playerone
-
Posts
32 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by playerone
-
-
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
complete overhaul of Veteran and Path of the Damned difficulties. You'll find more enemies per encounterPlease 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.I don't use galaxy but there's a thread on gog about needing to get off the beta stream and onto the main game. Not sure of the details, but yeah, you need to do something
Edit:
For all those experiencing download problems (greyed out buttons) please try account refresh first:
https://www.gog.com/account/refresh
EDIT: single account refresh will work, please avoid refreshing the account multiple times. There is a slight lag due to the sheer amount of requests, but we are working on speeding things up.
Thank you for your patience.
EDIT2: If after refresh and you are using Galaxy Client and on your shelf you have any other version than "Pillars of Eternity II: Deadfire", try buying free DLC for POE2 through the Client. That should force client cache refresh.
(DLC should be visible on Overview page [::PIC::])
previous BETA players
please switch from Public Beta to default branch to get the full versionManaged my first play this morning before work (actually booted it up when I got home last night but didn't even get as far as character creation before my baby daughter demanded attention
- luckily she had a nice lie-in this morning).Great so far - the same PoE feel with a nice new place to explore
Less than an hour into the game and I already had one agonizing choice for my character to make, I really like the ambient sounds, the music, and the voice-acting, and the whole thing looks superb -
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.Did the fight twice with 2 different parties on veteran now.
I pulled titan away, so the Blight spawn won't kill me.Titan itself is quite easy he's slow, can be kited or interupted (but player need to micro a bit, which is good)
Blights are really bad though, Best thing so far was to nuke them with Fury Druid, they seem to be weak to ligtning (not sure why lore wise, what issue has sand with ligthning? )But they can insta-wipe you if they cast 3+ sicoros on your party at the same time, that ability is really nasty.
It's definitelly harder tham most fights i did in POE1:POTD, and I did only veteran in the beta. (due to sicoro)
I kinda liked it honestly, but not sure what general players would say (those who don't like to micro and repeat failed fights), was kinda dark souly experience, wiped quite a few times, before getting it right. -
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.We were tweaking that fight prior to the last Backer Beta. It looks like the final changes did not make it into the last Backer Beta release unfortunately.
We've already fixed it internally.
-
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.
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.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.
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.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.
Nobody portrayed them as savages. That's you're moral judgement on what is being shown. All that is shown is that the Huana have institutional racism against a less advanced culture. To them, the Lagufeth are animals, not people. You've chosen to view them as being savages for that portrayal. That's your choice. A person with a less narrow view of cultures would understand that this is simply racism, which is a flaw inherent to many different cultures and simply shows that the Huana are neither less nor more "savage" than any other culture. In White March we saw Lagufeth treated as pest animals; in Deadfire they are also treated as possibly food animals in a famine situation. In neither case are they treated as anything other than animals despite clearly being sentient beings.
By "safe" I meant "morally safe". The Huana as smugglers fighting the evil empire doesn't challenge your moral assumptions about the innocent tribe fighting the evil colonists. Neither does the Huana committing violence against colonists; these both reinforce your pre-set belief of the Huana being innocent victims who are fighting back.
It all comes back to your assumption that the Huana must never be portrayed as capable of cultural institutions which you view as evil and offensive, such as institutional racism. To you that violates what you feel is the narrative imperative of any story which involves colonialism, where the indigenous culture must always be portrayed as innocent of all cultural evils until corrupted by the invading culture.
That's simply not realistic and not the kind of narrow and simple story that Obsidian is aiming for. In Deadfire, as in real life, racism exists everywhere and you have to deal with it wherever it shows up. The fact that this thread has gone on for as long as it has shows what an excellent job Obsidian has done in sowing the seeds of true nuance and moral debate. -
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.
Nah, Dragon Age Origins and ME2+3 was all about the bonking. I do not know about the successors to DAO or Andromeda, but there it was all about Morrigan. Although I will give him that this was a well-written romance with an interesting character.
ME 1 had few options because of the small number of companions relative to M2 and M3. For the successors it is all about romantic freedom, if that freedom means picking the hottest male/female from a flipchart. The romance thing really was priorised over deep characters and interaction with them. I mean by the third game you exactly knew what to choose if you wanted to screw. And as far as consequences go, I do not really know if companions would actually leave, but their loyalty certainly did not change.
At a certain point they just swapped emotional immersion through characters (Aerie, Morrigan and the like) with drawing you in by a cinematic portrayal and rather cheap tricks to get the ultimate reward: Sex.
-
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.
For some reason, "BW games are dating sims" has become a meme. I'm honestly not sure why, since romance has been there since the first KOTOR. All that's changed is the number of options and flirt dialogue choices being clearly marked. If anything, it became less obligatory afterwards, since you won't make someone deeply in love with you just by being nice to them. My first DA:I playthrough was completely romance-free and that was fine.
-
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.
The only person here trying to argue points nobody has made is you trying to paint everybody as "glossing over colonialist evil" when what we're actually trying to do is point out the complexity of cultures and the nuances of Obsidians depiction of the Huana.
You're freaking out over the Huana being depicted as capable of racism. You'll accept that they could be smugglers, because that's a *safe* form of semi-bad behavior, especially when it's applied in the context of fighting back against the Evil Empire. You'll even accept violence against colonialists, because again, Fighting the Evil Empire. What you *don't* want is the Huana to be depicted as capable of real, actually evil, behavior inherent to their own culture because to you, they *must* be innocent victims who are fighting back against the evil attackers.
What you can't accept is that the Huana, in their own right, as their own unique culture, can be *bad people* who do *bad things*. You can't accept that the Huana are capable of institutional racism, because that would dilute your fantasy narrative. You only want them to be Freedom Fighters who maybe do some morally grey things in their Fight Against Oppression.
What Obsidian wants to do is real complexity within the story, showing the Huana as *more* than Fighting The Evil Empire. There are *real* reasons that you might decide the Huana aren't people you want to ally with. Their culture isn't perfect, it has real flaws, and one of those is racism against other less advanced cultures. That's a problem, and it's one that you as a player have to decide how much it affects your moral judgement.
It's a tough choice. It's intention is to make you think hard about the morality of the situation...although for you it just makes you freak out over having your assumptions about the narrative requirements of this particular setting challenged.
And for the record, "“everybody is good and evil” is another position I never took. People, individuals, can be good or they can be evil. That's why I had no problem pointing out Christopher Columbus as an evil **** when you brought him up. It's cultures that are morally neutral. People are moral beings; cultures are simply the collective customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of an ethnic group. Trying to judge the morality of a culture is like judging the morality of a frying pan; it simply doesn't apply. -
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...
And the Oscar for Performative Allyship goes to....
Seriously, they aren't even cannibals. Cannibalism requires eating the same species, which they're clearly not. Also, the villagers are starving, so I don't think it's the "zomg cannibal savages!" thing you seem to think it is. And finally, I don't think portraying both sides as flawed is colonialist apologism. I mean, both sides WERE flawed. The Huana seem to be based on Hawaian or Polynesian societies, slavery and caste system and all.
-
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.Nobody is "glossing over" the atrocities that were committed. I have made it clear that the European colonization was a great evil.
This thread began because you see an example of atrocities committed by the Huana and instead of understanding the realistic depiction of an indigenous culture capable of doing bad things (ie, racism towards a less advanced culture) you see only a "but they do it too" simple morality play.
You don't understand the point and the nuance. Yes, the colonization of America by European whites and colonization in general brings great evil--but that doesn't mean that the native cultures are somehow incapable of displaying the same basic cultural trappings. The Huana are capable of being racist towards less advanced cultures; this doesn't make the statement or depiction of this some form of moral equivalency, it's just a basic fact that the Huana *are capable of being racist*. Showing this makes the Huana a more nuanced, more realistic depiction of a cultural group. To deny that the Huana are capable of being racist--or that they can oppress other cultural groups or do any other evil act--would be to remove complexity and nuance from the depiction of an indigenous culture.
Cultures are complex and many-faceted. The actions of the European colonists brought great evil, but they were not actions taken in a vacuum against a homogeneous group of innocent victims. It's more complex then that. So to is it with the Huana; while shown in a sympathetic light, they are *not* shown as being a homogeneous group of innocent victims, but rather are a fractious alliance of various tribes with their own internal conflicts in addition to the greater conflict with the colonizers. They have their own flaws, their own blind spots, and their own failings--much like every culture in the world does. One of these blind spots is that they treat and regard the Lagufeth as animals, rather than as sentient beings with their own rights. They don't consider it "cannibalism" to eat a Lagufeth, as it's just an animal to them, not a person.
How you choose to deal with that fact, both in game and out of game, is up to you. Somewhere on Deadfire you'll probably encounter Orlan slaves, too, I have no doubt--since "slave" is a background you can take if you choose Deadfire Archipelago as your origin. And there will *definitely* be racism against Orlans. Some of that will no doubt come from the direction of the Huana, and you'll have to deal with that, too.
I don't know that this is going to be the game for you if you can't accept the fact that the Huana are occasionally going to be shown in a bad light. They will do bad things, like slavery and oppression and murder. They definitely will not be shown as purely innocent until the Vailians showed up and started exploiting them all because Obsidian is aiming for realism, not a fairy tale of evil empire vs exploited victims.
For what it's worth, I'm planning on playing on the side of the Huana, not least of all because my main char is an escaped slave from the Deadfire Archipelago and he's just not down with exploiting weaker people for ones own benefit. That doesn't mean I'm going to side with the Huana in every case; my char will fight oppression and most especially slavery wherever he sees it, whoever practices it. -
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.
Things I Learned Studying Cultural Anthropology: A List of Basic Information
1) There were literally thousands of unique Native American cultures. "Native Americans" is not a culture, it's an ethnic grouping. You can't compare the cultural experience of the Haida with the Navajo or the Iroquois, etc. You have to approach each culture independently and examine them for the unique expressions found within that culture.
2) No reputable anthropologist denies the horrible atrocities committed by the European colonizers. None deny the lopsided devastation that occurred. What is denied is that the European culture was somehow unique in their institutions or in their achievements. Slavery is just one example. The Haida were basically West Coast Native American vikings; they raided other tribes, took slaves, had *generational inherited slavery*, traded slaves with other tribes, had sex slaves, all before the European contact ever occurred. That's one example of a greatly evil cultural institution--chattel slavery--developed independently between these two cultures. Everything found within European culture can be found within a Native American tribal culture--that includes things qualified as good, like metal working and agriculture and religion, and things qualified as evil like slavery and rape and racism.
3) Cultures are not morally superior or inferior to each other. Cultures just are. Each culture generally contains the same components and traits, in various degrees and in different mixtures relative to each other. How those traits are expressed varies wildly.
Addendum:
Columbus was a greedy murderer and child rapist who made his fortune selling nine year olds into sexual slavery. His existence has nothing to do with this discussion, however. -
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.
The lagufeth/huana relationship reminded me of a historical account of Columbus' party. They encountered relatively peaceful islanders (like the lagufeth) who described some cannibals (like the huana) that lived nearby and had captured and eaten some of their kin. The colonists enslaved or killed everyone, and ate an islander boy when their rations ran out. There might not have been a great deal of slavery going on before the Europeans arrived, but the islanders were killing and eating each other. It always struck me that the non-cannibals of the story were the real victims in the tragedy that was colonization, the cannibals were both bad guys and victims, and the Europeans were the bad guys.
If deadfire was attempting a clumsy analogy, which I have no doubt was unintentional, the lagufeth would be the victims and the huana would be both victims and bad guys.
-
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.
Yeah, I'm out. "The natives had slavery too" is a centuries old, deeply racist argument that has never held up under even cursory examination. If your argument for why moral equivalence in the game being justified is that you think it's true in real life, then we have nothing more to talk about.
Likewise, to Veevoir, refusing to acknowledge the most obvious, surface-level observation that a fantasy version of colonialism is necessarily a direct parallel to real world colonialism means we can't have a meaningful conversation.
I've made my position clear, I've heard y'all out, we all know where each other stands. The devs have my feedback, and I hope realize how strongly people feel about this stuff. I'm out. Say whatever else you want, I'll definitely read it. But unless my arguments are genuinely and in good faith engaged with, I'm staying done.-
1
-
-
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 seem to have an awful lot to say about a topic in which you have no interest. I would vastly prefer an efficient use of characters for romance purposes. I think it is pretty rare for a character's sexuality to be so intrinsic that making them romanceable by the main character regardless of gender would have an impact on how well-written the character is. I actually have a strong preference for a game designer that is as inclusive as possible. Even a stereotypical manly man can be gay and a stereotypical fabulous man can be hetero (or maybe even a lesbian trapped in a man's body). You lose very little in the way of aesthetics by making it so, as long as you play your own game and don't look over someone's shoulder as they play theirs to determine whether your immersion has been broken.
-
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?
Talking animals?
1) They talk.
2) They create and use tools and clothing.
3) They use sophisticated hunting methods involving traps.4) They decorate themselves with crafted jewelry.
5) The broodmother literally begs you to rescue her children from imprisonment
They are not animals. They are a stone-age culture that is physiologically limited in it's ability to communicate with other species.So pretty much the same islanders are to Vallians
Exactly. Except as far as I know, the Vallians don't *eat* the Huana.
-
1
-
-
Thank you. That is what I'm saying.
The problem isn't that we shouldn't think what is happening to the animals is better than what's happening to the natives, it's that the animals and their treatment was created in the first place. The devs *chose* to make quest equating the oppression of a native population -- something with real-world (and still-ongoing) parallels -- to something both fantastical and infinitely smaller in scale. It is very explicitly both-sidesing *colonialism* of all things, and that deserves to be called out. Especially when colonialism is as central to a game's conceit as it is in Deadfire.
-
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.
That's a bold statement. Being a victim of one thing does not absolve you of being the oppressor in another. *Especially* if you are perpetuating the same or similar 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?
There is no way for a "good" ending of that quest. Actually, what bothers me is that you have to give the fruit back and the only choice is to accuse someone falsy "for the greater good" or to catch the real thief.
What bothers me is why there is not option to leave the fruit with the guy who stole it and just leave things be. -
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.
I think he just doesn't know what you are talking about, just as I don't. Every quest in the beta is completable.
I have over 30 hours in beta, completed it multipletimes with various characters, including Cipher, and I can't figure out whenever you talk about beta's critical path quest (calming the storm) or a stolen fruit one.-
1
-
. Maybe for some super boss but not every fight.
Can't wait.
Less than an hour into the game and I already had one agonizing choice for my character to make, I really like the ambient sounds, the music, and the voice-acting, and the whole thing looks superb 
). 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?
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.
Excellent game but maintain your reserve.
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.
![[::PIC::]](https://www.dropbox.com/s/0nlbsredw4odl9t/poe2_2.jpg){kind=link}
Update #48 - What's Next?
in Pillars of Eternity II: Deadfire Announcements & News
Posted · Edited by 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. 