Jump to content

Mallard

Members
  • Content Count

    69
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

140 Excellent

About Mallard

  • Rank
    (2) Evoker

Badges

  • Pillars of Eternity Backer Badge
  • Pillars of Eternity Kickstarter Badge
  • Deadfire Backer Badge
  • Deadfire Fig Backer
  1. Yes, I successfully used the command SetGodChallengeEnabled <challenge> <value> where <challenge> is one of {berath, magran, woedica, etc.} and where <value> is one of {0, 1}. 0 = inactive 1 = active For example, the command SetGodChallengeEnabled woedica 1 should enable Woedica's challenge in a current playthrough.
  2. Wow, I'm just dumbfounded by the negative responses to the OP's idea. With all due respect, I think the opposition is misguided. Having large corporations embrace crowdfunding is not something to be feared. I agree with Boeroer that it could result in benefits for consumers: - It's a useful means for publishers to gauge interest in a potential idea. - It encourages publishers to continue to fund story-driven, single-player games as opposed to switching to casual mobile games (e.g. Konami). - Fans can encourage changes in industry policy (like DRM-free on GOG) by
  3. I'm particularly looking forward to Ondra's challenge, the larger and more frequent storms! My earlier suggestion was to make storms not visible on the world map, but this solution might be even better. It introduces an element of strategy -- the player must strive to navigate between more frequent, larger storms and more relentless hostile ships. Now all we need is fog on war on the world map as part of Skaen's challenge... Also, I really hope they consider everyone's suggested adjustments to the God Challenges. A number of people have suggested important changes to Berath's and A
  4. Many of us have commented on the released God Challenges -- there are several threads discussing them. It's clear players care about the God Challenges and want them to be fun, and fair as well. Wael's challenge will be released in patch 4.0: I acknowledge that I haven't tried this challenge yet, but I have to confess I'm skeptical that it will be much fun to play. I'm worried that turning most numbers into question marks is going a bit too far! I was thinking of Wael's portfolio (secrets, revelations...) and came up with a possible modification of the challenge: The
  5. There are at least two endings (actual endings at the end of the game) that could not be imported into a Pillars 3. What will they do for those players, if they do make a third game? For Pillars 1, I can only think of one ending (actual ending at the end of the game) that didn't make sense for importing, the one in which the Eyeless destroy everything. Sawyer confirmed that they retconned that ending if you imported such a save. (You could of course die in either game, kill Lady Webb in Pillars 1, or reject Berath's offer at the start of Deadfire, but I don't think anyone expected thos
  6. I regret the way I expressed myself in the above quotes. I loved Deadfire, and cannot wait for the DLCs and God Challenges to be complete for a 2nd playthrough. The devs did a terrific job, and I'm sorry it isn't fairing better commercially. I think my review was a bit unfair, I was basically faulting the game for not being as good as BG2. While that is a relevant comparison, it should not be the only one. It should primarily be compared to the first Pillars game. In that regard, I have to look at it from Obsidian's point of view, because it's clear a number of changes were made in
  7. Actually, the title of the first game's base campaign appears to be "The Hollowing of the Dyrwood":
  8. I was recalling the mosaic loading screens from BG2, and wondered if this was a way to create unique loading screens for a fraction of the time. Basically, the artist could create a much cruder, less detailed image for the loading screen (than those that exist from the beta), then use GIMP's mosaic distortion tool. Here is my result for the beta Poko Kohara loading screen. Let me know what you think!
  9. I don't doubt that mistakes were with marketing Deadfire, but I would be cautious before laying all blame at their feet. Sometimes, you can do everything you're supposed to, and still not succeed. Conversely, you can make every mistake in the book, and still come out on top. I can't help but think of 2016 US presidential election... I like some of the proposed ideas here, but I think some of the proposed changes would be a serious mistake. If it gets the greenlight, then the next (final?) Pillars game should adhere to the following guidelines: - it should be Pillars of Eternity III: Subt
  10. (i) It's clear that Deadfire used BG2 as a frame of reference. They deliberately incorporated aspects of BG2 that made it such a success: - embarking on a quest to reclaim your soul, from an immensely powerful antagonist, whose motives are one of the game's major mysteries - importing your character and continuing their story - being moved south of the previous game's standard "high fantasy" setting, to a vaguely exotic new setting - a stand-out "big city" packed with interesting locations, quests, and secrets I think it was a great idea to use all of th
  11. The battle in ME1 is entirely avoidable. Given the right decisions, you can talk Saren into killing himself. My phrasing was ambiguous, I could have been clearer: I was comparing the current Guardian of Ukaizo fight (avoidable) with the first ME1 battle, avoidable, with Saren himself, which you are referring to. The phrase "surprise, second unavoidable battle" was a reference to the second ME1 battle, unavoidable, with Sovereign's reincarnation of Saren. I should have used a comma, "suprise, second, unavoidable battle". The adjective "second" was meant to apply only to the
  12. The artwork in Deadfire is outstanding, probably even better than Pillars 1. The loading screens are no exception, but it's notable that they strongly differ in perspective from Pillars 1. In Pillars 1, the view was from the Watcher's eyes, with no characters or party members depicted, just the environment. This was the same style used in IWD and BG2. For example, the loading screen for Caed Nua in Pillars 1: In contrast, Deadfire depicts action scenes for its loading screens, with various party members depicted: What's interesting is that there exists artwork for at leas
  13. In this thread, it was clarified that the epic battle with the Guardian of Ukaizo is intended to only take place in response to certain past decisions by the player. (And I also learned that a fight can be avoided through dialogue if the player is an Island Aumaua!) I wanted to follow up on my response in that thread, with an idea that I hope is consistent with the devs' design, but guarantees that all players get to experience an epic final battle: 1. The initial battle with the Guardian may not take place, or can be avoided through dialogue. That part is unchanged. 2. But
  14. One unfortunate historical parallel: My understanding was that the Baldur's Gate series was planned as a trilogy, with Throne of Bhaal a third full game. Due to time, they were forced to compress it into an expansion. Hopefully Obsidian gets a chance to complete the Pillars trilogy, I fully support retaining the engine & mechanics. I think we can all agree that the next game should *NOT* be titled "Pillars Mobile".
  15. Normally I'm more creative with naming in games. However, the use of the name "The Defiant" in conversations had me worried that the ship would be referred to as such throughout the game, regardless of custom name. (This wasn't the case, don't worry, the game does acknowledge custom names!) At the same time, I needed a way to tell my ships apart. I decided to simply name future ships "The Second Defiant" "The Third Defiant" and so forth
×
×
  • Create New...