Requiring that the game read your mind or create a case-by-case scenario for each class, and each rep value to make sure that player gets the ending they believe their character deserves is waaaaaaaay too much of an ask for any reasonable developer. I know a lot of you guys are into modding. I somehow doubt most (or any) would ever create a mod for an NPC and then write 15+ endings, based on some table of Reputation and class, as well as my deeds throughout the game to come up with the "perfect ending" that suits my character.
It's a tactic to avoid a sincere discussion - state something exaggerated the other discussion party never said and then try to "prove" by this that the other discussion party's POV is disproportionate. - Didn't work.
@jastey I played through the game with a cleric PRAYING for a line like, "Guys...I'm a cleric FFS, I can't even pick up the soultaker dagger..." No such luck ;-p
@Enilwyn I'm not firm with D&D lore, why wouldn't a cleric be able to pick up the dagger?
Last point - @Permidion_Stark , earlier you suggested Imoen's the one who breaks you out. You even quoted all the salient dialogues to support it. Re-read those dialogues. You noted that Imoen doesnt actually take responsibility for freeing you. She say the equivalent of "Uh, what?" and "Let's deal with this later". It *strongly* suggests that she didnt free you. It's probable that the Shadow Thieves freed you since they're the ones that knock you out after you get away.
Maybe that makes you upset - that Imoen didnt believe in you when no one else did. /shrug. It doesnt mean the developer was wrong for their approach - just that it wasnt to your preference.
Imoen clearly did pay to break you out of jail. When she says: "Can we talk about this someplace, you know - far away from here?" she is addressing Dynaheir and Jaheira not the Charname.
Maybe that makes you upset - that Imoen didnt believe in you when no one else did. /shrug. It doesnt mean the developer was wrong for their approach - just that it wasnt to your preference.
Imoen does believe in you, all of her dialogues make that clear. The problem is that it is out of character for her to have hired a cutthroat to break you out of jail. And that does mean that the developer got it wrong.
@jastey I played through the game with a cleric PRAYING for a line like, "Guys...I'm a cleric FFS, I can't even pick up the soultaker dagger..." No such luck ;-p
@Enilwyn I'm not firm with D&D lore, why wouldn't a cleric be able to pick up the dagger?
When Gygax wrote up the first D&D rules, he based it on the Chainmail tabletop war game that he'd developed and Jeff Perren had expanded. Long story short, there were examples of medieval orders who had proscriptions against shedding blood and using swords/lances/etc in Chaimail, so Gygax used them as the basis for the cleric class.
It also made sense in terms of game balance. In the first versions of D&D, clerics and fighters both used D8 for hitpoints, there were no weapon styles, and no weapon proficiency beyond simple proficiency. So clerics were fighters who could cast spells while wearing their armor. The restriction to blunt weapons balanced this out. (Although many of the best weapons in the BG series are usable by clerics, this probably reflects how the relative power of the classes has shifted over time.)
"The greater point here is: Some people seem to get touchy with their nostalgia. They want a perfect game to compliment the greatness of the BG saga. Just because you do not prefer how something was handled doesnt mean it's bad writing. I'm not a big fan of Jane Austen novels, doesnt mean she isnt an amazing author. Just not what I'm interesting in reading."
You ask why the game has been so divisive or controversial and then write this?
This isn't a defense of the game, it's an opinion about the character or motivation of those who critisise it. And it has nothing whatsoever to do with the game.
And pretty much that has been the response since the game was released. Paraphrased: "It's not the game or the writing that's at fault, it's you. Your motivations, your politics, your memory, your expectations, your opinions ect."
You then mention your personal response to Jane Austen with the proviso that of course, objectively, she is a great author.
Surely the opposite can occur? That liking something doesn't mean that the writing cannot be seen to be as objectively poor.
I only knew that due to class restrictions Clerics couldn't use edged weapons. So as soon as I saw the Soultaker Dagger was a key item I immediately rolled a Cleric and off I went to see what would happen during the trial.
I would have fallen out of my seat laughing if there was a line by Belt to the effect of, "Entar you moron...he's a CLERIC...read the manual bub..."
Unfortunately, and oddly, there was no such awareness to my class. There are multiple other instances in the game where NPCs acknowledge our class, race, stats, etc. Missed opportunity by Beamdog on that one.
The thing is, we know now how wrong and/or corrupt law enforcement authorities can be today, with a free press and advanced technologies that would blow the minds of FR people. Why should we assume that the FR authorities are as perceptive as Sherlock Holmes, as competent as Isimbard Brunel, as brilliant as Isaac Newton, and as honest as a fool?
@tbone1 It's not that the Baldur's Gate authorities are corrupt (because frankly, this would have worked much better in the context of the plot), it's that they show as much intelligence as a feeblemind recipient. They might not have the technology, but they do have magic and divine interference.
This! /\ Corrupted judge/court with few coherent (and dismissed by said judge/court!) lines from us/our defenders would save (to a degree) that ridiculously pitifully trivial reason for arresting Charname (though I would still add hints of blood sacrifice with signs of Baal all over the crime scene).
Doesn't have to be corruption. It could be a case of the authorities wanting/needing a conviction, having a scapegoat, and getting rid of someone whose mere presence is perceived as a threat to social order.
Seriously, we're talking about political authorities, not research scientists.
In BG you are accused of killing Reiltar and the Iron Throne delagation and thrown in a cell in Candlekeep to await transfer to BG and execution.
And the game, with all the limitations of the time, tries to make that scenario believable.
It is said that you were seen fleeing the scene, that there are witnesses. Ulrant comes and makes it quite clear that he hates you because you are a Bhaalspawn, considers you guilty whatever the evidence. It shows that he is willing to be corrupt because of his beliefs that Bhaalspawn are bad. The narrative integrity is preserved.
When you have that example, evenmoreso when you are working on the same product containing that example, the trial at the end of SOD is the best they could come up with? Purleese.
Doesn't have to be corruption. It could be a case of the authorities wanting/needing a conviction, having a scapegoat, and getting rid of someone whose mere presence is perceived as a threat to social order.
Seriously, we're talking about political authorities, not research scientists.
If Charname is percieved as a threat to the social order, the last thing any authority would do is have them anywhere near their troops. Why, because if we're talking revolution, the authorities need first and foremost, the military on their side. Lose the military, loose the battle.
It's "the generals" who are pivotal in revolutions. Get the army onside, you win.
Out of curiosity, how many people active in this thread played BG1 for the first time, followed by SoD, then BG2? From what I've seen here and on other threads it seems like veteran players are more angered by SoD, while the new players seem to praise it. I've also noticed several new players, having finished the series for the first time, rank BG2 as their favorite with SoD in second. Unless BG1 was their favorite, in which case SoD ranks last.
@ThacoBell I started with BG1 and love BG1. I was disappointed with BG2: I hated the way it looked (sprites, paper dolls, mirroring) and I hated the fact that the story assumed you had played BG1 in a certain way. I find ToB tiresome (too linear and too high powered - I never much wanted to be a god). I didn't expect to like SoD (because the lack of Imoen as a companion) but I thought parts of it were very good. I still think it would make a good standalone adventure but I think it is hopeless as a link between BG1 and BG2.
Out of curiosity, how many people active in this thread played BG1 for the first time, followed by SoD, then BG2? From what I've seen here and on other threads it seems like veteran players are more angered by SoD, while the new players seem to praise it. I've also noticed several new players, having finished the series for the first time, rank BG2 as their favorite with SoD in second. Unless BG1 was their favorite, in which case SoD ranks last.
That makes sense though. Initial thoughts about a saga as long as BG are going to change as time progresses.
I made the mistake, for instance, of watching the new SW film a second time. Thoroughly enjoyed it the first time, got emotional about seeing Luke again. Second time, got emotional about how this dross was released under the SW name.
Out of curiosity, how many people active in this thread played BG1 for the first time, followed by SoD, then BG2? From what I've seen here and on other threads it seems like veteran players are more angered by SoD, while the new players seem to praise it. I've also noticed several new players, having finished the series for the first time, rank BG2 as their favorite with SoD in second. Unless BG1 was their favorite, in which case SoD ranks last.
Ok, I am an old player but would not be so sure about me belong to the "angry" group or that "angry" group actually exist. Aside gamergaters with their crusade against some kind of SGW elements they find everywhere, I do not see veterans to be angered by SoD in general, but by some elements of SoD. For me that was the reason for trial (with the explanation, that explained nothing), for some others - absence of Imoen (with the explanation, that explained nothing), someone was expecting freedom of BG1n2, others - more care about keeping original companions intact (character-wise) and so on.
I'd say that kind of anger is justified or at least expected (we are gamers here, after all). So many detailed discussions, so many mods fixing and improving something (and demonstrating popularity of different features) - people had all the reasons to believe their preferences are clear, yet, resulting game simply ignored obvious expectations, as if discussions did not exist.
@Mirandel I see anger more often than sadness when critiquing SoD (massive rant anyone?). This is not a statement against justification though. Sod has very real flaws and people DO NOT need to justify not liking a game. Its just a pattern I've noticed since SoD's release.
@Mirandel I see anger more often than sadness when critiquing SoD (massive rant anyone?). This is not a statement against justification though. Sod has very real flaws and people DO NOT need to justify not liking a game. Its just a pattern I've noticed since SoD's release.
I"ll hold my hand up. I was angry not sad when I got to the end of SoD. I was enjoying the game until the moment I walked up the steps after defeating Belhifet. From then on I felt I was being subjected to all kinds of stupid and it made me angry.
@Mirandel I see anger more often than sadness when critiquing SoD (massive rant anyone?). This is not a statement against justification though. Sod has very real flaws and people DO NOT need to justify not liking a game. Its just a pattern I've noticed since SoD's release.
I"ll hold my hand up. I was angry not sad when I got to the end of SoD. I was enjoying the game until the moment I walked up the steps after defeating Belhifet. From then on I felt I was being subjected to all kinds of stupid and it made me angry.
Ok, I guess "wtf" can be classified both ways. For me it was ME3 ending all over again (I mean the effect), so the first reaction is anger, of course. But then - is not it sad, that years pass by but nothing changes in game development?
I still say corruption can lead to a lot of blatant and ridiculous injustice; but then my wife's family is from Chicago.
And I'll repeat @chimaera - we (those unsatisfied with the ending) would love to see corruption - even the most grotesque one. And political motives would be fantastic. But we did not get anything like it. You have to hadcanon it into the story closing your eyes to real game plot.
You know, nm. It still was great to get SoD - even if nothing else would be good (which is far from the case) - we still got new areas, new NPCs and new story elements to work with.
A question: has anyone here read stories by writers like Ambrose Bierce or Theodore Dreiser? Their stories rarely if ever have happy endings, showing life to be hard and brutal and any romantic notions in a character inevitably mean that they're going to suffer. Dreiser can be a tough read, but Bierce's "Incident at Owl Creek Bridge" is a great introduction to his short stories.
I also love Joseph Conrad's novels. At first it was his stories of the sea in a bygone age that pulled me in, and his writing that had me re-read them (Lord Jim might be the best novel in English, in my opinion), but his view of life and human nature have really resonated. I've found Heart of Darkness to be a better guide to human heavier than a who.e library of psychology research.
As such, farcical trials don't jar me aesthetically, though they do jar me ethically. Maybe I've seen too much.
I would call an emotional Duke seeking a convienant scapegoat for his daughter's murder a rather massive corruption of justice.
Sorry, but the way it was handled it had nothing to do with corruption. Did you see bribery of judges? Payed mob that inspired unrest on the streets? Anything at all indicating search for a scapegoat with orchestrated court procedure with full knowledge about injustice? I did not. And before @Illydth kindly provided the story behind the script was completely lost and could not understand what possessed writers to finish otherwise epic story that way. (Not that he convinced me - mind you - but he explained the idea)
Actually, I think that explanation was lost somewhere on the road of cutting and adding content. Writers thought they cut extra fluff and revealed the core, while those who did not see explanatory "fluff", could not trace that lost line between point A and B.
@Mirandel Corruption isn't just bribes or mob connections. Charname was arrested and tried and faced execution based on literally zero evidence and in the case of some charnames (clerics anyone?) physically impossible circumstances, all because of a single duke and some shaky family history. Its incredibly corrupt, and for a good charname, even the other dukes realize its all bogus and personally orchestrate charname's escape, going so far as one of them personally explaining the situation.
@chimeric This entire population has recieved news that the daughter of a duke has been murdered, who also personally took up the fight to protect the city herself. Imagine if during war, the child of any of the world leaders joined the army and fought to protect their home. Now suddenly they were supposedly murdered the night after victory was declared, and supposedly by a fellow soldier. That would have some MAJOR media coverage and people would be all over that.
Comments
Have a read:
Imoen clearly did pay to break you out of jail. When she says: "Can we talk about this someplace, you know - far away from here?" she is addressing Dynaheir and Jaheira not the Charname. Imoen does believe in you, all of her dialogues make that clear. The problem is that it is out of character for her to have hired a cutthroat to break you out of jail. And that does mean that the developer got it wrong.
It also made sense in terms of game balance. In the first versions of D&D, clerics and fighters both used D8 for hitpoints, there were no weapon styles, and no weapon proficiency beyond simple proficiency. So clerics were fighters who could cast spells while wearing their armor. The restriction to blunt weapons balanced this out. (Although many of the best weapons in the BG series are usable by clerics, this probably reflects how the relative power of the classes has shifted over time.)
"The greater point here is: Some people seem to get touchy with their nostalgia. They want a perfect game to compliment the greatness of the BG saga. Just because you do not prefer how something was handled doesnt mean it's bad writing. I'm not a big fan of Jane Austen novels, doesnt mean she isnt an amazing author. Just not what I'm interesting in reading."
You ask why the game has been so divisive or controversial and then write this?
This isn't a defense of the game, it's an opinion about the character or motivation of those who critisise it.
And it has nothing whatsoever to do with the game.
And pretty much that has been the response since the game was released.
Paraphrased:
"It's not the game or the writing that's at fault, it's you. Your motivations, your politics, your memory, your expectations, your opinions ect."
You then mention your personal response to Jane Austen with the proviso that of course, objectively, she is a great author.
Surely the opposite can occur?
That liking something doesn't mean that the writing cannot be seen to be as objectively poor.
I would have fallen out of my seat laughing if there was a line by Belt to the effect of, "Entar you moron...he's a CLERIC...read the manual bub..."
Unfortunately, and oddly, there was no such awareness to my class. There are multiple other instances in the game where NPCs acknowledge our class, race, stats, etc. Missed opportunity by Beamdog on that one.
Seriously, we're talking about political authorities, not research scientists.
And the game, with all the limitations of the time, tries to make that scenario believable.
It is said that you were seen fleeing the scene, that there are witnesses.
Ulrant comes and makes it quite clear that he hates you because you are a Bhaalspawn, considers you guilty whatever the evidence. It shows that he is willing to be corrupt because of his beliefs that Bhaalspawn are bad.
The narrative integrity is preserved.
When you have that example, evenmoreso when you are working on the same product containing that example, the trial at the end of SOD is the best they could come up with?
Purleese.
Why, because if we're talking revolution, the authorities need first and foremost, the military on their side.
Lose the military, loose the battle.
It's "the generals" who are pivotal in revolutions.
Get the army onside, you win.
I started with BG1 and love BG1. I was disappointed with BG2: I hated the way it looked (sprites, paper dolls, mirroring) and I hated the fact that the story assumed you had played BG1 in a certain way. I find ToB tiresome (too linear and too high powered - I never much wanted to be a god). I didn't expect to like SoD (because the lack of Imoen as a companion) but I thought parts of it were very good. I still think it would make a good standalone adventure but I think it is hopeless as a link between BG1 and BG2.
Initial thoughts about a saga as long as BG are going to change as time progresses.
I made the mistake, for instance, of watching the new SW film a second time.
Thoroughly enjoyed it the first time, got emotional about seeing Luke again.
Second time, got emotional about how this dross was released under the SW name.
I'd say that kind of anger is justified or at least expected (we are gamers here, after all). So many detailed discussions, so many mods fixing and improving something (and demonstrating popularity of different features) - people had all the reasons to believe their preferences are clear, yet, resulting game simply ignored obvious expectations, as if discussions did not exist.
It's more sadness than anger.
You know, nm. It still was great to get SoD - even if nothing else would be good (which is far from the case) - we still got new areas, new NPCs and new story elements to work with.
I also love Joseph Conrad's novels. At first it was his stories of the sea in a bygone age that pulled me in, and his writing that had me re-read them (Lord Jim might be the best novel in English, in my opinion), but his view of life and human nature have really resonated. I've found Heart of Darkness to be a better guide to human heavier than a who.e library of psychology research.
As such, farcical trials don't jar me aesthetically, though they do jar me ethically. Maybe I've seen too much.
Actually, I think that explanation was lost somewhere on the road of cutting and adding content. Writers thought they cut extra fluff and revealed the core, while those who did not see explanatory "fluff", could not trace that lost line between point A and B.
@chimeric This entire population has recieved news that the daughter of a duke has been murdered, who also personally took up the fight to protect the city herself. Imagine if during war, the child of any of the world leaders joined the army and fought to protect their home. Now suddenly they were supposedly murdered the night after victory was declared, and supposedly by a fellow soldier. That would have some MAJOR media coverage and people would be all over that.