Baldur's Gate: Siege of Dragonspear RELEASED

[CoM_Solaufein]

I have the expansion but sadly haven't even played it. Years of modding and beta testing the EE games has burned me out on the BG games.

[213374U]

Patch 2.1 is out. For the Beamdog version, anyway. Looks like fixing multiplayer is the focus, good on them.

 

And turns out that broken mods were a side-effect of the Steam DLC packaging model (yay Steam, go!) -- it's literally downloaded as a zip file which the game reads, whose contents are obviously ignored by WeiDU when installing mods. One of the devs has released a tool that makes the expansion's assets recognizable by mods.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

Finished this and overall quite disappointing.

 

 

 

The writing ranges from fan fiction to eye rolling to diabolical.

 

It's very linear, railroad-y and hand holding. It's a cross between IWD and ToB. I would say it's worse as you often can't go back to previous maps on the World Map. You see the areas but if the story has moved on, then areas become un-clickable. If you put a side-quest on hold or are doing other things and the story progresses, sometimes you can't go back. That happened to me a couple of times. You have to reload a previous save to finish the side-quest.

 

Some quests may be bugged and you may have to reload as well. There may also be quests that have to be solved in a particular order otherwise the quest won't resolve. The Drow runaways is one example. If you meet the runaways first you won't know they are running away, and the quest will be bugged because they walk off. You have to meet the other drow party first who are looking for the runaways and then meet the runaways after who will have additional dialogue options. I had to reload for this one.

 

I felt the story was just plain weird. You have this 'Shining Lady' recruiting people for an army up and down the Sword Coast to eventually storm Hell to selfishly rescue her Uncle which she hasn't told anyone about - as she's telling her followers it's all about their loved ones that will be rescued as well as her loved ones. But really, it's all about her Uncle which he doesn't want to be rescued. And she needs your Blood to open this portal. That's pretty much what her objective is. However, there is someone helping the Shining Lady to open the portal and his objective is to let out the minions of Hell as well as Belhifet himself.

 

Also, feel there's too much Irenicus. He appears everywhere. At the start of the game in the Ducal Palace, at the Shining Lady's camp. In your dreams. Opposite side of a river in an underground cavern. At Dragonspear Castle. At the end of the game in the Flaming Fist headquarters.

 

The story has some politicking in it. Such as you lose ALL your money at the start. It's been stolen from the Ducal Palace Treasury where you've been staying and you find out that it's been distributed to the refugees that are flooding into Baldur's Gate. Funnily enough, there is a huge line of refugees at the Sorcerous Sundries buying stuff - obviously with your money. There was one quest in Baldur's Gate where someone wanted to charge refugees for staying at their place as they aren't a charity and it costs money to cook and clean. The dialogue options were diabolical. Something like, How dare you charge money to refugees! In fact, a lot of the dialogue options throughout the game was just plain bad.

 

You also lose all your original NPCs from the base game with some exceptions. You can only recruit Minsc, Dynaheir, Safana, Viconia, Jaheira, Khalid and Edwin. Safana becomes the new Thief replacement for Imoen as Imoen is not recruitable. Safana's new personality and dialogue is terrible and I eventually dropped her. No other original NPCs can be recruited and a lot don't make an appearance at all. Although, Beamdog made sure all they're NPCs they created for the EE were in as well as creating new NPCs for this expansion.

 

There are 8 romances in the game. Double what's in BG2.

 

The power curve of the monsters are all over the place. You could be fighting a Lich, Dragon, Mind Flayer (optional) and the next map could be orcs and goblins. There's a lot of designs including monsters taken from IWD and it comes across as a mish-mash adventure of BG/IWD. It doesn't seem to know what it wants to be.

 

End boss is Belhifet from IWD1. When you arrive in Hell, there's hardly any monsters. You would think if his plan was to come through the portal, he would have an army with him already. Nope, it's quite the barren wasteland. It's no problem with your party as you can despatch him easily, even though your party is much lower in level than your IWD party. 

 

There are two different endings (C&C) when you leave Baldur's Gate but it doesn't matter which path you choose, because you meet up with the canon party at the end for BG2 anyway.

 

Overall, disappointing.

 

 

 

[the_dog_days]

They added romances to a new expansion of a nearly twenty year old game? Ugh.

[Junai]

Mind-boggling. They're experienced developers. They've had a lifetime to develop and play CRPGs, read forums and reviews, and they go on to make every mistake in the book.

 

And then begging for good reviews? 

 

It's like George Lucas, messing up his own legacy.

[Lychnidos]

Finished this and overall quite disappointing.

 

 

 

The writing ranges from fan fiction to eye rolling to diabolical.

 

It's very linear, railroad-y and hand holding. It's a cross between IWD and ToB. I would say it's worse as you often can't go back to previous maps on the World Map. You see the areas but if the story has moved on, then areas become un-clickable. If you put a side-quest on hold or are doing other things and the story progresses, sometimes you can't go back. That happened to me a couple of times. You have to reload a previous save to finish the side-quest.

 

Some quests may be bugged and you may have to reload as well. There may also be quests that have to be solved in a particular order otherwise the quest won't resolve. The Drow runaways is one example. If you meet the runaways first you won't know they are running away, and the quest will be bugged because they walk off. You have to meet the other drow party first who are looking for the runaways and then meet the runaways after who will have additional dialogue options. I had to reload for this one.

 

I felt the story was just plain weird. You have this 'Shining Lady' recruiting people for an army up and down the Sword Coast to eventually storm Hell to selfishly rescue her Uncle which she hasn't told anyone about - as she's telling her followers it's all about their loved ones that will be rescued as well as her loved ones. But really, it's all about her Uncle which he doesn't want to be rescued. And she needs your Blood to open this portal. That's pretty much what her objective is. However, there is someone helping the Shining Lady to open the portal and his objective is to let out the minions of Hell as well as Belhifet himself.

 

Also, feel there's too much Irenicus. He appears everywhere. At the start of the game in the Ducal Palace, at the Shining Lady's camp. In your dreams. Opposite side of a river in an underground cavern. At Dragonspear Castle. At the end of the game in the Flaming Fist headquarters.

 

The story has some politicking in it. Such as you lose ALL your money at the start. It's been stolen from the Ducal Palace Treasury where you've been staying and you find out that it's been distributed to the refugees that are flooding into Baldur's Gate. Funnily enough, there is a huge line of refugees at the Sorcerous Sundries buying stuff - obviously with your money. There was one quest in Baldur's Gate where someone wanted to charge refugees for staying at their place as they aren't a charity and it costs money to cook and clean. The dialogue options were diabolical. Something like, How dare you charge money to refugees! In fact, a lot of the dialogue options throughout the game was just plain bad.

 

You also lose all your original NPCs from the base game with some exceptions. You can only recruit Minsc, Dynaheir, Safana, Viconia, Jaheira, Khalid and Edwin. Safana becomes the new Thief replacement for Imoen as Imoen is not recruitable. Safana's new personality and dialogue is terrible and I eventually dropped her. No other original NPCs can be recruited and a lot don't make an appearance at all. Although, Beamdog made sure all they're NPCs they created for the EE were in as well as creating new NPCs for this expansion.

 

There are 8 romances in the game. Double what's in BG2.

 

The power curve of the monsters are all over the place. You could be fighting a Lich, Dragon, Mind Flayer (optional) and the next map could be orcs and goblins. There's a lot of designs including monsters taken from IWD and it comes across as a mish-mash adventure of BG/IWD. It doesn't seem to know what it wants to be.

 

End boss is Belhifet from IWD1. When you arrive in Hell, there's hardly any monsters. You would think if his plan was to come through the portal, he would have an army with him already. Nope, it's quite the barren wasteland. It's no problem with your party as you can despatch him easily, even though your party is much lower in level than your IWD party. 

 

There are two different endings (C&C) when you leave Baldur's Gate but it doesn't matter which path you choose, because you meet up with the canon party at the end for BG2 anyway.

 

Overall, disappointing.

 

 

 

 

It seems they even benefited from the whole token transsexual shenanigans.    

[Zoraptor]

Mind-boggling. They're experienced developers. They've had a lifetime to develop and play CRPGs, read forums and reviews, and they go on to make every mistake in the book.

 

It happens pretty regularly and not just in games. Essentially, you have

 

1) What they as developers want to do

2) Dedicated, enthusiastic fanbases for certain aspects of the game (romance, especially)

3) Their own created characters

4) An existing framework which they are supposed (or perhaps 'supposed') to follow.

 

(1) is the most critical because they aren't doing the game for a publisher so there's minimal oversight on the game, as a game, on anything except broad lore and mechanics from WotC. There's no one to tell them when their ideas are crap. OTOH, there's no one to tell them their good ideas are crap either, but that relies on them having good ideas. The critical voice should have been someone like MCA's job, but I suspect he's too 'nice' even if he saw any problem. And it's hard to get people to change their minds if they don't have to.

(2) is critical because it's very easy to think that the dozen or so people who have game romance as their lives' purpose represent what people, in general, want. That's natural because these people are highly committed and enthusiastic whereas someone who hates/ is neutral to/ only mildly likes the romances are unlikely to go on about them near 20 years later because they've moved on.

(3) is less critical here (though in other examples like the TV show 'Arrow'* it's of absolute importance) but explains why you get their creations primarily as NPCs. To be fair, it may well be about voice over artist availability as well, and with some of the prosetylising and recharacterisation there's a large dollop of (1) at work too. This and (2) also explains why you have Irenicus Everywhere despite it not making that much sense in context. If you've got David asterisking Warner you want to use him.

(4) Everyone has different ideas of what makes a BG game a BG game, including the devs. Some of those won't be compatible, and some of the devs decisions will rub the fans (practically, a certain subset of the fans) up entirely the wrong way. By its nature an expansion to a 20 year old game is unlikely to attract many new fans, after all you must at least have played the first game, first, and decided how things progress from there yourself.

 

*To again be fair, all four of those categories apply more to Arrow than to SoD.

[Teioh_White]

Finished this and overall quite disappointing.

 

 

 

The writing ranges from fan fiction to eye rolling to diabolical.

 

It's very linear, railroad-y and hand holding. It's a cross between IWD and ToB. I would say it's worse as you often can't go back to previous maps on the World Map. You see the areas but if the story has moved on, then areas become un-clickable. If you put a side-quest on hold or are doing other things and the story progresses, sometimes you can't go back. That happened to me a couple of times. You have to reload a previous save to finish the side-quest.

 

Some quests may be bugged and you may have to reload as well. There may also be quests that have to be solved in a particular order otherwise the quest won't resolve. The Drow runaways is one example. If you meet the runaways first you won't know they are running away, and the quest will be bugged because they walk off. You have to meet the other drow party first who are looking for the runaways and then meet the runaways after who will have additional dialogue options. I had to reload for this one.

 

I felt the story was just plain weird. You have this 'Shining Lady' recruiting people for an army up and down the Sword Coast to eventually storm Hell to selfishly rescue her Uncle which she hasn't told anyone about - as she's telling her followers it's all about their loved ones that will be rescued as well as her loved ones. But really, it's all about her Uncle which he doesn't want to be rescued. And she needs your Blood to open this portal. That's pretty much what her objective is. However, there is someone helping the Shining Lady to open the portal and his objective is to let out the minions of Hell as well as Belhifet himself.

 

Also, feel there's too much Irenicus. He appears everywhere. At the start of the game in the Ducal Palace, at the Shining Lady's camp. In your dreams. Opposite side of a river in an underground cavern. At Dragonspear Castle. At the end of the game in the Flaming Fist headquarters.

 

The story has some politicking in it. Such as you lose ALL your money at the start. It's been stolen from the Ducal Palace Treasury where you've been staying and you find out that it's been distributed to the refugees that are flooding into Baldur's Gate. Funnily enough, there is a huge line of refugees at the Sorcerous Sundries buying stuff - obviously with your money. There was one quest in Baldur's Gate where someone wanted to charge refugees for staying at their place as they aren't a charity and it costs money to cook and clean. The dialogue options were diabolical. Something like, How dare you charge money to refugees! In fact, a lot of the dialogue options throughout the game was just plain bad.

 

You also lose all your original NPCs from the base game with some exceptions. You can only recruit Minsc, Dynaheir, Safana, Viconia, Jaheira, Khalid and Edwin. Safana becomes the new Thief replacement for Imoen as Imoen is not recruitable. Safana's new personality and dialogue is terrible and I eventually dropped her. No other original NPCs can be recruited and a lot don't make an appearance at all. Although, Beamdog made sure all they're NPCs they created for the EE were in as well as creating new NPCs for this expansion.

 

There are 8 romances in the game. Double what's in BG2.

 

The power curve of the monsters are all over the place. You could be fighting a Lich, Dragon, Mind Flayer (optional) and the next map could be orcs and goblins. There's a lot of designs including monsters taken from IWD and it comes across as a mish-mash adventure of BG/IWD. It doesn't seem to know what it wants to be.

 

End boss is Belhifet from IWD1. When you arrive in Hell, there's hardly any monsters. You would think if his plan was to come through the portal, he would have an army with him already. Nope, it's quite the barren wasteland. It's no problem with your party as you can despatch him easily, even though your party is much lower in level than your IWD party. 

 

There are two different endings (C&C) when you leave Baldur's Gate but it doesn't matter which path you choose, because you meet up with the canon party at the end for BG2 anyway.

 

Overall, disappointing.

 

 

 

 

Great review, sums up my feelings as well. Off the top of my head, I can't think of a game I've played that has more atrocious writing than what Beamdog put on display here. Every aspect is dreadful; characters, plot, dialogue, lore, it's all awful. Having to wade through all of that is not offset by IWD2 style corridor killing with worse combat.

 

On more subjective critiques, the new UI drives me batty. But it likely is actually fine, and just me loving the UI I've played a dozen times already, so I won't hold that against the game.

[Serrano]

Not to get dragged into a big romance debacle but if there are double the romance options how do they resolve the fact that those extra romances are absent in BG2? Didn't they already do BG2 and ToB:EE?

 

Although I suppose being abducted at the start of BG2 and moved to a new region sort of does that. How many of us haven't had a relationship go bad when some random villain abducts us and we escape and travel around the world for a bit and then don't go back home to our loved ones? Hell, I've been moved three times in the last two years. It's getting your mail forwarded that's the biggest issue, especially if you're abducted to a region with poor internet access. They never bother to simulate that in games though.   

Edited April 15, 2016 by Serrano

[ShadySands]

Not to get dragged into a big romance debacle but if there are double the romance options how do they resolve the fact that those extra romances are absent in BG2? Didn't they already do BG2 and ToB:EE?

The ones where the characters don't carry over to the next game pretty much end in SoD when they have to railroad it into the start of BG2 and their BG1 companions already continue on

 

I'm more surprised that they allow you to romance Viconia since I don't think they are going to change her BG2 dialogue around for that to make sense

[Gromnir]

am gonna break our rule 'bout not buying a game earlier than 6 months after release.  we will purchase sod.  am not gonna play sod for another five months, but the utter insanity we has seen regarding feedback for this game has convinced us that it is worth $20 to fundamental reject the fear o' "leftist propaganda" being inserted into the bg series.  in addition, rarely has we seen a title subjected to such inane technical quibbles.  also, the rose-hued recollections o' the quality o' bg writing is enough to make us vomit a little.   

 

for all we know sod might be utter crap, though most folks we know who has actual played and completed the expansion seemed to enjoy themselves.  nevertheless, regardless o' sod quality, am gonna purchase. am not purchasing to support beamdog but rather to reject endemic and persistent stoopidity.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Elerond]

 

 

 

 

 

Because the other thing the mod does is remove a snipe at GamerGate by Minsc. Gosh, these anti-SJW's (for that is what they are - people who have defined themselves entirely by their opposition to "political correctness", a.k.a. trying to be nice to people) are so easily offended.

 

 

Yes, people are actually more up in arms about Minsc (and Safana and Jaheira for that matter) than the whole "trans" thing. Because it´s out of character for Minsc to say this line, and inconsistency in a character people know for almost two decades is really miserable writing, just so the writer can take a jab at some online movement. It´s cheap and for roleplayers (we are talking about an RPG after all), it can be an immersion breaker.

 

The CEO of Beamdog also realized this now, and they are removing the line. It´s a small step, not that it improves the overall quality of writing.

 

 

hmm, no, Fallouts (the good ones) have tons of pop cultura references and was still hell a lot of fun

 

 

Yeah, they do, but they are placed in a setting, which could very well have the same pop culture icons, as it is after all only a bit twisted Earth.

 

 

Fallout 2 is full of pop culture references that aren't that fitting in the game's world but are there just for the fun of it or because developers were fans of certain things (Like all the monthy python references, bridge guardian, paladins looking holly hand grenade, etc.)

Edited April 17, 2016 by Elerond

[BruceVC]

They added romances to a new expansion of a nearly twenty year old game? Ugh.

 

 

Mind-boggling. They're experienced developers. They've had a lifetime to develop and play CRPGs, read forums and reviews, and they go on to make every mistake in the book.

 

And then begging for good reviews? 

 

It's like George Lucas, messing up his own legacy.

 

 

Not to get dragged into a big romance debacle but if there are double the romance options how do they resolve the fact that those extra romances are absent in BG2? Didn't they already do BG2 and ToB:EE?

 

Although I suppose being abducted at the start of BG2 and moved to a new region sort of does that. How many of us haven't had a relationship go bad when some random villain abducts us and we escape and travel around the world for a bit and then don't go back home to our loved ones? Hell, I've been moved three times in the last two years. It's getting your mail forwarded that's the biggest issue, especially if you're abducted to a region with poor internet access. They never bother to simulate that in games though.   

Guys you mustn't  be anti-Romance, Romance adds a more realistic level of character interaction and makes characters generally more  memorable

 

Also isn't  Romance optional?

[BruceVC]

am gonna break our rule 'bout not buying a game earlier than 6 months after release.  we will purchase sod.  am not gonna play sod for another five months, but the utter insanity we has seen regarding feedback for this game has convinced us that it is worth $20 to fundamental reject the fear o' "leftist propaganda" being inserted into the bg series.  in addition, rarely has we seen a title subjected to such inane technical quibbles.  also, the rose-hued recollections o' the quality o' bg writing is enough to make us vomit a little.   

 

for all we know sod might be utter crap, though most folks we know who has actual played and completed the expansion seemed to enjoy themselves.  nevertheless, regardless o' sod quality, am gonna purchase. am not purchasing to support beamdog but rather to reject endemic and persistent stoopidity.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

I'll be honest, I normally dont buy games that are either set in respects to the narrative before a previous game or in the middle because for me I know how it ends, I much prefer sequels because the ending is unknown

 

But I think I'll be supporting this game exactly because I feel much of  the criticism is unreasonable and driven more from emotion due to certain design choices than logical and objective 

[the_dog_days]

 

They added romances to a new expansion of a nearly twenty year old game? Ugh.

 

 

Mind-boggling. They're experienced developers. They've had a lifetime to develop and play CRPGs, read forums and reviews, and they go on to make every mistake in the book.

 

And then begging for good reviews? 

 

It's like George Lucas, messing up his own legacy.

 

 

Not to get dragged into a big romance debacle but if there are double the romance options how do they resolve the fact that those extra romances are absent in BG2? Didn't they already do BG2 and ToB:EE?

 

Although I suppose being abducted at the start of BG2 and moved to a new region sort of does that. How many of us haven't had a relationship go bad when some random villain abducts us and we escape and travel around the world for a bit and then don't go back home to our loved ones? Hell, I've been moved three times in the last two years. It's getting your mail forwarded that's the biggest issue, especially if you're abducted to a region with poor internet access. They never bother to simulate that in games though.   

Guys you mustn't  be anti-Romance, Romance adds a more realistic level of character interaction and makes characters generally more  memorable

 

Also isn't  Romance optional?

 

 

Romances in a pick-one-out-of-a-lineup does not add realism. The only video game romances I've ever seen actually work were the kind where you aren't playing as a blank-slate character and all cut scenes are cinematic with no or little player input. Such romances can be good or bad, just like a movie romance, but when the character is entirely left up to player control and there's a list of a dozen girls, guys, aliens, and poorly rendered giant grey gumbies not only does it not feel realistic, it also feels pandering, lazy, and like a porn game they put a handful of combat scenarios onto last minute. (And yes, I'm digging on BioRomance.)

[Mamoulian War]

That's awesome, speaking about stoopidity, and at the same time, throwing away money just to "show how dem internetz R wrong"

 

LOL

Edited April 17, 2016 by Mamoulian War

[Junai]

Guys you mustn't  be anti-Romance, Romance adds a more realistic level of character interaction and makes characters generally more  memorable

 

Also isn't  Romance optional?

 

 

 

Romance? Never said anything about romance. 

 

This will be the first IE game I drop. Mainly because of the developers' overbearing arrogance, snickering attitude and slight disdain for the whole thing. It's as if they're too old for this stuff, and can't be bothered to take it seriously anymore. I was chastised a year ago on the PoE boards for praising Trent and his EE series. Obsidian fanbois told me he was a hack cashing in on the IE series. You know what? They were right.

 

I know my $20 won't be missed as they'll probably cash in on this travesty anyway. If only they lost a bit on this, they'd realize they can't take a dump on the customers and still make money.

 

It's not a big deal. I was hoping for a little IE snack, instead I am to be schooled in liberalism by leftist US activists who suddenly feel the Scandinavian Bern. Someone once called me a socialist nincompoop. I must say I find it a bit amusing to hear him support some bra-burning socialist. Maybe he has a heart after all. 

Edited April 17, 2016 by Junai

[BruceVC]

 

 

They added romances to a new expansion of a nearly twenty year old game? Ugh.

 

 

Mind-boggling. They're experienced developers. They've had a lifetime to develop and play CRPGs, read forums and reviews, and they go on to make every mistake in the book.

 

And then begging for good reviews? 

 

It's like George Lucas, messing up his own legacy.

 

 

Not to get dragged into a big romance debacle but if there are double the romance options how do they resolve the fact that those extra romances are absent in BG2? Didn't they already do BG2 and ToB:EE?

 

Although I suppose being abducted at the start of BG2 and moved to a new region sort of does that. How many of us haven't had a relationship go bad when some random villain abducts us and we escape and travel around the world for a bit and then don't go back home to our loved ones? Hell, I've been moved three times in the last two years. It's getting your mail forwarded that's the biggest issue, especially if you're abducted to a region with poor internet access. They never bother to simulate that in games though.   

Guys you mustn't  be anti-Romance, Romance adds a more realistic level of character interaction and makes characters generally more  memorable

 

Also isn't  Romance optional?

 

 

Romances in a pick-one-out-of-a-lineup does not add realism. The only video game romances I've ever seen actually work were the kind where you aren't playing as a blank-slate character and all cut scenes are cinematic with no or little player input. Such romances can be good or bad, just like a movie romance, but when the character is entirely left up to player control and there's a list of a dozen girls, guys, aliens, and poorly rendered giant grey gumbies not only does it not feel realistic, it also feels pandering, lazy, and like a porn game they put a handful of combat scenarios onto last minute. (And yes, I'm digging on BioRomance.)

 

But even in Bioware games, and I've played and participated in almost all Bioware Romance games except for DA:I ( havent played it yet ), the Romance options are still optional and not intrusive...meaning if you don't want Romance you just ignore those choices during  the dialogue 

 

I still find hard to believe you guys can have such a serious contention with them...I would understand if Romance was forced on you in the game ?

[BruceVC]

 

Guys you mustn't  be anti-Romance, Romance adds a more realistic level of character interaction and makes characters generally more  memorable

 

Also isn't  Romance optional?

 

 

 

Romance? Never said anything about romance. 

 

This will be the first IE game I drop. Mainly because of the developers' overbearing arrogance, snickering attitude and slight disdain for the whole thing. It's as if they're too old for this stuff, and can't be bothered to take it seriously anymore. I was chastised a year ago on the PoE boards for praising Trent and his EE series. Obsidian fanbois told me he was a hack cashing in on the IE series. You know what? They were right.

 

I know my $20 won't be missed as they'll probably cash in on this travesty anyway. If only they lost a bit on this, they'd realize they can't take a dump on the customers and still make money.

 

It's not a big deal. I was hoping for a little IE snack, instead I am to be schooled in liberalism by leftist US activists who suddenly feel the Scandinavian Bern. Someone once called me a socialist nincompoop. I must say I find it a bit amusing to hear him support some bra-burning socialist. Maybe he has a heart after all. 

 

I apologize , I misunderstood your view around Romance and some of your criticisms towards SOD 

[the_dog_days]

 

Romances in a pick-one-out-of-a-lineup does not add realism. The only video game romances I've ever seen actually work were the kind where you aren't playing as a blank-slate character and all cut scenes are cinematic with no or little player input. Such romances can be good or bad, just like a movie romance, but when the character is entirely left up to player control and there's a list of a dozen girls, guys, aliens, and poorly rendered giant grey gumbies not only does it not feel realistic, it also feels pandering, lazy, and like a porn game they put a handful of combat scenarios onto last minute. (And yes, I'm digging on BioRomance.)

 

But even in Bioware games, and I've played and participated in almost all Bioware Romance games except for DA:I ( havent played it yet ), the Romance options are still optional and not intrusive...meaning if you don't want Romance you just ignore those choices during  the dialogue 

 

I still find hard to believe you guys can have such a serious contention with them...I would understand if Romance was forced on you in the game ?

 

 

In their last three or four games BioWare's romances have been very intrusive. Off the top of my head, DA 2 and Mass Effect 3 actually force you into romantic dialog even if you've barely spoken with characters (DA2 Anders tries to hit on you five minutes after meeting you, and every ME3 who is romanceable will eventually ask you if you want to go out back for a quickie). DAI companions don't try to corner you like DA2 and ME3, but still managed to be even worse because while not romancing anyone all the party dialog while you're just walking around is about how horny all the companions are, and that's not hyperbole.

Edited April 17, 2016 by the_dog_days

[BruceVC]

 

 

Romances in a pick-one-out-of-a-lineup does not add realism. The only video game romances I've ever seen actually work were the kind where you aren't playing as a blank-slate character and all cut scenes are cinematic with no or little player input. Such romances can be good or bad, just like a movie romance, but when the character is entirely left up to player control and there's a list of a dozen girls, guys, aliens, and poorly rendered giant grey gumbies not only does it not feel realistic, it also feels pandering, lazy, and like a porn game they put a handful of combat scenarios onto last minute. (And yes, I'm digging on BioRomance.)

 

But even in Bioware games, and I've played and participated in almost all Bioware Romance games except for DA:I ( havent played it yet ), the Romance options are still optional and not intrusive...meaning if you don't want Romance you just ignore those choices during  the dialogue 

 

I still find hard to believe you guys can have such a serious contention with them...I would understand if Romance was forced on you in the game ?

 

 

In their last three or four games BioWare's romances have been very intrusive. Off the top of my head, DA 2 and Mass Effect 3 actually force you into romantic dialog even if you've barely spoken with characters (DA2 Anders tries to hit on you five minutes after meeting you, and every ME3 who is romanceable will eventually ask you if you want to go out back for a quickie). DAI companions don't try to corner you like DA2 and ME3, but still managed to be even worse because while not romancing anyone all the party dialog while you're just walking around is about how horny all the companions are, and that's not hyperbole.

 

I honesty didnt have that experience with Romance being intrusive

 

I always follow Romance arcs but they with characters that I feel some connection to like Isabela, Viconia,, Ashley Williams,  Fall from Grace or Annah ( and the last 2 weren't  a real Romance arc)  ..so I never Romanced Anders but in the beginning of DA2 he started flirting and I just politely explained it wasnt going to happen ( I cant remember the exact options but thats more or  less what happened and yes I did play DA 2 a while ago so my recollection may be incorrect )

Edited April 17, 2016 by BruceVC

[Gromnir]

 

Guys you mustn't  be anti-Romance, Romance adds a more realistic level of character interaction and makes characters generally more  memorable

 

Also isn't  Romance optional?

 

 

 

Romance? Never said anything about romance. 

 

This will be the first IE game I drop. Mainly because of the developers' overbearing arrogance, snickering attitude and slight disdain for the whole thing. It's as if they're too old for this stuff, and can't be bothered to take it seriously anymore. I was chastised a year ago on the PoE boards for praising Trent and his EE series. Obsidian fanbois told me he was a hack cashing in on the IE series. You know what? They were right.

 

I know my $20 won't be missed as they'll probably cash in on this travesty anyway. If only they lost a bit on this, they'd realize they can't take a dump on the customers and still make money.

 

It's not a big deal. I was hoping for a little IE snack, instead I am to be schooled in liberalism by leftist US activists who suddenly feel the Scandinavian Bern. Someone once called me a socialist nincompoop. I must say I find it a bit amusing to hear him support some bra-burning socialist. Maybe he has a heart after all. 

 

complain o' bad writing?  fine.  converse, complain that you is being "schooled in liberalism by leftist US (kanadian?) activists" is the behavior o' a nincompoop. dallas buyer's club complete distorts facts and is most unsubtle 'bout its agenda, no?  walk outta that movie seeing fda as the bad guys is complete understandable as the movie is mostly a pseudoscience indulgence on par with the claims that immunizations is a cause o' autism.  even so, dallas buyer's were a well acted and entertaining movie.  'course we would be here all day listing the novels, movies, music and other forms o' entertainment that unapologetically school the audience, but two obvious examples is worth listening to.

 

 

or our favorite stones song

 

 

am gonna avoid being so gauche as to include bob dylan or pink floyd.

 

hell, even comics is unapologetic and transparently political.  marvel's civil war? watchmen and tdkr is 'bout as subtle as nukes that figure so prominent in both titles.

 

quite often Gromnir rejects the agenda while being able to appreciate the art.  as we noted already in this thread, Fallout subjected the audience to frequent and unapologetic schooling.  am personal unable to indulge in the kinda hypocrisy that would allow us to embrace Fallout's US activist writers while vilifying the Kanadians at beamdog.  unfair.  our politics aside, we loathe manifest lack o' fair play.  

 

shady played and completed sod, and while we do not share his fascination with vampires or his dislike o' poe, we has some respect for his game opinions.  

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/85798-baldurs-gate-siege-of-dragonspear-released/?p=1796963

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/85798-baldurs-gate-siege-of-dragonspear-released/?p=1797529

 

so, the sjw elements that has so many in a twist were largely missed by shady? is likely that the reason he missed is 'cause such elements is minor, no?  shady sands seems like an intelligent guy to us. if he missed the insulting leftist schooling, am suspecting it ain't a particular noteworthy element.  that being said, we agree that if such obviously limited elements is shoe-horned into the game and do not improve the game or the narrative, then such stuff is a flaw, albeit a seeming minor flaw given their scope.

 

we see most complainers o' the sjw elements in sod, a game we has not yet played, a game that many o' the complainers has not yet played, as being most unfair.  and again, we don't like unfair. have always been against unfair, even when the victim o' the lack o' fair play is a nincompoop.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Volourn]

It's cue that people like Grom and Brcue whine about  'no legit complaints' when in a detailed post just previous to theirs someone actually goes into great detail on  specifics on why they dislike the game. Can't  change the narrative so plead ignorance and blindness? I expect that from Bruce but Gromn? I AM DISSAPOINT. Not that Grom cares.

 

 

btw, I did not not buy this game because of the SJW Nonsense. I think beamdog sucks and I haven't bothered with ANY of their IE nonsense. Because they lack skill. the fact that beamdog's owner had ANYTHING to do with the original BG  is HILARIOUS.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

Personally, I think there is room for a game between BG1 and BG2. However, I don't think this game fits it due to mostly the story. That is my opinion. Others will disagree. If there were plot holes between the NPCs in BG1 and BG2, SoD makes that even worse by introducing NEW plot holes. Something I didn't mention earlier and is another point I should have written.

 

In case some people may have missed my post, politics was only one of 11 points raised. While the politics have taken a front seat to this game over the internet, I see a LOT more issues and problems with SoD than just the politics. While I could have made a more in depth review and expand on my points, this was just off the top of my head.

 

Here's a screen shot of my previous post to make it more 'simple' for those people.

 

Note: Everyone's different. While you have some people liking or loving this, others will find it disappointing. And I found this game a disappointment.

 

 

 

 

 

[Teioh_White]

It was a really on point review based on my own experience running through the game. There were a lot of issues in the game other than just the shore-horn'd in politics. And the worst part of that wasn't so much in game, but how Beamdog reacted to it out of game. But, plenty of media I enjoy even though the people who made it are tossers, it's a silly thing to let get in the way if the product is good. Luckily, in this game, they're tossers -and- the product is horrible, so don't have to worry about that,

 

Though, it does seem as people who support SoD keep trying to push that the issue lies squarely with some pointless npc who I ignore just as I do the terrible backers in PoE, and ignore the systematic fail that is the rest of the game.

Edited April 18, 2016 by Teioh_White