Jump to content
misterjimmy

Josh:"The Watcher don't have particular reason to fight Eothas."

Recommended Posts

I’m not sure I agree that this was “vague”.

Some of this is, again, a writing issue. The accounting you gave is all very nice, but for many people that was not the takeaway. Gromnir's earlier point is applicable: huge exposition dumps are actually a pretty bad way of explaining these things.

 

(There's also the fact that, moralizations aside, Eothas' plan as you describe it pretty much comes down to, "smash things without asking anyone's opinion, and let the little people sort it out." While the plan and motives there are pretty clear, the intended outcome is vague at best and infuriatingly disinterested in the specifics of mortal existence at worst. Maybe that's intentional: as Iovara said, Eothas is an ideal, and an ideal decoupled from reality is a grotesque thing.)

  • Like 2

If I'm typing in red, it means I'm being sarcastic. But not this time.

Dark green, on the other hand, is for jokes and irony in general.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I’m not sure I agree that this was “vague”.

Some of this is, again, a writing issue. The accounting you gave is all very nice, but for many people that was not the takeaway. Gromnir's earlier point is applicable: huge exposition dumps are actually a pretty bad way of explaining these things.

 

(There's also the fact that, moralizations aside, Eothas' plan as you describe it pretty much comes down to, "smash things without asking anyone's opinion, and let the little people sort it out." While the plan and motives there are pretty clear, the intended outcome is vague at best and infuriatingly disinterested in the specifics of mortal existence at worst. Maybe that's intentional: as Iovara said, Eothas is an ideal, and an ideal decoupled from reality is a grotesque thing.)

“Huge exposition dumps” = a handful of conversations spread over the course of the game.

 

The second part of your post is a non sequitur; the point was whether or not his actions were “vague”, not whether or not you agree with them

  • Like 1

"Art and song are creations but so are weapons and lies"

"Our worst enemies are inventions of the mind. Pleasure. Fear. When we see them for what they are, we become unstoppable."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the first run I attempted to wait for Eothas to break the Wheel, so I could get Berath (and the other gods), but it didn't work. I don't have any issues with the ending or Ukaizo, except the lack of autosave between the dialogue with the Guardian and the battle against it (I hope that the ability to skip the encounter was intended and will remain in the game). If the area or the last dialogue sequence were longer, it'd be worse, because I (and, likely, a lot of people here) am going to replay it after each DLC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“Huge exposition dumps” = a handful of conversations spread over the course of the game.

Yes, and it would've been useful to a lot of people's understanding if the information had been discussed more than a handful of times, and had been an essential part of the game's narrative fabric rather than being thrown at you occasionally. People learn through repetition, which is why presenting the same information many times but with different framing and slight expansion is a standard narrative technique.

 

Just going by this board (and I expect, since this board skews towards obsessive analysis, it's probably better here than average), a lot of people didn't take away what you did about Eothas' plans (obviously anecdotal, but for the purposes of this discussion and how much I care about it, that's good enough). If those plans weren't clearly communicated, that's a problem with the writing regardless of whether you, personally, followed it all without problems.

 

The second part of your post is a non sequitur; the point was whether or not his actions were “vague”, not whether or not you agree with them

I did in fact put that paragraph in parentheses because it got off topic while contemplating your larger point. Luckily, this isn't debate club, so my Internet Argument Points are safe.

 

Snark aside, I thought I specifically said that while the means and motives were clear, the intended consequences were the part that could be taken as vague (in fact, I did say that, but I suppose I should've devoted more than a passing line to the point). Forgive me if I was vague, I'll rephrase. Eothas' plan can be construed as something like this:

  • Step 1: Possess Adra statue
  • Step 2: Break the wheel
  • Step 3: ???
  • Step 4: Self-determination?
So yeah, I think it's understandable how people could look at that and think, "wow that's a pretty vague plan." It's not the sole correct reading, but it's a reading.

 

(Mind you, this is all a very "I think I can safely say I speak for others when I say," line of reasoning I've presented, so it's intrinsically specious on those grounds. It is what it is.)

  • Like 1

If I'm typing in red, it means I'm being sarcastic. But not this time.

Dark green, on the other hand, is for jokes and irony in general.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He crushed your keep, killed your servants, killed you, stole your soul, and worst of all, stole your freaking statue!

There is no reason why the watcher couldn't have sopped up souls for himself and fought the 100m god. But hell, why stop at Eothas? Let's fight /all the gods/!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He crushed your keep, killed your servants, killed you, stole your soul, and worst of all, stole your freaking statue!

 

There is no reason why the watcher couldn't have sopped up souls for himself and fought the 100m god. But hell, why stop at Eothas? Let's fight /all the gods/!

 

Ooh, ooh, and after we beat Eothas, we can turn the statue into a giant god-fighting mecha!


If I'm typing in red, it means I'm being sarcastic. But not this time.

Dark green, on the other hand, is for jokes and irony in general.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

“Huge exposition dumps” = a handful of conversations spread over the course of the game.

Yes, and it would've been useful to a lot of people's understanding if the information had been discussed more than a handful of times, and had been an essential part of the game's narrative fabric rather than being thrown at you occasionally. People learn through repetition, which is why presenting the same information many times but with different framing and slight expansion is a standard narrative technique.

And this is why we can’t have nice things: people who insist on having everything spoon-fed to them.

"Art and song are creations but so are weapons and lies"

"Our worst enemies are inventions of the mind. Pleasure. Fear. When we see them for what they are, we become unstoppable."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

“Huge exposition dumps” = a handful of conversations spread over the course of the game.

Yes, and it would've been useful to a lot of people's understanding if the information had been discussed more than a handful of times, and had been an essential part of the game's narrative fabric rather than being thrown at you occasionally. People learn through repetition, which is why presenting the same information many times but with different framing and slight expansion is a standard narrative technique.
And this is why we can’t have nice things: people who insist on having everything spoon-fed to them.

 

exposition is spoon feeding.  instead o' letting the audience reach conclusions by observing actions and behaviors o' characters as they deal with obstacles, we get a disembodied narrator laying out raisons d'être and thematic focus like a butcher in a bloody smock placing pork chops in a display cabinet.  is no elegance.  is no art.  sure, the obsidian writer throws in a bit o' purple prose to to dress up the pork chops, but is just meat... cold, thick, dead meat.

 

theatrical cut or director's cut o' blade runner(1982)? why?

 

or

 

http://www.url-der.org/a_clean_well_lighted_place.pdf

 

hemingway does more in a few pages than obsidian does in tens of hours and cutscene narration after cutscene narration after cutscenenarationafter...

 

am not expecting hemingway from an obsidian crpg, deadfire is not a short story after all, but while the developers try and dazzle us with complex plot, flowery prose and excessive gosh darn exposition, they could instead be developing meaningful character and theme.  poe1 were actual a good move in the right direction with all joinable companion side stories sharing common theme with the main narrative.  "bout time" says Gromnir as we has been lamenting for years how crpg stories is wasting the joinables on tangential stuff when such characters is better suited than the protagonist for advancing narrative. deadfire backslides with joinables once again relegated to telling largely insular and discrete stories which less direct impact larger thematic concerns than in the earlier title o' the series. in poe we is privy to past memories-- we get a glimpse o' the o' the bar in hemingway's story.  in deadfire, the narrator tells all, spoon feeding.

 

the deadfire story had a relative limited number o' key plot points.  deadfire developers clear wanted to indulge player demand for greater opportunities for "exploration" than were available in poe.  if you is gonna tell a story as/more complex as poe but with much less content devoted to critical path, then you need be far more deft than were the case in poe, or you need resort to exposition. am understanding why the obsidinaties resorted to exposition for deadfire. reasonable approach given limits.  am nevertheless thinking the developers made a mistake.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps we didn't hate deadfire even though it may seem so from recent posts.  contrary.  even so, am thinking there were fundamental flaws in the deadfire narrative approach. story suffered 'cause o' fundamental approach.  is why simple change to resolution would not improve the game and story over much for Gromnir.  problems were basic. 

Edited by Gromnir
  • Like 1

"Those who won our independence by revolution were not cowards. They did not fear political change. They did not exalt order at the cost of liberty. To courageous, self-reliant men, with confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning applied through the processes of popular government, no danger flowing from speech can be deemed clear and present, unless the incidence of the evil apprehended is so imminent that it may befall before there is opportunity for full discussion. If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."--Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

“Huge exposition dumps” = a handful of conversations spread over the course of the game.

Yes, and it would've been useful to a lot of people's understanding if the information had been discussed more than a handful of times, and had been an essential part of the game's narrative fabric rather than being thrown at you occasionally. People learn through repetition, which is why presenting the same information many times but with different framing and slight expansion is a standard narrative technique.

 

Just going by this board (and I expect, since this board skews towards obsessive analysis, it's probably better here than average), a lot of people didn't take away what you did about Eothas' plans (obviously anecdotal, but for the purposes of this discussion and how much I care about it, that's good enough). If those plans weren't clearly communicated, that's a problem with the writing regardless of whether you, personally, followed it all without problems.

 

The second part of your post is a non sequitur; the point was whether or not his actions were “vague”, not whether or not you agree with them

I did in fact put that paragraph in parentheses because it got off topic while contemplating your larger point. Luckily, this isn't debate club, so my Internet Argument Points are safe.

 

Snark aside, I thought I specifically said that while the means and motives were clear, the intended consequences were the part that could be taken as vague (in fact, I did say that, but I suppose I should've devoted more than a passing line to the point). Forgive me if I was vague, I'll rephrase. Eothas' plan can be construed as something like this:

  • Step 1: Possess Adra statue
  • Step 2: Break the wheel
  • Step 3: ???
  • Step 4: Self-determination?
So yeah, I think it's understandable how people could look at that and think, "wow that's a pretty vague plan." It's not the sole correct reading, but it's a reading.

 

(Mind you, this is all a very "I think I can safely say I speak for others when I say," line of reasoning I've presented, so it's intrinsically specious on those grounds. It is what it is.)

People do not learn by repitition, they memorize by repetition. Memorization does not equate to learning. I can memorize every movement in Mozart's ninth symphony, but that doesn't mean I understand it. Can memorization lead to learning? Yes, but with the average population would not.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the basis here is that we all expected to be able to make a difference. This is for me the main reason to do an epic journey in an RPG. If I'm completely honest I don't really see this in Deadfire. No one had any particular reason to be there or to follow Eothas and it didn't make a hoot of difference whether we did or not in the end. Might as well have stuck with my first choice in the game and tell Berath to piss off.

 

The problem I see here is not that we don't fight Eothas in the end, but that the story is setup in such a way that you expect you will. It is written in such a way that the only way to make a difference is actually to stop him and that is not what the writer wanted. If you ask me, that makes no sense. Did he want us to feel useless playing this game? If that was his aim at least have our pary "try soemthing" other than just following him around.

 

Of course you will still have people hating on it, just look at the latest avengers movie. But you can't say its for a lack of trying.

Edited by AeonsLegend
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the basis here is that we all expected to be able to make a difference. This is for me the main reason to do an epic journey in an RPG. If I'm completely honest I don't really see this in Deadfire. No one had any particular reason to be there or to follow Eothas and it didn't make a hoot of difference whether we did or not in the end. Might as well have stuck with my first choice in the game and tell Berath to piss off.

 

The problem I see here is not that we don't fight Eothas in the end, but that the story is setup in such a way that you expect you will. It is written in such a way that the only way to make a difference is actually to stop him and that is not what the writer wanted. If you ask me, that makes no sense. Did he want us to feel useless playing this game? If that was his aim at least have our pary "try soemthing" other than just following him around.

 

Of course you will still have people hating on it, just look at the latest avengers movie. But you can't say its for a lack of trying.

“Part 2’s” exist to move the story forward. They aren’t going to be as sexy as Part 1, where you get to meet everyone and find out what their superpowers are. Neither are they as satisfying as Part 3 where everything gets resolved and everyone gets to go home.

 

“Epic journeys” are what we get when all the parts are put together.

Edited by Achilles
  • Like 2

"Art and song are creations but so are weapons and lies"

"Our worst enemies are inventions of the mind. Pleasure. Fear. When we see them for what they are, we become unstoppable."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“Part 2’s” exist to move the story forward. They aren’t going to be as sexy as Part 1, where you get to meet everyone and find out what their superpowers are. Neither are they as satisfying as Part 3 where everything gets resolved and everyone gets to go home.

“Epic journeys” are what we get when all the parts are put together.

 

So you reckon they're building up to a trilogy? Does part 3 "Revenge of the Watchers" come next by any chance?

 

It would be much better for business if they started a fresh story. Deadfire must have been so confusing for people who didn't play PoE1.

Edited by Heijoushin
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem isn't that you can't defeat Eothas in a fistfight; it's that the plot was deliberately structured around an unsolvable and ultimately meaningless task. A writer gets to decide the conflict, the players in the conflict, and the eventual ending. It's disingenuous to set the player up against an impossible foe in the Set Up and Confrontation phases, then pull out the rug and declare "Why did you expect to make a difference? You can't defy a god!" in the Resolution. If Deadfire was a novel, there could be some merit in examining how it deconstructs or subverts the traditional monomyth story structure. Hell, I'd read it. But it's not a novel.

 

As a game, an entry in what is ideally an interactive medium, it's simply frustrating to take part in. Imagine a DM who wants to write an intensely specific story, and creates a tabletop session with intensely specific story beats. What the DM wants to happen, WILL happen regardless of the players' actions or decisions. Imagine being one of those players. Sure, it will be fun for the DM to get the story they want. But then, why invite anyone to participate in it? Why expect anyone else to enjoy it? The Watcher is a bystander in Deadfire, thus, so is the player. I for one expect more in an RPG.

  • Like 12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem isn't that you can't defeat Eothas in a fistfight; it's that the plot was deliberately structured around an unsolvable and ultimately meaningless task. A writer gets to decide the conflict, the players in the conflict, and the eventual ending. It's disingenuous to set the player up against an impossible foe in the Set Up and Confrontation phases, then pull out the rug and declare "Why did you expect to make a difference? You can't defy a god!" in the Resolution. If Deadfire was a novel, there could be some merit in examining how it deconstructs or subverts the traditional monomyth story structure. Hell, I'd read it. But it's not a novel.

 

As a game, an entry in what is ideally an interactive medium, it's simply frustrating to take part in. Imagine a DM who wants to write an intensely specific story, and creates a tabletop session with intensely specific story beats. What the DM wants to happen, WILL happen regardless of the players' actions or decisions. Imagine being one of those players. Sure, it will be fun for the DM to get the story they want. But then, why invite anyone to participate in it? Why expect anyone else to enjoy it? The Watcher is a bystander in Deadfire, thus, so is the player. I for one expect more in an RPG.

 

QFT. It might even be okay if the Watcher were a defined character with a set personal arc  - stories about futility in games can work if the narrative is character-driven. But because the Watcher is an almost completely blank slate, we have a plot-driven story in which you don't get to meaningfully impact the plot.

 

 

 

“Huge exposition dumps” = a handful of conversations spread over the course of the game.

Yes, and it would've been useful to a lot of people's understanding if the information had been discussed more than a handful of times, and had been an essential part of the game's narrative fabric rather than being thrown at you occasionally. People learn through repetition, which is why presenting the same information many times but with different framing and slight expansion is a standard narrative technique.

 

And this is why we can’t have nice things: people who insist on having everything spoon-fed to them.

 

 

I'm trying really hard not to interpret your point as, "the people who had a problem with this aspect of Deadfire are stupid and lazy," because that seems like setting up a strawman, but I'm not sure what else to take away from it. Would Deadfire be an inferior game if it spent more time exploring the intentions of the main antagonist (and thus making them easier to follow)? Would its worthiness necessarily be decreased if its accessibility were increased? My experience has been that just the opposite is true, and that when a piece of fiction's ground floor is harder to reach, that generally imposes a limit on its emotional and intellectual depth.

 

Repetition + elaboration is a pretty typical storytelling technique that allows the audience member to engage with a point repeatedly, learning more each time and spending more time thinking about it and developing an opinion on it. This also reinforces that the information is important and that it should occupy the audience member's mental space, and teaches them to recognize references to it by way of certain symbols and cues. In longer works of fiction, the process becomes more important, as there's more ground to cover and more material to process. I think I mentioned in an earlier post that I think a big part of good writing is the management of audience expectations, and if you're trying to tell your audience something and they're not hearing you, that's a sign that you could be managing their expectations better.

 

Better communication can be done in all sorts of ways, of course. Big, memorable setpieces can minimize the need for repetition, although it's still useful to reinforce things. But the most straightforward approach for a dialogue-heavy game like Pillars is probably having conversations with different characters about the same or similar subjects, allowing for both the expansion of those characters and the elaboration of a subject at the same time. This is something I noticed very recently while replaying Jade Empire (for the fourth time, if that matters). Most information is given to you twice, and plot-relevant information many more times than that, but almost always with enough variation that your knowledge of the subject matter is expanded with each reiteration, and the presentation doesn't feel repetitious. Certainly I didn't notice the repetition on any of my prior three playthroughs (although I was younger and not as savvy), so anecdotally, that suggests it did its job quite well. This was hardly unusual - two memorable examples spring to mind in PS:T, which practically deluged you with its core questions, and Bastion, which managed a lot of its revelations by having Rucks repeat himself while elaborating or admitting some bit of willful omission.

 

People do not learn by repitition, they memorize by repetition. Memorization does not equate to learning. I can memorize every movement in Mozart's ninth symphony, but that doesn't mean I understand it. Can memorization lead to learning? Yes, but with the average population would not.

 

If you want, I can say, "people internalize information by repetition," instead of "people learn by repetition." That's not actually a different thing - learning is a continuous process of internalization, analysis, synthesis, refinement, and transformation - but I can say it that way.

Edited by gkathellar
  • Like 3

If I'm typing in red, it means I'm being sarcastic. But not this time.

Dark green, on the other hand, is for jokes and irony in general.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would Deadfire be an inferior game if it spent more time exploring the intentions of the main antagonist (and thus making them easier to follow)?

The obvious problem here being the assumption that they were hard to follow. You meet Eothas a handful of times. If you listen to him, he comes right out tells you what he is doing and why. The game then makes you report back to the other gods with updates *each time* just so that you can discuss it again.

 

So yes, making us do it a third time *would* have made the game inferior. It would have meant cutting something else, like quests, characters, companion relationships, or exposition for subplots.

 

Better communication can be done in all sorts of ways, of course. Big, memorable setpieces can minimize the need for repetition, although it's still useful to reinforce things.

Like talking to a 180 foot tall god made out of adra, perhaps? Edited by Achilles

"Art and song are creations but so are weapons and lies"

"Our worst enemies are inventions of the mind. Pleasure. Fear. When we see them for what they are, we become unstoppable."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem isn't that you can't defeat Eothas in a fistfight; it's that the plot was deliberately structured around an unsolvable and ultimately meaningless task. A writer gets to decide the conflict, the players in the conflict, and the eventual ending. It's disingenuous to set the player up against an impossible foe in the Set Up and Confrontation phases, then pull out the rug and declare "Why did you expect to make a difference? You can't defy a god!" in the Resolution. If Deadfire was a novel, there could be some merit in examining how it deconstructs or subverts the traditional monomyth story structure. Hell, I'd read it. But it's not a novel.

 

As a game, an entry in what is ideally an interactive medium, it's simply frustrating to take part in. Imagine a DM who wants to write an intensely specific story, and creates a tabletop session with intensely specific story beats. What the DM wants to happen, WILL happen regardless of the players' actions or decisions. Imagine being one of those players. Sure, it will be fun for the DM to get the story they want. But then, why invite anyone to participate in it? Why expect anyone else to enjoy it? The Watcher is a bystander in Deadfire, thus, so is the player. I for one expect more in an RPG.

Thank you. I was trying to make this point, but failed spectacularly. Wish I could agree more with this post.

The entire main storyline of Deadfire is simply - and forgive an unintentional innuendo - a DM proudly playing with himself. The players may either comply or leave the table. And even that won't change a thing - beacuse DM simply does not need players in this story.

 

I'm not asking to fight Eothas mano-a-mano in a giant Megazord on top of a volcano in an ultimate Showdown of Destiny, while Ydwin is cheering me on, but give me a way to do something meaningful in this story. I'm not asking to be the Chosen One - I'm asking to have a say in something. 

 

Beacuse as things are as they are - when you think about it, you can simply remove the Watcher (AKA the *player character*) from the story altogether and nothing would change in terms of main storyline. Berath even makes a point about that. And player agency is a thing in the *interactive medium*.  Even in PoE 1 it was the Watcher's decision to seek a remedy for their insanity. Nobody put a geas in their chest and told them to find the cure.. The player may not like this plot point, but there was agency involved. Now we are being tossed around from place to place and told "You are not here to defy us".

 

Dragon Age 2 and Mass Effect 3 did the exact same thing - to their detriment. Credit where is due - at least Dragon Age 2 was deliberately coined as Greek tragedy. It set the player for failure from the very start and was clear that you're not here to win the war but to get the hell out of Kirkwall with your friends/loved ones and limbs intact - and to some level this storyline worked for me better. 

 

Sure, people may not like "Chosen One" storylines, where the entire world revolves around a player, but I think we went a bit too far in the other direction.

Edited by aksrasjel
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

White March did it right. You could not fight Ondra, and people did not complain about that. Because we could change the fate of Abyddon, the Eyeless, and save the whole reach.

 

We did not fight Kyros in Tyranny. Instead, we were presented with a rather complex clash between archons.

 

Deadfire was lacking on the intended "influence Doctor Manhattan" part. The particulars are too narrow and the outcomes too vague.  All we can do is beg for a rather limited mercy, a gentler cataclysm.

 

All things said, I really liked the main storyline. I guess giving more meaningful options to influence Eothas would mean trouble for the next installment: helping kith rebuild the wheel.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

White March did it right. You could not fight Ondra, and people did not complain about that. Because we could change the fate of Abyddon, the Eyeless, and save the whole reach.

 

We did not fight Kyros in Tyranny. Instead, we were presented with a rather complex clash between archons.

 

Deadfire was lacking on the intended "influence Doctor Manhattan" part. The particulars are too narrow and the outcomes too vague. All we can do is beg for a rather limited mercy, a gentler cataclysm.

 

All things said, I really liked the main storyline. I guess giving more meaningful options to influence Eothas would mean trouble for the next installment: helping kith rebuild the wheel.

Ondra and the Eyeless were as much “on rails” as our interactions with Eothas. They might feel more significant but that’s because the objective we are trying to fulfill is different: save the Dyrwood from annihilation by the Eyeless. We are just as free to *not* do that as we are to stop Eothas. The significant difference here being that the objective in Deadfire isn’t to stop Eothas. Objective one is to try to retrieve our soul so that we’re no longer “Hollowborn Watcher” and objective two is to help the gods find out what Eothas is doing so that they will help us with objective one.
  • Like 1

"Art and song are creations but so are weapons and lies"

"Our worst enemies are inventions of the mind. Pleasure. Fear. When we see them for what they are, we become unstoppable."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Pillars Of Eternity 2 you determine which faction gains control of Ukaizo, and hence the fate(short term at least) of the whole archipelago- and possibly the world, since if the Wheel is rebuilt it'll presumably be on that faction's terms. Your interactions with your party members can determine their fates, and even how they feel about each other. When you speak to Eothas you can convince him to follow up the destruction of the Wheel in multiple ways- empower Berath, empower mortals, provide a home for lost souls. The only thing you can't do is prevent the destruction of the Wheel.

 

I am disappointed myself in the final conversation (it actually feels contrived to give the player too much agency- why did Eothas wait for me to get there before breaking the Wheel, and why does my opinion matter so much to him?) and in the way the ending slides don't really give much of an impression of the Wheel being rebuilt, but these cries of "nothing I did made a difference, I was just a spectator in the narrative" are getting a bit silly.

Edited by house2fly
  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Pillars Of Eternity 2 you determine which faction gains control of Ukaizo, and hence the fate(short term at least) of the whole archipelago- and possibly the world, since if the Wheel is rebuilt it'll presumably be on that faction's terms. Your interactions with your party members can determine their fates, and even how they feel about each other. When you speak to Eothas you can convince him to follow up the destruction of the Wheel in multiple ways- empower Berath, empower mortals, provide a home for lost souls. The only thing you can't do is prevent the destruction of the Wheel.

 

I am disappointed myself in the final conversation (it actually feels contrived to give the player too much agency- why did Eothas wait for me to get there before breaking the Wheel, and why does my opinion matter so much to him?) and in the way the ending slides don't really give much of an impression of the Wheel being rebuilt, but these cries of "nothing I did made a difference, I was just a spectator in the narrative" are getting a bit silly.

Great post
  • Like 1

"Art and song are creations but so are weapons and lies"

"Our worst enemies are inventions of the mind. Pleasure. Fear. When we see them for what they are, we become unstoppable."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Pillars Of Eternity 2 you determine which faction gains control of Ukaizo, and hence the fate(short term at least) of the whole archipelago- and possibly the world, since if the Wheel is rebuilt it'll presumably be on that faction's terms. Your interactions with your party members can determine their fates, and even how they feel about each other. When you speak to Eothas you can convince him to follow up the destruction of the Wheel in multiple ways- empower Berath, empower mortals, provide a home for lost souls. The only thing you can't do is prevent the destruction of the Wheel.

 

I am disappointed myself in the final conversation (it actually feels contrived to give the player too much agency- why did Eothas wait for me to get there before breaking the Wheel, and why does my opinion matter so much to him?) and in the way the ending slides don't really give much of an impression of the Wheel being rebuilt, but these cries of "nothing I did made a difference, I was just a spectator in the narrative" are getting a bit silly.

 

lack o' general player impact were not a Gromnir complaint.  most responses we bothered to read in this thread (am admitting we skipped a few) were focused 'pon game resolution rather than more general questions o' player control o' narrative. point out faction choices and the insular and tangential companion quests as examples o' player agency is largely unresponsive regarding the thread topic.

 

as to why player choice should matter in the ultimate resolution o' a crpg, we believe the answer is axiomatic regardless o' feigned confusion.  developers have complete control o' plot, so saying the end o' deadfire doesn't make player control reasonable utter misses the point. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps mechanical speaking, lack o' player agency at game resolution is more than a little odd given that game end is the least problematic point at which to offer meaningful player choice.  bifurcation o' narrative at the end is less a hurdle than at any other point in game. even in-name-only crpgs with little opportunity for player impact 'pon story typical make end choices vital precise 'cause there is no messy bifurcation multiplication o' narrative to concern the developers. because choice at end does not impact any previous content and does not lead to bifurcation w/i the current title, player agency is gonna be most common seen at the end o' even the most "linear" o' crpgs.  as such, deadfire resolution is particular odd.

Edited by Gromnir
  • Like 2

"Those who won our independence by revolution were not cowards. They did not fear political change. They did not exalt order at the cost of liberty. To courageous, self-reliant men, with confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning applied through the processes of popular government, no danger flowing from speech can be deemed clear and present, unless the incidence of the evil apprehended is so imminent that it may befall before there is opportunity for full discussion. If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."--Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think the basis here is that we all expected to be able to make a difference. This is for me the main reason to do an epic journey in an RPG. If I'm completely honest I don't really see this in Deadfire. No one had any particular reason to be there or to follow Eothas and it didn't make a hoot of difference whether we did or not in the end. Might as well have stuck with my first choice in the game and tell Berath to piss off.

 

The problem I see here is not that we don't fight Eothas in the end, but that the story is setup in such a way that you expect you will. It is written in such a way that the only way to make a difference is actually to stop him and that is not what the writer wanted. If you ask me, that makes no sense. Did he want us to feel useless playing this game? If that was his aim at least have our pary "try soemthing" other than just following him around.

 

Of course you will still have people hating on it, just look at the latest avengers movie. But you can't say its for a lack of trying.

“Part 2’s” exist to move the story forward. They aren’t going to be as sexy as Part 1, where you get to meet everyone and find out what their superpowers are. Neither are they as satisfying as Part 3 where everything gets resolved and everyone gets to go home.

 

“Epic journeys” are what we get when all the parts are put together.

 

It's hard to reply to you since you're replying only to my superhero movies reference instead of this topic.

 

But if you create an RPG without an epic journey then you don't understand what an RPG is supposed to deliver. Having a part 2 should have no effect on the individual representation of a story per game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I think the basis here is that we all expected to be able to make a difference. This is for me the main reason to do an epic journey in an RPG. If I'm completely honest I don't really see this in Deadfire. No one had any particular reason to be there or to follow Eothas and it didn't make a hoot of difference whether we did or not in the end. Might as well have stuck with my first choice in the game and tell Berath to piss off.

 

The problem I see here is not that we don't fight Eothas in the end, but that the story is setup in such a way that you expect you will. It is written in such a way that the only way to make a difference is actually to stop him and that is not what the writer wanted. If you ask me, that makes no sense. Did he want us to feel useless playing this game? If that was his aim at least have our pary "try soemthing" other than just following him around.

 

Of course you will still have people hating on it, just look at the latest avengers movie. But you can't say its for a lack of trying.

“Part 2’s” exist to move the story forward. They aren’t going to be as sexy as Part 1, where you get to meet everyone and find out what their superpowers are. Neither are they as satisfying as Part 3 where everything gets resolved and everyone gets to go home.

 

“Epic journeys” are what we get when all the parts are put together.

It's hard to reply to you since you're replying only to my superhero movies reference instead of this topic.

 

But if you create an RPG without an epic journey then you don't understand what an RPG is supposed to deliver. Having a part 2 should have no effect on the individual representation of a story per game.

Except I’m not. The Watcher becomes a Watcher and expands their powers throughout the first game (not necessarily referring to level-up here).

 

Of course each segment in the story needs to have a plot to resolve, but each of those segments come together to tell a larger story.

  • Like 1

"Art and song are creations but so are weapons and lies"

"Our worst enemies are inventions of the mind. Pleasure. Fear. When we see them for what they are, we become unstoppable."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Pillars Of Eternity 2 you determine which faction gains control of Ukaizo, and hence the fate(short term at least) of the whole archipelago- and possibly the world, since if the Wheel is rebuilt it'll presumably be on that faction's terms. Your interactions with your party members can determine their fates, and even how they feel about each other. When you speak to Eothas you can convince him to follow up the destruction of the Wheel in multiple ways- empower Berath, empower mortals, provide a home for lost souls. The only thing you can't do is prevent the destruction of the Wheel.

 

I am disappointed myself in the final conversation (it actually feels contrived to give the player too much agency- why did Eothas wait for me to get there before breaking the Wheel, and why does my opinion matter so much to him?) and in the way the ending slides don't really give much of an impression of the Wheel being rebuilt, but these cries of "nothing I did made a difference, I was just a spectator in the narrative" are getting a bit silly.

 

The Watcher's impact on local Deadfire factions and their own companions is not in question. Their impact on the overarching plot is; coincidentally, that's exactly the topic of this thread. If the issue people raise is that they can't affect X, it makes little sense attempting to counter with the fact that they can affect Y. It may not be clear from my previous post, but I generally enjoy Deadfire and I'm not out to stomp on it. That doesn't mean I don't find aspects of it to be flawed. If anything, the gulf between player agency in the faction plot versus the main plot makes the game feel even more disjointed. In all, the deity plot only weakens the game's combined narrative.

 

 

ps mechanical speaking, lack o' player agency at game resolution is more than a little odd given that game end is the least problematic point at which to offer meaningful player choice.  bifurcation o' narrative at the end is less a hurdle than at any other point in game. even in-name-only crpgs with little opportunity for player impact 'pon story typical make end choices vital precise 'cause there is no messy bifurcation multiplication o' narrative to concern the developers. because choice at end does not impact any previous content and does not lead to bifurcation w/i the current title, player agency is gonna be most common seen at the end o' even the most "linear" o' crpgs.  as such, deadfire resolution is particular odd.

 

 

That is a very interesting observation. Deadfire's narrative structure turns that convention on its head: it's nearly concurrent instead of consecutive, with the faction story running in parallel. Sure you might need help reaching your destination unless you trick out your ship, but it's a thin thread between the two plots. In other respects the two are virtually self-contained. One is a smaller scale story of mortals and politics, the other is grand in scale and runs your character through a gauntlet of deity-related "But Thou Musts." They did not combine well in my opinion, and one is more conducive to being the plot of an interactive game than the other. Talk about bifurcation.

Edited by SimonCharming
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Their impact on the overarching plot is; coincidentally, that's exactly the topic of this thread.

Except that many people seem to be confused about what the plot is.

 

The plot is not to stop Eothas from destroying the Wheel. The plot is to find out what Eothas is doing and get your soul back. The impact on the overarching plot is that you succeed in doing everything you set out to do.

  • Like 3

"Art and song are creations but so are weapons and lies"

"Our worst enemies are inventions of the mind. Pleasure. Fear. When we see them for what they are, we become unstoppable."

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...