xzar_monty

Something funny about this, by the way: you get these blessings in Deadfire, which is already very easy, but not in, say, Kingmaker, which is pretty damn hard. It never rains but pours, it never shines but scorches.

I think you're absolutely right in everything you say. As for your last point: the fact that some people were very unhappy about Deadfire's aquatic setting and lack of gigantic dungeons shows that plenty of fantasy gamers are incredibly conservative. Which is kind of strange: by definition, fantasy should be able to encompass just about anything, but apparently only a very narrow selection of stuff is acceptable for some.

I have not met Jubilost, so I cannot comment on that specifically, but absolutely everything about the writing in Kingmaker is several notches below Deadfire. It may be intentional, and I have no problem with it at all, but the differences between these two titles are so obvious and so great that there's really no comparison. The quality and variety of language used, the dialogue options, the way the story is developed and everything pertaining to stuff like this is way, way more sophisticated in Deadfire. Kingmaker is all trope and cliche, it's as hackneyed as can be, whereas in Deadfire there is at least the attempt to do something a bit ambitious. And again: so far I like both titles, there seems to be nothing wrong with either, but if someone claims the writing in Kingmaker is on par with Deadfire, I seriously doubt that person's judgement. If the quality of writing in Deadfire was on the level of "Hello, my name is John, who are you?", then in comparison to that, Kingmaker would operate on a "Me Tarzan. You Jane?" level.

Absolutely. However, to have a narrative without an antagonist requires a different plot structure than the one this game chose. This narrative was very adversarial in nature, and less like a pilgrimage. Brought back from the dead to track down the person that killed you is a classic revenge story. Yes, you are quite correct in this. The story in Deadfire appears somewhat disjointed, although it has to be said that I haven't finished it yet, so maybe everything will be explained. But from the start, it appears that you have a great interest in Eothas, who in turn has essentially no interest whatsoever in you. There's a slight imbalance there. Also, once you get to talk to Eothas, things don't really get that much clearer. What happened to me after a couple of talks with Eothas was that I just lost interest in him.

An antagonist is not necessary. Ultima IV, for instance, did brilliantly well without any kind of antagonist, and its approach remains very commendable, although the game of course is outdated as heck. An antagonist tends to lead to a simple and direct narrative. It can work extremely well, of course, and sometimes does, but it's not subtle in the least. Personally, I think there are narrative problems in Deadfire, but the lack of an antagonist is not one of them. I also think it's a very good game.

Another example is the unarmed Haymaker for monks, since it gives you 2 additional Penetration points, which may be crucial in rare fights (such as a certain dragon). Otherwise, I agree completely.

Personally, I quite like the fact that you won't know and that you can make unfortunate choices. I make my choices based upon on what I would like to use, and sometimes these turn out to be far from optimal. I think it's perfectly realistic. I understand there are different approaches to these games: some people wish to optimize everything, but for me, that would remove pretty much all the fun. Besides, I can tell you from rather long CRPG experience that optimization is not needed in the least.

What's wrong with Xoti, then? I think she's a rather charming combination of naivete and strange theological beliefs. I agree she can seem foolish at times, but somehow I find that appealing: she's someone I want to keep with me if only to keep her safe. Besides, she's got decent abilities and skills. I'm interested in the way a character is written: whether the person is well-rounded or not, plausible or not, etc. (I'm not interested in having sex with an imaginary character in a computer game.) I agree that Eder seems to be a particularly well thought-out character. Sometimes it even seems that he was a clear priority: a lot of time has clearly been spent making him as credible as possible. The watershaper druid, for instance, I forget his name, felt quite flat in comparison, as did the pirate cipher. I had both of them with me for a time, but neither really made an impression. I'm not saying they were bad, but compared to Eder they felt fairly thin. Also: the way Eder comments on things makes me think that the developers pretty much took it for granted that you'd have him in your party. This is just a hunch, though. Maia is interesting because she appears quite calculating and even a bit cold, but there might be something more underneath that. Oh, by the way: I haven't played Kingmaker enough to comment on any of the NPCs yet. Sorry!

Incidentally, if you go back to PoE1 after playing Deadfire for some time, you instantly notice something significant: in-battle pathfinding in PoE1 is terrible. I would actually go so far as to argue that it's your most likely cause of death (or at least very serious trouble). Thankfully, it's so much better in Deadfire, although it's not quite perfect.

Why? This is a serious question, and I am indeed interested in what you think. The problem with flat out unqualified and unexplained "love" or "hate" statements is this: anyone can say them about anything, but they convey absolutely no information. Could you do a little bit of "I love the writing, because..." and "I hate all Deadfire companions, because..." so the rest of us can at least have some kind of idea of what you mean, please?

If it's consoles, why is the number five, then? (I'm not that familiar with consoles, I have to say.)

From a logistical / design point of view, I actually wonder what this means. I'm not saying they're wrong, of course, but on the surface it doesn't look like the claim is valid, which is precisely why I'd like to know the reasoning behind it.

It's bigger in Japan. (I have no idea what the answer is. Speaking from a narrative point of view, Kingmaker appears to have exactly none of the ambition of Deadfire, since it's all trope and cliche. Nothing wrong with that, but if you're looking for greatness in that sense, you're unlikely to get it. My sense is they're both great in their own ways.)

I understand what you're saying, but there's actually nothing wrong with "complete". Calling the bundle edition complete merely implies that it contains everything that has been made. If I was releasing this stuff and I made a bundle containing the base game plus all the DLCs, I wouldn't hesitate for a second to call that edition complete. If I was releasing a book containing all of Shakespeare's plays and poems, I would call that Complete Works, too. I agree the DLCs are side content and that they are not needed. The perception you talk about is misplaced, and to the extent it's a problem, it's only a problem for those who happen to have it.

It's three weeks, that's nothing, just wait it out.

I'd really like to know the reasoning and arguments for this kind of criticism. The end of the story I liked best, the beginning was "ouch, them god stepped on my Watcher, that's gotta hurt". Quite enjoyable the whole stuff. The round table discussions between gods that you get to witness are extremely cringeworthy, since all the participants act like teenagers who have studied early 21st century negotiation strategies in the U.S. There is positively nothing medievally (or otherwise) godlike about them at all. Given the power deities wield, they become implausible the moment they start justifying or rationalizing themselves like considerate humans. It just rings hopelessly false. I am fairly confident that this fault of the main storyline has attracted a lot of people's attention.

Given how unbelievably good Nethack 3.6.1. is, other roguelikes don't really attract me. Or at least they'll have to be very, very, very good. As soon as 3.6.1. came out, I had to win it, of course, with a tourist.

You are quite correct. The game world is both open and large, and the storyline doesn't really dictate where you must go next (also, we wouldn't like it if it did), so it is basically impossible to create suspense in the way I described for BoW. I think the basic Deadfire is pretty good as a whole, except for the main main story which seems a bit on the silly side. It's just that BoW feels so much better, probably because of tighter focus.

and DEX. every single class in BG was obliged to max DEX - esp frontliners - theres a reason bioware just thought 'fk it' and gave, like, half of their NPCs 17+ DEX in BG2. CON just had to be good enough. ur hp pools not hugely relevant with low enough AC and the right defensive spells + gear. edit: true you could just dump INT and WIS with no consequences, so ur point holds. I used to max CHA as lot just so i could buy **** without mucking about with the ring of human influence. incidentally, 3.5e/pathfinder suffers a bit from this, but with opposite classes. wizards can ignore everything except INT and do their job just fine. martial classes potentially need 13 INT for combat expertise, 13 DEX for dodge, CHA for divine grace etc. That's right, good catch - I forgot about the AC adjustment (and THAC0 bonus if you're going ranged). You could still ignore half of the stat pool, though - I never bothered with maxing CHA or using the RoHI because it doesn't take too long before you have more money than you need. Wizards were just as simple... max INT (and WIS if you intend to use wish/limited wish) and DEX, moderate CON. Come to think of it, I'm not sure of any single class that doesn't have at least 2 dump stats. There's a couple of spots where abysmally low CHA doesn't give you certain dialogue options (although this might, just, be mod content), and there's at least one spot where you can't give the right answer if your WIS+INT isn't good enough. So if you're a ridiculously strong and dexterously athletic stupid pig-ugly brute, you may suffer some. But very little, it has to be said.

Asterix is an absolute treasure. I wonder how good the English translations are. (Could be superb for all I know.)

It is good stuff. The dragon animations do help, but what I was most impressed by was the narrative teasing. It is really, really well done. Goes like this (POSSIBLE SPOILERS AHEAD!): 1) The BoW loading screen informs you that you're going to fight a dragon. Undead one, by the looks of it. 2) Upon arriving at the island, you encounter a dragon, but since it's only a "messenger" and relatively easy, you understand it's not the real thing. 3) You eventually arrive at the place depicted on the loading screen and think you're going to fight it now. After all, the arena is clearly big enough for a dragon battle. But no, the dragon gets sucked away. At this point, you realise that the loading screen actually depicts the dragon being sucked away. 4) Then, you arrive at another, even bigger arena that looks just perfect for a dragon battle. But no, the dragon dives through the ice and disappears. Further than that I have not got with the dragon, so please do not spoil the rest. But boy they've played well with the dragon so far. Tip of the hat!

Mediterranean is reality, though, Beast of Winter is pure fantasy, hopping through realms and time frames.

Very good. Thanks for that. I hadn't checked it out. I've never played Pathfinder, only DD 3.5.

Does anyone know whether the Beast of Winter DLC was written by the same people as the official Deadfire campaign? My guess is that it was not, or if it was, they had a lot more time and a lot more focus. I mean, the difference in quality is really something. Beast of Winter is so much better.

Not as far as I know.