Tick

I just realized you've probably stopped paying attention to this thread, but : I can't really say for sure. I think it varies depending on the person, but I *think* the general rule is that the mechanics and narrative of Pillars don't hit the beats some players assume it should. Which is why I love these games and Obsidian games in general. They make more believable, thought out worlds and people and ideas. But if you loved Bioware and whatever tropes and patterns the company follows, I suspect Pillars - which almost goes out of its way to not just be the same RPG story, and be more grounded and introspective, and ask uncomfortable questions and have intentionally imperfect solutions to hard problems - is not satisfying. The Last Jedi to some extent got the same response from Star Wars fans. It subverts expectations, which is cool, but some people were attached to the kind of stories that produce those expectations. Ah yeah, I never expected this discussion to last this long and i've been very busy recently so not had much time to read threads here. I am still paying attention though. It's an interesting idea, as I mentioned I definately agree that some things are just not to certain people's taste but I guess I was talking more about mechanics there or just the way of story telling. As for the story beats, there is a lot of subnjectivity there but there is also objectivity too. There are some objective ways to criticise story telling. I think Deadfire being far too wordy is one, the length the text goes to in order to describe everything. Any editor will tell you not to do that if there is not a good reason to do that. As for The Last Jedi, I didn't like that movie for many reasons but the most simple criticism I can give is that simply "subverting expectations" does not make a good story. Doing the opposite of what the last movie built people up to expect constantly does not in and of itself make a movie good. I don't understand people who consider that movie brilliant just because it had a bunch of twists in it but then that is just my opinion and it's off topic. Anyway I still loved both POE games for the most part but I don't really think they are particularly "introspective" or "ask uncomfortable questions". It sort of sounds like you are saying it is just too deep for some people and that's why they dislike it and that it's the same for TLJ. I can't say I agree with that idea to be honest. Edit : This got way out of hand. I'm so sorry. Also I realized post facto that what I'm saying might still be a little patronizing. I don't think all of people's reactions/complaints are invalid (there are lots and lots of fair criticism that I can see or agree with) , I just feel that many people aren't being entirely honest about why they have the opinions they do. --- Thank you for responding! I might have accidentally opened up three whole cans of worms, there. I don't have time to go into everything but it feels cheap not to respond at all. I think my personal bias and frustration with the stubbornly endless negativity for negativity's sake might be leaking into my conversations a bit. I *don't* think that Pillars or TLJ are too smart or deep for its critics to understand - my apologies if it came off that way. It's more that both cases have previous works that they come from, that a large number of people are deeply attached to, but also break away from significantly. In both cases, the previous works that people compare each to are stories and systems that play on well worn tropes, patterns, and assumptions. The expectations and assumptions people would typically have are either rarely or never challenged. And I would expect that any twists are twists we'd more expect and be comfortable with as a general population. The two new works *do* challenge a ton of assumptions that our culture has - from what's ethical /'good' and 'bad,' to what a protagonist or a hero is and what they can/should do, to how a narrative or game should be structured. And that's especially rare from essentially a *fantasy* genre, which usually has more comfortable or familiar and feel-good themes. It's usually sci-fi that's the genre that subverts and questions what we assume is true. So if you're someone that *liked* the kind of stories and tropes of what these new things *came* from, you probably *dislike* that the new things are branching away from what you want more of. And if you think there's nothing wrong with the tropes /assumptions from the original games, you might even dislike or be annoyed with the new works changing and challenging them. Either way, you're probably not looking for /interested in the cool stuff the new things are doing at that point. --- I've come to this conclusion because the majority of fans that *I've* seen that dislike both often engage in similar behavior. They nitpick tons of little things and say how the old stuff was better in every way to explain why they don't like it, but I doubt they'd care about or say many of those points if it was about something they like. I mean, people were complaining at length about the name *'The Watcher'* earlier, which is just baffling to me. It comes off to me as trying to explain why one so deeply dislikes something when they can't properly explain it - because I've done exactly the same thing for things I dislike on a similar level. I *hated* Mass Effect 2 and 3 for essentially stripping away everything I thought made the first game cool and shooting into a completely different direction, and I responded to that in a very similar way. --- As for subjectivity/objectivity, although I hate when people use "It's all subjective" as a handwave to get out of a conversation, all stories and art and the way we think they should work is subjective. We only think that stories should have a three act structure or character development or whatever because we, as a culture, have decided to agree that that's the thing to do. I'm not saying we should stop thinking that way, but there's no law of nature or science I'm aware of that can prove that that's objectively the best thing to do in a story. Especially when you can see that other cultures sometimes have completely different standards for what good stories are. For me, I was actually sad that they stripped down descriptions so much from the first game. With the exception of Durance *on my second playthrough*, it never felt boring or a chore to read and I loved the level of detail it added to my little mental images. And I suspect people wouldn't complain about the level of wordy-ness if we were talking about Planescape Torment. You could argue that game was better written, but at that point your problem wasn't *really* how many words were in Deadfire dialogue or descriptions. --- Last note, I don't think the movie or game are good *just* because they make twists or subversions, and I don't think they did either just for the sake of them. Stories that do twists for the sake of twists would be things like Lost or M Night Shamalan (sp?). I get the vibe that both saw the stories Star Wars and fantasy RPGs made over and over and asked, "Why do we keep writing that story?" or noticed potential flaws with those stories, or felt that didn't really represent how the world works, or just wanted to make something *new.* And I love that they're trying something different and playing with those ideas. Pillars I was the first fantasy game I played where the gods were essentially *less* than they seemed to everyone,and a game that talked and asked about, essentially, where you find meaning and value in life when there's no God or destiny or magical thing bigger than yourself, and if you can trust people to do the right thing or if you think they *need* that looming authority to rule and guide them. Pillars II frequently brings up if behavior like yours and Eothas' is actually the ethical thing, and how much damage your actions can cause just trying to fix something else. Those are way more complex and uncomfortable discussions than a fantasy rpg usually delves into.

Is there much reaction in either games to Eothasian priests?

We probably can't help you much here. I never had issues like that, but there's a bug report section that you could go to. The only recommendation that I can think of is to play with variables. Try changing the graphic settings to low, try going to a way earlier save and then going to the same place, etc.

Lol Eothas is a really really interesting and cool character that brings up several hard questions. One of my favorite parts of the game.

I could see Galawain and Wael both. Just to add to the Wael part, Wael often uses mystery to encourage curiosity and invention, which fits well with a scholar. However, I can also see an argument for Hylea. If you're an animancer, you'd probably look at the Hollowborn Crisis as an animancy problem that could be *fixed* by animancy. This is further supported by the fact that ancient animancer technology is what's causing the crisis in the first place. It makes sense that an animancer would want to cure the affliction and return souls to where they were originally planned to go. Just as a doctor would cure dangerous diseases with antibiotics. It really depends on the animancer we're talking about.

He's done with the narrative element. I suspect that includes future projects. Which is a little sad and worrying, but I guess it has to happen sometime. But he's still doing game design stuff

I just realized you've probably stopped paying attention to this thread, but : I can't really say for sure. I think it varies depending on the person, but I *think* the general rule is that the mechanics and narrative of Pillars don't hit the beats some players assume it should. Which is why I love these games and Obsidian games in general. They make more believable, thought out worlds and people and ideas. But if you loved Bioware and whatever tropes and patterns the company follows, I suspect Pillars - which almost goes out of its way to not just be the same RPG story, and be more grounded and introspective, and ask uncomfortable questions and have intentionally imperfect solutions to hard problems - is not satisfying. The Last Jedi to some extent got the same response from Star Wars fans. It subverts expectations, which is cool, but some people were attached to the kind of stories that produce those expectations.

That's what I remember, too.

Are you able to get to the choose your own adventure type card with them? Do you have someone with fire magic?

100% agree! I think there's value in the other stuff as well, but it's refreshing to have a game with a different attitude about mechanics and narrative. I am surprised by how often they let it slide, though I'm glad there are multiple cases where they don't.

Something can help The Watcher will not become the most pathetic and boring protagonist ever in Obsidian game. (´,_ゝ`)people seem to have a very low opinion of characters they themselves create Ha. I do think part of the problem is that 1) a lot of people felt like they didn't have agency at the end of Deadfire and 2) some people want the emotional beats or power fantasy you get in a lot of RPGs (eg Bioware). The Watcher can do some amazing things, but they aren't the chosen one that everyone wants to bang.

I only ever had the introductory conversation with her, and that's where she talks about it. As someone else said, you need a high enough metaphysics skill to talk about it.

Pillars is usually a little more grounded than that. We dip our toes into extreme situations but we never become that insanely overpowered. That said, I could totally see options in the next game along the lines of: 1) Let everything, kith and gods, die off. 2) Help get a version of the wheel that doesn't feed the gods and thus slowly kill them off. 3) Fix the wheel so that both kith and the gods survive, maybe with some changes that either give kith more power/autonomy in the exchange or give the gods more control.

It's definitely cool lore either way! It might come up in game 3. City of gold is something that I'd guess is Engwithin, but I feel like we've heard a similar reference before? I can't remember what the other line was because it's been a while.

I can't remember the comment exactly, but that one (or a similar one) were actually pretty meta. Sort of commenting on how follower-y companions tend to be. I think the meta-feeling dialogue options were both pretty funny in this game and got interesting reactions from companions. E.g. When Maia brings up her quest by saying that she needs to confess something, you can ask, "Is this the part where you betray me, Maia?" They all sort of play on what people assume is going to happen or patterns in RPGs, but the companions react to it like a person probably would in real life if you said the same thing to them (mainly, "Wtf"), instead of leaning on the fourth wall or playing coy in response.

A way to hear the character's name would be to offer a few options of names based on the culture, like Aldwyn, Durnisc, Ancelle, Malita, etc. If you picked one of these options (that are based on the in-game languages) they would have been recorded and would be used in the dialogues. Edit: you can see a list of names here https://pillarsofeternity.gamepedia.com/Personal_names That's a really cool idea! It lets you have the option and encourages roleplay.

In my experience, things like the dialogue wheel come from an attitude in the industry to crank out games with less work and quality in less time, and there are an increasing number of RPGs with similar dumbed down and less reactive systems. That doesn't mean that those game are 100% bad or can't be good, but a lot is lost when you take away more in-depth conversations with variant options that have *actually* different thoughts and questions. E.g. In Fallout 1/2, Pillars 1, and Deadfire (in some cases), I don't automatically know what the 'diplomatic' option is or what the right thing to say is. Sometimes there *isn't* something I can say that will fix the problem and often I can seriously **** up a delicate situation. In Fallout 4 or Mass Effect I know immediately what the diplomatic option is and what the murder-everyone option is. And there's rarely any option between the two.

I just remember having to get into the Sunken Crown. Then there's a portal next to the king's throne, on the left I think, that takes you to a place where you should be able to access the statue or do something that gives you access to the statue.

Yeah, I think I've become a little disillusioned with open worlds. They're cool in theory, but a lot of games fill them with essentially empty space, or the world feels empty because the amount people that really talk is low and the amount of response to you and your choices is minimal or nonexistent. If Obsidian could pull something off like Fallout:New Vegas without killing themselves, that'd be amazing. I just wouldn't want them to do it because it's "the thing" to do/because other companies do it.

Alright, thank you! I won't worry about it too much for my character, then. To be honest, the Cipher/God mind invasions actually kind of add to the experience. I think you wind up HAVING to let Ondra play around in your brain to advance some of the Tekehu stuff. That's how I felt about it too. I'm glad it's an option for stubborn characters with high resolve, but I usually liked the insight that you could get from letting it happen.

Your English is fine! If I remember right, Josh explained that the explanation on how this works was cut from the game for editing reasons and the issue didn't come up until the game was released for the public. From what I understand, the wheel already existed but was altered by the Engwithins in a way that can't just be undone. Alex Scokel explained in a thread on here : Reincarnation existed prior to the gods. It was a natural process. The Engwithans made a device to manage that process. Eothas smashed it. The smashing of the device does NOT however, necessarily result in the natural process resuming as it did previously. For example (and it's only an example - not a direct allegory for how the Wheel functions), let's say someone dams a river, creating a lake, but regulates that lake by allowing some of the water through the dam (for, say, hydroelectric power). Someone breaking the machinery that allows that regulation would not undam the river.

I think it's actually a cool moment that you can do something for no reward to be kind and someone might still disagree about your choices for its dishonesty or whatnot. I did it anyways because the lady already had an awful enough time of things and I didn't want to make it even worse for her. That said, the way the mechanics train you in rpgs and this game almost make you feel bad for doing what would arguably be a nice thing or the right thing. It's kind of a weird /disorienting experience.

I could get her to fight him with a high enough metaphysics check, and I think a bluff or insight check. Going off memory. But you're kind of dooming her to oblivion by doing that.

I alluded to this earlier with my Frostseeker joke, but sigils work exactly the same way as barrels and other items in that by attacking them, it attracts nearby enemies to investigate the sound it makes when getting hit. While I haven't done it yet (nor needed to), there's probably some fun instances where one can attack a sigil at range, get a group of enemies to cluster around it, and then fire off a high level/high damage AoE spell/effect right on top of their heads, softening them all up before combat. I haven't been reading the CharOps forum all that much, but I would think this sort of tactic should have SOME utility. Or at the very least, have utility in being funny. Ha. I hadn't even thought of that! That's clever.

Off topic, but why does everyone but Sawyer have the same portrait?