Kingmaker - Enhanced Edition & Beneath the Stolen Lands June 6th

Originally Posted by vurt
I agree about game length but a big map doesnt need to mean a long game really, but usually it does, and it seems to be the case here. This is not a game i intend to finish to 100%, but i'll have fun anyways i'm sure. I've never finished BG2 either, but i've played it many times (probably around 6-7 times) to perhaps 70% completion..

I usually don't care too much about endings anyways, never played a game where the story grabbed me so much that i needed to see it. I get tired of games very easily, even if they are good.

I've played a lot of games that were worth finishing at least in part because of the story. Either you simply don't care much for stories, or you're playing the wrong games.

I rarely play a game past 50% completion and not finish it. If a game isn't worth finishing to me, I'm not going to invest that much time in it to begin with.

Man, give us an example. NWN. Worth finishing or not?
Hopefully not.

On the other hand, what about TW3. Not?!

Neither. I absolutely love TW3, but its a long game so i had a break and did something else (did music for a year or more). This is often the case, i take a (long) break and i come back and well, its hard to get into the game again. Often i decide to replay it from the start and things repeats itself haha. I think games are just too damn long overall and few are addicting enough (story or gameplay wise). I'm also a master of starting something new instead and getting caught up in that game, for a while.

I have not finished a lot of games either. I have played Skyrim for countless hours and never finished it. I have finished Gothic 2&3 a few times. For me, I think it has something to do with starting off so weak that if feels good getting revenge towards the end of the game. Also, there were hard fights still at the end of the Gothic games.

If I had a guess, I would say I finish about 30-40% of games I start. I loved Kingmaker but I stopped after 80 hours. Will see if I finish it on next play through with all the DLC's. I played when it first came out and was buggy.

The question was for JDR, but okay.

Unlike two of you I rarely leave any game unfinished. What I do often is leaving a game uncompleted - which has nothing to do with me but with lazyarse developers who think boring and grindy filler is top notch design. This means I'll reach a game's end, but will never touch majority of sidecontent once I learn it's second job instead of fun.

When I say games I need are 40+ hours it doesn't mean Candy Crush Saga wallbanging with a head over and over for weeks. It means 40+ hours of variety of content, not grind.

I don't believe I've ever left a game unfinished. I might take a break to read a book, or to think out a puzzle that might have me temporarily stumped, or a slightly longer pause if I encounter a bug that prevents me from progressing. My biggest problem these days is getting involved in a game that isn't actually finished yet, but to circumvent that I usually wait four to six months before jumping into anything new. Like Pathfinder, which I put on the shelve about seven months ago, and have yet to return to, but I'm ready the moment all the dust settles down from the new content and subsequent patches.

It took me over a 100 hours to finish Kingmaker. I am sure if you beelined things it would be faster. But I tend to savor games like Kingmaker although I am not a completionist in the sense that I have to do and see everything. Some quests or content might be outside of my characters personality to do.

If I count how many games I finish that I actually like then it would be about 95%. In the last 7 years or so the only game I have not finished, that I actually liked, was ELEX. I did not finish ACO or W3 but then I never was able to get into them so not sure that counts*

* Games I get that I don't like I usually delete or otherwise get rid of.

Originally Posted by gabrielarantest
I'm not quite sure if I follow you correctly, but you are saying that the game was difficult, poorly designed and the difficulty settings were just silly stats increase, correct?

Personally, I enjoyed the design of the encounters in the game. For instance, I saw people complaining about the spider swarm in the first chapter of the game. But when I went to that cave (and obviously got killed by the spiders) I had a lot of fun. My thoughts were "oh that makes sense, I can't kill a spider swarm with a sword". Situations like this made the game really fun for me, but some people attributed it to bad design.

And there were a lot of options to tweak in the difficulty settings, not just enemies' status. It may lack some options of course, but it offers a really deep level of customization. Besides, if you want to increase the challenge rating of an encounter in the PF tabletop game, what else is there for the DM to do besides change enemy status or the number of enemies?

We must've played two different games then.
Overall I found combat very poorly designed as result of typical clumsy Rtwp flow of tactics/real time gameplay, coupled with awful visual mess ( with spell effects/similar), plus too many opponents on the screen, along with poor AI. Simply looked like a mess. ( even something like first Dragon Age was miles better)
Didn't have the patience to endure it past ten or so hours.

@BoboTheMighty

Yep, you must have mistaken another game with Kingmaker since my experience mirrors Gabriel's

Originally Posted by joxer
Whoever decides not to buy Pathfinder's DLC, they won't miss anything.

Well, I wouldn't go that far. I would just say that they are not as involving as the original game.

Originally Posted by Archangel
It is much bigger than Bg2. P:KM is a 150+ hour game to finish..

I took me 360 hours to finish the game, I think (Steam estimatives).

Originally Posted by TheRealFluent
I don't see how they're NOT must-have. Do you really want to miss extra content for this extraordinary game?

If you put it like that, I agree with you
Nonetheless, I think that the vanilla game is pretty much fun on its own. And that the DLCs don't add *that* much to the game IMO. Even though Varnhold's story is somewhat interesting I would rather have a DLC with a story after the end of the main campaign, like the old expansions used to be…

Originally Posted by BoboTheMighty
We must've played two different games then.

Or maybe you are not into Pathfinder games as I'm. Or maybe I'm too much into it that I'm delusional. Anyhow, I had a lot of fun in the 380 hours playing the game (I'm counting the DLCs). If you played just a few minutes, I definitely recommend that you give it another try. Especially if you played before the bug fixes

Turn based combat mod for Pathfinder Kingmaker: https://www.nexusmods.com/pathfinderkingmaker/mods/109

If you watch the youtube video it looks amazingly good for a mod.

I prefer RTwP and seriously, not everything needs TB combat

Originally Posted by purpleblob
I prefer RTwP and seriously, not everything needs TB combat

+100 from me as well. Don't see the logic that every RPG has to be turn-based.

Originally Posted by gabrielarantest
would rather have a DLC with a story after the end of the main campaign, like the old expansions used to be…

Me to but those days are gone. Nowadays it's smaller DLC.

Originally Posted by purpleblob
I prefer RTwP and seriously, not everything needs TB combat

Looks like a nice mod for people who want TB combat though? Hard to have arguments against it since it's never bad to have the option i think..

Originally Posted by vurt
Looks like a nice mod for people who want TB combat though? Hard to have arguments against it since it's never bad to have the option i think..

Yes but you always see a few post's about X would of been better this way posts for certain games. I get it but the developer choose the combat not a voting committee.

Anyway yes options are good like PoE II though that is not common.

Originally Posted by BoboTheMighty
We must've played two different games then.
Overall I found combat very poorly designed as result of typical clumsy Rtwp flow of tactics/real time gameplay, coupled with awful visual mess ( with spell effects/similar), plus too many opponents on the screen, along with poor AI. Simply looked like a mess. ( even something like first Dragon Age was miles better)
Didn't have the patience to endure it past ten or so hours.

Poorly designed combat? In first 10 hours? Didnt you mistaken it for Pillars of Eternity? Jokes aside, really cant agree with you. And saying that Dragon Age combat was better further underlines my disagreement. DA combat was mechanics wise one of the most boring party-based RtWP experiences I had. DA had its strenghts, but definitely it wasnt combat mechanics. If DA combat had any strong side, it was initial WOW effect.

Pathfinder combat is fully fleshed out and as tactical as it can get in RtWP universe.
If combat design and mechanics of Pathfinder fails somewhere, then its end game content, which you definitely didnt experience in first 10 hours.

Originally Posted by bjon045
Turn based combat mod for Pathfinder Kingmaker: https://www.nexusmods.com/pathfinderkingmaker/mods/109

If you watch the youtube video it looks amazingly good for a mod.

Most know that turn based combat is my favorite. However, I really enjoyed the combat in Pathfinder and thought it was fantastic. I wonder how long the game would take if you played to the end in turn based combat?

They should have made it UgoIgo from the start.

The number of fights to crush is a poor reason to opt for RTwP.

This product's combat plays as UgoIgo combat plays. Movement is absent, timing doesnt matter. There is nothing to explain the option of RTwP: everything that is made during a fight could happen in a UgoIgo structure.

Combat is overly static, piling up skills, competences etc The UgoIgo structure.

Why isn't the bot banned? If i make a bot that spams ads, will the mods allow it?

5,599 posts of nonsense.