Why cant I tell Xoti/Teheku that the gods are fake?

[wRAR]

So why not patch said content in?

To me this sounds like 'the dog ate my homework'. Why would you cut something from a main quest line that already has very sparse dialog? 

 

 

Well, they would need VO for those parts.

[Katarack21]

 

 

So yes, not being able to discuss all this with your main companions isn't bad writing; it is criminal writing.

 

I sense a lack of Chris Avallone here. It becomes apparent how much he may have actually been bringing to the table in storytelling and holding the other writers/producers accountable.

 

on JE Sawyer's blog, he makes it sounds like they have all sorts of docs written down about Eora and how everything works; likely this is the sort of stuff that Chris would have been a part of.

 

We only get a fraction of it, and JE Sawyer recently apologized on his blog about one specific confusion because the original cut of Deadfire had an explanation, but they had cut it because at the time they didn't think it was necessary, and all of them had been so immersed in the lore that they thought it was self-evident.

 

So I wouldn't blame a lack of Chris Avellone here because I would gather a lot has already been written down and just not revealed to us in game or in novellas. I would blame some hasty editorial choices at most.

 

 

So why not patch said content in?

 

To me this sounds like 'the dog ate my homework'. Why would you cut something from a main quest line that already has very sparse dialog? 

 

How do you know it "already" had sparse dialogue? For all we know it could've been a 30 minute monologue before they cut it.

[communard]

 

So why not patch said content in?

To me this sounds like 'the dog ate my homework'. Why would you cut something from a main quest line that already has very sparse dialog? 

 

 

Well, they would need VO for those parts.

 

And this is why I was really sad when they announced full VO. I actually considered withdrawing my donation in the vain hope the goal wouldn't be reached, but I realized I couldn't make that much difference. 

[FecklessFool]

 

 

 

So yes, not being able to discuss all this with your main companions isn't bad writing; it is criminal writing.

 

I sense a lack of Chris Avallone here. It becomes apparent how much he may have actually been bringing to the table in storytelling and holding the other writers/producers accountable.

 

on JE Sawyer's blog, he makes it sounds like they have all sorts of docs written down about Eora and how everything works; likely this is the sort of stuff that Chris would have been a part of.

 

We only get a fraction of it, and JE Sawyer recently apologized on his blog about one specific confusion because the original cut of Deadfire had an explanation, but they had cut it because at the time they didn't think it was necessary, and all of them had been so immersed in the lore that they thought it was self-evident.

 

So I wouldn't blame a lack of Chris Avellone here because I would gather a lot has already been written down and just not revealed to us in game or in novellas. I would blame some hasty editorial choices at most.

 

 

So why not patch said content in?

 

To me this sounds like 'the dog ate my homework'. Why would you cut something from a main quest line that already has very sparse dialog? 

 

How do you know it "already" had sparse dialogue? For all we know it could've been a 30 minute monologue before they cut it.

 

 

I know that the main quest line in Deadfire has very sparse dialog because I have played through it twice, and can confirm that it has indeed very sparse dialog. Almost as if the main quest line is only 5% of the game. 

 

 {Why would you cut something} {from a main quest line that already has very sparse dialog}? 

 

The first section there is where I talk about the cut content. The 2nd part is where I talk about the main quest line having sparse dialog. 

 

So sparse that it left main quest line talking bits so underwhelming and lacking.

Edited June 7, 2018 by FecklessFool

[cjmead5@yahoo.com]

 

So yes, not being able to discuss all this with your main companions isn't bad writing; it is criminal writing.

 

I sense a lack of Chris Avallone here. It becomes apparent how much he may have actually been bringing to the table in storytelling and holding the other writers/producers accountable.

 

on JE Sawyer's blog, he makes it sounds like they have all sorts of docs written down about Eora and how everything works; likely this is the sort of stuff that Chris would have been a part of.

 

We only get a fraction of it, and JE Sawyer recently apologized on his blog about one specific confusion because the original cut of Deadfire had an explanation, but they had cut it because at the time they didn't think it was necessary, and all of them had been so immersed in the lore that they thought it was self-evident.

 

So I wouldn't blame a lack of Chris Avellone here because I would gather a lot has already been written down and just not revealed to us in game or in novellas. I would blame some hasty editorial choices at most.

 

@ Thaumaturgist

 

I feel that those facts work against Sawyer's defense of the PoE2 story, not for him. The plot feels like it is jumping from one storyboard or idea about the lore to the next. Almost as if they were copying and pasting chunks that were developed around some piece of lore at one time or another and then have been strung together for this current game. There is a lack of polish to how the pieces meet and interact and a lack of options in the dialog. I found myself choosing [say nothing] at critical plot points, not because I had nothing to say, but because there was no option for what I wanted to say. It was HARD for me to get the Stoic points in PoE1.

 

With the light of all the old notes to work from, it feels like they just copy and pasted from all of that stack of work like a lazy kid writing a report by copying lots of big quotes and doing the bare minimum to link them. This is would explain why the plot is not durable with regards to player choice.

 

[Katarack21]

 

 

 

 

So yes, not being able to discuss all this with your main companions isn't bad writing; it is criminal writing.

 

I sense a lack of Chris Avallone here. It becomes apparent how much he may have actually been bringing to the table in storytelling and holding the other writers/producers accountable.

 

on JE Sawyer's blog, he makes it sounds like they have all sorts of docs written down about Eora and how everything works; likely this is the sort of stuff that Chris would have been a part of.

 

We only get a fraction of it, and JE Sawyer recently apologized on his blog about one specific confusion because the original cut of Deadfire had an explanation, but they had cut it because at the time they didn't think it was necessary, and all of them had been so immersed in the lore that they thought it was self-evident.

 

So I wouldn't blame a lack of Chris Avellone here because I would gather a lot has already been written down and just not revealed to us in game or in novellas. I would blame some hasty editorial choices at most.

 

 

So why not patch said content in?

 

To me this sounds like 'the dog ate my homework'. Why would you cut something from a main quest line that already has very sparse dialog? 

 

How do you know it "already" had sparse dialogue? For all we know it could've been a 30 minute monologue before they cut it.

 

 

I know that the main quest line in Deadfire has very sparse dialog because I have played through it twice, and can confirm that it has indeed very sparse dialog. Almost as if the main quest line is only 5% of the game. 

 

 {Why would you cut something} {from a main quest line that already has very sparse dialog}? 

 

The first section there is where I talk about the cut content. The 2nd part is where I talk about the main quest line having sparse dialog. 

 

So sparse that it left main quest line talking bits so underwhelming and lacking.

 

"{Why would you cut something} {from a main quest line that already has very sparse dialog}?"

 

Yes. What your saying is that, *when they cut the line*, it had spare dialogue. And we don't know *what* the dialogue was like *when they cut the line*. Because we've never seen what the dialogue was like *when they cut the line*. We've only seen it *after* the cut, when it was sparse. We know the cut *MADE* it sparser; we don't know if it "already had very sparse dialogue". It's possible it only has sparse dialogue *because the line was cut*.

 

Edited June 8, 2018 by Katarack21

[Seroster01]

"{Why would you cut something} {from a main quest line that already has very sparse dialog}?"

 

Yes. What your saying is that, *when they cut the line*, it had spare dialogue. And we don't know *what* the dialogue was like *when they cut the line*. Because we've never seen what the dialogue was like *when they cut the line*. We've only seen it *after* the cut, when it was sparse. We know the cut *MADE* it sparser; we don't know if it "already had very sparse dialogue". It's possible it only has sparse dialogue *because the line was cut*.

 

 

I'll jump in here: all he's saying is that the one we got IS very sparse.  You could add a lot more explanation to it in many different directions and it would still have room for more. 

 

He wasn't saying it was sparse before the cut.  Just that what we did get was sparse, and there could've been a lot more added.  Why would you cut out any main story content when you can, in the release version, complete the game in <30m as long as you had ~100k moneys & good stealth?  That's the crux of the question.

[Katarack21]

 

"{Why would you cut something} {from a main quest line that already has very sparse dialog}?"

 

Yes. What your saying is that, *when they cut the line*, it had spare dialogue. And we don't know *what* the dialogue was like *when they cut the line*. Because we've never seen what the dialogue was like *when they cut the line*. We've only seen it *after* the cut, when it was sparse. We know the cut *MADE* it sparser; we don't know if it "already had very sparse dialogue". It's possible it only has sparse dialogue *because the line was cut*.

 

 

I'll jump in here: all he's saying is that the one we got IS very sparse.  You could add a lot more explanation to it in many different directions and it would still have room for more. 

 

He wasn't saying it was sparse before the cut.  Just that what we did get was sparse, and there could've been a lot more added.  Why would you cut out any main story content when you can, in the release version, complete the game in <30m as long as you had ~100k moneys & good stealth?  That's the crux of the question.

 

But...that's not how the sentence parses.

 

"{Why would you cut something} {from a main quest line that already has very sparse dialog"

 

"cut from...already has..."

 

The sentence literally is asking why you cut the dialogue from something that is *ALREADY* sparse. That means that the dialogue *HAD* to be sparse *before it was cut*. That's literally *what the sentence says*. It may not be the intended meaning, but that just means they have to go back and explain what they meant/fix the sentence. My response about not knowing what the dialogue was prior to the cutting is a totally legit statement.

[marimo]

I love this thread. 

 

We are the main character of this game: we are supposed to be changing the world.

Heck the choice to destroy the wheel or stop Eothas from destroying it IS changing the world very fundamentally.

 

WORSE the fact that the wheel was built to support the function of these amalgam constructs/Engwithians and that society existed for quite some time without them and without hollow born or soul maladies makes for a HUGE point of concern about whether they should be kept or destroyed.

 

Then there is Rekke who I picked up floating in the middle of the ocean NE of shipwreck reef. Once he learns enough Adeyran the plot really thickens: he can read the mysterious tablets you find here and there, claims to have been part of a missionary expedition to head west and make it past the storms (cause no one's ever been there), and spread the word of their God. Big "G" singular god. No multiple gods. Meaning The Engwithian God experiment may not have been planet wide and the "gods" have cut the area of Eora off from the rest of the world. 

 

This has profound ramifications. Destroying the Wheel could be breaking the cage that all of the areas in PoE 1, 2, & beyond are kept in.

 

So yes, not being able to discuss all this with your main companions isn't bad writing; it is criminal writing.

 

I sense a lack of Chris Avallone here. It becomes apparent how much he may have actually been bringing to the table in storytelling and holding the other writers/producers accountable.

I'd call things like Rekke's dialogue, the question of what existed before the Wheel as we know it, and what other gods might be out there intentional breadcrumbs pointing towards a third game rather than "criminal" writing. 

 

And as much as I enjoy his work, I think this hero-worshippy idea that Avellone is the only good games writer out there is a little weird.

[Seroster01]

But...that's not how the sentence parses.

 

"{Why would you cut something} {from a main quest line that already has very sparse dialog"

 

"cut from...already has..."

 

The sentence literally is asking why you cut the dialogue from something that is *ALREADY* sparse. That means that the dialogue *HAD* to be sparse *before it was cut*. That's literally *what the sentence says*. It may not be the intended meaning, but that just means they have to go back and explain what they meant/fix the sentence. My response about not knowing what the dialogue was prior to the cutting is a totally legit statement.

I mean, a MQ chain you can beat in 30 min as long as you have the monetary funds to skip the "side quests" that make up most of the game sounds like it's short on dialogue to me. From what I read, the dialogue Sawyer was talking about refers specifically to slides removed from the end-game dialogue tree, not the whole quest chain. That's the basis of the issue we're discussing here. The MQ is short on dialogue because the MQ, as a whole, is short.

 

Either way, he already clarified his statement once & you asked for more, so I tried to help clarify it. If you're now splitting hairs about "he didn't say what he meant" it feels like we're getting into the territory of "arguing for argument's sake."

 

Edit: clarified things in 1st paragraph.

Edited June 8, 2018 by Seroster01

[FecklessFool]

 

 

 

 

 

So yes, not being able to discuss all this with your main companions isn't bad writing; it is criminal writing.

 

I sense a lack of Chris Avallone here. It becomes apparent how much he may have actually been bringing to the table in storytelling and holding the other writers/producers accountable.

 

on JE Sawyer's blog, he makes it sounds like they have all sorts of docs written down about Eora and how everything works; likely this is the sort of stuff that Chris would have been a part of.

 

We only get a fraction of it, and JE Sawyer recently apologized on his blog about one specific confusion because the original cut of Deadfire had an explanation, but they had cut it because at the time they didn't think it was necessary, and all of them had been so immersed in the lore that they thought it was self-evident.

 

So I wouldn't blame a lack of Chris Avellone here because I would gather a lot has already been written down and just not revealed to us in game or in novellas. I would blame some hasty editorial choices at most.

 

 

So why not patch said content in?

 

To me this sounds like 'the dog ate my homework'. Why would you cut something from a main quest line that already has very sparse dialog? 

 

How do you know it "already" had sparse dialogue? For all we know it could've been a 30 minute monologue before they cut it.

 

 

I know that the main quest line in Deadfire has very sparse dialog because I have played through it twice, and can confirm that it has indeed very sparse dialog. Almost as if the main quest line is only 5% of the game. 

 

 {Why would you cut something} {from a main quest line that already has very sparse dialog}? 

 

The first section there is where I talk about the cut content. The 2nd part is where I talk about the main quest line having sparse dialog. 

 

So sparse that it left main quest line talking bits so underwhelming and lacking.

 

"{Why would you cut something} {from a main quest line that already has very sparse dialog}?"

 

Yes. What your saying is that, *when they cut the line*, it had spare dialogue. And we don't know *what* the dialogue was like *when they cut the line*. Because we've never seen what the dialogue was like *when they cut the line*. We've only seen it *after* the cut, when it was sparse. We know the cut *MADE* it sparser; we don't know if it "already had very sparse dialogue". It's possible it only has sparse dialogue *because the line was cut*.

 

 

 

You need to up your reading comprehension friend. I'm talking about how short and lacking in dialog the main quest is. So why cut something from a main quest that already is so short, contradicts previously established lore, and as Sawyer admits, ends up confusing people? 

 

No one is saying that what was cut is sparse. 

Edited June 8, 2018 by FecklessFool

[cjmead5@yahoo.com]

 

I love this thread. 

 

We are the main character of this game: we are supposed to be changing the world.

Heck the choice to destroy the wheel or stop Eothas from destroying it IS changing the world very fundamentally.

 

WORSE the fact that the wheel was built to support the function of these amalgam constructs/Engwithians and that society existed for quite some time without them and without hollow born or soul maladies makes for a HUGE point of concern about whether they should be kept or destroyed.

 

Then there is Rekke who I picked up floating in the middle of the ocean NE of shipwreck reef. Once he learns enough Adeyran the plot really thickens: he can read the mysterious tablets you find here and there, claims to have been part of a missionary expedition to head west and make it past the storms (cause no one's ever been there), and spread the word of their God. Big "G" singular god. No multiple gods. Meaning The Engwithian God experiment may not have been planet wide and the "gods" have cut the area of Eora off from the rest of the world. 

 

This has profound ramifications. Destroying the Wheel could be breaking the cage that all of the areas in PoE 1, 2, & beyond are kept in.

 

So yes, not being able to discuss all this with your main companions isn't bad writing; it is criminal writing.

 

I sense a lack of Chris Avallone here. It becomes apparent how much he may have actually been bringing to the table in storytelling and holding the other writers/producers accountable.

I'd call things like Rekke's dialogue, the question of what existed before the Wheel as we know it, and what other gods might be out there intentional breadcrumbs pointing towards a third game rather than "criminal" writing. 

 

And as much as I enjoy his work, I think this hero-worshippy idea that Avellone is the only good games writer out there is a little weird.

@marimo

 

No hero worship here. I am comparing the first game to the second. Honestly, if I was not told that they were made by the same studio I would assume this one was some crappy knock-off cash grab by a studio they outsourced it to.

 

As far as I know, we should be seeing similar talent in the writing, world design, and role playing elements. For it to have fallen so far.... Who else left, got kicked out, etc? Did they purge the department? If none of that happened then the question comes back what happened to this game?

 

As to Rekke, let's first separate him from the criminal writing comment, I never put those together.

Rekke is a huge hanging thread that only has connection to the weird tablets you find in, I think, Neketaka to join him to anything else in the game. So the tablet shows he isn't a one off and that we should take his story seriously. However, the subject matter of the tablet almost undercuts the character as anything other than a gag. But his story undercuts the PoE story in some big ways... 

 

Can you say it is bad writing? I don't know. He was funny, I would have liked to know more about him and where he came from. I don't have those options though. He was strange in that you could have serious dialog with him beyond what you get from the sidekicks normally. Maybe he was a cut character and story line that they put in for fun?

 

But he doesn't seem to be from the past. (where did you draw that conclusion from?)

 

If he is breadcrumbs to a third game, where the gods have failed; I have a fear of that game. It will barter away the central premise of these games for a basic swords & sorcery with steampunk. There won't be much to build off of.  Everything from the past 2 games will be meaningless, and the ending of this game will be overwritten or subjugated to no impact. That would be bad writing.

 

My final conclusion: Rekke should have been a major player or not at all. Honestly, I find him more interesting then some of our companions so I'm confused by him. 

 

But this is par for the course in this game.

[marimo]

@marimo

No hero worship here. I am comparing the first game to the second. Honestly, if I was not told that they were made by the same studio I would assume this one was some crappy knock-off cash grab by a studio they outsourced it to.

 

 

As far as I know, we should be seeing similar talent in the writing, world design, and role playing elements. For it to have fallen so far.... Who else left, got kicked out, etc? Did they purge the department? If none of that happened then the question comes back what happened to this game?

 

As to Rekke, let's first separate him from the criminal writing comment, I never put those together.

Rekke is a huge hanging thread that only has connection to the weird tablets you find in, I think, Neketaka to join him to anything else in the game. So the tablet shows he isn't a one off and that we should take his story seriously. However, the subject matter of the tablet almost undercuts the character as anything other than a gag. But his story undercuts the PoE story in some big ways... 

 

Can you say it is bad writing? I don't know. He was funny, I would have liked to know more about him and where he came from. I don't have those options though. He was strange in that you could have serious dialog with him beyond what you get from the sidekicks normally. Maybe he was a cut character and story line that they put in for fun?

 

But he doesn't seem to be from the past. (where did you draw that conclusion from?)

 

If he is breadcrumbs to a third game, where the gods have failed; I have a fear of that game. It will barter away the central premise of these games for a basic swords & sorcery with steampunk. There won't be much to build off of.  Everything from the past 2 games will be meaningless, and the ending of this game will be overwritten or subjugated to no impact. That would be bad writing.

 

My final conclusion: Rekke should have been a major player or not at all. Honestly, I find him more interesting then some of our companions so I'm confused by him. 

 

But this is par for the course in this game.

 

Well, I disagree with your basic premise that there was a huge drop in quality between PoE1 and 2. You are, of course, welcome to your opinion but it just is not an objective truth. 

 

Re: Rekke

I don't see how his backstory undercuts PoE1 at all but maybe you can elaborate. As for the tablet, it's meant to be funny, sure, but it also tells you something about Rekke's culture: that horses are important to it. There are little clues in a lot of his lines that tell you about him and his country and I consider them breadcrumbs. Here's some canonical references to other cultures, languages, peoples, religions, and landmasses, isn't that interesting? This will probably come into play in future installments. Why does this all have to be 100% explained in Deadfire for it not to be considered "bad writing"? Also I never said Rekke was from the past, dunno where you got that from.

 

You're making a looooooot of assumptions about what a third game would look like. There's absolutely no reason I can see that it would look like this phantom game you fear. 

[Katarack21]

 

 

 

 

 

 

So yes, not being able to discuss all this with your main companions isn't bad writing; it is criminal writing.

 

I sense a lack of Chris Avallone here. It becomes apparent how much he may have actually been bringing to the table in storytelling and holding the other writers/producers accountable.

 

on JE Sawyer's blog, he makes it sounds like they have all sorts of docs written down about Eora and how everything works; likely this is the sort of stuff that Chris would have been a part of.

 

We only get a fraction of it, and JE Sawyer recently apologized on his blog about one specific confusion because the original cut of Deadfire had an explanation, but they had cut it because at the time they didn't think it was necessary, and all of them had been so immersed in the lore that they thought it was self-evident.

 

So I wouldn't blame a lack of Chris Avellone here because I would gather a lot has already been written down and just not revealed to us in game or in novellas. I would blame some hasty editorial choices at most.

 

 

So why not patch said content in?

 

To me this sounds like 'the dog ate my homework'. Why would you cut something from a main quest line that already has very sparse dialog? 

 

How do you know it "already" had sparse dialogue? For all we know it could've been a 30 minute monologue before they cut it.

 

 

I know that the main quest line in Deadfire has very sparse dialog because I have played through it twice, and can confirm that it has indeed very sparse dialog. Almost as if the main quest line is only 5% of the game. 

 

 {Why would you cut something} {from a main quest line that already has very sparse dialog}? 

 

The first section there is where I talk about the cut content. The 2nd part is where I talk about the main quest line having sparse dialog. 

 

So sparse that it left main quest line talking bits so underwhelming and lacking.

 

"{Why would you cut something} {from a main quest line that already has very sparse dialog}?"

 

Yes. What your saying is that, *when they cut the line*, it had spare dialogue. And we don't know *what* the dialogue was like *when they cut the line*. Because we've never seen what the dialogue was like *when they cut the line*. We've only seen it *after* the cut, when it was sparse. We know the cut *MADE* it sparser; we don't know if it "already had very sparse dialogue". It's possible it only has sparse dialogue *because the line was cut*.

 

 

 

You need to up your reading comprehension friend. I'm talking about how short and lacking in dialog the main quest is. So why cut something from a main quest that already is so short, contradicts previously established lore, and as Sawyer admits, ends up confusing people? 

 

No one is saying that what was cut is sparse. 

 

You literally stated that it "already had very sparse dialogue". It can't "already be sparse" at the point of the cut unless it was..well...already sparse. Nothing is wrong with my reading comprehension; you need to make sure you express your ideas clearly.

[Shadenuat]

I don't know if people noticed but the whole revelation from 1st game doesn't mean **** in PoE2. Not just for 2 companions but, like, for everyone.

Edited June 9, 2018 by Shadenuat

[aksrasjel]

Yeah, I think Obsidian kinda shot themselves in the foot with this grand revelation of "Gods are artificial" back in PoE 1. It was done way too quickly - they should've waited at least for the sequel, I think - and it's too big of a deal to ignore that. That is also probably a reason why we can't have a low-key, mundane story after PoE 1 and we're stuck with gods' business for a time being. Yet the writers don't seem to know how to address that, so they try to ignore that anyway, or at least try to downplay this plot point - I don't remember my Watcher ever calling Berath or the rest of the pantheon out on being "artificial", or even being able to mention that to *anyone* - and that most definately should be a thing in Deadfire.

Edited June 10, 2018 by aksrasjel

[Celan]

It seems to me that Xoti in particular gets more zealous the further you go in the game, so her unwillingness to deal honestly with the identity of the gods is a compensation. I mean, Eothas basically tells you, if someone has made that their mental grounding, simply telling them otherwise is not going to change them.

[Verde]

A tangent but I absolute HATE how Xoti calls me a Watcher so casually in front of the governer.

[Yria]

I don't know if this was ever brought up, but apparently there is at least one instance when you CAN try telling people about the Engwithan origin of the gods. It's in the conversation with Adaryc.

 

 

In my case he reacted to my Clever 2 rep and called me a heretic. Xoti also gave me a huge disapprove but didn't comment on it. Can't say I'm surprised, it's more or less what I expected from them, though Xoti could at least ask me to elaborate I guess. 

[Tick]

I'm actually kind of excited to see a thread like this, going to read it shortly.  This is one of my bigger gripes with Deadfire.  If they had addressed why you don't talk about it more (because no one will believe you, I'm assuming was the developers' thinking), or given you opportunities to try and then fail or something, I wouldn't mind.  I think if they had added more occasions where the player can try and largely fail, it would also help people become more sympathetic to Eothas's attitude about the whole thing.

 

I don't know if this was ever brought up, but apparently there is at least one instance when you CAN try telling people about the Engwithan origin of the gods. It's in the conversation with Adaryc.

 

 

In my case he reacted to my Clever 2 rep and called me a heretic. Xoti also gave me a huge disapprove but didn't comment on it. Can't say I'm surprised, it's more or less what I expected from them, though Xoti could at least ask me to elaborate I guess. 

 

Thank you for posting this! That's interesting.

 

When I played (before DLC and patches) there were at least two times I could say something along those lines.  There was one with Eder and Bearn where you can tell him the gods aren't real, but it's in a very unconvincing way that kind of lampshades how ridiculous it sounds, so I didn't try that route (but I'm glad it was there).

 

In the DLC, there was actually a lot of content where you could bring this stuff up.  I was extremely happy to see that.

Edited August 5, 2018 by Tick

[house2fly]

You can also tell the vithrack in Delver's Row when he asks you to tell him a secret. Don't know how he reacts to it, I kind of liked keeping that secret given the opportunity.

 

I agree with the developer comments I've seen that you wouldn't be able to actually convince anyone of the truth, but I'd still have liked more options to say it. Especially with companions, where it could affect your relationships. It's not just you that knows either- Aloth, Pallegina and Eder could all have it affect their relationships with other companions too

[Tick]

You can also tell the vithrack in Delver's Row when he asks you to tell him a secret. Don't know how he reacts to it, I kind of liked keeping that secret given the opportunity.

 

I agree with the developer comments I've seen that you wouldn't be able to actually convince anyone of the truth, but I'd still have liked more options to say it. Especially with companions, where it could affect your relationships. It's not just you that knows either- Aloth, Pallegina and Eder could all have it affect their relationships with other companions too

Wait the developers have touched on this?

 

I largely agree with that sentiment too, and said sentiment fits with the rest of the game. I think there could be exceptions, but that the majority would write you off. But also, as you've said, I think it's good to give the opportunity and fail, especially since it reaffirms some parts of the story. I think they handled it well in parts of the game and DLC.

[Verde]

As a Watcher you know you scare the bajesus out of people. They've told you this. You've seen terrible things. Now think of the Watcher, one of the most esteemed characters in Eora, saying "The Gods aren't real." These God-fearing simple minded folk would not even grasp the thought. But alas there are also devote Lords and Royalty. They would probably turn on the Watcher. Oh there is also Waidwen...how do you explain away a whole war?

Edited August 6, 2018 by Verde