Trolls (no not trolling :P) in PE

[Wolfenbarg]

I have a feeling that most people who voted against the Gothic troll didn't play the game. I feel like most trolls are pretty underwhelming, even kind of boring to encounter. But that thing was terrifying. It's an encounter you only face a couple times in the whole game, and it's something that thoroughly kicks the crap out of you if you don't approach it the right way. It's an encounter that actually matches the scope of its design. Ever since playing that game, I don't feel like trolls should be small or easy to kill. I also liked the trolls in the Forgotten Realms games since you needed to finish them off with some other type of move. Adding specific strategies to beating trolls is what I feel makes them unique more than how they look. Appearances aren't as important as applications in play.

 

If those are your trolls Obsidian, then make certain that there is some twist to fighting them that makes them memorable. People still think of Baldur's Gate trolls because they get right back up and swarm you if you don't burn them to death first. That's a cool mechanic.

Edited December 6, 2013 by Wolfenbarg

[Yonjuro]

 However, trolls are also attested as looking much the same as human beings, without any particularly hideous appearance about them,

...

trolls generally have "some form of social organization". Where they differ, Lindow adds, is that they are not Christian, and those that encounter them do not know them. Therefore trolls were in the end dangerous, regardless of how well they may get along with Christian society, 

 

 

  It sounds like 'troll' was sometimes being used to describe communities of pagans.

 

Hmmm, I guess troll == druid.

[Lephys]

  It sounds like 'troll' was sometimes being used to describe communities of pagans.

 

Hmmm, I guess troll == druid.

Heh. Yeah. It seems one of the main common themes is that they at least resemble humanoids (even if they're big, ugly humanoids), and that they live out in the "wilderness," away from "civilization." The whole "they're not holy" thing probably spawned most of the "creatures that hide out in the wilderness and take people and probably do terrible things like eat them" stuff.

 

*shrug*. Just seems like, in all of the stuff surrounding the prior usage of the word "troll," there's an awful lot of leeway in their specific design for people to call foul. Call "I don't like that" all day long, but not foul. They're not breaking any kind of universal troll-design rule.

[MattH]

There seems to be a particular kind of troll that doesn't really fit with a certain kind of storytelling. I'd rather the trolls are consistent with the style of storytelling, than be "familiar". Why should I give a damn about "familiar" trolls, honestly.

[Lephys]

Why should I give a damn about "familiar" trolls, honestly.

 

*shrug*... Maybe you're a Wizard?

 

*ba domp... TSSsssss*

Edited December 6, 2013 by Lephys

[Tauron]

 

Yes it might be bit silly, I am not beyond reason...but same ofcourse could be said about most fantasy creatures taken from folklore. They could have taken elfs and used that same photo, yes? Not all folklore describes them as pointy ears, stoic, thin vegan, food/meat depraved timeless arrogant top models with magical (Troll )) affinity.

Exactly. The same COULD be said of something like Elves. So, if they showed me elves with bark-horns growing out of their head, and green skin, I wouldn't have any reason to say "Hey! Those don't look like Elves!"

 

 I would love if PE team does that. Even as a concept. Have fun playing devils advocate than Sit back and enjoy chain reaction of discontent.

 

As for current toad faced trolls with antlers on their head, my rant wont change anything. It might be ignorant jumping to conclusions, but I am sceptic to design becouse they too much resemble abominations. Maybe those are hotties on their homeworld. But lets face it, PE setting is late medieval/rennesance age. Considering human nature, a human with unusal physical deformity could in this "unenlightend" era (if it shares more traits beyond estetics of an age) be considered monstrosity. So that particular design more or less confirms my worries.

 

As for foul design argument, if it didnt specify it was a troll you probably would not have guesst it and you know it. You just went along with it and that is ok mate. But lets not narrow down the possibilities

 

Heey that would be fun. Devs design a creature, post picture and let community guess what it is

 

 

There seems to be a particular kind of troll that doesn't really fit with a certain kind of storytelling. I'd rather the trolls are consistent with the style of storytelling, than be "familiar". Why should I give a damn about "familiar" trolls, honestly.

 

But that is the argument isnt it? That there no such a thing as "familiar" Trolls...pictures in this thread from several well known franchises show all different designs. Some share slight resemblance, others are unic. Growing trend latly is that they are truly monstrous abominations. With little sign of intelligence lvl surpassing that of smarter than your avarage beast.

 

I have stated in previous posts how I would like to see Trolls in PE universe and why. One of reasons is becouse of the same approach devs apperently did with elves and other playable races. Humanity is still killing eachother for diff in skin tone and slight facial distinctions, how much of monstrosity visualy Troll needs to have?

 

Maybe this is ironically familiar Troll concept we are used by now. The one where they are just "mindless" monsters/abomination. Then there is nothing really unic with Trolls anyway, they are just what devs intended them to be as in every other game.

[MattH]

I think we would agree that troll-implementation is usually not much to speak of and that criticizing PE-trolls for their difference to expectations (as I understood it) is not a criterion for the quality of them as an encounter or for their lasting impression on the player.

[Tauron]

I think we would agree that troll-implementation is usually not much to speak of and that criticizing PE-trolls for their difference to expectations (as I understood it) is not a criterion for the quality of them as an encounter or for their lasting impression on the player.

 

I disagree. If this was about estetics and assumed nature of some playable 'established' high fantasy trope, i think this thread would get much more passionate followers.

 

As for expectations, backing the game, evryone saw concept arts and listened to devs so they get to 'feel' and visualise first impression. Whn game got funded, it did not stop fans to make threads with thousands posts about armor, weapons, portraits, outdoors areas, races and generally estetic choices for just some of things I mentioned. How those choices affect nature of the world, interaction, etc. I dont see how this is much different?

[Cubiq]

I think we would agree that troll-implementation is usually not much to speak of and that criticizing PE-trolls for their difference to expectations (as I understood it) is not a criterion for the quality of them as an encounter or for their lasting impression on the player.

I did not read the whole thread but from reading some posts, i get the feeling that some people are saying that because the troll doesn't have to have a typical lore concept that they can look like anything they want without any measure of whether the design is good or bad.

 

I disagree and i believe the Eternity Trolls are badly designed/presented inside the environment they are in.

I have no comment regarding the concept design that was presented in 2d to the 3d artists, but the 3d model created from it lacks distinctiveness or any special interest (or shall we say that they are really hard to notice). They have no distinctive shape. They look like hunched humans if you squint your eyes and you can barely spot the horns.

 

The difference caused by contrast whether in light, color or shape is the basics of art theory. The eye is always drawn to these points of interests; and they are called points of interests because they cause interest in humans.

Pretty much every concept artist will teach you that the silhouette is the most important thing for character identification or action recognition, especially if they are far away. The silhouette can be defined by any of 3 those things (and probably something else i forgot) and i think none of them defines the Troll specifically. The values are obviously very similar to other monsters/characters because of the lighting, the color makes them blend in to the environment nicely which is a step toward intended realism they are going for, so the only thing that it can have going for them is shape.

This was posted in the official "ART!" thread where the screenshots were shown that gives a great explanation

http://media.steampowered.com/apps/dota2/workshop/Dota2CharacterArtGuide.pdf

 

Yes making an interesting design/silhouette with realistic proportions is a very very very hard thing and no one said it was easy.

However i don't think it's wrong for me to point out it feels lacking, simply because that is the concept path they decided to go down with.

It would be a lot easier for 3d artists if the 2d troll concept had disproportioned arms or legs.

 

Now you can argue that they don't have to stand out for some reason, but for a personificated objected, that's simply a bad design (successful games will prove that). They are supposedly living beings that are out to attack you (or maybe even talk to you) and you want people to connect to them and for that you have make them interesting, that's pretty much every concept artist's goal. You already have plenty of uninteresting objects that blend in the background (terrain).

 

Unless the whole point of those Trolls, Obsidian is making, is that they are inconspicuous or camouflaged, people will simply not find them interesting as a stand alone monster because there is nothing much distinctive about them from the isometric view we are looking at. Perhaps adding a 2d painting or a 3d blown up model to view on demand in game, where the player could see the creature up close to more easily imagine and connect with it next time they face it, would help.

 

Maybe them having a distinct animation and how they behave will make them more interesting, however they are fighting an uphill battle with that 3d shaped silhouette.

Edited December 7, 2013 by Cubiq

[Lephys]

I would love if PE team does that. Even as a concept. Have fun playing devils advocate than Sit back and enjoy chain reaction of discontent.

I don't understand. Why would I suddenly start playing devil's advocate when perfectly-acceptable Elves were presented that didn't just look like humans with pointy ears?

 

As for current toad faced trolls with antlers on their head, my rant wont change anything. It might be ignorant jumping to conclusions, but I am sceptic to design becouse they too much resemble abominations. Maybe those are hotties on their homeworld. But lets face it, PE setting is late medieval/rennesance age. Considering human nature, a human with unusal physical deformity could in this "unenlightend" era (if it shares more traits beyond estetics of an age) be considered monstrosity. So that particular design more or less confirms my worries.

So confused... trolls in P:E have a homeworld? They're extra-terrestrial? And trolls are supposed to be pretty? o_O

 

I'm miles away from comprehending what you're trying to say, methinks. 

 

As for foul design argument, if it didnt specify it was a troll you probably would not have guesst it and you know it. You just went along with it and that is ok mate. But lets not narrow down the possibilities

I just went with what? What did I "just go with"? ??? ???????

 

I am SO confused! When did I claim to know it was a troll before being told, and when was that a BAD thing?

 

If they showed a screenshot of a PC wielding a sword and shield and wearing plate, would you know it was a Wizard? Would it be any less of a Wizard because it didn't intuitively look blatantly like it was a Wizard? If they showed you a creature made of bark and grass and vines, would you know with certainty what it was? Would it be a dryad? Maybe an earth elemental? Maybe it's some completely made up creature that's an avatar of some nature deity, and not any traditional creature from other RPGs' beastiaries.

 

Exactly what point are you trying to make here?

 

They designed a troll, and it doesn't completely miss the entirety of existing troll lore. The end. Like it, or don't like it. Evaluate it all you want. Nothing's going to change the fact that what trolls are and what they aren't is made extremely vague by the huge variance in all their precedented designs/lores.

 

That's the point I've made, and I can't tell if you're intending to argue against it or not.

[neo6874]

If they showed a screenshot of a PC wielding a sword and shield and wearing plate, would you know it was a Wizard?

Nope, I'd probably assume "Fighter" or "Paladin"

 

Would it be any less of a Wizard because it didn't intuitively look blatantly like it was a Wizard?

 

Yes, because:

• Need to blow 20+ levels on feats:
  • Armor Proficiency Light, Medium, Heavy (15 levels, 10 if you take "light" at L1)
  • Martial Weapon Proficiency (+5 levels, or taken as L1 feat, or Elf which I think gets racial proficiency with longswords)
  • Shield Proficiency (+5 levels, or taken as L1 feat)
  • Note that you can get this down to a total of 15 levels if you're a human, and blow both L1 feats on any two of the above (Light Armor, Martial Weapon Proficiency, Shield Proficiency)
• Arcane Spell Failure of 40%-90%, as follows:
  • 35% for Full Plate Armor
  • 40% for Half Plate Armor
  • 5% for Small Shields or Bucklers
  • 15% for Large shields
  • 50% for Tower Shields

 (note, this is D&D 3E/3.5E rules, and has no actual bearing on P:E - just having some fun with ya)

[Zed]

John Bauer or go home

 

yeah what Giger is to Aliens, Bauer is to Trolls

[Halsy]

I prefer the classic AD&D trolls - which NWN 1/2 almost got right. Tall, lanky, incredibly strong and ugly, rubbery skin, foul oudor, unkillable except by acid or flame.  I acutally really visualize them much like Meg Mucklebones in Ridley Scott's fantasy flick Legend.

 

[nikolokolus]

Nothing wrong with Meg, except that she's a hag.

[Tauron]

I don't understand. Why would I suddenly start playing devil's advocate when perfectly-acceptable Elves were presented that didn't just look like humans with pointy ears?

 

That my silly friend, you would have to explain to virtual, forum dwelling, quasi angry mob I was refering to in original post. (fans of the particular art genre, style, in this case, elvish ones...you follow now or do I have to paint you a picture?)

 

 

 

So confused... trolls in P:E have a homeworld? They're extra-terrestrial? And trolls are supposed to be pretty? o_O

 

I'm miles away from comprehending what you're trying to say, methinks.

 

Yes, yes, it appeares so. Do not be hard to yourself too much. What you resist, persists. Maybe, just maybe, you will experience that "AhA" moment.

 

 

I just went with what? What did I "just go with"? ??? ???????

 

 

You know very well, you appear as intelligent fellow. Stop this silly act.

 

I am SO confused! When did I claim to know it was a troll before being told, and when was that a BAD thing?

 

 

AHA...but you didnt, at that is the point! You see now?                                      ...did I say it was?

 

If they showed a screenshot of a PC wielding a sword and shield and wearing plate, would you know it was a Wizard? Would it be any less of a Wizard because it didn't intuitively look blatantly like it was a Wizard? If they showed you a creature made of bark and grass and vines, would you know with certainty what it was? Would it be a dryad? Maybe an earth elemental? Maybe it's some completely made up creature that's an avatar of some nature deity, and not any traditional creature from other RPGs' beastiaries.

 

Exactly what point are you trying to make here?

 

 

 

I understand what you are saying, people are not what they appear to be...like If you see someone in public wearing police uniform, carrying firearms and  badge, would you automatically assume it is a police officer? Would it be any less of a stripper or some uber realistic cosplay or "insane person"/eccentric, just wearing police uniform becouse he likes it or like whatever? One should be open minded, yes? (

 

I think I made my point very well and you good sir, gets it. You just disagree with it. That is okej...you have right to your own opinion, even if you are wrong.

 

 

They designed a troll, and it doesn't completely miss the entirety of existing troll lore. The end. Like it, or don't like it. Evaluate it all you want. Nothing's going to change the fact that what trolls are and what they aren't is made extremely vague by the huge variance in all their precedented designs/lores.

 

That's the point I've made, and I can't tell if you're intending to argue against it or not.

 

 

Doesnt it now? Well you have right to your opinion.

 

I just noticed PoE Trolls resemble if slightly...greenish version of Ogre's from Dragon Age Origins.  http://static2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120730005458/dragonage/images/thumb/f/ff/Dragon_Age_Ogre_Fight_by_tycarey.jpg/240px-Dragon_Age_Ogre_Fight_by_tycarey.jpg  Just smaller i guess, not sure of size vs ratio from those pic. 

 

As for what they are, what they are not, it is still open for discussion. Dev on this thread stated they have diff concept art of Troll going for. So trolls might be like dogs, different size and shapes, still dogs...trolls, get it?

[Lephys]

 (note, this is D&D 3E/3.5E rules, and has no actual bearing on P:E - just having some fun with ya)

 

By all means, have away. Fun, that is.

 

 

I think I made my point very well and you good sir, gets it. You just disagree with it. That is okej...you have right to your own opinion, even if you are wrong.

You might've made your point very well (after all, it's just opinion versus opinion, so there's no way to objectively assess that, right?), but I honestly am not comprehending what your point actually is. Unless by "made my point," you were actually just arbitrarily stating an opinion. Which, there's nothing wrong with that. But, there's opinion, and then there's not-opinion, and the two are separate things.

 

For example, if you said "Those trolls are too big, because they take up the entire screenshot!", I would say you're wrong. And that wouldn't be my opinion, because they measurably do not take up the entire screenshot. If you happened to feel that they should be smaller, then awesome. That's an opinion. If you felt like they should be smaller BECAUSE THEY COVER THE ENTIRE ENVIRONMENT! Well, then that's just nonsensical. You're claiming a factual basis for your opinion, one that isn't true.

 

So, to re-iterate one more time, simply:

 

To not like the troll design is fine. You're entitled to your opinion. To say that the reason you don't like the troll design is that it strays from any established troll lore whatsoever is not fine, because your opinion does not get to supercede fact, which is that trolls bear a very broad spectrum of descriptions. Therefore, there's no objective basis for their design in PoE to be flawed. Unliked? Sure. Objectively flawed? No.

 

And, for the record, you can't argue that you just don't like it, AND argue that there's a factual reason you don't like it, at the same time. That doesn't make any sense. "Upon objective evaluation, no troll lore allows for such a troll design, but when you tell me that's not true, I'm going to point out that we're just having an opinion battle..."

 

People are entitled to their opinions, and yet that doesn't change the facts. They're not even the same thing. Admitting that it's an objectively sound troll design doesn't prevent you from holding the opinion that the trolls look bad, or that you'd rather they were designed differently. Nor does it make that opinon the wrong one to have.

 

In other words, it doesn't have to be wrong because you don't like it, NOR do you have to not-like it just because it's wrong. If the troll design was a magical 3-headed kitten with sausages for wings, you could still like that design, and that would be your opinion of that design. Meanwhile, it would have nothing to do with any prior troll establishments. Two separate things.

 

Just as you've done, I feel that I've made my point quite clearly, and you may do as you please with it. But, I don't think I can make it any more clearly, or cause you to believe that I honestly didn't understand the point you were trying to make before. So, it is what it is. *shrug*

[Tauron]

 

 (note, this is D&D 3E/3.5E rules, and has no actual bearing on P:E - just having some fun with ya)

 

By all means, have away. Fun, that is.

 

 

I think I made my point very well and you good sir, gets it. You just disagree with it. That is okej...you have right to your own opinion, even if you are wrong.

You might've made your point very well (after all, it's just opinion versus opinion, so there's no way to objectively assess that, right?), but I honestly am not comprehending what your point actually is. Unless by "made my point," you were actually just arbitrarily stating an opinion. Which, there's nothing wrong with that. But, there's opinion, and then there's not-opinion, and the two are separate things.

 

For example, if you said "Those trolls are too big, because they take up the entire screenshot!", I would say you're wrong. And that wouldn't be my opinion, because they measurably do not take up the entire screenshot. If you happened to feel that they should be smaller, then awesome. That's an opinion. If you felt like they should be smaller BECAUSE THEY COVER THE ENTIRE ENVIRONMENT! Well, then that's just nonsensical. You're claiming a factual basis for your opinion, one that isn't true.

 

So, to re-iterate one more time, simply:

 

To not like the troll design is fine. You're entitled to your opinion. To say that the reason you don't like the troll design is that it strays from any established troll lore whatsoever is not fine, because your opinion does not get to supercede fact, which is that trolls bear a very broad spectrum of descriptions. Therefore, there's no objective basis for their design in PoE to be flawed. Unliked? Sure. Objectively flawed? No.

 

And, for the record, you can't argue that you just don't like it, AND argue that there's a factual reason you don't like it, at the same time. That doesn't make any sense. "Upon objective evaluation, no troll lore allows for such a troll design, but when you tell me that's not true, I'm going to point out that we're just having an opinion battle..."

 

People are entitled to their opinions, and yet that doesn't change the facts. They're not even the same thing. Admitting that it's an objectively sound troll design doesn't prevent you from holding the opinion that the trolls look bad, or that you'd rather they were designed differently. Nor does it make that opinon the wrong one to have.

 

In other words, it doesn't have to be wrong because you don't like it, NOR do you have to not-like it just because it's wrong. If the troll design was a magical 3-headed kitten with sausages for wings, you could still like that design, and that would be your opinion of that design. Meanwhile, it would have nothing to do with any prior troll establishments. Two separate things.

 

Just as you've done, I feel that I've made my point quite clearly, and you may do as you please with it. But, I don't think I can make it any more clearly, or cause you to believe that I honestly didn't understand the point you were trying to make before. So, it is what it is. *shrug*

 

 

Wow. You are more passionate about Troll design than I am. I never claimed there is only one acceptable design. You are misunderstanding my arguments for Troll design and taking it too far in absolutes. Either you are virgo in horoscope or you have argumentation theory OCD. *insertfunny*

 

While there is certanly room for artistic freedoom I have written my worries for their interpretation of Trolls. I have stated why and becouse. You on other hand accept blindly any given represantation given to you and that is fine. It is a new universe, new rules, thats fresh, I get it. But there are many other similar fantasy established creatures, clearly in favorable or traditionally accepted "humane" design. Which and why I have stated my worries about it in previous posts as how that might portray the recent Troll design than, ranging  from recent movie and game Troll incarnations. Very simple. Imo...considering 'established' lore and myth. RL myth and some high fantasy exampels. 

[Lephys]

Wow. You are more passionate about Troll design than I am. I never claimed there is only one acceptable design. You are misunderstanding my arguments for Troll design and taking it too far in absolutes. Either you are virgo in horoscope or you have argumentation theory OCD. *insertfunny*

 

While there is certanly room for artistic freedoom I have written my worries for their interpretation of Trolls. I have stated why and becouse. You on other hand accept blindly any given represantation given to you and that is fine. It is a new universe, new rules, thats fresh, I get it. But there are many other similar fantasy established creatures, clearly in favorable or traditionally accepted "humane" design. Which and why I have stated my worries about it in previous posts as how that might portray the recent Troll design than, ranging  from recent movie and game Troll incarnations. Very simple. Imo...considering 'established' lore and myth. RL myth and some high fantasy exampels.

What I'm passionate about is mutual understanding. I don't just say things because it's some kind of privilege for others to receive my thoughts. You presented your worries on the matter, and I presented reasons why I believe you needn't worry quite so much about it. Things I believed to be worth consideration, in case they were not being considered already.

 

To boil it down, something along the lines of "Hey, trolls are actually less specific in established nature than you think; maybe look at a broader scope of troll lore, and re-consider your feelings on the current troll design."

 

Now, you can either do that, or don't. Either is fine by me. If your response had been "Awesome, but here's why I still feel like it would be better to design the troll a different way, or not call it a troll," that would've been completely reasonable. It's not about you being wrong. But, instead, you argued against my very simple reasoning for encouraging a more open-minded approach to the matter. Which is just plain silly, to be honest. Open-mindedness is wrong? And somehow it's "blind acceptance"? That's kind of rude. I take the time to explain my perspective, and you call me out for arbitrarily holding such a perspective.

 

Like I said, if you've misunderstood something I was saying, then I'll gladly attempt to make myself more clear. I'm not the master of communication or anything, so misunderstanding does not mean ignorance or stupidity has occurred, and it doesn't imply some superior intelligence on my part or anything.

 

But, you either haven't misunderstood and can explain to me why you haven't (and why/how I, therefore, have), or you have misunderstood, and my clarification helped, or you can continue to seek understanding, or just give up. However, pretending I've just spent hours passionately arguing with you about troll design instead of attempting to achieve mutual understanding regarding our presented points is not very helpful.

 

I have no intention of "winning" a troll design discussion with you. Never have I said you're wrong to frown upon the troll design. I've only pointed out that the scope and variety of troll lore in no way excludes the presented design from trolldom. Again, if you dislike it, then dislike it. But, an argument over whether or not it is or isn't a troll is fruitless. I'm not even arguing that it's blatantly a troll; that troll lore SPECIFICALLY says "the PoE screenshot is exactly what a troll looks like." Simply that lore is varietous enough to allow for a smaller, humanoid, nature-based creature. Especially when you mix in the fact that it's an original IP, and the design is only partially based directly on existing lore, etc.

 

That was one of the reasons I used a demon as an example, so far up. A designer might look to the Bible, for example, for descriptions of demons. But, they're not going to just slap a Biblical demon into a game that isn't accurately depicting an exact replica of real-life Christianity and Biblical lore. So, they might still use the word "demon," and yet it could stray a decent bit from the actual descriptions of demons in the materials used for inspiration.

 

I don't know how to make it any clearer, and I'm sorry if I somehow came across as simply challenging your opinion of the troll design. I don't mean this in a hostile fashion, but I really don't have anything else to say on the matter (and feel that further discussion, at least on my part, would approach thread derailment, making the topic more about clarification of my words than about actual troll design). But, I'll see you around, different perspective and all.

[Kronos]

I'm not a massive fan of the troll concept shown, as I'm after more nostalgia towards BG/IWD; however if the bestiary is diverse and relevant and fits well into an epic story then I can enjoy it.

 

The main thing I liked about certain encounters in BG especially was that there was an element of comedy around certain encounters, with gibberlings being humorous and ogres being properly dim-witted at times. It adds flavor to encounters and that's what a good bestiary does. Hence I got bored at times with games like Skyrim as the bestiary was all about hyper-aggressive kill-kill-kill mode there wasn't really that interlude or run up to the conflict. 

 

I'm hoping the bestiary will give us that variation and that certain encounters will be humorous or downright creepy and every single creature isn't as single-minded as to simply attack you on sight and might actually want to engage with you first...

[Tauron]

 

What I'm passionate about is mutual understanding. I don't just say things because it's some kind of privilege for others to receive my thoughts. You presented your worries on the matter, and I presented reasons why I believe you needn't worry quite so much about it. Things I believed to be worth consideration, in case they were not being considered already.

 

To boil it down, something along the lines of "Hey, trolls are actually less specific in established nature than you think; maybe look at a broader scope of troll lore, and re-consider your feelings on the current troll design."

 

Now, you can either do that, or don't. Either is fine by me. If your response had been "Awesome, but here's why I still feel like it would be better to design the troll a different way, or not call it a troll," that would've been completely reasonable. It's not about you being wrong. But, instead, you argued against my very simple reasoning for encouraging a more open-minded approach to the matter. Which is just plain silly, to be honest. Open-mindedness is wrong? And somehow it's "blind acceptance"? That's kind of rude. I take the time to explain my perspective, and you call me out for arbitrarily holding such a perspective.

 

Like I said, if you've misunderstood something I was saying, then I'll gladly attempt to make myself more clear. I'm not the master of communication or anything, so misunderstanding does not mean ignorance or stupidity has occurred, and it doesn't imply some superior intelligence on my part or anything.

 

But, you either haven't misunderstood and can explain to me why you haven't (and why/how I, therefore, have), or you have misunderstood, and my clarification helped, or you can continue to seek understanding, or just give up. However, pretending I've just spent hours passionately arguing with you about troll design instead of attempting to achieve mutual understanding regarding our presented points is not very helpful.

 

I have no intention of "winning" a troll design discussion with you. Never have I said you're wrong to frown upon the troll design. I've only pointed out that the scope and variety of troll lore in no way excludes the presented design from trolldom. Again, if you dislike it, then dislike it. But, an argument over whether or not it is or isn't a troll is fruitless. I'm not even arguing that it's blatantly a troll; that troll lore SPECIFICALLY says "the PoE screenshot is exactly what a troll looks like." Simply that lore is varietous enough to allow for a smaller, humanoid, nature-based creature. Especially when you mix in the fact that it's an original IP, and the design is only partially based directly on existing lore, etc.

 

That was one of the reasons I used a demon as an example, so far up. A designer might look to the Bible, for example, for descriptions of demons. But, they're not going to just slap a Biblical demon into a game that isn't accurately depicting an exact replica of real-life Christianity and Biblical lore. So, they might still use the word "demon," and yet it could stray a decent bit from the actual descriptions of demons in the materials used for inspiration.

 

I don't know how to make it any clearer, and I'm sorry if I somehow came across as simply challenging your opinion of the troll design. I don't mean this in a hostile fashion, but I really don't have anything else to say on the matter (and feel that further discussion, at least on my part, would approach thread derailment, making the topic more about clarification of my words than about actual troll design). But, I'll see you around, different perspective and all.

 

 

Ok, no worries good man.

 

 

I'm not a massive fan of the troll concept shown, as I'm after more nostalgia towards BG/IWD; however if the bestiary is diverse and relevant and fits well into an epic story then I can enjoy it.

 

The main thing I liked about certain encounters in BG especially was that there was an element of comedy around certain encounters, with gibberlings being humorous and ogres being properly dim-witted at times. It adds flavor to encounters and that's what a good bestiary does. Hence I got bored at times with games like Skyrim as the bestiary was all about hyper-aggressive kill-kill-kill mode there wasn't really that interlude or run up to the conflict. 

 

I'm hoping the bestiary will give us that variation and that certain encounters will be humorous or downright creepy and every single creature isn't as single-minded as to simply attack you on sight and might actually want to engage with you first...

 

 

I had similar worry, mostly from design that IMO implies they might be "mindless" pack monsters...considering recent trend with several franchises and your Skyrim example was very good, cant agree more. More smart encounters in generall...

[Durinax]

Personally I love the Warcraft style of troll (not just the aesthetics) but the lore is what sells me to them, the fact that they aren't just basic beings, and have a rich culture and have had civilizations before is fantastic to me.

[Tauron]

Personally I love the Warcraft style of troll (not just the aesthetics) but the lore is what sells me to them, the fact that they aren't just basic beings, and have a rich culture and have had civilizations before is fantastic to me.

 

I am not fan of aestethics of TRoll in WoW, but defenetly like idea that they can be basically troglodytes compared to what they were before. Sort of devolved. Which can be compared to original Troll folklore that they are descendant from giants and such, but some have gone like savage or feral in worst scenarios.

[Abel]

Another troll:

 

 

 

The 2 trolls you showed are greats trolls in my opinion. I've lived with the Warhammer version for years, and the water version is quite cool too. But i don't know why, i feel these kinds of trolls would be out of place in PE.

 

Thanks to the poll, i realized that PE trolls are among my prefered versions of this creature. BG/IWD ones are just awfull... Only the never1's one is worse... We are just used to these trolls in games we love. But really, they're not so... well it's just a question of design taste.

 

Furthermore, i don't understand such insistance. It's ok to say "i like/dislike them", but is it really such a big deal?

Edited December 17, 2013 by Abel

[Blackhound]

The PE trolls look fresh imo

[error4o4]

Really enjoyed Skyrim's take on Trolls.  PE's looks great too, Warcraft's are just terrible.