Dear Larian,


I’ve played many RPG’s over the years. Many, many.

RPG’s are the center of my heart. I believe an amazing RPG is like bringing an amazing book to life. I believe you should experience a gamut of emotion; from fear to anger, love to laughter and back again.

I believe a good RPG should have an amazing antagonist and an equally amazing protagonist.

I believe you should get lost in the story to the point where side quests don’t even feel like side quests.

I’ve played many a beautiful RPG; as well as many of garbage ones.

Planescape: Torment is my #2 RPG of all time.

Can you guess my first?

You’re right. It’s Baldur’s Gate 2.

RPG’s are why I play video games. And in my personal
opinion, those who can make an amazing RPG stand above other genres in the industry

I feel many others share my opinion about Baldur’s Gate 2; thus you have now, in your hands, the ability to stamp your name on the gaming industry forever. In my opinion, far beyond even where Divinity reached.

#2 is beloved and treasured in the hearts of many. I look forward to #3 with equal amounts of hope as well as fear.

Make it amazing.

What’s your favorite RPG of all time and why?

Hear hear!

I loved DOS2, so I have abundant faith that Larian will knock this out of the park. Most of my old favorite studios are dead to me. BioWare, Blizzard, and Bethesda are each a hollow shell. Down with the letter B, ascendant is the L.

Anyway,

#1 - Planescape: Torment, easily. I probably don’t need to expound upon why.

In fact, if Larian makes BG4, and does it in the same mold as BG2, which is to say, following the journey of the characters but having nothing to do with the titular city: SET IT IN SIGIL. Do it. BG4 as a stealth sequel to PS:T might be too much for me to handle.

The rest of my favorites, in no particular order:

Fallout: New Vegas
Baldur’s Gate 1/2
Icewind Dale 1/2
Divinity: Original Sin 2
Dragon’s Dogma
Chrono Trigger
Fire Emblem (various entries)
Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild (I’ve always been the “Zelda isn’t an rpg” guy, but after that, I say give it to them)
Total War: Warhammer 1/2 (not an rpg, but I play it like one)
XCom 1/2 (also not an rpg but I have an active imagination)
Final Fantasy 7: Remake (fight me!)

I feel like I’m missing something important but I can’t put my finger on what.

i Like a few of those mentioned - ive only just purchased DOS2 - I loved Shining Force on the mega drive (yes I'm that old ) - Icewind Dale 1& 2 I really enjoyed too, FF7 original. But what I really love is D&D themed games as I spent many happy hours playing D&D when I was a youngster - slap a D&D label on a computer game & I'll try it - why? happy memories, time spent with good friends adventuring in far away lands - I very much agree a good game is like a good book or a great movie - only you partake in it - I think Larian will really deliver- I cannot wait to get my hands on BG3 it might just set the standard for the genre for the next generation...

Morrowind and Final Fantasy Tactics for sure.

Baldur's Gate of course.

I really feel like you but there's something I have to admit.
The story is not anymore the central point of modern RPG.
(Nearly every game could be called RPG today)

Gameplay is what gives the RPG tag now.
Story is just a part of it.

In no particular order:

Fallout1&2
Fallout New Vegas
Deus Ex
Arcanum
Baldur’s Gate 1&2
Planescape: Torment
Gothic1&2
Witcher 3
Dark Souls


Honourable mentions:
Alpha Protocol
Pillars of Eternity 1&2
Shadowrun: Dragonfall Directors Cut
First half of Disco Elysium

My top ten, in no particular order.

BG trilogy (To me it´s just a big game)
Planescape:Torment
Suikoden V
Trails of cold steel trilogy
Witcher 3
Grandia 2
SW: Knights of the Old republic 2
Vampire TM: Bloodlines
Tyranny
Pillars of Eternity 2
NWN 2: Mask of the Betrayer

Honourable mentions:
Divinity OS: 2
Pathfinder: kingmaker
The Last Remnant
Dragon Quest: XI
Drakensang: TROT
Star Ocean
Arcanum
Beyond divinity



I´m afraid we can soon add Obsidian or Inxile after the adquisition by Microsoft.

I can´t really fathom why so many CRPG fans spend their time in pointless debates like PC vs Console, 2d vs 3D, RTwP vs TB, etc when the real problem of the lack of non-indie western RPGs today is that many great studios are bought and repurposed into making FPS games.

what was the last half decent game obsidian made?
theyve been dead for a while

That's just your opinion. For me Obsidian is by far the best RPG studio out there. TOW has been out less than a year and its sales are now beyond D:OS2. It's Larian that has been a dead studio to me up until now. Let's see if BG3 changes that.

We shall see. I will not be a speaker of doom, before I see what Obsidian and Inxile are up to with Microsoft funding. Some people point to Outer Worlds as a sign of decline, but 1) it's good for what it is 2) has nothing to do with aquisition - that is a project which predates the buyout and is made with Private Division, not Microsoft.

I suppose the problem is that RPGs are complex, ambitious and expensive games to make. Larian seems to be the first studio I can think of, that makes RPGs independently and seems to be succesful. Though, D:OS was close to falling apart business wise from what I understand. There is also CDPR. I am curious to see how long they will prosper.

Obsidian and Troika were not success stories, even if they made games that dedicated RPG fans adore. And RPGs of old were made under a publisher - a publisher which released some of the finest RPGs and then shut down.

And as to publisher's influence. To me, the most tragic bit of Kotaku's Anthem article was that it was Bioware itself which did harm, rather then overbearing hand of a publisher. Still, screw EA.

Well, Pillars are almost great. First one is undermined by low budget and stretching itself thin with a serious need of 2nd, 3rd or 4th pass, and the sequel is undermined by weak narrative direction with departure of Eric Fenstermaker - Josh Sawyer is great in many things but a good storyteller he is not. Still, overall the most RPG-y RPGs I played in years, and my second favourite Obsidian offering after New Vegas. I would love if they could work with Larian's engine - they would create a magnificent campaign I think.

That said, I think we need new blood. The reason why Larian games are exciting (even if not my cup of tea) is that what they are aiming for is so different then what we expect an RPGs to be. Just as Bioware was back in Baldur's Gate days, Obsidian in it's early days, or Tim Cains offerings. By now we know their tricks, and we demand they make the same game we liked 10-20 years ago, while at the same time expecting them to evoke the same wonder they once did.

While far from perfect, D:OS1&2 and Disco Elysium have been the best RPGs made in years, and not because they are better then competition (I personally don't think they are) but they have fresh ideas and solutions.

And if Josh Sawyer wants to create his bicycle simulator, or medieval historical RPG, I think those have more potential of being new classics then making him works on games that he grew over by now. Biggest issue of PoEs is lack of conviction.

wtf have you been living under a rock?
PoE1, PoE2, Stick of truth?
Even Outer Worlds and Tyranny are pretty solid, though not as good as the aforementioned.
If you consider the numbers, Obsidian has been the greatest developer of the last decade in terms consistency. The only contender I can think of that has been as consistent (not a single bad game) is FromSoftware.

BG Trilogy
Pillars of Eternity
Deadfire
Dragon Age: Origins
Skyrim
Deus Ex: Human Revolution
Fallout: New Vegas

Won't cite any JRPGS because they are not RPGs at all, nothing to do with some really being great, just that having level ups don't make an RPG. For the same reason Diablo 2, one of the best games ever made, is not on the list.

Latest Obsidian's games are maybe not bad but really mediocre. They lack courage (Tyranny could be fantastic, was spiritless) and just try to copy some old stuff. I'm glad they didn't take BG3.

My favourites?
BG2, F:NV, DOS2, Witcher. In recent years I liked Disco Elysium.

... and some sentiment for Final Fantasy VII-IX

I agree to some extend but that's a downside of crowdfunding, no? They fund the game on the promise of making IE-like game with a touch of New Vegas, because that's what people liked and are willing to fund generously. It's the other side of coin. You take money from publishers, they want you to make the game like the one that sells really well right now, and are upset because the copycat isn't as good as the original. You take money from public, and they want you to make the game they already liked, and then are upset because it is either not different enough or not exactly the same as the original. Considering Obsidian was so close to shutting down, I don't blame them for playing safe for a bit.

That's why I am curious what their games under Microsoft will look like. Theoretically, they might have now freedom to do more interesting games. There is Grounded which is definitely different then their usual offering but it's a tiny passion project. There are rumors of a big RPG in works - we will see what it will be all about.

BG will be an important game insofar as it's going to be a testbed how viable/big:

-party based RPGs in general
-D&D games

can be in today's market. If it turns out to be a success, Larian together with WOTC would be clever to license their engine so that others may have a go as well.



Skyrim: New Neketaka. :P
https://www.pcgamer.com/obsidian-ceo-id-love-to-turn-eternity-into-more-like-a-skyrim-product/

Well, that's from before Deadfire bombed financially. It still could be it, but I have my doubts.

Some interesting art can be found here:
https://www.artstation.com/cmatchett

It doesn't strike me as PoE wibe, but who knows.

Baldur's Gate 2
Planescape Torment
Fallout 2
Chrono Trigger
FF 8
Lunar Silver Star Story
DQ 8
Witcher 3

I hope MS doesn’t ruin Obsidian. They tend to have good ideas but lack the funds to follow through.

I have mixed feelings about Pillars of Eternity. There was a lot to love, but the setting never gripped me the way even D:OS does. The game also had what I consider to be some design flaws. Replaying all of the Infinity Engine games has helped me isolate why. Compared to those classics, I spend a lot more time in POE tapping the pause button in difficult fights. Que up a few moves, play, immediately pause again, select abilities, play, immediately pause, and so on ad nauseam.

I don’t do this in IE games, because most of my party members don’t have as many skills to juggle. I’m mostly just selecting skills for spell casters and to a lesser extent, priests. Everyone else is largely autoattacking. In POE almost everybody has a selection of skills, so that requires more time spent tapping pause. More difficult fights often feel like a scattered slog.

Also, POE, especially #2 is overly balanced. The IE games are not, and that is a big part of the charm. When I discovered in ToB that I could defeat a dragon easily by casting timestop, polymorphing into a mind flayer, and attacking the dragon until it’s Int reached 0, and then watching it crumple when the timestop concluded, I was elated. It felt like cheating the system, but that was the point. D:OS2 has the same design ethos, where the player is rewarded and encouraged to abuse the system, so I think Larian is the perfect choice for BG3.

Couldn't agree more about the balance obsession that Obsidian (Sawyer) has. But I welcomed the added complexity in gameplay, specially for the martial classes, this allows for more customization and creating more unique builds.

I hope Larian is inspired by BG's design though, fuck balance, put crazy ways for the players to exploit the system there, because you can do crazy things even in the Pnp.

You see, I am the opposite. I found little to like in D:OS world and characters. It's incoherent, shallow and flat. PoE world had a lot of thought put into it, characters properly reflect the world they live in, and whole thing is believable and interesting. It wasn't always as easy to get into nor engaging as it could and should be, but I felt the more I invested in PoE the more I got out. Moment to moment storytelly can falter at times (especially PoE1) overall journey is well worth it. D:OS, on the other hand, is disposable, forgettable nonesense.


I am the opposite, again. Replaying Baldur's Gate before PoE2 and recently Pathfinder only examplifies to me, how well designed PoE1&2 are. Even things I am not entirely in love with (like attribute system) I find to be simply better then what BG had to offer. I didn't enjoy how uninteractive BG are - for that reason spellcasters were my favourite class in BG. I am also a balance guy. I don't enjoy finding "cheesy" mechanics.

IMO you can take every individual part of BG1&2 and Pillars did it better - from class design, companions, roleplaying. However, BG2 really nicely comes together - story, mechanics, atmosphere, while PoE is at odds at times. Well, if they make PoE3 I will be there.

DOS (1, haven't played 2 yet) overall is just a playground to goof around in. Apart of maybe the front loaded skippable exposition in the introduction movie , there's barely an attempt made at a narrative hook or conflict to pull you in at all -- compare that to the moment you arrive in Guilded Vale in PoE1, for instance. Slight early game spoiler ahead: The bodies on the tree, the bells announcing yet another hollowborn. It's a moment where the writing, the visuals and the audio together communicate the world's conflict pretty clearly. DOS1 doesn't have any of that.

Which kind of makes sense, I guess. I've recently read an article with Tim Cain and his pal Leonard Boyarsky where it was said how difficult it was in a multiplayer environment to tell a coherent story. What with everybody running around to do whatever they currently feel like. And whilst BG3 will be multiplayer too, I liked what I saw in the BG3 presentation so far though.

This is exactly my take as well. I found D:OS to be mediocre, and my antipathy towards the game begins with the setting. It is gawdawful. Easily the worst game setting I have ever experienced. And then on top of that you add in silly story and characters, shallow character development, ....

well i know PoE isnt awfull, but the general consensus of people that ive heard is that PoE is kind of bland.
the setting feels irritatingly sober to me.
Theres just something lacking that grips you in. I liked the fish people at first i guess.
In a way the world seems to reflect the gameplay: taking itself very seriously but lacking "soul". its an obnoxious internet term at this point but i think it probably sums it up.

I was actually excited about Tyranny at first because i dug the Bronze age aesthetic they had going on for themselves, but then, eh.
Tides of Numenera (was that obsidian? i actually forgot) was a simmilar route. I originally thought Numenera was a great setting but then the more i learned about it the less it felt like an actually good idea and the more it felt like a bunch of half baked "Hey wouldnt it be cooool maaan" things that lead to the same old same old dungeons and dragons expirience while pretending to be wild and fresh.

The last Obsidian game i genuinly had fun with was NWN2s expansions. I know people always praise Obsidians companions and writing, but the last time i actually had that expirience with an Obsidian game was Mask of the Betrayer.

Imo Obsidian and Bioware lost their mojo roughly at the same time.

>Original Sin

Im not gonna pretend the OS games are high ficiton. But what pulled me in OS1 was the sheer whimsy of it.
OS1 isnt Lord of the Rigns, OS1 is the hobbit.
Or mabye its Narnia, its whimsical like that. It reminds me of walther moers to oin the way that it obviously doenst take itself seriously and just runs with its crazy ideas.
Im not praising its writing, but im praising how it brings ideas across in its gameplay. The narrative isnt great, but the narrative and the gameplay become almost synonymous with each other.

I actually think OS2 is worse in that than OS1, OS2 is tryint much harder to be a CRPG, this includes the CRPG seperation of gameplay and story.

I found D:OS much more compelling because it set for itself a very different array of goals and, I feel, executed them quite well. The series is delightfully irreverent, and unashamed of its absurdity with sort of a Monty Python sensibility. I very much appreciated that.

PoE, on the other hand, takes itself very seriously. It is somber and solemn almost to the point of being overbearing. While there are moments of humor, it is largely joyless. There is nothing inherently wrong with this approach, but I rarely ever found anything about my time with #1 evocative. Looking back it seems to be in my memory a tapestry painted only in shades of beige. I’ve played through it completely twice and, aside from the hangman’s tree, I can remember almost nothing about the experience.

As for #2, I’ve put about 150 hours into it and have still never beaten the game. I try. I’ve started several attempts, but I always lose interest at around level 12 or 13. At this point I’ve just given up on it. The story and the design of the game are exceptionally discordant. The story places a high imperative on tracking down the rampaging god absconding with your stolen soul. The stakes are very high and deeply personal. But the world design is a big open map for exploration and side questing. If I just follow the story, I feel like I missing out on most of the game’s content, as well as opportunities to level and gear. If I meander about, the narrative becomes trivial. Such a disjunction in design is a real deal breaker for me.

This is one aspect where I found PoE to flounder, though there are others, and all these keep me from seeing the series as anything but just okay at best.

Yeah, PoE is complicated. It didn't click for me until saw where PoE1 was leading to. Then in clicked hard for me. And while I adore series there is a lot of criticising to do. It being built on promise of being similar to IE games I think it's this biggest problem.


Numenera was inXile.

I actually think NWN2 is my least favourite Obsidian game. I actually didn't know much of Obsidian (only NWN2 and KOTOR2) until I played through their catalog while they were making Pillars1 - trying to get a feel of the studio. Fallout New Vegas is one of the best RPGs one can play and a high point of Obsidian's resume so far, and Alpha Protocol is one of their more inspired efforts even if game is painfully unfinished and broken. Tyranny was ok. World and story was fine, but gameplay wise it was pretty boring.


Yhh... I don't think you can compare Divinity to any narrative work. I don't have problem with its tone but it's a fantasy themed playground, not a world to explore. I suppose any RPG setting really is. It's just needs to be elevated by good campaign, and I don't think neither D:OS1 nor 2 really had that. It wasn't Neverwinder Nights1 level of bad, not by a long shot, but that's similar feeling I got. A lot of resources poured into building the engine, not enough into content - to my preference at least. Custom campaign editor never offered much value to me. I shit a lot on Divinities. I don't mean to.

I think the whole concept of a game being a "spiritual successor" to some other game(s) should be abolished and never ever raised by any developer. The moment a developer slaps that "spiritual successor" tag on their game they are setting themselves up for bitter criticism and possible failure of their project because it is impossible for anyone to truly satisfy the nostalgia-driven feelings of fans of the original game(s). If the fans themselves want to make connections to some older game, let them do so. But the developer should strictly stay away from making any such connection claims.

If you are making a game that is specifically conceived as a callback to a particular game and need to encourage backers on Kickstarter, I can’t imagine not mentioning that progenitor game.

well, i dont thin k you can compare Narnia to LOTR either.
I wouldnt say OS1 is a playground, that sounds soulless. Theres artistic ideas there, they just dont take themselves seriously.

Its more about a personal journey rather than a grand narrative.

I think i found a more apt comparison.

OS1 is more like a Studio ghibli film than a fantasy novel.
its got those ideas that COULD make a narrative, btu kind of liters them on the side while the main journey is just some protagonist doing some dreamlike stuff

The spiritual sucessor things was a part of POE success. I'm glad they were sucessful because there are new games like this now.

I'm really sad Larian choose a total different path for BG3 because rather than a simple ressurection, it could have been a real revival for the genre with some of their amazing mecanics... what PoE/Tyranny/Pathfinder aren't according to me (even if I love them and if they have a few new gameplay mecanics)

I think this is even worse. All Studio Ghibli films I have seen so far have a strong thematic throughline and robust character arcs and development. That's not solid worldbuilding vs fairy tale discussion. I am actually not a lore guy, and prefer for fantasy elements to be manifestations of story themes, rather then made up history lesson.

But as @Wormerine has pointed out, and with which I concur, it ended up hurting PoE2. Badly. Why? Because PoE1 was so heavily hyped as THE spiritual successor to the IE games that when hardcore fans of the IE games played PoE1 many of them came away disappointed that the game was not EXACTLY like the old IE games they fondly recalled. And that's why many people who bought and played PoE1 did not bother trying PoE2 (a shame, since 2 is a better game than 1 in many ways).

By making PoE1 as a spiritual successor to the IE games, Obsidian limited itself creatively to trying to mimic those old games and not doing anything new or innovative for fear it would alienate fans of those old IE games. And yet despite this, they still ended up disappointing many of those IE games fans anyway. So they shot themselves in the foot not once but twice! Firstly, the lack of newness and innovation in the game meant critics were not as impressed as they could have been, and neither were new gamers who had never played the old IE games. And secondly, even in the face of Obsidian bending over backwards trying to create a game that mimicked the old IE games, fans of those old games ended up disappointed.

Really don't understand this criticism, because it is a spiritual successor to the IE games by very definition, aethestically is very similar. It has its own world building (the best non-licenced worldbuilding ever for a CRPG) and its own ruleset, again, because it is not a licensed game, it is an original IP and that's what people backed. The writting in PoE1 particularly is stellar and way better than BG's, which is just an epic tale about going from farmboy to literal godhood.
Combat is very similar also. Wizards function exactly as they did in the IE games, and martial classes now have more options. So all this "many people disliked" sounds BS to me, simply because PoE1 sold more than 1 million copies, garnered accolades and nominations and was lauded as one of the best games of 2014, the same for Deadfire in 2018. The scores are too high for "many people to have hated it".

Deadfire did great critically but failed commercially. It sold very poorly. Like, crazy bad. According to one investor’s calculations based on the dismal returns he got on it, it probably sold somewhere around 100k copies.

Yeah, I'm comparing their performance is terms of scores and accolades. Deadfire had no marketing, maybe because the game was too expensive to make, and it shows when you look at its graphics, it is a technical marvel.

I don’t know how much of this you can blame on marketing, though. The way the internet works, I would feel safe betting that most of the people who bought PoE1 know about PoE2. That such a small percentage came back for a second bight suggests to me that something was very wrong beyond not enough marketing.

Hey neither of you has to convince me on the merits of both the PoE games. I personally LOVE them both. I also was a backer of both with a pretty decent sum of money. I'm only commenting on how I am reading gamers generally. I think when someone says a game is the spiritual successor to some other much-loved older game, the fans of that older game have this rather ridiculous expectation that the new game will be literally EXACTLY the same as the older game. And when it isn't exactly the same, they get angry and bitter and sulky.

I personally LOVE the setting of Eora that Obsidian has created for the PoE games. And I especially LOVE the new mechanics they have created, because I don't care for D&D-style mechanics at all. And most of all, getting into bed with WotC is a recipe for disaster, imo, and I strongly believe studios should create their own new IPs rather than licnsing and recycling old IPs.

I agree. But PoE2 sales have picked up since those earlier dismal numbers, and now are believed to be around 500,000, still well below the more than 1 million sales for PoE1.

Well using myself as an example played PoE1, loved it to the point that it made me a CRPG nerd, playing BGEE trilogy and IWD thereafter, and I did not know about Deadfire's release for at least around a year after release.

I think I need to clarify, that I meant that IE lineage hurt PoE artistically, rather then just commercially. Not that you are wrong, but that's not exactly the point I was trying to make (I didn't mean to present PoE's shortcomings as a failure of fans to appreciate it, but as a failure of the game to be as good as it could be).

I think there are quite a few things you can point to and criticise PoEs for. Something, which hurts PoEs the most to me, is lack of cohesion between gameplay loop and narrative. Let me give an example: PoE2 was pretty widely criticised, among other things, for not being able to at the end of the game. I don't think that's a problem in itself. I do like that PoE isn't interested in traditional "ascend" narrative, and a certain level of powerlessness is what I adore about the setting. But that isn't expressed in gameplay, because gameplay follows the traditional DnD progression of raising in power and facing more and more powerful forces, and being a bad ass. Either gameplay loop should be changed (I for one would welcome lack of numerical increase in power) or that discrepancy should have been addressed in the narrative. It's not that PoE2 subverts an expectation - it just ignores it, and goes for something that gameplay loop doesn't reinforce narratively. The result is a rather underwhelming finale, which rings hollow. I remember with PoE1 some critics questioned how unavoidable the murder in the game is - which is a common problem when the games tries to elevate narrative to the more ponderous place, without altering pulpy gameplay loop (newer Naughty Dog or Tomb Raider games share the same sin as well).

BGs makes the amount of murder you make the center of moral conflict and a part of your character arc - no matter if you roleplay as good or evil. So, while I prefer many individual elements of Pillars better, I do think that BG, as a whole, works better overall.

I can see some of themes of BG1&2 in BG3, and that gives me hope.

I don’t think being a spiritual successor to BG hurt PoE artistically, because without that it wouldn’t exist. PoE was specifically conceived as a spiritual successor. Obsidian was on the verge of closing up shop for good and they needed something they could make relatively cheaply and would actually sell well, so they banked on nostalgia.

i honestly dont see how PoE had the best lore of any non liscened CRPG.
but i guess that reayl depends on what you call a CRPG.

if only top down IE style games count, then it sitll goes up against Disco Elysium which supposedly is very good, Underrail and Age of Decadence who all have been lauded for great worldbuilding.

i dont see anyhting about PoEs worldbuilding that isnt dry and unimaginitive.

I actually like Divinity 2s worldbuilding, its not amazing but i like stuff like the Elves, the original idea of the etenral undead was great, the ancient empire is also great and all the stuff with the Scar singing.
at leat those are novel ideas.

PoE showed a distinct lack of that to me.

As for

>Artistic vs Commercial

are reviews a good gauge for artistic success?
Games journalists are notorious for having the opinion that a game is better if its closer to a movie and worse if its closer to anyhting else.

man that perfectly sums up my feelings about PoE. Dry, bland, and somewhat unimaginative. I've tried so hard to get into it but it's just so uninspiring and lacks any real charm. The series also isn't that great at storytelling, which I think is its biggest weakness. There's so much lore but I never felt like it was being pushed on me in an organic way, especially with the first one. The second got a little better about it, but it still suffered IMO.

I also agree with you about Divinity. It isn't the most interesting stuff in the world, but it's a unique take on things like Elves, Gods and and the grey nature of people doing what they think is best, or not (magisters). I really enjoy the lore of the world, and the way the game allows you to digest it at your own pace. The game doesn't take itself too seriously all the time, but doesn't come off as a goofy comedy at the same time.

I know all of this stuff is subjective, and I do see some things that PoE did right. Ultimately it just isn't for me. I guess that's one of the great things about RPGs, though, is that they speak to people in drastically different ways.

I would say lore is good because how closely tied it is to character arcs and themes. I find central moral dilemma of the series to be fascinating and it exploration through Dyrwood and Huana history is engaging. Again, moment to moment storytelling isn't great in PoE - I feel things are introduced out of order, too many things are included through books. PoE is a great I fully appreciated on my 2nd playthrough, but I am not blind to it's many flaws. But I find it's ambitions far more interesting and I find Sawyers historical obsessions to give PoE a fresh and authentic quality. PoE definitely isn't approachable, and work that came into crafting each culture can be a barrier. I think PoE2 showed that if properly explored in-game, rather then in-books it can work well, but then again PoE2 spent most of its time exploring sociopolitical situation of Deadfire with little time for actual story with themes. That I blame on change on narrative lead though, whenever fairly or not - without insight into game development one can only guess.

There is one part of PoEs that I would praise to no end - that's White March expansion. I think that is a bit of content that to me shows what PoE could have been.

If I were to nominate best world building in recent years, that would be Dark Souls - completely unintrusive to gameplay, puttings atmosphere and "feels" over dry history with world, history deeply tied to the gameplay loop.

Disco Elysium is half of a great game, I didn't get too invested in the lore - I personally think that if it was set in real world setting it would be more compelling to me. Need to give it another playthrough at some point.

Again, I don't think we're saying very different things. Your focus is on the impact of the IE lineage artistically. For me, it is both artistically and commercially. And the games falling short of their potential artistically, I think, is because Obsidian/Sawyer went too far in trying to hue as closely to that IE lineage as possible.

But, even if they fall short of what they could have been, I still find them to be superior to the D:OS games in every way: world-building, storytelling, characters and character development, mechanics, artsyle. Everything.

> I think, is because Obsidian/Sawyer went too far in trying to hue as closely to that IE lineage as possible.

Trying to far?

PoE 1/2 is completely inferior compared to IE games. They share similarities BUT Infinity Engine games was made focused on freedom and replicating a TT experience in a screen. PoE 1 was made putting balance and accessibility above everything else.

And for eg, you can be a low INT wizard on PoE 1, because they wanted to make impossible to have "bad builds", so they made might dictate the power of spells, firearms, bows and physical blows and note that the lore established that wizards are intellectuals.

And firerams? Obsidian did such a amazing job with new vegas firearms, on PoE1, they are lackluster. Classes are also extremely lackluster compared to IE games. You have generalist wizards on PoE 1 and all except generalist and evoker are useless on PoE 2. The keep is also extremely lackluster if compared to NWN2 crossroad keep. Or even Baldur's Gate 2 player stronghold which depends on your class.

Baldur's Gate 2 had over 300 spells and the spells aren't "fireball 1, fireball 2(...)" are stop time, wish, animate dead, cloudkill, cone of cold, delayed blast fireball(...) And some spells can produce multiple effects, like wish which can produce dozens of different effects.

The magic of PoE 1/2 are extremely lackluster.

Here a video which explains my point if someone din't understood.

Yes... though I think Divinity succeeded in what it wanted to be. Externalising mechanics visually made it approachable and easy to understand. And while I don't like many designs, it is a great coop experience (at least D:OS1 was - didn't try D:OS2 that way). While I like PoEs better then D:OSs, I think in some way D:OS better achieve what they aim for.


IE games offer more freedom then PoE1/2...? You must be joking.

Yes, PoEs made DnD like system which is more balanced and accessible (well, except for some fine math which is never explained). That's why it's better for a computer game, as there is no DM to adjust adventure for whatever character you create.

This here is exactly what I believe made all the difference between the sales numbers of PoE2 versus D:OS2. Both PoE and D:OS use original gameplay mechanics systems. Neither of those new systems is similar to D&D mechanics. As such, since D&D mechanics is what is most familiar for most cRPG fans, neither the PoE system nor the D:OS system has an inherent advantage over the other based on familiarity: they were both equally unfamiliar and equally unlike D&D. So what explains people's preference for the D:OS system over the PoE system? It is complexity. The PoE system is very complex and often very non-intuitive, making it difficult for players to figure out what's going on. The D:OS system, OTOH, is extremely basic and simple, and very easy to figure out. It took me just a few minutes of playing the game to completely figure out how everything worked in the game.

I personally much prefer the complexity of the PoE system over the simplicity of the D:OS system, but in today's gaming world simple and easy beats complex and difficult for most people. But this is also why I wonder how all those D:OS fans who are unfamiliar with D&D will react to BG3. Those fans will be approaching BG3 with D:OS2 as their baseline for comparison. Will they be thrown off by D&D's complex mechanics? I already see on some forums people asking: How come this game (BG3) doesn't have cooldowns like D:OS? Or, how come there are no action points? Etc.

That video sums up my feelings about PoE’s overbalancing quite nicely. I 100% agree.

More freedom? Lets suppose that i wanna play as a caster. BG1/2 > Should i play as a pure caster? Generalist wizard? Evoker? Illusionist? Conjurer? Wild Mage? Multiclass and be a fighter mage? Or a cleric mage? So many possibilities. And my favorite specialization is necromancy. Can i be a necromancer on Pillars? I can on BG1/2 and have access to necromancy with arcane and divine means. And even use mods and play as a Pale Master ( https://forums.beamdog.com/discussion/64333/kit-mod-pale-master-sorcerer-kit-v1-4-5-re-upload ). this is impossible on PoE1.

They force your wizard to be either a """blaster""" or a """disabler"""" on PoE1/2 and can't do anything interesting. Psion is the unique thing not present on IE games and is very lackluster compared to TT 3.5e psion ( http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/classes/psion.htm ). The game which is the true spiritual successor to infinity engine is pathfinder kingmaker. The "blaster" spells are also very lackluster. When i casted a fireball for the first time on BG1, was so cool and amazing. On PoE 1 was "meh, din't took even 1/3 of mob's health"

Since Larian has way more mainstream appeal and 5e is far more accessible, i an happy to see Larian dealing with BG. I just believe that unless the game is somehow a sequel to Bhaalspawn saga, the name should be something different, but is just my opinion.

And overall, I think that is something other RPGs can learn from. If with all available gamespace, the gameplay takes place in two small boxes in two corners of the screen (https://imgur.com/YZhn2B2) I think it is time to rething the design.
I am curious to see how much Larian will alter DnD. Something I have to applause is constant inclusion of dice in gamespace: you land critical hit - big dice animation on screen. You roll skill check - you actually roll a dice. I think those kind of tricks can help a lot in making gameplay mechanics understandable. I don't think having a system roll a dice for you, to be nearly as engaging or intuitive as doing it yourself. Seeing dice being rolled visually, be it in initiative, attack or skill check I think should help a lot.


Well, first of all, in BG1 you could play as just plain wizard (if my DnD terminology is wrong I am sorry - back in a day I played it in PL). As to subclasses you have those in PoE2 as well. A fair deal less, I give you that, but still a good offering for multiple playtrhoughs, and a decent amount of builds. I played with some of them, and they are all effective. As to necromancer - Beckoner is your PoE2 substitute I think - never played as necromancer myself so I might be missing some of the appeal.

And yes, I remember casting my first fireball and a room full of hobgoblins and seeing them all die. I think that's a really bad gameplay. I am not saying that powerful but limited spells of BG2 couldn't work, but it needs structure to pace rest and limited access to those spells - think like bonfires in Dark Souls. If I need to make myself special rules of not using Finger or Death, stop time, or dragons breath to not trivialize the game, then we have what I call a bad design. You don't have a way to reinforce design based on limited resources, then you shouldn't have skills made for this kind of structure. It might be my problem of liking RPGs and Tactical games. As I said many times: PoEs seemed to be created precisely for me.

I am just flabbergasted, how people complaint that spellcasters suck in PoEs, when they are possiblely still a bit OP. "Oh no, the fireball doesn't completely kill all enemies - it's just does a really good damage to a large amount of enemies." Like seriously, whenever I go for spellcaster DPS they outperform everyone else by a large margin. And sure, I am not the guy who can abuse systems to the point of making single-character run, but comeon - casters went from God level to really really good. Gap between them and other classes in terms of fun and versatility was slightly minimised. Great. I would never consider playing other class then spellcaster in DnD - I did the mistake of picking a ranger in Pathfinder after PoEs... big mistake, really boring.

I think if you take spellcasters alone you could be right. I think where I disagree is that spellcasters are the most fun and only fun classes in BG1&2, where is PoE spread the fun around. And in team based RPG with what is supposed to be tactical combat - I think PoE is much closer to it, even if it has still a lot of space to improve.

EDIT: Oh, one thing I miss was the sequencer. I thought that was a handy utility spell, and I would welcome it in PoEs - especially with no prebuffing.

EDIT2: I watched the video. I definitely agree on items in PoE1.

I understand you like to play mages, you want to be powerful, you want powerful ranged attacks. That´s fair and square if you want to play a wizard.

But what about if you want to play a fighter, or a rogue?
Let´s see what options do I have in IE games in combat. so

I´m a fighter: I point this enemy, I watch until the enemy dies. Then I point the next enemy, and wait till the enemy dies... rinse and repeat.
And when I try to play a rogue. I just prepare a trap. The trap springs and I take 10 points of damage. Then I go invisible, I sneak attack one enemy before he casts true sight and then... I spent the rest of the combat searching a rock to hide behind.
The IE games like IWD or BG are (fantastic) party-based games so it does not really matter because you are playing with the entire party but with some choices, you are basically dragging your party down if you want to roleplay some subpar builds. I do not expect to be uberpowerful if I want to play a beastmaster or a rogue, but I least expect the class to be playable.

At least in POE games your fighters, rangers, rogues, etc have something else to do if you want to play another class than a caster for once. And I am not talking about powerful attacks and dealing/resist damage, I meant something to do besides point what I want to attack (until epic levels)

And if you ask me, I prefer to play and fight instead of having guys in robes that kill half your party with one spell if you fail ONE save or wipe out an entire room full of enemies with a fireball while the rest of my party have tea and scones.


I understand that there always be some classes that have advantage in a campaign, because they have a lot of utility, a lot of power, or they are more suited for this campaign (In NWN2 OC you spend the last chapters fighting undead so a cleric would be more useful than a rogue that cannot sneak attack undead) but at least I expect the difference between classes not to be overboard.

If the difference in balance between classes is too steep, you find entire servers with only weapon masters and not even one bard in sight like in NWN at high levels.

pretty much going off topic but Wormerine idk, there might be a lot of work in PoEs cultures but none of that looks like somethign i havent seen already.
Visually they are all pretty much earth cultures (Venetians but theyre black! genious!)
And the wolrdbuilding still doesnt grip me.

you can pour a lot of work into something and it can still be pretty stale.

The RPG genre simply has a lot of very strong worldbuilding.
PoE tries too hard wile also trying to be approachable by people who play FR games.
So PoE 1 naturally looks like ye olde england and its got recoloured human races and people wear brown """"medieal"""" stuff. Plus some ventians and some Native americans. Which also somehow didnt realy impress me.

If you go up against stuff like Morrowind, that did all that Wolrdbuilding exercis ebut did it with a great artstyle an some amazing drug fueled metaphyiscal ideas, PoE just falls flat on its ass.

Dark souls is anohter great example. Its worldbuilding serves the game and it makes the game feel better, it doesnt feel tacked on, even if its completley inconsequential to the actual game.
good worldbuilding is one that makes you appreciate the game more even after youve played it.
bad worldbuilding feels like reading a book about somehting compleltey unrelated.

>On PoE , balance and builds

Balancemen went too far. i admit that.
I like some semblance of balance, but CRPGs in a way are made to be broken and thats half the fun of it.

but Sorc runs into the same issue we run into every time we have this discussion:

Youre having fun in DnD games specifically because the Caster can do anyhting.

And thats where the argument breaks down, because where else do we go from here? its a fundamental disagreement.
I know your opinion is that a Fighter CAN be just as varied and powerfull as a Wizard.

but i disagree, becuase the wizard does everything. If a fighter is on the same level, hes just another wizard.
the only way to not do this is to introduce a bunch of new mechanics to the game that the wizard cannot do.

In that case you have three tiems the ammount of development effort to make classes.

Im not disagreeing with your in principle Sorc. Making everyone cooler is better than making the wizard lamer.
but DnD wizards got too much. They got so much theres no space for anyone else to expand into it.

name something you could potentialy come up with a in a fantasy setting that isnt already covered. i cant think of muh without coming up with a custom setting that has new things that your average dnd setting doesnt.

I think it very much depends on what you want from fantasy world. PoEs world isn't very "fantastical" - you may like it, or dislike, that's very much Josh's sensibility and not a good or bad thing in itself, even if it may enhance or detract from ones enjoyment.

What made me fall in love with Dune's world wasn't how cool or imaginative the setting was, but how believably and wellthoughout it was - the influence of the enviroment on the culture. How would people living on such planet behave - how different their values and greeting would be? PoEs cultures are never appealing at first but they grow on me - I didn't love Dyrwood until I understood its history and it's ramification on current events. I don't think Huana were initially interesting, but how different effect on them Leaden Key's influence had was a revelation. And having to weight consequences of putting in power one of four, disctinct, well developed ideologies was a compelling character choice to make. And that's all coming back to central conflict of the game - humanity's uncertainty of existence, and whenever they need an authority figures to reign over them. Having to place each character I create within that conflict is... interesting. I sometimes find my characters having to make a decision I wouldn't expect. I felt the way PoE setting encourages roleplaying is exceptional, even if package isn't particularly enticing at first. That kind of involvement with the setting, as well as navigation of where my character would fit in that setting is what makes it so much more compelling to me then D:OS.

As far as world-building high-point of D:OS2 for me was witnessing burial ceremony of elfs. But those moment are few and far between and have little impact on the overall game or character development or expression.

I think here is the best explenation as to why I think PoE one of the best worldbulding in recent memory. You can't take characters out of PoE and have them work in another setting - who they are, how they view thing, what their goals are, they way they are tried is unseperately connected to the world and the conflict that surrounds them. To understand your companions you need to understand the world they live in, and through your companions you understand the world. That's why PoEs1 ending worked so very very well to me - the implication the revelation had on my companions personal conflicts was profound.

No, is not a bad gameplay. Fireball is like the high fantasy version of a grenade. It should clear a room of weaklings.



Pathfinder Kingmaker did it right. Resting is not trivial and time matters in that game.



No, and casters was never god level. Seriously. Every spell which a PC can cast, a NCP can cast too. Sodalis on NWN1 - Hotu teleports, casts stop time among other things.

And they aren't good in PoE either. They can't do anything. "they can do damage", eqquip all slots with firearms, fire a barrage, switch to another firearm, fire a barrage, switch(...) and you can "outdps" anyone.



The solution is to make rangers GREAT, not to make casters boring.

On my one 3.5e campaign arrond 2010, the gretest threat that i had to face was elves head hunters with longbows and poisoned bodkin arrows helped by a single illusionist and diviner mage. Longbows is one of the most iconic medieval weapons which shaped battlefields around Europe. Needs more love in fantasy.

Dragon's Dogma did a amazing job to rangers





As i've said many times, the solutions is to make this classes more interesting to play, not every class equally boring.

If And i an glad that you recognize that on high level NWN2 servers, nobody plays as caster due the Sawyerism on arcane classes. NWN2 is clearly Martial > Divine > arcane. With spell fixes and warlock reworked mod Martial still has his ludicrous op gear but at least casters has ludicrous op spells.

Balance is entire subjective, a lot of people will say that everyone being martial and casters only serving to craft magical gear to martial classes is perfectly balanced. Hell, look to BF1, how many people cry to bolt action rifles and shotguns, literally the less used weapons according to BF tracker.



Wizards aren't my favorite class either BUT should be optional rules limiting wizards to a research theme, eg : a wizard which studies necromancy casting cloudkill and cone of cold? Ok. Casting Knock, Stop Time, Wish and Fireball? Not ok.

And when i say giving more options to fighter/barbarian, i don't say making then like wizards. I mean making then like warlocks for eg, which has very limited spell selection in all editions, except 2e(they are a wizard subkit on 2e)

Some prefer Divinity’s approach, others Pillars of Eternity. But can we all agree on one thing: Dragon Age is trash! XD

Sorry no. I like DA. I even liked DA2. And I'm very much looking forward to DA4. DA is especially awesome because it is party-based and still hasn't caved to the mob demanding that all party-based RPGs need to be TB.

But of course, the overbearing superiority of clerics and warriors in NWN is as problematic as the superiority of arcane casters in other games.

As I said before, I understand that there always be some classes that have advantage in a campaign, because they have a lot of utility, a lot of power, or they are more suited for this campaign (In NWN2 OC you spend the last chapters fighting undead so a cleric would be more useful than a rogue that cannot sneak attack undead) but at least I expect the difference between classes not to be overboard.
And when I said classes I could also add weapons, magic schools, etc... anyone tried to use short swords or bastard swords in BG2?, enchantment and necromancy specialist in NWN2 OC? a slinger halfling in Icewind dale?

I i tried to make a necromancer specialist on nwn1 and nwn2 and ended deleting my character. Playing as a necromancer on NWN2 was pure frustration. I was using only my party members and spending more time on gorund than playing my char. In fact, people who enjoy being a necromancer on it generally mod the game



Spell fixes is a must have spell if you wanna be a necromancer. Why?



Is so frustrating to see enemy necromancers and warlocks doing all cool and crazy stuff on cutscenes while the PC being one is a useless piece of ****. I can bet that a lv 12 NPC necro is stronger than a lv 20 PC necro on nwn2. Seriously, warlocks on OC appears conjuring hordes from hell, teleporting and doing all crazy stuff only to enter in your party and have useless invocations even after epic level. In fact, many invocations which should grow up with the PC, like chilling tentacles(should have caster level + 8 BAB) has a fix + 5 BAB meaning that decent armored enemies can't be hit by it. And even after the hit, they are allowed a save before being grappled with no grapple routine implemented. Epic feats like Eldritch Sculptor and Master of elements also doesn't exist unless you use warlock reworked.

PS : One thing that i love BG1/2 is that Plate armor is more likely to deflect slashes than blunt attacks. Maces are far better against plate armor.

PS 2 : I don't like playing as divine casters but i an against nerfing the class.

==============

Talking more about necromancy, i asked some questions to Larian on reddit AMA but nobody answered. I an pretty sure that if they put a one summon limit, every necromancer fan will download a mod to fix it.

Oh goodness, yes. Disappointment that this game was scarred me.

I just bought and started playing pathfinder kingmaker, reading some of the comments about it on this forum, it is a great game.
Yes it is a spiritual successor to BG2 and if you add some story elements and some more budget it could have been called BG3.

im glad it isnt.
Pathfinder devs realize that while they still want the IE formular, they dont wanna chase the past and want to actually innovate.

Thats why you got kingdom management and upcoming sutff like mounted combat.

Im glad theyre having their own identity.

Yes I agree that dragon age 2 and 3 are trash, but origin is one of my favourite....

The companions are done way better, than in DAO1/DAO2.
RPG elements, npcs, world building are also very nicely done.
It also has great combat system, dynamic and action oriented, with just enough variety, so you can easily follow the fights, but with limited skill system, so you never get overwhelmed, even if you do not know dnd or any tabletop games.

What I meant, that Owlcat seems like as if it is building on BG2, but adds innovations.
Larian is reinventing Baldur's Gate and making a spiritual successor to divinity...
Which will be a great game, but it seems very-very different...

I found Pathfinder pretty cool. It has some flaws and weird moments but I had much more fun than in PoE. PoE1 is solid game but this awfully pompous way of storytelling is not my thing. And I agree with overbalancing and generally dull attitude towards gameplay in Obsidian's series. Pathfinder kept IE games spirit and added some fresh things. It's the good way.

I suppose that depends on what you liked in BG2 and what BG2 was for you. I have a soft spot for Pathfinder and even backed the sequel as I think company has a heart in the right place, but that said, from what I played I thought Kingmaker was pretty bad. As a spiritual successor to BG1 - I might see it. As a successor to BG2 - definitely not.

BG2 laid foundation for what became Bioware RPG - a story driven, character driven RPGs. While people praise BG2 for it's "simulation" 1) there wasn't much of it 2) I really don't think that was Biowares intent - at least not in the end. While it's complexity and scope blew me away at the time, looking back at BG1&2 and comparing it to other RPGs I think streamlining was it's biggest success, not complexity. For a long time I thought Bioware took a drastic turn with KOTOR forward, but nowadays I think that was always their intent - or at the very least least they reacted to what really worked in Baldur's Gates - more and better voice acting, set story arcs for companions, strong narrative and villain, defined protagonist, bigger focus on presentation of the story with limited but impactful imput from the player.

In that regard Pathfinder is really really awful. I do like it's commitment to some systems though - like resting and time management. I don't think they are well done or interesting - like assigning resting duties isn't an interesting system to interact with (on second thought - not many of them are). From gameplay standpoint (again) I thought both PoEs did it better - easier to use, more choices to make, better impact. However, there is in-world consistency to it, characters doing chores, that I found it really compelling. Also banter was nice, even if nothing of worth is being said, and I loved that you actually set up a visible camp on the location if you rest in "tactical" view. That is something I would like to see in BG3, I think, instead of generic camp ala Dragon Age:O. But dialogues trees are some of the worst I have seen in a long time, and I am not talking about tone - I like the lighter tone.

I don't think that Larian is making BG3 a successor to DOS2.

I mean, except by the artstyle, the game is nothing like DOS2

• Leveling and character building is D&D like not DOS like
• Itemization is BG like with handcrafted items
• The magic system seems like D&D, not divinity. IE - no cooldowns but has spell slots
• Skill checks everywhere.
• The numbers aren't like dos2, you have far lower numbers on BG3
• A class vs a classeless system
• Saves instead of armor and magical armor
• The bestiary seems far more forgotten realms than DOS2
• (...)

D&D mechanics aren't "simulations", 2e had his fair share of optional rules for more simulation but is far more simplistic abstractions of situations. A simulation would be like GURPS which has a chapter of a book only to describe walking on frozen lakes. The fact that plate armor is far more likely to deflect a sword than a mace being translated to a better AC vs slashes than blunt attack is not a perfectly simulation of medieval combat. It is just a simplistic abstraction.

That said, modern RPG's tends to not care about making mechanics and lore in line. Eg? You can use blood magic in front of templars on DA:O. They often come with cooldowns with no explanation to why i need to wait X seconds/turns to do another shield bash for eg. On Dragon Age Inquisition, literally one of the first dialog options is that the PC don't need a staff to be deadly but all spells scales with weapons regardless if this fact would contradict the dialog and make all previous lore irrelevant(why control mages if they are weaklings with no staves?) and has no explanation behind it. Even most games which tries to be old school like Underrail tends to put his fair share of modern BS. Like cooldowns on grenades. With zero explanation, why? VtMB is not a perfect "simulation" but if i use blood boil in front of kine, it is a masquarede breach and humanity loss(killing with no reason). It is not a perfectly simulation of what would happen if vampires with such powers existed and used on front of kine, but is good enough.

Almost every old school RPG makes me fell like i an in another fictional world. Almost every modern RPG makes me fell like i an doing a consequenceless busywork.


-------------------------

In fact, survival games often comes with better and more immersive RPG elements than most of modern RPG's.

Everything you talked about comes from D&D and the Forgotten Realms....

What about everything else ?

New rules and new lore doens't mean It has nothing to do with it right ? PoE has nothing to do with BG ?

When I say simulation, I don't mean simulating-real-life, but systemic simulation vs. smaller, isolated systems, hand-crafted and scripted interaction.

But I think you touch on an interesting point in an RPG, and that's interaction between different planes of gameplay.

I think we can divide a traditional Baldur's Gate like (be it pathfinder, Dragon Age, PoEs or Divinity) into at least three planes - combat, exploration, conversation. I think what you hint at, is that many modern RPGs keep those seperate: you can't use exploration problems with a combat ability, you can perform combat ability, but not have it acknowledged by an NPC. That is something that makes POEs feel more artifical then IE games for example - mages spells could be used for both utility and combat making them a more consistent part of the world, while in PoE they are limited to combat (scripted interactions expanded that, especially in PoE2. Overall, PoE2 feels much better in that regard but seperation between combat/exploration/conversation is very preset throughout the design). And while BGs had moments systemic interactivity (I remember being able to see through a ruse when being a Paladin and using "Detect Evil") I don't think BGs had that much of systemic simulation. It relied mostly on hand crafted scenarios when compared for Fallouts which used systems when creating problems to solve, allowing for wider range of creative and unique-per-character solutions. While some systemic simulation exists (passing time, day&night cycle, stealing in BG1) I don't think they were a focus of BGs and some of them were dropped for BG2 and following Bioware games. That a distinction I wanted to make between BGs and Pathfinder, which I think has more of an ambition to create a more simulationist enviroment.

I do think that this kind of universal use of same tools across various gameplay planes is really important. And that something old Tim Cains RPGs did really well - with skill use, combat, conversation being tools for solving quests available based on player's build, rather then pre-determined scripted events (now dialogue, avoidable combat, now exploration, now mandatory bossfight). That's also something I liked about D:OSs system - how same abilities would be used for both combat and exploration - that way character we make has impact on various aspects of the game, rather then just one.

EDIT:

That's not the first time I see that argument, and BG3 is definitely NOT a reskin of D:OS2. However, I have my doubts about priorities of BG3 vs BG1&2. The simplest way I can explain it is, that IE consist of 3 distinct series BG, Icewind Dales and Planescape. While similar in some respect, those are three very different IPs, with different appeals and focuses. BG3 being based on DnD, doesn't make it automatically a spiritual successor to BG1&2. I think it is possible that Larian RPG is quite a unique thing, just as Bioware or Bethesda RPG is. And Larian RPG might not appeal to some people who liked original Bioware RPGs.

I am just happy that a modern DnD RPG is being made, the fact that it is Larian Studios and the Baldur's Gate series is just frosting on the cake.

Yep. But the ideal is to having everything(lore, artstyle, combat, exploration and dialogs in line), i hate for eg, when warlocks are teleporting, conjuring hordes from nine hells and doing all cool stuff on nwn2 OC during dialogs, dungeons and cutscenes only to when join in your party lose the ability to teleport(which is on P&P), to control multiple summons can't grapple enemies with chilling tentacles. Or when a cleric can revive the dead, but only the dead which died in combat. the dead who died on cutscenes can't be brought back to life. BG1/2 is not perfect, but is far better than other games. Eg : Slayer form on BG2 can impact your party relations and when you have to deal with mindflayers, the temptation to use the slayer form is huge trade off.

Other old school games did the ability to use supernatural stuff off combat better. You can use domination on dialogs on vtmb, can use disciplines to help you with hacking, or lockpicking, or even to help on stealth, your social skills are very important, even on combat since ammo is expensive as hell, and highly social skills makes purchasing expensive ammo cheaper. Mainly .50 AE for DE and flamethrower fuel. BG is not bad in that aspect. On Arcanum, if you are a necromancer, you can even talk to the dead to get information and solve the quests in a alternative route. On Gothic 2, people threat you differently if you are a Fire Magician of Innos or if you are a Mercenary for eg.

Pathfinder Kingmaker also did a amazing job. You can depending the quests decisions and kingdom management decisions, have even alterations on the final chapter, if you researched some stuff or not. Or even if your capital will have undead workers which construct things quicker than normal workers but a lot of people hate it or not. If you have golems protecting your capital. Depending on your alignment, your buildings are different. Lawful guys can't construct brothels. Evil guys can solve the quest involving lizardfolk in a different way. IF you play as a Wizard, the scrolls which merchants on your city can sell you are tied to your realm's arcane rank. so you invest a lot of arcane buildings and researches if you plan to play as a wizard. And so on. Hell, even a unique adviser exists depending on your alignment. Chapter 4 spoilers bellow.



And i can only judge BG3 by the gameplay videos. But seem amazing how dialog checks seems to be able to affect your relation to party members. I really wish that BG3 will be a amazing ROLE PLAYING game. And have impactful decisions.

I do not think PF wanted to be a spiritual sucessor of BG, I think they wanted to make a "Pathfinder TT" videogame. It is known that many of the Owlcat´s devs are Pathfinder "nerdys". When the time came to make another game they chose another Classic AP of PF1e: Wrath of the Righteous adding more mechanics of the PF ruleset: Mounted combat, Mythic paths, etc.

I mean, the game is the classic AP "Pathfinder: kingmaker" of Paizo, with all the rules of PF1e and the features and classes of the PNP campaign, like the kingdom management, NPCS, Story, even the difficulty spike in combats and skillchecks... with many improvements.

And if you played the original campaign you can see they made a very faithful depiction of the campaign and the feel of the experience of playing PF in a videogame. Kudos to them.

But one thing that Larian did greatly is to make turn based mainstream again. I mean, from 1998 to very recent, almost all TT adaptations was RtWP. The exception was ToEE and ToEE din't sold well like NWN1. With DOS1/DOS2, now people are making TB games again and even games which aren't turn based, like deadfire and kingmaker, are now receiving optional turn based modes.

cough XCOM 2012 cough

You are spot on there. Perhaps they are thinking turn-based fantasy rpg which has either been RTWP or arcade action-based.
Not to go off-topic but, speaking of XCOM, I really think that mechanic of strategy and tactical would be perfectly positioned well for a game similar to Pathfinder Kingmaker.
It has a strategy layer as you build your kingdom, and then tactical battles as you explore the map. But if they were to have done it more XCOM style I think the strategy layer could have been so much more while maintaining the existing tactical.

Yes TB never stopped being mainstream. What the D:OS games did was to push studios towards a mindset that TB is now the ONLY way an RPG should be made. So not mainstream but exclusiveness.

What universe do you live in, and can I get 2000-2012 games from that universe?

When publishers started to pursue consoles certain genres were abandoned. IPs that didn't fit in, like Syndicate or XCOM for that matter, they would be rebooted into shooters. Until XCOM-2012 turn-based games would be PC exclusive and mostly unexistent. What turn based games were there? Civ series, that's the one that survived. Heroes of Might and Magic died off releasing cheaply produced sequels. There are japanese games, but they comes from a bit different market.

Most strategy games were, and still remain, TB. And why should we separate out Japanese games? They have quite a bit of a following in the US.

I was talking about TT adaptations to Video Games. Yes, after DOS2 success, deadfire got turn based mode and even kingmaker will get a turn based mode. Before DOS 1/2, every game trying to bring back BG style of game, was RtWP. If not a completely bastardization of the ruleset. I don't consider DOS 1/2 old school like in any aspect. In fact, between dos2, pfkm and deadfire, dos2 is the more modern like and kingmaker the most old school like.

And XCOM was dumbed down to consoles ( https://steamcommunity.com/app/200510/discussions/0/864949483128719266/ )

Anyway, about kingmaker, Xamenos on RPG codex has a good explanation on the differences between TT and CRPG kingmaker. Obvious spoilers on this link https://rpgcodex.net/forums/threads...august-18th.125267/page-693#post-6796713

Maybe the term "dumbed down" could be read as rude, but I have to point out that when a game is made with a console in mind, it usually need a more simplified UI (fewer buttons in consoles), it´s not optimized for the use of the mouse, sometimes has some clunky inventory sorting and the icons tend to be bigger, more simplified and fewer if they ported the game directly to the PC.
IF someone played Dao, Command and conquer, Skyrim, etc in console they know what I´m talking about.


Just take a look at the SkyUI for TES: Skyrim. In this case, the PC allows more options and the original UI was a little clunky because it´s the same they use in consoles.

First I thought, that okay it is TB, it is not the end of the world, it looks great and at many places it looks way better than expected, but from what I have seen from first gameplay video, that they ignored the original BG1/2 games, when they made BG3.

It will be a great dnd game.

Not only simplified UI.

When a game is first made to PC then ported to consoles, it is not generally dumbed down. Even BG1/2 got a console port (
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79ZsntRx8GE ). However, when the game is designed with consoles in mind, not only controllers are a HUGE limitation but also the general console mindset who isn't used to complex old school games limits the depth of your game. Having over 300 spells on PC that can be easily putted in a shortcut is one thing. On consoles, the player is navigating from many menus and submenus to cast a single spell. BS like dialog wheels only exists thanks to consoles. Ultima VII had a SNES port and had to be streamlined and had a far worse story with far more censorship. And it is not restricted to RPG's. Look to shooters for eg. PCs has highly competitive shooters like CSGO, highly realistic shooters like ArmA 3, historical games like red orchestra 2 and consoles? Spray and pray with SMG in ultra close quarters maps where learning the respawns matters far more than aiming and tactics like CoD(Children's Online Daycare).



But they aren't the first ones to do that. Neverwinter Nights AOL - 1991 was turn based. Neverwinter Nights 1/2 are RtWP. Nobody criticiized...

I have been messing around with the Beamdog ports of BG, IWD etc on Xbox. A bit clunky at times but manageable. Looking forward to the Xbox version of BG3 as my PC is showing its age.

Yeah, when developing for console one has to adjust UI. Vice-versa if you go another way.

“Dumb-down” for consoles is a stupid argument. It doesn’t mean anything, and is used to dismiss any changes one doesn’t like no matter of game is indeed to be released in consoles or not. It stopped being relevant arguments years ago, as consoles started to get more compelled and demanding games and PC fell back in favour as a valid platform to release or even focus on.

Obviously, designing a game to be played with a pad does put limitations on developers. So does developing for keyboard only.

Streamlining a game doesn’t have to happen because of platform it is released on. Having 300 spells will rarely be considered a good idea. Depth vs complexity and such other silly design principles.

That depends on the game we are talking to. If we are talking about assassins creed, its ok if it´s simple.
If we are talking about Civilization, total war or a D&D or Pathfinder simulator, of course you need 100 spells and lots of features you cannot simplify.

You are assuming that changes are for good. And that HW was the unique limitation on consoles. Now they are more powerful, but the controllers and mindset of most console gamers are still the same. RPG, FPS and RTS games got dumbed down a lot when they started to focus on console market. PC market was always more mature and interesting game. Just look to most popular old school PC RPG's, like BG2/1, VtMB, Arcanum... And the most popular console old RPG's? Final Fantasy and cia, a game about androgynous teenagers with oversized swords saving the world. "But ultima 7 got a snes port", massively censored and dumbed down. BS like dialog wheels, press A for awesome gameplay, quick time event, etc; only exists thanks to consoles. Even lootboxes, only got that big thanks to consoles and mobile market. Console gamers purchase the same FIFA game every year and spend tons of money on P2W mechanics which PC players rarely accept even on F2P games.

And the best modern game developers are from eastern europe(CD projekt red, OwlCat games, 4A games), exactly because consoles barely exist there, so the general mindset is a PC mindset.



Why? It gives a amazing variety and depth to any game. Each level up as a mage on BG1/2 is extremely impactfull.

Games got dumbed down when started appealing to as wide of a demographic as possible aka. non-gamers. Focus of visual flare, rather then engaging imputs. Things looking badass, while giving players only minimal imput. And recently, using game mechanics for monatisation rather then gameplay. As it happens consoles are cheaper to buy and easier to manage, so this is where publishers focused their efforts on. RPG, RTS and such didn't get dumbed down because of consoles (though of course importing Mouse&keyboard design to pad would be a big hurdle, just as importing pad design to m&k is), but because they were molded to appeal to "casual" audience.

"Dumbed down" for consoles doesn't hold water, because there are great console games. Dark Souls are best RPGs made in years. Platinum games have more depth then most of your "mature PC games". If AAA wanted to release actual games they could do so, no matter if they make PC or console their target platform.

Perhaps I over-interpreted the console-jab, or maybe I am overly sensitive, after dealing with "dumbed for consoles!" backlash to every change Deadfire had, even though it wasn't developed for consoles in the first place. Perhaps, "dumbed down" for consoles is a shortcut of tailoring your game to appeal to people not really interested in games. If so, it's still a silly and uninformative label.


Actually, consoles in Poland seem to be getting more and more popular. But yeah, those devs (like myself) mostly grew up in console-less enviroment. Not as easy to pirate games on console, eh? (good, old times with little to no copyright laws).

This seems like a very personal, and unobjective, list. There are other great independent developers I would mention, though they tend to make smaller projects. I would question, whenever it is "PC mindset" that makes those companies great, or being located in a place where work force is cheaper. I mean, Witcher3 isn't far from your usual open-world action game depth wise - it's just CD project red actually created interesting content for it, rather then filling world with repetivitive activities only. Also, didn't Witchers get "dumbed down" for consoles anyway? Didn't quite get into Metro series though. Modern military shooter style was never my thing, even if Metros are more interesting then your usual MMS. Didn't play M3 yet.

Still, my original rebuke, I think, was to 2012-XCOM. Fun fact, XCOM2 was designed for PC. Another fun fact: design hasn't changed much. Because, the game was designed to appeal to people who weren't interested in Turn-based games in the first place, rather then just hardcore fans. Just, as if, making it multiplatform release was a side effect rather then a cause! If having oversized font were it's biggest sin, I would keep it installed to this day. If, patching new UI to a Bethesda game (which is a must) would make them good, I would play more then 10h of them. So let's talk about individual design decisions, and why they make game less interesting, rather then slapping labels like "dumbed down for consoles", which at best are meaningless, and at worst applicable.

Completely not truth. PC's are far less expensive, hence the domination of his use on "developing world", people who say that consoles are less expensive generally don't count the fee to play online, and expensive games. BTW, Steam has regional pricing. and for a guy in Ukraine or Argentina, purchasing paying in local currency is far less expensive than paying any console game.

Other detail about PC is that on PCs, i can run anything, from 80s games to games made this year. So i have the old school game to comparate with modern games far easier. I can play Divine divinity(best Larian game IMO) but a console player, can't.



Even Dark Souls would be better if was made with PC's in mind. Seriously. Imagine being able to put items and spells into hotkeys and have manual skill focused aiming for ranged weaponry. DS would probably be great like Gothic 1/2/3.



Deadfire changes over PoE1 was good. Over BG2, was bad. Simple.



Actually, TW3 sold far more on PC. The notion that piracy is rampant on PC holds no truth. In fact, piracy was extremely common during PS2 era...



You can say that TW3/2 is far more dumbed down than TW1 BUT there are a huge difference between TW becoming more action focused than games becoming more action focsued AND losing all spell and weapon variety. Look to BioWare games. BG2 with over 300 spells. DA:O with over 90 and inquisition with about 20. TW3 has a far more simplistic combat system, but still maintained the depth on dialogs, alchemy and etc.

But one thing is actually far worse than consoles, which is the excessive focus on balance and accessibility. When i mean accessibility, i don't mean allowing disabled people to play your game. I mean appealing to the lowest common denominator. And the excessive focus on balance kinda makes the RPG less about being immersed in a living breathing world and more about just a game. Balance is completely opposite to variety, depth and immersion in most cases.



Why? Having a lot of options to chose from is bad? If instead of choosing between Skull trap or fireball, you had only fireball, it would make BG2 better? How?

Completely truth. Most if not all gaming PC components are not produced locally in developing countries, and we have to pay in dollars for all of them. A good GTX video card can cost upwards of US$ 700, just imagine how much this is in Brazil. You can buy 2 PS4 for that component alone.
And granted that PC games are cheaper, but the cost difference is way smaller than the hardware's, and nowadays consoles have sales on a weekly basis. I rarely pay more than US$10~15 for a AAA game, even if I need to wait a few months for it to go on sale. Also, you have exclusives.
The cost difference only ends up dilluted if you buy tons of cheaper games on PC.

Brazil currency is suffering a lot of devaluation.And guess what, steam/GoG prices din't raised anything near the dollar rate. Also, you don't need a the best GPU to play games.

Here is Battlefield 1 on a GPU 450 which is far bellow the minimum requirement https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wj3Ov1FNEg


PS : PC has exclusives too. They are just not your third person action adventure with stealth elements Nº64685165651. can you play Icewind Dale 2 on a console? ArmA 3? Gothic 2 with returning mod? Baldur's Gate 3 is not confirmed on consoles.
And my guess is that it will come at least 2 years after PC. The best RPG games are on PC. Mainly because P$4 can't run P$3 games but i can run 90s games easily on PC.

And you don't need a gaming PC to play classic games or CRPGS, that's why my laptop which is mostly for work is more than enough to run those, and those are pretty much the only games I play on it.
Now, state of the art graphics heavy AAA games will always come out for consoles, and it is way cheaper this way. Just imagine the PC you'll need to play Cyberpunk 2077 on mid specs, probably costs more than US$ 1000.

You are 100% right. But if you have a desktop which can be used to work, how much cost to UPGRADE the PC not to run cyperpunk on medium, but to run on lowest settings? My PC is a mid range PC on everything except GPU and i plan to upgrade only for BG3 and Cyberpunk 2077.

As for the price of a GTX 1050( i believe that is the minimum requirement - not sure), is R$1.449 or US$272.68 with today currency( 6 - july - 2020). I an not sure if is used or not on the site that i saw but is not that expensive.

Believe or not, i have the same desktop since my childhood. I only an constant purchasing parts and upgrating. At moment, i can't run all new launches, but an happy with my PC. The best games are old games. Including Larian games. Divine Divinity is Diablo meets Ultima 7, DOS1/2 i din't liked much... On consoles, i just can't run those games.

Bah, you cought it before I erased that bit.

I mean it's not terribly exciting, is it? I can't tell you what the difference those had. Different type of damage, one scaled up with levels better I think? Overall, there isn't enough differenciation between two to really justify their existance I think. It doesn't help that the difference happens outside gamespace - it will happen in under-the-hood calculation which game does it's best to hide from you - never played table-top, maybe it's more engaging when you calculate stuff yourself.

I don't mind flavours, though I think it would be better or organize them better, then just throw all of them into one bin. One thing I really didn't like though were hard counters - like petrifying look of Basilisk or level draining of Vampires (oh god, or semi permanent damage to attributes in Pathfinder, or mindcontrol in PoE1). That's just annoying - it doesn't have an interesting impact on gameplay, you just need to google what you need out of heap of spells and potions available to you to get rid of it. If there is an ability that is so powerful, that you need another ability to counter it, in which case ability1 becomes irrelevant - you can just cut both of them out. No indepth interaction, just a lot of googling. Ah, pathfinder, spend 2 hours on the game and do nothing interesting, impactful or rewarding.

The differences are fast among the two main tier 3 offensive AoE spells.

• Damage type and is not a useless differentiation, fire resistance is far more common, so skulltrap will be more effective against more creatures BUT the same applies to party members, meaning that is easier to protect your party members from the fireball
• The skull trap can be used as a trap and placed before combat
• Fireball has a much wide area
• Different saves
• Necromancer specialized mages can memorize more of skull trap and enemies has a penalty on their saves
• They scale to different level caps
• (...)

You are completely wrong saying taht they are annoying and not impact on the gameplay.

A petrified enemy is a enemy removed from the encounter.

Level drain reduce a lot of variables and is expensive to heal.

And on kingmaker, cloudkill is one of the best mid tier spells exactly due the attribute damage. It can damage d4 / round CON on enemy. 4 points of CON damage(maximized) means that all spells which target FORTITUDE saves has +10% chance of success per round, and it also reduces 2 points of maximum HP per level of the target creature. How it not impact in the gameplay? Hell, animate dead + maximized cloudkill can end the life of a lot of really powerful creatures in few rounds.

Do you know a nasty enemy cleric? if summoned soul eater deals a lot of WIS damage on him, he no longer can cast higher level cleric spells and the lower level will have reduced DC.

A maximized/empowered cloudkill which is possible to cast on kingmaker with rods, can deal 6 pts of CON damage per round or 3 if he makes the save. A lot of troublesome foes like the Jabberwock only got destroyed on my hard run thanks to cloudkill comboed with other spells like sirroco.

And you don't need to "google the solution", on BG2, there are a story mode and on kingmaker, you can make this effects end with a rest.

And mindcontroling, did you played PoE1 which for you is better than old rpgs? Cipher is one of the best classes because be able to mind control a enemy can make a outnumbered/outgeared/outleveled battle become in favor of your party. Taking control over enemies is far more deadly than just killing then.

*shrug* If I don’t care playing the game, then I don’t play it. It’s not like Kingmaker has a story worth experiencing. I will eventually beat it, but I am just not nearly interested enough to stick with it for long periods of time. I actually didn’t have much trouble with it outside first spider cave so far, but successfully swinging through endless samey mobs isn’t terribly exciting when it is in your favour either. Wasn’t in BG1, wasn’t in PoE1 and it is not in Kingmaker.

I suppose my issues with direct PnP adaptations, is that they revolve around builds and calculations rather then player inputs. Spells and skills don’t become tools to use, just different ways for the little box to calculate damage for you :-( oh well, perhaps wanting a good tactics game and RPG in one package, is a bit too much to hope for. Though, Dark Souls did manage to be a satisfying action game and a solid RPG system. I want that, but with tactics.

I suppose it´s a matter of different tastes. I myself don´t care much about games where you have a hp bar, a stamina bar and a magic bar (In contraposition with having some stats that define your character), you don´t have different skills you can choose to explore and converse, an arrow is pointing you where to go at any time like in kindergarten ( Big arrow pointing the handle of the door and big letters saying "Open the door" Thanks devs, I could never have this figure out without those key context clues) and you can beat any encounter with any character at any level.

I prefer a more strategic approach, where you have to find the right tool for the job and some planning and selection of spells and skills are the keys to win difficult battles.


You sure we are talking about the same game? because I remember killing myriads of goblins and hobgoblins, the same 6 slavists over and over again in the Streets of Athkathla and the mythic 5 skeletons in the door of High Edge every time I go to buy or sell something.

I am confused... is that a jab at Dark Souls? I don’t think that that kind of game, you should try it


I criticised BG1 and PoE1 for repetitive mobs, didn’t I? As to BG2 - I cant say I experienced anything like it. There were some areas, but they were an exception rather then a rule. I think you are referencing random encounters. Maybe it got changed at some point, but I don’t recall having many of those. 3 or 4 encounters in 60h of play isn’t much. I didn’t backtrack much in BG2 though. I am an item-hoarder, I would rarely use potions and never scrolls.

Repetitive mobs I think are a result of first game biting more then they can chew with not enough time left for encounter design. Still, the Old Sycamore was a chore. It’s like a miniature Endless Path but no Adra Dragon at the end as the reward for slogging through.

It´s about what I like in a game, this is a forum where we share opinions and Dark souls is a great game. You do not really have to be on the defensive all the time, man...

Most of the things you dislike I love, most of the things you find "bad design" (aka I do not like it so it´s bad design) I find "at last a game that stands over other 100 titles that do the same". We seek very different things in a game so discussing with you about what I prefer and what you like would be pointless anyway.

;-) No worries. I just wasn't sure what you meant, as you described things I usually don't enjoy myself either.

Kingmaker doesn't have a good story? Are you joking? a story involving the Feyworld, something mostly neglected on CRPG's, involving ancient curses, Demigods like Lantern King, where each companion has a story arc, some got sold by his own family into slavery, other failed to become a paladin, other hate Trolls and wanna kill then all in revenge and so on.

And fighting the same mob? There are a lot of different mobs on kingmaker, and even when they repeat the same mob, they invent something new. Eg, the undead cyclops, fighting then on open field is completely different than fighting then in a dungeon with nasty traps that cast cloudkill which can damage the living but then are immune. On RPG codex, kingmaker is the 13th top rated rpg of all time ( https://rpgcodex.net/article.php?id=11193 )

Honestly, Baldur's Gate 1/2 had a better story IMO, but is not as if the games lacks story. And i don't even think that BG3 will have the same good story of the previous BG game. I really wanna know if for eg, Bhaalspawn descendants will play a big role.



Like any NON APRG?

DOS2 for eg, i din't played much. But i had a lot of troubles on a encounter. Just upgraded my gear and steamrolled the same encounter. And is not as if the player doesn't need to think on combat in this games.

I assume that's sarcasm.


It's a long game. It might be longer then they have actual content for. I gave en example: Old Sycamore which is multilevel dungeon filled with same enemy composition over and over again. So far, I haven't seen anything that level of bad but the Sycamore was Neverwinter Nights1 kind of bad. And from heard I didn't see the worse Kingmaker has to offer yet. Maybe the game just gets so much better (content and story wise) but after over 40h of gameplay I don't have high hopes.

As to the list - I am not sure what it's singificance is, even if RPG Codex had any weight with me (never visited it, so it doesn't) it doesn't change how poor experience Kingmaker was for me. I played most of cRPGs, and Pathfinder is easily one of the worse ones. It could be that it's just not my kind of "Dungeon Master".


I didn't enjoy DoS2 either, but I think that overall idea is sound to me - the bigger issue I had with systems rather then how those systems were expressed (meaning - through game space, rather then under-the-hood dice rolls).

Did you at least finished the chapter 2 before criticizing the game's lore/story?

Not liking the game is one thing, you don't like games with depth and old school design philosophy. Not liking a game and trashing a story that you don't know is not a fair criticism. You will not see me criticizing DOS2 story. Exactly because i din't played much DOS2. Other Larian games like DD, i can say that i liked the story but aren't perfect because i played then.

People write very long guides detailing how to reach any possible ending and discussing the events of the game on kingmaker. Only because it doesn't have cinematic CGI after every single combat, doesn't means that the game lacks story.



Old Sycamore has undeads, spiders, kobolds and other types of creatures not so frequent and guess what. Fighting a single spider, or fighting spiders on a different place with different "formation" changes things a little.



DICE rolls are what makes this games meaningful. Imagine if Finger of Death always OHKilled or never OHKilled. That would be bad. Having a chance to OHK(nwn1) or deal colossal damage(pfkm) and the enemy having chance to resist the spell is what makes the game interesting. So you can put the enemy in a cloudkill to lower his CON and fort save, pick spell focus necromancy and so on, not to OHK anyone, but to increase the difficulty of resisting the power to end someone's life. That is so cool and interesting.

Same for martial combat. You can increase the chance of being hit but NEVER be completely invulnerable.

There is nothing wrong with not liking dice rolls, but a game trying to adapt a TT RPG heavily based on dice rolls should maintain the dice rolls. Just like FIFA should be faithful to soccer rules.

Checked the walkthrough and no, I am somewhere halfway through 2nd chapter it seems. ok, I will take you for your word, though I have heard from other sources that it doesn't get better. But maybe overcompensating-midriff will have a compelling story arc afterall. Maybe they will turn those awkward dialogue trees and cringy writing into something entertaining. You didn't sell it well though.


I never said the game doesn't have story, nor do I recall asking for CGI. Nor did I even complain about Pathfinder's presentation, which I think is quite charming.