JFSOCC
-
Posts
2258 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
14
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by JFSOCC
-
-
I came to like the Dragon Age 2 approach of just calling the extra stuff "junk". They can just give us a pile of junk and let us sell it for some nominal sum.
Sorry, not possible in Deadfire because of likelihood of confusion.
All jokes aside, I like this approach as well. I prefer there to be some fluff to it though, like in Tyranny.
perhaps you could add a toggle that allows you to mark items as junk. that way whenever you next encounter it it will get listed as such, and you can choose to exclude it from the listings of loot piles.
-
1
-
-
I would like the flow of combat to be slower, and the impact of ability use to feel more significant.
-
If you have more money than god by the time you reach act II, money has no value, if you compensate by making things in act II so expensive as to nullify the effort people put into getting rich, they will feel it as a betrayal.
So money needs to have a value outside of purchasing power. Just for having it.
In PoE I suggested they do this by linking it to prestige, or as a quest gate (you need to be this rich in order to proceed)
Another method might be to have multiple currencies, and moneychangers charge stiff fees.
The benefits of this are that while you can be rich enough for a section of the game to buy everything, once you reach another place, your money is worth a lot less. Still more than if you never bothered to loot a single corpse or container, of course.
Lastly I think I would limit rewards more significantly, and make it so players never could buy everything they want. Not being able to buy every toy in the game will force the player to make choices, and those choices will feel meaningful precisely because they can't get AND/AND.
so in summary:
1. money only useful locally
2.wealth gating of content
3. linking wealth to prestige as a means to give value to stacking it.
4. limit rewards so that gold sinks feel hefty instead of insignificant.
my 0.02$
-
2
-
-
recommendation while listening to this album: some level of intoxication, either high of drunk; noise cancelling 7.1 surround headphones.
-
just out of curiosity, did anyone, anyone, bueller? watch the documentary I linked?
-
There is lots of anti-Western propaganda and anti-Western sentiment on this thread, its okay and its normal and to be expected. Its a Zora thread after all
. A few general commentsI know the historical precedence is inconvenient for some but we have to try to focus on the sequence of accurate events around the reasons the ME is currently so destabilized, the Arab Spring is the primary reason for the worst conflicts in the region. The reasons for the Arab Spring has got nothing to do with the West, I repeat that
The Arab Spring has got NOTHING to do with the West, for those interested in the reasons for the Arab Spring this link summarizes it. Spend 20 minutes going through it
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Spring
It started in Tunisia and spread throughout the ME and various countries and the various protests and outcomes had different results in different countries
But the fundamental reason for the Arab Spring was the actual citizens of numerous countries in the ME wanted more civil rights and they wanted to be part of the economy of their countries. It is perfectly understandable for the reasons why the Arab Spring happened ...people wanting a better life for themselves
Countries like Libya, Yemen and Syria refused to give rights to citizens and decided to use their security forces to crush and annihilate any opposition, this is on those leaders and it is there fault for not negotiating or looking for a reasonable political outcome. You also have the interminable Shia and Sunni historical conflict which is a huge factor for the Syria and Yemen civil wars
Libya was never this perfect country of peace and political stability, Gaddafi came to power through a military coup and never had a Democratic election in over 40 years, he brutally suppressed any opposition and ensured that his tribe and followers were the only ones that really benefitted from the oil and other resources
Here is a good link around Gaddafi, he was a brutal and intransigent ruler and he deserved the outcome he created. He was killed by his own people
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-12688033
So in summary, the West is not primarily responsible for the terrible conflicts in places like Syria or Libya. These were created by the results of the Arab Spring
The Arab spring happened because of climate change. Failed crops led to a boom of poverty and famine preceding the Arab spring. Things got started when a farm produce seller set himself on fire because of how bad conditions had gotten for him. This sparked a chain reaction where more and more grievances were aired until revolution was inevitable. When life gets ****ty like that the chances for political upheaval are naturally increased. All nations featured in the Arab spring had to deal with poor harvests, and many had leadership worth opposing.
-
There is this experiment they did recently in Stanford University. They rigged a game of monopoly one player would get three times as much as the other whenever they passed Go.
Despite knowing of their advantage, when they started winning the game, they started telling the losing player what they were doing wrong. Why didn't you do this? why not try that?
If there was food or snacks left nearby in a communal bowl, the "winner" would appropriate it, start eating as if they owned it, started chewing loudly, speaking more loudly, hanging over the game board, speaking loudly about the great decisions they were making and the good math they were doing.
But not once acknowledging the fact that they got three times as much money whenever they passed Go.
The narrative automatically became "I succeeded because of my own ability" Ye olde I pulled myself up by my own bootlaces narrative that the political right loves so much, and that strong-man populist dictators love so much.
You, having the advantages of having more cows to milk, have gained enough income to invest in these things you're proposing the losing player to do. The player with one Cow however is behind the curve, and incapable of making these choices. They worry about getting enough cheese to feed the family, let alone bringing any to market. There is not enough opportunity to get into a leasing agreement, which no doubt wouldn't favour them, they might have to indenture themselves in order to repay such loans in order to do this. The risk is not guaranteed to pay off, fine if your investment comes from disposable income, not fine if lives depend on it. So the losing player is forced into risk-averse decision making.
Let's not forget where your three cows came from. You assume it's because you're a better farmer, and you got to three all on your own. Maybe you inherited the three, maybe someone gave them as a bridal gift. You know it's because you know everything about cows, and wanted to be the best cow farmer in the world. But in order to bring your cheese to market you travelled over a road built by someone else, maintained by someone else, someone taught you everything there is to know about cow maintenance, maybe in a school of some sort. This is usually a service supported by the government, and it is paid for by taxes.
You get to keep your three cows, but part of the cheese they make goes to feed the losing players homes, they can now bring their own cheese to market, and compete. Now they too have the resources to go and do all those things you suggest, like leasing cows, or buying sperm to increase the herd.
And now your success helps to foster their success as well. You can't rest on your laurels because you got real competition. This drives you to seek to differentiate yourself from the others, for instance by letting the cheese rest longer before bringing it to market, creating a new type of cheese.
You're still doing better than most, but at least they're not doing too poorly.
And then because they have more disposable income after selling their cheeses to market, they try some of yours, because they can now spend some of that good cheese money they earned on your special cheese.
And then the government earns more taxes\
and bridges get built
and then suddenly the goat farming nations of goatania has access to your local market, and the local cheeses get sold long distance, and you earn some goatania cash.
With which you buy some goat cheese, since you're a connoisseur and want to expand your palette, and you're wealthy enough that you can afford it.
That's the thing with taxes, they help everyone, even yourself. Just because someone is in a poor position doesn't mean they failed to make the right decisions. What we do know is that the poorer the position you're in, the less likely you are of making the right decisions. So it pays to help those in a poor position to get a better position. And it seems perfectly ok to require to broadest shoulders to carry the heaviest burden. If you have 30 cows because of your great decisionmaking someday, and you have to sell 12 cows worth of cheese to pay for taxes, that still leaves you miles ahead in production of the competition with 10 cows who has to pay 3 cows worth of cheese.
You still have the production of 18 cows, whereas they have the production of 7. So even though you paid ten percent more taxes, you still get to be richer than the rest.
You can see it as giving back to a society which has helped you become successful, because if you truly believe your successes all came from your smart decision making or hard work, and not from your advantages from the outset, like beginning with more cows, well, you need to ask why is it that the others who worked hard, made the right decisions, but started with one cow seem not to do as well.
When you take part in society, any society, you willingly give up some freedoms. You take part in a social contract: I won't kill you and you won't kill me, even though you are a stranger to me, because by choosing to adhere to these rules we've come to understand that we can achieve more. So you gave up your liberty to murder anyone from Cowsania or Goatania, because they are trade partners with Cowsania.
Now I vote pirate party, I'm all about not giving up my civil liberties, but somehow I'm ok with losing the right to murder people from Goatania, I like their cheese.
I understand that yes, Goatanian cheese has to cross that bridge cowsania constructed, so I willingly pay my taxes.
-
Yeah, no, sorry Ninja, but it oddly seems you wish for a game that is a life simulator.
Which would mean no (flying) dragons or giant insects or various other fantastical creatures with impossible anatomies, the major cause of death being disease and infection, a hugely complicated sleep/water/food system, and equipment damage. That sounds like a game that would be so tedious that playing it becomes a chore.
Only because you see the limitations. It would impose a reduction in your agency. I'm currently working on a different approach to this.
Instead of these things become chores to deal with, you could build gameplay around it.
These limitations only work if they're related to the gameplay. if it's any-time management of your gear by clicking on a button that consumes an item which then repairs your gear, that's lame. If you need to complete an in-game challenge in order to influence your success, that might be engaging. I'm not yet ready to share too much of what I've been preparing, but I am very eager to see what Obsidian would think of it sometime.
I'm going to make chores engaging.
I'm also opting out of this thread, I'm sure there is enough in this thread to consider your own ideas and share them in a different one.
-
For the uninitiated:
The reason Russia supports the Assad regime is because it allows them to stations their aircraft carriers in the Mediterranean, this fits their policy of projecting power towards Europe. The annexation of the Crimean peninsula gave Russia harbours in the black sea for resupply. Taking half of the Ukraine was to make Nato move their Anti-Ballistic Missile Shield, which had been a sticking point for Russia for two decades in international diplomacy. (Their point of view: those missiles are aimed at us, NATO point of view: No it's for Iran, "Buhlieve us") Nato did move their missile shield in response, one of the reasons Obama visited Poland during his second term.
Russia has taken the North of Georgia in 2008, during a campaign you may have missed because it just so happened to coincide exactly with the Bejing Olympics.
And Chechnya which bordered Georgia before that.
The current wave of Populist sentiment in Europe has been fostered by Russian espionage money, and it's bearing fruit, Britain has exited the EU, Trump is easier to deal with than Hillary, nationalists are winning votes. Europe could collapse if pushed.
Then there is Turkey, lovely Turkey, which controls the Bosporus, access for any fleet between the Black Sea and the Mediterranean Sea is dependent on it.
Remember recently that guy from Syria who recently assassinated the Russian ambassador? Guess what the Ambassador was doing there? That's right, securing Turkey as an ally. That assassination only benefited the relationship Russia was going to have with Turkey. Recep Erdoğan's current rise as dictator of Turkey, is facilitated by a strong Russian influence. Recently there were protests in Germany and the Netherlands, that "mysteriously" turned into Riots when new protesters joined in from elsewhere.
These were protests, starting peaceful, against Turkey sending politicians to campaign for the Constitutional change Erdogan is pushing through.
More resentment in Europe towards Turkey fosters racism and nationalism in Europe. Nationalism is isolationism which helps with any divide and conquer agenda. Meanwhile Europe has an agreement for Turkey to deal with the Refugees from Syria, which means many get stuck, are sent back, or have to try more dangerous routes to escape war. Russia is weaning Turkey off of Europe in order to secure great ability for his fleet to project power. If Russia can deploy in all waters around Europe, and divert the US's attention either inwards or towards another rival, then it could proceed to conquer Europe.
Putin has constantly pushed an agenda of confrontation: I'm going to take this small thing, are you going to stop me?
no.
I'm going to take this small thing, are you going to stop me?
no.
Well, I'm going to do this thing, are you going to stop me?
yes, I'll make a resolution in the UN
Veto.
It was pretty good! why would you V-
Veto. Oh, and by the way, about our relationship...
I made some new friends.
Trumps decision to strike will escalate the conflict. His decision to not send in troops, and warn Russia, means that Russia will get to keep it's local resources, which is all that Russia currently requires. And I'm confident Russia was kind enough to tell Assad that maybe he should reposition his aircraft while he could.
Russia doesn't want the conflict there to end while Turkey hasn't been secured yet. Remember Georgia borders Turkey. If Russia gets Turkey and Georgia then it's got total control of the Black Sea.
Russia has been making plays for Europe. It's the KGB's old Grand Plan 2.0 FSB Edition.
I encourage anyone who is interested in what is really going on in the world to watch "Putin, Russia and the West" an EXCELLENT 4 part documentary featuring interviews with Putin's inner circle like Lavrov and Medvedev, Obama, Colin Powell, **** Cheney, Hillary Clinton, Mikheil Saakashvili, Condaleezza Rice, Nicolas Sarkozy and many other prominent figures.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2iscmt
I believe this documentary is now more relevant than ever.
Geopolitics can't be understood in context-less 24hr newscycle newsbits.
And I promise you, it will blow you ff'in mind.
Edit: Getting proper video.
-
2
-
-
Trump finally got to the end of House of Cards I guess.
-
*sigh* When hitting things, you're trying to exercise as little strength as humanly possible as to not over-extend yourself. That's why very sharp things eventually became much more widespread than clubby things (and eventually, strength was taken out of the equation more or less completely). You not only keep dodging the point, but also replied to 1/3 of the argument I was making in the post you quoted and like 1/10th of the argument I was making in the first place.Sounds like you've never hit anything. It's obvious to anyone who has ever hit something that the more you put strength behind the strike, the more damage you can cause. To me it sounds like you're still just rationalizing 'the way you see strength' in order to keep up your argument.
You're a weasel, you know that. My argument has been the same from the beginning, you're the one that tries new angles with every single post. Now you're trying to twist a simple "a stronger blow will cause more damage" into some "actually in combat you're trying to do this and that fancy stuff I've never really understood anything about but heard someone talking of which was cool!"
So let's clarify, you are of the opinion that more strength behind a hit doesn't equate to more damage caused? I mean are you seriously deluded enough to start arguing against physics? And just in case this wasn't clear, I'm not talking just about swords here, but even with a cutting weapon such as a sword, more power means more momentum and kinetic energy being applied to the actual cutting.
Gaan we nu weer oude koeien uit de sloot halen.
Children, this argument of yours has a beard by now.
Let's start with the obvious.
When someone writes in a way you disagree with, don't respond in kind. Either you're feeding a troll, or you're reducing yourself to the level of the character you pretend to despise.
It's not interesting discussion, and it doesn't make others want to weigh in, other than perhaps to the fact that there are duelists in the thread.
This has gone on long enough. Please remain civil in my damn thread so that people can have intelligent discourse.
Secondly, the question you should ask is not, why isn't it Strength? Why Might? But rather, what motivated the developers to choose this stat model?
Is it to create a system of stats that can accurately tell a player what they can do in combat, which was one of the 'pillars' of this game? Perhaps it has to do with the iteration on the affected attributes that moved it away from what you had envisioned the attribute name stood for? Might was named in order to distinguish it from strength, to allow players to decouple their past expectations from this new system. One where it described the intensity of the player character ability in combat, regardless of whether they were a 40kg woman or Conan the Barbarian. This allowed the player to choose a character model they prefer, without limiting what they believed their character should be able to do.
In this sense I think Obsidian made the right decision.
Although I believe that it might be even better to do away with the stats altogether. No strength, intelligence, dex, might, luck, etc. Nothing.
I believe it's hampered what RPG's can be for decades. But I'm including that in my own game pitch.
^-- See that is how that is better than what you two are doing?
-
Pillars is a good game. As with basically everything Obsidian touches, I'd give it a solid 8/10 at bare minimum - everything Obsidian makes or is directly involved with seems to be at least that good. But it's frustrating to play in many cases, because you can see what it COULD have been. I sometimes wonder if devoting so much effort to the Endless Paths was a smart design choice. I know both players and Obsidian themselves wanted a sort of sequel to the stellar Watcher's Keep from BG2, but I can't help but feel like it might have been better to devote some of that energy and effort into polishing the rest of the game. Maybe they could've added new floors to the Endless Paths later, or something.
This is one of the reasons why I'm excited for Dreadfire, despite my experience with PoE. I still got a good 64 hours in PoE. according to steam.
By making Project Eternity a reality, Obsidian has managed to get a footing for their own IP from which they can create an entire universe full of games. (Wouldn't it have been great if they had had that option for Knights of the Old Republic!)
PoE is in many ways a pitch for further games, a quasi-vertical slice, and has given Obsidian not only something to build on, but a good deal of funds to invest in their next project.
There is no doubt in my mind that with these added resources, any following game will iterate on the good, and rethink the bad or controversial.
There are already a significant number of things that Dreadfire will include that the Pillars team simply didn't have the resources to manage.
It's easy to forget that expectations were high for Pillars, and for the team to build such a solid game is I believe in great part due to Josh Sawyers wisdom in project management, as well as good communication with the fanbase. Many of his posts on these forums were managing expectations by explaining what the team could and could not do, what they were working on, and what they were considering during development.
Many of the things that I see slated for Dreadfire remind me of discussions held on these very forums.
If anyone is new here, I do encourage you if you have the time and interest to explore the old (well, they're still around) Project Eternity forums and look for threads with Posts from Josh, they're good quality, and provide good insight.
For Deadfire I see romance, a change in stealth (vision cones! thank you Josh, I do appreciate that very much!) and a change in the approach to exploration.
All this tells me that not only will Dreadfire be more ambitious than Pillars, and that the team is actively learning and has paid close attention to the feedback they've gotten over the years.
There are still things about Dreadfire that will make me manage my own expectations. I favour a classless system because it allows you to approach character stats differently, but I'm curious to see the multiclass system work out. I do hope that there will be effort put into allowing powerful synergies.
I'm also interested in learning more about the density of sidequests in Pillars, or if it will still focus heavily on the Critical Path.
Nevertheless I think things are looking up for the Pillars Setting, and even if Dreadfire wouldn't be "all that", perhaps 8/10, Obsidian will no doubt continue to grow from this title.
I like that Dreadfire eyes different from Pillars, I have this nagging feeling that my personal feedback has influenced the setting which is probably nonsense but I'm stoked nonetheless, so I'll be paying close attention to its development.
So please, remind me on occasion to manage my expectations when I get hyped again.
It's good to be back here, I hope the devs feel the same
-
1
-
-
This discussion is going off the rails. I have few postulates:
-Let's expand it to all caster classes, not only wizards
-Let's put aside our sentiments or resentments towards D&D reality-bending mages and priests
-Let's focus on question:
"How can magic feel more magical without hurting game's design goals or enjoyment flowing from game?"
I've always avoided playing caster classes, for several reasons, one of which is the "they can do anything another class can, but often times better" feel
I think however, reading the OP, that the desire is to make the casters feel more like toolbox characters, more versatility.
Having spells only be accessible in combat detracts from the fantasy of having a character that can deal (potentially) with any problem anywhere.
Perhaps having contextual casting options can solve the "cast anywhere" game breaking potential while introducing out of combat utility for spells.
These contextual clues would be hidden unless the PC or Companion Character has the relevant spell in their repertoire.
See unlit torches? if you have a flame spell, they can be lit using it. (with a nice animation to show your pc casting a flame travelling past all torches nearby)
If you see a glint in a ceiling, perhaps an earthquake spell will make the chandelier fall, a shatter spell might do the same, etc.
-
6
-
-
In my experience Obsidian does regularly read and sometimes comment on these forums. But usually it's to rectify a misconception or to clarify a design choice.
I think one of the reasons is not to influence discussion too much.
Still, stick around, you might be pleasantly surprised.
-
1
-
-
I would like a feature where I can introduce any image into the pool, and depending on the size I get an UI which allows me to select what will be visible or should be resized.
-
1
-
-
I'd like some content to be gated based on your ship type. Heavy, deep hull ships shouldn't make it past certain reefs into shallow harbours, whereas shallow hull fast ships should avoid heavy weather and combat with larger vessels.
I'd love a great deal of aesthetic customisation as well, perhaps as a gold sink?
and yes, I also like the idea of limiting exploration distance based on distance travelled from your last supply station. This way "securing" ports may influence your exploration range. A heavy ship may explore further because it can stock more food and water (but wouldn't get into the shallow cove) whereas a smaller vessel would really have to set up a supply chain before ranging further. I think this would greatly benefit the feeling of being a real explorer.
It might also help obfuscate the gating of content which the player isn't supposed to encounter yet. (because it can't be reached before a player has at least ship X, or secured location Y)
-
3
-
-
Ok so, when this page was 5 pages long I started with a reply based on multiquote, then when I got close to responding to all, it was 7 pages long and getting hijacked, now it's 9 pages long and slowly back on track.
I'm going to limit my response now in order to actually get it out.
Great debate, I'm pleased to see so many interesting insights in this thread.
Ninja, I actually believe you had a lot of interesting points. However, the use of loaded language, as you can see, distracted from the points you were trying to make. I think That's a shame because you did have some pretty interesting insights. Politics will certainly influence someone's design philosophies. All art is political. I don't believe that the idea that women in PoE should have the option to have the same might statistics as men comes from an political equality agenda however, and more from the "We want players to roleplay whatever character they please" agenda.
At the core of it all, there are only two types of quests. Either bring something back, or bring something somewhere. I definitely agree that it all depends on the context. Just take a look at the Witcher, Pathologic, or New Vegas side quests. All of them are bring this object to a place, go kill something, or bring me a mcguffin. However, the writing around it all is good enough to make the player ignore what the mechanics are. PoE did this really well with the Twin Elm quests, with how tied to lore/exploration/ and loot they are
At the core of it all, there are only two types of quests. Either bring something back, or bring something somewhere. ..
or kill something.
I think this deserves a whole thread of its own.
I do not agree AT ALL that these are the only quest types available. And as I'm working on my own vision document for an Adventure-RPG, I think it's an important issue to discuss.
How is it that these quest-types have become such staples in RPG's and what other options are available?
I believe that it has to do with quest bounding. By which I mean that quests in RPG's tend to have a set number of ends and outcomes. There is an obstacle, there is a solution, sometimes more than one, and then they're over and then there is the player reward. (item, XP. etc)
Generally speaking, it's only the critical path that avoids this.
Edit: PS: Ninja, I'm also pretty far left, I hope that doesn't influence how you feel about my posts in this thread
-
3
-
-
Someone mentioned Baldur's Gate II as a comparison, that was an interesting thought. I had a similar experience with Baldur's Gate II where I lost much of my motivation after moving on from Athkatla. I've remember some posts back for PoE where Josh talked about quest staggering and the questlog dump in BGII's early game which I think I may need to read again.
Some people pointed out the scope of PoE and its budget meant that the team had to narrow its focus, and rightly pointed out that Deadfire will likely be in a much better position. I sense a similarity to the Baldur's gate games.
Perhaps it was a case of wanting too much, the stretch goals are a perverse incentive when it comes to that. The second big city, Stronghold, crafting, 15 levels for the dungeon. All these are great if you can spend proper time on them, manage to make them interconnected, give them full polish. But perhaps with the resources Obsidian had the focus should have been narrower? I can hardly blame them, since I was one (of many) to push for the largest possible game. I wanted a second big city, I wanted that stronghold...
Abel also has some interesting thoughts, not being able to make the character you want to make due to limited customisability, something Deadfire will likely mitigate with multiclassing. (I still want to know if there are going to be class synergies) a focus on abilities/spells for combat but not utility, also a design choice. I heard that there will be a great deal more skills in Deadfire, which means that perhaps the focus may have shifted away from combat.
Someone said that the team had no clear vision for PoE, I don't agree. To me it's clear that they had a story to tell, and made choices to focus on the critical path story at the expense of other things. And when you want to do too much eventually things are not going to get the attention they deserve. I've heard the white march recommended by several people (I'll wait till it drops below 10 euro for both) and I think this might be so well received because its scope allowed the team to focus more on what they wanted to achieve.
I also intend to reinstall and play twin elms. (but first I will finish my first playthrough of T:ToN) I think steam might still have that save in their cloud.
-
2
-
-
Before everyone goes off on a tangent, I don;t know twin elms, I literally stopped before exploring it. I think I entered that inn, and saved there.
That so many in this thread comment about a break in motivation when reaching twin elms makes me wonder though. I know that this was the point for me where I had worked through (most of) my questlog, and I had nothing listed that I *needed* to continue.
This leads me to a question: Would it have been good for PoE to have had several quests open that continued in Twin Elms? On the one hand it might have given me the motivation to continue, on the other, it might have been a coercive motivation that reduced my enjoyment.
It also makes me think about how quests are listed. I've been thinking a lot about obfuscation in game mechanics, and I'm currently leaning to it being capable of improving your enjoyment.
So as a thought experiment, do you think it would have made quests more engaging if they weren't listed, or you were forced to write your own quest journal? I think there are good reasons why that would lead to frustration. If you haven't paid attention to a detail or key bit of information, or if you load a save after a long absence, that would potentially be destructive. However it could also have led to greater engagement with that one aspect of which I found the implementation so troubling: The reading. Obfuscating the quest log may have forced me to engage more with the dialogue, having a journal that I myself could edit would also mean that I wouldn't be certain if I'm finished with a questline or if I may have missed something, and would incentivise me to keep exploring, maybe.
-
He's well educated, utterly sure of himself and his politics, comes across as smug and superior, and enjoys crafting an image of himself as a strong leader and negotiator.
He certainly seems to have a high opinion of himself.
Whether you agree with that image of him depends on your political leanings.
He believes the narrative that hard work ensures success, so those who fail must have themselves to blame.
He argued for and pushed through policy that fines people for taking too long to complete their academic studies, while ignoring the fact that under this new rule he himself would have been fined as he took 10 years to complete his own. So I also think he's a hypocrite.
He loves Bach, which personally I find the most boring of all composers, but Bach has a large fanbase so. Even so his party has cancelled or significantly reduced all funding to our philharmonic orchestras, public classical radio and our most excellent conservatory.
He's single and gets annoyed when reporters mention this.
I've heard he's got a strong handshake.
-
2
-
-
-
Does that remove my right to argue, critique or contribute to the sequel? You decide.
I've played until I arrived in Twin Elms, I cleared out the entire 15 level dungeon but after I arrived in Twin Elms I saved the game
and then didn't return to it, eventually I uninstalled PoE to clear space for another game on my small SSD drive.
So, I've been thinking about why I didn't finish PoE and what could be learned from my limited experience.
Why didn't pillars work for me? It wasn't immediately obvious to me. Longstanding members of this forum will know that I was quite active here during development of PoE, and felt very invested in its success. This may have influenced my reception somewhat, so perhaps there are some lessons for those of you who now feel the same way about Deadfire.
One of the reasons might have been the balance update that came out right after I saved, which changed stat allocation to different attributes. I actually believe my character might have been fine regardless. One reason is because I feel that stat bonuses were relatively insignificant. When I started the game I had high hopes that through gameplay I would improve my character in such a fashion that I could spec her out the way I wanted to. Make her feel distinct. Having achieved a relatively high level for the point in the game progression that I stopped playing (I think it was two below the cap) I didn't feel like my character had significantly been improved. What improvements I did have were all from items, which I hoarded on my own character at the expense of the party because screw them.
So the granularity of the progression might have been a factor.
I also learned, whilst levelling, that I was fairly limited in my options. Not only were abilities level gated (which meant I HAD to take another ability and commit before finishing my levelling, severely restricting the build.) but they were also obfuscated so you could not plan ahead. (But what about the wiki, you ask? at the time it was incomplete and I shouldn't have to rely on a third party resource to begin with)
I believe this resulted in feeling less ownership of my character.
The Stronghold. I focussed on upgrading my stronghold completely as fast as I could, and I did. What did it bring me?
A choice of rest bonuses, a place to store my companions so that I could click through the conversation story progression of each of those I didn't use whenever I was back there, and a prestige and security rating that I'm not quite sure affected much of anything.
Now from what I've seen the team has understood that the Stronghold failed in its execution and is trying to remedy this with your ship in Deadfire. It's looking to go the right way this time. Still, I'd like to list what I think made the stronghold so shallow an addition to PoE
1. It didn't seem to produce content based on your input. If I upgrade a section, it was upgraded, there was some loot, maybe, some lore, perhaps. This is failed potential. Say I upgraded the library, why didn't it unlock for me a bunch of quests to go hunting for books, lore, scrolls, a librarian? To actually BUILD the library, to have people come who specifically came looking for the books you brought back. To make choices.
Other than minimal loot, lore and a visual change, it was just a checkmark off the list of things to upgrade.
2. There was no customisation. This meant that I felt very little ownership of this place. After all, I could rebuild it, but I could not put my personal stamp on it. (with exception of perhaps two mutually exclusive upgrade choices that altered fortification/prestige.)
If instead there had been a spot that could be upgraded, but you had to choose what to put in, that choice would already have given you more ownership of the stronghold.
If you could combine customisation with produced content, you would have had diverging narrative, and I think that would have been great.
Now, I know, with the limited time and resources, trying to work all that in would have forced the stronghold to either be the centrepiece of the game or be cut entirely. I think either would have been OK. (and it pains me to say that)
Quest density, progression, and reactivity. When I left for Twin Elms, I had done everything that I had found I could do in Defiance Bay, None of the quests have been memorable enough for me to recall exactly what happened. I ticked them off my list so I could continue to grow stronger, I don't think I was very invested in any faction I encountered. I picked one (the knights) and then there was a binary conflict.
What I do remember? I remember the asylum being full of phoney scientists, and stealing treasure from a noble's house by going in through the side window.
Time and time again the game wanted me to follow its story, and denied me the opportunity to make my own.
That is a design choice, one that I now believe was communicated well enough by the developers here on the forums and elsewhere. I just blinded myself because I was looking forward to that other type of RPG. The one where you make the story and the worldbuilding elements tell the narrative.
This false expectation will most certainly have affected my enjoyment of the game.
So beware those of you who might not be; while Obsidian will love your feedback, never forget that they are making THEIR game, through their vision. If you want to make the argument that I was looking to play another game than PoE, you may be right. It's very easy to get blinded to this because you're overly invested.
Combat
I hated combat. Not because it was hard, or easy, or simple or complex, mostly because of the epic battle music. It started to grate on me really fast. Variation, not as bombastic when I'm fighting a less impressive group of opponents, that might make a difference.
I also didn't quite ever get that "click" moment where I felt that the toolkit of character abilities I got got used strategically or tactically.
Either they were unnecessary, or by the time I could use them the battlefield had changed. I played a rogue, I cleared the 15 level dungeon, I don't know if that's meaningful. Never did beat the dragon though.
This is probably because I suck at combat, and I'm stupid and I should feel stupid. so please tell me in the comments below. (and don't forget to like and subscribe)
Flow of combat just did not work out for me.
Reading
Yes, Josh repeatedly stated that this was a game for people who love reading.
Well, Josh, I ****ing love reading. I've read James Clavell, I read Rothfuss, I've read Tolkien, Douglass Adams. I read a whole bunch of fantasy and science fiction authors, travelogues, popular science, news articles, I spend altogether way to much time on forums reading. I read for fun. So please don't dismiss me when I say there was too much reading.
Any backer NPC I clicked was essentially nothing more than a wall of text. I'm actually kind of glad that I was too poor to pay for the tier I wanted because I would have been disappointed finding out that's all you meant by backer NPC. After a while it doesn't matter how well its written anymore. In a game, there needs to be some purpose, some interactivity. It doesn't have to be the case with every.single. NPC, but it would have been nice to see it with more.
I felt incentivised to click every one of them because I didn't want to miss anything. However, after a while, I got that this was flavour and flavour only. Games are a visual medium, I think there could have been a great deal more of show than tell, and there would still have been room for volumes of text that I would have been happy to pour through.
I noticed myself sometimes fast forwarding dialogue to my dialogue options. That's bad player behaviour. Something went wrong when that happens, especially if that someone is a self-professed lover of the written word.
What happened was that reading became a chore. ticking quests off the list was a chore, clearing out the dungeon was a chore, combat was a chore, upgrading the stronghold was a chore. They were things I did to myself, grinding things, waiting for the game to become fun.
I suspect that when I reached twin elms, having cleared my quest log, cleared the dungeon, finished my stronghold, I was unburdened from the to-do list, and when I reached and new quests got dumped on me, I instinctually had enough. I hadn't been having fun. I didn't feel engaged.
The activities in themselves have to be fun/engaging. If you want me to read, what makes reading engaging? If you want me to play the stronghold, what makes the stronghold fun? The activity in itself needs to be fun, my neurotic psychological tendency for optimal play by wanting to do everything I can wasn't. But that's a psychological tendency that many players will be vulnerable to.
So why am I being such a downer on Deadfire's forum? Well honestly, I hope it won't be seen as that. I hope my critique and perspectives will help Deadfire's development, whether that lies in expectation management, game focus or scope or anything else.
That I'm back here should tell you something.
Do I think PoE was bad? No. It was flawed, and it probably wasn't for me, but I already was invested.
Learning that Deadfire will allow savegame imports actually made me consider finishing Pillars, briefly. There were things I liked. I loved the visuals of that dungeon right after were Eder opens up. I liked the reputation system, I was one of the few who actually liked the item improvement mechanic. Though I see its limitations and I like what the devs are suggesting for Deadfire items.
I've learnt some things
1. I will refrain from being as invested in Deadfire as I was with PoE. If I want Obsidian to make my game, I should contract them. Let them make theirs instead. I hope this will prevent me from blindly acquiring unfair expectations.
2. I can't stay away. I love Obsidian and what they do.
3. I have very strong ideas, notions and beliefs for an RPG, but that would be -my- game. (It will never be made because I have no coding skills and no art skills.)
4. I shouldn't lie to myself, I try to play optimally and I will grind in order to do so.
For the future:
I think the team working on Deadfire has made some good changes. Having your ship be your stronghold means it plays a central role in your story, there will be customisation as well. Reducing the number of big cities to one will allow for more focus, it will be a larger quest hub. The differences in each section of the city seem rich in potential for interplay and aesthetic.
The limitation PoE had with animation budget led to the story book segments, it's a different choice than I would have made for PoE, but seeing it return in Deadfire with it being expanded upon I think is going to really make the game distinct. It's an interesting feature that I like to see reach its full potential. I also think it will help transitions really well.
The change in approach to items will likely make those more distinct and therefore memorable, it might also add to player build customisation.
And lastly, YES! (sub)tropics baby! Whoo!
-
18
-
-
"
Tell us about this Rutte (or whathever the name of that winner is).
Is he yet another open market, anti-union, pro-"work time flexibility", open borders, tax-eliminating, Bilderberg-participating "rightist"?"
He's an Arab.
And he was born in Kenia. Oh wait, birther issues don't actually cause legal restrictions on eligibility here, uhm well, he has small hands, no? What else...
Well, he's smug, annoyingly so.
Anyway, let's drop this bull**** angle and not get tangled in irrelevancy (yet again)
-
You're welcome to come even now. I think if the pirate party wants to gain ground they're going to have to campaign and make more noise every day for the next four years. most of the people I've spoken too hadn't even bothered to learn about the party program, as they'd already dismissed it as a fringe party. more visibility is needed..
to meshugger, sort of. except for the-union busting part, the Netherlands has a history which ensures that both left and right wing parties respect strong and active unions.
VVD is the type of "pulled yourself up by your own bootlaces" narrative, and little to no government subsidies to culture, public services (like public television), privatisation of the energy, healthcare, education and transportation sectors, they even privatised social housing to great detriment to the poor. During their years in power they've cut spending when investment was most needed, forced vulnerable nations like Greece through austerity measures that have further crippled their economy through their influence in the EU. They forced austerity when we needed to invest and then patted themselves on the back for the most anaemic of economic recoveries (with this year being the first year of marginal growth)
Their cabinet had their own version of "states rights" rhetoric when they moved responsibility for many social welfare and healthcare institutions to municipalities, many of which have been forced to cut spending or gotten problems because they were overwhelmed by their new responsibilities. It's a mess. It also means that depending on what part of the country you now live in, you may or may not have a worse chance to be entitled to help. So much for equality.
And their immigration policy has been so bad that they've been called out by the UN on several occasions for human rights violations.
I'd really hoped that this country would change with these elections, problem is that the media loves following the frames the government or Wilders set out, and thus they talk about the topics their way, and this has sadly shaped debate and public opinion.
-
1
-
. A few general comments
Update #30 - From Blockout to Completion: The Environments of Pillars II
in Pillars of Eternity II: Deadfire Announcements & News
Posted
nice insight into the process, not really an update though.