Eternity Pillars of Eternity + The White March Expansion Thread

[CptMace]

Well I can't believe I have to elaborate a pretty clear assumption.
I'm gonna use simple words so, hopefully, you understand.
Impersonal means it sounds like the dude's a fuckin robot programmed to answer my question. A living piece of encyclopedia. The opposite term is personal. It shares the root of the word personality, something 90% of the base game's characters lack, including several companions.

Line 1 : I am one of the fishermen of the village. Arukata is our chief and is a good but tough leader. The winter has been rude so we could use extra help. Unfortunately nobody wanna fish here anymore. Although babies are dying, have you heard of that ?

The dude is a fisherman. The rest is a wiki article called "The situation in the fishermen's village" stuffed in his mouth. It's literally the mockup that the devs used to design the areas and npcs and decided to put it with no forms of attempt in the mouth of a random npc. And they're ALL like that beside the main plot ones in the base game.
I've read Infinitron claim it's the same in BG. It's not. In BG, you wanna ask a gentleman about something, he'll treat you as you should be treated. Like the dirty random fuck you are. BG is pretty good on the "Gorion's dead, you're on your own bro, have fun" part. Not Pillars.

Line 2 : I'm one of the fishermen genius. Now if you ain't gonna help, it'd be good you'd fuck off, coz I ain't have time to be bothered with a fuckin stranger I don't give two fucks about while my buddies are about to starve, if Arukata sees you there doing nothing, you'll have your ass kicked nigga.

The dude is a fisherman. Seems life is hard here. Seems there's a dude called Arukakakattte that has some importance. I'd like to know more and optionally kick the fisherman in the face just for the sake of it (or i role play a loyal good douche and decide to help the man). It's exactly like the dudes who barely talk about the situation between Baldur's Gate and Amn before saying "fuck off my room now stranger". They still let you know about the setting without just vomitting it out on command.

See what I mean ? Frankly I can't elaborate more than the original post. If that still doesn't help you, gods have mercy. Both these lines serve the same purpose. The first one though is bland and is typically the kind of shit that kicks me out of the game's atmosphere immediatly while somnolence kicks in and it's all over the base game.

I mean really, just compare Durance's answer to a generic question about lore and Pallegina's answer to a question about her very self. Don't you find it glaring ? I find it glaring.

 

[WhatAreYou?ACasul?]

Okay, I'm not going to be arrogant and try to compare the two examples and conclude that they are really not that different (or use some other tactics); I'm going to follow your train of thought as close as possible.

But I feel like there's still room for careful consideration and discussion. I get the idea. You feel like the first example is artificial, just for the sake of story development, and the NPC could be replaced by a newspaper (in a different setting) or a notice board (like in The Witcher 3). Whereas the second example is more immersive, because the NPC feels like a human being. His dialogue gives you more background and maybe even his attitude, mood, or temper.

But how does it work exactly? Is it a matter of how many background information a dialogue provides? Or is it a matter of consistency, like if we assume that we know that the village is in a poor condition, and that that Arukata guy has been oppressing everyone in the area, and that there're no fish in the lake etc., then we should require a particular set of responses, or topics, or atmosphere from the dialogue?

There must be a specific rule that distances "good writing" from "poor writing" that I could apply to better understand what you're saying. Simply put, there's still room for different interpretations, such as maybe he is supposed to play a role of a simple man, not some furious lout. One thing I noticed in your examples is that the second one is written in a more informal language, and from what I know the language in PoE is quite flowery, so the examples don't really show the differences between PoE and Baldur's Gate. Not to mention the fact that PoE uses "stage directions" (descriptions of NPC behavior, look etc.).

Another problem is that I still don't see how replacing the first person by the third (purely grammatical) works (makes a change in meaning, tone, or form, so that this method proves that some NPC dialogue feels impersonal). But if you wish, we can leave this topic aside.

 

[Ninjerk]

There must be a specific rule that distances "good writing" from "poor writing" that I could apply to better understand what you're saying.

When you figure out what it is, make sure to let everyone know so writers don't have to spend their entire adult lives working hard at it.

 

[WhatAreYou?ACasul?]

There must be a specific rule that distances "good writing" from "poor writing" that I could apply to better understand what you're saying.

When you figure out what it is, make sure to let everyone know so writers don't have to spend their entire adult lives working hard at it.

That wasn't what I was talking about. I was rather referring to a more local, personal rather than public, rule that CptMace is applying.

But if you must know my opinion :D writers are rather in a tight spot. They don't have tools to deepen our understanding of the world. So, for example, moral antirealism is as valid and reliable position (moral norms don't exist) as well as moral realism; because we still don't know which one is true, poor writers are screwed if they want to tell a moral story. You will find books with a strong realistic approach (that can be ridiculed by valid antirealistic arguments), and you will find books with a strong antirealistic approach (which can be ridiculed using valid realistic arguments). What's even worse, as I said earlier they usually have no tools to settle this topic or even place their writing in a contemporary debate, unless they are some uber philosophy professors, but I suppose we are talking about some fiction writers, so when they refer to moral dilemmas, they usually have little idea what these dilemmas mean.

And I guess moral dilemmas are among standard fiction writers concerns. You can be in a worse situation, almost completely without guide if you are touching a political subject or a problem from aesthetics, and these subjects probably cover the majority of fiction.

 

[Ninjerk]

I don't think the fact that you can't place their work on a number line puts them in a tight spot. Most fiction I'm familiar with, in any case, is concerned with reproducing believable human behavior and some kind of emotional or very, very vaguely logical appeal to communicate an idea to the reader. I think the world will be a very sad place when the STEM cult puts the last nail in the coffin of the humanities and the average person can't solve moral dilemmas for themselves without navigating a Boolean minefield.

 

[WhatAreYou?ACasul?]

"Number line" is not a good metaphor in a long run, but I basically agree with what you said. The problem is that when writers presents these ideas, you want to know which one is true / more useful / adds to a sum of happiness. In a sense finding the truth is where the fun begins, in contrast to having just a catalog of these ideas. Should we lower the taxes and let everyone handle their lives themselves or raise the taxes and make miserable lives of some people better? I think that if you look carefully on what most people have to say on this subject (including writers, politicians, public figures), you will find that most of these opinions are biased, and reflect really simple mechanics, such as that cultural background influence their opinions, or socio-economic status, or some other irrelevant stuff.

This shows the strength of writers, in a sense, because they often uncover such stuff, but we need to know more, and my argument is really simple: if no one knows how to handle subject matter X, then writers are in the same tight spot as everyone else. (Hence "good writing" in a sense of a personal rule). Add to that the fact that it is darn hard to navigate these topics, and it means that fiction writers are not best fit for the job.

 

[CptMace]

I wouldn't claim that transforming a text from the first person to the third, which is a common exercise in school, is my rule - or any rule. I specifically called it an exercise in the op.
I just claim it helps separating the wiki articles from the proper human reactions. When done, if the thing reads like a bland description, chances are it simply is one. And I find it weak, t'is all.

 

[Trashos]

But how does it work exactly? Is it a matter of how many background information a dialogue provides? Or is it a matter of consistency, like if we assume that we know that the village is in a poor condition, and that that Arukata guy has been oppressing everyone in the area, and that there're no fish in the lake etc., then we should require a particular set of responses, or topics, or atmosphere from the dialogue?

In Cpt Mace's example, the problem with Line #1 is that it is not very interesting to read.
Lines like that only provide information, so dialogues transform into wikipedia articles instead of simulating human interaction. This makes them tiring instead of fun to read. I don't think it has anything to do with writers understanding their material, it has to do with them not giving any character to it.

I agree with Cpt Mace on this. PoE has some interesting writing, but it also has a lot of uninspired writing. More than it should have.

 

[WhatAreYou?ACasul?]

I think I may be a "wikipedia article" at parties, although I don't go to parties Kappa

 

[CptMace]

Owell if you're a very pragmatic dude - there's nothing wrong with that - , I guess you won't find anything wrong with very pragmatic answers. Guess all's there, thought you were trolling to be honest.

 

[Ninjerk]

Putting aside the question of the what the writers were trying to accomplish and why, making a game like this is an exercise in taking the player on an imaginary journey in another world. Part of that is presenting, to greater and lesser degrees, an illusion that the world is "alive" and populated with believable people. I will concede that it isn't so important to some (I suspect especially where the imagination or empathy is lacking).

 

[Angthoron]

Putting aside the question of the what the writers were trying to accomplish and why, making a game like this is an exercise in taking the player on an imaginary journey in another world. Part of that is presenting, to greater and lesser degrees, an illusion that the world is "alive" and populated with believable people. I will concede that it isn't so important to some (I suspect especially where the imagination or empathy is lacking).

Can also be an issue of a 2nd language speaker that doesn't have much experience with the language in question. As a 2nd language speaker, you'll be happy to get the basics, and then embellish it with your own imagination, making the actual result much better than what's actually written.

 

[Trashos]

Putting aside the question of the what the writers were trying to accomplish and why, making a game like this is an exercise in taking the player on an imaginary journey in another world. Part of that is presenting, to greater and lesser degrees, an illusion that the world is "alive" and populated with believable people. I will concede that it isn't so important to some (I suspect especially where the imagination or empathy is lacking).

Can also be an issue of a 2nd language speaker that doesn't have much experience with the language in question. As a 2nd language speaker, you'll be happy to get the basics, and then embellish it with your own imagination, making the actual result much better than what's actually written.

Nah, I am not buying this, Angthoron. There is a girl called Cwineth at the bar in Twin Elms. She doesn't have much dialogue (she only participates in one side quest), but she is already full of character. And her dialogue is pretty understandable.

It may have been Josh ordering most writers to write plainly, but I don't think so. By the looks of it, I think the writers were either inexperienced or overburdened (both?) and that's why the end product can often feel bland. It is obvious, eg, that Josh did not spend enough time on Pallegina, and he has admitted so himself too.

 

[Angthoron]

Putting aside the question of the what the writers were trying to accomplish and why, making a game like this is an exercise in taking the player on an imaginary journey in another world. Part of that is presenting, to greater and lesser degrees, an illusion that the world is "alive" and populated with believable people. I will concede that it isn't so important to some (I suspect especially where the imagination or empathy is lacking).

Can also be an issue of a 2nd language speaker that doesn't have much experience with the language in question. As a 2nd language speaker, you'll be happy to get the basics, and then embellish it with your own imagination, making the actual result much better than what's actually written.

Nah, I am not buying this, Angthoron. There is a girl called Cwineth at the bar in Twin Elms. She doesn't have much dialogue (she only participates in one side quest), but she is already full of character. And her dialogue is pretty understandable.

It may have been Josh ordering most writers to write plainly, but I don't think so. By the looks of it, I think the writers were either inexperienced or overburdened (both?) and that's why the end product can often feel bland. It is obvious, eg, that Josh did not spend enough time on Pallegina, and he has admitted so himself too.

I just meant that for the case where people seem to be okay with the bland writing. Overall the writing is bland and I've stated that an obscene number of times. There's lack of characterization in the dialogues, and while one may argue that Random NPC #2095729865982 doesn't need characterization, it's details like that that make a game great and memorable. Sure, it's a step up from DA: O's sidequests and their "Thanks, here's your 10 gold" quest resolutions, but it's nothing to write home about and be proud of. It's merely serviceable.

 

[Trashos]

We are in agreement, I mistakenly thought that you justified the plain writing as a good strategy for sales. This happens to me a lot when I have just woken up.

 

[Ninjerk]

I'd imagine the writing was negatively affected by the time crunch in a similar way that mob placement and other issues were affected. I've been watching a bunch of interviews with novelists and screenwriters (primarily on the YT channel "big think") and it seems like there's some consensus that the life of a writer is constant rejection and draft revision. It's very possible that even with a good writing lead that they wouldn't have had time to mull over dialogues so they just had everyone lay down rudimentary dialogues so they could push it out the door more quickly.

 

[Infinitron]

Glad to see somebody else noticed Cwineth. The amount of characterization she got made me think they might bring her back as a companion for a sequel.

 

[Dorateen]

The important thing about Cwineth is that the player gets a new talent by completing her quest.

 

[Trashos]

Glad to see somebody else noticed Cwineth. The amount of characterization she got made me think they might bring her back as a companion for a sequel.

Cheers, Infinitron. But if you 're talking with anybody at Obsidian, please tell them that we want this amount of characterization for all NPCs. To the extent possible, of course, but it makes a big difference to the experience.

 

[Excidium II]

Can you bang her?

 

[Trashos]

Can you bang her?

No, but I 'd love to.
Under no circumstances would I marry her though.

 

[AwesomeButton]

Glad to see somebody else noticed Cwineth. The amount of characterization she got made me think they might bring her back as a companion for a sequel.

Cheers, Infinitron. But if you 're talking with anybody at Obsidian, please tell them that we want this amount of characterization for all NPCs. To the extent possible, of course, but it makes a big difference to the experience.

I just want only the talanted people to write. And anyone can tell Obsidian that

 

[Florian Gheorghe]

Finished it last night. I think it's an amazing expansion overall with lots of content to explore and a lot of new items and monsters. It really made me wanting to start a new game and try different outcomes and builds. I especially liked the dialogue with Ondra.
Now I'm resuming my newest party and taking the time to explore and read everything. Past the whining of a lot of people here and on steam forums I have to say that I really like how Pillars turned out in the end and White March is an expansion that every player should have.
I have some questions for people who finished it :

Spoiler

- I seemed to miss is what was the quest of Zahua?
- Can we sacrifice the main character in the end of TWM? Do we get and ending there?

 

[Rivmusique]

I have some questions for people who finished it :

Spoiler

- I seemed to miss is what was the quest of Zahua?
- Can we sacrifice the main character in the end of TWM? Do we get and ending there?

Spoiler

The Zahua quest involves helping him understand his deceased master's lost teachings. If you exhausted all dialogue with him back when you only had part 1, you have to talk to him again and go through a now grey dialogue sequence. It used to be PC: "Can I help?" Zahua: "No, you're situation seems more important" but now he says "Perhaps, I got a strange feeling when I was at x, a watcher might be able to reveal more" or something.

Apparently you can sacrifice yourself: https://forums.obsidian.net/topic/84658-the-final-events-of-white-march-part-2-main-quest/

If you stay to do it yourself you can indeed die, and I did. You get a unique ending slide: "you died but at least you stopped the Eyeless".

 

[Florian Gheorghe]

I have some questions for people who finished it :

Spoiler

- I seemed to miss is what was the quest of Zahua?
- Can we sacrifice the main character in the end of TWM? Do we get and ending there?

Spoiler

The Zahua quest involves helping him understand his deceased master's lost teachings. If you exhausted all dialogue with him back when you only had part 1, you have to talk to him again and go through a now grey dialogue sequence. It used to be PC: "Can I help?" Zahua: "No, you're situation seems more important" but now he says "Perhaps, I got a strange feeling when I was at x, a watcher might be able to reveal more" or something.

Apparently you can sacrifice yourself: https://forums.obsidian.net/topic/84658-the-final-events-of-white-march-part-2-main-quest/

If you stay to do it yourself you can indeed die, and I did. You get a unique ending slide: "you died but at least you stopped the Eyeless".

Spoiler

Thank you ! I missed that because it was greyed out lol. Just love the re-activity in TWM part 2. I also read in their forums that Durance won't sacrifice himself. Loved they included new dialogue for Durance as well. Wonder if we have new options in vanilla after we complete TWM.