or be captured with you and brought to chateau irenicus. hypothetically. i mean, why not? wouldn't it be ideal?
Why not? Because the whole point of the opening sequence is that you're not supposed to come bursting out of the first dungeon with a full party. Same reason you don't start BG:EE outside Candlekeep with Jaheira, Khalid, Imoen, Minsc and Dynaheir.
but there are already four available characters and the dungeon is a pushover. it's a negligible difference, to have one more.
Actually, the difference it makes is pretty significant, though not in that opening dungeon.
If you come out of the dungeon with a full party, you have no incentive to recruit anyone else. The game right now gives you three allies by default, which means you have two unoccupied slots that can be filled with any of the game's companions without eliminating anyone from your "starting" party. If it gives you five, most players will look at their party as "complete" and never even think about recruiting anyone else for the rest of the game.
The impact is felt less on combat balance and more on the overall crafted experience of the game. Like @shawne says, there's a reason you don't start the first game with the full canon party: the game wants you to explore and consider taking other characters with you each time you play. If it gives you a party right off the bat, that consideration never happens.
or be captured with you and brought to chateau irenicus. hypothetically. i mean, why not? wouldn't it be ideal?
Why not? Because the whole point of the opening sequence is that you're not supposed to come bursting out of the first dungeon with a full party. Same reason you don't start BG:EE outside Candlekeep with Jaheira, Khalid, Imoen, Minsc and Dynaheir.
but there are already four available characters and the dungeon is a pushover. it's a negligible difference, to have one more.
Actually, the difference it makes is pretty significant, though not in that opening dungeon.
If you come out of the dungeon with a full party, you have no incentive to recruit anyone else. The game right now gives you three allies by default, which means you have two unoccupied slots that can be filled with any of the game's companions without eliminating anyone from your "starting" party. If it gives you five, most players will look at their party as "complete" and never even think about recruiting anyone else for the rest of the game.
The impact is felt less on combat balance and more on the overall crafted experience of the game. Like @shawne says, there's a reason you don't start the first game with the full canon party: the game wants you to explore and consider taking other characters with you each time you play. If it gives you a party right off the bat, that consideration never happens.
This was one of the only reasons I ever did a side quest my very first playthrough. I was very focused on the main plot and didn't want to deal with other people's problems, but starting with a short party was the reason I did the ones that I did. And if your wondering, yes,I was short on XP, and yes, I had to reload a save and do some dungeons in order to beat the end.
@Dee we can always boot or not recruit people. Players have been wanting their BG1 companions to transition with them to BG2 with them for forever! And, rightfully so.
They have to take into consideration new people as well, and not just us old relics of the past. There was a reason that BG2 didn't add more people into the starting area, Dee mentioned that reason and it's a good reason. I don't think they should change that, It would do more harm than good. We wouldn't notice it as much as the people who haven't played the game yet. Random dude #3 that picked up the entire series with SoD will end up playing BG2:EE with all his BG:EE party members and have no reason at all to pick up any of the new ones.
@Dee we can always boot or not recruit people. Players have been wanting their BG1 companions to transition with them to BG2 with them for forever! And, rightfully so.
The point is players new to bg2(which a lot of people starts on) will feel attached to their starting party, and have no real motivation to change anything. That's what some people love about bg2, the lack of a real 'canon' party. Besides impending and yoshimo, really.
Actually, the difference it makes is pretty significant, though not in that opening dungeon.
If you come out of the dungeon with a full party, you have no incentive to recruit anyone else. The game right now gives you three allies by default, which means you have two unoccupied slots that can be filled with any of the game's companions without eliminating anyone from your "starting" party. If it gives you five, most players will look at their party as "complete" and never even think about recruiting anyone else for the rest of the game.
The impact is felt less on combat balance and more on the overall crafted experience of the game. Like @shawne says, there's a reason you don't start the first game with the full canon party: the game wants you to explore and consider taking other characters with you each time you play. If it gives you a party right off the bat, that consideration never happens.
i agree with that - on the condition that you're presuming that all bg2:ee new games would have additions to the chateau
but if only players that import should start like this, i have two reasons why i don't agree that there will be a problem: 1. if you played the previous installation with certain characters you might as well continue with (some of) them; if such a player wants an all-bg2 experience he can start a new game without even importing because it doesn't do anything really significant 2. if you've played the previous installation you have probably learned that occasionally switching characters is a good thing because they might have a quest and, simply, you'll be able to experience them, along with banters (that actually work well in bg:ee)
to conclude: no player that has already finished bg:ee will have the exploration aspect degraded for them, because they'll already know how important it is to the overall experience. those that want to ditch old characters and seek the great SoA ones will do so and those that want to stay together with the character/s they already grew fond of will also do so - and even then, they may try different npcs to do their quests etc.
edit: but then, that also a good option for a dlc, imho
Actually, the difference it makes is pretty significant, though not in that opening dungeon.
If you come out of the dungeon with a full party, you have no incentive to recruit anyone else. The game right now gives you three allies by default, which means you have two unoccupied slots that can be filled with any of the game's companions without eliminating anyone from your "starting" party. If it gives you five, most players will look at their party as "complete" and never even think about recruiting anyone else for the rest of the game.
The impact is felt less on combat balance and more on the overall crafted experience of the game. Like @shawne says, there's a reason you don't start the first game with the full canon party: the game wants you to explore and consider taking other characters with you each time you play. If it gives you a party right off the bat, that consideration never happens.
i agree with that - on the condition that you're presuming that all bg2:ee new games would have additions to the chateau
but if only players that import should start like this, i have two reasons why i don't agree that there will be a problem: 1. if you played the previous installation with certain characters you might as well continue with (some of) them; if such a player wants an all-bg2 experience he can start a new game without even importing because it doesn't do anything really significant 2. if you've played the previous installation you have probably learned that occasionally switching characters is a good thing because they might have a quest and, simply, you'll be able to experience them, along with banters (that actually work well in bg:ee)
to conclude: no player that has already finished bg:ee will have the exploration aspect degraded for them, because they'll already know how important it is to the overall experience. those that want to ditch old characters and seek the great SoA ones will do so and those that want to stay together with the character/s they already grew fond of will also do so - and even then, they may try different npcs to do their quests etc.
edit: but then, that also a good option for a dlc, imho
I would actually argue that the forced "less than whole" party is more important to players coming from the first game, not less. A player who starts Shadows of Amn with a full party comprised of all the characters they had in BG:EE has no reason to recruit anyone new at all. Inertia is a powerful thing, and when you're designing a game it's important to shake up the roster if you want to encourage the player to try something new.
If you only add characters on imported games, you then end up with the exact same problem that presents itself if you wanted to not have Jaheira in her starting position, or if you wanted Edwin instead: being trapped in that dungeon for who-knows-how-long is a formative, potentially traumatizing experience. A character that goes through that is going to be markedly different from the same character who doesn't go through it. If they're not forever changed by the experience, something's seriously wrong.
I mean, hell, you don't have to look very far for examples of inertia in sequential RPGs - most people who play "Shadows of Undrentide" will keep Deekin with them all the way to the end of "Hordes of the Underdark", even when there are more powerful companions available. Almost no one turns down the option to re-recruit the Virmire Survivor in "Mass Effect 3", even if you're not romancing them.
And let's face it, that was probably the original dev team's logic behind the decision in the first place: what's the point of creating new characters at all if you're going to let the player just keep going with the same group of characters? Might as well be playing a Gold Box game in that case.
@Dee People always have an incentive to switch up the party. For variety, quests, banters, the actual classes desired in a party, etc. People play the game multiple times with different 2nd install mod NPCs just to experience
I hope "shaking things up" was not you all's reason to remove the BG1 Bioware NPCs because many players would prefer to keep their NPCs with them to experience the full 25 hours of content in SoD.
Imoen, Jaheira, and Minsc were never severely affected dialogue-wise by their imprisonment. Yes, there are a couple of references here and there, but Imoen remains cheerful, Minsc silly, and Jaheira still acts like your mom. There should not be a barrier to having other NPCs start imprisoned.
Starting party continuity has been a request of players for years. It would nice to have your acknowledgement and support on this issue @Dee so that we stand a chance of getting this for a possible Enhanced Edition Trilogy game. ^_^
Imoen, Jaheira, and Minsc were never severely affected dialogue-wise by their imprisonment. Yes, there are a couple of references here and there, but Imoen remains cheerful, Minsc silly, and Jaheira still acts like your mom. There should not be a barrier to having other NPCs start imprisoned.
Minsc losing Dynaheir is fundamental. Minsc's silliness isn't a sign that he doesn't change; it's a bittersweet reminder of his loss, and his perseverance to keep fighting despite what happened. It's a sign of Minsc's strength. Remove that, and everything about Minsc's emotional journey through Baldur's Gate II is cheapened.
Jaheira losing Khalid is fundamental. It is the reason she acts the way she does, why her bossy nature is tempered with moments of compassion, why she meets efforts from other characters to "open" up with hardened silence. Remove that, and Jaheira is a completely different character.
If you really think that Imoen's imprisonment doesn't fundamentally alter her personality, you really weren't paying attention.
It goes the other way as well. Imagine Garrick being locked in one of those cages. Do you think he's going to go try to romance a knight in the Temple District after that? Do you think Safana would be the same seductress after spending months tortured by Irenicus?
Starting party continuity has been a request of players for years. It would nice to have your acknowledgement and support on this issue @Dee so that we stand a chance of getting this for a possible Enhanced Edition Trilogy game. ^_^
...no, I won't give it my support. I've been actively arguing against this very request since 2012 when I first heard it offered up on the old Beamdog forums. It was a bad idea then, and it's a bad idea now.
Do I like the idea of (for example) Alora returning somewhere in Baldur's Gate II, possibly to be recruited again? Sure. I'd love to adventure with Xan at a level where he can be equipped with gear that makes him more useful. Yeslick could be a lot of fun in Throne of Bhaal.
But I would never move any of the canon NPCs from the positions they're already in. Their stories are beautiful, every one of them--yes, even Montaron's, and especially Xzar's--and to change those stories would be an artistic travesty.
By all means, keep asking for it, or heck, write a mod that does it for you, but if I have any say in the matter (which is a stretch, I'll grant you), this request will never see the light of day in any official capacity.
As for SoD, I would strongly encourage you (and anyone else coming up with theories about SoD) to reserve judgment until you actually play the adventure. You don't call up J.K. Rowling to tell her not to kill off X character because "Everybody really likes that character, and they've liked that character for years". You wait until she releases her next book to find out how she killed that character, and then decide how you feel about it based on how well it's handled.
Quiet (or even loud) skepticism about the quality of the writing is one thing (gentle nod to @shawne here), but dismissing, accusing, or antagonizing the writing based on something that you haven't even seen or experienced, that you don't even know is real? That's just silly.
All of these banters happen post imprisonment from Irenicus twice! Yes, despite dream sequences and torture references she is still cheerful! The new EE dialogues continue that! ^_^
@Dee If you like your Khalid, Jaheira, Minsc, Dynaheir, Imoen party then you can keep your Khalid, Jaheira, Minsc, Dynaheir, Imoen party. Most people did not end BG1 with that party and would welcome continuing with them.
People like a story game where choices matter. The most egregious example is the BG1 to BG2 transition. Suddenly our BG1 choices and actions were completely invalidated, our evil PCs traveled with good NPCs who they would not get along with. Dead NPCs are magically alive with no explanation, etc. That's not fun. That's not coherent. That, is an artistic travesty.
And no, carelessly killing off beloved companions with no ability to save or influence their fates is hardly "beautiful". Even @AndrewFoley admitted that he wasn't thrilled about Safana's poor treatment in BG2.
That should be a focus on an Enhanced Edition Trilogy: Making the game truly continuous and having choices matter. That, is beautiful!
So, when and if it comes time, please don't quash a more coherent and more fun outcome ^_^
Just because you can start SoD with BGI npcs doesn't necessarily mean you can finish with them...I'm assuming the writers have given a good explanation why BGII starts with the characters is does (I'll be a little disappointed if they don't). Wait until the game comes out before getting into arguments about its outcome!
As for SoD, I would strongly encourage you (and anyone else coming up with theories about SoD) to reserve judgment until you actually play the adventure. You don't call up J.K. Rowling to tell her not to kill off X character because "Everybody really likes that character, and they've liked that character for years". You wait until she releases her next book to find out how she killed that character, and then decide how you feel about it based on how well it's handled.
Quiet (or even loud) skepticism about the quality of the writing is one thing (gentle nod to @shawne here), but dismissing, accusing, or antagonizing the writing based on something that you haven't even seen or experienced, that you don't even know is real? That's just silly.
As for SoD, I would strongly encourage you (and anyone else coming up with theories about SoD) to reserve judgment until you actually play the adventure. You don't call up J.K. Rowling to tell her not to kill off X character because "Everybody really likes that character, and they've liked that character for years". You wait until she releases her next book to find out how she killed that character, and then decide how you feel about it based on how well it's handled.
Quiet (or even loud) skepticism about the quality of the writing is one thing (gentle nod to @shawne here), but dismissing, accusing, or antagonizing the writing based on something that you haven't even seen or experienced, that you don't even know is real? That's just silly.
Forcing many NPCs to die in Siege of Dragonspear just to end their stories would be very bad - at my eyes, it would mean lack of good ideas. I am confident, however, that they did not end up with something like that. Avellone praised their work; I do not think that he would have left such positive feedback if SoD featured random deaths alà Shonda Rhimes just to get rid of characters.
The more things that are based on choice the less solid material there is for the writers to put a good story around, open world games allow you to do many things but there's often very little detail regarding the choices made afterwards.
Making a solid story event will allow the writers to go into depth about how that event affected the character or other characters around them.
I'm unsure that inertia is such a big deal like you state. Either you're playing it right (exploring) or you aren't. But if you aren't you won't even notice anything strange. In fact the game will probably feel better because there won't be that sense of discontinuity (that even SoD can't remove...i mean it's impossible - so many BG1 npcs make their way to Amn but only your party is nowhere to be seen or even heard of).
On the other hand, for more experienced players there would be many befefits (also continuity, if only just for story's sake but also more freedom in choosing your party etc.)
...anyway, i won't contend with you on this anymore as i suppose you've stated that you've considered this idea enough.
It takes much more time, effort and inspiration to write detailed choices in, I completely agree that it's possible and fantastic when it happens but without sufficient time and the right mindset to create something excellent these projects can leave some or all of the content either missing in detail or just plain rubbish. I'd far rather beamdog focused on the characters and storylines they have than trying to open out the games by adding characters that don't continue to bg2 and trying to flesh out a story and it's effects throughout the rest of the game.
I don't really see anything wrong if those NPC who we never hear about in BG2 simply left your party somewhere down the road of SoD storyline loathing your heritage/minding their own business, or even getting killed during end-game ambush cutscene (if that's how SoD ends). That's like the most reasonable explanations why they are not in BG2, even if you had them in the end game BG1 party. Either way let the writers do whatever they wish. There will be time to judge the story after the expansion is released.
Forcing many NPCs to die in Siege of Dragonspear just to end their stories would be very bad - at my eyes, it would mean lack of good ideas.
People dying in the war, deal with it. I will be very disappointed, if don't kill at least five well known characters. Great conflict means big losses.
Alora, Branwen, Share Teel, Skie Silvershield, Eldoth, Kagain, Kivan, Xan, Yeslick Orothair (+Dynaheir and Khalid). We have 11 potential corpses
My favorites are Edwin, Minsc and Viconia and these are safe, so I'm fine.
Comments
If you come out of the dungeon with a full party, you have no incentive to recruit anyone else. The game right now gives you three allies by default, which means you have two unoccupied slots that can be filled with any of the game's companions without eliminating anyone from your "starting" party. If it gives you five, most players will look at their party as "complete" and never even think about recruiting anyone else for the rest of the game.
The impact is felt less on combat balance and more on the overall crafted experience of the game. Like @shawne says, there's a reason you don't start the first game with the full canon party: the game wants you to explore and consider taking other characters with you each time you play. If it gives you a party right off the bat, that consideration never happens.
And if your wondering, yes,I was short on XP, and yes, I had to reload a save and do some dungeons in order to beat the end.
*Gasps*
...and how dare he call me underpowered!
but if only players that import should start like this, i have two reasons why i don't agree that there will be a problem:
1. if you played the previous installation with certain characters you might as well continue with (some of) them; if such a player wants an all-bg2 experience he can start a new game without even importing because it doesn't do anything really significant
2. if you've played the previous installation you have probably learned that occasionally switching characters is a good thing because they might have a quest and, simply, you'll be able to experience them, along with banters (that actually work well in bg:ee)
to conclude: no player that has already finished bg:ee will have the exploration aspect degraded for them, because they'll already know how important it is to the overall experience. those that want to ditch old characters and seek the great SoA ones will do so and those that want to stay together with the character/s they already grew fond of will also do so - and even then, they may try different npcs to do their quests etc.
edit: but then, that also a good option for a dlc, imho
If you only add characters on imported games, you then end up with the exact same problem that presents itself if you wanted to not have Jaheira in her starting position, or if you wanted Edwin instead: being trapped in that dungeon for who-knows-how-long is a formative, potentially traumatizing experience. A character that goes through that is going to be markedly different from the same character who doesn't go through it. If they're not forever changed by the experience, something's seriously wrong.
And let's face it, that was probably the original dev team's logic behind the decision in the first place: what's the point of creating new characters at all if you're going to let the player just keep going with the same group of characters? Might as well be playing a Gold Box game in that case.
I hope "shaking things up" was not you all's reason to remove the BG1 Bioware NPCs because many players would prefer to keep their NPCs with them to experience the full 25 hours of content in SoD.
Imoen, Jaheira, and Minsc were never severely affected dialogue-wise by their imprisonment. Yes, there are a couple of references here and there, but Imoen remains cheerful, Minsc silly, and Jaheira still acts like your mom. There should not be a barrier to having other NPCs start imprisoned.
Starting party continuity has been a request of players for years. It would nice to have your acknowledgement and support on this issue @Dee so that we stand a chance of getting this for a possible Enhanced Edition Trilogy game. ^_^
Jaheira losing Khalid is fundamental. It is the reason she acts the way she does, why her bossy nature is tempered with moments of compassion, why she meets efforts from other characters to "open" up with hardened silence. Remove that, and Jaheira is a completely different character.
If you really think that Imoen's imprisonment doesn't fundamentally alter her personality, you really weren't paying attention.
It goes the other way as well. Imagine Garrick being locked in one of those cages. Do you think he's going to go try to romance a knight in the Temple District after that? Do you think Safana would be the same seductress after spending months tortured by Irenicus?
So... ...no, I won't give it my support. I've been actively arguing against this very request since 2012 when I first heard it offered up on the old Beamdog forums. It was a bad idea then, and it's a bad idea now.
Do I like the idea of (for example) Alora returning somewhere in Baldur's Gate II, possibly to be recruited again? Sure. I'd love to adventure with Xan at a level where he can be equipped with gear that makes him more useful. Yeslick could be a lot of fun in Throne of Bhaal.
But I would never move any of the canon NPCs from the positions they're already in. Their stories are beautiful, every one of them--yes, even Montaron's, and especially Xzar's--and to change those stories would be an artistic travesty.
By all means, keep asking for it, or heck, write a mod that does it for you, but if I have any say in the matter (which is a stretch, I'll grant you), this request will never see the light of day in any official capacity.
Quiet (or even loud) skepticism about the quality of the writing is one thing (gentle nod to @shawne here), but dismissing, accusing, or antagonizing the writing based on something that you haven't even seen or experienced, that you don't even know is real? That's just silly.
All of these banters happen post imprisonment from Irenicus twice! Yes, despite dream sequences and torture references she is still cheerful! The new EE dialogues continue that! ^_^
@Dee If you like your Khalid, Jaheira, Minsc, Dynaheir, Imoen party then you can keep your Khalid, Jaheira, Minsc, Dynaheir, Imoen party. Most people did not end BG1 with that party and would welcome continuing with them.
People like a story game where choices matter. The most egregious example is the BG1 to BG2 transition. Suddenly our BG1 choices and actions were completely invalidated, our evil PCs traveled with good NPCs who they would not get along with. Dead NPCs are magically alive with no explanation, etc. That's not fun. That's not coherent. That, is an artistic travesty.
And no, carelessly killing off beloved companions with no ability to save or influence their fates is hardly "beautiful". Even @AndrewFoley admitted that he wasn't thrilled about Safana's poor treatment in BG2.
That should be a focus on an Enhanced Edition Trilogy: Making the game truly continuous and having choices matter. That, is beautiful!
So, when and if it comes time, please don't quash a more coherent and more fun outcome ^_^
THEY ARE KILLING OFF NPCs
RIP Alora.
I am confident, however, that they did not end up with something like that. Avellone praised their work; I do not think that he would have left such positive feedback if SoD featured random deaths alà Shonda Rhimes just to get rid of characters.
Making a solid story event will allow the writers to go into depth about how that event affected the character or other characters around them.
Yes, you absolutely can write a story that is both good and has choices matter.
On the other hand, for more experienced players there would be many befefits (also continuity, if only just for story's sake but also more freedom in choosing your party etc.)
...anyway, i won't contend with you on this anymore as i suppose you've stated that you've considered this idea enough.
I will be very disappointed, if don't kill at least five well known characters.
Great conflict means big losses.
Alora, Branwen, Share Teel, Skie Silvershield, Eldoth, Kagain, Kivan, Xan, Yeslick Orothair (+Dynaheir and Khalid).
We have 11 potential corpses
My favorites are Edwin, Minsc and Viconia and these are safe, so I'm fine.