xzar_monty

Surely the lvl cap can't be 10 if they intend to use DD rules. That's my take on it.

I don't think we need a Star Trek RPG. My reasoning is that the probability of it being a colossal failure is simply too big. For instance, we certainly didn't need a trilogy of movies about The Hobbit, there was nothing worthwhile about them (though I only watched the first, which put me off the other two). We didn't need practically any of the licensed computer games we've had through the years -- the overwhelming majority of them were quite poor. Original ideas tend to be a lot better. The Star Trek universe would be a massive constraint -- both creatively and (I'm quite sure) contractually. I know that BG2 did exist in a universe that was already there, but it was not in movies, TV series or anything like that.

Do we know what was the reasoning behind that switch?

You use the plural. I know of one, but are there really more than one?

I also agree that @claudius (from ancient Rome?) makes a valid point. It appears overwhelmingly likely that the main audience for PoE was always that group of players who sort of grew up on Baldur's Gate (or in many cases -- like mine -- even older games than that, titles such as Ultima, Bard's Tale, Phantasie and so on). Thus, it does appear reasonable to suppose that while the enthusiasm was there, it ultimately turned out that although they bought PoE, out of enthusiasm and nostalgia, they found that they had no time to play it and therefore they didn't hang around for Deadfire. I hadn't thought of this before, but it's a very good point.

How do you know it's intended? It's certainly not true to say that "every part of the game" is a mess. I agree that there are problems, but you're exaggerating.

Yeah, definitely a remarkable result, given what happened with/to Deadfire. I was fairly unimpressed with nearly all the stretch goals (excepting those regarding story, randomness and reactivity), but will be happy that they're there. Incidentally, I did not back the game -- I have never done that and cannot see myself doing it in the future, either. But I will almost certainly purchase it. As for the story and replayability of P:K, I am in total agreement with @Chilloutman. The writing in P:K was remarkably weak at times, and it doesn't really allow for proper replayability. I almost never replay anything, but I would still hold that P:K's replayability is weaker than average, simply because the quality of writing(*) tends to be poor. I have said this before, but what struck me the most was that some of the writing was so cheesy and silly that I was left wondering whether it was intended to be a parody or not. Like, are they making fun of stupid fantasy storytelling, or are they just engaging in it? I still don't know. (*) Heck, there were even problems with spelling and grammar!

<ignore>

@Hurlshot: My original point, made to @bringingyouthefuture, was that quality and success exist on two different continuums. You cannot claim that success equals quality or that lack of it equals poor quality. That original point still stands. Ulysses, by James Joyce, is rather universally heralded as a literary masterpiece (and quite rightly so) but it's never been a commercial success, not even close. Then you have authors like James Patterson whose stories can be illogical to the point of absurdity, but look at his sales. Deadfire would probably deserve at least twice the sales it got, but that's the way it goes, it's not rare not to get what you deserve. Again, please note that it's you who's talking about "lesser people". There is no such implication in what I wrote. The quality of products and the people consuming or not consuming said products are two different things altogether.

Just out of curiosity: what would be some of those "necessary boxes" it ticks in order to qualify as a quality product? I'm genuinely interested to see your take on this. The graphics are good, I'm pretty sure we'd agree on that, but in terms of storytelling, immersion, music, dialogue options and general creativity (this last one is a fairly nebulous concept, I'm happy to accept), I don't think there was much on offer. Turn-based combat is a matter of taste, of course, and I personally found it totally uninteresting, but I'm not going to call the game poor on that basis alone. I'm perfectly prepared to appreciate games that I don't personally enjoy (like IWD2, for instance), and were I to write a review, I'd give them high marks, but that doesn't apply for D:OS2. No, it is not extremely rare for a poor product to find an audience and sell well. Consider, just for an example, the Star Wars prequels, that second trilogy that came out in in 1999-2002. All three movies are utter rubbish, quite horrendously poor, yet they were massive successes. And we could go on and on with this. And please do not misconstrue what I write. Of course VHS didn't become dominant *because* it was poor. That would an absurd claim, and I never said that.

Surely you should know by now that quality and success exist on two different continuums. They may or may not converge. Please do not draw quality-related conclusions from success only; they may not have anything to do with each other. Whether D:OS2 sucks or not is a different question to whether it sold well or not. (In my view, it may not suck as such, but there is also very little that is in any way interesting about it.) When it comes to consumer products, I suppose everyone is familiar with old example concerning video cassette systems. VHS was quite frankly poor compared to Betamax, but it won hands down, due to various circumstances. This same phenomenon has happened over and over again, and the way it happens or does not happen is completely unpredictable (this has been studied and demonstrated rather superbly within the movie industry). Essentially, there are four extreme possibilities: 1) A poor product becomes a hit. 2) A poor product finds no audience and disappears. 3) A good product becomes a hit. 4) A good product finds no audience and disappears. The current internet-driven market has led to a great increase in polarization. This means that products, services and even companies (Amazon, Google, etc.) tend to either become the undisputed leader in their particular field, or they disappear altogether. This is generally not regarded as a good thing. It is not the overwhelmingly dominant mode within the computer game industry, at least not yet, but it'll be interesting to see whether this changes.

<post came across too uptight. can't delete. ignore this>

I never got used to in D:OS2, and then I just quit playing. But that was just one of the reasons I quit.

Interesting how identical the gameplay looks to P:K. Obviously we're still far away from the finished article, but still. The differences between PoE and Deadfire, for example, were huge. Incidentally, I am neither criticizing nor praising, just nothing this with interest.

Agreed, the Renaissance technology is a fair point and one that I forgot. However, while the narrative is distinctly different, it's still a Tolkien derivative in the sense that it's populated by humans, elves, dwarves, which is pure Tolkien. There are other peoples as well (halflings have been swapped to orlans, whose societal status is different), but the roots are the same. And the obligatory dragons are there, too.

Aren't they all? I mean, they're all derivatives of Tolkien and/or Gothic stuff. PoE adds a twist that is essentially taken from Hinduism / Buddhism but presented in mostly technical terms, i.e. there's a reincarnation process going on and it's powered by Adra. I agree that there are degrees within this generic fiction, but none of it's particularly original. This is not a criticism as such: there are some superb cRPGs that I thoroughly enjoyed playing.

Given Josh Sawyer's comments, I think it's fairly certain that Pillars is over. There will be no more games of this sort from Obsidian.

This is remarkably similar to my experience, except that I had it with D:OS2 and that I didn't hate TB combat, I just found it totally uninteresting and a waste of time. To such an extent that it's unlikely I'll go for BG3.

By the way, if you know mathematics and are aware of probabilities, you can also ascertain the following: A game that has been around for a substantial amount of time and has been a well-known favorite for all of that time [note: BG2 fulfills these criteria] is likely to be better than a new game that's just coming out. Simply according to the laws of probability. Likewise, a book that has constantly been in print for 170 years (like David Copperfield by Charles Dickens) is overwhelmingly likely to be a lot better than a book chosen at random from those published this year -- and the odds are in its favour for it being better than ALL books published this year. Again, simply according to the laws of probability. Since we are talking about probabilities, we can only make predictions. But the fact is that it realistically isn't easy to beat something that's genuinely been around for quite some time and remains a favourite among consumers.

That's actually possible, although I don't remember it very well. I gave the game a try, but as the problems in writing were so enormous, I chucked it pretty soon.

@Boeroer: Your approach is soo nasty. Apparently it works, though, no question. But boy it's nasty -- in terms of "in-role behaviour", I mean.

@Skarpen: Criticized by whom for combat? Whose opinion is it that they're "Good games but poor combat"? Yours? If so, would you care to back that up? I am genuinely interested. In my view, the combat in all those games is a lot better than anything I've ever seen in any TB game. If you disagree, would you care to name a few TB games whose combat you think is better. Again, I'm genuinely interested.

Here's a rather annoying thing about the way these conversations often go. Someone (like me, for instance) suggests that BG2 is still a cRPG that essentially hasn't been topped, i.e. it's better than PoE, Deadfire, P:K and what have you. And this is actually my opinion (although the other games I listed are very good, too). The way this claim is often taken is this: that's just nostalgia speaking, you only like it because it was in your past, etc. But this is not true. To make a musical analogy: I wasn't even born when Yes made their album Close to the Edge, but it just so happens that it's an awful lot better than anything I've heard by anyone in the whole 2000s. And to anyone interested, I can present a very cogent and thorough argument as to why I think the way I do. I don't expect anyone's opinion to be overturned by that argument (and it shouldn't), but the point is that it's not a question of nostalgia -- the nostalgia argument is often asinine, although of course the nostalgia phenomenon also exists. But BG2 really is that good, ditto the album. A similar problem exists with the "hater" term, i.e. someone (like me, for instance) points out that D:OS2 doesn't actually look that good and that the game has a rather dreadful combat system, poor dialogue, uninteresting storytelling, etc. And the response to this that I'm a D:OS2 "hater" and that's that, end of discussion. But no, I don't hate it, I'm simply not impressed by it.

BG2? PoE? Deadfire? Those three spring to mind immediately.

Of course they are. Did you actually read what I wrote? I wrote that cRPG characters are not toy soldiers, like chess pieces are. They are representations of people, and we can all see them happily walking around the map. That's the point where your forced analogy to chess breaks down. Again, chess is a great game, but the analogy is not helpful.