AFA

The complete lack of marketing has to be No. 1. I don't recall seeing an ad anywhere. I originally thought that the Baldur's Gate successor genre was running out of steam since DAO started it, but Pathfinder Kingmaker did really well, so I doubt that is it. The game is so badly optimized that I think word of mouth turned a lot of people off. I still runs like garbage today, and has been abandoned by the devs. The load times were ridiculous. I pretty much try to avoid Queen's Berth at every opportunity, because I don't want to sit through a five minute loading screen every time I exit a building. The vast quantity of loading screens in general. By all accounts, the console port is even worse. Even if it had sold better, the game was over-budgeted. I don't know how much they paid Mercer and friends to hang out, but it was too much. Not sure why they threw this much money at a niche product, and expected to make a profit. For all they spent, the game doesn't work nearly as good as the budget would indicate. That said, I love the game despite the flaws. I prefer it to DOS2, and liked it better than Kingmaker, at least until Kingmaker got patched up.

The "Baldur's Gate Spiritual Successor" thing has been running since Dragon Age Origins dropped 9 years ago. PoE2 and Kingmaker did alright, but thanks to garbage like Sword Coast Legends, the whole RPG sub-genre may have been run into the ground. DAO's success is why you've seen so many old-school revival games. Dragon Age 4 is in production, and it will hopefully return to its roots (though I feel it will chase the Witcher 3 dollars instead, just like DAI chased Skyrim). If DA4 does well, I think the old-school CRPG trend continues.

Sarcastic rogue is the only way to play IMO. Really hits all the everyman protagonist notes.

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.

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. Duncan is certainly the weak link, but I think HK has the better party overall, at least the most fleshed out. None of them may match Glory, but the average is higher. HK certainly has the best missions out of the three. I like the Big Bad as well. Duncan gets a bit improved in the expansion as far as being a character, and really improves in combat with the Assault Canon. Matrix is certainly the best in HK. The best sibling mechanic IMO is Dragon Age 2. Since family is the core of that entire story, their fate has the most impact. But, I love Dragon Age 2 in general for having the balls to deconstruct most of the sacred Bioware cliches, and see it as a flawed gem, unlike most. Certainly tops the retcon-filled, fanservice-laden power fantasy cliche storm that was DAI. Plus, DA2 Qunari are peak Qunari Eder is an excellent bro. He is the only companion from PoE1 that really belongs in Deadfire.

Early-mid casters suck, now that's new! Never has it happened before in any game ever! =PTell that to the BG1 wolf! Once the ungodly power of "sleep" has been unleashed the darts would do the talking!!! Sleep, the bane of DMs everywhere at lower level. In Pathfinder, it is actually pretty useless, as it only hits humanoids and there is no coup-de-gras. Kingmaker's best level 1 spell then becomes Grease. So, somewhat like PoE1

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.

Maybe I'm cynical, but this seems like chasing the Divinity Original Sin money. "It was turn-based and made crazy money, let's add that." Probably because I'm a Dragon Age fan and saw BW blatantly chasing Skyrim dollars. I will try it out, though I prefer RTWP. This seems interesting though

I still have no idea how to really use the non D&D classes. Magus was easy to understand, and that companion is a beast. But, I have no idea why people rave about the alchemist, since he seems liked a gimped spell caster that has a limited supply of bombs per-rest. Only level 7, so he was mostly leveled for me, so no idea if I broke his build or not. Inquisitor is confusing, with super-limited class resources. At least the tiefling warlock equivalent is pretty straight forward. Now, the arcane trickster is awesome and seems like your stereotypical 3.5E broken non-sense. Full spellcasting and sneak attacks, sneak attacks applied to touch spells, and eventually, she can sneak attack with fireballs. For an Alchemist, all you need to do is to pick Extra Bombs feat quite often. Mid-to-late game you will never run out of bombs, because when you're running low you have to rest anyway because your party members need their spells restored. And while you're fighting, you're doing AoE damage without friendly-fire on each attack, with additional CC effects or elemental damage, whatever you need at the moment. With unique spells you can change your bombs to be single-target nukes, too. The only spells you need are buffs, and you can cast them on party members after you take a feat for that. Vivisectionist is a better Sneak Attacker than a Rogue, 1 level dip is common for almost every melee dps, and Knife Master/Vivi combo (you can build Nok-Nok that way) is a monster. Inquisitor is like a super-powered version of D&D Favoured Soul. You're basically a cleric who casts like a Sorc, with you biggest boon being spreading Teamwork feats. Except one of this class archetypes has massive summoning abilities, allowing you to eventually summon extremely powerful monsters, and you can use this ability a LOT of times before you have to rest. You combine that with Animal domain to create one of the strongest builds in the game. A lot of people really, really did not like the widespread nerfs in 1.1. I bet it showed up in their metrics too. Out of curiosity, I went back to the Announcements page and read the patch threads. Yikes. Pretty harsh. As Josh said - it is only in our heads! We, in our human imperfection, are reading selectively. We pay much more attention to nerfs than buffs. Even when there's more buffs we think there's more nerfs. I'm sure patch 1.1 has buffed more than it nerfed and we're just biased little players. Long live the Sawyer and Obsidian. I love this post so much. I recognized the Favored Soul in Inquisitor, just with less spell casting and more combat stuff, thanks for the clarification. All of the companions seem built well, except for Valerie, who is the Pallegina of PKM. With the exception of the arcane trickster, none of them are really OP either. I will look into the alchemist more. I think the companion is a standard alchemist.

I have a save just after the orc quests. When I do a new playthrough, I play up to the docks, export that character, then import them into that save with a save editor. Saves about five hours It would be manageable if it was just the docks, even with the warehouse fight, but the orc slog is uncalled for.

I still have no idea how to really use the non D&D classes. Magus was easy to understand, and that companion is a beast. But, I have no idea why people rave about the alchemist, since he seems liked a gimped spell caster that has a limited supply of bombs per-rest. Only level 7, so he was mostly leveled for me, so no idea if I broke his build or not. Inquisitor is confusing, with super-limited class resources. At least the tiefling warlock equivalent is pretty straight forward. Now, the arcane trickster is awesome and seems like your stereotypical 3.5E broken non-sense. Full spellcasting and sneak attacks, sneak attacks applied to touch spells, and eventually, she can sneak attack with fireballs.

I thought it was Act 2, turns out, that was the best part in the game, with the trial and stuff. It is the second half of Act 1, after the lizardfolk arc. You get to Neverwinter, then the story totally stops and you have to do odd jobs for the guards or the criminals. Then after that, you have to go save some random guy from orcs. These both takes hours, and feature some almost endless battles. The orc arc alone has two long dungeons filled with trash mobs, and you are forced to give one of your precious party slots to the world's most boring paladin. These have nothing to do with the plot what-so-ever. You are basically earning permission to get to the next story relevant part of the city. As mentioned above, the long bugbear dungeon is a side quest in this area as well. The warehouse battle for either side is the worst in the docks. Have to clear like 8 rooms full of either heavy armored guardsmen or sneak-attacking rogues, depending on faction, and you can easily cause them to respawn.

Blasphemy! Underdark was one of the best parts! The Underdark is what would happen if the worst parts of the Fade and the Deep Roads from DAO had a baby. The Fade is one of the worst RPG levels of all time. There is no comparison. As far as bad sections in great games goes, the whole second chapter of Neverwinter Nights 2 is this. Seriously, the docks and the orcs are both giant slogs and a waste of time. The Fade is at least short.

Blasphemy! Underdark was one of the best parts! The Underdark is what would happen if the worst parts of the Fade and the Deep Roads from DAO had a baby.

I am enjoying Pathfinder a lot, but I don't get how the combat system is easier than PoE. I was familiar with D&D 3/3.5 thanks to Neverwinter Nights 1 & 2, the Temple of Elemental Evil, and Icewind Dale 2, and I still found Kingmaker's lists of feats to be intimidating. I play sorcerer, so it is less complicated, but you are still pigeonholed into taking feats like Point Blank Shot and Precise Shot if you want to be viable. Not to mention customizing your companions, where you have to know all of their classes too. I preferred PoE's (unofficial) take on D&D5e, in an AD&D skin. Deadfire opened it up even more.