What is the specific source of the "32 hours" that 's being quoted, and what was the context? Just curious
This post.
What is the specific source of the "32 hours" that 's being quoted, and what was the context? Just curious
Coming back to the start with regards to the "trouble" of being the reviewer of Deadfire, another aspect of my "woe" is that of the necessary evil: the grade. My general conclusion explicitly states that Deadfire is a "wholly improved sequel in every aspect". However, back in the day I graded POE1 with 99% for many and different reasons, which may have had merit during the time of the review but not necessarily so after 3 years. In hindsight, a score of 87-88% may have been more just, but alas, scripta manent and grades should not be changed (if only to keep reliable consistency with Metacritic).
It's an improvement in almost every single aspect, at least in those I can judge by now (only having played PoE2 for ~8 hours).
It's an improvement in almost every single aspect, at least in those I can judge by now (only having played PoE2 for ~8 hours).
Graphics are much better, UI is much better, most of the VA is actually really good and there's a lot more of it, exploration is better and the locations are more interesting so far, sidequests are at least as good as the in the first (which I really liked on the whole), the combat system is improved (even though I was skeptical of some of the changes, I have to admit that they work), itemization and enchantment is improved (particularly compared to the release version of PoE1). Writing seems on par, and I can't judge the overall story yet.
(Note that PoE1 was already one of my favourite games in its release year)
Pillars of Eternity II: Deadfire is a specialty product. After all, it's a sequel to Pillars of Eternity, the crowdfunded throwback isometric role-playing game hearkening back to the heyday in the genre in the early 2000s. If you love those games and yearn for more of them, then you are the intended audience for this game. This might be its biggest problem. Because while I love those original Fallouts and the Baldur's Gate games, I can't help but feel that Deadfire is hampered because it has to bear a family resemblance to those long-ago predecessors. It is worse for it. It is a game whose many excellent high points are dragged down by slow, plodding ones, and almost all of the latter are due to what it is obligated to be.
The time between these interesting quests, though, is filled with things I have grown tired of as someone who has been playing games like this for nearly 20 years. I don't need to walk through dungeons anymore. I don't need to fight trash mobs that stand between me and the big fight at the end of the dungeon (or, in the case of Deadfire, often the big talk at the end of the dungeon). While I know that there are lots of people who play these games for the tactical combat, and that they enjoy these games a lot because of it, I have a hard time getting truly engaged by the fights of Deadfire when I know that I could just be playing XCOM 2. Pausing, assigning optimal actions, and watching it play out feels like a legacy system and a bid for nostalgia and not something that is inherently worthwhile. And while a "Story" mode exists to facilitate this, it does not remove all of the time you spend wandering through dungeons waiting for enemies to die so you can actually get that next bit of story.
This reliance on legacy systems sticks out to me so much because of how much I enjoy the new parts of Deadfire. I'll go out on a limb here and say that the most compelling, gameplay-and-narrative sections of the game are almost a visual novel, and I deeply want to play that version of this experience. As I said before, it's a game with a huge amount of lore, and figuring out how all of it fits together is part of the fun of settling yourself into the game. There are long conversations with the pantheon of gods where you can pit them against each other, endear yourself to some of them, and question the very assumptions that make up Deadfire's world. They're long, they're interesting, and it's a very small part of the game compared to how much walking through dungeons you have to do.
There's also quite a lot of playing factions off of one another. Manipulating trade companies, doing bounties for them, and trying to weasel your way into everyone's good graces so they won't see you betray them is cool. The rival factions of The Royal Deadfire Company and The Vailian Trading Company are pitted against each other by the player through dialogue options with several characters across many different islands (as well as a couple of the more exciting missions), but it always felt to me like the early 2000s were always intruding on these intricate politics with clunky combat and time-wasting walks across beautiful maps. When the game is all about skill checks in a big roster of skills and dialogue options, it is running on all cylinders and feels like one of the best narrative games I've played in the past couple years. When it's leaning into what it has to be, it starts feeling like I've been here before.
And the wild thing is that it succeeds at all of that!Most of us will strongly disagree about combat and dungeon-crawling, but I think it does get at what I think is a real problem with the series, which is that it is trying to be too many things to too many people. It wants to be a nostalgic AD&D throwback while being accessible and modern and, frankly, well-designed. It wants to enable open-ended character concepts while also having challenging tactical combat while also being a Fallout-style sandbox game with lots of freedom and many approaches to quests while also being a deep and reactive narrative game with Hard Choices about Serious Topics while also being a swashbuckling romp . Oh and also it's a pirate simulator. Is there a single classic CRPG that actually does all these things?
If you "don't need to walk through dungeons anymore" that means you don't want to play this type of game any more - and have no business reviewing it.
And the wild thing is that it succeeds at all of that!
(Well, the "challenging tactical combat" part might need a difficulty rebalancing in some parts of the game)
Based on my first 20 hours, I very much agree.Well, I think that review is bullshit, frankly.
If you "don't need to walk through dungeons anymore" that means you don't want to play this type of game any more - and have no business reviewing it.
And the wild thing is that it succeeds at all of that!
(Well, the "challenging tactical combat" part might need a difficulty rebalancing in some parts of the game)
Accurate. That entire paragraph is something that shouldn't have made it to print.Well, I think that review is bullshit, frankly.
If you "don't need to walk through dungeons anymore" that means you don't want to play this type of game any more - and have no business reviewing it.
Yeah, it does. Or at least, it doesn't not. And beyond the modals, there are a bunch of class and spec-related options to flesh out your character relative to their weapon proficiencies. But at the other end of things, they've also gone so far as to remove any sort detriment to using a weapon you aren't proficient in. It's an engaging, rewarding mechanic if you choose to engage, and something that isn't a huge deal if you don't.Weapon proficiency is an example that leapt out at me -- does the game really need two dozen or whatever weapon types each with their own special modal action? Does that level of granularity really add depth to combat? Role-playing? AFAIK it's there because weapon proficiency is a traditional AD&D thing and some subset of people feel strongly about it and incorporate it into their character concepts, but in practice it seems to just add another choice of ambiguous significance on top of a combat system already full of such choices, and the game already gives players so many ways to define unique character concepts. I think this deluge of ambiguous choices gives the whole thing a messy, untidy sort of feeling and contributes to a decision fatigue you see reflected in some of the reviews.
https://twitter.com/ckunzelman/status/996575109765836801
From the guy's twitter. DOS1 combat was like the best things about it, and pretty straightforward. Sounds like he just doesn't want to be bothered learning new mechanics.
Accurate. That entire paragraph is something that shouldn't have made it to print.
"I could just be playing X-COM 2."
...what?
Yeah, it does. Or at least, it doesn't not. And beyond the modals, there are a bunch of class and spec-related options to flesh out your character relative to their weapon proficiencies. But at the other end of things, they've also gone so far as to remove any sort detriment to using a weapon you aren't proficient in. It's an engaging, rewarding mechanic if you choose to engage, and something that isn't a huge deal if you don't.
Durante's right when he says that challenging tactical combat is the only thing on that list that the game is lacking (and the 'good naval combat' aspect of being a pirate), but even that's there, the XP curve is just a little wonky at this point and leads to you leveling out of it too soon.
I think the intended meaning here is simply that he really enjoys the game's narrative elements, and character building as it pertains to those narrative elements - so, being able to select certain specific dialogue options, take certain actions, and so on - but doesn't particularly enjoy the moment-to-moment combat and dungeon crawling. That's where the XCOM comparison comes in--he's suggesting that he'd like to play a game that marries Pillars' narrative/dialogue with XCOM-esque combat. (Which... Sounds really fantastic actually, holy shit.)
Honestly, while I'm not nearly as fatigued on 'traditional' RTWP combat as he is, I actually identify quite strongly with his perspective. I've been playing RPGs of various stripes for basically as long as I've been playing games, but the thing that's always drawn me to this genre above all others is the dialogue systems, the main quest/side quest structure, the character building - as it pertains to narrative - and the roleplaying.
That's why I've been able to go from KotOR I/II - first RPGs I ever played, back when I was eight or nine - all the way to Mass Effect, Alpha Protocol and Fallout: New Vegas, and then back again to Fallout 1/2, Torment, and throwbacks like Pillars. The unifying element of my interest is nothing to do with the basic combat systems--I enjoy KotOR II, Fallout: New Vegas and Pillars of Eternity for basically the same reasons, in spite of the fact that - outside of the dialogue systems, character building, and basic side-quest/main quest structure - they're almost nothing like each other.
Suffice to say, I very firmly disagree with the idea that this kind of perspective on RPGs is 'bullshit', with how closely it mirrors my own, speaking as someone who's held RPGs up as their favourite genre for as long as they've been playing games.
The last (as in final) patch is coming, so soon the game will be in a 'final state'. Note that the game got a turn-based mode after most of the initial reviews were written.
"Josh Sawyer would like to cordially invite you to Patch 5.0, which brings turn-based mode out of beta, several bug fixes, some new features, and the glorious return of the Ultimate Challenge! "
(I'd post in the OT but it was locked so...)
The last (as in final) patch is coming, so soon the game will be in a 'final state'. Note that the game got a turn-based mode after most of the initial reviews were written.
"Josh Sawyer would like to cordially invite you to Patch 5.0, which brings turn-based mode out of beta, several bug fixes, some new features, and the glorious return of the Ultimate Challenge! "
(I'd post in the OT but it was locked so...)
LMAO, I saw May 8th and was like "That's today" totally ignored the year.
How did the turn-based combat integration and function work out?
Mechanically it was very fun but it was a bit all over the place numbers wise and had some weird bugs. Today's patch presumably addressed that in a big way, though.
If you read our last update, we promised to have more information regarding Deadfire's console release. As we stated, our partners at Grip Digital have been hard at work, and Deadfire will be releasing on the Xbox One, PlayStation 4, and Nintendo Switch in 2019! We are pleased to also announce that the console edition will ship with all expansions, updates, and free DLCs included at launch! We don't have an exact date for you yet, but as soon as we have one, we will let you know!
All the usual sites have it, I got mine from G2Play.
Will I be able to tank at all with 2H swords, or will I need a dedicated Fighter with a shield or something?
I'd really like to take a 2H sword on my PC and still be able to tank a bit... I'm going into these games completely blind, any advice here?
Cheers!
All the usual sites have it, I got mine from G2Play.
There's a big patch out? Damn, I really need to fire the game up. I've had it installed for a few months after it was on sale, but I wanted to finish the first game before I moved on. Keep putting that off.
Would I lose out on a ton of story if I skipped the end of the first Pillars (and White March)? I think I hit the elf city.
I've only started playing a week ago, but 2H doesn't seem strictly optimal for tanking due to not having access to shield properties (and probably more importantly, unique shield enchantments) but works generally OK if you maximize resolve and constitution and throw on as much DR as possible.
Better performance? In that they actually run well at all?
Don't think they've said anything about it in months.Uhhh so how about that console release? Any news?
I have PoE, Divinity 1, and Divinity 2, would like to know about this so I can complete the collection, so to speak.