So is this game actually good?

[Yellow Rabbit]

They made a kickstarter campaign. They promised things in that campaign. That is what I am referring to. Those things didn't get delivered upon. I'm not making up some entirely personal definition of what makes an IE like game. Its more to do with what all the old diehard IE fans think defines the IE games and seperates them from other games and what the developers themselves promised and spoke about. Just go read the original kickstarter pledge and see for yourself that they didn't deliver. Or by all means feel free to come back here and point by point explain to me how they did deliver.

You know, I went to re-read their kickstarter pitch just to get what the heck you're talking about. Still didn't. Here's what I gathered:

• Central hero (delivered)
• Memorable companions (by general consensus in neighboring story forum proclaimed delivered, which I agree with. Twice. Because Durance and Eder. Though it's actually matter of taste.)
• Fun, intense combat and dungeon diving of Icewind Dale (generally failed with some hope to get it right in expansion/sequel, although there are some high moments as it is.)
• Emotional writing and mature thematic exploration of Planescape: Torment (thematic exploration - check, maturity - check, emotional writing - miss, PS:T level - miss. Not surprising, frankly, plank was too high, but it's quite visible that they did their best with resources they had. Also, subjective.)
• ...Dialogues that are deep, and offer many choices to determine the fate of you and your party. (delivered, subjective)
• ...Story that explores mature themes and presents you with complex, difficult choices to shape how your story plays out. (mostly delivered, going down towards the ending, subjective)

That's what I gathered from the pitch without touching stretch goals, presence of which is pretty damn hard to deny since they're rather specific in description.

 

All in all, devs did quite good work in deliverence department compared to some other kickstarted projects.

 

So. What the heck are you talking about?

Edited April 20, 2015 by Yellow Rabbit

[eimatshya]

I think a lot of the negativity comes from the comparisons to the IE games--which is not unreasonable as that was the selling point of the game--but unfortunately (or maybe fortunately?), there's a wide range of opinions on what made the IE games great. For some people it was the combat and magic system. For such people, Pillars of Eternity is likely to disappoint.

 

I'm not one of these people, however. I thought the combat in the IE games was terrible and do not miss it in the least (not that I'm too into PoE's combat either; but it is less bad). Given my disinterest in RTwP combat (or Pause-n-play as it was called back in the day), my appreciation for the Infinity Engine games was based on the sense of adventure and immersion I had while playing through them (and I spent a lot of the late 90s-early 2000s engrossed in them). In this respect I think PoE is a true successor to its IE predecessors. As usual, Obsidian has done a great job of creating an engaging world to adventure through, and I do not regret my $148 pledge in the slightest.

[Hatred]

@yellow rabbit. 

1. Main character - are you really checking off having a playable character as some kind of achievement ?

2. Memorable companions - its subjective and I have read a lot of peoples opinions. Have heard few people claim the companions are better and many claim they are worse. Personally I am fine with the companions. They arent what make a game though.

3. Combat being fail deserves more than one bullet point since there is more than one aspect of it which is broken.

4. I didn't set the plank at PS:T they did. You agree they didn't really nail it. Personally I think the writing is average. Some of the side stuff is good but the main storyline is not. Average overall writing with a bad main story is a fail.

5. You are talking about writing again. As stated above I feel that they promised the moon and didn't really deliver.

6. Uh hell no. You cannot shape how your story plays out that much. The main story in this game reminds me a lot more of dragon age than it does any IE title. Also this comes back to writing.

 

So you only care about writing and are easily amused. Well I care more about combat and it is pretty bad on several levels.

None of this changes the fact that even using your very weighted towards story (and all those diehard IE grognards are all about the story LOL ) checklist the game still comes up short on doing what it promised.  If you cant live up to the combat of BG2 or the writing in PST then you aint a successor to the IE games. Hope this makes things a bit clearer for you.

 

 Anyhows glad you all had fun with the game. Can't say as I will ever be able to understand any of y'alls thought process though. Also just like to point out to people that there are others out there who arent super impressed. Like me they spend little to no time in the OE forums now. 

[Excalibur_2102]

Writing and plot are two different things... yes the plot is told through writing obviously, but a game can still have a rather un-engaging story while still being well written 

[Yellow Rabbit]

@yellow rabbit. 

1. Main character - are you really checking off having a playable character as some kind of achievement ?

Nope. I was just going by the first sentence of the pitch picking every word that can be interpreted as promise.

 

So you only care about writing and are easily amused. Well I care more about combat and it is pretty bad on several levels.

None of this changes the fact that even using your very weighted towards story (and all those diehard IE grognards are all about the story LOL ) checklist the game still comes up short on doing what it promised.  If you cant live up to the combat of BG2 or the writing in PST then you aint a successor to the IE games. Hope this makes things a bit clearer for you.

 

Anyhows glad you all had fun with the game. Can't say as I will ever be able to understand any of y'alls thought process though. Also just like to point out to people that there are others out there who arent super impressed. Like me they spend little to no time in the OE forums now.

Well... I won't argue about the quality of plot/writing since it's pretty uselsess (arguing, I mean), but overall, what can I say? My sincere condolences to you. Whole "You aren't a successor to IE games if you don't beat every last one of them in the aspects that made them classic" kinda shouts of unreasonobly high expectations, thanks to which you now stuck with impression that game sucks without any hope on improvement. This is really, really sad.

[Hatred]

 @ yellow rabbit tbh I never expected it to surpass. With better encounters and a better difficulty curve from start to finish I would have given it a pass for everything else even though I would have still had some pretty major reservations. I don't think I am asking for too much when I ask for a game with semi interesting combat. Even the people here defending PoE tend to scew towards saying that aspect of the game is a bit off. Surely asking for combat which requires me to be at the keyboard isn't an overly high expectation.When they cannot deliver that then I do get pretty sour towards the rest of it.

 I might have some hope for the game if they made a single peep about the issues with it. I might have some hope if the forums had more threads like 'Game is too easy on Hard mode' and even a single well attended thread about encounter design. More discussion about the camera angle isse and the overblown FX and the lack of vision you get whenever you fight behind a wall or a tree. More feedback about how engagement is actually still not really working that well. The AI too, what the hell is going on with the AI. There is precious little critical posting going on though. Even less feedback from OE about what could be improved upon. People been barking at them since the beta started about some of these issues and nothing came of it.

 

@excalibur : The things you state the game is supopsed to be doing are a little on the abstract side. In a very concrete sense I would say that the combat (and there are a lot of aspects to that) was broken. The writing was ok. I doubt they would have made 4 million KS if they had of promised : Decent writing and sub par combat which will superficially remind you of IE games. It isn't what was promised. It doesn't pay homage to BG and IWD. 

Edited April 20, 2015 by Hatred

[wickermoon]

@yellow rabbit. 

1. Main character - are you really checking off having a playable character as some kind of achievement ?

2. Memorable companions - its subjective and I have read a lot of peoples opinions. Have heard few people claim the companions are better and many claim they are worse. Personally I am fine with the companions. They arent what make a game though.

3. Combat being fail deserves more than one bullet point since there is more than one aspect of it which is broken.

4. I didn't set the plank at PS:T they did. You agree they didn't really nail it. Personally I think the writing is average. Some of the side stuff is good but the main storyline is not. Average overall writing with a bad main story is a fail.

5. You are talking about writing again. As stated above I feel that they promised the moon and didn't really deliver.

6. Uh hell no. You cannot shape how your story plays out that much. The main story in this game reminds me a lot more of dragon age than it does any IE title. Also this comes back to writing.

 

So you only care about writing and are easily amused. Well I care more about combat and it is pretty bad on several levels.

None of this changes the fact that even using your very weighted towards story (and all those diehard IE grognards are all about the story LOL ) checklist the game still comes up short on doing what it promised.  If you cant live up to the combat of BG2 or the writing in PST then you aint a successor to the IE games. Hope this makes things a bit clearer for you.

 

 Anyhows glad you all had fun with the game. Can't say as I will ever be able to understand any of y'alls thought process though. Also just like to point out to people that there are others out there who arent super impressed. Like me they spend little to no time in the OE forums now. 

 

1. He stated that they integrated a central hero, which they promised, and they delivered. Not a feat, I agree, but it's a promise they held.

2. It's not about whether the characters are better or worse than BG2 or PS:T (a comparison I will speak about later on). In my personal opinion, some characters are better, some are worse, but most of them are memorable, there's no denying it.

3. The combat system is not a fail. It might not be as good as BG2, I agree, but it's not utter ****, as much as Sensuki might wish it so. It's a new combat system so of course there are going to be flaws. Am I fine with the combat system? No, I have my gripes with it, but it's not a fail. It's a slight miss, but they never promised the exact same combat system as BG. It is similar enough to be successor and different enough to be an evolution of it.

4. Comparing almost any game'a story and writing with PS:T is ridiculous. PS:T was a once-in-a-lifetime-achievement in storytelling. Apart from that, the whole PS:T setting had already been worked out. You just had to fill in the gaps and most of the story and writing was made possible due to the setting. They could draw inspiration from it and Avellone can thank whoever he wishes for having the luck to create such a rich story and immersive writing. A game such as PS:T will probably never exist again, due to circum- and happenstance. Everyone who thinks that there'll easily ever be a game with a storyline and writing as good as PS:T is - simply put - delusional. And what if they didn't achieve it? You don't care as much for storywriting anyway. For you PS:T must've sucked, because the combat system was never on par with the BG series and still miles away from PoE. The whole focus of the game was storytelling. PS:T comparisons are just ridiculous, anyway. And if you think the writing was average then tell me of all the games that are better written than PoE, except for PS-****in'-T. BG2's storyline was underwhelming when compared to PoE. The plot was forseeable, there were no surprising moments and it was so full of fantasy-tropes that it seemed like a trope-fest come true. PoE has its tropes, yes, but by far not as much as BG2. BG2 might be considered a stellar moment for D&D storytelling and writing, but let's be honest the overwhelming majority of D&D stories are utter crap. If it wasn't for the war of the spider queen series, I would even say all of them were just plain bad. It's no achievement to shine in a sea of dung.

5. Just see above.

6. What? So you say no and that's it? Nah, I'm not going to take that as an argument. I'll just say hell yeah it does.

 

So in my opinion, even with the weighted checklist, the game does not come up short. It delivered. If you thought that this would be a second PS:T cross BG2 then I have no idea what you were thinking. And if you really think that you have to live up to PS:T - to PS:T! - to be a worthy successor then even BG2 isn't a worthy successor - which was released almost a year later btw - and no other game after these two, including IWD 1 and 2.

 

You're bashing on the game because you have rose-tinted BG-glasses equipped, that's all.

Edited April 20, 2015 by wickermoon

[Valmy]

What was so great about the writing in the BG series? It was FR fluff with big bads to kill. How did we 'shape how the story plays out'? I mean I loved the BG series but the amazing writing and plots were not why.

[Namutree]

What was so great about the writing in the BG series? It was FR fluff with big bads to kill. How did we 'shape how the story plays out'? I mean I loved the BG series but the amazing writing and plots were not why.

Baldurs Gate didn't have a good story, but it was well executed. I've covered this before actually if you can find my rantings about it. To keep it brief; Bioware did a good job of making the player want to resolve the story by making the villains mess with you personally. PoE has a little bit of that, but not enough.

[Hatred]

What was so great about the writing in the BG series? It was FR fluff with big bads to kill. How did we 'shape how the story plays out'? I mean I loved the BG series but the amazing writing and plots were not why.

 I don't see that many people claiming the BG games had such awesome writing. I think the OE drone squad just likes to bring it up a lot because it helps to distract from everything else BG2 clearly beats PoE at.

[Namutree]

 

What was so great about the writing in the BG series? It was FR fluff with big bads to kill. How did we 'shape how the story plays out'? I mean I loved the BG series but the amazing writing and plots were not why.

 I don't see that many people claiming the BG games had such awesome writing. I think the OE drone squad just likes to bring it up a lot because it helps to distract from everything else BG2 clearly beats PoE at.

 

I'm sure you've heard this before, but it's unfair to compare PoE to BG2. Better to compare it to BG1.

[Yellow Rabbit]

What was so great about the writing in the BG series?

Uhm... nothing? I'm confused about it too. I guess it's all kinda backtracked praise to awesomeness of Baldur's Gate in general mixed with opinions from people sincerely considering FR novels a pinnacle of fantasy fiction.

[Hatred]

 

 

What was so great about the writing in the BG series? It was FR fluff with big bads to kill. How did we 'shape how the story plays out'? I mean I loved the BG series but the amazing writing and plots were not why.

 I don't see that many people claiming the BG games had such awesome writing. I think the OE drone squad just likes to bring it up a lot because it helps to distract from everything else BG2 clearly beats PoE at.

 

I'm sure you've heard this before, but it's unfair to compare PoE to BG2. Better to compare it to BG1.

 

 Why is it unfair ? BG1 was made by a heap of noobs who had never before made a game. Why should that be the comparison point ? Even compared to BG1 it falls down anyway.

[Namutree]

 

 

 

What was so great about the writing in the BG series? It was FR fluff with big bads to kill. How did we 'shape how the story plays out'? I mean I loved the BG series but the amazing writing and plots were not why.

 I don't see that many people claiming the BG games had such awesome writing. I think the OE drone squad just likes to bring it up a lot because it helps to distract from everything else BG2 clearly beats PoE at.

 

I'm sure you've heard this before, but it's unfair to compare PoE to BG2. Better to compare it to BG1.

 

 Why is it unfair ? BG1 was made by a heap of noobs who had never before made a game. Why should that be the comparison point ? 

The reasoning is that BG2 already had an established engine to work with and improve on. BG1 however, was made from scratch like PoE. 

[wickermoon]

Apart from that, BioWare had extensive collaboration with Interplay and an already existing (and in my opinion well-rounded, although highly exploitative) combat, roleplaying and world system (AD&D) for BG1. They had to create the engine, I'll give them that, but engine development doesn't outweigh combat and world system development.

 

So no, BG1 wasn't actually built from scratch. The engine, the assets and maybe the story was.

 

But people seem to forget that...

Edited April 20, 2015 by wickermoon

[b0rsuk]

 Why is it unfair ? BG1 was made by a heap of noobs who had never before made a game. Why should that be the comparison point ?

Because it's a new world, new serries, new engine. No Forgotten Realms, no D&D to draw upon. Baldur's Gate 2 didn't just magically spawn out of thin air. It was based on the foundation that was BG1. It even contained some of the characters. And the budget is closer to BG1 than BG2. Also, Pillars of Eternity contains much wilderness travel, which is common in BG1 but not BG2.

 

----------------

 

I like Pillars of Eternity very much. It has some downsides, like story being told in a somewhat confusing way, but there is much to love. Combat is actually fun compared to BG1. Priest is not required to make a party work. Non-spellcaster party members have various abilities. Classes really feel unique, say what you want. It looks better than I hoped - it does a great job combining 2D backgrounds with 3D characters and light. Writing is miles ahead of Baldur's Gate 1 and 2, pacing is better than BG2. For me BG2 felt overloaded in urban areas, in some places you spent like 30 minutes reading conversations and getting quests. Then you go to an adjacent location, and it repeats. There is no pre-buffing, no annoying rituals I have to go through. There are very few exploits. A super-powerful demilich in BG2 ! Let's leave the room and come back when his enchantments have worn off ! Place 40 traps where the boss will spawn for an instakill ! The system is much better suited for a realtime game this time around. Durations are measured in seconds, and more easily modified by stats. In D&D, odd stat numbers DO NOTHING. You get a bonus every even point. In PoE, you may only get +3% damage per point of Might, but you're getting it right away. The setting is interesting and not cliche like BG1, BG2. Reputation system allows a wider variety of characters to be represented, it was originally meant to be in Baldur's Gate 3: The Black Hound. You can use a variety of weapons, you can't put 6 skill points into a single weapon type and be stuck with it forever. Some characters are better with weapons, but anyone can wear any armor and wield any weapon. It just isn't always in your best interest. Also, the combat system is much more transparent this time around and easier to know what you're doing or why it isn't working. There is engagement (zones of control), enemies can't just walk around as they please, rendering formations useless. Wizards aren't GROSSLY IMBA. There is more than one way to finish many quests. You can scout ahead and see what the next encounter will be, very rarely enemies jump on you with no chance to prepare. Combat is largely optional, you don't have to kill if you don't enjoy it (or loot). But in many cases it's quite obvious if there can be loot, for example a pack of ghosts or animals is probably not going to drop anything interesting. All the ANNOYING parts of BG, like random encounters, are gone. Player is prevented from resting after every single encounter. There is a reason to pay for inns. Encounters are better designed, there is less trash than in BG2. No companion is forced upon you (Imoen was annoying and overbearing in BG2, so was Yoshimo). If you don't like companions you encounter, you can hire your own creations.

Edited April 20, 2015 by b0rsuk

[MReed]

My two cents:

 

This game is on-par with DA:O, which in turn is on-par with BG1.

 

PoE is superior to BG1 in the area of side quests (especially quest diversity) companions, and reactivity (choice & consequences), but inferior in terms of combat mechanics, build diversity / complexity, and the main quest.

PoE is superior to DAO in the areas of area design / diversity, and build diversity / complexity, but inferior in terms of companions (by lots), choice and consequences, and the main quest (but not by much).

 

It is inferior to IWD1/2 and BG2, although for very different reasons (IWD1/2 was nothing more than hack & slash -- but it was good hack and slash).  I don't consider PST to be in the same category as any of these games (it is closer to a visual novel than anything else).

 

If I had spent $40 for it, I'd probably feel that I got my money's worth, but...  That's not what I paid for it, and the extras that I got don't even come close to making up the extra value.

 

All of the above is my opinion, obviously, but that's what the OP asked for...

[Blovski]

My two cents:

 

This game is on-par with DA:O, which in turn is on-par with BG1.

 

PoE is superior to BG1 in the area of side quests (especially quest diversity) companions, and reactivity (choice & consequences), but inferior in terms of combat mechanics, build diversity / complexity, and the main quest.

PoE is superior to DAO in the areas of area design / diversity, and build diversity / complexity, but inferior in terms of companions (by lots), choice and consequences, and the main quest (but not by much).

 

It is inferior to IWD1/2 and BG2, although for very different reasons (IWD1/2 was nothing more than hack & slash -- but it was good hack and slash).  I don't consider PST to be in the same category as any of these games (it is closer to a visual novel than anything else).

 

If I had spent $40 for it, I'd probably feel that I got my money's worth, but...  That's not what I paid for it, and the extras that I got don't even come close to making up the extra value.

 

All of the above is my opinion, obviously, but that's what the OP asked for...

I kind of think PoE's main quest's issues are that it takes a while to get rolling and isn't great at motivating you in the way BG 1 was. It's probably meatier than either of those games thematically and in terms of content, in my view. Combat in BG 1 is probably a little more varied overall and the AI of the BG games is slightly better at providing meaningful challenges though still cheeseable to hell.

 

I really don't get people holding up BG 1 as an example of build diversity - building a fighter that doesn't have 18/18/18 STR/DEX/CON is always suboptimal, and the curve for stats in AD&D meant that the more you diverged from that the more suboptimal you were. 2 had some but that was from the range of kits and really wide variety of items rather than actually in the character building stage. Dual and multi classes are really important for the replayability precisely because the single classes of AD&D games are really monotonous in their design.

 

DAO - I really liked DAO's choice and consequence. I think the companions for it are probably the weakest of any of Bioware's modern games, though, and linked to that dreadful gifting system. Oghren is the only one I really liked. And the Dog.

[Sable Phoenix]

I bought the tippy-top edition (Royal or whatever it's called?).  I've played about 45 hours now and still am only in Act 2.  I don't regret a single one of those 90 dollars.

[wickermoon]

DAO - I really liked DAO's choice and consequence. I think the companions for it are probably the weakest of any of Bioware's modern games, though, and linked to that dreadful gifting system. Oghren is the only one I really liked. And the Dog.

But...but...Alistair...and Morrigan...T_T they're like the two best characters in BioWare's arsenal.

[Psychevore]

I'm going to give the game a 7/10.

 

I'd have given it 9/10 if there weren't some, in my opinion, unforgivable mistakes. Like the pathfinding that comes straight from the 90s.

 

But, to put things in perspective, and quite possibly rile some of you, ME3 is a solid 9/10 in my book.

[MReed]

I kind of think PoE's main quest's issues are that it takes a while to get rolling and isn't great at motivating you in the way BG 1 was. It's probably meatier than either of those games thematically and in terms of content, in my view. Combat in BG 1 is probably a little more varied overall and the AI of the BG games is slightly better at providing meaningful challenges though still cheeseable to hell.

 

I really don't get people holding up BG 1 as an example of build diversity - building a fighter that doesn't have 18/18/18 STR/DEX/CON is always suboptimal, and the curve for stats in AD&D meant that the more you diverged from that the more suboptimal you were. 2 had some but that was from the range of kits and really wide variety of items rather than actually in the character building stage. Dual and multi classes are really important for the replayability precisely because the single classes of AD&D games are really monotonous in their design.

 

DAO - I really liked DAO's choice and consequence. I think the companions for it are probably the weakest of any of Bioware's modern games, though, and linked to that dreadful gifting system. Oghren is the only one I really liked. And the Dog.

 

 

The main problem with the main quest in PoE is that there is a horrible disconnect (I didn't realize this until it was pointed out to me) -- there is no logical connection between "I've gained my stronghold" and "Now I'm in Defiance Bay and investigating the activities of a mysterious organization" (spoilers omitted).  I overlooked this lack of connection because I considered "investigating the mysterious organization" as "just another side quest in the dozens that I had within minutes of arriving in Defiance Bay", but...  Honestly, it really doesn't make any sense that you even be in Defiance Bay other than "Well, you don't have anywhere else to go".  The main story line quests in BG1 and DAO might be simple or cliched, but at least they didn't have any gaps like this.

 

On build diversity -- I consider the presence of multi/dual class options to be /part of/ build diversity, not an "extra".   If you limit the discussion in BG1 to only the basic classes, then yeah, PoE has better build diversity, but that's unfairly penalizing BG1 -- where else are you going to give BG1 credit for including mult/dual classes?

 

On the companions in DAO -- I tend to agree that they were weak in comparison to some other Bioware games, but I'm not trying to evaluate them on some absolute scale or anything -- just against the PoE companions.  And by that standard, the PoE companions are very inferior.

[AncientToaster]

 

 Why is it unfair ? BG1 was made by a heap of noobs who had never before made a game. Why should that be the comparison point ?

Because it's a new world, new serries, new engine. No Forgotten Realms, no D&D to draw upon. Baldur's Gate 2 didn't just magically spawn out of thin air. It was based on the foundation that was BG1. It even contained some of the characters. And the budget is closer to BG1 than BG2. Also, Pillars of Eternity contains much wilderness travel, which is common in BG1 but not BG2.

 

----------------

 

I like Pillars of Eternity very much. It has some downsides, like story being told in a somewhat confusing way, but there is much to love. Combat is actually fun compared to BG1. Priest is not required to make a party work. Non-spellcaster party members have various abilities. Classes really feel unique, say what you want. It looks better than I hoped - it does a great job combining 2D backgrounds with 3D characters and light. Writing is miles ahead of Baldur's Gate 1 and 2, pacing is better than BG2. For me BG2 felt overloaded in urban areas, in some places you spent like 30 minutes reading conversations and getting quests. Then you go to an adjacent location, and it repeats. There is no pre-buffing, no annoying rituals I have to go through. There are very few exploits. A super-powerful demilich in BG2 ! Let's leave the room and come back when his enchantments have worn off ! Place 40 traps where the boss will spawn for an instakill ! The system is much better suited for a realtime game this time around. Durations are measured in seconds, and more easily modified by stats. In D&D, odd stat numbers DO NOTHING. You get a bonus every even point. In PoE, you may only get +3% damage per point of Might, but you're getting it right away. The setting is interesting and not cliche like BG1, BG2. Reputation system allows a wider variety of characters to be represented, it was originally meant to be in Baldur's Gate 3: The Black Hound. You can use a variety of weapons, you can't put 6 skill points into a single weapon type and be stuck with it forever. Some characters are better with weapons, but anyone can wear any armor and wield any weapon. It just isn't always in your best interest. Also, the combat system is much more transparent this time around and easier to know what you're doing or why it isn't working. There is engagement (zones of control), enemies can't just walk around as they please, rendering formations useless. Wizards aren't GROSSLY IMBA. There is more than one way to finish many quests. You can scout ahead and see what the next encounter will be, very rarely enemies jump on you with no chance to prepare. Combat is largely optional, you don't have to kill if you don't enjoy it (or loot). But in many cases it's quite obvious if there can be loot, for example a pack of ghosts or animals is probably not going to drop anything interesting. All the ANNOYING parts of BG, like random encounters, are gone. Player is prevented from resting after every single encounter. There is a reason to pay for inns. Encounters are better designed, there is less trash than in BG2. No companion is forced upon you (Imoen was annoying and overbearing in BG2, so was Yoshimo). If you don't like companions you encounter, you can hire your own creations.

 

 

I can't fault you for your opinion, but there is just so much I disagree with in this post, that it's astounding.

 

- Better encounters in PoE? When is the last time you played BG2? In BG2 the game routinely presented you with interesting encounters that were more than just a blob of enemies standing in the middle of a room that rush your group. 

 

- There were definitely multiple solutions to many quests in BG2

 

- You can scout ahead in the IE games. Hide in Shadows. This also presented many better combat options such as backstabs and trap laying without having your entire party be involved in a sneak situation. 

 

- How is Eora not cliche? It literally has every fantasy cliche ever used. Elves, Dwarves, Dragons, Wizards. It's essentially Faerun.

 

- How are Wizards in PoE not currently "IMBA" with Gaze of the Adragon and the ability to cast Level 1 and 2 Spells per encounter? Also the fact that they can also shoot a gun as good as anyone, or even throw on some plate mail and tank some hits if need be, and still be able to cast their spells. 

 

- The combat system is not intuitive and does not even show you at a glance if enemies are under any kind of effect unless you pause and mouse over them. Just cast a blind spell? Well if you don't pay attention to the combat log or pause and mouse over them, you'd never know if you even landed that spell, because combat is a mess. 

 

- Writing miles ahead of BG2? Come on bro...

Edited April 20, 2015 by AncientToaster

[Skolinkinlot]

 

My two cents:

 

This game is on-par with DA:O, which in turn is on-par with BG1.

 

PoE is superior to BG1 in the area of side quests (especially quest diversity) companions, and reactivity (choice & consequences), but inferior in terms of combat mechanics, build diversity / complexity, and the main quest.

PoE is superior to DAO in the areas of area design / diversity, and build diversity / complexity, but inferior in terms of companions (by lots), choice and consequences, and the main quest (but not by much).

 

It is inferior to IWD1/2 and BG2, although for very different reasons (IWD1/2 was nothing more than hack & slash -- but it was good hack and slash).  I don't consider PST to be in the same category as any of these games (it is closer to a visual novel than anything else).

 

If I had spent $40 for it, I'd probably feel that I got my money's worth, but...  That's not what I paid for it, and the extras that I got don't even come close to making up the extra value.

 

All of the above is my opinion, obviously, but that's what the OP asked for...

I kind of think PoE's main quest's issues are that it takes a while to get rolling and isn't great at motivating you in the way BG 1 was. It's probably meatier than either of those games thematically and in terms of content, in my view. Combat in BG 1 is probably a little more varied overall and the AI of the BG games is slightly better at providing meaningful challenges though still cheeseable to hell.

 

I really don't get people holding up BG 1 as an example of build diversity - building a fighter that doesn't have 18/18/18 STR/DEX/CON is always suboptimal, and the curve for stats in AD&D meant that the more you diverged from that the more suboptimal you were. 2 had some but that was from the range of kits and really wide variety of items rather than actually in the character building stage. Dual and multi classes are really important for the replayability precisely because the single classes of AD&D games are really monotonous in their design.

 

DAO - I really liked DAO's choice and consequence. I think the companions for it are probably the weakest of any of Bioware's modern games, though, and linked to that dreadful gifting system. Oghren is the only one I really liked. And the Dog.

 

The guy in your stronghold.. forgot his name but the big baddy at the end. He tells you to go to Defiance Bay to the Temple of Woedica to learn more of your awakening.

[Blovski]

 

I kind of think PoE's main quest's issues are that it takes a while to get rolling and isn't great at motivating you in the way BG 1 was. It's probably meatier than either of those games thematically and in terms of content, in my view. Combat in BG 1 is probably a little more varied overall and the AI of the BG games is slightly better at providing meaningful challenges though still cheeseable to hell.

 

I really don't get people holding up BG 1 as an example of build diversity - building a fighter that doesn't have 18/18/18 STR/DEX/CON is always suboptimal, and the curve for stats in AD&D meant that the more you diverged from that the more suboptimal you were. 2 had some but that was from the range of kits and really wide variety of items rather than actually in the character building stage. Dual and multi classes are really important for the replayability precisely because the single classes of AD&D games are really monotonous in their design.

 

DAO - I really liked DAO's choice and consequence. I think the companions for it are probably the weakest of any of Bioware's modern games, though, and linked to that dreadful gifting system. Oghren is the only one I really liked. And the Dog.

 

 

The main problem with the main quest in PoE is that there is a horrible disconnect (I didn't realize this until it was pointed out to me) -- there is no logical connection between "I've gained my stronghold" and "Now I'm in Defiance Bay and investigating the activities of a mysterious organization" (spoilers omitted).  I overlooked this lack of connection because I considered "investigating the mysterious organization" as "just another side quest in the dozens that I had within minutes of arriving in Defiance Bay", but...  Honestly, it really doesn't make any sense that you even be in Defiance Bay other than "Well, you don't have anywhere else to go".  The main story line quests in BG1 and DAO might be simple or cliched, but at least they didn't have any gaps like this.

 

On build diversity -- I consider the presence of multi/dual class options to be /part of/ build diversity, not an "extra".   If you limit the discussion in BG1 to only the basic classes, then yeah, PoE has better build diversity, but that's unfairly penalizing BG1 -- where else are you going to give BG1 credit for including mult/dual classes?

 

On the companions in DAO -- I tend to agree that they were weak in comparison to some other Bioware games, but I'm not trying to evaluate them on some absolute scale or anything -- just against the PoE companions.  And by that standard, the PoE companions are very inferior.

 

The basic flow of it all made sense but the game is terrible at making you understand that the Maerwald thing is something that *will* happen to you so you need to sort it out. Also the Stronghold as whole just makes zero sense. Think it's a taste thing, I'd rather have something ambitious with gaps than something lacklustre with consistency.

 

I dunno, even with BG's dual classes (and with 1 duals were a lot more limited because of the level cap) stat distribution in those games is really always either great or terrible, and rerolling until you get enough for whatever trickshot you're going for. Avenger/Fighter Duals were a lot of fun, though. I suppose what I like about PoE is that you can build things differently without them being plainly worse. The most fun I ever had in Icewindale playthroughs was with a quasi pen and paper random stats party because it generated unique characters and made me adapt my playstyle in a way that using the IE engine never otherwise did.

 

@Toaster, BG 2 did have way better encounters. I can't really think of many quests with real multiple solutions off the top of my head, excepting the occsaional one where you can do an extra job for someone to avoid a fight or the occasional one you can bypass with pickpocketing? Yeah, scouting in BG 2 is glorious. Eora is a deliberately subverted cliché world, which works for me. It's the Frozen RPG. Wizards are far less out of line than in BG 2 where a battle would invariably devolve into countering a wizard's enormously specific defences and hoping that if they froze time they would use symbol fear instead of Horrid Wilting.

 

@Psychevore... really... with Kai Leng? and the Rachni decision from the first game not mattering because Bioware were too cheap/too busy making The Old Republic to copy paste another bunch of their generic enemies onto it? And the blatant meaningless emotional manipulation kid?

 

 

 

But...but...Alistair...and Morrigan...T_T they're like the two best characters in BioWare's arsenal.

 

A flat Carth Onasi and a dull, rude, smug, compulsory, wildly inconsistent, very self-consciously liberated prat. Both of whom you can make fall in love with you by dragdropping random bits of jewellery onto their portraits. Ick.