Siege of Dragonspear - my rantview
bob_veng
Member Posts: 2,308
WARNING: SPOILERS
*** WRITING ***
points: 9/30
*** GAMEPLAY (minus combat) ***
points: 18/20
***COMBAT (i played only on insane with normal damage) ***
points: 17/20
*** AESTHETICS & ATMOSPHERICS (graphics, sound, cutscenes, cinematics) ***
points: 19/20
*** PERFORMANCE AND UI ***
points: 9/10
*** CONCLUSION ***
Baldur's Gate: Siege of Dragonspear is a serious contender after all. It doesn't play like a retro exploitation of an old-timer franchise, but offers a smooth and accessible gameplay, a fairly modern presentation and it has the majority of qualities of a fully fledged, standalone CRPG (a linear one, but there are many classic linear games and what is featured here is an example of well-managed linearity). Even though it comes in the form of an expansion, in it's substance it becomes the Part II in a saga that is now practically a tetralogy. But where it doesn't meet these accolades, in segments and aspects where you sense that more vision, more flair or dedication or time or whatever was needed - it can sink surprisingly low. In the end i had a feeling that a team of brilliant crafters executed idea of a mediocre architect. Someone who's ambitious but can't make a really original thing. A lack of ingenuity makes the end result feel, even if not old or cheap, still a little...stale. SoD does a go a certain way to complete and deepen the story of the saga but it unfortunately does so relatively perfunctorily, while it's original plot points are tropey and don't lead anywhere interesting. But the interactions, the individual quests and combat are definitely interesting and in some ways a big improvement over the original installements. I'd especially compare SoD to - and rate it much higher than - Throne of Bhaal, which was in the same format.
*** RATING ***
9 + 18 + 17 +19 + 9 (+5 bonus because it's an IE game) = 77/100
note: the conclusion has been added later, at the advice of @FinneousPJ and i've moved the rating to the bottom to go along with it
*** WRITING ***
points: 9/30
- some broad positives: style, tone and humor are good; particularly great are the readables (books, journals etc)!
- the military campaign theme for an RPG is always nice (also exists in ToB but here the war feels much more real)
- dragonspear wars present an interesting historical background
- BG1 NPCs are made really well, good job there!
- Beamdog NPCs get a passing grade: the goblin lady is too smart and dignified for a goblin (but she's a necessary "promoter" of the new class), Voghiln is a try-hard (but there needs to be a bard and BG1 bards are unpopular), Corwin (gives a human face to the Flaming Fist) and Glint are decent; Glint was unnecessary however: why didn't you include Tiax instead? Baeloth and Neera are good, Dorn has a couple of good lines but Rasaad is boring as always
- the NPCs aren't too talkative which is a big plus; romances? dunno, i don't do those
- there are some massive negatives, unfortunately: Caelar Argent is borderline okay conceptually, but...she's too haughty, unsympathetic and completely unconvincing; you can tell right from the start that she's a mental and moral lightweight and not a real moving force in the story; since she's so unfit for a charismatic leader i just wanted to impale people who are dumb enough to follow her and i wasn't very interested in understanding either them or the crusade as a phenomenon...this didn't have to be so, and Caelar could have been a decent character if only her supposed charisma and brilliant oratory extended to the player a little bit
- the heretical priest (Hephernaan) is cliche
- using the To Hell and Back trope and recasting Belhifet as the Big Evil is a questionable choice (i personally loathe it but objectively it's not that bad especially for people who didn't play IWD...or Diablo *herp derp*)
- Irenicus seems omnipotent: why didn't he frame and capture you sooner? is he busy with something else? probably not with the crusade because i don't see how it affects him (did i miss somethng important? it's possible)...he features quite prominently, loses a lot of mystique in the process while feeling glued on top of the Caelar story; gradually, encounters with him start feeling more significant than the epic developments that surround you and in the end these start looking like a fancy backdrop for the relatively banal development of you getting framed for a murder and kidnapped; for new players, the accessory nature of the SoD plot will probably be masked well by the all the bombast a.k.a the Crusade; sadly, SoD was probably too ambitious of a project for an interquel
- the moment when your original party falls apart is sneakily understated, but for me it's a very weak point in the narrative: why oh why does the party absolutely have to fall apart and *all* your companions scatter??? whyyyy? (i'm not saying that it must not happen, but the way that it does is weaksauce)
- dialogues with your party members when you "rediscover" them are unsatisfactory ("ohh yeahhh right... i rembember you... sorta" - dude wtf! two weeks ago we beat sarevok together, in fact it was YOU who finished him off!)
- when in the end your reassembled or brand new party disbands, things are better but the explanation that your "non-canon" companions are "unreliable" which is why they leave you is...well...irritating
- the "Canon Party Conundrum" has been solved in a predictable (or should i say predicted...by me) way so i can't complain too much there; it's not bad
- the "Imoen Problem" has been resolved in a heavy-handed manner
- the player's dialogue replies are okay; the witty ones (those in the middle usually) can be hilarious but the evil replies are generally either naive or disinterested
- there are a few blatantly didactic bits of dialogue that are tonally incorrect (not a big deal)
- some of the dialogues feel rushed: there are too many cosmetic dialogue options that are can't be distinguished one from another (fake dialogue options that elicit the same response but enable you to stay in-character is something i actually condone)
- the moral-relativist/smartass/a-hole/amateur-psychoanalist replies to the murder accusation are crazy: "i've killed an innocent but you are all hypocrites because you've killed enemy combatants", "this is all about rohma isn't it" etc. who is ever going to pick those demented replies lol?
*** GAMEPLAY (minus combat) ***
points: 18/20
- the game is not too short and might be a bit too long (on insane certainly requires more time than vanilla tob because there's less cheese)
- the challenge is there all the time and there are no excessive difficulty spikes or dips, which is of course, a serious beneft of relative linearity; the linearity isn't too pronounced, there is even a sufficient amount of explorable land area which is an important baldur's gate thing
- quests and puzzles are well designed! new interactions in the form of useful infravision, spectacles of spectacle and quest-exclusive item caches are a nice atmospheric touch! charming characters doesn't seem to have an effect on dialogue
- there are some big choices to be made and even though they are mechanically mostly immaterial, they still feel important; cosmetically different endings are okay
- the experience rewards are like in BG1: heavily slanted towards combat xp and no irrational quest rewards (and force-leveling) both of which are great
- a sensible XP cap! levels 7-12 is the best level range for an IE game and finally a game utilizes it fully - you get to explore a breadth of tactics and classes are in relative balance before all the higher level cheese kicks in (PfMW, Mislead...); in this regard it's somewhat similar to IWD, but it's much better
- improving attributes via items that give bonuses (instead of fixing them to a certain score) is a big advance
- the economy is improved compared to earlier games but there are too many conveniently placed merchants and the merchants in general are too well stocked with potions, scrolls and wands
- almost everything about the new items is great!
- combining projectiles from BG1 and BG2 was a bad idea (arrows of fire +2 and flaming arrows, bullets of fire and sunstone bullets)
- pickpocketing is highly rewarding but many characters don't react to a failed check
- potions of extra healing are everywhere...way too many of them! (esp. if you pickpocket)
- traps are nastier then ever! often you'll want to search for traps during battle unless you scout methodically
- importing some of the items from BG1 causes balance issues (~90x arrows of detonation, bala's axe, durlag's goblet); it's not a big deal however and not really specific to SoD
***COMBAT (i played only on insane with normal damage) ***
points: 17/20
- generally, encounters are entertaining and SoD has by far the best combat of all the IE games, good job!
- improved AI is fantastic (potion use, archers keeping distance, rest-spawned enemies alarming nearby static enemies...)! a negative aspect of the new difficulty system is the frequent reliance on numbers instead of tactics, but i understand that this was technically unavoidable
- diversity of creatures is nice but the inclusion of every single creature from BG1 and the addition of many more from other games gives a potpourri effect - for example, i agree that you should get to see a dragon in a game called "siege of dragonspear", but should you really see liches, a vampire, a mindflayer, a beholder (gauth) and a drow war party on top? ruins the freshness of bg2 for first time players of the series; on the same note, IWD-style undead encounters were fun but the variety often felt decorative (10 kinds of undead at the same time) rather than tactically relevant
- a design choice that i love is the featuring of classic, yet enhanced, "trash mobs" (hobgoblins, hobgoblins, hobgoblins, spiders, spiders, spiders...) which is a quintessential baldur's gate thing; some newly designed groups such as plants/fey are just awesome!
- some fights in the main plotline such as the chivalric duel are disappointing; the "sidequest " fights are vastly more interesting
- large battles are well-designed but too easy
- the fiends seem true to pnp (which means not very tough) but they aren't numerous enough (not even on insane!); they should spawn continuously...actually there should've been a real army of devils that you have to hack through fighting with a larger troop of crusaders - a missed oportunity for true epicness there!!!
- final boss fight is mechanically decent, but the choice to have Caelar fight on your side makes it drastically easier (she's tough as nails and basically can't die in the fight which is cheesy as hell) and choosing so doesn't have almost any roleplaying weight because pretty much all characters would like to have a powerful ally on their side (if you're feeling vindictive you can just kill her afterwards); i'd have made Caelar much more fragile, and Hephernaan a more nasty foe to at least partially counteract his previously displayed lack of depth of character
*** AESTHETICS & ATMOSPHERICS (graphics, sound, cutscenes, cinematics) ***
points: 19/20
- area art and design is great, animated environments such as the elevator were wonderful! i don't like lighting in some areas that is too color-saturated; architecture sometimes felt oversized, but i know that this is necessary because of the change in technology (sprites stay small, screens and resolutions get bigger...)
- "new" sprites look great with a few exceptions; city crowds are nice but maybe a bit over the top
- portraits are mediocre (it's subjective, but i really think that they're not on the same level as original portraits)
- item art is nice
- ambient sound is great as always in IE games, music is great, voice acting is mixed but occasionally great, cutscenes are well-directed (and skippable yay!) and cinematics are way better than before
- some great flavor (phylactery)
*** PERFORMANCE AND UI ***
points: 9/10
- runs smooth, it's not too buggy
- great things: the new UI (+ easily available containers), sprite highlighting, new party AI is convenient
- journal is problematic
*** CONCLUSION ***
Baldur's Gate: Siege of Dragonspear is a serious contender after all. It doesn't play like a retro exploitation of an old-timer franchise, but offers a smooth and accessible gameplay, a fairly modern presentation and it has the majority of qualities of a fully fledged, standalone CRPG (a linear one, but there are many classic linear games and what is featured here is an example of well-managed linearity). Even though it comes in the form of an expansion, in it's substance it becomes the Part II in a saga that is now practically a tetralogy. But where it doesn't meet these accolades, in segments and aspects where you sense that more vision, more flair or dedication or time or whatever was needed - it can sink surprisingly low. In the end i had a feeling that a team of brilliant crafters executed idea of a mediocre architect. Someone who's ambitious but can't make a really original thing. A lack of ingenuity makes the end result feel, even if not old or cheap, still a little...stale. SoD does a go a certain way to complete and deepen the story of the saga but it unfortunately does so relatively perfunctorily, while it's original plot points are tropey and don't lead anywhere interesting. But the interactions, the individual quests and combat are definitely interesting and in some ways a big improvement over the original installements. I'd especially compare SoD to - and rate it much higher than - Throne of Bhaal, which was in the same format.
*** RATING ***
9 + 18 + 17 +19 + 9 (+5 bonus because it's an IE game) = 77/100
note: the conclusion has been added later, at the advice of @FinneousPJ and i've moved the rating to the bottom to go along with it
Post edited by bob_veng on
11
Comments
There's also hints of him being tracked by Seldarine agents, so maybe he didn't want too much on his plate at that time..*Shrugs*
I'm trying to play an evil party and I'm not a tank so I've been forced to either take minsc (hates evil loudly) or the Corwin. So I took Corwin the archer because I've not really a choice. I guess I'll get Dorn later but the first few maps are a pretty big inconvenience without any fighter. I'm going to probably make a mod to make Kagain available I guess for the first few maps.
Also quests gave been a bit wonky. I went to help the dwarves in the mine thing and they just started attacking me. I started helping them with undead then they said "they're not on our side" and started attacking me. Listen dwarves, I do what I want. Let me decide if I want to help or kill you.
Also coming back to camp one time briell just yelled "you tricked me!" and started attacking me. I'd only previously talked to her and gotten a report. Thankfully all the other guards in camp killed her for attacking me. That was strange.
there it really was a necessary evil (it never made anything believable and was always ridiculous). here it's not necessary.
i didn't experience those issues or any quest wonkiness in general
about the inability to optimize the party while having all companions have the desired alignment, we had a nice discussion in this thread https://forums.beamdog.com/discussion/comment/774424/#Comment_774424
long story short, i disagree that it's a negative. i actually think it's a net positive.
edit: corwin is a good choice for an evil party because you can construe that following you is part of her job as a soldier, whether she likes it or not
@rapsam2003
For the purposes of writing this review i don't care if they had to, and i don't care about the process of making the game. It still makes the game worse than what can be reasonably expected from a well written crpg. I'm trying to make a fair (yet obviously personal) review of the game.
I'm assessing the end result, not beamdog's performance. Their performance is probably better than the end result because the obstacles and limitations they have to face are greater than what's normal in the industry.
In SOA a good character could be choosing between shadow thieves and vampires, in SOD you choose between one good military faction I guess (no alternative). But there's at least mention in SOA about angst between choosing between lesser evils and stuff if I recall correctly. There's no such mention of moral issue in SOD.
I like the way you weighted the story the highest, I agree that is where the immersion is and agree with your review. It is also in line with most of the other professional reviews. Based on your review point system I give it
WRITING = 10/30
GAMEPLAY = 15/20
COMBAT = 18/20
AESTHETICS = 18/20 ( voice over my only knock )
PERFORMANCE / UI = 5/10 ( still too many bugs )
Total = 66/100 ( +5 for IE ) = 71/100
Beside, what's the war crime you can do in SOD? I'm curious
In SoD, your party comes with you into the starting dungeon. The game knows they're there, and even gives you floaty little dialogs where they indicate that they'll be hitting the road soon. There's no technical reason that the game can't set a flag in Chapter 8 that says "Garrick was in the party" so that he doesn't treat you as a total stranger in the Elfsong despite months on the road together. It seems extremely lazy that this isn't the case.
Edit: for the sake of not derailing anything... @bob_veng, this was a nice review. I agree with most of your story gripes but found the final score took more of a hit than I might have given it, but to each their own.
On the NPCs, there was a definite step up from BG1, but that's not difficult. Not quite at the level of BG2, but close. I did find it odd that we ran into so many companions along the road to Dragonspear. Recruitment in BG made sense and was fun, especially because not all of the companions we spoke to joined. That made the world feel more organic and everyone wasn't going to join us at the drop of a hat, they had other things in their lives. *coughRasaadcough*
But I really didn't understand Edwin's presence. Why was he running from Caelar? Granted, I didn't take him into my party so maybe that would be explained. But I felt like he and Viconia were present more because they were companions in BG1 and 2 rather than because they fit into the story. Especially because Viconia's story in BG2 made it seem like she hadn't seen the PC since Baldur's Gate, and had settled in Beregost for some time before fleeing and going down to Athkatla. How does she now have time to do that when she's also been marching to Dragonspear for months?
While I liked M'Khiin as a new class and an interesting personality, she felt tacked on. Like someone had an interesting idea for a unique NPC and wanted to add her in, rather than because she made sense to the story. We don't really get a lot of background on her, why she's so different from most goblins, why she would agree to join the march against the crusade. She's just wise, offers a different perspective on society, and is a shaman.
I found Corwin boring, but I included her in my playthrough as she seemed the most relevant to the plot. And I was curious about her fate in the bad ending, so I wonder if Beamdog will expand on her in further BG2 content.
Skie seemed like a completely different character from her (granted, very one dimensional) persona in BG1. She kept up the bratty routine but somehow became a badass fighter who could take down an ogre and another fighter single-handedly. Which most thieves wouldn't be able to do unless they were high level. I get that she was central to the plot, but she felt shoehorned in.
I agree on Caelar. Her speeches were pretty generic villain speeches and didn't actually mesh with her actual goal. Why is she telling us our paths aren't that different? Because we both have divine blood? Our goal is in no way similar to hers, regardless of our alignment or headcanon. And why is she being so vague as to her plans for the entire game and not outright tell us what she wants? I know it's to build audience suspense and to make us question her motives, but once everything is revealed, it doesn't really make sense that she sends assassins after us (they were kidnappers but there's no way to realize this at the time as they just attack and don't even try to talk us into surrender), then talks about how we're not different and doesn't actually provide any reasons why we should join her. And even if we offer to join we're not able to.
I think her story relied too heavily on knowledge of canon FR lore. I don't know any of that outside of the BG games, so I didn't understand what the big deal was on freeing these souls, how it would be possible, or what the possible negative consequences would be. So I didn't understand why everyone was making such a big deal about her plan, why she was making such a big deal, etc. I really lacked context to understand the main conflict of the game, which was too bad.
Finally, I think the Hooded Man was used a bit too much, and required too much metagame knowledge to be an effective plot point. Someone mentioned that his dialogue in the game feels too much like dream sequence!Irenicus rather than the Exile, and I think that's true. He engages with the PC on a much more personal and respectful level than he ever did in BG2. He holds conversations with us rather than speak AT us or speak as if we're not even rational, intelligent beings. And his dialogue shows the flaws of his BG2 dialogue, in that it's so much meaningless mumbo jumbo about power and potential, when all it really turns into is us becoming the Slayer. And that's because we LOST our soul, not because we embraced our power. In retrospect, why is Irenicus interested in us tapping our power? Does it make taking our soul easier for him? Or empower the soul before he takes it?
One thing I really really really liked was the options during quests for you to use your NPCs to give their input to solve a problem. Like at one point one of the dialogue options allowed me to ask Viconia what she thought about these sick warriors and figured out their problem that way and there's another time where we met some drow and I allowed Viconia to talk to them about their problems.
I liked the new maps and the upgraded AI from the enemies was good. I liked the depth and quality of new quests though as others note the journal is not always the best.
Some of the voice acting is hilariously bad. Like terrible. Whoever played Entar Silvershield needs to be told they did a terrible job the stereotypical fake French accent is just godawful. There's also a Southern Baptist guy by way of Eastern Europe that... just... drags.... out... his... sentences.... that is terrible to listen to lol and a couple other times that the voice acting is just very bad.
http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/baldursgategame/images/4/44/JournalJournal.png/revision/latest?cb=20140317010245
R.I.P
Because Glint is an actual character and Tiax is a one layered joke that some people like, but wouldn't be able to carry a story let alone any kind of decent romance.
This makes it very difficult to expand on them - however you do it, you will ineviably "get it wrong" for some people.
I would say that is why Beamdog chose to expand an NPC that wasn't very popular (Safina) rather than one with a major fanclub (Tiax).
Characters like Tiax don't really have anywhere to go in character development. He's an insane cleric to an evil god. End of story. One-note smart guy Quayle had a personality overhaul in order to be an actual character rather than a caricature in BG2.
Beamdog could expand on some of the BG1 NPCs, but inevitably doing so either means character overhaul or adding content which was not hinted at in the vanilla game. And both options will inevitably cause fanrage.