I don't think I've ever seen another RPG where the "evil" options are so cartoonish and over the top that they take me out of the experience.
 Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
 UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
I don't think I've ever seen another RPG where the "evil" options are so cartoonish and over the top that they take me out of the ...
>I don't think
You're right.
To be fair what you are bound to experience during most of the gameplay is "jesus christ everyone is moronic, they should die, everyone should die, why am I even trying to save the world?" and you will get plenty of choices to carry out exactly that mindset once the game is done railroading you into caring even if your character is a complete psychopath.
Don't worry, shit writing it's not limited to the evil options
Holy shit, people actually enjoy this awful writing?
What is bad about this, exactly?
Nothing. morons just like saying that everything they don’t like is bad writing.
Apart from how crudely the wording is, it's cheesy and corny (but played off as serious), the scenario is dumb and the responses even dumber and cheesier.
This is grade school tier writing. As in some deviantart fanfic.
From a narrative design standpoint, all the choices are more or less the same and the writing of them has the same level of flair as someone that doesn't give a shit.
I think I'm a bad writer, but when even I can do better, oh boy then you've got problems buddy.
>I think I'm a bad writer, but when even I can do better
How would you have written that conversation?
Why don't you reword that conversation to your liking so we can have a good laugh.
>How would you have written that conversation?
It's not just the conversation, but the scenario itself
>attractive female demon going "will i ever find love" in front of the player
That's about as original and interesting as a bucket of bolts. Not to mention it's clearly just shallow pandering.
From a narrative design perspective, it's just as uninteresting.
>positive, but someone else
>positive, me
>neutral
There is no interesting choice to be made here and tonally they're mostly the same in terms of how they're written.
Writing and design isn't just about the words. Could better dialogue have improved it? Sure. But the scenario itself is inherently bad. Like trying to fix an ugly car with a different paintjob.
>attractive female demon going "will i ever find love" in front of the player
A deity messed with her head and that's the result. You oppose the notion of such a scenario probably because you're an incel who thinks such a fictional event should have been impossible.
>There is no interesting choice to be made here
You haven't even proposed an interesting choice because you were scared someone on Ganker would laugh at your writing, lel.
>scenario designed for incels
>tells people that don't approve of it and thinks it's shallow, bland and unintereting that they're incels
Flawless logic. I can tell you're an irrational and excessively biased person not really worth engaging with.
>You haven't even proposed an interesting choice
Because it's pointless, especially with someone as you have demonstrated to be. It benefits no one. The ones that would need to hear it, the writers and narrative designers are not here.
I could design and write up a more interesting scenario if I thought it would lead to an interesting discussion here. But so far, you're not painting yourself as a person that would facilitate that.
Not that Ganker is a good place for that anyway.
Yes because it's done to death, shallow and uninteresting.
Juxtaposition and contrast can make characters more interesting and deep. But this isn't that. This is more of a fetish.
A more interesting contrast for something like a Succubus is what they did in say Planescape Torment. Where a succubus is typically associated with being attractive, wanting to have sex, kiss, etc. Very physical. Here they instead had Succubus that were about mental stimuli, not the physical. Also, said kiss is deadly.
There are a million different ways to tackle the succubus thing. In the vein of Torment it could be that they didn't actually look for anything physical (no sex, not physical interaction, etc), maybe because they can't (it's lethal), so the character is more about having interesting conversations with and such. To contrast the things a succubus is otherwise associated with. That their idea of "love" is different.
You could potentially go in a different direction & tie it into gameplay. Example, if you go into a relationship with them, you're subject to a permanent debuff, which could get worse. But it made the succubus character stronger or gave them new abilities.
This could potentially not start out as love, but a pact. Etc
Only a grudgeful incel would be triggered by a cute demon who happens to have insecurity issues.
>Because it's pointless
The point would have been to prove you're not full of shit. But now I can conclude you are full of shit.
>A more interesting contrast for something like a Succubus is what they did in say Planescape Torment.
Firstly
>turning to PS:T for your first (and obviously only) example
Shiggydiggy
Secondly: a prostitute turned chaste is ALSO done to death, shallow and uninteresting by the same standard.
>maybe because they can't (it's lethal)
That's not an issue for the Nameless One. Eventually you can't frick Grace even as an extremely vile and monstrous TNO just because.
I don't like the vast majority of romances in RPGs, and I think that Pathfinder games would be legit better off without them, but you complaint about this particular bit of writing/concept being horrible is asinine. The prose is entirely alright, and EVERY SINGLE SCENARIO concerning human relationships "has been done to death" before prenting press was invented, and has about the same depth.
I turn to Torment because most people are familiar with it and it's a good example. This is rational.
>Secondly: a prostitute turned chaste is ALSO done to death, shallow and uninteresting by the same standard.
I never implied otherwise. These characters tend to be minor background ones.
>That's not an issue for the Nameless One
I'm talking in the context of Pathfinder.
You being dismissive doesn't magically make this example from Pathfinder good. It's still bad.
This is the absolute least interesting way to go about it, both from a writing and narrative design perspective.
If you or fanboys want to go on the defensive, by all means.
You're just saying bad, bad, bad and other people are being dismissive?
>That's not an issue for the Nameless One.
It actually sort of is. Low wis/int TNO can kiss Fall From Grace on their first meeting. You die on the spot, just as she warned you would
>You oppose the notion of such a scenario probably because you're an incel who thinks such a fictional event should have been impossible.
Ok I know you nice guys constantly daydream of a perfect e-girl falling in love with you after you donate like $999999 to them on twitch while they fart on microphones, but you seriously need to grow up and stop living in lala land.
Jeeezas fricking christ, you are actually the target audience for that exact romance shit
I mean, you dismiss a very basic 'who could ever love someone like me' scenario as shit writing from the start.
Just replace 'demon' with 'bawd', I guess.
>That's about as original and interesting as a bucket of bolts. Not to mention it's clearly just shallow pandering.
Please present your examples of good and original romance.
It's a problem I have with Tyranny too where it's just, the character feels too self aware. Like they perfectly understand and convey their nature/gimmick/etc to you in the driest terms possible. Less like they're people and more like an encyclopedia entry for whatever they are that sometimes makes quips.
They just don't talk like people do, in real life or better fiction.
The fact that you have no choice to be merciful and let the dude go or even agree with him was disgusting. No matter what he just either gets killed or turned into a woman. I fricking hate writer's fetish so much.
Should be able to take over his operation
>Punish him.
>Punish him.
>Punish him.
>Kill him.
>Ask for more Info.
>Help.
>Help.
>Help but pay me.
Its Fallout 4-Tier writing all over again.
I am legitimately flabbergasted why people keep shilling for Pathfinder and I am starting to think its merely because they are defensive about their Waifushit.
>my backstory is I was unironically groomed at a temple during childhood and I learned to enjoy yay transrights!
what the frick man
Do these people who write this shit have legitimately no editors to tell them how this sounds when read by a normal person?
>I am legitimately flabbergasted why people keep shilling for Pathfinder and I am starting to think its merely because they are defensive about their Waifushit.
It's a mixture of Waifuhomosexualry and build autism. The writing was never a strong point in Pathfinder, and role-playing story wise feels limited. Even Wrath with all of the mythic paths, some of which are suppose to be pure evil still railroad you into being the hero in the end.
Go see a doctor my man. There is some deep seated hatred and butthurt stuck in your brain.
It's not really hatred, but more so disappointment. I expected much more from the RPG series that gets non-stop praise.
>Its Fallout 4-Tier writing all over again.
WHAT? But i was told that games with silent protagonists are A MILLION times better and offer 9999 dialogue options!!! How could a game with a silent protagonist like Wrath of the Righteous offer LESS dialogue options than FO4?
I am not on your side btw.
You sound like a total homosexual and just as obnoxious as the people who praise this mediocre interpretation of Pathfinder.
People don't play Pathfinder for the writing, they play it for the builds because the game rewards build autism like no other.
>you will soon find how it feels to be a woman in the hands of brutes
Right, because only women get raped so the pc *needs* to transform the dude for true equivalence lol.
This totally is about poetic justice and not the writer's genderbend rape fetishes.
Yeah, unfortunately I don't think there was much flak about that, so in their next game they might still have less serious dialogue choices.
reddit: the game
Name one (1) game where the evil options aren't cartoonishly evil for the sake of being nasty. Go on, I'll wait.
All "good vs evil" choices in a setting are never on a spectrum or scale, it's always black and white, there's never any grey zones or "justified evil" options, ever.
Tyranny.
I kicked someone off a tower to splat while laughing at them in the first hour of the game, the faction leaders are petulant children and one of the factions is explicitly edgy rape raiders. It's not subtle or smart 90% of the time
no
no
lol, fricking hell no
Uhhh is this a joke? Tyranny doesn't even have evil choices.
You can kill babies in Tyranny
No. You can kill ONE baby, not babieS and you HAVE to do it otherwise the Edict of Storms won't end and you will lose your army, and they even bothered adding a super turbo mary sue option so you could save the baby AND keep your army. And btw, the epilogue is "your character felt really bad about it". So frick off stop pretending Tyranny is "LE EVIL" for forcing you to do something awful and having your character feel awful about it. Dishonest piece of shit.
die farquad
Nice bait. On the off chance this isn't bait you don't need to kill the baby and can still keep your army. Just be a israelite about it and lawyer them.
> Just be a israelite about it and lawyer them
I literally said that. Stupid frick.
>and you HAVE to do it
You don't have to. Did you play the game or are you pulling this out of your ass? With a high enough lore you can skip that altogether, or you could ask the female fatebinder in Tunon's court about it. There's literally several different option of ending the Edict of Storms WITHOUT killing the baby.
>you will lose your army
Never happens. I killed the baby and never lost a thing.
>the epilogue is "your character felt really bad about it"
again, no
>Did you play the game
I did. Apparently not only you didn't but you didn't read my comment.
> With a high enough lore you can skip that altogether
I said that. Mary sue shitty choice. Read my comment before attacking me, you mentally ill pathetic freak.
> I killed the baby and never lost a thing.
Ok. I'm gonna assume you have a mental problem AND you're desperate to pick up a fight on an internet page.
Again, read my comment. If you DON'T kill the baby, you lose your army, clicking the "refuse to kill the baby" option outright comes with a huge (BETRAY ALLIANCE) warning right next to it.
> again, no
Do you like, enjoy being humilliated? Are you a bad bad boy and you want to be punished? What? You into public spankings and being spat on?
Like, no, seriously, how pathetic are you.
If i were you right now, i'd kill myself.
>reddit spacing
>Do you like, enjoy being humilliated? Are you a bad bad boy and you want to be punished? What? You into public spankings and being spat on?
You call me mentally ill, yet you write shit like this. Go get locked in a mental insinuation you fricking schizo.
I'll accept your concession and assume you learned something from getting btfod: Read, stupid frick.
Stop being a schizo and maybe people here will start reading your inane drivel.
>reddit spacing
woman moment
You know this is a thing for a disfavored path for the baby problem why do you think it's the only way that goes down
>"you don't trouble yourself for to long" is right below... more could of been done
Deadfire
This. In PoE "evil" is rational, pragmatic pursuit of power, as it should be. The exception is the Skaenites, who represent a nihilistic revenge of the slaves.
On the other hand, being evil amounts to almost nothing special, unless you want Eothas to destroy the world, I guess.
All the factions are moronic, so whatever results you bring about, they ruin things some way
Mass Effect does them pretty well. Strangely in general Bioware is good at making evil choices that are usually plausibly justifiable, for all their faults. Even murderhobo path in DAO is perfectly understandable.
>Bioware is good at making evil choices
>Kotor
>Jade Empire
Eh. DAO was really bleak and ME "evil" choices are moot overall since how Shep prewritten as hero.
I mean, what's the path we are following here - taking the setting into account?
Because if so, WOTR is so over the top bleak that you being the equivalent over the top evil makes perfect sense and should therefore being ignored.
>Strangely in general Bioware is good at making evil choices that are usually plausibly justifiable
Fricking what? Most Bioware games railroad you super hard into being good. DAO in particular. Your only choices are being good and literally murdering everyone. Bioware are the worst at presenting evil paths.
I think the game that does it best is a game that doesn't even HAVE a morality system. In Underrail you can
>Join the AYYluminati
>Gas civilians after joining underground America
>Join a gang and get a tattoo
>Become a Pirate, not the Jack Sparrow kind, the Somalian kind
>Engage in Chemical warfare
>Join Fantasy Antifa (the fantasy part is they're actually dangerous)
>Kill people for fame in the arena, broadcast live to all of South Underrail
>Genocide Finnish people (arguably not evil)
>There's an entire character build people literally named War Crimes
It's not difficult to make choices in a game that barely has a storyline or a setting to begin with.
What game are you talking about? It's certainly not the one with autistic walls of text covering everything from apocalyptic biological wars to alien agents infiltrating institutions to outer gods that eat suns.
>I think the game that does it best is a game that doesn't even HAVE a morality system. In Underrail you can
oh yeah
the thing is it hardly presents any of those as evil
everyone is so pragmatic morality is thrown out the window in face of the brutal reality
>everyone is so pragmatic morality is thrown out the window in face of the brutal reality
Really? How did you miss "aug good, bio bad" hitting you in the face at the speed of sound?
>aug good
if you thought the rampaging horde of autistic half-demon/half-gods who slaughtered everyone who so much as looked at them funny in the search of a cool-looking diamond were good guys, i'm not sure what to tell you
it's neither pro nor anti-transhumanist
>if you thought the rampaging horde of autistic half-demon/half-gods who slaughtered everyone who so much as looked at them funny in the search of a cool-looking diamond were good guys, i'm not sure what to tell you
I'm not sure we've played the same game. There is a blatantly machine gus faction, plus a six-fingered alien mary sue. Then there is a bio faction, who is unambigously portrayed as the villains. Totally like in Fallout, which this game claims to be the spiritual successor of, except that you get 0 (zero) choice almost all of the time.
Here's the thing about that: the Tchortists were mostly good people with a shitty leader who lied about what Tchort was. They're probably the nicest faction in the entire game. And they're also the most advanced behind the Faceless.
I'm not sure whether you mean Coretech, NFT, or one of the megacorps we have yet to really encounter, but it's not what you think it is. Hell, when I think about it, NFT alone disproves your claim. They were a bunch of romantic fetishizers of machinery, environment, and growth before Biocorp hilariously dabbed on them with mutagen.
Six is something else altogether.
>>Gas civilians after joining underground America
in Chemical warfare
How are those different? What are you referring to?
Finnish people (arguably not evil)
Do you mean those vaguely slavic characters in that teleport-only accessible location? That language is not Finnish. It's vaguely western slavic.
Also UtterFail is shit.
>DAO in particular.
DAO never gives you any incentive to go hard in either direction because there's no morality system. iI lets you actually roleplay the person you want to play without caring about a bar going up and down. When there's no metagaming involves it gives you a lot of narrative choice. One of my favorites is to have a character that in any other instance is a kind, compassionate person, but he's also a bigot towards elves and constantly talks down to them from a condescending, imperialist point of view. You can choose to help someone and tell them to keep the reward, and you actually get nothing, because you should get nothing, selflessness should be its own reward and not Paragon +1.
It still blows my mind how no company made a design choice like dragonage orgins. Pillars of eternity with the silent protagonist could've done it, but they cared more about their world design over player choices.
Basing your decisions on what your party members think of it, and not what the world's morality thinks of it, is too many variables for most devs to want to do.
Wrath of the Righteous
you know they start that way
but i really like how it grows into you either being machiavellian or a genuine menace
>Name one (1) game where the evil options
When they're not framed as "evil".
Age of Decadence.
You never even do anything EEEEEEEVIL MWAHAHAHA. You just have numerous options to do something quite beneficial and reasonable for yourself, at exuberant cost to others.
>Cheat and swindle already poor and starving people out of their money
>Betray your employers for some cash
>Trick a horde of nomadic barbarians into a city for political gain
>Poison said horde along with it's women and children because "hey it works at dealing with them" for a different political gain
>Sacrifice gullible cultists to an unspeakable thing inside a portal to keep said thing longer on a phonecall so that you can find out what you need from it
>Make people trust you and depend on you, then use them and discard them
>Manipulate a politician into starting a cop, so that you can sell him off to his former master, just as planned.
>Destroy the largest human settlement by awakening a dead god so that you could gain a unique ability.
>Swindle, betray, cheat, beguile or murder EVERYONE in order to become a God
And the game really does pressure you constantly with threat, very limited resources and capabilities - so most of those evil options are really tempting, but at the same time none of them are made out like "I do this because I'm a horrible person so I enjoy doing terrible things", instead they are about "Well frick you got mine, that's how the world works, should've known". Although you do have a few opportunities to just be sadistic for the sake of it.
At the same time, the vast majority of those double-crosses and butthole options are kept balanced by Reputations - if you keep fricking people over, everyone who could actually hear about you will eventually expect you to be a treacherous butthole, so they'll treat with you at swordpoint and discard you without a second thought even if you legitimately do want to help.
Planescape: Torment
Unironically Mass Effect 3. Not 1 where you're just a racist and 2 where you're just a sociopath, in 3 specifically the Renegade option is basically always "extreme pragmatist"
Literal dozens of well made rpgs, from fallout to dragon age. Hell, dark messiah has notoriously wholesome evil path.
I hope you are just young and not a gullible homosexual defending corporation for the sake of it.
>fallout
>dragon age
>well made
I was talking about actual fallouts, not Bethesda's clown comedy relief apocalyptical shooter.
Shin Megami Tensei: Strange Journey
tactic ogre luct
It's been vocalized, unironicly deadfire and other obsidian games to a slightly lesser extent
Tyranny, KOTOR 2
Grand strategy games are essentially war crime simulators. But it's easier to accept in a bird's eye view game where you don't necessarily even have a character who commits those acts. Actually evil stuff being committed right in front of your eyes by your own character is actually repulsive for most people, which directly drives more players away than it draws in.
>RPGs typically don't let you be evil
>a game that lets you be actually evil is considered "cartoonish"
Well I liked it. I'd rather have over the top evil than have a good guy swearing be considered "evil."
>RPGs typically don't let you be evil
What RPGs don't? Most generally let you be evil, but they don't make it very compelling.
If you go demon then being moronic-evil is practically required.
Should've gone aeon/azata -> devil if you didnt want to be a chaotic sperg.
What, you never played Baldur's Gate?
>first time player
>played kingmaker extensivly
>think about rolling a sword saint
whats a good weapon to pick? im thinking rapier because then i can also pick the noble background and get +1
dex build gets rapier , estoc or elven blade for himmicks.
Strength build gets greataxe, bastard sword or scimitar.
I do not remember if there is a good expanded crit reach weapon to abuse in Wrath
Owlcat hates the elven curve blade, don't bother picking it. I know it looks fire as frick. Don't waste your time.
Kingmaker has bane of the living, wrath has second chance from early on.
>I don't think I've ever seen another RPG where the "evil" options are so cartoonish and over the top that they take me out of the experience.
>homosexuals in football pads with melee weapons can challenge a military with firearms and explosives
>homosexuals in football pads with melee weapons can challenge a military with firearms and explosives
To be fair, said military is extremely incompetent, so much so that they can't take care of a couple of bandits as we see in the beginning of the game, and also need you, an outsider, to help some of their rookies to actually work cohesively as a group. Most of their recruits can't even shoot properly. Meanwhile, the larping homosexuals may be wearing football pads, but they are at least somewhat more organized, which explains their effectiveness.
>technological superiorty > skilled and disciplined military with great tactics
But the Legion uses fricking terrible tactics.
Honestly, people shit on fiction hard for this stuff but when I started studying history I learned that real life strategy was pretty much 100% on this tier of sheer moronation until the First World War. Like holy shit, the maximal extent of tactical genius exhibited by people like Alexander or Napoleon was "lol you thought my soldiers were here, but actually I moved them over here, now bend over". Normal tactical superiority was along the lines of "the English decided to fight in a valley and they put a bunch of wooden stakes in the ground so we've all been funnelled into one place for them to kill us in and we're too undisciplined and lacking in communication to avoid this". Trafalgar was LITERALLY just "instead of attacking everyone at the same time, let's attack them piecemeal". But of course the whole point was that requires loads of discipline because the first few ships have to take enormous casualties just so the rest of the fleet can do way more damage to the enemy.
I mean here's how you can sum up Trafalgar from the French perspective
>oh god what if Nelson does X?!
>should we prepare for that then, sir?
>No....no we should just hope he doesn't do it.
And then Nelson did it
how dare you forget to mention hannibal's brilliant utter slaughter of the romans at canae
You mean "encircling the enemy so they can't rout?"
No, I mean making your center flank weak, having them retreat, and folding your other ranks around the advancing Romans to envelop them in a one-sided slaughter they cannot defend against.
>Like holy shit, the maximal extent of tactical genius exhibited by people like Alexander or Napoleon was "lol you thought my soldiers were here, but actually I moved them over here, now bend over".
That is a mass simplification of the actual strategic, logistical, and political groundwork involved in making those tactics work.
Napoleon didn't just go "haha I moved my soldiers unexpectedly" - he reorganized his armies, and rethought his supply methods, to prioritize speed and allow his armies to cover more ground than the enemy expected, and he gave false signals to the opponent about his political goals to make them misinterpret where his troops would have to go, and he moved his troops around in small units all over to divide his opponents (and to make use of his superior distance-covering to reunite his forces before the enemy could reunite theirs), etc.
What most fiction does wrong is often just throw one single factor and a result out there, without the other context involved.
>booby trap bodies
>fear tactics so great every NCR trooper is basically suicidal
>artillery to deal with snipers at hoover dam
>they boobytrapped the entrance to hoover dam so no one can escape to regroup
>they have squadrons in the fricking pipes ready to flank the NCR
>know the common trooper is absolute shit and afraid of them, so they charge in to disable their one advantage
No, they don't
I guarantee that the majority of the people on this board, if given command of the NCR, would do a better job defeating the legion. How goddamn hard is it to dig trenches and set up firing lines with machineguns? I mean the real question is "why wouldnt the NCR just open up with an artillery barrage that makes a ww1 commander proud", because the great thing about having some sorta late 1800-early 1900s tier domestic industry is that you can make artillery that can toss shells several miles. the entire battle of Hoover Dam should have been a line of artillery that just rains on the fort until until the NCR army shows up to mop up the 100 legionaries left who aren't 90% shrapnel by weight
Because General Oliver is a dumb c**t who cares more about his pet power armor troopers having a glorious exchange than winning the battle. This is unfortunately not unrealistic, but at the same time most military leaders are NOT Field Marshall Haig so it is pretty uncommon.
The NCR doesn't have anywhere near the military industry of pre-war America nor the ability to manufacture artillery for themsleves that's not salvaged pre-war shit as seen by the howitzer at hoover dam. The Gun Runners run guns, not artillery.
Even then, they have aircraft. Why don't they just bomb the everliving shit out of them? And again, didn't they just go for trench warfare and turn everything east of their position into No Man's Land?
As said before, the NCR doesn't have the military industry of pre-war America. They use vertibirds solely to transport the president safely to the Mojave and back to Cali. In all likelihood, the sheer infrastructure you'd need to refuel maintain them is decades beyond their reach. The Chosen One also kind of maybe blew up the only base they could refuel at. Of course, you find an outpost in the Mojave, but it's not like you can tell the NCR how you got it.
As for trenches, Oliver as said by the other anon.
>I guarantee that the majority of the people on this board, if given command of the NCR, would do a better job defeating the legion.
If they could run NCR military like it's an RTS - yeah, maybe.
But the whole issue with NCR is that it's a corrupt bureaucratic shittshow where most authority figures hold their position through bribery and nepotism, and only care about protecting their own interests and covering their asses in short term, while the entire Mojave campaign is a huge cost and liability for every purpose aside from "NOT GETTING BTFO BY LEGION EVENTUALLY" - so pretty much everyone aside from the men sent to die in a desert treats Mojave through policy of "how much losses I can cut on this whole mess without walking into straight up treason?". Their incompetence is entirely realistic.
>why wouldnt the NCR just open up with an artillery barrage
They don't have artillery. That didn't trouble them previously because until the secession, they had the State of Masxon to act as their heavy hitters.
>the great thing about having some sorta late 1800-early 1900s tier domestic industry is that you can make artillery
California houses 0 (zero) facilities for manufacture of heavy land ordnance or high-caliber munitions. If NCR wanted arty, they'd have to not just reinvent it - they'd have to hire Gun Runners (hoooray for privatized MIC) to reinvent it for them.
>If they could run NCR military like it's an RTS - yeah, maybe.
You literally just have to do a better job than Oliver, which is easy if you care more about winning than winning in a way that's fancy.
> Dude how a bunch of OBJECTIVELY EVIL SEXIST FACISTS!!! can defeat Mr House AND the Legion!!!??? that is so STUPIDDDD!!! People with less technology ALWAYS LOSE!!!!!
god, does stonetoss give the dumbest takes to get clicks?
Stay mad, gay. Also look up Korean war
i really don't get the hate
i mean, i understand it from the leftie side to the point someone made an absolutely seething blog about him but not our Ganker bois
>incompetent military with guns and explosives
or
>massive well organized army that arms their lower level mooks with javelins and has superior strategic mangement
I don't think you understand how massive the Legion actually is.
Why do so many people think the Legion never uses firearms?
If they let you do evil acts and had realistic and reasonable justifications for it, people ('people') would complain.
What justification do you need beyond 'I want to turn people into skeletons'? Or locusts?
Playing a lich I'm perfectly logical and making sense every time. Meanwhile the moronic 'good' guys keep raiding my Ziggurat, sabotaging my crusade and whatnot. HOW THE FRICK ARE EVIL OPTIONS CARTOONISH YOU moron.
Idk if you meant a chaotic evil demon or something in which case I'll agree.
RPGs with fantasy themes are cartoonish period. Anyone being subtly evil goes out the window when you are a super wizard lich with mega fantasy powers and you throw fireballs.
I still think there are ways to make evil more interesting. Just because it's a fantasy setting doesn't mean it can't have nuance or subtly.
It can, but it's a very very very very very slippery slope. Some would say Kotor evil is cartoonish, or even Mass Effect evil is cartoonish. There really is no winning this discussion for anyone, and frankly I think OP is bait.
>are so cartoonish and over the top that they take me out of the experience.
Ummm...
You're trolling, right?
Because Pathfinder Wrath of the Righteous DOESN'T EVEN OFFER EVIL CHOICES. The very first time you're given an evil choice is at the beginning in which you see a gross troony trapped under a rock. The evil choice is not to leave him and save yourself like a selfish person would, the evil choice is not to go murder hobo, the evil choice is not to steal from the troon and run away.
Nop, instead the evil choice is "Of course i'm gonna save the troony, trans rights! But i need money myself to buy the HRT!!".
You need to wait until like THE VERY END OF THE GAME so you're finally given evil choices like killing the Queen (which i don't consider evil, she deserves it after she tried to kill YOU and doomed her own kingdom just because she was jealous, if it was a male character everyone would go "ree he was a corrupt and evil king he deserves to die" but since she's a woman she gets a pussy pass at trying to murder the hero and getting all her soldiers killed) and ONLY in the moronic evil paths like Demon and Swarm you can kill the troon.
Pathfinder Wrath doesn't have evil choices.
It has "Be tolerant" "Be tolerant but with 10 more gold".
Just frick off, and take your homosexual oc with you
Obsessed.
look at your homosexual self
I found it odd that asking for money was considered an evil option. The game does it again later on when you have to escort the fat noble guy. Because I guess god forbid you ask for the slightest compensation and don't do everything for free because that's how much of a good person you are.
>someone's life is in danger and you ask for money before rescuing them
This is obviously a morally gray area and not at all a very standard evil action, my totally-not-autistic friend.
RPGs need more rape
Owlcat's writers are dogshit lityeral who's, what did you expect?
Unfortunate. Hopefully the next ban you get sticks.
define evil
what's the state of this game? are bugs fixed worth the sale? already finished the first one
I haven't played it in a while, but they cleaned up a lot of shit since launch while I was playing and I've seen articles about new patches. I'd say it's probably pretty safe to play now.
>owlcat went from literally who to rent free in every grognard's head in barely more than a couple years time, to such an extent that they pretend bioware morality wasn't always a laughing stock
feel good story of the decade
It was more than playable in nov/dec so if that's all you care about it should be fine. Still more DLC and Enhanced Edition to wait on though
I recently started playing this game and is all the hate around Seelah really just that she's black?
No, it's that she's boring and kind of an insecure b***h. Like, she's female Lann except not attractive.
The problem with both is that they should be secure since, you know, they're fighting literal mythic beings with godlike powers and have those same things. You're saving people and becoming a living legend.
And these two unfathomably lucky fricks are unsure of themselves and asking you for advice like they're moronic teenagers.
Because they are not you. Lann has lived under a rock all his life. How dumb do you have to be to not know this?
so has wenduag
and she's the best
lol, okay, homeboy
>>so has wenduag
That's just a slave of Baphomet. She isn't brave nor confident.
All of the mongrels would have been sacrificed to him if the main character wasn't around.
Oh so they are like real people.
Cool.
CodexBlack person
>you can't (Chaotic) joke about him being too "sadistic"
Does this game have any actual appeal beyond ronery waifugays?
There is epic troony medicine quest
How do you reveal this? I've never seen it after 15 playthroughs, though, of course, after 15 playthroughs I don't usually run through every NPC's dialog.
It's not hidden
it only shows up in chapter 5
I've never managed to get this to happen to the point I thought it was cut from the game.
Because it's not a RPG.
Holy frick shut the frick up
Like don't even think of breathing air
Keep me in your head, troony.
>I don't think I've ever seen another RPG where the "evil" options are so cartoonish and over the top that they take me out of the experience.
Must be your first videogame then. Wrath is nothing special in that regard.
How interesting are the settings in Kingmaker and Wrath of the Righteous? I haven't played a lot of CRPGs but I loved Planescape Torment, and couldn't really get invested in Divinity: OS 1 because the setting felt really boring to me.
For what it's worth a friend told me Kingmaker's setting was more interesting, but what got me interested in these games in the first place was the mythic path stuff from how they described them in Wrath's kickstarter back then. Any thoughts on how well that was executed?
The setting is basically DnD but even more goofy and campy.
Thanks for the answers, anons. I've decided to get them.
Kingmaker's is a little generic but it's more grounded. Wrath is a power fantasy.
The settings are great and more "grounded" than the campy shit in D:OS and their "Sourcerers" (/puke).
If you've invested this much interest in the games, you should get them.
The Mythic paths in Wrath are fantastic and allow for a lot of combinations and re-playability.