I don't think you have summerised my argument, sorry to say, you've errected something of a strawman there.
Then I misunderstood you, sorry again.
Even with your further explanation, however, I'm still arriving at the same understanding, so I guess I just don't get what you're driving at. Perhaps I am "a bear of little brain".
... Where it falls down (and in my view badly) is where it has gone overboard on the whole "we must connect everything and always have BG2 at the centre of what we are doing".
But making the connections to BG2 was precisely the point of the exercise, it's what SoD is for.
BG makes less sense because there is this huge crusade happening at the same time yet it's never mentioned.
It is explained in SoD that the crusade has been moving quickly, only recently arriving in the BG region. So no, I don't agree that this makes less sense of the original BG campaign.
Companions from BG have been changed and inconsistances introduced.
Yes, although the faults in this respect are almost entirely out-of-character dialogues (rather than, say, inconsistent abilities or backstories). Most of the SoD characters are well-done and (where applicable) tolerably true to the original BG1 characters. IMO, the only one who particularly stands out as clearly not the same person is Safana, the others are all still at least recognisable.
BG2 no longer stands as this mystery you have to solve, who is the man who captured you and what does he want.
With the benefit of hindsight from our knowledge of BG2, we can see the connection between the villains of SoD and SoA. However, SoD never explains the mystery, it's not given away, and in SoA we still have to figure it out for ourselves (except insofaras experienced players already know what happens anyway). So no, I don't find this a spoiler, or at least not very much of a spoiler.
BG2 was the more succesful product, no question. But a commercial decision to cash in on it's success rather than an artistic one to expand BG1 and the world that produced BG2 was a missed opportunity IMO.
See, this is why it still seems to me that what you're saying amounts to "keep grey areas for players to head-canon around the continuity issues between BG1 and BG2", even though you've already explained that this isn't what you mean.
If you don't want the expanson to be a tying-together of BG1 and BG2, then I suppose we could still have some sort of irrelevant-to-the-main-plot TotSC-style expansion ... but in that case, I'll have to take issue with your implied assertion about what most players wanted. Yes, we fans all wanted more BG, but specifically what I think most of us wanted from it was more connections explained between BG1 and BG2, which is exactly what SoD set out to do (even though many fans predictably wouldn't have imagined the connections to be what they turn out to be in SoD).
how exactly does sod ruin the mystery? the hooded man never says who he is at all. you can claim the slayer in the dreams. but thats more foreshadowing just like the bhall temple was.
We are not going to agree but the argument is entertaining.
But one thing I will take issue with because it sounds to me like another backward engineered point.
The Bhaalspawn saga is the main plot of the game, not Irenicus, he's an outlier. BG2 was made to attract players who had never heard of BG, as evidenced by the amount of people who post that they played BG2 first and still haven't played BG or even completed TOB. It was a great success.
But liberties were taken with the Bhaalspawn saga. In particular the idea that their can be no interference. The great Elminster can't even give you a straight answer, yet Irenicus can nick your soul, the Bhaalspawn's soul?
The writers of BG2 understood what they were doing and built a plausible framework that doesn't send the overall saga off the rails (OK, some artistic license needed but on the whole they managed). They managed the issue by seperating Irenicus, Irenicus talks about your Bhaalspawn essence but never mentions the prophecies, never mentions Allundo, never mentions Bhaal's plan to regain power/cheat death through the Bhaalspawn. Never mentions other Bhaalspawn (which of course might throw his whole plan up in the air if they come after the essence he has stolen).
TOB is where the main plot restarts.
The best part for me in SOD was the Bhaal Temple where you meet the blind Bhaal priestess. That connects to the main plot, the burning on Borasky Bridge, that connects to the main plot.
It's TOB that should have been the aim, it's far more connected to BG1 than BG2 is to BG1, because it's following the saga that started in Candlekeep.
The Bhaalspawn saga is the main plot of the game, not Irenicus, he's an outlier ... snip ...TOB is where the main plot restarts.
Hmm, well, okay, I see what you mean. But no, we can't dismiss Irenicus as merely "an outlier", when the struggle against Irenicus takes up around half of the entire saga.
Indeed, some might just as well argue that it's the other way around, that "the main plot" is the struggle against Irenicus throughout BG2:SoA, to which BG1 is merely a preamble and ToB merely a postscript. Once upon a time, I leaned towards that view myself, although nowadays I see the saga as a more integrated whole - the Irenicus plot is very much part of the Bhaalspawn saga, because it's a powerful intervention in the Bhaalspawn's progress, happening precisely because he's a Bhaalspawn and because Bhaalspawn naturally attract powerful interests who want to abuse them for their own ends - so it's all part of the price of being a Bhaalspawn, the sort of obstacle which a Bhaalspawn must overcome in order to achieve his "appointment with Destiny" instead of being just another failed contender. (I've always assumed, as personal head-canon, that other major Bhaalspawn, such as the Five, must also have had to come through some similarly severe trials of their own - else how could they possibly have reached the levels they have?)
I didn't start playing BG until shortly after BG2:ToB came out, and I've only ever played full saga runs, so I've always seen the whole saga as one story. Perhaps if you started BG1 when that was all there was (and were already very familiar with it before BG2:SoA arrived on the scene), then that might explain seeing Irenicus as disconnected from "the real story".
The best part for me in SOD was the Bhaal Temple where you meet the blind Bhaal priestess. That connects to the main plot, the burning on Borasky Bridge, that connects to the main plot.
I also thought the Dwarves of Dumathoin side-quest was very good, but yes, those parts which most directly connect to the main plot are among the best.
"I also thought the Dwarves of Dumathoin side-quest was very good, but yes, those parts which most directly connect to the main plot are among the best."
See, agreement at last. I knew we'd get there eventually.
@Objulen As soon as I solve some RL issues and finish my kits mods, I'll start to work in some closure for Soultaker Dagger. I have the story already, but will need to learn a lot of new and non-intuitive things to make it happen.
That would be awesome. I don't have any experience modding the Infinity engine, but if you want to discuss ideas or don't mind providing some pointers, that sounds like a great project.
Comments
Even with your further explanation, however, I'm still arriving at the same understanding, so I guess I just don't get what you're driving at. Perhaps I am "a bear of little brain". But making the connections to BG2 was precisely the point of the exercise, it's what SoD is for. It is explained in SoD that the crusade has been moving quickly, only recently arriving in the BG region. So no, I don't agree that this makes less sense of the original BG campaign. Yes, although the faults in this respect are almost entirely out-of-character dialogues (rather than, say, inconsistent abilities or backstories). Most of the SoD characters are well-done and (where applicable) tolerably true to the original BG1 characters. IMO, the only one who particularly stands out as clearly not the same person is Safana, the others are all still at least recognisable. With the benefit of hindsight from our knowledge of BG2, we can see the connection between the villains of SoD and SoA. However, SoD never explains the mystery, it's not given away, and in SoA we still have to figure it out for ourselves (except insofaras experienced players already know what happens anyway). So no, I don't find this a spoiler, or at least not very much of a spoiler. See, this is why it still seems to me that what you're saying amounts to "keep grey areas for players to head-canon around the continuity issues between BG1 and BG2", even though you've already explained that this isn't what you mean.
If you don't want the expanson to be a tying-together of BG1 and BG2, then I suppose we could still have some sort of irrelevant-to-the-main-plot TotSC-style expansion ... but in that case, I'll have to take issue with your implied assertion about what most players wanted. Yes, we fans all wanted more BG, but specifically what I think most of us wanted from it was more connections explained between BG1 and BG2, which is exactly what SoD set out to do (even though many fans predictably wouldn't have imagined the connections to be what they turn out to be in SoD).
We are not going to agree but the argument is entertaining.
But one thing I will take issue with because it sounds to me like another backward engineered point.
The Bhaalspawn saga is the main plot of the game, not Irenicus, he's an outlier.
BG2 was made to attract players who had never heard of BG, as evidenced by the amount of people who post that they played BG2 first and still haven't played BG or even completed TOB.
It was a great success.
But liberties were taken with the Bhaalspawn saga. In particular the idea that their can be no interference. The great Elminster can't even give you a straight answer, yet Irenicus can nick your soul, the Bhaalspawn's soul?
The writers of BG2 understood what they were doing and built a plausible framework that doesn't send the overall saga off the rails (OK, some artistic license needed but on the whole they managed).
They managed the issue by seperating Irenicus, Irenicus talks about your Bhaalspawn essence but never mentions the prophecies, never mentions Allundo, never mentions Bhaal's plan to regain power/cheat death through the Bhaalspawn. Never mentions other Bhaalspawn (which of course might throw his whole plan up in the air if they come after the essence he has stolen).
TOB is where the main plot restarts.
The best part for me in SOD was the Bhaal Temple where you meet the blind Bhaal priestess. That connects to the main plot, the burning on Borasky Bridge, that connects to the main plot.
It's TOB that should have been the aim, it's far more connected to BG1 than BG2 is to BG1, because it's following the saga that started in Candlekeep.
Indeed, some might just as well argue that it's the other way around, that "the main plot" is the struggle against Irenicus throughout BG2:SoA, to which BG1 is merely a preamble and ToB merely a postscript. Once upon a time, I leaned towards that view myself, although nowadays I see the saga as a more integrated whole - the Irenicus plot is very much part of the Bhaalspawn saga, because it's a powerful intervention in the Bhaalspawn's progress, happening precisely because he's a Bhaalspawn and because Bhaalspawn naturally attract powerful interests who want to abuse them for their own ends - so it's all part of the price of being a Bhaalspawn, the sort of obstacle which a Bhaalspawn must overcome in order to achieve his "appointment with Destiny" instead of being just another failed contender. (I've always assumed, as personal head-canon, that other major Bhaalspawn, such as the Five, must also have had to come through some similarly severe trials of their own - else how could they possibly have reached the levels they have?)
I didn't start playing BG until shortly after BG2:ToB came out, and I've only ever played full saga runs, so I've always seen the whole saga as one story. Perhaps if you started BG1 when that was all there was (and were already very familiar with it before BG2:SoA arrived on the scene), then that might explain seeing Irenicus as disconnected from "the real story". I also thought the Dwarves of Dumathoin side-quest was very good, but yes, those parts which most directly connect to the main plot are among the best.
"I also thought the Dwarves of Dumathoin side-quest was very good, but yes, those parts which most directly connect to the main plot are among the best."
See, agreement at last.
I knew we'd get there eventually.