Trying to decide whether to give this a second chance

[sffrrrom]

First off, let me say I'm not trying to start an angry debate about the relative merits of PoE here, just get a little feedback on what has changed since the last time I tried and abandoned the game. I was a significant backer, so I have the expansion.

 

I last played a couple of weeks after release; there were a number of bugs, but those weren't really the defining reasons I stopped playing (about halfway through the game). I thought the plot was on the weaker side, character interactions and quests were pretty good, didn't like the attribute system, but the big problem for me was that combat basically was just really really bland, and in a game as combat-heavy as PoE, that was a big problem. The other elements of PoE weren't bad, but they weren't nearly good enough to hold the game up despite the combat ala Arcanum.

 

First, I felt characters were all really samey. I got that a design principle was to break free of the stereotypical robed-wizard, plate-mail knight archetypes, but all of my characters felt like they fell into one of two roles - tank or DPS. Hybrid characters, or characters in-between those roles (like for me, Sagani), felt useless. This was even worse with the caster types, whose spells seemed to have virtually no difference. I could have a wizard, whose spells were mostly geared towards DPS, or I could have a cipher, who functioned slightly differently, but was mostly geared towards DPS, or a Druid, who had some neat spells that were...mostly geared towards DPS. For someone who was hoping this would be the second coming of BGII (which at least for me had lots of interesting spells) this was a huge disappointment. (Not saying how I perceived it is necessarily all that there was to it but it is how I felt).

 

That plus the encounter designs - which I felt, although there were a few standouts such as Roderick's Keep - were by and large very poor, really turned me off the game once I got about midway and the experience started to pile up in a fairly unbalanced way. So my question is - with patches to game mechanics since release and esp. w/ 2.0, and w/ the expansion, does the combat in the game feel better/tighter? Or should I go replay BGII for the millionth time? 

 

Again, NOT trying to anger anyone who loves the game; just asking for some perspective given my previous experiences.

[Ink Blot]

I had a similar feeling about the game, but finished it anyway. I'll probably give it another go just to see how it's changed through patching (I think I played on patch 1.05 or 1.06, but can't recall for certain) and because I also have the expansion. Anyway, I'd suggest just firing it up again and see how it feels now. That's what I plan on doing at some point in the future.

Edited September 17, 2015 by Ink Blot

[Delta57Dash]

Wizards, for me at least, are mostly about crowd-control rather than damage.  Ciphers have a good mix but late-game are mostly crowd-control as well thanks to Amplified Wave.  Special mention to Mental Binding as well.

I'm curious what level you managed to reach before quitting as the roles of individual characters really diversify late game once they have their full suite of talents/abilities/equipment.

 

Also Sagani becomes one of the strongest anti-boss members of your party once she gets Borreslaine + Twinned shots, though you have to respec her from Hunting Bows into War Bows.

[LaSpeakeasi]

They re-balanced it a bit since WM. So maybe hybrid classes are less useless now.

 

I am not as combat oriented as you seem to be. So for me the difference between those classes are mostly about flavor. And They are, for the lack of a better word, classic. They are exactly what you'd expect for a wizard, a fighter, or a priest. Again, for a new IP, not necessarily a bad thing.

 

The game does give you room to experiment - if you want to create a heavy armored melee wizard, the game doesn't restrict nor penalize you for it - which is more than I could say for the IE games.

 

It's been a while since I played the IE games and my skills have improved quite a bit since then. But I feel the game is easier than BG. Which for an cRPG (vs. tabletop) I think it's a good thing because you no longer feel pressured to do certain builds, or you won't even be able to beat the game. You get to experience the story and everything.

 

I do agree with the combat encounters. Not a lot of non-combat resolution to get through the game. And there's no enough out-of-combat mechanics to make the game interesting - I quite enjoy the idea of utility classes (e.g. faces, spies, fixers,mechanics, etc.) that don't do as much in combat but can, say talk their way out of situations, or use networks to gather information, etc.

 

Shadowrun: HK did this extremely well. Some didn't like it but you're assigned the face role for your party. So if you don't want your PC to fight, he doesn't have to.

[Infinitron]

First off, let me say I'm not trying to start an angry debate about the relative merits of PoE here, just get a little feedback on what has changed since the last time I tried and abandoned the game. I was a significant backer, so I have the expansion.

 

I last played a couple of weeks after release; there were a number of bugs, but those weren't really the defining reasons I stopped playing (about halfway through the game). I thought the plot was on the weaker side, character interactions and quests were pretty good, didn't like the attribute system, but the big problem for me was that combat basically was just really really bland, and in a game as combat-heavy as PoE, that was a big problem. The other elements of PoE weren't bad, but they weren't nearly good enough to hold the game up despite the combat ala Arcanum.

 

First, I felt characters were all really samey. I got that a design principle was to break free of the stereotypical robed-wizard, plate-mail knight archetypes, but all of my characters felt like they fell into one of two roles - tank or DPS. Hybrid characters, or characters in-between those roles (like for me, Sagani), felt useless. This was even worse with the caster types, whose spells seemed to have virtually no difference. I could have a wizard, whose spells were mostly geared towards DPS, or I could have a cipher, who functioned slightly differently, but was mostly geared towards DPS, or a Druid, who had some neat spells that were...mostly geared towards DPS. For someone who was hoping this would be the second coming of BGII (which at least for me had lots of interesting spells) this was a huge disappointment. (Not saying how I perceived it is necessarily all that there was to it but it is how I felt).

 

That plus the encounter designs - which I felt, although there were a few standouts such as Roderick's Keep - were by and large very poor, really turned me off the game once I got about midway and the experience started to pile up in a fairly unbalanced way. So my question is - with patches to game mechanics since release and esp. w/ 2.0, and w/ the expansion, does the combat in the game feel better/tighter? Or should I go replay BGII for the millionth time? 

 

Again, NOT trying to anger anyone who loves the game; just asking for some perspective given my previous experiences.

 

Here's my advice:

 

1) Play on Path of the Damned difficulty. This is non-negotiable.

 

2) Play a Rogue. Take his two initial active abilities, Crippling Strike and Blinding Strike. When fighting enemies, watch their Defense scores and notice how those two abilities change them. Read about the Afflictions that they cause, and the game's other Afflictions as well. Notice how your other party members' spells and abilities can become vastly more effective as a result of those Afflictions.

 

3) Extrapolate what you learn from that experience to the other classes in the game. Make note of how their abilities and spells can provide similar utility. Hopefully, those wizard spells won't look so samey anymore afterwards.

 

4) Take Durance with you. Notice how his Suppress Affliction and Prayer spells can provide you with protection against those Afflictions when they are applied against you. In time, you will find this useful, even essential.

Edited September 17, 2015 by Infinitron

[sffrrrom]

Wizards, for me at least, are mostly about crowd-control rather than damage.  Ciphers have a good mix but late-game are mostly crowd-control as well thanks to Amplified Wave.  Special mention to Mental Binding as well.

 

I'm curious what level you managed to reach before quitting as the roles of individual characters really diversify late game once they have their full suite of talents/abilities/equipment.

 

Also Sagani becomes one of the strongest anti-boss members of your party once she gets Borreslaine + Twinned shots, though you have to respec her from Hunting Bows into War Bows.

 

Reloaded my old game and it looks like I had just unlocked level 8.

 

They re-balanced it a bit since WM. So maybe hybrid classes are less useless now.

 

I am not as combat oriented as you seem to be. So for me the difference between those classes are mostly about flavor. And They are, for the lack of a better word, classic. They are exactly what you'd expect for a wizard, a fighter, or a priest. Again, for a new IP, not necessarily a bad thing.

 

The game does give you room to experiment - if you want to create a heavy armored melee wizard, the game doesn't restrict nor penalize you for it - which is more than I could say for the IE games.

 

It's been a while since I played the IE games and my skills have improved quite a bit since then. But I feel the game is easier than BG. Which for an cRPG (vs. tabletop) I think it's a good thing because you no longer feel pressured to do certain builds, or you won't even be able to beat the game. You get to experience the story and everything.

 

I do agree with the combat encounters. Not a lot of non-combat resolution to get through the game. And there's no enough out-of-combat mechanics to make the game interesting - I quite enjoy the idea of utility classes (e.g. faces, spies, fixers,mechanics, etc.) that don't do as much in combat but can, say talk their way out of situations, or use networks to gather information, etc.

 

Shadowrun: HK did this extremely well. Some didn't like it but you're assigned the face role for your party. So if you don't want your PC to fight, he doesn't have to.

 

I love all the Shadowruns and have beaten them all. You're very right about how those are definitely less combat oriented, and I love them for what they are. I don't expect PoE to be the same - it's fine to me that it is more of a dungeon-crawler with a heavy focus on combat, but not if I don't enjoy that combat. 

 

I'm surprised to see you think the classes are "classic" because that wasn't my recollection at all. Maybe it has more to do with the attribute system, but I remember having to basically make a high might wizard if I wanted him to be able to do damage, and then having a dialogue option at one point where I grabbed someone by the scruff of the neck because I had high might. I don't think the dialogue was mandatory at all, but it really did not jive with what I wanted from my character from a roleplay perspective. But speaking more mechanically, classic or not I just struggled to find any distinction among the classes - my druid wasn't really doing anything my cipher or mage weren't. But maybe they have tweaked that since I played at launch?

 

 

First off, let me say I'm not trying to start an angry debate about the relative merits of PoE here, just get a little feedback on what has changed since the last time I tried and abandoned the game. I was a significant backer, so I have the expansion.

 

I last played a couple of weeks after release; there were a number of bugs, but those weren't really the defining reasons I stopped playing (about halfway through the game). I thought the plot was on the weaker side, character interactions and quests were pretty good, didn't like the attribute system, but the big problem for me was that combat basically was just really really bland, and in a game as combat-heavy as PoE, that was a big problem. The other elements of PoE weren't bad, but they weren't nearly good enough to hold the game up despite the combat ala Arcanum.

 

First, I felt characters were all really samey. I got that a design principle was to break free of the stereotypical robed-wizard, plate-mail knight archetypes, but all of my characters felt like they fell into one of two roles - tank or DPS. Hybrid characters, or characters in-between those roles (like for me, Sagani), felt useless. This was even worse with the caster types, whose spells seemed to have virtually no difference. I could have a wizard, whose spells were mostly geared towards DPS, or I could have a cipher, who functioned slightly differently, but was mostly geared towards DPS, or a Druid, who had some neat spells that were...mostly geared towards DPS. For someone who was hoping this would be the second coming of BGII (which at least for me had lots of interesting spells) this was a huge disappointment. (Not saying how I perceived it is necessarily all that there was to it but it is how I felt).

 

That plus the encounter designs - which I felt, although there were a few standouts such as Roderick's Keep - were by and large very poor, really turned me off the game once I got about midway and the experience started to pile up in a fairly unbalanced way. So my question is - with patches to game mechanics since release and esp. w/ 2.0, and w/ the expansion, does the combat in the game feel better/tighter? Or should I go replay BGII for the millionth time? 

 

Again, NOT trying to anger anyone who loves the game; just asking for some perspective given my previous experiences.

 

Here's my advice:

 

1) Play on Path of the Damned difficulty. This is non-negotiable.

 

2) Play a Rogue. Take his two initial active abilities, Crippling Strike and Blinding Strike. When fighting enemies, watch their Defense scores and notice how those two abilities change them. Read about the Afflictions that they cause, and the games' other Afflictions as well. Notice how your other party members' spells and abilities can become vastly more effective as a result of those Afflictions.

 

3) Extrapolate what you learn from that experience to the other classes in the game. Make note of how their abilities and spells can provide similar utility. Hopefully, those wizard spells won't look so samey anymore afterwards.

 

4) Take Durance with you. Notice how his Suppress Affliction and Prayer spells can provide you with protection against those Afflictions when they are applied against you. In time, you will find this useful, even essential.

 

 

I could try PotD - I did have a major problem with experience bloat so maybe that would help address that obliquely? Wouldn't be maining a rogue, but your advice mostly boils down to pay more attention to the affliction system and how various classes and spells interact with that, which I could definitely do. I don't recall paying much attention to that at all, so maybe I need to look into it much more (and maybe they have emphasized it more? I don't recall all that many interactions).

[Infinitron]

 

I could try PotD - I did have a major problem with experience bloat so maybe that would help address that obliquely? Wouldn't be maining a rogue, but your advice mostly boils down to pay more attention to the affliction system and how various classes and spells interact with that, which I could definitely do. I don't recall paying much attention to that at all, so maybe I need to look into it much more (and maybe they have emphasized it more? I don't recall all that many interactions).

 

 

 

Yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying. PoE's multi-faceted and highly interactive Defense, Damage Resistance and Affliction system is kind of like its version of BG2's mage duels. It's a lot less high-stakes and a lot less spectacular, for sure, but the same sense of mechanical depth is there, if you know how to find it.

 

In my opinion, the Rogue is the best "learner class" for getting a handle on this stuff. It has simple single-target abilities that demonstrate immediately the value of applying Afflictions, with the Rogue's own Sneak Attack damage bonus as an added incentive. When you start with a spellcaster, all those crazy AoEs flying around the place...it's harder to get a handle on the nitty gritty.

Edited September 17, 2015 by Infinitron

[ComplyOrDie]

For me I absolutely blitzed the game for about 2 weeks on release. I put in 90 hours which is highly commendable for any game to get from me. My main run was on PoTD and I got to the last boss at level 9 and he was extremely difficult.

 

I posted a fair amount back then about how disappointingly easy the majority of the rest of the game was compared.  In particular, tank and spank beat basically everything and the AI was woeful, particularly for an SCS Veteran. Not to mention experience bloat.

 

I would echo the OP in that, while not wishing to bash the game, combat is extremely important to me. I'd love to come back, finish the game, experience the many quests I missed and the White March. I see claims the AI has been improved and tank and spank "nerfed". Is this noticeable and thus worth another go for me?

Edited September 17, 2015 by ComplyOrDie

[Zherot]

Yeah the combat in this game is pretty bad, though they added AI maybe that will help you, but i understand you tottally, same reason i stoped playing, that and i didnt liked to micro manage every damn thing, like srsly.

 

Is a bit better to me in the micro management thing, now its less and you only really need to do it when in a hard battle, but the overall combat of the game its the same, still kind of crappy.

Edited September 17, 2015 by Zherot

[jsaving]

Regarding the OP's point about encounters being too easy months ago, I actually think now might be a great time to give PoE another try.  The new monster AI and 2.0's nerfs to deflection make it tougher for tanks to protect the backline, demanding more strategic play for any given difficulty level.  Spell/power rebalancings over the last few patches have nerfed several of the most OP offerings, leaving only a few (like ectoplasmic echo) untouched.  The changes to perception and constitution have also enriched the character creation process by introducing more tradeoffs for most builds -- dumping constitution, for example, can't be taken as lightly as it could be earlier in the year.  Finally, I think encounters are generally better-designed in the White March and are also tougher, which most expansion players seem to welcome. 

[Rathlord]

The game can be a bit easy at times, but I haven't fully delved into the challenging difficulties.

 

One thing I noticed a ton of people are doing is downloading a mod which doubles the experience needed to level (or decreases the amount you get by half, whichever) and this supposedly brings the game much more in line with what it should be as far as difficulty.

 

I was extremely disappointed by combat in the beta and first couple of patches, but since coming back in 2.0 I've been impressed with the combat changes- though still quite disappointed by several bugs. In general things feel a bit tighter, a bit harder, and the game communicates with the player MUCH better than 1.0 (though still needs a lot of improvement).

 

---

 

It's funny though- as far as the story goes- I'm really impressed by the quality of the writing and the voice acting, but somewhat disappointed by a bland overarching story so far. I'm finding the side quests far more compelling than the main story in many ways. There are clear parallels between the story of the Watcher and Bhaalspawn of BG, but I feel even though PoE's world is incredible, gorgeous, and immersive that it somehow doesn't make it as personal as BG did. I'm having trouble getting engaged with the Watcher's plight and that of its world. I think this comes down to a story telling failing (in my opinion) that the Watcher has no connection to the world at all. You start with no friends, family, home, etc. This makes having a connection hard for me. I find myself much more connected to party members and side quest givers, but still feel I have very few stakes in what is happening.

 

I hope the sequel will do a better job of getting me connected to the story.

[Luj1]

First off, let me say I'm not trying to start an angry debate about the relative merits of PoE here, just get a little feedback on what has changed since the last time I tried and abandoned the game. I was a significant backer, so I have the expansion.

 

I last played a couple of weeks after release; there were a number of bugs, but those weren't really the defining reasons I stopped playing (about halfway through the game). I thought the plot was on the weaker side, character interactions and quests were pretty good, didn't like the attribute system, but the big problem for me was that combat basically was just really really bland, and in a game as combat-heavy as PoE, that was a big problem. The other elements of PoE weren't bad, but they weren't nearly good enough to hold the game up despite the combat ala Arcanum.

 

First, I felt characters were all really samey. I got that a design principle was to break free of the stereotypical robed-wizard, plate-mail knight archetypes, but all of my characters felt like they fell into one of two roles - tank or DPS. Hybrid characters, or characters in-between those roles (like for me, Sagani), felt useless. This was even worse with the caster types, whose spells seemed to have virtually no difference. I could have a wizard, whose spells were mostly geared towards DPS, or I could have a cipher, who functioned slightly differently, but was mostly geared towards DPS, or a Druid, who had some neat spells that were...mostly geared towards DPS. For someone who was hoping this would be the second coming of BGII (which at least for me had lots of interesting spells) this was a huge disappointment. (Not saying how I perceived it is necessarily all that there was to it but it is how I felt).

 

That plus the encounter designs - which I felt, although there were a few standouts such as Roderick's Keep - were by and large very poor, really turned me off the game once I got about midway and the experience started to pile up in a fairly unbalanced way. So my question is - with patches to game mechanics since release and esp. w/ 2.0, and w/ the expansion, does the combat in the game feel better/tighter? Or should I go replay BGII for the millionth time? 

 

Again, NOT trying to anger anyone who loves the game; just asking for some perspective given my previous experiences.

 

I had the same feeling OP. This expansion is just more of the same blandness. And no, I don't think it'll get better.

 

I mean, with 2 expansions , many patches, and mods this game should be replayed. But not yet.

[Stoner]

My feeling towards this game are absolutely opposite to yours OP. I admit that there are things I'm not quite agree with and feel wrong about maybe, but overall, especially combat is just a BLAST for me. I highly enjoy every bit of this game and can't get enough of it.

 

I have enjoyed Arcanum, BG1/2, IWD, Planescape and etc. back in a days too, and no matter how good those games were you just want something new, and that something is PoE for me now. I hadn't that feeling in more than 10 years, seriously, and PoE brough it back. 

 

Plot isn't something I can really appreciate this game for, writing not that engaging but main point is that it FITS well for this game, it doesn't feel wrong or out of place, atmosphere is set just right, and that includes everything, maybe feels a bit bland sometimes but still, all these characters, dialogues, gorgeous backgrounds and sounds working real magic together.

 

Combat is intense, it's fast and with new AI settings (although they aren't perfect yet) it feels especially satisfying. When I wanted some challenge I went to locations with powerfull enemies and weak party and I got it. This game has basically all I need.

 

And truth is: I'm not a backer, I was REALLY sceptical about this game and probably wouldn't even look it's way if one of my friends wouldn't make me to play this almost by force.

[Teioh_White]

Well, the only real change for the game has been we now have some minimal AI (which has some trouble even being that at times). Beyond that, if you didn't like the game then, you won't like it now. Not trying to agree/disagree with how you feel the game, play what you like, but if you didn't like it then, you won't like it now.

 

(but if you want my opinion, I think you complaints are off the mark, but aimed at the right target. Probably if you played the game more, you'd be better able to express why exactly you dislike it. But that's a bad idea, to play something just to better explain why it rubs you the wrong way, haha.)

Edited September 18, 2015 by Teioh_White

[Zherot]

I will add that even if the combat itself its crap, like i said it gets better with AI but the game has also other interesting matters, has very good writing IMO, i am really enjoying some of the sidequests and tasks, the main story line i havent advanced it that much precisely because i get so easily sidetracked by this sidequests, i like how your companions banter with each other and talk to you and have something to say in the story or in the sidequests, i also like how the world really akcnowledge how you are behaving in it, you build your reputation and the people will acknowledge it and comment on how the world sees you, thats pretty good.

 

Dont judge the game only on the combat, i know it sucks it dosent have a better combat but it has more to offer, its truly a shame but its not a total disaster either, it just dosent feel that good compaed to other RPGs i played.

Edited September 18, 2015 by Zherot

[LaSpeakeasi]

 

 

I'm surprised to see you think the classes are "classic" because that wasn't my recollection at all. Maybe it has more to do with the attribute system, but I remember having to basically make a high might wizard if I wanted him to be able to do damage, and then having a dialogue option at one point where I grabbed someone by the scruff of the neck because I had high might. I don't think the dialogue was mandatory at all, but it really did not jive with what I wanted from my character from a roleplay perspective. But speaking more mechanically, classic or not I just struggled to find any distinction among the classes - my druid wasn't really doing anything my cipher or mage weren't. But maybe they have tweaked that since I played at launch?

 

I interpret it as the stats just aren't what they meant in DnD, and are completely relative to the class. Might for instance, doesn't always mean physical strength - it is if you're a fighter, etc. But for ciphers and wizards it means mind power. So for all we know, your wizards could be magically grabbing someone by the collar and listing him up.

 

Otherwise it would make no sense at all for it to improve healing, ranged attack and spell dmg etc.

[rheingold]

OP Fair enough, if you don't like a game you shouldn't have to justify it.

I must be honest I like the game, story and combat. The story and world building are fairly original, certainly as far as fantasy goes, and some of the writing is exceptional.

Regarding the White March expansion, I think the changes they have made to the stats, combat and classes are very good on the whole. The game seems to be improving on a regular basis, so I'm definitely looking forward to Pillars 2. (Hopefully.)  Having said that I am disappointed with the story for the expansion. I like the region itself, but the narrative and plot are not great - it just seems completely divorced from the main plot. I have a hard time from a role playing point of view justifying wandering off north to do the expansion.

But it is similar to "Tales of the Sword Coast", so they have produced exactly what they promised. It's just not what I wanted...

[Luj1]

Maybe this will be worth playing again after more expansions, patches and  community mods

[sffrrrom]

Thanks very much for everyone's feedback - it is greatly appreciated, and I especially appreciate how pretty much everyone was polite and helpful. Based on the variety of responses, I think for right now I will hold off and let them work on it some more, but possibly when they have had more time to tweak the current expansion I may return and try out that lowered XP mod, or see what other mods there are. 

 

Thanks again all.

[Stoner]

A funny thing, guys who say combat in PoE sucks always compare it to classics like BG, but overall, despite some flaws combat system is pretty similar, but in all honesty, no one can name SINGLE cRPG in last 10 years which has better combat or overall roleplaying feeling than PoE. That's something, isn't it?

[LaSpeakeasi]

no one can name SINGLE cRPG in last 10 years which has better combat or overall roleplaying feeling than PoE.

That's highly subjective and therefore highly debatable. While I do feel like PoE is a lot of fun and the combat really isn't that different from BG; except er, BG had more sophisticated AI (what the hell, Obsidian?). A lot of people take issue with stat system being too realistic (wizards require high Might? WTF?) which in turns breaks RP.

 

And I can't fault them for that. I would much rather they go back to the classic stat system.

 

Divinity: Original Sin was considered better than PoE in the combat department. And I am impartial either way. But I had tons of fun play D:OS. It had some brilliant innovations that PoE so sorely lacked.

 

There are many games that does RP better than PoE in one way or another:

 

- Dragonfall and SR: HK came to mind. The RP element was incorporated into the gameplay. I wished PoE had taken a note from HBS. But you already know that.

- Dragon Age's Thedas is just a better, more "modern" setting than Eora. PoE at its core is stuck in 2000. Audiences have moved on from the PG-13 dark fantasy. Thedas has gay people, and religious fundamentalism, racism and class struggle - these are the things that strike a cord with today's audience; opportunities that PoE missed.

[MunoValente]

I think New Vegas does the role playing side better, the range of characters and personalities I've been able to do in New Vegas is really impressive to me.  Dragonfall I think has better writing and similar quality role playing, but at a much smaller, more limited scale.

 

I agree with most RPG having unremarkable combat.  I've heard Divinity is good for that, but gave up on it pretty quick because everything else was boring and ugly looking and decided if i wanted turn based combat I'd just play XCOM or Jagged Alliance.

 

Dragon Age doesn't do much for me.  I think Pillars is better almost across the board, but that's just me.

Edited September 18, 2015 by MunoValente

[Zherot]

A funny thing, guys who say combat in PoE sucks always compare it to classics like BG, but overall, despite some flaws combat system is pretty similar, but in all honesty, no one can name SINGLE cRPG in last 10 years which has better combat or overall roleplaying feeling than PoE. That's something, isn't it?

 

Cant EDIT:  please do not make pointed personal attacks against other members.  The remark I removed is more or less innocuous on its own, but it's part of a troubling pattern I've seen.  Treat each other gently.  Attack arguments, not people.

[oaktownbrown]

OP, I had the same problem. I got most of the way through Defiance Bay and got bored. Part of  my problem was that I did too many sidequests but I balanced that by not leveling up when I could. I had enough points to be around level 7 but only leveled through level 4. I like that you can choose to level up or not in PoE. Even with that, the game was somewhat boring for me so I quit for a while. The bounties were pretty fun at level 4, though.

 

I switched to solo PotD. It was a lot of fun for me. I had to be very careful during many of the fights. To be honest, I probably would have struggled more with some of them if I hadn't already been through those areas either with the party I'd abandoned or in the beta. I also did a run where I tried to sneak and avoid combat. It was pretty fun to go through the Endless Paths with as few fights as possible.

 

I agree that paying attention to afflictions makes the game more interesting. I didn't do that in the beginning but I did after a while just because it was more fun for me to use my party members to help each other. It gave me a way to vary the tactics I used.

 

 

 

A funny thing, guys who say combat in PoE sucks always compare it to classics like BG, but overall, despite some flaws combat system is pretty similar, but in all honesty, no one can name SINGLE cRPG in last 10 years which has better combat or overall roleplaying feeling than PoE. That's something, isn't it?

 

Cant EDIT:  see post above.

 

 

Which game you like more is very subjective. I liked the combat mechanics of D:OS much better than the combat mechanics of PoE. E.g., it was a lot of fun to teleport enemies, set them on fire, etc. However, for me, combat in D:OS became much too easy after the first few levels. Overall, I prefer PoE's combat, although both have repetitive encounters. I liked the writing, dialog, and companions more in PoE, though all of those areas had problems in PoE as well. I know other people who didn't think that the combat was much too easy in D:OS, or at least not until pretty far into the game. Understandably, they like D:OS's combat, and generally D:OS itself, far more than I do.

Edited September 19, 2015 by Cantousent

[LaSpeakeasi]

Dragon Age doesn't do much for me.  I think Pillars is better almost across the board, but that's just me.

Dragon Age: Origin was a classic. You can tell PoE took a few notes from DA:O:

 

- The "noble savages" of the Dalish Elves vs. Six Tribes

- The pro-life subplot with Morrigan and Grieving Mother

- The post-colonial politics of Ferelden vs. Dyrwood

- The "is God real" factor with Andraste vs. Eothas

- Orlais vs. the Valian Republic etc.

 

Bioware may not have the best writers on a technical level. But they are always socially conscious and try to reflect the real world zeitgeists at the time. They were the first to do it and now everyone's doing it.

 

PoE too tries to rise above the fantasy subgenre but somehow never manages the same impact.

Edited September 18, 2015 by LaSpeakeasi