Can't wait for Tides of Numenera, either. Looks just as good.
Tides is excellent because it captures the feel of PS:T while still distancing itself somewhat. I think you'd struggle to really do something even within the same setting and have it be quite as compelling. PS:T always had a special place in my heart, and I doubt I'm alone there.
On a similar note, I would much rather them make a new game (BG or otherwise) than the once speculated PST:EE. Because they always add little bits in the EE, and I'm such a purist I don't know how I'd feel about that. I mean, even if the additions were good I'd have reservations, and if they added memes..... Oh god I can see the ending cutscene now:
*whispered* "what can change the nature of a man" TNO turns to camera "ethics". He turns away, cuts to black
it would be like iwd ee just an update with ub mod content added. unlike baldurs gate adding new npcs would not wok as execpt grace every npc has some connection to tno.
I think leave Baldur's Gate 3 alone, but make another stand-alone D&D game using 5E (Core Rules). Unity engine would be the way forward. I wouldn't want NPCs because so much can happen in BG2 that breaks continuity.
Aerie got married to CHARNAME and had two kids. No... Viconia married him and then was killed by Drow. or... was it Anomen? Or Jaheira? Speaking of Anomen, what was his alignment by the end of the game?
It's best just to start from scratch with a new campaign and new memorable characters but in the same beloved world.
If they want to do a new game from scratch, they'd be silly not to at least consider making it Baldur's Gate III - the name alone would get the game a priceless amount of free attention. I don't think BG really revolves around CHARNAME and her/his heritage, but rather on isometric, D&D-based gameplay with companions in the Forgotten Realms. Granted, they could work some sort of Bhaal-related shenanigans into the plot, I suppose.
It would be best if the games didn't deal with CHARNAME or any descendants, IMO, because all games that do this are prone to wrecking people's personal conception of their character (with the very singular exception of KOTOR II, which handled it brilliantly, but then SWTOR completely wrecked it again).
(All sequel games need more Neera, however, since as finally reaching SoD has reminded me, there is never, never enough Neera.)
Can someone post the "controversial" line in question so that when or if they decide to remove it thanks to SJW shithattery I can add it back myself?
Honestly, I'm surprised they didn't remove the entire Edwin/Edwina dialogue. Why are people so desperate to ruin things and why are others here aiding and abetting these fascists who want to stamp down on free expression? I was looking forward to this game too but I'm not sure I'll shell out for it if they're going to go all PC on us.
@allahwhoakbars: The line was "Really, it's all about ethics in heroic adventuring," which hurt some Gamergate people's feelings. It sounds like you might be very confused about what happened.
The gamergate comment did nothing but opening up a wound that should have been left alone. For those of us that doesn't give a damn about GG it just ended up being yet another thing that rubs that crap in your face. Some people over at Gamergate are bad people. We got it five years ago. No need to remind us every week.
@allahwhoakbars: The line was "Really, it's all about ethics in heroic adventuring," which hurt some Gamergate people's feelings. It sounds like you might be very confused about what happened.
I, for one, look forward to hearing all about the "SJW shithattery" of Gamergate is committed by "fascists who want to stamp down on free expression", leading to Beamdog "going all PC on us". I guess it's because they're just "desperate to ruin things".
The gamergate comment did nothing but opening up a wound that should have been left alone. For those of us that doesn't give a damn about GG it just ended up being yet another thing that rubs that crap in your face. Some people over at Gamergate are bad people. We got it five years ago. No need to remind us every week.
That must have been so painful for you to have an old wound ripped open by something you don't care about being alluded to in a rare selection sound in a game that you have (let me be careful here) played for five hours on your friend's computer.
But yes, I should add to my earlier comment: Some people "that doesn't give a damn about GG" were also offended by the line and feel strongly that the game should be a safe space, free from anything potentially controversial.
But yes, I should add to my earlier comment: Some people "that doesn't give a damn about GG" were also offended by the line and feel strongly that the game should be a safe space, free from anything potentially controversial.
In way way is "ethics" controversial?
Ethics: noun 1. (used with a singular or plural verb) a system of moral principles: the ethics of a culture. 2. (used with a plural verb) the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc.: medical ethics; Christian ethics. 3. (used with a plural verb) moral principles, as of an individual: His ethics forbade betrayal of a confidence. 4. (used with a singular verb) that branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions.
The gamergate comment did nothing but opening up a wound that should have been left alone. For those of us that doesn't give a damn about GG it just ended up being yet another thing that rubs that crap in your face. Some people over at Gamergate are bad people. We got it five years ago. No need to remind us every week.
That must have been so painful for you to have an old wound ripped open by something you don't care about being alluded to in a rare selection sound in a game that you have (let me be careful here) played for five hours on your friend's computer.
But yes, I should add to my earlier comment: Some people "that doesn't give a damn about GG" were also offended by the line and feel strongly that the game should be a safe space, free from anything potentially controversial.
I never said it was my wound. It is the "internet's wound". I don't frequent gamergate, and I never have. Stop putting words into my mouth, please. And trying to toss in poorly hidden personal attacks is rather lame, don't you think.
And I wasn't offended by the GG comment at all. If something does offend me I suck it up and move on. The world isn't always a nice comfy place, and getting offended by everything just won't do me any good.
The thing is this. Myself and plenty others are just fed up with gamergate crap. Both sides of it. It is like noise, really. For awhile it had been quiet, and now it just started up again.
Big kudos to Beamdog for removing it, though.
And no. I don't feel this way because I have anything against a trans person being in the game.
My point of view on this is that it's done and dusted. Everyone is entitled to there opinion but it's getting boring now. I used to love browsing these forums and reading about people's experiences with all the infinity engine games but these last few weeks are making the forums very stale. Nearly every thread I read there's someone still bringing this up. It's getting very old and boring now.
This is true, actually. The characters felt very....neutral in their personality. No extremes. Where as in the BG games, most of the characters are rather extreme in one direction or another.
If they want to do a new game from scratch, they'd be silly not to at least consider making it Baldur's Gate III - the name alone would get the game a priceless amount of free attention. I don't think BG really revolves around CHARNAME and her/his heritage, but rather on isometric, D&D-based gameplay with companions in the Forgotten Realms. Granted, they could work some sort of Bhaal-related shenanigans into the plot, I suppose.
Granted it would be good for marketing, but it wouldn't really make sense. Baldur's Gate is a city. BG1 used the name because it revolved around the the city. BG2 didn't include the city as such, but was a continuation of the story of Bhaalspawn, so naturally the sequel adopts the name too. If the next game from Beamdog is in another part of the realms (which I hope will be the case) and isn't a continuation of the story, it seems kind of odd to name it after some random city on the other side of the world which once had some unrelated thing happen. Up to Beamdog, of course, but seems a bit silly to me.
I've been out of the community for a while, so I (luckily) missed most of the controversy.
My opinion is simple. I don't care. I'm not going to cheer some SJW victory. I'm not going to sit in my mancave and write angry blogposts. The NPC in question is simply not important enough to the game for this to be an issue. They're a side NPC. They have a handful of throwaway lines. If they occupied most of the game, and the player was forced to help them deal with their sexual identity or something like that, then I might see an issue. But that's not what happens. If you don't like it, then don't interact with them anymore than you have to. If you really can't stand it, don't buy SoD. It's an extra. The series stands perfectly well with just the main titles.
Granted it would be good for marketing, but it wouldn't really make sense. Baldur's Gate is a city. BG1 used the name because it revolved around the the city. BG2 didn't include the city as such, but was a continuation of the story of Bhaalspawn, so naturally the sequel adopts the name too. If the next game from Beamdog is in another part of the realms (which I hope will be the case) and isn't a continuation of the story, it seems kind of odd to name it after some random city on the other side of the world which once had some unrelated thing happen. Up to Beamdog, of course, but seems a bit silly to me.
Well, no more silly than the Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance series, where you spent seemingly your entire "Baldur's Gate" time in the sewer.
But yeah, if they were to name it that it'd presumably have the city involved somewhere (leaping off point or mid-game visit).
Agreed. Though I actually preferred her in BG1&2. Did she have a different voice actor in SoD? something just seemed a bit different.
Nope, it's still Nicola Elbro. I do get what you mean, though; something changed her voice a bit (possibly due to different sound recording equipment?). Luckily, this is easy to brush off with Neera since that could be practically anything.
"Frog in my throat. Long story. Don't worry, the frog and me are both way happier now."
Granted it would be good for marketing, but it wouldn't really make sense. Baldur's Gate is a city. BG1 used the name because it revolved around the the city. BG2 didn't include the city as such, but was a continuation of the story of Bhaalspawn, so naturally the sequel adopts the name too. If the next game from Beamdog is in another part of the realms (which I hope will be the case) and isn't a continuation of the story, it seems kind of odd to name it after some random city on the other side of the world which once had some unrelated thing happen. Up to Beamdog, of course, but seems a bit silly to me.
Well, no more silly than the Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance series, where you spent seemingly your entire "Baldur's Gate" time in the sewer.
But yeah, if they were to name it that it'd presumably have the city involved somewhere (leaping off point or mid-game visit).
Agreed. Though I actually preferred her in BG1&2. Did she have a different voice actor in SoD? something just seemed a bit different.
Nope, it's still Nicola Elbro. I do get what you mean, though; something changed her voice a bit (possibly due to different sound recording equipment?). Luckily, this is easy to brush off with Neera since that could be practically anything.
"Frog in my throat. Long story. Don't worry, the frog and me are both way happier now."
I think leave Baldur's Gate 3 alone, but make another stand-alone D&D game using 5E (Core Rules). Unity engine would be the way forward. I wouldn't want NPCs because so much can happen in BG2 that breaks continuity.
Aerie got married to CHARNAME and had two kids. No... Viconia married him and then was killed by Drow. or... was it Anomen? Or Jaheira? Speaking of Anomen, what was his alignment by the end of the game?
It's best just to start from scratch with a new campaign and new memorable characters but in the same beloved world.
If you have BG3 (or whatever other game) using the 5E ruleset, you have to have about 200-300 years of "Dale Reckoning" (one of the common Forgotten Realms year reckonings) between the end of BG2 and BG3. As mentioned before, there were huge events that altered the feel of magic, the feel of the "god's space", etc., etc. As such, you would only need to make vague references to any character in BG1/2. You could probably get away without referencing them at all if needed.
I think you would want to make some references to events in the original games, even if it's 300 years later. There are enough fixed points in space-time to do that. Indeed I suspect SoD sets up a few things.
Other Bhaalspawn would have had children, so there could be hundreds of people with a hint of Bhaal's essence at that point in history, and I would guess that Bhaal would want them all dead. So you could have a new protagonist with a hint of Bhaalspawn blood, but not necessary tied to the original protagonist.
And there are characters who could still return who wouldn't be too old or too stupidly powerful, such as Xan and Kivan.
I think you would want to make some references to events in the original games, even if it's 300 years later. There are enough fixed points in space-time to do that. Indeed I suspect SoD sets up a few things.
Other Bhaalspawn would have had children, so there could be hundreds of people with a hint of Bhaal's essence at that point in history, and I would guess that Bhaal would want them all dead. So you could have a new protagonist with a hint of Bhaalspawn blood, but not necessary tied to the original protagonist.
Lorewise, the Forgotten Realms official lore doesn't agree with the idea that there are hundreds of Bhaalspawn descendants running around -- or at least, they're not specifically pointed as "Bhaalspawn descendants". You could argue that such people would be "tieflings", because a brand of tieflings come from "gods". See here: http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Tiefling#Tiefling_bloodlines But Bhaalspawn wouldn't be any more special than other tieflings whose bloodlines come from "evil gods", and they don't tend to display any differing features like most tieflings do. So, while you could easily tie in a new protagonist as a tiefling with blood from Bhaal, he/she would look like a normal member of any other race, really. Whether such a character would have any unique abilities (as CHARNAME in BG1/2 gets "new powers"), that could very easily be.
Any hypothetical BGIII would deviate from official canon anyway, by making the original Bhaalspawn not a human fighter called Abdel.
Why only cameos? I don't see any reason not to make Xan a major companion in a hypothetical BGIII. There is plenty of room to flesh him out, and the magical ructions that have gone on would justify making him (say) second level.
Why only cameos? I don't see any reason not to make Xan a major companion in a hypothetical BGIII. There is plenty of room to flesh him out, and the magical ructions that have gone on would justify making him (say) second level.
Probably because the devs would be more likely to make new companions and develop their own story than deal with people complain about how Xan in BG3 didn't fit their perception of Xan (based on the rather limited interactions that BG1 has).
Just look at all the crap that Beamdog got for fleshing out Safana in SoD. It's easier to avoid all that crap. A cameo is much cleaner.
looking at the whole safana thing just reeks of hypocrisy. if a modder had made a mod to have her in bg2 and expanded her character [ like xan and kivan} no one would have complained but because beamdog did it it's the end of the world.
looking at the whole safana thing just reeks of hypocrisy. if a modder had made a mod to have her in bg2 and expanded her character [ like xan and kivan} no one would have complained but because beamdog did it it's the end of the world.
Agreed. But you're always going to have that. When Bioware expanded characters in Mass Effect 2 (because several of the characters carried over from 1), people complained. When they did the same thing in 3 (again, characters carried over from 2), people complained. People will always complain, so you might as well make new characters and give them less reason to complain.
looking at the whole safana thing just reeks of hypocrisy. if a modder had made a mod to have her in bg2 and expanded her character [ like xan and kivan} no one would have complained but because beamdog did it it's the end of the world.
Agreed. But you're always going to have that. When Bioware expanded characters in Mass Effect 2 (because several of the characters carried over from 1), people complained. When they did the same thing in 3 (again, characters carried over from 2), people complained. People will always complain, so you might as well make new characters and give them less reason to complain.
Then they complain that the new characters are terribly written and don't fit with the rest of the narrative. People are impossible to satisfy.
looking at the whole safana thing just reeks of hypocrisy. if a modder had made a mod to have her in bg2 and expanded her character [ like xan and kivan} no one would have complained but because beamdog did it it's the end of the world.
Agreed. But you're always going to have that. When Bioware expanded characters in Mass Effect 2 (because several of the characters carried over from 1), people complained. When they did the same thing in 3 (again, characters carried over from 2), people complained. People will always complain, so you might as well make new characters and give them less reason to complain.
Then they will complain that they didn't get their favourite characters back.
People will complain whatever you do, so you should do whatever the hell you want.
looking at the whole safana thing just reeks of hypocrisy. if a modder had made a mod to have her in bg2 and expanded her character [ like xan and kivan} no one would have complained but because beamdog did it it's the end of the world.
Agreed. But you're always going to have that. When Bioware expanded characters in Mass Effect 2 (because several of the characters carried over from 1), people complained. When they did the same thing in 3 (again, characters carried over from 2), people complained. People will always complain, so you might as well make new characters and give them less reason to complain.
fun fact i prefer garrus's characterization in 2 and 3 much more then 1.
Comments
Can't wait for Tides of Numenera, either. Looks just as good.
On a similar note, I would much rather them make a new game (BG or otherwise) than the once speculated PST:EE. Because they always add little bits in the EE, and I'm such a purist I don't know how I'd feel about that. I mean, even if the additions were good I'd have reservations, and if they added memes..... Oh god I can see the ending cutscene now:
.... please no ;~;
Aerie got married to CHARNAME and had two kids.
No... Viconia married him and then was killed by Drow.
or... was it Anomen? Or Jaheira?
Speaking of Anomen, what was his alignment by the end of the game?
It's best just to start from scratch with a new campaign and new memorable characters but in the same beloved world.
It would be best if the games didn't deal with CHARNAME or any descendants, IMO, because all games that do this are prone to wrecking people's personal conception of their character (with the very singular exception of KOTOR II, which handled it brilliantly, but then SWTOR completely wrecked it again).
(All sequel games need more Neera, however, since as finally reaching SoD has reminded me, there is never, never enough Neera.)
Honestly, I'm surprised they didn't remove the entire Edwin/Edwina dialogue. Why are people so desperate to ruin things and why are others here aiding and abetting these fascists who want to stamp down on free expression? I was looking forward to this game too but I'm not sure I'll shell out for it if they're going to go all PC on us.
But yes, I should add to my earlier comment: Some people "that doesn't give a damn about GG" were also offended by the line and feel strongly that the game should be a safe space, free from anything potentially controversial.
Ethics: noun
1.
(used with a singular or plural verb) a system of moral principles:
the ethics of a culture.
2.
(used with a plural verb) the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc.:
medical ethics; Christian ethics.
3.
(used with a plural verb) moral principles, as of an individual:
His ethics forbade betrayal of a confidence.
4.
(used with a singular verb) that branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions.
And I wasn't offended by the GG comment at all. If something does offend me I suck it up and move on. The world isn't always a nice comfy place, and getting offended by everything just won't do me any good.
The thing is this. Myself and plenty others are just fed up with gamergate crap. Both sides of it. It is like noise, really. For awhile it had been quiet, and now it just started up again.
Big kudos to Beamdog for removing it, though.
And no. I don't feel this way because I have anything against a trans person being in the game.
My opinion is simple. I don't care. I'm not going to cheer some SJW victory. I'm not going to sit in my mancave and write angry blogposts. The NPC in question is simply not important enough to the game for this to be an issue. They're a side NPC. They have a handful of throwaway lines. If they occupied most of the game, and the player was forced to help them deal with their sexual identity or something like that, then I might see an issue. But that's not what happens. If you don't like it, then don't interact with them anymore than you have to. If you really can't stand it, don't buy SoD. It's an extra. The series stands perfectly well with just the main titles.
But yeah, if they were to name it that it'd presumably have the city involved somewhere (leaping off point or mid-game visit). Nope, it's still Nicola Elbro. I do get what you mean, though; something changed her voice a bit (possibly due to different sound recording equipment?). Luckily, this is easy to brush off with Neera since that could be practically anything.
"Frog in my throat. Long story. Don't worry, the frog and me are both way happier now."
Other Bhaalspawn would have had children, so there could be hundreds of people with a hint of Bhaal's essence at that point in history, and I would guess that Bhaal would want them all dead. So you could have a new protagonist with a hint of Bhaalspawn blood, but not necessary tied to the original protagonist.
And there are characters who could still return who wouldn't be too old or too stupidly powerful, such as Xan and Kivan.
But Bhaalspawn wouldn't be any more special than other tieflings whose bloodlines come from "evil gods", and they don't tend to display any differing features like most tieflings do. So, while you could easily tie in a new protagonist as a tiefling with blood from Bhaal, he/she would look like a normal member of any other race, really. Whether such a character would have any unique abilities (as CHARNAME in BG1/2 gets "new powers"), that could very easily be. Yes, but you would probably more want them as cameos than as party companions.
Why only cameos? I don't see any reason not to make Xan a major companion in a hypothetical BGIII. There is plenty of room to flesh him out, and the magical ructions that have gone on would justify making him (say) second level.
Just look at all the crap that Beamdog got for fleshing out Safana in SoD. It's easier to avoid all that crap. A cameo is much cleaner.
People will complain whatever you do, so you should do whatever the hell you want.