Pillars of Eternity ..

[Kaptin Keen]

So, I just recently finished Pillars of Eternity. While I was really slow to pick it up, I finally did - and it was ... fine.

It's funny, because the reason I picked it up was that it was lauded all over the internets as basically the best thing ever. And I don't think it was. It was certainly adequate - good story, good combat, interchangably vaguely interesting characters. But still - it''s a puddle at the base of tsunami-like games such as Planescape: Torment or Fallout 1 and 2. Frankly, I liked Tyranny better.

Regardless ... I feel I should pick up Pillars of Eternity 2. But I'm conflicted.

The reason I was so slow to pick up PoE is that I had to chose that - or Divinity - and I picked Divinity. I never finished Divinity, because it just doesn't hold my attention for me. PoE did. However, in the meantime, I also picked up Kingmaker. Being honest, I also didn't finish Kingmaker, because it just doesn't seem to be able to keep track of it's own quests.

So ... you can surely see my troubles here: There's PoE 2, Kingmaker 2, and even BG3. I don't have the time or the stamina to play all three - and I still haven't finished Kingmaker. So what am I to do?! oO

[Driderman]

So, I just recently finished Pillars of Eternity. While I was really slow to pick it up, I finally did - and it was ... fine.

It's funny, because the reason I picked it up was that it was lauded all over the internets as basically the best thing ever. And I don't think it was. It was certainly adequate - good story, good combat, interchangably vaguely interesting characters. But still - it''s a puddle at the base of tsunami-like games such as Planescape: Torment or Fallout 1 and 2. Frankly, I liked Tyranny better.

Regardless ... I feel I should pick up Pillars of Eternity 2. But I'm conflicted.

The reason I was so slow to pick up PoE is that I had to chose that - or Divinity - and I picked Divinity. I never finished Divinity, because it just doesn't hold my attention for me. PoE did. However, in the meantime, I also picked up Kingmaker. Being honest, I also didn't finish Kingmaker, because it just doesn't seem to be able to keep track of it's own quests.

So ... you can surely see my troubles here: There's PoE 2, Kingmaker 2, and even BG3. I don't have the time or the stamina to play all three - and I still haven't finished Kingmaker. So what am I to do?! oO

I felt that PoE2 was better than PoE1 in my ways, yet I have never finished it. I'd probably wait for BG3, even if Divinity 2 wasn't your thing, it looks pretty promising. But yes, the golden age of RPGs for grognards is unfortunately over

[Kaptin Keen]

I felt that PoE2 was better than PoE1 in my ways, yet I have never finished it. I'd probably wait for BG3, even if Divinity 2 wasn't your thing, it looks pretty promising. But yes, the golden age of RPGs for grognards is unfortunately over

It is? I wasn't even aware it had started =)

Actually, I'll say this: The best RPG that wasn't from the original golden age of RPG's (although it looks like it was) is actually Age of Decadence. Oh, and, while it's a different genre altogether, I just finished Disco Elysium, which is also quite fantastic =)

[Morty]

I'm not sure where you've seen it lauded as the best thing ever, because after the initial excitement of its being "just like Baldur's Gate", the reception became pretty lukewarm. I do think it's better than Divinity: Original Sin, mostly because I think DOS2 is one of the most overrated games in recent years.

That said, it's going to be at least a year before BG3 is playable without early access, so this might not actually be a major dilemma. Kingmaker sounds more like homework than fun every time I see anyone mention it, but then I seem to be an exception. Most people seem to somehow enjoy it. POE2 is worth a try, but there's no guarantee you'll like it or stick with it.

Of course, I also think that the "good old RPGs" really aren't all that great. The original Fallout games in particular aged very poorly and benefit from industrial-grade nostalgia goggles.

[Aotrs Commander]

Being honest, I also didn't finish Kingmaker, because it just doesn't seem to be able to keep track of it's own quests.

I didn't particulalrly notice that when I played it - did you leave until, like, a year after release to play it?

If not, then you generally should. My experience is now that you should not actually play games, like, period (even if you buy them on release) until a good year post-release, often after they get the expansion(s) out. By which point, they've usually patched it into a proper state; this is especially true for kickstarted games, because as generally only mid-upper-mid-tier (thank Lichemaster), they kind of need that time when they're making money to polish it.



If you want a short RPG, then get Disco Elysium if you haven't already. That's only about, what 25-30 hours? No combat, but on the other hand, in terms of at least roleplaying options, it's probably the closest anything's ever gotten to PS:T.

[Morty]

Disco Elysium is what Torment should have been. A story and character-focused RPG with rules that actually support it, instead of fighting it every step of the way. Because they've been designed to support investigation and dialogue, rather than hitting monsters with weapons and spells. And there's no combat, which is as rare as it is is welcome.

[Aotrs Commander]

Disco Elysium is what Torment should have been. A story and character-focused RPG with rules that actually support it, instead of fighting it every step of the way. Because they've been designed to support investigation and dialogue, rather than hitting monsters with weapons and spells. And there's no combat, which is as rare as it is is welcome.

Eeeh...

The thing about Disco Elysium, and also Torment: Tides of Numenara, is that the lack of combat made them both very short, like literally half the length of most RPGs. (Though when I actually play PS:T's enchanced edition, I might finally have an idea of how many hours it actually takes to play it...) Even Tyranny was fairly short at about 60 hours.



Now, I know a lot of people are like "but I don't want 100+ hour games", but I'm afraid I'm always the opposite. Sure, there's a place of games that are only a few hours (I finally just played Magic Circle after seeing Jim Sterling do what might eveb have been a squirtly plays of it years and years ago), but on the whole, I prefer my RPGs to be long.

Granted, I find that at around the 150+ hour mark they can start to drag a little bit; by the time I had reached the end of Divinty:OS 2 (150), PoE 2 (160) and Kingmaker (217), I'd about had enough¹. (Witcher 3 gets the gold star for not doing that at over 200 - it might be be my all-time favourite, but in terms of continuously holding my interest it has to be about the solidest.)

I think 80-100 hours is a good, solid benchmark for an RPG.

(I think PoE was about 80 - can't be sure, I got that on GoG and is says I've played two hours on it, so that's not right!

Also, they are in partnership with Epic, apparently, that's concerning...)



¹Granted, in Kingmaker's case it was more due to the fact that repeated battles with the Wild Hunt were starting to get REAL tiresome.

[Clertar]

Disco Elysium is what Torment should have been. A story and character-focused RPG with rules that actually support it, instead of fighting it every step of the way. Because they've been designed to support investigation and dialogue, rather than hitting monsters with weapons and spells. And there's no combat, which is as rare as it is is welcome.

For me, Vampyr hit a sweet spot of thematic interest, characters and ambiance, and a right balance between story and combat playstiles.

[Bunny Commando]

So ... you can surely see my troubles here: There's PoE 2, Kingmaker 2, and even BG3. I don't have the time or the stamina to play all three - and I still haven't finished Kingmaker. So what am I to do?! oO

Wrath of the Righteous and BG3 are both at least a year away from being playable, unless you are willing to play an Early Access.
That leaves you with PoE2. I do believe it's a better product than PoE, still I think it's just adequate. Others have suggested Dysco Elysium and I agree with them - the game is really good, although a bit short.

[BRC]

Disco Elysium is quite good if you're just looking for a game. But if you're looking to scratch the specific itch of an Isometric Fantasy Action RPG, it's very much not that.

[Morty]

More importantly, the OP has already played Disco Elysium.

[Bunny Commando]

More importantly, the OP has already played Disco Elysium.

You're right, my bad.
May I suggest to keep an eye on Wastelander 3 then?

[Cespenar]

PoE 1 is pretty lackluster as a BG-like, so you're not alone in choosing Tyranny over it. PoE 2, though, has corrected quite a many things they did wrong earlier, at least in the writing department. I'd say give it a chance. It's still no Disco, PS:T, Fallout, etc. (obviously), but it's not mediocre like PoE 1 either.

[Kaptin Keen]

It's interesting: I've literally seen - well, I'm going to say hundreds, but then I just said literally, and I didn't count them, so I can't be really sure - I've seen literally tens of reviews of POE that praised it like the second coming, and quite a few user reviews too. But maybe the general concensus isn't with the reviews, it would hardly be the first time.

Yea, I've my eye on Wasteland 3. Thing is, I'm still playing Wasteland 2, it failed to carry me through to the end on my first playthrough. And it .. just isn't Fallout, you know? The Desert Rangers are fine, but no better than that. The combat is ... well, mediocre at best. It doesn't have the story, nor the combat, nor .. hm, I guess FO1&2 were mostly good because of the story, eh?

Vampyr? Maybe I should check it out - I dismissed it because .. well I thought 'it's clearly trying to be Bloodlines - and failing - no way!'

Bloodlines was like Fallout. It was a terrible way to tell a really good story. Somehow I wish I could have more of that: Excellent stories - don't much care about perfect gameplay.

You guys should all play Age of Decadence if you haven't =)

[Bunny Commando]

You may also try to give Kingmaker another shot but without kingdom management - still not great but definitely less boring.

[Morty]

It's interesting: I've literally seen - well, I'm going to say hundreds, but then I just said literally, and I didn't count them, so I can't be really sure - I've seen literally tens of reviews of POE that praised it like the second coming, and quite a few user reviews too. But maybe the general concensus isn't with the reviews, it would hardly be the first time.

I think PoE lost a lot of its appeal and fell off the radar once the initial rush of "spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate" faded. Speaking as someone who likes it quite a bit.

You guys should all play Age of Decadence if you haven't =)

I've tried it and I wasn't impressed. It feels like a game my 16 year old self would have loved, and but 16 year old self notoriously had poor ideas and poor taste. They've created a pretty intricate Fallout-like combat system and then tried to discourage the player from ever using it. There's a lot of dialogue and many skills that affect it, but using them is a matter of happening to have the right skills high enough. I wound up in a situation where I didn't have the right skills to avoid a battle my character had no chance of surviving. I had to reload and spend some saved-up points.

[Kaptin Keen]

I've tried it and I wasn't impressed. It feels like a game my 16 year old self would have loved, and but 16 year old self notoriously had poor ideas and poor taste. They've created a pretty intricate Fallout-like combat system and then tried to discourage the player from ever using it. There's a lot of dialogue and many skills that affect it, but using them is a matter of happening to have the right skills high enough. I wound up in a situation where I didn't have the right skills to avoid a battle my character had no chance of surviving. I had to reload and spend some saved-up points.

It's certainly not perfect - which is why I mention it in context of other games that had great stories and faulty gameplay.

Combat, once you understand it, is easy (-ish). But the game works like this: It has a number of skill gates. If you don't have the skill, you don't pass the gate. It has only so many skill points, so you quite simply cannot pass all the gates. This can be hugely frustrating, because it's very much possible to build a character that cannot win the game. Any character can complete it. Not every character can win.

That said, it is ... very, very good. One of the best stories I've seen in any game. Provided you like the sort of thing it does, I guess.

I have completed it. I haven't won.

[Morty]

It's certainly not perfect - which is why I mention it in context of other games that had great stories and faulty gameplay.

Combat, once you understand it, is easy (-ish). But the game works like this: It has a number of skill gates. If you don't have the skill, you don't pass the gate. It has only so many skill points, so you quite simply cannot pass all the gates. This can be hugely frustrating, because it's very much possible to build a character that cannot win the game. Any character can complete it. Not every character can win.

That said, it is ... very, very good. One of the best stories I've seen in any game. Provided you like the sort of thing it does, I guess.

I have completed it. I haven't won.

That was my problem, yes. Combat can be understood and "gamed" until you can win even with substandard stats. Skills as many RPGs, including AoD, use them, are either/or. You have the right skills or you don't. And it's not about using your skills properly, like you would in a tabletop RPG, but about having the right skills as per the game's demands.

I agree that the story and setting seemed quite good, yes. Having different starting storylines for different characters is always welcome.

[Eldan]

Eeeh...

The thing about Disco Elysium, and also Torment: Tides of Numenara, is that the lack of combat made them both very short, like literally half the length of most RPGs. (Though when I actually play PS:T's enchanced edition, I might finally have an idea of how many hours it actually takes to play it...) Even Tyranny was fairly short at about 60 hours.

I have no problem whatsoever with short games if what they cut out is tedium. Like, I'm one of those guys who'll use console cheats to level up my skills if the grinding takes too long. Disco Elysium is great in that regard and would not be improved in any way whatsoever if you'd occasionally got into a fistfight in the streets for no reason.

[Kesnit]

Yea, I've my eye on Wasteland 3. Thing is, I'm still playing Wasteland 2, it failed to carry me through to the end on my first playthrough. And it .. just isn't Fallout, you know? The Desert Rangers are fine, but no better than that. The combat is ... well, mediocre at best. It doesn't have the story, nor the combat, nor .. hm, I guess FO1&2 were mostly good because of the story, eh?

I've played (though not completed) Wasteland 2 and am playing Wasteland 3. The combat in W3 feels more intuitive. W2 combat would sometimes feel klunky. It feels easier to build a well-rounded team in 3.

[Morty]

I have no problem whatsoever with short games if what they cut out is tedium. Like, I'm one of those guys who'll use console cheats to level up my skills if the grinding takes too long. Disco Elysium is great in that regard and would not be improved in any way whatsoever if you'd occasionally got into a fistfight in the streets for no reason.

And really, does anyone actually like combat in Planescape: Torment? Ever? For any reason?

[Aotrs Commander]

And really, does anyone actually like combat in Planescape: Torment? Ever? For any reason?

The spells are great.

So, yah.

[veti]

I have a similar experience with Pillars of Eternity. Had it for years, I've started playing at least three times and just - never finished. Somewhere in the aptly named Endless Paths, I reach a point where I just can't bring myself to reload and continue.

I like the game, I'd really like to finish the plot someday. But nah. The only thing more tedious than grinding combat for levels is grinding without gaining levels, and that's where I'm at now.

[Eldan]

The spells are great.

So, yah.

The visual effects of the spells, sure. But I wouldn't find it any less satisfying if there was a dialogue scene with an enemy and at some point, you got a prompt that said "unleash awesome mechanus cannon", instead of having to roll initiative and weapon damage first.

[Morty]

The spells are pretty, but throwing them at random, meaningless XP fodder gets old after the first few times. And Powers help you if you happen to be playing a fighter or thief.

I have a similar experience with Pillars of Eternity. Had it for years, I've started playing at least three times and just - never finished. Somewhere in the aptly named Endless Paths, I reach a point where I just can't bring myself to reload and continue.

I like the game, I'd really like to finish the plot someday. But nah. The only thing more tedious than grinding combat for levels is grinding without gaining levels, and that's where I'm at now.

The Endless Paths are pretty annoying. And confusing, because people apparently paid extra to get that massive slog into the game.

[Bunny Commando]

You may just skip the Endless Paths, the dungeon is entirely optional. The game gives you enough XPs to reach max level even without playing the Paths and you will just miss some loot.

[Aotrs Commander]

The spells are pretty, but throwing them at random, meaningless XP fodder gets old after the first few times. And Powers help you if you happen to be playing a fighter or thief.

If you're not spending your first eight highest levels as fighter and then switching to mage to abuse the extra HD/Thac0 the system provides, y'ain't doing it right.

Alternately to throwing awesome spells around, you can milk the game for XP by doing it solo (aside from having your companions in and out the party (one at a time) to farm them for conversation XP), staying predominately as fighter (only famring mage and thief for even more XP), finishing the game at level 64 -

Spoiler

Show

- and having the hilarity of the final boss (let alone everything from about the mid-game onwards) be literally unable to kill you because you heal so fast you have to stop for a bit after every fight to let the "heal 1s" finish scrolling, and being able to walk away, knowing that the Blood War will eventually end, because there's an unkillable Nameless Nutter who will spend the rest of eternity beating them all to death with his two-handed mace one-by-one because he's an omnicidal maniac.



Ya can't do THAT in Disco Elysium. You can be the Cop of the Apocalypse, but in PS:T you can be the Apocalypse...!



So, no, I'm never going to say the combat in PS:T is not fun.

Could it be improved? Sure. After all, PS:T succeeds DESPITE being AD&D mechanically, not because of it, but it's plenty fun enough.



(Certainly, it was legions better than Age of Decance's since it doesn't punish you for wanting to actually HAVE combat.

I tried the demo version (and kudos to them for having one, in fairness), but when it says "we recommend you start with the fighter-type) and then put you in a position where you get stuck with a near-impossible fight quest. That was the point I went, "yep, no.")

[Kaptin Keen]

(Certainly, it was legions better than Age of Decance's since it doesn't punish you for wanting to actually HAVE combat.

I tried the demo version (and kudos to them for having one, in fairness), but when it says "we recommend you start with the fighter-type) and then put you in a position where you get stuck with a near-impossible fight quest. That was the point I went, "yep, no.")

Actually - combat is sort of the best part of Age of Decadence. It's hard, but that fight in the demo is absolutely winnable. Sure, I had to try it a dozen times before I figured out how - but then, it taught me how combat works. I'm fairly sure they turned away a good number of potential customers, though. I downloaded the demo twice, but luckily I was annoyed enough, after I couldn't win that fight the first time, that I went back, and tried harder, and won.

Anwyays. Screw Age of Decadence =)

I accidentally finished Pillars of Eternity before I could reach the bottom of the Endless Paths. I wanted to complete that, but then ... well, I guess the game ended =)

[Winthur]

PoE, like pretty much every other game of the "Kickstarter renaissance" of RPGs, ended up ultimately going into the Good For What It Is bin of 7/10 games, so "the best thing ever" seems like it's primary a perception derived from people who played Baldur's Gate once or twice many years ago and let the wow factor of a game "just like it but cleaner and more modern" take over.

I don't know anyone who would ever actually call out anything particularly exceptional about PoE.

[Cazero]

Well, the Death god going "you're our slave now" at the start of PoE2 was an exceptional suckerpunch.
Needless to say, I didn't play it much.