.jpg.ce846aae50e732dc4985eb712252381f.jpg)
Varana
-
Posts
480 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Varana
-
-
My argument is that the industry standard is wrong, in my opinion, and that POE being released as it is, is a symptom of the industry standard.
Then you should have made your argument about that, and not about PoE being in a certain group of games in the current standard.
"Should PoE have been called Early Access" relies on what currently is Early Access, what currently is Finished, and what currently is seen as an acceptable state of release. If you want to take umbrage with that, say so.
While many might agree that the current standard is quite sad (although I think it's nostalgia to say that it has been much better at any time), you've basically derailed your own argument with that poll. "Early Access" is a specific thing within the current industry's way of working. It's not a generic term for "has too many bugs in my opinion". So in the end, what you've done in most of the thread, is trying to bring your thread back on the rails, after you've pushed it off them yourself for a click-baiting headline.
This post has been written in an "assume good faith" mentality, which might or might not be applicable.
-
Its interesting how PoE is a BRAND right now. As a brand I am sure we will see a lot more games and "merchandise" and things with the PoE Brand in the future.
Durance action figures? :D
(Also, Grieving Mother's. Easy to make, as no one can see them...)
Is there a possibility to support via PayPal?
I can't use Kickstarter (except for laborious workarounds) as I don't have (or usually need) a credit card.
-
Also, despite the feedback, the Heritage Hill tower combat is rather wonky, so in theory, these shouldn't be necessary.
Very impressive!
Although it involves being a bit of an a-hole early on, with feeding Calisca to Glanfathans, spiders, and traps. :D
-
1
-
-
Thaos instigating war and suffering is a case of "the greater good" justifying the means. He may cause war and instability in that particular land and society, but on the larger scale, he does it to prevent those people from finding out too much about the gods. So for a (in his eyes: small) price, he has kept the order of things intact.
1) We don't exactly know how the Engwithans created the gods and why they created exactly these and not others. We can infer something from their purpose (i.e. those are the gods the Engwithans thought necessary to maintain stability and morality), but nothing more.
Also, it's not that people only do things if there is a god for them. There will be wars, whether there's a god with that portfolio or not. And those involved in war will pray to gods, even if there's not a god specifically for it. So better to have one and subtly strengthen those aspects of war that you might want to stress (like heroism, defending your family/clan, individual strength, and so on), than having none and leaving it to chance.
2) It's not entirely sure whether the gods could actually do things that contradict or deviate from their domain. Apart from this, you cannot control them. Maybe Thaos and the Leaden Key had some role in this, but not much.
3) Apart from what White Phoenix said: Thaos knew how the gods were made, and he was the one making sure no one found out that they were.
-
1
-
-
I don't understand how is our speech on hearings about animancy does effect the ending though, I mean it doesn't matter what we said about it as soon as everyone saw that animancer killed Duc, nobody really cared about Leaden Key and our discoveries anymore. I don't believe our character was ever able to explain anything(or wanted to?) to people of Defiance Bay.
It does matter, as because of your influence, you may get a better ending for animancy. But it's not easy to achieve, most actions during the trial get you the standard ending.
As for the impact on Defiance Bay - when you first get to Caed Nua, several times the developer commentary mentions the difficulties of setting up a "dynamic" map with the technique they're using: the maps had to be built specifically around the fact that they would change and update later on. I think that's one of the main reasons why we don't see widespread destruction and substantial change to the maps themselves.
But generally speaking, yes - the trial was awkward. In pen and paper, such a scene would get a well-deserved angry rant - it's awfully railroady. Now, that's to be expected from a video game, but they usually manage to hide it a bit better.
-
No, there isn't really more to their stories. All of them talk to you, now and then, and everyone has something to say during the end, but except maybe for Aloth, there isn't much to it. Having Aloth with you during the endgame will give you some update on him.
Usually, you can pick up a companion, go to the spot(s) where their quest takes place, do whatever is needed, and park the companion again, until you reach the next quest spot. Best for that is, of course, if you already know what's required, as it's sometimes not obvious until you get there with the companion in tow.
The exceptions to this, as the streaker said, are Durance and the GM.
-
1
-
-
That's the point I've been arguing though, for people to volunteer up their children for sacrifice requires them to either believe in some religion or have some reason. The reason put forward in the game is that they believed other cultures would lack a moral compass, not some great religion on the contrary it was supposedly the fear that people would not have a religion that led them to do it. This based on some theory they came up with as what might happen, this does not seem a strong enough reason for an entire civilisation to all agree en mass to throw themselves into a soul-machine, leading me to think there is something more going on.
You can both think they did it for 'theological imperialism' but there is zero evidence in the game to back this up. Maybe it was the reason, but until something is presented proving this then it is mere conjecture and nothing more. I do not believe the pantheon in any way embodies Engwithan ideals particularly, it might do but we see nothing to prove one way or another, no one even mentions it as a possibility in the game.
I would compare the Engwithan's belief with one of the modern ideologies. Not a religion per se, as they don't have higher beings, but a pseudo-religion, which commanded religious devotion without being one. Real-life examples for that (not in content, but in form) would maybe be movements like Scientology or utopian Communism: They strongly believed in making sacrifices to make the world a better place, without needing a god-like being for that.
The Engwithans took that devotion to the extreme: sacrificing their very lives so that other peoples could live on a better world.
But that's why it's Fantasy. And it's one of the reasons why I think that they tried to impose their moral beliefs on the world, because that gives an additional reason for their sacrifice: They could shape the future. They didn't just ensure that the peoples after them would live in a better world, they tried to ensure that they lived how the Engwithans wanted them to live.
Yes, we don't have direct evidence - we generally speculate from small scraps of information, coming from biased sources. But I think it's the best explanation of why the Engwithans created those gods specifically, and not others.
-
The stories are in
...\PillarsOfEternity_Data\data\localized\en\text\game\backercontent.stringtable
-
The text itself is in ...\data\localized\en. The files have the extension "*.stringtable", but you can open them with Notepad or other text editors.
The *.conversation files contain how dialogue topics and responses are linked, and things like the requirements for certain text options.
-
I doubt the babies it mentions people holding agreed to anything. If it involved the entire society then there would have been some who would have gone around telling the truth of what the gods really were, you wouldn't need the heretic woman whose name I cannot remember to find out and spread it since it would already have people doing that. What about our world and children? If you mean how they are used against their will then that goes against it being volunteers who agreed to be sacrificed, and if they are too young to talk or understand what it is they are doing then they cannot volunteer.
The greater good as stated by Thaos was to prevent others from finding out there were no gods in the belief that it would lead to everyone doing as they pleased without consideration for the consequences which would lead to destruction of society. There is no evidence that these gods represent Engwithan belief or that it was done for theological imperialism.
EDIT: Basically, I cannot see why an entire society would be so committed to what is essentially a belief that other people can't cope without gods, to such an extent that the entirety of them would go along with it en mass unless there is something else going on here that we have yet to find out.
Well, the babies obviously weren't asked personally. They were volunteered by their parents, so to speak. Yes, that's not strictly voluntary, but that distinction, I'd guess, doesn't matter to one like Thaos. "They sacrificed themselves and their children", if we're trying to be exact.
What we see at the creation of the gods is obviously not all of Engwithan civilisation - a civilisation that fits into one (albeit large) room isn't really a civilisation. We don't know what happened at the other cities - the machines at Heritage Hill and at Cilant Lis would suggest that there were similar rituals at other sites, as well, but to what extent the Engwithans self-destroyed, we don't exactly know.
Yes, that was what they feared. They feared that if the other cultures found out that there were no gods, they would lack moral compass. That's why they created that compass. They created the gods they thought would be necessary to continue a civilised society as they saw it. That means by the creation of certain gods with certain portfolios, they were imposing their ethics and world views on those who followed those gods.
Yes, the gods are not a clear-cut pantheon with non-contradicting portfolios. But that's how polytheism works. That creates the illusion of free choice between ideals and beliefs: if you prefer Eothas over Berath, you may certainly do so. That's fine because both represent beliefs that the Engwithans tried to encourage.
If you look at the pantheon, you see a stress on inevitability, the rule of law, trials, individual strength, and the like. Compassion, helping the poor, community, the greater good - that isn't represented to the same degree. You have, obviously, no god who favours science and scientific exploration - instead, you have Wael, who is well fitted to what the Leaden Key does: obscuring facts, even if you happen to discover them. And so on - the bias is more subtle, but it is there.
-
1
-
-
"a quadruple-wielding sword wraith down in the dungeon dimensions" - err, what's that?
I referred to NPCs. They didn't do that completely with creatures - Dremora or Golden Saints didn't have armour, but they did have their weapons assigned and lootable, for instance.
-
IIRC, this was a project of more or less the entire Engwithan civilisation, without necessarily having all Engwithans sacrifice themselves. That is, the people we "see" in the creation of the gods are those who agreed to be sacrificed, not everyone.
As for children and so on, take a look at our world.
As I understand it, the "greater good" they tried to achieve was the perpetuation of their values. The gods were made to represent the ideals and values of Engwithan belief, and they were created as immortal, powerful beings to spread these values to all the world and keep watch that all (or all the major) cultures followed those beliefs. It's theological imperialism.
-
1
-
-
It does on the normal forum, I actually wondered what Rosveen was going on about myself as I don't use the mobile version either and never even thought about it. That's the issue nowadays with multiple platforms to view something on the internet, personally think websites should strive to ensure this sort of thing doesn't happen, such as using the same colour scheme by default but I don't know whether it's feasible with the software they use for the mobile version.
There's also different forum styles. I use a style with black ink on white-ish background, because the other way around really is a PITA to read. Bright letters on a dark background is a crime against decent eyesight. :D
-
You can go back to Defiance Bay at some point.
-
No one wanted horse armour, no one needed horse armour, and yet it was hugely influential as everyone could see that you could nonetheless sell sh*t no one wanted or needed for actual money. So beware of romances. You'll never know what you're about to start. :D
-
3
-
-
I would agree with Klice that the openness is the major issue here. I'd never have classified Dyrford as "endgame content". You can do Dyrford before anything in Defiance Bay, without "rushing". It's just about taking the "wrong" turn. That means Dyrford is potentially Chapter One content.
In my first run, I basically did this - I wanted the GM and skipped Pallegina, so I went to Dyrford first. I only went to DBay when cultists, ogres and drakes were a bit much.
-
Bethesda seems to not like the idea either.
Maybe I don't understand your idea of "tying the mob equipment to the loot tables", but that is quite exactly what Bethesda does. (I have no idea about ESO, but the traditional games.) TES loot is WYSIWYG in pure form: You can loot the complete inventory of an NPC after killing him, and there is nothing to loot but what he had in his inventory. Inventory and equipment (and appearance and level and so on) may be governed by sometimes quite elaborate random lists (more so in the newer games), so it's also not only one drop table.
At least for NPCs. Animals are different, as they usually don't carry much stuff with them, and teeth and eyeballs aren't exactly "inventory". :D They're more along the line of one loot table per monster, but that's to be expected.
-
Would turning the difficulty down to easy and then restarting, reload the encounter in easy mode?
No. Autosaves are created in the new area, while changing the difficulty only affects areas (or probably encounters) not yet visited in that game. (The area state gets saved into the game, and areas probably are set up when you first visit them.)
-
A major issue, I think, that differs from the IE games and DA:O, as well: Don't run around during combat. Disengagement attacks (Attacks of Opportunity, in DnD-speak) are vicious in PoE. If your back row is attacked, you can't just draw back one of the fighters. You can't just run over to the next enemy because he's low on health and only needs a few hits. You don't lure an enemy to your front line just by running there. And so on.
And some other differences. It's PoE, not any other game.
But not only that. Also, for Edér to be that low on health, the party must have been fighting for a while. This is madness. Go rest! This fight isn't strictly necessary, and even if you want to do it: You still have camping supplies left. Go rest!
Take your time. Don't just rush in there. Standing in the middle of an open courtyard is not the best of tactics. I'm not sure how someone playing DA:O on that difficulty could make that error.
-
-
First rule of any RPG: Save often.
Second rule: Save more often.
If you don't like Quicksaves for whatever reason, do hard saves.
Third rule: Save.
No idea how to move out of that situation. Maybe the console can help.
-
5
-
-
Brücke, Buch und blub...
game\maps.stringtable
ID 37
<DefaultText>Aedelwanbrücke</DefaultText>
<DefaultText>Aedelwan-brücke</DefaultText>
-Brücke.
-
The memorials are written by backers of the game. If a certain backer found it funny to have Lorem ipsum written on their memorial, then that's what's there.
-
Money is the root of all evil.
Consoles bring in lots of money.
Therefore...
j/k
-
1
-
Pillars of Eternity-Kent State University survey
in Way Off-Topic
Posted
Done.
Would it be possible to get some kind of notification about the outcome of the study and your results?