Pillars of Eternity - How Kickstarter Saved Obsidian @ Kotaku

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
On that note, I'm sort of relieved to see PoE steadily falling on Metacritic. IIRC, user scores started at an absurd 90+ - and are now down to a less delusional 8.4.

User score was always that low.

Originally Posted by azarhal
User score was always that low.

No, it started out around 90.

I played PoE when it first released and thought it was alright, but I never was a big fan of this type of combat system. I prefer turn-based OR more action-oriented, not something in between. I understand that some people really like it this way though and that this is simply a matter of personal preference.

Then I picked up the game again this week and started to really enjoy the story and the setting they created. Obsidian to me were always creators of flawed masterpieces. I cannot say I really enjoyed mechanics of any of their games, but the worlds they built always left great memories afterwards. I hope we will get to see them create a lot more and I feel like not being constrained as much by investors benefits them.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
No, it started out around 90.

No, the metacritic score was around 90 (92 then stabilized to 90 until someone made a very low review the last few weeks). The user score never went higher than 8.6.

Originally Posted by azarhal
No, the metacritic score was around 90 (92 then stabilized to 90 until someone made a very low review the last few weeks). The user score never went higher than 8.6.

If you say so. I must have it confused with another game, then.

But it's nice to know that it wasn't that inflated

Originally Posted by Silver
Chris Avellone gave the impression in some interview or quote or something (sorry poor memory!) that he contributed very little to the writing of Pillars.

To be honest it shows - his style is not overly verbose.

Even the priest guy and that hidden women character only show the outline of his work since so much was changed (according to him).

Yup…. Why would anyone be happy about a RPG falling in score??? I tend
to be cynical, but I love RPGs and want the best for them and the devs
that make them. I just don't get RPG gamers that hate RPGs… I just don't
understand why anyone would spend all their time on something they hate.

Seems like a painful, and wretched existence to me. I'd rather spend my free
time on things I love.

BTW, I'm sure that if SOME people in here were transported back to 1998 and had the whole RPGWatch setup then, they'd be talking about how terrible Baldur's Gate, Torment and Fallout are when compared to masterpieces like the Gold Box games… It's "cool" to rag on the newer games… in 10 years time, the sae ppl will be saying "Pillars of Eternity 5 is total garbage, why couldn't they go back to basics like the mastepiece that is the original Pillars game."

I've seen this happen constantly…. I still remember all the hate Troika used to get.

Originally Posted by PegasusOrgans
Yup…. Why would anyone be happy about a RPG falling in score??? I tend
to be cynical, but I love RPGs and want the best for them and the devs
that make them. I just don't get RPG gamers that hate RPGs… I just don't
understand why anyone would spend all their time on something they hate.

Seems like a painful, and wretched existence to me. I'd rather spend my free
time on things I love.

It's probably because you confuse not agreeing it's a masterpiece with hatred. That's common enough.

Personally, I feel good when games receive the kind of score I think they deserve, neither more nor less.

I think it's because I think a score should represent quality instead of bias, and I'm weird in that way.

I think Pillars is a good game but like most Obsidian games a flawed one in various aspects. Sue me I have good taste ;-)

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
Personally, I feel good when games receive the kind of score I think they deserve, neither more nor less.

I think it's because I think a score should represent quality instead of bias, and I'm weird in that way.

Bias will always be present in any review score. A review score is not a representation of quality - there is no universal standard, criteria, or quantifiable measurement to determine quality. Review scores are a representation of the reviewer's opinion - and opinions are biased, based on the background, knowledge, preferences, and evaluation criteria being used by the reviewer.

Metacritic scores are a weighted average of reviewer opinions. And it's a very imperfect system, the scores are a rough "swag" but can be skewed, because various reviewers use different scoring systems, and scores can vary greatly based on how each reviewer evaluates the game and forms an opinion. There are some generally acknowledged standards, qualities, and norms a computer RPG should have, and a good reviewer will use those factors (and comparisons to similar products) to inform their opinions. But scores are always going to be biased because quality is subjective.

Originally Posted by HellRazor
Bias will always be present in any review score. A review score is not a representation of quality - there is no universal standard, criteria, or quantifiable measurement to determine quality. Review scores are a representation of the reviewer's opinion - and opinions are biased, based on the background, knowledge, preferences, and evaluation criteria being used by the reviewer.

I'm not talking about a single review score.

Believe it or not, there are people capable of keeping their own personal bias and agenda in check, even if it can't be eliminated. Those people are called good reviewers and they're extremely rare.

While you can never get rid of subjectivity, it tends to dwindle as the amount of reviews grows. Generally, the last reviews are the least affected by bias and agendas as the fat lady has sung at that point.

It does take some time, however - and my point is that we're now past the honeymoon phase of PoE. People are slowly starting to realise flaws that have been largely ignored, both by professional critics and hyped up fans.

Metacritic scores are a weighted average of reviewer opinions. And it's a very imperfect system, the scores are a rough "swag" but can be skewed, because various reviewers use different scoring systems, and scores can vary greatly based on how each reviewer evaluates the game and forms an opinion. There are some generally acknowledged standards, qualities, and norms a computer RPG should have, and a good reviewer will use those factors (and comparisons to similar products) to inform their opinions. But scores are always going to be biased because quality is subjective.

I agree that quality is subjective, and as such - I don't really think there's much in the way of generally acknowledged standards, qualities or norms. I do think, however, that hype and emotional investment can change everything in terms of how games are rated.

Sometimes, people want a game to be amazing - and therefore it's amazing until such time as the investment subsides - and that's when you can start relying on what people say. Same goes for bad-mouthed games where issues are blown way out of proportion, like the recent Arkham Knight.

This happens in all fields, though.

Just look at IMDB and the absurdly inflated scores almost all hyped up movies get. After six months to a year, things start evening out.

It's just the way it is.

I think sometimes the opposite can be true as well with reviewers late to the game, because I think some reviewers play it safe by waiting to see what other reviewers think first - then they allow the previous reviews to influence their own review.

But yes, not all reviewers are equally good at their craft. So even if metacritic is flawed, it does provide a bit of a sanity check and consensus.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
I think they receive too much recognition for what's essentially a bunch of deeply flawed games - none of which are truly great and most of which are struggling to get beyond average.

That's certainly an opinion

I would beg to differ though, I wouldn't call them deeply flawed games, I would call them slightly flawed gems - many of which are damn close to great and most of them way better than average.

Originally Posted by tomasp3n
That's certainly an opinion

I would beg to differ though, I wouldn't call them deeply flawed games, I would call them slightly flawed gems - many of which are damn close to great and most of them way better than average.

That's cool. I think most around here would agree

Originally Posted by PegasusOrgans
BTW, I'm sure that if SOME people in here were transported back to 1998 and had the whole RPGWatch setup then, they'd be talking about how terrible Baldur's Gate, Torment and Fallout are when compared to masterpieces like the Gold Box games… It's "cool" to rag on the newer games… in 10 years time, the sae ppl will be saying "Pillars of Eternity 5 is total garbage, why couldn't they go back to basics like the mastepiece that is the original Pillars game."

I've seen this happen constantly…. I still remember all the hate Troika used to get.

No I don't think that is what happened with PoE. It was funded by everyone who loved BG2, and they missed the mark on the combat and mechanics, which made that user base disappointed that it didn't live up to expectations. Not a failure, but just didn't live up to expectations. Like I read in one review posted somewhere here….you just didn't care when you leveled up or what skills you picked - felt like it didn't matter. When my wizard character in BG got the spell "gate", and I summoned that balrog type demon, I was like "yes!!!!!!". That was missing for me in PoE. Combat got boring. The boss battles on ultra hard were easy with minimal strategy. In BG I had to reload a million times to kill that dragon that drops the Holy Avenger, and when I got said Holy Avenger I was like "yes!!!!". Never had that feeling in PoE. Perhaps they suffered from not getting to stand on the D&D content, forced to build their own. Perhaps this is a downside to kickstater…too much time for the fans to work themselves into a frenzy of anticipation vs. just getting surprised one day with a great game (I read the dev updates on PoE literally for years). I would also say they had some timing misfortune with DoS coming out right before which was really, really good (better than PoE in my opinion in terms of gameplay, although I didn't like the writing/story styles as much), setting expectations even higher. I know I'm not just an old-timer BG homer because I have loved some modern RPGs - Dragon Age Origins to be specific. I tried to play BGEE and just couldn't get over the 1990s graphics - too damn old. But I enjoyed playing BG2 much more than PoE. I wish I could fund WoC to license D&D to these guys to just build well-written 'modules' using the PoE engine but with D&D rules and mechanics. Instead I'm going to get Sword Coast Legends and their stupid button mashing, cool-down gameplay - ugh.

I agree with most of your points bizorker.

Btw, the dragon in BG that drops holy avenger (Carsomyr) is called Firkraag and there is a very easy way to kill that dragon (although I didn't find this out myself until much later)



Ofcourse, that takes away challenge and fun of that encounter I was exactly like you when I finally managed to kill Firkraag after sooooo many attemps (in proper way). It was epic.

Bizorker, I agree with much of your post but was baffled by the part about DA:O. To me DA:O was exactly what you described, a heavy buildup of hope for a spiritual successor to BG that in the end was totally underwhelming in character building, combat mechanics, side content, openness (probably not a real word) etc. PoE isn't perfect, but to me it came a hell of a lot closer to BG than DA:O managed to do.

Originally Posted by PegasusOrgans
BTW, I'm sure that if SOME people in here were transported back to 1998

then SOME people would be unable to play a large part of the PC game offer, as the skills requirement to play PC games in that period of time was much higher.

Originally Posted by tomasp3n
Bizorker, I agree with much of your post but was baffled by the part about DA:O. To me DA:O was exactly what you described, a heavy buildup of hope for a spiritual successor to BG that in the end was totally underwhelming in character building, combat mechanics, side content, openness (probably not a real word) etc. PoE isn't perfect, but to me it came a hell of a lot closer to BG than DA:O managed to do.

I'd agree with that.

But I still prefer DA:O over PoE because of the writing and lore in particular.

As much as I dislike the mechanics in DA:O - they really managed to engage me in the world and I loved their take on magic. I must be one of the few people who loved the Fade sequence

It's also one of the few Bioware RPGs where I actually like the party members for the most part.

That said, it sometimes takes almost an entire playthrough before you discover the weaknesses of a game.

My primary issues with DA:O were the boring character progression, the endless filler combat, the boring exploration, and the tiresome grindy sidequests.

It took me a long time to realise those flaws, because they're not immediately evident.

That's pretty key, because I'm much less likely to enjoy it on a replay - which I've tried a couple of times already.

Some games don't shine when you get back to them.

But the weaknesses in PoE became evident to me after around 30 hours - and the story, setting and the lore really didn't do enough for me to want to continue.

I think it might have to do with the fact that I much prefer the presentation of DA:O and the voice acting, which was very good.

I have a hard time getting into text-based dialogues.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
But the weaknesses in PoE became evident to me after around 30 hours - and the story, setting and the lore really didn't do enough for me to want to continue.

Did you finish the game?

Because the story (and lore) takes a whole different turn in the last "dungeon".