Unnecessary features

[kaiki]

The custom made companions are pretty boring compared to the story companions, but it's just too bad that the story companions have completely ass stats for their classes and aren't worth taking after your initial playthrough with them, especially if you decide to play on Hard or PotD.  There's just no reason to take Durance ever, over a custom Priest with 16 Might, 16 Dex, 16 Int.

 

I disagree with the posit story companions need to be min-maxed in order to be useful on Hard or PotD. The initial stat distribution of characters don't have that much of an impact compared to how you build the characters as they level and what gear you place on them. Players can happily run through PotD using only the story companions and succeed. I do agree that a custom priest with the stats you listed may be superior to Durance the gulf between the two characters isn't nearly as wide as you infer. If you want to have every possible ounce of advantage then yeah custom characters are the way to go, but if you want to run PotD with only story companions it won't seem like the companions are a huge liability. At least, those were my experiences on my runs.

[ibanix]

The largest unnecessary feature of modern games is players who like to complain about everything, as if they get to define the game.

[Yonjuro]

...

As opposed to: tank runs in, group focus fires down/paralyzes biggest threat while a Wizard or two uses Chill Fog or Slicken every single fight; or a Druid does something similar?  Because that's what's been working from Normal through PotD.  Want to actually do something else?  Too bad, because camping supplies supresses experimentation and the same strat you can do from level one and three respectively works for the entire game on almost everything.

 

 Camping supplies is an orthogonal issue. You can obviously try something different by, e.g., having no tank in your party (or no wizard/druid) or a party without either of them. The number of camping supply slots doesn't prevent you from doing that.

[Yonjuro]

There it is again... "Skip it, ignore it". 

 

 You think people are saying "we agree that these things are bad but it doesn't matter because you can skip them."

 

 What most people are actually saying is "we don't agree that these things are bad, but you are free to skip them if you don't like them."

[zombo]

"(as opposed to resting whenever I want)"

 

Except you can.   Nothing actually stops you. The existence of this never changed how I play.

It takes more effort. You have to travel somewhere and buy a room or camp out in the woods. While traveling in BG/BG2, which I love both games, you could stop and rest anywhere as long as not in a city. So, in theory you could rest after every single fight with minimal inconvenience. While traveling in PoE, you essentially have 4 rests max or else you have to travel to a town and rest at an inn.

Edited April 28, 2015 by zombo

[bleakcabaler]

The largest unnecessary feature of modern games is players who like to complain about everything, as if they get to define the game.

 

They define the market and market defines the game. So yes, players do in fact define the game.

[player1]

>>>There it is again... "Skip it, ignore it".

 

This reminds me on common responses to the critics of Dragon Age Inquisition, that is has too much boring fluff.

 

IMHO, if you tell me to skip some content in RPG, then something is way off wrong in that game.

[kaiki]

 

The largest unnecessary feature of modern games is players who like to complain about everything, as if they get to define the game.

 

They define the market and market defines the game. So yes, players do in fact define the game.

 

 

It also works in reverse. The developers define the games that define the market.

[Crucis]

 

 

My take on this is that all half-backed features should be either removed or improved to not be half-backed.

 

IMHO these include:

 

1) Stronghold

Current implementation is not well integrated with the game. Like if it is mini-game on its own. It is also big money sink just for the sake of being money sink. I'm ok with something just sinking money, but then give something back too. Also tieing half of the economy to turns and other hand (hireling pay) to days is really bad implementation.

 

2) "Sponsored adds" by Kickstarter backers

I completely understand why this was done. Obisidian needed money to make game, and needed to add strong backer rewards for people that donated a lot of money to the game.

 

But due to this, game suffered and is weaker then it should be. Soul watching of backer NPCs is big fluff that gets boring really quickly, and NPCs themselves detract from game experience due to being "too shiny", yet totally irrelevant for the game. Especially considering that whole godlike population of Drywood consists of backers.

 

On the other hand, kickstartered tomstones were done pretty well, without detracting from the game.

 

Oh puh-leeeeze.  If you're annoyed by backer NPCs, you've got bigger problems than them.  Just friggin' ignore them.  Simple as that.  There are zillions of commoners and nobles walking around the city as well.  Some might find it annoying that they have nothing more to say than a single line or so.  Would you want to dump them too?

 

Seriously, you and the other whiners on this need to get over it.  I don't mind them being there because they populate any of the cities and towns and make them look less empty.

 

 

Well sure, I do ignore them. Just like commercials on TV.

Actually nope, it's more like credits going in the middle of the movie.

 

Anyway, the point stays, they are out of place with names and looks (at least godlikes) and do not improve the game in any way. They are compromise done in order to get game funded.

 

Same for not so stellar implementation of stronghold. It needed to be there, due to kickstarter goal, but was never implemented decently.

 

 

So what?  They don't detract from the game either, no more so than any of the dozens of commoners, nobles, and villagers who populate the cities and towns. 

 

And what a shock that someone has to live with a little give and take in order to help get something funded.  Ever hear of product placement in movies and TV shows?

[scrotiemcb]

Limiting camping supplies isn't enough to actually stop players from resting whenever they want. The game needs to limit camping supplies AND prevent players from leaving areas until quests/tasks are complete.

 

Some examples from act 1

 

* if you leave the temple of Eothas to rest at the inn, you return to find Raedric's guards sealing it back up. If you talk to them, it seems Wirtan has been slain.

* if you climb up the vines to gain access to the sanctuary in Raedric's Keep, then go back to Gilded Vale, you find on your return the vines have been cut, and you need to find another way in. Also, the high priest only grants you one rest - he's not that generous to allow another.

 

 

This would work best with optional quests, giving your party a chance to fail them if they retreat. However, that's fine; properly limiting camping for the main storyline isn't vital, so long as the system has a place to shine.

Edited April 28, 2015 by scrotiemcb

[luzarius]

What would you like to see removed in future PoE games?

 

For me it's:

 

- Limited camping supplies. Stupid beyond comprehension. Especially when you can carry like 80 suits of armor. Oh, another thing that needs to be removed. "Take everything" is just dumbing down to please modern gamers.

 

I agree with this and on path of the damnd the camping supplies should cost more. If I may also add that resting for free should not be allowed on POTD difficulty and should cost something.

 

 

- Custom made companions. Devalues real companions and makes them detached from the story.

 

Custom made companions lack dialogue & voice acting that could be added with modding.  If POE 2 is moddable they should leave this feature in, if POE 2 is not moddable then I agree with taking this feature out.

 

 

- Stronghold. Just forget about it. It belongs in different kind of games. Give us a room in the inn, a house in the city or something like that. Why does every game has to have a stronghold?

 

The stronghold needs a brothel and witcher style sex cards, recruiting whores, etc.   For example we should be able to kill nonton then turn Ingrid into a whore.

 

 

- Enchanting/crafting. Again, why does this has to be in every f...ing game? Stop being lazy devs and make interesting items. Creating high level merchant or smith who will do this kind of work if he is provided with unique material and lots of gold would make sooo much more sense. 

 

Aww, I like these features.

 

 

Instead of all this superficial stuff I would like to see more attention given to combat, items, dungeon design, encounter design, lore, story, npc depth, dialogue etc.

 

I wish this game was moddable, it's driving me nuts!

[Tuckey]

I think being able to heal health by a limited amount (2 per rest or something) would solve most of the annoyance of the camping system. I mean its already in the game as a feat which is why few people take it but I think it should be a standard ability for the healer classes i.e. druids and priests.

[Sannom]

The stronghold needs a brothel and witcher style sex cards, recruiting whores, etc.   For example we should be able to kill nonton then turn Ingrid into a whore.

You've got some weird priorities.

 

I think being able to heal health by a limited amount (2 per rest or something) would solve most of the annoyance of the camping system. I mean its already in the game as a feat which is why few people take it but I think it should be a standard ability for the healer classes i.e. druids and priests.

Nah, it should be a power gained by the main character relatively early in the game, linked to his status as a Watcher. Kinda like the Nameless One's ability to revive allies three times per rest in Torment. Edited April 28, 2015 by Sannom

[Sannom]

Too quick to post, my bad.

Edited April 28, 2015 by Sannom

[luzarius]

 

The stronghold needs a brothel and witcher style sex cards, recruiting whores, etc.   For example we should be able to kill nonton then turn Ingrid into a whore.

You've got some weird priorities.

 

A good RPG should have a wide variety of dark content. Sexuality should never be neglected.   Given the already dark nature of POE, the above feature request is pretty tame.  Think on it.

 

If the person playing POE is a female, then let her turn Nonton into a man whore (lol).

Edited April 28, 2015 by luzarius

[Sannom]

A good RPG should have a wide variety of dark content. Sexuality should never be neglected.

I'm not quite sure how "sexuality" can be equated with "dark".

[Xosmi]

There it is again... "Skip it, ignore it". 

 

I'm enjoying the game, well, some parts of it, but that's not the point.

 

Point is - either do stuff well, or don't do it at all. Also, if you go for "the consumer base" - why not make another Bioware/whatever RPG with watered down RPG elements, open world, and tons of features from marrying elves and horses to redecorating you house an leading an army etc?

 

Unfair criticism from my side would be something like - "Oh, I don't like to use guns/swords/magic/dwarves/quests - remove it from the game." Now, that would be stupid.

 

If they give me a stronghold (btw, what a stupid way to gain stronghold...), it should work, it should have a huuuuuge impact on the game and on your position in that fantasy world. And I would be OK with that. You're building and "empire", you talk with the duc, you lead 50 armored soldiers into the Skaen temple. Fine.

 

They enable crafting/enchanting. Again, fine. But then it would be nice to have some tools, some locations, some material, some sketches, logical background. And that should be available to the rest of the world.  So, enchanted weapons are not rare, they are common. Right?

 

But that's not the case. And it drags this game down. Just like those cheap story moments like end of Act 2, PC infiltrating the secret organization the way he does, and few other I won't mention because of SPOILERS.

 

I really don't understand how are you guys OK with all that? We should be striving for a game that is excellent and different from other mainstream games today. Not the game that is mediocre and same like mentioned games (minus fancy graphics, cinematics and VO).

 

 

Fact of the matter is, a select group of people are the ones not enjoying this content - those are the ones that  have to make the decision to skip it, or not. in no way, shape or form does this reflect the opinions of all the people who play the game, and those that do enjoy them will obviously choose to complete them.

I see no reason for oblivion to cater to the people that don't enjoy these parts of the game by cutting them entirely- fleshing them out, making them better - sure, that's only going to help the player base as a whole.

Edited April 28, 2015 by Xosmi

[luzarius]

 

A good RPG should have a wide variety of dark content. Sexuality should never be neglected.

I'm not quite sure how "sexuality" can be equated with "dark".

 

 

Sex of a loving nature (light), sex derived from lust (dark).

Edited April 28, 2015 by luzarius

[Nexus0]

Custom Companions was the only reason I bought this as soon as I was done with my other games.. and it went on sale.

 

Regardless, WHAT game offers you that much range of customization, and with it the shear joy of tweaking out? When i played BG2 it was like, *looking at list of available NPC, checking ranked list of best ones, pigeonholing my PC into the best role possible, getting frustrated with so many suboptimal, or no where near optimal stats, quitting game when the games only cleric won't shut up.

 

It's my play style, I prefer made to order that i can tear it up with and don't interrupt the game over variably crafted characters I have little control over.

 

Except Eder, I sorely miss not paling around with him.

[scrotiemcb]

Totally off-topic:

Sex of a loving nature (light), sex derived from lust (dark).

My experience IRL has been a switch of the two. A youthful period of blissful, lighthearted debauchery, then a monogamous relationship which got dark fast and stayed they way until it was over. Talk of lust and you're speaking my language; talk of love and I'm running for my life.

[Katarack21]

- Enchanting/crafting. Again, why does this has to be in every f...ing game? Stop being lazy devs and make interesting items. Creating high level merchant or smith who will do this kind of work if he is provided with unique material and lots of gold would make sooo much more sense.

Yes, because I always need more boring "go get x, y, and z then return to receive better item" quests. They're lots of fun. I enjoy them. They make games awesome.

[Bli1942]

Stronghold is the big one. It needs a complete overhaul to be worth spending dev time on in a potential PoE2. I'd say just get rid of it instead, spending time in cities is more fun

[Zwiebelchen]

Limiting camping supplies isn't enough to actually stop players from resting whenever they want. The game needs to limit camping supplies AND prevent players from leaving areas until quests/tasks are complete.

 

Some examples from act 1

 

* if you leave the temple of Eothas to rest at the inn, you return to find Raedric's guards sealing it back up. If you talk to them, it seems Wirtan has been slain.

* if you climb up the vines to gain access to the sanctuary in Raedric's Keep, then go back to Gilded Vale, you find on your return the vines have been cut, and you need to find another way in. Also, the high priest only grants you one rest - he's not that generous to allow another.

 

 

This would work best with optional quests, giving your party a chance to fail them if they retreat. However, that's fine; properly limiting camping for the main storyline isn't vital, so long as the system has a place to shine.

 

I like this idea. It would be cool to have some quests in the game that you can actually fail by leaving the dungeon before finishing. I also liked the examples a lot.

[Katarack21]

 

Limiting camping supplies isn't enough to actually stop players from resting whenever they want. The game needs to limit camping supplies AND prevent players from leaving areas until quests/tasks are complete.

 

Some examples from act 1

 

* if you leave the temple of Eothas to rest at the inn, you return to find Raedric's guards sealing it back up. If you talk to them, it seems Wirtan has been slain.

* if you climb up the vines to gain access to the sanctuary in Raedric's Keep, then go back to Gilded Vale, you find on your return the vines have been cut, and you need to find another way in. Also, the high priest only grants you one rest - he's not that generous to allow another.

 

 

This would work best with optional quests, giving your party a chance to fail them if they retreat. However, that's fine; properly limiting camping for the main storyline isn't vital, so long as the system has a place to shine.

 

I like this idea. It would be cool to have some quests in the game that you can actually fail by leaving the dungeon before finishing. I also liked the examples a lot.

 

I hate this idea. To me it just seems like arbitrarily limited my experience and playstyle to fit some pre-determined idea of how I "should" play. I don't abuse rest--but sometimes I get bored and want to go do something else for a while. I should have that freedom.

[gkathellar]

- Limited camping supplies.

 

I just wish you could hold some extras in the stash. Trying to remember the location of every set of camping supplies I've had to leave behind because of the limit is irritating.

 

 

 

Limiting camping supplies isn't enough to actually stop players from resting whenever they want. The game needs to limit camping supplies AND prevent players from leaving areas until quests/tasks are complete.

 

Some examples from act 1

 

* if you leave the temple of Eothas to rest at the inn, you return to find Raedric's guards sealing it back up. If you talk to them, it seems Wirtan has been slain.

* if you climb up the vines to gain access to the sanctuary in Raedric's Keep, then go back to Gilded Vale, you find on your return the vines have been cut, and you need to find another way in. Also, the high priest only grants you one rest - he's not that generous to allow another.

 

 

This would work best with optional quests, giving your party a chance to fail them if they retreat. However, that's fine; properly limiting camping for the main storyline isn't vital, so long as the system has a place to shine.

 

I like this idea. It would be cool to have some quests in the game that you can actually fail by leaving the dungeon before finishing. I also liked the examples a lot.

 

I hate this idea. To me it just seems like arbitrarily limited my experience and playstyle to fit some pre-determined idea of how I "should" play. I don't abuse rest--but sometimes I get bored and want to go do something else for a while. I should have that freedom.

 

It would also punish players who try a quest that's too difficult for them at their current level, and come back later. But that's what we want, right? To punish people for exploring without a strategy guide. Damn those casuals.

Edited April 29, 2015 by gkathellar