The companions are awful

[Vito]

At the end of the third zone (spoilers) you have to either destroy the ruins where the zombies come from or commit a genocide and kill half of the people on the island.

Guess which is the morally good choice here according to the developers.
That's right, genocide! If you choose to save the people instead of the ruins, all your companions will hate you and call you a spineless idiot.

Not because there are some side effects which will be even worse, but because the genocide was proposed by a character your companions like, and the alternative by a character they don't. That's it.

Makes me wonder if the writers wanted us to hate their characters, or if they should be put on some list. Anyway, it makes perfect sense now why they made the followers mandatory and impossible to kill or leave our party. They knew nobody would want to put up with their fursonas and self inserts if they had a choice.

[AR | jedidethfreak]

Remember, though - the alternative that would have saved a ♥♥♥♥-ton of people AND kept the adra being destroyed causing a bunch of ghost problems wouldn't have destroyed ancient ruins.

When you look at this game through the lens of a 14-year-old saying 'COLONIALISM BAD!!!’, it makes a little more sense that they consider the saving of a ruin infested with monsters more important than genocide.

That's not the worst moral quandary, either - the devs clearly want you to save Sapadal, even though she's destroyed numerous civilizations, killed untolled millions, poisoned the water in the Tusk, and created the Dreamscourge because she doesn't like the current settlers of the Living Lands.

Killing her is supposed to be the evil choice, even though every single one of her other Godlikes wants you to do it.

[restarter]

lol. Sometimes tough decisions mean that people won't like you. what is more RP than that?

[AR | jedidethfreak]

Originally posted by restarter:

lol. Sometimes tough decisions mean that people won't like you. what is more RP than that?

Did you read the post?

[AdahnGorion]

I don't think they are deep enough characters to be companions, I would label them followers

[SaD-82]

Originally posted by Vito:

Not because there are some side effects which will be even worse, but because the genocide was proposed by a character your companions like, and the alternative by a character they don't. That's it.

You don't have to forget: Writers nowadays grew up with social media. They didn't just grew up with it, they're still on it. And social media is just a huge echo chamber in which you get taught, how to be a successful tribe member.
You aren't taught how actually human beings behave or even talk in real life.

And that's what creeps into games.
You can't even blame the writers or devs for that - how shall they know? Everything that could tell them how it shouldn't be done and how a normal human behaves, will get blocked and pooof they don't have to see or read it anymore.
They don't know any better.

The gaming industry could benefit from hiring people who don't know what "an" internet is.

[restarter]

Originally posted by AR | jedidethfreak:

Originally posted by restarter:

lol. Sometimes tough decisions mean that people won't like you. what is more RP than that?

Did you read the post?

i played the game. I don't get why the companions are bad though because they want a specific outcome. They've made pretty clear tehir opinions on the events unfolding throughout the whole game.
it's a classic moral dilemma of choosing between civilization and nature.

[SaD-82]

Originally posted by AdahnGorion:

You are misquoting me.

Sigh...Steam.
Yep, will change it - sorry.

[AdahnGorion]

Originally posted by SaD-82:

Originally posted by AdahnGorion:

You are misquoting me.

Sigh...Steam.
Yep, will change it - sorry.

Thank you and no problem

[SaD-82]

Originally posted by restarter:

I don't get why the companions are bad though

It's not so much the companions, but the writing.
There is no nuance, no real dilemma, since it's just portrayed as "You did the wrong thing."
Good writing would have interaction between those companions, realizing shades of grey, maybe arguing and leading to you being part of that whole interaction.

No one needs to change their point of view, but realization that there are different ones and actually engaging with them - good per se, on the one hand, and possibilities for character development (actual personalities, not those stereotypes these characters are) en masse on the other.

It's just bland, stereotypical and unimaginative writing that is unbelievable if you consider how actual dialogue works.

[restarter]

Originally posted by SaD-82:

Originally posted by restarter:

I don't get why the companions are bad though

It's not so much the companions, but the writing.
There is no nuance, no real dilemma, since it's just portrayed as "You did the wrong thing."
Good writing would have interaction between those companions, realizing shades of grey, maybe arguing and leading to you being part of that whole interaction.

No one needs to change their point of view, but realization that there are different ones and actually engaging with them - good per se, on the one hand, and possibilities for character development (actual personalities, not those stereotypes these characters are) en masse on the other.

It's just bland, stereotypical and unimaginative writing that is unbelievable if you consider how actual dialogue works.

Oh absolutely but it works for this game imo. This isn't a text heavy game and the story or dialog is pretty thin but for what it is I think it's fine. This game straddles the line between interesting narrative and action sotry. It doesn't go the extreme in any side and so would be considered bland to some people.

[AR | jedidethfreak]

Originally posted by restarter:

Originally posted by AR | jedidethfreak:

Did you read the post?

i played the game. I don't get why the companions are bad though because they want a specific outcome. They've made pretty clear tehir opinions on the events unfolding throughout the whole game.
it's a classic moral dilemma of choosing between civilization and nature.

They want genocide, because the person who is calling for the alternative that DOESN'T call for genocide is proposed by someone they don't like.

That isn't a 'classic moral dilemma.'. That is horrendously bad writing.

[restarter]

Originally posted by AR | jedidethfreak:

Originally posted by restarter:

i played the game. I don't get why the companions are bad though because they want a specific outcome. They've made pretty clear tehir opinions on the events unfolding throughout the whole game.
it's a classic moral dilemma of choosing between civilization and nature.

They want genocide, because the person who is calling for the alternative that DOESN'T call for genocide is proposed by someone they don't like.

That isn't a 'classic moral dilemma.'. That is horrendously bad writing.

Well there is more to it than that. . IMO I think them getting angry with you is pretty consistent with the dialog throughout the story. It's a tough decision with no good outcomes on either side. You have to weigh the outcomes and come to your own conclusion regardless of whether people like you for it or not. I mean someone is going to be pissed either way. How is that not RP? have you played the game?

[AR | jedidethfreak]

Originally posted by restarter:

Originally posted by AR | jedidethfreak:

They want genocide, because the person who is calling for the alternative that DOESN'T call for genocide is proposed by someone they don't like.

That isn't a 'classic moral dilemma.'. That is horrendously bad writing.

Well there is more to it than that. . IMO I think them getting angry with you is pretty consistent with the dialog throughout the story. It's a tough decision with no good outcomes on either side. You have to weigh the outcomes and come to your own conclusion regardless of whether people like you for it or not. I mean someone is going to be pissed either way. How is that not RP? have you played the game?

No, there literally isn't 'more to it than that.'

One of them literally says that we can't destroy the ruins, no matter what.

Your choices literally are:

-Save the ruins, and kill a bunch of people from Thirdborn and cause a ghost problem for centuries in the hopes that it stops the spread of the Dreamscourge
-Save the people of Thirdborn and avoid the ghost problem, by destroying the ruins

That's it. There's no nuance whatsoever, even though the game frames genocide as the moral decision, solely because 'muh colonialism.'

[Vito]

Originally posted by restarter:

It's a tough decision with no good outcomes on either side.

There are literally 0 downsides to destroying the temple. Companions being ok with murdering their friends and family to spite the skeleton lady is just ridiculous.

[w.f.schepel]

Originally posted by Vito:

At the end of the third zone (spoilers) you have to either destroy the ruins where the zombies come from or commit a genocide and kill half of the people on the island.

Guess which is the morally good choice here according to the developers.
That's right, genocide! If you choose to save the people instead of the ruins, all your companions will hate you and call you a spineless idiot.

Not because there are some side effects which will be even worse, but because the genocide was proposed by a character your companions like, and the alternative by a character they don't. That's it.

Makes me wonder if the writers wanted us to hate their characters, or if they should be put on some list. Anyway, it makes perfect sense now why they made the followers mandatory and impossible to kill or leave our party. They knew nobody would want to put up with their fursonas and self inserts if they had a choice.

This is not quite true, though. At least, in my game half of them see the decision to spare Thirdborn as the correct one. Yatzli is upset, but ultimately accepts the decision as a valid choice.

Furthermore, the destruction of irreplacable cultural heritage is a hard decision. Especially if it isn't actually going to save people. It is a choice between killing some (unknown at the time of decision making) in order to save the many for sure, whereas the destruction of the ruins is not going to stop the disease, but will stop the zombie attacks.

If anything, I would say it is a bit of silly choice. I would have liked an option C. Why not cut the bridges?

Anyway, try and actually put some time into the dialogue with your companions. You seem to have missed quite a bit of it.