TheUsernamelessOne

I like the mental image of the protagonist standing around in the courtyard, desperately trying to figure out how to sleep, getting more and more frustrated and furious as they can't figure out why it's not working, while the rest of the party slowly backs away.

Because the closest comparison is Baldur's Gate and not Icewind Dale. Because it's not actually all that similar to IWD. Also, IWD was probably the least well known and the least acclaimed of the IE games so it's not a very good reference point. And how exactly is it dissimilar from Icewind Dale? Yes, there are optional companions, as in Baldur's Gate. You can also make your own, like in Icewind Dale. Baldur's Gate was less obsessed with game balance, for better or worse. Generally you'd steamroll over most encounters, maybe be stymied by certain monsters until you figured out some cheap way to take them out, and the boss fights tended to be pretty hard. In Icewind Dale, most encounters felt harsh. Even at higher levels you couldn't just sleepwalk through routine fights. Pillars definitely takes the Icewind Dale approach to dungeon design; they're teeming with dozens of enemies, and there's almost no monsters in the game that your party can just swat aside with auto-attack. I personally think it's a very good example of old school vs. new school thinking of encounter design. In Baldur's Gate, you felt powerful rampaging through a bunch of weak enemies and then things would slow down when you ran into a boss or miniboss (which was usually something suitably epic, like a powerful wizard or a dragon) and then you had to play tactically. In Icewind Dale every encounter is potentially deadly; often even standard enemies have better stats than your party, have some dirty trick at their disposal, or just come in vast numbers. Often the boss fights, to the extent that there are any, aren't actually that much more difficult than the encounters leading up to them. One thing Pillars does that none of its predecessors did is give you potential outs to skip lots of encounters, or even whole dungeons, if you have the right skills or whatever.

You do realise the game sold itself, and still does, as a game combining "exploration of BG, combat of IWD and narration of PST" right ? I'm not saying it succeeds in all of that, but that'd be foolish to consider illegitimate the comparision with all IE games. Who's interested in what they said it would be? It is what it is. It has plenty of similarities to Baldur's Gate, just like Icewind Dale did. But it's still closer to Icewind Dale. Besides, if they said it would be just a spiritual successor to Icewind Dale, they wouldn't have gotten anywhere near as much funding. Back in the day, Icewind Dale made the mistake of being a hack-and-slash dungeon crawl trying to compete with Diablo. You can guess how well that turned out for them, seeing as Black Isle went bankrupt while Blizzard makes embarrassing amounts of money today. The only people who played Icewind Dale were freaks like me, and I don't think even Icewind Dale fans were clamoring for a spiritual successor to basically what amounted to a D&D campaign run by a sadistic madman with nearly nonexistent roleplaying.

Yeah, you and me both. Especially if it's not a bug-ridden mess that the fans had to patch for them. It'll never happen though. Like I said in some other thread, Pillars =/= Baldur's Gate, Pillars = Icewind Dale, which isn't surprising since it was made by a lot of the same people. I think a lot of the people complaining about the things Pillars does that are different from Baldur's Gate should recognize that it isn't a new Baldur's Gate, it's Icewind Dale with a much bigger budget.

Why does everyone compare Pillars of Eternity to Baldur's Gate when it's much more similar to Icewind Dale, the IE game that was made by the same crew as Pillars? I've got my problems with Pillars but it shouldn't really be compared to Baldur's Gate or Planescape: Torment or whatever. Compare it to its actual pedigree and it's a big step up in most regards.

In some settings it does, yes. So is that how it works in this setting? Is this medieval fantasy Dragonball?

I am not making a mistake. I am familiar with what they've said about how the world works and what the stat represents. I am saying that I disagree with the way they've designed attributes, both in a mechanical sense and in a fluff sense. You clearly aren't as you thought "soul power" was something to do with will to action. If you don't like their design decisions, that's fine--and if you don't like the mechanics, that's legit. But a cursory understanding of the lore and how the stats effect combat will let you know that it's not "broken" nor does it "not make sense". Their interactive script doesn't demonstrate the non-physical meanings of "might", that's true, but that's pretty much it. Alright. Why does Might make guns do more damage? If Might represents the power of the soul and body, why is the only effect it has on magic to make damaging effects more damaging? Might does nothing to contribute to the AoE, duration, or Accuracy of any of your powers. How does Might contribute to an arm-wrestling contest? Can you throw things farther if you have more Might? Does a weight-lifting regimen make your guns do more damage? If you spend all your time fasting and meditating does that allow you to pick up castles and snap iron chains? In order to be physically strong are you forced to be both physically conditioned and spiritually enlightened, in a holistic sense, or is one or the other enough? The problem is that they have put two very unlike concepts under the umbrella of the same attribute. Hand-eye coordination, reflexes, and speed are similar enough to be grouped together under "Dexterity." Physical strength, skill at intimidation, and "soul power" are so unlike that it seems very jarring to lump them together under the same label.

How dare you inflict your larcenous activities upon our quaint town, you ruffian! The double homicide of the people just trying to protect their home is totally kosher though, don't sweat it. Maybe the inhabitants of the world of Pillars have as low an opinion of the Backer NPCs as the players do.

Look, bloody violence, war crimes, rape (including blatant mind rape as an at-will power available to the heroes), child abuse, genocide, racism, mass infanticide, all of those things are acceptable. But don't you dare ****ing use potty language. I'm sorry, but the mass infanticide really pushes this one beyond the pale. There's a piece of dialogue where a character blithely informs you that the people of a city have taken to nicknaming their babies "buoys" because so many of them end up floating in the bay. They do it without swearing, but if you want to disturb and offend someone with language, that's how you do it. Dropping the c-word suddenly seems pretty tame by comparison.

I killed a couple in G. Vale that were in a house all by their lonesome. It still dropped my Vale rep a tiny tiny bit, according to the log. This isn't the case everywhere? The two ladies in the unmarked house, right? That's odd, I killed them once because I failed to understand how personal property works and I don't remember taking a rep hit. At the time I just assumed they were a lesbian couple and the people of their town are prejudiced jerks. I felt kind of bad after I came to that conclusion.

Wizards have Slicken too. I don't think I've ever used any of their other spells much. I mean, at the very least I guess the higher level spells aren't competing with Fan of Flames or Sicken, so there's no harm in tossing them out here and there once you run out of arcane blasts.

Alternatively, you should be able to eat your pets to gain their power. I always just stuff them into the stash and forget I have them, might as well get some use out of 'em.

It has nothing to do with anything, but could you record yourself reciting this post in Brak's voice?

Except Accuracy is also used for stuff that doesn't do damage but hurts far, far worse than any amount of hit point damage when it hits, like paralysis or charm spells. That's why, as beta testers are attesting, it proved too unbalanced to have it linked to any attribute.

Absolutely. I do like to think that they look up everyone who is less than complimentary towards the game and secretly mod their copy of the game to give them a hidden -10 penalty to all their rolls, though. But seriously though, all the negative reviews are totally from trolls, and all the positive reviews are from fanboys.

Yes. It is also worth pointing out that you could probably roll a character with straight 10's and not miss out on much. It's not like you need to be smart to be a good wizard, or strong to be a good fighter, or dextrous to be a good rogue. The only point of the attributes is scaling bonuses that don't really amount to all that much. 20 Might increases your damage output by 30%. An arquebus/fan of flames deals about 40-ish damage currently, so that increases it to about 52. Not really a drastic difference, honestly, the way Pillars plays, though it might take the edge off the enemy's DR. Having 15 Perception and 15 Resolve adds 10 to your Deflection, the equivalent of +2 Armor Class in D&D (only worse because grazes mean it's less useful). Meh.

No, actually, when we're talking about Wizard spells we're talking about one of the aspects of Pillars that is taken from D&D pretty much wholesale, except for the changes they made to try and nerf them (no more summon spells, no buffing outside of combat). Except they made burning hands far more powerful (multiply AoE by x2 or x3, average damage by more than x20, depending on your Intellect and Might) and drastically weakened fireball (reduce range to 10m, divide AoE by half). Why is this an issue again? Because the number in the spell book says it's two levels higher and so should melt suns? Because a higher level spell should be more powerful than a lower level one, because otherwise why is it harder to earn one than the other. What exactly do you think should be the difference between spells of different levels? You keep talking as if it should matter what the advantages or disadvantages of a higher level spell to a lower level one are. A higher level spell is supposed to be better. That's why you have to earn it by leveling up. As it is, Fireball is not only inferior to other spells of its own level, not only inferior to spells of lower levels, but it is probably going to be inferior to the 2/encounter arcane blast ability that every Wizard automatically gets in most situations. Ooooh, okay, so that's how balance works. When you're balancing a first level spell against a third level one, the third level one should be inferior to compensate for being potentially more difficult to cast without catching your party members in it. I'm afraid most ppl didn't understand the joke Sir. The thing is, this game is build so much around the principle of "make everything a valid choice" that it just breaks apart in almost every place. Equipment, spells, skills, stats, it all barely held together by the missguided hardline "make everything valid" approach. Sad, but whatever. Somehow you quoted yourself saying something that I didn't say.

I know that fear isn't rational and I completely sympathize with people who have to deal with anxiety issues and phobias (since I'm one myself) but it does feel jarring to read a request to take out the spiders in a game where mass infanticide is a central plot point. I mean, does anyone else remember the bit where someone tells you that folks in Defiant Bay have taken to nicknaming the Hollowborn "buoys," because so many of them end up floating in the bay? I'm a pretty jaded person but that was a pretty dark moment, even for an Obsidian game.

You talk funny. And didn't I kill you in Throne of Bhaal? one reason you were able to kill Gromnir in tob is precisely 'cause we "talk funny." HA! Good Fun! Every time I think about Gromnir from now on I'll be imagining him with your goofy George C. Scott face avatar.

Oooh, those little vignettes were written by backers instead of actual writers? No wonder a lot of them aren't worth reading. I would never have guessed on the names alone, though. I mean, this is the game with a guy named Durance (hint: it means "jail") and a character whose name is one letter off from "Chaos." And Lady Webb. Some of the memories are fun, though. Were any of them written by Obsidian?

You talk funny. And didn't I kill you in Throne of Bhaal?

Mmm, I don't know. Wasteland 2 was pretty broken on launch but after a couple months' worth of patches it has polished up pretty well, and it's not like they demanded any more money for it (not that they should have). I think it's disrespectful to the consumer when you sell them a game that's full of bugs, but that seems to be the norm now that games are far more complex and it's just assumed that everyone has high-speed internet access to get patches; ship now, patch later. I know plenty of people have managed to dodge the game-breaking bugs and make it to the end of the game, but I did not (the Horn of Moderation ruined my Cipher playthrough eleven hours in). That put a bad taste in my mouth. Honestly, I don't think I like Pillars, but I'm kind of stuck with it. I recognize that's just my opinion though. I don't necessarily blame Obsidian for it. A lot of the things I don't like are features, not bugs, and they're just working as intended. I do think there are legitimate complaints to be made, though, especially if it's stuff that could be corrected in a patch. Yeah, four million U.S. dollars is a real small budget. I know it's not some bloated AAA game budget, but come on. Obsidian is a professional studio who got the budget they asked for and then some. It's not some indie developer coding all night in his basement instead of sleeping for six months, either. That said, I think they spent the money well. I don't enjoy the combat system personally, but nobody can argue that Obsidian didn't deliver a hell of a lot of game for your dollar, and it's all well-crafted. There's lots of more expensive mainstream RPGs you can buy that have less content (probably because they wasted their gigantic budgets on getting voice actors to record every line of dialogue in the game).

I am not making a mistake. I am familiar with what they've said about how the world works and what the stat represents. I am saying that I disagree with the way they've designed attributes, both in a mechanical sense and in a fluff sense.

I think the objection about not being able to use abilities outside of combat has more to do with the fact that there isn't so much as a "Magic doesn't work that way because souls!" handwave. All there is is Obsidian reaching out and graying out some of your abilities until they say you can use them, because otherwise you wouldn't be playing your characters the way they want you to. It feels obtrusive and unfair, especially when your enemies either don't need buffs to be BAMF or can instantly magic up buffs out of nowhere whenever they feel like it, which you can't do. That doesn't mean it's not a legitimate game design decision, but I think that resentful kneejerk reaction is very understandable. It's like if you were playing around the tabletop, the party cleric says, "Okay, I'm going to cast bless on the party before we kick down the door in case there's monsters!" and the DM leans over the screen and says, "No, you're not allowed to do that because that would unbalance the encounter I designed and you're going to play the way I want you to or you're not going to play at all."

Wait, I can still salvage this! Let me check my notes. Ahh, the fact that Woedica, the mighty goddess, needs anyone to do her bidding clearly points to the game's true message and lends credence to my theories. Disaster averted.