playerone

Agree. Currently doing a PoE 1 playthrough. You can take the "urgent" things very seriously or you can help out companions and any groups you find having trouble and feel justified either way. That seems like the best way to accommodate most tastes. I generally don't like what I would call speed runs, but I might want to do something like that next time and I can. I think good RPG developers only produce the "movie." Each player gets to direct it and approve the script (more or less ). It can be a breathless action movie first then a slowly building "the world is going to end but not tomorrow" drama next play-through.

I like fighting huge mobs so I hope there is a separate tick box or something for that. I feel like that is what veteran is/war but I am currently savoring a long play through of PoE 1 and when I choose that the enemies just use Charm or Dominate. I want to fight their team not mine. I also don't want to pound on four enemies (or one) for an hour . Maybe for some super boss but not every fight. Different tastes Please don't "just" increase the amount of mobs. This is not what makes combat more fun or difficult... just tedious. It's not the amount of mobs - but the number of enemies in a given mob (though your point stands that simply having more enemies isn't necessarily more fun/challenging - especially if an AOE is taking them out). They also mentioned new level-scaling (so each enemy is tougher) - hopefully that'll make the difference (maybe in terms of abilities used by the enemies from being higher level and not just having more HP / hitting harder).

Thanks! I will try this tomorrow and roll into a new game in some days. PS: Disclaimer - I only use Galaxy to download. I disable most of it. PPS: Not surprised by your compliments about sound, etc. Their ittle touches are often as big a deal as the rest. Can't wait.

Question for GOG players. I wanted to make sure I have the new game without ruining anything for myself so the answer may be really obvious: I've opened the new game link through fig and GOG. Not much seemed to change (I do see new godlike heads ). There didn't even seem to be anything to update on GOG galaxy. Nothing happens when I click "Create New History," I don't see any DLC goodies in my inventory, and I'm back on the beta island talking to the same stranded merchant. Does all of the new stuff kick in as we go along? Is there something else to do to update?

Right. Dark Souls. That's what I had in mind; from its reputation. Not something I would buy but I know some like it. Hey, live and let die.

Had the same problem on Classic and agree with general consensus, it's too much. Game also froze a few times and crashed on exit after this fight but that happens in other situations too. Other than this particular battle I really liked the challenge level of this update. Glad to hear this is fixed. Kind of hope we have a chance to test play the fixed version. Regarding difficultly levels i general, a game that you have to reload fights over and over and know exactly the right way to win the fight would be miserable to me. I'm glad there are accommodations for people who want to relax and play or want to face hordes or even go it alone. That kind of design ability is a real gift and gives a lot of different players, and even the same player, lots of options.

True; but eventually Quina did move in and then it was more like having an uncle who owns a store and visits. A lot. But I did save his life. It's kind of touching really. Haha, you mean Madeleine? No, not Madeline. I'll tell you but it's just between you and me. Here's what happened: I'd been seeing Quina on and off all game but I'm an adventurer right? So I help out the guy with the store. Why not? Turns out the dragon didn't notice Quina that much and thought I must be dating the dude from the store. So what am I going to do? Not save him? We had a good talk after the big fight and worked everything out. He watched my house while I was adventuring and I kept the discount. Good guy. Well that's awkward.

No, not Madeline. I'll tell you but it's just between you and me. Here's what happened: I'd been seeing Quina on and off all game but I'm an adventurer right? So I help out the guy with the store. Why not? Turns out the dragon didn't notice Quina that much and thought I must be dating the dude from the store. So what am I going to do? Not save him? We had a good talk after the big fight and worked everything out. He watched my house while I was adventuring and I kept the discount. Good guy. Haha, you mean Madeleine?

They. Are. Going. To. Eat. People. Your character tells them the truth. You personally took offense to the others being called animals. And now you say eating them is not a depiction of savagery? I sorely misjudged you; I did not realize you are a psychopath. Nothing to you is evil except possibly racism (the evil of which can never be attributed to a culture) and therefore there is no other way the story could have possibly introduced moral ambiguity except by suggesting the tribe treats a people with less advantages badly. The fact that that that creates no ambiguity just makes the tribe the villain doesn't bother you. The fact that we are never shown the tribe being mistreated, just as having visions of how helpful colonization might be if they can just convince the die hards doesn't strike you as a fairly ridiculous misrepresentation of the norm. That you find perfectly realistic. And eating “people?” Not stereotypical enough to make a black and white movie blush you insist. Not savage at all you say. Just me being judgmental. Ooookay. It is indeed time to get the check. This thread has gone on so long because unlike my friend who I commended for getting out early, I am stubborn and preferred to argue it out. Getting out was the right call but I am very glad I continued. At the very least I now know to beware anthropologists and their associates. Here then is the end. There are evil cultures. Everybody accepts Nazi Germany as one, especially Germans, but not just that. Every culture that practiced slavery, that raped, torutred and killed for centuries was an evil culture. Not bad individuals. The only individuality that comes into it is the people who spoke out and defied it. The reason that was so rare and dangerous is because they opposed the entire culture. Not bad individuals. Stories like these these are a moral narcotic that allows people to look back and say yes, colonization was bad and slavery was evil but look, there was that one tribe that did it, and what about the cannibalism? Didn't one do that? And all of that dulls the sting. And the less the past hurts the easier it is to repeat. In one way or another. Dinner is on me.

My character was just with Liara , who has a very complex personality and story, so I can't really speak to the other ME romances. I think I did have a thing with Miranda, who had an interesting story but I liked much less. Liara and I were on a break. It's a long story. I enjoy a complex relationship story but I have nothing against people who have...simpler tastes. I also don't have a bad thing to say about players who just want a very deep character versus one that is smoking hot or players who'd kind of like one that's both please.

Making it clear what you are going for is a very good idea. For example, the dragon in Dragaon's Dogma can leap to a possibly awkward conclusion about who you care about most if you've been friendly to a merchant. Excellent game but maintain your reserve. I do mean Classic Bioware if you will. I didn't play DAI or Andromeda. I had the impression they are tied to the net and that doesn't interest me. Romance free can be good. Maybe a little too quiet in a couple of ways. And I find it easy to drift away from games if my character doesn't have that. I don't really care how it ends.

Smuggling is safe? Taking up arms against the colonists is safe? How about if a group of colonists had secretly become assassins to feed the tribe? That would be to safe too right? No you must have colonized people that are racists, or species-est as they case may be and canniabals. Why do you suppose that is? Scenario solution: you set the animals free if you can and get food to the natives. Which person not playing an evil character says “Yeah it's cool. Eat them?” Where is the moral conundrum? All that is accomplished is any sympathy you may have had for them due to their colonization is gone. And putting colonized people in a story for the sole purpose of making their colonization less sympathetic and potraying them as savages is moral poison. No matter how many people like it best.

I have noticed that everyone who doesn't care about something thinks others must be performing and accusing them of that is witty. A friend would have clued you in on the truth long ago. Yes everybody has good and evil. Thanks. I really had no idea and no one else has mentioned it. What I must not have said s making them guilty of more or less the same thing provides an excuse for it being done to them. No they aren't the same species. Since the entire point of the interaction with the Brood Queen is to make the player realize they are all-but human and your character actually tells the native woman they are just like her the position of the game seems clear but maybe you're right. Maybe they are just animals...

So much Bioware hate Because Bioware I take for granted that there will be several romance options when romance is an option at all. I'm sure it is done to have an option for a few different tastes and play-throughs. I don't think it's designed to be a free for all. I can't say the games prevent it but I think some NPCs take it very badly and leave. That seems like a setup that accommodates a lot of people. I feel like there is usually one character who is very attractive and nice/naughty/smart/tough enough to appeal to many players and then other romancable characters that lean more into particular types. I don't know how it goes if you are romancing male characters. I hope players haven't been shortchanged...so to speak. Regarding, shall we say Mr. grey areas, whether the player is dominant or not I'd be extremely surprised if there was anything more than heavy innuendo.

I see an opportunity to make complex characters, something this group has done many times before, and something I fully expect, wasted and turned into the usual both-sides trash every depiction of a colonized peoples is. They could have been smugglers. Piracy is practically the theme of the game. They could have overpowered and avenged themselves on colonists recently and left the player in the position of siding with them or not. Lots of moral gum to chew on there. They could have been or done absolutely anything. Instead they (may) do a version what was done to them. Oh. And eat “people.” Because really, who hasn't eaten somebody? It's just one of those moral failings you throw in to spice things up. Nothing stereotypical and smearing about native cannibals. Right? The only reason you can't hear how hollow that characterization is or the echo of Every. Single. Colonialism apologia is because you have “everybody is good and evil” playing at full volume in your head and you like how it sounds. It sounds profound. It isn't. And you, and your supporters, know you're wrong because I've been very specific about my issue and you keep pretending I'm advocating that they be saints. As I said, arguing positions no one has advanced. You were ill served by your instructors. And all of you with the this might not be the game for you . It's literally my game as much or more than anyone here and it doesn't exist yet. That is the point. Take your unearned condescension somewhere they don't know any better. This definitely isn't the thread for you.

You have learned to attempt to change the parameters of discussions to whatever suits you and argue positions no one has advanced. For example, Columbus is germane because someone bought him up. And he is a colonizer. And the slaver. And, perhaps, tolerated cannibalism. There is no way he is not germane except you would prefer he not be included. No one has made sweeping claims about morality except you. What has been said is that colonists built civilizations on slavery and savage exploitation and those atrocities are glossed over, as they are here, while the worst things particular peoples did are always included as if they were common, as they are here. To state the obvious: the colonial evil cannot be compared to any other because their dead victims never had the ability to perpetrate it, and, as had been suggested, it endures in continued explotation abroad and in invisible but nontheless rigid and violentlly enforced class structures at home. So yes colonists are and always will be the bad guys. There is no contest. Shoe-horning slaver/cannibal natives into every aplogia does not change that. The mark of moral inferiority becomes vivid in attempts to disavow, downplay or spread around the blame and responsiblity that comes with it.

Columbus brought horrific slavery to the continent, and was notorious for his barbarity but because of the whitewashing we are discussing he is still considered a hero by many for getting lost. I don't know the story you're referring to. I don't say cannibalism among native peoples was unknown but it was not universal, and as you point out eating flesh was not unknown among colonials when pushed to extremity at that time, and it was certainly not unknown in their early development. But native cannibalism is present in every apologia for colonialism. As common as examples of the varied and infinitely more common atrocities of colonizers is absent; because it makes it easy for some to see the dramatically lopsided devastation of peoples as somehow equal.

I think you are right in every particular. That said, I started this so I will add a few words to the end. It's not about reaching for outrage, its about what you can grasp or choose not to. In these kinds of stories we rarely see the rape, torture and of course enslavement that defined colonialism but the same people who sneer at "noble savages" a description that satirizes and exposes itself, don't mind the noble colonizer trash trope that is far more common. Here we have hints of past terror but all we actually see is a hapless chief who thinks colonization is the salvation of his people and a tribe threatening to eat what players are meant to view as children; not animals as we have been reminded again and again. People. Children. That is as obvious and over-the-top an apologia as you could create. This becomes intellectual porn for people who put the fact that modern civilization is built on horrific exploitation on one side and the fact that some colonized people also did bad things on the other and think the sides are pretty equal. People who use phrases like "identity politics" because surely their politics has nothing to do with identity or heritage. I don't think the PoE folks fall into either of those categories. This is calling out but as warning to a friend who hasn't noticed the cliff edge. As I and others have said this isn't the final product. I hope this is removed.

I agree. I have rarely seen a person wearing a tag that indicates their sexuality. Collar yes, but that is an entirely different thing. Now that I really think about it I feel like if you can tell a character's sexuality by their behavior outside of a romance (or learning about their current love interest), the writer is being a little lazy and maybe kind of silly. You may think you know but you don't really know unless you know. This feels like a box writers can just step out and have every npc they can possibly imagine and every romance except maybe the most cliched,

You are all proving my other point. Humans are animals too and many animals mourn, demonstrably nurture their young (certainly protect them) and even gather things they find attractive; this is just the fantastic leap beyond that. We can have an interesting discussion about what that implies about what the relationship to humans and animals should be, including whether or not you should eat them, but that's not what's happening here. The apparent technological imbalances and specifics of the abuse, as you character lays out in detail, leads you as the player inexorably to the conclusion that these animals are the equivalent of the islanders specificially, and the islanders are not merely hypocritical crybabies but savage quasi-cannibals. That is a nauseating unforced error. And your morally undefined character struts off the boat from nowhere and tries to set them straight to no avail. Really? So pretty much the same islanders are to Vallians Exactly. Except as far as I know, the Vallians don't *eat* the Huana.

Thank you. That is what I'm saying.

Not bold, exactly my point. In this created situation of all the things the islanders could possibly be doing they have been given a similiar offense.

Agree with the spirit of the thread. I ended up using the mercenary hire feature as a hot... I mean capable companion creator in PoE. Not a big talker but it's like she was made for me. I have to admit I don't get the idea of romances that don't happen because the NPC isn't into your character. Does it really matter to anyone that their straight or gay romance is gay or straight when someone else plays? I think I “heard” Deadfire will have a more sophisticated version of ME's flirt feature. That seems like a good way to keep the love alive. The downside of romance is if you're a completist that “quest” can run out long before you stop playing.

Can't speak to that at all. I haven't found the fruit so I can't appreciate why your character would leave the guy bound and being threatened with death for something he didn't do. Maybe he really is a horrible person or you are playing a character that doesn't care about that kind of thing. But I realized as I was writing this I meant the Brood Mother quest. Not the fruit. You as a Cipher ask the woman islander how she would like it if she was treated the way they are treating the animals. They actually have been, as you have learned from others in the tribe.The setup of your character preaching to a victimized people about how they are treating talking animals is problematic in so many ways. It's like they started exploring the topic but then didn't want the victims to seem that sympathetic and went so wrong. Is there a good ending for that?

I mean the stolen fruit. I'm at the point when you as a Cipher ask an islander how they would feel if they were treated a certain way; a way they obviously know everything there is to know about. The comment is about that specific plot point. The stretch to create a really horrible equivalence. Not whether the quest is compleatable in a technical sense. If you finished it and it ends better than it started that is what I really wanted to know.