How does this compare with Divinity Original Sin 2?

[Harime Nui]

Well I played DOS2 so much over the past months that I literally burnt myself out

Tried Kingmaker this afternoon for a bit but cannot get into it at all... everything seemed kinda bland. Feels like this is niche/lower-budget whereas DOS2 is a lot more commercial

In terms of QoL I won't have any unrealistic expectations by this point: the game will look, sound and play the way it does and won't improve as I continue playing

However does this game offer a lot of player agency, or is the focus more on builds and combat? If it's the latter I might just stop here

Thanks!

[Drake]

Where are you the in game ? There are a lot of choices to do in game, especially with companions and your kingdom. The kingdom management (if you don't skip it) is half of the scenario.

For me it was the contrary, I like kingmaker way more than DOS2. DOS2 felt slow and dragging itself, while kingmaker kept me on edge all the time, I clocked 200h before I realized it.

[MOK]

The game changes after you finish chapter 1. It significantly differentiates from DOS2(which I found bland, personally), and differentiates it from what I think is a closer relative, PoE 1 & 2. I don't find this to be lower budget, because of the features you see after ch 1. But otherwise, this whole family of games is very similar.

[99Random]

I really like DOS2 so this is not a criticism and variety is awesome, but DOS2 is much more an action RPG. There is not tanking nor really healing and it is all out DPS race for all characters.

This makes it a pretty fun and exciting game where Pathfinder is much more about radically different character builds and creating a party of complimentary abilities and roles.

I loved both games but they are very different design philosophies.

[Harime Nui]

Originally posted by MOK:

The game changes after you finish chapter 1. It significantly differentiates from DOS2(which I found bland, personally), and differentiates it from what I think is a closer relative, PoE 1 & 2. I don't find this to be lower budget, because of the features you see after ch 1. But otherwise, this whole family of games is very similar.

Yes I liked PoE2! It sounds and looks better than Pathfinder too (lmao I'm shallow)

I'll pro'bly give it another go someday. Also when I said DOS2's more commercial it's not necessarily good or bad, just that it's made in such a way so it appeals better to a larger consumer base

[mbradtke]

DOS 2 ewwww.... not the best game, isnt it... (not my cup of tea at last)
how does it compare?
like bananas and apples i would say,
might be a similiar species but thats it...

[Harime Nui]

Originally posted by 99Random:

I really like DOS2 so this is not a criticism and variety is awesome, but DOS2 is much more an action RPG. There is not tanking nor really healing and it is all out DPS race for all characters.

This makes it a pretty fun and exciting game where Pathfinder is much more about radically different character builds and creating a party of complimentary abilities and roles.

I loved both games but they are very different design philosophies.

Yes, I agree. DOS2 appeals better to a wider consumer base and Pathfinder might be less fun and less exciting, even a bit intimidating for casual newcomers

Even though DOS2 is helluva lot of fun I cd tell how its system is shallow. Proof was that I managed to learn and reasonably master the combat after merely 1 or 2 days whereas I never managed to truly understand the combat of PoE2 (which, as I understand from the other post above, is close to Pathfinder) even after 200 hours

[Harime Nui]

Seems like I shd have asked "How does this compared with PoE2" instead...

[mbradtke]

you have a point, the combat in DOS 2 is shallow, simple and easy to master, it feels like a game for kids in that regard, with a lot special effects,
pathfinder rule system is much more complex, you may like it or not,
it is way more grown up, realistic, complex and rewarding to master,
DOS 2 is like many games these days, more of a casual experience,
pathfinder is not really a casual game but u can play a low difficulty and you will be fine anyways, even with liitle effort put into,
i disliked DOS2 mostly for it strange character development system and the graphics are a bit childish, too unrealistic for my taste, deep fantasy world with a bit too much catoonish toons

[Gresh]

I like both games, though I've spent a lot more time in Kingmaker.

DOS2 is a lot more straightforward with builds and combat. On normal difficulty you can pretty much wing a character and do pretty well. The interplay of effects in combat is the main draw. (launching a fireball into an oil slick or electrifying mist with a spell) The system also encourages you to dip into a variety of different skillsets for various benefits. (Like learning to teleport on your fighter character, or mixing in taking witchcraft for health regen on attacking) The narrative is also a lot more straightforward, and a lot more directed. I'd describe it as "semi open world." I found the companion characters and side characters entirely forgettable, but that's personal preference. There weren't any memorable enemies, places, or encounters. The game world feels a bit hollow to me.

Pathfinder's rules are a lot more strict for character building, and Kingmaker's combat is a bit more complicated. There aren't any of the cool combat combos like in DOS2. Character building is complicated but also a lot more rewarding within PF's feat system. You can multiclass easily in PF, but you can seriously gimp yourself if you don't know what you're doing. It also won't be to the extent capable in DOS2, where you can pretty safely take a little bit of every class if you really want to. Kingmaker encourages specialization within your team.

The overall narrative is pretty straightforward- Run a kingdom, fight off threats, find source of threat, mitigate it. The individual choices are a lot more interesting in Kingmaker- Some playthroughs I kill off certain people, sometimes I side with thieves, sometimes my kingdom is a military dictatorship, sometimes it's a paragon of good, etc. Compare to DOS2 where every run is pretty much the same except for what skills you take on your character. I find the side characters and their quests a lot more interesting in KM, and the game world a lot more fleshed out and interconnected. Again, probably personal preference.

Kingmaker has kingdom management, which differentiates it greatly from DOS2. How it works is you assign advisors, level up their skills, make policy decisions, and there's a minor city building component. You can fully automate this if you find it boring, and a lot of people mod the vanilla kingdom management to make it better. Management is hit and miss. I like it because it breaks up the main chapters and gives you some interesting flavor decisions. It also gives your side characters something to do. (they'll suggest policy based on their temperament.) It can also be really tedious or annoying.

Kingmaker is pound for pound WAY longer than DOS2. There is a TON of stuff to do, for better or worse. There is a lot of filler content, and even just traveling/resting will take a lot of time. It's a huge time sink in comparison to DOS2. I don't mind that, but some people do.

I like both games, but they're quite different in looks and feel. You'll have to decide for yourself if it's for you.

Hope you get some enjoyment out of it, good luck.

[Corridian]

I love both....seriously...

[skooma addict]

Different games honestly you can't compare them. It's like asking how does Witcher 3 compare with Skyrim