Install Steam
login
|
language
çŽä˝ä¸ć (Simplified Chinese)
çšéŤä¸ć (Traditional Chinese)
ćĽćŹčŞ (Japanese)
íęľě´ (Korean)
ŕšŕ¸ŕ¸˘ (Thai)
ĐŃНгаŃŃки (Bulgarian)
ÄeĹĄtina (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
EspaĂąol - EspaĂąa (Spanish - Spain)
EspaĂąol - LatinoamĂŠrica (Spanish - Latin America)
ÎΝΝΡνΚκΏ (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
PortuguĂŞs (Portuguese - Portugal)
PortuguĂŞs - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
RomânÄ (Romanian)
Đ ŃŃŃкиК (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Tßrkçe (Turkish)
Tiáşżng Viáťt (Vietnamese)
ĐŁĐşŃĐ°ŃĐ˝ŃŃка (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Al Gul contributed a lot, but thanks.
When it comes to how the game classifies its politics, I think it's quite intentional. From what I remember, all those bizarre moments force the worst, most extreme interpretation of your choices, and I think this is done for two reasons:
1. To make the player feel more vulnerable, as politics are an intimate thing for a lot of people. Games that let you express these opinions usually don't challenge you on them directly like this.
2. By forcing you to argue your case, the game allows for reflection that maybe gets you to think about the larger ramifications a stance you express could have.
Locking quests behind alignment sucks if you disagree with the game's interpretation of your alignment, but I think it was done more as a writing technique rather than a pure alignment system.
I have no other accounts.
Yeah.