Today in Solasta clearly wasn't balanced for anything beyond the initial six released classes...
The newly released Warlock is making people realize how many instant death pits you can blast things into. Probably even more than in BG3. It's just way harder to shove things normally in Solasta, but Warlocks don't give a damn.
While we are on the topic - they've taken some liberties with the Bard and the Warlock as well, changing Hex quite significantly and not having the equivalent of Armor of Agathys available (not like they couldn't just rename the spell as they did with Hideous Laughter and Acid Arrow if they're in a different setting...) and letting the subclasses have access to a whole assortment of non-typical spells from other classes' spellbooks. The Light Monk also makes the base campaign's undead and Sorr-Akkath segments a lot easier to deal with by just slapping lights on anything he/she punches with a ki attack.
As for the DLC that I finally decided to give a shot to after they released the rest of the classes - it's somewhat of an improvement over the base campaign, although even with the factions now being a lot more prominent of a mechanic the fact that you don't really have much of a wiggle room until later on in terms of your allegiances is really unfortunate, with how you are forced to accept every quest and have no choice in how to resolve them. I like the more vast outdoor areas and that fights became a lot less filler-y and now throw really tough creatures even at a low-level party, and how they added a whole bunch of enchantable equipment types (finally, magic crossbows!) and the ability to make your own wondrous items, but the writing is still very bad (the dialogue is actually, as much as I despise the term, cringe-worthy) and the exploration still amounts to pushing rocks and creating log crossings whenever given the option, with a lot of time-wastey non-thinking moments that make you feel like you are not as much exploring in wilderness but playing a level, artifice and all. Literal fetch quests and the quest design still being very rigid and awkward weren't too appealing, either, but it's alright. I am hopeful that the community will make use of the finally powerful modding tools to make better stuff, like they did with NWN1.
Also...
Is whoever you pick at the beginning as an NPC companion supposed to be just silent and non-existent in dialogues? Are they meabt to get killed in some fight early on as they don't level up? Because it's very jarring when they just disappear and appear again only to serve as a moderately useless combatant.
Before starting I must say I deeply love both games.
I don't quite see how both experiences are comparable since BG3 is a more cinematic presentation while WoTR is a more classic 90s. Yes, they are both CRPGs, however, what they are trying to achieve is completely different.
WoTR is focused on delivering its complex systems and grand narrative. But the effort in each scene is a big wall of text that focuses on voiceovers and scene descriptions that appeal greatly to the player's imagination.
BG3 is a cinematic experience focusing on the involved characters and developing them emotionally and in empowering situations.
I intimidated a lot of folks in WoTR, but none of those moments came close to my barbarian intimidating Kagha to release the child. We can see the fear in her eyes.
I know that liberating Drezen, and getting your powers and powers are also really epic moments, including the game's superb music. However, the focus of WoTR is on the world and how you shape it and not on personal and character development besides the role of the commander.
Thats not how I see it. The companions in WotR develop a lot and we will have to see if for example the story of Shadowheart will really be much different than the one from Woljif.
The thing is WotR is much better with how it handles "epicness" than BG3. You know from the promotion material that being mythic is the core of the game. But in the game you start at the bottom A random guy found wounded on the road. The "epicness" only comes gradually, both for you and your companions who start out as just another thief, an archer living in the sewers, ect.
BG3 frontloads the epicness (for marketing purposes?) with dimensional invaders, dragon battles, you travelling with chosen and so on. But then you are supposed to forget all that and instead go back to be the newbie adventurer doing newbie quests with what happened to you (tadpole) literally stop mattering and your supposedly epic chosen companion can hardly cast magic missile. That is rather bad pacing in my eyes. And I do not see that it or anything else in BG3 automatically develops the companions better than WotR or shows more emotions. The only thing BG3 has is graphics.
Having been replaying BG3 over the past week or two, I'll admit that the companion performances are pretty good. There have been moments I found genuinely compelling. Gale's weave scene wa so good that I felt compelled to romance him, and even the way that developed was quite satisfying in my opinion. But I don't think they're necessarily better than any of WotR's companions. I'm not gonna judge too harshly because we haven't seen the whole of it yet, and it's not fair to judge a finished story against an unfinished one. But I will say that with its voiced sections, WotR also manages to deliver on some really impressive performances in my opinion.
And I fully agree with Ixal that the pacing of the game is off. WotR starts off focused for the first two acts, then it opens up and gives you more freedom in what you do, but even in the first act, though the story is focused, you actually do get a degree of freedom to explore, which is I I suspect what Larian thinks its doing with BG3. Also, something just occured to me as I was writing this actually. If you think about it, WotR actually also has an epic start. You personally are just a wounded nobody, but you see a demon lord behead a silver dragon and witness a demonic invasion within the first thirty minutes. But I have never seen anyone accuse WotR of feeling too epic off the bat. Why do people think that might be the case? I actually don't have a good theory there.
1. You are entirely passive in WotR. You see it happening, get one shot off and fall into a crack to deal with "mundane" things. Granted you are not all that active in BG3, but you run around the ship and i the end intervene in the fight between a mind flayer and a high ranking devil. After that the expectations are higher.
2. The story flow in WotR is better. You see the "epic" demon invasion and once you emerge from the sewer the big slaughter is over and you have to deal with the rearguard of the demons, fighting undead and cultists, helping the resistance, ect. Its all connected.
In BG3 you have the beginning with the mind flayers, devils and dragons. And then the story suddenly stops and gets shelved while you help out druids agains goblins ect. Typical beginner adventurer quests which have 0 relation to the start you experienced. Even the tadpole gets "disarmed". Why have this epic beginning when its not build upon? Thats probably why people feel it is so out of place. Because objectively there is no difference in how epic both games start. WotR just uses that premise much better.
Yes, I think you hit the nail on the head, especialyl with your second point. You could in theory cut out the whole nautiloid sequence, make some minor tweaks to dialogue to explain how you know you have a tadpole, and it wouldn't impact the first act's story at all. The cult and druids and nautiloid aren't really connected all that much, that goes double for the hells. That whole opening sequence is just...disconnected from everything else that's going on later. It makes the whole thing feel weaker because it makes the actual act one area feel like it doesn't matter. It's just a place we landed in and we could have landed anywhere and it wouldn't really impact the story. Whereas with WotR, the story can ONLY start in Kenabres.
If you think about it, WotR actually also has an epic start. You personally are just a wounded nobody, but you see a demon lord behead a silver dragon and witness a demonic invasion within the first thirty minutes. But I have never seen anyone accuse WotR of feeling too epic off the bat.
I bought WOTR upon release last year, played it for two weeks during my holidays -- and I haven't yet picked it up since. One reason for that is that Owlcat REALLY love to have tons of combat to the degree that they just put trash mobs on like every spot on their maps that appears empty (to exaggerate).
The other is that I prefered Kingmaker that way, the much more grounded beginning in particular. It's not only that WOTR starts with a demon invasion. It turns into a power fantasy creep almost immediately, both mechanically as well as plot-wise (you're being "gifted" mythical powers right in the first dungeon). You can't fault the game naturally, as that's the selling point of the Adventure Path this is based upon. Eventually I'll get back to it. It's a good game. But back then, it was a bit "much". And I was stuffed.
Re: Combat pacing, that's one thing Larian will likely get much better than in WOTR (or Kingmaker, or their DOS games). Based on the EA back from two years anyway.
For one: Direct combat isn't the only option. Secondly, whilst Larian's maps are highly condensed affairs, with druid groves sitting right next to goblin camps sitting right next to dangerously dangerous dungeons: Not every single path to every destination is stuffed with enemy mobs, acting as roadblocks from A to B (as tends to be the case in Owlcat games -- or DOS). And lastly, back in the EA, even depending on the race you chose, you could avoid turning NPCs otherwise hostile from the get go.
I have not read the entire 86 pages of discussion, interesting as it is, because time . Is it fair though to compare the unfinished game to the finished one? I am also under the impression that the first chapter of BG3 we have is not the exact copy of the first chapter in the finished game, so...
Having said that - I have played WOTR almost to the end. (My hard drive had died, and since I did not have backup saves...). I love some parts of this game, but some I despise with vengeance - yep, the (in)famous crusade mode - talking about immersion breaker. It annoys me to no end that I cannot concentrate on my questline and have to go into army/city builder. And dear god the silliness of RTS battles. I was always completely uninterested in RTSs but since WOTR my gut reaction is pure burning dislike. To the point that I am trying to replay WOTR and finish it but the sheer thought of going through crusade mode again stops me. The story and companions are fine, WOTR has that classic 90s fantasy vibe, the world is immersive and awesome, and the main questline (and most of the sidequests) is fun. But it is in no way original or subversive (which is fine bc this game is an example of solid wysiwyg fantasy game). However, there are parts of the gameplay that are still buggy and/or broken. (Maybe the recent patch improved it though, I haven't checked it yet.) By broken I mean, for example, a particular boss fight where the boss kept spawning minions every turn (yep, playing in turn base mode) until I had to wait for minutes until I could attack. It was bordering on ridiculous. I had last stand feat plus a pretty high AC rate and did consistent minimal damage but it took a very long time and bosse's spawning got out of control. It went into twentyish? or more number of spawns, a mini army pretty much. This should not be in the finished game imho. This is a broken mechanic if I ever seen one. Also some bosses are plain bullet sponges - which is the worst way of creating a boss fight. So, as much as I love the game the fact that it has such basic level errors in basic mechanics that should be polished is offputting.
It is still an amazing game and I will probably try tinker with toybox to cheese the crusade as much as I can.
i have not played the Kingmaker and I know it has a similar mechanic so... *sigh* I bought it though so I will play it for sure.
Also, perchance, I don't know if someone mentioned it before but Owlcat is Russian, I think?
BG3 on the other hand - requires a bit of background research. Considering the amount of external lore connected to the game, it takes some work to appreciate it. But that is a purely subjective venture, and I think the game by itself is off to a good start. By sheer premise - it is a pretty original and curious plot start of the game. And the companions - they are amazing in a more subtle way. From the start, I was second guessing each one of them - and finding them secretive and untrustworthy as ffff. Beginning with Gale - he tops my list of "do not trust anything this man says". Even the patterns of likes/dislikes to your actions are sometimes curious and may hint at different things going on beneath the veneer of champ, vamp or somewhat self-centered mage with a large ego. None of the cRPG games I have played had me thinking this hard about and checking my companions' actions, so I'd say job well done, Larian, in writing them.
I have not read the entire 86 pages of discussion, interesting as it is, because time . Is it fair though to compare the unfinished game to the finished one? I am also under the impression that the first chapter of BG3 we have is not the exact copy of the first chapter in the finished game, so...
Having said that - I have played WOTR almost to the end. (My hard drive had died, and since I did not have backup saves...). I love some parts of this game, but some I despise with vengeance - yep, the (in)famous crusade mode - talking about immersion breaker. It annoys me to no end that I cannot concentrate on my questline and have to go into army/city builder. And dear god the silliness of RTS battles. I was always completely uninterested in RTSs but since WOTR my gut reaction is pure burning dislike. To the point that I am trying to replay WOTR and finish it but the sheer thought of going through crusade mode again stops me. The story and companions are fine, WOTR has that classic 90s fantasy vibe, the world is immersive and awesome, and the main questline (and most of the sidequests) is fun. But it is in no way original or subversive (which is fine bc this game is an example of solid wysiwyg fantasy game). However, there are parts of the gameplay that are still buggy and/or broken. (Maybe the recent patch improved it though, I haven't checked it yet.) By broken I mean, for example, a particular boss fight where the boss kept spawning minions every turn (yep, playing in turn base mode) until I had to wait for minutes until I could attack. It was bordering on ridiculous. I had last stand feat plus a pretty high AC rate and did consistent minimal damage but it took a very long time and bosse's spawning got out of control. It went into twentyish? or more number of spawns, a mini army pretty much. This should not be in the finished game imho. This is a broken mechanic if I ever seen one. Also some bosses are plain bullet sponges - which is the worst way of creating a boss fight. So, as much as I love the game the fact that it has such basic level errors in basic mechanics that should be polished is offputting.
It is still an amazing game and I will probably try tinker with toybox to cheese the crusade as much as I can.
i have not played the Kingmaker and I know it has a similar mechanic so... *sigh* I bought it though so I will play it for sure.
Also, perchance, I don't know if someone mentioned it before but Owlcat is Russian, I think?
BG3 on the other hand - requires a bit of background research. Considering the amount of external lore connected to the game, it takes some work to appreciate it. But that is a purely subjective venture, and I think the game by itself is off to a good start. By sheer premise - it is a pretty original and curious plot start of the game. And the companions - they are amazing in a more subtle way. From the start, I was second guessing each one of them - and finding them secretive and untrustworthy as ffff. Beginning with Gale - he tops my list of "do not trust anything this man says". Even the patterns of likes/dislikes to your actions are sometimes curious and may hint at different things going on beneath the veneer of champ, vamp or somewhat self-centered mage with a large ego. None of the cRPG games I have played had me thinking this hard about and checking my companions' actions, so I'd say job well done, Larian, in writing them.
Also I am a newbie so, hello everyone
Welcome!
Just FYI, Owlcat was originally based in Moscow, and continues to have a mostly Russian team, but is now officially based in Cyprus.
I have not read the entire 86 pages of discussion, interesting as it is, because time . Is it fair though to compare the unfinished game to the finished one? I am also under the impression that the first chapter of BG3 we have is not the exact copy of the first chapter in the finished game, so...
Having said that - I have played WOTR almost to the end. (My hard drive had died, and since I did not have backup saves...). I love some parts of this game, but some I despise with vengeance - yep, the (in)famous crusade mode - talking about immersion breaker. It annoys me to no end that I cannot concentrate on my questline and have to go into army/city builder. And dear god the silliness of RTS battles. I was always completely uninterested in RTSs but since WOTR my gut reaction is pure burning dislike. To the point that I am trying to replay WOTR and finish it but the sheer thought of going through crusade mode again stops me. The story and companions are fine, WOTR has that classic 90s fantasy vibe, the world is immersive and awesome, and the main questline (and most of the sidequests) is fun. But it is in no way original or subversive (which is fine bc this game is an example of solid wysiwyg fantasy game). However, there are parts of the gameplay that are still buggy and/or broken. (Maybe the recent patch improved it though, I haven't checked it yet.) By broken I mean, for example, a particular boss fight where the boss kept spawning minions every turn (yep, playing in turn base mode) until I had to wait for minutes until I could attack. It was bordering on ridiculous. I had last stand feat plus a pretty high AC rate and did consistent minimal damage but it took a very long time and bosse's spawning got out of control. It went into twentyish? or more number of spawns, a mini army pretty much. This should not be in the finished game imho. This is a broken mechanic if I ever seen one. Also some bosses are plain bullet sponges - which is the worst way of creating a boss fight. So, as much as I love the game the fact that it has such basic level errors in basic mechanics that should be polished is offputting.
It is still an amazing game and I will probably try tinker with toybox to cheese the crusade as much as I can.
i have not played the Kingmaker and I know it has a similar mechanic so... *sigh* I bought it though so I will play it for sure.
Also, perchance, I don't know if someone mentioned it before but Owlcat is Russian, I think?
BG3 on the other hand - requires a bit of background research. Considering the amount of external lore connected to the game, it takes some work to appreciate it. But that is a purely subjective venture, and I think the game by itself is off to a good start. By sheer premise - it is a pretty original and curious plot start of the game. And the companions - they are amazing in a more subtle way. From the start, I was second guessing each one of them - and finding them secretive and untrustworthy as ffff. Beginning with Gale - he tops my list of "do not trust anything this man says". Even the patterns of likes/dislikes to your actions are sometimes curious and may hint at different things going on beneath the veneer of champ, vamp or somewhat self-centered mage with a large ego. None of the cRPG games I have played had me thinking this hard about and checking my companions' actions, so I'd say job well done, Larian, in writing them.
Also I am a newbie so, hello everyone
Hello, welcome to the forums!
While it may not be fair to compare an unfinished game to a finished one, you also have to consider that Pathfinder:WotR was released in Early Access roughly the same time as BG3, and it makes much more sense to compare two EA games with each other. Alternatively, one could compare Act 1 of WotR with Act 1 of BG3...which as you mention, might not be directly comparable due to possible BG1 Act 1 overhauls, but still better.
I personally agree with many of your critiques of WotR - I stopped playing in large part due to the Crusade Mode. I refuse to play with it on auto mode, as I'm under the impression that you miss certain content/fail certain quests if you set it on auto mode (same as in Kingmaker with...Amiri's quest I think?). I'm also just not a fan of 6-person RtwP, especially with the complexity of Pathfinder 1e, and 6-person TB battles in WotR are such a slog.
Imo, Kingmaker's Kingdom Management is much less of a hassle then WotR's Crusade. In Kingmaker, managing the kingdom is mainly simply assigning advisors to tasks, and very quick "buying and placing buildings in grids to make your towns." There's not a separate gameplay element that you have to play through, like WotR's Crusade Battles. Imo, the main annoyances of the Kingdom were 1.) that you can't manage your kingdom outside its borders, which limits the amount of time you can spend traveling outside your borders before needing to go back, else you'll possibly miss something important, and 2.) that certain Kingdom Events fast-forwarded time 14 days, possibly again skipping over important events. Thus, I installed a mod allowing me to manage my kingdom from anywhere, which hugely cut back on my stress.
tl:dr - You might enjoy Kingmaker more (or hate certain aspects of it less), but I'd recommended installing some Kingdom Management Quality of Life mods.
Re: Kingmaker/WOTR, With the criticism of "too much combat / trash fights" I'm luckily not alone. Ok, google search and "confirmation bias" and all. But still.
Re: Crusade mode in WOTR, I played this on "normal" mode last year (IIRC there was an easy option for Crusades). But it never went beyond a stripped down Heroes Of Might And Magic in Easy Mode up to that point. I enjoy that kind of game, but likewise couldn't see how it was a major annoyance. EXCEPT for that is basically how the overland map is gradually being unlocked for your party to explore. Wouldn't mind for an Owlcat game that was "purely BG clone", so to speak. But it's one of those things that make them stand out from the crowd a bit -- never got the criticism towards Deadfires ship stuff either (except for the ship to ship text combat, perhaps).
If they continue to make CRPGs with light strategy/management elements, they should improve on that. Rather than toss it all out. They're not going to please anyone anyway, which they seemed to have tried with Kingmaker already. Time is of concern in that game, but the vast majority of timers are this forgiving, they are borderline flavor stuff, rendering mechanics such as carry weight slowing down the party and similar stuff pretty meaningless.
(This reminds me of the criticism geared at the Realms Of Arkania games, the first two in particular. Those games had a lot of party micromanagement -- buying food, clothes, keeping the party healthy, setting up camp. A section of the playerbase didn't like it, surprise. So they tossed it out completely for the third game. In restrospect the game's main designer (the dude on Planescape:Torment's cover artwork) regrets this, as he realizes now they were doing something special that nobody really else did. The camping feature in both Pathfinder games (and the Expedition Vikings/Rome...) series was big time inspired by Realms Of Arkania.
You're not going to please everybody. And that's fine. I personally also tend to prefer entertainment products that are unique and fully commited to what they do. Some of them I won't like, which is fine. Those that do, they hit you all the harder if they are fully commited to their cause.
In fact, time has virtually no meaning in WoTR. Apart from one quests in the first act, the others either don't have it (at least it's high enough that it doesn't matter)
never got the criticism towards Deadfires ship stuff either (except for the ship to ship text combat, perhaps).
I liked the whole traveling around in the ship thing.
I thought the text based combat was pretty horrendous though.
I wouldn't call it horrendous - it's definitely not good, but it's so quick to do and so skippable I don't really comprehend why people mention it so much. Minigames rarely turn out well. As something I can do when traveling between point A&B or skip entirely I did find some enjoyement in the system from the "immersion" or "roleplaying" standpoint.
The most legit criticism I have seen of Deadfire ship, is that it removed almost all outside areas. There are people who really like connected open areas of BG1 or PoE1. I am not one of them, but I can see how they would see the abstraction as a negative.
The exploration/continous overland map is one of the reasons I prefer BG1 over BG2, actually. However, that map was really "continous", in PoE1 not that much. Granted, Bioware reused and paste&coped a lot of art assets back then, so that a lot of maps look similarish. Plus, not every map connects with one another that seamlessly. Still, travling from Candleep to The Friendly Arm, that was an actual road you could take (it was also safer to keep staying on this road). Which made it feel like going on an adventure in actual world, as opposed to jumping from one setpiece to the next (in BG2 you never find locations for yourself, they're all revealed by quest givers and all exist for the sole purpose of those quests). http://www.shsforums.net/index.php?...tach_rel_module=post&attach_id=23892
But PoE with its Kickstarter budget never went all the way and/or was naturally a good deal more "compressed". Still liked some of the wilderness though!
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
In fact, time has virtually no meaning in WoTR. Apart from one quests in the first act, the others either don't have it (at least it's high enough that it doesn't matter)
Yeah, was speaking Kingmaker. That game had timers, but they were mostly flavor. I think the key to implementing timers is that when they run out, they should never lead to a straight game over screen. Unless perhaps you do something deliberately stupid. Such as: spending months looting and leveling on the Bays of Eversunshine, when the game constantly warns you that soon The Big Bad is about to crash on your world hard.
Instead, the world should move on. But with other paths still being kept open. IIRC Kingmaker even did this early game, but that may be my memories playing tricks on me. You hear about a temporary camp of the Staglord's minions someplace, and are encouraged to travel their quickly. If you don't do that within time, the camp is gone. However, that doesn't mean game over. Thinking about it, stuff like that could be explored by more games imo, as if everything is freezing in place, that doesn't feel like a world. It feels more like a movie setpiece solely existing to wait for you to show up.
It's actually based on what you do in what order. Doing one quest will slightly change the other. As far as I know, there is one more shuch quest later in the game, the problem is that it's done in a very bad way.
Great video that I'm sure i've posted before by Josh Sawyer, a post mortem on Deadfire. . 37:50 is where he talks about ship to ship combat. the whole video is a great insight into the development process and the realities devs face.
Is whoever you pick at the beginning as an NPC companion supposed to be just silent and non-existent in dialogues? Are they meabt to get killed in some fight early on as they don't level up? Because it's very jarring when they just disappear and appear again only to serve as a moderately useless combatant.
I had missed this days ago. The NPC is apparently just to help you get through the starting area, and isn't expected to survive beyond that. Some people have done challenge runs trying to keep them alive for the entire campaign.
Instead, the world should move on. But with other paths still being kept open. IIRC Kingmaker even did this early game, but that may be my memories playing tricks on me. You hear about a temporary camp of the Staglord's minions someplace, and are encouraged to travel their quickly. If you don't do that within time, the camp is gone. However, that doesn't mean game over. Thinking about it, stuff like that could be explored by more games imo, as if everything is freezing in place, that doesn't feel like a world. It feels more like a movie setpiece solely existing to wait for you to show up.
Nope, the only variable affecting whether or not the camp is there is...
...you choosing to go after either Tartuccio or the druid first. You could spend most of the time limit exploring and then just going to the objectives and they will still be there as long as you didn't do anything main story-related.
Kingmaker's world is as disappointingly static as it can get with the premise it introduces, that you are building a freaking kingdom. The only area really changing is your capital, and even then the change is mostly visual (although I do like how it looks different for different alignments - too bad the throne room is the same regardless). You'd think that capturing an ancient dwarven forge/stronghold, for example, would have a big impact and provide you with opportunities - whereas it remains the same ruin you found it as for the entire game.
And while most RPGs are much the same in how their locations don't really change as time/story progresses, in Kingmaker's case it's especially noticeable, because it keeps harping on about how you are restoring and taming the land but it stays just as wild as it's previously been.
. 
