I just beat SoD and thought I would list my thoughts (long, and spoilers)
Burpcycle
Member Posts: 22
Before I go on, I should freely admit to being a huge fanboy of the series. BG2 has been my favorite game since 2001, and BG1 is in my Top 20 games of all time. I am probably am not someone who could have been easily pleased. If that invalidates my thoughts, so be it. I'm going to split my thoughts on the game into three sections.
The Story
As far as the story to SoD goes, it's whatever. It is neither good nor bad, it simply is. Caelar is a fine enough antagonist, but she could have been much more. It would have been much more interesting without the entire Hephernaan and Hell plots, but I suppose it's not epic enough to have BG1's climax be a simple fight against a human fighter with divine heritage. Oh wait.
I'm not sure Beamdog really got what made BG1 and BG2 so magical. It wasn't the linear plot (both of which were still better than SoD's). It was that you could just bugger off and do a bunch of sidequests or explore a forest of trolls or whatever, and you could do it on your own time. The series didn't appeal to the same degree that TES or Fallout do, of course, but the idea of this linear plot where you're marching along with an army and such barely works. It works, but the concept of it doesn't fit around what makes Baldur's Gate good as well as the original two games do. And for what? For two fights during which you sort of lead part of an army? You're so powerful during this game that you can almost handle Caelar's entire army by yourself.
The Characters
I'll get this out of the way: all of the new characters are dogshit. Glint, Corwin, the goblin, that Swedish guy, all are terrible. I'm not going to pretend that all of BG1's and BG2's characters are good (hello Cernd), but the four new SoD characters are just awful. I didn't use any of the default EE characters this go around, so I can't comment on them.
As for the returning characters, I have mixed feelings. Some are great and in-character (I appreciate that Dynaheir's mangled accent is kept fully intact), and I was surprised at how many people are left out, to the point where I wonder if I somehow missed them, but I wanted to talk about Jaheira, Skie, and Safana.
I didn't want to bring up the GG/SJW controversy (I truly don't give a crap about a transgender cleric or Minsc's stupid line), but I saw a post by some dev that highlighted my problem with these three characters: specifically that they were altered. Jaheira is no longer nagging, Skie is no longer hopelessly in love with an abusive boyfriend (who's entirely cut from the game, as far as I can tell), and Safana cares way too much about the plight of women. I could accept that for one of them this is character development, but all of them? It doesn't even make sense for Jaheira, who's just as nagging in BG2 as she was in the original BG1. Forgive me for trying to read into other peoples' minds, but it feels to me like the writers/devs either were uncomfortable with what they perceived as sexism in the original game or that they wanted to make their own unique characters out of existing ones, so they made Jaheira more normal and reasonable, Skie break up with Eldoth, and Safana care more about the plight of the medieval woman. Maybe I'm wrong on all of that. I'll tell you what I'm not wrong about: Safana.
I grant that Safana barely had a character in BG1, but she was basically "flighty, flirty thief who only cares about herself." Introducing her by having her get on Garrick's case for treating a woman as a sex object is ridiculously out of character. Her special skill is charming people by kissing them! Wouldn't she want men to think of women as sex objects to be worn down into submission? It could only possibly serve to make them easier to manipulate. And hell, I did the Safana romance (mostly arbitarily) and it ends with her saying "I don't believe you didn't kill Skie, also you're too complicated, bye." I guess after that she joined a werewolf pack, seduced Coran (whom she broke up with in this game), and attempted to kill me, during none of which either of us mentioned how we were banging during Caelar's silly crusade. Gee, how uplifting. At least Tiax was in-character for the eleven seconds he was on screen.
The Continuity
The idea that the Bhaalspawn had some adventure between BG1 and BG2 that never gets mentioned ever during BG2 is, at best, ludicrous. I can look past it for the purpose of "We needed to make another game and a prequel and sequel were impossible," but the idea that you were a major hero in Baldur's Gate and then became a huge criminal after being framed for Skie's death, and none of that is mentioned in BG2, is stupid. What, you're going to tell me that in the multiple times you go to Hell in BG2, no one mentions that you slew a Lord of Hell? You're going to tell me that no one in Amn knows about the guy who was publicly tried for a noblewoman's death, who had her soul sucked into a mysterious dagger, and disappeared? There's a cop in BG2 who mentions knowing about a child murderer from Baldur's Gate, but I guess he didn't hear about the Sword Coast's great hero running off after murdering a noblewoman and stealing her soul. And did the Soultaker Dagger thing ever get resolved? Did I miss something, or is Skie just screwed for all eternity? I mean, I really have to emphasize how strange it is that no one would ever mention ever during BG2 how "you" killed Skie. That's international news is what it is, but apparently no one in Amn has heard about it! It's not even worth going into the myriad minor things, like how you've never met Sahuigan before during BG2 and have to have what they are explained to you.
And I mean... either the Bhaalspawn knew during the events of BG2 that Irenicus was the Hooded Mage, or he didn't, in which case he thinks he has another big mage enemy out there who sounds just like David Warner. If the former is the case, why does he act like he's never met Irenicus before, and if the latter, why does he never mention that he has another enemy out there? I guess I should also mention that in the ending, Khalid didn't show up to join my party. Minsc, Dynaheir, Imoen, and Jaheira did, but not Khalid. I guess Irenicus kidnapped Khalid in an unrelated incident.
It kills me, too, because clearly Beamdog cared at least a little bit about the continuity. Clearly they had at least some genuine desire to make a really good Baldur's Gate interquel. I don't know how much was genuine and how much was motivated by "let's squeeze some more money out of this," but I know that some was. What they really should have done was make this an alternate universe thing, where Irenicus never meets you and it's just what WOULD have happened if things had gone differently after Sarevok's death.
Overall, I didn't hate this game, and I do appreciate that it tries to do some clever things. But at the end of the day, I've played BG1 at least ten times and BG2 at least fifteen. I probably will never replay SoD.
The Story
As far as the story to SoD goes, it's whatever. It is neither good nor bad, it simply is. Caelar is a fine enough antagonist, but she could have been much more. It would have been much more interesting without the entire Hephernaan and Hell plots, but I suppose it's not epic enough to have BG1's climax be a simple fight against a human fighter with divine heritage. Oh wait.
I'm not sure Beamdog really got what made BG1 and BG2 so magical. It wasn't the linear plot (both of which were still better than SoD's). It was that you could just bugger off and do a bunch of sidequests or explore a forest of trolls or whatever, and you could do it on your own time. The series didn't appeal to the same degree that TES or Fallout do, of course, but the idea of this linear plot where you're marching along with an army and such barely works. It works, but the concept of it doesn't fit around what makes Baldur's Gate good as well as the original two games do. And for what? For two fights during which you sort of lead part of an army? You're so powerful during this game that you can almost handle Caelar's entire army by yourself.
The Characters
I'll get this out of the way: all of the new characters are dogshit. Glint, Corwin, the goblin, that Swedish guy, all are terrible. I'm not going to pretend that all of BG1's and BG2's characters are good (hello Cernd), but the four new SoD characters are just awful. I didn't use any of the default EE characters this go around, so I can't comment on them.
As for the returning characters, I have mixed feelings. Some are great and in-character (I appreciate that Dynaheir's mangled accent is kept fully intact), and I was surprised at how many people are left out, to the point where I wonder if I somehow missed them, but I wanted to talk about Jaheira, Skie, and Safana.
I didn't want to bring up the GG/SJW controversy (I truly don't give a crap about a transgender cleric or Minsc's stupid line), but I saw a post by some dev that highlighted my problem with these three characters: specifically that they were altered. Jaheira is no longer nagging, Skie is no longer hopelessly in love with an abusive boyfriend (who's entirely cut from the game, as far as I can tell), and Safana cares way too much about the plight of women. I could accept that for one of them this is character development, but all of them? It doesn't even make sense for Jaheira, who's just as nagging in BG2 as she was in the original BG1. Forgive me for trying to read into other peoples' minds, but it feels to me like the writers/devs either were uncomfortable with what they perceived as sexism in the original game or that they wanted to make their own unique characters out of existing ones, so they made Jaheira more normal and reasonable, Skie break up with Eldoth, and Safana care more about the plight of the medieval woman. Maybe I'm wrong on all of that. I'll tell you what I'm not wrong about: Safana.
I grant that Safana barely had a character in BG1, but she was basically "flighty, flirty thief who only cares about herself." Introducing her by having her get on Garrick's case for treating a woman as a sex object is ridiculously out of character. Her special skill is charming people by kissing them! Wouldn't she want men to think of women as sex objects to be worn down into submission? It could only possibly serve to make them easier to manipulate. And hell, I did the Safana romance (mostly arbitarily) and it ends with her saying "I don't believe you didn't kill Skie, also you're too complicated, bye." I guess after that she joined a werewolf pack, seduced Coran (whom she broke up with in this game), and attempted to kill me, during none of which either of us mentioned how we were banging during Caelar's silly crusade. Gee, how uplifting. At least Tiax was in-character for the eleven seconds he was on screen.
The Continuity
The idea that the Bhaalspawn had some adventure between BG1 and BG2 that never gets mentioned ever during BG2 is, at best, ludicrous. I can look past it for the purpose of "We needed to make another game and a prequel and sequel were impossible," but the idea that you were a major hero in Baldur's Gate and then became a huge criminal after being framed for Skie's death, and none of that is mentioned in BG2, is stupid. What, you're going to tell me that in the multiple times you go to Hell in BG2, no one mentions that you slew a Lord of Hell? You're going to tell me that no one in Amn knows about the guy who was publicly tried for a noblewoman's death, who had her soul sucked into a mysterious dagger, and disappeared? There's a cop in BG2 who mentions knowing about a child murderer from Baldur's Gate, but I guess he didn't hear about the Sword Coast's great hero running off after murdering a noblewoman and stealing her soul. And did the Soultaker Dagger thing ever get resolved? Did I miss something, or is Skie just screwed for all eternity? I mean, I really have to emphasize how strange it is that no one would ever mention ever during BG2 how "you" killed Skie. That's international news is what it is, but apparently no one in Amn has heard about it! It's not even worth going into the myriad minor things, like how you've never met Sahuigan before during BG2 and have to have what they are explained to you.
And I mean... either the Bhaalspawn knew during the events of BG2 that Irenicus was the Hooded Mage, or he didn't, in which case he thinks he has another big mage enemy out there who sounds just like David Warner. If the former is the case, why does he act like he's never met Irenicus before, and if the latter, why does he never mention that he has another enemy out there? I guess I should also mention that in the ending, Khalid didn't show up to join my party. Minsc, Dynaheir, Imoen, and Jaheira did, but not Khalid. I guess Irenicus kidnapped Khalid in an unrelated incident.
It kills me, too, because clearly Beamdog cared at least a little bit about the continuity. Clearly they had at least some genuine desire to make a really good Baldur's Gate interquel. I don't know how much was genuine and how much was motivated by "let's squeeze some more money out of this," but I know that some was. What they really should have done was make this an alternate universe thing, where Irenicus never meets you and it's just what WOULD have happened if things had gone differently after Sarevok's death.
Overall, I didn't hate this game, and I do appreciate that it tries to do some clever things. But at the end of the day, I've played BG1 at least ten times and BG2 at least fifteen. I probably will never replay SoD.
11
Comments
Charname undergoes atrocious torture at the hands of Irenicus, it seems reasonable that he'd forget how he first met Irenicus.
Regarding the story, I also think it could have been better, but it is not bad. I think a different element if we compare it with BG 1 or BG 2 is that, this time, your character is NOT at the center of everything. You play your part in another (the Shining Lady) characters quest. One thing I miss are MORE EXPLANATIONS of the characters motives and what was going on "behind the scene". For example, the Shining Ladys advisor (sorry, his name is very difficult to spell correctly, but you all know whom I am referring to) seems to have a very important role in the fall of the SL but we dont know anythign about who he really was (a devil, OK, but if he was, how is that nobody noticed before? how could he hide a mong humans for so long without nobody noticing?). Irenicus and the Accord: why were they in "talks"? (remember the meeting between Irenicus and the SL advisor?) And why Irenicus met with the SL? What was the real purpouse of it?
The biggest flaw in the argument, from a roleplaying pov, was, imho, the fact that the SL never bothers about asking you if you would voluntarily agree to the whole "lets get into Hell" plot (and when she does, late in the game, you arent allowed to "ally" with her). In fact, it is something the SL advisor should have advised her (after all, it was what he wanted: to see the SL in Hell). It would have saved the SL a lot of efforts and deaths, and same goes for the main character (unless he choose not to accompany the SL into Hell).
By the way, the SoD story (at least part of it) IS NOT invented. According to Beamdog, Bioware, back on the 90s, left notes regarding what had happened to the Bhaalspawn between BG 1 and BG 2, altough I assume the notes didnt reach the level of detail SoD gives us. It is natural that there are a few inconsistencies between BG 2 and SoD, because Bioware, back on their days, didnt make a SoD expansion, so they had far more liberty to do as they pleased in BG 2. They KNEW (even if they didnt tell us) what had happened (as I have told you, they made notes of it), but they didnt give us many clues (apart from the "marching from Baldurs Gate under grim circunstances). After all, it would have been very strange if in the original BG 2 your character had had an option to say he had been in Hell before and had met a Hooded Man (players would have been scratching their heads thinking when that had happened, or crying why those things hadnt seen the light in the form of an expansion).
The correct thing would have been to change BG 2 a bit to take into account what happened in SoD, however, I am not sure if Beamdog can legally do that.
As for SoD being written by Bioware originally, that they had an idea they didn't use doesn't mean it meant anything. BG2 clearly disregards all of it except literally the final thirty seconds. Even with the distance between Baldur's Gate and Athkatla, there's no possible way to explain why no one ever mentions you and Skie during BG2. I assume that had SoD originally been made and then BG2, that would actually be a plot point.
Regarding Bhaalspawns lack of memories associated with such events we can argue that protagonist could face Dissociative Amnesia - this is plausible considering the beginning of BG2. Convenient but plausible.
If you feel that certain 'canonical' elements of BG:EE and SoD should be included in BG2. Do not hesitate to submit a feature request, I certainly would welcome additional levels of depth in my game-play, whether BD can do these may be something else.
As for the trials in ToB, those are all focused on your own nature as a bhaalspawn. I'd find it more weird if Caelar showed up there.
I rather loved the plot twist myself.
http://i.imgur.com/2gHAeVD.jpg
I didn't like the ending because every person thinks you are bad no matter what. They aren't even doubting it seems. I can understand a bad ending, as in not happy, but this felt a bit forced.
The things about transgender subjects didn't bother me at all. They never have.
There were some weird lines from Viconia and Safana about sexism. I actually do not prefer the original nor the new lines and backgrounds.
I was confused if SoD was an enhanced edition of an expansion, or a totally new expansion. I now know the answer, but for someone who has barely played BG1, it was confusion to know what was going on.
I have played BG2 a lot though.
What also confused me is that I was used to party members/bosses having portraits. But now there are slightly more. I assumed that Skie would be a party member at some point, due to her having a portrait.
I do like Imoen more after playing SoD. I don't why though. Lol.
The reason I play ToB every four or five times I play BG2 is because it is... linear.
But also, I have never had the stamina to do the main Tower bit of Tales of Sword coast expansion fully, because it is still dungeon crawling, just at optional moments.
Am I happy Tales, Throne and Dragonspear are there, though? Heck, yeah! On all three.
Caelar had hell to pay in the end, so I can live with not being able to argue her readiness for a terrible trade off - but Irenicus sapping the tree of life is hardly more understandable.
I had M'Khiin along, and liked her stoicness, maybe also her being a shaman, but I did. I just brought Voghiln along for larks - I love that he cheats on me and betrays me when I am at the dungeons! And that was German accent btw, as far as I can tell. Were that a Swede, I might feel icy sting in my heart... This said, on my next play through I want to bring the other two new NPCs along.
All of that said: even just more of Minsc, Imo, Viconia etc - AND original narrator, I bow at thee Beamdog - plus Irenicus. Sold to me, perso, with pleasure that remains after first play-through.
Had to fiddle with EEKeeper a bit as I started out as my favorite class Archer...guess how it worked out for me couple of hours into the game.
Changed Minsc into Berserker for durable frontline and still fitting into his character. Really, where were the meatshields in this game? And made Safana a dual-classed fighter/thief. Pure thiefs are useless and didn't like Glint enough to haul his arse.
In the end I went from Elven Female Archer to a Dwarven Male Fighter/Cleric named Yeslick suited for the frontlines.
EDIT: party of Yeslick, Minsc, Dynaheir, Safana, Corwin, Voghiln