SPOILERS: SoD Ending & that evil mage: end battle? (plus idea for that open-end item at endplay)
TStael
Member Posts: 861
I must give it to the writing team: I thought the bridging of original BG to BG2 was really well done.
I had no inkling of Caylar's motives before playing through, and tend to think her youthful "arrogance" had not been quenched, yet when there is a hell to pay... One does not maybe have luxury of asking "OK, you claim to be righteous yet would weigh one individual above others, how's that, really???"
Those whom have not played yet BG2, do not read on.
Since all of those whom shall have paid BG2 know they start off as prisoners of that evil mage (Irenicus) - I would have actually liked to have a confrontation with him, personally, which I shall lose.
It could be a cut-scene, like Sarevok killing Gorion.
Or, it could be an unwinnable fight - minus story mode, where you just flee upfront maybe. Painful and true that, so I'd be fine, and just all hyped up to launch BG2 to settle that score!
As a variation, I think it would add motivation if your bravery (success or whatnot) in that fight would lead into Irenucus taking trophies that would be exported to BG2.
I know Irenicus wins the round, it would be bit of "anti Caylar-arrogance" to rub it in my face - but surely Irenicus would be the trophy taking type. Especially if brave and foolish opponents are concerned.
Your ultimate price: restore Skie, if you fight well enough. Soultaker as trophy flaunted by Irenicus.
I had no inkling of Caylar's motives before playing through, and tend to think her youthful "arrogance" had not been quenched, yet when there is a hell to pay... One does not maybe have luxury of asking "OK, you claim to be righteous yet would weigh one individual above others, how's that, really???"
Those whom have not played yet BG2, do not read on.
Since all of those whom shall have paid BG2 know they start off as prisoners of that evil mage (Irenicus) - I would have actually liked to have a confrontation with him, personally, which I shall lose.
It could be a cut-scene, like Sarevok killing Gorion.
Or, it could be an unwinnable fight - minus story mode, where you just flee upfront maybe. Painful and true that, so I'd be fine, and just all hyped up to launch BG2 to settle that score!
As a variation, I think it would add motivation if your bravery (success or whatnot) in that fight would lead into Irenucus taking trophies that would be exported to BG2.
I know Irenicus wins the round, it would be bit of "anti Caylar-arrogance" to rub it in my face - but surely Irenicus would be the trophy taking type. Especially if brave and foolish opponents are concerned.
Your ultimate price: restore Skie, if you fight well enough. Soultaker as trophy flaunted by Irenicus.
1
Comments
At various points in the development it was a fight with the initial attackers that couldn't be won and a cutscene. I pitched the idea of making the initial attack extremely difficult but winnable, with the Hooded Man showing up if the initial attackers lost, taking out the PC & Co, and a familiar voice saying something like "Bring the Bhaalspawn and any others that survived--They may prove useful to me" as the scene fades to black.
A number of factors went into the decision to go with a cinematic.
The Hooded Man attacking wasn't mentioned in the opening of BG2EE and we wanted to avoid contradicting it (even though I still think it would've been a cool thing to have for someone that managed to beat an incredibly difficult initial attack wave, like a 1 in 200 chance of beating the attack).
A cut-scene would take control away from the player, which could be frustrating if the party responded in a way the player would consider out of character.
And as a general it's not a lot of fun for players to be faced with a battle the characters have absolutely no way of winning, regardless of how narratively or canonically correct the loss is.
Ultimately, the Bhaalspawn had to fall for BG2EE to happen. A cinematic seemed the best option to give the moment maximum drama and entertainment value to a moment few designers want to end their game with: a no-win situation for the player. That cinematic was among the last elements to be inserted into the game.
I would guess I have a strong personal fondness for dastardly and overpowering villains, because it enhances the sense of conflict in a given campaign, our evil mage being a very long time favorite, not least because of excellent voice acting.
Another big favorite in this way would be Arl Howe in DA:Origins, as I tend to favour the human noble origins, and his exceedingly villainous treachery makes the whole campaign feel very personal, upping the ante in the final confrontation. Not to mention that Tim Curry must really relish playing baddies as he is really superb as our friend Rendon. "Your father would be proud. I, however, want you dead more than ever!"
I do appreciate though that for most players it probably would be a bit frustrating in view that BG2 sets the stage hero being in a bad fix, and taking on the hooded man is hard enough even at end of BG2 original campaign. (I find)
I'd perso would have just loved the expansion to end with that encounter as the assumption always is to import to BG2 and turn the tables in fullness of time. Very tall odds would actually work nicely too. But my compliments on that story device - I thought it was quite excellent in bridging the two games.
Since I suffered his disappearing act myself due to a little bug, this would also explain how he ended back with us anyway... :-)
Anyway, an prepared and overwhelming force would still be able to take you out with the element of surprise, especially considering that you're probably tired and hungry not only from the jailtime but traveling for a bit. I mean, even at level 8-9 you can get overwhelmed by mooks in the basement of dragonspear during the scouting quest so it's not out of the realm of possibility that you would lose to attrition.
I certainly had to relaod or drop difficulty on occasion - I though my swashbuckler class was particularly ill suiting for that duel business for example due to lack of back-stab multiplier for damage output - so my party at least could plausibly be overpowered. Such painful defeat and seeing those comrades killed would in my case be just increase motivation in going after the hooded feller in BG2.
I thought SoD was a very good until the end of the final battle with the Big Bad and after that for me it plummeted into the toilet. I felt as though CHARNAME was railroaded into pure DM fiat without a possibility to change or otherwise directly interact with the situation after the fact because the game ends very shortly after you regain full control over CHARNAME. I even reloaded a previous save to see if it was possible to use the command console to avoid the exact situation, but no matter what you do the same end result still happens.
Here's the sequence: 1.) Victorious Final Battle against Big Bad 2.) Diabolus ex Machina 3.) Extremely limited control of CHARNAME 4.) Full control of CHARNAME followed seconds later by 5.) Ending Cinematic
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DiabolusExMachina
No, I'm not exaggerating, it's that abrupt. I feel as though it might as well have been a totally non-interactive cut-scene because I felt as though nothing I was permitted to do made any difference. I understand that CHARNAME has to be captured by Irenicus, but between the defeat of the Big Bad and the ending cinematic all sense of player agency is removed, you're forced into a humiliation conga line. For me it would have been a much better game if it had just abruptly ended right after the final battle against the Big Bad.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HumiliationConga
Out of curiosity, do you prefer BioWare style "post-ending slide show" better? Where impact of certain aspect of your campaign decisions are revealed?
I'm pretty tolerant of it either way, even if I confess that after the first time play-through I have changed my final decision for Orzimmar in DA:O, even though in-game it is to me, perso, much less satisfactory!
I took the end sequence as fairly fitting, if not maybe glorious for a half-godling, which firstly was Hooded Man's scheming ability to play powers that be. And that the player CHAR no longer fully owns his persona, because of his/her deeds and descendance. Also, if you riddled the door-keeper devil (Thrix) - did he not tell you this upfront?
So trash as the hero might, being pushed to your inevitable fate was to me pretty good storytelling!
I just take that evil mage for a gloating, trophy taking type type - I'd love to have had a 200-to-1 (or even impossible) battle with him, just to be goaded unto BG2.
Edit: auto-spelling sometimes be damned. Correct "decadence" to "descendance".
Also: while it was great that the game explains the BGII starting party, I found the explanation a little wanting. If you're playing an evil character that helped Edwin kill Dynaheir in BGI, it just doesn't make sense for her and Minsc to come to your aid or for any of the characters to refer to you as "friend."
I love Imoen, but I feel like Jaheira and Khalid should be the ones to have organized the party - they were trusted friends of Gorion and are probably the only characters who would hold out hope for you regardless of your roleplaying path. Minsc and Dynaheir could then be explained because *they* recruited them, not because they came out of a sense of loyalty to you.
I can see Jaheira and Khalid getting together a party of people who may or may not have reason to hate you better than I can Imoen. If not, it just seems like there should be a better explanation than friendship or loyalty.
Finally, can CHARNAME have an option to address the love interest's absence from the default party when he meets him/her in BG2? In fact, there are probably quite a few SoD references that almost have to be added to BGII, such as
Could serve as a good reason to push back the HLAs back one million XP or so - at least with mages I disliked getting HLAs and level 9 spells at the same time.
From my view, best would be to patch so that if you kill Dynaheir, she and Minsc simply do not show up as optional NPCs, actually, but good point!
On the other hand, in view that Jaheira and Khalid had been back-scene players all along, as we learned during campaign, they certainly might as well be coordinating Imo and rest of the old party members, resurrecting Dynaheir and convincing her to forgive and forget.
I am understanding that not every continuity issue can be addressed with limited resources, but romances certainly should.
As to the open-end item, a quest around it in BG2 would certainly be great - I'd be ok for paid DLC if need be - but I think it can just be made as an end-cinematic, where one goes to hell (existing one) and other comes back to light (the big story twist in SoD).
As for DM Fiat, that makes sense to me. You had to end SoD in a particular state or else the start of BG2 doesn't make sense. Really how else could you do it?
Even if for some reason my CHARNAME wouldn't be moved to "answer the call" to adventure and refuses, I would still find the cliche of being drugged & kidnapped less egregious than the current result of being forcefully railroaded into the current DM fiat without any chance of potentially contemplating proving my innocence.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CallToAdventure
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RefusalOfTheCall
And I think your proposal is much more egregious. But that's likely an impasse neither of us will be able to overcome.
I was always told one of the first rules of DMing was that you never dictate a player's actions for them. You're proposal would do that for me. With the current set up, that's not the case.
As I see it, this no different than when Sarevok sets you up for murder in Candlekeep. Did you have an issue with that too?
Also you can prove your innocence at the trial. The problem is that the issue became so politicized that public had already made up their mind. This is not that far fetched. Look at what happened with the trial of George Zimmerman after the shooting of Trayvon Martin.
(p.s. I hope I'm not coming off as combative. I'm actually really enjoying this conversation.)
In my mind this would be the same a DM using an NPC to frame the PC, but not affording the PC a chance to prove the PC's innocence. If that's not an obvious example of railroading, then I don't know how else to convince you...
So the issue for you isn't being found innocent or not, but that it wasn't publicly announced that you were innocent? The Grand Dukes (except Entar) believe that you're innocent, but consider it political suicide to say so publicly at the moment. I don't have a problem with that.
And yeah, I'd be fine with with being in a situation where I was framed by the DM but couldn't clear my name 100% as that's a very realistic outcome. In fact, I actually had a situation like that in a game of WFRP I played back in college. Our group was accused of consorting with daemons by a witch hunter, and while we avoided the Pyre the town closed their doors to us for good. It was a really great adventure (and maybe why I like the end of SoD so much).
Another thing I noticed, but it seems like you seem to believe that all railroading by a DM is bad as well. I disagree, I think there are more than a few ways that railroading can be effective in an RPG. And I think this is one of those instances.
But beyond - I refuse to cross my fingers. I just game away SoD and like it.
Should it not be us BG and Beamdog fans to love SoD the best, and significantly? Unto BG3?