Review RPG Codex Review: Pillars of Eternity, by PrimeJunta

[Sensuki]

While I vastly prefer BG's logic of character building, it's true that PoE is based around building any party you like, and that people are replaying it that way - there's a PoE subforum just for character & party builds, and every community I look is still debating what party they'll build and what they should play next - including the Codex.

That's replayability.

The Sims aspect =/= gameplay differentiation, or replayability.

 

[felipepepe]

Party Building in a CRPG = The Sims aspect? Really solid argument there.

 

[a cut of domestic sheep prime]

Vast majority of users don't even finish most games

The vast majority of people in general don't even buy PC games. So what?

Obviously, I am talking about the vast majority of the people who finish the game to begin with.

Again, it's about replayability - as in how replayable is it? ANY game can be replayed. You just start it again. But how enjoyable will that experience be to the average person who has beaten the game?

 

[felipepepe]

Obviously, I am talking about the vast majority of the people who finish the game to begin with.

You are deluded if you think that's true. You're talking about the vast majority of people who think exactly like you, that's what you're doing here.

 

[a cut of domestic sheep prime]

You are deluded if you think that's true. You're talking about the vast majority of people who think exactly like you, that's what you're doing here.

You're the deluded one if you think the vast majority of people who replay games are nerds who want to play the same lackluster game again only with a different party.

"Oh, look, this boss is slightly harder because I have a party of all monks. Gosh, I could keep doing this for hours - parsing through the same lame gameplay with little ultimate difference - so much fun!"

But here's some light reading if you don't believe me:
http://www.asperger-syndrome.me.uk/about.html


Since, as I said, we won't agree on this, I'll move on to another reason why there should be different choices and consequences for best "replayability": because players want to feel their choices mattered. Even if only a small percentage of people will ever finish a game, let alone replay it, true replayability is still important because you know as you are playing it that your choices matter.

A game like Witcher 3 for example: you can point to almost any quest and there are at least two ways to do them. Multiple outcomes from your choices. Yes, this helps replayability, but it also helps you enjoy the game in the moment, knowing that your decisions can have true consequences and won't just be for show.

So this "replayability" can actually be enjoyable without even replaying the game.

 

[Sensuki]

Party Building in a CRPG = The Sims aspect? Really solid argument there.

Not what I was implying. The Character system offers a LOT of choices - but scope of choice does not equal gameplay differentiation or replayability.

 

[Excidium II]

That's replayability.

No, it's only replayability if the gameplay is different enough for it to be enjoyable - and preferably the choices and consequences/content as well.

Otherwise it's only "replayability" for the 1% of spergs who would replay virtually any game anyway because they are spergs and want to sperg out and play it X odd way for the challenge. Which I am guessing is where those codexers might fit in - those of them that actually finish their 2nd playthrough and don't just get bored and quit.


It's about what is replayable for the vast majority of users. If you make the dumb argument that:

Replayability is subjective,

then you make virtually any game "replayable" and that makes the word lose its meaning.


This is basically the "mario is an rpg" argument though, so it's not really winnable. You are going to argue your definitions and I'll argue mine.

It's why you can't take what anyone says at face value and have to delve deeper. It's "replayable"? Why? What makes it so? Maybe the reviewer just liked it so much that he thinks he could play it again (even if he never finished it to begin with, which happens). Maybe he just looked at all the options on character creation or dialog and assumed it's replayable - which is my guess here.

Lost count how many times I've replayed games like Doom or Fallout even though it is always virtually the same thing. A game is replayable if it's so exceedingly enjoyable it's worth going over again.

That's why I say it is subjective, things like C&C don't really add much replayability to me, it is more like cherry on top. Neither does stuff like procedural generation or branching content. Some people consider achievement or NG+ replayability but I imagine lots of people here don't give a fuck about either.

I wouldn't exactly call PoE super replayable but it wasn't my review so.

 

[a cut of domestic sheep prime]

Lost count how many times I've replayed games like Doom or Fallout even though it is always virtually the same thing.

Doom is enjoyable because it is a challenge and can be played in different ways, but it's also pretty simple and you don't need to play it linearly - ie, you can select a level and just play that. It's more a casual game than a CRPG. It's almost Bejeweled with guns. Apples to oranges.

You should know by now that Fallout is one of the archetypal choices with consequences game around here, so it goes more toward proving my point than yours.

A game is replayable if it's so exceedingly enjoyable it's worth going over again.

Uh huh. You'll notice I covered this in the post you quoted. So once again this is why we'll never agree on this. Go argue "mario/doom/pacman was an RPG because you play a role" until you are blue in the face. I'm out.

 

[Fairfax]

I don't like the term replayability/replay value in the first place. Things combat, graphics, soundtrack, story, UI, etc all come down to whether the player enjoy them or not. Replayability is one of the few who can be judged according as 2 completely different things:
1) Variery in terms of how you can play the game.
2) How much the game makes the player want to play it again.

These are not mutually exclusive, which makes the whole concept a mess. "Replay value" was very common in mainstream reviews 10+ years ago. Sometimes it was good because of a New Game+, new items or difficulty settings unlocked, and stuff like that. In other cases it was about having multiple endings and reacitivity. Sometimes being a short game with good gameplay and a high score mode was enough. There was no consensus then, and there isn't one now.
If you consider 1) to be actual replayability, then Fallout 3 has plenty of it, but I'd never play it again, so how is it relevant? If you consider that an objective term only, then what about great games with little differentiation in gameplay and no reactivity that still make the player want to replay it?
On the other end, a game is not necessarily inferior just because it's not something you want to play all over again. I had a great time with Dragon Quest VIII, but it took me 110+ hours, and I don't feel like playing it again, even though it's been many years since I played it.

As for Pillars, I don't see how it has significant replayability, regardless of the definition. The review says the game "delivers massive replayability". Without establishing how it offers "massive replayability", that's no better than a buzzword.
Speaking of which...

 

[Excidium II]

Lambchop19

You are p. fucking stupid and need to lurk moar. By the way those games aren't RPGs because they aren't classified as RPGs by developers and lack enough typical conventions to be labeled as such, having more elements in common with other genres. That said Doom does owe a lot to RPGs, and was a lot more RPG-like initially.

You should know by now that Fallout is one of the archetypal choices with consequences game around here, so it goes more toward proving my point than yours.

Fallout C&C is veeeeery rudimentary. Wouldn't matter for a replay if it wasn't so damn good game.

And I always replay doom from e1m1, specially since it gradually gets worse after e2.

 

[a cut of domestic sheep prime]

You are p. fucking stupid and need to lurk moar.

I've been on this site almost since it was founded, wingus, but I'll assume you aren't being literal.

By the way those games aren't RPGs because

Insert reason here. My point wasn't "what is an rpg", may point is that debating this with you is about as productive as debating "what is an rpg" with some sped.

Fallout C&C is veeeeery rudimentary.

Not really, but it probably didn't have enough voice acting and cgi for you, so it's forgivable that you didn't notice.

And I always replay doom from e1m1, specially since it gradually gets worse after e2.

Congrats?

 

[Excidium II]

You are p. fucking stupid and need to lurk moar.

I've been on this site almost since it was founded, wingus, but I'll assume you aren't being literal.

I'm being literal, you registering to post was a mistake. I don't give a fuck how long you supposedly been browsing the codex but since I barely see you post in the last 6 years, you do better that way. At least continue to mostly avoid CRPG discussion. I should always check stats before replying to someone.

Not really, but it probably didn't have enough voice acting and cgi for you, so it's forgivable that you didn't notice

Yeah really, cretin. Being one of the few to start giving a fuck about C&C it is all very basic.

 

[a cut of domestic sheep prime]

I'm being literal, you registering to post was a mistake. I don't give a fuck how long you supposedly browse the codex but since I barely see you post in the last 6 years, you do better that way. At least continue to mostly avoid CRPG discussion.

Yeah really, cretin. Being one of the few to start giving a fuck about C&C it is all very basic.

See guys like you are the reason why I avoid CRPG discuss. Keep arguing about things that you're wrong about tho.

 

[Excidium II]

I am rarely wrong, and this is not one of those occasions.

Cease posting.

 

[a cut of domestic sheep prime]

 

[Darth Roxor]

This review was so well received that it's been included in felipepepe's book, albeit in slightly condensed form



One notable addition is the comment about PoE's "massive replayability", which wasn't mentioned in this article at all.

is a neutral-positive review of fallout 4 planned for dis as well

 

[Bubbles]

Are you volunteering?

 

[felipepepe]

I do need a F4 review, but considering that even the fanboys go "eh, F3 is better", I guess there won't be much positivity in it.

 

[Delterius]

If there's one thing replayable about Pillars it is arguing over it. The ease of respeccing and multitude of arguments avaiable aim for infinite possibilities. A never ending cycle of butthurt.

 

[Lurker King]

That's replayability.

No, it's only replayability if the gameplay is different enough for it to be enjoyable - and preferably the choices and consequences/content as well.

Otherwise it's only "replayability" for the 1% of spergs who would replay virtually any game anyway because they are spergs and want to sperg out and play it X odd way for the challenge.

Exactly. That is what always happens with these discussions. Someone come up with a point of view about a game that involves an abstract concept whose application obviously depends on some background conditions. His critics don’t engage his point of point of view properly, but are eager to disregard these conditions and declare that it is all very subjective. One of the things that can most affect people appreciation of games is laziness and intellectual vices. Debating about abstract topics with people who use the "this is all subjective" card is pointless.

 

[Lurker King]

I do need a F4 review, but considering that even the fanboys go "eh, F3 is better", I guess there won't be much positivity in it.

There are a lot of 10s saying this is the best thing since sliced bread in the metacritic reviews.

 

[Delterius]

Things combat, graphics, soundtrack, story, UI, etc all come down to whether the player enjoy them or not. Replayability is one of the few who can be judged according as 2 completely different things:
1) Variery in terms of how you can play the game.
2) How much the game makes the player want to play it again.

Why would I need a specific word for the second definition? "So good I watched it / read it twice" is a simplistic statement that tells you nothing of use. To use "replayability" in that way would just be flowery speech for its own sake.

Fact is the word is commonly used in a specific manner and that's definition 1. Replayability as a concept isn't something distinct from game design, the plot or aesthetics. It permeates the whole of them. A combatfag CRPG bolsters replayability through the breadth of its rules and character systems. An action game, through freedom of movement and engagement. Puzzles, should they be solved in different ways. These are not to be taken for granted.

 

[Rivmusique]

You can only do one of the act 2 faction's quest per playthrough, there are 3 factions. Therefore it's replayable for 3 runs at least. Case closed.

 

[Sensuki]

I don't think the Act 2 plot quest factions are a good example of replayability at all

 

[Sacred82]

I don't like the term replayability/replay value in the first place. Things combat, graphics, soundtrack, story, UI, etc all come down to whether the player enjoy them or not. Replayability is one of the few who can be judged according as 2 completely different things:
1) Variery in terms of how you can play the game.
2) How much the game makes the player want to play it again.

These are not mutually exclusive, which makes the whole concept a mess. "Replay value" was very common in mainstream reviews 10+ years ago. Sometimes it was good because of a New Game+, new items or difficulty settings unlocked, and stuff like that. In other cases it was about having multiple endings and reacitivity. Sometimes being a short game with good gameplay and a high score mode was enough. There was no consensus then, and there isn't one now.
If you consider 1) to be actual replayability, then Fallout 3 has plenty of it, but I'd never play it again, so how is it relevant? If you consider that an objective term only, then what about great games with little differentiation in gameplay and no reactivity that still make the player want to replay it?
On the other end, a game is not necessarily inferior just because it's not something you want to play all over again. I had a great time with Dragon Quest VIII, but it took me 110+ hours, and I don't feel like playing it again, even though it's been many years since I played it

I take it good games automatically have high replayability?