Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I just want more unique items. The vanilla game had too many of generic +2/3 weapons and the unique ones didn't feel that special. There's a reason why 15 years after playing BG2 I still remember my Lilarcor, Celestial Fury, Carsomyr and other amazing weapons that we could get in that game.

Agree wholeheartedly- that helmet that cast simulacrum, perma invisibility staff-- I love items like that. i don't mind finding some things early and using the whole game.

Now, with games like skyrim/fallout 4/da: inquisition, I have to spend most of my time searching for components to upgrade some item by a minuscule degree, and I almost never get to use the stuff in boss drops on PC, because my crafted gear is stronger.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm really hoping for some skin varieties in the hunter animal companions. I played a Pale Elf ranger with a lion, but in my head I always imagined it was a snow leopard :[

 

I LOVE this idea!

 

Skin Varieties for Ranger Animal Companions!

 

I'd also like to piggy-back off it for Druid Spirit-Shifts. (Like being a Pale Elf Druid able to spirit-shift into a snow leopard instead of a regular old lion.)

Edited by Faerunner
  • Like 1

"Not I, though. Not I," said the hanging dwarf.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Information I Want:

 

Now that the main campaign is funding and we're definitely getting multiclassing, how does it work? Is there going to be a backer update about it soon? Can my Druid have a Ranger pet now now now?

 

Stuff I Want:

 

- More reactivity to the PC's class/race/gender/culture/background. My first Watcher was a godlike, and people commented on it about twice in an eighty hour campaign.

 

- Assuming we're going to have one, a better stronghold. While it looks cool and contains a neat dungeon, Caed Nua just feels lifeless compared to Watcher's Keep in Neverwinter Nights 2 or Skyhold in Dragon Age: Inquisition. Even the BG2 strongholds had more flavour, although you couldn't do as much with them. I want somewhere that feels like home.

 

- Since they're adding subclasses - or they will be in another $70,000 - now would be a good time to make a full set of deities available for Priests. I'd have loved to play White March 2 with a follower of Ondra or Abydon. A couple more Paladin order would also be nice. And more Ranger pets!

 

- Assuming the current developers are happy to write them, romances would be a nice stretch goal.

 

- Finally, the difficulty curve of POE1 was really uneven. My problem wasn't that the Adra Dragon was too hard, it's that most encounters are too easy to properly prepare you for the difficult ones.
 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Druid spiritshift that doesn't become useless by half-way through the game (let it start less powerful and scale).

More reactivity to race/class.

A cassowary ranger companion (and/or a honey badger)

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

*Casts Nature's Terror* :aiee: , *Casts Firebug* :fdevil: , *Casts Rot-Skulls* :skull: , *Casts Garden of Life* :luck: *Spirit-shifts to cat form* :cat:

Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I want to see more of is companion-initiated dialogue, or rather, Watcher-centric dialogue with companions. A lot of the time, talking with your companions felt one-sided, with you asking short questions and then listening to them go on. Dragon Age did this to varying degrees of success, like Alistair pulling you aside to gossip about the party, or Wynne asking about your origin and how you were coping being away from home. Maybe a few options to further define your character's background, like the starting dialogue with Calisca, thoughts on the progress of your quest and discussions about decisions made.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm really excited about PoE 2 (like most people here, I guess) but I'm also a bit disappointed so far. I hoped that PoE2 could reach the insanely high level of BG2 in terms of depth and scope, especially in respect to the party composition and dynamics. BG2 offered 16 (17 in ToB) companions AND deeper in-party reactivity, dynamics and consequences than PoE with its only 8 available companions. Not all of these characters were of the same quality and depth, but their number alone offered roleplay experiences that can't be reached with a substantially smaller amount of avaialbe companions. I really wished that PoE2 became a true successor to BG2 and that the second part of the Pllars series improved upon the series in every possible way, in terms of depth AND in terms of scope AND in terms of choice for the player. My wishlist for PoE 2 contains a lot of the features which I think were essential for the unique experience in BG2. The first four points are my "big" points, the really important ones, while the last four points are rather "nice to have" aspects which nevertheless were important for the "feels":

 

 

1) More and deeper party interactions, between companions, between the companions and the PC, between the companions and the outside world. The PC's decisions should have serious consequences for the party dynamics and companions should react to these decisions according to their own agenda and beliefs, but not only in a talkative way but also with more servere consequences if the situation is clearly creating a conflict of interest for companions. On top of that there should be a possibility to build deep and dynamic relationship to companions, including aspects of both love and hate (friendship, romance, sexuality, rivalry, open hatred, berayal, condonation, ...).

 

2) More and more diverse companions (imo at least 10 in total) with a vide variety of different agendas, motives, goals, characters traits and beliefs. You should be able to compose partys with completely different dynamics. And the player should never be forced to go with a specific companion because there is no real alternative to this very character (both in terms of story and in terms of gameplay). There is a reason why there were at least two available characters for every major class in BG2, to give the player choice and different roleplay experiences. It also opens up possibilities for some more severe consequences and party dynamics along the way and earlier in the game because there is no ultimate need for the developers to preserve certain characters until the very end due to lacking alternatives for the player.

 

3) A party of six characters should be allowed, at least make it optional for users who enjoy these games (primarily) because of their roleplaying options and the character dynamics and interactions and not because they expect a perfectly balanced tactical gameplay. So while I understand that a party of 5 might be optimal for gameplay I don't think it should be a hard limit, especially since the 6-character-party does not only have nostalgic value but because it also allows for taking characters along which you maybe don't like for their combat abilities (due to class, skills etc), but even the more for your roleyplaying experience. E.g. it can be quite fun to take another paladin with you when your PC is a paladin as well. The less party members you’re allowed to have the less such "badly-balanced" parties are possible. For a story-rich RPG like Pillars that'd be a huge loss imo.

 

4) Combat shouldn't be the only solution to most conflicts and non-violent options should be available in most situations. Of course there can be conflicts that are central to the storytelling that require a violent solution (e.g. because your enemy attacks you no matter what). But if combat is the "standard way" of solving conflicts the whole game imo becomes too much focused on combat and systems and ignores other aspects of traditional roleplay. Ifear that without MCA around the series will become even more combat-focused and therefore even more narrow in terms of narrative design.​

 

5) more unique and creative gear that can't be matched by the normal stuff you find everywhere (think Lilarcor)

 

6) well written and "nostalgic" text epilogues (one of the best apects of BG2)

 

7) optional super-hard enemies (think Kangaxx)

 

8 ) more diverse and creative monsters (think Beholders and Mindflayers)

 

 

What do you think?

Edited by LordCrash
35167v4.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What do you think?

 

I'd add more comprehensive set of world/item/NPC interactions and reactions, and few more out-of-combat skills to spice up the characterprogression and move it away from that rather simple "create the bestestest murder-death-kill-squad possible" set of mind.

Edited by Undecaf

Perkele, tiädäksää tuanoini!

"It's easier to tolerate idiots if you do not consider them as stupid people, but exceptionally gifted monkeys."

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

What do you think?

 

I'd add more comprehensive set of world/item/NPC interactions and reactions, and few more out-of-combat skills to spice up the characterprogression and move it away from that rather simple "create the bestestest murder-death-kill-squad possible" set of mind.

 

 

I support that wish. :)

 

 

35167v4.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you think?

I'm with you on points: 1,3,5,7 and 8.

 

I'd also add:

- some manageable property (Sawyer seems to like keeps, and tbh I do too; but a customizable and upgradable ship will do too);

- richer enchanting system;

- some sort of reputation (NPCs could make custom remarks based on your race and deeds);

- being able to equip both cloak and an amulet at the same time;

- being able to assign the same weapon to different weapon sets; e.g. being able to swap from wielding single 1h to the same 1h+shield.

Edited by MaxQuest
Link to post
Share on other sites

Relevant context to my reply:

... especially in respect to the party composition and dynamics. BG2 offered 16 (17 in ToB) companions AND deeper in-party reactivity, dynamics and consequences than PoE with its only 8 available companions. Not all of these characters were of the same quality and depth, but their number alone offered roleplay experiences that can't be reached with a substantially smaller amount of avaialbe companions.

 

I'm just guessing, but giving us a 5-man Party with 7 Companions compared to 6-man Party with 8 Companions sounds like they've cut some work loads, honestly. It's essentially 2 characters cut. 1 character if Xoti (Monk/Priest) gets in through stretch goals.

​I'm also guessing that important characters like Companions cost a lot to make. And combat balancing for 6 characters should be more complex than balancing for 5 characters (Look at Dark Souls series, would it have been easy to balance it if you had 6 characters to play with at the same time?).

Zedyl: "I know it's a small detail, but I love that Eder has a scabbard for his sword now. I hope my PC gets one as well! " Feargus: "Eder having a scabbard was something a lot of people asked for, and was something Josh really wanted to do. I might have had a frowny face on the cost of it (I get that way sometimes), but I relented. With all the animation the animators have done on top of that - it's turned out very, very cool."

From Reddit (Summary of Obsidian Comments on Fig). My point is that if Companions are costly (Voice Acting, Background, Interactivity, Choices, Quest lines, Comments, Dialogue, unique Animations/Graphics), cutting a few characters allows Obsidian more budget to flesh out a 5-man party more effectively (They should've learned a lot from Pillars of Eternity, Wasteland 2, Divinity: OS, Tyranny), and can focus on other areas, such as more meaningful companion interactions (Fewer characters, more tight-knit group).

​I'd like to know how much a Companion costs to make in comparison to, say, the entirety of Dyrford. Just out of curiosity.

​Other than that, I totally agree with a 6-man party, but I understand Obsidians reasoning. In the timeframe we've been given (Early Access in 2019 Q1? I'm expecting Q2, depending on how the Fig campaign goes). I think Obsidian would have to develop the game to 2020 Q1-Q2 to get to the level of richness of Baldur's Gate 2 companions (16, plus 6-man party). Just a wild guess based on the Pillars of Eternity development cycle. Also depends on how far along they are right now too I suppose.

Edited by Osvir
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Combat shouldn't be the only solution to most conflicts and non-violent options should be available in most situations. Of course there can be conflicts that are central to the storytelling that require a violent solution (e.g. because your enemy attacks you no matter what). But if combat is the "standard way" of solving conflicts the whole game imo becomes too much focused on combat and systems and ignores other aspects of traditional roleplay. Ifear that without MCA around the series will become even more combat-focused and therefore even more narrow in terms of narrative design.​

 

Definitely! I always enjoyed finding non-combat solutions in the BG-Series. And I don't talk about dialog options. Pickpocketing items instead of killing the current owner (I hated it, to have to kill or even talk to the crucible knight, to get the armor back. In BG, I could pickpocket almost everything, for example Algenons cloak), charming guards to send them away (I could do that with the guys in the Copper Coronet, I couldn't do it with the guards in Rodericks Castle). That is roleplaying IMHO. That is what made BG great for me. Finding real solutions not just picking options. What I really want to see is not only that basic stuff, I was talking about. I want non-combat skills and spells far beyond that.

---

We're all doomed

Link to post
Share on other sites

3) A party of six characters should be allowed, at least make it optional for users who enjoy these games (primarily) because of their roleplaying options and the character dynamics and interactions and not because they expect a perfectly balanced tactical gameplay. So while I understand that a party of 5 might be optimal for gameplay I don't think it should be a hard limit, especially since the 6-character-party does not only have nostalgic value but because it also allows for taking characters along which you maybe don't like for their combat abilities (due to class, skills etc), but even the more for your roleyplaying experience. E.g. it can be quite fun to take another paladin with you when your PC is a paladin as well. The less party members you’re allowed to have the less such "badly-balanced" parties are possible. For a story-rich RPG like Pillars that'd be a huge loss imo.

 

This means completely changing the design strategy. Looking at backer goals I get the feeling this is not feasible. Obsidian seems to prefer to make less companions but with more diverse backgrounds/ideals/classes. Two characters filling the same role would be a "waste" under current design ideology. If anything Obsidian seems to prefer to have less companions and then to get more "depth" for them. 

 

This is how currently all RPGs I know try to handle companions. Less is more. Bioware had a lot of companions in ME2 and said that they regretted it. PoE has comparatively many companions and yet party interactions are fairly shallow. I think if PoE 2 had more companions it would not end well. Or at least, Obsidian would not be happy with the result.

 

4) Combat shouldn't be the only solution to most conflicts and non-violent options should be available in most situations. Of course there can be conflicts that are central to the storytelling that require a violent solution (e.g. because your enemy attacks you no matter what). But if combat is the "standard way" of solving conflicts the whole game imo becomes too much focused on combat and systems and ignores other aspects of traditional roleplay. Ifear that without MCA around the series will become even more combat-focused and therefore even more narrow in terms of narrative design.​

 

Obsidian said they wanted to cut down on trash fights, so if I had to guess there will be less and not more fighting. I also did not have a problem with lack of peaceful solutions in PoE. I very often solved conflicts by talking my way out of problems (especially when confronted by sentient beings). 

 

I also think that if even one third of encounters in PoE 2 can be solved in a peaceful way I will be completely satisfied.

 

 

5) more unique and creative gear that can be matched by the normal stuff you find everywhere (think Lilarcor)

 

Very much necessary.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I1) More and deeper party interactions, between companions, between the companions and the PC, between the companions and the outside world. The PC's decisions should have serious consequences for the party dynamics and companions should react to these decisions according to their own agenda and beliefs, but not only in a talkative way but also with more servere consequences if the situation is clearly creating a conflict of interest for companions. On top of that there should be a possibility to build deep and dynamic relationship to companions, including aspects of both love and hate (friendship, romance, sexuality, rivalry, open hatred, berayal, condonation, ...).

 

2) More and more diverse companions (imo at least 10 in total) with a vide variety of different agendas, motives, goals, characters traits and beliefs. You should be able to compose partys with completely different dynamics. And the player should never be forced to go with a specific companion because there is no real alternative to this very character (both in terms of story and in terms of gameplay). There is a reason why there were at least two available characters for every major class in BG2, to give the player choice and different roleplay experiences. It also opens up possibilities for some more severe consequences and party dynamics along the way and earlier in the game because there is no ultimate need for the developers to preserve certain characters until the very end due to lacking alternatives for the player.

 

1.  No!  Bad Bioware fan!  No VN romances!

2.  Sure, but the game doesn't have a jillion dollars to develop.  They've explicitly said multiple times that they lowered the total number of characters to provide more ind-depth characterization.  1 and 2 are at odds with each other.  That said, I agree.  I would honestly rather keep Eder-level characterization and have more characters, because what happens if I don't care about 4 characters out of 7?

 

 

3) A party of six characters should be allowed, at least make it optional for users who enjoy these games (primarily) because of their roleplaying options and the character dynamics and interactions and not because they expect a perfectly balanced tactical gameplay. So while I understand that a party of 5 might be optimal for gameplay I don't think it should be a hard limit, especially since the 6-character-party does not only have nostalgic value but because it also allows for taking characters along which you maybe don't like for their combat abilities (due to class, skills etc), but even the more for your roleyplaying experience. E.g. it can be quite fun to take another paladin with you when your PC is a paladin as well. The less party members you’re allowed to have the less such "badly-balanced" parties are possible. For a story-rich RPG like Pillars that'd be a huge loss imo.

 

4) Combat shouldn't be the only solution to most conflicts and non-violent options should be available in most situations. Of course there can be conflicts that are central to the storytelling that require a violent solution (e.g. because your enemy attacks you no matter what). But if combat is the "standard way" of solving conflicts the whole game imo becomes too much focused on combat and systems and ignores other aspects of traditional roleplay. Ifear that without MCA around the series will become even more combat-focused and therefore even more narrow in terms of narrative design.​

 

3.  Considering that they're obviously well into development, I would say keep it five now.  I like six party members for gameplay, but the decision was made.  Also, keeping six for interactions is a bad argument.  Why not use all of the characters in your party, then you would have all the story options?

 

4.  They already addressed this multiple times in the figstarter.  There will be levels without combat.  However, the series is combat focused.  It's neither an isometric adventure nor fallout.  Pacifist runs work better in classless single-character games.

 

 

5) more unique and creative gear that can be matched by the normal stuff you find everywhere (think Lilarcor)

6) well written and "nostalgic" text epilogues (one of the best apects of BG2)

7) optional super-hard enemies (think Kangaxx)

8 ) more diverse and creative monsters (think Beholders and Mindflayers)

 

5.  Soulbound weapons solved this pretty handily, WM shows a great deal of progress in this direction.

6.  Already had this in the base game.  In some cases they were too long (Devil of Caroc).

7.  They already had this in the base game and added more in the expansions.  Three dragon fights and a superhard mage fight.  All were optional.

8.  They already had an analog to mindflayers in the base game with the Vithrack (honestly they were better written than flayers).  I too would like a significantly expanded bestiary.

 

What do you think?

 

I think you might need to play the first game with the expansions.

Edited by anameforobsidian
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Relevant context to my reply:

... especially in respect to the party composition and dynamics. BG2 offered 16 (17 in ToB) companions AND deeper in-party reactivity, dynamics and consequences than PoE with its only 8 available companions. Not all of these characters were of the same quality and depth, but their number alone offered roleplay experiences that can't be reached with a substantially smaller amount of avaialbe companions.

 

I'm just guessing, but giving us a 5-man Party with 7 Companions compared to 6-man Party with 8 Companions sounds like they've cut some work loads, honestly. It's essentially 2 characters cut. 1 character if Xoti (Monk/Priest) gets in through stretch goals.

 

​I'm also guessing that important characters like Companions cost a lot to make. And combat balancing for 6 characters should be more complex than balancing for 5 characters (Look at Dark Souls series, would it have been easy to balance it if you had 6 characters to play with at the same time?).

 

Zedyl: "I know it's a small detail, but I love that Eder has a scabbard for his sword now. I hope my PC gets one as well! " Feargus: "Eder having a scabbard was something a lot of people asked for, and was something Josh really wanted to do. I might have had a frowny face on the cost of it (I get that way sometimes), but I relented. With all the animation the animators have done on top of that - it's turned out very, very cool."

 

From Reddit (Summary of Obsidian Comments on Fig). My point is that if Companions are costly (Voice Acting, Background, Interactivity, Choices, Quest lines, Comments, Dialogue, unique Animations/Graphics), cutting a few characters allows Obsidian more budget to flesh out a 5-man party more effectively (They should've learned a lot from Pillars of Eternity, Wasteland 2, Divinity: OS, Tyranny), and can focus on other areas, such as more meaningful companion interactions (Fewer characters, more tight-knit group).

 

​I'd like to know how much a Companion costs to make in comparison to, say, the entirety of Dyrford. Just out of curiosity.

 

​Other than that, I totally agree with a 6-man party, but I understand Obsidians reasoning. In the timeframe we've been given (Early Access in 2019 Q1? I'm expecting Q2, depending on how the Fig campaign goes). I think Obsidian would have to develop the game to 2020 Q1-Q2 to get to the level of richness of Baldur's Gate 2 companions (16, plus 6-man party). Just a wild guess based on the Pillars of Eternity development cycle. Also depends on how far along they are right now too I suppose.

 

I'd really like to know how much money Obsidian needed for 16 deep and reactive companions (of the scope of BG2 or better) and a 6 player party.

  • Like 1
35167v4.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I1) More and deeper party interactions, between companions, between the companions and the PC, between the companions and the outside world. The PC's decisions should have serious consequences for the party dynamics and companions should react to these decisions according to their own agenda and beliefs, but not only in a talkative way but also with more servere consequences if the situation is clearly creating a conflict of interest for companions. On top of that there should be a possibility to build deep and dynamic relationship to companions, including aspects of both love and hate (friendship, romance, sexuality, rivalry, open hatred, berayal, condonation, ...).

 

2) More and more diverse companions (imo at least 10 in total) with a vide variety of different agendas, motives, goals, characters traits and beliefs. You should be able to compose partys with completely different dynamics. And the player should never be forced to go with a specific companion because there is no real alternative to this very character (both in terms of story and in terms of gameplay). There is a reason why there were at least two available characters for every major class in BG2, to give the player choice and different roleplay experiences. It also opens up possibilities for some more severe consequences and party dynamics along the way and earlier in the game because there is no ultimate need for the developers to preserve certain characters until the very end due to lacking alternatives for the player.

 

1.  No!  Bad Bioware fan!  No VN romances!

2.  Sure, but the game doesn't have a jillion dollars to develop.  They've explicitly said multiple times that they lowered the total number of characters to provide more ind-depth characterization.  1 and 2 are at odds with each other.  That said, I agree.  I would honestly rather keep Eder-level characterization and have more characters, because what happens if I don't care about 4 characters out of 7?

 

 

3) A party of six characters should be allowed, at least make it optional for users who enjoy these games (primarily) because of their roleplaying options and the character dynamics and interactions and not because they expect a perfectly balanced tactical gameplay. So while I understand that a party of 5 might be optimal for gameplay I don't think it should be a hard limit, especially since the 6-character-party does not only have nostalgic value but because it also allows for taking characters along which you maybe don't like for their combat abilities (due to class, skills etc), but even the more for your roleyplaying experience. E.g. it can be quite fun to take another paladin with you when your PC is a paladin as well. The less party members you’re allowed to have the less such "badly-balanced" parties are possible. For a story-rich RPG like Pillars that'd be a huge loss imo.

 

4) Combat shouldn't be the only solution to most conflicts and non-violent options should be available in most situations. Of course there can be conflicts that are central to the storytelling that require a violent solution (e.g. because your enemy attacks you no matter what). But if combat is the "standard way" of solving conflicts the whole game imo becomes too much focused on combat and systems and ignores other aspects of traditional roleplay. Ifear that without MCA around the series will become even more combat-focused and therefore even more narrow in terms of narrative design.​

 

3.  Considering that they're obviously well into development, I would say keep it five now.  I like six party members for gameplay, but the decision was made.  Also, keeping six for interactions is a bad argument.  Why not use all of the characters in your party, then you would have all the story options?

 

4.  They already addressed this multiple times in the figstarter.  There will be levels without combat.  However, the series is combat focused.  It's neither an isometric adventure nor fallout.  Pacifist runs work better in classless single-character games.

 

 

5) more unique and creative gear that can be matched by the normal stuff you find everywhere (think Lilarcor)

6) well written and "nostalgic" text epilogues (one of the best apects of BG2)

7) optional super-hard enemies (think Kangaxx)

8 ) more diverse and creative monsters (think Beholders and Mindflayers)

 

5.  Soulbound weapons solved this pretty handily, WM shows a great deal of progress in this direction.

6.  Already had this in the base game.  In some cases they were too long (Devil of Caroc).

7.  They already had this in the base game and added more in the expansions.  Three dragon fights and a superhard mage fight.  All were optional.

8.  They already had an analog to mindflayers in the base game with the Vithrack (honestly they were better written than flayers).  I too would like a significantly expanded bestiary.

 

What do you think?

 

I think you might need to play the first game with the expansions.

 

 

I've played PoE and its expansions, mate. ;)

 

 

1) That passage is not at all about "romances", not primarily and not even secondarily. Stating "no" and only refering to a tiny, tiny bit of what I say (somewhere between brackets) is complete bollocks. It's like you scanned my text, found a word you disliked and then automatically denied everything. Come on, man...

 

2) I've stated my wishlist on the basis of what really made BG2 (primarily) made special to me and what I'd want to see and experience is up to them. Whether Obsidian has the money to do so is up to them. Speculating about the cost of one additional companion is pretty pointless here anyway because I'm pretty sure nobody of us really has substantial knowledge on Obsidian's internal calculations and business plans.

 

3) With la smaller party you have a smaller chance to include characters/companions who wouldn't be needed or suited for a perfect min-max party. But not everyone only cares about that. I'd like to have a party with e.g. two rogues or two paladins, just in order to experience their interactions and roleplay - but without giving up on my combat chances altogether.

 

4) Pillars 1was never dedicated to being a close spiritual successor to IWD, but to all Infinity Engine games and BG in particular. But yes, Pillars 1 turned out to be more like IWD than BG in quite some aspects but that doesn't mean that there can't be a minor or major shift of focus in another Pillars game. It's a bit bold anyway to say that "the series was always combat focused" with only one game being released so far in the "series". One single game is not yet a series. And I strongly disagree with you that "pacifist" runs are only suited for solo games. Other party RPGs (like e.g. Wasteland 2) had a much bigger focus on social and special skills and it worked quite well. Also, me wishing a less combat focused game doesn't equal a pacifist run without any violence at all. I already stated that it's quite fine to have some mandatory fights, but it would be nice to have other options as well, in terms of dialogue, in terms of special skills or in terms of thorough exploration.

 

5) I'm not a big fan of the soulbound weapons but yeah, WM was an improvement anyway. That doesn't mean that they can't improve on that again. And I brought up Lilarcor for a reason. It was more than just a weapon with a unique description and epic stats. It was creative, something special. BG2 was full of these "small bits" that made the difference in the big picture. Without these creative bits it's just not the same. It's too much "color by numbers" if you know what I mean. A well working concept is not the same than those creative bits of genius.

 

6) I never said that those were non-existent in PoE. But the feels weren't quite the same (I can't even tell for sure why, but I guess it's at least partially because I wasn't that emotionally attached to most of my party members).

 

7) First, same what I said in the previous post in the first sentence. But yeah, three of these special enemies were dragons. I wished PoE2 had more variety here without cutting back the numbers.

 

8 ) Ahem, copying Mindflayers (or borrowing elements from them) isn't exactly a sign of creativity but the opposite. I don't want the same old stuff only in new clothes. I want new and creative monsters that are fresh, that surprise me, that feel both new and creative. But yes, I think the game would significantly benefit from a bigger variety of dfferent enemies and monsters.

Edited by LordCrash
35167v4.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

3) A party of six characters should be allowed, at least make it optional for users who enjoy these games (primarily) because of their roleplaying options and the character dynamics and interactions and not because they expect a perfectly balanced tactical gameplay. So while I understand that a party of 5 might be optimal for gameplay I don't think it should be a hard limit, especially since the 6-character-party does not only have nostalgic value but because it also allows for taking characters along which you maybe don't like for their combat abilities (due to class, skills etc), but even the more for your roleyplaying experience. E.g. it can be quite fun to take another paladin with you when your PC is a paladin as well. The less party members you’re allowed to have the less such "badly-balanced" parties are possible. For a story-rich RPG like Pillars that'd be a huge loss imo.

 

This means completely changing the design strategy. Looking at backer goals I get the feeling this is not feasible. Obsidian seems to prefer to make less companions but with more diverse backgrounds/ideals/classes. Two characters filling the same role would be a "waste" under current design ideology. If anything Obsidian seems to prefer to have less companions and then to get more "depth" for them.

 

I'm not so sure that this would change the design on a fundamental level. Nobody forced people to play the old Infinity Engine games or PoE with a full party of 6. I know a lot of people who used less party members without having too many issues. So I don't see why allowing for a bigger party would be a big issue. I mean, they could always recommend a party of 5, telling the players that the game is balanced for such a party.

 

I also can't agree on the diverse classes. Many companions in BG2 were multi-class. This is not a new concept in any way, but rather an old one. Having characters with two classes was standard back in the day. And still these games worked well with a party of 6.

 

This is how currently all RPGs I know try to handle companions. Less is more. Bioware had a lot of companions in ME2 and said that they regretted it. PoE has comparatively many companions and yet party interactions are fairly shallow. I think if PoE 2 had more companions it would not end well. Or at least, Obsidian would not be happy with the result.

I think that's more of a financial question and not a functional one or one that is dominated by game design. And ME 2 is pretty bad example anyway because you can't even call that game a tactical party RPG anymore. In term of gameplay it's more of a 3rd person shooter with some RPG elements and mostly AI-controlled companions. This is indeed the "new" way to make RPGs in 3D worlds but PoE is neither a "modern" game nor is it a 3D game. So I don't think the same rules apply here in respect to game design. It's probably merely a financial question indeed.

 

 

4) Combat shouldn't be the only solution to most conflicts and non-violent options should be available in most situations. Of course there can be conflicts that are central to the storytelling that require a violent solution (e.g. because your enemy attacks you no matter what). But if combat is the "standard way" of solving conflicts the whole game imo becomes too much focused on combat and systems and ignores other aspects of traditional roleplay. Ifear that without MCA around the series will become even more combat-focused and therefore even more narrow in terms of narrative design.​

 

Obsidian said they wanted to cut down on trash fights, so if I had to guess there will be less and not more fighting. I also did not have a problem with lack of peaceful solutions in PoE. I very often solved conflicts by talking my way out of problems (especially when confronted by sentient beings). 

 

I also think that if even one third of encounters in PoE 2 can be solved in a peaceful way I will be completely satisfied.

 

They said so - and still MCA seem to have left Obsidian at least partially because to this question. It seems like MCA was pretty diappointed about the way Obsidian handled the whole design approach in general with a much too big focus on systems and combat and and much too small focus on non-combat solutions. But I agree that people can see this point very differently. To be honest, I don't have many issues with solving almost every conflict in Divinity Original Sin violently. But that's because combat is SO fun. Combat in PoE was, well, servicably but it became too much busy work in the long run. So personally, I'd rather have more choices to resolve conflicts without hours and hours of always samey fights. I'd be happy if at least 50% of all situations and conflicts could be resolved in non-violent or at least non-direct-fight ways. One third sounds not enough for me.
35167v4.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really care for more/deeper companion content. Pillars 1 was fine; there was enough that I could relate to the companions, the banter between them was great, they had their personal agendas and stories, but it didn't take over the whole thing BioWare style. I would prefer that they kept it that way; companion interaction and stories should be a side dish, not the main course.

 

What would I like to see? Well, some of it has already been promised in the Figstarter: a nice visual facelift, exorcism of the loading time demon, more customisable companions (multiclassing!), a fresh setting that's a bit different from the usual European pseudo-Medieval (okay, in this case, pseudo-Renaissance) thing. So that's all good. If they pull that off and give us more of the same while avoiding the mistakes made with Pillars 1 (hollow stronghold, out-of-whack megadungeon, empty-ish Act 3, animu backer NPCs all over the place), I'll be a happy panda.

 

I'll be really happy if:

 

(1) Better encounters. There were very few in Pillars 1 that made proper use of the environment or otherwise came close to IE game standards. These got progressively better in the expansions, however, so I'm optimistic: if they're all WM2 quality but a bit better paced (not every map has to have a mob every two steps), that'll be fantastic.

 

(2) Better factions. In Pillars, the act 2 Knights/Dozens/Doemenel thing just suddenly ... ended. It felt tacked-on and superficial, and (ending slides aside) your choices there didn't make any difference to the rest of the game. They did say this is a goal; I hope they manage it. If they get anywhere near the kind of faction reactivity they had in FO:NV that'll be fantastic.

 

(3) More open world. Pillars is a sequence of small sandboxes. I would like to be able to move more freely during the mid-game, even at the risk of attempting to take on too high-level content too early (I like that as a challenge). 

 

(4) Better thought-out loot. At this time, Pillars plus WM1 has a pretty good loot system: there are tons of items with unique properties you can use as a basis for builds (just ask @Boeroer!), and the crafting system lets you tweak and upgrade them so you can keep them. The handful of soulbound items introduced in WM are extra-cool and flashy but not so outrageously powerful they eclipse the rest of it. WM2 however goes overboard with the soulbounds: towards the end everybody was rocking them, and the best ones were just objectively better than anything else, which took the lustre off my wacky builds built around Hellwax Mold-cloned Spelltongues or what have you. So, I hope Pillars 2 will attempt to hit something like that balance: enough unique items to make for creative builds, seasoned with just a handful of extra-cool soulbound items.

 

(5) Something surprising. I love it when a game throws a curveball at me, whether it's in story, lore, or mechanically. Because I can't know what that is, I can't suggest it. 

  • Like 1

I have a project. It's a tabletop RPG. It's free. It's a work in progress. Find it here: www.brikoleur.com

Link to post
Share on other sites

am gonna see more than a few o' these threads.  is already a wishlist thread or two.  perhaps the mods could merge and pin?

 

HA! Good Fun!

  • Like 2

"If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927)

"Im indifferent to almost any murder as long as it doesn't affect me or mine."--Gfted1 (September 30, 2019)

Link to post
Share on other sites

(3) More open world. Pillars is a sequence of small sandboxes. I would like to be able to move more freely during the mid-game, even at the risk of attempting to take on too high-level content too early (I like that as a challenge).

I'd firmly oppose that. The less open worldy the better. The hub-based "small sandbox" approach is exactly how it should be. A game with a strong focus on storytelling needs a pretty linear level and world design. Real open worlds are for real sandbox games - something Pillars isn't and hopefully won't ever become.
35167v4.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

(3) More open world. Pillars is a sequence of small sandboxes. I would like to be able to move more freely during the mid-game, even at the risk of attempting to take on too high-level content too early (I like that as a challenge).

I'd firmly oppose that. The less open worldy the better. The hub-based "small sandbox" approach is exactly how it should be. A game with a strong focus on storytelling needs a pretty linear level and world design. Real open worlds are for real sandbox games - something Pillars isn't and hopefully won't ever become.

 

 

BG2. 

 

The game opened up immediately after you were out of Irenicus's dungeon. The meat of the game is the wide-open Act 2, with some of the quests possibly way over your level. 

 

I have issues with BG2's structure -- specifically: the game throws all those quests at you at once, and doesn't give any hints at all about which ones are easier than others; in fact the best "starter" quests require you to go out of your way to discover them -- but I think those issues would be easy to fix.

 

I.e., I would like a short, linear start followed by a big, open structure laid out in such a way that I don't innocently walk into a dragon's jaws first thing (but that lets me do that if I want to), and then a short, tight endgame. 

  • Like 1

I have a project. It's a tabletop RPG. It's free. It's a work in progress. Find it here: www.brikoleur.com

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

(3) More open world. Pillars is a sequence of small sandboxes. I would like to be able to move more freely during the mid-game, even at the risk of attempting to take on too high-level content too early (I like that as a challenge).

I'd firmly oppose that. The less open worldy the better. The hub-based "small sandbox" approach is exactly how it should be. A game with a strong focus on storytelling needs a pretty linear level and world design. Real open worlds are for real sandbox games - something Pillars isn't and hopefully won't ever become.

 

BG2. 

 

The game opened up immediately after you were out of Irenicus's dungeon. The meat of the game is the wide-open Act 2, with some of the quests possibly way over your level. 

 

I have issues with BG2's structure -- specifically: the game throws all those quests at you at once, and doesn't give any hints at all about which ones are easier than others; in fact the best "starter" quests require you to go out of your way to discover them -- but I think those issues would be easy to fix.

 

I.e., I would like a short, linear start followed by a big, open structure laid out in such a way that I don't innocently walk into a dragon's jaws first thing (but that lets me do that if I want to), and then a short, tight endgame.

 

I guess we had different concepts of "open world" in mind. If it's still (smallish-)hub-based and if these hubs are dense and filled with stories, events and quests I'm fine with it. But I really dislike the typcial open world slack, all the running around for nothing and all the so-called exploration with nothing to show for, especially no dense narrative. Having a lot of quests available at the same time is something I actually value in an RPG if the structure and pacing still makes sense. Edited by LordCrash
  • Like 1
35167v4.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I've played PoE and its expansions, mate. ;)

 

 

 

1) That passage is not at all about "romances", not primarily and not even secondarily. Stating "no" and only refering to a tiny, tiny bit of what I say (somewhere between brackets) is complete bollocks. It's like you scanned my text, found a word you disliked and then automatically denied everything. Come on, man...

 

2) I've stated my wishlist on the basis of what really made BG2 (primarily) made special to me and what I'd want to see and experience is up to them. Whether Obsidian has the money to do so is up to them. Speculating about the cost of one additional companion is pretty pointless here anyway because I'm pretty sure nobody of us really has substantial knowledge on Obsidian's internal calculations and business plans.

 

3) With la smaller party you have a smaller chance to include characters/companions who wouldn't be needed or suited for a perfect min-max party. But not everyone only cares about that. I'd like to have a party with e.g. two rogues or two paladins, just in order to experience their interactions and roleplay - but without giving up on my combat chances altogether.

 

4) Pillars 1was never dedicated to being a close spiritual successor to IWD, but to all Infinity Engine games and BG in particular. But yes, Pillars 1 turned out to be more like IWD than BG in quite some aspects but that doesn't mean that there can't be a minor or major shift of focus in another Pillars game. It's a bit bold anyway to say that "the series was always combat focused" with only one game being released so far in the "series". One single game is not yet a series. And I strongly disagree with you that "pacifist" runs are only suited for solo games. Other party RPGs (like e.g. Wasteland 2) had a much bigger focus on social and special skills and it worked quite well. Also, me wishing a less combat focused game doesn't equal a pacifist run without any violence at all. I already stated that it's quite fine to have some mandatory fights, but it would be nice to have other options as well, in terms of dialogue, in terms of special skills or in terms of thorough exploration.

 

5) I'm not a big fan of the soulbound weapons but yeah, WM was an improvement anyway. That doesn't mean that they can't improve on that again. And I brought up Lilarcor for a reason. It was more than just a weapon with a unique description and epic stats. It was creative, something special. BG2 was full of these "small bits" that made the difference in the big picture. Without these creative bits it's just not the same. It's too much "color by numbers" if you know what I mean. A well working concept is not the same than those creative bits of genius.

 

6) I never said that those were non-existent in PoE. But the feels weren't quite the same (I can't even tell for sure why, but I guess it's at least partially because I wasn't that emotionally attached to most of my party members).

 

7) First, same what I said in the previous post in the first sentence. But yeah, three of these special enemies were dragons. I wished PoE2 had more variety here without cutting back the numbers.

 

8 ) Ahem, copying Mindflayers (or borrowing elements from them) isn't exactly a sign of creativity but the opposite. I don't want the same old stuff only in new clothes. I want new and creative monsters that are fresh, that surprise me, that feel both new and creative. But yes, I think the game would significantly benefit from a bigger variety of dfferent enemies and monsters.

 

The problem with the list then is that it isn't a wish list for features.  Over half is a way to backdoor complain about the first game.

 

1 & 6 don't offer suggestions.  They're just complaints about the writing.

 

5, 7, & 8 have the same problem: you laud the BG games for being creative where they weren't.  BG was able to take stuff that had been around in D&D for years.

 

Most of the setting was not creative, but it was well-executed.  Talking items had been around for years when Lilarcore was implemented, yes, even humorous ones. Both games had tough enemy party fights.  In BG2 most of the optional bosses were dragons or undead.  Pillars had two (or three) undead fights and three dragons; less than BG2 but they're not trying for the scope of BG2.  Mindflayers and Beholders are iconic D&D monsters, BG2 using them is hardly a sign of creativity.

 

The Eyeless are fairly unique as are the Skuldr.  However, when it comes to monsters, there's only so much you can create without referencing old myths, DnD, or other media. Lagufaeth are cool, but someone else may call them murlocs or merpeople.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...