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

[Zorba the Hutt]

Balance is simply the process of relating number values within the game to one another in a way that makes sense. It is, as I said, a part of the design of every single player game you've ever played. It is not a bad word invented by Sawyer.

Sure, balance is a consideration in every game, with some designers succeeding better than others. But I think when "balance" is thrown around as a derogatory term here it's in terms of what the perceived priorities of the designer in question are.

Some designers appear to favour systems which are designed from the ground up to be easy to balance, while others emphasise an interesting and varied system and then do the best they can to balance it. An example of the first approach would be a system where all single-handed weapons do the same damage, with some interest added to the system with differing situational bonuses. The designer would then just have to adjust these bonuses until every bonus was equally valuable, albeit possibly in different situations.

An alternative would be having different damage ranges for each weapon, balanced by some weapons having better bonuses than others. So, for example, a club would do more damage than a dagger but only have a small bonus against heavy armour, while a dagger would have an obviously better bonus of being much faster and getting more attacks. This approach has two moving parts instead of one and would be much harder to balance, in a game with lots of weapons you'd be more likely to end up with imperfect balance and certain weapons favoured by certain builds. But some would find it a more interesting system to play around with and replay in different styles.

Like everything in these debates I guess it comes down to personal preference. Some see Sawyer's systems as elegant, symmetrical and a sensible approach to designing complex games. Others deride it as looking good on a spreadsheet, but lacking long-term interest and not sufficiently rewarding those who put effort into mastering the system. I'd say the "everything is equally viable" focus is a positive for those who haven't played this sort of game before, I guess we'll see how it affects replayability in the long term.

 

[Grinning Reaper]

All single player games are balanced, balancing is a part of the design of single player games. No consideration to balance would mean that every number value in a game's design was simply randomly selected with no regards to the other numbers, swords would do .0000303 damage while clubs would do 99483 damage

Balance is not limited to the numbers - it's also means that all classes /builds / races etc have to be equal or close to equal in executing all kinds of tasks. For example, before Blizzard set on a crusade to balance everything (tm), very limited number of classes in WoW had an interrupt and/or stun ability in pre-Cata environment, and there were clear specialists that excelled in one role /function and were plainly bad / mediocre in others. That brought variety and allowed at least some kind of roleplay, as well as it allowed mediocre players to have a place in raids if they couldnt perform well enough on 'generalist' classes.

In Cataclysm, they attempted to fix the problem by homogenizing everything and giving all and everyone the toolkit to do the things they werent capable of executing before. The result was that the game became somewhat bland and all raid meta was basically constructed around the single variable - how much damage (tanks, dps) or healing you can pump out in a fight. I'd even say that move, although i'm in for a more dynamic gameplay, cost blizzard 2M+ subscribers. I had the same feeling while i was playing PoE (and i dont hate it - it's miles better than any popamole AAA has to offer) - i had no distinct feeling that i was playing a mage and i didnt feel that stats had purpose or clear-cut value. Maybe i'm still not versed enough in the system, but DnD didn't create that kind of feeling.

I understand what balance is, and you just made a great argument for why you feel that WoW is overly balanced. I'm convinced, but I neither play WoW nor do I care about it. You claimed that attempting to balance PoE made the game bad, and explaining to me why WoW is too balanced for your tastes still doesn't support your claim about PoE.

The difference with PoE is that you don't need to min-max in order to make a useful character. A fighter with low might and low constitution might not function as a tank, but he wont be utterly useless as he would be in Baldur's Gate for example.

I really don't think it's as easy to make useful characters in PoE as some people make it out to be. In BG, you can have mediocre strength and constitution as a fighter and make it through the game just fine. You never will, though, because with an average roll you can dump wisdom and charisma to 3 without any repercussions and have enough points left to max out strength, constitution, and dexterity and still enough left over to put intelligence to 15 (not that you need to). I would love to see this gud tank with dumped tanking stats that people keep saying exists in PoE. When I got Pallegina and put her up front as a second tank on hard with great gear, her inferior deflection score got her ass handed to her over and over until I could sufficiently increase it with +10 deflection boost item and one item boosting perception +2 and another boosting resolve +2. If you don't like the stat system, that's one thing, but continuing to clam it's worse than the one in IE games is absurd (I know that's not what you're doing Mareus, just making a general point because the person you were responding to was making that claim).

That's the crux of the problem - if you can't loose, there is no joy in winning. Also, that 'all-inclusive' thing turns the classes into something as meaningful as classes in TES games.

'Winning' character building shouldn't be something to take joy in. Why do you require there to be meaningless stats that a new player can accidentally pick once and then never pick again when they realize how pointless they are. Universal dump stats are bad design. 'Winning' at character creation shouldn't be a thing and I have no clue how someone feels accomplished by reading the manual or trial-and-erroring until they figure out which stats the game designers didn't attach any useful effects to. Anyway, different builds do different things and you can certainly make a shitty tank by dumping perception and resolve or a shitty damage dealer by dumping might and dexterity. The lack of universal dump stats will always mean that characters who use the same number of points will end up with an overall similar level of power, but with varying strengths and weaknesses. That's a good thing, unless you get off on competing against imaginary n00bs in your head who play BG with a fighter with maxed out mental stats and min physical stats.

 

[Grinning Reaper]

Balance is simply the process of relating number values within the game to one another in a way that makes sense. It is, as I said, a part of the design of every single player game you've ever played. It is not a bad word invented by Sawyer.

Sure, balance is a consideration in every game, with some designers succeeding better than others. But I think when "balance" is thrown around as a derogatory term here it's in terms of what the perceived priorities of the designer in question are.

Some designers appear to favour systems which are designed from the ground up to be easy to balance, while others emphasise an interesting and varied system and then do the best they can to balance it. An example of the first approach would be a system where all single-handed weapons do the same damage, with some interest added to the system with differing situational bonuses. The designer would then just have to adjust these bonuses until every bonus was equally valuable, albeit possibly in different situations.

An alternative would be having different damage ranges for each weapon, balanced by some weapons having better bonuses than others. So, for example, a club would do more damage than a dagger but only have a small bonus against heavy armour, while a dagger would have an obviously better bonus of being much faster and getting more attacks. This approach has two moving parts instead of one and would be much harder to balance, in a game with lots of weapons you'd be more likely to end up with imperfect balance and certain weapons favoured by certain builds. But some would find it a more interesting system to play around with and replay in different styles.

Like everything in these debates I guess it comes down to personal preference. Some see Sawyer's systems as elegant, symmetrical and a sensible approach to designing complex games. Others deride it as looking good on a spreadsheet, but lacking long-term interest and not sufficiently rewarding those who put effort into mastering the system. I'd say the "everything is equally viable" focus is a positive for those who haven't played this sort of game before, I guess we'll see how it affects replayability in the long term.

I agree with you, some people do seem to be implying 'overly balanced' when they say balanced while some seem to simply not know what they're talking about. I still don't see, though, a good argument proving that the game is overly balanced, so your last paragraph and your assertion after explaining overly balanced systems that PoE is such a system falls flat for me. PoE has different weapon types that do different types and amounts of damage, different types of damage that are particularly useful against specific defenses, etc. There are numerous types and levels of variations on all weapons from quality, additional damage types, and slaying modifiers, to plenty of more unique attributes such as draining endurance on hit. Compared to the games that inspired it, the weapons in PoE don't seem particularly less varied to me (in some cases they seem more varied), but I could be convinced otherwise if someone who knows what they're talking about presented an actual argument for it. Again, the issue isn't my misunderstanding of balance or even preferring more tightly controlled balance, I'm just not seeing anyone making a good argument proving that there's something along the lines of inherently bad or overbearing balance in PoE making the game suck.

 

[Kz3r0]

Sure, balance is a consideration in every game, with some designers succeeding better than others. But I think when "balance" is thrown around as a derogatory term here it's in terms of what the perceived priorities of the designer in question are.

Sawyerism is just autism gone out of hand, mechanics are a mean to an end not the end itself.
Moreover simmetry and perfect balance are the bane of roleplay and tactical combat, i.e. reactivity, for the simple reason that for these things you need a dynamic equilibrium, a variable geometry.
I guess that Sawyer use a monogear bycicle.

I guess we'll see how it affects replayability in the long term.

It kills it, plain and simple, because with samey classes all that remains is larping, unless radically different C&C are the core of the game and invite more playthroughs.

 

[mastroego]

A good portion of the Codex's user base are morons or people who are so traumatized and brainwashed by the 10 year RPG drought that they forgot how to enjoy these types of games.

Plenty of games out that even bitter, old fags like myself can appreciate right now.
Games with flaws but also personality, like Legend of Grimrock, Halfway, Trine and so on.

Sawyerism is just autism gone out of hand, mechanics are a mean to an end not the end itself.

This.
That's the reason of our "crusade", ultimately. PoE is just another (failed) game after all, we might just ignore it, but not the decline and idiocy it represents.

 

[Kz3r0]

All in all, I felt pretty damn satisfied after finishing the game and I will definitely replay it when the expansion comes out.

The irony, why don't you replay it now if is so darn good?

 

[Grinning Reaper]

All in all, I felt pretty damn satisfied after finishing the game and I will definitely replay it when the expansion comes out.

The irony, why don't you replay it now if is so darn good?

He didn't say it was 'so darn good' that he will replay it constantly forever, he said it was good enough that he enjoyed it and is planning to replay it. I feel the same way. Your response makes no sense, and there was no irony in his post.

Why aren't you replaying Fallout 1 and PS:T right now by the way? Are those games not great, you hypocrite?

 

[Israfael]

'Winning' character building shouldn't be something to take joy in.

I'm not talking about min-maxing or something like that, although that's another facet of a viable and working system, i'm taking about the fact that you basically have nothing to associate your character with, it's just a bland toon with no personality attached to it. Also, I doubt anyone likes handholding and such assumptions by the developers about _our_ intelligence are somewhat insulting. People who play RPGs generally like to solve puzzles and even take pen and paper sometimes to crack em (like Hells in MotB or harder text quests in SR2)

 

[Grinning Reaper]

I'm not talking about min-maxing or something like that, although that's another facet of a viable and working system

So a viable and working system has meaningless stats in your mind? It just makes no sense if that's what you're suggesting. Min-maxing is an entirely separate issue and is a strategy in character building which will, in a good system, be a process of gains and losses, sacrificing some advantages to gain other advantages. In PoE you can and in many cases should min-max, but it's not a mindless process of dumping universally useless stats and maxing everything else like in some games.

i'm taking about the fact that you basically have nothing to associate your character with, it's just a bland toon with no personality attached to it.

I disagree, your character is defined by his class and talents and how they develop, and his attribute build (because it does make a difference), as well as by the story choices he makes throughout the game.

Also, I doubt anyone likes handholding and such assumptions by the developers about _our_ intelligence are somewhat insulting. People who play RPGs generally like to solve puzzles and even take pen and paper sometimes to crack em (like Hells in MotB or harder text quests in SR2)

No, I don't like handholding, but removing dump stats is not handholding, and including 'trap' attributes that are actually meaningless is not a clever puzzle for the player to solve, it's simply bad design. Little intelligence is required to discover meaningless stats, and I'm telling you that the similar overall starting power of characters is a product of an attribute system with few or no universal dump stats.

 

[FeelTheRads]

it's just a bland toon with no personality attached to it.

But my fighter who sucks at fighting???? I want to be called a fighter but actually not fight so deep roleplaying many options

 

[MrMarbles]

Ah but Mareus, they're completely different genres of RPGs. There's no harm in saying, for example, "This game executed this sub genre A better than this other game executed sub genre B."
Didn't PoE frustrate you and feel you wanting? What's the point fighting identical encounters and going through a town that feels clinical and dead? What's the point deciding on your stats when they give you 3% extra damage, whoopee? Where's the joy of exploration when the game doesn't even have a cache to load areas reasonably quickly? And if I was going to explore a generic setting I'd rather take the Forgotten Realms, again.

Exactly. DS3 was shitty but it was fun. Especially in coop.

 

[DeepOcean]

Dungeon Siege had a city patrolled by robots built by monocle gremlin industrialists that is passing through cyclops worker strikes, even if the only thing you do there is kill shit but the concept was awesome. There was a great antagonist on this city, the drapper old gent that was a broken antagonist on a vengeance mayhem and you kinda feel sorry for him. You barely talk with him but he is way more charismatic than Thaos will ever be. There was a "dungeon" where the guardians were made of the people who tried to rob it and more. It would be an awesome RPG if it wasn't a popamole hack and slash for consoles with small budget, Ziets did an amazing work for the limitations he had.

 

[Jasede]

It had soul. If Dungeon Siege 3 sang the blues you'd want to listen.

Anyway, I just bought the 4-pack (1 for me, 3 for coop friends) of Shadows over Mystara. Now that's a D&D game!

 

[Mareus]

The difference with PoE is that you don't need to min-max in order to make a useful character. A fighter with low might and low constitution might not function as a tank, but he wont be utterly useless as he would be in Baldur's Gate for example.

That's the crux of the problem - if you can't loose, there is no joy in winning. Also, that 'all-inclusive' thing turns the classes into something as meaningful as classes in TES games.

I fail to see how playing a class in more than one way equals to not being able to lose.

 

[tuluse]

Well, I don't have time to address all your points right now, though some are okay.

But I need to point out that +6 damage in D&D is massive, 3% is tiny. You're even admitting they only really do something noticeable if you min-max. In BG, 1 point of damage is worth a lot more than that; and so is a reduction of 1 on our THAC0.

Comparing a difference of 10-18 STR with a difference of 1 MIGHT in PoE.

10-18 in PoE is 24% damage. Is a quarter more damage tiny?

 

[Suicidal]

The lack of challenge of PoE comes from its shitty encounter design and straightforward quest solutions, not its attribute system.

 

[Jasede]

Well, I don't have time to address all your points right now, though some are okay.

But I need to point out that +6 damage in D&D is massive, 3% is tiny. You're even admitting they only really do something noticeable if you min-max. In BG, 1 point of damage is worth a lot more than that; and so is a reduction of 1 on our THAC0.

Comparing a difference of 10-18 STR with a difference of 1 MIGHT in PoE.

10-18 in PoE is 24% damage. Is a quarter more damage tiny?

Yes, it is. It's hilariously tiny.

 

[Tacgnol]

Well, I don't have time to address all your points right now, though some are okay.

But I need to point out that +6 damage in D&D is massive, 3% is tiny. You're even admitting they only really do something noticeable if you min-max. In BG, 1 point of damage is worth a lot more than that; and so is a reduction of 1 on our THAC0.

Comparing a difference of 10-18 STR with a difference of 1 MIGHT in PoE.

10-18 in PoE is 24% damage. Is a quarter more damage tiny?

Yes, it is. It's hilariously tiny.

A strength increase in D&D felt noticeable on a melee character. In POE it just feels insignificant.

On POE my 21 might barbarian never felt significantly more powerful than any other character, whereas in D&D a high strength character would hit really damn hard.

 

[Ulrox]

So a viable and working system has meaningless stats in your mind? It just makes no sense if that's what you're suggesting. Min-maxing is an entirely separate issue and is a strategy in character building which will, in a good system, be a process of gains and losses, sacrificing some advantages to gain other advantages. In PoE you can and in many cases should min-max, but it's not a mindless process of dumping universally useless stats and maxing everything else like in some games.

Indeed, in fact I would say it reminds me very much of fallout 1-2 systems where if you're min maxing, you're definately going to lose out on something. The Tim Cain influence is strong on PoE's charecter system. Its a very pointless discussion though because I would say that if there's anything PoE did better than DnD it's is the stats themselves - The only reason Baldur's gate seems superior in this reguard is the choices in a ridiculous amount of class kits, multiclassing, and dual classing.

 

[Ninjerk]

Well, I don't have time to address all your points right now, though some are okay.

But I need to point out that +6 damage in D&D is massive, 3% is tiny. You're even admitting they only really do something noticeable if you min-max. In BG, 1 point of damage is worth a lot more than that; and so is a reduction of 1 on our THAC0.

Comparing a difference of 10-18 STR with a difference of 1 MIGHT in PoE.

10-18 in PoE is 24% damage. Is a quarter more damage tiny?

Yes, it is. It's hilariously tiny.

A strength increase in D&D felt noticeable on a melee character. In POE it just feels insignificant.

On POE my 21 might barbarian never felt significantly more powerful than any other character, whereas in D&D a high strength character would hit really damn hard.

I haven't played AD&D in at least 10 years, but IIRC you become more accurate, as well, when stronger, no?

 

[tuluse]

I haven't played AD&D in at least 10 years, but IIRC you become more accurate, as well, when stronger, no?

All the good weapons were class limited too.

So you were hitting with +6 to hit, +6 to damage with a 2d6 or 1d12 weapon (with video games probably +3-5 to hit and damage on top with additional 1d6 fire damage or smth) compared to a wizard using a 1d4 dart.

 

[Grinning Reaper]

So a viable and working system has meaningless stats in your mind? It just makes no sense if that's what you're suggesting. Min-maxing is an entirely separate issue and is a strategy in character building which will, in a good system, be a process of gains and losses, sacrificing some advantages to gain other advantages. In PoE you can and in many cases should min-max, but it's not a mindless process of dumping universally useless stats and maxing everything else like in some games.

Indeed, in fact I would say it reminds me very much of fallout 1-2 systems where if you're min maxing, you're definately going to lose out on something. The Tim Cain influence is strong on PoE's charecter system. Its a very pointless discussion though because I would say that if there's anything PoE did better than DnD it's is the stats themselves - The only reason Baldur's gate seems superior in this reguard is the choices in a ridiculous amount of class kits, multiclassing, and dual classing.

Yeah, that's pretty spot on. I do prefer the attribute systems of Fallout 1&2 to PoE's, because although they are similar in their approach to stats being useful, the gains and losses in the Fallout system are even more drastic (and I just think the whole Fallout character system is great). That's the sort of strategic character building I can get behind, where you might drop some stats substantially and raise others substantially, but it really is a serious compromise when you do so. You can certainly make shit characters in Fallout, but it isn't because you boosted meaningless stats and dropped useful ones, because all the stats are useful (though some are arguably less useful overall and certainly different stats are more or less useful for different builds). I was expecting PoE to have a system that at least somewhat improved on the IE games that inspired it, and it certainly did that and then some in my opinion.

A strength increase in D&D felt noticeable on a melee character. In POE it just feels insignificant.

On POE my 21 might barbarian never felt significantly more powerful than any other character, whereas in D&D a high strength character would hit really damn hard.

It just feels insignificant? That's a pretty meaningless statement. Maybe you just can't find the combat log because they stupidly put it over to the right

The numbers don't lie, though, despite what your feels are telling you. A character with 21 might does significantly more damage than a character with 10 might. You can read all about it in the combat log or witness it as your enemies fall faster, so I'm not sure what to tell you except that your feelings have betrayed you

 

[tuluse]

I just think the whole Fallout character system is great

Where is excidium when we need him?

 

[Ninjerk]

I just think the whole Fallout character system is great

Where is excidium when we need him?

Maybe time to bump Tangut thread since we're going to be doing this

 

[Grinning Reaper]

I just think the whole Fallout character system is great

Where is excidium when we need him?

Can I be filled in? Would he tell me I'm a retard for liking the system?

I guess my knowledge of games isn't as expansive as some people's, but I'm happy to hear what's so terrible about the Fallout character system. I've always liked it.