Will I like this game if I liked BG3?

[Sta Barbara]

Almost 400 hours in Baldur's Gate 3 (representing 2.5 playthroughts), I played Divinity Original Sin 1 and 2, Pillars of Eternity 1 and 2, Tyranny, and, heck, Dungeons of Nahueulbeuk.

This game has been on my radar for the past couple of months, mostly because of a CRPG kick, but watching videos and reading about it online gives me the impression that this has been a very "mixed" game. If I'm coming right off Baldur's Gate III, do you think I would enjoy going for it and getting it while it's on sale (I have an hour and so to decide!)

I guess my apprehension has been reviews saying the combat isn't very good or satisfying, getting the best outcome to quests require intricate guides, etc, but I do like a good high fantasy, and honestly the kingdom management system sounds like fun to me! Hoping to get thoughts from fellow gamers! :)

[grognardgary]

Can't say. The games are very different treatments of the high fantasy crpg genre. If you liked Neverwinter nights you'll probably like this though this still quite a bit different in certain respects.

[Frostfeather]

I mean, what did you like about BG3?

Without knowing, honestly, I'd probably lean towards no simply because they're on completely different ends of the cRPG "spectrum" in terms of complexity and challenge. The other games you listed are closer to BG3's end of that spectrum, too.

[Finrod]

Personally, I played DOS 1 and 2, BG3, PoE1 (did not like that one that much) and I have begun a run of dungeon of naheulbeuk.
I really like the c-rpg games made by owlcat, both pathfinder and roguetrader, I think we can recommend these to any C-RPG player.

Here, the system and build may be more complex than BG3, but you always have a difficulty slider or builds in internet to help.
The combat in pathfinder is really good in my opinion. You have the option of turn based for difficult fights where you can place your spells tactically, or switch to the RTwP like PoE1 or BG1&2.

Also, both pathfinder games have a mini game (kingdom management or crusade) that has sometimes mixed reception. Kingmaker was really buggy at release, but now It is really stable.

Concerning the secret endings of both pathfinder games... Yes, they require you to follow a guide, but that is not to say that the other endings are not good or satisfaying. And after looking at all the requirements and efforts for the secret ending, for kingmaker it may not be worth it. (maybe the one of Pathfinder 2 is more epic, but that's expected due to the power scale...) .
In kingmaker I was able to get to the secret boss and to the post final dungeon area without getting the secret ending...

For companions final outcome, for Jaethal/Tristian, or Amiri in kingmaker, getting their best outcome is hard without a guide.... But for the other companions I was able to get their good endings without problems.

[Retronaut]

Had my eye on Pathfinder: Kingmaker for months after observing a lot of playthroughs on Twitch decided the time was right to pick it up.

The only criticism offered is that the Graphical User Interface may (or may not be) as intuitive than Divinity Original Sin 1 and 2, Pillars of Eternity 1 and 2, however, that only requires experimentation and attunement.

Maybe a little inconsistency in the art direction; you may notice different artists are utilized in character portraits, for example.

The graphic design is impressive; love that custom typeface on display documents!

Having only demonstrated Vyleen the Ranger, Linzi the Bard and Tartuccio the Sorcerer in the campaign for an hour or so, don't believe you will be disappointed.

'Kingmaker' is a solid, beautifully illustrated computer role-playing game that uses the D&D d20 system with a few changes here and there.

[SotiCoto]

This game is a hundred times better than the execrable abomination that is Baldur's Gate 3.
About the only thing it falls short on is graphical fanciness... but I don't know of anyone who plays these sorts of games for graphical fanciness alone.

The combat is far better here than in BG3 because we have the option of choosing between Turn-Based and Real-Time-with-Pause, and we don't have to waste time clicking through all the dice-rolls either.

The exploration is far better here because character movement both in AND out of combat depend on their statistical movement rate, so you can actually make exploring the map easier with Expeditious Retreat.... as opposed to jogging around everywhere at the speed of cold molasses like in BG3.

Kingmaker's game world is far bigger than BG3's, though admittedly it does have a lot of asset re-use. And as previously mentioned, most of the travelling is actually tolerable in this game... unlike BG3.

Additionally, Kingmaker's story is actually good, and isn't a gross violation of lore for the sake of promoting crappy author's-pet characters like BG3 does.


So... as to whether you'd like it or not? Not sure. This is a far FAR better game than Baldur's Gate 3... but since you actually liked BG3 somehow, it is possible you just have bad taste, so who knows whether you'd like this or not?

[Toren]

its much more serious than baldurs gate and if you dont like getting punched in the balls you will probably hate it until you learn about its systems. I wasted a few hours on this game because I decided to walk into a fight that is impossible to win unless you know about it ahead of time and prepare or have past experience with pathfinder. the sequal is easier to get into in my opinion.

[Janthis]

They are quite different games. BG3 is more focused on the narrative and characters, while the Pathfinder games are more about gameplay mechanics. BG3 also has better production values. If you play Kingmaker, you should expect a bit of jank and some frustration. I recommend using some sort of guide, so you don't fail quests because you made a wrong dialogue choice 3 hours ago and the like.

[grognardgary]

Originally posted by Retronaut:

"I recommend using some sort of guide..." ~ Johnny_B_80


Amusing to me that you mentioned this.
It's Dungeons & Dragons 50th Anniversary, however, read plenty of positive things about Pathfinder.
Seen Pathfinder player's handbook in bookstores for years but dismissed it as uninspiring and imitative compared to D&D.
Sampling Pathfinder: Kingmaker may motivate me to finally pick up that player's handbook and peek inside its world.

If you thought 3.5 was the best D&D ever and loved the Neverwinter nights originals you'll like this.

[SotiCoto]

Originally posted by Johnny_B_80:

I recommend using some sort of guide, so you don't fail quests because you made a wrong dialogue choice 3 hours ago and the like.

As opposed to BG3, where I lost 14 hours because I didn't go gung-ho and murder a passing patrol because the game obfuscated and outright lied in cases about what would and wouldn't work for navigating the sh!tty fog (i.e. I was explicitly told Light Magic would work for navigating the sh!tty murk of Act 2, so I decided that was more convenient than mugging people for their lantern... except then suddenly Light Magic didn't work any more for some vitally important areas, so I had to spend ages navigating a tower full of ar$eholes to find a backup Lantern... except then I couldn't get the pixie out of the backup lantern, which means I had to hold it and forego a weapon slot, which was unacceptable... SO I had to dig out the last save I had from before hiding from the patrol, which turned out to be the beginning of Act 2, 14 hours ago).
Not to mention I failed to complete an armour set because I didn't spot the hidden nook that one part of the set was hidden in before, and when I looked it up online, it turned out I'd gone right past it... so I tried to backtrack ONE AREA, and the game cutscene-killed my character rather than let them go back because it takes railroading entirely too seriously.

This game is far fairer with stuff like that. You can backtrack almost anywhere you like, and there is far less permanently screwing things up or reloading old saves involved.

Originally posted by grognardgary:

If you thought 3.5 was the best D&D ever and loved the Neverwinter nights originals you'll like this.

... Sorry to be pedantic, but NWN1 was D&D 3.0.

[Chan]

Doubtful. Most people that like BG3 like it because it's pretty and easy to understand. Pathfinder games are... well the opposite entirely. If you aren't familiar with the pathfinder rules and you're not willing to put forth a fairly large amount of effort you'll probably write it off as being "too hard" or "not fun". Fairly common things I've read about Kingmaker and WotR.

[SotiCoto]

Originally posted by ChanxThexMan:

Doubtful. Most people that like BG3 like it because it's pretty and easy to understand. Pathfinder games are... well the opposite entirely. If you aren't familiar with the pathfinder rules and you're not willing to put forth a fairly large amount of effort you'll probably write it off as being "too hard" or "not fun". Fairly common things I've read about Kingmaker and WotR.

D&D dumbed itself down to appeal to common people who eat glue, bark at their own shadow, and regard anything they don't understand as a personal attack.
Pathfinder decided to remain the domain of geeks and nerds, and embraced rules that need spreadsheets to keep track of.

Unfortunately both of them decided that Tieflings were here to stay...

Admittedly back when I used to play D&D 3.5 I didn't understand a lot of the rule interplay. Not to say I didn't get the rules, but how exactly the rules interact with each other was a bit of a sticking point for me, which is why I could never make the horrifyingly OP munchkin characters everyone else seemed to, and consequently was always the first to die. BUT I'd never want to actually remove that complexity. It was simply something I needed to put more effort into learning... assuming I focused less on method roleplaying and more on the actual game mechanics.

[grognardgary]

Originally posted by SotiCoto:

Originally posted by Johnny_B_80:

I recommend using some sort of guide, so you don't fail quests because you made a wrong dialogue choice 3 hours ago and the like.

As opposed to BG3, where I lost 14 hours because I didn't go gung-ho and murder a passing patrol because the game obfuscated and outright lied in cases about what would and wouldn't work for navigating the sh!tty fog (i.e. I was explicitly told Light Magic would work for navigating the sh!tty murk of Act 2, so I decided that was more convenient than mugging people for their lantern... except then suddenly Light Magic didn't work any more for some vitally important areas, so I had to spend ages navigating a tower full of ar$eholes to find a backup Lantern... except then I couldn't get the pixie out of the backup lantern, which means I had to hold it and forego a weapon slot, which was unacceptable... SO I had to dig out the last save I had from before hiding from the patrol, which turned out to be the beginning of Act 2, 14 hours ago).
Not to mention I failed to complete an armour set because I didn't spot the hidden nook that one part of the set was hidden in before, and when I looked it up online, it turned out I'd gone right past it... so I tried to backtrack ONE AREA, and the game cutscene-killed my character rather than let them go back because it takes railroading entirely too seriously.

This game is far fairer with stuff like that. You can backtrack almost anywhere you like, and there is far less permanently screwing things up or reloading old saves involved.

Originally posted by grognardgary:

If you thought 3.5 was the best D&D ever and loved the Neverwinter nights originals you'll like this.

... Sorry to be pedantic, but NWN1 was D&D 3.0.

I am well aware of that but the differences between 3.0 and 3.5 are nothing like the differences between 2 and 3,5, and 3.5 and either 4 or 5.

[NemesisofdaCancelPigs]

Kingmaker is hella better than BG3. No woke BS, though the replayability is.. hard to do, depends on what kind of person you are, Linzee's ending has prevented me from replaying the game forevermore, unless I can find a mod to change it. Not goin through those feelz again. ♥♥♥♥♥♥ russians.

[Janthis]

Originally posted by NemesisofdaCancelPigs:

Originally posted by Johnny_B_80:

They are quite different games. BG3 is more focused on the narrative and characters, while the Pathfinder games are more about gameplay mechanics. BG3 also has better production values. If you play Kingmaker, you should expect a bit of jank and some frustration. I recommend using some sort of guide, so you don't fail quests because you made a wrong dialogue choice 3 hours ago and the like.

Kingmaker had hellamore storyline than BG3, all BG3 had was everyone wanting to rape you regardless of your preferences, which is so anti-DnD there are no words. BG3 wasnt DnD in any sense of it, it was a gay man's fantasy, nothing more.

Not so much gay as everyone being attracted to the player no matter what gender they are, but yeah. Apparently there was also a bug at launch which set the companion approval thresholds too low which is why everyone got horny for you faster than they should have. But they did lean pretty heavily into the dating sim aspect - apparently that's what people want.

One thing I can say in BG3's favor was that the rules were pretty straightforward compared to the mess that is Mathfinder, and it didn't waste my time with boring half-baked mechanics like the crusade/kingdom management. Ok, two things.

[SotiCoto]

Originally posted by grognardgary:

I am well aware of that but the differences between 3.0 and 3.5 are nothing like the differences between 2 and 3,5, and 3.5 and either 4 or 5.

True. Kinda hard to remember what they even were, honestly.
I know I still have the 3.5 player's handbook around, and I know I've seen the 3.0 handbook. I remember it had a darker cover than 3.5's. I just recall that 3.0 felt..... less polished? More unbalanced. I can't remember the details though.

Honestly I had the main books for 4.0 but never actually got around to using them, and it is probably for the best, as 4th edition looked like absolute arse.

Originally posted by NemesisofdaCancelPigs:

Kingmaker is hella better than BG3. No woke BS,

Originally posted by NemesisofdaCancelPigs:

all BG3 had was everyone wanting to rape you regardless of your preferences, which is so anti-DnD there are no words. BG3 wasnt DnD in any sense of it, it was a gay man's fantasy, nothing more.

Why? Just why do you have to do this?
Ever heard of doing the right thing for the wrong reasons?
Well this is it. BG3 was a bad game.... but not for your sh!tty reasons. The game had so many things wrong with it, but you focus entirely on a complete non-issue and in doing so, distract from the game's genuine failings. You're effectively supporting the game by being like that.

The dice-rolling mechanic was hugely time-wasting and superfluous, and the navigation was similarly slow and pointlessly time-consuming. The plot was hard railroaded in an obnoxious and conspicuous way all to justify the devs fan-wank over their lore-destroying pet squid-head. The game hid all sorts of easily missable stuff, but 100% of it was game mechanics related and shouldn't have been missable in the first place. The game was heavily front-loaded. They wasted precious HD space with 4k textures for everything and pre-recorded dialogue for every single damned line (and it took 36 hours to download)... all for the sake of a game that is mostly viewed from a distance anyway, so you won't even see the details on the rocks and hills (which form a janky landscape with an even jankier skybox anyway). AND 100% of the companions were obnoxious, ugly and unlikeable.... but you're ONLY concerned about the male ones hitting on you.

Just... don't bother. Don't chime in. Keep quiet, as your words are indirectly helping Larian by effectively satirising all criticism of their abomination.