After playing Kingmaker..

[xzar_monty]

7 minutes ago, the_dog_days said:

Pathfinder is a rule set for cooperate storytelling with a live rules arbiter (DM). None of these things are in P:KM despite mostly being a one-for-one conversion of those rules. (This isn't even mentioning that half the feats are still bugged.)

I think it's a fair point that a direct conversion of PnP rules into a cRPG probably isn't the optimal solution, so yes, I tend to agree on that. However, if we look at Deadfire's set of rules that aren't based on anything in PnP, I'd say they also have a series of problems -- other kinds of problems, but problems nonetheless. For me, both games ended up being enjoyable enough to finish, so in that sense I'm completely satisfied.

And it has to be said that both games were a mess on release. I did my playthrough close to or over a year after release date with both, which I find very unfortunate. I mean, games tend not to be worth playing upon release, and that's just not good.

[3x0du5]

I waited 1 year+ to buy deadfire simply because of my experience with PoE1 where game was a mess at release and was getting balance changes every two months, kinda dissapointed that even after 1 year there are plenty of things that does not work properly and probably never will ...

[uuuhhii]

30 minutes ago, 3x0du5 said:

I waited 1 year+ to buy deadfire simply because of my experience with PoE1 where game was a mess at release and was getting balance changes every two months, kinda dissapointed that even after 1 year there are plenty of things that does not work properly and probably never will ...

it is weird how deadfire can add so many bug in patchs that even the first version of the game doesn't have

only annoying bug left after 5.0 are unable to start conversation with steward

[Boeroer]

And loot destruction with Essence Interrupter.

[Lorfean]

What I've played of Pathfinder: Kingmaker so far I have enjoyed very much, and IMO it definitely gets a lot closer to scratching that IE itch than the PoE's ever did. My problems with the latter, I have come to believe, lie with the systems and the writing -- neither manages to captivate me in the long run and it's been extremely frustrating... Deadfire *should* be a game that I fall completely in love with but it isn't. Instead it has a few good set pieces, some mildly interesting characters, and a handful of cool encounters that are floating in a sea of mediocrity and it drives me absolutely nuts.

Not to mention the systems -- there are SO many options for building your characters, but in the end nothing *really* packs a punch. Maybe it's the short buff / debuff durations, maybe it's the convoluted inspirations / afflictions system, or maybe it's something else entirely, but every time I try to continue my save I give up after a few battles. Not because I can't beat them, but because I feel no excitement when I do even though I've set up the difficulty so that I do actually have to pay attention to things to succeed, the system just rubs me the wrong way... It's a huge shame but I'm glad PF:K exists because it's actually what I want out of games like these. Maybe PoE feeling so very close to D&D while at the same time, in almost every single way, not being like D&D at all (if that makes snese?) is the problem for me? IDK.

[Boeroer]

Most of what you said is opinion (and one can't really argue with that - if you feel but don't exaclty know why that way then that's ok).
But there are two points that come over as factual statements - but are not.

One can rightfully and objectively criticise different stuff about Deadfire, but saying that

• no build *really* packs a punch and
• the inspiration/afflicition is convoluted

doesn't really show a lot of insight. Now you could say "well that's my point, it's too complicated" - but then I'd say (without wanting to sound snappy) "well it's just too complicated for you (-r taste)". 

Actually the affliction/inspiration system is very straightforward. Most straightforward system of buffs and debuffs (while being complex enough) I've seen in a long time in any RPG. Together with the attribute system which is implemented without any exceptions. This results in other (perceived) problems - like "why is MIG for spell damage and physical dmg? Why does INT make my Barb's Carnage better? That's unrealistic/not immersive" and so on - but is also straightforward. 

Then there are a big number of build ideas that really pack a punch. Huge punches. Such hefty punches that the game becomes a joke (in terms of being challenging).

So - all in all this just seems to be a matter of taste?

Edited September 23, 2019 by Boeroer

[draego]

Ye i agree Boeroer. i find POE 1 and 2 more accessible than d&d / pathfinder. i never played tabletop d&d so playing a game based on pathfinder to me seems really convoluted compared to POE.  I played pathfinder a for a little while and it makes me appreciate POEs straight forward attributes, more balanced systems, and commitment to no trap builds. 

[MedicineDan]

I've enjoyed both quite a bit.  I haven't had much chance to play Deadfire or visit the forums since I started the game about a week ago, so I'm still only into the second area of the first real city, but I'm liking it a lot.  More than the first one, to be honest.  I enjoyed Kingmaker also, and I'm part of a rather large Pathfinder tabletop group.  I like the background and... ethos? of the Pillars setting more, but I appreciate the familiarity of the Pathfinder setting.  I really got a lot of fun out of the kingdom building of Kingmaker at first, but it got to be a hassle in the end.  So much was tied into it, though, that it's hard to toggle it off, so I muddled through until I got irritated and stopped playing.  I think I'd just finished taking over some bards kingdom a while before I stopped.  I'm really digging the ship element of Deadfire much more than I expected.  I haven't had hardly play time with it, but the little I have is intriguing.

[Wormerine]

Yhh, my Kingmaker playthrough is currently stuck right after getting the title to the land. So far, it has been just to grindy to be enjoyable. I would invest an evening, and all I would do, is fight the same enemy composition over and over again. 

I did return to Dark Souls 2, after bouncing of it hard when I jumped into it right after DS1. Maybe once I feel a thirst for a isometric RPG Kingmaker will have more appeal. Deadfire sated my apetite... until Disco Elysium comes out that is. That one looks interesting. 

[Lorfean]

17 hours ago, Boeroer said:

Most of what you said is opinion (and one can't really argue with that - if you feel but don't exaclty know why that way then that's ok).
But there are two points that come over as factual statements - but are not.

One can rightfully and objectively criticise different stuff about Deadfire, but saying that

• no build *really* packs a punch and
• the inspiration/afflicition is convoluted

doesn't really show a lot of insight. Now you could say "well that's my point, it's too complicated" - but then I'd say (without wanting to sound snappy) "well it's just too complicated for you (-r taste)". 

Actually the affliction/inspiration system is very straightforward. Most straightforward system of buffs and debuffs (while being complex enough) I've seen in a long time in any RPG. Together with the attribute system which is implemented without any exceptions. This results in other (perceived) problems - like "why is MIG for spell damage and physical dmg? Why does INT make my Barb's Carnage better? That's unrealistic/not immersive" and so on - but is also straightforward. 

Then there are a big number of build ideas that really pack a punch. Huge punches. Such hefty punches that the game becomes a joke (in terms of being challenging).

So - all in all this just seems to be a matter of taste?

Oh its definitely a matter of taste. I do not like the way the system feels. And it's not that it's too complicated for me, it just doesn't captivate me and putting builds together doesn't excite me the way it does in D&D 3.5 / Pathfinder.

Having a history with the latter is probably a factor, but it's not the deciding factor. And I should probably have been clearer re. my "packing a punch" comment -- I understand and agree that certain builds are very powerful, but I wasn't necessarily talking about builds, specifically, I was talking about how the combat feels on-screen. Animation plays into this, the way spells and abilities behave plays into this, etc, etc.

Same with the inspirations / afflictions system -- I understand it's not bad design, and yes, it's straightforward in the way it functions, indeed just like the attribute system (which I'm not a fan of either), but it's not fun to me. So yeah, convoluted was the wrong way to describe it, which makes me 2 for 2 on not explaining myself well but I guess that's what happens in rant-like posts. It's just frustrating. I really *want* to like Deadfire, but in the end I just don't. And if I ever beat it (and I'm close -- level 20, finished most of the base game content, finished Beast of Winter and I'm in Forgotten Sanctum now) it's because I really pushed myself to do so.

Edited September 24, 2019 by Lorfean

[xzar_monty]

21 hours ago, Lorfean said:

Not to mention the systems -- there are SO many options for building your characters, but in the end nothing *really* packs a punch.

This is the Deadfire system in a nutshell, and you've captured it quite beautifully. You do indeed have an awful lot of options for building your characters, but they all come down to the same in the end. The system is so balanced that ultimately your choices (in classes, skills, items, whatever) matter little, because everything works pretty much as well as everything else. You really have to make an effort to get something that doesn't work or causes you problems.

Mind you, I like both games, as I've said, but I do agree that nothing packs a punch in Deadfire. And then again, a Knife Master, for instance, in P:K, deals so much damage that most other melee classes pale in comparison. Which is a problem, too.

Edited September 24, 2019 by xzar_monty

[Boeroer]

That's not captured beautifully. It's captured incorrectly. This only fits if you find false observations beautiful.

Deadfire's character creation is quite balanced when you compare it to several other RPGs, but 

Quote

[...] they all come down to the same in the end [...]

is just utterly wrong. You should know that by now after hanging around in the forums for some time. A game where every character comes down to the same in the end wouldn't lead to lots of nigh endless discussions about character builds and strategies.

A Streetfighter plays so differently from a Tactician, a Troubadour from a Barbarian and so on and so forth. Also some builds are gamebreakingly strong (even without cheesing) while others are not so great. 

Then the OP already admitted that he didn't mean what you now describe as "beautifully captured" by him.
 

Edited September 24, 2019 by Boeroer

[MedicineDan]

This reminds me of a friendly argument I had with someone about Kingmaker Fighter guide because he claimed fighters are boring and always the same.  Of course, that's true neither for the video game nor the tabletop game.  Tons of options about what to do will change how you play a fighter.

In terms of Deadfire, I'm on my first real run and slowly making my way through the game.  I'm wondering, and I'm ready for honest answers on this, is the question whether or not choices truly differentiate characters within a class or is it a matter of the hardest settings making only one pathway a viable build?  On classic settings, the combat is super easy.

I used to try to finish all games on the hardest setting, but I simply don't have time to do that anymore.  I used to finish every single game, and I'm lucky to finish two a year at this point.  I believe making the harder settings for the game unplayable for all but a single build in each class is a design flaw.  It is, nonetheless, a design flaw that very few players will actually notice.  I know I wouldn't at this point.  On the normal setting, I could maybe make a better build, but I think it's better to have fun with the build you want and be able to finish the game.

As far as I can see, between multiclassing and 'feat' selection, there's a lot of differentiation.  However, there is also a huge difference between turn based and RTwP.  Turn based really does help take advantage of build decisions in a way that, for me, RTwP doesn't as much.  The turn-based/RTwP discussion is probably better in a different thread, but I believe it fits into the question of choice and builds also.

[Boeroer]

29 minutes ago, MedicineDan said:

In terms of Deadfire, I'm on my first real run and slowly making my way through the game.  I'm wondering, and I'm ready for honest answers on this, is the question whether or not choices truly differentiate characters within a class or is it a matter of the hardest settings making only one pathway a viable build? 

It depends a bit on the (single) class. Some can be quite diverse while others... not so much. For example SC Barbarians usually don't develop into a lot of different roles while Wizards can be played like this and that and then something in between. Of course with multiclassing it all gets vogelwild.

[bugarup]

Quote

[...] but in the end nothing *really* packs a punch.

I am d†cking about Black isle games right now and have a sneaking suspicion people just miss the incredible fromage of Baldurgate, because while you can play Deadfire's classes in different and varied ways, and some combinations are noticeably more powerful than others, there are no class/item combo that'll turn you into a Minor God of Cheating while BG2 has tons of these. Not gonna deny, there is certain charm in, say, waltzing into some lich's crypt wearing Sanctuary and robbing him blind while he just stands there, but I still prefer Deadfire's approach. I am human therefore will always choose the path of least resistance, and if the game gives me "LOL in your face, beholder" shield then of course I'm going to use it instead of buffing up to wazoo and kiting that thing around in hard way. Deadfire's (POE1's too) "no win button" policy, however, makes me exercise my imagination and I need that in my old age as it unfortunately deteriorates. 

 

Oh, and I jumped back into some old saves of Kingmaker to try out that turn-based mod. It's quite good really, and I can finally see and understand how stuff like Magus class works, but hoo boy does the mod put the spotlight on overabundance of trash encounters. (And I would sooner sign up for cleaning public toilets in the city with epidemic dysentery than play through that dreadful endgame house again). 

[Abel]

22 hours ago, Boeroer said:

That's not captured beautifully. It's captured incorrectly. This only fits if you find false observations beautiful.

Deadfire's character creation is quite balanced when you compare it to several other RPGs, but 

is just utterly wrong. You should know that by now after hanging around in the forums for some time. A game where every character comes down to the same in the end wouldn't lead to lots of nigh endless discussions about character builds and strategies.

A Streetfighter plays so differently from a Tactician, a Troubadour from a Barbarian and so on and so forth. Also some builds are gamebreakingly strong (even without cheesing) while others are not so great. 

Then the OP already admitted that he didn't mean what you now describe as "beautifully captured" by him.
 

 

I kind of get, i think, what he may have meant by "not packing of punch". Since i felt the same with Pillars 1. If i were to give an example, it would be with spells. While my brain fully understand that casting this one spell that lasts for 6 seconds may have a positive effect on the battle for me, and that i should try, always come the time were i feel bored and end up thinking "**** these spells, i can't help by be too bored to bother for these mere 6 seconds". This was probably made for balance purpose, with the idea that each type of character should be equally usefull, and make sure mages are not overpowered compared to others (regarding their usefulness as a member of a party at least)

As you said, it's certainly a matter of taste. You tend to illustrate your points with really concrete and objective facts that look oftentimes to me like maths formula. Well, i can understand how people would find your points excellent. But there are people like me who never could get into maths and logic and work they life through feels and intuition. This kind of reasonning, however true or logic it is, will never strike a chord and convince me not to get bored.

I felt satisfied by the system of older games like Baldur's gate on the other hand. You would probably argue that the fact that you could win or lose a combat with a single spell thats lasted for 2 minutes was way too much, and cheesy. It probably was. But i personally liked to work coordination between my spell casters to make sure i manage to debuff the saving throws of my opponents to get better chances with the said spell (chaos?). And there were times that worked, and times that did not work. And when i failed, i oftentimes struggled with the combat (SCS mod) only to see that i lost the upper hand and suffered heavy damage by the end. Since i had a dungeon to clean before resting i tended to reload and try something else.

Same can be said, for me, at least, about said over powered builds in Pillars. Yeah, they may be super strong or whatever. Still, it feels underwhelming. And i will be accused again to look for overpowerdness while i'm not. I don't expect to see, at long last, my point about how things feels to me come across. I will be demonstrated how i'm wrong with concrete build examples and formulas that try to speak to my brain when i'm utterly unable to function like that.

So yeah, it was probably captured incorectly. You proved many times it was. But that does not change the simple fact that one game entertains me even 20 years later while the other bores me. Please, note i used the spell casting as just one example. I don't intend to review all details and systems of the game. I'm not confident, either, i can manage to convey my non rationnal way of feeling about things to someone who harbors a very well constructed, analytic mindset. Well, i was never able to. In real life, i will sometimes meet people who would understand what i mean without me needing to speak, and then, people who would consider my way to think completely obtuse and devoid of any well grounded argument. I'm used to it. Maths never made any sense to me in school after all, and i could never understand how Thales theorem was more than a succession of symbols with no actual meaning. While at the same time, i could ace almost anything in literature without even reading the book i was diserting on. I was never the rational type. And it looks that even if i try to be for communication purposes, i'm bound to fail.

I'm grateful for this topic. While reading, i feel pretty much in line with "xzar_monthy". I will definitely give pathfinder a go at some point, since it seems it has many things Pillars lacks for me. Someone said here that the Pillars's system is the future. To me, that would mean the future is grim.

Edited September 25, 2019 by Abel

[Boeroer]

And that is totally ok. I won't object anybody's likings (I mean - if they are not disgusting  ). We all like different things.

I'm only objecting when opinions or preferences are presented as alleged facts (maybe accidentially) and when hyperbolic statements are presented as if they are rational arguments.

In the quote above I find it especially wild that the statement I showed to be false (and was approved by the author of that statement himself) is then described as beautiful observation. I mean... huh?

I totally get that there are players out there who want more "oomph", they want to feel really powerful and wipe some monsters with a backhand stroke - while not willing to dive into the whole swamp of tactics and mechanics. That is ok, I get that. I personally like to tinker around in order to find a great build (and am utterly disappointed if it's too obvious and easy - where's the challenge then) but I don't expect that from everybody else. 

Edited September 25, 2019 by Boeroer

[Abel]

I personnaly like difficulty that forces me to reload many times while trying different things. But i don't like to optimize my characters too much since their base is a written background rather a build, and dump stats never exist for me. I played pillars on hard with sub optim party (Though, i dropped the game). So, it's not really about rolling over things.

Other than that i can see why you would find some things to be hyperbolic and such. I believe it's tied to what i explained. You're the clever and logical type and understand things for how they are written, and are able to discern everything regarding the details of the explanation someone gives. I can't do that. I can't understand things with logic alone, and can't understand how a cell phone works just be reading the manual. I tend to get lost in town while being only 150m away from the home a live in since 4 years, so i can't go out without a map or GPS... I'm more the type to care not much about what is written (and are even unable to clearly grasp the logic depicted sometimes), but more about the intent i tend to perceive behind the words. I'm the kind who could never grasp anything from a technical/scientific point of view to the point i'm utterly unable to tinker with things at all. But on the other hand, i often just need to talk a few minutes with someone in real life to grap completely who they are, to the point i can even tell what they eat for breakfast (once again, don't take it literaly, what i perceive depends on the person actually. But it's true that when someone talks to me about someone else, i can accurately tell things others can't. I've experienced that many times). That's probably why i often have a hard time communicating with the logical type. That's probably why many people will say i'm hyperbolic, blunt and such, and the easiest way for me to communicate is by using hyperbole and metaphors. Whenever i try, like here, to make sense in a normal way, i tend to struggle quite a bit. While a few people will actually understand the feeling and intend behind all of it.

I believe there are more than just one sort of intelligence. I respect intelligence, i respect yours. But at the same time i found myself, sometimes, in real life, incapable to communicate with some people, even at a very basic level, because of how extremely different our sense of logic were. That's probably the reason why, when i watch animation or movies, i tend to get easily exasperated at how shallow everything feels to me, while at the same time i read critics that claim everything is great and beautiful, because their sensibilities are not turned towards the same things as mine.

That's why i'm not shocked at all when i see a statement saying the observation is beautiful. Because while not being accurately and factually true, i kind of get where this feeling can come from. The letter does not matter, the idea behind does. To me, at least.

On a side note, i'm french. I'm passionnate about japanese people. I mean there are so many things that kind of irritate me in their ways, and that fascinate me at the same time. It's like trying to understand the logic of aliens. If i could, i would like to spend years forgetting everything i think i know and build my sense of logic from the ground up again, in order to see a whole different world. That would make the world twice as large, and leave a lot to explore. But well, this part is pretty much off topic, i guess.

Edited September 25, 2019 by Abel

[Boeroer]

Ha - I get lost in town if you turn me around two times with closed eyes. All praise the GPS I say.

I studied German language and computer science. I like languages and programming. I'm good at algebra but suck at arithmetik. I like metaphors and also understand the befenits of hyperbole to emphasize a point. People are mixed bags. It's not all logic and rational vs. empathic and feelings.

And besides all that: It's still important that if you write down stuff (where people can't hear your tone and see your mimics and gestures) you have to be accurate. Or use emojis...

You can't just plant a hyberbolic statement as if it's a known fact and then expect everybody who reads that to get where you are coming from (or want to go with it).

Say something like "Wizards are useless" (a statement I read very often when PoE came out - which is utter bolloks) and players in spe read that and think "oh well, them I'll try something else". This is misleading and bad communication. You can't just write like you talk. It can already be enough to write "To me, wizards are useless". This is something diffrent. It shows that it's your perspective and there may be other people who think differently.

I think this is especially important in any place where people are searching for advice. God I hate it (hyperbole) when new players come in, say something like "I want to play a damage dealer and thought about two handed fighter" and the first answer they get is "lol nah mate use rogue cause fighters suck at dps rogues rule at dps". Man I could twist their necks for that (again, hyperbole ).

Same as "Hi, I want to play a Wizard nuker - what should I do?" - "It doesn't matter, just pick anything because in Deadfire all chars are the same anyway". BAM - you unnecessarily disappointed and mislead a person.

Edited September 26, 2019 by Boeroer

[Abel]

Yep, i really like your post. I think i get what you mean. But now, it's difficult to do. I mean, being accurate by using a way to say things that would be understood by everyone. Even more so on a forum, as you say. Most of the time, i fall flat on my face when i try

Actually, instead of a GPS, oftentimes, i use a friend for that. So that he can tell me which direction i should go to find my home. Well, they're used to it by now, but, even after 14 years, are kind of amazed. The good point is that there are times when you won't get bored while having me there.

I'm ok-ish at arithmetics. Never needed a calculator for just simple things like 4569 X 34. It's more problematic when there is something like f(x)=3x +2. I could never solve this kind of thing or even understand what i was all about. Though, i could write pages about what the line inspired me. I ended up with 0.5 in maths by my last year in high school :D. The other scientific subjects were not much better by the way. I was never good at languages either. Just think it took me 7 years to learn the little english i know, self taught through forum like this one and online dictionnaries alone. Considering one of my friend reached a comparable level in spanish in just one year while speaking it on a regular basis, i feel pretty awfully about my own skills.

"  It's not all logic and rational vs. empathic and feelings. "

You may think so, and i bet many people would agree with you. But i always felt that people were more one or the other, always. Thing is, unless they are completely my type, results are more or less the same. I rarely find any middle ground. Either people get what i say, or they just don't. The only variation is about how deep i can go before losing them :o. So, quite long ago i basically stopped trying and just stay at the basic, boring level, while keeping more in-depths talks for a minority of people i know i can exchange with.

I never felt wizards sucked in Pillars, but i always felt they were underwhelming, even though they are probably amongst the most powerful classes in my opinion. Does is it seem like a contradiction? Well, but considering how my MC sucked, pretty much all companions felt powerful in comparison. I actually don't like the way Josh designed the game in order to make sure every build can be playable. I know many people like the idea they can do anything and it will still somehow work, but i don't. It's the same as the auto heal. I always regretted never seeing the "Game Over" screen. Pillars 2 made it worse with auto heal. So, stating all wizards are the same anyway is at the same time true and false to me. Probably, some would be more like enchanters for crowd control, and others like damage dealers, but they are no drastic differences in their actual usefulness i think. Even while comparing companions, no one particularly stick out in combat for me.

I like how in BG some companions were pretty crappy (Nalia?), and some others were really powerful (Edwin?). I don't know how to explain it properly, but i feel like it's more natural to have such differences in a party. Not everyone is equal or should be. But the way BG was designed, over several playthrough, because you needed a balanced party, all companions would come in handy at some point nonetheless. Honestly, the "all wizards party" concept just completely rebukes me. Although i'm sure some would love to try it and mix and match different kinds of wizards.

There are many things that made me bored in Pillars (well, again, my worst gripe will forever be the "Might" attribute, even though i know by now that not many are bothered by it the way i am), and these things are treated completely differently in Pathfinder. That gives me a lot of hope for the game.

PS: note that i do my best to avoid my trademarks hyperboles which are the basics for me :D. After all, my usual, everyday way to say things would be "That ****ing crap gets on my nerves so much i would want to slap the **** who even thought it was a good idea", would probably actually mean in the not hyperbolic way you use  "I really disagree with the kind of decision the author made here. It feels unnatural to me and kind of prevents me from getting the thrill the good points in his work could have otherwise provided me". The whole difference between the two being actually the frustration that is conveyed in the first version, versus the more objective, composed, and analytical version. The latter is hard to handle for me, since it asks for a lot of self control i don't necessarily have.

Edited September 26, 2019 by Abel

[Slotharingia]

I crowdfunded both these games, and after two attempts, could not finish Kingmaker due to the game breaking bugs it released with. I haven't managed to bring myself to try again since then. I hate the kingdom management and the timers, and especially that they "fixed" the kingdom management by letting you pick invincible. I'm not very OCD in general, but I'd feel like I cheated using that option, even if it's to circumvent flaws in the system. Other than that, there's definitely a good game in there. Too bad I ruined it for myself by trying to play it on release.

I'm not really a fan of comparing games, but Deadfire is horrendously underrated, and I'm quite baffled by the amount of people who insist Kingmaker is better.

[xzar_monty]

1 hour ago, Slotharingia said:

I crowdfunded both these games, and after two attempts, could not finish Kingmaker due to the game breaking bugs it released with. I haven't managed to bring myself to try again since then.

I'm not really a fan of comparing games, but Deadfire is horrendously underrated, and I'm quite baffled by the amount of people who insist Kingmaker is better.

That's really too bad and a huge shame, because the game is genuinely very good. I didn't even try playing it upon release -- I only started playing once they had all three DLCs and the EE out. The fact that a great number of games are essentially unplayable upon release verges on the criminal. I have no problem waiting, but if somebody's really into a game and wants to play it straight away, they're going to feel royally swindled, and that's just inexcusable in my book.

I suppose Kingmaker is preferred by players who enjoy a no-nonsense, no-handholding approach where getting killed is quite easy and your entire campaign can actually be ruined. When you compare Deadfire and Kingmaker in this regard, Deadfire can seem too nice, too easy, too we're-spelling-everything-out-for-you-so-no-evil-monsters-can-actually-hurt-your-pretty-little-fingers. I can understand that approach perfectly well, because I've played a lot of really tough games in my time, but I don't necessarily agree with that kind of thinking. I mean, I like both games a lot and wouldn't want to choose between them.

[Slotharingia]

54 minutes ago, xzar_monty said:

That's really too bad and a huge shame, because the game is genuinely very good. I didn't even try playing it upon release -- I only started playing once they had all three DLCs and the EE out. The fact that a great number of games are essentially unplayable upon release verges on the criminal. I have no problem waiting, but if somebody's really into a game and wants to play it straight away, they're going to feel royally swindled, and that's just inexcusable in my book.

I suppose Kingmaker is preferred by players who enjoy a no-nonsense, no-handholding approach where getting killed is quite easy and your entire campaign can actually be ruined. When you compare Deadfire and Kingmaker in this regard, Deadfire can seem too nice, too easy, too we're-spelling-everything-out-for-you-so-no-evil-monsters-can-actually-hurt-your-pretty-little-fingers. I can understand that approach perfectly well, because I've played a lot of really tough games in my time, but I don't necessarily agree with that kind of thinking. I mean, I like both games a lot and wouldn't want to choose between them.

So if you played it recently, can you tell me how bearable the Kingdom Management is now? Is it still a buggy mess that causes your unrest level to keep getting worse w/o there being any reason and causing you to savescum every event in the hope of solving this/endlessly repeating events relating to gamestages you completed/cards not showing up for certain advisers leaving them stuck etc?

You are probably right about the fans, but POE games have permadeath settings, and people can go and do stuff above their level and not rest etc if they really want game overs, or knock themselves out with those new mega bosses. I think it's more about other people having an easier time than that they can't give themselves a hard time, when that's the reason. Also, Kingmaker has settings that make the game easy, provided there are no bugs barring the way, irrespective of gaming skills or difficulty choices. You can play on storymode and set the kingdom to auto - which should make it playable by everyone provided they figure out that there are hidden timers.

[xzar_monty]

6 minutes ago, Slotharingia said:

So if you played it recently, can you tell me how bearable the Kingdom Management is now? Is it still a buggy mess that causes your unrest level to keep getting worse w/o there being any reason and causing you to savescum every event in the hope of solving this/endlessly repeating events relating to gamestages you completed/cards not showing up for certain advisers leaving them stuck etc?

Well, I didn't see any of this, with one exception. Without wanting to spoil anything, I'll just say that something to happened to one of my advisors that should have ended an event related to him, but this didn't happen (although when the event ultimately did end, according to its schedule, there were no problems, and no results either). That was logically incorrect, but apart from that, no problems.

[Slotharingia]

1 minute ago, xzar_monty said:

Well, I didn't see any of this, with one exception. Without wanting to spoil anything, I'll just say that something to happened to one of my advisors that should have ended an event related to him, but this didn't happen (although when the event ultimately did end, according to its schedule, there were no problems, and no results either). That was logically incorrect, but apart from that, no problems.

Aha, I can think of two that might be related to One of mine was still in the throne room after his untimely demise, and I could still talk to him   I'll give it a try again after my current POE binge. Do you recommend the DLC's?