The definitive, last Pillars of Eternity rating thread!

[Jazz_]

I gave it a strong 5.

 

[FreeKaner]

Therefore, PoE is better than BG because its more simulationist than the later.

I said nothing as such you just quoted words out of context and came to this conclusion yourself so you can create an argument to make one-liners towards. I said abstracted as in there is as little tangible variables as possible, because it was meant to be played with, guess what, a pen and a paper, so you cannot put too many variables into calculations.

 

[Delterius]

Therefore, PoE is better than BG because its more simulationist than the later.

I said nothing as such you just quoted words out of context and came to this conclusion yourself so you can create an argument to make one-liners towards. I said abstracted as in there is as little variables as possible, because it was meant to be played with, guess what, a pen and a paper.

Once again, I am truly sorry. You also belong to the "I use my own definitions of words" school of thought. I just didn't anticipate for this kind of multiclassing from you.

Then again, your mode of thought doesn't really change my argument. In the beginning people used to complain that PoE was abstract in all the underwhelming ways when compared to the IE games. Meaning that the character system conflated stats and robbed people of their more simulationist aspects (carry weight, for an instance) in order to make a more simplified RPG that is strictly about action combat.

Lo comes you and argues, instead, that PoE is better because Baldur's Gate is too 'abstract', as in it does not keep time per character but rather globally. That's the argument that PoE is more of a simulationist game in respects to time keeping, as opposed to Baldur's Gate for an example being more simulationist in respects to its character system.

 

[FreeKaner]

Once again, I am truly sorry. You also belong to the "I use my own definitions of words" school of thought. I just didn't anticipate for this kind of multiclassing from you.

Do you know what "abstract" means? Armour class is an abstract, it would be an impossible task to formulate the effect of an armour as there is just too many variables. So instead of trying to simulate a realistic combat with tangible variables that are way too many, you abstract it to armour class as a linear calculation you can add in with a single number to a formula as to represent armour's abstract effect. The more abstract it is, the less variables there is.

I am sorry you belong to the "I make one-liners becase I cannot articulate sentences or comprehend the language I am speaking in " school of thought.

 

[Delterius]

Once again, I am truly sorry. You also belong to the "I use my own definitions of words" school of thought. I just didn't anticipate for this kind of multiclassing from you.

Do you know what "abstract" means? Armour class is an abstract, it would be an impossible task to formulate the effect of an armour as there is just too many variables. So instead of trying to simulate a realistic combat with tangible variables that way too many, you abstract it to armour class as a linear calculation you can add in with a single number to a formula as to represent armour's abstract effect.

Yes, that's the usual way of using the word abstraction in respects to RPG rule systems. Incidentally, it also what I'm saying. You are the one who claims that the IE's way of time keeping is an abstraction (or, rather, too much of an abstraction) because of 1 minute 'turns' and 10 second 'rounds' that works for everyone at the same time. I don't really disagree with your use of the word. I am merely saying its ironic that the issue of simulationism suddenly turned a 180 when compared to the discussions at the game's release and development. On the other hand, I do disagree with your notion that its "too much" of an abstraction. All RPGs make use of abstractions when its convenient and in particular respects to time keeping, most RPGs aren't really Action games.

 

[FreeKaner]

You are the one who claims that the IE's way of time keeping is an abstraction because of 1 minute 'turns' and 10 second 'rounds' that works for everyone at the same time. I don't really disagree with that notion. I am merely saying its ironic that the issue of simulationism suddenly turned a 180 when compared to the discussions at the game's release and development.

No, that's something you made up by quoting random parts of my text. The abstraction of IE is trash because entire span of attributes are useless, there are way too little variables (which is okay for a pen and paper but inexcusable when calculations are made by a computer), because intelligence and wisdom do nothing if you aren't a caster and even when you are a caster all they do is allow spells (with no actual effect on them except permission). Not to mention armour class itself is a very questionable abstract as it scales to a cap of 0 instead of being open-ended. It's just a whole lot of baggage that exists because ruleset was made for pen and paper, meant to be played in turns and the rolls calculations decided with actual dice (understandably in a tabletop session as they don't have random number generators).

The part about rounds is just another layer where the game feels completely anti-climatic with floaty decisions, as actions are fundamentally disconnected from movement and there is absolutely no limitations or drawbacks to movement while the game plays in rounds so it becomes one big hit & run. It feels very much streamlined but also counter-intuitive that every actor is in same round without turns. Why not have it as turn-based game if you went so far to create a coherent round-system to integrate rules of a p&p system? It's just a completely questionable decision as turn-based P&P works just fine.

IE also lacks the depth of movement which RTS games employ, where map control and resource management are very important aspects of the game that tie directly to movement, it's a simply cycle of HP bars in BG where main point of manoeuvres are so you can get in range. So it has no system to back up its completely super-combat movement.

Also yes there can't be too much abstraction technically, as you can just play die rolls and it would be gameplay, doesn't mean adding more flavour and variables won't add depth to the game if executed properly.

 

[Delterius]

because intelligence and wisdom do nothing if you aren't a caster and even when you are a caster all they do is allow spells

They actually do in PnP.

Not to mention armour class itself is a very questionable abstract as it scales to a cap of 0 instead of being open-ended.

Armor class doesn't cap at 0 and even if it did, that wouldn't be a massive gain of time for anyone with enough brainpower to execute the 4 basic operations.

dice (understandably in a tabletop session as they don't have random number generators).

I thought dice could generate numbers randomly. Am I wrong?

Why not have it as turn-based game if you went so far to create a coherent round-system to integrate rules of a p&p system? It's just a completely questionable decision as turn-based P&P works just fine.

I don't know about you but I still think P&P, turn based CRPGs, RTSs, RTwP RPGs are all different experiences.

 

[FreeKaner]

I don't know about you but I still think P&P, turn based CRPGs, RTSs, RTwP RPGs are all different experiences.

I am talking about IE engine games in particular. I have nothing against p&p or d&d, d&d ruleset is fairly good for a p&p session. Die are good random generators when you don't actually have a random generator (such as a computer).

Also yeah those genres are different experiences, RtwP with rounds being a particularly bad experience, one which I find counter-intuitive and one that badly realised the system it's based on.

A RPG is mainly about playing a RPG, where setting, exploration, writing, characters, story and character development are the main elements and the type of combat only matters as far as to whether it's compatible with the character development of the game. That post of mine was a response to Sensuki quoting "I don't play RPGs for tactical combat". I play RPGs to play RPGs, I play RTT or combat focused games if I want to play a game for mechanics.

As an example I played PoE, New Vegas, Shadowrun, DO:S with similar mindset, even though they have completely different gameplay and mechanics.

 

[Delterius]

if I want to play a game for mechanics.

If? You don't play games for what they actually they offer?

 

[FreeKaner]

if I want to play a game for mechanics.

If? You don't play games for what they actually they offer?

Explained here:

As an example I played PoE, New Vegas, Shadowrun, DO:S with similar mindset, even though they have completely different gameplay and mechanics.

If I want to play a game for mechanics in particular, I play games that are about mechanics in particular. I don't start up a run of CK2 to actively contribute to tactics of a combat (as there is none aside from clicking on the enemy army), similar if I want to play a game for mechanical challenge, I play one like Mordheim, a 4x game or a RTS that play around mechanics mainly.

So going into a RPG with sole purpose of playing tactical combat, even though a game can be a RPG without having a real-time tactical combat, is not something I do.

 

[Delterius]

I am talking about IE engine games in particular. I have nothing against p&p or d&d, d&d ruleset is fairly good for a p&p session. Die are good random generators when you don't actually have a random generator (such as a computer).

It is also a very engaging system for a long tradition of great party based CRPGs that value tactical combat. Much of which is turn based.

A RPG is mainly about playing a RPG, where setting, exploration, writing, characters, story and character development are the main elements and the type of combat only matters as far as to whether it's compatible with the character development of the game.

Setting, writing and 'characters' are not game mechanics. They are narrative feedback which as of late has been common to all videogame genres. Odds are you refer to 'character development' as a concept in much the same way. In case you don't, yes, character development - as in building a character in respects to what choices the game actually allows you to make - is the bread and butter of an RPG. Which is likely to be in respects to your combat system.

As it happens, building a character in respects to the combat system is all there really is to both PoE and the IE games. Unless your mind has been blown by the awesome power of your cosmetic and/or inconsequential [Resolve] dialogue choices, for the most part you do build and develop characters for their role and abilities in combat. And for the most part, yes, that combat is tactical in nature. These aren't first person action shooters or even Dragon Age: Inquisition.

Furthermore. Wether you figure out the setting, the story or the game system first and design the others in accordance also has nothing to do with a game's genre. That is choice in respects to how you develop a videogame. You can figure out the story you wish to tell first and design combat and character system second. You could instead come up with the setting and shape character system and story based on its logic. You could decide to make a turn based game and then create an interesting setting and character system. Any and all possible choices here apply to all genres and none in particular.

The No True Scotsman argument is and has always been a rather pathetic and desperate point to make. "I don't play this game because its not really what RPGs are about" can and always is translated to "I don't like this game, make it more like games I like". Well, you are late to that party. Everyone already agreed to disagree on PoE and the IE games. Most people even like both. But at least sometimes the disagreement isn't based on pure, braindead sophistry such as the game's 6 second tempo making it 'basically but not quite' like turn based games and therefore bad.

So going into a RPG with sole purpose of playing tactical combat, even though a game can be a RPG without having a real-time tactical combat, is not something I do.

Yes, most people don't try playing go with the rules of squash. That's a very innovative stance.

 

[FreeKaner]

"I don't like this game, make it more like games I like"

Most arguments against PoE in a nutshell and exactly what I was arguing against. IE games are very specific niche preference and are not to be taken as if they define what party-based combat system should be like. So PoE isn't a bad game because it isn't using IE ruleset.

Rest of your posts doesn't refer to anything I said in particular. A game becomes a RPG on the basis of whether the game focuses on elements of roleplaying, that is strong focus on character development (both in narrative and gameplay sense) and extensive worldbuilding. If you don't want to think as such we would be arguing semantics, if so for the sake of not arguing semantics you can just think of me making my points from that understanding.

Also setting, writing and characters are not game mechanics, that's exactly what I said, but they are gameplay elements, which are the elements in particular I am looking for in a RPG and not mechanics (as games with very different mechanics can be RPGs). If I want to focus on mechanics instead, there are games which put more of their development to mechanics with greater focus on it and less on those elements. Obviously you can make games that focus on particular aspects of it and develop around it, you can also roleplay while playing a competitive FPS, doesn't necessarily mean that the game was designed with it in mind.

So the whole argument boils down to fact that I do not find tactical combat to be an essential part of a RPG much less a focus. So it's irrelevant to be as a whole.

 

[Delterius]

So the whole argument boils down to fact that I do not find tactical combat to be an essential part of a RPG much less a focus. So it's irrelevant to be as a whole.

What is mindblowing is that you think that's a good defense of PoE, a game about and of tactical combat. Do you play on story mode, perchance? Did you even play PoE?

 

[FreeKaner]

So the whole argument boils down to fact that I do not find tactical combat to be an essential part of a RPG much less a focus. So it's irrelevant to be as a whole.

What is mindblowing is that you think that's a good defense of PoE, a game about and of tactical combat. Do you play on story mode, perchance?

I don't understand what is your argument here. Yes, PoE's mechanics are very much focused on tactical combat, doesn't mean that's what I play PoE for? PoE could also be a game with turn-based combat or the combat could be one that is done automatically based on statistics of my party like CK2 "combat" is, it would make absolutely no difference to me, as it's not why I played PoE. I don't go into a RPG with mindset of "I am going to play with this particular type of mechanics", I play one with mindset that "I am going to play a RPG, it so happens to have this particular type of mechanics". As in how I played PoE, New Vegas and AOD as RPGs. AOD in particular is a game I very much loved and played to death and back but I was so indifferent to combat itself, it was sufficient as a tool upon which the gameplay flows and that's all that matters to me when I am playing a RPG.

 

[Delterius]

You play RPGs for things that most every game has and when people are discussing major aspects in which a game specializes in you put your fingers in your ear and say "this is boring, I don't play games like that". Got it.

 

[Sensuki]

I don't understand what is your argument here. Yes, PoE's mechanics are very much focused on tactical combat, doesn't mean that's what I play PoE for?

So are you saying that Pillars doesn't have good tactical combat, and that you play it for other reasons?

 

[FreeKaner]

You play RPGs for things that most every game has and when people are discussing major aspects in which a game specializes in you put your fingers in your ear and say "this is boring, I don't play games like that". Got it.

I don't understand why you can't understand the distinction between playing a game for its mechanics and playing a game regardless of its mechanics but still enjoying it. I enjoyed PoE combat, I found it strategical, satisfying and tactically challenging enough. The difference is I didn't play PoE with mechanics in mind. To give two solid examples, VTBM and PS:T are both very enjoyable games that have absolutely atrocious combat, doesn't make them bad because there is more to gameplay elements than just combat.

I am trying to tell you I don't know, fifth reiteration right now, I don't play RPGs for a specific type of combat, regardless of whether I enjoy the combat or not. This all started because of a reaction shitpost referring to the fact I don't play for tactics in particular, so rather than me putting my fingers in my ears and giving an excuse, it was more of "Why don't you play games for same reasons as I do".

 

[J_C]

You play RPGs for things that most every game has and when people are discussing major aspects in which a game specializes in you put your fingers in your ear and say "this is boring, I don't play games like that". Got it.

I don't understand why you can't understand the distinction between playing a game for its mechanics and playing a game regardless of its mechanics but still enjoying it. I enjoyed PoE combat, I found it strategical, satisfying and tactically challenging enough. The difference is I didn't play PoE with mechanics in mind. To give two solid examples, VTBM and PS:T are both very enjoyable games that have absolutely atrocious combat, doesn't make them bad because there is more to gameplay elements than just combat.

I am trying to tell you I don't know, fifth reiteration right now, I don't play RPGs for a specific type of combat, regardless of whether I enjoy the combat or not. This all started because of a reaction shitpost referring to the fact I don't play for tactics in particular, so rather than me putting my fingers in my ears and giving an excuse, it was more of "Why don't you play games for same reasons as I do".

 

[Delterius]

I don't understand why you can't understand the distinction between playing a game for its mechanics and playing a game regardless of its mechanics but still enjoying it. I enjoyed PoE combat, I found it strategical, satisfying and tactically challenging enough. The difference is I didn't play PoE with mechanics in mind. To give two solid examples, VTBM and PS:T are both very enjoyable games that have absolutely atrocious combat, doesn't make them bad because there is more to gameplay elements than just combat.

Are you actually insane? Both of your examples make use of mechanics to tell a story. Because that's what a computer game is. Its not a writing exercise. Its not a book. Its not even some improvised theater that runs in your brain. There are stat checks in PS:T's dialogue or the first person exploration + Atmosphere from VTMB.

But let's enter the bizarro reality that is your mind and assume none of that is true. That the value of a PS:T or a VTMB can be reduced to what you get to from watching some Youtube walkthrough of it. That has nothing to do with enjoying an RPG that specializes in Tactical Combat and then pointing to the mediocrity of said Tactical Combat as a good aspect and one of the reasons why you enjoy it.

That's why its so funny that you claim to dislike tactics in your RPGs. Its not because other games exist in which tactical combat isn't a big thing. Its because this is what all PoE amounts to. If you enjoyed PoE for its story, graphics or writing. That's fine. That's your opinion. But saying, on a single breath, that you think its greatest asset is both mediocre and unnecessary while at the same time pointing out that its shittiness is one reason to enjoy the whole thing is mental.

 

[FreeKaner]

That the value of a PS:T or a VTMB can be reduced to what you get to from watching some Youtube walkthrough of it.

Putting words in my mouth again. If anything this is opposite of what I would say, I play RPGs as games because they are a piece of interactive media that lets you take part in a setting and explore the world and characters, as well experience the writing on your own pace with your own decisions. These are gameplay elements, separate from mechanics (which directly involve the game's combat style for example). It's exactly why I am playing a RPG, not because it has RTwP combat, turn-based combat or FPS combat but because it employs gameplay elements.

I also said this just a post ago verbatim, so don't try to spin my own argument against me or as if I would be against what you just said. Yet again also taking my words out of context as to create an argument I never made and arguing against it. Here is the direct quote I made in last page if you forgot:

I was so indifferent to combat itself, it was sufficient as a tool upon which the gameplay flows and that's all that matters to me when I am playing a RPG.

At this point this feels like a pointless endeavour because I don't know how many times I can reiterate what I have been saying about how I feel about mechanics in a RPG in particular. I don't know how simpler or more complex I can put it in a way that you will understand what I repeated for 2 pages now. Bored of repeating myself due communication barriers we are obviously having, not going to continue this further.

 

[Delterius]

split-second tactical decisions aren't all there is to gameplay, in fact those for me feel more like a chore rather than gameplay.

So yes, as a core audience for pillars, my preference for a gameplay in a real-time RPG is it should focus least on tactics

Yes, PoE's mechanics are very much focused on tactical combat, doesn't mean that's what I play PoE for?

Nobody can put words in your mouth. Nobody has to spin anything around. All I have to do is assume that you actually believe everything you say.

1. Tactical combat doesn't necessarily appeal to FreeKaner.

2. FreeKaner doesn't like real-time RPGs that are heavy on tactics. He'd rather them be turn based.

3. FreeKaner believes Pillars of Eternity is very much focused on tactics.

So how could FreeKaner enjoy Pillars of Eternity? Well, there are two obvious hypotheses. He either enjoyed PoE despite or because of its combat.

The only way FreeKaner could enjoy PoE because of its combat is if it isn't really heavy on Tactics. If that is the case PoE is a more mediocre or less demanding version of its own genre. This could be true either because FreeKaner does not understand the games he believes to be heavy on tactics - which is entirely possible, given that FreeKaner doesn't know that AC definitely does not cap at 0 in the IE games. Or, FreeKaner played PoE at a difficulty level below the planned version of Hard - meaning the current version of PotD - in which many resources become unnecessary and overkill against most enemies. In that case, FreeKaner never had to grasp PoE's depht to finish the game.

On the other hand, FreeKaner could have enjoyed PoE despite its combat. He soldiered on through gruesome, boring battles and got a taste of Obsidian's storytelling. Despite what one might say about the game's underdeveloped setting or dialogue, that's a fair opinion on its own. If anything, PoE is a beautiful game and we know Obsidian could do better in this deparment. Besides, Story Mode exists for people like that. As a corollary to this suggestion, it could be FreeKaner finished PoE on PotD while blind, drunk and in the middle of a heart surgery on his own grandmother but doesn't think PoE is very good at what it focused on. So he relied instead on narrative feedback in order to enjoy the game.

Either way, I believe both hypotheses account for the strange arguments FreeKaner uses to defend PoE. The kind that would probably insult even fans of the game. I'm not one of them but even I think PoE is solid enough in ways FreeKaner believes it isn't.

 

[FreeKaner]

I cannot believe you wrote that entire analysis for something I explained myself last page.

Yes, PoE's mechanics are very much focused on tactical combat, doesn't mean that's what I play PoE for? PoE could also be a game with turn-based combat or the combat could be one that is done automatically based on statistics of my party like CK2 "combat" is, it would make absolutely no difference to me, as it's not why I played PoE.

Also you keep quoting me out of context as evident from this part you only quoted the first part. It's actually quite amazing.

I played PoE on PotD first time around when it was first released and then finished it several times at hard difficulty after WM2 came around. Whether I liked PoE's combat or not (I did and I find it enjoyable) is irrelevant to the reason I played PoE, I would have played it as a turn-based game and I would have played it as a FPS all the same. Also I specifically clarified the gameplay itself in IE where you cycle characters between rounds as they are limited to attacks but not movement is what I find to be a chore. I play and enjoy tactical focused games, the latest I played being Mordheim which I found to be excellently put together.

I also gave to examples to games I enjoyed despite not being a fan of the combat, AoD and VTMB, former while enjoyable on its own right got repetitive for me and latter was p. much dysfunctional. I also explained this just above that the type of combat is irrelevant to me as long as it adequately does its job as a tool upon which the gameplay elements are delivered. I don't doubt your intelligence but I am surprised by the lengths you will go to not understand this, am I getting trolled?

I never actually defended PoE in this thread, aside from saying I didn't play PoE for its combat. Only thing I defended was early modern period of history, which is a very underrated part mostly overshadowed by medieval in fantasy, medieval fantasy itself which uses a lot of early modern period realities hat are misattributed to it. You keep reframing things however you want by quoting me out of context.

Jesus Christ whatever man, PoE is trash game, IE ruleset is perfect and only reason someone can play a game is if they specifically want to play around a particular type of mechanics. I am done here.

 

[Delterius]

I cannot believe you wrote that entire analysis for something I explained myself last page.

No you didn't. You see, you keep saying you don't play games for their gameplay. That can entail a great many things, hence the analysis.

Jesus Christ whatever man, PoE is trash game and only reason someone can play a game is if they specifically want to play around a particular type of mechanics.

Yes, most people draw a difference between Unreal Tournament and checkers. That's called reality. Be welcome my friend. I hope you can hold onto the light.

 

[Delterius]

Its a human right.

 

[anus_pounder]

PoE is the game that keeps on giving.