Review RPG Codex Review: Pillars of Eternity - By Vault Dweller and the Spirit of Grunker

[ROARRR]

I bought and finished VtmB in 2004. Didn't notice any bugs. Brilliant game. The best RPG of the last 15 years.

You know the difference between bugs and features right?!

 

[Vault Dweller]

Also the coverage it got was negative due to being unfinishable

It really wasn't though. There was a game-breaking bug but it didn't affect everyone, a console command fix was posted immediately, and a patch was released fairly quickly.

Good to know. Wasn't exactly especially looking towards the game back then. It's still the thing I heard most about regarding bloodlines launch.

Let us remember that day0 patches were not a thing back then, and the apparent need for one would have been seen as a large minus.

Not really. KOTOR, for example, was shipped with an audio bug that affected half the systems and prevented the game from running. The patch was released in 3 weeks. Until then the only solution was to disable the audio completely and play a Star Wars game in total silence.

 

[Excidium II]

I felt that some mechanics (like the engagement system) would have worked better in TB and had the game been TB *and* challenging, combat would have been far more engaging.

This. They were designing it like a turn-based game

Where? I don't see it

 

[Vault Dweller]

Open your eyes mebbe?

 

[Excidium II]

Yeah I open my eyes and see stuff like weapon speed mechanic being completely coupled with animation frames

 

[Sabin Rene Figaro]

I can't imagine how anyone would like Daggerfall more than Morrowind. Don't get me wrong, they're both Bethesda's classic generic brand of unfocused, tedious and bland garbage that dumb people like to pretend are fun games because THEY LET YOU DO ANYTHING! (Until you read the fine print that says "You can't do shit"), but at least Morrowind involved some people actually putting down houses and villages and theoretically designing (as much as Bethesda designs anything, anyways) areas, as opposed to letting a computer algorithm randomly do it for them.

Pillars of Eternity is a better game than anything Bethesda has ever put out, and most likely ever will put out. Let's hope that Chris Avellone is leaving Obsidian to make his own badass RPG's, and not get sucked into the soulless vortex that is Bethesda's poor excuse for a "game" company

 

[Angthoron]

Yeah I open my eyes and see stuff like weapon speed mechanic being completely coupled with animation frames

Well this thread now reminds me of

Spoiler

 

[Mastermind]

Morrowind was a mainstream game through and through. Compared to Daggerfall, it was dumbed down in practically every aspect

I don't agree, but it's besides the point because even if it was dumbed down from Daggerfall it did not possess mainstream appeal. Bethesda's slick marketing machine unloaded it on retards who spun around in it a few hours killing mudcrabs before dropping it and never touching it again. The base gameplay is more enjoyable than Daggerfall but still clunky and soulless so it takes a particular type of autism to stick with polishing off the turd until it shines.

As for Underrail, you missed my point. Compare Underrail or AoD sales to Banished, for example. Over a million copies sold. Why? Mass appeal through the roof. Neither AoD nor Underrail would ever sell more than 100,000 copies. I doubt AoD can sell even 50,000 copies.

Banished isn't an RPG. It's also an outlier. Indie games can do very well (IE: Minecraft) but Underrail should be compared to the median, not the extreme outliers. Selling 100000 copies is pretty good for an indie, and I think Underrail can easily break that. I agree that AoD can't do well, but lack of mainstream appeal is the least of its problems (nice move putting that Picard lookalike on the header though).

 

[Mastermind]

Also the coverage it got was negative due to being unfinishable

So it did poorly because it was a bugged piece of shit? I only played it long after Troika was dead so I dunno what it was like without patches, but this cuts into VD's theory that it did poorly because it had no mass appeal. I don't really want to play buggy shitfests either, no matter how great they are when they're not crashing every 5 minutes or ruining saves and breaking quests.

 

[Excidium II]

I'm squinting really hard and I still don't see it.

Besides the fact it's an RPG, nothing in it hints of turn-based design

When I think of turn-based design being shoved in RTwP IE titles come to mind, everything works consistently based on that 6 second personal round

 

[Sensuki]

That's not turn-based design, and no it doesn't. The 'rounds' are individual timers that start when a unit is issued a command. It's just a different time division that determines when a unit can act.

 

[Excidium II]

That's not turn-based design

Yes it is, ya dingus. The first thing I expect from turn-based design is that things generally respects a discrete time unit

D&D happened to be a turn-based game

The 'rounds' are individual timers that start when a unit is issued a command.

Yeaaaah bro don't nitpick. My point is stuff translates 1 round as 6 seconds and works based on that

 

[Ninjerk]

I really want Roguey to collate JES' playtester stories. Every time he posts one it's like reading about the SC2 probe-rusher guy all over again.

 

[Sensuki]

That's not turn-based design

Yes it is, ya dingus. The first thing I expect from turn-based design is that things generally respects a discrete time unit

See, the thing about turn-based is that there is no such thing as time. When something is measured in time, that is real-time design.

The only thing about the Pillars of Eternity design that was designed with real-time sensibilities was how action speed worked. And the funny thing is, is that it feels worse than the IE game implementation. Gaining an extra half or full attack per round in the IE games is better than the piddly 3% attack speed increases and shit like that.

Class design, engagement system and a bunch of other shit was all designed from turn-based sensibilities, and when Josh Sawyer talked about the design he most often referenced tabletop, and rarely what the Infinity Engine games did.

 

[Lhynn]

IE games were based in turns of 6 seconds, tracked individually, the very existence of initiative is proof of this. It was turn based that wanted to be RtwP, and it worked, it was extremely easy to follow what was going on, even in big fights.

Conversely PoE is RtwP that wants to be turn based and it doesnt, its a clusterfuck.

See, the thing about turn-based is that there is no such thing as time. When something is measured in time, that is real-time design.

Chess is measured in time.

 

[Excidium II]

See, the thing about turn-based is that there is no such thing as time. When something is measured in time, that is real-time design.

Bro a turn/round is a measure of time

It's real time when the measure of time isn't abstract

The only thing about the Pillars of Eternity design that was designed with real-time sensibilities was how action speed worked. And the funny thing is, is that it feels worse than the IE game implementation. Gaining an extra half or full attack per round in the IE games is better than the piddly 3% attack speed increases and shit like that.

Class design, engagement system and a bunch of other shit was all designed from turn-based sensibilities, and when Josh Sawyer talked about the design he most often referenced tabletop, and rarely what the Infinity Engine games did.

Kindly provide an specific example like I did

 

[Vault Dweller]

Also the coverage it got was negative due to being unfinishable

So it did poorly because it was a bugged piece of shit? I only played it long after Troika was dead so I dunno what it was like without patches, but this cuts into VD's theory that it did poorly because it had no mass appeal. I don't really want to play buggy shitfests either, no matter how great they are when they're not crashing every 5 minutes or ruining saves and breaking quests.

First, it wasn't a "bugged piece of shit". It sold poorly because it was released on the same day as a highly anticipated shooter using the same engine. Since Bloodlines is an RPG/shooter, it couldn't compete with HL2 as most people who wanted action bought HL2 first.

Second, unlike, say, Arcanum, it had mass appeal and was way too actiony. Its saving grace was the atmosphere, not combat or even role-playing. Had Activision not fucked them, it could have done well.

 

[Mastermind]

Engagement has nothing to do with turn based. It's a way to prevent easy breaking through ranks and just as much of a sad attempt to patch up bad design in TB as it is in RT.

 

[Mastermind]

Also the coverage it got was negative due to being unfinishable

So it did poorly because it was a bugged piece of shit? I only played it long after Troika was dead so I dunno what it was like without patches, but this cuts into VD's theory that it did poorly because it had no mass appeal. I don't really want to play buggy shitfests either, no matter how great they are when they're not crashing every 5 minutes or ruining saves and breaking quests.

First, it wasn't a "bugged piece of shit". It sold poorly because it was released on the same day as a highly anticipated shooter using the same engine. Since Bloodlines is an RPG/shooter, it couldn't compete with HL2 as most people who wanted action bought HL2 first.

Second, unlike, say, Arcanum, it had mass appeal and was way too actiony. Its saving grace was the atmosphere, not combat or even role-playing. Had Activision not fucked them, it could have done well.

Yes, like I said, it had mass appeal but didn't do well. That was my point, thanks for agreeing and retracting your earlier statement.

 

[tuluse]

IE games were based in turns of 6 seconds, tracked individually, the very existence of initiative is proof of this. It was turn based that wanted to be RtwP, and it worked, it was extremely easy to follow what was going on, even in big fights.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Also the coverage it got was negative due to being unfinishable

So it did poorly because it was a bugged piece of shit? I only played it long after Troika was dead so I dunno what it was like without patches, but this cuts into VD's theory that it did poorly because it had no mass appeal. I don't really want to play buggy shitfests either, no matter how great they are when they're not crashing every 5 minutes or ruining saves and breaking quests.

First, it wasn't a "bugged piece of shit". It sold poorly because it was released on the same day as a highly anticipated shooter using the same engine. Since Bloodlines is an RPG/shooter, it couldn't compete with HL2 as most people who wanted action bought HL2 first.

Second, unlike, say, Arcanum, it had mass appeal and was way too actiony. Its saving grace was the atmosphere, not combat or even role-playing. Had Activision not fucked them, it could have done well.

Yes, like I said, it had mass appeal but didn't do well. That was my point, thanks for agreeing and retracting your earlier statement.

sigh

A game will never do well without mass appeal, but mass appeal alone doesn't guarantee success, especially if it's competing with a similar game with much higher mass appeal. Does it really need to be explained?

 

[Lhynn]

Its absolutely true and i stand by my statement.

 

[Ninjerk]

This thread is about to go places.

 

[razvedchiki]

does AOD have mass appeal?

 

[Vault Dweller]

Selling 100000 copies is pretty good for an indie, and I think Underrail can easily break that.

You do realize that Underrail was in two bundles, right? My point is that there is no such thing as "can easily break 100,000 copies" for a hardcore RPG.

does AOD have mass appeal?

As I mentioned previously, it does not.