Pathfinder: WotR vs Baldur's Gate 3

[Chillshotz]

IS Pathfinder WotR better than Baldur's gate 3? Ive come across a comment from a player that Our Pathfinder is better is this true? coz im thinking about getting the Baldur's gate 3 its just that i know I wont have the time to do it but im itching for baldur's gate 3.

I thought Age of Wonders 4 is nice but nope, Fires of Rubicon?? nope the old playstation 3 has a better game than fires of rubicon.

Baldur's gate 3 sure has very good looking graphics. If Pathfinder Wotr could up 1 more notch it would be better.

Also the new dlc is no good, cant you think of a more exciting DLC?

[Vertigo]

Originally posted by D-Black Catto:

these sentences are devoid of meaning. care to elaborate what being "lore accurate to how setting works" means in terms of character personality?

and is she really lore accurate? is preaching to chaotic evil demons and actually converting them to goodness lore accurate?
embers existence has little to do with setting and a lot to do with her being one of the devs OC

I know someone who is all about Pathfinder, and got to read the 2E book on dieties. Turns out Noticula is the Redeemer Queen after all. Considering that the game had good development and writing, the Ember/Nocticula scene does come across as poorly written. Ember was an interesting concept as a character, but her writing made her come across as overly simplistic. There are two ways they could have done her arc better: 1) have her get in actual trouble (and not simply win the hearts of her captors or 2) show that there is something more supernatural going on when she is preaching.

I understood that her bird was more than it seemed, but I feel like they wasted some potential ideas with her.

[D-Black Catto]

Originally posted by Vertigo:

Originally posted by D-Black Catto:

these sentences are devoid of meaning. care to elaborate what being "lore accurate to how setting works" means in terms of character personality?

and is she really lore accurate? is preaching to chaotic evil demons and actually converting them to goodness lore accurate?
embers existence has little to do with setting and a lot to do with her being one of the devs OC

I know someone who is all about Pathfinder, and got to read the 2E book on dieties. Turns out Noticula is the Redeemer Queen after all.

I know this, and it has nothing to do with my question. Because nocti being redeemed has very little to do with Ember's character, which is what I thought we are discussing now.

Ember being able to see that nocti isn't happy with her position in life is not a fault. If we are to see a fault, it's the game phrasing it as if it was ember alone who redeemed nocti, but that may be just our interpretation.

No, ember's faults are far more then just one nocti business. Ember's faults are her invincible plot armor that makes her survive where she logically shouldn't,her maxed speech stat that can turn just about anyone to her side, all the while riding on her obnoxious "tee hee what do I know im just a little girl~~" persona

[Vertigo]

Originally posted by D-Black Catto:

I know this, and it has nothing to do with my question. Because nocti being redeemed has very little to do with Ember's character, which is what I thought we are discussing now.

Ember being able to see that nocti isn't happy with her position in life is not a fault. If we are to see a fault, it's the game phrasing it as if it was ember alone who redeemed nocti, but that may be just our interpretation.

No, ember's faults are far more then just one nocti business. Ember's faults are her invincible plot armor that makes her survive where she logically shouldn't,her maxed speech stat that can turn just about anyone to her side, all the while riding on her obnoxious "tee hee what do I know im just a little girl~~" persona

That's what I was saying above, but only you snipped part of what I said. It looks like we are in agreement on Ember...

[fourfourtwo79]

Of course, you could also see BG3 as the anti-Fallout 3/4. Certainly in terms of mechanics. Fallout 3, moreso 4, dumped everything that made Fallout in the first place (like choice&consequence proper, character creation locking you out on content and dialogue options, making characters actually play, well, unique. And that's not even actually talking the format, turning it from an isometric tactical experience to an FPS one to appeal to action game players also).

Whereas BG3 swaps the originals' combat, big time inspired by then hugely popular Diablo+RTS, for a turn-based system. Which publishers had declared "suicide" for decades. It also introduces a plethora of quests that can be solved in multiple ways (whilst the originals were largely linear... the entire middle section of BG2 is one on-rails dungeon crawl and don't get me started on Throne Of Bhaal, major disappointment for me back then). Additionally, BG3 actually keeps the format, which is isometric, tactical, party-based RPG.

Fallout, either way, got a much harsher treatment/reboot than Baldur's Gate ever had. Safe for New Vegas, that is.

[happyclan]

BG3 will be remembered.
WotR will be forgotten.

Like this post.

[Quillithe]

Originally posted by happyclan:

BG3 will be remembered.
WotR will be forgotten.

Like this post.

People definitely remember old games way worse than WotR, especially since CRPGs aren't a particularly flooded market right now.

[D-Black Catto]

Originally posted by Vertigo:

Originally posted by D-Black Catto:

I know this, and it has nothing to do with my question. Because nocti being redeemed has very little to do with Ember's character, which is what I thought we are discussing now.

Ember being able to see that nocti isn't happy with her position in life is not a fault. If we are to see a fault, it's the game phrasing it as if it was ember alone who redeemed nocti, but that may be just our interpretation.

No, ember's faults are far more then just one nocti business. Ember's faults are her invincible plot armor that makes her survive where she logically shouldn't,her maxed speech stat that can turn just about anyone to her side, all the while riding on her obnoxious "tee hee what do I know im just a little girl~~" persona

That's what I was saying above, but only you snipped part of what I said. It looks like we are in agreement on Ember...

I was first responding to anemomeer tho who claimed ember is 100% lore and setting accurate and thought you are them

[Janthis]

Originally posted by AnemoneMeer:

30 pages in, but you know what. Might as well throw my hat into the ring.

They are both good games, and targeting different sorts of people. BG3 is more graphically impressive, easier to get into, and puts more effort into holding a casual audience who are only going to play the game once and not think about it too hard. WotR is far more concerned with the dedicated players who will comb over everything. It's more lore accurate than BG3, more faithful, and more thought provoking in both gameplay and narrative. And it is also heavily alienating to players not willing to put in the time and effort to learn about the world and mechanics in great detail.

Ember is proof of this. Ember is actually 100% lore accurate to how Pathfinder's setting works. She is logically consistent and Paizo signed off on her. But she is not what people would expect and for people without a deeper understanding of the setting, she can come off as outright anathema to the game's narrative beats. This has started a very large number of fights, because WotR is wholly unconcerned with people unwilling to take it on its terms. BG3 is happy to bend its setting and characters to be approachable. WotR will casually lean on the deep lore.

Both games are good. Both have their place. BG3 wants to be an enjoyable game wrapped in the trappings of D&D 5e when it suits the game. WotR wants to be a Pathfinder game that is enjoyable.

BG3 is for people who love roleplaying games, Mathfinder is for nerds who love spreadsheets and memorizing rulebooks :P

[Jean-Maurice Nya]

BG's RtwP is turn-based mechanics with a dynamic and more tactical approach than strict TbT. The real-time always bring more tactics.
Alignment did affect the companions' relationship and could lead to fights and killing.
As for BG2, most classes could go to level 13-14 while bards and thieves could go up to 16 as the experience needed to level up differed from a class to another.

[D-Black Catto]

Originally posted by Johnny_B_80:

Originally posted by AnemoneMeer:

30 pages in, but you know what. Might as well throw my hat into the ring.

They are both good games, and targeting different sorts of people. BG3 is more graphically impressive, easier to get into, and puts more effort into holding a casual audience who are only going to play the game once and not think about it too hard. WotR is far more concerned with the dedicated players who will comb over everything. It's more lore accurate than BG3, more faithful, and more thought provoking in both gameplay and narrative. And it is also heavily alienating to players not willing to put in the time and effort to learn about the world and mechanics in great detail.

Ember is proof of this. Ember is actually 100% lore accurate to how Pathfinder's setting works. She is logically consistent and Paizo signed off on her. But she is not what people would expect and for people without a deeper understanding of the setting, she can come off as outright anathema to the game's narrative beats. This has started a very large number of fights, because WotR is wholly unconcerned with people unwilling to take it on its terms. BG3 is happy to bend its setting and characters to be approachable. WotR will casually lean on the deep lore.

Both games are good. Both have their place. BG3 wants to be an enjoyable game wrapped in the trappings of D&D 5e when it suits the game. WotR wants to be a Pathfinder game that is enjoyable.

BG3 is for people who love roleplaying games, Mathfinder is for nerds who love spreadsheets and memorizing rulebooks :P

nothing roleplaying about bg3, I could not roleplay a consistent character because a gimmick driven narrative kept forcing weird choices and dialogs upon the character

it's like it was all written by ai

[D-Black Catto]

Originally posted by Jean-Maurice Nya:

BG's RtwP is turn-based mechanics with a dynamic and more tactical approach than strict TbT. The real-time always bring more tactics.
Alignment did affect the companions' relationship and could lead to fights and killing.
As for BG2, most classes could go to level 13-14 while bards and thieves could go up to 16 as the experience needed to level up differed from a class to another.

in bg2 you can easily go way above level 20 lol, 13-14 is barely midgame

you start the game at like level 7

[Behemmoth]

Originally posted by Jean-Maurice Nya:

BG's RtwP is turn-based mechanics with a dynamic and more tactical approach than strict TbT. The real-time always bring more tactics.
Alignment did affect the companions' relationship and could lead to fights and killing.
As for BG2, most classes could go to level 13-14 while bards and thieves could go up to 16 as the experience needed to level up differed from a class to another.

What? If i'm correct i was around 20 something and close to 30 in BG2.

In BG1 i was level 8 when i faced Sarevok (and cheesed with Skull Trap).

[THAC0]

Originally posted by AnemoneMeer:

30 pages in, but you know what. Might as well throw my hat into the ring.

They are both good games, and targeting different sorts of people. BG3 is more graphically impressive, easier to get into, and puts more effort into holding a casual audience who are only going to play the game once and not think about it too hard. WotR is far more concerned with the dedicated players who will comb over everything. It's more lore accurate than BG3, more faithful, and more thought provoking in both gameplay and narrative. And it is also heavily alienating to players not willing to put in the time and effort to learn about the world and mechanics in great detail.

Ember is proof of this. Ember is actually 100% lore accurate to how Pathfinder's setting works. She is logically consistent and Paizo signed off on her. But she is not what people would expect and for people without a deeper understanding of the setting, she can come off as outright anathema to the game's narrative beats. This has started a very large number of fights, because WotR is wholly unconcerned with people unwilling to take it on its terms. BG3 is happy to bend its setting and characters to be approachable. WotR will casually lean on the deep lore.

Both games are good. Both have their place. BG3 wants to be an enjoyable game wrapped in the trappings of D&D 5e when it suits the game. WotR wants to be a Pathfinder game that is enjoyable.

good is ... realy hard to state / prove with BG3
unfinished
lied / manipulated / exaderated about alot of things like 17k endings (lie) faithful to bg1-2? (exaderated its forgotten realms sure but not realy faithful past that)
soft locks
hard locks
borderline bannible story plot, tech speaking not beastality moment in said game for example

all the companionss have super special awesome backgrounds and its hard to like them
astorian trys to kill you when you first meet your companions basicly do nothing to prevent this or help out in any way they basicly just watch and go ooo interesting like a bunch of jerks
gale is an ex lover of mystra coz he is this powerful mage at level 3 w.e i dunno BS reasons, studys forbidden magic gets dump she throws such a hissy fit however shes willing to put the lives of all these people around gale at risk by leaving him with a unstable magic nuke bomb in his chest which she could very easyly render inert but decides not to for some reason unless you do gales story quest that is ... coz f you gale and f random civs why you gotta study forbidden magic / look into it? how dare you im going to put the lives of many many many innocent people at risk now coz of you when i dont need to
like wtf?
serioiusly seen better romance in NSFW / H-Games then what BG3 gives us
whats that gith lady we disagree on like 95+% of the things out there but agree on like 2 points your willing to drop your panties for me coz f-it? yeah sure ok i didnt know i was in a porn film but sure w.e

Why cant i attack the changling lady when she constently polymorphs within arms reach of me and shes vulible while doing it? I dunno coz she has plot armor i guess i understand the first attempt or two but after that it gets silly after half a dozen more times it gets dumb after a dozen times its just stupid AF hopefully you get my point

why cant Menivera find the druid grove exactly? you have 1 road outside your goblin fortress guess where it leads the druid grove, its not like you have a loading screen so i can tell myself 'well its a huge forest the game is just giving me the option to travelt o said spot on world map so i dont have to deal with finding said area anymore' like other games would do
this game just legit is like na
Serioiusly if a rat can find a pieace of cheese at the end of a maze complicated features im sure you menivera could follow the 1 f-in road outside of your encampment you nitwit idiot bafoon, getting a 100 monkeys on type writers to write a story would produce better stuff then this sooner or later.
yes a bit harsh and believe it or not this is the lesser harsh comparision i wrote i deleted the other one coz it made me go 'omph thats very harsh im sure ppl be hating me for that compairision 100% even i have to explain myself for that'

why dos the camera just get stuck on random BS?
why is the unit pathing so f-in terrible at times i legit wish they added some basic features like even the most simple basic party formation would be better then wtf we got in bg3

i miss dramatic weather effects and a simple day night cycle BG3 bugs out way 2 easyly with its stupid long rest encounter system BS it has its ROFLMAO BAD whats that the game bug out coz i didnt long rest enough? awesome oh wait it bugs out when i take to many long rests? Awesome im f-ed no matter what i do damned if i do damned if i dont

Originally posted by D-Black Catto:

Originally posted by Jean-Maurice Nya:

BG's RtwP is turn-based mechanics with a dynamic and more tactical approach than strict TbT. The real-time always bring more tactics.
Alignment did affect the companions' relationship and could lead to fights and killing.
As for BG2, most classes could go to level 13-14 while bards and thieves could go up to 16 as the experience needed to level up differed from a class to another.

in bg2 you can easily go way above level 20 lol, 13-14 is barely midgame

you start the game at like level 7

maybe the guy is talking about the expandsion coz aparently BG3 fan boys think expandsions are terrible no matter what the game
I dunno guess that means WC3 Frozen throne was a terrible expandsion or some random bs like that...

[THAC0]

Originally posted by Behemmoth:

Originally posted by Jean-Maurice Nya:

BG's RtwP is turn-based mechanics with a dynamic and more tactical approach than strict TbT. The real-time always bring more tactics.
Alignment did affect the companions' relationship and could lead to fights and killing.
As for BG2, most classes could go to level 13-14 while bards and thieves could go up to 16 as the experience needed to level up differed from a class to another.

What? If i'm correct i was around 20 something and close to 30 in BG2.

In BG1 i was level 8 when i faced Sarevok (and cheesed with Skull Trap).

they guy i think means the BASE no expandsion ending of BG3 its the only thing i can even semi think of to help the guys point out but even then hes pretty bad at explaining things...

[Jean-Maurice Nya]

Behemmoth, BGII is capped at 1500000 XP, then Throne of Bhaal expands the limit to uninteresting heights.