algroth

Yes, please!

Case in point, minute 4:58:

All of those are good points, really. I agree with much of what you write, but would still not discard the other option as viable for a fascinating premise for a third game. For the most part I do think the question falls to what they have in mind going into a third part and what they would wish to develop from a thematic standpoint. It's true that a story that is more immediately centered on a present-day Eoran culture will see that culture likely developed to a much better degree, thanks to in-game reactivity, a reaction to the development of conflict up to par with the player's actions and so on; but while all of this would be pretty interesting I also wouldn't miss it if the story simply didn't require it. I didn't really feel Mask of the Betrayer was worse off for not involving the Thayans or Rashemen deeper in its story than it did.

I also have confidence in Obsidian's ability to handle stories and scenarios of more mythic proportions, but even if it doesn't compromise the themes they wish to explore for this game, it has potential disadvantages in the way it allows us to experience the world. The cultures that we're exposed to are more prone to be caught up in the momentous nature of whatever earth-shattering crisis we have to contend with this time around. This can also affect the sorts of events we can expect to be involved with and/or their pace and scope in accordance with the narrative requirements of a game that ultimately needs to draw things back to an epic endgame scenario. Conversely, I think a storyline with a more terrestrial focus on cities or even empires allows for a more thorough and nuanced representation of the cultures involved and their dealings with each other since there isn't the competing presence of an impending apocalypse (or celestial upheaval, or whatever else) to contend with throughout the game. In a setting like Eora where souls and spirits pervade everyday life, I think this not only has the advantage of providing more options and opportunities for getting to know cultures in the world on their own terms but also grants more opportunities to emphasize the strangeness and possibilities of what is "normal" for the setting without having these things become overshadowed by the presence of more extraordinary phenomena. In the worst case, I'd worry that following up Deadfire with a third game that deals with something even more out there would effectively cement expectations for anything that could come after, making any more "down to earth" looks at the setting unlikely for other Pillars games. Then again, it's also possible that Sawyer's interest in building on the scope of the games doesn't have to entail things like the birth and death of gods, the Beyond spilling into the living world, the vengeful spirits of Engwithans rising up to tear down modern civilization, or other such scenarios. For example, a budding world war could still provide a fairly strong foundation for developing some of the aspects of the setting I was referring to above while still outdoing preceding games in scope by emphasizing travel to or dealings with multiple countries (though it'd be necessary to determine how something like that could work out given disparities in naval power and technological development between these countries). Well, Sawyer did mention upping the stakes in relation to more divine, metaphysical or similarly extraordinary events and focuses in the Axe of the Blood God interview. Personally I do like this as it is usually what catches my interest the deepest, over more mundane, social or political matters. I will say too that whatever large-scale crisis, be it in the shape of something otherworldly or just a large enough worldly threat (such as war in a large enough scale - see Tyranny for example), will inevitably have a huge impact on the society of that time and transform it with regards to a more peaceful or stable time. But having said all of this, it too is a possibility that the 'stakes' as Sawyer described are not going to come in the shape of a world-changing phenomenon necessarily, and more of a personal threat that forces the player to embark on a journey that takes them to places where no one else has been and so on. In that interview Sawyer mentions something along the lines of 'the gods not being done with you', and I think that indicates a focus on a more personal conflict which may or may not tie into a larger conflict. I see The Mask of the Betrayer as a likely template of what could await a potential third game: a journey that stems from our need of survival and sends us into new lands, the Beyond, and deeper into the history of gods, the cosmogony of Eora and so on, without necessarily presenting a grave new threat to the people of Eora. In fact this example would open us up to exploring Engwithan culture to a much deeper degree than we so far have. This is also why, in spite of being in agreement with your concerns, I don't think it's necessarily an either/or: I don't think dealing in a less earthly conflict will necessarily reduce the detail on what cultures we may interact with.

I hope that if there is a third Pillars game and it doesn't involve the Watcher (which it hopefully wouldn't), it wouldn't be beholden to this trend of escalating to increasingly out of this world and epic events or that it would build up to such escalation more slowly over the course of multiple games to allow for more of a focus on more "mundane" events, like the threat of war between nations and the various tensions and intrigues that arise in trying to ensure that such a war doesn't (or does) come to pass during the earlier stages (e.g., the first and second games in a possible trilogy or something). The way I see it, the problem with the present trend of "bigger is better" is that the 'bigger' is only reflected in terms of spectacle and scale instead of actual themes and ideas. In the case of Pillars and Obsidian games in general, however, they have largely been able to match a narrative ambition with an ideological one as well, so I would actually be looking forward to them going all-out and working with a less mundane and more metaphysical premise. In this regard I trust Josh and co. to be keen enough to know when and if the scale of their games is getting out of hand and drowning what thematic content is there.

Well, Josh has spoken of wanting to make a third Pillars in some recent interviews - if it does happen though, it can perfectly be the case that it'll involve a new protagonist who is not the Watcher. In Axe of the Blood God he also mentioned that he is trying to rein back the sheer scope of the games so as to have something more to build towards in the future - they start with a more regional threat the likes seen in the first Pillars and then slowly move towards the more divine and unearthly as they move onwards. Now we have to find a god incarnated into a 15-story-tall statue, who knows where we might take the story next? If this third part does actually happen, I'd also reckon it won't be that open-world Eora project that Feargus is interested in making - I reckon it'll be its own spinoff instead, same way Josh in the future also wants to make a more strategy-based game set in this setting.

Walter Becker of Steely Dan died today.

https://i.imgur.com/7Hjtrot.gifv

Again, you view it as a limit and I don't see how it is one. Of course a class that innately trains a given skill will have a better chance at being better at that given skill than one which isn't - far as I'm concerned this is a better reason than any you've given so far. As with Flint I don't necessarily believe rogues should have a bonus to mechanics, but would a fighter innately be more athletic given his profession? Yes. Is this a hindrance to gameplay or character customization in any way? Not that I can see it. Same for lore, same for survival, same for stealth and so on. Mechanics as a skill is different because it exists more as a party requisite than the rest of the skills and I think therein lies the problem. I don't assume the voice of the devs because I'm not the devs and neither are you (you call me out on my alleged hybris but this reeks more of it), but the whole idea that they are "happy when folks play their characters as they wish" is only true to an extent. When asked for the option of altering NPC stats and classes in-game, Josh said he wouldn't, because it would go against the logic and background of said character. He's fine with mods doing it of course, but clearly certain things they want to keep fixed just because it works in favour of verisimilitude and ludonarrative consistency. To me this case is no different. Clearly they thought it would make sense from this perspective for classes to grant a skill bonus in certain areas, and maybe for backgrounds to do so as well even if these are also evidently designed less for the sake of gameplay and more for the sake of narrative and roleplaying experience. In all frankness though, I'm done with this argument. It's not nearly that relevant and I don't like your tone, the way you sigh every time and shrug off any arguments with absolute condescension. Good day.

Deadfire in a nutshell (sorta NSFW):

The big difference between tabletop and cRPGs is that the former is only limited by the player and DM's imagination in this regard, whereas the latter offers only as broad a set of choices and variables as what's been implemented into the game by its developers. This is a key distinction because if in the world of tabletop you opt to play a non-cis character then you are free to approach and portray the topic as you wish through your own personal responses and interactions with the DM and other players. In a cRPG you don't necessarily have that sort of freedom, so the choice of making your character non-cis can only lead to as important and detailed a characteristic as the game's content allows it to be. By just offering the choice and little more you could just as well be transferring the token gesture from an NPC onto a non-reactive option. It could just as easily stick out like a sore thumb and not really work towards a goal of representation either (which, as I argued before, should also not be a sole goal in and of itself).

I see what's on your mind. (I'm enjoying reading your discussion, don't see it as trolling at all.)

My advice: when creating your character, create the character you want to play as! Otherwise you won't enjoy the game as much.

for chrissakes, we hope you ain't playing a norm or a general rule of application. you play a character. hopefully is Your character. why limit the possibilities more than necessary? sure, we already got the fundamental and unavoidable limits o' a class-based system, so why further handicap character customization by establishing arbitrary norms. you wanna actual play your perceived norm? fine, is your game so you should be able to play the norm, but why should the norm limit Gromnir's character concept? Limit how exactly? You aren't limiting the possibilities by offering a class-based bonus to skill. It would be limiting if you were only able to increase a determined skill or were forced to spend resources on that skill, but you are under no obligation to do so. How would moving this skill bonus to any other background detail not lead to the same "limitations" it would as it is right now? If you would wish to discuss the fringe possibility of a priest having been an expert clockmaker before his current position, why not discuss how a hunter could have taken the role of a scholar in his time outside his village before returning and fulfilling this function instead for their hometown? Whatever bonuses you would get from one or the other would be with regards to the general traits a particular career, profession or lifestyle would develop. Getting a small bonus to athletics for choosing a fighter class hardly conditions you to create an *athletic* character, but all the same accounts for the fact that, in wielding weapons and dedicating to combat you are more than likely bound to exercise a bit; as for what you choose to work on and max out, you can easily max out anything else and have that be their predominant skill and reflect on an unconventional quality to them. Well, I won't speak for Obsidian's approach in this matter as I am not them, but I usually assume that what most RPGs want is for the player to take on a role and play as a given character, and as such I would try my best to make that the point of my game. If I see a gameplay aspect that is deliberately distracting or detracting from choices that should have a larger effect on the background and identity of a character instead, then I would try to change that so that it favours attention placed on the latter instead. As a writer who would write many possible interactions for each choice of background and make these aspects as reactive to the player's choices and interesting as I can make them, I wouldn't want these to be glossed over in favour of numerical convenience. As with all other mediums, as an author I would attempt to direct the player's attention as best I can to what I want them to give greater relevance to. That is why I would not link these choices to stat bonuses, or more bonuses than the ones given out right now. This is beside the point, though. Returning to my previous statement, I argue here that I don't think that class-based skill bonuses are a problem, or the problem with regards to the mechanics skill for that matter. As I said before, this is an issue that is likely more to do with that skill itself and the way traps and locks are balanced than the fact that classes provide skill bonuses.

have seen this complaint many times, and unfortunate it misidentifies the problem. actual problem: skill bonuses tied to classes. any sorta skill bonus tied to classes is stoopid. is not only anachronistic, but it limits the kinda player customization the developers claimed to wanna maximize. am not a huge fan o' poe trap implementation to begin with, but if Gromnir wanted to have a party member who were +90% likely to be able to disable any encountered trap, we would be compelled to include a rogue in the party. even with background bonus, the rogue were a necessary addition to the party if trap/lock events were to be a forgone conclusion. OR we could make certain we discovered the gloves o' manipulation. gloves of manipulation prevented the need for a party rogue. could have a priest with a background which included a mechanics boost, and equipping the gloves o' manipulation would more than suffice to be making the priest as good as any rogue o' similar level. ... traps is mostly in the game 'cause they is expected. obsidian developers has, more than once, commented 'bout the rather anemic reasons for including traps and lockpicking in poe/poe2. fine. there is gonna be traps and lockpicking in poe2 as there were in poe regardless o' arguments 'gainst such stuff. moot. the thing is, there is no reason to tie success o' such skill checks to a specific class. do the classes lack unique qualities such that class-based skill bonuses need make 'em differentiated? no. am admitted surprised by how well the poe developers handled their classes. create 11 genuine unique classes is much more difficult than it might sound. sure, there were some slippage during the beta and with the release o' the expansions as class roles began to blur a bit, but for the most part, each class played unique, and the skills were almost a complete non-factor in promoting diversity. do the class-based skill bonuses promote character customization? 'course not. class limits is, axiomatic, limits on customization. am not a fan o' classes to begin with, but as noted already, the developers o' poe did, in our estimation, a fantastic job o' creating their unique classes. however, the more customization options you link to a class, the greater is the Decrease in player customization. why can't your rogue be having the best possible lore score? why can't your wizard be the best mechanic? is no good reason for such limits. let the player be unique. remove the class-based skill bonuses. make player backgrounds more significant and diverse to account for the missing bonuses. do as we suggest and gloves problem is solved while simultaneous increasing the freedom o' a player to customize their character. win-win. HA! Good Fun! I'm not sure I agree here... I think class-based skill bonuses make sense because they would normally result from the character's experience in a certain discipline or other. *sigh* see this so often and is so limited... and mostly wrong. who is to say your priest weren't a clockmaker or locksmith before, or as part o', his religious observances? stewart the grimm, as part of his adoration for hylea, created cuckoo clocks of extraordinary beauty and sophistication. unfortunately, hylea turned her back on stewart when she learned her favored craftsman were killing beautiful little songbirds for his clocks. stewart, to all outward appearances, continued his veneration of hylea as well as the crafting of his marvelous clocks, but in secret, skaen had won for himself a grimm and determined new disciple. etc. tell us what "makes sense" as regards a limit on player customization is no more than an admission o' lack o' imagination. rationalize the existing scheme is not the best way to approach such issues. question what is purpose o' the limit. ask how the mechanic advances the purpose. ok. but tell us the mechanic, which w/o question limits character customization, "makes sense" is complete absent any compelling quality. lacks imagination and ignores fact we are talking 'bout a game. "it makes sense reticulated plate amour should be almost 10x superior to hide armour and such plate isn't actually as cumbersome as people suppose." "it makes sense a fireball the size of a mastodon should be doing more damage than a rogue with a glorified steak knife." etc. makes sense would have our characters dying horribly w/I the first 30 minutes of gameplay. is best to not go to such a place. HA! Good Fun! As I said on the rest of the post you quoted, there can be exceptions to the rule and you can certainly choose to give greater predominance to mechanics in a priest if you wish (again, this is what I did with Durance myself). However, this hardly represents a general or universal norm, and these skill bonuses are given according to the general case for each class or profession. Can we really argue that most fighter-type classes won't on average be more athletic than other types of classes? Can we not agree that rogues will generally be sneakier than the average example of other metieres? It only makes sense (yes, this is a perfectly reasonable thing to say, because 'making sense' doesn't in this case act against gameplay viability and balancing, as it would in the examples you cite) that if you follow the path of a warrior or a rogue or a wizard you're likely to have a formation that innately involves or favours training in athletics, stealth or lore respectively. Now, having said that, is making a rogue mandatory because they are the only ones able of picking a certain type of trap or lock a bad thing? Yes. But I think that responds to a different problem, which, kind of quoting from Josh himself, relates to turning a game requirement into a 'false option'. You can solve this more by balancing around the capacity of any character maxing mechanics instead of a level that can only be acquired by a specific class. Or, for that matter, make mechanics specifically a skill that does not recieve specific class-related bonuses. However, when it comes to other skills I do not see why a fighter would not get an athletics boost, or a mage a lore boost, or else. I also disagree with the proposition of moving these aspects over to history, as it further incentivates the players to choose their background according to min-maxing instead of what they wish to roleplay as. Class will always be tied to gameplay experience so at least by tying these bonuses to it you are not incentivating players to choose background aspects to their character out of sheer practical convenience over the ability to make their character as closest they can to their imagination.

have seen this complaint many times, and unfortunate it misidentifies the problem. actual problem: skill bonuses tied to classes. any sorta skill bonus tied to classes is stoopid. is not only anachronistic, but it limits the kinda player customization the developers claimed to wanna maximize. am not a huge fan o' poe trap implementation to begin with, but if Gromnir wanted to have a party member who were +90% likely to be able to disable any encountered trap, we would be compelled to include a rogue in the party. even with background bonus, the rogue were a necessary addition to the party if trap/lock events were to be a forgone conclusion. OR we could make certain we discovered the gloves o' manipulation. gloves of manipulation prevented the need for a party rogue. could have a priest with a background which included a mechanics boost, and equipping the gloves o' manipulation would more than suffice to be making the priest as good as any rogue o' similar level. ... traps is mostly in the game 'cause they is expected. obsidian developers has, more than once, commented 'bout the rather anemic reasons for including traps and lockpicking in poe/poe2. fine. there is gonna be traps and lockpicking in poe2 as there were in poe regardless o' arguments 'gainst such stuff. moot. the thing is, there is no reason to tie success o' such skill checks to a specific class. do the classes lack unique qualities such that class-based skill bonuses need make 'em differentiated? no. am admitted surprised by how well the poe developers handled their classes. create 11 genuine unique classes is much more difficult than it might sound. sure, there were some slippage during the beta and with the release o' the expansions as class roles began to blur a bit, but for the most part, each class played unique, and the skills were almost a complete non-factor in promoting diversity. do the class-based skill bonuses promote character customization? 'course not. class limits is, axiomatic, limits on customization. am not a fan o' classes to begin with, but as noted already, the developers o' poe did, in our estimation, a fantastic job o' creating their unique classes. however, the more customization options you link to a class, the greater is the Decrease in player customization. why can't your rogue be having the best possible lore score? why can't your wizard be the best mechanic? is no good reason for such limits. let the player be unique. remove the class-based skill bonuses. make player backgrounds more significant and diverse to account for the missing bonuses. do as we suggest and gloves problem is solved while simultaneous increasing the freedom o' a player to customize their character. win-win. HA! Good Fun! I'm not sure I agree here... I think class-based skill bonuses make sense because they would normally result from the character's experience in a certain discipline or other. It would make sense that wizards, priests and chanters are universally more studied and learned than the average fighter or barbarian, thus receiving a skill bonus in lore, while fighters and barbarians would likely possess better athletics because more exercise is required in their specific disciplines. There can be exceptions to the rule, of course, but normally I would suspect those dedicated to a particular profession to be better at certain things than those that aren't. On top of this I never really required a rogue in my party outside disarming some White March traps, and thus Durance was a more than effective trap disarmer/lockpicker for the greater bulk of the game.

Also it's worth considering how much earlier you'd like powerful late-game items and abilities to be made accessible to the player. Give the players spells and items too late in the game and they won't have a chance to savour them, but give them too early and it'll stunt item and spell progression by making the remaining content lackluster in comparison (this, incidentally, is a problem I have with Baldur's Gate II for example, where my paladin never needs to touch another weapon all the way to the end of Throne of Bhaal once he gets Carsomyr 3 chapters into Shadows of Amn).

First reviews from the Venice festival are out regarding Guillermo del Toro's The Shape of Water... If they are to be believed it's his best film since Pan's Labyrinth at least: http://www.metacritic.com/movie/the-shape-of-water

As I never played that and never will, could you describe it in short words inside a spoiler tag, please? A lot of the story from From Software (Dark Souls I, III, and Bloodborne) is left to the imagination and interpretation of the player. Most of the past events are hinted at in item description, conversations, and far off places you can explore. Note that Bloodborne is mature content and contains horrible things, follow the link at your own perils! Prepare to Cry: Father Gascoigne is a good example of how Bloodborne tells its backstory story. It is about the first boss fight (Father Gascoigne), his daughter, and how tragic it all is… To get the full story as you play, one needs to explore, read descriptions, and keep an eye on what and how all those hints link. Just a heads up, your link leads to the Tyranny DLC trailer.

Yeah, I do hope for some genuine exploration in Deadfire. That said, those hidden "Easter egg like" secrets work well depending on IP. I.E. games had a lot of D&D stuff to reference, and finding special NPC or adventure group or item is much more exciting to find for people familiar with the setting. I feel like PoE would need to build things up first before rewarding you with finding it. As a sequel Deadfire has a more space to manuver. Hidden encounter with Master from Below etc. True, but the examples I pointed out regarding Torment aren't really Easter eggs either. Xachariah is an old companion of the NO, while the Good Incarnation's identity and the bronze sphere revolve entirely around him. They are all elements that involve the protagonist and allow us to learn more about his past and so on. I think these well-hidden secrets that don't just act as references would probably give the game more replayability value, as not only are you pushed to finding more content that you may have missed on a first run but your overall experience and interpretation might change drastically because of them.

Agreed. I remember stumbling on the high level slaver's door for the first time. It felt pretty cool to discover. I never discovered Twisted Rune by myself though. That required the help of dsimpson. In modern RPGs, all too often the big secrets are way to clearly sign posted. I guess if you don't read all the lore in the game you might miss them, but for me they're obvious. I wouldn't mind a few genuinely hard to find secrets in Deadfire. Yeah, same. If I recall correctly you could only really find out what to do with the human flesh armour at Rejiek's workshop if you thoroughly read his notes, a thing which I suspect many players don't dedicate the greatest time to. In Pillars' case on the other hand, just clicking and opening a note will immediately update your journal with any relevant quest-related info, thus putting on display whatever 'secrets' may be contained within. A game that is even more obscure with regards to its content is Planescape: Torment as well... I don't suspect many people will have ever met Xachariah through their playthrough, and probably over half will have never found out of the Good Incarnation's real identity, or what the bronze sphere really is. Heck, it's entirely possible to miss out on three companions throughout the game, either because the means of acquiring them is so complicated or because they are located in places that most players will hardly look (e.g. the Modron Maze or the exit of the Curst prison). In comparison Pillars is much more straightforward and key characters and so on are even indicated on the map, it's nearly impossible to miss out on any critical content like the ways you can in Torment. I wouldn't mind an obscurer approach to Deadfire either.

It's not really a hard game to finish. Maybe complete every quest of and exhaust every detail and event is harder, but the essential content to the main storyline is pretty simple and straight-forward. Not really. There is stuff you can miss, but most of the questgivers run up to you. Difficulty wise it is not a tough game and you and cheese harder fights. There is just a lot of content to go through. Well, that's what I meant. There's little details here and there as well as certain encounters like parties on the upper floor of random inns that might be missed on a first playthrough. I know for one that I still find the occasional new detail even after all these years. For most quests and so on, yes, it's hard to miss them.

I love the look of pistols. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

It's not really a hard game to finish. Maybe complete every quest of and exhaust every detail and event is harder, but the essential content to the main storyline is pretty simple and straight-forward.

Inb4 you are able to unscrew and throw your pommel at enemies in Pillars 3. Planning to end someone rightly ? 'Tis the only way to end with the vilest scum in Eora. Rightly.