this post was submitted on 24 Feb 2025
80 points (100.0% liked)
Games
24963 readers
186 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- 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:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
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.
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.