Codex Review RPG Codex Retrospective Review: Pillars of Eternity Revisited

[Mortmal]

SCL has more interesting character building, more interesting itemization, a better setting, some actually decent companions and a couple interesting twists in the story.

Combat and spell making was slightly more interesting

So Tyranny has better combat and Sword Coast Legends has better companions and character building than Pillars of Eternity? Seriously?

I mean, PoE has 82 monster types in the bestiary, plus the humanoid enemies. Tyranny has THREE enemy types, but I guess they both have "same encounters copy pasted all over the game" because your butthurt says so. Fuck logic. And yeah, I'm sure Durance, Grieving Mother and even Éder can't hold a candle to the amazing characters in SCL, such as "angry fighter #5".

82 monster types, how many of them are just humanoid reskinned ? Do you have to adapt your strategy to any of them ? No ! tank and spank worked for 99.99% of the encounters , except that one dragon fight( in the "megadungeon" one big corridor Bethesda dungeon's design team wouldnt deny) where you have to kite. Tyranny allow to make your own spells that's why i rate it slightly better, that doesnt mean extraordinary. Good RTWP combat is always inferior to good turn based combat ,and it's not even good...As for the writing only MCA parts are good ,thats not a whole lot amongst that sea of inane writing.
Now when i am reading rpgwatch reviews they sound edgy compare to codex ones.

 

[Grunker]

The minuscule differences from an "optimized" build don't even matter on PotD

You can build an uber-squishy paladin that burns enemies with divine wrath for tons of damage very fast or a hefty tank with short bursts of key damage spots as well as a multitude of stuff in between.

Meanwhile the games we're all applauding and comparing PoE to doesn't even offer you much choice beyond some basic utility differences in builds.

The hyperbole is obvious, as is the fact that every succes of PoE gets glossed over while every failure of the IE games gets marginalized.

And in Pathfinder/D&D3.5 there were many way to build very different but working characters within the same class.

Man... you're totally right! How could I not see this! I should have written something like that in my review... perhaps something like:

f you crave balance to the degree that Josh Sawyer does, D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder are kryptonite, but if you love having an infinite array of character customization options at your disposal, they just about represent the pinnacle of RPG design.

Anyways, what you state here is also true of PoE. Otherwise, tell me how a controlling Wizard in PoE is exactly the same as a self-buffing, meleefighting, transformation-based Wizard?

It's not, not even in the slightest.

 

[Infinitron]

I'm not sure I agree because base level IE game AI isn't that much better than base level PoE AI. You can end huge encounters with enemy mages in BG1 that were clearly meant to be big, difficult showdowns by casting a single spell that kills all of them because of their insignificant hp levels.

Sure, that's true. The "PoE 1.0-ness" of much of BG1 has been memory-holed - or favorably reinterpreted as "quaint AD&D low-level experience".

The difference is the ability buttons. Gibbing helpless low HP enemy mages with autoattacks doesn't require any special input from the player, so it feels "fair" to grognards. "Hey, low-level mages are weak, I'm just letting my character do his thing." It's the combination of button-clicking busy-work and helpless enemy AI that drives them mad. "If you're going to ask me to click these buttons, there better be a damn point to it!"

You could say that they expect what you might call a certain "Click-to-Difficulty ratio". The more ability button mouse clicks you use in a battle, the more enemy resistance is expected. If you're an IE veteran, PoE violates Click-to-Difficulty ratio expectations bigtime.

 

[Grunker]

^ ftr I agree with or at least consider fair most of what you comment on the first two quotes.

This is a base excuse.

It's not an excuse, it's criticism. I'm saying that the story's main conceit hampers the vast majority of the plot in a major way.

It read like an excuse

My friend, if you can read my scathing criticism of PoE's main plot as an excuse, I dare say you're perhaps taking my review as a more one-sided deal than it actually is. Except for the last couple of hours which I like, every word I dedicate to the central plot of Pillars of Eternity is criticism, criticism, criticism.

Gilded Vale is no more than a standard fantasy town. The Hollowborn crisis, though original, was never explored in-depth. The most you do is convince a woman there is no cure for the crisis and kill the local lord who's hanging people because of it. Could've replaced that with any standard motivation and it'd have fit just fine. Compare that to the settings and interactions in, say, Neverwinter Nights 2: Mask of the Betrayer, and the difference is obvious.

This is reductive in the most apparant way. I could make equal reductive arguments about anything. The fact is that the Hollowborn crisis is a harrowing piece of lore which is actually presented by a few examples rather than just "here be Hollowborn"-type Wikipedia NPCs and that the majority of the quests you solve - main as well as side - in the area, are connected to it.

Why would you praise him or a feat he didn't accomplish

...I don't? I'm saying specifically that he DID NOT accomplish it, and chose to fix the issue by reinstating hard counters. What you deem praise - perhaps again because of your bias telling you everything I write about the man/game must be praise? - is me saying I believe you can make an RPG function without hard counters.

The part about praising him about the initial design is lauding his goals and then acknowledging that they initially failed.

here are very few 'outright useless assets' in Dungeons and Dragons

A lie, apologism or just ignorance. Either way, two builds in 3.5 and Pathfinder will vary so much that one player will not even be able to dent enemies while they will one-shot him, while the other player cannot be dented by the same enemy and can one-shot them.

This is not the case in Pillars of Eternity, and which you prefer is largely a matter of taste and affinity for balance. Either way, calling the difference between two builds where one literally cannot defeat an enemy while the other doesn't lose a hit point the difference between "sub-optimal" and good builds show your bias here. You are not actually trying to argue the objective merits of each system - you're just overstating the flaws of one while understating the flaws of the other.

I still prefer Pathfinder due to the massive variety since my main joy from RPGs is character customization, but as this juncture, it's a question of taste, not of objective merits IMO. And there really are a staggering amount of build variety in PoE at this point, much more than most RPGs and certainly way, waaaaaaaaaay the fuck more than in the IE games.

More than Baldur's Gate 2? Not sure.

Then, in the words of an immortal member, youa re dumb. Some BG classes don't even have customization at all beyond kits and starting stats!

More than later editions of Dungeons and Dragons? No way.

Man... you're totally right! How could I not see this! I should have written something like that in my review... perhaps something like:

f you crave balance to the degree that Josh Sawyer does, D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder are kryptonite, but if you love having an infinite array of character customization options at your disposal, they just about represent the pinnacle of RPG design.

Advanced Dungeons and Dragons, was built upon a solid foundation of tactical war games.

Which merits does Advanced Dungeons and Dragons have for a video game beyond the spell system? None.

 

[Lurker King]

Do people understand why the game was only enjoyable on Path of the Damned?

This “play the game on the hardest mode” excuse is ridiculous. It never worked in any cRPG, and it certainly will not work with Pillars. Games with difficult modes are designed to be played on normal. If the systems are poorly designed, they will still be poorly designed when you play the game on hard. Try playing Arcanum on hard and see if you can “appreciate” what the combat is about. You could just as well be playing without armors to make the game "more enjoyable”. Have some dignity and self-respect. No broken system is worthy of so much effort.

 

[Prime Junta]

Really, what will make one druid build notably different from another?

Make one druid with INT 3.
Make another one with INT 20.

Have each of them cast an AoE spell.

There's your answer.

Edit: okay, if you want a longer one...
https://forums.obsidian.net/topic/83775-class-build-batsht-crazy-disabling-druid-tank/
https://forums.obsidian.net/topic/85505-class-build-hungry-like-the-wolf-spiritshift-aggro-druid/

There are a whole bunch more ways you can bulid druids. A glass cannon back-row CC + firearms build will work too. And yes they will play differently.

 

[Janise]

Mein Gott, Obshitians are literally retarded...

 

[Azarkon]

...I don't? I'm saying specifically that he DID NOT accomplish it, and chose to fix the issue by reinstating hard counters. What you deem praise - perhaps again because of your bias telling you everything I write about the man/game must be praise? - is me saying I believe you can make an RPG function without hard counters.

The part about praising him about the initial design is lauding his goals and then acknowledging that they initially failed.

Your previous reply was to the effect that you didn't both praise Sawyer's initial design principles and his decision to recant them. Yet, in the review it is obvious that you DID - the first because you admired his goals and believed in his cause; the second because, well, it made for a better game and it was intellectually honest. If you call that criticism, then I don't know what's apologetics. What makes White March better is in no small part because Sawyer reneged on core, initial design principles. Provided you actually supported those principles, this should be a disappointment, not an opportunity for more praise, since it moves the game system closer to Dungeons and Dragons, rather than away from it. Your personal opinion about whether Sawyer could have succeeded had he tried harder should not factor into the analysis, since there is absolutely no proof either way.

A lie, apologism or just ignorance. Either way, two builds in 3.5 and Pathfinder will vary so much that one player will not even be able to dent enemies while they will one-shot him, while the other player cannot be dented by the same enemy and can one-shot them.

This is not the case in Pillars of Eternity

I am pretty damn sure I can design a Pillars of Eternity character that can't even dent the adra dragon, and another that can defeat him solo. In fact, the latter has already been done so it's really just a problem of throwing one of the many builds that DON'T work at him. A trivial refutation to your premise.

and which you prefer is largely a matter of taste and affinity for balance. Either way, calling the difference between two builds where one literally cannot defeat an enemy while the other doesn't lose a hit point the difference between "sub-optimal" and good builds show your bias here. You are not actually trying to argue the objective merits of each system - you're just overstating the flaws of one while understating the flaws of the other.

Neither are you, but at least I try to be objective with respect to the average player, who is not likely in either system to build a character that is completely useless.

Then, in the words of an immortal member, youa re dumb. Some BG classes don't even have customization at all beyond kits and starting stats!

You're completely ignoring multi-classing, dual-classing, attribute and skill choices.

Which merits does Advanced Dungeons and Dragons have for a video game beyond the spell system? None.

A simple yet effective itemization system, combat variety necessitated through hard counters, low actions per minute conducive to party control, lack of a retarded engagement system that works terrible with real time, ease of AI implementation, relatively simple character design and progression, etc...

 

[felipepepe]

felipepepe

So the changes you mentioned may have improved your PoE experience; but it doesn't make PoE with latest patch 11/10 as the shill's review would have you believe.

The literary diarrhoea of lore dumps still persists and makes the game a chore. And the 3.x.x patches didn't fix it.

But no one is saying it's 11/10! FFS, the "shill's review" has an entire section - over 900 words - just talking about how bad the "wikipedia lore dump" is:

The main problem with the setting is that Pillars of Eternity is so concerned with delivering its heavy lore that most characters do not act like characters but rather deliver their lines much like walking Wikipedia articles. After playing Pillars of Eternity for a while, you start to dread clicking the 'Talk' icon hovering over random NPCs, because all too often, initiating dialogue is functionally identical to clicking hyperlinks on everyone's favorite, digital encyclopedia.

It really looks like people don't even bother to read the article. This isn't "shills vs. critical gentlemen", is "the patches & expansions really improved some parts of the game vs. POE IS WORSE THAN GARBAGE!!!1".

 

[Grunker]

Provided you actually supported those principles

I supported those principles provided there was sufficient encounter diversity to encourage tactics-switching. There wasn't. Your entire point here is to just group my arguments together and treat them as one, it's nonsense.

A trivial refutation to your premise.

Except it only works because you use a monster specifically made as an optional encounter to test system knowledge. Are you actually disagreeing with the premise that the "floor" compared to the "ceiling" of character power in 3.5 and Pathfinder are MUCH farther apart compared to Pillars of Eternity? Are you that biased?

Neither are you, but at least I try to be objective with respect to the average player, who is not likely in either system to build a character that is completely useless.

I worked with afterschool care for young adults from high school until just before getting my master's. I have played Pathfinder and 3.5 with every conceivable type of player. Most people build shit characters, characters that are not even functional on a basic level compared to what a competent player can make. A party without the guidance of a skilled GM or player among them will contain characters with vastly different power levels, often leading to one or two characters doing all the work in encounters while the rest make irrelevant cannon fodder or simply have much less impact on fights.

What I don't understand is why you are even trying to refute this point. Most PoE-detractors embrace it and call it a deficiency that PoE hasn't got this.

You're completely ignoring multi-classing, dual-classing

That's just class selection, not build variety within classes.

attribute

Mate, come on. Are you really arguing that building a Fighter in BG and PoE, you have the same attribute diversity? Calling me out on how trivial it is to refute my premises and then using the literally braindead 18-18-18-whatever-whatever-whatever stat line of an IE fighter as an example of AD&D build diversity is obviously complete bias.

And before you cling to the obvious strawman here: no, not all attributes are equally useful in PoE. But in BG the attributes contain no actual choice. You have the wrong way, and you have the right way, and that's it.

and skill choices.

Don't make me laugh.

A simple yet effective itemization system

PoE 3.0 has nearly as good if not better itemization than Shadows of Amn.

combat variety necessitated through hard counters

Many systems without AD&D's problems have that, it's not unique to AD&D.

low actions per minute conducive to party control

Many systems without AD&D's problems have that, it's not unique to AD&D.

ease of AI implementation

True, not much to implement when "beeline for first character" is pretty much the only option for most monsters, except casters, which are not at all simple to code, negating your point.

relatively simple character design and progression, etc...

Clicking "OK" to level up is now an actual, bonafide system advantage! This is the length AD&D-fans will go to to defend this dinosaur. In case of convulted rules, argue: "omg complexity gewd", in case of non-existing customization, argue: "omg simplicity gewd"

Q-E-fucking-D.

 

[Goral]

 

[l3loodAngel]

What encounter design if there are no solid systems and hard counters?

Hard counters have been in since the beginning (priests "Prayer against..." spells). It seems like most people here played on the easier difficulties where they could brute force the game without learning the systems, then complained that things that were actually in the game were missing from the game.

Oh so I had to soak myself in mobs of brain dead HP sponges to see first trivial Hard counters... I am speechless.

 

[Prime Junta]

Hard counters have been in since the beginning (priests "Prayer against..." spells).

They weren't originally hard. They just bumped up your defence by a large amount rather than giving you outright immunity.

---> tangent

I'm still not convinced the hard counters are strictly necessary. The problem was the interaction between soft counters and the graze/hit/crit system. With status effects, a graze is often almost as bad as a hit, with the main difference that you can wait it out rather than having to Suppress Affliction or whatever. The soft counters would often just downgrade crits to hits and hits to grazes, which meant that they just didn't do the job all that well unless you stacked them. And of course because arithmetic was involved, they weren't as transparent to the player as immunities.

Hard counters solve the problem and the end result plays very well, but I think it would've been possible to end up at more or less the same place by tuning numbers on the soft counters and/or tweaking the graze/hit/crit system. For example, just drop the fucking grazes; as it is all they do is make dumbfucks think the way to win battles is to graze everything into oblivion.

 

[Janise]

PoE 3.0 has nearly as good if not better itemization than Shadows of Amn.

acute mental debilitation, no saving throws hard counters

 

[FreeKaner]

82 monster types, how many of them are just humanoid reskinned ? Do you have to adapt your strategy to any of them ? No ! tank and spank worked for 99.99% of the encounters , except that one dragon fight( in the "megadungeon" one big corridor Bethesda dungeon's design team wouldnt deny) where you have to kite. Tyranny allow to make your own spells that's why i rate it slightly better, that doesnt mean extraordinary. Good RTWP combat is always inferior to good turn based combat ,and it's not even good...As for the writing only MCA parts are good ,thats not a whole lot amongst that sea of inane writing.
Now when i am reading rpgwatch reviews they sound edgy compare to codex ones.

You can't tank and spank in PoE any more than you can in any party-based RPG. Besides, what's wrong with having frontliners, anything but mage duels aren't acceptable anymore?

Your complaints about RTwP and turn-based are irrelevant. This is such a stupid complaint that can be summarised as "RTwP shouldn't exit because I don't like them", if you don't like RTwP play something else.

 

[Azarkon]

Provided you actually supported those principles

I supported those principles provided there was sufficient encounter diversity to encourage tactics-switching. There wasn't. Your entire point here is to just group my arguments together and treat them as one, it's nonsense.

Then why did you praise Sawyer's decision to recant his principles in White March, which you described as having "sufficient encounter diversity"? I called you out on it because it's blatant fanboyism. Sawyer's ego is sufficiently inflated without the fucking Codex praising him in an official retrospect.

Except it only works because you use a monster specifically made as an optional encounter to test system knowledge. Are you actually disagreeing with the premise that the "floor" compared to the "ceiling" of character power in 3.5 and Pathfinder are MUCH farther apart compared to Pillars of Eternity? Are you that biased?

Actually, it was you who brought up the "floor" vs. "ceiling" argument. It's quite obvious to me that later editions of Dungeons and Dragons have always had greater build variety, both in power level and in play style. But the criticism I'm addressing is your claim that Dungeons and Dragons is full of "useless assets." Just because an asset isn't optimal, doesn't make it useless. The existence of overpowered builds in Dungeons and Dragons is in principle no different from the existence of overpowered builds in Pillars of Eternity. The end result is practically the same when applied to CRPGs - in both Baldur's Gate 2 and Pillars of Eternity, you can build characters which can solo the game, while most characters can't. The difference in degrees is what's actually subjective, yet you were trying to act like the higher ceiling in Dungeons and Dragons is an objective flaw.

I worked with afterschool care for young adults from high school until just before getting my master's. I have played Pathfinder and 3.5 with every conceivable type of player. Most people build shit characters at first, characters that are not even functional on a basic level compared to what a competent player can make.

What I don't understand is why you are even trying to refute this point. Most PoE-detractors embrace it and call it a deficiency.

Anecdotal "evidence" isn't actual evidence, and the premise I'm refuting is that the average player doesn't build useless characters in either game. You have to try very hard to build a character that can't do anything right in Dungeons and Dragons. Either that or you didn't even read the instructions. Thus, the fool proofing provided by Pillars of Eternity's original design was unnecessary, especially since it came at the cost of intuition and depth.

That's just class selection, not build variety within classes.

Classes are a construct. You're just arguing semantics now. Whether a character building system is defined through variety within classes, across classes, or without classes, shouldn't matter to the debate.

Mate, come on. Are you really arguing that building a Fighter in BG and PoE, you have the same attribute diversity? Calling me out on how trivial it is to refute my premises and then using the literally braindead 18-18-18-whatever-whatever-whatever stat line of an IE fighter is obviously complete bias.

And before you cling to the obvious strawman here: no, not all attributes are equally useful in PoE. But in BG the attributes contain no actual choice. You have the wrong way, and you have the right way, and that's it.

You realize that most people multi-classed or dual-classed in Baldur's Gate 2, right? There's certainly a variety of attribute builds across even the same selection of classes, depending on end goal, and the nature of the Dungeons and Dragons character system meant that each and every level was potentially very significant. Thus, when dual-classing or even multi-classing there was a dramatic difference between a build with enough wizard levels to access level 9 spells, and a build that didn't, given the total amount of experience that was expected to be available.

Don't make me laugh.

You can laugh all you want, but weapon skills are part of every fighting build in Baldur's Gate 2. It's not just a trivial decision, either. Many builds were based around specific artifacts, just like in White March.

PoE 3.0 has nearly as good if not better itemization than Shadows of Amn.
Many systems without AD&D's problems have that, it's not unique to AD&D.
Many systems without AD&D's problems have that, it's not unique to AD&D.
True, not much to implement when "beeline for first character" is pretty much the only option for most monsters, except casters, which are not at all simple to code, negating your point.
Clicking "OK" to level up is now an actual, bonafide system advantage! This is the length AD&D-fans will go to to defend this dinosaur.

So your argument is: "Advanced Dungeons and Dragons is fucking terrible for video games because ... there are other game systems with the same features! And because ease of implementation and use is not a benefit at all!"

There's no arguing with this. I'm done with this sorry excuse of a retrospect.

 

[Prime Junta]

principles

Jesus people. There's a difference between design principles and design decisions. Using scalars instead of booleans isn't a design principle, it's a design decision.

"The class and attribute system must support and reward player creativity in creating builds" is a design principle. "Defences should be implemented using scalars rather than booleans" is just a plain old decision.

 

[FreeKaner]

In the end followers of Gospel of Sawyer grows.

 

[Azarkon]

principles

Jesus people. There's a difference between design principles and design decisions. Using scalars instead of booleans isn't a design principle, it's a design decision.

"The class and attribute system must support and reward player creativity in creating builds" is a design principle. "Defences should be implemented using scalars rather than booleans" is just a plain old decision.

The principles I was referring to are the classic Sawyerisms, all of which are not merely design decisions but ideologies with respect to how games should be built; everyone should know by now what they are.

Examples: "there should be no hard counters in CRPG systems"; "builds should all be balanced against each other"; "receiving experience for combat leads to degenerate gameplay."

These are, in fact, principles.

 

[an Administrator]

It really looks like people don't even bother to read the article.

No way

 

[Grunker]

You have to try very hard to build a character that can't do anything right in Dungeons and Dragon

You really don't, and I can only surmise that it's been a while since you've seen players of different experience levels play in the same party without someone present to make sure that there is some sort of median in the power level of players, or at least that everyone has something to contribute.

blatant fanboyism.

The definition of a fanboy is someone who is loyal to something or someone regardless of the facts. I have no such loyalty to Sawyer or to PoE, which should be evident from the fact that my comments in Vault Dweller's first review and about PoE at launch in my review are fairly scathing.

Meanwhile, you cling in to such obviously false claims as there being an even remotely comparable level of build variety in a game that has blatantly obvious stat lines for each and every class, have nearly no character customization options and even has what little variety there is between different classes - like the Paladin and the Fighter, for instance - being a very limited selection of activated abilities and passive boni. The differences between a Paladin in the Fighter in AD&D is completely neglible even compared to two differently built Paladins in PoE.

Your claim to the contrary is preposterous, nothing less. Nevermind the overall qualitative comparison for a minute and just focus on this: to actually claim build diversity in AD&D relative to PoE, you have to be apologetic about AD&D's lackings and reductive of PoE's strengths. This is painfully obvious, and most grognards have not argued this point but instead have attempted to argue that build diversity is some newfag bullshit and that true monocled gentlemen like their classes static and their level up screens devoid of choice. You take this one step further by claiming that a game with next to no choice at all - and sometimes literally no choice after character creation is done - has comparable amounts of customization to a game with an abundance of choices both in character creation and during play. It's completely ridicoulous.

 

[FreeKaner]

principles

Jesus people. There's a difference between design principles and design decisions. Using scalars instead of booleans isn't a design principle, it's a design decision.

"The class and attribute system must support and reward player creativity in creating builds" is a design principle. "Defences should be implemented using scalars rather than booleans" is just a plain old decision.

The principles I was referring to are the classic Sawyerisms, all of which are not merely design decisions but ideologies with respect to how games should be built; everyone should know by now what they are.

Examples: "there should be no hard counters in CRPG systems"; "builds should all be balanced against each other"; "receiving experience for combat leads to degenerate gameplay."

These are, in fact, principles.

He seems to have changed his opinion on scope of what's a hard counter is, where he doesn't seem to mind having abilities or spells that counter each other or at least having them in the game is fine as long as game doesn't revolve around them. Because he added few of them into the game.

Plus you cannot avoid hard-counters completely if you want to make a balanced system. Moreover in Deadfire classes seem to acquired niche counters, like how fighters are going to be disruptive positionally against casters with long casting times. While wizards also have strong on-hit effects they can prepare with short casting times pre-emptively.

 

[thesheeep]

Really, what will make one druid build notably different from another?

Make one druid with INT 3.
Make another one with INT 20.

Have each of them cast an AoE spell.

There's your answer.

So what? You get a much larger area of effect - but had to trade off with other stats, so now what happens inside that area is far less effective, damage or otherwise.
This is notable in a visual sense, of course, and I assume that is enough to fool most into believing it makes a real difference, but the end effect remains a practically identical amount of damage dealt.
In a longer encounter, there is surprisingly little difference between a 20 might/3 INT character or one with the other way around.

For such radically different stat distributions, the end results are just all too samey.

Edit: okay, if you want a longer one...
https://forums.obsidian.net/topic/83775-class-build-batsht-crazy-disabling-druid-tank/
https://forums.obsidian.net/topic/85505-class-build-hungry-like-the-wolf-spiritshift-aggro-druid/

All of these would work only slightly less well with different stat distributions.

With one, you just decide to stick to the front lines and go melee and with another, you decide to stay back, slinging spells.
Both is valid, yes, and they do play differently. I never argued that they wouldn't.

But all of these work independent of how you built your character. The optimal build for each will just net you a few % more in the end result.
You can randomize stats and still play your build just fine. You cannot fail to build a character. That is the very definition of "choices don't matter". Only choices that allow failure matter.

And even if it did matter, where does it?
On PotD? How many people play that? 2%?
What kind of bullshit system matters only on the very hardest difficulty setting?

Meanwhile the games we're all applauding and comparing PoE to doesn't even offer you much choice beyond some basic utility differences in builds.

The hyperbole is obvious, as is the fact that every succes of PoE gets glossed over while every failure of the IE games gets marginalized.

I wouldn't say I'm applauding the IE games. I can't even play them any more because the (barely existing) character build system is just so awful. And because I just know them too well by now, there's nothing left to discover.

But without any doubt, I had some tough nuts to crack in those games. And they would still be tough. In PoE, except for the better designed White March, you just breeze through almost anything. There are three challenging encounters. Even on the "hard" settings. And yes, on my last attempt shortly after White March came out, I actually did randomize my stats

 

[Prime Junta]

The principles I was referring to are the classic Sawyerisms, all of which are not merely design decisions but ideologies with respect to how games should be built; everyone should know by now what they are.

Examples: "there should be no hard counters in CRPG systems"; "builds should all be balanced against each other"; "receiving experience for combat leads to degenerate gameplay."

These are, in fact, principles.

Sorry bro, but none of these are Sawyerisms -- or principles.

Your criticism would be better if you demonstrated a rudimentary understanding of the thing you're attempting to criticise. As it is, discussion with you guys is a bit like trying to explain gravity to a flat-earther.

 

[Mortmal]

82 monster types, how many of them are just humanoid reskinned ? Do you have to adapt your strategy to any of them ? No ! tank and spank worked for 99.99% of the encounters , except that one dragon fight( in the "megadungeon" one big corridor Bethesda dungeon's design team wouldnt deny) where you have to kite. Tyranny allow to make your own spells that's why i rate it slightly better, that doesnt mean extraordinary. Good RTWP combat is always inferior to good turn based combat ,and it's not even good...As for the writing only MCA parts are good ,thats not a whole lot amongst that sea of inane writing.
Now when i am reading rpgwatch reviews they sound edgy compare to codex ones.

You can't tank and spank in PoE any more than you can in any party-based RPG. Besides, what's wrong with having frontliners, anything but mage duels aren't acceptable anymore?

Your complaints about RTwP and turn-based are irrelevant. This is such a stupid complaint that can be summarised as "RTwP shouldn't exit because I don't like them", if you don't like RTwP play something else.

I am amongst the 10.4% of steam players who finished this so called masterpiece, i never had to think to overcome any challenge there. It was even easier with the bots IA they added. Almost no player input was ever needed.