algroth

I'd say the time it takes to write, to model and make art for, and to code all of that dialogue into the game is bound to take plenty of time in and of itself, but more so when you add variables like the relationship/reputation system into the mix, the full voice-over, any potential unique kits and abilities they may possess (see Tekehu for example) and so on. Keep in mind that Planescape: Torment had the same amount of companions as Deadfire too.

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.

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).

I haven't finished the game yet, but of all returning characters from the first game I was sure Uariki would make an appearance, yet so far she hasn't.

I voted for Mirke, because we can never have too much Mirke. But, in all seriousness, Ydwin's the very obvious choice for me. To me she's basically Deadfire's Oom - and same as Oom provided a lot of much-needed connective tissue between several elements of Tides of Numenera's setting and story once he was finally reinstated into the game, Ydwin likewise could prove a great chance to expand on the main story by exploring more aspects about the Wheel, the gods' role in the rebirth cycle, souls and so on. The fact that her "hook" is so closely related to the main story and what is happening with Eothas and so on, immediately makes her the best candidate for expanding. I still haven't run across Rekke so I cannot comment on him specifically (I still don't have my computer back), but yeah.

Have you been looking at your enemies' armour rating and defenses, and likewise your accuracy and penetration? If, like me, you've selected the game to "only scale up", you'll be missing the difficulty indicators, and so what I'd suggest is to look directly at their defense stats and determine there whether you should be facing them or not. Also I strongly advise you to keep track of your penetration, it's pretty different to the first game and it's *crucial* for doing damage. If you need more penetration, keep in mind that each level in weapon quality adds a penetration point, and several weapon proficiency modals add pen too.

I don't know why they misspell it. How hard is it to spell Boyrerer? It's Börör, fool!

Randomize companion traits! Serafen now has BIG HANDS! Konstanten likes animals! Edér's a narcissistic fish! Xoti's drunk and Pallegina can't stop speaking about Gaun!

Y'know, with how many people misspell his name already, it feels like his name has already been randomized.

I think what they meant was gamers want a cinematic or literary tale which also affords the conceits of gameplay, which, unless you make something like Uncharted or the Last of Us, is not possible in all formats, because player agency and experimentation and nonlinearity is involved. Something has to give. If , for example, the Witcher was really on a dire quest to save the one person in his life he truly unconditionally loved, he wouldn't stop every two seconds for every peasant who needed help. It's not possible because of a number of factors: Player agency/non linearity/lore as you said. Funding - this is not a Triple-A company and if you ask some, they are barely holding on financially. It seems to be one of those smaller devs that are being supported by the crowd and able to keep going because of it, not some faceless money beast that is just cutting corners for the sake of it. Time - they already had to sacrifice balancing the gameplay of the game and higher difficulties for bugfixing as they stated, having to do those post release instead. Level scaling straight up didn't work on release, there were plenty of bugs and performance issues on release still and a whole host of other problems. Where are they going to get the extra time and again funding, to increase the quality of the story in a game more than it already is - when there's so many other factors to consider? (that are arguably more important to the medium.) The fact that it is a game after all, as touched on - You may want to have the best of everything, but it's just not realistic. Some things are more important and more central than others in every medium and arguably the systems, mechanics, performance, bugs, balance, depth, length are all more important and then there's things like variety, audio, visual and other things that all need to be considered and worked on to end up at an above average level. Wanting to push the one aspect you happen to value higher than others, personally, is again just not a realistic expectation to have. I personally prefer combat depth and challenge and would rather that be expanded upon, but i get there are other needs. Etc. With the above in mind, it's a careful balancing act - where you can't just pump one thing, one aspect to suit individual needs. But rather shoot for a product that is great in all areas, rather than multiple areas suffering to make one amazing. So we get a "good" story, with good combat, good graphics, good audio, good exploration, good sized world that is also open etc etc. P.S I get it - the casual crowd just wants, again, an interactive novel. Well i'm sorry but there's more to a game than that, thank god. There are again other mediums that do specialize in that though. You can't have everything and if you ask me, the gaming industry and anything for-profit caters to you enough already. This is some nonsense and then some. Firstly, they did not 'sacrifice' balancing the gameplay, as they are fully committed to doing it and are currently doing as much - they merely gave relevance to things that they considered either more priorital or more essential for the game's end ambition first, that would either provide a worse player experience or would require far deeper and more fundamental changes to the game instead - things like, for example, game-breaking bugs, overall aesthetic, narrative design and so on. The choice to leave balancing for after release was done understanding exactly what kind of game they're making and what the game needs. Secondly, you assume "other factors are arguably more important for the medium". No. There are aspects that ought to be present, but whether one is more important to a game than another depends on each individual example. The Wolf Among Us isn't relying on the same qualities as League of Legends is, nor is it a worse game for it. With Deadfire and several other Obsidian games, the primary focus *is* a narrative one - they're making a spiritual successor to the Black Isle games, who all placed their narrative at the forefront and excelled at it. Story is of *utmost* importance, whether you look at the game as a product you're targetting to an audience or as an artistic endeavour. If Deadfire's story fails, then to the majority of its *core audience* the game will fail, and this is not something that can easily be corrected post-launch. As for the "casual crowds just want an interactive novel", **** that ****. Do you also argue that people who listen to songs just want sung poetry? Do you assume people who are into films with dialogue just want recorded theatre? Bollocks. And this utterly asinine stance wouldn't bother me so much if I hadn't heard it so many times before in this medium - as if this game didn't employ its every other aspect around the dialogue to tell a story as well. When you entered Fort Deadlight did you have to pick the option of "sneak", "fight", "bluff", or did you not simply do it? You assume your choices of action in the world itself outside dialogue do not tell a story? Audiovisual narrative is also a thing, or do you assume a film's narrative is only told through dialogue? Just so you know, videogames are an audiovisual medium too and thus employ many of the same devices. Who would have thought? If you feel a game with a narrative focus is too "casual" for you, maybe I can recommend trying another game? One like CS:GO or DotA perhaps, which actually focus around competitive play (and which I, filthy casual that I am, have also played at different stages in my life, but that's an aside)? You would do best there than to stick around a forum for a casual game full of filthy casuals.

Lol @ the assumption that a great story or themes and ideas should be exclusive to film and literature. Far as I'm concerned games of a narrative kind should most definitely aim for these goals just as much as they should good gameplay. Better yet, they ought to think more regularly about how to integrate the two and use the interactivity offered by the medium as a narrative tool and means of expression. That's what I seek in the videogames I play, at least, and why I value videogames as an artform independent of literature, cinema or any other. But hey, maybe I'm just a lazy casual.

Alternatively "Not a name I'd choose, but hey, what do I know? The gods only gave me BIG HANDS after all!"

Weirdly enough I don't think I ever minded loading screens. I feel both Pillars have generally been faster than the IE games were back on my Compaq Pavilion, but even back then I didn't really mind the wait. But that's me, really. On my side Deadfire has been about the same as Pillars on this front, haven't noticed an improvement or a deterioration. However, I will say that I've noticed plenty of freezing and stuttering during the ship-to-ship combats.

Tyranny is *much* more focused on the setting, the story, and the characters than it is on the combat. It's not inferior; it just has different focuses. For what it's worth I love the hell out of Tyranny. Hmm, I don't necessarily agree. I think there's a lot of combat and encounter-heavy areas all throughout Tyranny, and I'd say that I would have often preferred a more diplomatic or different approach to some encounters than to merely brawl with them. But it's a weird game as I feel the parts of it that are more dialogue-heavy feel denser in that very fashion than even the first Pillars, even as they offer the aiding hovers that we also see in Deadfire. All the same it's a very good game, I also recommend it.

You're nuts, exactly those (and Edér) are the best characters in the first game.

I would maybe like to see one step taken before one pushes things too far in the other direction. I would maybe like to see patch 1.1 focus more on tweaking the enemies and encounters first, and then look into rebalancing classes and builds for the next patch, instead of doing everything at once. Because, and obviously this is a personal point that I don't necessarily think everyone will agree with, to me I feel that the feeling of personal power is enjoyable and likewise an overtuned challenge can lead to a potentially more frustrating and unenjoyable experience than one that is on the easy side. To feel that everything is a challenge because you're too weak is not as rewarding as feeling everything's a challenge because the enemy is exceptionally strong.

Serafen is head and shoulders above the rest for me, pretty much, though in my time playing the game I've slowly warmed up a bit more to the rest. Aloth I feel is also probably the most rewarding/satisfying of the three returning companions. Edér's fine but... So far at least he doesn't seem like there's much meat to his story, and I don't find his interjections as effective as they were in the first game. Pallegina... I feel I've seen too little of her this time around but she also feels like a very different character - upon first meeting her in Queen's Berth I felt that the game had imported the wrong state for her, and some of the things she says and does seem similarly jarring even as Josh says it's all working as intended. I feel like I haven't spent enough time with her this game though. For my least favorite I went with Ydwin. I don't necessarily dislike her but I feel that while her initial premise is interesting, there's just nothing to her following it. For all the hubbub about her during development, making her Ashley Johnson's main role and whatnot, it's disappointing to see nothing to her but a slight tease of what could have been an interesting quest or discussion. BIG HANDS is the other one who feels very barebones but his introduction seems of an adequate size for what his "hook" (such as there is one) is, so ultimately I feel more irked by the opportunity that feels wasted by the former. Given the state of these two sidekicks I'm thankful we at least got to see a bit more of Fassina and Mirke before they became glorified hirelings, and as for Rekke I haven't yet met him, so no opinion on him just yet.

The piracy theme is just one party of the greater whole. The setting sort of feels like the Caribbean meets the political intrigue of Renaissance Europe. I love the setting very much, it's immersive and exciting and tons of fun...but it's not terribly original, it's just the Maluka Archipelago circa the 16th century translated into a fantasy setting. That's all it is. I don't mean that in a derogatory fashion; these aren't themes that are commonly explored in video games and it's a setting that isn't commonly seen in a video game, both of which are really cool. I just mean that it isn't some masterpiece of uniqueness and originality. You say it's not, but on my behalf I cannot think currently of another example of a fantasy setting using this same period and place as a root. I also think that plenty of the unique and interesting feel about it comes with the details to the setting's overall construction. I'm not necessarily claiming it's "the most unique thing I've ever seen", but I am finding it pretty unique and particular and not just "a pirate setting" which is what I was particularly responding to.

The thread title keeps making me think of this:

Man, I just keep finding myself on the complete opposite end in this thread, it seems. I personally have not yet finished the game due to some unforeseen issues (i.e. my Windows ceasing to work), but precisely what I'm loving about the game at the stage I'm in is that I'm not sure what is going on, and while I have my assumptions and concerns I do not confidently stand by them either. The game's had me second-guessing myself very frequently, and plenty of questlines have led into very surprising outcomes for me. I came in with certain expectations about the story thus far and have been enjoying the means by which the depiction of each faction for example has to a greater or lesser extent diverted from where I assumed they would veer to. Also I do not see how all that one can take out of this setting is that it's a "pirate setting". Far as I'm concerned that's a fairly secondary element to the setting that sets the tone to a couple of quests but hardly to the setting as a whole. To say it's a "pirate setting" is to ignore the many other elements that are present and are arguably as important or more in defining the region's feel, such as the many colonial themes what with the cultural clash, the Dorado hysteria present in the search for Ukaizo, the pioneering drive and progressivism classic of the Renaissance era, all mixed too with the touch of metempsychosis and metaphysics that lend the settinga particularly otherworldly vibe... To say this is a pirate setting is about as reductionist as claiming the Dyrwood is just a medieval Europe fantasy land.

I'm not sure what makes you say this, but I have so far not gotten this vibe at all myself - each quest I've gotten has had some aspect to it that's made it unique from the rest, save the bounties (though even so, Dessiral's bounties do come with a nice little addition of their own as well). An aspect I've been loving about the game is that contrary to most other open world games I've played, it seems fully committed into making its side content as meaty and narratively enticing as it can possibly be, and definitely that's how I've been finding all of the side content so far. The sheer amount of choice and consequence in the game is really impressive, which is not at all an aspect I'd highlight from the Elder Scrolls games I've played. This feels like a proper RPG and not merely a sandbox with RPG elements. That said, if you're referring to how you can build a seemingly daunting list of quests to complete, I can agree. But I don't see that as a negative necessarily, I kind of appreciate that feeling actually. But that's me, perhaps. I like to be overwhelmed in that fashion. To go back to the OP, I forgot to mention about this point that I don't disagree that the game does a fairly poor job at lending a sense of urgency to the soul-chasing. Then again it seems to me that this is a pretty typical issue amidst most open or semi-open world games, or at least the kind that have extensive side-questing: you want to keep the central conflict relevant somewhat and that is often through some sense of pressure or urgency; yet all too often is the openness of the game at odds with the same. For every sidequest you do in Baldur's Gate II you delay Imoen's rescue and place her in prolongued danger at the hands of the Cowled Wizards or Jon Irenicus for that matter; for every bounty you accept as Geralt in The Witcher III you delay your search for Ciri and risk the Wild Hunt getting to her first; for every side diversion in Skyrim, Dragon Age: Origins and Neverwinter Nights 2 you allow the baddie, be it a dragon or shadow or army or whatever, to continue wreaking havoc and threatening the lands and so on. Heck, for every quest you take in the first Pillars you risk insanity and the likes too. I'm not saying Deadfire is excused from this fault by other games committing it as well, but I wonder if Deadfire is particularly worse at this than the rest. I still reckon that one of the best games managing this issue by adding a tangible consequence to avoiding/ignoring the central conflict is Mask of the Betrayer, but then that game never strays particularly far from its central narrative (or so I recall it anyhow). Whether or not, by now I feel I've grown fairly accustomed to this "dissonance" as much as I can accept a wandering party carrying sixteen sets of full-plate armour in their backpack, but it's a legitimate issue if it proves distancing for others.

Granted, a lot of how one perceives each quest and the likes is up to one's personal experience and reaction, but seriously I'm at a loss as to how you can look at a game like this and say the quests are "bland". To me they're anything but, if anything they've shown some of the finest quests I've run across with a staggering amount of choice and consequence, of potential resolutions and all manners of interesting details, twists and discoveries to be made throughout, which all feed their own new facet into the world of Eora. Early on we're already presented with a quest to seek vengeance against the pirate that assaulted our ship earlier, *if* we wish to do so, and upon looking for a way into the fort you are already given three introductory options from the get-go, each with their own specific challenge and catering to pretty different means of playing the game; within the fortress you can always opt to plow your way through, to sneak your way to the command room, or to attempt to lure out the character in several possible ways. The resolution I went for, ultimately, was immediately satisfying and one I've never come across in any of the games inspiring this same. It was a very fitting resolution for the overall quest and for that character particularly, and I was immensely pleased - I immediately saw Fort Deadlight as something of a further refinement on Raedric's Hold in the first game. Now, really, moments like these may mean quite a bit to me and not much at all to another, but I think it's safe to say that the quest design in this game is generally of a level far beyond what we've seen in the first game. In comparison, the first game's quests by and large seemed pretty linear and bite-sized to me, they were interesting because I think they often added something to the world and themes at hand, but I wouldn't say any particularly stuck in my mind as a particularly exceptional questline. Here I've seen several so far to me really live up to the meaty approach of a game like Baldur's Gate II, and I love that about it. I just can't agree at *all* with that statement. With regards to the character names I'm really loving the thought put behind the sound of each character name, each according to the various regions present in this world. I love the sound of the Vailian language and I think it's used with enough context to perfectly understand what is being said without need of the aiding hover. In this regard it is to me well ahead of practically all other fantasy games I can think of, but I can understand how, if you don't dig the sound or whatnot, this might just prove irksome instead.

I really hope so too, but I wouldn't count on it. Take Two have already stated that they won't be revealing any new games this E3. Still, msybe Obsidian will on their accord, seeing as it's their IP and all?

I do feel that the biggest shortcoming to the grimoires in the first game were that as soon as you extracted the spells you hadn't yet learned from them, they became pretty much useless, or one of the lot at least. I can understand the move towards making grimoires into items with a set selection of spells therefore, as it's an attempt to keep each as a distinct item from one another. But I also agree that in turn they're really a chore to sift through and gauge whether they are worth keeping or purchasing, or not. Wormerine's additions would probably really help in remedying this a little, and additionally I think a highlight for unique spells would be yet another nice bit of aid (like a golden border around the spell icon or something). It would certainly prove a lot more accessible and inviting for those who aren't familiar with the wizard's arsenal and would normally be overwhelmed by being forced to compare collections of eighteen spells against one another.