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

[hiver]

As i said above,

You can talk an enemy party into surrendering, or you can fight them. Thats a problem?

And there is another encounter where you can get half of them to abandon their friends and the fight is then easier.
Or not if you want their loot too.

Those guys directly reference hearing stories about how you approach things and you get dialogue options based on those.


The way you go about it through dialogue options influences your reputation, whether you choose honest or deceptive or any other tagged options - and it is influenced by choosing whether to "Lie" about something or making a promise and then doing different things, AS WELL as just choosing the tone of the dialogue and other sentences choices that are no marked by taggs, which both add to your personal story in the journal and affect reputation.

 

[potatojohn]

TBQH, I can't think of any example from the game from the top of my head. I've never seen a line locked because 'reputation requirement was not met'.

Probably because those indicators don't exist in dialogues.

But some things are definitely locked by reputation, like Eder's quest.

 

[One-and-a-half-Ivan]

The way you go about it through dialogue options influences your reputation, whether you choose honest or deceptive or any other tagged options - and it is influenced by choosing whether to "Lie" about something or making a promise and then doing different things, AS WELL as just choosing the tone of the dialogue and other sentences choices that are no marked by taggs, which both add to your personal story in the journal and affect reputation.

^this.

 

[Athelas]

So, when it comes to PoE of course not the systems are to blame for what's on display in the game, but regarding 3.5e we can just point at NWN2 and *obviously disprove* my point. Makes sense.
Of course, DnD doesn't *automatically* lead to well-made encounter design. By the way, I've never said that either. Here's what I actually said:

Do you see the word "automatically?" No? Because it's not there. See the paranthesis after the words "encounter design?" It explains how encounter design could be improved by using DnD.
You see, were this game DnD, the designers could refer to this helpful tool (the DMG) for inspiration when it comes to crafting interesting and challenging encounters, whereas in this fresh new system, courtesy of Sawyer, they're left alone with their own incompetence. And it shows.

You're misquoting yourself, I have to assume deliberately so. Your previous post said: 'You could immediately improve it by a large margin by making it DnD 3.5.' Which means the same thing as 'automatic'. Regardless, I'm not interesting in discussing semantics. What makes you think designing good encounters is impossible in PoE's system? It even has attacks of opportunity, just like 3.5 ed.

I'm not sure why you keep referring to the DMG when there are plenty of games using a D&D rule set with bad encounter design: most notably, a game that was a straight adaption of a D&D module - The Temple of Elemental Evil.

 

[Zero Credibility]

Maybe I'm reading things wrong, but I feel like there is some confusion regarding personal reputation here, possibly because people are playing the game with dialogue tags off. Through the game you get reputation points for various traits through dialogue and actions. Later on, when you actually have some reputations, there are checks in the dialogue that most certainly unlock new dialogue options and paths.

TBQH, I can't think of any example from the game from the top of my head. I've never seen a line locked because 'reputation requirement was not met'.

Hmm, maybe you are playing in the expert mode or have turned off the options to show them? There are quite a lot of them later in the game and it's clearly stated which reputation you need.

 

[One-and-a-half-Ivan]

Maybe I'm reading things wrong, but I feel like there is some confusion regarding personal reputation here, possibly because people are playing the game with dialogue tags off. Through the game you get reputation points for various traits through dialogue and actions. Later on, when you actually have some reputations, there are checks in the dialogue that most certainly unlock new dialogue options and paths.

TBQH, I can't think of any example from the game from the top of my head. I've never seen a line locked because 'reputation requirement was not met'.

Hmm, maybe you are playing in the expert mode or have turned off the options to show them? There are quite a lot of them later in the game and it's clearly stated witch reputation you need.

No expert mode.
I will check this in a couple of hours.
Either we misunderstood each other or one of us is a retard :D

 

[Haba]

For example: Pool of Blood requires Cruel 1. You won't even get the option in discussion without it.
http://pillarsofeternity.gamepedia.com/Disposition

 

[hiver]

For example: Pool of Blood requires Cruel 1. You won't even get the option in discussion without it.

yeah, just mentioned that one above...
among few other examples.



-
You can enable to see additional options, and their requirements separately.
So i usually have seeing other options on, but dont see exact qualifiers required.

 

[IHaveHugeNick]

As i said above,

You can talk an enemy party into surrendering, or you can fight them. Thats a problem?

And there is another encounter where you can get half of them to abandon their friends and the fight is then easier.
Or not if you want their loot too.

Those guys directly reference hearing stories about how you approach things and you get dialogue options based on those.


The way you go about it through dialogue options influences your reputation, whether you choose honest or deceptive or any other tagged options - and it is influenced by choosing whether to "Lie" about something or making a promise and then doing different things, AS WELL as just choosing the tone of the dialogue and other sentences choices that are no marked by taggs, which both add to your personal story in the journal and affect reputation.

The thing is, its rarely so obvious . The impact all those checks are making is usually localized and completely marginal, to the point that not only you don't even know its there , you won't notice most of it in the 2nd playthrough either. The whole reputation system is very nearly invisible unless you're out looking for it. I'm running 2nd game right now, going out of my way to be an asshole and the game feels nearly exactly the same, to the point that I think I'd have prefered to have Biowarish Good-Bad system. As terrible as it is, at least its actually noticeable.

 

[Haba]

Like I said, that has nothing to do with the system. Obsidian simply didn't do that much scripting and branching in their quests. Even a binary good/bad -system wouldn't make a difference.

 

[hiver]

I like it that its not so obvious.

Thats much better then just seeing the tags and meta gaming them to get some cheap goody twoshoes and retarded asshole options.

As to how much difference there is, i cnat say before trying to play very differently, quest by quest, but i believe a lot of differences would be on a smaller local level, inside the quests and sub quests.
Not so much in the way main plot develops.


The problem may be that sometimes the requirements are very low, but thats a different matter.

 

[IHaveHugeNick]

I guess that's down to preference.

Funny thing is, if you asked me before I played this, I would have prefered 5000 of tiny changes that are less obvious and spread all over the world.

But now that I'd actually tried it, I'd much rather have it limited to 10 major branching points that are completely in my face.

 

[tuluse]

That's just incredibly stupid, and I thought the disposition system was the game's big C&C-hook. tuluse defend the system to me, or don't if you have something better to do.

I find the game enjoyable. I play on expert so I don't see the checks at all. I don't really feel like arguing minutia (strange on the codex I know).

In this case, the above example sounds like dealing with a lawyer personally. You hire them to be deceptive with your opponents and expect them to be honest with you.

Still thanks for tagging me, got to see Infinitron's awesome parody.

 

[hiver]

I guess that's down to preference.

Funny thing is, if you asked me before I played this, I would have prefered 5000 of tiny changes that are less obvious and spread all over the world.
But now that I'd actually tried it, I'd much rather have it limited to 10 major branching points that are completely in my face.

Might be a completionist tic, you can never be sure have you missed something really good this way,

 

[tuluse]

I guess that's down to preference.

Funny thing is, if you asked me before I played this, I would have prefered 5000 of tiny changes that are less obvious and spread all over the world.

But now that I'd actually tried it, I'd much rather have it limited to 10 major branching points that are completely in my face.

There was something I came up with in shoutbox about Wasteland 2. A lot of people playing didn't even realize the game was reacting to decisions they made. They would do an action and the game would just flow and they thought it was just the next step. So I tried to coin a term that I can't remember now, but it's something like consequence visibility. It's something the Fallout games were great at. When you picked a side in Fallout, it was obvious you were making a choice and then getting a consequence out of it.

If a choice is made in a forest and no one sees the consequence does it still happen?

 

[Athelas]

I guess that's down to preference.

Funny thing is, if you asked me before I played this, I would have prefered 5000 of tiny changes that are less obvious and spread all over the world.

But now that I'd actually tried it, I'd much rather have it limited to 10 major branching points that are completely in my face.

There was something I came up with in shoutbox about Wasteland 2. A lot of people playing didn't even realize the game was reacting to decisions they made. They would do an action and the game would just flow and they thought it was just the next step. So I tried to coin a term that I can't remember now, but it's something like consequence visibility. It's something the Fallout games were great at. When you picked a side in Fallout, it was obvious you were making a choice and then getting a consequence out of it.

If a choice is made in a forest and no one sees the consequence does it still happen?

Telltale is one step ahead of you:

 

[tuluse]

Telltale is one step ahead of you:

Yeah that's stupid for it's own reasons.

My point is that is one of the genius things about Fallout. The way it organically made itself clear to the player (this is both F1 and 2).

 

[VentilatorOfDoom]

What makes you think designing good encounters is impossible in PoE's system? It even has attacks of opportunity, just like 3.5 ed.

I'm not sure why you keep referring to the DMG when there are plenty of games using a D&D rule set with bad encounter design: most notably, a game that was a straight adaption of a D&D module - The Temple of Elemental Evil.

I was refering to the DMG because Pierre Begue (maker of Knights of the Chalice) said he followed the DMGs recommendations regarding encounter design and the general consensus on the Codex was, that the encounter design in KotC was pretty good.
Additionally, even for games which were lacking in that regard (NWN/NWN2) there are user made modules that demonstrate that good encounter design is possible. So, not the system is to blame, but the lackluster original campaigns are either imcompetence on part of the designers or a deliberate effort to dumb the games down for the masses that can't wrap their heads around complex systems like saving throws, armor class and base attack bonus.

Perhaps it's the same with PoE. Certainly better encounter design must be possible with PoEs system , but either the designers were incapable or unwilling to deliver it.
Btw again, I never said or even implied that better encounters would be impossible with PoEs system, stop putting words in my mouth; I do think it would be easier with DnD though, because DnD allows for more options.

 

[Athelas]

complex systems like saving throws, armor class and base attack bonus.

 

[Haba]

Telltale is one step ahead of you:

Yeah that's stupid for it's own reasons.

My point is that is one of the genius things about Fallout. The way it organically made itself clear to the player (this is both F1 and 2).

And that's really what makes the game memorable. Everyone will remember their shotgun wedding in Fallout 2 (and pimping out their wife/hubby later), yet what will we remember from PoE? Killing the baby?

 

[VentilatorOfDoom]

complex systems like saving throws, armor class and base attack bonus.

sarcasm detector malfunction?

 

[Athelas]

You got me there, I guess.

 

[Morkar Left]

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.

I wouldn't mind some short personal opinion from both of you at the end of the review.

 

[IHaveHugeNick]

I guess that's down to preference.

Funny thing is, if you asked me before I played this, I would have prefered 5000 of tiny changes that are less obvious and spread all over the world.

But now that I'd actually tried it, I'd much rather have it limited to 10 major branching points that are completely in my face.

There was something I came up with in shoutbox about Wasteland 2. A lot of people playing didn't even realize the game was reacting to decisions they made. They would do an action and the game would just flow and they thought it was just the next step. So I tried to coin a term that I can't remember now, but it's something like consequence visibility. It's something the Fallout games were great at. When you picked a side in Fallout, it was obvious you were making a choice and then getting a consequence out of it.

If a choice is made in a forest and no one sees the consequence does it still happen?

Yup. And Wasteland 2 still does it a lot better than Pillars. There's a couple of major branches, and then on the tiny side, Vargas reacting to you wearing a stupid-ass helmet was a nice touch. The way they sometimes used radio to blatantly make you aware of C&C wasn't so bad either.

In Defiance Bay there's an announcer who sometimes shouts about consequence details, which I thought was completely idiotic - at that point everybody is just running through the city with 2x speed and most of the time they're just gonna miss it.

 

[hiver]

I wouldn't mind some short personal opinion from both of you at the end of the review.

The whole review will be their fucking personal opinion.

And Wasteland 2 still does it a lot better than Pillars. There's a couple of major branches, -

what would those branches be?