sequel (ˈsiːkwəl) n 1. anything that follows from something else; development 2. a consequence or result 3. a novel, play, etc, that continues a previously related story
It doesn't say "features exactly the same group of characters". No one disputes that LotR was a sequel to The Hobbit, despite featuring different characters.
As for where they are, Xzar and Monty are to report into Zhent HQ, before being dispatched to Amn, Viconia is still around, Eldoth is probably in hiding, and Skie has joined the Flaming Fist.
Yeah, one of the very nice things about SoD is that whatever your original party is, while going through the first dungeon they make some noises about why they're leaving you afterwards. It's a much better farewell than they ever got before, and there's no assumption you actually know the returning characters in SoD either (unlike BGII).
If I kill Sarevok with Xzar, Monty, Vico, Eldoth and Skie, what's my team in SOD ?...
TOSC was a sequel for BG1. TOB was a sequel for BG2. SOD is a stand alone.
You have options: but you can have Edwin, Glint, Viconia, Vogiln and Safana which will be as close to your character classes in your main game, but I'd probably just take Dorn over Glint since you need another beefcake.
"Well, you hear Sarevok first in BG1, in the intro movie. But you don't get the Gorion/Sarevok encounter until probably an hour or so into playing for a new player."
It really doesn't take an hour or so to do candlekeep. 30mins tops on a casual first time through, for some people who dont bother with chores: less than 5mins. But the point still stands that all the first voiced conversations in BG1 are far better than SoD's regardles of whether it is 5mins after the player starts or 50mins its still the first voiced dialogue.
The first voiced line I remember was "My hotel's as clean as an elven arse." Classic writing worthy of The Bard.
"They removed NPCs to simplfy the story-telling. Bringing all 29 BG1EE NPCs (25 original BG1 NPCs and 4 EE NPCs) into SoD and giving them all fleshed out content would have taken an enormous writing and development effort, to say nothing of adding 4 new NPCs. So, they downsized the cast past the prologue. Remember that the original BG1 NPCs have at most about 12 lines of dialog each. They are barely 1-dimensional characters."
They didn't need to flesh them out all they needed was to either a) not remove them or b) provide some form of farewell scenario and reasoning for their departure. As it stands there is no reason they just vanish along with half your gear.
If they hadn't removed them, they would had to have given them dialog and interjections. They couldn't have 15 NPCs with dialog, banter, comments on the plot, etc.. and 16 NPCs that stand around mute. There would be at least 16 petitions on the forums, "Petition to give Montaron Dialog", "Petition to give Xzar Dialog", etc..
"BG2 gave you a choice between aiding evil undead or aiding evil thieves. Not a satisfying "choice" for a LG paladin.
And then it puts you on the plot rails at Spellhold. "
...at which point you could choose whether to go through the portal or side with saemon.....at which point if you chose the latter, you could choose to side with either the mad king or the prince, or neither...
The element of choice and a degree of freedom is what makes RPGs great.
(fyi thieves arn't necessarily evil many are neutral and all the actions you perform for the STs in Amn are fairly good-aligned actions)
The Shadow Thieves assassinate for money. How altruistic of them.
Paladins are lawful good, not neutral good. Why would a paladin throw in with a thieves' guild instead of stamping both them and Bodhi out?
Sorry, but for my part, SOD is not a sequel to BG1, it's a new adventure.
The definition of the word "sequel" allows for "new adventures". Furthermore, SoD was originally intended to be a new adventure, and (in many ways) it still is, despite not being a standalone game.
@AstroBryGuy You missed something... Unlike a game like Morrowind, BG is classified "party based RPG".
I didn't miss anything. Sequels aren't required to have all the same characters as the previous game/movie/book/comic/cave painting. What matters is that they are carrying forward the story. BG2 is a sequel to BG1. They could make a BG3 where the new CHARNAME is the child of Aerie and the original CHARNAME. It would be a sequel to BG1 and BG2.
@AstroBryGuy You missed something... Unlike a game like Morrowind, BG is classified "party based RPG".
I didn't miss anything. Sequels aren't required to have all the same characters as the previous game/movie/book/comic/cave painting. What matters is that they are carrying forward the story. BG2 is a sequel to BG1. They could make a BG3 where the new CHARNAME is the child of Aerie and the original CHARNAME. It would be a sequel to BG1 and BG2.
I personally find that Baldurs Gate is NOT a true Sequel to the famous Cave painting.. They just share the same name! (Sorry I couldn't resist =P)
But to stay on topic, I agree with you. Sequels continue the story, yes, but it is possible to do so without a good chunk of the cast of the original one. It just says that it plays sometimes after the events of the predecessor and that the events are not completly ignored.
Hell, you could argue that Murder in Baldurs Gate is the sequel to Baldurs Gate - Throne of Bhaal. And the only one alive in that is Abdel (NOT the book aomination, the pre-generated fighter in the game, even WotC ignores the book nowadays ^^) and he is not even a real main char (the Players characters are, it is a tabletop adventure after all)
I never like formulaic that becomes a cage. I genuinely like SoD, and find that it has quite some interesting and satisfying story bridging elements.
But it never would be BG2. That moment was Sep 2000 release, or later original discovery.
I would love the OP to DM a preferred physical world D&D version of SoD. On or off-line. I'd watch it.
But I think there must remain an utmost solidarity of us gamers to non-corporate developers. It does not mean not being fairly critical - but brutal bashing will cage game developers which does nothing for most of us gamers, I think.
And so does excessive love.
Take Eternity by Obsidian - I do like it. But I expected something more ... cheeky, more bold, more humorous... more Obsidian. But they knew they had that 4.1 M from backers, and maybe rightly felt compelled to deliver like an Infinity Engine tribute act, not Obsidian.
My ideal world: banks offer financing instruments directly to development studios, on our risk-free backing, with a highly discounted corporate bond offered to us gamers. The artistic development is independent, while still getting the fan-buzz upside.
I wonder if Eternity could have been more bold, so, artistically? And as asset mgt topic, as a portfolio, a financing, distribution and marketing model for indies would be better for gaming, surely - as SME financing, what do you think?
What is wrong: Too much “dungeon by DM decree” and poor storytelling and dialog. 1. Imoen not in party: This is an example of dungeon by DM decree. This has some back story and I can accept this decree even though I don’t like it.
2. Lose all NPCs: Another example of dungeon by DM decree. I can understand the intent, but the implementation is just bad. Examples of how to fix: a. Dialog: NPC (like Kivan) says to charname “Now that I have avenged my wife, I feel I need some time to reflect. I am sure that you don’t mind if I return home now that our mission has been accomplished.
You mean Kivan saying something like
"Tazok is dead, Deheriana avenged. It's been too long since I was amongst the trees of Shilmista. I yearn to return home."
or
"Your quest is almost ended. Perhaps I will return home when we are done."
He says both of those lines in the prologue of SoD.
A sequel continues the story, whether it's the same group of people, the same problem resurfacing, or just the same world in the aftermath of the original's events or even in the same multi-verse with thematic or referential ties to previous games. SoD is a sequel, and not even by a difficult stretch of the definition, so there's no room to debate.
Most sequels are new adventures. Mass Effect 2 has us dealing with a new threat, with a new cast. Saints Row 4 has us playing the same Boss, dealing with a new threat to their supremacy, with new trials and advantages. Portal 2 has us continue as Chel, dealing with a new crisis in the Aperture Science compound. Not even direct continuations of a story (like Mass Effect 2) fail to be new adventures.
As for Jourin's review, he's not wrong. We've known since BG1EE that it's little more than a polished version of a game many of us already owned, just with a few popular mods pre-installed and a few new mods added in, and the new "mods" are pretty hit and miss. There is the simple fact that GoG had an updated copy of BG1 that ran just as well for half the price, and you could mod it from there. So from someone trying to decide if the EE versions are worth the doubled price, it isn't a clear cut choice.
And, as much as I like SoD, it isn't perfect. A lot of characters get an unceremonious ax, a lot of the characters that do come through have silly if not trivial plot threads, and the climax has a lot of railroading and not all of it flows well. I've shared my opinion of Caelar elsewhere, but the short version is that, unless she get addressed after the fact like Sarevok did, she's easily my least favorite antagonist of the franchise, once her character is properly revealed. Nothing about her is satisfying. Yes, she ranks under Saemon, and at least I got to dream I had some say in Mulahey's fate.
Now you might be tempted to get into definitions of the words and I'm fine with that but let's get the obvious thing out of the way here; licensing. Siege of Dragonspear is not a sequel to Baldur's Gate, it's an expansion to the game. It's right up there on the top of the page under games if you want to check out the dedicated page for it. So there is no room for debate.
That aside, one might put forward that a sequel is any published, broadcast or recorded work that continues the story or develops the theme of an earlier one. With that logic; SoD would seem to be a sequel. That is, until you realise what an expansion is. An expansion elaborates upon a story without being a complete new work altogether. For the sake of simplicity let us refrain from bringing up stand alone expansions for the moment, since SoD isn't one.
So to wrap it up; even though SoD continues the story of Baldur's Gate, it is not a complete game without the original work, therefore it cannot be a sequel.
The bug up my ass is the execution of SoD. Tales of The Sword Coast had a seamless transistion from A to B (or back), without any nonsense about partymembers suddenly jumping ship, so to speak.
Pretty much every step of my way in SoD so far has made me frown.
Now you might be tempted to get into definitions of the words and I'm fine with that but let's get the obvious thing out of the way here; licensing. Siege of Dragonspear is not a sequel to Baldur's Gate, it's an expansion to the game. It's right up there on the top of the page under games if you want to check out the dedicated page for it. So there is no room for debate.
That aside, one might put forward that a sequel is any published, broadcast or recorded work that continues the story or develops the theme of an earlier one.
As an aside, you mean the definition of "sequel" from the Oxford English Dictionary?
Given that the above definition has the Oxford English Dictionary behind it, I'd say it's a valid use of the word "sequel", and SoD does appear to fit that definition. It is a published work that continues the story.
WOW, I don' think I have ever seen so many long winded arguments on the appropriate term to call the new game and what the definition of sequel or mod is. Who cares!!
The OP was telling the truth and had very good insight into the issue with SOD, but people on this forum cant help themselves but to go APE #@^$ and indulge in insignificant and pointless rants.
Nobody can be wrong for having an opinion.
And since I am sure you will now point out how I am wrong for saying nobody can be wrong and the definition of the word wrong means BLAH BLAH BLAH ! I will have proved my point.
P.S. and I might be a BOT since I have less than 50 posts
Comments
There is no links between the end of BG1 and the beginning of SOD, it's not a sequel, it's a new adventure, another game, it's a stand alone.
SoD is certainly a new adventure, but it is a sequel to BG1, since it takes place after it, and a prequel to BG2, since it takes place before it.
It's also intended to be a prequel to a planned BG3.
Have you ever actually played SoD?!
TOSC was a sequel for BG1.
TOB was a sequel for BG2.
SOD is a stand alone.
n
1. anything that follows from something else; development
2. a consequence or result
3. a novel, play, etc, that continues a previously related story
It doesn't say "features exactly the same group of characters". No one disputes that LotR was a sequel to The Hobbit, despite featuring different characters.
As for where they are, Xzar and Monty are to report into Zhent HQ, before being dispatched to Amn, Viconia is still around, Eldoth is probably in hiding, and Skie has joined the Flaming Fist.
Which you would know if you had played the game.
IWD2 is a sequel to IWD1, yet you can't even import a single character and the only re-appearing character is Oswald Fiddlebender, a non-joinable NPC.
The first voiced line I remember was "My hotel's as clean as an elven arse." Classic writing worthy of The Bard.
Paladins are lawful good, not neutral good. Why would a paladin throw in with a thieves' guild instead of stamping both them and Bodhi out?
The only thing you lose is any types of bags of holding (just like when bringing in a party to ToB) at the beginning of the expansion.
If we import our party, we lose all our friends (even our "little sister" - Imoen).
What's the difference ?
Sorry, but for my part, SOD is not a sequel to BG1, it's a new adventure.
That's my final word on the subject.
You can choose to ignore the first dungeon and all the party interactions that happen in it if you want.
But sorry, it is all there and done better than what Bioware did in bridging the two games.
But to stay on topic, I agree with you.
Sequels continue the story, yes, but it is possible to do so without a good chunk of the cast of the original one.
It just says that it plays sometimes after the events of the predecessor and that the events are not completly ignored.
Hell, you could argue that Murder in Baldurs Gate is the sequel to Baldurs Gate - Throne of Bhaal.
And the only one alive in that is Abdel (NOT the book aomination, the pre-generated fighter in the game, even WotC ignores the book nowadays ^^) and he is not even a real main char (the Players characters are, it is a tabletop adventure after all)
But it never would be BG2. That moment was Sep 2000 release, or later original discovery.
I would love the OP to DM a preferred physical world D&D version of SoD. On or off-line. I'd watch it.
But I think there must remain an utmost solidarity of us gamers to non-corporate developers. It does not mean not being fairly critical - but brutal bashing will cage game developers which does nothing for most of us gamers, I think.
And so does excessive love.
Take Eternity by Obsidian - I do like it. But I expected something more ... cheeky, more bold, more humorous... more Obsidian. But they knew they had that 4.1 M from backers, and maybe rightly felt compelled to deliver like an Infinity Engine tribute act, not Obsidian.
My ideal world: banks offer financing instruments directly to development studios, on our risk-free backing, with a highly discounted corporate bond offered to us gamers. The artistic development is independent, while still getting the fan-buzz upside.
I wonder if Eternity could have been more bold, so, artistically? And as asset mgt topic, as a portfolio, a financing, distribution and marketing model for indies would be better for gaming, surely - as SME financing, what do you think?
or
"Your quest is almost ended. Perhaps I will return home when we are done."
He says both of those lines in the prologue of SoD.
Most sequels are new adventures. Mass Effect 2 has us dealing with a new threat, with a new cast. Saints Row 4 has us playing the same Boss, dealing with a new threat to their supremacy, with new trials and advantages. Portal 2 has us continue as Chel, dealing with a new crisis in the Aperture Science compound. Not even direct continuations of a story (like Mass Effect 2) fail to be new adventures.
As for Jourin's review, he's not wrong. We've known since BG1EE that it's little more than a polished version of a game many of us already owned, just with a few popular mods pre-installed and a few new mods added in, and the new "mods" are pretty hit and miss. There is the simple fact that GoG had an updated copy of BG1 that ran just as well for half the price, and you could mod it from there. So from someone trying to decide if the EE versions are worth the doubled price, it isn't a clear cut choice.
And, as much as I like SoD, it isn't perfect. A lot of characters get an unceremonious ax, a lot of the characters that do come through have silly if not trivial plot threads, and the climax has a lot of railroading and not all of it flows well. I've shared my opinion of Caelar elsewhere, but the short version is that, unless she get addressed after the fact like Sarevok did, she's easily my least favorite antagonist of the franchise, once her character is properly revealed. Nothing about her is satisfying. Yes, she ranks under Saemon, and at least I got to dream I had some say in Mulahey's fate.
That aside, one might put forward that a sequel is any published, broadcast or recorded work that continues the story or develops the theme of an earlier one. With that logic; SoD would seem to be a sequel. That is, until you realise what an expansion is. An expansion elaborates upon a story without being a complete new work altogether. For the sake of simplicity let us refrain from bringing up stand alone expansions for the moment, since SoD isn't one.
So to wrap it up; even though SoD continues the story of Baldur's Gate, it is not a complete game without the original work, therefore it cannot be a sequel.
Given that the above definition has the Oxford English Dictionary behind it, I'd say it's a valid use of the word "sequel", and SoD does appear to fit that definition. It is a published work that continues the story.
The OP was telling the truth and had very good insight into the issue with SOD, but people on this forum cant help themselves but to go APE #@^$ and indulge in insignificant and pointless rants.
Nobody can be wrong for having an opinion.
And since I am sure you will now point out how I am wrong for saying nobody can be wrong and the definition of the word wrong means BLAH BLAH BLAH ! I will have proved my point.
P.S. and I might be a BOT since I have less than 50 posts
or
"Your quest is almost ended. Perhaps I will return home when we are done."
He says both of those lines in the prologue of SoD.
Great news! Means the dialog is present with just the trigger in the wrong place