Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


144 Excellent

About Verenti

  • Rank
    (2) Evoker
    (2) Evoker

Profile Information

  • Xbox Gamertag
  • PSN Online ID


  • Pillars of Eternity Backer Badge
  • Pillars of Eternity Kickstarter Badge
  • Deadfire Backer Badge
  • Deadfire Fig Backer
  1. Simple suggestion: If Edér is in the party and you issue the order to interact with a stray animal with him selected in a group, instead of the nearest person going to pick up the animal, make it always be Edér. Make the canon that you have so many pets and stray animals on your ship because Edér literally picks up every single one you come across.
  2. I think you mean: Gellarde. A magnificent game in the old style. They don't make them like this anymore. Not close to the sea anyhow. Too vulnerable to cannon fire.
  3. Please, in the future, do not have the narrator in conversations voiced. It's annoying. I like it when the dialogue is voiced, but it breaks immersion for me to have someone tell me these things. If I read "you look over and see a tall stand of oak", I see it in my mind. If a voice tells me "you look over and see a tall stand of oak" I don't, I just have a person telling me that I do and therefore I don't. It is the difference between playing the calls of seagulls and saying "you hear sea gulls". When you put it into voiced words there is another step of translation that goes into turning it into an idea. Plus, I can read an entire text box pretty much instantaneously, but its more difficult to do this if someone is chirping in your ear while you are trying to read. This is still a game for people who like to read, right? We're not afraid of that, right? I understand to make things accessible we have to make the game appeal to people who thought Pillars 1 had too much text to read, but ... both titles were crowdfunded by appealing to fans who liked text heavy games. I really wish I had an option to turn off the narrator (in conversation) without killing all VO. I don't mind narration in chapter crawls or as part of the UI, but ... not in conversation. Also, why did you get rid of the option to hide ineligible decisions. I loved not seeing those. It made me feel like the game was designed for my character instead of seeing all the options I could have chosen if I was someone else. (edit: no its still there. I just missed it like five times when looking for it. Despite it being... in the exact... same... place... whoops.) I realise that most people probably won't agree with my position and that's fine.
  4. I suggest the ship's name, on the ship's character sheet should be changed from "the Defiant" to just "Defiant". Now that the name is painted on the hull, it's weird to have the "the" in the name. It wasn't the German battleship the Bismarck of the USS the Enterprise. These ships are colloquially as the Bismarck and the Enterprise, but they didn't paint the "the" on the hull. You don't have to change the dialogue.
  5. My problem with the expansions is that they seem less like substantial content (you know, an expansion pack) and more like a few quests and a dungeon or two. Personally, and, if I recall correctly, according to that DLC survey, I am not in the minority here, I'd rather one big expansion like White March or Throne of Bhaal than a series of smaller ones that are disparate in theme and content. I'm being optimistic here, but I bought the expansion pass for more Pillars. However, I don't mean that I just want more busy work to do, but rather I want more of the best parts of Pillars. If its just dungeons with a quest line that is just another quest line then... why bother? I mean, definitely bother because I already paid for it. I'm a bit cautious about what I've heard so far, but I'll happily be wrong.
  6. I'm kind of disappointed by this. I mean, I get that the fans of Critical Role are very passionate and number many people who work at Obsidian. However, this feels like nepotism to me. I don't know what the sort of process that goes into selecting voice actors, so maybe its normal to hire cadres of actors from a single pool. However, I'd like to think the selection process is more meritocratic than that. These actors are undoubtedly talented. I'm not saying otherwise. Why just give them all the main roles in the game though? Why couldn't we have other people attempt for these roles? I don't mean to be a wet blanket, but personally I would have liked to see a more open process (which I can only assume from looking at this roster that it absolutely wasn't) with actors who aren't voicing someone in every game. I like Laura Bailey. I have the Lucina amiibo on my desk. She's good at her job, but she's almost like Troy Baker or Nolan North. When you are like "Oh, that's person X" the performance loses some of its charm. You stop recognising the character as an independent character and instead start viewing them as an extension of the actor. Like every Tom Cruise movie. I don't even bother learning his characters names anymore. I love Tom Cruise movies, but I don't go to them to be immersed in the story telling. This is all a bit rambling and I'm sure I'm in the minority here. I just feel that this is going to lessen my enjoyment of the game. Just saying my peace.
  7. Not unfair, more like plain stupid. I apologise that it sounds mean, but I really can’t see the logic here. Is it the first game you ever backed/preordered? Games get delayed all the time. Original release window is rarely an actual one. What really baffles me is this idea that by delaying the game backers are somehow wronged. “Oh no, Obsidian is investing an extra month of wages to polish up a product I backed. Damn you! I demand something to compensate!” Not that I would be offended if the beta was open. Please, feel free to play short, rough side content with dodgy performance and unbalanced/not fully implimented mechanics. This is not the first product I've backed. Several Kickstarters, including many games released by InXile, which might be the closest company to Obsidian in terms of original content they produce have done this for several kickstarters, including Wastelands 2 and Torment. However, they are not they only companies that I have backed that have given access to betas when the final release is overshot. I think Universim has done this, Project Nimbus did this. Those are only projects that I've backed. There are enough examples to precedent a norm regarding this practice. Is the "backer beta" a free standing product, open to consumption? That would be like calling the space pig a product. Pillars of Eternity 2 is the product and I, like the rest of you paid well in advance for said product. I did the same for Pillars 1. This is not a normal preorder, which you may pay for a month in advance, this is chipping in money for a product with no guarantee of quality at the outset. I am entitled, yes. I am entitled to Pillars 2. That's how market transactions work. You give people money and in return they furnish you with a product or service. There is a difference between entitlement and false entitlement. While release dates aren't binding contractually, I would expect a degree of good will from Obsidian in excess of "this is the bare minimum that we are contractually obliged to deliver." They set an expectation of a release date (no one made them) and now they are pushing it back. For good reason too, but, it would not be unreasonable to ask for -- not demand like you are implying-- but request a reward for our continued loyalty, patience and support. Especially considering that access to the backer beta would, effectively cost nothing: few people are going to opt in for beta access a month from release. A solution that costs nothing and gains good will is a good solution. Moreover, at the time of backing no specific release date was given, so you can't even really complain that you wouldn't have backed otherwise. There was a specific date, it simply wasn't an exact date (although, one can always be more precise in measuring time, so exactness maybe is a fool's errand). Q1 2018. Which is being broken. More over that doesn't matter, because they more recently announced a specific date, 3 Apr 2018, which takes priority over any date announced at the outset. That's how release dates works: the most recently announced one takes priority. So I think your point is moot.
  8. Good day, I would to suggest that the backer beta should be opened to all backers on or before April 3rd. I can understand the need to delay the release to assure the quality of the final product. I wholeheartedly support this move. However, we were told April 3rd. Moreover we put forward our money for Pillars 2 well in advance of the release. As an act of good faith, I believe that the backer beta should be expanded. If we cannot play a released Pillars 2 on April 3rd, we should at least play something that is Pillars 2. You might say that the backer beta backers might find this unfair. One could argue this, however, I do not think it is unfair. They still got to play the beta for months before us regular backers. You can keep the release of the Beta on the old release date, and they'd still have exclusive opportunity to play the beta before that game was supposed to release. Presented for your consideration.
  9. I love the cosmology in Pillars. However, I think by their very nature, God exist in relation to creation myths. Gods hold the position in human understanding as a parental figure, someone to which deference and worship is owed. A god isn't just an immortal being who has magic powers. They are eternal beings with nearly limitless powers. They existed from the beginning of existence and will outlast the end of existence. Sure, there are exceptions to this, but in the human experience, this is generally how we see gods. Iovara's revelation that the gods aren't primordial entities but rather giant animats who syphon off soul energy from people is a shock-- or should be. The only thing in the Pillars universe with that supernatural power of a god in this universe is a person and you've been using it the whole game, shaped in one way or another. Yes, the gods are strong, but they're only strong because those with real strength give away part of their souls through their beliefs. To understand them as a sort of massive parasite changes the whole relationship with the so-called divine; they are no longer a benevolent parent figure, they're an abusive figure who are using you, and all the kith, for their own selfish reasons. I also love that Iovara's story changes so much based on what you tell the game it was. It's a really cool moment in the game, because it's one of the only narrative moments where you weren't being told what the story is, you are being asked what the story is. There is so much right in the fourth act. But I think Lady Webb has some problems. Not least of all that we can't kill her without a game over.
  10. As someone who thought the main-game was brilliant and WM1 was ... lacking in worthwhile content, I quite enjoyed WM2. I felt WM1 forgot the story, opting instead for a couple of sparse dungeons. WM2 has a lot more talking to it and there are a number of ways to accomplish the story missions, which themselves feel significant. I feel as if WM1 was made for people looking for more tactical gaming and by WM2, they quickly started to backpeddle. I am thankful for that.
  11. Out of all that we've seen announced at E3, this expansion, which I already knew that it was coming as I've already bought it, is the thing I'm most excited for.
  12. The very real possibility remains that "evil" is a myth, created to unify people against others. Too often evil is just a term for "the other side". One of my favourite quotes on the topic is "There are few wars between good and evil: most are between one good and another good." But Durance does make the comment he wants to mercy-kill the weak by burning them alive. So if any character comes close to evil in this game, it might be him.
  13. So, I guess this thread isn't "my choices don't matter!", it's "this game doesn't save me from my bad choices!" But what we should all take away from this is that: a "bad" outcome isn't a bad ending or a bad event. Stop expecting everything to turn out all rosy and warm. It's not a failure to walk away with the Dyrwood in ruins, because the Dyrwood was in ruins when you got there. The outcome is only a culmination of your choices, not a judgement of them. No one is going to think less of you because you let the Valian Republics domination trade, or didn't shut down the tower or didn't kill zombie Raedric.
  14. Regarding steam achievements: 0.0% does not equal none. It means less that 0.1% I have the achievement related to killing less than 175 monsters. If you know the game and know where the monsters are, you can, if you are soloing, easily complete the game without killing so many things. Especially if you play it on easy. You can complete the critical path with only killing about 19 enemies. So you even have a buffer, if you don't want to save scum it. Since you get a lot of xp from quests and many quests have non-violent solutions, you can even level up to a decent level for the last boss.
  15. I'm outraged. I have no words to eloquently express this betrayal of the very people who made this game a reality. They had plenty of time to decide it wasn't worth publishing, but that's what the backer was "sold". The chance to put text of their choosing into the game. It got through screening and in post release, a guy freaking out because he slept with a man (with comic exaggeration) is too much? Shame, Obsidian, Shame. This is disgraceful. Absolutely disgraceful. You have a duty to your backers, and if you didn't want people putting in their own text, you shouldn't have used it as a tool to leverage $500 out of them. Make this right!
  • Create New...