this post was submitted on 24 Feb 2025
72 points (100.0% liked)

Games

17625 readers
564 users here now

Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)

Posts.

  1. News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
  2. Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
  3. No humor/memes etc..
  4. No affiliate links
  5. No advertising.
  6. No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
  7. No self promotion.
  8. No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
  9. No politics.

Comments.

  1. No personal attacks.
  2. Obey instance rules.
  3. No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
  4. Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.

My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.

Other communities:

Beehaw.org gaming

Lemmy.ml gaming

lemmy.ca pcgaming

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
nanoUFO@sh.itjust.works
72
Josh Sawyer says there's "a lot of people" at Obsidian who want to make a Pillars of Eternity Tactics game after Avowed, but the "fanbase is not humungous" (www.gamesradar.com)
submitted 14 hours ago by nanoUFO@sh.itjust.works to c/games@sh.itjust.works
30 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 30 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 4 points 4 hours ago (2 children)

I really liked poe2 and would play a third one.

I really liked that they made powers per-encounter instead of per-rest. Per-rest really doesn't work well despite DND trying really hard. It especially doesn't work well without a human steering to prevent things like "you killed everyone in the castle, now go rest for 8 hours before opening the final door to the boss". Or you can programmatically enforce that, but players don't like that. Mostly because it sucks to do like an hour of stuff and realize you're too low on resources to win, and have to reload.

I'd probably prefer the stats to be coarser or more meaningful. It's hard to get a feel for "3% more damage". Especially when the base damage is like 5-15.

[–] shani66@ani.social 3 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Eh, I'd much prefer a system of mana. Resource management should be more than a single fight, but vancian casting was always a stupid idea.

[–] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 2 points 3 hours ago

How I feel about mana depends largely on how quickly it regenerates. It can be just a reskin of spells-per-day or spells-per-encounter, or it could be something more interesting.

DA:O had unlimited mana potions, which meant essentially you spend a small amount of time to refresh mid fight. Not very deep tactically, but more or less fine.

I don't think resource management is really a thing most people actually enjoy. Most people don't like timed missions, so you probably don't want to use that to prevent people from resting a lot. You don't want to soft-lock players by letting them blow their resources too soon, so they can't win the fight but don't have a way to restore. The dark souls style "you reset at the checkpoint but so do the monsters. Keep trying until you get it right" works for me, but a lot of people hate that.

There are so many ways you could do magic, and it's a bummer that vancian magic takes up so much space.

DND just isn't as good and universal as people think it is, but it's hugely influential anyway.

Side note: DND is balanced around like 6 "medium" encounters per day. You're supposed to slowly trickle down your resources. Turns out most groups do one encounter per day on average, and then the system doesn't work very well at all. There's lot of patches (eg: gritty realism) but the problem remains people don't seem to want to do that kind of cadence.

[–] ampersandrew@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

The 3% more damage and 3% better defense happens every level, and even though that was toned down from PoE1, it still means that each level scales way harder than 5e, like proficiency bonuses on crack. Per-encounter design is good on paper, but then you can end up weirdly splitting some fights into multiple encounters so you have all of your spells refreshed for a couple of enemies, which is odd in its own way. From the first 5 hours with Avowed so far, I think they found an interesting balance on resting and consumables, which could still stand to be tweaked further but solves some of those per-encounter problems.

[–] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

I meant how in poe1 and 2 might (the stat) is 3% more damage per point, so it's hard to feel the difference between might 10 and might 15. Does +15% of 10 damage make a meaningful difference? It's probably the same as +12%, right, or is there decimal damage too? I guess when multiplied by power levels it's a bigger deal, but that's kind of opaque.

Also "like proficiency bonuses on crack" is deeply funny to me as someone who played DND 3e. Base attack bonus every level, skill ranks up every level, oh so many memories and not all of them good.

[–] ampersandrew@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago

I still have yet to play a 3e game in video game or tabletop, but yes, I figured PoE got most of its ideas from 3e. Here's where we get down more to personal preferences, but I really prefer a flatter leveling structure for all sorts of reasons, and even though 3-5% per level doesn't sound like much, it super is, lol. Like, it makes you get hit significantly less and land hits significantly more, and you get that every level. 5e speaks more to my preferences in that way, though it too isn't perfect, of course.

PoE2 definitely learned to steer away from those minor bonuses as level up rewards, because it had since been heavily studied what people like and do not like in certain leveling systems and why, and those minor damage upgrades were at the top of the list. Anything combat related during level ups were changed to skills, and I thought the passive bonus selections felt meaningful.

[–] SplashJackson@lemmy.ca 10 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

"We got into game making to make games we want, but now we can't make games we want because of other people"

[–] ampersandrew@lemmy.world 7 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

That's a weird read on it. It's more like, "how big could we feasibly make that game when it needs to sell enough copies to keep our people employed?"

[–] SplashJackson@lemmy.ca -4 points 5 hours ago

If passion is weird, I don't wanna be normal.

Keep it weird!

[–] Cypher@lemmy.world 8 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

He’s not wrong, I wouldn’t be particularly interested in any further Pillars of Eternity games or spinoffs with the direction that PoE2 took.

It seems they still don’t really understand what their audience wants.

[–] thelsim@sh.itjust.works 5 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

What was so bad about PoE2?
I really enjoyed it myself, especially with the turn-based addition. It felt like I could really use all those area spells and abilities the way they were intended.

[–] Cypher@lemmy.world 3 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

I didn’t like the gunpowder in PoE1 but could overlook it.

I absolutely hated the initial impression I got that PoE2 was an Age of Sail sort of setting. I wanted more in depth Castle and town building with story not to trade it in for a leaky ship.

It was never a mechanics or art or story thing for me… because I have never bought it and I’m hardly alone there.

I’m simply not interested in ships, guns and naval settings in RPGs.

[–] ampersandrew@lemmy.world 4 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

But that's not really "their audience"; that's you. PoE2 actively addressed every criticism I had from the first game, and it's one of the best RPGs I've played. They even added a turn based mode that you would think would be phoned in because the game wasn't initially designed for it, but they knocked that out of the park too.

[–] Cypher@lemmy.world 0 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

PoE2 actively addressed every criticism I had from the first game

Which of those issues you criticised are highlighted in the game trailers and ads that were run?

People buy games based on impressions, some people do research and watch streams but most CRPG buyers are going to avoid spoilers.

Half of the game trailer on Steam is ship, ship combat, upgrade your ship.

The sales numbers really say the rest. PoE as a setting died and there won't be a third entry.

There's a decent Post Mortem by Josh Sawyer but he still just doesn't hit on the Age of Sail being an unpopular setting for this kind of game.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xChOXFJ83

[–] ampersandrew@lemmy.world 2 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Which of those issues you criticised are highlighted in the game trailers and ads that were run?

The stronghold, at the very least. It was a major problem in the first game to have your base of operations be a thing that you had to return to with travel time, so it's a significant course correction to have it come with you.

It's way too reductive to say that people bought this one or not based on trailers and impressions. That's absolutely a part of it, but everyone I spoke to, admittedly a small sample size, who played the first game and not the second, even people who really liked that first game, was because that first game is such an endurance test. There's little else besides combat, and there's so much of it. Eventually it leads to decision fatigue. Even the people who really wanted to play the second game were daunted by having to start it, and they felt that they needed a breather before starting it, which in most cases led to them not getting around to it.

It's also quite likely that people just don't want more RtwP. I don't think it's a coincidence that PoE2 got that turn-based mode post-release, or that the Torment follow-up went turn-based, or that Larian ultimately stuck to turn-based for BG3 after their previous two games were turn-based. RtwP is why it took me so long to get around to playing either PoE game.

Speaking of BG3, and unintentionally sticking with the Deadfire theme, a rising tide lifts all boats, and that game made people hungry for more. I disagree with Sawyer that the difference between PoE and BG3 is simply "budget", but I do think there's reason for Microsoft to want "one of those", if they're so inclined, and it's now been made cheaper to produce since Avowed exists and can be iterated upon.

[–] Cypher@lemmy.world 1 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

The stronghold, at the very least. It was a major problem in the first game to have your base of operations be a thing that you had to return to with travel time, so it’s a significant course correction to have it come with you.

Sure but that's a mechanics improvement that people aren't going to realise because they never bought the game.... because an Age of Sail / Pirates setting has never been popular in CRPGs. They should have stuck with high fantasy.

Having a turn-based mode as an option is always welcome especially with large parties but again... people need to play the game to get a feel for any potential improvements there. They didn't buy it, didn't play it, and still didn't do either when turn-based was added.

Larian had zero reason to change a winning formula so I'm not sure why that factors in your mind? Literally a "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

I agree that budget isn't the defining difference, the setting is. DOS2 starts you off on a ship then dumps you on a tropical island. Did it suffer? No... because their game is clearly not a Pirates (Age of Sail) game. You even see a shot of the characters on a big ship during the trailer but then go straight back to combat on land.

There are many discussions on this particular issue and John absolutely refuses to acknowledge it because he likes the setting.

[–] ampersandrew@lemmy.world 3 points 5 hours ago

Or maybe he (you said John, but did you mean Josh?) doesn't acknowledge it because, like me and those I've talked to, he considers it to be a non-factor; and there's a very good reason to change your setting up for the sequel so that it doesn't feel like you've already played that game. The lore already had these regions baked into them, and it still fits the definition of high fantasy even if it's also in a pirate setting.

Larian had zero reason to change a winning formula so I’m not sure why that factors in your mind?

Because Baldur's Gate has historically been RtwP, so deciding that the third one didn't need to be is a good indication of which way the wind is blowing with regards to those designs. Pillars of Eternity was, of course, pitched as an unofficial continuation of Baldur's Gate's legacy before BG3 happened, which is why the marketing copy for it says things like "gather your party" and "venture forth". I haven't played the recent Pathfinder games, but I understand they came to the same conclusion that Obsidian did by adding turn-based after the fact.

I'm not doubting that the setting affected your choice, but at large, I'm not convinced it was a significant factor in the game's success.

[–] steeznson@lemmy.world 4 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

I really don't like tactics style gameplay which only a couple of exceptions. Traditional RealTime with Pause is much more appealing to me after playing so much of the old Baldurs Gate games. This is partially why I could never get into the Divinity: OS games and why I've been avoiding BG3. I usually just want to instagib scrubs instead of entering a series of elaborate menus.

[–] dreadbeef@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Some games are not meant to be power fantasies tho, and that is absolutely okay

[–] steeznson@lemmy.world 2 points 7 hours ago

Yeah it's a matter of personal taste

[–] JoMiran@lemmy.ml 7 points 14 hours ago

I'd buy a copy.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 4 points 13 hours ago

Kickstart it again bitches

(I don't join Kickstarters)