Longknife

I'm not going to 'explain' anything. I simply pointed out that I thought you misinterpreted luckmann's post. No need for the diatribe. Christ, this board's getting as bad as the much-reviled Codex boards. ....I'm doing something ridiculous here by highlighting how what you said is functionally identical to what I assumed he said?

I think you misunderstand luckmann on this. I don't believe he's trying to imply that isometric is objectively superior to other types of gameplay. What he's saying is any Fallout game that isn't isometric is inferior. Please explain to me how this is any different from the proposition that a game can be inferior because it isn't isometric. This is identical. You have every right to be disappointed your old franchise favorite isn't using the same style it once used, but that does not make the new title objectively inferior. As stated, I am fully 100% ready, willing, and totally capable of curbstomping anyone in a discussion about whether or not New Vegas exhibits superior RPG mechanics to Fallout 1 & 2. And lo and behold, it did that without isometric gameplay. As I said, I had never really played isometric games before Pillars of Eternity (had played, but never finished). Did I sit here pissing and moaning that Pillars wasn't gonna be in a style I don't prefer or that I'm unfamiliar with? No, I gave it a shot and enjoyed it. Any comment I see where someone claims they couldn't bother trying New Vegas or playing it through cause it wasn't isometric, I find that nothing short of ridiculous, and I really have to insist that such people are not having their entertainment limited by the game, but rather their entertainment is limited by their own stubborness. If the comments read "I never could get into New Vegas cause of the FPS style, but I'm sure it's a great game all the same, just not for me," I would not be voicing concern. But no, we have comments claiming a game is objectively inferior because it is not their preferred style. If you wanna know why some people find RPGCodex off-putting, I promise you that's the reason. Constructive criticism is awesome, a refusal to try anything new is not, and what's more, it makes it so that people are less likely to take your criticisms seriously when you do voice them, out of a belief that all your criticism will likely just relate to how stubborn you are. As I said in past posts, I only bring this up because personally, I read this review and I see snippets of good, topical criticism that Obsidian should seriously consider (I have threads in the spoilers section myself relating to the limited scope to which you can customize characters and effect things like accuracy, the pseudo choice and consequence speech reputations provide and the lack of choices in many parts of the main quest), but then I also see parts that are so stupid and inane that it makes it hard to keep reading. (jabs at how unoriginal they consider the races, or comments about Priest buffs being worthless when that simply isn't so) And personally? I find it sad that some good critiques are gonna be lost in a sea of persistent cynicism and pessimism that seems to refuse to stop.

Are you really just trying to reason with the Codex' most cherished pet belief that Fallout (the original one) > everything else > everything made by Bethesda?Good luck. Nah cause I'm not on that website....nor do I think I have an interest in being there. My point is more: the review of this thread provides good criticisms, but occassionally provides them in the most ass way possible. I am a big fan and a big proponent of constructive criticism, but some of what I've read....it feels like the right answer gotten using all the wrong methods. It's difficult to take a review seriously when the writer seems to stink of bias or cynicism or the like. I find this review in particular to be an interesting case, because I both sympathize with posters who wish to discredit the review as garbage or not finish reading it because it seems overly cynical and hateful, but I also think the review did manage to raise some valuable criticism. All I'm really doing is lamenting that the Codex and some people from it seem so stubborn and cynical that it's difficult to take their often-good criticisms seriously, because that's all they ever seem to offer: criticism, when warranted and when not warranted. They could get far better results and get far more people to listen if they just toned it down and criticized purely when it seems absolutely clear there's a call for it, and not just criticized like it was going out of style or like someone's about to accuse them of not being hipster and pretentious enough AND LORD KNOWS WE CAN'T HAVE THAT. Criticize the lack of actual choice and consequence in Pillars, criticize some aspects of the combat you didn't like while offering working suggestions as alternatives. Don't criticize stupid, trivial crap like your belief that the races of Pillars are only pseudo-original and more or less the same as long-time traditional races of RPGs. That's nitpicky as hell. They've got some solid points and opinions a lot of the time, they just gotta be less crappy about them. I know better than to try and bring that up with them though.

Thaaaaat's why Japan and Japanese companies don't like them!

Any non-isometric Fallout deserves to be shat on. Now, Obsidian is not to blame in this case, Bethesda is, and Obsidian did really well with what they had. But that's still ****. This is absurd as it implies isometric gameplay is somehow objectively superior to other styles of gameplay. It's not. There are different genres with different pros and cons and people have different preferences. To say Fallout New Vegas is less of a game because it's not isometric is no different from me claiming Pillars of Eternity is less of a game because it's not a first-person game. It's preference. And while you, myself, and all the people at the Codex have every right to prefer one style over another, it's nothing short of stubborn, arrogant ignorance to try and claim the absolute superiority of one style over another. Pillars of Eternity is more or less my first isometric game. Aside from Pillars I've only dabbled in the Fallouts (1 & 2 and Tactics) so I'm by no means an expert on isometric gameplay. When I first loaded up the backer beta it was a bit overwhelming for me because this was a style of gameplay I was completely unfamiliar with. I did not however make the ridiculous claim that "this game sucks," shelf it and never attempt to even understand it. I knew a good game can come from anywhere and sometimes getting adjusted to some is more difficult than others, but that the reward for doing so can be very much worth it. So to hear ANYBODY claim they couldn't play New Vegas because it's not isometric, I find nothing short of ridiculous. I would hope we could agree that New Vegas' gameplay style is far more straightforward and easier to understand than that of Pillars, so a difficulty to get into it or understand it? I find that ridiculous. When I read those comments, I fear I'm reading the opinions of someone who held themselves back from enjoying a game, which is their own tragedy to deal with, because mark my words: the roleplay aspects seen in New Vegas are stronger than those of Pillars, Fallout 1 and Fallout 2. Superior choice and consequence, superior amount of such content, superior storyline and writing, superior character customization and variance....everything. It has it's blemishes (skill gain clearly balanced out pre-DLC), but that's every game, and I would rather not focus on those when it seems clear this is a community that houses some people who would take a portion of lackluster design and run with it. Having an opinion is fine. Casually expressing a clear opinion as though it were objective fact and not being able to recognize the absurdity of that...? It becomes painfully obvious why some people would discredit the opinions of RPGCodex.

I just went to RPGCodex to try and find the source of that Sawyer picture and instead found people ****ting on Fallout New Vegas because it's not isometric. Let's not go to RPGCodex again. 'Tis a silly place.

Found this on RPG Codex by coincidence: kek

Register on 'dex and find out for yourself. I promise it would be a wonderful and unforgettable journey. Can you not explain it? Now I'M curious. If it's one thing I do remember RPGCodex for, it's their habit of mocking various devs in various ways. For example I remember bucket head Todd Howard leaking onto the Bethesda forums with people who disliked Skyrim making that their avatar. I wanna hear their hilarious opinion of Sawyer too.

I would just say this: I find the demands a little over the top in the sense it is clear that meeting the backer standards put some restraints on Obsidian. Please name how many dungeon areas this game has, then compare it to Endless paths. The Endless Paths is half of all dungeon exploration. If it were not for Endless Paths, we would instead have more locations with more dungeons, which from a storyline perspective, would be superior, because instead of "there's a book down there and some evil force, LET'S GET THEM," it would allow for varying stories and quests attached to each dungeon. In that regard, while many criticisms voiced absolutely carry weight, I think it's also important to understand why the critic could not have things the way they would've liked it. It's often not a case of "omg the developers were drunk" as the source of problems, but rather "time restraints and promises clearly did something to limit the scope of this aspect of the game." Moving forward, it's very important for Obsidian to understand this: no more backer promises. Of course backer promises help with donations, but keep them to a minimum. If there's a Pillars II? Let's see backer promises like "we'll make an additional class" or "we'll bring in X person to write a companion" or "additional companion with storyline." The backer NPCs, while minor in theory...? How much time do you think they ate up from development? How much of the dungeon exploring aspect did Endless Paths hog? How much developer time went into the stronghold? I'm actually in a rare camp where I think the stronghold is alright. Some aspects of it could use a little more impact and emphasis (multiple buildings that provide only a rest bonus) and events could be more frequent, but I actually don't think it's as bad as most say. Having said that, if I were given the choice to scrap the Stronghold in it's entirety to reinforce other aspects of the game? I would take that in a heartbeat. Imagine if we had more reactive dialog (example, Durance responding to the NPC being a Priest of Eothas), more side quests, more impactful reputations (reputations as they stand now actually very RARELY do anything beyond get you a "hi I am an NPC and I have noticed you are deceptive, I will now proceed to treat you exactly how I treat honest players" line) and more spread out dungeons in exchange for not having the stronghold. That alone is a worthy trade-off and results in a more solid experience. On the Bethesda forums, Skyrim has a tagline amongst it's not-fans: "A mile wide, an inch deep." It's a project that was so indecisive about what it wanted to be that the experience feels shallow. Pillars is by NO MEANS in the same ballpark as Skyrim for this offense, but you can still detect hints of it, though mostly due to backer promises. Next time, just focus more on a solid RPG experience and less on "spices" and gimmicks. If you view stretch goals as a neccesity to get funding, then keep them small yet impactful enough to coerce people into kickstarting. I.E., things like a goal that adds one additional class. I promise you even ONE additional class as a top stretch goal is enough to motivate people to back the project more, because not hitting that stretch goal will feel like missed content much like some people feel compelled to always purchase DLC for their games to get the "full" experience. That's what Obsidian needs to take away from this. Do not make so many promises so that you're restrained by them. Next time, keep promises simple. If Obsidian does that, I'm sure much of these criticisms can and will be alleviated. As for the critics, by all means keep voicing criticism, but show some understanding. I've got a thread (or two) in the spoiler section talking about how choice and consequence feels woefully weak, but I do not voice it as "OMG OBSIDIAN MUST BE LIKE THE WORST COMPANY EVER AND I BET HITLER IS JOSH SAWYER'S FATHER."

He's a wizard. He needed to rest after writing that review though cause the ^w is a per rest move.

Nah we don't got that to worry about so long as we've got you here to keep the quality high, oby.

This is kinda my beef with the review. It makes good criticisms but sort of exaggerates the severity. I'm not familiar with RPGCodex personally and only know that some people would say it's a bunch of dudes with excellent opinions on RPGs whereas others say it's cursed with blind cynicism. Reading this review, it feels like a little of column A, little of column B. The complaints are solid, but sometimes it just feels a bit melodramatic. It's akin to if, for example, someone wrote a review of Super Mario 64 and criticized Mario's controls calling it "THE WORST CONTROLS I HAVE EVER SEEN IN ANY GAME EVER," when in reality the controlling of Mario is difficult but consistent, so it adds to the difficulty in a way that some people might like, others might not. Constructive criticism is always welcome and useful, and I would definitely say Pillars could use some. Pillars falls into a strange category for me alongside games like Dark Souls II. These are games that are undoubtedly good, but I also cannot deny my disappointment with some aspects and, at best, award an 8/10. Good games, but nothing to write home about or no-life. New Vegas was hands down my favorite game of all time. Dark Souls was something I sunk dozens of hours into. Isaac Rebirth is the game I bought preceding Pillars, and I find myself STILL playing Isaac more even though I'd already sunk double the hours of time I've sunk into Pillars. Having said that, I do read this review and wish they'd toned it down a bit, because it's very apparent why some people are put off by RPGCodex or not quite willing to finish reading the review. Good criticisms, but they won't be heard if you drive people off by whining like it's going out of style.

I don't even know what "and legion" means and what is "embrace the PoE concept" supposed to mean? What about my criticisms suggests I'm not "embracing the PoE concept?" Might help to criticize my criticisms directly instead of making vague ambiguous statements like that.

disagree. we noted already/elsewhere that far too many o' longknife complaints were based on fundamental misconceptions. the poe paladin is s'posed to be a support class... is s'posed to be a low-maintenance support class with admirable defensive qualities and powerful single target heals, debuffs and cleanses. is nothing wrong with that concept. is other poe classes that can fill striker roles in a multitude o' fashions, and if you want the paladin to be a better tank than it already is, we can suggest alternative classes as well. *shrug* am not saying all your suggestions is bad, but point to longknife complaints is a bad start. HA! Good Fun! And what portion of my complaints suggested anything but support? As I recall, my complaints were threefold: 1) Make Faith and Conviction actually work for NPC Paladins 2) Make Flames of Devotion hit harder. The above suggestion of giving it more per encounter uses could also work. 4) Boost support skills. All of them. Liberating Exhortation would be more appreciated as a per rest skill if it got a large AOE radius in return. Deprive the Unworthy should function much the same. Lay on Hands could be perfectly balanced if it were a heal that practically made targets jump to full endurance. The short radius on auras is absolutely pointless and the radius should not even be intelligence based (or should be to a much smaller or much more forgiving degree), which would allow auras to automatically hit everyone in the squad on a normal encounter while also diminishing Paladin's demand for intelligence when Paladin is already a stat-starved class; having one less stat feel "vital" means more points going into Might and Constitution, which means better tanking or damage-dealing/healing. All remaining buffs such as deflection, attack speed and coordinated attacks need to be made more viable. AKA, Deflection should be a per encounter AOE buff, attack speed should be an AOE per rest (because honestly you can often debate if the additional attack speed on one singular target is worth the time spent casting the damned thing for most battles) and coordinated attacks should apply to EVERY ally sharing a target with the Paladin, not just the closest. Either make Sworn enemy per encounter or boost it's ability as a per rest ability. The vast majority of that is support. Aside from that, I'm gonna have to echo what at least two people have told you now and say I don't understand why you insist on reading that definition from a backer update about Paladins aaaaages ago and concluding "THIS IS HOW PALADINS MUST BE NOW AND FOREVER AND THERE IS NO POTENTIAL FOR DEVIATION ALLOWED." Yeah well as I recall we had a Backer update saying low intelligence dialog would be a thing, and it's not. Check any class-related backer update and you'll find changes have been made from then and now. The fact of the matter is that even if you boosted all of Paladin's support skills, they would still feel a bit lackluster vs. Priest and Chanter. They're going to need extra tankiness and damage to make them capable of competing, so neglecting those aspects of Paladin is a mistake. Oh and if people would suggest new skills for Paladin, that's fine but simply realize that's much harder for Obsidian to do and therefore much less likely they'd do it instead of just tweaking the numbers on what Paladin already has. You are arguing a hyperbole, which has never been an objective or productive way of going about things. None of the classes listed even hold a candle to how far behind Paladin is, with Ranger being the only other class in that list that could possibly deserve some review to make it stronger. The reason people skip Paladin is simple: because Paladin is bad. It will never take priority over any of the other classes. Fun for roleplaying, but also difficult for roleplaying with the current level of it's abilities. Paladin deserves a boost, none of the other classes you listed deserve or need a boost cept Ranger. (and Ranger needs a comparatively very minor boost; just beef up their pet and it's good)

Reviving Exhortation isn't as much a rez as a brief way to get someone cast a couple more spells because it kills the targeted ally after its effect have worn of. Zealous Endurance doesn't stack with most other DR, more specifically the level 1 Priest Spell which gives almost double the DR. A spell that becomes castable per encounter at level 9 and considering that hard encounters are far between each other at low levels, you'll have it up whenever you really need the buff. Also worth noting that typically if you are in a battle where members of the team are dying, then yes, the time it takes Chanter to be able to use his res invocation is much less of a factor. I.E., Paladin's res is more universally useful for the easy fights where ressing a person is not a matter of life or death, but for the serious fights that might result in a game over, Chanter's (and Priest's) is far superior because you should have more than enough time to react and buy time for that chant to build up.

"Yay Cancer?" Relevant: http://bindingofisaacrebirth.gamepedia.com/Cancer_%28Trinket%29

Dude have you even fought the Adra dragon?

Exactly. This concisely summarizes why Paladins are considered bad: every ability they have, another class has it too, except their version is more practical. You can tank? Fighter can do that and provide better squad support. You deal decent damage? Cipher and Rogue keep going when Paladin is worn out. You can give an accuracy buff? Priest's buffs can double what a Paladin can give. You can cure ailments or revive? Yours is single target while Chanter and Priest AOE. It should be quid pro quo here. For every advantage lost (can't deal high damage as long and as frequently as Rogue), another needs to be gained. (the high damage hits need to be practically a free KO) The reason Paladin gets **** on and Ranger (another lackluster class) doesn't is because Paladin's "advantages" are so blatantly counter-intuitive that it's insane, to the point you have to ask if the developers fell asleep on the job while working on Paladin. Even Ranger only suffers from "why not make a Rogue instead" and otherwise still provides a working alternative; just buff Ranger's pet up a bit and viola it'll be balanced. Damage that only SLIGHTLY falls behind vs. Rogue, but an additional body that tanks and deals some damage in return. Paladin though? Holy crap, this poor guy needs everything boosted.

1) Catch a Goldeen 2) Evolve it into Seaking 3) Get him an employment agent at the marble statue lady 4) Buy him a suit and tie for the job interview 5) If you prepared him enough, he'll get the job

WTF??? No, I'm saying forum rules are standard things like "don't harass other users" and the sort. This thread should not - nor should any thread - receive special treatment in that regard. If it is truly breaking the rules, then it should be reported. The same would apply to if there were a kawaii desu ne weeaboo otaku thread and it somehow broke the rules; punishing that thread and locking it would not be censorship, it would be enforcing rules that Obsidian laid out well in advance for all to see. I'm basically saying that if this thread is legitimately breaking rules, then you should report it. If you do not, then you yourself are in absolutely no position to criticize this thread as you're here fanning it's flames. Your quoted response above is nothing more than a hysterical exaggeration of something very basic that I suggested. A polite adherence to Obsidian's rules and the desire to alert them to when said rules are broken within their "own home" is not censorship. By that same logic, if I visit your home and you have a strict no pooping on the carpet rule and KaineParker runs to the kitchen to tell you that I'm currently in the process of taking a dump on your rug, then you would both be pro censorship. Quite frankly, it feels like you're stretching for reasons to call me or "this movement" ridiculous, and quite frankly, if you truly wish to be "holier than thou," then ****ing act like it and just report the thread. The way I see it, if you cannot report it, then it's proof that all this is is just you throwing a fit because "buaaah the forums I visit for 10+ years have a thread I don't agree with, life is so haaaaard~"

It is very unfortunate that Paladins arguably bring the most roleplay potential into the game, and yet they're hands down the worst, most neglected class. Am I the only one whose first character was a Paladin in hopes the roleplaying would be fun, then quickly abandoned the class when I realized my Priest (and basically anything) was going through the game faster? With the proper boosts, Paladins could be a lot of fun. They basically need all their skills boosted up across the board, with tweaks to their effects to make them less situational and more universal. AKA, less "activates when you get a kill" and single-target buff effects, more universally applicable abilities or AOE effects on buffs. Liberating Exhortation for example could be fixed just by making it an AOE that hits multiple party members, then make it 3 per rest instead of 2 per encounter (NEVER needed this often anyways) and viola.

Because the issue at hand is that Fighters and Paladins are both tanks. Fighter is such an effective tank it can AFK on a boss and still survive, Paladin could NEVER dream of this. Furthermore I'd hesitate to name Fighters as OP. Many of us have probably seen a fight where Fighter was the last one standing, and we know the class can both live or die in such a scenario. In the clip shown for example, the Fighter's late game ability to res itself ASAP was critical to that even being possible. Usually tank classes suffer from being very lackluster and not self-sufficient in such games. Why? Because damage is easier to balance. It's easier to make a high damage glass cannon that'll die in two hits and have that be your balance; carefully monitoring the stats of a tank to ensure it neither wins unanimously or loses terribly on the other hand is very difficult, and usually leads to a lot of boring, lackluster tank classes. I for one welcome the face of Fighter we see now, because while it's fighting style may not be the most exciting, it's very impressive to see what Fighters can sometimes pull off with raw stats alone. My first Trial of Iron character saw Eder saving the group at both Raedric and the final battle, but this does not mean the Fighter is the do-all end-all, since they kill painfully slow and I've had Chanters rescue far more battles in total. But yeah, tl;dr that's the class that competes with Paladin as tank. That the victory is that crystal clear and unanimous highlights just how severely Paladin is being beaten on the tank aspect of the class.

If you have an issue with the thread, why not take it up with the moderators? I don't see how posting here is supposed to remedy the situation. The best you can do is take it up with the mods and, whether they agree or disagree with you, accept the response. Why would you suggest that? Appealing to an authority to censor others would seem completely contrary to your whole platform. I would rather just ask you (and others) to tone down the vitriol for the sake of the community. But hey, maybe the community has changed and I'm just a leftover from a different time. Your claim is it is breaking the rules. If that's the case then you have everything you need to approach the mods with a complaint. If it's not breaking the rules then tough, the thread has every right to exist.

If you have an issue with the thread, why not take it up with the moderators? I don't see how posting here is supposed to remedy the situation. The best you can do is take it up with the mods and, whether they agree or disagree with you, accept the response.

There is irony in someone who is pro ignoring what he deems dumb having a problem with people for not ignoring other dumb bs. Follow your own advice. I have been an active member here for over a decade, pardon me if I don't just walk away from the community because of dumb bs. I've ignored a few iterations of this thread, but it doesn't seem like a good strategy. It reflects badly on all of us. This is absurd. These people have every right to discuss this topic, which is well within the boundaries of forum rules, just like you have every right to discuss things you find important. You could, for example, make a Firearms thread and periodically start it up again once it hit it's limit. Would someone be right to claim the pro-firearms thread needs to be shut down because it reflects poorly on all of us? No, that's unfair. If you don't wanna be associated with it, don't associate yourself with it. If you are incapable of tolerating a thread's existence in a forum you visit, that's blatantly being a drama queen and blatantly demanding all portions of a forum adhere to what you like to a certain degree, all in a belief that being a member here for 10+ years is somehow relevant and affords you some sort of superior say on the matter. No, that's not how it works. Would you argue that people involved with GamerGate on the SJW-side are educated in feminist texts? If yes, I would say this does little to praise feminist texts. If no, then how exactly are these feminist texts truly relevant? I don't think a single member of this thread will deny feminism is just as capable of producing good ideas and philosophies, but the name "feminism" itself is worn by a wide range of people, some of them serious and educated, others are absolute clowns. I do not see any reason to fault GamerGate supporters in this thread for being ignorant of feminist texts when opponents of GamerGate are equally as ignorant. I think it's blatantly clear that if you wish to discover a face of feminism that can be positive and productive, this is not the place for it, and that is the fault of those that would dawn the name and use it to meet their own needs. If you think there's actually a prominent SJW who's educated in feminist texts and doesn't blatantly use them to their own interests (lookin at you Anita) then I'd love to hear their name.