36 replies to this topic

[Ascension64]

I've asked Ascension to introduce these changes, and I'm still pretty sure that continuity means *continuity* that is why Shar-Teel does appear in one of the cells... And if you killed Imoen in BG1 then I'd end your game before transition takes place. All these talks about merger etc. just clouds the real meaning of BGT which is actually nothing but CONTINUITY. If I don't want logical continuity then I can play TuTu or just import my character directly from BG1 and enjoy far fetched and improbable story of old NPCs. However if we really want a logical contunuity so please let's do this, let's bring to BG2 your *real* (developed by yourself) NPCs. In this aspect the transition mod being made by Asc seems extremely important for me.

Unfortunately, all the spiel about "merger and co." has resulted in the 'Mequel' project being placed on hold, dammit! Ah well...

Anyway, I think such a crappy transition will never get resolved until a 'proper' transition will be put into play. I see that changing the Jaheira/Khalid importation issue may make some people annoyed (probably on top of people who are already annoyed about the current state of the BGT-WeiDU transition), and so I will rescind this change, reverting back to the ZETA format, and not touch the transition again except for bug fixes. I remember I said to someone that only bug fixes will be made from now on to the transition, and I think I shall leave it at that.

Sorry, Vlad...but keep your eyes peeled for the BGT-NeJ2 compatibility patch, as I think the Jaheira/Khalid change will appear in that.

[Vlad]

I really like this word *spiel*. Let me just summarise in brief what I mean by *continuity*:
1. Your PC and your whole party moves from BG1 to BG2 without any tricks.
2. If Jaheira or Minsc is not in your party at the time of transition it means you DON'T NEED THEM so why to force their re-appearance in BG2? Why to take from a player his/her favourite NPCs with whom he/she travelled along the Sword Coast and bring those NPCs whom he/she refused to join?
3. Players who have Jaheira and/or Minsc in party will get them in Irenicus dungeon.

So why don't we implement this?

[EDIT] Thinking a bit more about this stuff a very interesting idea came to my mind - why not to remove PC and some point and make Hrothgar "Player 1", just for fun.

Edited by Vlad, 29 January 2006 - 10:05 PM.

[web2air]

To Vlad
Don't get me wrong, but I have to say this, that is, if a player changes his/her mind and want to take jaheira or minsc again, should he get another chance? For example, I change my NPCs many times and try to take all of them at least for some period of times because first of all, I want to take the NPC-related quests and secondly, I just like to see them in my group. Also, in ToB, all NPC can be summoned by a player due to the fact that all of their destiny are linked said solar. I like this idea and I just love to have NPCs.

I like your first idea that whole party move from BG1 to BG2 without any tricks. But I still believe Minsc and Jaheira should be in Irenicus Dungeon. Putting new lines to explaine why they are there would be a good idea as other mentioned here before. For example, if you have never taked Jaheira in your party and she appears in Irenicus Dungeon, you should be able to say "Who are you? I do not know you" and Jeheira replies like this "Since Gorion wanted me and Khalid to take care of your journey, I have secretly followed you, and etc..."

My another thing about continuity is if the NPCs appear in BG2 like Garrick or Qualye, I don't think they deserve the continuity. In essense, probably many NPCs would need to be abandoned and Coran will be the one whom most people want to take. But I believe if they have the original roles in BG2, we should let them play the roles as they are supposed to do. After they play their roles, like Coran's quest with safana, a player should have chance to talk to them and save them, and then a player can take them in the group with continuity such as stats and Levels. Otherwise, a player would have two Corans and Safanas.

This is what I always think right

[Ascension64]

So why don't we implement this?

Because the transition is flawed (yes Sim, I agree) and I'd rather have it removed...except that will annoy people as well.

Edited by Ascension64, 30 January 2006 - 01:55 AM.

[seanas]

i've never liked the idea of re-writing the start of BG2 to allow different NPCs to come along, if only because the amount of work needed to do it properly so greatly exceeds the minimal rewards it would give.

to do it properly, you'd have to replicate the BG1NPC project for BG2, otherwise, all you'd be doing would be pushing the point of discontinuity back a little. ie, instead of wondering 'why isn't shar-teel in this dungeon, she was with me just a minute ago', you have shar-teel, but she says SFA. or you have xzar, speaking a version of minsc's lines in CI, and then, when you exit CI... silent. and so on, and so forth, unless you give all the BG1 NPCs (in order to account for all possible user combinations) full characters/ dialogues/ banters/ plots/ romances in BG2 - ie, the BGT NPC project. all so that you have a 'smoother' transition. for this reason, i much prefer the current BGT transition, schematic tho it is - Belt gives you a task, tells you he's roped in a few of yr friends from times past, next thing you know yr in a dungeon...

if the transition was the only plot hole in BG1 and BG2, maybe i'd be more concerned about it, but really: we all know by now the dubious plot mechanics involved in both games (the TPT project, vapourware that it was, contained a good list of things that might be improved by a proper re-write); fixing this one seems the very least of our concerns. that said, if anyone is planning a BGT NPC project, then Ganbare! i wish you all the best! and after yr done, maybe we can re-write CI....

and finally, anyone who considers playing BG1 or BG2 without Immy should, frankly, be BANED from playing either game, IMO

[Vlad]

Coran can be saved and added to your party through a quest already in Chapter 2 if you install TS. BGT maintains his continuity in TS.

Edited by Vlad, 30 January 2006 - 04:08 AM.

[Bill Bisco]

I very much like the idea of fully transitioning characters from BG1 to BG2, but of course I very well understand that that would be a lot of work to do it properly.

One thing that worries me though is the fact that the BG1 NPC project exists. In there you can Romance Shar-Teel, but will the potential modder take that into effect? What about the other romances? Now there are two whole games to go through with them.

It would seem that such a mod would not cater to that mod, and thus people who had both installed would notice that things aren't quite together, NPCs would totally forget that they had a romance.

Heh, I think I played with Immy in BG2, but I didn't the first few times I played BG1. She just seemed bothersome to me and not very powerful and thus I left her

Edit: This Project could also creatively avoid updating NPCs used in other mods (Xzar, Montaron, Coran, Yeslick, ect.). Of course this means that the BGT Project NPCs will be more rounded characters and wouldn't interact with the other NPCs. It also brings the question up that although perhaps they're there, why shouldn't they get all the banters and quests even if they didn't transition with you with BGT NPC but rather just found them again.

At some point, all of the good mods should be just a part of BGT just so that future mods will be easier to make and use.

Edited by Bill Bisco, 30 January 2006 - 12:05 PM.

[Thauron]

It would be great to have full continuity regarding BG1 characters - but as long as the BG1NPCs have no proper dialogue I would rather not have them - I hate silent NPCs, they are just wasted space.

On the other hand - many different people are somehow realizing a possible continuity for several characters.
- Domi is working on Kivan - and I am sure she will take all BG1NPC stuff into account.
- If I am not mistaking Jastey is working on an Ajantis mod for BG2 - she is the author of the excellent BG1 Ajantis Romance so I'll guess she will also take BG1NPC into account.
- Vlad is working on Shar-teel - ok, he will not take the BG1 romance into account - but these romances are optional, so if you want realistic continuity don't install the BG1NPC romance (or just play a PC who doesn't have the necessary prerequisites.)

When all these mods are up and working, all BGT has to do is link the BG1 NPC to the BG2 NPC. I doubt all BG1NPCs will ever be continuous but greater continuity for several characters should definately be possible in the future. But BGT will always be dependent on other modder's work for it - since it requires a hell of a lot of work.

[Sir BillyBob]

Coran can be saved and added to your party through a quest already in Chapter 2 if you install TS. BGT maintains his continuity in TS.

True Vlad, but he isn't in a cell at the beginning of the game. This is where some of the transition problem exists. If Coran was with you after Sarevok, shouldn't he be in a cell somewhere? Why not?

All of these holes in the plot leads to Sim's topic here about what should be fixed and what should be ignored. The idea of a "fixed" transition is a project so big it would probably take several years for everyone to get create. I see this as a much bigger project than merging Tutu and BGT. Perhaps it is the "final" goal we should work for. But who is willing to do it?

[Vlad]

If Coran was with you after Sarevok, shouldn't he be in a cell somewhere

No, not at all. He could equally escape the meeting with Mae'Var or just leave you before you go to Athkatla. It doesn't matter, the most important thing that he is smoothly transferred to AR2600, and becomes available already in chapter 2 if you have TS installed. He does have some dialogues and interjections in BG2 though.

[Eon Blue Apocalypse]

For CI, the following would make sense:

- All the NPCs that you had with you and that have content in SoA reappear (Jaheira, Minsc, Imoen, soon Shar-Teel)
- All the NPCs that were with you but that don't have content in SoA (yet) don't reappear, this could happen for any reason, you could have them die during the transition, they may decide not to follow you.
- NPCs like Garrick, Quayle, Edwin, Xzar that have a later role in SoA will not join you immediately in CI, but appear later, in their usual location, unless they died the final death in BG, then they would just not appear.

As for Jaheira, if she was with you in the end but Khalid had been dead at that point, wouldn't it be possible to just disable the romance (until some one rewrites it) and adapt/scrap all the remaining dialog indicating Khalid died in CI?

[Thauron]

I think the meaning of Ascension's Mequel was to fill some of these holes - f.e. explain why, how and when several NPCs leave the party at the end of BG1.
Ideally - and I think this is Ascension's ambitious goal - the mequel will take all other mods on these NPCs into account, look at which BG2-versions are installed and change the content of the Mequel accordingly.

f.e. NEJ (with new Shar-teel content) installed - in the Mequel she will not leave or die (or do whatever Ascension has in store for her) but will stay and end up in one of Irenicus' cells. So, the Mequel should tackle several of the continuity problems - but the Mequel in itself still requires a whole lot of work too.

[Bill Bisco]

I like this idea but there's a problem too. Say that after this is made, someone else comes a long and makes a really good mod that features an NPC Traveling with you.

To properly make the mequel that would mean you'd have to backtrack and change it to account for the new content.

[Sir BillyBob]

I don't think you need to backtrack. But the modder for that NPC could make the NPC transition with you. They would just add to the code already created (soon to be created?).

[Kulyok]

I don't think you need to backtrack. But the modder for that NPC could make the NPC transition with you. They would just add to the code already created (soon to be created?).

I don't think so. Teamwork is based on trust, after all. It's much easier to make a small, compatible, prefix-based and out-of-Irenicus-Dungeon mod on your own (see KoSH), without having to cooperate with a large project. And then they have to choose whether they take you into account or not.

[Sir BillyBob]

That is why I said "could". I am not saying that a modder "has" to make the NPC compatible. Though not doing so will guarantee annoying questions from players about "is your mod compatible with X, Y, or X mod?". Of course some players ask this even if it is compatible but that is another rank.