Larian Banner: Baldur's Gate Patch 9
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 27 of 105 1 2 25 26 27 28 29 104 105
Joined: Dec 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Dec 2020
It is worth mentioning that for every person that says Pathfinder sucks because it's too complicated, the larger gaming community will see something like BG3 in the exact same light. It is this line of thought coupled with the RNG factor that makes me know that BG3 won't review as well as DOS:2 for that exact reason. And for that, It is not a criticism worth entertaining.

I went into Kingmaker knowing NOTHING about the ruleset. And my first character was an Eldritch Archer, which is apparently one of the hardest classes to learn. I had not played ANY tabletop DnD prior to that as well.

I think I managed alright. Put in the work to understand as much as I could and I ended up really enjoying it in the end. Though I know there's still quite a bit I don't understand, but it's a deep system and I appreciate the variety of stuff the system allows me to do for that reason. I only wish I could have a class like Eldritch Archer in DnD 5E.

Last edited by Saito Hikari; 05/09/21 12:27 AM.
Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Alyssa_Fox
WoTR is the prime example of how having too many options can be bad for casual gamers, there are too many many classes and subclasses, too many spells, the party is too large. Pathfinder is good for hardcore nerds, but for me it is too confusing and boring.

This sadly is why we do not see games like BG2, Arcanum, Planescape torment, Wizardry 8 not much anymore. And games that try to simplify stuff like PoE/Deadfire, end up not doing that well WITH THE CASUAL CROWD. Which is 90% of gamers nowdays. These people will say that all these old games are <annoying> <SLOW> <complicated> <pointless mechanics> <look dated and confusing> <repetitive>...

I love the Pathfinder series PRECISELY why you dislike it. TONS OF STUFF and OPTIONS; Yet its MODERN in design. Its like your offered a HUGE meal from worldwide dishes to try out, from the 90s up to now... and be like, naaah... Taco bell is fine.
I think we should be thankful for that, whether or not the story/gameplay doesn't hold up to everyone's <perfection> appeal.
Theres a reason why Diablo was so successful back in the days too. It simplified everything.

Last edited by mr_planescapist; 05/09/21 12:35 AM.
Joined: Dec 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Dec 2020
Originally Posted by Alyssa_Fox
WoTR is the prime example of how having too many options can be bad for casual gamers, there are too many many classes and subclasses, too many spells, the party is too large. Pathfinder is good for hardcore nerds, but for me it is too confusing and boring.

i'm totally cool with you enjoying a more casual experience with less options, but to call those who enjoy it "hardcore nerds" does no one any favours. I for one am really enjoying how complex it is. Part of the reason for this is that while I'm awful at the game and having some difficulties on a few battles even on the "normal" difficulty, the game goes to great lengths to try to explain a lot of the mechanics to you. I feel stupid for saying this, but i didn't realize you could set up a cantrip to autocast and the game gave me a pop-up saying "hey, just so you know, this character can cast this spell as many times as they would like, if you'd like to set it to auto-cast, just do this".

Joined: Oct 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
This is kind of the criticism of 3e, which is what Pathfinder is a rendition of. If games spent a lot more time teaching people the rules, and I don't mean through pop-ups and encyclopedia entries, the barrier wouldn't be such a pill to swallow.

I'm also not sure if PoE is a simplified game, at least for me it was mostly a struggle figuring out the connection between my input into the game and the output after it went through its byzantine calculations.

Last edited by Sozz; 05/09/21 12:34 AM.
Joined: Jun 2021
member
Offline
member
Joined: Jun 2021
Originally Posted by _Vic_
Originally Posted by Alyssa_Fox
WoTR is the prime example of how having too many options can be bad for casual gamers, there are too many many classes and subclasses, too many spells, the party is too large. Pathfinder is good for hardcore nerds, but for me it is too confusing and boring.

Yeah, because if it´s too complicated for you, it´s for "nerds".... really?

[Linked Image from c.tenor.com]

Having fun from reading manuals and rulebooks is nerdy. There's nothing wrong about being a nerd, so no need to get defensive, but for most people the "complicated" part about pathfinder is not falling asleep while reading about every possible class you can choose.

Joined: Sep 2017
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Sep 2017
Originally Posted by Alyssa_Fox
Originally Posted by _Vic_
Originally Posted by Alyssa_Fox
WoTR is the prime example of how having too many options can be bad for casual gamers, there are too many many classes and subclasses, too many spells, the party is too large. Pathfinder is good for hardcore nerds, but for me it is too confusing and boring.

Yeah, because if it´s too complicated for you, it´s for "nerds".... really?

[Linked Image from c.tenor.com]

Having fun from reading manuals and rulebooks is nerdy. There's nothing wrong about being a nerd, so no need to get defensive, but for most people the "complicated" part about pathfinder is not falling asleep while reading about every possible class you can choose.

I understand you prefer less complicated games, but You do not need to be unnecessarily rude when talking about a game either. You can talk about a game without labelling the people that play it, just saying.

Last edited by _Vic_; 05/09/21 01:18 AM.
Joined: May 2019
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: May 2019
Originally Posted by mr_planescapist
I love the Pathfinder series PRECISELY why you dislike it. TONS OF STUFF and OPTIONS; Yet its MODERN in design. Its like your offered a HUGE meal from worldwide dishes to try out, from the 90s up to now... and be like, naaah... Taco bell is fine.
I think we should be thankful for that, whether or not the story/gameplay doesn't hold up to everyone's <perfection> appeal.
Theres a reason why Diablo was so successful back in the days too. It simplified everything.
+1

Joined: Sep 2017
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Sep 2017
Originally Posted by Sozz
This is kind of the criticism of 3e, which is what Pathfinder is a rendition of. If games spent a lot more time teaching people the rules, and I don't mean through pop-ups and encyclopedia entries, the barrier wouldn't be such a pill to swallow.

I'm also not sure if PoE is a simplified game, at least for me it was mostly a struggle figuring out the connection between my input into the game and the output after it went through its byzantine calculations.

Yeah, when they decided to use the Pathfinder IP for the game they know they are going into deep waters. If you make it too pen-and paper, gamers would not play it, if you do not use most of the features and mechanics the TT has, players will ignore it.

In the case of those games ( Neverwinter, POE, Tyranny, Pathfinder games, shadowrun...) mostof the maths of the game are taking care by the game engine, so it´s a "problem" if you want to know how it works, checking what the numbers on the log meant.
And I agree most of the calculations of the D100 system the POE games use are a little weird. At least with D20 games, you know exactly what number you have to beat haha.



About the "Too many options" discussion, I´ll take more options any day of the week. My library is full of games I completed in a first 100% run and I never played again because I couldn't find a reason to.
I like to pick games that would not be forgotten after weeks of playing. Games like Baldur´s gate, Pathfinder, Pillars of eternity, Neverwinter Nights, tyranny,... they are still in my hard drive after all those years because, even if I know the story by heart, I always find some reason to play it again: choose another path, trying a new class, check this new mod that allows you do something different, etc

Last edited by _Vic_; 05/09/21 01:47 AM.
Joined: Oct 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
I'm a proud nerd, and I don't take offense when people use that term...

Joined: Jun 2012
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Jun 2012
Originally Posted by Saito Hikari
I went into Kingmaker knowing NOTHING about the ruleset. And my first character was an Eldritch Archer, which is apparently one of the hardest classes to learn. I had not played ANY tabletop DnD prior to that as well.
Spamming Arcane Accuracy and having a lot of Scorching Rays memorized is very difficult to learn indeed.

I am still on the fence about whether or not I want to buy WoTR in the long run (definitely not right now), so I am curious about a few (potentially somewhat spoilery) things:

- Is there any reactivity from companions apart from their quests and interjecting into conversations here and there but without much consequence? As in, will someone similar to Linzi or Tristian just drag behind a chaotic evil (or Jaethal - behind a lawful good) character, only saying an occasional "boo" but not doing anything?

- Is playing an evil character just as unrewarding and clashing with the narrative as in Kingmaker? Because I really suspect that it is, given the whole "crusade against evil" theme of WotR. Kingmaker seemed to actively punish you for evil/dismissive choices at every turn, and playing a goody-two-shoes was definitely what the plot was written around.

- Is the replacement of the Kingdom system just as shallow? I know it's turn-based army fights akin to the HoMM series, but are they actually properly made or just there because why-the-hell-not, like the Kingdom was in Kingmaker?

- How does the difficulty look at the very early/very late stages of the game? Do early-level characters still face against 20+ AC enemies with sniper accuracy while in the late game you deal with thousands of HPs worth of enemies, or did they actually balance their f***ing game this time?

Joined: May 2021
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: May 2021
Originally Posted by Boblawblah
Originally Posted by Alyssa_Fox
WoTR is the prime example of how having too many options can be bad for casual gamers, there are too many many classes and subclasses, too many spells, the party is too large. Pathfinder is good for hardcore nerds, but for me it is too confusing and boring.

i'm totally cool with you enjoying a more casual experience with less options, but to call those who enjoy it "hardcore nerds" does no one any favours. I for one am really enjoying how complex it is. Part of the reason for this is that while I'm awful at the game and having some difficulties on a few battles even on the "normal" difficulty, the game goes to great lengths to try to explain a lot of the mechanics to you. I feel stupid for saying this, but i didn't realize you could set up a cantrip to autocast and the game gave me a pop-up saying "hey, just so you know, this character can cast this spell as many times as they would like, if you'd like to set it to auto-cast, just do this".

I'd much rather have far too many options to choose from to the point it gets overwhelming, than be forced into 3~5 cookie cutter class archetypes with very little variety in their leveling process.

Neither Pathfinder nor D&D seem to have this problem to the degree I'm stating, of course, but my point is - more is always better in an RPG than less. The more customization given to a player, the better their enjoyment of the RP part of it along with the G. And I'm having an absolute blast with just how massive the character options are in WotR right now, even if I'm keeping most everyone single-classed for ease of understanding (due to lack of familiarity with the source material and mechanics).

Originally Posted by Alyssa_Fox
Originally Posted by _Vic_
Originally Posted by Alyssa_Fox
WoTR is the prime example of how having too many options can be bad for casual gamers, there are too many many classes and subclasses, too many spells, the party is too large. Pathfinder is good for hardcore nerds, but for me it is too confusing and boring.

Yeah, because if it´s too complicated for you, it´s for "nerds".... really?

[Linked Image from c.tenor.com]

Having fun from reading manuals and rulebooks is nerdy. There's nothing wrong about being a nerd, so no need to get defensive, but for most people the "complicated" part about pathfinder is not falling asleep while reading about every possible class you can choose.

Then call me a nerd, because reading about classes and how they work, from both a mechanical perspective as well as an RP flavor perspective, is one of the most fun parts of an RPG for me. People who play RPGs tend to like the RP aspect, do they not? I'm not sure why them being a "casual" or a "hardcore" type of gamer would detract from that simple fact.

And I'm quite a casual gamer when it comes to single player experiences. Having the breadth of options I do in this game has been a joy, and even though I'm attached to the class I've chosen for this first run through, I'm already thinking of how to respec so I can get more out of it. And the mythic paths themselves, as little as I've touched on them thus far, are making me excited for the future - even if I'm pretty well set on going with Aeon.



If anything, WotR is giving me the cRPG experience I've been missing from BG3. I haven't felt this engaged since I played Pillars for the first time; for all the issues it still has, it feels like a far more faithful love letter to the genre of cRPGs and their origins.

Joined: Sep 2017
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Sep 2017
Originally Posted by Brainer
I am still on the fence about whether or not I want to buy WoTR in the long run (definitely not right now), so I am curious about a few (potentially somewhat spoilery) things:

- Is there any reactivity from companions apart from their quests and interjecting into conversations here and there but without much consequence? As in, will someone similar to Linzi or Tristian just drag behind a chaotic evil (or Jaethal - behind a lawful good) character, only saying an occasional "boo" but not doing anything?

- Is playing an evil character just as unrewarding and clashing with the narrative as in Kingmaker? Because I really suspect that it is, given the whole "crusade against evil" theme of WotR. Kingmaker seemed to actively punish you for evil/dismissive choices at every turn, and playing a goody-two-shoes was definitely what the plot was written around.

- Is the replacement of the Kingdom system just as shallow? I know it's turn-based army fights akin to the HoMM series, but are they actually properly made or just there because why-the-hell-not, like the Kingdom was in Kingmaker?

- How does the difficulty look at the very early/very late stages of the game? Do early-level characters still face against 20+ AC enemies with sniper accuracy while in the late game you deal with thousands of HPs worth of enemies, or did they actually balance their f***ing game this time?

I do not know if you are really asking it or its yet another /runt about the first game in a thread that is about other games, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt and I will answer:


-The companions have banters between them, can be talked to in camp, have their own subquests and interject in conversations. They even have dialogues with the talking weapon and the mythic path companions. If what you are asking is if the companions talk without really regarding each other like in DoS2 games, they do not.

There are some companions that have added romance options and some of the companions also could change their alignment depending on your decisions regarding them.


-There are three entire evil paths: Demon, Lich, Swarm-that walks. As the entire game came this week and the beta was limited you will have to ask people that completed the game, if there is one ( I spent two hours just making my perfect character, and I was a beta player =D I think I beat my personal record of Tyranny). That said, the Lich path are regarded as the indisputable "best" path for arcane casters, you can turn some powerful characters you kill into your servants, and the swarm-that-walks basically lives to devour everything and becoming more powerful.


-It´s pretty much the same mechanics as HOMM3, with different units. You have distinct units, you have different "heroes" commanding the units, you have fortresses and cities to conquer and defend.
If that could be classified as "shallow" by you, it's for you and your tastes to decide. To me it´s ok. It has little in common with the kingdom management of the first title, and could be turned off.

-There are 7 basic levels of difficulty, and even more options to customize every one of them that could be changed ingame. You can play with them to tailor-made how hard the game you want it to be for you.



[Linked Image from i.ibb.co]
[Linked Image from i.ibb.co]

Last edited by _Vic_; 05/09/21 02:52 AM.
Joined: Oct 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
I like options and all those games too, but I can't help but feel that all the cool class or subclass choices in Owlcat's Pathfinder are sort of undermined in their character creator by putting those silly class outfits up front. Having 3-6 options for each subclass, but everyone still looks the same hehe.

It's as if I'm choosing to play a certain character type based on which initial looks I don't hate, instead of choosing a class I want to play and then creating a look that I enjoy which fits with that concept. Like the hard work put into the portraits and then the hard work put into the avatar models, they are sort of working at cross purposes for me. Since you can't really modify either, and neither can be made to look consistent with the other.

BG3 does something rather similar, it's just somewhat less pronounced, probably because the base options here are so much more limited and the BG3 modelling designers are better and get paid more lol.

Not to pick one thing and just bag on it relentlessly, but I think both games underestimate how important designing a satisfying character look is to the overall experience.

It was different in the old games because everything was so lo-fi and abstract by comparison, but once I can actually see this stuff articulated out into the models with greater detail, then I want to control and change all these things, but usually I can't. D&D game designers seem to delight in spending all these zots on faces and haircuts, but then skimping on the outfits and going with a locked design, even though the outfits end up being way more important to characterization in the end, since that's what we end up looking at the whole time. It's strange because by every measure BG1/2 had way fewer options in this regard, yet somehow still felt more adaptive. All the little blank faces and generic armor types, working with 3 colors in the 2d sprites, managed to pull it off better 20 years ago than anything I've seen since. Sure rogue hoods might have been just as annoying then too, but somehow it grates harder on me now.

I think I will just never be satisfied until we actually get a D&D developer who gives primacy to that aspect of char creation and does it up to the nines in a modern presentation. Like spending a year or two just building that out, or at least using a base engine/design studio that can do the heavy lifting for them, already built-in. Everything I've seen thus far is like half or quarter measures, since I know what's possible, but I guess they just want to keep that stuff proprietary and squarely in the art direction development arena. You know, instead of just giving the players a simplified version of the same kinds of tools that their artists are using.

ps. Just to use an obvious BG3 example, Larian's modelling artists clearly have the tools to make a Wyll or a Shadowheart, or whatever specific concept they might have in mind. But they will then keep that under lock and key as a show-off piece, such that the random player couldn't make such a character with the in game tools provided. Unless they are unlocking and unpacking stuff in mods. But its basically like being given a Lego set with all the shitty pieces and told to go to town, all the while staring at a pile with the really good pieces sitting across the other side of the table, where we can't reach. That idea. They want to be the artists, instead of making us feel like the artists, if that makes sense. All MMOs seem to do this as well, though they tend to provide more base options. I think an inverse approach taken to heart, would be an immediate hit for the ages. Where the game lets us be the artist, to create whatever look we can conjure up in the imagination, which is basically what PnP play amounts too, since nobody ever has a portrait really. Unless they like to draw, or know someone who does. But every player wants the same I think. They want to be the artist. A game can let this happen and encourage it, but usually they hold stuff in reserve and don't give up the tools of the trade. Or maybe its just way harder to build than I might think? But I think they should hire a series of modelling and 2D artists, and then have them build out a toolset/design suite for the Character creator in a way that's new-user friendly. There's a reason we all aren't modelling in Maya or Unity or Unreal or whatever the cutting edge iteration might be. What the casual player needs is basically a version of multiple choice design, where the tools are intuitive and the labelling easily understood, but where ALL the choices are cool. Because they were selected/curated for inclusion in the first place. Really trying to avoid the usual, which is like 2 cool, 2 passing fair, 2 middling, 2 ugly. Plug that in to whatever, be it heads or armor sets etc, that's usually what we get. Kinda falls short. I just want a bigger box of crayons. Comparing the BG3 character creator to the Pathfinder one, I'm just left feeling how neither is really the ticket, and it could be so much more. Maybe in the next decade I guess

Last edited by Black_Elk; 05/09/21 03:32 AM.
Joined: Dec 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Dec 2020
Originally Posted by Brainer
Originally Posted by Saito Hikari
I went into Kingmaker knowing NOTHING about the ruleset. And my first character was an Eldritch Archer, which is apparently one of the hardest classes to learn. I had not played ANY tabletop DnD prior to that as well.
Spamming Arcane Accuracy and having a lot of Scorching Rays memorized is very difficult to learn indeed.

I am still on the fence about whether or not I want to buy WoTR in the long run (definitely not right now), so I am curious about a few (potentially somewhat spoilery) things:

- Is there any reactivity from companions apart from their quests and interjecting into conversations here and there but without much consequence? As in, will someone similar to Linzi or Tristian just drag behind a chaotic evil (or Jaethal - behind a lawful good) character, only saying an occasional "boo" but not doing anything?

- Is playing an evil character just as unrewarding and clashing with the narrative as in Kingmaker? Because I really suspect that it is, given the whole "crusade against evil" theme of WotR. Kingmaker seemed to actively punish you for evil/dismissive choices at every turn, and playing a goody-two-shoes was definitely what the plot was written around.

- Is the replacement of the Kingdom system just as shallow? I know it's turn-based army fights akin to the HoMM series, but are they actually properly made or just there because why-the-hell-not, like the Kingdom was in Kingmaker?

- How does the difficulty look at the very early/very late stages of the game? Do early-level characters still face against 20+ AC enemies with sniper accuracy while in the late game you deal with thousands of HPs worth of enemies, or did they actually balance their f***ing game this time?

It's more like it took me 3 years and all the way until WotR beta phase 1 to realize I had not been using my Eldritch Archer's Arcane Weapon Enhancement ability properly, along with a couple other things. And most of the difficulty factor was back when Kingmaker was a pure RTwP game, before the turn-based mod was created and then officially built into the game, and thus the round-based buffs were finicky as hell.

Anyway, answers.

1) Companions will interject a lot, and I mean A LOT, but won't directly act against each other in quests or anything. The party ultimately still defers to you, the devs aren't going to randomly have a party member leave just because you had two specific party members have a disagreement at a specific point in the game, and you ARE the party leader, after all.

2) One would argue that evil characters may be MORE rewarding than a good run. Lich mythic path especially has more secret companions than the rest as far as I've heard. It doesn't clash with the narrative at all, it'd only somewhat feel awkward in the first two chapters for obvious reasons.

3) Honestly? The crusade system when I played in beta was rather interesting, but I felt it was sort of an afterthought in terms of development work done on it throughout the entire testing period. I am hearing of some concerning bugs and possible balance issues involving them right now... I honestly hope the next game ditches all of the management stuff, because it's clearly not the strength of these games.

4) No one has really gotten that far enough into the game to know, besides the few special people hand picked to take part in closed beta of the final two chapters. I cannot give a fair assessment as I am playing on normal difficulty either, but most people seem to agree that Core and above is bullshit and poorly balanced. It's largely going to depend on what you're really looking for in this game.

I could say that my rationale for enjoying WotR is mostly for the writing (especially party banter) and character customization, and not for the balance. Probably ironic considering how much I care about BG3's balance in comparison, but at the same time, my approach to BG3 is that given Larian's prior development history, my expectations around BG3 are that its combat is literally the only thing that I really care about in regards to that game. Everything else about the game in their current state is just a bonus to me, until Larian can show me that the companions are somehow going to evolve past the limitations imposed upon them by the origin system AND the decision to kill off half the party that completely kneecapped the D:OS2 companions in the end. Though WotR raised my expectations a lot in the companion writing department.

Last edited by Saito Hikari; 05/09/21 03:34 AM.
Joined: Sep 2017
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Sep 2017
Originally Posted by Saito Hikari
4) No one has really gotten that far enough into the game to know, besides the few special people hand picked to take part in closed beta of the final two chapters. I cannot give a fair assessment as I am playing on normal difficulty either, but most people seem to agree that Core and above is bullshit and poorly balanced. It's largely going to depend on what you're really looking for in this game.


I do not know who do you refer to with "most people" (¿?) There is even a thread asking for a "harder than unfair" mode via mods.

Anyway, I have experience in Hard mode and it´s... hard. But you have the possibility to customize the difficulty options. You cannot hit anything or enemies just save everything, lower the stat growth option, if you feel there are too many enemies, lower the difficulty option, if you feel the progression is too low... well. you know.


I really wish for Bg3 to have an option to lower the hp bloat of goblins, or the damage of fire for a low level party. Maybe we could have it before game release, one could hope...

Last edited by _Vic_; 05/09/21 03:14 AM.
Joined: Jun 2012
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Jun 2012
Originally Posted by Saito Hikari
Anyway, answers.

1) Companions will interject a lot, and I mean A LOT, but won't directly act against each other in quests or anything. The party ultimately still defers to you, the devs aren't going to randomly have a party member leave just because you had two specific party members have a disagreement at a specific point in the game, and you ARE the party leader, after all.

2) One would argue that evil characters may be MORE rewarding than a good run. Lich mythic path especially has more secret companions than the rest as far as I've heard. It doesn't clash with the narrative at all, it'd only somewhat feel awkward in the first two chapters for obvious reasons.

3) Honestly? The crusade system when I played in beta was rather interesting, but I felt it was sort of an afterthought in terms of development work done on it throughout the entire testing period. I am hearing of some concerning bugs and possible balance issues involving them right now... I honestly hope the next game ditches all of the management stuff, because it's clearly not the strength of these games.

4) No one has really gotten that far enough into the game to know, besides the few special people hand picked to take part in closed beta of the final two chapters. I cannot give a fair assessment as I am playing on normal difficulty either, but most people seem to agree that Core and above is bullshit and poorly balanced. It's largely going to depend on what you're really looking for in this game.

I could say that my rationale for enjoying WotR is mostly for the writing (especially party banter) and character customization, and not for the balance. Probably ironic considering how much I care about BG3's balance in comparison, but at the same time, my approach to BG3 is that given Larian's prior development history, my expectations around it are that BG3's combat is literally the only thing that I really care about. Everything else about the game in their current state is just a bonus to me until Larian can show me that the companions are somehow going to evolve past the limitations imposed upon them by the origin system.

Thank you for the answers. What I was looking for back when Kingmaker came out was an original BG-like experience, and what I got didn't exactly sit well with me in the end (it took me until last year to try to get into it again after my original playthrough back in 2018 died to bugs that made me unable to progress the main plot). I expected the combat to be challenging (I absolutely adore D&D 3.5, and like the fights there), but in an interesting way - with enemies being strong but not to the point of your best martial characters hitting them once a year while taking hits like nobody's business with 35 or so AC. Kingmaker on Challenging both in very early and very late game felt like armor and shields barely mattered as your melee fighters melt anyway, and most of the low-level spells just didn't work because enemies went past the HD thresholds pretty much immediately, while the top-tier ones were negated either by spell resistance or insane saves.

Kingmaker's combat didn't require tactical thinking in my book (in turn-based - even less so, I tried doing a run of Beneath the Stolen Lands in turn-based and after a while I just started repeating the same optimal actions on characters in every fight) - just a combination of understanding the system and the game not screwing you over with enemies that have 30+ Strength critically hitting your fighter for over 100 HP and killing them in one hit. Or, in the middle part, just spamming enemies with bombs and fireballs. There are no tricks, no cool approaches - a suboptimal party will suffer to an insane degree while an optimal one will also suffer, but less so. You can't summon a Mordenkainen's Sword to clear out all the illithids without breaking a sweat like in BG2, for example - the spell selection is very limited and there are way too many transformations that are freaking useless for the most part because their parameters are not balanced properly, but not really any actually interesting spells. And with how much combat there is, it became stale for me pretty quickly.

And character customization is nice and all, but when many features either don't work (bugs) or barely differ between classes (the tactical leader inquisitor and vanguard slayer's trademark ability, for example), it also turns into just picking the one actually functional combination of feats. Them just mindlessly copying them from the rulebook, sometimes without even adapting the description (which makes no sense in the game), also led to there being, say, weapon proficiencies for weapon types that don't exist in the game.

That was about enough venting, I think. Thank you again.

Last edited by Brainer; 05/09/21 03:17 AM.
Joined: Sep 2017
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Sep 2017
Ah, it was just another /runt about the first game in a thread about other games, not real questions... thanks to you for clarifying.

Last edited by _Vic_; 05/09/21 03:19 AM.
Joined: Jun 2012
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Jun 2012
Originally Posted by _Vic_
Ah, it was just another /runt about the first game in a thread about other games, not real questions... thanks for clarifying.
You're welcome.

Joined: Dec 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Dec 2020
Originally Posted by _Vic_
I do not know who do you refer with "most people" (¿?) but you have the possibility to customize the difficulty options. You cannot hit anything or enemies just save everything, lower the stat growth option, if you feel there are too many enemies, lower the difficulty option, if you feel the progression is too low... well. you know.

I mean I don't play on Core, which is why again I cannot give a fair assessment of the higher tiers of difficulty, but I do know that most people discussing the higher difficulties without any alterations say that the base options are a bit off. Like my tabletop DM that is giving WotR a whirl says that the Core settings right now are basically a DM constantly trying to one-up their players, and thought it was far better balanced once he went into the settings and lowered the number of enemies to normal.

I know it's great that we have a lot of options to tweak the difficulty and that we should really take advantage of it, but that doesn't mean it should absolve the devs from putting in a little more thought on that front. Especially when it seems there are achievements assuming that you are playing on Core with no changes to the settings at all. Even so, such arguments are only really a stone's throw away from the arguments about how we should just mod things into BG3 to fix perceived design issues there.

Originally Posted by Brainer
-snip-

I will say that back during beta, the enemy AI behavior combined with the environmental design did make encounters a lot more interesting to me than in Kingmaker. But it appears there may have been weird changes to the AI in the full release, possibly for the worse especially for turn-based, going off of my current experience so far.

Last edited by Saito Hikari; 05/09/21 03:28 AM.
Joined: Sep 2017
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Sep 2017
Originally Posted by Saito Hikari
Originally Posted by _Vic_
I do not know who do you refer with "most people" (¿?) but you have the possibility to customize the difficulty options. You cannot hit anything or enemies just save everything, lower the stat growth option, if you feel there are too many enemies, lower the difficulty option, if you feel the progression is too low... well. you know.

I mean I don't play on Core, which is why again I cannot give a fair assessment of the higher tiers of difficulty, but I do know that most people discussing the higher difficulties without any alterations say that the base options are a bit off. Like my tabletop DM that is giving WotR a whirl says that the Core settings right now are basically a DM constantly trying to one-up their players, and thought it was far better balanced once he went into the settings and lowered the number of enemies to normal.

I know it's great that we have a lot of options to tweak the difficulty and that we should really take advantage of it, but that doesn't mean it should absolve the devs from putting in a little more thought on that front. Especially when it seems there are achievements assuming that you are playing on Core with no changes to the settings at all. Even so, such arguments are only really a stone's throw away from the arguments about how we should just mod things into BG3 to fix perceived design issues there.

At least you have the option to change the things you do not like without resorting to modding the game yourself. I mean there are 7 different modes, and even more difficulty settings. That´s much more than 90% of the games have.

If you want to boast about playing in hard but it´s too hard for you but you do not want to lower the difficulty settings, or you want the achievement for playing in hard mode but you do not want to play the way hard mode is in the game... I do not think the devs are to blame. If they give you the options but you do not want to use them, well... I do not think it's the devs fault. It´s unrealistic to ask them to reach the sweet spot of difficulty for every player.
They give you the tools. It´s the player the one that is not using them.

Maybe it would be better if they created yet another difficulty mode, going up to nine or more? =D

Core, hard for posers, really hard, bullshitting hard and unfair.


PD: if your DM, being DM is used to know the statistics and the difficulty of the encounters I bet he is astonished about the enemies´ stats. It happened to me too. In KM and now in WOTR the monster's stats are less than core, the enemies are buffed in comparison. It took some time for me to get used to. PnP is more forgiving with the players. If I give the players a dc 25 diplomacy check at level 1 they`ll poison my pizza for sure XD
That said, in tabletop you cannot reload =P

Last edited by _Vic_; 05/09/21 04:05 AM.
Page 27 of 105 1 2 25 26 27 28 29 104 105

Moderated by  Dom_Larian, Freddo, vometia 

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5