Pillars of Eternity - Interviews & More Reviews

Originally Posted by luj1
Endurance was… weird. I got used to it, I just don't fully understand it as a design choice. It made combat hard at first, but not much else. I don't think I see the point here (yet).

Here's my take on why - it was to reduce the amount of 5 minute adventuring days and resting after each encounter along with the per-encounter abilities and the limited camping supplies. Its built to help discourage people resting constantly and to make it easier to keep going as aside from fighters most can't go through their endurance in a one fight so they can keep going.

I kind of like how endurance/health is done. It isn't perfect but I think it is a decent approach to the situation. I think death should be more finality (I know there is an option to control this - i'm using the default setting and I think the default setting is a bit 'weak').
-
With regards to 10/10; to myself it is clearly not a 10/10 and probably no game is perfect. TO be honest I prefer 100 point scale. My favorite games are not 10/10 but I love playing them. D:OS I think (so far) is more enjoyable than POE but it has a lot of rough story edges. Personally right now I would give POE a 7.5 or 8 but when I get further along htat might change (I've done 4 levels of the endless dungeon and just entered the giagantic city).

Originally Posted by Humanity has risen!
Well the thing with Fluent is that he seems to like everything. I think people like when reviewers know to be objective and critical.

But as far as I know, Fluent's review isn't out anywhere yet. How do you know he wasn't objective or critical whatsoever?

Experience?

I'm not even doing a Pillars review, Corwin is.

Originally Posted by coboney
Here's my take on why - it was to reduce the amount of 5 minute adventuring days and resting after each encounter along with the per-encounter abilities and the limited camping supplies. Its built to help discourage people resting constantly and to make it easier to keep going as aside from fighters most can't go through their endurance in a one fight so they can keep going.

I see. Maybe they reasoned that if you're resting often, you're not playing.

Originally Posted by Fluent
I'm not even doing a Pillars review, Corwin is.

Oh I'm sorry I thought I read here somewhere that you were doing a review just not for RPGWatch. My mistake.

Originally Posted by TheMadGamer
But as far as I know, Fluent's review isn't out anywhere yet. How do you know he wasn't objective or critical whatsoever?

He doesn't. He does know how to be critical himself though on just about everything.

EDIT: Wasn't talking about fluent.

I don't see the problem with Fluent's approach to reviewing games. If you know where he is coming from then you will get far more out of what he says about a game than reviewer x from site y that you never heard of. Is this mysterious reviewer an rpg fan when they say this new game is a 7 out of 10? With Fluent I know the reviewer. I know he loves rpgs and is perhaps more forgiving of flaws than others but I am often guilty of the same. I get far more out of knowing who the reviewer is than not knowing them at all.

Originally Posted by BrianOConnell
I don't see the problem with Fluent's approach to reviewing games. If you know where he is coming from then you will get far more out of what he says about a game than reviewer x from site y that you never heard of. Is this mysterious reviewer an rpg fan when they say this new game is a 7 out of 10? With Fluent I know the reviewer. I know he loves rpgs and is perhaps more forgiving of flaws than others but I am often guilty of the same. I get far more out of knowing who the reviewer is than not knowing them at all.

It's not an issue unless you don't think knowing and understanding a reviewer should be required to interpret his or her reviews correctly.

I don't have a problem with it at all, though.

That's because I don't think people are obligated to communicate or use numeric systems rationally and provide me with reviews that strive for objectivity. I don't take such things for granted, anyway.

If I did, I'd have 7 billion problems on top of the ones I already have

I do think, however, that if reviews are to make sense - they SHOULD strive for a degree of objectivity - precisely because the reviewer must assume he's a stranger to the reader. I also think that if the reviewer uses a numeric system, like a score - then he or she should take care to use it rationally, as that's the common understanding we have that's least subject to personal interpretation.

But I agree that Fluent should do whatever he thinks is right - and I think it's good for him that so many people don't mind his irrational approach.

I'm glad you agree, DArt! *Does a totally irrational and highly subjective dance around the room*



P.S. Thanks, Brian!

I'd bet some of you will hate my review of Pillars when I finish it!!

I can't wait to read it, Corwin!

Originally Posted by Corwin
I'd bet some of you will hate my review of Pillars when I finish it!!

Not sure why anyone should, your thoughts are your own. Your experience with the game are also your own.

Celtic, I'm a realist. What I have to say won't please everyone and these days that's all some people need to begin a tirade!! Fortunately I have a VERY thick skin!!

Originally Posted by Corwin
Celtic, I'm a realist. What I have to say won't please everyone and these days that's all some people need to begin a tirade!! Fortunately I have a VERY thick skin!!

I stand by what I said.

Though you know there is nothing these days you can say, do or make to please anyone.