Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Verenti

  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!
  16. I think it's the best rpg I've ever played. I encountered a few bugs, sure. I had to refight a few battles because they just wouldn't end. But there were points where I had to ask myself why other companies aren't making games of this quality. The music and graphics are gorgeous and will remain so with age. The story is wonderfully crafted. The world is reactive. I couldn't stop playing this game until I finished it. Some people are never satisfied. But this game is precisely what they said they were going to do: a IE style game drawing inspiration from other IE titles. It's everything that modern rpgs have given up on because marketing didn't approve. It's a smart game that requires some brainpower. That makes the game esoteric, which is by definition, not universally accessible: not suitable for mass-market consumption. I think that explains why some people don't like it, but the other half are upset that they didn't get exactly what they had before. They're upset that we have new systems like engagement, or that wizards aren't exactly the same as in AD&D, because to be any different is to be "completely useless and broken". This portion of the community is completely stuck in the past and unable to adapt. At the end of the day, if you like it, that's all that matters. It doesn't matter if we have a vocal community of people who hate it. It doesn't matter that the steam rating is very positive. It doesn't matter that the metacritic score is currently 90. What matters is that, you, the individual, like this game-- or dislike it. Everyone else's opinion, for you, is just background noise.
  17. Save the world is a boring story. In a save the world plot, you know from the start about the outcome of the story. The world will be saved. Why? Otherwise the story ends (due to lack of world). Therefore, while the plot should have the highest stakes (literally everything is on the line), there are no stakes at all. Because failure isn't a viable outcome for the story, you know they won't fail. World trotting save the world plots also fall apart because they haven't the luxury to have any real depth because they have to detail a wide number of locales. But there hasn't been any obsidian/black isle game I can think of where the fate of the world lay in the balance. Maybe Fallout 1? Arcanum was a save the world plot, but Baldur's Gate, P:T, Icewind Dale, Fallout 2 and NV all had regional plots, where you were saving a handful of communities. Most of these games have stakes that are more personal than global. It's about getting revenge and answers more often than it is staving off certain destruction.
  18. How does that even make sense? Gods that are not real but have godly powers? They're real, but they're not gods. They're like a super version of those spectres or animats you see walking around. They're constructs which feed and grow powerful from soul energy, which their followers willingly feed them and thus entrench their position. That's why Woedica doesn't like Animancy: because she's a product of animancy. That's how they were made and that's their Achilles' heel. I mean, the real hint should have come much earlier; how many gods do you know can be killed?
  19. I saw the story, and thank you for explicitly posting spoilers, to be more about the power of creation and what limitations should exist, when natural limits cease to exist. Clearly, there is a strong drive for theology as an ethical limiter in the plot. One of the main themes, I believe was the destructiveness of absolute truth. People didn't kill the Eothasians because their religion. They killed them because they thought they had an absolute understanding of their reality. Doubt tempers belief, because one can't be so quick to act in the absence of that assurance. Which is why Thaos supports the gods, because being assured at the non-existence (which is a funny thing to say, because the god do *exist* in this world, they simply aren't natural beings,) of the gods is more dangerous than the assurance of the existence of the gods. In this way, it could be seen as a debate on democracy, as much as anything else. It's easy to point at relgion and athiesm, but that's monumentally lazy. That's what it superficially has on the tin, but what do these elements represent? What are their components? In the end, I suppose it matters little. Thing like this are less about what the author(s) writes and more what is gained from an understanding of the writing, like Kana and his tablet. I think this just proves how lovely this broken glass is.
  20. Did you learn ancient Engiwthan from the Vampire? I think that's a prerequisite. Which is what the fellow meant by finish heritage hills.
  21. It's near the entrance. Go the opposite way. Alternatively, you can enter from the gorge floor.
  22. Did we all play the same game? There was a big reveal that made it all come into place, two of them. Spoilers here. First: The whole situation is Woedica making a power play. The Saints War was Eothas trying to stop this plan before it got going. Magran stepped in at the end, trying to take Eothas' slice of cake for herself. Second: The gods themselves are just constructions designed to create peace and stability. Thaos doesn't give a damn about Woedica, and this entire war for supremacy is just theatre put on for the benefit of the Kith. Thaos' ultimate aim is to end all chaos, and using this God-construct as a tool to do so. However, what was only said briefly is the whole game is about "gods" and belief. Even Iovara holds a god: choice. Every character is defined by their god, whether or not that god is a god at all (or if any of the gods are). As per the ending itself? Baldur's gate had a short video, showing the Bhaalspawn conflict was far from over, but most obsidian games have an epilogue telling you how your travels and choices changed the world. Why would this have something else?
  23. I think the whole idea of animancy lends itself to Nietzscheanism. It's more than bringing stuff back from the dead. All of the powers for all the classes are fuelled by channelled soul energy. It's all a projection of the will of the user, which is interesting, because resolve seems like one of the most powerful stats for conversations. In this world, your will can literally be used to shape reality. That's a pretty Nietzschean view. But as you say, personal interpretation is influential. I have focused on philosophy dealing with the application of power, as part of my studies. So perhaps I'm just seeing myself reflected and though I was looking at myself again. So to speak.
  24. I'll try not to put any specific spoilers in this, but be warned, there might be spoilers. I finished the game last night. Wow, Fantastic. Amazing. Better than the games it seeks to emulate, certainly. Maybe the best RPG I've ever played. Maybe the best game I've ever played. I have a few negative comments. I wish there was a swap weapon set button. Otherwise the game feels very linear and the areas small. Maybe that's just the effect of resolutions changing, but both the cities feel smaller than similar ones from other games. But the story and writing and plot were amazing. The late game reveals were masterful, and I'm in this period of retrospective, while I think about the consequences and implications and arrange all the parts so they fit. It's a delight to deal with it, to have a new playground to think in, because the work is so cohesive. It would really be interesting to hear some of the devs talk about the themes and ideas represented in this piece. It seems like much of the work of Obsidian has this "will to power" sort of Nietzscheanism driving it, which is great consider how much of a power fantasy video games are. I wouldn't say Pillars is primarily about this, but you catch glimpses of it in reflections-- certainly enough to know it's in the room. This makes it all more beautiful. The sheer depth of things not directly said inspires awe. And I sit in anticipation of the future too. There is a story hinted at in the conclusion. The final moments of the game drops a world changing piece of information, but doesn't do anything with it. Will that be the central theme of a PoE saga? Originally, I said I would like different characters to broaden the setting, but now I would like to see this story to it's conclusion. This is a beautiful masterpiece: dark and rich. The game gives us a lot of knowledge without telling us what to think about it. Thank you for that. As a thinker, I celebrate the terrible depth of this deceptively still pond.
  • Create New...