Well no, her kidnapping by the cowled wizards only occurs because of her mage training. Its actually a pretty vital catalyst that kicks off the initial crux of bg2's story.
the fairly frequent npc to npc (audio) conversation is pretty funny when you are strolling in the maps (especially if you get a mix of weird combos in the party).
i miss this in the other games now that i've had it. the sheer number of NPCs per area and the live banters really made the game feel alive and energetic to me.
how Irenicus was aware of you and was watching you
TBH, this was possibly my least favorite aspect of the SoD plot.
They took the whole "omniscient, omnipotent villain" trope too far, with him seeing everything and stepping in at-will. He was interacting with events less like a character embedded in the story, and more like a god who stood above it all.
Also, I don't think anything we saw of him was actually needed to set the stage for BG2. I think the BG2 prologue already did a perfectly fine job of introducing him.
In BG2, Irenicus is shown to be a nearly omnipotent figure who goes where he pleases and interferes with anyone he pleases in whatever manner he pleases. I have trouble seeing why it's a break from BG2's characterization to see him do the same thing in SoD.
Also, it's worth pointing out that BG2 begins as it does because Irenicus has been watching CHARNAME and deduced that he is a Bhaalspawn. Considering that SoD begins at the moment BG1 ends, and ends at the moment BG2 begins, doesn't it follow that Irenicus would *have* to be watching CHARNAME during SoD?
Its a clear story element that removes assumptions. You can assume anything you want about canon, that doesn't make it true.
I think we have different definitions of a hanging plot thread. In my mind, a hanging plot thread is where one storyline isn't resolved properly and leaves questions which should be answered by the end of the story.
In this example, I would consider Imoen as a Mage as a HPT if her BG1 stats did not legally allow her to dual class or she had suddenly changed class to sorcerer in BG2 or Bio used a completely new character to take Imoen's role (Emily the other foster child of Candlekeep that BG1 inconveniently forgot to ever mention).
Because there is no leap of logic to understand how Imoen could have dualed into a Mage by the start of BG2, especially since the experience levels required are obtainable by completing most quests in the first game, it's not a HPT for me.
If we're really going to argue about game mechanics versus story, I would make the argument that Imoen not taking any Mage levels until SoD is unrealistic, since she would have to level up to a level 8 Mage within a few weeks while Charname is fighting the Crusade.
In BG2, Irenicus is shown to be a nearly omnipotent figure who goes where he pleases and interferes with anyone he pleases in whatever manner he pleases. I have trouble seeing why it's a break from BG2's characterization to see him do the same thing in SoD.
Also, it's worth pointing out that BG2 begins as it does because Irenicus has been watching CHARNAME and deduced that he is a Bhaalspawn. Considering that SoD begins at the moment BG1 ends, and ends at the moment BG2 begins, doesn't it follow that Irenicus would *have* to be watching CHARNAME during SoD?
Since Irenicus is a near omnipotent and omniscient figure, why would he have to physically be present to ascertain that Charname is a Bhaalspawn? He could use divination spells to learn of Charname's nature, spy on Charname speaking about their heritage, have the Shadow Thieves he hired investigate in BG while Charname is fighting the Crusade.
And by the point that Irenicus appears in SoD many people already know that Charname is a Bhaalspawn. He doesn't need to continually conduct interviews with Charname to ascertain their heritage.
The same question can be asked of BG2 -- why does he always play around with people in person? Presumably it feeds his ego to handle things that way, and since it's how he was shown to be during BG2, Beamdog needed to have him behave the same way in SoD. (This doesn't negate your point that it's weird/pointless behavior; I'm only saying it's consistent with how he acted in BG2.)
@Vbibbi Unless specifically mentioned/endorsed by story, I view all gameplay as non-canon. There are so many different ways to play these games, expecting any build, team, moment to moment gameplay to be considered canon is unrealistic. As to Irenicus testing charname, he probably had to make sure he had a strong enough soul/ had enough of bhaals taint for his purposes. Considering Bhaalsoawn weren't widely known at the time, it was probably difficult/not possible to simply divine.
The same question can be asked of BG2 -- why does he always play around with people in person? Presumably it feeds his ego to handle things that way, and since it's how he was shown to be during BG2, Beamdog needed to have him behave the same way in SoD. (This doesn't negate your point that it's weird/pointless behavior; I'm only saying it's consistent with how he acted in BG2.)
IMO Irenicus wasn't directly involved in much of BG2. He is very clinical and distant when we first wake up in his dungeon, neither Imoen or Charname has any idea what he's doing or why because he talks at them as test subjects instead of talking to them as people. Imoen's recollection of his "Do you see?" after a dissection without Irenicus explaining what he wanted her to see is much more distant than the long conversations the Hooded Man has throughout SoD.
Much of Irencius' presence in BG2 is cut scenes away from Charname (being taken to Spellhold, breaking free and coming for Imoen, meeting the drow in Ust Natha) or Bhaalspawn dream sequences where it's not actually him but the taint.
He is very matter of fact and doesn't waste words or actions where he doesn't need to. His great "you'll get no villains exposition from me" line might be a tad genre savvy for him, but emphasizes that he doesn't care if Charname understands his actions or motivations. The game actually had to include his journal entries (which IMO are a bit out of character) in order for the player to start to understand what was happening since there was no chance for them to get information directly from Irenicus.
We don't even learn about his relationship with Bhodi until we get Elhan to confess, and his history with Ellesime doesn't come out until we meet Demin. He is surprised that Charname is alive at the Tree of Life and had mostly forgotten about them, focusing on his revenge instead. It only becomes personal to him, I think, in the Hell Trials when it's a zero sum game to come back to life.
In BG2 he is much more of a schemer and chess master, letting Bhodi's guild capture thieves for his experiments, have Yoshimo be a mole, bribe Saemon, rely on Charname's relationship to Imoen to come to Spellhold.
In SoD he is constantly trailing us, talking to us all of the time, acting more like a meddling Elminster than a shadowy puppet master. I don't think he should be entirely removed from SoD but his constant presence was overkill. Less is more in this case.
@Vbibbi Unless specifically mentioned/endorsed by story, I view all gameplay as non-canon. There are so many different ways to play these games, expecting any build, team, moment to moment gameplay to be considered canon is unrealistic. As to Irenicus testing charname, he probably had to make sure he had a strong enough soul/ had enough of bhaals taint for his purposes. Considering Bhaalsoawn weren't widely known at the time, it was probably difficult/not possible to simply divine.
I liked the parallel between Irenicus testing both Charname and Caelar to see which is more suitable for his needs. I would have liked this idea to be explored more, perhaps showing Irenicus initially showing much more interest in Caelar and shifting to Charname as we keep winning victories against the crusade. I felt like the Caelar parallel of divine blood was dropped pretty quickly and just turned into her self-deception in her motivations.
@Vbibbi I would argue that he didn't have enough knowledge of charname or Caelar to be able to pull off the distant chessmaster schtick. Sod is when we see him testing the waters as it were, building his knowledge base as an unknown (both charname had armies backing them, making it dangerous to reveal himself). Once Irenicus learned what he deemed necessary, he had agents swoop in and capture you while vulnerable. A that point he has the advantage of both position and knowledge to act from a distance as necessary.
@Vbibbi I would argue that he didn't have enough knowledge of charname or Caelar to be able to pull off the distant chessmaster schtick. Sod is when we see him testing the waters as it were, building his knowledge base as an unknown (both charname had armies backing them, making it dangerous to reveal himself). Once Irenicus learned what he deemed necessary, he had agents swoop in and capture you while vulnerable. A that point he has the advantage of both position and knowledge to act from a distance as necessary.
I agree. My one reservation is that with the ending sequence with Skie in Dragonspear Castle, he proves that if he really wants to, he is willing to surround himself with potential hostile armies to achieve his goals. And if he felt that Charname was surrounded by too many allies during this time, wouldn't it make more sense to be the distant chessmaster who observes from a distance rather than stepping into danger?
I guess some of my issues with his presence in SoD is that he's that shadowy figure who mysteriously is unchallenged by the rest of the world with his presence, or else no one but the main character can see/speak with them. I don't like that trope to begin with.
I enjoy his voice and I was in no way disappointed in his presence. But TBH I zoned out a lot of what he was saying, because it generally turned into generic "embrace your inherent power" speechifying with no actual impact on the game.
Nope, not yet anyway.. I just started playing a few days ago so I have no idea how it ends. As fun as it is, It doesn't feel like a bridge between BG1 and 2. Baldur's Gate still ends with an immediate slap cut to the credits right after you beat Sarevok. (I always found that a really weird feeling. Like I missed out on something... Bloop! The End.. Huh?) On top of that you start SOD the exact same way you start BG2.. it's been a bit of time, you are in a dungeon and Imoen is now a mage (if you hadn't already made her to one.)
I never had any trouble with how she became a mage in BG2.. to me it seemed obvious that Irenicus' experiments had caused this manifestation. Why they felt the need to remove her from the party entirely while she "transitioned" is beyond me. As far as I know, most people seem to make her a mage anyway.
At any rate.. that's how I feel so far. I'll come back after I see how/if they transition us to BG2.
Why they felt the need to remove her from the party entirely while she "transitioned" is beyond me.
There wasn't a good way to give Imoen a story arc within the party (for example, "learning magic from Dynahair" would only work if Dynahair was in the party). The way it was done enabled Imoen to have a story arc and still be part of the narrative whilst making room in the party for different characters (with self-contained arcs).
I agree that it made sense from a story perspective, but there were also practical reasons to make her a non-joinable NPC. If she could join the party in SoD, the average player wouldn't understand why Imoen's thief abilities were inactive and would probably continually report the "bug" to Beamdog. On the other hand, powergamers would generally discard Imoen for Edwin anyway because he'd be the stronger mage during SoD.
Nope.. after completing the game I'm going to give it a non satisfactory bridge story. I really, really enjoyed playing it but as a bridge it felt way too heavy to me. You're meeting lots of new creatures, fighting a huge battle and traveling into hell.. As a transition from BG1 to BG2 .. it's all just too big.
Bg1 you're fighting little creatures, your party is low level and the journey is pretty small in comparison to Bg2. Bg2 introduces you to the "BIG" creatures.. slowly over time. SOD just throws things at you. Most of the creatures you haven't encountered before if you already haven't played the other games. Going into BG2 is going to feel like a slow buildup after the fact. The ending itself also felt very heavy handed.
All in all, I like the way BGTrilogy did it a bit better. You kill Sarevok, go back to the council, they think it's wise you get out of town for a bit as people are starting to question your heritage. There's still the threat of war from Amn so they dispatch you to Amn to meet up with some folks and instead you get captured by Mae'var and delivered to Irenicus. .. An easy transition. That's all that was ever really needed.
As a stand alone adventure I found it really fun.. I enjoyed the new companions I played with and I liked all of the story except for the bridgey bits.
The controversal characters/dialog is a non event.
Some of the voice acting is OK. But if you can't stand the American accents they are dreadful. Yes I know that historically, American accents are similar to old English, probably more authentic they say. But in the current time period, American accents are associated with the modern world. Consequently they are jarring and out of place to me. It's Kevin Costner as Robin Hood.
The bridging aspect of the game is wrong. It lessens the impact of the start of BG2, it lessens the whole BG2 story arc. Far too much foreshadowing, they have gone so far down the "Melissan" route they can't see that point in the distance behind them. Some "unknown" character pops up over and over to spout their obvious involvement/interest and you have to just stand there and listen? It completely ruins the idea that kickstarts BG2 that you have no idea what is going on.
The asylum business where you have to be dumb/stupid/deaf not to recognise the voice of the controller is very weak story telling. It takes agency/control away from the player and simply makes them feel stupid/frustrated. But the asylum controller was only a short bit, I can overlook that, but this game just takes the p"ss.
So, I'm finding it hard to get much enthusiasm for actually finishing this game. It actually hasn't engaged me from the start, something vital is missing. Just goes to show that creating magic takes a sort of weird alchemy of time/place/people which is nigh on impossible to repeat.
Living up to the expectations of such a venreable series is pretty impossible, the nostalgia googles seem to be welded on to a majority of players.
Yeah.. Nostalgia is a pretty hard thing to get past. Most have their own version of the story going on in their head that everything new has to compete with. (for instance, I did not want nor take any of the new companions.. I didn't feel that they belonged.)
By separating SOD from bg, I greatly enjoyed it. It just felt like a brand new adventure and if it had had no bridge story I would have completely and utterly loved it. The simple act of it having a bridge story made my nostalgia brain rebel a bit.
It actually hasn't engaged me from the start, something vital is missing.
Here is what I wrote in the first post of my walkthrough:
"... and in fact, many things are not made quite as clear as they ought to be. For example, the narrative (i.e, wtf is going on) is fed in dribs n drabs (short dialogue lines and bare-bones journal entries) and lacks the conviction, swagger and Realmslore flavor of the original campaign".
It just doesn't feel like Baldur's Gate. That's what is missing. Oh, and good writing. It does pick up in a few places, imo (Dwarves of Dumathoin and the two Sieges), but it drops off again to mediocre each time. Bring on Gaider, I say.
Why does everyone hold up BG's writing as some holy grail no game can live up to? Its good writing yeah, but it is far from immaculate and its actually pretty simple in a lot of areas (npcs come to mind). 90% of the complaints I hear about the writing are just complaing that its not Gaider, therefore it sucks, its not identical to a 15 year old game, so it must suck. I think SOD's writing fits rather well with the rest of the series in tone.
Well, opinions and assholes I guess. Gaider wrote Irenicus and Origins was his baby. To me, that's enough to make him leave Siege writers in the dust.
Now, Luke K. wrote 75% of the original BG campaign. During my in-depth retrospective I appreciated his writing even more, especially the stuff in Durlag's Tower. I covered the dialogue and writing in great detail. I wouldn't bother doing that for Siege, unless to mock what is mostly schlock. There is nothing in Siege that comes close to the allegory on Fear, the lore and the riddlecraft.
I have never held up BG as the exemplar of RPG writing: only PS:T and Mask of the Betrayer. Don't assume.
Why does everyone hold up BG's writing as some holy grail no game can live up to? Its good writing yeah, but it is far from immaculate and its actually pretty simple in a lot of areas (npcs come to mind). 90% of the complaints I hear about the writing are just complaing that its not Gaider, therefore it sucks, its not identical to a 15 year old game, so it must suck. I think SOD's writing fits rather well with the rest of the series in tone.
More fan distortion at work: the complaints on this very thread have nothing to do with Gaider beyond acknowledging that he's a better RPG writer than Foley and Scott (which is just factual, as he has the resume to prove it), and BG's writing doesn't need to be held up as a holy grail for SoD to not meet its standards. However flawed BG1 is, wherever it's actually situated on the Scale of Great RPG Writing, SoD isn't on that level. There are problems with the plotting, the dialogue, the pacing, the humor and the characterization, and if you want to sweep those under the rug, more power to you. Just don't misrepresent what people with opposing views are actually saying.
Comments
They took the whole "omniscient, omnipotent villain" trope too far, with him seeing everything and stepping in at-will. He was interacting with events less like a character embedded in the story, and more like a god who stood above it all.
Also, I don't think anything we saw of him was actually needed to set the stage for BG2.
I think the BG2 prologue already did a perfectly fine job of introducing him.
Also, it's worth pointing out that BG2 begins as it does because Irenicus has been watching CHARNAME and deduced that he is a Bhaalspawn. Considering that SoD begins at the moment BG1 ends, and ends at the moment BG2 begins, doesn't it follow that Irenicus would *have* to be watching CHARNAME during SoD?
In this example, I would consider Imoen as a Mage as a HPT if her BG1 stats did not legally allow her to dual class or she had suddenly changed class to sorcerer in BG2 or Bio used a completely new character to take Imoen's role (Emily the other foster child of Candlekeep that BG1 inconveniently forgot to ever mention).
Because there is no leap of logic to understand how Imoen could have dualed into a Mage by the start of BG2, especially since the experience levels required are obtainable by completing most quests in the first game, it's not a HPT for me.
If we're really going to argue about game mechanics versus story, I would make the argument that Imoen not taking any Mage levels until SoD is unrealistic, since she would have to level up to a level 8 Mage within a few weeks while Charname is fighting the Crusade.
And by the point that Irenicus appears in SoD many people already know that Charname is a Bhaalspawn. He doesn't need to continually conduct interviews with Charname to ascertain their heritage.
Much of Irencius' presence in BG2 is cut scenes away from Charname (being taken to Spellhold, breaking free and coming for Imoen, meeting the drow in Ust Natha) or Bhaalspawn dream sequences where it's not actually him but the taint.
He is very matter of fact and doesn't waste words or actions where he doesn't need to. His great "you'll get no villains exposition from me" line might be a tad genre savvy for him, but emphasizes that he doesn't care if Charname understands his actions or motivations. The game actually had to include his journal entries (which IMO are a bit out of character) in order for the player to start to understand what was happening since there was no chance for them to get information directly from Irenicus.
We don't even learn about his relationship with Bhodi until we get Elhan to confess, and his history with Ellesime doesn't come out until we meet Demin. He is surprised that Charname is alive at the Tree of Life and had mostly forgotten about them, focusing on his revenge instead. It only becomes personal to him, I think, in the Hell Trials when it's a zero sum game to come back to life.
In BG2 he is much more of a schemer and chess master, letting Bhodi's guild capture thieves for his experiments, have Yoshimo be a mole, bribe Saemon, rely on Charname's relationship to Imoen to come to Spellhold.
In SoD he is constantly trailing us, talking to us all of the time, acting more like a meddling Elminster than a shadowy puppet master. I don't think he should be entirely removed from SoD but his constant presence was overkill. Less is more in this case.
I guess some of my issues with his presence in SoD is that he's that shadowy figure who mysteriously is unchallenged by the rest of the world with his presence, or else no one but the main character can see/speak with them. I don't like that trope to begin with.
Baldur's Gate still ends with an immediate slap cut to the credits right after you beat Sarevok. (I always found that a really weird feeling. Like I missed out on something... Bloop! The End.. Huh?)
On top of that you start SOD the exact same way you start BG2.. it's been a bit of time, you are in a dungeon and Imoen is now a mage (if you hadn't already made her to one.)
I never had any trouble with how she became a mage in BG2.. to me it seemed obvious that Irenicus' experiments had caused this manifestation. Why they felt the need to remove her from the party entirely while she "transitioned" is beyond me. As far as I know, most people seem to make her a mage anyway.
At any rate.. that's how I feel so far. I'll come back after I see how/if they transition us to BG2.
Bg1 you're fighting little creatures, your party is low level and the journey is pretty small in comparison to Bg2. Bg2 introduces you to the "BIG" creatures.. slowly over time. SOD just throws things at you. Most of the creatures you haven't encountered before if you already haven't played the other games. Going into BG2 is going to feel like a slow buildup after the fact. The ending itself also felt very heavy handed.
All in all, I like the way BGTrilogy did it a bit better. You kill Sarevok, go back to the council, they think it's wise you get out of town for a bit as people are starting to question your heritage. There's still the threat of war from Amn so they dispatch you to Amn to meet up with some folks and instead you get captured by Mae'var and delivered to Irenicus. .. An easy transition. That's all that was ever really needed.
As a stand alone adventure I found it really fun.. I enjoyed the new companions I played with and I liked all of the story except for the bridgey bits.
No bugs.
The controversal characters/dialog is a non event.
Some of the voice acting is OK. But if you can't stand the American accents they are dreadful. Yes I know that historically, American accents are similar to old English, probably more authentic they say. But in the current time period, American accents are associated with the modern world. Consequently they are jarring and out of place to me.
It's Kevin Costner as Robin Hood.
The bridging aspect of the game is wrong. It lessens the impact of the start of BG2, it lessens the whole BG2 story arc.
Far too much foreshadowing, they have gone so far down the "Melissan" route they can't see that point in the distance behind them.
Some "unknown" character pops up over and over to spout their obvious involvement/interest and you have to just stand there and listen?
It completely ruins the idea that kickstarts BG2 that you have no idea what is going on.
The asylum business where you have to be dumb/stupid/deaf not to recognise the voice of the controller is very weak story telling. It takes agency/control away from the player and simply makes them feel stupid/frustrated.
But the asylum controller was only a short bit, I can overlook that, but this game just takes the p"ss.
So, I'm finding it hard to get much enthusiasm for actually finishing this game. It actually hasn't engaged me from the start, something vital is missing. Just goes to show that creating magic takes a sort of weird alchemy of time/place/people which is nigh on impossible to repeat.
By separating SOD from bg, I greatly enjoyed it. It just felt like a brand new adventure and if it had had no bridge story I would have completely and utterly loved it. The simple act of it having a bridge story made my nostalgia brain rebel a bit.
"... and in fact, many things are not made quite as clear as they ought to be. For example, the narrative (i.e, wtf is going on) is fed in dribs n drabs (short dialogue lines and bare-bones journal entries) and lacks the conviction, swagger and Realmslore flavor of the original campaign".
It just doesn't feel like Baldur's Gate. That's what is missing. Oh, and good writing. It does pick up in a few places, imo (Dwarves of Dumathoin and the two Sieges), but it drops off again to mediocre each time. Bring on Gaider, I say.
Now, Luke K. wrote 75% of the original BG campaign. During my in-depth retrospective I appreciated his writing even more, especially the stuff in Durlag's Tower. I covered the dialogue and writing in great detail. I wouldn't bother doing that for Siege, unless to mock what is mostly schlock. There is nothing in Siege that comes close to the allegory on Fear, the lore and the riddlecraft.
I have never held up BG as the exemplar of RPG writing: only PS:T and Mask of the Betrayer. Don't assume.