Doesn't it also give you a couple of options to lie to him about your background, even though you as the player don't even know it yourself?

Does it? You can give Duncan a (really vague) explanation of what you did to get thrown in prison. I don't think it was a lie so much as choosing your characters history.

That's another thing to. There should be more games that set things about your character based on what you tell characters earlier and it actually bothers to remember it sometimes. Like instead of Pillars of Eternity having you pick a tag explaining your background you use tell someone.
 
Huh, I vaguely recall some options having [LIE] in front of it. Could be misremembering, though.

Maybe? I might have forgot because I felt it would be nice to not lie to my adoptive brother lol.

Also, seeing the [LIE] tag beside a dialogue option it always amusing to me and I wish you could go through entire games lying to literally everyone for no reason.
 
Last edited:
I am going to give my Kotor 2 story. I got Kotor 1 as a Christmas when I was a wee lad in a box set of star wars pc games. I enjoyed it a lot (and still do) I loved the characters and the setting and the gameplay. I thought the twist with Revan was cool and overall just adored the game. A little later I track down a copy of Kotor 2 with some reservation (the buzz around the game at the time was that it was a largely inferior sequel made of reused assets. This is not entirely wrong but for as I will explain didn't bother me too much)

So I install the game after a tortuously long install process involving what felt like a dozen discs I finally start playing. And I hate it. I find it boring I don't find Atton funny and crawling through Peragus feels like a huge chore. But I was a kid and could not exactly afford to not play a game I saved up money for so I keep playing. While I find some stuff rather boring and am more then a little frustrated at some of the difficulty spikes but I am kept on mostly by virtue of Kreia's voice acting talent alone. She seems fascinating and dynamic in a way almost no other fictional character I had absorbed previously was. I didn't always agree with her but I always found it interesting to see her point of view.

As I played I admit a lot of the other aspects of the game fell away. I didn't dislike the other characters but none of them grabbed me like she did. I basically put as little thought into the mechanics as I could so I could get back to what mattered to me. The story and the ongoing Socratic dialog that was my interactions with Kreia. As the end game approached and the obvious crept up on me I felt a real sense of dread at what I felt was going to happen. Fighting through the Academy on Mandalore was painful not just because of the huge difficulty spike but because I knew around every corner or inside every room I could find Kreia waiting for me and I would have to do what I was anticipating I would have to. At last I reach the final chamber and I talk to Kreia for the last time exhausting every dialog option until there was nothing else to do except play old yeller with a lightsaber.

It was difficult to do it, some part of me kinda wanted to turn off the game and never come back to it to keep it frozen in amber. But It also felt wrong. Dishonest in a way. So I finished it. And It left me with a empty feeling I am not sure I can really describe. Kotor 2 may not be a better game then 1 on any sort of technical level. And in retrospect I don't think if I played it now it would have that much of an impact on me. A lot of its philosophy is rather bland watered down Nietzsche and a lot of Kriea's mumblings are rather consciously obtuse. But it did affect me in a way nothing else did when I was that age. It made me think about things in ways I never really did. And I guess that is worth a lot looking back.
 
Shadowrun Hong Kong utterly fucks over its premise of having the Walled City as its big attraction only to go there only twice in the entire game, near the beginning and near the end.

Thanks, game. I'll be sure to give a crap about the Walled City despite only staying at the nice seedy town on the outskirts on my big ass boat and having jack all cash to buy any upgrades for my team and myself.
 
Unless the game is KOTOR II, which is a special case, I am against first runs of games being modded. When I played FO3 & NV and Skyrim, everyone told me to mod them. I couldnt but that isnt the point. If a game cant stand on its own, it is a bad game and not worth playing in the first place.
 
Unless the game is KOTOR II, which is a special case, I am against first runs of games being modded. When I played FO3 & NV and Skyrim, everyone told me to mod them. I couldnt but that isnt the point. If a game cant stand on its own, it is a bad game and not worth playing in the first place.

Depends on the level of modding, though.

For example, there is the modding of "changing the entire game balance and introducing brand new classes" (eg Titan Quest Underlord), and there is the modding of "tweaking exactly one set of graphics files to turn XBox button prompts into Playstation button prompts" (Monster Hunter World).
 
Unless the game is KOTOR II, which is a special case, I am against first runs of games being modded. When I played FO3 & NV and Skyrim, everyone told me to mod them. I couldnt but that isnt the point. If a game cant stand on its own, it is a bad game and not worth playing in the first place.
well yeah, that's the point. "The game itself is shit, but mods make it amazingly fun." It's not "You should mod this awesome game" it's "This shitty game works amazing as a mod template".
 
well yeah, that's the point. "The game itself is shit, but mods make it amazingly fun." It's not "You should mod this awesome game" it's "This shitty game works amazing as a mod template".
Frankly if someone willingly purchases a game they view as shitty then they lose any ground to stand on when complaining about its flaws, because by doing that they are voting with their wallets and rewarding the game company for doing something they view as wrong.
 
Frankly if someone willingly purchases a game they view as shitty then they lose any ground to stand on when complaining about its flaws, because by doing that they are voting with their wallets and rewarding the game company for doing something they view as wrong.
Not in the case of Fallout, because no one else is doing the things Bethesda does. You can't just go buy a good alternative to deeply flawed games. If what you want is to explore a wide-ranging fantasy world or the post-apocalypse in an open world with power armor and actual surviving landmarks and the general feel of Fallout's mechanics without the rampant flaws, you're just...kinda fucked. There's nothing else like it. You can either have a flawed version of what you want, or nothing.
 
Not in the case of Fallout, because no one else is doing the things Bethesda does. You can't just go buy a good alternative to deeply flawed games. If what you want is to explore a wide-ranging fantasy world or the post-apocalypse in an open world with power armor and actual surviving landmarks and the general feel of Fallout's mechanics without the rampant flaws, you're just...kinda fucked. There's nothing else like it. You can either have a flawed version of what you want, or nothing.
Hmm, a compelling point.

But I will point out there's a difference between "deeply flawed" and "shitty", the former allows for some good points while the latter is pretty much entirely negative. So if someone thinks that Fallout is flawed but there are no alternatives (which would be a fair position) then purchasing and criticizing Fallout is fine, but if they think it's shitty and purchase it anyway then TBH I'm just not going to view their complaints with much if any sympathy.

It's like willfully sticking your hand in a bear trap and then complaining when you're mangled.
 
Hmm, a compelling point.

But I will point out there's a difference between "deeply flawed" and "shitty", the former allows for some good points while the latter is pretty much entirely negative. So if someone thinks that Fallout is flawed but there are no alternatives (which would be a fair position) then purchasing and criticizing Fallout is fine, but if they think it's shitty and purchase it anyway then TBH I'm just not going to view their complaints with much if any sympathy.

It's like willfully sticking your hand in a bear trap and then complaining when you're mangled.
Okay, it's like...I argue Fallout 4 is a shitty game because of the horribly implemented story and the conflict between gameplay and narrative incentives, right? I still played Fallout 4 for literally 100 hours before I got so angry I quit. Because the implementation of Fallout fulfills a need I have that no other game matches. The chance to explore America in first person post-apocalypse, see what's sprung up since, play with mundane weapons and weird sci fi ones, build up my equipment and my character, roleplay how intense this old factory exploration is in my head even in the absence of any real gameplay ambiance, just because the environment is so perfect.

I still feel angry and cheated, though, because at every crossroads of game design, Bethesda makes the wrong decision, and forces me to put extra effort into having fun. Makes me ignore their shitty, shitty writing and replace it with my headcanon. Ignore their intrusive story interfering with my post-apoc exploration. Their godawful voiced lines replacing their previously well-done system of flavorful text that actually drips personality.

It's a shitty game. But it does something that makes dealing with my real life crappiness a lot easier. Even if I have to put a lot of mental effort into fixing their stupid goddamned bullshit every 30 minutes.

My life wouldn't have been better for never playing it, but it's so badly done and could easily have been better. I get to complain that Bethesda doesn't seem to care about actually being good, because they know no one does anything similar, and people can choose them, or nothing.
 
Last edited:
Hot Take: Something can be deeply, deeply flawed in a lot of ways and still be fucking amazing. Sure, an Obsidian game can be buggy, but for me that doesn't mean anything to the things that are actually cool about it. If the game rocks, that's it, I don't need to check it's teeth like its a horse.

Now if it actually fucks up the thing it has actually going for it that's another story.
 
Last edited:
The Game needs a card sorter and either a record of various results or some other tool to help keep track of what you've tried and what the results were.
I actually wrote the important notes out by hand

Of course, the most important/difficult to remember detail is the Lore Subversion Cycle; most of the rest is just... You learn it by muddling through, and then it's something you just remember, like riding a bike.

That said, there really does need to be a better system for cards, because as it is junk cards just drop all over the place and wreck fucking everything lol.
 
I actually wrote the important notes out by hand

Of course, the most important/difficult to remember detail is the Lore Subversion Cycle; most of the rest is just... You learn it by muddling through, and then it's something you just remember, like riding a bike.

That said, there really does need to be a better system for cards, because as it is junk cards just drop all over the place and wreck fucking everything lol.

I started doing that but then I lost my notebook and don't want to restart it all.

Also, why don't refreshed health/reason/passion just stack on with the others? Why can't I just check the number of upgrade things I have and just tell the game to pop them all if there's enough?

Can I please just set an auto cycle on my job? And maybe a recipe section where I can double check what rituals I did to get X?

I spend so much mental energy setting up the loops that I honestly get kind of trapped in them and can't really focus on much else.
 
Hot Take: Something can be deeply, deeply flawed in a lot of ways and still be fucking amazing. Sure, an Obsidian game can be buggy, but for me that doesn't mean anything to the things that are actually cool about it. If the game rocks, that's it, I don't need to check it's teeth like its a horse.

Now if it actually fucks up the thing it has actually going for it that's another story.
*coughs*EXALTED*coughs*EVERYVERSIONOFD&DBEFORE5E*coughs*
 
Frankly if someone willingly purchases a game they view as shitty then they lose any ground to stand on when complaining about its flaws, because by doing that they are voting with their wallets and rewarding the game company for doing something they view as wrong.

Through a strict reading of your post, there is the possible loophole of pirating the game (or otherwise obtaining it without giving money to the developers) and then criticizing it.

Also it doesn't take into account the situations where the game becomes shitty after updates.

EDIT: On further thought, it's probably more likely that the player changed, rather than the game. As in what I believed to be a flawed but decent game when I was younger might turn out in hindsight to be indeed just a shitty game.
 
Last edited:
Also it doesn't take into account the situations where the game becomes shitty after updates.
Of course it doesn't, my position is purely about buying a game that one views as shitty.

Thus buying a game that one thinks is good and then having it change into something that they dislike would not disqualify them from complaining about it.
 
Unless the game is KOTOR II, which is a special case, I am against first runs of games being modded. When I played FO3 & NV and Skyrim, everyone told me to mod them. I couldnt but that isnt the point. If a game cant stand on its own, it is a bad game and not worth playing in the first place.

My Skyrim install's modded to the nines but, as best as I can manage, relatively unobtrusively -- it's stuff that could have been part of the base game, but wasn't. My Fallout 4 install, on the other hand, is currently entirely mod free and has been since I started my Survival run, which stands at closing in on a thousand hours.
 
Shadowrun Hong Kong utterly fucks over its premise of having the Walled City as its big attraction only to go there only twice in the entire game, near the beginning and near the end.

Thanks, game. I'll be sure to give a crap about the Walled City despite only staying at the nice seedy town on the outskirts on my big ass boat and having jack all cash to buy any upgrades for my team and myself.
I would have been fine having the Walled City as something of a bogeyman which you barely touch until the end, but the payoff isn't there for that implementation. I honestly kind of want the game to be structured less around 'noobs forced into running while solving the Mystery of Raymond' and more frontloaded general running shenanigans until act 2 when you are stuck in KWC, and then you have to use the cash, favors, info and connections you gathered to try and escape. Act 3 can then have the Prosperty Tower run and the return to the city to solve or exploit the problem.

Also, we went over this. You'll have enough cash to go around if you don't play a mage or a summoning shaman.
 
I avoided a lot of combat situations and my mage was a certified wrecker of shit by the end, so it really wasn't that much of a problem.
It is if you're trying to upgrade your spells on the regular since the highest end spells are ‎¥2000-2500 a pop , but if you can get by with lower ranking versions and using a shaman dip to camp out on dragon lines for the boost, the money situation is considerably more tolerable.

Summoning shaman is still the most expensive archetype though. Why they haven't made fetishes a reusable item that refreshes on returning to home base is beyond me.
 
Back
Top