Can't believe I'm saying this, POE combat is better than DAO.

[Grinch]

 

No read what I said. I tried playing the game three separate times and got not further than Gilded Vale before quitting. Then I went to the forums to find out if people felt the same way I did about the game - I don't like it. It was while I was on the forums that I found out about path finding, AI and balance problems. Thus my comments about those same type of problems being in BG 15 years ago. Feel free to be sarcastic when it's warranted but at least try to read and comprehend what's actually written first.

I read exactly what you stated... you didn't get to level 3, so barely got any impression on the game, then went to forums and took things that you could not *possibly* have confirmed as thruth's (no one's exeggerating on forums!!!) and now come to complain about issues you only know from 3rd parties.

 

You know what that reminds me of? The many Alpha Protocol threads where people suggested 'improvements' or complained about it NOT EVEN HAVING PLAYED THE GAME.

 

My mind was already made up by the time I got to the forums. I only went to the forums to see if other people felt the same way as I did. That's when I found out about the problems with balance, AI and path finding. Are you denying that those problems exist? There seems to be quite a few discussions about them and from what I've read the 1.05 patch is supposed to be a 'balance' patch. So apparently balance was off or it wouldn't need a patch to fix it. There are numerous threads about combat being too easy due to the AI. There's also threads about the poor path finding. I didn't complain about those things. I read about them. My comments were only pointing out that those were the same problems experienced 15 years ago when the IE games first released. Do you mean nothing was learned in 15 years to make the AI better or to fix path finding issues or to make sure the game was balanced.

 

How much of the game am I supposed to play before it's okay for me to not like it? I didn't need to get to level 3 to know I didn't like it. I played this style of game 15 years ago. If this game had been released back then, I would probably consider it a good or great game. But after playing the DA series, ES series and the NWNs it's hard for me to go back to something like this. It would be hard for me to play any of the IE games again. When I first started playing this game two thoughts came to mind. My first thought was that the game reminded me of a mod somebody might be able to create if they had access to the toolset. My other thought was wondering what the game would look like created with the NWN toolsets.

 

To me the game brings nothing new that I haven't already seen before. I don't need a 'spiritual successor' to BG or IWD. I can just pull those games out and play them again if I wanted something like that. I was looking for something new and different. The game setting is definitely different as are the rules. But it still reminds me of games I played 15 years ago. That's not what I was looking for. Maybe it's my fault for not following the game. It was an impulse buy for me. I'm not saying that PoE is a terrible game. I'm just saying that I don't like it. I'm willing to give it another shot after it gets a few more patches but I doubt my opinion will change. I'm just not interested in playing a game similar to what I played 15 years ago. That doesn't make me wrong or less of a gamer. It just means this game isn't for me.

[Hassat Hunter]

I definitely deny such vague accusations. Balance, AI and Path Finding are by themselves meaningless terms. Balance especially. The balance of spread of rats could be wrong for all I know. You need to get more in depth since "IMPROVE GAMEPLAY" or "IMPROVE GRAPHICS" are definitely not terms that you should use to give your argument weight, it just makes people ignore you. Specify rather than generalise.

 

For example I really hate how the enchantment system makes drops less interesting, since most are simply just pre-enchanted, nothing more, making finding new stuff rather unexiting since you can craft them yourself. I could simply have said "There's a problem with loot!" and I doubt anyone would have got my actual reason for such by that line.

 

And yes, we've had a lot of people on the Alpha Protocol forums suggestions "fix bugs", "improve graphics", "fix the stealth system" which are really all useless feedback. Funnilly 90% of the times coming from someone who hasn't played the games but just read a review.

It's why 3rd party responders on 'issues' really need to be ignored IMO. There are plenty of people who don't get something, then rant and others take that as fact (example: Shooting in Alpha Protocol). Sorry, but that's just the way I think about it, and as you can read I have my reasons for that.

 

I read approximately 3000 posts on Steam about KOTOR2 crashing for everyone using Windows 7 64-bit. Guess what operating system I use. Guess how many changes I had to make to get KOTOR2 working 'out of the box'... I rest my case.

 

D:OS is also getting a big balance patch, MMORPG's and RTS constantly gets balance patches. No, it's no indication that something is gravely at mistake, it's simply what happens after release and you let a million rabid players loose. Also many threads exist on D:OS forums about AI, path finding and balance. That's just the nature of the beast; being a RPG forum. I would be shocked if *none* of those threads existed. Players complain, you know. Want their favorite buffed, something they see as too powerful nerfed, sometimes want to force others to play as they play and no other. That's all in all a generic day on the PoE forums... Did you already read some of the doomthreads about 1.0.5 rebalancing?

 

They're FUN! ("Balance should be altered by mods. The game is dead with these changes! Mark my words, 1.0.5 will kill PoE!")

 

EDIT:

 

 

But after playing the DA series, ES series and the NWNs it's hard for me to go back to something like this.

I feel sorry for you. I really *really* do.

 

 

 

My other thought was wondering what the game would look like created with the NWN toolsets.

Probably something like this

 

Pretty, no? (No)

Edited May 2, 2015 by Hassat Hunter

[Khalid the bear]

 

I don't need a 'spiritual successor' to BG or IWD. I can just pull those games out and play them again if I wanted something like that. I was looking for something new and different. The game setting is definitely different as are the rules. But it still reminds me of games I played 15 years ago. That's not what I was looking for. Maybe it's my fault for not following the game. It was an impulse buy for me. I'm not saying that PoE is a terrible game. I'm just saying that I don't like it. I'm willing to give it another shot after it gets a few more patches but I doubt my opinion will change. I'm just not interested in playing a game similar to what I played 15 years ago. That doesn't make me wrong or less of a gamer. It just means this game isn't for me.

 

The main selling point of the game is that it is a spiritual succesor of IE games and its goal was to have the same feel as those games.

That won't change. (hopefuly)

My advice, next time read whats the game about before you buy it

[luzarius]

I wouldn't mind a spiritual successor to Dragon Age Origins developed by Obsidian, maybe in five years?

[Grinch]

I definitely deny such vague accusations. Balance, AI and Path Finding are by themselves meaningless terms. Balance especially. The balance of spread of rats could be wrong for all I know. You need to get more in depth since "IMPROVE GAMEPLAY" or "IMPROVE GRAPHICS" are definitely not terms that you should use to give your argument weight, it just makes people ignore you. Specify rather than generalise.

 

For example I really hate how the enchantment system makes drops less interesting, since most are simply just pre-enchanted, nothing more, making finding new stuff rather unexiting since you can craft them yourself. I could simply have said "There's a problem with loot!" and I doubt anyone would have got my actual reason for such by that line.

 

And yes, we've had a lot of people on the Alpha Protocol forums suggestions "fix bugs", "improve graphics", "fix the stealth system" which are really all useless feedback. Funnilly 90% of the times coming from someone who hasn't played the games but just read a review.

It's why 3rd party responders on 'issues' really need to be ignored IMO. There are plenty of people who don't get something, then rant and others take that as fact (example: Shooting in Alpha Protocol). Sorry, but that's just the way I think about it, and as you can read I have my reasons for that.

 

I read approximately 3000 posts on Steam about KOTOR2 crashing for everyone using Windows 7 64-bit. Guess what operating system I use. Guess how many changes I had to make to get KOTOR2 working 'out of the box'... I rest my case.

 

D:OS is also getting a big balance patch, MMORPG's and RTS constantly gets balance patches. No, it's no indication that something is gravely at mistake, it's simply what happens after release and you let a million rabid players loose. Also many threads exist on D:OS forums about AI, path finding and balance. That's just the nature of the beast; being a RPG forum. I would be shocked if *none* of those threads existed. Players complain, you know. Want their favorite buffed, something they see as too powerful nerfed, sometimes want to force others to play as they play and no other. That's all in all a generic day on the PoE forums... Did you already read some of the doomthreads about 1.0.5 rebalancing?

 

They're FUN! ("Balance should be altered by mods. The game is dead with these changes! Mark my words, 1.0.5 will kill PoE!")

 

EDIT:

 

 

But after playing the DA series, ES series and the NWNs it's hard for me to go back to something like this.

I feel sorry for you. I really *really* do.

 

 

 

My other thought was wondering what the game would look like created with the NWN toolsets.

Probably something like this

 

Pretty, no? (No)

Nothing wrong with that picture except it would probably look better using the NWN2 toolset. No need to feel sorry for me though. A cRPG doesn't have to be top down or isometric view to be fun. ES, DA and NWN are fun cRPGs too. Like I said if PoE had come out 15 years ago, I would have thought it to be a very good game. But after 15 years I'm looking for a little more in my cRPGs. Imagine taking the PoE world and what it would look like if created with the same toolset that was used to create Skyrim. That's a lot better than top down or isometric views in my opinion. PoE may be a very fine game but it isn't for me. To be fair I'm going to reinstall and try to get further than Gilded Vale this time. But I doubt I'll change my mind. I moved past this style of game. Not a graphics whore by any means but with today's technology it's just hard to go back to something like this. I couldnt' play BG, PT, or IWD again either. They were good games for their time but that time has passed us by. It's hard to get immersed in something like this after playing  ES, DA and NWN and seeing what's possible today.

[Grinch]

 

 

I don't need a 'spiritual successor' to BG or IWD. I can just pull those games out and play them again if I wanted something like that. I was looking for something new and different. The game setting is definitely different as are the rules. But it still reminds me of games I played 15 years ago. That's not what I was looking for. Maybe it's my fault for not following the game. It was an impulse buy for me. I'm not saying that PoE is a terrible game. I'm just saying that I don't like it. I'm willing to give it another shot after it gets a few more patches but I doubt my opinion will change. I'm just not interested in playing a game similar to what I played 15 years ago. That doesn't make me wrong or less of a gamer. It just means this game isn't for me.

 

The main selling point of the game is that it is a spiritual succesor of IE games and its goal was to have the same feel as those games.

That won't change. (hopefuly)

My advice, next time read whats the game about before you buy it

 

As I said this game was an impulse buy. I normally don't do a lot of research when I buy games because I know what I like. I thought I would like this game. I went all in. Bought the game guide and everything. Sadly I don't care for it. I'm sure it's a good game but after playing DA, ES and NWN it's just hard for me to go back to something like this.

[ddillon]

I wouldn't mind a spiritual successor to Dragon Age Origins developed by Obsidian, maybe in five years?

I really want a good spiritual successor to DA:O, but not developed by Obsidian or Bioware.

 

Maybe Cyanide Studios? (The devs of Aarklash: Legacy.)

 

Heck, I'd love a good sequel or spiritual successor to Aarklash: Legacy that adds traditional CRPG elements such as building a player character, complex quests, etc. Legacy has great RTWP mechanics and tactical combat, and I like the setting, but I miss those traditional elements.

[Khalid the bear]

 

Imagine taking the PoE world and what it would look like if created with the same toolset that was used to create Skyrim. That's a lot better than top down or isometric views in my opinion.

Poe like skyrim with budget they had: no more than gilded vale. if that

 

as far as NWN2. i enjoyed it when it came out and i had computer under minimum requirements for it. tried it again recently. Camera is uncontrolable and horrible. would prefer if it was top town or isometric

[Hassat Hunter]

I wouldn't mind a spiritual successor to Dragon Age Origins developed by Obsidian, maybe in five years?

Of course DA:O was also a spiritual successor to BG, so asking this is the same as asking one to BG, or PoE.

 

I guess it all goes down in the details, why did you like DA:O more?

 

* Darkspawn A, B, C and D rather than the lush bestiary?

* Game playing itself (funny people hated this about Dungeon Siege, but praise it to the heavens about Dragon Age. Silly gamers.)

* Sex scenes?

* Gay loving?

* People who all fawn over you with 5 dialogues?

* A horrible 3D engine with pretty much always *something* blocking your view?

* MMO "heat" system where everyone naturally goes to the highly armored guy who screams 'attack me'... that's some good AI, right! All very natural?

* Overpowered 'best of the game' items put in your inventory at the start. Cause that's not balance breaking at all!

 

Anything else?

Nothing wrong with that picture except it would probably look better using the NWN2 toolset.

Really? To me it looks vomiting ommoting ugly.

 

No need to feel sorry for me though. A cRPG doesn't have to be top down or isometric view to be fun. ES, DA and NWN are fun cRPGs too.

I hated Oblivion, too dumb compared to Morrowind (haven't tried Skyrim yet). DA:O wasn't too bad, but nothing to write home about. And they ruined the sequels rather than building on what good they got. NWN? Heh...

 

But after 15 years I'm looking for a little more in my cRPGs.

I also look for a little more in my RPG. It's sad that that forces me to go to Kickstarted RPG's however since the AAA+ RPG experience is rather hollow and bare. Hopefully they change, but I don't have much faith on that.

 

Imagine taking the PoE world and what it would look like if created with the same toolset that was used to create Skyrim.

Probably single-player since Bethesda engines handle team-based games extremely bad. Also Pillar's entire budget would probably be needed for Physics alone. I'm sure if they used the Gamebryo (still is in Skyrim, right?) the game would be a LOT less good. Maybe around the level of Divinity II: Dragon Knight Saga. But not PoE good.

 

That's a lot better than top down or isometric views in my opinion.

Play a game called "Sacrifice" and get back to me how organising a RTS/RPG team in first person works.

(spoilers: Poorly)

 

Not a graphics whore by any means but with today's technology it's just hard to go back to something like this.

Approximately 77000 people disagree with you... you know, the actual people that backed this Project?

Also, PoE is beatiful compared to other RPG's around (Dragon Age ugh). That's the beauty of handpainted 2D verses usually rather bland looking 3D.

 

were good games for their time but that time has passed us by.

Passed us by how exactly. Except that's what AAA+ companies want you to think so they can push lowest commoditor crap on you with excessive handholding, wouldn't want people to start thinking, listening or being creative. The best RPG's of 2014 and 2015 are old-school kickstarters. Make of that what you will...

 

It's hard to get immersed in something like this after playing  ES, DA and NWN and seeing what's possible today.

 

NWN(2) is very ugly, so is DA. That just leaves TES. But it's prettyness can't hide the blandness that is it's gameplay. Morrowind is by terms prettier than Oblivion, just because of it's artstyle being unique rather than generic.

Wasn't too thrilled with The Witcher II either. What's the use of all that graphical power if it can only grant us the most bland of environments? Tiny bland environments. Yay graphics :/

Edited May 3, 2015 by Hassat Hunter

[Khalid the bear]

DA:O had exactly ONE original and good mechanic: spell interactions (mind you those were only for spellcasters, no casting clases were completly mmoish), othervise it was fun for one playtrough, but fell FAR short on its prommise/premise ('origins' lol, just different intros)
People complain Defiance Bay/Twin Elms are small. i dont remember main city in DA:O being that big either

Skyrim is beautiful, and interesting for a while, but soon becomes repetitive, sameish and boring.
And what do people complain about the loot in POE? that the enchanting system makes it uninteresting (dont agree with that).
Poe has unique enchantments. in Skyrim, everything you could make/enchant was far supperior to anything you could loot

 

as far as NWN2. i enjoyed it when it came out and i had computer under minimum requirements for it. tried it again recently. Camera is uncontrolable and horrible. would prefer if it was top town or isometric

 

i would like to play it again (as i didnt finish it because of some bugs (hey, they had bugs even back then), but its completly unplayable due to camera controls.

NWN 1 would probbably be better camera wise, but that isnt a party based rpg and its uglier than POE>BG 1/2 EE>NWN2

and those are/were AAA+ titles with far bigger buget dan POE

[Khalid the bear]

Dont get me wrong, i think POE could be better:

1.) enemy AI (high cost) - together with 2.) would solve combat (non)difficulty and sammenes
2.) pathfinding (mid to high cost)
3.) More companions (high cost i guess)
4.) More Locations (high cost)
5.) party AI-scripts (high cost)

6.) Quality of Life (low to mid cost)

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/78749-needed-qualyty-of-life-improvements-information-and-transparency/
7.) new content in old areas after Act transitions (simmilar to bounties, one group of bandits on a certain map and champion of berath quest)- especialy in Defiance bay in act 3 (mid to high cost)
8.) Better stonghold (more use for stronghold improvements, more meaningful events/adventures, some unique items in shops)
    (mid to high cost)

Edited May 3, 2015 by Khalid the bear

[Connavar]

The "Engagement" thing is what I see as an inovation here in POE combat (and this style of tactical Rpgs). Regarding both difficulty, realism and feeling. Awesome, simple and effective. 

Other than that...well Dragon Age Origins had the best "new age" 3d graphics in my opinion, beautifuly blended with this old-style tactics strategy combat. I really miss DAO 1 graphics engine. The spells where as "flashy" as they should and everything was eye-friendly. It wasn't so heavy either to run, in relative old PCs.

Pausing or not pausing it's a matter of preference and many times ability and gear. I for example have a simple ancient keyboard and I am generally bored setuping macros etc....for a single player RPG, not worth my time. So I pause and click icons.
 am not the kind of guy to talk about that, but yes I find my self pausing more in POE than in DAO, even with the slowdown, I choose to pause to get the maximum in difficult situations....whatever that means.

[Grinch]

@Hassat Hunter

Not going to try to quote your whole message.  I'll just comment this way. Over the years I've played and still play a good variety of cRPGs. It's my favorite genre besides sports games. DA, ES and NWN have as much if not more depth than any of the IE games or PoE. The stories are just as good. So is the roleplaying. Just because some of those games can also be played on a console doesn't make them any less of an RPG. Some of your comments make it seem as though you're actually trying to justify your purchase of PoE. You don't have to do that. It's not matter of who's right or wrong. It's what's right for you and me. You like PoE and I'm not trying to change your mind.

 

For me I just can't go back to playing a top down, isometric cRPG after playing games that went way past that in what they were able to achieve. You many think some of them look ugly but they look just fine to me.  PoE is what games looked and played like 15 years ago. After 15 years, ES, DA and NWN are what cRPGs look like today. I think today's cRPGs are better than what we had 15 years ago. Time and nostalgia plays a lot of tricks on people. The good old days weren't always so good. The one thing that made the IE games so popular back then was that there wasn't a whole lot of cRPGs to choose from. Before that it was the GoldBox games. BG wasn't that great a game. BG2 was pretty great though. IWD was pretty much just a hack n slash. PT had a good story. Today's cRPGs have all of that and more.

 

I'm trying to get through playing PoE after reinstalling it. So far I made it to Gilded Vale and got to level 3. Took the wizard at the inn and created a couple of NPCs. Now I'm heading into the temple. But it's hard. I'm not intentionally trying to dislike the game. I spent money on it and the Prima guide so I want to get my money's worth out of it. It's just so hard going back to something like this and to me the story is kind of boring so far. Hopefully it picks up. I also don't like is not having any real control over my party in combat without pausing. I think the game needs some type of system where I can give the AI a lisf of tactical commands to follow. Much like DA or even BG. Even the DA:I system would be better than nothing.

[majestic]

 

Not going to try to quote your whole message.  I'll just comment this way. Over the years I've played and still play a good variety of cRPGs. It's my favorite genre besides sports games. DA, ES and NWN have as much if not more depth than any of the IE games or PoE. The stories are just as good.

 

 

I have a trick question for you:

 

Where's the *story* of Dragon Age: Origins?

 

Now don't get me wrong, I loved DA:O when it came out and I replay it every now and then, but arguing in favor of story depth in DA:O is a bit weird. The game has as much plot as Mass Effect 2 had, and it's pretty much exactly the same one - it's just that one has LAZORS and the other has SWOARDS11!!111oneone.

[GrinningReaper659]

@Hassat Hunter

Not going to try to quote your whole message.  I'll just comment this way. Over the years I've played and still play a good variety of cRPGs. It's my favorite genre besides sports games. DA, ES and NWN have as much if not more depth than any of the IE games or PoE. The stories are just as good. So is the roleplaying. Just because some of those games can also be played on a console doesn't make them any less of an RPG. Some of your comments make it seem as though you're actually trying to justify your purchase of PoE. You don't have to do that. It's not matter of who's right or wrong. It's what's right for you and me. You like PoE and I'm not trying to change your mind.

 

For me I just can't go back to playing a top down, isometric cRPG after playing games that went way past that in what they were able to achieve. You many think some of them look ugly but they look just fine to me.  PoE is what games looked and played like 15 years ago. After 15 years, ES, DA and NWN are what cRPGs look like today. I think today's cRPGs are better than what we had 15 years ago. Time and nostalgia plays a lot of tricks on people. The good old days weren't always so good. The one thing that made the IE games so popular back then was that there wasn't a whole lot of cRPGs to choose from. Before that it was the GoldBox games. BG wasn't that great a game. BG2 was pretty great though. IWD was pretty much just a hack n slash. PT had a good story. Today's cRPGs have all of that and more.

 

I'm trying to get through playing PoE after reinstalling it. So far I made it to Gilded Vale and got to level 3. Took the wizard at the inn and created a couple of NPCs. Now I'm heading into the temple. But it's hard. I'm not intentionally trying to dislike the game. I spent money on it and the Prima guide so I want to get my money's worth out of it. It's just so hard going back to something like this and to me the story is kind of boring so far. Hopefully it picks up. I also don't like is not having any real control over my party in combat without pausing. I think the game needs some type of system where I can give the AI a lisf of tactical commands to follow. Much like DA or even BG. Even the DA:I system would be better than nothing.

 

Your main problem is that you keep implying that isometric or top-down RPGs are inherently worse than first person or third person over-the shoulder stuff. That's like, your opinion, man. And it's not shared by many people that backed this game. Isometric isn't a technology limitation and it has nothing to do with nostalgia, it's just a preference. There were plenty of RPGs and tons of first-person RPGs in the days of BG. Anyway, I can't stand first person or even third person over the shoulder RPGs. It's got nothing to do with nostalgia and it certainly isn't outdated technology. It's okay that you don't like these sorts of games, but implying that isometric perspective is 1) outdated, 2) inherently worse than first person perspective, or 3) only preferred because of nostalgia is simply incorrect. One of the main reasons that people backed this game is because they haven't found a lot of games to enjoy since the IE games. I don't like TES games or DA games or Witcher games (since the Witcher 2 disallowed isometric perspective). I'm really enjoying these Kickstarted isometric RPGs.

 

For those of you who love AAA mainstream games, great, what exactly is the problem? Those games exist and are made all the time. Why are you here trying to convince some devs catering to different preferences than yours that they should change their game to suit the countless 1st person RPGs out there or trying to convince fans of isometric games that their preferences are based on nostalgia or something?

[Sven_]

For those of you who love AAA mainstream games, great, what exactly is the problem? Those games exist and are made all the time. Why are you here trying to convince some devs catering to different preferences than yours that they should change their game to suit the countless 1st person RPGs out there or trying to convince fans of isometric games that their preferences are based on nostalgia or something?

 

 

I don't think he's trying to convince anyone (though he keeps posting and arguing). He argued that this just wasn't the type of game for his. I agree with your assessment here strongly though. One of the best responses to the game I have seen was actually by somebody younger, who wasn't around when neither the classic Dungeon Crawlers (which also saw a bit of a resurgence) nor the isometric, tactical style RPGs were first around, including the entire series of game based on the Infinity Engine. He was like, "Woah, I'd never thought that so much reading in a game would be this awesome an experience." And gladly the press picked up on similar sentiments as well. Because whilst the Kickstarter pitch may have banked on nostalgia, this style of game hadn't just become extinct -- it became outmoded because the developers and publishers formerly focusing on this type of game went either out of business or cross platform and tried to make the games even bigger and more popular as they were. However, as the hardware and means of input are this different on PC/Mac and consoles, the micro-management required of these more tactical, isometric types of games aren't as hugely viable on consoles, not in the same way, certainly. And until recently memory and other hardware restrictions also proved difficult. This is the kind of game completely designed around keyboard and mouse, kind of like football and sports management games which are big on PCs but never took off elsewhere. Plus, as was pointed out, by the late 1990s and early 2000s there was a push towards 3d, like publishers seeing mostly 3d games doing well and concluding: "If you don't do this in 3D, you're out."

 

PoE isn't as revolutionary as the first Baldur's Gate was when it first came out. It also adopts some of the idiosyncrasies of these titles, some have been mentioned, another is that on some occasions, having a fixed 2d top down isometric view means characters are hidden behind walls, trees and, well, pillars (and you can't rotate the camera). In that I agree that going strictly 2D for the game's world wouldn't have been a necessity as such. It's a choice in aesthetics, and was clearly communicated as such -- lots of juice into 2D as well, as many titles show. However first and foremost it's a completely different style of game compared to Skyrim, even Obsidian's own New Vegas (which I both enjoy too). There's for one more tactical combat including second to second micro-management of a party of up to six characters with dozens of abilities and spells to boot; and if you compare it to big releases such as The Witcher or the entire current Bioware setup (or many other modern games), there's also a distinct lack of Hollywood-pretend movie sequences that have you gawking on the screen for minutes without interacting; with much of the storytelling being more akin to literature and your own imagination being demanded to become actively involved as well, rather than mimicing action/fantasy movies and spoon feeding you all throughout. Obviously when these games were made in numbers a lot of the design was down to limitations in technology -- the original Wasteland couldn't even fit all of its strictly TEXT on all the disk space available at that time so outsourced some of it into the manual. However there's more than just nostalgia and retro to it for sure. I'm glad that the press by and large picked up on the latter as well; there's something about words that pictures can't do (it's the opposite too of course). You're not going to get the equivalent of a big studio approved Lord Of The Rings kind of CGI mass carnage out of this one, that's for sure.

 

And that's fine. It's awesome, even. The more and diverse, the better. Still I'd go as far as arguing that Pillars Of Eternity, Wasteland 2 and all the others, in terms of design in particular, at their core are as cutting edge and bold as any of the games mentioned. And that's got much to do with the industry going down the interactive movie road in the more recent years, where you kind of get to pick a character and a hand full of skills if you're lucky, and then watch the thing safely guiding you through the rest until the credits roll -- and where much of the budget is spent on making these sequences hit home. As that Bioware classic has it: "If you push a button, something awesome has to happen." For on top of the differences in presentation, there is also no arguing that higher budgets mean complexity in mechanics is often out of the window. Nothing wrong with spectacles, naturally. The Witcher 3 with its open world full of stuff and action and relentless combat and over the top movie sequences looks like turning into an instant hit. However save for a few specialized niche developers, nobody would or did go down the tactical, real-time with pause/turn-based combat, fully party and more complex character system route in recent years whatsoever. Arguably the bulk of the last fifteen years in games development, in particular for RPGs, has largely been about trying to make games ever more accessible (and prettier, of course) in attempts to ever increase the audience. And whilst this might be folks advertising their game, there's probably a reason why some of the old folks at Bioware kind of argue the same:

 

 

“For so many years in game development, it’s really been about chasing the blockbuster,” said n-Space president Dan Tudge. “We fell victim to it at BioWare post-Neverwinter Nights.” It’s odd to consider a ginormous budget a restriction. But the distractions of large-scale production sometimes led Tudge and the Dragon Age team to “lose sight of the prize” - allowing all-consuming considerations like cinematic design to overshadow central systems like combat.

http://www.pcgamesn.com/sword-coast-legends/inside-sword-coast-legends-back-to-baldurs-gate-with-the-director-of-dragon-age-origins

Edited May 3, 2015 by Sven_

[CybAnt1]

I must confess I don't get what "balance" issues are in a Single Player-RPG. An MMO, or MP game, needs balance, so that PvP combat isn't unfair/improperly matched. I understand that. 

 

However, "balance" complaints in a SP-RPG seem to amount to "one class is more powerful than another," which in a SP-RPG where some may lack power, but make it up in support or secondary skills (etc.) .... doesn't seem to really be something that matters. 

 

Pathfinding and AI are legitimate complaints. Some day, somebody will make a game where either enemies or NPCs actually figure out that after 30 seconds of trying to walk through one of their own team, they actually could go a different way. I hope it arrives.

 

But I don't get the balance one. I really don't understand what it means to say a SP-RPG is 'imbalanced'.

[Grinch]

 

@Hassat Hunter

Not going to try to quote your whole message.  I'll just comment this way. Over the years I've played and still play a good variety of cRPGs. It's my favorite genre besides sports games. DA, ES and NWN have as much if not more depth than any of the IE games or PoE. The stories are just as good. So is the roleplaying. Just because some of those games can also be played on a console doesn't make them any less of an RPG. Some of your comments make it seem as though you're actually trying to justify your purchase of PoE. You don't have to do that. It's not matter of who's right or wrong. It's what's right for you and me. You like PoE and I'm not trying to change your mind.

 

For me I just can't go back to playing a top down, isometric cRPG after playing games that went way past that in what they were able to achieve. You many think some of them look ugly but they look just fine to me.  PoE is what games looked and played like 15 years ago. After 15 years, ES, DA and NWN are what cRPGs look like today. I think today's cRPGs are better than what we had 15 years ago. Time and nostalgia plays a lot of tricks on people. The good old days weren't always so good. The one thing that made the IE games so popular back then was that there wasn't a whole lot of cRPGs to choose from. Before that it was the GoldBox games. BG wasn't that great a game. BG2 was pretty great though. IWD was pretty much just a hack n slash. PT had a good story. Today's cRPGs have all of that and more.

 

I'm trying to get through playing PoE after reinstalling it. So far I made it to Gilded Vale and got to level 3. Took the wizard at the inn and created a couple of NPCs. Now I'm heading into the temple. But it's hard. I'm not intentionally trying to dislike the game. I spent money on it and the Prima guide so I want to get my money's worth out of it. It's just so hard going back to something like this and to me the story is kind of boring so far. Hopefully it picks up. I also don't like is not having any real control over my party in combat without pausing. I think the game needs some type of system where I can give the AI a lisf of tactical commands to follow. Much like DA or even BG. Even the DA:I system would be better than nothing.

 

Your main problem is that you keep implying that isometric or top-down RPGs are inherently worse than first person or third person over-the shoulder stuff. That's like, your opinion, man. And it's not shared by many people that backed this game. Isometric isn't a technology limitation and it has nothing to do with nostalgia, it's just a preference. There were plenty of RPGs and tons of first-person RPGs in the days of BG. Anyway, I can't stand first person or even third person over the shoulder RPGs. It's got nothing to do with nostalgia and it certainly isn't outdated technology. It's okay that you don't like these sorts of games, but implying that isometric perspective is 1) outdated, 2) inherently worse than first person perspective, or 3) only preferred because of nostalgia is simply incorrect. One of the main reasons that people backed this game is because they haven't found a lot of games to enjoy since the IE games. I don't like TES games or DA games or Witcher games (since the Witcher 2 disallowed isometric perspective). I'm really enjoying these Kickstarted isometric RPGs.

 

For those of you who love AAA mainstream games, great, what exactly is the problem? Those games exist and are made all the time. Why are you here trying to convince some devs catering to different preferences than yours that they should change their game to suit the countless 1st person RPGs out there or trying to convince fans of isometric games that their preferences are based on nostalgia or something?

 

It's all just my opinion. I haven't stated anything as fact. I did say that I can't play a top down, isometric games after playing games such as DA, ES and NWN. That is a fact. But I never said or implied that one was better than the other. I simply stated my current preference for more modern games. As for whether or not isometric is outdated, I believe it is. I was playing isometric cRPGs 15 years ago. They were good then but my tastes and preference has changed. Everything I have written in any of my posts is based strictly on my opinion and personal preference. I'm not trying to convince anybody that playing isometric games are wrong. I'm just saying that I don't like to play that style of game anymore. There is no right or wrong.

Edited May 3, 2015 by Grinch

[Grinch]

@Sven_

 

Don't really see how you figure I'm arguing. I explained why I didn't like the game. Some people responded to my posts and I responded to theirs. To me that's a discussion. Not an argument. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I simply stated my personal opinion and my personal preference. This isn't a right or wrong issue. People have different likes and dislikes. While I used to like this type of game, I don't anymore. I've tried playing this game and just can't get into it the way I can ES, DA and NWN games. I can't even play any of the old IE games anymore including the enhanced versions sold on Steam. I own them all. But after playing the more modern cRPGs, I just can't go back. That doesn't make me right or wrong. It doesn't mean I'm arguing. Some people act as though anybody who doesn't like this game is an idiot or just a hater. I wanted to like this game. I went all in buying the game and the Prima guide. So I spent a good bit of money on it. But I just can't get into it. Not when I have what I consider better games to play. 

 

One other thing too. For me this has nothing to do with consoles. I don't even own a console. I'm strictly a PC gamer.

Edited May 3, 2015 by Grinch

[Ink Blot]

I must confess I don't get what "balance" issues are in a Single Player-RPG. An MMO, or MP game, needs balance, so that PvP combat isn't unfair/improperly matched. I understand that. 

 

However, "balance" complaints in a SP-RPG seem to amount to "one class is more powerful than another," which in a SP-RPG where some may lack power, but make it up in support or secondary skills (etc.) .... doesn't seem to really be something that matters. 

 

Pathfinding and AI are legitimate complaints. Some day, somebody will make a game where either enemies or NPCs actually figure out that after 30 seconds of trying to walk through one of their own team, they actually could go a different way. I hope it arrives.

 

But I don't get the balance one. I really don't understand what it means to say a SP-RPG is 'imbalanced'.

For many, it seems to mean to mean "Can I solo the game with this class?" If not, then the game isn't balanced.

[CybAnt1]

I am not an "isometric über alles" type guy. On the other hand, I *am* a "I want to control a party of 6 characters guy". 

 

Since no one seems to have squared the circle of how to do this in a fully 3D/1st person view environment -- witness recent problems with top-down cameras in other "true" 3d RPGs, and those only have parties of 4 -- well, I'll take the solution that exists. 

 

I hope some day somebody comes up with a top-down view in a "true" 3D game that lets me control 6 party members (and in a non-awkward, futzy way) -- I'm guessing it's doable. Just hasn't been done. 

[scrotiemcb]

Balance, AI and Path Finding are by themselves meaningless terms. Balance especially.

I must confess I don't get what "balance" issues are in a Single Player-RPG. An MMO, or MP game, needs balance, so that PvP combat isn't unfair/improperly matched. I understand that.

 

However, "balance" complaints in a SP-RPG seem to amount to "one class is more powerful than another," which in a SP-RPG where some may lack power, but make it up in support or secondary skills (etc.) .... doesn't seem to really be something that matters.

Although I agree that "balance" is an oft-abused term in gaming discussions, it is a subject close to my heart, so I feel I should explain it as I see it.

 

Balance means nothing without the context of choice. Generally speaking, when people are put in a multiple-choice situation, one answer is deemed correct and the others deemed wrong. Balance is the art of tossing multiple choices at players and having two or more mechanically different answers being correct, relative to the moment of choice.

 

"Mechanically different" is a key word in my definition above. One very common error in "balance" discussions is that changing A to be more like B mechanically will help balance A and B. The way I look at things, removing the mechanical differences between choices doesn't promote variety, but forces players into a single choice with two different forms of superficial window dressing. The objective of balance is to maximize mechanical variance while equalizing viability to the maximum extent possible.

 

Another misconception about balance is that single, high-impact decisions are more important than frequent, low-impact decisions. As an illustration, imagine playing PvP in the following two fighting games:

• Game A has one character, Ultraman, which stands head and shoulders above all the others, but Ultraman's moves are well balanced against each other, such that you have a variety of valid moves at any point.
• Game B has balance among its cast of characters, but each character has a special move which thoroughly trumps all other moves in general utility

Game A would be much more fun to play, despite being almost entirely Ultraman mirror matches, because move choice is balanced. Game B would feel terrible to play because move choice is imbalanced, rendering character choice to a kind of paper-rock-scissors game (which in fact becomes the entire game), while the game itself is generally just a mindless spamwar (which decides nothing, character selection already decided the victor).

 

Lastly, although there is such a thing as balancing for skill (that is, focusing on good answers for underinformed players), balance normally assumes an informed player. This means they anticipate later situations and act accordingly. For example, players will probably save spells and/or rests in a dungeon for an eventual boss.

 

So when I think of balance problems in Eternity, I am not thinking about wizard vs druid, at least not primarily. First and foremost I'm thinking about stationary tanking vs mobile control methods. Then I'm thinking about what a cipher can do with 15 focus which isn't Mental Binding. It is balance along those lines which is going to effect player choice in every single encounter, not just at the character creation screen.

 

It is in this most frequently occuring form of balance which Eternity falls flat on its face. For some classes the sheer lack of tactical options is startling; you just stand still and autoattack. Tactics from one encounter to the next are ridiculously copy-pasted from the encounter before, you just keep doing the same things, combat becomes monotonous. And there are but two ways to fix this: one is a hard- or soft-counter style of encounter design (making previously correct answers wrong and previously wrong answers right) while the other is tactical balance (giving players multiple correct yet mechanically diverse answers to encounters).

Edited May 4, 2015 by scrotiemcb

[GrinningReaper659]

I must confess I don't get what "balance" issues are in a Single Player-RPG. An MMO, or MP game, needs balance, so that PvP combat isn't unfair/improperly matched. I understand that. 

 

However, "balance" complaints in a SP-RPG seem to amount to "one class is more powerful than another," which in a SP-RPG where some may lack power, but make it up in support or secondary skills (etc.) .... doesn't seem to really be something that matters. 

 

Pathfinding and AI are legitimate complaints. Some day, somebody will make a game where either enemies or NPCs actually figure out that after 30 seconds of trying to walk through one of their own team, they actually could go a different way. I hope it arrives.

 

But I don't get the balance one. I really don't understand what it means to say a SP-RPG is 'imbalanced'.

 

I must confess that I tire of seeing this proposition that "balance doesn't belong in a single player game." You might as well say that game design doesn't belong in a single player game. Post-release balance patches are just continued design as they see whether things are working as intended or not once the game has been released. Why you have some sudden need to tell them that that their design decisions are incorrect is beyond me.

 

Balance isn't a bad word. Do you think they just rolled some dice to determine racial bonuses, experience progression, or damage dealt by weapons? No, they designed these things, planned them out, and :gasp: balanced classes, items, and everything else against one another to make sure that the game would be fun and consistent. This is true of every single player game, it's not some oddity of PoE and I really am lost as to how people don't understand this.

[CybAnt1]

Why you have some sudden need to tell them that that their design decisions are incorrect is beyond me.

 

 

 

This is odd, as I was pointing out why I didn't understand someone else's criticism, not issuing any of my own.

 

I understand your points, and I certainly wouldn't question the need for fine-tuning game design, I guess I wouldn't call many of those things by the word "balance" (although I know that is how many of these design tweaks are defined in patches). 

 

Decided, as always, to turn to google. I think I get now what this word means in a single player context.

 

https://gamedesignconcepts.wordpress.com/2009/08/20/level-16-game-balance/

 

 

1. In single-player games, we use “balance” to describe whether the challenge level is appropriate to the audience;
2. In multi-player games where there is asymmetry (that is, where players do not start with exactly equal positions and resources), we use “balance” to describe whether one starting position is easier to win with than another.
3. Within a game, if there are multiple strategies or paths to victory that can be followed within the game, we use “balance” to describe whether following one strategy is better or worse than following another.
4. Within a system that has several similar game objects (such as cards in a trading-card game, weapons in a role-playing game, and so on), we use “balance” to describe the objects themselves, specifically whether different objects have the same cost/benefit ratio.

I can see how 1, 3, and 4 apply to PoE ... so now I concede my position. Honestly, not being a game designer, I really only thought it applied to 2.

Edited May 4, 2015 by CybAnt1

[ModernModron]

Wow, that's a tough call.  I hate the combat system in PoE, and I hated the system in DA:O too.  But the two systems are quite different, and I'm not sure which I'd put ahead of the other.

 

On the one hand, DA:O was hopelessly imbalanced, with the magical powers outstripping everything else in terms of variety, and generally in raw power as well.  But while PoE has a much better balance between the different class types, the actual combat is a jumbled mess of poorly differentiated powers and that frickin' Engagement system. 

 

Frankly, I don't expect replay either game anytime soon.  I guess if I had to choose between them I'd go with DA:O by a whisker, but that's mostly because of the better encounter design.  Fights felt more varied in that game, even if they were still chores to get through.

 

Obviously, YMMV.