Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General Pathfinder Wrath of the Righteous vs BG3

Ember is the problem. This is probably the most absurd character I've ever seen in a games.
Due to the fact that not everyone has probably finished the game, I will write it in a spoiler.

In this particular case Owlcat has kept to canon, though.

Let's start comparing the games... and we start with companions.

I haven't finished WotR yet, but so far it feels like a good game with mostly great gameplay interesting general story arc (taken from the Pathfinder module) but average writing (done by Owlcat writers). Kingsmaker writing was not great either but sill way better. The story looks like it's written by a male teenager with traumatic dating experience (all romanceable female companions are psychopaths, one of them brain-damaged). The story line is fine and was not done by Owlcat studio, but the implementation of this story line is meh. Voice over is hit and miss.
WotR companions:
1. Seelah is an alcoholic paladin, she always talk about drinking, most of her conversations revolve around drinking, and also she drinks while on duty. Personal quest is very predictable and not very engaging. Voice over is fine.
2. Camellia is a psychopath, a serial killer and a cannibal. Her personal quest is well done... but why would main character want an insane serial killer as a companion (when it's revealed) even if evil? Voice over is good.
3. Wenduag is a bootlicker, a psychopath and a cannibal. Her personal quest is meh. Voice over is bad (by some reason the Owlcat decided that openly evil females should always growl when they speak). She's the WotR's Lae'zael, except Lae'zael doesn't bootlick.
4. Lann (didn't take him to form an opinion)
5. Woljif is a liar and a coward. Actually a believable personality for a thief. His personal quest is good. Voice over is good. This is a well made character even though he's not very likeable.
6. Ember is a pure oxymoron character. In the story description she's ugly scarred "child", on her picture she's conveniently scarred only in places that won't make her looks bad. If she's a real child then why she's a companion to begin with? In the story she's a naive pacifist but as a companion she murders and destroys enemies left and right, casts the deadliest spells including hellfire rays... Also from the get go she has powers pretty much equal to gods... Her personal quest is nonsense. Voice over is good.
7. Daeran is a narcissistic psychopath, has machiavellian personality. Interesting personal quest, which lacks content. Good voice over. He's WotR's Astarion.
8. Nenio is a narcissistic pseudo-scientist. She uses anachronistic modern lingo. She is supposedly a scientist but she has no idea what scientific methods are. Marked as neutral she's actually evil because she's selfish and has no problem to murder someone if she needs something for her so called "experiments". Personal quest is bland. Voice over is bad.
9. Arueshalae is a demon (thus psychopath, sadistic murderer and consumer of human flesh) who, due to divine intervention, suddenly acquired compassion. Somehow she also has got brain damage because, instead of just getting compassion she also became submissive and stupid even though she has hundreds years of experience. She behaves like an inexperienced clueless teenage schoolgirl in the cringy manner. Personal quest is cringy. Her alignment by some reason is chaotic neutral, however she always acts as neutral good. Voice over is bad.
10. Sosiel is a sissy flower child cleric. What he's doing in the crusade is a mystery because his personality doesn't fit the environment, besides being absolutely unrealistic representation of a human being. His personal quest in general is good. Voice acting is fine.
11. Greybor is a psychopath and a pretentious assassin. His plot feels like it has been written by the schoolboy imagining being a cool assassin. Somehow he is marked as neutral alignment even though he murder anyone for money without remorse, therefore he is actually neutral evil. The personal quest is in theory, not bad, but badly designed. Voice over is fine.
12. Regill is a fanatically lawful hellknight. Somehow he's marked as lawful evil even though throughout the game he makes no single evil action. More than that, in "the most desired dream" it is shown that he is absolutely not selfish and 100% devoted to his duty. Therefore he's clearly lawful neutral to the letter. Besides couple of issues he's well made character. Voice acting is great.

In conclusion, despite large variety of companions there are no likable ones. If we compare them with BG3 companions, who are also not very likeable, at least they are mostly well written. BG3 is a clear winner here.

thats_bait.gif

I'm enjoying it so far. The Mythic stuff feels kinda gimmicky in both a gameplay and story perspective so far IMO, but I like a lot of the philosophy of how the game was laid out They didn't shy away modeling things like the passage of time or travel distance that BG III greatly abstracts. There's even some high-level play involving kingdom management stuff that I have only just started to get into. Haven't seen much of that style of gameplay outside of NWN2 and BG2 with the strongholds.

I like a lot of the ways it embraces complexity. I'm already feeling like BG2 is reaching the mechanical limits of what 5e is designed to do, and it was really nice to see stuff like masterwork weapons and materials like cold iron, adamantine, and mithral. I really miss seeing stuff like crit ranges, crit mods, and dex mods playing BG III.

There's a little of a 'class bloat' thing going on where it feels like there seems to be a class or class variant for near about every conceivable type of character you could adventure as without an attempt to organize and cull them down into something more manageable from a worldbuilding perspective. But I don't really like a lot of what BG III/5e do with classes either (Whaddya mean I have to be a Dragon Disciple or a Wild Mage if I wanna be a Sorcerer?!) So I'll consider them more or less even in that department.

Plotline wise, I think I like Pathfinder a little more than BGIII. Both are outrageous all-out Epic-level campaign/setting-ending events as impetus, which I find is less my thing these days. The Absolute stuff in BG III feels really confused at times though-what it can do, what it's goals are etc. There's still plenty of time to be fleshed out, but it feels a bit nonsensical at times how the plot is unfolding. On the other hand, BG III feels better at the small roleplaying stuff generally. For instance, a lot of the evil choices in WotR boil down to 'I don't like you. Die! [Evil]' which is a shame. I like a lot of the 'little stuff' in BGIII more, the small roleplay dialogue choices and reactivity to stuff like race and class.

Characters are...an interesting subject. I have really soured on the Origin system over time, and I think comparing it to WotR shows its limitations. in BG III we get all of the party members dumped on our lap at the same time. all of them aside from Lae'zel have pretty 'out there' backstories setting them up as huge badasses that honestly I'm afraid will overshadow any experience you might get from a custom character. While there are some...out there party members in WotR, there are still a number of 'normal people' or at the very least comparably grounded. Seelah is literally one of the Pathfinder 'iconics' but she's remarkably 'normal' despite that. The player character gets their own storyline unique to them, of course, because there are no origin characters. There's enough party members that if you don't like one or two, there's plenty of variety and overlap to build your party the way you want, and they are spaced out over the course of the game, so you aren't overwhelmed right at the start.


They are both excellent games right now, IMO. But it is unfortunate to see BG III basically cede even attempting to do some of the things that Pathfinder is trying. Particularly with what feels like a noticeable disparity in budget. I feel like BG III might be in danger of not living up to its potential here.

WotR is remarkably deep. I see most of the people criticizing the game here doing so from a "good palythrouugh" point of view, but there's more ways to play this game. If you choose the demon mythic path the way Arushalee evolves might be way different for example. If you play as an Aeon you get to do stuff that's not so common in any CRpgs, not to mention what happens with some of the late game mythic paths. Besides this, each Mythic Path changes the game considerably both mechanically and storywise.

About the companions, I honestly don't get all the vitriol. Are they perfect? Not in the least, but they are not as bad as some people claim here either. For example, I personally detest Camelia (for obvious reasons) and I decided to stop her in her personal quest even if that meant losing her as a companion, but that doesn't mean I consider her a bad character that damages the game. Quite the contrary, because she's certainly something you don't expect in a CRPG. And this is true for many other companions in the game. And let's be honest, the likes of Viconia (and I love her btw) Jaheira and even Minsc were not such great characters from a literary standing point, yet most of us remember them fondly.

It would have been no problem if there was a variety of likeable and unlikable personalities, but in WotR all companions fall into either "detestable" or "annoying" categories. No single character I would have liked to have as a friend if they were living in real life. Regarding the older characters in BG2, I've never looked at those characters in terms of writing, they always existed as combat companions because every single quest in BG2 had to be solved by hitting someone on the head. But I cannot say that all of them were not likeable, but Mincs for me was actually annoying, never liked that hamster nonsense.

Well, I have finished two playthroughs, and I have posted about both here, so my criticism is based in that. The evil playthrough (lich) I have no interest in completing at this point.

I apologise if you already said it and I missed it, but I'd be interested in knowing what you think of BG3's companions from a likeability perspective.

Surely you realize how subjective that is, right? Personally I don't find "all companions in WotR to be detestable or annoying". Some I like, some I don't but I try to judge them on the basis of coherence (are they true to the way they are presented? Is their development believable?) and the quality of their quest (the extra content they provide basically).

On that basis, here's my opinion:

-Camellia: I dislike her but she certainly coherent in her evolution in game, she also adds a lot in terms of shock value (did anyone expect her to be what she is?). Her personal quest is not particularly long but it is poignant for her character.
-Seelah: I find her bland. She's a paladin but she also likes to party... well cool I guess? Aside from that she doesn't add much to the game imo. Her personal quest doesn't either and doesn't add much (a couple extra encounters and a small extra dungeon).
-Lann: It's interestig because his character is strictly tied to his mortality. He knows he's going to die young and in that regard the decisions he takes make pretty good sense. His development may vary depending on the mythic path you take.
-Ember: I get why some people don't like her but personally I think she brings quite an unique prospective to the game. The point of her character is that she is a living saint even without mythic powers. She's willing to forgive everything and everyone and she actually has a chance to change people's minds and even their nature. I admit she's not very coherent though (but having her not fighting would be a problem in a game like this). She develops differently depending on the kind of mythic path you choose though and her personal quest is not particularly interesting or deep.
-Arueshalae: She's honestly not as bad as some people try to make her look. First she was a succubus on the path of redemption even in the original tabletop adventure, second, how do you think a succubus that wants to find redemption should behave? Personally I think her development makes a lot of sense. Her personal quest is not bad (in chapter 4 expecially). She changes depending on mythic path (so if you want an evil succubus you can have her).
-Woljif: He's pretty believable as a thief and sneak and he can evolve in 2 different ways through the game. His personal quest is well done and adds quite a bit of content. The way he evolves is certainly believable whatever you choose.
-Daeran: I like him, he can be really petty but as you learn about his personal history you realize how that came to be. His personal quest if very well done imo.
-Sosiel: Again I find him a bit bland, cleric of good deity with rage issues, ok but not great I think. His personal quest is really good though and potentially gives you an extra companion.
-Regill: A fun take on the concept of the gnome and hellknight. He's very down to heart and analitical in his approach. He doesn't really change his personality as you advance into the game (he refines hi assessment of you though), his personal quest is not very good or developed.
-Wenduag: She's very coherent. She follows strength, you are stronger than she is so she follows you (until she finds someone who she thinks is stonger, at least...) not exactly my piece of cake but I think she does provide an interesting point of view and is certainly not bland. Her personal quest is similar to Lann's although with radically different outcomes.
-Nenio: Eh... all can I say is that she's meant to be irritating and there's a reason for her being how she is. You find you if you manage to complete her personal quest which is the most complex of them all (and quite frankly a bit too hard than it should be, expecially compared to the others).
-Greybor: I like Greybor. He's presented as a professional assassin and he lives up to this throughout the game. His personal quest is good imo (gives you access to some pretty great gear too btw). He develops differently depending on how you play.
-Trever: Not much to say here. I list him as a companion because you can have him in your party for a decent amount of time but he doesn't have a personal quest (you get him if you do Sosiel's) he certainly makes sense as a character though.

Note that I did not include the undead companions and Aivu (too niche), and Queen Galfrey (you get her when the game is basically over). Finnean is not a full companion.

Now, consider how most of these characters change depending on your choices and how vast and deep the game must be to accomodate all of these different interactions. Personally I don't think that criticizing the characters because you find them "dislikable" on a subjective basis is fair criticism of the game.

Fact is there is not just ONE evil playthrough there are 4 (Demon, Lich, Worm that Walks, Devil) as there are 3 good ones (Angel, Gold Dragon, Azata) and 3 neutral ones (Aeon, Trickster, Legend). Most of these give you different things to do in game and radically different outcomes, some stuff that is possible has never been included into a CRrpg (to my knowledge at least), and you get to do suitably epic stuff (in the angel path it felt really great to be able to kill Deskari once and for all for example). On top of this there is a secret ending (like there is one in P:KM btw) you can only achieve if you do things in a certain way.

Again, say what you want but the depth and replayability is remarkable and I don't see how one can deny that.

P.S.

Speaking of endings, I find really fitting that the best ending possible is the true Aeon one (or the true neutral one if you like) which give you the best possible outcome for Golarion at a steep personal price.

It's not only the ending but also how you get there that I find important in a game. I have tried the gold dragon for example. Not only was it mechanically even buggier than trickster (which had several mythic feats not working), the transformation turned my entire character model an unappealing shade of brown, there was barely any content and my character's supposed mythic allies abandoned her. Same as the gold dragon will refuse to help you if you don't turn into one. Do the good factions even care about defeating demons? Doesn't seems so to me.

As for the secret ending, unless they overhaul the crusade system, I have no interest in that one. Because I didn't mind the kingdom management in PK, but the army battles in WotR are an exercise in boredom.

The reality is that there are noticeable differences in quality between the various mythic paths, in both the amount of bugs and the quest content. It's clear that the game was rushed.

You are entitled to your opinion I guess, but the major bugs were stomped out in the first weeks after release (much quicker than it happened with Kingmaker btw), and the game is now fully playable. The crusade system is not perfect (it's actually really easy if you know what you are doing btw) but I don't think it's terrible either, and personally I enjoyed the kingdom management aspect of Kingmaker, although how to do things was not explained well upon release. I spent 20 minutes learning how things were done though and everything went fine, the crusade system is much easier than that (and it's not necessarily a good thing).

I've seen a post reporting the trickster bugs maybe a week ago on the official forums. Same with gold dragon, still bugged. Game being playable doesn't mean that all the paths are working as intented.

This right here is the key to any comparison of the two games. If this is not very explicitly factored in, then any comparison is completely meaningless.

Are these bugs game crashing? I don't think so. Sure, it would be better if the game runned perfectly from the day of release but I don't think it's a big deal if a few bugs are still a few bugsin game. If PF:KM tells us anything is that the game will work perfectly eventually, and PF:KM was way more buggy on release (that bear... XD)

I did not write they were game crashing. Just not fun to play, considering it's more than just a few.

I've commented on BG3 companions but that was long time ago. I can repeat no problem.
Astarion is a classic narcissistic psychopath by the book. Very well done in BG3. He's definitely detestable by me but Larian writers very accurately showed him having a superficial charm, which most psychopaths have, which makes him likeable or even adorable by naive people who've never dealt with this type of personalities on a regular basis. I can easily imagine him being a real person sans vampirism.
Lae'zael is an inconsistent personality. She's not very well written. One line she looks like a rational person, next line she's a murder hobo, her lines suddenly switch between angry and nice like she's crazy and has a split personality, which I think was not intended. I hope her character will be fixed before release. For now she's in the annoying and detestable category.
Gale is a narcissistic wizard. He's tolerable, a bit annoying and not likeable. He's well written and has a believable personality.
Wyll was not a companion I was taking on my playthrough, so I cannot comment on him much, on the surface he seems fine.
Shadowheart is a sassy cleric. This is actually likeable character for me. In comparison to other companions, she's definitely not a psychopath or a narcissist. Throughout the dialogues she's shown actually very reasonable and good willed for a worshiper of Shar. Also very well written and believable character.