Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

My collected criticism on Pillars of Eternity (very minor spoilers)

Pillars of Eternity is


  • Total voters
    371

FreeKaner

Prophet of the Dumpsterfire
Joined
Mar 28, 2015
Messages
6,908
Location
Devlet-i ʿAlīye-i ʿErdogānīye
There is a difference between bland, unoriginal and simplistic. Bland =/= either of those. I liked both the stories for BG1 and BG2, I liked both the villains and I wanted to hunt them down and fuck them up.

I didn't really give much of a shit about the Pillars story and most definitely not the part that involves the player. The antagonist also sucked, bigtime.

For me, it is the opposite, I didn't care for the villains in either of BG games, the only motivation is its interesting combat and the whole mage power fantasy going on for it. Meanwhile in Pillars I felt like there is a drive to my character's motivations, especially since you can go whatever way you want with the whole hallowborn thing.


Setting/lorefag detected.
More of a historyfag, although I guess that includes both of those actually, less lore more setting.

I really do not care what the concepts are outside of the game. Apparently the Elder Scrolls and Dragon Age have pretty good lore too. In Forgotten Realms there are lots of cultures that are cool (Halruaa, for instance), and just like in Pillars of Eternity you only get a very brief glimpse of what people from those cultures are like in the game.
Elder scrolls does, actually but it is not similar to PoE, PoE handles exposition much more gracefully. It was that way in New Vegas too, you can compare and contrast it to Fallout 3 and see even though both games are basically set in same place, one handles exposition much more gracefully and thus makes you care more about the world, which is the incentive for caring about what's going in the game for me. I won't care about the story if the place it takes places in doesn't feel realized.

Regarding being set in a time a bit further on from medieval, mechanically I actually found this a bit shit regarding how the inclusion of firearms impacted the ranged combat gameplay. Subject to implementation and balance of course, but I don't think both the use of bows and guns together is very good. It works in a game like Battle Realms where the gun is simply part of the unit concept, but in an RPG where anyone can use any item and there are no proficiencies ? I just think it makes the use of bows (and crossbows) fairly obsolete unless you have a real specific super specialized build for it.

It could be handled better, the reason firearms were used more widely than bows weren't necessarily because guns were more lethal/damaging but because they were easier to use, you could give it to a random bloke and he could learn to use it in one afternoon while using a bow is a very physically taxing thing that requires a great deal of training beforehand, this could be very easily reflected to a game, where bows scale better with stats so they are better dedicated weapons, while guns don't scale whatsoever, so they would be better sidearms, shoot & switch weapons instead of being the physical weapon equivalent of mage nukes. I think firearms are decently balanced in pillars however, it is just that in that game there are no weapon proficiencies in a meaningful way. I really like the part where firearms penetrate mage shields but that's because I am a fan of deconstruction of mages versus technology.

I also found the BG1 story and plot to be tighter than Pillars of Eternity, and I did not find there to be an issue with player motivation, or reinforcement of why the PC is following the story.
I completely disagree, the reason I played BG as much as I did (I didn't finish it) was because companions were interesting enough for me to have an incentive to play with them, the combat in BG is pretty boring also.

I am not a setting/lore fag like you.
Strategy games are my favourite genre, so it is not that I just care about setting but setting greatly helps with how much I care about story and characters, which gives me incentive to play.

I also don't really care too much about C&C, or larp style roleplaying.
I do care but this is largely irrelevant I think to my main post because it was a comparison between BG2 and PoE, in which PoE is clearly better in this area. It is what rest of the game that differs which people have preferences on mainly.

I do not fap over deep character systems. I care about actual gameplay
Deep character systems doesn't directly contribute to actual gameplay? How come?

It is not about me being burned out, different people look for different things in games and Pillars hits the right notes for some of the different crowds.
It kind of is, I love Civ5, EU4, CK2 and the such, but I get a burnout from all of those games collectively when I play one of them, even though they are fundamentally very different in presentation, gameplay and even aim, because they satiate a certain aspect of what I desire from a game.

It is a bit like hentai, first time you discover it, usual cheesy vanilla stuff does it for you but over the years and especially during the day, before you know it, you can't get off to anything but genderbender rape bondage ahegao humiliation exhibition ntr.

Even most dedicated fans of a gameplay style will have a burnout in which they will stop caring about everything else in the game simple because the game doesn't matter to them anymore, it is hard to deal with but happens.
 

Sensuki

Arcane
Joined
Oct 26, 2012
Messages
9,799
Location
New North Korea
Codex 2014 Serpent in the Staglands Shadorwun: Hong Kong A Beautifully Desolate Campaign
For me, it is the opposite, I didn't care for the villains in either of BG games, the only motivation is its interesting combat and the whole mage power fantasy going on for it. Meanwhile in Pillars I felt like there is a drive to my character's motivations, especially since you can go whatever way you want with the whole hallowborn thing.

And yet Josh Sawyer has recently acknowledged my (and others) exact issue with the player motivation in the most recent interview

http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/inde...viewed-at-ragequit-gr-and-darkstation.104797/

Not saying that it's impossible to find your own motivation though.

In the early game, it was very difficult to communicate all of the ideas that form the hook for your character's motivation. I think trying to communicate more cleanly or focusing more on the difficult concepts (in particular, the negative aspects of being a Watcher) would have drawn people in more easily.

More of a historyfag, although I guess that includes both of those actually, less lore more setting.

Well yeah, I'm not so none of that stuff does much of anything for me.

Elder scrolls does, actually but it is not similar to PoE, PoE handles exposition much more gracefully. It was that way in New Vegas too, you can compare and contrast it to Fallout 3 and see even though both games are basically set in same place, one handles exposition much more gracefully and thus makes you care more about the world, which is the incentive for caring about what's going in the game for me. I won't care about the story if the place it takes places in doesn't feel realized.

I dunno, I thought the exposition in Pillars was not handled as well as it has been in past games that Obsidian/Black Isle have worked on. Lots of complaining about it from lots of people. I only ever played the prologue of Fallout 3 and I've never played New Vegas. I also have not really played much of any Bethesda game. That engine needs to die in a fire.

It could be handled better, the reason firearms were used more widely than bows weren't necessarily because guns were more lethal/damaging but because they were easier to use, you could give it to a random bloke and he could learn to use it in one afternoon while using a bow is a very physically taxing thing that requires a great deal of training beforehand, this could be very easily reflected to a game, where bows scale better with stats so they are better dedicated weapons, while guns don't scale whatsoever, so they would be better sidearms, shoot & switch weapons instead of being the physical weapon equivalent of mage nukes. I think firearms are decently balanced in pillars however, it is just that in that game there are no weapon proficiencies in a meaningful way. I really like the part where firearms penetrate mage shields but that's because I am a fan of deconstruction of mages versus technology.

Once again, I do not care about the history of such weapons or simulationism - just the impact that they have on the combat gameplay.

I completely disagree, the reason I played BG as much as I did (I didn't finish it) was because companions were interesting enough for me to have an incentive to play with them, the combat in BG is pretty boring also.

There's not really much to the BG1 companions, they're a bit of a blank state really but yeah I didn't mind them. I never found BG combat that boring. Easy though.

Strategy games are my favourite genre, so it is not that I just care about setting but setting greatly helps with how much I care about story and characters, which gives me incentive to play.

And my favourite genre is probably competitive PC multiplayer FPS. Such games are reactive and tactical, which is why I have such a hard on for both of those aspects of combat.

Deep character systems doesn't directly contribute to actual gameplay? How come?

Not really, no. Interacting with the character system is something that you only do during character creation and level up. Lots of choices in a character system itself may not necessarily have much of an impact on the actions that players perform in combat, or whether the combat gameplay is actually any fun. Aarklash Legacy has set heroes in the style of a MOBA character, not a deep character system/almost no choice - yet the combat gameplay is pretty tactical and reactive. Knights of the Old Republic 2 has a lot of different ways that you can build your character but when you get to actual combat you simply select a target and either queue up attacks or force powers. The player input mostly consists of clicking on a target, clicking on a few attacks/abilities and waiting until your target is dead. Age of Decadence has a pretty interesting character system but for the most part, especially later in the game, combat consists of spamming the same attack move over and over. The Pillars of Eternity character system gives most characters many active abilities to perform in combat but combat essentially becomes a string of selecting character, and targeting active attack ability at an enemy while lacking the deliberation of when to use that ability and any opportunity cost, at least where per-encounter resources are concerned.

It kind of is, I love Civ5, EU4, CK2 and the such, but I get a burnout from all of those games collectively when I play one of them, even though they are fundamentally very different in presentation, gameplay and even aim, because they satiate a certain aspect of what I desire from a game.

It is a bit like hentai, first time you discover it, usual cheesy vanilla stuff does it for you but over the years and especially during the day, before you know it, you can't get off to anything but genderbender rape bondage ahegao humiliation exhibition ntr.

Even most dedicated fans of a gameplay style will have a burnout in which they will stop caring about everything else in the game simple because the game doesn't matter to them anymore, it is hard to deal with but happens.

I get burned out from games, absolutely but that won't make me say "I hate this game". Currently I'm burned out from playing DotA 2, but I have no reason to say that it is anything other than the best tactical real-time game in existence.
 
Last edited:

FreeKaner

Prophet of the Dumpsterfire
Joined
Mar 28, 2015
Messages
6,908
Location
Devlet-i ʿAlīye-i ʿErdogānīye
And yet Josh Sawyer has recently acknowledged my (and others) exact issue with the player motivation in the most recent interview

http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/inde...viewed-at-ragequit-gr-and-darkstation.104797/

I guess I just personally cared about the setting, what can I say, it is pretty subjective but the fact that it is unique amongts its peers is not. We would be circling this conversation forever, you have different standards, you didn't get what you expected or wanted but that doesn't make game worse in areas in which you don't give much importance in the first place. Because I still think caring about a game one way will make you care about rest of it incidentally, so if you like a game's combat, you'll be more interested in its characters and story, vice versa.

I get burned out from games, absolutely but that won't make me say "I hate this game". Currently I'm burned out from playing DotA 2, but I have no reason to say that it is anything other than the best tactical real-time game in existence.
I have 2600 hours clocked in Dota 2 alone, probably about two to three fifths of that in dota 1, I burned out and I lost the same feel I had it for it, even though game is certainly better than it has been in Dota 1, it doesn't give me the same enjoyment, didn't provoke the same emotions it did once a long time ago in Dota 1, neither did I care as much about reading further into its strategies, guides, character backgrounds in Dota 2. Is it because Dota 2 is worse that I did not have the same feelings I had, even though I played it for 2600 hours? Absolutely not, it is because I already had my honey moon with the gameplay, now getting the same gameplay in adjusted ways doesn't invoke the same emotions in me. When I look back in dota, even though I played more in 2, I still remember 1 with fondest of the memories.

As context, I played Dota 1 since before 6.48, played dota 2 from december of 2011. Stopped playing as much as I did about 2 years ago.
 

Sensuki

Arcane
Joined
Oct 26, 2012
Messages
9,799
Location
New North Korea
Codex 2014 Serpent in the Staglands Shadorwun: Hong Kong A Beautifully Desolate Campaign
Because I still think caring about a game one way will make you care about rest of it incidentally, so if you like a game's combat, you'll be more interested in its characters and story, vice versa.

Mmm, I dunno. Planescape Torment anyone? The Witcher games? The Witcher 2 has absolutely horrible combat, yet I still really liked the game.

Believe me, I didn't go in not wanting to care.

I also don't give two shits about The Banner Saga story, or the strategical management side of the game, I just skip through everything, but I really like the combat system.

When I look back in dota, even though I played more in 2, I still remember 1 with fondest of the memories.

Oh, same without a doubt. I had my best DotA experiences in DotA 1 and I also found it more fun. I don't like the particular direction the game is gone in and haven't really liked the 'meta' since TI2 or around about there. Even still, I still think it's the best tactical RT game there is.
 

FreeKaner

Prophet of the Dumpsterfire
Joined
Mar 28, 2015
Messages
6,908
Location
Devlet-i ʿAlīye-i ʿErdogānīye
Mmm, I dunno. Planescape Torment anyone? The Witcher games? The Witcher 2 has absolutely horrible combat, yet I still really liked the game.

Believe me, I didn't go in not wanting to care.

I also don't give two shits about The Banner Saga story, or the strategical management side of the game, I just skip through everything, but I really like the combat system.
This is not exclusive with what I said. Not even related in fact. There is a difference between ignoring weaker gameplay elements of a game for its story or vice versa, and caring for rest of the game because you feel connected and thrilled by another aspect of it.

Oh, same without a doubt. I had my best DotA experiences in DotA 1 and I also found it more fun. I don't like the particular direction the game is gone in and haven't really liked the 'meta' since TI2 or around about there. Even still, I still think it's the best tactical RT game there is.

What I mentioned wasn't because I didn't like the metas, or the direction of the game, they come and go, everyone have their favourite versions and their favourite competitive game played in a certain meta, simply because there is more to experience when you are fresh to a style of tactical combat, after you experienced all there is to experience in it, which there is a lot to in dota, you become disconnected from it as a whole. There really aren't as much in IE, not even half by the virtue it is not multiplayer in the first place.

What I am saying is, even if it was exactly like IE games you loved once, you probably wouldn't get the same kicks from it and be more critical of rest of the game simply because there isn't as much pulling you into it. Even if everyone wants to be subjective, liking one aspect of something makes you more defensive about rest of it or more easy to look over its flaws at the very least.

Edit: story/lore/settingfagging much you play witcher 2 despite its atrociously bad combat? It is why I played it and enjoyed it, not because of the combat.
 
Last edited:

Sensuki

Arcane
Joined
Oct 26, 2012
Messages
9,799
Location
New North Korea
Codex 2014 Serpent in the Staglands Shadorwun: Hong Kong A Beautifully Desolate Campaign
This is not exclusive with what I said. Not even related in fact. There is a difference between ignoring weaker gameplay elements of a game for its story or vice versa, and caring for rest of the game because you feel connected and thrilled by another aspect of it.

How is it not? You said that caring about a game one way will make you care about the rest. I do not remotely give a damn about The Banner Saga strategical gameplay or story. I like the combat system. Liking the combat system does not make me care about the other parts of the gameplay. I just literally skip it.

Therefore, I disagree that "caring about a game one way will make you care about rest of it incidentally", because that is not my experience.

What I mentioned wasn't because I didn't like the metas, or the direction of the game, they come and go, everyone have their favourite versions and their favourite competitive game played in a certain meta, simply because there is more to experience when you are fresh to a style of tactical combat, after you experienced all there is to experience in it, which there is a lot to in dota, you become disconnected from it as a whole. There really aren't as much in IE, not even half by the virtue it is not multiplayer in the first place.

What I am saying is, even if it was exactly like IE games you loved once, you probably wouldn't get the same kicks from it and be more critical of rest of the game simply because there isn't as much pulling you into it. Even if everyone wants to be subjective, liking one aspect of something makes you more defensive about rest of it or more easy to look over its flaws at the very least.

I do think that my beta testing of Pillars of Eternity has made me more unforgiving/spiteful than I normally would be, but I don't think my dislike of it is from being burned out. I certainly was not burned out of the content because we only had access to a few areas. I also do not really like Wasteland 2 or Divinity: Original Sin for the record and even though I did have access to those games before launch but I did not play much of them.

You're probably right that because of my beta testing, even if the game had better combat and story I would not be able to enjoy it as I enjoyed the Infinity Engine games because there would never be that initial feeling of wonder. However there are lots of people on this forum that also participated in the beta and had no problem enjoying the game, so I don't think that has much to do with it really.

IF I did like the Pillars of Eternity story, I don't think I'd be as critical, but I didn't like the combat or the story. With the IE mod and engagement and move recovery penalty disabled, the combat is a lot less annoying but there's just nothing there for me to enjoy, whereas with The Witcher 2 Rise of the Sword mod which makes the combat waaay more tolerable, it makes the game much more playable so that I can enjoy the story.
 

FreeKaner

Prophet of the Dumpsterfire
Joined
Mar 28, 2015
Messages
6,908
Location
Devlet-i ʿAlīye-i ʿErdogānīye
How is it not? You said that caring about a game one way will make you care about the rest. I do not remotely give a damn about The Banner Saga strategical gameplay or story. I like the combat system. Liking the combat system does not make me care about the other parts of the gameplay. I just literally skip it.

Therefore, I disagree that "caring about a game one way will make you care about rest of it incidentally", because that is not my experience.

So would you also play it if it was nothing but blocks for units and effects? This is not a counter-argument, I am just curious.

I personally have at least some bit of connection to rest of the game, be it visuals, effects, artstyle, setting, combat, writing and what not if I like one aspect of it to keep playing it. I cannot imagine a game barebones combat, wouldn't find it fulfilling.

I certainly was not burned out of the content because we only had access to a few areas.
Recently I played Age of Decadence, replaying the first town enough times to got it down to an optimization level I was almost muscle-reflexing through it, including my stat distribution, that actually made me "burnout" from some of the rest of the game, particularly because it disconnected me from the dialogue, as I started seeing it as a mechanical checklist, rather than a dialogue. I had to take a break to start playing after that, even though at first I was thrilled with the game world. Again not a counter-argument, just my own experience.

You're probably right that because of my beta testing, even if the game had better combat and story I would not be able to enjoy it as I enjoyed the Infinity Engine games because there would never be that initial feeling of wonder. However there are lots of people on this forum that also participated in the beta and had no problem enjoying the game, so I don't think that has much to do with it really.
It might be about how much they wanted to see story process through, I personally wanted to know what the main antagonist was up to and confronting him, so much so I pretty much skipped through most of twin elms.

IF I did like the Pillars of Eternity story, I don't think I'd be as critical, but I didn't like the combat or the story. With the IE mod and engagement and move recovery penalty disabled, the combat is a lot less annoying but there's just nothing there for me to enjoy, whereas with The Witcher 2 Rise of the Sword mod which makes the combat waaay more tolerable, it makes the game much more playable so that I can enjoy the story.
I don't have a problem with engagement, I had earlier on but I found the soft-taunt aspect in line with rest of more position and fast execution based combat later on, but what can I say, I always liked playing lion and SD in dota and nuker/gankers in general as well as initiators like ES.

I don't know why you didn't enjoy it, personally but I don't get some of the real harsh criticism of game's writing, story and especially setting, which while might not exactly pull someone's interest, are anything but bland or generic.

What I would say is, let it go, man. Trying to find Dota in other games won't bring back the fiery spirit you once had for games before.
 
Last edited:

Metal Hurlant

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Jul 21, 2014
Messages
535
Codex USB, 2014 A Beautifully Desolate Campaign
I have my own reasons for finding it interesting, if anyone finds it bland I cannot argue that, especially considering not everyone has the same interest in the period as I do. I just wanted to say that I do not find it to be universally bland or generic, because it has unique elements not found in other games of the same genre, unlike the thousand other medieval high fantasy settings with same pursuit of power/world-domination/influence villains.

I'm sure when someone eats a chili dish the night before and spray paints the toilet bowl the next morning, they might decide to have a look at what they created and think it's a piece of art with unique elements in it. However, everyone else will just see shit inside a toilet bowl.
 

FreeKaner

Prophet of the Dumpsterfire
Joined
Mar 28, 2015
Messages
6,908
Location
Devlet-i ʿAlīye-i ʿErdogānīye
I'm sure when someone eats a chili dish the night before and spray paints the toilet bowl the next morning, they might decide to have a look at what they created and think it's a piece of art with unique elements in it. However, everyone else will just see shit inside a toilet bowl.
It still is unique though, so you cannot call it bland.
 

Sensuki

Arcane
Joined
Oct 26, 2012
Messages
9,799
Location
New North Korea
Codex 2014 Serpent in the Staglands Shadorwun: Hong Kong A Beautifully Desolate Campaign
FreeKaner said:
So would you also play it if it was nothing but blocks for units and effects? This is not a counter-argument, I am just curious.

I personally have at least some bit of connection to rest of the game, be it visuals, effects, artstyle, setting, combat, writing and what not if I like one aspect of it to keep playing it. I cannot imagine a game barebones combat, wouldn't find it fulfilling.

Oh I like The Banner Style art style as well, for sure. The animations are also nice and the Viking theme is cool.

Recently I played Age of Decadence, replaying the first town enough times to got it down to an optimization level I was almost muscle-reflexing through it, including my stat distribution, that actually made me "burnout" from some of the rest of the game, particularly because it disconnected me from the dialogue, as I started seeing it as a mechanical checklist, rather than a dialogue. I had to take a break to start playing after that, even though at first I was thrilled with the game world. Again not a counter-argument, just my own experience.

Well I began to 'see through' games a while ago. When I've replayed the Infinity Engine games I've skipped through 99% of the dialogue for over 10 years, because I know the correct answer/what I want to say and I just play the game - moving characters through the maps and doing the combat and quests. I still enjoy replaying them though. I also don't 'roleplay' when I play games, I pick what I think to be the most advantageous option for my character.

I don't have a problem with engagement, I had earlier on but I found the soft-taunt aspect in line with rest of more position and fast execution based combat later on, but what can I say, I always liked playing lion and SD in dota and nuker/gankers in general as well as initiators like ES.

I like Lion and Shadow Demon too (dat 5 tick shadow poison), but I don't see how they are at all related to the engagement system. They can both disable an enemy, but those are active, tactical abilities. The Engagement system is anything but.

I don't know why you didn't enjoy it, personally but I don't get some of the real harsh criticism of game's writing, story and especially setting, which while might not exactly pull someone's interest, are anything but bland or generic.

My specific main issues: Player motivation, absolutely hated the end of Act 2, and I don't like how Act 3 is like a completely different game, it's really jarring. The end game themes with the interaction with the gods and stuff like that is just completely uninteresting to me and I don't like how the gods speak directly to you. You go from zero to hero in the span of a few months. Just kinda felt like the game went from the equivalent of a BG1->ToB all in one game. The entire thing is indicative of how the story was created - a mish-mash of ideas from different people. I can see the Eric Fenstermaker influences, I can see the George Ziets influences, I can see the stuff Sawyer might have contributed ... but all together it feels like too many cooks putting too many ingredients into a pot and making an underwhelming soup.

What I would say is, let it go, man. Trying to find Dota in other games won't bring back the fiery spirit you once had for games before.

Let what go? I'm not looking to capture the fun I had playing games when I was younger, it's more about principles.

I think Pillars of Eternity's combat is not good RTWP. It reeks of design principles and solutions from people who pretty much only play TB/Tabletop and people who didn't like the Infinity Engine combat.
 

FreeKaner

Prophet of the Dumpsterfire
Joined
Mar 28, 2015
Messages
6,908
Location
Devlet-i ʿAlīye-i ʿErdogānīye
I like Lion and Shadow Demon too (dat 5 tick shadow poison), but I don't see how they are at all related to the engagement system. They can both disable an enemy, but those are active, tactical abilities. The Engagement system is anything but.
Both of those heroes heavily depend on positioning and quick execution of your comboes and abilities, to set up or to finish enemies to help allies. That's the overall feel I get while playing PoE's combat, you position your party, get your spells out depending on enemy composition and positioning, make a quick clean through and be done with it, if you fail, it gets messy quick and you will lose more often than not. That's exactly how a lot of positioning heavy gankers in dota feels like playing.

My specific main issues: Player motivation, absolutely hated the end of Act 2
Act 2 for me is Defiance Bay, which I liked overall, even if the whole align with one of the three factions thing (which I don't know why Obsidian likes this much) isn't really crispy, I feel like game would benefit a lot more if that part just didn't exist at all and you had a more personal experience with lady webb.

Just kinda felt like the game went from the equivalent of a BG1->ToB all in one game.
The scope is way too big for the game hours this game has, that's why I might have felt like there is not enough content.

I think Pillars of Eternity's combat is not good RTWP. It reeks of design principles and solutions from people who pretty much only play TB/Tabletop and people who didn't like the Infinity Engine combat.
Well I guess I am one of those people, the combat felt fulfilling, developed and satisfying enough to me, it has some nice encounters like Raedric 1/2, some of the bounties and some parts of Od Nua but honestly I just find the setting, story and world to be compelling. It satisfied settingfag part of me, the rest of the game was not bad, the quests were intriguing, dialogue was fun to read and that's all I really needed to enjoy it.

Similar to how I feel about New Vegas, it also has a satisfying combat with a quick execution feel to it, the dialogue is fun, quests are intriguing. New Vegas is better of the two games in terms of exploration and story though and a better game overall but they are both good.
 

Sensuki

Arcane
Joined
Oct 26, 2012
Messages
9,799
Location
New North Korea
Codex 2014 Serpent in the Staglands Shadorwun: Hong Kong A Beautifully Desolate Campaign
Both of those heroes heavily depend on positioning and quick execution of your comboes and abilities, to set up or to finish enemies to help allies. That's the overall feel I get while playing PoE's combat, you position your party, get your spells out depending on enemy composition and positioning, make a quick clean through and be done with it, if you fail, it gets messy quick and you will lose more often than not. That's exactly how a lot of positioning heavy gankers in dota feels like playing.

Yes, but DotA does not need a fucking Engagement system to create such gameplay. Pillars would be A LOT better if it relied solely on crowd control abilities to control movement like DotA does with stuff like Batrider's Sticky Napalm, Omniknight Degen Aura etc etc

Combat would be a lot more fun. Attacks of Opportunity in real-time games are just retarded lol.

even if the whole align with one of the three factions thing (which I don't know why Obsidian likes this much) isn't really crispy, I feel like game would benefit a lot more if that part just didn't exist at all and you had a more personal experience with lady webb.

Agreed. That part of act 2 kinda felt like it was only there because "Baldur's Gate 2 did it" or something like that.
 

FreeKaner

Prophet of the Dumpsterfire
Joined
Mar 28, 2015
Messages
6,908
Location
Devlet-i ʿAlīye-i ʿErdogānīye
Yes, but DotA does not need a fucking Engagement system to create such gameplay. Pillars would be A LOT better if it relied solely on crowd control abilities to control movement like DotA does with stuff like Batrider's Sticky Napalm, Omniknight Degen Aura etc etc
The game does really not have any slows or anything that really manipulates movement, true, it would be better with them and no engagement BUT, I feel engagement creates a passable alternative and abstraction to it with AoO. I certainly prefer movement control to free strolling of most games that doesn't punish you in any way that it becomes a kitefest with you pulling units back whenever they are low though, so in its current state, it is better with engagement. This is why I prefer RTS that is more about macro than micro but that's another topic and not applicable to finite and non-expendable nature of companions compared to troops.

Agreed. That part of act 2 kinda felt like it was only there because "Baldur's Gate 2 did it" or something like that.
Yes, even the main villian has the same fleeting chase feel to it, which really isn't necessary. It isn't that those faction quests are bad, they aren't, it is the way they are tied to main story through the vote, with almost no interactivity with lady webb or the council itself that's lacking, again, it feels like something they felt compelled to add, I don't think every game needs "choose which faction go with in this specific city outcome", I love how Age of Decadence does this actually, PoE would be much better like that, where you don't know the inner workings of factions unless you are playing as them, with default plan already set in motion.

Anyway I did not deny the shortcomings of the game, in my first post I said there are many of them but despite them it remains an enjoyable experience for me, I hope in their second game they will have less of the throwbacks and obligations, so they can further expand on it. Combat needs work but personally I find it satisfying and strategical (strategical, not tactical) enough.
 

Sensuki

Arcane
Joined
Oct 26, 2012
Messages
9,799
Location
New North Korea
Codex 2014 Serpent in the Staglands Shadorwun: Hong Kong A Beautifully Desolate Campaign
I feel engagement creates a passable alternative and abstraction to it with AoO.

I don't. AoO is a turn-based mechanic that exists to address the problem in TB systems where movement and non-movement actions come from the same pool of AP or equivalent where a unit may spend their full turn moving next to another unit only to have them simply move away on the next turn. It allows units to act when it's not their turn.

Realtime systems do not suffer from this problem (and neither do TB systems where movement and non-movement actions come from separate pools - AoO is not necessary in The Banner Saga and that game has good movement and positioning!) as units can act simultaneously so if a unit moves away from another unit, that unit can at the same time move with it. AoOs in RT are free, invisible, instant and break the rules of real-time action and targeting.

I certainly prefer movement control to free strolling of most games that doesn't punish you in any way that it becomes a kitefest with you pulling units back whenever they are low though

Why is that?

Retreating when hurt makes perfect sense. There are a lot of people that seem to dislike the ability to run away when hurt, but I'm not sure why. In group vs group combat, that's exactly what you do.

I hope in their second game they will have less of the throwbacks and obligations, so they can further expand on it. Combat needs work but personally I find it satisfying and strategical (strategical, not tactical) enough.

Thankyou :)

It is strategical, I'll give it that.
 

FreeKaner

Prophet of the Dumpsterfire
Joined
Mar 28, 2015
Messages
6,908
Location
Devlet-i ʿAlīye-i ʿErdogānīye
Realtime systems do not suffer from this problem
It does when there is not enough movement restriction OR punishment for straight up walking away from combat to make positioning meaningful. Either is fine for me, PoE does latter.

Why is that?

Retreating when hurt makes perfect sense. There are a lot of people that seem to dislike the ability to run away when hurt, but I'm not sure why. In group vs group combat, that's exactly what you do.

It does make perfect sense, however what doesn't make sense is the guy just looking at you not doing anything when you are turning your back and running. In games like this, if there is no penalty reflecting standing there and fight compared to running away, it makes the game logically inconsistent, as you get no repercussions for making a retreat without premeditation, which you should. Not only that, from a gameplay stand point, if a character on move has same defensive value as a stationary one, it just makes the combat floaty where you just cycle HP bars in and out.

There is nothing wrong with running your character but there has to be some sort of abstraction reflecting the downsides of just turning back and running, you should have some sort of preparation for retreat, be it movement controlling abilities or hard crowd control. That's why I think attack of opportunity is fine in real time games, or otherwise a lower defence while not stationary is required, which in the end does the same thing while being much less reactionary in on itself, rather needing to be exploited.
 

Sensuki

Arcane
Joined
Oct 26, 2012
Messages
9,799
Location
New North Korea
Codex 2014 Serpent in the Staglands Shadorwun: Hong Kong A Beautifully Desolate Campaign
It does when there is not enough movement restriction OR punishment for straight up walking away from combat to make positioning meaningful ...........

There is nothing wrong with running your character but there has to be some sort of abstraction reflecting the downsides of just turning back and running, you should have some sort of preparation for retreat, be it movement controlling abilities or hard crowd control. That's why I think attack of opportunity is fine in real time games, or otherwise a lower defence while not stationary is required, which in the end does the same thing while being much less reactionary in on itself, rather needing to be exploited.

I'll tell you what the penalty to running away from combat is - that unit is no longer performing attacks/non-movement actions. They are no longer contributing to the fight. I don't think there needs to be any sort of mechanical deficit for running away because the fact that they are not attacking IS the deficit, and since combat is an abstraction who's to say that a unit does not retreat in a skillful manner ?

And why the fuck would retreating be strategical? It's an on the spot tactical response to a problem in combat. Players should be rewarded for identifying problems and reacting to them, not be punished for it.

It's also not like the enemy can't chase after you in real-time, or shoot you with a ranged weapon, either.
 
Last edited:

FreeKaner

Prophet of the Dumpsterfire
Joined
Mar 28, 2015
Messages
6,908
Location
Devlet-i ʿAlīye-i ʿErdogānīye
I'll tell you what the penalty to running away from combat is - that unit is no longer performing attacks/non-movement actions. They are no longer contributing to the fight. I don't think there needs to be any sort of mechanical deficit for running away because the fact that they are not attacking IS the deficit, and since combat is an abstraction who's to say that a unit does not retreat in a skillful manner ?

And why the fuck would retreating be strategical? It's an on the spot tactical response to a problem in combat. Players should be rewarded for identifying problems and reacting to them, not be punished for it.

It's also not like the enemy can't chase after you in real-time, or shoot you with a ranged weapon, either.

Exactly but you got no tactical response to someone retreating, there is no punishment for it, you can't say them not attacking is the deficit because the other alternative is death/downed if they stay. There should be some sort of defensive penalty at least so if you get hit by a spell, ranged attack or whatever else, you should be punished for not being in your combat stance. Retreating with no tangible punishment makes positioning meaningless because you can pull out whenever.

I am fine with classes having different ways to negate this defensive inability, a melee rogue style fighter could have step back, a fighter could retreat backwards slower than normal speed and what not but just saying "fuck this", throwing your hands in the air and walking off from combat is really not how it should be. AoO in real time is a poor solution but it is a solution that does its job, requiring you to premeditate the retreat.
 

Sensuki

Arcane
Joined
Oct 26, 2012
Messages
9,799
Location
New North Korea
Codex 2014 Serpent in the Staglands Shadorwun: Hong Kong A Beautifully Desolate Campaign
There should be some sort of defensive penalty at least so if you get hit by a spell, ranged attack or whatever else, you should be punished for not being in your combat stance.

There is no combat stance and moving targets are harder to hit.

Position is also not meaningless. If a unit is occupying a space, that space cannot be occupied by another unit and positioning influences enemy targeting.

In The Banner Saga, there is no penalty from leaving melee, yet positioning is super important.
 
Last edited:

FreeKaner

Prophet of the Dumpsterfire
Joined
Mar 28, 2015
Messages
6,908
Location
Devlet-i ʿAlīye-i ʿErdogānīye
There is no combat stance and moving targets are harder to hit.

Position is also not meaningless. If a unit is occupying a space, that space cannot be occupied by another unit and positioning influences enemy targeting.

In The Banner Saga, there is no penalty from leaving melee, yet positioning is super important.

Well if we keep this discussion it will be one about what degree of realism we should apply to the game, which I don't care much about honestly, as long as a game is logically consistent. Moving targets aren't harder to hit, unless they are somehow moving at inhumanly fast speeds.

I have not played Banner Saga, so I cannot comment on that but I will play it, I do like tactical combat. If it somehow implemented importance of positioning and premeditating retreat, other games should take a hint.
 

Ninjerk

Arcane
Joined
Jul 10, 2013
Messages
14,323
Well if we keep this discussion it will be one about what degree of realism we should apply to the game, which I don't care much about honestly, as long as a game is logically consistent. Moving targets aren't harder to hit, unless they are somehow moving at inhumanly fast speeds.

I have not played Banner Saga, so I cannot comment on that but I will play it, I do like tactical combat. If it somehow implemented importance of positioning and premeditating retreat, other games should take a hint.
:retarded:
 

MrBuzzKill

Arcane
Joined
Aug 31, 2013
Messages
650
Can somebody direct me to a good rant about itemization in this game? I feel like it sucks because no op/really good items, but I'm too lazy to formulate a whole argument myself.
 

Immortal

Arcane
In My Safe Space
Joined
Sep 13, 2014
Messages
5,062
Location
Safe Space - Don't Bulli
Can somebody direct me to a good rant about itemization in this game? I feel like it sucks because no op/really good items, but I'm too lazy to formulate a whole argument myself.

http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/inde...megathread-discuss.93696/page-42#post-3827445

[Offtopic]
P.s. Another huge beef I have is the auto generated loot and the samey crap you get. You can tell Josh really didn't want players to feel obligated to kill anything so they all drop the same useless gibblets and swords. There are no unique feeling weapons or special things to find unless it's off a "IM A BAWS" type NPC..

Gone are the days of slaying some crazed warrior in the woods, finding a super powerful sword, equipping it, then realizing it's cursed.. It really hurts the atmosphere of the game.. Mah Feels
[/offtopic]

tl;dr - If I write a mod for this game, the first one I do will be a DeSawyerfication mod that makes wizards hard and rebalances xp rewards.. This shit is Re-tarded. Oh and fix the fucking itemization.

One quibble I've yet to see mentioned (or at least explored in-depth) is how dry, regimented, uniform, and just overall utterly predictable the itemization can be in this game.

I have been bitching about this in almost every thread. The combatXP and Itemization have made my vagina very sandy and it's really hurting my enjoyment of this game. I feel no need or excitement dungeon crawling or going off the beaten patch. What's the point? I don't need gold or more exceptional maces or lion assholes..

So as sawyer said, If you don't enjoy stealthing past creatures, fighting them or talking to them, don't play our game. Why should we need to incentivize you to play our game.

Why would anyone need incentives to attain challenges in a RPG, You are so right Josh!
You fucking moron.



Or for an entire Thread: (With better worded arguments than my bitching)
http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/inde...n-re-itemization-in-pillars-of-eternity.98166
 

Lord Azlan

Arcane
Patron
Shitposter
Joined
Jun 4, 2014
Messages
1,901
I posted in many threads talking about my gripes with PoE, do I decided to put them together in a more elaborate way in this thread. I did a completionist run on Normal that took about 45 hours, and about 8 hours of a quick second run on PotD. This isn't a proper review, just a few collected thoughts on the system. So, here we go:

C&C and Replayability

From the encounter design to the itemization, from the character creation to the dialog reputations, from the faction choices to the spell design, Pillars of Eternity is entirely designed with a similar philosophy: nothing you do can save nor condemn you.

Spells aren't interesting

FINAL THOUGHTS

IMHO, there are two ways to judge Pillars of Eternity.

If you're a casual RPG fan, that heard about the Infinity Engine games, or maybe played them years ago and want something that reminds you of those games but with modern design sensibilities, Pillars of Eternity is everything what you wanted. You'll play through it once, have 40-50 hours of fun, with some interesting moments and not a single "Deep Roads-esque" boring slog.

So the real question now is if Obsidian will revel in this new-found glory and take a conservative route for the expansion and sequels, or if they will try to expand Pillars the same way Baldur's Gate 2 expanded from Baldur's Gate 1. If so, we might then have a true long-lasting classic. In the meantime, Pillars of Eternity is a great game, but still not a long-lasting classic that warrants countless replays.

I got to say - this is one of the best posts I have read on the Codex in my short time here.

As an "old fool" gamer - I really appreciate some of the work done here on the Codex and the knowledge about gaming mechanics and how games can be improved is very informative.

"If you're a casual RPG fan, that heard about the Infinity Engine games, or maybe played them years ago and want something that reminds you of those games but with modern design sensibilities, Pillars of Eternity is everything what you wanted. You'll play through it once, have 40-50 hours of fun, with some interesting moments" - absolutely - this is me.

Actually - PoE has done more than that. I was the player that tried the Infinity Engine games a long time ago and hated them. So once I understood the OP - I read the thread with a lot of interest. It's all true, I agree with the OP "nothing you do can save nor condemn you".

I know Felipepepe devotes some of his energies towards preserving gaming history - so job done. I am definitely going to try BG2 for the fourth time - but this time with this post in mind.

As for C&C - I only found out what it stood for the other day. I really want some, but can't see why any publisher would devote resources in content that the gamer might never see - the only game I have seen that does tries to do this adequately is AoD. The story must be told right? Why would the developer allow you to change it?

Saying all that, I was impressed that when I visited Gilded Vale again after pushing Lord Raedric under a bus - the bodies hanging from the great tree had disappeared - wow!

Then one of the guards somewhere mentioned Lady Aelys had killed Lord Harond - cool!

I sometimes met people I helped later on. Most of them don't do Jack though. I liked that one of Raedric's guards end up in Twin Elms crying like a baby about what subsequently happened in the Hold. Poor old Kolsc.

The big test! Depending on the choices you make - is there a way to save Defiance Bay from the riots? That would be immense.

Finally - I am asking all the experts in the Codex - is there games that show the sort of C&C wished by the OP? I have played both KOTR and Mass Effect and would not play them again to experience an evil/ or good experience - are those sides drastically different? How much does the plot change?

I can see how great C&C can really do wonders for a game and your experience of it - but isn't this the holy grail - which games do it well? You taught me something and now I want more.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom