That is not something that I get to decide, but I do think that the relatively low sales of Deadfire mean that if we consider making another Pillars game in this style, we’re going to have to re-examine the entire format of the game.
It is difficult to know exactly why a sequel sells worse than its predecessor if both games review relatively well. Is it because the first game satisfied the existing need and the audience just wasn’t interested in the second? Is it because awareness was lower for the sequel? Is it because despite the strong reviews and the strong sales for the first game, people didn’t “really” like it? Maybe it’s a combination of all of these things.
The problem is that without really understanding the reason(s), it’s hard to know how to move forward. It would be easier in some ways if Deadfire were also a colossal critical failure and we could point to the massive screw-ups that we needed to address. Players did criticize the low difficulty at launch and the main plot, which I think are fair and reasonable, but those problems alone don’t really explain the difference in sales. And while player reviews were weaker for Deadfire than for Pillars 1, professional criticism tended to say that Deadfire was an improvement over the first game in most areas.
(Yes, Deadfire has an 88 Metacritic and Pillars 1 has an 89 Metacritic, but IMO Pillars 1′s review scores benefited from a nostalgia bump.)
Players who hate RTwP combat will say that it’s because Deadfire continued using RTwP combat, in contrast to the phenomenally better-selling (and better-reviewed) turn-based Divinity: OS2. Even if that’s true, Pathfinder: Kingmaker, which generally had lower review scores than Deadfire, sold better than Deadfire and had RTwP combat.
I’m sure some of the people reading this think they know precisely why Deadfire sold worse than Pillars 1. I don’t have that confidence, which is one of several reasons why I am leery about trying to direct a sequel. I couldn’t give our (Obsidian’s) audience the game that they wanted and without understanding where I went wrong, I would be guessing at what the problems are and how to remedy them.
"POE 1 massively overperformed from a marketing perspective. It really came at the perfect time - Dragon Age 2 had bombed and AAA studios didn't really seem interested in making single player story-driven CRPGs anymore. Then in came Obsidian, this (not-so) small independent studios with some of the best credentials in the business, doing a Kickstarter campaign to bring about the second coming of Baldur's Gate 2.
It was the perfect PR story. You weren't just buying a game, you were saving a studio and contributing to a CPRG renaissance. It generated a lot of attention and goodwill for the game.
But here's the problem: nostalgia really only works the first time.
It doesn't work the second time, especially when you have games like Divinity: Original Sin coming out in between changing the landscape.
D:OS 1 and 2 proved that CRPGs can be old school while still having new and creative features too, with their innovative combat system and multiplayer. It was a game you bought, you told your friends about, and made them buy so you could all play together.
So POE 1 had a hook of "bring back old school CRPGs and save a studio". In comparison, what did POE 2 have as a marketing hook?
Boats.
It was Pillars of Eternity, except you're on a boat. And I think now the general consensus on POE was that it was a good game, but not a great one. It didn't carry its hype over to its sequel.
So yeah, being the sequel to POE was not a strong marketing hook. Especially not in a market with more competition where tastes had evolved. Don't forget on the other side you have games like Witcher 3 and to a lesser extent, Fallout 4, coming out in between. Not exactly the same genre, but they scratch the itch for single-player story driven RPGs too."
Personally, I can add to that at the time of PoE 2 release, the community already was "spoiled" by D:OS 2.
2. Hard to understand mechanics.
"I played both pillars games and divinity games, and while i found all of them to be great, i can see why the interest for deadfire was low.
I finished the game but i never really understood how the combat defensive mechanics worked, i found it to be too complicated(there were 4 defense types but i wasn't sure how the damage mitigation/dodge calculations worked).
Divinity on the other hand was super easy to understand but at the same time offered a lot of freedom for the player to work with."
3. People thought they needed to finish PoE 1 first. The game was interesting, in general, only to those who finished PoE 1 and liked it.
"Pillars 1 was the first Infinity-engine style revival, so it managed to reach a casual, or lapsed audience. Once released, that desire was sated. Tyranny and Torment also undersold expectations, the only audience left are the hardcore, the problem is the product."
"Making it a direct sequel to the first game was a mistake, IMO. I'm sure plenty of people felt like they had to finish 1 in order to enjoy 2. "
"Ya, I never bought POE 2 because I still haven't finished POE 1.
I only have time in my life for maybe 1 30-40 hour RPG a year. So if I'm going to play one, it better be good and a new experience. In that regard, I'd rather buy Tyranny, Disco Elysium, or Divinity 2 than another POE."
Personally, I can add to that I still haven't finished PoE. And this is why I haven't even tried PoE 2.
4. The lack of MP and the fact it's impossible to play PoE with your significant other/friend.
"Maybe because Divinity OS1 and 2 had in-depth co-op from the get go?
It still boggles my mind that games that had co-op in the 90s don't today, even when they're made by the same studios or when they have a damn multiplayer mode but no co-op. PoE and DOOM are the two I can think of off the top of my head."
"Still really surprised to see so few people mention multiplayer when they compare the Pillars series to the Divinity Original Sin series.
I realize most people think that very few people play these kinds of games multiplayer and they may be mostly right, but people underestimate the impact that playing multiplayer has on the word of mouth of the game.
I saw a zillion streamers playing with their friends when DOS2 launched.
Another point, although this is more anecdotal, but I feel the target audience for this kind of game is a bit older and likely to have a significant other. Committing to playing through PoE is committing to ignoring your significant other for a considerable number of hours. It's not even a very "watchable" game (particularly without 100% go). Conversely, my significant other and I played through DOS2 and its probably the best coop experience we've had over the last few years."
5. The setting.
"It certainly is better than the first one, but then it is about pirates ... which is also not exactly my favourite setting ever.
I think I also have an issue with the entire setting feeling too much like they tried to do a D&D setting without the license."
"This was the reason why I didn’t like it nor enjoyed it as much. The pirate theme just didn’t do it for me and I much prefer a fantasy setting."
6. RTwP vs TB combat - not that any of these is bad. It's that PoE implemented RTwP in not the best way.
" I couldn't enjoy RTWP because it felt like I had to constantly pause, micromanage, pause, micromanage, etc to the point where I couldn't even enjoy the cool attack animations because I was so busy keeping track of multiple healthbars, resources, abilities, status effects, and more. I couldn't even enjoy seeing a freaking fireball go off because I had to keep pausing in between the spell going off. It's either super easy or tedious imo. But that's just my perspective as to your question."
"I stopped playing PoE 1 because of the combat and only picked up PoE 2 after they introduced the turn-based mode. However, I liked the Baldur's Gate games, and I love Dragon Age: Origins.
It's not the concept RTwP that's the problem, it's that Pillars of Eternity's combat is just kinda bad. And it annoys me that this debate is always framed with so little nuance, as if one type of gameplay is inherently better or worse and implementation doesn't enter into it.
PoE has way too much to micromanage. Each class has several active abilities that should be used in every combat, with different cast times and different cooldown timers. Movement speed is pretty fast and positioning is important, both for flanking and AoE spells, so there is a lot to keep track off. If you have to pause the game 3 times a second (without exaggeration) to manage all your companions and their abilities, what is even the point of it being real-time? Not to mention how visually busy PoE was, with all those spell effects going off to distract you. I frequently had to pause the game just to locate where all my characters were.
All these things adds up to PoE just working better as a turn-based game. Yes, it's slower, but atleast I can actually follow what's going on!"
I can agree. Also, you again have to take into account many cRPG games played D:OS and enjoyed the combat there.
7. The faults of the first game.
Take point 3 from this list, and consider all those who didn't like PoE or aspects of it, be it the overwhelming amount of information, hard micromanagement, confusion around combat, "bland" companions if compared to BG/DA, the main plot not "hooking", ets.
8. Not everyone was aware of the PoE 2 release.
At that time, Obsidian didn't have a publisher like Paizo Publishing for P:K. PoE 2 didn't have too much coverage in the media.
9. Everything is too much serious around PoE.
"The Divinity games understand that the fun aspect is the most important thing in game. Pillars throws tons text to your face and this is simply not the definition of fun for most.
Who cares if it's not a mechanical thing in D&D. All it needs to be is fun and not how much it resonates with older fanbase."
At least half of the above caveats about PoE2 I just cannot fathom, like the comment about the game being about pirates and also too much like D&D and then the comment that the person prefers more classic fantasy. How can it be both "too much D&D" and about pirates but not enough fantasy? Perhaps that was two different qoutes though, but I don't get the relationship to D&D at all. PoE has very little similarities with BG. Sure, it has a party, which also about 100 other RPGs have, and that's about where the similiarities end in my book.
I think they point about where PoE1 was announced seems plausable though! It probably benefited from being announced when it was, being a kickstarter and being obsidian.
@ThacoBell: Very good post, thank you. At the same -- as you yourself say -- many of those reasons are just absurd.
I was especially baffled by "overwhelming amount of information". Like, what?
Btw, is multiplayer really an important part of current CRP-gaming culture? I have no interest in it at all. I play PnP, which is infinitely better than any multi-player CRPG.
Agreed. If one wants to play multiplayer they should go play PnP. The whole point of multiplayer is inter-personal contact, which you don't get from online gaming. For me, by definition, a ROLE-playing videogame is and should be a single-player game. The only way you can role-play in multiplayer is seated around a table.
Well, that's very personal. You are of course free to feel that way yourself, but others might very well enjoy MP in RPG video games. The good thing about video games is that MP can be done both together in the same room or over internet, giving ppl like me (who have no RL friend who want to play PnP) the option of playing RPGs with like-minded ppl somewhere else. And it's absolutely possible to RP online, as numerous PW NVN servers etc have shown over the years. So don't be so quick to judge on that particular point.
Guess I'm of the minority who liked Pillars 2 far more than Pillars 1 as well. I incredibly enjoyed the vastly different Polinesian-inspired setting in that game. None of that overdone medieval-ish, middle European flair whatsoever: a clear plus in my book! It being so different from the IE's was actually something that got me hooked in the first place. If I have to say something negative about Deadfire, then it's those hovering portraits on the overworld map. That design decision felt really lazy to me. I'd prefered to have a more similar approach to what Storm of Zehir did and show actual character models.
As for the MP talk: that's a hard pass for me. I simply just have no interest in it whatsoever. Same goes for local couch co-op, internet co-op, or heck, even tabletop PnP as of late. Singleplayer gaming is where it always will be for me personally.
And it took the developers over a year of patching to decide on what impacts the attributes and skills should have.
I don't remember this. Were the changes made without player input or after the players have had their say in it? If the latter, I assume it could be a "good" think, but I really don't remember.
Players who hate RTwP combat will say that it’s because Deadfire continued using RTwP combat, in contrast to the phenomenally better-selling (and better-reviewed) turn-based Divinity: OS2. Even if that’s true, Pathfinder: Kingmaker, which generally had lower review scores than Deadfire, sold better than Deadfire and had RTwP combat.
Pathfinder Kingmaker received negative score because
Bugs, from the publisher pressuring then to release the game soon.
Game journalists "i can't hit a swarm with my axe"
Gamers "i played DOS2 on hardest difficulty but can't play this game on hardest difficulty without reading pathfinder rules."
Guess I'm of the minority who liked Pillars 2 far more than Pillars 1 as well. I incredibly enjoyed the vastly different Polinesian-inspired setting in that game. None of that overdone medieval-ish, middle European flair whatsoever:.
Me too, but the reason is different.
I liked the changes that they did with casts per rest to casts per encounter. I mean, having 3~4 casts per rest and rest requiring a item is fine in a game where wail of the banshee can technically destroy a small army of high level enemies. In a game where everyone has ludicrous amount of hit points, it just doesn't work.
The multiclassing is amazing too.
But thematically people don't enjoy pirate games. For example, Risen 2 is considered one of the worst piranha bytes games by it. I would love a STEAMPUNK PoE. That would be a more interesting setting who is little explored on other games.
I loved PoE1. Absolutely loved it and played it for hundreds, maybe even thousand +, hours.
PoE2? I just cannot get into it. I have the game, but I haven't even played it past shipwrecking on the island. ie, I can't get past the first 5 minutes. Tried 3 character builds and quit every time after fighting some boars.
Why do I feel this way?
1) The storyline feels horrible. The gods were by far the worst bit of PoE1. I don't give a toss about any of them, I was just enjoying the adventuring and rediscovering my past life. And now Eothas is back, has taken over my fortress, "killed" me and I don't get any say in that? Eff right off.
2) It's a direct sequel but I'm back at level 1? Eff right off #2.
3) The mechanics of the game changed from PoE1. Stats are different, combat is different, the classes are different, the game does not feel familiar. I want the game to feel like the old friend I loved, like I'm just picking up from where PoE1 left off. I should get that wave of nostalgia from the very first second. But I don't.
4) The graphics look a bit amateurish and not sharp. Not the biggest deal in the world and like I say I've only played 5 minutes so later areas may be nicer. But it's not a good first impression and doesn't make me want to play.
Now I think of myself as a hardcore RPG enthusiast, and I thought PoE1 was fantastic. So if this game is turning me off...no wonder it's flopped (relatively speaking). I own it, it's sat there, and I just don't want to play it. It's hard to fathom.
PF: Kingmaker on the other hand is at the other end of the spectrum, I have no affinity to Pathfinder, did not play PnP, had no idea what the module was about (though I'm familiar with D&D, and the system is similar). But that game had me gripped from the first second and still does more than a year on. It's the simplicity within the wealth: no fancy plot at first glance, it's simple adventuring with the old school BG1 freedom and plethora of options, you create a character and off you go. Wonderful.
2) It's a direct sequel but I'm back at level 1? Eff right off #2.
Purely curiosity: is this actually a deal for people? The Witcher and Dragon Age games start you back at first level for their sequels. Seems like it's how things are in a lot of RPGs. So I'm really surprised and trying to understand.
4) The graphics look a bit amateurish and not sharp. Not the biggest deal in the world and like I say I've only played 5 minutes so later areas may be nicer. But it's not a good first impression and doesn't make me want to play.
Another interesting take for me. Seemed like the graphics was the one thing that even pro reviewers who didn't like the game were full of praise for.
Re level 1: if the game claims to be a direct sequel with the same character, then yes it matters. I am not accepting lameass excuses to reset my character to level 1: either rebalance the game for higher level characters or do not make it a direct sequel.
It's not so much the power aspect; I prefer low-mid level play anyway, high level gameplay too often leads to easy encounters. I'd be perfectly happy to start a game at level 1 and finish at level 5, which leads to plenty of room for further growth in a sequel (similar to BG1, where you get to level 7-8). But if you are going to have an epic game where my character gets to level 16, I'm not going to be happy if that same character suddenly loses everything and is as helpless as a newborn again for the next game. That's terrible design and a kick in the teeth for all the progression my character made to get to that stage. It's a betrayal of trust.
DA2 was not a direct sequel as far as I know (I previewed it for 10 mins and immediately realised it was a pile of crap when the protagonist started doing forward rolls in combat). No idea about the Witcher, never played it.
Like I said on the graphics, it's not a dealbreaker for me and maybe if I'd got past the prologue there would have been nicer settings. I loved PoE1's graphics btw. It was just another turnoff with all the other issues I immediately didn't like.
I honestly don't care about the statistical progression of my character in PoE1 - while a bit leery at first, I was actually thrilled to build my character over from scratch and try completely new build combinations for her. I also thought it was fine to start over gear wise. My gear was so powerful at the end of PoE1 that my main character might as well have been a god in her own right.
I thought the way they incorporated all of my storyline choices from the first game into the second game was fantastic, and I still keep finding new ways the PoE2 world has been impacted differently by importing protagonists from different playthroughs of PoE1.
I love how there is no clear cut right and wrong/good or evil to play the game storywise, because sometimes the most benevolent intentions while solving the quests can have the most devastating consequences for everyone, and vice versa. The consequences of the protagonist's actions are in no way clear or obvious/easy to figure out, and makes each playthrough equally interesting for me.
I love the new NPCs and sidekicks, and how different they are from one another, and I love the changes they made to the game rules and character classes.
I also love the graphics and music.
Hands down one of the best games I've ever played, right up there with the BG series, Fallouts, Ultimas and Planescape Torment.
The problem I have with most modern isometric crpgs is that the setting and locations are bland. I cannot remember even one location from PoE1 and PoE. While I appreciate graphics style, the overall location design and story built around them are underwhelming. BG1, BG2 and especially IWD are the prime examples how you should design fantastic locations.
Deadfire does a very good job with the setting, the world building, and making the factions interesting. I still think it suffers from some main story design problems. It's just not a good idea to write an epic fantasy plot where right in the beginning you're already making deals with gods and visiting alternate planes.
But, I think the biggest issue is that the combat is just not challenging in a fun way. And combat is the *only* real challenge in the game. Most of the other questing offers so many solutions, inserting all kinds of win buttons due to skill or stat checks that they rarely create genuine challenge. There's some exceptions, such as stealth-based quests. Quests, even side quests, rarely have fail states either, lowering the drama they can deliver.
This means a lot of responsibility for the game's challenge falls on the shoulders of the combat system. And it simply fails to carry that load. Unlike in the old IE games or the original Pillars, combats are largely stripped of having consequences. Consequences in Deadfire are limited to full party kills, wounds, and... nothing.
The first issue with this is that combats have a lot of dead time. A sort of white space of gameplay emerges, where you know what the result is going to be and you're just waiting for the game to get on with it. The frequently bullet-spongey enemies aren't a threat to knock down any of your party, but take several rounds to finish off.
The second issue is that the elastic nature of combat from PoE1 or the IE games is gone. You can't really face down an encounter that's many levels higher than your party in Deadfire, not without extreme knowledge or extreme cheese at least. In the original Baldur's Gate, you're expected to beat a level 15 NPC to win the game, when your maximum level is about 8 or so. And you can win this fight without cheese, just by using your spells and abilities. Nothing like that exists in Deadfire, and on Path of Damned, you're pretty much restricted to fighting similar level battles almost all of the time.
Similarly, this combat system that stripped out the strategic layer, also transforms more encounters into "trash mobs". Just as it becomes an extra challenge to take on a higher level fight, being overpowered makes encounters less meaningful. Again, whereas in BG it mattered if some low level kobolds nick you in a fight, in Deadfire, there's a tiny spectrum of outcomes that actually matter. Added to this is that you can rest almost anywhere, with little consequence. So even the one consequence of scraping through a tough fight is erased. Food isn't expensive and time spent on resting is rarely an issue. On top of this, at the high difficulties, you often can't merely attack-move on easy fights, even though those fights won't make you change tactics. Fights exist in a kind of binary status: Total party kill or victory. There's no outcome in the middle that matters.
This works against the game's open-world ambitions, and the designers almost concede as much by throwing in the level scaling option. A resting-based magic system was able to deliver a pretty decent open-world RPG in both BG and BG2, and I really wish the designers of Deadfire had understood that. The combat system is much more elastic in the BG's and PoE, because weaker mobs can continue to have *some* lasting effect on a party, and, parties could unload their abilities to win fights where they were under-leveled.
The camping supplies was a good move in the original PoE, it just wasn't a perfect system. It would have been better for Deadfire if they had understood that they just needed to tweak camping supplies, as opposed to essentially tossing out the whole system, and in many ways re-writing the entire combat system. Camping supplies that could only be purchased, almost never found, and that were quite expensive, would have created the motivation for a player to focus on maximizing outcomes in fights, and thus would inject alot more drama into the combats. They could have removed the unnecessary limit on supplies as well. A system like this would have the player making the tough choice of camping supplies versus buying better gear. And would reward efficient players with the ability to get better gear sooner. Wedding the resting resource with the ship resource, the latter of which needed to be cheap, dooms the combat system to have fewer consequences that sting.
The Original Sin games were able to deliver some puzzles and questing mechanics that were true challenges outside of the combat system. Its combat system suffers from many of the same shortcomings as Deadfire, but at the very least, hype grew in the market because of the questing/interactivity options and the multiplayer option. As well, I think Pathfinder: Kingmaker did an excellent job on delivering fun, challenging combat in the nature of BG/Icewind Dale, even if it's not as good of a game on the questing/puzzle front. Deadfire wasn't able to deliver, imo, any fun challenge to its game that quite matched these levels. And for me I think it's one contributing reason to why the game's sales were weak, despite the high reviews. There's not an exciting or novel gameplay system to pitch to fellow players.
@DinoDin "The camping supplies was a good move in the original PoE, it just wasn't a perfect system. It would have been better for Deadfire if they had understood that they just needed to tweak camping supplies, as opposed to essentially tossing out the whole system, and in many ways re-writing the entire combat system. Camping supplies that could only be purchased, almost never found, and that were quite expensive, would have created the motivation for a player to focus on maximizing outcomes in fights, and thus would inject alot more drama into the combats. They could have removed the unnecessary limit on supplies as well. A system like this would have the player making the tough choice of camping supplies versus buying better gear."
I CANNOT disagree more. The camping supplies was nothing more than busywork, they didn't add any appreciable challenge. Its just meant more trips back and forth. It baffles me why so many players incorrectly conflate "inconvenience" and "challenge".
If you're going to have a system which rations use of abilities based on resting, you absolutely MUST have some kind of restriction, risk or penalty for resting. Otherwise there is no balance: if spellcasters get x spells per rest, but there is no ration for resting, then effectively those spellcasters have infinite spells (or at least, the x spells becomes per encounter rather than per rest). And if that is meant to be balanced against (for example) warriors who do not get similarly powerful abilities but who are not dependant on resting, or if encounters are balanced based on a party running out of resources over time rather than always being fully prepared, then those balances are destroyed if you do not have some form of resting restriction.
A balanced system needs to choose one of two paths, you can't have a hybrid. Either take resting out completely, and balance classes, encounters and everything else on a per encounter basis: Dragon Age Origins does this and does it well. Or include resting but make it meaningful, interesting and consequential.
If you go for the latter approach, you can do it in many different ways. For example:
1) Physically limit number of rests
2) Impose time limits, so you can rest but it has consequences
3) Prevent resting in certain areas (but not if it just means trekking back and forth: it has to be for a specific game phase and unavoidable)
4) Make resting dangerous through ambushes / random encounters
5) Attach positive or strategic factors to resting, alongside downsides
Different games have taken different approaches from the menu of options, and some do it better than others.
The BG series for example does not do a particularly good job on resting. Resting is massively important (for spells, fatigue and healing): but it is not interesting, there is no restriction, penalty or consequence, and the only risk is potential interruption from random encounters: but even that risk is usually very small, and the interruptions are usually not too dangerous.
PFK does a much better job by comparison. You have camping roles, positive bonuses, the restriction is based on weight of supplies rather than cost, there are time limits in play, and there is risk from interruption. And the last is the biggest problem with its system, because camping is actually TOO dangerous if you get ambushed (unarmoured, asleep, prone, flatfooted and surrounded: can lead to party wipe and is more dangerous than 95% of encounters!)
PoE1 recognised that it needed to limit resting in some way. They did a great job on the strategic bonuses side, with the different options available, the Survival skill, stacking inn and camping bonuses etc. However it did a bad job on the restriction side: zero risk, no time consequence, and an artificial/easily sidestepped ration to the number of rests with the supply mechanism, which did indeed create tedium.
But you don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. The concept of limited resting was absolutely correct and desperately needed, and they got the positive factors right. It was just the restriction side that needed improving by using a different approach to physical cap on supplies.
In fact, when I think about it, there was a really simple, elegant and story-driven mechanic to limit resting in PoE and I am amazed they didn't go down that route: the degeneration of the Watcher's soul.
A core part of the storyline is that the Watcher risks losing his identity over time; going insane like Maerwald; nightmares and not sleeping well; or having a past identity take over. That could easily have been woven into the resting mechanic - hell, you already have little story vignettes where your companions comment on you being restless when you rest.
So you could have situations like the Watcher has a nightmare in which he has to face an opponent from the past: so your Watcher has to face a combat unprepared and alone. And over time those combats get tougher and tougher. Or you could have a chance of losing stats over time the longer you take by resting. And it could all be balanced or even adjusted through the difficulty setting.
So you create a balance by designing the game so you can rest as often as you want, but the more you rest, the longer you are taking and the Watcher is risking his very sanity and identity. So now you have a motivation to get a move on and minimise your resting, which fits hand in glove with the story.
A second note about Deadfire's re-write of its spell mechanics is that it made the Wizard, Priest and Druid classes a lot more monotonous to play. Whereas in the BG/IWD or the first Pillars game you might cast a bunch of level one spells in a fight, or maybe just one or two high level spells, in Deadfire you're limited in every fight to the 2-2-2-2 slot system. Not only that, but you're even more limited to spell choice especially with Druids and Priests, because of the fewer spells you can have memorized.
The large spectrum of difference that casters could deliver in various fights is gone. And what's in its place is not as interesting.
In fact, when I think about it, there was a really simple, elegant and story-driven mechanic to limit resting in PoE and I am amazed they didn't go down that route: the degeneration of the Watcher's soul.
A core part of the storyline is that the Watcher risks losing his identity over time; going insane like Maerwald; nightmares and not sleeping well; or having a past identity take over. That could easily have been woven into the resting mechanic - hell, you already have little story vignettes where your companions comment on you being restless when you rest.
So you could have situations like the Watcher has a nightmare in which he has to face an opponent from the past: so your Watcher has to face a combat unprepared and alone. And over time those combats get tougher and tougher. Or you could have a chance of losing stats over time the longer you take by resting. And it could all be balanced or even adjusted through the difficulty setting.
So you create a balance by designing the game so you can rest as often as you want, but the more you rest, the longer you are taking and the Watcher is risking his very sanity and identity. So now you have a motivation to get a move on and minimise your resting, which fits hand in glove with the story.
Well said. One weakness of the original Pillars was not leaning into the Watcher curse as much. Part of the problem seems to be an overall philosophy by Obsidian of having very few truly bad consequences for the player. It's unfortunate. Contrast the Watcher curse with what happens in BG2, where you lose your original Bhaalspawn powers *and* get cursed with turning into an uncontrollable beast. It's not an insurmountable factor, but it helps add to the player's motivation to finish off that game's villain.
Whereas the Watcher stuff gives you a few dream-cutscenes and a few in-game hallucinations, it's actually more of a superpower (and it's put on steroids in Deadfire). And not at all like something you actually feel a motivation to resolve -- you're merely told that you need to resolve, not shown.
@Jaheiras_Witness "So you create a balance by designing the game so you can rest as often as you want, but the more you rest, the longer you are taking and the Watcher is risking his very sanity and identity. So now you have a motivation to get a move on and minimise your resting, which fits hand in glove with the story."
So impose a time limit on gameplay. One of the biggest examples of bad game design there is. Crap like time limits is why I passed on Kingmaker.
Why would (sensible) time limits be "crap" game design? They add to realism, they aid roleplay, they add urgency and motivation to the story. I'd argue the opposite: not having time constraints is bad design.
We all love BG2 right? Take Imoen's capture / Irenicus' experiments. You can take literally as long as you want in Chapters 2-3 and it makes zero difference to the outcome. You could, if you want, spend 2 years in-game exploring every nook and cranny in Amn, chilling out in your stronghold, even doing Watcher' Keep and what happens to the main story? Nothing. That's really bad design, because there are no consequences to your actions. Good roleplay is a simulation, your decisions should be consequential, your choices should influence the outcome. When you take that away you remove both credibility and agency.
So BG2 would have been much improved if there were a timer in play. It didn't have to be a tight timer, and it doesn't have to be all-or-nothing. For example, take longer than the allotted timeframe and Irenicus is stronger when you face him in Spellhold. Or flip it round and if you get there quick, he's weaker. Take really long and Imoen is no longer rescuable, Irenicus has broken her; and now Bodhi is stronger in Chapter 6. And if you really take the mickey and get to Spellhold way late...well now you have a Rapture of the Father waiting for you. Suddenly your decisions and actions have meaning and consequences.
BG2 was brilliant in spite of ignoring time: not because of it.
Comments
That is not something that I get to decide, but I do think that the relatively low sales of Deadfire mean that if we consider making another Pillars game in this style, we’re going to have to re-examine the entire format of the game.
It is difficult to know exactly why a sequel sells worse than its predecessor if both games review relatively well. Is it because the first game satisfied the existing need and the audience just wasn’t interested in the second? Is it because awareness was lower for the sequel? Is it because despite the strong reviews and the strong sales for the first game, people didn’t “really” like it? Maybe it’s a combination of all of these things.
The problem is that without really understanding the reason(s), it’s hard to know how to move forward. It would be easier in some ways if Deadfire were also a colossal critical failure and we could point to the massive screw-ups that we needed to address. Players did criticize the low difficulty at launch and the main plot, which I think are fair and reasonable, but those problems alone don’t really explain the difference in sales. And while player reviews were weaker for Deadfire than for Pillars 1, professional criticism tended to say that Deadfire was an improvement over the first game in most areas.
(Yes, Deadfire has an 88 Metacritic and Pillars 1 has an 89 Metacritic, but IMO Pillars 1′s review scores benefited from a nostalgia bump.)
Players who hate RTwP combat will say that it’s because Deadfire continued using RTwP combat, in contrast to the phenomenally better-selling (and better-reviewed) turn-based Divinity: OS2. Even if that’s true, Pathfinder: Kingmaker, which generally had lower review scores than Deadfire, sold better than Deadfire and had RTwP combat.
I’m sure some of the people reading this think they know precisely why Deadfire sold worse than Pillars 1. I don’t have that confidence, which is one of several reasons why I am leery about trying to direct a sequel. I couldn’t give our (Obsidian’s) audience the game that they wanted and without understanding where I went wrong, I would be guessing at what the problems are and how to remedy them.
https://jesawyer.tumblr.com/post/188915786456/will-there-be-a-pillars-3-that-is-not-something
It's not one reason, it's a combination of them.
1. The gaming (and RPG gaming world) has changed.
"POE 1 massively overperformed from a marketing perspective. It really came at the perfect time - Dragon Age 2 had bombed and AAA studios didn't really seem interested in making single player story-driven CRPGs anymore. Then in came Obsidian, this (not-so) small independent studios with some of the best credentials in the business, doing a Kickstarter campaign to bring about the second coming of Baldur's Gate 2.
It was the perfect PR story. You weren't just buying a game, you were saving a studio and contributing to a CPRG renaissance. It generated a lot of attention and goodwill for the game.
But here's the problem: nostalgia really only works the first time.
It doesn't work the second time, especially when you have games like Divinity: Original Sin coming out in between changing the landscape.
D:OS 1 and 2 proved that CRPGs can be old school while still having new and creative features too, with their innovative combat system and multiplayer. It was a game you bought, you told your friends about, and made them buy so you could all play together.
So POE 1 had a hook of "bring back old school CRPGs and save a studio". In comparison, what did POE 2 have as a marketing hook?
Boats.
It was Pillars of Eternity, except you're on a boat. And I think now the general consensus on POE was that it was a good game, but not a great one. It didn't carry its hype over to its sequel.
So yeah, being the sequel to POE was not a strong marketing hook. Especially not in a market with more competition where tastes had evolved. Don't forget on the other side you have games like Witcher 3 and to a lesser extent, Fallout 4, coming out in between. Not exactly the same genre, but they scratch the itch for single-player story driven RPGs too."
Personally, I can add to that at the time of PoE 2 release, the community already was "spoiled" by D:OS 2.
2. Hard to understand mechanics.
"I played both pillars games and divinity games, and while i found all of them to be great, i can see why the interest for deadfire was low.
I finished the game but i never really understood how the combat defensive mechanics worked, i found it to be too complicated(there were 4 defense types but i wasn't sure how the damage mitigation/dodge calculations worked).
Divinity on the other hand was super easy to understand but at the same time offered a lot of freedom for the player to work with."
3. People thought they needed to finish PoE 1 first. The game was interesting, in general, only to those who finished PoE 1 and liked it.
"Pillars 1 was the first Infinity-engine style revival, so it managed to reach a casual, or lapsed audience. Once released, that desire was sated. Tyranny and Torment also undersold expectations, the only audience left are the hardcore, the problem is the product."
"Making it a direct sequel to the first game was a mistake, IMO. I'm sure plenty of people felt like they had to finish 1 in order to enjoy 2. "
"Ya, I never bought POE 2 because I still haven't finished POE 1.
I only have time in my life for maybe 1 30-40 hour RPG a year. So if I'm going to play one, it better be good and a new experience. In that regard, I'd rather buy Tyranny, Disco Elysium, or Divinity 2 than another POE."
Personally, I can add to that I still haven't finished PoE. And this is why I haven't even tried PoE 2.
4. The lack of MP and the fact it's impossible to play PoE with your significant other/friend.
"Maybe because Divinity OS1 and 2 had in-depth co-op from the get go?
It still boggles my mind that games that had co-op in the 90s don't today, even when they're made by the same studios or when they have a damn multiplayer mode but no co-op. PoE and DOOM are the two I can think of off the top of my head."
"Still really surprised to see so few people mention multiplayer when they compare the Pillars series to the Divinity Original Sin series.
I realize most people think that very few people play these kinds of games multiplayer and they may be mostly right, but people underestimate the impact that playing multiplayer has on the word of mouth of the game.
I saw a zillion streamers playing with their friends when DOS2 launched.
Another point, although this is more anecdotal, but I feel the target audience for this kind of game is a bit older and likely to have a significant other. Committing to playing through PoE is committing to ignoring your significant other for a considerable number of hours. It's not even a very "watchable" game (particularly without 100% go). Conversely, my significant other and I played through DOS2 and its probably the best coop experience we've had over the last few years."
5. The setting.
"It certainly is better than the first one, but then it is about pirates ... which is also not exactly my favourite setting ever.
I think I also have an issue with the entire setting feeling too much like they tried to do a D&D setting without the license."
"This was the reason why I didn’t like it nor enjoyed it as much. The pirate theme just didn’t do it for me and I much prefer a fantasy setting."
6. RTwP vs TB combat - not that any of these is bad. It's that PoE implemented RTwP in not the best way.
" I couldn't enjoy RTWP because it felt like I had to constantly pause, micromanage, pause, micromanage, etc to the point where I couldn't even enjoy the cool attack animations because I was so busy keeping track of multiple healthbars, resources, abilities, status effects, and more. I couldn't even enjoy seeing a freaking fireball go off because I had to keep pausing in between the spell going off. It's either super easy or tedious imo. But that's just my perspective as to your question."
"I stopped playing PoE 1 because of the combat and only picked up PoE 2 after they introduced the turn-based mode. However, I liked the Baldur's Gate games, and I love Dragon Age: Origins.
It's not the concept RTwP that's the problem, it's that Pillars of Eternity's combat is just kinda bad. And it annoys me that this debate is always framed with so little nuance, as if one type of gameplay is inherently better or worse and implementation doesn't enter into it.
PoE has way too much to micromanage. Each class has several active abilities that should be used in every combat, with different cast times and different cooldown timers. Movement speed is pretty fast and positioning is important, both for flanking and AoE spells, so there is a lot to keep track off. If you have to pause the game 3 times a second (without exaggeration) to manage all your companions and their abilities, what is even the point of it being real-time? Not to mention how visually busy PoE was, with all those spell effects going off to distract you. I frequently had to pause the game just to locate where all my characters were.
All these things adds up to PoE just working better as a turn-based game. Yes, it's slower, but atleast I can actually follow what's going on!"
I can agree. Also, you again have to take into account many cRPG games played D:OS and enjoyed the combat there.
7. The faults of the first game.
Take point 3 from this list, and consider all those who didn't like PoE or aspects of it, be it the overwhelming amount of information, hard micromanagement, confusion around combat, "bland" companions if compared to BG/DA, the main plot not "hooking", ets.
8. Not everyone was aware of the PoE 2 release.
At that time, Obsidian didn't have a publisher like Paizo Publishing for P:K. PoE 2 didn't have too much coverage in the media.
9. Everything is too much serious around PoE.
"The Divinity games understand that the fun aspect is the most important thing in game. Pillars throws tons text to your face and this is simply not the definition of fun for most.
Who cares if it's not a mechanical thing in D&D. All it needs to be is fun and not how much it resonates with older fanbase."
I think they point about where PoE1 was announced seems plausable though! It probably benefited from being announced when it was, being a kickstarter and being obsidian.
Anyways, interesting post. Thanks for sharing!
I was especially baffled by "overwhelming amount of information". Like, what?
Btw, is multiplayer really an important part of current CRP-gaming culture? I have no interest in it at all. I play PnP, which is infinitely better than any multi-player CRPG.
As for the MP talk: that's a hard pass for me. I simply just have no interest in it whatsoever. Same goes for local couch co-op, internet co-op, or heck, even tabletop PnP as of late. Singleplayer gaming is where it always will be for me personally.
I don't remember this. Were the changes made without player input or after the players have had their say in it? If the latter, I assume it could be a "good" think, but I really don't remember.
Pathfinder Kingmaker received negative score because
Me too, but the reason is different.
I liked the changes that they did with casts per rest to casts per encounter. I mean, having 3~4 casts per rest and rest requiring a item is fine in a game where wail of the banshee can technically destroy a small army of high level enemies. In a game where everyone has ludicrous amount of hit points, it just doesn't work.
The multiclassing is amazing too.
But thematically people don't enjoy pirate games. For example, Risen 2 is considered one of the worst piranha bytes games by it. I would love a STEAMPUNK PoE. That would be a more interesting setting who is little explored on other games.
I loved PoE1. Absolutely loved it and played it for hundreds, maybe even thousand +, hours.
PoE2? I just cannot get into it. I have the game, but I haven't even played it past shipwrecking on the island. ie, I can't get past the first 5 minutes. Tried 3 character builds and quit every time after fighting some boars.
Why do I feel this way?
1) The storyline feels horrible. The gods were by far the worst bit of PoE1. I don't give a toss about any of them, I was just enjoying the adventuring and rediscovering my past life. And now Eothas is back, has taken over my fortress, "killed" me and I don't get any say in that? Eff right off.
2) It's a direct sequel but I'm back at level 1? Eff right off #2.
3) The mechanics of the game changed from PoE1. Stats are different, combat is different, the classes are different, the game does not feel familiar. I want the game to feel like the old friend I loved, like I'm just picking up from where PoE1 left off. I should get that wave of nostalgia from the very first second. But I don't.
4) The graphics look a bit amateurish and not sharp. Not the biggest deal in the world and like I say I've only played 5 minutes so later areas may be nicer. But it's not a good first impression and doesn't make me want to play.
Now I think of myself as a hardcore RPG enthusiast, and I thought PoE1 was fantastic. So if this game is turning me off...no wonder it's flopped (relatively speaking). I own it, it's sat there, and I just don't want to play it. It's hard to fathom.
PF: Kingmaker on the other hand is at the other end of the spectrum, I have no affinity to Pathfinder, did not play PnP, had no idea what the module was about (though I'm familiar with D&D, and the system is similar). But that game had me gripped from the first second and still does more than a year on. It's the simplicity within the wealth: no fancy plot at first glance, it's simple adventuring with the old school BG1 freedom and plethora of options, you create a character and off you go. Wonderful.
It's not so much the power aspect; I prefer low-mid level play anyway, high level gameplay too often leads to easy encounters. I'd be perfectly happy to start a game at level 1 and finish at level 5, which leads to plenty of room for further growth in a sequel (similar to BG1, where you get to level 7-8). But if you are going to have an epic game where my character gets to level 16, I'm not going to be happy if that same character suddenly loses everything and is as helpless as a newborn again for the next game. That's terrible design and a kick in the teeth for all the progression my character made to get to that stage. It's a betrayal of trust.
DA2 was not a direct sequel as far as I know (I previewed it for 10 mins and immediately realised it was a pile of crap when the protagonist started doing forward rolls in combat). No idea about the Witcher, never played it.
Like I said on the graphics, it's not a dealbreaker for me and maybe if I'd got past the prologue there would have been nicer settings. I loved PoE1's graphics btw. It was just another turnoff with all the other issues I immediately didn't like.
I honestly don't care about the statistical progression of my character in PoE1 - while a bit leery at first, I was actually thrilled to build my character over from scratch and try completely new build combinations for her. I also thought it was fine to start over gear wise. My gear was so powerful at the end of PoE1 that my main character might as well have been a god in her own right.
I thought the way they incorporated all of my storyline choices from the first game into the second game was fantastic, and I still keep finding new ways the PoE2 world has been impacted differently by importing protagonists from different playthroughs of PoE1.
I love how there is no clear cut right and wrong/good or evil to play the game storywise, because sometimes the most benevolent intentions while solving the quests can have the most devastating consequences for everyone, and vice versa. The consequences of the protagonist's actions are in no way clear or obvious/easy to figure out, and makes each playthrough equally interesting for me.
I love the new NPCs and sidekicks, and how different they are from one another, and I love the changes they made to the game rules and character classes.
I also love the graphics and music.
Hands down one of the best games I've ever played, right up there with the BG series, Fallouts, Ultimas and Planescape Torment.
But, I think the biggest issue is that the combat is just not challenging in a fun way. And combat is the *only* real challenge in the game. Most of the other questing offers so many solutions, inserting all kinds of win buttons due to skill or stat checks that they rarely create genuine challenge. There's some exceptions, such as stealth-based quests. Quests, even side quests, rarely have fail states either, lowering the drama they can deliver.
This means a lot of responsibility for the game's challenge falls on the shoulders of the combat system. And it simply fails to carry that load. Unlike in the old IE games or the original Pillars, combats are largely stripped of having consequences. Consequences in Deadfire are limited to full party kills, wounds, and... nothing.
The first issue with this is that combats have a lot of dead time. A sort of white space of gameplay emerges, where you know what the result is going to be and you're just waiting for the game to get on with it. The frequently bullet-spongey enemies aren't a threat to knock down any of your party, but take several rounds to finish off.
The second issue is that the elastic nature of combat from PoE1 or the IE games is gone. You can't really face down an encounter that's many levels higher than your party in Deadfire, not without extreme knowledge or extreme cheese at least. In the original Baldur's Gate, you're expected to beat a level 15 NPC to win the game, when your maximum level is about 8 or so. And you can win this fight without cheese, just by using your spells and abilities. Nothing like that exists in Deadfire, and on Path of Damned, you're pretty much restricted to fighting similar level battles almost all of the time.
Similarly, this combat system that stripped out the strategic layer, also transforms more encounters into "trash mobs". Just as it becomes an extra challenge to take on a higher level fight, being overpowered makes encounters less meaningful. Again, whereas in BG it mattered if some low level kobolds nick you in a fight, in Deadfire, there's a tiny spectrum of outcomes that actually matter. Added to this is that you can rest almost anywhere, with little consequence. So even the one consequence of scraping through a tough fight is erased. Food isn't expensive and time spent on resting is rarely an issue. On top of this, at the high difficulties, you often can't merely attack-move on easy fights, even though those fights won't make you change tactics. Fights exist in a kind of binary status: Total party kill or victory. There's no outcome in the middle that matters.
This works against the game's open-world ambitions, and the designers almost concede as much by throwing in the level scaling option. A resting-based magic system was able to deliver a pretty decent open-world RPG in both BG and BG2, and I really wish the designers of Deadfire had understood that. The combat system is much more elastic in the BG's and PoE, because weaker mobs can continue to have *some* lasting effect on a party, and, parties could unload their abilities to win fights where they were under-leveled.
The camping supplies was a good move in the original PoE, it just wasn't a perfect system. It would have been better for Deadfire if they had understood that they just needed to tweak camping supplies, as opposed to essentially tossing out the whole system, and in many ways re-writing the entire combat system. Camping supplies that could only be purchased, almost never found, and that were quite expensive, would have created the motivation for a player to focus on maximizing outcomes in fights, and thus would inject alot more drama into the combats. They could have removed the unnecessary limit on supplies as well. A system like this would have the player making the tough choice of camping supplies versus buying better gear. And would reward efficient players with the ability to get better gear sooner. Wedding the resting resource with the ship resource, the latter of which needed to be cheap, dooms the combat system to have fewer consequences that sting.
The Original Sin games were able to deliver some puzzles and questing mechanics that were true challenges outside of the combat system. Its combat system suffers from many of the same shortcomings as Deadfire, but at the very least, hype grew in the market because of the questing/interactivity options and the multiplayer option. As well, I think Pathfinder: Kingmaker did an excellent job on delivering fun, challenging combat in the nature of BG/Icewind Dale, even if it's not as good of a game on the questing/puzzle front. Deadfire wasn't able to deliver, imo, any fun challenge to its game that quite matched these levels. And for me I think it's one contributing reason to why the game's sales were weak, despite the high reviews. There's not an exciting or novel gameplay system to pitch to fellow players.
I CANNOT disagree more. The camping supplies was nothing more than busywork, they didn't add any appreciable challenge. Its just meant more trips back and forth. It baffles me why so many players incorrectly conflate "inconvenience" and "challenge".
A balanced system needs to choose one of two paths, you can't have a hybrid. Either take resting out completely, and balance classes, encounters and everything else on a per encounter basis: Dragon Age Origins does this and does it well. Or include resting but make it meaningful, interesting and consequential.
If you go for the latter approach, you can do it in many different ways. For example:
1) Physically limit number of rests
2) Impose time limits, so you can rest but it has consequences
3) Prevent resting in certain areas (but not if it just means trekking back and forth: it has to be for a specific game phase and unavoidable)
4) Make resting dangerous through ambushes / random encounters
5) Attach positive or strategic factors to resting, alongside downsides
Different games have taken different approaches from the menu of options, and some do it better than others.
The BG series for example does not do a particularly good job on resting. Resting is massively important (for spells, fatigue and healing): but it is not interesting, there is no restriction, penalty or consequence, and the only risk is potential interruption from random encounters: but even that risk is usually very small, and the interruptions are usually not too dangerous.
PFK does a much better job by comparison. You have camping roles, positive bonuses, the restriction is based on weight of supplies rather than cost, there are time limits in play, and there is risk from interruption. And the last is the biggest problem with its system, because camping is actually TOO dangerous if you get ambushed (unarmoured, asleep, prone, flatfooted and surrounded: can lead to party wipe and is more dangerous than 95% of encounters!)
PoE1 recognised that it needed to limit resting in some way. They did a great job on the strategic bonuses side, with the different options available, the Survival skill, stacking inn and camping bonuses etc. However it did a bad job on the restriction side: zero risk, no time consequence, and an artificial/easily sidestepped ration to the number of rests with the supply mechanism, which did indeed create tedium.
But you don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. The concept of limited resting was absolutely correct and desperately needed, and they got the positive factors right. It was just the restriction side that needed improving by using a different approach to physical cap on supplies.
A core part of the storyline is that the Watcher risks losing his identity over time; going insane like Maerwald; nightmares and not sleeping well; or having a past identity take over. That could easily have been woven into the resting mechanic - hell, you already have little story vignettes where your companions comment on you being restless when you rest.
So you could have situations like the Watcher has a nightmare in which he has to face an opponent from the past: so your Watcher has to face a combat unprepared and alone. And over time those combats get tougher and tougher. Or you could have a chance of losing stats over time the longer you take by resting. And it could all be balanced or even adjusted through the difficulty setting.
So you create a balance by designing the game so you can rest as often as you want, but the more you rest, the longer you are taking and the Watcher is risking his very sanity and identity. So now you have a motivation to get a move on and minimise your resting, which fits hand in glove with the story.
The large spectrum of difference that casters could deliver in various fights is gone. And what's in its place is not as interesting.
Well said. One weakness of the original Pillars was not leaning into the Watcher curse as much. Part of the problem seems to be an overall philosophy by Obsidian of having very few truly bad consequences for the player. It's unfortunate. Contrast the Watcher curse with what happens in BG2, where you lose your original Bhaalspawn powers *and* get cursed with turning into an uncontrollable beast. It's not an insurmountable factor, but it helps add to the player's motivation to finish off that game's villain.
Whereas the Watcher stuff gives you a few dream-cutscenes and a few in-game hallucinations, it's actually more of a superpower (and it's put on steroids in Deadfire). And not at all like something you actually feel a motivation to resolve -- you're merely told that you need to resolve, not shown.
So impose a time limit on gameplay. One of the biggest examples of bad game design there is. Crap like time limits is why I passed on Kingmaker.
We all love BG2 right? Take Imoen's capture / Irenicus' experiments. You can take literally as long as you want in Chapters 2-3 and it makes zero difference to the outcome. You could, if you want, spend 2 years in-game exploring every nook and cranny in Amn, chilling out in your stronghold, even doing Watcher' Keep and what happens to the main story? Nothing. That's really bad design, because there are no consequences to your actions. Good roleplay is a simulation, your decisions should be consequential, your choices should influence the outcome. When you take that away you remove both credibility and agency.
So BG2 would have been much improved if there were a timer in play. It didn't have to be a tight timer, and it doesn't have to be all-or-nothing. For example, take longer than the allotted timeframe and Irenicus is stronger when you face him in Spellhold. Or flip it round and if you get there quick, he's weaker. Take really long and Imoen is no longer rescuable, Irenicus has broken her; and now Bodhi is stronger in Chapter 6. And if you really take the mickey and get to Spellhold way late...well now you have a Rapture of the Father waiting for you. Suddenly your decisions and actions have meaning and consequences.
BG2 was brilliant in spite of ignoring time: not because of it.