Nonek

This is mostly fluff and very little is actually made of the racial diversity in-game. Hardly anyone raises an eyebrow when they see a godlike (how could they with all the backer godlike NPC's standing around). Playing a death godlike was completely disappointing as the reactivity hinted at in the manual wasn't present. Attributes don't revolve around souls, Abilities don't revolve around souls, Combat resolution doesn't revolve around souls, Souls are only sometimes mentioned in dialogue. I wouldn't call that emphasis. Seems like a contradiction, everyone's a different species but in the end everyone basically is Vailian or Dyrwoodan? "Squeeing" seems to be a big thing to you, do you mean that NPC's express strong emotions? If so, I find that very fitting in a classic fantasy setting, especially because we're talking about a frontier type setting here. These people are the sons and daughters of settlers and pioneers, they shouldn't exhibit Victorian mannerisms. I think it's a fitting word, however superficially when people hear wacky they think of parody or goofiness, but I already explained how silly elements fit into the picture here. Anything that requires or facilitates suspension of disbelief is wacky in this context, Yes I agree Durance was a fitting companion for this type of game. OTOH he also sticks out almost too much for exactly this reason. I see other problems as well, such as the stronghold, combat resolution, the attribute system etc., but I actually think these problems are superficial compared to the fact that for a fantasy RPG, there's precious little well-realised fantasy in there. You're proving my point for me in this post: Many themes need expanding upon, representing through gameplay, and being more thoroughly detailed such as how a species can be wholly subsumed by another culture and why two species did not simply exterminate each other as competitors. The fact that you do not think that souls are emphasised enough is debateable, they influence almost every aspect of the game supposedly, but I agree that was not explored enough in this introduction to the game. The Godlike situation is laughable I agree. These are serious issues, however at least they are a break from the normal renaissance fayre setting of the Realms, I would never fault a developer for trying something different, though I will of course fault poor implementation. No I do not frown on NPCs expressing strong emotion, though I would if they were stoical, I frown on wacky humour that is trite and ultinately irritating in the long run such as is all too common in BG. A Victorian attitude would be far more desirable than just representing characters as modern people, they certainly do not seem to be the independent sons and daughters of settlers, Mr Sawyer listed traits for these cultures but I see little reinforcement of that in game. Not everything that requires a suspension of belief is wacky, nor is escapism always a silly thing, there are massive varieties of both these things that are not silly or wacky, horror, insanity, rage, sorrow, delusion, awe, greed, ultimate evil or good. I would say the game sticks out from Durance too much, exploring his story as a protagonist would have been a fantastic introduction to this world, personal and yet intrinsically connected to the themes they sought to introduce. I remain convinced that adding wacky elements that frankly soured the BG series for me is not the answer to sorting out the problems I found in Poe, a better crafted, more well explored, thematically relevant and reinforced design through gameplay is what I would ask for rather than silliness. The fantastic elements are there already, they simply need exploring and reinforcing.

I'm also talking about "little touches", however I can pinpoint what is meant by that. Verisimilitude is part of that btw. As it is now PoE's world doesn't make sense, dialogue is very personally oriented while the world is classic fantasy. It's also just as vanilla as D&D btw, unless you think widespread use of firearms somehow sets it apart. What you are saying is that if an NPC takes things seriously the player will too, I'd say that's an unsubstantiated claim and one I can't confirm. The history of games is full of examples of serious business stories but the delivery is completely laughable and doesn't touch the player at all. I'm not talking about turning PoE into a comedy game so that's hyperbole. PoE OTOH mostly lacks any tongue-in-cheek moments. A good RPG runs the whole gamut of emotion, PoE's tone is that of a ladies' teaparty throughout. There are a number of things which set it apart, firearms is one though they have been used in fantasy settings before, seperate species instead of races of humanity, the emphasis on souls and the almost alchemical manipulation of them, cultures defining their citizens rather than race, the issue of divinity which I can't go into in the non spoiler section, etcetera. These are not entirely new but taken together they are a welcome break from the more uninspired D&D settings. No what I am saying is that NPCs should react realistically rather than spouting cheesy one liners, this gives the impression that they are more grounded and living through their situation therefore aiding verisimilitude, rather than the usual squeeing which invariably grows tiresome. In acting terms it would be called acting naturally rather than mugging for the camera. Poor delivery is poor delivery, a seperate issue. I know you're not asking for a wacky comedy Mr Sacred, I think the wacky was just a poor choice of words on your part, and there might well be room for more lighthearted moments in the game. Personally I found there were enough, for instance Durance was probably the most likeable and funny character i've met in quite a few years of gaming. However I still think that you are, with respect, incorrect in your summation that it is lightness of tone that is the major stumbling block in Poe, I think it is a number of far more serious and hard to fix issues that could be improved. This is subjective though, so I am simply putting forth my argument that wackiness is the least of Poes problems. Edit: For instance a problem which I think is being plastered over is this use of the highlight system, there are far more organic ways of communicating information: Look at Torment, a weird world filled with strange concepts and they were explained through gameplay, relatable characters and good design. You wish to reinforce that belief can affect reality then look at Mourns for Trees and the Mebbeth tuition questline. You wish to explain weapon proficiency and training, then look to Porphiron in the Hive. I far prefer this organic design that provides so much roleplaying opportunity rather than read exposition.

Joan of Arc never fought in a single battle and was (rightly) proud of never having killed anyone, seems an unlikely candidate except perhaps for the fiery martyrdom. Magran reminds me personally of the Loa Ogun, though feminised of course.

What makes side quests interesting? If you're making a fantasy RPG but you want to keep things "serious" you're obviously limiting yourself in what you can do. Defiance Bay suffers a lot from this, you just have to compare it to Athkatla to see that. An undead making machine is nothing compared to having a gang war with vampires, though that is also a problem of scope. But things like Pernisc's or the Salty Mast's quest are as banal and predictable as they come. BG's world seemed well-realised because it integrated the fantasy elements well. In PoE they stand out like a sore thumb. Humour and silliness aren't synonymous with wacky in this case. I take wacky here to mean anything requiring suspension of disbelief. However, seriousness stumps suspension of disbelief, so silliness can enhance the fantasy aspects (within limits). The points you mention would make for a more cohesive/ convincing gaming experience, but I don't see anything there that would require throwing the term soul around. Games can be a polished experience without anyone talking about soul. For me "interesting" is a presentation of personal or relatable problems or situations, that is at one with and hopefully enhances the gameplay of a quest. It can be as deadly serious as say Vault 11 in New Vegas or the backstory of Durlag's Tower, or as lighthearted as much of Torment was, so long as it is implemented well. Defiance Bay I agree was not as well realised a setting as Athkatla, and nowhere near Vizima, Britain, Tarant or Sigil, however wackiness had nothing to do with that, it was more a case of a lack of focus on the little touches that aid verisimilitude, and the lack of thematic reinforcement. BG was alright, however as a setting the Realms are hardly attractive and as vanilla as they come, and I would not say any element was presented well, it is a renaissance fayre setting with a thin veneer of out of place cultures. The setting of Poe definitely needed exploring and expanding upon more, I would have cut almost half the games locations that are nothing but backdrops for grinding and detailed the remainder with far more depth and reactivity. There is interesting worldbuilding in Poe, it needed to be brought to the fore and examined. Seriousness does not stymie suspension of belief, quite the opposite, it enhances a gameworld if it has verisimilitude, if the inhabitants show realistic behaviour and the issues of the world are well presented. Silliness is alright for silly situations or for breaking tension, if always used in a serious situation however it is likely to become vapid squeeing, out of place, childish and unrealistic. Morte serves as a counterpoint to the grim, driven and serious tone of much of Torment, the lighthearted and serious being well used, but even Morte's quips fade when the issue of his lying is brought up and the past is remembered. Seriousness has a place just as much as any other element, and many fantastic elements are not just serious but horrifying or outlandish in the extreme. I used "soul" because it was used in your opening argument, I find it too nebulous a term personally, but I would argue that a cohesive and convincing experience goes a long way towards making the player feel the gameworld has "soul." I would use Arcanum, Betrayal at Krondor, Fallout, Torment, the mid Ultimas and the first Witcher as games that were cohesive, presented fantastic elements well and reinforced their thematic messages through gameplay and features. I think you are focusing upon the wrong problems in Poe, I do not think it lacked fantastical elements, or what you term "wacky" ones, I think it did not present them well enough, did not explore them, and did not plant the priotagonist firmly enough in the midst of them.

Personally for me the "wackiness" of the BG games got old very quickly, I didn't enjoy them for this reason but rather the following: A fairly sensible main plot, some interesting side quests, some of the less squeeing characters, exploration of what felt like a well realised world and of course the personal nature of the protagonists connection to the overarching narrative. Minsc and Boo and their humour were not paticularly attractive, and became old very quickly because there was nothing else to them, whereas Morte in Planescape took the place of Mercutio, a derisive observer with far more character and depth. Thus beyond the quips lay an interesting person, rather than yet more wackiness. Interestingly enough I would say Korgan Bloodaxe also fulfills essentially the same role, there is more to him than just his psycopathy, though that is not explored in enough detail but more hinted at through his interactions with others. I think if Poe lacks a distinctive "soul" then the answer lies in making a complete game rather than cutting corners, having attributes that make sense and are intuitive, having no features that are left unexplained because the developer couldn't be bothered, having a main quest line that affects one personally, not being herded into chokepoints where all ones hard work is rendered pointless, exploring the world one has created rather than altering it upon introduction, making mechanics that are sensible and easily explained rather than try to bluntly solve a gameplay problem. However that's my own view, and it may be that there is no single answer when it comes to such a nebulous conundrum.

Is it true that these microtransactions are one use only, and after being bound to a savegame are no longer available to use in any other playthrough of the game? I think i'll wait for the ultimate collection in a year or so personally, pick everything up in one micro priced transaction.

I blame Isaac Newton! Welcome back.

Those of us who have blue eyes are apparently the new kids on the block, a mere 6 to 10 millenia old, and all share a common ancestor. No offense but i'm not inviting you all round for high tea! https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080130170343.htm https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCgP-6mzz00

I thought the new Deus Ex dlc mini adventures were totally seperate from the base game? Like the Missing Link was originally for...Deus Ex: I never asked for this (sorry forgot the name.) I may have been misinformed, but it might be worth investigating before purchase.

Stop it, i'm going to pee myself!

Sir Thomas More.

Ha good one, laugh I almost bought a round.

This may help: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myIB1TrPpTE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgcwyI-NlvI

She didn't even wear the black pyjamas, utter fail.

Well when a mummy really loves a daddy they have special cuddles...

Rather Lovecraftian what? I have to say that I was impressed, though i'd like to know why they used my mother in law to model the Goddess statue?

Good Lord, it sounds like some of you want a system as degenerate as Dragon Age: We closed Origin Studios. For shame, recant and repent.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rY0WxgSXdEE

I'm probably far too passionate about this, it's becoming my hobby horse. However i've no wish to spoil the game for anyone so i'll take a little time off from the thread, Tyranny is hardly the worst culprit.

I agree that there should have been some improvement in the fifteen years since BG, not to mention all of the features which were dumbed down and missing from the IE games themselves from the previous generation. Blanket removal of a system rather than making it work is not an improvement however, and should be highlighted as regressive. There's been decades of this streamlining, excused and championed, while the press harps on about innovation, time that there was an attempt to actually innovate and improve rather than accept more of the same degeneration. Edit: As far as making the game more difficult, well i'd like to see it but I don't hold out any hope, I expect i'll kill hundreds if not thousands without even taking a single scar or suffering any form of attrition. RPG or homicidal Superhero simulator as per usual.

I agree the IE games and most others have implemented this middling to poorly, however the response to utterly remove a feature that's difficult to implement is tiresome and wrongheaded, implement it better, improve it. We have had twenty plus years of games streamlining, stripping features and content, and this is just another step on that road, with the usual cheering on of this dumbing down. Eventually games will simply play themselves like the Dungeon Siege if we continue removing features. Asking for more and better should be an intuitive reaction of any consumer, whereas this dumbing down and simply not bothering should be reviled. Edit: Hopefully there will be magical resistance, as that can serve as an interesting feature. Though personally as a GM i'd rule evoking a Fireball, which explodes producing heat and combustion, to be a purely physical/elemental force and not subject to magical resistance. I'd use that against Magic Missiles, Walls of Force etcetera.

Ha, regression rules eh? Personally i'd prefer that physical forces like fire, lightning and such still hurt anyone caught in them (as physics seems to work exactly the same in every other respect) rather than companions being special, though i'll be keen to read the reasoning behind this dumbing down. Placement being a core element of tactics I don't think that AI will improve because of removing friendly fire, that's counter intuitive nonsense. Edit: It would be nice to see advanced AI in action, feints, fallbacks to fortified emplacements, leading into ambushes, using environmental hazards (where physics is still working of course,) etcetera. However if it's just the same old run towards melee, or use long range attacks then i'll be calling shennannigans on this particular claim of more efficient AI.

I want far more attrition and strategy in gaming, not less. I also want the enormous out of combat and gameworld/play altering spells that were implemented in AD&D to be brought to gaming, to restrict spellcraft to combat is ridiculous, backwards looking and regressive. The resting system felt half baked and poorly implemented, it did not solve the problem it set out to combat nor provide any new opportunities as any feature should. There is much talk of combat balance, but what of balance outside combat and why are there so few features other than melee now? As a GM if I presented my players with a scenario where they had nothing to do but fight and loot then I would feel ashamed of myself, time for balance across the board, in and out of combat.

I'd imagine that unleashing physical forces through sheer willpower would be hard enough, but also modifying whom they affect in the midst of combat would be spectacularly difficult, and certainly not something available at every level of proficiency. I'd prefer progression and the satisfaction of achievement rather than being catered to and having everything handed to me at the beginning, though I realise that's an unpopular view in this age of walking simulator non games and "storybook" modes.

Early 2017 apparently.