How is this compared to Kingmaker?

[Valder]

I did like the Kingmaker, but it did have some problems which annoyed me, but pacing, exploration and setting were good. It did have that modern Baldur's Gate 1 feel I guess.
I will play this eventually, but I would appreciate if you add stuff that it does differently / better than Kingmaker and the stuff in won't do. Or would you just say they are equal.

[GrandMajora]

In terms of mechanics and quality of life improvements, WotR is vastly better than Kingmaker. You don't need a mod to rotate the camera this time. You can order your party members to chug potions until they are fully healed (instead of drinking them one by one). You can sell stacks of potions and scrolls, without having to manually confirm.

Your inventory will also show you which scrolls your characters are able to memorize now (marked with a quill next to the icon). Something which Kingmaker lacked, and required you to go through and manually check each individual scroll by right clicking it.

The Doomsday clock was removed, and your choices for the campaign management system this time around aren't just cosmetics, but actually have an impact on how the story plays out.

Those are only some of the changes that immediately come to mind.

[Bloodartist]

Originally posted by Valder:

I did like the Kingmaker, but it did have some problems which annoyed me, but pacing, exploration and setting were good. It did have that modern Baldur's Gate 1 feel I guess.
I will play this eventually, but I would appreciate if you add stuff that it does differently / better than Kingmaker and the stuff in won't do. Or would you just say they are equal.

1. Follows the main story more linearly
2. Has a resource-management/turn-based strategy gameplay in crusade mode which may not be everyones cup of tea. You can disable it in options but then you won't be able to get achievements.
3. Apart from those two things, Wrath is larger and more epic in every way.

The mythic classes specifically are a huge change compared to a more "standard" RPG experience. No longer are you like, a normal D&d character (yes I know its pathfinder but still), you become practically a demigod (and in some cases, literal god).

4. Wrath also expands the "good/evil" alignment options tremendously. I absolutely love it. There are a huge amount of different options that change the world according to your choices and choice of mythic class. This is what Ive always loved in Pathfinder games.

5. There is still a huge amount of combat, and it may or may not be boring.

ps. You know what, here is a recruitment video. Become the ultimate rpg character. Shape the history of Golarion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uITaghKWMMM

[Yow!]

Kingmaker felt more beginner friendly to me, i could play kingmaker on first go on hard, until near the very end, on WotR i had to reload many fights because i was caught unaware of slightly stronger battles, and so i dropped the difficulty to core.

In general felt like enemies in kingmaker had way less abilities and resistances than enemies in WotR, and less synergy between them, you are mostly fighting silly feys and wild animals.

Kingmaker does have a time restriction, but it wasn't much of an issue to me, however it prevented me from reaching certain milestones in kingdom management. You kinda have to know beforehand that some kingdom stats will improve time management.

In WotR, enemies felt somewhat cunning with their abilities, they will try to disable your team, will have some spell combos, and won't fall easily to your spells, which is somewhat expected from resilient invaders.

Crusade management have more direct impact on the minigame, whereas in kingmaker it is a very low kingdom stat increase.

WotR seems to have more story branches and distinctive mythic abilities to explore, providing better replayability.

I might play kingmaker again, after a few runs of WotR.

[Bloodartist]

Originally posted by Yow!:

In WotR, enemies felt somewhat cunning with their abilities, they will try to disable your team, will have some spell combos, and won't fall easily to your spells, which is somewhat expected from resilient invaders.

I thought my Lich was the ultimate spellcaster, with something like 36 intelligence. I fought the runelord of Wrath and dispelled about 25 buffs with a single spell. I thought I was supreme.

And then Baphomet turned me into a dog.

[GrandMajora]

Originally posted by Bloodartist:

And then Baphomet turned me into a dog.

It probably didn't help that the very first thing he does in battle is dispel ALL your party's buffs.

[BlueBangkok]

In Kingmaker, I got the feeling that I could really role play a character - for example, lawful evil king. Wrath is definitely more rail-roaded and I don't get that here, as your options for RP are very limited. All of that is being offset by much higher class and build variety.
This might be an unpopular opinion, but I consider Kingmaker slightly better game, although Wrath is mostly more of the same but more epic (maybe "too" epic for me).

[Baldurs_Gate_2]

Better. No time limit like in kingmaker.

[hilburnashua]

I think Kingmaker has a better story and has a lot less bugs then WotR does (even now after years of patching WotR). The Kingdom management in Kingmaker can be frustrating at times and it is possible to end up wrecking your playthrough if you make a few bad decisions involving timing events. Both games have some pretty fun and interesting companions.

[Crusader993]

Originally posted by hilburnashua:

I think Kingmaker has a better story ...

In my opinion, WotR has the much more interesting story. Just because of the mythical paths, the story is much more varied, which increases the replay value. But the background story in WotR also appeals to me thematically much more than in Kingmaker.

[Valder]

Originally posted by BlueBangkok:

In Kingmaker, I got the feeling that I could really role play a character - for example, lawful evil king. Wrath is definitely more rail-roaded and I don't get that here, as your options for RP are very limited. All of that is being offset by much higher class and build variety.
This might be an unpopular opinion, but I consider Kingmaker slightly better game, although Wrath is mostly more of the same but more epic (maybe "too" epic for me).

This was one of the best things about Kingmaker, playing as an evil character made sense and was pretty nuanced than simple "kill them all". I have hard time imagining why a evil character would lead some crusaders against demons.
And yeah, low level adventures feel just better. Epic stuff can easily get out of hand and stakes are usually too overdramatic.

Originally posted by Baldurs_Gate_2:

Better. No time limit like in kingmaker.

I did not have any problems with time limit. Its only in final chapter where time limit felt quite strict.

Originally posted by hilburnashua:

I think Kingmaker has a better story and has a lot less bugs then WotR does (even now after years of patching WotR). The Kingdom management in Kingmaker can be frustrating at times and it is possible to end up wrecking your playthrough if you make a few bad decisions involving timing events. Both games have some pretty fun and interesting companions.

Yeah, kingdom management felt at times too time consuming. But I gotta give them credit that they tried to do something with that. Usually forts which you have are just oversized storages.
So, WotR don't have anything like kingdom management?

Originally posted by Crusader993:

Originally posted by hilburnashua:

I think Kingmaker has a better story ...

In my opinion, WotR has the much more interesting story. Just because of the mythical paths, the story is much more varied, which increases the replay value. But the background story in WotR also appeals to me thematically much more than in Kingmaker.

I heard that some of the mythical paths were incomplete, but were patched out?

[anfindel13]

Mythical paths are complete - just some have more to them than others, and some people would like those to be "MORE" complete.

[Babbles]

I like KM better but one thing Wrath has that was a brilliant addition is the rotatable camera.

On the topic of the Kingdom Management, Wrath is *much* more concise, they took the artisan sections, the story based events and town building then married that to the crusade mechanic, thus avoiding the 4 million random monthly events that annoyed so many people in Kingmaker (to be fair, those events were semi story driven, just didn't land well with many players).

[UnDreamer]

Compared to Kingmaker they improved almost everything. Only one thing dont change - low level (1-5) battles is VERY bad sometimes (like cave full of spider swarms in Kingmaker when your party is lvl2).

[Immortal Reaver]

Originally posted by Valder:

This was one of the best things about Kingmaker, playing as an evil character made sense and was pretty nuanced than simple "kill them all". I have hard time imagining why a evil character would lead some crusaders against demons.

Because of political power?

[Crusader993]

Originally posted by Valder:

I have hard time imagining why a evil character would lead some crusaders against demons.

You have a misconception here.

The various "evil" demons from the Abyss are not all friends with each other either, but sometimes pursue very different interests. Often they even fight each other. Evil vs Evil.

There are many different motives that an evil character might have in order to gain power and wealth. If he has to destroy other evil characters to do so, he will, because THAT is what it means to be evil! Walk over dead bodies and eliminate anyone who stands in the way of your goals. ;)

So an evil hero can certainly burn the crusaders as useful idiots for his personal interests of power on the battlefield if it serves his own interests. ^^