Jump to content

slopesandsam

Members
  • Content Count

    81
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

85 Excellent

About slopesandsam

  • Rank
    (2) Evoker

Badges

  • Pillars of Eternity Backer Badge
  • Pillars of Eternity Kickstarter Badge

Recent Profile Visitors

574 profile views
  1. You said that Alpha was where content was still being added, and that Beta was for bug fixing. But they both come after all content has been added, and they're both bug fixing phases. Alpha for the obvious bugs, Beta for the ones that only reveal themselves after extensive testing. Sorry, I'm coming off as pedantic, but my original intention was just to clarify.
  2. So, here's something that is probably a minority opinion, but...I really love the world of Grounded. It's an inspired take on the survival genre, and I've really loved exploring the backyard and figuring out what plants and bug bits can be made into what. But I'm not actually a fan of the survival genre. I really don't get any pleasure out of base building (In fact, my base consists of a short, half-hearted length of wall that I gave up on, one workbench, two storage chests and a lean-to. That's it. If I had my time again, I wouldn't bother building the wall.) and I dislike open-ended
  3. Alpha is actually when all the content and features of a game have been added. The game is essentially done...apart from bugs. So, not really done, because there may still be A LOT of work that needs to be done to get the game running smoothly, without crashing and without weird glitching. A game in Alpha may still have massive, obvious, game destroying problems that need to be fixed, but everything the developers intent to include in the game has been added to the game. No new features, or content will be added...unless it's to fix a problem. Beta is the next milestone, when the deve
  4. I second this. The entire history of the games industry is basically a history of franchises that gained larger and larger audiences as they went along. Also, if Obsidian were to continue making isometric RPGs for a niche audience, I'd far prefer them to continue the Tyranny franchise than PoE. Tyranny is probably one of the best RPGs I've ever played, and it's definitely a massively underrated gem. Of course, the chances of that happening now are nonexistent. I guess Microsoft could buy the IP off Paradox...but why would they bother? (I have a bunch of friends who are really int
  5. Right now, I think MS is probably interested in having a lot more big AAA franchises, because right now all they really have is Halo. And a thing a lot of people forget (or were too young to notice/care at the time) is that Bethesda really worked hard to court existing Fallout fans before the release of FO3. If you go back an look at archives of the interviews and demos they were doing at the time, it was all about stressing how much VATS was still like the old turn-based system, and how the experience would still be the same even though it was in 3D, etc. But once it was clear that FO3
  6. This is the crux of it, really. We could all argue forever about what "makes" a game into a PoE game. Does it have to be isometric? Does it need to have the D&D-esque mechanics and classes? Should it be a direct continuation of the story of PoE 1 & 2? Etc. But at the end of the day, it's basically a marketing decision. If marketing decides that the game will sell better if it has "Pillars of Eternity" in the title, then just like that, it's a PoE game. But as of now, it's not, and we have no reason to believe it'll change other than wild speculation.
  7. I don't think this analogy is particularly accurate. I think Fallout 3 works much better as a comparison, because it was also the shift between 2D isometric and 3D first-person, with drastically different mechanics to reflect that, and a story that was far removed (other than superficial iconography) from the stories of previous games. At this point, nobody claims that Fallout 3 must be an isometric turn-based game set on the west coast. The franchise changed format. And there's nothing to say that PoE can't do the same.
  8. Anything is possible...but with the Microsoft purchase, Obsidian we can probably assume that Obsidian is a AAA studio now. Microsoft almost certainly hope that Obsidian will become their Bethesda, with TOW and POE/Avowed as the big, flagship franchises. So it just seems unlikely that a niche, isometric PoE3 is going to be something they want to put resources and talent into.
  9. So, the thing I think here is: if they're making a AAA game, and assuming it is intended to be a competitor for the Elder Scrolls games (and therefore, likely a very big, open-world game), why use the PoE universe if this isn't intended to be the flagship title going forward? Because any future isometric PoE games would be overshadowed by this one. Unless that is, this is PoE 3, and they're trying to brand it like an Elder Scrolls game (which are all better known by their subtitles) and at some point down the line Avowed quietly gets a small-print "Pillars of Eternity" prefix. Or they'r
  10. So, I know there's no information out there on this game beyond what's in the trailer, but...is this PoE 3 in all but name? What I mean is, this wouldn't be the first franchise to drastically alter its presentation in its third installment. GTA 1 and 2 were these tiny little top-down driving games before suddenly becoming giant, 3D worlds with GTA3. And, of course, Fallout 3 drastically changed the presentation of that franchise (for better and/or worse). So I'm wondering if Avowed is doing the same thing for the PoE franchise, and if so, is it only called Avowed for marketing reasons?
  11. Having just finished The Outer Worlds today (I have two small children - managing to finish an RPG in two weeks is a minor miracle), my immediate reaction is: this is the game I so desperately wanted, and I loved it. I want more. I hope there's DLC and sequels and glory raining down on everyone who worked on it. I do, of course, have some minor criticisms. Criticisms that seem a bit silly and idiosyncratic in the face of how much I loved this game. But I have the internet, so I'm going to share those criticisms. Hopefully in a constructive manner. And, I realise, they're mostly crit
  12. I'm gonna disagree with you there. I was hesitant to use EGS simply because, yes, I like having my games library in one place: Steam. When this exclusivity was announced, I sighed and thought to myself "Well, I guess I have a reason to install the EGS launcher." But then, via this controversy, I discovered the issues with privacy and the implications of the kinds of exclusive deals they've been purchasing, and I changed my mind. I can't support the EGS.
  13. The better question is: what is epic selling that publishers want? And the answer is: security. This is just supposition on my part, but if Epic go to a publisher and say "Okay, so, for this game, a decent number of sales is...two million unit. On Steam, at $60 a pop, minus Valve's 30% cut, you'd get $42 a unit. That 84 million dollars. So, we'll give you $84 million to make this game a Steam exclusive." Suddenly the publisher doesn't have to sweat the game flopping. (Now, chances are that it's not a direct payout. The deal is probably structured such that Epic guarantees a
×
×
  • Create New...