algroth

Well, Bethesda just went full "hold my beer" on CDPR.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yyMVIzeof4A Metro Exodus: Buttkicking for Goodness

It has Interstellar written all over it, and the trailer is definitely cut to practically look like a Nolan film, but regardless it does look very good. Very much looking forward to it.

Balance Man is a helluva drug. Perfectly balanced, as all things should be. Joshanos used his Obsidian Gauntlet to nerf every class to half their original power. Perfect.

You have a peculiar experience with booze.

If you spend some time off the beaten path in the real-life Caribbean, you'll find all kinds of kriol dialects that incorporate aspects of different languages into English. Belizeans, for example, have a widely spoken dialect that incorporates words and phonologies from indigenous Miskito and west African languages. Granted, Deadfire doesn't make a real attempt at kriol, but the mishmashing of different languages is actually fairly consistent with real world colonial settings. Hawaiian-American culture is possibly a better example - they generally speak standard English but may still use native terms like "Aloha" and "Mahalo" in everyday speech. Real world examples aside, it adds flavor and helps characterize the cultural differences between the various factions and cultures in the game. The Huana's "Ekera" and "I say" seem to indicate objective emphasis (German Rhinelanders do the same thing with the word "genau"), while Valian expressions are often passionate/emotional signifiers and exclamations. It's a subtle nod to the character of each faction and is more nuanced and artful than players give it credit for, imo. It's not nuanced and artful at all, though. 99% of the time, the formula is "hyperlinked foreign exclamation! Perfectly spoken English language sentence." Non-native English speakers that are fluent in English generally don't throw in random native language words in the mix... if they do, it's because they can't think of the English word for it, so they will use the two languages interchangeably in a sentence. At least half the races in Deadfire are based on real world colonial powers (i.e. Europeans) and this is not how Europeans speak English. The questions of dialect is very strange because whilst I can agree with your criticism for example regarding the Vailian language, I feel there are real-world cases that seem to skim pretty closely to how the "language" is treated in Deadfire. I'm from Argentina for example, and using my own language and regional dialect I feel like I do many things rather similarly to the Vailians in this game - for starters the Buenos Aires accent by and large takes more from Italian and Brazilian accents than it does from the Spanish one as such, so much so that we're often labelled as "Italians who speak Spanish" (I cannot count the number of times I was mistaken for Italian whilst in my visits to Europe for example); meanwhile our "lunfardo" deliberately replaces Spanish words for Italian and Portuguese words, the likes so that "birra" is a much more common casual term for "beer" than "cerveza", or "laburo" for "work" instead of "trabajo" and so on. We say these even as most of us do not actually know how to speak Italian or Portuguese, or are aware of the origin of these terms and so on. It's sort of grown naturally into our everyday jargon, and to us it's every bit a part of our Spanish as "hola". Now, don't take my word for it necessarily as my history is a bit rusty, but to my understanding the reason for this is largely because of the influx of Italian immigrants during the 19th and early 20th century, which led to an unordinary number of Italians being essentially forced to adapt to the language of their new home and kind of changing the dialect forever in the process. I mention this because it might not be too far off from the Vailians' own situation in the Deadfire, where those who have been around for a generation or two may have adopted Aedyrian to best communicate with the other cultures across the archipelago, but who have retained a certain root from the Vailian tongue that has essentially morphed into its own Aedyrian-Vailian dialect in turn. It's interesting to note here that we do meet a few people across the Deadfire who are *not* Vailian yet have adopted the dialect as their own, whilst to the best of my awareness we never actually see two Vailians discussing with one another in *strict* Vailian either - granted, this last point could be a matter of practicality instead. But nevertheless there is a possibility that we are merely seeing a regional dialect opposite to a representation of "foreigners speaking foreign". Granted, this all doesn't mean it's artfully done or otherwise, and to some extent I would agree that there's something that is pretty jarring about the way Vailians in particular are handled here (I don't mind the "ekera" really as it seems to act more as a pet word for them and that's fine). Our "lunfardo" may incorporate foreign terms into our day to day speech but it does so in a manner that is smooth and unintrusive - the cadence of Spanish spoken by an Argentinian isn't really interrupted by the sudden inclusion of an Italian term. In comparison the whole Vailian makeover, whether by means of accent or foreign terminology, seems to often be at odds with the English language, like the same hasn't gone through a process of adaptation or transformation whereby it finds a natural flow amidst its foreign influences and accent and so on. I would say the weirdness comes because the logic seems like that of a dialect but the clash of sounds and accents makes it all feel like it's spoken by a foreigner uncomfortable in said tongue. I think the criticism is valid in the end, though I will say that I just love the whole Vailian imagination and the sound of the words themselves enough to not really mind this at all. But again, YMMV.

This post is merceritorious of a like from everyone in this forum, gellarde!

Not sure if it's been discussed here yet, but I was quite surprised about Josh mentioning a few streams back that all ship to ship encounters were "handcrafted", considering how most of them roughly play out the same, with maybe some variation regarding ship type, crew numbers and stats. Considering this I would have liked to see a few of these encounters having text or situations unique to themselves, and maybe even a twist or two regarding possible responses or challenges poised by some of these. For example, what if a captain chooses to surrender before letting his ship sink? What if a slaver ship is actually carrying slaves and thus forces you to consider the ideal course of action? What if a captain asks for parley and reveals they're innocent of whatever the "bounty" accuses them of? A bit more variation in this regard would have been nice, I feel.

Positve: they will romance you (where applicable) and react pleasantly in convos. Negative, they react as such in convos onClick. Other than that, idt so. Which is probably good since they like/dislike you/each other mostly for daft crap. I would say it's no small matter either - the system as it is right now basically defines your relationship with the companions and (allegedly) how the companions interact with one another. In a game that places so much emphasis on storytelling and worldbuilding and so on, our relationship with our party is pretty crucial regardless of whether there's any practical consequence for it, for the sheer effect and emotional response we get out of it all.

"wE hAvE tO dEsTrOy LoNdOn BeFoRe It DeStRoYs Us!1!1" I love how silly the dialogue can get in settings like that.

Woo, I can reply! I would agree. I've forgot to mention right here that a larger dialogue tree for many of our companions would be nice too - I cannot remember right now how many questions we could ask per character in the first game but it sure as hell felt like more than two or three. And despite the many interjections and bits of banter we see with our companions this time around, they never seem to flesh out a character as much as our personal conversations did with the companions throughout the first game. And whilst I recognize it would mean a lot of work at this venture, it'd be nice for each unique crewmember, of those we recruit via quests and unique interactions at least, to be fitted with their own dialogue trees, if a smaller one at that - just to set them apart as unique individuals a little more at least. But, again, I recognize that could be a bit much to ask. Oh, I wasn't really proposing these things should be given equal priority, and I reckon I would also argue that the companions should be looked at before the crew - however, considering how much time we spend out at sea and how our crew essentially acts as our party through these patches of time, I think they shouldn't be overlooked either (even if, again, in my opinion they're in a much better state than companions are in currently). I don't disagree, but I would say that the current system being bugged is a different issue to the criticism we're raising about the reputation system. Yes, the bugs lead to plenty of weird and unpredictable reactions from the companions, but I think that even if these were ironed out and everything was working as it should, the issues regarding metagaming, companions reacting more to offhand comments than to relevant decisions and courses of action, or their apparent shallowness and artificiality would all still remain as problems. Also I don't think it's exactly feasible to bring the whole character system down and rebuild it from scratch, so what I'm trying to suggest are ways in which I feel the current system could feel more natural. Yes, these traits could still exist and define a facet of these characters, but I still feel the critical decisions should hold a greater weight and to rebalance the system around these would probably help a lot more to make the companions feel more natural and their arc/progression a little smoother and so on. The gifting system was a terrible idea, I agree, and one which I feel shows just how artificial this whole system usually feels. Reward some characters a few gifts and all of a sudden you transform a character previously hostile to you into your closest companion (well, maybe never quite so drastically, but it did create some awkward pacing in a companion's relationship with your MC, and their overall development). Anyways, I agree with your overall post. She has a very strong reaction. If you have her with you while doing these things. If you leave her on the ship, she does not notice what happened. I had her with me during that quest yet recall no reaction from her whatsoever when it was all said and done. I recall waiting for her to react to or comment on how we dealt with it, thank us about it or something, but she remained quiet, and I was rather disappointed in turn. But I could be misremembering too. I would be inclined to agree with these two remarks, yes, though I liked several of the snippets throughout the game involving the crew and liked how the game remained pretty consistent on who would react in what way and so on. It did seem to characterize a few of these characters in a pretty specific manner. But I agree that they could have had a bit more content specifically tailored for them or involving them throughout the rest of the game and not merely during their introduction. Which is partly why I suggest some of the above interactions. As for other remarks stated so far, I largely agree. Here's hopes that future patches will try to expand and correct on some of these points.

Unfortunately level 42 will still sound old and lame.

So, I was hoping that I'd be able to make this thread after finishing the actual game, but the issues with my computer are worse than expected (i.e. there's always a worse scenario than the worst case scenario) and so I doubt I'll get to finish it in some time. Likewise I've only been able to skim the boards of late so if this is all already being discussed elsewhere and people feel it comes across as spam or the likes, feel free to merge it with that other thread. For the most part I hope I can add something worthwhile to the discussion regarding the two titular topics and present some possibilities that could potentially help improve the same. So, I'll go ahead and reiterate that I have not finished the game so I would appreciate spoiler tags being used when appropriate and so on, and also that my assessments below are based on what I have experienced so far of the game, which I would still say is over 100 hours or the same. With that out of the way, I'll start off with the more contentious subject based on what opinions I've read, which is the companion relationship/reputation system. Right off the bat I would say that in general I dislike relationship systems based on a reputation scale the likes we've seen in previous games like Neverwinter Nights 2 and Dragon Age: Origins, and to me this is no exception to the rule. I feel that the more transparent these systems are, the more they invite the player to play to their companions' ego and "game" their way to a max relationship, and the more unnatural and mechanical the relationships feel; Deadfire seems to exasperate this further by adding a very clear set of traits that each companion likes and dislikes, and making them respond with stock reactions to every instance where either the player or another companion acts in a way that they like (leading to many strange reactions the likes we've seen many times in other threads already). In turn I also know that if I am to respond to a certain interaction in a specific manner, the rest of the party will inevitably "like" or "dislike" that response because that's what they're very broadly and obviously programmed to do - which is odd because even if someone is "light-hearted" for example, that same person won't necessarily find every joke amusing or every situation ideal for the same. Personally I would have liked a more invisible system myself which kept track in the background of what each liked and disliked and where we'd see only the results of these opinions more so than the ticking of every instance where we say something or do something that increases a character's disposition towards us; but what's done is done and for what it's worth I think the idea of keeping track of companion-companion relationships is an interesting one which I'm glad is to some extent or other being worked on, as it would seem a good way in which to make the party feel a little more dynamic and reactive and all that jazz. But still, even if the system can't be torn down and reworked from the ground, there's a few things I reckon could improve it going further in Deadfire's development. For example, one thing I would love to see looked at is the effect that certain actions we take have on characters regardless of whether they match with their "traits" or not. For example, I am of the opinion that there's things that very likely have a deeper effect on a relationship than whether or not you are one way or abscribe to a certain philosophy. I feel that in cases like these for each character, having a reputation change unaffiliated to companion likes/dislikes would do a lot of good towards making the relationship system feel a lot more natural and less "gamey" or jumpy than it does currently. I feel the like/dislike system is fine but it should really be relegated to very minor shifts, with maybe some big swings at very determined situations when things do get very personal, in either a positive or negative sense (e.g. Serafen helping Xoti out with her nightmares, or Aloth not being able to stand Tekehu's vanity anymore). Likewise it wouldn't be an entirely bad idea to have certain "critical" situations affect a companion's disposition to the *whole* party and not just the Watcher (to use Pallegina's example above, she'd probably be appreciative towards all who helped out with her personal quest and not just the Watcher). Also something that I've noted is that at the beginning of the game, when we were first shown the relationship system via the tutorial, the tutorial section mentioned that companions could lead to forging deeper and more unique bonds and these same would be detailed through the "relationship" box right next to the reputation compass and so on… But has anyone actually seen this box get updated with new content between companions? Or even between companions and the Watcher themselves? I reckoned it was a bit early in my playthrough at first, but as the game moved on, and having reached the point I have most recently, it seems very odd that I should see no update to the same, not even to indicate the ongoing relationship between Maia and my Watcher for example. This would be worth looking into, I think, whether it is working as intended or not. Moving onto the crew now… I for one will say I really liked the crew system, a heck of a lot more than the hirelings back in the first Pillars for certain. I liked the many vignettes involving them, I liked being able to collect them all across the Deadfire almost as if I were filling out my own little Eoradex, I liked how you could get an idea to their individual personalities through many of their introductory interactions and quests and so on. I also reckon that their personalities also determine the role they'd take in the vignettes out at sea, so I liked how Eld Engrim often played the pious character, Emeini the more combative type, and so on. However, I do feel that I would like to see a few situations more appropriately tailored to either the events of the game or to individual crewmembers, which I'll expand upon next. Likewise, and this is a minor addition but and important one I feel: when we look into our journal for information on the mechanics to crewmembers, be it the way they level up on their positions or what advantage does each position and experience in the same bring, these are either not present or very scarcely explained, with all that's said about them is that they're a "motley assortment of neerdowells" and so on. I don't think it's ever mentioned that crewmembers can earn four overall stars across all ranks before they max out either, and I only learned it once I looked at the wiki or a subreddit discussion about it. A more detailed clarification within the game itself that we could access at any time would be appreciated, I think. These are some aspects which I feel could improve both systems over how they presently are, which I also feel would be feasible to do for a future patch or something. What do you guys think? Anything else you would like to add, or would disagree with, or any changes you would propose yourselves?

Actually strength is especially relevant for archers as it would allow them to wield bows with a heavier draw weight. Also rapiers are typically amidst the heavier single-handed swords, if I recall correctly. But granted, gunners are a bit more debatable.

This looks immense. I'm glad, because a Suspiria remake's been on the table for over a decade, involving filmmakers like Aronofsky and David Gordon Green... It looked like all we'd get out of it would be a typical modernized hackjob at one point... But the above hardly looks the part. It's actually deeply reminiscent of Nicolas Roeg. Really looking forward to it.

I played the Disfavoured path in my first playthrough, and was able to keep the baby alive by having the mother relinquish the baby's right to rule. But when the time came to deal with Cairn, the only option was to permanently blight the lands (I don't recall being given the option to break alliance here). Which I definitely see as a despicable act, this paired to the Disfavoured's usual lack of concern for the livelihood of their "lessers".

I think you just won this thread.

He's going to build a wall. And he's going to make the orlans pay for it. The Orlans will never pay for your ****in' wall! The Raedcerans might.

He'll be Deadfire's take on Luigi Castigliane: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZucVDrVzDpk

Can I say I hope he's neither? I haven't yet finished the game but based on my couple of encounters with Rymrgand I feel this time around he's been played a lot more overtly as an evil/cruel god, whereas I feel that in the first game he seemed a lot more downplayed at the very least in this department, if not being a god of entropy simply because it is merely what he sees as the inevitable outcome. There's a very Coaxmetal feel about him: in Coaxmetal's case he was definitely a creation of the lower realms, but the character in question isn't "evil" or rather play to a classically "evil" personality; instead he aids the Nameless One when asked to forge or improve a blade and never seems reticent about engaging with those who have visited him (additionally this makes me wonder if Rymrgand was specifically Avellone's creation too). Rymrgand gave off a very similar impression the first time around, where he seemed both "willing" to engage (rather, indifferent, but not outright antagonistic) and whose overall vision, bleak and unforgiving as it was, didn't translate into him being outwardly cruel and aggressive in turn. Not so much in this game, and that is a bit disappointing. I hope that his role is more along the lines of the first game's interpretation instead, and I hope that this godlike is somewhat similar in this regard (i.e. grim, pessimistic, but not necessarily *evil*). Mind that I wouldn't mind a character who *is* more evil, so long as it's not a moustache-twirling type of evil.

The issue there is that companions in the Baldur's Gate games aren't really all that fleshed out across the board (or at all if you look back at the first game). The more correct comparison would be Planescape: Torment in this case, and that game for example has half as many characters, yet clearly places its emphasis on depth over breadth instead. Similarly several other games that fancied themselves spiritual successors opted for less companions that were more fleshed out and reactive instead (see the Dragon Age games, Pillars, Neverwinter Nights 2, etc). The issue with your statement is that you limit your choice for this game to how another game implemented it. In my proposal all characters are fleshed out.In that case I hope you have plenty of money to throw at Obsidian and a willingness to wait at least 7-8 years for them to finish writing all their companions, because it'd be a hot mess otherwise.I like the way you think of everything as a roadblock. The topic asks what you would like to see. I post what I like to see and here come the people complaining on why it cannot be done. Lol. Classic. Explain, not complain. I don't think anyone here has anything against your proposition as an ideal - heck, I'd love it if it were possible - but have merely pointed out why it's not feasible. Resources are limited so one usually has to opt between depth or breadth. Sidekicks came around precisely as a compromise in order to offer a larger roster, yet as you see in practice, they hardly could be fleshed out to the same degree even a Baldur's Gate companion could. Sigh, if everyone in the world would limit their thinking the way you guys are doing then we wouldn't have airplanes, computers, movies and video games right now. Seriously though, you throw the lack of funds at me as if it is an undisputable fact that there is no way around. Come on. What if. What IF Obsidian all of a sudden has more funds to throw at this game. (God forbid, this is impossible I know! lol. Smh) What if then they look at the forums and see what people want? Oh they only want 1 single more companion. Let's add that. And they think they're doing us a favor, while they are in actuallity responding to a limited view of something that people want, but are afraid to express because they didn't think it was possible. Broaden your mind man. Stop living limiting yourself and ask for what you really want. It doesn't matter if the devs can't do it. Hell, 99.9999% of the people here don't actually know what is and isn't possible at any given time at Obsidian. The only people that can do so work at Obsidian and they will make their choices based on the funding and resources they have. Maybe they will sway towards more companions and not do that awesome CGI trailer that no one really cared for anyway. The devs have spoken about the work it takes to make a companion several times before, so we do have an idea, if not the full picture, about what Obsidian can and can't do, and what they're willing to do or not. Furthermore, dreaming is fine but I assure you that planes and videogames weren't made just by dreaming them: if you want to see your dream actually come to fruition in some fashion, you have to propose a more tangible means of doing it; otherwise all we're doing is the equivalent of saying "I want to be rich", or worse, you're making a demand so grand and vague that their response may well be "more sidekicks", and completely miss the mark to what you and everyone else want, if they don't ignore it altogether as a thoroughly unfeasible request. You see, I don't attack what other people want, but people feel the need to attack what I want because of an inkling of knowledge they have to say it aint possible. I'm not the one living in a dream, you are simply living in a world where everything just isn't possible. The question was what I wanted, and I gave it. You want to be limited because the devs say we can only do "this". And even though "this" might change in the future you cling to this for no reason. You're either reading some hostility that isn't there, or are using words like "attack" and "complain" a little too liberally. You proposed an idea or a wish you have for the game, we responded with our perspective on the matter. If you disagree with my own observations and replies, that's fine, I welcome you to do this - this is a discussion forum after all, that's what we do here. I would also welcome you to expand in what way you think the devs could reach the end goal you propose.

The issue there is that companions in the Baldur's Gate games aren't really all that fleshed out across the board (or at all if you look back at the first game). The more correct comparison would be Planescape: Torment in this case, and that game for example has half as many characters, yet clearly places its emphasis on depth over breadth instead. Similarly several other games that fancied themselves spiritual successors opted for less companions that were more fleshed out and reactive instead (see the Dragon Age games, Pillars, Neverwinter Nights 2, etc). The issue with your statement is that you limit your choice for this game to how another game implemented it. In my proposal all characters are fleshed out.In that case I hope you have plenty of money to throw at Obsidian and a willingness to wait at least 7-8 years for them to finish writing all their companions, because it'd be a hot mess otherwise.I like the way you think of everything as a roadblock. The topic asks what you would like to see. I post what I like to see and here come the people complaining on why it cannot be done. Lol. Classic. Explain, not complain. I don't think anyone here has anything against your proposition as an ideal - heck, I'd love it if it were possible - but have merely pointed out why it's not feasible. Resources are limited so one usually has to opt between depth or breadth. Sidekicks came around precisely as a compromise in order to offer a larger roster, yet as you see in practice, they hardly could be fleshed out to the same degree even a Baldur's Gate companion could. Sigh, if everyone in the world would limit their thinking the way you guys are doing then we wouldn't have airplanes, computers, movies and video games right now. Seriously though, you throw the lack of funds at me as if it is an undisputable fact that there is no way around. Come on. What if. What IF Obsidian all of a sudden has more funds to throw at this game. (God forbid, this is impossible I know! lol. Smh) What if then they look at the forums and see what people want? Oh they only want 1 single more companion. Let's add that. And they think they're doing us a favor, while they are in actuallity responding to a limited view of something that people want, but are afraid to express because they didn't think it was possible. Broaden your mind man. Stop living limiting yourself and ask for what you really want. It doesn't matter if the devs can't do it. Hell, 99.9999% of the people here don't actually know what is and isn't possible at any given time at Obsidian. The only people that can do so work at Obsidian and they will make their choices based on the funding and resources they have. Maybe they will sway towards more companions and not do that awesome CGI trailer that no one really cared for anyway. The devs have spoken about the work it takes to make a companion several times before, so we do have an idea, if not the full picture, about what Obsidian can and can't do, and what they're willing to do or not. Furthermore, dreaming is fine but I assure you that planes and videogames weren't made just by dreaming them: if you want to see your dream actually come to fruition in some fashion, you have to propose a more tangible means of doing it; otherwise all we're doing is the equivalent of saying "I want to be rich", or worse, you're making a demand so grand and vague that their response may well be "more sidekicks", and completely miss the mark to what you and everyone else want, if they don't ignore it altogether as a thoroughly unfeasible request.

Just a bit of a tangent here, but I fundamentally disagree with the "if it ain't broke" line when applied to art. Art that remains the same grows stagnant and predictable, things that once may seem fresh eventually grow stale if they aren't transformed or reformulated by new factors and elements. That's partly why things come and go out of fashion, why certain examples in a genre feel formulaic when they stick to the traditional template and so on. That Obsidian is willing to shift things up for a sequel is a good thing - the question is whether those changes themselves work.