@DrHappyAngry " In this scenario if you take any of the good or even neutral options, you lose out. If you mug him or straight up kill him, you get stuff and maybe xp."
What, no rp exp?
Not in a game I run, since it shouldn't be easy to be good.
Have you tried going and doing evil irl? Its easier to just not.
It depends on what kind of evil you're talking about. Bwahahaha levels of evil aren't easier, but smaller evils are incredibly easy to do constantly, like bullying or stealing from the homeless or low income and disenfranchised who have no recourse. Smart evil like in the corporate examples above isn't easy, but in a lot of ways it was easier than actually doing the good thing and recalling tainted meds or standing up to the nazis.
I disagree. Going out of your way to harm someone is more effort than just...not.
It doesn't have to be going out of your way to perpetrate evil and not doing something to be good. How about this example, you see someone attacking someone for being gay on the street, do you stand by and do nothing or intervene and risk harm to yourself? In that example doing the right thing and standing up for them has risk to yourself. Walking by might be considered neutral, but doing the good thing here requires action. Most of the corporate examples from that cracked thread would have actually required going out of their to accomplish the good thing.
Someone doesn't have to directly intervene to do good here. They can call for help, call the police, etc. Some people are able to put themselves in harm's way, some aren't. That doesn't mean that good can't be done. If you want to argue that making a phone call is too much effort, well, why?
@DrHappyAngry " In this scenario if you take any of the good or even neutral options, you lose out. If you mug him or straight up kill him, you get stuff and maybe xp."
What, no rp exp?
Not in a game I run, since it shouldn't be easy to be good.
Have you tried going and doing evil irl? Its easier to just not.
It depends on what kind of evil you're talking about. Bwahahaha levels of evil aren't easier, but smaller evils are incredibly easy to do constantly, like bullying or stealing from the homeless or low income and disenfranchised who have no recourse. Smart evil like in the corporate examples above isn't easy, but in a lot of ways it was easier than actually doing the good thing and recalling tainted meds or standing up to the nazis.
I disagree. Going out of your way to harm someone is more effort than just...not.
It doesn't have to be going out of your way to perpetrate evil and not doing something to be good. How about this example, you see someone attacking someone for being gay on the street, do you stand by and do nothing or intervene and risk harm to yourself? In that example doing the right thing and standing up for them has risk to yourself. Walking by might be considered neutral, but doing the good thing here requires action. Most of the corporate examples from that cracked thread would have actually required going out of their to accomplish the good thing.
Someone doesn't have to directly intervene to do good here. They can call for help, call the police, etc. Some people are able to put themselves in harm's way, some aren't. That doesn't mean that good can't be done. If you want to argue that making a phone call is too much effort, well, why?
And all those still require taking action. No matter what, it's easier to not get involved. Not to mention the fact that by the time the police actually show up, they could be dead or have horrible injuries. How about this, maybe it takes place in the hood and you'll be considered a snitch for talking to the cops?
@DrHappyAngry " In this scenario if you take any of the good or even neutral options, you lose out. If you mug him or straight up kill him, you get stuff and maybe xp."
What, no rp exp?
Not in a game I run, since it shouldn't be easy to be good.
Have you tried going and doing evil irl? Its easier to just not.
It depends on what kind of evil you're talking about. Bwahahaha levels of evil aren't easier, but smaller evils are incredibly easy to do constantly, like bullying or stealing from the homeless or low income and disenfranchised who have no recourse. Smart evil like in the corporate examples above isn't easy, but in a lot of ways it was easier than actually doing the good thing and recalling tainted meds or standing up to the nazis.
I disagree. Going out of your way to harm someone is more effort than just...not.
It doesn't have to be going out of your way to perpetrate evil and not doing something to be good. How about this example, you see someone attacking someone for being gay on the street, do you stand by and do nothing or intervene and risk harm to yourself? In that example doing the right thing and standing up for them has risk to yourself. Walking by might be considered neutral, but doing the good thing here requires action. Most of the corporate examples from that cracked thread would have actually required going out of their to accomplish the good thing.
Someone doesn't have to directly intervene to do good here. They can call for help, call the police, etc. Some people are able to put themselves in harm's way, some aren't. That doesn't mean that good can't be done. If you want to argue that making a phone call is too much effort, well, why?
And all those still require taking action. No matter what, it's easier to not get involved. Not to mention the fact that by the time the police actually show up, they could be dead or have horrible injuries. How about this, maybe it takes place in the hood and you'll be considered a snitch for talking to the cops?
Not getting involved isn't really evil though. So again, taking deliberate action to do evil in the situation is harder than not doing so. As for our new scenario, I'd need more information. If I'm a snitch, that would imply gang violence. Getting between 2 gangs would be a very bad idea, and for a normal bystander, would just risk getting others caught up in it. Really, I'd need more information.
@DrHappyAngry " In this scenario if you take any of the good or even neutral options, you lose out. If you mug him or straight up kill him, you get stuff and maybe xp."
What, no rp exp?
Not in a game I run, since it shouldn't be easy to be good.
Have you tried going and doing evil irl? Its easier to just not.
It depends on what kind of evil you're talking about. Bwahahaha levels of evil aren't easier, but smaller evils are incredibly easy to do constantly, like bullying or stealing from the homeless or low income and disenfranchised who have no recourse. Smart evil like in the corporate examples above isn't easy, but in a lot of ways it was easier than actually doing the good thing and recalling tainted meds or standing up to the nazis.
I disagree. Going out of your way to harm someone is more effort than just...not.
It doesn't have to be going out of your way to perpetrate evil and not doing something to be good. How about this example, you see someone attacking someone for being gay on the street, do you stand by and do nothing or intervene and risk harm to yourself? In that example doing the right thing and standing up for them has risk to yourself. Walking by might be considered neutral, but doing the good thing here requires action. Most of the corporate examples from that cracked thread would have actually required going out of their to accomplish the good thing.
Someone doesn't have to directly intervene to do good here. They can call for help, call the police, etc. Some people are able to put themselves in harm's way, some aren't. That doesn't mean that good can't be done. If you want to argue that making a phone call is too much effort, well, why?
And all those still require taking action. No matter what, it's easier to not get involved. Not to mention the fact that by the time the police actually show up, they could be dead or have horrible injuries. How about this, maybe it takes place in the hood and you'll be considered a snitch for talking to the cops?
Not getting involved isn't really evil though. So again, taking deliberate action to do evil in the situation is harder than not doing so. As for our new scenario, I'd need more information. If I'm a snitch, that would imply gang violence. Getting between 2 gangs would be a very bad idea, and for a normal bystander, would just risk getting others caught up in it. Really, I'd need more information.
Evil wasn't so much the point of that scenario and I mentioned it could be neutral doing nothing, I was outlining that good wasn't necessarily the easy solution in every scenario and might actually require taking action at risk to yourself. Standing up to the nazis wasn't easy, but it was the good solution, whereas companies like Volkswagen made war machines for them that killed thousands and used slave labor that worked people to death. Take the scenario where Bayer distributed HIV tainted meds in the third world. They could have issued a recall that would have cost them money, but decided they'd rather just sell the drugs in other countries with less stringent protections than properly dispose of them, costing the lives of thousands. It did require a bit of effort on the evil side to shift them over, but less than doing the good thing and they made a lot of money off it.
Maybe it's just how we differ, but I do believe that for evil to triumph it only takes good men to stand by and do nothing. Good is not always the easy path, nor should it be. An actual example from my life was when I found a wallet downtown and went out of my to do sleuthing to find the owner and return the wallet with all the money and credit cards in it. There was no contact info in the wallet at all and the police were completely unhelpful. However I found a reference to a business in it and was able to google the business, find a phone number for the business and called them asking for the person. It was an effort, but I did the right thing at a cost of my time and could have kept the money in it without being caught.
I'm sorry if it seems like I'm jumping to different scenarios, but good and evil can't be covered in a single situation. Things are more nuanced than that.
I'm absolutely not condoning doing evil in real life, but I do enjoy playing the villain in games, so I particularly feel like I'm getting hosed when evil should have rewards to it like in real life. Tyranny was a great game for that. I probably just like being a villain in games because it's things I wouldn't do to a real person.
I don't necessarily disagree with most of this, but I think the idea that good is somehow hard is a fallacy. Most acts of good aren't dramatic or dangerous.
For some time now we’ve been getting multiple requests to allow you to upgrade your tier to include Beta Early Access, and today we have good news for you!
We’ve added new functionality to our pre-order portal which allows you to upgrade your tier to include the beta.
Those who pre-ordered a Boxed Edition will also be able to upgrade to Collector’s Edition and Premium Collector’s Edition.
In addition to that, we’ve added the Beta Early Access to every Kickstarter tier higher than Early Access.
This means that everyone who backed on Kickstarter or pre-ordered Wrath of the Righteous at a tier equal or higher than Early Access, will get the Beta Early Access automatically when the beta stage begins, you won’t need to take any additional actions to get your beta code.
For moar info see the latest kickstarter update. Guess we will now get more Beta testers for the upcoming development stage of WotR.
I especially like this mythic path portrait for the Aeon. We already saw the Lich one and it's wickedly cool looking. But being a humanoid galaxy in and of itself is a completely different kind of awesomeness.
And some news about the release date (from the YT comment): "Sorry, it won't be June, probably. More like the late summer. We'll let everyone know the release date once we are ready."
So the game is now in Beta with 4 Acts available to be played.
For those that have played the Alpha, I have a couple of questions:
1) how long are the first two acts?
2) how polished are the first two acts? I know the fourth act is still in rough shape, but I doubt I’ll play that far in an incomplete game. I just want to experience the story a bit and get a grasp of the world before committing to a full run when the game is released.
Should I start now, or should I still wait for a patch or two?
All I know is it's in their best interests to keep it in Beta as long as necessary. Kingmaker would be far more highly regarded on a wider scale if it hadn't come out of the gate with really crippling issues. I'll be eagerly looking forward to this for the Lich ascension path alone.
You can still buy the pre-order packages on the game's website. The minimum tier for the beta is $114.00. I'm mulling it over. Keep in mind this does, of course, include a digital copy for Steam or GOG when it releases.
I’d say wait. The only reason why I paid extra for the Beta was due to me wanting to back the project and it was the highest price point tier I was willing to pay, with stuff I wouldn’t mind getting.
The game, at this point is far from complete and paying more now for it (as opposed to either at release, or when the Kickstarter was happening) is IMO, ridiculous.
All I know is it's in their best interests to keep it in Beta as long as necessary. Kingmaker would be far more highly regarded on a wider scale if it hadn't come out of the gate with really crippling issues. I'll be eagerly looking forward to this for the Lich ascension path alone.
Agree with this. TBH, it's part of the reason I didn't back this sequel. I felt like they rushed the release of Kingmaker and my own experience of it was greatly soured by the game's early state. (A bug prevented me from progressing the game, and took months to patch out.)
I'm certain I'll buy this game and I love Kingmaker in its current state. Frankly, my experience with all these recent RPG's titles has been similar. It's just better to hold off playing until post-DLC, post-patches. You really get a phenomenal experience if you do your first playthroughs at that point. Has been the case for Pillars and Original Sin.
Of course it's your money and your time, so it's your call, and I fully understand folks who cannot wait to play these games. I'm lucky to still have a backlog of stuff I haven't gotten around to, but I really think discerning RPG players will be rewarded with some patience.
I can only speak as someone who came in WELL after KM had been patched to high heaven and back. It was a good experience then - although I was clearly unprepared for how hard the game was (I can only imagine the combination of bugs and unexpected difficulty for me may have been a deal breaker...)
I dont have the beta (and I generally dont play beta or EA games) - but I'm hopeful that their experience with PF:KM will ensure that this game has a cleaner release. I guess we'll see.
My experience with Kingmaker is that I came in when it was all patched up and I STILL managed to stumble upon a bug that prevented me to progress the main story. And unfortunately I was so sure I would love the game, that I backed WotR before even start playing P:K. I regretted that after wasting 80 hours on P:K. Even without this bug, the game was very uneven. There were parts of it that was great (game mechanics, combat, NPC companions), and some that was dull as hell (story, world, locations, kingdom management). Seeing a couple of minutes of live stream of WoTR I immediately felt déjà vu. At least visually. I really hope Owlcat do better this time, the game sure as hell have potential.
I bought Kingmaker when it released and the only noticeworthy bug I encountered was Magus spell attack damage multiplying with sneak attacks to ridiculous results and that bug that added stack dice to Rangerdude's bow damage every time you loaded a game (also to ridiculous results)
I would like another CRPG to actually play so I really hope they do better with this one than Kingmaker. Even without the bugs that game was still a mess with so many ideas I thought were terrible and should have been left on the drawing board. The writing was also very uneven.
Also I still constantly have technical problems with even trying to play it so I gave up. But it has the closest combat to the IE games and the mythic paths thing seems cool to me so fingers crossed, I guess.
I guess people's experiences with P:Km vary quite a bit. My experiences with it are, overall, extremely positive. I've never had a game-stopping bug, and none of the bugs I've encountered have bothered me at all. I like all the systems in the game, though some (including kingdom management) could use some further fine-tuning. The writing is generally okay, not stellar but not poor either. The main story and major side-quests are actually quite good. The companions are all fun and interesting to me. And no other game comes close with respect to character development choices and game difficulty customization. So for me, P:Km is among games at the top of my list for replay enjoyment. And as such, I can only expect P:WotR will be a significantly better gaming experience, making it my most highly anticipated game right now.
Amelia Tyler, the voice of Malady (D:OS 2), the Narrator (BG3), Nyrissa (P:K), comes back to P:WotR as the voice of the companion Wenduag ("a mongrel huntress, a merciless and vicious warrior whose cruelty will intimidate even the demons of the Abyss").
@jjstraka34, what @bleusteel said. If you have beta access, you should be able to request your key already. For anyone without beta access, they have said you can specify what key you want and get it only on the day of release.
Do we have any idea on the difference with regards to testing (or say, the reception to the beta?) between PotR and KM in order to know if PotR might released in a more polished state?
I only played Kingmaker once the "definitive edition" came out, and enjoyed a largely bugless game, but it is my understanding that when Kingmaker originally released - it was an unmitigated mess.
I enjoyed KM a lot. I backed PotR, and am excited for it. I'm just wondering if PotR is going to be one of those "wait six months and then play it" kind of situations or not. I guess only time will tell?
@jjstraka34, what @bleusteel said. If you have beta access, you should be able to request your key already. For anyone without beta access, they have said you can specify what key you want and get it only on the day of release.
I already have the beta key, I was wondering about the actual one. This answers that.
Comments
Someone doesn't have to directly intervene to do good here. They can call for help, call the police, etc. Some people are able to put themselves in harm's way, some aren't. That doesn't mean that good can't be done. If you want to argue that making a phone call is too much effort, well, why?
And all those still require taking action. No matter what, it's easier to not get involved. Not to mention the fact that by the time the police actually show up, they could be dead or have horrible injuries. How about this, maybe it takes place in the hood and you'll be considered a snitch for talking to the cops?
Not getting involved isn't really evil though. So again, taking deliberate action to do evil in the situation is harder than not doing so. As for our new scenario, I'd need more information. If I'm a snitch, that would imply gang violence. Getting between 2 gangs would be a very bad idea, and for a normal bystander, would just risk getting others caught up in it. Really, I'd need more information.
Evil wasn't so much the point of that scenario and I mentioned it could be neutral doing nothing, I was outlining that good wasn't necessarily the easy solution in every scenario and might actually require taking action at risk to yourself. Standing up to the nazis wasn't easy, but it was the good solution, whereas companies like Volkswagen made war machines for them that killed thousands and used slave labor that worked people to death. Take the scenario where Bayer distributed HIV tainted meds in the third world. They could have issued a recall that would have cost them money, but decided they'd rather just sell the drugs in other countries with less stringent protections than properly dispose of them, costing the lives of thousands. It did require a bit of effort on the evil side to shift them over, but less than doing the good thing and they made a lot of money off it.
Maybe it's just how we differ, but I do believe that for evil to triumph it only takes good men to stand by and do nothing. Good is not always the easy path, nor should it be. An actual example from my life was when I found a wallet downtown and went out of my to do sleuthing to find the owner and return the wallet with all the money and credit cards in it. There was no contact info in the wallet at all and the police were completely unhelpful. However I found a reference to a business in it and was able to google the business, find a phone number for the business and called them asking for the person. It was an effort, but I did the right thing at a cost of my time and could have kept the money in it without being caught.
I'm sorry if it seems like I'm jumping to different scenarios, but good and evil can't be covered in a single situation. Things are more nuanced than that.
I'm absolutely not condoning doing evil in real life, but I do enjoy playing the villain in games, so I particularly feel like I'm getting hosed when evil should have rewards to it like in real life. Tyranny was a great game for that. I probably just like being a villain in games because it's things I wouldn't do to a real person.
I especially like this mythic path portrait for the Aeon. We already saw the Lich one and it's wickedly cool looking. But being a humanoid galaxy in and of itself is a completely different kind of awesomeness.
And their beta has started: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/owlcatgames/pathfinder-wrath-of-the-righteous/posts/3089454
And some news about the release date (from the YT comment): "Sorry, it won't be June, probably. More like the late summer. We'll let everyone know the release date once we are ready."
For those that have played the Alpha, I have a couple of questions:
1) how long are the first two acts?
2) how polished are the first two acts? I know the fourth act is still in rough shape, but I doubt I’ll play that far in an incomplete game. I just want to experience the story a bit and get a grasp of the world before committing to a full run when the game is released.
Should I start now, or should I still wait for a patch or two?
You can still buy the pre-order packages on the game's website. The minimum tier for the beta is $114.00. I'm mulling it over. Keep in mind this does, of course, include a digital copy for Steam or GOG when it releases.
I’d say wait. The only reason why I paid extra for the Beta was due to me wanting to back the project and it was the highest price point tier I was willing to pay, with stuff I wouldn’t mind getting.
The game, at this point is far from complete and paying more now for it (as opposed to either at release, or when the Kickstarter was happening) is IMO, ridiculous.
But, it’s your money, do what you wish with it.
Agree with this. TBH, it's part of the reason I didn't back this sequel. I felt like they rushed the release of Kingmaker and my own experience of it was greatly soured by the game's early state. (A bug prevented me from progressing the game, and took months to patch out.)
I'm certain I'll buy this game and I love Kingmaker in its current state. Frankly, my experience with all these recent RPG's titles has been similar. It's just better to hold off playing until post-DLC, post-patches. You really get a phenomenal experience if you do your first playthroughs at that point. Has been the case for Pillars and Original Sin.
Of course it's your money and your time, so it's your call, and I fully understand folks who cannot wait to play these games. I'm lucky to still have a backlog of stuff I haven't gotten around to, but I really think discerning RPG players will be rewarded with some patience.
I dont have the beta (and I generally dont play beta or EA games) - but I'm hopeful that their experience with PF:KM will ensure that this game has a cleaner release. I guess we'll see.
Also I still constantly have technical problems with even trying to play it so I gave up. But it has the closest combat to the IE games and the mythic paths thing seems cool to me so fingers crossed, I guess.
https://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/wizard/arcane-schools/paizo-arcane-schools/elemental-arcane-schools/water/
YAY!!
Any idea when we can redeem our keys??
What key?
Just wondering if there is any word on when the codes to redeem the game on Steam or GOG will be going out for those who bought early access.
If you bought alpha access, that program has ended and is no longer available.
If you bought beta access, the keys should be in the owlcat portal:
https://wrath.owlcatgames.com/preorder
Do we have any idea on the difference with regards to testing (or say, the reception to the beta?) between PotR and KM in order to know if PotR might released in a more polished state?
I only played Kingmaker once the "definitive edition" came out, and enjoyed a largely bugless game, but it is my understanding that when Kingmaker originally released - it was an unmitigated mess.
I enjoyed KM a lot. I backed PotR, and am excited for it. I'm just wondering if PotR is going to be one of those "wait six months and then play it" kind of situations or not. I guess only time will tell?
I already have the beta key, I was wondering about the actual one. This answers that.