Why is PoE2 not successful ?

[IndiraLightfoot]

Having several months of distance from my last challenge playthrough (which I stopped early on, and I didn't really try turn-based), and thinking back, I can personally list a few things that bothered me with PoE2 (Obviously there are lots and lots of stuff I loved about the game, perhaps the isometric art of it all, being the best aspect):

-Ship combat. Yeah, that one again. While all the islands and the colonial pirate theme were cool things, with lots of really neat lore, ship combat became almost like a bug in the game, no matter how brain-dead my repetitive actions resolving it was. Imagine if some of my best games were interrupted like this over and over and over whenever I moved about: Playing NWN2, and then for the gazillionth time, I'm forced to play some bizarre side-game, say, Yahtzee. Quaint once, fun twice, annoying for the fourth time, and straight up hell, the ninth.

-While appreciating the side quests, those that were meaty and good enough, were few and far between, and most of them were almost unnecessary.

-And far too many small islands, with the overland map feature getting real stale fast. It was like Storm of Zehir, the only expansion in NWN 2, I haven't played dozens of times. They took a huge risk using this Civilization approach to the map, and in retrospect, I think this aspect of the game felt more like a bare-bone version of Sorcerer King or Fallen Enchantress.

-Finally, the main quest was just as engaging as the main quest in Skyrim - i.e., not at all. It was annoying and lackluster. I'd much rather have been to that other dimension and made that into a more fleshed out and varied experience, the one where the gods roam and rule.

-(Plus a pet-peeve of mine: I didn't like the factions. The way I see it; A game like F:NV is worse because of them, not better. I feel railroaded.)

Edited November 14, 2019 by IndiraLightfoot

[thelee]

2 hours ago, IndiraLightfoot said:

-And far too many small islands, with the overland map feature getting real stale fast.

one thing I still find wanting in Deadfire versus PoE1 is the lack of a real good dungeon crawl. Yes, BoW and FS were "dense" but they were more like "quest hubs with enemies" as opposed to the "long crawl" of the endless paths, or even some of the smaller areas of PoE1 (temple of eothas or raedric's hold in the hostile path). Oathbinder sanctum and Poko Kohara are pretty much it.

[Grimo88]

2 hours ago, thelee said:

one thing I still find wanting in Deadfire versus PoE1 is the lack of a real good dungeon crawl. Yes, BoW and FS were "dense" but they were more like "quest hubs with enemies" as opposed to the "long crawl" of the endless paths, or even some of the smaller areas of PoE1 (temple of eothas or raedric's hold in the hostile path). Oathbinder sanctum and Poko Kohara are pretty much it.

If your only requirement for a dungeon is ‘subterranean chamber’ then sure. The Shipwreck graveyard, the imp-cultist place, the archmage’s house, the crypt under the temple of tangaloa, the old city... these are all dungeons. 

[Jarmo]

On a related note, will be fun/not fun to see how Wasteland3 will do.
Backed the first one myself, but not this second one and won't buy at full price either.
Probably will pick up at a discount a year later when most of the bugs have (hopefully) been fixed.

Because the first one was kinda ok. Less so than PoE1, but kinda ok.
(and didn't bloody include any lever guns, despite having one centrally shown in the cinematic trailer)

Expecting lower than expected sales, but hopefully I'm wrong and hopefully it's a big improvement over the first.

[Boeroer]

I also purchased Wasteland 2 - it was ok, but I couldn't bring myself to finish it. Therefore I don't plan to buy Wasteland 3.

[xzar_monty]

14 hours ago, IndiraLightfoot said:

-Ship combat. Yeah, that one again. While all the islands and the colonial pirate theme were cool things, with lots of really neat lore, ship combat became almost like a bug in the game, no matter how brain-dead my repetitive actions resolving it was. Imagine if some of my best games were interrupted like this over and over and over whenever I moved about: Playing NWN2, and then for the gazillionth time, I'm forced to play some bizarre side-game, say, Yahtzee. Quaint once, fun twice, annoying for the fourth time, and straight up hell, the ninth.

You are actually not forced to play it even once. The Defiant can outrun anyone. You can avoid ship combat completely, even if you never upgrade your ship.

[Verde]

Overall, I think it was the jarring tonal shift from castles to pirates, the lack of marketing, and the negative publicity on certain aspects, like weak main story, and marriage to old cRPG tropes and mechanics. I have about 500 hrs logged in PoE2 and I think it's one of the more replayable cRPGs, but it was filled with constant glitches and a feeling of never settling in on the new tone and setting.

Edited November 15, 2019 by Verde

[thelee]

13 hours ago, Grimo88 said:

If your only requirement for a dungeon is ‘subterranean chamber’ then sure. The Shipwreck graveyard, the imp-cultist place, the archmage’s house, the crypt under the temple of tangaloa, the old city... these are all dungeons. 

No, the requirement is "long crawl", as I said. If it takes me literally no effort to just leave and restock in a lot of those, and/or they are like one area long it doesn't count. Old City I'll grant you (I forgot about that one) but I mean c'mon, e.g. Nemnok can be *literally* two fights long (enter in mouth), that's not a dungeon crawl. Similar thing with Arkemyr, I literally just did last night entering the front door with guns blazing (to maximize fighting) and thanks to enemy pulls it was also literally four fights long (one for each level, two for basement).

 

Even just the basement of the inventor in WM was more substantially a dungeon crawl than some of those.

Edited November 15, 2019 by thelee

[algroth]

So... I said in my previous posts that I'd try to expand a little more on some personal thoughts I have on the series and why Deadfire may not have been as successful. I do think that the factors to blame are most likely due to lack of awareness, poor marketing, disinterest in/ignorance of the IP and so on, but I do think these have all been touched already so I'll just set them aside for this post. For the next couple of reasons I'll add the caveat that I don't necessarily think they're the biggest or sole contributors to Deadfire's dip in sales, I'm mentioning them mostly as food for thought and so on. So, without further ado...

Deadfire as a streaming experience

Earlier in the thread, @ekt0 brought up the issue of influencers and streamers and their role both in spreading awareness of a game and also in acting as "tastemakers" for specific parts of the gaming community. There's no doubt that people like Joe Vargas, Yahtzee Croshaw, Jim Sterling, CohhCarnage, Forsen and many other big personalities have an influence on what their followers consume and how the consume the same - but they also have a role promoting games and do so by showcasing them as videos or live shows, and essentially showcasing their games on a pure audiovisual level instead of an interactive one. I think isometric CRPGs in the style of the IE games especially suffer in this medium: they're usually text-heavy and involve conversations seen from an overhead view that often pause all action and animation, and can even do away with voice-acting altogether; they often make of combat a relatively secondary element to the experience that can be sparse enough to not come into play for stretches of *hours* at a time, and which is often made pretty stilted as a visual experience either due to turn-based or paused mechanics; and they involve plenty of systems that are often complex and abstract enough for the uninformed viewer to not make heads or tails about. The player's experience in games like these are night and day relative to the experience of those watching, and I feel that many that take a quick look at Deadfire in any such video or stream without prior knowledge of isometric RPGs or without the right context to understand the systems may feel confused, alienated, and simply bored and disinterested. It is simply too static a game as a viewing experience, and this, in a day and age where streaming has become as big a form of game consumption and advertisement as it is today, really plays against this subgenre of games regardless of how interesting or fun they are once the viewers actually play the game themselves.

Josh says this could be a result of the games being 2D or isometric, but I feel it's more the combination of elements that make the aesthetic of an isometric RPG that becomes the issue - in comparison the Supergiant games for example are far friendlier games for streaming because on a visual level at least the action is more fluid and consistent, and these rarely ever contain long stretches of dialogue, or scripted interactions composed entirely of text and static 2D images, or numerous complex sheets for characters, inventory, quests and abilities, or the likes. It's less a single component and more the addition of all these to make for a poor non-interactive audiovisual experience, regardless of how great it is an interactive one.

Setting

I don't have much to say on this one but I think it's a point worth making, that despite Deadfire not being a "pirate game", enough people have been left with that impression either after playing it or simply from early word of mouth, marketing and buzz. No matter how one might argue otherwise or how gross and incorrect a simplification of the setting it may be, it unfortunately hasn't prevented people from believing this and holding to this perspective. Why would a pirate setting be a problem is something of a mystery for me, as I figure there's enough pirate games out there that did well enough or seemed to be interesting enough to an audience so as to not be such a detractor, and yet I feel like I only ever see this characteristic spoken in a negative light and with plenty of frequency as well. I would posit the following two possibilities:

1. The pirate setting is perceived to be too modern and divorced to the traditional medieval European fantasy setting that the Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale and Neverwinter Nights games as well as most fantasy RPGs are set in, and a game or game subgenre that is primarily banking on nostalgia depends very strongly on the familiar, which this setting was not.
2. Pillars itself downplayed the fantasy Renaissance setting enough to have been assumed by most players to be a bleaker take on a medieval setting instead, and thus the more colourful, modern and adventurous appearance of Deadfire felt like a tonal whiplash to what came before.

An interesting point about Baldur's Gate II is that it itself was meant to be a small departure from the first game's setting to a more Byzantine one instead - yet personally I can't say I noticed until someone else pointed it out to me years later. This might be my own stupidity or unawareness talking of course, but I feel Baldur's Gate II still felt like more of a traditional medieval European fantasy setting than Deadfire ever did - and likewise, it's not uncommon to find comments referring to Pillars' setting as "medieval", or even complaints about the inclusion of firearms in it as anachronistic and the likes. I can see in that sense that maybe expectations were set for a particular tone or aesthetic for the saga that Deadfire then in some way broke, and alienated a part of its audience in turn (I reiterate, however, that I would never say it's the sole or main reason for the substantial drop, just maybe a contributing factor).

Story

Last but not least, there's the franchise's story, or rather, the kind of story the franchise has developed over these two chapters. Many issues have been brought up about the story for both games according to different reads of the same: some felt the first game was too ambiguous, lacked any real hooks and didn't adequately portray the stakes or communicate why the player should care about their condition as a Watcher or about the whole Hollowborn crisis; meanwhile, others complained that Deadfire had a very linear and short story, that they didn't feel they had any agency in the game, that there was a strong premise but nothing was done with it, etc. I think that some of these criticisms are valid but don't really explain why the story or the franchise failed to stick with people so as to cause such a massive drop.

So I got down to thinking about all of the other comparable Western RPGs out there which were frequently praised for their story, and think there's something curious about the Pillars franchise when compared to these others, in that it stands as a rather separate and unique case in that it doesn't really stick to a monomythic hero's journey or attempt to indulge the players' power fantasies quite like so many other games of this genre do.

What leads me to think of this is mostly certain characteristics I've noticed about some of the most frequent complaints I've seen about Deadfire's story here and, most importantly, on Steam. While not so frequently seen here, a complaint I ran across on Steam time and time again - one which made absolutely no sense to me - was that people were actually disappointed that they couldn't ascend to godhood at the end of the game. Some also were disappointed that they couldn't fight Eothas, or really stop Eothas from doing what he was doing. Some felt they had no agency and were just witnessing a story they had no real part in. I feel like the common thread across all these complaints was that the player, or the Watcher, didn't attain the power to be able to stand up to the gods by the end of this game - a game in a genre that is ridiculously full of stories about adventurers becoming heroes, kings and even *gods* by the end of their journey, who are literally taking down other kings, other foul evils threatening the realms, or other gods and so on. The Watcher's feats, in comparison, aren't quite so clear-cut heroic, and arguably his most heroic deed - that of bringing Thaos down and learning the truth of the gods - is one that is pretty shrouded in obscurity since no one really knew who Thaos was anyways, and it's not like you managed to find a way to share the gods' secret across Eora somehow either. Despite the Watcher growing into a strong and arguably powerful figure by the end of either game, the franchise is never about the Watcher's heroic or villainous feats, the franchise isn't so much about an individual's journey so much as the cultural shift they help push along and unfold in their journey.

I think this makes Pillars a fascinating story, but one which is arguably far removed from the expectations of a playerbase that are pretty decided in the kind of experience they want and the gratification they expect back from a game. I think it could be this stylistic, thematic or tonal mismatch that could have also lessened interest in the saga despite fulfilling a demand for more games of this ilk. Again, I couldn't be sure, but it feels to me that maybe the issue isn't that Pillars and Deadfire are bad games or somehow fail, but rather that they are different in enough ways to be just off of what hooks their niche or the gaming community in general.

 

To all of this I'll make clear, I think the story, setting and aesthetic for the franchise are wonderful. This is pretty much my favorite (hopefully) ongoing saga in the medium right now. This is just me brainstorming on how the game could have failed in others' eyes, or even how a game could have been well-received or well-liked and yet failed to either garner or retain interest in the long run.

Edited November 15, 2019 by algroth

[kanisatha]

On 11/14/2019 at 2:08 PM, MortyTheGobbo said:

I think that ultimately Pillars as a franchise is aimed at a very narrow niche and Deadfire just didn't appeal to enough of this already small market. It's an isometric D&D-like game that's nonetheless not actually D&D and thus doesn't have the familiarity or brand power. PoE 1 had this "whoa, it's just like Baldur's Gate" wonder factor that Deadfire couldn't replicate, both due to timing and moving away from it in terms of mechanics, story and setting. So its lack of success is just a messy bundle of timing and demand. We'd all like to find one big thing to point a finger at, but there isn't one.

So this^. For all the hyperbole about D:OS2, let's not lose sight of the fact that while it sold way better than PoE2 that way better sales number was still ONLY in the 1.5-2 million range. So the much-ballyhooed D:OS2 was very much a niche game, and PoE2 was simply a niche within a niche game. And the only way studios like Obsidian (and yes even Larian) will keep making niche games that under the best of circumstances will still only post (relatively) tiny sales numbers is if they are making a boatload of money with their other non-niche games.

[Wormerine]

1 hour ago, kanisatha said:

And the only way studios like Obsidian (and yes even Larian) will keep making niche games that under the best of circumstances will still only post (relatively) tiny sales numbers is if they are making a boatload of money with their other non-niche games.

The problem is that Swen seems to be making games he wanted to make, while Josh was making RPG using systems he wasn’t personally invented in. I doubt Obsidian will continue doing PoE in this way if it doesn’t sell, and developers would rather do something else. 

[Wormerine]

5 hours ago, algroth said:

I think this makes Pillars a fascinating story, but one which is arguably far removed from the expectations of a playerbase that are pretty decided in the kind of experience they want and the gratification they expect back from a game.

I think you are on to something, though I don’t think the blame is purely on the audience not being able to accept what PoE truly is.

While I love those games to death, to some degree they always rang false to me. While trying to fulfill expectations one might have from IE games I don’t think they are truly free to pursue their own goals. 

Brilliance of Baldur’s Gates was that the player progression and RPG systems where smartly tied to the overarching narrative: you are a son of Bhaal and death follows you. No matter if you want to be good or evil you kill a lot of stuff, fulfilling the prophecy and your role. You kill Sarevok because you are a better murderer then he. As you near to having a shot in claiming the throne, you become more powerful, killing more and more powerful stuff. While mostly a pulpy adventure, there is a subversive cleverness in the story, which simply makes it all work.

All better Bioware game do this: KOTOR, Jade Empire, all manage to tie your growth with the story of the game. Obsidian also leaned into this one multiple occasions. 

PoE, unlike so many post-BG RPGs, doesn’t follow this arc, but still has the gameplay. We kill stuff in hundreds, grow in power and move from killing wolfs and boars to mythic creatures. Yet, little of it is acknowledged in the narrative. There is some stuff in the lore (souls growing stronger etc.) but none of it is related to the main game. I would say that character growth happens purely in game space, and isn’t really acknowledge by game’s world. 

I do like that mere mortal can’t challenge a God. But that expectation isn’t challenged by the game either. Expectations are there: both because of tradition and existing gameplay systems, but the game doesn’t even acknowledge such possibility. The problem isn’t that we can’t challenge Eothas, but that after 20 levels and major in-game growth, game refuses to respond to it.

[algroth]

9 minutes ago, Wormerine said:

I think you are on to something, though I don’t think the blame is purely on the audience not being able to accept what PoE truly is.

While I love those games to death, to some degree they always rang false to me. While trying to fulfill expectations one might have from IE games I don’t think they are truly free to pursue their own goals. 

Brilliance of Baldur’s Gates was that the player progression and RPG systems where smartly tied to the overarching narrative: you are a son of Bhaal and death follows you. No matter if you want to be good or evil you kill a lot of stuff, fulfilling the prophecy and your role. You kill Sarevok because you are a better murderer then he. As you near to having a shot in claiming the throne, you become more powerful, killing more and more powerful stuff. While mostly a pulpy adventure, there is a subversive cleverness in the story, which simply makes it all work.

All better Bioware game do this: KOTOR, Jade Empire, all manage to tie your growth with the story of the game. Obsidian also leaned into this one multiple occasions. 

PoE, unlike so many post-BG RPGs, doesn’t follow this arc, but still has the gameplay. We kill stuff in hundreds, grow in power and move from killing wolfs and boars to mythic creatures. Yet, little of it is acknowledged in the narrative. There is some stuff in the lore (souls growing stronger etc.) but none of it is related to the main game. I would say that character growth happens purely in game space, and isn’t really acknowledge by game’s world. 

I do like that mere mortal can’t challenge a God. But that expectation isn’t challenged by the game either. Expectations are there: both because of tradition and existing gameplay systems, but the game doesn’t even acknowledge such possibility. The problem isn’t that we can’t challenge Eothas, but that after 20 levels and major in-game growth, game refuses to respond to it.

Can you say... Ludonarrative dissonance?

I don't necessarily agree that the games ring false, but I do agree with the criticism that the game doesn't exactly do its best job at recognizing or reacting to the milestones of power you break along the way, even if Deadfire does have a degree to which it responds to some of your past deeds (you're known as the Lord of Caed Nua, as a dragonslayer and so on - but again, this also signifies little for its own narrative arc). I expressed some disappointment with the first game with how acquiring Abydon's Hammer generated no response from the followers of Abydon either in Defiance Bay or Stalwart. Again, I like that the story's focus is elsewhere, that it isn't fixated in being a power trip and so on, but at the same time it's as you say, there's a disconnect between the capabilities of your character and the settings' recognition of the same.

[Wormerine]

8 hours ago, algroth said:

even if Deadfire does have a degree to which it responds to some of your past deeds (you're known as the Lord of Caed Nua, as a dragonslayer and so on - but again, this also signifies little for its own narrative arc).

But, no one recognises that my character is at level 5 and he struggles with Naga, not to mention a dragon.

[ekt0]

I hope some of Obsidian staffs do read critics and comments in the forum from time to time. There are so many insightful and valuable thoughts in here.

I strongly believe that, in order to get better, you have to understand and learn from your mistakes.

Edited November 16, 2019 by ekt0

[kanisatha]

17 hours ago, Wormerine said:

The problem is that Swen seems to be making games he wanted to make, while Josh was making RPG using systems he wasn’t personally invented in. I doubt Obsidian will continue doing PoE in this way if it doesn’t sell, and developers would rather do something else. 

This I absolutely grant you, which is also why I was among those who were not fazed by the Microsoft acquisition. I am excited by the prospects of the very talented devs Obsidian has (including of course Sawyer, who I was afraid was going to be leaving Obsidian) now being able to make the games they have long wanted to make.

[IndiraLightfoot]

On 11/15/2019 at 11:12 AM, xzar_monty said:

You are actually not forced to play it even once. The Defiant can outrun anyone. You can avoid ship combat completely, even if you never upgrade your ship.

Well, there you go - I have to play one round of Snake each time a ship's approach and then try to bum-rush my vessel. Still, annoying and repetitive, in my book, at least.

[IndiraLightfoot]

On 11/16/2019 at 2:54 AM, Wormerine said:

I think you are on to something, though I don’t think the blame is purely on the audience not being able to accept what PoE truly is.

While I love those games to death, to some degree they always rang false to me. While trying to fulfill expectations one might have from IE games I don’t think they are truly free to pursue their own goals. 

Brilliance of Baldur’s Gates was that the player progression and RPG systems where smartly tied to the overarching narrative: you are a son of Bhaal and death follows you. No matter if you want to be good or evil you kill a lot of stuff, fulfilling the prophecy and your role. You kill Sarevok because you are a better murderer then he. As you near to having a shot in claiming the throne, you become more powerful, killing more and more powerful stuff. While mostly a pulpy adventure, there is a subversive cleverness in the story, which simply makes it all work.

All better Bioware game do this: KOTOR, Jade Empire, all manage to tie your growth with the story of the game. Obsidian also leaned into this one multiple occasions. 

PoE, unlike so many post-BG RPGs, doesn’t follow this arc, but still has the gameplay. We kill stuff in hundreds, grow in power and move from killing wolfs and boars to mythic creatures. Yet, little of it is acknowledged in the narrative. There is some stuff in the lore (souls growing stronger etc.) but none of it is related to the main game. I would say that character growth happens purely in game space, and isn’t really acknowledge by game’s world. 

I do like that mere mortal can’t challenge a God. But that expectation isn’t challenged by the game either. Expectations are there: both because of tradition and existing gameplay systems, but the game doesn’t even acknowledge such possibility. The problem isn’t that we can’t challenge Eothas, but that after 20 levels and major in-game growth, game refuses to respond to it.

A very insightful point. Thx! I think this mattered more than expected.

[ComradeYellow]

I think it's more to do with party based isometric RPG's being a niche genre than little tiny details like dialogue and lore.  There was an uptick of support for PoE1 due to nostalgia and "something different than what we have" but all in all it remains a....niche genre.

Sorry to be a buzzkill but that's the sad reality of modern gaming.

[daven]

Actually... after thinking about it some more. I think it's because they didn't have any women in boob plate armour on the front. The sales probably would have shot up if they had a few barely clothed elves on the adverts and posters and what not.

[xzar_monty]

That could be true. It is, after all, a well-known fact that the highly discerning and stupefyingly intelligent male species can be instantly and utterly transfixed by the simple geometrical combination of two circles and a triangle.

Edited November 18, 2019 by xzar_monty

[Boeroer]

2 hours ago, daven said:

Actually... after thinking about it some more. I think it's because they didn't have any women in boob plate armour on the front. The sales probably would have shot up if they had a few barely clothed elves on the adverts and posters and what not.

Make it Orlans and I would've bought it twice...

 

[algroth]

2 hours ago, xzar_monty said:

That could be true. It is, after all, a well-known fact that the highly discerning and stupefyingly intelligent male species can be instantly and utterly transfixed by the simple geometrical combination of two circles and a triangle.

Indeed, no one can resist the allure of ice cream.

[Wormerine]

4 hours ago, daven said:

Actually... after thinking about it some more. I think it's because they didn't have any women in boob plate armour on the front. The sales probably would have shot up if they had a few barely clothed elves on the adverts and posters and what not.

Joke all you want, but that might be the wisest thing anyone said in this post so far.

Boob armor, or a grumpy male with a gun. 

[thelee]

On 11/16/2019 at 9:39 AM, kanisatha said:

This I absolutely grant you, which is also why I was among those who were not fazed by the Microsoft acquisition. I am excited by the prospects of the very talented devs Obsidian has (including of course Sawyer, who I was afraid was going to be leaving Obsidian) now being able to make the games they have long wanted to make.

Not to mention that MSFT has plenty of market research and marketing staff. They might not be able to fully create the esoteric games they might have wanted to make, but what games they do make are probably going to be better set up for success