My general point is that after all these years of it's release I still don't ever really hear anyone make reference to the game in the context of the games it was supposed to emulate. It's all very well talking about it as its own game, in exclusion from it's supposed heritage but, particularly in a thread discussing it's failures, that's kinda missing the whole point of the enterprise.
If it's to be treated as just some disconnected random RPG that I'm not sure about then I'll veer on the side of caution and wait for a deep sale before trying the first one. Which is biazzre, because I was one of those guys who insta-bought Serpents in the Staglands full price, because isometric party-based RtWP is, or at least was, my auto-buy bag, and that was a technically bad game in a lot of regards, but it completely nailed the whole IE concept. But with Pillars I'm holding back.
And I do this because no-one seems able to relate anything in the game to the IE heritage. By only making reference to other IE games, which parts of the game can be easily communicated as being 'similar to that IE game'?
The story structure? Linear and ever deeper like IWD or open world hubs like BG or open world mostly single city like PST? Is it mercenary like IWD or chosen one like BG or introspective and personal like PST? Etc.
The party make-up? All self-created like IWD, meeting huge numbers of randoms as you travel and then storing them all at the pub like BG or small list of very defined characters you gradually meet here and there while exploring like PST?
The mechanics of play? Is the spellcasting Vancian, is it round-based, do you learn spells and unlock chests, do you disarm red traps, are criticals automatic hits and do they double the hit, is it dice based in that you're rolling for everything, how does it do saving throws, etc etc etc. Is any of this kind of stuff even remotely the same?
The loot? Do people generally drop what they're wearing or at least adhere to a rational loot table, is there plenty of unique items that always appear in the same place, do the unique items seem interesting and unique, how are things like armour class and + weapons comparable via interesting loot. Will you ever be lugging around dead cats because it's there to be lugged around, etc, etc.
Levelling? Which game does it feel most like in this regard, what kind of things happen at level-up, is it more AD&D or more 3rd Ed in feeling, does everyone level up at different speeds, does everyone do completely different things at level up, etc.
Character variety? One of the most intimidating things for new players to the IE games is the sheer variety of character builds, so does it give that same sense of depth in this regard to, for example, the difference between an evil Dwarven Defender and a good Halfling Bard and all in between. Or is it more like PST and it's not really about character variety at all?
And on and on the list would go.
And I wouldn't expect you or anyone to answer these questions, especially not in one post, but what I'm saying is that, for me, after five years of this game being around, I still have virtually zero idea of what to expect from the game and I've read countless threads and reviews and seen all kinds of debates. But no-one ever draws reference to the IE games, except in the negative.
Like you said earlier, you found a comparison to make with Dragon Age. The comparison that comes to my mind is NWN2 when I hear about it, especially as it's the same company making it. I didn't really enjoy NWN2, hence the added trepidation. What I need to hear about is comparisons to the IE games, which I did enjoy a lot more.
And if someone says some one-liner like "Oh right, the story is like BG's and the combat is like IWD", then that's pretty meaningless without lots of paragraphs of reasoning and elaboration, as I'd have no idea whether that person is the kind of person who thinks Diablo is a bit like Disco Elysium because they're both isometric RPGs.
You know what I mean? Does it actually feel like/play like an IE game in any real sense?
