Armchair theories on why POE2 didn't sell super well

[xzar_monty]

<post came across too uptight. can't delete. ignore this>

Edited March 7, 2020 by xzar_monty

[Madscientist]

@Foxd1e

I do not know what other people think, but at least I do not care who made the game. I just want a good game. I have played lots of adventures and RPGs, both JRPGs and western ones.

If I only play things from people I know I would have never played Pathfinder or Disco Elysium, some of best games lately and I have never heard of those studios before the game was on the shop page.

The people you mentioned are famous among gamers, but even they have started their career at some point. Several crowdfunding games were funded made by a single person or a small team nobody ever heard before. If players buy only stuff they know there would never be new successful games.

If you want a good RPG  you need one thing patience. Unless you want to be a beta tester wait some month after release before you start playing. RPGs are the largest and most complex type of games and more complexity means also more potential for bugs.

[Mazisky]

A lof of people I know were turned off by pirates and careibbean setting, so I bet this is part of the answer.

Pirates and nautical its more niche, while classic fantasy is universally acclaimed and more popular.

Edited April 18, 2021 by Mazisky

[MalevolentTapir]

i don't think its really more complicated than a lot of people who bought PoE1 weren't looking for a sequel. I think i can point to some recent rpg releases to argue that glowing reviews don't always match wider public perception. everyone here is probably a fan but would anyone argue the first wasn't lacking in some areas? particularly areas people who aren't natural fans of mechanically dense and obtuse RtWP games (most people) might be concerned with? for my own part I didn't back it or buy it until all the dlc was out, and I enjoyed the first for what it was.

[The Mole]

wasn't shilled as hard as dos2

 

that's pretty much it, really on rpgcodex and similar places people have a problem with the "feeling" or other weird buzzwords

 

to me it translates to boomers way past their prime that can't get into something new, unfortunate but it seems to be the case, same reason they didn't like poe 1 they'll write novels on how it didn't activate their feelings and their nostalgia for the old games, it isn't a 1:1 copy of Baldur's Gate 2 therefore it didn't trigger my nostalgia and me not like

Edited May 5, 2021 by The Mole

[xzar_monty]

Your argument becomes a lot less convincing the minute you resort to using terms like "boomers". Please don't generalize like that. It doesn't help.

[Boeroer]

I don't think a lot of boomers play CRPGs. I'm one of the older guys here - but I'm a whole generation after.

If you'd replace "boomers" with "grognards" that would totally fit. Especially the "write novels about unfulfilled nostalgia" part.    

 

[The Mole]

10 hours ago, xzar_monty said:

Your argument becomes a lot less convincing the minute you resort to using terms like "boomers". Please don't generalize like that. It doesn't help.

 

9 hours ago, Boeroer said:

I don't think a lot of boomers play CRPGs. I'm one of the older guys here - but I'm a whole generation after.

If you'd replace "boomers" with "grognards" that would totally fit. Especially the "write novels about unfulfilled nostalgia" part.    

 

surely you know that boomer refers to anyone over 30 years old in internet speak

 

but the point remains, people can't handle novelty, and they constantly moan about it

 

there is a 70 page thread on the codex about the "failure" of pillars of eternity and almost no objective arguments are used

 

a whole lot of back in my day but no substance

Edited May 6, 2021 by The Mole

[Boeroer]

3 hours ago, The Mole said:

surely you know that boomer refers to anyone over 30 years old in internet speak

How would I? I'm turning 45 in a few weeks. All I know is that if I use that ominous internet to google "boomer" it gives me the "born between 1945 and 1965". At best it is a very ambiguous term. To use it in this case means to paint with the really broad brush. 

If you do that you're basically a... wait for it... "broomer" - lol.

The term "grognard" denominates those people you talk about a lot better imo. But that's just a sidenote. 

 

To the rest I do agree.

Don't know if that's the reason for low sales numbers though. (Codex) grogs are just a fraction of potential customers and I also believe they don't have a lot of influence on the whole target group. 

But yes: their nostalgia drivel is annoying.

 

Edited May 6, 2021 by Boeroer

[bugarup]

14 hours ago, xzar_monty said:

Your argument becomes a lot less convincing the minute you resort to using terms like "boomers". Please don't generalize like that. It doesn't help.

OK boomer. 

[Helz]

7 hours ago, bugarup said:

OK boomer. 

Nothing like hating on huge numbers of people for things they have no control over, like when they were born...

Not only that, you are hating on your own parents/grandparents/great grandparents/future self at the same time. Maybe your family are a bunch of morons (the apple doesn't fall far from the tree), but mine aren't.

[kanisatha]

I have tremendous nostalgia for BG1, but have never ever written anywhere a wall-of-text post on any subject (and my posts counts are pretty low in all forums too). And, at 53, I am definitely on the older side (though still gen X and not a boomer). So a lot of assumptions here don't quite add up, at least with me.

Edit: Oh, and forgot to add, I love both PoE games and have played them multiple times.

Edited May 6, 2021 by kanisatha

[Boeroer]

2 minutes ago, kanisatha said:

And, at 53, I am

 

[bugarup]

1 hour ago, Helz said:

Nothing like hating on huge numbers of people for things they have no control over, like when they were born...

Not only that, you are hating on your own parents/grandparents/great grandparents/future self at the same time. Maybe your family are a bunch of morons (the apple doesn't fall far from the tree), but mine aren't.

Ok boomer.

[xzar_monty]

1 hour ago, Helz said:

Nothing like hating on huge numbers of people for things they have no control over, like when they were born...

I agree that @bugarup is being a bit too silly for this forum, but your comment isn't exactly great, either. Ever notice how the word "hate" is thrown around a bit too much these days? Notice how you did it yourself? You know, bugarup's usage of the word, and his attitude, do not actually constitute hatred. Hating is strong. Bugraup is just being silly.

(Yes, this comment is ever so slightly grouchy. We had a good discussion going...)

[Helz]

10 minutes ago, xzar_monty said:

I agree that @bugarup is being a bit too silly for this forum, but your comment isn't exactly great, either. Ever notice how the word "hate" is thrown around a bit too much these days? Notice how you did it yourself? You know, bugarup's usage of the word, and his attitude, do not actually constitute hatred. Hating is strong. Bugraup is just being silly.

I disagree. Maybe he thinks he's being silly but what he's parroting is that old people are worth less.

57 minutes ago, xzar_monty said:

(Yes, this comment is ever so slightly grouchy. We had a good discussion going...)

Okay.

On 5/5/2021 at 7:43 AM, The Mole said:

to me it translates to boomers way past their prime that can't get into something new, unfortunate but it seems to be the case, same reason they didn't like poe 1 they'll write novels on how it didn't activate their feelings and their nostalgia for the old games, it isn't a 1:1 copy of Baldur's Gate 2 therefore it didn't trigger my nostalgia and me not like

14 hours ago, The Mole said:

surely you know that boomer refers to anyone over 30 years old in internet speak

PoE 1 and 2 were crowd-funded and never would have existed without all the people who missed old-school RTwP RPGs. Y'know those games made by "boomers" for "boomers". Also, your mistake is reading RPG Codex.

[grindl]

I think anyone could play the first game and the second and it's so obvious why it lacks a lot of the magic 1 had. 

I can't find a single thing positive to say about the second game besides Eothas being enigmatic and interesting. 

I put 300 hours and 2 conclusive/extensive play throughs into part 1. Part 2 feels strictly inferior even in the roleplay aspect, because options don't seem to change much besides rather or not you fight someone and rare at doing that. Why do we have so many skills that could be consolidated? Alchemy and explosives could be a single skill. Intimidate, Deplomacy, and Bluff could be a single skill. Metaphysics and religion could be a single skill. Stealth and sleight of hand OR sleight of hand and mechanics could be a single skill. 

I rolled a wizard, having played rogue and paladin in the previous game, and expected similar treatment that Aloth got in PoE 1. I am somewhat bitter 50 hours into 2 as a wizard. I am considering rerolling but I have at least half of the map revealed. It is just so miserable to play with so many limitations. 

On the nature of roleplay, Eder is the only character so far I have had any meaningful or interesting interaction with and his banter is the only one I appreciate to listen to most of the time. It's like every female except maybe Woedica is the exact same voice actor. It's a dredge to wade through and I don't think I will recommend the game to anyone really. It's like the difference between Planescape Torment and Torment Tides of Numenera. It's just so obvious and empty.

If I had to guess why so few people bought it, then I would say it didn't receive the love the first game did both from the developers and from reviews. I always hear about Tyranny and PoE when I talk to someone that's interested in modern cRPGs but I never hear about PoE 2 and I think that says something from start to finish, from release to now 

Edited May 7, 2021 by grindl

[xzar_monty]

10 hours ago, Helz said:

I disagree. Maybe he thinks he's being silly but what he's parroting is that old people are worth less.

That, again, is not hatred. It is foolish, yes, if that's what it is.

Edited May 7, 2021 by xzar_monty

[bugarup]

4 hours ago, grindl said:

and expected similar treatment that Aloth got in PoE 1.

You expected to get a second personality and then everyone decide she's way cooler than you? 

[xzar_monty]

5 hours ago, grindl said:

Part 2 feels strictly inferior even in the roleplay aspect, because options don't seem to change much besides rather or not you fight someone and rare at doing that. [...]

I am considering rerolling but I have at least half of the map revealed. It is just so miserable to play with so many limitations.

So, what are the options that did change things significantly in PoE but do not in Deadfire? You are not being very clear in what you write, so could you perhaps explain this a little?

Also, what are the limitations that you are talking about in the final part of what I quoted?

Your post as a whole seems a bit odd, because I don't frankly understand the problems you describe -- I didn't seem to have them. Also, if a game appeared as unpleasant as Deadfire seems to appear to you, I certainly would not spend 50 hours playing it. One or two would be enough (in fact, I only spent one or two hours playing D:OS2).

[Boeroer]

Seems more like a description of personal feelings than an attempt to analyze or explain why Deadfire was less popular.

Not that this is bad or so, everybody may express their feelings of course - but in the scope of this "armchair" thread it's neither a theory nor is it very insightful imo. 

Take these examples:
Was the skill spread something that the individual player didn't personally like?
Yes. 
Is it plausible that the skill spread had any meaningful impact on the success of Deadfire?
No. That's not a common complaint (at all).

Didn't the player like any interaction with companions besides Edér?
No.
Does that mean the majority of players felt the same?
No. That's not a common complaint. Players have different favorite companions.

Does the player think that it's obvious that Deadfire lacks a lot of magic PoE1 had?
Yes.
Is it really that obvious to anyone else who played the game?
No. The user reviews are nearly identical. It may be - but it's not obvious. Else Obsidian would know what to change (which they don't).

Does the player think that it's even obvious why Deafire is lacking compared to PoE1?
Yes.
Does he manage to explain why?
No.
 

Edited May 7, 2021 by Boeroer

[Bosmer]

I'm really curious what your comments and ideas would be, if we rearranged the question (in a positive manner) and ask "what should a PoE3 look like to be successful (again)?" 

In his blog Josh said that he didn't really have a good guess about the reasons why deadfire didn't meet the expectations. Personally I assume (without having any numbers obviously) that rearranging the budget could easily help: 

- cut large parts of the voice-acting: I enjoy it alot and would "pay extra" for it .. but I don't think that the sales would highly depend on it.

- concentrate on the core features and mechanics: no ship battles (somewhere I read they were rather expensive)

- build upon the existing engine and character systems: I think for the vast majority of (potential) players they are complex enough and personally I think this system is great and if anything needs some polish or some more abilities here and there

What do you think? Maybe this discussion needs a new thread or maybe I just didn't find it yet?

[xzar_monty]

28 minutes ago, Boeroer said:

Seems more like a description of personal feelings than an attempt to analyze or explain why Deadfire was less popular.

Oh yes, most definitely. That's why I wanted him to clarify his post. Of course, it may be yet another case where someone can't tell the difference between personal opinions/feelings and critical analysis. But it may not. Let's hope he can clear things up.

[Bleak]

Well, I did make an analysis, a long time ago, about what was wrong with the Deadfire, in terms of game design, narrative, disconnected gameplay loops etc. A couple of people replied on point, but the bias is strong here and in every game forum belonging to a particular game/game company. (Not that I blame anyone for that, it's perfectly natural, since people who hang around here are more likely to like the game than people on the RPG Codex). 

Anyhow, I wonder what do you think about BG3? Long story short, my first impressions aren't good. And it's easy to attribute this dislike to "nostalgia" or other buzzwords that cancel out someone's opinion, but the 2D art for starters doesn't hold a candle to BG2 (or Deadfire). 3D in isometric games just isn't there yet. Face models look like medieval Zoolanders, screen/skill effects are rather cartoonish and so on. My point is that, when someone goes on BG forums and tells them "you know, I think that BG3 doesn't feel the same way as BG2", people will dismiss them as "nostalgic" without realizing they are talking about these things - just won't or can't articulate them in detail.

Feedback ought to be "feelings". It's the designers' job to translate these feelings into data. And I know it's easy and convenient to dismiss someone expressing themselves as nostalgic and whatnot (with extra characterizations on top) to prove your own point, instead of trying to see why they feel that way, but it's irrelevant to a meaningful discussion.

 

Edited May 8, 2021 by Bleak

[xzar_monty]

30 minutes ago, Bleak said:

Well, I did make an analysis, a long time ago, about what was wrong with the Deadfire, in terms of game design, narrative, disconnected gameplay loops etc. A couple of people replied on point, but the bias is strong here and in every game forum belonging to a particular game/game company.

Anyhow, I wonder what do you think about BG3?

Where would your analysis be?

As for BG3, turn-based combat is enough to put me off it completely. Also, the interface doesn't look inviting, and the way the dialogue is handled simply looks poor to me (too much like D:OS2, which also wasn't enjoyable at all). I'm not even going to give it a go.