algroth

Doubtful that Josh keeps an eye on this thread, but if anyone wants to watch a properly insane film starring Tomisaburo Wakayama, check out Under the Blossoming Cherry Trees. It's a horror film of sorts based on a superstition that blossoming cherry trees would drive those who walked underneath them mad - the story follows a mountain man (played by Wakayama) who kidnaps a rich noblewoman (played by director Masahiro Shinoda regular Shima Iwashlta*) to make her his wife, and whom following a stint under the blossoming cherry trees begins to develop a strange desire for severed heads. As with many Japanese New Wave filmmakers, though, it is the aesthetic where it's really at. Some amazing sequences and use of slow motion throughout. *Seriously, someone needs to fix the language filter on this site, can't be that you can't spell Hanc0ck or Iwashlta correctly without getting these names censored.

http://www.tmz.com/2017/09/15/harry-dean-stanton-dead/ Harry Dean Stanton died. R.I.P. to a legend.

Personally I'd like to see Abydon's Hammer making a return, and possibly being noticed by some if you wield it. I always find it a little disappointing where in these games you carry something that is legendary and which should impress others, yet seems to go completely unnoticed and unmentioned by just about everyone - at least a blacksmith ought to have mentioned it.

Could be tricky. They appear to not exist... https://www.google.com/search?q=pillars+of+eternity+frost+darts Hopefully for those creating a new game, some default items determined by Obsidian make it in. They existed but melted away before the Watcher could ever run across them.

The best example that comes to mind of a sequel where you conserve the level from the end of the predecessor is Baldur's Gate II, but that is a remarkably different case to that of Pillars. For starters, Baldur's Gate is based on an existing ruleset and the first game only made use of the lower levels of the same, meaning there was room for further growth in a sequel - this is not the case of Pillars, whose ruleset and levelling system was designed specifically for the game's breadth and which by the end of its campaign, and especially having completed the White March DLCs, had the player well within "epic level" territory. But also, levelling up in Baldur's Gate mostly meant an increase in stats, and occasionally unlocking powers that are either passive or don't require introducing anything radically new to a starting player. A player for whom Shadows of Amn was their first foray into the saga and IE/D&D/RPG games in general would more or less be introduced to the same mechanics and gameplay elements starting at lvl 9 than they would have at lvl 1. This isn't really the case for Pillars, where every level requests the player to unlock new passive, modal and active abilities from a variety of choices, each of these presenting new mechanics, rules and so on. The amount of information you'd have to drop on a player new to the franchise from the get-go would be excessive and daunting, and would simply make for bad game design.

If I'm not mistake, Llengrath doesn't just bestow the title onto another but literally transmits the knowledge and 'essence' onto their successor. That's actually pretty interesting because I for one can see Karkarov's point but am absolutely against it because I see the finality of human life and the birth of new generations as a key factor that enables progress and innovation. New people with new individual perspectives bring forth change, and to merely have each consciousness extend permanently the way Thaos does would inevitably lead to stagnation (and Thaos is nothing if not an agent of cultural stagnation). Llengrath's argument for their own method compared to Concelhaut's is along these lines too: a new generation with Llengrath's knowledge can update and innovate in the craft, whereas Concelhaut's methods allow for no such change or expansion. Llengrath's case is pretty interesting inasmuch as they propose a compromise between both extremes by allowing the knowledge to live on but be handled and expanded by new and younger generations instead.

A new Lucrecia Martel is always cause for celebration, but this looks (and based on Venice reviews, apparently also is) absolutely phenomenal:

You can never have too much Stephen Fry.

If this is implemented and the narrator is not Christopher Walken, we riot.

As far as I remember enslaving souls was the only thing animancers in the game ever did, that really worked. There was an unsuccessful soul-psychoanalyst and lots of attemptes to "heal" Waidwens Legacy by, guess what, fiddling around with souls. Wasn't one of the doctors trying to use animal souls? Sounds healthy. Actually it did sound healthy and seem like a solution for a while - remember that, as shown with Sagani's side-quest, souls formerly human can be reincarnated as animals, and as is mentioned in the game it's only when puberty struck that things started to become awkward. Depending on how much of one's personality one would believe to be determined from birth or by being raised, the 'cure' could have seemed plausible. For a while it had seemed to work and the theory could have perfectly been there for this all to work as well. Caldara de Berranzi, the very first animancer we meet, tells us of several other cases where animancy has worked including her parents, who were twin souls and correctly diagnosed and brought together by an animancer. Other examples of the likes can be found in the game, whilst it is also crucial to understand that just because there is no solution for a specific ailment, one shouldn't consider all research on the topic up to that point useless. Aloth's awakening wasn't resolved but with enough research an animancer could in the future find a way to treat similar cases.

Grant Hart of Hüsker Dü.

So when the scripts finally leak, we'll know it's one of two outcomes. Okay.

I have said before that animancy is not the only science present in Eora, what I have said is that it is the only science explored in detail. To the best of my memory neither the invention of guns nor geology are discussed to anywhere as near a degree of detail or relevance as animancy. But you're right about history, I should have perhaps limited it to hard sciences specifically, but I thought that was sort of implied in the discussion anyways. And again, though, animancy is not just about the "enslavement of souls" or any such thing, and plenty of examples of how the discipline extends beyond that have been given through these last few pages and in the game itself. I don't think animancy acts as a barometer for society's progress but in the game it is all the same fulfilling a representational role as that of the fledging sciences of the Renaissance (which were also in more than one occasion looked at as something that we should not fiddle around with).

Dunno. It's really no big deal - we can go back to discussing Josh's tweets and teasers.

Regarding the depiction of obesity in RPGs, I'm of the opinion that videogames and art in general aren't obliged to represent an ideal lifestyle, or for the other matter diversity. The presence of an obese character doesn't need to be tied to the disclaimer that their lifestyle may not be a healthy one, I think most people can deduce that much either from their depiction or from the real-life examples of obesity. On the other hand I don't necessarily think making a character obese would do much for making them more interesting and engaging than if they wouldn't be. I guess I can see it more as a result of a character's traits and background more so than a trait in and of itself.

You're putting way too much attention on an element that is pretty irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether we include or leave out the expansions' companions, or whether Pallegina falls in our top 5 of 8 or not. Personally what I meant with it was that I liked her, and generally liked the companions in Pillars. I guess it's Wormerine's top 5 remark that prompted me to respond with my own. There's not much more to it. then why play games with the numbers? we pointed out how there were only 8 companions. you are the person who observed you were including the expansion companions in your tally. if numbers were irrelevant from the start, why make a point o' including expansion joinables? ... is genuine baffling responding to some folks. HA! Good Fun! It's genuinely baffling to see what will trigger some folks too. dear lord. in 2017, somebody using trigger/microaggression vernacular is pretty much akin to godwin's law violations, yes? predictable exceeding point o' exhaustion... once again. HA! Good Fun! I have no other way to describe how badly you're getting your knickers in a twist about what was an innocuous expression. If it bothers you so much, then I'll take it back. Sorry, I didn't think about how I phrased my liking of a certain character. I'm dropping this now, bye.

You're putting way too much attention on an element that is pretty irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether we include or leave out the expansions' companions, or whether Pallegina falls in our top 5 of 8 or not. Personally what I meant with it was that I liked her, and generally liked the companions in Pillars. I guess it's Wormerine's top 5 remark that prompted me to respond with my own. There's not much more to it. then why play games with the numbers? we pointed out how there were only 8 companions. you are the person who observed you were including the expansion companions in your tally. if numbers were irrelevant from the start, why make a point o' including expansion joinables? ... is genuine baffling responding to some folks. HA! Good Fun! Jeez, does it even matter? It's genuinely baffling to see what will trigger some folks too.

You're putting way too much attention on an element that is pretty irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether we include or leave out the expansions' companions, or whether Pallegina falls in our top 5 of 8 or not. Personally what I meant with it was that I liked her, and generally liked the companions in Pillars. I guess it's Wormerine's top 5 remark that prompted me to respond with my own. There's not much more to it.

Well, yeah, in general I felt very positively about the companion roster so her being middle-of-the-pack is still fine by me. I was also considering the White March companions in my list, mind.

I also agree that there could have been better choices, but Jar Jar is a good choice all the same and I do think it's a step up from Trevorrow.

And again, the problem here is that you only see animancy as the ability to create monsters, when it isn't. only responding as point o' personal privilege. in case you were unaware, the above is what is referred to as strawman. point to where we says such a thing. specifically noted the capacity for animancy to create designs both "benign and malefic." nobody in this thread, or any thread we seen, has denied animancy having positive benefits. duh. but hey, we kinda predicted this sorta approach from the start. didn't expect so quick a retreat to silly strawman instead. Not a strawman, just a misunderstanding. I assumed you were invariably linking animancy to soul transfer when you said "animancy is different. the fundamental question o' the morality o' using human souls to power and the capacity to create genuine monsters makes different." That's not what you meant so fair enough, my mistake. There's a two things at work here. Firstly, you say it's a poor stand-in, I actually agree there, and I have written about it in my review of the game here. Perhaps we disagree on *why* it is a poor representation: to me the 'atrocities' commited by animancers only exist to try and even the fields between what is a very reasonable and progressive stance and what is a very regressive, superstition-based one - I never said the latter was without reason, which is what you allude to with the monsters being real, but likewise superstition is what links the present-day animancers to the Legacy and the core of the argument of many Dozens members and others. To me the representation of science is poor because the 'grey' elements are only formal or superficial, as in, they only relate to the world of Eora and don't really affect or change the core ideals or philosophies when translated to the real world. Secondly, when I said it was irrelevant I meant that it was irrelevant to defining whether or not animancy is the game's stand-in for science, or how close can animancy stand in for science. Of course it this has in-game implications, but I don't think this relationship is made frailer by the 'monsters' being real: it is a choice of representation of science's transgressions on morality. In reality, these same transgressions can be weapons of mass destruction, or people who have lost all sense of self. Either way these cases are monstrous, all are part of science's history, and in a world in which souls would be real, an equivalent to animancy would exist and it would likely have its own grim history that would nevertheless not cancel out the value of understanding this subject and being able to treat it. It would still be a science, provided again that souls were real, and not entirely unlike the rest.

I reckon she'd scrape into my Pillars top 5 following Sagani, Hiravias, Edér and (yes) Durance (because I don't believe a character has to be likable to be compelling). As with Wormerine I found her relatable, I enjoyed her points of view as well as the theme to her quest, and I did love her confrontation with Hylea as well. Overall I can safely say I liked her, as I did most characters in the game really.

how could it not? real monsters. real souls. doesn't matter how many parallels there is to real world sciences and scientists when there is such fundamental and salient differences as we discussed already. unfortunate, previous experience tells us the inability (feigned?) to recognize how real monsters and real souls changes the basic discussion is making progress impossible. HA! Good Fun! I've given you the example of a real monster: the atom bomb. You'll argue that it's not a monster, it's a weapon, but it's a device designed with the deliberate intent of mass destruction and I see its use as monstrous (and it has been used before). It's real, and it's more frightening than any wicht or construct or Frankenstein's monster. But I do not use its existence to argue that the entirety of nuclear physics or technology is wrong, and so when I see animancers in the game itself using animancy positively and with the intentions of the betterment of kith, I do not assume animancy to be bad in and of itself either. 'course the a bomb is not a monster. the a-bomb were the result o' rational and predictable design. the weapon worked exact as planned. in fact, your politics aside, the one use o' the weapon in history arguable saved many lives. "we shall probably have to kill at least 5 to 10 million Japanese. this might cost us between 1.7 and 4 million casualties including [between] 400,000 and 800,000 killed."-- based on estimates by nobel laureate, dr. shockley. were no science run amok resulting in soulless babies or rampaging undead. were no amok at all. has been all kinda mass killings in history. the scope o' human atrocities is not circumscribed by science. genocides, slave cullings, atrocities (great and small) occurred long before tech more complex than anything save the plow. the a-bomb itself is functional a large bomb, and resulted in fewer deaths than the firebombing o' tokyo btw. were a tool and, more important, the science behind the tool cannot result in monsters and soulless children.... save in comics and video games. some folks will no doubt rage at the suggestion the a-bomb saved lives, but fact is there were no amok. the tool worked exact as intended and it didn't require souls to be powered... and no claims souls were destroyed in the blasts at nagasaki or hiroshima. now if the a-bomb were created by forcibly ripping the souls o' ten thousand orphans from their infant bodies and forcing 'em into some kinda alchemical device, then we would see parallels. mere creation o' the weapon, use or not, would be monstrous. a-bomb is actual a terrible example. sure, science and animancy both result in moral questions. just because science can achieve ______ doesn't mean science should be used to create _________. same for animancy. unfortunate, one can say the same 'bout many human endeavours. law. journalism. politics, etc. the simple fact moral questions exist for both don't erase fundamental differences. animancy is different. the fundamental question o' the morality o' using human souls to power and the capacity to create genuine monsters makes different. am suspecting you know such makes different but you don't see the differences as significant... which is baffling. is perhaps understandable as you has convinced self o' the parallel o' animancy and science, so you is willing to ignore said differences, but such embracing o' three wise monkey routine is gonna yet again prove insurmountable. HA! Good Fun! I'll leave the justification of Japan's bombing for another thread because as far as I've read I don't agree that it was necessary, and really it's neither here nor there; yet all the same, it is a real-world monster, it is a source of genuine fear and lends a madman with enough power the abilty to do truly monstrous deeds. And again, the problem here is that you only see animancy as the ability to create monsters, when it isn't. The game makes it clear that it isn't, many counter-examples are provided in the game and have been provided in this thread. That you wish to only see animancy as far as this point makes me think it's you who's playing the Three Wise Monkeys game. And again, this all ignores the fact that, in a game in which the birth of humanism, the transition into an age of Enlightenment and the clash between religion and science are all *central* themes to the story, the fact that animancy is the *only* science explored in detail throughout the game is thoroughly indicative that, as far as the game, the story and the development of these themes are all concerned, animancy is the game's stand-in for science. Whether it is responsible for creating monsters or else is really irrelevant, this is still the role it fulfills within the game.

Yep, that is definitely the tone of Larian games. If you don't like silliness and tongue in cheek humor, it is not a good fit for you. Honestly, if you don't chuckle when you hear the name DIVINE DIVINITY, you really aren't in the target audience. I don't mind either but I don't see what in these videos indicates to that silliness being deliberate, or self-aware. To me it's just, well... Bad. But if you say the games are more self-aware and tongue-in-cheek humorous, I guess I'll try them out.