Pillars of Eternity 1 Tutu; think it is possible?

[Katarack21]

 

 

 

 

Considering that Josh won’t helm PoE3 I would much prefer if they wrap up Watcher’s arc in Deadfire and introduce new protagonist and new take on the system/genre in the third installement. Last parts of trilogies tend to not be very good. I am sure designers are full of cool ideas and it would be shame to force them to remake same game over and over.

Strongly disagree. I want continuity of protagonist between all parts of my trilogy. I want to be able to play *MY* character the *whole way through*. If the third part is suddenly entirely different from the first two, then I suddenly don't give a damn about the third part. All the time and effort I invested in that character suddenly no longer matters? The series suddenly no longer matters, in my head.

That is like refusing to play Icewind Dale on the grounds that you aren’t playing your CHARNAME from Baldur’s Gate. I would love to play more stories in the setting. Stories of other characters who aren’t the Watcher give Obsidian more narrative flexibility.

 

Lots of RPGs (Fallout, TES, Dragon Age, Divinity) have you play as different characters in each game because the series is about the setting more than any individual story within the setting.

 

Baldur's Gate was a *different series* from Icewind Dale. Fallout 2 didn't have the same character from Fallout 1, so Fallout 3 *didn't have that investment*. They're not the same situation *at all*.

 

Well, both Icewind Dale and Baldur's Gate take place in the same setting with the same gameplay running on the same engine released by the same publisher and were developed by some of the same people. There is just as much in common between those games and Morrowind and Skyrim. The only reason the former are a different series and the latter is one is because of the naming convention. That is it. If we take these articles and follow them to the logical conclusion, if OBS make a game set in Eora with a new protagonist and name it something else then you will play it, but if they name it Pillars of Eternity 3 then you won't. If the only deciding factor about whether you play a game is the name, then I think that is a miscalibration of priorities. 

 

No, the difference between IWD and Baldur's Gate is that BG was a *continuous storyline* and IWD was a *separate storyline*. That's why they were made different series. You're artificially narrowing down my complaint from "undoing the investment in this character/story" to "naming convention" by taking absurd statements and pretending their true.

 

Yes, Fallout and Elder Scrolls all have different protagonists and stories in the same series; that's the convention that those series established *FROM THE BEGINNING*. That is not the convention here. If Pillars 2 had established that convention, I'd have been disappointed but I would have played it, and then I wouldn't have had the pr-established investment in the story and character. But changing the established series convention partway through the series is *****ed* for a lot of people, and for good reason: it destroys the investment one has *already made in this series*.

[Bionick]

I really like the Legend of Heroes: Trails series.

 

There is the Trails in the Sky arc ( 3 games ), Trails of Azure/Zero ( 2 games ), Trails of cold Steel ( at least 3 games ) and maybe they will also make a calvard arc.

Each arc consists of several games that form a complete story. But all arcs are interconnected and they take place on the same continent. So a character who is a playable character in one arc will be an NPC in the other and things that happen in one arc are mentioned in the others.

That is neat. If they do make other POE games with different protagonists I would love to be able to run into my Watcher. I did mod the Mad King in Skyrim to look like my favorite character from Oblivion, and I got a bit of a kick out of that, even though I had to put in some extra effort to make it happen myself.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I only said Trilogy because of the BG2 mod. My point was a continuous playthrough of however many games feature the watcher would be pretty cool, even if this is only PoE and Deadfire.

[The Sharmat]

Frankly to me its less about desire of continuing the same character or creating a new one, and more that traditionally 3rd installments really suck (a notable exception is Witcher series, where is some regards the low point was 2nd game and in some it was getting better with every game). 

 

Since original StarWars everyone feels a need to make a trilogy ignoring the fact that even Return of the Jedi fell flat on its face for the most part.

Witcher 2 was the best game in the series. Witcher 3 is an example of how not to continue a story.

[Wormerine]

Witcher 2 was the best game in the series. Witcher 3 is an example of how not to continue a story.

That’s rare but interesting opinion. Than again I am witcher fan (as read original books a while back) so the game about Geralt and something he would actually care about is more interesting to me than politics he wouldn’t give a crap about.

[CottonWolf]

Having the Watcher be the protagonist of the third game would considerably stretch their ability to start us at level one and with no gear.

 

You'll be starting a God level 1 in their new divine campaign system, so it's okay.

 

(I can dream.)

[Bionick]

Personally I hope that they end the Watcher’s story with a Throne of Bhaal style expansion. Sort of like a epic level campaign.

[Wormerine]

Personally I hope that they end the Watcher’s story with a Throne of Bhaal style expansion. Sort of like a epic level campaign.

Rushed expansion with a big drop in quality, which is fairly forgettable and worth skipping except it wraps up story, so it’s a must play? No thank you. Expansions are there to expand content. They don’t have enough content to carry entire finale.

[Hybridsalmon]

 

Personally I hope that they end the Watcher’s story with a Throne of Bhaal style expansion. Sort of like a epic level campaign.

Rushed expansion with a big drop in quality, which is fairly forgettable and worth skipping except it wraps up story, so it’s a must play? No thank you. Expansions are there to expand content. They don’t have enough content to carry entire finale.

 

 

The Ascension mod made it bit better though. 

And an epic ending for the watcher doesn't really fit tbh. Or at least my watcher isn't. He's more of an investigator than a 'Fear me mortals!' kind of guy.

Disagree that expansions don't have enough content to carry a finale. DAO:A and TW3B&W have enough content to make a proper ending.

[Wormerine]

DAO:A and TW3B&W have enough content to make a proper ending.

Certainly not a fan of Awekening. It's a very confident "skip" from me (as all the other paid Origins DLC content).

 

Witcher3 expansions are great, though they are more of the stand alone stories. While B&W is a send off to Geralt, it is not really tied to his story. His story ended in base games. B&W seems more like the celebration of the series, rather than tying loose ends and giving closer to unfinished saga.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Personally I hope that they end the Watcher’s story with a Throne of Bhaal style expansion. Sort of like a epic level campaign.

I'd prefer Mask of the Betrayer, because that was just better than ToB.

[The Sharmat]

 

Witcher 2 was the best game in the series. Witcher 3 is an example of how not to continue a story.

That’s rare but interesting opinion. Than again I am witcher fan (as read original books a while back) so the game about Geralt and something he would actually care about is more interesting to me than politics he wouldn’t give a crap about.

 

I am the same, but Geralt getting thrust into political situations where all he wants to do is be with his family is standard in the books. The Witcher 3 fails imo because it tries to do too many things. Is it a sequel to Witcher 2? Is it a sequel to the books? Or is it its own game? It tries all three and inevitably fails at all of them. Witcher 2 may lack my favorite characters from the books, unlike Witcher 3, but it succeeds at being a fantastic RPG due to its focused scope and great deal of reactivity, perhaps the most of any game ever made in the genre. Just because Yennefer finally shows up in Witcher 3 doesn't mean I can't objectively see that Witcher 2 is better crafted from a story perspective.

 

I just hope Deadfire doesn't suffer from the same pitfalls.

 

 

 

 

 

Personally I hope that they end the Watcher’s story with a Throne of Bhaal style expansion. Sort of like a epic level campaign.

Rushed expansion with a big drop in quality, which is fairly forgettable and worth skipping except it wraps up story, so it’s a must play? No thank you. Expansions are there to expand content. They don’t have enough content to carry entire finale.

 

 

The Ascension mod made it bit better though. 

And an epic ending for the watcher doesn't really fit tbh. Or at least my watcher isn't. He's more of an investigator than a 'Fear me mortals!' kind of guy.

Disagree that expansions don't have enough content to carry a finale. DAO:A and TW3B&W have enough content to make a proper ending.

 

Neither of those expansions are finales. One is a stand alone story, the other is a bunch of poorly thought out fanservice. I'm with wormerine on this.

Edited March 25, 2018 by The Sharmat

[Hybridsalmon]

 

 

Witcher 2 was the best game in the series. Witcher 3 is an example of how not to continue a story.

That’s rare but interesting opinion. Than again I am witcher fan (as read original books a while back) so the game about Geralt and something he would actually care about is more interesting to me than politics he wouldn’t give a crap about.

 

I am the same, but Geralt getting thrust into political situations where all he wants to do is be with his family is standard in the books. The Witcher 3 fails imo because it tries to do too many things. Is it a sequel to Witcher 2? Is it a sequel to the books? Or is it its own game? It tries all three and inevitably fails at all of them. Witcher 2 may lack my favorite characters from the books, unlike Witcher 3, but it succeeds at being a fantastic RPG due to its focused scope and great deal of reactivity, perhaps the most of any game ever made in the genre. Just because Yennefer finally shows up in Witcher 3 doesn't mean I can't objectively see that Witcher 2 is better crafted from a story perspective.

 

I just hope Deadfire doesn't suffer from the same pitfalls.

 

 

 

 

 

Personally I hope that they end the Watcher’s story with a Throne of Bhaal style expansion. Sort of like a epic level campaign.

Rushed expansion with a big drop in quality, which is fairly forgettable and worth skipping except it wraps up story, so it’s a must play? No thank you. Expansions are there to expand content. They don’t have enough content to carry entire finale.

 

 

The Ascension mod made it bit better though. 

And an epic ending for the watcher doesn't really fit tbh. Or at least my watcher isn't. He's more of an investigator than a 'Fear me mortals!' kind of guy.

Disagree that expansions don't have enough content to carry a finale. DAO:A and TW3B&W have enough content to make a proper ending.

 

Neither of those expansions are finales. One is a stand alone story, the other is a bunch of poorly thought out fanservice. I'm with wormerine on this.

 

 

If you'd read my 2 last sentences it was primarly to show that expansions can have enough content to carry a finale. But most devs wouldn't do that anyway because it'd be a **** move to force people to buy the expansion pack just to get the 'real' ending.  Blood and Wine does take place after TW3 though(you can play it beforehand but it doesn't make much sense) and is considered the final chapter of Geralt though.

[Bionick]

 

Personally I hope that they end the Watcher’s story with a Throne of Bhaal style expansion. Sort of like a epic level campaign.

Rushed expansion with a big drop in quality, which is fairly forgettable and worth skipping except it wraps up story, so it’s a must play? No thank you. Expansions are there to expand content. They don’t have enough content to carry entire finale.

I was talking about the concept, not the execution. There is nothing intrinsic to expansions that preclude them from being good.

[The Sharmat]

 

If you'd read my 2 last sentences it was primarly to show that expansions can have enough content to carry a finale. But most devs wouldn't do that anyway because it'd be a **** move to force people to buy the expansion pack just to get the 'real' ending.  Blood and Wine does take place after TW3 though(you can play it beforehand but it doesn't make much sense) and is considered the final chapter of Geralt though.

 

Blood and Wine doesn't make much sense anyway. I hope Obsidian's finale for Pillars is in keeping with what's come before. Going for a totally different tone is fine in a side story but not when it's the ultimate chapter. But point taken about expansions.

[wih]

 

Now that I have played Deadfire for 40+ hours I am starting to dream for Pillars of Eternity Tutu. The new engine is great and Deadfire is already my favorite RPG. If I am able to play the original Pillars of Eternity with the new engine, this means my favorite RPG will suddenly become twice as big and far more varied!

 

 

It will be great if we get Pillars of Eternity Enhanced Edition (as it would probably be called). This may even bring many new players to the world of Eora.

 

Of course, porting PoE 1 to the new engine will be a lot of work. But it is certainly much less work than doing an entire game from scratch.