Is Avowed just Pillars 3 by another name?

[ComradeYellow]

18 hours ago, slopesandsam said:

 

Anything is possible...but with the Microsoft purchase, Obsidian we can probably assume that Obsidian is a AAA studio now.  Microsoft almost certainly hope that Obsidian will become their Bethesda, with TOW and POE/Avowed as the big, flagship franchises.  So it just seems unlikely that a niche, isometric PoE3 is going to be something they want to put resources and talent into.

To me this is a good thing, though.  AAA games that I actually like are a huge breath of fresh air.  I'd rather be on board with a large consensus that's worthy than a large consensus that's idiot-approved.  However, as soon as they release a title that deliberately feels stupid and artificially handicapped, I will jump off the train and go back to being a niche-game hunting douche.

[Clawdius_Talonious]

Pillars 3 would be a continuation of the story of the Watcher post Deadfire. This game has an unknown setting, whether or not it's post-Deadfire it seems unlikely that the story would be about the Watcher. As everyone says, Deadfire sales were low, but that doesn't mean that if the universe gets a lot more fans it's off the table.

Personally I'd bet on it being set before or concurrently with Pillars of Eternity, rumors about a Watcher and Caed Nua like easter eggs would be fun but there's no point in wrapping up the story from Pillars of Eternity in another game in the same universe.

Also, while I understand people saying they don't want watchers, I think what they really mean is they don't want The Watcher, because The Watcher wasn't JUST a Watcher, he was also having a schism where he was also seeing his past lives. Watchers just see dead people that haven't moved on, most of what people are talking about is almost certainly the fact that he was... IIRC Awakened.

Anyway, a Watcher as an NPC would be fine, even the PC being -A- Watcher would be fine really IMHO. The combination was kind of a glut of information, muddying the story. Just being a Watcher would let you see spirits, which could be used to great effect for sidequests, the main story, vignettes and so on.

Pillars of Eternity sales didn't inspire repeat business, possibly because from what I've seen people bounce off the first chapter of the game. There were the backer NPCs, which were fun but ENTIRELY unnecessary to the plot and a lot of people read more of them than was perhaps good for engagement in the first hours of the game. The game wasn't super intuitive for people who weren't paying enough attention. Eora was a great world and the mechanics were all interesting and had unique aspects while being familiar enough to not need to disrupt people who have a Tolkeinesque character in mind. 

For people wondering why they're going back to Eora, the preproduction work on building a world is a lot of effort that doesn't need to be duplicated. There's a lot of history and effort put into various factions, subclasses and so on. Josh Sawyer is writing the Pillars TTRPG, and that's a glut of new and interesting information about the world. They could set any sort of story there, and if they're truly going for a Skyrim kind of feel, it would be interesting to have paired Leveling and then Guild joining and leveling. An ability to have innate abilities like weapon skills, and then guild abilities by joining a Paladin faction, or a Cipher group. Think Skyrim guilds except actual abilities and not just items and fluff, and no ability to join as many as you want (though Deadfire established dual class characters.)

[Ormag]

1 hour ago, Wormerine said:

I read the books in highschool so can't relate. Still that's first time I heard that. I thought Witcher3 did a good job giving an idea of the relationship those characters had together even if I didn't remember them from books (like Keira). 

Edit: It's doesn't really apply to PoE though. To understand PoE1 you need to read books as well.  Getting into PoE3 shouldn't be that much harder then getting into PoE1.

This is kinda what I meant in my post, people see pillars of eternity 2 and they feel like they have to play pillars 1 first, and either

a) don't bother at all

or

B) buy the first game and get bored long before they are anywhere near completion and abandon the game.

 

Ofc this isn't the only reason the game didn't sell, but one of the major factors imo 

[Wormerine]

1 hour ago, Ormag said:

This is kinda what I meant in my post, people see pillars of eternity 2 and they feel like they have to play pillars 1 first, and either

You see, I don’t buy it. Sequels tend to sell better, not worse. The idea that games sells worse because it has a number attached to it, just doesn’t hold water. PoE2 problem wasn’t that it scared of new audience - its that majority of existing audience didn’t want more PoE. And it wasn’t just IP. Tyranny didn’t do so hot either. PoE2 wouldn’t sell better if it had a different title.

[Achilles]

3 hours ago, Wormerine said:

You see, I don’t buy it. Sequels tend to sell better, not worse. The idea that games sells worse because it has a number attached to it, just doesn’t hold water. PoE2 problem wasn’t that it scared of new audience - its that majority of existing audience didn’t want more PoE. And it wasn’t just IP. Tyranny didn’t do so hot either. PoE2 wouldn’t sell better if it had a different title.

FWIW, my understanding is that Tyranny met sales expectation but didn't do better because Paradox completely dropped the ball on marketing.

https://www.pcgamesn.com/tyranny/tyranny-sales-paradox-obsidian

(thanks to whichever smart person it was who originally linked me to this article)

[morhilane]

8 hours ago, Wormerine said:

You see, I don’t buy it. Sequels tend to sell better, not worse. The idea that games sells worse because it has a number attached to it, just doesn’t hold water. PoE2 problem wasn’t that it scared of new audience - its that majority of existing audience didn’t want more PoE. And it wasn’t just IP. Tyranny didn’t do so hot either. PoE2 wouldn’t sell better if it had a different title.

I know a few POE1 backers who didn't want to use Fig and after the game released they were all "I'll wait until the game is finished (aka all the DLCs and patching is done)".  As of this moment, they still haven't bought the game, they probably forgot about it.

I also know people who didn't like POE1 because they wanted a reskin of BG2 and/or the dour setting and just skipped POE2. They are still complaining that nobody makes "isometric party rpgs" anymore might I add.

[teknoman2]

the reason it was not named PoE3 is the same reason the Witcher 3's logo and marketing were changed to make the 3 less prominent or even ditched it completely. the wider audience was barely (if at all) aware that the game was the 3rd in a series with the first 2 being more niche so the presence of a 3 could turn them away as many would not be too keen on playing 2 older games just to catch up on the story, even if the game was designed to be standalone. the fans still knew it was the 3rd game and were hyped and the casuals were blissfully ignorant. while this is not PoE3 (most probably) the logic is the same; those who know get excited about a new game set on Eora, those who don't just see a new Skyrim style game. 

as for Fallout 3, you have to remember that that game was made before gaming had become a mainstream form of entertainment so the majority of the target audience were people in the know so the marketing (and naming) at the time was different

[Wormerine]

5 hours ago, morhilane said:

I also know people who didn't like POE1 because they wanted a reskin of BG2 and/or the dour setting and just skipped POE2. They are still complaining that nobody makes "isometric party rpgs" anymore might I add.

Wouldn't Kingmaker be right up their alley?

[Ormag]

6 hours ago, morhilane said:

I know a few POE1 backers who didn't want to use Fig and after the game released they were all "I'll wait until the game is finished (aka all the DLCs and patching is done)".  As of this moment, they still haven't bought the game, they probably forgot about it.

I also know people who didn't like POE1 because they wanted a reskin of BG2 and/or the dour setting and just skipped POE2. They are still complaining that nobody makes "isometric party rpgs" anymore might I add.

Yeah kinda proves my point too

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

On 7/30/2020 at 11:47 PM, slopesandsam said:

I don't think this analogy is particularly accurate.  I think Fallout 3 works much better as a comparison, because it was also the shift between 2D isometric and 3D first-person, with drastically different mechanics to reflect that, and a story that was far removed (other than superficial iconography) from the stories of previous games.  At this point, nobody claims that Fallout 3 must be an isometric turn-based game set on the west coast.  The franchise changed format.  And there's nothing to say that PoE can't do the same.

All of that applies to Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel though, which was released a few years before Fallout 3. As of now, Avowed and PoE aren't the same game series and there's nothing to say PoE3 will be a Skyrim clone, if it happens at all.

18 hours ago, Ormag said:

This is kinda what I meant in my post, people see pillars of eternity 2 and they feel like they have to play pillars 1 first, and either

a) don't bother at all

or

B) buy the first game and get bored long before they are anywhere near completion and abandon the game.

 

Ofc this isn't the only reason the game didn't sell, but one of the major factors imo 

If steam achievements are any indication, few players manage to get past the first third any game. This applies to DOS2, a sequel that sold extraordinarily well and better than DOS (let alone other Divinity games), where only about 60% of players proceeded past the first area. Things like mods and console commands that can disable achievements complicate this, but it's a pattern that consistently holds across most games.

[SchroedsCat]

On 7/30/2020 at 2:03 PM, Ormag said:

Yes. Hopefully it's story won't involve watchers and metaphysics 

The watching and metaphysic-ing was always the most fun part for me. I really have no desire for a dumb action "RPG". 

[morhilane]

20 hours ago, Wormerine said:

Wouldn't Kingmaker be right up their alley?

I know one of them who is in total love with it (that person totally hated POE1 because it wasn't D&D enough). For some of the others, time constraint/kingdom management is a negative aspect.

It will be interesting to see how Wrath of the Righteous do actually.

Edited August 2, 2020 by morhilane

[Wormerine]

7 hours ago, morhilane said:

It will be interested to see how Wrath of the Righteous do actually.

Yeah, I will be curious if, like with Deadfire, most people who are interested in it backed it already and post launch sales will be poor, or if it will match/outsell Kingmaker.

[Ormag]

16 hours ago, SchroedsCat said:

The watching and metaphysic-ing was always the most fun part for me. I really have no desire for a dumb action "RPG". 

Uhmm the story themes won't automatically change the depth (or whatever you are referring to here, definitely wont change its mechanics)

the game could have a story which is material and grounded in reality (politics, colonialism, more focus on factions etc) and still be deep

[slopesandsam]

On 8/1/2020 at 12:35 PM, Wormerine said:

You see, I don’t buy it. Sequels tend to sell better, not worse. The idea that games sells worse because it has a number attached to it, just doesn’t hold water. PoE2 problem wasn’t that it scared of new audience - its that majority of existing audience didn’t want more PoE. And it wasn’t just IP. Tyranny didn’t do so hot either. PoE2 wouldn’t sell better if it had a different title.

I second this.  The entire history of the games industry is basically a history of franchises that gained larger and larger audiences as they went along.

Also, if Obsidian were to continue making isometric RPGs for a niche audience, I'd far prefer them to continue the Tyranny franchise than PoE.  Tyranny is probably one of the best RPGs I've ever played, and it's definitely a massively underrated gem.  Of course, the chances of that happening now are nonexistent.  I guess Microsoft could buy the IP off Paradox...but why would they bother?

(I have a bunch of friends who are really into isometric RPGs, but I had a really hard time convincing them that they would like Tyranny.  Most of them really hated the idea of being forced to play as an evil character, and I couldn't really convince them that actually, the game lets be as good or evil as any other good RPG.  Plus it actually forced you to make some hard choices.)

[Theonlygarby]

On 7/31/2020 at 10:47 PM, Achilles said:

FWIW, my understanding is that Tyranny met sales expectation but didn't do better because Paradox completely dropped the ball on marketing.

https://www.pcgamesn.com/tyranny/tyranny-sales-paradox-obsidian

(thanks to whichever smart person it was who originally linked me to this article)

Tyranny is such an underrated game.  I was really hoping paradox would do their 50 DLCs for it like they do with most games.   That might sound sarcastic but its not at all.

[Madscientist]

On 8/1/2020 at 12:38 AM, Theonlygarby said:

I actually have a hatred of Witcher 3...  I started with Witcher 3...  Then I thought "crap I don't understand who anyone is... I gotta go back". I beat Witcher 1 and 2 and thought... Wtf I guess I gotta read the books before anything makes any damn sense.

 

They are good games but personally I hate playing sequels if I haven't played the previous games.  And Witcher needs a ton of work to catch up to Witcher 3...  Therefore I will probably never beat it.  I read a couple of the books and imo they aren't great.

For me it was different.

When I started TW3 I played TW 1 and 2 before. I was confused because I did not know Ciri and my mage friend ( name forgotten, the woman with the black dress, not Triss). Both of them are very importent for the story and Gerald seems to know them well, but I have never heared of them. TW3 is one of the best games ever. But because of my confusion with these two chars maybe it would have felt a little better if I had not played TW1+2 before. In that case everything would be new for me so it would be normal that I do not know everyone. Of course TW1+2 are very good games too, so I do not regret playing them and it helps to understand many other things in the game, not just those 2 chars.

Fun fact: very often I played part 2 first and I got part 1 later. for example BG2 was my first big computer RPG I finished and I got BG1 only later. Most games can be played without problems, even if you do not know the previous games. Only exception is when the second game starts exactly where the first ends, For example Trails in the Sky 2, Trails of cold Steel 2 and probably you have to play cold steel 3 before cold steel 4. Those are basically one huge game split in 2 very big games.

Edited August 3, 2020 by Madscientist

[Wormerine]

32 minutes ago, Madscientist said:

When I started TW3 I played TW 1 and 2 before. I was confused because I did not know Ciri and my mage friend ( name forgotten, the woman with the black dress, not Triss). Both of them are very importent for the story and Gerald seems to know them well, but I have never heared of them.

That's a good point. Yen (<3) was mentioned in W2, but overall, they were absent until Witcher3. 

[Theonlygarby]

On 8/3/2020 at 3:55 AM, Wormerine said:

That's a good point. Yen (<3) was mentioned in W2, but overall, they were absent until Witcher3. 

Yen is great if you are into extremely toxic relationships.

Played 1 and 2 wondering why anyone would choose Yen.

Read a couple of the books... Now I dislike both of them

 

Edited August 11, 2020 by Theonlygarby

[Wormerine]

13 hours ago, Theonlygarby said:

Yen is great if you are into extremely toxic relationships.

Played 1 and 2 wondering why anyone would choose Yen.

Nah, just a typical Polish lady. Ask Geralt why he chose Yen. Choosing anyone else is simply non canonical.