Codex Review RPG Codex Retrospective Review: Pillars of Eternity Revisited

[Grunker]

^ Pillars isn't that far off in terms of magnitude with WM, but BG2's content is more interesting/engaging/whatever in most cases. Of course that's just like, my opinion, man

 

[Grunker]

Like, compare Watcher's Keep or even Durlag's Tower to Od Nua. It ain't even no contest sista

 

[Lacrymas]

Od Nua is a joke compared to both.

 

[Delterius]

DotAheads will prefer BG2 because it's more DotAlike, for example you can learn to cheese the AI in ways Pillars doesn't let you because of engagement.

I think the Moba link is stronger in Pillars, actually. League was cited as an inspiration for the kind of balance Sawyer wanted. To maximize choice via careful balancing of all possible actions is a motto of RTSs, Mobas and post-WoW MMOs.

Sure, you can cheese the AI in BG2 and kite things to death. But you can also kite slow monsters in Pillars such as trolls and giants. You can also use stealth to bait individual monsters from their packs.

The major impediment to these tactics in either game is lack of room and variety of encounters. Its of course harder to kite trolls if there's a bunch of burrowing beetles with them. Its even harder to kite giants due to their reach, impossible in Od Nua's tight confines. However, there's one thing in Pillars that is really exploitable and that's the disengagement area. You can lure giants away from their rooms and kill them one at a time, then you run away and get them to walk back to their spawn points.

I wouldn't measure how 'Dota like' these games are by how exploitable their AI is. Hell, the whole kiting meme of Sensuki's is only really there in the low level IE games. I don't think people bothered doing that in ToB. I think the design paradigm is a more solid choice. And Pillars 1.0's carefully balanced and completely boring game design was a stronger throwback to a bad RTS or boring Aeon of Strife clone than the IE games ever were.

 

[Grunker]

Od Nua is a joke compared to both.

That was my point

 

[Shevek]

Like, compare Watcher's Keep or even Durlag's Tower to Od Nua. It ain't even no contest sista

Watchers Keep, sure. Durlags Tower...hmm, not so sure. Fun dungeon crawl but it didn't exactly blow my mind. Perhaps on par in my book.

I would also state that BG2 is very compelling content wise when you are gathering cash and doing odd jobs in whatever order you wish. The content is far less interesting (IMO) when the game gets on rails in the second half.

 

[Infinitron]

- Party ability scores count towards your score checks, making the player character even more irrelevant than they were in PoE1.

Do you mean they'll make it so that my guy with biggest Might will be able to intimidate people? This is... bad indeed.

? AFAIK this is not the case for attribute checks, only for skill checks.

Of course PoE did allow you to use your companions' attribute scores in the scripted interactions and that doesn't seem to have been too horrible.

 

[Grunker]

Durlag's Tower has much more varied content than Od Nua, which is hampered to the extreme by the necessity of meeting the Kickstarter promise of a billion levels. I even think Durlag's Tower is a bit overhyped because it's very uneven in spots, but it's far more appealing than Od Nua with its copy pasta and poor pacing (basically, all fight little puzzling compared to Durlag that throws puzzle after puzzle at you). The story is also much better, I think, and it is constantly delivered in different ways, whereas Od Nua has very, very little storytelling environmental or otherwise and what it has is often delivered literally as opposed to Durlag's that have little cutscenes or rooms that tell you what's going on.

But I guess by talking about this I'm doing injustice Delterius point by keeping the constant comparisons alive. The fact is that both games are nothing short of excellent and I'm not sure I see the milage in comparing them in this minute way though the autistic pedantry inherent in the excersise certainly fits the Codex.

 

[Delterius]

Of course PoE did allow you to use your companions' attribute scores in the scripted interactions and that doesn't seem to have been too horrible.

Dialogue is a place where the MC is tested. Scripted interactions tested the party as a whole. The former is about the protagonist interacting with other characters, the latter is the party adventuring. Succeeding or failing according to their own skills. Wether they had enough athletics to jump over a hole, or wether someone was strong enough to bash a door. Its a nice distinction to have and one they should safeguard for Deadfire.

 

[Infinitron]

I'm sure it's only for skills. PoE2 will have like 20 of them including a bunch of dialogue-only skills, the balance is all different.

 

[FreeKaner]

The BG2 magic system is still richer and more engaging. Loads of stuff there.

As to the core gameplay, it's six of one, half-dozen of the other. DotAheads will prefer BG2 because it's more DotAlike, for example you can learn to cheese the AI in ways Pillars doesn't let you because of engagement.

Content is key though, and there BG2 is head and shoulders above Pillars, even with the WMs.

Systems-wise, other than magic, BG2 is far inferior in almost every way.

Not true I played tons of Dota and as much RTS (sue me that's what you do in 3rd world countries).

While it's true IE engine has a lot of these RTS functions, because well it was built upon a RTS engine, just having a loose-form combat with RTS "tactics" (not even tactics more like minute micro) such as cycling healthbars, kiting or focus fire doesn't make it interesting by itself. IE games (obviously by design) lack all intricate combat aspects of a proper RTS, such as true counter-plays (rock-paper-scissors), macromanagement, build orders, combat tactics and all else. In the end if that's all you focus what you are left is a degenerate subRTS combat with only unique spells going for it.

I don't play AoE2 because I like kiting a boar to my settlement with 6 villagers with bows, that's just something you do for efficiency that's part of a general, greater concept of macro and micro management to build up an advantage. That layer doesn't exist in IE games and it's what you do if you are playing with anything but with a mage, there has to exists something more to it, which there is.

Similarly all arguments about dota or any other similar goes out the window when you play such games, things like kiting in a game like dota is bare minimum mechanical ability to play the game, the game itself is about teamplay and mindgames not kiting someone around. Having such mechanics that are mere basis of a multiplayer game as core challenge against AI is an insult to everyone's intelligence.

What these type of games offer that RTS or Dota-like games don't offer is complex character building, exploration, roleplaying, writing and narrative. If you are playing IE games because you like to this type of minute micro plays you are playing the wrong genre. BG2 isn't good because cheesing AI with a fighter makes for a good system, it's good because it offers unparalled amount of good content.

It's important to focus on what makes these type of RPGs good, such as character builds, diverse encounters, rewarding exploration and entertaining writing instead of creating a cargo cult around basic RTS/Dota mechanics.

 

[Grunker]

I liked Storm of Zehir better in that regard but it requires much more effort put into what is often just flavour dialogue so I can live without it.

 

[Delterius]

(sue me that's what you do in 3rd world countries)

 

[Stokowski]

 

[Sentinel]

I'm sure it's only for skills. PoE2 will have like 20 of them including a bunch of dialogue-only skills, the balance is all different.

Sawyer posted a screenshot of the party's physique (? whatever it's called) score being added up to complete a skill check successfully in a dialogue scene.

 

[ilitarist]

- Party ability scores count towards your score checks, making the player character even more irrelevant than they were in PoE1.

Do you mean they'll make it so that my guy with biggest Might will be able to intimidate people? This is... bad indeed.

? AFAIK this is not the case for attribute checks, only for skill checks.

Of course PoE did allow you to use your companions' attribute scores in the scripted interactions and that doesn't seem to have been too horrible.

That's ok, I guess, as long as they make skill use not the objectively best option every time.

Numenera disappointed me with every problem being easily solvable after first hour of a game.

 

[Ulfhednar]

Durlag's is a pretty mixed bag for me: I like the level with the four spirits, the one with fireball trap and the four elemental rooms, and the level with the slime caverns. The upper levels of the tower are all 'meh.' I hate the floor with all the locked doors because it's so tedious on multiple playthroughs, and the chess game is just broken so I tend to resort to wand cheese past the line of sight.

 

[Grunker]

Chess game is a neat idea but the execution sucks yeah. On SCS it's pretty annoying.

 

[Ulfhednar]

Chess game is a neat idea but the execution sucks yeah. On SCS it's pretty annoying.

You can actually get stuck in the elemental rooms right before the chess room (not sure if the bug is specific to SCS) and have to reset one of the global variables by using the console. Had that happen to me on my last SCS playthrough.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

Codex is gone bananas, it's like more like a professional fan site than something credible.

When the edgiest gaming site on the internet is not edgy enough for you, thy manifold sharp edges have amalgamated into a perfect smooth surface. You have become round. Nay, you have become anal circumference itself.

 

[Azarkon]

Let me try to explain.

I believe that for the majority of CRPG players, certainly experienced ones, the "feel" of a game's ruleset is something that quickly recedes into the background and becomes a kind of second nature. It does not factor heavily into their sense of fun in the long term. In the end, whether it's D&D or PoE, what they're doing is fighting monsters, engaging in dialogue, solving quests. You know my mantra - content is king.

The "feel" of a game's mechanics - and CRPG rule sets are the foundations of their mechanics - is the center piece of its enjoyment to anyone who values gameplay over aesthetics, story, etc. The idea that it does not factor heavily into their sense of fun is ridiculous.

As such, any attempt to convey some sort of appealing idiosyncrasy via a game's ruleset is a wasted effort that will only appeal to a few. The role of the ruleset should thefore be to provide a sensible platform for CRPG content creation, first and foremost.

I think that we can divide PoE's critics into two groups - the "ruleset is the problem" group and the "content is the problem" group (they're not exclusive, of course) and that the latter greatly outnumber the former. People who genuinely despise PoE on account of Josh Sawyer's failure to evoke the spirit of 1970s Lake Geneva, Wisconsin are a minority within a minority.

Funnily, against all odds they were actually given a game not long ago that would appeal to them, but they refused to buy it because it had a tranny in it (lol). You didn't though, so good on you.

Gameplay mechanics and content are not independent. As I've said in my very first post in this thread, poor rule sets constrain the development of effective content. When core mechanics are broken, content can only take you so far, unless of course you create a "game within a game" in which you throw away the core mechanics and engage the player through an entirely new set of mechanics. But that's the equivalent of ignoring the problem.

Consider a game like Diablo 2. The game's core mechanics are so solid that randomly generated content could sustain a large community for years. Now consider a game like Diablo 3. The game's core mechanics are so mediocre that even its carefully scripted encounters feel dull. The only major differences between the two games ARE rule set, and it makes all the difference. Saying that rule set doesn't matter is like saying gameplay mechanics doesn't matter - it's completely and utterly false.

 

[Lacrymas]

You can actually get stuck in the elemental rooms right before the chess room (not sure if the bug is specific to SCS) and have to reset one of the global variables by using the console. Had that happen to me on my last SCS playthrough.

Yeah, it happens if you don't kill the jelly with fire. It's a bug with SCS, it shouldn't be able to die at all to a non-fire attack

 

[Ulfhednar]

Yeah, it happens if you don't kill the jelly with fire. It's a bug with SCS, it shouldn't be able to die at all to a non-fire attack

Good to know... took me awhile to find that console code on the forums.

 

[Sentinel]

Infinitron It's one of the earliest screenshots. I bet you, a dedicated Obsidian PR-wannabe, has it stashed somewhere.

 

[Azarkon]

Yeah, I think class systems are driven more by nostalgia than by actual gameplay requirements. Even so, if you have to have one, the point is to make the classes play differently and develop along different paths. Pillars succeeds in this much better than AD&D, where paladins, fighters, rangers, and barbarians are effectively interchangeable.*

...Are you talking about actual Advanced Dungeons and Dragons or Baldur's Gate 2?

"Barbarians" in Advanced Dungeons and Dragons underwent drastic changes every book update. They cannot be talked about as though they represent one class. Paladins and Rangers also had a variety of rules and kits depending on the book you bought. None of these can be talked about as though they are one well-defined class. This guy explains it in better detail:

Although the barbarian was introduced in Advanced Dungeons & Dragons (1st edition) in the Unearthed Arcana supplement, they were tribal wilderness warriors more akin to rangers, and didn't have anything resembling the rage ability. It wasn't until Dungeons & Dragons 3rd edition that barbarians appeared with an ability with the actual name "Rage." However, there were earlier versions of the Rage ability that just had different names.

In The Complete Barbarian's Handbook (AD&D 2nd edition) there is the Brute class kit which provides a barbarian with the "Wild Brawl" special ability, which is introduced with, "When fighting without weapons, the Brute can propel himself into a berserk frenzy." However, "Wild Brawl" is mechanically entirely unrelated to Rage.

In the same book, the Ravager class kit provided the barbarian with the "Become Enraged" special ability, with which the "Ravager may work himself into a fighting frenzy, increasing his effectiveness in combat." Mechanically, an enraged Ravager hits easier and does more damage, is hit easier, is harder to damage, and is harder to charm.

Also in AD&D 2nd edition there is a Warrior class kit exclusive to dwarves in The Complete Book of Dwarves called the Battlerager, which is "a fearless warrior, able to create an insane rage within himself which increases his fighting ability and distorts his physical features," and therefore a dwarven barbarian in all but name. A Battlerager in "the Killing Rage" receives bonus hit points, bonuses to attack and damage, and an AC bonus, as well as being immune to charm-like effects, but may not stop fighting until there are no more enemies standing.

Similar to the Battlerager is the is the Berserker class kit for fighters in The Complete Fighter's Handbook (AD&D 2nd edition). A Berserker takes a long time to "Go Berserk", but once Berserk gains similar benefits and also can't stop fighting until every enemy is down. Notably, a Berserker isn't allowed to know their own hit points while Berserk!

The Complete Book of Dwarves was published in 1991, four years before The Complete Barbarian's Handbook; but The Complete Fighter's Handbook was published two years earlier in 1989, making the Berserker the first barbarian-like† character with an ability that is recognisable as a "rage" ability.

†Bear in mind that before D&D3, the actual barbarian class was restricted to humans, so fighter class variants like the Berserker and Battlerager was the official way of playing a non-human character that fulfilled the same class role despite not bearing the name "barbarian."

So I'll have to assume you're talking about Baldur's Gate 2, in which case to just use the Barbarian example:

• Hit Dice: d12, rather than d10.
• They move at 2 points faster than the usual character.
• Immune to backstab.
• Can use Barbarian Rage once per day for every 4 levels (starts at 1st level with one use). Rage gives them +4 to constitution and strength for 5 rounds. Gives a -2 armor class penalty and +2 to saves vs. magic (but actually imposes a -2 penalty to saves vs. magic in the original game, despite the description). Rage also gives immunity to all charm, hold, fear, maze, confusion and level-drain spells. This ability is very similar to Enrage, which is used by Berserkers. Enrage has double duration, but different bonuses and it comes with penalties after the duration has run out.
• At 11th level, the barbarian gains 10% resistance to slashing, piercing, crushing and missile damage. This improves to 15% resistance at level 15 and up to 20% resistance at level 19.This ability stacks with the Hardiness high level ability.
• Cannot wear full plate or plate mail
• Cannot specialize past normal specialization.

The above is very different from Fighters, except for the kit Berserker, which in essence is the model for the Barbarian in 3rd edition. But taken on its own terms, and without reference to that kit, the Barbarian class is very different from the Fighter class in Baldur's Gate 2 in that you're talking about a class with a +2 hp/level bonus, which moves much faster in combat, is immune to an ability that rogues use to one shot people, can naturally become immune to charm, hold, fear, maze, confusion, and level-drain, and which has natural physical damage resistance as opposed to armor, and which loses weapon specialization and the ability to wear plate as a consequence.

You built Barbarians - or more likely, Berserkers - in Baldur's Gate 2, as one man killing machines, and sent them in to take down enemies like illithids, vampires, beholders, assassins, and wizards, which would otherwise destroy your party due to the variety of devastating spell effects and instant kills they inflicted. You cannot do the same with a normal Fighter unless you gave him every high-level spell protection in the game. Barbarians - or again, Berserkers - provided parties without sufficient spell support a way to deal with such enemies. They cannot simply be replaced by another class in such a capacity.