Jump to content

Amaror

Members
  • Content Count

    11
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Amaror

  1. Good work guys.  As opposed to Obsidian feeling like a bunch of us are cheating by obtaining the codes in this manner I'd like to think they're happy that we're enthusiastic enough about the game's upcoming release to partake in the hunt at all.   :yes:

     

    Edit: Just saw in a recent update that they even shout out and link to this thread.  Love it.

    These kinds of promotions happen often and they ALWAYS end up being solved in a community effort in the forums. My guess is that  after we find all codes, they will wait a few days and will then give the dlcs to everyone for free. This solves the gog issue and pissing off potential customers by telling them that they can't get something because they didn't pay attention to the game early enough, wouldn't help anyone.

    • Like 1
  2.  

     

    As far as I know the Witcher series has two gay characters. In Witcher 2 a wizard betrays the good guys. He's subsequently show with a half-naked male slave, squeezing his pimples. The designers explicitly said they intended to make him as despicable as possible. His sexuality serves to make him even more disgusting to the presumed straight player, much in the same way bishonen and sissy villains were meant to do for decades. The wizard is killed but he can also be castrated for good measure. It is indeed one the most homophobic games of the last years.

     

    In Witcher 3 Geralt can find a hunter in the wilderness. He is described as freak. If the player inquires the hunter will explain that he fell in love with the son of the local lord. Said lord caught them and the son killed himself. The lord became an alcoholic, his estate fell into ruin. And the hunter now lives in the wilderness alone because he is a social outcast. This is by no means a positive representation.

     

    Ciri is an entirely different matter. While this was not the case 20 or 30 years ago, the current ideal of heterosexual masculinity dictates that straight men must think lesbians are hot. The reactions towards lesbian characters in games is nowhere anywhere near as negative as those toward gay characters.

     

    When it is the only instance of a gay or bisexual male character in the entire game then looking at the scene in that light is completely justified. 

    Obviously there is nothing wrong with having gay, bisexual or effeminate villains, but when they also happen to be the only male character who isn't straight then obviously that has really negative implications.

     

    I get the feeling that if there was a game where the cast was almost all powerful female characters and the one male character was an evil, bumbling idiot you would be the first to point to his gender and call the game a shameless agenda-driven piece of work.

    I can see why you would consider that Witcher 2 scene problematic. I don't agree with the interpretation that its makes some kind of message about gay characters. But I can see how you could interpret it that way. 

    I strongly disagree about the story with the hunter in the Witcher 3, though. While it is true that that story doesn't end well for anyone, it is made abundantly clear that the cause of all the misery was the homophobia of the Lord and not the homosexuality of the hunter and the lords son. Everything was pretty happy with the hunter and the lord's son together, until the lord freaked out about his sons sexuality, then his son killed himself, the hunter got banished and the lord becomes a drunk. 

    The causality of that story has a clear moral message and it is not "Though shall not lay with men".

    • Like 2
  3.  I saw games getting ruined because of "romance" - if you think that romance is just sex...- and I saw games getting better because of it. I never played The Witcher 3 because everything that I hear from that game is, "which bitch shall I bang?" and that is it... Dragon Age Inquisition is just an awfull game that didn't know how to handle romance right, with the exception of Harding, every single romance feel rushed, it feels like they want to give sex to the main character as soon as possible... talking about sex... Mass Effect is just a sex simulator now, the trailers are out and people are preoccupied with the appearence of the team, one of the comments from the trailers: 'There was a Bioware dev. meeting with fans two years before, in that meeting one SJW girl stood up and asked the developers to make the female characters literally ugly and 'thick'. Seems like Bioware took it to the heart."  when your game community attracts people with this type of thoughts... that is when you know you destroyed your game...

     

    BUT, you have some games with great romance options, like Dragon Age Origins, I don't know about you guys but for me all of the romances in that game felt natural and, the most important, felt right towards the character personality.

     

    TL;DR: It's important that the romance don't get in the way, that the best thing about the game is the combat, the lore or the story and not if you can bang someone or not... oh... by the way, Xoti is not beautiful to you? Why? Well... maybe it's because your culture is different. The culture of your country really dictates what you like and don't like.

    Don't listen to the Witcher 3 stuff. The game is fantastic, easily the best modern rpg. I can't really fathom why some people would talk about banging girls in the game, there's really not much in it. There's just two romance options. I think there's one or two one-offs you can have in side-quests but I can't really remember all too well. It's a 100+ hour game so it's definetly not a focuss in the game by any stretch. The only reason why I can imagine some people having that conversation is because they didn't actually play the game and are still hung up on the cards from Witcher 1.

    • Like 1
  4. They should have just made it a community effort. 

    As long as the community collectively finds all codes - all people get it. 

    That way they wouldn't have any problem with gog as it would just be a patch that everyone gets.

    It's basically allready a community effort if a person gives enough of a f*** to google "obsidian forum scavenger hunt" and that's always what happens when these events happen. 

    • Like 3
  5.  

    I really don't get the reason behind releasing these small chunks of some mid-game content over the next half a year instead of releasing one aggregated expansion at the end of it. What is this release schedule trying to achieve?

    • Do they expect people to replay the whole game every time an additional island is added? Is this then meant to keep people playing almost exactly the same content over and over again for months, because I really don't see that happening, no matter how good the game is.
    • If "forcing" multiple replays is not the purpose, then is this rapid schedule supposed to provide people with additional content while they play? In that case, are there really so many people, that take more than half a year to finish a game (I'd imagine, one would already have forgotten half of the plot details after that long) to warrant basing DLC schedules and size on them?

    I just don't get it and it makes me worried. I hope, that these DLCs will together form a coherent addition with depth greater than its individual parts, but it does not seem like they will.

     

    I like longer expansions.  Frequently they actually provide a better game than the base game because devs understand the tools better, and they are cause to improve the base game.  However, business wise they seem to be an artifact of the past.  Devs repeatedly say it would just be better to release a sequel than a long expansion.  This isn't just Obsidian; HBS saw a lot more sales when they released Dragonfall standalone. 

     

    I don't really think so. Both Witcher 3 Expansions did fantastically. 

    White March didn't do very well, but it also had barely any marketing. I pay attention a lot to games news exspecially concerned with Rpgs and I only noticed its release when it suddenly popped up on steam one day. 

    It also was a big shot in the foot to split the dlc into two parts. Not many people want to get back into such a big, complex, story-heavy dlc when they know they will have to stop half way through and wait for the second part. That stuff is just bearable in telltale style games with 1-2 hour episodes max, which can be summed up in half a minute of flash back. It doesn't really work for a big rpg expansion.

    • Like 1
  6.  

    Not a fan of this. 2 months per dlc sounds really really fast. Like these are not going to be substantial at all. Add to that that one of them will be combat focused, not really something I want in a deep, story-focused rpg, I am not all that excited for them. 

    I also don't believe that the sales of White March had anything to do with it's length. It's way more likely that the split into two parts was responsible. What a terrible idea. Who wants to get back into a deep, story-focused rpg, knowing that he will have to stop for a couple months halfway through. And by the time the second part came out there was barely any promotion for it. I barely noticed it and I pay a lot of attention to games, exspecially to rpgs. But there was barely anything. I only noticed it when the email came that it was out now, which I only got because I allready owned it.

    I find it weird that developers always want to blame the concepts behind their products. The low sales HAVE to be because it was a larger expansion. It couldn't be because they did a terrible job at marketing and releasing the large expansion. Just like how single-player games are dead. Ignore all the successfull and beloved single-player games. It has to be a general problem and can't just be that we didn't do it well. 

    Sorry that got kindof rant-y.

     

    If there's 3 expansion, having one more combat-focused isn't such a bad idea to me. After all, the combat is what makes this game for so many people.

     

    We'll have to see if it's extensive enough to really stay interesting. I agree that an expansion that only covers one or two zones does seem a little forgettable

     

    What People. I haven't seen many people praise the combat in Pillars. People praise the athmosphere and the story, not really the combat. Divinity Original Sin 1 and 2 are RPGs that people like and praise for their combat. Pillars not so much.

    • Like 1
  7. Not a fan of this. 2 months per dlc sounds really really fast. Like these are not going to be substantial at all. Add to that that one of them will be combat focused, not really something I want in a deep, story-focused rpg, I am not all that excited for them. 

    I also don't believe that the sales of White March had anything to do with it's length. It's way more likely that the split into two parts was responsible. What a terrible idea. Who wants to get back into a deep, story-focused rpg, knowing that he will have to stop for a couple months halfway through. And by the time the second part came out there was barely any promotion for it. I barely noticed it and I pay a lot of attention to games, exspecially to rpgs. But there was barely anything. I only noticed it when the email came that it was out now, which I only got because I allready owned it.

    I find it weird that developers always want to blame the concepts behind their products. The low sales HAVE to be because it was a larger expansion. It couldn't be because they did a terrible job at marketing and releasing the large expansion. Just like how single-player games are dead. Ignore all the successfull and beloved single-player games. It has to be a general problem and can't just be that we didn't do it well. 

    Sorry that got kindof rant-y.

  8. I swear it was something related to backers, not just forum posters. I thought there was a map. Germany owned it. Sorry. I tried searching for it, but failed because it's 2am and I only have a seven-pack left and the game unlocks in seven hours at which time they'll all be gone and I'll have to go the store with no sleep but I can't because the game will be on.  

     

    I don't know why people are surprised by this. Pillars of Eternity is a pc-game after all and Germany is pretty much the PC-Stronghold in the world, with a lot more pcgamers than console gamers.

  9. Why do you think you deserve all this extra free stuff you weren't promised? You want an early copy for literally no reason. You weren't promised it, you weren't told you'd get it, you have no reason to expect to get an early play copy for this game than for literally any other game you buy.

     

    As a kickstarter backer there were a very specific list of rewards offered. I backed, too; at no point did I assume I'd get ANYTHING other than what I was told I would receive for my donation. I assumed it would be a normal and typical game release with the addition of all this extra stuff that they promised us. What your feeling is a sense of entitlement, not something based on any form of logic or reason. You are demanding that they give us extra things--early game release--that wasn't promised just because you think you deserve it.

     

    It's tiring.

     

     

    What extra stuff? Noone's asking for extra stuff. What we aks for is that we get al least the same service as people that didn't back the project and made it possible in the first place.

    People who bough through steam are able to preload the game right now while backers still can't do it. 

    That's not a life altering calamity, but it's still something that people have a right to be upset about. It's unfair and disresprectfull. 

    And just because preloading isn't a big deal to you doesn't mean that it isn't a big deal for other people. Not everyone has perfect internet and a lot of people just expect to not be punished for making the game possible in the first place.

×
×
  • Create New...