How does PoE II Compare to PoE?

[Marceror]

I'm just now getting around to starting Pillars of Eternity II. I was just curious how the community around here has received this title, and whether it is considered an improvement over the original game. And what specifically do you like/dislike about it?

 

I notice that the party size has been reduced from 6 to 5. That's a slight bummer to me, but I suppose it's not that big of a deal. Especially with multiclassing it would seem you could still have all of the key roles represented. It definitely is pleasing on the eye, and the voice acting is very well done.

 

How are the the expansions/DLCs? My pledge this time around does not include them, so I would need to purchase these separately.

 

 

EDIT: Yeah, I made a minor edit to this post. WHO CARES!?

 

EDIT 2: I mean, other than Obsidian, who apparently thinks it's super important for the world to be notified about this!!

 

EDIT 3: Fine, fine. I added a word I had originally left out, and changed a period to a question mark, because I was asking a question. I have come to HATE this aspect of this forum, in case you weren't aware. And dorky Obsidian can't even make any sort of comment about it whatsoever. Dorks!!

Edited October 18, 2018 by Marceror

[abaris]

In my opinion it's no better or worse. I enjoy both games very much - apart from the still existing technicalo bugs that haunt POE 2.

[Hulk'O'Saurus]

The biggest stat fest in all the Infinities. In a way it moves closer to Path of Exile than the first Pillars. 

 

There is this MMOish tint that tells you that you can grind 15 % faster if you do x,y,z. 

 

You can still have fun. Some choice and consequence. Some RP. Some notable combat. Some good characters.

 

But for every well done idea, there's generally something else that doesn't quite sit too well in the game. 

[Wormerine]

I would recommend making up your own mind first but here is my take:

 

 

Deadfire feels like sequel to PoE1, rather than an attempt to recapture magic of IE games. It might sound like weird, but I think that is important to understand - certain changes much surprise/annoy old fans.

 

Overall, the quality of the game has improved IMO, with better design, more interesting and unique setting, tighter and more complex quest design, better storytelling. Depending how you like to play, the combat might be to your liking or not. For a party based experience I found it clearer and more elegant. There are couple things I am not in love with - I am conflicted about how companionsare handled: I occasionally love the system, but overall I feel that a more basic companion conversation system would achieve the same, if not the better effect.

 

Secondly, while the storytelling might be better, the story necessarily isn’t. It has interesting stuff in it, but it lacks focus and payoff to be truly memorable. I enjoy playing through the Deadfire much more, but finishing it, didn’t feel as satisfying.

 

Judging by the two DLC, I would strongly recommend them. They act as significant side areas to the base game. 1st DLC provides some excellent story content (which somewhat ties to the main story) and 2nd DLC adds some fun combat content, with a bit of story on the side.

[gloomseeker]

The smaller party makes the pathfinding much more manageable. That's one thing that really annoyed me in Pillars 1. 

 

Wormerine summed things up pretty well without hyperbole and outlandish comparisons. Deadfire does its own thing and it's probably for the best. 

 

Last but not least, the music is absolutely great. 

[Marceror]

Any idea why I can't equip St. Droga's skull in my main hand? It's a saber, but apparently can only be equipped in the offhand. Bug?

[Boeroer]

It's an offhand-only item like a shield. It's no bug but intended. No idea why.

[DozingDragon]

It's an offhand-only item like a shield. It's no bug but intended. No idea why.

I think it is because it is a reskinned torch. I do not think torches can be equipped in your main hand.

[house2fly]

The writing and dungeons aren't as good, the gameplay and graphics, and the presentation of the story, are all improved. There's more personality to the average interaction, thanks to portraits and voice work, and more effort to make conversations interesting. Unique weapons and armour have mutually-exclusive upgrades so you can personalise them a bit. The DLC is well worth the asking price, I recommend grabbing the season pass

 

 

 

 

It's an offhand-only item like a shield. It's no bug but intended. No idea why.

I think it is because it is a reskinned torch. I do not think torches can be equipped in your main hand.

 

It's just a line of text in the code; they presumably could change it if they wanted to.

[algroth]

Re-posting some thoughts from a previous thread...

 

 

 

So, I have to agree that there is something odd about Deadfire when measured up to the first Pillars, and yet I don't think it's necessarily a worse game. But for some reason I feel Deadfire works better as a general spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate II than it does as an actual sequel to the first game. One of the things that drew me in about the first Pillars was the time dedicated to exploring and debating its themes and the way the writing never really failed to invoke the sheer otherworldliness of the stranger and more extraphysical encounters you'd come across as both a Watcher and someone who had direct communication with the gods in more than a few occasions; the setting and encounters all felt in service of a central idea or collection of ideas and generally the experience as a whole felt rather harmonious and 'meaningful' because of it (even if it did stumble on occasions due to excessive exposition and so on). Deadfire, on the other hand, seems a lot more scattershot and nebulous regarding whatever idea may be guiding the whole of it, and doesn't seem nearly as concerned with exploring and debating the series' themes as the first game even though ultimately it does sort of follow a similar thread as its predecessor, what with the game being ultimately also about the shift from a more theocentric hierarchy to a more anthropocentric one and so on, but also having this whole other colonialist conflict that seems far removed from that central thread, and then wacky hijinks involving pirates and undead ports and Nemnok and a mechanized dragon and whatnot which is all a ton of fun but fluffy and silly in a way nothing in the first game came across as. And those moments that would recall the sort of otherworldliness of the first game are, on the other hand, a mixed bag. Generally speaking I got the same impression I did of the best moments of Pillars with most of what directly related to Eothas, but then the conferences with the gods felt by and large extremely mundane and banal and fed to that impression I got throughout that many of the gods came across as caricatures of how they appeared in the first game. To this extent I recall SuperBunnyhop saying something along the lines of feeling the world of Eora was cheapened by the sequel and he then placed the possible blame on the absence of Chris Avellone, and whilst I wouldn't go as far with either accusation I do get where he's coming from, because the end result does feel a lot less cohesive and ideas-driven than its predecessor, and it feels like it's missing the voice of a writer who like Avellone or Ziets has a real affinity for that kind of writing and for highlighting the weirder and more oneiric accents in any one scene.

 

Having said all of this I don't think the writing as a whole is necessarily worse, and as far as I'm concerned there's a lot of elements where it heavily improves over the first game. It just feels awkward as a continuation of Pillars to me because what made Pillars distinctly special I do feel is handled worse. And yet, compared to something like Baldur's Gate II I cannot rightly say it isn't actively improving in many of the core elements that made that game great, and capturing that feel really well. So for me the quest design in this game is pretty stunning throughout and I'm very impressed at the sheer amount of options and clever twists presented in each of these, for one I don't think I've ever had this much fun stealthing around in a game of its ilk and part of that is how the game also responds and actively encourages you to do as much (see Fort Deadlight and Arkemyr's Manor as two examples of really great quests that find a lot of details and clever challenges and twists to attempting to play in this fashion). I love how the game also winds up creating this sense of causality to your actions by how it ties several of these quests and tasks into larger narrative threads - so, to use Arkemyr's example again, you hear a pair of characters arguing about an important text to Huana/Rauataian culture, which opens up the quest to try and acquire it from within the Manor, and to get into the manor you proceed to meet with Fassina who herself will help you if you help her out on a task regarding a set of gloves her lover stole from the shop, which upon dealing with and then managing to get the tome you are called back by Arkemyr *himself* which leads to another quest to find the hidden research of a diseased mage, which ends up with the cliffhanger that will likely segue into the Forgotten Sanctum DLC. That's great, I love it, and it all adds a heck of a lot to making the world feel reactive and alive, and invite the player into losing themselves into these grand side adventures.

 

 

For me the fun of the Baldur's Gate games came more from how the game immersed me into its world and less about how it engaged me through its themes and directly made me a participant in whatever debate it was willing to have. The latter is the experience of a game like Pillars, or like Torment or Mask of the Betrayer for other examples, and I love that because I feel it's a distinctly "Obsidian" experience within the broader videogame scene today, as far as I've played at least. Deadfire doubles down on the former aspect and executes it brilliantly but I feel that in some way the latter isn't as present or as successful as it was with its predecessor(s) and in that I can't help feel a little disappointment.

[Marceror]

Thank you everyone for the replies so far. This is very helpful feedback.

I would recommend making up your own mind first but here is my take:

Judging by the two DLC, I would strongly recommend them. They act as significant side areas to the base game. 1st DLC provides some excellent story content (which somewhat ties to the main story) and 2nd DLC adds some fun combat content, with a bit of story on the side.

I am playing the game and planning to make up my own mind, but also want to look to others around here to help level set my expectations going in. I was previously playing Pathfinder: Kingmaker, and based on player input on that game I decided it was best to put it on the shelf, and wait for it to get patched up. My free time for gaming these days is so limited, that I'd rather not spend it on a game that is either not ready, or that I'm not likely to enjoy. While I do plan to play PoE II for myself, if any major red flags are shared by other players it's possible this could dissuade me from investing too much time, or perhaps to wait a while longer before giving it a concerted try.

 

As far as the DLCs are concerned, I'll hold off for now on picking them up, and see if the base game grabs me to the point that I feel I'm likely to actually play far enough into the game to justify the purchases.

 

The smaller party makes the pathfinding much more manageable. That's one thing that really annoyed me in Pillars 1. 

 

Last but not least, the music is absolutely great. 

I never had a problem with the pathfinding in PoE 1, but I'm a veteran of the Infinity Engine games, and am definitely used to dealing with this. Yeah, I'm a big fan of Mr. Bell's compositions in the Pillars games! 

 

It's an offhand-only item like a shield. It's no bug but intended. No idea why.

Well it's entirely bizarre, and makes no logical sense from a player/immersion point of view. If it's a sword, shouldn't it behave like a sword? It feels altogether arbitrary that it can't be used in the primary hand, and I will therefore not use it at all since Eder uses a shield in his offhand. Though, a relatively minor gripe, I admit.

[Marceror]

 

Re-posting some thoughts from a previous thread...

 

 

 

 

For me the fun of the Baldur's Gate games came more from how the game immersed me into its world and less about how it engaged me through its themes and directly made me a participant in whatever debate it was willing to have. The latter is the experience of a game like Pillars, or like Torment or Mask of the Betrayer for other examples, and I love that because I feel it's a distinctly "Obsidian" experience within the broader videogame scene today, as far as I've played at least. Deadfire doubles down on the former aspect and executes it brilliantly but I feel that in some way the latter isn't as present or as successful as it was with its predecessor(s) and in that I can't help feel a little disappointment.

 

 

I'm not certain I'm following this. It sounds like you're saying you prefer a game that immerses the player over a game that engages you through themes and directly makes you a participant. But you then claim that Pillars is the sort of game that you don't prefer, while proceeding to claim that you love such games because they are distinctly "Obsidian"? Either you're confusing your use of former and latter, or this is a heck of a backhanded compliment! Or, I just somehow missed your point.

[algroth]

 

 

Re-posting some thoughts from a previous thread...

 

 

 

 

For me the fun of the Baldur's Gate games came more from how the game immersed me into its world and less about how it engaged me through its themes and directly made me a participant in whatever debate it was willing to have. The latter is the experience of a game like Pillars, or like Torment or Mask of the Betrayer for other examples, and I love that because I feel it's a distinctly "Obsidian" experience within the broader videogame scene today, as far as I've played at least. Deadfire doubles down on the former aspect and executes it brilliantly but I feel that in some way the latter isn't as present or as successful as it was with its predecessor(s) and in that I can't help feel a little disappointment.

 

 

I'm not certain I'm following this. It sounds like you're saying you prefer a game that immerses the player over a game that engages you through themes and directly makes you a participant. But you then claim that Pillars is the sort of game that you don't prefer, while proceeding to claim that you love such games because they are distinctly "Obsidian"? Either you're confusing your use of former and latter, or this is a heck of a backhanded compliment! Or, I just somehow missed your point.

 

 

No, I'm saying that both games engaged me in different ways. Generally I reckon I prefer the latter case (being engaged by the themes and ideas) but mostly because it's rarer for games to engage that way with me, and why I like Obsidian and Pillars particularly. I reckon that in that sense I was expecting to be engaged in a different manner to how Deadfire ultimately engaged with me, if that makes any sense.

[Marceror]

 

 

 

Re-posting some thoughts from a previous thread...

 

 

 

 

For me the fun of the Baldur's Gate games came more from how the game immersed me into its world and less about how it engaged me through its themes and directly made me a participant in whatever debate it was willing to have. The latter is the experience of a game like Pillars, or like Torment or Mask of the Betrayer for other examples, and I love that because I feel it's a distinctly "Obsidian" experience within the broader videogame scene today, as far as I've played at least. Deadfire doubles down on the former aspect and executes it brilliantly but I feel that in some way the latter isn't as present or as successful as it was with its predecessor(s) and in that I can't help feel a little disappointment.

 

 

I'm not certain I'm following this. It sounds like you're saying you prefer a game that immerses the player over a game that engages you through themes and directly makes you a participant. But you then claim that Pillars is the sort of game that you don't prefer, while proceeding to claim that you love such games because they are distinctly "Obsidian"? Either you're confusing your use of former and latter, or this is a heck of a backhanded compliment! Or, I just somehow missed your point.

 

 

No, I'm saying that both games engaged me in different ways. Generally I reckon I prefer the latter case (being engaged by the themes and ideas) but mostly because it's rarer for games to engage that way with me, and why I like Obsidian and Pillars particularly. I reckon that in that sense I was expecting to be engaged in a different manner to how Deadfire ultimately engaged with me, if that makes any sense.

 

After rereading what you said with the interpretation you just gave, yes, that makes total sense. I initially thought you were referencing your experience with Baldur's Gate as a baseline for how you enjoy these sorts of games.

[peko]

 

It's an offhand-only item like a shield. It's no bug but intended. No idea why.

I think it is because it is a reskinned torch. I do not think torches can be equipped in your main hand.

 

I'm guessing that it's because of animations. While mirroring those used for torches might not be a huge amount of work (disclaimer: I've no idea how much work it would actually be), adding new ones for dual wielding torches probably is. In either case it sounds like a lot of work for one item in the game.

[uuuhhii]

deadfire are better in almost every way

but does require the support of poe1

new player without some experience will easily confused

[gloomseeker]

 

I never had a problem with the pathfinding in PoE 1, but I'm a veteran of the Infinity Engine games, and am definitely used to dealing with this. Yeah, I'm a big fan of Mr. Bell's compositions in the Pillars games! 

 

 

I've been playing games like BG since 98, I think the biggest difference is that the infinity engine games were more straightforward when it came to engagement so pathfinding issues were not that serious. 

 

If you're going to make the entire combat system revolve around engagement and attacks of opportunity you really can't afford pathfinding messing things up; which unfortunately is exactly what happens with the 1st Pillars (and if you want to make the most of it you have to micromanage and turn the party AI off -I've played BG recently and it's certainly not such a hassle). 

 

Tyranny was a bit too light with 4 characters but Deadfire hits the perfect balance with a party of 5. In all fairness it's rather easy to get used to having 5 characters and surprisingly so even for a BG or IWD veteran. 

[Verde]

Mostly everything is better except for the main story and your options within quests and the world's reactivity to your choices. Combat first and foremost is a ball, prob my fav in any CRPG ever. And the game is purty with great sound and music (play w headphones).

Edited October 18, 2018 by Verde

[anameforobsidian]

I would say it's improved in many areas over the base:

 

• Build variety - It keeps the many varied items, and then adds dual-classing with kits.  This is a game where it's fun to make new characters.
• Content Density - The maps in general are better designed.  Neketaka is the city Defiance Bay should have been.  Many factions, lots of quests and areas.  Many cool places to explore and people to meet.
• Encounter Design - There are some really cool fights in this one.  
• Level design - The game just has more varied gameplay on the maps.  The bog with the tainted dryads plays very differently than Deadlight Fortress, and both involve less combat.
• The economy is much, much better designed.
• The visuals are improved, and they were already pretty great.
• Same with the text adventures.
• There are some cool boss designs, especially in Seeker.

 

However, there are areas where it's worse:

• The combat system itself isn't quite as good.  Empower is great, but the removal of sleep means that there's less dynamic range between boss fights and mob fights.
• HP bloat is present, if not too bad.
• The ship to ship combat text window is pretty boring.
• The DLCs are enjoyable, but markedly less good or expansive than White March I & II.  The difference between a DLC and Expansion is huge, and the expansion is just plain better in this case.  Both Seeker and Beasts are experimental, and have interesting points, but unfortunately nothing is fully developed.
• The narrative isn't as good as the focused narrative of the White March, and might be a little worse than Pillars I.
• The chattiest of the new companions aren't great, and the old companions are fun but don't bring as much to the table.  My wife hates Xoti, and she's only heard the game on my speakers.
• This game has yet to contain a great dungeon.  The Undercity is pretty good, as is Fort Deadlight, but they still fall short of Raedric's Keep, The Endless Paths, the Abbey of the Fallen Moon, Durgan's Battery, or the Seige at Cragholdt.  The game is pretty allergic to long dungeons in general.  Most are one or two levels.  This is a shame for a game with such good combat (even if I don't enjoy it quite as much as Pillars I, it's still solid).

Edited October 19, 2018 by anameforobsidian

[Verde]

BoW not as good as White March 0_o? I will have to vehemently disagree with you there. White March was just a hodgepodge of random content jammed together with wayyyy too much fighting. It was disjointed imho.

 

BoW on the other hand is one of the best narrative pieces Obsidian has done in either game. And instead of just throwing tons of random enemies at you, BoW provides backstory and puzzles. And don't even get me started on White March II. That was just an overall terrible expansion and had no business being made.

Edited October 19, 2018 by Verde

[xzar_monty]

 

I would say it's improved in many areas over the base:

 

• The economy is much, much better designed.

 

Care to elaborate on this? I am not entirely certain what kind of economy you refer to, but in terms of material and monetary stuff, there are some pretty glaring oddities in the game world. For instance, it seems to me that every piece of non-magical armor is worth 40 cp (or some amount pretty close to that) when sold to a trader. I find that strange, to be honest. How can roughly worked leather be as valuable as professionally worked steel?

 

This is a minor thing and not a problem as such, but at the same time I don't see this as a great improvement -- if this economy is what you were talking about.

[Verde]

Also, you get far too little compensation for quests.

[house2fly]

The "economy" in an RPG is the money you get vs the stuff you can spend it on. In most RPGs you'll get a lot of money pretty quickly because you don't really NEED to buy much. You get a ton of money in Deadfire but there's also a lot to spend it on, so you won't end up with a million cp in your account unless you specifically want to

[Haplok]

Many quests can be approached and solved in multiple ways. Great factions. Decent pacing (compared to PoE1). Perhaps best itemization in a crpg to date. Multiclassing. Much improved combat and encounter design. Awesome graphics. Rewarding exploration.

 

Yes, in many (if not all) ways it is significantly better then PoE 1.

 

Personally I'd prefer if they kept vancian casting, health/endurance dynamics and attrition from PoE1. But you can't have everything. Still, it's one of the best cRPGs out there IMO.

Edited October 19, 2018 by Haplok

[xzar_monty]

The "economy" in an RPG is the money you get vs the stuff you can spend it on. In most RPGs you'll get a lot of money pretty quickly because you don't really NEED to buy much. You get a ton of money in Deadfire but there's also a lot to spend it on, so you won't end up with a million cp in your account unless you specifically want to

 

I'm at level 9 now, and apart from the four or five tools available (crowbar, grappling hook, etc., the absolutely essential stuff you don't want to be without in a scripted encounter), I have not bought anything. There has been no need. Actually, come to think of it: I have bought one thing that gives +2 might.

 

I'm not saying that you're wrong, but so far it seems to me that Deadfire is identical to PoE in the sense that there is almost nothing to be bought in the game.

 

Like in PoE, I also have not used potions at all, except for the two occasions I tried potions of moderate healing.