Baldurs Gate 3 has an advantage over Pathfinder - Drow. There were no playable drow in the Pathfinder, just a couple of minor NPCs.
Pathfinder had a lot of interesting demons and succubus for every taste and color. Larian, do the same with Drow in BG3 and you will win. You can even add Eilistraee's drow for good playthroughs. Maybe even show the whole drow city, their society
Is there a concept from FR/D&D that Pathfinder didn't just appropriate instead of coming up with its own stuff (I know of at least one - the gith)? I am aware that it was supposed to be a D&D setting once (though I may be wrong), set in the common multiverse, until it struck out on its own with Paizo opportunistically offering a 3.5-like in the form of PF during the dark 4e times. Otherwise, apart from small details (like elven and gnomish physiology and mindset, for instance), they just took things and stuck them into their setting almost as-is.
I don't think Pathfinder were allowed any usage of DnD trademarked monsters, which are a handful of creatures like for example the Beholder, Mind-Flayers, anything of the few beings DnD hasn't taken directly from folklore.
Among those trademarks are the "fancy" dnd names for demons and devils, Tana'ri and Baatezu, but not the metaphysical structure of the universe itself and the opposition between the different kinds of fiends though. Basically it's safe to say that for every word DnD could reasonably claim to have invented themselves Paizo had to make up something new for their world; so most of it is virtually the same except at times name-changed.
I hopestly worry it's is not a failure but a feature. It's a hilarious extravaganza that you can play with your buddy or two or three and have a laugh. Preferebly under an influence of a substance of your choice.
Baldurs Gate 3 has an advantage over Pathfinder - Drow. There were no playable drow in the Pathfinder, just a couple of minor NPCs.
Pathfinder had a lot of interesting demons and succubus for every taste and color. Larian, do the same with Drow in BG3 and you will win. You can even add Eilistraee's drow for good playthroughs. Maybe even show the whole drow city, their society
i found the first pathfinder too epic, too big and too grand.
This one puts you in a commander role rather than a ruler's, but the scope is arguably bigger (instead of dealing with a relatively backwater region that just happens to have the strongest ties to the First World on account of its history, you are thrown into the world's biggest demon invasion territory left behind from a conflict between gods). And you get to transcend your existence with the mythic paths, which sound like they have a lot of plot relevance, unlike the first game's kingdom which was window dressing at best and barely added much apart from being an arbitrary plot device.
Wrath of the righteous looks incredibly good and so does BG3.
WOTR does appear to be offering a lot more mechanics through mythics paths where you can become angels, devils and liches ect....it looks really really frickin good....like really good. WOTR also possibly looks to have better story writing and companions. Owlcat are based in Poland and arent necessarily all about diversity and gender neutral crap like Larian is. I think Larain have gone waaaayyyyy to far with this stuff and Owlcat have completely tuned it down eg Larian has gone woke and Owlcat are not woke.
BG3 on the other hand looks better visually and i think has more potential due to there budget.
Thoughts people?
I actually stopped playing both games for different reasons. Don't get me wrong: Wrath of the Righteous, Pathfinder Kingmaker and Baldur's Gate 3 are good games.
(1) Wrath of the Righteous and Pathfinder Kingmaker are simply too large Sorry, I know others might think different, but you could make 3 games out of them and still have enough content. (2) On the plus side, Owlcat games have a consistent world and narration. Yes, there are some nice Goblins (Nok-Nok!!), but most Goblins are evil. Yes, there are Elves, but they are rare and not overly common. (3) Baldur's Gate 3 has a slightly wacky, unhinged world and storytelling that is constantly breaking immersion. But it's certainly beautiful.
Concerning the OP's comments about "Woke": There are more than enough games that focus on entertaining and challenging players with interesting philosophical ideas instead of preaching politics. It is simple to find them and many of them are AAA blockbusters - Witcher 3, Old World, Pathfinder Kingmaker, Skyrim etc.
i found the first pathfinder too epic, too big and too grand.
This one puts you in a commander role rather than a ruler's, but the scope is arguably bigger (instead of dealing with a relatively backwater region that just happens to have the strongest ties to the First World on account of its history, you are thrown into the world's biggest demon invasion territory left behind from a conflict between gods). And you get to transcend your existence with the mythic paths, which sound like they have a lot of plot relevance, unlike the first game's kingdom which was window dressing at best and barely added much apart from being an arbitrary plot device.
I am playing it now for 30 hours. Its not bad, but it is more like a glorified combat simulator with DnD Parameters and "story" bits. The story bits aint that bad. But it doesnt come close to BG3, which is more detailed. Detailed not only in a graphical way, but the focus is smaller and thus more immersive in my eyes. In BG3 you talk to interesting figures and use magic to influence the outcome by doing it inside the talking or before - like you be invisible and steal from a trader. You move a rock, solve a riddle and read stuff you find, you are a small group of adventurers.. All those "detailed" things arent working in pathfinder where you organize armies and plan strategically (which isnt a bad game, but its just more old school).
BG3 feels much more like a real table top DnD game, while pathfinder is a dnd inspired combat Simulator.
In Pathfinder there is no life. The most interesting thing in pathfinder are the random encounters. But there is no "city", no "life".. its just combat maps with "interesting text, that appears when you click on creatures.." Pathfinder, although oldschool also does not come close to Baldurs Gate 1 and 2.. maybe more like Icewind dale.
The good about pathfinder: a lot of classes, but the bad: outside of combat it doesnt really matter, there are no "role-play" skills. BG3 does that job a lot better. Its much much more immersive!
Last edited by Tav3245234325325; 28/12/2105:58 AM.
i found the first pathfinder too epic, too big and too grand.
This one puts you in a commander role rather than a ruler's, but the scope is arguably bigger (instead of dealing with a relatively backwater region that just happens to have the strongest ties to the First World on account of its history, you are thrown into the world's biggest demon invasion territory left behind from a conflict between gods). And you get to transcend your existence with the mythic paths, which sound like they have a lot of plot relevance, unlike the first game's kingdom which was window dressing at best and barely added much apart from being an arbitrary plot device.
I am playing it now for 30 hours. Its not bad, but it is more like a glorified combat simulator with DnD Parameters and "story" bits. The story bits aint that bad. But it doesnt come close to BG3, which is more detailed. Detailed not only in a graphical way, but the focus is smaller and thus more immersive in my eyes. In BG3 you talk to interesting figures and use magic to influence the outcome by doing it inside the talking or before - like you be invisible and steal from a trader. You move a rock, solve a riddle and read stuff you find, you are a small group of adventurers.. All those "detailed" things arent working in pathfinder where you organize armies and plan strategically (which isnt a bad game, but its just more old school).
BG3 feels much more like a real table top DnD game, while pathfinder is a dnd inspired combat Simulator.
In Pathfinder there is no life. The most interesting thing in pathfinder are the random encounters. But there is no "city", no "life".. its just combat maps with "interesting text, that appears when you click on creatures.." Pathfinder, although oldschool also does not come close to Baldurs Gate 1 and 2.. maybe more like Icewind dale.
The good about pathfinder: a lot of classes, but the bad: outside of combat it doesnt really matter, there are no "role-play" skills. BG3 does that job a lot better. Its much much more immersive!
You mean things that can be 100% explained by BG3 having a budget at least 20 times the size of WotR's budget.
i found the first pathfinder too epic, too big and too grand.
This one puts you in a commander role rather than a ruler's, but the scope is arguably bigger (instead of dealing with a relatively backwater region that just happens to have the strongest ties to the First World on account of its history, you are thrown into the world's biggest demon invasion territory left behind from a conflict between gods). And you get to transcend your existence with the mythic paths, which sound like they have a lot of plot relevance, unlike the first game's kingdom which was window dressing at best and barely added much apart from being an arbitrary plot device.
I am playing it now for 30 hours. Its not bad, but it is more like a glorified combat simulator with DnD Parameters and "story" bits. The story bits aint that bad. But it doesnt come close to BG3, which is more detailed. Detailed not only in a graphical way, but the focus is smaller and thus more immersive in my eyes. In BG3 you talk to interesting figures and use magic to influence the outcome by doing it inside the talking or before - like you be invisible and steal from a trader. You move a rock, solve a riddle and read stuff you find, you are a small group of adventurers.. All those "detailed" things arent working in pathfinder where you organize armies and plan strategically (which isnt a bad game, but its just more old school).
BG3 feels much more like a real table top DnD game, while pathfinder is a dnd inspired combat Simulator.
In Pathfinder there is no life. The most interesting thing in pathfinder are the random encounters. But there is no "city", no "life".. its just combat maps with "interesting text, that appears when you click on creatures.." Pathfinder, although oldschool also does not come close to Baldurs Gate 1 and 2.. maybe more like Icewind dale.
The good about pathfinder: a lot of classes, but the bad: outside of combat it doesnt really matter, there are no "role-play" skills. BG3 does that job a lot better. Its much much more immersive!
Yes, my feelings exact on Pathfinder games. I still like them and support them, but they don't scratch my DnD itch at all...
We Demand Collaboration Of Larian With OwlCat Studio
Maybe not in BG3, but if Larian hires OwlCat to write the narrative in Divinity Original Sin 3, then I will buy this game
Owlcat can't even write a good narrative for their pathfinder games so no.
Daeran has some great lines. Daeran and the (infinitely less interesting) assassin NPC:
Quote
Greybor: "Speaking strictly hypothetically, Count, if you could kill anyone in Mendev, who would it be?"
Daeran: "Boredom. Or sanctimony. I would annihilate them in this wretched country if I could, but alas, there is no assassin capable of dealing with such monsters."
The problem isnt "game too epic, too big and too grand." Its just plain too boring. Players loved ESO what was truly big, epic and grand because it was exciting. Somethign wrong with this genre. I expect Larian to fix it.
One idea Ive what if they added rhythm or groove to it? Even simple 1, 2, 1, 1, 2, 1, 1, 2, 1, can go a long way.
When did lying become a scam? Girls lie all the time with their "pushup bras" that their breast are bigger than they really are.
What? O.o Wtf does that have to do with... Anything? o.O I mean, the idea behind the pushup-bra (aka, clothing that pushes up the breasts) has existed for at the very least hundreds of years, and somehow men (and women) in earlier times have always been aware of what the female body looks like without it. :'D But suddenly in the modern western society the natural physics of the human body (primarily the female one) is a mystery - despite naked bodies being but a internet click away. Truly interesting times we live in. X]
Originally Posted by GreatWarrioX
As for Pathfinder Wrath of the Righteous. If its as long as DOS2, I just cant do another Fantasy one. This genre is way way too tedious, I want fix.
Ha... Haha... Hahahahahahah! X] ... Generally, both of the Owlcat Pathfinder games are much longer than DoS2. :] Speak for yourself of finding it tedious - I love long adventures that give me my moneys worth in play-time! \o/
Hoot hoot, stranger! Fairly new to CRPGs, but I tried my best to provide some feedback regardless! <3 Read it here: My Open Letter to Larian
Maybe my example wasnt the best so I apologize. My point is that scamming and lying are two different things. Cyberpunk lied alot to us but it wasnt scamming, at least how I view it. Btw, sometimes it works. Cyberpunk became insantly more popular than entire Witcher series, take some notes Larian.
For me DOS2 was extremely tedious, luckily theres good music on YouTube. People say Larian is AAA gaming company but yet you gotta go to YouTube for music?
Pathfinder hmm. It is not like I am totally against it. Have not bought it yet. I have bought BG3 Early Access.
However I have so much other things to do and stressful fulltime work with also overtime work hours. At some point when I will reduce my work from full time to work example 3 days /week voluntary (I can afford it economically) then perhaps I will play Pathfinder 2. I have plently of other things to do.
That said little teasing. I will likely buy Pathfinder 2 when the price is crystal clear less then at the release.
I would estimate that normal play (I am not that kind of player that has to exlore every freaking sidequests) time through BG3 campaign will take less hours then Pathfinder 2. Well and BG3 I can enjoy in cooperative multiplayer.
Sorry, I know others might think different, but you could make 3 games out of them and still have enough content.
