Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Miquel93



    Anyway you're rationalizing the ending. The elf lady didn't say they are manufactured but that they aren't real. That was the big secret. A ghost was telling you the gods aren't real because she heard some people talking. That's a crappy ending, sorry and it feels like an atheist propaganda out of place and out of nowhere. That's why it makes mose sense to dismiss her as clinically insane. Especially after playing the WM.

    The game could have made Raedric an atheist for example. His justification being that if this calamity is happening then there are clearly no gods and if they are and still allow for this to happen then he wants nothing to do with them. That would have been more appropriate given the game context. Not perfect considering the Eora gods are not known for their benevolence but better than that crappy ending.

    The game is still good though. Would have been even better if there were less emphasis on gods storywise.

    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. 

    • Like 3
  2. Second - I did get a bit of an atheist vibe from the ending - but that was mostly down to lack of choice on the part of my PC.  We get told that the Engwithans searched and concluded there were no true gods, but we can't even voice a disagreement with that conclusion. We get told that the Engwithan gods were man-made - and all the NPCs accept it without any real argument (one or 2 perhaps voice uncertainty before coming to their certain conclusion) and we can't even agree with Thaos (by even attempting to join his side before he inevitably rejects our offer and we have to fight anyway because he's the final boss in a CRPG).




    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.



    POE asks a question directly, through Iovara: "what if we can be assured of nothing?"  Given that you're at the climax of the game when you're asked this question, I'd say it's as close as you get to a summing-up of the game's themes in a single line.  Not "what if there is no God?" but "what if there's no way to be sure whether or not there is a God?"  I would have assumed that if you're religious the answer would be "faith" but it's interesting to me that Brimsurfer is so offended that the question would even be asked.


    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.

    • Like 3
  4. This thread is unbelievably stupid, but anyway, you have your answer from the man himself in the recent codex interview:





    Part of the genesis of the Pillars story in particular was the observation that in most fantasy settings, the gods are taken for granted. You know they're up there on Olympus or in the heavens or wherever, and you have some idea of how your afterlife is going to look, and what steps you have to take to improve your standing in that regard. Characters in these worlds, on some level, aren't quite human if they don't have to wonder about these things. It's a romantic and appealing fantasy to have all of that figured out and to only need to worry about killing your enemies and pleasing your gods and boning other similarly carefree and attractive violet-eyed adventurers, and that's resulted in the prevalence of that kind of setting within the genre. But if you go that route you miss out on one of the best ways to test your characters and see what they are made out of, and you also miss out on a powerful source of relatability that just about every other genre has access to (and futuristic sci-fi often thrives on).
    This wasn't an idea that came about immediately, even when writing what would become he final treatment, but when it did, it led to the game story as you see it now.
    In early development, a big concern I had was that the player's story gets into a lot of talking about big ideas that are often not grounded in specific, relatable realities. That is, as a player, you don't have the same emotional hook that, for example, The Witcher 3 has with the main protagonist searching for essentially his adoptive daughter. It's a big challenge to solve with a silent, player-defined protagonist. BG II was able to draw on the preceding game and use Imoen (although, oh man did I want to let her rot in prison), which was another tool we did not have the luxury of. I made some attempts at solving the issue in reworking pieces of the player's backstory, but that only got me so far. The bigger thing we did to help develop an emotional core to the story, which I felt was more successful, was in working the themes into the designs of the companion arcs and quests. The degree of success varied from character to character, but when I did a full play-through of the game late in development, I found myself enjoying the game's story most when I was seeing the deeper layers of these characters exposed, and their worldviews challenged. Sagani's finale might be my favorite - I found that scene to be very moving.
    The other thing worth mentioning with theme is that I think it's often best, in an RPG in particular, to look at themes as questions rather than as moral suggestions. In a novel, you might have a theme about injustice, for example, and the author's ultimate incarnation of the theme might boil down to "Everyone has a moral obligation to fight injustice, whether they are victimized by it or not." But in an interactive, branching medium, it's better to ask, "Are we obligated to fight injustice even when we are not personally involved?" And then you give the player the tools to make his or her own decision. You show them a variety of perspectives. Then you give them an opportunity to act on their own understanding of the matter, as influenced by everything they've seen so far in the game. I can't help but be amused by people who've expressed concerns that Pillars' story is nihilistic (and that's been a number of people), because that's much more a projection of how they've synthesized what they've seen than it is a reflection of some authorial message.



    TL;DR: You're projecting.

    • Like 5

    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. 


    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




    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)

    • Like 3
  6. 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.

    • Like 3
  7. Uh. I distinctly remembering the delemgan sisters mentioning the possibility of the gods not being real to my character near the start of the dialogue with them. I don't think I have a save from around that time, though.


    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.


    Dumb question maybe, but if the God's aren't real, then who the heck are they? They were created by mortals? I was always confused by that point, because even after all this concluding of the God's nonexistence, you still had Woedica and Galawain telling you to do things for them.


    I would enjoy a dialogue option to them, in which I say, "Ha! But you're not even real!" Then they just -- poof -- disappear. But I know it's not as simple as that...


    I think all this talking to god's is because Zahua slipped something into your food.


    You kind of a get a huge amount of info in this game in short spans of time.


    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). 

  8. I posted it on the Codex where you asked earlier, but might as well do so here as well: 


    It could come from the Twins saying that the Court of Penitents was for the judgement of souls that refused to acknowledge the gods. It's still a little strange, the dialogue with Aloth seems to suggest that the Twins themselves put forward the idea that the gods aren't real, when all they really say is "some people were punished for believing/saying so long ago". 


    Still, I don't think it really spoils what happens later. It is just an idea, you already know that there were others that thought similarly in the past. Iovarra speaks with far more certainty and authority and even then it's only with the "help" of Thaos that we're fully convinced.


    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.

  9. 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.

    • Like 3
  10. I can make up ex post facto rationalisations as well.


    They did say it's the rumbling rot and can be cured with springberries though, and that was that.


    It is true though that whenever my soul wants to resolve unfinished business, I get the runs also. Stupid souls.

    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. 

    • Like 2

    Interesting. That's always been kind of a plot hole really. Your character never actually gets a chance to make his tea.

    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.



    We could probably make this happen :) Maybe. I'll ask to see if it's safe, last thing I want to do is destabilize the base game. But if it's safe it's an easy swap.

    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! :aiee:


    Thanks Justin, that's great! This just made my day  :grin:  

  13. One of the things that bothered me when I finished the game is the lack of a unique or appropiate theme for the battle with the final boss.It's obviously not a big deal, but it was something that stuck with me. I undertand why there wasn't one, but still, it was a very minor letdown.


    Another thing that "bothered" me (bothered is a bit too strong, but using hyperbole never hurt anyone... I think) was that the "grandiose" theme that was featured at the beginning of the initial kickstarter pitch or the really, really great variant used in the first gameplay trailer for PoE was never used during the game (luckly they were, both, in the credits).


    I thought that, a modified version of that theme would be great as a combat track for the final battle in the game. It's epic, it carries a certain impact (beign the first theme we ever associated to this project), and fits as the theme for the ultimate battle. 


    Well, apparently Justin Bell thought similarly. I was listening to the soundtrack from the White March part 1 because the little I listened of it I thought was great (I've only completed 2 areas from the expansion, I decided to wait for the 2nd part), and behold, the "combat boss" theme (I think it's used in the alpine dragon fight, might be wrong):



    I started the game immediately, loaded an old save just at the gates of the final confrontation to see if they had implemented it just as I imagined and... The Dragon Thrashed and Wailed theme starts.  :(


    I don't usually make threads like this, but I remember that Justin used to engage quite frequently in conversations about the soundtrack in this forum before, so I thought was worth the shot. I was wondering if changing the theme for the final battle in a patch could enter in the realm of possibility or if it's something that has even been considered, as this theme fits (IMO, of course) in this situation like a glove.


    I'm not alone in this, am I?  ;(





    • Like 2
  14. Wait, there's people butthurt about what is basically a badge that identifies you as a backer among steam users? I mean, you get the achievment just by starting a new game, you don't have to do anything. Obsidian haven't blocked anything, even something as supperfluos and useless as an achievment, as it works -as I said- like an "honor" badge.


    Also, and here I might be wrong, but to get access to the achievment don't you have to download it as a DLC, with the backer in game rewards? If this is the case, it shouldn't even be necessary to get the 100%


    I'm sorry to say it, but people complaining about it are complete and absolute morons, there's no other way to look at this.

  15. Yes, most named npc are or quest givers, or quest related, or they sell something. That's mostl likely scope related, as they couldn't afford to bring much fluff with the resources available and the scale the game needed to have. I don't know how anything of this is related to quest markers.


    Quest markers tell you exactly where to go and who to see, nothing of this sort happens in PoE, as you have to find those named guys without the help of an arrow pointing to them.

  16. Yes but its not roleplaying, the guy is just standing next to me he has high enough lore to offer better insight but he just stands there like a statue, that's not very good. 


    I believe they took a step backwards here, specially when this mechanics was available in more than a decade old title..........and PoE does offer players chance to create custom characters, whether they are called hired adventurers or whatever....we have full control over them, they are PCs by every definitions, we control them entirely..... hell we even create them ourselves.


    If they were uncontrollable that could be some thing but they are not, they are entirely controllable and this mechanic of allowing all party members to contribute in dialogue would have also made even these hired adventurers (custom created characters) more interesting.


    PoE offers the chance to play with a party created by you, but it's only for combat reasons, so people can play with whatever combination they want and whithout having to take the story made companions if they don't want to. But that doesn't mean they're the player character. You can also control Edér, Aloth, Durance... and you can't control what they say or when they say it. Mercenaries don't have this sort of content because it would be a hell of a lot of work and it wasn't it's purpose, and they're created by the player instead of choosing them from some random pool so that players can build them however they want.


    I like a conversation system as seen in Storm of Zehir, or most recently Wasteland 2, but I don't understand what's the problem with only having roleplaying control of one single character, despite being a party based RPG (it's not exactly a novel concept)

  • Create New...