Any Chance of Pillars Of Eternity III?

[Stardusk78]

M understanding is that the game underperformed, sales-wise and therefore there would be little incentive to produce a third, yet despite this there are some true fans such as myself and others and there are many places in Eora left to explore, Living Lands, Valian Republics, Rauatai to name a few. Has anyone heard anything or could guestimate the chances of it appearing?

[msyoung]

I have not heard of any further updates.

[Wormerine]

No, not really. The closest thing was Obsidian hiring Unity programmer, which might suggest PoE3, but might not. In spite of the title, there is nothing suggesting that the game would be isometric, though considering that they essentially developed a very unique engine they might keep using it, be it Po3 or not. 

https://forums.obsidian.net/topic/110059-obsidian-is-hiring-unity-programmers-new-isometric-game/

We know Obsidian works on at least one other projects beside Outer Worlds (something in my head rattles that there were two secret projects, but I might be wrong).

[Boeroer]

I don't think they drop the Pillars IP. It might not be a PoE3 with Real Time with Pause though. 

If you listened to Josh Sawyers Deadfire Post Mortem talk: it sounded like they want to learn from the mistakes they made with Deadfire (I think they identified the biggest problems with it correctly). And to profit from that insights they would need to make another Pillars game - I hope. 

It also sounded as if Turn Based is the way to go. 

[Stardusk78]

41 minutes ago, Boeroer said:

I don't think they drop the Pillars IP. It might not be a PoE3 with Real Time with Pause though. 

If you listened to Josh Sawyers Deadfire Post Mortem talk: it sounded like they want to learn from the mistakes they made with Deadfire (I think they identified the biggest problems with it correctly). And to profit from that insights they would need to make another Pillars game - I hope. 

It also sounded as if Turn Based is the way to go. 

I guess I am the only one who does not like turn-based then.

[Torm51]

Not the only one, I prefer TB BUT just not in this game.  It was made for RTwP.  The balance is way better in RTwP.

[DozingDragon]

I would be very surprised to see Obsidian drop this IP entirely.  Previously, a separate holding company held the rights to the Pillars IP, but that company was rolled back in to Obsidian before Microsoft completed its acquisition of Obsidian.  Now that’s partly just due diligence on Microsoft’s part, but it is a decent reminder that the Pillars IP does have real value.  Josh is still working on refining the Pillars tabletop system, even though Deadfire has reached the end of its support cycle.  There are also rumors that one of Obsidian’s unannounced projects is going to be a Skyrim-like game, which could end up using the Pillars IP.

One last thing:  I recall Josh making some very vague allusions to making more games like Deadfire in the future during the Deadfire postmortem, but that he personally wants to take a break from making games like this for a while.  So it might be a while before we see a third game, but that’s probably for the best.  

[daven]

Mobile app card game is the future that awaits...

[Elric Galad]

7 hours ago, Torm51 said:

Not the only one, I prefer TB BUT just not in this game.  It was made for RTwP.  The balance is way better in RTwP.

Sure, but changing the current TB system to an ATB one would easily make it quite balanced. It might have been too complicated for a mere PoE2 optional mode but it would be doable for PoE3.

[ArnoldRimmer]

10 hours ago, Boeroer said:

It also sounded as if Turn Based is the way to go. 

OMG no!!! I hate turned based. I wouldn't want a turned based only game... there's always baldurs gate 3 if PoE3 becomes turned based. Still would be depressing

[Boeroer]

You behave as if this was set in stone. I just said it because Josh reported that Turn Based Mode of Deadfire was very well received and that games like D:OS I and II also were successful because of Turn Based Combat. "It sounded like" isn't the same as "it will be". I know that a lot of people (hello SonicMage) like to communicate their impressions and opinions that way but I'm not one of them. It just sounded like it - to me.

And to be honest Turn Based Combat nearly only has advantages over RTwP if you do it right. I like RTwP but it can be (visually) messy, hard to balance, harder to code. If it's too fast players get overwhelmed, if it's too slow it feels like combatants act underwater. And the perception of that is very individual.

And if you ever played Pen & Paper RPGs you should be familiar with the general idea of Turn Based combat because RT is impossible there (unless you are LARPing it out somehow or so...).

I don't know if anybody of you played Battle Brothers. But it's an example of a very efficient yet simple turn based system which leads to great tactical combat that can be very exciting and addictive. Even without magic, healing and very little AoE. 

You could take that ruleset and put it into a P&P version 1:1.

I would love to see a Pillars game with somewhat similar mechanics. The turn based ruleset of the tabletop version of PoE and also the classless system look nice. Josh and his group also seem to have fun with it while they playtest and tweak it along the way. Maybe we will see an adaption for a CRPG at some point. 

 

Edited August 17, 2019 by Boeroer

[kanisatha]

15 hours ago, Stardusk78 said:

I guess I am the only one who does not like turn-based then.

No I'm with you as well. If they want to go TB, they should do it with a completely new game. A PoE3 should remain RTwP. I would not buy a TB PoE3.

But I also disagree with @Boeroer's take on Josh's postmortem. What I heard from it was that TB brought in additional sales but nothing spectacular, and that Obsidian was not going to be moving away from RTwP altogether.

[Boeroer]

I said "it sounded like Turn Based is the way to go" (not "PoE3 will be turn based") because Josh stated that a) D:OS I and II have it and sold very well and b) that the TB mode was very well received and generally seems to be preferred by players - and PoE only had RTwP because the Infitiy Engine games had it. 

I know that Josh prefers Turn Based over RTwP and classless over class based. And that the reason why PoE doesn't have this is only because of Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale.
So maybe I should rephrase "Turn Based seems the way to go for Josh". Since he doesn't want to direct a Pillars-like game any time soon it might well be that an eventual PoE3 will be led by somebody else and this person might have no problem with RTwP and classes - so that a PoE3 can be rel. similar to 1 and 2.
The DLCs and the later added subclasses (Arcane Archer, Forbidden Fist and so on) were not designed and directed by Josh but other people and they turned out pretty well - so why not?

Maybe - just maybe - we might see a PoE3 by non-Josh and a turn based, tactical game in the world of Eora by yes-Josh. Who knows? Since this is all speculation anyway one might as well reach high.

[draego]

6 hours ago, ArnoldRimmer said:

OMG no!!! I hate turned based. I wouldn't want a turned based only game... there's always baldurs gate 3 if PoE3 becomes turned based. Still would be depressing

why would you think BG3 isnt turn based. that game is being made by THE turn based crpg company

[Wormerine]

18 hours ago, Boeroer said:

If you listened to Josh Sawyers Deadfire Post Mortem talk: it sounded like they want to learn from the mistakes they made with Deadfire (I think they identified the biggest problems with it correctly). And to profit from that insights they would need to make another Pillars game - I hope. 

Yeah, the impression I got wasn't that making Deadfire was a mistake, but the way the approached it might not have been the best. 

What I find interesting was Josh remark early in in the talk:

Quote

 

D:OS to D:OS2. The first game reviewed well, sold very well. The second game reviewed incredibly well, sold phenomenally well. 

We reviewed and sold well, so if we have similar approach to refining the formula of the game we will review even better, and sell incredibly well. 

Wrong. That did not happen. But it worked out pretty well anyway.

 

Does it mean they would change how they approach the formula for the 3rd game? Or would they try to move farther away? 

If they keep the system relatively unchanged, launching with dual gameplay system might be good for them (naturally I would like to see some of the turn-based design issues fixed). That, however, depending on how much they change the core system, might be quite a challenge, unless they find the way to effortlessly translate one into another. 

Edited August 17, 2019 by Wormerine

[daven]

2 hours ago, draego said:

why would you think BG3 isnt turn based. that game is being made by THE turn based crpg company

I have a vague memory of the guy in charge saying it will be and action RPG.

[algroth]

Ideally they could have both systems implemented, just like with Deadfire at this point. The question is how much that would take from a resource perspective and so on.

[Elric Galad]

I have low expectations about BG3. I don't believe it will live up to its legend and I fear all the innovations we had un PoE will be discarded in favor of Nostalgia. The trailer is about Illithids mostly because they we're arguablythe most memorable ennemies in BG2.

 

Maybe I'm wrong and the game is probably going to be at least okayish anyway.

On the other side, even if I have a slight preference for RTwP, I have nothing agains TB as long as t is well made (notgood enough in PoE2).

Edited August 17, 2019 by Elric Galad

[draego]

1 hour ago, daven said:

I have a vague memory of the guy in charge saying it will be and action RPG.

I would like to see that because the last several interviews i saw them do about BG3 they wouldnt reveal what type of mechanic the game will be. They kept saying they would say later. So i am just assuming it will be turn based since that is what that studio does recently but could be something else

 

Edited August 17, 2019 by draego

[Wormerine]

2 hours ago, daven said:

I have a vague memory of the guy in charge saying it will be and action RPG.

I have pretty clear memory of Swen not discussing anything specific at the time the reveal was made. They did state that they will be making changes to the system to adapt it to computer setting.

Personally, I would be shocked if it was a real-time game. Not because they did a turn-based game before, but because from what they said, their attempt is not to recreate Infinity Engine games.

[Boeroer]

If it has the look and feel of D:OS I or II I'm out.

[Wormerine]

9 hours ago, Boeroer said:

If it has the look and feel of D:OS I or II I'm out.

I am willing to give them benefit of the doubt, and believe that they won't make the same game but under a different name. 

[Gromnir]

On 8/16/2019 at 2:06 PM, Boeroer said:

 

If you listened to Josh Sawyers Deadfire Post Mortem talk: it sounded like they want to learn from the mistakes they made with Deadfire (I think they identified the biggest problems with it correctly). And to profit from that insights they would need to make another Pillars game - I hope. 

 

gonna disagree with you on this. post-mortem were discouraging for us 'cause josh recognized insular problems as 'posed to cultural and/or systemic.

keep in mind, am not looking for the silver lining. am not looking at this like an obsidian fan. am looking at this like a cold-blooded and heartless ombudsman o' doom. 

ship combat were a waste o' resources and shoulda' been killed sooner. 

...

duh.

recognition, after-the-fact, that ship combat were a resource sink is less helpful for future game design than one might hope. if the folks 'bove josh's pay-grade had recognized ship combat as a resource hog with little benefit v. cost, do you think obsidian genuine woulda' pushed forward with the feature? so, josh recognizes how important it is to not invest resources in features which is offering little payoff compared to massive expenditure. no quicksand features.

even looks a bit like josh... at least when he has the beard.

late addition o' vo were problematic?

again, duh.

as a post-mortem point, am finding this one to be o' dubious merit. josh reflected 'pon a disproportionate expensive feature added late in development which functional forced immediate content lock. would josh do it again? no, but he admitted it weren't his call in the first place. so, a relative unique situation which were complete out o' his hands, but he admits it were a bad choice... a bad choice by somebody else. uh, well, ok then.

also, am thinking josh almost complete whiffed on the real issues with companion shortcomings and narrative flaws. could go into writing problems further, but am recalling we already kinda did so when post-mortem first were shared.

etc.

josh looked at isolated problems and came up with specific solutions. is actual a terrible approach to a post mortem, or rather is the way an ameteur approaches.  learn not to make same and exact mistake again? ez. josh didn't address process or culture which led to problems in the first place. what changes coulda' been made so similar unexpected problems would be avoided or marginalized? nothing. no reflection.

am knowing am sounding harsh and am gonna cheese off more than a few folks by being so critical, but am hopeful somebody at obsidian takes the next step, the hard step, and figures out how to change process and culture so as to be better able to respond to the inevitable unexpected crises which will plague their next title. 

HA! Good Fun!

[Boeroer]

I agree on ship combat and VO. With "the biggest problems" of Deadfire I meant story and companions, their relationship system etc - I wasn't very clear there.
I meant the things in Deadfire that might put players off after buying the game. Ship combat is not great and may have taken away a lot of resources - but I think it hadn't a lot of impact on the sales numbers (although it's difficult to determine what would have been in the game or what could have been done better if those resources would have been there). But... you can easily skip ship combat - so that might not be a reason for the game to not sale well. Crunch, early writing lock and other problems because of VO: maybe the same? Player's won't see/feel any problems that might have been attached to this -  I don't know what could have been improved with the writing/companions etc if they didn't have to lock it down due to VO though. I'd say not too much but I honestly have no experience.

The quality or "catchyness" of the story/plot/writing/companions/relationships etc: maybe that's the bigger problem. 

But those problems were addressed in his presentation as well. 

I also think the "Pirates of the Carribean" setting had an impact on sales numbers. But I have no proof whatsoever and nobody talked about it yet so maybe that's just me.

I just hope (if they do a PoE3 in the first place) that they don't go the route they took from PoE1 to PoE2: reinventing the whole mechanics, redoing the whole engine. This obviously takes away a lot of resources which could otherwise have spend on story, quests, item-/character-/ability design and so on. It introduced a whole new nest of bugs and other issues again. Other stuff like loading times got kind of fixed, but you need more (beta) testing and so on and so forth. Maybe they had to redo most of the mechanics. Maybe it was good to reinvent the wheel for Deadfire. But now I think they are in a good spot (in that "technical" area) and should focus more on the content. With the DLCs they could do exactly that and I think they turned out pretty well. 

About process or culture: I guess Josh dosen't want to/cannot address those things in public as an employee. We know Josh is all for employees' rights, a game developer's union and against crunch and so on. Better processes would help that as well. I bet he's fighting for better processes and culture at the back of the stage.

Edited August 18, 2019 by Boeroer

[xzar_monty]

8 hours ago, Boeroer said:

I also think the "Pirates of the Carribean" setting had an impact on sales numbers. But I have no proof whatsoever and nobody talked about it yet so maybe that's just me.

As far as I know, at this point nobody has any proof whatsoever concerning any of the possible reasons for poor sales. I'm not sure whether an extensive consumer survey has been made, but if not (and I think not), the fact is that we have no proof. Plenty of online comments do not amount up to a cogent explanation (and obviously I'm not suggesting that you think they do).

The important thing to keep in mind (and I've already said this in another thread) is that we humans are, after the fact, extremely good at coming up with reasonable-sounding explanations for why things went the way they did and, at the same time, disregarding the fact that we actually have no way of knowing whether our explanations are true or not.

 

As for the game and its development, there are two big things that make me think that something was rotten in the state of Denmark:

1) Ship combat. This is the obvious biggie. They spent a lot of time and resources on this and still explain how unhappy with it at least some of them are, and how contradictory their feelings are/were regarding the whole thing. To an outsider looking in, none of this sounds good.

2) Adding turn-based mode so long after the game came out. This is just baffling. It's a huge endeavor, and I'm not sure whether it even has a precedent.