CybAnt1

Sorry. Can't help but quote Fish Called Wanda here. Otto West: Apes don't read philosophy. Wanda: Yes they do, Otto. They just don't understand it. Now let me correct you on a couple of things, OK? Aristotle was not Belgian. The central message of Buddhism is not "Every man for himself." And the London Underground is not a political movement. Those are all mistakes, Otto. I looked them up. It is interesting that the Engwithan gods are similar to what the Tibetans called tulpas. Tulpa (Tibetan: སྤྲུལ་པ, Wylie: sprul-pa; Sanskrit: निर्मित nirmita[1] and निर्माण nirmāṇa;[2] "to build" or "to construct") also translated as "magical emanation",[3] "conjured thing" [4] and "phantom" [5] is a concept in mysticism of a being or object which is created through sheer spiritual or mental discipline alone. It is defined in Indian Buddhist texts as any unreal, illusory or mind created apparition. According to Alexandra David-Néel, tulpas are "magic formations generated by a powerful concentration of thought." It is a materialized thought that has taken physical form and is usually regarded as synonymous to a thoughtform.[6] It does seem to me that Wael seems more Eastern than Western; as a deity, he's more a mix of Zen & Taoism than like a typical western pantheonic deity.

I really loved DAO. I had my quibbles. Race and class choice really felt cramped and limited. "3 & 3". It was interesting to choose an "origin" (background) and then get 6 different initial scenarios, admittedly. Although each was basically "6 different ways to meet your Duncan". But everything else was great. I was shocked by DA2. Almost everything I loved about DAO was gone. What was this f**king "wheel thing"? No longer could I pick what my PC was about to say by actually picking it, I had to "guess" what would result from an emoticon & a paraphrase. The combat was a lot of crap. What Bio genius thought the best way to make fights interesting was to shower bandits on you from rooftops like rain? Even in dungeons they kept falling from the roof tiles. Some of the initial marketing for DAI led me to believe they realized what went wrong with DA2 and DAI would be a return to their roots. **** me if that wasn't a giant lie, the giant neon sign being "made for PC gamers by PC gamers". DAI completed the DA2 process of hosing everything fun & interesting about DAO: no more mods, they made it **** on PC, no Mac/Linux version, less AI & customization for companions, they even removed the freaking cheat console (which was obligatory IMHO for "fixing"/"customizing" certain flaws in the other games, especially in DA2 which had less mod support.) *sigh* I bought the lie. I've been reading about what PoE was going to be like -- and here's the thing. They delivered. Sure I still have quibbles. I mentioned them in other threads. But all I can say is unlike Bio, I didn't feel any dramatic bait and switch. Granted, I was never a KS/backer. I'm just somebody who read about this project, and decided I would get it on release, and did.

Personally, I would say it's not good ... it's great. Do I have quibbles? Yah. Seems to me, some of these things could use improvement. 1. Party AI. As in, there is none. 2. Melee char classes need more activated abilities. The game gives the casters 40 spells, and the melee chars like 2-3 active abilities (at 12th level). Feh. They should be able to do stuff, other than just the passives & modals. 3. Items. There seems to be a weird shortage of (wearable) items that are not body/chest armor, weapons, or shields. You can't seem to find or buy many. Kind of disappointing. Would be cool if Enchanting let you add more of the properties you sometimes find on named, or even occasionally non-named, items. 4. It would be nice to have a bit more companion interaction. Not asking for romances. But there really were not very many opportunities to, ya know, dialogue with the NPCs. Ehh. Who knows. Some of these things may get fixed in patches, or mods, or the expansion. None of them were more than ... annoyances. Overall, it's a great game. One I waited for with anticipation, and for once, did NOT experience disappointment (unlike DAI). In part, because it really was a game made by PC gamers (backers) for PC gamers.

Basically, in your previous incarnation, you weren't ready to take the red-pill and leave the Matrix (of god-reality). But now you are, although you have the option, like Neo, of re-insertion. (Keep Woedica fueled, keep Thaos alive, keep the illusion going.)

As to the question whether society needs religion for morality, ethical philosophers beginning with Kant have started to suggest "not necessarily". Ethical humanism has been a thing since the Renaissance and Enlightenment. There are people who make Thaos' argument today ... well, religion might not be wholly true, but it gives people morality. However, I question whether it's a necessary component - increasingly for societies who seek ethics through reason. That said, that's OUR world. I admit, perhaps on Eora, which is qualitatively different in terms of technology, society, and being full of monsters magic & mayhem, Thaos' point of the necessity for the Engwithan gods makes sense, because one of his arguments was in their absence, people previously worshipped things which were probably less real but more savage. All of the Engwithan gods seem to embody higher, abstract principles and an ethos instead of just being "the nymph of the lake" which mirrors the evolution of religion on our world, from animism toward small-pantheon polytheism/henotheism. Priests definitely DO get some benefit from their gods: spells and powers. The rest of the worshippers, well, that's debatable. Again, the key point seems to be people feel the gods control the fate of their souls, but it seems in the absence of Engwithan machines feeding them their souls, that isn't true. Instead, something like Hindu/Buddhist "karma" seems to drive how/when/as whom you reincarnate from the Wheel. The point I was trying to make earlier, if clumsily stated, is it is your former relationship/role with Thaos that seems to be having you reincarnate and re-encounter him.

... I agree that is a choice, perhaps I really should have said the tension in your soul is over your former role in Thaos' Inquisition ... but yes, the endgame does give you the choice to re-embrace your destiny again, and do his bidding. ... I must admit it's hard for me given the weakness, rationally, of his argument for the need for belief in the Engwithan gods, not even so much the horrors he was willing to work to maintain that belief. But then [Rational] is not the only way characters in Eora evaluate things, nor [benevolent]. and this is where I remember the separation between player and character.

Well, I agree with your point, that in general, RPGs don't need fully voiced PCs, although maybe that's not what you're saying. Even the IE games had voiced NPCs, the only issue is the voiced PC. The choice to voice the PC is what led to the dialogue wheel, and no, I don't like it. I want to be able to select what I'm saying based on, well, reading what I'm about to say. All of it. Not choose it based on a colored emoticon & a "paraphrase". BTW, I'm not the least bothered by reading text while hearing someone else speak it aloud, but at the end of the day, this is an argument over taste; we could argue about vanilla vs. chocolate ice cream; all I can say is that doesn't bother me in Deus Ex, or in this game.

You know, for a long time, certain folk and certain developers have made a big deal of a voiced protagonist, and how this is key to immersion. But I've found READING deep dialogue and description sure seems to beat the limitations of letting current computer-generated graphical worlds "describe" themselves and boy oh boy is it once again cool to see dialogue choices modulated by stats, reputation, and other choices, and to be able to pick dialogue choices on the basis of thinking about proper words, not emoticons and staccato phrases (which often lead to unrelated voiced statements). That, plus tactical combat you really get the chance to think about, not just react with twitching and button mashing. That resolves itself based on how you design, develop, and equip your character. Not on how fast you twitch your joystick. I don't think either of those things are "dated" as people claim; they are as appropriate for a (RPG) game in 2015 as they were in 2001.

While there are many things I love about this game, the lack of party AI is a bit frustrating. Mainly because while I do love ordering everybody around with micromanagement on the interesting fights, sometimes I'd like some autopilot for the trash mobs. They won't even defend themselves when attacked. Unless you tell them to. Yes, I know, they will all attack if you simply "select party" and "click on enemy". It's how I dealt with most trash-mobs. But otherwise, won't act independently, if you don't order them to do stuff individually. Certainly won't use any spells or special abilities. It would be cool to set tactics for your party members that they will act on independent of player orders/commands; of course, player orders should supersede their tactics if given. At a minimum, it would be nice to set each NPC's AI to either "aggressive" (attack everything in sight) or "defensive" (retaliate when attacked), although of course it would be nicer to have more options than those two. This was something that was in the first 2 DA games, although seems to have mostly been cut from the third.

The one thing I find a bit ... off... about the game's class system, is that spell casters have a lot of spells, but the melee classes don't have a lot of talents or abilities. There's no "hybridism" meaning rangers don't get a limited selection of druid spells, paladins a limited selection of priest spells, etc., and that makes sense. That was a D & D mechanic which was dump-able. However, I sorta expected each class to have more active abilities. They certainly have some passives which improve what they do in melee, and some modals which are usually "improve this at the sake of that," but not many powers they can activate. I mean, by level 12, my ranger could mark a target for death, and do a wounding shot. That's about it. Where were all the other trick shots? I wanted a Hawkeye that had all kinds of special shots with special effects. Bouncing shots, stunning shots, splitting shots, fiery arrows. And my animal companion to have more than 2 abilities. Same thing with the paladin. Lay on hands, a couple modal auras, a few blessings, oh and set their weapon on fire. It just seems a bit weird. By level 12, most of my spell casters had a choice of about 40 or so spells, I think. But by level 12, most melee characters had a choice of about 2 activated abilities. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not so desirous of button bloat that the melee chars. should have 40 active abilities, but 8-10 or so would have been cool.

Dunno. It seems to me, as others have said, that the Stronghold isn't really well integrated with the rest of the game. Makes sense, as it appears to have been a later addition (as a feature) or "stretch goal". All you get for any of your efforts (AFAICT) in the epilogue is a slide about the Stronghold itself and the resolution of the Master Below. But there's no way that its end state (prestige/security or level of restoration/buildings) seems to matter in how any thing else comes to an outcome. Which is too bad. It should be more "consequential". You can get bounty missions from it, from time to time it seems (kinda randomly) to be invaded, pesky drunken lords suddenly show up ... but all as kind of side fluff.

I think it's interesting that there hasn't been a D & D based game for a long time -- almost nothing based on 4E rules, other than the Neverwinter MMO. Now suddenly there's an announcement of Sword Coast Legends, which will use 5E ... (which AFAICT is a response to some of the problems in 4E). I personally think they absolutely did the right thing in moving to their own system. The main problem with D & D based games is the ruleset was originally designed for tabletop, and there are some reasons a computer-based game can move beyond a tabletop system. Tabletop is based on your ability to randomize based on the 5 Platonic solids (dice), but computers don't have to be shackled to that. More importantly, they can world-build their own fantasy world that isn't based on Faerun. And that may be more important. From a practical point of view, of course, it also saves licensing fees on having to constantly license outside IP. No WotC constantly telling them "you can't do that" or "you have to use Elminster!"

The interesting thing that I find a bit odd about the class system is this ... Spellcasters (druids, mages, ciphers, priests) have a lot of spells to casts. But non-spellcasters, including the paladin, do not have a lot of active abilities. What I find strange is that most of their abilities are passives. They have a lot of passives and some modals that make them better than combat. Which makes sense, but ... I really thought paladins could "do" more ... oh, I dunno ... dispel magic, put up protective spheres, cast exorcism, something. I also was disappointed by the ranger. Why not more "active" abilities to fire special kinds of shots?

I like most aspects of the game. It really does feel to me like "wow, someone is once again making actual RPGs" (instead of faux-action-RPG imitations). After hearing so many people say having a voiced protagonist is so vital, I found I didn't miss that aspect *at all*. But boy was it really nice to read rich descriptive text, and have meaningful dialogue menus again. If I had any quibbles, it would be... The other 5 party members should have some limited AI. It really bothers me that they won't even defend themselves if attacked. I also found it quite odd that the ranger's companion pet and summons don't even really do anything on their own most of the time until ordered to attack. The ranger pet usually engaged whatever Sagani was firing at ... but with some inconsistency. You should, at a minimum, have an "aggressive/defensive" AI setting (aggressive = seek out and attack enemies, defensive = only defend when attacked). I wish the chanter had some quicker way to start using invocations than wait for the 3 chant phrases to finish. I wish there was some other limiting mechanism for the invocations. There seems to be a strange paucity of items that are not weapons or chest armor. Never found many rings, gloves, helms, belts, unique or otherwise ... oh and why would necklaces and cloaks use the same slot? Doesn't make sense. Enchanting system was interesting, but why no enchanting of anything besides weapons, chest armor, shields? There could have been a little bit more PC-to-companion interaction. (No, not romance. But more meaningful interaction.)

I definitely saw the Buddhist vibe. People believe the gods control the fate of your soul, but reincarnation seems to basically be driven by ... karma. AFAICT, it's your own search for redemption from whatever you did in your past life as a religious zealot that drives the plot. (I find it interesting you worked for ... an Inquisition, and Dragon Age Inquisition seems to have a similar reveal of elven gods who are also-not-really-gods-but-something-else.) I kept wondering what Iovara meant by the gods not being real. Heck, they grant spells and abilities to their priests. You communicate with them. If you're a priest, your relationship to their ethos affects your powers. However, I thought it was really interesting that in that chamber where you communicate with them, they seem to be ... constellations of stars. But then you realize they really are a) not the creators of the world of Eora and b) created themselves by the Engwithans. They would seem to be what Tibetan Buddhists call tulpas, or thought forms. And much like Buddhists feel about the Hindu gods, they are actually helpless in determining what happens to your soul after death. The Engwithan machines make it seem that way, but they are essentially used to fool people into believing the gods can control what happens to your soul. I got the impression they can FEED on souls to increase/restore their power ... basically soul vampirism ... that's what you're choosing if you give the souls to Woedica. The powers of all the various spell casters in the game show what is the power of one soul ... what the Engwithan gods seem like to me is the power you'd have of a being that feasted on and joined the powers of thousands of souls. But maybe still not what people would think of as a 'god'.