Pillars of Eternity

That first part's not true. Tropes Are Tools. You may not like it yourself, which is fine, and I agree that it's not really done well here and it's pretty hard to pull off in general, let alone when you're using it as a deliberate twist where *everyone's* story ends on a down note. But a "Shaggy Dog" Story or No Ending can be good writing. It just maybe doesn't pair all that easily with straight epic fantasy, which the game leans into pretty heavily somewhere around the time you leave Gilded Vale.

I think the problem is less that it can't be done at all, and more that they were indecisive about it. Like I've said, I think that sense of thwarted hopes is something Obsidian has done well elsewhere.

It is certainly a lot *easier* to make an enjoyable game if you're not going out of your way to purposely avoid any kind of satisfying outcome, that much is true.

Edited by Unsung on Aug 26th 2020 at 4:47:44 AM

There's a difference between anti-climax and no ending or downer ending. Anti-climaxes are bad. They can work in a comedic context, but that's kinda playing on exactly why they're bad so I still say it supports it. Downer Endings or No Ending isn't the same thing.

Narrative structure relies on specific builds and releases of tension. Catharsis plays a lot into that, especially more in video games when *you* the audience are involved. Pillars builds up a lot of tension constantly and then... doesn't really release it. It releases it in a "well, that happened, moving on" kinda way but not in a satisfying 'I'm ok with not having these answers' kind of way. No Endings are useful, but they're REALLY hard to do well.

I also think a lot of 'Downer Ending' tropes are infinitely harder to do in video games because of the medium. The audience is far far more involved than any other medium and being so involved with an ultimately downer ending can feel really awful. Even worse when the play time for these can be 10-80 hours depending on the game, compared to a TV episode or film which will have maybe an hour or two of investment. If I spent $60-120 on a game, binged 80 hours to do every side-quest, and then feel TERRIBLE when the game ends... yeah, I'd feel a bit upset. While books are obviously even higher of a time investment (usually), they don't have the audience participation that video games do and I think books tend to be far more introspective and better able to pace out dealing with downer endings or unresolved frustrations through prose and dialogue that a film or game just doesn't quite have.

Not to say they can't, but I meant more that this is the kind of language that takes a really long time to develop into a medium in the same way books have tools to tell their stories in satisfying interesting ways or films have cinematic language developed over decades of work.

I actually think Pillars, despite setting out to be an Isometric RPG, REALLY could have benefited from cut scenes and animations that could help convey a lot of these topics in non-verbal ways that might ease the issue of making it satisfying. Even if Eder is still conflicted, there are still ways to show him dealing with that and show that he'll be fine that we just can't quite convey in words without just breaking the narrative and saying it outright.

Edited by InkDagger on Aug 26th 2020 at 7:00:01 AM

The deliberate "Shaggy Dog" Story of the personal quests in POE works for me. It feels painfully real and yet oddly fulfilling. Take Zahua's personal quest.

His Vision Quest to become the Anitlei again doesn't lead to spirits magically giving him the secrets he needs to save his tribe. It's just his own subconscious telling him that he knows the secrets are lost and that his tribe will never return. It's sad, but at least Zahua can finally let go of the past and start fresh. The kicker is that he gains a bonus talent called "Anitlei".

I'd say they did an alright job with that. Matt Mercer's voice acting really helps, naturally.

^^^ Eh. Saying that a Downer Ending or No Ending isn't (or is never) a form of anti-climax is just arguing semantics. Traditional narrative structure relies on traditional catharsis — but not all stories are traditional. Not all stories are meant to be conventionally satisfying. A lot of great literature relies specifically on that sense of ambivalence, that lack of closure. I mean, you kind of come around to what I've been saying in the second half of your post — the problem isn't the anticlimax/whatever you want to call it in and of itself. It's lacking the tools and techniques to make it work in a new medium. It's not in the attempt that they go wrong, but the execution.

But that's why I can forgive it, up to a point. If not for efforts like POE, flawed though it is, we're not going to develop those tools. There's a place for honing existing techniques, the kinds of storytelling gaming already does well, but also room to experiment a bit. Not every game Obsidian's done is a masterpiece, but they're ambitious even if that means they often fall short.

Like, I'm not trying to convince you POE is this rough gem that you're overlooking or anything. It's not their best game. I do kind of like it, but I didn't the first time I played it, and it's not at the top of my list in the genre. But it tries some things that I think are interesting, and I wouldn't want to see them dismissed as unworkable just because they don't really work here. I'd like to see them done better, is what I'm saying.

^^ Zahua and the Devil of Caroc do feel more conventionally cathartic in their arcs and connected to the events of the DLC. Even Maneha, who never quite grabbed me as a character, does get some poignant lines as relates to the ending of both the DLC and the main game. So they're learning, the devs are.

Edited by Unsung on Aug 26th 2020 at 10:44:37 AM

I mean, I think the DLC is over all A LOT better than the main game. Not perfect, but a hell of a lot better or a lot more interesting. Zhaua's quest feels like it's satisfying even though, yeah, the ultimate result isn't what Zhaua wanted. No 'action' actually happens; the characters work out a new understanding. There's an actual resolution to it.

THERE'S THE WORD I'M MISSING.

Edited by InkDagger on Aug 26th 2020 at 9:16:52 AM

If you're just gonna say "all anti-climaxes are bad unless used for comedy, full-stop", then you've already gone too far.

Even arguing anti-climaxes are bad whenever used in video games is a bit much.

Try to remember that there is a difference between writing you don't like and writing that is bad.

Ok, then I will clarify. Anti-Climaxes are bad unless they are additional elements to temper the inherent problems of what an anti-climax is. For example, comedy can hit the ground running with a Big Bad being defeated by a rock dropping out of nowhere and by nothing the heroes do, because the idea has a lot of hilarity that can be milked from it. Or, there can be ways that a Big Bad being defeated by... a slow death in their sleep before the heroes can catch them can be worked to then service the character arcs and development or other elements. Or you can switch the tension off of one thing and onto another to twist the plot point.

But an anti-climax being the point with nothing else to support or help build off of it is bad. It might work for some people, fine. That's ok. Or some people might not be bothered by it. But that doesn't mean a writing issue is any less of an issue.

EDIT: I'm missing a word when I talk about this. There can BE anti-climaxes but there needs to be a resolution which Po E tends to lack sometimes. We have an (anti-) climactic 'moment' of sorts but it needs the resolution beat after to work out, especially since the climax is an anti-climax.

Edited by InkDagger on Aug 26th 2020 at 9:22:40 AM

If it works for some people, but not...you, that makes it bad writing.

Ok, got it.

Edited by ArthurEld on Aug 26th 2020 at 9:17:26 AM

Literally not even what I've said. I know I've admitted in other threads here about some of my favorite tv shows where I've acknowledged that something is bad writing, but still liked the episode or direction or character anyway. It doesn't mean it's not bad writing.

Retcons are inherently bad writing. But sometimes they do make a story better because they open the story to new ideas and arcs that wouldn't have been possible otherwise (i.e. Character has no parents in Season 1, but has an emotional arc with their dad in Season 3). It might be EXTREMELY well done and the show is better for it, but retcons are bad writing. And that's ok.

Edited by InkDagger on Aug 26th 2020 at 9:21:33 AM

I mean, any writing that isn't supported by the rest of the writing is going to feel a bit weak, yeah? I don't think that's anything specific to anticlimaxes. It can work or not. But it's not always the result of a continuity error or writing oneself into a corner the way a retcon inherently is. A retcon is less an intended, in-universe trope and instead something more artificial. It's seeing the stagehand peeking out from behind the curtain.

But with any resolution, it's just a matter of whether or not it feels earned, deserved, paid off. Tropes are tools, but tools have to serve a purpose. You can't end on an anticlimax just because without it feeling like a middle finger to the audience, but it's not a mistake or poor form to end on one if you can support it thematically.

It's just that POE goes to that particular well a lot, and doesn't really tie it in until the very last conversation. And it doesn't tie together as neatly as it might. The themes are there, but they're not reinforced. I get wanting to be subtle, but this kind of gameplay in this particular genre doesn't really lend itself very well to that. The constant fighting and all the flashing lights tend to muddy the waters.

Edited by Unsung on Aug 26th 2020 at 9:44:05 AM

Even so, I do think there's something to be said for the companion quests fitting in thematically. If you expect their quests to be wrapped up neatly with a cosmically satisfying ending, that's not what the game or the setting is about. Hell, the entire throughline of the game is grappling with the fact that there are no clear-cut answers about life. The very best you can do is to find an answer that feels right to you.

So many of the companion quests boil down, in the end, to "did I do the right thing?". Eder, the Grieving Mother, Durance, Devil, Aloth and Sagani if you think about it. An ending to any of their quests where they were like "okay, Watcher, you're right. You've told me how I ought to feel and now I'll never think about it again!" would feel forced and wrong.

I really came around on the way the character quests were structured upon multiple playthroughs. A lot of the companions can seem kind of flat at a glance, but the way they hang on your every word and the way that changes the outcome, it's quite interesting in a design sense, and in-game it gives you a feeling of a living person in a way that many games often struggle with.

It just doesn't really feel like that's enough to glue them, or you, into what seems like the main plot right up until you jump down that bottomless pit into the final dungeon. If the flashbacks mattered more, or the characters had more of a stake in the Legacy or the fate of the Dyrwood, or if the Leaden Key were less opaque in their villainy — even though I do see what they were going for, and those things are all interesting taken separately... then maybe I would't feel that way.

I don't know, doesn't seem like there's any easy, obvious solution. I suspect the disjointedness is just a result of some right hand vs. left hand back-and-forth behind the scenes during development, and maybe there was no real way to fix it without going back and redoing a bunch of things at a point in development where they just needed to get the thing out the door.

Edited by Unsung on Aug 26th 2020 at 10:11:25 AM

I do kind of agree with your point here, but frankly that’s still better than most WRP Gs.

Having a significant number of the party be optional might sound interesting on paper, but I think it’s hurting the genre more than helping.

Edited by Novis on Aug 27th 2020 at 1:54:30 PM

It's good for multiple playthroughs, and if there's a slight feeling of missing out or resentment at being forced to choose for players who don't play games more than once, I don't really feel like that does more damage than the value it can add. I mean, that said, there's no requirement to add more characters if the devs don't have the time to do them justice. Better to cut a character or two than to have all of them feel that much more thinly spread.

In the context of having every companion play a significant role in the story, I don’t see a reasonable way to do that and not make them mandatory. It’s just one of those can’t have it both ways things unless the company is willing to put a likely unmanageable amount of time, resources, and editing to have the plot significantly change by the presence of absence of a certain companion. So unless the devs commit to one or the other, I’m satisfied with a thematic connection.

Its more work to do but I wouldn't say its actually hard to do. Most of these video games are broken down into major quest arcs rather than a complete straight shot linear narrative.

Just make them a major plot point for the respect quest areas and then one or two have a more general plot relevance (ie Alistair and Morrigan in Origins).

I dont think that works in Po E as well because the structure and pacing is all over the place. The game doesn't really divide evenly into quest arcs but it isn't really particularly linear either. I'd say it divides by Defiance Bay with a pre- and post- section on either end. But even those don't quite have a definable quest arc to either of those three sections.

I dont mind the idea of thematic connections to the plot, but i think thematic connections need a strong character or plot connection as a base first. I tend to find video games struggle with themes a bit and more so in RP Gs because things like theme or tone can be wildly different between players. Good themes tend to be implicit and doing things on a subtle or subtext level is a bit rare for games. And, again, players can massively fuck up those themes by their choices if they're inconsistent between quests or the game is too binary in reading rather complicated ideas.

Dont get me wrong, I *want* deep themes and complex ideas in games. I just think you need a good plot and characters first as your baseline and, for RP Gs, you REALLY need to have dynamic writin.

Or you end up with, like, Bioshock being 'good vs evil' in the most basic sense and so massively binary on either end that its not saying anything. Or a player who pushes their companion to reconnect with their long lost son... while also murdering fathers in every side quest and orphaning kids across the continent.

Themes are hard to do and even harder to do organically.

The segmented method still requires those characters to be there, for one to have a character as a major part of it, a segment would have to be built around that character, not just have a place to slot them in if they’re around.

That method still requires those characters to be there for those arcs, for one to have a character as a major part of it, an arc would have to be built around that character, not just have a place to slot them in if they’re around.

I'm aware. Origins did that in a few places. Wynne is introduced at the Circle of Magi and, while able to not go with you, the plot more than nudges you to keeping her around.

Oghren isn't needed for the Deep Roads but he's got so many plot connections to the arc that you're nudged to keep him around for it.

Compare to Zevran who had no major plots to be involved in. Not even during the Landsmeet which could have been interesting.

I like how they did it with Oghren, his personal sidequest spins off from the portion that centers on him, being something of a conclusion to that arc.

Yeah, I'm not saying every character needs a significant role in the story, per se. They should be able to contribute meaningfully if they're there, but not in a way that the plot only makes sense if you bring them along. All I'm really asking is for a good enough reason for them to join the PC and stick around. POE kind of doesn't give you that. Everyone just tags along for lack of anything better to do. Which isn't always a problem, Hitchhiker Heroes is a timeworn and respected trope — characters wandering the trail together, slowly getting to know one another, on a quest to find themselves as much as to reach the end of their actual supposed quest. But that just doesn't really fit with the seeming urgency and personal nature of the situation in the Dyrwood. And aside from the pacing issues, they just don't seem all that invested in getting to know anyone other than the Watcher.

It's just about giving them some kind of stake in matters. How significant their role becomes should be something that's determined by who you take along, not something preset as part of the overaching plot. Basically, it's an RPG, and these are your fellow party members. Obviously giving them full autonomy and volition isn't an option, but you can do more to further that illusion than was done here, that's all.

Edited by Unsung on Aug 29th 2020 at 11:15:01 AM

I mean, personally, I wouldn't mind a solo outing RPG that based a game around giving companions A LOT more story autonomy and agency than other games. Something that had the freedom to really try something a bit more complicated without being, like AAA Big Budget Dragon Age 4 or something. Which is kinda the problem with big budget development; there's not a lot of room to try and fail on new systems unless you do so internally.

Which is why a lot of AAA games play it safe and feel same-y.

That sounds like what Divinity: Original Sin 2 did, more or less. The companions ended up being more connected to the world and the plot than a player-generated character, if you chose to make one.

On the talk of characters, I'm glad I've found others who didn't quite get what Grieving Mother even was. A lot of interactions with her almost felt like she was less of a person and more....some sort of spirit entity, an amalgamation of the thoughts, feelings and memories of mothers or midwives. She in no way comes off as some kind of human or single individual person.

Also I have to take a bold stance on something: fuck the Skaen pit.

I've done almost every evil thing in an RPG people can think of and I've tried to rationalize and justify them all because that's good roleplaying.

But when it comes to companions, I don't really cross the line. I will not feed one of my companions to the White Gloves, I will not sell Fenris back into slavery and, yep, I won't toss anybody into the pit. I just personally can't fathom the kind of mindset any of this requires. And it's not like there aren't companions I don't like or even outright hate. There are many. I did not mourn for Ashley in ME 1. But there's a profound difference between even an action like siding with the Legion or leaving a companion to die because you have to, and the cold-hearted betrayal of "I traveled with you, we fought and bled together, and now I will leave your soul to eternal suffering or have a bunch of cannibals eat you because...uh..."

That takes a level of psychopathy I just can't really wrap my head around.