The definitive, last Pillars of Eternity rating thread!

[Sizzle]

Magic - better in BG2. Melee classes - more interesting in PoE.

Items? Better in BG2, but PoE with TWM2 comes relatively close to that.

BG2 is a better game overall, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't play PoE (with TWM 1&2) as well.

 

[Haplo]

Regarding classes, let's see:

Objectively better BG2 classes: Wizards (and Sorcerors, in PoE there's only one class)

Debatable, I like PoE versions more, YMMV: Cleric, Druid

Objectively better PoE classes: Paladin, Ranger, Barbarian, Monk, Chanter (Bard), Rogue, Fighter
Unique PoE classes: Ciphers

 

[ilitarist]

Yes, it's going to feel like a downgrade. A lot. I'd recommend waiting a bit after completing BG2 to start PoE, like a month, maybe more.

He'll probably includes Throne of Baal in BG2 so it's not that different. IIRC there items felt boring because every peasant has +5 pitchfork now.
(I am not that crazy about BG2 in general because D&D realtime combat is not my cup of tea. At least it's bad enough so you can just exploit it to hell without engaging with it that much)

Are we comparing classes now? Obsidian themselves agreed that classes are too complex for 6 player party. Those priests can do a hundred things on any moment and it does feel overwhelming.

 

[Parabalus]

Regarding classes, let's see:

Objectively better BG2 classes: Wizards (and Sorcerors, in PoE there's only one class)

Debatable, I like PoE versions more, YMMV: Cleric, Druid

Objectively better PoE classes: Paladin, Ranger, Barbarian, Monk, Chanter (Bard), Rogue, Fighter
Unique PoE classes: Ciphers

I'd count monk and barb as unique as well, they are mechanically much different/better than the DnD namesake.

Are we comparing classes now? Obsidian themselves agreed that classes are too complex for 6 player party. Those priests can do a hundred things on any moment and it does feel overwhelming.

Dunno how PoE casters can be regarded as too complex when the comparison is Bg2.

 

[ilitarist]

Dunno how PoE casters can be regarded as too complex when the comparison is Bg2.

The point is that in PoE every single character is a caster. In BG2 simple warrior/barbarian/ranger would probably be unable to even use wands or scrolls IIRC. In PoE *everyone* has a lot of active and passive abilities. And casters are as complex as in BG2, if not more so - they have per-encounter abilities in addition to per-rest ones, plus ciphers & bards have their own mechanics of casting spells. In BG2 you maybe had 3 casters to control, in PoE it's 6 casters.

 

[Trashos]

I can't judge systems very well regardless of execution. The execution for combat in BG2 was off the charts. The execution is what made me like the system, not the other way around.

I doubt that PoE2 is going to reach such heights (PoE1 certainly didn't), but let's see.

 

[Piotrovitz]

Classes in BG2 are a joke compared to PoE - you basically get fighter (plus their gimped versions, pally/ranger/barb, with to real reason to take them beside role play), cleric (gimped fighter with buffing/utility spells) and wizard/sorcerer. Bards are useless. Pure thieves are useless. Druids are gimped clerics, which you can take only for RPing. PoE, even without class kits, is lightyears ahead when it comes to party building and char development.

Without feats/traits, char advancement means just +hp and putting pips into weapon types and new spells for mages/clerics. Which is fucking boring and if you have i.e two fighters, the only difference between them will be the weapon they use.

Melee fights boil down to buffing the shit out of your party before entering house/cave/whatever, and clicking on mobs and waiting until they're dead. No engagement mechanics, no special attacks that can add flavor, retarded AI prone to kiting and running in circles and much more.

Also, can someone explain to me what's with this legendary appeal of magic in BG2?
At least 2/3 of spells are useless and most of the time you're sticking to the same stuff, especially with clerics/druids. The on-touch spells are fucking hilarious, like your pure mage caster with abysmal THAC0 would actually hit anything. In PoE, low level spells were useful even late game. In BG, once you get 5+ spells, majority of previous one become obsolete.

I also don't get the praise that high level mage fights get. Fuck, most of the time you just have to cast breach or ruby ray/pierce magic later on, and the fight is over in less than minute.


Before the pitchfork & torches crew rush in - I do get that most of the above are limitations of 2E D&D. I love BG2 to death, and while plot/dialogues/quests/dungeons are still cool to this day, the char dev and combat mechanics are just clunky and haven't aged well. Especially comparing to stuff like PoE.

 

[ilitarist]

What do you mean by "execution for combat in BG2 was off the charts"? Like graphics? Or specific encounter design?

 

[Haplo]

Eh, I think people tend to look trough rose tinted glasses when they speak of Baldur's Gate.
Sure, there were SOME memorable encounters. Party vs party, like the Temple District building come to mind. Or a really tough enemy, like Kangaxx.

In general mage vs mage duels were pretty interesting. But the rest... meh. I like everybody in my party to have something interesting to do, not just mages. Also prebuffing was more tedious, as far as I remember. In PoE you can't really prebuff, so you have to make a choice: buff or fight, which is more efficient? And generally you only have the time for some critical buffs.

 

[ilitarist]

In general mage vs mage duels were pretty interesting. But the rest... meh. I like everybody in my party to have something interesting to do, not just mages. Also prebuffing was more tedious, as far as I remember. In PoE you can't really prebuff, so you have to make a choice: buff or fight, which is more efficient? And generally you only have the time for some critical buffs.

Ah yes, this is what I remember of BG2.

Standard fight? Just kill them all. No sense in using potions or something. No sense in saving your spells for later, I can rest anytime anyway (maybe some helpless rats will attack me).

Hard fight? Well I can try to be clever. Or I can reload the game, cast all the hastes and blesses and mirror images and all the fancy stuff and then the fight is turned into a standard one. In rare cases it wasn't enough, I remember using some scrolls and potions against dragons. Rare.

 

[ArchAngel]

Eh, I think people tend to look trough rose tinted glasses when they speak of Baldur's Gate.
Sure, there were SOME memorable encounters. Party vs party, like the Temple District building come to mind. Or a really tough enemy, like Kangaxx.

In general mage vs mage duels were pretty interesting. But the rest... meh. I like everybody in my party to have something interesting to do, not just mages. Also prebuffing was more tedious, as far as I remember. In PoE you can't really prebuff, so you have to make a choice: buff or fight, which is more efficient? And generally you only have the time for some critical buffs.

There is nothing rose tinted about it, some of us played it recently and not only when we were kids.
There are plenty of memorable encounters for first playthrough, even on Core rules difficulty. From Beholders, Liches, Dragons to Iron Golem and different NPC party enemies.
PoE in comparison has very few (Adra Dragon, Lord Redric(both), Fire Drake, some of the bounties). And don't bring in TWM because I then raise you ToB which has even crazier memorable fights.

And I would rather manage limited spell slots where I get to choose to waste them on buffs or offense then how it is done in PoE where buffs are almost never used (unless you got a dedicated buffer like cleric with encounter spells) exactly because of this bad system.

 

[ArchAngel]

In general mage vs mage duels were pretty interesting. But the rest... meh. I like everybody in my party to have something interesting to do, not just mages. Also prebuffing was more tedious, as far as I remember. In PoE you can't really prebuff, so you have to make a choice: buff or fight, which is more efficient? And generally you only have the time for some critical buffs.

Ah yes, this is what I remember of BG2.

Standard fight? Just kill them all. No sense in using potions or something. No sense in saving your spells for later, I can rest anytime anyway (maybe some helpless rats will attack me).

Hard fight? Well I can try to be clever. Or I can reload the game, cast all the hastes and blesses and mirror images and all the fancy stuff and then the fight is turned into a standard one. In rare cases it wasn't enough, I remember using some scrolls and potions against dragons. Rare.

Well in PoE you don't even need to reload because everything died while you jerked off.

 

[ArchAngel]

Regarding classes, let's see:

Objectively better BG2 classes: Wizards (and Sorcerors, in PoE there's only one class)

Debatable, I like PoE versions more, YMMV: Cleric, Druid

Objectively better PoE classes: Paladin, Ranger, Barbarian, Monk, Chanter (Bard), Rogue, Fighter
Unique PoE classes: Ciphers

What does this mean? How can you say shit like this and not have your brain blow up?
Only thing objective about them is that they had more active abilities but that does not make them automatically better unless you are the WoW kiddy (read retard).

 

[ilitarist]

No, unlike BG2 and unlike most RPGs PoE had a good higher difficulty mode, not just multiplying HP and damage of the enemy. You're talking about thematically memorable BG2 fights, in PoE there was no location without a fight that was interesting mechanically if you play on Path of the Damned.

 

[Jimmious]

I believe the BGs have two clear advantages:
- A better, much clearer system. It's much easier to understand and play with. All these penetration mechanics with different defenses and whatever else are interesting but hard to keep track of all the time.
- Extremely better itemization. You constantly feel like you are getting great loot simply because there are unique items with unique abilities etc

But PoE did improve some things that I notice now since Im doing a BG run... The beastiary for example is a great addition, the explanations of status effects are great and other small things like that..

 

[ilitarist]

I can agree on itemization, but clearer system?.. Maybe if you knew D&D beforehand. I didn't. I didn't know that the game is based on d20 throws (only when it didn't such as with thievery. And I think when spell description talks about chances it's always in percentages). It doesn't tell you it anywhere, it's a secret, even though you get to read pages of text to create a character. And it's essential to understand things like +1 actually means +5% most of the time. There were all those saving throws, fucking THAC0, arbitrary stat usage (you're not a Wizard, you're Sorcerer so you actually need Charisma, not Intelligence, to do exactly the same thing as mage). PoE is much more understandable with randes instead of those 3d4+2 things, almost everything is shown either in raw numbers or percentages. You even see the radius of your abilities and can see some of enemies stats. You have a single accuracy stat when you attack while to this day I'm not sure if I understand how magic resistances work.

 

[Jimmious]

Yes it could be that it was easier for me being a D&D nerd before

*Also yes fucking radius for effects was so great in PoE!!!
**And the detect traps. Fucking detect traps in BG. Waiting for "rounds" to trigger it. FFS

 

[Trashos]

I played BG2 (Bioware's Shadows of Amn- without ToB) for the first time a few years ago, and I still play it yearly. No rose glasses here.

What do you mean by "execution for combat in BG2 was off the charts"? Like graphics? Or specific encounter design?

The encounter design. It has been answered already, but liches, dragons, mages, mind flayers, several party encounters etc-etc. Every few fights there was a really interesting one. Had to change tactics all the time (golems etc). Bioware had some dude back then who designed the fights to death (I think Trent Oster?) to make sure they were cool.

Now, I don't mind people cheesing their fights, but you can't tell their beauty until you try them without cheese. At some point I had about 4 different non-cheese ways to beat Kangaxx, and I was still scared to death before the fight.

I love prebuffing, btw.

 

[FreeKaner]

I dislike prebuffing but BG2 has a real sense of exploration, it's just I can't tolerate its systems.

 

[Zer0wing]

5/10; 2/4; 2.5/5 - perfectly balanced score of a perfectly balanced game, disregarding all the drama and unfulfilled promises. Didn't really finish it so take that with a grain of salt.

 

[Theldaran]

Classes in BG2 are a joke compared to PoE - you basically get fighter (plus their gimped versions, pally/ranger/barb, with to real reason to take them beside role play)

Paladin is unplayable? So you mean that the Inquisitor or even UH are shit?

I think that the Inquisitor trade-off is pretty nice. You don't hit as hard, but you have more chances vs. mages, and the game is filled with them. I don't think that blindly charging against a mage, being a pure Fighter, is gonna do any good.

I agree on Ranger and Barb. Ranger has often been the weakest class in some D&D versions. Barb is just lacklustre, and a poorer Berserker. But multi Ranger into Ranger/Cleric and you have a character that's not half bad, even for a solo playthrough.

Also, can someone explain to me what's with this legendary appeal of magic in BG2?

You haven't played a solo Sorcerer, right? You actually feel like Palpatine if you do.

The Sorcerer is handy in a party, but hoarding all the experience for himself/herself he's a killing machine.

 

[Nihiliste]

The encounter design. It has been answered already, but liches, dragons, mages, mind flayers, several party encounters etc-etc. Every few fights there was a really interesting one. Had to change tactics all the time (golems etc). Bioware had some dude back then who designed the fights to death (I think Trent Oster?) to make sure they were cool.

Not Oster, he's the beamdog guy. It was James Ohlen (who's since been wasted at Bioware Austin) and someone else, can't remember the second guy's name.

 

[Nihiliste]

So I checked, it was from this Codex interview with Brent Knowles:

Baldur's Gate 2 was an amazing game. Its puzzle-like encounter design, its rich assortment of magical items that were so much more than just plusses and minuses, and its epic mage duels are all unparalleled to this day. 14 years later, people still talk about character builds and party compositions, and share strategies on how to defeat iconic foes like the Twisted Rune, Firkraag, and Kangaxx. No other game has ever been as successful in delivering that essence of high level Dungeons & Dragons gameplay. What we'd like to know is - who was responsible? Who pushed for this stuff? And how did he (or they) manage to do such an incredible job?

James Ohlen and Kevin Martens… the lead and co-lead respectively, had a huge influence on this. They were very focused on the high-level details and spent a lot of time testing the content everybody was creating.

BG2, like HOTU, was also a fun project to work on. BG2 had a functional game engine (as opposed to an engine-in-development) and (many of) the designers were more experienced with it, so they knew what worked and what to avoid. Even brand new designers like myself were given areas to "flesh out". We were able to take characters from our old pen and paper campaigns and create little plots for them and it was very creative and organic. And certainly we made a mess of things at times, some of the plots, especially the Drow ones were horribly complicated and hard to troubleshoot!

But all of us were given semi-free reign to take things as far as we thought we could. I had a lot of fun working with the combat system, for example, and tried to pull in all the tricks I remember that had been used while playing pen and paper during high school. And all the team members were doing this, within their own areas of responsibilities.

As well, because the game content did not have to be locked down too early (for voice over and cinematics), we actually had more development time. With AAA titles nowadays, it becomes harder to tweak content in the late stages of development.

http://www.rpgcodex.net/content.php?id=9736

 

[Theldaran]

By the way, don't you see something retarded in the "every character is a caster" notion?

I think that PoE's ruleset is designed for a good combat experience in PC -even if the actual fights aren't that great, because design-, but it's not realistic at all. D&D at least is somewhat simulationist, or at least it was at the beginning.

 

[ArchAngel]

No, unlike BG2 and unlike most RPGs PoE had a good higher difficulty mode, not just multiplying HP and damage of the enemy. You're talking about thematically memorable BG2 fights, in PoE there was no location without a fight that was interesting mechanically if you play on Path of the Damned.

It says a lot about the game that you needed to up the difficulty to hardest to just get any semblance of challenge. Also that challenge is MORE enemies + multiply their stats so I go no idea what you are talking about here.
In BG1 and BG2 hardest difficulty made enemies hit 2x harder but the game was already challenging on Core difficulty and on Normal difficulty on first playthrough.

 

[Theldaran]

I guess PoE has difficulty appropriate for its era. Like the BGs. You can't tell a millennial that he/she needs to spend time mastering the game. That's why millennials don't buy the likes of Dark Souls.