BrokenMask

Huh, I could have sworn forging crown gave additional slide, but I guess I misremember that (or confused the crown's flavor text for slide text in my mind somehow?)

Never really heard about "Pillars of Eternity" being planned as trilogy though, kinda saw it as "they will do as many games as they feel like in different parts of the world" dealio But anyway, I don't think they should shut out CRPG genre as option completely considering Pathfinder CRPGs still seem to be doing fine and Baldur's Gate 3 I suppose as well. Wasteland 3 doesn't seem to be doing badly either, but I don't know much about that one sales success wise. They just need to figure out what their games did right and wrong and what competitors are doing right and wrong as well.

I noticed it has been finally updated to contain slides for all dlc, but I don't think it contains any slides related to the crown or free patch stuff? Though I guess it could be that your "Woedica Codec" conversations can't actually affect the ending much besides there being slide for crown iirc?

I still need to complete my turn based run :'3 I like game much better on turn based mode, but since I already completed it once before, I have had hard time focusing on this one when so many games to play

I'd guess at very least the "ondra's mortar was turned back on" ending isn't going to be used for canon if they do pick one, mostly because that means "welp status quo remains and nobody has idea what is in the east"

Sad to hear they never fixed this :'D

Pathfinder Kingmaker also did well despite bugs and complaints and all. I think another reason for it might actually have been competition. Divinity 2 and Pillars of Eternity 2 were released around same time and later in POE2's life cycle the dlcs were competing with Kingmaker instead. BTW, just to ask, is it just me, or do CRPGs have unusual amount of fans of genre who love arguing about how their favourite game is best in genre? Like you don't see lot of point and click or horror fans be like "You shouldn't play that game, this one is much better!" meanwhile you can't go to divinity, poe or kingmaker steam without someone being like "this is much better than other games" or "those games are much better than this game"

So I'm sure some people have seen that PC Gamer article about this and felt like giving their own input So here you go, an own thread for it. My own two cents is that I think most of comments in PC Gamer article miss the point: Them not liking the game doesn't really explain why it didn't sell well since they obviously DID buy the game or else their comments about not liking game for being too verbose doesn't make sense. Both of games do also have good reputation by critic scores and such so its unlikely to be bad reputation spreading. I'd like to think its because turn based games are becoming more popular due Original Sin 1 & 2, but I'd be biased if I said that since I just like turn based games and Kingmaker still sold well with RTwP so clearly gameplay genre isn't only reason. My own theory is that it has less to do with isometric rpgs being unpopular genre(since that wouldn't explain success of both Divinity Original Sin 2 and Pathfinder Kingmaker) and that its more of marketing/brand name thing. Like, you could assume that Pillars 2 sold less well than Pillars 1 because CRPG fans who played the first one didn't like it enough to want to play the second one, but let's face it, CRPGs are still rare enough that hardcover crpg fans want to play everyone they can(though that doesn't seem to stop competive fans that love debating which of their favourites is objectively best) Still I suppose that would drop some interest from buying the second one without waiting for sales. You could also assume its because pirate/sailing theme is less popular than "normal" fantasy, but people also complain about being tired with CRPGs not doing enough new things.(would be easier to tell if they had done Pathfinder Skulls & Shackles instead of Kingmaker whether pirate theme is less popular :P) But I have to go with "marketing". Like, first POE could benefit from free publicity due to being among first wave of "super successfull kickstarters about return of style that has been dormant for years", second one isn't as big deal anymore since there have been lot of CRPGs(lot of them crowdfunded) since then, Torment Tides of Numenera, Kingmaker, Original Sin 2. And I think Divinity has gained something of Brand name due to successful marketing, I mean sure, there have been lot of divinity games and spinoffs in past, but none of them were that famous or popular, but Larian Games has succeeded to make Divinity first thing everyone refers to when they talk about turn based games. Pathfinder on other hand has benefit of also drawing interest from Pathfinder players, sure Pathfinder isn't AS huge as D&D, but its still among top five most player tabletop rpgs. But yeah, I'm probably forgetting something important that would turn that theory wrong since this is armchair theorizing done while sleep deprivated To add on that, I think it also helps to think of other CRPGs that didn't become "big thing" like Original Sin did. Wasteland 2 and Torment: Tides of Numenera did have okay enough review scores(though unlike POE 1, the user reviews were more mixed), but virtually no one really remembers those games existing anymore. Sooo yeaaaaaah, I think "marketing!" is pretty good explanation for this even if it isn't the only reason.

Skyrim like Pillars game wouldn't be a Pillars game though, it'd be Elder Scroll game <_<

Sooo yeah, I've been avoiding making Aloth and Xoti hate Tekehu for nothing (though I suppose there wouldn't be a scene even if I hadn't avoided it) It kinda feels sometimes that relationship mechanics were bit incomplete ._. Well I hope for next game they improve upon it

I'd be annoyed if they move from Infinity Engine style isometric game to regular top down game <_<; I mean that was part of the whole selling point of Pillar games

So I know there are Eder-Aloth, Xoti-Eder, Xoti-Maia Tekehu-Pallegina, Tekehu-Maia and Xoti-Maia conversations that happen if they like/dislike each other, but does it actually matter at all for rest of party members what their dispositions are towards each other? Kinda wondering if I've been overly careful at avoiding certain party compositions or if I would actually get more content out if I bring bot Xoti and Tekehu on Nekeha where Tekehu has the most irresponsible tags at same time

I love TB while I only tolerate Real time with pause, so I'm actually liking the combat on my second playthrough with my imported Watcher(I played first time back at release with preset history watcher because I wanted to wait until all patches and dlcs and magran's trials were done before doing my first watcher playthrough with berath's boons and such)

So uh, you can get Five Suns Breastplate if you strengthened Dyrwood's souls and had Pallegina not got through the deal, but the breastplate itself refers to ending where you did that AND had Pallegina do the deal It kinda reminds me of how the kind wayfarer ending was cut completely and rolled into the exile ending ._.; I'm kinda wondering why Pallegina seems to be only character returning that has this happening to her, I guess maybe because her endings had lot of variants compared to Aloth and Eder?

Kinda amazed that nobody still seems to have down a breakdown of exact mechanics behind this ._.;

Aww man, they never fixed this?

Probably. But there are also people who prefer things that sell LESS as it's not as mainstream or whatever. Well yeah, but let's face it, hipsters specifically care less about thing selling well and more about "how many new people arrive to discus the thing". They prefer things that have small old circle discussing the thing forever without new folk entering.

Honestly bit confused why consumers in some circles(pretty sure that doesn't happen with food products or such at least, it seems to mostly happen with entertainment) really pay attention to how well product sells? Like is it case of wanting validation of "Everyone else bought it too!" or is it case of worrying "If it doesn't sell well enough, we won't see more products like it!"? Edit: Oh hey Pathfinder got mentioned! Well its bit unrelated to topic but my thoughts on it: The release version did REALLY really bad job of explaining how kingdom mechanics work. On this second playthrough after patches which added tutorials to explain how this works, its been easy on normal difficulty to manage it so that kingdom never goes under "stable" condition(its only been "stable" and "serene" in this playthrough, compared to my first playthrough where I got it to "unrest" after chapter 2 started and never got out of it until chapter 4 where it finally reached "ruined" and it was game over) and I've completed pretty much all kingdom projects by end of act 5 and am just maxing out every kingdom rank to 10 currently. Pathfinder does also good job at feeling like a "pure rpg adventure" if that makes sense. Like, its not trying to be philosophical, deep or meaningful, its trying to tell fun story. Sure every companion learns a life lesson and game is surprisingly brutal and cynical(let troll kids go for example when you are on quest to kill their father, they return half the game later to avenge their father ) but without starting to feel like its too dark if that makes sense? It also does good job of feeling like choices in earlier chapters show up or get referenced. Like in some games choices in games are purely about "what is gonna be in end game slides" rather than what happens later in game. I think I need to rephrase that to make it bit clearer: I don't mean story of Kingmaker is particularly light hearted, I mean that good fun story comes with fun moments, tragic moments and everything between. It doesn't ever really weigh down on you, but I think it was fresh experience compared to most of "kickstater renaissance crpgs" storywise. I mean, I still like both Pillars, Torment Tides of Numenera and even Wasteland 2,(I never finished divinity 1 since it was co op game and I haven't played second game yet beyond starter island(because I wanted to finish the divinity 1 co-op run with friend) though I did like the gameplay mechanics in both and that you could play as characters you otherwise recruit to your party in second one. I do however feel like Divinity 1 is too heavy on side of comedy, second one seems to be better about that), but I feel like all three of them are pretty heavy story wise. Like, they don't just want to entertain you, it feels like they want to replicate experience of either Fallout or Planescape Torment if that makes sense?

I do gotta admit that first game felt kinda mundane appearance wise so that was bit unexciting.

Eh, I like both games so I don't see need for Obsidian to do radical changes, but if they do, I would always be happy with switch to turn based combat :D That aside, story wise I'd just like to see game setting in either a) Yezuha b) Living Lands c) White that Wends. Mostly because those three are areas I'm interested in learning more about. Not that other countries aren't cool or interesting, but they seem most "familiar" to me if that makes sense?

I've actually only completed game on the default Pillars 2 history option because I wanted to wait until all dlcs are out and all save import bugs are fixed So uh, yeah, has that happened yet? I did notice experimenting with default histories that Edes always gives the "Went back to Aedyr to visit his parents" story despite having either night market locket or mayor's brooch in his starting inventory, so uh, that kinda tells me something is still bugged(unless save imports are fixed and default histories are bugged)

Giving the body to Concelhaut is ultimate example of Tayin's "Let's see what happens" philosophy, so I'm interested to see if even he thinks that is going too far :D

I think the main problem with joining the circle would be that player would have to create their own spell and it should still be in balance

I said NEW party members, Aloth and Eder are kinda given(though nobody likes Aloth in either game, everyone prefers Iselmyr. Poor Aloth). That said I did forget about Serafen since I don't remember if I ever had two of them in same party at same time (I do give you that Xoti-Pallegina argument is equally both of their fault, though I still do say that Pallegina's anti-religion negative modifier counter tends to pop up in some really petty situations and some that kinda feel kinda inappropriate/jerk-ish because they ignore the whole context of what happened. That has nothing to do with character writing though, its just game mechanic being silly) I do admit exaggerating though :D Anyway, yeah, I don't dislike Pallegina in second game, but I think we both can agree that we would have wished different arc for her in the second game.

I'm not discussing about whether it makes sense in universe, I'm pondering about whether it is interesting change in my own opinion. Like, my own opinion is that I'm kinda annoyed there isn't a single party member she gets well along with. Makes me kinda hope Ydwin stretch goal would have been reached since I assume she would have been pro animancy which would have given two something to bond over