Jump to content

Mallard

Members
  • Content Count

    69
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Mallard

  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 insisting on funding campaigns that implement those politicies (like DRM-free releases.) - The publishers can choose to contribute (or even match) the crowdfunded total, giving the developers an important buffer they would lack otherwise. I urge the opponents to read this interview with the developers of The Banner Saga trilogy , who made the mistake of abandoning crowdfunding after the success of the first game: (interview is here) I don't want to derail this into a political discussion, but I don't have a problem with large corporations making use of publicly funded research -- provided they don't try to monopolize it after the fact (i.e. via a patent). This is why the GPL (one of the main licences used by open-source software) does not contain a "non-commercial" clause. There's nothing wrong with companies using, and profiting from, open-source software.
  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 Abydon's. (And of course there are my own suggestions for Magran, Hylea, and Wael in my signature!) I also look forward to the reveal of who the final God Challenge is for!
  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 "unidentified items" would include unique items and equipment (like in BG and IWD). It could also include potions, scrolls, grimoires, traps... The idea is that an unidentified item can *still be used*, but its effects and numbers would be unknown. These could be identified by a character with high lore skill, by viewing in inventory (like in BG and IWD). Also, each merchant could come with an "identify" screen (cost of 100 to identify each item). But more importantly...an unidentified item could be cursed, faulty, or trapped! - unidentified items may be cursed and locked to a character (think Girdle of Gender Switching from BG), until removed at a temple - unidentified potions or food could be poisoned - unidentified scrolls could cast "wild magic" - unidentified traps could trigger while being set I look forward to hearing others' suggestions!
  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 those to be imported...)
  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 direct response to feedback for Pillars 1. The brighter, happier tone, the repeated interactions with the gods, it's clear they listened to player feedback and addressed it. My criticism of the world map's more colourful or "cartoony" style should have acknowledged that there was a clear reason for the shift in style, even if I personally prefer the more realistic, bleaker style from the first Pillars game. I do think that some of the criticism of the writing is off-base. When you have a team of creative professionals, and one is just unique and very highly talented (we all know who I'm talking about), then it's inevitable that other, less well-known teammembers will be in that person's shadow. However, having read all the short stories, I think that the other teammembers are all talented writers. I particularly enjoyed Carrie Patel's short story about Aloth. The quality of writing in BoW and SSS confirms that Obsidian has lots of talent. I don't think it's the writing of Deadfire, so much as the way the game is structured; for example, having the gods appear together as a group takes away from their mystique and reduces each personality to a line or two of dialogue. I really appreciate Obsidian's work on the game, and hope my review was understood to be meant as constructive criticism.
  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: Subtitle (e.g. "The Last God", "Eternity's End", "Final Rest", "Sleep for the Watcher"), not a prequel or "Pillars Tactics" or "Pillars Mobile" - it should import the current character, the Watcher of Caed Nua - it should conclude the Watcher's story in a satisfying way, but it can leave open the possibility of new games, with new characters, that are set in Eora - it should avoid all of the mistakes made by the Mass Effect 3 ending - it should be RTwP, same as Pillars 1 and Deadfire - it should reuse the same graphics engine, assets, and general mechanics (please don't reinvent the wheel yet again!) - it should introduce a new location, like the previous entries, but it would be great to surprise players with visits to some iconic locations from previous games ---------------------------------- e.g. Caed Nua Durgan's Battery ---------------------------------- I think Obsidian probably would follow all of these guidelines for another game, the real question is whether they will have an opportunity to make it after Deadfire's commercial failure
  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 those guidelines. Deadfire's quest-design reaches the level of BG2 at times; Neketaka, for example, is the best successor to Athkatla I've ever encountered. Hats off to the devs for the excellent work they did in this regard! (ii) However, Deadfire also has a major problem, especially when compared to BG2: the main storyline (the "critical path"). Other people have discussed it in detail, but I'll give my own thoughts. If you took out BG2's sidequests, then its critical path still stood on its own as an epic journey and compelling story; it constantly surprised the player (Chapters 4 and 5, the surprise final battle in Chapter 7). By contrast, Deadfire's critical path does not work on its own. It is short, uninteresting and repetitive. Without spoiling anything, imagine if BG2 had ended at Spellhold; Deadfire feels like it ends at the halfway point of the story. Irenicus was also a particularly interesting and memorable villain; as one review put it, he stole the show whenever he was on screen, and his backstory was arguably more interesting than your character's. There was a Gamespot "Top 10" list for villains, with well thought-out guidelines about what makes a good villain. I remember thinking that Bioware must have used that list as guide -- because Irenicus was pretty much the perfect villain. Who can forget his dream sequences? "Life...is strength." For a giant green statue, Eothas' presence is barely felt in Deadfire's storyline. I think this can be fixed through the addition of some dream sequences (at least one for each act), like Irenicus' in BG2. But Eothas is also a polite, mild-mannered gentleman compared to the cold, ruthless Irencius. (iii) I think the other major difference, compared to both BG2 and Pillars 1, is the real-time world map. Its art style is too -- for lack of a better word -- "cartoony", with its bright colours. I understand the need to distinguish Deadfire's lush setting from the bleak Dyrwood, but it should still be consistent with the "realistic" art style. The real-time map also turned travel on the world map into a tedious chore, whereas the instant travel from the first Pillars (and on the city maps in Deadfire) works just fine. I think travel problem can be fixed in two (somewhat opposite) ways: - making the world map more interesting (random text interactions, as described in my signature) - adding a "fast-travel" option I certainly enjoyed the game, and hope they will finish the trilogy with a crowdfunded Pillars 3.
  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 noun "battle", not the noun phrase "unavoidable battle".
  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 least two loading screens, in the 1st-person style of Pillars 1! Poko Kohara ruins: Hohina Ravine: This kind of calm, unpopulated 1st person scene nicely complements (or contrasts) with the top-down, action-filled bird's eye view used for most of the game. Another advantage is its independence from party composition -- whether a full party or solo character. I was curious if the loading screens were changed for budget reasons, and if it any more were created in this style I would love to see them!
  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, like in Mass Effect 1, there is a surprise, second unavoidable battle with the true final boss. - Upon leaving Ondra's Spire and entering the Grand Promenade, and defeating the faction leader, the player finds the path to Eothas blocked by a mystic force/barrier. The Watcher can sense that the source of this barrier traces back down to Ukaizo Harbour. At this point the various party members give their "before the final battle" speech. - The Watcher enters Ukaizo Harbour... (If the player did not encounter the Guardian, a sparking, injured Guardian stumbles out of the water and speaks with the Watcher like before.) The Guardian's body, ruined or otherwise, rises into the air and you sense Eothas' presence in your mind. "This statue of Maros Nua has witnessed many secrets, Watcher of Caed Nua. Indeed, there was another being who thought herself Master of that great keep..." The dialogue reflects whether Watcher encountered/aided/defeated/never met the Master Below in Pillars 1. - The adra pillars jutting into the harbour being to dissolve; soon it is a blizzard of adra flakes. The flakes of adra adhere themselves to the body of the Guardian, in the same style as the Adra Dragon (the Master Below) from the first game. The idea is that the adra flakes heal any injuries and act as armoured scales for the Guardian. - This "reborn" Guardian (Eothas' portfolio is rebirth) is an adra-encrusted version of the Guardian of Ukaizo in the same manner as the Adra Dragon. It has a sliver of Eothas within it, causing its forehead to bear his glowing sigil, like the statue of Maros in the introduction. It may not be a battle with the giant statue, but it is still a battle with Eothas in a sense. - Upon defeating this reborn Guardian, the mystic force barring access to Eothas is dissolved and the player can proceed to the engame. In a way, this battle would come full circle -- the Adra Dragon lay at the feet of the statue for so long, and invokes the memory of the Watcher's struggle for Caed Nua.
  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
  16. I've noticed a lot of people with the missing DLC error after 3.1. If you're on GOG, then try downloading the latest installer of each DLC (version 3.1xxxxx...) and reinstalling that DLC. All of the broken installers have been fixed now. This fixed the problem for me, hope it helps others!
  17. I think people want all requirements for God Challenges removed. In case it wasn't mentioned, that includes removing the requirement to enable level scaling or setting it to "all" vs "critical path only".
  18. Hi, just wanted to say that I downloaded the DLCs now available from GOG, and reinstalling them fixed the problem!
  19. Perhaps the following change could be made: - An enemy ship is gradually repaired as it travels the world map - When an enemy ship flees, it spawns some distance from you - When an enemy ship flees, it sets course to an appropriate port (Dunnage for Principi, Neketaka for VTC, RDC, Huana) - Upon reaching port, the enemy ship disappears from the map - After a suitable amount of time (several days?) the ship respawns at that port, fully repaired, and resumes its original route
  20. I hate to make the comparison again, but this idea treads dangerously close to the ME3 ending...
  21. Agreed, nothing comes close to the ME3 "ending". I regret my comparison and apologize to the Obsidian devs. Perhaps I should have said "director's cut" and mentioned KOTOR II instead!
  22. I think that Josh Sawyer used the analogy of a dammed river. The rebirth cycle of souls (river) flows naturally, but the Engwithans constructed the Wheel (dam) to regulate the flow. Specifically, the Wheel (dam) redirects some of the flow to feed/empower the Gods. Destroying the Wheel (dam) cuts off the flow to the Gods. What this means for the Gods' future existence is unclear. Personally, I would love to see an "extended cut" like for Mass Effect 3, that helped clarify the ending and fleshed out Act 4...
  23. For those discussing the reused Pillars 1 music fitting in with the Deadfire OST, I have an idea: remix the reused tracks. I have made a thread to discuss this idea: https://forums.obsidian.net/topic/106554-would-remixing-the-reused-pillars-1-music-be-practical/
  24. A number of people have commented on the Pillars 1 music being closely tied to the first game. Perhaps one solution is to "remix" the reused tracks so that they fit Deadfire's theme. (For example, replacing strings with woodwinds, changing the tempo, changing keys...) I know nothing about music composition, so I'm not sure how much work this would be. Is this something a community member has experience in? I know that people remix famous videogame music like "Magus' theme" from Chrono Trigger...
  25. Justin, your talent will be sorely missed by Obsidian and the community. The soundtrack of Pillars 1, in particular, was a standout. It achieved just the right combination of nostalgia and independence. All the best!
×
×
  • Create New...