Review RPG Codex Review: Darth Roxor on Disappointment, thy name is Pillars of Eternity

[Blaine]

Jaceface
Sorry man, I defiled your excellent work, but I feel it was for a good cause.

 

[Volrath]

I hope Styg and Pyke work together one day.

 

[Blaine]

I hope Styg and Pyke work together one day.

No one can handle that much incline, not even the Codex.

 

[Sensuki]

I disagree with Vault Dweller's 3.5 year game in 2.5 years summary. There are problems that scream lack of time, but I don't think the largest problems with the game are because of lack of time, just shit design in the first place. Combat is bad because of bad system design, simple as that. The bad system design rolls down the hill and makes encounters uninteresting. There are narrative issues because they did design by committee to begin with and they tried to incorporate too many themes and ideas and they changed the theme of the story half way through. Maybe Roguey is right about Chris 'Rubber Stamp' Avellone? How did they let the problems with player motivation through? Why did they think the Act 2 trial was a good idea? Did they enjoy the Mass Effect 3 ending?

There are absolutely elements that scream rushed / not enough time - quest design, stronghold, Od Nua, even companions I suppose. Various polish issues. Missing features. But my core issues are the RTwP combat which is shit because of the design, and the plot issues/uninteresting writing. Neither of these could be fixed in a year's time - only more polished turd added to it.

I do think that Prime Junta has a point about coming up with a new system from scratch being hard. However I simply really dislike the results of this 'first attempt'. Aside from simply being not fun, they do not cater to my gameplay preferences anyway.

Lots of people on the team did a good job - Art team specifically (other than some technical issues), but system design and narrative - no.

 

[Hatred]

I get the distinct impression that VD never enjoyed the IE style combat so he probably doesn't care about PoE combat either. With another year they could have tightened up some of the plot and writing issues perhaps. For VD it might have become a much more memorable game with an extra year for OE to polish Joshs little brown nugget of balance. I still wouldn't have been able to sit through it though.

 

[Sensuki]

He just hates real-time with pause. Maybe he prefers strategical combat to tactical? I dunno.

 

[Athelas]

ITT: Sensuki loses it in search of answers, unable to let go.

Why did they think the Act 2 trial was a good idea? Did they enjoy the Mass Effect 3 ending?

Uhm, you know the Mass Effect 3 ending wasn't the first case of an RPG setting up an expectation of C&C, and then disappointing, right? It's just the most highly-publicized, because Bioware spend half a decade advertising the games with 'your choices matter', and because it was the ending to a trilogy.

For example:

 

[Vault Dweller]

I get the distinct impression that VD never enjoyed the IE style combat...

To say the least.

http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/inde...t-eternity-how-does-it-work-tb-vs-rtwp.76280/

I disagree with Vault Dweller's 3.5 year game in 2.5 years summary. There are problems that scream lack of time, but I don't think the largest problems with the game are because of lack of time, just shit design in the first place. Combat is bad because of bad system design, simple as that. The bad system design rolls down the hill and makes encounters uninteresting. There are narrative issues because they did design by committee to begin with and they tried to incorporate too many themes and ideas and they changed the theme of the story half way through. Maybe Roguey is right about Chris 'Rubber Stamp' Avellone? How did they let the problems with player motivation through? Why did they think the Act 2 trial was a good idea? Did they enjoy the Mass Effect 3 ending?

The answer to most of these questions is time. That's why Tim Cain said you need 3.5 years and everything we've seen so far suggests that he was right.

Anyway, I'm curious to hear your thoughts on bad system design. I'm sure you posted it before, but would you mind summing it up for me? For the record, I'm not talking about flaws that could be easily fixed or improved, I'm talking about 'bad design' - things that can't be fixed.

... and the plot issues/uninteresting writing. Neither of these could be fixed in a year's time - only more polished turd added to it.

You misunderstood. The question isn't how much can you fix in a year, but 'how different the game would be had Obsidian aimed at 3.5 years from the start, not 2.5, and planned accordingly?'

 

[Vault Dweller]

He just hates real-time with pause. Maybe he prefers strategical combat to tactical? I dunno.

I prefer turn-based combat. Anything else is tolerable at best. PoE combat is definitely tolerable.

 

[Athelas]

PoE combat is definitely tolerable.

Sounds like something Obsidian could put on the cover of the final GOTY (game + expansions) edition.

 

[tuluse]

Sounds like something Obsidian could put on the cover of the final GOTY (game + expansions) edition.

Beat me to it

 

[Athelas]

Sounds like something Obsidian could put on the cover of the final GOTY (game + expansions) edition.

Beat me to it

[Cipher] [Intellect 18] Great minds think alike.

 

[Vault Dweller]

I was looking for some old posts and found these (from 2013):

http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/index.php?threads/what-is-a-full-scale-rpg.84711/page-2#post-2756787

I can't say for sure what exactly Obsidian is aiming it, but I doubt that it's a full-scale RPG. BG exploration, IWD combat, PST depth, iirc.

A game with BG exploration, IWD combat and PST depth would not be a full-scale RPG for you, VD? What would, then?

- BG exploration sucked. You moved from one map to another, killing pretty monsters on pretty, hand-painted backgrounds. So, unless exploring is a fancy word meaning looking for monsters to kill, it didn't have any.

- IWD combat was kinda meh. Neither challenging nor tactical. Was never a big fan of it. A couple of battles were cool, but that's not enough to praise it. Maybe it's the RTwP thing. In fact, I believe I've expressed my opinion that Black Isle/Obsidian isn't known for good combat quite a few times. Even in their best games - FO2, PST, KOTOR2, MotB, NV combat tend to be the weakest aspect. At very least I liked these games despite weak combat, not because of it.

- PST depth was the writing and story-telling, which after the years of enduring cardboard-cutout characters and shitty writing, was like a breath of incredibly fresh air. Good story, interesting characters, character development, text adventures! It was the first game where everyone wanted to have high WIS, INT, and CHA to get MOAR story! At the same time the game was fairly linear and often ran of steam (or switched designers) and just threw waves of monsters at you.

So, if Obsidian delivers an interesting world to explore (like via text and dialogues), great story, good characters worth talking to, and decent combat (anything above cringe-worthy), I'll be happy as a pig and feel that my $500 were well spent. They do more, I'll be overjoyed and send them a thank you letter.

http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/index.php?threads/what-is-a-full-scale-rpg.84711/#post-2756701

I'm pretty sure they said that it won't be the focus of the game.

I don't believe so.

I can't find the quote now as it would require going through all the interviews, but here is what they said during the KS:

"Project Eternity's team is focusing on three core ideas that will capture the Infinity Engine experiences players loved so much:

• Unique, beautiful, dynamic environments that encourage and reward exploration.
• A story that is both personal and far-reaching, with believable characters and factions that create compelling dilemmas for players.
• Fun and challenging tactical combat that can escalate in difficulty through the use of optional game modes."

This makes sense. Charming visuals, tactical combat, good story with good writing. Achievable goals. Branching plot and C&C would simply require too much time and may or may not be appreciated (if most people would play it only once).

That's what the focus of the game is, but they didn't say C&C wouldn't also be a (perhaps smaller) focus.

Yes, 'we're focusing on 3 core areas' means 'we're focusing on 3 core areas, but we're actually focusing on 4'

 

[Nikaido]

but I've played worse.

Gamers in a nutshell. "I've played worse!". Play shitty games because.. couldn't look into other game genres, or just take a break from playing games and do something else, like going outside or god forbid, read a book. People who settle for "gud for what it is" are sad. Games are not like food. You don't need to eat shitty games to go on with your life the way a starving, poverty stricken hobo would settle for rancid bread.

 

[Hatred]

He just hates real-time with pause. Maybe he prefers strategical combat to tactical? I dunno.

I prefer turn-based combat. Anything else is tolerable at best. PoE combat is definitely tolerable.

Earlier in the thread someone mentioned you had to restart the game and your review would be ready in a month. If you haven't played through the first act I am thinking perhaps your view of the combat may change. Possibly your view of multiple aspects of the game. There seems to be a consensus that the first act was best.

 

[Vault Dweller]

I'm at the end of Act 2, didn't restart the game yet, didn't have time to play this week at all. I disagree that Act 1 was the best.

 

[Sensuki]

The answer to most of these questions is time. That's why Tim Cain said you need 3.5 years and everything we've seen so far suggests that he was right.

As far as narrative goes, you may be right. I think they aimed way too high with their narrative and fell quite short, with loose threads everywhere.

Anyway, I'm curious to hear your thoughts on bad system design. I'm sure you posted it before, but would you mind summing it up for me? For the record, I'm not talking about flaws that could be easily fixed or improved, I'm talking about 'bad design' - things that can't be fixed.

Sure. I have quotes saved on my computer where Josh Sawyer states multiple times that Pillars of Eternity will have reactive tactical combat. My experience is pretty much the exact opposite of that. Combat is not very tactical and not very reactive. The combat in this game is mostly strategical, revolving around encounter strategy and positioning.

To me strategy isn't just gear/character creation choices. I played top tier competitive Call of Duty and strategy to us would include our positions and our plan and set things that we would do. We would use tactics to solve problems encountered when playing. If some guy peeked a doorway I didn't expect, my tactic to beat him might be to run behind a bin and jumpshot him or something like that. That is the tactic I used to beat him. He caused me to react to what he did.

In Pillars of Eternity when I face an encounter I use like 99% strategy. I use the stealth system to see what encounter is up ahead, I always get the jump on pretty much every encounter in the game. Then I send my tank characters forward so they soak up all the aggro, pre-positioned ready to go and either let an alpha strike go, or leave stealth to let my tank characters get targeted, I might make a positional adjustment before engagement begins and then I might use their per-encounters, while then queuing up per-encounters from my other characters. All I do then is pile on damage and afflictions. I almost never have to react to what enemies are doing. I rarely have to manage endurance - healing spells are pretty pointless, knockouts aren't a big deal (but personally I reload most of the time a character gets KO'd so I am essentially trying to save characters every now and again reactively to a gameplay restriction I set upon myself). Engagement makes encounters very static and punishes me for moving, so there's rarely any point using movement based tactics to respond to targeting, damage or disable (nor is there really a need to if you get your setup right). Most afflictions don't even matter - short durations, lots of them end when the unit that inflicted them is killed or they end when the encounter is over. This promotes simply dealing damage and killing things quicker rather than responding to the affliction.

Because of the homogeneous and unified system design, most encounters can be dealt with using this same strategy and rote sequence, with basically no adjustment on what the enemy does during combat, - it's all about encounter strategy and opening.

There's some info on the systems I think are at fault here: http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/inde...at-contributes-to-banality-of-gameplay.98429/

The Infinity Engine games had several things that required you to react, and to be tactical IF you didn't rest spam the shit out of the game so you could always easily beat stuff with your biggest spells. You had to manage your HP which did not automatically heal, so often you weren't at full strength for the majority of encounters in the game. 0 HP = death so you had to react to damage a lot more than you do in PE. IE games don't have per-encounters and full party stealth so you don't do a full sneak and alpha strike every time, often you would react to enemy targeting and their opening spells if any. Afflictions were a big deal and you were basically required to react to stuff like poison, hold, disease, level drain, stat drain ... most things. You could pre-buff sure, but most times it was not required to - simply drink potions or cast reactive spells in combat, as you may not even need to pre-buff. You often dispelled mage protections. In Pillars of Eternity I have not used Arcane Dampener once. Hard counters and immunities would also force you to change what you did on a per-encounter basis, if not as an in combat reaction, then at least as a pre-encounter reaction, swapping weapons or ammunition or stuff like that. You had to dispose of trolls with fire or acid when you knocked them down, because if you didn't they'd get back up. There's literally a whole laundry list of stuff you had to react to in the IE games that you don't even have to worry about in Pillars of Eternity. Maybe not all of it in BG1, but collectively.

For me, combat in Pillars of Eternity revolves primarily around positioning and strategy and is not very tactical or reactive and is very repetitive and boring. I enjoy RTwP and I enjoy the Infinity Engine game combat but I dislike Pillars of Eternity combat and find it a chore.

You misunderstood. The question isn't how much can you fix in a year, but 'how different the game would be had Obsidian aimed at 3.5 years from the start, not 2.5, and planned accordingly?'

I didn't misunderstand. If the game was 3.5 year we would have many more of the things that I listed - more features, probably better content (or at least more content), more polish. I don't think we would have better system design, and I still think we would have several of the main narrative issues I have with the game - like the player motivation issues, the boring antagonist/dyrwood/support cast, the derp Act 2 ending and the banal stuff about gods in Act 3.

 

[Kz3r0]

He just hates real-time with pause. Maybe he prefers strategical combat to tactical? I dunno.

I prefer turn-based combat. Anything else is tolerable at best. PoE combat is definitely tolerable.

 

[Infinitron]

Because of the homogeneous and unified system design, most encounters can be dealt with using this same strategy and rote sequence

I don't understand what these two things have to do with one another. Unified system design has nothing to do with strategy or tactics, it just means different things use the same underlying math. You still have an incentive to use different spells against enemies with different weaknesses.

The fact is that if you can inflict things on an enemy that they should logically have to react to, and I know that you can, a hypothetical enemy encounter could conceivably do the same thing to you. It is mainly about encounter design and AI, not system design.

 

[Irenaeus]

I'm at the end of Act 2, didn't restart the game yet, didn't have time to play this week at all. I disagree that Act 1 was the best.

Act 3 is the best.

 

[Blaine]

I completely agree with Sensuki's assessment of PoE's combat system. There is often leeway to reposition the Wizard or Rogue (or equivalent), though this is very often ruined or harmed by absolutely abysmal pathfinding and baffling party AI that I assume is there but cannot disable.

For the most part, though, successful combat in Pillars of Eternity involves using stealth/fog of war to scout with near-total impunity, choose your angle of attack, orientate your formation accordingly, then send in the tank(s) and do virtually the same thing with all the characters that you do in every battle.

There wasn't a single proper wizard battle to be found anywhere in the game, unless I somehow missed it. I played on Hard and scoured the entire game for every last drop of content.

This, combined with my subsequent abortive replay attempts of IWD (it really is linear and dull) and BG2 (much better, but then I realized I've played it so much already I can never enjoy it again) has me chomping at the bit for T:ToN: heavily orchestrated, custom-tailored encounters; no trash encounters (or next to none); a couple of dozen combats in the entire game, many of them avoidable, or wholly optional. This Diablo-esque endless stream of trash mobs and shit loot without the action and viscera of Diablo... how the fuck did anyone tolerate it back then? Why is anyone tolerating it now?

 

[Irenaeus]

There wasn't a single proper wizard battle in the entire game, unless I somehow missed it.

You missed it. There are several proper wizard battles in the game. Try again.

For the most part, though, successful combat in Pillars of Eternity involves using stealth/fog of war to scout with near-total impunity, choose your angle of attack, orientate your formation accordingly, then send in the tank(s) and do virtually the same thing with all the characters that you do in every battle.

This couldn't be farther from the truth. Every single encounter is different and you have to reavaluate your tactics. Are you sure you played the game?

 

[Blaine]

You missed it. There are several proper wizard battles in the game. Try again.

If my Rogue can one-shot the Wizard in question with a pistol sneak attack with near-impunity, then it's not a proper wizard battle. Stop inhaling Obsidian's cock. You're reminding me of a pink-haired Biodrone gigglesquee'ing so hard over gay Mass Effect fanfic she accidentally noms someone's head.

I genuinely remember zero times when I had to fight Wizard-on-Wizard with counterspells and counter-counterspells, or anything even remotely close to that.

 

[Blaine]

This couldn't be farther from the truth. Every single encounter is different and you have to reavaluate your tactics. Are you sure you played the game?

"Every single encounter is different," he says, apparently forgetting the 15th or 20th Shadow/Phantom battle in the first 1/4 of the game.

 

[Broseph]

You missed it. There are several proper wizard battles in the game. Try again.

Stop inhaling Obsidian's cock. You're reminding me of a pink-haired Biodrone gigglesquee'ing so hard over gay Mass Effect fanfic she accidentally noms someone's head.

That's absurd. How dare you insult the Codex's best poster Irenaeus by comparing him to those degenerates.