After playing Kingmaker..

[Kilburn]

bravo obsidian, compared to kingmaker, the deadfire devs have godlike genius intellect. 

I cant believe what a save scummy broken pile of garbage kingmaker is. Too bad because somewhere in there it feels like there's a decent game hiding. 

[daven]

Calm down man.

[uuuhhii]

pfk are filled of decades old flaw of old rpgs

but most likely not by the choice of owlcat the developer

but the requirement of the theme

too many player vocally demand things in pathfinder rulebook

so owlcat waste all the time and effort translate many of it into the game

but don't have the time to make these things actually work in a video game

[frogmoth]

Good for you! You are wrong, of course... Pathfinder: Kingmaker is a great game that knows what it wants to be. Deadfire is nice, but it can't decide if it wants to cater to a casual or a hardcore audience.

Edited July 22, 2019 by frogmoth

[xzar_monty]

The four comments above, by the way, perfectly exemplify a phenomenon that you can see on pretty much all internet forums.

Two of the comments above are sensible, the other two are not. And here's the funny thing: the sensible comments are written in perfectly decent English that is understandable and easy to read. The non-sensible comments are written in the kind of language that would make you flunk.

[Wormerine]

It can't be ignored that Owlcat worked on a far far tighter budget. One might make argument against making massive RPGs without resources to match the ambition, but crowd has spoken, game has been funded, and to be honest I have been fairly impressed with Kingmaker so far. 

It also cater to a very specific crowd - it is not bad thing in itself. Kickstarter games are a great place to do those kind of projects. I don't long for a faithful table top adaptation, but some people do. 

That's also a very backhanded compliment: "compared to X you are great!" Deadfire is great without being compared to other games. It is not "one or the other" situation.

[xzar_monty]

Do you know any specifics about these budgets, compared to each other? I would be very interested. (I also have no idea how they've sold, compared to each other, and would be interested in that, too.)

I don't think it's necessary at all to compare P:K and Deadfire, although I guess most people's thinking (mine included) is likely to go that way, given that there aren't that many new titles in this genre. But I have found that the both/and approach works much better than the either/or one. In other words, I enjoy both Deadfire and P:K. It makes me happy that they're both around.

[Wormerine]

53 minutes ago, xzar_monty said:

Do you know any specifics about these budgets, compared to each other?

No, mostly going based on Kickstarter funds. While it not the whole budget game got, it it still less then 1/4 of Deadfire campaign, plus year of pre-fig development and its coming after a financially successful first instalment.

Edited July 22, 2019 by Wormerine

[xzar_monty]

Right. Thanks for that. Less than 1/4 is significant, it has to be said. I suppose it can also been seen -- literally seen -- in a rather obvious fashion. I mean, when it comes to graphics, P:K is nowhere near as gorgeous as Deadfire.

[algroth]

2 hours ago, xzar_monty said:

The four comments above, by the way, perfectly exemplify a phenomenon that you can see on pretty much all internet forums.

Two of the comments above are sensible, the other two are not. And here's the funny thing: the sensible comments are written in perfectly decent English that is understandable and easy to read. The non-sensible comments are written in the kind of language that would make you flunk.

I don't see what makes two of those any more or less sensible than the other two...?

Anyways, I've said my part on this comparison a few times already. There's good things about Kingmaker and I appreciate that it's around but it's a game that is often ruined by small design decisions and implementations that always seem left enough to make the experience just a bit more frustrating. Comparing the two, the combat is night and day as well: in Deadfire it's both extremely enjoyable and flexible, and measured in its sheer amount; meanwhile in Kingmaker it's ubiquitous, tedious and very rigid. I wrote a bit more about it here:

Regardless, some of the story arcs were very nice, some of the companions proved to be hugely likable, and as sheer standard fantasy comfort food I do think it's worth a playthrough at least.

Edited July 22, 2019 by algroth

[xzar_monty]

I agree that the ubiquity of battle is a problem in P:K -- as I've said, the game does have many flaws. In this regard, it is quite close to PoE: simply dropping 50% of the battles would make both games 100% better.

[algroth]

21 minutes ago, xzar_monty said:

I agree that the ubiquity of battle is a problem in P:K -- as I've said, the game does have many flaws. In this regard, it is quite close to PoE: simply dropping 50% of the battles would make both games 100% better.

I think the problem is a lot more pronounced in Kingmaker simply because if you were to remove all those trash encounters, you'd actually end up with a pretty empty game. In the first Pillars there's at least sidequests and content galore, which is what allowed the devs to a large amount of encounters in the first place following a few patches. In Kingmaker the meatier sidequests are often few and lacking, and often handed outright at the throne room leaving very little incentive to actually go out and explore. Those few that exist seem to often be all about killing things too - see the Curse of Candlemere for example, which as a quest is extremely straight-forward and made only "lengthy" by means of the endless will-o-wisps that spawn on the path uphill. Most of the maps consist of arenas where you battle some monster or pack or other, beyond that what else is there to do in these? Granted, maybe the game does work better as a more linear experience too, side content doesn't have to be the be-all-end-all of these games either. Still, I do think there's reasons to why games in this vein with plenty of memorable sidecontent tend to stick more.

[xzar_monty]

To a certain extent, I agree with you. In my view, it's quite obvious that the quests are more interesting and varied in Deadfire. However, I don't see P:K as being quite that shabby in the writing department. What you say about the game being empty would, in my view, apply perfectly to NWN and NWN2 (to the extent that I played it, which wasn't much, as it was so poor). All quests (that I saw) in both of those games were FedEx ones: go there, kill the baddie, bring back the item. No variation whatsoever. It isn't nearly as bad as that in P:K, although I do agree that it isn't particularly inventive, either.

You know, given the chance, I would like to take a shot at writing material for a game like this. It's unlikely to happen, of course -- but as there are over a hundred titles (as in books) with my name on them in the libraries of my country, I don't hesitate to say that I do know a thing or two about writing.

[algroth]

54 minutes ago, xzar_monty said:

What you say about the game being empty would, in my view, apply perfectly to NWN and NWN2 (to the extent that I played it, which wasn't much, as it was so poor). All quests (that I saw) in both of those games were FedEx ones: go there, kill the baddie, bring back the item. No variation whatsoever.

If we talk about the main campaigns, yes - but you're missing out if you haven't yet played Mask of the Betrayer, to me that's the best Obsidian's done so far, as Obsidian anyhow. I'd also say that it's true of Neverwinter Nights and worse so as well, for me anyhow, but not true of Neverwinter Nights 2 whose side content is both quite measured in scope and generally quite varied and interesting as well. Regardless, as I said in that other post I believe, I don't think that the writing is bad because it's pulpy or campy, I think that's where the game's intentions lie after all. To me the writing falters more often than not in many of the specifics, of the strange shifts in tone or disparity between what is written and what is intended (see the whole matter with alignment for this especially), of very dry and on-the-nose dialogue, and so on. Even whilst being quite campy and pulpy there's a degree of wit or colour to the Baldur's Gate games that only occasionally shines through in Kingmaker - more notably through the goblins and Nok-Nok particular, which I reckon is all Avellone's doing.

[xzar_monty]

I know that Mask of the Betrayer exists, but I haven't played it, no. I don't think I can go back to NWN, even if there's a good campaign.

[bringingyouthefuture]

The really question, what would you like to see in a PK 2 game???

I know for one I hope they make one.  I would be interested to see what Owlcat would do with an original story line .... I think it is only fair to say that PK story is so strong because it pulled from a well received campaign.  To their credit the recreated it pretty darn well (not debating writing on their end or game mechanics as those seem to be the most hotly debated items when it comes to these games), but still they had a solid start.  For that reason I give a lot more credit to Deadfire and its original story.

Edited July 24, 2019 by bringingyouthefuture
clarification and spelling

[algroth]

Whilst I would certainly want and play another Owlcat Pathfinder game, I don't think a direct sequel to Kingmaker is necessarily the way to go. I feel the story is pretty self-contained and has reached a pretty satisfying and well-rounded conclusion, so I'd reckon I'd much rather see another story set in another part of Golarion and so on, maybe with a few throwbacks to the events of Kingmaker and so on. That said, if we were to continue the Kingmaker storyline I could see the war between Restov and Brevoy, or possibly the return of House Rogarvia and so on. Certainly a game with a greater base on political intrigue and turmoil would be the way to go with such a setup, especially after Kingmaker built up this conflict a fair bit early on, only to resolve it so dismissively during Armag's storyline.

[the_dog_days]

Wait, why is this in the Deadfire sub-forum?

[xzar_monty]

That's a fair question, but given that there's essentially no discussion anymore, does it matter?

[Hulk'O'Saurus]

Both Kingmaker and Deadfire are good games in my book... but they are not up there with some other titles. I can recommend them, but not in the same way I would recommend other games. I'd be asking questions of the people looking to play, and I will be giving some caveats after I mention them, as well. 

[xzar_monty]

You made me curious. So what are those other games?

[daven]

Persona 5 I think he's referring to.

[Hulk'O'Saurus]

32 minutes ago, xzar_monty said:

You made me curious. So what are those other games?

Divinity Original Sin 2 is a much easier title to recommend to people. Especially those looking to get into the genre. It's shallower in a number of ways, but it's overall presentation and easier to grasp systems would make it breezier to get into, and it has a number of goofy things in co-op which are actually not that bad. People all over have lauded that game as the be-all end-all... but I know my truth.  

Shortly followed by Fallout 1, Fallout New Vegas, ATOM RPG, and Planescape. Less focus on combat, more focus on overall world building, consistency, lore, atmosphere, and to a lesser degree - plot. But by no means shallow or lacking in complex character. Fallout 1 and ATOM RPG can play almost like an adventure game where having a particular item - be it a light machine gun, allows you to progress. Fallout New Vegas can be more or less combat-heavy, and whether its combat is good is debatable, but the game paces a lot better than any of the other 1st person Fallouts.  

The likes of Pillars 1 and Underrail follow. More complex combat, more time to get into the story, more things to keep track of overall. And it's not necessarily easy to get into. I like both of these games a lot, but I can never recommend them easily to people unless I ask them what are they looking for specifically. I think I'd put the Baldur Gates here. 

And after that come Deadfire and Kingmaker. And it's partly because I don't really have a concise impression of either of these games. They are lengthy, but it seems their length is due to excessive inflation of activities. Long combat time for Deadfire, a lot of travelling time for Kingmaker to name but one each. Not shallow games by any stretch, but the difference I am experiencing with these two to some of the other ones I've mentioned(not DOS2, mind you) is the same as eating two plates of expertly cooked pasta, but made with different quality of ingredients. You can see the skill that went into each of the dishes, it's just that one of them doesn't taste as good.     

[xzar_monty]

Ok, thanks for that. I bought D:OS from Steam, installed it, tried it for ten minutes, found that it was completely uninteresting, got my refund (for a game that had been played for less than an hour) and never looked in that direction again.

I have played maybe a total of five different titles within the past 20 years (that'd be BG, NWN, PoE, P:K and IWD, sequels included), and of those five, I would say two were a waste of time (IWD, NWN). The other three were good and enjoyable.

[Hulk'O'Saurus]

1 hour ago, xzar_monty said:

Ok, thanks for that. I bought D:OS from Steam, installed it, tried it for ten minutes, found that it was completely uninteresting, got my refund (for a game that had been played for less than an hour) and never looked in that direction again.

I have played maybe a total of five different titles within the past 20 years (that'd be BG, NWN, PoE, P:K and IWD, sequels included), and of those five, I would say two were a waste of time (IWD, NWN). The other three were good and enjoyable.

I see. 

I am wondering what you'd think of Vampire The Masquerade: Bloodlines. It being 1st/3d person has turned a number of people away. But it's a great game, still.