Josh Sawyer's tweets and teasers, part IV

[Dr. Hieronymous Alloy]

Dan Brown writes cargo cult Eco. 

 

Eco isn't for everyone though and that's ok. In his afterword to Name of the Rose Eco writes about how he deliberately made the "doorway chapter" of the book, where Adso steps across the threshold into the monastery and describes all the art and decorations around the doorway for many pages, almost impenetrably rich with history, art, numerology, etc., knowing that it would chase away a lot of readers. Thing is, if that chased you away, you weren't going to like the rest of the book anyway -- you had to  either enjoy reading all that, or  be willing to just skip it. If you were willing to do either one the rest of the book was for you but if you weren't it wasnt' and he wanted readers to figure that out right away.

[Dr. Hieronymous Alloy]

 

I dont have an account either. not sure how it works for me. I do get banned every once in a while but after some time it opens back up. There has also been some recent spoiler stuff so i couldnt look for a while.

As I understand it, SA goes through phases of being viewable by subscriber only and phases where it's viewable by all. Not sure why exactly.

 

 

 

We also have a Book Forum! https://forums.somethingawful.com/forumdisplay.php?forumid=182 

[Karkarov]

On the other hand, while I would never say I loathe Pratchett, I never quite managed to get into his stories. They're fun to read, sure, but I've a hard time settling into a story that fails to take itself seriously, though I do admire his worldbuilding, tongue-in-cheek as it is. It's the same reason I never managed to finish Original Sin: The mystery aspect was well done, but when they tried to add a more integrated story to a style that flouts drama entirely, it just fell apart.

While I can't agree with Boeroer on Umberto Eco, I definitely agree with both of you on Prachett.  I just can't take those stories seriously, and they aren't really funny enough to be good comedy to me.  I would say you are spot on about Original Sin as well, chapter one was actually pretty good.  Everything after that?  Not so much. 

 

I have already decided that when they make Original Sin 3 (sooner or later) it is a hard pass for me, because all the biggest problems in the first game are still there in the second.  Weak story, blandish world past chapter 1, full time non stop silly and gags, yet I am supposed to take the world and it's events seriously?  As a multiplayer game it is fine, because you have a buddy or two.  As a single player game, it's a flop as far as I care.

Edited August 17, 2018 by Karkarov

[Dr. Hieronymous Alloy]

 

On the other hand, while I would never say I loathe Pratchett, I never quite managed to get into his stories. They're fun to read, sure, but I've a hard time settling into a story that fails to take itself seriously, though I do admire his worldbuilding, tongue-in-cheek as it is. It's the same reason I never managed to finish Original Sin: The mystery aspect was well done, but when they tried to add a more integrated story to a style that flouts drama entirely, it just fell apart.

While I can't agree with Boeroer on Umberto Eco, I definitely agree with both of you on Prachett.  I just can't take those stories seriously, and they aren't really funny enough to be good comedy to me.  I would say you are spot on about Original Sin as well, chapter one was actually pretty good.  Everything after that?  Not so much. 

 

I have already decided that when they make Original Sin 3 (sooner or later) it is a hard pass for me, because all the biggest problems in the first game are still there in the second.  Weak story, blandish world past chapter 1, full time non stop silly and gags, yet I am supposed to take the world and it's events seriously?  As a multiplayer game it is fine, because you have a buddy or two.  As a single player game, it's a flop as far as I care.

 

If you haven't gone back and tried the "remastered" edition of the first game they improved a lot of the narrative problems. Notice I didn't say "fixed," but improved enough that they may be within tolerances for you.

 

But yeah I'm waiting on the "remastered" version of the second one to see if it improves.

[Taevyr]

 

 

On the other hand, while I would never say I loathe Pratchett, I never quite managed to get into his stories. They're fun to read, sure, but I've a hard time settling into a story that fails to take itself seriously, though I do admire his worldbuilding, tongue-in-cheek as it is. It's the same reason I never managed to finish Original Sin: The mystery aspect was well done, but when they tried to add a more integrated story to a style that flouts drama entirely, it just fell apart.

While I can't agree with Boeroer on Umberto Eco, I definitely agree with both of you on Prachett.  I just can't take those stories seriously, and they aren't really funny enough to be good comedy to me.  I would say you are spot on about Original Sin as well, chapter one was actually pretty good.  Everything after that?  Not so much. 

 

I have already decided that when they make Original Sin 3 (sooner or later) it is a hard pass for me, because all the biggest problems in the first game are still there in the second.  Weak story, blandish world past chapter 1, full time non stop silly and gags, yet I am supposed to take the world and it's events seriously?  As a multiplayer game it is fine, because you have a buddy or two.  As a single player game, it's a flop as far as I care.

 

If you haven't gone back and tried the "remastered" edition of the first game they improved a lot of the narrative problems. Notice I didn't say "fixed," but improved enough that they may be within tolerances for you.

 

But yeah I'm waiting on the "remastered" version of the second one to see if it improves.

 

Thanks, but I only played the remastered one.

 

The odd thing is that I didn't really mind the "lack" of story earlygame as it fit the style perfectly, until I entered the second zone and they tried to expand it to something that just didn't fit the rest of the game. The ice zone halfway through that zone refueled me a lot, but then you get back to the foresty zone and it just felt... lacking in comparison.

[Boeroer]

I very much regret to have backed OS2. I really liked the original (the original original) Divine Divinity, then skipped the following games from Larian (too much to do with studying, writing thesis, then too much work) and then, when live decided to let me relax a bit more and after playing PoE1, I decided to back OS2. When it came out I tried to play it... but I couldn't even get past the first few fights. I mean not because it was too difficult or so - just because I didn't like anything about the game. Well I like turn based combat - but that wasn't enough. The whole package just lets me go "Urgs!?!". 

[eschu101]

I very much regret to have backed OS2. I really liked the original (the original original) Divine Divinity, then skipped the following games from Larian (too much to do with studying, writing thesis, then too much work) and then, when live decided to let me relax a bit more and after playing PoE1, I decided to back OS2. When it came out I tried to play it... but I couldn't even get past the first few fights. I mean not because it was too difficult or so - just because I didn't like anything about the game. Well I like turn based combat - but that wasn't enough. The whole package just lets me go "Urgs!?!". 

Did you try playing coop or just solo? DOS1 was decent, liked it but not that much. But when i started playing DOS2 with my wife it was blast, really really fun. We played for about 200h and we are about to start a new run with definitive edition coming out. 

[grasida]

My impression of D:OS 1 was that it was decent, but it would be really fun with coop. I started D:OS 2 and bounced off of it really hard. I expect it would also fun with coop, but unfortunately very few of my friends like video games at all, so I don’t think I could ever find someone to coop with.

[fgalkin]

DOS2 is actually the only Divinity game I was able to play. I am not a fan of Diablo-style ARPGs, so the original didn't do much for me. I am a fan of turn based tactical games, and, by extension, turn-based combat RPGs (i.e Blackguards), but Larian's writing was always atrocious, so I never could tolerate it for long. DOS2's writing isn't good, but it was tolerable (by contrast, I quit DOS1 after an hour), and the combat is pretty decent. There are elements in that game which I actually liked- the ability to play as a Companion, the ability to switch races for undead, etc, but the world and the story are just plain garbage.  

[Boeroer]

The original is not really Diablo style...

Edited August 17, 2018 by Boeroer

[fgalkin]

It seemed close enough when I played it, but that was years ago, so my memory might be playing tricks on me

[Karkarov]

It seemed close enough when I played it, but that was years ago, so my memory might be playing tricks on me

It seemed similar at first, and it is easy to see the comparison.  It isn't really "that style" but it is sorta close.

 

Either way like I said, Original Sin is a great co-op game. It is a terrible single player game.

[Big-Ben]

Divinity also has this sort of...whimsy about it. It's significantly more tongue in cheek than I was expecting (Not a criticism by the way.). I haven't played another game like that since Fable and well yeah.

 

Dead babies in Pillars is a far cry from that no?

[draego]

Josh still working 

[Wormerine]

Josh still working 

Nerfs incoming!

[draego]

  LoL not really game info but still good

[the_dog_days]

Did anybody else see this?

 

[Wormerine]

I would really like to see a serious redesign of Ship combat. I like the basic idea and execusions, but just there isn't enough challenge/choice/tactics there to be engaging. 

[Boeroer]

I hate it that you can't sail around a ship no matter how fast and how near you are. If an enemy ship shows you its cannons at close range you can't just sail past. If you then destroy its sails it will forever be able to hit you. Stooopid!

[Manveru123]

Some surprising opinions here. Every companion in OS2 was written better than any of the Deadfire ones, and each of them had their own, conflicting goal instead of following some "watcher" like sheep. Their personal quests are better in every way. Fane and Red Prince put any of the Deadfire hobos to shame. Goddamn Lohse sings you an epic song at one point. If you don't develop positive relationships, they will turn on you at one point, because - like I said - each one of them has their own personal goal that conflicts with yours. The last two Acts felt kinda rushed, but the first two were a masterpiece. Combat on the highest difficulty was appropriately challenging (before Apotheosis, that is), itemization gave you a lot of creative freedom when creating builds, and the music was better too.

 

I'm not a big fan of purely turn-based games, unless it's an ATB system (think older Final Fantasy), but in case of this game I actually enjoyed it a lot.

 

The game sold extremely well twice in a row, that's excluding enhanced editions. I cannot even imagine what would they have to do to make OS3 even better.

[Boeroer]

For me: not make it.

[InsaneCommander]

Some surprising opinions here. Every companion in OS2 was written better than any of the Deadfire ones, and each of them had their own, conflicting goal instead of following some "watcher" like sheep. Their personal quests are better in every way. Fane and Red Prince put any of the Deadfire hobos to shame. Goddamn Lohse sings you an epic song at one point. If you don't develop positive relationships, they will turn on you at one point, because - like I said - each one of them has their own personal goal that conflicts with yours. The last two Acts felt kinda rushed, but the first two were a masterpiece. Combat on the highest difficulty was appropriately challenging (before Apotheosis, that is), itemization gave you a lot of creative freedom when creating builds, and the music was better too.

 

I'm not a big fan of purely turn-based games, unless it's an ATB system (think older Final Fantasy), but in case of this game I actually enjoyed it a lot.

 

The game sold extremely well twice in a row, that's excluding enhanced editions. I cannot even imagine what would they have to do to make OS3 even better.

 

There is a lot of truth here. But I didn't like some of the changes they made. I'm not sure I can explain why, but I actually had more fun with the first one.

[draego]

God Challenge?

[InsaneCommander]

God Challenge?

 

"The question would be what god would make sense to associate with such a change?"

 

Maybe Woedica? She is not in the timeline yet.

[Achilles]

 

God Challenge?

"The question would be what god would make sense to associate with such a change?"

 

Maybe Woedica? She is not in the timeline yet.

My thought as well.

 

Maybe Abydon as a Plan B?