AeonsLegend

Ah yea no I've seen her spawn at the bottom area as well. I think the area where you lure her too. But I've also seen her spawn at the top with or without her constructs nearby. I've seen constructs spawn as far as next to Mark van der Beij.

I have not used Essence Interrupter and have had only a 50% drop rate on the flail. I've seen other reports on this flail sometimes not dropping. This is likely because she summons Citzals and then the flail is no longer in her inventory. Can you control where she shows up? Sometimes she's upstairs and sometimes downstairs. Sometimes the constructs are scattered all over the map and sometimes they are close by.

I've seen this as well. Don't know what triggers it really. I recall seeing something that I was able to reproduce, but I forgot what it was. There's more bugs with this bounty. Katrenn is supposed to drop the flail Endre's Flog of Obedience, but sometimes she doesn't drop it. Also: electricity damage is the way to go. Otherwise it will take a very long time to kill them if you do this bounty early. I tend to do this one early (after Neketaka) if I need her grimoire (which is the same as Llengrath's Grimoire.) but I found that collecting Magran's Favor is easier than battling her at level 11.

Try the 80s-90s JRPG video games. They're all about collecting crystals and divine beings and people wanting to destroy the world. Most often to re-create it. I think having some clearly evil person on the other side that wants to destroy everything makes for an easy way for the protagonist to have a goal. People in general want to become more than they are. In video games you can do this in many ways even beyond what is possible. Almost in every RPG video game your character becomes something more than what they started out as. And I do not mean just level 99. I don't think it's the players obsession, but more the fueling from game developers that caused this. and you know, people will always want more. So if you could become a warlord in game 1, you must become a god in game 2. This is not player logic, but sales logic.

Turn AI off and play manually.

You will gain a large amount of rep with the faction you give the tablet to. Also of note is that if you choose to talk to the other lady (the one you didn't give the epic to) afterwards you will lose a large chunk of rep. This can be prevented by simply not talking to her.

I still like how this topic says "Maia suddenly attacks me" and then the topics explains how he murdered all Rautaians including the Hazanui and then sided with their biggest rival the VTC. I mean I would consider it a bug if Maia doesn't turn on you after you kill the Hazanui or any of the other primary RDC members.

I found both the DLC far more interesting than the main story

I would be motivated if I could do something about it with regards to PoE2. In this sense I couldn't, but it wasn't just that. It's mostly the extremely poor implementation of the Eothas questline. It's almost like Fallout 4 where you have to find your son, but get sidetracked by this immense open world where you can build cities and do other things that are far more interesting than the main plot. Was I motivated to find my son in FO4? Yes for the first 10 minutes... was I motivated to do something about by castle being destroyed and me losing... wait who died again at my castle? Did the MC mourn any of them? At what point do we do something about this? I lost motivation about 10 mins in again. With PoE1 I got this soul of another person awakening inside my head. Maybe they could have done more about that, but having a different person in your head does make me want to find out what's up with that. Especially if some weirdo with a crown is turning on ancient devices that caused this to happen to me in the first place. I agree that non of the stories are particularly well implemented, but I found the Thaos story much more enthralling than Eothas. To each his/her own.

Probably not, never tested that.

Except that reaching ukaizo was only a matter of having the right ship materials... Shutting down the storm is meaningless in the end. I mean the RDC alone have already crafted a submarine to ignore the storm. So what is the watchers motivation other than Berath forcing him/her to? The fact that the castle was destroyed and an insiginificant part of the soul was taken? I mean... really? I mean the first part would be "revenge". Never saw any of that as an option in the game. The last part would mean that I needed it. But I don't so... what's my motivation again? I mean other than Berath forcing me?

The fact that Eothas has part of your soul has nothing to do with the discovery of Ukaizo. I don't think the MC needs to be even a watcher to do the things necessary for the main conclusion. Because all we do is chase after something and then enter Ukaizo. Something that anyone with the correct ship can do. After that the only real impact you have is that you can sway Eothas to be a bit more benevolent. That's it. If the watcher wasn't revived by Berath and Berath would not have revived anyone to do her bidding and just stayed passive the story would have evolved much the same. I said this many times before. The discovery of Ukaizo is only a matter of time. The Watcher only speeds it up ever so slightly. And even its discovery has no real impact because Eothas will still do what he intended to do. For all intent and purposes the watchers presence is superfluous.

Where's the revenge story then? Where's the rush after him to get your soul back? At what part of the story do we feel bad about losing our castle? I think it's mentioned once or twice as an afterthought. And as I mentioned before it doesn't "feel" like part of our soul is missing at all. In fact you are stronger than you were in PoE1 way before you meet Eothas. I'm not talking about myself going to sleep. I'm talking about the watcher. The story and world is set up in such a way that it seems the MC simply does not care about any of it. And if the MC doesn't care, then I don't care either. Simple as that.

But there is a difference, because I enjoyed the worlds in the games mentioned by Gel214th. But I did not enjoy the world in Deadfire. At all. I thought it was boring and the story flimsy.

Wait I always thought Black Isle was involved in development of BG1 and not 2... where did I get that from?

For me the disjointed island with not much to do took away from any engagement. Just sailing from point A to B basically. Most islands have 0 story or don't even have any NPC's. Some islands are just there so they can have a quest for the main story, but other than that you will never visit them again. I think it also has to do with the main story being this paper thin. Also the fact that it is open world so there's no path to follow where the story teller guides you. This is true for many open world games. At one point you have to choose between player freedom or story telling. Doing both usually ends up with either one or both being half assed.

Interestingly enough the main man from Obsidian was involved in creating BG1, but not BG2.... and BG2 was by far the better game.

VFX too overwhelming? These people must not have played games like Diablo 3

Well to be fair, it's not the sailing around per se that dampens the experience, but more the implementation of it. In the end you have to have an engaging experience and feel connected to the world for your actions to feel noteworthy. The main issue with PoE2 is that I don't get that engaging experience. Is it the way the world is set up? Maybe. But it's definitely not just that.

I agree. It's even worse that 4 of the companions are tied to factions. At least that wasn't the case with PoE1 and the factions weren't really tied to the main quest.

Good question. I don't think it's the removal of boundaries per se, but more the lack of effect of choice. If I choose to be a wizard, but can the next day pick up a greatsword and chop a guys head off without any training then why would I pick fighter and train myself? It feels like I'm not choosing really. In real life that is not the case. I'm not saying that the game needs to be lifelike. I'm saying more that the identifyable part of the aspect of choice is missing. I kind of dislike that for these types of games.

@Boeroer I understand that, it's not the issue that they end up the same, it's that in basis they can be.

There's an option in the graphics section. A slider at the bottom left that's called Frame Rate Max.

Hm, maybe. Although this depends on the campaign. Multiclassing isn't mandatory in DnD and yes you can spend the better part of your life theorycrafting multiclasses in DnD as there are so many options. But single classes are just as viable depending on the campaign and those don't really require a lot of meta knowledge overall, just knowledge of your class. But I think that's the case however you play. If you don't know anything about the abilities in Andromeda you're not going to get anything out of it either. Mixing them up or separating them between classes doesn't change that. In the light of single class characters DnD like other older RPGs (particularly JRPGs with fixed classes and class progression) they are much more distinguishable. If I feel like I ask myself the question: "but then why did I pick this class?" if in the end it didn't matter then it kind of weighs on the experience. Like others said before it, it's to do with personal preference as well. I personally like it to have a class in and of itself to be unique in progression. A rogue or rogue-like character can use particular skills to that class and cross class skills aren't as good. So I can't have a fighter that picks locks or whatever unless I sacrifice something else. In Deadfire it doesn't matter what class you pick, you can lock-pick with anyone. Perhaps this is done to feed solo players? Not sure. kind of feels like it was done on purpose so people could play this game solo. It's also why some things don't feel as balanced, because you can play this game with 1 character and with 5 without much difference in effectiveness.

I'm well aware that it is an assumption, where did I make you believe otherwise? I use the word "probably" to denote just that. You can do whatever you want with that piece of information. And my comment on SchroedsCat was not to point out that everyone in their thirties is influenced by modern media as such, but to counter the assumption that being in your thirties excludes you from that group. I thought that was obvious. Seems to me that it is not me, but you who is filling in the gaps of my meaning to form your own personal opinion. Which is fair as this is a public forum, but don't put words in my mouth.