Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Eternity PoE II: Deadfire Sales Analysis Thread

Joined
Jan 18, 2018
Messages
1,301
Grab the Codex by the pussy
Is Fallout a cRPG? Is Arcanum a cRPG? If they aren't, I retreat my comment. But if they are, then let me say they have nothing on Icewind Dale when it comes to complexity of spells and abilities.
I’m sure that a person who never played a cRPG in his life will be intimidated by the character screen of either Fallout or Arcanum. It is not because PoE2 have so more stuff than other cRPGs, it is because most players don’t expect to spend any time building a character and planning with numbers. Besides, it is childish to think that complexity in combat system should be measure solely by the amount of options of skills, spells or items in disregard to the way these options are tied to the structure of basic gameplay. That’s where PoE2 complexity falls apart because RTwP allows you to be a one-track pony that takes advantage of retarded AI with multiple pauses. It's complexity is merely apparent. I noticed the same thing with BG2 players. These replayabilityfags enjoy the abundance of options so much that they pretend (larp!) that these choices matter when the reality is that the combat is broken. They do the same thing with resource management by larping scarcity of resources by ignoring basic features of the game. Then they try to justify their emotional investment by defending what is indefensible: RTwP. They should demand from developers the same variety of stuff without this clusterfuck.
 

Sigourn

uooh afficionado
Joined
Feb 6, 2016
Messages
5,656
I’m sure that a person who never played a cRPG in his life will be intimidated by the character screen of either Fallout or Arcanum.

Well, you are wrong. I went from Skyrim to Fallout 3 to New Vegas. And then Fallout. It's not so different. Let's admit it: Fallout is arguably one of the easiest to understand, yet best cRPGs ever made. You also control just ONE character in Fallout and Arcanum. Things get messy real soon when you not only have a huge skillset at your disposal, dwarfing anything you encounter in Arcanum (the only one of the two games that has magic, and thus, different abilities), but also up to SIX characters at once on your party.

It is not because PoE2 have so more stuff than other cRPGs, it is because most players don’t expect to spend any time building a character and planning with numbers. Besides, it is childish to think that complexity in combat system should be measure solely by the amount of options of skills, spells or items in disregard to the way these options are tied to the structure of basic gameplay.

I'm not saying you are wrong, but it's the complexity of the character and skill system, plus the annoyance of RTwP, that scares people away before they even try to get used to these games and realize the game is broken. After all, I doubt any of us plays a game with the idea that everything in it is broken.
 
Joined
Jan 18, 2018
Messages
1,301
Grab the Codex by the pussy
Well, you are wrong. I went from Skyrim to Fallout 3 to New Vegas. And then Fallout. It's not so different. Let's admit it: Fallout is arguably one of the easiest to understand, yet best cRPGs ever made.
Well, you should say this to Tim Cain then.



I'm not convinced by your comparison at all. Here is one of Arcanum's character system screens.

arcanum_character.png


now compare this with Skyrim character screen in this part

screen-shot-2013-10-20-at-9-03.jpg


There are a few noticeable differences here. First, this screen starts after you have a little cinematic introduction. It doesn't just pop up on your face. Second, it has a minimalistic clean look, it is not heavy packed with information, and it also provides you with more choices of faces and bodies aesthetics (hair, face, mouth, size, etc). Most players spend a lot of time here tweaking this. Players select race at this point looking for the appareance. They don't care what it says about their advantages or disadvantages. Afterwards you have more story and gameplay. You equip your character later. Notice that the text is minimal. Now, after you finish the character building of Arcanum you have this.

18527-arcanum-of-steamworks-magick-obscura-windows-screenshot-character.jpg


Really packed with options and text, and each one of those little buttons has some dozens of techiniques and spells. Stuff like this

latest


and this

latest


Saying that they are similar because they are both one player games is a understatement. They feel as completely different games. The first one you have lots of packed information from the get go, in the second you have less information sliced in even smaller parts between gameplay and narrative. That's why players don't like these games.
 

Sigourn

uooh afficionado
Joined
Feb 6, 2016
Messages
5,656
Well, you should say this to Tim Cain then.

Unpopular opinion: Tim Cain is retarded. Devs think they know everything, but they don't. Especially those who talk about game mechanics.

I'm not convinced by your comparison at all. Here is one of Arcanum's character system screens.

arcanum_character.png

Yes. Really basic. "Race gives you extra points here here and there". The issue with this screen is that the Initial Stats don't display the modifiers, as:

- ST: 9 (+1)
- CN: 9 (+1)

For instance, which would be very helpful. One way or another, nothing particularly complicated: different races have different bonuses and drawbacks.

now compare this with Skyrim character screen in this part

screen-shot-2013-10-20-at-9-03.jpg


Yeah. The barebones of the barebones. More character appearance customization than character skill customization, the diametrical opposite of Baldur's Gate II.

Players select race at this point looking for the appareance. They don't care what it says about their advantages or disadvantages.

Because the races don't really have disadvantages (IIRC the only race that is different to others in stats is the Altmer race, which gives you an extra 50 points in Magicka). There's nothing to worry about in Skyrim, from the get go. On the other hand, like I said, you are given a shitload of options to change the appearance of your character. cRPG players spend hours building a character. Bethesda players spend hours sculpting their character's face.

18527-arcanum-of-steamworks-magick-obscura-windows-screenshot-character.jpg


Really packed with stuff, and each one of those little buttons has some dozens of techiniques and spells. Stuff like this

latest


and this

latest


Saying that they are similar because they are both one player games is a understatement. They feel as completely different games. The first one you have lots of packed information from the get go, in the second you have less information sliced in even smaller parts between gameplay and narrative. That's why players don't like these games.

Arcanum is more complex than Fallout, it's true. Being able to use magic has a lot to do with it (as crafting is just crafting, and even Bethesda games have it). But you are ignoring something which, I feel, is not minimal. In Baldur's Gate, you can unlock many spells AT A TIME when you level up. It's not even your choice, you simply unlock them as you level up. By comparison, you can't unlock that many shit in Arcanum. You can increase one of your stats, a skill, or unlock a degree, one at a time, and two points every 5 levels if I'm not mistaken. Baldur's Gate overwhelms you with skllls, abilities and magic spells. Especially because certain stats unlock certain classes, and certain races cannot be certain classes, and if you want to you can potentially multi class (but you need to be sure you know what you are doing because certain skills are only available at certain level, and, and...).

I will never not think the Infinity Engine games had serious pacing problems for people not familiar with D&D. You just get too many tools before most people know what to do with them. I, for one, relied a lot on the web spell and haste.
 
Joined
Jan 18, 2018
Messages
1,301
Grab the Codex by the pussy
Unpopular opinion: Tim Cain is retarded. Devs think they know everything, but they don't. Especially those who talk about game mechanics.
I don't think he believes in a word of what he is saying. He is defending this streamlined talk because he lost his interest for cRPGs and only cares about money now.

Arcanum is more complex than Fallout, it's true. Being able to use magic has a lot to do with it (as crafting is just crafting, and even Bethesda games have it). But you are ignoring something which, I feel, is not minimal. In Baldur's Gate, you can unlock many spells AT A TIME when you level up. It's not even your choice, you simply unlock them as you level up. By comparison, you can't unlock that many shit in Arcanum. You can increase one of your stats, a skill, or unlock a degree, one at a time, and two points every 5 levels if I'm not mistaken. Baldur's Gate overwhelms you with skllls, abilities and magic spells. Especially because certain stats unlock certain classes, and certain races cannot be certain classes, and if you want to you can potentially multi class (but you need to be sure you know what you are doing because certain skills are only available at certain level, and, and...).

I will never not think the Infinity Engine games had serious pacing problems for people not familiar with D&D. You just get too many tools before most people know what to do with them. I, for one, relied a lot on the web spell and haste.
But most players come across BG games first and then they find out about Troika, etc. I guess any person who is able to play Fallout would be able to play any of the IE games. If they are not interested in it it is not because of the amount of spells or number of characters, but because they don't like this type of game.
 
Last edited:

Sigourn

uooh afficionado
Joined
Feb 6, 2016
Messages
5,656
But most players come across BG games first and then they find out about Troika, etc. I guess any person who is able to play Fallout would be able to play any of the IE games. If they are not interested in it it is not because of the amount of spells or number of characters, but because they don't like this type of game.

Let's just say I disagree, based on personal experience. With Fallout, I always felt I was in control of what was going on. In Baldur's Gate (and especially so in Icewind Dale), I had the feeling I had only explored 10% of my party's capabilities.
 

Mustawd

Guest
But most players come across BG games first and then they find out about Troika, etc. I guess any person who is able to play Fallout would be able to play any of the IE games. If they are not interested in it it is not because of the amount of spells or number of characters, but because they don't like this type of game.

Let's just say I disagree, based on personal experience. With Fallout, I always felt I was in control of what was going on. In Baldur's Gate (and especially so in Icewind Dale), I had the feeling I had only explored 10% of my party's capabilities.

That's my main gripe with RTwP. The lack of control. Also, pausing every 2 seconds is not fun at all. It's micromanagey in a way TB is not.
 
Joined
Jan 18, 2018
Messages
1,301
Grab the Codex by the pussy
Let's just say I disagree, based on personal experience. With Fallout, I always felt I was in control of what was going on. In Baldur's Gate (and especially so in Icewind Dale), I had the feeling I had only explored 10% of my party's capabilities.
Well, since you are speaking from personal experience, I can say from my personal experience that I never had any problem with this. The point is winning battles. If I could beat a battle using this or that, it never made any difference to me. RTwP is trash, but I didn't feel overwelmed by the complexity or missed possibilities because they didn't make any difference to the outcome.
 

Sigourn

uooh afficionado
Joined
Feb 6, 2016
Messages
5,656
Let's just say I disagree, based on personal experience. With Fallout, I always felt I was in control of what was going on. In Baldur's Gate (and especially so in Icewind Dale), I had the feeling I had only explored 10% of my party's capabilities.
Well, since you are speaking from personal experience, I can say from my personal experience that I never had any problem with this. The point is winning battles. If I could beat a battle using this or that, it never made any difference to me. RTwP is trash, but I didn't feel overwelmed by the complexity or missed possibilities because they didn't make any difference to the outcome.

Winning is winning, but wiping the floor with your enemies and getting most of your party killed are two very different scenarios. Especially because IE games require far more tactics than a game like Fallout or Arcanum does (again, speaking from experience: final boss in Arcanum was a complete pushover, whereas Sarevok, the final guy in Icewind Dale and the Luremaster were all far more complicated fights).

That's my main gripe with RTwP. The lack of control. Also, pausing every 2 seconds is not fun at all. It's micromanagey in a way TB is not.

Particularly because of how movement works in these games. In Fallout, you KNOW one hexagon is one hexagon, and if you click on a certain hexagon you know your character is going to get there and not the one besides it. In Baldur's Gate, what with the fucking annoying pathfinding, nothing stops your characters from getting into each others way and making an otherwise simple fight a complete annoyance. You have to micromanage their fucking steps, and I'm sorry, but that is not my idea of fun.
 

J_C

One Bit Studio
Patron
Developer
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
16,947
Location
Pannonia
Project: Eternity Wasteland 2 Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2 Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag. Pathfinder: Wrath
I never understood how people could stomach rtwp for infinity engine games.Especially after playing temple of elemental evil.
It is not that bad if there isn't too many busywork in the game, and in the IE games, it was kept below a certain level. The point where PoE dropped the ball is exactly the heavy micromanagement compared to the IE games.
 

Quillon

Arcane
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
5,228
It's even more fun when you can follow the battle via different cam angles, tho people here & on Obs forums hate rotatable cam for some *cough* NWN2 *cough* reason.
 

Taurist

Scholar
Joined
Dec 8, 2017
Messages
108
I never understood how people could stomach rtwp for infinity engine games.Especially after playing temple of elemental evil.
It's as different from a turn based RPG as it can get. Its like playing Total War while autoresolving most battles. RTWP puts you on a higher level of gameplayas it were. You arent playing DnD, you are managing a group of DnD characters from a slight distance. Its a lot quicker and a lot simpler, the fun comes from you being able to crack out a dozen campaigns worth of content in a single game.
 
Last edited:

boobio

Arcane
Trigger Warning Shitposter
Joined
Oct 2, 2011
Messages
556
Deadfire's budget was expected to be 40%-50% higher than Pillars of Eternity's even before later unexpected expenses.
Pillars of Eternity's budget was at least 5m.
Source:
http://www.gamebanshee.com/interviews/118557-pillars-of-eternity-ii-deadfire-interview/page-3.html

Deadfire's crowdfunded budget was smaller than PoE's, and half of it came from investors who will eat into the revenue.
Source:
https://www.fig.co/campaigns/deadfire
https://www.fig.co/campaigns/deadfire/invest

The game was expected to sell better than PoE.
Source:
https://www.mcvuk.com/business/vers...-the-top-tier-rpg-developers-plain-and-simple

Steampsy numbers are low. Rough estimation puts it between 100-200k, more refined numbers put it around 100k if you can pass the paywall.
Source:
https://steamspy.com/app/560130

Player numbers are low and are declining fast.
Source:
http://steamcharts.com/app/560130

On GOG the game sold very badly relative to other games.
Source:
https://www.gog.com/games?sort=bestselling&page=1&as=1649904300

Also note that both POE2 and Kingdom Come came out on a Tuesday, and Kingdom Come resoundly had more players :mixedemotions:
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Roguey

Codex Staff
Staff Member
Sawyerite
Joined
May 29, 2010
Messages
35,792
“Putting it plainly we hope and expect that we can meet or exceed the launch of Pillars,” he says. “Our goal is to build on the brand. We hope to not only bring in our former fans, but build on that and expand the audience.”

This echoes perfectly what Obdisian’s design director Josh Sawyer told us as well: Deadfire has the potential to outsell its predecessor.

“We’d love for it to do even better than Pillars and I think it can,” Sawyer says. “I’m hopeful that if we are really delivering for our fans and working well with the publishing partner, that it can outperform [Pillars] in every way.”

Senile Sawyer.

How is that even possible? How can you be so bad at budgeting that a game's who's engine you now fully mastered and which lasts shorter can cost more to develop than the first one?
Development time (as I mentioned, this was not made on a slamdunk schedule) plus an expanded team (from 30 something to 50something) for those graphics. Granted, I think D:OS jumped from like 50-60something to 100+.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom