Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Baldurs Gate vs Pathfinder: Kingmaker

Which game is better?


  • Total voters
    104

Deleted Member 16721

Guest
Sorry Fluent, have to disagree. Just because you dislike BG2 for some strange reason, it doesn't make it convoluted nor linear-ish mess. IIRC, you didn't even finish BG2.

I voted BG2, still much better and fun than Kingmaker.

No problem blobber, we all have our opinions. I don't like BG2 as much as others do obviously. I never finished it but got to the same point in each playthrough, finished most of the side quests in the other areas that open up. It still feels convoluted to me, at least this time with SCS turned on, it got overwhelmingly difficult with that mod. Maybe if I tweak it more or play vanilla next time it will be better. But I spent over 100 hours combined with it in 2 separate runs, it's not bad, still a great RPG, but I enjoy BG1 more.

By convoluted I feel BG2 has almost too many spells, with SCS you have to have very specific spells memorized and it just gets to be a pain. And I never liked how you get bombarded with content right at the beginning of the game, which gives the game an air of "hurry up and do this stuff!" even if they aren't technically timed quests. I also liked the city of Baldur's Gate more than Athkatla, and the more open exploration of BG1. I also prefer low level content in general, rather than higher level stuff. But I promise I'll eventually beat BG2, I can import my party from Siege of Dragonspear and start over again sometime and give it another shot.

And I was just getting my Codex on with the strong opinion. :lol: It's a good game.
 

Kyl Von Kull

The Night Tripper
Patron
Joined
Jun 15, 2017
Messages
3,152
Location
Jamrock District
Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag.
BG1 = Kingmaker.

Both > BG2.

BG2 is a convoluted, linear-ish mess. BG1 is a more organic, open adventure and Kingmaker is on par with it.

Sorry Fluent, have to disagree. Just because you dislike BG2 for some strange reason, it doesn't make it convoluted nor linear-ish mess. IIRC, you didn't even finish BG2.

I voted BG2, still much better and fun than Kingmaker.

I love that people will come here from the Watch just to shut down Fluent.
 

Ruchy

Scholar
Joined
Jan 11, 2017
Messages
202
Location
Australia
I voted Pathfinder but mainly because I find character progression to be extremely boring in 2nd Ed DnD. The class possibilities in Pathfinder give it far more replay-ability than BG.
 
Unwanted

YanBG

Unwanted
Joined
Mar 10, 2016
Messages
175
I'm still fucking outraged that this stupid RTwP elf shit is getting more attention than Battle Brothers. I approve of the genophage, god fuck
Yes, i must say i played BB longer than KmPf. If you mean BG too, well it's a classic.
 

laclongquan

Arcane
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
1,870,144
Location
Searching for my kidnapped sister
I voted Pathfinder but mainly because I find character progression to be extremely boring in 2nd Ed DnD. The class possibilities in Pathfinder give it far more replay-ability than BG.
That was because BG1 is limited at low level (unless you play BGT, which is playing BG in BG2 engine). You only got 7 levels to mess around.

PST is around the same time but it got much higher level threshold, so it's easier to test possibilities. Although it's a storyfag game so your got fixed character builds, not easy to change it.
 

drgames

Scholar
Joined
Nov 23, 2015
Messages
153
I do not understand. Pathfinder kingmaker is essentially BG1 enanched. They both have their flaws and merits, but overall pathfinder improves various aspects of BG1 gameplay, story and exploration.
 

Kyl Von Kull

The Night Tripper
Patron
Joined
Jun 15, 2017
Messages
3,152
Location
Jamrock District
Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag.
I voted Pathfinder but mainly because I find character progression to be extremely boring in 2nd Ed DnD. The class possibilities in Pathfinder give it far more replay-ability than BG.
That was because BG1 is limited at low level (unless you play BGT, which is playing BG in BG2 engine). You only got 7 levels to mess around.

PST is around the same time but it got much higher level threshold, so it's easier to test possibilities. Although it's a storyfag game so your got fixed character builds, not easy to change it.

Nah, Pathfinder’s progression feels better because progression in d&d 3.5 is a lot more involved than progression in second edition. For most characters, you’re just choosing where to put weapon proficiency points in BG, and not even every level. In Pathfinder you can choose a whole new class every level, not to mention skills, feats and other class based abilities you can pick.

PS:T does have a higher level cap, but the real difference (aside from being able to swap classes whenever) is that it departs pretty radically from 2nd edition rules, giving you an extra attribute point every damn level.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom