Jump to content

Michael_Galt

Members
  • Posts

    317
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Michael_Galt

  1. So, I am copying an pasting what I wrote from another thread, because I feel it is a subject worth exploring.  To sum it up, I think that one of the biggest "problems" for POE is that it is too "dark and gritty".  Some people obviously enjoy/appreciate that, but I've written below why I don't. Surprisingly, no review I have read has touched upon this aspect of POE, which is one I really dislike, among many.

     

    I know that Game of Thrones is all the rage, but I don't want a setting where everyone is suffering, and everything sucks for everyone.  Where everyone is tense, and every area has foreboding.  That was the beauty of the BGs.  In BG 1, there was an imminent threat growing, and there were bandits, and some increasing chaos, but it wasn't DEPRESSING.  Everyone's children weren't dying, mad kings weren't hanging half of their population from trees in the center of town, there weren't riots in the streets with people getting assassinated right and left.  It didn't FEEL oppressive.  Hell, even in Spellhold, while there was danger, you could help the prisoners rise up against their oppressor, manipulator and torturer.  The Underdark was rightfully scary, but even there, there could be found some redeeming moments. There were plenty of locations you could go which were very "normal" and there were beautiful things to see and experience.  This was true in Arcanum, in KOTOR, and in Morrowind, as well (just to name some other RPGs).

     

    I don't need a game that is trying to depress me by being "gritty" and "real".  What I want is to have certain areas feel tense, dangerous, or scary, and others to feel "normal".  For there to be places where people are HAPPY, not where everyone is worried about war, or politics, or being killed by zombies, or starving to death, or whatever.  The world isn't universally anything, not even regions during war.  I guarantee that if you went to Ukraine, or even Syria or Iraq, you could find plenty of places where people are happy, and there is peace, even though there is fighting a couple of hours away.  There should be a diversity of locations and what you can experience in game.

     

    For a game that doesn't want to have "good and evil", it seems surprisingly dedicated to having only tension and violence and bizarrity.  Basically, it just takes itself WAY too seriously, like if it featured any location which wasn't "dark and grey", that would literally shake the foundation of the game universe, so everything is "super serious".   

     

    Since completing my first and likely only playthrough of POE, what have I done?  Replayed BG and BG2.  Replayed Arcanum.  Re-installed and started to replay ME 1-3.  Why?  Because, to me, those are all more pleasant game play experiences, for a variety of reasons.  This was not a spiritual successor to the IE games, in my opinion.  It was just a "fantasy adventure" with a full party, with isometric 2d.  It doesn't have the spirit of those games, and it definitely doesn't have the companions of those games. 

     

    Do I want someone endlessly speaking in riddles about depressing crap? (Durance, Grieving Mother)  Do I want someone almost endlessly complaining about how hard it is to be "god-touched"? (Palegina)  Hell, Viconia was a Drow forced to live on the surface.  The things she said, even when complaining, were frequently interesting.  Just disappointed.

    • Like 2
  2. Quotes, on point:

     

    It always made more sense to just keep chipping away, because the penalties were so small as to be meaningless.

    This feeling feeds a larger sense that your choices in character design don't do much after you've picked a class. Or to put it another way, class is the most important factor, to a degree that makes all other choices minimally relevant (at best).

     

    Attributes feel even less important, if you can believe that.

     

    This lack of "oomph" in treasure plagues the whole game, with there often being no meaningful differences between even legendary weapons.

     

    But as it stands now, you can fairly easily breeze through the game without worrying too much about what weapon you're holding, and that's a shame.

     

    I rarely used consumables, but again this might be because I played the game on "Normal." By the end of things I had a trunkload of unused ingredients, mostly because I felt no great need to do anything with them.

     

    The distinction between per-rest and per-encounter abilities mirrors the health/endurance mechanic in that you should be balancing your use of less-powerful per-encounter abilities against the more-powerful per-rest abilities. At least, this is how it supposed to work in theory but, aside from spells, I rarely wound up in a situation where I wanted to use a per-rest ability but couldn't. And in fact, it seems like per-encounter abilities are always going to be a better bet than per-rest ones, if you have to choose, because it all comes down to combat, and combat is won in the short term.

     

    The two fights against Raedric, and the two dragons in the Paths of Od Nua, are examples of tough encounters that will really test your mettle; on the other hand, fights against the game's main antagonist organization are frequently underwhelming, if not completely cheesy. And sometimes the game is guilty of simply throwing enemies at you in a way that feels lazy.

     

    RPG veterans will likely find the main story a bit flavorless.

     

    This all pretty much sums it up for me.  Not inspiring, with little to really compel me to do it again (because of the combat, lack of real significant differentiation in creating and playing characters, kinda boring). 

     

    Additionally, I know that Game of Thrones is all the rage, but I don't want a setting where everyone is suffering, and everything sucks for everyone.  Where everyone is tense, and every area has foreboding.  That was the beauty of the BGs.  In BG 1, there was an imminent threat growing, and there were bandits, and some increasing chaos, but it wasn't DEPRESSING.  Everyone's children weren't dying, mad kings weren't hanging half of their population from trees in the center of town, there weren't riots in the streets with people getting assassinated right and left.  It didn't FEEL oppressive.  Hell, even in Spellhold, while there was danger, you could help the prisoners rise up against their oppressor, manipulator and torturer.  The Underdark was rightfully scary, but even there, there could be found some redeeming moments. 

     

    I don't need a game that is trying to depress me by being "gritty" and "real".  What I want is to have certain areas feel tense, dangerous, or scary, and others to feel "normal".  For there to be places where people are HAPPY, not where everyone is worried about war, or politics, or being killed by zombies, or starving to death, or whatever.  Surprisingly, no review I have read has touched upon this aspect of POE, which is one I really dislike, among many. 

     

    Since completing my first and likely only playthrough of POE, what have I done?  Replayed BG and BG2.  Replayed Arcanum.  Re-installed and started to replay ME 1-3.  Why?  Because, to me, those are all more pleasant game play experiences, for a variety of reasons.  This was not a spiritual successor to the IE games, in my opinion.  It was just a "fantasy adventure" with a full party, with isometric 2d.  It doesn't have the spirit of those games, and it definitely doesn't have the companions of those games. 

     

    Do I want someone endlessly speaking in riddles about depressing crap? (Durance, Grieving Mother)  Do I want someone almost endlessly complaining about how hard it is to be "god-touched"? (Palegina)  Hell, Viconia was a Drow forced to live on the surface.  The things she said, even when complaining, were frequently interesting.  Just disappointed.

    • Like 1
  3. What I am more interested in, is whether POE 2 is going to have them or not.  Quite frankly, I have no intention of replaying POE 1, and didn't really care for the NPCs much, so don't know if I would have interest in romancing them even if I could.  Pellegrina (or however it is spelt)?  Possibly, though her temper and victimism would make me think twice about it.  Constantly complaining about how hard it is to be god-touched- that's wonderful, I got the idea quite a long time ago, don't need you bringing it up all the time.  Grieving Mother?  The name sort of says it all- morose, kinda spacy like a drug addict or something.  Hardly. 

  4.  

    I didn't ad-hom anyone- I said I hated those replies.  And, those replies, are, by nature, ad hom attacks.  Let me quote for you, "Go to a dating website", "

    Go outside and get a real gf."  Those all make assumptions about every single person that says they want romance options.  Which is utterly idiotic.  So, if I am happily married, I can't want romance options in a RPg?  If, hypothetically, I am straight, but want to play a female character that gets to romance a dude, that isn't a valid possibility?  Because, that, for instance, would be truly role-playing, since it is pretty unlikely I actually desire to go get a sex change and start trolling Navy SEAL bars, hoping to land some hot dude.

    Yes I know. I was agreeing with you. That is why I said 'yep'.

     

    I am on your side.

     

     

    My bad- I read it wrong. 

  5. To me, it isn't that hard for them to do it in convincing, compelling way.  It's simple.  Set a disposition for every joinable NPC.  Make it so that if your protagonist really adheres to doing things that are consistent with that disposition (rescuing kittens, kicking puppies into traffic, always avoiding confrontation), then you start to gain "romance options".  Meaning, dialogue that isn't solely related to their NPC quest, or for flavor.  Dialogue where they state they really like what you are doing....

     

    Kinda like how it works in the real world.  Are you going to impress some hot vegetarian chick by taking her to a hotdog eating competition?  Obviously not.  People come to like you because they recognize similarities or you do things you both like. 

     

    So, you do more and more of these things which "work" with their core disposition, and romance options become available.  For some characters, maybe that involves long periods of courtship.  For others, maybe they're just like, "Let's do it!".  Every NPC has romance options, some more, some less.  Maybe some like guys and girls.  Maybe some are exclusive.  Maybe some will only romance "fighter types", others, "mages/scholars". 

     

    THAT would make it fun and interesting, and add tons of replay value. 

     

    Maybe you could even add "forced romance options".  Not talking about rape.  I mean, let's say your actions AREN'T consistent with their disposition.  Maybe if they are significantly different, you gain the ability to try to "convince" them to like you.  Opposites attract and all that.  I still pine for the use of beauty and charisma, like in Arcanum.  If you were really beautiful and charismatic, you could romance whomever you wanted to.  Tell me that isn't pretty much the case in reality.  If the world's most interesting man started hitting on some dude, he might be so flattered as to say, "You know what?  Maybe I just COULD go gay, just for him..." :p

    • Like 2
  6.  

     

     Every one of those games featured thievery and romance options. 

     

    I'm having trouble recalling the romance options in IWD and IWD2...

     

     

     

     

    I really hate these replies.

    Yep. No need to go all ad-hom and make it personal.

     

     

    Considering IWD was nothing but a dungeon crawl, essentially, yes, I forgot about that.  Personally, I don't really consider it an RPG, given it really only allows you to fight, has no recruitable NPCs, and features very little role-playing opportunities.  I can personally say I never could finish either IWD or IWD2.

     

    I didn't ad-hom anyone- I said I hated those replies.  And, those replies, are, by nature, ad hom attacks.  Let me quote for you, "Go to a dating website", "

    Go outside and get a real gf."  Those all make assumptions about every single person that says they want romance options.  Which is utterly idiotic.  So, if I am happily married, I can't want romance options in a RPg?  If, hypothetically, I am straight, but want to play a female character that gets to romance a dude, that isn't a valid possibility?  Because, that, for instance, would be truly role-playing, since it is pretty unlikely I actually desire to go get a sex change and start trolling Navy SEAL bars, hoping to land some hot dude.  

    • Like 8
  7. Can't we have an RPG without romance requests? They're imaginary people.

     

     

    Go outside and get a real gf. 

     

    I really hate these replies.  It's called a ROLE PLAYING game.  Meaning, you make believe stuff.  Like, for instance, that you are some hero that fights dragons and undead.  Or, maybe you pretend you're a gambler that is willing to risk it all, when you've never played a game of cards in your life.  So, personally, I don't understand why there AREN'T romance options.  If you want to hit on that hot paladin chick with feathers, why shouldn't you be allowed to do that?  What if, as crazy as it sounds, you actually ARE attracted to her, based on how she is written, or is voice-acted, or, however you would like to frame it.  Maybe, for instance, you are playing as a similar paladin character, and you really dig "how she takes care of business". 

     

    The fact that they decided not to include romances, baffles me like their decision to not allow one to be a thief (meaning, to pickpocket, or at least try to pickpocket, whoever you would like, or to sneak into people's homes at night, or when they aren't there, to steal from them).  It limits and reduces your role-play abilities and opportunities.  And, it runs contrary to every single game that they referenced in their "inspired by, spiritual successor of" in the Kickstarter.  Every one of those games featured thievery and romance options. 

    • Like 2
  8. I had no desire to watch him play it, truly.  I wanted to hear his educated opinion on it, after having completed it (which frankly, isn't that hard if you try even a little bit).  Instead, I skimmed a couple of clips to watch him just acting like some fool that had never played an RPG in his life, that clearly hadn't read any part of the manual, and was really, just belittling the game and making it seem like it was the worst thing ever.  I have always liked his games, so it came as a surprise to me that he had never even played Arcanum.  It came as a further surprise to me, that when he finally did get around to doing it, literally being PAID to do so, that he treated that so poorly.  I honestly lost a lot of respect for him, after those videos.  Not everyone is going to enjoy it, but he really did it a disservice, I feel.

  9. It was an actual promise.  It was a backer goal. From the 4.0 million stretch goal:

     

    OK! After much team deliberation we have one final ultimate stretch goal. At $4.0m we will be enhancing the whole game. We will use live instrumentation for the soundtrack, add developer in-game commentary, and use every dollar between $3.5m and $4m to enhance the game. Also at $4.0m Chris Avellone will be forced to play Arcanum.

     

    I guess after reading that, it DOESN'T say he would have to complete it.  I just feel like he really wasn't honestly playing or interested in playing, and he agreed to do it.

     

    I still prefer Arcanum to POE.  Honestly, watching his playing just irritated me, because he was clearly just messing around, and trying to make a joke out of it, rather than actually trying to learn how to play the game and enjoy it for it's strengths.  That seems odd to me, because it is just disrespectful.  You would think as a game designer and writer, he would have a mature approach to it.  Especially as another POE contributor, Tim Cain, was essentially responsible for the game (forgot the other key developer).  It's like if you found out your friend had built a hot-rod in his garage, and was given an opportunity to drive it, and then basically just trashed it.  Not cool.

  10. BG2 isn't a big deal. It was a big deal. If it was a big deal currently, we'd be playing BG2 instead of PoE.

     

    I guess I should add: whether Eternity honors its pledge to pay homage to BG2 is currently a big deal.

     

    Good point- that is exactly what I am doing, and loving it :)  I decided to start BG all over and go from the very beginning.  Playing as a fighter/thief is super satisfying.  My multi-classed elven fighter/thief started with 18/87 STR 19 DEX 15 CON and 10 in everything else.  Now, at the beginning of BG2, he has 19 STR 20 DEX 16 CON and 13 WIS (10 in everything else).  Really pumping pickpocketing paid off royally (literally), with my small party of pure rogues incredibly well-equipped and wealthy.  I've only just gotten out of the dungeon, but he's got -5 AC and a THACO of 5.  Good times.

     

    It is totally fair to compare the 2.  Were it not for the BG series, I doubt that POE would have been funded.  I bought it to replace the BG series.  I don't think it succeeded at doing it, but hopefully POE 2 will show all the improvements that BG 2 showed over BG.  I BG, I never felt "epic", mainly because I knew what was possible in BG 2: time stop, dragons, vampires, illithids, improved everything, etc. 

     

    In POE, you had the opportunity for some really tough end game fights that would have been more the equivalent of stuff in BG 2, than BG 1, I believe. Given it is supposed to be "low fantasy", that makes me wonder what will come in POE 2, because those are some pretty significant things.

  11. None of the Kotors, nor Torment, nor Arcanum had expansions.  Obviously, all had patches.  Personally, I haven't found POE to be buggy at all, so I doubt that will really impact matters.  I tend to think that there is more enthusiasm for a game when it first comes out, which naturally decreases over time.  So, I doubt that the ratings will get better, especially since it was Kickstarted, meaning the people that really wanted it already have it and have been playing it.  It is unlikely to gather a huge amount of late-comers, because it IS a niche market. 

  12. Ok.  So, the average between those two numbers is roughly an 88%.  An 88% is LESS than an A.  A solid "A" would be 94-97%.  That is practically impossible on metacritic, so the real number to achieve is probably 92-93%.

     

    For instance:

     

    Baldur's Gate.  Critics 95, Players 93.  That averages to 94%.

    http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/baldurs-gate-ii-shadows-of-amn

     

    Baldur's Gate: Critics 91, Players 90.  That is basically a 90%.

    http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/baldurs-gate

     

    Kotor 2: Critics 85, Players 83.  That is an 84%, though I personally feel it was slighted.

    http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/star-wars-knights-of-the-old-republic-ii---the-sith-lords

     

    Kotor: Critics 93, Players 90.  91-92%.

    http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/star-wars-knights-of-the-old-republic

     

    Arcanum: Critics 81, Players 90.  Averages to roughly 86%.

    http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/arcanum-of-steamworks-and-magick-obscura

     

    F: NV: Critics 84, Players 84.  84%.

    http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/fallout-new-vegas

     

    Planescape: Torment: Critics 91, Players 94.  Averages to around 92.5%.

    http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/planescape-torment

     

    So, basically, it is under-performing.  Almost all of those games scored higher scores, and that is over time (meaning, far more reviews).  A handful had slightly lower scores (Kotor 2, F:NV and Arcanum), but it wasn't by much.  That basically just affirms that it IS a really good game, but it ISN'T an AMAZING game.  Hopefully, POE 2 will surpass even those games that still hold that title.

    • Like 1
  13. Yep, said I enjoyed it.  Said that it was ultimately disappointing/not compelling enough to repeat.  Do I regret funding it for $150?  Not sure.  I don't feel like I got that much value out of it.  Would I have, in retrospect, been happy to buy it for $65?  That is more where I would value it.  It is worth buying and playing.  Some people might really love it and play it again and again.  But, I am not one of those people.  I actually HAVE bought BG, Kotor, and the Fallouts multiple times (because of losing game cds, or giving them to friends, or something like that).  I sincerely doubt I would do that for POE (even though it is a moot point, as it is now on my Steam account- yay, technology). 

     

    What would I give POE?  A 85-88 out of a 100.  It is really solid.  It is fun to play.  But, I don't put it in the category of "elite cRPGs".  I put it just shy of that.  Could POE 2 break into that category?  I think that is a distinct possibility.  It SHOULD only get better.  But, I had been hoping it would manage to do the nearly impossible and do that the first time.  That I would spend the ensuing few years playing POE faithfully until the new one was released.  That won't be the case.  If they Kickstart POE 2, I will almost certainly fund it.  Will I dedicate $150 to it?  I doubt it.  This isn't hate, it's simply not being fully "won-over".

  14. Going to the argument that you can't play the game for 100 hours and then say it sucks, that is and isn't true.  I don't think the game sucks- it actually IS good.  The problem is, it ISN'T great, it isn't amazing.  It's about whether, after that 50-100 hours, you want to do it again.  And, like I, and other people said earlier, I don't want to.  I played it with a 2nd character, and just didn't feel like continuing.  I have played many RPGs multiple times over, if I REALLY liked them.  THAT is the difference.  I'm thinking, planning on replaying a 300 hour game (BG) even though I have played it from beginning to end 3-4 times.  I played it multiple times when I first got introduced to it (to figure out the ruleset) and have played it multiple times since then.  Even with mods, I don't feel I would be impelled to do the same with POE.

    • Like 1
  15. I am decided.  I will restart BG, from the very beginning.  I believe that I will play a Orc Priest of Talos, and commence to bring my party raping and pillaging across the North, and then Athkathla (or, however it is spelled). As difficult as it is to believe, I never really played an evil party.  Good?  Check and check.  Neutral and chaotic neutral?  Yep.  Evil?  Never.  Sounds like it is time for some angry dwarves and outcast drow, as well as my favorite snide wizard...

    • Like 1
  16. If I solo it, I will be having to use some pretty clever meta-knowledge to survive. AND I won't have anyone to interact with at all, besides for the quests (like I said, I wanted a full party from the very beginning, since the last RPG to really offer that was BG2).  It doesn't appeal to me.  If I wanted to solo, I'd maybe play F:NV for that (though I always had as many followers as I could there, as well).  Sounds unnecessarily difficult and not very enjoyable.

  17. There are 11 pages of replies, so this review obviously struck some chords.  I will say this- while there was certainly a fair bit of hyperbole in there, I think that really, the reviewer was almost 100% correct.  I imagine that hyperbole came because he felt like a jilted lover, betrayed by something he had invested so much in beforehand, and had such high expectations for. 

     

    I was initially ECSTATIC for Pillars.  I loved the Bioware games, and everyone on the development staff has an amazing track record of making great RPGs.  I thought, "Wow, Obsidian with their OWN IP and NO overlords- this is going to be amazing!"  I was concerned about them having to produce totally unique content for something without an already existing universe (FR is amazing, Star Wars has tons of content, and even Fallout had decades of prior games to draw from). 

     

    But, I thought about Arcanum.  I loved Arcanum.  It isn't the "best game EVUH!", but, I loved how ambitious it was, how unique the setting was, how diverse the gameplay options were- too many things to count.  I thought, "You know what?  Arcanum was done on a small budget with a small team.  There was no existing lore to build from, AND it was done on a relatively short timeline.  If that could be done, then surely POE will be just as good, if not better!  They have a pretty decent budget, they have been prepping the materials for a while, they are all veteran designers, programmers and writers- they are really going to knock this out of the park!"

     

    I'm not going to regurgitate everything said in the review, but I will state the things that just don't make POE special to me:

     

    - The writing.  It just didn't do much for me.  I actually APPRECIATED all the writing, but, nothing really "hooked" me.  I found the central quest in Arcanum to be slightly anti-climatic and lackluster, but it was interesting, and a slightly different spin on things.  But, in Arcanum, there were TONS of really interesting side quests that weren't even a little necessary to do, but had really great content and a wide-variety of means to solve- I loved doing them.  In Kotor, I loved the central quest.  It was well-paced, it had some interesting philosophical stuff, it always felt a bit urgent and dangerous.  In BG2, there were just so many things to do.  So many places to really EXPLORE.  Lots of interesting quests, characters, and challenges.  In F:NV, there were TONs of ways to solve every quest- that made it fun to try different options with different characters.  In Torment, it just had so many interesting aspects to it, and real choices in the middle of dialogues, it was amazing.

     

    In POE?  I don't know.  I don't know if I can remember a single quest as particularly impressing me.  The keep had some interesting elements, as well as the tower in Defiance Bay.  Besides that, it didn't really feel like I had much "room to maneuver". (which is why I stopped my 2nd playthrough)

     

    - I really didn't care about a single one of the party members I had.  Durance was at least a little interesting, but, even with my paladin character not being violently "evil", I still felt like maybe I should kill him.  He was just too unstable for me to ever trust, and I kept wondering if he was going to turn on me in the middle of some important fight.  The rest?  Meh.  Sometimes provided usual interjections, or added a little color, but I really didn't find them NECESSARY to have, even for that. 

     

    In BG 2, I actually DID feel something for every character I EVER had in my party (and had them all, practically).  Aerie, the wounded bird.  Cliche?  Maybe, but there are plenty of people like that- that are kind to a fault, and have been hurt a lot in life, but keep trying to be a "good person".  Anomen, conflicted by dogmatic views, but aware that there was more than that to the truth.  Viconia, who is manipulative and cruel, but intelligent and not without many valid points.  Yoshimo- a combination of slimy and charismatic/funny.  MINSC.  He is a barbarian berserker with a "giant miniature space hamster".  He was the comically good guy, smarter than he appears, while still a bit oafish- I loved having him in my party.  Kotor 2?  Loved the characters, all with their own idiosyncrasies. I loved that they could be "corrupted" or "converted", to speak and think differently- it made it fun to interact with them.

     

    This was probably the biggest thing I was looking forward to, besides the storyline and quest writing- FINALLY having a great RPG WITH A FULL PARTY!!  I loved F:NV, but, you get your 1 "follower" (and 2nd, token follower).  They were nice, but that wasn't the focus of the game.  And, in the end, I ended up with literally 0 party members that I had even the vaguest interest in.  I actually found some of them so annoying, I recruited them JUST to leave them at my stronghold.  In BG 2, I always had to really think about whether I was willing to "give someone up" when I encountered a new NPC, and I tended to maintain the same party throughout the entire game.  In Kotor 2, while I could rotate in and out whoever I wanted, I tended to use certain "teams" because I liked the skills they provided and how they interacted with each other.  With POE?  Meh. 

     

    - Classes.  I didn't like the idea of, "an essentially but not fully" open class system from the get go.  I LIKED that your class STRONGLY defined you in the FR games.  In Arcanum, it WAS an open class system, but you essentially had to decide between 3 options: tech, neutral, or magic.  Melee or ranged.  It had serious implications to gameplay, and the out of combat skills were probably MORE important than the in-combat ones (do you want to be persuasive and have lots of followers?  do you want to be intelligent and have lots of dialogue options?  do you want to be well-rounded, but not great at anything, or amazingly min-maxed?)  Kotor.  An interesting combination of how you wanted to fight in combat and what types of reactions you would get in dialogue, that REALLY felt like they mattered (forks in the road, closing off other paths in the future).

     

    With POE, while I appreciated how all the classes played differently in combat, and the variety of builds available to every class, I just didn't feel that any class was particularly important to have, or really contributed something particularly unique.  I don't know how you could play a FR game without, at the minimum, a fighter, mage, druid/cleric, and rogue.  How you built your mage was super important (I preferred to have 2, sometimes a dual-classed mage).  How you built your rogue was INCREDIBLY important.  Did you want to be thief extraordinaire, or did you want more of a scouting assassin?  Did you want a paladin over a ranger or fighter or barbarian?  If you ended up fighting a bunch of undead, you might regret not having a paladin.  If you wanted a more versatile fighter, you might wish you had the ranger. 

     

    With POE, I just sort of felt like it didn't REALLY matter which of the classes I had in the party, I could probably do fine no matter what the mix was, though, like he says in the review, it really became more a matter of just "stopping the rush" and then "ranging the mob" and concentrating on keeping my fighters up.  There were definitely no epic mage or even cleric battles.  I couldn't steal almost anything, so I didn't really NEED a "rogue", because I could scout with anyone.  And, I can't replay, because it just doesn't feel like there is much of a difference, having different classes in the party.  No, "OMG, I wish I had THIS __ right now, but don't!" 

     

    That turned out to be a lot longer than I anticipated.  I guess I'm going to go back to Arcanum, or F:NV, or maybe Kotor.  But, I've probably played THROUGH those games a total of roughly 10 times.  BG?  Wow, that would probably make it about 15 total playthroughs.  P:OE?  1.3, or something like that.  Maybe I'll finish my 2nd playthrough in the future, when I forget the game a bit.

    • Like 7
  18. Finally did it.  I ran everyone to the other side of him, and then put everyone on him.  I kept doing AOE stuff to the giants, until eventually, they both died.  I tried to interrupt him when he was casting spells, and was maybe a little successful with that.  The whole, I get to resurrect myself 3 times thing for him was a little stupid.  I know Irenicus did something similar, but that is just plain cheesy (and highly irritating, when they won't just die... ;)  It was still extremely close, but, I won.  If I didn't have the "revive companion" ability on both my paladins, I would certainly have been screwed.  Though, to be honest, Grieving Mother was just plain useless, because she couldn't regain her focus- I really wish she hadn't been there and I had had a fighter instead.

  19. So, I have to say, I have greatly enjoyed the game.  I'm not some "OMG I'm awesome!!" player, that thinks, "Trial of the Damned is too easy".  I played on normal, and enjoyed the experience.  I had some really tough fights, but never had a full party wipe, and in general, felt the difficulty was just about perfect. 

     

    Now, let's fast forward to the end.  I go to the final act, with EVERYONE maxed out level-wise, everyone equipped extremely well, and tons of hours of experience playing with my current party (meaning, I know how to use their abilities as best as I can hope to).  I get to my final boss fight, and...  I get wiped, 3 times in a row, trying 3 different strategies.  I ALMOST do it, but by almost, I mean, it might have been a possibility, but even if I had been successful, it would have been by the slimmest of margins. 

     

    I can go into explicit detail regarding who I had with me and what I tried, but it seems to me that it was just way overpowered.  I mean, I literally could not have had higher level characters.  I basically completed every quest and side-quest possible, so had no shortage of practice.  I honestly had no real trouble for the last 20% of the game before the final battle.  I FELT extremely prepared.  And then I got destroyed 3 times in a row (2 of those times, truly "pwned").  This is extremely frustrating to me.  I don't feel like reducing the difficulty to "easy", as I absolutely didn't need to do that at any time earlier in the game, and it would be highly unsatisfying to finish it like I was some "nwb" that can barely play the game, but I don't know if I have much of a choice. 

     

    Has anyone else had this experience?  Am I just crazy?  To put it in further perspective, I literally have 4 of my characters with "2nd Chance", so it's not like they even went down 1 time, but twice!

  20. I'm going to continue playing and see, then.  My paladin had really high resolve and might, and I'm sure I got plenty of options for that.  I'm playing a cipher now, and I decided to go with 15 might, 10 constitution, 10 dexterity, 15 perception, 17 intelligence and 12 resolve.  Using my metagame knowledge, I'm well aware I'll be able to boost both intel and perception at least 2 points, so that will put me at 17 perception and 19 intelligence.  If that isn't enough with a high lore score to get some interesting dialogue options, I don't know what will work.

  21. That's all well and good, but I really am specifically curious about having high intelligence, perception, and lore.  So far, the only thing I have seen is a few options for "witty" responses, but ones that don't really change the content of what I am saying, or the reaction I would receive.

     

    I am sure and aware that different classes, races, and all that impact and change some of the options, but I am more concerned about whether I am going to see a dramatically different set of options BECAUSE OF my attributes specifically.  If not, it really doesn't matter what my attributes are when I replay it, at least from the perspective of dialogue options (which I am really hoping is not the case).

  22. So, my first play through was with a paladin.  I really enjoyed it, but didn't really put anything into perception or intelligence or lore, so didn't really get any particularly unique dialogue options (besides some might ones). 

     

    I've now started as a cipher, with a pretty good number of points in perception, intelligence and lore.  But, honestly, I haven't really seen much of a change in my dialogue options.  I'm only at level 3 or so, so haven't even left the 1st act. 

     

    Has someone else that has done multiple play throughs had a different experience?  I'm honestly not motivated to continue to play, if it isn't a significant difference in dialogue options I get presented.  I planned this character explicitly to get more dialogue options and to learn new things in the game, and am right now being underwhelmed.  In Arcanum, or, FNV, the character intelligence made a HUGE, immediately noticable difference in the dialogue options.  Am I just not far enough in?

×
×
  • Create New...