Fluffle

But then again, Karkarov sounds a bit like Katarack... which sounds like Katharak which sounds a bit like Vithrak. So Karkarov might be a Vithrak too... Kartharak? Karkarak? Karkarakov? Kartharakov?

Interesting. On the photo in the OP you remind me of Yul Brynner. Did anyone ever tell you that? xD

I on the other hand did not contribute to the recognition lines deliberately. That's my personal opinion, but I'm rather not fond of ingame recognition. My personal opinion is, that recognition should be done outside of the game. But don't let me take your joy out of the recognition lines. You certainly deserve recognition and a lot of thanks! Everyone of you who contributed!

~ Empire Of Angels ~ by Two Steps From Hell [Thomas Bergersen]

Who poisoned our rum?

I don't even understand why the German news are full with this I do not care about it. I wish them all the best in the world but I think it's absolutely not necessary that every German news portal has about 3 to 5 articles (some even more) about the upcoming marriage.

Some feedback from another thread. Makes me happy when I read that other players have fun with our content (Careful, name of the captain of the Black Isle Bastards is revealed within the spoiler tags, albeit misspelled)

~ Mass Effect 2 ~ Suicide Mission by London Philharmonic Orchestra

~ Dragon Age: Inquisition ~ Main Theme by Lindsey Stirling ~ Dragon Age: Inquisition ~ The Dawn Will Come by Folklore Guild

That is not good to hear. That's a shame actually. That's my main point of criticism of quest design in Pillars 1. It's discouraging to hear, that is still a problem in Pillars 2. As I said in my thread I do not mind having limited options to solve a moral dilemma. If it is an actual moral dilemma. My problem is when the options are only limited to artificially create a moral dilemma in the first place. And when obvious logical choices to react to a situation are simply not there.

This is how you use spoiler tags: (spoiler) Spoilerish content (/spoiler) But instead of using round brackets "(" and ")" , you use square brackets "[" and "]" Yeah I haven't played the game yet. I only know this quest from the beta. Thanks for not spoilering anything. Though for this quest I don't mind being spoiled. It's just a side quest detached from the main story.

When the Beta was running I made a thread about this quest. If you'd like to, take your time and read it. Is my criticism in the opening post, still valid? That'd be disappointing...

~ Can't Stop the Feeling! ~ by Justin Timberlake https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldsXJlj4MuQ

~ Heroes of Might and Magic 2 ~ Grassland Theme by Heroes Orchestra ~ Heroes of Might and Magic 3 ~ Battle Theme II by Heroes Orchestra

Thanks for using spoiler tags in the patch notes for the spoilery stuff. Please keep doing that! Very much appreciated

Did someone mention food?

Uhm wait what, does that mean Tekehu and the Watcher do not get a happy ending? I haven't played the game yet. But I'm very intrigued by Tekehu. Have been for a long time and I'm planning on making him my LI. So no happy end? Is it just his romance or does no romance have a happy ending? I'm a sucker for happy endings I need my happy ending

And here I thought all positive reviews are due to fanboys, whose opinions are completely meaningless. Yeah that game can be played both ways. When there is an opinion we don't like we find a pejorative label for the person who has that opinion and we try to discredit them with that label, so that their opinion doesn't count anymore. Let's just admit it already. Let's stop this game of pretending to be nice. Let's say it how it is: If someone's opinion doesn't match our own then that person's opinion is invalid per default. And by giving that person a label we justify that. So when can we finally start to actually discuss actual opinions without trying to discredit the person who has that opinion in order to make their opinion invalid? Can we start now? What about now? How about now?

*cough* UHM... It might have something to do with the nefarious Black Isle Bastards... You took our treasure... We'll be coming after you...

Not anymore number 1 Fluffle sad

I appreciate this approach a lot. Because I know how it is when you don't do this. This way the forum feels very clean and tidy for us users

Blasphemy, you what...?! I will avenge my mates! RUARGHHH!

The answer in 2018 is unequivocally "no". Most games with a good developer will get some amount of post-launch patches or content, so the day one review will inevitably be outdated. However, that's just not how it works in reality. Reviewers need to get their reviews out as soon as the embargo is lifted because that's how they get views. I wish I could find some kind of aggregated data of game review clicks on launch week vs the rest of their lifetime. I would bet that reviews get more clicks within 7 days of release (and embargo if they are different days) than every day from then on put together. That's why reviewers always try to get that day 1 review out ASAP. And also why most of them don't ever bother updating their reviews. There are so many games, movies, TV shows, news, etc. coming out all the time that people don't have the mind-space to follow up on a game that's supposed to be fixed later. I did find some interesting data, though not the exact type I was looking for. This is from "Predicting Video Game Sales in the European Market" by Walter Steven Beaujon from Vrije University in Amsterdam: "The data shows that most titles will launch to a high first week and start to decline every week from that point on. On average games that see decline will decrease with 36% from week 1 to week 2, and then with 33% from 2 to 3." That's why reviewers only care about the day 1 review. That's when the consumers are paying attention to the game. And then, right away, it's on to the next one. I do think it's irresponsible not to update the reviews, but I can't say I blame them considering how many games are constantly coming out and how little interest a follow-up review will hold. It's a tough market, and what Obsidian does is not easy. But I can't imagine that delaying the game for another month would have hurt as much as releasing with so many bugs. Based on that you can actually advocate (at least) two different "solutions": One is, the game should come out with as little bugs as possible. That's a given. Second is, the reviews should be updated. But since that seems not practical, I would say instead this: The significance of bugs in day one reviews should be reduced. Yes, the reviewer should still mention them. And the reviewer can lower their score based on that. However, if it is reasonable to assume that the bugs are going to be fixed and if it is reasonable to assume that the reviewer will not be bothered with updating their review anymore, THEN I would say the reviewer should put less importance to the bugs in their review. And before someone attempts to put words in my mouth. I'm not suggesting at all that the reviewer should ignore the bugs. I'm suggesting that they mention the bugs but put the focus of their review elsewhere.

The unfortunate fact of the matter is that 99% of reviews will not do this. They will simply move on to the next release and never think about Deadfire again. Same with all the potential consumers who see the negative reviews and think "I'll check up on this later". I've had this same argument with communities of games in Early Access. They don't realize that you only get to make one big splash at launch. You get the spotlight for exactly 1 day, whether that's beta, or early access, or a bug-ridden mess of a launch. Even if it's patched to perfection 2 weeks after launch, the vast majority of people have already moved on. There are so many games coming out these days, it's ludicrous to expect the average gamer to even keep up with patches and improvements for games they own, much less ones they don't. The people here are fans of Obsidian, and we know Obsidian will (mostly) fix all the bugs and polish up the game over the next several months. But the larger audience only sees this game on launch day. If it weren't for the import/history bug, this game would probably have been "overwhelmingly positive" on Steam for at least the first two days or so. That would have gone a very long way for the cRPG revival. I agree with you mostly for that part of your post that I quoted and I give you a like for that part. With the rest I disagree. This is my big fear actually. That many reviewers will not bother to update their reviews. It's just a fear though. It may be unwarranted. I do not know how many reviewers will update their review and if they are going to do it at all. First, I'd like to avoid speaking of "blame". I'd rather be talking about "responsibility". And then I would say, that in my opinion, Obsidian is responsible to keep their game as bug-free as possible. Yes, also at launch. That does not mean that I expect a flawless game without any bugs at launch. Personally, I don't mind bugged launches even. I'm just saying that I think it's Obsidian's responsibility to deal with the bugs. But I also think that reviewing a game comes with responsibility. One thing to think about is this for example: Should a review really be given on day one?

I think we can let it go now calling other people fanboys in order to make their opinion invalid. Fanboys are not the topic of this thread anyway. You have expressed your definition and your opinion about fanboys now. We have also all be reminded by a moderator to "Knock off the personal commentary". So at least in this thread, we should not call each other that anymore. The thing is, even if I agreed with your opinion and your definition of a fanboy, what good is that as long as I cannot use it against other forum members on this forum whose opinions I don't like? But that is exactly what a moderator asked us to stop doing!