Sedrefilos

And then the Phoenicians dumbed down symbols to alphabet. They made it more accessible to the wider dumb audience. They were total sellouts duude 1.5/10

:-D more colourful/playful = "dumbed down"? That's an odd logic. It is dumbed down from what? Original Divinity? The first game was rather silly. Firkraag888 logic. The new, dumbed down, version of Sensuki is here

The playstyle (action or not) doesn't define an rpg for me. It's the roleplay that does.

Witcher 3 is an rpg to me. It has roleplaying, even if it gives you a certain character. It's the minimum of roleplaying you can get in a game that defines it as an rpg for me. Zelda, for example, is not an rpg. Though it gives you a certain character, you don't get to roleplay him even a bit. Zelda is one of the greatest exploration/adventure/dungeon crawling series ever, though.

Yes, at the end, that was what the actual game was all about; but the promotion campaign was how playing evil is cool Edit: And maybe that was the biggest problem for the game. You have the developer (Obsidian) who makes quality rpgs about freedom of choice and exploration of a plethora of themes and on the other hand you got the publisher (Paradox) a company who makes mostly strategy games, with equal freedom of choice but on the strategic layer. There is no ethics or emotions in strategy games, usually. Playing however you like seems fun for them; even playing and almighty overlord who conquers all with brute force. It's part of the fun (even promoted) in a 4X (oh, how I despise that title!) game because everything is seen from a distance, from the eyes of an almighty leader to whom the end justifies the means. Everything is pawn to them. And don't forget: Tyranny is a Paradox property. So maybe they decided to promote it through their point of view.

The definition of an rpg is simple to me: role playing game. If there is no roleplay involved, it is not an rpg. It is something which has rpg elents.

2017 has been a super strong year for RPG so far, especially if you have a PS4: Nier:Automata Nioh Persona 5 Horizon Zero Dawn Zelda:Breath of the Wild (Switch/Wuii exclusive) Out of that list, Zelda: Breath of the Wild is pretty much the #1 game of all time now, Persona 5 was called a GOTY candidate and Horizon Zero Dawn was said to be the new The Witcher 3 at release. I see no rpg in there These games have a very different target group and, except Persona maybe, they are popular genres.

I'm pretty sure more people played Baldur's Gate 2 than 1 and they did't care if the game started in the middle, at 7th even, without any "decide the previous story" mechanic. I know I was one for sure. The game will go well, I believe, well enough for Obsidian to care about making more games like this and, at least, maybe inspire some other companies to make similar games. Which is the most I can care about the ammount of success Deadfire will have.

Huh. How did you get that impression? I recall the promotions saying it was a world where the evil overlord won but I do not recall it ever saying you would be evil. "Playing evil is fun" and "how to play a convicing evil character" was all they were talking about.

There's a niche group that is obsessed with the word "niche", indeed.

Since my arms cannot stretch that long, I'm gonna point at that and say, THAT big!

Who said playing evil by default is a good selling promotion? RPGs are about playing whatever you like. Also the "usually in fantasy rpgs you are playing the good vs evil blahblahblah" mentality has been abandoned from like late 90s. It was so annoying hearing them spamming it over nad over to make Tyranny sound special. I tried to think of an rpg I played and it was all about good VS evil. There's none. The game was special, yes, but not just because you played evil. It was because it had some neat spell mechanics and a variety of options. Playing evil, for me, was very annoying and boring, especially at start where I had to deal with all those armies and stuff. You know what I also like? RPGs that don't make me a king or ruler or whatever. Not forcefully, at least. It's so "in" these days. Who said I like power? I'd like to just be an adventurer, by chance or by choice. Maybe I'd like to mess with the powerful, bring them down or something (New Vegas ftw!). It's also stupid. Like I am the head of the power in my domain and I just go adventuring here and there? Meh. I can't forget how stupid felt the idia that when I captured Caed Nua in Pillars, suddenly everyone around my castle acknowleged me as their ruler and payed me taxes :D It was ok to capture the abandoned fort for myself but becoming a ruler unwillingly was just stooopid! :D

Am I the only one remembering them busting my balls with Tyranny and how #evilwon?

@Wormerine, I guess you'll have to play it and see for yourself whether the game is hardcore or not (for you) I, myself, consider it as one.

Maybe so, as long as you explain what more hardcore means. I am! *can No, I mean I am explaining, right there at my post

Maybe so, as long as you explain what more hardcore means. I am!

Funny how many rpg fans complain all the time about how "handholding" newer games are and when they stumble on a new rpg that doesn't do that (DOS/DOS2 in this case) they complain about stuff not being that easy for them True fact: DOS and DOS 2 are more hardcore than Pillars. Less help, more find-it-out-by-yourself mentality. They help you only when it is fair (like highlighting the stuff that are around you on the ground to pick up in a limited range but not containers, npcs, interactive object etc or having you find where the good skillbook vendors are, make you walk around carefully and see the possibilities of the map etc) and has you put custom map markers (which I REALLY like in rpgs!). I'm not saying I prefer that over the more streamlined Pillars way per se, but it fits well in the game and makes you think more, like everything is a puzzle with many solutions that you'll find out your own sooner or later depending of the time you spend on it and your approach. Pillars doesen't do that much - it's more streamlined - but I'd like to see that in Deadfire; and something tells me I will EDIT: I see that many here talk about DOS rather than DOS 2 (which OP is calling to compare) and I have to say that Pillars was, at the end, more enjoyable than DOS - but DOS 2 is like 50 levels higher than DOS; the principles are the same but the execution is way better. I still believe that there shouldn't be a comparison between the two games because they are different in may ways but in terms of overall feeling, at this moment is DOS < Pillars < DOS 2 slightly, only because it feels a more focused and "coplete" design. Given that I like IE approach more, I believe at the end, I'll like Deadfire more, but at this moments the case is this (and mind you: I just only finnished the 2nd chapter of DOS2, the "small" one (out of Fort Joy)! I'm waiting for more complex and exciting stuff to come!).

@Cartesii 1. Camera is 360 rotatable and zoomable, I think it works just fine. 2. Seriously? 'Cause 3 out of 4 of my party members are mostly melee and they kick major ass. Also, luck? Where? 4. Full of tactical alchemies. Great. Try scroundel+metamorph combo (flying around the field and backstabbing everyone) with a bit of teleportation. Best fun I had in rpg combat for long.

Extra details: https://jesawyer.tumblr.com/post/165624262881/hi-josh-i-cant-remember-how-exactly-power-level

I'm gonna play pure all spellcasting classes 'cause max level spells tend to be very impressive and I don't want to miss any hehe. I'm probably gonna multiclass the more "grounded" classes like warrior or barbarian or monk.

This is also a nice axample of how you shouldn't poll your design ideas to the public. People voted for 3.5 style multiclassing, recieving an ADnD instead, because, when tested, the first was not good and, obviously, as a designer of your game, you know better. Now we'll have all this derrailing talk about how one style would have been better than the other (of course without having tested the game, as usual) @Josh Sawyer and team: guys, just design what you think its best for the game and then present to us so we can discuss only about that.

WithPillars, Obsidian did much to promote it and they did it good imo. Updates, presentations etc. I don't know how Paradox helped with that, I didn't spot any difference. Same with Deadfire. They're already doing great by themselves; I don't know how VS Evil's gonna do better promotion-wise. Aaaanyway... as usual I don't care much about all that; the games are popular, we most probably gonna see more of them with or without publishers and life goes on.

I tent not to overthink game mechanics. First approach sounded good, this one's sounds good too imo. I trust the dev team will deliver solid and fun gameplay. I liked skill trees too. Helps knowing what's gonna be next when you level, in contrast to the 1st game where you got surprise skills and had to make a choice. Better this way. 2012 - to date (and counting)... wow, this is indeed the new crpg golden age; for real, no?

Cool stuff. I like multiclass names. Also, 7 active skills + 10 passive skills = 17 skills this time! Impressive!

Hidden save file is created after beating the game with all your choices - its only purpose to transfer them to sequel. Josh has talked about it several times.