aksrasjel

What's funny is that - after thinking it through - I personally don't have that much of a problem with this relationship system per se. Sure, the execution of it leaves a lot to be desired and I agree it's gimmicky and overdesigned. But it's more of a symptom than a cause. Real talk - what really boils my brain with regards to companions, sidekicks and all this jazz is that in their infinite wisdom narrative lead(s) in Obsidian decided that NPCs like Maia/Pallegina are much more interesting character concepts to explore than Ydwin/Rekke/Vatnir or even Fessina. And that kind of raises my eyebrow. I apologize all the Maia fans out there, but for me she's probably one of the blandest characters in the roster with the most paper-thin backstory I've seen in a videogame since Casavir. Pallegina fares only slighty better - it really doesn't help that her "deep, philosphical discussion" about faith with Xoti is an equivalent of two teenage girls throwing poo at each other. Not particularily deep or profound. And wouldn't that be much cooler to actually see them discussing their ideological differences like mature people? On the other hand we have Ydwin, that seems to have a novel worth of interesting backstory - and from what I've seen so far in BoW - some really clever character philosophy that will probably never get explored in-depth (no, really, her "reasonable" approach to faith is actually pretty neat) and Rekke who's entire existence and cuture turns the Eoran status quo on it's head. Yet both of those characters get completely ignored in favor of IMO much less interesting ones. I get that certain companions serve a function, and that's why the get "story priviliges" - AKA faction representatives, but function doesn't make them automatically deep and memorable. Honest question - was Pallegina really this popular/interesting/memorable to be brought back outside of her Vailian representative status? What I'm trying to say is - I guess people would bitch much less about relationship system, companions, sidekicks and sidekick expansions into companions if the companion roster was actually engaging (more conceptually than writing-wise) instead of just functional. And less people would have been disappointed with the "news" about not having new companions. But I guess it wasn't the focus of the narrative. And unfortunately I blame the narrative leads for that - beacuse there is only so much a writer can do if the character concept is boring from the get-go. --- To be absolutely fair, I don't think that all companions are irredeemably boring. I legitimately like Serafen, although I wish there was more to him and Tekehu is a decent idea that could've been a really good character if he was given more focus on his struggles as Ondra's chosen and what that means to him - y'know, character development. Xoti is a mess, but could have been decent if the writers made up their minds where are they going with her. And toned down the obnoxiousness. Oh my Gaun.

I actually wouldn't mind if sidekicks were to be reworked into BG2 or even PoE 1 style companions - with linear story arc and character development, a number of banters and interjections and maaaaaybe a *very* short quest. Just feeling their presence throughout the main story and ability to talk to them would be a big deal. Yet, it's a pipe dream - I would imagine that full voice acting is too expensive. Best we can count on I guess is sidekicks being given some content in DLC areas - similar to Ydwin in BoW. From what I've gathered, it's far from ideal solution (I still haven't played any of the DLCs) but it's a band-aid.

Agreed. BG2 "system" wasn't particularly complex, yet it was getting stuff done when it counted. Companions had quite extensive romance paths, argued with one another, fought one another, interjected in conversations and had a lot to say on various topics. Even the less-developed ones like Minsc or Mazzy. BG2 even had a romance triangle between Aerie, CHARNAME and Haer'dalis. And more importantly, modders are still adding new companions with extensive friendship and romance paths and expanding existing companion content. Writing quality aside, some of the mod companions are actually much more complex than the ones from the vanilla game. On the other hand, Deadfire's system is definately very ambitious, but in practice I feel like the companions are actually less developed and interactive then the ones in PoE 1. I don't think it was worth it overall.

Honestly, I wouldn't mind if an "upgraded" sidekick only had a dynamic relationship with the player, while keeping relationships with other companions static, unchangable and reduced to a number of banters here and there, similarly to PoE1. It absolutely can be done. This affinity system IMO does not make good use of dynamic relationships between companions and it only adds an unnecessary workload for the writers and especially programmers. Pallegina will always hate Xoti no matter what,so what's the point of dynamic relationship between the two? Honestly, I think the bigger elephant in the room is the full voice acting though. It skyrockets the budget needed for implementing a companion/expanding a sidekick considerably and for me, unecessarily so. But again, that's just post-facto observations.

Didn't Brandon Adler essentially confirm that Obsidian has no plans for any further paid DLCs after the third one in his latest Gamescom interview? "Currently we do not have plans for any additional paid DLC after the third one, obviously that would depend on the perception of the content and what we’re doing." So I guess all it's patches and megabosses from now on. EDIT: Apologies for typos. Mobile posting is a nightmare.

Probably in this thread. If it ends up being true I'd gladly eat crow - if for no other reasons that the seemingly endless "I want Ydwin to be a full companion" threads would stop being posted. To be fair, I wouldn't hold my breath about Ydwin going full companion, despite the evidence to the contrary. I would rather assume those files and convo triggers to be a cut content. It's clear that Obsidian was considering it - those files had to come from *somewhere*, but I wouldn't be surprised that somewhere along the way they decided that it's not worth it/too expensive/too much work (also full VO is very cost-intensive) and scrapped the idea of Ydwin as a full companion in a DLC, and what we are seeing are leftovers someone forgot to remove.Also Josh Sawyer was very vehement recently about how much work and resources creating a companion requires. Don't get me wrong, I would love to see Ydwin as a full companion - but I legitimately don't believe that Obsidian is going to go through with this.

My sentiments exactly. Other companions looked so... generic, and she just "clicked" with me as a character concept. And then, somewhere along the line Ydwin was crowned anime yandere waifubait beacuse white-haired elf with glasses or something, and it just stuck.

Like it was mentioned earlier, maybe Obsidian decided to upgrade her periodically, due to time constraints. Didn't Zahua and Devil get the same treatment in the White March DLC - with only having content in White March areas that was later expanded over to the main game? Maybe it can be done with other sidekicks as well. And as much I would love to see her become a proper companion - there is a possibility that those files can mean absolutely nothing and might simply be cut content files that someone forgot to remove - it happens all the time. I haven't played BoW yet - I'm not in a hurry and I intend to wait for all the DLC's to drop - but technically speaking, she did get "expanded" there, so that may be the end of that. From what I hear, it's not exactly what fans had in mind, but it's the thought that counts. Having said that, being a very big fan of "quality over quantity" approach, and would gladly take one, properly developed companion over God knows how many sidekicks. I think we're approaching 7 sidekicks right now, provided that SSS leaks are true and I don't think we've seen the end of it. But I guess I understand the realities. BTW: Have you noticed the weird "reverse" numbering of DLCs? SSS files exist under lax_01_00_arena_island, while BoW ones under lax_02_00_iceberg_dungeon. And BoW came out first. Nothing substantial, I'm just curious what's up with that.

And apparently, we'll be getting another sidekick in the next DLC. Obsidian's commited, I guess.

Yeah, I'm on the same boat. With the current DLC timeline I'll just patiently wait till December for all the DLC, free stuff and patches to drop to have a "complete" experience and then I'll give it my third playthrough. I really don't like playing a game in chunks.

Speaking from my personal experience - it's beacuse the game continues after Ashen Maw. I was told that Eothas wants to destroy the Wheel, he cannot be stopped and there is nothing to be done about it. Yet the game insists on going forward and to continue my "hunt" for Eothas. Usually after hearing that, players assume that the game is lying to them and there must be the way to counter that. We've heard that spiel before. And doing the impossible and fighting against all odds is what protagonists have been doing since the dawn of time - starting probably from Greek myth. Plus, you have other gods on your side and there was this smelly hobo called Durance in PoE 1 who *did* manage to stop a god - temporality, but it counts IMO. So taken at face value - the possibility of stopping Eothas exists. And credit where it's due - this is one of those of very rare times that the story does not lie to the player. The writer managed to pull a brilliant subversion of an old trope. It's just while you can subvert any trope you wish, it doesn't mean you always should - tropes exist for a reason. Telling player straight up that they won't stop a big threat that was set up for them leaves them with nothing to do - so the story either has to stop on a tragic realisation of the futility of their actions or keep going and negate that or waste the players/readers/viewers time confirming that. And nobody likes their time being wasted. I still remember people being pissed off about Dragon Age 2 story. So, seen in this light, yes, players expectations were wrong. In my case, I never actually expected to fight Eothas in physical combat (beacuse, honestly, it's probably impossible even from technical standpoint - the Unity engine would probably explode). I expected to stop his plans in some other creative way - beacuse doing the impossible is what fantasy stories - and stories in general - in videogames taught me. So, I guess it's on me and the story was telling the truth. I guess it's clever on writers part - but does it make good storytelling? Imagine Frodo Baggins being told that he won't succeed in destroying One Ring. And after all his struggles to get to Mount Doom he actually fails to do that, the Ring takes over, he becomes a Ringwraith and the story ends on a nihilistic note. Fun times. I guess the monomyth would be to blame for audience's dissapointment. And I understand that PoE 2 exists beacuse writers have a great idea for a PoE 3 story. But why aren't they telling the PoE 3 story instead then? Seriously, you can start Deadfire with the Wheel being already broken by Eothas while you were "dead" and not much would be lost. I would argue it would make for a much cooler story.

Thank you. I was trying to make this point, but failed spectacularly. Wish I could agree more with this post. The entire main storyline of Deadfire is simply - and forgive an unintentional innuendo - a DM proudly playing with himself. The players may either comply or leave the table. And even that won't change a thing - beacuse DM simply does not need players in this story. I'm not asking to fight Eothas mano-a-mano in a giant Megazord on top of a volcano in an ultimate Showdown of Destiny, while Ydwin is cheering me on, but give me a way to do something meaningful in this story. I'm not asking to be the Chosen One - I'm asking to have a say in something. Beacuse as things are as they are - when you think about it, you can simply remove the Watcher (AKA the *player character*) from the story altogether and nothing would change in terms of main storyline. Berath even makes a point about that. And player agency is a thing in the *interactive medium*. Even in PoE 1 it was the Watcher's decision to seek a remedy for their insanity. Nobody put a geas in their chest and told them to find the cure.. The player may not like this plot point, but there was agency involved. Now we are being tossed around from place to place and told "You are not here to defy us". Dragon Age 2 and Mass Effect 3 did the exact same thing - to their detriment. Credit where is due - at least Dragon Age 2 was deliberately coined as Greek tragedy. It set the player for failure from the very start and was clear that you're not here to win the war but to get the hell out of Kirkwall with your friends/loved ones and limbs intact - and to some level this storyline worked for me better. Sure, people may not like "Chosen One" storylines, where the entire world revolves around a player, but I think we went a bit too far in the other direction.

If the threat of certain death doesn’t motivate you, then I don’t know what the writers could have possibly done to please you. Invent a threatened love interest out of whole cloth? Tell you that you bore offspring in the 5 year gap and then use that to get you going? At some point, I think it’s fair to expect us, the players, to engage. You misunderstood. It does motivate me - it's just that the target of my motivation is different from what the writers intended. I guess I simply don't enjoy being blatantly ordered around under the threat of death. It's the Atlas scenario from Bioshock. But still - points have been made - agree to disagree?

Agreed. I'll definately give you that one - you have me here. Unfortunately, it doesn't come into meaningful play - both gameplay and storywise. It think it's mentioned in a few places but that's about it - the game kinda forgets about it after a while. But it could have been a good story arc for the Watcher if done well - similarly to their "insanity" problem in PoE 1. It didn't work for me as a motivating factor, but to each it's own. @Achilles This is the "At the mercy of flawed powerful beings" part that kicks in. The argument can be made that the Watcher doesn't have that much of a personal stake in this whole Eothas business. - unless you *really* liked Caed Nua. You are at Berath's mercy all the way through - you either agree to seek Eothas or you'll die. And this doesn't motivate me to go find Eothas all that much. It motivates me to try to free myself from Berath's influence - and that's impossible. But again, apples, oranges, all that jazz.

On that note: Why I agree that physical Megazord style confrontation with Eothas would have been ridiculous (if hilarious to watch), I don't understand why we simply cannot talk him out of destroying the Wheel - beacuse it really seems like a bad idea. It can make for as good a confrontation as anything. Think Transcendent One or F1 Master/FNV Legate Lanius. I'm not buying the argument that he's omnipotent and "how would you convince a god" for a second. Make a final confrontation a philosophical debate about the fate of the kith robbed of the Wheel - and actually let the player win the argument. Gods were shown to be flawed, kith-created constructs, that make dumb mistakes all the time - and Deadfire hammers it home constantly from the very beginning. And this includes Eothas himself. And that would actually give player some semblence of agency. Wasn't the whole point of sending the Watcher after Eothas their supposed "connection" and the fact that Eothas might listen to the Watcher? Beacuse what we ended up with is a suprisingly Alan Moore story: we have a protagonist with no drive, agency and little motivation or even a good reason to be in the Archipelago in the first place, that's constantly at the mercy of flawed, powerful beings that we know are in the wrong. And we have no say in any of this - we can just meekly watch as they potentially blow up Eora for "our good". Eothas entire argument is something along the lines of "I saved you, no reason to thank me. Now figure out for yourselves how not to die horribly in result. Peace out". The point that I made an Archipelago a slightly better place is moot, when the whole world might die out anyway. I guess some people like this type of nihilistic agency-less stories - but I would argue if it makes for a satisfying videogame story. I think that Watchmen are a great comicbook but would've been a pretty crappy videogame anyway. But that's just me - and admittedly this franchise simply does not resonate with me, despite my best efforts.

I'm not buying Josh's argument actually - at least not in full. He refuses to adhere to safe Campbellian fantasy tropes, he doesn't want to be subversive about it, he's not interested in "big confrontations" - fine, that's his story. What do you propose instead? The problem is that "I'm not doing an obvious story trope" is only half of the solution. Where is he going with this? What does he want his story to be? Does he come up with some fresh and interesting ideas instead that neither conform to fantasy cliches nor subvert them? Beacuse otherwise we might be left with a whole bunch of "nothings" in place of the story IMO.

Well... not quite. After double-checking, sidekicks actually don't seem to have "main", "relationship_player"/"relationship_companionX" - and with exception of Rekke - "hub" convo bundles. Those files are exclusive to companions. "Hub" file takes care of from what I gather boat/universal/out-of-party talks, "main" are player initiated dialogues/in-party conversations, among other things and "relationship" file consists of, well.... relationship system-related conversations. Yet still, I wouldn't assume anything at this point. Theoretically, it can mean virtually everything - placeholder files/vestige or obsolete file list/cut or unfinished content/trolling programmer or everything the designer wants. For a time being it's all within the realm of maybe's. It's just an interesting find I think.

I don't know if any of you caught onto that already - but I think it's worth mentioning pro bono. Just in case - there might be massive spoilers regarding Seeker, Slayer, Survivor DLC and it's potential content. And I mean it. So, I've been messing around with Deadfire files just for funsies, when I stumbled onto something interesting. The main conversation manifest already contains dialogue and CYOA triggers for both BoW and what can be safely assumed Seeker, Slayer, Survivor DLC. And some of those file names are quite interesting. I assume the list is still incomplete. Once again, potential spoilers for SSS - MASSIVE SPOILERS. Before we all get excited/annoyed, keep in mind that this "leak" means nothing unless Obsidian officially confirms anything. It might just be a placeholder or a smokescreen. So have fun speculating I guess. And if someone finds it too spoilery or misinforming - feel free to remove the thread with my apologies. EDIT: Turns out that folks at RPGCodex are way, way ahead of me on that - so credit where is due.

While we're at it Loghain had other clear thing going for him - he was voiced by Simon Goddamn Templeman. As Legacy of Kain enthusiasts can probably attest he knows a thing or two about voicing amazing and intimidating villainous characters.

Agree to disagree. If the writer was from the other side of political spectrum would her attitude be also reasonable and confident? Before anything, I am neutral on the topic of "contemporary left-wing/right-wing sociopolitics in US et al." - this simply doesn't concern me. And I literally slept through GamerGate. I'm just not a fan of deliberate allusions to contemporary politics in any form of entertainment media - be it from the left or right side - and drawing lines. Especially in escapist fiction that Baldur's Gate always was. You can't divorce yourself from politics completely, obviously - the problem with it it's that it's contemporary and a lot of people have strong opinions about it one way or another. And that leads to backlash, controversy and a lot of unpleasantness, so you really need to watch out not to piss off someone - unless it's controversy you're looking for. IMO a reasonable "entertainment" writer should distance themselves from their politics a bit, keep in mind that real world is not black and white and there are people on both sides - with emphasis on people. Unite, not divide. But I may be naive in thinking so. But this topic is ugly and toxic as it is. I may have overreacted - so I'll end it right here. If I offended anyone - my apologies.

Ironically, the world doesn't seem to revolve around CHARNAME that much - most people don't know/care that you're a Bhaalspawn and you don't necessarily save the world - it's not even your goal. When you save Baldur's Gate/Suldanessalar it's more beacuse you were in the neighbourhood and the villain you were chasing was there. Even the final showdown in the Throne of Blood with (A)Mellisan is beacuse of personal reasons rather than trying to save the world - which seems to be doing fine with or without you. I wouldn't call Irenicus a Bond villain necessarily. He's the one who said the famous "No, you'll warrant no villain's exposition from me" and only lost due to incompetence of his henchmen and circumstances beyond his control. He DID order Bodhi to immediately kill the PC. And he doesn't care about CHARNAME one bit - he cares about his powers and when he gets them, CHARNAME's existence stops being noteworthy. And he's understandable in a sense that you understand where his lust for vengeance is coming from. He traded love for power and lost both - vengeance is the only thing he has left now - irony being that his love would have forgiven him if he only said a word, but now he's unable to - classic Darth Vader tragic villain 101. It's not Tolstoy, but it works with the melodramatic, heavy on character drama story Bioware was telling. Forgive my ad hominem - but you seem to be expecting a much different story than Baldur's Gate really is. Also - if Thaos doesn't care about the Watcher and Watcher doesn't care about Thaos - then why is he in the game? Thaos is for all intents and purposes a villain - or an antagonist if you want to get technical. Giving the player a reason to oppose him - which usually suggests some personal connection to the player character - would be a good start. Usual story has antagonist acting and hero reacting. Otherwise he's just a random NPC no. 34 in a stupid hat. On paper, you can make a story without a clear antagonist/conflict - you just need to be really careful not to bore and confuse the player so they won't ask "Why am I here?" You'll have to double down on player motivation for them to keep going through the story you crafted. Do you think that the quest to solve the issue of your Awakening would sustain the game's main plot all by itself without any external opposing force like Thaos? It might work on technical level, but you'll still need some opposition, so the plot won't solve itself in 5 minutes. And "enemy within" stories are very tricky to write. From my experience, only Mask of the Betrayer and in some ways Torment pulled that type of story off correctly. I am all for that types of ambitious stories - but there is this saying about falling from a high horse and breaking your neck. And, yes the Watcher is not *required* to hate Thaos per se - but be consequent about it. Allow me to spare him or join his cause in the final showdown. Otherwise this doesn't work.

Worst dialogue in Baldur's Gate series. So, that is the dialog that caused unending butthurt for the snowflakes? I remember not being able to get a good feel for SoDS, because anything about it on the web was bitching over this. Never saw the actual dialog until now. That's just a tip of the iceberg. It's random and pointless but not the worst. There was also a bit about Minsc making fun of people supporting GamerGate out of nowhere. And this sidequest about half-orc "refugees" that everybody hates beacuse of bigotry with city guard abusing them beacuse orc lives matter or something. And there is this unfortunate and weidly hostile dialogue with Voghiln if you play as female. There was a quite lot of heavy-handed call-backs and allusions to contemporary sociopolitical climate in US - which wasn't for everyone's tastes and didn't feel necessary - and people called out SoD's lead writer for that, who outright admitted that her writing is "political" and if you don't like it, too bad. As for the game itself - it was alright. Had some cool ideas and setpieces, a bunch of weird retcons and plot points, *really* spotty writing here and there (Viconia and Safana act weidly out of character, Neera is really obnoxious this time around) but overall - excluding all the controversy - I would call it "above average". Won't win any awards, but I had moderate fun with it.

For me - and that's just personal opinion - a good story is the one that engages the viewer/player, not the one that tries to be "deep and complex" by any means neccessary. On paper, Thaos was a "more complex" villain than Irenicus with more supposed "depth" and what have you. He was an immortal archont of a ancient civilization, zelaously dedicated to cover up a Big Lie TM. And both him and Iovara read one Nietzsche book to many. Good for them - but why should *I* care? Look, Irenicus may have been just an elf with a God Complex with the love of his life spurning him as result - and while his motives may be simple, they are also very understandable. And BG 2 is not even trying to pretend that CHARNAME should care about his motivations - as Viconia happily lampshades. And vice versa - he doesn't care about yours. He has a personal beef with the player - he kidnapped your surrogate sister, killed your friends, tortured and humiliated you and will stop at nothing to have your godlike powers. Also later in the game, he stole your soul, humiliated you again and left you to die, forced you to kill your friend that turned out to be his spy and his sister killed your love interest. Even if you don't care about Imoen/Khalid/Dynaheir (for your or Minsc's/Jaheira's sake), vengeance/self-preservation is a simple and good motivator in and of itself IMO. On the other hand I follow Thaos beacuse... I want to ask him some questions I guess ("Are Gods real?"). He did absolutely nothing for the Watcher to hate him. He doesn't even care about some random guy who just bumbled like a complete idiot into the Woedica-empowering ritual. You follow Thaos around beacuse the game for 80% of the running time tells you to and tells you that he's evil. I know that he caused Waidwen's Legacy - but the game just skims the surface of this tragedy and is so vague about it that it has no personal impact. I guess he also screws over animancers - who are shown to be evil, bumbling, incompetent or shady at best. The fiend. Incidentally, it really would have helped if we had an animancer companion - but Obsidian seems to have a vendetta against that. IMO PoE doesn't do a good job in trying to invest the player in the story. I noticed that it's the running theme with Obsidian games lately. By the time the game *finally* explained why the player is following Thaos, it was too late for me to care about him or Iovara - who shows up out of nowhere with no buildup in Act 3. So, Thaos may be a more "complex" villain than Irenicus - but does it make him a more effective menace that the player will want to take down? Once again - just my personal take on this argument. I guess that those arguments were talked to death already.

From what I remember only mods that "don't modify/alter the story content of the game" as per agreement with Bioware were allowed in both BG and BG2. I think BG2 only had a couple of bugfixes + widescreen support integrated into the game - that's excluding Beamdog's own additions. Everything from Unfiished Business to Ascension was not allowed - beacuse it alters the content of the game too much. BG1 was modified much more heavily - with ruleset and engine ported into BG2 one. Beamdog also tried to incoroprate NPCProject into the game, but got vetoed by Bioware - or so they claim. From what I've heard, the new patch for BG:EE (2.5 i think) incorporates stuff from Unfinished Business 1 - like Kivan's and Kagain's quests or the subquest with "mysterious vial" in High Hedge.

Admittedly, I know next to nothing about economics - being a literature major, but I would assume that breaking even after let's say 6 months as was suggested, is not quite ideal. People need to eat and the game/product is not generating profit for 6 months + it supposedly consumes even more money and resources when trying to sustain it with patches and "FreeDLC". But again, I can be horribly wrong on that. I am also curious about Deadfire's "legs". This game more than anything needs to rely on the word of mouth to get going - the franchise is not strong enough to sustain itself all on its own. Reviews were positive, yet infuriatingly vague. Game is "great", writing is "spectacular", open world is "amazing". We are not told why. 10/10. And from what I've noticed the overall opinion of the forums/social media ranges from "The game is good, but..." to "I was disappointed". And that does not inspire confidence from Random Joe with limited income who just wants to know what to think on this game. So we'll see how it goes, I guess.