BG1 NPC personas vs. BG2 NPC personalities
SharGuidesMyHand
Member Posts: 2,580
One of the most prevalent (and valid) complaints when comparing BG1 and BG2 NPCs is that the BG1 NPCs have substantially less dialogue and interactions than the BG2 ones. While this is certainly accurate, I don't agree that this is entirely a drawback for the BG1 NPCs.
While the BG2 NPCs are more talkative, I've always felt that the BG1 NPCs projected the more interesting and memorable personas - i.e: Kivan as the quiet, no-nonsense tough guy (picture Dirty Harry with a bow instead of a magnum), Shar-Teel as a defiant, man-hating ultra-feminist, Eldoth as a charming scoundrel, Ajantis as a youthful, overzealous do-gooder, Safana as a conniving seductress, etc. By contrast, many of the BG2 NPCs, despite talking a lot more, often seem either forgettably bland (i.e: Keldorn, Mazzy, Cernd, Valygar), or just annoying (Anomen).
I'll admit that there are definitely times when playing BG1 that I wish the NPCs would interact more than they do. At the same time though, I also appreciate that the "less is more" approach of BG1 interactions allows you to form your own interpretations of the characters. For example, although not explicitly scripted, I've always imagined that there was a burgeoning romance developing between Kivan and Branwen, based on the obvious admiration that they show for each other (which is especially significant since Kivan never seems to have anything nice to say about anything else).
I also find that in many cases, the more a BG2 NPCs talks, the less likable or interesting they actually become. For example, the interactions between Mazzy and Valygar, while admittedly humorous, also make Valygar look like a lifeless wuss and Mazzy like a bit of a naive snob - which is not how I would picture either character otherwise. In BG1, Viconia presented to me as a sympathetic, persecuted character, and I was only too happy to accept her into my party and keep her under my protection. While she initially presents the same way in BG2, as soon as you rescue her, she starts berating Aerie (and also has some unkind remarks about Imoen IIRC), so much so that I just can't bring myself to accept her into my party (at least, not as long as Aerie is still in it). Likewise, Anomen is just such a flat out jerk to other party members that I often come to wonder whether I should keep him in, and whether I really should care whether he ever becomes a knight (heck, for the sake of the Order, I should probably not want him in it, LOL).
As I'm currently playing BG2 with BG1 NPCs imported through multiplayer, I currently have a party that is a mix of BG1 and BG2 NPCs, and I've been able to observe the differences side-by-side. While the interactions between the BG2 NPCs can make the game seem more spontaneous, I just can't bring myself to feel bonded to the BG2 NPCs the way that I am to the BG1 ones. For example, I recently swapped out Branwen for Anomen, but after playing with him for a while, I quickly felt so disinterested in him (and the game in general) that I revisited the save from prior to the swap and restarted playing without him.
So, if anyone out there has had the patience to read through this post, do you share any similar feelings?
While the BG2 NPCs are more talkative, I've always felt that the BG1 NPCs projected the more interesting and memorable personas - i.e: Kivan as the quiet, no-nonsense tough guy (picture Dirty Harry with a bow instead of a magnum), Shar-Teel as a defiant, man-hating ultra-feminist, Eldoth as a charming scoundrel, Ajantis as a youthful, overzealous do-gooder, Safana as a conniving seductress, etc. By contrast, many of the BG2 NPCs, despite talking a lot more, often seem either forgettably bland (i.e: Keldorn, Mazzy, Cernd, Valygar), or just annoying (Anomen).
I'll admit that there are definitely times when playing BG1 that I wish the NPCs would interact more than they do. At the same time though, I also appreciate that the "less is more" approach of BG1 interactions allows you to form your own interpretations of the characters. For example, although not explicitly scripted, I've always imagined that there was a burgeoning romance developing between Kivan and Branwen, based on the obvious admiration that they show for each other (which is especially significant since Kivan never seems to have anything nice to say about anything else).
I also find that in many cases, the more a BG2 NPCs talks, the less likable or interesting they actually become. For example, the interactions between Mazzy and Valygar, while admittedly humorous, also make Valygar look like a lifeless wuss and Mazzy like a bit of a naive snob - which is not how I would picture either character otherwise. In BG1, Viconia presented to me as a sympathetic, persecuted character, and I was only too happy to accept her into my party and keep her under my protection. While she initially presents the same way in BG2, as soon as you rescue her, she starts berating Aerie (and also has some unkind remarks about Imoen IIRC), so much so that I just can't bring myself to accept her into my party (at least, not as long as Aerie is still in it). Likewise, Anomen is just such a flat out jerk to other party members that I often come to wonder whether I should keep him in, and whether I really should care whether he ever becomes a knight (heck, for the sake of the Order, I should probably not want him in it, LOL).
As I'm currently playing BG2 with BG1 NPCs imported through multiplayer, I currently have a party that is a mix of BG1 and BG2 NPCs, and I've been able to observe the differences side-by-side. While the interactions between the BG2 NPCs can make the game seem more spontaneous, I just can't bring myself to feel bonded to the BG2 NPCs the way that I am to the BG1 ones. For example, I recently swapped out Branwen for Anomen, but after playing with him for a while, I quickly felt so disinterested in him (and the game in general) that I revisited the save from prior to the swap and restarted playing without him.
So, if anyone out there has had the patience to read through this post, do you share any similar feelings?
14
Comments
Anomen is a great character, I don't like him personally, but, it makes you *feel* something against or for him, that is what tells if he was good written, plus originality and player initiated dialog.
My love... I miss thee, Faldorn.
Anyway, I can agree with you up to certain point.
The BG1 NPC project is very well written, so it's natural that one starts comparing between the original BG2 banter and that of BG1 NPC project. I think that much depends on personal tastes and 'head canon'. To me, as to you, some of the BG2 banters feel out of character. The Mazzy-Valygar relationship you mentioned is a great example where I fully agree with you. But there are other BG2 characters/relationships that were really well-written imo. I for one, think that Anomen is amazing, for the reasons @CrevsDaak mentioned. He's easily one of my favorite BG2 NPCs (especially the Chaotic Neutral variant).
At the same time there are NPCs I really like in BG1 NPC project (Dynaheir, Xzar, Khalid), and others who imo fail to transcend a basic stereotype. An example: I understand that Branwen is a no-nonsense type of woman, one who values actions over words. But that doesn't have to mean you can't get to know her well. Maybe it's just my perception but I felt that even when romanced there was little depth to character.
For the record, I actually do like Anomen's overall subplot, which I feel provides some of the most poignant moments in the entire BG series. But this poignancy is very nearly undermined by the way Anomen just acts like a senseless jerk, even a bully, throughout the rest of the game - i.e.: berating Mazzy about her size and race for no apparent reason. I know Anomen is supposed to be overly anxious to prove himself, but the writers went way too far in that direction IMO, to the point where his behavior is simply indefensible and he loses some of his intended depth. IMO, it makes his efforts to become a knight just seem phony and superficial.
So yeah, Shar-teel is NOT a typical feminist in my opinion no.
I study political science btw, hence the lecture on ideologies
I do think that there are NPCs in BG2 who are colorful (Haer'dalis is easily a match for anyone in BG1), and NPCs in BG1 who are forgettable (for me, Safana is the only female thief who doesn't feel like a carbon copy of the others). But I definitely agree that sometimes the banters do more harm than good when it comes to characterization.
Keldorn - Good paladin type.
Anomen - Trying to be a good paladin type.
Aerie - Life sucks and i'm crying about it.
Nalia - Life sucks for other people and i'm crying on their behalf.
Valygar - My life sucks and i'm cursed, i'll brood instead of crying.
Imoen - I feel that life does suck a bit, but i'll try to be happy.
Viconia - Life does suck, but i'll try to make it seem worse to keep you away (romance)
Korgan - Life is fun!
Jan Jansen - Life is fun! As long as you ignore my personal quest.
Minsc - Life is fun!
Haer'dalis - Life is fun!
Jaheira - I meddle in EVERYONES business.
Cernd - I'm my own person.
Yoshimo - I'm my own person.
Viconia - I'm my own person (no romance).
Edwin - Gets a category on his own.
This is generalizing, but compared to the NPC's in BG1 it's quite the difference.
Yeah, Tiax is a crazy megalomaniac gnome. Xan is super depressed. So what? The ideas are never actually built upon. There's a difference between having a personality and having a gimmick.
Oh Ros...
What I would say is that the NPCs of BG1 create a sense of the D&D world, the adventuring archetypes, and the vaguely filled-in stencil sets of the kinds of PCs you might expect to find in a P&P game. They create a legitimate and enjoyable spread of personalities and attitudes that might span throughout the dungeon-delving world of Faerun.
BG2, on the other hand, gives you characters. Personalities that have been fleshed out by dialogue, and don't necessarily have much of an interest in being a race or a class (with the exception of Keldorn, and Cernd, but their classes sort of demand such a thing RP-wise). I really like the writing, and find it is engaging and credible to the character. Some characters definitely got screwed in how much dialogue they were actually given (Valygar, for example), whereas others were spoiled by an over-abundance of repetitive motifs in their dialogue (Aerie, Anomen).
To each his own, however.
But you've managed to find the particular words I share wholeheartedly. Indeed, BG1 NPCs, just as BG1 as a whole, create a piece of the D&D universe and this is why I love BG1 so much, this is why I'm so tied to BG1 NPCs. And BG2 NPCs, just as BG2 as a whole, create something different. You're right to call it "more fleshed out". Not so old-school but entertaing in its own way. And I love it too. But just differently.
So, like some people often say on this forum, "this, this so much" (regarding @recklessheart 's post).
But I can certainly see the advantage the BG1 npc's have having so little dialogue, that you can flesh them out yourself using your own imagination to create what everyone's relationship is. It can potentially create a problem later on though when someone else tries to write those characters and it turns out to not be the character everyone had imagined, because they all had their own picture of what those NPC's were like.
I like BG2 characters more, because I like discovering and learning things about them through their dialogue. Same way as I like exploring the wilderness in BG1 and finding things there. If BG2 had the vast wilderness to explore like BG1, it would be the perfect game. Yes, you might find out things about those characters you don't like, but that's just real. It's how relationships often are.
And now I'll surprise and say I don't like Aerie. Well, I do like Aerie, but there's quite a bit of her writing I don't like. She's a character who's never really used to her full potential. She's not a character who whines about little things at all - why would she? Compared to what she's used to, even the cheapest room is luxurious. It's got an actual bed and the whole room doesn't lurch about when she's trying to sleep in it. Amazing! But the romance does just jump straight in and make the first half of it all about her getting the stuff about her wings off her chest. Obviously, that extremely traumatic thing that happend to her can't be ignored, and has to be gotten off her chest at some point. But there are other sides to her as well that are only touched on in some of her interactions with other NPC's. Obviously, she's very caring and interested in the people. She wants to learn and explore the world, and as a gnome worshipping elf I think she can be pretty open minded. She's determined, she wants to become stronger, she'll stand against any kind of abuse or captivity. She's bright and an adopted gnome, so maybe she can invent something. And don't get me started on ToB... but, what I'm saying is, in her case I actually want more writing, MORE! I want to see her grow in all those different ways.
Aerie is sweet and naive, but has a traumatic past. VIconia is arrogant and evil, but that is more of a defense mechanism. Anomen wants to become a knight of the order, but he doesn't respect others below his own station...
Back in BG1, NPC's were more "innocent" . In fact, even Charname was more innocent.
As for the NPCs, another large part of it is that we didn't have the writing ability to develop any of their stories or histories. You had a biography that you could choose to read or not, and little snippets of dialogue to flash some personality; certainly not enough to give a really detailed character and their many aspects. I feel like "innocent" isn't the right word to use on the BG1 NPCs. Maybe "basic" would be better?
I think "Empty" is the word your looking for.
Besides, I enjoy reading BG1 NPC's biography, there's some very interesting background information about them. There are also some conflicts ending in actual fight as well an actual banter, but ocurring quite rarely - it's a nice surprise when it happens.
A couple days ago I rewatched the first Predator movie and in my head I heard Shar-Teel saying "If it bleeds, we can kill it" and "I don't have time to bleed".
And that is where we disagree my friend, bg1 is a big open world that ultimately feels empty because there is minimal interaction between the npc and the world itself. I for one got tired of some of the characters constantly repeating the same lines when I clicked, for example I didn't find anything Shar-teel said memorable because because none of it held any weight or worth it. "If it bleeds, I can kill it " So what? So can any mini miny mo, catch a tiger by the toe -pick any random recruitable npc.- It was generic, it was boring, she was lifeless. At least with Jaheira she said a thing or two that broke the fourth wall which her memorable, "yes omnipresent authority figure."
The very problem with bg1 is one of the things that people hated about shadowrun returns, hell even the companions in skyrim would make a statement time and again about a cave or an fortress. The npcs you put on your team were just lifeless shells. They were just there, even if the story is about you, you're not alone. This is why bg2 was better, the npc interacted. They ACTUALLY had personality and a bit of semi awareness. It isn't about more or less, its about giving these characters sentience and BG1 fails at that.
/end rant.
I could say they're not really feminists, but I don't control the English language. English is determined by usage, not by fiat. And if misandrists call themselves feminists, then that's at least part of the definition.
They're just not my kind of feminist.
I know there's the difference in that quote. It would be silly for her to say "We can kill it" when there's not that big of a chance that the rest of the party would like killing as she does.
@DragonKing
It's all a matter of opinion, intepretation and immersion. To you BG2 NPCs feel like alive and to someone else it's just scripted piece of text. You can immerse yourself no matter how much character talks. When there's little dialogue (or none like in IWD games) you have a lot of room for your own imagination, if you're willing to fill that room of course.
To me it's actually better to leave some aspects of the story (locations, characters etc.) for the players to fill out. There's something fascinating about things shrouded in mystery, or not given on a plate. I accept that I'm a minority in that aspect.
It goes quite similarly with books and creating your own image of the world and characters vs how the movie adaptation presents them. You will almost always prefer your own vision to someone else's. As I said before it's a matter of opinion and it's always better to separate it from facts.
I just want to point out though that if your example would stand true, Shar'teel would have to call herself a feminist, which she doesn't. It was the OP that called her that and I corrected it, therefore even if I concur with your reasoning it still can't be applied to this particular case.