kaiki

I play with qualifiers and disposition information off. I don't want to start second guessing my character build & rp choices due to feedback in dialog. I'm the type of player that seeing the path not taken makes me feel uneasy with the path taken. So happy that the devs put in the option.

Agreed. My pc is a death godlike and I feel slightly disappointed that he is treated like an average joe. I would have enjoyed one threat of being run out of town by a mob with pitchforks. There's always hope for that in the expansion.

As race, the concept we're familiar with, is a somewhat modern construction it seems appropriate that in the fantasy setting of poe there is more a focus on religious & cultural differences.

Hello, I love the game, combat, characters, etc. The one problem I have is how the game doesn't seem to communicate, at the early parts of the game, what the late game demands on skills will be. Example, I've started to encounter traps and locked doors that require Mechanics 11. Since players only receive 6 skill points per level it's a significant investment to raise Mechanics to reach the level where those doors can be picked & traps disabled. Without forewarning from the game that I should expect Mechanic challenges from such I high level players may put skill points into other skills then find themselves unable to deal with these high skill challenges. That's a Mechanics example but the same applies to Lore. In the early game there doesn't seem to be communication to the player about what the Lore requirement for the highest level scrolls will be. Same problem as Mechanics in that raising skills to high levels (in the area of 10) is such an investment players may put points into other skills then be unable to use those higher level scrolls. This isn't a criticism that the game has high level scrolls/traps & locked doors or amount of skill points per level, just the expectations that players may going into the game. I wish that going forward with the franchise there would be communication from the game that "You can expect very high level [insert skill] you might want to have a character dedicated to that skill for the whole game". I don't necessarily want it in those blunt terms, but whatever form it takes I'd appreciate knowing how high I should be raising my skills to overcome the challenges the game puts forth. Thank you for your time

Thanks for the list! I've been avoiding the custom companions since I've been enjoying the really great dialogue and quests that come with each of the premade companions. That you guys made this much content for such little money blows my mind. You need more kickstarters so I can give you more money, haha!

I haven't really noticed them myself. I'd much rather prefer the team devote their resources to other issues then this one. Bug fixes & expansions are at the top of my list.

Ranger with a bear is pretty good. Bear can do some decent tanking and a high dex & high might Ranger and put out good damage.

I'm running a Ranger right now on a Hard run using the bear pet. So far, having gotten past the first town, I have no complaints. My bear helps tank with the NPC fighter and my Ranger usually kills small mobs in one shot with his heavy crossbow. Makes for lots of fun with the other NPCs that have joined the party.

Hi Obsidian, Thank you so much for getting this game made in such fantastic shape. I'm enjoying it throughly and I don't see myself stopping anytime soon. Now to the thread title. http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/pillars-of-eternity?full_summary=1 Congradulations on hitting 92 on Metacritic on Pillars! I know much bigger budget AAA games from mega-sized studies can't hit the 90s, so much kudos. Though I do wonder, since yall got above a 90, does that mean that bonuses are coming your way? Maybe that can be a stretch goal for the next kickstarter? Thanks again for the great game and all the great games before it! P.S. Please make Alpha Protocol 2 your next kickstarter.

Disagree. I do think there is nothing wrong with having some evil villains, people who are very obviously 'bad', so long as their motivations are understandable on some level. The real world has plenty of these people, from murderous dictators to drug lords and serial killers and so on. It would actually be unrealistic not to have them. But what you're describing feels too much like 'I'm just here to play the game, don't make me think too hard!' Or, at least, that is the vibe I get whenever I encounter clear-cut black vs. white morality tales. If the antagonists are obviously evil, and your side obviously good, then all the rest is just beating up the bad guys, right? You don't have to question anything. You don't have to consider whose motivations make the most sense, who has the best arguments, who has done what good and what evil. There is the Dark Lord Who Must Not Be Named in his Dark Tower doing Dark Things for Dark Reasons and there is your scrappy band of heroes fighting to stop him and save everyone. The brain never once enters into the equation. And yet, ironically, it has historically been precisely this attitude which has given rise to some of the worst and most barbaric behavior. Precisely because the brain never once enters into the equation when you already know the other side is 'evil' and you are 'good.' I much, much prefer to have multiple sides, each with their good points and bad points, each with arguments that make some sense and some aspects of their approach that are unsavory, ala New Vegas. If we have an NCR, they should be both champions of democracy and the rule of the law, while at the same time being imperialists bringing 'democracy' at the point of a gun and often for their own reasons. If we have a Mr. House, he should have a genuine plan for how to rebuild society and save humanity while also being a ruthless dictator who cracks down coldly and methodically on all potential challengers. If we have the chance to rule on our own and possibly create a better society that avoids these extremes, it should come at the possible cost of creating anarchy and instability throughout the area for some time to come. A game world is more interesting when it provokes thought rather than absolves us of the need to think. 'There's big bad Sarevok who wants to kill everyone and make himself a god, go get him!' is less interesting than 'Here are a bunch of people who each genuinely have their own vision of the best society, who do you agree with and want to help, if any of them?' Regarding your example of FNV vs BG1. What I didn't like about FNV was due to the factions being flawed with their faults when I asked myself "who do you agree with and want to help, if any of them?'" I didn't want to help any of them. I haven't picked up FNV since. If there isn't a group I can say "This group is doing the right things for the right reasons" ((for story based games)) then I'm not interested in playing the game. And this doesn't have to do with "thinking" vs "not-thinking", which is a false dilemma. A good vs evil story can be very interesting and thought provoking. In, what is the specific twist of the villain/hero. What archetype do they fit into? What specific emotions or feelings is the villain/hero trying to evoke? It is a different kind of intellectual exercise from what you are describing, but it is none the less. My opinion comes more from being personally motivated to continue with the story and have the hero triumph. If I don't care about the different groups or people, I will not play.

Same here. I would <3 if PE allowed a pacifist run through :D There are 2 things about pacifist runthroughs that make me excited about them. 1) It allows the player to decide when and if your character will kill someone, during the course of gameplay. Rather then, in order to get to point B you need to slaughter a whole lot of guards that are just trying to make money to feed their families. I felt alot of the time during Dishonored that the characters trying to kill me didn't deserve to die. They were doing their job, trying to serve their country. So far as I remember, none of the guards are in on the fact that you got set up and the people in power are the bad guys. 2) It adds an opportunity for the player to inject depth and personality into their character. "Does my character feel these people need to die? Is he even thinking on that level, morally?" Sometimes I enjoy playing a game where I can imagine my character is just not cool with murder. They will avoid it whenever the can. It is definatly a refreshing option.

I would prefer that PE does not adress body image in how you are describing it. As there are many topics/themes that can be explored, and just for myself, I am not interested in that topic. As for not having "grotesque" ((in the literary sense of the word)) characters, I think PE ought to use whatever archtypes they feel make the game a richer experiance. I do not think that it is "hackneyed tropes both demonstrates a lack of narrative depth". If the character is written poorly and that is their only dimension "the ugly evil guy" then that is poor writing. I wouldn't want to see poor writing in any area of PE. A multi-dimensional character that was ugly and had anti-social motivations may be interesting. The Phantom of the Opera is a good example of that.

I enjoy the stopping the bag guy stories. I enjoyed Sarevok from BG1. As long as the villain has an understandable motivation, then he can be as evil as possible. If the whole tone of the game was "there is no good and evil just crummy people doing crummy things to each other" then those types of quests/stories would be understandable. I myself am not interested in those stories. I read the news, that is enough for me. When I play games I like the ideal that good people, when working together can make the world a better place. Less grim and more hopeful please