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

[Mastermind]

this game has a weird chapter 1.

You can do the main quest right away if you want, you don't have to touch a single side quest. In fact you have to start doing the main quest to get access to most of the side content.

Pillars has been given me a strong Oblivion vibe in a number of ways, and one of them is the way in which both games handle player freedom in a dumb way. Oblivion let you do whatever you want and take your sweet time in the middle of an extraplanary invasion while PoE blocks off most of the game to "encourage" me to deal with a plot that instills no sense of urgency in the player or his character. Storyfag designers really needed to fuck off and just let me explore the world at my leisure.

 

[Internet]

I haven't formed a strong opinion on the game yet (party is level 5/6), but I found a couple of thing mildly annoying:

- skill checks in dialogues that there for no other reason than to have a skillcheck. Example: Aloth wakes my character from sleep, asking him how he feels. My rogue's perception grants him a dialogue options: "Aloth, what is this really about?". My rogue unique build then opens up a whole new dialogue branch that consists in Aloth saying "I really wanted to ask you how you feel". All of you that rolled a character with a perception lower than 16 are now feeling jealous, right?

- I don't understand what it the purpose of that pseudo-text-adventure menu that sometimes pops up. In a game like King Arthur RPG a system like that made sense, that game had text adventures with multiple branches and the menu tied the strategic map and the combat map. In PoE I don't understand why they didn't just use the dialogue menu for those parts.

Other than that the game meets my expectations, except maybe for the writing. It's not bad just...at times it gets overly verbose for no reason. It occasionally feels like the writer wanted to "show off" with poor results.

 

[Hamster]

I am still early into the game, so my opinion may change in either direction, but so far my verdict is that PoE is a great game, but it somewhat suffers from the fact that it's not able to match the finest moments of IE games.

PoE beats first Baldur's Gate quite confidently, but with other IE games things are a bit trickier. PoE lacks focus in it's design, it tries to be a bit of everything, a little bit of Baldur's Gate, a bit of Icewind Dale and a bit of Torment. As a result it may indeed overall be described as a "good package" as VD put it, but it also ends up as somewhat of a jack of all trades, it does most thing well enough, but doesnt really excell in any area. In comparison, every IE game other than BG1, while having a lot of serious flaws, also has a number of elements that are just amazing (for example encounter design and quantity of content in BG2, atmosphere and locations in IWD, magic system in all of them, writing and setting in Torment, etc.)

So as an IE fan you sometimes can't help but notice that for every element of PoE you can name an IE game that did it better. But for me this is not a big problem, i am just happy to finally be playing another IE game after all this time. I dreamed about it for 10 fucking years, not about a perfect IE game, but just about getting a chance to play another one of them, and Obsidian delivered.

 

[KK1001]

The game would have been better in every way if Avellone had directed it and not Sawyer. I know Avellone is in semi-retirement and would rather just work on whatever he wants at any given time, but god damn do some of the high-level design decisions make little sense.

If you don't have the resources to ape every IE game at once, don't do it. If you're trying to "fix" RTwP combat with a band-aid instead of just keeping it how it was, don't bother. You can only do so much.

 

[praetor]

Butts will be hurt, that's for sure.

at this point, it's beginning to sound like that's your intent for this review. not to assess the game and its strengths/weaknesses as objectively as possible, to inform your readership, but just to spite everyone who (rightfully) thinks this is an average game compared to its peers. "it has more stat checks in dialogues" does not mean it's a better rpg. and "the setting isn't d&d FR" does not mean that the setting is good/better (and that comes from someone who dislikes d&d FR as much as you do, if not more)

 

[Zero Credibility]

Ok, can someone explain to me the reasoning behind this mechanic? This is the character reputation, not personality - so I can be known to be a cruel deceptive aggressive bastard and a benevolent honest diplomat at the same time? Not only does it hurt replayability as OP has already stated, what kind of sense does this thing even make? Why the fuck wasn't it a scale from deceptive to honest, from cruel to benevolent instead of this mess?

 

[Ellef]

Eh, they're crap anyway.

Honest [2] I see you're a honest man, kill this guy for me.

Cruel [2] I see you're a cruel man, kill this guy for me.

 

[J_C]

Butts will be hurt, that's for sure.

at this point, it's beginning to sound like that's your intent for this review. not to assess the game and its strengths/weaknesses as objectively as possible, to inform your readership, but just to spite everyone who (rightfully) thinks this is an average game compared to its peers. "it has more stat checks in dialogues" does not mean it's a better rpg. and "the setting isn't d&d FR" does not mean that the setting is good/better (and that comes from someone who dislikes d&d FR as much as you do, if not more)

I don't think VD can be accused of writing sloppy reviews, seeing his past articles.

 

[Haba]

Eh, they're crap anyway.

Honest [2] I see you're a honest man, kill this guy for me.

Cruel [2] I see you're a cruel man, kill this guy for me.

Not really fault of the system itself. You won't get certain options at all if you have no cruel reputation, which makes sense. I guess Obs just didn't want to gate people out of the precious little content that hey had for several areas.

 

[Morkar Left]

at this point, it's beginning to sound like that's your intent for this review. not to assess the game and its strengths/weaknesses as objectively as possible, to inform your readership, but just to spite everyone who (rightfully) thinks this is an average game compared to its peers. "it has more stat checks in dialogues" does not mean it's a better rpg. and "the setting isn't d&d FR" does not mean that the setting is good/better (and that comes from someone who dislikes d&d FR as much as you do, if not more)

VDs preferences are pretty clear for most readers by now. He doesn't value BG 1+2 that highly and prefers c&c over everything. Nothing wrong with that because I think Grunker will deliver to the BG fans while VD will deliver for the c&c fans.

 

[Sensuki]

No matter what: lenient review incoming.

 

[Darth Roxor]

No matter what: lenient review incoming.

 

[Shadenuat]

Ok, can someone explain to me the reasoning behind this mechanic?

Sadly if you want to roleplay your character in PoE in a sensible way and develop his personality the way you imagine it, you'd better forego Expert and turn all the helpers on.

Spoiler

 

[Ellef]

I'm sure we will learn being able to play dress up more than compensates shitty gameplay.

 

[Infinitron]

so I can be known to be a cruel deceptive aggressive bastard and a benevolent honest diplomat at the same time?

Sounds like a description of many real life politicians

No matter what: lenient review incoming.

I don't think it'll be any more lenient than this

 

[Zero Credibility]

so I can be known to be a cruel deceptive aggressive bastard and a benevolent honest diplomat at the same time?

Sounds like a description of many real life politicians

Usually not by the same bloody person. If somebody knows I'm a no-good cruel lying bastard, why would the same person also think I'm a goody two-shoes honest guy?

 

[Vault Dweller]

Butts will be hurt, that's for sure.

at this point, it's beginning to sound like that's your intent for this review. not to assess the game and its strengths/weaknesses as objectively as possible, to inform your readership, but just to spite everyone who (rightfully) thinks this is an average game compared to its peers. "it has more stat checks in dialogues" does not mean it's a better rpg. and "the setting isn't d&d FR" does not mean that the setting is good/better (and that comes from someone who dislikes d&d FR as much as you do, if not more)

My intent is to evaluate the game's different aspects. I couldn't care less who thinks what about the game.

at this point, it's beginning to sound like that's your intent for this review. not to assess the game and its strengths/weaknesses as objectively as possible, to inform your readership, but just to spite everyone who (rightfully) thinks this is an average game compared to its peers. "it has more stat checks in dialogues" does not mean it's a better rpg. and "the setting isn't d&d FR" does not mean that the setting is good/better (and that comes from someone who dislikes d&d FR as much as you do, if not more)

VDs preferences are pretty clear for most readers by now. He doesn't value BG 1+2 that highly and prefers c&c over everything. Nothing wrong with that because I think Grunker will deliver to the BG fans while VD will deliver for the c&c fans.

Actually, we'll speak with one voice (not this is what Grunker thinks, this what VD thinks), which is a better approach as it requires reaching consensus on each and every aspect.

No matter what: lenient review incoming.

I'm enjoying the game. Is it wrong of me to do so?

 

[hiver]

My intent is to evaluate the game's different aspects

Yeah, you sure did that in W2 review.

I'm enjoying the game.

the review.

Him and Grunker, spekaing in one voice hmmpff...

 

[Vault Dweller]

Ok, can someone explain to me the reasoning behind this mechanic? This is the character reputation, not personality - so I can be known to be a cruel deceptive aggressive bastard and a benevolent honest diplomat at the same time? Not only does it hurt replayability as OP has already stated, what kind of sense does this thing even make? Why the fuck wasn't it a scale from deceptive to honest, from cruel to benevolent instead of this mess?

The system is flawed but the foundation is good.

First and foremost, you aren't forced to develop all reputations. Choose the lines that fit your character, don't use the rest. If you want to have all possible reputations, go for it but don't complain after.

I like the actual use. You say something and either pass a hidden check or fail. A character would grant your request because you're honest and refuse because you are not. A deceptive - honest scale might do the trick too but many people are honest in some circumstances and dishonest in others, so it kind of makes sense but needs more clarity and depth.

Basically, the idea to let you define and maintain your reputation and then check it in dialogues is definitely a good one.

 

[Roguey]

Ok, can someone explain to me the reasoning behind this mechanic? This is the character reputation, not personality - so I can be known to be a cruel deceptive aggressive bastard and a benevolent honest diplomat at the same time? Not only does it hurt replayability as OP has already stated, what kind of sense does this thing even make? Why the fuck wasn't it a scale from deceptive to honest, from cruel to benevolent instead of this mess?

Putting these things on a single scale is garbage, as has been proven in the past.

http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Fallout:_New_Vegas_reputations#Reputation something that works.

 

[Jim the Dinosaur]

First and foremost, you aren't forced to develop all reputations. Choose the lines that fit your character, don't use the rest. If you want to have all possible reputations, go for it but don't complain after.

I like the actual use. You say something and either pass a hidden check or fail. A character would grant your request because you're honest and refuse because you are not. A deceptive - honest scale might do the trick too but many people are honest in some circumstances and dishonest in others, so it kind of makes sense but needs more clarity and depth.

But what's the sense in somebody who has, say, 1 Honesty and 10 Deceptiveness, i.e. someone who is extremely deceptive with the occasional accidental honest reaction thrown in, having a reputation across the land of being more Honest than someone with 0 Honesty and 0 Deceptiveness? Or maybe I just don't get how the system works.

 

[Vault Dweller]

I will ask Avellone how it works but if I have to guess (if I were the designer), I'd check for both. For example, to pass a certain check you'd need Honesty more than 3 and Deception less than 2.

In general though, if you lied to 9 men but were always honest with one guy, this guy would say that you're the most honest person you've ever met and would probably think that those 9 guys are making shit up.

 

[J_C]

No matter what: lenient review incoming.

I'm enjoying the game. Is it wrong of me to do so?

Of course it is! You should throw a hissy fit that it is not a carbon copy of the IE games. Start every sentence with "but in the IE games".

 

[Darth Roxor]

Of course it is! You should throw a hissy fit that it is not a carbon copy of the IE games. Start every sentence with "but in the IE games".

Funny thing is, I only see the apologists always bring out 'BUT IN THE IE GAMES' when something is criticised here.

 

[Ellef]

Of course it is! You should throw a hissy fit that it is not a carbon copy of the IE games. Start every sentence with "but in the IE games".

Fucking strawmen all the time. People have legitimate arguments, and whether you like it or not, IE got more decisions right than wrong. You don't see (many) people arguing for dice rolling for character stats or thac0 and other less ideal things in the IE games.