Wormerine

Finally found it. Its not specifically about the map, but I believe it didn't overinterpret their answer too much. 51:15

Sure, but Pillars and Arcanum are two radically different types of RPG (at least in my mind.) Baldur's Gate-Dragon Age-Witcher3-New Vegas-Pillars are story driven RPGs, which are all about well crafted characters and worlds, an engaging plot and overall good oldfashioned story. Games like Fallout1&2-Arcanum-Divinity where more about how you interact with the world, rather than individual storylines. I found them to be more of a "sandbox" where you have tools, and you have a problem and it is more about how your character will aproach any given problem than presenting themes or ideas. While those two "types" of RPGs share similaritues and can overlap I look for different things in each experience. In a storydriven RPG for example I don't want to get stuck or lost if it goes against the story - pacing is much more important. I will also accept well implimented limitation, if they work in support of the story. In what I define as "mechanic driven" RPG I usually look for a way to solve each problem in creative and free way and for the game to react to it. It is all of course, my personal non-academic division of different RPG experiences and is not scientifically proven in any way:-).

Lovely, but I want a map Josh... I think I'm going to pose that question in the stream thread... off I gooooooo Go ahead but they already answered that question. Josh said that they won't do the map, as they want to leave blank space for future creators, if the series will continue. They will vaguely reference places but not define them more than it is needed. I doubt you will force them to commint to creating world out of the gate. One of the biggest advantages of them owning their own IP is that they can do whatever they will feel is right. You do StarWars game and you need to fit into whatever lore and events are happening around. It is limiting as nothing major can happen - everything needs to return to status quo. If they will create map now, that means everyone in coming years will have to much less room to create. I personally find the whole "lore" overrated. Sure, it worked for Tolkien, but that's because creating the world was his goal. Silmarillion is great. Hobbit & LotR is a side product of that. Every other property I can think of gets stuck up its own bum with its boring lore and stories which get more and more tangled in existing details. So while I understand a desire of seeing a bigger picture, I think it would hurt it in a longrun.

That is a good point, though for me this kind of replayinility is a good thing. I do see though, how other people might prefer to experience more companions fully on each of their runs.

... I am sure Deadfire will work as any other modern RPG and give you all the story, even if you barely use someone. I don't remember ever hearing Obsidian saying that combat was to hard and that is why they reduce the party size. If I remember well, they said that they found that your party forced them to put bigger pacts of enemies which made combat more busy than it needed to be. I find it to be a good reason. It doesn't make combat easier, or more shallow, just cleaner. Of course, we will be only able to judge it fully once we get our hands on it.

Speaking only for myself, I think this is a mistake by Obsidian to go with just 5. I prefer no party size cap at all, honestly, but that's another design path beyond the scope of this game. Less party members means less flexibility objectively, and in my opinion, will lead to less enjoyable, less tactical combat overall. But, this topic has been discussed to death already though, so at this point I'm just hoping the game is moddable enough to allow for more party members for those that want them. At least Obsidian realized the mistake it was to go with 4 in Tyranny, hopefully they will eventually come to realize 5 is mistake as well, but it's going to be well after the release of Deadfire. *Offtopic: I'm still halfway convinced Obsidian is doing 5 just to drive Baldur's Gate/Icewind Dale fans up the wall. Less stuff accessible at any given time, yes - but less tactical...? I suppose it depends from your definition, but I disagree. I always found tacticts to be about using well what you have at your disposal. Creating effective combinations, good combos - those are tactics. Choosing from more stuff - not so much. I really disliked Tyranny's or DA combat, but it wasn't the amount of characters I could take with me - having two more would just add busywork. It was that the combat in those game was choiceless. You would just fire your abilities whenever they were available and wait for the combat to end. Darkest Dungeon uses 4 character for each run and its always very engaging - both in creating a party and in combat itself. On the other hand, I do prefer a bigger paries in Long War over original XCOM. It all depends on game and character design, not amount of stuff you have. I am more curious about the ability/class/power points changes over party size as those will have more impact on the game.

Like many others I am attatched to the party of 6. I didnt enjoy the combat of Tyranny and Dragon Ages and those had a lower character count. That said, after a bit of thought, the change doesn't bother me at all. The character limit wasn't what hurt those other games to me. I played Baldur's Gate2 with many combinations and a 4 or 5 party squad was always sufficient. In Pillars of Eternity I tend to have at least one guy who is just there. Sure, he is helping but I don't use him to him/her fullest even in toughest fights. I really don't see how this reduction could hurt the experience. All roles will be covered, and multiclassing will bring more flexibility (though I will probably wait until 2nd playthrough before I dip into that.)

You bring up a good point, and one that frankly troubles me somewhat in many RP games, Pilllars included. As you say, it doesn't seem natural to talk to every person you come across or check every side alley or building. Yet most players do this, we are meta gaming in a way, knowing if we do this we will be rewarded with extra loot, extra quests, XP and whatnot. That is one aspect I felt Skyrim got right. The amount people, buildings and possible adventures were so overwhelming, that for the first time in... forever... I didn't play the game as a completionist. I talked to those characters that seemed interesting, or went to places that piqued my curiosity. The amount of content seemed to overwhelming that I had to pick and chose because of real life time constraints. It was incredibly liberating to play like that, and a lot more like the paper&pen roleplaying games we used to run. It would be great if Pillars 2 could give you the option to play a similar way. Maybe that local tavern has different guests from day to day and you hear different rumors. Heck, should apply for the world as well, with characters moving around and changing places, giving the illusion of a more dynamic, living world. Maybe a character you didn't bother talking to moves around the world with his own agenda, and you might strike up a conversation when it feels more natural. Zones can be made in a way that lets you explore more of it in a natural way when you traverse it, running into situations or locations that pique your interest. The point is that the game world should try to make the player stumble into side quests in a more dynamic and fun way, rather than expecting the player to click everything in a relatively static world. Introducing locations, and quests in an organic way is a worthwhile goal to strive for. I don't think PoE or old Infinity games did that badly, but of course there is always a way to improve. I like that PoE doesn't have quest markers "you have to talk to a guy, or find an object. Choose the quest and *ping*, it shows on your map and has a pointer floating above it." It is a lazy way of doing it, and if you would turn those off, good luck completing any quests. I am always impressed, when in game character give me sensible directions (discription of a house or where to find someone) but it only works in specific games and with a well designed world. I remember Baldur's Gate2 descibing building at one point, and finding it only based on that discription without much of an issue. Quite often, those same tricked end up just being confusing and frustrating if level design isn't as memorable. The Devs have to choose how much information is given and how it is diivered. Some games are just clever about it. Witcher3's notice boards work really well. They are a way of telling you where the quest givers are, but they fit the world and the character. I don't think the conversation we should have is whenever we should hide questgivers names or not, but rather what more interesting ways of introducing quests could there be implimented. To me personally, in a game like Pillars it is not a huge issue as the game is quite abstract anyway. Naming important NPCs is a handy way of finding important NPC for the first time and finding them again. Hopefully the marketed more dynamic world (NPC having routines, moving around) will make things feel more organic and it won't be a case anymore of walking into an area and talking to everyone who has a name but not a gold plaque.

Now, that is a good point indeed. Although, do those make the game (after the expansion is played) easier since the balancing was done before the expansion? Unless, of course, there is scaling (yuck!). ☺ Yes, they do wreck the late game if you won't apply content scaling. That's the unfortunate trade off.

I am conflicted about the idea. If it were implimented well it could have a very engaging effect, but it could also be end up being frustrating. The biggest issue I see that if important NPC were to be unmarked that would mean that EVERY NPC should have a meaningful interaction. If you were required to click through many "nobles", "merchants" or "thugs" only do find out those who would talk to you it would be a waste of time. The problem is that confiscating what is a filler and what is not is not an improvement. Limiting the filler and adding more meaningful NPC is the way to go, but I don't see it happening due to the way Pillars is designed. It would require an army of writers and I would take a more coherent and consistent quality of writing over "you can talk to everyone but only some of them will be worth talking to".

To me personally the already implemented shift-que was sufficient, but it would be better if the game UI would reflect qued waypoints/actions.

I remember Baldurs Gate had such option (pausing every "turn.") If there is a demand for that it would be nice to see it added.

Doesn't matter if it sounds awful. What matters is that you can recite two chants at once! Well, not really. You still have one mouth. So while you can produce limited doublestops, adding lyrics to it is a different story entirely:-) You can do some nifty counterpoint though!

It's still mine. Much as I love Pillars, and Divinity: Original Sin, nothing has surpassed BG2 for me. What did it for you? Because I want to play it! Witcher3 is my new BG2. Quite different in style, but to me it shares many important similarities - limited role playing in favour of tight story and characters, huge world which just keeps on giving, insanely ambitious project that somehow succeeded. It gave me the sense of wonder and discovery I haven't felt in years. I am a witcher fan both books, and previous games so I might be bias. I also played through it only once - we will see if it will survive multiple playthoughs (limited gameplay options might make replaying it boring) Though more importantly, my taste has changed. While I still adore lengthy RPG and anything Infinity-Engine-like will get my attention, I do prefer shorter and more focused games these days. Looking forward to anything done by Klei or Supergiant. I do need to go back to BG one of these days. Didn't play it for years.

That's what I was thinking myself since the third one would be the opposite of Troubador and thus focus more on the invocations. Though my thought on the name was soprano (or something) as I was thinking of opera, but then again, 'soprano' is more likely to make people think of the movie The Sopranos. Soprano would be a poor choice anyway, as it is a description of a voice range, not a profession (bass, tenor, mezzosoprano, soprano.)

Wasn't it mention that we will learn more about where gods reside? Perhaps the Beyond is Gods domain. You do seem to enter through a large pillar of adra, possible in a temple of one of the gods.

Oh I totally agree. I never even considered the problem of Baldur's Gate 2's motivation until I read about it online years after finishing the game several times. I simply accepted that I was expected to want to rescue Imoen/unlock my powers and rolled with it. I also thoroughly enjoyed the White March despite the feeling that the Leaden Key hook was pretty weak. That said, the writers should endeavour to make such hooks as strong as they can. This isn't meant as a criticism of the writers for the White March, I thought it was full of excellently written content, I'm just saying that if it were possible to tie the expansion content in better that would be good. BG2 used to be my holy grail of gaming for many years but I happily admit I completely forgot Imoen existed on my first playthrough. The side content was just soo good:-).

Obviously, those cometic DLCs are there to generate money with little workforce. Isn't there a time in late development, where no new art is created and the game is just rebalanced and polished? If they use this spare time (inbetween expansions, or release, or whatever) to create additional cosmetic items to sell I really don't have an issue with that. I don't care, if the publisher tempts me with extra (often skippable) content as long as the base product stands on its own. And for me Tyranny felt like a tight, complete experience. My biggest concert is that I might not feel like replaying it is enough times to experience all the new content, so I will wait a while and see if anything else comes out on a later date. Price change is dodgy, though somehow it doesn't offend me as maybe it should... You buy the game for whatever it is worth for you. Yeah psychological trick of giving you a discount while it costs the same as it did before (from what I understand it is what they did? I learned about the problem from these forums) is dirty but doesn't really do anything for you if you purchased it already or if you are planning to purchase it, unlike annoying always online DRM, badly balancing games with microtransactions in mind, chopping games into bits and selling them in pieces etc. If Obsidian doesn't want to, or can't afford, to spend time on marketing&distribution they need someone to pubish and I can't think of a better choice than Paradox. I would love to see CDProject Red take charge of all RPGs in the world, but I doubt they would be interested in publishing 3rd party games.

No one says that WM shouldn't exist because it has continuity issues:-). Discussing how it could be better implimented doesn't decrease its current value.

There actually is a reason to go there tied to the main plot: the Steward mentions having heard disturbing reports of the Leaden Key's movements in the area, suggesting that they have an interest in the ruins as they have in others throughout the game. In that sense, the Watcher's trip to Stalwart isn't much different from their trip to Dyrford, with both being little more than transit points en route to the far more interesting ruins that are nearby, even if the lead you get to head over to Clîaban Rilag is significantly more compelling given its source and Lady Webb's interest. The main problem that I see is that the Leaden Key angle potentially ceases to work as a motivator once you learn that their known agents in the area are already dead, though you could argue that the Watcher might remain interested in investigating the ruins that drew them there. Sure, that is all true. I guess, I didn't really express my mind well as it is not the lack of explanation that bothers me. I think it is just how separate the expansion feels from the base game. New map, kinda different design (more packed and focused). I feel like it should be more closely tied to the game, if it is going to be a parallel expension. Heart of Stone for Witcher 3 works well, as it starts as a regular quests, happens on the same world map as main game, and many of the quests will take you back to Novigrad. You can do expansion and base game at the same time. And story wise there is no conflict there. Blood&Wine on the other hand, I will always do after the main game is completed. It is a much more separate adventure and abandonig the main quest would be odd, even if the invitation Geralt gets doesn't leave much space for turning down. To conclude: I won't mind a pararell expansion for Deadfire, if it is I more intertwined with the base game. However, if it is a more standalone adventure, I would prefer for it to be its own thing.

If you consider being asked for help to not be a reason, or just lack any desire for adventure, then I suppose that is true. Sure, but taking a trip to White March, while you are going mad doesn't feel very sensible.

His words might not have been elegant but he is not offending anyone. And he has a point. I don't believe that the game should balanced around/designed around weird ways of playing it. POE is a team RPG and different classes are designed to work within that framework. You CAN run with a party of the same class, you CAN do solo run but how individual class behaves in each scenario is not really a good argument in a discussion of a game mechanics. It's a bit like complaining on XCOM balance when you do 4 soldier run or oh bad all Mercy comp is in overwatch.

I don't believe that at all. There is no way a mod can match DLC quality (unless it is a complete ripoff). Even phenomenal and extensive mods like long war for XCOMs are obviously not in house developed. I suppose mods for Bethesda games feel more professional than base products, but thats Bethesda for you. I wonder if they make shoddy games in purpose, so mods fit better in. Maybe i should elaborate more on what i meant. I normally download aesthetic/cosmetic mods, UI improvements, camera, and all sorts of interesting mods. One thing i found myself doing was.. i often buy story content DLCs from devs and i didn't really go for content related mods. That's me of course. But what i meant was, many devs/publishers discourage modding simply because of price DLCs as they too would like to do cosmetic/aesthetic DLCs (horse armor anyone?). At least that is what i believe. If Tyranny didn't teach you anything, did you see the portraits DLCs? I think I, more or less, understand what you mean. But after way PoE handled (two solid expansions and free base game improvements with each) I just assume Obsidian won't make people pay for silly stuff like proper UI, colour scheme change or a reskin. Sure, Tyranny is doing some really dodgy stuff right now, but until I am proven wrong I will blame Paradox for that - it fits their portfolio just too well. Of course, you are right devs do block modding to sell you overpriced new units or recolours (total wars, Dawn of War2) but I doubt it would be a deciding factor for Obsidian&PoE2.

Some additional work on quest journal would be welcome. Few remarks first: overall I kind of like, how fiddly the journal is. Quests tend to update once you enter the area, so I didn't miss quests too much. As journal wasn't very clear, I tent to rely on my memory and I followed quest threads, rather than cleaning up areas. Thanks to that It didn't feel like I am just cleaning up objectives, like I do in many other RPGs. That was the benefit of not following a checklist. However, I did miss couple things I wanted to do and had to backtrack. My solution would be - keep the current system but add a "highlight" and search for location functionality. When you go for certain area/areas you could find active quests, by searching said location and highlight them (create new category "highlighted" which would appear on the top of the journal). You might even go a step further and quick tag quests related to the current location through area map.

I don't believe that at all. There is no way a mod can match DLC quality (unless it is a complete ripoff). Even phenomenal and extensive mods like long war for XCOMs are obviously not in house developed. I suppose mods for Bethesda games feel more professional than base products, but thats Bethesda for you. I wonder if they make shoddy games in purpose, so mods fit better in.