Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Skolinkinlot

  1. I prefer the term internal consistency to immersion, because immersion is largely subjective while the internal consistency of a setting is not. This is one area where modern games have undoubtedly degenerated, look at Ultima VI and VII over twenty years old now, a living world where every npc had a daily routine, that fitted with his character and gave insight into his life. This enriched the gameworld, made it more than a simple theatre upon which the protagonist performs, and gave life and agency to the npc's you interacted with. This was the high point of the RPG genre for me, and since then they have markedly degenerated, streamlining, dumbing down and jettisoning content and features in favour of the core experience.


    Well the core experience has been achieved and surpassed, RPG's now are barely alive combat and conversation simulators, and anything beyond that is scorned as busywork, not part of the core experience or too difficult and frustrating for the player to bother with. Of course this is nonsense, young children can deal with multiple systems and RPG veterans certainly can, but the harmful streamlining narrative endures. It is saddening to see this degeneration championed and celebrated.


    What is the result: A lifeless world, lifeless characters and and an unbelievable, dead setting where there is virtually no interaction with anything. My character carries cart loads of equipment without even equipping a backpack, it is illogical and harms the internal consistency of the setting, perish the thought that I must pick and choose what I carry, that it must be a strategic choice or that the game behaves in a realistic manner. When I go in a tavern I cannot sit down on a seat, order a meal and watch the populace visit and leave the place as the hours change, because there is no change or verisimilitude in the places at all.


    Of course the argument against this verisimilitude is the usual pathetic and childish one: Dragons exist and fly so anything is possible! No, fantastic elements are governed by their own rules, and serve to reinforce the mundane as fantastic elements are supposed to. A Wizard and his spells have rules and stipulations, the unstoppable power to change all creation and render anything possible is not within his power, if it were he would be a god or something more and beyond worrying about this small world in the void.


    I would personally like to see as many features, content and as much reactivity and logical restrictions as the setting can handle. If this means a smaller game with far more detail packed into each area, alive npcs who behave realistically, far less identikit loot to haul about, and far more reactivity to our actions, then that is a good price to pay and an example of streamlining done correctly.


    Of course this is merely my opinion.

     Totally agree. It blows my mind to think back when i was 12 I was experiencing the peak of RPG's but it seems to be the case. Just glad I got to grow up with the greats I suppose, though I had really hoped things would have continued to improve. Obligatory console defamation sentence here , etc etc.





    I think both reviews were rather easy on the story, which I consider to be the weakest point of the game.


    (Still miles above anything Bioware put out since Jade Empire, but that's irrelevant.)


    Do you know of any (recent) game where the story was not average off the stock material?



    Shadowrun: Dragonfall had a perfectly serviceable story.



    Yeah, but that's more of a murder mystery than a real RPG. Although it has strong RPG elements it doesn't have real side quests and party management to the extent of a real RPG.



    You're thinking of Dead Man's Switch. Dragonfall is a completely different campaign (which surpasses its predecessor in every possible way and is probably the best CRPG since Alpha Protocol).


    Dragonfall is amazing. Recently picked it up on a steam sale for 5.99 !!!!?!?!?!. Sadly , I think ive been having more fun with it than I did with PoE.


    My two cents:


    This game is on-par with DA:O, which in turn is on-par with BG1.


    PoE is superior to BG1 in the area of side quests (especially quest diversity) companions, and reactivity (choice & consequences), but inferior in terms of combat mechanics, build diversity / complexity, and the main quest.

    PoE is superior to DAO in the areas of area design / diversity, and build diversity / complexity, but inferior in terms of companions (by lots), choice and consequences, and the main quest (but not by much).


    It is inferior to IWD1/2 and BG2, although for very different reasons (IWD1/2 was nothing more than hack & slash -- but it was good hack and slash).  I don't consider PST to be in the same category as any of these games (it is closer to a visual novel than anything else).


    If I had spent $40 for it, I'd probably feel that I got my money's worth, but...  That's not what I paid for it, and the extras that I got don't even come close to making up the extra value.


    All of the above is my opinion, obviously, but that's what the OP asked for... :)

    I kind of think PoE's main quest's issues are that it takes a while to get rolling and isn't great at motivating you in the way BG 1 was. It's probably meatier than either of those games thematically and in terms of content, in my view. Combat in BG 1 is probably a little more varied overall and the AI of the BG games is slightly better at providing meaningful challenges though still cheeseable to hell.


    I really don't get people holding up BG 1 as an example of build diversity - building a fighter that doesn't have 18/18/18 STR/DEX/CON is always suboptimal, and the curve for stats in AD&D meant that the more you diverged from that the more suboptimal you were. 2 had some but that was from the range of kits and really wide variety of items rather than actually in the character building stage. Dual and multi classes are really important for the replayability precisely because the single classes of AD&D games are really monotonous in their design.


    DAO - I really liked DAO's choice and consequence. I think the companions for it are probably the weakest of any of Bioware's modern games, though, and linked to that dreadful gifting system. Oghren is the only one I really liked. And the Dog.


    The guy in your stronghold.. forgot his name but the big baddy at the end. He tells you to go to Defiance Bay to the Temple of Woedica to learn more of your awakening.

  4. I really enjoy the graphics. Certainly alot better than the cartoony WOW style graphics that seem to dominate the genre. Considering from the get go it was planned as a 2d pre rendered backdrop game (actually a selling point since the I.E. games were as well), I think they did very well. I will say some of the character models are rather sub par however (Aumaua for example looks downright silly :D )

    • Like 3
  5. Aren't CRPGS at their heart, about combat? Sure theres been some games that have tried to deemphasize combat to some extent, with varying levels of success.Thats not to play down the importance of game worlds and storylines and the like. I mean take for example the HUGE posts in the forums about armor and weapon design..  combat has always been at the heart of CRPGS from the beginning. I really dont understand how getting xp for kills is degenerate.

    • Like 1

    One thing I do find quite odd however is the many pledgers and backers who are not even the least bit concerned or upset that they were basically strung along with false promises.


    you're the one-eyed king among the blind followers you're so totally wrong on so many levels. peel the ie games out of their a/dnd shell and look a second time what made those games. perhaps this time you'll find the similarities with project eternity.


    Well I had hoped and tried in my original post to NOT sound like this as its NOT how I feel. Honestly I feel like im missing something that everyone else isn't because the general feeling I get from lurking the forums for quite a while now is one of being pleased with the direction of the project. Simply, im trying to understand.


    So far it seems like the explanation is peoples "bar" is set very low. Going of whats in this thread so far (very small sample size I know) it seems the general concencus on what is expected is :



    -Party Based

    -Fantasy Setting (although i dont equate fantasy with firearms this doesnt seem to bother the majority here either)


    - RTWP


    The problem with that is it describes any number of older CRPGs.


    Like I said I knew it was not going to be DnD . But I DID think it would of been close.

  7. You and I have a different idea of what it means to be an old IE games. It's real-time with pause, focusing on tactical party combat, questing, and exploration. That's what I expected, that's what I seem to be getting.


    I know some people are upset that it's not a 1:1, that wizards don't look to be quadratic, that it's not D&D 2E with the serial numbers filed off. But I never got the impression that's what they were aiming at.

    Maybe your right. I knew it wouldn't of course be a DND product however I feel like they are literally trying reinvent every aspect of the old formula. Again no problem for a foward-thinking RPG and I actually am hopefull that this project could spark a new era in future CRPGs (wishful thinking perhaps). I guess I was just hoping for a throwback, a modernized BG instead of a total rethinking of the entire concept of CRPGs.

  8. How can this game claim to have anything to do with IE games at this point. Other than having an Isometric interface, they are basically reinventing everything that embodied what IE games were in my opinion.


    Let me be clear on a couple things first. I did not pledge in the Kickstarter (because I had a funny feeling this would happen). And I will still purchase the game! However I do feel it was disingenuous to base the entire project on this. Also, I do understand that what an IE game embodied is subjective and probably varies from person to person. But at best the product this is shaping up to be will have tenuous links at best to classic IE games. Thats fine I suppose as I feel its a capable team who really loves what they are doing, and if I look at the game from a different perspective (not judging it through IE tinted glasses if you will) it sounds like an awesome RPG that forgoes glitzy Skyrim-type flash for more solid gameplay.


    One thing I do find quite odd however is the many pledgers and backers who are not even the least bit concerned or upset that they were basically strung along with false promises.



    • Like 1
  • Create New...