algroth

Injuries do place certain limits on the party I suppose, the likes of being unable to permanently raise your tank for example, and offer a consequence to getting your characters knocked out (I do think a consequence of some kind is necessary myself); but for the most part I'm finding myself often playing with an injury or two atop my party until I effectively need to rest, *not* because I need to heal or recover spent abilities or whatnot but because of the buffs resting can give, and I'm... Okay with that. I don't mind resting as a way to grant some hefty and extended buffs to your party.

Probably my most despised consequence to dying in the IE games was that not only did you have to re-equip all your dropped gear, but also you'd have to re-learn any spells acquired by that gear in case you were a spellcaster. In the same way I despised vampires and other level-draining creatures for the way they'd force me to re-select my spells to memorize all over again. That's honestly a thing which I'm very glad Beamdog corrected in their Enhanced Editions, and was definitely a major nuissance for me in the original games. Re: per rest casting v. per encounter, I agree with Marcus that it hardly makes much of a difference with regards to the actual combats as most people will likely attempt to rest before any encounter they deem challenging enough... But with regards to per rest casting, I think this only makes sense in a context where resting is either severely limited or comes at a genuine risk, so that the player has to make sure of when it is convenient to rest and *if* they want to commit to resting. The most obvious example for this, for me, would be in a game that genuinely keeps track of time and has several time-critical quests and events - if you rest in the middle of one of these then you might run the risk of not reaching the objective in time, for example. But in neither Pillars is time much of a constraint, nor is your access to an inn ever truly restricted, or camping supplies scarce enough to ever *not* be at your limit, and so the act of resting, and thus managing per rest resources and so on, is all rendered pretty trivial and meaningless in the end. Personally I also feel that most games of this sort keep a per rest mechanism mostly because it's the way it was in the table-top games, and the more I see of it in videogames the more I feel it's something of an appendage that would in most cases best be removed.

I have to agree that the whole romance thing in deadfire felt terrible. There's no need for romance options in a crpg, so if you're going to half a$$ it, just don't do it at all. Other than that i'd say a lot of us are being harsh with deadfire because we expected so much, but it is a good game at its core and i'm confident a lot of its flaws will be polished in time. That was their stance with the first game but unfortunately the playerbase saw that as a shortcoming the first time around, because "y no Pallegina romance she bae" and so on. I reckon the devs were between a rock and a hard place about it at the end of the day, between their awareness for the playerbase's desire for romance but their own ambivalence to the same. I think there is room for the romances and companions in general to improve once the reputation/disposition system is fixed/tweaked. But we'll see.

I'm not sure what you mean with the crew system being "tasteless". Beyond that, as I've said in response to Wormerine's observations I enjoy the interactive world map system as an addition to classic isometric RPG exploration but feel it is often treated as a replacement to the same, and in that sense I don't feel it's as evocative or as interesting as the latter can be (the latter can give you a much more detailed picture of whatever you run across than the former, be it the exterior of some ruins, an abandoned settlement and so on so forth). With regards to the island exploration and naval battles *specifically*, I've actually been enjoying both a lot - yes, I think naval battles could have a few more special interactions in the way of scripted actions that this ship or that might take (for example, what if the captain wishes to surrender instead of being sunk? What if a bounty turns out to be targetting the incorrect ship and the captain asks to parley and explain the circumstances? What if a crew-member spots a cargo of slaves on a slaver's ship, and you are forced to make the decision about whether to attack and sink the vessel with the prisoners included, or leave them be and thus let the slaves live? Etc.), but I enjoy the mechanics to it, and with regards to the uncharted islands I really like that they all seem to have their theme or small story that you can discover when exploring their encounters and so on, and aren't merely a random assortment of resources and enemies and that's about it. The fact that all these places seem to have their own story makes them a lot more worthwhile to explore, and I for one am looking forward to seeing what I find in those I have not yet come across. Regarding time and so on, I'm roughly 78h in on my playthrough and have only explored about half of the map so far.

So I'm still playing through the game myself, so I'll refrain from answering some of the other points brought up for now. Generally I agree with your overview so far and with some of the points brought up regarding the narrative and companion sections. With regards to the open-world exploration and so on, however, I will say that whilst I'm really enjoying it, I also feel there's a problem when the above is used as an effective replacement for expansive wilderness areas and the more traditional - and detailed - isometric RPG exploration. One of the most disappointing shifts for Deadfire with regards to the first game for me has been the change from beefier, highly detailed and unique locations to more bite-sized, often repetitive or generic zones: I don't think that either the scripted interactions of the map icons really do justice to any dungeon or ruin's exterior the way an actual area map dedicated to it does, and I would have liked to see many more Poko Koharas and less Ruins of Amira's Roost or something such. In and of itself the open-world seafaring has been enjoyable, but I can't shake off the feeling that it's eaten into an aspect that I feel is essential to the overall feeling, identity and success of the Pillars saga as well.

Dunno, I've been really liking the mini-game myself, so much so that I've been actively been looking out for ship bounties.

I contributed something! It's, uh... A small line to a logbook. About a Skaenite cult worshipping a godlike baby. It's not a particularly memorable line, but I'm glad to see it's made it!

By the way, I will say that I absolutely loved the approach to combat music this time around, myself. I find that the subdued and heavily rhythmic approach worked really well in making many of the encounters more evocative relative to the first game. Tyranny likely remains my favorite in this regard but between these last two I do feel you guys have really found the sweet spot. For me, anyhow.

You know, I *did* notice some cues seemingly responding to dialogue initiations and the likes, I thought it was a neat coincidence but I see that it's no coincidence at all now! That's some great stuff. I'll make sure to keep closer ear on these changes as I carry on playing. All in all, fantastic work, Justin!

This is a bit of a departure from the topic, but I see this argument come up often and every time I think it's utter horse****. Entertainment can be found anywhere and derived from anything, depending on what the audience is looking for. Do you think that the people who love Apocalypse Now are not entertained by that film? Yet one would hardly dispute that the film in dark and depressing. In fact, one would argue that the *atmosphere*, and what the film generates in them through it, is one of its most attractive points and that in no way would the film be as *enjoyable* were it a more light-hearted venture. Do you think people watch Game of Thrones thinking the dark and brooding aesthetic makes it any less entertaining? Or The Dark Knight for that matter? Audiences are entertained by what makes them engage to something, often emotionally, be it light-hearted, be it dark and depressing. You'd reckon tragedies would have never survived the roughly 2500 years they have if audiences didn't like them. Entertainment should not "be" like anything, it should only be what the author or artist or performer feels is more adequate to the piece they are making. And yes, some will hit the mark more than others - but that's not because some recognized an inherent universal flaw in a certain approach or some bobbins like that. As far as I'm concerned Pillars had exactly the right tone. Deadfire has its own, and so far it's been also equally enjoyable. It's fine, they make me feel different things and I enjoy them differently at an equal level for that, I don't put one at the stake because it's "not how entertainment should be". What a ridiculously narrow-minded view to have, really.

I have yet to finish the game so I cannot lend a final opinion regarding the matter, but here's my thoughts so far... So, one of the things I loved about the first Pillars was precisely its atmosphere. It goes to speak to how subjective all of this is since I've often heard criticisms against it for being too "traditional" and so on, yet precisely what I found interesting about it is that there was enough of that existential, metaphysical and doom-laden feel of Mask of the Betrayer in Pillars to really make it feel like its own thing, or at least a game with Obsidian's distinct authorial touch. What's more, whereas I agree with what Thac0Bell says above about dark not always meaning "mature" or "deep", I do feel that much of my feelings towards the first Pillars came largely because of the substance and not merely the style, and I do think it more than justifies its seriousness with its approach to its themes and so on. To again use his example, we aren't in Witcher territory. With regards to Deadfire I feel that there are moments where the atmosphere of the above shines through. I think that Pillars' doom plot was a lot more front and centre than Deadfire's though, what with the Hollowborn tinging the whole region with a Children of Men-style sensation of despair, hopelessness and stagnation, but there are still hints of something cataclysmic occuring within the setting of Deadfire, and I am enjoying a lot both those touches as well as the many hints throughout to a sort of mythological place in the style of Jauja or El Dorado or so on, which I feel feed a nice dose of otherworldliness into the exploration aspect of the game, which is definitely a huge part of it. But these moments aren't ubiquitous or particularly predominant in my opinion - for the most part the atmosphere is instead more adventure-like, with hints of period political tension and so on which do add a fair bit to its overall colonial feel. It is more wondrous and exotic than the first game without a doubt, and I do feel that there's a very well-achieved "New World" feel to it all which lends the adventure its own unique touch. With all this in mind, it's a pretty different experience to the first game, and I would reckon it *is* more light-hearted, but that doesn't immediately mean it's goofier or anything of the sort - I would even go ahead and say that there is still not a whole lot of humour in it (I've had a few more chuckles in the first Pillars so far than I've had in this one), though I do not hold that against it either. Anyhow, apologies for my rambling post but I hope it's helpful.

I get what you are saying, but BG2 was like 150 hours. By all due respects, Deadfire is like 50 give or take. I don't know, I'm just biased toward the 6 member party. For whatever reason, when I came across certain characters in BG, I could tell almost immediately if I wanted them in my party or not. I think that's where Obsidian is missing the whole "Alignment" thing. I think it needs to be implemented badly. Maybe don't say Neutral, Chaotic Evil, etc, but this would really help when it comes to party composition and knowing who would be a bad or good fit. Where do people take those numbers? I would agree with you if I didn’t replay both Baldurs Gates recently. They are actually about 50h each, and by that I mean doing all quests, reading all lines, doing all that is there to do (BG+TotSC, BG2 without ToB). On the other hand, I am over 50h mark in Deadfire, I haven’t been wasting any time I am seem to still have bunch of stuff to go through To play devil's advocate here, with Baldur's Gate II you have an advantage in prior experience with the game, meaning that you know what to do, where to go and who to speak throughout most of the game, whereas Deadfire is a brand new game and is likely taking longer because you don't yet have that same experience with it just yet - maybe you take longer on this or that quest because you're looking for alternative solutions and so on. But having said this, based on the content I've found so far I'd say they look to be about similar with respect to size - though based on what I heard and so on I wouldn't be surprised that the length of the main story for Deadfire is shorter, whilst the side content is more expansive. This, I understand, is the what the devs have said about Deadfire relative to the first Pillars too.

It's huge, but I for one am loving the sheer density of content within, and all of it pretty damn fascinating too. I feel I sound like a broken record when I say this, but what's impressive to me is also how good a job its sheer aesthetic does at characterizing each faction and culture too - whether by the contrast between the very luxurious and flowery Queen's Berth to the more robust, functional, grounded Brass Citadel speaking to the intentions behind the Vailian and Rauataian companies respectively, or the sheer class/caste divide between the Huana going all the way from the Gullet to Serpent's Crown. It really is the first city I've run across that I feel compares with the likes of Sigil or Athkatla from the IE games, probably even outdoing the latter which I feel might be its most direct equivalent.

Another vote for Deadfire's music here, and for its combat music too. I personally enjoy the more rhythmic, comparatively understated and organic feel they've gone with for them this time around, I feel it's lending a lot more personality to the combat this time around than with the first game.

As others have said here, Neketaka in particular will have plenty of talking, but it is not without its fights either. From bounties to travelling encounters and a few thugs here or there, there's a few fights to find here too - yet there's also quite a few dungeons to explore, between Arkemyr's Manor, the Old City, the Hanging Sepulchers and so on, which are not of insignificant size. Many of the quests you get in the city also lead you to dungeons outside Neketaka which will most assuredly lead to combat - see Poko Kohara or the Oathbinder's Sanctum for example. There are also places like Fort Deadlight or the Undercroft which can offer different courses of action depending on how one wants to deal with them, and one of them is simply to kill your way through. So I think it's really up to how much you explore and how you resolve each quest. I'm personally quite fine with the balance of action and dialogue so far in the game, though usually I prefer games that place more emphasis on the latter so take my opinion with a grain of salt.

Which achievements were deleted? As far as I know many of the Triple Crown/Ultimate achievements haven't been added yet because the game hasn't yet been balanced and so on, though they do intend to add them at a later patch when they feel the game is at a good spot regarding tuning and balance.

DLCs = expansions. Unless you consider that Shadows of Amn was incomplete without Throne of Bhaal, or Neverwinter Nights 2 without Mask of the Betrayer and Storm of Zehir, or the first Pillars without the White March games, I don't see how anything has changed here and why you can't look at Deadfire as a complete game and the future DLCs as merely additions to the existing content.

Queen biopic trailer. Much like Queen's music, this looks like a lot of style over substance, but unlike Queen's music, it doesn't look like particularly fun style over substance.

Why? DM can be anyone. Personally I really like that it’s not a standard narrator. I don’t mind the “male booming old voice” stereotype but this one is fresh, and the actress does a really great job with the material. I expected to be annoyed by it but I just lean back and enjoy the performance. No need to rush the playthrough. Another point to take into account is that it really does make Eothas' voice stand out even more as a direct contrast to her own. Or so I find. I've not yet seen many of these sequences yet but the one at Port Maje was very evocative because of it.

I will say that the "he says" bits added at the end of those interactions are very awkward, as they do not appear written down and have no reason being there since we can already tell who says what by mere tone of voice and visual aid from the vignettes, on top of the sheer context itself. But this would be bed regardless of who was narrating, I feel, and in all frankness I don't see why people are taking it so hard against the narrator here, I think she's very good and fits the overall tone of these few sequences.

This. I'm almost at the end, but all the bugs and mistakes with the import and companions made the whole thing into a mess. I'm gonna pick up some more points and wait a few patches for my "real" playthrough. Shame because I like the game otherwise. Without trying to sound drastic about it, because it is a smudge in what is otherwise a damn great game so far, I do think the companion disposition system is fundamentally flawed. Whilst the disposition system is a nice flavour it absolutely should *not* dictate the whole or even the majority of inter-companion or companion-Watcher relationships, as it has so far seemed to do in my playthrough. I think the actions and decisions you take should speak louder than any minor bias or personality trait that you may share with or oppose to with the companion in question - it cannot be that Xoti off-handedly dismissing Skaen should have more effect on Pallegina's position with respect to her than saving someone close to her from certain death does her relationship to the Watcher. If Serafen helps Xoti out with her nightmares, this should have a greater effect on their relationship than if Serafen is or isn't prone to subterfuge. I do think this is something that has to be looked at, perhaps by rebalancing the dispositions a little in order to make their increments smaller whilst adding new bigger increments based on these moments and how they are resolved (or, for that matter, choices made in other events in the game - Pallegina should react positively to brokering a peace between the two Vailian familes, negatively if we instigate further violence). This, I think, would go a long way to making the system feel a little more natural.

Aye, alcoholism is a problem... Especially when the bottle is empty.

No, it was simply lack of V I S I O N. Not what you meant, but I do believe this was one of the stated reasons: Characters and mobs have much more abilities than the old IE games, and also more of them have flashy visuals, leading to more visual clutter which they wanted to cut down on for clarity, especially for new players. Iirc anyway, don't quote me on that. Ah, I was just referencing this argument here: https://forums.obsidian.net/topic/95739-big-patches-after-release/?p=1972042 But yeah, from what I recall that was art of the issue and it's certainly a reasonable worry. My understanding though is that the main reason behind it was that contrary to the IE games where half of your party would usually simply auto-attack, in Pillars fighter-oriented characters were a lot more active and thus required more micromanagement and was thus more confusing or harder to micromanage for the player. Balancing was another reason I recall being stated, inasmuch as it's easier to balance around a five-man party than a six-man party as you're getting rid of the bag of variables that the sixth member brings to the table and so on.

No, it was simply lack of V I S I O N.