Pathfinder Pathfinder : Kingmaker VS Wrath of the Righteous. Which one do you prefer?

[Lhynn]

Kangmaker, though I believe Wrath has a moments in which it surpasses the first game. Its just that for every high theres a low bringing the whole experience down.

 

[Xamenos]

I loved Kingmaker. I even liked the final chapters that filtered so many people. Meanwhile, my first playthrough of Wrath ended abruptly when I just lost all motivation of continuing before even reaching Drezen. My answer should be obvious.

 

[Lagole Gon]

I finished Kingmaker.
I stopped playing WotR maybe 8 hours before ending. I... I don't think I can do it.

 

[His Dudeness]

I finished Kingmaker.
I stopped playing WotR maybe 8 hours before ending. I... I don't think I can do it.

My experience was similar. Kingmaker plays better and has better pacing. The story is simpler and easier to ignore if you enjoy fucking around the map and exploring. WotR feels like a cheap tv show whose scope exceeds the budget and talent of its creators.

 

[The_Mask]

The positive parts of WOTR are itemization, music and the fact that you can rotate the camera (I liked that aspect a lot). Pretty much everything else is Kingmaker. But, again, I've only beaten WOTR with Aeon only.

The saddest part is that WOTR had no lessons learned in regards to bugs. Which is a bummer. No one will purchase an Owlcat release day 1 anymore. I know I won't.

 

[Humanophage]

I haven't played WotR and was under the impression that it was about similarly good in terms of gameplay, but with more annoying woke stuff. Was looking forward to it since I was very pleasantly surprised by Kingmaker. It is unfortunate that WotR is widely agreed to be worse, although things like better itemisation do sound enticing.

 

[Bigfass]

Kingmaker, obviously. It's not perfect (the kingdom management is easy and pointless) but it has a good story, good characters, fun exploration....

Wrath is just shit. Unlikable companions, tedious quests, boring loot... People hate on the crusade minigame; honestly I thought that was the best part, bringing back long-forgotten HoMM3 vibes.

On the other hand, if you're a gaymer, you should order up some bottom-friendly Postmates and get Wrath pronto. The game gays it up in the first 5 minutes, and you can gay it up some more soon thereafter (whew it's a good thing we got Postmates). You got orc women shattering glass ceilings too, even though she ends up fucking shit up because her qualifications ended with race, gender & dislike of cock.

 

[ga♥]

I haven't played WotR and was under the impression that it was about similarly good in terms of gameplay, but with more annoying woke stuff. Was looking forward to it since I was very pleasantly surprised by Kingmaker. It is unfortunate that WotR is widely agreed to be worse, although things like better itemisation do sound enticing.

Worse does not mean it is bad. On the contrary is a very enjoyable game, and does a lot of things better than Kingmaker. More build option, a overall better reactivity (but pretty uneven sadly, some mythics have better reactivity and content than others; angel is the king here). Also better soundtrack and the rotating camera, , also high level dnd is pretty boring but I think the mythic implementation was pretty good in WOTR (even though some are much stronger than others).
But it has super bad pacing. The "tutorial" part is huge, in fact too huge, the first chapters have super big areas one before the other (honestly Lost Chapel immediatly before the siege of Drezen is bad, either move lost chapel or reduce the map), while the last 2 chapters (better say last chapter plus an area which is a chapter on its own) are super rushed, no reactivity and overall a meh experience.
It is like they started big and they trimmed a lot at the end.
A lowering of quality that does not exist in Kingmaker in the same magnitude.
Kingmaker also had better writing quality.
All in all it has higher highs, and lower lows compared to Kingmaker.

 

[Haplo]

I haven't played WotR and was under the impression that it was about similarly good in terms of gameplay, but with more annoying woke stuff. Was looking forward to it since I was very pleasantly surprised by Kingmaker. It is unfortunate that WotR is widely agreed to be worse, although things like better itemisation do sound enticing.

Don't forget mounts!

 

[Yosharian]

Wrath has more features, but is taking way longer to get into a polished state. If it ever fucking gets there, copium

 

[Haplo]

More build option, a overall better reactivity (but pretty uneven sadly, some mythics have better reactivity and content than others; angel is the king here).

Aeon is also solid. Demon I hear as well, - particularly on his home turf.

Also better soundtrack and the rotating camera, , also high level dnd is pretty boring but I think the mythic implementation was pretty good in WOTR (even though some are much stronger than others).

Eh, the spellbook merging gives the Angel and Lich a huge EARLY (basically from the start of Act 3) power boost advantage - when coupled with the "right" full caster classes. But pretty much all five base mythic paths have merit and all bring something powerful and unique to the table. Admittedly the Azata feels the weakest if not going for a caster. While a demon's power, while mighty indeed, is perhaps too limited in use trough most of the game - and doesn't help its survivability.

But it has super bad pacing. The "tutorial" part is huge, in fact too huge, the first chapters have super big areas one before the other (honestly Lost Chapel immediatly before the siege of Drezen is bad, either move lost chapel or reduce the map),

I think it may have been intentional to spend a large portion of the game at relatively low levels and without world-shattering mythic powers. So I actually count that as a plus. I will admit that Lost Chapel -> Drezen siege marathon was a bit much and probably should have been divided by some more events / quests / more relaxing areas.

Kingmaker also had better writing quality.

There were some highlights, like Jubilost and Nok-Nok, but here we at least have Regill on a similar level. Otherwise its mostly a wash for me.

 

[Cryomancer]

e EARLY (basically from the start of Act 3) power boost advantage

I was casting tier 8 spells in late chapter 2 as in my first WoTR run. I did soloed a huge chunk of the game with no XP share, otherwise, I would be casting tier 7 spells. And tier 10 Lich spells are incredible powerful. But I could't cast them in my first run.

 

[Cyberarmy]

Like both of them. They are really different games mostly because of the scale.
When I want to play a lighthearted, D&D feeling adventure I'll play Kingmaker.
When my austic, buildporn lover side takes over I'll play Wrath.

 

[Sizzle]

Kingmaker is the only game that managed to scratch that classic Baldur's Gate itch.

WoTR suffers from too many problems (mostly with its story and characters) and some blatantly unfinished content (such as the Gold Dragon Mythic Path), but I'm going to wait until the Enhanced Edition (along with Season 2 of DLCs) is out to see how it compares to KM EE.

 

[Cyberarmy]

Kingmaker is the only game that managed to scratch that classic Baldur's Gate itch.

This

 

[gurugeorge]

I haven't played WotR and was under the impression that it was about similarly good in terms of gameplay, but with more annoying woke stuff. Was looking forward to it since I was very pleasantly surprised by Kingmaker. It is unfortunate that WotR is widely agreed to be worse, although things like better itemisation do sound enticing.

Worse does not mean it is bad. On the contrary is a very enjoyable game, and does a lot of things better than Kingmaker. More build option, a overall better reactivity (but pretty uneven sadly, some mythics have better reactivity and content than others; angel is the king here). Also better soundtrack and the rotating camera, , also high level dnd is pretty boring but I think the mythic implementation was pretty good in WOTR (even though some are much stronger than others).
But it has super bad pacing. The "tutorial" part is huge, in fact too huge, the first chapters have super big areas one before the other (honestly Lost Chapel immediatly before the siege of Drezen is bad, either move lost chapel or reduce the map), while the last 2 chapters (better say last chapter plus an area which is a chapter on its own) are super rushed, no reactivity and overall a meh experience.
It is like they started big and they trimmed a lot at the end.
A lowering of quality that does not exist in Kingmaker in the same magnitude.
Kingmaker also had better writing quality.
All in all it has higher highs, and lower lows compared to Kingmaker.

Yeah my thoughts exactly. I've still enjoyed big chunks of WOTR in terms of builds and combat, and the occasional quest (once I managed to just ignore the woke bs), but it's the pacing, as you say, that's off, compared to Kingmaker.

 

[Aarwolf]

I love them both, I can't help it.

 

[deama]

It's a bit more complicated for me because wrath of the righteous had a few technical complications that made me naturally not like it as much, even though I think it's the better game.
I had an issue where everytime I wanted to play the game, I had to reboot my PC, for some reason I wasn't able to make it work when I tried alt-tabbing, and finally (the worst one) cheat engine speedhack didn't work for some reason, would just crash the game after a minute.

In the end though I'll pick wrath of the righteous, I enjoyed it a bit more than kingmaker, and a different take to the godlike powers is welcome (mythic paths) and how they're tied to the overall story.

 

[Blutwurstritter]

I enjoyed Kingmaker more. But it had the benefit of being the first game of that sort in quite a while and everything tastes better on an empty stomach. My desire for third edition build porn was satisfied after one playthrough of Kingmaker, which constitutes a big aspect of both games. I also finished Wrath once but it did drag on once that craving was gone. Would I pick Kingmaker again if I had played them in reverse order for the first time? I can't say that for certain.

 

[mediocrepoet]

I'm actually not sure. I think the AP for Kingmaker was better, though it still ends in a finale that's way more epic than my preferences, but it generally avoids that up until the last chapter or two. On the other hand, the build options with new races, classes, and mounts is SO much better in Wrath that it isn't even close from that perspective. Wrath also improved the visuals, UI, etc. and had turn based options out of the box, all of which are significant improvements.

The main issues for Wrath in my mind are the bugginess and the content of the Adventure Path itself which is more on Paizo than Owlcats (other than that's what they chose to adapt). As a result, I guess it's Wrath by a hair, but I had to write this post and think through it to decide that.

 

[Shadenuat]

Kinda hard cause it's like choosing between BG1 and Throne of Bhaal.
While all I wanted was BG2.

 

[Iluvcheezcake]

I like both

 

[NJClaw]

Kinda hard cause it's like choosing between BG1 and Throne of Bhaal.
While all I wanted was BG2.

Choosing between BG1 and Throne of Bhaal is like the easiest thing in life.

 

[Shadenuat]

Well yea but it's like, a Throne of Bhaal but encounters and dungeons are actually good.
I guess I should have clarified.

And BG1, I love BG1 in spirit. In practice, it doesn't follow with its own principles and isn't a very complete or brilliant game. It's just that they got some of the adventuring D&D spirit right.
So did PK, but it looses its spirit half the way too.

 

[Cryomancer]

Throne of Bhaal greatest problem is that is a corridor boss fight followed by another corridor boss fight. BG1 is way better.