Longknife

Do you have evidence for this? Cause if so, I missed it.

IGN is not being boycotted and just watched like a hawk, yes? Cause here's a link: http://www.ign.com/articles/2015/04/01/nintendo-wants-you-to-vote-on-the-next-smash-bros-fighter-2 Am I being paranoid? That just jumps out at me as being seemingly irrelevant. It could simply be Nintendo on their own trying to appeal to the female demographic more, it just feels odd given that if that were the case, I would think your age would also be asked, no? Since that's relevant for demographics. EDIT: Also jesus christ, this is actually my first visit to a games journalism website in ages. Just how crappy ARE the standards? That doesn't qualify as an article, there's no link or direction on where and how to vote, and should it be an ambiguous "please say who you want" from Nintendo with no actual poll, you'd think IGN would realize "hey we have a great opportunity to start a poll or tally or discussion right here" and make an effort instead of "ya write in the comments I guess." Was someone paid to write that tiny snippet? I actually got that news from Vinny of Vinesauce and only linked the article as a source, but looking back ffs it may have been equally as informative just to link the Vinesauce stream....

...Have you ever ****ing spoken to an American? I dare say we're the most self-depricating people on Earth, both because we're just humor-loving and because we have every reason to be. (if someone would like to name another candidate, please do because I would love to meet the people of said country) Not all of us of course, since there's truth to all stereotypes and the "MURICA" stereotype is no exception, but I often find myself explaining to foreigners who're curious about America that the USA actually houses two very distinct cultures, and criticism of the USA is very welcome amongst one, still welcome amongst the other for different reasons entirely.

Maybe it's the cynical part of me, but I personally think that... Well quite frankly, the reality is that some people might hear Pillars' story and take offense, thinking the game has an athiest agenda for example. I don't think that's the actual intention, but rather the story is one of individuality, inner strength, and doing things because you think it's the right thing to do, not because someone else told you to. As such, the game needs a failsafe to suggest it's not about religion, and I think that failsafe is Eothas. I don't expect to ever see any concrete answers regarding him, I just expect ambiguous presence so as to foster the potential belief that Eothas is actually the one true god within the Pillars universe, the truth in that being the case or not being fully up to interpretation. I too expect to see him again (or at least his name and whispers of him and his work), but I do NOT expect to ever see definitive answers about him, Waidwen, or his motivations. Again, I do not expect logic here. I consider Eothas to function as a failsafe, open to interpretation. The questions you ask are very warranted, but they also cannot be answered or explained. If Eothas chose a hands-off approach of never confirming his existence, then obviously there would be reluctance to show himself to the Engwithians. Would a God let humankind force his hand? Though then again, one would question why Eothas cannot simply sabotage the machine and make it explode or the like. Perhaps he thought that in doing so, the Engwithians would be determined to rebuild it, and if the machines continued to explode, they WOULD recognize how inexplainable it is, conclude there's an outside power influencing their project, and determine his existence? If Eothas has a goal of his existence being unknown, then the method of appearing as a mortal human serves this purpose as people have doubts, and directly destroying the machine via warfare provides a solution that won't be called into question. But ALL of this is pure speculation and we cannot rely on any of it, because we don't know the Pillars universe or how a God - if one exists - would think or work. We do not know if Eothas would even be all-powerful or if immediate intervention with the Engwithians would be possible. I did not make this thread in hopes of pinpointing what Eothas is, or claiming that I could do so. I merely made this thread to highlight Eothas' function as a wild card. He can show how humans can and will ALWAYS have capacity to believe in something, he can show the potential for actual divine forces, and he can show room for tons of future speculation. Twin Elms is thousands of years old. It predates anything else in the game, save for other Engwithian tech. It's older than even the books within it that explain who Eothas is. (the presence of that book is more the mystery) I'm arguing that I think we would see some form of evidence the machine within Twin Elms did at one time show Eothas if Eothas was infact an Engwithian construct. We would see a non-functional altar to pray at, or see his constellation on the floor. Alternatively, some may theorize Eothas was an Engwithian construct who developed a way to become human, and Woedica/Magran for whatever reason opposed this. Again, all we can do is speculate, as Eothas was designed as a loose end that we cannot tie up in order to instill doubt and question within us.

To be honest, I don't really read Oby's posts if they are longer than one sentence (and even then...). I tend to make out-of-context replies to people addressing his/her/its posts, as a result. I'd apologize but that would probably be a fake apology, as I don't really intend to start reading oby's posts in detail in the future... re: debating the economy. Economics is commonly viewed as a social science, but the economy is a complex system. Economists aren't trained as physical scientists (no offense intended to economists), so there is an installed lack of rigour in economic debates, which is further compounded by ideologies and data manipulation to fit various agendas. Given the scale of the problems also, it is difficult to ascertain clearly the full effects of measures. In the end, what you have is a lot of people having a lot of opinions with little basis in fact. Under these circumstances it's difficult to have a productive discussion, and people will believe what they wish to believe. Yep, don't have to tell me. Economics classes (albeit minor ones of course) get forced on you if you study law here. I'm mostly experienced with macro but also have some with micro. Have you seen or done some of the calculations involving economics? Those are a nightmare too. String of variables in a giant equation to the point where you ask yourself where to begin. All studies at universities seem to begin with some snobby crap the professor spews to feed his ego about how great his subject matter is (the majority of professors have egos, according to a study I recall, and I doubt anyone would disagree with that sentiment), and I can't forget the macroeconomic accounting one began with both the professor and the books we were recommended saying Planck (Quantum physics) considered macroeconomic accounting to be too difficult, BOTH toned as if they served no purpose other than to stroke their own egos. Even the little ego stroking speech from my law professors had a hint of "don't feel bad or let it bruise your ego if you end up dropping out," this one sounded like blatant bragging. And it didn't really seem like a surprise at all given that the equations just feel so disorganized in the sense there's TOO many variables for one to feasibly move forward logically and with any sense of certainty. Price, demand, functions of the product, products that depend on/relate to/benefit from your product and their value, supply, etc etc etc. No surprise he'd prefer physics since Physics is at least consistent, logical and reliable, economic calculations are anything but that. Of course they try to apply systematic thought and logic to it, but there's only so much you can feasibly do. I hate it. Sometimes to me it doesn't even feel like a situation of misinformation or bad methodology from economists who debate, but rather the focal points differ. For example I once saw a debate between a micro and macro (and this was something that popped into my head when you asked why funnel money to Greece) where the micro said the government should keep it's hands off and not provide any assistance when we had the recession, saying the economy would fix itself. Meanwhile the macro voiced concern saying the government does need to step in and provide support and assistance in order to ensure that the lower class doesn't suffer and that the economy stays healthy and things run smoothly. To me, BOTH were simultaneously correct, it's just the micro guy was merely focused on the universal truth that the economy is a cycle of ups and downs whereas the macro guy recognized it would be possible to diminish the scope and scale of the economic recession by funneling money to the right areas/people so that they could continue buying things, stimulating the economy and thus keeping it healthy so that the recovery process comes about quicker. The first was worried about the government's potential to screw it up, the latter was worried about those unfortunate few who would be hit VERY hard by the recession and our potential to handle the situation better than a hands-off approach. The two schools of thought merely have different focal points, with one wanting to learn to play the game and profit while the other merely wants to understand it and influence it; seemingly similar in theory, but also quite different.

With her marble muscles.

I didn't perceive you were yelling, that was in reply to you saying "We'll be over here not even noticing any problems and yelling at Greece to get off their asses", which I take exception to (Greece isn't a Reichskommissariat, bro), but above everything else, I find utterly pointless. Want them to "get off their asses"? Stop lending them money. The Google/Startpage remark was facetious as I already explained, made even more so by the fact that Startpage is Google for all intents and purposes (save privacy). I do not doubt that the current climate in Germany is to blame the PIGS for all of Europe's woes. A not completely unfounded view, but skewed. The links I posted meant to illustrate that it's in fact France's, Europe's second largest economy, that is a much bigger cause for concern than the PIGS, a fact you glossed over as it doesn't fit very well with the mainstream discourse. The links dealing with the "German [mini]jobs miracle" thing and growing poverty and inequality illustrate how the great macroeconomic figures you wield to claim that Germany is an economic powerhouse (which it is) mean very little as far as actual people's living standards are concerned. The whole growth paradigm is hogwash, because economies growing by eleventy bajillions of make-believe money doesn't mean much if the majority's purchasing power is steadily decreasing. That's what the widening income gap means. Your reply was in the context of who is being hurt the most by sanctions, which is a matter I ignored completely. Rather, I was replying to your half-truths and oversimplifications, and especially your own self-contradiction when you simultaneously assert that the dollar-to-Euro exchange is dependent on multiple factors and then launch into a diatribe against Greece. Don't take this as a criticism of Germany, a defense of Greece, or a rebuttal motivated by a hurt patriotic pride. The accepted narrative makes my skin crawl, is all. Actually agree with a lot of the things you said. As stated, it's merely a matter of them feeling out of place within the context of Germany and Russia. I sat here basically with the expression of "really dude? Oby is talking out of his ass and you're going to nitpick the comparatively minor flaws of the German/EU economy?" I merely posted "half truths" and "oversimplifications" because again in that context, they're simply not relevant. My take on the matter is you start with the biggest fallacies first, then move down. I didn't want to make a big long laundry list of "sure Germany could do better in A, B and C and the European Union as a collective has shown weakness in D" because I know how that ends: Oby would be clinging to it, refusing to move onto the topic of Russia's economy, instead wanting the convo to revolve around the EU/Germany's comparatively smaller issues. No, he's got the larger claim here, let's here his proof and his sources, THEN let's move on. But yeah don't get me wrong, I agree that completely that the widening income gap is a huge cause for concern (especially given that at times Merkel voices stances on things that hit too close to home with the American way of doing things; she didn't get my vote ijs) and I do feel as though there's a degree of elitism within the EU where the bigger states do not get called out on their issues so much as the states who may have fudged the numbers to obtain EU membership. There is a degree of snobbiness within Germany that's hard to describe, I suppose what it is is that they believe their work ethic is better and superior (and admittedly it is quite good) so any work involving German efforts must be fantastic, and I would not be surprised if other bigger EU countries (France, UK, Austria; austria included cause I've been there and know first-hand they're similar) shared that attitude. That's not to say complaints of Greece are unwarranted, merely that as I've heard for example, Greece also has complaints about Germany, which I'm sure hold merit as well. (sadly I don't have any contact to Greeks long-term so I couldn't tell you what those are) It's merely a case of....quite frankly - and this probably isn't a surprise - but I find Oby to be quite delusional, and I do NOT think that what he needs now to realize this are examples where the German/EU economy is flawed, but rather examples of how his argument/the Russian economy is very flawed. People tend to cling onto the parts that reinforce their narrative. Lastly and a bit tangently, quite frankly I'm not a big fan of discussions of the economy. In my experience it's has often devolved into students of macro and micro being at odds with one another, both accusing each other of being misinformed and uneducated, and I never know where to start when wtf no one can ever agree which info/source is correct and which is not. Only reason I even dare speak out now is because I cannot for the life of me name a single professor, teacher, or publication I know of that would agree with oby's stance on things.

Have you guys considered that the consistency of the difficulty might be that along-the-road battles are easy, off-the-path battles are hard? Mind-blowing, I know.

The first sentence is "lolwat." The second sentence I've got no comment. The third, since when is this a con?

But what damage does that actually do if all files belonging to that character simultaneously get wiped if there's a death on one of them? The only fear is that people would reload older saves once a newer proves unwinnable, which is ALREADY doable with the one file you have. Likewise, autosaves are frequent enough that it doesn't seem like something that would be used to cheese the system, but rather just a failsafe to prevent frustrating moments if you crash or the like.

Recently completed Trial of Iron cause I'm terrible at continuing characters that've died (dead-is-dead is THAT ingrained in my mind) so I figured "why not" after the third or fourth character death saw me deleting their files despite not needing to and despite my desire to practice with the game more, since I'm still on Normal difficulty (still can't decide if I should up it to hard, if I'm ready or not). However, having now completed it and gotten the achievement, I honestly have no desire to keep it on simply because Trial of Iron offers no alternative saves and no autosaves. This means if your power goes out or something, then all progress is lost. Also means that if you encounter a bug or something? You're done. For people who also prefer to play more roleplay-ish and reload for mistakes...? You're also done. What I mean is, for example, I had not encountered a single instance of a character getting mad if I took the stuff in their house, then I found a SWEET LOOKIN' BOWLER HAT in a locked chest by an important quest NPC. Hell yeah I took that thing, and lo and behold I soon had half of the town guard attacking me. I was forced to keep this decision with the quest failing (luckily alternatives existed) and my character killing a load of innocent people (with sweet armor to loot, luckily), all for a hat. Apparently my character thought he was in the Team Fortress 2 universe for a moment, but had I had the autosave, I would've reloaded since theft felt out of character and I didn't mean to steal. I couldn't though unless I wanted to lose hours of progress. Some of you might read this and say "then save more often, idiot." Thing is, Trial of Iron tosses you back to the main menu when you save whether you want it to or not. It assumes you're done saving and makes the save process that much more tedious. So at the very least, could a "would you like to continue playing" pop-up be added to Trial of Iron? Currently it just feels like a feature I don't neccesarily need as it merely disrupts my saving ability, all for the sake of enforcing a rule that I'm responsible enough to follow on my own, should I choose that playstyle. I'll probably not be using it, but I see the other achievements involving it, I'll probably go for them, and I can just imagine my frustration if I lose hours of playtime one day because a glitch, crash or irreversable quest screw-up occurs.

I had 7 options I believe, maybe 6. It looked like this: 1. Return the souls to the wheel 2. Return the souls to the Hollowborn 3. Release the souls to Dyrwood to strengthen it's people 4. Destroy the very essense of the souls 5. Give the souls to Woedica to strengthen her 6. Release the souls into SPAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACE (or whatever it was for Wael) 7. Do nothing I can also tell you that if it turns out the Woedica option depends on dialog you pick? Be a slave. Pick slave as your backround when you start the game, Skaen (yes Skaen, despite being with the other guy too) will approach you as you approach the machine and urge you to serve Woedica, who he considers a worthy master that treats her subjects well. Doesn't help OP now, but in the next playthrough where you absolutely want to support Woedica, Slave is a free ticket, should her option need to be unlocked.

How long have you been here? They have no self-awareness, this has been demonstrated time and time again. But this is the pinnacle of "wait wat" and remains as such. I think the first female video game character that'll come to anyone's minds is either Peach or Samus. The SJW crowd complains about video games being sexist, then given an opportunity to make a character of their own, all they did was make Peach again but they cut her boobs off, while wording it in such a way that frankly sounds disturbing and almost....humorously, like something a Nazi would say. (not calling SJWs Nazis, mind you) It's so ridiculously over-the-top that it feels like a comedy skit. Cept I'm not laughing, I'm just extremely confused.

Moon Godlike is probably one of the two best subraces in the game, the other being Hearth Orlan. Yes I've tried Moon Godlike on a Cipher and yes the endurance recovery can still be a lifesaver, though again yes it would be superior on a Paladin or Fighter for obvious reasons.

I still don't understand why the SJW crowd made Vivian Aryan and then said they "improved" her. Like where's the self-awareness there? It feels like a really bad joke.

At first I wasn't convinced by your argument, but thanks to the amount of periods you used, I saw the wisdom of your post and realized how foolish I've been all along for thinking differently. Thanks.

What is it with the bad RPG community and their worship of this word while simultaneously not understanding it's meaning?

Yeah the moment it happens it's like GG.

IIRC you're not actually stuck there. Check all his dialog and you should have a new dialog option tucked away somewhere. Wasn't so hard to find though. OR if I'm mistaken, this one triggers on it's own. If you've yet to see one where you wake up and see a vision of Durance trying to blow onto the embers of his staff to keep them lit, failing and then throwing the staff down, then don't worry cause this step triggers itself.

Given that the game saved their company and is currently topping review and sales charts, I think it's safe to assume we'll see another.

Curse you, scroll wheel!!

But that's the thing: you cannot feasibly disprove a God. If I tell you right now there is an all-powerful being watching our every movement and ask you to prove me wrong, you cannot. It can't be disproven because anything you could throw at me, I can argue that my God planned for that or purposefully misled you or whatever. As such, we are left to presume the Engwithians did not actually somehow disprove the existence of gods, but that they simply failed to find proof of one time and time again until that was undeniably the most logical conclusion for them to make. And yeah, his symbol being absent is what I was talking about, not the absence of an altar. Is there a symbol that appears on the floor but does not actually speak to you at some point in time or is Eothas the only one? I'm not claiming to know for certain Eothas is a real god or the like, I'm merely stating I find it interesting that the presentation allows for such an interpretation to exist.

So yesterday my Wizard and Cleric got to the point where the tier one spells were spammable and came back after each encounter. Is this something that happens when you hit a certain level, a hidden effect of the "Bonus level 1 spell" talent which I grabbed just before, or a bug?

You guys do realize you're debating which side has been more polite or which side has received more discrimination, right? All of this is irrelevant and a result of yourselves pouring your own agendas into an otherwise simple issue. A joke was made, some people got offended, some did not. You can either support the joke's right to exist or believe it couldn't hurt to remove it so long as the author okays it and Obsidian shows a desire to recall it. It's that simple. There is no "trans vs. non-trans thought" here, there is no "my side has been more polite, therefore we should get our way," there is no "my side is subject to more discrimination and therefore we should get our way." That's not how it works. A joke was made, some people got offended, Obsidian is fully in their right to leave it in or get it removed. If people choose to get offended and mad at Obsidian for having it or keeping it, that's their problem and only gets the attention it does because Obsidian is a business and must of course evaluate if they care that much about catering to this group. If Obsidian were to remove it and people conclude Obsidian is spineless and demand their money back, again that's their problem, and again the only reason this would give Obsidian thought is in the interest of appealing to their customers. The end result is that all you guys are doing is applying an unusually disproportionate level of stress for them that, in my humble opinion, doesn't seem warranted at all. There's absolutely zero reason to invest this much time and effort into this, and again in my humble opinion, if you invest THIS much effort into a joke and the alleged implications it has, then uhhh...well maybe you could find a better use of your time? Don't mean that disrespectfully, but yeah, if your goal is trans rights for example then surely there's better ways to use your time in favor of the trans community rather than arguing about a joke in a random RPG on the internet. If your interest is comedy and free speech....well personally I'm in this camp cause I love comedy, and this stuff happens CONSTANTLY. This is status quo for comedy, so I see no reason to sweat it more than any other; just laugh it off and keep telling jokes that may or may not offend people. I can only hope Obsidian actually doesn't give a **** and is only entertaining such threads like this one in the interest of showing that everyone's right to an opinion and discussion is respected, and that they otherwise aren't sweating it.

Good job on Eder. He's this nice little combo of "humble country boy" while simultaneously being smart and clever, just preferring things a simple way. There's a very obvious charm to it. I'd be curious as to why Sawyer decided to make Pallegina ashamed or unhappy with her godlike state. Felt very out of character for me (or disgustingly weak, imo? Maybe it's a personal dislike) in a character I otherwise enjoyed. Durance was also a riot once his quest is completed. The scream he does during a certain scene is hilarious to me. Oh and Kana. Kana legit reminds me of some Brazilians I went to school with, all coming to Germany to try and get an education so they can go back home and make Brazil a better place, all adoring their homeland but voicing concern for how disappointing it its. Even his outlook on life and - funnily enough - his facial structure reminded me of my Brazilian friends. Almost makes me wonder if the writer also hasn't encountered some big-hearted Brazilian hoping to show their country the potential of the world.