The definitive, last Pillars of Eternity rating thread!

[AN4RCHID]

Doesn't matter, it's still an area with encounter design on the poor/lazy side that highlights many of the flaws in the combat system.

I'll never understand the sperg-rage over the Skaen Temple. It's a great quest and dungeon map. Stumbling onto it flowed totally naturally from investigating weird stuff around town. The dungeon itself is fine. There's two entrances and two paths through the dungeon, traps everywhere, a few of those scripted interactions, and some clever C&C. The encounters could use a little more variety, but for a side quest it's good stuff.

 

[Sizzle]

Doesn't matter, it's still an area with encounter design on the poor/lazy side that highlights many of the flaws in the combat system.

I'll never understand the sperg-rage over the Skaen Temple. It's a great quest and dungeon map. Stumbling onto it flowed totally naturally from investigating weird stuff around town. The dungeon itself is fine. There's two entrances and two paths through the dungeon, traps everywhere, a few of those scripted interactions, and some clever C&C. The encounters could use a little more variety, but for a side quest it's good stuff.

I also didn't mind it too much, but compared to most other dungeons in the game, there is too much filler combat in it - even by PoE's standards - even if you take the back door. The only other place that has that much combat I can think of is Cliban Rilag, and even it has greater enemy variety.

Also, having a secret evul cult that has more members than the entire population of the village did strain the believability of the entire quest a bit :D

 

[AN4RCHID]

Hey it's the only Skaenite temple in the Dyrwood, and they're throwing an important ritual - people could have come from all over. Probably that's why there are so few people around Defiance Bay

 

[Roguey]

I've visited the infamous Skaen Temple, and I'm going to spoil my embargo:

A) There's literally only one-to-two battles max that you need to do if you take the back entrance and have enough lockpicking: the guards outside the ceremony chamber and the guys inside the chamber should you choose to kill 'em. That's it. There's just one roaming sentry near the exit that can easily be avoided.

B) For funsies, I allied with them just to check out how much trash I avoided and geez, yeah that's excessive. It's too bad Josh Sawyer has decided you either play it this One Way or get punished, but that's his call.

 

[Sensuki]

"you either play it this One Way or get punished"

I found a lot of decisions in the game a bit like that

 

[Joni Odin von Hassenstein]

9/10
(It's rather a 8.5 to be precise, but rating it 9 is just fine.)

PS: People seriously voting 0 are dumb.

 

[Ziem]

Decided to rate the op instead
anon poll, really?

 

[FreeKaner]

World and lore: 9/10

Wut?

POE combines the most banal parts of fantasy with the more banal parts of history.

If you think Early Modern Period is a banal part of history you probably lack the knowledge about it. It's downright most interesting part of European history.

Also how people can like AD&D ruleset let alone round-based RTwP is beyond me. AD&D is good for p&p sessions, p. trash for a computer game because it abstracts so much you might as well just roll dices without any ruleset.

 

[Sensuki]

Also how people can like AD&D ruleset let alone round-based RTwP is beyond me.

The "round-based RTwP" implementation of AD&D in the Infinity Engine games is great IMO because it's a very controlled form of RTwP. Understanding how often units can act is very simple and it's also very easy to 'read' on the screen without the need for on-screen UI elements to explain it. I think it was a mistake on Obsidian's part to dis it because it demonstrates their lack of understanding one of the key things that made the IE combat feel good. The only thing I think was a bit lacking was in-game explanation of how it worked (which Pillars also suffers from, possibly even moreso).

The ruleset for attack speed was a lot better as well - character start with a base of 1 that is increased at certain levels, with certain proficiency points and through item or spell use. The value of an increase or decrease in attacks per round is very easy to comprehend mentally and visually in combat. The system in Pillars is bloated and confusing by comparison and I think we'll see a definite change to the formula in the sequel (although not necessarily a stylistic change).

I don't think the AD&D implementation in the IE games was perfect but I do enjoy the gameplay that comes from it more than the gameplay that came from implementations of the later editions. Black Isle's 3E Infinity Engine version was inferior from a gameplay perspective IMO. I think it added more choice to the character creation and advancement, but I don't think it contributed to better gameplay.

 

[Delterius]

If you think Early Modern Period is a banal part of history you probably lack the knowledge about it. It's downright most interesting part of European history.

Too bad not much of the more interesting parts of the Early Modern period actually got into PoE. The colonization angle even devolves into yankees living in castles and being too freedumb not to kill each other over gun control rights or something.

 

[FreeKaner]

The "round-based RTwP" implementation of AD&D in the Infinity Engine games is great IMO because it's a very controlled form of RTwP. Understanding how often units can act is very simple and it's also very easy to 'read' on the screen without the need for on-screen UI elements to explain it. I think it was a mistake on Obsidian's part to dis it because it demonstrates their lack of understanding one of the key things that made the IE combat feel good. The only thing I think was a bit lacking was in-game explanation of how it worked (which Pillars also suffers from, possibly even moreso).

It's not controlled at all, in fact I'd say its only strength is the fact that it's wild and unbalanced in an entertaining way. I think you feel that way because it's very limited and incredibly one-dimensional. The lack of information required for me isn't a bonus, it's a preference, I don't mind having to learn about the game before being able to properly read what's going on or just having to guess what happened every now and then. IE's design is lifted straight from P&P rules, which of course makes it very easy to read, because it's made to be easy so a person with a pen can quickly formulate it with extremely abstract variants, which there are as little as possible to not create convoluted algebra equations. Besides, for me IE combat didn't feel good at all, it felt extremely anti-climactic, floaty and not rewarding at all, it's like a RTS combat with even less complexity but without the rest of the game's systems to back it up.

The ruleset for attack speed was a lot better as well - character start with a base of 1 that is increased at certain levels, with certain proficiency points and through item or spell use. The value of an increase or decrease in attacks per round is very easy to comprehend mentally and visually in combat. The system in Pillars is bloated and confusing by comparison and I think we'll see a definite change to the formula in the sequel (although not necessarily a stylistic change).

Pillars' is a much more complex system, so if your preference is for more clarity, I can understand why you might not like it, that's completely okay for me but then again it's preference. However I will disagree with base attack per round being "a lot" better, I'd say it was a lot more streamlined, which makes combat feel like it is supposed to be turn-based but is in a real-time realm for what-ever-reason. Especially since everything felt so out of place in combat, the void attack animations and ability to move after using your attack limit that round. I don't understand why someone would just not make the game turn-based if they go as far to make it play like one.

I don't think the AD&D implementation in the IE games was perfect but I do enjoy the gameplay that comes from it more than the gameplay that came from implementations of the later editions. Black Isle's 3E Infinity Engine version was inferior from a gameplay perspective IMO. I think it added more choice to the character creation and advancement, but I don't think it contributed to better gameplay.

Choice in character creation and advancement IS gameplay. They are not separate realms that are disconnected from each other, split-second tactical decisions aren't all there is to gameplay, in fact those for me feel more like a chore rather than gameplay.

All in all it's a preference for an old but known system, I am glad RPG designers moved away from an era of lost game developers that didn't know whether to recreate a visual representation of a tabletop session or a game on its ownright. In fact, BG feels a lot like it is a tabletop session rather than a separate medium, not only in its appropriated combat systems but also in its overall writing and narrative style. Which to me is an extremely niche acquired-taste from people who got into video games with that system in particular.

It's a chapter of video game design that I am glad existed as a stepping stone. The missing link required for transitioning p&p rules into something more complex and with less abstractions because computers can make the calculations. Turn-based are better if you want a streamlined round-based system with maximum clarity anyhow. Hell, I can't see why you would want "real-time" instead of turn-based if you have rounds in a game other than a desire to micro-manage character movements on an 2D plane.

 

[Delterius]

What I got from this discussion is that Baldur's Gate is a perfect recreation of PnP, plays just like turn based combat and that

tactical decisions

feel more like a chore

On the other hand, PoE must be celebrated for moving away from pesky old genres that need to be kickstarted.


this is the best soft trolling post of the month

 

[FreeKaner]

Baldur's gate's system is one that's perfect for p&p, yes it's actually a great system for playing p&p because it was designed for p&p. I don't see why you would want to play p&p on a computer, it's as weird as playing round-based RTwP chess on computer.

 

[Sensuki]

it's like a RTS combat.

Lol

I don't understand why someone would just not make the game turn-based if they go as far to make it play like one.

If it feels like RTS combat, how does RTS combat feel like turn-based? It's very far from it.

split-second tactical decisions aren't all there is to gameplay, in fact those for me feel more like a chore rather than gameplay.

rofl - Pillars core audience right here

All in all it's a preference for an old but known system, I am glad RPG designers moved away from an era of lost game developers that didn't know whether to recreate a visual representation of a tabletop session or a game on its ownright. In fact, BG feels a lot like it is a tabletop session rather than a separate medium, not only in its appropriated combat systems but also in its overall writing and narrative style. Which to me is an extremely niche acquired-taste from people who got into video games with that system in particular.

something more complex and with less abstractions because computers can make the calculations.

And this is just regurgitation of Sawyer said about the Pillars ruleset, a lot of which is just kinda dumb. I wouldn't say the equations used for mechanics in Pillars are that great. They've openly admitted some of the formulas they used were not great - interrupt, for one.

 

[ilitarist]

FreeKaner, true. Realtime AD&D is both very mechanical yet not streamlined at all, at least in implementations I saw (Infinity Engine, NWN). Even d20 in KotOR looks incomprehensible - but at least there you know what values to modify to get best output even when you can't see what exactly happens in battle.

PoE may be overly balanced and full of "one size fits all" solutions (i.e. magic and physical attacks are much more similar mechanically while being very distinct in AD&D) but it has a clarity and in many regards feels more simulationist as it's really realtime. IE AD&D would only be superior due to more interesting spells and kits, maybe inventory management (at least before PoE got soulbound weapons).

 

[FreeKaner]

Lol

So quoting parts of sentences without context is what you devised as an answer? If you have issues comprehending particular parts of my post let me clarify.

It's like a RTS combat with even less complexity but without the rest of the game's systems to back it up

You know in RTS your units hit each other and you pull back the low HP ones and use abilities if the game in question has it? BG plays like that, except units don't have enough variety in strengths & weakness due limitations of class system and the system does not offer the reactive gameplay that often comes to play in a RTS. Such as unit-counters, map-control, economic management, resource conservation. It's just all one big kite fest where you move units in and out on their attack-per-round, just float around. Would make for a good iceskating show.

split-second tactical decisions aren't all there is to gameplay, in fact those for me feel more like a chore rather than gameplay.

Split-second tactical decisions in a game should be the last layer of gameplay if the game is supposed to hold systems other than just action. Having only the "tactical decision" of focus-firing and health control is essentially pop-a-mole, doubly so because of physical combat in IE is one big dice adjustment per-round. A game needs to have elements backing it up its last layer, for example I mostly play strategy games, whether it be turn-based 4x, real-time or grand strategy. You do make a lot of tactical decisions in all of those games but they are the absolutely last thing you do after everything else is said and done, it's the part where you micro-manage the least important parts of the game. So yes, as a core audience for pillars, my preference for a gameplay in a real-time RPG is it should focus least on tactics (where for that there are RTT games that are often strings of combat loosely tied to each other) or even better just turn-based combat, like Mordheim which has a delicious combat for my tactics needs instead of floating around in kensai mage 2.

And this is just regurgitation of Sawyer said about the Pillars ruleset, a lot of which is just kinda dumb.

So what, the new system has faults so we should use an old system with even more faults because it came first?

 

[Delterius]

You know in RTS your units hit each other and you pull back the low HP ones and use abilities if the game in question has it?

I'm lost. Do RTSs play like Turn Based games too?

 

[FreeKaner]

You know in RTS your units hit each other and you pull back the low HP ones and use abilities if the game in question has it?

I'm lost. Do RTSs play like Turn Based games too?

If they had rounds where units made their attacks accordingly while 90% of animations were void and movement was a super-combat action that can be done during the round. Yes they would play like turn-based games. As it turns out not everyone is keen on limiting a real-time game's combat to round-frames so they can better abstract ruleset of a p&p design to their computer game.

I am not sure if this is your idea of humour or are you actually unable to comprehend putting rounds in your game that all actors adhere to uniformly makes it different than a regular real-time where individual actors all have their own actions.

 

[Sensuki]

my preference for a gameplay in a real-time RPG is it should focus least on tactics (where for that there are RTT games that are often strings of combat loosely tied to each other) or even better just turn-based combat, like Mordheim which has a delicious combat for my tactics needs instead of floating around in kensai mage 2.

 

[FreeKaner]

my preference for a gameplay in a RPG is it should focus on tactics

Besides this is beyond the point because the argument is that I.E engine does not even do this adequately as it's a poorly abstracted corpse of a ruleset that's meant to be played with multiple people who are holding a pen and their main-goal is to roleplay their characters instead of combat with dice rolls as main calculation. The dice rolls and the formulas are a vehicle for the roleplaying to take place as coherent narrative with opportunities instead of being a straight-up story-telling session.

 

[Delterius]

You know in RTS your units hit each other and you pull back the low HP ones and use abilities if the game in question has it?

I'm lost. Do RTSs play like Turn Based games too?

If they had rounds where units made their attacks accordingly while 90% of animations were void and movement was a super-combat action that can be done during the round. Yes they would play like turn-based games. As it turns out not everyone is keen on limiting a real-time game's combat to round-frames so they can better abstract ruleset of a p&p design to their computer game.

Oh, my mistake. You belong to the "minutes are just turns that complete themselves" school of thought. Much respect.

my preference for a gameplay in a RPG is it should focus on tactics

If this is wrong I don't want to be right.

poorly abstracted corpse

Pillars of Eternity, the game where greater Strenght leads to more powerful magic is the Gold Standard of shooing away Evil, Bad and Hard to Grasp Abstractions.

 

[Whisper]

Biggest problem with PoE combat system - aside from too many trash mobs everywhere - is that Accuracy not only governs to hit chance but also crit chance. Thus making this stat to much important.

 

[ilitarist]

Pillars of Eternity, the game where greater Strenght leads to more powerful magic is the Gold Standard of shooing away Evil, Bad and Hard to Grasp Abstractions.

There's no Strenght stat in PoE. See, it's actually not that bad when you try to perceive it as if it's not a worse version of AD&D but a separate entity.

 

[FreeKaner]

Oh, my mistake. You belong to the "minutes are just turns that complete themselves" school of thought. Much respect.

You belong to the "Rounds that start and end for everyone at the same time aren't actually turns because I get to move around" school of thought? Move on lad, we all have our weird niches, I was baffled how anyone could enjoy a particular type of gameplay and all I am getting as a response one-liners and what PoE is bad, as if that absolves the checkers in real time but with rounds that's IE.

 

[Delterius]

Pillars of Eternity, the game where greater Strenght leads to more powerful magic is the Gold Standard of shooing away Evil, Bad and Hard to Grasp Abstractions.

There's no Strenght stat in PoE. See, it's actually not that bad when you try to perceive it as if it's not a worse version of AD&D but a separate entity.

Oh dear, you misunderstand me and this whole circus. We have finally come full circle. Months are gone and no more do we care about the Abstraction® wherein PoE conflated Strenght and Will into a singular entity vaguely called Power. Now, we care instead that the Infinity Engine games estabilished a global tempo to its combat system. Therefore, PoE is better than BG because its more simulationist than the later. Anyone who's been with us since the beginning should probably laugh at this.

This irony is the only real thing of worth the last few pages gave us, aside from how the Codex got its own "units of time = TB" village idiot.