Scope and quality - feedback for PoE 2

[Farks]

(tl;dr available at the bottom)

 

I recently finished my first playthrough of PoE. And I'm glad to say that I enjoyed it, and if I had to rate it I would give it a solid 4/5 rating. I think it captured all the important stuff about the IE games. As a backer, I'm satisfied with the end result.

 

But like most nerds on the internet, I also like to complain about stuff. And I'm writing this in order to complain about stuff that hopefully will give Obsidian some constructive feedback for the sequel.

 

When it comes to the RPG-systems and mechanics I agree with many of the common criticisms or can at least see where people are coming from (”balance” and all that jazz), even though I overall enjoyed the combat and game systems. I think they have the right idea at their core, but the execution is slightly flawed at times. But this has been covered a million times before by people with a better understanding of the systems than me, so I won't be talking about that here.

Instead, I want to talk about two other topics: scope and quality. To put it simply, PoE would have been an even better game if it had been a smaller game. By that I don't just mean cutting stuff, I also mean re-thinking certain things for the sake of quality and consistency. Most of the things I will mention are either not good enough or have little to no real impact on the game at all. I'm not saying the game was a total exercise in quantity and everything was bad, but I think more important aspects of the game suffered beacuse of it. I can understand why Obsidian planned and made these features. Some of them sound good on paper to the players and some of them are to pad out the game so you can promise that the game is as big as the earlier IE games (which was mentioned in interviews before release quite a lot). And most of these things aren't necessarily bad, they're just mediocre or not needed for a game like this.

 

I will go through all of these things, their problems and suggest potential improvements.

Main quest:
I think the story was overall interesting and had many good concepts and themes, but it still felt thin. Especially act II, which was basically just traveling to three similair locations to learn things that weren't that surprising and didn't develop the plot or characters in any significant way. I also think the main quest should have been longer. The begining and the ending were the best parts.

 

I obviously don't know what story is planned for the sequel, so I will avoid commenting on that specifically. But something I would definetly like to see is having the main quest and side quests cooperate more. I don't mean making them one and the same, but rather having side quests making sense within the main plot and reinforcing the events, characters, locations, themes and so on. For example, in BG2 you need to raise a lot of gold in order to go after Imoen in Irenicus. And how do you do that? By going out adventures of course! In New Vegas, you're encouraged to get to know and try to recruit the other factions in the wasteland while working for one of the main factions. While doing so, you do their side quests to improve your character and gear and learn about these factions, their inhabitants and the potential consequences of your actions. If a similair system can be made for PoE 2, it could enhance both the main and side quests a lot.

 

Side quests and tasks:
Here is where the game really could have used more quality and less quantity. Most of side quests played well enough and weren't bad, but not that memorable either. The tasks seemed like an unecessary way to pad out the game.

 

BG2 should be the gold standard when it comes quality of side quests in RPG's, especially in a spiritual successor to it. I'd rather have fewer really well made quests that are bigger and have various ways of completeing them and different outcomes based on that rather than more quests that are decent but end up feeling generic and forgettable in the larger picture of things. The side quests in BG2 felt like mini-campaigns and were generally very memorable because of it. I think it was George Zetis that described the side quests in BG2 as being designed like D&D modules. That problary sums it up.

 

The Stronghold:
An underwhelming time and money sink. The only thing about it I found worthwhile was the bounties since they offered unique and challenging encounters and oppurtunity gain XP. But you wouldn't need the stronghold for this feature.

 

I'm not the first to mention this and I know that the stronghold will be updated in the next patch. But for the sequel, I think it should be either completely cut, drastically smaller in scoope or just quest based like it was in BG2.

Wilderness areas:
They weren't fun or interesting in BG1, and aren't in this game either unfortunetly. They're mostly samey areas populated by enemy mobs and occasionally a cavern with even more enemy mobs. Which is totally counter-intuitive to the games idea about no XP for kills, since there is no other reason to explore them. And there aren't really any interesting quests or items to be found in these areas either.

 

So yeah, I think wilderness areas should be cut completely unless they are part of a specific quest line. The impression I get is that many areas in general were made first, and content made for them afterwards*. It should be the other way around, where area design is informed by quests. That's one of the reasons BG2 side quests worked so well imo, the areas felt built around the story and concepts of the design of the quest.

 

* Of course I don't know if this how Obsidian actully made them, but that's what it feels like

Dungeons:
Same as above for the most part. They seem to be either caves or old stone ruins of some kind populated by spiders and phantoms.

 

Areas/locations in general:
They are all very beautiful and pretty to look at, but the game suffers a bit from a lack of variety in scenery. Pretty much everything is more or less forrest/greenlands, medival villages/cities and the samey caves/dungeons mentioned above.

The Endless Paths:
Cool on paper (and a convinient Kickstarter strech goal), but in game it was just a drag. The good things about it were the Vithraks, Od Nua himself and his story and the end boss. But all of that could either have been condensed into fewer levels or been better used elsewhere in the game.

 

For example, I think it would have been possible to work Od Nua and his story into the main quest somehow (since they have the same core theme), which would have fleshed out the main story and made it longer (as mentioned above).


Reputation and factions:
Seriously underwhelming feature since it's barley present in the game at all. It had no impact on how I played the game whatsoever. The factions only make a brief apperence in the main quest and I have no memory of my reputation affecting anything.

Since reactivity is something I and others definetly want in these games, this needs to either be improved drastically or re-thought and rebuilt completely. In order for factions to work, their institution and effect on the game world needs to be properly modelled and displayed, as well as the consequences for the player if they go with or against them or do things they like or dislike. Good examples would be The Shadow Thieves and the vampires in BG2, or The Legion and NCR in New Vegas. In other words, making factions that matter to the game experience takes some effort (duh!). So if this can't be done properly within the scoope of the game project, then maybe bring it down a bit. Perhaps make the choice between important individuals rather than whole factions, and focus on weather or not they like what the player does? Kings, generals, politicans and such. That way, you would give the player a choice when it comes to taking sides, but without having to model how a whole faction reacts to it. And again, I'd rather have fewer quality choices here than many choices that are either samey or underdeveloped.

When it comes to personal reputation, it needs more consistency in how it's gained and it needs to be gained more often. As it is right now, you end up with small numbers across many different types of reputation (at least I did). And, once again, maybe downsizing the number of reputation types and focusing on quality is the way to go?

In summary (tl;dr):
* Make the main quest longer and more fleshed out, and cooperative with side quests if possible
* Side quests should focus on quality; fewer but better, longer and more fleshed out side quests
* Re-think or cut the stronghold
* Cut wilderness areas and dungeons, make area design driven by quest design, more variety to areas in general
* Factions need to be more omniprecent to work or replaced with something else (like individuals) to side with, personal reputation system needs to be more consistent

That's all I can come up with now. Like I said, I really like PoE and will definetly back a sequal, so don't take this as me giving the game a negative review.

[SkySlam]

Interesting read, I strongly agree on stronghold, reputation and wilderness areas. While the last one can't be removed from the game, I agree that the other two should be entirely removed/completely reworked in PoE2!

Personally, I enjoyed the Endless Paths; each level felt unique enough to make me wonder "what will the next one bring? What enemies will I meet there? Which theme will it have?". Anyway, I can also understand your point of view on this matter.

 

The only part where I strongly disagree with you is side quests. I think the most of them are interesting and original. Also, I wouldn't like a mini-campaign for every single side quest, so minor/quick ones are welcome. BG2 also had them.

On the other hand, speaking about bigger ones, I think there are some remarkable and memorable quests in the game.

The first ones that come to mind:

 

1) Buried Secrets. A real mini-campaign of a good length, with its own interesting story, but still tied with the main quest. The bells' puzzle is very well thought up, the fights are though, and the final discovery is... definitely impressive, even without special effects or a flashy final boss!

 

2) Lord of a Barren Land. Another mini-campaign, this time with a straightforward story. Still, there are so many ways to approach it/solve it and so many things going on in Raedric's Hold that it almost feels like part of the main quest.

 

3) The Man Who Waits. A personal favorite, it really striked me during my first playthrough. The sanitarium was especially interesting for me thanks to Aloth, and the side quest there felt moving and also a bit creepy. Definitely something I won't forget anytime soon.

 

Maybe the side quests don't feel memorable enough right now because the game is still pretty new.

Perhaps, in a few years, you will remember the horrible secret that lied in the temple of Eothas, or the fiery assault to the tyrant's hold with renewed enthusiasm!

Edited January 5, 2016 by SkySlam

[Mocker22]

Jeez get out of my head!

 

Some very good points there. My biggest problem with PoE, and to be honest, many RPGs lately, is that the main quest line seems very short, while there are a zillion side quests to just make the game "big." In most of these games, and PoE especially, either the protagonist or even the world is in grave danger....but wait, lets go kill an ogre to help some farmer that lost his pig. There is no way to rationalize it. Almost all parts of PoE were enjoyable for me, but none of them felt very story driven. You reference BGII a lot, and I think many people would agree it is the best game of this genre, so of course that's a lot to live up to. But the story telling was simply superb, and the main questlines took up a very large portion of your play time. It's kinda funny how PoE has made me want to play BGII again after many years.

 

I do feel that PoE actually did an excellent job on character balance. Most classes can be extremely competitive, and there is a lot of room for personalization within each class, and sometimes entirely different play styles that are powerful. The combat and tactics are fun, and offer enough challenge at least at some points.

 

I do agree about The Endless Paths as well. The first time through them all they were not too bad. Certainly there is some variety, but O M G its a slog now. The Endless paths are probably tied as my least favorite part of the game. Tied with everything up until you have completed Caed Nua and can move on to defiance bay and some options.

 

I think SkySlam made a good point about variety in side quests though. Some quick bounties are fun, as well as longer side quests that take a couple hours and tell a nice story. I.E. White march is very enjoyable for me, even if I can't think of a reason my character would travel way to hell up there to help a tiny town while the Hollowborn epidemic is underway.

Edited January 5, 2016 by Mocker22

[evilcat]

General Objection.

Obsidian did what they could. The result is that there is no cut-off DLC, aressive preorder, microtransactions or patchin multiplayer. Game came sooner than laiter. It is still expanding, and there is high chance there will be more. That is good result.

 

Killing monsters for loot and xp is part of genre. Sometimes there is just plot to justify saughter. But it is also fun, since there is no point in creating balanced and deep character creation system if there is no instances to use this combat abillities. For pure story i have telltale games. The good thing about endless dungeon is that i can go down after some less combat oriented quests in Defiance Bay.

 

There are some interesting side quests, llike lord of barren lands - the fact Player can choose aproach, and then... decide lord is not that bad. Crucible Knight storyline has some modern theme in it. Defiance Bay throope investigacion was a bit different from day to day tasks. Skaen temple or LIghthouse have some little twists in it.

There are smaller and bigger quests, and having them both gives narration to exploration.

 

Or... just go optional with wildness and dungeon. Now it is even easier to skip big part of content and still finish the game. And that is cool. Always some people will like it or not, and best aproach is to just give choice what to do and what skip.

 

Winter March is a game changer. It gives big sidequests, fortress location is big and fits the story. Little ghosts telling stories is climatic. It is even in no-grassland territory.

 

Stronghold is work in progress. There are rumours they will add some miniquests to it.

 

Wasnt missing faction presence. Probably Defiance Bay isnt that much in the centre of whole game.

Edited January 5, 2016 by evilcat

[Fenixp]

Every time I see "But BG2!" I strangle a kitten. Just so you know.

 

Anyway, some good points, others not so much. I'm one of the rare examples of people who prefer Baldur's Gate 1 to Baldur's Gate 2 - a lot of it has to do with writing which I consider boring as sin in both BG games and Pillars of Eternity improved upon it drastically, just so you know where I'm coming from.

 

So, first of all, let's talk about cutting stuff. You seem to be coming from a position of a person who primarily plays RPGs in order to immerse himself into story, into the dialogues and quests - not everybody approaches RPGs from that perspective tho. One of the reasons why I enjoyed Baldur's Gate 1 so much over Baldur's Gate 2 was precisely because progress trough the entire game was not tied to quests, that you were more or less free to roam the game's world, explore and discover things at your own pace. You're saying that it looks like Obsidian first built the world and then populated it with quests - as far as I'm concerned, that's praise, not criticism. Same applies to the dungeons.

 

There's this idea of many RPG enthusiasts which I find quite bizarre, and that's the idea of getting rewarded for playing the game. To me, playing the game is the reward. When I'm playing an open world FPS, areas filled with enemies is all I need to have fun. When I'm playing a strategy game, likewise, all the reward I need is simply to play the game. Similarly, while playing Pillars of Eternity, the excitement of the unknown, the thrill of combat, the joy of discovery - that's all I need to enjoy the game. Neither XP for killing monsters nor huge, sprawling quests randomly stumbled upon in wilderness - little stories told via notes and small dialogues was all I needed to spruce up the experience, and to be fair, areas in Pillars of Eternity contained a lot more quality content than those in BG1 ever did.

 

Then we get to the idea of cutting Od Nua and merging it with the main game. Why? That it explores similar themes is not much of an argument since the whole game explores similar themes. While I would agree with cutting it down to like 7-10 levels as it's clear it's 15 levels long purely to fulfill a promise, I would strongly disagree with making it mandatory and adding it to the main game. As it stands, Od Nua could take risks, introduce difficulty spikes that the main story never could, purely because it's entirely optional. If you don't enjoy it, you can ignore it and carry on - I did enjoy it, therefore I finished it twice.

 

Most importantly tho, these areas give player freedom, they give player choice in how to progress and they give the game world a feeling of a big, coherent and continuous location as opposed to a buch of small "planes" you warp between. Formula seen in Baldur's Gate 2 is far overused in modern RPGs - I'm not too keen on seeing another one implementing it.

 

And my last counter-point would be that the Obsidian's kicstarter promise was to make a sequel in style of Infinity Engine games, not a sequel to Baldur's Gate 2. Pillars of Eternity has bits of Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 (exploration, balanced approach to storytelling and monster slaying), of Icewind Dales (dungeoneering and exploration) and of Planescape Torment (many words and focus on specific themes).

 

With that said, I definitely would not be opposed to see fewer, yet more complex questlines. Similarly, it's apparent the development was running out of breath in the third act. And yes, faction involvement should be way higher, and they should be present troughout the entire game as opposed to being mere means to an end in Defiance Bay.

[Sedrefilos]

The problem with the game, I believe, is that they had those general ideas but, at the beginning, they didn't know were to start and how to approach them from start to finish. That's why parts of the game that we know developed last (like the introduction and Readric's Hold) are more interesting and complex that earlier stuff. At that point they knew exactly were they were heading but it was too late to redesign the rest from the beggining.

 

Also, I don't believe the game is that big. It is big, it is as big as a good rpg should be, but not bigger.

[evilcat]

I wonder if it was possible to make a game without hardgate Twin Elms. Possibly yes. In the end that would only require some alternative dialogues and forcing encounter during travel to Twin Elms after 2nd Act.

3rd Act is not big enought on its own. And after act 2 PC may be not in mood for more errands.

[anameforobsidian]

I see where the main post is coming from, but I disagree.  I think they should have taken their cues from one Infinity engine game instead of all of them, and that game is BG1.  The cities weren't full enough to be BG2.  BG1 means many, many more simple quests when you're wandering around.  Finding missing cats, killing wolves surrounding a small boy, that kind of thing.

 

I loved the Endless Paths.  I had so much fun doing the Endless Paths as a dungeon runner that I thought it would make a nice game by itself with another two or three levels.

 

I honestly thought the third act was the best act.  The writing was sharper and more focused even if it was quick.  The plot made sense (the second act was a big ol mess).  The areas had denser amounts of content.  The sidequests were generally better (Finding the birds, the Sky Dragon, the Orlan baby, Rymyrgand's temple, Hirviras).  That fact actually made me pretty hopeful, because there's a lot of wasted space in the early areas.  You do see the designers and narrative writers getting better as development goes on.

[Guest BugsVendor]

Good points op.

 

I think a lot of people have similar feelings towards this game. Not quite there, I wouldn't rate it as generously as you did.

 

Oh no, op! What have you done?!

 

You voiced your opinion on the official forums. You still gave the game 4/5 score but it's not enough for them. These creatures feed on criticism and are especially aggressive towards well constructed logical one. 

 

Preschool arguments, blind devotion, self-contradiction, here they come!  

General Objection.

Obsidian did what they could. The result is that there is no cut-off DLC, aressive preorder, microtransactions or patchin multiplayer. Game came sooner than laiter. It is still expanding, and there is high chance there will be more. That is good result.

 

Killing monsters for loot and xp is part of genre. Sometimes there is just plot to justify saughter. But it is also fun, since there is no point in creating balanced and deep character creation system if there is no instances to use this combat abillities. For pure story i have telltale games. The good thing about endless dungeon is that i can go down after some less combat oriented quests in Defiance Bay.

 

There are some interesting side quests, llike lord of barren lands - the fact Player can choose aproach, and then... decide lord is not that bad. Crucible Knight storyline has some modern theme in it. Defiance Bay throope investigacion was a bit different from day to day tasks. Skaen temple or LIghthouse have some little twists in it.

There are smaller and bigger quests, and having them both gives narration to exploration.

 

Or... just go optional with wildness and dungeon. Now it is even easier to skip big part of content and still finish the game. And that is cool. Always some people will like it or not, and best aproach is to just give choice what to do and what skip.

 

Winter March is a game changer. It gives big sidequests, fortress location is big and fits the story. Little ghosts telling stories is climatic. It is even in no-grassland territory.

 

Stronghold is work in progress. There are rumours they will add some miniquests to it.

 

Wasnt missing faction presence. Probably Defiance Bay isnt that much in the centre of whole game.

 

"Obsidian did what they could" - How is this even an argument? Are obsidian guys a bunch of children doing a school project? Maybe you are saying something like: "when someone is trying hard and fail you can't criticise them"? Well, you can, evilcat, welcome to the real world. Also, for an average buyer or backer there is no way of knowing if they really tried hard or not so much.

 

 

"no cut-off DLC" "Winter March is a game changer. It gives big sidequests, fortress location is big and fits the story. Little ghosts telling stories is climatic. It is even in no-grassland territory." - White march was not cut-off from the vanilla version but if you don't buy it than you just can't experience the game to the fullest. Isn't that like a definition of what is wrong with games these days? I want my vanilla versions to be complete and abundant in all these little things that make a good game. I don't want to wait a year every time a game comes out so I can experience it how it should have been done in the first place. Not to mention additional cost.

 

 "Stronghold is work in progress. There are rumours they will add some miniquests to it." I bought this game in march last year from what I remember and it's still work in progress? Damn, this people in Obsidian, they sure do love the community, look at all the extra work they do post release. Has it ever crossed your mind that perhaps games should be developed before they are available for sale? And is it wrong to criticise something when it's still work in progress? This game will be work in progress for another few years... yet they charging for it full price since last year? Uhm ? Even people who blindly love this game point out that stronghold mini-game is at best an vastly underdeveloped joke. But wait I take it all back, now that I know there are RUMOURS about possible miniquests I guess it was all worth it. I just hope they won't charge extra for them.

 

"Wasnt missing faction presence. Probably Defiance Bay isnt that much in the centre of whole game." It isn't in the centre of the game? What is than? Twin elms - a beautiful set of animated graphics with 8 quests in it? This game suffers from serious underdevelopment and the factions in the defiance bay are exactly just that. There is not enough quests, people to speak to or anything really to get to know them. It is shallow. Generic dudes a), other generic dudes b), no interesting characters, no way of getting to know real motivations, nothing.

 

And I don't care if it all is work in progress. Or if there will be 6 more dlc for a total of 100$ in 5 years time to make this game great.

 

OP's critique was the most kind and genuine one but not even that can stand of this forum without being attacked.

Edited January 5, 2016 by BugsVendor

[Bill Gates' Son]

Good points op.

 

I think a lot of people have similar feelings towards this game. Not quite there, I wouldn't rate it as generously as you did.

 

Oh no, op! What have you done?!

 

You voiced your opinion on the official forums. You still gave the game 4/5 score but it's not enough for them. These creatures feed on criticism and are especially aggressive towards well constructed logical one. 

 

Preschool arguments, blind devotion, self-contradiction, here they come!  

General Objection.

Obsidian did what they could. The result is that there is no cut-off DLC, aressive preorder, microtransactions or patchin multiplayer. Game came sooner than laiter. It is still expanding, and there is high chance there will be more. That is good result.

 

Killing monsters for loot and xp is part of genre. Sometimes there is just plot to justify saughter. But it is also fun, since there is no point in creating balanced and deep character creation system if there is no instances to use this combat abillities. For pure story i have telltale games. The good thing about endless dungeon is that i can go down after some less combat oriented quests in Defiance Bay.

 

There are some interesting side quests, llike lord of barren lands - the fact Player can choose aproach, and then... decide lord is not that bad. Crucible Knight storyline has some modern theme in it. Defiance Bay throope investigacion was a bit different from day to day tasks. Skaen temple or LIghthouse have some little twists in it.

There are smaller and bigger quests, and having them both gives narration to exploration.

 

Or... just go optional with wildness and dungeon. Now it is even easier to skip big part of content and still finish the game. And that is cool. Always some people will like it or not, and best aproach is to just give choice what to do and what skip.

 

Winter March is a game changer. It gives big sidequests, fortress location is big and fits the story. Little ghosts telling stories is climatic. It is even in no-grassland territory.

 

Stronghold is work in progress. There are rumours they will add some miniquests to it.

 

Wasnt missing faction presence. Probably Defiance Bay isnt that much in the centre of whole game.

 

"Obsidian did what they could" - How is this even an argument? Are obsidian guys a bunch of children doing a school project? Maybe you are saying something like: "when someone is trying hard and fail you can't criticise them"? Well, you can, evilcat, welcome to the real world. Also, for an average buyer or backer there is no way of knowing if they really tried hard or not so much.

 

 

"no cut-off DLC" "Winter March is a game changer. It gives big sidequests, fortress location is big and fits the story. Little ghosts telling stories is climatic. It is even in no-grassland territory." - White march was not cut-off from the vanilla version but if you don't buy it than you just can't experience the game to the fullest. Isn't that like a definition of what is wrong with games these days? I want my vanilla versions to be complete and abundant in all these little things that make a good game. I don't want to wait a year every time a game comes out so I can experience it how it should have been done in the first place. Not to mention additional cost.

 

 "Stronghold is work in progress. There are rumours they will add some miniquests to it." I bought this game in march last year from what I remember and it's still work in progress? Damn, this people in Obsidian, they sure do love the community, look at all the extra work they do post release. Has it ever crossed your mind that perhaps games should be developed before they are available for sale? And is it wrong to criticise something when it's still work in progress? This game will be work in progress for another few years... yet they charging for it full price since last year? Uhm ? Even people who blindly love this game point out that stronghold mini-game is at best an vastly underdeveloped joke. But wait I take it all back, now that I know there are RUMOURS about possible miniquests I guess it was all worth it. I just hope they won't charge extra for them.

 

"Wasnt missing faction presence. Probably Defiance Bay isnt that much in the centre of whole game." It isn't in the centre of the game? What is than? Twin elms - a beautiful set of animated graphics with 8 quests in it? This game suffers from serious underdevelopment and the factions in the defiance bay are exactly just that. There is not enough quests, people to speak to or anything really to get to know them. It is shallow. Generic dudes a), other generic dudes b), no interesting characters, no way of getting to know real motivations, nothing.

 

And I don't care if it all is work in progress. Or if there will be 6 more dlc for a total of 100$ in 5 years time to make this game great.

 

OP's critique was the most kind and genuine one but not even that can stand of this forum without being attacked.

 

That's a lot of passive aggressiveness for a post that wasn't even hostile.

[Fenixp]

I see where the main post is coming from, but I disagree.  I think they should have taken their cues from one Infinity engine game instead of all of them, and that game is BG1.  The cities weren't full enough to be BG2.  BG1 means many, many more simple quests when you're wandering around.  Finding missing cats, killing wolves surrounding a small boy, that kind of thing.

Replaying the original Baldur's Gate recently, there's something to be said about a big number of smaller quests. I'm still not sure I particularly like the approach (and Pillars of Eternity certainly did offer more complex quests than BG did, not that it's a difficult task), truth to be told tho, I'm kinda busy at times and having stories which you can finish within a single play session is not always a bad thing. And it does allow for more freedom for player to accept/refuse quests and roleplay.

 

White march was not cut-off from the vanilla version but if you don't buy it than you just can't experience the game to the fullest.

You can't? Why not? Is there something in the base game that doesn't work without White March? Does White March take content away from the base game?

 

Isn't that like a definition of what is wrong with games these days? I want my vanilla versions to be complete and abundant in all these little things that make a good game. I don't want to wait a year every time a game comes out so I can experience it how it should have been done in the first place. Not to mention additional cost.

You're right, if it was 1998, Obsidian would be forced to handle Pillars of Eternity like companies of the time handled their big, sprawling games - fix bugs in patches that are as small as humanly possible and release any gamechanging fixes as a part of expansions (which existed back then as well, just by the way.) Thankfully, it's not 1998 and digital delivery allows Obsidian to not only decouple their patches from expansions so even people owning the base game can enjoy the changes, it also allows Obsidian to fix fundamental issues with how their games are designed. I will always support companies which are willing to go for months listening to community and improving their games - how can somebody find an issue with this will remain mystery to me. If you want to play games that companies release and then leave alone, only fixing basic bugs and errors - go ahead, Ubisoft and EA do that all the time. And if this makes the game "Unfinished" in your eyes, take off your rose-tinted glasses and just look at all problems unmodded Infinity Engine games have to this day. Hell, let's not stop there - look at both Fallout games, older Elder Scrolls games, you name it.

 

Now if you're so bothered by the fact that developers finally have means to properly support their games post-launch, just ... why don't you just wait? You say you don't want to, but when it comes to single-player games, they'll be the same thing whether you play them now or 10 years down the line. As for me, I played vanilla Pillars of Eternity about 2 months after it launched (just for it to become my GOTY of 2015) and now I'm very much looking forward to v 3.0 playtrough with both expansions. As far as I'm concerned, these changes just gave me more incentive to replay and more things to look forward to while doing so. And if you don't want to do that ... You won't miss anything at all by waiting.

 

It isn't in the centre of the game? What is than?

Wilderness, dungeons and their exploration is central to gameplay of Pillars of Eternity. You spend like 10 hours out of 70 hours long game in Defiance Bay, so clearly, it's not central to the game.

 

OP's critique was the most kind and genuine one but not even that can stand of this forum without being attacked.

The only one attacking anything in this thread is you. This is not a blog - it's a discussion board. Opinions posted will be discussed. It's sort of in the name. And... Well, are you honestly surprised that people populating official discussion boards of a game will tend to lean towards being quite positive about said game?

 

Edit: Added bits.

Edit 2: Added more bits.

Edit 3: Fixed some bits and elaborated on more bits.

Edit 4: Added more bits. Changed bits in the edit description to be perfectly clear about what it did with bits.

Edited January 5, 2016 by Fenixp

[Guest BugsVendor]

That's a lot of passive aggressiveness for a post that wasn't even hostile.

 

I was "triggered".

 

 

Isn't that like a definition of what is wrong with games these days? I want my vanilla versions to be complete and abundant in all these little things that make a good game. I don't want to wait a year every time a game comes out so I can experience it how it should have been done in the first place. Not to mention additional cost.

You're right, if it was 1998, Obsidian would be forced to handle Pillars of Eternity like companies of the time handled their big, sprawling games - fix bugs in patches that are as small as humanly possible and release any gamechanging fixes as a part of expansions (which existed back then as well, just by the way.) Thankfully, it's not 1998 and digital delivery allows Obsidian to not only decouple their patches from expansions so even people owning the base game can enjoy the changes, it also allows Obsidian to fix fundamental issues with how their games are designed. I will always support companies which are willing to go for months listening to community and improving their games - how can somebody find an issue with this will remain mystery to me.

 

How you think the system works:

 

Obsidian tries it's very best -> releases genuinely believed bug free complete game -> feedback comes in, they listen to players, turns out there are problems -> they spend resources to fix the problems, and add additional content because they love the players.

 

How the system actually work:

 

They know they have underdeveloped, buggy as hell game -> they knowingly make it available for full price (when it is a broken product [it was year ago at the release]) ->  they pretend they didn't know about the issues and used their fans as beta testers -> the game is still very much in development, but the revenue comes in -> a year later they are still patching the game mostly because there still are more dlc to come( and possibly poe 2). Partially so so the late costumers are less disappointed than early buyers.

 

It's astonishing how effective PR is. 

[SkySlam]

Wow, the tone of the thread sure has changed in few hours!
I don't know what you have read, @BugsVendor, but there was no aggression nor personal attacks in the answers. That's before you came, of course!

I am definitely a PoE enthusiast, to me this game is the best thing happened in the last decade of videogaming, but I still agree with OP on many points.

 

Calling people here blind creatures with preschool arguments is unnecessarily rude and out of place honestly.

Also, this forum never was alien to heavy criticism, but if you want to turn it into a crusade of phony "purist gamers" vs "blind stupid fanboys", I can suggest you another dump forum on the internet where gamebashing and namecalling are rewarded as virtue! 

[Fenixp]

How you think the system works

How the system actually work

It's astonishing how effective PR is

As I don't have any evidence to prove what Obsidian was thinking while releasing the game (and neither do you, by the way), I don't actually make any claims either way and I honestly don't care. All I can do is compare. Original Fallout, Planescape Torment, Elder Scrolls Arena, Daggerfall, Baldur's Gate and many more got released with game-breaking bugs, design flaws and unfinished/barely finished content. Pillars of Eternity, Wasteland 2, Shadowrun: Dragonfall and many more got released with game-breaking bugs, design flaws and unfinished/barely finished content. The main difference is that for the older games, only bugs got fixed. For the newer ones, bugs, design flaws and unfinished/barely finished content got fixed too. Somehow I prefer games of today.

 

Edit: I'm sorry if I come off as rude, but if there's something that 'triggers' me (which is an actual psychological term that's kinda stupid in this context, by the way), it's these kinds of arguments. I'm still having nightmares about purchasing Fallout and having to wait for months until a friend handed me a floppy with a patch which resolved constant crashing, but I still couldn't finish some quests. I've had to purchase Lord of Destruction for Diablo II to get a patch crucial to my enjoyment of the game. I never really played Daggerfall, because it just never worked properly for me at the time, and so I really started TES with Morrowind, in which I got lucky and only occasionally fell trough the floor. And since I've had dial-up, downloading patches literally cost me money and of course, if you wanted improved journal system, you've had to purchase first expansion, Tribunal. You'll be hard pressed to get me to see the point of view saying "Older games were tots more finished and without bugs, promise!"

Edited January 5, 2016 by Fenixp

[tinysalamander]

There is only one real trigger – Chrono Trigger. Everything else is just an excuse.

 

[Cyseal]

If you come across to the new engine, you will struggle as developer. Do you know how many scripting hours in C# you have to spend to actually have a decend game mechanic ? It's a process for couple of years.

Now they have the engine and their own tools, PoE2 will be another story for the production value and post.

If you come across some complaint about bug or how the game works, just start implementing your game. For example, ask yourself, how could I program that part ?

If you do, you'll see there are tousands of solutions and finding the best one or the optimized one is not an easy task.

Also some of the bugs were caused by Unity 4.5  issues  which are now fixed in workflow.

Edited January 5, 2016 by Cyseal

[PrimeJunta]

Interesting thoughts there, and I broadly agree.

 

The sidequests though were very nicely done for the most part. Many had multiple possible resolutions, some could be approached from different angles, and I especially liked how most of them -- almost all of them in fact -- revealed lore or secrets or otherwise deepened your understanding of the world. Even seemingly trivial ones had something to say about themselves: a simple fetch quest for a dragon egg had someone tell you what dragon egg food does for you, a fetch quest turned out to be connected to political tensions between the movers and shakers of Defiance Bay, and even a trivial village dispute between a drunk and a miller said something about the history of the village and the difficulties it is undergoing.

 

From where I'm at, that's on an entirely different level than BG1, or even BG2, where the sidequests were mostly disconnected, self-contained adventures that could've been set in any swords-and-sorcery-fantasyland.

 

There are a few of them I didn't much care for of course, but overall I thought they were really good.

[Fenixp]

I loved how not only quests, but even majority of texts and books directly or indirectly tied back to main storyline in one way or another - the pleasant consequence of Obsidian being able to work on original IP with original lore is how focused these things can be.

[Farks]

Interesting read, I strongly agree on stronghold, reputation and wilderness areas. While the last one can't be removed from the game, I agree that the other two should be entirely removed/completely reworked in PoE2!

Personally, I enjoyed the Endless Paths; each level felt unique enough to make me wonder "what will the next one bring? What enemies will I meet there? Which theme will it have?". Anyway, I can also understand your point of view on this matter.

 

The only part where I strongly disagree with you is side quests. I think the most of them are interesting and original. Also, I wouldn't like a mini-campaign for every single side quest, so minor/quick ones are welcome. BG2 also had them.

On the other hand, speaking about bigger ones, I think there are some remarkable and memorable quests in the game.

The first ones that come to mind:

 

1) Buried Secrets. A real mini-campaign of a good length, with its own interesting story, but still tied with the main quest. The bells' puzzle is very well thought up, the fights are though, and the final discovery is... definitely impressive, even without special effects or a flashy final boss!

 

2) Lord of a Barren Land. Another mini-campaign, this time with a straightforward story. Still, there are so many ways to approach it/solve it and so many things going on in Raedric's Hold that it almost feels like part of the main quest.

 

3) The Man Who Waits. A personal favorite, it really striked me during my first playthrough. The sanitarium was especially interesting for me thanks to Aloth, and the side quest there felt moving and also a bit creepy. Definitely something I won't forget anytime soon.

 

Maybe the side quests don't feel memorable enough right now because the game is still pretty new.

Perhaps, in a few years, you will remember the horrible secret that lied in the temple of Eothas, or the fiery assault to the tyrant's hold with renewed enthusiasm!

 

Point taken. Just to clarify, I didn't hate the side quests, I mostly enjoyed them but had higher expecations. I agree that the quests you mentioned were particularly good, especially Readrics (the best one imo). But I would still generally like to see fewer, but better quests, and maybe at least a couple of mini-campaign style.

 

But isn't "The Man Who Waits" part of the main quest?

 

Jeez get out of my head!

 

Some very good points there. My biggest problem with PoE, and to be honest, many RPGs lately, is that the main quest line seems very short, while there are a zillion side quests to just make the game "big." In most of these games, and PoE especially, either the protagonist or even the world is in grave danger....but wait, lets go kill an ogre to help some farmer that lost his pig. There is no way to rationalize it. Almost all parts of PoE were enjoyable for me, but none of them felt very story driven. You reference BGII a lot, and I think many people would agree it is the best game of this genre, so of course that's a lot to live up to. But the story telling was simply superb, and the main questlines took up a very large portion of your play time. It's kinda funny how PoE has made me want to play BGII again after many years.

 

I do feel that PoE actually did an excellent job on character balance. Most classes can be extremely competitive, and there is a lot of room for personalization within each class, and sometimes entirely different play styles that are powerful. The combat and tactics are fun, and offer enough challenge at least at some points.

 

I do agree about The Endless Paths as well. The first time through them all they were not too bad. Certainly there is some variety, but O M G its a slog now. The Endless paths are probably tied as my least favorite part of the game. Tied with everything up until you have completed Caed Nua and can move on to defiance bay and some options.

 

I think SkySlam made a good point about variety in side quests though. Some quick bounties are fun, as well as longer side quests that take a couple hours and tell a nice story. I.E. White march is very enjoyable for me, even if I can't think of a reason my character would travel way to hell up there to help a tiny town while the Hollowborn epidemic is underway.

 

Like I said, I think the game systems were good and enjoyable, even better than the IE games in some regards (especially when it comes to melee characters). But it lacks surprises and variety in the long run. I think this video sums it up pretty well.

[PrimeJunta]

Like I said, I think the game systems were good and enjoyable, even better than the IE games in some regards (especially when it comes to melee characters). But it lacks surprises and variety in the long run. I think this video sums it up pretty well.

Funny, and here I am, immensely impressed and constantly surprised by the variety in the character system.

[Farks]

Every time I see "But BG2!" I strangle a kitten. Just so you know.

 

Anyway, some good points, others not so much. I'm one of the rare examples of people who prefer Baldur's Gate 1 to Baldur's Gate 2 - a lot of it has to do with writing which I consider boring as sin in both BG games and Pillars of Eternity improved upon it drastically, just so you know where I'm coming from.

 

So, first of all, let's talk about cutting stuff. You seem to be coming from a position of a person who primarily plays RPGs in order to immerse himself into story, into the dialogues and quests - not everybody approaches RPGs from that perspective tho. One of the reasons why I enjoyed Baldur's Gate 1 so much over Baldur's Gate 2 was precisely because progress trough the entire game was not tied to quests, that you were more or less free to roam the game's world, explore and discover things at your own pace. You're saying that it looks like Obsidian first built the world and then populated it with quests - as far as I'm concerned, that's praise, not criticism. Same applies to the dungeons.

 

There's this idea of many RPG enthusiasts which I find quite bizarre, and that's the idea of getting rewarded for playing the game. To me, playing the game is the reward. When I'm playing an open world FPS, areas filled with enemies is all I need to have fun. When I'm playing a strategy game, likewise, all the reward I need is simply to play the game. Similarly, while playing Pillars of Eternity, the excitement of the unknown, the thrill of combat, the joy of discovery - that's all I need to enjoy the game. Neither XP for killing monsters nor huge, sprawling quests randomly stumbled upon in wilderness - little stories told via notes and small dialogues was all I needed to spruce up the experience, and to be fair, areas in Pillars of Eternity contained a lot more quality content than those in BG1 ever did.

 

Then we get to the idea of cutting Od Nua and merging it with the main game. Why? That it explores similar themes is not much of an argument since the whole game explores similar themes. While I would agree with cutting it down to like 7-10 levels as it's clear it's 15 levels long purely to fulfill a promise, I would strongly disagree with making it mandatory and adding it to the main game. As it stands, Od Nua could take risks, introduce difficulty spikes that the main story never could, purely because it's entirely optional. If you don't enjoy it, you can ignore it and carry on - I did enjoy it, therefore I finished it twice.

 

Most importantly tho, these areas give player freedom, they give player choice in how to progress and they give the game world a feeling of a big, coherent and continuous location as opposed to a buch of small "planes" you warp between. Formula seen in Baldur's Gate 2 is far overused in modern RPGs - I'm not too keen on seeing another one implementing it.

 

And my last counter-point would be that the Obsidian's kicstarter promise was to make a sequel in style of Infinity Engine games, not a sequel to Baldur's Gate 2. Pillars of Eternity has bits of Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 (exploration, balanced approach to storytelling and monster slaying), of Icewind Dales (dungeoneering and exploration) and of Planescape Torment (many words and focus on specific themes).

 

With that said, I definitely would not be opposed to see fewer, yet more complex questlines. Similarly, it's apparent the development was running out of breath in the third act. And yes, faction involvement should be way higher, and they should be present troughout the entire game as opposed to being mere means to an end in Defiance Bay.

 

I don't mean that PoE should have been a copy of BG2, just that the general level of quality is something to aspire to.

 

Do I play RPG's for their narrative? Sure, but not in the way you seem to describe. I see narrative and story as just another element of game design, not something that you plow through for its own sake. I don't think making a game world and then populating it with people and quests is bad thing on its own, but the way it's done in PoE makes it a bit repetitve. Because, as I said above, it's almost excusively similair wilderness areas where you find dead adventurers with a letter on them that you end up delivering to someone in a nearby village, or something like that.

 

Regarding being rewarded for playing the game, I actully agree with you. I think no XP for kills is the right way to go. My point is that some of the area design in the game goes against this.

 

When it comes to Od Nua, I was referring to him and his backstory on a general and thematic level, not putting his exact story and The Endless Paths itself as it is into the main quest.

[JerekKruger]

My thoughts on each of the topics the OP named:

 

The Main Quest: I broadly agree with the OP. The idea of it is, I think, very good and quite fresh and whilst I think the execution is good, it could be better. In particular I felt that Thaos failed to hit the mark as a truly epic villain à la Irenicus which is I think that the devs were going for. He wasn't a bad villain, but we didn't see enough of him to develop that sense of uncaring malice that Irenicus did so well.

 

I also like the idea of some sort of tying in of (major) side quests with the main story. One thing that always bugs me is when I have to choose between role-playing the urgency of the situation (saving Imoen or uncovering the Leaden Key's plot) and being a completionist. This problem existed in BG2 as well, since usually when I finally set out to rescue Imoen I had several hundred thousand gold and many months had passed.

 

What would be great is making it so that each major side quest has a clear benefit towards the main plot (learning more about your enemy, thwarting lesser plots etc.) but the delay caused would add an unknown difficulty to the end game.

 

Side Quests: I agree with PrimeJunta here I think, I don't think the side quests are too bad. I particularly like the ones which pose genuinely hard choices.

 

Stronghold: yeah, this was one of the weakest points in the game I'd say. I doubt we'll see multiple strongholds like BG2 in PoE2 but I'd like to see a better stronghold. Add some cool stronghold related quests, remove all the bean counting and the random fights. Done.

 

Wilderness Areas: I am probably almost alone in liking the wilderness, though I am more than happy to admit that there is a lack of variety and a repetition in fights. I just like nature maps I guess.

 

That said, more variety is always welcome, as is more exoticism.

 

Dungeons: I hadn't thought about this much, but I agree broadly with the OP. I do think the Temple of Eothas in Gilded Vale is nicely fleshed out with atmosphere, and I love Durgan's Battery, but other dungeons do suffer a bit from being generic cave/ruins. I'd prefer fewer, more fleshed out dungeons in PoE2.

 

Areas and Locations: I liked them, but the same caveat applies from wilderness areas. Certainly more variety and exoticism would be welcome in PoE2.

 

Endless Paths: I think this would have been much better had it been, say, 5 floors rather than 15. A huge mega dungeon is a cool idea, but in reality unless you're going to make your game a full blown dungeon crawler you probably won't have to time to make all those floors cool, and fewer better floors will be... well better.

 

Also I'd have preferred to see a different final boss, perhaps Od Nua, but that's just me.

 

Reputations and Factions: I didn't mind the reputations system and certainly preferred it to classic binary reputation systems in other RPGs. It wasn't a major part of the game, but it did the job fine for me.

 

I agree that the factions could have featured more. Also Dunryd Row should have been a faction and/or had a cool investigative quest chain. Luckily that one Dunryd dude survived so I hope he can rebuild it and have it feature in PoE2 (or have PoE2 be a prequel).

[Eliteseraph]

On the topic of main quest vs side quest, can I point out the example of The Witcher 3? How even seemingly insignificant side quest can have an impact on the overall story?

 

I fully enjoyed BG1 and 2, but I feel like making each side quest it's own, compartmentalized module is a mistake. I much prefer it when quests and tasks maintain some relevance or impact on the primary story. Tie it in somehow.

[evilcat]

Sidequest vs mainquest

1. Sidequest allow to show piece of setting, which does not exacly fit mainstory.

2. Sidequests are optional. So we dont have to do them. And this is good to be able to skip content which we do not enjoy.

3. Some players enjoy "open world", kinda like TES. There is some value in running around exploring the game world. Plaing/Exploration is reward on its own.

4. Sidequests allows to pack gameplay/narration enought for one game session. So we have feeling of finishing one chapter.

 

Endless Path - it could have ended at level 10 or something (and have more tasts in it). It serves its purpose as sandbox to use all our combat abilities, and a bit retro dungeoning. But there could be less levels in it. Unfortunetly promise must be keep. Nevertheless moving some of the level from Endless Path to differently themed dungeon/tower/ruins would be a option.

 

Karma system is better than paragon <-> renegete.

 

Xp for kills cause problem, since it is desired (by me ; -) that quests have non lethal resolution. It is enought that not slaying everything results in less loot. The current system is optimal (Xp for discovering monster).

Edited January 7, 2016 by evilcat