You say "a poorly written character", but it's all poorly written. It's not just "a" character. The whole thing is legitimately terrible and cringy. It's garden-variety weed fanfiction-level writing.

I've heard this complaint quite a few times about SoD now but I don''t recall seeing any someone citing examples of what made the writing bad. What made it bad? Was it something similar to BG2: TOB? By this i mean, the cliche villains, abundance of 3 dialog "choices" which essentially boil down to "I'm a good guy/ I'm an asshole / fuck off" as well as the highly predictable narrative?

Edit: I haven't played SoD but considering what people are saying about the game, I'm very hesitant to

I haven't played the expansion either but based on Beamdog's previous games, you can probably expect juvenile writing and terrible voice acting. Also, from what I hear there are more balance issues than a see-saw. The PC gets items and abilities that make the party OP AF. Kind of like putting Superman in Gotham.

Again, I haven't played this particular game so I could be wrong.

Actually, you can.

Or on facts. (For example, knowing game X is not for me because of gameplay element Y, which happens to me something I don't want in the games I play.)

My point is you don't know it's not for you, because you haven't experienced it. You are only going on somebody else's word; hearsay. I stopped reading reviews for this very reason. I lost count of the times I bought or didn't buy a product because of review/opinion X or Y, only to find that my view turned out to be completely at odds with what others were saying. If I see a product now, I want to know only what it is, what it does, what it's about, and then I have to experience it for myself. There is absolutely no other way to *know* if I'll like it. To have an opinion based on what others are saying, written or otherwise, is not your own opinion of that product. It simply can't be.

I think it's possible to make a reasonable assumption if you'll like something based on outside information, whether that be the opinions of people you respect or the cold, hard facts about the game itself. I've been surprised plenty of times one way or the other, but it's nice shorthand for when I don't have time to check out every single thing I might be interested in.

In the case of Siege of Dragonspear though, the discussion around it has been drowned out by a loud minority in such a way that I have to experience it for myself before forming any sort of opinion, full stop. I'm going through Baldur's Gate EE right now, and the biggest criticism I can make of Beamdog's additions is that they feel weird and out of place. Like, "Star Wars: Special Edition" out of place. It's not like Baldur's Gate 1 is a paragon of RPG writing (lest the people throwing stones at Siege of Dragonspear's apparent lack of writing quality forget), but it does have a consistent style and tone that makes the new characters jarring for more reasons than just higher quality audio.