Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Fluffle


    thanx! I try that and I did do those..but didn't work somehow .


    Anyway , there a couples of quest like that actually . Make me wonder why you can't do much more when you have the option . 


    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.

  2. This is how you use spoiler tags:

    (spoiler) Spoilerish content (/spoiler)

    But instead of using round brackets "(" and ")" , you use square brackets "[" and "]"



    Spoilerish content

    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.

  3. 'Almost all negative Steam user Reviews are Due to Bugs'


    And here I thought all negative Steam user Reviews (on any game) are due to whiny children, who's opinion is completely meaningless.

    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?

    • Like 3

  4. Kapana Taga I got from attacking a ship and taking its loot, I can’t remember what ship but I know it was cruising around the islands in the Far East. Only reason I remember this is that I was perplexed when I got as it didn’t come off a native ship, it dropped from either a Valian, Principi, or Royal Dreadfire company ship and I had no idea what it was doing there.

    *cough* UHM... It might have something to do with the nefarious Black Isle Bastards...


    You took our treasure... We'll be coming after you... :skull:

  5. Yes, new accounts need a number of approved posts before they can post without approval. In case anybody wonders why, you should see the number of unapproved spam posts by bots that gets removed before people see them ;)

    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 :)

    • Like 1


    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?


    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.

    • Like 2


    My opinion is that YES the bugs should be mentioned in reviews. Also it is okay to give the game a lower score because of the bugs. BUT then I would hope that the reviewer updates their review as soon as the devs fix the bugs. I think that'd be fair.


    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?

    • Like 4

  8. There's nothing wrong with passion, but there's plenty wrong with passion-induced-blindness. Passion always has to be tempered with honesty and reason.


    Also, fanbois aren't about passion, they are about a desperate need to belong to a group. You know, kinda like the Star Wars people who still want to pretend the new films are good because their whole identity is built upon that premise. Having passion is something I respect (hell, I get to trouble all the time because I can be a little bit too passionate about the things I speak about), being a fanboi (in the manner I described) on the other hand is something I loathe.


    EDIT: passion also has to be coupled with the strength to handle both it and the opposing reaction it generates. There is no passion without occasional ****storms.


    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!


    Nope, a fanboi would deny the existence of the bugs or try to downplay their significance, insisting that there's nothing wrong with the game and that all criticism against it is unfair.


    Alright, then I take my comment back. For a moment I felt that you were downplaying the significance of the bugs a bit.

    Because how can a bug-ridden game still feel so damn good?


    I'm not even sure there are people here who deny the existence of the bugs. I think it all comes down to how much significance you put on the bugs.


    There are people who can enjoy the game despite the bugs. And there are people who declare the game to be unplayable and be broken because of the bugs. But I haven't yet seen people who refuse outright that there are any bugs in the game at all. What I have seen is people being labelled "fanboys" in order to make their opinion invalid. But hopefully that is going to stop now, with Amentep's post in mind.


    My opinion is that YES the bugs should be mentioned in reviews. Also it is okay to give the game a lower score because of the bugs. BUT then I would hope that the reviewer updates their review as soon as the devs fix the bugs. I think that'd be fair.

    • Like 2

  10. @E.RedMark: You and me both. I'd easily trade a hub like a ship or a stronghold for tonnes of more RP reactivity based on my background and character traits.


    Perhaps they can borrow a page from Storm of Zehir and have your party members' avaialble for all sorts of dialogue interactions?


    I also think that levelling go to fast in Deadfire. I'd prefer a slower xp gain.


    And even more exploration and surprises, please. The overland map is nice and all, but let's face it - those islands are pretty empty and uneventful. Cram heaps of surprises into our CRPG experience and watch us smile widely!

    So in my opinion, they could look at Storm of Zehir for that too. I found the overland map there to be more eventful and immersive. And for me it had more atmosphere, too.

    • Like 1

  11. It's a shame looking at the state of these forums, because reading the stuff the fanbois here post really makes me *want* to hate the game AND the company. I like the game so far, but the bug-ridden state of this release is utterly inexcusable and most of the criticism towards it is absolutely justified. If the game didn't feel so damn good, I probably would hate it, but as it is I can't. All I can do is be disappointed and hope they'll make up for this by patching things up as soon as possible.


    Careful, careful, careful!


    You're close to stepping into fanboying territory here!


    You say the game feels so damn good despite all the bugs!

    That's what a fanboy would do.

    • Like 2


    Also let's keep in mind that we are only looking at this game.


    You only look at those subsets in which there is a majority of non heterosexual people. You disregard all other subsets. And then you complain how unrealistic that is.



    Yes, we of course are only looking at this game because this is a PoE II section of the Obsidian games forum, and it's this particular game's companions the OP has a problem with? Why would we even bring other subsets into this.


    That's my very point.


    The OP is focusing on one subset only. Namely on that one, of which the statement is true, that the majority of the people are not heterosexual.


    And I'm trying to show you that you can make that statement always true. It just depends on how you choose the subset.

    If you want to make the statement true that THE majority of a group of people is not heterosexual, then you will only look at groups of people of which the majority is not heterosexual.


    The OP chose that specific subset for that very reason to make that statement true. And then be able to complain about it.

  13. What are the chances your Watcher randomly ends up in a group where 5/7 characters are coastal aumaua? Will you find it believable?


    What are the chances that a character becomes a watcher? What are the chances not only does he become a watcher but also a watcher with an awakened soul? And yet 100% of the main characters are a watcher with an awakened soul.


    What are the chances to win the lottery?

    And yet 100% of the winners of the lottery have won the lottery.


    And THAT is what you are doing. Of course you would never question how unlikely it is to become a watcher with an awakened soul.

    Or how unlikely it is to win the lottery. I'd guess those topics are not interesting enough.


    No you want to focus on one topic alone. There may be so many unlikely things be happening in the real world or in all fantasy worlds combined. And of all the unlikely things ever happening, you only focus on this one topic.


    And that's what I've been trying to say all along. You disregard everything else. Just so that you can complain about this one thing.


  14. Also let's keep in mind that we are only looking at this game.

    Look at all the video games ever made that feature companions. Do you think THE majority of ALL companions of ALL video games ever made are gay or not gay?

    You only look at those subsets in which there is a majority of non heterosexual people. You disregard all other subsets. And then you complain how unrealistic that is.

    There may be a few other games where the majority of companions is not hetero. But I'd wager all in all, games where the majority of the companions are not hetero - are the minority in fact.

    But of course you only want to focus on the games where the majority of the companions is not hetero only so that you can complain about it.

  • Create New...