-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Pillars of Eternity II: Deadfire - Review Thread
- Thread starter Enduin
- Start date
Review in English by Ragequit.gr:
https://ragequit.gr/reviews/item/pillars-of-eternity-ii-deadfire-english-review/
https://ragequit.gr/reviews/item/pillars-of-eternity-ii-deadfire-english-review/
GameKult (French) gave it a 8/10 (which is rather generous, coming from that website).
Pros:
Pros:
- Great english voice acting
- More tangible characters (ie. Gods are less nebulous entities and are better integrated than in the first game)
- Excellent work on the different ethnic groups and the background
- Great themes and well-written quests for companions
- Some places are stunning (they really liked the new setting). They particularly liked Neketaka, that they compared to Athkatla (Baldur's Gate 2)
- They liked the free-roaming and the departure from the rather closed zones restricted to Acts from the first game
- Less annoying micro-management thanks to the gambit system, making the fights much more enjoyable
- A noticeable improvement regarding the french translation compared to the first game (personal note: well, that's a relief, as I found myself unable to play the french version of the game at release, which was plagued with quite a few issues, including untranslated texts or texts in another langage altogether, such as italian)
- Naval battles are, overall, a failure
- Fights are still messy. They noted the "historical" pathfinding issues that always plagued Obsidian
- Less innovative than it seems
- User interface issues
- Binary outcome, not always coherent, overall it falls short of what they expected from the studio and are quite disappointed as a result
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)
Daaamn,seems like I've got to try this one. I had some gripes about the previous one,the combat didn't click to me as I'd like,there were some inconveniences with the camera and the way you handled your party that made me drop it off. If the new one improves on almost every aspect,then I've got to give it a chance
Review from Waypoint that a lot of people (including myself) will disagree with, but I think offers a very valid take nonetheless:
https://waypoint.vice.com/en_us/art...ternity-ii-deadfire-has-too-many-debts-to-pay
On the con side:
What they liked:
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?
https://waypoint.vice.com/en_us/art...ternity-ii-deadfire-has-too-many-debts-to-pay
On the con side:
What they liked:
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?
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.
(Well, the "challenging tactical combat" part might need a difficulty rebalancing in some parts of the game)
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)
Eh. He's upfront about his preferences enough that I think it's fine.
I haven't played past the starting area as I'm waiting for things to stabilize. But my experience has been that the game feels overstuffed, in that it puts in front of you so many choices about so many variables across so many systems that their impacts are impossible to suss out, and in many cases it is hard to tell if the systems are even working or if they are bugged. 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.
Based on my first 20 hours, I very much agree.
except for the challenging tactical combat indeed, balance is a mess at the moment
I can understand people not liking RTwP combat but that's no reason imo to dismiss it as a legacy system whose existence is solely there to challenge the spirit of the older crpg's.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I think the the game has generally very few encounters and the dungeons are short. Which is one of the reasons why I love it. I don't like dungeon crawlers, I want exploration, towns, dialogues, choices, world design, factions and how you influence your position in them, and that is what this game focuses on, not dungeon crawling. So I don't even understand the review.
Both your perspective and the review are very similar my own.
I do not play rpgs for their combat. It might be my least favorite part of the genre. It's not bad or archaic like the reviewer is suggesting, I just dislike turned based combat and only tolerate rtwp since it's faster. I prefer fast paced real time combat, but these types of rpgs almost never have that. I endure the combat because no other genre offers the deep roleplaying opportunities that are found in rpgs. The closest are visual novels, but you rarely get to make your character, the dialogue options are limited, and there isn't any exploration or questing.
Yeah that's a truly pathetic review. There are legit complaints and issues to be had with the game, as in any game, but this reads like it's coming from someone who has no business reviewing this type of game, or any game really, as they seem predisposed and incapable of not conflating their personal preferences/dislikes for bad design. He states that deep lore and strong world building is a bad thing that hampers the game and is the result of an over reliance on emulating games of old. What the fuck? It's one thing to critique poor execution and delivery of lore, something that was a legitimate complaint in PoE at times with info dumps and overly verbose writing, but that's a totally separate issue from just having a rich, well thought out and developed setting. It's never a bad thing when a fictional setting is well defined and fleshed out. To argue otherwise is completely stupid.
Dungeon crawling and the time in between major encounters isn't just about combat either. It's just as much about soaking in the atmosphere and developing a sense of exploration and feel for the setting. Not to mention that exploration of environments can very often lead to different outcomes in the story. Opening up alternative solutions or resulting in the sequences of events to alter based on where you went first and what you did when. These games aren't meant to be sped through. You're supposed to take your time, soak in the setting, lore, characters and combat. Not everyone is going to be into that sure, some enjoy certain aspects more than others. Plenty of people are there for the combat more than anything, others just the story. And certainly some design and story choices may very well hamper or hurt that experience for some people. But man that is an overall embarrassing ass review. This is what happens when you take your personal dislike or disinterest for something and attempt to make it out as something far greater.
I do not like D:OS1/2's turn based combat at all. I actively hate it. It's slow, tedious and just an overall unpleasant experience for me despite how interactive/reactive it is. I also just don't like the overall visual style/presentation of the series, as well as the narrative/writing style. Very little of the lore interests me or help to get me invested in the characters or setting. Not a whole lot of about the series interests me quite frankly, which sucks as I backed both games. None of it fits my taste and that's about all there is to it. It's not bad or incompetent or antiquated or anything as a result. I can't and won't try to extrapolate my personal dislike for it into some greater issue with the series or genre beyond that fact that it just isn't for me.
Dungeon crawling and the time in between major encounters isn't just about combat either. It's just as much about soaking in the atmosphere and developing a sense of exploration and feel for the setting. Not to mention that exploration of environments can very often lead to different outcomes in the story. Opening up alternative solutions or resulting in the sequences of events to alter based on where you went first and what you did when. These games aren't meant to be sped through. You're supposed to take your time, soak in the setting, lore, characters and combat. Not everyone is going to be into that sure, some enjoy certain aspects more than others. Plenty of people are there for the combat more than anything, others just the story. And certainly some design and story choices may very well hamper or hurt that experience for some people. But man that is an overall embarrassing ass review. This is what happens when you take your personal dislike or disinterest for something and attempt to make it out as something far greater.
I do not like D:OS1/2's turn based combat at all. I actively hate it. It's slow, tedious and just an overall unpleasant experience for me despite how interactive/reactive it is. I also just don't like the overall visual style/presentation of the series, as well as the narrative/writing style. Very little of the lore interests me or help to get me invested in the characters or setting. Not a whole lot of about the series interests me quite frankly, which sucks as I backed both games. None of it fits my taste and that's about all there is to it. It's not bad or incompetent or antiquated or anything as a result. I can't and won't try to extrapolate my personal dislike for it into some greater issue with the series or genre beyond that fact that it just isn't for me.
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...)
"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...)
Sounds great. I'm interested in story changes related to critical path, which apparently was lacking. While I backed a game on Fig, I still didn't had time to play it.
Just for future reference, the one that was locked was the weird joke OT, the actual OT is still open here: https://www.resetera.com/threads/pillars-of-eternity-ii-deadfire-ot-josh-sawyers-pirates.40790/
That the locked OT comes up in the search bar before the current OT is pretty annoying.
LMAO, I saw May 8th and was like "That's today" totally ignored the year.
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.
Did they fix the fps drop? In Neketaka the framerate was really really bad (same as Defiance Bay in PoE)
I want to replay this at some point with all of the QoL and updates, just gotta find the time..
Thank you.
I would also like to know. Now that it has become a turn based RPG, akin to D:OS series, controls should be even more forgiving.
As far as I know, nothing has been stated on the console ports since this little line from when The Forgotten Sanctum (the last DLC) launched
Source: https://eternity.obsidian.net/news/...ire-update-59---the-forgotten-sanctum-release
Source: https://eternity.obsidian.net/news/...ire-update-59---the-forgotten-sanctum-release
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!
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.
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.
I was somewhat confused by the thread at first but then pleasantly surprised at the update! Good stuff about story additions. I'll continue my play through as I think was around the middle or so in the campaign. Will try the ultimate challenge but will most likely die on the first tutorial battle.
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.
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.
White March, not really. It's a great expansion that sort of leads into developments in the setting's history further elaborated in 2, but it isn't essential I feel, at least as far as I've gotten. Pillars 1's main story ends with a massively important relevation, though, so I'd recommend you play through it or at the very least read a summary before starting 2.
I've taken Barbarian with 2H on my PC and I'll bring a Fighter tank in my party. I like to tank properly and I love the Great sword aesthetic, it's probably not the best but I'm only playing on Veteran so it shouldn't matter.
Thanks for the nudge!
Beat this game twice, loved it, even better than the first Pillars.
Haven't played it in like 9 months though. I need to get back into it to play the DLC and the turn based mode.
Haven't played it in like 9 months though. I need to get back into it to play the DLC and the turn based mode.
Better performance? In that they actually run well at all?
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.
I have PoE, Divinity 1, and Divinity 2, would like to know about this so I can complete the collection, so to speak.