Another problem with those reveals (and other things like the "romance") is that they happen too fast. No idea if that is because Larian wanted to cram it into the EA, but after a few hours you don't have a connection to the characters (and the way most characters behave certainly does not help) and thus you do not care about the big reveal. And that is in addition to you never really have a reason to believe that they are anything else because its so obvious.
There was countless topics about this ...
Yes players are used to get "romance that need to be build through whole game just to get that sweet single night together" ... and no, that is not what we are geting (with most companions) here ... what we are geting here is "im horny, wanna bang? OK" kind of thing (again, not with all companions).
Wich is perfectly okey and understandable ... if you dont want that kind of relationship, simply pick "go sleep alone". :P
How does that solve the problem? It's like arguing that if people don't want to eat a shit sandwich, they should just starve to death. That's an argument that justifies even the most shitty of decisions in even the shittiest of games. Don't like pay to win bullshit? Just grind or fuck off and play something else. Don't like loot box gambling? Just fuck then.
I mean, pardon my blunt speech but rather than explaining how something is not actually a problem, what you are saying is literally that if people don't like the taste of the backside of a dog then they should just not play the game, ignoring how doggie bottom is fairly universally considered bad.
No, but you +1'd the person who decided they were the judge, didn't you? I don't know what +1 means in Czech, but in the languages I do speak, it does not typically mean "I completely disagree".
I just love how is this topic full of trying to catch each other and failing.
Exactly as you said ... it does not mean "i completely disagree" ... indeed it means the oposite "i completely agree" ...
Yet, and i admit i might be wrong on how this works in english ... but in languages i speak good enough, agreeing with someone judgement is still something different, than being a judge yourself.
:P
So ... cute effort, but missed again ... hope you have as much fun as i do.
To put this bluntly, you're getting into very slippery territory if you want to argue that just being moral support of an action totally alleviates you of the moral consequences of said action. More clearly put, if someone is being a bully towards someone else and you go pat the bully on the back and say "well done, I totally agree with what you did", you're clearly not better than the bully, are you?
So yeah, cute effort with the lame "I wasn't me", but that was the catchfrase in a song a while back about a guy who feels bad about cheating on his girlfriend. It's not actually a rebuttal in this particular situation. And it's frankly a bit silly that I even have to explain that.
But for the purpose of "weird things that makes one cringe", wouldn't you say that a somewhat seasoned mercenary commander telling his one remaining melee grunt to "form a line" is a bit silly?
Well, if you really wish to know all you need to do is read previous conversations.
But ... no.
It depends on few factors you need to keep in mind:
First of all is situation ...
Do you have time to concider your situation, find a best strategy and potentialy discuss it with others ... or are you in heat of battle, where you yell the first things that come to your mind, so at least something is happening? :P > B is corect.
Second is length of order ...
I mean we all know that Goblin is yelling orders for every type of trooper he have with him ... and i dunno about you, but i was allways like "Ugh, shut up and die finaly ... i want to play, not watch your monologue here." > So, even tho "cover our archer" would make more sence and being lot more fiting ... short order is better here once again.
Third there is definition ...
As far as i know, once you have at least two people, they can "form a line" ... it would be incredibly short line no doubt about it, but it will be a line. > So his order makes perfect sence.
Then there is question about importance ...
As we both agreed allready, this is so minor problem so even if he would indeed yell "form a testudo" i would quite honestly not even care.
And last but not least, what else do you want? ...
I mean so far nobody was able to submit single as short and more effective comand (and i admit that by saying nobody i mean Maximuuus, since noone else even cared enough) ... so, until you have any replacement in mind, even this is still better than him being silence with subtitles on screen saying:
"Cinematic pending, we are curently trying to figure some comand that would fit to give single soldier in such screwed situation Aradin and his group are."
I'm not going to cut this into bits, because that's just aggravating to look at. Yes, he had time to consider his tactical situation because there's clearly not much to consider. Running is out, individual engagement means dying in detail, so the only option is a defensive stance with focus on coherency. Length of order is a rebuttal that makes no sense. If they have time to form up then he has the time to give a coherent order, and indeed giving something that is not a coherent order is the hallmark of a rubbish commander that should be demoted on the spot. This is not good guys and bad guys in the backyard with wooden swords, this is life or death, do or die horribly kind of stuff.
And then definition, "form a line" means forming a battle line rather than standing around like a mob. A line is singular and in context it has to be in formation, meaning both grunts stand shoulder to shoulder. Apparently no order is given to the archer or the archer willfully disobeys a direct order. Neither is good. Ordering to "Form up" means they fight in formation but use their own judgment to find their place in the formation. Ordering to "form lines", notice the plural, means forming up according to type. It's been done since the Romans so yes, warriors with any kind of training, even mercs for rent, would certainly understand the concept intuitively and implicitly.
Execution, do the three mercs then following the tactics ordered by the commander? They do not. They're not holding a tight formation in the corner where the archer is shielded and the walls protect their flanks. They are not making the numerical advantage of the enemy count for as little as possible. They are not making themselves hard to flank and gang up on.
Lastly, two people cannot possibly manage to not form a line. They could be running in zig-zag and they'd still be forming a line. So the argument that two people can form a line literally makes no sense, because could they ever not do that? If that's the interpretation then he might as well have shouted "continue to exist!!" and the effect would be the same. Point being, it's just not a good order. And despite all the creative back-bending of you and others, there's still no way to interpret it as a good order.
An order to "form a line" delivered in good form, with authority, sounds like something a combat veteran in command might say, but the comment doesn't fit the actual context in which it is being used, and the actual execution of said line doesn't help.
What do you mean actual execution?
I dont claim that i was in army (in czech we dont have compulsory military service anymore) but as far as i know, since my Sibling is working in military in last few years, formations are codenamed ...
So even the fact that he runned forward during yelling that order might be fitting the formation since "line" could easily be just fomration that is suppose to keep meele enemies occupied, while ranged damage dealers kill the others.
If your argument for him talking nonsense is that he's just talking in code then any discussion at any time becomes irrelevant because anything is just code. At that point you've essentially accepted any disconnect at any time between what is said by characters and what they do, because it's just code. It extremely obviously makes zero sense to even have that communication happen in the first place in a medium like a game if the communication isn't coherent or "in a code" that is never given to the player. This is so silly that it pretty much has to be bait.
By the by, modern militaries don't fight in formations like this. It worked great with medieval weapons. It is awful when some jerk with a machinegun can wipe everybody out in an instant. Or multiple jerks with machineguns. Or some joker with a mortar. Or an absolute comedian with a precision rifle from half a mile away. Or tank people, artillery people, something airborne, or even a clown with a radio-detonated device and binoculars. You get the picture, I'm sure. If not, ask your sibling.
