@Gelugon_baat: I used them without explaining them because there is a book that does that for me. It is called a dictionary. And I'm sorry if my spelling at 5 am isn't flawless, but if that's your headline complaint, I really think you've very little in your argument as a whole. I have caught you almost repeatedly in your lack of knowledge. You didn't know that most of the combat in the game was avoidable, because you asked me "Can you describe how the combat is "optional", when the official description of the game clearly mentions that it harks back to Icewind Dale?" As if being inspired by Icewind Dale is somehow a guarantor that it would be a story minimal experience. Then, yes, you were unaware how the areas were connecting. These together demonstrate a lack of understanding in how the content is structured on both a micro and a macro level.
As such, I don't really feel the need to continue this exchange, because your biggest arguments are not based on ideas but on how terrible that I don't double check my late-night/early morning internet comments for spelling.
@Gelugon_baat: are you for real? I didn't know about an optional side quest and got the name of a fortress wrong versus you, who have fundamental gaps in your knowledge of the basic content of this expansion, the form and layout of said content and completely rely on second hand sources to base this intrinsically faulty knowledge on.
This chavenistic streak is completely irrational and ridiculous that it verges on parody.
@Gelugon_baat: There aren't connecting areas. You travel from one location to the next directly. I never knew the mines existed until I read this review. You have to talk to someone outside of Durgon's Hold, which asks you to do a sidequest (which you can ignore) and open up the iron flail. Once you beat iron flail you go back to town and they give you the location of the monastery. Once you beat the monastery, you get the location for the final area of the dlc and after going back to durgon's keep for a conversation (the game allows you to teleport directly into the room), the game lets you proceed to the final area -- again allowing you to teleport.
@Gelugon_baat: I did read the rest of the paragraph and know how paragraphs work. It's the topic sentence. It tells you what is in the paragraph. In this case, he says there is too much plot and that it "railroads" you (which again, not true. You aren't stuck doing those quests once you start them. You can literally do them at your own pace.) I twisted nothing. He said, very plainly, the the focus on plot is to the expansion's detriment. His meaning was not vague or in any way open to interpretation. I know you don't like this, but that's just how language works.
You clearly haven't played the game. It should be very obvious to anyone who played that that I am not overstating the extent you can avoid combat. I have beaten this expansion. I have talked my way through those two areas. Now you can call me a liar and cling to this idea you have despite not having first hand experience, but the White March Part 2 has three areas in the main line. The Iron Flail, the Monastery of the Deeps and the Last location. You can talk your way to the leader of the iron flail and then talk him down. You can talk your way into monastery and there are a few hostiles in there, but you can sneak by them. If you don't you have to do 2-5 small fights. In the final section of the expansion, it's pretty combat heavy, you could sneak by most of them, but the boss is a mandatory fight. I have no reason to lie to you about this. I don't care that much.
@Gelugon_baat: As to making up statements? It's a topic sentence. There is literally a whole paragraph on this:
"Still, the plot becomes a negative because the game places too much emphasis on it."
Too much emphasis is the same as "too centred on" or "focuses too much on". Therefore, while not a direct quote, paraphrasing the above statement as "is too plot centric" is fair.
The combat is optional in that you can complete the objectives in those two area with no to minimal fighting by talking or sneaking your way through the segments. That the description mentions Icewind Dale as an inspiration (and you can certainly see that in the challenge boss fights placed in their own areas) is not a binding commitment on all of the content in the expansion.
Have you played the White March Part 2? Because I really felt if you had you'd know that you might be able to talk your way out of confrontation (which is pretty common in both the genre and the game at large). I mean, both in regards to the Iron Flail and the Monastery, both start with someone talking to you, I don't think either result in going hostile if you fail to bluff your way in. That should telegraph that you could resolve the situations without combat pretty clearly. Obsidian isn't the sort of developer to hint at potential to resolve a quest in a certain manner without actually providing it. This is 100% the same.
So why you are so intent on defending a review where the reviewer praises the game for the ability to make the combat easier (And that said, I do really like the inclusion of the story time difficulty) as its one "saving grace". He clearly doesn't like Pillars as a game on a subjective level and that has nothing to do with the quality of the game itself.
First of all, this review is wrong. Revisiting old locations, asides from Stalwart (the town), are optional side quests (excepting when you go back to talk to people.) Two of the three main plot locations can be done with almost no combat. Those two locales have multiple paths to resolve them.
There is a lot of optional combat, sure, but it's there for people who seek it out.
Likewise, judging a game like Pillars on being too plot centric is missing the point. That sort of focus, with most of the compelling action appearing in story revelations is the reason we have Pillars to begin with. You might as well judge a Paradox game for being too cerebral, too complex and involving too much strategy.
The White March Part 2 is a return to form over Part 1's combat heavy focus. I sincerely don't know how you can get to it's content without already being exposed to the sort of content that Pillars sets out to provide. By the time you get to dealing with the Iron Flail, you will have already been heavily exposed to Pillars heavy focus on narrative and character driven experience.
Unlike the reviewer, I actually enjoyed part 2 immensely.
Man, you guys hate "melodrama". Funny, because every movie, game and stage play with a soundtrack is technically a melodrama. It's just drama accompanied by music. It was largely derided at the time because using music to play for " teh feelz" was seen as unscrupulous for it's crutch like nature. Whence comes our modern usage of the word to describe an unsophisticated attempt to tug at the heartstrings.
That said, saying things should never be melodramatic is a lot like saying you should never write with adverbials or "trite" words like "thing". If you follow it as a rule of thumb, you'd probably do better work, but discretion is really in the hands of the author.
There is nothing wrong with a little over the top dramatics: now and then. It's fun; that's why it has persisted for hundreds of years after it's creation. Beyond that, sometimes they have ideas that are worth adopting: like soundtracks.
Man, you guys hate "melodrama". Funny, because every movie, game and stage play with a soundtrack is technically a melodrama. It's just drama accompanied by music.
That said, saying things should never be melodramatic is a lot like saying you should never write with adverbials or "trite" words like "thing". If you follow it as a rule of thumb, you'd probably do better work, but discretion is really in the hands of the author.
There is nothing wrong with a little over the top dramatics: now and then. It's fun; that's why it has persisted for hundreds of years after it's creation. Beyond that, sometimes they have ideas that are worth adopting: like soundtracks.
Technically, Tactical choices end when you leave the battlefield. The relationship mechanics are strategic choices. Choosing where to position you cavalry = tactical. Choosing to bring cavalry and in what numbers = strategic.
Beyond that, I don't need or want my tactics games to explore sexuality. I have to find breaking human relationships down into sexuality to be ... degrading. It reduces people and their choices to animal instinct. People are more than their hormones and if we deny them that by making sexuality the cornerstone of every relationship, we strip them of their moral autonomy. After all, if chemical drives are foundational to human choice, we become a species of addicts, living for the next cheap high.
Compelling stories about the bonds that connect people have been told without making it sexual. I cared intensely for "my" sister and best friend and butler in Suikoden I and II. I wept for Gremio way back in the day and having to kill Jowy in a duel that neither of us wanted and both desperately tried to avoid breaks my heart to this day, more than a decade later.
Relationships are built, not on sexuality, but love. Sexuality is great, but it's not necessary to love someone. However, sexuality is just a tool to access intimacy (and the chemical carrot you get for propagating your genes). It is not intimacy itself, nor is it the only path to it.
I don't need to explore sexuality in my tactics games like I don't need to explore smiling. Both make you feel good, both help you get closer to people, both are given importance far beyond their merit -- in my opinion.
Verenti's comments