Faerunner

Woo hoo! I loved Stick of Truth, and I look forward to this one. Can't wait to revisit South Park, only this time as a super hero alongside Coon and Friends!

Stop right there. That's the real oversight making the quest unbelievable in the first place. Why does this Penhelm character know that his documents were stolen, why does he know who stole them and why does he know where to wait for you to turn up? All right, I concede your points. It's a bit iffy writing in the first place that he either knows it was you even if you made sure to cover your tracks taking the thing (though I always assumed that other people noticed what we were doing and tipped him off), OR, if you show/tell him of the document first and he says, "Ha! You can't prove it," that he just lets you leave Crusible Keep to find the proof you need and then acts scared/surprised after you get it. Dude, I wasn't kidding around. What'd you think I was gonna do when I walked away after I said, "It's a fake," and you said "Prove it"? There were a lot of missed writing opportunities. Like, if you confront him about the document first, then he tries to stop you from bringing it to the soul scribe (instead of just confronting you after the fact), where you have to kill him, hand it over, and/or plea-bargain the breastplate. Either way though, I just found it so odd (even if the whole quest is a bit unbelievably written) that you're not allowed to use the forged document as a bargaining chip for the breastplate when the whole reason you got it in the first place was to use it as such. Sure, I understand giving players the option to say, "No, I'm telling your captain because he has the right to know," or to refuse because you want to be a jerk, or hand it over because you felt pity for him and/or didn't care about the breastplate anymore. But, really? No option to say, "I'll give you the forgery after you give me the breastplate"? I know it's a dumb thing to harp on when there are already so many other things wrong with this quest, but this one just seemed like a big oversight to me.

I'm not terribly bothered by Sagani's accent. While Boreal dwarves are Inuit-inspired, they aren't strictly Inuit copy-and-pasted. Pillars is still (at the end of the day) a fictional fantasy setting with fictional fantasy locations, so they can pick and choose which real-world inspiration to draw from and which to leave alone. Besides, I felt the voice actress they picked for her was just so great and portrayed her so well that that supersedes a "foreign-sounding accent." If they happen to find actors or actresses to portray Boreal dwarves in the future with Inuit-sounding accents and portray the individual character very well, I'm all for it. For the mean time, I'd rather an actress who portrays Sagani perfectly without the accent than an actress who portrays her so-so but in an Inuit (or generic "foreign/Native American-sounding") accent.

For how much people claim they don't need romance to enjoy a game in this forum, they rarely talk about what it is about the game they enjoy until romance is brought up, then jump at the chance to post about how a romance wouldn't add anything. (Except conversation fodder, apparently.) Pets: a way for the player to have an "animal companion" (technically speaking) without having to play as a ranger. (I'll admit the main reason I picked ranger was because I love animals and wanted to have an animal companion of some kind. After figuring out how to use the "pet" system--you have to equip it in the pet slot so it can walk beside you--suddenly the other classes started to look a lot more appealing. <3) My personal favorite is still the undead black cat. It's so creepy awesome. I completely expected it to bite or attack in retalliation for killing its owner, but it's so nice and mellow. Just purrs and rubs up against you and occasionally leans in to have its ears scratched. If you have to have an undead pet of any kind, why not this one? EDIT: I'm also glad that they're untouchable in battle after they're picked up by the Watcher and "equipped." I remember the Familiars for the Wizard and Sorcerer class in NWN2, which were small "pet" type animals (cats, bats, bunnies, little piggies, etc), and they died every two steps. I had to stop playing that class because I just couldn't take seeing them die again. ='(

It looks like a stag, because of people like you who think "only male deer have antlers." A few things about the classes are put in the game description that are based on in-universe characters' beliefs about them, like the nature of the godlike and what gives the priest and paladin classes their magic ability. I'd rather think it's called a stag because most people in-universe think it looks like a stag (even if it's a female deer by a spiritshifted female godlike) than get pointlessly angry and choose to stew in my anger. If it bothers you so much though, then pick another spiritshift.

So? I still say it's arbitrary to be fine with "playing in a fictional world," interacting with fictional characters in a fictional setting, but then sneering at people for requesting different types of fictional interaction. You wanna talk about "human intimacy"? There's different types of intimacy besides romantic or sexual. Forging just about any type of affection or emotional bond can count as "human intimacy," and just about all video games with written characters (with or without scripted dialogue) incorporate that illusion. When you feel emotionally warmed or charmed when your character does something nice for another character, or another character says/does something nice to your character, that simulates a "human intimacy" bonding experience. Unless the player 100% sees the video game world as 100% nothing but walking constructs 100% of the time, or you're playing your character as a completely indifferent and/or jerkass sociopath, one could probably argue that you're ignoring forging real emotional bonding / interacting with real human beings (or animals) to in favor of fictional characters in a fictional setting. (I myself had grandparents who completely disapproved of playing video games of any kind for any length of time because they felt every second spent interacting with the fictional world in the video game was taking away time I could spend interacting with and creating memories the real world, and every second I spent interacting with fictional characters in the game world was taking away from time I could spend interacting, bonding, and making memories with real people in my real life.) Should we eliminate all illusions of fictional characters being anything but fictional constructs to keep all players from "replacing human intimacy with intimacy with computer characters," even if not in a romantic sense? Remove giving all non-player characters names or personalities or opinions (or even distinct appearances or portraits) so players can't dispel the illusion that they're not real? Should we remove giving all pre-written companions (like Aloth and Eder and Sagani) any names, personalities, quests, or opinions on how to complete quests, so the players will never get the illusion (even for a moment) that they "feel real"? Should we dispel "relationship values" with pre-written companions--doing nice things for them, earning their approval or disapproval, helping them or hindering them with their quests, helping them achieve a happy/bittersweet ending or horrible demise depending on how we feel about them? I still find it arbitrary to be fine with non-romantic bonding with fictional character but then suddenly pulling the "you're replacing real human interaction with fictional character interaction" when it comes to romance. Meh, I don't see it that way. I see romance as just another game feature, or just another role-playing experience for a role-playing game; one that happens to be popular with players. (Keeping in mind that it's all fictional and all relationships your player character develops with non-player characters are fictional anyway.) If people like that type of game feature and/or role-playing experience, then I think they're well within their rights to request it. Don't get me wrong, I don't think romance needs to be in every game either, but I'm not going to try to shame people for requesting it if they want it.

EDIT: I don't understand asking to censor something because it's scary, because I have a few phobias that show up in video games. Trypophobia, fear of large clusters of small holes, which appear in some monsters in some games (like the DAI Fade Nightmare), and intense horror at humanoid bodies without skin and/or with their muscles and organs exposed to the air, which is the case for Pillars reverants. But, I don't ask them to hide it just because it makes me uncomfortable. I do agree with others though that giant spiders have become a very tired, overused, standard monster in fantasy settings. If they were removed (for whatever reason), I wouldn't mind.

Yeah.... only male deers have antlers. Absurd exceptions due to hormonal malfunctions don't really count in my opinion. This is not completely universal. Female reindeer and caribou (thought to be the same species but looking different depending on whether they live in or out of North America) can/do grow antlers. Eora is also a fantasy setting with some fantasy species, like the stelgaer, which have "a tiger-like build, lion-like main and tail, 'sabre' teeth, and a spotted coat." Who's to say there aren't some fictional species of deer in this universe (maybe not reindeer or caribou per se) that have females with antlers? Plus, the antlers look cool. I LOVE playing a female nature godlike who spirit-shifts into a huge antlered deer; it was my second character right out of the starting gate, after my wild orlan ranger. Rather than getting mad about it, I just shrug and figure it's a caribou spiritshift or a fictional species of deer whose females can grow antlers, and move on.

Are you one of those people that think EA is actually going to put a minigun in a fantasy game? Hey, the Qunari invented canons and gunpowder. It's only a matter of time.

Oh, no problem. Yeah, it is frustrating. I think fans who dislike DA:O are mostly Mass Effect and Dragon Age 2 fans, and this is why: DA:O was a great game that won many awards and sold many copies, but it appealed to a specific audience: people who liked or were okay with more classic computer RPGs. I hear that the developers tacked on console versions of DA:O (PS3, Xbox, whatever) at the last second, and ended up selling more console versions than PC versions. I don't know if they changed the franchise because of that, because of EA buying BioWare, or because of ME2's MASSIVE success, but they seemed to change DA2 to try to reach a broader audience. They clearly seemed to think, "Our DA:O fanbase will still love DA2 because it has the Dragon Age title, but the more mainstream crowd will come in because it's more of a modern/casual/console RPG with lots of flashy, explosive combat." This backfired; many DAO fans were not happy that they changed most of what they fell in love with the game to begin with, and most of the Halo/Call of Duty mainstream crowd avoided it because they assumed it was like DA:O. Many old fans jumped ship, many new fans came in only because they liked the Mass Effect-style changes, NOT because they loved DA:O. However, I think it's telling that DA2 sold half the copies of DA:O; clearly the DA:O fanbase was pretty big, and sacrificing DA:O fans' love for newcomers wasn't enough. However, now the DA fanbase is split down the middle. For those who haven't left, there are fans who love the original DA:O and want more games like it, and fans who love DA2's changes and think every new game should be exactly like it. (And some who love both, but eh.) BioWare seems to be backpedaling; trying to go back and include game features that DA:O fans like (more tactical combat, race selection, multiple backgrounds, blank slate protagonist, "join a big organization and save the world" story, etc) while still keeping many of DA2 changes (dialogue wheel, voiced protagonist, etc). I've given up on the Dragon Age franchise going back to being like DA:O, but if the devs at least incorporate many of the same game features that made DA:O fans fall in love with the franchise in the first place (and race selection; if I can't play without a non-human!), I'll accept that as a compromise.

I was a regular on the BSN too (for years, actually), only I wasn't banned so much as I quit after getting tired of endless harassment by forumites and mods alike. Kind of like you, I was an avid advocate for Dragon Age going back to its roots as a spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate, or at least including race selection in the CC and less degrading portrayals of elves. That gets you mocked in that forum. Trolls harass elf fans, the mods don't do anything. You get a little snippy with the trolls? They crack down on you like a giant chisel and hammer. Anyway, I rather agree. DAO was created to be a spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate-style cRPGs. Then DA2 turned into Mass Effect with swords. Then DAI turned into Skyrim with Qunari. What's next? Call of Duty with bows and arrows? They seem to just keep reinventing the wheel every time they make a new game, instead of tweaking the wheels they already have to design a new car. And all the genre-hopping is making me dizzy. I no longer know what to expect or look forward to since they just keep changing it from the ground up every game. I also think that if they want to "experiment with style," then do it with another IP or franchise. Don't take a franchise that was founded on a certain RPG style and genre, then turn around and change the style and genre every new game. While in the BSN, I noticed that lots of Mass Effect and DA2 fans were all, "Well, it's the same setting, so you shouldn't care about minor RP changes." But what if BioWare had changed their Mass Effect franchise, roleplay style, and genre half-way through? What if ME3 (terrible ending notwithstanding) suddenly changed the series from the modern console RPG with the set voiced protagonist in Shepard (from ME and ME2) into a more Baldur's Gate spiritual successor IN SPACE, without Shepard, without a set voiced protagonist, with alien race selection and multiple backgrounds, blah blah blah? I'll bet they would have flipped their ****! (Not that they didn't over ME3's ending.) But because it's us, we have to shut up and get over it? *sigh* As for my individual feelings on DAI, it was better than I hoped for. I was TERRIFIED that they were just going to make DA2.5, so I'm glad they at least tried to incorporate roleplaying features that people liked about DAO, like (in my taste) race selection, multiple backgrounds, more of a blank slate personality, etc.

I agree with you on the first one. I disagree with you on the second one, which is kind of why I think there shouldn't be one definitive definition for all RPGs, but rather many sub-names and sub-genres of different RPG types. Therefor players can recognize and express the definition of what they want, RPG game designers can better explain what kind of game experience they're offering, and it would clear up a lot of confusion and disappointment. I mean, there are some vague definitions at present, "old school cRPG," "casual/modern console RPG," "JRPG," etc. But they're still pretty vague and lead to a lot of confusion and controversy, as different people with different tastes can't agree on what's what. For example, while all three Dragon Age games are technically Tolkien-esque European Fantasy RPGs, each game offers a slightly different roleplay experience. 1) DAO has a mostly "blank" protagonist who isn't voiced, can be one of three races and from one of six backgrounds, and uses the text-based dialogue tree. 2) DA2 has a mostly pre-defined 20-something voiced human protagonist, with one set background, one set family, some very set feelings about said family (like you HAVE to want to reclaim your mother's family fortune and dote on dear old mommy, even though I hated both of them; I just wanted to go live in the Hanged Man), and has one of three distinct personalities (Good, Goofy, and Jerk). 3) DAI goes for a middle ground in that you could choose between different races and class combinations, which determines your background, but you can still express different views and experiences in your background, but you're still voiced so the voice actor determines how your character feels when delivering each line rather than your imagination. Fans are now divided over which roleplaying experience is "best," and many claim that they want Dragon Age to "go back to true Role-Playing!" but no one can agree on what true roleplaying is since different people have different tastes on it. It'd be great if different RPG types and genres had different names, so the devs can say ahead of time, "This game will features X type of RPG," so people who like it can jump on-board and those who don't can go find a video game that does. I think that's a little too simplistic. I think think there are different tiers of blank and non-blank protagonists, not just "one" and "the other" set in stone. There are some truly blank blank slates, like Neverwinter Nights: "The city of Neverwinter is besieged by a plague, Lady Aribeth has called for a champion, crowds of people filled the streets answering her call, and You were one of the few chosen to study at the Academy. Now fill in your gender, race, class, stats, name, character bio, etc. We won't actually acknowledge any of this in-game except a throwaway line or two acknowledging that your gender, race, or class (mostly to see if you meet the requirements for certain gender-specific romances or class-specific quests), but that's it." There are some that are the mostly blank ones, like your aforementioned Dragon Age: Origins. I count those as semi-blank rather than non-blank. Yes, you're given one of six set backgrounds, with set families, friends, and references to your childhoods. "You are a city elf who was raised in the alienage. This is your cousin Shianni, your father Cyrion, and this is your wedding day." "You are a mage who was torn from your family at an early age and taken to the Circle to study magic. This is your teacher Irving, today is your Harrowing, and if you pass you become a full mage." HOWEVER, everything else is left "blank" for the player to fill in the gaps. The character isn't voiced, so you can fill in the "tone" with your own imagination. While your background, family and friends are chosen, you can still express how you feel about them and what your relationship is like. Do you love them, hate them, snark friendily with them, snark hurtfully at them, never want to leave, can't wait to get out of there, etc? You can also influence your own background, since characters make references to your pre-game life based on remarks you made rather than you reacting to what others said you felt. For example, in the City Elf Origin, if you choose certain dialogue options then characters will say things like, "Still have your mother's smart mouth, I see," or "Still casual, as always." Conversely, if you tell your cousin you want to run away to join the Dalish, then in a later conversation the game will treat you as having grown up hearing stories of the Dalish. If you don't, then in a later conversation the game will treat you as having only a vague idea of what the Dalish are. Speaking of Dalish, if you're a female Dalish and you flirt with your male hunting partner at the game's opening, then he and other characters will act like you two're childhood sweethearts. If you don't, then he doesn't treat you any differently from a male Dalish buddy, and no one ever mentions you two being an item. THAT'S roleplay freedom. And then there's the OTHER type of semi-blank protagonist; the almost pre-defined movie protagonist in a seeming RPG. The Shepards of Mass Effect, the Hawkes of DA2. The pre-determined in all but cosmetics. "This character you are controlling is a fully voiced 25-year-old human from Lothering, with three set personalities: Good, Goofy, and P!ssed off. You can choose which of the three personalities is most prominent for Hawke, but otherwise Hawke is completely pre-written and pre-determined by us for you. This is where you grew up, this is how you felt about it, this is your family, this is how you feel about them, this is where your family has to go, this is how we say you have to feel about it (Hawke WANTS to go to Kirkwall; Hawke WANTS to reclaim the old family fortune; Hawke WANTS to strike gold in the Deep Roads; Hawke WANTS to move to Hightown) and you have no say. You just point and click the character where to go." And then there's just full-on pre-determined like Sora from Kingdom Hearts, Link from Legend of Zelda, or Mario. 100% pre-determined, you just direct where they go. I personally think the blanker the better when it comes to RPGs, or at least "mostly blank" like DAO. Because then you actually have room to slip into the character's skin and move around, instead of just pointing and directing them where to go from a distance. To me, the difference between a blank(ish) PC and a pre-written PC is the difference between slipping your hand into a puppet and directing it from the inside, verses just tugging a marionette string from a distance. That's all a matter of opinion. I personally think that "playing a role" is actually better with a semi-blank character than a fully defined one. I might as well watch a movie if I just wanted to watch a fully formed character act out in ways completely independent of my will or input. Also, if I'm going to be told "this is your character," I want to actually be able to design and control who mycharacter is, how they feel, and what makes them act, not being told "this is what Hawke wants to do and how Hawke plans to get it done; you just need to do the clicking." I also think that the devs actually ruined the Dragon Age franchise by moving away from the semi-blank DAO protagonist to the semi-formed ME Shepard/DA2 Hawke type protagonist. So, what's ruined for you is improved for me.

I personally think Pillars has just the right amount of "dark and gritty" without being gratuitous or melodramatic.

Act II: you can take on a side quest where a guy in the Dozens asks you to retrieve a family heirloom breastplate that got confiscated by a rival when he got kicked out of the Crucible Knights. You go to Crucible Keep, try to talk to the rival, but he won't hand over the breastplate (as he sanctimoniously preaches that the guy forfeited the right to his own family heirloom when he got thrown out). As the quest-giver and quest-log note, the rival's affidavit (or soul certificate) is rumored to be fake so you might be able to use it as leverage. You get the affidavit, you again talk to the rival, and you again give him a chance to hand over the family breastplate. His answer amounts to, "You can't prove it's a fake, so no." Challenge accepted. You take the affidavit to the soul scribes in Brackenburry and receive proof that, yes, his soul certificate thing is a fake. At this point I imagine some players might feel duty-bound to tell the Crucible Knights captain about the forged soul in their ranks, some might want to use it to get the rival kicked out so he no longer has any authority to the breastplate, others might want to get him kicked out out of spite, others might just think "All right! I got the leverage I need to make that smug prick hand over the breastplate!" with or without any intention of turning him in afterwards, etc. However, the rival confronts you just as you leave the soul scribes' headquarters, pale and panicked that you'll turn him in. (Oh, now he's afraid.) To me, this would be a great time to let the PC express many of the aforementioned reactions; but it seems the player character's many dialogue options amount to: 1) Tell him that you intend to take the proof to his captain, causing him to attack and forcing you to kill him. 2) Just hand it over and lose your bargaining chip. What seems weird to me is that there doesn't seem to be any dialogue option to simply say, "I don't care that you forged your affidavit, I just want the breastplate," or "Give me the breastplate and the affidavit is yours." When I played, it seemed the ONLY dialogue options are either to express moral outrage that he forged his way in and/or say you're telling his superiors (which may seem odd if you don't care about that stuff), or just hand it over and lose your only leverage to getting the breastplate back. Sure enough, if you don't want to kill him, then after you hand over the affidavit, once you ask the rival again about the breastplate, unless you pick the one right dialogue option (which might not be in-character for some), he once again feels no obligation to give it back and self-righteously preaches about how the guy doesn't deserve it. (Are you %$#&^ me?!) Did anyone else have that problem? Was it just me? I mean, far be it from me to be one of those folks who says, "Why wasn't my character allowed to express this opinion?" or "Why wasn't I given this dialogue option?!" But it just seems like such an obvious oversight; to take a quest where the whole reason you set out to find proof that a guy's document is a forgery is to use it as leverage to get him to give another guy back his stuff, and then you're not allowed to use it as leverage for said stuff the moment it would be the most useful. So: thoughts, opinions, discussions?

But don't you know? True Art is ANGSTY! I really hate these replies. It's called a ROLE PLAYING game. Meaning, you make believe stuff. Like, for instance, that you are some hero that fights dragons and undead. Or, maybe you pretend you're a gambler that is willing to risk it all, when you've never played a game of cards in your life. So, personally, I don't understand why there AREN'T romance options. If you want to hit on that hot paladin chick with feathers, why shouldn't you be allowed to do that? What if, as crazy as it sounds, you actually ARE attracted to her, based on how she is written, or is voice-acted, or, however you would like to frame it. Maybe, for instance, you are playing as a similar paladin character, and you really dig "how she takes care of business". The fact that they decided not to include romances, baffles me like their decision to not allow one to be a thief (meaning, to pickpocket, or at least try to pickpocket, whoever you would like, or to sneak into people's homes at night, or when they aren't there, to steal from them). It limits and reduces your role-play abilities and opportunities. And, it runs contrary to every single game that they referenced in their "inspired by, spiritual successor of" in the Kickstarter. Every one of those games featured thievery and romance options. And if a game has a romance option in it then I'm fine with it. But all this begging for romance dlc is crazy imo. It amounts to asking for imaginary relationships. If the developers include it fine. Don't go begging for it. Developers like Bioware started doing them and now if they choose not to there are gamers ready to riot over it. That is my real point. It should just be added value if there, but should not be something people clamor for. To be fair, they're all imaginary characters. When you're playing a video game, you're interacting with imaginary characters in an imaginary world instead of interacting with real people and real places in the real world. One could probably argue, "Stop playing around in a fantasy world and go hang out in the real world" or "Stop playing with imaginary characters and go hang out with real people in your real life." So why turn up your nose at imaginary relationships? They're all fictional anyway. If you're okay with making an imaginary character with an imaginary background in an imaginary setting, killing, interacting or traveling with imaginary characters, then from where I'm standing why not include an imaginary romance on top of that? (If it works for the game and the devs happen to want it.) Also, people can request whatever they want.

Short answer: Yes, I think nostalgia is a factor into the game's existence and popularity. However, I do not think this is a Bad Thing. Long answer: I hate the "nostalgia" accusation. More often than not it's just used as a way to try to undermine a game's existence and enjoy-ability by implying that such game features are not enjoyable in their own right, but that people just have "the nostalgia goggles" on and see quality that doesn't exist due to an inability to let go of the past. Mostly because the game happens to incorporate features fallaciously thought to be "dead," "passe," "behind the times," whatever. (And by fallacious, I mean the fallacy that "new = better.") Like that game development progression is somehow linear, and if (God forbid) a game incorporates features or genres that haven't been used in a while, we're somehow "going backwards," "reversing progress," or whatever. Take the progression of animation development as an example: 5-minute, black and white, speechless, gag-driven, hand-drawn cartoon shorts --> hand-drawn cartoons with sound/talking --> hand-drawn cartoons with color --> hand-drawn full-length animated films --> replace hand-dawn with 3D animation. If, God forbid, you "go back" a step before the present day and include animation features that haven't been used in a while (like making a hand-drawn 2D animated film instead of all computer-rendered 3D), that's somehow "backwards" and "holding back the medium." Likewise, with video games, there seems to be this feeling that video game development is linear and "progresses." Video games used to be 2D, now it's "progressed" to 3D. Video games used to involve written dialogue, now they've "progressed" to only voice-acted dialogue (with only optional subtitles for the hard of hearing). Video games used to include the isometric view, now they've "progressed" to only over-the-shoulder camera angles (or whatever you call it). RPG's used to include lots of choices, character development and exploration, etc. but now we've "progressed" to the cinema-based "illusion of choice" casual console RPGs. If, God forbid, video game designers design a game based on a genre that used to be thriving but has been "dead" due to lack of funding for a while, but they manage to find the funding because enough people like that genre enough to pay to bring it back, that's "backwards" and "holding the medium back." Never mind that games are meant to be fun, and different games engage players in different ways, and some genres engage players more than others, and just because a genre has been "dead" from lack of funding for a while because big-name companies and the mainstream public didn't like it enough to fund or pay for it, and now enough game designers and players who want it finally have the means to bring it back. I think if enough people want to make it and play it and have the means to afford it, they're perfectly entitled to create, fund, and play the kind of game that they like! [/endrant] Sorry, this topic just gets my goat.

This. It's not Obidian's fault that you developed such unrealistically high expectations of what the game will and will not provide, and designed a character based on how you think he would work in your mind rather than how the mechanics of the game actually work.

*shrug* Again, I didn't experience that problem with Kana. Probably because I played on easy, always had a full party, and relegated him to the back as time went on. I thought his chants, invocations, and occasional spells/summons remained helpful though. (Although it probably helps that he's a companion rather than the main character.) Oh well, back on topic. I agree with srlapo regarding the poll. It's not for best-written characters, it's for least likable. Durance may be well-written, but that doesn't automatically mean he's likable. I personally never understood the expectation that just because something is well-made means people have to like it. To me, asking, "How can you not like Durance? He's interesting and well-written" is like asking, "How can you not like this fish fillet? It has interesting spices and is a well-made dish." And? I still don't like fish. Dressing up something that's not to my taste doesn't erase that it's not to my taste.

As others have said, it depends on what you like in a game. For many people, it's well worth the $45 price tag and then some. For people who don't like what the game has to offer, it's not worth it. OP, what you shouldn't be asking is, "Is it worth $45 price tag?" but rather "Would I like to pay $45 for this based on my taste in games?" Based on what little you've revealed in what you like in games, this is probably not the game for you. It doesn't use standard "latest and greatest" 3D graphics that makes up most of the AA and AAA industry, it is story and dialogue-heavy, it is more story and character-driven, it does use written dialogue more than voice-acting, the combat is a more slow, deliberate, tactical Real-Time-with-Pause rather than being fast or explosive, and so on. If you're sure you're not going to like it, then $45 is too much for you.

I see. That surprises me, since I found Kana's Chanter skills very helpful to the group. It's true that every chanter I ever tried to play took until the end of the battle to get chants or invocations going, but Kana's seemed to work instantly. Battle starts, his big baritone booms out (I love alliteration =), and the party is instantly hit with a very useful buff. Since my party started performing in battle noticeably better after Kana tagged along, I found him very useful on top of being likable. Oh well, I guess my experience was different from others'. I feel your pain there. =( Sagani is easily one of my most favorite companions and even characters in the whole game, but I also couldn't take her with me after a while because the group needed different skills. On my first playthrough my main character was a ranged hunter ranger with an animal companion, so her skills wound up being redundant at best. I tried really hard to keep her around, but finally had to face the fact that she wasn't working. Sad day. =( To be honest, from where I'm standing, they're all well-written and interesting. Durance isn't the only one, so he doesn't automatically get brownie points for it from me. Since I think all the companions are interesting and well-written, and we have eight but can only travel with five, I'd rather bring along companions I actually like (whose comments and party banter make me laugh, smile, and feel warm in the heart) rather than suffering through a character whose every word makes me sigh, groan, and roll my eyes. Just because a character is well-written and interesting doesn't mean people have to like what's there. People can very well acknowledge "He's well-written and/or interesting," and still follow up with: "And I don't like him."

I'm with Nakia on this. I don't begrudge game options that let players play the way they want. Don't like luring? Don't use it. Otherwise, I see no harm having it for players who do want to use it.

If Aloth or Eder were available, I'd pounce on them in an instant. I can see Eder being very popular since he's so dang funny, likable, and easy-going. In turn, I can see him being pretty accepting of a Watcher of any background. I can see Aloth being less so because he's so prim, proper, haughty and aloof (and seems to have that split personality to boot), but there is a fanbase for characters like that (Sand from NWN2, Solas from DAI, etc) so there's that. I also have a little harder imagining him liking a Watcher of less a refined race or background since he's kind of an elitist snob (bless his beautiful heart <3), but given that Obsidian rarely has companions apply their in-universe prejudices toward the player character... Plus, I just adore the guy. <3 Kana and Hiravias? Maybe. Kana is very likable in his own right, so with the right character, I imagine they could have decent chemistry. Hiravias REALLY depends on how he acts in love, since he's rather... er... dirty. (Although given that he's an orlan druid and I like playing orlan rangers or druids of some kith, there might be some common ground.) Sagani would be awesome if she wasn't already married. No way I'm going to be the Other (Wo)Man or be the one that splits her family. =/ Everyone else is a big heap of Nope.

Sorry Durance fans, he's probably the only companion I actively dislike. I'm a little more neutral on Hiravias and Pallegina too, but it's not that I dislike them so much as their charm just doesn't appeal to me. (I would like Hiravias except his "dirty humor" can get laid on a little thick, to the point that I sometimes feel like I need a shower, even if I find his lighthearted humor legitimately funny and a much-needed mood relief from how dark and depressing the setting can get.) I'm surprised that so many people dislike Kana. I thought he was very likable personality-wise, and very useful chant- and invocation-wise. Oh well, I guess I'm not a very good judge of character.

I personally think it depends on how you want to play. As others have said, Resolve technically makes the biggest impact since you can change the outcome of quests and change people's minds, but I think they all have value. To whit: 1) Resolve most often changes the outcome of quests and conversations since you can use your passion and/or force of personality to make people change their mind on things. -The downside though is that you almost always need REALLY HIGH Resolve to make any dent in conversations. 12-14 almost never cuts it, you need 16-19 almost every time. So unless you're min-maxing and want to make Resolve one of your maxed stats, you might as well not invest any extra points. 2) I think Intelligence can be very important too, since you can outsmart and talk circles around your opponent. -Another upside is there are on average different tiers in Intelligence; 13-14 for mild intelligence checks (catching people on lies or inconsistencies, pointing out something they hadn't noticed or thought about, etc), and super high 16+ points where you basically sound like a college professor. You can invest a few points and be smarter than the average country bumpkin, or you can be Aloth, depending on your preference. 3) Perception is greatly underrated, but I personally like it. Mostly because I like being a hawke-eyed hunter who can call people out on lies and inconsistencies. (Most "perception checks" in conversations really is just calling people out on lying and bull****ting you, which I always love.) -An upside that I love is that you don't really need high Perception to meet conversation checks; most Perception checks are only 12, occasionally 13 and RARELY 14+. So you can invest in one or two points, rely on inn-rests, items and food for the rest, and manage to be a smartass who points out how odd it is that the guy who claims he was indoors all day has caked mud on his boots. Probably just me, but that's my vote. I haven't made a character yet who had reason to max Resolve, but I've found that a few points in Intelligence and Perception peppered the conversations beautifully, and I like playing characters who are sharp and perceptive over being passionate and hot-blooded anyway.

That's pretty much what my search yielded too. I really like the Earth Godlike's deer aesthetic because it reminds me of the Forest Spirit from Princess Mononoke (how he resembles a stag and makes plants grow every time he takes a step), but finding nice pictures that reflect that are hard to come by. (To say nothing of ones that look like the orlan or elf earth godlike I try to find!) If you're not above a little Gothic influence, then Mothtail from deviantART has one or two (and I mean one or two) good ones. This one could probably pass for an Orlan portrait if you zoomed in on his face and cropped most of the bottom. (Hello Aloth II)