I'm just going to run with the context provided here. You didn't know what Baldur's Gate was about, didn't understand the overarching story line, and yet, claimed that I hadn't played the game. When I demonstrated your lack of knowledge, suddenly I'm the one that has issues?
No I told you you didn't play the game because you made the claim that the plot line of BG1 was all about sarevok trying to be the highlander which is reductive reasoning at best and also incorrect. One of the plot points of the game and perhaps the most important pivotal moment would be Sarevok's attack on candlekeep. The plotline follows the events of the time of troubles and the prophecy of Alaundo.
https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Baldur%27s_Gate_(game)#:~:text=Baldur's%20Gate%20is%20a%20computer,in%201998%20by%20Interplay%20Entertainment.&text=The%20plot%20of%20Baldur's%20Gate,of%20the%20Time%20of%20Troubles.
"The plot of Baldur's Gate revolves around the main character, Gorion's Ward, and deals with the politics of the city of Baldur's Gate, as well as the aftermath of the Time of Troubles."
I do have an issue. it's an issue I take. I take issue with someone that is totally uninformed trying to educate me on storylines.
Really? Because you don't know the difference between a plot line and a plot point and are presenting the inciting incident of the story as the main plot line.
You see, the problem with your previous post here is that I provided video evidence of what I was claiming.
You provided video evidence around the inciting incident that kickstarts the main characters adventure. This is not the plot line but a plot point.
Video that's been available for a very long time. So far, all you've provided is a rant that reminds me of my granddaughter when she doesn't get a toy she wants. I take issue with someone that can't understand a straightforward narrative, with a whole game to base it on, trying to make claims about something else that requires more nuance than they're capable of understanding. You think you're
counting coup, with all the insults and slights. I find it hilarious, in context with the dialog. You see yourself as some kind of hero, and I see someone that's struggling to keep up with the actual conversation.
You were the one that began being derogatory so I think that accusation suits you better. Furthermore, you are guilty of cherrypicking your arguments up to this point as you have yet to address ANY of the other points I have brought up or the omission and alterations of source material in the examples I provided which where the crux of my original argument and fall in line with the OP's argument.
You are guilty of reduction ad absurdum, arguing from ignorance, cherry-picking, conflation, misrepresentation and argument from ignorance as well as a few more.
I am also still waiting for the video you said you would make.
First off, anyone that choses to save scum or play any way other than you deem appropriate does not invalidate arguments. Saying so absolutely really invalidates YOUR arguments. IE you should avoid doing that, it makes you look bad.
Oh I'm just having some fun but if you would like I could return the attacks against my character with similar sentiments.
Second, this is an incomplete product with many aspects missing in it's current state. There is a chance much of it will remain as it currently is, but that is not certain.
I listed multiple examples of things that cannot be changes in EA without rewriting the starting points, meaning that if they are not changed now they will not be magically changed by a full release. You are welcome to go back into the thread and challenge these arguments but so far everyone glosses over them and pretends not to see them because the simple truth is that the EA argument falls flat in light of them and no one wants to walk face first into a wall like that after making the claim.
