>The first game was simply excellent and right on par with BG2.
That's wrong though. Also it wasn't really successful, despite riding on bg's coat tails and being release in the era of internet gaming. It was ok, nothing more.
No it isn't. This part is my opinion. But is also based on reference. BG1 has a metacritic of 91% BG2 of 95%. That is exceptional, but considering that metacritic is a rather new thing and that we tend to view things more positively in hindsight, I daresay a few points too high. But anyway, PoEs metacritic score is 89%. So I daresay we are operating on a rather low variance here.
If we delve deeper into contemporary critics, from the biggest German outlets we see: BG1: 87% (PC Games) BG2: 88% (Gamestar) 92% (4-players) 10/10 (PC Games, they switched systems, so likely 95+). Pillars of Eternity: 92% (Gamestar) 90% (4 players) 9/10 (PC Games -95). PoE2: 92% (Gamestar) 9/10 (PC Games) 90% (4 Players) So again, we are in the same realm here the differences in tests are nuances.
I acknowledged sales already. PoE sold 700k copies in the first year. Sure it were other times, and BG sold the same amount in that year, while BG surpassed that (the whole franchise sold 3.5 million until 2003, although that includes the DLCs and the two action RPGs). They were huge successes.
However the market since then naturally dwindled. PoE aimed for a certain audience and caught it. I do not see how that is in any form riding the coat tail of a 15 year old game.
