I also didnt encounter any significant bugs in Kingmaker and I started to play 2 weeks after release. I probably noticed more glitches now in WotR then at that time in Kingmaker. And I definitely encountered more bugs in PoE2, which I played long after it was released. Experience can vary and its clear that those affected by bugs will be more vocal then the rest. Which I understand - not being able to properly play expected game is very annoying.

Anyway - Im slowly chewing through WotR and even with occasional bugs and glitches its more entertaining then most games I played …. since Kingmaker :-) So Im personally not putting it aside.

I cannot confirm anything about 1 and 2 because I didn't play Kingmaker on the release.
However I can confirm problems in act5, there are too many that need to be addressed. It tainted my impression, then again I'll replay the game for sure after I see Blackwater patched which is chapter 3 material and that will probably mean chapter 5 also polished so it doesn't matter much to me.

And btw act5 now ends not when you leave Iz but when you enter Threshold.
So don't worry about special Enigma room, you don't have to leave the queen to her demise just to solve the final annoying puzzle. ;)

Also, do not expect to complete the quest called Endgame if you're on Azata path.
Dunno about other paths.
Currently, for whatever reason, you can't maximize development and military aspects. Either points don't add up where they should or many events do not appear in headquarters. I've skipped ingame months in the futile attempt to complete it.

I agree with the above points. And being a little realistic, being slightly less buggy than KM is not a high standard to shoot for. I'm just thinking on how well received would be next BioWare's game if the redeeming factor is "at least it's got more depth than Anthem".

I enjoyed the game for the most part but when it was over, I was glad it was over. I also annoyingly didn't get to see ending personalised slides for my choices throughout the game, which left a bitter taste after the effort I put to drag myself to the finish line, and greatly diminished the feeling that every of the hard choices I made mattered at all. Hopefully that is just a bug that will get fixed, and I do have my saved game waiting for that so I can get proper closure.

In any case, the fact that games like this are made is to be supported and celebrated, and I hope they keep making more and better games, with realistic objectives that they can meet.

A BG successor it is not, perhaps something at PoE's level if not slightly worse (personal opinion) and the 78 user metascore for a niche game with an undying fanbase like Owlcat enjoys tells a story that even the most avid of fans should ignore. Criticism, if well placed, is always a good thing.

At the rate I play, TES VI will be released before/if I finish Pathfinder. I just roll up dozens of mage wannabes and then restart once I hit the garrison. I haven't even left that Tavern in any of my games :) Not sure how many hours that is exactly, but several.

You are faster than I, then. I spent all that time and more without even setting foot in the prologue area.

Patch 1.0.3d is out

Yes, I too am one of those people who cannot fathom average completion times, let alone quick completion times in any games.

I dunno, maybe I spend too much time fiddling with inventories, or reading spells or something, as I regularly clock up double any average time in any game.

I finally got into chapter 3 at 67 hours. The entirety of Drezen alone took me 10+ hours, and I felt like I was rushing. I didn't go absolutely everywhere in the city, and I didn't complete a couple of fights (the summoners and the guys at the top of the tower). I do play turn based almost exclusively, so that has a lot to do with it. I thought I would use RTwP for common enemies/trash mobs, but in practice I don't use it at all. I don't like giving up control of what spells and abilities my party uses b/c I know I'm going to need that shit for the (many) difficult fights.

You can set it so they don't use spells which use slots I think.

As Pladio said, it shouldn't be a problem. You must right-click on a spell to make it automatic, you'll see it appear on the left side of the party bar. Here I've told Daeran he could use Prayer automatically. Right-click again to make it disappear. There can be only one at a time (per character).

https://i.ibb.co/FHSgSKr/image.png

(Something I don't understand is why the spell icon points to the bottom when we hold the Ctrl key.)

For the abilities, you can enable them by left-clicking them, they'll get a moving white frame to show they're enabled (but there's no quota normally).

Then you have the option "AI doesn't use expendable spells".

'Known issues' thread
 

For information, there are two Steam threads on known bugs:

• Known issues [TIPS] [STATUS]
• Critical known issue

The critical is about the respec, so I'm not sure it will be updated. But the other one seems alive and pretty informative!

Hm, I see there is still no official mention in "Known Issues" of the infinite loading bug, just lots of people talking about it! So I hope it is a "known issue" by this point….

I also didn't have any serious bugs in Kingmaker and I got it on release. So far WOTR has been pretty good as well although the bugs I have heard about seem more serious. I see it as a very worthy successor for the Baldurs Gate line. BG was an epic game for its time just as the Pathfinder games are epic for our time, or will be once they iron out some of the bugs :P

They seem to really care about the game though and are making a good effort to patch it, unlike some other developers. So hopefully the most critical bugs will be fixed soon.

While I acknowledge both of Owlcat's Pathfinder games have bug issues, IMO, they are both the best successor's of BG.

I will reserve my judgement until I finish WotR, but at this point, it is my equal first favourite game along with BG2 :)

I'm loving my Angel run - I still love my Azata a bit more but having a blast.

I think that's a very respectable opinion, and I'm glad you are having a lot of fun. I did too! It's a fantastic game, bugs (and army/realm management) aside.

But in the end, I have to factor in the bugs and the parts of the game that subtracted from the overall experience. In that regard, I guess I can not see it as a successor to BG because before WotR we had, amongst other things, two Pillars of Eternity games that racked better scores both from users and critics, were less buggy, and built a world from the ground up, rather than using pre-existing material and simply adapting it. They changed things here and there, sure, but still, ask any artist what requires more talent, modifying something from a reference, or building it up from your own creativity (I'd know, it's my profession!).

That said, I didn't mean to offend! It is my own opinion, and it is fully respectful of those who have a different one.

PS: Also answering only because I feel you speaking about it being a worthy successor to BG might be prompted by me saying it wasn't. Don't mean to target you, just wanted to clarify my point of view! :)

I won't try to compare WoTR to BG2, but I can say with certainly that for me WoTR >> Kingmaker. There are still moments when I'm yelling at my screen and it feels like an endurance test, but I also love it and I'm addicted to it.)

I also had those moments and no doubt will be yelling at my screen many times more while I play WotR XD

But yes, I love the game too :D

I feel I should point out that I am heavily biased with this game and as some here know I tend to react more on an emotional level when it comes to my passions.

None of my gaming friends are playing this game and only one has any interest because they played Kingmaker, but they are busy with XCOM and Warhammer right now - so its not on their big list.

Anyhow this kind of game, like BG, hits all the right notes for me while also being modern and current in design and technology (which probably also brings more bugs with it - the more complicated something gets the more likely hood of issues).

I could go on at length, and I can be very wordy, about the two games but 'nuff said.

I love options in games especially when it comes to making my own character - race, class, background, skills, perks, and this game has all that. Plus animal companions, epic story … I can't tell you how many times I have just sat and watched the butterflies around my character.

Not because they are butterflies … can't say that is really my thing … but because of the way the game shows progression visually in the paths you take. Not to mention I get a big smile every time I find a new place I can cause nature to take hold. Even though the power comes from Azata it feels perfect for my follower of Gozreh. Random, chaotic, natural.

I also like being able to play his role. As an example he can turn into a wolf, leopard, bear, and soon a simoldon (sp??) … and the latter three are all more powerful than the wolf especially since he is fully specced into the natural claw path of the feral champion warpriest. Yet he is part wolf and changing shape to any shape other than a wolf simply feels wrong, so I pretty much pretend I don't have those options and only use the wolf one.

Rambling, as usual. Anyhow I understand the criticisms even though I am loving the game myself ;)

Thanks! While a tiny bit "spoilerish" I find this very helpful. Due to the fact that so many quests & stuff are "chapter dependent".

Like I didn't even have any idea that I was only at the end of ch2, with some side-stuff to do before finishing the fight, despite the fact that I have currently played for 93 hours. :p

I had to go two evenings without the game, but all is good. Savor the taste, so to speak.

Made it through the tavern fight without anyone dying, using a combination of RTwP and turn-based combat. It really was too long at this point in the game (my characters were level 4). On the other hand, it made me try out new tactics and it felt very satisfying to finally beat the encounter.



Also, since I haven't found Arueshalae yet, I made Daeran a Bard and keep him as my fourth core party member for a smooth transition later on. Or maybe he'll grow on me and I keep him? I also found uses for Ember and Camellia - their single target sleep curse is fantastic, given that it basically has unlimited uses.

Good fun. Only need two more levels for my Cleric/Mage so he can be more useful with his spells.

I do the same with my spell selections. So I have Mizan, my Mystic Theurge, Seelah the Warpriestess, Wenduag the Eldritch Scoundrel and Arue/Daeran the Bard. I limit all their spells to two schools each, with a few minor exceptions like self-only buffs. Mizan gets Evocation/Conjuration, Seelah sticks to Abjuration/Transmutation, Wendu embraces Necromancy/Divination and Arue/Daeran goes with Enchantment/Illusion. This makes them much more thematic and more defined in their roles.

While you're right that adapting material means less effort for the devs and thus less deserved praise, for me as a mere consumer of the product, this is totally irrelevant. I experiece the final product and (implicitly or explicitly) rate it and don't care about the required talent or effort.

I think it's totally fair as an end-user to not care about the details of how a product made it into your hands, and value only the amount of fun that it provides to you. EA and Ubisoft know all about it, they thrive massively on the lack of scrutiny from their target end-users. Reuse the assets every year, marginally improve the engine, slap a '21 behind the title instead of a '20. Guaranteed 10+ million sales.

However, just to correct you a tiny bit, to me it's not about the effort, it's about the talent involved in delivering the product. Making a perfect copy of a great work of art might take tremendous amounts of effort and know-how, certainly not devoid of talent in itself. But it is the creative process that I personally value most. The same way as I can appreciate construction workers for their hard labour in enacting massive pieces of architecture, but my praise and recognition would be directed to the architect that came up with the design, and not so much to the guys that looked at the planes and figured out how to put it together. To me, the genius is Mozart who composed a masterful musical piece, not the Russian pianist who is really good at playing it - while again, the Russian pianist is not devoid of talent, and certainly put tremendous amount of effort to play it to perfection.

Dragon Age Origins is another example of what I consider an actual worthy successor of BG, in my eyes, for that same reason.

There is no wrong or right, when you have fun with something, it doesn't matter what the rest of the world thinks, you live the world through your own senses and it's absurd to let others vary the way you perceive things. I also think some games, music or shows are better than most other people, and that is fine. If I enjoy it more than them, in the end I am the winner in that situation, because I get so much more for the same investment. Just wanted to clarify that to me it is creativity and talent what makes the difference, not effort per se.

While I can appreciate you reasoning, I also find it highly strange and inappropriate within this particular context.

I think it all hangs on the definition of "worthy successor/spiritual successor" of a previous game. For me, that definition inevitably includes a high level of conformity with the previous title in question. If that is lacking then it fails to match that definition.

Highly similar gameplay, similar storytelling, questing, characters and just in general a solid feeling that this game might virtually be a new game intended to follow the previous game in question.

The things you bring up about "highly original concept" and "original creativity" are things that could almost be described as strongly opposed to any game that fits the label of "worthy successor/spiritual successor".

The games that you lift out as examples (PoE, Dragon Age), may certainly be great in their own right but it's their very uniqueness and strong idiosyncracies that means they don't really fit the "successor shoes".

So…it's a question of how you define things I guess.;)

That's a fair point, although I suppose I can't see that much of a conformity between Pathfinder and Baldur's Gate. Pathfinder uses a different setting and ruleset than BG (Golarion is not Faerun, and SRD3.5 isn't AD&D), and ultimately the similarities begin and end with the type of game it is, isometric RPG with strong emphasis on the narrative side and a high amount of player agency to affect the course of the events, rich companion interaction, and an epic overarching plot, all of which are also met by DAO and PoE.

"Worthy" is also a subjective term, and having used it myself, I see it was a mistake on my part. The term in itself is a trap, and should not define any of the games we're discussing, as they are all worth on their own account, for different reasons.

I focused more on the artistic/creative aspect, but that is also not something that will bother a lot of players who just want to get immersed in a fantastic tale and experience it fully for what it is. To someone that never played tabletop Pathfinder games, Owlcat's representation of Wrath of the Righteous would be a completely original, amazing tale that they would fully appreciate. You know those people who think themselves a superior race because they read A Song of Ice and Fire before everyone watched Game of Thones? Yeah I hate them too. They don't get to decide whether Game of Thrones is a great show or not, same as the fact that Wrath of the Righteous was a pre-existing Adventure Path doesn't get to tell you whether Owlcat's vision of it is great or not.

Case in point, "worthy" was a bad word for me to use, I was maybe influenced by seeing it elsewhere before. I feel Pathfinder Wrath of the Righteous is a worthy game, and I very much enjoyed playing it.

What I don't feel is that it is the best isometric CRPG since Baldur's Gate. DAO, and both PoEs were more original, more polished, and better rated by both critics and users. And that's not even bringing in the final boss, DOS, which mention I'm purposely keeping brief, to not incite a completely different debate.

It's also so much easier to make an isometric CRPG today than it was, say, in 2009 when DAO launched after 6 years of back-breaking development. Or later in 2014, when Larian released DOS in a dare. Now the road is all nice and paved, with a newgen CRPG fanbase already built and stable, while Owlcat reaps the rewards of a niche they didn't fight for, with a game based on an Adventure Path they didn't write.

This is, in essence, the base of my argument.

If I had to consider whether a game is "successor to Baldur's Gate" or not, I'd use my point of view and how I enjoyed either of them. I wouldn't care too much about who made the story, if it was written separately or more chaotically along with its development. Nor would I care about the use of existing libraries, assets or subcontractors.

Sure, I'd praise an original story, or a group bringing a new story in an existing setting (though I'd also praise whoever has a convincing voice to convey it to me). But that alone is only one factor taken into consideration for being a "worthy" successor, only the final result would.

And it so happens that this result is also due to everyone's work along the chain (and how I like it, so it's subjective). From the story author, even if it's Paizo and not only Owlcat, or shared between WotC and BioWare, to the design of the UI and the team who tested and fixed the bugs.

Both experiences are different enough for me, and the context is not the same. So it's not easy to tell, but they're certainly in the same group at the top. :)

Well…ok. Though on the first point, I felt it was more doubtful to use the term "successors", when mentioning games that I felt did not really "succeed" any previous titles at all, but rather stood almost completly on their own "independent legs".

In contrast to that, with PF being a derivation of D&D and the worlds of Forgotten Realms & Golarion feeling very similar and both the general gameplay and the storytelling feeling almost identical to BG. That's the point where the word "successor" starts to feel appropriate, at least in the spiritual sense. ;)

As far as the second point about "more original, more polished, and better rated by both critics and users." is concerned. I would label all those aspects you mention, to be mostly irrelevancies, as far as whether you should consider a game as better or not.

In the end, how you rate the quality of writing, the quality of gameplay, the importance of "polish" and how you prioritize the relative importance of different game-aspects, is very individual.

Fair points, both Redglyph and Feist. I always agree with the fact that if something is great for you, or it feels in a particular way to you, you do not need to seek validation of those feelings from the public consensus, at least when it comes to your own enjoyment and it does not harm anyone else. My own perspective is what it is, and as I said in a previous post, if you got more out of a particular game, book or movie than someone else, then you are the ultimate winner.

@purpleblob1 : Am I safe to play Chapter 2 having respecced in Chapter 1 then as long as I do not respec again ?

I just finished Gray Garrison.

They say "respec in act 2" and it's linked to the mythic path ("known critical issue" thread), so you should be safe, but maybe she heard something more regarding act 1.

Ok, so I can continue my playthrough this weekend :)

I haven't heard definitive answer but assume it will be ok since you respecced before chap2.

I really need to move beyond the tavern in Chapter 1 at some point :) I've played dozens of hours and still haven't moved one character outside of the Gray Garrison place. Need to one of the sidequests at least, lol. I know the Storyteller dude is supposed to be important.

I think I've settled on a crossblooded sorcerer who has two fire bloodlines and is totally focused on fire damage and spell penetration. He'll probably do Azata and then Gold Dragon if that's possible. We'll see. I'm not really min-maxing, I'm just going for a theme. I will play a goody-two-shoes type and use my charisma/persuasion to get favorable quest results. This guy is good but also greedy when it comes to magic items and treasure.

Pretty sure I'm going to have to dump everyone but Lann and Seela from the first group. The spider chick has left already and the spirit chick has an amulet that hides her true alignment, so she's gotta go. May turn Lann into an archer/cleric of some type and may make the paladin some type of bard multiclass; at least enough to buff everyone up before fighting. I know there is a tiefling thief in the basement of the garrison/inn. I've talked to him and he sounds moderately crazy, so he probably won't be a fit either. May take mercenaries till I find better companions.

If I'm forced to party up my main is almost always a "my way or the highway" type because that's how I role :)

If you want to start gently:

Sounds good. I probably won't keep any non-good npcs in my party long-term but will try to do their quests if it doesn't reek of evil. I'll need a few tanks since I'm gonna be squishy.

Those two things aren't synonmous. There's no reason to stick "spiritual" in there in the first place if they were.

A "spiritual" successor does not have to have a high degree of conformity, as you put it, with its predecessor. It has to "feel" like that game, but it can get there in a very different way. It is inspired and informed by that earlier game, but by definition, a spiritual successor cannot, in fact, be highly similar in plot, characters, setting. That would make it a literal successor.

As far as my own opinion on any debate over whether Owlcat's games are successors (spiritual or otherwise) to Infinity Engine games: I don't care. They give me much of the same pleasure that a game like BG2 does because they are large fantasy games with a plethora of quests, character building choices, and memorable companions. They superficially resemble them visually. So I do play and enjoy them for much the same reasons. But where I lose interest is in trying to compare how successfully they ape them.

With Dragon Age being marketed as "the spiritual successor of Baldur's Gate", I became highly suspicious about that term "spiritual successor".

If you go by the wikipedia definition of the term

"A spiritual successor (sometimes called a spiritual sequel) is a product or fictional work which is similar to, or directly inspired by another previous work, but (unlike a traditional prequel or sequel) does not explicitly continue the product line or media franchise of its predecessor."

Then DAO and PoE fit better than WotR, simply because they came before to do the same thing that WotR tried, heavily inspired by BG. Could go as far as to say that DAO and PoE would not exist if BG had never existed. I get people want to be hyped about the here and now, pursuing the fleeting present at every opportunity, but some of us have a good memory, and remember the cycle that has been repeated every time a new high quality CRPG is released. Maybe Pathfinder can be the spiritual successor of DAO. Or the spiritual successor of PoE. *shrug!*

The thing with people being obsessed to find a successor for BG, however, it's not only down to the format or the style of the game, it also has to meet the quality standards that, besides being extremely overpraised due to bias and rosy retrospection, are part of another generation and era in the history of videogames that crowned BG as the epitome of CRPGs to many. When someone says "this is BG successor!" what they want is to, indirectly, raise their favourite game to the irrational standard that BG imprinted in our memories without actually proving it on its own. If the game was as good or better than BG, its promoters wouldn't sell it as "the new BG". They would sell it as the game it is, for its own merits, without downgrading itself to be just nearly as good as BG.

And when the hype crowd will always find a game to say "this is BG successor!", the nostalgic crowd will be "there will never be a game like BG. Youngsters these days don't know what good games are".

I think the best thing to do is simply stop looking for comparisons and value each game for what it is. I don't think WotR is a successor to BG in any way. It doesn't have the setting, the ruleset, or caused the quaking impact in the gaming community that BG did. It was not a groundbreaking innovation to make WotR as it was to make BG, and its story wasn't original and fully written by the developer, like BG was. The one thing it has comparable with BG is the type of game, its vague resemblance and familiarity, which was done better and in a cleaner way by others before WotR, and that is not my opinion, any quick look at worldwide game ratings both from critics and users will easily back that statement off.

But I think WotR is a good game on its own, and comparing it to other games only does it a disservice. It should be celebrated that WotR is a thing, and we get to enjoy it.

Now you may think differently, and if that works for you, then by all means, stick to it.

Next patch 1.0.4d
https://store.steampowered.com/news/…45483238535978

Thanks, but there's already a thread on this one: :)
https://www.rpgwatch.com/forums/showthread.php?t=48503

I'll throw in my two cents and say Kingmaker (I haven't gotten far enough in WOR to judge) is much more similar in tone to Baldur's Gate than DAO or POE, and I love all 3 games, and probably prefer Pillars to Kingmaker. For me the very dark and grim tone and themes of DAO sets it apart from Baldur's Gate. It almost feels like a low fantasy setting. POE has the factions and moral greyness that permeate Obsidian games. There really isn't right and wrong in many cases, its simply which perspective you prefer. Baldur's Gate and Kingmaker are classic high fantasy. There are bad guys and good guys and there is a brightness and whimsy that are largely missing in Pillars and DAO.