Is this as good as Pillars of Eternity?

[MagicNinja]

It's on sale right now and never got around to playing it, since Helldivers is working out some bugs...

[grognardgary]

A lot of people like it better some don't. My understanding is that the games are quite different.

[grognardgary]

I prefer wrath myself.

[Frostfeather]

It's far more complicated vs Pillars, so it kind of depends on what you're looking for.

If you don't have previous experience with a Pathfinder or a 3E D&D game, it might feel overwhelming... or it might feel amazing to dive into the complexity. Just depends on the person.

[mbradtke]

this game is so good, so much content....

[happybjorn]

No, it's not as good as pillars of eternity (the first one). Writing and characters are much, much better in pillars (again the first one), the disposition system is excellent while alignment is nonsensical garbage. Kingmaker has much more complicated leveling, which can be either good or bad depending on your preference.

But as grognardgary said the games are quite different.

Kingmaker is very good and worth getting.

[Janthis]

It's a different style of game, although having some similarities. I personally recommend it, as I had great fun with it. The writing and worldbuilding are good, and the combat system is original but fairly well designed imo.

[Chan]

I think Pillars is pretty boring. Progression-wise and characters. Never could get into it. Pathfinder? Played both of them for several hundred hours and still keep coming back to them. They're wonderful and have much more depth.

[SotiCoto]

Originally posted by MagicNinja:

It's on sale right now and never got around to playing it, since Helldivers is working out some bugs...

I think I SLIGHTLY preferred Pillars of Eternity.
They're both good games though.

... But Tyranny is better than both.

[MagicNinja]

Originally posted by SotiCoto:

Originally posted by MagicNinja:

It's on sale right now and never got around to playing it, since Helldivers is working out some bugs...

I think I SLIGHTLY preferred Pillars of Eternity.
They're both good games though.

... But Tyranny is better than both.

Tyranny is better than POE for sure on that we can agree

[SotiCoto]

Originally posted by MagicNinja:

Tyranny is better than POE for sure on that we can agree

Tyranny > Pillars of Eternity > This Game >>>>>>> Literally Nothing >>>> Baldur's Gate 3.

[Frostfeather]

Tyranny is extremely restrictive in terms of group options, character building, roleplaying/choices, etc. I think if you enjoyed Tyranny that much, op, then it's actually less likely that Kingmaker would be a good fit since the things I mentioned are stronger in Kingmaker.

I'd probably go for one or both of the Torment games instead.

[fourfourtwo79]

The good bits in Kingmaker are good. However, Owlcat Games are pretty much the assembly liners of CRPGs -- pumping out releases like crazy and essentially being Quantity Over Quality -- The Company. Rogue Trader is their third huge release in a complex genre within the span of but five years. There's numerous DLC added on top of that. It seems they need to keep out pumping, or go bust.

Whilst WOTR fares worse in this regard than Kingmaker, I think this interview bit on Pillars sums it up best. Pillars sees a dev being held back by budget constraints here and there. Kingmaker / WOTR represents a dev meanwhile not all caring about anything talked about here. Owlcat's mantra is: We'll give you plenty stuff and then add plenty more -- which even on triple-A levels tends to stretch thin (think Ubisoft open worlds full of filler content).

Personally, I would like to see us make shorter games (e.g. 30-40 hours instead of 60-80) where we cut the worst of our content and spend time iterating on the best. But there is pressure from the market itself (or at least perceived pressure) to make longer games so as to justify the game's sticker price with its "value" as measured in dollars spent per hour of gameplay. And I'm not sure if people understand that when you're on a budget, there's a zero-sum tradeoff between gameplay length and gameplay polish.

https://rpgcodex.net/content.php?id=10231

You'll see if you start playing. There's tons of writing, combat, encounter designs and quests. In terms of length either Pathfinder game easily trumps even the original Baldur's Gates. However, few of it is ever all that great, nor obviously given the time and polish and iteration to stand out. The end game in particular is just filler after filler, in particular when it comes to combat, with the same mob copypasted all over the maps (PoE Deadfire is a completely different beast in terms of encounter density and design in general). Bonus points if you're into build complexity though.

[SotiCoto]

Originally posted by night4:

I'd probably go for one or both of the Torment games instead.

Both of those fall in the category of games I should have played but haven't... for whatever reason. Honestly I spread myself too thin in terms of games so I never get to play half the things I intend to.

[attiladafun]

Oh my god this game is awful. Combat is awful, the game is boring. I played pillars a long time ago and I don't remember the combat or the story being this disruptive to flow. I never did beat pillars because it just had so many fights, and their custom class balance was totally off so late game fights became unwinnable for me.

[attiladafun]

Interesting. I didn't mind all the fights in Pillars, it just started to suck when you ran into mobs that were immune to everything late game. Pillars fights were a good way to test your build, until your build didn't work anymore. Owlcats fights are not even interesting or tactically satisfying.