Jeff Vogel vs Pillars of Eternity

[Mustawd]

I think Vogel just got a bit lost in trying to identify the issues. There's probably a good compromise between dumbing down char gen and what PoE does. I just don't think Vogel thought through how to do it enough.

My friendly suggestion: Don't play PoE.

 

[Lhynn]

You have diarrhea. Some natives attack your caravan. Weird things happen. The two characters who you might have been forming some sort of bond through adversity with die accidentally/incidentally. Now you are left to wonder around in some generic fantasy world, reading a bunch of flavor text and trying to figure out what the plot is.

Nice, you just summed up everything wrong with the game in a few short sentences. You do not need an editor.

 

[Drog Black Tooth]

jeff vogel is just a bitter loser, p much a text book example of sour grapes

he's totally not a sexy adorable bear man like the everyone's favorite TimCain

 

[abnaxus]

Saywer at least is not a weeb.

 

[gaussgunner]

You have diarrhea. Some natives attack your caravan. Weird things happen. The two characters who you might have been forming some sort of bond through adversity with die accidentally/incidentally. Now you are left to wonder around in some generic fantasy world, reading a bunch of flavor text and trying to figure out what the plot is.

Nice, you just summed up everything wrong with the game in a few short sentences. You do not need an editor.

That was some shit, killing your first two companions, who actually had potential. No. You can't have them. You can only have Weak Elf, Native Midget Woman, her pet wolf, Token Negro, Grieving Mother, Nasty Druid Dude, and like 10 other totally forgettable companions who give you pointless sidequests and add basically nothing of interest to the story or gameplay.

I could make it better:

You have diarrhea. Some natives attack your caravan. You die. EDIT: In the rain.

 

[a cut of domestic sheep prime]

That was some shit, killing your first two companions, who actually had potential. No. You can't have them.

Killing your intro companions in a forced cutscene is some sort of Bioware/Obsidian tradition, I think. NWN2, Dragon Age 1, Dragon Age 2, and even Mass Effect all had some red shirt die at the start.

Forced companion losses are really frustrating for a player and I don't really like them. On the other hand, if you do it, it can be used as a tool to involve the player emotionally in the story - like with the forced death of Gorion, the forced death of Kahlid, or the forced abduction of Imoen.

This didn't even do that though because their deaths were incidental. The bad guys didn't even notice you were there.

 

[Ezeekiel]

You have diarrhea. Some natives attack your caravan. Weird things happen. The two characters who you might have been forming some sort of bond through adversity with die accidentally/incidentally. Now you are left to wonder around in some generic fantasy world, reading a bunch of flavor text and trying to figure out what the plot is.

Nice, you just summed up everything wrong with the game in a few short sentences. You do not need an editor.

That was some shit, killing your first two companions, who actually had potential. No. You can't have them. You can only have Weak Elf, Native Midget Woman, her pet wolf, Token Negro, Grieving Mother, Nasty Druid Dude, and like 10 other totally forgettable companions who give you pointless sidequests and add basically nothing of interest to the story or gameplay.

I could make it better:

You have diarrhea. Some natives attack your caravan. You die. EDIT: In the rain.

Those first 2 companions dying like that bothered me as well...
Can't help but wonder if the game was meant to continue with them at first and you all together exploring this new world/area of the world (after all the devs invented a whole new "not-DND" universe just for this and it'd be nice not to just read all that pointless lore that has no bearing on the game but experience part of the history yourself instead, visit some of those foreign places and learn the lore that way).
But then someone said "Hey we need a generic bs fantasy plot of the sort that everyone is already tired of! All the lore should just be window dressing! Axe the old stuff now!".

 

[Ezeekiel]

That was some shit, killing your first two companions, who actually had potential. No. You can't have them.

Killing your intro companions in a forced cutscene is some sort of Bioware/Obsidian tradition, I think. NWN2, Dragon Age 1, Dragon Age 2, and even Mass Effect had some red shirt die at the start.

Forced companion losses are really frustrating for a player and I don't really like them. On the other hand, if you do it, it can be used as a tool to involve the player emotionally in the story - like with the forced death of Gorion, the forced death of Kahlid, or the forced abduction of Imoen.

This didn't even do that though because their deaths were incidental. The bad guys didn't even notice you were there.

I think it's mostly a bad idea because you never get to spend enough time with these guys to become attached in the first place... Except for Imoen, but she's annoying so you're kind of dragging your feet hoping Irenicus will cut out her tongue or something before you rescue her.
Oh, and Khalid I guess. Who cares though, the "bonding" with him happens during the first game where companions don't really talk to you that much apart from plot stuff.

But thanks for reminding me how bad certain developers are when it comes to game starts...

 

[Ezeekiel]

Saywer at least is not a weeb.

You never know another's mind...

 

[gaussgunner]

This didn't even do that though because their deaths were incidental. The bad guys didn't even notice you were there.

Yeah, that makes it even worse. There's no saving them, no revenge, they were just in the wrong place at the wrong moment. The message is "don't get emotionally invested."

 

[bataille]

It's not wonder: Vögel are natural enemies of pillars around the world.
Oh boy, the Janitor-Man is going to be pissed at this little Vogel!

 

[Ezeekiel]

This didn't even do that though because their deaths were incidental. The bad guys didn't even notice you were there.

Yeah, that makes it even worse. There's no saving them, no revenge, they were just in the wrong place at the wrong moment. The message is "don't get emotionally invested."

It's an appropriate message considering the rest of the game :D

 

[Lhynn]

The message is "don't get emotionally invested."

Retarded message to send, amazing how far ignorance and incompetence can go at a professional level.

 

[Grampy_Bone]

The real test of how good a game it is, is not how it sells, but how much its sequel sells.

If nothing else, I agree with this statement 100% and it needs to be stated more often.

 

[Ezeekiel]

The message is "don't get emotionally invested."

Retarded message to send, amazing how far ignorance and incompetence can go at a professional level.

They were just being honest. Maybe.

 

[ore clover]

The real test of how good a game it is, is not how it sells, but how much its sequel sells.

If nothing else, I agree with this statement 100% and it needs to be stated more often.

I understand the sentiment, but people could draw the wrong conclusions. For example:

"Have you seen Skyrim's sales figures? Yup, proof that Oblivion's a masterpiece."

 

[Lhynn]

They were just being honest. Maybe.

Letting you know the game will suck from the get go doesnt earn them points in my book tho.

 

[Ezeekiel]

They were just being honest. Maybe.

Letting you know the game will suck from the get go doesnt earn them points in my book tho.

Making a genuinely great game would have been far preferable of course.
Maybe the one responsible for sending that message was some concerned dev who wanted to warn us away from danger...

 

[Grampy_Bone]

The real test of how good a game it is, is not how it sells, but how much its sequel sells.

If nothing else, I agree with this statement 100% and it needs to be stated more often.

I understand the sentiment, but people could draw the wrong conclusions. For example:

"Have you seen Skyrim's sales figures? Yup, proof that Oblivion's a masterpiece."

Well... Oblivion's popularity was probably due heavily to Morrowind's success.

 

[PrettyDeadman]

Jeff Vogel is 100% right about this issue. If you add a generous amount of shitprose to a dull monster grinding gameplay you are not making your game better, you are adding an insult to the injury.
I don't even read dialogue in rpgs anymore + use cheat engine to dull my senses to decadent combat systems of modern rpgs.

 

[gaussgunner]

They were just being honest. Maybe.

Letting you know the game will suck from the get go doesnt earn them points in my book tho.

Indeed, they didn't have to ruin the first hour.

 

[Ezeekiel]

The real test of how good a game it is, is not how it sells, but how much its sequel sells.

If nothing else, I agree with this statement 100% and it needs to be stated more often.

I understand the sentiment, but people could draw the wrong conclusions. For example:

"Have you seen Skyrim's sales figures? Yup, proof that Oblivion's a masterpiece."

Well... Oblivion's popularity was probably due heavily to Morrowind's success.

Also Xbox/ps3 ports for a new and unexploited (well, exploited in different ways) markets maybe?
Vgchartz seem whacky for Oblivion though. Xbox sales at 4.40m and PS3 at 3.10m. Pc only 0.26m how does that even work?

Edit: It'd be great if that was true, though. Would mean that Pc players realized it was shit and mostly didn't buy it.
One can hope.

 

[Ezeekiel]

Huh. Vgchartz entire pc section looks whacky. Are they ignoring certain types of sales or something?

 

[Infinitron]

Those numbers are completely normal. vgchartz doesn't count digital sales. PC boxed retail sales are pathetic and have been for many many years. Consolization happened for a reason you know.

 

[Ezeekiel]

vgchartz doesn't count digital sales.

That explains it.