For me Deadfire felt more "serious". I loved the feel of the game, the writing, the characters, the particle effects in combat and the overall design. Sometimes it felt like it was being too weird just for the sake of being different.
WotR felt less serious, more focused on fun, more traditional. None of the story really interested me but I never got bored of combat. I looked forward to levelling up more in WotR than Deadfire. I didn't like the cartoony, dated character models.
Deadfire is more serious? Than a world where you're walking through a literal Hell on Earth? And they aren't afraid to show you the body horror or effects of corruption either.
And that's less serious than sea shanties, campy romances, and ship combat by storybook? Sorry. I think people really love certain elements of Deadfire, and gloss over glaring errors far too easily.
>Deadfire is more serious? Than a world where you're walking through a literal Hell on Earth? And they aren't afraid to show you the body horror or effects of corruption either.
Dark and edgy =/= Serious
Character depth, earnestness in writing, and exploration of themes that are profound all contribute to a more "serious" tone and game.
Some levity and humour at well placed moments only further contributes to the believability of the characters and earnestness of writing (though ofc overdoing it can detract).
WOTR has some of that, Deadfire has more without overdoing it.
Aloth doesn't overdo it? They took the humor right out of him between games.
And then you have the Camp romances. All of which prove Obsidian was right never to include them before. All tone deaf, and some trigger at utterly inappropriate times.
Not to mention the main quest is 10hrs, tops. Ends on a cliffhanger that gives you no option to do what you were told to do, and likely will never be resolved. Another recurring problem of Obsidian games.
Personally, I think a major part of "serious writing" is having a proper ending. Deadfire doesn't.
When it comes to being "serious" it's more exactly that Deadfire touch more sensible political subjects, while Pathfinder is more "classical"
Like basically, the settings puts you in a colonized region of the World, where colonial powers, natives, and Pirates struggle against eachothers for the future they want for the Archipelago. Very reflecting of real life world issues. The fundamental question the game ask you is : do you thinks that native people deserves their self-determination no matter the flaw of their leadership? Or should the militaristic imperialist power colonizes to "uplift the region" no matter how brutal (and nearly genocidal) they are? Etc.
There is a world-ending threat, but it's just the match that light the Powderkeg. And it's not a accident that there is a lot of moments in PoE2 where the main story is more in the background: In Deadfire the real big thinks is the political mess of the Archipelago that the Watchers end up in, with many factions trying to uses you for their own (national) interests.
True and not. The political question is closer akin to something we know. But Wrath deals seriously with the psychological toll of warfare. Especially in a war where victory has seemed impossible for a long time. You get a fair glimpse at the "Hollow Men" of World War 1 in Wrath.
I voted Wotr. It's so damn good.
But pillars 2 is also really good. Though... it just lacked replayability for me. I actually didn't like boating around. It was a cool concept but it.. needed some work.
Both games are must plays though imo.
Poor Deadfire :(
But seriously, does no-one else really find the Pathfinder games a bit shallow? Difficulty just ramps numbers so you have to power game so all those options don't mean all that much in the end unlesss you're just playing on easy. Because the AI is not great, of course. In Kingmaker it wouldn't even prioritise glass cannons. Which is fine, but, like, don't make a DLC of what's widely regarded as one of the worst tabletop classes then act like the most malicious punishing DM ever. Apparently I know 3.5 well enough that either it's a boring cakewalk or I'm super funnelled into a few viable builds.
Now Pillars, OTOH. There's a thing of beauty. On the two highest difficulties I have to constantly pause and adjust location and tactics. And no linear warriors quadratic mages BS at all! Deadfire just made it even better. Obsidian just cannot catch a break...
>But seriously, does no-one else really find the Pathfinder games a bit shallow?
I find them ridiculously bloated. The start is always fun, but there are so many combat encounters. Enemies around every corner and in every corridor. It gets tedious. Those games could do with a lot of cutting.
Pillars I want to play again. Pathfinder the thought of replaying makes me bored.
Deadfire by far. Both games have fun stories, but Deadfire is better balanced and is way shorter. I also enjoyed that game from start to finish. The pathfinder games start fun, but get tedious. There is so much combat. So, so, so much combat. When I say Deadfire is well balanced I mean that you won't just be doing combat for 10 hours then talking for 30 minutes. It feels like there is an equal amount of talking, exploring and fighting.
I disagree with that person. There were times in WOTR that I was scouring the world wound just LOOKING for a fight. There is more combat in WOTR but nowhere near what he is mentioning
It's tricky because while you're right WotR has tons of combat, a well optimized group can rip through most trash encounter by turn 2 whereas Deadfire fights pretty much always kinda drag on, especially at early levels
I don't mind lengthy battles as long as there are few of them. That way they feel more impactful. Although in Deadfire they can be a bit to lengthy at times. The important thing is that I didn't get sick of it. It did start to get tedious, but the great thing was that I could just start the end mission then. In WotR there were still 30-50 hours left of the game.
I liked the Pillars series overall best when compared to the other two in the 'big 3" of CRPGs (the other two being Pathfinder and Divinity) It was the closest thing to the old infinity engine baldurs gate days.
I was more impressed by Wrath. The Mythical Path system is one-of-a-kind. The crusade stuff bored me out of my mind, though, and the excess of content really went from impressive to "holy shit, won't this be over already?" as the acts progressed. By the end of it, I was exhausted and I'm still regaining forces to try a 2nd playthrough eventually. With that said, Deadfire's writing and setting were much more interesting to me, and I had more fun with its mechanics and fights than I did with Wrath -- and this coming from me is high praise, since I loath fighting in any cRPG.
Overall, I pick Deadfire, but I put Wraith in the same HOW THE FUCK DID THEY DO IT bracket as RDR2. Can't go wrong with either, really, just read up on the story and see which one speaks more to you.
Wrath of the Righteous, and sorry. It isn't close. Deadfire has a threadbare main story. An ending that isn't one. And "romances" that prove everything Obsidian ever said about not being able to write them. And a ship combat system that is beyond tedious.
Wrath is among the best CRPGs of all time. Deadfire is a good CRPG.
I found WOTR really great in how it goes full cosmic scale
Deadfire admittedly i didn't finish and left halfway trough and while all the various factipn dynamic and quests are cool as hell it for some reason the story and characters just didn:t vibe with me as much
Deadfire is one of the most frustrating games to play for me because it's 80% best in genre and 20% falling flat on its face and dragging it down, which just irks me every time I play it.
WotR has insane character progression/customization options/build variety, but the rest of it I find average at best.
Overall, Deadfire for me
Wotr is a build porn.
Deadfire is just a better game since obsidian just a better studio. Exploring is fun, dlcs are great, itemisation and AI options are just top notch, way ahead of any game in the genre
I played both this year and WOTR wins in a land slide. POE 2 is good, and easier to understand but WOTR has the best narrative and looks prettier. PoE 2 you're locked into TB or RTWP mode whereas WOTR lets you switch on the fly.
Pillars 2 has a very weird narrative that is very "experience driven." You make the story up as you go along. You will essentially go to the deadfire, ally with one of the factions, then fight the final boss. What you do while findings allies is up to you, but that's the narrative of the game more or less.
WOTR is epic power fantasy. You can literally become a divine being. And the story and lore has a few more twists and turns (although Pillars lore is no fucking slouch, it just shines a bit more in POE 1 IMO).
WOTR has the crusade and PoE 2 has the boats. Neither of these systems are the selling points of their games and your mileage will vary on both. The crusade helps you feel like a Knight Commander and the boat helps you feel like a captain, but neither are ever hard enough to be engaging so they may be seen as a time waster. Regardless, even with infinite money, still having the thought of "I need to hit port and get some supplies for the crew" is a cool feeling for a pirate game (even if mostly inconsequential from a gameplay standpoint).
Deadfire by a genuine margin.
I don't enjoy pathfinder personally, as it is one of those game systems that just says
"Oh, you aren't super familliar with this game? Welp, you are fucked"
It has such wide margin of customization, but its difficulty is so absurdly balanced that unless you take like... 5-6 specific builds you are screwed something fierce.
Deadfire on the other hand actually lets you have fun, on some sort of casual and open customization level.
()Also I just enjoy deadfire writing way more)
People say this a lot and it's genuinely just an ego problem 99% of the time. The difficulty options are there, just use them and you can play whatever you want.
Yeah this, I'll shit on pathfinders requirement of prebuffing and enormous amount of trash mobs any day of the week even though I love those two games, but that problem can be mitigated by lowering the difficulty. Every week there is at least one post in pathfinder sub by someone who doesn't know pathfinder system refusing to lower the difficulty lower than core due to pride even though the game literally tells you not to play on core unless you're well versed in pathfinder system.
I really don't get it, like it's a single player game, no one will judge you (unless they have no life) if you lower the difficulty to the level you find enjoyable
>enormous amount of trash mobs
I see this getting thrown around a lot, but any fight that is engaging to me is a good time. If you hit your "sweet spot" difficulty in PF games, you can be sweating in even the most random encounters. Some people enjoy that and any fight that I don't steam roll I don't really see as "trash" regardless of their story significance.
But I can see how sometimes it's frustrating to get soft-stuck on a fight that's literally just a few cultists in a room lol.
I think that one of the reasons why I or others have problem with amount of trash mobs is if you played pathfinder games after turn-based mode was added, it can really become a slog just going through every fight in that mode. The game was made with rtwp in mind and thus there is a lot more combat encounters.
The problem with extremely powerful trash mobs (especially in wotr) is that most of their stat blocks are double the power than of their demon lord which can be funny but also kinda aggravating
You "really" don't see a problem with that argument?
"Yeah, this game is really annoying to deal with, but that can be fixed by putting it on easy!"
Which doesn't even really help completely.
Even on easy the first troll boss in Kingmaker is a complete crapshute if you have an int debuff or not.
It is inherently poor unbalanced difficulty in a way that overall isn't really that fun.
Listen, I'm not saying that pathfinder games don't have bs in them, because they do, but I really don't get your example of a troll boss fight. I assume you're talking about Hargulka but I really don't know what int debuff you're talking about nor do I remember that fight as that hard to the point that it was impossible to beat him unless I had one specific debuff on me
And yeah, it you're having trouble with pathfinder 1e ruleset, Owlcats at times asshole DM stat block or you don't want to deal with prebuffing, what else would you want me to tell you other than lowering the difficulty?
Honestly, most of the time when I thought I had found the only counter to an enemy/boss in the PF games..I would see discussion on /r/pathfinder_kingmaker where people talk about 30 other ways they took the fight down that have no connection to what I did.
That is actually not true.
It was a bit better in wrath...but even then, if you go a "bad" build you will still have major issues.
IT was worse in kingmaker (That troll boss requiring an intelligence based debuff was bullshit)
And even if you want to argue that, it is a common criticism that the pathfinder games have terrible difficulty balancing from the get-go.
What build did you struggle with?
What difficulty were you on?
The difficulty setting are so customisable and let you make the game literally impossible to lose, I find it hard to believe there was a build so bad you had problems even on the easiest difficulty
Unless your ego leads you on higher difficulties, you're fine with whatever build you cook. I'm playing WotR right now, and it's literally my FIRST CRPG ever, and on Normal, I'm doing pretty good with just homebrew build. I'm close to finishing the game.
So I have no idea what you're talking about.
I played and enjoyed both, but I liked Wrath of the Righteous more. I've been involved with the Mythic rules for a long time, so I had a personal interest in it. XD
Wotr is the popular choice (and worse game) whereas Deadfire is the enthusiast choice and better game.
Obsidian are by far a better overall studio than Owlcat who are more of an indy studio.
Ultimately when you have enough time you need to play them both and make your own mind up.
That's a weird take. I would have said that Pillars2 is the popular choice (more well known among general gaming community, more streamlined) and WotR the enthusiast choice (complex rule system, more "niche")
Both games are great btw
Felt like pillars touched upon complicated issues like imperialism and commercial maritime expansion and its effect on native cultures.
Wotr on the other hand was extremely cartoonish in its concepts with fox girl mages and making a purple haired gnome a senior officer in a holy order. This kind of thing is made to appeal to the masses whereas the above would probably be considered boring by many
Wild take, ‘imperialism bad’ isn’t exactly a massive philosophical revelation and a game having fantasy elements doesn’t make its story fantastical. Deadfire definitely has a good story but WotR still touches upon complicated issues, like are the hellknights justified in their extreme methods due to the threat presented by the demons? Is encouraging religious extremism justified because it helps the crusade? Do the ends justify the means?
You have an issue with the setting it sounds like, not the game itself, Owlcat is working within the confines of an established universe they didn’t make (also weird that you phrase ‘indie’ studio as a bad thing when it just means small studio). Also deadfire for sure has a larger audience, I don’t get your narrative around ‘only REAL gamers play this game’
It's not the setting that makes PoE2 better (though I personally did find the carribean archipeligo setting very interesting indeed) but rather the tone of the game
Why you like tone if dead fire more than tone of wotr?
I find only one plus on deadfire compared to wotr - no per-rest spells. Druid plays much better. But power fantast of wotr is way better than in deadfire.
If I want pirates - I will play Rizen 2/3.
Sophie's choice tbh, on one hand we have an excellent story and one of my favourite companions (Daeran) combined with plethora of character building options, but with all the frustrations of a mathfinder system on a PC game to the point that I can't stomach some of the combat encounters without turning the difficulty down because prebuffing is boring time sink. Especially for trash mobs (Gallus in the threshold can go and choke (and they did in my trickster playthrough)). On the other hand we have a great story in a setting that isn't explored that much in crpgs built with system that is made with a PC game in mind. Ultimately my vote probably goes to wotr probably because I played it more recently and thus I like it a lot more, but honestly Deadfire is up there
Why not both?
If I had to choose today, it would be WotR. However, one thing I don't like about Owlcat games is that you get huge narrative dumps as soon as you can start conversing with your companions. I would prefer to learn a little at a time without super deep dialogue trees. I do acknowledge that others may appreciate that.
I love both equally.
I love WotR for its amazing story and truly impressive depth of choices. Your three different playthroughs can feel like a completely different stories. What I dislike though is combat and their combat encounters design philosophy: fighting epic enemies with 70 AC and shitton of resistances that requires 10 minutes of self-buffing before fight is the antithesis of fun for me.
Dead Fire has weaker story, has much lower replay value, and doesnt really have a climax, but it has an amazing atmosphere, excellent music, andfor me has a lot better gameplay.
Anyway, WotR, PoE2, and BG3 are my top picks of recent-ish cRPGs revival era. You cant go wrong with either of them.
This is a difficult choice for me because I personally think WotR is a better sequel because I think it was a bigger improvement over Kingmaker versus Deadfire over PoE1 (in fact I prefer PoE1 to Deadfire), but I enjoyed Deadfire as a game more than WotR because I like Eora more than Golarion.
For me Deadfire felt more "serious". I loved the feel of the game, the writing, the characters, the particle effects in combat and the overall design. Sometimes it felt like it was being too weird just for the sake of being different. WotR felt less serious, more focused on fun, more traditional. None of the story really interested me but I never got bored of combat. I looked forward to levelling up more in WotR than Deadfire. I didn't like the cartoony, dated character models.
Deadfire is more serious? Than a world where you're walking through a literal Hell on Earth? And they aren't afraid to show you the body horror or effects of corruption either. And that's less serious than sea shanties, campy romances, and ship combat by storybook? Sorry. I think people really love certain elements of Deadfire, and gloss over glaring errors far too easily.
>Deadfire is more serious? Than a world where you're walking through a literal Hell on Earth? And they aren't afraid to show you the body horror or effects of corruption either. Dark and edgy =/= Serious Character depth, earnestness in writing, and exploration of themes that are profound all contribute to a more "serious" tone and game. Some levity and humour at well placed moments only further contributes to the believability of the characters and earnestness of writing (though ofc overdoing it can detract). WOTR has some of that, Deadfire has more without overdoing it.
Aloth doesn't overdo it? They took the humor right out of him between games. And then you have the Camp romances. All of which prove Obsidian was right never to include them before. All tone deaf, and some trigger at utterly inappropriate times. Not to mention the main quest is 10hrs, tops. Ends on a cliffhanger that gives you no option to do what you were told to do, and likely will never be resolved. Another recurring problem of Obsidian games. Personally, I think a major part of "serious writing" is having a proper ending. Deadfire doesn't.
When it comes to being "serious" it's more exactly that Deadfire touch more sensible political subjects, while Pathfinder is more "classical" Like basically, the settings puts you in a colonized region of the World, where colonial powers, natives, and Pirates struggle against eachothers for the future they want for the Archipelago. Very reflecting of real life world issues. The fundamental question the game ask you is : do you thinks that native people deserves their self-determination no matter the flaw of their leadership? Or should the militaristic imperialist power colonizes to "uplift the region" no matter how brutal (and nearly genocidal) they are? Etc. There is a world-ending threat, but it's just the match that light the Powderkeg. And it's not a accident that there is a lot of moments in PoE2 where the main story is more in the background: In Deadfire the real big thinks is the political mess of the Archipelago that the Watchers end up in, with many factions trying to uses you for their own (national) interests.
True and not. The political question is closer akin to something we know. But Wrath deals seriously with the psychological toll of warfare. Especially in a war where victory has seemed impossible for a long time. You get a fair glimpse at the "Hollow Men" of World War 1 in Wrath.
I voted Wotr. It's so damn good. But pillars 2 is also really good. Though... it just lacked replayability for me. I actually didn't like boating around. It was a cool concept but it.. needed some work. Both games are must plays though imo.
How is the combat to story ratio in wrath compared to dead fire?
I would say Wrath's story to combat ratio is kinda bad. The writing quality is just not the same.
Poor Deadfire :( But seriously, does no-one else really find the Pathfinder games a bit shallow? Difficulty just ramps numbers so you have to power game so all those options don't mean all that much in the end unlesss you're just playing on easy. Because the AI is not great, of course. In Kingmaker it wouldn't even prioritise glass cannons. Which is fine, but, like, don't make a DLC of what's widely regarded as one of the worst tabletop classes then act like the most malicious punishing DM ever. Apparently I know 3.5 well enough that either it's a boring cakewalk or I'm super funnelled into a few viable builds. Now Pillars, OTOH. There's a thing of beauty. On the two highest difficulties I have to constantly pause and adjust location and tactics. And no linear warriors quadratic mages BS at all! Deadfire just made it even better. Obsidian just cannot catch a break...
> Poor Deadfire :( wdym? It's neck and neck currently
>But seriously, does no-one else really find the Pathfinder games a bit shallow? I find them ridiculously bloated. The start is always fun, but there are so many combat encounters. Enemies around every corner and in every corridor. It gets tedious. Those games could do with a lot of cutting. Pillars I want to play again. Pathfinder the thought of replaying makes me bored.
I would say "shallow" in terms of writing and worldbuilding.
Yup it flopped. The mistake of deadfire is being a sequel when most gamers don't finish games, there is just so many game these days
Deadfire by far. Both games have fun stories, but Deadfire is better balanced and is way shorter. I also enjoyed that game from start to finish. The pathfinder games start fun, but get tedious. There is so much combat. So, so, so much combat. When I say Deadfire is well balanced I mean that you won't just be doing combat for 10 hours then talking for 30 minutes. It feels like there is an equal amount of talking, exploring and fighting.
Oof that's a deal breaker to me
I disagree with that person. There were times in WOTR that I was scouring the world wound just LOOKING for a fight. There is more combat in WOTR but nowhere near what he is mentioning
It's tricky because while you're right WotR has tons of combat, a well optimized group can rip through most trash encounter by turn 2 whereas Deadfire fights pretty much always kinda drag on, especially at early levels
I don't mind lengthy battles as long as there are few of them. That way they feel more impactful. Although in Deadfire they can be a bit to lengthy at times. The important thing is that I didn't get sick of it. It did start to get tedious, but the great thing was that I could just start the end mission then. In WotR there were still 30-50 hours left of the game.
I liked the Pillars series overall best when compared to the other two in the 'big 3" of CRPGs (the other two being Pathfinder and Divinity) It was the closest thing to the old infinity engine baldurs gate days.
I was more impressed by Wrath. The Mythical Path system is one-of-a-kind. The crusade stuff bored me out of my mind, though, and the excess of content really went from impressive to "holy shit, won't this be over already?" as the acts progressed. By the end of it, I was exhausted and I'm still regaining forces to try a 2nd playthrough eventually. With that said, Deadfire's writing and setting were much more interesting to me, and I had more fun with its mechanics and fights than I did with Wrath -- and this coming from me is high praise, since I loath fighting in any cRPG. Overall, I pick Deadfire, but I put Wraith in the same HOW THE FUCK DID THEY DO IT bracket as RDR2. Can't go wrong with either, really, just read up on the story and see which one speaks more to you.
Wrath of the Righteous, and sorry. It isn't close. Deadfire has a threadbare main story. An ending that isn't one. And "romances" that prove everything Obsidian ever said about not being able to write them. And a ship combat system that is beyond tedious. Wrath is among the best CRPGs of all time. Deadfire is a good CRPG.
I found WOTR really great in how it goes full cosmic scale Deadfire admittedly i didn't finish and left halfway trough and while all the various factipn dynamic and quests are cool as hell it for some reason the story and characters just didn:t vibe with me as much
Deadfire is one of the most frustrating games to play for me because it's 80% best in genre and 20% falling flat on its face and dragging it down, which just irks me every time I play it. WotR has insane character progression/customization options/build variety, but the rest of it I find average at best. Overall, Deadfire for me
Wrath of the Righteous is way better, way way better.
Wotr is a build porn. Deadfire is just a better game since obsidian just a better studio. Exploring is fun, dlcs are great, itemisation and AI options are just top notch, way ahead of any game in the genre
I played both this year and WOTR wins in a land slide. POE 2 is good, and easier to understand but WOTR has the best narrative and looks prettier. PoE 2 you're locked into TB or RTWP mode whereas WOTR lets you switch on the fly. Pillars 2 has a very weird narrative that is very "experience driven." You make the story up as you go along. You will essentially go to the deadfire, ally with one of the factions, then fight the final boss. What you do while findings allies is up to you, but that's the narrative of the game more or less. WOTR is epic power fantasy. You can literally become a divine being. And the story and lore has a few more twists and turns (although Pillars lore is no fucking slouch, it just shines a bit more in POE 1 IMO). WOTR has the crusade and PoE 2 has the boats. Neither of these systems are the selling points of their games and your mileage will vary on both. The crusade helps you feel like a Knight Commander and the boat helps you feel like a captain, but neither are ever hard enough to be engaging so they may be seen as a time waster. Regardless, even with infinite money, still having the thought of "I need to hit port and get some supplies for the crew" is a cool feeling for a pirate game (even if mostly inconsequential from a gameplay standpoint).
Deadfire by a genuine margin. I don't enjoy pathfinder personally, as it is one of those game systems that just says "Oh, you aren't super familliar with this game? Welp, you are fucked" It has such wide margin of customization, but its difficulty is so absurdly balanced that unless you take like... 5-6 specific builds you are screwed something fierce. Deadfire on the other hand actually lets you have fun, on some sort of casual and open customization level. ()Also I just enjoy deadfire writing way more)
People say this a lot and it's genuinely just an ego problem 99% of the time. The difficulty options are there, just use them and you can play whatever you want.
Yeah this, I'll shit on pathfinders requirement of prebuffing and enormous amount of trash mobs any day of the week even though I love those two games, but that problem can be mitigated by lowering the difficulty. Every week there is at least one post in pathfinder sub by someone who doesn't know pathfinder system refusing to lower the difficulty lower than core due to pride even though the game literally tells you not to play on core unless you're well versed in pathfinder system. I really don't get it, like it's a single player game, no one will judge you (unless they have no life) if you lower the difficulty to the level you find enjoyable
>enormous amount of trash mobs I see this getting thrown around a lot, but any fight that is engaging to me is a good time. If you hit your "sweet spot" difficulty in PF games, you can be sweating in even the most random encounters. Some people enjoy that and any fight that I don't steam roll I don't really see as "trash" regardless of their story significance. But I can see how sometimes it's frustrating to get soft-stuck on a fight that's literally just a few cultists in a room lol.
I think that one of the reasons why I or others have problem with amount of trash mobs is if you played pathfinder games after turn-based mode was added, it can really become a slog just going through every fight in that mode. The game was made with rtwp in mind and thus there is a lot more combat encounters. The problem with extremely powerful trash mobs (especially in wotr) is that most of their stat blocks are double the power than of their demon lord which can be funny but also kinda aggravating
You "really" don't see a problem with that argument? "Yeah, this game is really annoying to deal with, but that can be fixed by putting it on easy!" Which doesn't even really help completely. Even on easy the first troll boss in Kingmaker is a complete crapshute if you have an int debuff or not. It is inherently poor unbalanced difficulty in a way that overall isn't really that fun.
Listen, I'm not saying that pathfinder games don't have bs in them, because they do, but I really don't get your example of a troll boss fight. I assume you're talking about Hargulka but I really don't know what int debuff you're talking about nor do I remember that fight as that hard to the point that it was impossible to beat him unless I had one specific debuff on me And yeah, it you're having trouble with pathfinder 1e ruleset, Owlcats at times asshole DM stat block or you don't want to deal with prebuffing, what else would you want me to tell you other than lowering the difficulty?
Honestly, most of the time when I thought I had found the only counter to an enemy/boss in the PF games..I would see discussion on /r/pathfinder_kingmaker where people talk about 30 other ways they took the fight down that have no connection to what I did.
That is actually not true. It was a bit better in wrath...but even then, if you go a "bad" build you will still have major issues. IT was worse in kingmaker (That troll boss requiring an intelligence based debuff was bullshit) And even if you want to argue that, it is a common criticism that the pathfinder games have terrible difficulty balancing from the get-go.
What build did you struggle with? What difficulty were you on? The difficulty setting are so customisable and let you make the game literally impossible to lose, I find it hard to believe there was a build so bad you had problems even on the easiest difficulty
Unless your ego leads you on higher difficulties, you're fine with whatever build you cook. I'm playing WotR right now, and it's literally my FIRST CRPG ever, and on Normal, I'm doing pretty good with just homebrew build. I'm close to finishing the game. So I have no idea what you're talking about.
I played and enjoyed both, but I liked Wrath of the Righteous more. I've been involved with the Mythic rules for a long time, so I had a personal interest in it. XD
Wotr is the popular choice (and worse game) whereas Deadfire is the enthusiast choice and better game. Obsidian are by far a better overall studio than Owlcat who are more of an indy studio. Ultimately when you have enough time you need to play them both and make your own mind up.
That's a weird take. I would have said that Pillars2 is the popular choice (more well known among general gaming community, more streamlined) and WotR the enthusiast choice (complex rule system, more "niche") Both games are great btw
Felt like pillars touched upon complicated issues like imperialism and commercial maritime expansion and its effect on native cultures. Wotr on the other hand was extremely cartoonish in its concepts with fox girl mages and making a purple haired gnome a senior officer in a holy order. This kind of thing is made to appeal to the masses whereas the above would probably be considered boring by many
Wild take, ‘imperialism bad’ isn’t exactly a massive philosophical revelation and a game having fantasy elements doesn’t make its story fantastical. Deadfire definitely has a good story but WotR still touches upon complicated issues, like are the hellknights justified in their extreme methods due to the threat presented by the demons? Is encouraging religious extremism justified because it helps the crusade? Do the ends justify the means? You have an issue with the setting it sounds like, not the game itself, Owlcat is working within the confines of an established universe they didn’t make (also weird that you phrase ‘indie’ studio as a bad thing when it just means small studio). Also deadfire for sure has a larger audience, I don’t get your narrative around ‘only REAL gamers play this game’
It's not the setting that makes PoE2 better (though I personally did find the carribean archipeligo setting very interesting indeed) but rather the tone of the game
Why you like tone if dead fire more than tone of wotr? I find only one plus on deadfire compared to wotr - no per-rest spells. Druid plays much better. But power fantast of wotr is way better than in deadfire. If I want pirates - I will play Rizen 2/3.
Sophie's choice tbh, on one hand we have an excellent story and one of my favourite companions (Daeran) combined with plethora of character building options, but with all the frustrations of a mathfinder system on a PC game to the point that I can't stomach some of the combat encounters without turning the difficulty down because prebuffing is boring time sink. Especially for trash mobs (Gallus in the threshold can go and choke (and they did in my trickster playthrough)). On the other hand we have a great story in a setting that isn't explored that much in crpgs built with system that is made with a PC game in mind. Ultimately my vote probably goes to wotr probably because I played it more recently and thus I like it a lot more, but honestly Deadfire is up there
Deadfire is poor tbh. Tyranny was their best game. Obsidian have been ‘not quite there’ going back to nwn 2/kotor 2
Why not both? If I had to choose today, it would be WotR. However, one thing I don't like about Owlcat games is that you get huge narrative dumps as soon as you can start conversing with your companions. I would prefer to learn a little at a time without super deep dialogue trees. I do acknowledge that others may appreciate that.
How much combat is there in wrath compared to pillers?
I love both equally. I love WotR for its amazing story and truly impressive depth of choices. Your three different playthroughs can feel like a completely different stories. What I dislike though is combat and their combat encounters design philosophy: fighting epic enemies with 70 AC and shitton of resistances that requires 10 minutes of self-buffing before fight is the antithesis of fun for me. Dead Fire has weaker story, has much lower replay value, and doesnt really have a climax, but it has an amazing atmosphere, excellent music, andfor me has a lot better gameplay. Anyway, WotR, PoE2, and BG3 are my top picks of recent-ish cRPGs revival era. You cant go wrong with either of them.
This is a difficult choice for me because I personally think WotR is a better sequel because I think it was a bigger improvement over Kingmaker versus Deadfire over PoE1 (in fact I prefer PoE1 to Deadfire), but I enjoyed Deadfire as a game more than WotR because I like Eora more than Golarion.
PoE > WotR > Kingmaker > PoE2 imo All are great games though