What would you like for an hypotetical PoE3?

[Crucis]

17 hours ago, Boeroer said:

While I would think that a not-so-far-in-the-future third part should stick to the mechanics of Deadfire I also don't care that much about RTwP or TB. Players who want to turn this into a confession of faith behave kind of silly. There are games that are great and use TB and there are games that are great who use RTwP. Don't understand why one has to chose to only like one. I love PoE/Deadfire and Battle Brothers because they are fun to play for me, not because I celebrated some kind of communion with RTwP or TB evangelists.

But still: if a PoE3 is made in the next few years I would like it to continue the mechanics of Deadfire as I said. It's quite some work to learn a whole new system and I would like to avoid it if possible. Deadfire's rule system is in a good state (not talking about bugs and oversights especially on consoles). Some minor tweaks like simplifying the stacking rules should suffice. And there already is TB and RTwP - so it's not too far fetched to expect to see both in a PoE3 again (one as main mode, the other as additional I would presume).

By the way: a recent poll came to the conclusion that a slight majority welcomes the switch from RTwP to TB for BG3. You wouldn't guess if you read the Larian forums (lots of "true" BG fans flooding the place while acting like broken records). There you would get the impression that BG3 is doomed to fail - while Larian (or Vincke) reported that they got overwhelmingly good responses on PAX and social media (other than their forums). Bubbles... 

Boeroer, long time, no see.

I generally think that the Deadfire rule system is in a decent state, though I could be improved around the edges.

Here are some thoughts on that, largely related to classes.

1.  I would like to see the overall class/subclass design tweaked as follows.  Remove the downsides for subclasses as much as possible.  At the same time, remove the concept of using the title "no subclass" for the generic class.  (Note that not all classes have this issue.)  I'm thinking that the Animist subclass of the Druid class should be somewhat of the prototype for this.  That is, the "generic" subclass for the class should have an actual subclass name.  (Henceforth, I will call the "no subclass" subclass the "Generic" subclass of the class.)  After that give the Generic subclass a strong enough set of additional benefits that the downside of choosing one of the other subclasses in that class would be to not have those added benefits tied to the Generic subclass.

I will say though that sometimes certain subclasses seem like they need their downsides to help define the subclass.  And other times, it seems that a subclass' downsides only exist to justify or "pay for" the benefits.  I'd rather do away with the latter.  An example of the former would be something like the Sharpshooter subclass of ranger.  Now, in theory, I suppose that one could definitely set up the Sharpshooter in a way to not need its negatives.  For example, give it a to-hit bonus that only applies when using ranged weapons.

This removal of the dreadfully boring "no subclass" name is something I like about the Druid, Priest, and Paladin classes, among others.  And I think that all classes would benefit from not having an unnamed "no subclass" subclass.

2. I would like for there to be a TRUE no animal companion option for Rangers.  Ghost Heart rangers are a poor substitute.  Also, there would need to be more non-AC related abilities included for rangers.  I will say this though, an alternative or option here might be to change how abilities are added to AC's in the first place.  Perhaps as the Ranger (with AC) levels up, the AC levels up behind the scenes, with strictly AC related abilities assigned to the AC.  Note, I don't mean abilities that reflect the Ranger and his/her AC's team work.  I mean abilities that direct affect ONLY the AC itself.  But that said, there's still a lack of non-AC related abilities in the Ranger abilities tree.

 

3. I would still love to see the Wizard classes schools removed and have the class be given non-(old) school subclasses.

For example:

The generic Wizard subclass might be called Mage.  The Mage would an arcane generalist with equal ability in all spells.  The Mage might also receive a bonus to his Arcana skill to reflect his greater education in the Arcane arts.

Then there might be the Elementalist.  The Elementalist would have greater power in elemental spells, but lesser power in non-elemental spells.

The Necromancer might specialize and have greater power with death spells, including those that drain health from an enemy.

The Martial Wizard would specialize in a style of wizardry relating to physical combat using arcane weapons and defenses.  (Would prefer to call this one a battle mage, but so many of the good names have been used for sub classes and multi-classes, PoE is running out of them.)

 

4. I'd love to see the Paladin subclasses be enhanced along the same lines as Priests, with a column in their active abilities table strictly for abilities relating to their Order.  Right now, the ability differences between the Pally orders are minimal.  And the greatest difference between the orders seems to be in the favored dispositions.  I think that it's be nice to enhance their active abilities tables to include order specific abilities for each order, at all ability levels.

 

That's all I have for now.

 

[daven]

The floating text font in combat is rubbish in Deadfire. I wish they'd improve that. 

Also there's way too much effects going on in combat sometimes, tone down the amount of graphics in certain spells and buffs and what not. 

[kanisatha]

17 hours ago, Oathbinder said:

The only thing I would not forgive is if the game suddenly becomes an action oriented game (like Witcher or Skyrim) devoid of tactical and strategic planing.

Whereas I would MUCH rather have, and would happily play, a PoE game like Witcher 3 or even DA:I, while I would reject a PoE game that's anything like D:OS2.

[daven]

I think if it went single player character I'd prefer something more like Neverwinter Nights rather than an action RPG. 

[KaInEvIL]

D:OS2 is pretty much only one thing in the highest difficulty: One shot everything on the first turn and only 2 stats matter. It's the cheesiest and most broken game i've ever played. Even my dog can beat it blindfolded in honor. Truly a RPG made for the new gen of whiners, game urinalists and casuals. It didn't help that it was as cartoony as it could get. Now i'm kind of worried about what they are gonna do with BG3.

Edited March 7, 2020 by KaInEvIL

[Boeroer]

Then why don't you express your very invested criticism about D:OS2 and your deep concerns about BG3 over at the Larian forums (if you haven't already). Surely a thread about what to expect from a hypothetical PoE3 is not the right place to vent your disappointment and angst about Larian games.

Unless you wanted to express the opinion that PoE3 should not be like D:OS2 - but then a less vitriolic denunciation would suffice I'd say.

[Climhazzard]

There are places I think Deadfire innovations were an improvement over PoE, and places I think they were a downgrade.

-Didn't really care for the armor/pen system.  Armor doesn't really feel meaningful as long as it was enough to prevent overpen  There's a mod on Nexus that does a good job with it.  I was personally content with the system PoE used though.

-Multiclassing is nice, but they definitely shouldn't add in more classes, let alone subclasses, if they're going to retain multi classing.  In the interest of balance.  Except, I somehow feel that "watcher" should have been some kind of unique progression path, maybe a parallel path or something of the like.

-The endurance system from PoE was good, bring it back.  As for rest, take a look at Pathfinder, I felt it had a nice rest system.  Also, vancian casters, I didn't really mind them.

-Deadfire's inspiration/affliction system was a great idea.  I'd definitely keep it.  Though maybe buff both a little.

-Comparing both games to pathfinder or D@D, there's two things I really liked.  A: No prebuffing.  B: No random rolls on stuff like disarming traps, or conversation checks.  Some people might disagree with me I guess but...  Playing pathfinder, I felt like I constantly had to manage a million and one buffs before every battle, not fun.  As for rolls on traps, etc, I feel like that much randomness should stay in the roguelike genre.  It works in PnP because every consequence is permanent, in a crpg it just encourages save scumming.

-Deadfire's spellcasting never felt that good.  A lot of effects were pretty short compared to the total cast/recovery time.  This felt especially bad playing cipher.  PoE felt better in this regard, at least I thought so.  

That's all that currently comes to mind when thinking about game mechanics, which is what I mainly care about.  Location, anywhere but an archipelago.  Story, just whatever as long as it's good.  Characters, the watcher and whoever, Eder's the only one I'm attached to, but him getting to settle down somewhere and have a peaceful watcher free life would be well deserved I think, lol. 

Edited April 5, 2020 by Climhazzard

[AeonsLegend]

Going with a new MC gives so many options for creating a fresh experience. Continueing the saga is a massive mistake I think. It would be far more interesting to go 50 years into the future and deal with the changes from Eothas. See the world in a different way. Make things unexpected. Introduce new things. 

Also the whole sailing accross the deadfire was very bad in the experience. I enjoyed the areas in POE1 much better because exploration itself is much more fun. Sailing from location X to location Y to kill something is just less enjoyable. About 80% of the locations are like this. There might be a specific piece of loot to find that you need for your build or anything. Also some of the best weapons in the game can be picked up after getting your ship at level 4. Meh.

[Crucis]

16 hours ago, Climhazzard said:

There are places I think Deadfire innovations were an improvement over PoE, and places I think they were a downgrade.

-Didn't really care for the armor/pen system.  Armor doesn't really feel meaningful as long as it was enough to prevent overpen  There's a mod on Nexus that does a good job with it.  I was personally content with the system PoE used though.

-Multiclassing is nice, but they definitely shouldn't add in more classes, let alone subclasses, if they're going to retain multi classing.  In the interest of balance.  Except, I somehow feel that "watcher" should have been some kind of unique progression path, maybe a parallel path or something of the like.

-The endurance system from PoE was good, bring it back.  As for rest, take a look at Pathfinder, I felt it had a nice rest system.  Also, vancian casters, I didn't really mind them.

-Deadfire's inspiration/affliction system was a great idea.  I'd definitely keep it.  Though maybe buff both a little.

-Comparing both games to pathfinder or D@D, there's two things I really liked.  A: No prebuffing.  B: No random rolls on stuff like disarming traps, or conversation checks.  Some people might disagree with me I guess but...  Playing pathfinder, I felt like I constantly had to manage a million and one buffs before every battle, not fun.  As for rolls on traps, etc, I feel like that much randomness should stay in the roguelike genre.  It works in PnP because every consequence is permanent, in a crpg it just encourages save scumming.

-Deadfire's spellcasting never felt that good.  A lot of effects were pretty short compared to the total cast/recovery time.  This felt especially bad playing cipher.  PoE felt better in this regard, at least I thought so.  

That's all that currently comes to mind when thinking about game mechanics, which is what I mainly care about.  Location, anywhere but an archipelago.  Story, just whatever as long as it's good.  Characters, the watcher and whoever, Eder's the only one I'm attached to, but him getting to settle down somewhere and have a peaceful watcher free life would be well deserved I think, lol. 

Good post, Clim.

* I didn't mind the PoE2 armor/pen system myself.

* While I mostly like the underlying mechanic of how multiclassing was handled, I'm not really a fan of most of the subclasses. I would like to see the generic "no subclass" option sort of removed and replaced with a subclass that represents the generalist (generic) version of the class.  Check out the Druid class where the Animist subclass does exactly this.

Another change to MC that I'd love to see is the removal of the negatives as much as possible, along with the removal of the "no subclass" option.  (Tie them together...) Then make the generalist subclass have some additional benefits that the other subclasses wouldn't get, just as the generalist wouldn't get the benefits that are linked to the more specialist subclasses.  Now to be fair, I think that certain subclasses probably can't exist without certain negatives (or at least it would be difficult to make the specialist subclass work without the negs).  Like the Devoted subclass.  It'd be hard for the Devoted subclass to work if the character could have more than one weapon proficiency.  OTOH, some negatives seem rather unnecessary to the subclass unless required for balance.

Another thing is that I'm not sure that all subclasses' unique benefits currently scale very well as the characters level up.

Honestly, I could go on and on about subclasses and issues I have with them, but I'll move on.

 

* Endurance system from PoE1: I agree, I liked it as well.  As for Vancian casters, I also agree.  But I think that the issue here is that some people just want to take their wizards and never have to worry about running out of castings, etc.  But one of the most enjoyable things in my first PoE1 run through in the huge dungeon was falling the 3 (?) levels and having to fight my way back up.  I was running low on resting supplies so I had to be VERY cautious with my spell castings and not just spam castings every battle.  It was a blast having to work hard to survive to get back up to safety with limited supplies and thus limited rests and limited spell castings.  I had to try to avoid fights and sneak through levels as best I could, and only fight when there was no other option.  It was a LOT more fun than just blasting through all the enemies in every room without worrying about anything other than perhaps dying.

Resting is tricky though.  I don't know what pathfinder's resting system is like, but if you'd like to describe it, that'd be cool.  But as far as PoE1 vs PoE2 (and the old infinity games) go, the problem I see with unlimited resting is that if the system has Vancian spell casters, players are too tempted to just spam rests after every battle.  OTOH, you'll have some players (whom I consider lazy … hey, I'm entitled to my opinion) who will just return to a town to rest or pick up resting supplies so that they can spam rests as much as possible, because they're the ones who want to spam their spells as often as possible.  I personally like the challenge of trying to go as far as possible before resting, and only returning to town if things get critical.   That said, it did seem to me like the number of resting supplies that a party could carry seemed rather low (3, I think).  If I'd had my druthers, I think that I'd have set it at around 5 or 6.

All in all, I don't know if there's a perfect answer to this.  Different people have different tastes.

 

* Prebuffing.  I agree completely.  If there was one thing that I loathed in BG2 (less so in the other Infinity engine games) was pre-buffing.  Pre-buffing is boring and tedious as all hell.

 

Regarding location, in past comments, I've said that I'd love to see a PoE3 that continues the Watcher's story go to the land where Rekke's from.  (I forget the name.)  But I've changed my mind, in large part because I think that I read that it was mostly desert.  Yawn.   Now, I'm leaning towards the Living Lands because of the great variety of environments from valley to valley.  I'd rather avoid The White That Wends, because after IWD1+2, as well as PoE1's WM1+2, and PoE2's BoW, I think that I've hard enough of arctic settings.

I'm not sure what I think about a PoE3 that's set in the future with a totally different set of companions and a new main character.  Would it even be a Watcher?  Or maybe be just some random adventurer?  

One thing I would hope for is another BIG dungeon.  It might be nice to encounter a previously unencountered sub-race or possibly a new race entirely.  Maybe have a part of the story be about some underground "world" where this new race lives.  Part of me would love for it to be underground dwelling elves, but not "dark" elves as such.  But if not regular elves or pale elves, what would an underground version of elves be?  I don't know. 

I'd like to see some new, fresh ideas, not merely PoE1 moved to a different place on Eora with a different cast of characters.  This is kind of why I think that a new sub-race of elves might be interesting, if done right.

I'd also like less interaction with the gods of Eora, and have the story be more about the heroes dealing with more mortal problems.

 

Well, that's all I have for now.

 

 

[Boeroer]

Camping supplies were 4, 2 on PotD. So on average you were right.

Although it maybe would often be just a lable I agree that it would be nice to have the Animist thing with all classes.

Afaikt all the negatives of subclasses are there to balance out the bonuses. But sure: if you'd have no vanilla class you wouldn't have to balance the subclasses with that vanilla class. See Paladins and Priests that have no drawbacks vs. Wizards subclasses which have massive ones bc. of vanilla Wizard.

All in all I'm pretty happy with the classes, multiclassing and subclassing though.

I personally am not a fan of the open world approach. I very much like dungeon crawling in the style of Eye of the Beholder or Legend of Grimrock - here I don't mean the graphics and  style now but the from of progression. So I would totally be for a big dungeon. Hell, the whole game could be one big dungeon for me.

 

 

Edited April 6, 2020 by Boeroer

[xzar_monty]

Camping supplies were also 2 on Hard, or whatever it was between Normal and PotD.

[AeonsLegend]

4 hours ago, Crucis said:

I'm not sure what I think about a PoE3 that's set in the future with a totally different set of companions and a new main character.  Would it even be a Watcher?  Or maybe be just some random adventurer?  

It doesn't have to be a watcher. It could be something else entirely that is linked to new events. Problem with going forward with the watcher is that the game will be forced to be bigger and grander, while that would likely not be a better experience. Also resetting the watchers abilities yet again for the sake of levelling up? that gimmick works once. Evertyhing after that feels meh.

I myself didn't feel invested in the watchers story in Deadfire nor the characters anymore. Not as much as the first game. Having another game with everyone pretending stuff is fresh and new. Meh. It'd be much better to have a new set of people that can start from scratch and have an actual story and experience. First time they fight a dragon? OMG a dragon! Dragon in Deadfire? Oh a dragon... let's beat it. Dragon in POE3 with same characters? Zzzzzz. 

The Watchers character in POE1 had a story that needed uncovering. He/She was part of the story. The Watcher in POE2 was inceonsequential and the Watcher abilities were more fo a gimmick of "Hey I can read your soul". The Watcher was a boring protagonist in POE2 and will be again in POE3. If we go with a new MC we can expect all sorts of things, but one thing is for certain. We don't know what.

3 hours ago, Boeroer said:

I personally am not a fan of the open world approach. I very much like dungeon crawling in the style of Eye of the Beholder or Legend of Grimrock - here I don't mean the graphics and  style now but the from of progression. So I would totally be for a big dungeon. Hell, the whole game could be one big dungeon for me.

Depends on your definition of Open World. Open World as in Deadfire or further as in Fallout 3/4 and Skyrim. Then no please no Open World. Open World as in Baldurs Gate or POE1? Then yes please give me Open World. I despise long dungeons where I am stuck doing something. Dungeon crawling is not for me. I also didn't enjoy the Icewind Dale setup. Even though it was similar to Baldurs Gate it was basically one large dungeon crawl. It was much more of a tedious experience.

4 hours ago, Crucis said:

One thing I would hope for is another BIG dungeon.  It might be nice to encounter a previously unencountered sub-race or possibly a new race entirely.  Maybe have a part of the story be about some underground "world" where this new race lives.  Part of me would love for it to be underground dwelling elves, but not "dark" elves as such.  But if not regular elves or pale elves, what would an underground version of elves be?  I don't know. 

I don't mind a large dungeon. As long as I can get out at any time.

Edited April 6, 2020 by AeonsLegend

[Crucis]

On 4/6/2020 at 1:00 AM, Boeroer said:

Camping supplies were 4, 2 on PotD. So on average you were right.

Although it maybe would often be just a lable I agree that it would be nice to have the Animist thing with all classes.

Afaik, all the negatives of subclasses are there to balance out the bonuses. But sure: if you'd have no vanilla class you wouldn't have to balance the subclasses with that vanilla class. See Paladins and Priests that have no drawbacks vs. Wizards subclasses which have massive ones bc. of vanilla Wizard.

All in all I'm pretty happy with the classes, multiclassing and subclassing though.

I personally am not a fan of the open world approach. I very much like dungeon crawling in the style of Eye of the Beholder or Legend of Grimrock - here I don't mean the graphics and  style now but the from of progression. So I would totally be for a big dungeon. Hell, the whole game could be one big dungeon for me.

 

 

Like I said earlier , sometimes it's next to impossible to not have some negatives.  Like the Devoted subclass.  But others could be worked around.

I'm not particularly fond of how they did wizards myself.  I don't like the old "schools" system, because it's so damned old and stale.  I wish that they could develop some wizard subclasses that completely dumped the school system.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by the open world approach.  I'm not familiar with those other games, so they don't help to explain open world to me.

I don't think that I'd like a single large dungeon as the entire game.  I guess that I like moving from place to place above ground and exploring.  Also, if I compared BG2 with IWD1or2 (ignoring companions), I think that BG2 has more replay-ability because you aren't forced down a fixed path of going from place A to B to C …. all the way to the final location.  I think that it's more interesting to choose your own path.

BTW, regarding paladins, a problem that I have with them is that they're so damned similar.  They each have their one unique difference between pally subclasses.  One!  It seems to me that they ought to at least have one special ability every level or 2 that they gain to create more differentiation between the subclasses of paladin, similar to how priests get different subclass specific spells every level.

Regarding "the animist thing", the idea would be that the true base class would never really be seen/used by the players.  And the generalist subclass would have its own special subclass benefits.  But those benefits would be tailored to be as generalist for the class as possible.

Another thing I'd like to see is a more even distribution of unique magic weapons and armor/shields by type.  It's sad that there are so many sabers and so few of other types of weapons.

One other thing, I think that the game needs to make a better effort to make single class characters more desirable to play.  Right now, only a handful of classes are desirable to play as single class, largely due to how strong their level 8 and 9 abilities (usually spells) are.  But some classes have such weak seeming level 8 and 9 abilities that it's not worth it, particularly when you consider how you get nearly as many ability points and all those additional class resource points for multiclass characters.  I kind of think that many single class characters would need a greater number of resource points as well as better upper level abilities to make them worth playing (outside of the few classes that already are worth it as single class).  But would that make the already pretty good single class character classes overpowered?  I don't know.

 

 

 

[Boeroer]

43 minutes ago, Crucis said:

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by the open world approach.  I'm not familiar with those other games, so they don't help to explain open world to me.

 

 

 

Deadfire is an open world game, so is Skyrim: a game where you can go everywhere and won't get restricted in your travels. That means you could end up in a place where enemies are way too powerful for you - or too weak. That's why Skyrim has scaling and Deadfire has, too. Else a majority of the encounters could become unfun. But those problems with difficulty etc. are not my personal problems with open world games. They focus on exploration and that's a fine thing to have in general.

But what I don't like is that it's nearly impossible to tell a coherent story/follow a plot in a somewhat cosistent way. I mean unless you stick to the default path through the game. But if you do that: why have an open world in the first place?
So... as soon as you leave the trodden path it is inevitable that the main story/plot comes to a halt and you'll have some kind of sideshow. That also means that often players (me as well) get the feeling that the main story isn't really that important. Without the main plit in your head you might get the feeling that you are lost somehow. "Where to go next? Hm... no idea, doesn't really seem to matter that much, does it?"
I believe it's incredibly hard for designern and writers to create an open world game experience without sacrificing consistency and urge of your plot. 

PoE didn't have that kind of open-world approach: you could visit all places only after you unlocked them. E.g. you can only go to Raedric's Castle if you first go to Easternwood - and so on. And on top of that you had three acts that were seperate from one another. Deadfire keeps this only in citites where you have to unlock the districts by traveling to the adjacent ones first. But the world map is free with the only exception that is Ukaizo which is the seperate endgame. This might also be related to the overall quality of the plotline, but Deafire's plot feels a lot less compelling than PoE's (and even that one didn't give you an overwhelming feeling of urge, but was fine with me). I think open world does play a part in this. Skyrim has the same problem, at least for me: what am I supposed to do again? Like: ultimately? I tend to forget... "Look, here I can become a member of the Brotherhood, cool. It's fun to get assignments to stab random people from behind and..."

On the other hand pure dungeon crawlers like Eye of the Beholder drop the player into a place (a room or a forst or whatever) and there's only one (or two) way out. You fight your way out of the dungeon (or into it in pursuit of X) and usually there's puzzles and fights and all - but you can't go left and right that much. You are focused on the main goal. Funnily enough those games often have very little story and plot - maybe because they don't need them to create motivation and tension. The setting itself does already provide this. And of course such games are so much easier to balance.

Usually fantasy RPGs are somewhat of an interactive story though. So plot, story, motivation - those are important. Else it's more like a combat simulator or a tactics game. See Battle Brothers: open world, focus on tactics/combat and no overarching plot/story, only some "random" goals to achieve and contracts to fulfill. And it works just fine - but it's not a game like Deadfire or Baldur's Gate or Plainscape: Torment or anything like that. 

So I would argue that the current "open world hype" is bad. An RPG has to be advertized with that or else player are gonna say "Wut? How 2000!" - even if it hurts the overall experience. A somewhat open world is okay - let's say open "stages" of the game world. Like open acts. Too much railroading like in Legend of Grimrock would hurt the replayability I guess - too much open world hurts the story and the feeling of progression. Something in between would be fine. It would be easier to write for, it would be easier to balance (no scaling of encounters needed) and it would be more exiting - especially in the first playthrough. 

Maybe one could even do a game where the first playthrough is not open world but you would unlock areas like Berath's Blessings and then would have a more open world in additional plythrougs..? Hm... getting interested while I write this...

 

Edited April 7, 2020 by Boeroer

[Crucis]

13 minutes ago, Boeroer said:

Deadfire is an open world game, so is Skyrim: a game where you can go everywhere and won't get restricted in your travels. That means you could end up in a place where enemies are way too powerful for you - or too weak. That's why Skyrim has scaling and Deadfire has, too. Else a majority of the encounters could become unfun. But those problems with difficulty etc. are not my personal problems with open world games. They focus on exploration and that's a fine thing to have in general.

But what I don't like is that it's nearly impossible to tell a coherent story/follow a plot in a somewhat cosistent way. I mean unless you stick to the "default" path through the game. But if you do that: why having open world in the first place? So as soon as you leave the trodden path it is inevitable that the main story/plot comes to a halt and you'll have some kind of sideshow. That also means that often players (me as well) get the feeling that the main story isn't really that important and without it you might get the feeling that you are lost somehow. Where to go next? Hm... no idea, doesn't really seem to matter that much, does it? I believe it's incredibly hard for designern and writers to create an open world game experience without sacrificing consistency and urge of your plot. 

PoE didn't have that open-world approach: you could visit all places only after you unlocked them. E.g. you can only go to Raedric's Castle if you first go to Easternwood - and so on. And on top of that you had three acts that were seperate from one another. Deadfire keeps this only in citites where you have to unlock the districts by traveling to the adjacent ones first. But the world map is free with the oly excaption that is Ukaizo. This might also be related to the overall quality of the plotline, but Deafire's plot feels a lot less compelling than PoE's (and even that didn't give you an overwhelming urge in that regard, but was fine for me). I think open world does play a part in this. Skyrim has the same problem, at least for me: what am I supposed to do again? Like: ultimately? I tend to forget...

On the other hand pure dungeon crawlers like Exe of the Beholder drop the player into a room and there's only one way out. You fight your way out of the dungeon (or into it in pursuit of X) and usually there's puzzles and fights and all - but you can't go left and right that much but are focused on the main goal. Funnily anough those games often have very little story and plot - maybe because they don't need tham to create motivation and tension. The setting itself does already provide this. And of course such games are so much easier to balance.

Usually fantasy RPGs are somewhat of an interactive story though. So plot, story, motivation - those are important. Else it's more like a combat simulator or a tactics game. See Battle Brothers: open world, focus on tactics/combat and no overarching plot/story, only some "random" goals to achieve and contracts to fulfill. And it works just fine - but it's not a game like Deadfire or Baldur's Gate or Plainscape: Torment or anything like that. 

So I would argue that the current "open world hype" is bad. An RPG has to be advertized with that or else player are gonna say "Wut? How 2000!" - even if it hurts the overall experience. A somewhat open world is okay - let's say open "stages" of the game world. Like open acts. Too much railroading like in Legend of Grimrock would hurt the replayability I guess - too much open world hurts the story and the feeling of progression. Something in between would be fine. It would be easier to write for, it would be easier to balance (no scaling of encounters needed) and it would be more exiting - especially in the first playthrough. 

Maybe one could even do a game where the first playthrough is not open world but you would unlock areas like Berath's Blessings and then would have a more open world in additional plythrougs..? Hm... getting interested while I write this...

 

I have no doubt that if the designers wanted to go for (I don't even know what term to use) semi-railroad/semi-open world model, they could have the side quests all tied to certain events happening that would only be available after certain other events had been completed.  But if they weren't careful, it could end up seeming too much of a railroaded plot and not enough open world, if you were literally forced to do the side quests in only a single order.

I don't think that your Berath's Blessings idea would go over very well.  There are a lot of players who only want to play the game to completion once, and might feel cheated if additional content was locked behind how many times you'd completed the game.  This makes me think that this idea would  go over like a lead balloon.

 

[Boeroer]

40 minutes ago, Crucis said:

I don't think that your Berath's Blessings idea would go over very well.  There are a lot of players who only want to play the game to completion once, and might feel cheated if additional content was locked behind how many times you'd completed the game.  This makes me think that this idea would  go over like a lead balloon.

 

You misunderstood me it seems. I didn't mean that those Blessings would unlock new areas but that you could simply choose that the world map was all open and accessible. So the first playthrough would somewhat limit your freedom and "guide" you through the game better in order to experience the story in the way the writers intended (to some extend). And after you finished that first, story focused playthrough you can do subsequent ones where everything (or most things) are accessible right from the get-go (if you wish so). Hope I somehow explained it well enough so that you guys can understand what I mean. Basically you'd transform the world map from semi-open to open for subsequent playthroughs.

OR: give an option where players can choose a more guided playthrough ("experience the story like the writers itended") or a fully open world playthrough ("go where you please"). Maybe that could be a thing? Just throwing out ideas here... 

Edited April 7, 2020 by Boeroer

[ArnoldRimmer]

I hope it still runs on my Intel integrated 520 graphics card like PoE and Deadfire!

[Boeroer]

It does? Nice. I tried it on a Nvidia 555M (or something like that) dedicated mobile graphics card and it was not good at all.

Edited April 7, 2020 by Boeroer

[ArnoldRimmer]

I have to reduce the resolution to 1600 and turn off as much extras as possible but it is playable: 830+ hours so far

[Taevyr]

Personally, for open world I prefer the approach of Pillars I and Tyranny: Have a world map consisting of various zones, and restrict movement through either plot or "natural" reasons, e.g. how "flooding" restricts you from entering the areas closer to Twin Elms in Act 2 of PoE, or how Tyranny has the blocked mountain pass in Act 1, and the faction-based access in Act 2.  Another possibility that I like, but is a bit less effective, is zones with restriction through enemy level: such as how Dragon Age: origins puts a few high-level encounters in the zone leading to Orzammar; One of the most enjoyable parts was returning and beating'em later in the campaign, or managing to beat them at that lower level on a future playthrough. Unfortunately, these days it'd probably lead to players complaining about a lack of balance , rather than getting the point and coming back later.

Deadfire..... kind of took the worst of fully open worlds without getting what makes'em interesting: The open world put a lot less urgency on the plot when you were expected to spend a lot of time just sailing around, which works in a sandbox like Skyrim and New Vegas where you're free to do what you want, but not a more story-driven game; the zone-based exploration meant that the larger zones with an ongoing or connected quest, such as Nemnok's, Shattered Reef and Cignath Mor, were quite interesting, but the single-zone bounty islands or those dots you visited only to plunder the village, drain the pond and pluck the fruit started feeling like busywork rather quickly.

The empty/smaller islands also lacked what makes an open world like Skyrim and New Vegas interesting, which is the atmosphere and general feel while wandering the world: the sea shanties definitely added atmosphere, but gaining 20 water, 50 fruit and whatever you found in ruined village #8 by exploring empty island #15 didn't quite have the same attraction as getting to the top of that one mountain and just enjoying the view in Skyrim, or warily exploring the far reaches of the map in Dragon's Dogma: None of those have anything special about them other than existence, but the general atmosphere and lack of urgency can make them enjoyable to explore. The Old City, Oathbinder's Sanctum and Wael's Island had atmosphere, but those were zones/islands large enough to establish that atmosphere while exploring them; For the world at large, a 3rd-person RPG will always beat an isometric in my view, and for good reason.

For PoE3, I'd like a few more large dungeons, but barring that, I'd like there to be less "throwaway" locations: make fewer but larger locations with a minor quest beyond "go map these", or add some plot connections and even restrictions if necessary, such as in locations like Cignath Mor or Bekarna's observatory that only became available/relevant during/following a certain quest. I also like Boeroer's idea of letting players choose between a guided playthrough or a "free" playthrough, though it might just end up as double work for the developers.

[Crucis]

2 hours ago, Taevyr said:

Personally, for open world I prefer the approach of Pillars I and Tyranny: Have a world map consisting of various zones, and restrict movement through either plot or "natural" reasons, e.g. how "flooding" restricts you from entering the areas closer to Twin Elms in Act 2 of PoE, or how Tyranny has the blocked mountain pass in Act 1, and the faction-based access in Act 2.  Another possibility that I like, but is a bit less effective, is zones with restriction through enemy level: such as how Dragon Age: origins puts a few high-level encounters in the zone leading to Orzammar; One of the most enjoyable parts was returning and beating'em later in the campaign, or managing to beat them at that lower level on a future playthrough. Unfortunately, these days it'd probably lead to players complaining about a lack of balance , rather than getting the point and coming back later.

Deadfire..... kind of took the worst of fully open worlds without getting what makes'em interesting: The open world put a lot less urgency on the plot when you were expected to spend a lot of time just sailing around, which works in a sandbox like Skyrim and New Vegas where you're free to do what you want, but not a more story-driven game; the zone-based exploration meant that the larger zones with an ongoing or connected quest, such as Nemnok's, Shattered Reef and Cignath Mor, were quite interesting, but the single-zone bounty islands or those dots you visited only to plunder the village, drain the pond and pluck the fruit started feeling like busywork rather quickly.

The empty/smaller islands also lacked what makes an open world like Skyrim and New Vegas interesting, which is the atmosphere and general feel while wandering the world: the sea shanties definitely added atmosphere, but gaining 20 water, 50 fruit and whatever you found in ruined village #8 by exploring empty island #15 didn't quite have the same attraction as getting to the top of that one mountain and just enjoying the view in Skyrim, or warily exploring the far reaches of the map in Dragon's Dogma: None of those have anything special about them other than existence, but the general atmosphere and lack of urgency can make them enjoyable to explore. The Old City, Oathbinder's Sanctum and Wael's Island had atmosphere, but those were zones/islands large enough to establish that atmosphere while exploring them; For the world at large, a 3rd-person RPG will always beat an isometric in my view, and for good reason.

For PoE3, I'd like a few more large dungeons, but barring that, I'd like there to be less "throwaway" locations: make fewer but larger locations with a minor quest beyond "go map these", or add some plot connections and even restrictions if necessary, such as in locations like Cignath Mor or Bekarna's observatory that only became available/relevant during/following a certain quest. I also like Boeroer's idea of letting players choose between a guided playthrough or a "free" playthrough, though it might just end up as double work for the developers.

One way to isolate different areas within the plot like in PoE1 could be (for example) to have part 1 of the story be in Rauitai, then have part 2 in Valia, and finally have part 3 of the story in the Living Lands.  You'd have to make a long journey to get from part 1's area to part 2's area, perhaps by ship (but without any of PoE2's ship issues, just a simple passenger ship journey without incident).

A problem I had with PoE2 was that on most of the smaller islands, the combat areas (buildings, caves, dungeons, whatever) felt far too small.  PoE1's areas were significantly larger and more involved.

[evilcat]

Continue and close Watcher Trilogy.

Aedyr Empire.

Souls going wild, haunting and infusing random thing wrecking havoc. End of times. All kind of secret societies adding to chaos. Olds Gods playing cool but each one plotting against other to loose less.

Watcher takes control somehow on sould harvesting device connected to Adra/Eora so in theory can ifluence whole Eora.

And of course we can Ascend as new god, or kill all other gods since 1 is enough, or get rid of gods (and ourself) and instead create self sustain reincarnation cycle without middle men or blow up planet and create souls paradise without suffering and relation system.

[Amy Yeomans]

I would like for the game to run smoothly with little to no bugs. POE2 has way to many problems with no one to fix them. Let’s just drop this new game with to many problems and see how many suckers buy it. I wish they would work on another patch for Deadfire instead of thinking of a third one.

[thelee]

11 hours ago, Amy Yeomans said:

I would like for the game to run smoothly with little to no bugs. POE2 has way to many problems with no one to fix them. Let’s just drop this new game with to many problems and see how many suckers buy it. I wish they would work on another patch for Deadfire instead of thinking of a third one.

this would be more credible if your other complaint in the other thread didn't reveal that you assume incomplete quests are a bug.

 

i'm very curious to know what people who think deadfire is filled with bugs are doing or what they think are the bugs. i get maybe... one crash bug every few runs. the only thing i run into really is just the can't-use-potions-without-disabling-AI bug (which is annoying, but has an easy workaround).

Edited August 8, 2020 by thelee

[xzar_monty]

44 minutes ago, thelee said:

i'm very curious to know what people who think deadfire is filled with bugs are doing or what they think are the bugs. i get maybe... one crash bug every few runs. the only thing i run into really is just the can't-use-potions-without-disabling-AI bug (which is annoying, but has an easy workaround).

I wonder whether he's playing the console version. But does that have overly long load screens?

The bugs I tend to get are 1) that potion bug you mention, and 2) the thing where someone gets stuck in a loop during a battle and won't come out of it, with the combat log absolutely filling up with "X abandons [doing something]", like ten notifications per second. I think my game has only ever crashed just once.