Codex Review RPG Codex Retrospective Review: Pillars of Eternity Revisited

[Chamezero]

rpg codex > currently transitioning (to neogaf)

 

[Goral]

Grunker's ok, but ban Infinitron, seriously.

If not for Crooked Bee Infinitron wouldn't have that much influence. Someone has to approve these shit news and allow for inXile/Obsidian spam (plus high-profile Kickstarter spams for games with budgets 1 M $ and more), if you ask me that someone is the main culprit and the reason that this site is becoming another IGN/NeoGaf.And yeah, I know that Tron has the privileges to approve any news he chooses but that's what I'm talking about, normally after such spam these privileges would be revoked.

And seriously, the Arcanum thing has pissed me off and news/articles like these just rub salt in the wound. Let me quote Drog:

Back in the day there was a 100 page thread for the UAP alone and all this shit used to get news posts. I messaged Infinitron when the new high resolution patch was about to be released, politely suggesting that maybe this deserves a mention in the news section. He didn't deign to respond. Oh well, I guess the endless Kickstarter/Obsidian/InXile updates are more important than some old ass shitty Troika game.

And you know why that was the case? Because Shillfinitron wasn't even on the Codex then (let alone being in charge of the news).

But this won't change because to my post:

Well, since nobody wants to help me code the Arcanum patch I got bored and decided to help Wesp5 with his patch instead. Because I'm a good person. And want to help people.

Infinitron DarkUnderlord VentilatorOfDoom Crooked Bee JarlFrank

http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/inde...rsion-of-the-unofficial-arcanum-patch.112998/
Why won't you make a news post about Drog's grand plan? That way many more people will see it at least and the chances of him finding some help will greatly increase. You post shitty news about shitty RPGs but you won't post this? WTF? What do I need Codex for then when I can read all this stuff at IGN? And sometimes with less shilling (if it's Obsidian or inXile game). Decline.

DU replied only:

lol

So yeah, it will only get worse.

Edit:
http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/index.php?threads/codex-is-looking-for-news-posters.116230/

 

[Prime Junta]

If not for Crooked Bee Infinitron wouldn't have that much influence.

If somebody else volunteered to post a stready stream of news with editorial comments written in halfway coherent, non-autistic English, Infinitron wouldn't have that much influence. It really is that simple.

 

[Jaedar]

Mcadammit man, it has been like two years, this isn't a retrospective, it's a slightly delayed currentspective. Have some perspective.

Tl;dr (yet)

 

[Parabalus]

PoE&Sawyer haters on life support. Great article.

 

[uaciaut]

let this be our truly final word on Pillars of Eternity.

You will, of course, make a response review, no?

 

[Zero Credibility]

Well of course, another re-retrospective re-re-re-re-review of a game from the far away 2015. is just what is needed here, to see what the true original reviewer thinks of the game after it's been balanced, rebalanced and patched over all these years into greatness / mediocre boredom / oblivion. Fuck expansions though because I have absolutely no intention of ever spending any more money to fix this game.

 

[Sacred82]

As we await the coming of Deadfire, let this be our truly final word on Pillars of Eternity. Here's an excerpt:

So the fanboys have the last word.

Oh Shillitron, never change

 

[Infinitron]

It's actually called a retrospective because of the Infinity Engine part.

 

[Prime Junta]

We clearly need longer titles: "RPG Codex Short Introductory Retrospective Comparative Review: The Infinity Engine Games, Pillars of Eternity, and The White March, their Evolution, Challenges, Design, History, and Future Prospects, vol. I-XXIII."

Spoiler

It would be even better in German.

 

[fobia]

We clearly need longer titles: "RPG Codex Short Introductory Retrospective Comparative Review: The Infinity Engine Games, Pillars of Eternity, and The White March, their Evolution, Challenges, Design, History, and Future Prospects, vol. I-XXIII."

Spoiler

It would be even better in German.

Assuming that people would even bother to read the whole title.
I guess being "passionate" about RPGS somehow excludes spending some time reading a well written retrospective article (or tbh; any article it seems). Hence the many well-informed comments.

Inb4: Why would I read anything about a game that is the essence of shit?!

 

[Fedora Master]

No prebuffing, no buy.

 

[Prime Junta]

I guess being "passionate" about RPGS somehow excludes spending some time reading a well written retrospective article (or tbh; any article it seems). Hence the many well-informed comments.

This is the best-written of the RPG Codex Pillars reviews. A little like the game itself, it is a testament to the power of continuous iteration.

 

[Jason Liang]

I just read Darth Roxor's very very long review of Pillars of Eternity, and while it perfectly articulates my own experiences of playing this game, he was only pointing out the game's flaws and had almost no positive criticism. Surely if I keep playing this game I will discover something of merit that this review overlooked!

UPDATE: Holy shit I'm reading the comment thread, on page 30 already.

I just learned that VD thinks Baldur's Gate 1 sucks. The game that AoD most resembles for me is Baldur's Gate 1.

I'm now on page 55 and I've lost all Resolve to continue playing Pillars.

What's the point of making a great expansion to a shitty game? Like, what if you had to play through NWN OC in order to play SoU or HotU? wtf.

I figured out why Pillars reminds me of Arcanum. Wolves + pistols + rtwp.

More later.

 

[Somberlain]

Why is this already questionable ad review stickied to boot?

 

[zool]

Didn't read the review because I'm about to start my first (and probably only) playthrough. Are the expansions recommended or is the base game with the latest 3.0x patch content-heavy enough?

From what I understand, the patches bring all UI/gameplay improvements to the base game - so the only thing you don't get if you play without the expansions is the expansions' content itself.

 

[Parabalus]

Didn't read the review because I'm about to start my first (and probably only) playthrough. Are the expansions recommended or is the base game with the latest 3.0x patch content-heavy enough?

From what I understand, the patches bring all UI/gameplay improvements to the base game - so the only thing you don't get if you play without the expansions is the expansions' content itself.

Don't play without the expansion, it's the best part.

 

[Urthor]

How many of the people in this thread have actually played White March pt1 and 2 I wonder?

Love it or hate it, it has to be said the expansion is dramatically different from the base game. And considering many of the issues people had with Pillars of Eternity were encounter and level design, not system based, the change in the expansion is pretty significant.

Pillars is ultimately always going to be a flawed game because the attack of opportunity mechanic and the complete lack of most kinds of crowd control outside that awful system, in a RTWP game where 90% of the appeal of the Infinity Engine games was managing positioning in combat, is hot garbage.

But shouting down an expansion that is pretty seriously different to the base game is pretty moronic.

The White March content is different enough that the comparison I'd draw is between Shadowrun Dragonfall and the base game. Same fundamentals but thoroughly different outcome.

Should've been released as a standalone game then

But it wasn't, and if the Codex's review system can't cope with that simple fact it's that's just nitpicking. Some expansions are very similar to the basegame, the White March feels more like a module for Neverwinter than something connected to the basegame, there's fuck all narrative threads connecting the two at the end of the day.

There's a bunch of REAL issues with White March that you can draw an actual bone with other than that shallow argument.

 

[Parabalus]

Should've been released as a standalone game then

That's like saying Night of the Raven or TotSC should have been standalone.

 

[zool]

Some expansions are very similar to the basegame, the White March feels more like a module for Neverwinter than something connected to the basegame, there's fuck all narrative threads connecting the two at the end of the day.

So in that case, would it be fine to play the base game once, and then play the expansions later on (like, when the price for them has gone down to a few bucks in a year or two)?

 

[Darth Roxor]

Should've been released as a standalone game then

That's like saying Night of the Raven or TotSC should have been standalone.

or motb and soz oh wait

 

[Parabalus]

or motb and soz oh wait

No, WM was explicitly made as an add-in (NoTR), not a post game expansion. It has new mechanics which are meant to be used at early to midgame, not high level. If anything, it should be more tightly integrated, not a separate campaign.

So in that case, would it be fine to play the base game once, and then play the expansions later on (like, when the price for them has gone down to a few bucks in a year or two)?

Just pirate it and buy it later, no reason to cheat yourself.

 

[Prime Junta]

Didn't read the review because I'm about to start my first (and probably only) playthrough. Are the expansions recommended or is the base game with the latest 3.0x patch content-heavy enough?

I'd say "recommended but not required." Play to the end of Act 1. If you like it, install the expansions, if not, save your moneys.

From what I understand, the patches bring all UI/gameplay improvements to the base game - so the only thing you don't get if you play without the expansions is the expansions' content itself.

Correct.

 

[Urthor]

So in that case, would it be fine to play the base game once, and then play the expansions later on (like, when the price for them has gone down to a few bucks in a year or two)?

Um, sure? I mean there's no good way to play the White March, it's more or less go off at some random stage of your adventure and do whatever the hell you like, and pick up loot that is 100x better than the base game because Obsidian decided unique differentiated items are now A Thing and Did Them The Second Time round.

Just fire it up and do whatever, starting a character, playing through Act 1 then as much of Act 2 before you get bored, then doing White March all the way through is okay. Playing it with an autosave before the point of no return is also okay, it's basically a separate D&D campaign. If you do the White March you can just finish the White March and come back and play base game and it doesn't impact the base playthrough either way.

Most game studios prime the pump for sequels with 80-90% off sales to get people hooked before part 2, so yeah? Obv the put basegame 90% off on steam sale and keep DLC prices high is a proven moneymaker and has been a long time, but yeah if you want to wait till Christmas they'll probably put the DLC on sale for more than 33%.

 

[CryptRat]

I don't care about the PoE part, but I highly disagree with what comes before it.

Nostalgia was the last remaining barrier between cynical rejection and adoration for several games that I used to like. Neverwinter Nights, for example, plays poorly and the story is a cavalcade of the worst fantasy clichés, yet it takes itself seriously. I also recently replayed the original Knights of the Old Republic, which was a thoroughly disappointing experience. The gameplay is an awkward abomination of over-the-shoulder shooting and tactical RPG.

NWN and Kotor are terrible and always were.

Other games that still hold up as a whole show cracks where none were visible before.

Citation needed

The combat of the Might & Magic series has very little interesting going on and rarely takes advantage of the game's luxurious spell selection.

Nothing new.

Westwood's 'Lands of Lore' is pretty, but otherwise the game pales when compared to other, better games in its genre.

Not really, Lands of Lore has pretty good level design, it's one of the rare RT blobbers which come close to Dungeon Master and Chaos Strikes back. Its combat part was never great.

One such better game is Wizardry 8, but excepting the most fanatic fans, anyone who has played it will admit that this old-school titan has an excessive amount of fights that take needlessly long to complete

Nothing new.

Though it amounts to heresy around these parts, even mighty Fallout has blemishes: simplistic combat and a shallow, unbalanced character system being the worst.

Nonsense, and I'm not particularly a Fallout fanboy. Combat is fine and adapted, and at least for a couple of playthrough the character system is certainly not shallow. I don't know what you exactly mean by unbalanced character system, but for sure you can at least play as a brute, or as a diplomat, and in both cases the game is fun, and many non-combat skills are actually used here and there.

The part of adulthood that is harshest towards enjoyment of video games is developing the curiosity to sample some actual great literature and watch a few of the choicest films. Exposition to actual quality might bring you to the realization that the games industry is stuck in a juvenile rut, and has been since the inception of the medium. These days, I find that nearly no piece of entertainment that I used to enjoy as a kid can withstand the full thrust of adult cynicism.

If you want.

Except, perhaps, the Infinity Engine games.

Wait, what? Everything but the IE games, really?

Excepting Planescape: Torment, none of them certainly constitute art in any sense of the word.

Talking like some random PC gamer journalist won't reinforce you points.

The first Baldur's Gate, for instance, takes you on what might be the closest video games have ever gotten to recreating the immaculate excitement of the earliest D&D adventure modules.

More than Pool of Radiance? Don't make me laugh.

All that is absent is starting the party at an inn.

Yes, and to some extend it kills the game, and it's even truer in Baldur's Gate 2. And the turn-based combat is absent too, of course, combat in BG is fun but not better that what we got before so there's no reason praising it.

That part is delayed until an hour into the game, where you pick up Khalid and Jaheira, whose story around a table filled with character sheets, dice and empty coke cans would most certainly begin with the words "you're sitting in an inn. Gorion's ward enters."

That's the most retarded statement in the review. "You know there's a inn somewhere, and you can even recruit pregenerated characters, so it's exactly like you made your party and started in an inn". No it's not the same.

Bringing up the rear, Planescape: Torment has by far the weakest gameplay but the strongest story and one I was surprised to find, when I replayed it last year, holds up to the scrutiny of a critical adult, now well-versed in media that aspire to more than entertainment.

Playing video games not first and foremost for entertainement is completely stupid.

It also starts to show the path that will ultimately doom BioWare's brand of RPGs, with a few of the companions acting like annoying and whiny teenagers in the middle of a world-shaking conflict.

Yes, and it's a big deal.

In all but Torment's case, the IE games' conceit of coupling modern RTS-like gameplay with the tactical, squad-based combat of traditional D&D succeeds completely, despite the concept being so at odds with itself. The games give you the frantic thrills of StarCraft's rushed micromanagement with greater input required per unit and the tactical control of a pause-button.

And why would I want rushed micromanagement and dumbbed-down input required per unit?

By the way, Darklands is a forgotten gem that any IE-fan should definitely go play.

No, Darklands is pretty good, but players don't play it for its bad rtwp combat, they play it for everything else, which don't belong in the IE games. Recommending Darklands to IE-Fans is nonsense.

Somehow, even the terribly outdated character system – "Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, 2nd edition" – with its poor balance

Poor balance? Are you serious?

It is impossible to make a concise statement on the vision behind Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, because their simply was none. In the rulebook's foreword, creator Gary Gygax speaks of a creating a consistent framework for games, of adding uniformity to campaigns and of shedding the arbitrary distinctions so often present in rules systems at the time. He even speaks of the need for BALANCE™, which is ironic since it has made the Lead Designer of Pillars of Eternity, Josh Sawyer, so reviled by the same grognards who revere Gygax and who claim system design was perfected with AD&D.

Oh yes, the balance meme, you know they're talking about different things.

To start with, AD&D's biggest sin is that it is arbitrary in the most literal sense of the word: "based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system." The irony that Gygax himself mentions arbitrariness as a hazard to avoid in system design is completely baffling considering the fact that arbitrariness might well be considered the defining trait of AD&D.

Why do all attributes go from 3 to 25 specifically? Why does Strength have a special 01-100 sub-attribute only if you are a specific class and only if you have a score of exactly 18? What is the reasoning behind the reversal of the to-hit roll, asking you to go backwards on the number line instead of forward? Why do Clerics only have access to seven spell levels while Wizards have access to nine? Why do you roll for hit points until level 10 at which point you gain minor, static increases? Why does a Ranger need 150,000 experience points to progress from level 8 to 9, while a Wizard needs 45,000? Why must an Illusionist have a minimum Dexterity of 16? Why do Clerics gain bonus spells for high Wisdom, while a Wizard gains no similar bonus for high Intelligence? Why is it easier to save against the same spell cast from a rod or wand rather than if a mage cast it? Why is the difficulty of resisting a spell based solely on the target's level and not on the caster's? Why are certain combinations of multi-classing restricted from certain races? Why does dual-classing work on an entirely separate system, and how do you forget everything you learned about shooting a bow and arrow because you decide after 10 years of rangering to pick up clericing? Why is there a specific attribute for "bending bars" and why is it handled by a percentile roll when "Open Doors" is not? Why do thieving-abilities work on a completely different, percentile-based system compared to other skills and class features?

Why, why, why, why, why?

Because it works.

Most of the very best tactical cRPGs of the past are great despite the shackles of AD&D, not because of them.

No, you're wrong. They're good because of very good balance and decent variety, thanks to AD&D.

The fact is, though, that AD&D is massively inferior to nearly every rules system that has followed it.

No it's not.