Eternity Josh Sawyer wants to make Pillars of Eternity 3, but only if...

[Beastro]

The way JS completely ignores the idea of Fallout NV2 is sad. For whatever reason he prefers not to mention it.

The way he's gone since NV, it's for the best.

 

[Major_Blackhart]

Eh, the guy is shit. I'm glad more people are realizing it. There was a time when I was one of the few.

And even then it was years before I realized. It was just like a nagging thing, like a fingernail scratching an itch behind your eye. He bothered me. Tremendously. But then he was part of obsidian.

And then I stopped worrying and learned to love the bomb. And it hit me just as suddenly too, what it was that bothered me so about him.

He doesn't understand fun.

 

[Jenkem]

Isn't Pentiment the highest rated Obsidian game by both critics and customers?

 

[SpaceWizardz]

Isn't Pentiment the highest rated Obsidian game by both critics and customers?

KOTOR 2 - 86 Critic score/8.8 user score
Neverwinter Nights 2 - 82 Critic score/7.4 user score
Alpha Protocol - 63 Critic score (72 for PC)/7.3 user score
Fallout New Vegas - 84 Critic score/8.8 user score
Dungeon Siege 3 - 72 Critic score/5.9 user score
Stick of Truth - 85 Critic score/8.6 user score
Pillars of Eternity - 89 Critic score/8.2 user score
Tyranny - 80 Critic score/7.8 user score
Deadfire - 88 Critic score/7.8 user score
The Outer Worlds - 85 Critic score/7.9 user score
Grounded - 82 Critic score (83 for PC)/7.8 user score
Pentiment - 86 Critic score (88 for PC)/ 7.4 user score

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

Obsidian's two highest-rated games by user score are both sequels created with a game engine, assets, and IP handed to them.

 

[Fedora Master]

Pillars of Eternity - 89 Critic score

 

[AwesomeButton]

Pillars of Eternity - 89 Critic score

Deadfire paid the interest on that loan.

 

[Atlantico]

Pillars of Eternity - 89 Critic score

The Outer Worlds - 85 Critic score/7.9 user score

 

[Morality Games]

was "moving in" a thing in 1600-1700s? to be spoken so liberally in a random convo

Yes and no.

There's a reason why common law marriages are a legal concept. If you didn't make it honest, eventually civil authority just decided you were married.

"Getting married" properly also entails a few things, like completing a journeyman apprenticeship to practice your trade independently or otherwise possessing property or income to support a wife and family. Problem is, that takes time and there are competing pressures such as teenagers are horny and want sex right now, which leaves "decent society" and "civil authority" in an awkward position where something has to give.

Typically, what gave is the proper form and order of things, which civil authority attempted to reassert with common law marriages.

In general, there is an association between wealth and proper marriage. It's broadly acceptable for the lower classes to fudge the math on when people exactly a couple is married, but unacceptable for upper classes to indulge in the same flexibility. As the "better sort", they're supposed to be moral role models and don't really have any excuses.

This also extends to groups that are associated with the upper classes. Butlers and maids and such have to also follow the proper form of things because otherwise they'll disgrace the house they are supposed to serve.

 

[Jedi Master Radek]

was "moving in" a thing in 1600-1700s? to be spoken so liberally in a random convo

Marriage ceremony was for a long time a thing only rich people did. Commoners were usually just agreeing that they want to be together and then moving in and that was it. However during that time period the ceremony customs might be already gaining popularity among commoners, it's something one has to check out to be sure.

For barbarians who rated my post unfairly. It's an excerpt from LOVE, MARRIAGE, AND FAMILY TIES IN THE LATER MIDDLE AGES INTERNATIONAL MEDIEVAL RESEARCH Volume 11 2003 page 68

The Good Wyfe Wold A Pylgremage’, an anonymous fifteenth-century conduct poem for women, emphasizes
the importance of making sure that a marriage was arranged legally and bindingly:
‘Daughter, one thing I forbid you: do not swear. / Keep your hands and give no troth, for
weddings are unsure. / He is a fool that will be bound while he may forbear. / A lovely
looking and a purse make fools here and there. / With an O and an I, try before ever you trust;
/ When the deed is done, it is too late to say “Had I known”!’
The poem warns that a woman who thought she had made a binding contract might
yet find herself abandoned. This advice was entirely reasonable in late medieval
England, when the issue of what constituted a binding marriage contract could be
very complicated, filling the ecclesiastical courts with couples who had conflicting
ideas about how far they had committed themselves.14 The Celys’ efforts to extricate
Robert from his match show exactly what the conduct literature for women warned
against (if from the other side of the transaction) — a young man trying to escape
from a contract into which he had entered. The poem may also express parental
concern about the fact that, according to canon law, medieval women and men of
age could bind themselves simply by swearing vows to each other, without any
parental supervision or control

So yes, a quick search confirmed that I remembered correctly. It also looks like only after XVI century Trent council the priest and wittiness were required to have a legal wedding.

 

[Quillon]

I didn't mean to ask "if moving in in place of marriage was a thing?", I meant to ask "if moving in/living together pre-marriage was a thing?" as it is like in modern timez which is what I understood from that Deadfire convo which made it seem out of place for me. But I guess if the former was in fact a thing, the writer coulda meant that which I doubt.

 

[Jedi Master Radek]

I didn't mean to ask "if moving in in place of marriage was a thing?", I meant to ask "if moving in/living together pre-marriage was a thing?" as it is like in modern timez which is what I understood from that Deadfire convo which made it seem out of place for me. But I guess if the former was in fact a thing, the writer coulda meant that which I doubt.

This is a more difficult question due to a lesser number of sources and lesser human mobility. When most people marry a girl next door from their village, then moving in before marriage would be something functionally different to what it is today, especially considering how most houselholds were multi-generational. I don't know the answer to this.

 

[Butter]

I didn't mean to ask "if moving in in place of marriage was a thing?", I meant to ask "if moving in/living together pre-marriage was a thing?" as it is like in modern timez which is what I understood from that Deadfire convo which made it seem out of place for me. But I guess if the former was in fact a thing, the writer coulda meant that which I doubt.

This is a more difficult question due to a lesser number of sources and lesser human mobility. When most people marry a girl next door from their village, then moving in before marriage would be something functionally different to what it is today, especially considering how most houselholds were multi-generational. I don't know the answer to this.

Needless to say, you've given the matter more thought than any of Obsidian's writers did.

 

[santino27]

I didn't mean to ask "if moving in in place of marriage was a thing?", I meant to ask "if moving in/living together pre-marriage was a thing?" as it is like in modern timez which is what I understood from that Deadfire convo which made it seem out of place for me. But I guess if the former was in fact a thing, the writer coulda meant that which I doubt.

This is a more difficult question due to a lesser number of sources and lesser human mobility. When most people marry a girl next door from their village, then moving in before marriage would be something functionally different to what it is today, especially considering how most houselholds were multi-generational. I don't know the answer to this.

Needless to say, you've given the matter more thought than any of Obsidian's writers did.

This. There's zero chance the writers researched anything (for all of Sawyer's many flaws, that's something he at least used to do); they just wrote something in their standard 21st century California parlance and called it a day.

 

[Gargaune]

Eh, the guy is shit. I'm glad more people are realizing it. There was a time when I was one of the few.

I don't think that's fair, really. The guy's a capable designer and one of the more structured and technical ones around, his typical hyper-focused exhibition talks are far more interesting than the usual "so then we did this vague thing, and then we kinda thought about that abstract concept, and then..." The problem is that, despite that trendy faux-modesty, he's kinda pigheaded about his ideas and not very receptive to feedback.

One example was my earlier rant about Deadfire's narrative design, here's another - dude gave some GDC talk about PoE's mechanics some time after it came out, and he went to quite some effort to outline how his +X% could give players as much function as the classic D&D +1/+2/etc., but that people simply liked the latter better, that it was more intuitive and rewarding to them. So Deadfire rolls around, does he give the people what they like? No, of course not, he's Josh Sawyer, you're gonna take the +2.36(6)% and the decimal second recovery times and like it, you whiny gamer prat!

Josh has the rigor and design chops to turn out good gameplay, he just needs to stop trying to reinvent all the wheels, put down the calculator every now and then, and recognise that bulk negative feedback may indicate some actual, real problems rather than just the unwashed masses' inability to grasp the splendor of his innovations.


P.S. And whatever my other gripes about his work, I'd probably be a bit more interested in Avowed if he were steering that ship. Not much, given the game's artistic sensibilities and previous franchise entries, but it'd elicit at least some curiosity, and I suspect I'm not the only one around here.

 

[DY050503]

He should learn why Deadfire lost a competition to Original Sin 2 before trying to build another pillar.

 

[AwesomeButton]

We even have a thread for that, he can start from there

 

[Desiderius]

Admits TB is for retards.

Kotex TBers give kudos. Says it all.

 

[General Disarray]

I didn't mean to ask "if moving in in place of marriage was a thing?", I meant to ask "if moving in/living together pre-marriage was a thing?" as it is like in modern timez which is what I understood from that Deadfire convo which made it seem out of place for me. But I guess if the former was in fact a thing, the writer coulda meant that which I doubt.

This is a more difficult question due to a lesser number of sources and lesser human mobility. When most people marry a girl next door from their village, then moving in before marriage would be something functionally different to what it is today, especially considering how most houselholds were multi-generational. I don't know the answer to this.

It is very easy to answer. We have a vast amount of court sentences from these times, at least from Sweden during its great power days, 16-18 century. After converting to protestantism and fighting basically holy wars against German and Russian heatens religious law went almost to old testament level. If a girl got pregnant they both would be forced to marry, we know this because of surviving records, if they already were married they were sentenced and punished. The people at the time were living in small community were the priest was a powerful figure and also the central states local man. The priest decided which men got round up in to the army, delivered the news from central power etc etc. Carl the twelve were also a very pios man which just added the strength of religious laws. Soldiers caught having sex with animals were executed for breaking gods law.

And on moving in. Farms were the economic units of the time. Now there exist a range from wealthy farmer to a worker in a shed working on rented land. But the general rule were that you had to be able to support yourself. Otherwise you can just stay as a paid servant for an actual farmer family, hired hands.

 

[Yoomazir]

What Sawyer really want is for Larian to develop PoE 3, any other attempt would end up as a poor's man BG3 wannabe.

 

[Jedi Master Radek]

I didn't mean to ask "if moving in in place of marriage was a thing?", I meant to ask "if moving in/living together pre-marriage was a thing?" as it is like in modern timez which is what I understood from that Deadfire convo which made it seem out of place for me. But I guess if the former was in fact a thing, the writer coulda meant that which I doubt.

This is a more difficult question due to a lesser number of sources and lesser human mobility. When most people marry a girl next door from their village, then moving in before marriage would be something functionally different to what it is today, especially considering how most houselholds were multi-generational. I don't know the answer to this.

It is very easy to answer. We have a vast amount of court sentences from these times, at least from Sweden during its great power days, 16-18 century. After converting to protestantism and fighting basically holy wars against German and Russian heatens religious law went almost to old testament level. If a girl got pregnant they both would be forced to marry, we know this because of surviving records, if they already were married they were sentenced and punished. The people at the time were living in small community were the priest was a powerful figure and also the central states local man. The priest decided which men got round up in to the army, delivered the news from central power etc etc. Carl the twelve were also a very pios man which just added the strength of religious laws. Soldiers caught having sex with animals were executed for breaking gods law.

And on moving in. Farms were the economic units of the time. Now there exist a range from wealthy farmer to a worker in a shed working on rented land. But the general rule were that you had to be able to support yourself. Otherwise you can just stay as a paid servant for an actual farmer family, hired hands.

You can get a girl pregnant without cohabitation. Forest meadows are a good place too.

 

[Reinhardt]

I didn't mean to ask "if moving in in place of marriage was a thing?", I meant to ask "if moving in/living together pre-marriage was a thing?" as it is like in modern timez which is what I understood from that Deadfire convo which made it seem out of place for me. But I guess if the former was in fact a thing, the writer coulda meant that which I doubt.

This is a more difficult question due to a lesser number of sources and lesser human mobility. When most people marry a girl next door from their village, then moving in before marriage would be something functionally different to what it is today, especially considering how most houselholds were multi-generational. I don't know the answer to this.

It is very easy to answer. We have a vast amount of court sentences from these times, at least from Sweden during its great power days, 16-18 century. After converting to protestantism and fighting basically holy wars against German and Russian heatens religious law went almost to old testament level. If a girl got pregnant they both would be forced to marry, we know this because of surviving records, if they already were married they were sentenced and punished. The people at the time were living in small community were the priest was a powerful figure and also the central states local man. The priest decided which men got round up in to the army, delivered the news from central power etc etc. Carl the twelve were also a very pios man which just added the strength of religious laws. Soldiers caught having sex with animals were executed for breaking gods law.

And on moving in. Farms were the economic units of the time. Now there exist a range from wealthy farmer to a worker in a shed working on rented land. But the general rule were that you had to be able to support yourself. Otherwise you can just stay as a paid servant for an actual farmer family, hired hands.

You can get a girl pregnant without cohabitation. Forest meadows are a good place too.

and then her father and brothers will cave your skull in

 

[Desiderius]

and then her father and brothers will cave your skull in

Hey man, love is love

 

[Cat Headed Eagle]

Pillars of Eternity - 89 Critic score

Much like Grimrock on its day, PoE benefitted from being a pretty game that also had the benefit of it making you look like a "hardcore crpg player", but people then realized why they didn't liked their respective genres after like 15 minutes of it.

 

[General Disarray]

You can get a girl pregnant without cohabitation. Forest meadows are a good place too.

It's not about the how. Ita about that someone will need to answer for it afterward once shes pregnant. There will be an investigation in the local court calling witnesses. And sense these are tight knit communities there will be no problem getting answers.

And Reimhart: You still fail to understand the power dynamics. It is the priest and central governments law led by the king that rules because he is gods chosen that are doing the inquiries. It is their law, their honur, that has been tarnished. They can't allow peasants to go against God's and Kings laws. If anyone is being killed it is the Kings executioner doing the killing.