Jump to content

Recommended Posts

 

I'd argue that no, logic is in no way a minimum requirement of storytelling, at least not on this planet. See: Romeo and Juliet's motives for marriage/suicide, Iago's motives for jealousy, or Achilles' motives for staying out of battle with the Trojans. 

Good of you to respond to everyone.

 

Okay, perhaps logic was the wrong word. My Shakespeare and Greek mythology is a little rusty, but teenage love, jealousy, and pride are all normal human motivations that we can sympathize with. On the other hand, Eothas' motivations are difficult to understand because we aren't given enough information. If we can't understand his motivations by the end of the game, it's bad writing.

Edited by Heijoushin
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of people have made very good suggestions as to how the main story could have easily been slightly altered to make sense. Examples being: give a plausible reason for not knowing where Eothas is/Eothas taking ages to get from a to b. Maybe he vacates the statue for x reason, for instance. Or just have him already have broken the wheel when the Watcher gets there and it's all about trying to find access to Ukaizo to find out what he did. The Watcher could even have gone there because he had a vision, asked Aloth & Eder for help, got ship wrecked, got involved in local stuff trying to sort his act out and then Eothas turns up. Ultimately there being very extreme urgency at the same time as the player hanging out in the Deadfire for 1-2 years does kind of mean that the main story has a bit of an issue. Eothas even

tells you where he's going.

.

 

PS I wish posts like this were in the spoiler section.

Edited by Slotharingia

nvAeseu.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why can't people like you just admit that the main plot sucks and that Obsidian need to do better in the future? Is it really so hard?

 

There were a million different ways they could have made the Eothas plot and factions/side content coexist with each other. If they wanted the Eothas plot to be a "framing device" and to focus the main plot around the factions (e.g. New Vegas), they could have easily done so. That's not what happened. What we got instead was railroaded garbage that took up far too many conversations and robbed the game of a more interesting ending.

 

Why can't people like you just get over yourself and accept that a person can have their own perspective?

 

Why do people like you have to be so antagonistic all the time?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why can't people like you just get over yourself and accept that a person can have their own perspective?

 

Why do people like you have to be so antagonistic all the time?

Maybe a forum isn't the best place for you if you think that someone disagreeing and wanting to argue with you about your "own perspective" is "antagonistic".

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Why can't people like you just get over yourself and accept that a person can have their own perspective?

 

Why do people like you have to be so antagonistic all the time?

Maybe a forum isn't the best place for you if you think that someone disagreeing and wanting to argue with you about your "own perspective" is "antagonistic".

 

No wonder these things are dying. God forgive me for wanting discussions to remain civil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Why can't people like you just get over yourself and accept that a person can have their own perspective?

 

Why do people like you have to be so antagonistic all the time?

 

Maybe a forum isn't the best place for you if you think that someone disagreeing and wanting to argue with you about your "own perspective" is "antagonistic".
But they are being anataginistic and don’t want to argue? They’re just stating that one opinion is objectively wrong.
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do agree that some of the criticism of the plot in this game is unfair and or over the top. Like the lack of urgency and the "why are you doing side quests?" problem exists in so many rpgs. Doesn't mean it can't be criticized here but I think it is probably always going to be a problem for games like this and I like games like this so I am fine with just coming up with my own explainations most of the time.

 

On the other hand I am confused as to why Obsidian did not tie the factions into the main plot more when there were so many oppertunities to do so. It wouldn't require much to be changed and would really improve many of the issue with this plot and leanthen the main quest by making some of the faction quests to some extent part of the main quest. Simple things like removing that scene upon entering Neketaka and making you work to progress the story. Why do all these people want to hire you? Oh because you are a watcher apparently and

Herald Of Berath

. Maybe you need a reputation first, or just something before these people will talk to you and trust you with their secrets. Their help will then help you progress the story. Maybe you actually do need to find luminous audra pillars to track Eothas? Maybe you aren't just immediately told where the important ones are and where to go next.

 

It wouldn't fix all the problems with the plot but it would help make everything your character does seem more important and more driven by your choices rather than the writers just pulling you along in the direction they want.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Why can't people like you just get over yourself and accept that a person can have their own perspective?

 

Why do people like you have to be so antagonistic all the time?

Maybe a forum isn't the best place for you if you think that someone disagreeing and wanting to argue with you about your "own perspective" is "antagonistic".

 

 

calling someone who disagrees with you "you people" is a little antagonistic.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No wonder these things are dying. God forgive me for wanting discussions to remain civil.

I didn’t see anything uncivil. I imagine many, like myself, were disappointed that OP didn’t actually have anything to defend Deadfire story with.

 

Deadfire is a good game. It’s story is lacking when compared to PoE1. Considering its direct sequel and uses the same protagonist disappointment is understandable.

 

Yes, New Vegas, to some extend did similar thing, however, what worked in New Vegas, just doesn’t work here (see my post above for details). Breath of the Wild maybe is a good game (never played it) but I never heard it praised for its story. There are games with a bad bad story, which are really really good games.

 

Unfortunately, being a sequel to PoE and an Obsidian game bring expectations - for some the story is no. 1 priority. And in that aspect the game is a disappointment. It’s also an improvement in some aspecs (pacing, variety).

 

Gameplay:

PoE<Deadfire (some major balancing needed)

 

Story:

PoE>Deadfire

Edited by Wormerine
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a feeling I'm getting to the end of the main narratice by heading to Ashen Maw so I'm putting it off for as long as possible. I tend to agree that there's not a whole lot of substance to the main plot that I've felt aside from our reason to push ahead.

 

The factions and side quests are what flesh out the world and you get the feeling that while Eothas stomping all over is a big danger, these people were already trying to survive, profit and generally **** each other over long before Eothas appeared. I'm glad the sidequests are there, as the main story is a little lacking atm for me in terms of depth, as much as I'm loving the game.

 

Also, shouldn't this be in Spoilers?


You read my post.

 

You have been eaten by a grue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Why can't people like you just get over yourself and accept that a person can have their own perspective?

 

Why do people like you have to be so antagonistic all the time?

Maybe a forum isn't the best place for you if you think that someone disagreeing and wanting to argue with you about your "own perspective" is "antagonistic".

 

 

calling someone who disagrees with you "you people" is a little antagonistic.

 

 

 

 

Why can't people like you just get over yourself and accept that a person can have their own perspective?

 

Why do people like you have to be so antagonistic all the time?

Maybe a forum isn't the best place for you if you think that someone disagreeing and wanting to argue with you about your "own perspective" is "antagonistic".
But they are being anataginistic and don’t want to argue? They’re just stating that one opinion is objectively wrong.

 

I wasn't trying to argue with the person's opinion (even though I think it's wrong). Everybody deserves to say their piece.

 

But the post itself just comes off as extremely rude and condescending.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The end of the main quest needs expansion. It is absolutely unclear why Eotas breaks the Wheel. I saw in this only revenge to gods. The desire to help people - it's just words? What is the favor for the inhabitants of Eora from the destruction of the Wheel?

In literature there is such a thing as a climax. In the main story I saw only the exposition (starting from the start and until the end of the line in Port Maje), a stretched ligature beginning from Asongo to the Ashen Maw. Well, and the beginning of the climax on the Ukaizo.

There is no denouement in the plot, and after then Obsidian give us a crumpled final in the form of slides - an epilogue.


Why defend it? The main quest does not have a denouement.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The side stories are definately better. However the main story, the watcher isn't even the protagonist. I can definately see how that might be disappointing to some - because it's central to the ending, it makes the player feel like their actions are irrelevant. It's also a cliff-hanger - you have no idea how the main story actually ends.

 

Personally I enjoyed he side stories enough. But it's not without flaw! 

Edited by drael6464

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Why can't people like you just admit that the main plot sucks and that Obsidian need to do better in the future? Is it really so hard?

 

There were a million different ways they could have made the Eothas plot and factions/side content coexist with each other. If they wanted the Eothas plot to be a "framing device" and to focus the main plot around the factions (e.g. New Vegas), they could have easily done so. That's not what happened. What we got instead was railroaded garbage that took up far too many conversations and robbed the game of a more interesting ending.

 

Why can't people like you just get over yourself and accept that a person can have their own perspective?

 

Why do people like you have to be so antagonistic all the time?

 

 

I'm not the one who started this smug ass thread claiming that people who dislike the story are "shallow" and "missing the point". Obsidian fans have got to be some of the most obnoxious I've come across.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't played the game yet. I won't have time to do it for many more months. (Regarding spoilers: I don't mind mild spoilers, or I wouldn't be hanging around here).

The thing is, from my point of view, it is very hard what to expect from Deadfire. While the game has relatively high scores on Metacritic and Steam, I see many people here and also on Steam who express what they don't like about the game.

Not only is the main storyline allegedly mediocre to very bad. But the characters are allegedly bland with no depth at all. The side quests are boring. The music is bad. I'm reading so many negative things here and on Steam.

Do I need to expect one of the "worst games ever" when I play the game? And that is how a Steam review actually called the game, "the worst game ever".

I don't understand how that matches the relatively high scores on Metacritic and on Steam.

A thread like this also worries me. "In Defense of the Story" - such a title makes me wonder why the story would need someone to defend it in the first place. If there was nothing wrong with the story why would anyone feel they need to defend it?

All of this makes me want to ask you: Is Deadfire really THAT bad?
 

  • Like 1

"Loyal Servant of His Most Fluffyness, Lord Kerfluffleupogus, Devourer of the Faithful!"

 

ringoffireresistance.gif *wearing the Ring of Fire Resistance* (gift from JFSOCC)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again you guys do know this is the non spoiler forum, so you can't even talk about eothas motivations.

All I will say is that I find it really odd people claim they don't know what they were, he tells you why he is doing what he is doing?  It isn't a big mystery.  If you can't relate to his motivations, okay, that's one thing.  Saying you don't know his motivations though?  No way, unless you paid zero attention.

Also...

 

The side stories are definately better. However the main story, the watcher isn't even the protagonist. I can definately see how that might be disappointing to some - because it's central to the ending, it makes the player feel like their actions are irrelevant. Personally I enjoyed he side stories enough. 

You guys noticed you weren't the "protagonist" in Eternity 1 as well right?  Eternity has been from day one a game where you play a character who was simply in the wrong place at the arguably right time.  You never had agency, you were forced into the path you followed in both games.

In Eternity 1 it was "Go after Thaos, or slowly go insane."
In Eternity 2 it is "Go after Eothas, or be returned to the afterlife by the gods."

You have never had a choice in either game.

I just find it ironic there are issues in this game that people are holding against it, but these same people love BG2, or played Eternity 1 and weren't on this forums calling out those issues then.  This game does make a lot of story mistakes, but not any new ones, Obsidian is guilty of all these mistakes in almost every game they make actually.

Edited by Karkarov
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

 

All of this makes me want to ask you: Is Deadfire really THAT bad?

 

Second game is in the shadow of the first game, with which it is compared. Not are really bad, only worse than the first Pillars of Eternity.

 

If first Pillars of Eternity have 9/10, 'Deadfire' have for me only 7.5-8/10.

 

On the release day, the game was rated at 90 metascore (And it's not true), and now this score falling.

 

I think the situation will change. After 3 DLCs and a pile of patches  by the end of 2018 the game will be good. But will it be better than the first game?

 

The second game has a lot of problems now.

Edited by Khagmas
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again you guys do know this is the non spoiler forum, so you can't even talk about eothas motivations.

 

All I will say is that I find it really odd people claim they don't know what they were, he tells you why he is doing what he is doing?  It isn't a big mystery.  If you can't relate to his motivations, okay, that's one thing.  Saying you don't know his motivations though?  No way, unless you paid zero attention.

 

Sorry for the spoilers boss. It's hard to discuss the story without 'em.

 

 

Right up until the end, Eothas is extremely vague. The watcher keeps demanding, "Why are you doing this?!" and Eothas keeps evading the question with remarks like, "It's all for a good cause, my child."  Then you get to the end, and he explains what he's doing, and it seems like kind of a **** move from the God of Light and Redemption. Since, y'know, it might destroy all life on Eora.

 

Edited by Heijoushin
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All of this makes me want to ask you: Is Deadfire really THAT bad?

 

 

While I don't think metascore's really matter much I will say that no I don't think it's "that bad". Critics over praised it but the over praise a lot of games, they over praised the first one too. It has simmilar main plot issues to the first IMO but they are just worse here probably due to even less focus being placed on that main plot. The rest of the game I would say for the most part is better.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Then you get to the end, and he explains what he's doing, and it seems like kind of a **** move from the God of Light and Redemption. Since, y'know, it might destroy all life on Eora.

 

 

 

That's not too surprising. After all, Eothas was created from a bunch of Engwithans, and if they were anything like Thaos, they were all about committing atrocities in the name of "the greater good."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Why can't people like you just admit that the main plot sucks and that Obsidian need to do better in the future? Is it really so hard?

 

There were a million different ways they could have made the Eothas plot and factions/side content coexist with each other. If they wanted the Eothas plot to be a "framing device" and to focus the main plot around the factions (e.g. New Vegas), they could have easily done so. That's not what happened. What we got instead was railroaded garbage that took up far too many conversations and robbed the game of a more interesting ending.

 

Why can't people like you just get over yourself and accept that a person can have their own perspective?

 

Why do people like you have to be so antagonistic all the time?

 

 

I'm not the one who started this smug ass thread claiming that people who dislike the story are "shallow" and "missing the point". Obsidian fans have got to be some of the most obnoxious I've come across.

 

 

and you've been nothing but an obnoxious troll since I've seen you on this forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All of this makes me want to ask you: Is Deadfire really THAT bad?

No, it's not bad, it's just not perfect. Overall, it's one of my favourite games ever and I vastly prefer it to 1. However, that doesn't mean one cannot see flaws in it and bring them up, maybe in the hope they get fixed or won't happen again next time round. Anyway, one of said flaws happens to be the urgency of main plot versus the Watcher hanging in the Deadfire for a prolongued period doing everything but what they went there for, and imo the vagueness of what Eothas' actions will result in.
  • Like 5

nvAeseu.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just my two cents on this. I think Deadfire is a really good game, bugs excepted, but I do agree that the Eothas plotline was underdeveloped and didn't really gel with the rest of the game. The fact that he is allegedly continuing to do *SPOILERS* the whole time doesn't make sense. He should be far faster at than the player at *SPOILERS* if they do any side quests at all. The only way the timeline works out is if the MC mainlines the critical path then goes the independent route.

 

As other people have pointed out, lots of games do this. But they don't have to, you could easily have a hard gate where something in Eothas' plan can't happen (or would take significantly) until the MC does something in the penultimate mission that sets the timer going, and that forces you into the endgame. As it is, the game pretends that the time pressure that exists at the narrative level doesn't exist at the gameplay level, which is always unsatisfactory.

 

That said, I don't have any issues with the details of Eothas' plan itself. I agree it should have been linked to the faction stuff (which is 100% the best part of the game) more, but I never felt lost or that the motivations didn't make sense after the reveal, even if the background of the *SPOILERS* themselves was very vague.

 

Anyway, I think Deadfire will be a better game than Pillars when the bugs are fixed and the difficulty is upped, with better gameplay, characters and side content, but it has a weaker critical path.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Lol @ the assumption that a great story or themes and ideas should be exclusive to film and literature. Far as I'm concerned games of a narrative kind should most definitely aim for these goals just as much as they should good gameplay. Better yet, they ought to think more regularly about how to integrate the two and use the interactivity offered by the medium as a narrative tool and means of expression. That's what I seek in the videogames I play, at least, and why I value videogames as an artform independent of literature, cinema or any other. But hey, maybe I'm just a lazy casual.

 

I think what they meant was gamers want a cinematic or literary tale which also affords the conceits of gameplay, which, unless you make something like Uncharted or the Last of Us, is not possible in all formats, because player agency and experimentation and nonlinearity is involved. Something has to give. If , for example, the Witcher was really on a dire quest to save the one person in his life he truly unconditionally loved, he wouldn't stop every two seconds for every peasant who needed help.

It's not possible because of a number of factors:

 

Player agency/non linearity/lore as you said.

 

Funding - this is not a Triple-A company and if you ask some, they are barely holding on financially. It seems to be one of those smaller devs that are being supported by the crowd and able to keep going because of it, not some faceless money beast that is just cutting corners for the sake of it.

 

Time - they already had to sacrifice balancing the gameplay of the game and higher difficulties for bugfixing as they stated, having to do those post release instead. Level scaling straight up didn't work on release, there were plenty of bugs and performance issues on release still and a whole host of other problems. Where are they going to get the extra time and again funding, to increase the quality of the story in a game more than it already is - when there's so many other factors to consider? (that are arguably more important to the medium.)

 

The fact that it is a game after all, as touched on - You may want to have the best of everything, but it's just not realistic. Some things are more important and more central than others in every medium and arguably the systems, mechanics, performance, bugs, balance, depth, length are all more important and then there's things like variety, audio, visual and other things that all need to be considered and worked on to end up at an above average level. Wanting to push the one aspect you happen to value higher than others, personally, is again just not a realistic expectation to have. I personally prefer combat depth and challenge and would rather that be expanded upon, but i get there are other needs.

 

Etc.

 

With the above in mind, it's a careful balancing act - where you can't just pump one thing, one aspect to suit individual needs. But rather shoot for a product that is great in all areas, rather than multiple areas suffering to make one amazing. So we get a "good" story, with good combat, good graphics, good audio, good exploration, good sized world that is also open etc etc.

 

P.S I get it - the casual crowd just wants, again, an interactive novel. Well i'm sorry but there's more to a game than that, thank god. There are again other mediums that do specialize in that though. You can't have everything and if you ask me, the gaming industry and anything for-profit caters to you enough already.

This is some nonsense and then some. Firstly, they did not 'sacrifice' balancing the gameplay, as they are fully committed to doing it and are currently doing as much - they merely gave relevance to things that they considered either more priorital or more essential for the game's end ambition first, that would either provide a worse player experience or would require far deeper and more fundamental changes to the game instead - things like, for example, game-breaking bugs, overall aesthetic, narrative design and so on. The choice to leave balancing for after release was done understanding exactly what kind of game they're making and what the game needs.

 

Secondly, you assume "other factors are arguably more important for the medium". No. There are aspects that ought to be present, but whether one is more important to a game than another depends on each individual example. The Wolf Among Us isn't relying on the same qualities as League of Legends is, nor is it a worse game for it. With Deadfire and several other Obsidian games, the primary focus *is* a narrative one - they're making a spiritual successor to the Black Isle games, who all placed their narrative at the forefront and excelled at it. Story is of *utmost* importance, whether you look at the game as a product you're targetting to an audience or as an artistic endeavour. If Deadfire's story fails, then to the majority of its *core audience* the game will fail, and this is not something that can easily be corrected post-launch.

 

As for the "casual crowds just want an interactive novel", **** that ****. Do you also argue that people who listen to songs just want sung poetry? Do you assume people who are into films with dialogue just want recorded theatre? Bollocks. And this utterly asinine stance wouldn't bother me so much if I hadn't heard it so many times before in this medium - as if this game didn't employ its every other aspect around the dialogue to tell a story as well. When you entered Fort Deadlight did you have to pick the option of "sneak", "fight", "bluff", or did you not simply do it? You assume your choices of action in the world itself outside dialogue do not tell a story? Audiovisual narrative is also a thing, or do you assume a film's narrative is only told through dialogue? Just so you know, videogames are an audiovisual medium too and thus employ many of the same devices. Who would have thought?

 

If you feel a game with a narrative focus is too "casual" for you, maybe I can recommend trying another game? One like CS:GO or DotA perhaps, which actually focus around competitive play (and which I, filthy casual that I am, have also played at different stages in my life, but that's an aside)? You would do best there than to stick around a forum for a casual game full of filthy casuals.

Edited by algroth
  • Like 5

My Twitch channel: https://www.twitch.tv/alephg

Currently playing: Disco Elysium

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't played the game yet. I won't have time to do it for many more months. (Regarding spoilers: I don't mind mild spoilers, or I wouldn't be hanging around here).

 

The thing is, from my point of view, it is very hard what to expect from Deadfire. While the game has relatively high scores on Metacritic and Steam, I see many people here and also on Steam who express what they don't like about the game.

 

Not only is the main storyline allegedly mediocre to very bad. But the characters are allegedly bland with no depth at all. The side quests are boring. The music is bad. I'm reading so many negative things here and on Steam.

 

Do I need to expect one of the "worst games ever" when I play the game? And that is how a Steam review actually called the game, "the worst game ever".

 

I don't understand how that matches the relatively high scores on Metacritic and on Steam.

 

A thread like this also worries me. "In Defense of the Story" - such a title makes me wonder why the story would need someone to defend it in the first place. If there was nothing wrong with the story why would anyone feel they need to defend it?

 

All of this makes me want to ask you: Is Deadfire really THAT bad?

 

 

I wouldn't agree with much of that. The music scoring is fantastic. Very atmospheric and potent. The little sea shanties are an excellent touch. The main storyline isn't bad, it's just....it's an ending you personally have slight influence in, and it's a bit of a cliffhanger. It's still has its moments thoroughout, and the substories that all tie in very well to it, are quite compelling. 

 

The chacters are memorable. They aren't all nessasarily relatable characters, but they are not bland - indeed quite amusing, or interesting. The graphics and the gameplay are superior to PoE1. Balance still needs a little tweaking, but it's an overall enjoyable game. Just remember that being a critic is a popular form of contrarianism and that entertainment is subjective. The only area I felt was weak was the ending, but it still wasn't aweful, and has some satisfaction especially in all the little details that you influenced throughout the world. The balance could be improved, and they are working on that - just some of the combats are less challenging than they could be (but some are).  

 

For all it's little flaws, it's the most enjoyable rpg I've played, so much so, I played it twice through - I've literally never done that for any game, not eve baldurs gate 2. 

 

I think it's fairer to say there is room for improvenment - but that of a game with a new RPG system, new rich world, the best graphics of any isometric rpg, fun combat mechanics, and some engaging stories, entertaining companions - those criticism should be put in context with all they do really well. 

Edited by drael6464
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...