In Defense of the Story

[Karkarov]

Depends on your perspective!

True, but we know our perspective, that of the Watcher.

 

Just bear in mind, I am saying Eothas is not a villain/antagonist/whatever you want to call it.  I am NOT saying he is a hero, or the good guy, or not doing reprehensible things. 

 

Perspective is important, but the biggest perspective when determining the moral action of someone is the perspective of the person committing the act.  I simply suggest anyone Eothas killed, was someone he had to kill to achieve his goal, and that he did not kill anyone he didn't have to.  Additionally his end goal is self sacrifice to do what he feels will enrich the lives of the vast majority of kith.

 

As for the Kreia example, that's all well and good but here is the better question.  Would his life have been better if you gave him nothing?  Don't know.  Would the people who mugged him have mugged someone else instead?  Probably.  I am not saying giving the money didn't make his life worse, I am saying that it isn't that simple.

[Achilles]

 

3: Yes, having no antagonist in your plot is bad.  REALLY REALLY BAD.  

Antagonist != villain

 

A villain is a type of antagonist, but an antagonist does not have to be a villain. Eothas is an antagonist. Eothat is not a villain. 

[Tagaziel]

1: Like many on the internet you are missing the point.  I am not saying the game is bad.  I am not saying the factions suck.  I am not saying the non linearity is bad.

Maybe the problem is not with people you talk to, but with your ability to phrase your thoughts?

 

I AM saying you can ignore the factions entirely, and beat the game without ever interacting with them, except for one forced meeting after Magran's Teeth.  I understand it sucks not being able to counter that statement, because it's a fact, but if you are going to reply you should reply to the statement made.  Not a preferred alternative statement that never happened.

Yes, it's a fact. So? Why should you be forced to deal with the factions? Why do you keep portraying that as a bad thing?

 

Hell, the game even acknowledges not dealing with the factions as a legitimate choice - one that plunges the Deadfire into a chaotic four-way war every single faction so feared.

 

2: ..... Did you just say having conflict in a story is a crutch?

No, I wrote that your use of "most players" as an argumentum ad populum to prop up your point is a crutch. Either your point stands on its own or you are admitting you are aware it's flimsy and need to say "many people think so" to help it stand."

 

As such, your next paragraph is snipped.

 

3: Yes, having no antagonist in your plot is bad.  REALLY REALLY BAD.  When a story has no conflict, and no antagonist or villain, it isn't particularly fun to play, read, or watch.  Imagine if Baldur's Gate 2 didn't have Irenicus in it.  What would you be doing all game?  Just random dungeon spelunking to get richer than you already are?  I am sure that would have been way better than the plot with a decent villain we got instead.

Now you're moving the goal posts. Your initial post claimed that not having a villain is bad. When I ask why a story not having a villain is bad, you claim that you said "not having an antagonist is bad."

 

Which is bizarre. Eothas is the antagonist. Just because he doesn't interfere with your progress doesn't mean he isn't the antagonist of the story. There's also plenty of antagonists in the shape of faction leaders and the faction themselves, which represent the primary conflict driving Deadfire's story.

 

Dude, do me the courtesy of actually reading my posts and being consistent.

 

Classical story structure exists for a reason, because it works.

Why should ever story recycle the same old tropes, I'm curious?

 

Meanwhile Deadfire had plenty of conflict, and even some minor antagonists, they were just both absent from the main plot which is why the main plot sort of sucks.

I don't think it sucks just because Eothas isn't a fire-breathing monster that keeps chasing you all over the Deadfire while yelling GIVE ME YOUR SOUL PIGGIE, but that's just me. I like non-standard stories.

[Stephen Unsworth-Mitchell]

 

Depends on your perspective!

True, but we know our perspective, that of the Watcher.

 

Just bear in mind, I am saying Eothas is not a villain/antagonist/whatever you want to call it.  I am NOT saying he is a hero, or the good guy, or not doing reprehensible things. 

 

Perspective is important, but the biggest perspective when determining the moral action of someone is the perspective of the person committing the act.  I simply suggest anyone Eothas killed, was someone he had to kill to achieve his goal, and that he did not kill anyone he didn't have to.  Additionally his end goal is self sacrifice to do what he feels will enrich the lives of the vast majority of kith.

 

As for the Kreia example, that's all well and good but here is the better question.  Would his life have been better if you gave him nothing?  Don't know.  Would the people who mugged him have mugged someone else instead?  Probably.  I am not saying giving the money didn't make his life worse, I am saying that it isn't that simple.

 

 

Perspective of watcher and Eothos are personal perspective by each of us plays the watcher. There no one watcher. 

 

Yes can see and understand your perspective but we can argue all day as mine will never be yours and everyone else will choose see only what they wish to.

 

Eothos ideal maybe noble and he might be good guy if we choose look at what he trying to achieve but ultimately he still squishing little people and for that some will only ever see him as bad. 

 

If I kill human in self defence or to save a life of another person some would say I took a life and therefore am bad person, they be right as there own opinion is valid. I and others might say what I did was for good reason and noble that's valid opinion too.

 

Yes with Kreia thing your very right its not that simple. Life very rarely is simple black and white. 

 

I do understand your point and in part you are right but so is what I said.

 

Been honest this why would preferred lot more gray moral questioning at the end faction quest as it forces you look and examine your moral compass and choose what you believe to be right path and this much more interesting way do things. With black endings made it to much black and white sure lot will choose sail alone. Which if we get see should mean people choice probably caused war in deadfire.

 

We look at real world America currently not super strong place once was, both China and Russia have grown much stronger.

 

When one country not far ahead of rest war never far behind.

[Casper]

i know that i was joking when i suggested the gods were the antagonists in this game... gave me a good laugh for a while too. till i stopped laughing.

[Stephen Unsworth-Mitchell]

i know that i was joking when i suggested the gods were the antagonists in this game... gave me a good laugh for a while too. till i stopped laughing.

 

Well I think Gods are antagonist as if we read Gods were created from ideals as I already mentioned and we do get glimpse of fact ideals can and are taken to extremes by the Gods themselves and this at times does put gods inconflict with each other and with little people if said little people knew the full truth.

 

It always possible that at any time our watcher might come into conflict with one or more gods. I think obsidian have left it open so they can play with that idea if they decide to. 

[Karkarov]

 

1: Like many on the internet you are missing the point.  I am not saying the game is bad.  I am not saying the factions suck.  I am not saying the non linearity is bad.

Maybe the problem is not with people you talk to, but with your ability to phrase your though

I don't think so.

 

The main plot of this game is weak.  It is too short, there is no antagonist/villain/enemy/opposing force/whatever name you want to invent for it (your so called ally gods do more to make your life miserable than Eothas does, during actual gameplay at least), and there is no conflict because it is made clear very early that you can't stop Eothas you can just figure out what he is doing and hope it isn't too bad.  Yes it is also completely disconnected from every other aspect of the game, even Skyrim managed to make a crazy dragon show up in town sometimes.  Yes being disconnected from every other aspect is bad, as it removes all urgency from the story, and fails to tie in the game as a whole.

 

Also your original point was how this story was just like Fallout New Vegas, and the factions were tied to the story.  Which you are now admitting they aren't in your last post.  So my point was made there regardless.

 

Lastly, "classical story structure" is not a trope, it is how you construct your story so that it is enjoyable to read/watch/whatever and flows correctly.  This the main critical path of the game is not a well constructed story.

Edited June 3, 2018 by Karkarov

[Wormerine]

From the reliable source - Wikipedia

 

An antagonist is a character, group of characters, institution or concept that stands in or represents opposition against which the protagonist(s) must contend. In other words, an antagonist is a person or a group of people who opposes a protagonist.

 

I would argue that giving player a set antagonist in an RPG is detrimental to the idea of the genre. If you are asked to create a character, and therefore his goals and ideals, it also should be up to you to pick an antagonist (or not pick one). Giving the player a set antagonist (you are against this guy and here is why) dramatically limits your ability to roleplay. Enemies define you. If the antagonist of your character is defined, so you must to be pre-defined by the game.

The brilliance of New Vegas is that you can choose who will be your antagonist - and as the result it widens the range of who your character can be and what are his motivations/philosophies. The fact, that Deadfire doesn't have a defined antagonist isnt bad - Eothas provides a hook which forces you to chase him, however, he doesn't define your motivations (is it curiosity, revenge, faith, self-interest, "I don't care but would rather not die). But:
1) We don't get much chance to express/define our motivations for following Eothas.

2) Choosing our antagonist of choice (faction leader) feels rather contrived and unsatisfying. I didn't really oppose RDC and I certainly didn't oppose Huana - they become obstacles in my way. Maybe after all, faction leaders aren't your antagonist - but that makes the finale feel more like "oh, it's unfortunate you force me to kill you" rather than the conclusion of the ongoing conflict. Not enough hostility to make it "the antagonist fight" moment, not enough simpathy to make it "that's really tragic we have to do this out" moment. 

[Casper]

From the reliable source - Wikipedia

 

An antagonist is a character, group of characters, institution or concept that stands in or represents opposition against which the protagonist(s) must contend. In other words, an antagonist is a person or a group of people who opposes a protagonist.

 

I would argue that giving player a set antagonist in an RPG is detrimental to the idea of the genre. If you are asked to create a character, and therefore his goals and ideals, it also should be up to you to pick an antagonist (or not pick one). Giving the player a set antagonist (you are against this guy and here is why) dramatically limits your ability to roleplay. Enemies define you. If the antagonist of your character is defined, so you must to be pre-defined by the game.

 

The brilliance of New Vegas is that you can choose who will be your antagonist - and as the result it widens the range of who your character can be and what are his motivations/philosophies. The fact, that Deadfire doesn't have a defined antagonist isnt bad - Eothas provides a hook which forces you to chase him, however, he doesn't define your motivations (is it curiosity, revenge, faith, self-interest, "I don't care but would rather not die). But:

1) We don't get much chance to express/define our motivations for following Eothas.

2) Choosing our antagonist of choice (faction leader) feels rather contrived and unsatisfying. I didn't really oppose RDC and I certainly didn't oppose Huana - they become obstacles in my way. Maybe after all, faction leaders aren't your antagonist - but that makes the finale feel more like "oh, it's unfortunate you force me to kill you" rather than the conclusion of the ongoing conflict. Not enough hostility to make it "the antagonist fight" moment, not enough simpathy to make it "that's really tragic we have to do this out" moment. 

wait... does that mean that in the scope of this story... the protagonist is eathos.. and we (the player) is the antagonist?

[Slotharingia]

wait... does that mean that in the scope of this story... the protagonist is eathos.. and we (the player) is the antagonist?

we are probably more like Nemnok or Concelhaut in their pet form to Eothas than a proper antagonist xD

[Casper]

 

wait... does that mean that in the scope of this story... the protagonist is eathos.. and we (the player) is the antagonist?

we are probably more like Nemnok or Concelhaut in their pet form to Eothas than a proper antagonist xD

 

i can't really argue with that... however, i suppose it's not just the player character but the gods that sent him/her. so perhaps? 

[Karkarov]

I would argue that giving player a set antagonist in an RPG is detrimental to the idea of the genre. If you are asked to create a character, and therefore his goals and ideals, it also should be up to you to pick an antagonist (or not pick one). Giving the player a set antagonist (you are against this guy and here is why) dramatically limits your ability to roleplay. Enemies define you. If the antagonist of your character is defined, so you must to be pre-defined by the game.

Well that's the thing, RPG's often give the illusion of choice.  Just when done well you as the player don't notice.

 

Let's look back at Obsidian's RPG's.

 

Baldur's Gate 1/2, you get to make your character, choose their class, their sex, race, all this fun stuff.  As long as you understand you are Gorion's Ward, you grew up in Candlekeep, Imoen and Sarevok are your half siblings, and you are the son of the former god of murder.  Note how only those set things will ever be used as actual story beats, not whether you choose to be an elf for example.

 

Eternity 1, you can choose basically every aspect of your character.  Even what you were doing up to the game starting.  Once the game starts though?  You are the Watcher, you had a past life where you had a relationship with a revolutionary named Iovara, and you worked for Thaos Ix Arkanon as an inquisitor, and you used to be an Engwithan.  Note how only the set parts of your character ever come up as actual story beats.

 

How about Morrowind, a game so well built you can literally kill story critical NPC's and the game just lets you know you can't win anymore.  You can control all aspects of your backstory, total control.  Except for the fact that you will be a prisoner of the empire (Elder Scrolls Trope, I think only Daggerfall avoided it), and you are the reborn soul of Nerevar the greatest Dark Elf hero to ever live.  I give you one guess about what comes up in story beats of the game?

 

Even in a good old table top game, you are still more than likely fighting against a group, or individual.  A good GM just finds a way to give your character buy in for that conflict.  I even once played in a really great DnD campaign where the Antagonist was in fact the person we were working for, we just didn't know it at the time.  So even though we never ended up in some sword fight to the death, they were clearly our "opposing force" and had the campaign continued I imagine eventually we would have had to fight them on some level.

[Achilles]

From the reliable source - Wikipedia

 

An antagonist is a character, group of characters, institution or concept that stands in or represents opposition against which the protagonist(s) must contend. In other words, an antagonist is a person or a group of people who opposes a protagonist.

 

I would argue that giving player a set antagonist in an RPG is detrimental to the idea of the genre. If you are asked to create a character, and therefore his goals and ideals, it also should be up to you to pick an antagonist (or not pick one). Giving the player a set antagonist (you are against this guy and here is why) dramatically limits your ability to roleplay. Enemies define you. If the antagonist of your character is defined, so you must to be pre-defined by the game.

Keep in mind that every game you've ever played has given you a set antagonist. The "role play" comes in how you respond/react to the antagonist.

[Tagaziel]

I don't think so.

 

The main plot of this game is weak.  It is too short, there is no antagonist/villain/enemy/opposing force/whatever name you want to invent for it (your so called ally gods do more to make your life miserable than Eothas does, during actual gameplay at least), and there is no conflict because it is made clear very early that you can't stop Eothas you can just figure out what he is doing and hope it isn't too bad.  Yes it is also completely disconnected from every other aspect of the game, even Skyrim managed to make a crazy dragon show up in town sometimes.  Yes being disconnected from every other aspect is bad, as it removes all urgency from the story, and fails to tie in the game as a whole.

 

You keep using the word "antagonist". I'm not sure you understand what it means. Or conflict. Just because Eothas isn't chasing you all across Eora or fighting against him is pointless doesn't mean he's not an antagonist or there isn't any conflict.

Also your original point was how this story was just like Fallout New Vegas, and the factions were tied to the story.  Which you are now admitting they aren't in your last post.  So my point was made there regardless.

No, I said, specifically, that the factions are an integral part of the story, but you can choose to ignore them if you wish - and the story reacts accordingly, showing that without the Watcher's aid, the Archipelago descends into chaos.

 

If they weren't tied to the story, the game would simply ignore them.

 

Lastly, "classical story structure" is not a trope, it is how you construct your story so that it is enjoyable to read/watch/whatever and flows correctly.  This the main critical path of the game is not a well constructed story.

It is very much a trope.

 

Dude, you seem smart. But insistence on things like "correct story flow" (according to what?) and claiming that a story constructed in a different way is not well-constructed (again, according to what? What is the International Prototype Story Construction?) makes you look the opposite.

[Casper]

 

I would argue that giving player a set antagonist in an RPG is detrimental to the idea of the genre. If you are asked to create a character, and therefore his goals and ideals, it also should be up to you to pick an antagonist (or not pick one). Giving the player a set antagonist (you are against this guy and here is why) dramatically limits your ability to roleplay. Enemies define you. If the antagonist of your character is defined, so you must to be pre-defined by the game.

Well that's the thing, RPG's often give the illusion of choice.  Just when done well you as the player don't notice.

 

Let's look back at Obsidian's RPG's.

 

Baldur's Gate 1/2, you get to make your character, choose their class, their sex, race, all this fun stuff.  As long as you understand you are Gorion's Ward, you grew up in Candlekeep, Imoen and Sarevok are your half siblings, and you are the son of the former god of murder.  Note how only those set things will ever be used as actual story beats, not whether you choose to be an elf for example.

 

Eternity 1, you can choose basically every aspect of your character.  Even what you were doing up to the game starting.  Once the game starts though?  You are the Watcher, you had a past life where you had a relationship with a revolutionary named Iovara, and you worked for Thaos Ix Arkanon as an inquisitor, and you used to be an Engwithan.  Note how only the set parts of your character ever come up as actual story beats.

 

How about Morrowind, a game so well built you can literally kill story critical NPC's and the game just lets you know you can't win anymore.  You can control all aspects of your backstory, total control.  Except for the fact that you will be a prisoner of the empire (Elder Scrolls Trope, I think only Daggerfall avoided it), and you are the reborn soul of Nerevar the greatest Dark Elf hero to ever live.  I give you one guess about what comes up in story beats of the game?

 

Even in a good old table top game, you are still more than likely fighting against a group, or individual.  A good GM just finds a way to give your character buy in for that conflict.  I even once played in a really great DnD campaign where the Antagonist was in fact the person we were working for, we just didn't know it at the time.  So even though we never ended up in some sword fight to the death, they were clearly our "opposing force" and had the campaign continued I imagine eventually we would have had to fight them on some level.

 

it's been so long since i've played baldur's gate 1 or 2... so long in fact that i can't really remember it. and now i have a craving for buldur's gate. does anyone know if any of those remakes turned out to be anything resembling decent? i've heard a lot of horror stories saying hel no. 

Edited June 4, 2018 by Casper

[Stephen Unsworth-Mitchell]

I do have the enhanced edition of BG 1 and 2 not tried them. Yeah some people like some don't like. I bought them on sell as heard if both did well enough they planned to make BG 3

 

To date they not made.

 

So far not tried them yet, Got ID games to, not tried those yet.

[Karkarov]

it's been so long since i've played baldur's gate 1 or 2... so long in fact that i can't really remember it. and now i have a craving for buldur's gate. does anyone know if any of those remakes turned out to be anything resembling decent? i've heard a lot of horror stories saying hel no.

The Beamdog remakes are fine with a few caveats.

 

1: They added some new companions, these companions may or may not be your cup of tea.  You can ignore them either way so it isn't that big a deal.

 

2: The Dragonspear middle game thing they invented?  It is crap, it does not mesh well with the story, and feels very much like a separate product despite involving many of the same characters and happening chronologically between games.  So I strongly advise pretending it just doesn't exist.

 

3: There is some bonus content stuff not involving the NPC's and it feels a little out of place and monty haulish but it isn't that bad.

 

Everything else is basically the stock original games just with some enhanced resolution, ui tweaks, and a few gameplay changes.  Nothing that really hurts the games.  So I advise giving them a shot and if you just want as close to the original experience as possible bear those three things in mind.

[Stephen Unsworth-Mitchell]

Thanks Karkarov

 

Maybe now I finally get around to trying them after done with POE 2

[Casper]

 

it's been so long since i've played baldur's gate 1 or 2... so long in fact that i can't really remember it. and now i have a craving for buldur's gate. does anyone know if any of those remakes turned out to be anything resembling decent? i've heard a lot of horror stories saying hel no.

The Beamdog remakes are fine with a few caveats.

 

1: They added some new companions, these companions may or may not be your cup of tea.  You can ignore them either way so it isn't that big a deal.

 

2: The Dragonspear middle game thing they invented?  It is crap, it does not mesh well with the story, and feels very much like a separate product despite involving many of the same characters and happening chronologically between games.  So I strongly advise pretending it just doesn't exist.

 

3: There is some bonus content stuff not involving the NPC's and it feels a little out of place and monty haulish but it isn't that bad.

 

Everything else is basically the stock original games just with some enhanced resolution, ui tweaks, and a few gameplay changes.  Nothing that really hurts the games.  So I advise giving them a shot and if you just want as close to the original experience as possible bear those three things in mind.

 

seems my post didn't get posted... well, whatever.

like i was trying to say.

 

thanx for this, they're onsale for 5 bucks each, it's not like i have any wiggle room in my budget this month, but what the hel, it's not like i'll be in the black this month anyway. so, why not?

[topologista]

it's funny when people play a game in a setting that's undergoing colonization by imperial powers and get angry when a lot of the quests involve... colonial powers. and i enjoyed the fact that eothas wasn't a straight up antagonist or villain. 

 

gonna ramble here for a bit.

 

the theme of the first game was history and the effects it has on people and entire civilizations. all the companions you meet are struggling with issues of the past, from eder's brother dying while fighting for readceras to kana trying to steer rauatai towards a better future by learning from the past.  the watcher is tormented by their past. and then there's thaos, who lives "outside" of history because of his position as woedica's favored. he is the last of the engwithans, an ancient society so distraught with the lack of a solid foundation for eora (no gods) that they created one themselves. 

in contrast pillars 2 deals with renewal and, more broadly, change. change is inevitable when imperial powers begin colonizing regions. scientific and economic advances are made on the backs of indigenous people. the blood of the colonized becomes the food of the colonizers. colonialism causes the contradictions within indigenous cultures to be exacerbated to the point where entire cultures collapse (for example, the worsening lives of the roparu in neketaka). and then comes eothas, a wrecking-ball of change pummeling into the ancient machinery of moi gweath. and behind him is the watcher, the hound of eothas, who is placed in the difficult position of guiding this coming renewal. 
 

tl;dr eothas is more of a deuteragonist than an antagonist and that's pretty cool.

Edited June 4, 2018 by topologista

[Verde]

 

The thing is that, in New Vegas for example, there's no real reason for you to hurry and finish the critical path. Sure, the guy shot you in the head, but there's no real hurry in finding him, after which the faction stuff is in essence the main quest. While the critical path in deadfire makes an important point of you finding Eothas before everything is lost, including how you could die if you get too far from Eothas while he still has your soul, yet you end up sailing around the deadfire having fun for two years.

I have mentioned this in other threads, but this isn't exactly a new thing.

 

The much worshiped greatest villain of all time (some level of sarcasm is intended) Jon Irenicus is in no hurry to lay waste to his Elf City. In Eternity 1 Thaos is happy to sit down at that old Engwithan machine and think about turning it on while you go play in the snow, also doesn't your sanity have an expiration date? In Dragon Age Origins I hope you are ready to rally your men for the cause of defeating the Dark Spawn! I mean they just wiped out an army and sacked a town.... surely they will be wiping out all Ferelden sometime this year.... maybe? Meanwhile I better go put a stop to Alduin's madness and save all of Skyrim.... just as soon as I finish becoming master of the Mages College, head of the Fighters guild, speaker of some old crusty lady, put down a rebellion, pick those flowers.... what was I doing again?

 

I think you get my point.

Imho BG2 is the only game that did it well. You need money. Irenicus is locked away in the Alcatraz of Mage Prisons. You quest, you have time. Then once things get going they get going and you dont spend your time dilly dallying.

 

But PoE2 suffers the same pacing issues as most RPGs. Witcher 3 and Dragon Age:I come to mind. You'd think devs would have come up with a better solution but imho an 18 year old game still does it best.

Edited June 5, 2018 by Verde