Jump to content

aksrasjel

Members
  • Posts

    122
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by aksrasjel

  1. We know for sure that we'll get "new ending slides" - I guess those concerning the DLC area (Harbinger's Reach?), plus a new sidekick with "some" interjections in the main quest. Aside from that, we don't know - I vaguely remember Alex Scokel suggesting that events from this DLC have no impact on main story, but I am not 100% sure - if someone could confirm, that would be nice.
  2. From what we know from the stream, the DLC is freely accessible anytime during the game - it's identical to how New Vegas DLC worked. If you've finished the game just reload the autosave from before the Ukaizo and you're good to go.
  3. Well, I legitemely assume/hope this is what we're going to get anyway. I think it was even suggested on the stream itself that this will be the case? Technically, he most probably still would qualify as a sidekick - he has no relationships or personal quest and is potentially more interesting than vanilla companions ... but that's just unimportant semantics. To be honest, it does sound a bit like the writers are trying to work around the relationship system - which I don't know how to feel about it. But maybe I'm just too jaded for my own good.
  4. But how would all of that work with a relationship system then? That's the other thing that separates a companion from a sidekick.
  5. Which is a good point to make - it's not as visible in BG2 but when it comes to BG1 things are starting to get tricky. When you rate BG1 - are you referring to the vanilla game? BGT/BG:EE version? The version with NPCProject and Unfinished Business? Beacuse BGTrilogy (that converts BG1 campaign into BG 2 engine and ruleset), with NPCProject - that improves greatly upon content of sidekick-style companions from BG1 (all 25 of them), giving them all interjections, banters, questlines, expansive dialogue trees and for some even honking romances, Unfinished Business and SCS is a complete reimagination of what is now a rather clunky vanilla BG1. I usually run BGTrilogy with NPCProject, SCS (when it works), Unfinished Business and for BG2 (obligatorily) Ascension + some banter packs for funsies - and coming back to vanilla BG 1 was... rough, to say the least.
  6. You're right, but technically speaking, Ydwin/Fassina/Konstanten also have "some reactions to base game events" - all five of them. So, we'll see how this is gonna go. And honestly, I'm ambivalent about Ydwin's treatment - I like that she might get some more content here and there in BoW, but from what I understand from the stream she's still a mere sidekick - unless Mr Scokel was *very* coy and tightlipped. So I don't believe she'll be getting a character quest, any sort of character arc or a possibility to form any sort of meaningful relationship with the Watcher. And all of this will be rendered moot the minute she leaves the DLC area and becomes silent once agan. As previously, I'll see how this pans out. I'm just that much of an Eeyore. I'll give Xoti this - I still cannot figure out what's the idea behind her character, but at least she's entertaining. I don't think in way that writer originally intended, but entertaining nontheless. If I were to pick a character I dislike the most it would be hands-down Pallegina. She's just unpleasant to deal with. I guess her supposed depth and nuance flew over my head. But that's a completely different discussion alltogether.
  7. I guess I'll once again come off as a grump - but I'm slightly dissapointed - if not surprised at all - of Vatnir being *yet another* sidekick. On the plus side, he seems to have a bit more story stuff than your typical sidekick. But I guess after leaving the DLC area he'll probably shut up forever, cause that's how they roll. Not to be overtly pessimistic - but I think that new full companions are off the table. I guess it's too much hassle for Obsidian to add this much new content to the relationship system. So, worst case scenario, we may be stuck with the regular seven + what it shaping up to be an entire army of sidekicks. Oh, well. But, again, that's just my hunch - and I pray to be wrong. But not to come off as completely negative - we'll fnally get to see a functioning Pale Elf society, after them being shrouded in mystery for two games. And that's really fine in my book.
  8. I kind of agree, it feels a bit cheap and railroady. It's like the overall narrative is putting the gun to the player's head and asks to comply with the story or else. Given that this is deliberately a Q&A section, I might as well turn in into an official question - if I may. Mr Scokel - what in your opinion is a good way to organically motivate the player to follow the narrative you prepared for them, so that it doesn't feel like railroading? ("I have to do this story bit" vs "I want to do this story bit"). What sort of narrative difficulties you face provided that unlike in tabletop, the story in cRPG needs to be pretty much universal, and cannot be changed "on the fly" - yet the player character can be virtually anyone?
  9. Yeah, I may have done poor Anomen a disservice here - he's quite a dynamic character and his character growth is really impressive if he gets knighted for a Paladin. That's the point, actually. If he doesn't, well... But that's a direct consequence of player screwing up - what other game does that? And as you mentioned - the list goes on, with Viconia, Sarevok, Aerie, Keldorn, Imoen, even goddamn Jan and Nalia. If I were particularily mean-spirited, I would ask to compare that to Maia, Pallegina, Aloth or Xoti in Deadfire (Xoti's only "development" is to either remain the way she is is - an immature fundamentalist, or become a deranged serial killer - that's not much of a growth IMO). And we are comparing a "pioneer" game from 2000 with a modern RPG with all technical advantages that it entails and years of mastering the craft of writing companion mechanics. As for the character growth being limited to romance - yeah, agreed on that. I atually never romanced Anomen myself, just observed my girlfriend's playthrough, as she bravely decided to romance him "for science" (She was more of a Kesley mod kind of an enthusiast). Although, I'm not sure if the "knighting" alignment change isn't connected to his sidequest. But still, the point stands. Yet again, we are talking about a game from 18 years ago. The entire idea of companions interjecting, getting into fights, having quests and *romances* was revolutionary back then. Usually, back then in Western RPGS we had either full party creation IWD style, or generic one-note companions with no interaction, similar to sidekicks/custom companions in Deadfire. I think the only WRPG back then that tried a companion "romance" was Treasure of the Savage Frontier - and correct me if I'm wrong with that. And suddenly, we have fully fleshed-out romantic storylines, questlines, banters and what-have-you with hours of content in BG 2 (I'm guessing JRPGs may have had some influence there). So, I'm usually cutting the game some slack for not introducing, let's say friendship talks for the rest of the companions.
  10. Well... To an extent you are right. But still, some alignments can be changed throughout the game (Viconia, Sarevok, Nalia, Anomen), some characters fall somewhere in-between (Keldorn bounces back and forth between Neutral Good and Lawful Good, Viconia falls somewhere between True Neutral and Neutral Evil, same may be said about Edwin - Lawful Evil/Neutral Evil) and some other don't fit the character personalities anyway (Jaheira and Cernd are True Neutral only beacuse AD&D demands all druids be such, Viconia is in reality a rather dark True Neutral of "leave me alone" variety, and is only stuck with Neutral Evil beacuse drow). Sure, evil characters will complain at length when player's reputation increases too much - in Viconia's case it doesn't even make sense - but that's a problem with simplistic '2000 mechanics rather than writing. Also, Keldorn serves as a reconstruction of a "properly roleplayed" Lawful Good D&D paladin - contrasted with pre-character development Lawful Stupid Anomen. In whole honesty, most of Baldur's Gate 2 characters have more depth to them than people give them credit for. If you look carefully, most of the cliches presented in companions have a twist to them - pampered Nalia wants to be a Chaotic Good Robin Hood figure, but has no idea what she's doing, Viconia - a drow - wants to be left alone, is not particularly malevolent unless provoked and hates signature drow Stupid Evil behaviour, Imoen is a logical conclusion of what happens to kid sidekick when put through trauma, Aerie might be quite whiny - but in reality, she's simply heavily traumatized by what in her mind is a personal tragedy and unprepared for adventurer's life - and she grows out of it eventually, Sarevok is technically Chaotic Evil brutish fighter - but he's calm, manipulative and devilishly intelligent, instead of a dumb, cackling loon that most might expect Chaotic Evil to be. Jan Jansen masks his insecurities as a crappy uncle with wacky antics. And Valygar's brooding is met with jokes/annoyance from the rest of the gang, rather than sign of him being "cool". Calling them "one-dimensional" does them a bit of disservice. Also, time marches on - those characters were created about 20 years ago. What is a cliche now, may not have been one back then. Keldorn being legitimately Lawful Good paladin instead of Lawful Stupid stuck-up zealot was quite refreshing back then for instance. And hell, Viconia not falling into Stupid Evil drow/Chaotic Good Drizzt clone dichtomy is refreshing even today . But, still - to each it's own.
  11. If I may chime in: With Beast of Winter DLC quicky approaching, would You be able to give a few tidbits about the culture and society of Pale Elves? How technologically/scientifically advanced are they? I always found it interesting that you can play as a Noble from White that Wends and wonder how that works lore-wise. Do Pale Elves have organized society - something like gerontocratic oligarches, monarchies or are they scattered societies of clans/families? And to get the obligatory question out the way: Sidekicks becoming full companions in a potential DLC - will they/won't they?
  12. To be honest - it's not *technically* about describing an entire personality of a character in one sentence. That would in fact suggest that they are one-dimensional. It's more about quick first impressions about a character - what makes them notable and memorable personality-wise. Red Letter Media did that quiz with Star Wars characters actually - quicky describe Han Solo: suave rogue with a hidden heart of gold. Now, quicky describe Padme Amidala: *looooong silence* ...brave and dedicated i guess?
  13. I hear you, but my problem is more with her consistent immaturity more than anything. I don't need her to go through an entire crisis of faith and join Pallegina in her anti-relligious crusade. Priest with lost faith is a horrid cliche in and of itself. I would just like her to grow up a bit after all the things she saw - drop her sheltered waif attitude, approach her faith and conviction in more critical way, become a responsible and concious priest and not a ignorant zealot that mindlessly spouts Eothasian scriptures like a gospel. Y'know - character development. Tekehu went through that arc - why can't she?
  14. For me it feels like Pillars of Eternity companions are the way they are as a direct opposition to BG 2 companions. They are supposed to be "deep" and "mature" as compared to presumably "cliched and over-the-top" companions from BG 2. The problem is that, as a result PoE companions are just not sufficiently memorable and interesting - at least for me. A quick Red Letter Media personality test - quickly describe Pallegina's/Maia's/Sagani's/Grieving Mother's personality in one sentence. Then do the same for Aerie/Viconia/Naila/Imoen. For additional difficulty, don't use words like: "badass, independent, strong". And if you're suicidal, don't use phrase "loyal to faction X". As for my *very* personal pet peeve with PoE/Deadfire companions: for me, they are just not likeable. I just don't want to hang around those characters (OK, to be somewhat objective: Eder, Serafen, Ydwin and Rekke were cool). Minsc was a cardboard cutout comic relief, for sure - but I really enjoyed his company. The same goes for Keldorn, Viconia and even Aerie. I remember that Josh Sawyer once stated that companions don't have to be likeable, only interesting - I respectfully if strongly disagree. People hate Anomen for a reason for instance.
  15. Yeah, that's the weird part with her - naive character going through a character arc and becoming more mature in the process is a RPG character writing 101. And Xoti doesn't grow as a character at all - she either remains an ignorant, immature zealot she was throughout the whole game or becomes a dangerous lunatic - and that's character devolvment not growth necessarily. And that may be deliberate. She doesn't seem designed with deep philosophical/teological discussions in mind, unfortunately. (Incidentally, she's 27- so she really should get out more.) And in whole honesty, it's two months in and I still cannot figure out whether Xoti's a badly- or well-written character. Either she's fantastically written cynical deconstruction of a "naive starry-eyed" waifu maiden - with how obnoxious and off-putting she is sometimes, especially during her "romance", or she plays the beforementioned trope straight, she's supposed to be endearing and cute and we are supposed to take her character absolutely seriously. The argument can be made for both, IMO.
  16. I would really want to see White that Wends myself. With how little we know about it, there are many cool things you can do with it. But, as mentioned somewhere else, I would like Obsidian to take more unusual route, outside of "snow and elves". This place is almost unmarked and so mythical, that you can put literally anything there and it would still make some sense. Mutant dinosaurs? Kaiju? Eldritch abominations? Anomalous rules of nature? It can work. I would personally like to see a frozen postapocalyptic society with loony entropy-worshipping elves and survivalist bend to every aspect of life. Think Lovecraft's "At the Mountains of Madness", spliced with Carpenter's "The Thing" and maybe Eastern European postapocalyptic stories (Strugacki with their "Roadside Picnic", Gluchowski with Metro 2033). Gameplay-wise Obsidian can focus of the survival in the very harsh enviroment aspect of the game - think Expeditions Viking, maybe Frostpunk. Play up the "expendable" aspect of the protagonist. You start off relatively safe and in civilized enviroment - maybe in some Aedyrian/Vailian outpost - but the farther you progress in the game the more bizzare, uncouth and deadly things are becoming. In order to survive you need to hang around weird survivalist elven tribes - get to know their culture, lifestyle, history behind the place, things like that. Given that's technically Ryrmgand's realm, things can get very interesting indeed. Anyway, that's my wishlist. Something tells I put way more unnecessary thought into that than I realistically should have. Oh, well.
  17. To be honest - I guess I can understand why Deadfire is presumably underperforming. (Although for an medium-sized indie developer 200k sale number is not the end of the world IMO. Still, I think Obsidian was unofficialy banking on a breaktrough in style of DO:S 2. Good luck with that, if that was the case.) Honest question - what is Deadfire's main selling point? Is it a gripping story, deep companion interaction, innovative gameplay mechanics, open world? Beacuse it definately tries to do all of that - it just doesn't commit. In pretty much every aspect, this game is at best "good enough". And in heavily competitive nostalgia-based RPG market that's just not good enough. The PoE franchise brand is not strong enough to guarantee sales all by itself. And for me Deadfire really doesn't have any aspect of the game that you can point at and say - "this part is amazing/well done". Mechanically/combat-wise there are absolutely no innovations, this heavily-touted ship mechanic gets tedious rather fast, story-wise the game is unfocused and underdeveloped, writing is hit or miss, companion system/romance is superficial and unsatisfying, companions are run-on-the-mill and forgettable (incidentally, I had a kick out of reading a whole bunch of Steam reviews that pretty much went: "After 20 hours, I finally found a cool and memorable companion. Turns out she's a sidekick. Not recommended.", which is a *very* valid criticism IMO.) And "word-of-mouth" is a powerful tool. So, logically, why would the Random Joe with limited income want to buy this game for 45 bucks? Especially the "free-thinker" one that doesn't treat a pre-release reviews as a gospel. The market is already oversaturated with nostalgic RPGs. If I didn't back this game myself for a ridiculous amount of money (out of strange loyalty to Obsidian, also I *really* wanted sea monsters and Ydwin realized ), I sadly probably wouldn't be interested in anything this game has to offer. Again, I don't know much about marketing strategies, sales, and so on, so don't take this post too seriously. Those are just my random musings/observations based on opinions from me and a bunch of my friends.
  18. Honestly, I would like to see someone fresh and new take a shot at narrative design. Fenstermaker's good and all when it comes to writing characters (Boone, Veronica, Eder, Zahua), but his overall narrative work/storytelling didn't wow me in Pillars 1. Sawyer's a much better systems designer than a narrative designer - that was obvious from way back when. He had good moments - his Arcade was OK, Joshua Graham was quite good actually, yet the entire narrative structure/story of Honest Hearts for example was very lackluster. He prefers things dry, mundane and down-to-earth and it shows. And as much as I love Avellone's work - I really, *really* do - he's not some Writer God that will magically make things better by his very presence - and he seems tired. I would like to see some creative new faces in writing department. And honestly, most of the writing team in Deadfire was new, from what I know. They didn't actually blow me away with their work - but there were exceptions. The writer who wrote Serafen/Ydwin/Mirke really seemed to know what he was doing. Rekke was good for what little time he had. Tekehu I didn't love and he will not be my favourite character by any means, but I get the idea behind him and can respect the good effort. On the other hand we have Pallegina, Xoti and in lesser extent Maia (who was written by the same writer who wrote Teheku - so there is that) - didn't enjoy any of those characters in any way, shape or form.
  19. I am pretty sure it was a concious voice direction on the developers part - every Raedceran has to speak with a thick sothern accent for one reason or another. Laura Bailey just happily obliged. And similarly to Ms. Johnson as Narrator, she was working with what script she was given. And the script doesn't do the character any favors. I know this is just my feeling, but Xoti sometimes seems to be written to be as childish and obnoxious as possible - campy southern accent just magnifies that. But as a the result I simply cannot take this character seriously. And to be honest, how campy/realistic Xoti's accent really is, I have no idea - being Eastern/Central European most southern US accents sound similar to me - whether it's from Texas, Alabama or Arizona. It just doesn't work for me.
  20. Well... I don't actually hate Dragon Age 2 at all. It tried to go in a different and fresh direction - it just crumbled over huge amount of executive meddling, budget cuts and unreasonable release deadlines. Somewhere under all that mess that is DA2, there is a really good and unique game trying to get out IMO. I enjoyed the idea of Hawke as an unlikely hero that just stumbled over greatness, liked the increased focus on the actual protagonist and their struggles. Also the fact that "the villain" of the story wasn't some evil overlord or somesuch, but simple bad circumstances was refreshing. But DA2 was doomed to fail due to beforementioned harsh executive meddling. I'm not saying it's a fantastic game, or that it somehow in time became a hidden, rough gem - this game is clearly broken and unfinished, but I think there was a decent potential in there, that got completely wasted. I don't love this game, but I feel bad for it in the end. DAI on the other hand played their cards too safe, rehashed a lot and actually bored me out of my skull - to the point I never finished it. I prefered that game when it was called Dragon Age: Origins.
  21. I do agree that the Narrator would not be my first choice for Ashley Johnson - she definately seems to struggle with dry narration at times. She definately would be much better suited for voicing a companion/NPC. She seems to have fun with voicing Ydwin. But given what she has to work with, I'm not finding her particularly atrocious. Is she miscast? - absolutely. Is she the worst of the worst? I don't think so.
  22. Huh, why people do hate on Ashley Johnson's performance so much? She's not *that* bad - hell, I'll take her narration over Laura Bailey's southern-belle peformance as Xoti everyday. I understand that she was horribly miscast - she's a more of a drama "character " actress first and formost (incidentally, she really sells her performance as Ydwin) and asking her to read a dry narration is like asking BRIAN BLESSED to calmly recite a phonebook - this won't work in any way shape or form. You can actually hear her trying to dramatically "act out" a narration in a few places. But c'mon, I've heard much worse performances in that game by far.
  23. But the thing is, what you see as "doing more with the franchise", of embracing more "fantasy" and outlandlish elements; others (including apparantly Obsidian; or at least, that's not the way they want to go with it) would not see that as an improvement at all. Which is completely fine of course, different people like different things. But I think it does bear pointing out that certainly not everyone want it to be all that epic and over the top. Speaking for myself at least, I much prefer Gods being something more mundane, something more grounded. To me, Gods in fiction being some inexplicable force are just boring. Inexplicable in general bores me. The world being more normal and believable, the people and other entitities in it being more normal and believable, that is much more interesting to me. It gets you closer to a kind of 'what if' scenario, of some variation of our actual reality but with different rules, with magic infused into it. And same with the characters you play and encounter. I very much prefer them not to turn into virtual unstoppable demigods themselves at the end of the game (especially not over the time span a typical game takes), but to still feel like actual mortals, albeit very skilled ones perhaps. Given the way these games work mechanically that's always going to be a bit difficult of course, but PoE does approximate that much better than BG does. I definitely do enjoy more outlandish settings as well, but primarily to the extent that it provides unique and really quite different settings. Planescape Torment being a very good example, or for example the books by China Mieville. And in a way also Star Wars actually, that kind of blend of fantasy and sci-fi setting always felt like it has great promise (a pity they always manage to mess it up with horrible plot and most characters being pervasively incompetent). I certainly enjoyed the BG series mind you (though certainly not Lord of the Rings), but that's more despite the more outlandish elements of the setting than because of it. Anyway, I just thought I'd provide an opposing perspective I hear you. I agree that's very a much a case of "apples and oranges" when it comes to narrative. Down-to-earth and mundane is fine, but if you overdo it, the story can become a slog - and vice versa. You go too much into "out-there" territory and you cannot connect with the setting. That's why I got absolutely burned out on "Song of Ice and Fire" series - it was just too cynical and mundane for me. It's just for me, Deadfire (and to a somewhat lesser extent the franchise as a whole - although it really shows with PoE 2) is almost afraid to go into more outlandish and weird territories - and kind of overdoes the "mundane" aspect a bit too much. And by "outlandish and weird" I don't mean "wacky and silly Looney Tunes cartoon" just something more creative and out-of-the-box. Examples: we have a giant Godzilla-sized god stomping around Deadfire causing biawacs and mayhem, yet everyone seems very blase about that - faction leaders (and the game itself, incidentally) seem more interested in Deadfire politics than dealing with reincarnation of Eothas itself. Your character is a special person that can see souls of dead people - the game really doesn't seem to care about it. It's just something you do on Friday mornings, rather than a lynchpin of your enitre character development. Comperatively, being a Bhaalspawn - and how the player deals with that - was the main focus and a really "big deal" of an entire Baldur's Gate series. One of my companions is a nerdy soul-sucking vampire scientist from a mysterious place we know nothing about - the game ignores her and her story entirely. On the other hand, Pallegina keeps delivering bucketloads of dry exposition about the politics of her beloved fantasy not-Reinassance Italy that don't seem that exciting actually. Remember those fun times, when Star Wars decided to sit down and discuss trade disputes? This is what actually irks me in Deadfire narrative. I guess that's a deliberate focus - to keep things down-to-earth, "realistic" and mundane, I just don't know if I can get fun out of that, having a rather different approach towards fantasy narratives. Than again - apples and oranges, my opinion and all that - unironically, if realism and mundanity is what some people look for in a fantasy story - all the more power to them.
  24. I kind of get where he's coming from, but to be honest, Obsidian's - and Josh Sawyer's in particular - antipathy towards embracing a more "fantasy" and outlandish elements of their fantasy franchise always rubbed me the wrong way. Not to mention the PoE narrative suffers for it - the universe feels really small and constricted now. They somehow made Gods mundane and boring. Deadfire was supposed to be this mysterious, hostile land filled with volcanoes, sea monsters and who knows what monstrosities and phenomenas - it turns out it's just a fantasy Carribean with fantasy Maori people. There is so much you can do with this franchise, but somehow Obsidian doesn't want to. Again - Baldur's Gate felt like playing a true Tolkienesque fantasy adventure. PoE feels like a reading a history book with various races being reskinned humans in both looks and behaviour - it actually took me a while to realize Oswald is an elf for instance.
  25. Kangaxx is a weird example actually - he's actually more of a "puzzle boss" than anything - at least for me. He's not even trying to be remotely fair. Kangaxx's borderline unstoppable - thanks to his unlimited Imprisonment that will one-shot you and your entire party and his immunity for everything that's below a +4 weapon (good luck finding a decent +4 weapon in vanilla BG2), unless you know *exactly* how to counter him - then he becomes a borderline joke. Once you figure out that he's *undead* and Imprisonment is the only spell he knows, the fight is over. One protection against Undead scroll on CHARNAME pretty much renders him helpless. Then just whack him with the upgraded Mace of Disruption (+4 against undead) that has a huge chance of kiling him in one shot and if you're particuarly mean-spirited equip Cloak of Mirroring and watch all his offensive spells bounce off of you. Or just transform into Slayer - its "fists" count as +4 weapon so they will pass through his immunities - and he doesn't have a lot of hit points actually. I was always more intimidated by dragons thruth be told - Firkraag in patricular. One screwed-up saving throw against fear/wing buffet can turn a well-planned battle into a complete disaster and it is quite difficult to cheese a dragon - although even here Immunity to fear and crapton of protections against fire can work wonders. It was quite amusing when I realized that there is no cap on fire immunity - so you can buff yourself with so many Protections against Fire that the value goes into "negative" and Firkraag's Flame Breath actually *heals you* - tried it myself. I don't now if it was a bug, but by God it was fun to abuse. And then there is hilariously broken Cloak of Mirroring that renders every mage duel into a joke. I actually stood there and waited during the final battle at the Tree of Life for Irenicus to run out of his protections while he was throwing every spell in existence at me. It took a while - he has unlimited spells as it turns out. But it was cute to watch. So yeah, for me one of the fun parts of BG 2 was to try to figure out in how many hilarious ways you can utterly break a game - there was a certain pride in that. And the game itself actually encouraged that - the beforementioned Kangaxx fight pretty much required you to counter cheese with cheese. ...Not to mention you can incapacitate Irenicus' pet demons during the final showdown in Nine Hells with puny level 1 "Protection against Evil".
×
×
  • Create New...