Jump to content

Miquel93

Members
  • Content Count

    76
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

78 Excellent

About Miquel93

  • Rank
    (2) Evoker

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://

Profile Information

  • Location
    Mallorca
  • Xbox Gamertag
    Miquel93

Badges

  • Pillars of Eternity Backer Badge
  • Pillars of Eternity Kickstarter Badge
  • Deadfire Backer Badge
  • Deadfire Fig Backer
  • Black Isle Bastard!
  1. She says the gods aren't real and IMMEDIATELY AFTER THAT clairifies they were manufactured. You talk with her about the gods being manufactured and then you talk with Thaos about the gods being manufactured and then when you beat Thaos you get a long flashback scene of the gods being manufactured. Did you hit alt+f4 when Iovara said "the gods aren't real" or something. Yeah, I know she explains they are manufactured hence the atheist propaganda. She doesn't say the gods are manufactured, she says they aren't real period. You would't have a line like that unless you want to shove some propaganda down the player's throat. I'm not like i'm the only one who noticed this, there are a lot of atheist players who loved the atheist message. Nothing wrong with them enjoying it. Still I don't have to like it. And before you start that it doesn' t matter she said the weren't real, let me stop you there and remind you there are no options to tell her it makes no difference if they are manufactured or not. It's clearly implied that's a given ( the fact they aren't real). Now we can rationalize that it doesn't matter if they are manufactured or not or that Iovara is clearly isane for believing they aren't real but that's not the message the game wanted to send. Are you for real? The "gods aren't real" line is there for two reasons. One being for effect and impact, the other because that's what Iovara ****ing believes. You can say that it makes no difference, but to her it does. She dedicated her life -and death- to this idea. The amount of projection that is put on the writers shoulders is astonishing... and utterly retarded.
  2. You can't voice disagreement with the conclusion that the engwithan came up with because it's impossible to discuss. The Watcher has only known a world with gods ruling over him, if then he finds out these gods are man made and they were created becuase the people that made them didn't find any tangible god, how can he argue otherwise? The companions have their own opinon on things, and the conlusion some of them come up with depends on how you've solved their quest. Edér can still be an Eothasian by the end of the game, and I believe Hiravias no matter how you end his quest, he wil still be a firm follower of Wael or Galawain. Durance can also be faithul to Magran (to the point that he kills himself because that's what he thinks he needs to do to regain her goddess favor) You can agree with Thaos ideals, and you can tell that to both him and Iovara, but you can't jjoin him in his crusade, he'll want you dead.
  3. But the game at no point makes any assertion that Iovora could be wrong as well and that there is a distinct possibility that the deities are real and are superior to man's will and spirituality.... game fails to make similar assertion at every point and yet its an RPG, that denies a player a crucial aspect of the role to play in this setting......all player dialogue choices are along the same lines which suggested all of the above that I have been saying........ You're not understanding the point. The gods are false, that's not what it's in doubt, it's the fact that the engwithan found no proof of a god that gave them purpuse, much like our own world. If there's a real deity in Eora, like ours, doesn't care and doesn't manifest in the world. That's the dilema that starts the plot. Thaos saw the question of a god existence unanswered and made his own, Iovara, after knowing about the falsehood of the gos, faced the same question, and arrived to the opposite conclusion. That's the point of the game, questions above answers.
  4. This thread is unbelievably stupid, but anyway, you have your answer from the man himself in the recent codex interview: http://www.rpgcodex.net/content.php?id=10231 TL;DR: You're projecting.
  5. I don't know. It seems to me that " benevolent " here means being a hypocrite. I mean, you show compassion by breaking the law, letting those murderers free. No way. Who are you to judge who deserve mercy ? By showing your misplaced compassion, you judge in your way those criminals. But you can't replace the law, you can't take this kind of decisions... Being benevolent, in my opinion, means indeed showing mercy and being compassionate, but... following the law. If a murderer deserve to go to jail, if you are benevolent you do all you can to put him in jail instead of killing him. You do not let him go, because in that way... Yes, you are benevolent because you forgive the murderer. But what about the one that got killed ? His killer got away without paying for his crime. So, you are surely not benevolent to the victim. ----------------------------------- So, what's better ? Put the killer to jail --> justice served for both killer and victim or Let the killer go away --> mercy for the killer while the victim is forced to suffer, because the one that killed him got away ? --------------------------------- Choices...life is full of them. If you kill, it's your fault : you chose to kill someone and so you deserve to go to jail. Benevolence is following the law in the less painful and more merciful way. But nonetheless you have to follow the laws. Oh, and morality too. Because if you only follow the law, you could follow the laws of a tyrant. So, you should follow both. Morality + law, always. That's my opinion on the matter. Ok, let me put it this way. You are the one that murdered one guy that was an awful human being and defended the woman you loved. A man shows up and knows about it. He's armed, and knows every detail of how you murdered that guy. After explaining your motive, he lets you go and show sympathy for you and your situation. What would your opinion of that guy be? The dispositions are there to represent how people sees you. Accumulate enough points and you earn a reputation of being X (in this case, benevolent). Here, this guy see that action as a benevolent one, and that helps getting the voice around that you're a compassionate guy. That's all there is to it. It's not a moral compass. If it bothers you, just deactivate the option to see the dispositions in dialog (in my opinion it works a lot better)
  6. The dispositions are not some sort of moral compass, exactly, and more how other people will value what you do or say. Here it is benevolent because you show comapssion to these people. Yes, they've done something bad, even if it may have been justified, but your action towards them is a benevolent one.
  7. We know they're working on project Lousiana, which started (or know of) a few months before release of WM p2, and that this project has at least 3 key people from the PoE team (Josh Sawyer, Adam Brennecke and Brandon Adler. Brandon came later, but assumed basically the position of Brennecke as producer so he could focus on the programming). Josh can say what he wants ("if we make a sequel" has been his go to phrase every time he's talked about things he would improve for PoE), but they're clearly working on a sequel, they just can't tak about it now.
  8. I don't remember specifics from my first playthrough, but as I said, I didn't got that impression then. Definitely not in the dialogue as it is now. The gods are creations of the engwithan, made from the souls of their people. They're real, they exist, and they have plenty of power, but their origin comes from man (or, well, kith).
  9. Yes, that's the only segment of their dialogue that I've seen even remotely approach to the secret of the gods, but it's known information for the player, and the leap from this to the gods aren't real is almost impossible to do, and it doesn't work well within the narrative (it should cause a response from the player if something as big as this was implied, not just an optional conversation with Aloth). This stuff really confuses me. it's really difficult for this to be a mistake, some kind of dialogue nod that shouldn't be there, as this is the conclusion to Aloth's arc and has passed almost a year since the game's release. It doesn't seem to be something that would be easy to miss, neither by the QA team or us. On the other hand it just doen't make any kind of sense to have that conversation there, none. If I had brought Aloth to the delemgan sisters during my first playthrough I would have gone crazy trying to find what had I missed, and of course, because the reveal is what allows you to conect the dots to understand the full picture, it would have probably ruined the ending for me, and I really liked the ending.
  10. I've brought Aloth for the first time with me to talk to the Delemgan sisters in Twin Elms in my replay, and after finishing the conversation, Aloth comes to terms with his awakening. But, all of a sudden, he talks about the delemgan sisters mentioning the gods not being real: As far as I know, and after doing the conversation three times choosing different options, the delemgan sisters don't mention anything remotely similar to this. Is this intended? Am I missing something here? This is the big reveal of the game, it's really weird to have it mentioned somwhere before talking to Iovara, even if it's only talked as a possibility.
  11. Why? I don't remember any combat that had lots of dialogue previous combat (like Raedric or the final boss) that you can't attack immediately through an option in dialogue without having to go through almost any of the dialogue.
  12. Well, I said I didn't remember any clarification from the game, I just thought that I could add my two cents to it, as it's something that came up to me replaying the game. The illness is "supposedly" rumbling rot, Odema isn't sure and just speculates with the symptoms you're having. They even called it strange illness in this new injury they added in partch 3.0 instead of rumbling rot. And you're most likely making a joke, but obviously I was talking of the souls according to lore.
  13. Yeah I always wondered about that. Game starts off with you have dysentery basically and then goes "NVM you're a Watcher actually." I don't know if it's explicity stated somwhere, but I think the reason for the illness is that the watcher's soul is trying to "meet" with Thaos. Souls with unresolved business try, unconciously, to resolve said business. The illness is a reaction of the watcher's soul because Thaos is nearby, to try to make him stop and with luck meet him. Either that or the Biawac trying to pull your soul from your body manages to cure it.
  14. Awesome! Thanks Justin! I really appreciate it. It's not something worthy of breaking things already working, but if it ends up being a harmless change, well, I'll be a happy man. Talked to A Brennecke and he gave the go ahead! Gonna change this today and check it in for the next patch. Thanks for bringing this to our attention! It's happening! Thanks Justin, that's great! This just made my day
  15. Awesome! Thanks Justin! I really appreciate it. It's not something worthy of breaking things already working, but if it ends up being a harmless change, well, I'll be a happy man.
×
×
  • Create New...