Pathfinder Kingmaker is bigger then Deadfire

[Purudaya]

So it's a game that promises to be twice as big as Deadfire for 1/4 of the budget? Plus better narrative/character development AND a fully fleshed out kingdom/army building component?

 

Bigger doesn't always equal better (*cough* Oblivion *cough*), nor does marketing necessarily = reality. I'll root for any CRPG to succeed (except for Divinity), but anyone expecting every promised aspect of this game to come out fully baked should probably know better by now. Unless it's more about not liking Deadfire and wanting to compare it unfavorably to a game that hasn't even been released yet, which seems like an intentionally unfair metric.

 

If it somehow pulls off a BG2 and blows everyone away, then I'll happily eat some crow. Until then, I'll stick to comparing Deadfire to CRPGs I can actually play, among which it's shaping up pretty darn well.

 

Also, sidenote re: 'success' and sales — Planescape: Torment bombed at release and is now a cult classic widely considered to be one of (if not the) greatest CRPGs of all time. It wasn't successful as a product, but it was successful as an enduring work of art.

 

There's also IP building to take into account. Even if a game is only a moderate financial success (Deadfire would have to sell less than Tyranny to not make money), allowing a company to invest millions into expanding the world and mechanics of its signature IP for further development provides value in and of itself. Pillars is coming to consoles, table-top, and the lead narrative designer is talking about future games like they're a given. The franchise may not be making hundreds of millions, but it's clearly expanding, which is a sign of success especially in such a niche market.

Edited July 24, 2018 by Purudaya

[Orogun01]

 

And unquantifiable.

So there no such thing as art?

 

Art has properties and a singular purpose that define it, I personally disagree that it is unquantifiable just because of subjectivism.

[omgFIREBALLS]

Success IS measured by money, because gaming industry is no different than any other business. Fun does not put food on the table (or a porsche in the garage), but big sales and smart microtransactions do. Look at EA. They treat their players like garbage. They've been voted the worst company in the US a few years in a row. How did it affect their profits? They keep getting bigger. And why? Because they don't need to have a heart to be good at their jobs.

Quite right...

 

I avoid EA almost out of principle. We need more principled gamers. With my principles, of course.

 

Also this and this, while we're at it.

[HoonDing]

whom can you bang?

[Manveru123]

 

Success IS measured by money, because gaming industry is no different than any other business. Fun does not put food on the table (or a porsche in the garage), but big sales and smart microtransactions do. Look at EA. They treat their players like garbage. They've been voted the worst company in the US a few years in a row. How did it affect their profits? They keep getting bigger. And why? Because they don't need to have a heart to be good at their jobs.

Quite right...

 

I avoid EA almost out of principle. We need more principled gamers. With my principles, of course.

 

Also this and this, while we're at it.

 

I'd love to do the same. Truly. But I can't, because I love Star Wars too much

[Melusina]

whom can you bang?

 

Valerie, Octavia and Magus dude as male

Tristian, Octavia and Magus dude as female.

[HoonDing]

Octavia is cute!!

 

[Melusina]

Unfortunately, Octavia is doomed to be in love triangle/tree-some with Magus dude and you.

[Tigranes]

Couldn't care less which game is bigger, only that the game is good. The size of a game might have something to do with its quality, but it seems to me such a pointless and secondary thing to focus on.

 

Not sure how it all got to the argument that the best games are the ones that make the most money, but hey, if that's what you care about, you probably shouldn't be in the game business or wasting any of your time playing games. Or posting on forums. Seems pretty weird if you want to judge everything by monetary success and then you sit around fooling about with axe-wielding dwarves.

 

Me, I don't have such problems, because I know axe-wielding dwarves are the frickin' best.

[Shadenuat]

Also features chaotic evil goblin companion written by Avellone, if man doesn't lie.

[Manveru123]

 

Not sure how it all got to the argument that the best games are the ones that make the most money, but hey, if that's what you care about, you probably shouldn't be in the game business or wasting any of your time playing games. Or posting on forums. Seems pretty weird if you want to judge everything by monetary success and then you sit around fooling about with axe-wielding dwarves.

 

 

I'm having trouble understanding your point, even though I really want to. Apparently to make money from games, one shouldn't be in game business (how does that work?) and absolutely cannot have any free time at all.

 

In the real world, you can be a successfull game developer and still frolic with the dwarves all you want.

Edited July 24, 2018 by Manveru123

[Gfted1]

Feels...I love Monet but hate Picasso. You are the opposite. Whos "better"? Im guessing whoever you like more, but that cant be "measured".

[Amentep]

Neither is better as you're both wrong, the correct answer is "John William Waterhouse".

 

Personally I'm not against using money/units sold as a criteria for success, but then I think endeavors that bridge commercial-creative have multiple measures that you can apply.  This being different from fine art where at best the success is in the eye of the patron or the gallery owner.

 

A film can have a bad story, but still be entertaining.  It can make a lot of money but be critically drubbed.  It could have a great story and be as fun as watching socially aware paint drying.  It can be critically lauded and have no one but the critics to go see it.  Each could be seen as a success and a failure.  I don't think games are all that different.

[Guest]

 

 

There's a difference between someone who creates something as a means of self-expression (an artist) and someone who creates something so that people will consume it (a performer). Orwell wrote Animal Farm because he had something to say. Beiber makes music so that people will buy his albums.

 

Your definition of performer is super wrong. I mean, not correct by any dictionary or commonly accepted standard of the word. A performer doesn't create anything. They perform. Orwell was an actor, director, writer, and producer. He was certainly a performer when he did the radio broadcast of War of the Worlds. He was a great artist, but the idea that he was just creating stuff for self-expression is unrealistic. He needed people to buy tickets as well.

 

Beiber could arguably be considered a performer instead of an artist. I do not know what his role is in the creation of his music. I know his producers are given a lot of credit for his success. But regardless, whoever is creating the music is still an artist, no matter how commercial their interests may be. Heck, Shakespeare's later plays go my and more violent because he found that was what sells. Any artist you have ever heard of is in it for more than self-expression. Otherwise why release anything?

Performer (intransitive verb) - to give a performance: play.

 

Artists can incorporate performance into their art (i.e. Peter Gabriel), but performers aren’t artists.

 

And yes, artists need to eat, but that doesn’t change the core of my argument (which you did not address): intention matters

[Hurlshort]

 

And yes, artists need to eat, but that doesn’t change the core of my argument (which you did not address): intention matters

 

 

How do you measure intention?

[Amentep]

As an aside - George Orwell wrote ANIMAL FARM as a response to what he'd seen in the Spanish Civil War as well as tied to the propaganda the UK government was putting out about Stalinist USSR.  Orson Wells was the actor/writer/director whose Mercury Theater did the WAR OF THE WORLDS Broadcast.

 

Funnily enough Wells may be a good example of an artist in the Achillies sense; many of his proposed movies never got made because - while everyone recognized him as a genius in his fields - his films were often over budget and performed terribly at the box office for the most part.  When they did get made, they were usually interfered with to be made "more commercial".

[Guest]

 

And yes, artists need to eat, but that doesn’t change the core of my argument (which you did not address): intention matters

 

How do you measure intention?

I’m assuming you mean, “how do we recognize intention”? It can be difficult, but often it’s not. The author who clearly had *a* good idea for *one* book, but clearly got pressured into writing a trilogy. The actor who quits to become a director. The game studio who keeps regurgitating the same game every few years with flashier graphics. Behavior over time tells us boat loads.

[ShadySands]

 

LOL profit equals success...

Profit does equal success, but success doesn't always equal quality.

Yeah, these arguments keep shifting

 

Still more interesting than the initial post I guess and we do have an actual Pathfinder thread with some actual game discussion

[Vitalis]

Also features chaotic evil goblin companion written by Avellone, if man doesn't lie.

 

Oh boy, someone that's going to be even more hated than Durance.

[Tigranes]

 

 

Not sure how it all got to the argument that the best games are the ones that make the most money, but hey, if that's what you care about, you probably shouldn't be in the game business or wasting any of your time playing games. Or posting on forums. Seems pretty weird if you want to judge everything by monetary success and then you sit around fooling about with axe-wielding dwarves.

 

 

I'm having trouble understanding your point, even though I really want to. Apparently to make money from games, one shouldn't be in game business (how does that work?) and absolutely cannot have any free time at all.

 

In the real world, you can be a successfull game developer and still frolic with the dwarves all you want.

 

 

Oh, nothing that complicated. I just think the games or books or films that give me the best experience, usually doesn't have much to do with how commercially successful they are. And if I lived life thinking quality/success = commercial profit in all cases, well, I wouldn't touch those silly video games, for starters - so it seems odd to care so much either way.

 

Here's hoping, of course, that Obsidian, Owlcat and everyone else keeps making enough money to try and make a good RPG.

Edited July 25, 2018 by Tigranes

[Blarghagh]

As an aside - George Orwell wrote ANIMAL FARM as a response to what he'd seen in the Spanish Civil War as well as tied to the propaganda the UK government was putting out about Stalinist USSR.  Orson Wells was the actor/writer/director whose Mercury Theater did the WAR OF THE WORLDS Broadcast.

 

Oh good, I was afraid I was going crazy (crazier?) when a whole page went by and everyone just glossed over this.

[Hurlshort]

 

As an aside - George Orwell wrote ANIMAL FARM as a response to what he'd seen in the Spanish Civil War as well as tied to the propaganda the UK government was putting out about Stalinist USSR.  Orson Wells was the actor/writer/director whose Mercury Theater did the WAR OF THE WORLDS Broadcast.

 

Oh good, I was afraid I was going crazy (crazier?) when a whole page went by and everyone just glossed over this.

 

 

That was my fault. For some reason I have trouble keeping Orwell, Orson Wells, and HG Wells separate in my head. I blame video games. 

[HoonDing]

"(Actually Taylor Swift is a phenomenal talent and it is insulting to put her in the same class as Beiber, who relies heavily on talented producers to succeed.)"

 

I agree Tay is not half bad, but Beyoncé is one of the greatest artists of all time. Of all time.

[bugarup]

 

 

As an aside - George Orwell wrote ANIMAL FARM as a response to what he'd seen in the Spanish Civil War as well as tied to the propaganda the UK government was putting out about Stalinist USSR.  Orson Wells was the actor/writer/director whose Mercury Theater did the WAR OF THE WORLDS Broadcast.

 

Oh good, I was afraid I was going crazy (crazier?) when a whole page went by and everyone just glossed over this.

 

 

That was my fault. For some reason I have trouble keeping Orwell, Orson Wells, and HG Wells separate in my head. I blame video games. 

 

 

...Orson is actually Welles, if we're talking Orson of Rosebud fame, not some distant obscure cousin of Herbert. 

 

'sfunny how fanboy No 1 compares the not-yet-released game's promo texts with a game that's already out and comes to conclusion that looks OK to him? Also, his obsession with validating his dislike for Deafire starts to look rather unhealthy. Dude, it's just a video game. It's not a big deal if you don't like it as much as some other games. No, really. 

[Melusina]

Pathfinder KM will be decent game - why?

 

Because I'm determined to like this one. Unless story is extremely bad, I won't really care. If I wish good stories, there's always a novels, books, etc...

 

Jokes aside, Deadfire is awesome game, yes, even in story, I didn't skip it all during my playthrough, just enough for brisk playthrough.

 

 

Pathfinder has lots of potential, but stories in beta don't really grip me enough. Maybe I have different standard, or that youtuber who did beta playthrough with robotic voice ruined the good story for me, idk, but comparaison to BG2 will cripple the game in same way it crippled both Pillars game.

 

My point? Move on from BG2. It's really not very healthy to clinge to 20 years old game.