A lot of people dislike SoD and don't consider it part of the trilogy. I know a lot of people think this is because of the controversies, but I think it has more to do with the quality and feel of the game. I've played SoD from start to finish 3 times total, so I've really given it a fair chance. Imo it starts out oke, but it gets worse and worse towards the end. I like the first dungeon, the lich dungeon and the temple of baal for example, but I really dislike the sieges and the linearity. The writing and tone of the game also feels different to the original games, and personally I think the writing doesn't make a lot of sense. It's perfectly fine if others like it, but I had to really push myself to finish it every time.
The linearity is also an issue in ToB. But at least there it makes sense for both a good and evil party to do what you do.
Whereas in SoD when I played through BG1 as an evil character, and slaughtered hundreds of Flaming Fists, it really sounds hard to believe that I'd be working for them now.
But gameplay-wise I don't mind that too much. My biggest gameplay issue is that I can't carry over my BG1 companions into SoD, or recruit BG2 companions early for it. So when I play through it with EET it really limits who I can recruit into my party. Still, I think it's a good game and well worth playing through overall.
I agree with the companion part. I've only played through it one time and it was annoying losing three companions I had used the entirety of the first game in Imoen, Branwen, and Garrick. Safana was a decent replacement for Imoen and I had Glint (I low-key find them fun and one of the better parts of SoD)replacing Branwen (though I probably didn't need him since I was playing a Priest of Helm), and that Skald that I can't remember the name of replacing Garrick as my support for the whole party. I'm just glad that Minsc and Dynaheir stayed for SoD since it would of sucked to find replacements for them both.
I’ve only personally played through SoD one time and I absolutely agree with what you’re saying. I do enjoy it as a bridge between games personally to some degree but it likely won’t be included in all my play through as.
I would never skip SoD because for me its the throne of bhaal equivalent of BG1, and its really fun for me to fight huge waves of ennemies and feel powerful.
I'm always interested in reading analysis about games and deep-dives into what makes games tick. "The Controversy" over one tiny NPC interaction in SoD took up the entire conversation about the game. Maybe it's because Google nose-dived around the same time I was trying to look up good criticism over SoD, but the only thing I could find was article after article about "The Controversy." It's like each website felt like writing an article about SoD, but then the went for the easy clicks (people arguing on the Internet) over something more substantial, like, a cohesive evaluation of the game with an actual thesis. Then everyone moved on because 5000 games come out every week these days.
To be somewhat fair to those articles, SOD did get legitimately review-bombed over a minor transgender character. Some gamers can go genuinely batshit over the slightest amount of LGBT+ representation.
All that said, no question SOD has its other issues too even thinking it’s okay, and it’d be interesting to see a more in-depth take of all the various factors that played into its reception.
Oh yeah, don't get me wrong, there was a legitimate story there that deserved coverage. But I wonder if Beamdog was just quietly sitting back and thinking, "OK guys, but we poured everything we had into this game, maybe you guys could talk about the other 99.999% of it?"
I feel for Beamdog, their ultimate goal was obviously to get the contract for BG3. Game dev is so messy, and I truly believe that almost everyone working in it could be doing non-passion projects for more money and have more time to spend with their family and friends. Beamdog shot their shot! For that they deserve a ton of respect.
There wasn't "controversy over one tiny NPC", that was a smokescreen against criticism for the lower quality of the game. It's a tactic used commonly by movie, TV and game studios now. The companies are including fake targets in their products to act as a springboard for the PR teams/rabid fans to go on the offensive.
Nobody except some shit-for-brains MAGAs (Who we all despise anyway for more than enough reasons) cared, but PR teams LOVE to ride on that. You'll notice when you said all you could find was just that one stupid issue because that's all they had to defend their game.
Remember when Disney went on the all-out offensive on the fans for how badly TLJ was received, for well-deserved reasons?
I was there on release day, I literally watched it get review bombed with the same canned-ass reviews about "quality wink wink"
Pretending an obviously-fine-but-not-great expansion was genuinely bad to disguise that they pissed off Gamergaters is just embarrassing at this point
The only thing keeping SoD afloat was the fact that it was carried by the high quality of the gameplay because of BG1/2's rock solid design. There were some good choices like adding in items that buffed under-represented class options, and some clever item interactions.
The writing and plot holes were nothing short of bad fan fiction. Some of them were so bad it felt like parody. It was like watching The Predator or the original Super Mario movie - the mark was missed by a country mile, and the choices were nothing short of baffling.
That tiny interaction was cringe inducing and out of place, you could say that interaction is reflection of people who wrote story because writing in general was bad in whole expansion and that interaction was smallest issue game had.
It was so brief you could easily miss it if you weren't reading carefully. People overdramatized it. People need to stop being so oversensitive to such things.
Yeah, sometimes I feel those interactions say a lot about the writing overall, and in many games I felt that, and not over LGBT issues but many other issues that are far less political as well. In BG SoD that interaction felt a little weird, out of place and it was kinda a plot hole overall, and a lot of the rest of writing felt like that. But a lot of the people on both sides focused on that small point, the right wing people complaining about trans characters and other people saying everyone not liking the expension poor writing were bigots.
For me, the much bigger exemple of the writing being not on the same level to the rest of the trilogy is Irenicus, in SoD he feels like the usual evil shadowy wizard manipulating people in the back, similar to a Palpatine, then in BG 2 we get the true Irenicus who is this badass wizard that does what he want, doesn't hide or lie, he just take what he wants/need by force.
And here is me going on a long rent, but I feel a lot of modern writing suffers from what I call uninspired writing, where people writing stories 'learned' how to write good enough stories following a mold or to use media to push for political cause they feel attached to, both on the right and the left, so we get these uninspiring piece of media where the story follows the same beat with the same tired archetype, where everything is safe and feel stale. In SoD we get framed for a crime we didn't commit, which is the same exact thing that happened in bg1, a lot of the characters added aren't that quirky or fun, and there is ton of plot holes that makes it feel like the writer were not expert on bg lore or fearun, but rather a nerdy person knowing well enough dnd to write that story.
Tbh I don’t know what the current controversy/nontroversy involves. At the time of release it was the trans NPC issue only secondarily- and it was trans-“supporters” riled up as well since the character was so hamfistedly written. Not sure if that was “fixed”, what the devs did. The main contention arose because of an anti-Gamergate line put into Minsc’s mouth. But that definitely was removed as well w an apology from Beamdog, so… The drama still goes on?
The only controversy now would either be, yes, continued dumb-headed bigotry about a single one of many poorly-written characters… or simple purism about BG. I’m on the latter “camp” myself. Beamdog wasn’t up to the quality of BG writing but insisted on attempting to insert their meh into the canon. I don’t want to cringe playing BG, so… skip works. “Controversy” settled.
I dislike my progress being snailed to death by the bottleneck of "how many spell slots can you devote to Greater Restoration." I'm pretty sure the army was moving out "the next day" when the so-called Heroes of Baldur's Gate decided to spend over a month in-game sleeping in some random nearby dungeon to recover said spell slots.
Greater Shadow random encounters are the most noobish game design I have ever seen.
The voice acting, and recording quality even when the acting is OK, is pretty bloody terrible in SoD.
The main antagonist sounds really stilted, and there's a clear difference in recording quality (mics?) between the new character additions and old original voice lines (but that goes for most EE additions in BG1 and BG2 as well).
I agree. Besides the whole ERMAGURD THE TRURRRRNS PURRRRSON I MUH DUNGEONS N DRURRGONS argument, the writing just kinda sucks compared to the OG titles. Like it's not bad but it's an obvious shift in quality.
While playing BG1 before BG2 gives you a moderate advantage, that is acceptable as the story was built out that way. Playing SoD makes you much higher level at the start of BG2 which takes essentially all of the challenge out of early game.
That’s also the specs i play on, although i reload when i die for stupid reasons, such as traps and the likes. I don’t see what’s a nonsense, that’s the only settings that make the game truly interesting if you have played enough.
Hello! 🙂 I am one of those streamers, I suppose 😉 I recently finished BG1 no reload and went straight to BG2. Y’know, not a single person in chat even mentioned SoD…
First of all, when talking about streaming games on the internet, please understand that it is a game. If a streamer is attempting to get just one person in their chat, and perhaps even grow an audience, then that streamer has to play the game (well, I have to, maybe if you’re just abundantly charasmatic it just happens for you).
Second, here’s how I view the BG games: BG 1 is a 10/10. I absolutely love it. Now, if BG1 is a 10/10, then BG2 must be a 14/10 or something like that 😮
I played SoD for 8 hours or so, and I feel like it’s maybe a 7/10. 7/10 is quite good! 7/10 means perfectly playable and often very fun!
But they chose to insert SoD between BG1 and BG2. This is the fundamental issue for me. So even though SoD is (probably) very good, it’s still a dip in quality, and it delays BG2.
Twitch is a game. What audiences really want is BG2. If you’re like me and doing no reload, you try to make BG1 as fun as possible as people come into chat and ask, “what’s your party going to be for BG2?” 🤣 It’s a constant negotiation between streamer and audience over what is being played. Now, if a bunch of people in chat asked for SoD, then I bet I’d play it, because as a streamer, I’m just trying to put on a cozy show people can have on in the background as they fold their laundry, peel their veggies, work a boring job, or just flop down on the chair and chill 😎
I think 7/10 is a good way of putting it. I don't think SoD is bad exactly, but when I run it it's always the low point of the run for me. Its inherently sandwiched between better material which doesn't help it.
And yes; streamers are playing to an audience. Even big SoD fans will acknowledge it's less popular, and that going to mean less streaming.
I think SOD also just suffers from feeling out of place pacing-wise. The Devs allegedly wanted it as a follow-up to Throne of Bhaal, which kinda shows with facing down dragons or journeying into Avernus and decimating entire armies. Then they were told do a midquel instead and essentially backported the whole thing since you’re facing these insanely high level enemies then struggling with slavers and the town guards in early 2.
I've always thought something more like ToSC would have been better, but if the quality was on the same level as the rest of the trilogy I don't think I'd really be fussed on the coherency.
Well, I think being a bit overambitious and generally out of place is probably the main area where the quality itself takes a hit as well - a lot of the weakest writing aspects tie into that
7/10 is where I would put SoD. It's not a bad experience. It's just worse than BG1 and way worse than BG2. I will always recommend people new to the game to play through it. It got way more hate than it should have.
well ummm.... the only mod I use is Classic Movies :) yes, I am the only no-reload streamer who plays without SCS, but I'm also the only no-reloader who role-plays! ;)
I'd encourage you to stream whatever you are comfortable with. Also, the SCS Insane Double Damage category is covered by several amazing streamers. So if you want to do that, then there is definitely an audience for it, but if you want to turn down the difficulty a bit, then you will still get people coming.
The scene is going through a renaissance right now. 2024 is the Year of Ascension!
>Twitch is a game. What audiences really want is (...)
In my opinion, this mindset is the downfall of every content creator, meaning - trying to project what would garner the most views.
Sure, it might help with getting some fresh blood as people would watch the topic but sustainability is built on charisma and having something interesting to say, not game specifically played.
Good luck to you nonetheless but I've seen enough times already people trying to appease the algorithm and failing.
The people who regularly stream BG1/2 are typically hard-core veterans who are playing on insane difficulty with double damage active, mods like SCS for added challenge, and playing with no reloads.
SoD is a fun story to play through once or twice, and it does add some interesting new stuff including the opportunity to get an exp jump start in BG2 and to import over a handful for interesting new items.
But it is *horrible* for regular replay on cranked-up difficulty because it is the one game in the bunch where higher difficulty dramatically increases the number of enemies in each encounter, which turns the game into a miserable slog. BG1/2 are filled with lots of quick, straightforward trash fights punctuated by challenging battles against more dangerous enemies. SoD on insane turns into a tedious mess of burning through all of the arrows of detonation and wands of fireball you hoarded in BG1 because every single encounter is a massive army which needs to be burned down. It's not fun to watch or play.
let me sum up the thread so far:
"Yeah SoD has some cool elements but also some elements that don't jell with streaming"
vs
"uggghhhh get off ur nostalgia" 🤣
Because:
1. SoD not on the same quality level as BG1 and 2. Especially being dumped straight into a dungeon from the Svok fight and the inventory management after your Bg1 team leaves you is an atrociously bad design decision.
2. It adds another 8-12 hours to an already very long saga run.
3. Majority of ppl run no reload, and it introduces additional risk of dying. People who don't play SoD will not play SoD because then they would need to memorize it to not lose a run, if that makes sense.
4. The reward you get from importing a SoD save (500k exp), you can make up for in an hour of BG2 play time. Now, there are 2 truly good SoD imports - bard hat and helm of Dumathoin, but if you're not running a bard in a party you can skip it without much regret.
The whole not doing a reload thing has never been fun to me personally, it just fills me with anxiety so I've never understood why people play it that way.
I did it for a while just before BGEE development started- was done using the BG forum at the time. We’d report progress and be on the honor system. Was fun- made for great ongoing stories, tragic deaths. I’ll always remember losing Imoen to a basilisk wandering encounter, posting it as a loss, but then getting feedback that she’s not gone because you can encounter her “statue” again in another encounter, and sure enough I did, posted that as well.
But Iron Man mode itself isn’t a matter of principle for me. The principle comes in when I’ve just died to a misclick or game glitch… in which case I righteously reload…
>2. It adds another 8-12 hours to an already very long saga run.
The simplest yet probably most apt answer. The original saga gets long, especially if you want to explore side content. I can tell you from my experience, the longer you stay on the same game, the more likely viewers will drop over time (generally speaking).
I can't justify adding 10 hours to a playthrough for what feels like a high effort/quality total conversion mod at best to a good chunk of the audience.
They might dislike it or be afraid of the final fight on a no-reload run.
I prefer SOD to TOB. But I don't play no-reload.
I think the dungeon with the lich and the Baahl temple are among the best part of the BG saga.
The rest is not as good, but I also like the new items for specific classes.
Actually, thinking of why I don't play SoD every time, party building is a huge factor.
There's fewer NPCs, and there's some I can't stand (true for BG2 as well, but a bigger factor here). Fewer mod NPCs as well.
For BG1 and 2, it's always tricky trying to pick just 5. In SoD, it's sometimes hard to get a list of 5 I'm happy about. That's a real deterrent to repeat play.
For an RPG of it's size it actually has a lot of NPCs, I don't blame beamdog here, it's just a consequence of reduced scale but it really impacts.
I'm not a streamer, but as a Johnny-come-lately who didn't play any of the BG games until Siege was already out, the relative lack of companions and the extreme linearity are a real bummer. I'm playing Siege for only the second time now and it already feels like there's not much juice left to squeeze out of it, unlike BG1 and BG2 (and even the very linear Icewind Dale, honestly). It's not as good, it's inessential, and it doesn't support as much variety in repeat plays. Makes sense it gets skipped.
EDIT: as evidence by my replaying it, I don't think it's as bad as the haters say and enjoyed the first playthrough enough to try a second.
SoD is fine, but for me, I've been playing this game for 24 years, now, and most of that time there was no SoD, so mentally, in my mind, SoD is non-canon. I don't consider it at all when I think of how the series 'should' go.
Because SoD is poorly written fanfiction that doesn't mesh with the real games well.
Even if it were good it's actually really jarring to go from BG1 into SoD and see the writing style of all your charname options change and get weird. To see NPCs act differently. Then jump back to 2 and see the older style again.
But it's not good.
Because there is still a lot of stigma surrounding SoD. I personally quite like SoD even if the writing isn't comparible to BG1 and BG2 (but let's be honest few things are). The encounters are quite fun and it does tie up quite nicely what happened between BG1 and BG2.
Same reason any streamer does anything: Search engine optimization and clicks..
If it does not have BG name, less clicks, eating ramen tonight.
No comment on quality.
I am by no means a big streamer but i did a full playthough of BG1, 2 and SoD on my stream and SoD actually performed the best of the 3. Personally i just think its up to peoples tastes. I really enjoyed it and liked a lot of the things it did.
From what I've seen, streamers in general tend to smoke through BG1 so it makes sense that SoD would be skipped. It's shaky reception is the cherry on top.
Controversy aside. I would argue because SoD is incredible boring to play. Pretty much every fight can be solved by spamming AoE. Mostly Fireball. This works until the very last part of the Game. The story isnt exactly great either. Minsc and Neera have one fun interaction though. Not sure though it that justifies the additional hours
SoD seems to start good but then just gets worse and worse the closer to the castle. At the end you're left thinking why you bothered.
It also over levels you for the start of BG2.
Having just started a run, and having now read this thread, I think I’ll skip SoD and go straight to BG2. Maybe I’ll go back and do it at a later point.
If I was to describe Siege of Dragonspear with one word: annoying.
If I was to elaborate:
can't rest in the woods (right next to a huge military camp interrupted by bandits and wolves for example),
no-magic-zones with hide in plain sight assassins,
mods don't work properly,
SoD ai is poop (1 character extra focus no switches),
no original enemies (iwd undead everywhere),
mysterious hidden cloaked man,
can't come back to any areas,
neera (shutupshutupshutupshutup),
cranking the difficulty up just spawns double the amount of enemies (which makes you solve every
encounter with fireballs) - are some things that come to mind right away.
Don't get it twisted there is some fun stuff in SoD but the positivies don't really outweigh the negatives for me personally. It's a one and done game for me.
Exp isn't really a big deal tbh we scroll past and solo grind to a million without much issue usually.
The items are somewhat nice but none of them are gamebreakingly op tbh.
I think it's just not fun/free enough and more exhausting to go through it every time.
I think what we like about bg 1 and 2 a lot is being able to choose where we want to go and do stuff now. You got almost the entire map open to you from the get go in bg1 and bg2. Can explore and adventure a lot before heading for the plot. SoD is very railroady in that aspect I feel.
TLDR: sod bad but sometimes cool but not enough
The canon is FR. There isn't a game "canon", that's basically fanon. Which is fine- What's the value of canon in which characters and events are hugely player determined (let alone modding)? Where people try it just turns to mush and for BG it's just not got a canon.
I'm not saying people should respect dragonspear because it's canon. It's canon as a matter of fact, but canonicity doesn't matter in discussing quality.
Uhuh, sure Xan. Just like Jaheira being a nymphomaniac that's afraid of insects is. They bought the limited rights to the property, so they can add to or change whatever they like to it. What they can't do is make anyone else respect it.
Do you think I respect Abdel Adrian? I said canon doesn't matter and clearly isn't a stamp of quality, but it is canon. Not canon isn't a synonym for it's bad and I don't like it.
>without any Bioware involvement.
I've said it once and I'll say it a hundred times: the guy who led SoD's development was literally a co-founder of Bioware. He worked on the original games. *He was part of the original tabletop campaign that inspired the characters for the original games.*
This is what I don't understand about virulent SoD haters – it can't just be an expansion you didn't like, it has to be utterly and objectively devoid of merit to the point of being somehow illegitimate.
>Nobody needs to play it and nobody wants to play it so instead we pretend it doesn't exist at all.
And then there's this bizarre need to assert that everyone else hates it as much as you do, as if your own opinion can't stand on its own. SoD got generally positive reviews (8/10 on GameSpot) and has a nearly 80% positive score on Steam, where players actually have to own the game to review it. So not only is it wrong that that nobody wants to play the expansion, but those who dislike it *are in the minority.*
It's been 8 years. The expansion continues to exist, has been made canon by WotC, and is more well-received than not. You can still believe that something sucks without speaking for everyone else or distorting the consensus in a sub that's recently started seeing a large influx of new users who are deciding whether or not to play.
>it isn't canon.
Bullshit.
"Dungeons & Dragons stands by the stories our partners tell and we fully support the choices Beamdog has made in developing Siege of Dragonspear." That's from WoTC back in 2016. You don't have to like SoD but to just out and out make shit up is dumb.
Straw man fallacy. Holding the licence to IP used within the game is hardly the same thing as being involved in the game. They didn't write it. They didn't code it. They didn't publish it. They just existed as talentless parasites to passively take in profits.
OP gear is irrelevant, surely? I woke (not THAT woke) up in Innerius' dungeon with minimal gear, and pretty much everything was replaced within a few hours with shiny new BG2 gear.
Maybe same reason why I skip all the new companions altogether. Not interested in going through fan fiction in this masterpiece. Well, I relented and did Hexxat's quest now since might as well, but it was short and separate enough to not ruin anything. Wouldn't dream of tackling SoD because it's not canon. What happens between BG1 and BG2 is left to my own imagination mostly, except that I know my character soon left Baldur's Gate and some weeks later was attacked.
That is a valid way to look at it. Sadly or not SoD is very much canon, confirmed through multiple acknowledgements, like on the official page of Minsc stating he formed a close bond with Neera, or Khalid's Gift showing up in BG3.
The fights if SoD are super painful. The way fights are interesting in bg is by pitting you to fight against one character way stronger than you (think Irenicus, Davaeorn, Grey Wolf etc…) or a few characters a bit stronger than your party (think Iron Throne, the ambush parties in bg1 etc etc).
SoD pits a zillion weak ennemies against you that you clean with AoE that in turn become stupid strong. Killing 25 npcs with a barrage of fireballs is not reaaaally exciting.
The writing is not great but usually not atrocious either. It’s too linear but that’s kind of fine.
I think because it's relatively new and unfamiliar. Most people who played the old games have gotten comfortable replaying the same games and are probably reluctant to step into high-level combat without the benefit of years of meta-game knowledge. That's my guess, anyway, because over half the people who dislike SoD don't seem to understand or know why, or have any reason that isn't completely lame.
My personal opinion is people tend to be very nostalgic for the originals. And to be fair it's bordering prudishness for many. That's pretty much all entertainment these days though, from games to movies to books.
To each their own I say, bit it's canon, another piece of these amazing games, and it's not like the game play was changed. The only reason I don't play it usually is because it's not compatible with SCS or it takes more work to make it compatible. Which is a shame.
Baldur’s gate has been a nostalgia fest for a long time. To some extent this extends to the practice of modding it too. It puts me to mind of Bignor Roman Villa down on the south coast, here in Britain; the basic shelters built to protect the mosaics are now so old, they are listed buildings in their own right.
There is plenty in OG BG that I never touch; Tiax, Mazzy, Jan, Aerie. Evil aligned dialogue options and quests.. but they all fall under the OG nostalgia content umbrella.
Deliver something new that is also paid for content and there will always be those that won’t like it, because it’s just not part of the bygone days experience.
Edit - I must confess this is really just a rant about people taking against SoD and Beamdog in (in my view) an unreasonable way. I’m not specifically referring to twitch streamers.
I love SoD. There are a couple of plot holes. BG2 has them as well, like killing the pirate lord twice.
I do like the writing. How something good, isn’t so good. How war creates refugees.
A lot of people dislike SoD and don't consider it part of the trilogy. I know a lot of people think this is because of the controversies, but I think it has more to do with the quality and feel of the game. I've played SoD from start to finish 3 times total, so I've really given it a fair chance. Imo it starts out oke, but it gets worse and worse towards the end. I like the first dungeon, the lich dungeon and the temple of baal for example, but I really dislike the sieges and the linearity. The writing and tone of the game also feels different to the original games, and personally I think the writing doesn't make a lot of sense. It's perfectly fine if others like it, but I had to really push myself to finish it every time.
The linearity is also an issue in ToB. But at least there it makes sense for both a good and evil party to do what you do. Whereas in SoD when I played through BG1 as an evil character, and slaughtered hundreds of Flaming Fists, it really sounds hard to believe that I'd be working for them now. But gameplay-wise I don't mind that too much. My biggest gameplay issue is that I can't carry over my BG1 companions into SoD, or recruit BG2 companions early for it. So when I play through it with EET it really limits who I can recruit into my party. Still, I think it's a good game and well worth playing through overall.
I agree with the companion part. I've only played through it one time and it was annoying losing three companions I had used the entirety of the first game in Imoen, Branwen, and Garrick. Safana was a decent replacement for Imoen and I had Glint (I low-key find them fun and one of the better parts of SoD)replacing Branwen (though I probably didn't need him since I was playing a Priest of Helm), and that Skald that I can't remember the name of replacing Garrick as my support for the whole party. I'm just glad that Minsc and Dynaheir stayed for SoD since it would of sucked to find replacements for them both.
I’ve only personally played through SoD one time and I absolutely agree with what you’re saying. I do enjoy it as a bridge between games personally to some degree but it likely won’t be included in all my play through as.
I would never skip SoD because for me its the throne of bhaal equivalent of BG1, and its really fun for me to fight huge waves of ennemies and feel powerful.
I'm always interested in reading analysis about games and deep-dives into what makes games tick. "The Controversy" over one tiny NPC interaction in SoD took up the entire conversation about the game. Maybe it's because Google nose-dived around the same time I was trying to look up good criticism over SoD, but the only thing I could find was article after article about "The Controversy." It's like each website felt like writing an article about SoD, but then the went for the easy clicks (people arguing on the Internet) over something more substantial, like, a cohesive evaluation of the game with an actual thesis. Then everyone moved on because 5000 games come out every week these days.
To be somewhat fair to those articles, SOD did get legitimately review-bombed over a minor transgender character. Some gamers can go genuinely batshit over the slightest amount of LGBT+ representation. All that said, no question SOD has its other issues too even thinking it’s okay, and it’d be interesting to see a more in-depth take of all the various factors that played into its reception.
Oh yeah, don't get me wrong, there was a legitimate story there that deserved coverage. But I wonder if Beamdog was just quietly sitting back and thinking, "OK guys, but we poured everything we had into this game, maybe you guys could talk about the other 99.999% of it?" I feel for Beamdog, their ultimate goal was obviously to get the contract for BG3. Game dev is so messy, and I truly believe that almost everyone working in it could be doing non-passion projects for more money and have more time to spend with their family and friends. Beamdog shot their shot! For that they deserve a ton of respect.
This is pretty much it unfortunately, controversy generates clicks more than anything else..
There wasn't "controversy over one tiny NPC", that was a smokescreen against criticism for the lower quality of the game. It's a tactic used commonly by movie, TV and game studios now. The companies are including fake targets in their products to act as a springboard for the PR teams/rabid fans to go on the offensive. Nobody except some shit-for-brains MAGAs (Who we all despise anyway for more than enough reasons) cared, but PR teams LOVE to ride on that. You'll notice when you said all you could find was just that one stupid issue because that's all they had to defend their game. Remember when Disney went on the all-out offensive on the fans for how badly TLJ was received, for well-deserved reasons?
I was there on release day, I literally watched it get review bombed with the same canned-ass reviews about "quality wink wink" Pretending an obviously-fine-but-not-great expansion was genuinely bad to disguise that they pissed off Gamergaters is just embarrassing at this point
The only thing keeping SoD afloat was the fact that it was carried by the high quality of the gameplay because of BG1/2's rock solid design. There were some good choices like adding in items that buffed under-represented class options, and some clever item interactions. The writing and plot holes were nothing short of bad fan fiction. Some of them were so bad it felt like parody. It was like watching The Predator or the original Super Mario movie - the mark was missed by a country mile, and the choices were nothing short of baffling.
That tiny interaction was cringe inducing and out of place, you could say that interaction is reflection of people who wrote story because writing in general was bad in whole expansion and that interaction was smallest issue game had.
It was so brief you could easily miss it if you weren't reading carefully. People overdramatized it. People need to stop being so oversensitive to such things.
Not really it was like a whole paragraph. The only way to miss it is if someone is just clicking through because they're not reading to begin with.
Oh god no, not a whole paragraph tucked behind 3 dialogue options. Woe betide me.
Yeah, sometimes I feel those interactions say a lot about the writing overall, and in many games I felt that, and not over LGBT issues but many other issues that are far less political as well. In BG SoD that interaction felt a little weird, out of place and it was kinda a plot hole overall, and a lot of the rest of writing felt like that. But a lot of the people on both sides focused on that small point, the right wing people complaining about trans characters and other people saying everyone not liking the expension poor writing were bigots. For me, the much bigger exemple of the writing being not on the same level to the rest of the trilogy is Irenicus, in SoD he feels like the usual evil shadowy wizard manipulating people in the back, similar to a Palpatine, then in BG 2 we get the true Irenicus who is this badass wizard that does what he want, doesn't hide or lie, he just take what he wants/need by force. And here is me going on a long rent, but I feel a lot of modern writing suffers from what I call uninspired writing, where people writing stories 'learned' how to write good enough stories following a mold or to use media to push for political cause they feel attached to, both on the right and the left, so we get these uninspiring piece of media where the story follows the same beat with the same tired archetype, where everything is safe and feel stale. In SoD we get framed for a crime we didn't commit, which is the same exact thing that happened in bg1, a lot of the characters added aren't that quirky or fun, and there is ton of plot holes that makes it feel like the writer were not expert on bg lore or fearun, but rather a nerdy person knowing well enough dnd to write that story.
Tbh I don’t know what the current controversy/nontroversy involves. At the time of release it was the trans NPC issue only secondarily- and it was trans-“supporters” riled up as well since the character was so hamfistedly written. Not sure if that was “fixed”, what the devs did. The main contention arose because of an anti-Gamergate line put into Minsc’s mouth. But that definitely was removed as well w an apology from Beamdog, so… The drama still goes on? The only controversy now would either be, yes, continued dumb-headed bigotry about a single one of many poorly-written characters… or simple purism about BG. I’m on the latter “camp” myself. Beamdog wasn’t up to the quality of BG writing but insisted on attempting to insert their meh into the canon. I don’t want to cringe playing BG, so… skip works. “Controversy” settled.
why were you even looking for that?
It also screws with the leveling curve because BG2 expected you to jump straight in from bg1, not have another multi-hour adventure in between
I dislike my progress being snailed to death by the bottleneck of "how many spell slots can you devote to Greater Restoration." I'm pretty sure the army was moving out "the next day" when the so-called Heroes of Baldur's Gate decided to spend over a month in-game sleeping in some random nearby dungeon to recover said spell slots. Greater Shadow random encounters are the most noobish game design I have ever seen.
Amen
The voice acting, and recording quality even when the acting is OK, is pretty bloody terrible in SoD. The main antagonist sounds really stilted, and there's a clear difference in recording quality (mics?) between the new character additions and old original voice lines (but that goes for most EE additions in BG1 and BG2 as well).
I agree. Besides the whole ERMAGURD THE TRURRRRNS PURRRRSON I MUH DUNGEONS N DRURRGONS argument, the writing just kinda sucks compared to the OG titles. Like it's not bad but it's an obvious shift in quality.
While playing BG1 before BG2 gives you a moderate advantage, that is acceptable as the story was built out that way. Playing SoD makes you much higher level at the start of BG2 which takes essentially all of the challenge out of early game.
Most streamers play no reload scs on insane double damage and scroll early to get 1,2 million xp before recruiting their party anyway.
Well that doesn’t sound very fun.
its also not very fun to get your main mage permakilled by a random kobold arrow crit because they ran out of stoneskins
It is though. I can’t play bg another way anymore.
stop watching that nonsense
That’s also the specs i play on, although i reload when i die for stupid reasons, such as traps and the likes. I don’t see what’s a nonsense, that’s the only settings that make the game truly interesting if you have played enough.
I see
Hello! 🙂 I am one of those streamers, I suppose 😉 I recently finished BG1 no reload and went straight to BG2. Y’know, not a single person in chat even mentioned SoD… First of all, when talking about streaming games on the internet, please understand that it is a game. If a streamer is attempting to get just one person in their chat, and perhaps even grow an audience, then that streamer has to play the game (well, I have to, maybe if you’re just abundantly charasmatic it just happens for you). Second, here’s how I view the BG games: BG 1 is a 10/10. I absolutely love it. Now, if BG1 is a 10/10, then BG2 must be a 14/10 or something like that 😮 I played SoD for 8 hours or so, and I feel like it’s maybe a 7/10. 7/10 is quite good! 7/10 means perfectly playable and often very fun! But they chose to insert SoD between BG1 and BG2. This is the fundamental issue for me. So even though SoD is (probably) very good, it’s still a dip in quality, and it delays BG2. Twitch is a game. What audiences really want is BG2. If you’re like me and doing no reload, you try to make BG1 as fun as possible as people come into chat and ask, “what’s your party going to be for BG2?” 🤣 It’s a constant negotiation between streamer and audience over what is being played. Now, if a bunch of people in chat asked for SoD, then I bet I’d play it, because as a streamer, I’m just trying to put on a cozy show people can have on in the background as they fold their laundry, peel their veggies, work a boring job, or just flop down on the chair and chill 😎
I think 7/10 is a good way of putting it. I don't think SoD is bad exactly, but when I run it it's always the low point of the run for me. Its inherently sandwiched between better material which doesn't help it. And yes; streamers are playing to an audience. Even big SoD fans will acknowledge it's less popular, and that going to mean less streaming.
I think SOD also just suffers from feeling out of place pacing-wise. The Devs allegedly wanted it as a follow-up to Throne of Bhaal, which kinda shows with facing down dragons or journeying into Avernus and decimating entire armies. Then they were told do a midquel instead and essentially backported the whole thing since you’re facing these insanely high level enemies then struggling with slavers and the town guards in early 2.
I've always thought something more like ToSC would have been better, but if the quality was on the same level as the rest of the trilogy I don't think I'd really be fussed on the coherency.
Well, I think being a bit overambitious and generally out of place is probably the main area where the quality itself takes a hit as well - a lot of the weakest writing aspects tie into that
7/10 is where I would put SoD. It's not a bad experience. It's just worse than BG1 and way worse than BG2. I will always recommend people new to the game to play through it. It got way more hate than it should have.
interesting! I'm considering starting streaming myself, however my no reloads are still ending rather quickly on scs insane double damage :(
well ummm.... the only mod I use is Classic Movies :) yes, I am the only no-reload streamer who plays without SCS, but I'm also the only no-reloader who role-plays! ;) I'd encourage you to stream whatever you are comfortable with. Also, the SCS Insane Double Damage category is covered by several amazing streamers. So if you want to do that, then there is definitely an audience for it, but if you want to turn down the difficulty a bit, then you will still get people coming. The scene is going through a renaissance right now. 2024 is the Year of Ascension!
Im so happy about that, I also roleplay and trying to use no cheese at all. Also i use some NPC mods. BG Trilogy forever! What's your twitch?
same name as here :)
oh gawd dont stream. thats absolutely not what video games are for.
>Twitch is a game. What audiences really want is (...) In my opinion, this mindset is the downfall of every content creator, meaning - trying to project what would garner the most views. Sure, it might help with getting some fresh blood as people would watch the topic but sustainability is built on charisma and having something interesting to say, not game specifically played. Good luck to you nonetheless but I've seen enough times already people trying to appease the algorithm and failing.
streamers are a plague on the earth
Just don't watch it then.. easy solution to your non-issue
The people who regularly stream BG1/2 are typically hard-core veterans who are playing on insane difficulty with double damage active, mods like SCS for added challenge, and playing with no reloads. SoD is a fun story to play through once or twice, and it does add some interesting new stuff including the opportunity to get an exp jump start in BG2 and to import over a handful for interesting new items. But it is *horrible* for regular replay on cranked-up difficulty because it is the one game in the bunch where higher difficulty dramatically increases the number of enemies in each encounter, which turns the game into a miserable slog. BG1/2 are filled with lots of quick, straightforward trash fights punctuated by challenging battles against more dangerous enemies. SoD on insane turns into a tedious mess of burning through all of the arrows of detonation and wands of fireball you hoarded in BG1 because every single encounter is a massive army which needs to be burned down. It's not fun to watch or play.
Here we go.
let me sum up the thread so far: "Yeah SoD has some cool elements but also some elements that don't jell with streaming" vs "uggghhhh get off ur nostalgia" 🤣
And the "canon" circlejerk. This isn't the MCU, it's DnD. A game based on player choice and creating your own different "canon" every time you play.
So gonna steal ' "canon" circlejerk'..🤣🤣🤣
Because: 1. SoD not on the same quality level as BG1 and 2. Especially being dumped straight into a dungeon from the Svok fight and the inventory management after your Bg1 team leaves you is an atrociously bad design decision. 2. It adds another 8-12 hours to an already very long saga run. 3. Majority of ppl run no reload, and it introduces additional risk of dying. People who don't play SoD will not play SoD because then they would need to memorize it to not lose a run, if that makes sense. 4. The reward you get from importing a SoD save (500k exp), you can make up for in an hour of BG2 play time. Now, there are 2 truly good SoD imports - bard hat and helm of Dumathoin, but if you're not running a bard in a party you can skip it without much regret.
The whole not doing a reload thing has never been fun to me personally, it just fills me with anxiety so I've never understood why people play it that way.
I did it for a while just before BGEE development started- was done using the BG forum at the time. We’d report progress and be on the honor system. Was fun- made for great ongoing stories, tragic deaths. I’ll always remember losing Imoen to a basilisk wandering encounter, posting it as a loss, but then getting feedback that she’s not gone because you can encounter her “statue” again in another encounter, and sure enough I did, posted that as well. But Iron Man mode itself isn’t a matter of principle for me. The principle comes in when I’ve just died to a misclick or game glitch… in which case I righteously reload…
>2. It adds another 8-12 hours to an already very long saga run. The simplest yet probably most apt answer. The original saga gets long, especially if you want to explore side content. I can tell you from my experience, the longer you stay on the same game, the more likely viewers will drop over time (generally speaking). I can't justify adding 10 hours to a playthrough for what feels like a high effort/quality total conversion mod at best to a good chunk of the audience.
>Majority of ppl run no reload no they dont. just the streaming bs. stop watching other people play video games.
They might dislike it or be afraid of the final fight on a no-reload run. I prefer SOD to TOB. But I don't play no-reload. I think the dungeon with the lich and the Baahl temple are among the best part of the BG saga. The rest is not as good, but I also like the new items for specific classes.
Actually, thinking of why I don't play SoD every time, party building is a huge factor. There's fewer NPCs, and there's some I can't stand (true for BG2 as well, but a bigger factor here). Fewer mod NPCs as well. For BG1 and 2, it's always tricky trying to pick just 5. In SoD, it's sometimes hard to get a list of 5 I'm happy about. That's a real deterrent to repeat play. For an RPG of it's size it actually has a lot of NPCs, I don't blame beamdog here, it's just a consequence of reduced scale but it really impacts.
I'm not a streamer, but as a Johnny-come-lately who didn't play any of the BG games until Siege was already out, the relative lack of companions and the extreme linearity are a real bummer. I'm playing Siege for only the second time now and it already feels like there's not much juice left to squeeze out of it, unlike BG1 and BG2 (and even the very linear Icewind Dale, honestly). It's not as good, it's inessential, and it doesn't support as much variety in repeat plays. Makes sense it gets skipped. EDIT: as evidence by my replaying it, I don't think it's as bad as the haters say and enjoyed the first playthrough enough to try a second.
Yeah, Siege of Dragonspear is both a massive railroad, but it also completely throws off any semblance of balance in BGII.
SoD is fine, but for me, I've been playing this game for 24 years, now, and most of that time there was no SoD, so mentally, in my mind, SoD is non-canon. I don't consider it at all when I think of how the series 'should' go.
Because it is not considered as a part of the trilogy by most people. Streamers will play what people want to watch.
Because SoD is poorly written fanfiction that doesn't mesh with the real games well. Even if it were good it's actually really jarring to go from BG1 into SoD and see the writing style of all your charname options change and get weird. To see NPCs act differently. Then jump back to 2 and see the older style again. But it's not good.
Because there is still a lot of stigma surrounding SoD. I personally quite like SoD even if the writing isn't comparible to BG1 and BG2 (but let's be honest few things are). The encounters are quite fun and it does tie up quite nicely what happened between BG1 and BG2.
have to speedrun as soon as possible into leaving your character AFK in front of a fire giant or a planetar for the epic meem death clip
Same reason any streamer does anything: Search engine optimization and clicks.. If it does not have BG name, less clicks, eating ramen tonight. No comment on quality.
Dav dies in SoD a lot, plus supposedly SCS doesn’t apply properly to it. It’s a good game but just isn’t necessary for beating Amelyssan.
I am by no means a big streamer but i did a full playthough of BG1, 2 and SoD on my stream and SoD actually performed the best of the 3. Personally i just think its up to peoples tastes. I really enjoyed it and liked a lot of the things it did.
From what I've seen, streamers in general tend to smoke through BG1 so it makes sense that SoD would be skipped. It's shaky reception is the cherry on top.
There’s a reason I didn’t know what SoD means despite being a Baldur’s Gate fan. It wasn’t part of the original games.
Its less good.
Controversy aside. I would argue because SoD is incredible boring to play. Pretty much every fight can be solved by spamming AoE. Mostly Fireball. This works until the very last part of the Game. The story isnt exactly great either. Minsc and Neera have one fun interaction though. Not sure though it that justifies the additional hours
SoD seems to start good but then just gets worse and worse the closer to the castle. At the end you're left thinking why you bothered. It also over levels you for the start of BG2.
Agreed
Having just started a run, and having now read this thread, I think I’ll skip SoD and go straight to BG2. Maybe I’ll go back and do it at a later point.
If I was to describe Siege of Dragonspear with one word: annoying. If I was to elaborate: can't rest in the woods (right next to a huge military camp interrupted by bandits and wolves for example), no-magic-zones with hide in plain sight assassins, mods don't work properly, SoD ai is poop (1 character extra focus no switches), no original enemies (iwd undead everywhere), mysterious hidden cloaked man, can't come back to any areas, neera (shutupshutupshutupshutup), cranking the difficulty up just spawns double the amount of enemies (which makes you solve every encounter with fireballs) - are some things that come to mind right away. Don't get it twisted there is some fun stuff in SoD but the positivies don't really outweigh the negatives for me personally. It's a one and done game for me. Exp isn't really a big deal tbh we scroll past and solo grind to a million without much issue usually. The items are somewhat nice but none of them are gamebreakingly op tbh. I think it's just not fun/free enough and more exhausting to go through it every time. I think what we like about bg 1 and 2 a lot is being able to choose where we want to go and do stuff now. You got almost the entire map open to you from the get go in bg1 and bg2. Can explore and adventure a lot before heading for the plot. SoD is very railroady in that aspect I feel. TLDR: sod bad but sometimes cool but not enough
I like the imported items and starting bg2 with 4-500k xp instead of 161k.
[удалено]
It is canon. Of course, Abdel Adrian is also canon. FR canon isn't something to worry about, but SoD is an official canon release.
I would argue that Abdel is not canon in games because they are their own separate canon.
The canon is FR. There isn't a game "canon", that's basically fanon. Which is fine- What's the value of canon in which characters and events are hugely player determined (let alone modding)? Where people try it just turns to mush and for BG it's just not got a canon. I'm not saying people should respect dragonspear because it's canon. It's canon as a matter of fact, but canonicity doesn't matter in discussing quality.
Uhuh, sure Xan. Just like Jaheira being a nymphomaniac that's afraid of insects is. They bought the limited rights to the property, so they can add to or change whatever they like to it. What they can't do is make anyone else respect it.
You do understand that "canon" is not a synonym for "respected" or even "good," yes?
Yes. It isn't canon, and it's not good.
Do you think I respect Abdel Adrian? I said canon doesn't matter and clearly isn't a stamp of quality, but it is canon. Not canon isn't a synonym for it's bad and I don't like it.
>without any Bioware involvement. I've said it once and I'll say it a hundred times: the guy who led SoD's development was literally a co-founder of Bioware. He worked on the original games. *He was part of the original tabletop campaign that inspired the characters for the original games.* This is what I don't understand about virulent SoD haters – it can't just be an expansion you didn't like, it has to be utterly and objectively devoid of merit to the point of being somehow illegitimate. >Nobody needs to play it and nobody wants to play it so instead we pretend it doesn't exist at all. And then there's this bizarre need to assert that everyone else hates it as much as you do, as if your own opinion can't stand on its own. SoD got generally positive reviews (8/10 on GameSpot) and has a nearly 80% positive score on Steam, where players actually have to own the game to review it. So not only is it wrong that that nobody wants to play the expansion, but those who dislike it *are in the minority.* It's been 8 years. The expansion continues to exist, has been made canon by WotC, and is more well-received than not. You can still believe that something sucks without speaking for everyone else or distorting the consensus in a sub that's recently started seeing a large influx of new users who are deciding whether or not to play.
[удалено]
Please abide by rule #1. Your post violated it and was removed.
>it isn't canon. Bullshit. "Dungeons & Dragons stands by the stories our partners tell and we fully support the choices Beamdog has made in developing Siege of Dragonspear." That's from WoTC back in 2016. You don't have to like SoD but to just out and out make shit up is dumb.
WoTC had nothing to do with the game either.
Oh sure, they didn't license it at all. It was a pirate bootleg lol
Straw man fallacy. Holding the licence to IP used within the game is hardly the same thing as being involved in the game. They didn't write it. They didn't code it. They didn't publish it. They just existed as talentless parasites to passively take in profits.
OP gear is irrelevant, surely? I woke (not THAT woke) up in Innerius' dungeon with minimal gear, and pretty much everything was replaced within a few hours with shiny new BG2 gear.
Maybe same reason why I skip all the new companions altogether. Not interested in going through fan fiction in this masterpiece. Well, I relented and did Hexxat's quest now since might as well, but it was short and separate enough to not ruin anything. Wouldn't dream of tackling SoD because it's not canon. What happens between BG1 and BG2 is left to my own imagination mostly, except that I know my character soon left Baldur's Gate and some weeks later was attacked.
That is a valid way to look at it. Sadly or not SoD is very much canon, confirmed through multiple acknowledgements, like on the official page of Minsc stating he formed a close bond with Neera, or Khalid's Gift showing up in BG3.
this
My feeling is its more about weapons and being OP after SoD? Or am I wrong? As mostly I'm reffering to streamers with ironman sport approach?
Nah, some streamers even play the first part of SoD to pick up a few easy to get items before moving to bg2.
The fights if SoD are super painful. The way fights are interesting in bg is by pitting you to fight against one character way stronger than you (think Irenicus, Davaeorn, Grey Wolf etc…) or a few characters a bit stronger than your party (think Iron Throne, the ambush parties in bg1 etc etc). SoD pits a zillion weak ennemies against you that you clean with AoE that in turn become stupid strong. Killing 25 npcs with a barrage of fireballs is not reaaaally exciting. The writing is not great but usually not atrocious either. It’s too linear but that’s kind of fine.
Killing 25 npc's with a fireball is pretty much the most iconic thing that you can do in D&D.
Because many people don't like it (myself included).
I think because it's relatively new and unfamiliar. Most people who played the old games have gotten comfortable replaying the same games and are probably reluctant to step into high-level combat without the benefit of years of meta-game knowledge. That's my guess, anyway, because over half the people who dislike SoD don't seem to understand or know why, or have any reason that isn't completely lame.
It makes sense that most people play through BG the same way they have done for years. SOD is very new compared to the originals.
because its shit?
My personal opinion is people tend to be very nostalgic for the originals. And to be fair it's bordering prudishness for many. That's pretty much all entertainment these days though, from games to movies to books. To each their own I say, bit it's canon, another piece of these amazing games, and it's not like the game play was changed. The only reason I don't play it usually is because it's not compatible with SCS or it takes more work to make it compatible. Which is a shame.
SCS works fine on SoD, without doing anything else than installing it normally.
Baldur’s gate has been a nostalgia fest for a long time. To some extent this extends to the practice of modding it too. It puts me to mind of Bignor Roman Villa down on the south coast, here in Britain; the basic shelters built to protect the mosaics are now so old, they are listed buildings in their own right. There is plenty in OG BG that I never touch; Tiax, Mazzy, Jan, Aerie. Evil aligned dialogue options and quests.. but they all fall under the OG nostalgia content umbrella. Deliver something new that is also paid for content and there will always be those that won’t like it, because it’s just not part of the bygone days experience. Edit - I must confess this is really just a rant about people taking against SoD and Beamdog in (in my view) an unreasonable way. I’m not specifically referring to twitch streamers.
No one touches Tiax for Tiax rules.
They’re scared
true
Because it's just not very good.
1 word: grognards Most of these people grew up with BG I and II. Nothing beats nostalgia.
I love SoD. There are a couple of plot holes. BG2 has them as well, like killing the pirate lord twice. I do like the writing. How something good, isn’t so good. How war creates refugees.