Wormerine

Ha! Looking forward to both. That said Obsidian has already made a great pillars game. I am a little bit less trustful towards PP. not that I gallop doesn't have chops, but it seems like a very ambitious project.

Or at least tintable portraits, with multiple color channels. Neat idea, but I can't see it happening without dropping portrait quality by quite a bit. I don't think that hand drawn shaders would translate well unless they would hand every single item. I suppose, this is where 3d models shine. It is not something I have a big problem personally though.

I do like the idea of the engagement as long as it is not too weak/powerful. The problem with infinity engine games was than a melee fighter was weaker than a range/spellcaster as they had to chase their enemies. What's more as it is real time I feel like engagement gives the combat a bit of "structure" with the engagement zone. The mechanice of blocking specific targets is interesting. I do "enjoy" having my spellcasters locked and having to either tank extra hit, or quickly find a way to disengage quickly.

What do you mean when you say that Paradox thew Obsidian under the bus with Tyranny? Something happened? Well, that does need contextualized and curtailed a bit. It's not like a business agreement was violated. But Paradox went on record saying that everyone at Paradox expected it to do better. Ergo, something went amiss in the market and Obsidian product. For context see this article: Why didn't Tyranny sell? Paradox on Obsidian's RPG (PCGamesN). So the game simply didn't sell all that well. I don't find it surprising. If I were to blame some I would blame marketing. Not that they focused on the "evil" part, but that they kept talking about choices which you have to do with limited time, that you won't be able to do all quests etc etc. I remember initial reception being quite negative because of it and it did put me off from buying it until quite recently. While entertaining I didn't find it that intriguing or bold, and while I would buy a sequel I am much more excited for PoE2 than this. Maybe if classless system was more flexible and fleshed out... sequel could certainly be great.

Did you do Zahuas quest while taking Hiravias with you? That should be humor enough, even for you. All banters were full of fanboy-pleasing-sillyness. What else do you want? For me it was the maximum amount of humor I can take to consider a game serious. OMG!!! And because of you I have just discovered that Zahua had a quest. The question now is: do I reinstal PoE, reload my save and do the quest, or do I make another full playthough...

Waves his hand in front of your face: "This is not a game you are looking for"

Being able to ACTUALLY TANK would be really appreciated. Like...not having the front line be entirely ignored and having characters just straight merc the squishies instantly and without hesitation? Yeah, not doing that. That would be *great*. As much as everyone complains about it I never felt like my tanks were ignored. Barbarian and monks had a thing for jimping behon my lines or distrupting front line but thats about it. Josh did mention though that the engagement mechanic will be more rare (not every class will have engagement) but it will be much more powerful.

My guess would be that they will still be handcrafted areas, but you will have to find the by yourself by exploring. Certainly the levels themselves won't be generated as prerendered backgrounds just don't allow for that. And I don't think procedural generation meshes too well with Obsidian's RPGs.

What do you mean when you say that Paradox thew Obsidian under the bus with Tyranny? Something happened?

Expensive CGI trailer misrepresenting the game.

Roderick's Caste and monestary (the best part of PoE in my opinion) are great examples. I did personally missed puzzles and exploration - Caed Nua was a bit disappointing to me considering how much I enjoyed Durlag's Tower and Watcher's Keep. While I don't miss on the nose puzzles (like KOTOR power transfer in the finale) I thought that the scripted interaction system opened some new potential which were never fully realized. For me, it is not necessary a need for "no combat" quests but to shake up the mechanics a bit more every once in a while. To see and do something more memorable rather than boring fight, possible shortcut if you have rope or chissel, occasionally pass conversation check.

Fair enough, although Sawyer did say something about there being "further developments" with the phylactery. And you're right, it's all about how the devs deal with it, I just personally feel that it almost always works better narratively if there's at least some sort of explanation, if there's *something* in place to provide a reason. I can work without it, I've played a hell of a lot of games, but it's a strain on the willing suspension. Also, this is one reason that I personally would've preferred they more carefully control the level in PoE 1 and the expansion, and release the sequel with a direct import, full level carry over, and simply directly continue everything. That was, of course, the ideal established in BG2, wasn't it? Every game with imports since has pretty much done it the "delevel" way, and I've always felt that's just because it's easier, not because it's better. Yes, BG did handle it very well, though it did hurt BG1 if we think on it as a standalone title. 7 or 8 lvls isn't much, and from what I remember that was lvl cap. However, going into BG2 was super satisfying as from a get go you could dominate low level mob and challenges you would encounter would fit for you level and rank gameplay and story wise. We also did see it backfire in Throne of Bhaal. Your character was so powerful already it was difficult to think of enemies which could believably challenge you. As the result I found it much less compelling. I just like when levelling system is a way to express the world - competence and power of its inhabitants. That is why I don't like level scaling. Gothic did it right. Sure, you could find Shadowbeast and get murdered at lvl1, but thanks to that, it was satisfying to kill one much later in the game. You would get bullied by higher NPCs early on, only to be able to fight back later.

Yeah, narratively those two situations aren't the same. Encountering them for the first time, their level can be *anything* and it makes sense because you don't know what they were up to before you met them.In the second game, not so much. If their level is under max, something has changed and it requires and explanation to make any logical sense. Applying logic to addressing levels in RPG narrative doesn't seem like the best approach. I personally don't always look at levels in RPGs as an expression of my characters growing skill, simply my progression through the games difficulty curve. When you play through lets say Witcher 3 as Geralt, you dont really think you helped Geralt greatly increase his skills and prowess with each level? Geralt has at least 2 lifetimes worth of experience on the path, he was a (fictional) badass long before the games narrative kicks in and gives the player agency. To me addressing changes in relative power from one game to another in narrative is the RPG equivalent of talking about midichlorians in Jedi. I didn't need DBZ power levels for martial space monks in space, I dont need them for my martial monastic in a tropical archipelago. That being said, I know we will likely face that very writing scenario with the awakening and the subsequent flight of Eothas. I just hope the explanation doesn't go to far beyond that with The Watcher or any companions. "Hey Pallegina whats up? Your soul sure looks weaker since we last saw each other!" "Hey Watcher, thanks for noticing! Eothas passed my ship doing a perfect breaststroke and stole a piece of my soul along the way. The goddess who reads the levels on my back told me I lost 16 levels! I can't even fit into my high end armor anymore. Your looking lighter around the soul yourself by the way." Well, levelling up system in Witcher3 sucked. It didn't benefit game all that much (except spacing out content). Gameplay didn't expand beyond what you get at the start of the game. Because of awkward content scaling 2/3 of the game were far too easy, as the game was prepared for you to finish the game, while skipping all additional content. Your Geralt didn't change much no matter which upgrades you chose. If a mechanic doesn't make sense I would argue you shouldn't include it. Witcher3 would work just as well, if not better if RPG systems were abandoned completely. It was more of an action game anyway (combat wise). You can use levelling system as an effective storytelling mechanic - see Baldurs gate, or especially Gothic1&2 (that said "you died and are resurrected back to lvl. 1 in Gothic2 was annoying as well). So yeah, I was a bit disappointed when I learned that we will play Watcher in PoE2 AND go back to lvl1. I can see the benefits of continuing franchise directly, but for me it is creatively weak.

Well, it is not a big deal to me personally, but I do consider games to me more than a stupid entertainment. And as I am interested in storytelling in games (mostly storytelling via gameplay, not in spite of it) having a gameplay mechanic in a game, just because it is always there, is something I will always criticise. Levelling up is a concept that RPG sequels struggle a lot. From the narrative perspective you want to continue your heroes journey, not repeat it. What if watcher had amnesia at the start of PoE2 and you had to relearn everything from PoE1 again. That would be silly. It is a bit how I feel every time i start from lvl1 in sequels. Even if you explain it, its weak.

That isn't any issue. This game takes place years after the events of Eternity 1, regardless of how Eder (or anyone else) ends up, it won't be hard for Obsidian to come up with a reason for the three returning companions to all be visiting Caed Nua at the same time. It isn't like you aren't all old friends, and Caed Nua is located at a cross roads. Do we have an information on when we meet returning companions. While it seems logical to me to team up with Eder before heading to Deadfire, I always thought we will meet Pallegina and Aloth in Deadfire itself. Aloth will be there, due to his ties to Leaden Key, and Pallegina will appear there due to her ties (or ex-ties) to Vailian Republics. Having them spaced out, and doing their own thing before teaming up with you just feels more natural to me.

Why? Deadfire was moved to a new engine, so I imagine going back and redesigning/patching PoE engine would require a decent amount of recourses. You remake PoE1 in PoE2 engine, but again, I doubt it would be as simple as porting levels over (hint - I don't know how programming works). Considering PoE, in spite of some minor flaws, is in a pretty good state it all seems like a waste of time and manpower.

He could just show up in an epilogue "Hey, I heard Eothas got resurrected and I travelled all the way here to finally find out... oh, he is dead already...?"

Interesting. It would make sense for him to join you back in Dyrwood in other two endings though. It is possible that if he traveled to the Aedyre empire he will not join you in Deadfire or he will come on his own regardless. All of the returning companions should have different states depending on how they ended.

I am not sure I agree. From a pacing perspective dropping you in the middle of the biggest city, with the most going on, right at the beginning is actually pretty bad. There is a reason games like the Elder Scrolls always start in a small village, that tells you how to get to a nearby decent town, that then sort of mentions where the big city is. You want to ease the player in, you don't want to drop them in the middle of everything immediately.There is no doubt the pacing of Eternity 1 was bad, and it took too long to get to the main city/technically second town. But Baldur's Gate 2 really wasn't any better. Get through a dungeon and poof, here is god knows how many quests, 5+ new party members, tons of stores, more lore and goings on in the first 3 hours than most games have in the first 10, etc etc. It was content overload. It would be more ideal if your first landing in deadfire is just a smaller town, that happens to be close to Dyrwood than all the rest, and happens to be a gateway or trading port with light faction presence of multiple types. This enables you to get your initial faction/region exposure on a small scale, "restock", and get some intel on where you could go within deadfire next. I don't know, BG2 dropping you in Ankhala worked pretty damn well. I don't mind having a lot to choose from if story accommodates you walking away from the main path. It works especially well, when doing multiple walk throughs as you feel restrictions more when you replay the game. It all depends on how th city is designed. I think they mentioned that the Neketaka will be a sort of a hub, which you will return to often and which will house all the major factions. It would b nice if at first your access in Neketaka was rather limited and it would expand as you get to know factions, and progress the story. My guess is - you open with a prologue where Caed Nua is destroyed, part of your soul gets sucked into the statue (?), you buy a ship, transfer what's is left of the Steward onto the ship, grab Eder and go to Deadfire. You will probably head directly to a port in Neketaka, or have some additional between content. my guess would be Netkeaka as they said that wanted to open up the game a bit more this time around. Going straight to the main hub and being able to head out in any direction you want does make sense.

It depends on how well it is done) For example I much prefer Warcraft3 and Witcher series in Russian language over original. I guess, after all original Witcher is in Polish Well, sort of. Didn't they write script for Witcher2&3 in english first to make it more natural? (I heard 1st one was quite a mess... can't tell, played all of them in PL)

Closer to Viciona, which has an even stranger fan base that BruceVC is a part of. I LOVE VICONIA.

I must admit. The first time I played through Baldur's Gate2 I completely forgot about the main storyline. I vividly remember after hours of play and sidemissions, adding another companion to my team, and my character warned them that he is after Irenicus... "Oh right" I thought. "I completely forgot about that." I wouldn't say that the plot of BG2 was bad. Irenicus made of an engaging adversary. He was fun and interesting enough. Not every story has to be deep to be entertaining. But I do agree that what drew me in the most, was the feeling of adventuring. You had this big adversary and story to do, but you also did side gigs and they were stories within themselves. Not deep stories. But they were varied, surprising and fun. Sneaking through secret entrance of a castle, to open the gates and retake the keep from trolls, finding a murderer, who kills and skins his victims, being manipulated by a dragon, underground cult of the Unseeing. All good stuff. It wasn't deep, but it had character. For me that is what was lacking in DA:O (let me tell you for the next 15 minutes in detail about your generic and uninspired culture.) And Elder Scrolls. I decided to give another shot to Skyrim thanks to my reawakened RPG need. I just don't give a crap about anything in that world. Boring quests, boring NPC, boring enviroments, boring gameplay. I don't hate it. But playing it feels like a chore.

I'm a fan of voice-over. I'd like it if the game was 100% voiced. I don't like partial voice-over like Pilars 1 did. It's annoying and distracting. If I'm to choose between partial voice-over or no voice-over I'd go for the latter. I hope "more" voice-over though is more like full voice-over. Like all main character/quest conversations are voiced and only side-stuff left un-voiced. I am fine with partial VO as long as they will make sure there is no narration before on in the middle of recorded lines (like they already did in expansions.)

I'm a fan of voice-over. I'd like it if the game was 100% voiced. I don't like partial voice-over like Pilars 1 did. It's annoying and distracting. If I'm to choose between partial voice-over or no voice-over I'd go for the latter. I hope "more" voice-over though is more like full voice-over. Like all main character/quest conversations are voiced and only side-stuff left un-voiced. I'm quite OK with partial VO. Listening to the same few voices in e.g. Skyrim is getting on me nerves But such a 3D sandbox *needs* full voice-overs more than an isometric game. So imho: partial VO in Pillars - OK full VO in Skyrim - OK full VO in Original Sin Enhanced Edition - NOT OK awww... I did enjoy VO in D:OS a lot. It was very silly, but I prefered to listen to bad jokes rather than read them.

Replayability! )