Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
1 
Report this post
it begins three years before GreedFall 1, but per one of the developer streams in February 2024, iirc, the stories eventually overlap with one another, and become two tales happening in the same world. it's kind of like how Mars: War Logs came out before The Technomancer, but in the in-game timeline, M:WL begins after TM, and is implied to end during it. the stories wrap around each other, so it's safe to assume that that's what GF2 will do.
well, it's set in the same world, with several recurring characters from the first game, and it begins before GF1 does. i think this fits the criteria of it being a GreedFall game. :)
it's funny that you claim to love the first game so much, and then say that the studio will collapse and the game will flop because you don't like it. that's what real fans do, hope that the studio suffers because the product they receive isn't the one they're expecting.
And how is that supposed to be exciting? I'd rather see how the story goes on.
the stories overlapping one another is a super cool concept imo. it makes the world feel a bit more lived in, just like we saw with the Mars series. but i get it, i miss de Sardet too, but Vriden Gerr is lovely and i'm eager to get to know her/him more.
I remember the story as one that was about a journey to a new, uninhabited continent, a story full of high hopes to find a cure for a plague that wipes out the population of a continent. It seemed to take you into an exciting and uplifting adventure. I also remember that the story wasn't as uplifting and exciting as I expected, IIRC mostly because people are as disappointing as they ever are.
It was a good game, though. But I tried to play it a second time, and I tried to be a bad guy that time, but the game didn't let me.
Now they're proposing a boring story of endless misery, a story of a person alone in the world after they were abducted from their home, only to be forced to fight for their survival, wading through the all-engulfing stench of death in a ♥♥♥♥ place plagued with greed and a slow, deadly, unescapeable disease which will eventually get them, without having any means at their disposal. The overlap is detremental.
Live is miserable enough all by itself without more stories of misery. I prefer uplifting ones.
As much as I appreciate the idea of having more stories in this world, why would I play this game or even pay for it? Make a better story first instead of throwing the players into the past and into all the misery the world has to offer. It's fine as a backdrop and sucks as the very story itself.
You can give me a free copy and I'll try it out, provided that it runs under Fedora.
uplifting is not the word that i think of when it comes to GF1, nor is uninhabited the word that comes to mind when describing Tir Fradi. not industrialized, maybe, but not uninhabited, as the tension between the Yecht Fradi and the settlers from Gacane is a massive plot point. i can definitely see where you get an ebullient vibe in the beginning, but it quickly devolved into a somber experience narratively. not even just with the main story, but with everything you learn from your companions, especially Kurt and Aphra.
you're quite right though, that humans being foul, greedy (she said it, she said the thing!), and self-absorbed is always going to be a constant, as humanity is quite often disappointing. the game is a Shakespearean tragedy of man versus the natural world.
i mean, you can play as a pretty ruthless and callous de Sardet if you want, but never patently evil, since you're still playing as de Sardet, who is a diplomat with a vested interest of keeping the peace for their country. you share agency with the character, you don't invent them entirely. having an "evil" MC would absolutely disrupt the plot.
not quite.
Vriden Gerr is on ol menawi. they are immune to the malichor by default. this was established in the first game, and is why de Sardet didn't get sick even when Constantin did, even when they drank from the exact same batch of poisoned elixir when they docked in New Serene. VG, Nilan, and Alvida (by her virtue of being a Naut) would be immune/resistant, more or less, but no one else in the party is; saying that the malichor will eventually get VG makes no sense and does not match up with the lore. there's also no promise that their companions will catch it either, as not every continental in GF1 died of the malichor. it's an exaggerated statement that doesn't fall in line with the lore, and if you're predicating your entire assumption about the story on this, you're incorrect.
and much like GF1, it's also the story of Vriden Gerr and their companions, so they aren't alone in the world. you should play the game before making such strong and incorrect statements about it. beyond that, we only have access to 20% of the story at this point in time, so such definitive statements are baseless. let's wait for the story to unfold a bit more before writing it off so strongly, no? neither of us can say for sure what direction the story will go, but as i have played the game and am familiar with the lore, i have a bit better judgment on the matter.
Mars: War Logs, Bound by Flame, The Technomancer, and GreedFall 1 have many things in common, but the most prominent and relevant thing for this conversation is the trope of no happy endings. the conclusions are fitting, satisfy the narrative and are well done, but they're never happy. GF2 being a bleak game therefore is hardly a departure from form. the first game fits the formula for a Shakespearean tragedy nearly perfectly. are there glimpses of hope? few and far between. does this lessen the story's impact? not at all.
moreover, good art has to be close to our experiences of reality, no? if there's no conflict, there's no story. this is how literature works.
then why are you here if you have no intent to play it, no matter what? you like trolling and complaining, that's fine, but so much of what you have said baseless and completely contrary to the established lore. if you want to speak so definitively, play the game, but since you've made it clear that you have no intention of doing so...
the bit about misery: you're acting as if the main story and all the side quests of GF1 wasn't absolutely saturated with it? the main quest throws you headlong into a simmering pot of plague, human experimentation, sex trafficking, sexual abuse, genocide, murder, warmongering, political extortion. it's perceived through a different lens as de Sardet has a different experience of the world than does Vriden Gerr, but it's still an absolutely miserable story. de Sardet's entire life was a lie, and s/he has to come to grips with that while the entire world collapses. the scale of the misery in proportion to the story is much more personal -- dS is to Roy as VG is to Zach with regards to the personal import of their stories and the scale -- so it's not all permeating, but dS' saga is just as desperately sad as VG's, if in different ways.
moreover, it's in early access. we have access to only 20% of the total story at the moment. that is far too little to say it's a bad story or that it "sucks." maybe your appraisal would have more worth to it if you played the game yourself, but you haven't. acting like EA is the final word and not having actually played it yourself, and then saying something so definitive is just unfortunate.
Yes, there were a few people there, otherwise there wouldn't have been anyone to fight. It seemed like these people came from the old continent.
Right, it was disappointing.
I consider that as a flaw of the game. Why pretend that you could make decisions when you actually can't because the game forces you to be always the good guy? Look around and you'll see that in real life, the evil people are usually the successful ones.
I can only go by what I gathered from the description of the game and what I remember of the first one, which isn't much. When you have been abducted from your home and taken to another continent, it doesn't matter how many 'companions' you may have, you're still alone in the world, and you have to fend for yourself. It doesn't really matter if you were abducted or if you went because you wanted to go, you're still all alone, and you will always be a foreigner in a foreign country which is never yours. The only difference is that it might not be your fault when you were abducted.
Having your family around may help sometimes, but the game has it that you've been ripped away from them. Also, it's your life and your decisions, not anyone elses. Maybe you didn't get the lesson yet that 'companions' --- or more often called 'friends' --- simply are the people whom you allow to make use of you. That may be to the mutual benefit or not. If it's not someone suffers. Keep in mind that all relations are mediated. They don't exist out of and/or on their own just because they are relationships, and they don't exist out of nothing.
So perhaps they need to make a better description if they want people to buy the game.
I don't see how this would be relevant. I haven't played or even heared of these other games you mention.
Ignoring that reality doesn't exist: How close is, for example, Star Trek, to your experiences of reality? It's extremely far out. There doesn't need to be conflict, either. Watch some Hallmark movies maybe :)
I'm neither complaining, nor trolling. I wish they'd make a good game and I'm questioning how this one is supposed to become a good game when it features a story of misery. It's still in development, so they could change it.
It's also entertainment since the games are so bad.
You're wrong. I said give me a free copy and I'll try it, provided that it runs on Fedora.
I can be very well be mistaken about the game since I don't remember the first one very well and I can only go by the description of this one. Of course you can claim that's irrelevant because I'm mistaken. However, they want people to buy the game and if they buy it or not may very well depend on what they remember from the first one and on what they think of the description of this one.
Like I said, the first game turned out to be disappointing. Now they're trying to make and to sell a game that is already disappointing according to its description.
[/quote]
What's EA?
I've merely described my perception of these games. You seem to agree that the new one has a story of misery and point out that the first one has "an absolutely miserable story", to use your own words.
So what do you want? A good game with an exciting, uplifting good story that is fun to play and worth buying --- or a game with "an absolutely miserable story" which has the only thing speaking for it that people will know in advance that it'll be a story of misery so they may not be so disappointed by it as they were by the first game?
At least it's fair to tell people in advance that the story is one of misery instead of an exciting, good and uplifting one. It also means that I'm not inclined to buy it.
So ask yourself: If you were making games, would you want to make games people don't want to buy?
you aren't given complete free rein over de Sardet, you know. when you meet them, they already have an established backstory, a place in the world, and a mission. it would make no sense within the story to play as a loose cannon, "evil" diplomat. you see it as a flaw in the game, other people, including myself, see it as an aspect of a core roleplaying experience.
moreover, i would say that de Sardet is quite literally the most morally grey character i've encountered. unemotional neutrality is their thing.
quite clearly. that you're predicating your argument off a cursory skim and a poor memory is clear. to address the rest of what you said: it's the story. it's a sad story. you don't seem to like sad stories. that's okay. and as it is a story, the companions and their relationship with Vriden Gerr all serve to advance the story. they are there to help you to get home, provided you help them as well. your choices and interactions with the companions can propel it in whatever direction you want, within the confines of the game.
look, plenty of people are interested in the game's story, regardless of whether or not it is depressing and bleak, because we're already invested in the world, love Spiders' writing, or know that dawn always comes after the darkest hour. you don't like sad stories, that's okay. but if you don't like sad stories, you're never going to have an interest in this game. no amount of haranguing and concern trolling is going to get the devs to change the story. cut your losses and move on.
this is very relevant, as they are all Spiders games. i'm showing you that the formula of tragic stories with no happy endings is more or less enmeshed in their artist DNA, and plenty of people still love them. there's a reason why Shakespeare's tragedies are better remembered and more famous than his comedies.
oh man, you can't be serious.
themes, morals, archetypes, lessons -- this is what i mean by reflecting our reality. The Technomancer is pretty "far out" (quite literally) but it still holds a looking glass to our reality. GreedFall 1 is also pretty fantastical, but it's still chockful of evergreen observations and lessons that can be applied to our own real lives.
if there's no conflict, then it's just fluff. i don't like fluff, and i certainly can't get invested in fluff. this is why i don't play games like that, and this is why i don't like Hallmark movies. i do not engage with media i don't like. you should try that sometime, it might suit you.
you're complaining that the story is too sad and no one will like it without even touching it yourself. you're concern trolling because you keep pretending that you want a good game but you're just so concerned that no one will like it because it's too sad, and if the devs fix this, then it'll be all okay because you won't have to be uncomfortable, but you ultimately don't care. the private level 0 account with a name like 'test' does little to dissuade me from this opinion, as well.
they're not going to change the story because you don't like it.
you literally admit to remembering nothing of the first game and your only input about GF2 comes from a skim of the store page. you can't definitively say that the games are "so bad" because you have an extremely shaky foundation.
you are a troll, and i'll waste some more time replying to you in this post, and then not again.
a lot of people who picked up GF2 do so because they loved GF1. those who loved GF1 remember its story well. those who remember its story well know how sad it was, how confronting some of its elements were, and are expecting more of the same in the second game.
i mean, they are making it and they are selling it, no "trying" required. the entire crux of your argument is that you don't like tragedies. good for you. this is not the game for you.
don't try to use that as a "gotcha" moment. it's a miserable story, yes. it's a tragedy. it makes you sad and uncomfortable. art should move you. but a story whose theme includes a lot of suffering and misery does not mean that the story itself is bad. perhaps you're misunderstanding this nuance.
i don't constantly need to coddled or uplifted or affirmed by stories. maybe you do. but then this is not the game for you.
the character studies in the tragedy of the first game are far from disappointing. it's desperately sad since there's nothing you can do to stop it, no matter how hard you struggle, but that's a plot device; it's not a disappointment, as it's a key part of how tragedies work. it's been established several times over now you don't like sad stories and they disappoint you. fine for you, but this is clearly not your game, and if you keep returning to point out irrelevant points, then you're a troll.
a sad story can be exciting and good.
at this point, i suggest you give Hello Kitty Island Adventures or Barbie: Horse Adventures a try, since conflict and character development frightens you so badly. do be warned though that Barbie loses her horse early in the game, so navigating that conflict may be little heartrending.