Crispy™ Is Kinkmaker gud?

[hell bovine]

That contradicts what several other sources have stated, which is that advisors will leave if you choose solutions which oppose their viewpoints. Nobody said 'except generals, those guys you can pick whatever'.

The decisions are broken down into +1 Happiness, Neutral, or -1 Happiness results. If you disagree with an adviser using Neutral options then you don't have to worry. It's only when you pick -1 Happiness results too many times that they will leave, and choosing +1 Happiness can balance that out.

And when I say Neutral, I mean "how much the adviser likes that idea" not the Neutral alignment.

I know that, I figured that a CHAOTIC EVIL person is going to disagree with Good/Lawful choices, that's why I'm not using him.

If there are no actual conflicts in the game that's not my fault, and I've got no way of knowing that besides meta-gaming.

Rerongar's card says he is 'hot-headed', that's not the kind of person you want in charge of a fucking Lawful Good kingdom's army. Add that to his CE alignment, there is no way he should be an option.

This discussion began with the assertion that the game gives you no choice on whether or not to use Amiri, because you need her to cover the General advisor position.

First someone said that that wasn't true because of another character (Kassil) who can be a general, but that character's existence in the game is based on an early decision that doesn't give you any indication that he's a general, nor does it provide the character's alignment, or the alignment any of the other options. So that was bullshit.

Now we're saying that is isn't true because it turns out that actually this Chaotic Evil, hot-headed bastard is perfectly fine as a General for a Lawful Good kingdom. But that's bullshit too, because without meta-gaming, a player would have no idea that this was the case. You can't just change the goalposts and say 'oh well the game says that but actually he's fine, so you're not forced to use Amiri actually'.

So I repeat: the game (depending on story choices that you have no foresight on) forces you to use Amiri, it's not an option, you need her as a General in cases where you didn't pick Kassil and your kingdom is Lawful Good.

It's not metagaming. You are the one that assumes that alignment is the most important part of governing. But a chaotic evil general can nevertheless be good at his job, as long as his decisions lead to the improvement of your army. That's why Reg is a solid choice for a general; his methods are brutal, but they work. The opposite is also true; if you always take the moral high road when ruling, this might lead to bad outcomes to your kingdom. Politics isn't a moral business in PK.

 

[Yosharian]

You're just making a lot of assumptions based on guesswork.

Yes! This is one of my favorite things about Kingmaker: you need to make judgments about various important NPCs based on limited but still relevant information, and if you accurately judge their character, you usually end up being rewarded.

I understand why you’d want more information to make better decisions, but there are a lot of traps that no one would choose if they had more complete info.

You're missing my point.

 

[Incendax]

Amusingly, the second time I went through the game I was an economic supergiant. The game still gave me the “your throne is cheap and your treasury is empty” ending even though I had over 40,000 BP just because I could afford to solve every problem the most expensive way.

 

[Morkar Left]

Yeah I'm pretty sure they will never get all the bugs fixed

 

[Sykar]

Yeah I'm pretty sure they will never get all the bugs fixed

So long as the remaining bugs are inconsequential I could not care less. So far it has been stable and only a few minor glitches happend on my partial playthroughs. Partial because I suffer from severe restarteritis.

 

[hell bovine]

Lander looks and sounds like a kid trying to play an adult, from what I recall. You get what you choose.

The best part is reading the tool-tip about Lander being a fucking moron when it comes to leadership before you even meet him or know who Lander is.
I didn't even spoil myself, and recognized him as the tool-tip guy.

I still want to take him on my evil run, apparently he's hilariously bad.

 

[Dr Skeleton]

I just remembered one thing about alignments and C&C that bothered me, in almost every case you can choose whichever good/evil/chaotic option you want regardless of your alignment and that only moves you on the character sheet in that direction but then are some cases where choosing something requires a specific alignment instead. And that only seems to happen in places where it opens an alternate way to resolve something, like

Spoiler

peacefully resolving the mite/kobold war or negotiating with the troll king

It’s like they couldn’t make up their mind if the game gives you an alignment based on what you do or it restricts what you can do based on your alignment, so they did both.

Uh. There are SPECIAl alignment choices ( unlocked trough your aliment Evil for example gives option to turn Hurgulka on Tartuk ) and choices that affect alignment. Could not be more clear.

Oh, it is clear: I can act however I want regardless of alignment unless I can't in some situations. From gameplay standpoint, I get that it gives more replayability but it's very arbitrary, and dealing with alignments is always arbitrary, but this this the equivalent of DM saying you can't say or do something "because your character is too evil to do something so nice, you try to reach out your hand to help the peasant but you get a cramp 'cause you're so evil'. And these "special" choices are very suspect, negotiating with the troll king requires lawful. Why? You could make as good or better case for that choice being good or chaotic for example. If I get some character sheet point for a choice that I think wasn't really of that alignment, whatever, if the game tells me I can't do something because I don't have enough good/bad boy points when I was able to do good/evil regardless of alignment for 5 hours up to that point, "because it's a special choice" is not a good explanation as to why.

 

[Haplo]

Amusingly, the second time I went through the game I was an economic supergiant. The game still gave me the “your throne is cheap and your treasury is empty” ending even though I had over 40,000 BP just because I could afford to solve every problem the most expensive way.

Maybe you have chosen to respect the River Freedoms tax option?

It provides huge in game benefits, but eventually leads to a bancrupt kingdom.

 

[Incendax]

Maybe you have chosen to respect the River Freedoms tax option?
It provides huge in game benefits, but eventually leads to a bancrupt kingdom.

I went Material Taxes for that sweet +60 BP/Week. I put serious thought into the Tax Everything option for +84/Week, but the Hellknight event is somewhat random. I could always wait for the Hellknights to spawn before upgrading Economy, but that is a lot of missed revenue.

 

[Yosharian]

The alignment choices are fucking retarded. Not only do they not make sense half the time, but a lot of the time there are no choices that suit your alignment, so you have to go with one that messes your character up.

 

[Kyl Von Kull]

You're just making a lot of assumptions based on guesswork.

Yes! This is one of my favorite things about Kingmaker: you need to make judgments about various important NPCs based on limited but still relevant information, and if you accurately judge their character, you usually end up being rewarded.

I understand why you’d want more information to make better decisions, but there are a lot of traps that no one would choose if they had more complete info.

You're missing my point.

What is your point? You also make lots of assumptions and guesses about how the kingdom management stuff works, but you don’t test them. You assumed alignment would be super important for your advisors, but these guys are fleshed out characters and there’s more to their opinions than the alignment chart. You didn’t change your mind about using Reg as general when you saw the event cards and realized that, most of the time, you had multiple options—general or councilor, general or regent, general or treasurer—so you often don’t need to use the army for things like quelling dissent, which is where an evil general could potentially do some damage. It’s not like you can’t replace your advisors at any time. You wanted to optimize your kingdom management and apparently didn’t want to experiment. That’s not the game’s fault.

I know you have a preference for clearly defined systems, but these are narrative choices that hinge on narrative details. And you aren’t taking those details seriously. I say this with absolute confidence because you picked Lander and that scene is like a Rorschach test for what players consider important.

 

[Darth Canoli]

Steam reviews are kind of on the fence as a whole, plenty of praise to the story (well yeah, Chriss Avelone), but lots of people whinging about the game being too difficult. Motherfucker, turn the difficulty down until you start enjoying the combat. Is it really just a case of autisic gamers being too fucking retarded to play on a lower difficulty because it's called "easy"?

Anyway, let's have our very own General Discussion consensus. Vote now!

P. S. I am too scared and confused to look into Gaming forums, there's probably going to be twenty subforums, a megathred, and reddit-like moderator insanity.

I found it interesting at first and tried to overcome my growing disgust for RTwP.
I'm also one of these filthy casuals mentioned by Gregz below (stopped at chapter 2)

Still, i find the combat unsatisfying (RTwP ...), the traveling system having you camping 1/2 times during a trip to go anywhere retarded (is it a camping simulation ?) and the kingdom management a chore, that feature is half done and not the good half, fuck, there is a lot of games that delivered a good kingdom management gameplay and they decided to ignore all of them to release their own marvelous golden piece of shit.

So, if you like RTwP a lot and can stomach the retarded kingdom management feature, you'll probably enjoy this ...

Too bad chapter 2 casuals are able to vote. This game gets progressively and precipitously worse the longer you play it.

Spoiler

I've been playing computer role playing games for over 30 years. In all that time I have never felt compelled to leave a negative review for a game. Kingmaker is a tremendous lost opportunity.

The Good:

1. Character creation and leveling follow the pathfinder ruleset closely.
   
2. Combat mechanics are satisfying (despite being real time with pause, instead of turn-based).
   
3. Custom party formation is a welcome quality of life feature.
   
4. High fidelity graphics and visual effects.

The Bad:

1. Encounter design is terrible.
   
2. Kingdom management is a tedious and joyless experience. The option to play with it disabled doesn't work. There are many cases where you can lose the game by "misplaying" this mechanic, without explanation.
   
3. Maps are reused 4-5 times in places.
   
4. Very slow party travel across maps, with no ability to change walk speed.
   
5. Choices have consequences, which would be great if you were given a clue what they were.
   
6. Alignment based dialogue is poorly thought out and forces the player to 'roleplay' according to Owlcat's definition of alignment, which is often wrong.
   
7. Enforced encumberance forces you to leave valuable loot behind.
   
8. +5 weapons, worth thousands of GP, can be found in barrels and crates in towns during the end game.
   
9. Annoying toy chow dogs barking, and NPCs coughing and grumbling at every other rest location. Are these quaint and relaxing sounds in Russia?
   
10. Heavy, expensive, and limited 'camping provisions' are required to rest in dungeons.
    
11. No ability to craft + poor itemization and very limited vendor selection.
    
12. Random encounters offer almost no XP, and a bunch of loot you can't carry.
    
13. Failure to resolve quests before deadlines results in losing the game.
    
14. Tedious unsatisfying puzzles.
    
15. Custom quests are poorly described, requiring unintuitive actions from the player (like using torches to kill swarms).
    
16. If your character isn't charisma (CHA) focused you'll miss out on an entire level of party XP because you can't make the throne room event skill checks.
    
17. Unbearable load times. Frequent required trips back to your throne room to solve kingdom management issues makes this especially painful.
    
18. XP is doled out at certain times and locations only, like a bad CYOA novel. You cannot farm meaningful amounts of XP to level your party using random encounters.
    
19. The game ends abruptly before you can maximize your character's level.
    
20. Inumerable bugs, many of which are game breaking.

I lost two long games to game breaking and quest ending bugs.

I considered not leaving this review in the hopes that more people would buy this game, complain, and perhaps as a result Owlcat would fix their mess. Instead they ignored the obvious deep flaws with their game and put out a DLC.

Lucky for me, i found the game retarded enough as early as chapter 2 and didn't have to suffer through the rest ...

 

[Sykar]

The alignment choices are fucking retarded. Not only do they not make sense half the time, but a lot of the time there are no choices that suit your alignment, so you have to go with one that messes your character up.

No most of them are not retarded and are relatively fitting, though it is limited. In fact I dare say there is still too much freedom but people are too enamored with the idea they can do whatever the fuck for the lulz regardless how stupid it is from a role playing perspective. Case in point the retarded character buils with 3+ role playing incompatible classes like paladin/monk/thug/+x or the incessant need to insert vivisectionist everywhere just for some fucking SA which is so superfluous if you are not playing above Challenging it is laughable. Shows what happens when there is no proper GM around to keep the munchkin crap at bay.

 

[Yosharian]

The alignment choices are fucking retarded. Not only do they not make sense half the time, but a lot of the time there are no choices that suit your alignment, so you have to go with one that messes your character up.

No most of them are not retarded and are relatively fitting, though it is limited. In fact I dare say there is still too much freedom but people are too enamored with the idea they can do whatever the fuck for the lulz regardless how stupid it is from a role playing perspective. Case in point the retarded character buils with 3+ role playing incompatible classes like paladin/monk/thug/+x or the incessant need to insert vivisectionist everywhere just for some fucking SA which is so superfluous if you are not playing above Challenging it is laughable. Shows what happens when there is no proper GM around to keep the munchkin crap at bay.

My post has nothing to do with multiclass characters.

I'd say at least half of the alignment modifiers attached to dialogue choices have me facepalming or shouting at the computer. For example, in Vordakai's Tomb, when you say that you've killed the Astradaemon and the prisoners can go free, you get CHAOTIC GOOD. Even though there are no enemies left in the dungeon. What the actual fuck.

 

[Yosharian]

You're just making a lot of assumptions based on guesswork.

Yes! This is one of my favorite things about Kingmaker: you need to make judgments about various important NPCs based on limited but still relevant information, and if you accurately judge their character, you usually end up being rewarded.

I understand why you’d want more information to make better decisions, but there are a lot of traps that no one would choose if they had more complete info.

You're missing my point.

What is your point? You also make lots of assumptions and guesses about how the kingdom management stuff works, but you don’t test them. You assumed alignment would be super important for your advisors, but these guys are fleshed out characters and there’s more to their opinions than the alignment chart. You didn’t change your mind about using Reg as general when you saw the event cards and realized that, most of the time, you had multiple options—general or councilor, general or regent, general or treasurer—so you often don’t need to use the army for things like quelling dissent, which is where an evil general could potentially do some damage. It’s not like you can’t replace your advisors at any time. You wanted to optimize your kingdom management and apparently didn’t want to experiment. That’s not the game’s fault.

I know you have a preference for clearly defined systems, but these are narrative choices that hinge on narrative details. And you aren’t taking those details seriously. I say this with absolute confidence because you picked Lander and that scene is like a Rorschach test for what players consider important.

> You also make lots of assumptions and guesses about how the kingdom management stuff works, but you don’t test them.

You can't make any tests at the time of choosing the first advisor.

> You assumed alignment would be super important for your advisors, but these guys are fleshed out characters and there’s more to their opinions than the alignment chart

You mean, they don't actually fit their alignments. Something I couldn't have known without reading about them on a games forum.

> You didn’t change your mind about using Reg as general when you saw the event cards

None of the event cards gave me any information about Rerongar. His card says he is hot-headed, and his listed alignment is Chaotic Evil. I'm going off the information the game gives me.

> you had multiple options—general or councilor, general or regent, general or treasurer—so you often don’t need to use the army for things like quelling dissent, which is where an evil general could potentially do some damage

The choices where your advisor can potentially leave don't function like that.

> It’s not like you can’t replace your advisors at any time.

What does that have to do with anything? I can't know in advance that an important alignment-critical decision is coming up.

> You wanted to optimize your kingdom management and apparently didn’t want to experiment.

With a CHAOTIC EVIL hot-headed general? I don't think that makes me a bad player.

> That’s not the game’s fault.

Yes it is.

> I know you have a preference for clearly defined systems

That's the only sensible or accurate thing you've said in this post. Yes, alignment is DEFINED. This is a game where being GOOD or EVIL has tangible meanings, benefits, drawbacks. You cannot have a murky, ill-defined alignment in such a system. You cannot say 'oh well he's Chaotic Evil but he's still a good general for a Lawful Good kingdom because characters aren't defined by their alignment!' Yes, they are. That's the whole fucking point of alignments, they define characteristics of a character. You might as well throw the entire system out if you're going to pretend it doesn't define characters.

Your dismissal of Lander just means you take what the Swordlords say as gospel and disbelieve anyone else.

 

[Kyl Von Kull]

Your dismissal of Lander just means you take what the Swordlords say as gospel and disbelieve anyone else.

LMAO!

"Hi there, I'm Lander. I refuse to tell you my origins or my motives. I have no credentials, but you should pick me as an advisor because I don't have any apparent vested interest in the region like Kassil or Shandra. I swear I'm a disinterested third party and I'm only offering to be your advisor for shits and giggles. Really, just doing this out of the goodness of my hear, swear to the gods, I have no ulterior agenda like those two! There is nothing suspicious in this pitch at all. No, sorry, I really can't tell you where I come from, you see I'm traveling incognito. Also, I have a girlfriend in Canada."

Lander's proposition is obviously too good to be true. If the initial conversation with him didn't set off any alarm bells, I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you.

As for Regongar, he's not just a dot on an alignment chart. He's a full companion. You know his whole life story. Why would you assume that that stuff is irrelevant to his duties as general and it's only his alignment that matters? In your monomaniacal focus on a single data point, you're ignoring tons and tons of very useful information.

 

[Yosharian]

I could just as easily construct a similar narrative with Jamandi and her spy. Her proposal could also be 'too good to be true'. But that's the decision you took, so you have to construct a narrative that suits her choice being the logical one.

As for Rerongar, you failed to address my point entirely.

 

[Sykar]

I could just as easily construct a similar narrative with Jamandi and her spy. Her proposal could also be 'too good to be true'. But that's the decision you took, so you have to construct a narrative that suits her choice being the logical one.

As for Rerongar, you failed to address my point entirely.

Except it is not since she keeps her word. You are the baron. You do get her support. You do get a good chunk of basic resources to establish your first settlements. She does tell you the basics about her plans and the reason behind the upcoming civil war she and the others are planning. She is honest enough to tell you that you were not a first choice ally for the planned civil war and separation from the Surtovas, far from it. She even tells you what can happen if you betray her, that it will probably ruin her, though she does warn you that you will probably fall first in case of a civil war since the Surtovas are quick to sacrifice their pawns if needed. As to spy, again that is not even an argument. They all will report to their respective masters. With Lander you have no idea if he really acts on his own or reports to a higher power. You know zilch.

With Jamandi you have at least a rough picture what is expected of you and where you stand with her. Jamandi is the safe choice though you essentially side with the independence movement. The other two? Not much to go on. We know that the Surtovas are only interested in preserving the status quo because they want to stay in power and do not want a civil war to happen. They also despise Restov and have probably a low opinion of you, just like that snob baron Hannis Drelev whom you meet during the banquet How far they would go is up to your own judgment. Lander is a wild card. At best. He is a boy who pretends that he is the best. A ludicruous notion which you are supposed to take at face value and by having faith.

 

[Drakron]

As for Rerongar, you failed to address my point entirely.

Then what is the other choice? Amiri? That is as bad since if you are going for alignment then chaotic is out and that leaves Kassil that matches being LN that for a General thats basically the outlook you want as disciplinarian but neither moral or amoral so he is not stuck with potencial moral issues.

I do think you are right as you kinda have few choices that get even non-existing if companions die/booted out and the game offers positions too much on "NPCs that are your companions" with the lack of secondary positions as choice for the non-party NPCs.

 

[Kyl Von Kull]

I could just as easily construct a similar narrative with Jamandi and her spy. Her proposal could also be 'too good to be true'. But that's the decision you took, so you have to construct a narrative that suits her choice being the logical one.

As for Rerongar, you failed to address my point entirely.

God, just finish act 4 already.

 

[Cael]

Case in point the retarded character buils with 3+ role playing incompatible classes like paladin/monk/thug/+x or the incessant need to insert vivisectionist everywhere just for some fucking SA which is so superfluous if you are not playing above Challenging it is laughable. Shows what happens when there is no proper GM around to keep the munchkin crap at bay.

Paladin/monk incompatible in a game based on one where the feat Ascetic Knight exists...

 

[Incendax]

That's the only sensible or accurate thing you've said in this post. Yes, alignment is DEFINED. This is a game where being GOOD or EVIL has tangible meanings, benefits, drawbacks. You cannot have a murky, ill-defined alignment in such a system. You cannot say 'oh well he's Chaotic Evil but he's still a good general for a Lawful Good kingdom because characters aren't defined by their alignment!' Yes, they are. That's the whole fucking point of alignments, they define characteristics of a character. You might as well throw the entire system out if you're going to pretend it doesn't define characters.

Alignment IS defined in the Pathfinder universe. But an evil person doesn't kick every puppy he comes across, and a good person doesn't save every civilian she notices in danger. This is even the way it works in the game, since you can balance out your actions that don't fit your alignment with actions that do and stay more or less stable. In fact, since alignment in Pathfinder is determined by the judgement of higher powers... there are several canon NPCs in the Pathfinder universe who know about "alignment" and think the system is unfair.

I'm not joking. There are in-universe people who think the powers that judge alignment are unfair.

So, is it defined? Yes. Absolutely. Is it objective morality? No. It's morality of the powerful.
Does that make it murky? Not so much for the people with no power to change it, but absolutely when taken as a whole.
Never forget that Golarian is a crapsack dystopia at heart.

 

[Elex]

it's true.
I just wish a divine divinity with no gear scaling and no silly humor.

 

[Haplo]

And no armor buffer system. And no round robin turn order. And no deterministic CC. And...

 

[VentilatorOfDoom]

Regongar is perfectly fine as a general for a lawful-good kingdom. If someone is attacking the kingdom, send him to kill the fuckers. Unless your idea of lawful-good is to send attackers flower baskets.
If he wants to enlist wizards into the army, just say yeah why not. If you don't like his approach to a problem just tell him to do something else. His alignment changed to chaotic neutral eventually in my game.