One thing to note here is that according to many YT videos SoD was full of progressive ideas and nothing else. It wasn't quite similar in-game, but the social opinion had been created. One of the best questions one could ask any internet person shouting about killing the childhood games, favorite characters etc. was: "Have you actually played SoD? Have you actually seen Safana / Jaheira / new NPCS?"
Youtubers/Twitch Streamers are humans as well and often share their own opinions about the game they feature, true. Mainly to entertain their subscribers throughout hour long videos. So things like that can obviously happen.
Another thing of note is that Let's Plays with no commentary exist as well. Recorded playthrough like that stay neutral, which does better help the watchers to form their own opinions about the showcased title.
One thing to note here is that according to many YT videos SoD was full of progressive ideas and nothing else. It wasn't quite similar in-game, but the social opinion had been created. One of the best questions one could ask any internet person shouting about killing the childhood games, favorite characters etc. was: "Have you actually played SoD? Have you actually seen Safana / Jaheira / new NPCS?"
That was frustrating, incredibly frustrating, before buying it I couldn't find any real insight into how it was. Eventually I played it and well, it's a well designed linear D&D campaign that unfortunately has to be a Baldur's Gate game. From a gameplay perspective there wasn't much wrong with it other than the linearity, but from a writing perspective it made so many questionable decisions to me (like why Imoen wasn't playable, and I found her unwillingness to participate and stay by the Bhaalspawn's side completely out of character and it doesn't help that I know why the decision was made and that it made little sense) and the general approach to writing taken in it just being a bit too simple and the structure making the entire Caelar Argent part of it feel like filler when all that really mattered as far the Bhaalspawn goes is Irenicus setting them up by killing a character whom I didn't like based on three interactions I had with her because I guarantee Skie is one of the least used characters in the first game.
Overall it's quality is decidedly middling but, I would have liked to see Beamdog make more stuff on the Infinity engine. I still do, it doesn't need to be BG3, or even have anything to do with the BG series. I just would like to see more done with the engine because its quite special to me.
I don't know how much the controversy ultimately led to Wizards of the Coast losing faith in Beamdog, or if it was just a lack of success in sales, but it probably didn't help. Based on things I've read about today, and many things in the last few years
i feel with a few exceptions alot of the people complaining never even played sod. they just jumped on the band wagon and ruined it's reputation.
there is alot of good stuff in sod. skie is a much better character thanks to sod. all the new npcs are solid expect for maybe volghin who i found boring.
Nah, I don't really agree with this, for a character who was so instrumental to the story she was very underwritten and the story seems to assume you have time for her when you really have better things to do.
A lot of SOD's narrative problems seemed to be the designers working poorly against their idea that story critical NPCs can't be put into any risk of dying, but they didn't want to have parts of the storyline that deny the PC from acting in certain ways, i.e. being able to attack anyone they meet in gameplay. Even though, you know, Imoen can die in BG1 at any point, they have her retreat in Irenicus' dungeon but you can kill her any time after you save her from spellhold.
Essentially its not hard to see the problems BG1 and 2 have narratively since they don't always hold you to what the stories expect, but that's preferable to hamfisted storytelling that doesn't respect the player's immersion.
What would have solved this and made the whole thing work far better, was have her as a fully recruitable NPC that has to be in your party for at least one important segment in the game. Yes, that's forcing something on the player, but Skie's role in the story is something that's forced already via dialogue scenes. But how about we make her an active part of the game and a character you and others in the party can have interactions with that will develop the PC's appreciation of her as a character. Then maybe they might feel something when Irenicus kills her instead of general indifference.
But I also agree with the general idea that the whole thing with Skie was unneeded and instead after it was made public that the PC is a bhaalspawn, there could have been a show trial where the city uses the PC's action as an excuse to get rid of them, and it could be revealed that you were in fact being exiled in secret to get them out of the city's hair. The whole Skie subplot just seems like forced melodrama.
Also as no doubt made clear in what I said before, Imoen should have been recruitable. I also would have suggested adding only 1 or 2 new NPCs and instead focused on developing BG1 characters a bit more.
I think you make some points that the Skie subplot was somewhat unnecessary but man I have to disagree with a bunch of other points. Forcing the PC to recruit Imoen would have been a terrible choice. I also greatly appreciate the new NPCs as they allow the player to explore some classes that aren't available as NPCs in either other game -- archer, shaman, skald, cleric/thief.
My biggest issue with the NPC loadout was that for a game with such an emphasis on tough, tactical combat, there was a pretty poor selection of front line tanks, especially early in the game.
I’m currently playing SOD on my
Xbox after finishing Baldur’s Gate.
I must say that I am really enjoying it. It’s been ages since I played it originally as I only played it through twice when it was first released and so it feels pretty fresh. It does have a few issues but I still hold to my point when it first came out that it’s a decent effort. It’s a shame that we will probably never see the story continuation that it leaves open at the end but it’s still an enjoyable experience.
Forcing the PC to recruit Imoen would have been a terrible choice.
I never said force anywhere, I simply wanted the option to have her in the party, instead that was categorically denied for a very weak reason, and I don't mean the story reason, I mean the reason for the design decision.
Forcing the PC to recruit Imoen would have been a terrible choice.
I never said force anywhere, I simply wanted the option to have her in the party, instead that was categorically denied for a very weak reason, and I don't mean the story reason, I mean the reason for the design decision.
SImply - I disagree. I dont think the reason was weak. I thought it was a clever nod to AD&D's dual classing system, and her inclusion as a character that doesnt actively participate but is somewhat involved remotely gave an interesting perspective of the bhaalspawn's journey.
I think most people who are upset at this decision just wanted to play with her more. i respect their desires, but that's a lot different than "bad writing".
I think your quibbles with the writing are pretty subjective, and (I - almost coming from a background of writing) found them to be effective. Not perfect, but well within the expected curve of the BG franchise (which I'm afraid nostalgia has colored for us all. I'm currently replaying BG1, and that beginning is *rough*).
I do not think anyone wants you to like and buy the game if you currently have such a bad impression of it. I feel the recommendation is merely to check a source after the game has actually been released in order for you to verify your decisions to not buy it.
Worth noting that my original statement was: "It's not even out yet! And it's already being written off."
And this has been corrupted into me saying you have to play the game to even critique it. While I do think that even disagreeing there is somewhat absurd, it's also a far remove from what I actually said.
It's a lot less removed from what you said if you don't cut away the next sentences from what you wrote: "It's not even out yet! And it's already being written off. That's why I think this is "not understandable" to many of us. If the game were already out, you gave it a shot, and just couldn't bring yourself to enjoy it any way, it'd be different."
I bolded the part I find most relevant. With it returned I find it a lot less straining how somebody could read it as "play it before you have an opinion on it".
At the end of the day, everyone is entitled to their opinion and no amount of back-breaking "logic" on whether or not it should be judged prior to release, or prior to trying it, or prior to completing it, or whatever is going to invalidate someone's thoughts on the matter. If you want to hate it, you can. If you want to love it, you can.
You can disagree with someone's reasoning for liking or disliking all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that their view is as valid as yours. More so before the game comes out and we all have the same amount of experience with it.
I think it's perfectly find to question people's reasoning on this actually. As Julius said upthread, Siege of Dragonspear got quite a bit of bad hype from people who judged the game without playing it. That had consequences. Saying that there's no bad way to talk about a game, because that's just like your opinion man, is a way to frankly just shut down any conversation.
There may be no objectively correct way to talk about games, but there are better and worse ways. We shouldn't condone throwing basic logic to the wind here. It's also worth noting that my original statement was not about merely "judging" the game. As I said "The game is already being written off." I was making a point about a specific kind of criticism -- not all criticism. I've criticized some aspects of BG3 that I've seen from cinematic and gameplay.
I think it's perfectly find to question people's reasoning on this actually. As Julius said upthread, Siege of Dragonspear got quite a bit of bad hype from people who judged the game without playing it. That had consequences. Saying that there's no bad way to talk about a game, because it's all just like your opinion man, is a way to frankly just shut down any conversation.
There may be no objectively correct way to talk about games, but there are better and worse ways. We shouldn't condone throwing basic logic to the wind here. It's also worth noting that my original statement was not about merely "judging" the game. As I said "The game is already being written off." I was making a point about a specific kind of criticism -- not all criticism. I've criticized some aspects of BG3 that I've seen from cinematic and gameplay.
I agree with your statement: I think opinions are opinions, but that doesnt mean all arguments are created equally.
That said, I want to be clear on my own statement: I dont think @hybridial 's position is a poor argument. I think they are entitled to their opinion on the subject, and I just disagree with it.
And there are people who have already decided that it's going to be an amazing world-stopping addition to the Baldur's Gate franchise. Are they being hasty? Are you going to call them out for having predetermined opinions on the subject? It's a game, for goodness' sake. It's not a horrible thing for people to make up their mind on it beforehand either way.
No one is arguing that someone isn't entitled to an opinion. Even if we were, what can we do to silence anybody on here?
But if you're going to voice your opinion on a public forum, expect people to attack what they perceive as its shortcomings. I still fail to get some of the implied logic here that strident, premature attacks can be made against Larian, WotC, but it's somehow unconscionable for other posters to question the basis of those attacks.
Questioning is fine, but it doesn't feel like you're merely questioning. It feels like you're trying to shut negative opinions down and tell them they're wrong.
And there are people who have already decided that it's going to be an amazing world-stopping addition to the Baldur's Gate franchise. Are they being hasty? Are you going to call them out for having predetermined opinions on the subject? It's a game, for goodness' sake. It's not a horrible thing for people to make up their mind on it beforehand either way.
None of the stuff on this forum truly matters. If we're going to maintain this standard of horribleness, then zero complaints should be voiced about games or people's opinions of them. This is also a strawman. Find one post post in this subthread of anybody saying they guarantee the game will be great. I can sure find the opposite without effort.
Questioning is fine, but it doesn't feel like you're merely questioning. It feels like you're trying to shut negative opinions down and tell them they're wrong.
Arguing with people is not shutting them down.
I'm going to repeat an argument I've made again and again. Some people seem to want to have it both ways. Complain in a public forum about how Larian has betrayed the series, is doing something deeply cynical, same for WotC, dismiss broad support for the OS games as "fanboy" behavior, misrepresent what optimistic folks here say about BG3.
But heaven forbid someone should push back on any of these points.
That point can just as easily be turned the other way. I find it funny how some posters here want to denounce other poster's hesitation towards the game and developer as illogical as if their own hype for the game wasn't just as unfounded and based on prejudice.
It's a public forum after all. If you voice your opinion on a forum like this, don't be surprised if other posters attack what they perceive as its shortcomings. I still fail to get some of the implied logic here that strident, premature praise can be made for Larian, but it's somehow unconscionable for other posters to question the basis of that praise.
Meh, think what you want, I stressed twice in that paragraph that the game wasn't out yet. I think it's actually quite clear where my emphasis was.
Perhaps I bolded too much. The part i was getting at was the requirement that, after the game was out, you'd have "gave it a shot", ie tried it, before complaining.
I've seen praise of game elements that have been revealed. I have not seen people guaranteeing the game will be good based on that. I have not seen people praising or promising non-revealed aspects of the game will be excellent either.
You can play this game where you pretend that it can "just as easily be turned the other way". But there's no evidence for that argument.
I didn't want to bring any of your posts into it because I feel you're one of the most argument-deescalating posters on this forum right now and it would feel as a kind of personal attack
I want to add further criticism to what I've seen based on information that is talked about in the article. I'll quote the pertinent parts
“Swen Vincke came up with the story of the mind flayers and the tadpole on an airplane. A few of us were flying to talk to the D&D Team about the story, the lore, and how we were going to implement fifth edition into our game. We had all been reading lots of D&D books and Swen had seen the image of the tadpole crawling into an eye. He said, ‘What if mind flayers invade Faerûn again?’” remembers Adam Smith, Senior Writer at Larian.
“But ceremorphosis is a quick process. On the first day your nails start dropping off and your hair starts falling out. We wondered if we could get away with putting players on such a short clock, because five days is not a long time in RPGs! To make it more fun, we decided that the tadpole in their heads is different.”
Okay, so, their first approach to telling a story within an established setting is to come up with a concept, and then at the first sign it kind of won't work within the setting as established, conveniently we'll come up with something additional that didn't exist to make it possible. This in itself is not a bad thing but it is often a situation involving having to redefine or retcon things as problems inevitably keep cropping up about the inconsistency of the new information with the old. But as of now, one can kind of handwave this, until much more is known about the nature of the additions that are going to be made.
Having barely survived a crash-landing at the start of Baldur’s Gate III, players find themselves stranded in the middle of an inhospitable wilderness. As far as they know, they only have a few days to get rid of the parasite before they sprout tentacles where there previously weren’t any. As they desperately seek a cure, it becomes obvious that a psychic link with the tadpole gives them new powers and some other unexpected benefits (including improved physical capabilities such as being able to jump further, as well as unique abilities for each character—being able to walk in the sunlight in the case of vampire Astarion). As these dark powers awaken, should players resist and turn evil against itself? Or embrace the lure of the power devouring them from within and see how far it will take them?
So it seems to me that they do want to make the Mind Flayer tadpole the source of moral and role playing choices. I think that will be difficult. The tadpole turns a living thing into a mindflayer and subsumes entirely the previous identity as far as is known by the people of the setting. That's why it really is not equatable to something like what the Bhaalspawn goes through, there really is nothing that should make anybody want to push their way towards that transformation, this isn't good vs evil; this is aiding a parasite to erase yourself. You can make that an element of tension in extreme situations but that's something that would only work once or twice before becoming obviously stupid.
Now maybe we don't have information that makes this concept make more sense, but as it is, I do not see how it will work. And if this is the situation they're set on and there is nothing additional to make it work, it's something that will not only not make sense within the setting, it's not going to make sense as a story.
Comments
Another thing of note is that Let's Plays with no commentary exist as well. Recorded playthrough like that stay neutral, which does better help the watchers to form their own opinions about the showcased title.
That was frustrating, incredibly frustrating, before buying it I couldn't find any real insight into how it was. Eventually I played it and well, it's a well designed linear D&D campaign that unfortunately has to be a Baldur's Gate game. From a gameplay perspective there wasn't much wrong with it other than the linearity, but from a writing perspective it made so many questionable decisions to me (like why Imoen wasn't playable, and I found her unwillingness to participate and stay by the Bhaalspawn's side completely out of character and it doesn't help that I know why the decision was made and that it made little sense) and the general approach to writing taken in it just being a bit too simple and the structure making the entire Caelar Argent part of it feel like filler when all that really mattered as far the Bhaalspawn goes is Irenicus setting them up by killing a character whom I didn't like based on three interactions I had with her because I guarantee Skie is one of the least used characters in the first game.
Overall it's quality is decidedly middling but, I would have liked to see Beamdog make more stuff on the Infinity engine. I still do, it doesn't need to be BG3, or even have anything to do with the BG series. I just would like to see more done with the engine because its quite special to me.
I don't know how much the controversy ultimately led to Wizards of the Coast losing faith in Beamdog, or if it was just a lack of success in sales, but it probably didn't help. Based on things I've read about today, and many things in the last few years
Social media was a mistake.
there is alot of good stuff in sod. skie is a much better character thanks to sod. all the new npcs are solid expect for maybe volghin who i found boring.
Nah, I don't really agree with this, for a character who was so instrumental to the story she was very underwritten and the story seems to assume you have time for her when you really have better things to do.
A lot of SOD's narrative problems seemed to be the designers working poorly against their idea that story critical NPCs can't be put into any risk of dying, but they didn't want to have parts of the storyline that deny the PC from acting in certain ways, i.e. being able to attack anyone they meet in gameplay. Even though, you know, Imoen can die in BG1 at any point, they have her retreat in Irenicus' dungeon but you can kill her any time after you save her from spellhold.
Essentially its not hard to see the problems BG1 and 2 have narratively since they don't always hold you to what the stories expect, but that's preferable to hamfisted storytelling that doesn't respect the player's immersion.
What would have solved this and made the whole thing work far better, was have her as a fully recruitable NPC that has to be in your party for at least one important segment in the game. Yes, that's forcing something on the player, but Skie's role in the story is something that's forced already via dialogue scenes. But how about we make her an active part of the game and a character you and others in the party can have interactions with that will develop the PC's appreciation of her as a character. Then maybe they might feel something when Irenicus kills her instead of general indifference.
But I also agree with the general idea that the whole thing with Skie was unneeded and instead after it was made public that the PC is a bhaalspawn, there could have been a show trial where the city uses the PC's action as an excuse to get rid of them, and it could be revealed that you were in fact being exiled in secret to get them out of the city's hair. The whole Skie subplot just seems like forced melodrama.
Also as no doubt made clear in what I said before, Imoen should have been recruitable. I also would have suggested adding only 1 or 2 new NPCs and instead focused on developing BG1 characters a bit more.
My biggest issue with the NPC loadout was that for a game with such an emphasis on tough, tactical combat, there was a pretty poor selection of front line tanks, especially early in the game.
Xbox after finishing Baldur’s Gate.
I must say that I am really enjoying it. It’s been ages since I played it originally as I only played it through twice when it was first released and so it feels pretty fresh. It does have a few issues but I still hold to my point when it first came out that it’s a decent effort. It’s a shame that we will probably never see the story continuation that it leaves open at the end but it’s still an enjoyable experience.
I never said force anywhere, I simply wanted the option to have her in the party, instead that was categorically denied for a very weak reason, and I don't mean the story reason, I mean the reason for the design decision.
SImply - I disagree. I dont think the reason was weak. I thought it was a clever nod to AD&D's dual classing system, and her inclusion as a character that doesnt actively participate but is somewhat involved remotely gave an interesting perspective of the bhaalspawn's journey.
I think most people who are upset at this decision just wanted to play with her more. i respect their desires, but that's a lot different than "bad writing".
I think your quibbles with the writing are pretty subjective, and (I - almost coming from a background of writing) found them to be effective. Not perfect, but well within the expected curve of the BG franchise (which I'm afraid nostalgia has colored for us all. I'm currently replaying BG1, and that beginning is *rough*).
It's a lot less removed from what you said if you don't cut away the next sentences from what you wrote: "It's not even out yet! And it's already being written off. That's why I think this is "not understandable" to many of us. If the game were already out, you gave it a shot, and just couldn't bring yourself to enjoy it any way, it'd be different."
I bolded the part I find most relevant. With it returned I find it a lot less straining how somebody could read it as "play it before you have an opinion on it".
You can disagree with someone's reasoning for liking or disliking all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that their view is as valid as yours. More so before the game comes out and we all have the same amount of experience with it.
There may be no objectively correct way to talk about games, but there are better and worse ways. We shouldn't condone throwing basic logic to the wind here. It's also worth noting that my original statement was not about merely "judging" the game. As I said "The game is already being written off." I was making a point about a specific kind of criticism -- not all criticism. I've criticized some aspects of BG3 that I've seen from cinematic and gameplay.
I agree with your statement: I think opinions are opinions, but that doesnt mean all arguments are created equally.
That said, I want to be clear on my own statement: I dont think @hybridial 's position is a poor argument. I think they are entitled to their opinion on the subject, and I just disagree with it.
But if you're going to voice your opinion on a public forum, expect people to attack what they perceive as its shortcomings. I still fail to get some of the implied logic here that strident, premature attacks can be made against Larian, WotC, but it's somehow unconscionable for other posters to question the basis of those attacks.
None of the stuff on this forum truly matters. If we're going to maintain this standard of horribleness, then zero complaints should be voiced about games or people's opinions of them. This is also a strawman. Find one post post in this subthread of anybody saying they guarantee the game will be great. I can sure find the opposite without effort.
People voicing their opinions, I hear.
Engage in debate any further, I think I will rather not.
Thus, the ensuing chaos, I sit back and watch.
Within my mind, I cannot help but giggle.
Terraria 1.4, I play and enjoy.
Arguing with people is not shutting them down.
I'm going to repeat an argument I've made again and again. Some people seem to want to have it both ways. Complain in a public forum about how Larian has betrayed the series, is doing something deeply cynical, same for WotC, dismiss broad support for the OS games as "fanboy" behavior, misrepresent what optimistic folks here say about BG3.
But heaven forbid someone should push back on any of these points.
It's a public forum after all. If you voice your opinion on a forum like this, don't be surprised if other posters attack what they perceive as its shortcomings. I still fail to get some of the implied logic here that strident, premature praise can be made for Larian, but it's somehow unconscionable for other posters to question the basis of that praise.
Edit: Oh, and
Perhaps I bolded too much. The part i was getting at was the requirement that, after the game was out, you'd have "gave it a shot", ie tried it, before complaining.
You can play this game where you pretend that it can "just as easily be turned the other way". But there's no evidence for that argument.
Yes indeed!
The game will be awesome and the best game ever made - "logical" and "reasonable" and most importantly, allowed.
The game will be horrible - How dare you say that! You're illogical. You're over the top. You need to be shut down.
The essence of this subforum.
I didn't want to bring any of your posts into it because I feel you're one of the most argument-deescalating posters on this forum right now and it would feel as a kind of personal attack
I want to add further criticism to what I've seen based on information that is talked about in the article. I'll quote the pertinent parts
Okay, so, their first approach to telling a story within an established setting is to come up with a concept, and then at the first sign it kind of won't work within the setting as established, conveniently we'll come up with something additional that didn't exist to make it possible. This in itself is not a bad thing but it is often a situation involving having to redefine or retcon things as problems inevitably keep cropping up about the inconsistency of the new information with the old. But as of now, one can kind of handwave this, until much more is known about the nature of the additions that are going to be made.
So it seems to me that they do want to make the Mind Flayer tadpole the source of moral and role playing choices. I think that will be difficult. The tadpole turns a living thing into a mindflayer and subsumes entirely the previous identity as far as is known by the people of the setting. That's why it really is not equatable to something like what the Bhaalspawn goes through, there really is nothing that should make anybody want to push their way towards that transformation, this isn't good vs evil; this is aiding a parasite to erase yourself. You can make that an element of tension in extreme situations but that's something that would only work once or twice before becoming obviously stupid.
Now maybe we don't have information that makes this concept make more sense, but as it is, I do not see how it will work. And if this is the situation they're set on and there is nothing additional to make it work, it's something that will not only not make sense within the setting, it's not going to make sense as a story.