Suddenly, I can't easily travel to city locations other than exactly where I'm told to go, which felt extremely limiting.
And that's what I think is the main issue for me so far: this isn't just linear adventuring, it's completely on the rails adventuring. Honestly, if I wanted to get out of the city for a breather, wander around some BG1 areas or even just wander in random new areas of forest, I can't really do that. In BG1 and BG2, there is always the background linear goal~outcome. But neither one is so locked down to being on the rails that you can't explore.
BG2-ToB and the IWD series are similarly on the rails style adventuring. They're fun, and this is fun so far, but I can already tell that they'll be a lot less re-played than BG1 and BG2-SoA. Replayability without a huge feeling of repetitiveness when you do is, I think, a key feature of the old BG series. Anyway, moving on...
The starting area you can go to any zone at any time you want. You're not locked into going to one specific zone (unless you mean like how big the zones were in base game) that you talk to Corwin about. You can go back to old zones if you missed something.
You couldn't go to zones in BG2 unless you had the quest for said zone then it "unlocked" as explorable. For me there is no reason to explore in BG1 unless it's to find monsters to kill to get xp for about 90% of the zones. Otherwise there's just books then the specific equipment you're going after, no interesting stories or anything else going on (BG1 I had to start twice to get through, I quit first playthrough because I found it so damn boring.)
Similarly, the lady captain Corwin is just... flat. Her interactions with her child, and later her telling me about her life, they just weren't interesting. Maybe I haven't experienced enough of her character yet, but her deadpan emotionality is really a put-off while playing.
A lot of her story stuff happens late expansion I found.
Minsc and Dynaheir were themselves, not much that I saw in the way of change there. I have a fondness for both of them from before, so this was a no-brainer to take them. But a big problem came up as I was preparing to leave the city: no really good cleric options IMO. So by the time I could, I picked up Glint. His character seems quite good so far, but will I really want to keep him if I have the option to take Jaheira or Branwen?
I used Glint (I LOVE GLINT!) from the second I could add him to party and removed Safana and Branwen from party. I didn't notice any downsides (other than maybe a few less priest spell slots).
My impression of the various dungeons along the way to Boareskyr: they're okay. The art and setting is top-notch excellent. But they're also really linear and not terribly interesting. I do appreciate a couple of the "easter egg" things (like the Cyric takeover of the Bhaal temple), but there's a bit of a lore problem there. Cyric, at that particular time in the 2E era, wasn't specifically a god of madness or just murder - he took over the duties of all of the "dead three" (Bane, Bhaal and Myrkul). So what I assume was a far realm type of "madness" creature was a little jarring. Also, coming across a dragon this early, and handily defeating it, was kinda lame.
I agree with this. I liked the new scenery but felt it was a tad small on size for many of them. The dragon I was okay with as I figured it wasn't an old dragon due to it's "domain" size (also liked a thing you could do later because of it).
About the trans character: look, I'm all for inclusion in gaming, go for it. But have good writing when you do. This was hackneyed fanfic-level writing, a token just to have a token... no one is going to respect that (and frankly, real trans people generally say they dislike the character). Yes, Greenwood always has had LGBTQ characters in the Forgotten Realms, but typically their sexuality is a minor background note. In gaming, some of these are placed in specifically so they can be romance options, and that's great. But again, don't have a character just blab out their sexual preference: this is literally (so far as I can tell) the only character trait possessed by this character. It's not interesting or compelling.
When I first found the character and read they were trans I was like "neat" then promptly didn't care. I mean there's no reason to care about them as the only time I needed to care was for a quest late-game. Other than that no reason at all to give anymore thought to them (Unless it's a personal matter of course).
I've been told that Corwin also eventually outs as a lesbian, if your main character is female. But I hear that the romance talk is painfully written and way too sudden. I haven't played a female main yet, but I don't doubt my friend who is doing that now. To be honest, these mainly feel like they're inserted not to advance any particular stories that could be positively explored but rather just as bland tokens as service to an agenda.
She also mentions this to males during her romance. I agree the romance is sudden but there's not exactly a lot of time (so to speak) for character buildup (as the expansion is pretty dang short. What 8 new zones and only like 3 of them have any character buildup options?). I honestly don't care about romances normally in games as they're usually just tacked on/just sudden and are generally poorly written.
About Minsc and GamerGate. I haven't heard it yet, but apparently Minsc makes some reference to ethics in adventuring. I am not someone who followed GamerGate. In fact, I intentionally tried to ignore everything about it when I could. I've heard the line from someone's Youtube channel, and honestly... I probably would not have given it a second thought. I have yet to hear it in game. I can't really judge it, having kept myself away from GamerGate.
Oddly, I had Minsc my entire playthrough and never heard him say this line. I also had M'Khiin in my party and never heard her talk about how all goblins look a-like to the player and calls them racist (Appears when clicking on her a lot.) I found that line to be hilarious when I first saw a pic of it (it's clearly a joke as everyone does that in real life).
At this point I've retrieved the wardstone, haven't quite gotten to Boareskyr. I have to say, overall, the game is mechanically and visually really nice... but so many things about it are moderately disappointing. Even the first interaction with the villain (an aasimar) lacked emotional interest. Her crusade is causing damage to the communities her army passes through, yet people still love and adore her? Even on the surface, this doesn't make a whole lot of sense. And for that matter, who is it exactly that has been spreading rumors about my main character possibly being a Bhaalspawn? By the end of BG1, even Sarevok kept that fairly secret about himself - even with respect to his own minions. AFAIK, only his closest inner circle knew his parentage... and they all died by the main character's hand.
Again, I agree. I was really sad that I couldn't join Caelar during the story (at least on my first playthrough I haven't been able to, I finished the game too, just waiting on patches to start another). There's some cutscenes later on as well that are very contradictory to what should be possible (concerning the Crusade's attitude toward you).
Overall I enjoyed the game myself. I wasn't expecting anything amazing and overall I found it more enjoyable/interesting than BG1 (though I do have some problems like not being able to join Caelar ESPECIALLY during a very specific encounter late game). I hope you enjoy the game more as you progress farther in.
Why does it always sound like "I am doing it for you! You are just not ready and I know better how to help you" at best or "I am all for inclusions but not in a way I can see it" as a norm.
And you know... All those "I am not with GGers - sware! - just a norm guy - here, my biography and CV" and then you read GGers agenda word by word - I begin to question that "norm guy" allegiance and suspect another crusade masked as an opinion of "random guy from a street".
A grain of truth in a sea of agenda. It's always like that.
Overall I enjoyed the game myself. I wasn't expecting anything amazing and overall I found it more enjoyable/interesting than BG1 (though I do have some problems like not being able to join Caelar ESPECIALLY during a very specific encounter late game). I hope you enjoy the game more as you progress farther in.
I'm enjoying it quite a lot also, thanks for your comments. I did get stuck at Bridgefort due to a bug that kills Khalid and some other NPCs, so I'm toying with the idea of doing a big formal save until it's fixed, then starting up again with my evil-aligned party to see what shakes out differently.
Why does it always sound like "I am doing it for you! You are just not ready and I know better how to help you" at best or "I am all for inclusions but not in a way I can see it" as a norm.
And you know... All those "I am not with GGers - sware! - just a norm guy - here, my biography and CV" and then you read GGers agenda word by word - I begin to question that "norm guy" allegiance and suspect another crusade masked as an opinion of "random guy from a street".
A grain of truth in a sea of agenda. It's always like that.
@Mirandel Wow, a lot of unfriendly accusation here. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "doing it for you" and being against inclusion. I'm pretty clearly and definitely on the side of inclusion, as I said. I do think the interactions could've been better written, maybe expanded so they build character. Do you have a problem with that?
Also, the accusation of me having a GamerGater agenda that's "word for word" isn't something I understand - though apparently you're equating me with people you greatly dislike. Since I've explained that I know very little of GamerGate, you'll need to clarify and explain.
I'm here to have a discussion. You've come out swinging and throwing around accusations. I have no interest at all in fighting with you, but I am curious about your intentions and what you're accusing me of being.
Why does it always sound like "I am doing it for you! You are just not ready and I know better how to help you" at best or "I am all for inclusions but not in a way I can see it" as a norm.
And you know... All those "I am not with GGers - sware! - just a norm guy - here, my biography and CV" and then you read GGers agenda word by word - I begin to question that "norm guy" allegiance and suspect another crusade masked as an opinion of "random guy from a street".
A grain of truth in a sea of agenda. It's always like that.
@Mirandel Wow, a lot of unfriendly accusation here. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "doing it for you" and being against inclusion. I'm pretty clearly and definitely on the side of inclusion, as I said. I do think the interactions could've been better written, maybe expanded so they build character. Do you have a problem with that?
Also, the accusation of me having a GamerGater agenda that's "word for word" isn't something I understand - though apparently you're equating me with people you greatly dislike. Since I've explained that I know very little of GamerGate, you'll need to clarify and explain.
I'm here to have a discussion. You've come out swinging and throwing around accusations. I have no interest at all in fighting with you, but I am curious about your intentions and what you're accusing me of being.
Fair request, of course. It IS your thread and I indeed look like someone who just drop by to accuse and run off.
Well, all I said and can say on the matter nothing more then personal "feelings", "opinions" and "observations". No evidences, nothing. Those "feelings", etc. tell me that GGers started a campaign of down-voting game. Then they came here, met negative reaction to their actions and during the most heated discussion a lot of posts changed (yes, I followed those discussions) from "I am GGer and protect my rights" to "I am new to GG\never being a GGer but don't you think they have right to do what they do" ending with "I have nothing to do with GG but it's a war and Beamdog brought it on itself". After which suddenly a lot of posts appeared "I am trans and hate this character too" and - like yours - "I am a regular guy and hate it as well". Which, in turn, fueled the main topic with references "see, even trans and normal totally not GG guys are against it!".
Call me paranoid but it looks too convenient to be a genuine "confession of random people" but more like a tactic from GGers (nobody will ever able to check anything, right?). Considering an interesting similarity in styles of all these posts (from those hating the character), general tone and same points of "wrongness" I'd say my paranoia is not completely baseless.
No, I am not calling you a liar - how can I without a hint of evidence? Only pointing out a pattern of posts on these forums.
Now, about "grain of truth". The problem is, a lot of things you (personally and as a part of "non GGers but agree with them" crowd) are talking about are hard to disagree with. "Inclusion for a sake of inclusion" is a bad thing, careless public talking does hurt writer's work (and work of people in his\her team), any kind of political agenda in entertaining media does leave a bad taste in the mouth - all true. The devil, as usual, is in the details. Should Amber Scott only say in interview something like "we chose Safana for SoD and I tried to expand her character for that adventure" - and GGers outrage would lose half the ground. Should GGers keep their action within forums-twitters (like SJWs did with PoE) without aggressive down-voting - and they could keep the moral ground for any kind of anti-agenda.
And I'd say GGers look worse in this situation - they did attack, did make a real (for digital world) terroristic move. Therefore no matter how much truth in posts "Beamdog did something wrong too" agreeing with it means literally siding with terrorists and supporting now their agenda. Making one like myself saying thins I said before.
What were they thinking? Why beamdog pandered to SJWs when SJWs don't play 20 year old clunky rpgs? Aside from the GG-joke which was a terrible mistake (just like the whole GG), the trans character writing it's just appaling. Being sensitive to non-binary stuff and defending SOD writing just to stick to man-GG is just retarded.
I hope this is a warning to all developers that pandering is just a bad idea. Especialy poorly thought out pandering with hack writers.
Fair request, of course. It IS your thread and I indeed look like someone who just drop by to accuse and run off.
Well, all I said and can say on the matter nothing more then personal "feelings", "opinions" and "observations". No evidences, nothing. Those "feelings", etc. tell me that GGers started a campaign of down-voting game. Then they came here, met negative reaction to their actions and during the most heated discussion a lot of posts changed (yes, I followed those discussions) from "I am GGer and protect my rights" to "I am new to GG\never being a GGer but don't you think they have right to do what they do" ending with "I have nothing to do with GG but it's a war and Beamdog brought it on itself". After which suddenly a lot of posts appeared "I am trans and hate this character too" and - like yours - "I am a regular guy and hate it as well". Which, in turn, fueled the main topic with references "see, even trans and normal totally not GG guys are against it!".
Call me paranoid but it looks too convenient to be a genuine "confession of random people" but more like a tactic from GGers (nobody will ever able to check anything, right?). Considering an interesting similarity in styles of all these posts (from those hating the character), general tone and same points of "wrongness" I'd say my paranoia is not completely baseless.
No, I am not calling you a liar - how can I without a hint of evidence? Only pointing out a pattern of posts on these forums.
@Mirandel Actually, you are calling me a liar, because you're here in my thread lumping me together with pretty much anything and everything you view as being offensive or mean-spirited. You made it personal, not generic or vague, and that's a problem.
It's a problem because I don't think you've actually read what I've written - or you're viewing it through such a smeared lens that you can't see what I've written.
I am not against the trans character. I am FOR inclusion. Like many, though, I believe the character could've been better written. In this thread, and others, I have suggested expanding her, not removing her or making her irrelevant.
As for the trans individuals who voiced their opinions, perhaps about six or seven people last I counted, I don't recall one that was for outright removal. Nor have any of them said that they "hate" the character. You're attempting to make this into a simplistic black and white issue, which it isn't at all - not for me, and not for the trans people who have commented. Lumping us all together as "haters" and GG war-supporters is just simply wrong.
Now, about "grain of truth". The problem is, a lot of things you (personally and as a part of "non GGers but agree with them" crowd) are talking about are hard to disagree with. "Inclusion for a sake of inclusion" is a bad thing, careless public talking does hurt writer's work (and work of people in his\her team), any kind of political agenda in entertaining media does leave a bad taste in the mouth - all true. The devil, as usual, is in the details. Should Amber Scott only say in interview something like "we chose Safana for SoD and I tried to expand her character for that adventure" - and GGers outrage would lose half the ground. Should GGers keep their action within forums-twitters (like SJWs did with PoE) without aggressive down-voting - and they could keep the moral ground for any kind of anti-agenda.
And I'd say GGers look worse in this situation - they did attack, did make a real (for digital world) terroristic move. Therefore no matter how much truth in posts "Beamdog did something wrong too" agreeing with it means literally siding with terrorists and supporting now their agenda. Making one like myself saying thins I said before.
I've never said a single thing about Amber Scott in any post I've made online. Wait - I did say that I liked her cosplay bard hat during the livestream leading up to the release of SoD.
If you're going to judge people, harshly at that, judge them for what they are actually saying. Don't lump people together that have demonstrably different views, and then set all of them on fire.
You claim it's all about the details, then you ignore all of them and put everyone in the same boat. Real nice. NOT. You are literally equating me not with not just Gamer Gate (which I had NO involvement with), but now calling me out as supporting terrorists?
I'm enjoying it quite a lot also, thanks for your comments. I did get stuck at Bridgefort due to a bug that kills Khalid and some other NPCs, so I'm toying with the idea of doing a big formal save until it's fixed, then starting up again with my evil-aligned party to see what shakes out differently.
A workaround for that bug I found (searched google for it too) was to use Negative Plane Protection (cleric lvl4 or 5?) spell on Khalid before you talk to Wynan. It doesn't last long so make sure you have boots of the cheetah (or haste) on a character to run to Wynan quickly after applying the spell. After the rock has hit it won't reapply the debuff until you rest so DON'T REST UNTIL QUEST IS COMPLETE.
I'm enjoying it quite a lot also, thanks for your comments. I did get stuck at Bridgefort due to a bug that kills Khalid and some other NPCs, so I'm toying with the idea of doing a big formal save until it's fixed, then starting up again with my evil-aligned party to see what shakes out differently.
A workaround for that bug I found (searched google for it too) was to use Negative Plane Protection (cleric lvl4 or 5?) spell on Khalid before you talk to Wynan. It doesn't last long so make sure you have boots of the cheetah (or haste) on a character to run to Wynan quickly after applying the spell. After the rock has hit it won't reapply the debuff until you rest so DON'T REST UNTIL QUEST IS COMPLETE.
I had heard about the neg. plane protection for Khalid... but in my game, the magic boulder ends up killing about 5 NPCs (including Khalid and Neera). I don't have the resources for casting multiple protections unless I console in some scrolls (which I might eventually do), so I've kinda put that group on hold for a while until the bug gets sorted out.
@laeknir: will you Update your original Post as you progress further?
@Envygames I will, but I ran into a bug at Bridgefort that ends up insta-killing 5 NPCs, including Khalid and Neera. So I'm kind of stuck at the moment.
Her crusade is causing damage to the communities her army passes through, yet people still love and adore her? Even on the surface, this doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
Have you looked at history? There's a lot of things similar to that in history, and none of them make sense. When you have humans (and humanoids) involved, things rarely make perfect sense.
And for that matter, who is it exactly that has been spreading rumors about my main character possibly being a Bhaalspawn?
What better way to force you to leave the area in the end? We all know that, after BG1, your character headed out and then was kidnapped by Irenicus and his goons. The idea that people became afraid of you or whatever, because you're a Bhaalspawn isn't too far off the implied mark.
@rapsam2003 : i would disagree...the whole crusade makes little to no sense.
Spoiler may spoil Finale:
Lets say CHARNAME isnt arround, OR the Rumors she may/may not have heard that Charname is a Bhaalspawn are wrong. For example: How would she have acomplished her goal since it seemed without CHARNAME as it turns out she cant accomplish her Goal?
Why does she need a crusade in the first place she seemed fine with a small Party of 20?
And even before that: She seemed ok being quite upfront what she wants to do...why is it not known to the Dukes, why did people try to Stop her from what we assume according to dialog Options seems to be impossible anyways? For me there is little to know urgency established on why exactly we should need to stop her except her army running wild.
Also i might want to add that the reveal that she is not a BHaalspawn came WAY to early.
@rapsam2003 : i would disagree...the whole crusade makes little to no sense.
I don't think it was supposed to make sense. Did the 30 Years War make sense? What about the 100 Years War? What about either World War? If we consider those through logical analysis, the reasons for all of those wars was rather nonsensical. Things don't HAVE to make sense when it comes to something like this.
Lets say CHARNAME isnt arround, OR the Rumors she may/may not have heard that Charname is a Bhaalspawn are wrong. For example: How would she have acomplished her goal since it seemed without CHARNAME as it turns out she cant accomplish her Goal?
Why does she need a crusade in the first place she seemed fine with a small Party of 20?
And even before that: She seemed ok being quite upfront what she wants to do...why is it not known to the Dukes, why did people try to Stop her from what we assume according to dialog Options seems to be impossible anyways? For me there is little to know urgency established on why exactly we should need to stop her except her army running wild.
What's the issue with that?...
I don't think this expansion was intended to have the same urgency as BG1 or BG2. ToB had even more urgency than either, and we all know how that still feels rushed as hell.
Folks, you're talking about late-game story spoilers in a thread where someone's playing through the story for the first time. If you want to talk about the ending, do it in another thread maybe?
@rapsam2003 : i would disagree...the whole crusade makes little to no sense.
I don't think it was supposed to make sense. Did the 30 Years War make sense? What about the 100 Years War? What about either World War? If we consider those through logical analysis, the reasons for all of those wars was rather nonsensical. Things don't HAVE to make sense when it comes to something like this.
Do you realy want a History Lesson? Just to stay on the Topic of the Crusades for example:
All of them made sense from a financial, political and religious point of view.
What's the issue with that?...
I don't think this expansion was intended to have the same urgency as BG1 or BG2. ToB had even more urgency than either, and we all know how that still feels rushed as hell.
Its Bad writing. And especialy with a short expansion a, feeling little more urgency seems important.
Her crusade is causing damage to the communities her army passes through, yet people still love and adore her? Even on the surface, this doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
Have you looked at history? There's a lot of things similar to that in history, and none of them make sense. When you have humans (and humanoids) involved, things rarely make perfect sense.
And for that matter, who is it exactly that has been spreading rumors about my main character possibly being a Bhaalspawn?
What better way to force you to leave the area in the end? We all know that, after BG1, your character headed out and then was kidnapped by Irenicus and his goons. The idea that people became afraid of you or whatever, because you're a Bhaalspawn isn't too far off the implied mark.
Nah, having studied world history at the university level, I disagree strongly with the notion that many wars, army buildups, etc, "don't make sense." There is always a reason, economic, political, or personal.
My issue is with the way it's portrayed in the game: Flaming Fist soldiers, who know literally nothing about her other than her army is causing a lot of incidental damage as they pass through villages, are ready to throw away their well-paying and stable military/police work to go chase after her... for what? They don't know her goals, her purpose, or even who she is.
As for the widespread whispers about the Main character being a bhaalspawn, yes it's a good way to move the story. But WHO is doing this? Some have suggested Irenicus, and that seems reasonable. But it's only been a couple of weeks (er, "tendays" per the Realms).
Do you realy want a History Lesson? Just to stay on the Topic of the Crusades for example:
All of them made sense from a financial, political and religious point of view.
No, at their root, they really didn't make sense. And don't be condescending. I'm a lover of history. At their core, all of those conflicts stemmed from the dark side of humanity: greed, power, hatred, etc. Even the religious part of those conflicts boiled down to a power struggle over whose creed was better.
Its Bad writing. And especialy with a short expansion a, feeling little more urgency seems important.
No, it's not. It's not at all. But we can agree to disagree.
Think about it though. You've just killed Big S. You saved the Sword Coast (or at least, the BG area). Everyone heads off on their own way, back to their lives... You were figuring on somehow picking up the pieces of your life, after the past few months where your foster father died, you discovered you are a Bhaalspawn, etc. (Realistically, who wouldn't be mentally/emotionally overwhelmed by all those personal revelations and trials?!) A few weeks go by and then it becomes apparent that someone is taking advantage of the disorder Big S left in his passing to organize their own power bid, using a crusade as an excuse. The Dukes can't do anything because their troops/armies were basically ruined dealing with the Iron Crisis -- a crisis can't be recovered from in a matter of days. So, CHARNAME has to step in, to save the day. Because there is no one else. Even though CHARNAME would rather sit back and figure out all the shit that just hit them during the Big S arc, he or she steps up -- whether for personal self-interest or because CHARNAME is just a good person.
This kind of thing cannot be urgent if we consider the context of a story applying to a real situation. Bad writing would be to not give the player a sense of that. It needs to start off with a sense of hesitancy, because CHARNAME is pulled into dealing with this new conflict begrudgingly.
Folks, you're talking about late-game story spoilers in a thread where someone's playing through the story for the first time. If you want to talk about the ending, do it in another thread maybe?
I appreciate the concern, Dee. I really do. But personally I'm not very spoiler-sensitive, so I don't mind really. I'm loving the unfolding of the game, and I imagine I'll replay it over and over to explore all the things.
Do you realy want a History Lesson? Just to stay on the Topic of the Crusades for example:
All of them made sense from a financial, political and religious point of view.
No, at their root, they really didn't make sense. And don't be condescending. I'm a lover of history. At their core, all of those conflicts stemmed from the dark side of humanity: greed, power, hatred, etc. Even the religious part of those conflicts boiled down to a power struggle over whose creed was better.
Greed = financial Power = political / personal Hatred = personal
Those are all pretty straightforward and make sense as motivations. You might personally disagree with said reasons, but emotional reasons for starting a war are often much more powerful than purely rational reasons.
My main has made it up to Bridgefort, and there still hasn't been any offered reason for what the Shining Lady is wanting to do with her army, why she built it up, and what her primary goal might be.
The writing could have been a lot better, IMO. Leaving it vague, not just to the player but also to a lot of commoners and nobles, seems peculiar.
No, at their root, they really didn't make sense. And don't be condescending. I'm a lover of history. At their core, all of those conflicts stemmed from the dark side of humanity: greed, power, hatred, etc. Even the religious part of those conflicts boiled down to a power struggle over whose creed was better.
Well first i am as condescending as i want to be. Second, i have realy trouble understanding your argument here. You can boil every Human interaction down to Struggles for Power, or simply their disires.
Think about it though. You've just killed Big S. You saved the Sword Coast (or at least, the BG area). Everyone heads off on their own way, back to their lives... You were figuring on somehow picking up the pieces of your life, after the past few months where your foster father died, you discovered you are a Bhaalspawn, etc. (Realistically, who wouldn't be mentally/emotionally overwhelmed by such an adventure?!) A few weeks go by and then it becomes apparent that someone is taking advantage of the disorder Big S left in his passing to organize their own power bid, using a crusade as an excuse.
i know...but its not pictured like this. If it was it would be more compelling to do something...
@Dee: Sorry. I hoped Putting the Spoiler and a Spoilerwarning before would be enough. Wont happen again.
@laeknir Some people fail to realize that many of the fans of the original BG are 35+ years old now. I work, I'm married, I have children and a dog; I think I've heard of GamerGate in passing once, but I know practically nothing about it, nor do I give a flying fig. I would have never caught Minsc's "controversial" line, nor would I have cared. In fact, on face value, Minsc is all about ethics when it comes to heroic adventuring.
These days I need an urban dictionary just to keep up with things, and I'm only 35. Cis het male, mansplaining, manspreading, rape culture, check your privilege, inclusiveness, SJW, GamerGate, gender fluidity, etc., etc., etc. I won't be surprised to have "Cis Het" on my driver's license when I renew it this month. "Oriental" has been replaced with "Asian," but there are still "Oriental rugs" which would imply that they were either made by "Oriental people" or from a place called "Orient," so I don't understand why one is offensive but not the other. "Black" citizens of African nations are often referred to as "African-Americans" despite not being Americans, and people can apparently be racist against homosexuals. Even the SJWs are apparently confused about things, so how am I supposed to keep up with it all? To make things worse, you either toe the line or be branded a Nazi (Godwin!); there is nothing in between.
One thing that seems clear is that "cis het white male" = guilty to some people, but their hypocrisy is given a pass. You and I are the face of their bigoted boogeyman, despite the fact that people of all races, genders, etc., can and frequently do show prejudice for one reason or another. So when you post something as a "cis white male," there are certain people that have it out for you from the outset, and will not suffer your "cisplaining" of controversial issues (which are apparently many). In fact, it seems that anything a "cis het white male" says that isn't 100% in line with SJW dogma is simply a thinly-veiled redneck-racist-bigot-phobe.
Now, before someone inevitably accuses me of bigotry, I'm married to a cis het woman who has 1/2 Mexican ancestry. In my defense, I thought that she was Italian, what with the mustache and excess weight.**
**Yes, yes, I know that saying "I have a gay/black/etc. friend" is a cliché - that was the point.
My main has made it up to Bridgefort, and there still hasn't been any offered reason for what the Shining Lady is wanting to do with her army, why she built it up, and what her primary goal might be.
The writing could have been a lot better, IMO. Leaving it vague, not just to the player but also to a lot of commoners and nobles, seems peculiar.
You should have met the Shining Lady earlier right? If memory serves me right, she elaborated on why she does what she does when you met her.
My main has made it up to Bridgefort, and there still hasn't been any offered reason for what the Shining Lady is wanting to do with her army, why she built it up, and what her primary goal might be.
The writing could have been a lot better, IMO. Leaving it vague, not just to the player but also to a lot of commoners and nobles, seems peculiar.
You should have met the Shining Lady earlier right? If memory serves me right, she elaborated on why she does what she does when you met her.
I agree with the second statement.
Yes, the bridge scene - I did play through that. But it was, for me, more exasperating than informative if that makes sense. It could be because of the choices I made in the dialogue, but I still felt like her goals are fairly vague. She spoke a lot about goodness, being an aasimar, wanting me to join her, but not much in the way of a workable plan.
She's risking a lot of low-level lives (and their souls, presumably) to save souls that were lost. I suppose that she could have really low INT and WIS scores, and it does seem that she's being prodded (without going into too much detail). But seriously, how does she envision this as actually being able to work? Most of her followers are presumably very low level, and they won't last a second.
I don't know. It's very possible that I just need to see more of the story unfolding.
My main has made it up to Bridgefort, and there still hasn't been any offered reason for what the Shining Lady is wanting to do with her army, why she built it up, and what her primary goal might be.
The writing could have been a lot better, IMO. Leaving it vague, not just to the player but also to a lot of commoners and nobles, seems peculiar.
You should have met the Shining Lady earlier right? If memory serves me right, she elaborated on why she does what she does when you met her.
I agree with the second statement.
Yes, the bridge scene - I did play through that. But it was, for me, more exasperating than informative if that makes sense. It could be because of the choices I made in the dialogue, but I still felt like her goals are fairly vague. She spoke a lot about goodness, being an aasimar, wanting me to join her, but not much in the way of a workable plan.
She's risking a lot of low-level lives (and their souls, presumably) to save souls that were lost. I suppose that she could have really low INT and WIS scores, and it does seem that she's being prodded (without going into too much detail). But seriously, how does she envision this as actually being able to work? Most of her followers are presumably very low level, and they won't last a second.
I don't know. It's very possible that I just need to see more of the story unfolding.
I can confidentally say to you friend that if you keep playing then everything should become clear.
What were they thinking? Why beamdog pandered to SJWs when SJWs don't play 20 year old clunky rpgs? Aside from the GG-joke which was a terrible mistake (just like the whole GG), the trans character writing it's just appaling. Being sensitive to non-binary stuff and defending SOD writing just to stick to man-GG is just retarded.
I hope this is a warning to all developers that pandering is just a bad idea. Especialy poorly thought out pandering with hack writers.
You're blatantly pushing a political agenda by singling out the trans character to complain about. Its obvious and hypocritical.
Baldurs Gate is chock full of writing that is silly, nonsensical, or outright breaks the fourth wall. A minor character that mentions she was raised as a boy is not a noteworthy event. In fact it fits right in with the delusional retard who believes a hamster is talking to him and is from outer space.
Man, every thread turns into this gamergate v sjw crap. There is so much more that the OP said that is interesting to discuss. I was really looking forward to comparing my experience with his, but now the thread is getting derailed like most on the forum for the past four days. People should discuss that stuff on the threads that were created for that purpose.
Comments
You couldn't go to zones in BG2 unless you had the quest for said zone then it "unlocked" as explorable. For me there is no reason to explore in BG1 unless it's to find monsters to kill to get xp for about 90% of the zones. Otherwise there's just books then the specific equipment you're going after, no interesting stories or anything else going on (BG1 I had to start twice to get through, I quit first playthrough because I found it so damn boring.) A lot of her story stuff happens late expansion I found.
I used Glint (I LOVE GLINT!) from the second I could add him to party and removed Safana and Branwen from party. I didn't notice any downsides (other than maybe a few less priest spell slots).
I agree with this. I liked the new scenery but felt it was a tad small on size for many of them. The dragon I was okay with as I figured it wasn't an old dragon due to it's "domain" size (also liked a thing you could do later because of it).
When I first found the character and read they were trans I was like "neat" then promptly didn't care. I mean there's no reason to care about them as the only time I needed to care was for a quest late-game. Other than that no reason at all to give anymore thought to them (Unless it's a personal matter of course). She also mentions this to males during her romance. I agree the romance is sudden but there's not exactly a lot of time (so to speak) for character buildup (as the expansion is pretty dang short. What 8 new zones and only like 3 of them have any character buildup options?). I honestly don't care about romances normally in games as they're usually just tacked on/just sudden and are generally poorly written.
Oddly, I had Minsc my entire playthrough and never heard him say this line. I also had M'Khiin in my party and never heard her talk about how all goblins look a-like to the player and calls them racist (Appears when clicking on her a lot.) I found that line to be hilarious when I first saw a pic of it (it's clearly a joke as everyone does that in real life).
Again, I agree. I was really sad that I couldn't join Caelar during the story (at least on my first playthrough I haven't been able to, I finished the game too, just waiting on patches to start another). There's some cutscenes later on as well that are very contradictory to what should be possible (concerning the Crusade's attitude toward you).
Overall I enjoyed the game myself. I wasn't expecting anything amazing and overall I found it more enjoyable/interesting than BG1 (though I do have some problems like not being able to join Caelar ESPECIALLY during a very specific encounter late game). I hope you enjoy the game more as you progress farther in.
And you know... All those "I am not with GGers - sware! - just a norm guy - here, my biography and CV" and then you read GGers agenda word by word - I begin to question that "norm guy" allegiance and suspect another crusade masked as an opinion of "random guy from a street".
A grain of truth in a sea of agenda. It's always like that.
Also, the accusation of me having a GamerGater agenda that's "word for word" isn't something I understand - though apparently you're equating me with people you greatly dislike. Since I've explained that I know very little of GamerGate, you'll need to clarify and explain.
I'm here to have a discussion. You've come out swinging and throwing around accusations. I have no interest at all in fighting with you, but I am curious about your intentions and what you're accusing me of being.
Well, all I said and can say on the matter nothing more then personal "feelings", "opinions" and "observations". No evidences, nothing. Those "feelings", etc. tell me that GGers started a campaign of down-voting game. Then they came here, met negative reaction to their actions and during the most heated discussion a lot of posts changed (yes, I followed those discussions) from "I am GGer and protect my rights" to "I am new to GG\never being a GGer but don't you think they have right to do what they do" ending with "I have nothing to do with GG but it's a war and Beamdog brought it on itself". After which suddenly a lot of posts appeared "I am trans and hate this character too" and - like yours - "I am a regular guy and hate it as well". Which, in turn, fueled the main topic with references "see, even trans and normal totally not GG guys are against it!".
Call me paranoid but it looks too convenient to be a genuine "confession of random people" but more like a tactic from GGers (nobody will ever able to check anything, right?). Considering an interesting similarity in styles of all these posts (from those hating the character), general tone and same points of "wrongness" I'd say my paranoia is not completely baseless.
No, I am not calling you a liar - how can I without a hint of evidence? Only pointing out a pattern of posts on these forums.
Now, about "grain of truth". The problem is, a lot of things you (personally and as a part of "non GGers but agree with them" crowd) are talking about are hard to disagree with. "Inclusion for a sake of inclusion" is a bad thing, careless public talking does hurt writer's work (and work of people in his\her team), any kind of political agenda in entertaining media does leave a bad taste in the mouth - all true. The devil, as usual, is in the details. Should Amber Scott only say in interview something like "we chose Safana for SoD and I tried to expand her character for that adventure" - and GGers outrage would lose half the ground. Should GGers keep their action within forums-twitters (like SJWs did with PoE) without aggressive down-voting - and they could keep the moral ground for any kind of anti-agenda.
And I'd say GGers look worse in this situation - they did attack, did make a real (for digital world) terroristic move. Therefore no matter how much truth in posts "Beamdog did something wrong too" agreeing with it means literally siding with terrorists and supporting now their agenda. Making one like myself saying thins I said before.
I hope this is a warning to all developers that pandering is just a bad idea. Especialy poorly thought out pandering with hack writers.
It's a problem because I don't think you've actually read what I've written - or you're viewing it through such a smeared lens that you can't see what I've written.
I am not against the trans character. I am FOR inclusion. Like many, though, I believe the character could've been better written. In this thread, and others, I have suggested expanding her, not removing her or making her irrelevant.
As for the trans individuals who voiced their opinions, perhaps about six or seven people last I counted, I don't recall one that was for outright removal. Nor have any of them said that they "hate" the character. You're attempting to make this into a simplistic black and white issue, which it isn't at all - not for me, and not for the trans people who have commented. Lumping us all together as "haters" and GG war-supporters is just simply wrong. I've never said a single thing about Amber Scott in any post I've made online. Wait - I did say that I liked her cosplay bard hat during the livestream leading up to the release of SoD.
If you're going to judge people, harshly at that, judge them for what they are actually saying. Don't lump people together that have demonstrably different views, and then set all of them on fire.
You claim it's all about the details, then you ignore all of them and put everyone in the same boat. Real nice. NOT. You are literally equating me not with not just Gamer Gate (which I had NO involvement with), but now calling me out as supporting terrorists?
WTF, seriously.
Spoiler may spoil Finale:
Why does she need a crusade in the first place she seemed fine with a small Party of 20?
And even before that: She seemed ok being quite upfront what she wants to do...why is it not known to the Dukes, why did people try to Stop her from what we assume according to dialog Options seems to be impossible anyways? For me there is little to know urgency established on why exactly we should need to stop her except her army running wild.
Also i might want to add that the reveal that she is not a BHaalspawn came WAY to early.
What's the issue with that?...
I don't think this expansion was intended to have the same urgency as BG1 or BG2. ToB had even more urgency than either, and we all know how that still feels rushed as hell.
All of them made sense from a financial, political and religious point of view. Its Bad writing. And especialy with a short expansion a, feeling little more urgency seems important.
My issue is with the way it's portrayed in the game: Flaming Fist soldiers, who know literally nothing about her other than her army is causing a lot of incidental damage as they pass through villages, are ready to throw away their well-paying and stable military/police work to go chase after her... for what? They don't know her goals, her purpose, or even who she is.
As for the widespread whispers about the Main character being a bhaalspawn, yes it's a good way to move the story. But WHO is doing this? Some have suggested Irenicus, and that seems reasonable. But it's only been a couple of weeks (er, "tendays" per the Realms).
Think about it though. You've just killed Big S. You saved the Sword Coast (or at least, the BG area). Everyone heads off on their own way, back to their lives...
You were figuring on somehow picking up the pieces of your life, after the past few months where your foster father died, you discovered you are a Bhaalspawn, etc. (Realistically, who wouldn't be mentally/emotionally overwhelmed by all those personal revelations and trials?!) A few weeks go by and then it becomes apparent that someone is taking advantage of the disorder Big S left in his passing to organize their own power bid, using a crusade as an excuse. The Dukes can't do anything because their troops/armies were basically ruined dealing with the Iron Crisis -- a crisis can't be recovered from in a matter of days.
So, CHARNAME has to step in, to save the day. Because there is no one else. Even though CHARNAME would rather sit back and figure out all the shit that just hit them during the Big S arc, he or she steps up -- whether for personal self-interest or because CHARNAME is just a good person.
This kind of thing cannot be urgent if we consider the context of a story applying to a real situation. Bad writing would be to not give the player a sense of that. It needs to start off with a sense of hesitancy, because CHARNAME is pulled into dealing with this new conflict begrudgingly.
Power = political / personal
Hatred = personal
Those are all pretty straightforward and make sense as motivations. You might personally disagree with said reasons, but emotional reasons for starting a war are often much more powerful than purely rational reasons.
My main has made it up to Bridgefort, and there still hasn't been any offered reason for what the Shining Lady is wanting to do with her army, why she built it up, and what her primary goal might be.
The writing could have been a lot better, IMO. Leaving it vague, not just to the player but also to a lot of commoners and nobles, seems peculiar.
@Dee: Sorry. I hoped Putting the Spoiler and a Spoilerwarning before would be enough. Wont happen again.
These days I need an urban dictionary just to keep up with things, and I'm only 35. Cis het male, mansplaining, manspreading, rape culture, check your privilege, inclusiveness, SJW, GamerGate, gender fluidity, etc., etc., etc. I won't be surprised to have "Cis Het" on my driver's license when I renew it this month. "Oriental" has been replaced with "Asian," but there are still "Oriental rugs" which would imply that they were either made by "Oriental people" or from a place called "Orient," so I don't understand why one is offensive but not the other. "Black" citizens of African nations are often referred to as "African-Americans" despite not being Americans, and people can apparently be racist against homosexuals. Even the SJWs are apparently confused about things, so how am I supposed to keep up with it all? To make things worse, you either toe the line or be branded a Nazi (Godwin!); there is nothing in between.
One thing that seems clear is that "cis het white male" = guilty to some people, but their hypocrisy is given a pass. You and I are the face of their bigoted boogeyman, despite the fact that people of all races, genders, etc., can and frequently do show prejudice for one reason or another. So when you post something as a "cis white male," there are certain people that have it out for you from the outset, and will not suffer your "cisplaining" of controversial issues (which are apparently many). In fact, it seems that anything a "cis het white male" says that isn't 100% in line with SJW dogma is simply a thinly-veiled redneck-racist-bigot-phobe.
Now, before someone inevitably accuses me of bigotry, I'm married to a cis het woman who has 1/2 Mexican ancestry. In my defense, I thought that she was Italian, what with the mustache and excess weight.**
**Yes, yes, I know that saying "I have a gay/black/etc. friend" is a cliché - that was the point.
I agree with the second statement.
She's risking a lot of low-level lives (and their souls, presumably) to save souls that were lost. I suppose that she could have really low INT and WIS scores, and it does seem that she's being prodded (without going into too much detail). But seriously, how does she envision this as actually being able to work? Most of her followers are presumably very low level, and they won't last a second.
I don't know. It's very possible that I just need to see more of the story unfolding.
Baldurs Gate is chock full of writing that is silly, nonsensical, or outright breaks the fourth wall. A minor character that mentions she was raised as a boy is not a noteworthy event. In fact it fits right in with the delusional retard who believes a hamster is talking to him and is from outer space.