Your PoE Pros and Cons: 5 and 5

[Hiro Protagonist II]

My Pros and Cons.

 

Pros

• Rogues can now contribute more on the front lines than ever before. Makes it a worthwhile class to have and for them to get into the action instead of your standard backstab.
• A real spiritual successor to the IE games. Something I've always wanted for the past decade. And something I didn't think would happen again.
• Big box with so much awesome stuff. Game, Manual, Cloth Map, T-Shirt, Mouse Pad, etc.
• No 15 types of DLC. Just a main game and an expansion all complete. Just like the original IE games.
• No Romances forced onto me.

Cons

• Rogues seem to be swashbucklers. Just name them swashbucklers and be done with it. It seems you can't make a Bilbo Baggins type of Thief/Rogue. They're now all Errol Flynn/Robin Hood/Jack Sparrow type swashbucklers. This equates to limited choice with creating Rogues.. err actually change that to you have only different choices with creating different types of swashbucklers. They don't encompass the varying types of Rogues.
• No Halflings. And no, Orlans aren't halflings.
• Seemingly No bad builds. Rewarding bad gamers and mistakes with moderate to good builds. hurr durr, I put points in this stat and that stat. hurr durr. No idea what I'm doing. Never read the manual... Oh, my character is awesome. Derp. And If I make a stupid mistake, I should expect consequences good or bad with character creation, not be seemingly rewarded.
• Balancing for the sake of balancing. You take this, you cop a penalty somewhere else. You take something else, you cop a penalty elsewhere. It's the standard of MMOs and with companies like Blizzard. Constant never-ending tweaking to balance the game. All the nerfs do is just have a negative effect overall to players attitudes. The standard, So what's being nerfed in this update now, comment. In a single player game, it shouldn't be taken to extreme levels. Will have to see how things turns out.
• Sawyer doesn't like how BG2 gave you quests and I fear quests will be spread out throughout the game and there will be quests which will be chapter locked. Fear of not being able to go back and do quests in any order. I want to be able to do a lot of quests in any order like I could with BG2.  eg. in BG2 you could skip quests in Chapter 2 and go back later and do them in Chapter 5. Same in BG1, I could go back and do a quest that I missed in Chapter 2 and still do it in Chapter 5.

Edited June 26, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[Semper]

 

1) Go off and explore the wilderness before anyone gives you a quest objective to do so. Result: you miss out on tons of XP because you end up killing things without an in game quest objective to do so

2) Break character and become a patient and obedient mercenary who only kills when asked, and only explores when he's given a reason to by someone else

 

1) actually that would be the case for the pacifist if the game rewards killing. in poe your barbarian won't miss out on tons of xp because there simply _is_ nothing to miss. so if you're roving the land bashing in heads left and right you will get the same amount of xp as the pacifist because you're bound by quests. if you kill someone granting you a quest reward before the quest was given to you, i'll bet that you will get the xp nonetheless. at the latest you will get rewarded in an instant after getting the quest because you already did solve it.

 

it simply comes down to these two options:

• getting xp for killing things hampers roleplaying because you have to deal with encounters, else you will miss out on xp crippling your char's power level. it's also prone to abusing. after solving the quest in a non-violent way you can turn around, draw your sword and earn yourself a nice double fee.
• getting xp for solving quests rewards roleplaying. you can deal with encounters the way you want because you won't miss any xp. after finishing the quest there's no way to abuse the xp system - all you get is perhaps additional loot which should be enough of an extra reward.

 

i refuse to understand how someone can favor the first option without seeing the huge drawbacks this whole system suffers from.

Edited June 26, 2014 by Semper

[PrimeJunta]

Before reading anybody else's lists, and trying to be as specific as I can instead of "IE game successor is awsum," that is, listing things specific to PoE. Pluses:

 

+ The era. Renaissance-level settings are way underused in fantasy RPG's.

+ The coherent lore and worldbuilding. What we've heard about the states and cultures of Eora makes sense in a way that few of PoE's peers do, and the lore about souls gives a great background for magic.

+ The class differentiation. Instead of having several almost-same classes (fighter/ranger/barbarian/paladin, wizard/sorcerer, cleric/druid etc), each class has clearly distinguished strengths and weaknesses.

+ The scope for variants within classes. In AD&D advancement is almost completely on rails, and in D&D3 core (not counting prestige classes) there are very few ways to build an optimal character within a class.

+ The melee rules. I really like what they've said about (dis)engagement and the various abilities classes have to play with on the battlefield.

 

Minuses:

 

- Some of the mechanics could use better grounding in the lore. For example, the skill bonuses for many classes seem pretty arbitrary; just assinned so that each class is a little different, with a transparent post-hoc rationalization for them. Why not allow players to pick them on character creation if they're not central to the class's mission (like Rogue and Stealth?)

- Not convinced about the monk. Both the concept and the mechanics seem contrived and out of place.

- Not convinced about the stronghold design. It looks slapdash and not something that would actually work as a stronghold.

- Not convinced about the art direction with Glanfathan ruins, especially the statuary. Looks too modern and familiar to my eye.

- Not convinced about orlans. From what we've heard, they seem a bit tacked-on gnome/halfling substitute (plus, furry).

[Stun]

i refuse to understand how someone can favor the first option without seeing the huge drawbacks this whole system suffers from.

Try playing Planescape: torment.

 

Might make things easier to understand.

[Semper]

hahaohwow.jpg

[Mannock]

<p>

My Pros and Cons.

 

Pros

[*]No Romances forced onto me.

 

Why would you fear that? Were romances ever forced upon you in the old IE games or in Obsidian's previous games?

 

It's like saying I'm happy I'm not forced to play a wizard.

[Sarex]

Why would you fear that? Were romances ever forced upon you in the old IE games or in Obsidian's previous games?

It's like saying I'm happy I'm not forced to play a wizard.

 

I would hazard a guess that he was talking about Biowares (who did BG) romance in DA:O, if you chose to ignore romance you would have lost a good chunk of xp, quest, items etc.

[Stun]

hahaohwow.jpg

Seriously, you claim that killing things for XP hampers role playing..... It didn't in PS:T

 

You claim that Players could "abuse the system" (as if that matters anyway in a single player RPG. Are you our personal gamer policeman?) by solving the quest non violently for XP, then turning around and killing everything on their way out for an XP double dip..... That could hardly ever happen in PS:T and in times when it could, it didn't make a lick of difference in the grand scheme of things since quest XP was so much more substantial than kill xp.

 

No. there can only be 2 benefits to a No XP system.

 

1) To eliminate grinding

2) To discourage violence.

 

#1 is a lazy copout. The most logical way to eliminate grinding is to not over-populate the world with trash mobs in the first place.

#2 is quite obviously NOT the reason, since discouraging violence in a combat centric RPG who's combat system the developers spent an inordinate amount of time designing and detailing, is like a Restaurant owner and Chef who discourages his customers from eating his food.

Edited June 26, 2014 by Stun

[Hiro Protagonist II]

Why would you fear that? Were romances ever forced upon you in the old IE games or in Obsidian's previous games?

 

It's like saying I'm happy I'm not forced to play a wizard.

 

 

I don't fear romances. I'm happy they're not in the game. You haven't played BG2? BG2 forced romances onto you. if you decided not to romance that NPC, the NPC simply shuts up and gives you the cold shoulder. This has been gone over ad infinitum. Just look at the various romance threads.

 

Don't understand the Wizard analogy. Doesn't make any sense. The game doesn't force you to play a Wizard.

[Mannock]

 

 

Why would you fear that? Were romances ever forced upon you in the old IE games or in Obsidian's previous games?

It's like saying I'm happy I'm not forced to play a wizard.

I would hazard a guess that he was talking about Biowares (who did BG) romance in DA:O, if you chose to ignore romance you would have lost a good chunk of xp, quest, items etc.

Romances are like side quest. Some you do and some you don't. If loot and xp is that important to you, you better jump into the pool. It's what I have to do with the horrible Cult of the unseeing eye-quest everytime I play BG2.

 

I also find it odd to compare DA:O to PoE since it's not the same type of game and Obsidian have not got the same view on romances as BioWare have.

 

I still find it odd to list 'no romances' as a pro.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

 

Romances are like side quest. Some you do and some you don't. If loot and xp is that important to you, you better jump into the pool. It's what I have to do with the horrible Cult of the unseeing eye-quest everytime I play BG2.

 

I also find it odd to compare DA:O to PoE since it's not the same type of game and Obsidian have not got the same view on romances as BioWare have.

 

I still find it odd to list 'no romances' as a pro.

 

 

See the various romance threads. It is a pro for a lot of people including myself to not have them in the game. And it was more to do with some quests not triggering in BG2 and not so much DA:O. Just because you choose not to romance doesn't mean a non-romance quest for that NPC shouldn't start. It's quite odd when you have games with NPC side quests that have nothing to do with romances, you choose not to romance and then their backstory is now closed. And they simply shut up and stay silent. Can't you just be friends with the NPC instead of romancing them? And helping a friend out with their side quest? Anyway, I don't want to see this turn into another romance topic. Some people like romances, others don't. Nothing odd about it.

Edited June 26, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[Mannock]

 

 

Don't understand the Wizard analogy. Doesn't make any sense. The game doesn't force you to play a Wizard.

Exactly my point. You weren't forced to be a wizard just as you weren't forced to romance anyone.

 

So they didn't talk as much as you'd like if you didn't do a romance? Well that is unfortunate of course but that's what games are like. We want more of some parts and less of others.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

Exactly my point. You weren't forced to be a wizard just as you weren't forced to romance anyone.

 

So they didn't talk as much as you'd like if you didn't do a romance? Well that is unfortunate of course but that's what games are like. We want more of some parts and less of others.

 

 

Yes you were forced. You were forced to give a yes or no answer. These are not side quests as you put it that you may decide to do at some later stage of the game. Like doing the Skinner murders, or the Unseeing Eye at a later stage. And you could have totally avoided those quests altogether. 

 

If you answer yes, you not only were able to have cuddle time, but you could also do their non-romance quests.

 

If you answered no. you could still be friends, still have chats and do their non-romance quests. Oh wait, you can't. Scratch that party banter, scratch being good friends with them, scratch helping them with their non-romance quests like the good friend that you are. They've now turned into a mindless drone.

 

They don't talk as much? LOL. I guess staying silent for the rest of the game would qualify as not talking much.

 

This is my last post on the topic. You can have the last word Mannock.

Edited June 26, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[Stun]

To be fair, in Bioware games, a romance doesn't have to be forced upon you to be overly intrusive and thus constitute a game flaw. How many times have we all played those games and simply been nice to our squadmates/party members, because we don't wish to be total douchebags.... only to have one of those party members 'misinterpret' the situation, start flirting with you, and the next thing you know, you're stuck in a Rut: You either have to Let them down (ie. be a douchebag), or go along with it (oh hey, you're now in a Romance that you didn't want)

Edited June 26, 2014 by Stun

[BruceVC]

 

 

Romances are like side quest. Some you do and some you don't. If loot and xp is that important to you, you better jump into the pool. It's what I have to do with the horrible Cult of the unseeing eye-quest everytime I play BG2.

 

I also find it odd to compare DA:O to PoE since it's not the same type of game and Obsidian have not got the same view on romances as BioWare have.

 

I still find it odd to list 'no romances' as a pro.

 

 

See the various romance threads. It is a pro for a lot of people including myself to not have them in the game. And it was more to do with some quests not triggering in BG2 and not so much DA:O. Just because you choose not to romance doesn't mean a non-romance quest for that NPC shouldn't start. It's quite odd when you have games with NPC side quests that have nothing to do with romances, you choose not to romance and then their backstory is now closed. And they simply shut up and stay silent. Can't you just be friends with the NPC instead of romancing them? And helping a friend out with their side quest? Anyway, I don't want to see this turn into another romance topic. Some people like romances, others don't. Nothing odd about it.

 

 

Sorry Hiro but I agree with Mannock on this, I find it odd that you listed "no romances forced on you" as a pro.

 

And I also question the view that Romance is forced on you in any RPG and that if you don't partake then you are penalized somehow by not gaining  "a good chunk of XP". In BG2 I Romanced Viconia and apart from interesting dialogue the only side quest was a battle with followers of Lolth when I defended her. That doesn't constitute something major that I would have missed out on. I may have forgotten what other side quests were associated with Romancing Viconia?

Edited June 26, 2014 by BruceVC

[Sofaking]

 

 

2) The Bottomless Inventory. It stinks of the modern dumb-down disease. RPGs are supposed to be all about choice and consequence and inventory limits are a part of that. For example, If you create a party of really (physically) weak characters, -or- if your party only consists of 1 or 2 characters, you should NOT be able to haul around as much loot as a full party of strong-backed warriors. Period. I am disappointed that Obsidian has decided that "ease of use" has to trump simple reality on this one.

 

 

 

While I get this in principal, I think in pratice it always just falls apart. Even with inventory restrictions your players find ways around them because they are typically greedy and refuse to leave anything behind. All the BG and IWD games just involved making multiple trips back to town to sell off stuff then returning, often mid dungeon crawl. Or at least dumping everything in a barrel close to the exit to make trips when you're done. In Fallout3 you had radroach purses, or you would take a severed head and carry it around while leaving the body by the door. Deposit into head and take out of body at the door. Diablo doesn't use weight but uses item size, but a suit of platemail armor is still as 'big" as three daggers, or 6 gems. Oh, unless those gems are the same color, then they magically stack and take up the same space. Inventory systems themselves rarely make sense and unless you are prepared to make the game "Inventory simulator 2015" I think its best to just let the players take what they are going to take anyway and don't force them to break from the story progression to clean out inventory.

[BruceVC]

To be fair, in Bioware games, a romance doesn't have to be forced upon you to be overly intrusive and thus constitute a game flaw. How many times have we all played those games and simply been nice to our squadmates/party members, because we don't wish to be total douchebags.... only to have one of those party members 'misinterpret' the situation, start flirting with you, and the next thing you know, you're stuck in a Rut: You either have to Let them down (ie. be a douchebag), or go along with it (oh hey, you're now in a Romance that you didn't want)

 

Is that really true? I remember in DA2 I told Anders I just wanted to be friends and I don't remember any issues, he may have sulked ...but he was still in my party and played an active role in combat. I don't think he asked again, so in 50 hours of gameplay I didn't consider a 3 minute dialogue with him as intrusive or a game flaw....what am I missing?

[MasterPrudent]

 

To be fair, in Bioware games, a romance doesn't have to be forced upon you to be overly intrusive and thus constitute a game flaw. How many times have we all played those games and simply been nice to our squadmates/party members, because we don't wish to be total douchebags.... only to have one of those party members 'misinterpret' the situation, start flirting with you, and the next thing you know, you're stuck in a Rut: You either have to Let them down (ie. be a douchebag), or go along with it (oh hey, you're now in a Romance that you didn't want)

 

Is that really true? I remember in DA2 I told Anders I just wanted to be friends and I don't remember any issues, he may have sulked ...but he was still in my party and played an active role in combat. I don't think he asked again, so in 50 hours of gameplay I didn't consider a 3 minute dialogue with him as intrusive or a game flaw....what am I missing?

 

For the most part it's not true at all. However in DA:O it's very easy to trigger a romance with Leliana after doing her companion quest with fairly innocuous dialogue choices. /end off topic

[Randomthom]

Ok, here's my 5 & 5 (or perhaps 5 for fighting...)

 

Pros:

1.New IP. As much as I love the Forgotten Realms lore and environment it'll be good to have something new that the writers and developers have had full creative license over.

2. Ability Score redesign, I love that there will be no dump stat and every stat will be useful to every different class.

3. Scale, thanks to all the kickstarter stretch goals reached, this game will be huge, maybe not BG2 huge but still huge

4. Old-school isometric. CRPG-wise, this is my first love. I'm still playing BG2 after 15 years so there must be something right with it. Also ages very well graphically.

5. No XP for kills, I'm skeptically putting this in the 'pro' area in the hope that it means clever & non-combat approaches to challenges are rewarded as well as combat approaches.

 

Cons:

1. Bottomless inventory. I'm with the others who see this as molly-coddling the gamer. I'll retract this as a con if there are still weight limits.

2. Level cap. If it's possible to reach the max level then it's too low, at least by 1 or 2 levels...

3. Not really a con, more that we just don't know enough about it yet but I'm worried that the IE games will provide too much influence on the UI, definitely the weakest element of the IE games (it looked great but didn't play well).

4. Smaller number of companions. I know that they will be fully fleshed out characters and that I can create my own. I just think that there could have been a few more.

5. No MP. Again, not a biggie, these games are 99% single player focused and rightly so but I had some great experiences with some friends doing a weekly BG2 run on MP. I'd like to have been able to do that again.

[Sensuki]

1) Go off and explore the wilderness before anyone gives you a quest objective to do so. Result: you miss out on tons of XP because you end up killing things without an in game quest objective to do so

This is more of a design issue. There's two ways around this. #1 - Don't spawn the monsters until you've received the quest. #2 - Script the quest so that you will get the XP reward regardless of whether you killed the monsters before or after getting the quest.

[BruceVC]

 

 

To be fair, in Bioware games, a romance doesn't have to be forced upon you to be overly intrusive and thus constitute a game flaw. How many times have we all played those games and simply been nice to our squadmates/party members, because we don't wish to be total douchebags.... only to have one of those party members 'misinterpret' the situation, start flirting with you, and the next thing you know, you're stuck in a Rut: You either have to Let them down (ie. be a douchebag), or go along with it (oh hey, you're now in a Romance that you didn't want)

 

Is that really true? I remember in DA2 I told Anders I just wanted to be friends and I don't remember any issues, he may have sulked ...but he was still in my party and played an active role in combat. I don't think he asked again, so in 50 hours of gameplay I didn't consider a 3 minute dialogue with him as intrusive or a game flaw....what am I missing?

 

For the most part it's not true at all. However in DA:O it's very easy to trigger a romance with Leliana after doing her companion quest with fairly innocuous dialogue choices. /end off topic

 

 

Fair enough I didn't have Leliana in my party so I wasn't aware of that, but as you mentioned that's more of an isolated Romance development ?

[Stun]

 

 

To be fair, in Bioware games, a romance doesn't have to be forced upon you to be overly intrusive and thus constitute a game flaw. How many times have we all played those games and simply been nice to our squadmates/party members, because we don't wish to be total douchebags.... only to have one of those party members 'misinterpret' the situation, start flirting with you, and the next thing you know, you're stuck in a Rut: You either have to Let them down (ie. be a douchebag), or go along with it (oh hey, you're now in a Romance that you didn't want)

 

Is that really true? I remember in DA2 I told Anders I just wanted to be friends and I don't remember any issues, he may have sulked ...but he was still in my party and played an active role in combat. I don't think he asked again, so in 50 hours of gameplay I didn't consider a 3 minute dialogue with him as intrusive or a game flaw....what am I missing?

 

For the most part it's not true at all. However in DA:O it's very easy to trigger a romance with Leliana after doing her companion quest with fairly innocuous dialogue choices. /end off topic

 

And in BG2 (especially Bruce's example with Viconia!), it simply can't be avoided if you're playing a Male Human or Male Half Orc. Viconia WILL flirt with you, and you don't have many options when she does. You are allowed to either to show interest (the flirting continues) or to let her down in the most unfriendly way imaginable. (seriously, the dialogue choices they give you are stuff like "You're talking again, Viconia, please stop" Or "Take your meanderings somewhere else, Bitch!") And consequently her response is suitably unfriendly. The end result, especially in a game like BG2 where you don't get to initiate dialogue and patch things up via exposition, is.... well, they remain in your party but they never talk to you again. In the meantime, If you were role playing a friendly sort, you were forced to Break personality. Why? Romances. Edited June 26, 2014 by Stun

[LordCrash]

So, my assessment of what is known so far. That might change quite drastically if more information gets public.

 

 

Pros

• Infinity Engine style/graphics/feeling
• UI looks great
• deep choice&consequence with interesting reputation system
• balanced party gameplay with RTwP combat
• original setting with a huge scope

Cons

• limited amount of real companions
• classes are maybe too restricted
• probably no party chat/interaction
• shadows don't react to the position of the sun
• still no gameplay shown yet...

Edited June 26, 2014 by LordCrash

[BruceVC]

 

And in BG2 (especially Bruce's example with Viconia!), it simply can't be avoided if you're playing a Male Human or Male Half Orc. Viconia WILL flirt with you, and you don't have many options when she does. You are allowed to either to show interest (the flirting continues) or to let her down in the most unfriendly way imaginable. (seriously, the dialogue choices they give you are stuff like "You're talking again, Viconia, please stop" Or "Take your meanderings somewhere else, Bitch!") And consequently her response is suitably unfriendly. The end result, especially in a game like BG2 where you don't get to initiate dialogue and patch things up via exposition, is.... well, they remain in your party but they never talk to you again.

 

 

Okay good post, I was in love with Viconia so I gladly accepted her advances and she eventually bore my child. I never even considered what saying "no" may mean

[Sofaking]

Am I the only one who didn't like any of the romance options in BG2? Viconia was a captial B, Aerie was a frumpy ****, Jaheira was annoying and the other one was forgetable.

Edited June 26, 2014 by Sofaking