algroth

Actually ktchong is right on this one for once. What happened to James Gunn initially was a smear campaign following his anti-Trump tweets, at the hands of Mike Cernovich in particular who was the one to first bring up these older tweets to light. His followers and the alt-right in general was very quick to get on board with the pretend outrage and make of obviously satirical tweets a more earnest or revelatory declaration so as to push the notion that Gunn and the alleged "SJW/progressive" crowd were just being hypocrites and so on, and reacted much in the same fashion towards the defense Gunn got from the opposing side. Regardless this was very much a vindictive political campaign against him, thinly veiled as moral outrage from the part of Cernovich, his supporters and the conservative crowd who quickly got on board.

The following will happen, pretty much:

I do. To use the examples you gave, Edér at the start of the game is troubled by the rumours regarding his brother and the side he chose in the Saint's War - this is a crucial element to his story that causes him to doubt his faith and what he believed to be right throughout his life and when he took part in that conflict. Woden acted as that beacon of righteousness for him, and he fully believed he'd taken arms against Waidwen, decrying him as someone usurping Eothas' name. Throughout his storyline we learn more about what Woden did, we learn he indeed took Waidwen's side, and the question becomes "why". By the end an actual answer remains elusive (as do many for many other companions in the game) - but through our reflections with Edér and through what we learn of Eothas, the Saint's War, the Hollowborn plague and so on, Edér's faith can change pretty radically, from gaining an appreciation and growing closer to the core beliefs of a faith, be it Eothasian or in general, to changing his faith to a more humanist one and so on. The change doesn't radically alter who Edér is, but by the end of the game the doubts and concerns he had about Woden are gone and his moral drive is also now up to him and not up to what Woden would have done, so to speak. Likewise, Sagani's arc is based on a conflict between on the one hand her role as a huntress fulfilling the traditions and duty for her community, and that of a mother and head of family tying her back to her home and so on - many conversations with her delve with the duality between the importance of her hunt keeping her in foreign lands for several years, and the yearning of seeing her family again and so on. Again, through your responses and "guidance" you eventually determine which side or concern is ultimately stronger for her, and it has a huge impact on what happens to her once she heads back to Naasitaq. Aloth's changes are also pretty huge throughout, be it in his relationship with Iselmyr and what it sort of represents to him, his relationship to the Leaden Key and so on. With regards to the events at the Sanitarium, to me it's not so important that the game doesn't specifically change following that event - or at least I haven't noticed any response or action on his behalf change based upon the decisions we make there. But it is important to me in the way it informs from a narrative standpoint the way that he is in later moments in the game, so that when we finally confront Thaos directly and he gets his moment to spout something back at him, even if those same words would have been said by Aloth regardless of how we played out the previous sequence, to those who would encourage him to learn a bit more from Iselmyr it'd be a satisfying moment where he's standing up and trying to assume a more authoritative stance. To me each ot the character in the original Pillars had similar situations arising from pretty clear conflicts. In Deadfire those conflicts seem often more distant, or less relevant somehow. I'm far less sure about what Edér's sidequest, or Serafen's, or Pallegina's, really said about them or in what way it ultimately affected their arc, whilst Maia's offered a vague arc and opportunity for change but remained completely unaltered by the same - if I'm not mistaken her end slides basically only reflect whether she's successful in her mission or not, and whether the RDC ends in power or not. Ultimately Xoti, Aloth and Tekehu were the only ones who seemed to show some change by the end of the game, and whose quests felt relevant to the main story and themes at play.

People don't necessarily change, but characters do. I think it's pretty crucial to see a way in which a character is affected by the decisions we've made and the things they've done through their own personal quests and they way they've interacted with the story and game in general. This is a fundamental aspect in storytelling and character design, whether or not it alligns with psychology studies on real human beings.

Back to the OP's question, on my end I feel I need to give Deadfire another go to properly answer this, as I've only played it once back in its vanilla, pre-2.0 form and not following the DLC content and the likes. As it is, I have pretty different appreciations for both: I feel Pillars is more in line with what I like to see Obsidian tackle, i.e. a more thematically heavy game that isn't afraid of opting for weirder or more oneiric approaches to a particular setting or genre. I feel a very distinct Mask of the Betrayer-esque feel to it that I feel is often quite particular of Obsidian games and which no other company really delves into, at least with the degree of success they do. Deadfire I feel isn't as evocative when it tries to get weird and also didn't quite tickle my mind to the degree Pillars did, so to speak, and as part of a greater "franchise" narrative it did feel like it was content with being more of a bridge between two beefier and more interesting episodes in the saga. But on the other hand, as a more freeform adventure filled with its own specific conflicts regarding colonialist tensions, a "Dorado" fever and so on, it was hugely immersive and enjoyable as well. I recall that at some point Pillars was described in its KS campaign to be a game with the scope of adventure of the Baldur's Gate saga, the dungeon-crawl depth of Icewind Dale and narrative and thematic ambitions of Planescape: Torment, and in some way it does resemble what a hybrid between all these three sagas would look like; Deadfire on the other hand seemed to pick one of these aspects and double down on it, and in doing so turned out to be what in my opinion is the closest a game since Baldur's Gate II has come to being its actual spiritual successor, with an insanely rich world and a seemingly endless offer of quests and side-adventures, many of them as beefy and involving as the likes of a Cult of the Eyeless or de'Arnise invasion. This one kind of experience it aims to offer, to me it executes far better than any of its predecessors, be they direct or spiritual, did, and that probably makes it into the better game - but it is all slightly bittersweet as I feel I'd rather have had the saga double down on a different aspect instead, and left this sort of straight-forward adventure sprawl to the likes of a Pathfinder or Divinity instead. So with all of this said, I right now feel Deadfire might be the better game, but I don't feel I enjoy it quite in the same ways I do Pillars, so both have room with me. Some other more minor preferences for one or the other: The visual approach to Deadfire is not just a step up in terms of graphics or being more aesthetically pleasing, it's stunning to see how much they *tell* of the setting, the factions and characters and the conflicts between them. The approach to every single faction, be it the more lavish and ostentatious Vailians, the very stripped-down and functional Rauataiians, the exotic Huana where the rudimentary present and some thriving cultural past meet and blend, all this speaks volumes of the intentions, values and attitudes of each culture without even needing to ask anyone about them, and their usual juxtaposition is vibrant but at the same time paints a picture of how tense and uncongenial their co-existence proves to be. Pillars looked lovely itself of course but the visuals were never quite this expressive or crucial to the overall storytelling, in what is a product of an audiovisual medium. Despite some wonderful maps and specific dungeons in Deadfire, I by and large preferred Pillars' approach to the same, giving greater predominance to large unique exteriors and dungeons instead of smaller bite-sized areas which often be cookie-cutter to contain otherwise 'unique' encounters. I don't believe this sort of exploration feels as organic, immersive or rewarding as a more hands-on exploration of larger areas insted. Meanwhile I will also agree with other complaints about the dungeons feeling often a little thin - even the allegedly "beefier" dungeons the likes of Drowned Barrows, Oathbound Sanctum or Splintered Reef felt somewhat shorter and less eventful than the likes of a Temple of Eothas or Dyrford Ruins. And much like I criticized Pathfinder: Kingmaker about this too, I *hate* the fact that we do not get to see the exterior to several of the dungeons present in Deadfire either (granted, however, Deadfire did at least make the effort of introducing each through their own specific scripted interactions) - to go back to visual storytelling, seeing the place you are entering can do a *lot* to enhancing its allure, be it by making it look mysterious, epic, creepy and so on. One of the more memorable dungeons in Deadfire has this precisely: the Poko Kohara ruins. The massive construction you are about to enter to find the adra pillar within is one that immediately hooks you due to its very ancient, mysterious and grand look. The aforementioned Oathbound Sanctum could have been *much* more had we managed to *see* the pyramid instead of just reading about it. Pillars did a much better job with the companions than Deadfire did, no doubt about it. Deadfire is not without its positives in this regard, but whilst somewhat interesting in theory it ultimately didn't feel like the relationship system worked to its favour at all, instead reducing each character and their reactions to a pretty strict set of quirks or traits that, in injurai's words, only served to flanderize the characters. Moreover I feel the first Pillars did a much better job at creating characters that themselves added an interesting perspective on the central conflicts, and also had pretty interesting and concise arcs through which they also experienced a transformation and so on. In comparison, a few of the companions in Deadfire felt like they added very little to the story, their arcs seemed very scant and pointless, and didn't feel like they ultimately experienced any change. Yes, I'm looking specifically at you, Maia. Stealth in Deadfire was *awesome*. Not only was it extremely fun to use, I also loved the fact that it allowed for more options to resolve quests that didn't merely involve dialogue options or straight combat. I loved the fact that in the events I *did* resolve such quests by stealthing about, the game recognized my actions too. More of this is always welcome, and it's a great part of why I consider Deadfire the first game to actually do Baldur's Gate II better than Baldur's Gate II. Pretty sure I'm forgetting other minute comparisons between the two, but these are my thoughts at the moment anyhow.

It really surprised me in finale. All factions were more or less equal in good/bad things in their politics and then Ruatai suddenly tells me: go drown one city block in blood while we bomb civilians in another. And I was "What?! Are you crazy, no sane person will agree to do this." It was like writer decided to tell me: No matter they are right about incompetent Huana leadership that hurts its own citizens more then helps. No matter they have a point about how stupid it is to mine Luminous Adra. They are bad! Militaristic countries are bad! Invasions are bad! Look how bad they truly are! With same level of subtlety. Their intentions were always colonization through conquest and it was very clear that in their eyes, the ends justified the means and Huana and Vailian lives were entirely expendable if it furthered the Rauataiian cause. This was pretty evident throughout with their actions, be it following Maia's storyline, or visiting Hasongo and looking at the dynamics between the 'colonized' Huana and Rauataiians there, and so on. Even if their core intentions or justifications may seem noble, they are invaders and a militarist company through and through, and well, they'll do as those have done across history. "To make an omelette you gotta crack a few eggs" and all that.

Hal Blaine

Billy Cobham is a god on those tubs. More Cobham goodness:

I get it somewhat, because successful films and filmmakers can create trends which one might not want to see replicated. If it were up to me for example, I like MCU as much as anyone else but I consider it to be an absolutely awful influence on blockbuster filmmaking at large given the "cinematic universe" craze we're experiencing right now, which leads to a lot of blockbusters spending their time telling origin stories or the "first part" or something greater as well as largely homogenizing their aesthetic so that it can fit or be replicated by others in other projects, as well as their particular brand of humour which I've always felt undercut much of their films' potential dramatic power if any and which seems increasingly more prevalent in other franchises and even non-franchise films. I would actually think it a positive thing for them to fall out of fashion and lead the scene to creating more stand-alone blockbusters with their own sensibility or a more earnest touch instead. And then there's groups that do so due to political reasons which, fair enough, I also want to see people like Ben Shapiro and Sargon of Akkad eat **** along with their rhetorics, so then again, I guess it's understandable the other side would think the same of anyone professing whatever they deem anathema (feminism, socialism, whatever). I reckon the people that are trying to start a boycott against Captain Marvel are those who fall on the latter camp of the matter and not so much those who simply "hate" the film as a film.

Finally finished it. The House at the Edge of Time was such a slog that it basically killed any momentum the game had going into the final portion, and by itself took about two weeks to finish because I couldn't get myself to play it for more than a half-hour a day or something. It's got to be some of the worst design I've come across in an RPG of this 'calibre' so to speak, and whilst what came after with Chapter 7 wasn't as deeply insufferable (granted, I switched to story mode by then) I could no longer keep myself invested in the proceedings, and ultimately the epilogue with the party achievements and so on rang hollow to me (there's also potential bug-related stuff involved in these where some slides are incorrect relative to your decisions in the game and so on, but I'll let that slide). Overall the game was very up-and-down. Some chapters were rich and enthralling, the likes of Season of Bloom or The Varnhold Vanishing; Sound of a Thousand Screams was, as mentioned above, utter bull**** and alone responsible for utterly derrailing my experience with the game; and the others were largely... Alright, though rather patchy here and there. There's a few set-pieces or dungeons here and there that either set up or pay off rather nicely an otherwise unremarkable and barebones story arc, the likes of the Rushlight Tournament or Armag's Tomb, whilst several aspects are left utterly unattended or rushed, proving very disappointing and detrimental to my experience. The Aldori-Surtova conflict, to which we had a pretty weighty introduction which involved speaking to all the representatives and so on, was never a real conflict in the game and seems to resolve itself almost as a throwaway addition whilst dealing with a completely different quest; meanwhile the capital and Pitax, two thriving, bustling cities which should have acted as hubs of a sort, are so utterly barren and devoid of worthwhile content it's mind-boggling. Christ, the four merchants in Pitax, who seem to be the only relevant characters in the map, don't even have a dialogue tree, that's how frustratingly barebones this city turns out to be! Instead we get superfluous arcs against hordes of trolls and barbarians, a stronghold management system that makes the best case thus far that maybe we should seriously start dialling back stronghold mechanics in RPGs, and fetch quests to the same five maps repeated ad nauseam in place of genuinely interesting side content. And what's the deal with recent isometric RPGs forgoing exterior maps for dungeon entrances? I feel the impact of several dungeons here is robbed when we have no visual aid about the place we're entering. There's some promise and charm here though. The story is quite extensive and "epic" even if it doesn't amount to much of interest beyond your usual bit of escapism (nothing wrong with that though), the characters tend to be pretty colourful in their own ways and some are especially endearing (see Nok-Nok and, well, goblins in general), and some of the dungeon design and encounters are quite creative, even if others are in dire need of a rework or at least a few passes. Right now it is somewhat like Tyranny in that there's a decent skeleton to it but it feels rushed and unfinished, there's not enough meat to flesh out everything surrounding the critical chunk and add quite the detail and richness the better games of this sort usually have.

I don't disagree with the remark myself but I would highlight different albums from both. I feel Björk's best is Vespertine, and Bowie's Blackstar and Hunky Dory. Though, Station to Station, Low and Heroes are all mighty solid as well.

With Captain Marvel at $455m worldwide on its opening weekend alone, I'm thinking one billion is definitely within reach. But yeah, it's not as if it fails or is a disappointment of any kind if it somehow does less.

I've heard this complaint a lot but I don't recall ever being bothered by it. Do you mean in combat or in general? To me Pillars has the IE games automatically beat in this regard inasmuch as you do not have the party breaking up and taking long roads all of a sudden just because two party members got clumped together at a threshold or something. That still frustrates me to no end.

An amusing easter egg: most people are talking about how Captain Marvel is being released on International Women's Day and so on, but there's another date it's paying homage to, which is the 25th anniversary to NIN's The Downward Spiral (released March 8, 1994).

You learn these things by working in the biz. It's often hard to find compromise between your vision and the player's needs, especially if you're Josh Sawyer, who doesn't seem to compromise at all. Except Josh has gone on record several times about the way he had to compromise his own personal vision and needs in favour of players' and backers' expectations with Pillars, especially when it came to adhering to the format/formula of the IE games. He's straight-up said he doesn't like class-based systems, prefers tactical turn-based combat, and so on. But then the game couldn't be marketed as a "spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate and old IE games" or whatever, because it would be completely different. This is something he had to do to even get as much backing as he did. Also, I was talking more about his "post-release" vision. Wanna see a well-managed, recent cRPG that was actually successfull, check out DOS2. INB4 "dos2 sux jamie oliver wah wah". I don't see where you're seeing his "post-release vision" differ at all from the general "pre-release vision" for the project, or of user input and common complaints either. It's not like he took the core game and overhauled it to something it never was in the first place, or that somehow went against player hopes/demands. And again, as Boeroer and myself have pointed out, the game's continued to show steady revenue well after the release, the audience reception didn't take a nosedive in the time after its release, so I'm not seeing where these accusations of the post-release support for the game screwing it up for a majority come from beyond maybe your personal experience. There's no evidence pointing to this being a thing at all, let alone a factor in Deadfire's performance.

You learn these things by working in the biz. It's often hard to find compromise between your vision and the player's needs, especially if you're Josh Sawyer, who doesn't seem to compromise at all. Except Josh has gone on record several times about the way he had to compromise his own personal vision and needs in favour of players' and backers' expectations with Pillars, especially when it came to adhering to the format/formula of the IE games. He's straight-up said he doesn't like class-based systems, prefers tactical turn-based combat, and so on.

I've seen similar lines of argument over at reddit before, but I feel the evidence doesn't support the case. The first game itself would have suffered over time sales-wise if that was the case, but to my understanding it held up in the sales department well after the first few months in release. Moreover the audience reception seems very positive across all platforms if reviews and aggregate ratings are anything to go by, be it GOG, Steam, Amazon, metacritic, etc. With regards to the completion rate the current number for the first game is at 12.6%, which may not seem like a lot but is higher than Divinity: Original Sin's which is at 8.8% (as per Steam achievements). Unless there is a disproportionate amount of dissent amidst the silent majority I feel all evidence points to reception being good, not the opposite.

I want Luis to retell the whole MCU saga up to now.

I think the MCU's been killing it lately. Spider-Man: Homecoming, Thor: Ragnarok and Avengers: Infinity War are probably the three best films in the franchise thus far, with maybe Guardians added somewhere in the mix.

I read that you can only get through the first part of the game the tutorial on Unfair by heavily kiting - not sure that is true ... I got through most of the first chapter on Hard ... but realized I was running out of healing potions lol. I think I could do the whole game on Hard, and might try Unfair, but not that interested anymore. Close to the end so going to finish it and then never look back !!! good game, lots to do, but talk about Combat - I am not sure half the abilities work like they should, or ever will ... I should warn that the difficulty spike in chapter 6 is absolutely ridiculous, and frankly not even worth the challenge of trying to go through it in hard difficulty or beyond. But thankfully the difficulty can be changed at any moment in the game, so you can always try to see up to where you get to with it.

It is a lesser known fact that dual-wielders actually wield their weapon with their teeth.

They just needed to build an aesthetic that fit Ugandan Knuckles.

All dialogue is changed to "Nemnok! Nemnok! Nemnok!" And all replies changed to "EH!".