Is this news about Pillars 3?

[daven]

2 hours ago, 3x0du5 said:

Well DoS2 is superior turn based game compared to turn based pillars deadfire no other way to say it 

Final Fantasy X is a superior turn based game to DoS2, what does it matter? There are other aspects to the game as well. 

[Gfted1]

On 9/28/2019 at 4:48 AM, AndreaColombo said:

The first game was balanced around no multiclassing (which by the way would render the multiclass talents utterly redundant), no subclasses, per-rest spells, six skills, and DR mechanics.

I wonder why these foundational tenets changed from one to two? 

[xzar_monty]

2 hours ago, 3x0du5 said:

Well DoS2 is superior turn based game compared to turn based pillars deadfire no other way to say it 

I don't want to be crass with you, but you are talking about your own personal opinion. It has no relevance outside your personal life.

There's nothing wrong with your opinion, but if you cannot back it up with any kind of argument, it is essentially worthless.

[3x0du5]

1 hour ago, xzar_monty said:

I don't want to be crass with you, but you are talking about your own personal opinion. It has no relevance outside your personal life.

There's nothing wrong with your opinion, but if you cannot back it up with any kind of argument, it is essentially worthless.

DOS2 sells 4 times as much as pillars I guess thats not a fact just an opinion right 

it is a fact for 99% of people out there excluding 50 guys in this forum same guys who think book of Woedica is worthy addition to the game and that pillars 3 should be turn based 

anyway to end this discussion : reality is that pillars has nothing going for it except the RTWP combat other than that is completely outclassed by actually good games and its even getting outclassed by other RTWP games (PFKM) 

 

P.S. 99% of posts written on internet are peoples opinion just like all your posts above.

Edited September 30, 2019 by 3x0du5

[kanisatha]

2 hours ago, Boeroer said:

The point that you seem to miss is that there is a RTwP mode AND a Turn Based mode already. Why would they throw one away? If they are making a PoE3 on the base of Deadfire it would be unwise to not release both modes. Maybe even as DLC or whatever - doesn't really matter.
Why not releasing both? That's what I'm saying.

I truly hope you are right. But I'm not sure this is how it will play out. I mean this should also be true for Larian and BG3, right? And yet they are going with only TB. So even though it would make sense to have both, I am expecting Obsidian to pick only one over having both, and the one they pick to be TB. Do I have any evidence to support this? No I don't. It's just my gut feeling is all.

[kanisatha]

13 minutes ago, 3x0du5 said:

DOS2 sells 4 times as much as pillars I guess thats not a fact just an opinion right 

it is a fact for 99% of people out there excluding 50 guys in this forum same guys who think book of Woedica is worthy addition to the game and that pillars 3 should be turn based 

anyway to end this discussion : reality is that pillars has nothing going for it except the RTWP combat other than that is completely outclassed by actually good games and its even getting outclassed by other RTWP games (PFKM) 

But this assumes there is only one thing (TB v. RTwP) differentiating the two games. This assumption is flat out wrong. There are quite a umber of variables separating the two games. The dependent variable here, sales, could be driven by a range of independent variables and not just the one.

[3x0du5]

1 minute ago, kanisatha said:

But this assumes there is only one thing 

no it does not

[Wormerine]

9 minutes ago, 3x0du5 said:

DOS2 sells 4 times as much as pillars I guess thats not a fact just an opinion right 

it is a fact for 99% of people out there excluding 50 guys in this forum same guys who think book of Woedica is worthy addition to the game and that pillars 3 should be turn based 

By the same logic why would you play PoE in Real Time, if there is Diablo 3? Both are isometric RPGs with real time combat and D3 is clearly better as it sold better.

You assume both DoS2 and PoE compete within the same space. They don't. According to Swen (maker of DoS2) there is relatively little overlap between those two games. One is absurd multiplayer focused sandboxy Coop RPG, another is singleplayer player-story driven RPG - both are RPGs, both are isometric, but their appeals are quite different. In this forum you are likely to find people who didn't enjoy DoS2 much(like myself) because we like games like PoE - that's why we are here. Being turn-based or RTwP has nothing to do with it.

Why would someone play PoE2 over (or in addition to) DoS2 in turn based mode? Story focused experience with rich world and lore, interesting quests, well constructed city, factions, overall ability to role-play. In my personal opinion a much more flexible and impactful character creation and development. When my gaming buddy visits me, we will fire up DoS2 and probably have a great time. Tried to play it by myself and it was a boring slog.

[bugarup]

I don't think that Numbery Name considers good writing as an advantage, seeing how little attention he pays to readability of his own posts. And thinks DOSes are good, that too.

[Boeroer]

DOS2 sells 4 times as much as pillars I guess thats not a fact just an opinion right 

D:OS2 selling better than Deadfire is a fact. But nobody doubted that. You on the other hand jump to the conclusion that it's the better Turn based combat of D:OS2 than Deadfire's that explains this difference in sales. Which is non sequitur at best. Most likely it's an intentionally placed strawman but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

It's illogical anyway since Deadfire didn't have any turn based combat when those numbers came out. So I can't see the point you want to make.

"it is a fact for 99% of people out there excluding 50 guys in this forum same guys who think book of Woedica is worthy addition to the game and that pillars 3 should be turn based"

The first part is not only not a fact but also dishonest. How do you want to back up that statement? You can't and you most likely know, yet you decided to write that nonsense.

The second part is not describing what we are trying to tell you. Either knowlingly or unknowingly you twist our statements. I for once never said that PoE3 should be turn based - which would sound like TB mode would be the preferred or even the only play mode. That's not what anybody said in this thread if I recall correctly. I said they should keep both RTwP and Turn Based - others said that they would like TB mode in PoE3, true - but nobody said that it should be turn based exclusively. And why would they?

You on the other hand insist that PoE3 should be RTwP only. You have a strong opinion on that. However your arguments so far have been quite feeble and not convincing. While I think my reasoning for keeping TB mode has been somewhat rational - although I personally don't want to play TB mode in a future PoE3.

anyway to end this discussion : reality is that pillars has nothing going for it except the RTWP combat other than that is completely outclassed by actually good games and its even getting outclassed by other RTWP games (PFKM) 

This will not really end the discussion - especially not if one repeats the cardinal error and tries to present opinion as facts.
Just because you use the word "fact" or "reality" doesn't mean that you write down facts or real things. Of course Pillars and Deadfire have more going for them than RTwP. The internet is full of people who write what they like about PoE or Deadfire - and most of it is not about RTwP combat. If that would be the only thing why Deadfire get bought - and it doesn't even do it very well as you like to state - then both games wouldn't have gotten such positive critical acclaim, would they? Unless all critics are wrong and dumb of course - which nobody really believes - so let me take this silly future argument off the table before it even starts to raise its wonky head...

If Deadfire gets "outclassed" by Pathfinder Kingmaker is a matter of taste and also a matter of the aspects of the games you are comparing. For example I would say that for most people who like well written dialogues Pathfinder is no competitor to Deadfire.

Also most critics seem to think that Deadfire outclasses Pathfinder KM (if you want to use that verb): the metacritic score is DF 88 to KM 73 - which is substancial. So - the "facts" seem to paint a different picture - or at least they contradict your statement that Pathfinder KM outclasses Deadfire. Is Pathfinder's RTwP combat better? I don't know. For me personally it is not. I played Pathfinder and found it quite boring - like if it appealed to a more juvenile audience. The combat wasn't more exciting or better than Deadfire's for me. But then I don't really claim that Deafire officially outclasses Pathfinder in anything... I can just say that I like Deadfire better. Also better than D:OS2 by the way although I generelly prefer turn based games. What I liked about PFKM was that most equipped items effectively changed the appearence of the ingame model. That was neatly done. In this particular field KM outclassed Deadfire - for me. 

Edit: excuse the code tags instead of quotes - the forum totally fell into spasms when I tried to use multiple quote tags so there you go.

Edited September 30, 2019 by Boeroer

[Boeroer]

2 hours ago, Gfted1 said:

I wonder why these foundational tenets changed from one to two? 

Mostly due to player feedback. There was a rel. big survey after PoE. It asked about a lot of things, including distribution of DLCs/Expansions, game mechanics like resting and so on.

[xzar_monty]

Boeroer: Thank you for your well-written and thought-out replies to 3x0du5. On the basis of his reply to me, it seems fairly apparent that for whatever reason, 3x0du5 is unable to see the difference between an opinion and an argument, and the concept of backing up one's opinion also seems alien to him. Which does not bode well, as far as discussion goes.

As for P:K outclassing Deadfire -- I think that's potentially a good debate. But what you say about dialogue in P:K is spot on. Given the amount of attention the developers gave to so many other aspects of the game, it's rather astonishing to see how poor the dialogue is. And not only poor, but cliched. I've said this before, but I'm saying it again: much of the dialogue and narration is actually so poor that I wonder whether it's meant to be a parody. Either way, it doesn't really work that well.

I have now finished both games once. I liked them both, rather a lot even. I think it's a good thing that I don't need to choose between them.

[Boeroer]

To be fair: Owlcat Games is a rel. new independent game studio from Moscow.

Most likely they don't have that much choice when it comes to affordable writers (if they had dedicated writers in the first place) and the original writing is most likely done in Russian. The cultural differences can lead to different perception of what is good/funny writing - or maybe they don't find the same things silly that we do. 

But also the translation can play a role (especially if it's not done by "professionals" - and even then... I mean look at the German version of PoE and Deadfire: brrrrr).

And then - as you said - it may also be that these guys are a bit togue-in-cheeky, don't know. 

 

Edited September 30, 2019 by Boeroer

[Wormerine]

2 hours ago, xzar_monty said:

it seems fairly apparent that for whatever reason, 3x0du5 is unable to see the difference between an opinion and an argument

 

Edited September 30, 2019 by Wormerine

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

On 9/27/2019 at 11:04 AM, MedicineDan said:

I tried Divinity Original Sin 2, but it just didn't do it for me.  Maybe I'm too old school and feel the need for classes.  In pretty much every respect, I prefer Deadfire, which is ironic since I had it in my library when I bought and played through Divinity for several hours.  So, the best part of Divinity from my perspective is that I ended revisiting Deadfire because of it.

I only mentioned DOS2 because the mods it has are fairly extensive and intensive, and I don't see that for Deadfire. Honestly I don't really think (vanilla) DOS2 is a very well designed gameplay system, it's wildly unbalanced in most respects and is incredibly easy to cheese. I'd like a classless PoE to keep most of the underlying systems but 1) uncouple abilities from specific classes and put them into a general pool and 2) go to universal HP and defense table with attributes having a more significant effect.

More importantly, I want steampunk Eora instead of colonial Eora so I can rob trains and shoot strikebreakers.

On 9/28/2019 at 7:50 AM, 3x0du5 said:

I hope they not gonna waste time and resources on Turn Based and just polish the RTWP combat something they haven't done in first two games so then there is no need for turn based. 

lol I played through POE1 at launch (it was bad) and it was massively polished to where it is now. Deadfire had about a year of polishing before Turn Based Mode was added and any issues are inherent in the RTwP making me wait half an hour while heavy armor characters recover.

[MedicineDan]

Aw, I think leet Exodus was just tweaking folks.  If we use sales as a yardstick, we'd probably end up with Mario brothers or tetris or something as our only game.  I get the idea that there're are several very successful games out there that use turn based, but that's actually an argument to use a turn based system.  I'm not much invested in the TB vs RTwP argument, but I do believe the strongest case is to include both.  Now that they've provided a game that caters to both crowds, the benefits of sticking to one because it tightens the effort is probably not worth pissing off fans on the other side who want what they want.  I certainly wouldn't transform it completely to TB.  Backers of the first two games would be mightily and rightfully pissed off.

As to you, KP, I like the idea of a steampunk game.  Kind of like... Arcanum? I think that was it.  People were angry about its flaws, but it was great fun.  It's not the game I'm pushing, but I imagine it'd still be the game I'd happily buy.  I'd really like a Chthulu game, but that's not feasible for the franchise whereas steampunk is doable.

[Boeroer]

More like animancypunk ('cause who needs hot wet air when you can use soul essence, right? ) - but yeah.

It wouldn't be such a big step since Eora already seems to be at the brink of some kind of industrialisation (see the luminous adra milling and stuff). It wasn't a medieval setting to begin with. 

Not saying I would want that for PoE3 necessarily, but a game in the Pillars universe - maybe with a small time leap (see the animancer experiment in Sacred Stairs) could be a nice little side project. 

I think the lore and setting are perfect for such a transition.

I also have a name for that: Gears of Eternity. BAM - now it's official: I'm a genius.

Edited October 1, 2019 by Boeroer

[Elric Galad]

Pillars of Eternity 3 : Arcanum of Steamwork and Animancy Obscura

[Boeroer]

Josh really hates those names with colons though.

[Wormerine]

Bicycles of Eternity

[Gromnir]

On 9/30/2019 at 10:30 AM, Boeroer said:

Mostly due to player feedback. There was a rel. big survey after PoE. It asked about a lot of things, including distribution of DLCs/Expansions, game mechanics like resting and so on.

more basic is stuff described weren't in fact foundational tenets. poe were the first game o' a new ip. axiomatic that only so much could be added to poe, or any other game for that matter. subsequent titles in an ip invariable add features. again, am stating obvious. avoidance o' multiclass wasn't a foundational tenet for poe so much as a concession to pragmatism. were not enough resources to do multiclass in poe with so many classes.

converse, an arguable foundational tenet from poe which were abandoned in the sequel were no bad builds. however, were impossible for developers to simultaneous add multiclass and retain no bad builds in earnest, though such a goal were still aspirational. poe2 limits on customization o' individual classes actual decreased the accidental failure rate o' single class builds in poe2, but from the start o' development, the obsidianites acknowledged that multiclass would create trap builds for the unwary or ignorant. heck, is again arguable that maximizing customization o' classes were if not a foundational tenet of poe, at the very least it were a goal. the developers never abandoned the belief that no bad builds and maximizing class customization were worthy goals, but once again pragmatism demanded its due. multiclass or ___________ were the oversimplified and repeated binary choice, and developers chose multiclass. purchasers wanted multiclass.

original plan for poe2 multiclass were to do similar to d&d 3e with free multiclass choice at every level-up. a few boardies observed how such would almost certainly lead to insurmountable balance issues... which it did. that said, the reason why poe2 has a more limited multiclass scheme than d&d 3e is 'cause the balance notions which were at the heart o' no bad builds philosophy remained even after no bad builds were sacrificed to make way for multiclass... so either/or choice is not even as simple as we described.  as such, would be more accurate to say that while no foundational tenets were abandoned after poe, concessions were made in an attempt to meet player expectations and desires. 

is also worth acknowledging that in poe we got classes in spite o' fact josh and other obsidian folks were not favoring a class system and we ended up with vancian casting in poe even though the original poe plan were for abandoning such. why did we get vancian in spite o' fact the developers thought per encounter were a better option? 'cause there were a flood o' nerd rage when it were announced vancian casting were out for poe.

foundational tenets? not sure they exist in any concrete sense.

HA! Good Fun!

[MedicineDan]

I'd say that anything that exists in the backer milestones would be considered a foundational 'tenet,' but that's a very specific list.  That's why, vis a vis RtWP, going completely TB would cause headaches at this point.  On the other hand, Obsidian owns the IP.  They had to follow their promises to backers for the games they produced.  Now, the devs can do whatever they want to do.  It's just a matter of how much pain they want to incur from the community in order to do it.  Surveys might sway them, but the ultimate decision should be theirs.  Personally, I like it better that way.  Sure, listen to the players in order to get new ideas, come up with features that will appeal to a broader group, identify the features that are vital to keeping the core players happy, etc.  In the end, however, I trust the devs' vision of the game much more than a mob of unruly random internet folks.  Otherwise, why wouldn't they simply go off of existing sales of other games and try to replicate what's already been done?  People want to think of video games as an art form like movies or literature.  How can we call it art if we don't allow some freedom to the artist?

[juanval]

Watching Josh  Sawyer lecture I think there will be a PoE 3 with obviously both RTwP and TB combat modes.

Sawyer mentions that the work needed to implement TB combat was nothing in comparison with ship combat system.

I'm happy to see there will be a PoE3. I'll never play it in TB mode, but having the 2 combat modes avaibable is a must, after watching the good reception TB have had.

I only fear that implementing both combat systems can make combat dificulty unbalanced.

I hope to see some day an anouncement of PoE3 like Josh did with Deadfire ;)

[Morrydwen]

On 9/30/2019 at 6:04 PM, kanisatha said:

I truly hope you are right. But I'm not sure this is how it will play out. I mean this should also be true for Larian and BG3, right? And yet they are going with only TB. So even though it would make sense to have both, I am expecting Obsidian to pick only one over having both, and the one they pick to be TB. Do I have any evidence to support this? No I don't. It's just my gut feeling is all.

Since when is BG3 going to be turn-based? I hope you are kidding right?

[Wormerine]

1 hour ago, Morrydwen said:

Since when is BG3 going to be turn-based? I hope you are kidding right?

I am pretty sure it's just speculation. Larian hasn't unveal any details just yet. I will be shocked however, if it won't be turn-based, considering multiplayer has been their focus, and seems it still will be. When Swen talked in interviews about BG, I got impression he was more interested in it as early tabletop translation, then epic Bioware-style single player adventure. Real-time would go against core tenants of previews Larian titles like multiplayer, accessibility, clarity. And on a more pragmatic note, it is smarter for Larian to appeal to Divinity crowd, then old Infinity engine crowd. In interviews Swen seemed to describe BG3 as the next step of evoluton in their RPGs, rather then something completely different. 

One thing they did hint at is that they will be making changes to D&D systems - one of the things they mentioned is how often you miss attacks in D&D and how unfun it is. 

We don't have any details to go on, but I am bracing myself for realization that Larian's take on D&D won't be for me. 

Edited October 13, 2019 by Wormerine