Katarack21

That's not accurate at *all*. Hijras have a long and ancient tradition as neither masculine nor feminine; sometimes both, but just as often neither, and in the modern world are explicitly legally recognized as a third gender. In Native American tribes, not all tribes had strict gender roles--Navajo had four genders, feminine woman (asdzaan), masculine man (hastiin), feminine man (nádleehí) masculine woman (dilbaa). All considered quite distinct from each other. The Cree in Canada had a term, "ayahkwêw", which was specifically a third gender.

Gender identity is not the same as sex. You can read about it here. It's not the same as your sex. As far as I understand it, to break it down very simple it works like this: You can be born inside a man's body and also feel like a man. Or you are born inside a women's body and feel like a woman. In these cases you are cisgender. Your sex and your gender align. But you can also be born in a man's body but not feel like a man (or feel like a woman in a man's body). Or you are born in a woman's body but you do not feel like a woman (or you feel like a man in a woman's body) . Then you would be transgender. Furthermore there are people who reject the gender roles altogether, and they see themselves neither as woman nor as man INDEPENDENTLY from their body. Or they see themselves as both. So again, sex is NOT THE SAME as gender identity. Also, as I have previously pointed out, even the sex is NOT a binary option since intersex people do exist. Remember, the game asks you for your sex, not your gender. I know what gender dysphoria is. And that's not relevant to this discussion. Obviously, anyone who identifies as the opposite sex, will play as that sex in a game. Or at least i can't imagine why the wouldn't. What i don't understand is this gender roles thing. Since when gender roles became a thing? So much so that some people feel like they need to be called anything other than he/her. Maybe i missed something, but i always thought that he/her, again, mostly refers to your genitals, and is not in any way shape or form a comment about your "identity", whatever that identity may be. So why all the fuss about the "non-binary" stuff when there was no binary to begin with when it comes to who you are. He/her are gender pronouns, not sex pronouns. That's literally the linguistic term, "gender pronouns". There is no such thing as a sex pronoun in English. If somebody has a vagina and you call them her but they happen to be a man, it's a problem. That's *the* problem. You're assuming that this person is a "her" but they are not; they are a "him". And many people don't feel like a he or a her; they don't feel like any gender. This isn't "new" by the way. People have felt this way for *thousands* of years; literally for as long as human beings have existed. You can read diary entries about it, and there's rare few people that were public about it even in 1734, people discuss this in ancient Rome, etc. but in general it was more rare in the recent past of the Western world because 1) It was generally illegal in the western world and often punishable by death and 2) It was also considered a mental illness and you'd be thrown in a brick room and tortured until you stopped saying those crazy things.

I've *NEVER* ****ing understood why having the option of a clickbox somewhere for "none" under "gender" would somehow make the game suck. Or indeed effect your goddamned game in any ****ing way at all. As far as I can tell it makes no ****ing difference.

I experienced up to 8 second load times in late game. It was *super* annoying.

That's what we call a "strawman". I never said I hate DLC; I said I hate certain specific practices of companies. And I didn't resurrect the thread, keirun posted on Jul 2nd, and a few people have "liked" my comments over the last couple days. I saw it at the top of the page, is all. Then clicked my notifications, clicked into the thread to see what had happened, and saw the response to me which I hadn't noticed at the time. All I did was respond to something that had been said to me directly and which I hadn't noticed until the thread was brought back. And I did so with a substantive post making actual points; it was a legitimate response to a statement made directly to me. There's nobody here forcing you to care, to respond, to make statements, or to interact with the thread at all. If you don't like it, don't care about it, or otherwise aren't engaged in it, there's a really simple solution: don't post. It's really easy. There's dozens of threads I don't read and don't post in. Give it a try.

Usually a DLC is accompanied by a general patch that adds the DLC features to the code, while the DLC purchase unlocks the content. This has the very large advantage that there is only one code base for all DLC combinations. So the base game before the new release doesn't contain the new features, after the release it does, but is not activated. You shouldn't be so certain in your assertions when you don't know how it works. That doesn't give a smart impression. That literally does not impact anything that I said in any way at all. You shouldn't be such a pretentious snob when nothing you say impacts the debate. It's completely immaterial. The base game contains the features which are simply being unlocked. The DLC doesn't add anything, neither does the update. It's all features that are already in the game. So despite already knowing how DLC's work, it doesn't change the fact that *none of the DLC's add new content because this DLC doesn't involve any new content*. Only the expansion is adding new content. That being the case, you pointing out how DLC's operate is pretty meaningless. It's like explaining how gas engines operate to explain fuel to somebody whose driving a diesel engine---good information but not applicable.

He actually appears to have constructed languages (to some degree) and then made names using those rules.

Yeah I don't know that I buy that. Either that's covering, or somebody did a *REALLY* bad animation, because that really does look like she's resting her hands on the hilt of a sword that isn't there. Straight up.

I, too, am curious, excited, and also have this curious sense of elation. I feel as if, in some small way, I helped to make this game. That's a wonderful feeling. I can't wait to see how this works out. :-D

I have, and yes--on my first playthrough I switched weapon types to bows when I got the artifact bow. It was worth it.

Or you could just accept that this is a game where you need to plan out your character choices before hand and that creates it's own kind of fun.

I have an inability to not read things. I read everything. Dude. Seriously. You're utter lack of self control is nobody elses problably. Society at large does not have to bend around because you can't stop yourself from reading every little thing that enters into your line of sight. This is a forum. People will talk about things you don't like. Deal with it.

So...Eothas is an in-game model. That's good to know, I guess.

Hmm, yes, I can see the problem. Her boobs should have had nipples modeled given the period Pillars should have been inspired by. This is true. Statues were often quite heavily sexualized--Pompeii had a street lined with several score detailed depictions of the god Pan in mid-intercourse with a goat.

I know they said at one point that they "aren't married" to the 5 person party and it could change if there was "significant fan opposition". I don't know if that ship has already sailed, though.

Exactly. I suspect that the relationship system will vastly reward more time spent with each companion, as opposed to switching them out as-needed for different quests, etc.

... I am sure Deadfire will work as any other modern RPG and give you all the story, even if you barely use someone. I don't remember ever hearing Obsidian saying that combat was to hard and that is why they reduce the party size. If I remember well, they said that they found that your party forced them to put bigger pacts of enemies which made combat more busy than it needed to be. I find it to be a good reason. It doesn't make combat easier, or more shallow, just cleaner. Of course, we will be only able to judge it fully once we get our hands on it. You'll miss *that characters* storyline. That's what I meant by "in order to get the storyline of one additional character I'm interested in." In PoE, I can have five companions with me, so I get all five of their storylines--their character arcs, their comments, etc. In Deadfire, I'll get to take 4 with me. There's 8 companions, and five of them seem cool to me. So that's at least one second playthrough--and if I want that companions whole story line it'll have to be a complete play through (in the sense that I won't get to see what they have to say about something unless they are their, so their "whole storyline" is their commentary on every part of the game). And I took the comments from Obsidian about reducing the party size because of player complaints regarding the "busy" nature of combat to be effectively "making it easier". They're reducing overall complexity of combat by reducing the party size, is how I took it.

I'm *really* unhappy about the five man party. It just annoys me to limit my options and tell me it's for my own good 'cuz combat was to hard. It's not even combat that annoys me about this, though. It's having to replay through a whole game again in order to get the storyline of one additional character I'm interested in.

*raises hand*

Here is my post, quoted in full: Notice that I said "with their grand strategy games": that means I am referring to their grand strategy games i.e. Crusader Kings 2, Europa Universalis 4 and Hearts of Iron 4. I am not referring to Tyranny, since it is not a grand strategy game, nor indeed any other games that Paradox has developed or published*. Europa Universalis 4 is their most successful grand strategy game, and has the largest amount of DLC, hence why I used it as an example. It is, however, entirely representative of their DLC policy for all their current grand strategy games. You could switch anything I said about EU4 with CK2 or HoI4 and the statements would remain true. No I didn't. You'll notice the first line of my post, and the fact that the main contents of the post followed "@Wormerine": I wasn't addressing you at all. I have zero interest in making you look like an idiot. As I stated above, I was specifically talking about their grand strategy games, of which EU4 is the biggest. You then claimed that my language was inaccurate and reflected marketing lies, which is demonstrably false when it comes to Paradox's grand strategy games. I pointed this out to you, with the example of EU4 (but both CK2 and HoI4 have similar examples) and you claimed you were talking about a Tyranny DLC, which might very well be the case but you were replying to my post which was about their grand strategy games. Yes, I know. I wasn't saying their policy was good. However these features are new features. They are present in the base game after the patch that goes with the DLC is released. They aren't features that were cut from the original product during development. Anyway, feel free to reply, but don't expect a response. I don't see any purpose to further conversation with you on this topic. *Technically I could be referring to their older grand strategy games, but those all came out before the age of DLC. Talking about "their grand strategy games..." and talking about "Europa Universalis 4" are not interchangeable...one is very general and broad category, one is a specific game with it's own very specific issues. You can't generalize between the two. I can discuss Paradox's DLC's all I want; I won't discuss the specifics of a game I haven't played. This is called "not talking about **** I don't know". It's pretty basic. You should try it. "The problem is that many of these extra features are still present in the game even if you don't buy the DLC but the player can't interact with them" "However these features are new features. They are present in the base game after the patch that goes with the DLC is released." Those two statements directly contradict each other. Either they are there in the base game regardless of whether you buy the DLC but not accessible, or they are added when you by the DLC. It literally *can't* be both. It is either already there, or it is not already there. It's present, or it is not present and get's added. It definitively, objectively, *literally* cannot be both.

You replied to my post which was specifically talking about DLC for Paradox's grand strategy games. It is not my fault if I imagined you were talking about the DLCs for those games. If you know nothing about those games, then don't reply to a post about DLC for them saying that my "language is inaccurate and reflects marketing lies, not reality." Yes, but your post wasn't about that specific game. I can talk about Paradox's DLC policies regardless of which branch of their games your discussing because their largely the same in broad strokes company-wide; I can't talk about any specific issues with any specific DLC that I haven't played. What you did was talk about the DLC in broad terms so that I would respond, and then try to norrow into a specific game in order to force a statement into my mouth so you could refute it and make me look like an idiot. It doesn't work like that. Even in one of your own posts at one point you said "The problem is that many of these extra features are still present in the game even if you don't buy the DLC but the player can't interact with them"...when talking about Paradox's strategy game DLC's.

Do you have any proof of that? Because some files present in the base game means nothing by itself. They could've started develpmont on the feature before the release and couldn't finish it in time. In fact, i'm pretty sure that's probably what happened since to claim otherwise is just insane. But even if that was the case, how do you know that it's Paradox's fault and not Obsidians? You don't, you just do a whole lot of assuming. Yeah, so this whole rant was about a single piece of DLC, and you don't know anything else about Paradox... Good to know. Or, alternatively, this discussion was about a single piece of DLC and I'm not allowing other people to put statements about other games into my mouth.

No, I won't, because I don't know that game and you can't force me to have opinions just so you can make a false point. I'm talking about a Tyranny DLC. That's *all* I've talked about.

None of the features that Paradox DLC's add are in the base game before the release of said DLC. That's simply not accurate. Maybe it used to be, but "Tales of the Tiers" specifically contains stuff that's already in the base game, but unlocked or "completed functionality".