I never finished Pillars of Eternity.

[Sedrefilos]

Well, everybody has difficulties with getting into some games. I, for once, cannot get into Torment: ToN. I sit infront of my pc, thinking to fire it up and then I think how unfun the game is and I leave it alone.

And the other day I tried to get into The Witness, but I couldn't fit. It was just too small.

Edited March 25, 2017 by Sedrefilos

[Katarack21]

Did you play the game (D:OS) alone?

I did. Online play with strangers actually trips my social anxiety real hard.

[Rataan]

Hoping to rerail this thread back to PoE and not other games or the Trump/Obama political knife fight, I also never finished PoE, and I also quit some time after entering Twin Elms. Interestingly, some of the things that irked me about PoE haven't been mentioned much by others.  The first thing about PoE that took the wind out of my sails was the inclusion of guns. I almost opted not to buy PoE for this reason alone. Why did OE do this? Guns just destroy the epic fantasy sword and sorcery mystique for me. I suppose I should be grateful that the guns were the crudest and earliest types and that they weren't particularly OP, but since they are so peripheral, it just begs the question all the more why they were included at all. If we can have a blunderbuss, then why not a rifle? If we have a rifle then why not a machine gun? We all can see the slippery slope. Guns were a renaissance invention, not a medieval one. 'Nuff said. 

 

The main story line was dull and lackluster, but that wasn't the biggest problem for me. The fact that it was also depressing and horrifying was far worse. This is escapist fantasy. It's a genre that is supposed to make us want to go on an adventure somewhere exotic and exciting. Nobody gets into epic fantasy just to enter a nightmare that makes us wonder why the protagonist doesn't just hang himself. Sure, there needs to be conflict and crisis, or else there wouldn't be anything to do, but there needs to be light along with the dark. There was simply nothing uplifting about the PoE story line that I can recall. Children are being born without souls. Children--the only things in our real-life world that are genuinely sweet and innocent, and that is what is being annihilated in PoE. It's not just a bad idea. It's like if we had a contest for outrageously bad ideas, that would be the winner.

 

In a similar vein, I just don't get why so many people cite the Grieving Mother story as a high point in PoE. GM has to be one of my least favorite RPG characters in any game I have ever played. I just could not understand what she was going on about, and let's face it, that was really the point. Too much mystery, not enough revelation. The only thing I was sure about was that her story was another horrifying and depressing version of the horrifying and depressing main story.

 

I could go on about some of the wooden, paint-by-numbers implementations like the main city and the keep, the other companions whose names and purposes completely escape me now and the animancy sideshow which had the redeeming quality of being less horrific than the main story, but only by a slim margin. But I didn't hate PoE. I think OE did try to deliver what CRPG players have been asking for since 2001. They just didn't have on hand the quality of content that was implied when PoE was touted as the spiritual successor to the Infinity Engine games. I'm sure I will buy Deadfire, but I will wait until it is a year old and most of the patching has been done. Let's all raise a glass and hope that the second time is the charm.

[Katarack21]

"Why did OE do this? Guns just destroy the epic fantasy sword and sorcery mystique for me."

 

"This is escapist fantasy. It's a genre that is supposed to make us want to go on an adventure somewhere exotic and exciting. Nobody gets into epic fantasy just to enter a nightmare that makes us wonder why the protagonist doesn't just hang himself."

 

Well, theres your problem. This was never intended to be sword and sworcery or high fantasy. You have far to strong an opinion about what "fantasy" means, and not enough willingness to accept that it means other things to me.

Edited March 26, 2017 by Katarack21

[Ninjamestari]

That's actually another point of Obsidian not really having a clear picture of what they were doing. On paper they were not going for high fantasy, but then they add the incredibly strong soul-theme. I don't know if this is the case, but I got this really strong gut-feeling that the whole stat-system that is based on the properties of your soul was some weird way to justify gender equality in the melee department. This is why I brought up the social justice angle, many of the game's problems just have give off the feeling that the dev-team had been infiltrated by some feminist who thinks the game is secondary to her political agenda; kinda like what happened with the BG:EE team that "felt uncomfortable with the gender roles in Baldur's Gate".

 

Damn I wish they would've just scrapped the soul angle altogether and created a more grittier approach to magic; would've fit the setting so much better. Even without political agendas, you really need to make a choice as a developer, whether or not you're going for the traditional high fantasy, and if the answer is no, then the traditional wizard/priest/druid - set of spellcasters is an incredibly bad idea. One of the reasons I had so much trouble immersing to this game was that the game seriously doesn't appear to know whether it is a traditional high fantasy or not, it's having some serious identity issues, which, I can't help but come to this again so sorry about that, is a clear indication of a bit too liberal approach to the design. The way they handled crowd-funding might be at the core of the issue, promising all sorts of things to attract donors. This is why I think they should've just gone with tradition as that was what they marketed and what people mostly expected, and left this experimental approach to a further project where they could focus on it properly without scramming in forced tradition that just gets in the way of the setting.

[tinysalamander]

Did you play the game (D:OS) alone? It's really meant to play with someone else, that's where the fun begins.

 

I tried that. Poor targeting means I could easily misclick and hit my partner. It was kind of a pain.

 

Taking quests that way never clicked with me either. Something’s happening somewhere and I don’t even know, or I click on the dialog and listen… Assuming I catched that in time. Reading journals is unlikely as that takes even more time.

 

Rock-paper-scissors-based persuasion is just wrong.

 

It also put too many quests right at the beginning (or maybe communication wasn’t good enough), so at one point I just didn’t even know where I was supposed to go (higher level enemies vs I already was here before).

 

From the technical aspect it’s best I’ve seen in a while, though. It runs fast and stable.

[Katarack21]

 I don't know if this is the case, but I got this really strong gut-feeling that the whole stat-system that is based on the properties of your soul was some weird way to justify gender equality in the melee department.

 

 

Edited March 26, 2017 by Katarack21

[Ninjamestari]

Just to clarify

 

"I think that the stat system detracts from the game" <- Important part

 

"I think that a political agenda may have influenced the stat system" <- Not important ^^

Edited March 26, 2017 by Ninjamestari

[Katarack21]

You have an almost clinical inability to separate your politics from your video game rants, though. Nobody else around here does that ****, you notice that?

Also, gender neutrality in player characters combat ability goes back to 1st Edition AD&D, where gender influenced level progression in the sense of caps on ability scores, *and nothing else*. Even Gygax understood the need for that basis of equality; those caps were gone by 3rd Edition.

Edited March 26, 2017 by Katarack21

[algroth]

Guns were a renaissance invention, not a medieval one. 'Nuff said.

The game was set in a Renaissance-inspired period, and is precisely all about the shift towards humanism. That's pretty much the point of the game.

 

Also there are two things with that post that I have to argue against: firstly, why does fantasy *have* to be medieval-inspired? That seems like a pretty close-minded idea of a genre that could potentially represent all manners of worlds not even necessarily based on a historical time period. The inclusion of guns was a surprising aspect when I first played through Pillars but which also worked surprisingly well, I felt - I had no problem with the choice of focusing on a more Renaissant period instead. Had I been asked before the game about how I felt of including pistols, arquebuses and the likes, I would have probably been scared about feeling them jarring within a sword and sorcery fantasy context, but I was gladly proven wrong about it.

 

Secondly, never assume that "nobody" would want this or that. Not everyone approaches fantasy as an escapist genre, either to write or read as such, and not everyone values escapism to such a degree. When you say "nobody gets into epic fantasy just to enter a nightmare that makes us wonder why the protagonist doesn't just hang himself", well, isn't that pretty close to the point to Planescape: Torment? For my money, that's the best videogame, RPG or otherwise, fantasy or otherwise, that I've played, and I'm sure I'm not alone in thinking that in this site. I personally think escapism has its value for certain, but am also much more interested in themes and ideas that extend beyond its own microcosm, and looking at the genre of fantasy as another way of reflecting upon aspects and questions we may find in reality and in our everyday lives. It may not be what interests you, but don't assume it's what everyone agrees on either.

 

For the rest, I would say the Grieving Mother is interesting precisely because she tells the experiences of the game from a different side, and the mysteries to what she speaks of are eventually revealed too, but in terms of the original roster of companions I also feel she's the weakest, or most unlikable at least. She's interesting but I do feel her mysticism becomes overbearing a bit too often. Personally I also found there was plenty of warmth and a couple of chuckles courtesy from the rest of the companions, which helped alleviate some of the bleakness that is prevalent through most of the game otherwise. This aside I guess it all falls down to personal preference, but I can't say I shared your disappointment for the game or your lack of interest in the story, and I'm sorry you felt that way about it.

Edited March 26, 2017 by algroth

[Ninjamestari]

You have an almost clinical inability to separate your politics from your video game rants, though. Nobody else around here does that ****, you notice that?

 

Also, gender neutrality in player characters combat ability goes back to 1st Edition AD&D, where gender influenced level progression in the sense of caps on ability scores, *and nothing else*. Even Gygax understood the need for that basis of equality; those caps were gone by 3rd Edition.

 

Only when applicable. Politics are deeply connected to these issues, and sadly the influence runs both ways. I'd love for games to exist in a political vacuum, but they do not. It's not a popular connection to make because politics are controversial, but then again, everything worth talking about usually is to some degree. Humans are political creatures, it runs deep within our instinctual understanding of group-dynamics, and our political beliefs are interconnected with ALL our beliefs, including our relationship with fantasy and games. Denying that connection is simply foolish.

 

There is absolutely no *need* for equality, that is a completely subjective belief, much akin to a religion. The problem with equality is that the whole idea is fundamentally in conflict with reality; people are not equal, men and women are not equal, the rich and the poor are not equal, the smart and the dumb are not equal, the healthy and the sick are not equal, and most importantly, the strong and the weak are not equal.

 

This causes discomfort in people who have built their world-view around the belief of equality, in the very same way that scientific world view causes discomfort in the highly conservative religious folks. When the abstract model representing the world in our heads is in conflict with reality, we always experience discomfort. Some people lash out, some people seek to adapt their views to better reflect what they see in the reality, while some people cling to certain points and try to build their new model around the same beliefs they cling to, and to rationalize their old beliefs in the new environment.

 

In this context strong female warriors are liable to break the immersion of people, especially adults, who can no longer ignore the ludicrous idea of small women facing giant men in combat and winning, and whose own personal experiences with women have shown how utterly implausible the whole personality of the female warrior is. So, in order to get around that, you generate a fantasy world where your physical traits no longer define your ability, but physical strength turns from a concrete thing into some abstract attribute of one's soul.

 

I'm just waiting what happens when people realize that female warriors leads to the death of the society as women are needed for reproductive purposes and dying in battle kinda goes against that fundamental purpose. What kind of concepts do they add to their fantasies then in an attempt to preserve their belief in equality.

[Katarack21]

Sorry, dude. First of all, this is a video game forum and nobody cares. You want to talk about politics, go to Way Off-Topic.

Second of all, you act like...*any* of this is new. Kitiara was kicking ass all over Dragonlance back in 1984. It's not a question of breaking immersion of players by creating melee-capable females. It's a question of breaking *YOUR* immersion. That's *you*. *YOUR* hang-up. Probably a lot of people *you* know, too. But the idea that society is going to be destroyed because media shows women fighting...well...that's your bull****, man, and I don't want to ****ing hear it.

[Ninjamestari]

Sorry, dude. First of all, this is a video game forum and nobody cares. You want to talk about politics, go to Way Off-Topic.

 

Second of all, you act like...*any* of this is new. Kitiara was kicking ass all over Dragonlance back in 1984. It's not a question of breaking immersion of players by creating melee-capable females. It's a question of breaking *YOUR* immersion. That's *you*. *YOUR* hang-up. Probably a lot of people *you* know, too. But the idea that society is going to be destroyed because media shows women fighting...well...that's your bull****, man, and I don't want to ****ing hear it.

 

If you don't want to '****ing' hear it, don't keep responding to it. I'm not talking about politics, I'm talking about their affect on game-design. There is an underlying phenomenon here. If you can't have a discussion about it without getting triggered like that, then don't. If no one is truly interested in the subject, it will die out and be forgotten as people move on to discuss other things. You're the one keeping this issue on the surface. I you question my statements it is in my right to post an answer, and I'm absolutely not going to avoid a subject just because it might cause *you* to throw a temper tantrum. *You* are responsible for your own feelings, and while it is only reasonable to expect that people won't go out of their way just to mess with you, you do *not* have the authority to limit what others can and cannot speak about.

Edited March 26, 2017 by Ninjamestari

[Gfted1]

Alrighty then. It seems like everyone has gotten a shot scross each other bows. Lets please stay on topic and remember, addressing the posts and not the poster keeps things from getting personal.

[Abel]

I'm just waiting what happens when people realize that female warriors leads to the death of the society as women are needed for reproductive purposes and dying in battle kinda goes against that fundamental purpose. What kind of concepts do they add to their fantasies then in an attempt to preserve their belief in equality.

 

I may be the only one, but i feel what you say in this last post is pretty clever (did not read previous ones). Though, i would not use the word "politics". Maybe "Culture". "Tradition". "Social beliefs". "SJW lobbying". Or such things. I can understand why you would say what you say. And it makes sense. Even though i can't agree about everything, and since it's the Pillars' forum, about female characters.

 

Hum... It may be because i have progressists ideas about females in real life. I just can't stand the idea of my girlfriend or anyone being limited in his potential by core determinism. I feel that everyone should have the freedom to try to go beyond them. Female playing soccer or rugby? It's true they don't have the physical abilities to make the same spectacular plays, but i like very much what they bring to these sports that guys can't.

 

And it's pretty much the same with female characters in a fantasy RPG. I like the idea that women are more than in traditional real life societies. I can understand why someone who would see fantasy universes as "alternative medieval settings" would feel that most historical facts are completely ignored and that that makes immersion harder. I even think it's a valid point of view. As valid as mine, at least. But, to be honest, i can't stand societies or religions which see women as "reproductive material". I have a big problem with that, as i said above.

 

But, still. As for the sports, i think female warriors should have their own interesting way to fight. I love playing female warriors. I use to drop their "strenght" and up their "charisma" and "dexterity", while giving them light 2 handers (not abydon hammer) or 1 handed weapons, to reflect the difference in their abilities compared to male warriors. Dexterity has a great advantage in Pillars, but i would argue that Might is a problem for me. Because if i play a female spellcaster with high magic power, this means that she will be able to lift a truck barehands, too. Which is ridiculous to me and a HUGE problem when i try to roleplay (especially in scripted interactions).

 

In the end i would agree that our way to play and enjoy games is for part influenced by who we are, where we have grown up, our beliefs, past, traditions and everything else. And that modern, new beliefs of our societies, while imported into a fantasy setting, may be pretty disturbing (the whole concept of social justice is a good example for me). But i am not bothered by some of them, like having female warriors. We had Jeanne d'Arc in France. It may be a reason.

 

Finally this means that you're entitled to your own opinion. As everyone else. And while your point may be valid for some of us, i fail to see how the whole debate helps figuring out what tried to outline the author of this post: the reasons why one would not finish the game. Which i understand as "Let's figure out what would improve the game experience for Deadfire".

[Karkarov]

I've got a confession to make. I just cannot get into D:OS.

 

I've tried to or three times. Tried different characters, different setups. I can't ever get past the first town. I just stop playing after a while. It....bores me.

You aren't alone, I didn't like it either.  After the first town the story sort of gets uninteresting and silly, and the combat is always either ball busting hard or "I wish I could auto play this fight as I am going to win no matter what I do".

 

It is a game of gimmicks, if you like those gimmicks (like the environment combat) it is a real winner.  If you don't?  There isn't much real meat on the bone.

 

I had hoped with 2 they would not double down on the gimmicky gameplay and character stuff, and make the world and story more interesting.  However they did the opposite, doubled down hard, made the world even more generic, etc.  I backed it but will never play it past the beta builds.

[Karkarov]

Just to clarify

 

"I think that the stat system detracts from the game" <- Important part

 

"I think that a political agenda may have influenced the stat system" <- Not important ^^

Just to clarify

 

You can argue point 1, though most of us will not concur. 

 

As for point 2, have you considered seeing a psychologist about your inability to separate gender politics from anything in life?  Apparently up to including stat mechanics in video games.  I promise politics had nothing to do with anything relating to the gameplay, mechanics, or character building aspects of Eternity.

[Ninjamestari]

The issue was about immersion, and then it went forward to the stat-system, and then I speculated about the political roots of that stat system. Having female warriors doesn't bother me if they're well written characters. Pallegina was interesting, and I'll probably have her rejoin my party in deadfire. Hell, I even liked Cassandra and Vivienne in DA:I, a game I otherwise loathe. The problems begin when you make the strong female the norm in the game, or try to weasel the mechanics in order to normalize something that isn't normal. A warrior woman is an interesting character precisely because she is an exception; if she's the norm however, the immersion will quickly eat a lot of dirt.

 

 

 I use to drop their "strenght" and up their "charisma" and "dexterity", while giving them light 2 handers (not abydon hammer) or 1 handed weapons, to reflect the difference in their abilities compared to male warriors. Dexterity has a great advantage in Pillars, but i would argue that Might is a problem for me. Because if i play a female spellcaster with high magic power, this means that she will be able to lift a truck barehands, too. Which is ridiculous to me and a HUGE problem when i try to roleplay (especially in scripted interactions).

 

That part encapsulates my thoughts on the subject *perfectly*.

Edited March 27, 2017 by Pidesco
Side note content

[Ninjamestari]

 

Just to clarify

 

"I think that the stat system detracts from the game" <- Important part

 

"I think that a political agenda may have influenced the stat system" <- Not important ^^

Just to clarify

 

You can argue point 1, though most of us will not concur. 

 

As for point 2, have you considered seeing a psychologist about your inability to separate gender politics from anything in life?  Apparently up to including stat mechanics in video games.  I promise politics had nothing to do with anything relating to the gameplay, mechanics, or character building aspects of Eternity.

 

 

Your inability to see the connecting pattern is hardly my failing; it is there. I understand that you don't like the thoughts I have introduced in this thread, but I would still advice you to not show such blatant disrespect towards a fellow man. You're not doing your own views any favors by acting like that.

Edited March 26, 2017 by Ninjamestari

[rjshae]

I sense this thread is about to come to a sudden end...

Edited March 26, 2017 by rjshae

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

****ing stat systems are political now?

[algroth]

I sense this thread is about to come to a sudden end...

Seems that way. A shame too because it's otherwise a very interesting topic, and even if I don't agree I'd rather read through this than yet another thread about party size/vancian casting/"dumbing down"/general whining.

Edited March 26, 2017 by algroth

[SonicMage117]

Look at this thread, this thread is amazing...

 

Give it a lick.

 

Mmmmmm! Tastes just like raisins :D

[Rataan]

The game was set in a Renaissance-inspired period, and is precisely all about the shift towards humanism. That's pretty much the point of the game.

If you say so. I don't specifically remember that, but I don't really care. It doesn't change my opinion that the inclusion of guns added little to the game and detracted from its identity as a sword and sorcery epic.

 

Also there are two things with that post that I have to argue against: firstly, why does fantasy *have* to be medieval-inspired? That seems like a pretty close-minded idea of a genre that could potentially represent all manners of worlds not even necessarily based on a historical time period. The inclusion of guns was a surprising aspect when I first played through Pillars but which also worked surprisingly well, I felt - I had no problem with the choice of focusing on a more Renaissant period instead. Had I been asked before the game about how I felt of including pistols, arquebuses and the likes, I would have probably been scared about feeling them jarring within a sword and sorcery fantasy context, but I was gladly proven wrong about it.

 

I never said it had to be anything. They can make it whatever they want. A good enough story can make any world building choices tolerable. But PoE was 97% sword and sorcery epic with with 3% primitive guns and, according to you, renaissance rationalism. It just came off as a hodgepodge that was trying to be too many things to too many people, like a 10 year old MMO.

 

Secondly, never assume that "nobody" would want this or that. Not everyone approaches fantasy as an escapist genre, either to write or read as such, and not everyone values escapism to such a degree. When you say "nobody gets into epic fantasy just to enter a nightmare that makes us wonder why the protagonist doesn't just hang himself", well, isn't that pretty close to the point to Planescape: Torment? For my money, that's the best videogame, RPG or otherwise, fantasy or otherwise, that I've played, and I'm sure I'm not alone in thinking that in this site. I personally think escapism has its value for certain, but am also much more interested in themes and ideas that extend beyond its own microcosm, and looking at the genre of fantasy as another way of reflecting upon aspects and questions we may find in reality and in our everyday lives. It may not be what interests you, but don't assume it's what everyone agrees on either.

 

Of course saying nobody was a bit of hyperbole. There's a lid for every pot. It's funny that you should bring up Ps:T. That's another game that I started and never finished, and I wrote a dissenting critique of that on the BGII forums back in 2001. I didn't like that the Nameless One was a Frankenstein clone. I didn't like that everything looked washed out and generally ugly. I got fed up with Mort's endless necrophilic and cannibalistic gross-outs. Obviously, I wasn't alone, because Ps:T was generally considered a commercial failure, at least in terms of initial sales. It eventually got enough of a cult following to be profitable, or so I hear, but nothing near the magnitude of the Baldur's Gate franchise.

[Katarack21]

Alrighty then. It seems like everyone has gotten a shot scross each other bows. Lets please stay on topic and remember, addressing the posts and not the poster keeps things from getting personal.

Maybe you should do your ****ing job and actually enforce the rules of the forum. This jackass has been running around in the General Pillars Forum talking about SJW's and how equality is evil for *days* in every ****ing post he can find.

 

What happened to Obsidian's non-discrimination policy? What happened to non-video game discussions being confined to Way-Off Topic? All I want to do is talk about Pillars of Eternity II: Deadfire. I *don't* want some Trump-loving woman-hating ******** to spew his ****ing bile all over this place, too. We have enough of that trash everywhere else.

 

He wants to talk about video games? ****ing fine. He wants to talk about SJW's and how women are not equal to men?

 

Go to ****ing Brietbart. Don't ****ing do it here.

Edited March 26, 2017 by Katarack21