algroth

Nice work!

The elephant in the room is the fact that all these matters are still, unfortunately, to this day questions that lead to a great degree of conflict due to ongoing oppression, discrimination and rejection to those of us who have been involved in such situations. For myself, I have been involved in such an affair that I still to this day have to keep a secret from my parents because they are not particularly open to the matter - let alone my transgenderism. When you approach these topics in these games like it's all cool, it feels like it's avoiding the many issues that still exist at the heart of the matter and still makes us outsiders and places us at odds with those who would arguably be closest to us. The truth is that the world is not openly fine with it, and while it's nowadays fashionable to be open-minded and inclusive and whatnot, this sort of fantasy where we can all be super open and get along just fine isn't really there, and to my mind seems to often put a blindfold on the issue at hand. Now, as I said we don't *need* to treat the matter of homophobia while depicting a same-sex relationship, but there has to be a reason for it, because it is an aspect that will define a character whether you want to or not - you can't ignore how aware people are of the matter. With Maneha, the only thing I got out of her overt flaunting of her sexuality was, ultimately, the question of what was the point. It didn't really inform me much about her character, and it was played so overtly that it was hard not to feel it awkward in a game that by and large avoided romantic relationships and sexuality altogether. Also, if you don't want to hear the term 'diversity quota' then don't treat the matter of sexuality in videogames as a quota that must be fulfilled. That was in regards to the assumption that Deadfire *will* have at least one same-sex relationship, or 2/2/2 or whatever. If there are, there will be, if not, that is okay too. Let the writers write what they wish to write and what they feel comfortable with writing.

As I've mentioned, it was an example, and you're free to choose that as a theme or go with something else. That said, I do not think fantasy in any of its forms exists in a vacuum, and likewise I don't think you can approach the matter of a same-sex relationship without dealing in some form or other with the real-life parallelisms and implications attached to it. To outright ignore them, if anything, makes things awkward and unnatural due to bringing an "elephant in the room" factor to the matter (I think this is true of Maneha for that matter and why I also found her writing to be pretty poor and jarring with the rest of the game).

I thought Dorian was written well, not just quality. He gets roughly the same quantity as other options. All things being relatively equal I prefer gay romance options over bisexual romance options. ME does gay romance with less quality and less quantity compared to straight options, then I'm suddenly not such a big fan of this approach. I'm not sure why we're assuming Deadfire is a lock for having same-sex romances of some sort. Personally the approach of having enough variety to cover a diversity quota only goes so far, as while it's better to have it than not to it doesn't by itself guarantee the romance will be interesting, engaging or at all worth investing time to implement. To me, honestly, the question falls to whether they have an interesting idea or dynamic driving a relationship - if they don't, and want to write in a same-sex relationship just because "there needs to be one", I'd say not to bother. What difference is there between writing a straight romance and a non-straight romance? Either way, you decide that yes, this game is going to have romantic/sexual plots of some sort. Once you've decided that, what's the reason for not including non-straight plots? They don't need any more of a reason to be there than heterosexual ones, and that reason has already been satisfied. Depends on the way the setting responds to homosexuality and so on. If it's taboo or has a specific value or connotation attached to it (Greek love and so on for example), these elements can factor in as conflicts that make a romantic subplot more interesting and meaningful in the overall context of the setting and story. If there is no difference, then the romance requires to be *interesting* the way any other romance would be. Just having one to pander to the playerbase doesn't make for good or compelling writing, or for a meaningful experience. I don't necessarily think the main issue with the quota filling is how compelling or meaningful the writing is. The gay romances in Mass Effect are bad for various reasons. They didn't exists when straight and lesbian romances did in ME1 and 2, and Bioware had gay romances in other games before ME (Jade Empire) and developed at the same time as ME (Dragon Age.) When ME finally had gay romance, they were worse than straight options in every single way, fewer options, no unique face and body models, barely any animations compared to fully animated kissing and sex scenes, dialog was way shorter and actual straight pandering within gay romances. Steve Cortez would literally ask you over and over if you really want to be gay, because some homophobe complained about accidentally having a relationship with a bisexual male option in DA2 despite the giant pink heart icon that clearly indicates flirt and romance options. Then I thought maybe it would get better for Andromeda, improve like DA did. But Andromeda was worse. Not even a bisexual companion like Kaidan this time. Another small crew member part and a fling limited to some planet storyline. Models for Deadfire companions will presumably all be a bit unique. But they are so small in the world. It's not like you constantly have close-ups in dialog or cutscenes. I assume there won't be any romance animations at all. Even if there were more things animated, the height difference of races alone is a nightmare. I guess Deadfire won't have those issues at least. Romance writing might be not great, but being companions should hopefully provide a good amount of content and exposure, quests, banter, comments, conversations. The watcher is a blank slate. Sawyer has said again and again he's interested in player choice. In the Salty Mast you can sleep with prostitues of the same sex. No gender locks. Most of the game's dialog is already kept gender-neutral. Why stop at romance? There are Maneha and Arcade. Obsidian is no stranger to gay and lesbian companions either. You see, to me all of what you write above is pretty aside from the point: that there'll be more or less dialogue, that there'll be animations and options and so on... This is all fine if there is a good idea guiding it. Romance is only worthwhile as another kind of bond that can exist between two characters, but what drives this bond has to be something meaningful to the conflicts driving either character, or the overall themes of a piece, or otherwise it's superfluous. A good romance like, say, Annah's in Planescape: Torment, isn't something the writers decided to include in the game because a romance was 'necessary', but because that romance came about as a consequence of Annah's need for human contact - that was her 'torment' so to speak. Viconia's romance also worked because it was a vehicle with which to explore the clash between Viconia's Underdark lifestyle and the customs of the surface, where she now lives in. And while the protagonist in Pillars (as well as the Nameless One or the Child of Bhaal) is intended to be a blank slate (they aren't really, but that doesn't factor in on their sexuality), the companions *aren't*, and thus whatever romances will be in the game will be also dictated by the interest, conflicts and needs from the other half. So just to be sure, I was never in disagreement with the existence of same-sex relationships in Pillars, nor will I ever protest the presence of one in it. However, it's the line of thinking that is often expressed in the quote I was replying to that I think is misguided, because it places its emphasis in the need for equality/representation and diversity of options over the things that make those romances worth playing or writing in the first place. The issue with so many of the 'bad examples' of same-sex relationships or relationships in general is that they are treated entirely like an afterthought, because again, only the option's existence matters. We say that the desire for the romance to be well-written 'goes without saying', but the issue is that good writing is characterized first and foremost by an adherence to a theme, idea, conflict or vision. It's this that should determine what makes it into Deadfire first and foremost - if that leads to a same-sex romance, then great, but if it doesn't and it turns out that there is only *one* romance path in the whole game because it's the only that the writers felt was worth writing, that's alright too. Otherwise we're hardly better off than BioWare or Neverwinter Nights 2. With regards to themes, I used homophobia as an example. Does a same-sex relationship need to deal with that? Of course not! But there has to be something there that makes it worth writing. :D

I'm not sure why we're assuming Deadfire is a lock for having same-sex romances of some sort. Personally the approach of having enough variety to cover a diversity quota only goes so far, as while it's better to have it than not to it doesn't by itself guarantee the romance will be interesting, engaging or at all worth investing time to implement. To me, honestly, the question falls to whether they have an interesting idea or dynamic driving a relationship - if they don't, and want to write in a same-sex relationship just because "there needs to be one", I'd say not to bother. What difference is there between writing a straight romance and a non-straight romance? Either way, you decide that yes, this game is going to have romantic/sexual plots of some sort. Once you've decided that, what's the reason for not including non-straight plots? They don't need any more of a reason to be there than heterosexual ones, and that reason has already been satisfied. Depends on the way the setting responds to homosexuality and so on. If it's taboo or has a specific value or connotation attached to it (Greek love and so on for example), these elements can factor in as conflicts that make a romantic subplot more interesting and meaningful in the overall context of the setting and story. If there is no difference, then the romance still requires to be *interesting* the way any other romance would be. Just having one to pander to the playerbase or fill a diversity quota doesn't make for good or compelling writing, or for a meaningful experience.

Just learned that Magma is playing in Buenos Aires in November. I'm so psyched!

I'm not sure why we're assuming Deadfire is a lock for having same-sex romances of some sort. Personally the approach of having enough variety to cover a diversity quota only goes so far, as while it's better to have it than not to it doesn't by itself guarantee the romance will be interesting, engaging or at all worth investing time to implement. To me, honestly, the question falls to whether they have an interesting idea or dynamic driving a relationship - if they don't, and want to write in a same-sex relationship just because "there needs to be one", I'd say not to bother.

Okay, so... To the best of my awareness the only news there's been is that Deadfire won't be at Gamescom. But what about other Obsidian projects? Is it confirmed that Obsidian will show nothing, not even more info on the upcoming Tyranny expansion for example?

I have to admit that I barely noticed it myself in the first game. However, it's already being looked at for Deadfire and apparently one of the things being done is that, to the best of my understanding, areas will be loaded as sets in the background so as to avoid loading every time one switches areas in, say, a city or so.

Abydon and Wael would be pretty interesting, I agree. I can sort of picture the latter as a Residents member (though, not really). I can't really picture what a Wael Godlike would look like though. I mean, the Gods based on natural concepts are relatively easy. But for the Gods based on human concepts (Wael, Skaen & Woedica), it's a bit more tricky to come up with. Also, considering how mysterious Wael is, I'm not sure he would make Godlikes. He'd prefer to keep people guessing Wael is a weird concept to picture, but perhaps that's what makes him more interesting to develop from a concept artist's point of view as well. You can have a character with a multi-faceted head, or one whose features are defined by a Rorscharchesque splotch that is ever shifting, or else. Maybe you can also go full Resident, top-hat and all. I can also see the Eyeless as more an Abydon godlike too - though I'm not sure as to the origins of godlikes I would take a guess that godlikes come about from dislodged shards of gods' souls making their way back to the Wheel and being reborn as kith. If so then the Eyeless are just that, in a way, as they all share a part of Abydon's soul.

How about a succubus summon? ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Even better. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

I appreciated the higher resolution and 3D-accelerated VFX, but as far as graphic design went I hated most of it (with the exception of monster sprites; those were pretty good once I digested the mirroring.) Character sprites, paperdolls, icons, portraits and UI looked so much better (and frankly most sound effects were also superior) in the first game, imo. Can't really agree there myself. I thought the poses for the character sprites looked much more natural in Baldur's Gate II (in the first Baldur's Gate as well as Icewind Dale I feel they all looked like they were hunching over, whereas the animations also looked more jittery in general), I thought the portraits just fit the characters better, and what's more, the areas themselves were a *huge* improvement over the rather bland and sketchy appearance of the first - to me every area in the sequel felt like it had its own unique qualities and intricacies that made them more diverse and interesting overall, whilst the urban areas felt like they properly captured the sprawly, busy feel and layout of an actual European city, overall adding a liveliness and naturalism to Amn that was largely missing from Baldur's Gate or else. In terms of UI I feel both quite similar though I feel the rocky edginess to the first's also gives it a messier or more jarring feel. In general I feel the IE games have stood the test of time much better than other games of the period in terms of sheer aesthetics, but not Baldur's Gate. But, y'know... Enter the Dude or Ron Burgundy quotes here.

Abydon and Wael would be pretty interesting, I agree. I can sort of picture the latter as a Residents member (though, not really).

Really? I thought it was especially an improvement in that department.

This isn't a good argument for a cap of six on the party, since the same argument can be made for seven, or eight, or even twelve (eleven companions/sidekicks in the game). Moreover it ignores the fact that the game is balanced (however poorly) around the party cap: raise the cap to six then anyone who takes five will be at a disadvantage. Your argument isn't a good one either. All of the past infinity games were designed with 6 party characters not seven, eight or even twelve. Even first PoE was having 6 party characters. Why out of a sudden it need to be designed at the party cap of 5? Why not 4 then? Or even 3, 2 or 1? It's the same argument i can make that anyone who takes 4 will be at a disadvantage. Your argument is moot as even first PoE there are people who solo with 1 party character. All of this would arguably make their decision better, and not worse, since they are more informed on what has in the past worked and what hasn't. For the matter of a direct comparison with the IE games, you also have to keep in mind the amount of active and passive abilities existing on each character in Pillars opposite to the much more standard and straightforward sets that the characters in the IE games had, all of which adds a lot of extra variables for the player to keep track of *as well as* the devs to balance around. With their experience in all these previous games taken into consideration they feel a five-man roster will lead to more intelligible and balanced combat, two problems that were by and large criticized of Pillars the first time around. If anything this is all done *because* the tried 6 party cap is not so true after all. As others have mentioned, that people try to solo-party the game is precisely because they seek to be at a disadvantage and thus make the game harder. However, the devs don't balance the game around a solo experience, they do so around the party size that they set - that's their job as designers, and if they determine that it's easier and *better* to balance around five than around six, they'll do so.

I think we all offer our feedback here as constructive criticism more so than a demand for change. Whether they'll change the portraits according to feedback or not is up to the artists, but as members of a forum dedicated to the game's discussion I think it's perfectly fine to offer our opinion all the same. Is it nitpicking? Probably, and chances are that the overall impact of the game won't be diminished by this particular point, but while we're at it I don't see the problem in discussing it. The attention to detail is often what elevates a work to sublimity after all. With regards to Baldur's Gate, you're definitely right - and it might be my own experience as someone who played the sequel before the original, but personally I do find Shadows of Amn's portraits to be overall better than those of the first, and when going back to Baldur's Gate I did find the change in portrait and appearance a little alienating with regards to the mental image I had of each of those characters. Viconia in particular I think was heavily improved in the sequel, as in the original I cannot say she even looked like a drow. Whether or not the portraits in Deadfire are similar to Pillars, I still feel Pallegina's a notable enough downgrade compared to her original portrait so as to merit an observation (I'd say Edér is also a downgrade but slight enough to be okay with it, all things considered).

I'm down for a nymph companion. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

I thought Pillars did a good job with having a more complex relationship system with many possible outcomes while not really revealing the system behind these interactions to the player. In the cases you mention above, Baldur's Gate II feels far more natural to me than Dragon Age: Origins because I felt that in the end I was making the choices I wanted to make, instead of those which felt more convenient - the system could be simpler and more lineal, but I felt less dictated by it because as a more casual player I couldn't actively see it. With Pillars I never felt the need of having that visual aid, nor do I feel the outcome was more streamlined or less reactive than that of other RPGs I've played. Anyhow, just my thoughts/experience.

Tyranny never once made me think of "diversity for the sake of diversity", really. It's been a long-standing custom across many (most?) RPG worlds that men and women are equally capable fighters and equally able to join the army or faction of their choice. Amidst the games and worlds I've come across that attempted to justify a matriarchy, in all honesty I think Tyranny is one of the best and most natural at that too. Personally I don't see a problem here, or 'activism' at play for that matter.

Classic guitar is one of my favorite genres, and my favorite "classical" genre. So I'd be very keen to see it make a strong appearance. A lute might be more adequate to the time period... Though then again the celesta (I think) was pretty prominent in the first Pillars and that wasn't developed till the mid-1800s either. Personally I'm not as big a fan of guitars in general (acoustic or electric), so I don't mind their absence. In general my favorite guitarrists are precisely those who can find ways to play the guitar in unorthodox fashion (think Fred Frith, Derek Bailey, Robert Fripp and so on).

I have avoided posting in this thread, and even reading must of it, that is.... until now! *cue John Cena music* So here is the problem. There is no evidence to indicate you get a characters "likes and dislikes" in the journal until you actually discover them in game through interactions. Saying a person should not, or does not, note how other people react to things and change their behavior based on this .... well that's naive opinion. So noting how your companions react to certain things is natural, and realistic. There is also the catch 22, just because you know Aloth hates animancy, doesn't mean you "have" to agree with him on it if you don't. It also doesn't mean this Aloth talk is just you and Aloth, while everyone else wears blinders. Maybe Pallegina is okay with Animancy, you express your support for it to Aloth, Pallegina isn't in the coversation, but she is there. It can easily tick some unseen box. This is also key because, surprise, companions will have disagreements with each other too. JOHN CENAAAAA!!!! *Ahem* Anyhow, personally I don't see much of a difference as to whether you discover them while playing or not, and the reason is that once they make themselves apparent, it's another incentive to game the system over actually roleplaying and letting your characters agree or disagree, or like or hate, on your decisions based on the decision *you*, without external influence, would make. In any other game that uses a numerical influence system, a character is usually immediately romanceable once you fulfill the sex/race requirements and a high influence rating - by having the game offer a guide as to how to get this 'high influence', it is thereby also handing you the instructions basically as to how to romance that companion. Now, there is also the possibility (which I'd like) that there could be different outcomes to a relationship based on the choices you make and how you play them out. Maybe a high influence will lead to friendship or comraderie, but to actually romance a character you have to be or do something they do not expect or would necessarily "like". As with Viconia, maybe a romance in Deadfire is more tempestuous and thus requires the player to stand up and challenge the companion, and say 'no' to some of their whims. I think that a list of likes and dislikes only works as far as how it conceals interesting results and reactions you may get by *not* following them instead of doing so, but rarely have I seen it used this way, personally. Also there's the problem that I had with Tyranny that I'd like to bring up, particularly regarding your catch-22 and so on, which is that with Tyranny the problem I had time and time again was that expressing an opinion over something never *once* led to friendly disagreements, but immediately instilled FEAR or WRATH on whoever I was talking to. This... doesn't feel natural to me, and it conditions the dialogue way too much. In Tyranny I can see how the point may have been to use these elements to create a sort of "commanding voice" that would guide your character down a path of complicity with any of the two factions in a Milgram experiment sort of way... But in a more normal or traditional situation it feels incredibly awkward, because it goes against rational behaviour: we disagree with people we get along with all the time, and it's perfectly possible to be friends while having such disparities on relevant and passionate topics. On the subject of animancy, for example, I could agree with Aloth and hate it, but by the end of my own play of Pillars I'd like to consider that Aloth and I were buddies *while* I was at the same time a strong supporter of animancy. This makes sense, because that's just how people are. I don't all of a sudden want to find myself in a situation where the only way to have a close relationship with Aloth is by following through with every love and hate he has, as I don't see this as natural character development/relationship either. Now, granted, some things *will* upset some people: I don't think Edér will look at me the same way if I torch a live cat, but that's not because we "disagree", that's because my actions are deeply morally repugnant, and more so by an animal lover. I can see that as something driving 'hate' more so than saying "I don't like pigeons".

. I liked Durance, I liked Sagani, I liked Grieving Widow. These are characters which don't fit into the "dating sim" design. I'm not sure what you mean with "dating sim" design, but I think Sagani could have been a good fit for a romance. It could have been an interesting scenario where Sagani would have been torn between her family and her feelings for the PC. It wouldn't necessarily have been a "happily ever after" romance, but a very interesting and fulfilling romance none the less. What I'd like more from romances in RPGs is to make them a bit less railroaded. Just like a boss can be difficult to defeat in a game, completing a romance should/could be difficult to achieve too. I think it would both make them more interesting and more satisfactory too (cause it's not just about clicking on the heart symbol seven times during the span of a 30 hour game or whatever). I do like the position Noah Caldwell-Gervais takes on the way romances are handled in Baldur's Gate II from his own video on the series (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjWWuUDtSaE he speaks about it around the 1:12:00 mark): basically he points out that one of the interesting things about romancing, say, Viconia or Aerie is that there is a chance to fail at both, because both characters have their specific traits and personalities which you cannot just win over by being 'nice' or rushing to the end result. You can kill off a romance with Aerie if you take things too fast, for example, whereas with Viconia the romance comes not from being agreeable to her whims and ideas but actually challenging them and basically showing you have a spine. One of my biggest pet peeves about future RPGs, be it BioWare or else, which so frequently rely on a numeric "loyalty" value is that romance is immediately associated with that value, and in turn it just feels flat and unrealistic, devoid of any of the character or dynamics a real/interesting relationship would have. Romance is achieved by gaming the system more frequently than not and the end result is some sexy pretend with a videogame character instead of anything approaching an actual relationship, that would ideally require dialogue between two parts that know what they, individually, want. Incidentally this is also why I dislike the idea in Deadfire of having likes and dislikes written down in the journal for each character, because it essentially acts as motivation for gaming your way into being friendly with every companion *despite* what your character would normally say or pick. An attentive player should be able to guess what these are intuitively, and the game should be trying to hide as best it can the 'immediate'/numeric effect our choices have on companion behaviour, so as to make it more about roleplaying and less about 'relationship optimization' or however you wish to call it.

Just came across Robyn Hitchc0ck's video introduction for Captain Beefheart's Lick My Decals Off, Baby. Gotta love both these guys: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZvAkh4hsSY