All I can say for this review is this:

 

unthankfulness

 

 

There you go, burn on the stake Obsidian's sincere effort to bring back things we love, if it makes you feel good.

 

And let the rpg genre involve to crap like DA:I and ES titles.

 

Yes, I am sure they did it out of the goodness of their heart. I don't know about you, but I personally don't mind people telling me if the thing I am about to buy is what it's supposed to be.

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...

Well, trying playing PoE after its fully patched, with expansions, and you have 10+ years of nostalgia fueling your experience. Then you might be able to make a fair comparison between the 2 play throughs. At a bare minimum though you got to give Obsidian more time to patch. The game's barely been out for a month for crying out loud!

Thats not an objective review, it´s an opinion and should be treated as one. Meaning it´s as good as yours.

 

Not that i care what RPGCodex says, but they have some good points. PoE has its problems. NO question there, still i enjoyed it. I got almost 50h of playtime out of it and was never bored. However PoE is NOT the BG2 of our time...well of course not because BG2 needed BG1 to get where it was, that is something people tend to forget.

 

I will judge Obsidian on a PoE 2 and compare it with BG2 anytime. But anyone who thought backing the game to become the next BG2 is an idiot. PoE is at best laying the groundwork for a new franchise where a PoE 2 can happen, just LIKE BG1 was for its sequel. And keep in mind that BG was based on an existing IP and they didn´t have to made up all by themself.

 

Keeping all that in mind, i think Obsidian did a very good job, not perfect, but thats fine as long as they support it and fix problems. I´m looking forward to the expansion and next patchs and will replay it at last once, more like twice with expansion...so at last i got a good 100h+ out of a CRPG...how is that bad?

 

Also, PoE, for it´s shortcomings, made me play BG2 again...and bring me back in big time...so thats also a bonus

 

I DID expect a tad more, but not much, overall they did a good job for a first game in a possible new franchise that came out of nowhere.

 

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...

Well, trying playing PoE after its fully patched, with expansions, and you have 10+ years of nostalgia fueling your experience. Then you might be able to make a fair comparison between the 2 play throughs. At a bare minimum though you got to give Obsidian more time to patch. The game's barely been out for a month for crying out loud!

 

 

That's not how first impressions of games work though I played through IWD2 on release day (ok.. more like a release weeks, back then) because unlike PoEt you couldn't actually play through IWD2 in just a few binge sittings. For me that game took well over 100 hours to complete.. to compare PoEt took me barely 40 hours and that's 3 restarts included. While I waited for GTA5 to download I actually managed to play through 10% of IWD2 on my 5th try and G3 modpack (though only few of those options, mostly stacking and bug-fixing active) made it a relatively painless experience. Unlike PoEt which because IE mod doesn't work anymore in beta patches, is actually a painful experience.. can't even express how much I started to hate the engagement system in PoEt after playing IWD2 again. And my first impressions of PoEt were already nostalgia fueled to some extend. Maybe that is the problem

 

And I give it all the time it needs for a future 2nd complete playthrough. But my opinion of the game is already decided for now. I don't know if an expansion that includes the same combat and spell-casting design would actually entice me to even play the game again. Because I didn't enjoy the combat in PoEt... and every.. single.. time I see a mage in PoEt I wish I could have the DnD spell library instead ;P You know.. sequencers, time stop, skull trap... and a proper fireball (delayed fireball) kind of deal

 

 

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"

 

 

No, they they don't OWE me anything, I pledged for this for hope and nostalgia, obviously. But my hope was that they make a better CRPG than (at the very least) IWD2. And if you give me a CRPG where 80% of the time I am in combat, then your combat better be better than IWD2's And to me PoEt is not meeting even that (very low) requirement.

Engagement stuck out at me in that review.    The author was mentioning how bad it is and that one tank can engage an entire mob of enemies all by himself and get AoO on any of them that happen to break away.  I agree -- that's pretty bad.   However, I'm reminded of a game in which you sword fight against enemies.  Against one of them it's pretty easy to parry attacks.    However, the more that come the harder it is to defend will be spending a good deal more time blocking blows than dishing any out.   You'd only be able to take a stab at an enemy once in awhile when you spot an opening -- and you had to act fast or you'd get nailed by someone else.  

 

So, taking an idea from that game, why not modify engagement so that a character may ONLY engage one enemy at a time and if multiple enemies come upon him he is unable to engage anyone at all.   After all, if one enemy breaks away, the character is still occupied with the other(s) and wouldn't be able to spare the time to try hitting the running enemy.  This would also provide some more tactical options.   Squishy caster got attacked by an enemy?  Get a tank over there to help out so the caster can break away without an AoE.  

Edited April 23, 201511 yr by TCJ

 

 

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...

Well, trying playing PoE after its fully patched, with expansions, and you have 10+ years of nostalgia fueling your experience. Then you might be able to make a fair comparison between the 2 play throughs. At a bare minimum though you got to give Obsidian more time to patch. The game's barely been out for a month for crying out loud!

 

 

That's not how first impressions of games work though I played through IWD2 on release day (ok.. more like a release weeks, back then) because unlike PoEt you couldn't actually play through IWD2 in just a few binge sittings. For me that game took well over 100 hours to complete.. to compare PoEt took me barely 40 hours and that's 3 restarts included. While I waited for GTA5 to download I actually managed to play through 10% of IWD2 on my 5th try and G3 modpack (though only few of those options, mostly stacking and bug-fixing active) made it a relatively painless experience. Unlike PoEt which because IE mod doesn't work anymore in beta patches, is actually a painful experience.. can't even express how much I started to hate the engagement system in PoEt after playing IWD2 again. And my first impressions of PoEt were already nostalgia fueled to some extend. Maybe that is the problem

 

And I give it all the time it needs for a future 2nd complete playthrough. But my opinion of the game is already decided for now. I don't know if an expansion that includes the same combat and spell-casting design would actually entice me to even play the game again. Because I didn't enjoy the combat in PoEt... and every.. single.. time I see a mage in PoEt I wish I could have the DnD spell library instead ;P You know.. sequencers, time stop, skull trap... and a proper fireball (delayed fireball) kind of deal

 

 

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"

 

 

No, they they don't OWE me anything, I pledged for this for hope and nostalgia, obviously. But my hope was that they make a better CRPG than (at the very least) IWD2. And if you give me a CRPG where 80% of the time I am in combat, then your combat better be better than IWD2's And to me PoEt is not meeting even that (very low) requirement.

 

Curiouser and curiouser. It continues to amuse me that people continuously compare PoE1 to anything with a 2 in the name. Or New Vegas. All of those had massive lore and asset backing. None of which is available for PoE. Combine that with a completely new gameplay system all on a budget that would be laughed at by most developers. The sheer ignorance of what is actually possible, it burns.

Edited April 23, 201511 yr by ravenshrike

FTFA: "That’s right, I even had more fun with Dungeon Siege 3.."

 

That comment works for me as I had a very odd reaction to Dungeon Siege III.  Dungeon Siege I was phenomenal in its way and Dungeon Siege II was only slighty off as you might expect from a different studio attempting to recreate the same formula, but was otherwise memorable.

 

Dungeon Siege III not only violated the series' established (and popular) conventions, but went off in a spectacularly different direction almost as if it spited the player's expectations.

 

PoE is only superficially related to the old IE games by way of rich hand drawn backgrounds and a managable party. Everything else seems as if it has been crafted from Bizarro World. No party AI, no wit, no compelling story, no understandable mechanics, no captiviating loot, no dramatic battles.

 

It seems Obisidian was so determined to not have any D&D in PoE that they failed to replace the proven mechanics of THAC0 and inspirational pen-and-paper roleplaying imagination with something else that made half as much sense or at least, half the fun.

Edited April 23, 201511 yr by Captain Shiny

Perhaps slightly harsher wording and different emphasis than I would have chosen, but I cannot disagree with any of that review.

 

 

PoE is only superficially related to the old IE games by way of rich hand drawn backgrounds and a managable party. Everything else seems as if it has been crafted from Bizarro World. No party AI, no wit, no compelling story, no understandable mechanics, no captiviating loot, no dramatic battles.

 

It seems Obisidian was so determined to not have any D&D in PoE that they failed to replace the proven mechanics of THAC0 and inspirational pen-and-paper roleplaying imagination with something else that made half as much sense or at least, half the fun.

 

QFT. I've long asserted that PoE's greatest fault is its attempts to not be D&D despite shadowing its every step. The RPG Codex reviewer took the same notice.

Edited April 23, 201511 yr by Mr. Magniloquent

Thats not an objective review, it´s an opinion

Which makes it no different than any other review, ever. In order to be objective, a review must not contain anything but a straight forward description of the game's features. Which would make it a completely sterile, worthless read. It'd look something like this:

 

 

Pillars of Eternity is the latest title assigned to the Role Playing Genre by Obsidian Entertainment. It features a top down, Isometric viewpoint with hand drawn 2d environments and 3d character models. The Player controls a party of up to 6 characters, can choose from 7 races and 11 classes. It has leveling, and a main plot as well as several sub-quests of various degrees of complexity. Gameplay options include Exploration of specifically developed areas in the "Eora" game world, and boasts an unspecified number of hours of gameplay. It is a PC exclusive funded by a kickstarter campaign that occurred in the fall of 2012. It can be purchased through Steam, GoG, and assorted participating affiliates of Paradox Interactive.

 

The end.

Edited April 23, 201511 yr by Stun

 

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...

Well, trying playing PoE after its fully patched, with expansions, and you have 10+ years of nostalgia fueling your experience. Then you might be able to make a fair comparison between the 2 play throughs. At a bare minimum though you got to give Obsidian more time to patch. The game's barely been out for a month for crying out loud!

 

 

That's not how first impressions of games work though I played through IWD2 on release day (ok.. more like a release weeks, back then) because unlike PoEt you couldn't actually play through IWD2 in just a few binge sittings. For me that game took well over 100 hours to complete.. to compare PoEt took me barely 40 hours and that's 3 restarts included. While I waited for GTA5 to download I actually managed to play through 10% of IWD2 on my 5th try and G3 modpack (though only few of those options, mostly stacking and bug-fixing active) made it a relatively painless experience. Unlike PoEt which because IE mod doesn't work anymore in beta patches, is actually a painful experience.. can't even express how much I started to hate the engagement system in PoEt after playing IWD2 again. And my first impressions of PoEt were already nostalgia fueled to some extend. Maybe that is the problem

 

And I give it all the time it needs for a future 2nd complete playthrough. But my opinion of the game is already decided for now. I don't know if an expansion that includes the same combat and spell-casting design would actually entice me to even play the game again. Because I didn't enjoy the combat in PoEt... and every.. single.. time I see a mage in PoEt I wish I could have the DnD spell library instead ;P You know.. sequencers, time stop, skull trap... and a proper fireball (delayed fireball) kind of deal

 

 

 

I understand that first impressions are first impressions, but I'm just trying to interject a bit of perspective here. You're comparing PoE a few weeks after release to IWD2, fully patched, modded, etc, and there is some inherent unfairness with that comparison at this point.

 

PoE is a brand new game, in a brand new world, with all new mechanics created with a rather paltry budget. IWD2 on the other hand was based on a well established IP and was the fifth and final Infinity Engine game, with several years of improvements and lessons learned that it benefitted from.

 

PoE is a very good game with a lot of opportunity for improvement, which I believe Obsidian is committed to bringing about. It can only get better from here.

Edited April 23, 201511 yr by Marceror

Thats not an objective review, it´s an opinion and should be treated as one. Meaning it´s as good as yours.

 

Not that i care what RPGCodex says, but they have some good points. PoE has its problems. NO question there, still i enjoyed it. I got almost 50h of playtime out of it and was never bored. However PoE is NOT the BG2 of our time...well of course not because BG2 needed BG1 to get where it was, that is something people tend to forget.

 

I will judge Obsidian on a PoE 2 and compare it with BG2 anytime. But anyone who thought backing the game to become the next BG2 is an idiot. PoE is at best laying the groundwork for a new franchise where a PoE 2 can happen, just LIKE BG1 was for its sequel. And keep in mind that BG was based on an existing IP and they didn´t have to made up all by themself.

 

Keeping all that in mind, i think Obsidian did a very good job, not perfect, but thats fine as long as they support it and fix problems. I´m looking forward to the expansion and next patchs and will replay it at last once, more like twice with expansion...so at last i got a good 100h+ out of a CRPG...how is that bad?

 

Also, PoE, for it´s shortcomings, made me play BG2 again...and bring me back in big time...so thats also a bonus

 

I DID expect a tad more, but not much, overall they did a good job for a first game in a possible new franchise that came out of nowhere.

 

 

I honestly couldn't read that review because it was crazy long but this is what 99% of the negative reviews I see of this game forget; people compare it against their idealized memories of the best parts of 4 or 5 different games that were, at the time, big-budget AAA titles, and forget that this is a first game in a series, it had a lot of groundwork to lay and a lot of systems to develop, and it had to do so on a tight budget.

 

In D&D terms, this was First Edition; in video game terms, this was BG 1, not BG 2. It's got some flaws but for what it is and within its limitations it is excellent.

I honestly couldn't read that review because it was crazy long but this is what 99% of the negative reviews I see of this game forget; people compare it against their idealized memories of the best parts of 4 or 5 different games that were, at the time, big-budget AAA titles, and forget that this is a first game in a series, it had a lot of groundwork to lay and a lot of systems to develop, and it had to do so on a tight budget.

 

In D&D terms, this was First Edition; in video game terms, this was BG 1, not BG 2. It's got some flaws but for what it is and within its limitations it is excellent.

 

I don't think that's an acceptable defense. The game was sold as having the best qualities of all of those name-dropped games. They climbed up on that cross, it was theirs to carry. The templates were all but literally there, they merely needed to stitch them together and iron out some kinks. PoE resembles none of them beyond the art and music. The Sawyer departures are glaring and contrary to many of the most poignant strengths that the IE games possessed.

 

I honestly couldn't read that review because it was crazy long but this is what 99% of the negative reviews I see of this game forget; people compare it against their idealized memories of the best parts of 4 or 5 different games that were, at the time, big-budget AAA titles, and forget that this is a first game in a series, it had a lot of groundwork to lay and a lot of systems to develop, and it had to do so on a tight budget.

 

In D&D terms, this was First Edition; in video game terms, this was BG 1, not BG 2. It's got some flaws but for what it is and within its limitations it is excellent.

 

I don't think that's an acceptable defense. The game was sold as having the best qualities of all of those name-dropped games. They climbed up on that cross, it was theirs to carry. The templates were all but literally there, they merely needed to stitch them together and iron out some kinks. PoE resembles none of them beyond the art and music. The Sawyer departures are glaring and contrary to many of the most poignant strengths that the IE games possessed.

 

 

 

From my perspective it does? It has very high quality writing by the standards of CRPG's, which was the main draw. It's not as well-written as Planescape: Torment but nothing is and expecting it to be would have been expecting lightning to strike twice in the same place. And even with that caveat it has moments of real excellence -- Eder's character arc stands up well against any companion storyline in either of the BG games, for example.

 

Game system design is a matter of opinion and personal taaste but overall I think PoE's design is a significant improvement over the IE games. I don't have to spend fifteen minutes in an artificial buffing session before each combat; choke points and positioning actually matters; there's a general move away from per-rest Vancian magic towards more modern game design systems. Which is pretty much exactly what the game was billed as -- in the tradition of the IE games, but a new iteration.  I can see how for some players who came from a more RTS background and played the IE games with a lot of kiting this system could be annoying, but for those of us who came to the IE games from the tactical game / wargame / Gold Box / AD&D tabletop tradition, this implementation is significantly closer to those roots. Tabletop had attacks of opportunity (i.e. disengagement attacks) as far back as 1st Edition D&D.

 

it's not an exact clone of the IE engine (which they couldn't have done anyway without running into copyright problems) but what it is is very solid. Is it perfect? No. The story has some holes, there's definitely need for a few more rounds of patching, there are some balance problems they never quite got ironed out. But it's far better than anything we were likely to get any other way.

 

You want a faithful and exact resurrection of the IE games? If you don't like this, go play Sword Coast Legends, because that's the closest you're gonna get outside of Obsidian.

Edited April 23, 201511 yr by Dr. Hieronymous Alloy

 

Thats not an objective review, it´s an opinion

Which makes it no different than any other review, ever. In order to be objective, a review must not contain anything but a straight forward description of the game's features. Which would make it a completely sterile, worthless read. It'd look something like this:

 

 

Pillars of Eternity is the latest title assigned to the Role Playing Genre by Obsidian Entertainment. It features a top down, Isometric viewpoint with hand drawn 2d environments and 3d character models. The Player controls a party of up to 6 characters, can choose from 7 races and 11 classes. It has leveling, and a main plot as well as several sub-quests of various degrees of complexity. Gameplay options include Exploration of specifically developed areas in the "Eora" game world, and boasts an unspecified number of hours of gameplay. It is a PC exclusive funded by a kickstarter campaign that occurred in the fall of 2012. It can be purchased through Steam, GoG, and assorted participating affiliates of Paradox Interactive.

 

The end.

 

 

I disagree, you can critizie a game on it´s mechanics and story without comparing it all the time to something else. What i got out of the "review" was an opinion, and thats fine. In my eyes reviews are always opinions. There is no such thing like a complete subjective or objective opinion...it doesn´t exist. It´s all mixed. I realise that even though i think of myself to be very neutral in my opinions (depending on the subject of course). 

 

I happen to disagree with their opinion I also think that a lot of this points are bull****. RPGCodex...oh well,,.to be honest i never visited them before in my life..considering i spend my whole life with RPG´s. I haven´t missed a thing not realizing they even exist.

 

 

Thats not an objective review, it´s an opinion and should be treated as one. Meaning it´s as good as yours.

 

Not that i care what RPGCodex says, but they have some good points. PoE has its problems. NO question there, still i enjoyed it. I got almost 50h of playtime out of it and was never bored. However PoE is NOT the BG2 of our time...well of course not because BG2 needed BG1 to get where it was, that is something people tend to forget.

 

I will judge Obsidian on a PoE 2 and compare it with BG2 anytime. But anyone who thought backing the game to become the next BG2 is an idiot. PoE is at best laying the groundwork for a new franchise where a PoE 2 can happen, just LIKE BG1 was for its sequel. And keep in mind that BG was based on an existing IP and they didn´t have to made up all by themself.

 

Keeping all that in mind, i think Obsidian did a very good job, not perfect, but thats fine as long as they support it and fix problems. I´m looking forward to the expansion and next patchs and will replay it at last once, more like twice with expansion...so at last i got a good 100h+ out of a CRPG...how is that bad?

 

Also, PoE, for it´s shortcomings, made me play BG2 again...and bring me back in big time...so thats also a bonus

 

I DID expect a tad more, but not much, overall they did a good job for a first game in a possible new franchise that came out of nowhere.

 

In D&D terms, this was First Edition; in video game terms, this was BG 1, not BG 2. It's got some flaws but for what it is and within its limitations it is excellent.

 

 

Agree

 

 

I honestly couldn't read that review because it was crazy long but this is what 99% of the negative reviews I see of this game forget; people compare it against their idealized memories of the best parts of 4 or 5 different games that were, at the time, big-budget AAA titles, and forget that this is a first game in a series, it had a lot of groundwork to lay and a lot of systems to develop, and it had to do so on a tight budget.

 

In D&D terms, this was First Edition; in video game terms, this was BG 1, not BG 2. It's got some flaws but for what it is and within its limitations it is excellent.

 

I don't think that's an acceptable defense. The game was sold as having the best qualities of all of those name-dropped games. They climbed up on that cross, it was theirs to carry. The templates were all but literally there, they merely needed to stitch them together and iron out some kinks. PoE resembles none of them beyond the art and music. The Sawyer departures are glaring and contrary to many of the most poignant strengths that the IE games possessed.

 

 

I´m not sure, they did went a bit high with saying THIS is your next crpg, but they never compared themself to BG2 did they? I really like this game, but even i would say thats a far stretch. Is it a good successor? I don´t know. I don´t think so. Not until they make a 2nd game and the expansion, then i will have an opinion. For a game out of nowhere, it was good. Pretty good. It´s an interesting world i would like to see more of.

 

But i also had no illusion that PoE would be the next BG2, a game based on existing lore, existing rules and story, thats is just plain stupid.

I don't think that's an acceptable defense. The game was sold as having the best qualities of all of those name-dropped games. They climbed up on that cross, it was theirs to carry. The templates were all but literally there, they merely needed to stitch them together and iron out some kinks. PoE resembles none of them beyond the art and music. The Sawyer departures are glaring and contrary to many of the most poignant strengths that the IE games possessed.

And BG1 was f*cking awesome. It did not suffer the "Pilot Episode" syndrome, or "teething trouble" or whatever quaint dismissal-of-flaws that people here are assigning to PoE. Instead, it barged in and changed the Genre. It caused a 'new Era".

 

As decent and praiseworthy as PoE is, it is on a different wavelength entirely. It's good but not great. It's refreshing but not revolutionary. etc.

 

 

I disagree, you can critizie a game on it´s mechanics and story without comparing it all the time to something else.

Of course you can. But that would necessitate that such a review be opinionated in nature.

 

A criticism, is, by definition, an Opinion. And in your example, it would be an opinion leveled at the game's mechanics or story.

Edited April 23, 201511 yr by Stun

Darth Roxor wrote a wretched article to draw attention to himself. 

 

A reviewer who found ZERO redeeming features in a game countless other people are enjoying cannot and should not be taken seriously.

 

 

PoE is an excellent start on a shoestring budget. 

 

Thats not an objective review, it´s an opinion

Which makes it no different than any other review, ever. In order to be objective, a review must not contain anything but a straight forward description of the game's features. Which would make it a completely sterile, worthless read. It'd look something like this:

 

 

Pillars of Eternity is the latest title assigned to the Role Playing Genre by Obsidian Entertainment. It features a top down, Isometric viewpoint with hand drawn 2d environments and 3d character models. The Player controls a party of up to 6 characters, can choose from 7 races and 11 classes. It has leveling, and a main plot as well as several sub-quests of various degrees of complexity. Gameplay options include Exploration of specifically developed areas in the "Eora" game world, and boasts an unspecified number of hours of gameplay. It is a PC exclusive funded by a kickstarter campaign that occurred in the fall of 2012. It can be purchased through Steam, GoG, and assorted participating affiliates of Paradox Interactive.

 

The end.

 

This is the best review I've ever read! Ever. In my lifetime. About anything. Period!

 

And BG1 was f*cking awesome. It did not suffer the "Pilot Episode" syndrome, or "teething trouble" or whatever quaint dismissal-of-flaws that people here are assigning to PoE. Instead, it barged in and changed the Genre. It caused a 'new Era".

 

As decent and praiseworthy as PoE is, it is on a different wavelength entirely. It's good but not great. It's refreshing but not revolutionary. etc.

 

 

 

BG 1 is a great game but it was building on the prior tradition of the Gold Box games too, not to mention a massive amount of previously playtested game systems and previously written lore; it's not like it sprang fully formed from the head of Gaming Zeus.  When BG 1 came out, the AD&D game system had been in use for  a couple of decades already and TSR was publishing lord knows how many novels in the Forgotten Realms setting every year. 

 

The Obisidian team doesn't have access to the entire body of "copyright TSR, Inc." material for this title; they had to craft their own systems and their own lore and do their own playtesting and so forth (which, for example, is part of why the game is so much better balanced from level 4-8 than level 9-12; 4-8 got heavily playtested). 

Edited April 23, 201511 yr by Dr. Hieronymous Alloy

The Obisidian team doesn't have access to the entire body of "copyright TSR, Inc." material for this title; they had to craft their own systems and their own lore and do their own playtesting and so forth (which, for example, is part of why the game is so much better balanced from level 4-8 than level 9-12; 4-8 got heavily playtested).

^this is not an excuse. In fact, it's the opposite of an excuse. It's a cited development advantage. During the Kickstarter, Tim Cain assured us that creating the world and its ruleset from scratch would be easier than having to implement an existing world and ruleset from another medium.

 

He even used that silly Cake analogy ("If you show me a picture of a cake, I can bake one like it, but it'd be much easier if you simply told me to bake you a cake then let me make one however I wished")

Edited April 23, 201511 yr by Stun

 

The Obisidian team doesn't have access to the entire body of "copyright TSR, Inc." material for this title; they had to craft their own systems and their own lore and do their own playtesting and so forth (which, for example, is part of why the game is so much better balanced from level 4-8 than level 9-12; 4-8 got heavily playtested).

^this is not an excuse. In fact, it's the opposite of an excuse. it's a cited development advantage. During the Kickstarter, Tim Cain assured us that creating the world and its ruleset from scratch would be easier than having to implement an existing world and ruleset.

 

he even used that silly Cake analogy ("If you show me a picture of a cake, I can bake one like it, but it'd be much easier if you simply told me to bake you a cake then let me make one however I wished")

 

 

"Excuse" is the wrong way to look at it. It's got advantages and disadvantages. The advantage is that they could do their own thing and for the record I like a lot of what they did; the writing in this game really is quite good, and I like that it explores themes you could never have explored in a licensed title -- abortion, child abuse, etc. I also like a lot of things about the game system.

 

The downside though is that there wasn't ever going to be enough dev time to polish all the rough edges before the release. That's just the tradeoff. You can either accept that tradeoff or not but there wasn't any other realistic option short of buying the Forgotten Realms license and then making Baldur's Gate III (or, well, I guess, Sword Coast Legends).

 

If, ultimately, your complaint is that they didn't just copy all the best parts of the IE games exactly and then "stitch them together", then ultimately, you didn't want them to bake their own cake; you wanted them to copy the picture of the cake in your head. Unfortunately for you, that was never going to happen, because that picture of a cake in your head is copyright TSR, Inc., and if they had just "stitched them together", they'd have gotten sued by Hasbro (just like happened to the Hex TCG people). 

Edited April 23, 201511 yr by Dr. Hieronymous Alloy

If, ultimately, your complaint is that they didn't just copy all the best parts of the IE games exactly and then "stitch them together", then ultimately, you didn't want them to bake their own cake; you wanted them to copy the picture of the cake in your head. Unfortunately for you, that was never going to happen, because that picture of a cake in your head is copyright TSR, Inc., and if they had just "stitched them together", they'd have gotten sued by Hasbro (just like happened to the Hex TCG people).

No, I don't think that's an accurate portrayal of what happened here.

 

It's more like:

 

Me: Please bake me a cake.

Obsidian: Ok. Batch of cookies coming right up! enjoy!

Edited April 23, 201511 yr by Stun

Yes, the basic complaints are that they didn't just xerox the IE games.  You know - the parts that  each particular person especially liked; not the ones that they didn't.

 

Oh, and clearly having a Kickstarter means that the developers are obligated to satisfy every backers vision of what game design should be.  Because, of course, the people involved in making this game, being rookies, need wise guidance from internet message board warriors.  Have I got it all?

Lot's of rustled jimmies here. If you think Roxor is wrong, argue where he is wrong.

 

PoE tried to be balanced and failed miserably at it. The one thing that is balanced in theory, weapons, is unbalanced due to the rarity of low-DT enemies to make fast weapons worthwhile. As it is, high damage/DT penetration is the way to go, which is why guns and estocs will see more use than other weapons. Armor balance is awful, the options in between clothes and plate are fluff for RPing, because only those two extremes are worthwhile. Class balance is worse than the IE games. Cipher destroys everything else with it's ability to cast 6th powers indefinitely and a 20% bonus to damage in most circumstances.

 

The only combat I find difficult is where enemies spam status effects. Otherwise the tactic is to let the tank(s) draw aggro while the rest of the party uses ranged weapons and spells. This doesn't change for any battle. I use the IE mod and this doesn't change with engagement in or off. If anything, it's slightly harder with engagement off.

 

The megadungeon and stronghold were fluff, and the game would have been better off with a few more areas instead. The Endless Paths aren't particularly fun or well designed and the stronghold adds tedium more than anything. Not to mention if I'm pretty much anywhere but Defiance Bay and a few wilderness areas, I will miss special events because travel takes too long.

 

The writing is dry for long spells. Durance and Grieving Mother are interesting, but the rest of the party feels bland and I couldn't give a **** about most of them. The text reads like a Game of Thrones knockoff with various fantasy creatures and not-Welsh words slammed in. Act 2 has to be the most uninspired act of a RPG I've ever played, and the side quests are rarely attention grabbing.

 

While the art is pretty and the music is good, the VA is overused. While I won't judge the quality of it too harshly, it is annoying as hell to be almost done reading text when a voice cuts in and starts repeating what I just went over. Less is more in this case.

 

Overall, Pillars of Eternity is a decent game with good ideas but a bland execution. In some way it would have been better if it was gawdawful, in that I could have just quit without the feeling I was missing much, but the few good bits keep me slogging through. It certainly wasn't what I expected Obsidian to put out, and if PoE is Obsidian without the constrains of a publisher perhaps having publisher constraints aren't such a bad thing.

Why should I bother to argue with a misinformed hatchet job of an article?  One where the reviewer either doesn't understand some systems (e.g. how the stats work),  misstates facts (the absence of unique items is wrong), doesn't understand the class system, dismisses the writing with a couple of unexplained sentence.  I could go on, but basically it's a worthless article for a different reason.

 

I get really, really tired of having people dress up hit jobs as reviews.  This guy hated the game during development.  The only reason he played the game was to extract things that he could pick apart to attack in a writeup.  Every single aspect was taken in the most negative way possible; every flaw exaggerated; every virtue minimized if it was mentioned at all.  You could pull this crap on every single game, every single book, every single movie.  It achieves nothing.

 

For example, I really liked that the dialog options weren't telegraphed to you, Bioware style, with exactly what would happen if you pressed the button.  Some special options were counterproductive; you could even close off options in dialog without even knowing it.  The reputation system is clever and could develop into something very cool.  You didn't have glowing arrows over the heads of people giving quests; on replay I keep finding ones that I missed the first go around.  I found the lore really interesting - the science vs. magic / religion aspect was well done; the world was a hell of a lot more interesting to me than any generic D&D world (I'm looking at you, Baldurs Gate and Icewind Dale..)  If you actually read the lore, read the responses in conversations, and so on.  It didn't have the "everyone is horrible" Game of Thrones or Dragon Age 2 vibe to it.  Now, maybe all of the people who wrote reviews about how they liked this were all wrong, and maybe the flocks of users who went to the rating sites and talked about how much they liked it were all misguided.  But it's more likely to me that the people who claim that they don't like the story are a small minority.  That's fine, but it's completely the inverse of reality to take a recognized strength of a game and call it a weakness because it's not "my style."

Lot's of rustled jimmies here. If you think Roxor is wrong, argue where he is wrong.

Rights and wrongs are irrelevant here, it's just the traffic going both ways. Roxor's biased about the game, so, let's say, I am biased about his rev... errr, opinion.

 

When someone tells me with a great deal of exaggeration that the thing I enjoyed much is complete and ultimate ****, I feel natural urge to ask him GTFO regardless of constructive criticism he may rely on somewhere further along the road. And Roxor DOES blow things out of proportion.

 

It's not the content of his "review" is inflammatory, it's the form.