RPGCodex Review #1 - Hŵrpa Dwrp

[Zack Fair]

 

Vault Dweller and Grunker's review will be more positive. Vault Dweller hates Baldur's Gate and his main priorities are C&C and reactivity, so as far as he's concerned pretty much anything is better than the BG games. He's also a developer so he's kinda bound by 'professional courtesy' as well. Grunker is a BG2 guy and I think he enjoyed the game but he thought that encounter design and itemization were absolutely terrible among other things. 

 

VD has shredded games in the past, both before starting AOD and during. I don't really see how you can be 'predicting' how other people are going to review the games - but I guess it's a very thinly disguised way of saying "hey if you read those positive reviews keep in mind one guy's a shill and another guy well at least he realises how some of the game sucks." 

 

Maybe he (us) knows how VD will review the game because we were speaking with thim and asked his opinion about PoE.

 

And just for the record, half of the Codex hates Darth Roxor's review, so don't hate all of us. Everybody has his own opinion.

Edited April 22, 2015 by Zack Fair

[Luhaja]

That's all there is to see here.

 

Haha, you wish, there's sooo much more going on there, you have no idea! 

 

The whole codex is very split between two opposing viewpoints, namely PoE is ****, and PoE is amazing. Its almost a warzone! This review shows one side of the coin, but there's another side which will come with the vault dweller and grunker review. 

 

Hype hype hype.

[Ink Blot]

This is absurd as it implies isometric gameplay is somehow objectively superior to other styles of gameplay. It's not. There are different genres with different pros and cons and people have different preferences. To say Fallout New Vegas is less of a game because it's not isometric is no different from me claiming Pillars of Eternity is less of a game because it's not a first-person game.

 

I think you misunderstand luckmann on this. I don't believe he's trying to imply that isometric is objectively superior to other types of gameplay. What he's saying is any Fallout game that isn't isometric is inferior.

 

Imagine if PoE were to be a game that pays homage to BG, IWD, and PS:T and they went with a FPP instead of isometric. It would be a travesty. Not because FPP is inherently inferior (but gods know I hate it myself) but because the original games were isometric.

 

Same with the Fallout games. I believe that's where luckmann is coming from, anyway.

[Dongom]

I question if this person was trolling because of the "obsidian's worst game comment"

 

He should have really left that out, because I'm not sure if it was a real review or just a fake article.  Obsidian have some really really ****ty games, there is no way PoE is even half as bad as those.

[Dadalama]

Or luckmann could just be saying that the two that weren't Isometric sucked. Just because the non isometric one's sucked does not necessarily mean the perspective is why.

 

I, personally, think it has more to do with Bethesda then anything else. While I enjoyed Oblivion and Skyrim, they were pretty bad compared to Daggerfall. Especially skyrim, where it has 3 stats and very few skills that are more vehicles for "Feats" then anything in and of themselves.

Edited April 22, 2015 by Dadalama

[Eisenheinrich]

 

Still nobody who explained, what's so important about that ugly ass message board? Is RPGcodex somewhat like the holy grail of CRPGs in the US?

It's just the board for RPGists that has a bad fame exactly for things like this review and overall tending to elitism/loudmouthness/hate (choose what you like) of its inhabitants. It does have its atmposphere, though.

 

Well, I guess there's a corner for everyone in the internet.

[Longknife]

 

This is absurd as it implies isometric gameplay is somehow objectively superior to other styles of gameplay. It's not. There are different genres with different pros and cons and people have different preferences. To say Fallout New Vegas is less of a game because it's not isometric is no different from me claiming Pillars of Eternity is less of a game because it's not a first-person game.

 

I think you misunderstand luckmann on this. I don't believe he's trying to imply that isometric is objectively superior to other types of gameplay. What he's saying is any Fallout game that isn't isometric is inferior.

 

 

Please explain to me how this is any different from the proposition that a game can be inferior because it isn't isometric.

 

This is identical. You have every right to be disappointed your old franchise favorite isn't using the same style it once used, but that does not make the new title objectively inferior. As stated, I am fully 100% ready, willing, and totally capable of curbstomping anyone in a discussion about whether or not New Vegas exhibits superior RPG mechanics to Fallout 1 & 2. And lo and behold, it did that without isometric gameplay.

 

As I said, I had never really played isometric games before Pillars of Eternity (had played, but never finished). Did I sit here pissing and moaning that Pillars wasn't gonna be in a style I don't prefer or that I'm unfamiliar with? No, I gave it a shot and enjoyed it. Any comment I see where someone claims they couldn't bother trying New Vegas or playing it through cause it wasn't isometric, I find that nothing short of ridiculous, and I really have to insist that such people are not having their entertainment limited by the game, but rather their entertainment is limited by their own stubborness. If the comments read "I never could get into New Vegas cause of the FPS style, but I'm sure it's a great game all the same, just not for me," I would not be voicing concern. But no, we have comments claiming a game is objectively inferior because it is not their preferred style.

 

 

If you wanna know why some people find RPGCodex off-putting, I promise you that's the reason. Constructive criticism is awesome, a refusal to try anything new is not, and what's more, it makes it so that people are less likely to take your criticisms seriously when you do voice them, out of a belief that all your criticism will likely just relate to how stubborn you are.

 

As I said in past posts, I only bring this up because personally, I read this review and I see snippets of good, topical criticism that Obsidian should seriously consider (I have threads in the spoilers section myself relating to the limited scope to which you can customize characters and effect things like accuracy, the pseudo choice and consequence speech reputations provide and the lack of choices in many parts of the main quest), but then I also see parts that are so stupid and inane that it makes it hard to keep reading. (jabs at how unoriginal they consider the races, or comments about Priest buffs being worthless when that simply isn't so) And personally? I find it sad that some good critiques are gonna be lost in a sea of persistent cynicism and pessimism that seems to refuse to stop.

[eRe4s3r]

am sorry to say this, but you know what I did after finishing PoEt ? I started up IWD2 with G3 modpack and played it until I was through. I had more fun replaying IWD2 for the 5th time than playing Poet.. and that is not acceptable for a game I backed with the hope of it becoming better than (at the very least) BG1.

 

So is the review flamy? Sure.. but it is also not entirely wrong in most the things is brings up.

 

To me PoEt is neither the best nor the worst CRPG I ever played. And this simply won't do for a game I backed with the specific goal for it to become the BEST crpg...

[Failion]

That codex review is  very good and I agree with with almost everything. Besides buffs being useless and his class assessment.

[Noin]

Didnt read the full review but that I did read is totally blown out of proportion.

 

The worst Obsidian game ever? You gotta be kiddin me! Seriously.

 

I'll tell you that: I played BG2 ten times. I played BG2 on Insane difficulty with difficulty increasing mods. I played BG and BG2 combined in one Big Picture with several dozens of mods. I played with parties of gimped characters (Tiax!) to increase the difficulty past Insane because it was too easy.

And I also absolutely loved PS:T, one of my alltime favorites. IWD and IWD II I didn't like so much.

 

And now my opinion, having said that:

BG2 > PS:T > PoE > BG I > IWD I > IWD II

 

Yes, PoE did not manage to overcome BG II as a pinnacle of RPGs of all time. But yet it's ridiculous to call it "terrible". The environments are beautiful, the dialogues are colorful, amount of options is staggering. UI is really good as well. Mechanics are not perfect, but let's face it: Obsidian is not so experienced with creating their own worlds and gaming systems. Both MotB and F:NV were using the bases created by someone else. (Which is a lot easier as creating everything from scratch!)

They definitely beat all the other Kickstarter project to date. Yes, Original Sin has more fluent mechanics but the writing and the story are bad and childish. The battles become repetitive faster than in PoE (in PoE there are much more options about the character customization)  and there are only two types of character: male human and female human, that's it. 

All in all, PoE is a good base for more to come. 

[Noin]

am sorry to say this, but you know what I did after finishing PoEt ? I started up IWD2 with G3 modpack and played it until I was through. I had more fun replaying IWD2 for the 5th time than playing Poet.. and that is not acceptable for a game I backed with the hope of it becoming better than (at the very least) BG1.

 

Jedem das Seine - to each it's own. 

I couldn't force myself to complete IWD II even once. And that's even though I completed BG 2 uncountable amount of times.

 

Ah, and G3 modpack is something I would never play with.

Edited April 22, 2015 by Noin

[Luhaja]

am sorry to say this, but you know what I did after finishing PoEt ? I started up IWD2 with G3 modpack and played it until I was through. I had more fun replaying IWD2 for the 5th time than playing Poet.. and that is not acceptable for a game I backed with the hope of it becoming better than (at the very least) BG1.

 

So is the review flamy? Sure.. but it is also not entirely wrong in most the things is brings up.

 

To me PoEt is neither the best nor the worst CRPG I ever played. And this simply won't do for a game I backed with the specific goal for it to become the BEST crpg...

 

Completed icewind dale 2 for the first time half a year ago, that took me something like 80 hours to do, damn that was a long game, but quite fun!

[eggdogg]

I think we are getting a bit loose with the word "review" 

Edited April 22, 2015 by eggdogg

[Elerond]

The worst Obsidian game ever? You gotta be kiddin me! Seriously.

 

I'll tell you that: I played BG2 ten times. I played BG2 on Insane difficulty with difficulty increasing mods. I played BG and BG2 combined in one Big Picture with several dozens of mods. I played with parties of gimped characters (Tiax!) to increase the difficulty past Insane because it was too easy.

And I also absolutely loved PS:T, one of my alltime favorites. IWD and IWD II I didn't like so much.

 

And now my opinion, having said that:

BG2 > PS:T > PoE > BG I > IWD I > IWD II

 

Only game of those that is Obsidian's is PoE. BG I & II are Bioware's games and IWD I & II & PS:T are Black Isle's (which is company where some members of PoE's team worked before Obsidian) games

 

Kotor II, NWN II (+ its expansions MotB and SoZ), Alpha Protocol, Fallout: New Vegas, Dungeon Siege III, South Park Stick of Truth, Pillars of Eternity and Armored Warfare are Obsidian's games.

[Ink Blot]

 

Please explain to me how this is any different from the proposition that a game can be inferior because it isn't isometric.

 

I'm not going to 'explain' anything. I simply pointed out that I thought you misinterpreted luckmann's post. No need for the diatribe. Christ, this board's getting as bad as the much-reviled Codex boards.

[Rumpelstilskin]

The reviewer makes a lot of valid points (which everyone seems to agree about), but the review is clearly very biased. For instance, he says that except for the adra dragon fight he could tank-and-spank through everything without thinking. Ok, maybe so, but then he complains about his party targeting his charmed companions, which implies that it happened often enough to become a nuisance. Perhaps he should have re-thought his tactics in those fights? Same for engagement - does he complain that his tank can hold many enemies, or that the enemies can rape his back-line too easily once they get to it? In the latter case, doesn't it mean that naive tank-and-spank hasn't worked out so well?

Edited April 22, 2015 by Rumpelstilskin

[Shadow_Arms]

as i said, i'll never take anything from codex seriously

 

mainly because of their and NMA BDSM love for fallout 2, which had one of the most HORRENDOUS G.I.JOE plots ever made

 

and i played all Fallout games, even those who are HERETICAL

[Seari]

The butthurt in this thread is giving me a stiffy.

[Longknife]

 

 

Please explain to me how this is any different from the proposition that a game can be inferior because it isn't isometric.

 

I'm not going to 'explain' anything. I simply pointed out that I thought you misinterpreted luckmann's post. No need for the diatribe. Christ, this board's getting as bad as the much-reviled Codex boards.

 

 

 

....I'm doing something ridiculous here by highlighting how what you said is functionally identical to what I assumed he said?

[gunman78]

 

Please explain to me how this is any different from the proposition that a game can be inferior because it isn't isometric.

 

This is identical. You have every right to be disappointed your old franchise favorite isn't using the same style it once used, but that does not make the new title objectively inferior. As stated, I am fully 100% ready, willing, and totally capable of curbstomping anyone in a discussion about whether or not New Vegas exhibits superior RPG mechanics to Fallout 1 & 2. And lo and behold, it did that without isometric gameplay.

 

As I said, I had never really played isometric games before Pillars of Eternity (had played, but never finished). Did I sit here pissing and moaning that Pillars wasn't gonna be in a style I don't prefer or that I'm unfamiliar with? No, I gave it a shot and enjoyed it. Any comment I see where someone claims they couldn't bother trying New Vegas or playing it through cause it wasn't isometric, I find that nothing short of ridiculous, and I really have to insist that such people are not having their entertainment limited by the game, but rather their entertainment is limited by their own stubborness. If the comments read "I never could get into New Vegas cause of the FPS style, but I'm sure it's a great game all the same, just not for me," I would not be voicing concern. But no, we have comments claiming a game is objectively inferior because it is not their preferred style.

 

 

If you wanna know why some people find RPGCodex off-putting, I promise you that's the reason. Constructive criticism is awesome, a refusal to try anything new is not, and what's more, it makes it so that people are less likely to take your criticisms seriously when you do voice them, out of a belief that all your criticism will likely just relate to how stubborn you are.

 

As I said in past posts, I only bring this up because personally, I read this review and I see snippets of good, topical criticism that Obsidian should seriously consider (I have threads in the spoilers section myself relating to the limited scope to which you can customize characters and effect things like accuracy, the pseudo choice and consequence speech reputations provide and the lack of choices in many parts of the main quest), but then I also see parts that are so stupid and inane that it makes it hard to keep reading. (jabs at how unoriginal they consider the races, or comments about Priest buffs being worthless when that simply isn't so) And personally? I find it sad that some good critiques are gonna be lost in a sea of persistent cynicism and pessimism that seems to refuse to stop.

 

 

I think it has to do with the decline that started in 2000s when 3D graphics became the norm for most of the games, unfortunately for RPGs too. 3D graphics meant a lot of effort put into visual effects (and let's be honest, at the begining of 3D gfx cards the landscapes looked horrible compared to 2D pixel art) at the expense of game mechanics and complexity.

 

About the Fallouts, I'm not judging F:NV because I haven't played it, but FO it's a lot about atmosphere and tactical combat. With isometric map, you can plan an ambush at a door then count how many steps you need to take to cover around the corner of the house, before starting the fight. A FPS style engine is more superficial in terms of tactical combat since it's harder to predict in advance how long it would take to reach point X or if the enemies are going to come through point Y.

 

And let's not forget the style, since you mentioned it. To make a wild comparison, it's like a homage band to an old school heavy metal band, dressed in glam rock style.

 

From your mentioning that you weren't into isometric games until PoE I take it you are young, but the golden age of computer games was in the 90s, before today's AAA titles and big companies. Hell, by isometric I understand tile based maps, not hand drawn landscapes like in BG/PoE.

[Longknife]

 

 

Please explain to me how this is any different from the proposition that a game can be inferior because it isn't isometric.

 

This is identical. You have every right to be disappointed your old franchise favorite isn't using the same style it once used, but that does not make the new title objectively inferior. As stated, I am fully 100% ready, willing, and totally capable of curbstomping anyone in a discussion about whether or not New Vegas exhibits superior RPG mechanics to Fallout 1 & 2. And lo and behold, it did that without isometric gameplay.

 

As I said, I had never really played isometric games before Pillars of Eternity (had played, but never finished). Did I sit here pissing and moaning that Pillars wasn't gonna be in a style I don't prefer or that I'm unfamiliar with? No, I gave it a shot and enjoyed it. Any comment I see where someone claims they couldn't bother trying New Vegas or playing it through cause it wasn't isometric, I find that nothing short of ridiculous, and I really have to insist that such people are not having their entertainment limited by the game, but rather their entertainment is limited by their own stubborness. If the comments read "I never could get into New Vegas cause of the FPS style, but I'm sure it's a great game all the same, just not for me," I would not be voicing concern. But no, we have comments claiming a game is objectively inferior because it is not their preferred style.

 

 

If you wanna know why some people find RPGCodex off-putting, I promise you that's the reason. Constructive criticism is awesome, a refusal to try anything new is not, and what's more, it makes it so that people are less likely to take your criticisms seriously when you do voice them, out of a belief that all your criticism will likely just relate to how stubborn you are.

 

As I said in past posts, I only bring this up because personally, I read this review and I see snippets of good, topical criticism that Obsidian should seriously consider (I have threads in the spoilers section myself relating to the limited scope to which you can customize characters and effect things like accuracy, the pseudo choice and consequence speech reputations provide and the lack of choices in many parts of the main quest), but then I also see parts that are so stupid and inane that it makes it hard to keep reading. (jabs at how unoriginal they consider the races, or comments about Priest buffs being worthless when that simply isn't so) And personally? I find it sad that some good critiques are gonna be lost in a sea of persistent cynicism and pessimism that seems to refuse to stop.

 

 

I think it has to do with the decline that started in 2000s when 3D graphics became the norm for most of the games, unfortunately for RPGs too. 3D graphics meant a lot of effort put into visual effects (and let's be honest, at the begining of 3D gfx cards the landscapes looked horrible compared to 2D pixel art) at the expense of game mechanics and complexity.

 

About the Fallouts, I'm not judging F:NV because I haven't played it, but FO it's a lot about atmosphere and tactical combat. With isometric map, you can plan an ambush at a door then count how many steps you need to take to cover around the corner of the house, before starting the fight. A FPS style engine is more superficial in terms of tactical combat since it's harder to predict in advance how long it would take to reach point X or if the enemies are going to come through point Y.

 

And let's not forget the style, since you mentioned it. To make a wild comparison, it's like a homage band to an old school heavy metal band, dressed in glam rock style.

 

From your mentioning that you weren't into isometric games until PoE I take it you are young, but the golden age of computer games was in the 90s, before today's AAA titles and big companies. Hell, by isometric I understand tile based maps, not hand drawn landscapes like in BG/PoE.

 

 

Right, I'm not saying people don't have a right to express disappointment or disinterest in such a style of game given where it came from or just given basic personal preference. At the same time, to show a complete unwillingness to return to a franchise you loved that kept everything else in tact (the RPG mechanics, the story themes and motifs, the character customization) I find a little over the top, and I find a desire to name it "inferior" rather than to accept that as a preference and opinion to be nothing short of ridiculous. I played New Vegas and determined it the best game I'd ever played, then was interested enough to want to retroactively play the originals, so I have very limited sympathy for those that argue they cannot get into Vegas enough to finish it. Honestly, the only reason I've not finished FO 1 & 2 is because visually it strains my eyes. I don't mean that like "EW BAD GRAPHICS = BAD GAMES," but like it's dated enough that my eyes hurt from playing it, so I never seem to make it past the midway points. Tactics I could probably finish, it just crashes on me for some reason at certain points. :C

 

I also don't know that I'd be considered "young" at 26. I think I had opportunities to play these games, I just didn't.

Edited April 22, 2015 by Longknife

[Noin]

 

The worst Obsidian game ever? You gotta be kiddin me! Seriously.

 

I'll tell you that: I played BG2 ten times. I played BG2 on Insane difficulty with difficulty increasing mods. I played BG and BG2 combined in one Big Picture with several dozens of mods. I played with parties of gimped characters (Tiax!) to increase the difficulty past Insane because it was too easy.

And I also absolutely loved PS:T, one of my alltime favorites. IWD and IWD II I didn't like so much.

 

And now my opinion, having said that:

BG2 > PS:T > PoE > BG I > IWD I > IWD II

 

Only game of those that is Obsidian's is PoE. BG I & II are Bioware's games and IWD I & II & PS:T are Black Isle's (which is company where some members of PoE's team worked before Obsidian) games

 

Kotor II, NWN II (+ its expansions MotB and SoZ), Alpha Protocol, Fallout: New Vegas, Dungeon Siege III, South Park Stick of Truth, Pillars of Eternity and Armored Warfare are Obsidian's games.

 

I know It's a bit late and apparently I can't explain my thoughts in an understandable way anymore. 

The comparison made is with the IE games, not other Obsidian games (Because that's what the Codex guys and Sensuki compare PoE to all the time). NWN 2 is also pretty terrible in my opinion, I tried again to play it some time ago  and it's pretty much unplayable to me. PoE is better in every single aspect.

[Kimuji]

am sorry to say this, but you know what I did after finishing PoEt ? I started up IWD2 with G3 modpack and played it until I was through. I had more fun replaying IWD2 for the 5th time than playing Poet.. and that is not acceptable for a game I backed with the hope of it becoming better than (at the very least) BG1.

 

So is the review flamy? Sure.. but it is also not entirely wrong in most the things is brings up.

 

To me PoEt is neither the best nor the worst CRPG I ever played. And this simply won't do for a game I backed with the specific goal for it to become the BEST crpg...

"I backed so they owe me the best crpg ever"

[Varana]

I also don't know that I'd be considered "young" at 26. I think I had opportunities to play these games, I just didn't.

In a forum dedicated to an IE revival game, you probably are. Edited April 22, 2015 by Varana

[Vorkon]

Bleat Obssheep bleat!

 

Baaaaaa! Baaaaa!

 

I just love how apologetic their posts are "Obs would have done X if the had more time" and the best one "I'm sure that Obs will do X"

 

*crickets*

 

*cue Kana's voice*

 

"Hello? Hello?"

 

Many of the mentioned failings are not fixable - they will have to be changed (and then rebalanced). That all costs (time+resources=zots).

 

And Obs just doesn't have enough to do that AND do the XP at the same time.

 

There were those of us (mostly shouted down by the Obssheep) that pointed most of these failings out in the beta and backer times.

 

You reap what you sow.

 

So bleat on.

 

The abso-****ing-lutely fantastic part of this is where this critic is posted and what following it reaches (far from all your powerless hooves and bleating).

 

It will affect sales.

 

I would normally hold out hope like a normal Obssheep, but I have been burnt too often by Obs in the past to do that anymore.

 

This is not what I wanted from the game when I backed it. This is not what I was promised.

 

And others are increasingly saying the same.

 

An XP will not fix it. Obs is not able financially to change it.

 

And I seriously doubt that there will be a PoE2.

 

WAKE UP SHEEPLE!!!  KOTOR2's ending being cut was an inside job!!!