Katarack21

Including non-heterosexuals in a game is not a crusade. I think you need to look the word up, cause you don't seem to understand what it means, or your are exagerating in a way which is ridiculous. And you're unaware of the zeal with which Bioware, and a part of their community, pushed the issue - ergo the crusade comment. No other video-game company made such an issue of it, nor were they as self-congratulatory over something so unimportant (in the grand scheme of things) as Bioware was. Way back when, you could take part in a gay marriage in Temple of Elemental Evil, and nobody cared (myself included), because it was obviously put in there just for the heck of it. In Arcanum, as well as some other games, you could actually engage in bestiality, but this was. again, done as a joke. Actually, it's not bull****. It's an opinion, just like your own. People are fully within their rights to find something 'gross' and to rather not have it, or to push for other content they actually like instead, in the entertainment they're financing with their money. You can argue: 'don't buy it if it turns you off', or ignore it - but that is completely besides the point of whether it is legitimate claim or not. It's equally legitimate to wanting it included. Some opinions are just worthless trash. Does that offend you? Well, it's just my opinion. You don't have a right to question it. I'm not questioning it, I respect your response more than you did mine. There is no rule saying I have to respect your opinion. It's an opinion. That means it's up for debate and I can call it horse **** all day long. I can insult your opinion without insulting *you*. Your opinion is an inanimate concept, an *idea* based on nothing more than what you think, and ideas are always open to criticism.

Including non-heterosexuals in a game is not a crusade. I think you need to look the word up, cause you don't seem to understand what it means, or your are exagerating in a way which is ridiculous. And you're unaware of the zeal with which Bioware, and a part of their community, pushed the issue - ergo the crusade comment. No other video-game company made such an issue of it, nor were they as self-congratulatory over something so unimportant (in the grand scheme of things) as Bioware was. Way back when, you could take part in a gay marriage in Temple of Elemental Evil, and nobody cared (myself included), because it was obviously put in there just for the heck of it. In Arcanum, as well as some other games, you could actually engage in bestiality, but this was. again, done as a joke. Actually, it's not bull****. It's an opinion, just like your own. People are fully within their rights to find something 'gross' and to rather not have it, or to push for other content they actually like instead, in the entertainment they're financing with their money. You can argue: 'don't buy it if it turns you off', or ignore it - but that is completely besides the point of whether it is legitimate claim or not. It's equally legitimate to wanting it included. Some opinions are just worthless trash. Does that offend you? Well, it's just my opinion. You don't have a right to question it.

Nah, much more Neutral Evil, opportunistic and cruel when necessary. I never really could relate to Tanar'ri. Somehow that's where I often end up. I always set out to be this great legendary hero but then by act II I'm Mind Tricking people into giving me their money because I'm broke.

Still not sure if those are the worst sex scenes ever or the *BEST* sex scenes ever.

Exactly. In certain situations, like in a bathhouse as a great example, nudity is *realistic*. It doesn't necessarily "enhance" the game, but it makes the game feel more real when situations where nudity would be expected do in fact show nudity. This is different from gratuitous nudity for the sake of nudity, which is a flaw that I think can in fact be leveled at Witcher 3.

Seven companions and four sidekicks, from what I understand.

Because that was what they told us they would do and what I expected when I paid to acquire the Backer Beta. It would be "nice" if they had followed through with the specific statement of what they were going to provide. It's not a big deal--it's a fairly minor irritation--but it's not an unreasonable irritation, either.

My favorite out of which you mention was Planecape Torment and that is probably only because it dared to push boundries in what was allowed on gaming whether it was about death or love, (shock value) making it unique among any rpg sub-genre. The others were generally pale in comparison if I were being honest. None of the games had terribly great writing, despite nostalgic fans crediting BG2 and PST having some if the greatest stories of all time.Given what I've seen you credit as "great writing" in the past, I'll take this as high praise.So, as I thought, resort to petty insults because there's no argument. By the way, can you tell me what I've credited as good writing and how I'm wrong I would discuss the matter in further detail if I thought it was worth the discussion, i.e. if I thought you were seriously defending the argument and not whoring for attention by means of posting deliberately incendiary and contrarian arguments (which are likewise rife of false assumptions, incorrect terminology, blanket statements and so on), and then acting like you're the victim of a spiteful board when called upon these. Your shtick runs very thin very fast.You mean you would discuss the argument further if you could actually back up your claims about my personal preference. You making up stuff and me asking where you got the info isn't trolling or whoring for attention. You tried to insult me by saying that my choice of games which represents sexual companionship or storylines is lesser than what you want in a game. I simply asked you where I've ever talked about this and you couldn't answer. It's an easy cop-out but like I said, there are 2D platformers now with just as good wtiting as the sacred "Crpg's" of the lost generation, this isn't meant to insult anyone's favorite titles but I leave it to forums to be bothered by such small things. That statement about 2d platformers now is accurate--Into The Woods is *amazing*--but it doesn't alter or change the fact that CRPG's of the past had some spectacular writing as well. PS:T is *amazingly* well written. It's story is *good*. It's characterization is deep and complex. It's narrative complexity is up there with any novel you care to name. It basically is an interactive novel--hell it contains more text than most novels.

Once you reach Citzal's Spirit Lance I think it's viable. The Lance seemed underwhelming at first since it lost its huge base damage, but the ability to proc on hit effects on its AoE hits makes it extremely good at the moment. Even if that is removed as a bug it'll remain good. That is accurate, but getting *to* Citzal's Spirit Lance using nothing but self-buffs and Concelhauts Parasitic Staff is kind of a total bitch. Like..it really sucks. The drop in cast times will help with that, but as you mentioned won't fix all the problems.

I want to play a fighter/mage that relies entirely on self-buffs and summoned weapons *SO BAD* but at current state in beta it's basically worthless. Hoping in next beta update, or in released game, that will be fixed.

Slight rephrase: Never have I seen a non-dating sim force you into a homosexual relationship. Which, I mean...it's a dating sim, you know *exactly* what you're getting into. Nobody plays a "daddy dating sim" expecting anything but dating dudes, right? Right? For the sake of my faith in humanity I hope I'm right.

Including non-heterosexuals in a game is not a crusade. I think you need to look the word up, cause you don't seem to understand what it means, or your are exagerating in a way which is ridiculous. I've never seen an argument against LGTBQA romances or characters that doesn't boil down to "Eww, that's gross and I don't want to see it in my game." and that is, frankly, bull****. If you don't want to romance Anders, *don't*. It's that's simple. Nobody is forcing it down your throat. It's there as an option for people who want that. It's entirely up to you whether you pursue it. I played a male character who was best bro's with Anders, for the express purpose of murdering Templars, and romance never came up between us *because I never picked that option*. In fact through all of DAII and DA:I I never romanced *anybody*. My character was way to focused on fighting Templars and defeating Corypheus to even think about romancing anybody. In the ME series, I romanced Ashley Williams, because she was awesome, and held to that through the whole series. Again, it was an option that I chose. Literally never have I seen a game *force* you into a homosexual relationship with anybody. The idea is frankly ridiculous.

Because it was really late and I was super tired and didn't think clearly. It really should be in the main Deadfire forum.

It's been a while since the threads disappeared, and I haven't heard anything about it. I was just wondering if there's any new information--have the physical goods shipped yet, have you heard anything more about what's going to be involved, etc. We're only a little over a month out from games release, so I'm curious. I'm *really* excited about having participated in this, and am looking forward to hunting down the Black Isle and encountering the Bastards!

My reply was to the one quoted, which wasn't you. But regarding your complaints; what do you mean by "the entire development cycle"? Cause you realize that a beta only exists at the very end of the development cycle, right? I think the reason they have only a few updates is because they want feedback on substantial changes. Not fifteen minor fixes done daily. But again, it should be noted that the beta period is for the developer to get feedback, not for the player's enjoyment. And I replied to you anyway. So...yeah. That's a pointless observation. By "entire development cycle" I mean...the entire development cycle. I don't know how I can be more clear. Yes, I realize the beta only occurs in the last portion of it, although "at the very end" is a bit of a stretch. Nobody said anything about fifteen minor fixes daily, but one a month as they originally stated would have been really nice. Hell, *more than three in a nine month period* would have been appreciated. They've *really* dropped the ball on that. Again, "enjoyment" isn't something being mentioned or discussed here. Lack of engagement from the developer is being discussed here.

A beta is always a beta. It's not the full game, it's buggy, it lacks all features and most important of all it's about giving feedback to the developer. And they've delivered exactly that. I think you've got your expectations wrong about what a beta is all about. I think you misunderstand what the complains are. On my end at least, I'm complaining about there being only three beta releases over the entire development cycle. I'm complaining about a *lack of updates*, not about bugginess, etc.

To me, music in games like this is just fine as long as it's not distractingly bad. I tend to not notice it much once I start getting into playing the game.

"I built this deck by hand. Took me three weeks. Check out the stain." "Yeah, well, I beat all the dragons on Path of the Damned mode, solo, with permanent death, in this video game. Took me 300 hours. Look at my Steam achievements!" *whips out cell phone*

I would say 1. They talked about new beta couple times so we know one is in works. When I pressed Josh about beta release a while ago, he said they are not revealing dates until release as they don't want to miss one. As an example he said they were aiming for a release the same day I bugged him about it, but it isn't ready. If they said they are not doing beta and focusing on finishing the game I don't think many people would be irritated. I wouldn't. Still.... so this week? I'd be a little irritated. Hell, I'm a little irritated by this whole process so far. Whole development cycle we've gotten, what, two beta's total so far? It's definitely leaning on the side of "lack of communication from developer". That being said, it's a pretty minor irritation IMHO.

Exactly right.

Oh, so *now* they're people? You spent a whole page arguing about how they're just talking animals but now that you want to squeeze this into your "how offensive it is to demonize the Huana as savages" narrative suddenly they're *PEOPLE*. Again, I've spent paragraphs discussing the evil that can be contained in a culture. I've mentioned murder and rape and sexual slavery and other things. You've seriously missed all of that in your quest to try and demonize me as the arbiter of all that is wrong with colonial apologists. The tribe is not the villain. There *is no villain*. Nothing here is what you think. They aren't some innocent victim, there is no plucky hero, the Vailian's aren't some evil empire. You can *choose* to have your character believe "how helpful colonization might be if they can just convince the die hards". If you want to play that you have the choice of doing so, but that's not how it's shown as being. I didn't say it wasn't an evil thing for that person to eat the Lagufeth. I did in fact point this out as a flaw in their culture. What I *did* say was that you stating that the eating of Lagufeth is somehow making them "savages" is a moral judgement that you made. You're the one calling them "savages" for doing that, not anybody else. So, question: Are cannibals "savages"? Is a tribe that eats the dead warriors they've killed in battle a "tribe of savages"? Is a tribe that eats their own dead a "tribe of savages"? Because that's what you're implying here. If portraying the Huana as capable of eating the Lagufeth in a famine situation means portraying them as savages, then what does that say about the *actual* tribes that *actually* ate people? Nazis are and were evil. Nazi Germany was a culture, which is an inanimate concept. Morality is something that only living, sentient beings have. In order to be good or evil you have to be self-aware and capable of making choices. A culture is just a convenient label we apply to a collection of ideas and things. The very concept of judging the morality of cultures is inherently discriminatory and offensive--it's the judging of other cultures as morally inferior and ones own as morally superior that leads to things like the genocide of Native Americans. Not to mention that you're concept that another culture can be "savages" is ****ed. You are like a child, with a childs view of morality and a childs view of narrative complexity. You want only the simplest of moral narratives telling a basic story of good vs evil. I want more than that.

Nobody portrayed them as savages. That's you're moral judgement on what is being shown. All that is shown is that the Huana have institutional racism against a less advanced culture. To them, the Lagufeth are animals, not people. You've chosen to view them as being savages for that portrayal. That's your choice. A person with a less narrow view of cultures would understand that this is simply racism, which is a flaw inherent to many different cultures and simply shows that the Huana are neither less nor more "savage" than any other culture. In White March we saw Lagufeth treated as pest animals; in Deadfire they are also treated as possibly food animals in a famine situation. In neither case are they treated as anything other than animals despite clearly being sentient beings. By "safe" I meant "morally safe". The Huana as smugglers fighting the evil empire doesn't challenge your moral assumptions about the innocent tribe fighting the evil colonists. Neither does the Huana committing violence against colonists; these both reinforce your pre-set belief of the Huana being innocent victims who are fighting back. It all comes back to your assumption that the Huana must never be portrayed as capable of cultural institutions which you view as evil and offensive, such as institutional racism. To you that violates what you feel is the narrative imperative of any story which involves colonialism, where the indigenous culture must always be portrayed as innocent of all cultural evils until corrupted by the invading culture. That's simply not realistic and not the kind of narrow and simple story that Obsidian is aiming for. In Deadfire, as in real life, racism exists everywhere and you have to deal with it wherever it shows up. The fact that this thread has gone on for as long as it has shows what an excellent job Obsidian has done in sowing the seeds of true nuance and moral debate.

The only person here trying to argue points nobody has made is you trying to paint everybody as "glossing over colonialist evil" when what we're actually trying to do is point out the complexity of cultures and the nuances of Obsidians depiction of the Huana. You're freaking out over the Huana being depicted as capable of racism. You'll accept that they could be smugglers, because that's a *safe* form of semi-bad behavior, especially when it's applied in the context of fighting back against the Evil Empire. You'll even accept violence against colonialists, because again, Fighting the Evil Empire. What you *don't* want is the Huana to be depicted as capable of real, actually evil, behavior inherent to their own culture because to you, they *must* be innocent victims who are fighting back against the evil attackers. What you can't accept is that the Huana, in their own right, as their own unique culture, can be *bad people* who do *bad things*. You can't accept that the Huana are capable of institutional racism, because that would dilute your fantasy narrative. You only want them to be Freedom Fighters who maybe do some morally grey things in their Fight Against Oppression. What Obsidian wants to do is real complexity within the story, showing the Huana as *more* than Fighting The Evil Empire. There are *real* reasons that you might decide the Huana aren't people you want to ally with. Their culture isn't perfect, it has real flaws, and one of those is racism against other less advanced cultures. That's a problem, and it's one that you as a player have to decide how much it affects your moral judgement. It's a tough choice. It's intention is to make you think hard about the morality of the situation...although for you it just makes you freak out over having your assumptions about the narrative requirements of this particular setting challenged. And for the record, "“everybody is good and evil” is another position I never took. People, individuals, can be good or they can be evil. That's why I had no problem pointing out Christopher Columbus as an evil **** when you brought him up. It's cultures that are morally neutral. People are moral beings; cultures are simply the collective customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of an ethnic group. Trying to judge the morality of a culture is like judging the morality of a frying pan; it simply doesn't apply.

Hell I was just glad that in DAII there was somebody to be friends with who hated Templars as much as I do.