xzar_monty

To a certain extent, I agree with you. In my view, it's quite obvious that the quests are more interesting and varied in Deadfire. However, I don't see P:K as being quite that shabby in the writing department. What you say about the game being empty would, in my view, apply perfectly to NWN and NWN2 (to the extent that I played it, which wasn't much, as it was so poor). All quests (that I saw) in both of those games were FedEx ones: go there, kill the baddie, bring back the item. No variation whatsoever. It isn't nearly as bad as that in P:K, although I do agree that it isn't particularly inventive, either. You know, given the chance, I would like to take a shot at writing material for a game like this. It's unlikely to happen, of course -- but as there are over a hundred titles (as in books) with my name on them in the libraries of my country, I don't hesitate to say that I do know a thing or two about writing.

I agree that the ubiquity of battle is a problem in P:K -- as I've said, the game does have many flaws. In this regard, it is quite close to PoE: simply dropping 50% of the battles would make both games 100% better.

Right. Thanks for that. Less than 1/4 is significant, it has to be said. I suppose it can also been seen -- literally seen -- in a rather obvious fashion. I mean, when it comes to graphics, P:K is nowhere near as gorgeous as Deadfire.

Do you know any specifics about these budgets, compared to each other? I would be very interested. (I also have no idea how they've sold, compared to each other, and would be interested in that, too.) I don't think it's necessary at all to compare P:K and Deadfire, although I guess most people's thinking (mine included) is likely to go that way, given that there aren't that many new titles in this genre. But I have found that the both/and approach works much better than the either/or one. In other words, I enjoy both Deadfire and P:K. It makes me happy that they're both around.

The four comments above, by the way, perfectly exemplify a phenomenon that you can see on pretty much all internet forums. Two of the comments above are sensible, the other two are not. And here's the funny thing: the sensible comments are written in perfectly decent English that is understandable and easy to read. The non-sensible comments are written in the kind of language that would make you flunk.

No idea, sorry. I think pets are a silly idea, never even tried any of them in PoE or Deadfire, either. So you can definitely do without. Maybe just try and see what happens?

I agree that pointing at the backgrounds of writers misses the point. (When I compared Tolkien and Salvatore, I pointed out one's experience and erudition and the other's probable lack of it, and at least his very, very slow start at learning.) Education in arts is quite close to practice in sports: every single top class sportsman has practiced like mad. But the vast majority of those who practice like mad end up becoming... nothing. It's not fair, I agree.

Not denying the flaws of the game in the least, and you're quite right. Conceptually, the difference is still huge, though: in PoE and Deadfire, although you're ostensibly in a hurry, you can spend a million nights resting in an inn. Nothing will ever happen. This is not so in Pathfinder. I find that I quite prefer the Pathfinder model, although the game itself does have some remarkable flaws.

You are quite correct that there's not that much of a difference. The hook in PoE works particularly badly because something terrible is supposed to happen to YOU, pretty soon, but of course nothing ever happens. In those other games, the WORLD is in danger. That's more distant than an immediate threat to your sanity. As for Pathfinder, that's a game where things will actually happen and your kingdom will actually be ruined if you don't sort your stuff out. You can seriously fail, and the game will end -- not because you die in battle, but because your world will collapse. I like that, I have to say. However, much of the writing in Pathfinder is really quite second-rate, and I think it actually raises a question. Namely: is this a parody of the whole CRPG writing with all its cliches, or are the writers really just quite poor?

Of course an education in literature or writing does not disqualify you. That would be an absurd statement. However, the real point is that an education in literature or writing also does not qualify you. And yes, Borges does indeed wipe the floor with most other writers of his era.

Do correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that the hook in the first game isn't actually a hook. The reason being: it is not possible to lose your sanity in the game. The threat is there as stated, for sure, but it can never come to pass. This is one of the reasons why I think Obsidian games are way too nice -- they are built so that you cannot fail. What you say about Deadfire, on the other hand, is true. The contrast with Pathfinder: Kingmaker could hardly be more profound: there are plenty of ways to fail in that game, and the game will not hold your hand.

Tolkien was a veteran of the first world war (Dead Marshes, anyone?), a professor of Anglo-Saxon and spoke at least a dozen languages. R. A. Salvatore started reading fantasy novels during his sophomore year in college. Look, I don't want to make R. A. look any poorer than he is, as a writer, but this encapsulates what you just said there.

There are many possible replies to this. First, I wish to point out that your "why should I care?" attitude can be applied to everything. For instance: life is series of inbreaths and outbreaths, and eventually it will end. There is no meaning. Why should I care? That's a valid question. Some people invoke religion as an answer, others may despair. But the fact is: there is no meaning, and you can't just dismiss the "why should I care?" realization, because it's perfectly valid. Second, and more importantly, coming up with good stories and settings is incredibly difficult. The world is full of bad ones, but the really good ones are few and far between, and they endure. Look at fantasy: Tolkien's creation is still the unparallelled masterpiece (although with flaws), and nothing written in that spirit is very interesting. Salvatore is poor, Dragonlance is poor (actually, I would like to use much stronger terminology to describe both, but you get my drift), and so on. I also think that Baldur's Gate I is very poor, the story is all over the place and doesn't interest me at all -- but then, BGII is excellent. And I do agree that neither PoE nor Deadfire rival that, as stories. Here's a key point: you don't get good stories, good settings, simply by paying money, even very good money. You can hire people to do all the technical stuff brilliantly: incredible graphics, a great engine, marvelous music, even superb voice acting. And you will get all that. But where do you find the people who write excellent stories? Are there any working in the movie industry today? Are there any in the gaming industry? There are some in literature, for sure. But seriously: where do you find people to write you good stories?

Everything works, optimization is not necessary. I think that's a good thing to keep in mind, if you're new to the rules. I know that this a question that separates people on the basis of their temperament, and that's fine. For instance, my PnP role-playing group has a GM and three players. In the past twenty years (although it obviously took a lot less time than that), I have learned that it is extremely important for one of our players to calculate everything and figure out the optimum stats and approach for whichever character he happens to be playing. To me, it's not important, although I do not go out of my way to create bad characters. But since the point of the game is to have fun, I don't want to nitpick and spend extra amounts of time figuring out combinations that might, in the long run, improve my survival chances by, say, 3.75 per cent and produce, say, an average of 8.63 per cent more melee damage. But I know that there are people for whom this is important, and, as I said, that's fine.

Content? I mean, if you create a set of custom characters, you will miss out on an awful lot of written content.

Ok, thanks. I can't see why I'd want to play it rogue-like. I mean, it has all the subtlety of a colossal sledgehammer. NetHack is way better. But then, it's one of the best games there is.

Oh, I'm pretty sure there is, as it could hardly be otherwise. But I would be a lot more interested in the dungeon if there was at least an attempt at some kind of narrative. Or puzzles. Or something. But in the first four levels, there was almost literally nothing. Just interconnected rooms with monsters and unlocked treasure chests in them, unlocked doors between rooms and sometimes the occasional unlocked secret door. Not very impressive. Btw, was your comment written in the spirit of "I'm not going to spoil anything but you've got something good to look forward to", or was it simply a straightforward question?

Hey all you good folks, has any of you played the Tenebrous Depths DLC? What I'm wondering is this: is it really just a series of rooms with monsters and unlocked treasure chests in them? I'm on level 4 now, and it appears that there is no narrative, nothing. If this is all there is, I'm not going to get any further, as it just doesn't look interesting. I mean, compared to this, Watcher's Keep in BG2 is Nobel class writing. (And looking at it any way at all, WK is pretty nice.)

I totally agree that the sprites are too big. Frankly, I'm astonished that a problem like this can exist in a game of this kind. It beggars belief that directing characters in a battle can be difficult because the sprites are too big. I also agree on the haste thing. It is a built-in problem in the D&D world that casting a combination of haste on your own group and slow on your enemies is too effective. Hey, what about the "slow mode activating at random" thing? Does that bother you? That's another thing that frankly astonishes me -- I think it's nice that there's a slow movement mode in the game (although I never use it myself), but it's basically inexcusable that it tends to activate almost at will in battles simply because you occasionally press pause. I mean, there's no justification for that. Despite all that, I also enjoy the game a great deal. I think there's a lot of wonderful stuff in it, and I wouldn't want to be drawn to discussing which one's better, P:K or Deadfire. I mean, they're both really good if you're into games like this. As for the cheating that I mentioned, what I mean is something like this. I'm sure you remember the nymph encounter that you have to do alone -- right? I believe the location is called Verdant Chambers, or something pretty close to that, anyway. Well, once you enter the courtyard and sort of trigger the encounter, several things happen that are just blatant cheating and a definite no-no in my book. Traps appear in places that you walked over fifteen seconds ago, traps that definitely weren't there and you absolutely couldn't spot. A monster also appears outside the courtyard, just like that. You could argue that somebody teleports the monster there, but even that is a stretch, and there's just no justification for the sudden appearance of the traps. That's cheating. This is not the only example. There are spots where you walk in consecutive spaces or rooms, let's call them ABCD (so you start in a corridor or a sequence of rooms from spot A and travel into D; they're all connected to each other). When you travel from A to B, B is empty, but once you get to C, monsters appear in B, and there are also monsters in D, so you're attacked from both sides at once. And in most instances like these, there can be no outside agency that teleports the monsters there. I think this is a blemish on the game. I like challenges, even tough ones, but I also think that the game should play fair. Traps and monsters shouldn't appear out of nowhere in places you just checked and confirmed were safe.

So what's one of your biggest gripes, then? I have no need for the turn-based mod, but then, I never even tried turn-based in Deadfire. For me, the biggest gripe in P:K is the cheating, because I think it's just really tasteless. The cheesiness of the writing is a bit poor at times, but I can deal with that.

I'm enjoying P:K rather a lot, but one thing that bugs me is that the game so obviously and blatantly cheats. In my view, that's simply a cheap choice from the developers. There are so many things you cannot prepare for and that couldn't really happen within the rules -- rules that you have to follow but the game doesn't. Bad call. Still, a good game.

Wow. That's fascinating. I thought Tyranny was wholly uninteresting, and Deadfire is so obivously better than PoE that it's clear as day. Please be aware that my intention is simply to highlight the differences in taste. Could you tell me why you prefer Pathfinder over all the others?

Back in the day, there was a game called Dungeon Master where you never even saw your experience points or where you gained them from. It was a very innovative system and a great, great game for its time. It's a bit of a shame that the idea hasn't lasted.

Ok, fair enough. I know nothing about DOS, so I can't comment on that, but I see where you're coming from with P:K. Looking at it that way, you're obviously right: there is more variety in POE & Deadfire, no question.

In what way are they miles behind?