This or Pillars of Eternity?

[Kwest]

Hey everyone! I recently started my first playthrough of pillars of Eternity. I was never super into CRPGs, but i really want to give them a try. I am very strapped for time with a newborn and a job, so I only really want to have one of these to play an hour or two a night. So I am wondering should I pick this up? Or is Pillars a better choice?

[RocketMan]

Now, hear me out, I haven't actually played pathfinder but I have played pillars.

Everything I hear about pathfinder, is that it's better than pillars in almost every way.

And, personally, I don't think pillars is a great CRPG to start with. The content isn't very dense, the gameplay can be frustrating until it clicks, etc. etc. It's more of a game I'd recommend to someone that's already a fan of the genre.

[rodionivanov]

start with Pillars then move to Pathfinder , pillars is easier less complex and its short especially deadfire. But really from an ole crpg player they not even in the same league. Pathfinder blows it out of the water.

[RocketMan]

Originally posted by rodionivanov:

start with Pillars then move to Pathfinder , pillars is easier less complex and its short especially deadfire. But really from an ole crpg player they not even in the same league. Pathfinder blows it out of the water.

Ayyy, are you that guy that from the TB vs RTWP fights back on the BG3 forums way back when?

[D1PST1CK]

If time is a problem, I'd go for Tyranny first. It took me only 43 hours while doing everything the game has to offer. You'll get a bit into the genre without the need to spend months to complete it and it's a really good RPG.

If you feel that that's your thing, you can still go for the bigger ones or the classics.

For comparison: PoE 1 took me more than 80 hours, PoE 2 with all DLC 100 hours, Kingmaker already took me 172 hours and I'm not even through.

[Kwest]

Originally posted by Mail me to the Moon:

Now, hear me out, I haven't actually played pathfinder but I have played pillars.

Everything I hear about pathfinder, is that it's better than pillars in almost every way.

And, personally, I don't think pillars is a great CRPG to start with. The content isn't very dense, the gameplay can be frustrating until it clicks, etc. etc. It's more of a game I'd recommend to someone that's already a fan of the genre.

Awesome! It sounds great. Ya, pillars is good so far, but feels.. off? Kinda? I feel it would go away with time.

[Hi.standard]

I think Pillars is fine, I mean..it's not a competition, it's a good game. This is different.

[Kwest]

Originally posted by rodionivanov:

start with Pillars then move to Pathfinder , pillars is easier less complex and its short especially deadfire. But really from an ole crpg player they not even in the same league. Pathfinder blows it out of the water.

Ya? Tempted to check this out still!

[Kwest]

Originally posted by D1PST1CK:

If time is a problem, I'd go for Tyranny first. It took me only 43 hours while doing everything the game has to offer. You'll get a bit into the genre without the need to spend months to complete it and it's a really good RPG.

If you feel that that's your thing, you can still go for the bigger ones or the classics.

I may need to try out Tyranny when I want to just be as evil as possible!

[Kwest]

Originally posted by Hi.standard:

I think Pillars is fine, I mean..it's not a competition, it's a good game. This is different.

Like this is miles ahead?

[RocketMan]

Originally posted by Kwest:

Originally posted by Mail me to the Moon:

Now, hear me out, I haven't actually played pathfinder but I have played pillars.

Everything I hear about pathfinder, is that it's better than pillars in almost every way.

And, personally, I don't think pillars is a great CRPG to start with. The content isn't very dense, the gameplay can be frustrating until it clicks, etc. etc. It's more of a game I'd recommend to someone that's already a fan of the genre.

Awesome! It sounds great. Ya, pillars is good so far, but feels.. off? Kinda? I feel it would go away with time.

That's my main problem with it, you keep feeling like that. Like you're gonna stumble on some nice area or some big event...and the game just ends.

Deadfire on the otherside had a really nice content rich area in the big island city. Worth the play 100% for that area alone.

[Katie]

Originally posted by Mail me to the Moon:

Everything I hear about pathfinder, is that it's better than pillars in almost every way.

Depends what type of gamer you are and where you are at in terms of crpg experience.

Pillars of Eternity 1, 2 and Tyranny are far more accessible and easier to learn. They also far fewer traps at character creation since the number of viable builds is higher and stat allocation does not need to be perfect. The gulf between good and bad characters is nowhere near as deep/wide as it is in Pathfinder.

This new Pathfinder game has better tutorials than the first game, but you can't really beat the polish and elegance and accessibility of Pillars of Eternity. And at the end of the day, a higher % of players beat Pillars compared to the last Pathfinder game, which says a lot about how accessible it was.

Pillars 1 has some downsides. For me, I found the dialogue wordy at times, and I wish the pacing was a lot faster. This was fixed to a greater extent in Deadfire.

Tyranny is probably the most accessible CRPG I have ever played because it's impossible to screw up character creation really, and it's options and progressions expand to match your learning curve of the game, which is very good for new players who want to learn as they go and would rather not want to have everything dumped on them all at once. This is something Pathfinder is terrible at, even if they did try to mitigate it as much as possible through tutorials.

Now, I just want to be clear, I'm not saying the Obsidian games are better, but for a certain type of player, there is definitely the appeal for sure. I just don't think it's a right to say that "one game is better than the other in almost every way" when it depends a lot on the player. There are definitely players that would say the opposite because of where they are at in their crpg journey.

[D1PST1CK]

Originally posted by Kwest:

Originally posted by D1PST1CK:

If time is a problem, I'd go for Tyranny first. It took me only 43 hours while doing everything the game has to offer. You'll get a bit into the genre without the need to spend months to complete it and it's a really good RPG.

If you feel that that's your thing, you can still go for the bigger ones or the classics.

I may need to try out Tyranny when I want to just be as evil as possible!

I played it as good as possible and that had its own charm. I really like that game.

[Kwest]

Originally posted by Mail me to the Moon:

Deadfire on the otherside had a really nice content rich area in the big island city. Worth the play 100% for that area alone.

I was tempted to play deadfire, but i feel i should start with the original instead.

[Kwest]

Originally posted by D1PST1CK:

Originally posted by Kwest:

I may need to try out Tyranny when I want to just be as evil as possible!

I played it as good as possible and that had its own charm. I really like that game.

Interesting! I'll have to check it out later for sure.

[Kwest]

Originally posted by Katie:

Originally posted by Mail me to the Moon:

Everything I hear about pathfinder, is that it's better than pillars in almost every way.

Depends what type of gamer you are and where you are at in terms of crpg experience.

Pillars of Eternity 1, 2 and Tyranny are far more accessible and easier to learn. They also far fewer traps at character creation since the number of viable builds is higher and stat allocation does not need to be perfect. The gulf between good and bad characters is nowhere near as deep/wide as it is in Pathfinder.

This new Pathfinder game has better tutorials than the first game, but you can't really beat the polish and elegance and accessibility of Pillars of Eternity. And at the end of the day, a higher % of players beat Pillars compared to the last Pathfinder game, which says a lot about how accessible it was.

Pillars 1 has some downsides. For me, I found the dialogue wordy at times, and I wish the pacing was a lot faster. This was fixed to a greater extent in Deadfire.

Tyranny is probably the most accessible CRPG I have ever played because it's impossible to screw up character creation really, and it's options and progressions expand to match your learning curve of the game, which is very good for new players who want to learn as they go and would rather not want to have everything dumped on them all at once. This is something Pathfinder is terrible at, even if they did try to mitigate it as much as possible through tutorials.

Now, I just want to be clear, I'm not saying the Obsidian games are better, but for a certain type of player, there is definitely the appeal for sure. I just don't think it's a right to say that "one game is better than the other in almost every way" when it depends a lot on the player. There are definitely players that would say the opposite because of the where they are at in their crpg journey.

The wordiness is something that's dragging the experience for me a little. Good to know its a lot more accessible though. So all in all, they are similar genres, but just different in general.