Thread 3870781

Hey /vrpg/, I have recently illicitly acquired the game 'Avowed'. After playing it for a few days, I have some questions:

1.Why are there so many homos in the Living Land? Everywhere I go I'm always finding a note or listening to a conversation by some homosexual at a disproportionate rate. Is the Dreamscourge turning them all gay or something?

2.Why is there a side-quest about opposing laws against abortion and both your companion and the game throw shade at you for insisting on picking anti-abortion stance which you can only take under the pretext of being a legalistic bootlicker?

3.Why does every single conversation feel like you're talking to HR and completely lacks the 'bite' of POE dialogue?

4. Why does every single female outfit look like it was taken out of Victorian England in a tropical landscape?

5. Why does this game sometimes seem like it's the brainchild of some blue-haired feminist? I know that's a chud meme that probably shouldn't be taken literally, but I can't shake it off.

>>3870781 (OP)
Because the designers decided so, fucknuts.
What kind of answer did you expect other than that?
Are you retarded?

>>3870781 (OP)
Reminder that bitch jumped ship for Netflix game studio. Yeah.

>>3870787
But WHY would anyone decide such a thing, Anon?

>>3870801
They are as retarded as you.

>>3870781 (OP)
>the 'bite' of POE dialogue
KEK

no game ever has less bite than the grey sludge of a roleplaying experience that is pillars of eternity, which was also an experiment of how woke they could try to make baldur's gate without running the studio into the ground.

they doubled down in the sequel and tripled down in avowed so don't act like a surprised faggot because wokeslop studio made wokeslop game

>>3870781 (OP)
>1.Why are there so many homos in the Living Land? Everywhere I go I'm always finding a note or listening to a conversation by some homosexual at a disproportionate rate. Is the Dreamscourge turning them all gay or something?
That's called confirmation and attentional bias. You focus on and pay more attention ot certain things, in this case things that trigger you.as in in a group of 100 couples 5 of them are gay, but you focus on them so much you think there are so many gays when in reality there isn't.

>2.Why is there a side-quest about opposing laws against abortion and both your companion and the game throw shade at you for insisting on picking anti-abortion stance which you can only take under the pretext of being a legalistic bootlicker?
No issue to having a quest about abortion and you can choose not to do it as well. Anti-abortion is the irratonal and anti-personal stance to have. If you have that stance that's fine, own it. But don't delude yourself you're actually so pro-life person because you're not, that' just the excuse you use.

>3.Why does every single conversation feel like you're talking to HR and completely lacks the 'bite' of POE dialogue?
Again, bias.
There are many different writers and some will be better than others on the team. The Eothas Godlike one was for instance good.

>4. Why does every single female outfit look like it was taken out of Victorian England in a tropical landscape?
Because you don't know PoE lore and the setting.

>5. Why does this game sometimes seem like it's the brainchild of some blue-haired feminist? I know that's a chud meme that probably shouldn't be taken literally, but I can't shake it off.
Again, irrational bias.

>>3870884
>Anti-abortion is the irratonal and anti-personal stance to have
Stopped reading here. Fuck, you’re dumb.

>>3870884
lol (at you, not with you)

>>3870884
>That's called confirmation and attentional bias

No, it's called counting.

You don't get to observe 100 couples in the game. When it comes to references of romance in the game's notes and books or NPC chatter, it was more like 5 in 40-50 tops and even that is probably an overestimate, it might actually very well be 5 in 20. Tremendous over-representation.

>Anti-abortion is the irratonal and anti-personal stance to have.

Found the troon.

>The Eothas Godlike one was for instance good.

Yes, I also remember the handful of dialogue sequences that were good. I wonder what that implies about the game in general?

>Because you don't know PoE lore and the setting.

Please tell me you're not about to enlighten me about how a mish-mashed of ragtag settlements comprised of renegades and criminals cares very deeply about the dress code of Aedyr. Surely you are not this retarded, Anon?

Kai's neckline is literally deeper than any woman in the game. The cope has to stop.

>>3870781 (OP)
>why why why
So that you can make a thread complaining about it, why else? You have nothing going on in your life, you have no purpose or calling, you spend your days doing "nothing", and you know this.
So no purpose, but at least you have things you want right? things you "want", not because you really want them but because, if you're not gonna have a purpose you might as well at least be what you would want others to think of you as (ie, a good friend, smart, knows how to play the violin, etc) Wanting to be seen as "a type of person" is not nothing, and that saves you.
But wanting things that you don't really want has a price, and that is the resentment you feel towards "the left"; careful here, I'm not saying it's misplaced (or isn't), but pervasive.

In other words, why do you care so much about stupid lefties in bad videogames instead of doing something with your life?
>because they run the gaming industry and if you don't oppose them they're gonna ruin society and
and so we have the bends, because the questions you never ask is what would you do if that WASN'T the case? And the reason you can never ask it is because the answer is too terrible too accept, so you have to deny it: you would still do nothing.
>in a perfect world i'd have this and that and
look at the form of your fantasy, it's so on your face you never question it: none of those things you would get by merit, you'd get them BECAUSE the world is perfect, and that includes your merit.

>>3870886
Ok, why is anti-abortion a good and rational stance? If you're gonna peddle "it's anti-life!" you can stop right there because you then admit you care more about a personal principle over another person's life and how it impacts them plus the life of the actual child. Since you don't care about the potential parent and once the child would be born you would not give a single fuck.

>>3870909
>first it's "everywhere I go I see homos, why is everyone turning gay"
>now it's "MAYBE 10% of couples seen or mentioned in the game are gay"
Different anon, but that's called "moving the goalposts"

>found the troon
That's called "not having an argument".

>>3870909
>No, it's called counting.
Ok, how many people you meet are confirmed gay and not gay or left up in the air. Give us the exact numbers. You counted ALL of them, right?
You also cemented how biased and irrational you are with the rest of your post anyway, so you proved me right. So there is no point in wasting time on someone irrational.

fuck off /v/tard

>>3870781 (OP)
>completely lacks the 'bite' of POE dialogue?
The what now?

>>3870886
How many children have you adopted?
How many hours per week do you spend helping single parents?
How many orphanages do you spend time helping out at?
How much time and effort have you spent in reforming the foster system?

That's what I fucking thought.

>>3870967
Drink bleach roastie.

>>3870916
>Ok, why is anti-abortion a good and rational stance?
It’s wrong to murder children, moron. Insane that even needs to be stated, yet here we are.

>>3871022
They are not sentient and "children" when aborted.
Saying absolutely no abortion is allowed means you don't care if the person was raped, the person won't be a good parent, the person can't support them, they got pressured, etc.
You totally care so much about """life""" you want to dictacte that others aren't allowed abortion but don't give a single fuck once they're actually born and become a life, since you would not support or help the child or parent in any way.
Only burgers and backwater countries are so extremely against abortion and not for rational or humanitarian resaons, but for biased often religious reasons. We're talking outright delusional people that want to pat themselves on the back for being such "good caring people" but in actuality doesn't care at all. They're even worse than the idiots that donate maybe 5 bucks a year to the red cross or something, then sneer at people not donating while patting themselves on the back. Pathetic egomaniacs.

>>3870781 (OP)
Because Obsidian is fucking gay now. Seriously watch the trailers for Alpha Protocol and compare it to anything they make today. It's downright depressing.

>>3871035
>They are not sentient
Neither are you, you clump of cells.

>>3871045
By that argument it's not immoral to kill anyone, children included.

>>3871046
That’s your argument, not mine. You are literally retarded.

>>3871050
I'm not the one arbitrarily deciding who is and isn't sentient, I'm just following your argument to the logical conclusion.

>>3871035
But they will become children. There's not some magical number of cells where you become a person. Once conception occurs, a child could be born and any human attempt to stop that from happening is murder. If I went back in time to kill your parents so that you'd never be born, it would be murder. And you might not agree with that, but it is the teaching of at least 3 major world religions, all of whom have the right to object to the treatment of this issue in the game, whether you respect their faiths or not. It's incredibly bigoted and imperialistic of you if you want to force your morals so arrogantly like this, btw.

Which brings us back to the actual, vrpg point of this thread you've derailed. That the game takes a real-world sensitive topic, and tries to force a specific morality upon the players. Imagine if the boot were on the other foot, and being anti-abortion was treated as the only moral option. Doubt you'd be so supportive, eh? I imagine you wouldn't even buy the game.

>>3871052
You are arbitrarily deciding who is and isn't a person, though. Or rather, you're mindlessly letting propaganda decide for you.

>>3871070
I'm not arbitrarily deciding anything. 'Sentient' has a clear and well-understood definition, which is what I am applying.

>>3871074
>I'm not arbitrarily deciding anything. 'Sentient' has a clear and well-understood definition
Yeah, that's precisely why I said that you're not sentient.

>>3871077
Would it help if I used simpler words?

>>3871022
>It’s wrong to murder children
we can agree on that
however an early stage fetus is not a child it's organic matter that could become a child
and destroying a fetus at an early stage is not murder

>>3871069
>But they will become children
Irrelevant, it's like calling the sperm you jack off and send down the drainage is murder. They are not children and are not senient at an early stage.

>There's not some magical number of cells where you become a person. Once conception occurs, a child could be born and any human attempt to stop that from happening is murder.
This is the kind of irrational (and often influenced by religion or religious upbringing) mindset I'm talking about.
You want to treat a fertalized egg as a "person" and aborting it to be murder. We're talking the millisecond a sperm enters the egg you treat it as a person for no other reason than to call it murder. You then keep pushing this mental gymnastics further with time machine shit thinking it's the same when you LITERALLY say dumb shit like
>uhhhh, if i kill your parents so you're not born it would be murder because you wouldn't have been born.... not because i killed your grown parents though!
But of course
>but it is the teaching of at least 3 major world religions
there is it is. Relgious people are not rational or caring, but brainwashed by irrational shit and often seek to control others.

>all of whom have the right to object to the treatment of this issue
Absolutely not. It's not their bodies and they don't give a rats ass about the the kid or the potential parents. They don't care about life, they want control. Which is what religion is all about.

>That the game takes a real-world sensitive topic, and tries to force a specific morality upon the players.
No retard. It involves characters in a fake world presenting their views on things. You don't have to agree with them and challening your ideas is mentally healthy.

>Imagine if the boot were on the other foot, and being anti-abortion was treated as the only moral option. Doubt you'd be so supportive, eh? I imagine you wouldn't even buy the game.
Of coruse I wouldn't care, because I'm not mentally stunted.

>>3871145
>This is the kind of irrational (and often influenced by religion or religious upbringing) mindset I'm talking about.

It's a commonplace nowadays to say that youthful religiosity matures into sophisticated atheism, but what you've convinced yourself of is that the god you were taught to believe in as a child doesn't exist, and in this you are correct, that god doesn't exist. Your belief at that time was the same has your unbelief now, both rely on someone else's knowledge that you don't really possess, both prevent belief in anything.

When you're in an airplane you tell yourself it won't crash because of Science, but you don't really know the Science-- you just know that there exists people who do and you trust their knowledge-- not the science, not even the plane. The thing is, you tell yourself you don’t know Science because science is hard, but you don't really want to know the science-- you just want the digital soundbytes, you just want to believe in it. But how much turbulence can you stand before your belief is shattered? “I'm the opposite, the second I get on a plane I'm convinced it's going to crash.” Then why would you risk all of those people's lives just so you can go to another airport? Shouldn't you stay home for their sakes? Or do you believe it might not go down because all those other people know it won't? Do you believe that knowledge summed over a population has mystical power-- that it will protect you? “Obviously not.” So yes.
This kind of knowledge feels empowering precisely because it mitigates not your ignorance but your impotence, and you walk around confident in your knowledge until you have to decide something yourself, and then you may as well lay out Tarot cards, which, weirdly, is something you do know how to do yourself.

>>3871166
>It's a commonplace nowadays to say that youthful religiosity matures into sophisticated atheism
lol, nice cope. If anything you're proof of the opposite.
>both rely on someone else's knowledge that you don't really possess, both prevent belief in anything.
I "believe" in rationality. To challene my ideas. To question everything. To not take things as gospel. To think for yourself.
Close-mindedness, not thinking and ignorance are the things I dislike most of all, which is precisely what religion promotes.

Your entire post was you just trying to do mental gymnastics to dance around the point, not countering anything I said. All to protect that close-minded view you have.
Absolutely nowhere in your post did you prove that a just fertalized egg is a sentient human life. Nowhere did you prove that all these religious people care about the life of the potential parents and child to the point they would support them with money and personal help (especially if they're not part of your religion).
Absolutely nowhere did you prove what gives you the right to decide what someone else should do with their bodies.

Using your logic absolutely no woman should be allowed outside without burkas, because there is a religion that thinks this.
This is the classic case of
>people that can't control their own emotions seek to control other people's behavior

>>3871166
>When you're in an airplane you tell yourself it won't crash because of Science, but you don't really know the Science-- you just know that there exists people who do and you trust their knowledge
You can tell yourself that your flight is almost certainly not going to crash because there are millions of flights every year, the vast, overwhelming majority of which do not crash. You can even observe some yourself by going to an airport.
Also, the science that forms the basis for aeronautics is quite simple, we covered it in tenth grade.

>>3871169
>because there are millions of flights every year, the vast, overwhelming majority of which do not crash
So now not even the science enters the question, but probability is good enough? Now you don't even have to know how a plane works, now it's enough to observe how the other machines haven't crashed to make you feel like you "know" enough to put your faith in it
"not the science, not even the plane."
"But how much turbulence can you stand before your belief is shattered?“

>Also, the science that forms the basis
Why do you mention the basis, do the basis cover everything? Is knowing the basis of something enough to say you know something? Here you'll obviously agree obviously not, but watch then how you use it: does a tenth grader know enough to build the plane you're on? By so focusing on the obvious you let yourself get away with "knowing" the rest
After all it's obvious

>>3871168
Don't accuse me of a covert religious agenda, your paranoia is displacement, I'm not trying to get you to abandon knowledge or convert your beliefs, I am trying to show you that you know nothing and are incapable of belief in anything except envy-- and the consequences for everyone else.

You may think you know, but you are unconsciously aware of your ignorance, which is why you never act-- you aren't afraid to act, that would imply some conscious awareness-- you cannot act. “The Jews seek signs and the Greeks seek wisdom,” perhaps you should have read the next line: “and both of those are awful.” Please recall what happened when Oedipus got both.

>>3871172
>now you don't even have to know how a plane works, now it's enough to observe how the other machines haven't crashed to make you feel like you "know" enough to put your faith in it
Correct, millions of people fly every year without knowing the slightest thing about the mechanics of air travel. Or are you trying to argue that a plane will only land safely if all the people on it know the precise mechanics by which it operates?

>Why do you mention the basis, do the basis cover everything? Is knowing the basis of something enough to say you know something?
Do I need to know the exact mechanics of gravity in order to throw a ball, or to move out of the way of a falling object? Some things are self-evident; I can observe the flight of a bird or of a plane. Are these things less true just because I don't know the specific mechanics by which they operate?

>>3871179
>Or are you trying to argue that a plane will only land safely if all the people on it know the precise mechanics by which it operates?
I'm not talking about them, I'm talking about you.
Why will the plane land safely, to you? Because you know the basis? "I have 10th grade knowledge of aerodynamics, thus the plane will not fall", maybe you shouldn't have skipped 10th grade logic.
"Some things are self-evident", so duh, now you know it won't fall because it's obvious that lots of them don't, but look at what that gets you: Now not only do you not need to "really" know (and I mean really, not just what's obvious), you also can proudly tell everyone how much of a science man you are.

>>3871186
>I'm not talking about them, I'm talking about you.
So the plane I'm on operates under completely different rules, just because I'm on it? Why?

>Why will the plane land safely, to you? Because you know the basis?
Because I have a large amount of evidence that it will and no evidence that it won't. As a counterpoint, why would I believe that it would crash?

>maybe you shouldn't have skipped 10th grade logic
Maybe you should have paid more attention in elementary school logic.

>>3871187
You don't see how your knowledge is a defense against your impotence, but no worries. You will.

>>3871188
Well, I have to fly pretty regularly for work, so I don't think I'll worry too much the next time I get on a plane.

>>3871179
>millions of people fly every year without knowing the slightest thing about the mechanics of air travel.
I’m an engineer in the aerospace industry and I don’t fly anymore.

>>3871175
>I am trying to show you that you know nothing and are incapable of belief in anything except envy-- and the consequences for everyone else.

I know nothing about what? I am envious of what? What are the consequences?
You sure do like to mouth off while saying absolutely nothing concrete or of substance. You're just deflecting as a defensive mechanism, which is common for the close-minded.
You even keep focusing on irrelevant logical fallacies which has NOTHING to do with abortion or the game itself in replies to other posters.

Just admit it you cannot prove why abortion is so terrible, "murder" and why religious people should dictacte what non religious people should do with their bodies. You were brainwashed and now when met with something not fitting into your narrative you shit the bed and start mouthing off about irrelevant shit in a sad desperate hail mary attempt.

>>3871186
>Why will the plane land safely, to you? Because you know the basis? "I have 10th grade knowledge of aerodynamics, thus the plane will not fall", maybe you shouldn't have skipped 10th grade logic.

You're very very stupid. If a plane would crash knowing the physics, mechanics and programming involved would be irrelevant for a passanger. It would be due to irregularities. I'm struggling to find any logic or relevance in this insane attempt at an analogy to abortion too.

>>3871373
Keep up, do you really think we're talking about planes, do we work for the national committee of aerial security? You're focusing on the wrong thing, the question is about YOU, not "a passenger", not what the "real" factors of the "real" plane would be, but about your belief

>>3871371
>why religious people should dictacte what non religious people should do with their bodies
The unborn child is someone else’s body. You are literally dumber than a pile of bricks.

>>3870884
>everything that disagrees with me is bias, now he's my non biased takes which a priori excludes you being rational...
Shut the fuck up you stupid, delusional faggot. If only society aborted you in the 60 trimester, so we can be spared your hideous fart-snuffing faggotry.

>>3870967
>oh, youtjink murder is wrong? How many potential murder victims have you fed and clothed for life?
>oh, you think parents have a responsibility not to neglect their kids? Well actually you can't believe that unless you take responsibility for their kids and...
That's how retarded you sound. Prochoicers are fucking animal filth with shit for brains. The dumbest, stupidest oinking pigs.

>>3870794
after 12 years at obsidian no less

>>3871371
Holy fuck you're deranged and deluded. All you can do is claim you're a rational person, you believe in rationality. A rational person doesn't need to claim to be rational, you doofus. A rational person makes rational (reasonable) arguments.
Let's make it very simple:
1. You think human choice (especially the sexual choices of a harlot because you're a giant simp and a fag) is an intrinsic value which must be respected by all.
2. It is a natural consequence that you think that life itself is intrinsically valueless, because it must be terminated on the condition of point 1.
3. Humans are intrinsically valueless, yet their sexual choices must be absolutely respected.
This is pants-shitting retardation, and you are dumb to believe in it. If human life is innately not valuable and worthy of preservation, than so is human choice.
You claim others are brainwashed, yet you yourself can only proffer shallow platitudes from outright propaganda that presuppose your own moral ideas. Hence, you make such blatant presumptive statement like this
>why religious people should dictacte what non religious people should do with their bodies.
That's your only logical argument here.
The argument against abortion is very simple.
1. Innocent life should not be taken if avoidable.
2. A child in the womb is innocent life.
3. Abortion is taking their life.
4. Ergo, abortion is wrong, because it's taking innocent life when avoidable.

Given that the pro-choice argument is retarded and contradictory, and the pro-life argument is at least deductively valid, if given the premises, than it's """rational""" to inter to the best explanation. A very simple either-or argument.
1. Either pro-choice or pro-life is rational.
2. Pro-choice is not rational.
3. Therefore, pro-life is rational.

>>3871598
>1. Either pro-choice or pro-life is rational.
False premise. Feel free to prove it, though.

>>3871602
You're supposed to prove your own statements, numb nuts. That includes negations. Unfortunately, redditors often confuse the "burden of proof" (actually a dumb concept for many things) with only positive statements, while it would also apply to negative ones.
For example:
1. You have no logically thinking brain.
Okay, now the impetus is on you to prove the positive, lest the negative be assumed.
But I'll bite:
It's the law of excluded middle: For every proposition, either the proposition is true (A) or its negation (~A, meaning not A).
If I make a statement, like Abortion is morally permissible, than it's either true (A), or false(~A). The negation of that statement would be: Abortion is not morally permissible. These are perfectly valid forms of either-or if you're using boolean reasoning and absolutes. This is something a "rational" person would understand, given that "rational" ultimately comes from the word meaning reason, and logic is the study of correct reasoning.

>>3871598
>1. You think human choice (especially the sexual choices of a harlot because you're a giant simp and a fag) is an intrinsic value which must be respected by all.
>2. It is a natural consequence that you think that life itself is intrinsically valueless, because it must be terminated on the condition of point 1.
Usually it's pro-lifers and not pro-choicers who support the right to shoot up schools, actually.

>>3871608
>You're supposed to prove your own statements, numb nuts. That includes negations. Unfortunately, redditors often confuse the "burden of proof" (actually a dumb concept for many things) with only positive statements, while it would also apply to negative ones.
Right, but asking you to provide proof for your own assertion isn't the same as making a statement of my own. Even if I agreed with you, you're making an unfounded assertion.

>It's the law of excluded middle: For every proposition, either the proposition is true (A) or its negation (~A, meaning not A).
>If I make a statement, like Abortion is morally permissible, than it's either true (A), or false(~A). The negation of that statement would be: Abortion is not morally permissible. These are perfectly valid forms of either-or if you're using boolean reasoning and absolutes. This is something a "rational" person would understand, given that "rational" ultimately comes from the word meaning reason, and logic is the study of correct reasoning.
It's nice that you looked up Wikipedia real quick, but this has nothing to do with showing that your original premise is correct.

>>3871610
>"dude I believe in rationality"
>is a logical positivist

>Right, but asking you to provide proof for your own assertion isn't the same as making a statement of my own.
You said,
>>3871602
>False premise.
Negation.
>Even if I agreed with you, you're making an unfounded assertion.
I'm not. You are. You need to prove your assertion that I'm making an unfounded assertion.
An easy way to see how it's not, is that we can form it by assuming your position is correct.
1. Abortion is morally permissible.
There, assumed.
2. Therefore, statement 1, as a proposition, is either true or false, and cannot be both.
Law of the excluded middle.

>>3871617
>I'm not. You are. You need to prove your assertion that I'm making an unfounded assertion.
Now you need to prove your assertion that I need to prove my assertion that you're making an unfounded assertion.

>An easy way to see how it's not, is that we can form it by assuming your position is correct.
>1. Abortion is morally permissible.
Where did I state that as my position?

This is why we should just kill pro choice """""people"""""

>>3870794
failing upwards

Netflix is the best paying company in tech within FAGMAN

>>3871598
That's a lot of words (read: fallacies) to dance around the point because you can't prove your stance and that you're close-minded.

Your entire premise hinges on a fertalized egg is now a "life" and "life" is sacred. Yet clearly not so sacred you care about the potential parents (now and later) or potential childs live (later, if they were eventually born). Ergo, you are not actually "pro-life". In fact, you do not care about life at all.
But here's the thing, a fertalized egg is no more a life than your sperm you shoot down the toiled when you jack off or bacteria scientifically speaking. If you REALLY want to peddle this idea then you need to come up with a very clear factual and scientific definition. Otherwise your defintion of life is 100% ignorant and based solely on your emotions, bias and shit you pulled from your ass.

You reek of someone that isn't used to thinking for themselves and only be told what to think with a pre-defined religious idea and belief system, which is why you keep resorting to logical fallacies and your statements are circular and contradictory (i.e. deluding yourself you're "pro-life").

>>3871379
by the way, this wasn't about pro or anti abortion, I don't care about that. Again, it was about you but, whatever

>>3871379
>Keep up, do you really think we're talking about planes
Why did you start talking about planes then instead of abortion or games? If your point was about understanding the science then you don't understand it, is that's your point?

Even deadfire had cringey dialogue options everywhere, I'm not surprised this would be even worse in that regard. Obsidian is a lost cause

>>3871711
It was largely outsourced to Beamdog so no wonder.