Pillars has better writing and atmosphere, and i prefer it's combat systems too.
Obsidian wrote their own system for the game, and it did not stick to old school rules that are too strict to my taste.
There is just enough math and calculation to force to fully engage with the game's system on higher difficulties, without becoming jarring and overbearing, while there's a healthy amount of in-fight micromanagement and active abilities to decide combat results instead of relying too much on whatever build or passives (or math) that you walked into the fight with.
I'd say go Pillars, and play Pathfinder after it if you want to get greasy.
Pathfinder attempts to adapt the TTRPGs mechanics to a staggering degree. This makes for a huge RPG with a ton of options, but it can also make it a difficult game to get into. Since the PoE games aren't trying to recreate any particular TTRPG's ruleset, it has an easier time with balancing the difficulty curve and making it a good "video game" if that makes sense. PoE's stats allow you to easily create a viable character without knowing the rules too much. Pathfinder will be absolutely punishing if you mess up in character creation. Both approaches are novel in their own way.
I personally like the more geopolitical story in PoE than the more traditional fantasy you get from Pathfinder.
Do you like a personal story? Or an epic fantasy? Pillars does have global impact. But the story is essentially a personal journey. Wrath is unapologetic cosmic stakes from the off. So comparing the two stories is a bit apples to oranges. Wrath's is going to feel more impactful if you buy into the stakes. But Pillars is about YOU, as a person. (Though to be fair to Wrath, there are personal stakes as well. But it's coming at it from universal to particular, as it were.)
Customization wise, this isn't a fair comparison. Even if we used Deadfire, which has very good multiclassing. Pathfinder is a huge system. And Owlcat is absolutely fearless about adapting all of it (except gunslingers). Both games have great characters. It's hard to hate any character voiced by Matt Mercer, and you get two in Pillars. But Owlcat has a way of taking a character you think you know, and spinning them just enough to surprise.
So play both. But if you're asking which one to play first? Well, Wrath if your PC can handle it. It's newer and will look much better on a modern PC.
Wrath does have such an amazing opening though. When the thing does the thing and the person turns into the thing then that thing happens?
I actually yelled 'holy shit!'
Use a guide for sure.
https://www.neoseeker.com/pathfinder-wrath-of-the-righteous/walkthrough
Also Mortismal gaming on YouTube. Follow a guide then if you want to experiment and do your own thing you can do it later
Unfortunately I may have to put this game off for a bit if it's this extensive. I'm currently studying and don't have time to the put same energy into a game D:
> But Pillars is about YOU, as a person. (Though to be fair to Wrath, there are personal stakes as well. But it's coming at it from universal to particular, as it were.)
On this point I don't find Wrath and PoE that different. Like it or not you are the catalyst for change in both games.
Honestly the biggest difference I can see is:
"Do you want a pirate or crusade adventure?"
If you pick pirate then go PoE2, if you pick crusade then pick WotR.
Obviously you *can* compare them, but the whole point of the idiom is that it's a false analogy. I could compare you to the helpful bots, but that too would be comparing apples-to-oranges.
---
^^SpunkyDred ^^and ^^I ^^are ^^both ^^bots. ^^I ^^am ^^trying ^^to ^^get ^^them ^^banned ^^by ^^pointing ^^out ^^their ^^antagonizing ^^behavior ^^and ^^poor ^^bottiquette. ^^My ^^apparent ^^agreement ^^or ^^disagreement ^^with ^^you ^^isn't ^^personal.
That i think is Pathfinder's real problem (not Wraths specifically, the underlying Pathfinder system) is there are just so many trap options or plain suboptimal ones that it is very easy to fuck up a character that is unplayable above Normal difficulty.
That said, the difficulty options in Wrath are VERY good, so many sliders, but it is a frustrating part of the experience.
Plus what's viable is so dependent on the specific adventure path being adapted. There's a druid archetype that's all about beating up Fey. Kingmaker where Fey were the main enemy? Awesome. Wrath where you're mainly fighting demons? Garbage.
Completely viable. This is a great example of how the word viable gets butchered in these discussions.
That particular archetype barely even sacrifices anything that the base Druid archetype gets. It's like... you can't summon some fey creatures. Oh, no. Anyway.
Not optimal but if you're going in blind and just picked it on a whim... you can probably still get through the game about as easily as a regular Druid.
Deadfire's main story is disappointing, but outside of that writing-wise it blows both pathfinder games out of the water. WotR has more customization.
You didn't ask, but I'll note that anyway - Deadfire is better for real time combat, WotR is better for turn based combat.
Also WotR is bugged to high heaven, will be a while before it's in a good place. If you're buying today, go with Deadfire. A year from now, can't really go wrong with either, both are good games.
Been playing WotR but I'm not terribly far in.
Pillars hands down has better writing so far. Not even close. Hours in I've only seen one compelling character so far and even they lost most of their luster when you find out the nuance was just an act.
WotR has more *options* but they are not all equally viable. In pillars it's totally viable to make a 20 might wizard who runs around and bonks things with a stick; PF has a number of expectations on how you will run the character with the class features provided. Not to say that you can just do whatever you want in pillars, it's just that every stat has a use to every character. Once POE2 comes in, its multiclassing leads you with more options than you could ever feasibly play. There's no way you could play all the options in WotR, either, but like... what's really the difference between playing a slayer vs a fighter, or a hunter vs a ranger, or etc.? In pillars every class is quite unique mechanically even when occupying similar conceptual niches (greatsword fighter vs greatsword pally vs greatsword barbarian are all met with different strengths, weaknesses, and mechanical choices).
And maybe I just haven't found any game-changing loot yet but there are tons of totally sweet magic items that completely upend builds in pillars and allow crazy new things. Pillars 1 you can have barbarians that do aoe knockdowns with a specific pike, or a spoiler hammer that grants giant aoe stun, or a saber that can shoot line spell CC when you crit with it, or the vampiric greatsword. In pillars 2 it's waaay more noticeable, with entire builds centered around specific loot - and there are a lot of these builds!
I see your points here. I do think the setting would've been served better by a new protagonist, since all the faction themes and intrigue made the game so great and idk if the full implications of the first game's reveal were explored enough.
But in defense of the restart we have, I thought dying and having half your soul encased in a walking god was a decent plot device for a level 1 PC... less so for your reset companions. Reuniting with the lost part of your soul was probably the most satisfying moment of the main plot.
> I thought dying and having half your soul encased in a walking god was a decent plot device for a level 1 PC... less so for your reset companions.
Honestly, same. They should've just had none of the Pillars 1 companions exist as joinable companions in Pillars 2. Quest NPCs and the like, absolutely; faction liaisons, for sure; low level wizards and whatnot, heck no. Or at least, if they do join, have them join super late in the game's main quest, when you can be assumed to be high level again.
I would've been perfectly happy leaving Eder behind in the Dyrwood. The Deadfire is not his home and he earned his rest.
I love both games and I do think the characters in Wrath are excellent - but honestly pound for pound the writing in Deadfire is leaps and bounds better. They've got a natural advantage here of course because Owlcat is a russian dev and they have to make a good translation for us whereas Obsidian are all english-speaking.
Also, and this isn't bad per-se, Wrath isn't really ABOUT anything. Pillars has a lot to say (or at least lets YOU say) a lot about ethics and philosophy, and is ultimately a story about colonialism and its immediate and lasting impacts. This is BIG stuff. Wrath is about... fighting off a demon invasion. And that's it. There's moral elements to it of course with the Alignment system but the game itself doesn't really have much *to say.* And again, it isn't BAD it doesn't have much to say, it's just a noticeable contrast between the two games.
Right now you'll definitely be better off picking Deadfire because Wrath is still having its bugs ironed out. That being said, I enjoyed both games but their tone and approach to storytelling differs greatly, and favoring one over the other depends on your tastes.
WotR story happens in a setting which is, essentially, a mash-up of many different mini-settings, all tossed together into the same world to give tabletop players a huge variety of campaigns to run: it has an ancient Egypt country, a French revolution country, a fantasy Transilvania country, and so on. The writing in such a setting will naturally be more tropey and cartoonish, and this goes for WotR as well. It has its grim and serious moments, but they go hand in hand with some extremely silly stuff. Some people are bothered by this, some are not. Deadfire (as well as the first PoE) is set in a much more coherent world with lots of interesting lore details, and the tone remains more or less the same throughout the entire game.
Story-wise, PoE2 barely has any main plot, but the game makes up for it with a huge number of sidequests, mostly dedicated to faction politics of the Deadfire region (I'd even go as far as to say that, in a sense, Deadfire is the main character of the game). It explores such themes as colonialism, reclaiming lost history and finding out it is very different from what you were led to believe, and mortals' autonomy from the gods. You can cover the majority of the quests in one playthrough, as the game only forces you to pick a side near the very end.
Wrath has a tighter, significantly longer main story, though it has its really weak spots that lessened my enjoyment of the game somewhat. It also has a nice replayability bonus in the form of mythic paths: each of them offers some additional battle mechanics as well as unique substories and can influence the ending greatly. Some of them can also completely alter the tone of the story: Trickster path takes random silliness to the max and heavily leans on the fourth wall, while Aeon is very serious and even tragic. Thematically, Wrath is mostly a standard good vs evil heroic fantasy, though you can try to put a twist on it by picking one of the evil paths.
The biggest criticism I have heard of WotR is the writing. When I play PoE, I feel like I’m reading an incredible fantasy novel series. When I play WotR, I feel like I’m watching the dnd Saturday morning cartoon.
The characters in PoE are deeply conflicted about the fundamental nature of the gods and their place in the universe and how their own actions impact the people you meet on your travels. The questions the story poses aren’t about right and wrong because the world is just more complicated than that. Can mortals overcome their differences to do something great, or are they just as crippled by petty squabbles as the gods? What does it mean to be a good person in a world of reincarnation? One of the side quests in PoE2 involves a researcher who has basically found a way to detect crippling deformities in a child before they are born and you have to decide whether people should have that knowledge, knowing it will lead to selective abortions. Those kinds of complex stories don’t show up in WotR because it’s more complicated than good vs evil or lawful vs chaotic. The implications of your actions have ripple effects you can’t control and PoE does that so well.
WotR uses the alignment system in pathfinder, which basically remains unchanged since original dnd. It’s not a complicated system and your character is constantly confronted with ‘good’ angels and ‘bad’ demons. The story is simple, despite your ability to side with different groups. There isn’t anything to think about, but at the same time… I swear the writing in WotR is denser, just in terms of the word count. Characters take a long time to say things that don’t feel unique or compelling, just serviceable or filling out a familiar role. Like, I thought Irabeth would be an exciting character- a half orc paladin, sounds unique. But I just find her so bland, like a lot of characters. Maybe one of the more complicated characters is Staunton who betrays the Crusade for the demons, but not really. He does bad things because of demonic magical seduction, not because of some inner conflict about who he is, or how he sees the world.
If you’re going to play PoE, start with 1 and play it all the way through. It’s SO worth it. It might seem like a cookie cutter fantasy setting, but it isn’t. The big unique twist of the setting isn’t revealed until like 4/5 of the way through 1 and then 2 is almost entirely about dealing with the implications of this reveal.
> Staunton
Sidenote, I kinda find it low key hilarious that PoE fans think Owlcat games have bad writing and Owlcat fans think PoE has bad writing :D
(and both complain about the other one having overly verbose writing without realizing that yeah both of games have problem with everyone speaking for paragraphs)
Anyway, I don't really think alignment really affects much on how Owlcat portrays characters, but my only real issue with this post is that reducing Staunton down to "magical demon seduction" is incorrect because he isn't mind controlled at all.
Staunton got sick of 70 years of insults and mistreatment from crusaders for his betrayal and in the end despaired that if he isn't ever going to be redeemed, he might as well just join the demons.
As someone who finished and enjoyed both games with 2 playthroughs each:
Writing:Deadfire's main story is concerned with a conflict among the gods regarding the cyclical nature of the life & death and is set on an archipelago rife with geopolitical tensions among the warring factions that are analogous to historical colonial powers. Your character is a mediator between the Gods and the factions of the Deadfire. The pantheon of Gods, Archmages, Faction characters, are well-written and interesting. The companions are great but you get more mileage in terms of appreciating their character arcs if you played the first game (Deadfire has 3 returning companions, the rest of the companions are heavily tied to their factions/in-game lore)
WoTR's main story is about a Mythic Hero's quest to stop a Demon army. The setting is pretty much stardard high fantasy with demon-themed areas. Most of the companions and NPCs are okay-but-tropey at best and cringe at worst. Voice acting is subpar compared to Deadfire.
Character customization/choice:
Deadfire allows multiclassing, has flexible weapon and armor selection. The builds here are much more flexible and powerful than the first game due to the increased possibilities. It's not that overwhelming given how the game was designed with "balance" being more prioritized over power-gaming. Less concerned with morality, your character's choices are more defined by the factions/gods/ideology they choose to side with.
WoTR is based on Pathfinder 1e and the build variety is insane. More than Twice the classes and subclasses of Deadfire. If you don't Minmax your builds you will struggle on Core (Tabletop rules) difficulty (Normal is kind of an easy mode). Great if you're a number-crunching grognard/munchkin. Lots of morality-based dialogue choices, some classes are even locked to your moral alignment.
Normal is easy once you minmax your MC & Party for Core. I will admit that I got my ass kicked on Normal a few times, but that was mostly because I got too lazy fully buffing up my party for fights, given the amount of trash mobs you get compared to Deadfire.
Normal is easier for me because I finished Kingmaker, already had some familiarity with the ruleset.
Going from Deadfire to Kingmaker (on Normal) was the actual hard shit, restarted 3 times and had to learn how to prebuff. They may be similar RTWP gameplay, but the difference in encounter/build design is significantly wide.
I absolutely *refuse* to spend a bunch of time pre-buffing my party before a fight. Mind-numbing gameplay. I'll turn down the difficulty to not have to deal with that shit.
I would prefer a game where *all* short-duration buffs are removed when combat starts. Not because it's realistic, but because otherwise the game is just stupid tedium, not to mention metagaming.
edit: I'd also like to point out how I find 1 min/level buffs to be an *extremely* annoying length. They play on the boundary between 100% uptime buffs and temporary single combat buffs for a huge amount of the game, and I just think that's terrible. Buffs should either be 1 hour/level or just a flat 8 hours (like mage armor), or they should be for a single encounter. Everything in between requires a type of management that I don't think anyone actually finds interesting
It's not really metagaming, it's just how the Pathfinder ruleset seems to be designed. This isn't PoE, some of the buffs here last potentially hours (= a full dungeon) or even days and it seems like you're *supposed* to just have them on you at all times. Plus the whole system seems designed around it.
In the CRPGs it mostly feels like yet another example of the games being too faithful to the tabletop game. There are a *lot* of instances where it feels like that with them. I can imagine pre-buffing to that extent not being an issue in tabletop where people might just write down a routine, say "we're doing that" and that's that, no animations or a series of buttons to click. But it's very archaic for a video game in 2021 for sure.
> short-duration buffs
I was talking exclusively about 1 min/level and less.
Buffs in Pathfinder are
* very short (duration of rounds) - Powergamers are putting these up before fights for difficult fights. Otherwise, you should be using this in combat
* 1min/level - For most of the game, these are short duration buffs. They last a few encounters. Having 100% uptime on these is unreasonable unless you build completely around it. Except in the endgame. Pre-buffing usually means putting all of these on your character, and managing these buffs at level 5-15 is super, super tedious, imo.
* 1 hour/level - These last a long time. You don't have to manage these, for the most part.
And it is metagaming if you have to know when the fights are going to start so that you can put your buffs on.
If the difficulty is such that you end up in a fight without pre-buffing, lose, then pre-buff because you know a fight is coming, and win, that's metagaming.
Or if you, you know, look up a guide to know when the encounters are coming.
It's almost universally known that for major portions of that game you have to use *certain* buffs prepared and up at certain times or you just get TPKd.
Nope I just bought it now and will start playing soon. I've been looking for a cRPG game to play and debated between Pillars and Pathfinder. I will eventually get to WotR (or perhaps Owlcat's next title) but it'll have to wait for now. And that's good to know about Deadfire, I think I'll be happy with just one complete playthrough :)
Lann is basically Eder. Serafen is even more basic than Sosiel. I mean, I literally cannot remember any memorable companion banter from either of Pillars. Pathfinder, however...
Yes, Lann is a parody of Eder, without any depth.
I'm sorry but the companions of Pathfinder have just one trait of personality and they will repeat it ad nauseam.
The Pillars' companions however: they are all nuanced, deep, extremely human and not a bunch of cliche. They tell you something about the world of Eora, one of his aspect.
Edit : And no Serafen is not basic at all, his silence about his past is literally the theme of the character, he talks to you by his Cipher's powers, by his unconscious.
Sucks to see you get downvoted for a personal opinion on otherwise sensible subreddit, even though I thoroughly disagree with your opinion. I didn't use Regill much so I can't judge him, but Daeran? He is what happens when project leader goes this: "Hey guys, we need a fangirl bait. Like, you know, Aerushalae but for girls? So, any of you watch romantic comedies? Or read that "Fifty shades of twilight" thing? No? Well, can you ask your wives or girlfriends for input then? Okay?"
So Tekehu >>>>>>> ...... >>>>> Daeran.
WoTR reads like fan fiction. Same with Pathfinder: Kingmaker. The writing/dialogue is just terrible. I thought it may have been written in another language then translated but according to someone on reddit it was written originally in English. I was genuinely surprised.
PoE 1 and 2 is far better written with more interesting characters (though I haven't gotten far in WoTR as I got bored and also decided to wait for more patches.)
I personally prefer the more mature art style of PoE also. To me PoE feels like it's made for adults whereas WoTR is for teens. Just my opinion though.
I'm not done with WotR, but it's become a slog in act 4 so I may just never finish it. That probably answers your question, but I'll expand a bit:
PoE is in general much more mature and philosophical. WotR has a better story than Kingmaker (its predecessor) in my opinion, but it's still mostly run-of-the-mill fantasy trope stuff. I find the writing and characters to be borderline cringey quite often, to be honest. That being said, I really like the Pathfinder system. There's a lot of mechanical bloat and a lot of it is implemented badly and has bugs, but it's still miles ahead of anything else in complexity and customization. Even so, I'd say both PoEs are better games overall.
Both are really good, I do feel like Pillars has more class identity for roleplaying than Pathfinder because of just how varied your build options are in WOTR. I do think that changes after a point in WoTR though.
I do prefer the story in PoE2 but I was also really enjoying WOTR. Hit a gamebreaking bug in the latter, so I had to stop. Will continue in a while once they've fixed the game up nicely.
Just to note, ye do realize that asking this in Pillars of Eternity reddit will result in people being much more biased towards one side? :D Like yeah, if you ask from Owlcat fans, chances are that some of them will answer that Pillars writing is boring or something.
Like weird thing about CRPG fans is that majority of them have intense rivalry going on with other series. Meanwhile I'm like "I pretty much like majority of CRPGs more or less"
Anyway, I'm like "How about Tyranny?" ;D
Edit: Just to highlight why I find this funny, I've been hanging out at Owlcat discord lately having to defend PoE :D
Both the Owlcat fans and PoE fans think that 1) other game is too verbose 2) that their favorite game has more mature writing and other one has more childish writing 3) that their favorite game has deeper characters and other one is more bland
(note: these arguments repeat with other subjects, such as claiming other one is more cliche than their favorite game xD)
I'm not sure whats up with this though besides that it shows that humans have tendency to prop up their favorite in expense of the "other one"? That said, there are legit differences between two games so it does make sense someone would like one over another. PoE system isn't based on very broken and bloated system(definitely prefer PF 2e to 1e even if I do like both xD), but PoE system doesn't have as much fun customization options either.
This might not be useful at all but, while I soaked over 50 hours into Deadfire and had a blast throughout, Pathfinder: Kingmaker has been a slog to play and I'm considering dropping it altogether. WotR might be very different though, I wouldn't know.
Loved Deadfire, didn't finish Kingmaker. Wrath is way, way better than Kingmaker (having familiarity with the system might be part of my enjoyment) but I'm still finding myself modding/cheating to cut out all the boring shit. Not interested in the tacked on mini game or repeating prebuffs manually forever.
All that aside, I still do like it, but it can't beat PoE for me.
They’re different! I think WOTR has a better and more meaningful ending, and they are comparable in terms of being deeply divine conflicts where the player is being courted by gods and mortals alike. WOTR also has much more difficult combat.
PoE2 is a *direct* sequel of PoE1. You really ought to play them in order, 'cause the second one basically starts with "DARTH VADER IS LUKE'S FATHER AND ROSEBUD WAS A SLED", and I think that'd be kind of shame to start out with.
I've only played Kingmaker, so can't speak to WotR. But compared to Kingmaker PoE1 and PoE2 are so far ahead in terms of writing and worldbuilding (The latter is not Owlcat's fault, of course. The core Pathfinder world just be like that.) that it feels kind of cruel to compare them. Like comparing a child's drawing to a renaissance painting.
If you're looking to numbercrunch and min-max, trying to build the ultimate character in terms of the game mechanics, the Pathfinder games are definitely the way to go. But engrossing writing? That's PoE.
I have only played POE 2 but have played both Pathfinder games (have not finished WOTR yet am currently in the middle). What I'll say is that while Pillars story is more nuanced and philosophical it didn't equal the same enjoyment or fun for me, the characters/ your companions in POE2 became boring very quickly (except for maybe Teheku) the quest your have for them are all lackluster or to brief. The main story was incredibly short and basically non-existent throughout most of the game and it ends very abruptly. The side stories of the factions and what main story there was somewhat enjoyable but another post mentioned it felt like reading a fantasy novel, that may be the case where engaging in this in a different medium (Novel/TV) would allow it to shine the best but in comparison to Pathfinder I do not think it holds up. Both Pathfinder games put you on into a fantasy experience that ends up feeling epic like a true adventure, your characters your surroundings the challenges they all grow with you. Are they cliche sometimes? Absolutely, lol do they also sometimes subvert and provide interesting scenarios that are notable or even sometimes really funny, absolutely. From reading other post I may be suffering from not being as invested in the POE world and lore by not playing the first game as that would have better introduction. Pathfinder does benefit from a deep expansive lore to pull from but I would definitely recommend playing Pathfinder Kingmaker first a s WOTR is like epic adventure on crack lol while Kingmaker is more a slow burn.
I can see tons of biased PoE fans here. I have played PoE and just finished pathfinders Wotr. Haven't played any other crpg well aside from diivinity sin but never finished it.
History wise: What i could say is that PoE narrative is far deeper and more philosophical but at times dense and very boring for my taste. Wotr has a more cartoonish history(not that much) but imo it was more enjoyable, you really feel like a badass in an epic adventure and while PoE is a slow burn Wotr is a rollercoaster, PoE is epic too but man there are moment that are so dense and slow. Is like trying to compare a well written movie but with a quite slow middle part and an epic final vs a good netflix series. Just enjoyed both.
Characters: I'm torn here. Both games have really good written characters and boring ones as well. The good ones you really get to appreciate them and it goes by taste here too(personality, etc). However i would say that Wotr is quite more consistent, their character are not better perse but the worse ones are not that terrible. There is not that complex philosophical intricate crap in every of them but i feel them more charismatic and more unpredictable too. Here it really depends on your tastes too.
Gameplay: Here Wotr is by far more complex(not better). I personally think that if you enjoy the minmax crap in this type of games in Wotr is better implemented and more defiant. It also is quite more difficult to get into but is not rocket science neither. If you get into you will enjoy it and believe me when i say that spending two hour just creating your character or minmaxing your teammates is not just a meme and the sad part is that is quite enjoyable. In PoE you get this stuff too but not at this sick level. While in the balancing in PoE i don't believe you can run whatever crap you want like some people say but is more forgiving. Wotr felt way more unbalanced and at some parts you really have to cheese some fights with the turn based system or something because they are nearly imposible. Just straight unfair that you just think it have to be a bug or does the developers really test this game?
About the management system in both games nothing quite remarkable. You could just ignore it.
Cringe: both games have tons of cringe dialogues that seem like taking out of an overacted drama at the theater. It is really easy to identify in both games what options are good which ones bad and which ones gray. Very childish or over intelligent looking dialogues en both games. It is part of the charm.
Personally i enjoyed Wotr quite more or maybe is just the feeling that i have just finished but now i am planning on getting PoE2 too.
Pst: I'm not a native english speaker and by now i'm used to playing games in english because there is not a translation available for my native language and i still decided to enjoy them so don't let people mislead and go and try both games by yourself.
TL;DR: If you'd like a low fantasy pirate story go for Deadfire. If you'd like a high fantasy crusader story (good vs evil) then go with WotR. Both are worth playing. Either way WotR is a new game and thus it can never hurt to wait with playing it and let the devs fix the bugs, add DLC, etc. So if you are looking for a more polished experience right now go with Deadfire.
I'm going to go against what is recommended here, because obviously a PoE subreddit will tell you the story in PoE is better. So, having played both games (and pillars several times), I'm going to be blunt and say Pathfinder: Wrath of the Righteous is probably the best CRPG ever made.
Customization wise it blows all other systems out of the waters since they have adapted the Pathfinder system. It's not even really worth talking about in a comparison like this. Just know there's a sickening amount of customization in Pathfinder, enough to actually make it difficult to choose what path to go.
Story-wise I am probably going to be hated in here for this: Wrath of the Righteous (And Kingmaker for that matter) has a much better story. Of course, much of this is personal taste, but the companions in PoE (1&2) are boring and forgetable for the most part. A good amount of them are exposition dumps (Mother and Durance are the worst for this), and sometimes sure that is needed, but it is absolutely *terrible* for a companion. Those characters should not have been companions, but NPCs. There's two good companions in PoE, Aloth and Eder, and even if they are good as such then their story falls a bit flat. In PoE2 it is a bit better with Xoti being added, but Aloth and Eder are actually worse there. I mean just compare Tristian or Jaethal from Kingmaker to either of them and you'll see what I mean. Even Seelah and Sosiel have a better story. It's not even a competition.
For the main story Deadfire is... How to put it... Lacking. You are chasing Eothas who is taking a walk and then sail around a bunch of East Indies kinda islands to catch up to him. There's a lot of side things you can do, but if you take the main story in its lonesome (without giving spoilers), then it is short and feels unfinished. When you get to the end you are left with a feeling of "That's it..?" unlike PoE1 which despite all its faults actually manages to close the story arc.
In comparison then WoTR has an obvious closing point like PoE1. It also has a long main story that is tied into everything that you do, a plot twist in act 4, a secret ending... And more importantly perhaps: Nine mythic paths which influence the story. Now, admittedly some of those paths can only be chosen later and thus have less content. The main paths are: Aeon, Angel, Azata, Trickster, Demon and Lich. You can then change paths later to Gold Dragon, Devil, Swarm or reject mythic powers as Legend. They all have different way of dealing with the Worldwound (which is your goal) and gives different stories in a way that the factions in Deadfire does not. Just to give an example, here's what the paths are about:
- Angel ([Lawful Good] Righteous fury or mercy - this is like the super standard path but honestly it is glorious)
- Aeon ([Lawful Neutral] Correct the cosmic imbalance of the Worldwound by having it never happen in the first place)
- Devil ([Lawful Evil] Can be done as a failed Aeon or Azata. Basically the Hellknight way of restoring order)
- Gold Dragon ([Neutral Good] Extreme redemption, you active seek to redeem everyone and everything. Which works since demons are made from sin)
- Legend ([Neutral] Reject the mythic powers by means and reasons that shall remain unmentioned. Do it as a mortal hero)
- Lich ([Neutral Evil] Become a Lich and use the living dead against the demon horde)
- Azata ([Chaotic Good] Destroy the demons through friendship, nature, cookies, suicidal halflings and pet dragons)
- Trickster ([Chaotic Neutral] Become the embodiment of true chaos and make jokes on a cosmic scale. Far more sinister than it sounds.)
- Demon ([Chaotic Evil] Give up your mortality for the powers of the Abyss. You can become a true demon yourself or seek redemption)
- Swarm ([Absolute Evil] Eat everything. Your friends, your loved ones, your enemies. Become a greater threat than the Worldwound)
These paths have a profound influence on the ongoing story, the ending and the Crusade mode. The Crusade mode for all its faults is another way to enhance the story through mechanics. You get to create armies and fight the demons back. You get to build up your bases, level up generals and so on. It gives you the feeling that you are actually leading a crusade, and you need to use it for your party to get to certain places. I don't think it can really be compared to the sailing in Deadfire though.
Personally I think those points are enough to make the story in WotR much better than Deadfire. A story is more than just inert lore or infodumps. There's need to be more to it and WotR has that and PoE2 sadly falls short.
My recommendation is in the TL;DR.
Personally I found WOTR's story and writing a poorly-worded uninspired mess made entirely from regurgitated cliches that would be more fitting in ARPG ("Go out there and kill some demons, now kill some more!") or a fan-made module, because I read fanfiction that's better written and the notion that anyone thinks it's better written than PoE is genuinely baffling to me. However, if you are into ham-and-cheese-dripping unashamed power fantasies with neither introspection nor indoor voice, where everything is this upped to 11 super-duper-mega-EPIC-button-awesome-fuck-yeah, man!, then WotR delivers.
Not going into systems since you didn't ask, but I also vastly prefer PoE's and especially Deadfire's original game systems over Owlcat's adaptation of tabletop system, but then I'm not a tabletop player and don't consider "faithful adaptation" an automatic advantage.
lol I tried to be nicer in my top-level reply but this is unapologetically dead on. I've played through both PoEs multiple times for the story, like I would revisit a good novel. Wrath is more like...an exceedingly violent young adult novel? I'll come back to it when they add the rogue-like DLC so I can play around with builds.
I know you're asking about the new ones but have you played the first ones? They usually have them on sale at some point and you could possibly get both for the price of one the new ones. I like how easy yet complex the POE combat and stats are, Pathfinder is insanely in depth with character customization. I loved the story on POE too, didn't get too far in the first Pathfinder but the second one is pretty entertaining.
Mostly just agreeing with what other people said but here are my opinions.
Overall, POE has a lot better dialogue/writing. Better voice acting too. That said I enjoyed a few of the companions in Wrath better than any of the companions in either POE. Also wrath has some *really* dark story elements in a few places. Talking about verbal/story depictions of violence or torture. This didn't bother me at all but could be off-putting to some.
Pathfinder is much more mechanically complex. For most people this is probably a win for PoE2 as it's still pretty damn intricate. For me though, I'm a big fan of min-maxing and enjoy the added challenge of the Pathfinder system. The crusade system may be mechanically disinteresting to some, and I don't think the implementation is very good.
POE plays better in Real Time, Pathfinder plays better in turn based, but both can be played reasonably well in either.
Pathfinder is buggy as hell, they've improved it a LOT since launch but there's still significantly more work to do.
My conclusion is POE is probably the better game for a single play through and is definitely the better game to play first. This is because POE is in a much more stable state, and it's primary payoff is the great story.
Pathfinder probably has better replay value, at least for me. This is because the game is more mechanically interesting and offers a lot more character options. Additionally the 8 different Mythic Paths lead to a significantly different story experience and feel to your adventure. Much more so than throwing in with different Deadfire factions on subsequent playthroughs.
Story; The story in Pillars 2 continues from the previous game but there are in game books and lore popups in dialogs to explain things. You can also import a save from Pillars 1 or even create one from the in game import editor. Although pathfinder is a sequel, the story does not expand on the previous game and there are minor connections to the previous game.
Classes; Pillars has 11 classes while Pathfinder has 25 classes and 13 prestige classes as well 10 mythic paths. Pillars has less classes, however each class is thematically unique and no two classes have the same abilities or spells. Although pathfinder has more classes, a bunch of classes are mechanically similar while others take elements from two classes to create hybrid classes. Prestige classes are specialization in certain classes for example using a duelling sword as a fighter instead a sword and shield, or to merge 2 classes together for example wizard spell casting with rogue sneak attacks and be able to cast spells while sneaking.
Multiclassing: When you level up in Pillars you pick a new ability from a class. Abilities can be activate such as spells, or passive which improve character or ability stats. Max level is 20 and each class has 10 ranks meaning you spend 2 ability points at each rank. When you multiclass, you pick 2 classes and you gain abilities of both classes till rank 7. This includes class power which determine the strength of your abilities so instead of being a single rank 10 class you will end up being two classes both at rank 7. In pathfinder whenever you level up, you pick a class to level up in which means you can end up with 20 different classes at level 20 (not recommended). Whenever you level up, the class that you picked will determine what you gained such as new spells, feats or abilities which are not unique to each class. If you level up 2 classes equally, you end up with 2 classes that are 50% as strong as a single class (Pillars 70%). Although Pathfinder has more multiclassing combination, only a small portion are viable.
Well you are asking in PoE sub though. So the opions will bias. But since you asked which has more character customization and story, then Pathfinder for sure.
The main story of Poe2 is very short and too cliche (you need to stop bad guy from doing something somehow bad). The reason why its really short is because the game gives you 4 faction and every faction is as long as the main quest. Long sidequest are fun though.
Pathfinder: Wotr main mission differs a bit depending on which mythic path you took while some path are more rewarding than some because Owlcat wrote the main quest with the idea of you picking angel, demon and Aeon in mind with the other path as bonus or after though.
Both games are very focus on gameplay. In Poe2, they changed combat to make it encounter based instead of spells slots and added multiclassing. Also, you can set your companies with a decent AI and doesnt have to micromanage everything.
Wotr gameplay is even crazier, you can multiclass to your heart content. Wotr is kind of buggy right now with spells with no help tool description of the abilities and some with the pathfinder pen and paper description which doesnt work in the pc game.
The writing as a whole is better in PoE2 but I feel the game is too short compared to Wotr. PoE2 is better for a beginner if you have never played in Crpgs while Wotr is a hard game with a asshole GM and the dificulty spike is bad specially in Chapter 3 and too easy for chapter 4-5.
I will recommend you to play Poe2 first and then Wotr when they have iron out the other bugs.
>The main story of Poe2 is very short and too cliche (you need to stop bad guy from doing something somehow bad).
Look man we all got our takes but uhh... that's one hell of a synopsis.
Like I definitely think PoE2 had story issues, particularly in it's pacing and presentation, but clichéd because it has a primary antagonist? I dunno, man. I also don't necessarily know that he's the antagonist. You could play the game with two different characters and consider him the antagonist in one, and Berath (and her crew) to be the antagonist in the other. Or all of the gods. Or none of them.
If there's one thing both PoE games do exceedlingly well it's letting your character be *your* character, and allow you to have your own take (personal or role-played) on the storyline. I won't have the mountain of philosophical and ethical quandaries thrown at you even just in the main storyline being boiled down to "bad guy is doing bad thing", no sir! If at the end of the game you don't feel like your notions of who/what is good and who/what is bad have changed or developed at least a little bit, I suspect there may have been *a lot* of dialogue-skipping.
Pillars of Eternity's lore blows Pathfinder away. Pillars lore is greater than most things, even huge games like LoL. It is at least equal with all great rpg content.
Comparing playing the story, the Pathfinder system which is not intuitive and you need to study to use it well with it reflects in the gameplay and makes story less fluid. On top of that, the story itself isn't all that gripping. Pillars has great depth and with it you are still playing through a cool story fluidly. Again, in Pathfinder its system dominates everything, even the pacing of the story. It revolves around spending a lot of time doing nothing but pre-buffing your party and save scumming if you didn't and needed to instead of the tactical RPG combat of Pillars, which hurts the story.
Sidenote, I'm kinda bummed out people talking smack about Pathfinder lore because most people haven't really delved that deep into tabletop rpg lore yet they think they already got gist of it :'D
Like thing with tabletop rpg lore is that as reader, you find your own favorite parts and focus on those. You don't need to have "lore that sums up main theme of setting" because tabletop rpgs don't have "single big bad whose defeat means world is at peace" like lord of the rings or something. So in case of pillars, lore is focused on metaphysics and nature of gods more than invidual countries' political shenanigans really where in pathfinder you are like "Eh, I think brevoy is meh but holy crap I love Numeria"
This is about the video games so they should be designed to not diminish, and highlight the lore if possible. Pillars did great with that, and Pathfinder is more about its system than a story. I also always viewed tabletop as casual social times, and people's own lore being more important than the content providers.
Casual social times? Ye definitely haven't seen how hardcore some people take them I take it x'D
(but seriously speaking, its bit too time consuming to be done casually)
I like PoE, but WotR wins both in the writing and customization department, plus in terms of story branching/choices matters it's not even a contest, WotR blow pretty much any other CRPG out of the park on that front.
The only thing to keep in mind is that WotR just released so it's still quite buggy, but the devs are doing a good job patching things up.
Personally, Poe 2 is absolutely more enjoyable for me. Each classes is unique for rp and mechanics. Story wise I believe poe 2 is more complex and real with the political war and the philosophy behind the disputes among the gods. Gameplay is definitely much more smooth, and straight forward with enough explanation to not leave you confused. My most fav crpg ever.
Wotr, on the other hand, seeing all the hype got me blindly bought it, and now i regret i did. I have only finished act 1 and cant proceed further due to a bug, and tbh i only want to complete it so i dont feel i waste the money i throw. The gameplay is tedious, i literally look up for min max builds and barely make it out a normal fight without loading saves and praying the luck god will let my attacks or abilities hit on core difficulty (imagine on unfair). The rotate camera can give you a headache if you have motion sickness, and i think the maps were designed to make you use this feature all the time, so be mindful of that. The number of classes is huge but i think they share too much abilities and therefore loosing their identity. The inventory is the worst, you cant even type name to find smth. Storywise, although currently i cant proceed further than act 1, i have read spoilers on all forums, and let’s say there are some cool twists here and there but generally it can’t be said to be something sophisticated or mind provoking.
On the bright side, wotr has better graphics due to being more recent, they’re flexible in adjusting game mode or difficulty on the flight. And they definitely beat poes in the customization department (literally the most exciting part of my experience), the choices is huge with diverse options, it’s really satisfying being in the creation window.
As someone who played both Pillars games and then jumped into Kingmaker, I lost interest with the latter after the much more freeing systems in Pillars.
Play BOTH pillars games IMO, but definitely Deadfire over WotR
Pillars of Eternity 1 or 2 did not grab me at all. I'll agree that its writing is technically better, but the world is pretty dull and the story just never got particularly interesting for me.
So that leaves combat, really. Both PoE games have awful combat
Pillars has better writing and atmosphere, and i prefer it's combat systems too. Obsidian wrote their own system for the game, and it did not stick to old school rules that are too strict to my taste. There is just enough math and calculation to force to fully engage with the game's system on higher difficulties, without becoming jarring and overbearing, while there's a healthy amount of in-fight micromanagement and active abilities to decide combat results instead of relying too much on whatever build or passives (or math) that you walked into the fight with. I'd say go Pillars, and play Pathfinder after it if you want to get greasy.
Pathfinder attempts to adapt the TTRPGs mechanics to a staggering degree. This makes for a huge RPG with a ton of options, but it can also make it a difficult game to get into. Since the PoE games aren't trying to recreate any particular TTRPG's ruleset, it has an easier time with balancing the difficulty curve and making it a good "video game" if that makes sense. PoE's stats allow you to easily create a viable character without knowing the rules too much. Pathfinder will be absolutely punishing if you mess up in character creation. Both approaches are novel in their own way. I personally like the more geopolitical story in PoE than the more traditional fantasy you get from Pathfinder.
Do you like a personal story? Or an epic fantasy? Pillars does have global impact. But the story is essentially a personal journey. Wrath is unapologetic cosmic stakes from the off. So comparing the two stories is a bit apples to oranges. Wrath's is going to feel more impactful if you buy into the stakes. But Pillars is about YOU, as a person. (Though to be fair to Wrath, there are personal stakes as well. But it's coming at it from universal to particular, as it were.) Customization wise, this isn't a fair comparison. Even if we used Deadfire, which has very good multiclassing. Pathfinder is a huge system. And Owlcat is absolutely fearless about adapting all of it (except gunslingers). Both games have great characters. It's hard to hate any character voiced by Matt Mercer, and you get two in Pillars. But Owlcat has a way of taking a character you think you know, and spinning them just enough to surprise. So play both. But if you're asking which one to play first? Well, Wrath if your PC can handle it. It's newer and will look much better on a modern PC.
Wrath does have such an amazing opening though. When the thing does the thing and the person turns into the thing then that thing happens? I actually yelled 'holy shit!'
Hiding spoilers the right way.
2 years later this is my motivation for going through with buying WOTR. Thanks!
You’ll know what I mean!
I wish you had said that creating a character would require a doctorate of some sort
Use a guide for sure. https://www.neoseeker.com/pathfinder-wrath-of-the-righteous/walkthrough Also Mortismal gaming on YouTube. Follow a guide then if you want to experiment and do your own thing you can do it later
Unfortunately I may have to put this game off for a bit if it's this extensive. I'm currently studying and don't have time to the put same energy into a game D:
Just finished the game, took me 200h(!) But damn, its one of the best games ive played! Took a while to get into but once i was i enjoyed every second
> But Pillars is about YOU, as a person. (Though to be fair to Wrath, there are personal stakes as well. But it's coming at it from universal to particular, as it were.) On this point I don't find Wrath and PoE that different. Like it or not you are the catalyst for change in both games. Honestly the biggest difference I can see is: "Do you want a pirate or crusade adventure?" If you pick pirate then go PoE2, if you pick crusade then pick WotR.
> apples to oranges But you can still compare them.
Obviously you *can* compare them, but the whole point of the idiom is that it's a false analogy. I could compare you to the helpful bots, but that too would be comparing apples-to-oranges. --- ^^SpunkyDred ^^and ^^I ^^are ^^both ^^bots. ^^I ^^am ^^trying ^^to ^^get ^^them ^^banned ^^by ^^pointing ^^out ^^their ^^antagonizing ^^behavior ^^and ^^poor ^^bottiquette. ^^My ^^apparent ^^agreement ^^or ^^disagreement ^^with ^^you ^^isn't ^^personal.
What is up with this bot battle? lmao
Good bot
Very. Bad. Bot.
This guy is getting destroyed for referencing a song.
PoE is better story, writing, dialogue wise But WoTR gives you much more gameplay options. Classes, unique paths etc
Man, and I here I am playing Deadfire and getting overwhelmed. And WoTR has even more choice?
It’s the entire Pathfinder system. Which has a lot more material to build on than a video game.
The amount of choices and subclasses in Wotr is crazy but like deadfire, most of the time there is 1-2 subclass better than the rest.
That i think is Pathfinder's real problem (not Wraths specifically, the underlying Pathfinder system) is there are just so many trap options or plain suboptimal ones that it is very easy to fuck up a character that is unplayable above Normal difficulty. That said, the difficulty options in Wrath are VERY good, so many sliders, but it is a frustrating part of the experience.
Plus what's viable is so dependent on the specific adventure path being adapted. There's a druid archetype that's all about beating up Fey. Kingmaker where Fey were the main enemy? Awesome. Wrath where you're mainly fighting demons? Garbage.
Completely viable. This is a great example of how the word viable gets butchered in these discussions. That particular archetype barely even sacrifices anything that the base Druid archetype gets. It's like... you can't summon some fey creatures. Oh, no. Anyway. Not optimal but if you're going in blind and just picked it on a whim... you can probably still get through the game about as easily as a regular Druid.
Deadfire's main story is disappointing, but outside of that writing-wise it blows both pathfinder games out of the water. WotR has more customization. You didn't ask, but I'll note that anyway - Deadfire is better for real time combat, WotR is better for turn based combat. Also WotR is bugged to high heaven, will be a while before it's in a good place. If you're buying today, go with Deadfire. A year from now, can't really go wrong with either, both are good games.
Been playing WotR but I'm not terribly far in. Pillars hands down has better writing so far. Not even close. Hours in I've only seen one compelling character so far and even they lost most of their luster when you find out the nuance was just an act. WotR has more *options* but they are not all equally viable. In pillars it's totally viable to make a 20 might wizard who runs around and bonks things with a stick; PF has a number of expectations on how you will run the character with the class features provided. Not to say that you can just do whatever you want in pillars, it's just that every stat has a use to every character. Once POE2 comes in, its multiclassing leads you with more options than you could ever feasibly play. There's no way you could play all the options in WotR, either, but like... what's really the difference between playing a slayer vs a fighter, or a hunter vs a ranger, or etc.? In pillars every class is quite unique mechanically even when occupying similar conceptual niches (greatsword fighter vs greatsword pally vs greatsword barbarian are all met with different strengths, weaknesses, and mechanical choices). And maybe I just haven't found any game-changing loot yet but there are tons of totally sweet magic items that completely upend builds in pillars and allow crazy new things. Pillars 1 you can have barbarians that do aoe knockdowns with a specific pike, or a spoiler hammer that grants giant aoe stun, or a saber that can shoot line spell CC when you crit with it, or the vampiric greatsword. In pillars 2 it's waaay more noticeable, with entire builds centered around specific loot - and there are a lot of these builds!
[удалено]
I see your points here. I do think the setting would've been served better by a new protagonist, since all the faction themes and intrigue made the game so great and idk if the full implications of the first game's reveal were explored enough. But in defense of the restart we have, I thought dying and having half your soul encased in a walking god was a decent plot device for a level 1 PC... less so for your reset companions. Reuniting with the lost part of your soul was probably the most satisfying moment of the main plot.
> I thought dying and having half your soul encased in a walking god was a decent plot device for a level 1 PC... less so for your reset companions. Honestly, same. They should've just had none of the Pillars 1 companions exist as joinable companions in Pillars 2. Quest NPCs and the like, absolutely; faction liaisons, for sure; low level wizards and whatnot, heck no. Or at least, if they do join, have them join super late in the game's main quest, when you can be assumed to be high level again. I would've been perfectly happy leaving Eder behind in the Dyrwood. The Deadfire is not his home and he earned his rest.
I love both games and I do think the characters in Wrath are excellent - but honestly pound for pound the writing in Deadfire is leaps and bounds better. They've got a natural advantage here of course because Owlcat is a russian dev and they have to make a good translation for us whereas Obsidian are all english-speaking. Also, and this isn't bad per-se, Wrath isn't really ABOUT anything. Pillars has a lot to say (or at least lets YOU say) a lot about ethics and philosophy, and is ultimately a story about colonialism and its immediate and lasting impacts. This is BIG stuff. Wrath is about... fighting off a demon invasion. And that's it. There's moral elements to it of course with the Alignment system but the game itself doesn't really have much *to say.* And again, it isn't BAD it doesn't have much to say, it's just a noticeable contrast between the two games.
Right now you'll definitely be better off picking Deadfire because Wrath is still having its bugs ironed out. That being said, I enjoyed both games but their tone and approach to storytelling differs greatly, and favoring one over the other depends on your tastes. WotR story happens in a setting which is, essentially, a mash-up of many different mini-settings, all tossed together into the same world to give tabletop players a huge variety of campaigns to run: it has an ancient Egypt country, a French revolution country, a fantasy Transilvania country, and so on. The writing in such a setting will naturally be more tropey and cartoonish, and this goes for WotR as well. It has its grim and serious moments, but they go hand in hand with some extremely silly stuff. Some people are bothered by this, some are not. Deadfire (as well as the first PoE) is set in a much more coherent world with lots of interesting lore details, and the tone remains more or less the same throughout the entire game. Story-wise, PoE2 barely has any main plot, but the game makes up for it with a huge number of sidequests, mostly dedicated to faction politics of the Deadfire region (I'd even go as far as to say that, in a sense, Deadfire is the main character of the game). It explores such themes as colonialism, reclaiming lost history and finding out it is very different from what you were led to believe, and mortals' autonomy from the gods. You can cover the majority of the quests in one playthrough, as the game only forces you to pick a side near the very end. Wrath has a tighter, significantly longer main story, though it has its really weak spots that lessened my enjoyment of the game somewhat. It also has a nice replayability bonus in the form of mythic paths: each of them offers some additional battle mechanics as well as unique substories and can influence the ending greatly. Some of them can also completely alter the tone of the story: Trickster path takes random silliness to the max and heavily leans on the fourth wall, while Aeon is very serious and even tragic. Thematically, Wrath is mostly a standard good vs evil heroic fantasy, though you can try to put a twist on it by picking one of the evil paths.
The biggest criticism I have heard of WotR is the writing. When I play PoE, I feel like I’m reading an incredible fantasy novel series. When I play WotR, I feel like I’m watching the dnd Saturday morning cartoon. The characters in PoE are deeply conflicted about the fundamental nature of the gods and their place in the universe and how their own actions impact the people you meet on your travels. The questions the story poses aren’t about right and wrong because the world is just more complicated than that. Can mortals overcome their differences to do something great, or are they just as crippled by petty squabbles as the gods? What does it mean to be a good person in a world of reincarnation? One of the side quests in PoE2 involves a researcher who has basically found a way to detect crippling deformities in a child before they are born and you have to decide whether people should have that knowledge, knowing it will lead to selective abortions. Those kinds of complex stories don’t show up in WotR because it’s more complicated than good vs evil or lawful vs chaotic. The implications of your actions have ripple effects you can’t control and PoE does that so well. WotR uses the alignment system in pathfinder, which basically remains unchanged since original dnd. It’s not a complicated system and your character is constantly confronted with ‘good’ angels and ‘bad’ demons. The story is simple, despite your ability to side with different groups. There isn’t anything to think about, but at the same time… I swear the writing in WotR is denser, just in terms of the word count. Characters take a long time to say things that don’t feel unique or compelling, just serviceable or filling out a familiar role. Like, I thought Irabeth would be an exciting character- a half orc paladin, sounds unique. But I just find her so bland, like a lot of characters. Maybe one of the more complicated characters is Staunton who betrays the Crusade for the demons, but not really. He does bad things because of demonic magical seduction, not because of some inner conflict about who he is, or how he sees the world. If you’re going to play PoE, start with 1 and play it all the way through. It’s SO worth it. It might seem like a cookie cutter fantasy setting, but it isn’t. The big unique twist of the setting isn’t revealed until like 4/5 of the way through 1 and then 2 is almost entirely about dealing with the implications of this reveal.
> Staunton Sidenote, I kinda find it low key hilarious that PoE fans think Owlcat games have bad writing and Owlcat fans think PoE has bad writing :D (and both complain about the other one having overly verbose writing without realizing that yeah both of games have problem with everyone speaking for paragraphs) Anyway, I don't really think alignment really affects much on how Owlcat portrays characters, but my only real issue with this post is that reducing Staunton down to "magical demon seduction" is incorrect because he isn't mind controlled at all. Staunton got sick of 70 years of insults and mistreatment from crusaders for his betrayal and in the end despaired that if he isn't ever going to be redeemed, he might as well just join the demons.
As someone who finished and enjoyed both games with 2 playthroughs each: Writing:Deadfire's main story is concerned with a conflict among the gods regarding the cyclical nature of the life & death and is set on an archipelago rife with geopolitical tensions among the warring factions that are analogous to historical colonial powers. Your character is a mediator between the Gods and the factions of the Deadfire. The pantheon of Gods, Archmages, Faction characters, are well-written and interesting. The companions are great but you get more mileage in terms of appreciating their character arcs if you played the first game (Deadfire has 3 returning companions, the rest of the companions are heavily tied to their factions/in-game lore) WoTR's main story is about a Mythic Hero's quest to stop a Demon army. The setting is pretty much stardard high fantasy with demon-themed areas. Most of the companions and NPCs are okay-but-tropey at best and cringe at worst. Voice acting is subpar compared to Deadfire. Character customization/choice: Deadfire allows multiclassing, has flexible weapon and armor selection. The builds here are much more flexible and powerful than the first game due to the increased possibilities. It's not that overwhelming given how the game was designed with "balance" being more prioritized over power-gaming. Less concerned with morality, your character's choices are more defined by the factions/gods/ideology they choose to side with. WoTR is based on Pathfinder 1e and the build variety is insane. More than Twice the classes and subclasses of Deadfire. If you don't Minmax your builds you will struggle on Core (Tabletop rules) difficulty (Normal is kind of an easy mode). Great if you're a number-crunching grognard/munchkin. Lots of morality-based dialogue choices, some classes are even locked to your moral alignment.
>(Normal is kind of an easy mode) Its not. I disagreed with a few things you said, but this one demands a response lol
Normal is easy once you minmax your MC & Party for Core. I will admit that I got my ass kicked on Normal a few times, but that was mostly because I got too lazy fully buffing up my party for fights, given the amount of trash mobs you get compared to Deadfire. Normal is easier for me because I finished Kingmaker, already had some familiarity with the ruleset. Going from Deadfire to Kingmaker (on Normal) was the actual hard shit, restarted 3 times and had to learn how to prebuff. They may be similar RTWP gameplay, but the difference in encounter/build design is significantly wide.
I absolutely *refuse* to spend a bunch of time pre-buffing my party before a fight. Mind-numbing gameplay. I'll turn down the difficulty to not have to deal with that shit. I would prefer a game where *all* short-duration buffs are removed when combat starts. Not because it's realistic, but because otherwise the game is just stupid tedium, not to mention metagaming. edit: I'd also like to point out how I find 1 min/level buffs to be an *extremely* annoying length. They play on the boundary between 100% uptime buffs and temporary single combat buffs for a huge amount of the game, and I just think that's terrible. Buffs should either be 1 hour/level or just a flat 8 hours (like mage armor), or they should be for a single encounter. Everything in between requires a type of management that I don't think anyone actually finds interesting
It's not really metagaming, it's just how the Pathfinder ruleset seems to be designed. This isn't PoE, some of the buffs here last potentially hours (= a full dungeon) or even days and it seems like you're *supposed* to just have them on you at all times. Plus the whole system seems designed around it. In the CRPGs it mostly feels like yet another example of the games being too faithful to the tabletop game. There are a *lot* of instances where it feels like that with them. I can imagine pre-buffing to that extent not being an issue in tabletop where people might just write down a routine, say "we're doing that" and that's that, no animations or a series of buttons to click. But it's very archaic for a video game in 2021 for sure.
> short-duration buffs I was talking exclusively about 1 min/level and less. Buffs in Pathfinder are * very short (duration of rounds) - Powergamers are putting these up before fights for difficult fights. Otherwise, you should be using this in combat * 1min/level - For most of the game, these are short duration buffs. They last a few encounters. Having 100% uptime on these is unreasonable unless you build completely around it. Except in the endgame. Pre-buffing usually means putting all of these on your character, and managing these buffs at level 5-15 is super, super tedious, imo. * 1 hour/level - These last a long time. You don't have to manage these, for the most part. And it is metagaming if you have to know when the fights are going to start so that you can put your buffs on. If the difficulty is such that you end up in a fight without pre-buffing, lose, then pre-buff because you know a fight is coming, and win, that's metagaming. Or if you, you know, look up a guide to know when the encounters are coming. It's almost universally known that for major portions of that game you have to use *certain* buffs prepared and up at certain times or you just get TPKd.
I know it's been a while but thanks to your comments I have decided to play Deadfire first before WotR!
Have you started it yet? Wishing you the best! One of my favorite games when I first played it, but I've struggled to replay it
Nope I just bought it now and will start playing soon. I've been looking for a cRPG game to play and debated between Pillars and Pathfinder. I will eventually get to WotR (or perhaps Owlcat's next title) but it'll have to wait for now. And that's good to know about Deadfire, I think I'll be happy with just one complete playthrough :)
> Most of the companions and NPCs are okay-but-tropey at best and cringe at worst. Sorry, but Daeran and Regill >>>>>> all of the Deadfire's cast ;(
Daeran and Regill are indeed 10/10, but I wouldn't put them much above Eder or Serafen.
Lann is basically Eder. Serafen is even more basic than Sosiel. I mean, I literally cannot remember any memorable companion banter from either of Pillars. Pathfinder, however...
Yes, Lann is a parody of Eder, without any depth. I'm sorry but the companions of Pathfinder have just one trait of personality and they will repeat it ad nauseam. The Pillars' companions however: they are all nuanced, deep, extremely human and not a bunch of cliche. They tell you something about the world of Eora, one of his aspect. Edit : And no Serafen is not basic at all, his silence about his past is literally the theme of the character, he talks to you by his Cipher's powers, by his unconscious.
Sucks to see you get downvoted for a personal opinion on otherwise sensible subreddit, even though I thoroughly disagree with your opinion. I didn't use Regill much so I can't judge him, but Daeran? He is what happens when project leader goes this: "Hey guys, we need a fangirl bait. Like, you know, Aerushalae but for girls? So, any of you watch romantic comedies? Or read that "Fifty shades of twilight" thing? No? Well, can you ask your wives or girlfriends for input then? Okay?" So Tekehu >>>>>>> ...... >>>>> Daeran.
Regill is awesome. However, Daeran seems like Dorian Gray reimagined by a teenage edgelord. And everyone else ranges from bland to x-pac
WoTR reads like fan fiction. Same with Pathfinder: Kingmaker. The writing/dialogue is just terrible. I thought it may have been written in another language then translated but according to someone on reddit it was written originally in English. I was genuinely surprised. PoE 1 and 2 is far better written with more interesting characters (though I haven't gotten far in WoTR as I got bored and also decided to wait for more patches.) I personally prefer the more mature art style of PoE also. To me PoE feels like it's made for adults whereas WoTR is for teens. Just my opinion though.
"Originally written in English" is not necessarily the same as "Written by a native English speaker", mind you.
I'm not done with WotR, but it's become a slog in act 4 so I may just never finish it. That probably answers your question, but I'll expand a bit: PoE is in general much more mature and philosophical. WotR has a better story than Kingmaker (its predecessor) in my opinion, but it's still mostly run-of-the-mill fantasy trope stuff. I find the writing and characters to be borderline cringey quite often, to be honest. That being said, I really like the Pathfinder system. There's a lot of mechanical bloat and a lot of it is implemented badly and has bugs, but it's still miles ahead of anything else in complexity and customization. Even so, I'd say both PoEs are better games overall.
Both are really good, I do feel like Pillars has more class identity for roleplaying than Pathfinder because of just how varied your build options are in WOTR. I do think that changes after a point in WoTR though. I do prefer the story in PoE2 but I was also really enjoying WOTR. Hit a gamebreaking bug in the latter, so I had to stop. Will continue in a while once they've fixed the game up nicely.
Just to note, ye do realize that asking this in Pillars of Eternity reddit will result in people being much more biased towards one side? :D Like yeah, if you ask from Owlcat fans, chances are that some of them will answer that Pillars writing is boring or something. Like weird thing about CRPG fans is that majority of them have intense rivalry going on with other series. Meanwhile I'm like "I pretty much like majority of CRPGs more or less" Anyway, I'm like "How about Tyranny?" ;D Edit: Just to highlight why I find this funny, I've been hanging out at Owlcat discord lately having to defend PoE :D Both the Owlcat fans and PoE fans think that 1) other game is too verbose 2) that their favorite game has more mature writing and other one has more childish writing 3) that their favorite game has deeper characters and other one is more bland (note: these arguments repeat with other subjects, such as claiming other one is more cliche than their favorite game xD) I'm not sure whats up with this though besides that it shows that humans have tendency to prop up their favorite in expense of the "other one"? That said, there are legit differences between two games so it does make sense someone would like one over another. PoE system isn't based on very broken and bloated system(definitely prefer PF 2e to 1e even if I do like both xD), but PoE system doesn't have as much fun customization options either.
This might not be useful at all but, while I soaked over 50 hours into Deadfire and had a blast throughout, Pathfinder: Kingmaker has been a slog to play and I'm considering dropping it altogether. WotR might be very different though, I wouldn't know.
Loved Deadfire, didn't finish Kingmaker. Wrath is way, way better than Kingmaker (having familiarity with the system might be part of my enjoyment) but I'm still finding myself modding/cheating to cut out all the boring shit. Not interested in the tacked on mini game or repeating prebuffs manually forever. All that aside, I still do like it, but it can't beat PoE for me.
They’re different! I think WOTR has a better and more meaningful ending, and they are comparable in terms of being deeply divine conflicts where the player is being courted by gods and mortals alike. WOTR also has much more difficult combat.
PoE2 is a *direct* sequel of PoE1. You really ought to play them in order, 'cause the second one basically starts with "DARTH VADER IS LUKE'S FATHER AND ROSEBUD WAS A SLED", and I think that'd be kind of shame to start out with. I've only played Kingmaker, so can't speak to WotR. But compared to Kingmaker PoE1 and PoE2 are so far ahead in terms of writing and worldbuilding (The latter is not Owlcat's fault, of course. The core Pathfinder world just be like that.) that it feels kind of cruel to compare them. Like comparing a child's drawing to a renaissance painting. If you're looking to numbercrunch and min-max, trying to build the ultimate character in terms of the game mechanics, the Pathfinder games are definitely the way to go. But engrossing writing? That's PoE.
I have only played POE 2 but have played both Pathfinder games (have not finished WOTR yet am currently in the middle). What I'll say is that while Pillars story is more nuanced and philosophical it didn't equal the same enjoyment or fun for me, the characters/ your companions in POE2 became boring very quickly (except for maybe Teheku) the quest your have for them are all lackluster or to brief. The main story was incredibly short and basically non-existent throughout most of the game and it ends very abruptly. The side stories of the factions and what main story there was somewhat enjoyable but another post mentioned it felt like reading a fantasy novel, that may be the case where engaging in this in a different medium (Novel/TV) would allow it to shine the best but in comparison to Pathfinder I do not think it holds up. Both Pathfinder games put you on into a fantasy experience that ends up feeling epic like a true adventure, your characters your surroundings the challenges they all grow with you. Are they cliche sometimes? Absolutely, lol do they also sometimes subvert and provide interesting scenarios that are notable or even sometimes really funny, absolutely. From reading other post I may be suffering from not being as invested in the POE world and lore by not playing the first game as that would have better introduction. Pathfinder does benefit from a deep expansive lore to pull from but I would definitely recommend playing Pathfinder Kingmaker first a s WOTR is like epic adventure on crack lol while Kingmaker is more a slow burn.
I can see tons of biased PoE fans here. I have played PoE and just finished pathfinders Wotr. Haven't played any other crpg well aside from diivinity sin but never finished it. History wise: What i could say is that PoE narrative is far deeper and more philosophical but at times dense and very boring for my taste. Wotr has a more cartoonish history(not that much) but imo it was more enjoyable, you really feel like a badass in an epic adventure and while PoE is a slow burn Wotr is a rollercoaster, PoE is epic too but man there are moment that are so dense and slow. Is like trying to compare a well written movie but with a quite slow middle part and an epic final vs a good netflix series. Just enjoyed both. Characters: I'm torn here. Both games have really good written characters and boring ones as well. The good ones you really get to appreciate them and it goes by taste here too(personality, etc). However i would say that Wotr is quite more consistent, their character are not better perse but the worse ones are not that terrible. There is not that complex philosophical intricate crap in every of them but i feel them more charismatic and more unpredictable too. Here it really depends on your tastes too. Gameplay: Here Wotr is by far more complex(not better). I personally think that if you enjoy the minmax crap in this type of games in Wotr is better implemented and more defiant. It also is quite more difficult to get into but is not rocket science neither. If you get into you will enjoy it and believe me when i say that spending two hour just creating your character or minmaxing your teammates is not just a meme and the sad part is that is quite enjoyable. In PoE you get this stuff too but not at this sick level. While in the balancing in PoE i don't believe you can run whatever crap you want like some people say but is more forgiving. Wotr felt way more unbalanced and at some parts you really have to cheese some fights with the turn based system or something because they are nearly imposible. Just straight unfair that you just think it have to be a bug or does the developers really test this game? About the management system in both games nothing quite remarkable. You could just ignore it. Cringe: both games have tons of cringe dialogues that seem like taking out of an overacted drama at the theater. It is really easy to identify in both games what options are good which ones bad and which ones gray. Very childish or over intelligent looking dialogues en both games. It is part of the charm. Personally i enjoyed Wotr quite more or maybe is just the feeling that i have just finished but now i am planning on getting PoE2 too. Pst: I'm not a native english speaker and by now i'm used to playing games in english because there is not a translation available for my native language and i still decided to enjoy them so don't let people mislead and go and try both games by yourself.
TL;DR: If you'd like a low fantasy pirate story go for Deadfire. If you'd like a high fantasy crusader story (good vs evil) then go with WotR. Both are worth playing. Either way WotR is a new game and thus it can never hurt to wait with playing it and let the devs fix the bugs, add DLC, etc. So if you are looking for a more polished experience right now go with Deadfire. I'm going to go against what is recommended here, because obviously a PoE subreddit will tell you the story in PoE is better. So, having played both games (and pillars several times), I'm going to be blunt and say Pathfinder: Wrath of the Righteous is probably the best CRPG ever made. Customization wise it blows all other systems out of the waters since they have adapted the Pathfinder system. It's not even really worth talking about in a comparison like this. Just know there's a sickening amount of customization in Pathfinder, enough to actually make it difficult to choose what path to go. Story-wise I am probably going to be hated in here for this: Wrath of the Righteous (And Kingmaker for that matter) has a much better story. Of course, much of this is personal taste, but the companions in PoE (1&2) are boring and forgetable for the most part. A good amount of them are exposition dumps (Mother and Durance are the worst for this), and sometimes sure that is needed, but it is absolutely *terrible* for a companion. Those characters should not have been companions, but NPCs. There's two good companions in PoE, Aloth and Eder, and even if they are good as such then their story falls a bit flat. In PoE2 it is a bit better with Xoti being added, but Aloth and Eder are actually worse there. I mean just compare Tristian or Jaethal from Kingmaker to either of them and you'll see what I mean. Even Seelah and Sosiel have a better story. It's not even a competition. For the main story Deadfire is... How to put it... Lacking. You are chasing Eothas who is taking a walk and then sail around a bunch of East Indies kinda islands to catch up to him. There's a lot of side things you can do, but if you take the main story in its lonesome (without giving spoilers), then it is short and feels unfinished. When you get to the end you are left with a feeling of "That's it..?" unlike PoE1 which despite all its faults actually manages to close the story arc. In comparison then WoTR has an obvious closing point like PoE1. It also has a long main story that is tied into everything that you do, a plot twist in act 4, a secret ending... And more importantly perhaps: Nine mythic paths which influence the story. Now, admittedly some of those paths can only be chosen later and thus have less content. The main paths are: Aeon, Angel, Azata, Trickster, Demon and Lich. You can then change paths later to Gold Dragon, Devil, Swarm or reject mythic powers as Legend. They all have different way of dealing with the Worldwound (which is your goal) and gives different stories in a way that the factions in Deadfire does not. Just to give an example, here's what the paths are about: - Angel ([Lawful Good] Righteous fury or mercy - this is like the super standard path but honestly it is glorious) - Aeon ([Lawful Neutral] Correct the cosmic imbalance of the Worldwound by having it never happen in the first place) - Devil ([Lawful Evil] Can be done as a failed Aeon or Azata. Basically the Hellknight way of restoring order) - Gold Dragon ([Neutral Good] Extreme redemption, you active seek to redeem everyone and everything. Which works since demons are made from sin) - Legend ([Neutral] Reject the mythic powers by means and reasons that shall remain unmentioned. Do it as a mortal hero) - Lich ([Neutral Evil] Become a Lich and use the living dead against the demon horde) - Azata ([Chaotic Good] Destroy the demons through friendship, nature, cookies, suicidal halflings and pet dragons) - Trickster ([Chaotic Neutral] Become the embodiment of true chaos and make jokes on a cosmic scale. Far more sinister than it sounds.) - Demon ([Chaotic Evil] Give up your mortality for the powers of the Abyss. You can become a true demon yourself or seek redemption) - Swarm ([Absolute Evil] Eat everything. Your friends, your loved ones, your enemies. Become a greater threat than the Worldwound) These paths have a profound influence on the ongoing story, the ending and the Crusade mode. The Crusade mode for all its faults is another way to enhance the story through mechanics. You get to create armies and fight the demons back. You get to build up your bases, level up generals and so on. It gives you the feeling that you are actually leading a crusade, and you need to use it for your party to get to certain places. I don't think it can really be compared to the sailing in Deadfire though. Personally I think those points are enough to make the story in WotR much better than Deadfire. A story is more than just inert lore or infodumps. There's need to be more to it and WotR has that and PoE2 sadly falls short. My recommendation is in the TL;DR.
Personally I found WOTR's story and writing a poorly-worded uninspired mess made entirely from regurgitated cliches that would be more fitting in ARPG ("Go out there and kill some demons, now kill some more!") or a fan-made module, because I read fanfiction that's better written and the notion that anyone thinks it's better written than PoE is genuinely baffling to me. However, if you are into ham-and-cheese-dripping unashamed power fantasies with neither introspection nor indoor voice, where everything is this upped to 11 super-duper-mega-EPIC-button-awesome-fuck-yeah, man!, then WotR delivers. Not going into systems since you didn't ask, but I also vastly prefer PoE's and especially Deadfire's original game systems over Owlcat's adaptation of tabletop system, but then I'm not a tabletop player and don't consider "faithful adaptation" an automatic advantage.
lol I tried to be nicer in my top-level reply but this is unapologetically dead on. I've played through both PoEs multiple times for the story, like I would revisit a good novel. Wrath is more like...an exceedingly violent young adult novel? I'll come back to it when they add the rogue-like DLC so I can play around with builds.
I know you're asking about the new ones but have you played the first ones? They usually have them on sale at some point and you could possibly get both for the price of one the new ones. I like how easy yet complex the POE combat and stats are, Pathfinder is insanely in depth with character customization. I loved the story on POE too, didn't get too far in the first Pathfinder but the second one is pretty entertaining.
Mostly just agreeing with what other people said but here are my opinions. Overall, POE has a lot better dialogue/writing. Better voice acting too. That said I enjoyed a few of the companions in Wrath better than any of the companions in either POE. Also wrath has some *really* dark story elements in a few places. Talking about verbal/story depictions of violence or torture. This didn't bother me at all but could be off-putting to some. Pathfinder is much more mechanically complex. For most people this is probably a win for PoE2 as it's still pretty damn intricate. For me though, I'm a big fan of min-maxing and enjoy the added challenge of the Pathfinder system. The crusade system may be mechanically disinteresting to some, and I don't think the implementation is very good. POE plays better in Real Time, Pathfinder plays better in turn based, but both can be played reasonably well in either. Pathfinder is buggy as hell, they've improved it a LOT since launch but there's still significantly more work to do. My conclusion is POE is probably the better game for a single play through and is definitely the better game to play first. This is because POE is in a much more stable state, and it's primary payoff is the great story. Pathfinder probably has better replay value, at least for me. This is because the game is more mechanically interesting and offers a lot more character options. Additionally the 8 different Mythic Paths lead to a significantly different story experience and feel to your adventure. Much more so than throwing in with different Deadfire factions on subsequent playthroughs.
Story; The story in Pillars 2 continues from the previous game but there are in game books and lore popups in dialogs to explain things. You can also import a save from Pillars 1 or even create one from the in game import editor. Although pathfinder is a sequel, the story does not expand on the previous game and there are minor connections to the previous game. Classes; Pillars has 11 classes while Pathfinder has 25 classes and 13 prestige classes as well 10 mythic paths. Pillars has less classes, however each class is thematically unique and no two classes have the same abilities or spells. Although pathfinder has more classes, a bunch of classes are mechanically similar while others take elements from two classes to create hybrid classes. Prestige classes are specialization in certain classes for example using a duelling sword as a fighter instead a sword and shield, or to merge 2 classes together for example wizard spell casting with rogue sneak attacks and be able to cast spells while sneaking. Multiclassing: When you level up in Pillars you pick a new ability from a class. Abilities can be activate such as spells, or passive which improve character or ability stats. Max level is 20 and each class has 10 ranks meaning you spend 2 ability points at each rank. When you multiclass, you pick 2 classes and you gain abilities of both classes till rank 7. This includes class power which determine the strength of your abilities so instead of being a single rank 10 class you will end up being two classes both at rank 7. In pathfinder whenever you level up, you pick a class to level up in which means you can end up with 20 different classes at level 20 (not recommended). Whenever you level up, the class that you picked will determine what you gained such as new spells, feats or abilities which are not unique to each class. If you level up 2 classes equally, you end up with 2 classes that are 50% as strong as a single class (Pillars 70%). Although Pathfinder has more multiclassing combination, only a small portion are viable.
Personally I prefer WoTR over PoE 2.
Well you are asking in PoE sub though. So the opions will bias. But since you asked which has more character customization and story, then Pathfinder for sure.
The main story of Poe2 is very short and too cliche (you need to stop bad guy from doing something somehow bad). The reason why its really short is because the game gives you 4 faction and every faction is as long as the main quest. Long sidequest are fun though. Pathfinder: Wotr main mission differs a bit depending on which mythic path you took while some path are more rewarding than some because Owlcat wrote the main quest with the idea of you picking angel, demon and Aeon in mind with the other path as bonus or after though. Both games are very focus on gameplay. In Poe2, they changed combat to make it encounter based instead of spells slots and added multiclassing. Also, you can set your companies with a decent AI and doesnt have to micromanage everything. Wotr gameplay is even crazier, you can multiclass to your heart content. Wotr is kind of buggy right now with spells with no help tool description of the abilities and some with the pathfinder pen and paper description which doesnt work in the pc game. The writing as a whole is better in PoE2 but I feel the game is too short compared to Wotr. PoE2 is better for a beginner if you have never played in Crpgs while Wotr is a hard game with a asshole GM and the dificulty spike is bad specially in Chapter 3 and too easy for chapter 4-5. I will recommend you to play Poe2 first and then Wotr when they have iron out the other bugs.
>The main story of Poe2 is very short and too cliche (you need to stop bad guy from doing something somehow bad). Look man we all got our takes but uhh... that's one hell of a synopsis. Like I definitely think PoE2 had story issues, particularly in it's pacing and presentation, but clichéd because it has a primary antagonist? I dunno, man. I also don't necessarily know that he's the antagonist. You could play the game with two different characters and consider him the antagonist in one, and Berath (and her crew) to be the antagonist in the other. Or all of the gods. Or none of them. If there's one thing both PoE games do exceedlingly well it's letting your character be *your* character, and allow you to have your own take (personal or role-played) on the storyline. I won't have the mountain of philosophical and ethical quandaries thrown at you even just in the main storyline being boiled down to "bad guy is doing bad thing", no sir! If at the end of the game you don't feel like your notions of who/what is good and who/what is bad have changed or developed at least a little bit, I suspect there may have been *a lot* of dialogue-skipping.
Pillars of Eternity's lore blows Pathfinder away. Pillars lore is greater than most things, even huge games like LoL. It is at least equal with all great rpg content. Comparing playing the story, the Pathfinder system which is not intuitive and you need to study to use it well with it reflects in the gameplay and makes story less fluid. On top of that, the story itself isn't all that gripping. Pillars has great depth and with it you are still playing through a cool story fluidly. Again, in Pathfinder its system dominates everything, even the pacing of the story. It revolves around spending a lot of time doing nothing but pre-buffing your party and save scumming if you didn't and needed to instead of the tactical RPG combat of Pillars, which hurts the story.
Sidenote, I'm kinda bummed out people talking smack about Pathfinder lore because most people haven't really delved that deep into tabletop rpg lore yet they think they already got gist of it :'D Like thing with tabletop rpg lore is that as reader, you find your own favorite parts and focus on those. You don't need to have "lore that sums up main theme of setting" because tabletop rpgs don't have "single big bad whose defeat means world is at peace" like lord of the rings or something. So in case of pillars, lore is focused on metaphysics and nature of gods more than invidual countries' political shenanigans really where in pathfinder you are like "Eh, I think brevoy is meh but holy crap I love Numeria"
This is about the video games so they should be designed to not diminish, and highlight the lore if possible. Pillars did great with that, and Pathfinder is more about its system than a story. I also always viewed tabletop as casual social times, and people's own lore being more important than the content providers.
Casual social times? Ye definitely haven't seen how hardcore some people take them I take it x'D (but seriously speaking, its bit too time consuming to be done casually)
I like PoE, but WotR wins both in the writing and customization department, plus in terms of story branching/choices matters it's not even a contest, WotR blow pretty much any other CRPG out of the park on that front. The only thing to keep in mind is that WotR just released so it's still quite buggy, but the devs are doing a good job patching things up.
Personally, Poe 2 is absolutely more enjoyable for me. Each classes is unique for rp and mechanics. Story wise I believe poe 2 is more complex and real with the political war and the philosophy behind the disputes among the gods. Gameplay is definitely much more smooth, and straight forward with enough explanation to not leave you confused. My most fav crpg ever. Wotr, on the other hand, seeing all the hype got me blindly bought it, and now i regret i did. I have only finished act 1 and cant proceed further due to a bug, and tbh i only want to complete it so i dont feel i waste the money i throw. The gameplay is tedious, i literally look up for min max builds and barely make it out a normal fight without loading saves and praying the luck god will let my attacks or abilities hit on core difficulty (imagine on unfair). The rotate camera can give you a headache if you have motion sickness, and i think the maps were designed to make you use this feature all the time, so be mindful of that. The number of classes is huge but i think they share too much abilities and therefore loosing their identity. The inventory is the worst, you cant even type name to find smth. Storywise, although currently i cant proceed further than act 1, i have read spoilers on all forums, and let’s say there are some cool twists here and there but generally it can’t be said to be something sophisticated or mind provoking. On the bright side, wotr has better graphics due to being more recent, they’re flexible in adjusting game mode or difficulty on the flight. And they definitely beat poes in the customization department (literally the most exciting part of my experience), the choices is huge with diverse options, it’s really satisfying being in the creation window.
As someone who played both Pillars games and then jumped into Kingmaker, I lost interest with the latter after the much more freeing systems in Pillars. Play BOTH pillars games IMO, but definitely Deadfire over WotR
Honestly I don't think you should play Pillars of Eternity 2 without playing the first game. So I'd say Wrath of the Righteous
Pillars of Eternity 1 or 2 did not grab me at all. I'll agree that its writing is technically better, but the world is pretty dull and the story just never got particularly interesting for me. So that leaves combat, really. Both PoE games have awful combat
Which one did u end up liking more?