Which did you enjoy more, Poe or Poe2?

[anishar]

I like both, PoE2 is a big step up when it comes to overall quality (graphics, sound, voice acting, environements, illustrations, UI, combat etc...)

 

However!

I do think the classes / talent trees could be made A LOT better. We have many boring generic talents (the ones i hate most are the 4 "empower" dedicated talents, boring, same purpose, lazy), many raws with trap choices (mostly due to a lot of spells being really bad compared to other available options... Casters are mostly concerned by this issue, Priest more than the others, gosh Priest feels so bad compared to PoE1..).

Imo PoE1 classes felt better overall even if you couldnt multiclass. And the grimoire system was also much better. PoE2 gives 0 flexibility with grimoires, loot ninagauth and never change it, yey! (boring zzz)

 

I enjoy multiclass, but to be fair i'd rather have no multiclass but much better single classes designs, witch actual choices (currently a lot of the time you end up picking a talent or spell because it's strictly superior to other options, not really because you deliberately make a "choice" between multiple good options).

I actually wish the game gave you LESS options, but ACTUAL options. If you remove all the dead talent/spells we have there isnt much left to be fair, just like the world size, they see too big, too ambitious, and it's disapointing. Make smaller talent trees, fewer choices, but make every square a valid and fun option! I wouldn't mind having to pick between 6 spells instead of 12 every raw (where only 2 are good LOL)

 

Also there are so things that really trigger me like the character level up menu, in a game where building characters is a big part of the fun, having to next through skills 20x and talents 20x is so tedious and outraging! >.<

 

But to be fair, even with all of these flaws, i do really love the game. I overall very much liked the interaction between factions and there are fun dialogues, you have multiple smart ways to overcome situations, it has a lot of positives.

 

Though, i prefered the 3 DLCs over the base game, mostly because i didn't really enjoy the "go to this island, stomp a single fight, get an item, repeat" process. I wish  there was LESS islands, with more story attached to each of them, and each island to be an actual challenge. It feels like they made the world too big and tried to fill it with small things here and there but it's not very fulfilling.

 

Smaller world, higher quality stories / combat, it's basically what the DLCs are, if each Island in the game had a DLC-quality attached to it, the game would be so much better.

 

Unfortunately i don't see this happening. However, i do hope we will see a PoE3, who learnt from PoE2 flaws, and be the best CPRG ever made. I really hope this will happen

Edited March 29, 2019 by anishar

[Armanz]

Having finished PoE1 4¾ times (one of those vanilla, rest with WM) and the sequel twice (vanilla) I have to say I give the edge to part 1s gritty and dark atmosphere. However, WM gave Pillars a huuuuge boost and I have yet to play the sequels DLCs (I have all of them but have not touched them yet in my third run).

Despite having issues with open worldish feel I like the exploration of Deadfire, I LOVE multiclassing and kits, I love how good the loot feels. And the world feels so so alive, it's incredible. The graphics, the sound, the weather, everything feels so beautiful. And I love how all the factions are complete ****, except maybe the Valian Trading Company, they're sort of okay. I also love the sheer scope of side contest/quests.

Buuuut it made a couple missteps. Too many 1 fight islands and locations. I want more meaty dungeons. Too lighthearted atmospherewise (though I get why). Combatwise I don't think stepping away from Endurance/Health was a good choice and neither was the implementation of the Power Level refresh or use 1 spell with high lvl thingy. Also the lack of soulbound items is very, very disappointing and most of them are on boring weapons (Pollaxe, Knife).

Regarding the kits, I find that a lot of them don't tickle my fancy and my favorite class Barbarian doesn't really have anything I regard as cool. That's probably really personal taste but I found most kits not to my interest.

 

I might change my mind after playing the 3 DLCs (WM did the same thing after all) + I was insanely, incredibly overhyped for the sequel due to my personal background (I grew up with IWD, BG series and basically never liked any RPGs that aren't isometric RTwP, so when the genre came back I lost my **** over Pillars and after gaining my **** back over the years, hearing of the sequel made me lose it way harder) and realize that that clouds my judgement. Right now I give Pillars 1 vanilla a 8,5/10 and with WM a 9,5/10. Deadfire is a 8/10. In the beginning it was a 10 simply because of how everything feels and sounds but then some of my issues started like lack of soulbounds, small locatins etc.

 

That's my 2 cents on the matter.

I pray for part 3 every day and if the gods are just we will get one (in the same style as part 1 and 2, though). But usually the gods are a vengeful bunch.

Edited March 29, 2019 by Armanz

[Verde]

Each game does a few things really well, a number of things decently, and a few things less than stellar. I hope PoE3 combines the best of both worlds

 

And for the love of God, stop giving us urgent main quests and then a bazillion side quests to dilly dally.

Edited March 30, 2019 by Verde

[xzar_monty]

Having very recently played both, I feel there are only two things where PoE1 surpasses Deadfire: tone and companion quests.

 

There's something very appealing about the dark, almost brutally harsh general tone of PoE1. It's not horror by any means, but it really is gritty and quite well done. This, of course, is subjective. What I think is less subjetive (ha) is that the companion quests in PoE1 are more involved, better written, more immersive and just generally a lot better. Sagani, Zahua, Eder, Aloth and the Devil of Caroc are all very good(*). And, furthermore, damn it: I've never had to sleep so much in the game that I would've got to the end of Durance's or the Grieving Mother's quest. That's a definite downer. I'd say that except for Eder, all the companion quests in Deadfire are inferior to what we had in PoE1.

 

(*) Aloth's quest is a bit of a disappointment in the sense that it doesn't seem to matter at all what you choose in the end, i.e. whether you destroy the research or allow the animancer to keep the results. Is anybody certain about this? Does your choice make a difference? I didn't steal or destroy the research, I wanted the animancer keep her work, I thought it was a fair exchange, and although Aloth was a bit disappointed, nothing at all seemed to follow from this.

[Insolentius]

PoE > PoE: Deadfire because...

 

• I don't particularly enjoy the tropical setting
• I loathe pirates
• the open-world design doesn't gel well with story-driven games
• quantity-over-quality approach to dungeon/location design
• shallow main quest
• shallow companion quests
• overall bugginess nearly a year after the game had been released
• voiced dialogue (which negatively affected the dialogue/narrative text ratio (i.e. I got sick of characters "worrying their knuckles" and "furrowing their brows")
• ship management & ship combat
• poor performance on high-end PCs

[Archaven]

PoE2 for me. but my biggest issue with obsidian is their approach. They use nerf as a concept in balancing the games. Instead of making their games better. Well of course it's the most fastest and easiest way instead of improving the AI, putting thoughts and revisiting and handcrafting the encounters

[Phenomenum]

...the open-world design doesn't gel well with story-driven games

 

It's good, that CDPR don't know about this

[Insolentius]

 

...the open-world design doesn't gel well with story-driven games

 

It's good, that CDPR don't know about this

While Witcher 3 is a stellar game, all of its ancillary content (contracts, side quests, horse racing, fist fights, Gwent etc.) only serves to detract from the primary story. The side quests were well-written, but most of 'em had nothing to do with the main story. A focused narrative needs a linear (or a restricted faux-open-world) design.

Edited March 31, 2019 by Insolentius

[Phenomenum]

 

 

...the open-world design doesn't gel well with story-driven games

 

It's good, that CDPR don't know about this

While Witcher 3 is a stellar game, all of its ancillary content (contracts, side quests, horse racing, fist fights, Gwent etc.) only serves to detract from the primary story. The side quests were well-written, but most of 'em had nothing to do with the main story. A focused narrative needs a linear (or a restricted faux-open-world) design.

 

 

I guess, it's a matter of taste. I like Witcher 3 approach.

[algroth]

 

 

...the open-world design doesn't gel well with story-driven games

 

It's good, that CDPR don't know about this

While Witcher 3 is a stellar game, all of its ancillary content (contracts, side quests, horse racing, fist fights, Gwent etc.) only serves to detract from the primary story. The side quests were well-written, but most of 'em had nothing to do with the main story. A focused narrative needs a linear (or a restricted faux-open-world) design.

 

 

To be fair, you could say the same of most games that are pretty heavy on side-content, from Witcher 3 or Skyrim to, say, Baldur's Gate. I personally enjoy this freedom, I enjoy finding off-shooting stories within these settings, especially if, like in both Pillars or Planescape: Torment, they also add plenty of facets to the story and themes as well. Thing is, however, that they ought to be interesting in and of themselves, and where I have trouble with Witcher 3 or Skyrim is that much of the content there just *isn't*, and is rather repetitive and fillerish in turn. A lot of people like to point at the Bloody Baron storyline as "a great side quest" but not only is a large chunk of this part of the main story itself, but for every one of these there were in the game there were five standard "use witcher senses to hunt down beast" contracts, fifteen "loot the box right next to the body" treasure hunts, and sixty trash mobs padding the way between each. All the same I cannot say that I felt the side content really *distracted* from the main story, but I do wonder if the full open world approach didn't spread the worthwhile content a little too thin - it is especially troublesome when you get some massive areas like Oxenfurt that ought to be brimming with stuff to do and yet at best offered a couple of tasks and one or two stops for other quest or story events (I understand that there more to do there in one of the DLCs but I haven't played them yet myself). I wonder if Novigrad wouldn't have been that much more memorable a city had so much of the effort spread across the 140km² of open world terrain would have been centered on smaller and meatier areas instead.

Edited March 31, 2019 by algroth

[Gromnir]

have been waiting for poe2 to be content complete before providing our ultimate post-release critique.  unfortunate, a few bugs has halted our deadfire gameplay for the last couple months.

 

so, a few quick observations and comparisons instead o' in-depth analysis.

 

oh, and 'cause have seen it a few times, "immersive" has no more inherent meaning than "interesting." immersive is gamer shibboleth. 

 

poe wins

 

-thematic focus and overall story cohesion

-development o' non critical path locations (e.g. raedric's hold and skaen temple)

-dr>pen-- the one major mechanics aspect (and it is major) we give a nod to poe over poe2

-conclusion made sense, regardless o' like v. dislike

-novel take on traditional gods, with a zelazny twist

 

 

poe2 wins

 

-superior mechanics-- depth and breadth o' combat & character generation/development (this is a biggie)... with the notable exception o' penetration.

-small nod to improved graphic quality, 'cause it would be embarrassing if there were no improvements over the original

-"exploration"/open world elements

-better use o' humor 

-admitted a non-factor for us personal, but the alternative sexual orientation o' characters were handled well w/o overt proselytizing

-faction choice had consequences and felt meaningful

 

as noted already, am gonna wait to genuine review poe2 once is content complete and playable.  that said, am thinking there is a few pivotal differences 'tween the games.  overall, other than as indicated, the mechanics and player generation/development options in poe2 were superior; we could do more with poe2 characters, and combat were improved rational and consistent.  however, storytelling, in spite o' fact it were apparent a rush job, were more coherent in poe than poe2.  all the poe companions shared thematic focus o' the critical path storyline which provided a kinda gestalt depth missing from poe2. also, whenever these games is made, there is always a shift towards or away from open world exploration in the sequel.  fans complain, and the developers overreact. predictable. fans complained o' lack o' "exploration" in poe, so we get poe2 world map boat travel... well that and josh likes open world. fans complained o' mowing largely empty and repetitive bg maps, and so we got bg2 with greater set-piece location focus... which had bg2 fans complaining 'bout lack o' exploration. *insert eye roll gif or similar here* am fully recognizing open-worldness in an ie inspired game is a no-win situation for developers, but am preferring bg2 and poe to poe2 and bg. last, am gonna observe how poe2 conclusion were leaving us utter unsatisfied.  w/o post release developer input, eothas dialogue and actions were baffling, which is a fail. near complete lack o' player agency insofar as critical path story were also unsatisfying given other shortcomings o' storytelling. 

 

will more fully review if we ever finish deadfire content.  april patch is coming?

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps have also made critical comments regarding poe2 priests as far back as release

 

https://forums.obsidian.net/topic/99362-what-is-your-worst-single-class-in-deadfire/page-3?hl=%2Bpriests+%2Bgromnir&do=findComment&comment=2022103

 

and during beta

 

https://forums.obsidian.net/topic/94706-oh-priest-wherefore-art-thou/page-2?hl=%2Bpriests+%2Bgromnir&do=findComment&comment=1955036

 

haven't changed our opinions 'bout deadfire priests or the most straightforward way to improve.

 

"perhaps for an expansion the developers could work on a priest "trinket."  each class were original 'posed to have a trinket as does wizards, no? prayer beads or vade mecum or medicine bag or some deity-specific object which performs a similar but lesser role as does the wizard grimoire. 1 spell per talent level imprinted on the trinket.  'course the trinket could do something complete different and such would be grand, but am specific considering ways to improve lack o' priest casting options."

 

priests is effective in deadfire, but their meaningful customization options outside o' multiclass is limited. leaving this issue unaddressed is disappointing to us.

[rjshae]

PoE2 for me. but my biggest issue with obsidian is their approach. They use nerf as a concept in balancing the games. Instead of making their games better. Well of course it's the most fastest and easiest way instead of improving the AI, putting thoughts and revisiting and handcrafting the encounters

 

Nerfing a product so it behaves according to the design specs... otherwise known as engineering. Yeah, who would do that? 

[Wormerine]

 

 

In many respects, my sense was that White March was intended as a nostalgia trip down Icewind Dale lane, which had a quite a bit of filler combat. I didn't have an issue with that, even though the XP system is (mostly) no longer oriented toward rewarding battle.

Never was a big fan of Icewind Dales. 

 

Still, one of the thing I remember about WM is how tighter it was over base game. I replayed it twice and I can remember individual encounters, I think the only area which I found to be a grind was the final 3rd level of Durgan's Battery in WM1 - with repeaded spirit encounters. Other than that I remember it being quite varied. 

[Verde]

Now I play Deadfire more like Icewind Dale with a mostly custom party.

Edited April 1, 2019 by Verde

[Boeroer]

Comparison of encounter design (PoE vs. Deadfire) depends on when you played PoE. Obsidian redesigned a lot of the encounters in one of the later patches of PoE and removed quite a number of "filler" encounters while they toughened up others.

Edited April 1, 2019 by Boeroer

[xzar_monty]

 

 

 

In many respects, my sense was that White March was intended as a nostalgia trip down Icewind Dale lane, which had a quite a bit of filler combat. I didn't have an issue with that, even though the XP system is (mostly) no longer oriented toward rewarding battle.

Still, one of the thing I remember about WM is how tighter it was over base game. I replayed it twice and I can remember individual encounters, I think the only area which I found to be a grind was the final 3rd level of Durgan's Battery in WM1 - with repeaded spirit encounters. Other than that I remember it being quite varied. 

 

 

I replayed WM a couple of weeks ago. I agree it's good, but for chrissakes they should have dropped at least 50% of the battles on the outdoor maps. That was such a poor design choice: the maps are full of beasties that necessitate meaningless fighting (i.e. almost no loot, essentially no xp) that just takes your time.

 

Also, the fights made some things look hard to believe, like, how has that villager been able to get into that ice hole in the first place, with that amount of monsters around? And so on.

 

Otherwise: yes, WM is very good.

[bringingyouthefuture]

I just finished the Ashen Maw section - pretty great, I really enjoyed the encounter with Eothas, pretty well done.  Funny both games POE1 and POE2, the more I play them the more I enjoy them - there is a lot of detail placed in these games that if you rip through them you just miss.

[Verde]

 

 

 

 

In many respects, my sense was that White March was intended as a nostalgia trip down Icewind Dale lane, which had a quite a bit of filler combat. I didn't have an issue with that, even though the XP system is (mostly) no longer oriented toward rewarding battle.

Still, one of the thing I remember about WM is how tighter it was over base game. I replayed it twice and I can remember individual encounters, I think the only area which I found to be a grind was the final 3rd level of Durgan's Battery in WM1 - with repeaded spirit encounters. Other than that I remember it being quite varied.

I replayed WM a couple of weeks ago. I agree it's good, but for chrissakes they should have dropped at least 50% of the battles on the outdoor maps. That was such a poor design choice: the maps are full of beasties that necessitate meaningless fighting (i.e. almost no loot, essentially no xp) that just takes your time.

 

Also, the fights made some things look hard to believe, like, how has that villager been able to get into that ice hole in the first place, with that amount of monsters around? And so on.

 

Otherwise: yes, WM is very good.

That was my biggest gripe with PoE1 in general which they did a good job of remedying in Deadfire.

[xzar_monty]

Absolutely, they did indeed. And they deserve full credit for it.

[cokane]

Coming back after the DLC's and...

 

it's still the original.

 

Combat is just a drag in Deadfire. Because they moved almost everything into per encounter, combat on PotD relies on exhausting a full party's resources. This means there's often no decisive moments or moves in a battle. Instead a slow and steady exhausting of each of your toon's dozen or more ability points in that third or so of encounters that can actually challenge a player who is trying.

[daven]

I would agree with this guy but he actually put toon.

[Gromnir]

I would agree with this guy but he actually put toon.

 

agreed.  well, except for the fact that everything he/she said is wrong.

 

is just as likely to be decisive moments in deadfire battles as poe battles.  depending on party composition, gorecci street on potd still has us frequent facing decisive moments whenever we play it. if an encounter is challenging, then there is likely to be a decisive moment, and there is nothing 'bout vancian which affects likelihood o' decisive poe moments poe... unless a "decisive moment" is reduced to the realization by player a more recent rest woulda' been smart. 

 

difference in player power is far more predictable with per encounter and as such encounters is more likely to be created which actual challenge players to an appropriate degree.  fight the in the palm of his hand battle on level eight of the endless paths with a fully rested party including multiple vancian casters is a far different experience than doing so with largely depleted casters... or with a party which largely eschews vancian casters... or... whatever. also, the difficulty o' all those precursor battles, which were all too often nothing more than mindless filler encounters in poe, were also having their difficulty dramatic impacted not only by how well-rested were a player's party, but also by how many vancian casters a player utilized. design such is a jackarse silly way to try and balance encounters and make challenging and enjoyable in a crpg. with a live dm who may instant alter and tailor to make encounters a bit more or a bit less difficult so as to keep players engaged, vancian casters is no hurdle at all.  in a crpg, vancian is an unnecessary abstraction.

 

have also mentioned this elsewhere, but as much as some folks love vancian, is a legacy holdover in only one small segment o' games: fantasy crpgs.  if is such a whizbang feature, then why ain't people clamoring for it in other games?  

 

one o' the better moves by obsidian were exorcising vancian from the pillars franchise.  obsidian actual intended to do per encounter for poe, but the developers foolish relented when confronted by the collective nerdrage following the announcement o' universal per encounter. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

[heldred]

Coming back after the DLC's and...

 

it's still the original.

 

Combat is just a drag in Deadfire. Because they moved almost everything into per encounter, combat on PotD relies on exhausting a full party's resources. This means there's often no decisive moments or moves in a battle. Instead a slow and steady exhausting of each of your toon's dozen or more ability points in that third or so of encounters that can actually challenge a player who is trying.

 

I agree with this point.  

 

If I had to compare it, in POE1 it was a LIMITED nuclear strike, because  in "regular" battles you would use a smaller number of per-encounter resources (e.g., spell mastery).  This created some cooler/subtler moments of the battles being won in different ways, from different characters.

 

In POE2, with everything becoming per-encounter resources, I see your point... it is a FULL nuclear strike, often devolving into a race of who-hits-who first, focusing upon sheer damage, de-buffs, and cc.  I now find myself buffing my party less and less, since the best offense is now the best defense.  In my current party (5-casters), I can't even determine who is hitting hardest or impacting the the tide of battle more (unless I parse the combat log).  My tactics have become chain-casting 5x spells each round/time sequence, until there is nothing left on the screen.  I often end battles with 3-4 extra spells going off with no one left to hit, since the spells were already cued-up in the action cycle. 

 

I suppose I can exhibit some self-restraint and not chain-nuke in every battle and diversify my group by adding an intrepid archer or a cunning rogue (what I did for earlier runs through the game).  However, if you are after speed, efficiency, and flexibility (all the way to the end-game bosses), you realize you want to maximize the most potent per-encounter resources (with spells/chants/focus offering the greatest value from a selection of potent: buffs, de-buffs, healing, cc, damage, raw damage, etc.).

[xzar_monty]

In order to survive or even thrive, though, you don't need to maximize anything. It doesn't really matter which choices you make: you will boss the game anyway. That's a bit bland.

 

(Yes, I know this may not be the case with some of the god challenges. And yes, it has to be said that I haven't actually tried to make bad choices. But it has never felt that the choices I've made have been crucial, with the difficulty being what it is.)

Edited April 11, 2019 by xzar_monty

[thelee]

If I had to compare it, in POE1 it was a LIMITED nuclear strike, because in "regular" battles you would use a smaller number of per-encounter resources (e.g., spell mastery). This created some cooler/subtler moments of the battles being won in different ways, from different characters.

you're talking as if most players actually rationed about abilities in per-rest mode on top of the rest limitation, but both from stuff on PoE1 gameplay discussion and Obsidian's own study of the issue, a lot of players just rested constantly, effectively turning everything into per-encounter except encounters were not tuned for it and also players were complaining about limited rest supplies.

 

i mean i get it, i played PoE1 apparently the "correct" way on potd (treating rest supplies as a strategic resource and constraint, rationing out abilities), but a lot of players did not. you can go back in time in these very forums and see all the people complaining about rest limitations becuase people would just spam rest all the time and then be annoyed at having to take trips back to town.

 

this reminds me of a complaint some friends had back in the day with IWD2, where they complained of battles being same-y, which baffled me. when i watched them play, they had "rest until healed" on, rested after every fight, and did the exact same thing every fight - lots of web, stinking cloud, and spamming aoe.

 

anyway, the point is that my first couple paragraphs is the logic obsidian used to move everything to a predominantly per-encounter system, but it seems like an occasionally recurring complaint is the third paragraph. personally, i would have changed poe1's rest system such that rest supplies never replenished in vendors so that it became a fixed strategic asset, but i think most everyone would have hated that. i thought the per-encounter shift made sense in that context. though i don't know what to say about people resorting to same-y tactics. i mean, in FFT it could get really boring if every fight you just had a calculator who calculated some Holies to nuke everyone at the start of every fight, or in FF7 if you W-summoned knights of the round in every fight, but people still did it :/ maybe more immunities, but people have already complained about e.g. dorudugan having interrupt immunities or other bosses having some standard resists/immunities.

Edited April 11, 2019 by thelee