Playing PoE1: impressions

[almondblight]

Martin has
studied history very thoroughly

Eh..."thoroughly." Here's Martin:

I was in England visiting a friend, and as we approached the border of England and Scotland, we stopped to see Hadrian’s Wall. I stood up there and I tried to imagine what it was like to be a Roman legionary, standing on this wall, looking at these distant hills. It was a very profound feeling. For the Romans at that time, this was the end of civilization; it was the end of the world. We know that there were Scots beyond the hills, but they didn’t know that. It could have been any kind of monster. It was the sense of this barrier against dark forces – it planted something in me.

 

[Russia is over. The end.]

Martin has
studied history very thoroughly

Eh..."thoroughly." Here's Martin:

I was in England visiting a friend, and as we approached the border of England and Scotland, we stopped to see Hadrian’s Wall. I stood up there and I tried to imagine what it was like to be a Roman legionary, standing on this wall, looking at these distant hills. It was a very profound feeling. For the Romans at that time, this was the end of civilization; it was the end of the world. We know that there were Scots beyond the hills, but they didn’t know that. It could have been any kind of monster. It was the sense of this barrier against dark forces – it planted something in me.

Martin's setting has minor irrationalities, but anthropologically he's mostly on point. They've got their own Roman Empire with technological marvels that can't be replicated - Valeria. The war itself is loosely based on the Wars of the Roses. The difficulty of travel is shown perfectly - it's easier to swim around the continent, than to go on foot a much smaller distance, and while traveling by ship some people (the maester) literally don't survive it. He nailed down the medieval cultural code - wives don't dream of accusing their husbands of cheating, even when they bring bastards home. There's a lot of minor nuances, like the reason Catelyn Stark treats Jon Snow like shit is to instill in him a sense of inferiority, because he's a threat to her children's inheritance. Everyone acts as they should, at least in the book.
There are minor problems, like the Dothraki wouldn't be wearing leather vests or they'd die from a heat stroke. The Wall of ice as large as it is would severely affect the climate of the entire region, but it doesn't. These are details.

 

[Harthwain]

Martin has
studied history very thoroughly

Eh..."thoroughly." Here's Martin:

I was in England visiting a friend, and as we approached the border of England and Scotland, we stopped to see Hadrian’s Wall. I stood up there and I tried to imagine what it was like to be a Roman legionary, standing on this wall, looking at these distant hills. It was a very profound feeling. For the Romans at that time, this was the end of civilization; it was the end of the world. We know that there were Scots beyond the hills, but they didn’t know that. It could have been any kind of monster. It was the sense of this barrier against dark forces – it planted something in me.

Could you explain what's wrong with that quote to those of us who didn't study history as thoroughly?

 

[gurugeorge]

Years ago smart guy Sea was making mod for DAO called Thirst. Nice mod has some C&C. In the prologue area, you had to enter city (where you later join either GUARD or SHADY GUYS oh modders u be u) through sewers. The sewer was blocked by some metal bars though.
As you approached them, you got dialogue which looked like this:

Strength: bend bars
Cunnin: squeeze through
use item: break bars
use fire spells: melt bars
use ice: make bars brittle n break them

of course, it was just a tutorial area and you'd probably need to know scripting language to do anything with DAO.

but, I think that many developers unironically believe that this is it, that's what roleplaying and choice is about.

Yeah, I think Sawyer's gameplay design suffers from that too (all classes equivalently viable). Everyone wins, everyone gets prizes, whereas the whole point of C&C is that your choices BLOCK OFF some possibilities. You might just be SOL with the iron bars, you might just not have anything in your toolkit to get through that way.

BUT if the game/level/encounter design is good, you should be able to find another way to progress the story, that fits in with the choices that you actually did make. Maybe not as autistically done as in a game like Deus Ex, but something of that order.

Occasional disappointment is an essential part of the RPG experience. It's not something you should experience a lot of, because that's not fun (hence you do want some degree of viability for all classes, for example, you don't want there to be only one build that can get through the game); but you should be experiencing some moments of, "Darn, I wish I had x, oh well, guess I'd better look for another way of doing this." That's what makes it stimulating, so that you have to actually think a little bit. And that's what makes victory sweet when you do squeak through.

As with most things, it's a Golden Ratio type of deal. Not exactly equal balance, some bias and lumpiness, but not so much as to stop progression or spoil the fun completely. Some bias in any given direction, but not too much. That's where true balance lies.

 

[Russia is over. The end.]

In a rare display of honesty, one soldier says he's MISTRUSTFUL of the Orlans.

4 out of 5 dialogue replies are "you're a horrible person".

Surprised there's no option to cancel him or that his name isn't Trumpthf.

 

[Harthwain]

4 out of 5 dialogue replies are "you're a horrible person".

Not true.

1) says either that he's being factually wrong or that the player disagrees with his reasoning/opinion as it doesn't match his own.

2) is an agreement.

4) is a rational approach to counter the argument about the so-called "natural hostility" of Orlans.

5) a moderate or diplomatic response, with potential for disagreement.

 

[Ninjerk]

Martin has
studied history very thoroughly

Eh..."thoroughly." Here's Martin:

I was in England visiting a friend, and as we approached the border of England and Scotland, we stopped to see Hadrian’s Wall. I stood up there and I tried to imagine what it was like to be a Roman legionary, standing on this wall, looking at these distant hills. It was a very profound feeling. For the Romans at that time, this was the end of civilization; it was the end of the world. We know that there were Scots beyond the hills, but they didn’t know that. It could have been any kind of monster. It was the sense of this barrier against dark forces – it planted something in me.

Could you explain what's wrong with that quote to those of us who didn't study history as thoroughly?

Groups beyond the wall pretty routinely raided the Romano-British areas (mostly from the sea AFAIK, because it was easier to travel quickly there) and I think the relatively modern view on the purpose of Hadrian's Wall was to make escape with stolen goods or after skirmishes much more difficult, i.e. the wall was to keep people in.

I don't know when he made that quote, but there's a certain romanticism in the statement, "It was a very profound feeling." I don't know how you reconcile that with history.

 

[Trashos]

Harthwain, those are extreme mental gymnastics, I am sorry to say. How come we don't get 652 ways to agree too?

 

[Harthwain]

Harthwain, those are extreme mental gymnastics, I am sorry to say. How come we don't get 652 ways to agree too?

How is this extreme mental gymnastics? Words have meanings behind them so it matters what you say and how you say it. Just because in most cRPGs dialogue lines are mostly cosmetics (which, I agree, is sad) doesn't mean it has or should to be this way, nor does it mean Bester is accurate in saying that all dialogues amount to the same in terms of how you express your reaction to the soldier's opinion, which was the point of his post and my response.

 

[Trashos]

Harthwain, judging by how you started your post, you should be agreeing with me! Right, it matters what we say and how we say it. Now look in that pic for our options towards agreement. Notice anything?

 

[Harthwain]

Harthwain, judging by how you started your post, you should be agreeing with me! Right, it matters what we say and how we say it. Now look in that pic for our options towards agreement. Notice anything?

You're missing the point. The point wasn't about how many options are about agreement. The point was about how many options can be boiled down to "you're a horrible person" statement, which is just not true.

 

[Trashos]

OK, I understand, although I believe that it is you who are missing the forest. The forest is that we get a million ways to disagree (because what we say and how we say it apparently matters), and exactly one way to agree (because what we say and how we say it apparently doesn't matter that much after all).

(Option #4 is a bit more complicated than that, but it is still there to antagonize Aldmar's view of the matter. It is fundamentally a disagreement on how to view the big picture.)

 

[Russia is over. The end.]

1. "You're right."
2. "It's not fair to the Orlans to say that."
3. "Yeah, it's not all socio-economic factors that there's more Orlan on Orlan violence than any other kind, and there's only 5% of them in Dyrwood!"
4. "We should definitely keep an eye out on those animals."
5. "I like your position, Orlans are dangerous and we should do something about it."

Harthwain would these options also be balanced?

 

[Harthwain]

OK, I understand, although I believe that it is you who are missing the forest. The forest is that we get a million ways to disagree (because what we say and how we say it apparently matters), and exactly one way to agree (because what we say and how we say it apparently doesn't matter that much after all).

I am not missing the forest. I am talking about a whole another one:

4 out of 5 dialogue replies are "you're a horrible person".

To make this even more clear: No, I don't disagree with you that there are more ways to disagree with the guy than there are ways to agree with him.

1. "You're right."
2. "It's not fair to the Orlans to say that."
3. "Yeah, it's not all socio-economic factors that there's more Orlan on Orlan violence than any other kind, and there's only 5% of them in Dyrwood!"
4. "We should definitely keep an eye out on those animals."
5. "I like your position, Orlans are dangerous and we should do something about it."

Harthwain would these options also be balanced?

What balance has to do with anything? If anything I think options should meaningful. Make people like you if you say certain things and dislike you if you say something else. Maybe even have reactions spawn different mini-events down the line during a quest. Also give the player perks for acting a certain way when he's consistent in his behaviour (a perk or something). Stuff like that. If you have this kind of baseline you will really need to think about what responses you give to the player.

 

[bionicman]

Can you share the isometric-persective-3.42-degree fix mod?

 

[MuffinBun]

4 out of 5 dialogue replies are "you're a horrible person".

Not true.

1) says either that he's being factually wrong or that the player disagrees with his reasoning/opinion as it doesn't match his own.

2) is an agreement.

4) is a rational approach to counter the argument about the so-called "natural hostility" of Orlans.

5) a moderate or diplomatic response, with potential for disagreement.

I see what you're getting at, but 1, 3, 5 are functionally the same. The dialogue should have been limited here to options that are different in a constructive way: 1) for disagreement, 2) for agreement, 4)for nuance. The way it is in the game skews perspective because one option is repeated 3 times.

 

[Harthwain]

I see what you're getting at, but 1, 3, 5 are functionally the same. The dialogue should have been limited here to options that are different in a constructive way: 1) for disagreement, 2) for agreement, 4)for nuance. The way it is in the game skews perspective because one option is repeated 3 times.

True. Which is why I said that in most cRPGs dialogue lines are mostly cosmetics and, in my opinion, options should be meaningful. And this is also why I keep saying I prefer the simulationist approach over the narratively-driven one (especially since most writers are hacks who can't write anything truly interesting and focus on bloat and word count instead).

 

[almondblight]

Could you explain what's wrong with that quote to those of us who didn't study history as thoroughly?

As Ninjerk said, the area beyond the wall wasn't some mysterious wasteland, beyond which the Romans knew nothing about. Like many areas beyond the border of the empire, it was a tribal region that the Romans often interacted with. Have you heard the phrase "the have made a desert, and called it peace"? One of the most famous lines from one of the most famous historians in antiquity. It comes from Tacitus' historical book Agricola, about the successful Roman campaign in Britain which reached the northern end of the island, far north of where the wall would later be built. The Romans had a huge army, successfully defeated the Caledonians, and took numerous captives. This happened about four decades before Hadrian's Wall began construction, with the book written about three decades before its construction.

Tacitus gives the phrase to Caledonian leader Calgacus. The Romans weren't ignorant of who was beyond the wall; some of their most famous historians had given sympathetic representations of the leaders there years before the wall was built. It wasn't the end of the world, it was a useful place to set up border fortifications.

Hadrian's Wall wasn't even the most northern defensive structures. The Gask Ridge was a series of forts far to the north that were built decades before Hadrian's wall (the Antonine Wall was also to the north of Hadrian's Wall, but it was built a couple of decades after Hadrian's wall).

This is a place Martin has been to, one that he claims had a profound effect on him, and one that was an inspiration for his writing, and his understanding of it seems to be on par with erroneous pop history beliefs. Which is fine, the guy's a fantasy writer, not a historian. But he hardly seems to have studied history thoroughly.

 

[Quillon]

On PoE's lore, part 1

Whenever I try to think of the "good" things about Pillars, I quickly end up on its cons, because the game often comes up short of being good at anything.
Take its lore and historical accuracy, for example. At first I'm tempted to write it down in the "pros" column. A setting reproduced from a concrete historical foundation
can offer a unique glimpse into the cultural code of another time period. Game of Thrones does this, and it's one of the reasons of its immense success. Martin has
studied history very thoroughly, and his world is truly medieval to the bone.

Sawyer decided to attempt something similar, but wer A sagt, muss auch B sagen (whoever says A, must also say B). Yet PoE never says "B". He doesn't see it through.

For instance, women in history generally weren't equal to men in rights, no matter what period you take. In Archaic Greece, women weren't considered citizens
and lived in separate "women's quarters", where men only went for one purpose - procreation. Women were forbidden to go into the "men's quarters". They lived
so much apart, that it is suspected women had their own version of the Greek language.

In Medieval Europe, on which Pillars is more often based, wives were considered their husbands' property. In the 1500s, a Marital Exemption for Rape was passed:
forced sexual intercourse was considered a husband making use of his property.

Married women were legally considered subordinate to their husbands, and a woman's land automatically became the property of her husband on marriage.
Medieval Canon law allowed a wife to be punished publicly, e.g. with iron muzzles:

Pillars gives no indication of any this. The NPCs you encounter act as if there is and always has been equality between men and women. The subject of inequality, even if in a past tense, is not brought up.
Except in places, where the game suddenly remembers we're in feudalism - Raedric stabs his wife for bearing him a soulless child and it's not considered anything out of the ordinary by anyone, to their credit.
The inconsistency makes the world come apart at the seams. You either have free strong women or you have feudal women who wouldn't dream of disobeying their husband or father.

"Who hit you?"

"Have you tried calling to the police??" - Back in real life: Wife Beating Made a Crime in Maryland in 1882 - first state to make wife beating a crime.

Sagani is particularly grating, but it's not just the women are modern - instead of rearing children, she LEFT HER HUSBAND AND CHILDREN to travel around. The unrealistic ease of travel is another subject I'll discuss later.
There are no racial or ethnic tensions. Religion and society as a whole is modern to its core, but what's worse, it's boringly modern. Internally I started calling it Netflix fantasy.
It deserves its own post, and I'll talk about it after completing the game. (if I manage to)

For now, enjoy this little exposition - when asked about his home town, the rioter decides to speak in encyclopedic:

*In hushed tone* Sawyer's touch

aSoIaF is low fantasy, pillows is high fantasy. its grrm's fantasy to make his world grounded af in most ways and its sawya's fantasy to make his world woke af while making 20 different types of melee weps to closely resemble medieval timez when that many ain't really necessary for a high fantasy game so...

...I agree with you that fantasy sucks, the higher it is the worse it gets as you explained very well indeed

 

[Butter]

A Song of Ice and Fire is by definition high fantasy. It takes place in a secondary world rather than our own. It also contains magic and dragons, hallmarks of what people misunderstand high fantasy to mean.

 

[Quillon]

A Song of Ice and Fire is by definition high fantasy. It takes place in a secondary world rather than our own. It also contains magic and dragons, hallmarks of what people misunderstand high fantasy to mean.

"An alternative definition, common in role-playing games, rests on the story and characters being more realistic and less mythic in scope. Thus, some works like Robert E. Howard's Conan the Barbarian series can be high fantasy according to the first definition but low fantasy according to the second.

The early 21st century is seeing an increase in prominence of the work of authors such as George R. R. Martin and Joe Abercrombie, whose high fantasy novels (works set entirely in fantasy worlds) have been referred to[by whom?] as "low fantasy" because they de-emphasize magic and non-human intelligent races in favor of a more cynical portrayal of human conflict. Fantasy writer David Chandler considered this "rise of 'Low Fantasy'" to reflect the contemporary reality of the War on Terror—characterized by "secret deals", "vicious reprisals" and "sudden acts of terrifying carnage"—much as the horror genre reacted to the Vietnam War a generation earlier.[8]"

but whatever, call it grounded fantasy then

 

[Theldaran]

Conan would be a girl today, or the protag would be Belit. Change my mind, Codex.

 

[vortex]

I expect PoE2 impression the thread.

 

[MuffinBun]

And this is also why I keep saying I prefer the simulationist approach over the narratively-driven one

what does that mean in terms of dialogue?

True. Which is why I said that in most cRPGs dialogue lines are mostly cosmetics and, in my opinion, options should be meaningful.

good point. But theres a middle ground: make dialogue options meaningful, and generate cosmetics(text) based on predetermined character traits. Yes/No/Maybe but the lines are different for the eager, cynical, compassionate or honorable characters. Could be based on background: an educated person speaks differently, less directly maybe(sometimes a sign of bad kind of education). I dreamt of something like this in a game for a while, but when I actually got to coding the dialogue systems, it never really seemed necessary in those cases. But for a game where diametrically different character builds are possible, that would be really nice to have.

 

[Quillon]

good point. But theres a middle ground: make dialogue options meaningful, and generate cosmetics(text) based on predetermined character traits. Yes/No/Maybe but the lines are different for the eager, cynical, compassionate or honorable characters. Could be based on background: an educated person speaks differently, less directly maybe(sometimes a sign of bad kind of education). I dreamt of something like this in a game for a while, but when I actually got to coding the dialogue systems, it never really seemed necessary in those cases. But for a game where diametrically different character builds are possible, that would be really nice to have.

Agreed.