Why do some people/reviewers dislike the story of Pillars so much.

[Boeroer]

Eothas == Lucifer ("Lightbringer"). Before christianity used this as the name for the devil it was simply the name for the morning star ("Dawnstar").

 

The angel/god who rebels and gets expelled.

 

I guess it's nice that he's kind of the good guy when it comes to that otherwise misanthrophic pantheon.

 

But this was also done before PoE/Deadfire in several novels, one of them "Memnoch the Devil" by Anne Rice. Those usually tell the story of Lucifer from his point of view where he comes off as a friend of mankind who's simply misunderstood. Like Eothas basically. Only Eothas succeeds where Lucifer fails.

 

So... not really original stuff. Good that more and more details get added that give Eothas his own distinct identity.

[Sherab]

Hmmm... that's funny. Well, I do like Eothas as interesting character, but still, I rather consider him to be a dangerous fanatic, as I wrote elsewhere. He has good motivation, possibly, but still, I consider him a fanatic. For some reason he thinks that destruction of the world as we know it, is the only way to expose gods' true nature to the Kiths, and perhaps to remind other gods, what their job should really be. And in the same way as he did during the Saint's War, he can easily accept all the destruction and death he brings to the world on his path.

[house2fly]

But this was also done before PoE/Deadfire in several novels, one of them "Memnoch the Devil" by Anne Rice. Those usually tell the story of Lucifer from his point of view where he comes off as a friend of mankind who's simply misunderstood. Like Eothas basically. Only Eothas succeeds where Lucifer fails.

Memnoch...

 

 

...Nemnok...?

[Boeroer]

Maybe inspired.

[Manveru123]

Hmmm... that's funny. Well, I do like Eothas as interesting character, but still, I rather consider him to be a dangerous fanatic, as I wrote elsewhere. He has good motivation, possibly, but still, I consider him a fanatic. For some reason he thinks that destruction of the world as we know it, is the only way to expose gods' true nature to the Kiths, and perhaps to remind other gods, what their job should really be. And in the same way as he did during the Saint's War, he can easily accept all the destruction and death he brings to the world on his path.

"I have to destroy the world and create a new one" sounds like a motivation for every jRPG main villain ever :D

[misterjimmy]

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

 

This light bulb bastard just make me gonna puke. I understand The Wheel is the problem. But that doesn't mean he can destroy my stronghold, kill my people and eat my soul. Also he never stop those fanatic to fool innocent people join with them and suicide. Because He only care how to save kith but he never think how to guide them.

[bringingyouthefuture]

I always equated Eothas with the word Ethos - Ethics

 

Thaos with the word Pathos - Passion

 

POE3 Logos??? - Logic or perhaps the logical conclusion of the trilogy so now they must make a 3rd.

 

Interesting they are all persuasions for arguments too.

Edited September 7, 2018 by aaronghowell

[InsaneCommander]

I always equated Eothas with the word Ethos - Ethics

 

Thaos with the word Pathos - Passion

 

POE3 Logos??? - Logic or perhaps the logical conclusion of the trilogy so now they must make a 3rd.

 

Interesting they are all persuasions for arguments too.

 

PoE 3 villain: Laogos? Logaos?  

[Boeroer]

Legos. He's able to break himself apart into tiny, edgy bits - and if you step on those you almost die from the pain...

[bringingyouthefuture]

Orlando Bloom - as Drizzt Do'Urden this time since they couldn't just leave him dead in BG

Edited September 8, 2018 by aaronghowell

[Mikeymoonshine]

 

So both Pillars Of Eternity and Deadfire reviewed very well and were (so far for deadfire) well received by players too.

 

However I do remember hearing a lot about how the story for POE was slow, boring , "dry" ect especially at the start. I've looked at a few reviews for this game and I am noticing that although it is reviewing very well some of the critics are saying the story is bad, they couldn't get into it and it's slow at the start.

 

Now I don't think the story of Pillars Of Eternity is like the best story I have ever played in a video game or anything. I have plenty of criticisms of it but then I have plenty of criticisms of the story in many games. Compared to other games though I really don't get why it got these comments and although I am still pretty early on in Deadfire I feel the same about this game.

 

What is it about the way these stories are told that is putting people off? Where as a relatively simplistic story like in the Divinity OS games does not seem to be getting this kind of response (and I am not bashing those games I loved those too).

 

The "slow at the start" comments especially are odd as this is pretty standard for this kind of rpg and a lot of people who are making these arguments should know this.

I just realized you've probably stopped paying attention to this thread, but :

 

I can't really say for sure. I think it varies depending on the person, but I *think* the general rule is that the mechanics and narrative of Pillars don't hit the beats some players assume it should.

 

Which is why I love these games and Obsidian games in general. They make more believable, thought out worlds and people and ideas. But if you loved Bioware and whatever tropes and patterns the company follows, I suspect Pillars - which almost goes out of its way to not just be the same RPG story, and be more grounded and introspective, and ask uncomfortable questions and have intentionally imperfect solutions to hard problems - is not satisfying.

 

The Last Jedi to some extent got the same response from Star Wars fans. It subverts expectations, which is cool, but some people were attached to the kind of stories that produce those expectations.

 

 

Ah yeah, I never expected this discussion to last this long and i've been very busy recently so not had much time to read threads here. I am still paying attention though.

 

It's an interesting idea, as I mentioned I definately agree that some things are just not to certain people's taste but I guess I was talking more about mechanics there or just the way of story telling. As for the story beats, there is a lot of subnjectivity there but there is also objectivity too. There are some objective ways to criticise story telling. I think Deadfire being far too wordy is one, the length the text goes to in order to describe everything. Any editor will tell you not to do that if there is not a good reason to do that.

 

As for The Last Jedi, I didn't like that movie for many reasons but the most simple criticism I can give is that simply "subverting expectations" does not make a good story. Doing the opposite of what the last movie built people up to expect constantly does not in and of itself make a movie good. I don't understand people who consider that movie brilliant just because it had a bunch of twists in it but then that is just my opinion and it's off topic.

 

Anyway I still loved both POE games for the most part but I don't really think they are particularly "introspective" or "ask uncomfortable questions". It sort of sounds like you are saying it is just too deep for some people and that's why they dislike it and that it's the same for TLJ. I can't say I agree with that idea to be honest.

Edited September 11, 2018 by Mikeymoonshine

[Tick]

 

 

So both Pillars Of Eternity and Deadfire reviewed very well and were (so far for deadfire) well received by players too.

 

However I do remember hearing a lot about how the story for POE was slow, boring , "dry" ect especially at the start. I've looked at a few reviews for this game and I am noticing that although it is reviewing very well some of the critics are saying the story is bad, they couldn't get into it and it's slow at the start.

 

Now I don't think the story of Pillars Of Eternity is like the best story I have ever played in a video game or anything. I have plenty of criticisms of it but then I have plenty of criticisms of the story in many games. Compared to other games though I really don't get why it got these comments and although I am still pretty early on in Deadfire I feel the same about this game.

 

What is it about the way these stories are told that is putting people off? Where as a relatively simplistic story like in the Divinity OS games does not seem to be getting this kind of response (and I am not bashing those games I loved those too).

 

The "slow at the start" comments especially are odd as this is pretty standard for this kind of rpg and a lot of people who are making these arguments should know this.

I just realized you've probably stopped paying attention to this thread, but :

 

I can't really say for sure. I think it varies depending on the person, but I *think* the general rule is that the mechanics and narrative of Pillars don't hit the beats some players assume it should.

 

Which is why I love these games and Obsidian games in general. They make more believable, thought out worlds and people and ideas. But if you loved Bioware and whatever tropes and patterns the company follows, I suspect Pillars - which almost goes out of its way to not just be the same RPG story, and be more grounded and introspective, and ask uncomfortable questions and have intentionally imperfect solutions to hard problems - is not satisfying.

 

The Last Jedi to some extent got the same response from Star Wars fans. It subverts expectations, which is cool, but some people were attached to the kind of stories that produce those expectations.

Ah yeah, I never expected this discussion to last this long and i've been very busy recently so not had much time to read threads here. I am still paying attention though.

 

It's an interesting idea, as I mentioned I definately agree that some things are just not to certain people's taste but I guess I was talking more about mechanics there or just the way of story telling. As for the story beats, there is a lot of subnjectivity there but there is also objectivity too. There are some objective ways to criticise story telling. I think Deadfire being far too wordy is one, the length the text goes to in order to describe everything. Any editor will tell you not to do that if there is not a good reason to do that.

 

As for The Last Jedi, I didn't like that movie for many reasons but the most simple criticism I can give is that simply "subverting expectations" does not make a good story. Doing the opposite of what the last movie built people up to expect constantly does not in and of itself make a movie good. I don't understand people who consider that movie brilliant just because it had a bunch of twists in it but then that is just my opinion and it's off topic.

 

Anyway I still loved both POE games for the most part but I don't really think they are particularly "introspective" or "ask uncomfortable questions". It sort of sounds like you are saying it is just too deep for some people and that's why they dislike it and that it's the same for TLJ. I can't say I agree with that idea to be honest.

Edit : This got way out of hand. I'm so sorry.

 

Also I realized post facto that what I'm saying might still be a little patronizing. I don't think all of people's reactions/complaints are invalid (there are lots and lots of fair criticism that I can see or agree with) , I just feel that many people aren't being entirely honest about why they have the opinions they do.

 

---

 

Thank you for responding!

 

I might have accidentally opened up three whole cans of worms, there. I don't have time to go into everything but it feels cheap not to respond at all.

 

I think my personal bias and frustration with the stubbornly endless negativity for negativity's sake might be leaking into my conversations a bit. I *don't* think that Pillars or TLJ are too smart or deep for its critics to understand - my apologies if it came off that way.

 

It's more that both cases have previous works that they come from, that a large number of people are deeply attached to, but also break away from significantly. In both cases, the previous works that people compare each to are stories and systems that play on well worn tropes, patterns, and assumptions. The expectations and assumptions people would typically have are either rarely or never challenged. And I would expect that any twists are twists we'd more expect and be comfortable with as a general population.

 

The two new works *do* challenge a ton of assumptions that our culture has - from what's ethical /'good' and 'bad,' to what a protagonist or a hero is and what they can/should do, to how a narrative or game should be structured. And that's especially rare from essentially a *fantasy* genre, which usually has more comfortable or familiar and feel-good themes. It's usually sci-fi that's the genre that subverts and questions what we assume is true.

 

So if you're someone that *liked* the kind of stories and tropes of what these new things *came* from, you probably *dislike* that the new things are branching away from what you want more of. And if you think there's nothing wrong with the tropes /assumptions from the original games, you might even dislike or be annoyed with the new works changing and challenging them. Either way, you're probably not looking for /interested in the cool stuff the new things are doing at that point.

 

---

 

I've come to this conclusion because the majority of fans that *I've* seen that dislike both often engage in similar behavior. They nitpick tons of little things and say how the old stuff was better in every way to explain why they don't like it, but I doubt they'd care about or say many of those points if it was about something they like. I mean, people were complaining at length about the name *'The Watcher'* earlier, which is just baffling to me.

 

It comes off to me as trying to explain why one so deeply dislikes something when they can't properly explain it - because I've done exactly the same thing for things I dislike on a similar level. I *hated* Mass Effect 2 and 3 for essentially stripping away everything I thought made the first game cool and shooting into a completely different direction, and I responded to that in a very similar way.

 

---

 

As for subjectivity/objectivity, although I hate when people use "It's all subjective" as a handwave to get out of a conversation, all stories and art and the way we think they should work is subjective. We only think that stories should have a three act structure or character development or whatever because we, as a culture, have decided to agree that that's the thing to do. I'm not saying we should stop thinking that way, but there's no law of nature or science I'm aware of that can prove that that's objectively the best thing to do in a story. Especially when you can see that other cultures sometimes have completely different standards for what good stories are.

 

For me, I was actually sad that they stripped down descriptions so much from the first game. With the exception of Durance *on my second playthrough*, it never felt boring or a chore to read and

I loved the level of detail it added to my little mental images. And I suspect people wouldn't complain about the level of wordy-ness if we were talking about Planescape Torment. You could argue that game was better written, but at that point your problem wasn't *really* how many words were in Deadfire dialogue or descriptions.

 

---

 

Last note, I don't think the movie or game are good *just* because they make twists or subversions, and I don't think they did either just for the sake of them. Stories that do twists for the sake of twists would be things like Lost or M Night Shamalan (sp?).

 

I get the vibe that both saw the stories Star Wars and fantasy RPGs made over and over and asked, "Why do we keep writing that story?" or noticed potential flaws with those stories, or felt that didn't really represent how the world works, or just wanted to make something *new.* And I love that they're trying something different and playing with those ideas. Pillars I was the first fantasy game I played where the gods were essentially *less* than they seemed to everyone,and a game that talked and asked about, essentially, where you find meaning and value in life when there's no God or destiny or magical thing bigger than yourself, and if you can trust people to do the right thing or if you think they *need* that looming authority to rule and guide them. Pillars II frequently brings up if behavior like yours and Eothas' is actually the ethical thing, and how much damage your actions can cause just trying to fix something else. Those are way more complex and uncomfortable discussions than a fantasy rpg usually delves into.

Edited September 11, 2018 by Tick

[Guest]

Nevermind that Obsidian’s initial game took Star Wars and turned it on it’s head. The people who loved it said that they enjoyed seeing the tropes subverted. Of course it was Avellone doing the subverting, and obviously he’s the only one capable of doing this, so Obsidian should be ashamed for even trying (because if Avellone wrote this exact same game, everyone would be talking about how great it is)

[house2fly]

If Avellone had written this exact game he'd have blown past the word count of the entire main quest by the end of the initial conversation with Berath. The intro would have been good though

[Verde]

I took a break and came back and the flaws are much clearer to me. Everything is surface level. Complete a quest, get loot, and nothing really changes.

Edited September 12, 2018 by Verde

[Somnium_Meum]

POE2 would have much better story if PC wasn't the Watcher.

 

Watcher is "locked" to high-level game - working with gods, against gods. Heck, he had souls of whole nation in his hand. Gods pull him into in-between at whim and he gather souls of fallen kith. It's extremely immersion-breaking switching between Pirate/Bounty Hunter, Watcher and Adventurer/Errand Runner every second.

Also everyone is rambling about their ****ty issues while you are supposed to handle stuff related to gods. Like, ffs Xoti stop your rambling, Gaun/Eothas aren't gods anyways.

 

Wouldn't be Deadfire better if you were common kith traveling on ship (based on background - Slave/Dissident could be imprisoned, Aristocrat/Scientist have their own cabin etc.), Ben tries to take over the ship, Edér joins rescues/joins you and eventually random giant green statue makes your ship crash.

You wake up on beach with Edér who helps you reach Port Maje. Then you reach Xoti and you naturally want to leave PM, so Clario asks you to go to Digsite. There you meet Aloth and you contact Eothas. After leaving PM you can do whatever you want as every path will naturally lead you to Ukaizo.

 

There would be no sense of urgency, if you don't care about Eothas leave him be. There's no need for "god talks", if there's any special info it could be conveyed by characters (Xoti would be like "Oh dear, Eothas is devouring souls what we're going to do" instead of "OMG DARK EVERYWHERE!!! ME VERY MUCH VISION DARK, ME LITTLE CRAZY". 

[house2fly]

You don't think it'd be, uh, "immersion breaking" to have all the major players of the Deadfire trying to recruit some schmo who started the game chained up in the hold of a sloop?

[Somnium_Meum]

Well, no.

At the beginning there's Port Maje. You get stranded and you manage to clear out Engwithian digsite and rescue animancers. It's quite logical, everyone on the island is rebuilding and they don't have time exploring and fighting so that there might be chance of  saving few guys they didn't like anyways. Clario certainly cares about missing animancers, but he simply can't spare manpower to seek them, half of his city is flooded after all. So there comes a person with nothing to lose and promises to seek missing animancers in exchange for help with his stranded ship.

 

So, you clear out digsite, Clario repairs your ship. Now you can choose what to do:

• Valians can hire you to fix their Poko Kohara problem. You already dealt with similar issue, except there's an expedition missing instead of few animancers. Adra pillars are concerned as well. Valians are rich and pay well so these might be initial reasons to join them.
• RDC has spies everywhere, so they know you helped VTC and that you had no choice but to do that. Astura will see that you're capable of doing things and getting your hands dirty so he gives you to job to sabotage Poko Kohara. He doesn't pledge anything, it costs him nothing, he just tells you to do that with no promises attached. RDC is consistent and probably the most powerful faction in the world atm, so it makes sense for PC to join them.
• Huana is the fun one, you get to the Prince he'll just task you with investigating that smelly sh*thole called "The Gutter". You're capable as you just proved by delivering info about PM and Eothas and you're not Neketaka's Citizen. Oh, and take that annoying watershaper with you. 
• Joining Principi is simple, you're just acting out of pure hate for that ahole who almost killed you by sinking your ship. Joining principi could be easy way to get rich, so there's certainly initiative to join them.
• Finally you can go after Eothas, just because giant glowing statues aren't common around here and he kinda caused mayhem in PM.

Furthermore most if not all companions join you regardless of your status, some are told to do so (Pallegina, Teheku, Maia), some just happened to be in tough situations (Edér, Aloth) and the rest tag along for benefits (Xoti, Serafen)

Edited September 13, 2018 by Somnium_Meum

[house2fly]

You can only do half the stuff in the main quest because you're a Watcher, so using a different character but changing nothing else about the main quest requires an entirely separate Watcher, and keeping the Eothas statue just raises the question of what happened to the previous Watcher

[Somnium_Meum]

Name that stuff. There's like one thing that comes to my mind - communicating with Eothas by touching Adra Pillars. This can be completely cut, as is said information could be relayed by companions/NPCs instead of having in-between talks with mom and dad (aka Berath and Eothas).
 

After you complete Digsite you're followed by hundreds of souls... and the first thing you do is giving some guy nasty stuff so his belly stops aching and he pukes out a worthless pearl? Really?

[Sherab]

From one hand, I don't see a big problem with being the Watcher from Caed Nua also in Deadfire - at least not from the perspective given by Somnium_Meum.

 

This is because we are about to role-play a character that was put in speciffic circumstences if not against his/her will, than at least without realy having a big choice.

 

Hence, Gods force our hero to do certain things, but it dosn't mean he/she needs to like this. And actualy, nobody really force us to be a pirate, adventurer, or whatever, at the same time. Of course, there is that marine theme strongly present in the game. But there is no really any reason for our hero to stop to be the same guy/lass he/she was in the first game. Out of neccessity we need to travel by ship, and we need a crew to do this, but this don't need to change our hero's character or some of his other features.

 

Same thing was with the first game in my opinion. We start as "common guy" with suddenly becomes a Watcher, right? Does that mean that suddenly he needs to start to be some "very serious guy"? Yes, he/she is a Watcher now, but at the same time he/she may stay a careless rogue (for example), as he/she was before.

 

I think this is same way in Deadfire - and there are actualy dialoge-lines to choose, with are aligned with that approach.

 

 

 

 

From other hand... I wouldn't mind if our developers would create completely new story, only set in the same universum. Hence, with completely new hero.

What bother me the most, I suppose, with "continuation" of Watcher's story, is that for some reason he/she have losted all the experience he/she gained in his/her pursue after Thaos.

 

Ok, in his/her case this might be justified by near-death experience, perhaps. But same thing goes for followers from the first part of the game too. And this make me feel like all the "classes" are not really a part of Eora's lore, so to speak, but they are in the game only for mechanics' purposes - and this is in contradiction to some dialoge-lines and descriptions from both titles.

 

Hence, I think that new "from-zero-to-hero" story could be indeed better, but from different reasons than Somnium_Meum presented.

[house2fly]

If it's immersion breaking to reset to level 1 for the sequel then surely it's immersion breaking to start at level 1 to begin with. Why does Eder start at lowest level when he's a war veteran?

[InsaneCommander]

If it's immersion breaking to reset to level 1 for the sequel then surely it's immersion breaking to start at level 1 to begin with. Why does Eder start at lowest level when he's a war veteran?

 

And Aloth, who continue to be in adventures between the two games forgot all the higher level spells.

[house2fly]

Zahua used to be a warrior chieftain and was briefly completely invincible as the Anitlei. Pallegina is a paladin in service to the Vailian Ducs who spends her life in battle. Why are they both exactly as good in combat as a drifter from Old Vailia who wandered into the wrong ruin during a storm?

[Gitmfap]

It doesn’t “build” enough. Go copy magician apprentice and master, and you could win. Our increase in power and skills should be related to more than just “I ran some bounties”