[spoilers] Is there different outcome?

[bitb0602]

As title.
I would post my question in 2F.

[Lampros]

Originally posted by Leninade:

Originally posted by CaoLex:

It's not like you have bunch of missions to complete after it)

Not the point - it's a less than great feeling to spend a whole game building up a character, only to have them disappear at the very end. From a mechanics standpoint, it means the player devoted resources to a character that could've been spent elsewhere.

I agree. I still think this was a bad design decision. It's so antithetical to the RPG-gamer mentality.

[Aiven]

Last mission is short. It's not nice but game ends anyway.

[eturulja]

Hey all, great feedback as always. I knew this decision would probably be a bit of a controversial one, but in hindsight I'm still glad I did it. Happy to explain my thoughts and what led me to ultimately include this in the game.

The three main characters are with you throughout the entire story, so you're building an emotional connection with them throughout. Both in crafting your own head cannon during battles (they're required on every map), as well as through their interaction in the story.

Generally I don't like when you lose gameplay mechanics due to story decisions, but I think there are ways to do it right, or at least make it less painful. It's not something I do lightly. I'd never do it in say chapter 15, as that would leave way too many chapters of pain with potentially losing your best character. However, the way it was done was very intentionally set up to make one of your most trained characters the "main enemy" at the end. Since you also get some very strong characters to counterbalance it (in both paths), I don't think it detracts much from the gameplay.

What it does do, in my opinion, is add a much needed realism to the genre. I set out from the beginning to make a more low fantasy/gritty game that draws from history/political intrigue rather than simple good vs evil tropes. Endings where everyone wins and no tangible sacrifices are made along the way don't happen in history.

I think what you lose is just as important as what you gain as far as role-playing games go, and I hope the story beat at the end of 19 where you need to make the decision, and then see the consequence play out is, is something that makes you feel deeply, even if it's a melancholy feeling. That was the goal at least.

[Leninade]

Originally posted by eturulja:

Hey all, great feedback as always. I knew this decision would probably be a bit of a controversial one, but in hindsight I'm still glad I did it. Happy to explain my thoughts and what led me to ultimately include this in the game.

The three main characters are with you throughout the entire story, so you're building an emotional connection with them throughout. Both in crafting your own head cannon during battles (they're required on every map), as well as through their interaction in the story.

Generally I don't like when you lose gameplay mechanics due to story decisions, but I think there are ways to do it right, or at least make it less painful. It's not something I do lightly. I'd never do it in say chapter 15, as that would leave way too many chapters of pain with potentially losing your best character. However, the way it was done was very intentionally set up to make one of your most trained characters the "main enemy" at the end. Since you also get some very strong characters to counterbalance it (in both paths), I don't think it detracts much from the gameplay.

What it does do, in my opinion, is add a much needed realism to the genre. I set out from the beginning to make a more low fantasy/gritty game that draws from history/political intrigue rather than simple good vs evil tropes. Endings where everyone wins and no tangible sacrifices are made along the way don't happen in history.

I think what you lose is just as important as what you gain as far as role-playing games go, and I hope the story beat at the end of 19 where you need to make the decision, and then see the consequence play out is, is something that makes you feel deeply, even if it's a melancholy feeling. That was the goal at least.

Yeah, from a story standpoint I think it's fine, and it works for the first playthrough for sure. You do offer a pretty decent replacement for the characters (or at least Marcus) so it's not a total loss in the final mission, at the very least.

Second playthrough though, I'm definitely picking a character to abandon and underutilizing them as much as possible. Either character is a pretty logical choice for a growth ring, so that's a big resource to free up. Illyana I think is easier to do this with since her only side objectives are at the start of the game and involve not using her, whereas Marcus needs to get kills in a couple chapters.

That said, I do think that Marcus' viewpoint is a bit tougher to empathize with. He goes out saying how he hates the unnecessary killing of innocents, then sides with Crawford, who kicks off a huge portion of the plot with the framing and killing of innocents, especially in a foreign country.

[Kurasami]

Originally posted by eturulja:

Hey all, great feedback as always. I knew this decision would probably be a bit of a controversial one, but in hindsight I'm still glad I did it. Happy to explain my thoughts and what led me to ultimately include this in the game.

The three main characters are with you throughout the entire story, so you're building an emotional connection with them throughout. Both in crafting your own head cannon during battles (they're required on every map), as well as through their interaction in the story.

Generally I don't like when you lose gameplay mechanics due to story decisions, but I think there are ways to do it right, or at least make it less painful. It's not something I do lightly. I'd never do it in say chapter 15, as that would leave way too many chapters of pain with potentially losing your best character. However, the way it was done was very intentionally set up to make one of your most trained characters the "main enemy" at the end. Since you also get some very strong characters to counterbalance it (in both paths), I don't think it detracts much from the gameplay.

What it does do, in my opinion, is add a much needed realism to the genre. I set out from the beginning to make a more low fantasy/gritty game that draws from history/political intrigue rather than simple good vs evil tropes. Endings where everyone wins and no tangible sacrifices are made along the way don't happen in history.

I think what you lose is just as important as what you gain as far as role-playing games go, and I hope the story beat at the end of 19 where you need to make the decision, and then see the consequence play out is, is something that makes you feel deeply, even if it's a melancholy feeling. That was the goal at least.

Think it's my least favourite part of the game.

I understand why you decided on it and with the dialogue leading up to it I could see it happening but killing a comrade would be wrong for skyler and go against his core.

He wants to keep everyone safe and really does a good job micro managing his relationship with his friends.. then I'm expected to believe he'll cut them down in the next chapter?

Think you could have sorted this out by having a few mini engagements with the one who leaves and after beating them up a bit they either leave the battle field or rejoin you.

Very uninspired by the idea I can't get all my characters to the finishing line.. and hate even more being forced to make a choice that didn't need to be.

Ugly end and hope you can fix it some day.

Rorick isn't a nice guy at all and it's clear his way of burning it all down isn't ever going to work, illyana having more faith in him than the person saving her life all game feels weird.

Tho if rorick was about liberation instead of revolution I'd understand it more.

Think the game needs more time to build that relationship to make it believable and I can't see why you can't add a 3rd choice.

Maybe add a earlier choice that has the rangers leave and then you liberate the country instead of Amy revolution or reform?

Sorry again for being critical but coukdnt express how disappointed I was at the conclusion.

[Thieme]

Finished the game for the second time yesterday. If I remember the ending slides properly than actually siding with August is the best outcome for the people. Since Roricks rule will chase out the rich folks and all of Fern will be poor and hungry (but free).
While if August is in charge the country seems more stable but the bondsfolk are still being repressed since the "chamber of peers" holds too much power.
By the way, on my August playthrough I kept the Duke alive. Do you get a different ending when you kill the Duke? Less stability or maybe more?
Anyways I definitely love Illyana > Marcus. My Illyana was a beast in both games. Maybe partly because of me making Marcus a Berzerker, so he didn't have additional turns, but to me Berzerker fits Marcus better thematically and I like having Benson and Finn as Warlords, 3 Warlords seems a bit much.
On my August playthrough I used Cedrics ability on Illyana while Marcus didn't have that luxury :D Slyker ran him through personally.

I do agree with Kurasami, Illyana defecting to side with Rorick seems way less believable than Marcus defecting and siding with Crawford even tho I also agree with Leninade's viewpoint that it is still though to imagine Marcus symphatizing with Crawford since Crawford did so much wrong. I guess at that point it is more of a gut feeling for Marcus of hating on Rorick and that he just wants it to end? While Illyana always seems to be more of a smarter thoughtful character and I had hoped she would see through Roricks antics

[Kurasami]

Originally posted by Thieme:

Finished the game for the second time yesterday. If I remember the ending slides properly than actually siding with August is the best outcome for the people. Since Roricks rule will chase out the rich folks and all of Fern will be poor and hungry (but free).
While if August is in charge the country seems more stable but the bondsfolk are still being repressed since the "chamber of peers" holds too much power.
By the way, on my August playthrough I kept the Duke alive. Do you get a different ending when you kill the Duke? Less stability or maybe more?
Anyways I definitely love Illyana > Marcus. My Illyana was a beast in both games. Maybe partly because of me making Marcus a Berzerker, so he didn't have additional turns, but to me Berzerker fits Marcus better thematically and I like having Benson and Finn as Warlords, 3 Warlords seems a bit much.
On my August playthrough I used Cedrics ability on Illyana while Marcus didn't have that luxury :D Slyker ran him through personally.

I do agree with Kurasami, Illyana defecting to side with Rorick seems way less believable than Marcus defecting and siding with Crawford even tho I also agree with Leninade's viewpoint that it is still though to imagine Marcus symphatizing with Crawford since Crawford did so much wrong. I guess at that point it is more of a gut feeling for Marcus of hating on Rorick and that he just wants it to end? While Illyana always seems to be more of a smarter thoughtful character and I had hoped she would see through Roricks antics

Thanks for the confirmation I'm not the only one feeling this way, wondered if I was crazy.


I reloaded it on chapter 19 to play through my 2nd choice and haven't tested if Crawford dead makes a difference.

Think I lost complete interest in the outcome when Illyana decides to defect.

It's really strange as all the other characters attached to saving the bondfolk don't join her, clearly her convictions on freeing the people and burning everything down is way higher than her comrades?

Marcus is a fern, protecting fern which makes sense.. he harps on about homeland this and that which also adds weight to his choice.
He also seems conflicted multiple times when he's forced to fight against his kin, but still chooses skyler and trusts him.

It's understandable that Marcus has a turning point where he just can't cross a certain line, and we are made to believe skyler is like that too.

Illyana however doesn't want to kill the innocent in one chapter and then only ever harps on about how horrible they have it but she never expresses any willingness to do anything for her cause untill her final moments.

And why is her story even important? She was a bondfolk okay.. so kaelith? And the others?
She's not the only one and clearly she's a ranger so something had to go right for her?

If understand her drama if we rescued her from chains and she was still fired up from being pressed all these years, but she's clearly had her freedom for a while no?

And skyler what about his mum dying? Wouldn't he hold someone responsible? Traitor Princes like to burn villages didn't he so why would he not even bring it up or try to figure it out?

Skyler really became underwhelming in the end.. submitting to either choice instead of mediating the peace or carving out a space for the rangers to save everyone is a real missed opportunity imo.

He has a lot of reason to hate both the traitor Prince and Crawford, one killing his mum and the other fernians.

Would have loved for there to be some resolution to his mother dying and his struggle after that.

[Thieme]

I agree on all points.
Kaelith should have had a bigger role in this. Although I guess if you play a permadeath game she might be dead already. She spoke out against Roricks methods before and that makes it strange she doesn't defect as well. I have said it before in another discussion somewhere but I feel both Kaelith and Wesley get way too little attention or sway in things.

I also thought it would be nice to have more epilogue.
Like if you side with August and kill Illyana: Reforms are going slowly, there are still nobles who treat their bondsfolk badly but sometimes a hooded figure shows up. He has the strength of a runaway ox and knocks out guards and nobles alike and warns them to treat the bondsfolk better. Basically Marcus seeing more to Illyana's ideas. Could even incorporate him teaming up with Kaelith and Cassidy if they survived. They would make for a frightening team.
On the other hand if you side with Rorick and kill Marcus you can have a hooded swordmaiden with a wooden sword chasing those landlords that fled fern kind of like a Robin hood bringing back their riches. The wooden sword and not killing being a nod to Marcus and again the possibility of including Kaelith and Cassidy.
Maybe a bit far fetched, I am certainly not a story writer but the story in this game does leave me wanting more closure, because the characters themselves are definitely interesting.

[Kurasami]

Originally posted by Thieme:

I agree on all points.
Kaelith should have had a bigger role in this. Although I guess if you play a permadeath game she might be dead already. She spoke out against Roricks methods before and that makes it strange she doesn't defect as well. I have said it before in another discussion somewhere but I feel both Kaelith and Wesley get way too little attention or sway in things.

I also thought it would be nice to have more epilogue.
Like if you side with August and kill Illyana: Reforms are going slowly, there are still nobles who treat their bondsfolk badly but sometimes a hooded figure shows up. He has the strength of a runaway ox and knocks out guards and nobles alike and warns them to treat the bondsfolk better. Basically Marcus seeing more to Illyana's ideas. Could even incorporate him teaming up with Kaelith and Cassidy if they survived. They would make for a frightening team.
On the other hand if you side with Rorick and kill Marcus you can have a hooded swordmaiden with a wooden sword chasing those landlords that fled fern kind of like a Robin hood bringing back their riches. The wooden sword and not killing being a nod to Marcus and again the possibility of including Kaelith and Cassidy.
Maybe a bit far fetched, I am certainly not a story writer but the story in this game does leave me wanting more closure, because the characters themselves are definitely interesting.

Indeed.

Wesely could have easily created a divide in all the units and been more disruptive when they meet Rodrick but he doesn't speak once on the way things are done?

Matheus who was guarding him for years seem to disappear too? No view points or epic dialogues with father and son?

I've talked about things on different threads about some thematic changes to certain characters and more emphasis on their background.

This could have easily ended up like three houses with different routes to take.

Rebellion, liberation and reform could all be going towards the same goal but different ways.

And before u think rebellion and liberation are the same I'd say there is a fine line between the two that's already established in the story.

You could also have all the roster align with one of the three routes, or none at all making then just follow along.

That would be pretty gripping and more like a whole family of mercy being torn apart.

The support conversations we get rarely lead up to anything extra though and maybe that should be used as a way to guide characters paths?

Like if u don't have the support with Illyanna and Roderick maybe she doesn't leave.

Spoke about this topic in another thread in regards to classes.

But hoping that a major update happens and shores up some of this ending.

[eturulja]

First off just let me say, love the story discussions and hearing other people's perspectives that I don't really get until after the game is released. Sorry in advance if anything I say comes off as harsh, but I enjoy diving into things like this.

I'm surprised to see that you find Illyana's motivations less believable than Marcus'. She is introduced as someone very early on (Chapters 4 & 5 specifically) that was forced into being bondsfolk after her village was invaded by Iroquans during the first rebellion. Her parents are still bondsfolk. She joined the Rangers to buy her parents freedom at some point, which is explained in her support with Slyker in chapter 4. At the time of the ending her parents are current still bondsfolk. In the last few chapters she is very clear in her sympathy with Rorick's cause to free them. To me it would be much more strange to side against the chance to free your family who tried to give you everything. Personally out of all the MC's decisions I feel like Illyana's is the most clear cut.

As for Slyker, he is leading the force. At some point he has to make a decision, caught between two large armies, and the fate of his nation. He has seen the lengths Rorick is willing to go, but he has also seen what the current regime is capable of. There are no easy choices here, but he must ultimately choose. You can't fence sit forever, especially when your life and those you love is on the line.

It's not so much as Slyker turning his back on either one, as it is them turning their back on HIM due to their convictions. What are you going to do when someone betrays you like that and sides with the people trying to kill you? Forgive them? Especially when they're dead set on you being the enemy, and a danger to their homeland/the people they love.

I also originally had Kaelith and Cassidy defecting with Illyana, but that was taken out a few patches ago as losing 3 potential main characters in your party can be a little too punishing. Though you do get powerful units to replace them. Same thing with Elias if you side with Rorick. I agree though the ending could use more supports to shore up some of the motivations which I'll be doing with the story update.

And I am a little confused by your distinction between liberation and rebellion. I feel in game it's pretty well set up that the "reform" route was tried after the failure of the initial traitor prince's rebellion. The chamber of Commons was set up to give common people a voice. Many reforms were passed in the chamber of Commons that was then ignored by the Chamber of Peers, essentially stonewalling any changes to liberate the bondsfolk. It is against the interests of the Chamber of Peers to do something, why would they do it without the threat of force?

I will say I could have done more to convey the hopelessness the Chamber of Peers instilled in people. It's mentioned a few times early on, but should be one of the main points in the later stages of the game, and I'm planning on adding discussion about it to the supports in the story patch.

If you'll allow me one quote: "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." is very relevant here.

There are no happily ever afters in history. It's hard decisions and compromise, even if you don't agree with all the methods, and that's what I wanted to try and capture a little of in this game. Hope this at least helps explain my logic a little bit, even if you may not agree. Love the discussions, even if we may not see eye to eye.

[Byakugan]

I went with the August route, executing Crawford. To me that felt by far like the best ending, Rodrick is just to reckless. And by executing Crawford you make a clear statement that nobility does not get away with everything.

In my headcanon Slyker commands enough respect later in Fern, that he can push for reform more effective than in past efforts, kind of honouring Illyana's wishes.

Either way, I really enjoyed the story showing just how much chaos and destruction a revolution really causes. Maybe it is necessary occassionaly but not at any cost. Hollywood often glorifies "rebells" way to much, this was a nice change in tone.

[eturulja]

Originally posted by Byakugan:

I went with the August route, executing Crawford. To me that felt by far like the best ending, Rodrick is just to reckless. And by executing Crawford you make a clear statement that nobility does not get away with everything.

In my headcanon Slyker commands enough respect later in Fern, that he can push for reform more effective than in past efforts, kind of honouring Illyana's wishes.

Either way, I really enjoyed the story showing just how much chaos and destruction a revolution really causes. Maybe it is necessary occassionaly but not at any cost. Hollywood often glorifies "rebells" way to much, this was a nice change in tone.

Definitely agree, and I'm glad that came across. Revolutions tend to get romanticized in pop culture, when in reality they are very, very bloody affairs.

[Thieme]

Originally posted by eturulja:

I'm surprised to see that you find Illyana's motivations less believable than Marcus'. She is introduced as someone very early on (Chapters 4 & 5 specifically) that was forced into being bondsfolk after her village was invaded by Iroquans during the first rebellion. Her parents are still bondsfolk. She joined the Rangers to buy her parents freedom at some point, which is explained in her support with Slyker in chapter 4. At the time of the ending her parents are current still bondsfolk. In the last few chapters she is very clear in her sympathy with Rorick's cause to free them. To me it would be much more strange to side against the chance to free your family who tried to give you everything. Personally out of all the MC's decisions I feel like Illyana's is the most clear cut.

Illyana seems to be so observant and caring that I feel like the "do whatever it takes" mentality doesn't suit her that well? Also since she seems close to Cassidy and presumably also Kaelith and build up more of a bond with them as well as Slyker and Marcus, you would think the 3 or 4 of them could talk some sense into her no matter how strong the trauma is. It feels like Roricks grip on her is just too strong/unnatural. At least how I preceive it. Marcus only has Slyker and Edward that are shown to be close but for Edward it isn't clear what his stance is, also it makes more sense that Marcus gets sick killing Fern people.

Originally posted by eturulja:

As for Slyker, he is leading the force. At some point he has to make a decision, caught between two large armies, and the fate of his nation. He has seen the lengths Rorick is willing to go, but he has also seen what the current regime is capable of. There are no easy choices here, but he must ultimately choose. You can't fence sit forever, especially when your life and those you love is on the line.

It's not so much as Slyker turning his back on either one, as it is them turning their back on HIM due to their convictions. What are you going to do when someone betrays you like that and sides with the people trying to kill you? Forgive them? Especially when they're dead set on you being the enemy, and a danger to their homeland/the people they love.

I also originally had Kaelith and Cassidy defecting with Illyana, but that was taken out a few patches ago as losing 3 potential main characters in your party can be a little too punishing. Though you do get powerful units to replace them. Same thing with Elias if you side with Rorick. I agree though the ending could use more supports to shore up some of the motivations which I'll be doing with the story update.

I agree, for Slyker it is understandable in one way or another because he struggles with the burden of command and with the feelings and wishes of his friends. Just somehow his personality feels like he wants to do the impossible, like he wanted to charge into that town alone. In my head I'd see him more as a person who would try to walk the middle road a while longer and not being as easily swayed into one of the extremes? But that is more my opinion
I can understand why you chose to revert the change of more characters defecting in the current set-up. If there was a sort of allegiance/trust system that would make it clear "bad" things would happen it would be more acceptable.

[Kurasami]

Originally posted by eturulja:

First off just let me say, love the story discussions and hearing other people's perspectives that I don't really get until after the game is released. Sorry in advance if anything I say comes off as harsh, but I enjoy diving into things like this.

I'm surprised to see that you find Illyana's motivations less believable than Marcus'. She is introduced as someone very early on (Chapters 4 & 5 specifically) that was forced into being bondsfolk after her village was invaded by Iroquans during the first rebellion. Her parents are still bondsfolk. She joined the Rangers to buy her parents freedom at some point, which is explained in her support with Slyker in chapter 4. At the time of the ending her parents are current still bondsfolk. In the last few chapters she is very clear in her sympathy with Rorick's cause to free them. To me it would be much more strange to side against the chance to free your family who tried to give you everything. Personally out of all the MC's decisions I feel like Illyana's is the most clear cut.

As for Slyker, he is leading the force. At some point he has to make a decision, caught between two large armies, and the fate of his nation. He has seen the lengths Rorick is willing to go, but he has also seen what the current regime is capable of. There are no easy choices here, but he must ultimately choose. You can't fence sit forever, especially when your life and those you love is on the line.

It's not so much as Slyker turning his back on either one, as it is them turning their back on HIM due to their convictions. What are you going to do when someone betrays you like that and sides with the people trying to kill you? Forgive them? Especially when they're dead set on you being the enemy, and a danger to their homeland/the people they love.

I also originally had Kaelith and Cassidy defecting with Illyana, but that was taken out a few patches ago as losing 3 potential main characters in your party can be a little too punishing. Though you do get powerful units to replace them. Same thing with Elias if you side with Rorick. I agree though the ending could use more supports to shore up some of the motivations which I'll be doing with the story update.

And I am a little confused by your distinction between liberation and rebellion. I feel in game it's pretty well set up that the "reform" route was tried after the failure of the initial traitor prince's rebellion. The chamber of Commons was set up to give common people a voice. Many reforms were passed in the chamber of Commons that was then ignored by the Chamber of Peers, essentially stonewalling any changes to liberate the bondsfolk. It is against the interests of the Chamber of Peers to do something, why would they do it without the threat of force?

I will say I could have done more to convey the hopelessness the Chamber of Peers instilled in people. It's mentioned a few times early on, but should be one of the main points in the later stages of the game, and I'm planning on adding discussion about it to the supports in the story patch.

If you'll allow me one quote: "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." is very relevant here.

There are no happily ever afters in history. It's hard decisions and compromise, even if you don't agree with all the methods, and that's what I wanted to try and capture a little of in this game. Hope this at least helps explain my logic a little bit, even if you may not agree. Love the discussions, even if we may not see eye to eye.

Her motivation is clear but her will to betray someone who is freeing bondfolk who has saved her and her companions life multiple times isn't so clear.

IF she was as close to skyler as intended then why not have the dialogue with skyler about what to do next? About her worries and fears?

Kaelith and others feeling what she feels would also hold more weight and would feel like they are uniting under a common cause.

Without them ut feels like she's the only one who believes it can't be solved any other way.

Yes her parents are still bondfolk but there is no point that they say they can't be saved? Skyler is never in the opposite camp, they want the same things only the method differ.

And that's where liberation and rebellion have their distinctions.

Reform > gradual change of the government.

Liberation > one strong entity freeing those who are opressed and granting them a place they belong.
Regardless of ruling class.

Rebellion > open hostilities, killing anyone who disagrees or doesn't conform to the new regime.

Clearly I can elaborate a little more but at work so get a shorter version.

There doesn't have to be a happily ever after but the rangers are a seperate power from the two systems, so why can't they carve out a better option?

Why would someone we build up to be a leader, to build trust in his followers (like a ruler) be forced to pick a side and bend to one will or another?

Roderic also has a army of bondfolk and tho I know many of them were part of the rebellion in the first place and was the reason they were bondfolk (could be wrong here) but does that make them a elite trained fighting force like the kings men?
Where is he getting all the weapons etc.

I don't recall doing a supply mission and getting his army equipped? So let's say it's just the people we liberate from the mone and who chose to join him.

Is that much more than skyler and the rangers?
As the leader of the rangers won't more rangers and those who sympathise with them not join in?

Sorry for me there are tons of questions and because of those things I find it hard to accept the ending the way it is.

[eturulja]

I'm still struggling to see how liberation in this context could be accomplished besides rebellion. The only way is by force, as the process to do so politically is stonewalled by the chamber of Peers. If you're raiding noble's property that would fall in line with the definition of a revolution to me.

It's mentioned at the end of 16 and the chapter 17 world map scene, but Rorick's re-appearance causes many people to rally to his cause. Many veterans from the original rebellion, people who are sick of the way current things are going, current rebellious forces. It is abstracted a bit since I can't fit the exact people who are joining into the limited dialogue available, but the implication in chapter 17 is that forces of rebellion or rising all around Fern, including those close to where they are currently at.

That's just to answer a few questions as I'm heading out here in a sec too. But fair questions!