As to the issue of melee warriors and the severity of crit damage, yes this is very much a valid concern. And that much more so for someone like me who especially loves melee combat over all else. But the solution for me in P:Km is to turn off crit damage within the difficulty settings. And this then is also why I am now a hardcore supporter of P:Km-style devolution of difficulty settings into a mass of toggles and sliders that allow the player to customize their difficulty in very precise ways. I absolutely love this, and can longer accept anything else in a game as "normal." If an RPG doesn't allow me to customize my difficulty settings, that is now a huge negative against that game. I am so happy to see TA with Solasta, and potentially GrapeOcean with Black Geyser, going this route, and if BG3 were to do the same then that may be the big break that makes that game palatable for me.
I'm glad you found a solution that works for you, but this highlights my point. I don't think a game should make itself as imbalanced as Kingmaker and then "solve" that problem by allowing players to fiddle with various options until they balance it themselves. That's just poor game design, and especially un-immersive for an RPG. There are ways to build balance into the game world itself, BG2 for example has very strong melee weapons relative to ranged weapons. I'm not sure this was even done intentionally, but it resulted in solid balance between the risk but reward of melee versus the safety of ranged. I think BG2 would have been a much poorer game if you instead achieved this balance by fiddling around in the options screen.
A minor point first is that Valerie, while quite tanky, is unfortunately shafted with a pretty bad subclass. Literally pure fighter would be better, and would only trade off a hair of AC for much better damage output. That means you'd ultimately down threats faster, overall improving survivability.
This is true only if you're a min-maxer. Otherwise, her subclass is exactly right for her character from a roleplaying standpoint, which in my view is the only thing that truly matters with NPC companions. One can always build a mercenary min-max companion, but NPC companions are all about roleplaying. Besides, I always have her in my parties in my playthroughs, as my tank, and she's always fantastic in that role.
Just to dig a little deeper on this point, because I do think it highlights the fallacy that a lot of players seem to have that more options equals a better game. The problem is not that Valerie should have been some other subclass, but rather that the subclass itself is poorly designed. It's poorly balanced.
I don't think perfect balance is a desirable goal in a game, especially a single player game. But I also don't think it adds value to a game to have subclass options that are simply, objectively inferior. You can literally build a better tower shield using tank using the regular fighter class. And then just picking up some shield and tower shield related feats as you level. In fact, the tower shield subclass is so bad, that even as Valerie, you are better off ditching the tower shield for a medium shield until she levels up enough to get the feats that erase the tower shield's negatives. The player is literally motivated to NOT roleplay her correctly in order to get a combat edge. I don't think this is even a question of min-maxing, I'm not talking about some complex multi-class schema with Valerie that gets every ounce of edge out of her here.
These are basic, fundamental quality assurance issues that arise from having tons of options in a game and sparse time to test them all.
I of course strongly disagree. Options are everything for me, and the more available the better I will like the game. In fact, if you want to use BG2 as an example, I would say that having played P:Km I now find the old IE games much less likeable to play because of their lack of gameplay options.
No game can truly balance everything to satisfy everyone. So, even if the game is "balanced" a certain way, that "balance" (and I'm being intentional with the quotation marks here) is valid or acceptable only for some players and not others. Now, from remembering your past posts re. BG3, your way of looking at this is that then that game is simply not for those people, and they should just go play something else. I however, resolutely reject that way of seeing things, and believe game developers should strive to make their game accessible to as wide an audience as possible. And having a ton of options does exactly this. Between a "perfectly balanced" game that appeals to a narrower audience, and a somewhat unbalanced game that then allows the player to find their preferred balance from using the great many options provided to them in the game thereby expanding the range of people who will enjoy that game, the latter is ALWAYS superior to the former.
No game can truly balance everything to satisfy everyone.
This is a false choice. I'm not arguing that a game can be balanced to satisfy everyone. In fact, I think the Sisyphean goal of trying to satisfy everyone is what has created games with an explosion of options and settings but with poor core balance. It seems irrefutable to me that a game with fewer options requires less work to balance. And I think it's something of a cop-out for game designers to outsource quality assurance of the core game experience to players in this way. Players can't know, at first glance, which settings are going to produce a balanced experience they find acceptable.
To use your example of removing crits from the game: It's not initially obvious that this is the setting that's going to enable melee characters to do better over the long run. It requires tens of hours of investment, at least, to hit this realization. I think it's a misstep in design philosophy to force players to trial-and-error your games in this way. Contrary to what you're arguing, games that force you to deeply learn its systems and then trial-and-error a balanced experience, instead of having a finely tuned core one, are games that turn off most players. And sales numbers back this up. Deadfire did poorly. Kingmaker did fine I'm sure for a first game launch, but it pales in comparison to what Original Sin did. The market is telling you which games have broader appeal, should you choose to listen.
I am so happy to see TA with Solasta, and potentially GrapeOcean with Black Geyser, going this route, and if BG3 were to do the same then that may be the big break that makes that game palatable for me.
Well, I have watched a bit of BG3 stream by WolfheartFPS, and he was not happy with the frequency of point and click voices of his character (a new feature introduced in the latest patch), it was just too much for him. He was surprised to see there is a toggle option to change the frequency to occasional or turn it off completely. I mean, this is a rather minor feature, and it still received a toggle to turn it off/on or change how it works. So, there is a chance that many more features will be toggelable too and the game will be palatable for you after all
I don't mind having many toggles to my disposal, to be able to tailor the game to my needs, but I find it that with age I'm more and more impatient to go through the multitude of toggles and I find a well tailored difficulty settings to suit better for me. But as I've said, I don't mind having options at all.
No game can truly balance everything to satisfy everyone.
This is a false choice. I'm not arguing that a game can be balanced to satisfy everyone. In fact, I think the Sisyphean goal of trying to satisfy everyone is what has created games with an explosion of options and settings but with poor core balance. It seems irrefutable to me that a game with fewer options requires less work to balance. And I think it's something of a cop-out for game designers to outsource quality assurance of the core game experience to players in this way. Players can't know, at first glance, which settings are going to produce a balanced experience they find acceptable.
To use your example of removing crits from the game: It's not initially obvious that this is the setting that's going to enable melee characters to do better over the long run. It requires tens of hours of investment, at least, to hit this realization. I think it's a misstep in design philosophy to force players to trial-and-error your games in this way. Contrary to what you're arguing, games that force you to deeply learn its systems and then trial-and-error a balanced experience, instead of having a finely tuned core one, are games that turn off most players. And sales numbers back this up. Deadfire did poorly. Kingmaker did fine I'm sure for a first game launch, but it pales in comparison to what Original Sin did. The market is telling you which games have broader appeal, should you choose to listen.
No, what you are saying is the false choice, because "balance" is in the eye of the beholder. There is not truly an objective balance that one could point to for any game. So what you mean is simply the game being balanced for you. The BG2 example you gave in an earlier post is a good example. You see BG2 as a well-balanced game with a finely-tuned core experience. I profoundly disagree and do not see that game that way at all. For me BG2 is horribly unbalanced to screw over melee warriors and boost wizards, and it does not provide a good core experience for me playing the game. That's why, even though in most ways BG2 is an improvement over BG1, I much prefer playing BG1 and have never bothered to replay BG2. And precisely what would make me want to replay BG2 is if it came with a bunch of options that allowed me to boost melee warriors and deflate wizards to make the core experience an enjoyable one for me.
Also, in P:Km, I did not need to play the game for many hours and figure out everything about its systems and combat before I realized toggling off crits would work great for me. I was able to see that after just a couple of combat encounters.
As for the D:OS games, again no, they are not popular for the reason you state. They are popular because all their systems are shallow, uncomplicated, and easy to immediately understand and master. You don't have to invest much time or effort at all to figure out how to obliterate your enemies with big booms and flashes and firestorms. It's a lowest common denominator thing.
I don't mind having many toggles to my disposal, to be able to tailor the game to my needs, but I find it that with age I'm more and more impatient to go through the multitude of toggles and I find a well tailored difficulty settings to suit better for me. But as I've said, I don't mind having options at all.
Sure. I'm not saying get rid of the traditional packaged difficulty settings. I'm saying add a bunch of toggles and sliders on top of those settings, which is exactly what P:Km and Solasta do. Adding such options takes away nothing from the gameplay experience of those who don't care for/want those options. So objecting to such options is nothing more than about denying someone else their happiness is how I see it, the equivalent of saying to those other people: "This game is for ME and not for you. Go play some other game."
PKM though was horribly unbalanced when released and stayed that way for a long time until patched. It still is sometimes with some sudden difficulty spikes (at least it was last I played). I won't put words in someone else's mouth, but I interpret the previous statement about choice vs core balance that if PKM had been more properly balanced on release, those sliders and choices for the player wouldn't be as needed as they ended up being. And perhaps implementing all those sliders and choices during development made it harder for the dev's to create a core balance of the game pre-release. It's all speculative of course, but we are all free to have our opinion on the matter. Personally, I'd choose a higher degree of core balance at release with less sliders if the devs can find a pretty good balance themselves without player testing and patching. But its 2021 and I think that train has left the station mostly. Nowadays player testing via EAs, Betas etc is part of the development cycle in a way that is (perhaps) here to stay.
Aso, I think it's safe to assume no one here is out to deny other people their gaming enjoyment or to state games are solely for themselves and not for others. The discussion is not and should not be about the players, it's about the games mm'kay.
Aso, I think it's safe to assume no one here is out to deny other people their gaming enjoyment or to state games are solely for themselves and not for others. The discussion is not and should not be about the players, it's about the games mm'kay.
Really? So what should I make of statements made by multiple posters in this subforum in the past telling me BG3 is just not for me and I should move on and find other games to play?
Having options (in the form of toggles and sliders) is not just about game balance. Game balance is certainly one area where having options can affect things, but there are many other parts of a game in which options can matter to players.
As it pertains to the current topic, I think you'll find no one is really contesting including options/toggles for non balance related gameplay options.
I'm perfectly fine if a game decides to include a toggle to turn off blood fx or gore type options. There are some people who do not want that.
I agree largely with the above posters that a developer who decides to include dozens of difficulty specific settings is largely outsourcing their game balance from a difficulty perspective to the gamer and not to the development team. That might appeal to some people, but it doesnt appeal to me - I'd rather the game be balanced in a tighter fashion.
Well I guess it's a really good thing that no one out there cares about the "consensus" in this forum (on anything). Owlcat (P:Km, P:WotR) and Tactical Adventures (Solasta) have already moved decisively towards including large amounts of optional player customization in their games, including in game "balance." I am sure GrapeOcean (Black Geyser) will be doing the same thing. I also have a lot of confidence that studios like Obsidian, inXile, Bethesda, CDPR, and BioWare will be moving in this direction too in the future. Larian is free to play catch-up if it wishes (or not).
Aso, I think it's safe to assume no one here is out to deny other people their gaming enjoyment or to state games are solely for themselves and not for others. The discussion is not and should not be about the players, it's about the games mm'kay.
Really? So what should I make of statements made by multiple posters in this subforum in the past telling me BG3 is just not for me and I should move on and find other games to play?
Well, I can only speak for myself here. But, I'm going to buy WotR whether they follow my advice or not. Albeit, I am going to buy it post-DLC and not at launch, due to the bad experience I had with Kingmaker at launch. I still had a ton of fun with Kingmaker, post-DLC.
I'm also not imputing bad motives to developers that fail to see things my way. Nor am I disparaging players that like things I don't like ("lowest common denominator"). In fact, I think I've been perfectly clear in my critiques that I deeply sympathize with game developers that want to throw a lot of options and difficulty settings into their game. I merely think that this is a mistake that results in some pretty serious unintended consequences. One of those consequences for Owlcat was releasing an exceptionally buggy and imbalanced product at launch and suffering from mixed professional and general audience reviews. All of which they deserved imo. And much of which could have been prevented had they dialed back some of their ambitions regarding various options in the game.
I'm also deeply skeptical that they seem to be doubling down on this proliferation of options for WotR, but, as I said, I'm not going to be petulant about this disagreement.
So, I think this difference goes a long way towards explaining the different reaction critiques like mine have gotten than yours.
Just started a Persuasion build (lol). +15 Persuasion at level 1 seems a little unnecessary, but it never hurts to have friends .
There´s a 23DC diplomacy check 5 minutes into the game so it never hurts And the demoralization feats are still amazing even against demons.
Just to be clear, It´s a non-critical check. Most of them are. But to get the good stuff or get away with some roleplay decisions you have to be good at what you do. And that´s the way I like it he!.
Now you have party assist in your skills even in the home-base locations like the Defender´s heart where you do not have control of your entire group, so you have an entire party to help you get all the skills you need. You do not need to play a skill monkey, but it is useful.
We got ourselves a new patch! Mostly fixing all that broke the previous patch -sigh-
Talking about demons, in the end, they ended up separating demons and devils into several subtypes, there´s not the "Outsider label to rule them all" anymore that includes all demons, angels, aasimars, cambions, etc
Makes sense, they´re very common foes. So now the bane feature, ranger favourite enemy, demon slayer archetype and stuff like that are less useful than before.
You now have
Demons of magic/of slaughter/of strength/ and Outsiders as separate racial types.
Not very clear what enemies have this type, but I assume Balor is a demon of strength, Succubus a magic demon, etc
Some guy posted this in discord, but it´s not confirmed
On the topic of Favored Enemy, I did some testing and Demons of Slaughter hits around 60% of all demons, Demons of Magic hits around 30%, and Demons of Strength hits like... two types (one of which is the Balor).
BTW is it just me or did the second chapter just went crazy(In a good way)? It feels like a kate perry song now
There's Arueshelae in my bed
There's a pounding in my head
Potions all over the room
Drunken demons in the pool
I smell like cinnabar
Ember's passed out in the yard
Imps are on the barbeque
This a hickey or I´m cursed?
Last Friday Knight!
An interesting note. On the Steam page for this game, under additional content for the game, it already lists a season pass. If you click on that item, it says the pass is for the three upcoming DLCs for the game. So three DLCs confirmed.
Call me old-fashioned, this ones are more detailed, but the characters looked better in the first game TBH. New armors/creatures are great tho.
I like the new races´ looks, namely dhampir, the furry kitsunes and the rocky Oread, but elves still have this slenderman look, really slender and long-limbed, that is usual in the past years, like DoS or kingmaker.
The graphics were cartoony and still are IMO from that video. I really don't mind though, they're good enough to do the job.
The gameplay is what made Kingmaker stand out head and shoulders above other RPGs. That's my only wish for WotR - just more of the same please! Release is not far off now I think? So I'm hoping to get this game at the end of the year once they've managed to iron out the post-release issues they'll inevitably encounter.
I much prefer my elves to be as close to the Tolkienesque archetype as possible, so don't at all mind them slender per se. The somewhat weird look of PKM make them look everything but graceful and elegant though. They kinda look like when teenagers shoot up and grow faster in height than in width, hehe :P
I really hope Owlcat put much effort for location design this time. Copy & paste locations in Kingmaker was one of the major drawback for me. Also I hope the focus this time will be on the story and quests, not on running the kingdom or the army. I don't want this game to turn into strategy and above else I don't want to be resort to mods for this game to be even playable (and in the end probably mods were responsible for my messed 80+ hours Kingmaker run). I don't mind the art style that much, it's not the most eye appealing, but it's solid.
I always considered that the gameplay needs to be not intrusive to not take out my enjoyment of experiencing the story. That's why I don't find the multitude of character building options and tactical aspect of the game that much appealing. I mean, after installing TB mod (back the when I played there was no in-game TB option available yet) the gameplay aspect was fun enough to let me experience the story. I hope they will include TB option in WoTR after release.
I dunno, I backed the game, so I would definitely at least try it out. But this needs to be significantly better game than P:K for me to like it. I'm willing go give Owlcat a benefit of a doubt here, but this is their final chance.
The gameplay is what made Kingmaker stand out head and shoulders above other RPGs. That's my only wish for WotR - just more of the same please! Release is not far off now I think? So I'm hoping to get this game at the end of the year once they've managed to iron out the post-release issues they'll inevitably encounter.
The game comes on September the second, in 5 weeks. They confirmed the release date this week and the game will come in Steam, Gog, and Epic games that day.
The graphics were cartoony and still are IMO from that video. I really don't mind though, they're good enough to do the job.
Sadly the beta looks like that too, not only the video, I´ve been playing it for months now. =( But as you say, it's not that important, but I had some thoughts after watching the game about the new graphic designs and animations: I have to point out that the time they spent changing the game models does not really paid off, at least for me, but I understand it´s a matter of tastes.
The new animations for sword swings, for example, makes your character look like an anime swordsman: Making a twirl and delivering huge swings every time you slash an enemy it´s a little unrealistic, you get tired after two swings. The animation is ok, but it seems a little exaggerated making a pirouette every time you attack.
I really hope Owlcat put much effort for location design this time. Copy & paste locations in Kingmaker was one of the major drawback for me. Also I hope the focus this time will be on the story and quests, not on running the kingdom or the army. I don't want this game to turn into strategy and above else I don't want to be resort to mods for this game to be even playable (and in the end probably mods were responsible for my messed 80+ hours Kingmaker run). I don't mind the art style that much, it's not the most eye appealing, but it's solid.
I always considered that the gameplay needs to be not intrusive to not take out my enjoyment of experiencing the story. That's why I don't find the multitude of character building options and tactical aspect of the game that much appealing. I mean, after installing TB mod (back the when I played there was no in-game TB option available yet) the gameplay aspect was fun enough to let me experience the story. I hope they will include TB option in WoTR after release.
I dunno, I backed the game, so I would definitely at least try it out. But this needs to be significantly better game than P:K for me to like it. I'm willing go give Owlcat a benefit of a doubt here, but this is their final chance.
¿? Ok... let´s address it point by point.
We already know there´s a TB mod ingame since the kickstarter, it´s the same as the one in kingmaker you can turn it on and off, even in the middle of combat. In fact it´s the same TB mode in kingmaker, the owlcat guys (Cayden Cailean bless them) are updating the TB mod in kingmaker at the same time they update the beta, so if you play kingmaker now you will get an idea about how TB mode in WotR works.
A moment to point out that Owlcat devs are still patching and improving the kingmaker game 2 years later. Maybe some devs would take a hint =D
I disagree with your statement that they need to focus on the story and quests more than the first game. The first game, kingmaker, was all about the story and quests. The thing is the story was about founding and building a kingdom, so plots and quests around this were the bread and butter of your life as a baron.
Maybe a story about building a kingdom does not appeal to you, it´s ok, but saying the first game is not story-driven and with lots of quests is entirely inaccurate.
Back to WOTR, you are out of luck: Crusade strategy is a big part of the game, but if it makes you happy, it does not play like Kingmaker, you are not building a kingdom, you are commanding a war campaign.
To make a comparison, do not expect the Sims, you are playing Heroes of Might and magic, disciples, or total war Warhammer.
The management of your crusade is needed to get past some points of the game. There are several choke points full of demon armies and fortifications you cannot pass with a small group, you need an army with a competent general you have to hire and/or train yourself ( the generals are like another hero of HOMM, you can level him up and offers benefits to the army) and a variety of troops and mercenaries with different characteristics ( archers, troopers, mages, skirmishers, etc) you can use to build your batallions.
The army will open new paths for your party to explore and also offers some roleplay and strategy management options. Your advisors will also ask for your input in logistic/political decisions.
Right now there are parts of the crusade strategy minigame that are not in the beta, like the support structures in the camp, soldier upgrades, etc.
They will make an easy mode/no-strategy mode if you like to turn it off entirely the crusade management part like the one they made for Kingmaker, is currently not available in the beta (no point in playing the beta to give feedback if you can turn it off ).
BTW, I still do not get why there are people two years later still complaining about the kingdom management in kingmaker if you can turn it off entirely in the options just marking a box, barely without consequences but it´s good they have that option for people that do not like it.
As a final thought, the game improves a lot from the first game, and it´s a different campaign with different mechanics, still using the PF1e ruleset, but it has a lot in common with the first game, so I can already tell you you are not going to like the game.
I mean, it has a story, talkative characters, interesting dialogues, different plots, roleplaying options, etc but they are making a game following a different path than the one you are looking for @Cahir.
We already know there´s a TB mod ingame since the kickstarter, it´s the same as the one in kingmaker you can turn it on and off, even in the middle of combat. In fact it´s the same TB mode in kingmaker, the owlcat guys (Cayden Cailean bless them) are updating the TB mod in kingmaker at the same time they update the beta, so if you play kingmaker now you will get an idea about how TB mode in WotR works.
I don't follow WoTR development, so was not aware there will be TB mode in the game. That's good, it is how it supposed to be done. A choice between RTwP and TB.
A moment to point out that Owlcat devs are still patching and improving the kingmaker game 2 years later. Maybe some devs would take a hint =D
Well, my issues with Kingmaker are more on the core design level, not something that can be patched or tweaked at this stage. But it's good they are still supporting the game, I guess.
I disagree with your statement that they need to focus on the story and quests more than the first game. The first game, kingmaker, was all about the story and quests. The thing is the story was about founding and building a kingdom, so plots and quests around this were the bread and butter of your life as a baron.
Maybe a story about building a kingdom does not appeal to you, it´s ok, but saying the first game is not story-driven and with lots of quests is entirely inaccurate.
I don't think I'm wrong here, actually. Maybe it's because we have a slightly different understanding about how a quest should look like. The majority of activities that the player can perform after setting up their kingdom are selecting advisors to carry out some tasks and wait a specific number of days to see the results. I hardly call it questing, although it does progress a story, that can be truth. The real quests that involve gearing up your NPCs and actually visit some places, talking to people, fighting bad things are mediocre at best. They are neither bad nor memorable. I could even live with that, but in addition to (I don't shy to use that word) atrocious location design and tedious kingdom management and travelling makes me feel very disappointed about P:K. Unfortunately, I couldn't do anything about the former. As for kingdom management, what's the point of turning it off if it's a central aspect of the game? So I figured, I will tweak kingdom management and travelling with available mods, but I suspect I tweaked it a little too much, which resulted some internal timers and triggers failing to set off in a crucial part of the story. Basically an important location, crucial to the main plot, was not shown for me, even if I met all the requirements. Then the
barbarian horde came, and they crushed my kingdom every time, because I couldn't move the plot ahead.
And here we come to my problem with the game, which is mixed up expectations. I expected a true rpg game (more akin to BG series or DAO) with some additional kingdom building and other survival aspects. What I got is kingdom building sim with a story that is just an addition to that.
Maybe a story about building a kingdom does not appeal to you, it´s ok, but saying the first game is not story-driven and with lots of quests is entirely inaccurate.
As I've said, I don't find assigning an advisor to do the task and wait for result a quest. And the game centres around that. It is a story, true, but then again I can say there is also (a decent!) story in HOMM3.
Back to WOTR, you are out of luck: Crusade strategy is a big part of the game, but if it makes you happy, it does not play like Kingmaker, you are not building a kingdom, you are commanding a war campaign.
To make a comparison, do not expect the Sims, you are playing Heroes of Might and magic, disciples, or total war Warhammer.
That is what I fear... sigh. The good thing is that I like HoMM and Disciples series (haven't play Total War series, except the first Shogun long time ago). But again, what you are saying about proportions does not make me feel optimistic. This will be probably turn out to be a strategy game with (heavy) role playing elements, which again is not something that appeals to me that much.
They will make an easy mode/no-strategy mode if you like to turn it off entirely the crusade management part, like the one they made for Kingmaker, is currently not available in the beta (no point in playing the beta to give feedback if you can turn it off ).
Again, what's the point of turning it off if this game is designed around it? My only hope is they'll get it right this time. Since it is the core of the game, it should be one of its strongest points. But for this game to be appealing to me, they must also put an equal effort to make the adventuring, design location and questing (in the sense of gathering the team, looting places, talking to NPCs) great, which as I understood from your post is not necessarily going to happen
BTW, I still do not get why there are people two years later still complaining about the kingdom management in kingmaker if you can turn it off entirely in the options just marking a box, barely without consequences but it´s good they have that option for people that do not like it.
Well, I think I explained it twice already It's fine there is a choice, but it would be more meaningful if kingdom management would be just an addition to the game, not the core part of it.
As a final thought, the game improves a lot from the first game, and it´s a different campaign with different mechanics, still using the PF1e ruleset, but it has a lot in common with the first game, so I can already tell you you are not going to like the game.
I mean, it has a story, talkative characters, interesting dialogues, different plots, roleplaying options, etc but they are making a game following a different path than the one you are looking for @Cahir.
Well, as I've said I'm willing to give Owlcat one last chance, I owe them at least that.
You know, I never said Kingmaker is an objectively bad game. I understand that most of my issues is because I've had completely different expectations. This game, similarly to Solasta, is appealing to players that value the tactical aspect the most and to whom the story plays a secondary role and is there mostly to not distract them from whooping the asses of various monsters, looting stuff or building characters. For players (like me) that the story, location, world design and intricate interactions with party members are the vital part of the game, both of those games are not appealing that much. And I totally respect that, I would never persuade anyone to not play any of those games. Go, play any game you like, these are made exactly for that, to make us players happy!
Yeah, if that´s what you thought it was going to be the game you had very out-of-target expectations
Kingdom management was always a central plot event and focus in the game. I mean, the campaign is called kingmaker. =D
Believe it or not, it was worse in the Paizo original campaign. You do not even met Nyrissa until module 4
In my case it was the opposite: I played the kingmaker campaign of TT before and to be honest, I was expecting a game even more focused on kingdom development and devoid of a story that unites different modules, and they surprised me with a story, developing characters, different endings, and Nyrissa. They improved a lot the narrative of the campaign.
PD: I´m sorry to say that DEFINITELY you are not going to like the game XD
Not because WoTR does not have story, interesting characters, lots of dialogues, romances, roleplay decisions, etc, but because there is a lot of combat, exploration, puzzles and crusade and party management.
It´s an hybrid crpg, not a visual novel, a graphic adventure,( witch I like and played many of them, so I can compare) or a dating sim... you have a lot of action in between.
And honestly, that´s how I like it. I mean, when I am in the mood for a more cinematic or story-driven experience, I do not usually seek western CRPGs.
When I am in that mood I usually play Jrpgs, visual novels, cinematic games like the last of us, Disco Elysium, or Undertale; or just pick a book of Rothfuss, Sapkowsky, Robin Hoob, Abercrombie... (that usually have more solid stories because a book it´s all about the story)...
As you said before, if I pick a CRPG instead I will enjoy a good story if it has one, but I want to bust some heads too.
Maybe a story about building a kingdom does not appeal to you, it´s ok, but saying the first game is not story-driven and with lots of quests is entirely inaccurate.
As I've said, I don't find assigning an advisor to do the task and wait for result a quest. And the game centres around that. It is a story, true, but then again I can say there is also (a decent!) story in HOMM3.
With all due respect, I think you do not have your facts straight here.
You have to resolve quests to hire new advisors, to have access to several types of buildings you have to resolve some quests in a particular way (like making peace with kobolds, questing for Linzi the bard, or allow hell knights in your kingdom), to recruit artisans for your kingdom you have to do quests for them, to conquer new lands and build more settlements you need to fulfill some requisites that usually involve solving a lot of quests to free the lands, ...
And that´s not even counting on that the main story involves protecting your kingdom against a lot of dangers that appear on a yearly basis and that affects your kingdom stats and stability. So... More questing.
I´m pretty sure that in HOMM3 or Total war you do not have to let a boss live, let an immortal undead possess a man, or kill a weapon curser to have access to new weaponry, advisors, or buildings.
You are literally questing all the time to build your kingdom. As I said before, maybe you are not interested in kingdom management, maybe the quests or the main plot are not to your liking, maybe you prefer a more traditional definition of quests; and yeah, the narrative of the game is not top-notch in some chapters; but saying those are not quests or that the game is not story-based( when the game is about building your kingdom the first chapters at least) is, as I said before, inaccurate.
Yeah, if that´s what you thought it was going to be the game you had very out-of-target expectations
Kingdom management was always a central plot event and focus in the game. I mean, the campaign is called kingmaker. =D
Believe it or not, it was worse in the Paizo original campaign. You do not even met Nyrissa until module 4
In my case it was the opposite: I played the kingmaker campaign of TT before and to be honest, I was expecting a game even more focused on kingdom development and devoid of a story that unites different modules, and they surprised me with a story, developing characters, different endings, and Nyrissa. They improved a lot the narrative of the campaign.
PD: I´m sorry to say that DEFINITELY you are not going to like the game XD
Not because WoTR does not have story, interesting characters, lots of dialogues, romances, roleplay decisions, etc, but because there is a lot of combat, exploration, puzzles and crusade and party management.
It´s an hybrid crpg, not a visual novel, a graphic adventure,( witch I like and played many of them, so I can compare) or a dating sim... you have a lot of action in between.
And honestly that´s how I like it. I mean, when I am in the mood for a more cinematic or story-driven experience, I do not usually seek CRPGs. I usually play Jrpgs, visual novels, cinematic games like the last of us, Disco Elysium, or Undertale; or just pick a book of Rothfuss, Sapkowsky, Robin Hoob, Abercrombie... (that usually have more solid stories because a book it´s all about the story)...
As you said before, if I pick a CRPG instead I will enjoy a good story if it has one, but I want to bust some heads too.
Sigh, you misunderstood me. Visual novel is not the only type of game I'm looking for. I like combat, exploration and puzzles, but not in the form of running around the map type only to activate some event. I mean, I equally like PST or Disco Elysium as Baldur's Gate or Dragon Age Origins. I would also like PoE if not for a bland world introduction and overcomplicated game mechanics (role playing-combat proportions were perfectly fine, though). Another example - PoE 2 introduced your own ship and a significant amount of time you are travelling by that ship. It was done decently enough that I liked it and never got bored with it - which is the opposite of how I felt with P:K kingdom management and map travellijg.
This is to say I'm not opposed to a hybrid solution, it's just the execution must be very well thought. It was not the case in P:K. If it will be done properly in WoTR, there is a chance that I will like it. I'm not usually a fan of cluttering options with sliders for every possible game feature, but I would not mind for Owlcat to give us the possibility to tweak the tactical aspect of the game to our liking (not only by switching it off and on).
New additional campaign. Import your character from the main campaign to the moment of their greatest triumph — their victory over the Worldwound. Answer a plea from a powerful entity and leave Golarion behind to defend the space-time continuum against imminent collapse. Use your unparalleled mythic powers to do battle with truly invincible opponents. This additional campaign offers 7–8 hours of gameplay.
DLC #2
New additional campaign. The demon attack on Kenabres changed the lives of many. While the mythic hero and their loyal companions were busy liberating the city, the common folk had to find a way to survive, relying only on their humble skills.
Band together with other survivors and try to reach the Defender's Heart tavern, the last foothold of the crusader forces in the city. Choose who will join your group, and make difficult decisions about allocating scarce resources. Remember — in fire-ravaged Kenabres, every scroll and potion could make the difference not only in an individual fight, but also to your very survival. Act in the group's best interests or focus solely on your own well-being. Import your choices to the main campaign and look forward to seeing this story develop in other DLC. This additional campaign offers 6–7 hours of gameplay.
DLC #3
A new rogue-like mode with partial integration into the main campaign. In Alushinyrra's port, climb aboard a cursed ship that will transport you to a mysterious whirlpool lost amidst the Midnight Isles. Dive in and discover a dungeon whose proportions you can only guess at. Go exploring in search of glory, loot, and battles, and come face to face with a secret that will benefit either Nocticula, the mistress of the archipelago, or her enemies. The dungeon's levels, created using random zone generation, are populated with various enemies, devious traps, and secret rooms. You will return victorious to Alushinyrra — or else the cursed ship will return on its own, laden with trophies from the last expedition, to await new adventure-seekers.
I understand that most of my issues is because I've had completely different expectations. This game, similarly to Solasta, is appealing to players that value the tactical aspect the most and to whom the story plays a secondary role and is there mostly to not distract them from whooping the asses of various monsters, looting stuff or building characters. For players (like me) that the story, location, world design and intricate interactions with party members are the vital part of the game, both of those games are not appealing that much.
But this seems to be a somewhat subjective thing. I consider myself to be very strongly in the camp of NOT caring about tactical combat at all and even finding combat in most cRPGs to be tedious and boring, even while loving most of all good story, quests, characters, world design, lore, character interactions, etc. And EXACTLY on the basis of all of the above, I love the Pathfinder games along with the PoE games (yes I'll grant Solasta is not a good fit here) while hating the D:OS games (and strongly believing BG3 is following the same path as the D:OS games). But you clearly dislike the Pathfinder games and appear to love Larian's games. So to me, this is very contradictory and confusing.
I don't mind having many toggles to my disposal, to be able to tailor the game to my needs, but I find it that with age I'm more and more impatient to go through the multitude of toggles and I find a well tailored difficulty settings to suit better for me. But as I've said, I don't mind having options at all.
Sure. I'm not saying get rid of the traditional packaged difficulty settings. I'm saying add a bunch of toggles and sliders on top of those settings, which is exactly what P:Km and Solasta do. Adding such options takes away nothing from the gameplay experience of those who don't care for/want those options. So objecting to such options is nothing more than about denying someone else their happiness is how I see it, the equivalent of saying to those other people: "This game is for ME and not for you. Go play some other game."
I wasn't sure how much I agree with you on this issue, since I'm not a Pf:Km fan, and one of the several reasons is that I find the enormous number of toggles and sliders to be off-putting. But when you mentioned how it works in Solasta so far, I started to see it a little more your way, because I remember that one of the first things I did when I tried it was to find out about and turn off the feature that prevents clerics and paladins from casting spells with a shield equipped. If I'd had to keep working around that to play my cleric in a traditional manner, it would have turned into a total deal-breaker for me very quickly.
Comments
I'm glad you found a solution that works for you, but this highlights my point. I don't think a game should make itself as imbalanced as Kingmaker and then "solve" that problem by allowing players to fiddle with various options until they balance it themselves. That's just poor game design, and especially un-immersive for an RPG. There are ways to build balance into the game world itself, BG2 for example has very strong melee weapons relative to ranged weapons. I'm not sure this was even done intentionally, but it resulted in solid balance between the risk but reward of melee versus the safety of ranged. I think BG2 would have been a much poorer game if you instead achieved this balance by fiddling around in the options screen.
Just to dig a little deeper on this point, because I do think it highlights the fallacy that a lot of players seem to have that more options equals a better game. The problem is not that Valerie should have been some other subclass, but rather that the subclass itself is poorly designed. It's poorly balanced.
I don't think perfect balance is a desirable goal in a game, especially a single player game. But I also don't think it adds value to a game to have subclass options that are simply, objectively inferior. You can literally build a better tower shield using tank using the regular fighter class. And then just picking up some shield and tower shield related feats as you level. In fact, the tower shield subclass is so bad, that even as Valerie, you are better off ditching the tower shield for a medium shield until she levels up enough to get the feats that erase the tower shield's negatives. The player is literally motivated to NOT roleplay her correctly in order to get a combat edge. I don't think this is even a question of min-maxing, I'm not talking about some complex multi-class schema with Valerie that gets every ounce of edge out of her here.
These are basic, fundamental quality assurance issues that arise from having tons of options in a game and sparse time to test them all.
No game can truly balance everything to satisfy everyone. So, even if the game is "balanced" a certain way, that "balance" (and I'm being intentional with the quotation marks here) is valid or acceptable only for some players and not others. Now, from remembering your past posts re. BG3, your way of looking at this is that then that game is simply not for those people, and they should just go play something else. I however, resolutely reject that way of seeing things, and believe game developers should strive to make their game accessible to as wide an audience as possible. And having a ton of options does exactly this. Between a "perfectly balanced" game that appeals to a narrower audience, and a somewhat unbalanced game that then allows the player to find their preferred balance from using the great many options provided to them in the game thereby expanding the range of people who will enjoy that game, the latter is ALWAYS superior to the former.
This is a false choice. I'm not arguing that a game can be balanced to satisfy everyone. In fact, I think the Sisyphean goal of trying to satisfy everyone is what has created games with an explosion of options and settings but with poor core balance. It seems irrefutable to me that a game with fewer options requires less work to balance. And I think it's something of a cop-out for game designers to outsource quality assurance of the core game experience to players in this way. Players can't know, at first glance, which settings are going to produce a balanced experience they find acceptable.
To use your example of removing crits from the game: It's not initially obvious that this is the setting that's going to enable melee characters to do better over the long run. It requires tens of hours of investment, at least, to hit this realization. I think it's a misstep in design philosophy to force players to trial-and-error your games in this way. Contrary to what you're arguing, games that force you to deeply learn its systems and then trial-and-error a balanced experience, instead of having a finely tuned core one, are games that turn off most players. And sales numbers back this up. Deadfire did poorly. Kingmaker did fine I'm sure for a first game launch, but it pales in comparison to what Original Sin did. The market is telling you which games have broader appeal, should you choose to listen.
Well, I have watched a bit of BG3 stream by WolfheartFPS, and he was not happy with the frequency of point and click voices of his character (a new feature introduced in the latest patch), it was just too much for him. He was surprised to see there is a toggle option to change the frequency to occasional or turn it off completely. I mean, this is a rather minor feature, and it still received a toggle to turn it off/on or change how it works. So, there is a chance that many more features will be toggelable too and the game will be palatable for you after all
I don't mind having many toggles to my disposal, to be able to tailor the game to my needs, but I find it that with age I'm more and more impatient to go through the multitude of toggles and I find a well tailored difficulty settings to suit better for me. But as I've said, I don't mind having options at all.
Also, in P:Km, I did not need to play the game for many hours and figure out everything about its systems and combat before I realized toggling off crits would work great for me. I was able to see that after just a couple of combat encounters.
As for the D:OS games, again no, they are not popular for the reason you state. They are popular because all their systems are shallow, uncomplicated, and easy to immediately understand and master. You don't have to invest much time or effort at all to figure out how to obliterate your enemies with big booms and flashes and firestorms. It's a lowest common denominator thing.
Aso, I think it's safe to assume no one here is out to deny other people their gaming enjoyment or to state games are solely for themselves and not for others. The discussion is not and should not be about the players, it's about the games mm'kay.
I'm perfectly fine if a game decides to include a toggle to turn off blood fx or gore type options. There are some people who do not want that.
I agree largely with the above posters that a developer who decides to include dozens of difficulty specific settings is largely outsourcing their game balance from a difficulty perspective to the gamer and not to the development team. That might appeal to some people, but it doesnt appeal to me - I'd rather the game be balanced in a tighter fashion.
Well, I can only speak for myself here. But, I'm going to buy WotR whether they follow my advice or not. Albeit, I am going to buy it post-DLC and not at launch, due to the bad experience I had with Kingmaker at launch. I still had a ton of fun with Kingmaker, post-DLC.
I'm also not imputing bad motives to developers that fail to see things my way. Nor am I disparaging players that like things I don't like ("lowest common denominator"). In fact, I think I've been perfectly clear in my critiques that I deeply sympathize with game developers that want to throw a lot of options and difficulty settings into their game. I merely think that this is a mistake that results in some pretty serious unintended consequences. One of those consequences for Owlcat was releasing an exceptionally buggy and imbalanced product at launch and suffering from mixed professional and general audience reviews. All of which they deserved imo. And much of which could have been prevented had they dialed back some of their ambitions regarding various options in the game.
I'm also deeply skeptical that they seem to be doubling down on this proliferation of options for WotR, but, as I said, I'm not going to be petulant about this disagreement.
So, I think this difference goes a long way towards explaining the different reaction critiques like mine have gotten than yours.
There´s a 23DC diplomacy check 5 minutes into the game so it never hurts
Just to be clear, It´s a non-critical check. Most of them are. But to get the good stuff or get away with some roleplay decisions you have to be good at what you do. And that´s the way I like it he!.
Now you have party assist in your skills even in the home-base locations like the Defender´s heart where you do not have control of your entire group, so you have an entire party to help you get all the skills you need. You do not need to play a skill monkey, but it is useful.
https://steamcommunity.com/games/1184370/announcements/detail/3002196778009332539
We got ourselves a new patch! Mostly fixing all that broke the previous patch -sigh-
Talking about demons, in the end, they ended up separating demons and devils into several subtypes, there´s not the "Outsider label to rule them all" anymore that includes all demons, angels, aasimars, cambions, etc
Makes sense, they´re very common foes. So now the bane feature, ranger favourite enemy, demon slayer archetype and stuff like that are less useful than before.
You now have
Demons of magic/of slaughter/of strength/ and Outsiders as separate racial types.
Some guy posted this in discord, but it´s not confirmed
BTW is it just me or did the second chapter just went crazy(In a good way)? It feels like a kate perry song now
There's Arueshelae in my bed
There's a pounding in my head
Potions all over the room
Drunken demons in the pool
I smell like cinnabar
Ember's passed out in the yard
Imps are on the barbeque
This a hickey or I´m cursed?
Last Friday Knight!
Call me old-fashioned, this ones are more detailed, but the characters looked better in the first game TBH. New armors/creatures are great tho.
I like the new races´ looks, namely dhampir, the furry kitsunes and the rocky Oread, but elves still have this slenderman look, really slender and long-limbed, that is usual in the past years, like DoS or kingmaker.
The gameplay is what made Kingmaker stand out head and shoulders above other RPGs. That's my only wish for WotR - just more of the same please! Release is not far off now I think? So I'm hoping to get this game at the end of the year once they've managed to iron out the post-release issues they'll inevitably encounter.
I always considered that the gameplay needs to be not intrusive to not take out my enjoyment of experiencing the story. That's why I don't find the multitude of character building options and tactical aspect of the game that much appealing. I mean, after installing TB mod (back the when I played there was no in-game TB option available yet) the gameplay aspect was fun enough to let me experience the story. I hope they will include TB option in WoTR after release.
I dunno, I backed the game, so I would definitely at least try it out. But this needs to be significantly better game than P:K for me to like it. I'm willing go give Owlcat a benefit of a doubt here, but this is their final chance.
The game comes on September the second, in 5 weeks. They confirmed the release date this week and the game will come in Steam, Gog, and Epic games that day.
Sadly the beta looks like that too, not only the video, I´ve been playing it for months now. =( But as you say, it's not that important, but I had some thoughts after watching the game about the new graphic designs and animations: I have to point out that the time they spent changing the game models does not really paid off, at least for me, but I understand it´s a matter of tastes.
The new animations for sword swings, for example, makes your character look like an anime swordsman: Making a twirl and delivering huge swings every time you slash an enemy it´s a little unrealistic, you get tired after two swings. The animation is ok, but it seems a little exaggerated making a pirouette every time you attack.
¿? Ok... let´s address it point by point.
We already know there´s a TB mod ingame since the kickstarter, it´s the same as the one in kingmaker you can turn it on and off, even in the middle of combat. In fact it´s the same TB mode in kingmaker, the owlcat guys (Cayden Cailean bless them) are updating the TB mod in kingmaker at the same time they update the beta, so if you play kingmaker now you will get an idea about how TB mode in WotR works.
A moment to point out that Owlcat devs are still patching and improving the kingmaker game 2 years later. Maybe some devs would take a hint =D
I disagree with your statement that they need to focus on the story and quests more than the first game. The first game, kingmaker, was all about the story and quests. The thing is the story was about founding and building a kingdom, so plots and quests around this were the bread and butter of your life as a baron.
Maybe a story about building a kingdom does not appeal to you, it´s ok, but saying the first game is not story-driven and with lots of quests is entirely inaccurate.
Back to WOTR, you are out of luck: Crusade strategy is a big part of the game, but if it makes you happy, it does not play like Kingmaker, you are not building a kingdom, you are commanding a war campaign.
To make a comparison, do not expect the Sims, you are playing Heroes of Might and magic, disciples, or total war Warhammer.
The management of your crusade is needed to get past some points of the game. There are several choke points full of demon armies and fortifications you cannot pass with a small group, you need an army with a competent general you have to hire and/or train yourself ( the generals are like another hero of HOMM, you can level him up and offers benefits to the army) and a variety of troops and mercenaries with different characteristics ( archers, troopers, mages, skirmishers, etc) you can use to build your batallions.
The army will open new paths for your party to explore and also offers some roleplay and strategy management options. Your advisors will also ask for your input in logistic/political decisions.
Right now there are parts of the crusade strategy minigame that are not in the beta, like the support structures in the camp, soldier upgrades, etc.
They will make an easy mode/no-strategy mode if you like to turn it off entirely the crusade management part like the one they made for Kingmaker, is currently not available in the beta (no point in playing the beta to give feedback if you can turn it off ).
BTW, I still do not get why there are people two years later still complaining about the kingdom management in kingmaker if you can turn it off entirely in the options just marking a box, barely without consequences
As a final thought, the game improves a lot from the first game, and it´s a different campaign with different mechanics, still using the PF1e ruleset, but it has a lot in common with the first game, so I can already tell you you are not going to like the game.
I mean, it has a story, talkative characters, interesting dialogues, different plots, roleplaying options, etc but they are making a game following a different path than the one you are looking for @Cahir.
I don't follow WoTR development, so was not aware there will be TB mode in the game. That's good, it is how it supposed to be done. A choice between RTwP and TB.
Well, my issues with Kingmaker are more on the core design level, not something that can be patched or tweaked at this stage. But it's good they are still supporting the game, I guess.
I don't think I'm wrong here, actually. Maybe it's because we have a slightly different understanding about how a quest should look like. The majority of activities that the player can perform after setting up their kingdom are selecting advisors to carry out some tasks and wait a specific number of days to see the results. I hardly call it questing, although it does progress a story, that can be truth. The real quests that involve gearing up your NPCs and actually visit some places, talking to people, fighting bad things are mediocre at best. They are neither bad nor memorable. I could even live with that, but in addition to (I don't shy to use that word) atrocious location design and tedious kingdom management and travelling makes me feel very disappointed about P:K. Unfortunately, I couldn't do anything about the former. As for kingdom management, what's the point of turning it off if it's a central aspect of the game? So I figured, I will tweak kingdom management and travelling with available mods, but I suspect I tweaked it a little too much, which resulted some internal timers and triggers failing to set off in a crucial part of the story. Basically an important location, crucial to the main plot, was not shown for me, even if I met all the requirements. Then the
And here we come to my problem with the game, which is mixed up expectations. I expected a true rpg game (more akin to BG series or DAO) with some additional kingdom building and other survival aspects. What I got is kingdom building sim with a story that is just an addition to that.
As I've said, I don't find assigning an advisor to do the task and wait for result a quest. And the game centres around that. It is a story, true, but then again I can say there is also (a decent!) story in HOMM3.
That is what I fear... sigh. The good thing is that I like HoMM and Disciples series (haven't play Total War series, except the first Shogun long time ago). But again, what you are saying about proportions does not make me feel optimistic. This will be probably turn out to be a strategy game with (heavy) role playing elements, which again is not something that appeals to me that much.
Again, what's the point of turning it off if this game is designed around it? My only hope is they'll get it right this time. Since it is the core of the game, it should be one of its strongest points. But for this game to be appealing to me, they must also put an equal effort to make the adventuring, design location and questing (in the sense of gathering the team, looting places, talking to NPCs) great, which as I understood from your post is not necessarily going to happen
Well, I think I explained it twice already
Well, as I've said I'm willing to give Owlcat one last chance, I owe them at least that.
You know, I never said Kingmaker is an objectively bad game. I understand that most of my issues is because I've had completely different expectations. This game, similarly to Solasta, is appealing to players that value the tactical aspect the most and to whom the story plays a secondary role and is there mostly to not distract them from whooping the asses of various monsters, looting stuff or building characters. For players (like me) that the story, location, world design and intricate interactions with party members are the vital part of the game, both of those games are not appealing that much. And I totally respect that, I would never persuade anyone to not play any of those games. Go, play any game you like, these are made exactly for that, to make us players happy!
Kingdom management was always a central plot event and focus in the game. I mean, the campaign is called kingmaker. =D
Believe it or not, it was worse in the Paizo original campaign. You do not even met Nyrissa until module 4
In my case it was the opposite: I played the kingmaker campaign of TT before and to be honest, I was expecting a game even more focused on kingdom development and devoid of a story that unites different modules, and they surprised me with a story, developing characters, different endings, and Nyrissa. They improved a lot the narrative of the campaign.
PD: I´m sorry to say that DEFINITELY you are not going to like the game XD
Not because WoTR does not have story, interesting characters, lots of dialogues, romances, roleplay decisions, etc, but because there is a lot of combat, exploration, puzzles and crusade and party management.
It´s an hybrid crpg, not a visual novel, a graphic adventure,( witch I like and played many of them, so I can compare) or a dating sim... you have a lot of action in between.
And honestly, that´s how I like it. I mean, when I am in the mood for a more cinematic or story-driven experience, I do not usually seek western CRPGs.
When I am in that mood I usually play Jrpgs, visual novels, cinematic games like the last of us, Disco Elysium, or Undertale; or just pick a book of Rothfuss, Sapkowsky, Robin Hoob, Abercrombie... (that usually have more solid stories because a book it´s all about the story)...
As you said before, if I pick a CRPG instead I will enjoy a good story if it has one, but I want to bust some heads too.
You have to resolve quests to hire new advisors, to have access to several types of buildings you have to resolve some quests in a particular way (like making peace with kobolds, questing for Linzi the bard, or allow hell knights in your kingdom), to recruit artisans for your kingdom you have to do quests for them, to conquer new lands and build more settlements you need to fulfill some requisites that usually involve solving a lot of quests to free the lands, ...
And that´s not even counting on that the main story involves protecting your kingdom against a lot of dangers that appear on a yearly basis and that affects your kingdom stats and stability. So... More questing.
I´m pretty sure that in HOMM3 or Total war you do not have to let a boss live, let an immortal undead possess a man, or kill a weapon curser to have access to new weaponry, advisors, or buildings.
You are literally questing all the time to build your kingdom. As I said before, maybe you are not interested in kingdom management, maybe the quests or the main plot are not to your liking, maybe you prefer a more traditional definition of quests; and yeah, the narrative of the game is not top-notch in some chapters; but saying those are not quests or that the game is not story-based( when the game is about building your kingdom the first chapters at least) is, as I said before, inaccurate.
Sigh, you misunderstood me. Visual novel is not the only type of game I'm looking for. I like combat, exploration and puzzles, but not in the form of running around the map type only to activate some event. I mean, I equally like PST or Disco Elysium as Baldur's Gate or Dragon Age Origins. I would also like PoE if not for a bland world introduction and overcomplicated game mechanics (role playing-combat proportions were perfectly fine, though). Another example - PoE 2 introduced your own ship and a significant amount of time you are travelling by that ship. It was done decently enough that I liked it and never got bored with it - which is the opposite of how I felt with P:K kingdom management and map travellijg.
This is to say I'm not opposed to a hybrid solution, it's just the execution must be very well thought. It was not the case in P:K. If it will be done properly in WoTR, there is a chance that I will like it. I'm not usually a fan of cluttering options with sliders for every possible game feature, but I would not mind for Owlcat to give us the possibility to tweak the tactical aspect of the game to our liking (not only by switching it off and on).
The game will be available on PlayStation 4, Xbox One, and PlayStation 5, and Xbox Series X|S via backward compatibility later this year.
And also, a page to pick wallpapers if you want to
https://wrath.owlcatgames.com/media
Also, according to the steam page, as @kanisatha said, we could expect three DLCs
https://store.steampowered.com/app/1694801/Pathfinder_Wrath_of_the_Righteous__Season_Pass/
I wasn't sure how much I agree with you on this issue, since I'm not a Pf:Km fan, and one of the several reasons is that I find the enormous number of toggles and sliders to be off-putting. But when you mentioned how it works in Solasta so far, I started to see it a little more your way, because I remember that one of the first things I did when I tried it was to find out about and turn off the feature that prevents clerics and paladins from casting spells with a shield equipped. If I'd had to keep working around that to play my cleric in a traditional manner, it would have turned into a total deal-breaker for me very quickly.