In any case, whether it was a few months or a year is not relevant since we are talking about a "gap" of events more so than time. Something as significant as Siege is ridiculous to have happened between the two games, especially since it doesn't fit in with the rest of the story and is never mentioned again. It should have been a standalone game.
That's why it felt so awkward for many, and why feelings like the OP's arise.
1) One game ends, and then you wake up a year later in a far-away city, imprisoned by someone you've never even heard of before. There's a gap. 2) Lots of important stuff happens and then never gets mentioned again, including everything in Tales of the Sword Coast.
BG starts 1 Mirtul 1368 DR. BG2 starts 1 Mirtul 1369 DR.
How long does BG take? Just checked my last playthrough, about 150 days, got one that's got a 190 day duration. Do I play very slowly? What's the average? I presume a year is 365 days?
I've always "headcannoned" that BG starts in the spring and takes place from then and over the following summer. Autumn you defeat Sarevok. Irenicus captures you after midwinter, escape in the spring ready to go through BG2.
That fits with the scenery and makes sense logistically. Traipsing all over the place through the snow would probably mean nobody actually has to kill you, your party just dies in a blizzard in the Cloudpeaks.
Yup, as MouseMagic just definitively proved, it definitely wasn't a year between the end of BG1 and the start of BG2. Thus, at best, there is a few month's gap, and those few months could have been spent relaxing and enjoying the earned wealth until the capture by Irenicus. Or they could have been spent involved in an apocalyptic showdown that never gets mentioned again.
You can certainly pick holes in the underlying logic in SoD, but given that they were trying to bridge the chasm between BG1 and BG2 I think it was a creditable attempt.
Where I think they went wrong a bit was to overdo the attempt to make it a standalone game rather than part of a series. The whole sequence after the death of Belhifet seems contrived to me and could have been far better covered as part of a 20 second cut-scene. That would have been the equivalent of the cut-scene for the death of Sarevok at the end of BG1. Instead the guiding idea seems to have been that they should be using the same approach as at the end of ToB - but this time should do it bigger and better. ToB though is the end of the series and therefore the approach makes sense there - it doesn't to me in SoD.
Only in the scope of a standalone game. As an imaginary bridge between the two games... Nah.
People can disagree. Not everyone has to share your opinion.
If you like it, play it and enjoy it. If you don't, skip it and go on to Shadows of Amn.
You're right about that, but it isn't just my opinion. Others have said the same. A good company listens to feedback and improves for their future releases.
Not everyone has to share your opinions either, and I notice quite a few of you saying it is good without any backing, while people like MouseMagic and others share their opinions WITH credible backing.
Whether you liked it or not is not in question here. Whether it makes sense or not and fits the theme of the other two games is. And it doesn't. See above posts for why.
That's fair, OP. I'm sorry you didn't like it. I found SoD enjoyable, despite plot getting absurdly stupid near the end. And I don't mind that expansion "didn't fit", because you can say that ToB didn't fit as well. It's different. It has it's own thing, and I'm fine with that.
@Wandering_Ranger "Whether you liked it or not is not in question here. Whether it makes sense or not and fits the theme of the other two games is. And it doesn't. See above posts for why. "
I see a lot of opinion, which is fair. But touting your opinion as objective fact is pretty laughable.
I'm taking a hike north. Naturally there's going to be Dragons and Liches. And an army led by Valkyrie von Über opening a gate to the Nine Hells, leading to the end boss of another IE game. They literally copy/pasted the end boss from another IE game. That's neat.
I'm taking a hike south. Naturally there's going to be Dragons and Beholders. And an earless Elf who wants my soul and kidnaps my sister. After I get rid of the Elf, suddenly I discover that everyone and their mother is a Ballspawn even though they were rare until now. So I get teleported around fighting random Ballspawn until I kill the last one. Game over.
EDIT: I misspelled bhaalspawn twice. Then I laughed at myself. I won't even correct it.
I feel you. By the time I reached the walls to the final castle I just gave up, and didn't bother with the last chapter (or two chapters). There were parts in Siege I have enjoyed, the same parts I enjoyed in all the other BG games, mostly mini quests.
@Wandering_Ranger "Whether you liked it or not is not in question here. Whether it makes sense or not and fits the theme of the other two games is. And it doesn't. See above posts for why. "
I see a lot of opinion, which is fair. But touting your opinion as objective fact is pretty laughable.
Comments
That's why it felt so awkward for many, and why feelings like the OP's arise.
2) Lots of important stuff happens and then never gets mentioned again, including everything in Tales of the Sword Coast.
BG starts 1 Mirtul 1368 DR.
BG2 starts 1 Mirtul 1369 DR.
How long does BG take?
Just checked my last playthrough, about 150 days, got one that's got a 190 day duration.
Do I play very slowly?
What's the average?
I presume a year is 365 days?
I've always "headcannoned" that BG starts in the spring and takes place from then and over the following summer. Autumn you defeat Sarevok. Irenicus captures you after midwinter, escape in the spring ready to go through BG2.
That fits with the scenery and makes sense logistically. Traipsing all over the place through the snow would probably mean nobody actually has to kill you, your party just dies in a blizzard in the Cloudpeaks.
If you like it, play it and enjoy it. If you don't, skip it and go on to Shadows of Amn.
Where I think they went wrong a bit was to overdo the attempt to make it a standalone game rather than part of a series. The whole sequence after the death of Belhifet seems contrived to me and could have been far better covered as part of a 20 second cut-scene. That would have been the equivalent of the cut-scene for the death of Sarevok at the end of BG1. Instead the guiding idea seems to have been that they should be using the same approach as at the end of ToB - but this time should do it bigger and better. ToB though is the end of the series and therefore the approach makes sense there - it doesn't to me in SoD.
Not everyone has to share your opinions either, and I notice quite a few of you saying it is good without any backing, while people like MouseMagic and others share their opinions WITH credible backing.
Whether you liked it or not is not in question here. Whether it makes sense or not and fits the theme of the other two games is. And it doesn't. See above posts for why.
I found SoD enjoyable, despite plot getting absurdly stupid near the end. And I don't mind that expansion "didn't fit", because you can say that ToB didn't fit as well. It's different. It has it's own thing, and I'm fine with that.
Sorry.
I see a lot of opinion, which is fair. But touting your opinion as objective fact is pretty laughable.
After I get rid of the Elf, suddenly I discover that everyone and their mother is a Ballspawn even though they were rare until now. So I get teleported around fighting random Ballspawn until I kill the last one. Game over.
EDIT: I misspelled bhaalspawn twice. Then I laughed at myself. I won't even correct it.
My bad. The post was edited.
It's hard to get tone on the net. The smilies here are quite restricted and I don't understand at least half of them.
Great job Beamdog!!