Originally Posted by Wormerine
Originally Posted by Sven_
Owlcat have released three massive 100-200 hour games, numerous DLC plus Enhanceds in the space of ~five years. If they'd patch their clearly "quantity over quality" stance, iterate and throw out the trash, they would easily climb to the top tier. I genuinelly hope they do... because the good parts of their games are real good.
Gosh, I am with you there. I wish so much I would enjoy playing through Pathfinder games (slogged through Kingmaker, failed to get too deep into WotR).


In case this mind sound mocking the Owlcats: It's frustration on my part. I have fond memories of Kingmaker as well, in particular early stages. Plus any game that is insipred by Realms Of Arkania's travelling and camping system does something good. However, I'm still not gonna revisit that either. I only need to think of the grind in the final chapter/s or so. And how the last couple maps had the same Wild Hunt super mob paste&copied all over them. Finding the right buff routines to make it out alive is challenging once. It's okay twice. But dozens of times?

That's just a low effort filler to make an already immensely long game even longer, as studios can do much better even when on a tight budget. And with Wrath, I wasn't near that final stage of Owlcat escalation yet, despite the in-game clock showing like 80+ hours of play-time total... Seems I didn't miss out on anything.

I think this all is a vital topic for the entire genre though. There's devs that try to go all-out LOTR, despite having the ressources for an episode of Xena - Warrior Princess at best. There's also genuinelly audience expectation that games offering less than X hours of playing time are ones to be picked up on a Steam discount at best. More importantly, outside of BG3, EVERYBODY is working on a budget. And even BG3, see the ongoing debate about the last act...

This obsession with campaign length needs to stop.

Last edited by Sven_; 26/07/24 11:56 AM.