HIS OWN STORY.
I refused to play Siege of Dragonspear more, because I didn't want to destroy my imagination entirely in what happened between the events of Sarevok's death and being captured by Jon Irenicus.
That's entirely your choice. But if you're letting one game's existence ruin your imagination, then I'm sorry, but your imagination is fragile as hell.
...and the changes for existing characters didn't do them any justice. Imagine if someone made a fan fiction of "Game of Thrones" and wanted to include King Joffery and Ramsay Bolton, but found these characters too evil for their liking and wanted to change their personalities a 'little'.
New ideas, stories, characters are always welcome. Forgotten Realms is a massive world with lots of stories untold. Bhaalspawn saga was already done.
WHAT CHANGES? Safana's still a sultry thief who loves money. Jaheira's still the ham-fisted wife and Khalid's still the timid husband. Coran's still a scoundrel trying to get in Safana's pants. Dynaheir's still the secret agent with a flawless accent and Minsc is still her big dopey bodyguard. Boo still squeaks. Imoen is still saying "Heya!" for god's sake.
She didn't do anything to their personalities; she merely expanded upon what was already there. Which was her job. To flesh out the skeletal character designs from BG1 and bring them up to BG2 level.
I mean sheesh, when I first met Safana, she greeted me with a flirt. When she accepts my offer to join the group, she says something like, "You know I could never refuse you." How much more sexy do you want?
WHAT CHANGES? Safana's still a sultry thief who loves money. Jaheira's still the ham-fisted wife and Khalid's still the timid husband. Coran's still a scoundrel trying to get in Safana's pants. Dynaheir's still the secret agent with a flawless accent and Minsc is still her big dopey bodyguard. Boo still squeaks. Imoen is still saying "Heya!" for god's sake.
hmm... I made a topic about jaheira and Safana earlier, because I was curious about changes made to their characters. Most seem to agree with you that they haven't really been changes, just fleshed out... I struggling to remember what we can compare safana to though... There was the conversation upon meeting her about finding the treasure in BG1, then her betraying coran in bg2.. is there much more than that?
x x x where she downgrades Jaheira (arguably the best written companion in the series) to a nagging wife
Perhaps what they're saying now is this, if you find her as a nagging wife in BG1, why change her? Don't detract from her character! [Argh, is there an end to this?] Remember like I said, that's most likely because the NPCs have hardly been explored in BG1, they're still that "canvass containing only sketches." We may have already formulated our own imaginations of them in our head, but they remain just that - imaginations; and the fact is, Beamdog can still paint it a whole. In fact, that's precisely what they're here for to begin with, right? That's precisely what SoD is for, right? Again, nothing's "changed" really, only explored, only an added depth to the world, to the characters, to which Beamdog is entitled to explore, they should be given creative freedom. If you have a problem on their choices, that's another topic for discussion. But with respect to the aforesaid issues, there should be none!
I'm sure George Lucas had similar logic when he decided Han didn't shoot first after all...
Writing stuff is hard, I agree. Especially if you do it for living, I can't even imagine the struggle. But here's the thing they should've considered before making "Siege of Dragonspear"...
Write your OWN stories.
It's entirely new content, so yes, it actually is THEIR OWN STORY. Approved by the makers of D&D and the Forgotten Realms, Wizards of the Coast.
Yes. Siege of Dragonspear is their "own story", but what I ment with "write your own stories" is that you leave existing book alone and don't add any new chapters to it. Write your own damn book from start to finish. More freedom and less pressure.
If Siege of Dragonspear was entirely new story without Bhaalspawn, I would've been okay with it. But it's not... It feels like all those horrible fan fictions I used to write about Baldur's Gate when I was a teenager.
I just want to say thank you for the writers that myconids, the mushroom people are represented in Siege of Dragonspear.
I couldn't buy the game yet, but will as soon as the family budget let me. I just saw one of the stream, where one of my kin was slained by @PhillipDaigle . I'm not angry on Phil for this at all, we all know, how impulsive he is.
Thanks for bringing new adventures to play in the BG world.
It's funny in fact how people talk about rewriting of character because. BG2 seems to me way more "rewriting" (because it's seems expanding and add nuance to a character is rewriting) if you compare from BG1 than SoD is for this two other game.
Write an expansion inbetween two games with sometimes huge differency in the writing, more than 15 years after. Obviously it's hard. I give my hat to the team (not sure that expression make sense in english, if not it'll make this message funnier).
I'm a writer and an actor. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter how well I think I wrote something, or acted in something or how badly I think I did. All the matters is what my audience thought of it.
Those that loved it, those that hated it. Both are just as valid. I can't please everyone, so I need to decide which group matters most to me. Do I stick to what a certain group liked, or change to be more palatable to other groups. There is not right or wrong regardless if it's good or bad.
Personally, I've been turned off by many of the developments around SOD. However I'm sure there are people out there that cheered for it. Beamdog just needs to decide who their audience is and why.
Ajantis is a paladin. They are supposed to be self-righteous apes.
And Jaheira is a Harper, i.e. a meddling do-gooder. I don't see the great distinction really.
Ajantis has the charisma of a Hollywood celebrity (well, a respected one like Morgan Freeman, not the tabloid celebrities).
It's always bothered me that people "hate" paladins. A paladin should really be the sort of person who entrances others with his magnetism and confidence. When he shakes your hand and looks into your eyes with a smile, you should feel something special in the exchange.
@Sirick: I don't think that measuring yourself entirely by audience reaction, i.e., by what other people think, is the only valid approach. It's OK (if not maximally profitable) to let your voice dictate your audience instead of selecting an audience and then adjusting your art according to that audience's demands.
Shared work is always crap. Perhaps Beamdog should just create a new game all it's own rather than pick up someone else's work. Then we could really see if Beamdog's writing is crap or not.
: I don't think that measuring yourself entirely by audience reaction, i.e., by what other people think, is the only valid approach.
That's very true, but most of the time I'm working for someone else. So I need to tailor myself for what my employer and audience want, and I think that links to Beamdog as well. They are not just expressing a point of view, but making a product for consumption.
@Sirick: I respect that, but accepting compensation doesn't negate artistic freedom, especially when the compensation is for a product that has already been produced. At that point, "take it or leave it" is a legitimate approach to the relationship between artist and consumer. I think the problem in this case is that some consumers felt a sense of ownership over the product before it was ever produced, so they've had trouble calmly exercising the "leave it" option.
Ajantis is a paladin. They are supposed to be self-righteous apes.
And Jaheira is a Harper, i.e. a meddling do-gooder. I don't see the great distinction really.
Then you should read up on both paladins and the harpers. There are some very distinct differences. And Jaheira is a druid and a servant of Silvanus. That bit comes first. Being a Harper is secondary.
If you don't like what they did with Jaheira, you should do Khalid's personal quest. It's really quite heartwarming and you don't need them in your party (you just need to talk to them in the camp).
It's not difficult, just find some spider's web and save an aquamarine for him, so he can make a necklace as an anniversary gift for her, and then convince him to give it to her when he gets cold feet.
Afterwards, you can talk to Jaheira. Her first reaction to it is to angrily proclaim how stupid it is to be crafting baubles in the middle of a battlefield. When pushed just a little further, she admits that of course she adores it and gushes just a little about Khalid before dropping back into her dour default.
Honestly, I don't think they did a bad job writing the actual party members, especially if you ascribe to the theory that Minsc only truly broke when Dynaheir died in Irenicus's lab. This is still BG1 Minsc, confident and proud and only slightly dingy. Even Safana seems like her old self, just a little older and growing tired of being the target of male libidos. And, to be just that much more honest, I really don't like BG1's characters either, as they are largely soulless bots with unique voice sets and recruitment scenes, with maybe one rule-breaking bonus like a free Summon Ghast or Slow Poison. As such, I never play BG1 without either a party of EE characters or the BG1NPC mod, which expands the characters to BG2 levels, to the point that I personally consider a mod more canon than the game it's for.
If you don't like what they did with Jaheira, you should do Khalid's personal quest. It's really quite heartwarming and you don't need them in your party (you just need to talk to them in the camp).
It's not difficult, just find some spider's web and save an aquamarine for him, so he can make a necklace as an anniversary gift for her, and then convince him to give it to her when he gets cold feet.
Afterwards, you can talk to Jaheira. Her first reaction to it is to angrily proclaim how stupid it is to be crafting baubles in the middle of a battlefield. When pushed just a little further, she admits that of course she adores it and gushes just a little about Khalid before dropping back into her dour default.
Honestly, I don't think they did a bad job writing the actual party members, especially if you ascribe to the theory that Minsc only truly broke when Dynaheir died in Irenicus's lab. This is still BG1 Minsc, confident and proud and only slightly dingy. Even Safana seems like her old self, just a little older and growing tired of being the target of male libidos. And, to be just that much more honest, I really don't like BG1's characters either, as they are largely soulless bots with unique voice sets and recruitment scenes, with maybe one rule-breaking bonus like a free Summon Ghast or Slow Poison. As such, I never play BG1 without either a party of EE characters or the BG1NPC mod, which expands the characters to BG2 levels, to the point that I personally consider a mod more canon than the game it's for.
NPC project gets universal praise, and has indeed become "canon" to an extent.
Has SOD managed that?
Shouldn't NPC project be the benchmark for what was trying to be achieved?
SoD as good as BG1NPC? Nah. Though, to be fair, there's simply not enough time to expand them in SoD to that extent. BG1 (if you're a completionist) is a looong game. BG2 is the same. ToB is an example of too much NPC content for the timeframe, where you're advised not to do the Watcher's Keep until then just to give your party time to talk. SoD also then caps it off with the "live" banter system of BG1, which makes it very easy to miss things because of random encounters or simply needing a bathroom break.
What SoD is, actually, is a good middle ground for the transition from bots with a voiceset vs characters with depth. Jaheira is a fairly hostile lady of war who will not give her timid husband a break, yes, but she also makes it clear in quieter moments that she genuinely loves him for who he is, which makes her soul-shattering discovery of him in BG2 actually work. Safana has gone from "any man I can manipulate is an asset" to "I do have a brain, too, you know", approaching the disdain for Coran she shows in BG2. Dynaheir and Minsc are still their BG1 selves, without the trauma needed to turn boisterous bruiser into amusingly unstable hero from BG2. Didn't use Edwin this time around, but I assume we get to see his transition from Red Mage in good (if meager) standing to renegade. Of all of them, it seems Viconia is the only one that truly got screwed up, creating a character with a multiple choice background worthy of the Joker.
In other words, I feel SoD did what it set out to do: bridge the gap. We see the "circumstances darker than anyone could imagine" (BG2's opening sequence) that pulled you from Baldur's Gate. We see the Scion (the main character) face bigger challenges than before, in a framework that makes them earn their victory (the focus of the expansion rather than just being a sidequest like it would be in BG2). We see characters shifting from their flat BG1 personas towards their ultimate BG2 goals, and get a chance to see more dimensions of others who never got the change to shine in the sequel (like Khalid and Dynaheir).
There were mistakes made, yes. But overall, I think the writing was successful at what it was meant to do.
Comments
So, could the problem be on the adjective "nagging" then? That you don't find her to be a nagging wife? Remember that that's Amber's personal take on Jaheira, perhaps also that of Beamdog. You, me, them, we all have our personal takes on each and every character in the game. To her, she seemed like a nagging wife. Can she not be entitled to that? Don't you have your personal opinion on in-game characters? Why persecute her for her observations, for her opinion?
In fact, Amber's take did not come out from thin air. Khalid at one point, IIRC (and correct me if I'm wrong) said something like Jaheira would just keep on reminding him or won't let him forget of a wrong or a mistake he would commit, or something to that effect. That seems like nagging to me. Also Jaheira mockingly said something about untying Khalid's tongue. That's not nagging really but you get what I mean. Belittling your husband over his speech problems? Yeah that's helpful. You see, she was not portrayed as the ideal wife in BG1 (or as some might put it, she's the nagging type). But that's mainly because of limited interaction in BG1. Beamdog must have thought "surely there's more to her than just that; and maybe that's just because we've only seen a small portion of her."
Perhaps then the problem is that, as others have said, Beamdog is "shitting" on the original game? No, that's not true at all. Why would they shit on a game that some, if not many, of them were a part of? Why would they shit on something that they passionately love? We're all here, players, modders, devs alike becuase we love the game, yes? It just makes no sense. You see, she was not "shitting" on the game; that's just as aforementioned, her personal take, if not Beamdog's take, to which she and all of us are entitled to have. I can see others' argument revolving on this; but please, no more of this! No one's "shitting" on anything here, not Beamdog, not Amber.
Just to give perspective or to illustrate - I personally find certain characters to be abrasive, some dull, some boring. You may not agree, they may even be your favorites, but that's my take on them and you can't take that away from me. Or is there a dichotomy now between devs and players when it comes to opinions? They can't have their own? That's absurd! Or maybe it's because they said it in an interview? Don't go public with your opinions! Is that what people are saying? - that's just as absurd! That's overstretching the problem. And after all, the devs, Beamdog, have to start from somewhere. You know where? From their personal takes on the original series. Where else, right? To reiterate, many of what I see here can be practically translated to "Nagging wife? Are you attacking my Jaheira? Are you attacking my Baldur's Gate, my beloved game?" I repeat, NO, NO, and NO! To make to clear, again, NO ONE'S DOING THAT!
Perhaps what they're saying now is this, if you find her as a nagging wife in BG1, why change her? Don't detract from her character! [Argh, is there an end to this?] Remember like I said, that's most likely because the NPCs have hardly been explored in BG1, they're still that "canvass containing only sketches." We may have already formulated our own imaginations of them in our head, but they remain just that - imaginations; and the fact is, Beamdog can still paint it a whole. In fact, that's precisely what they're here for to begin with, right? That's precisely what SoD is for, right? Again, nothing's "changed" really, only explored, only an added depth to the world, to the characters, to which Beamdog is entitled to explore, they should be given creative freedom. If you have a problem on their choices, that's another topic for discussion. But with respect to the aforesaid issues, there should be none!
Safana was a classic femme fatale. She used seduction and manipulation to get what she wants, and it worked. I agree that she was a bit cartoony, though. But then again so were many of the male characters and they didn't need changing, it seems.
She didn't do anything to their personalities; she merely expanded upon what was already there. Which was her job. To flesh out the skeletal character designs from BG1 and bring them up to BG2 level.
I mean sheesh, when I first met Safana, she greeted me with a flirt. When she accepts my offer to join the group, she says something like, "You know I could never refuse you." How much more sexy do you want?
If Siege of Dragonspear was entirely new story without Bhaalspawn, I would've been okay with it. But it's not... It feels like all those horrible fan fictions I used to write about Baldur's Gate when I was a teenager.
I think her bold but reckless willing to attempt anything further her agenda
I couldn't buy the game yet, but will as soon as the family budget let me. I just saw one of the stream, where one of my kin was slained by @PhillipDaigle . I'm not angry on Phil for this at all, we all know, how impulsive he is.
Thanks for bringing new adventures to play in the BG world.
Write an expansion inbetween two games with sometimes huge differency in the writing, more than 15 years after. Obviously it's hard. I give my hat to the team (not sure that expression make sense in english, if not it'll make this message funnier).
Doesn't join your party though...
At the end of the day, it doesn't matter how well I think I wrote something, or acted in something or how badly I think I did. All the matters is what my audience thought of it.
Those that loved it, those that hated it. Both are just as valid. I can't please everyone, so I need to decide which group matters most to me. Do I stick to what a certain group liked, or change to be more palatable to other groups. There is not right or wrong regardless if it's good or bad.
Personally, I've been turned off by many of the developments around SOD. However I'm sure there are people out there that cheered for it. Beamdog just needs to decide who their audience is and why.
It's always bothered me that people "hate" paladins. A paladin should really be the sort of person who entrances others with his magnetism and confidence. When he shakes your hand and looks into your eyes with a smile, you should feel something special in the exchange.
Afterwards, you can talk to Jaheira. Her first reaction to it is to angrily proclaim how stupid it is to be crafting baubles in the middle of a battlefield. When pushed just a little further, she admits that of course she adores it and gushes just a little about Khalid before dropping back into her dour default.
Honestly, I don't think they did a bad job writing the actual party members, especially if you ascribe to the theory that Minsc only truly broke when Dynaheir died in Irenicus's lab. This is still BG1 Minsc, confident and proud and only slightly dingy. Even Safana seems like her old self, just a little older and growing tired of being the target of male libidos. And, to be just that much more honest, I really don't like BG1's characters either, as they are largely soulless bots with unique voice sets and recruitment scenes, with maybe one rule-breaking bonus like a free Summon Ghast or Slow Poison. As such, I never play BG1 without either a party of EE characters or the BG1NPC mod, which expands the characters to BG2 levels, to the point that I personally consider a mod more canon than the game it's for.
NPC project gets universal praise, and has indeed become "canon" to an extent.
Has SOD managed that?
Shouldn't NPC project be the benchmark for what was trying to be achieved?
What SoD is, actually, is a good middle ground for the transition from bots with a voiceset vs characters with depth. Jaheira is a fairly hostile lady of war who will not give her timid husband a break, yes, but she also makes it clear in quieter moments that she genuinely loves him for who he is, which makes her soul-shattering discovery of him in BG2 actually work. Safana has gone from "any man I can manipulate is an asset" to "I do have a brain, too, you know", approaching the disdain for Coran she shows in BG2. Dynaheir and Minsc are still their BG1 selves, without the trauma needed to turn boisterous bruiser into amusingly unstable hero from BG2. Didn't use Edwin this time around, but I assume we get to see his transition from Red Mage in good (if meager) standing to renegade. Of all of them, it seems Viconia is the only one that truly got screwed up, creating a character with a multiple choice background worthy of the Joker.
In other words, I feel SoD did what it set out to do: bridge the gap. We see the "circumstances darker than anyone could imagine" (BG2's opening sequence) that pulled you from Baldur's Gate. We see the Scion (the main character) face bigger challenges than before, in a framework that makes them earn their victory (the focus of the expansion rather than just being a sidequest like it would be in BG2). We see characters shifting from their flat BG1 personas towards their ultimate BG2 goals, and get a chance to see more dimensions of others who never got the change to shine in the sequel (like Khalid and Dynaheir).
There were mistakes made, yes. But overall, I think the writing was successful at what it was meant to do.