yeah but bg 3 obviously had the buget for it , if pathfinder wotr was fully voice aced and has cutscenes for every npc character interaction it would have been insanelly good
@@cykablyat3680i don't think it would be on the same level as BG3. Complexity isn't always a good thing. WoTR gives you many options, but it feels overwhelming. Its easy to screw up builds, magic isn't intuitive, among other issues.
Having played both, I found BG3 to be easier to get in to and much easier to understand all of the concepts. WotR has way more room for customization of your character and party. Almost too much for me to wrap my head around sometimes lol
The mythic system in wotr just blows anything in bg3 out the water. Being a lich king or a dragon or other things. I mean like what are we even talking about
Baldur's Gate 3 is a great game once you get past the opening scenes on the Nautiloid. WotR is a great game once you get past the first few hours of creating your level 1 character :)
I bought Kingmaker recently as I wanted to get into the Pathfinder series but once I saw the character creation I was like "yeeaaah... maybe another time". There is too much of everything for me lol
I’m a dnd 3.5 player for over 20 years now and even I find pathfinder overwhelming it’s crazy big. I wasn’t expecting that much from a video game plus seeing all those dlcs,that add loads of races classes It’s really intense. I feel like this would be the only game I play until I die
Growing up with Neverwinter Nights 1 and 2, Pathfinder Kingmaker and WotR were jolts of lightning from a genre that changed my life for the better. With BG3, I get to feel that jolt all over again. There's definitely a CRPG out there for everyone.
Yes! BG3 is the only game to sctrach my NWN itch again That is not to say I didn't love the Pathfinder games though (well, except for House on the Edge of Time and Act V WotR)
I'm really happy that the crpg genre is having this resurgence or resurrection thanks to both of these games. Looking forward to what other adventures are in store in the near future.
@@ArchangelLion Never gone, but you can't say that the CRPG genre has gotten much love outside of Indie circles since the early 2000's. This is truly a renaissance with the success of BG3. This dwarfs everything that came before it.
WOTR in retrospect left me with the same feeling an epic fantasy novel gives me. The highs were so memorable they will stay with me. BG3 feels more like a game. Strange thing to say since it *is* a game, hell both are, but that's the feel I'm left with. BG3 is more player choice focused in trying to create a dynamic experience whereas WOTR is telling a sweeping epic. There's nothing in BG3 that at least to me matches the intensity of moments like when you first fight off Minagho, take Drezen, etc.
@@sd5919 Ironically, for me it is the other way around. WOTR feels more like a game to me because of all the pre-battle buffing, the insane numbers stacking etc.
because of bg3, I have started playing shadowrun, underrail, and Im now looking at playing Pathfinder because of this vid. BG3 gave me a strong interest in the genre to the level that I can now appreciate other similar games with different mechanics and lore despite having less production value
Both are exceptionally well made games in their own right. WOTR is one of the only few games in which i have sunk over 500 hours in the past decade and i am 37 and no longer have dedicated time i used to have 15 years ago. Combat and mechanics wise WOTR wins hands down for me especially when you take into consideration 10 different mythic paths which gives immense replay value. The great thing about WOTR is that it was totally out of the blue for me, grabbing it out of steam sale and then enjoying it as much as i did was totally unexpected. BG3 on the other hand i already had high hopes as i already did multiple playthroughs of DOS & DOS 2 so my faith in Larian was already higher. In the end i enjoyed both a lot. BG3 is much more catered towards the masses which isn't essentially a bad thing while WOTR still keeps it hardcore.
I still remember playing WoTR and it was amazing. It is one of those games that despite being just an isometric top view and not having a lot of cinematic cut-scenes, is one of those stories that I will probably remember for my entire live. Seriously, it is this immersive & that good. If you played BG3, then I would highly recommend WoTR.
@@chrisathian5450 Unlike BG3, WoTR gives you options - you can play either with active pause (just like in old BG1 &2) or play in turn based mode. You just switch an option in game settings.
My angel run, though I‘m leaning more into the camp of finding righteous hero‘s being righteous and good rather played out, was so fun. I loved roleplaying a paragon of virtue smiting evil with the power of the good gods lmao so cheesy yet so over the top which makes it very entertaining.
As an avid enjoyer of both, I think that one other thing that BG3 does and WotR doesn't is all sorts of environment manipulation, like throwing objects, stacking crates, etc. (mostly copied straight from DOS 2, but nonetheless), and environment in WotR is completely rigid as it is in the old school CRPGs. Not a dealbreaker for most people but something to consider.
i mean it would also kinda be not implementable in wotr, since it doesnt work with the lay out. And making such features would make the game more damanding, which isnt that swell for people who have potatoe laptops and cant afford a gamer pc to run stuff like Baldur, like me.
I had the opposite experience. Pathfinder helped me understand BG3 much better. After playing WOTR and then returning to EA I felt like I could see the matrix
@@soccercrazed13 Played WOTR and Divinity Original Sin 2, love both and now when I am playing BG3 I feel like I can really appreciate the design of it. BG3 feels like a really great fusion of those
Its a sacrifice for BG 3. They intentionally don't let you see what your class could do in the future so they don't want to overwhelm you at fhe start.
@@niccoloparker3548 the level-up screen is the true boss battle. Weight your choices carefully, adventurer, because one wrong decision will spell disaster
Regardless of who wins or loses this "battle", I absolutely adore both games for their own reasons and ways. Because of WotR, I finally bit the bullet on learning other TRRPGs and now experiment with others on the regular. And BG3 still reminds me of the moments when I first started 5e and TRRPGs in general, and gave me that roleplay fix I didn't realize I was missing. I think it's good we are getting really fun CRPGs popping out left and right, whether its based off other TTRPG systems or something wholly their own. I hope this only encourages Larian, Owlcat, and other studios to keep experimenting with the properties they have and push each other to reach greatness together.
Have never played a CRPG before. Started to play WOTR with release of the GOTY Edition a few weeks ago. Guess I'm missing a hell lot on the mechanics side of things, but man do I love that game's entire look and feel. The entire game plays incredibly smooth and the entire UI and handling of characters feels so clean, polished and just simply pleasing to the eye. Incredible. Guess I'll spend years on this game alone. 🤗
I am a DM and I have two groups: The first one is a 5e group and all players in this group are new to pen & paper. The second one is a PF1e group that I play with for 11 years now. Both groups know about the other system and both groups have something they like about the other system. The same counts for me when I compare these two games. With that said there is one thing that makes BG3 the better game for me personally and that is when I play WotR I now and then think to myself: „Damn how many more fight does this dungeon have it’s starting to feel repetitive“ and that can annoy me now and then. BG3 on the other hand makes me feel like: „I wish there was a mega dungeon.“ especially because you could do that in coop with your friends and the combat is just pure fun. Another thing is that in BG3 you have way more options than in WotR besides abilities and class mechanics and these options are inspired from the table top. Push enemies off cliffs or daaamn beating up a goblin with another goblin… is just savage and fun and these are the moments tabletop players celebrate not the 110th time they killed 3 enemies in a row with their „attack“ but hey these are just my 2 cents.
I absolutely agree with you. I like WOTR but every time the game looks like it's taking up steam Owlcat throws hordes upon hordes of combat encounters upon you. With certain DLC making that even worse. I just feel drained after playing WOTR for a good bit.
Both are great games, but playing BG3 makes me want to go back into DDO or Pathfinder for that more complex system design. Gonna be interesting how the next Pathfinder games turns out in a post-BG3 world.
Oh yeah. DDO. What is sad is I left ttrpgs before 3e but kinda experienced it with ID2 and DDO (calling DDO 3e is kinda a stretch though). But man have I sunk so many hours into DDO since open beta beginning of 2006 to even this year.
This is truly a clash between two Titans. I love them both and i dream the day when a game that combines the graphics and the full voice-overs of BG3 with the Pathfinder class and combat system is released.
I would love to have a Pathfinder game with some changes to the gameplay system more like BG3 did. Totally a personal preference though. I love Pathfinder, but the system is not built for a videogame, and while I deeply respect Owlcat for getting such a close recreation, I'd rather have the experience of it as a video game (specifically combat and map gameplay) be more accessible and enjoyable than have a close to 1:1 recreation of the system. I also feel like a lot of CRPGs are trying to fit the exact mold of the older CRPGs, and it's boxed then into some UI choices I think could be heavily improved (I hate drag and select in games like BG1/2 and the Pathfinder games - it feels like I'm moving desktop icons).
@@genevievec.8002 Yeah, i mean when it comes to the class and combat systems it all boils down to personal preference. I played several campaigns in D&D 3.5 and never played any other version of D&D, so Pathfinder feels more familiar compared to BG3. I would be satisfied if Larian manages to release an expansion for BG3 with the lvl cap increased to 20 and the full spell list for all the casters. We shall see.
Your favorite movies and some of the best movies of all time would be worse if some of the most tense narrative moments were delivered from a zoom out camera where the characters are all standing still with their hands at their sides.
@@DPtdrysteThat's true but it's also true that there are a lot of books out there that are much better than most movies. Visuals really aren't everything. Nice to have good graphics and cinematics for sure but the lack of them in wrath really didn't bother me at all.
@@Denkart I feel like that's based on expectations. I'm not expecting a visual experience when reading a book. That means the lack of one doesn't bother me. When I'm playing a video game, I do expect visuals to correlate to the current actions being described. The lack of visuals becomes a problem at that point.
really hope the success of bg3 gives more interest for this genre, wotr is amazing and warhammer 40k rogue trader looks absolutely amazing, played the beta and it's just great
Great video! This really boils down to a comparison of Pathfinder and D&D 5e in a lot of ways! I have played D&D 5e for a while, but have some friends that played Pathfinder, and the things you have mentioned are always comparisons that come up. My issue... Pathfinder is intimidating! There are a lot of things in D&D 5e and then people say - but there's more in Pathfinder, and I get scared away haha! I like mechanics, but I don't think I am a mechanics-lord like you and other Pathfinder people. However, I think its awesome that we have both Tabletop games, for the different styles of players. I may someday try out Pathfinder WOTR just to see if I can hack it... haha!
PF2 looks very intimidating but that's in large parts because it's very frontloaded. Once you understand the rules, it's much easier to work with. PF1 as an extension of 3.5 is just a system that started with a boatload of stuff already present. Though as somebody who grew up with the earlier systems, i find 5E to be the other extreme, being overly simplistic and often outright anemic, lacking clear rules for common issues. Saying it allows for more roleplay is missing the mark in my opinion. There are other systems much more focused on that, where the roleplay is actually relevant to things. 5E just has so many holes in its rulesystem that you pretty much have to make up stuff yourself to get anything done. This also makes the system far harder on a DM, as they have to come up with nearly everything themself. In PF2, they will always at least have a guideline available if they so choose.
You have very good guides on the internet for a much more relaxed adventure. + there are a dozen of difficulty levels, so you can really choose something around easy / medium and having no problem for your first playthrough. For each class, there is a complexity level, which lets you know how easy it will be to mess up your class. So choose an easy class, an easy difficulty, maybe some guide, and the game will be a breeze. You'll learn things along the way and will eventually replay a new build on higher difficulty.
i do think crunchy systems like pathfinder 1e and 3.5 dnd are good for video games since games do most of the calculations for you, during a tabletop session it's fine if there are some complicated rules but you want to minimize the amount of calculations since you dont want to slow down the game unnecessarily
I definitely agree with your sentiments. To me, WotR is more like a "meatgrinder" session and BG3 is more of a "casual" session. I can also definitely say that I made the character I wanted in WotR, but I felt more immersed and connected with my character in BG3. Both are amazing games though, and the greatest part is we don't have to choose between them...we live in a world where both exist! =D
Enjoyed both, hard one for me really. BG3 definitely more favorable for the masses, Wrath is deeper with mechanics and builds possible, plus I’m a 3.5 person also. In the end I don’t think BG3 will get as much play time as I put into Wrath. Imagine Wrath with BG3’s production value, one can dream.
I actually liked the roleplaying part better in WotR. I never felt like my character in BG3 had much of a personality. You can ask questions, you sometimes have some dialog options related to your class or race; and then you have the very typical good and bad answers. But if you want to roleplay a good character, more likely it will feel and act like the good character of any other player. WotR, by having the alignment system, gave the conversations a bit more depth, and you can actually roleplay a character with a specific personality. Aside from that, I just felt like the quests and resolutions were more varied in WotR. Yes, you can do crazy things in BG3 mechanically speaking; make all sorts of strategies and the like for any encounter. But a lot of that, for me, doesn't add to the roleplaying of my character. Having my party pile up dozens of boxes to kill an enemy with one arrow is something that pulls me away from the immersion. That without mention that consequences in WotR felt more... heavy. And the ending felt A LOT less rushed than the one we had in BG3.
Other than not having completed BG3 yet, I agree completely. I remember hearing an interview with Larian talking about how they wrote each race and how with the elves it was going to lean in to their longevity and things like that, and I don't feel like that's come through at all. With WOTR I liked having your background, race, class, alignment, mythic path, and deity all possibly contribute to your dialogue choices.
There are different 'resolutions' to the acts, and major quests, but a sizable amount of dialogue is shallow. A class dialogue for druid that doesn't have any ramifications, nor does it resolve the present problem in any unique fashion. Some classes and races have neat unique interactions to resolve conversations in their own way, but some of them boil down to choices that you could already pick. Default good, default Evil.
@@etheris4140idk how people can expect a game with fully voie acted and mocap dialogue to have as much dialogue as a game where half of the dialogue is text. It feel better to roleplay in bg3 cause you’re more immersed in the world and feel for the character better, the decision feel more impactful cause the world feel more real. They obviously loose on some dialogue depth by going full voice acted and mocap + taking on very good voice actors but the boost in immersion and dialogue feeling more interesting since there is also the performance of the voice actor to take into account.
@@etheris4140shouldn’t call it shallow, it’s extremely good when compared to RPG with similar production value. Like I said making a CRPG with AAA budget and presentation require some sacrifice.
This is a great comparison of the single-player experience of both games. BG3 also supports multi-player campaigns though which is a totally different experience and not really covered by the video.
Multiplayer is the biggest reason why I'm now spending more time in BG3 than WotR, despite preferring WotR in pretty much every other aspect outside of presentation/production value. After all, even a bad game can be fun with friends, and a good game usually leads to cathartic moments you'll never be able to replicate in a singleplayer experience. I believe multiplayer and modding are two of the strongest factors that could keep a game's community alive. WotR has one, BG3 has both.
Personally I enjoy the more “compact” team and not having to buff to high heaven before each fight. Not to mention both games seriously need specific upgrades for their level up system: WOTR: NEEDS a build planner/saver, there are too many options/feats and having to go through that for 6+ companions is exhausting. BG3: Needs to present its level up features from the get go, not being able to plan a build from scratch doesn’t feel good, specially when the system is simpler and more digestible.
Got into WotR from the Mandalore video and don't regret it. It was a big learning curve but the characters and storymade it worth it. Looking forward to playing BG3 just got to finish disco elysim first. Thanks for the video and your perspective on the subject.
One of the things I like about BG3 over WotR is that it designed to be turn-based and, as a result, there are far fewer battles, and many of the battles are at least somewhat memorable: most battles are unique and have a definite purpose. In WotR many areas just throw you into battle after battle, often against the same enemies, and I find most of those battles to be tedious and cannot remember them distinctly, because many of them are almost almost identical to one another (aside from that, I really did like WofR though).
Most encounters in WotR are just stat checks. Success ultimately comes through preparation and, dare I say it, metagaming. This is why the character building part needs to be perfect, and Owlcat delivers on that. Other than that, BG3 is clearly better in encounter design. Grym and Ansur come to mind as fights that maximize the potential of turn-based combat.
@@geoDB. I was not really referring to the Pathfinder math grind, but just the sheer number of random and generic combat encounters in WotR and Kingmaker when compared to BG3.
I hope that one day Larian realise that opening barrels, crates, boxes etc. to discover nothing is just a huge time sink of frustration and boredom. Pathfinder is perfect in that regard - loot highlighted - scoop it up - move on.
For me the thing that takes it for BG3 is the encounter design and narrative behind those encounters. Every combat instance feels hand-crafted, like a set piece. In WOTR you run into a standard mob of spiders, say. Then a little further on you run into a group of giant centipedes. Then another group of spiders. And so on and so on. In BG3, most encounters feel like they have a reason, a piece of narrative behind them or that they connect to the larger narrative. They make sense within the context of the map and the story. It's rare that you'll just run into a standard mob of spiders and then another group and then another group. You'll get ambushed on the way to a location by a rival group looking for the same thing you are. Or you'll run into two groups fighting each other which has a little story about a struggle for resources or something. Larian are phenomenal at this and it makes the combat so much more interesting.
cRPGs are in a great place at the moment. the first game I ever bought was wizardry 7 and it's amazing when you now look at BG3 the long way we've come. And I just love it that we can have games like WOTR, BG3 and Disco Elysium but also Cyberpunk and soon Starfield and they all have a good healthy customer base. yeah as I said a great place.
I'm not going to lie it's been hard for me to hear people act like BG3 is the first crpg of all time when there are so many modern games like Pathfinder or Pillars of Eternity that aren't mentioned with anywhere near the same praise from mainstream outlets.
Cause it’s the first CRPG with high production value and focus on what mainstream gamer like the most (world design, level design, interaction, emergent gameplay, cinematic dialogue, character focus role playing…)
@ni9274 I mean it's not that mainstream friendly. It plays like almost all those other games I mentioned other than the cinematics and voice acting. The combat is turn based for one which is usually a complete deal breaker for the mainstream crowd. I like BG3, I just wish that the other CRPGs were given a chance too because they are just as good and if people appreciated bg3 they would like a lot of those games I mentioned too.
I love Wotr, but the game is much more of a hassle and a headache in general. And the dependency on buffs is obnoxious, since every fight you have to cast six hundred buffs on to win a fight X)
Yeah, my biggest problem with the game is buffing. Most games I turn the difficulty up for new playthroughs. But Pathfinder is the only game I turn down just so I not having to buff before every fight.
My 3 biggest issues with WotR: - Pre-buffing - The crusade system, which you can turn off but locks out content - Filler combat The first two I just fixed with mods, and honestly made the game amazing. I sunk sooooo much time into WotR. The filler combat is not as easy to fix. It just lead me to skip certain content on subsequent playthroughs. Never do Nenios quest. I also tend to burnout part way through act 3 and just skip a bunch of content to do finish the game.
what mods di you run for the balancing i actually liked the crusade but the 100 buffs combat is what made me stop enjoying it like halfway in@@Shrews85
WOTR no contest. It's closest thing to what it felt like playing BG2 for the first time, To me it was even better than that. BG3 is still a really good game, but WOTR is an another level for me.
If they merged together it'd probably result in the best game of all time. Build options and branching story paths of WOTR with production value, writing, immersion and rp of BG3 would be nuts
Just finished pillars of eternity, and it's the 3rd in the philosophical games around after Planescape torment and kotor 2 I will see if kingmaker is adept at the storytelling
"Writing, Immersion" ????????? Have we played the same game? I played it twice now btw, one normal playthrough and one Dark Urge, and if you ask me, the game is great, but what carries it is definitely the production value, not the story/writing/plot. Also the "roleplaying" really isn't as big as people claim it to be, and I was saddened to find that out on my second playthrough.
Godclaw blessing upon you. Helped greatly finishing two WotR campaign despite me being an idiot at math but loving the complexity and the stat reading nonetheless i think Pathfinder because of it's difficulty is deemed to stay this hiden masterpiece. While BG3 is a well awaited refreshing take with tremendous polishing thanks to Larian to the Crpg genre.
Two of my favorite games of all time. WOTR felt like a very complete game. The content was incredible. BG3 is fantastic, but some parts do feel lacking, especially the later acts *edit* @mortisimal gave me a like. Definitely made my day
@hazeem6715 you mean after sinking your teeth into over 100 hours of content? Bg3 starts feeling lacking early into act 2. Once again it's still a fantastic game, but comparing it to WOTR in terms of how complete it feels is night and day
@@alexjordan3830 Act 5 was hit and miss for me. Some of the best moments of the game coupled with a little bit of fatigue from doing so much. I think that's when I officially started getting tired of the game. With that being said, I love both games
I have just come off finishing my 2nd playthrough of BG3 in Tactician! Perfectly summarized video! Honestly, cant be a better attempt at explaining these differences. I think what you touched, but could not quite expand, is that in general BG3, has simply helped introduce and broaden the appeal of cRPG genre to a wider audience. That is its greatest achievement. On the other hand, it simply surprised me how easy the game was, and annoyed me that character creation did not show level progression like Pathfinder. As, i head into another run of Pathfinder to finish Azata(which i never did before), for me, having played a lot of cRPGs before, WoTR is simply the better game overall. Amazing role-playing moments in its own right for each path, great mechanical depth (spent my first 350 hrs making a hybrid skald to Trickster, before skalds were known to be OP), and a great looking game in its own right. I loved BG3. But i love Pathfinder more, and for me, is the better game.
Pathfinder WOTR will always be my favourite CRPG game. It introduced me to the genre and it will always hold first place in the CRPG games for me. Was a bit skeptical when I bought it and was afraid I won't like it but man am I glad I did. Both are great games and I hope we get to see more of these games from Owlcat and Larian.
I just have to say that the gamer in me loves you for how you go about your thoughts and reviews. The best "mind" for this sort of thing for games I've ever known was Adam Sessler, and you remind me of him.
As a predominantly action game player this is exactly why BG3 landed so well, where PF is always gonna be a hard sell. To overlook it is to misunderstand that some of us need physicality to connect with a combat system.
I love the character options for Wrath, from your base class to your mythic path. You feel like you can make a very unique character. And I do love the campaign, you feel like you are fighting a war against demons. Also shout out to companions that are genuine surprises in the CRPG genre. But Baldur's Gate with it's insane world reactivity and scope. Is just the new level for CRPGs. It's as close to a TTRPG that you can get.
I you have a good internet connection, you could play bg3 (and many other game) on GeForceNow (~10€/month subscription, there is a free version but too many people are queuing for it). With this, I can play with max quality settings without buying an expensive computer that would become obsolete after a few year. Of course, not everybody like subscriptions but i am just sharing in case you might be interested^^ The game is still a little buggy though so waiting is not a bad option either.
@@fallout3fanboy1 While I'm sure that might be true in your case, that definitely isn't across the board because my experience was the opposite. I'm running a very high end system and can run WOTR on max everything without the slightest hiccup or frame drop. BG3 for me, especially in act 3 in the city itself, really chugged a lot at times (I'm talking sitting at 5fps) and I found myself needing to drop a lot of settings down from ultra to run it with a semi decent framerate in 4k. That said, it's only just been released and I am sure these are optimization issues that will be addressed, along with the fairly frequent crashes I started to get in act 3...
Gameplay is the main element that dictates my enjoyment of a game. In Pathfinder, you win with a pre fight plan (your build and your pre buffs), the encounter itself and how you play has a much lesser impact. Whereas in Baldur's Gate 3, you have fewer possibilities but the decisions you take during an encounter have a greater impact.
The mechanics of concentration simply does not allow you to take all the buffs before the fight. Also, the arsenal of spells, especially the AOE in BG3 is very weak, in fact, only fireball is the only AOE with good damage that is available to us throughout the half game. And even at the end we don't have many options for big AOE damage. I started to get a little bored during the fights towards the end of the game. But you are right about WoTR, the result of most fights depends on the preparation of the party before the fight.
I have to say my biggest gripe with BG3 is actually the level cap, or rather how quickly you reach it. I was level 12 shortly into reaching the city and that area is HUGE. For me, leveling up and looking forward to power increases is a huge driving motivator, which pretty much made me rush all my companion's stories and the main story once I've reached the cap, skipping most of the side stuff. Which is a shame, as I've been really enjoying the game until that point, doing pretty much everything it had to offer (maybe my playstyle is also at fault here, I do need to discover everything and can't skip the smallest side quest).
D&D ultimately is more fun at lower levels. It's why I enjoyed BG1 more than BG2. I think being level 12 as you go into Baldur's Gate is a bit much. You probably should be level 6 or 7 in reality but Act 3 is the end game, so they need you to be able to reach the highest level..
@@NineNoRouge You cannot remove the level cap as it's impossible to level up beyond level 12 because Larian just haven't implemented anything beyond it.
@@wex28008 the battles are very tedious and EXTREMELY unbalanced in later acts. The council discussions and choices you make in between battles are way more interesting than the actual battles, I really do recommend modding that part of game away. Btw, if you enjoy this gameplay, check out Heroes of Might and Magic, or the very recent and superb Age of Wonder 4
@@BigBoss-rw4mn not when they have an ending locked behind it Then again I quit around act 3 around the backer content area(forgot the name) because it got a bit too tedious with thousand buffs and all. I might give it a try again some time if i ever get the time. But it's not my priority.
After playing 700+ hrs on WotR, BG3 feels like baby's first crpg... and im completely okay with that. This genre needs exposure to the mainstream audience
@@windblownleaf6450 For most RPGs? Sure. For CRPGs? Nah mate. Though it's not 100% Larian's doing however. DnD 5e rules are heavily dumbed down from what i hear.
@@williamcase426 Those "normies" can become CRPG lovers if their first impression is good. Start from a game that can "wow" them, which raises their incentive to search other games from the same genre, and then boom.
@@fitzviandraduivenab2790 I agree with your take, while i enjoyed rping in bg3 more because of the cinematics, companions interactions, and how they're just better in giving the impact of your action in face value, i prefer the combat in wotr and especially their classes. I will play wotr once more after i finish bg3 some amount of times, The dark urge is just satisfying to play if embracing the urge more than playing as the lich and devil in my previous wotr run year ago.
I feel like for many CRPG fans there is one more stealthy advantage that Larian has over the pathfinder games outside of production value and thats multiplayer. I suspect that while a lot of us play single player exclusively I personally know a lot of people who quietly play MP with their partners/friends and a somewhat streamlined character generation and levelling options helps with reducing the amount of time players spend on min-maxing their builds and more time adventuring and engaging with the story/party.
Multiplayer was always just a side show to the CRPG experience. You had some multiplayer for BG2 through GameSpy and Neverwinter Nights was famous for its DM'ing features when playing online games but all of the other games were fundamentally single player and even in BG2's case, the multiplayer was just kind of a second thought, the single player experience was much better.
I've done two full playthroughs but the amount of system mastery and exploitation required to do Unfair WoTR really killed my enjoyment. I went back to doing Casual runs and just having fun doing whatever on Real-Time combat. Turn based takes waaay too long.
@@voidtalongaming4637 that’s what I love about it. You don’t need exploits. You can beat every fight in the game straight up, but you need system mastery.
@@Stonepot113 Fair point, I would call myself lazy then. Most guides for Unfair I found pretty much had a spreadsheet of pre-fight buffing and while I may have done that 15 some years ago now I just enjoy playing. Makes me realize that the real reason 'easier' difficulties exist is for folks who don't have the time to burn or desire to burn. That said I'll still go hard core challenge mode on action RPGs for some reason. Personally, i'm glad you have found enjoyment from Unfair and that it's available for players like yourself. Everyone deserves a difficulty for them and WoTR does a fantastic job at letting you customize that experience.
@@OldyAlbert BG3 is so much fun. It is incredible. That being said, it’s max difficulty is like Daring on Pathfinder. I found Kingmaker Unfair to be harder in the early game that WOTR. Late game, there is no comparison though. WOTR all the way.
@@OldyAlbert I’m the same as you! I love games that are simpler. That being said, I am glad WOTR exists for when I want to scratch that itch for incredibly hard high level combat.
I waited a few days to comment because I wanted to re-watch this video after some time has passed and I can really think about what is being said. Ultimately I think you present the best possible approach: they are very different games whose ultimate goals are quite different, although I admittedly think that we're ultimately dealing with shades of grey here. I've played both games and enjoy them both, so I'm not dunking on one game over the other. It's just a fact that Wrath of the Righteous has more depth and diversity to its system. However, it's an insanely deep system, so having less complexity than WotR is hardly putting you in being overly simplistic. BG3 is, relative even to something like Dragon Age: Origins, much more complex. Consequently, I do think it's fair to wish that the system offered more challenges to flex or lean into that complexity. That said, given the production values, it's difficult to imagine something going that hard, which is another thing that I think makes the discussion a bit more difficult. It's absolutely fair to say that Pathfinder has a lot more options in terms of mythic paths and choice, but given the difference in cost, I find BG3 to be absolutely fantastic with the amount of variation it presents. I guess the TL:DR is, when comparing these games to each other, it can get very easy to lose context. A lot will depend on individual preference, and that's FINE. The best part is that we have so many quality options to chose from. I would love to see what Owlcat would do with a BG3-size budget (which is highly unlikely). Not because I think they would do it better, or show Larian how it's done, but because I respect both studios and what each one excels at. I can't lie: the production of BG3 only confirms what I felt with Dragon Age: Origins: even as someone who reads much more than he games, the production value of fully voiced and animated characters draw me into a video game in a way that text-boxes cannot. Should there be another CRPG drought, lord knows we've gotten enough quality games over the past several years to keep us content for decades to come.
One thing that I think is underrated in BG3 is how strong the itemization is. There’s a necklace, for example, that lets you add your spellcasting modifier to elemental damage you deal with cantrips. The lengths that you could take this by combining it with other magic items like the Potent Robe and Spellsparkler was utterly absurd. This one item caused my Eldritch Blast to go from doing a solid 30 damage to ballooning into a 200+ damage ability. Most games, WoTR included, really just give you flat bonuses instead. I’m going for a Monk run next just because of the items for it you can find.
This was the Most awaited video for me, can't believe it's been 2 weeks since this was out, was busy playing BG3 last weekend (Still in act 3, couldn't make much progreass as it kept crashing every save reload :/) and Starfield this weekend. It's good to know that even after playing BG3, WotR mechanism will be fun to try. BG3 is a fairly easy game, so I am hoping that WotR will be challenging. Great video.
I think this will always be based on personal preference for people just based on if they like the Pathfinder or 5e ruleset. Pathfinder: People love the customization and min/max potential. People bounce off of how obtuse and counter-intuitive the rules can be. It's very easy to make a bad character. WotR really taught me to enjoy the game, but I hated it on tabletop. I still prefer it as a video game. I'd love to see Owlcat to try 2e. 5e: Easy to pick up and play. If you single class you can't really make a bad character. Bounding of numbers stop things from getting too crazy. People used to systems like Pathfinder often dislike inability to customize and lack of min/max potential. BG3 offers more chances with crazy items and house rules.
@@Shrews85 it really boils down do you like to do cool shit or do you want to do basic stuff. Wotr is the insanely awesome deep game. While bg3 is really not that in depth at all
@@Lefthandrightband either you're not that far in, or we have very different definitions of crazy. The items do ramp up as the game goes on. There are some basic ones that just provide proficiencies or allow you to use CHA or such for melee attacks. There are a lot that provide unique buffs. Some might synergize well with alternating between melee and spell casting. There are a lot of unique weapon attacks on the game. People do some pretty fun theory crafting with mixing and matching different items and builds.
@@Shrews85 i beat the game already and am on my second playthrough. The items left a lot to be desired. They could have done a lot more . I like the game and im having a ton of fun but I mean if we are comparing this game to wotr it really is a big gap. Only thing holding back wotr is the 30 buffs every rest which you can use a mod to skip. The crusade management is skipable but I heard you miss out on things by using it and the mod for it is outdated. So 1 of the 2 main problems can be negated with a mod and the other you can skip at create a character and use a mod to get what you missed or just say fk it. Wotr is literally the best game crpg ever with these 2 things fixed.
I don't know, I felt better roleplaying in WOTR than in BG3 to be honest, and I think that Larian could've learned a lot by just looking at WOTR, but at same time BG3 is more compelling for me to play again just because of the overall quality and narrative. Still, I think Larian will put a lot of quality of life updates to make things more smooth and in a future Definitive Edition the game will be very "complete".
They both feel like different subgenres for me personally. I always only play on the highest difficulty and in BG3 I could just hop in and go for whichever build that I wanted without any challenge at all and roleplay the way that I wanted (took a bard specifically for that). For WOTR I had to plan out every single decision that I would make and I had to study almost more than I played (which I absolutely loved). Both are definitely really good games but fulfill completely different player needs. I will definitely replay BG3 for the writing (especially if they fix up the evil path and act 3 in the future) and play it together with friends again as well but since I am really into theory crafting I personally prefer WOTR overall currently. Hopefully BG3 adds a higher difficulty.
surprised you didn't touch on narrative and character writing at all. im not done with bg3 yet, but i generally like and prefer wotr's (and kingmaker's) companions more than bg3's.
I'm not sure if I'm misremembering, but I feel like WotR companions had a lot more to say about things out in the open and more directly interacted with other NPCs. In BG3 they feel more passive and more like you're their spokesperson or something, unless you're doing one of their quests directly.
@@mikeity2009 don't agree. wenduag and daeran are better written versions of the tropes lae'zel and astarion are respectively, and lae'zel is the best written companion in bg3. regill is also great. the rest are a mix of good to bad, the worst of which is probably either sosiel or greybor. that being said, kingmaker's companions are better than both games. larian has a bad habit of writing characters in an edgy way (which isn't necessarily bad) but also in a way where these edgy characters treat the world like a witty game they're playing, often throwing out nonchalant or aloof quips where it was inappropriate to do so given the circumstances the story. this problem was alleviated a lot in bg3 which i appreciate, however. like 4 of dos2's companions are all incredibly similar in tone and attitude, and i was hoping that issue would improve for bg3 and it did. lae'zel is evidence of that. edit: i'll also give owlcat tons and tons of credit for writing probably the best portrayal of a poly relationship i have ever seen in games in Octavia and Regongar. it's one thing to include one at all, but it's another to really nail it.
That’s very subjective, BG3 companions are a highlight just for the performance. They likely don’t have as much line of dialogue but the step up in performance compared to other RPG it what make them feel alive and interesting.
@@TranscedantAgain that’s very subjective, there are many reason to prefer BG3 companions other than pure writing quality, and bg3 companions will have less dialogue cause they are fully animated. Imo just the performance is enough.
I’m glad they both exist but it’s just hard for me to get into the more hardcore things of WoTr. The production value of BG3 really sells the story and helps me get immersed and WoTr doesn’t really have that
@@Maityist that’s totally fair and I agree with BG3’s finale being lackluster. I wrote this comment right before I finished it and I was pretty disappointed with the ending.
I was thinking about this topic but with Bg3 vs Solasta. I am a Solasta guy but I also enjoyed Larian's work in the past. I am 60+ hours in Bg3 and I can say that I like Solasta more as a D&D game but I like Bg3 more as a game overall.
I totally agree! When I started BG3 I found myself looking for things that Solasta does perfectly, like readying actions. Solasta's 5E implementation is really really good.
Yea I was hoping the vid would have been Bg3 vs Solasta. For me so far (still in act one). I think BG3 has a better campain but Solasta you can make your own campain for more replay.
Solasta is a great D&D emulator and I have had fun playing the designer dungeons coop even though there is next to no story. BG3 is a probably a better game and obviously a much more polished product. I always say Solasta is the heir to Icewind Dale which is a linear combat sim with a self made party. I like it much better than IWD though which bored me. BG3 is a worthy heir to BG 1 and 2.
@@jonathanpickles2946 I'd say the biggest strength of Solasta is the editor more than anything else, with the default campaigns being more a proof of concept. It probably has far more potential at longevity than BG3 has for that reason.
The mythic system in WoTR is so awesome. If I could just combine that with Baldurs Gate 3, level 20, 10 mythic, with all the animations and permutations… I’d never be able to leave my chair. An easy 500 hour play though. And 500gbs of data needed. Lol. I’ll leave it to my dreams for now. But I truly love both games. Very much worth the wait, and worth the price tag.
I think the aesthetic, art style and UI of Owlcat Pathfinder is amazing, I prefer to the realistic style. The big downside I would say is the balance and complexity is a bit of a nightmare and some of the balance design is nonsensical.
I went into pathfinder kingmaker with plenty of experience in this sort of game and I found it extremely difficult, to the point that I stopped playing. And I really liked many things in that game:the artstyle, the ui, the story, the complex mechanics. But it seemed that the game kicked my ass out of it
To be fair to them I think they did a very good job of implementing all the huge mess that is PF1 into a game at all. I think a lot of the nonsense is in the PF core rules. I am not a fan of it to declare my interest :)
@@cmdrf.ravelli1405 Kingmaker had some glaring issues initially that could make the game practically impossible to beat, if you made certain choices along the way or even just explored certain areas in the wrong order. There was for example a companion who you're supposed to meet and pick up from a certain location in a certain time frame. If you miss or decline him joining your party, the Kingdom management was basically doomed to fail, not instantly no, but literally tens of hours later in the playthrough. I think they fixed most of these issues in the enhanced edition and Wrath of the Righteous fortunately never really suffered from anything like that. They also let you manage the difficulty yourself and you should actually do that to a reasonable degree. The systems are so complicated that there really is no way to actually balance all the classes that well. Some are just naturally a bit weak while others have insane synergies that can basically break the game.
I couldn't agree more, I really miss the leveling and customization systems from Owlcat games in BG3, the story roleplay is very strong but the class fantasy is very lacking in comparison. WotR really makes your character feel like the badass embodiment of their class. I did a Warlock run on BG3 expecting more class flavor but it was just "slightly flavorful Sorcerer"
Agree with all your points. As someone who has been obsessed with CRPG's since Ultima 7 and BG1, I definitely missed the depth of mechanics and classes that WOTR has. But BG3 was still a phenomenal game regardless and when I look at where CRPG's were 10 years ago I am just thrilled to see games like both of these being made. Also I will just add that despite it being a simpler system than WOTR, it doesn't feel like they are actively trying to dumb RPG's down to appeal to a mass audience. Watching Bethesda, Bioware and many others do that to their games was heartbeaking, and I'm really hoping that doesn't end up being the way Obsidian goes now that they are shifting away from isometric (though I understand the need since Pillars 2 sadly didn't make money despite being a top tier entry to the genre). The fact that we have even two active studios making isometric CRPG's with giant scopes that can sit up there with the best of all time is fantastic considering the genre was all but dead for over a decade.
I have own pathfinder wotr since it came out, I have tried to play it twice, but it's just so overwhelming with the amount of stuff. I think bg3 did an excellent job making it really accessible. I love crpgs, been playing them since I was a kid but the amount of choices in wotr is just insane.
That's probably more down to Pathfinder than the game itself. 3.5 wasn't exactly new when Pathfinder was created, so it was rather stacked from the start, being essentially D&D 3.75. 5E on the other hand is a massively cut down version. Larian likely had to houserule a lot of things simply because the actual ruleset doesn't have anything for things that a video game necessarily must.
If you ever decide to fire up WotR again and just want proven, effective builds, I'd suggest @cRPGBro guides to both mains, companions, mods and even the world strategy/army mode. He focuses a lot on pets which isn't going to be everyone's ideal, but you can ignore that at your leisure (I mostly did) and still be confident you'll be very powerful. His guides will take you level-by-level through what to do and why for many different character archetypes. So you can just play and when you level up just fire up the video and within minutes you'll be back to kicking ass.
I would really love to see some video like "What Owlcat and Larian Studious have to learn from each other" when all of the QoL for BG3 and WH40k RT drop
One thing I noticed about BG3's role playing aspects that possibly is its greatest selling point, is that Larian focused on allowing many "choices" to the players, in the DnD model. Given freedom of choice doesn't really exist (specially not in games), the feeling of being in an actual tabletop game is Larian's greatest achievement for the genre is there for most of the playthrough. Of course that's done by controlling the narrative in a way that the choices you have available are the only possible ones (usually by playing the mystery/tsundere card, Larian does that a LOT), but at the very least that speaks for the writers' skills. My main thought is that, as it goes with DnD, the consequences for making absurd choices cannot be truly measured - because in real life, stealing or murdering people on a whim is not an equally viable choice as talking to them. Many human reactions are impossible to mirror, so Larian simply took the CRPG route of making NPC interactions dumb when necessary. And by dumb I mean, recalling what I mentioned above about mystery, giving the NPC a reaction based on a background the player will never know about and covering it up with an air of secrecy. This strategy also helps to build shorter dialogues, which works wonders for a fully voice acted game. WoTR does not care for that, the characters will give you hard reasons for what they do, and while you're open to disagree you most likely won't have a choice to actually disagree with their opinions, unless it's an obvious part of the context. Wrath of the Righteous is much rougher on that aspect, it won't hide it's railroading you, as somehow you're expected to accept the overall "choice model" you've chosen when picking a Mythic Path. You still have the freedom to refuse a Mythic Path, for example, but simply due to the length of the game they've already done a lot. BG3's choice system was a gamble that paid off, and one which probably what gave them a lot of trouble fail proofing, and while some incongruities still passed, it's very solid dynamic storytelling that also manages to do the fan service part very well.
One thing I have to say is your different guide helped me to enjoy playing Pathfinder even more by a lot. About Baldur's vs. Pathfinder. Even if I played all the BG at release, I really prefer Pathfinder mostly because of the number of classes and build personalization, and I don't know why I feel better when my character levels up and progresses in its build in Pathfinder than in BG.
Leveling up in Pathfinder is better because you actually get shit. in 5E there's a lot of dead levels where u dont really get anything. Espeically if you take score increases
@@Omegeddon Ability increase, or sharpshooter (+10 damage per attack), or greatweapon master (+10 damage per attack), or tavern brawler (+damage AND +10 attack). Those are the most relevant feats. If you multiclass, you'll probably just get ability increase and maybe one of those aformentioned feats. The feats are just boring, nevermind the balance issue. I never understood why they make you choose between higher stats and feats in 5e, it's almost never a real choice
great video. So many people sleeping on Wrath, It's such a great game. You can get your own chaos dragon who loves cookies, you can become a lich, music is better, the battle for the city is brilliant, and Wrath has what BG3 does not, a clear antagonist, Areelu Vorlesh, and a truly hidden outcome that is very very difficult to pull off.
I just played both games. BG3 is obviously superior in budget and story. But there are some things in WotR that are actually better. The options for difficulty are really great. WotR also uses the person in your party with the highest stat for each check. Click a trap and your rogue goes for it automatically. WotR also has way superior animal companions and you can mount a horse. I really liked both. WotR was surprisingly good.
after completing BG3 2 times i noticed that it really lacks evil options. Especially if you compare it with WOTR where it feels on the same level of development for both sides. BG3 just offers just good and chaotic evil options. You can really feel it at the ending where just for some reasons evil ending doesn`t have epilogue
Its my only problem alongside lack of customization...if bg had the customization of just divinity 2...I'd probably never stop playing it for years. I can see that I'll get like 2 or 3 playthroughs from bg.
@@Ezullof have completed game completed game for another two times since then. One of those was evil dark urge and nothing really changed exept ending. Now it exists and its pretty good.
Wotrs build variety captivated me with my relative lack of knowledge of crags at that point, only having played neverwinter nights extensively for true rpgs
I recently played WOTR, haven’t played BG3 yet. I loved WOTR, I’m a huge RPG fan and love build crafting. WOTR is amazing in that aspect, and allows you to respec without much penalty. My biggest problem with it though is the performance. On my PS5 I had many crashes, the constant loading screens which take forever and just a very cleanly experience overall. I couldn’t get myself to finish the game, got halfway through chapter 4 and just gave up
The performance is probably better now than it was on release, but release WotR had some fascinating issues. Like stutter whenever you kill an enemy in turn based mode, memory leaks causing the framerate to get progressively worse as your session extends, saves keeping so much junk data that towards the end of the game, the loading times will be several times longer than when you begun...
@@val7885 They still have all these issues. It's honestly the worst performing game I've played on the PS5. And it's a shame, because the game itself is amazing. When I started and looked up all the classes, subclasses and options, I thought I might play the game several times. Then when I discovered mythic paths, I was certain I wanted to play the game once as each mythic path. But reality is, I couldn't even finish my first playthrough because of the performance issues.
@@ShikaStyle123 That is a real shame. I must admit that personally I burned out on the game because I just don't enjoy the mathfinder part of it, so the gameplay was largely a bother and the story couldn't carry the massive game alone for me. But it's sad to hear (or, well, read I guess) that you actually enjoyed the game itself but the performance ruined it for you.
My first game in the genre was Solasta and I played like 5 hours of it before getting bored and never opening angain. In Baldur's Gate III I already have 50 hours from my solo campaing plus extra 25 from a coop one and I'm loving the game. After this video I will def give WotR a try.
does pathfinder make combat look fun like dos2 for instance? or is it just a game of numbers? like if the spells and abilities have enough visual appeal that adds to the fun of combat it may justify trying to get through the game's steep learning curve
Spell visuals at least look fantastic in WotR. Can't say the same for martials, there's really only two attack animations for every weapon in the game. It's one of the points WotR really loses at against D:OS 2 and BG3. I'd only recommend WotR's combat if you like seeing massive damage numbers and stupidly high DCs pop up above enemies. Most of the fun lies on the preparation part: theorycrafting builds, stacking buffs, etc.
@@Homophonic Then BG3, as Mortismal said, would be a great entry point if you ever want to try classic CRPGs and their spiritual successors. On D:OS2, after you finish one or two vanilla playthroughs, I highly HIGHLY recommend trying out mods, especially Divinity Conflux or Divinity Unleashed coupled with Enemy Upgrade Overhaul and some class mods (Odinblade's are well balanced if that's something you care about). Those pretty much added another 1000 hours to my playtime.
@TheR6R6R bruh u sure dos2 mods are that good? Don't they only remix the combat? Or do they add new story content and stuff? Also this is a bit off topic but can u explain what custom campaigns are exactly?
@@Homophonic My group was running a little over 100 mods so at that point it was just a playground for making builds. Enemy Upgrade Overhaul adds randomized upgrades and loot to enemies so you end up with potentially unique encounters each playthrough. There's an optional level scaling option as well so if you want to spice things up. We use it to jumpstart Act 1 at level 9, when tier III skills open up and more build options come online. Conflux adds new mechanics, skills, optional boss encounters, items, and the strategist difficulty, in case tactician wasn't enough. So far there hasn't been quest expansion mods on the level of i.e Skyrim, unless you take custom campaigns into account and I haven't tried any of those.
I love both. I think BG3 will actually lead to more people playing WotR and Pillars etc. I think people BG3 will get new people into CRPGS/ISO-RPGs and they'll look for more giving the a small bump in sales a few months from now. Also, I'd love for you to do a video that's something like "the parts I'd use from every CRPG I've played to make my perfect game." Like what you'd take WotR, BG3, Pillars, Divinity, Dragon Run(s), Tyranny, Encased and whatever other games you love. Just a fun light appreciative video of what you love from each of them.
I love both of them TBH. I'm planning to replay Pathfinder:WotR once I'm done with BG3. Few things I like in WoTR more compared to BG3 are. * Lore terms are explained and can be viewed in a separate tab. I'm mostly unfamiliar with Pathfinder and Baldur's Gate lore since I don't play the tabletop games. * Music. For some reason WoTR had alot more memorable themes to me. Mythic Power and alot of the Mythic Path themes are so good there still stuck in my head. * Role playing feels easier to me in WoTR since there are alignment based dialogue.
One of the gratest things BG3 has going for it, apart from production quality etc. is all the crazy stuff it allows you to do in combat. There aren't a lot of games that allow players to stuff a backpack full of explosives to throw at enemies as a sort of makeshift satchel charge or to use telekinesis to throw the enlarged owlbear druid for massive amounts of damage.
Honestly, I appreciate the fact that such shenanigans are possible, and use them myself, but for me they seriously break the TTRPG vibe. I guess, putting a barrel of gunpowder in the midst of enemies, running away and exploding it would be an option in a nonsensical campaign just for the lulz. But in a more serious adventure, where enemies are actually reasonable and smart, it just wouldn't fly. Same with crate-stacking, extremely abusable invisibility, somewhat weird combat flow when half your party doesn't participate in combat. These all are okay'ish from a videogame perspective, but shatter the TTRPG feeling that BG3 gives off so well in other times.
Yeah, some of those battle options feels like cheating to be honest. They are fun, but they break adventure`s impression:( Especially barrels vs scripted fights.
@@DeVitar Well, the good thing is you can play whatever way you want. Do you want immersion? Play it fair and square. Do you want to go crazy and see what can be done? Try it on the next playthrough.
Yes, there are some rather broken things that are easily abused too. My point is that the people at larian obviously tried to enable creative solutions, which, in my opinion, is an essential part of ttrpgs.
A thing I haven't seen talked about is Larian's focus on encounter and level design in both DOS 2 and BG3. I just came across a huge goblin camp in early BG3 where there were goblins on the ground, goblins hiding in buildings, goblins snipers and spellcasters on the rooftops. As I had Astarion in my party, I was able to sneak in through a side entrance and sneak attack to take out many of the enemies without alerting the entire camp. And when I did get caught, my high CHAR warlock was able to talk his way out of the encounter. This kind of player interaction with the mechanics of the level design, as well as the game system, is only possible in a video game. Why adapt a TTRPG game system into a video game? Is it only so you can play DnD alone? I think the rope-play aspect is definitely a focus in BG3 but Larian utilizes the full benefits of making a video game from a tabletop game, i.e. an expansive 3D map with hand-designed combat encounters, where verticality and the environment matter in an encounter. Personally I missed these aspects of the gameplay when playing games like WOTR or Pillars of Eternity. I can spend an hour really working on a build but ultimately it's always gonna be a guy coming straight at me or a bunch of guys surrounding me. The map is essentially a 2D grid map that most TTRPG players use at their tables. I find myself having to use "theatre-of-the-mind" a lot more in these encounters, and why should I have to do that when a video game can visually depict that theatre for me. I understand that this may be a me problem and it doesn't bother other players as much. I kinda wish there was a game that combined the mechanical complexity of Pathfinder with Larian's level design.
Wotr, especially the angel path, is far more emotionally fulfilling imo. I also think it had better companions. Finally, it’s hard to compete with becoming an avenging angel and smiting satan. More you get to redeem a lot of cool characters in a way better than “I’m not a bad mind flayer.”
I love the True Aeon ending, best in gaming in a long time. Also, loved being able to do an Evil run unlike in BG3. Taking over the Abyss and invading the Material Plane with you Demonic forces at the same time was another great ending.
I think a big thing you are leaving out for Baldur's Gate 3 is the emergent gameplay aspect of it. Something you can't do in WotR or Kingmaker. I will give 2 examples of the same boss fight in BG3 that use unexpected mechanical interactions to achieve the same goal of downing the Grymforge boss. Scenario 1: >Have the archer stand on the giant hammer's anvil and place down a healing potion >Aggro the boss >Boss walks over to archer >Archer then turns and fires the arrow at the hammer release lever >Lever triggers and activates the giant hammer which slams down >Boss takes a huge chunk of damage and is downed >Archer takes a huge chunk of damage and is down >Healing potion breaks >Archer gets healed and stands back up instantly >Boss is mechanical and thus receives no healing Scenario 2: >Transform into an Owlbear >Use the damaging leap attack from the highest possible point in Grymforge >Directly land on the boss and lava >Boss instantly takes 829 damage as the leap scales with distance traveled+mass >Lava disappears as the fight is over and the owlbear is unharmed Neither of these were hand crafted and programmed by a developer, they were players making clever usage of the system to play in a different way. The system of Baldur's Gate 3 is robust enough to allow for this style of emergent gameplay and this ranges into all kinds of interesting use cases. Like do you want to carry more items, well pick up the chest of the mundane and keep it in your inventory and throw items into it, the chest automatically makes them mundane items while they are inside it which dramatically reduces the weight, thus acting like a mini bag of holding.
I enjoyed Wrath of the Righteous a lot more. I had the problems of most people at first where it was hard to just pick anything to play mostly due to information overload, hovewer I just pushed through it, picked a class that seemed to fit what I wanted (I think it was a version of Druid) and just played on Casual difficulty, and honestly, I really enjoyed the game start to finish playing an Aeon path. In Baldur Gate 3, I don't know... after having played Divinity 2 like 4 times, I was familiar with the mechanics so I wanted to play this Larian game on Tactician... and well... WotR "Casual "is this game "Tactician" mode, the only fights that gave me some trouble were Malus Thorm*, Balthazar&Co.*, those 5 randoms Githyanki bodyguards in the Prism and trying to kill Gorthas at Wyrmrock Keep. * = means that the fight is incredibily easy if you use some barrels, because they start all clumped up at the start, but I just didn't want cheese fights, also you shouldn't really try to kill Gortash immediately because it skips a lot of content so... Almost every other fight in BG3 was a textbook fight, Mage blasts the chaffs, Support buffs who needs it, Fighter goes in and chops an "elite" enemy of the group round 1, and 4th character offers some versatility/utility whatever... I don't know, I just kinda steamrolled every fight? Maybe Wrath of the Righteous toughened me up or something... but I don't know, a lot of BG3 felt really grindy especially since it has a simpler combat. Also the dialogue options/choices in BG3 felt bland, the only choice that really counts is right at the start with the "Goblin vs Grove" one, because if you pick Goblins, you have just lost so much content with nothing to replace it, no joke. Companion dialogue is also meaningless, I mean I can say the most awful stuff to my companions and all it seems to do is detract like 1% off the Approval bar, like ok... I guess Gale really doesn't care that I just said to his face that I will enjoy seeing him blow up... after he just tried to romance me 2 times... huh??? Also the ending in BG3 terrible, I was legit confused because I was expecting some after-math slides like Divinity 2 or WotR, explaining in what way I changed world... Did the Shadow-Cursed lands heal after I helped Halsin start the process? Was the Myconoid Circle able to expand back? What happened to the Druid's Grove in the end? What about those fish people in the Underdark, are they still following my teachings? ..Nope, nothing. You get literally NOTHING, it's just you and your 3 companions just smiling away at the sea making small talk in every "ending"... even if you're the most wholesome, goody two-shoe, "would never hurt a fly" type of guy and you pick the "bad" ending, does anything change? Maybe you could rule a layer of Hell instead? Take your war to Raphael? Nope, you are forced to betray everyone and start being the super villain effective immediately, no further choices... like what the hell??? Even something normal, like if I want to take control of the brain to bait out even more mindflayers and force them to die, why can't I do that? I can order the brain to die but not to force its kind out of hiding like it was doing in the final fight? Like... man... BG3 was good at the start, but after Act 2 it is an utter nosedive... bugs, gameplay, story choices... all of it... I mean I know it's Larian so just wait for their Definitive Edition... but cmon...
Was put off the Pathfinder games for a long while due to reviews emphasizing how difficult the system can be. Bought Wraith of the righteous to give it a try and didn't instantly click. Upon the recent release of Rogue Trader and watching the review I bought it upon release. What struck me almost instantly was how each character had a different background and beliefs but gelled together and more importantly felt realistic ( within universe of course ) as people / personalities, which games often don't get across very well. Since getting used to the basics i've been able to get back to Wrath of the righteous and understand it better, so much so I also bought Kingmaker on the strength, though this is an earlier game and you can tell. However all the Owlcat games have well developed believable characters in their own ways, similar to how Planescape Torment did but to a much greater extent and once the system clicks it's highly recommended. I have attempted Divinity 2 a few times but there the Characters just don't resonate in the same way.
If i want to have a deep roleplaying time with hours of gametime that day, im going with PF WOTR. If i want a casual time with some funny dialogues and funny ways to play (shove ppl off a cliff etc) but not too deep of gameplay, im going with BG3. If i must pick one over the other, it would be PF WOTR with a small difference over BG3. WOTR 10/10 BG3 9.9/10
@chucknv5482 if you like to go in depth, yes. It can be scary tho for someone who has never played 5e tabletop or any of the older Baldurs games where dices matter. If you give yourself the time to learn the game, go for it. If not, maybe try Wasteland 3, a little more sci fi instead of fantasy with a little less depth than WOTR. Eg. There are like 20-25 classes in WOTR, and every class has about 5-7 archetypes/ subclasses where you can really screw your character if you pick a wrong archerype or someting. Yes you can respec but the fact that you can screw your character up should tell you something.
I did not hear this touched on, which offers better choices/consequences? I'm on act 2 on BG3 and so far I don't see anything that will change as much stuff as Mythic Paths do in WOTR.
The other reason Pathfinder 1e is sometimes called Mathfinder is because you get so many little bonuses over time, that at higher levels if you look through your character sheet long enough you might actually find enough bonuses to make whatever you just rolled actually be a success. Hence 'Mathfinder'
I haven't played BG3 yet, but Pathfinder:WOTR was amazing. I absolutely loved the memorable characters, story with an epic moments, tactical combat and incredible soundtrack. ❤
Both are great games. I really hope the success of BG3 spurs more growth in the genre!
yeah but bg 3 obviously had the buget for it , if pathfinder wotr was fully voice aced and has cutscenes for every npc character interaction it would have been insanelly good
@@cykablyat3680i don't think it would be on the same level as BG3. Complexity isn't always a good thing. WoTR gives you many options, but it feels overwhelming. Its easy to screw up builds, magic isn't intuitive, among other issues.
I hope Owlcat's Warhammer 40k Rogue Trader does well later this year.
@@cykablyat3680like OP, both are great games!
well its already better than BG3 from a rpg standpoint, BG3 has mass apeal through cutscenes & prettier graphics, thats about it.
Having played both, I found BG3 to be easier to get in to and much easier to understand all of the concepts. WotR has way more room for customization of your character and party. Almost too much for me to wrap my head around sometimes lol
Saaammmeee
Me too
The mythic system in wotr just blows anything in bg3 out the water. Being a lich king or a dragon or other things. I mean like what are we even talking about
Baldur's Gate 3 is a great game once you get past the opening scenes on the Nautiloid. WotR is a great game once you get past the first few hours of creating your level 1 character :)
I bought Kingmaker recently as I wanted to get into the Pathfinder series but once I saw the character creation I was like "yeeaaah... maybe another time". There is too much of everything for me lol
I’m a dnd 3.5 player for over 20 years now and even I find pathfinder overwhelming it’s crazy big.
I wasn’t expecting that much from a video game plus seeing all those dlcs,that add loads of races classes
It’s really intense.
I feel like this would be the only game I play until I die
Growing up with Neverwinter Nights 1 and 2, Pathfinder Kingmaker and WotR were jolts of lightning from a genre that changed my life for the better. With BG3, I get to feel that jolt all over again. There's definitely a CRPG out there for everyone.
Yes!
BG3 is the only game to sctrach my NWN itch again
That is not to say I didn't love the Pathfinder games though (well, except for House on the Edge of Time and Act V WotR)
i played neverwinter through a few deployments. defintely has a lot of sentimental value for me.
Love this comment; nwn 1+2 are absolutely underrated gems.
Hearing of Neverwinter Nights just makes me wish for one of these modern CRPG's including an editor of some kind.
I'm really happy that the crpg genre is having this resurgence or resurrection thanks to both of these games. Looking forward to what other adventures are in store in the near future.
Well said.
I only got into CRPGs with Divinity OS 2. Since then, they've become my favourite genre!
I'd say that Disco Elysium gave the genre a good jump start a few years back too.
@orarinnsnorrason4614 worst thing ever with that shit boring gameplay...
@@ArchangelLion Never gone, but you can't say that the CRPG genre has gotten much love outside of Indie circles since the early 2000's. This is truly a renaissance with the success of BG3. This dwarfs everything that came before it.
@@ArchangelLion IMHO, 2004 - 2012 was a pretty rough time for crpgs.
I love them both.
Same, both different. One is class fantasy while other is cinematic.
Me too 🙂
WOTR in retrospect left me with the same feeling an epic fantasy novel gives me. The highs were so memorable they will stay with me. BG3 feels more like a game. Strange thing to say since it *is* a game, hell both are, but that's the feel I'm left with. BG3 is more player choice focused in trying to create a dynamic experience whereas WOTR is telling a sweeping epic. There's nothing in BG3 that at least to me matches the intensity of moments like when you first fight off Minagho, take Drezen, etc.
@@sd5919 I agree with that, I had same feelings.
@@sd5919 Ironically, for me it is the other way around. WOTR feels more like a game to me because of all the pre-battle buffing, the insane numbers stacking etc.
I love them both. I want MANY more games like these.
here here! woof woof!
because of bg3, I have started playing shadowrun, underrail, and Im now looking at playing Pathfinder because of this vid. BG3 gave me a strong interest in the genre to the level that I can now appreciate other similar games with different mechanics and lore despite having less production value
I tried to play poE1,Poe2, kingmaker and all of them but it was hard to understand but now i found it more easy to play
those are some gems, really hope we get more shadowrun
Pillars of Eternity 1 and 2 hands down. PoE is basically the spiritual successor of Baldur's Gate 1 and 2. And another gem from Obsidian, Tyranny.
Don't sleep on Wrathfinder. Obviously it isn't the same as BG3, but damn, it's a really good game.
Shadowrun dragonfall has one of the best narratives and companions across the genre definitely should play that one
Both are exceptionally well made games in their own right. WOTR is one of the only few games in which i have sunk over 500 hours in the past decade and i am 37 and no longer have dedicated time i used to have 15 years ago. Combat and mechanics wise WOTR wins hands down for me especially when you take into consideration 10 different mythic paths which gives immense replay value.
The great thing about WOTR is that it was totally out of the blue for me, grabbing it out of steam sale and then enjoying it as much as i did was totally unexpected. BG3 on the other hand i already had high hopes as i already did multiple playthroughs of DOS & DOS 2 so my faith in Larian was already higher. In the end i enjoyed both a lot.
BG3 is much more catered towards the masses which isn't essentially a bad thing while WOTR still keeps it hardcore.
I still remember playing WoTR and it was amazing. It is one of those games that despite being just an isometric top view and not having a lot of cinematic cut-scenes, is one of those stories that I will probably remember for my entire live. Seriously, it is this immersive & that good. If you played BG3, then I would highly recommend WoTR.
is WOTR turn based?
@@chrisathian5450 Unlike BG3, WoTR gives you options - you can play either with active pause (just like in old BG1 &2) or play in turn based mode. You just switch an option in game settings.
@@Tommy_The_Gun thank you for the answer.
My angel run, though I‘m leaning more into the camp of finding righteous hero‘s being righteous and good rather played out, was so fun. I loved roleplaying a paragon of virtue smiting evil with the power of the good gods lmao so cheesy yet so over the top which makes it very entertaining.
As an avid enjoyer of both, I think that one other thing that BG3 does and WotR doesn't is all sorts of environment manipulation, like throwing objects, stacking crates, etc. (mostly copied straight from DOS 2, but nonetheless), and environment in WotR is completely rigid as it is in the old school CRPGs. Not a dealbreaker for most people but something to consider.
i mean it would also kinda be not implementable in wotr, since it doesnt work with the lay out. And making such features would make the game more damanding, which isnt that swell for people who have potatoe laptops and cant afford a gamer pc to run stuff like Baldur, like me.
I'll take rigid environments over a 4-person party. :(
@@Sotanaht01 Not only this, BG3 is easy already, two more people in the party would make it even more of a cakewalk.
No thanks, I already hated all the gamey barrel-mancy in DOS2, it doesn't fit with a mature theme like in WOTR.
@@GordonSeal How is that a problem? The game doesn't force you to do anything with barrels.
I love them both but I feel BG3 helped me understand Pathfinder a lot more
Yeah wrath of the righteous level up screen is just confusing
I had the opposite experience. Pathfinder helped me understand BG3 much better. After playing WOTR and then returning to EA I felt like I could see the matrix
@@soccercrazed13 Played WOTR and Divinity Original Sin 2, love both and now when I am playing BG3 I feel like I can really appreciate the design of it. BG3 feels like a really great fusion of those
Its a sacrifice for BG 3. They intentionally don't let you see what your class could do in the future so they don't want to overwhelm you at fhe start.
@@niccoloparker3548 the level-up screen is the true boss battle. Weight your choices carefully, adventurer, because one wrong decision will spell disaster
Regardless of who wins or loses this "battle", I absolutely adore both games for their own reasons and ways. Because of WotR, I finally bit the bullet on learning other TRRPGs and now experiment with others on the regular. And BG3 still reminds me of the moments when I first started 5e and TRRPGs in general, and gave me that roleplay fix I didn't realize I was missing.
I think it's good we are getting really fun CRPGs popping out left and right, whether its based off other TTRPG systems or something wholly their own. I hope this only encourages Larian, Owlcat, and other studios to keep experimenting with the properties they have and push each other to reach greatness together.
Have never played a CRPG before. Started to play WOTR with release of the GOTY Edition a few weeks ago. Guess I'm missing a hell lot on the mechanics side of things, but man do I love that game's entire look and feel. The entire game plays incredibly smooth and the entire UI and handling of characters feels so clean, polished and just simply pleasing to the eye. Incredible. Guess I'll spend years on this game alone. 🤗
I am a DM and I have two groups:
The first one is a 5e group and all players in this group are new to pen & paper.
The second one is a PF1e group that I play with for 11 years now.
Both groups know about the other system and both groups have something they like about the other system. The same counts for me when I compare these two games.
With that said there is one thing that makes BG3 the better game for me personally and that is when I play WotR I now and then think to myself: „Damn how many more fight does this dungeon have it’s starting to feel repetitive“ and that can annoy me now and then. BG3 on the other hand makes me feel like: „I wish there was a mega dungeon.“ especially because you could do that in coop with your friends and the combat is just pure fun. Another thing is that in BG3 you have way more options than in WotR besides abilities and class mechanics and these options are inspired from the table top. Push enemies off cliffs or daaamn beating up a goblin with another goblin… is just savage and fun and these are the moments tabletop players celebrate not the 110th time they killed 3 enemies in a row with their „attack“ but hey these are just my 2 cents.
WotR fights are so repetitive cause it's a low budget title! All the interaction needs code, animation, writing and voice acting. It means MONEY.
I absolutely agree with you. I like WOTR but every time the game looks like it's taking up steam Owlcat throws hordes upon hordes of combat encounters upon you. With certain DLC making that even worse.
I just feel drained after playing WOTR for a good bit.
Both are great games, but playing BG3 makes me want to go back into DDO or Pathfinder for that more complex system design. Gonna be interesting how the next Pathfinder games turns out in a post-BG3 world.
hell yeah pathfinder all the way
I still wish DDO got a huge amount of cash influx to modernize the graphics.
@@markgraham5971 Me too, they are talking about updatinging races. But I really wanna see some lag improvements and resolution scaling as well.
Oh yeah. DDO. What is sad is I left ttrpgs before 3e but kinda experienced it with ID2 and DDO (calling DDO 3e is kinda a stretch though). But man have I sunk so many hours into DDO since open beta beginning of 2006 to even this year.
you know that crpg fans are eating well when they start debating abt which crpg is better than the others
Ate and left no crumbs 🤭
This is truly a clash between two Titans. I love them both and i dream the day when a game that combines the graphics and the full voice-overs of BG3 with the Pathfinder class and combat system is released.
I would love to have a Pathfinder game with some changes to the gameplay system more like BG3 did. Totally a personal preference though.
I love Pathfinder, but the system is not built for a videogame, and while I deeply respect Owlcat for getting such a close recreation, I'd rather have the experience of it as a video game (specifically combat and map gameplay) be more accessible and enjoyable than have a close to 1:1 recreation of the system.
I also feel like a lot of CRPGs are trying to fit the exact mold of the older CRPGs, and it's boxed then into some UI choices I think could be heavily improved (I hate drag and select in games like BG1/2 and the Pathfinder games - it feels like I'm moving desktop icons).
@@genevievec.8002 Yeah, i mean when it comes to the class and combat systems it all boils down to personal preference. I played several campaigns in D&D 3.5 and never played any other version of D&D, so Pathfinder feels more familiar compared to BG3. I would be satisfied if Larian manages to release an expansion for BG3 with the lvl cap increased to 20 and the full spell list for all the casters. We shall see.
Your favorite movies and some of the best movies of all time would be worse if some of the most tense narrative moments were delivered from a zoom out camera where the characters are all standing still with their hands at their sides.
@@DPtdrysteThat's true but it's also true that there are a lot of books out there that are much better than most movies. Visuals really aren't everything. Nice to have good graphics and cinematics for sure but the lack of them in wrath really didn't bother me at all.
@@Denkart I feel like that's based on expectations. I'm not expecting a visual experience when reading a book. That means the lack of one doesn't bother me. When I'm playing a video game, I do expect visuals to correlate to the current actions being described. The lack of visuals becomes a problem at that point.
really hope the success of bg3 gives more interest for this genre, wotr is amazing and warhammer 40k rogue trader looks absolutely amazing, played the beta and it's just great
Don't forget Lamplighters League either. Not positive that's going to be awesome but Harebrained does have a good track record.
I’m really excited on rogue trader, just really want to get all the origin stuff and fluff
Great video! This really boils down to a comparison of Pathfinder and D&D 5e in a lot of ways! I have played D&D 5e for a while, but have some friends that played Pathfinder, and the things you have mentioned are always comparisons that come up. My issue... Pathfinder is intimidating! There are a lot of things in D&D 5e and then people say - but there's more in Pathfinder, and I get scared away haha! I like mechanics, but I don't think I am a mechanics-lord like you and other Pathfinder people. However, I think its awesome that we have both Tabletop games, for the different styles of players. I may someday try out Pathfinder WOTR just to see if I can hack it... haha!
Honestly I think pf2e being made into a computer game will be an amazing sweet spot between "almost no choices 5e" and "very complex" pf1.
PF2 looks very intimidating but that's in large parts because it's very frontloaded. Once you understand the rules, it's much easier to work with.
PF1 as an extension of 3.5 is just a system that started with a boatload of stuff already present. Though as somebody who grew up with the earlier systems, i find 5E to be the other extreme, being overly simplistic and often outright anemic, lacking clear rules for common issues. Saying it allows for more roleplay is missing the mark in my opinion. There are other systems much more focused on that, where the roleplay is actually relevant to things. 5E just has so many holes in its rulesystem that you pretty much have to make up stuff yourself to get anything done.
This also makes the system far harder on a DM, as they have to come up with nearly everything themself. In PF2, they will always at least have a guideline available if they so choose.
Mechanics lord is just artificer subclass tbf
You have very good guides on the internet for a much more relaxed adventure. + there are a dozen of difficulty levels, so you can really choose something around easy / medium and having no problem for your first playthrough.
For each class, there is a complexity level, which lets you know how easy it will be to mess up your class.
So choose an easy class, an easy difficulty, maybe some guide, and the game will be a breeze. You'll learn things along the way and will eventually replay a new build on higher difficulty.
Baldur's Gate 3 really introduced me into these kind of games and proved that I like them, so I'm gonna check this out next, thank you!
i do think crunchy systems like pathfinder 1e and 3.5 dnd are good for video games since games do most of the calculations for you, during a tabletop session it's fine if there are some complicated rules but you want to minimize the amount of calculations since you dont want to slow down the game unnecessarily
I definitely agree with your sentiments. To me, WotR is more like a "meatgrinder" session and BG3 is more of a "casual" session. I can also definitely say that I made the character I wanted in WotR, but I felt more immersed and connected with my character in BG3. Both are amazing games though, and the greatest part is we don't have to choose between them...we live in a world where both exist! =D
Enjoyed both, hard one for me really. BG3 definitely more favorable for the masses, Wrath is deeper with mechanics and builds possible, plus I’m a 3.5 person also. In the end I don’t think BG3 will get as much play time as I put into Wrath. Imagine Wrath with BG3’s production value, one can dream.
Imagine WotR with BG3's production AND multiplayer. That's something I'd play for years with my group.
I actually liked the roleplaying part better in WotR. I never felt like my character in BG3 had much of a personality. You can ask questions, you sometimes have some dialog options related to your class or race; and then you have the very typical good and bad answers. But if you want to roleplay a good character, more likely it will feel and act like the good character of any other player. WotR, by having the alignment system, gave the conversations a bit more depth, and you can actually roleplay a character with a specific personality.
Aside from that, I just felt like the quests and resolutions were more varied in WotR. Yes, you can do crazy things in BG3 mechanically speaking; make all sorts of strategies and the like for any encounter. But a lot of that, for me, doesn't add to the roleplaying of my character. Having my party pile up dozens of boxes to kill an enemy with one arrow is something that pulls me away from the immersion. That without mention that consequences in WotR felt more... heavy. And the ending felt A LOT less rushed than the one we had in BG3.
Other than not having completed BG3 yet, I agree completely. I remember hearing an interview with Larian talking about how they wrote each race and how with the elves it was going to lean in to their longevity and things like that, and I don't feel like that's come through at all. With WOTR I liked having your background, race, class, alignment, mythic path, and deity all possibly contribute to your dialogue choices.
You can litteraly change the outcome of all 3 chapters in bg3
There are different 'resolutions' to the acts, and major quests, but a sizable amount of dialogue is shallow. A class dialogue for druid that doesn't have any ramifications, nor does it resolve the present problem in any unique fashion. Some classes and races have neat unique interactions to resolve conversations in their own way, but some of them boil down to choices that you could already pick. Default good, default Evil.
@@etheris4140idk how people can expect a game with fully voie acted and mocap dialogue to have as much dialogue as a game where half of the dialogue is text.
It feel better to roleplay in bg3 cause you’re more immersed in the world and feel for the character better, the decision feel more impactful cause the world feel more real.
They obviously loose on some dialogue depth by going full voice acted and mocap + taking on very good voice actors but the boost in immersion and dialogue feeling more interesting since there is also the performance of the voice actor to take into account.
@@etheris4140shouldn’t call it shallow, it’s extremely good when compared to RPG with similar production value.
Like I said making a CRPG with AAA budget and presentation require some sacrifice.
This is a great comparison of the single-player experience of both games. BG3 also supports multi-player campaigns though which is a totally different experience and not really covered by the video.
Multiplayer is the biggest reason why I'm now spending more time in BG3 than WotR, despite preferring WotR in pretty much every other aspect outside of presentation/production value. After all, even a bad game can be fun with friends, and a good game usually leads to cathartic moments you'll never be able to replicate in a singleplayer experience.
I believe multiplayer and modding are two of the strongest factors that could keep a game's community alive. WotR has one, BG3 has both.
Personally I enjoy the more “compact” team and not having to buff to high heaven before each fight.
Not to mention both games seriously need specific upgrades for their level up system:
WOTR: NEEDS a build planner/saver, there are too many options/feats and having to go through that for 6+ companions is exhausting.
BG3: Needs to present its level up features from the get go, not being able to plan a build from scratch doesn’t feel good, specially when the system is simpler and more digestible.
It’s funny how’s there is always given and take. Even though WOTR has more quality of life features, that mini-map in BG3 is super handy.
Got into WotR from the Mandalore video and don't regret it. It was a big learning curve but the characters and storymade it worth it. Looking forward to playing BG3 just got to finish disco elysim first. Thanks for the video and your perspective on the subject.
Mandalore videos are such a pipeline
One of the things I like about BG3 over WotR is that it designed to be turn-based and, as a result, there are far fewer battles, and many of the battles are at least somewhat memorable: most battles are unique and have a definite purpose. In WotR many areas just throw you into battle after battle, often against the same enemies, and I find most of those battles to be tedious and cannot remember them distinctly, because many of them are almost almost identical to one another (aside from that, I really did like WofR though).
commented about the same, right there with you, as much as i like wrath, at this point i would disable all combats if I could lol
Most encounters in WotR are just stat checks. Success ultimately comes through preparation and, dare I say it, metagaming. This is why the character building part needs to be perfect, and Owlcat delivers on that.
Other than that, BG3 is clearly better in encounter design. Grym and Ansur come to mind as fights that maximize the potential of turn-based combat.
BG better story and role play, pathfinder more combat and more build variety
Ye man pathfinder math grind is more trench than the Somne... just how the game is
@@geoDB. I was not really referring to the Pathfinder math grind, but just the sheer number of random and generic combat encounters in WotR and Kingmaker when compared to BG3.
Wrath of the Righteous has a proper ending and epilogue. BG3 really dropped the ball hard in Act 3 with the last minute cuts.
I hope that one day Larian realise that opening barrels, crates, boxes etc. to discover nothing is just a huge time sink of frustration and boredom.
Pathfinder is perfect in that regard - loot highlighted - scoop it up - move on.
For me the thing that takes it for BG3 is the encounter design and narrative behind those encounters. Every combat instance feels hand-crafted, like a set piece. In WOTR you run into a standard mob of spiders, say. Then a little further on you run into a group of giant centipedes. Then another group of spiders. And so on and so on. In BG3, most encounters feel like they have a reason, a piece of narrative behind them or that they connect to the larger narrative. They make sense within the context of the map and the story. It's rare that you'll just run into a standard mob of spiders and then another group and then another group. You'll get ambushed on the way to a location by a rival group looking for the same thing you are. Or you'll run into two groups fighting each other which has a little story about a struggle for resources or something. Larian are phenomenal at this and it makes the combat so much more interesting.
cRPGs are in a great place at the moment. the first game I ever bought was wizardry 7 and it's amazing when you now look at BG3 the long way we've come. And I just love it that we can have games like WOTR, BG3 and Disco Elysium but also Cyberpunk and soon Starfield and they all have a good healthy customer base. yeah as I said a great place.
Don't forget Lamplighters League either. Not positive that's going to be awesome but Harebrained does have a good track record.
@@waltblackadar4690 yeah that's right. I love the setting and really liked their shadowrun games
I'm not going to lie it's been hard for me to hear people act like BG3 is the first crpg of all time when there are so many modern games like Pathfinder or Pillars of Eternity that aren't mentioned with anywhere near the same praise from mainstream outlets.
Agreed. And for what it's worth, hour for hour I had far more fun playing Pillars of Eternity than I have with BG3 so far.
Right? WotR also launched with no microtransactions, ya'll! And the amount of bugs seems to be about even XD
Cause it’s the first CRPG with high production value and focus on what mainstream gamer like the most (world design, level design, interaction, emergent gameplay, cinematic dialogue, character focus role playing…)
@@anaalvensleben789one of them is the first CRPG with AAA budget
@ni9274 I mean it's not that mainstream friendly. It plays like almost all those other games I mentioned other than the cinematics and voice acting. The combat is turn based for one which is usually a complete deal breaker for the mainstream crowd.
I like BG3, I just wish that the other CRPGs were given a chance too because they are just as good and if people appreciated bg3 they would like a lot of those games I mentioned too.
I love Wotr, but the game is much more of a hassle and a headache in general.
And the dependency on buffs is obnoxious, since every fight you have to cast six hundred buffs on to win a fight X)
Yeah, my biggest problem with the game is buffing.
Most games I turn the difficulty up for new playthroughs. But Pathfinder is the only game I turn down just so I not having to buff before every fight.
My 3 biggest issues with WotR:
- Pre-buffing
- The crusade system, which you can turn off but locks out content
- Filler combat
The first two I just fixed with mods, and honestly made the game amazing. I sunk sooooo much time into WotR.
The filler combat is not as easy to fix. It just lead me to skip certain content on subsequent playthroughs. Never do Nenios quest. I also tend to burnout part way through act 3 and just skip a bunch of content to do finish the game.
...and patching up after every fight. Level and ability drains etc. After every fight its a chore to get back to where you were.
@@Shrews85 Nenio's quest is the only shit that keeps me from playing the game again, tbh X)
what mods di you run for the balancing i actually liked the crusade but the 100 buffs combat is what made me stop enjoying it like halfway in@@Shrews85
WOTR no contest. It's closest thing to what it felt like playing BG2 for the first time, To me it was even better than that. BG3 is still a really good game, but WOTR is an another level for me.
If they merged together it'd probably result in the best game of all time. Build options and branching story paths of WOTR with production value, writing, immersion and rp of BG3 would be nuts
Just finished pillars of eternity, and it's the 3rd in the philosophical games around after Planescape torment and kotor 2
I will see if kingmaker is adept at the storytelling
And coop option on top of that as well, would be a best game indeed.
WOTR has much better roleplaying and writing than BG3 in my opinion. Honestly I haven't really liked most of the writing in BG3.
"Writing, Immersion" ?????????
Have we played the same game?
I played it twice now btw, one normal playthrough and one Dark Urge, and if you ask me, the game is great, but what carries it is definitely the production value, not the story/writing/plot.
Also the "roleplaying" really isn't as big as people claim it to be, and I was saddened to find that out on my second playthrough.
The characters are more interesting in WOTR
Godclaw blessing upon you. Helped greatly finishing two WotR campaign despite me being an idiot at math but loving the complexity and the stat reading nonetheless i think Pathfinder because of it's difficulty is deemed to stay this hiden masterpiece. While BG3 is a well awaited refreshing take with tremendous polishing thanks to Larian to the Crpg genre.
Been waiting for this one, since you did WOTW vs DOS2.
Let's go!
Two of my favorite games of all time.
WOTR felt like a very complete game. The content was incredible.
BG3 is fantastic, but some parts do feel lacking, especially the later acts
*edit* @mortisimal gave me a like. Definitely made my day
WotR feels complete until you play one of the more “alternative” Mythic Paths
@hazeem6715 you mean after sinking your teeth into over 100 hours of content?
Bg3 starts feeling lacking early into act 2. Once again it's still a fantastic game, but comparing it to WOTR in terms of how complete it feels is night and day
I really hope they fix up act 3 and quick, it could and sure as hell will be the best act if they fix all the issues there.
That's interesting, because I found Act 5 of WoTR to suck so much.
@@alexjordan3830 Act 5 was hit and miss for me. Some of the best moments of the game coupled with a little bit of fatigue from doing so much. I think that's when I officially started getting tired of the game.
With that being said, I love both games
I have just come off finishing my 2nd playthrough of BG3 in Tactician!
Perfectly summarized video! Honestly, cant be a better attempt at explaining these differences.
I think what you touched, but could not quite expand, is that in general BG3, has simply helped introduce and broaden the appeal of cRPG genre to a wider audience. That is its greatest achievement.
On the other hand, it simply surprised me how easy the game was, and annoyed me that character creation did not show level progression like Pathfinder.
As, i head into another run of Pathfinder to finish Azata(which i never did before), for me, having played a lot of cRPGs before, WoTR is simply the better game overall. Amazing role-playing moments in its own right for each path, great mechanical depth (spent my first 350 hrs making a hybrid skald to Trickster, before skalds were known to be OP), and a great looking game in its own right.
I loved BG3. But i love Pathfinder more, and for me, is the better game.
Pathfinder WOTR will always be my favourite CRPG game. It introduced me to the genre and it will always hold first place in the CRPG games for me. Was a bit skeptical when I bought it and was afraid I won't like it but man am I glad I did. Both are great games and I hope we get to see more of these games from Owlcat and Larian.
I just have to say that the gamer in me loves you for how you go about your thoughts and reviews.
The best "mind" for this sort of thing for games I've ever known was Adam Sessler, and you remind me of him.
Something WOTR mostly lacks while BG3 excels at that you didn't mention is the environmental aspect to combat.
As a predominantly action game player this is exactly why BG3 landed so well, where PF is always gonna be a hard sell. To overlook it is to misunderstand that some of us need physicality to connect with a combat system.
Yeah wotr don't have a barrelmancer class :D.
Immersive sim ftw. So much more fulfilling than winning through math and 30 minutes of buffing for me personally.
I really love how fun and useful pushing and jumping is in the game.
You can't be a demon / lich king / swarm / dragon / or cast god tier spells in bg3. And the story in bg3 is not really the best
Great video, I love both games and agree with almost all your points. Can't wait for more from both studios--and yes, I have Rogue Trader as well.
I love the character options for Wrath, from your base class to your mythic path. You feel like you can make a very unique character. And I do love the campaign, you feel like you are fighting a war against demons. Also shout out to companions that are genuine surprises in the CRPG genre.
But Baldur's Gate with it's insane world reactivity and scope. Is just the new level for CRPGs. It's as close to a TTRPG that you can get.
Soothing content uploaded in my time of need. Thanks Mort 🥴
I can't play BG3 until I either upgrade my pc or get a PS5, so you've inspired me to check out WotR, looking forward to it!
So, while WOTR isn't ad pretty it runs worse, on lower settings compared to BG3
@@fallout3fanboy1 I got it on PS4, not my favourite way to play these kind of games but my laptop doesn't really cut it anymore...
I you have a good internet connection, you could play bg3 (and many other game) on GeForceNow (~10€/month subscription, there is a free version but too many people are queuing for it). With this, I can play with max quality settings without buying an expensive computer that would become obsolete after a few year.
Of course, not everybody like subscriptions but i am just sharing in case you might be interested^^
The game is still a little buggy though so waiting is not a bad option either.
@@fallout3fanboy1 While I'm sure that might be true in your case, that definitely isn't across the board because my experience was the opposite. I'm running a very high end system and can run WOTR on max everything without the slightest hiccup or frame drop.
BG3 for me, especially in act 3 in the city itself, really chugged a lot at times (I'm talking sitting at 5fps) and I found myself needing to drop a lot of settings down from ultra to run it with a semi decent framerate in 4k.
That said, it's only just been released and I am sure these are optimization issues that will be addressed, along with the fairly frequent crashes I started to get in act 3...
Gameplay is the main element that dictates my enjoyment of a game.
In Pathfinder, you win with a pre fight plan (your build and your pre buffs), the encounter itself and how you play has a much lesser impact.
Whereas in Baldur's Gate 3, you have fewer possibilities but the decisions you take during an encounter have a greater impact.
True, probably why I just end up playin on easy difficulty to not bother with buffs and focusing more on the fight itself.
The mechanics of concentration simply does not allow you to take all the buffs before the fight. Also, the arsenal of spells, especially the AOE in BG3 is very weak, in fact, only fireball is the only AOE with good damage that is available to us throughout the half game. And even at the end we don't have many options for big AOE damage. I started to get a little bored during the fights towards the end of the game. But you are right about WoTR, the result of most fights depends on the preparation of the party before the fight.
@@jRsqILVOY i'm use BubbleBuffs mod, to get buffs in 1 click, but in a game without a mod, this is a real pain.
I have to say my biggest gripe with BG3 is actually the level cap, or rather how quickly you reach it. I was level 12 shortly into reaching the city and that area is HUGE. For me, leveling up and looking forward to power increases is a huge driving motivator, which pretty much made me rush all my companion's stories and the main story once I've reached the cap, skipping most of the side stuff. Which is a shame, as I've been really enjoying the game until that point, doing pretty much everything it had to offer (maybe my playstyle is also at fault here, I do need to discover everything and can't skip the smallest side quest).
D&D ultimately is more fun at lower levels. It's why I enjoyed BG1 more than BG2. I think being level 12 as you go into Baldur's Gate is a bit much. You probably should be level 6 or 7 in reality but Act 3 is the end game, so they need you to be able to reach the highest level..
This was my main issue as well. I can't wait for a good mod that removes the level cap.
@@NineNoRouge You cannot remove the level cap as it's impossible to level up beyond level 12 because Larian just haven't implemented anything beyond it.
@@cmdr.jabozerstorer3968 You can remove the level cap, but no single class can go beyond 12, or the game breaks.
@@NineNoRouge Levels 12-20 just aren't coded in for any class, so that's gonna take a REALLY long time to mod in
Kingdom management and Crusade is likely what holds Pathfinder back a bit.
Idk about that, I am currently in Act 2 of WotR and so far the crusade is one of my favourite parts of the game
Yeah some will like it obviously. But the majority are not looking for something like that in an rpg.
@@wex28008 the battles are very tedious and EXTREMELY unbalanced in later acts. The council discussions and choices you make in between battles are way more interesting than the actual battles, I really do recommend modding that part of game away. Btw, if you enjoy this gameplay, check out Heroes of Might and Magic, or the very recent and superb Age of Wonder 4
You do not have to do crusades. I set it to auto management, so your complaint is really valid nor viable 😂
@@BigBoss-rw4mn not when they have an ending locked behind it
Then again I quit around act 3 around the backer content area(forgot the name) because it got a bit too tedious with thousand buffs and all. I might give it a try again some time if i ever get the time. But it's not my priority.
After playing 700+ hrs on WotR, BG3 feels like baby's first crpg... and im completely okay with that. This genre needs exposure to the mainstream audience
nah dude we gotta be hardcore. filter out the normies
I strongly disagree with that. BG3 is already a complicated game compared to most other games on the market, and perhaps even most RPGs.
@@windblownleaf6450 For most RPGs? Sure. For CRPGs? Nah mate. Though it's not 100% Larian's doing however. DnD 5e rules are heavily dumbed down from what i hear.
@@williamcase426 Those "normies" can become CRPG lovers if their first impression is good. Start from a game that can "wow" them, which raises their incentive to search other games from the same genre, and then boom.
@@fitzviandraduivenab2790 I agree with your take, while i enjoyed rping in bg3 more because of the cinematics, companions interactions, and how they're just better in giving the impact of your action in face value, i prefer the combat in wotr and especially their classes. I will play wotr once more after i finish bg3 some amount of times, The dark urge is just satisfying to play if embracing the urge more than playing as the lich and devil in my previous wotr run year ago.
I feel like for many CRPG fans there is one more stealthy advantage that Larian has over the pathfinder games outside of production value and thats multiplayer.
I suspect that while a lot of us play single player exclusively I personally know a lot of people who quietly play MP with their partners/friends and a somewhat streamlined character generation and levelling options helps with reducing the amount of time players spend on min-maxing their builds and more time adventuring and engaging with the story/party.
Seems like co-op might be on its way to becoming a standard in CRPGs as Owlcat just announced it for Rogue Trader too.
I know a LOT of people that don't play games unless it have a multiplayer, It is really dumb for me, but idk maybe single player is not for everyone
Multiplayer was always just a side show to the CRPG experience. You had some multiplayer for BG2 through GameSpy and Neverwinter Nights was famous for its DM'ing features when playing online games but all of the other games were fundamentally single player and even in BG2's case, the multiplayer was just kind of a second thought, the single player experience was much better.
WOTR unfair is one of the greatest difficulties in video game history. It’s brutal and unforgiving and incredibly satisfying. For me. 😊
I've done two full playthroughs but the amount of system mastery and exploitation required to do Unfair WoTR really killed my enjoyment. I went back to doing Casual runs and just having fun doing whatever on Real-Time combat. Turn based takes waaay too long.
@@voidtalongaming4637 that’s what I love about it. You don’t need exploits. You can beat every fight in the game straight up, but you need system mastery.
@@Stonepot113 Fair point, I would call myself lazy then. Most guides for Unfair I found pretty much had a spreadsheet of pre-fight buffing and while I may have done that 15 some years ago now I just enjoy playing.
Makes me realize that the real reason 'easier' difficulties exist is for folks who don't have the time to burn or desire to burn.
That said I'll still go hard core challenge mode on action RPGs for some reason. Personally, i'm glad you have found enjoyment from Unfair and that it's available for players like yourself. Everyone deserves a difficulty for them and WoTR does a fantastic job at letting you customize that experience.
@@OldyAlbert BG3 is so much fun. It is incredible. That being said, it’s max difficulty is like Daring on Pathfinder.
I found Kingmaker Unfair to be harder in the early game that WOTR. Late game, there is no comparison though. WOTR all the way.
@@OldyAlbert I’m the same as you! I love games that are simpler. That being said, I am glad WOTR exists for when I want to scratch that itch for incredibly hard high level combat.
I waited a few days to comment because I wanted to re-watch this video after some time has passed and I can really think about what is being said. Ultimately I think you present the best possible approach: they are very different games whose ultimate goals are quite different, although I admittedly think that we're ultimately dealing with shades of grey here. I've played both games and enjoy them both, so I'm not dunking on one game over the other. It's just a fact that Wrath of the Righteous has more depth and diversity to its system. However, it's an insanely deep system, so having less complexity than WotR is hardly putting you in being overly simplistic. BG3 is, relative even to something like Dragon Age: Origins, much more complex. Consequently, I do think it's fair to wish that the system offered more challenges to flex or lean into that complexity. That said, given the production values, it's difficult to imagine something going that hard, which is another thing that I think makes the discussion a bit more difficult. It's absolutely fair to say that Pathfinder has a lot more options in terms of mythic paths and choice, but given the difference in cost, I find BG3 to be absolutely fantastic with the amount of variation it presents.
I guess the TL:DR is, when comparing these games to each other, it can get very easy to lose context. A lot will depend on individual preference, and that's FINE. The best part is that we have so many quality options to chose from. I would love to see what Owlcat would do with a BG3-size budget (which is highly unlikely). Not because I think they would do it better, or show Larian how it's done, but because I respect both studios and what each one excels at. I can't lie: the production of BG3 only confirms what I felt with Dragon Age: Origins: even as someone who reads much more than he games, the production value of fully voiced and animated characters draw me into a video game in a way that text-boxes cannot.
Should there be another CRPG drought, lord knows we've gotten enough quality games over the past several years to keep us content for decades to come.
One thing that I think is underrated in BG3 is how strong the itemization is. There’s a necklace, for example, that lets you add your spellcasting modifier to elemental damage you deal with cantrips. The lengths that you could take this by combining it with other magic items like the Potent Robe and Spellsparkler was utterly absurd. This one item caused my Eldritch Blast to go from doing a solid 30 damage to ballooning into a 200+ damage ability. Most games, WoTR included, really just give you flat bonuses instead. I’m going for a Monk run next just because of the items for it you can find.
This was the Most awaited video for me, can't believe it's been 2 weeks since this was out, was busy playing BG3 last weekend (Still in act 3, couldn't make much progreass as it kept crashing every save reload :/) and Starfield this weekend. It's good to know that even after playing BG3, WotR mechanism will be fun to try. BG3 is a fairly easy game, so I am hoping that WotR will be challenging. Great video.
Personally, i preffer Wrath because of ruleset of Pathfinder is way more appealing to me than 5E. There's just way more options.
I think this will always be based on personal preference for people just based on if they like the Pathfinder or 5e ruleset.
Pathfinder: People love the customization and min/max potential. People bounce off of how obtuse and counter-intuitive the rules can be. It's very easy to make a bad character. WotR really taught me to enjoy the game, but I hated it on tabletop. I still prefer it as a video game. I'd love to see Owlcat to try 2e.
5e: Easy to pick up and play. If you single class you can't really make a bad character. Bounding of numbers stop things from getting too crazy. People used to systems like Pathfinder often dislike inability to customize and lack of min/max potential. BG3 offers more chances with crazy items and house rules.
@@Shrews85 it really boils down do you like to do cool shit or do you want to do basic stuff. Wotr is the insanely awesome deep game. While bg3 is really not that in depth at all
@@Shrews85 bg3 doesnt have many crazy items idk what are you talking about
@@Lefthandrightband either you're not that far in, or we have very different definitions of crazy. The items do ramp up as the game goes on. There are some basic ones that just provide proficiencies or allow you to use CHA or such for melee attacks.
There are a lot that provide unique buffs. Some might synergize well with alternating between melee and spell casting. There are a lot of unique weapon attacks on the game. People do some pretty fun theory crafting with mixing and matching different items and builds.
@@Shrews85 i beat the game already and am on my second playthrough. The items left a lot to be desired. They could have done a lot more . I like the game and im having a ton of fun but I mean if we are comparing this game to wotr it really is a big gap. Only thing holding back wotr is the 30 buffs every rest which you can use a mod to skip. The crusade management is skipable but I heard you miss out on things by using it and the mod for it is outdated. So 1 of the 2 main problems can be negated with a mod and the other you can skip at create a character and use a mod to get what you missed or just say fk it. Wotr is literally the best game crpg ever with these 2 things fixed.
The genre is in such a great place! Thanks for the video. Can't wait for some Rogue Trader soon
I don't know, I felt better roleplaying in WOTR than in BG3 to be honest, and I think that Larian could've learned a lot by just looking at WOTR, but at same time BG3 is more compelling for me to play again just because of the overall quality and narrative.
Still, I think Larian will put a lot of quality of life updates to make things more smooth and in a future Definitive Edition the game will be very "complete".
Is that due to the turn based combat in BG 3 or the able to switch between turn based or real time with pause.
They both feel like different subgenres for me personally. I always only play on the highest difficulty and in BG3 I could just hop in and go for whichever build that I wanted without any challenge at all and roleplay the way that I wanted (took a bard specifically for that). For WOTR I had to plan out every single decision that I would make and I had to study almost more than I played (which I absolutely loved). Both are definitely really good games but fulfill completely different player needs. I will definitely replay BG3 for the writing (especially if they fix up the evil path and act 3 in the future) and play it together with friends again as well but since I am really into theory crafting I personally prefer WOTR overall currently. Hopefully BG3 adds a higher difficulty.
surprised you didn't touch on narrative and character writing at all. im not done with bg3 yet, but i generally like and prefer wotr's (and kingmaker's) companions more than bg3's.
I'm not sure if I'm misremembering, but I feel like WotR companions had a lot more to say about things out in the open and more directly interacted with other NPCs. In BG3 they feel more passive and more like you're their spokesperson or something, unless you're doing one of their quests directly.
@@mikeity2009 don't agree. wenduag and daeran are better written versions of the tropes lae'zel and astarion are respectively, and lae'zel is the best written companion in bg3. regill is also great. the rest are a mix of good to bad, the worst of which is probably either sosiel or greybor.
that being said, kingmaker's companions are better than both games.
larian has a bad habit of writing characters in an edgy way (which isn't necessarily bad) but also in a way where these edgy characters treat the world like a witty game they're playing, often throwing out nonchalant or aloof quips where it was inappropriate to do so given the circumstances the story. this problem was alleviated a lot in bg3 which i appreciate, however. like 4 of dos2's companions are all incredibly similar in tone and attitude, and i was hoping that issue would improve for bg3 and it did. lae'zel is evidence of that.
edit: i'll also give owlcat tons and tons of credit for writing probably the best portrayal of a poly relationship i have ever seen in games in Octavia and Regongar. it's one thing to include one at all, but it's another to really nail it.
That’s very subjective, BG3 companions are a highlight just for the performance.
They likely don’t have as much line of dialogue but the step up in performance compared to other RPG it what make them feel alive and interesting.
@@rb98769Cause every line of dialogue written need to be fully mo cap and animated + voice acted by very good voice actors.
@@TranscedantAgain that’s very subjective, there are many reason to prefer BG3 companions other than pure writing quality, and bg3 companions will have less dialogue cause they are fully animated.
Imo just the performance is enough.
Thanks for the well thought out comparison! Maybe I've been too focused on what both games don't have (imo), versus what they do great at.
I’m glad they both exist but it’s just hard for me to get into the more hardcore things of WoTr. The production value of BG3 really sells the story and helps me get immersed and WoTr doesn’t really have that
@@Maityist that’s totally fair and I agree with BG3’s finale being lackluster. I wrote this comment right before I finished it and I was pretty disappointed with the ending.
Means you like cheesy writing, what you don't get in better written stories. Good for your I guess.
@@miriamweller812 yup
My favorite comparing metaphor is: pathfinder 1e is crunchy peanut butter. 5e d&d is creamy peanut butter
I was thinking about this topic but with Bg3 vs Solasta. I am a Solasta guy but I also enjoyed Larian's work in the past. I am 60+ hours in Bg3 and I can say that I like Solasta more as a D&D game but I like Bg3 more as a game overall.
I totally agree! When I started BG3 I found myself looking for things that Solasta does perfectly, like readying actions. Solasta's 5E implementation is really really good.
The lack of delay, for your initiative is really annoying in BG3, and reading in action is very nice in the other.
Yea I was hoping the vid would have been Bg3 vs Solasta. For me so far (still in act one). I think BG3 has a better campain but Solasta you can make your own campain for more replay.
Solasta is a great D&D emulator and I have had fun playing the designer dungeons coop even though there is next to no story. BG3 is a probably a better game and obviously a much more polished product. I always say Solasta is the heir to Icewind Dale which is a linear combat sim with a self made party. I like it much better than IWD though which bored me. BG3 is a worthy heir to BG 1 and 2.
@@jonathanpickles2946 I'd say the biggest strength of Solasta is the editor more than anything else, with the default campaigns being more a proof of concept. It probably has far more potential at longevity than BG3 has for that reason.
The mythic system in WoTR is so awesome.
If I could just combine that with Baldurs Gate 3, level 20, 10 mythic, with all the animations and permutations…
I’d never be able to leave my chair.
An easy 500 hour play though.
And 500gbs of data needed. Lol. I’ll leave it to my dreams for now.
But I truly love both games. Very much worth the wait, and worth the price tag.
I think the aesthetic, art style and UI of Owlcat Pathfinder is amazing, I prefer to the realistic style. The big downside I would say is the balance and complexity is a bit of a nightmare and some of the balance design is nonsensical.
I went into pathfinder kingmaker with plenty of experience in this sort of game and I found it extremely difficult, to the point that I stopped playing. And I really liked many things in that game:the artstyle, the ui, the story, the complex mechanics. But it seemed that the game kicked my ass out of it
@@cmdrf.ravelli1405consider trying WOTR, its certainly still not a balanced game but it is MUCH, much smoother than kingmaker
I just turned the kingdom management difficulty down to easy, also changed some other options like status decrease heal on rest.
To be fair to them I think they did a very good job of implementing all the huge mess that is PF1 into a game at all. I think a lot of the nonsense is in the PF core rules. I am not a fan of it to declare my interest :)
@@cmdrf.ravelli1405 Kingmaker had some glaring issues initially that could make the game practically impossible to beat, if you made certain choices along the way or even just explored certain areas in the wrong order. There was for example a companion who you're supposed to meet and pick up from a certain location in a certain time frame. If you miss or decline him joining your party, the Kingdom management was basically doomed to fail, not instantly no, but literally tens of hours later in the playthrough.
I think they fixed most of these issues in the enhanced edition and Wrath of the Righteous fortunately never really suffered from anything like that. They also let you manage the difficulty yourself and you should actually do that to a reasonable degree. The systems are so complicated that there really is no way to actually balance all the classes that well. Some are just naturally a bit weak while others have insane synergies that can basically break the game.
WOTR taught me about spell resistance. About how much I wanted to punch it.
I couldn't agree more, I really miss the leveling and customization systems from Owlcat games in BG3, the story roleplay is very strong but the class fantasy is very lacking in comparison. WotR really makes your character feel like the badass embodiment of their class. I did a Warlock run on BG3 expecting more class flavor but it was just "slightly flavorful Sorcerer"
Agree with all your points. As someone who has been obsessed with CRPG's since Ultima 7 and BG1, I definitely missed the depth of mechanics and classes that WOTR has. But BG3 was still a phenomenal game regardless and when I look at where CRPG's were 10 years ago I am just thrilled to see games like both of these being made.
Also I will just add that despite it being a simpler system than WOTR, it doesn't feel like they are actively trying to dumb RPG's down to appeal to a mass audience. Watching Bethesda, Bioware and many others do that to their games was heartbeaking, and I'm really hoping that doesn't end up being the way Obsidian goes now that they are shifting away from isometric (though I understand the need since Pillars 2 sadly didn't make money despite being a top tier entry to the genre). The fact that we have even two active studios making isometric CRPG's with giant scopes that can sit up there with the best of all time is fantastic considering the genre was all but dead for over a decade.
I have own pathfinder wotr since it came out, I have tried to play it twice, but it's just so overwhelming with the amount of stuff. I think bg3 did an excellent job making it really accessible. I love crpgs, been playing them since I was a kid but the amount of choices in wotr is just insane.
That's probably more down to Pathfinder than the game itself. 3.5 wasn't exactly new when Pathfinder was created, so it was rather stacked from the start, being essentially D&D 3.75.
5E on the other hand is a massively cut down version. Larian likely had to houserule a lot of things simply because the actual ruleset doesn't have anything for things that a video game necessarily must.
If you ever decide to fire up WotR again and just want proven, effective builds, I'd suggest @cRPGBro guides to both mains, companions, mods and even the world strategy/army mode. He focuses a lot on pets which isn't going to be everyone's ideal, but you can ignore that at your leisure (I mostly did) and still be confident you'll be very powerful. His guides will take you level-by-level through what to do and why for many different character archetypes. So you can just play and when you level up just fire up the video and within minutes you'll be back to kicking ass.
I would really love to see some video like "What Owlcat and Larian Studious have to learn from each other" when all of the QoL for BG3 and WH40k RT drop
Imagine if they worked together to make a AAA game. 😮
One thing I noticed about BG3's role playing aspects that possibly is its greatest selling point, is that Larian focused on allowing many "choices" to the players, in the DnD model.
Given freedom of choice doesn't really exist (specially not in games), the feeling of being in an actual tabletop game is Larian's greatest achievement for the genre is there for most of the playthrough. Of course that's done by controlling the narrative in a way that the choices you have available are the only possible ones (usually by playing the mystery/tsundere card, Larian does that a LOT), but at the very least that speaks for the writers' skills.
My main thought is that, as it goes with DnD, the consequences for making absurd choices cannot be truly measured - because in real life, stealing or murdering people on a whim is not an equally viable choice as talking to them. Many human reactions are impossible to mirror, so Larian simply took the CRPG route of making NPC interactions dumb when necessary. And by dumb I mean, recalling what I mentioned above about mystery, giving the NPC a reaction based on a background the player will never know about and covering it up with an air of secrecy. This strategy also helps to build shorter dialogues, which works wonders for a fully voice acted game. WoTR does not care for that, the characters will give you hard reasons for what they do, and while you're open to disagree you most likely won't have a choice to actually disagree with their opinions, unless it's an obvious part of the context.
Wrath of the Righteous is much rougher on that aspect, it won't hide it's railroading you, as somehow you're expected to accept the overall "choice model" you've chosen when picking a Mythic Path. You still have the freedom to refuse a Mythic Path, for example, but simply due to the length of the game they've already done a lot.
BG3's choice system was a gamble that paid off, and one which probably what gave them a lot of trouble fail proofing, and while some incongruities still passed, it's very solid dynamic storytelling that also manages to do the fan service part very well.
One thing I have to say is your different guide helped me to enjoy playing Pathfinder even more by a lot.
About Baldur's vs. Pathfinder. Even if I played all the BG at release, I really prefer Pathfinder mostly because of the number of classes and build personalization, and I don't know why I feel better when my character levels up and progresses in its build in Pathfinder than in BG.
Yea don't forget the mythic system. This system needs to be a requirement in every crpg . Adds so much replayability
Leveling up in Pathfinder is better because you actually get shit. in 5E there's a lot of dead levels where u dont really get anything. Espeically if you take score increases
@@Omegeddon lmao. Yea it is so unrewarding to lvl up and all you get is a spell slot and a spell you don't want Or a hp increase
@@Lefthandrightband Yup. Even worse for martials. Barbarian in BG3 doesnt really pick shit after level 3
@@Omegeddon Ability increase, or sharpshooter (+10 damage per attack), or greatweapon master (+10 damage per attack), or tavern brawler (+damage AND +10 attack). Those are the most relevant feats. If you multiclass, you'll probably just get ability increase and maybe one of those aformentioned feats. The feats are just boring, nevermind the balance issue. I never understood why they make you choose between higher stats and feats in 5e, it's almost never a real choice
The real winners are us, for having a choice between these two great cRPGs.
great video. So many people sleeping on Wrath, It's such a great game. You can get your own chaos dragon who loves cookies, you can become a lich, music is better, the battle for the city is brilliant, and Wrath has what BG3 does not, a clear antagonist, Areelu Vorlesh, and a truly hidden outcome that is very very difficult to pull off.
I just played both games. BG3 is obviously superior in budget and story. But there are some things in WotR that are actually better. The options for difficulty are really great. WotR also uses the person in your party with the highest stat for each check. Click a trap and your rogue goes for it automatically. WotR also has way superior animal companions and you can mount a horse. I really liked both. WotR was surprisingly good.
after completing BG3 2 times i noticed that it really lacks evil options. Especially if you compare it with WOTR where it feels on the same level of development for both sides. BG3 just offers just good and chaotic evil options. You can really feel it at the ending where just for some reasons evil ending doesn`t have epilogue
Its my only problem alongside lack of customization...if bg had the customization of just divinity 2...I'd probably never stop playing it for years. I can see that I'll get like 2 or 3 playthroughs from bg.
@@Ezullof have completed game completed game for another two times since then. One of those was evil dark urge and nothing really changed exept ending. Now it exists and its pretty good.
I love them both. I feel like WotR is much less beginner friendly than BG3, but i appreciate its depth.
Wotrs build variety captivated me with my relative lack of knowledge of crags at that point, only having played neverwinter nights extensively for true rpgs
I recently played WOTR, haven’t played BG3 yet. I loved WOTR, I’m a huge RPG fan and love build crafting. WOTR is amazing in that aspect, and allows you to respec without much penalty. My biggest problem with it though is the performance.
On my PS5 I had many crashes, the constant loading screens which take forever and just a very cleanly experience overall. I couldn’t get myself to finish the game, got halfway through chapter 4 and just gave up
The performance is probably better now than it was on release, but release WotR had some fascinating issues. Like stutter whenever you kill an enemy in turn based mode, memory leaks causing the framerate to get progressively worse as your session extends, saves keeping so much junk data that towards the end of the game, the loading times will be several times longer than when you begun...
@@val7885 They still have all these issues. It's honestly the worst performing game I've played on the PS5. And it's a shame, because the game itself is amazing.
When I started and looked up all the classes, subclasses and options, I thought I might play the game several times. Then when I discovered mythic paths, I was certain I wanted to play the game once as each mythic path. But reality is, I couldn't even finish my first playthrough because of the performance issues.
@@ShikaStyle123 That is a real shame. I must admit that personally I burned out on the game because I just don't enjoy the mathfinder part of it, so the gameplay was largely a bother and the story couldn't carry the massive game alone for me.
But it's sad to hear (or, well, read I guess) that you actually enjoyed the game itself but the performance ruined it for you.
My first game in the genre was Solasta and I played like 5 hours of it before getting bored and never opening angain. In Baldur's Gate III I already have 50 hours from my solo campaing plus extra 25 from a coop one and I'm loving the game. After this video I will def give WotR a try.
does pathfinder make combat look fun like dos2 for instance? or is it just a game of numbers? like if the spells and abilities have enough visual appeal that adds to the fun of combat it may justify trying to get through the game's steep learning curve
Spell visuals at least look fantastic in WotR. Can't say the same for martials, there's really only two attack animations for every weapon in the game. It's one of the points WotR really loses at against D:OS 2 and BG3. I'd only recommend WotR's combat if you like seeing massive damage numbers and stupidly high DCs pop up above enemies. Most of the fun lies on the preparation part: theorycrafting builds, stacking buffs, etc.
@TheR6R6R never Played a game like that lol, am playing dos2 rn and it's amazing but am not sure whether Pathfinder is for me
@@Homophonic Then BG3, as Mortismal said, would be a great entry point if you ever want to try classic CRPGs and their spiritual successors.
On D:OS2, after you finish one or two vanilla playthroughs, I highly HIGHLY recommend trying out mods, especially Divinity Conflux or Divinity Unleashed coupled with Enemy Upgrade Overhaul and some class mods (Odinblade's are well balanced if that's something you care about). Those pretty much added another 1000 hours to my playtime.
@TheR6R6R bruh u sure dos2 mods are that good? Don't they only remix the combat? Or do they add new story content and stuff? Also this is a bit off topic but can u explain what custom campaigns are exactly?
@@Homophonic My group was running a little over 100 mods so at that point it was just a playground for making builds.
Enemy Upgrade Overhaul adds randomized upgrades and loot to enemies so you end up with potentially unique encounters each playthrough. There's an optional level scaling option as well so if you want to spice things up. We use it to jumpstart Act 1 at level 9, when tier III skills open up and more build options come online.
Conflux adds new mechanics, skills, optional boss encounters, items, and the strategist difficulty, in case tactician wasn't enough.
So far there hasn't been quest expansion mods on the level of i.e Skyrim, unless you take custom campaigns into account and I haven't tried any of those.
I love both. I think BG3 will actually lead to more people playing WotR and Pillars etc. I think people BG3 will get new people into CRPGS/ISO-RPGs and they'll look for more giving the a small bump in sales a few months from now. Also, I'd love for you to do a video that's something like "the parts I'd use from every CRPG I've played to make my perfect game." Like what you'd take WotR, BG3, Pillars, Divinity, Dragon Run(s), Tyranny, Encased and whatever other games you love. Just a fun light appreciative video of what you love from each of them.
I love both of them TBH. I'm planning to replay Pathfinder:WotR once I'm done with BG3.
Few things I like in WoTR more compared to BG3 are.
* Lore terms are explained and can be viewed in a separate tab. I'm mostly unfamiliar with Pathfinder and Baldur's Gate lore since I don't play the tabletop games.
* Music. For some reason WoTR had alot more memorable themes to me. Mythic Power and alot of the Mythic Path themes are so good there still stuck in my head.
* Role playing feels easier to me in WoTR since there are alignment based dialogue.
I mean, WotR just needs a soar across the battlefield jump and super shove mechanic and you'd be golden.
One of the gratest things BG3 has going for it, apart from production quality etc. is all the crazy stuff it allows you to do in combat. There aren't a lot of games that allow players to stuff a backpack full of explosives to throw at enemies as a sort of makeshift satchel charge or to use telekinesis to throw the enlarged owlbear druid for massive amounts of damage.
Honestly, I appreciate the fact that such shenanigans are possible, and use them myself, but for me they seriously break the TTRPG vibe. I guess, putting a barrel of gunpowder in the midst of enemies, running away and exploding it would be an option in a nonsensical campaign just for the lulz. But in a more serious adventure, where enemies are actually reasonable and smart, it just wouldn't fly.
Same with crate-stacking, extremely abusable invisibility, somewhat weird combat flow when half your party doesn't participate in combat. These all are okay'ish from a videogame perspective, but shatter the TTRPG feeling that BG3 gives off so well in other times.
Yeah, some of those battle options feels like cheating to be honest. They are fun, but they break adventure`s impression:( Especially barrels vs scripted fights.
@@DeVitar Well, the good thing is you can play whatever way you want. Do you want immersion? Play it fair and square. Do you want to go crazy and see what can be done? Try it on the next playthrough.
Yes, there are some rather broken things that are easily abused too. My point is that the people at larian obviously tried to enable creative solutions, which, in my opinion, is an essential part of ttrpgs.
@@Bierserker totally agree:) Feels like they play their own game and having fun^^ which many studios doesn't do anymore (at least it looks like)
A thing I haven't seen talked about is Larian's focus on encounter and level design in both DOS 2 and BG3. I just came across a huge goblin camp in early BG3 where there were goblins on the ground, goblins hiding in buildings, goblins snipers and spellcasters on the rooftops. As I had Astarion in my party, I was able to sneak in through a side entrance and sneak attack to take out many of the enemies without alerting the entire camp. And when I did get caught, my high CHAR warlock was able to talk his way out of the encounter. This kind of player interaction with the mechanics of the level design, as well as the game system, is only possible in a video game. Why adapt a TTRPG game system into a video game? Is it only so you can play DnD alone? I think the rope-play aspect is definitely a focus in BG3 but Larian utilizes the full benefits of making a video game from a tabletop game, i.e. an expansive 3D map with hand-designed combat encounters, where verticality and the environment matter in an encounter.
Personally I missed these aspects of the gameplay when playing games like WOTR or Pillars of Eternity. I can spend an hour really working on a build but ultimately it's always gonna be a guy coming straight at me or a bunch of guys surrounding me. The map is essentially a 2D grid map that most TTRPG players use at their tables. I find myself having to use "theatre-of-the-mind" a lot more in these encounters, and why should I have to do that when a video game can visually depict that theatre for me. I understand that this may be a me problem and it doesn't bother other players as much. I kinda wish there was a game that combined the mechanical complexity of Pathfinder with Larian's level design.
Wotr, especially the angel path, is far more emotionally fulfilling imo. I also think it had better companions.
Finally, it’s hard to compete with becoming an avenging angel and smiting satan. More you get to redeem a lot of cool characters in a way better than “I’m not a bad mind flayer.”
hell yeah destroying satan is better than just not being a tentacle creature
I love the True Aeon ending, best in gaming in a long time. Also, loved being able to do an Evil run unlike in BG3. Taking over the Abyss and invading the Material Plane with you Demonic forces at the same time was another great ending.
I think a big thing you are leaving out for Baldur's Gate 3 is the emergent gameplay aspect of it. Something you can't do in WotR or Kingmaker. I will give 2 examples of the same boss fight in BG3 that use unexpected mechanical interactions to achieve the same goal of downing the Grymforge boss.
Scenario 1:
>Have the archer stand on the giant hammer's anvil and place down a healing potion
>Aggro the boss
>Boss walks over to archer
>Archer then turns and fires the arrow at the hammer release lever
>Lever triggers and activates the giant hammer which slams down
>Boss takes a huge chunk of damage and is downed
>Archer takes a huge chunk of damage and is down
>Healing potion breaks
>Archer gets healed and stands back up instantly
>Boss is mechanical and thus receives no healing
Scenario 2:
>Transform into an Owlbear
>Use the damaging leap attack from the highest possible point in Grymforge
>Directly land on the boss and lava
>Boss instantly takes 829 damage as the leap scales with distance traveled+mass
>Lava disappears as the fight is over and the owlbear is unharmed
Neither of these were hand crafted and programmed by a developer, they were players making clever usage of the system to play in a different way. The system of Baldur's Gate 3 is robust enough to allow for this style of emergent gameplay and this ranges into all kinds of interesting use cases.
Like do you want to carry more items, well pick up the chest of the mundane and keep it in your inventory and throw items into it, the chest automatically makes them mundane items while they are inside it which dramatically reduces the weight, thus acting like a mini bag of holding.
I enjoyed Wrath of the Righteous a lot more.
I had the problems of most people at first where it was hard to just pick anything to play mostly due to information overload, hovewer I just pushed through it, picked a class that seemed to fit what I wanted (I think it was a version of Druid) and just played on Casual difficulty, and honestly, I really enjoyed the game start to finish playing an Aeon path.
In Baldur Gate 3, I don't know... after having played Divinity 2 like 4 times, I was familiar with the mechanics so I wanted to play this Larian game on Tactician... and well... WotR "Casual "is this game "Tactician" mode, the only fights that gave me some trouble were Malus Thorm*, Balthazar&Co.*, those 5 randoms Githyanki bodyguards in the Prism and trying to kill Gorthas at Wyrmrock Keep.
* = means that the fight is incredibily easy if you use some barrels, because they start all clumped up at the start, but I just didn't want cheese fights, also you shouldn't really try to kill Gortash immediately because it skips a lot of content so...
Almost every other fight in BG3 was a textbook fight, Mage blasts the chaffs, Support buffs who needs it, Fighter goes in and chops an "elite" enemy of the group round 1, and 4th character offers some versatility/utility whatever...
I don't know, I just kinda steamrolled every fight? Maybe Wrath of the Righteous toughened me up or something... but I don't know, a lot of BG3 felt really grindy especially since it has a simpler combat.
Also the dialogue options/choices in BG3 felt bland, the only choice that really counts is right at the start with the "Goblin vs Grove" one, because if you pick Goblins, you have just lost so much content with nothing to replace it, no joke.
Companion dialogue is also meaningless, I mean I can say the most awful stuff to my companions and all it seems to do is detract like 1% off the Approval bar, like ok... I guess Gale really doesn't care that I just said to his face that I will enjoy seeing him blow up... after he just tried to romance me 2 times... huh???
Also the ending in BG3 terrible, I was legit confused because I was expecting some after-math slides like Divinity 2 or WotR, explaining in what way I changed world... Did the Shadow-Cursed lands heal after I helped Halsin start the process? Was the Myconoid Circle able to expand back? What happened to the Druid's Grove in the end? What about those fish people in the Underdark, are they still following my teachings?
..Nope, nothing. You get literally NOTHING, it's just you and your 3 companions just smiling away at the sea making small talk in every "ending"... even if you're the most wholesome, goody two-shoe, "would never hurt a fly" type of guy and you pick the "bad" ending, does anything change? Maybe you could rule a layer of Hell instead? Take your war to Raphael? Nope, you are forced to betray everyone and start being the super villain effective immediately, no further choices... like what the hell???
Even something normal, like if I want to take control of the brain to bait out even more mindflayers and force them to die, why can't I do that? I can order the brain to die but not to force its kind out of hiding like it was doing in the final fight? Like... man... BG3 was good at the start, but after Act 2 it is an utter nosedive... bugs, gameplay, story choices... all of it... I mean I know it's Larian so just wait for their Definitive Edition... but cmon...
I've been thinking about this since I started playing BG3. I've been waiting to hear your take!
Love both of these games. I also feel Pillars of Eternity 2 deserves to be in this circle of well loved modern CRPGs too.
I wish PoE 2 has controller support as I mainly play on steamdeck.
Was put off the Pathfinder games for a long while due to reviews emphasizing how difficult the system can be. Bought Wraith of the righteous to give it a try and didn't instantly click. Upon the recent release of Rogue Trader and watching the review I bought it upon release. What struck me almost instantly was how each character had a different background and beliefs but gelled together and more importantly felt realistic ( within universe of course ) as people / personalities, which games often don't get across very well. Since getting used to the basics i've been able to get back to Wrath of the righteous and understand it better, so much so I also bought Kingmaker on the strength, though this is an earlier game and you can tell. However all the Owlcat games have well developed believable characters in their own ways, similar to how Planescape Torment did but to a much greater extent and once the system clicks it's highly recommended.
I have attempted Divinity 2 a few times but there the Characters just don't resonate in the same way.
If i want to have a deep roleplaying time with hours of gametime that day, im going with PF WOTR.
If i want a casual time with some funny dialogues and funny ways to play (shove ppl off a cliff etc) but not too deep of gameplay, im going with BG3.
If i must pick one over the other, it would be PF WOTR with a small difference over BG3.
WOTR 10/10
BG3 9.9/10
I am playing my first CRPG as BG3 currently. Like the gameplay. Should i go right to WOTR next?
@chucknv5482 if you like to go in depth, yes. It can be scary tho for someone who has never played 5e tabletop or any of the older Baldurs games where dices matter. If you give yourself the time to learn the game, go for it. If not, maybe try Wasteland 3, a little more sci fi instead of fantasy with a little less depth than WOTR. Eg. There are like 20-25 classes in WOTR, and every class has about 5-7 archetypes/ subclasses where you can really screw your character if you pick a wrong archerype or someting. Yes you can respec but the fact that you can screw your character up should tell you something.
I did not hear this touched on, which offers better choices/consequences? I'm on act 2 on BG3 and so far I don't see anything that will change as much stuff as Mythic Paths do in WOTR.
BG3 kinda drops the ball on that in act 3. The "evil" path is already quite unsatisfying in act 1/2
The other reason Pathfinder 1e is sometimes called Mathfinder is because you get so many little bonuses over time, that at higher levels if you look through your character sheet long enough you might actually find enough bonuses to make whatever you just rolled actually be a success. Hence 'Mathfinder'
This was exactly the video I needed. I've finally gotten BG3 burnout after almost 900 hours, and I've been looking for another cRPG to get into
I haven't played BG3 yet, but Pathfinder:WOTR was amazing. I absolutely loved the memorable characters, story with an epic moments, tactical combat and incredible soundtrack. ❤
"Thanks Lann. You're so awesome Lann."