Eternity Pillars of Eternity + The White March Expansion Thread

[Grunker]

I liked the ship much better than the superfluous and boring stronghold

 

[AwesomeButton]

To be fair to PoE and Deadfire - at least as far as I'm aware, they are unrivaled in the customizeability of difficulty, and in the reactivity to character traits like race, background, class. Too bad the world doesn't make you care enough for this reactivity to come into full light. I wonder if it's just the dry "realistic" tone to blame for it.

 

[pomenitul]

By contrast, I am somewhat amused (bemused?) by the enthusiastic response to Pathfinder: Kingmaker's cartoonish kitsch, which is merely a step up from D:OS. There is little brilliance in PoE's writing per se (and even less so in Deadfire's) but for all its supposed purple prose, it often adopts an appropriately fatalistic, downcast adult tone. Indeed, Obsidian is casting a retrospective glance at a sub-genre that, regardless of appearances, is no more. They are aware of the distance that separates us from who we were (and what the world was) in the late 90s, and are not afraid of owning up to this awareness. Owlcat, on the other hand, banks on the desire to annul temporal distance through sheer strength of nostalgia, which is more in line with the Codexian hivemind. I sympathise with the latter's appeal and look forward to playing past the Elk Temple once the game is actually released, but since I tend to view PoE (both instalments, really, albeit to varying degrees) as a more self-reflexive, even decadent creature – one that acknowledges its secondary, echo-like existence – I prefer its stoic acceptance of failure and irrevocable defeat, its conviction that suspension of disbelief is no longer possible, merely imitable, which is very much in keeping with the game's narrative themes. And yet, even as none of us fully fall for it anymore, we still need a ghostly semblance of faith to go on, if only to be able to mutter, in the words of Beckett's Unnamable, 'I can't go on, I'll go on.'

 

[Grunker]

Well, pomenitul, I think you're unfair to why people like the stock fantasy of Pathfinder better. It's because people like stock but well-done fantasy better than ambitious but ultimately failed historicism.

If PoE's attempt to create something new was even half as succesful as MotB or TSL, the criticism wouldn't be warranted. As it stands, I too like stock fantasy adventures that make me feel like I'm sitting at a P&P table more than I like the admirable failures of PoE's writing and world.

It's one of the reasons I think Siege of Crägholdt and White March are so good - they're indulgent P&P nostalgia and creative spins on old D&D tropes respectively. They don't overreach. I applaud PoE's ambitions with creating a fantasy world coupled with historicism, the end result is just poor.

 

[Parabalus]

Stronghold was just pointless filler altogether.

Which RPG had a better stronghold?

Outside of Bugmaker, didn't get that yet for obvious reasons.

 

[Sacred82]

By contrast, I am somewhat amused (bemused?) by the enthusiastic response to Pathfinder: Kingmaker's cartoonish kitsch, which is merely a step up from D:OS. There is little brilliance in PoE's writing per se (and even less so in Deadfire's) but for all its supposed purple prose, it often adopts an appropriately fatalistic, downcast adult tone. Indeed, Obsidian is casting a retrospective glance at a sub-genre that, regardless of appearances, is no more. They are aware of the distance that separates us from who we were (and what the world was) in the late 90s, and are not afraid of owning up to this awareness.

you had better not put elves and dwarves in your game and then forcefeed me your supposedly adult view of how bleak da reel wurld is, lest you be recognized as a complete retard.

 

[Grunker]

Stronghold was just pointless filler altogether.

Which RPG had a better stronghold?

BG2. Instead of superflous and boring systems it's just a bunch of sweet questlines.

 

[Lacrymas]

Which RPG had a better stronghold?

NWN2.

 

[AwesomeButton]

It's one of the reasons I think Siege of Crägholdt and White March are so good - they're indulgent P&P nostalgia and creative spins on old D&D tropes respectively. They don't overreach. I applaud PoE's ambitions with creating a fantasy world coupled with historicism, the end result is just poor.

I agree, and I think you can add Beast of Winter to this count, for the same reasons. It has it's own atmosphere, it's coherent, and self-contained. Just like a small P&P module.

 

[Grunker]

Beast is so steeped in the failed PoE-lore that I don't get that from it at all, unfortunately. Even if I like the initial village and the scenes with Rymrgand

 

[Parabalus]

Stronghold was just pointless filler altogether.

Which RPG had a better stronghold?

BG2. Instead of superflous and boring systems it's just a bunch of sweet questlines.

It's like 1-3 short quests depending on your class, really bad. Very uneven too.

NWN2 would be my answer, supremely integrated into the story and has some systems, even if shallow.

 

[Prime Junta]

Beast is so steeped in the failed PoE-lore that I don't get that from it at all, unfortunately. Even if I like the initial village and the scenes with Rymrgand

I don't get the disdain for PoE-lore. It's perfectly serviceable lore, certainly compared to Forgotten Derp or Dragonderp or what have you.

 

[Jarpie]

Beast is so steeped in the failed PoE-lore that I don't get that from it at all, unfortunately. Even if I like the initial village and the scenes with Rymrgand

I don't get the disdain for PoE-lore. It's perfectly serviceable lore, certainly compared to Forgotten Derp or Dragonderp or what have you.

At least for me the dislike comes from how the lore dumping was handled in dialogue in PoE 1, while playing Pathfinder, they don't really do it, the names of the nations, people etc doesn't really matter to me that much, and if I'm interested I can look them up somewhere else. I think some people dislikes the made up names they throw around. The setting itself is serviceable, but one thing I really dislike is how the gods are handled, they should've kept scope of the game smaller/lower than it is. You talk with the gods in the first game? That's imo way too early, leave that to the possible sequels. They should've handled the gods like in D&D where they are real, and people knows they're real, but they're "just there", at least as far as I've seen in games.

 

[Prime Junta]

At least for me the dislike comes from how the lore dumping was handled in dialogue in PoE 1, while playing Pathfinder, they don't really do it, the names of the nations, people etc doesn't really matter to me that much, and if I'm interested I can look them up somewhere else. I think some people dislikes the made up names they throw around. The setting itself is serviceable, but one thing I really dislike is how the gods are handled, they should've kept scope of the game smaller/lower than it is. You talk with the gods in the first game? That's imo way too early, leave that to the possible sequels.

Yep I agree. But the problem was with the presentation, not the lore qua lore.

They should've handled the gods like in D&D where they are real, and people knows they're real, but they're "just there", at least as far as I've seen in games.

Meh, I dunno. It would've been a different game. I like that the divine metaphysics of Eora are a bit different than your standard DnDesque fantasy game. But yes, the stories of both P1 and P2 made terrible, no-good, awful, bad use of said lore.

(Beast of Winter OTOH did a pretty good job of that IMO. Shame about the grindy boss fights.)

 

[Jarpie]

At least for me the dislike comes from how the lore dumping was handled in dialogue in PoE 1, while playing Pathfinder, they don't really do it, the names of the nations, people etc doesn't really matter to me that much, and if I'm interested I can look them up somewhere else. I think some people dislikes the made up names they throw around. The setting itself is serviceable, but one thing I really dislike is how the gods are handled, they should've kept scope of the game smaller/lower than it is. You talk with the gods in the first game? That's imo way too early, leave that to the possible sequels.

Yep I agree. But the problem was with the presentation, not the lore qua lore.

They should've handled the gods like in D&D where they are real, and people knows they're real, but they're "just there", at least as far as I've seen in games.

Meh, I dunno. It would've been a different game. I like that the divine metaphysics of Eora are a bit different than your standard DnDesque fantasy game. But yes, the stories of both P1 and P2 made terrible, no-good, awful, bad use of said lore.

(Beast of Winter OTOH did a pretty good job of that IMO. Shame about the grindy boss fights.)

From what I've seen of Eternity 2 is that they ran into the problem of where you can go after from dealing with the gods and "big things" in the first game? Yeah, it would've been different game, but I think the whole soul-thing etc could've been handled in smaller scale, one thing they could've done is to leave more things...how to put it...more vague/open for interpretation. Things being left open for interpretation would make the game much more long-lasting legacy, if handled correctly, people would be debating and talking about it for years to come. The gods being constructs for example, IMO it was a big mistake to spell it out, just leave hints of it here and there, and contradictory information into the game world, and leave it vague, same with the soul-machine. Sure, some autists players would've been pissed off "Hey, why you dinnae tell us all!11", but the trade-off would've been definitely worth it.

Let's take two great examples from the films, Blade Runner and The Thing. They left it completely vague in Blade Runner whether Deckard is replicant or not, and people still argue and talk about it 35 years after the release, same thing with The Thing's ending, they leave it a mystery, and people still comes back to the film...and again, they debate and argue online about the ending...both films since then have had either remakes or sequels made decades later.

 

[Grunker]

Beast is so steeped in the failed PoE-lore that I don't get that from it at all, unfortunately. Even if I like the initial village and the scenes with Rymrgand

I don't get the disdain for PoE-lore. It's perfectly serviceable lore, certainly compared to Forgotten Derp or Dragonderp or what have you.

I don't agree, and I humbly point to my review for a pretty specific outline of why.

There is an innocent and simple fun in the adventuring worlds of yore. Oldschool Forgotten Realms (pre 3rd edition) is my perfect world for the standard type of frolicking D&D adventures. Have you actually read some of the "boxes" that old Forgotten Realms setting material came in? It's super cool and super handy for basic P&P adventuring.

It's like why Sarevok is a more effective villain than Thaos even though the latter is infintely more complex and "interesting": when you raise the stakes and the ambitions, your job gets harder, and the chance that you fail as well.

Forgotten Realms exists for no other reason than to provide a good framework for "you're sitting in a tavern"-style adventuring. That's why it succeeds despite its innocent simplicity, even if that also puts a cap on its potential for going beyond mere functionality.

Eora aspires to much more than this, but fails in achieving much of what it tries to do (though this is more true of PoE1 than Deadfire). Hence, I enjoy BGs Forgotten Realms more than PoE's Eora. The first succeeds entirely at what it tries to do. That the latter has higher ambitions doesn't save it from its failures.

 

[Grunker]

tl;dr: if you can't do something well, do it simple

 

[Lacrymas]

They left it completely vague in Blade Runner whether Deckard is replicant or not

I had this exact same conversation with a friend of mine recently, and my position regarding that is that it doesn't matter. Nothing would change whether Deckard is or isn't a replicant. Same with Eora's gods, nothing changed when we found out they are "fake", it's a twist for the sake of having a twist, but it's flaccid and pointless. Much like if they had said Deckard is a replicant. Leaving it vague might fuel fan speculation for years, but that's hardly a selling point of the narrative.

 

[Jarpie]

They left it completely vague in Blade Runner whether Deckard is replicant or not

I had this exact same conversation with a friend of mine recently, and my position regarding that is that it doesn't matter. Nothing would change whether Deckard is or isn't a replicant. Same with Eora's gods, nothing changed when we found out they are "fake", it's a twist for the sake of having a twist, but it's flaccid and pointless. Much like if they had said Deckard is a replicant. Leaving it vague might fuel fan speculation for years, but that's hardly a selling point of the narrative.

Yeah, it doesn't really matter in the film if he is or not, but it does keep the film "alive", and was one of the reasons (rightly or wrongly) why it became cult classic with a fan base. Clearly stating that the gods are "fake" is IMO pointless "twist", so it'd been better to leave it vague or just say that "we haz gods". You don't have to spell every fucking detail to the players, viewers or readers, many times it's much more effective to leave "gaps" for the imagination to fill them.

 

[Prime Junta]

Forgotten Realms exists for no other reason than to provide a good framework for "you're sitting in a tavern"-style adventuring. That's why it succeeds despite its innocent simplicity, even if that also puts a cap on its potential for going beyond mere functionality.

Eora aspires to much more than this, but fails in achieving much of what it tries to do (though this is more true of PoE1 than Deadfire). Hence, I enjoy BGs Forgotten Realms more than PoE's Eora. The first succeeds entirely at what it tries to do. That the latter has higher ambitions doesn't save it from its failures.

I respect your opinion even if I disagree with it, good sir. Pistols at dawn?

I agree that P1 and DF both flop at what they're trying to attempt, but in my view the difficulty isn't the lore -- it's the way it's (mis)used in the story.

 

[AwesomeButton]

Beast is so steeped in the failed PoE-lore that I don't get that from it at all, unfortunately. Even if I like the initial village and the scenes with Rymrgand

It is? How?

 

[Parabalus]

Forgotten Realms exists for no other reason than to provide a good framework for "you're sitting in a tavern"-style adventuring. That's why it succeeds despite its innocent simplicity, even if that also puts a cap on its potential for going beyond mere functionality.

Eora aspires to much more than this, but fails in achieving much of what it tries to do (though this is more true of PoE1 than Deadfire). Hence, I enjoy BGs Forgotten Realms more than PoE's Eora. The first succeeds entirely at what it tries to do. That the latter has higher ambitions doesn't save it from its failures.

I respect your opinion even if I disagree with it, good sir. Pistols at dawn?

I agree that P1 and DF both flop at what they're trying to attempt, but in my view the difficulty isn't the lore -- it's the way it's (mis)used in the story.

PoE world was built up nicely and left to rot by the writers, total disconnect.

Compare Deadfire to AoD, which has a similar "historic society rumble arena", with a background of ancient science making gods, dumpsterfire is entirely unimpressive.

They left it completely vague in Blade Runner whether Deckard is replicant or not

I had this exact same conversation with a friend of mine recently, and my position regarding that is that it doesn't matter. Nothing would change whether Deckard is or isn't a replicant. Same with Eora's gods, nothing changed when we found out they are "fake", it's a twist for the sake of having a twist, but it's flaccid and pointless. Much like if they had said Deckard is a replicant. Leaving it vague might fuel fan speculation for years, but that's hardly a selling point of the narrative.

Them being fake explains why they act like retarded teenagers.

Unlike e.g. the FR gods, the Eoran know they are constructs and are much more fearful of mortals because of that.

 

[Roguey]

tl;dr: if you can't do something well, do it simple

The lesson for all devs to learn here - never try.

 

[IHaveHugeNick]

Yeah I agree that lore isn't bad, it's just used utilized poorly. Everything about gods is ambiguous and vague, but not in a good way. They seem important, powerful, irrelevant and powerless, all at the same time. And if it sounds like a contradiction, that's because it is, but that just how it all comes off. In the end it just makes you indifferent to the whole idea. Oh I have a meeting with the whole pantheon? Leave me the fuck alone, I have pirate ships to kill and loot to win.

 

[Tigranes]

I think a lot of that is more true of Deadfire. POE1 was a mix of successes and failures as a result of trying hard to do something very ambitious on story/lore front. Deadfire really lets its predecessor down on this front by just abandoning that project and using the lore the first game created to fuck around and make some maps.

People justifiably criticise POE1's loredumpy moments, but at the same time it's very effective in giving you a brand new ecology of races that are clearly defined aesthetically and story-wise. The relationship between the bygone god-maker Engwithans, the semi-nomadic and tribal Glanfathans that are the 'post-apocalyptic' society worshipping old-world science as gods, and the relatively recent arrival of 'civilised' Aedyrans is very consistent from lingo to looks to their role in the story. If we look at other RPGs with brand new settings, that's far more interesting than Dragon Age's "french people", for instance.

The problem is that the actual game story then fails to get anywhere near the most out of the setting they've crafted. Imagine if POE1 ended after the Defiance Bay riots, and then POE2 focused on Twin Elms as the main city, where the hollowborn crisis is seen as caused by the sins of the Aedyran colonisers. And in the midst of all that, you don't end the game by offing Thaos and discovering the gods' secret, that's the middle of the game, and you come out of that dungeon to cause massive social rifts as the news spreads. Instead, the hollowborn crisis gets forgotten as the game goes on, the colonial tensions never really eventuate, and the game ends before you can deal with any truly interesting consequences of the gods revelation.

I was delighted that Deadfire would move to the archipelago and deal with Eothas risen. I thought this meant they would really follow up on colonial and artificial gods aspects - i.e. it initially seemed like they understood this problem, but turns out Deadfire did the exact opposite of solving it. Who knows what happened during development, but I think it's telling that (1) we learn basically nothing new about the gods being fake and nobody in the gameworld really talks or knows about it in Deadfire; (2) the colonial tensions are everywhere but never really escalate into key moments, and the deus ex machina of Ukaizo completely wipes out their differences.

I don't think the problem was that 'gods are fake' is an inherently bad idea, or that the lore they wrote is bad. On the contrary, I think all the major ideas they raised - hollowborn, colonial tensions, gods are fake - are fresh and potentially very interesting ideas for RPGs, and I think they did a good job of the background work on the setting. The problem is that when they actually sit down to make a game out of it all, something happens in the translation. Is it the writers? Is it how the writers sync their work and ideas together? Is it the story - gameplay seesaw? That's where all the disappointments come in.