gloomseeker

Couldn't agree more. Shrinking down the party to 5 in Deadfire really helped. Having combat focus on engagement in PoE1 only made things even worse and definitely more of an issue than in any of the old infinity engine games (especially in combat which is when it matters the most). The reason why I don't see myself replaying PoE1 over the years has to do with the absolutely horrendous pathfinding in this otherwise great game.

I couldn't bring myself to replay Tyranny and I've been replaying infinity engine games since the late 90s. I'm partly to blame because I did pick the best ending (for me) the first time through and I couldn't find any motivation in being a thrall or a goody two shoes in this game (which are the options I didn't go for). The real issue at stake is the disconnect between the narrative and the gameplay. The story is all about epic battles and momentous events that manage to fuel the imagination but when you end up playing the game (and not reading about these battles) you come to realise that the epic scale is nowhere to be found. All areas are rather small and every battle ends up being fought like yet another skirmish (plenty of these without much enemy variety). Simply put, there is no sense of scale, no epic dimension to be found in the gameplay. Frankly, I had more of an epic vibe playing the battle of Yenwood Field in the first Pillars. Bottom line, I'm not saying the game doesn't have some really fun bits and I'm not saying it isn't innovative (I loved the choose your own adventure style introduction) but the simple truth is that in Tyranny all the really good stuff happens off stage (including the ending).

Is that the Enhanced User Interface mod? I've been wary of adding this mod because I didn't want to take chances and break things (especially considering turn based mode is not final yet). By the way which mod have you been using to lower the XP? Is it Deadly Deadfire? There is a thread with instructions regarding the changes needed to be made to edit XP values: https://forums.obsidian.net/topic/98907-modtweak-xp-gain-modifier/ 50% may be a bit steep but if it is playable (I'm thinking about the early fights) the good thing is that it will make reaching the level cap take a bit longer which can't possibly be a bad thing.

I personally prefer lower levels because at that point in any game every little thing can have an impact on your success or your failure. Once you get enough skills and abilities you don't really have to worry about having the proper tools or consumables. I don't mind the level cap being relatively low, what I do mind is the absence of progression because it makes things feel pointless. I went through all the content in the first Pillars and ended up reaching the cap with plenty of content to play through and it is true that it tends to shift the focus from the character to the gear and loot while making choices less significant simply because you have gathered so much resources that you can get the stuff you want anyway. Managing the endgame is always tricky and there are some good ideas in this thread. My favourite model is the open one XP model like in Fallout 2 in which the cap is so high nobody can ever get there without cheating (unless they've been playing the game continuously for the last 20 years). It's funny that some players actually enjoyed the cash register sound from Fallout 3 (and 4), that's probably the first thing I got rid of. I don't mind having some cues but that was just too much of an immersion breaker.

I don't have enough data since I was going to start a new game with such a mod but I never got around to actually playing. Like Xzar_Monty above, I do believe reducing XP is the most seamless way to achieve this since you won't be taking chances messing with the game. Basically the only issue to be expected would be to be stuck at a low level and not being able to get through an encounter but that may actually provide an interesting challenge in the long run (most level based games are only truly challenging at the beginning).

The music is also pretty good and deserves some praise IMHO.

To be fair the male power fantasy thing works better with games where you can play a scantily clad female in third person view. I haven't played the mega bosses yet (just started my second run the other day but didn't have time to get back into the game) but I would expect a mega boss to be somewhat of a challenge. There is a fine line between challenging and frustrating but if you don't get challenged you also don't get any sense of accomplishment from beating a boss. I mean in good old BG2 you could cheese your way to defeat Kangaxx the Demilich and make your life easier and I would expect there are some tricks to defeat bosses in Deadfire (but as I've said before I haven't played the DLC yet). The problem is that the monster slaying weapon thing is a very common issue with Dungeon Masters with little experience. You want your players to feel a bit of a thrill so you end up putting a high level enemy (typically a dragon) but you still want them to be able to defeat the enemy so you give them the one thing that will give them a fighting chance (or even worse make the whole fight trivial). It's why in some adventures you get a dragon slaying weapon right next to the dragon's lair. The whole things is indeed a power fantasy but then as a Game Master you have to come up with a trick in order to take away the weapon so it doesn't ruin the campaign (presumably by making lose its magic) because you probably don't want to have the party start a dragon slaying business. Although to be fair a nice twist would be to make the dragon slaying artefact act as a magnet not only for other (more powerful) dragons but also other would be dragon slayers and orders of knights who would do pretty much anything to get hold of that artefact.

Hence why I said it was a flawed gem. Most of those problems come from it being rushed. The combat was the best of the 3 Dragon Ages, vs. the plodding combat of DAO and the watered down DAI. Also the best story of the three. If it had been given a year more in development, I think it would be one of the true classics. It ranks right there with Nier as the most underappreciated game of that era, at least for RPGs. It had potential, but the fact that they tried to make it more console-friendly killed it. DAO combat was many times better and more tactical than this semi-arcade crap. This game barely had a concept of a build because everything was streamlined and made as simple as possible. The combat animations were just silly and occasionally resembled Devil May Cry more than an RPG title. It's underappreciated? Well, there was pretty much nothing to appreciate. I haven't played DA2 enough to comment on your assessment but the thing about builds being non existent is a valid criticism. The same can be said about Inquisition by the way. Sure you have a little leeway when it comes to spending skill points but not any real builds to speak of. I did play a lot of DAO when it came out and there were at least three main options for building a Rogue. You could go full Cunning or full Dexterity or go for a mix of both. When Awakening came out the requisite for high level abilities made spending points in Dexterity more attractive but you could still work the numbers to maximise the efficiency of your build. I also remember trying a full strength Rogue only to realise it was a lot of fun and very effective. Plus being able to equip items with high strength requirements made for more variety when replaying the game as a Rogue. Sadly you can't experiment with builds in the sequels like that. It all boils down to too much streamlining in order to make the game more accessible. Sure, you can't go wrong when "building" your character in a game like Inquisition but there is very little fun to be had on that front if you are the kind of player who likes to try things out and figure out some nice little tricks that most people wouldn't even consider.

Plus there is foreknowledge when you know that a trap is there because you've already played the game. But when all is said and done there is the notion that a CRPG should take into account the character's skill instead of a player's ability to play a game. It's a lot easier to stick to that principle when you're playing pen and paper RPGs and everything hangs on the roll of a die. In a videogame you often have the option to make up for a character's shortcomings with your own skill. Take Fallout New Vegas for instance, a character's skill is almost irrelevant compared to the player's ability to play a first person shooter which is why I like Alpha Protocol since the character's skill will severely impact your ability to aim. Of course even when playing pen and paper you can get clues that do not come from the game. So in a computer game you can as the player notice something odd and suspect the presence of a trap but in a pen and paper game you may notice that the game master is spending a little more time than usual looking at his or her notes or that there is some die rolling happening on the other side of the screen.

I've never played much of DA2 but I've got it sitting in my library and I did pick the DLC bundle when it was on sale a few weeks ago so I will definitely give it a proper try. I can't say I like what they did with the gameplay in the sequels but as a CRPG enthusiast I should really play it at least once to make up my mind. Before Pillars came out DAO was probably the closest we got to playing a game that felt like a modern BG. It's a pity they streamlined everything in the sequels (I really liked the possibility of having different builds in DAO, you could go full strength with a Rogue and make a very effective character that played very differently from your standard build). People are always criticising Mass Effect Andromeda but it's pretty much the same thing they did with Dragon Age Inquisition. Big open areas with a lost of time wasted roaming around picking up collectibles and going over the same objectives over and over again. The main difference is that Andromeda never got the support and DLC that would have properly wrapped up the story while Inquisition got a glowing reception. I may be wrong but I don't think anyone has mentioned Kotor 2 in this thread. I can't bring up the ME series without thinking about this game. You were talking about deconstructing clichés and Kotor 2 did exactly that with the source material.

With both hands tied behind your back of course otherwise it's way too easy.

I finished the game when it was released with a Barbarian Fighter (Unbroken) who was very tanky but a bit slow (I had taken him through the first game). I went for a mercenary type with a really nasty streak and took advantage of every intimidation opportunities. I've started a second playthrough now that the DLC have been released and I'm planning to use a pen and paper character I've made years ago. Another Barbarian type but this time I'll be going for a Berserker/Streetfighter. The character is a bit naive and also a bit feral but he strives to be heroic all the time so it should be a nice change of pace. The main idea is that the character has an ego the size of Australia and never cease to see himself as a hero but you can't really be mad at him for that because he is incredibly good natured. I haven't taken him through the first game but I imagine the events that took place did have a sobering effect on him and that to him cosmological problems are a bit above his head so trying to do the right thing here and now and taking things as they come along is probably what he has in mind.

Neuromancer is one of my favourite scifi books as well. I don't think that you should go in DF expecting Neuromancer the game (in which case you're going to be disappointed). It's still Shadowrun so it's all about the blending of fantasy and cyberpunk. Dragonfall does hold up as a game and it certainly does have a traditional structure with a hub and quests. I was worried after playing Shadowrun Hong Kong that I wouldn't be able to go back and play Dragonfall but frankly it does work. You may miss some of the addition but it's still the best Shadowrun game made by Harebrained Schemes. I've been replaying BG and there is no denying that it feels like putting on some comfortable clothes after a long day but I guess that's only natural when you've played a game on and off for decades. I have yet to replay Deadfire (I was actually getting started when this thread made me go back to BG) so I don't know how it is going to hold up for me (the first run is always more memorable) but truth is I can't see myself replaying the first Pillars like I've been replaying the first BG in the last twenty years (but the only games I've played more than BG 1&2 are Fallout 1&2). Nostalgia is probably a factor and there is this element of comfort that makes playing it so effortless but there's also the fact that BG whether you're running the original with mods or the enhanced edition (with mods) still works in this day and age. While Dragonfall is flat brilliant, I think Hong Kong is right there with it. HK's only downside is the walls of text. I love reading, info dumps, descriptive text, etc, but HK goes way overboard. You just drown in paragraph after paragraph. I do agree but that's not what bothers me the most about HK. The economy is a bit messed up in comparison to DF. In DF you had to gather money (very much like in BG2 SOA) but you still had some margin to spend money on gear and upgrades. In HK if you decide to branch out and get into cybernetics, matrix/decking upgrades and spells you will be running a very tight budget which at the end of the day is not fun (it's ok to be short on cash early on but there is some satisfaction to be gained from knowing that you will have more than enough in the endgame to get what you need and HK never allows that to happen). Still, I think that the reason why I prefer DF has more to do with the nature of the story, i.e. the fact that the main character's background story (which we only piece together as we're going through the game) feels a lot more directive than in DF (technically you're not even a shadowrunner). There is also the character of Duncan. In DF Monica didn't overstay her welcome, she took a backseat and allowed the main character to shine. In HK for better or worse you're stuck with Duncan and if you happen not to be very fond of the character it can be a problem (in DF Dietrich was a real mate but in HK I never felt like Duncan was more than some muscle that needed to be cajoled or kept in line). This brings me back to BG because as far as siblings are concerned in CRPG it's hard not to bring up Imoen. I'm sure many people disliked her especially in BG1 and only kept her around because she was incredibly useful if you werent playing a thief. As annoying as she could be she was allowed some growth in BG2 and ironically became more important after being taken away from the party. She also became more likeable as a character as you played through the game. These days I couldn't imagine going through BG without having her in my party (she's a Jester in my current BG game and it does suit her). In Pillars I believe that the character that stands out and sticks with you is Edér. He is such a nice guy and probably the easiest character to get along with. Playing the game I never question having Edér tagging along because he is such a likeable character and that's an important trait for a follower. Sure, a character like Durance may look a lot more interesting but if I had to pick between the two there would be no contest. I believe we can't underestimate the importance of having memorable characters in the party. Even if these days I tend not to keep him around it's hard to imagine BG without Minsc. I wish some NPCs from the first Pillars would have made a come back in Deadfire. It's a bit sad Kana didn't make it but I miss Zahua and Maneha the most.

Made a slightly better watercolor. If memory serves that's an illustration for a half elf in D&D. Your modification is really nice and does make the character a lot more godlike. Nice job.

Neuromancer is one of my favourite scifi books as well. I don't think that you should go in DF expecting Neuromancer the game (in which case you're going to be disappointed). It's still Shadowrun so it's all about the blending of fantasy and cyberpunk. Dragonfall does hold up as a game and it certainly does have a traditional structure with a hub and quests. I was worried after playing Shadowrun Hong Kong that I wouldn't be able to go back and play Dragonfall but frankly it does work. You may miss some of the addition but it's still the best Shadowrun game made by Harebrained Schemes. I've been replaying BG and there is no denying that it feels like putting on some comfortable clothes after a long day but I guess that's only natural when you've played a game on and off for decades. I have yet to replay Deadfire (I was actually getting started when this thread made me go back to BG) so I don't know how it is going to hold up for me (the first run is always more memorable) but truth is I can't see myself replaying the first Pillars like I've been replaying the first BG in the last twenty years (but the only games I've played more than BG 1&2 are Fallout 1&2). Nostalgia is probably a factor and there is this element of comfort that makes playing it so effortless but there's also the fact that BG whether you're running the original with mods or the enhanced edition (with mods) still works in this day and age.

i said 'sophisticated' VN bruv - but obv u know that and anyone who can scroll up knows that. theres stuff made in renpy and flash with full rpg progression, grid based combat, card based combat etc. and dragonfalls lightish turnbased approach - balanced courtesy of a small amount of bespoke encounters and limited options for ur npcs - aint a million miles removed from them. its. not. a. bad. thing. like i aint the type to use VN as an insult. if i ever get the chance, id like to try making one. i probably wont bcs life and laziness but whatevs. ROFLMAO. fam, u wrote that 'clever' little prelude about keeping a straight face to shove me on the defensive, so i chucked it back in ur face with interest. what did u think was gonna happen? If u dont want to deal with the counterplay then dont make the play bruv. and certainly dont get on ur damn high horse afterwards when u started it. god, my sides. so ur idea of a comeback is to emulate either HRH elizabeth II or a rubbish chemistry teacher tryna control a group of unruly kids. good luck with that. and u even start preening at the end of ur own **** like ur manures just won 1st place at the rpg debatolympics. sit down. i aint here for a row, and i dont make out im ought but a clown talking in circles, chasing a thought like a dog chases its own tail, but i aint no doormat. if u got **** on ur shoes find someone else to wipe them on. ye, i didnt mind the docks and moonlighting with the watch. a bit of low level, low concern d&d is my jam. the stuff with the orcs and old owl well would have worked better as side-content imo, an optional quest where u could try out ur comp and kit against hordes of idiot mobs and generally chill out. I'm not your "bruv" and you should really take your own advice, sit back and read everything you've posted instead of piling up even more nonsense.

Calling Dragonfall a glorified VN is rather nonsensical so let's agree to disagree. mang i can keep a straight face and say lots of things, most of them to ur dad, but whatevs. I don't care much for your glibness but at least now we've established that you're full of hot air. Thanks for making that point crystal clear.

I think this depends on personal opinion. There is nothing I feel more epic than having a party with complementary talents. Same for action movies (that's why I enjoyed so much Seven Samuraïs or Rogue One ) ) If a couple of builds steal the spotlight from everyone else, I feel sad. Also, in a tactical game, I like feeling a bit of challenge, while not being constrained to use a couple of semi-obscure builds (IWD2 was even worse in this aspect). That's the reason why I was playing exclusively with companions in BG2. Their builds were not so OP and rather balanced between them, which adressed a bit the problem of OPness. (It's OK if MC is a bit above the pack.) That's the reason why PoE series finally feel like "my favorite system". I had tons of fun with BG2, but I cant' prevent myself from finding the system "old". The whole game, of course, is as ageless as a high level druid. In all fairness in BG characters do have different roles. The big fighter type may make fun of the thief but if they're going in a dungeon it will be the thief's turn to shine simply because the entire party would die without him or her. That's why I like playing thieves in the BG series. A thief character is definitely not the strongest in a straight fight but there is the self reliance factor and it opens up possibilities to recruit NPCs without having to worry about having someone on trap finding and lockpicking duty. To me a balanced party is not exactly the same thing as having balanced classes. all the faction npcs have triggers that make them leave, and tbf theyre all misfits one way or another, tekehu resents his obligations, serafen dislikes the principi leadership, palleginas loyal to the republics, but that loyalty only goes one way. maias become jaded. feel theyre all taking time out from their lives for whatever reason even if they plan on going back. like maia pursues a relationship with cloud-cuckoolander xoti of all people, if that aint indicative of wanting to escape *something*, i dunno what is. i really dont feel their presence is that much of a stretch when there are plenty of people in FO, BG, Arcanum etc. that have no reason to be hanging with u other than they were standing on certain road when u passed. also i dont think is helpful to consider npcs as real people, even if they can be catalysts for very real emotions. devs are constrained by resources. only so much time in day for narrative designers to compose different variations of each encounter. judging work by how well it reflects 'reality' without acknowledging limits and tendencies of medium just not productive imo. like u can go through every conversation in deadfire and say 'serafen should say this', 'serafen should say this' yadda yadda but suspect alex scokel needed to sleep and eat at some point - and liam o'brien costs money. characters in other games may be written more thoroughly and to the same end - every conversation bespoke and complete - but expecting big open-world, branching crpg to reap benefits of linearity just recipe for disappointment. i feel is better to start from bare minimum of content required to satisfy form then consider why certain things were added - rather than start from simulacrum of real world and subtract. as i mentioned earlier in thread, more writing means more holes to pick. back in day, peeps wouldnt have imagined computer game acting remotely lifelike. branching conversations were a rare treat ud excitedly count on ur fingers. u wouldnt think of comparing it to natural conversation, wouldve been like holding cave painting to standard of photograph. we now getting to the uncanny valley where were falling between abstraction and replication. I was specifically comparing Deadfire to Dragonfall on the subject of NPCs. You can't keep a straight face and say that the NPCs in Deadfire have such good reasons to tag along compared to the NPCs in Dragonfall.

Dragonfall has a rather classic structure with a central hub and missions. It doesn't try to reinvent the wheel but there is no reason for it to do that (the bad thing is that if you don't plan your runs you may end up missing out on content or vendors because you can't go back to these mission specific areas). Dragonfall did NPCs right (well except for Blitz but nobody likes Blitz) and more importantly they did have some good reason to stick together. In Deadfire you have your pal Eidér and even if some returning characters have some motivation for joining the Watcher due to their history together (or not) the rest of the band doesn't necessarily give you a real incentive to take them along (except for the strength in numbers argument). The real problem is that most companions in Deadfire are tied to factions but that doesn't mean you can't take offensive actions against these factions while these NPCs are tagging along. The relationship system is a bit off as well (crack some jokes and they will love you no matter what). To me it's a bit of a deal breaker. If you want to make NPCs that feel like real people then they have to be believable and that means that they should be able to leave if you stray too far (I know of one character in Deadfire who will leave but all the others have very flexible morals).

To be fair there was never any semblance of balance in BG2 and some builds could break the game. Spellcasters were incredibly weak at lower levels and they only came into their own after gaining enough levels. Wild Mages are just great in BG2 TOB but I have to say you have to be patient playing a level 1 Wild Mage in BG EE. I always preferred Wild Mages to Sorcerers because they are more "fun" (in the sense of entertainment value provided you don't mind getting into trouble from time to time -especially at lower levels). I'm not getting into the balance debate but I don't believe the obsession for balance makes for fun games (especially when it comes to single player games).

BG is about the struggle between Good and Evil, not as abstract and absolute values (a common trope in fantasy) but as facets of the main character who is struggling to retain his soul or embrace his lineage. If that's not a great theme I don't know what is. The Nietzsche quote at the beginning of BG1 is clear enough and puts things into perspective quite nicely. What makes BG interesting is that it is an inner struggle that is much more significant than the more mundane fights against external foes. dont think bg's too preoccupied with struggle between bhaalspawn heritage and personal values. its largely presented as just another obstacle for MC to overcome. IWD2 flogs that particular horse with a lot more vigour. IMO the struggle within is what informs the essence of the game. Fighting enemies like Sarevok and later Irenicus is just the external representation of that but ultimately what really matters is how the main character is going to deal with who he or she is. There is an element of growth and the BG saga is nothing if not an initiatic journey for Gorion's ward. IWD2 never becomes so personal because it's more about Isair and Madae than it is about the ragtag band of adventurers who happened to find their way to Targos. It's always been about the twins whereas BG was never just about Sarevok or Irenicus. In BG what really matters was the character that the player created, that's why it's so personal. But I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that. The effect of the story in Deadfire entirely depends on how you as a player feel about the whole Eothas situation. They had to make sure the Watcher had a reason to go after him but the lack of urgency is probably the reason why people have been so critical about the story in Deadfire (and frankly any Watcher in is right mind wouldn't be in a hurry to get to Eothas simply because it doesn't look like there is much the Watcher can do in that particular situation). I think that as enticing the whole Deadfire plot can be (especially if you're into Pillars lore) the lack of urgency is the biggest flaw.

BG is about the struggle between Good and Evil, not as abstract and absolute values (a common trope in fantasy) but as facets of the main character who is struggling to retain his soul or embrace his lineage. If that's not a great theme I don't know what is. The Nietzsche quote at the beginning of BG1 is clear enough and puts things into perspective quite nicely. What makes BG interesting is that it is an inner struggle that is much more significant than the more mundane fights against external foes.

never felt this was a weakness tbh. gave me more incentive to swap around party members and make up little stories in my head about them. i dont mean to dimiss all the work thats been done since re: narrative design in rpgs, but i feel minimalism has its place. who hasnt got attached to their mute little gun turrets in x-com. Having blank slates to build upon can be fun as long as you can make these blank slates more personal with a little customisation. Takes all kinds, you know. The strength of BG characters was that they had enough personality to actually work in the game but weren't too complex so that you would ponder too much whether some actions would be out of character. Take Shar Teel, Ajantis and Eldoth for instance. They all get a little back story in the BG comic but it's not necessary to be familiar with that material to understand that Ajantis is the prototype of the paladin, that Shar Teel is a male hating female version of Conan who likes money over anything else and that Eldoth is a smooth talking scoundrel with a nasty streak. As for playing evil, in my opinion the game is easier if you don't have to adhere to a good alignment. In BG2 you can get the silver pantaloons, you don't have to worry so much about siding with Bodhi or the Shadow Thieves and you don't have to accept losing some stat points because of the Hell Trials (if you don't want to cheat of course). Of course as a good guy you'll probably care enough to recover Yoshimo's heart and get a nice XP boost in the process.

With all this talk of BG I feel like reinstalling the game and playing an evil Swashbuckler Cleric when I should be thinking about my good natured Marauder (Berserker Streetfighter) in Deadfire.

Merry Christmas to you Frog Man and all the forum dwellers!