It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
leeux wrote: »
A better proper fix would have been (IMHO) to make it so you already pickpocketed it you won't have the option to buy it, nor it would drop if killed
Personally I'm always against changes that remove options from the player and the game, because if you continue to do that, extrapolating that tendency, in the end it'll just make BG a less memorable game... one of the things that makes it so great IMO, is all the hidden stuff and things that you can do to achieve the same results in the end.
sarevok57 wrote: »
my assumption as to why they changed it in the EEs is because that wasn't the way the original devs intended that to go, so every time beamdog finds something that they think was not the intended idea for something, they will change it
ThacoBell wrote: »
@Balrog99 Pretty sure the game flat out says the gem is INSIDE the chicken.
Balrog99 wrote: »
I know, but that doesn't mean it makes sense. Unless the beljuril is the size of a small pebble it doesn't make sense that a chicken would eat it. For pure RP purposes, logic should dictate over story. I'm more of a power-gamer myself so it really doesn't matter to me personally. I was just giving an RP reason it might make sense to be able to pickpocket it like back in the pre-EE days.
Permidion_Stark wrote: »
I always figured the whole set up was meant to be a joke, like when you click on the chickens in BG1 multiple times and they eventually say: "There ain't nobody hear but us chickens." Not everything in Baldur's Gate is supposed to make absolute sense and I don't think removing jokes in the name of 'realism' exactly enhances the game.
Zaxares wrote: »
Reminds me of how if you click the cows in BG long enough, they go "Ouch. I mean, mooooo!" XD