• ampersandrew@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    Combat is part of the game, and unavoidable combat at times is part of that too, but the option to do anything else was just so rare in Pillars 1. I do prefer turn-based combat, but RTWP is made more manageable when the information is more readable. Pillars 2, for instance, color codes all sorts of stuff in your combat log and zooms in on events like enemy kills. Those two things alone make it much easier to parse what’s happening compared to its predecessor. And the amount of combat in Pillars 1, while it may be similar to Baldur’s Gate 1 and, at times, BG2, still suffers from the same things those games do. If you’re sitting at a tabletop setting and getting through a combat encounter, you’d probably feel like your DM was lazy if they just threw 4-6 trash mobs at you in between finding points of interest in a dungeon; it doesn’t make for the best pacing. Again, Pillars 1 was very good, but it’s also very restricted by comparison.

    • dsemy@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      Well you managed to convince me to finally play Pillars 2. I actually don’t mind the chaotic nature of RTWP (kinda makes me feel like it’s a real fight, in a way) but zooming in on events to effectively relay info is very clever.

      I have unfortunately never had the chance to play D&D (only ever had one friend who was interested), so I compare cRPGs to other video games, where having shitty enemies between points of interest is pretty much expected.

      But I understand what you mean by it being more restricted. Still liked it better though, honestly in large part because I think the writing and story are much better (very subjective though).