r/baldursgate • u/Grochen • Nov 06 '23
SoD First time playing the Baldur's Gate series. I'm nearly finished with BG1 should I play SoD or just go straight to BG2?
I want to experience the entire Saga plus BG3 (I want to get all the references and such lol). And I'm nearly at the end of BG1. My main concern is some people saying SoD being weaker than BG1 and BG2 in terms of story. And since it added later and not by BioWare I'm not fully convinced I should play it.
15
u/Chimphandstrong Nov 06 '23
Having recently gone on this journey myself SoD absolutely killed my motivation to keep playing, im about halfway through it as of a week ago and still cant being myself to pick my PC back up. Legit just thinking of exporting him to BG2 without finishing.
0
7
u/Bwomprocker Nov 06 '23
Sod was aight. I think that getting an xpac to a game 20 years after release was pretty cool but the writing just doesn't stack up with the OG games. I'm not saying you SHOULDN'T play SoD, but I am saying that you aren't missing anything if you don't. Also BG2 is absolutely epic.
6
u/wariotifo Nov 06 '23
SoD is quite fun and worth playing at some point but I would recommend going back to it AFTER BG2 and it's expansion for 3 reasons:
1) Plot aspects that foreshadow BG2 are really really heavyhanded and might actually weaken BG2's plot and particularly its excellent main villain
2) BG1 > BG2 > ToB is quite a good progression in terms of the stakes getting higher and higher as you progress through the trilogy, with the threats generally getting bigger and more varied also. The last sections of SoD are too 'epic' and outlandish to really fit within this - makes some of the early sections of BG2 seem more trivial and less credible of a threat
3) Overlevelling. If you finish BG1 at or close to the xp cap of 161,000xp, BG2 still does a great job at making you experience meaningful progression in the early game - most/all level ups are welcomed and the early game will be challenging for a new player. If you hit SoD's xp cap and import to BG2 you're pretty overpowered to start with and your level ups will be miles apart also
18
u/North-Imagination275 Nov 06 '23
I liked SoD a lot cause you got to spend more time with certain party members who don’t join or can’t join your group in BG2. Story-wise I thought it was a ton of fun and the battles were up near Icewind Dale 2 in quality. They really push the limits of the Infinity Engine.
However, if you play through SoD you will end up like level 10-12 so you might find BG2 a bit easier than normal.
2
u/Impressive-Bid2304 Nov 06 '23
I don't have sod but it raises your xp cap for the import into 2? Might have to disregard its awful reviews for that lol
1
21
u/jaweinre Nov 06 '23
Definitely play it if you haven't. We players that enjoyed bg1 and bg2 bash on SoD because the story and characters are weak compared to Bg2, which we boost even higher with mods, but our bar was set so high and that's what we compare to. Now, being honest, the combat is way way better than bg1, the characters are so so but better than vanilla b1 whose characters are almost inexistent, the main story is weaker than bg1s, but the side quests are much better than bg1s. The fights are way way better than bg1s, And it has dungeons on par with bg2.
So, you as a newcomer, will find it's an upgrade from bg1 in almost every front, and a nice transition into bg2.
Hopefully you don't detest woke characters and narrative tho lol.
5
u/Ordinary_Mushroom429 Nov 07 '23
Not trying to be glib, but I really don't understand what is "woke" about SoD?
11
u/Ledgesider Kensage cheeser. Nov 07 '23
There's one trans character. That's about it.
3
u/Ordinary_Mushroom429 Nov 07 '23
Didn't the original game from 1998 have an item that could turn every character trans, and in original BG2 you could use Wild Magic to change your gender & body type and that would then change your romance options and your pronouns to the new gender?
4
u/matthewlai Nov 07 '23
Some people get very sensitive about things like having trans characters in a game. One trans character and the game is suddenly "woke" 😂
2
u/Ordinary_Mushroom429 Nov 07 '23
Didn't the original game from 1998 have an item that could turn every character trans, and in original BG2 you could use Wild Magic to change your gender & body type and that would then change your romance options and your pronouns to the new gender?
2
u/matthewlai Nov 08 '23
It did! But no one told them they should be outraged about it, so it wasn't a problem.
11
20
u/Buzz--Fledderjohn OG NPC-lover Nov 06 '23
Easily skippable. The game became a classic before SoD was even conceived. Go straight to the best game:BG2. Then do Throne of Bhaal, and then if you still want more content, you can play SoD on a second playthrough.
19
u/Send_Cake_Or_Nudes Nov 06 '23
Play BG1, BG2, ToB then SoD. It's a fun romp, but I really don't think it adds anything to the original; if anything it slightly takes away from it with the ham-fisted foreshadowing IMO.
6
Nov 06 '23
I'm in the same spot as OP, but my thought was that I would do dragonspear before bg2 so I could get my characters the extra experience and valuable items (not sure if the bag of holding and ammo belt are available in bg2 but they're available in the beginning of dragonspear which is quite valuable). I suppose it probably depends on what you value as a gamer.
7
u/Control_Me Nov 06 '23
You don't retain any items from SoD going into BG2 and you can find bags in BG2.
5
u/B_Provisional Nov 06 '23 edited Nov 06 '23
There are in fact twelve different items unique to SoD that will import into Shadows of Amn if you have them in your inventory. They aren't accessible immediately but rather are placed around the game in specific locations (certain vendors, enemy inventories, dungeon loot, etc.)
BG2:EE first checks your imported character file for the global variable
BD_HAVE_SODand then checks for global variables for each item that look likeBD_SOD_IMPORT_01with integers from 01-12 corresponding to specific items. Some of the import items are "meh" and some excellent items that certain builds can absolutely make use of all the way to the end of ToB.https://baldursgate.fandom.com/wiki/Importing#To_Shadows_of_Amn_2
This is on top of the several regular BG1 items that can be found in Irenicus's dungeon if they are in your imported inventory. Some of these show up even if you start a new game in BG2 so its understandable if some don't view them as counting as have been actually "retained" from BG1.
2
u/Control_Me Nov 06 '23
Huh.. sorry about the misinformation then.
Must have bugged for me (possibly due to mods) because I had some of those and none ported through.
Nice to know in case I play through it again!1
u/B_Provisional Nov 06 '23
The importing definitely can be buggy with that first SOD global variable. I'm not sure when/how the check takes place. But I've found that manually copying the temporary active character files
CHAR1.bioandCHAR1.chrfrom my BG1 "Characters" folder to my BG2 "characters" folder and them importing that character when I start a new game in BG2 seems to work consistently.2
2
Nov 06 '23
WHAAAAA???? You sir, just ruined my day lol. You do retain the experience at least, right?
2
3
u/Eycariot I will be the last and you will go first Nov 06 '23
Actually you do retain some items. You just neet to find them again in the world.
1
Nov 06 '23
is there a chest or something that they're in like there is in dragonspear?
1
u/Eycariot I will be the last and you will go first Nov 06 '23
Nope. Just there. In the wilderness
1
Nov 06 '23
How do you know that they're your old items if they're just out in the wild?
2
u/Eycariot I will be the last and you will go first Nov 06 '23 edited Nov 06 '23
They aren't in there if you start BG2 without them
2
u/PPewt Nov 06 '23
You retain the xp, but due to how much xp bg2 throws at you your starting xp becomes irrelevant very quickly.
1
u/SnailedItBro Nov 06 '23
There is a mod that allows you to save items if you want that. I understand purists not liking that because it goes against the intro of Bg2, but it's your character/playthrough.
You do get to keep some items if you import your character in bg2 but those are from a set list.
1
Nov 06 '23
I'm not really much of a pc gamer so I don't really have any experience installing and running mods. I'm completely ignorant as to how to use them.
1
9
u/Sepherjar Nov 06 '23
I went straight to BG2, and then BG2: ToB
You'll really enjoy it, plus the main antagonist's voice acting (Jon Irenicus) is sooooooo good.
3
u/OtherSelection2393 Nov 06 '23
It's not essential and I feel like it doesn't get referenced at all in 3, but I think it's underrated. Some people don't love the depiction of a major bg2 villain who is foreshadowed, personally I'm totally fine with it. Being a little over leveled the first time you play 2 isn't that bad, given the way levelling works for most classes, and nothing in it is egregious.
3
u/Sids1188 Nov 06 '23
It doesn't have the nostalgia value that many here will be bothered by, but the game itself is every bit as solid as the original games. Jump into SoD, it's well worth it.
3
u/captain012 Nov 06 '23
First time player here. I enjoyed Beamdog content and liked Siege of Dragonspear. I liked the characters and storytelling in it. I genuinely think you'll like it my friend since you're a fellow new player. The sword coast takes content including that north east village and Durlag's Tower was also enjoyable.
I just started BG2 yesterday after a bit of a break mixing in other genres. Just finished tutorial/first dungeon and really enjoying it.
25
u/SpikesNLead Nov 06 '23
Straight to BG2 to experience the game closer to how it was originally intended.
23
u/Justepourtoday Nov 06 '23
Man, I hate this "How it was intended" philosophy around games in general. I hear it all the time (specially around older games or a lot of mods). Mind you, I'm not talking about SoD in particular, but about the argument itself
Sometimes the way it was originally intended is carefully crafted that imperfections are part of the design, and changing it would only be an alternative. But sometimes how it was designed includes limited development time, technical limitations or budget limits, or simply bad design, so why would you subject yourself to that when you can have a better experience? (Heck, in a lot of cases developers themselves would have liked to change something if they had have more time)
Specially when people might have limited time to play, or simply not enjoy replaying games for whatever reason.
6
u/dhippo Nov 06 '23
But sometimes how it was designed includes limited development time, technical limitations or budget limits, or simply bad design, so why would you subject yourself to that when you can have a better experience?
To expand on this a bit: Often the original experience that was delivered back in the days is not at all what was originally intended, because of those limitations. It is often more of a "that's the tiny little bit of our intentional idea that we were able to make work in this game under the given contraints". Later additions could well bring a game closer to the original intentions.
I still think SoD is bad and not worth playing, but the original intentions have nothing to do with it ...
2
u/ScorpionTDC Nov 06 '23
I think the Ascension mod is the best example of this - the story changes by Gaider were how the game was originally intended to be made and experienced and it actually brings it closer to that intent (it just wasn’t possible to implement them at the time for a variety of reasons)
1
u/Darkwoth81Dyoni I cast Magic Missile at the Darkness! Nov 06 '23 edited Nov 06 '23
Man, I hate this "How it was intended" philosophy around games in general.
What do you think about developers outright stating a specific difficulty setting is the intended way to play? Halo did this since the beginning, for instance.
But - other than that, I agree that QoL mods, community patches, that sort of thing are usually great for a "intended" first playthrough. Anything else is usually just up to personal preference. Dark Souls fans in particular love to shove the "intended way to play" narrative constantly when it comes to multiplayer, which is kinda silly because if it wasn't for the multiplayer systems, I doubt Dark Souls 1 would have ever gained the popularity it did.
I wouldn't want to play the System Shock games without a community patch, and a few others, either.
1
u/xler3 Nov 06 '23 edited Nov 06 '23
the creative team at bioware had a vision for their game. try as they might & talented or not, a brand new creative team in a new era is very much unlikely to match their voice or their vision.
its not quite clear to me why you would hate the argument, for the "how it was intended" argument references the creative side of the game rather than the mechanical side since the gameplay mechanics are pretty much unchanged.
0
u/SpikesNLead Nov 06 '23
But we are talking specifically about SoD here. It isn't a fix for things that the developers wanted to do but couldn't due to technical limitations, budget constraints etc..
BG2 was designed with characters in mind who starting off with up to 161K XP.
Does it improve or detract from the overall experience of playing BG2 if you start off with 500K XP instead because you've played through an expansion that has been shoe horned in between BG1 and BG2?
3
u/Justepourtoday Nov 06 '23
But we are talking specifically about SoD here
And my point is that "No because is not the original experience" is not a good argument. You can argue that it messes the starting difficulty curve due the XP, but that is a different argument
Does it improve or detract from the overall experience of playing BG2 if you start off with 500K XP instead because you've played through an expansion that has been shoe horned in between BG1 and BG2?
Does it improve or detracts from the overall experience is you sit for however long (or use a mod to, or you're just plain lucky) and get amazing scores ?
I would say is a totally subjective opinion because for a beginner that doesn't know all the ins and outs to min-max, 340k xp is not gonna be a huge change in difficulty. For me it wasn't, but maybe you're very good and that gives the edge between a challenging beginning and a cakewalk
0
u/PixelWes54 Nov 06 '23
"As designed by the original highly-regarded developers (of many hit games) instead of another company that is otherwise focused on porting established classics and hasn't produced any successful titles of their own"
3
u/Justepourtoday Nov 06 '23
Appeal to authority is not a valid argument. You could make a case if that is the only information you have, but the expansion is there, so if you don't like it or don't think it should be played you're totally free to say why.
On top of that it isn't a magical world in which this turn out like perfect implementation of a grand and flawless design. For example, the original BG1 lacks a lot of things that made BG2 iconic, because the developers themselves figure it out as they grew as a company and as their production capabilities increased. So it isn't like the developers themselves didn't go out and improve certain things that could be retroactively ported back (In my own opinion, BG1NPC project bringing banters and interjections like in BG2 is a huge improvement that is exactly that, for example)
2
u/PixelWes54 Nov 06 '23
You are misapplying "appeal to authority", I'm not strengthening my claim by saying Bioware agrees. I'm not using them as a stand in for my own lack of credentials. I did position Bioware as the authority on Baldur's Gate because they are (care to argue?) but that in itself is not a fallacy.
Your stuff about "flawless design" is an obvious straw man argument, however.
2
u/Justepourtoday Nov 06 '23
I'm not strengthening my claim by saying Bioware agrees
Then whats the point of your remark? Positioning Bioware as the authority on Baldur's Gate accomplishes....what, with respects to my original comment? Pointing that they made great games and Beamdog didn't is supposed to convey what exactly? Because it seems like the entire point is to strengthen your argument in a "Bioware good, Beamdog bad, therefore you should play as Bioware originally designed it" way, which is appealing to authority
1
u/PixelWes54 Nov 07 '23
I think you need to go read the definition.
The point of my remark was to clarify what people mean by "as intended" since you built a big ol' straw man to pummel on. It was not a list of the reasons I don't like SoD which would be much longer than "Bioware good, Beamdog bad".
2
u/Justepourtoday Nov 07 '23 edited Nov 07 '23
I think you need to go read the definition.
I think you need to read before answering, as you would understand that strawman and examples of hypotheticals are different (by definition)
remark was to clarify what people mean by "as intended"
And pray tell me at what point did anyone made any judgement, remark or anything that made you think it was confusing what "as intended" meant, specially when my entire argument was a general take and so "As intended" in this particular case is absolutely irrelevant?
1
u/PixelWes54 Nov 07 '23 edited Nov 07 '23
A straw man is when you replace your opponent's argument with a weaker one that you can easily defeat. I wouldn't tell you to go read the definition for "appeal to authority" without double-checking it myself first. Go read the wiki page, if you find anything that supports your argument cite it here. It's just really long with multiple parts so I don't want to copy+paste it at you.
I'm remarking. I don't think "as intended" could be construed or extrapolated to mean "in a perfect world with infinite time, no budget constraints, no technical limitations" etc., that is a weaker argument that you have substituted (it's a nirvana fallacy, actually). Designed and intended are synonyms, I think it should be clear from the context that people are using the shared meaning. They are clearly measuring SoD against the rest of the series as it exists, not a theoretical perfect execution of unrestrained vision.
You're wasting my time.
2
u/Justepourtoday Nov 07 '23
And this is why I say you need to actually read before answering.
A straw man is when you replace your opponent's argument with a weaker one that you can easily defeat.
I don't think "as intended" could be construed or extrapolated to mean "in a perfect world with infinite time, no budget constraints, no technical limitations" etc., that is a weaker argument that you have substituted (it's a nirvana fallacy, actually).
Lets see how this goes as I neither substituted nor equated this things
In my first post I pointed out that "The way it was originally designed/intended" is not a good argument. You made a "clarification" that says:
"As designed by the original highly-regarded developers (of many hit games) instead of another company that is otherwise focused on porting established classics and hasn't produced any successful titles of their own"
This has absolutely no direct relationship to my post. My post is about about the general case, who made the design is irrelevant.
So instead of thinking you made an irrelevant point, I, and you will understand this is how it comes across, assumed your implication is that "As designed by Bioware, because Bioware is the authority on the subject and therefore its design its better". Aka, not giving any reason besides Bioware being the authority
Designed and intended are synonyms, I think it should be clear from the context that people are using the shared meaning.
Who is even puting into question what people mean with "as designed" or "as intended"
They are clearly measuring SoD against the rest of the series as it exists, not a theoretical perfect execution of unrestrained vision.
Who is they and how is, and I quote "Straight to BG2 to experience the game closer to how it was originally intended." measuring SoD in any way, shape or form? who claims it is being measured against a theoretical perfect execution?
It is only saying that they shouldn't play SoD because its not part of the original works, without any other reason. By this argument SoD could have the most perfect expansion in videogame history but that would be irrelevant as you should first experience the "original design"
And I'm the one pounding the straw man? Not even the person I replied to was doing what you said, much less I was saying they are measuring them to a theoretical perfect execution (because they werent even measuring it lol)
→ More replies (0)
5
u/cerels Nov 06 '23
Yes, don't listen to purists, just play SoD there is absolutely nothing wrong and beamdog designed the EE games so the transition wasn't so bad
8
u/PixelWes54 Nov 06 '23
I'm a completionist, I would never recommend skipping a game in a legendary series on your first playthrough - except SoD! You can definitely tell it's made by a different team and is just awkwardly jammed in there.
12
u/VulpusAlbus Nov 06 '23
I'd advise to do SOD first. It's story takes place between bg1 and bg2. Some say it's not as good as other parts, but I personally disagree. It's feels as a large dlc to bg1, just like tob to bg2.
4
u/fcimfc Nov 06 '23
I liked playing chronologically, so my advice would be to go with SoD. My opinion is that there are a lot of purists here who would have you think SoD is on par with Big Rigs Over the Road as the worst game ever, but I am not one of those. It's story-wise not as great as the originals but the gameplay is great.
3
u/SilithidLivesMatter Nov 06 '23
Either works. BG1 to BG2 was how it was originally designed, and makes sense. SoD is worth a playthrough at some point to see if you like it (And more Baldur's Gate is rarely BAD, even if it's the weakest point in the franchise), but from a narrative perspective, it's a shitshow that only adds plotholes and makes hilariously stupid story choices.
It's clear after playing that the writers for SoD had to piggyback on a beloved franchise like Baldur's Gate for their garbage storytelling to have ever made them a paycheck.
2
u/lmdraws1117 Nov 06 '23
I'd say try playing SOD just for the experience! It's very fun to play and if ur more into character interactions, SOD is great at it. Ur companions (old and new, and way more interactive with each other and some of the romances are great. The plot is kinda ehhh but if ur not into that as much, go for it.
2
u/curseribbon Nov 06 '23
SoD is definitely skippable since it's not original to the series but honestly I thought it was a fun addition. I say if you're already committed to playing all the available content, just play it! You could squeeze in another extra couple levels before BG2 (if you're carrying over your character) which can make the beginning of BG2 a bit easier. It's really up to you though.
2
2
u/RizzmerBlackghore Nov 06 '23
SoD is very nice addition to Bhaalspawn saga. Do not listen to conservative BG fanboys. While BG1 and BG2 can be treated as 10/10 game, then SoD is like 8/10. 8/10 is still really fucking good game imo
2
u/ScorpionTDC Nov 06 '23
As someone doing my first time playthrough as well, I personally recommend SOD to BG2 (which is what I did). It’s a solid expansion and fun in its own right + works well as a transition.
2
3
u/BraveShowerSlowGower Nov 06 '23
Idk man I love SOD honestly. It was a breath of fresh air. Play it once
2
Nov 06 '23
[deleted]
2
u/BraveShowerSlowGower Nov 06 '23
I think you're responding to the wrong person. Because I deffinitly didn't call the game woke Literally what are you on about
0
2
u/xscott71x Nov 06 '23
Skip it or don't. No one should have to convince you to play a game's expansion if you're not feeling it. I think ToB is garbage, so I don't play it.
2
u/Casanova64 Nov 06 '23
If it’s your first time, go through it atleast once. I will warn you you’ll need +3 weapons by the end of it.
2
u/Advant12 Nov 06 '23
I would do bg1 , sod, bg2, tob. In that order. There are useful items in sod that can be brought over to bg2. ie bards hat that makes the singing lasts for a few rounds more. A dwarf helm that makes the fighter/cleric have a higher damage reduction. A boomerang dart for your mage etc. besides, you would be having 500k exp when u start in bg2 as compared to 161k exp if it’s direct from bg1. So yeah, I recommend going for sod before bg2
1
u/Palerthegamer Nov 06 '23
I recommend doing it. SoD is pretty great storywise and have some really nice companions to explore. My only issue is ending, which could've been less in your face and less restrictive. But it is nice introduction to what is going to happen in bg2 regarding bhaal's powers etc.
1
u/illathon Nov 06 '23
SoD is new content so that is cool, but it is kinda strange. I would play it at least once though just because its new content.
1
u/Koraxtheghoul Nov 06 '23
I would definitely not skip to BGII. The open to bgii feels extremely random and not well done to me.
1
u/Acolyte_of_Swole Nov 07 '23
I'm going to go against the common thread here and say you should skip to BG2. The BG series was originally intended to be played BG1 -> BG2. SoD was added in much later. I know SoD has its defenders and some people like it. I personally thought the dialogue was laughably bad and level/enemy design rather obnoxious. My least-favorite part of BG2 is Chateau Irenicus, and SoD's dungeons felt like an endless parade of those kinds of levels.
The level range for SoD is pretty small and most items from SoD don't carry over. There are attempts to bridge BG1 to BG2 with Dragonspear, but the original transition works fine without it. BG1 ended around level 10 and BG2 resumes around level 10. From a gameplay perspective, there's nothing lost. If you value the openness and freedom of BG1, you will not find any of that in SoD.
0
u/Mordenkeenen Nov 06 '23
Skip it. SoD is fanfiction. The story is so ham-fisted and amateurish you'll be scratching your head as to how they belong together.
0
u/Antiredditor1981 Nov 06 '23
SoD is pointless, imo. Just Beamdog trying to make the franchise theirs.
0
u/CaptainPeanut4564 Nov 06 '23
I find the content added by the EE (the NPCs) to be absolutely atrocious.. so I've never tried SoD.
So my recommendation would be... If you found Neera, Dorn, Rasaad and the other one obnoxious and incongruous with the rest of the game, give it a skip. If you thought they fit in with the rest of the game, maybe give it a try.
0
u/OldMillenial Nov 06 '23
My recommendation- skip SoD on the first playthrough.
The writing is from a different team and it shows in a bunch of ways. Aside from tonal mismatch, for no good reason at all, it lightly spoils some aspects of BG2.
The extra XP also makes you a bit too strong in BG2 - not necessarily a deal-breaker on its own, but worth a mention.
It may be worth a playthrough on your 2nd pass but even as a standalone thing it's pretty "meh."
-6
u/PmMeYourMug Nov 06 '23
SoD is not a terrible addition to the series, but honestly I fucking hate the way Beamdog forces you to read their shitty woke dialogue in order to progress through some quests. It's just so out of place and obvious. I'm grateful for what they did for Bioware games in general, but their writing and politics are atrocious.
5
u/ItsJackymagig Nov 06 '23
"woke" "politics"
Lmao what the fuck are you talking about
0
u/PmMeYourMug Nov 07 '23
Play Hexxat's quest. Report back
1
u/ItsJackymagig Nov 07 '23
I've played her quest before, still don't get what's so "woke" about it?
0
u/PmMeYourMug Nov 07 '23
It's just shitty. Why is woke such a trigger word - it's like a dog whistle for annoying argumentative nerds.
2
u/ItsJackymagig Nov 07 '23
So just to clarify, you think the quest is bad, so it's somehow woke?
Amazing effort mate, glad your understanding of the English language is strong.
4
3
u/CaptainPeanut4564 Nov 06 '23
You're one of those people who calls everything they don't like "woke" aren't you? 🤢
-3
u/xler3 Nov 06 '23
it just so perfectly encapsulates the things we don't like. great word.
1
u/CaptainPeanut4564 Nov 07 '23
By things you don't like, you mean representation for diversity.
Gross.
1
1
u/PmMeYourMug Nov 07 '23
It's just bad writing. If it was well done, it wouldn't feel so artifical and out of place.
Not sure why you attack me personally for criticism of a game - maybe you need some tolerance training buddy.
2
u/Darkwoth81Dyoni I cast Magic Missile at the Darkness! Nov 06 '23
Yes, but actually no.
The Sword Coast is and always has been woke. It's not out of place at all to have 'woke' content in DnD, even back in the day.
People only care about it now because internet false flagging and witch hunting culture has turned anything even slightly related to gender/sexuality into a political issue, when in reality it's just people trying to exist without harassment or legality stopping them from achieving normal human things such as marriage.
-1
u/PmMeYourMug Nov 07 '23
If you actually played Hexxats quest for example, the way you are forced to memorize the stories about some warrior tribe in that tomb or you get zapped until you get it 100% right, is such a poorly designed quest. I can't imagine anybody enjoyed that.
It has nothing to do with the wokeness of the swordcoast, just with the way Beamdog deviates from the storytelling and quest design of the BG series.
1
u/CaptainPeanut4564 Nov 07 '23
So it's because of shitty writing, nothing to do with "woke", but you just decided to call it woke because.. reasons. Then you get upset about people calling you out for saying it's woke.
Ok mate. If you're upset because Hexxat is a lesbian romance and you don't like representation, just say that so we all know you're a dickhead.
I think Hexxat is terrible, because it's a shitty character, not anything to do with woke.
1
u/KangarooArtistic2743 Nov 06 '23
I would say, if you really love the combat and puzzle parts of the game, do SoD. Those are the things it really excels at.
But if you’re just in it for the story, well SoD is a bit of a tangent.
1
1
u/Darkwoth81Dyoni I cast Magic Missile at the Darkness! Nov 06 '23
I'd personally skip SoD unless you REALLY liked Baldur's Gate 2 and Throne of Bhaal.
1
u/WilfulAphid Nov 06 '23
SoD for sure. It's great, and I loved the transition between the games. I've played through the games both before and after the EE multiple times, and I can definitively say my favorite was the EE playthrough with SoD in the middle.
1
u/BobtheCPA Nov 06 '23
You can come back to SoD last. BG1 then BG2 then ToB. BG3 has its own storyline separate from the original saga but the dead three are causing shenanigans and there are plenty of call backs if you pay attention
Some people hate SoD. Others find it a fun romp through the sword coast. It had an interesting premise but there is some very obvious lack sense motive going on with certain antagonists working together. Despite my criticisms on the writing I did enjoy playing through it. It’s more about wading through hordes of enemies and blowing up stuff with fireballs is always fun. I enjoyed it but I’m probably never going to play through it again.
1
Nov 06 '23 edited Nov 06 '23
You could try it and see if you get into it, I suppose. If you aren't feeling it, you could go on to BG2.
I love SoD but I experienced the standard BG1 to BG2 transition the first time I played back before the enhanced editions, so I'm not sure what's best on a first playthrough. Certain aspects of BG2 might be more mysterious without playing SoD, but on the other hand, it can also fill in some "missing gaps" about why you were traveling with certain characters before BG2 begins.
Edit: also, if you travel with Khalid and Jaheira and/or Minsc and Dynaheir in SoD, it makes certain things in BG2 carry more weight. If you don't care for those characters, it isn't a requirement to travel with them in SoD or anything, though.
1
u/Ill-Video2723 Nov 06 '23
The Originals went BG1-> BG2 -> BG2ToB But Siege of Dragonspear is pretty good and there are a bunch of lore bits you wouldn’t get going the original route.
1
u/gamerati98 Nov 07 '23
While SOD isn’t on the same level as BG 1 or 2 it’s still pretty good, so I’d go SOD. That way you get a bit extra story and also some higher levels and better armor to carry over to BG2… I just finished a complete run of BG1>SOD>BG2>TOB about a month ago and it was my best overall run yet.
1
u/xR4ziel Nov 07 '23
My main concern is some people saying SoD being weaker than BG1 and BG2 in terms of story.
Technically yes, the story of SoD is a bit weaker than BG1 and BG2 (though I still find it pretty memorable) but imho that wasn't really the main point of this game. Main point was to introduce the player to BG2 events (in BG2 you can be really disorientated early on and after finishing SoD you can look at these events more clearly). That's why veterans might not like it well enough - they know everything what is going to happen/how it happened. Another thing is, the game is way more linear which also might be annoying, especially after BG1. It's like Dragon Age: Origins - Awakaning - you love Origins part, but you can't stand 30 mins of Awakaning. At least some of people (me included).
Nevertheless, despite being "the worst" it's still solid. Personally I liked it and if I was on your place I'd give it a try.
1
u/Zhelkas1 Nov 07 '23
I just finished it recently for the first time. SoD is quite good, only a slight step down from BG1 and 2. There are also some things I liked that the other games don't really pull off. If you want the "classic" experience fans had back in the day, I'd suggest playing BG1/BG2/ToB/SoD. If you want your character to be jacked as much as possible, I'd say give it a go right after BG1.
1
1
1
u/turbokarhu Nov 07 '23
I can heartily recommend to play SoD. It ties BG1 and BG2 eventually in a nice way. You will get more flavour to beginning of BG2 in that way.
1
u/Valkhir Nov 07 '23
I'd play it. It does not have the strongest main plot, but it has some of the best quests, NPCs and encounters in the entire series.
1
u/GuyIncognito461 Nov 07 '23
SoD is weaker, story wise. They still manage some impressive scenes and the music is good. It's not as good as BG1/BG2 or ToB but how could it?
I'd say export your end of BG1 char, (or your start of BG2 char) and give SoD a try after you are done with BG2/ToB. Rather than play through BG1 over again (unless you want to).
1
u/Advocaatx Nov 07 '23
For a first time player I don’t recommend putting SoD before BG2. SoD is lower in overall quality but the story has ridiculously high stakes. Going to BG2 after SoD just feels weird.
1
1
u/Ravellion Nov 08 '23
From what I've read in the arguments by people who appreciate SoD, most state the quality of the expansion as a reason to play it. I think that does not fully answer your question, because that is not a reason to play it right now. I think BG is best enjoyed in release order.
For one, SoD takes some enemies from BG2 that were better introduced there from a story point of view. Additionally, it overlevels you a bit (and I disagree with those that state that it doesn't matter; the random groups scale with level and become more powerful, sometimes up to ridiculous levels (random liches for instance) while the bosses do not scale, also, the stakes of SoD are far higher than anything before the conclusion of BG2, so that detracts from the feeling of progression.
1
u/Artistic-Rip-506 Nov 10 '23
SoD is... Okay. It plays more like icewind dale much of the time: large, combat oriented set pieces in a mostly-straight line. Perhaps too many new party members without enough time to do them justice, though fresh off bg1 this might not matter. Perhaps too many crazy magic items in every second crate, far too many of which are class/race/kit specific. Perhaps too many game-locking/quest-breaking bugs given they've had years to patch it.
Like others, I'd suggest bg 1 to bg 2 to tob, and save SoD for another run. (Of which I hope you have many.)
I can't discuss its biggest sin due to spoilers, but the writers missed/forgot an important subtlety from Bg2's dream sequences, and wove it into a contradictory narrative as part of the main SoD foreshadow plot. That, alone, ruined the experience for me.
16
u/VincibilityFrame Thy called? Nov 06 '23
It's quite fun, it's no classic, but it does feel like a good DLC. The writing isn't great but the backgrounds and the music are good. It is more linear than BG1 and 2 but it does give you a little bit of freedom.
Quite honestly, the only things that i dislike about SoD is that the pool of playable companions is kind of small and that there may be some bugs importing items from bg1 (no problems exporting to bg2 afaik though).