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

[Athelas]

They should make it so that those adventures that you can assign companions to, take their attributes, skills, class and level into account, with a chance of failure if the character is lacking in those areas.

In the future, they should tie the stronghold to an actually tangible town/city (it could have been Gilded Vale in this game), using the already existing reputation system.

You should also be able to recruit named NPC's you meet around the world to come work at your stronghold (merchants, artisans, soldiers and the like).

Also, for the love of god, allow resting (including with resting bonuses) from the stronghold menu (while at the stronghold, obviously).

 

[Sizzle]

I hope they will do content patches or something down the line and expand upon the stronghold then. Or, hopefully, they'll add more shit to it in the expansion maybe.
It seems like, with the foundation they have, it'd be a waste to just let it lie as it is.

I reckon it's probably something that they'll expand upon in the expansion. Like you said, it would be a real shame to just leave it as it is.

 

[Aeschylus]

You should also be able to recruit named NPC's you meet around the world to come work at your stronghold (merchants, artisans, soldiers and the like).

You actually can do that for a grand total of one NPC in the game (the ogre in Dyrford). The stronghold was badly underdeveloped, and was really the only out-and-out disappointment in the game (though there are plenty of other valid criticisms to be levied).

 

[Deleted member 7219]

Almost the entire game is perfect except for the keep. There really is no point to it.

The Endless Paths were good, though.

 

[KK1001]

Perfect is quite an overstatement, but you're right about the keep.


If you think about the pacing of the game, it doesn't make much sense.

Your caravan is attacked. You seek shelter in a ruined temple that everyone was afraid to go into... but it's tiny and generally non-threatening. You meet Evil Wizard Bad Man and something goes wrong. You then go to a place that is also suffering from a major problem and you try to figure out what happened to you. Okay, so far so good. But instead of actually forcing you to go into the Temple of Eothas and get something, the place is entirely optional and extremely boring. You get an abrupt PS:T conversation with an old lady and are told to go to this keep. You go there, deal with Maerwald and find out more about souls. Oh, and you're also in charge of this keep now and everyone thinks you're awesome and will pay you taxes ASAP.

The reason the Endless Paths are relatively good is because of 1) quest tie-ins to companions 2) a variety of encounters 3) decent loot 4) some sort of big, challenging boss (okay, it is stupidly hard unless you cheese it, but at least they tried). The placement of it is really the problem. It should have come after Act 2, not before.

Most other dungeons in the game are filled with trash mobs, have one quest at most that is rarely relevant to your companions, no loot to speak of that you couldn't just buy at an inn, and some shitty excuse for a boss. Fighting other parties is a sad joke because of the general non-threatening nature of enemy spells.

 

[Deleted member 7219]

Great atmosphere in the Endless Paths too. Every level felt like it had a purpose and the entire dungeon felt like it was building up to something, which didn't disappoint - there was reactivity there.

I absolutely despise dungeon crawls, so the Endless Paths were the part of the game that worried me the most during development. I should have had more faith in Obsidian - of course they wouldn't go the generic hack and slash route.

 

[KK1001]

Unfortunately every other dungeon or combat encounter in the game boils down to either a boring dungeon crawl or a lackluster party v party fight.

I'm not saying that having trash is bad (to a certain extent, it's needed to make good encounters stand out) but when it infests your wilderness areas and your main combat areas, it's too much.

 

[AN4RCHID]

I absolutely despise dungeon crawls, so the Endless Paths were the part of the game that worried me the most during development. I should have had more faith in Obsidian - of course they wouldn't go the generic hack and slash route.

Spoiler

 

[Deleted member 7219]

I absolutely despise dungeon crawls, so the Endless Paths were the part of the game that worried me the most during development. I should have had more faith in Obsidian - of course they wouldn't go the generic hack and slash route.

Spoiler

The story was written by George Ziets and was actually pretty good in the end, with some C&Cs and some good companions. And Obsidian were pretty open with their intentions with it from the start. I think they mainly took it to keep everyone employed and to prove they could make a game with their own engine. DS3 is from around the time when Alpha Protocol was getting fucked up during development and MCA had to rescue it and Obsidian had some major cancellations like Aliens and BG3.

 

[Lurker King]

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?

“Reputation System” is a misnomer. The system is not just about reputation, but also about character disposition. I like this thing a lot, but having the reputation of being honest and deceptive at the same time is ridiculous. I think this need to be fixed. For instance, each point in “Deceptive” should diminish one point in “Honest” – the same shall apply for any other contradictory dispositions such as “Cruel” and “Benevolent”, “Diplomatic” and “Passionate”, and so on.

 

[Lurker King]

To be honest though, I'm most disappointed with the writing, of all things. Comes off as trying really hard to be good, but it just isn't. Couldn't care less about most things going in the game.

If we ignore the main plot, which was intentionally stupid in an attempt to cater to casuals, I think is safe to say that the writing is better than in most cRPGs. POE will only lose to Planescape, MotB and AoD. The characters are much more enjoyable than the teenager bullshit of BG and BG2. The text-adventures are wonderful. In addition, almost everything in the map have some description in it. This adds a lot to the immersion of players that care about the writing.

 

[Lurker King]

Players that are bashing this game fits in one the following categories:

(A) Players blinded by nostalgia that want to have that feeling they had in the first time they played their favorite IE game.

(B) Players infuriated by Sawyer dismissive remarks about grognards and BG2.

(C) Combat fags that perceive as a failure every cRPG that doesn’t have the same tactical depth of their favorite strategy game.

(D) Players that want to look knowledgeable bitching about everything and being edgy.

 

[Lhynn]

(E) People with good taste

 

[Hatred]

Why can't we fit into all of those categories ?

 

[Commissar Draco]

“Diplomatic” and “Passionate”, and so on.

Opposite to Passionate is Stoic and Aggressive to Diplomatic but you have point here newfag it should cancel each other like it did for Priests and Paladins... before they added perk nullifying the onus for casuals and Kwans who can't into reading.

(F) Sawyer is Copperhead Fucker who stolen soul from this game, down with his Animancy! [Passionate]

 

[Jaedar]

Players that are bashing this game fits in one the following categories:

(A) Players blinded by nostalgia that want to have that feeling they had in the first time they played their favorite IE game.

(B) Players infuriated by Sawyer dismissive remarks about grognards and BG2.

(C) Combat fags that perceive as a failure every cRPG that doesn’t have the same tactical depth of their favorite strategy game.

(D) Players that want to look knowledgeable bitching about everything and being edgy.

Joined:
Jan 21, 2015

 

[Zero Credibility]

I'm going with:

G: Players that find precious little fun in this game.

I mean there is some fun in dialogues, and roleplaying and the story (even with some derpier moments). We all like that stuff here and I do too. But every time I see a mob in my way I die a little inside. Tanks to the front, nuke 'em till they glow (sometimes I can't see shit on my screen from all the effects). Next mob is right around the corner. Don't expect to find any interesting loot or get any XP for this either, you grognard. I got to Act 3 once before restarting on PotD thinking maybe that would make combat more fun. It just made it longer.

 

[prodigydancer]

Players that are bashing this game

I don't bash the game but it's hard to deny that some of the criticism is spot on. When you can fit all useful Wizard spells in one memorize selection (grimoire), you know something is wrong. When you use exactly the same tactics in 9/10 fights, you know something is wrong. And it's not even about tactical depth, it's about the diversity of encounters and being encouraged to think a little. When almost all DPS builds are MIN(Con,Per)/MAX(Mgt,Dex,Int) regardless of class, you know something is wrong. When monster levels have little to nothing to do with their how dangerous they actually are (in a game designed by a guy who worships balance), you know something is wrong. When half of the NPCs are "click on me and read a crappy fanfic or, better, don't" you know something is wrong.

 

[felipepepe]

Players that are bashing this game fits in one the following categories:

(A) Players blinded by nostalgia that want to have that feeling they had in the first time they played their favorite IE game.

(B) Players infuriated by Sawyer dismissive remarks about grognards and BG2.

(C) Combat fags that perceive as a failure every cRPG that doesn’t have the same tactical depth of their favorite strategy game.

(D) Players that want to look knowledgeable bitching about everything and being edgy.

Players that are defending this game fits in one of the following categories:

(A) Players blinded by hype that think games have never been better and naysayers are all blinded by nostalgia.

(B) Players who bought into Sawyer's undelivered promises about "balance" and "this is better than D&D".

(C) Dumbfags that think only strategy games should have tactical depth.

(D) Players that can't stand other people disliking what they like.

 

[Lurker King]

“Diplomatic” and “Passionate”, and so on.

Opposite to Passionate is Stoic and Aggressive to Diplomatic but you have point here newfag it should cancel each other like it did for Priests and Paladins... before they added perk nullifying the onus for casuals and Kwans who can't into reading.

(F) Sawyer is Copperhead Fucker who stolen soul from this game, down with his Animancy! [Passionate]

You are right. The opposite to Passionate is Stoic. I don’t appreciate some of the changes implemented either. Sawyer’s philosophy assumes that everything should be viable to the players’ whims that want to role-play without proper skills or any effort. It is almost as if he was the causal genie of the lamp:


Causal 1: “I want to open a lock without being a thief”

Causal 2: “I want to be a wizard with muscles”

Causal 3: “I don’t want to reload every time one of the companions dies”

Causal 4: “I want infinite loot”

Causal 5: “I don’t want hard counters because I’m precious snowflake and I don’t want to die”

Sawyer “As you wish”


That being said, the game is not terrible as Sawyer haters want to believe. The chanters and ciphers, for instance, are pretty cool.

 

[Lurker King]

Joined: Jan 21, 2015

I’m a newfag and you have no arguments. Is a crazy world.

 

[Lurker King]

Players that are bashing this game fits in one the following categories:

(A) Players blinded by nostalgia that want to have that feeling they had in the first time they played their favorite IE game.

(B) Players infuriated by Sawyer dismissive remarks about grognards and BG2.

(C) Combat fags that perceive as a failure every cRPG that doesn’t have the same tactical depth of their favorite strategy game.

(D) Players that want to look knowledgeable bitching about everything and being edgy.

Players that are defending this game fits in one of the following categories:

(A) Players blinded by hype that think games have never been better and naysayers are all blinded by nostalgia.

(B) Players who bought into Sawyer's undelivered promises about "balance" and "this is better than D&D".

(C) Dumbfags that think only strategy games should have tactical depth.

(D) Players that can't stand other people disliking what they like.

You forgot to add:

(E) Players that really enjoy that thing called “writing” when they are playing cRPGs.

(F) Players that can appreciate a game even when they disagree with one its developers.

 

[Stompa]

(E) Players that really enjoy that thing called “writing” when they are playing cRPGs.

And they would defend PoE why exactly?

 

[Ninjerk]

 

[felipepepe]

You forgot to add:

(E) Players that really enjoy that thing called “writing” when they are playing cRPGs.

(F) Players that can appreciate a game even when they disagree with one its developers.

And you forgot to add:

(E) Players that really enjoy that thing called “writing” when they are playing cRPGs, but think that PoE doesn't deliver.

(F) Players that can criticize games even when they also have good things.

We can go all night, or you can try to actually argue instead of just crying nostalgia glasses/ edgy / Sawyter-hater and thinking you are clever.