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

[Archibald]

Whole point of awarding kill streaks is to introduce snowballing. If someone is raping entire enemy team then its preferable for him to get extra money and finish the match sooner. Because otherwise match would drag out for extra 10 minutes with neither side being happy: winning team has to play longer boring match, losing side has to suffer more. Spectators of the match will also be bored in such game and switch the stream.

Many games also introduce bonus for killing someone with long killing streak so as to provide means for comeback if losing side is actually competent and can kill him.

 

[Excidium II]

Rewarding death streaks is some bold shit though

 

[Jasede]

My takeaway from this thread is that some people genuinely believe that players should not be awarded for playing well.

Yeah this is hilarious. This is the reason why in games like Call of Duty MW2 and stuff you get rewarded for death streaks and things like that.

If you have skill, you should find it easy.

My personal belief is that games should be made for the best players, not the average joe, or babbling idiots. But then again I've played a lot of competitive games, so that is probably unsurprising.

I'll c/p one of my earlier posts on this subject... though I'm pretty sure this was discussed on the codex a few billion times previously.

The party becoming too powerful when going off the beaten path is a problem in pretty much every game (not just RPG) because of lazy design: optional content that rewards players for doing it by increasing their power. Devs need to balance for the crit path, so if you're doing every single sidequest, it'll pretty much destroy all challenge you can encounter on the main quest. PoE actually does somewhat OK on this front by shifting most of the difficult content into side quests and side areas (e.g. endless paths) to begin with... though honestly, a lot of the side content is easier than the crit path, so doing it isn't any evidence of "playing well".

In case of shooters and stuff, the answer is easy: high scores (or ~cheevos~). It has no actual gameplay effect, and lets the best players compete on the leaderboards. IMO the 'good' (non-lazy) solution in an RPG would be to design the game from the ground up to grant XP only after achieving certain objectives on the crit path, and optional content only rewarding the player in ways that don't directly affect player/party power: opening up certain options in later quests, getting a better ending for a particular faction, etc.

I promise you only ~10% of players would then bother with the optional quests/content.
Including myself.

To me, RPGs are about making numbers go up and exploiting combat systems to create optimal parties. Or exploiting combat systems to beat encounters with a terrible or small party.

 

[T. Reich]

Rewarding death streaks is some bold shit though

Nah, it's fun! Gives the player the feeling of POWER... You start feeling bold and reckless, and then you make one mistake, and it's all gone.
Just have to balance it so it's not overwhelmingly strong.

 

[Excidium II]

I promise you only ~10% of players would then bother with the optional quests/content.
Including myself.

To me, RPGs are about making numbers go up and exploiting combat systems to create optimal parties. Or exploiting combat systems to beat encounters with a terrible or small party.

That's because you have autism

 

[Excidium II]

Rewarding death streaks is some bold shit though

Nah, it's fun! Gives the player the feeling of POWER... You start feeling bold and reckless, and then you make one mistake, and it's all gone.
Just have to balance it so it's not overwhelmingly strong.

Those are kill streaks you are talking about.

 

[T. Reich]

Rewarding death streaks is some bold shit though

Nah, it's fun! Gives the player the feeling of POWER... You start feeling bold and reckless, and then you make one mistake, and it's all gone.
Just have to balance it so it's not overwhelmingly strong.

Those are kill streaks you are talking about.

...You mean some modern games actually reward players for dying quickly several times in a row?
Wow, that's retardo to the max.

 

[Excidium II]

Yes I was referring to Sensuki's post.

 

[Jasede]

I promise you only ~10% of players would then bother with the optional quests/content.
Including myself.

To me, RPGs are about making numbers go up and exploiting combat systems to create optimal parties. Or exploiting combat systems to beat encounters with a terrible or small party.

That's because you have autism

Games have always been about being rewarded. Sure, you could make the reward narrative, but no game has writing to back that up. Maybe PS:T. Tell me in which games people willingly put in extra work to not be rewarded in some fashion?

 

[Cowboy Moment]

My takeaway from this thread is that some people genuinely believe that players should not be awarded for playing well.

Yeah this is hilarious. This is the reason why in games like Call of Duty MW2 and stuff you get rewarded for death streaks and things like that.

If you have skill, you should find it easy.

My personal belief is that games should be made for the best players, not the average joe, or babbling idiots. But then again I've played a lot of competitive games, so that is probably unsurprising.

Yes, CoD: MW2, the pinnacle of competitive multiplayer FPS design. If only id had the foresight to cause kill streaks to make the player more powerful in Quake 3, how much better of a game it would become I can scarcely imagine.

And then you start talking about games being made for the best players, right after praising CoD multiplayer, which is consistently designed to lower the skill ceiling and let shitty players win too, even if by accident. That, after all, is why it's so popular.
That you actually think this after supposedly having played "a lot of competitive games" is mind-boggling to me.

 

[Ellef]

Cowboy Moment They're talking about death streaks, not kill streaks; getting rewards when you die multiple times in a row. You are both in agreement.

 

[Archibald]

For those unaware: http://callofduty.wikia.com/wiki/Deathstreak

I guess people got confused due to my post where I tried to explain why some games are designed with kill streaks (or in other words, rewards for being good at game) in mind. Oh well.

 

[T. Reich]

Ignorance is bliss. I cannot unsee this.

 

[Sensuki]

My takeaway from this thread is that some people genuinely believe that players should not be awarded for playing well.

Yeah this is hilarious. This is the reason why in games like Call of Duty MW2 and stuff you get rewarded for death streaks and things like that.

If you have skill, you should find it easy.

My personal belief is that games should be made for the best players, not the average joe, or babbling idiots. But then again I've played a lot of competitive games, so that is probably unsurprising.

Yes, CoD: MW2, the pinnacle of competitive multiplayer FPS design. If only id had the foresight to cause kill streaks to make the player more powerful in Quake 3, how much better of a game it would become I can scarcely imagine.

And then you start talking about games being made for the best players, right after praising CoD multiplayer, which is consistently designed to lower the skill ceiling and let shitty players win too, even if by accident. That, after all, is why it's so popular.
That you actually think this after supposedly having played "a lot of competitive games" is mind-boggling to me.

I think you have just made a gross misinterpretation of what I posted. I didn't condone CoD MW2 multiplayer - I said it was terrible because it does stupid shit by doing exactly what you said - lowering the skill ceiling.

But I can see how you got mixed up because I was more talking about how these days developers cater to people who aren't very good / suck at games - which I don't think should happen. I don't believe in shit like get 5 kills and you get attack dogs or any bullshit like that in a multiplayer game and I don't like how the PE devs designed for people who just want to rush through the crit path either.

 

[BlackAdderBG]

CS:GO give more money for losing rounds in a row.

 

[Sensuki]

CS:GO is also a shit game. 1.6 or bust (well 1.5 or bust, actually).

 

[Archibald]

CS:GO also has different kill rewards depending on what weapon you used, no? It just adds too much shit to the game. CS 1.6 (if I'm not mistaken) was much better with additional money only on bomb/hostages maps IIRC.

 

[Cowboy Moment]

Cowboy Moment They're talking about death streaks, not kill streaks; getting rewards when you die multiple times in a row. You are both in agreement.

My takeaway from this thread is that some people genuinely believe that players should not be awarded for playing well.

Yeah this is hilarious. This is the reason why in games like Call of Duty MW2 and stuff you get rewarded for death streaks and things like that.

If you have skill, you should find it easy.

My personal belief is that games should be made for the best players, not the average joe, or babbling idiots. But then again I've played a lot of competitive games, so that is probably unsurprising.

Yes, CoD: MW2, the pinnacle of competitive multiplayer FPS design. If only id had the foresight to cause kill streaks to make the player more powerful in Quake 3, how much better of a game it would become I can scarcely imagine.

And then you start talking about games being made for the best players, right after praising CoD multiplayer, which is consistently designed to lower the skill ceiling and let shitty players win too, even if by accident. That, after all, is why it's so popular.
That you actually think this after supposedly having played "a lot of competitive games" is mind-boggling to me.

I think you have just made a gross misinterpretation of what I posted. I didn't condone CoD MW2 multiplayer - I said it was terrible because it does stupid shit by doing exactly what you said - lowering the skill ceiling.

But I can see how you got mixed up because I was more talking about how these days developers cater to people who aren't very good / suck at games - which I don't think should happen. I don't believe in shit like get 5 kills and you get attack dogs or any bullshit like that in a multiplayer game and I don't like how the PE devs designed for people who just want to rush through the crit path either.

My apologies, I am an idiot who cannot into reading comprehension.

To my defense, I think I simply failed to accept the idea of rewarding players for dying, and assumed it was a different way of saying "kill streak".

For the record, everything I've said about rewarding the player for good performance by making the game easier for them only applies to action games. It's an opinion I've come to after mostly playing bullet hell shmups for the past half a year, as well, so it's likely not true for RPGs or competitive multiplayer FPS, or what have you.

 

[Ausdoerrt]

Gratz, VD, on another excellent review. I've always liked your articles, but this is probably the first time I agreed with you so thoroughly.

Okay, maybe except this:

definitively the very best Kickstarted game thus far.

PoE may have the better writing, but Divinity: OS is the better game.

 

[Vault Dweller]

That was Grunker.

In general though, I don't think that D:OS is the best Kickstarted game because it wasn't Kick*started*. It was mostly done when they went on KS to get extra funds for polish and such. Unlike Pillars and Shadowrun, D:OS would have developed with or without KS.

 

[Ausdoerrt]

That was Grunker.

In general though, I don't think that D:OS is the best Kickstarted game because it wasn't Kick*started*. It was mostly done when they went on KS to get extra funds for polish and such. Unlike Pillars and Shadowrun, D:OS would have developed with or without KS.

A fair point, although KS definitely helped Larian make the game what it is - bigger, more polished, and more finished than the rest of their games on release.

Compared to SR or W2, PoE feels much more like a "proper", finished game. Hairbrained are definitely improving SR stp by step - Dragonfall was fantastic, and I'm really looking forward to Hong Kong - but hopefully Obsidian will do the same with Pillars.

Having high hopes for Torment, because at least it'll be turn-based.

 

[Jasede]

The very best Kickstarted game is FTL; people still stream that. And it has MCA! Maybe Grunker meant "RPG".

 

[Excidium II]

I promise you only ~10% of players would then bother with the optional quests/content.
Including myself.

To me, RPGs are about making numbers go up and exploiting combat systems to create optimal parties. Or exploiting combat systems to beat encounters with a terrible or small party.

That's because you have autism

Games have always been about being rewarded. Sure, you could make the reward narrative, but no game has writing to back that up. Maybe PS:T. Tell me in which games people willingly put in extra work to not be rewarded in some fashion?

Games with activities that are actually fun and not a chore

 

[sigma1932]

I'm late to the party on this one, but I'm putting this up anyway since I haven't seen this variation of it yet:

If there's anything Pillars has, it's soul, both figuratively and literally
Pillars has good quests, good music, good atmosphere and good combat. I can see the complains that the setting is a bit too generic, but it executes well on what it's going for. If it was released in 2003 by Troika everyone would be ignoring its flaws and looking fondly on its strengths, just like you do to the Troika games already.
Stay mad

Joined: Wednesday

That aside, shit-post is shit-post, and given your user ID, go back to the JRPG Weaboo forum where you belong.

 

[Ausdoerrt]

The very best Kickstarted game is FTL; people still stream that. And it has MCA! Maybe Grunker meant "RPG".

Didn't realize FTL was KS'd. In that case you're right, except maybe apples to oranges. So he probably meant RPG.

If there's anything Pillars has, it's soul, both figuratively and literally
Pillars has good quests, good music, good atmosphere and good combat. I can see the complains that the setting is a bit too generic, but it executes well on what it's going for. If it was released in 2003 by Troika everyone would be ignoring its flaws and looking fondly on its strengths, just like you do to the Troika games already.
Stay mad

Meh, . Bonus points for trying.

I think VD's description of the difference between Troika and Obsidian is very, ahem, descriptive:

Fortunately, like an Ochre Jelly Bean it split into two lesser beans: the artistic incarnation, which became known as Troika Games, and the sequel-addicted incarnation, which kept on sucking the publisher’s, uh, tit and went on to make some of the finest sequels known to men.

People ignore Troika's games' faults because they are a result of over-reaching. The games are works of love, and evoke the same feeling from the players. Has nothing to do with nostalgia or fanboyism - I played unpatched vanilla TOEE to death on release, even though it caused regular BSoDs on my PC. It was simply great fun despite the flaws.

In Pillars (which, by the way, do show occasional signs of great game design), the flaws come from trying too hard to find the balance between "dumb it down for the masses" and "make a great RPG". They're not frustrating (like unfinished areas and game-breaking bugs of Troika), they're boring. And there are planty of moments in Pillars where you'd be playing a good game for a while they suddenly just close it down 'cause you're bored. It just doesn't draw you in the same way Troika's games did.

TL;DR: PoE has soul, but it's kind of like the soul of the 40-year-old single accountant - you can see it alright, but it makes you yawn.