20 reasons why Kingmaker is objectively better than Baldurs Gate 2

[The Great ThunThun*]

Kyl Von Kull

Timed Quests against degenerate gamaplay.

Can you believe that I have tried to raise this topic since 2013 and only 5 years later has the codex become even faintly receptive to this?

This might be the biggest philosophical point of hatred I have against Kingmaker.

Games should be fun, not homework assignments with deadlines.

No doubt.

However, games are also about challenge and tactics and strategy. Timed quests serve as adequate means to impose certain limitations that act to introduce urgency. There is a difference between boring, repetitive shit (read, PoE) and tactical, challenging gameplay.

 

[Gregz]

Kyl Von Kull

Timed Quests against degenerate gamaplay.

Can you believe that I have tried to raise this topic since 2013 and only 5 years later has the codex become even faintly receptive to this?

This might be the biggest philosophical point of hatred I have against Kingmaker.

Games should be fun, not homework assignments with deadlines.

No doubt.

However, games are also about challenge and tactics and strategy. Timed quests serve as adequate means to impose certain limitations that act to introduce urgency. There is a difference between boring, repetitive shit (read, PoE) and tactical, challenging gameplay.

Even if you enjoy that kind of difficulty mechanic, it should at least be configurable in the difficulty settings. This is a very controversial game mechanic, many of the negative reviews on steam are complaining about this, mine included.

 

[The Great ThunThun*]

Kyl Von Kull

Timed Quests against degenerate gamaplay.

Can you believe that I have tried to raise this topic since 2013 and only 5 years later has the codex become even faintly receptive to this?

This might be the biggest philosophical point of hatred I have against Kingmaker.

Games should be fun, not homework assignments with deadlines.

No doubt.

However, games are also about challenge and tactics and strategy. Timed quests serve as adequate means to impose certain limitations that act to introduce urgency. There is a difference between boring, repetitive shit (read, PoE) and tactical, challenging gameplay.

Even if you enjoy that kind of difficulty mechanic, it should at least be configurable in the difficulty settings. This is a very controversial game mechanic, many of the negative reviews on steam are complaining about this, mine included.

Actually, you can set the Kingdom management on Auto and forget about it, if you so wish. I specifically liked it for two reasons:

1. The urgency part.
2. It is the best management mechanic that comes close a favourite setting of mine, Birthright. Would *love* to see a Birthright campaign set in this mechanic.

 

[Gregz]

Actually, you can set the Kingdom management on Auto and forget about it, if you so wish. I specifically liked it for two reasons:

1. The urgency part.
2. It is the best management mechanic that comes close a favourite setting of mine, Birthright. Would *love* to see a Birthright campaign set in this mechanic.

Actually, you can't. I know because I tried. This feature doesn't work, or at least it didn't in mid-november. Many other people cited this on their steam reviews.

https://steamcommunity.com/app/640820/discussions/0/1730963192548458565/

 

[Sharpedge]

i'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt on making an honest mistake here even though you dude me, bro and insult my intelligence. yes you can chose to let people outside your party get the same xp as those in your party but at loss for your active characters. the xp rewards get split evenly between all playable characters. so instead of splitting a 3000xp reward between 6 characters at 500xp each, the reward gets split between maybe 12 characters at 250xp each. you can't be this stupid, can you? no wonder inventory management challenges you intellectually. FFS!

I need to respond to this first, because you're flat out wrong. What you're describing makes intuitive sense, but it's emphatically not how P:K works. Read the thread, dude. As many of us explained:

You are being retarded. We tested this to death. As long as you have a full party, there is no difference for the people in your party. It only helps them when you have five or fewer party members.

With a full party, XP sharing is a sanctioned cheat mode to allows the companions you don’t use to keep leveling at the same pace as the ones you do use. That’s why the option exists.

It works like this.

6 XP! Party of Six.
Sharing On = Everyone in party gets 1XP. Everyone back home gets 1XP. (Yes, this is more than 6XP).
Sharing Off = Everyone in party gets 1XP. Everyone back home gets NOTHING.

6XP! Party of Three.
Sharing Off = Everyone in party gets 2XP. Everyone back home gets NOTHING.

6XP! Party of One.
Sharing Off = Everyone in party gets 6XP. Everyone back home gets NOTHING.

Yes, one options means only those in party get XP. But if you got 6 in party you still get same XP.

If you got XP sharing turned ON your XP gain is divided by 6 and than everyone in your party and out of your party gets that amount.
If you got XP sharing OFF, you get a set amount of XP and it is only shared between those in your party.. which can be max 6.

It does not need to make sense, it is how it works. We tested all this in first 2 weeks of the game release.

Go ahead, test it out if you don't believe me.

well, then it's the devs who are stupid...
what they did there in that case is undermine their own systems, because they implemented training events in kingdom management to help you keep your inactive companions close to your level. those training events now serve no purpose.
it's so counter intuitive that i still don't believe it, but i will test it some day.

I think the training events are implemented for if you are running with a group that is smaller than size 6 and then decide you want to increase the size of your party. For example, I play solo with xp sharing off. If I wanted to suddenly move to a party of 6 I could do so and train them up in the process. The only issue is it trains them to the level it thinks they should be and not your actual character level, which means they will probably end up being useless anyhow since their performance is completely overshadowed by a single character.

 

[Reapa]

i'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt on making an honest mistake here even though you dude me, bro and insult my intelligence. yes you can chose to let people outside your party get the same xp as those in your party but at loss for your active characters. the xp rewards get split evenly between all playable characters. so instead of splitting a 3000xp reward between 6 characters at 500xp each, the reward gets split between maybe 12 characters at 250xp each. you can't be this stupid, can you? no wonder inventory management challenges you intellectually. FFS!

I need to respond to this first, because you're flat out wrong. What you're describing makes intuitive sense, but it's emphatically not how P:K works. Read the thread, dude. As many of us explained:

You are being retarded. We tested this to death. As long as you have a full party, there is no difference for the people in your party. It only helps them when you have five or fewer party members.

With a full party, XP sharing is a sanctioned cheat mode to allows the companions you don’t use to keep leveling at the same pace as the ones you do use. That’s why the option exists.

It works like this.

6 XP! Party of Six.
Sharing On = Everyone in party gets 1XP. Everyone back home gets 1XP. (Yes, this is more than 6XP).
Sharing Off = Everyone in party gets 1XP. Everyone back home gets NOTHING.

6XP! Party of Three.
Sharing Off = Everyone in party gets 2XP. Everyone back home gets NOTHING.

6XP! Party of One.
Sharing Off = Everyone in party gets 6XP. Everyone back home gets NOTHING.

Yes, one options means only those in party get XP. But if you got 6 in party you still get same XP.

If you got XP sharing turned ON your XP gain is divided by 6 and than everyone in your party and out of your party gets that amount.
If you got XP sharing OFF, you get a set amount of XP and it is only shared between those in your party.. which can be max 6.

It does not need to make sense, it is how it works. We tested all this in first 2 weeks of the game release.

Go ahead, test it out if you don't believe me.

well, then it's the devs who are stupid...
what they did there in that case is undermine their own systems, because they implemented training events in kingdom management to help you keep your inactive companions close to your level. those training events now serve no purpose.
it's so counter intuitive that i still don't believe it, but i will test it some day.

I think the training events are implemented for if you are running with a group that is smaller than size 6 and then decide you want to increase the size of your party. For example, I play solo with xp sharing off. If I wanted to suddenly move to a party of 6 I could do so and train them up in the process. The only issue is it trains them to the level it thinks they should be and not your actual character level, which means they will probably end up being useless anyhow since their performance is completely overshadowed by a single character.

so xp distribution system is bad period...

 

[mfkndggrfll]

Kyl Von Kull

Timed Quests against degenerate gamaplay.

Can you believe that I have tried to raise this topic since 2013 and only 5 years later has the codex become even faintly receptive to this?

This might be the biggest philosophical point of hatred I have against Kingmaker.

Games should be fun, not homework assignments with deadlines.

Who the fuck plays video games for fun?

 

[Shadenuat]

(2018) Year we learned codexers cannot into difficult combat, meeting creatures that overlevel them with no level scaling and quest timers.

 

[TemplarGR]

Who the fuck plays video games for fun?

No CODEXER, that's for sure... For the average codexer video games are work, not fun, probably because he is unemployed.

 

[Kyl Von Kull]

Kyl Von Kull

Timed Quests against degenerate gamaplay.

Can you believe that I have tried to raise this topic since 2013 and only 5 years later has the codex become even faintly receptive to this?

This might be the biggest philosophical point of hatred I have against Kingmaker.

Games should be fun, not homework assignments with deadlines.

No doubt.

However, games are also about challenge and tactics and strategy. Timed quests serve as adequate means to impose certain limitations that act to introduce urgency. There is a difference between boring, repetitive shit (read, PoE) and tactical, challenging gameplay.

Even if you enjoy that kind of difficulty mechanic, it should at least be configurable in the difficulty settings. This is a very controversial game mechanic, many of the negative reviews on steam are complaining about this, mine included.

It worked for Fallout. It was controversial back then too, but the people complaining about the timers were agents of decline.

Here’s the problem with D&D based CRPGs. If you want per rest abilities like Vancian casting and you want to let players rest whenever they feel like it, there needs to be some kind of cost for resting. Occasionally getting hit with trashmobs like in most of the infinity engine games is not enough of a penalty, especially when you can just hike to the nearest inn then hike back into the dungeon.

If there’s no penalty for resting (ahem, IWD2), you’ve basically turned a per rest system into a per encounter system. It strips out the resource management. Sawyer tried to address this with limited quantities of camping supplies in POE, but since you could just leave and come back, it didn’t really do the job. Mildly inconveniencing the player is not a good way to prevent rest spamming. Sawyer gave up on trying to fix this by making most abiltiies per encounter (and fully regenerating health) in Deadfire. That resulted in better combat in each fight, but you’re not really managing attrition anymore.

Time limits solve the problem. Even a generous timer makes you think twice about resting too often.

The other benefit is that, you know, most quests in CRPGs really should be time sensitive. Trolls are invading your kingdom? Well, shit, they’re not just going to wait around for you to come kill them. A plague that turns your subjects into monsters? It would be insane for there not to be a timer. You’re at war with Pitax? Fuck, better deal with that quickly.

Too many games try to create the illusion of urgency by having NPCs tell you how important something is, but then there aren’t any mechanics backing that up. A timer creates the reality of urgency.

You know how BG2 could be a better game? Imoen gets captured, the wizards tell you that she’ll be put on trial in 3 months and then executed. Instead of being a leisurely stroll through endless side quests, chapter 2 turns into a desperate race to raise enough money to get to Spellhold before your sister gets killed.

 

[Generic-Giant-Spider]

You know how BG2 could be a better game? Imoen gets captured, the wizards tell you that she’ll be put on trial in 3 months and then executed. Instead of being a leisurely stroll through endless side quests, chapter 2 turns into a desperate race to raise enough money to get to Spellhold before your sister gets killed.

If they did that then they'd need to make a lot of the side content in Chapter 2 (which in my eyes is where a lot of the great stuff is) be able to be tackled throughout the game so you don't necessarily miss out on a huge portion of it.

 

[Roguey]

If they did that then they'd need to make a lot of the side content in Chapter 2 (which in my eyes is where a lot of the great stuff is) be able to be tackled throughout the game so you don't necessarily miss out on a huge portion of it.

You can do all the stuff you didn't bother to do in 2 in chapter 6.

Though ideally chapter 6 would also have a time limit (x months or whatever until Irenicus becomes unstoppable).

The Underdark portions of BG2 actually do have time limits. A lot of people didn't like 'em of course.

 

[prodigydancer]

we learned codexers cannot into ... quest timers.

notsureifserious.jpg

Do you seriously mean to say that timed everything is a sane approach? I dislike timers but I put up with them when they are appropriate. E.g. in Tyranny you have several days to deal with the first part of the main quest but there's a good reason for that. In PoE you have limited time to resolve stronghold events (but if you ignore them it's not game over). I wouldn't even mind if Battle of Yenwood in TWM auto-failed if neglected.

But as a universal mechanic attached to almost every quest, timers are annoying as hell.

 

[Deleted Member 16721]

Seems like even the last bastion of hardcore CRPG design, the Codex itself, can't handle timers on quests, which by the way are enormous incline when done properly, as they were in Kingmaker. Sad.

 

[purpleblob]

If they did that then they'd need to make a lot of the side content in Chapter 2 (which in my eyes is where a lot of the great stuff is) be able to be tackled throughout the game so you don't necessarily miss out on a huge portion of it.

You can do all the stuff you didn't bother to do in 2 in chapter 6.

Though ideally chapter 6 would also have a time limit (x months or whatever until Irenicus becomes unstoppable).

The Underdark portions of BG2 actually do have time limits. A lot of people didn't like 'em of course.

It does? Then it must be quite lenient because I never noticed there is one... What happens if the timer expires?

 

[Roguey]

It does? Then it must be quite lenient because I never noticed there is one... What happens if the timer expires?

Everyone in the city goes hostile on you.

 

[prodigydancer]

So much denial ITT. Dear Bugmaker fanboys, this is your game right now:

Mind you, recent reviews are even worse on average (63% positive) than all time (69%). But certainly everyone is wrong if some fucktards from the Codex say so.

 

[Deleted Member 16721]

Because it's too hardcore for casuals. It's a niche game that sold to a wider audience because they thought it was Easy Street/Story Road like Pillars. They were sadly mistaken - it's a gameplay RPG and it's hardcore.

 

[Cael]

Because it's too hardcore for casuals. It's a niche game that sold to a wider audience because they thought it was Easy Street/Story Road like Pillars. They were sadly mistaken - it's a gameplay RPG and it's hardcore.

If they are aiming for niche, then Owlcat did Paizo a bad turn. Paizo runs entire conventions globally for Pathfinder. If all Owlcat can do with this massive audience base is to appeal to a bunch of fringe fanbois, they fucked up.

 

[Reapa]

books are bad because you can read them at your own pace

i disagree.

and before you counter with some retarded argument like books aren't games, get this:

there's action RPGs, tactical RPGs, story RPGs, dungeon crawlers, roguelikes...

i postulate that the best RPGs are fallout, arcanum, bg2, torment and morrowind. i don't care who's gonna shit on this game or the other, they all have one thing in common: they do a lot of things right: of these things they do right the most important ones are player freedom, attention to detail and quality content (writing and itemization with both scarcity and impact). notice that combat is not one of the most important aspects. this doesn't need to be proven, it's obvious. good combat is nice but only central to tactical RPGs and maybe dungeon crawlers.

why am i talking about combat? simple: your argument is that timers will make people rest less in a game with combat resources tied to resting. now i'm not saying timers don't work for that, even though they may fail with a big part of players including me after a few runs. i'm saying it's possible that they do improve combat but at the cost of story/content enjoyment and player freedom. and this is disastrous. it's negatively affecting 2 major aspects of a good story RPG! P:K is a story RPG! acting like it's a tactical RPG with too much focus on balance and resource management is bad design. it's the same thing sawyer wanted to achieve with his psychotic focus on what if players rest too much and it leads to the same lack of success at making a classic.

and how does all this relate to books? well story rpgs are closer to books than the other RPG types.

your argument about timers affecting motivation is retarded because it's not their job. motivation in a story RPG must come from the writing.

now, you can keep shilling or reread my posts till you understand them and notice how many valid points i've made and how few you managed to refute.

again, i'm not saying P:K is a bad game, i'm just saying there's no contest in a comparison to bg2. sadly

 

[purpleblob]

It does? Then it must be quite lenient because I never noticed there is one... What happens if the timer expires?

Everyone in the city goes hostile on you.

Oh the Drow city, yeah, I remember that.

 

[Incendax]

I am in the middle. I like time limits, but I also like points in the game where I can fart around and be a completionist. Kingmaker actually gives you lots of free time, but doesn’t tell you when those moments are coming up. So the first time through is like “shit, shit, shit” but the second time is chill.

 

[Kyl Von Kull]

books are bad because you can read them at your own pace

i disagree.

and before you counter with some retarded argument like books aren't games, get this:

there's action RPGs, tactical RPGs, story RPGs, dungeon crawlers, roguelikes...

i postulate that the best RPGs are fallout, arcanum, bg2, torment and morrowind. i don't care who's gonna shit on this game or the other, they all have one thing in common: they do a lot of things right: of these things they do right the most important ones are player freedom, attention to detail and quality content (writing and itemization with both scarcity and impact). notice that combat is not one of the most important aspects. this doesn't need to be proven, it's obvious. good combat is nice but only central to tactical RPGs and maybe dungeon crawlers.

why am i talking about combat? simple: your argument is that timers will make people rest less in a game with combat resources tied to resting. now i'm not saying timers don't work for that, even though they may fail with a big part of players including me after a few runs. i'm saying it's possible that they do improve combat but at the cost of story/content enjoyment and player freedom. and this is disastrous. it's negatively affecting 2 major aspects of a good story RPG! P:K is a story RPG! acting like it's a tactical RPG with too much focus on balance and resource management is bad design. it's the same thing sawyer wanted to achieve with his psychotic focus on what if players rest too much and it leads to the same lack of success at making a classic.

and how does all this relate to books? well story rpgs are closer to books than the other RPG types.

your argument about timers affecting motivation is retarded because it's not their job. motivation in a story RPG must come from the writing.

now, you can keep shilling or reread my posts till you understand them and notice how many valid points i've made and how few you managed to refute.

again, i'm not saying P:K is a bad game, i'm just saying there's no contest in a comparison to bg2. sadly

I thought the narrative advantages of timers would go without saying, but apparently on the internet there’s always someone who needs this stuff spelled out. Oh wait, I did spell this out:

The other benefit is that, you know, most quests in CRPGs really should be time sensitive. Trolls are invading your kingdom? Well, shit, they’re not just going to wait around for you to come kill them. A plague that turns your subjects into monsters? It would be insane for there not to be a timer. You’re at war with Pitax? Fuck, better deal with that quickly.

Too many games try to create the illusion of urgency by having NPCs tell you how important something is, but then there aren’t any mechanics backing that up. A timer creates the reality of urgency

A game’s mechanics should support the narrative. Nothing undermines the content like being told you’re on an urgent quest to save X and... you can take an eternity to finish it because there are no consequences for dragging your heels.

But, wait, why the hell am I explaining this to you? You say Fallout is one of your favorite games. You should understand exactly why timers are a great tool for storytelling.

I know that most people don’t like feeling rushed, but that’s precisely why timers make you feel like even your smallest choices in the game have real narrative consequences.

 

[laclongquan]

Because it's too hardcore for casuals. It's a niche game that sold to a wider audience because they thought it was Easy Street/Story Road like Pillars. They were sadly mistaken - it's a gameplay RPG and it's hardcore.

If they are aiming for niche, then Owlcat did Paizo a bad turn. Paizo runs entire conventions globally for Pathfinder. If all Owlcat can do with this massive audience base is to appeal to a bunch of fringe fanbois, they fucked up.

I played the game because I like the devs (both the Ruskies and MCA) and the concept is attractive (kingdom management). Not because Paizo and their fanboys. I dont really know or care about Pathfinder IP or content, because it's not interesting, a heavy sin in my book.

Amiri, a Paizo favourite it seem, is so boring and 2nd-tier I could yawn.

 

[Reapa]

books are bad because you can read them at your own pace

i disagree.

and before you counter with some retarded argument like books aren't games, get this:

there's action RPGs, tactical RPGs, story RPGs, dungeon crawlers, roguelikes...

i postulate that the best RPGs are fallout, arcanum, bg2, torment and morrowind. i don't care who's gonna shit on this game or the other, they all have one thing in common: they do a lot of things right: of these things they do right the most important ones are player freedom, attention to detail and quality content (writing and itemization with both scarcity and impact). notice that combat is not one of the most important aspects. this doesn't need to be proven, it's obvious. good combat is nice but only central to tactical RPGs and maybe dungeon crawlers.

why am i talking about combat? simple: your argument is that timers will make people rest less in a game with combat resources tied to resting. now i'm not saying timers don't work for that, even though they may fail with a big part of players including me after a few runs. i'm saying it's possible that they do improve combat but at the cost of story/content enjoyment and player freedom. and this is disastrous. it's negatively affecting 2 major aspects of a good story RPG! P:K is a story RPG! acting like it's a tactical RPG with too much focus on balance and resource management is bad design. it's the same thing sawyer wanted to achieve with his psychotic focus on what if players rest too much and it leads to the same lack of success at making a classic.

and how does all this relate to books? well story rpgs are closer to books than the other RPG types.

your argument about timers affecting motivation is retarded because it's not their job. motivation in a story RPG must come from the writing.

now, you can keep shilling or reread my posts till you understand them and notice how many valid points i've made and how few you managed to refute.

again, i'm not saying P:K is a bad game, i'm just saying there's no contest in a comparison to bg2. sadly

I thought the narrative advantages of timers would go without saying, but apparently on the internet there’s always someone who needs this stuff spelled out. Oh wait, I did spell this out:

The other benefit is that, you know, most quests in CRPGs really should be time sensitive. Trolls are invading your kingdom? Well, shit, they’re not just going to wait around for you to come kill them. A plague that turns your subjects into monsters? It would be insane for there not to be a timer. You’re at war with Pitax? Fuck, better deal with that quickly.

Too many games try to create the illusion of urgency by having NPCs tell you how important something is, but then there aren’t any mechanics backing that up. A timer creates the reality of urgency

A game’s mechanics should support the narrative. Nothing undermines the content like being told you’re on an urgent quest to save X and... you can take an eternity to finish it because there are no consequences for dragging your heels.

But, wait, why the hell am I explaining this to you? You say Fallout is one of your favorite games. You should understand exactly why timers are a great tool for storytelling.

I know that most people don’t like feeling rushed, but that’s precisely why timers make you feel like even your smallest choices in the game have real narrative consequences.

i don't remember feeling rushed by fallout. i don't remember feeling rushed by bg2 either. only P:K is all in your face about it. we're going in circles.
why does the narrative need support? shouldn't the narrative have spies that tell you trolls are marching towards your land so long before they reach it that you have time to prepare? is it really that important to kill them before they reach it? should you even be prepared or would it be better to be caught by surprise? how are you with a bunch of friends gonna kill them more effectively on their territory than you and your whole kingdom army on your own territory?

is a timed quest of picking up 20 flowers for the quest giver a better quest than just picking up 20 flowers for the quest giver without a timer? i don't think so. the timer does nothing to support the narrative.

and you're also ignoring what we said a few pages ago in this very thread. bg2 never said you must wait 240 days before venturing forth. this does happen with P:K and it's weird. not because you can't force the story to continue, but because you can't explore the rest of the game map before the timer runs out and tells the story to continue.