But that’s not really “their audience”; that’s you. PoE2 actively addressed every criticism I had from the first game, and it’s one of the best RPGs I’ve played. They even added a turn based mode that you would think would be phoned in because the game wasn’t initially designed for it, but they knocked that out of the park too.
Which of those issues you criticised are highlighted in the game trailers and ads that were run?
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.
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.
Sure but that’s a mechanics improvement that people aren’t going to realise because they never bought the game… because an Age of Sail / Pirates setting has never been popular in CRPGs. They should have stuck with high fantasy.
Having a turn-based mode as an option is always welcome especially with large parties but again… people need to play the game to get a feel for any potential improvements there. They didn’t buy it, didn’t play it, and still didn’t do either when turn-based was added.
Larian had zero reason to change a winning formula so I’m not sure why that factors in your mind? Literally a “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”.
I agree that budget isn’t the defining difference, the setting is. DOS2 starts you off on a ship then dumps you on a tropical island. Did it suffer? No… because their game is clearly not a Pirates (Age of Sail) game. You even see a shot of the characters on a big ship during the trailer but then go straight back to combat on land.
There are many discussions on this particular issue and John absolutely refuses to acknowledge it because he likes the setting.
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.
Larian had zero reason to change a winning formula so I’m not sure why that factors in your mind?
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.
But that’s not really “their audience”; that’s you. PoE2 actively addressed every criticism I had from the first game, and it’s one of the best RPGs I’ve played. They even added a turn based mode that you would think would be phoned in because the game wasn’t initially designed for it, but they knocked that out of the park too.
Which of those issues you criticised are highlighted in the game trailers and ads that were run?
People buy games based on impressions, some people do research and watch streams but most CRPG buyers are going to avoid spoilers.
Half of the game trailer on Steam is ship, ship combat, upgrade your ship.
The sales numbers really say the rest. PoE as a setting died and there won’t be a third entry.
There’s a decent Post Mortem by Josh Sawyer but he still just doesn’t hit on the Age of Sail being an unpopular setting for this kind of game.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xChOXFJ83
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.
Sure but that’s a mechanics improvement that people aren’t going to realise because they never bought the game… because an Age of Sail / Pirates setting has never been popular in CRPGs. They should have stuck with high fantasy.
Having a turn-based mode as an option is always welcome especially with large parties but again… people need to play the game to get a feel for any potential improvements there. They didn’t buy it, didn’t play it, and still didn’t do either when turn-based was added.
Larian had zero reason to change a winning formula so I’m not sure why that factors in your mind? Literally a “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”.
I agree that budget isn’t the defining difference, the setting is. DOS2 starts you off on a ship then dumps you on a tropical island. Did it suffer? No… because their game is clearly not a Pirates (Age of Sail) game. You even see a shot of the characters on a big ship during the trailer but then go straight back to combat on land.
There are many discussions on this particular issue and John absolutely refuses to acknowledge it because he likes the setting.
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.