| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Lord Rad |
Posted - 10 Apr 2004 : 10:00:23
I just watned to start a new topic on this after reading comments over in this topic.
A number of people (WotC Novel Forum refugees mainly) see the Baldur's Gate trilogy (Baldurs Gate, Baldurs Gate II:Shadows of Amn and Baldurs Gate II:Throne of Bhaal) as non-canon (unofficial FR sources). Why is this? I havent read the novels myself and its a genuine question as to why its considered largely to be ignored as Realmlore?
Please refrain from stating "'cos theyre rubbish" or similar comments.  Im after specific reasons here. |
| 13 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 03 Dec 2005 : 21:47:30
The tone of the book is off, too. The story of Baldur's Gate is supposed to be an archtypal story of a young person going out into the world for the first time to discover who he/she is. In the novel, the protagonist is already a hardened mercanary who has been away from Candlekeep many times, to the point where it's not really his home anymore. This seemingly small difference REALLY changes the story, IMO, and not in a good way.
I also found the book to be far more gory and humorless than was the story in the game. Yes, there is darkness in the original story, but not to the point where it envelopes everything and douses all hope. The book even ends right after Abdel shoves a sword into Sarevok, as if the only point of story was killing things. It's ironic, I think, that the most "video-gamish" of the two stories was the book, and the more elegant and subtle story was in the computer game. |
| Walking in the Light |
Posted - 30 Nov 2005 : 06:31:03
Well talk about bringing back the dead
after Sage said I should review the older stuff for posting I came across this a grand topic for BG lovers like me.
lets start with one of the posters.
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
quote:
If you play through the games, you will most likely find yourself VERY attached to your own character, and won't like it very much that the official BG Player Character is...someone else. Also, the books deviate tremendously from the games (for better or for worse, often for worse), so it's easier to like these books if you HAVEN'T played the computer games.
She hit it right on the nail!
In truth most the of Amazon.com and other book review places that posted people who played the game gave this a thumbs waaaaaaaaayyyyy DOWN.
Keep in mind we who play the BG game even today are kind of fanatical and im not sure why the Timeline wont have BG in it...but as you will see the BG PC game timeline would be better
But for those who didnt play the rich wonderful done game story.
Often said the Baldur’s gate books weren’t that bad and didnt get the big panning of the books.
Basically it’s like this..... if I took the original Star Wars movie made a new movie with the same name and a few of the Chars like Luke and Lea
Yet turned it into a Dr Who Sci-Fi Flick from BBC 1970 shows...well people would grab their Wookie and Jawa toys and pelt me like some religious sacrilegious nut.
Most writers have a dream of writing their own story that they have had for years stashed away.
And well when given an existing story they sometimes can’t resist and change everything into what their dream book is about.
Sadly the only thing that remains of the BG pc rich storyline is names from the original story and that's about it.
For example one of the few NPC from the game to come over into the book was Khalid fighter elf and Jaheria the druid Elvin woman one of three main women in the game.
She was brave, strong and dedicated to what she called the Balance in the game.
Anyone who played the game will tell you that the story in the BG pc game was that Jaheria had complete love and devotion for her shy stuttering man.
Who when he died was a great painful loss to Jaheria in the PC game
But in the book Khalid was given the short shaft of a few pages and turned into a wife beater!
Jaheria was changed into a mindless bimbo who couldn’t do anything without the writers main Char helping her.
And that's what happens here the writer ignored the fun very detailed NPC story Chars from the BG pc game and well made something really simple.
The BG book for the record was poorly written in my opinion
It felt like some cheep barbarian romance novel with low grade writing.
The books were pretty thin on pages as well so that didnt help.
I have seen this happen to other books like one time I was reading a Star Trek novel
Two women get kidnapped and raped by Klingons.
It was basically about how the women tried to survive as prisoners.
Ya I was shocked ...What a storyline...in truth it was well written.
Its just wasn’t a good Star Trek book.
This was back in the 1980’s I forget the books name.
But my point is Captain Kirk Spock and everyone else was barely mentioned.
You could go whole chapters without them. In fact only at the end when they were rescued did the main chars show up.
Anyway one final word on the BG Books trilogy .
I wish I could say it was at least good as the one from the game.
But I cant!
The writing was like I said simplistic for a Forgotten Realm book to the point of boring.
|
| Julian Grimm |
Posted - 09 Oct 2005 : 19:28:12
I have only read the first book and found it ok but not to the quality of other novels. It's an ok take on events after the Avatar Trilogy but I keep finding that when I look upon the novel and how it fits into the whole of the other books based around the ToT I keep making the story Apocryphal and nothing more. |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 09 Oct 2005 : 07:24:23
quote:
Originally posted by Paec_djinn
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
If you play through the games, you will most likely find yourself VERY attached to your own character, and won't like it very much that the official BG Player Character is...someone else. Also, the books deviate tremendously from the games (for better or for worse, often for worse), so it's easier to like these books if you HAVEN'T played the computer games.
I disagree. I played the computer games and aside from Shadows of Amn, I didn't find the (other two) novels that bad. They weren't really good, but I have to say they weren't as bad as some people think.
What are you disagreeing with? All I said was that playing the games makes the books harder to like--I didn't say it was impossible. This is all my opinion...but shouldn't that go without saying? |
| Paec_djinn |
Posted - 09 Oct 2005 : 02:31:46
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
If you play through the games, you will most likely find yourself VERY attached to your own character, and won't like it very much that the official BG Player Character is...someone else. Also, the books deviate tremendously from the games (for better or for worse, often for worse), so it's easier to like these books if you HAVEN'T played the computer games.
I disagree. I played the computer games and aside from Shadows of Amn, I didn't find the (other two) novels that bad. They weren't really good, but I have to say they weren't as bad as some people think. |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 08 Oct 2005 : 19:56:59
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Rad
A number of people (WotC Novel Forum refugees mainly) see the Baldur's Gate trilogy (Baldurs Gate, Baldurs Gate II:Shadows of Amn and Baldurs Gate II:Throne of Bhaal) as non-canon (unofficial FR sources). Why is this? I havent read the novels myself and its a genuine question as to why its considered largely to be ignored as Realmlore?
If you play through the games, you will most likely find yourself VERY attached to your own character, and won't like it very much that the official BG Player Character is...someone else. Also, the books deviate tremendously from the games (for better or for worse, often for worse), so it's easier to like these books if you HAVEN'T played the computer games. |
| Lord Rad |
Posted - 08 Oct 2005 : 15:37:53
Well I just finished reading this trilogy.
Book 1 - started off very computer-game style but towards the end, the plot started to really unfold and I quite enjoyed it.
Book 2 - Didnt really enjoy this one. It felt quite forced and the plot was a bit off. I wasn't keep on any of the underdark scenes and generally wasn't impressed with the whole story.
Book 3 - I enjoyed this one most of all. A very well written book, nice tale and some shocking moments!
Overall, I DID enjoy the trilogy. It was much better than i'd expected. Some elements could have been omitted to improve the overall story but it must have been difficult for the authors being as they were based on computer games. |
| Kuje |
Posted - 10 Apr 2004 : 22:44:31
quote:
Originally posted by Maskanodel
I remember in an old Dragon magazine, the number escapes me right now, they had game statistics for the Bhaalspawn from one of the old PC games. As the magazine was published by WotC, I figured it was canon. Is it or am I mightily confused??
#288 and it should be since there was an earlier 2e article that stat'd the chars from the novels as well. |
| Maskanodel |
Posted - 10 Apr 2004 : 22:24:51
I remember in an old Dragon magazine, the number escapes me right now, they had game statistics for the Bhaalspawn from one of the old PC games. As the magazine was published by WotC, I figured it was canon. Is it or am I mightily confused?? |
| Kameron M. Franklin |
Posted - 10 Apr 2004 : 22:00:40
One minor difference between the Pools trilogy, the Finder's Stone trilogy, and the Baldur's Gate trilogy: while all three books of the latter were based off games, only the first books in the two former where game-based. Could be why they are more readily accepted. |
| Kuje |
Posted - 10 Apr 2004 : 21:13:06
quote:
Originally posted by Rad
So its just because WotC omitted them off a timeline?!  nothing to do with the events in the novels then? Ridiculous!
That seems to be the most used arguement. "They are not in the FRCS, so they never happened!"
Um okay but people who fall back on that line are wrong because there is A LOT of stuff that is not in the FRCS or the FRCS time line. :)
Myself I don't understand why people continue to claim the novels from the Pool of Radiance:Myth Drannor and the BG games are not canon since each got a sourcebook that ties in with them and the BG novel' also had char's stat'd up in Dragon. (Think maybe the Pools of novel did as well, don't recall though.) |
| Lord Rad |
Posted - 10 Apr 2004 : 19:25:52
So its just because WotC omitted them off a timeline?! nothing to do with the events in the novels then? Ridiculous! |
| Kuje |
Posted - 10 Apr 2004 : 18:51:23
quote:
Originally posted by Rad
I just watned to start a new topic on this after reading comments over in this topic.
A number of people (WotC Novel Forum refugees mainly) see the Baldur's Gate trilogy (Baldurs Gate, Baldurs Gate II:Shadows of Amn and Baldurs Gate II:Throne of Bhaal) as non-canon (unofficial FR sources). Why is this? I havent read the novels myself and its a genuine question as to why its considered largely to be ignored as Realmlore?
Please refrain from stating "'cos theyre rubbish" or similar comments. Im after specific reasons here.
Hey I'M a WOTC novel refugee! But I think most people don't consider them canon because they are not "listed" on the timeline in the FRCS or because they are based on the computer game. However, many seem to forget that the Pool's of novels as well as the Finder/Alias, etc novels are also based on computer games.
Most replies to that is: "Yes, but those older novels showed up in a sourcebook! Only sourcebooks are canon."
Rubbish I say. Besides any character stat'd up in Dragon's Rogue's Gallery has always been canon, and the BG characters were stat'd up in that article in 2e.
Hells I just had this arguement again (it seems to recycle every few months) over on the WOTC boards. After two years I am tired of seeing this same debate. :) |
