My two cents:
- I never finished DOS2, reasons:
- stat inflation and level scaling. You start with a few points of damage, then some hundret, then some thousand. You are almost forced to do encounters in a specific order.
- Totally random items. Your characters look terrible and a normal item of one level is better than an epic item one or two levels lower. This also means you do not care about your equipment at all. Most people remember the holy avenger or crom fayr from BG2, nobody cares about items in DOS2.
- I disliked the armor system, but thats just my personal taste
- You have almost zero connection to your character, it feels just like a walking set of stats.
- I disliked the excessive surfaces and other effects. The whole map was filled with necrofire in almost every fight after a round. For me it feels wrong if enemies bleed poison when I hit them with a sword and suddenly there is a poison cloud all over the place that suddenly goes boom and enemies jump around like crazy.
- I did not really care about the story.
I think Larians “problem” is the success of their first games. Divine Divinity had gameplay like Diablo, but with a hand crafted map, many quests and lots of stuff to explore. Random items besed on your level may be OK in a single character action game, but I feel they are annoying in a party based classical RPG.
I am happy they moved to DnD as bases to their latest games.
I have realized what I like about BG3: You do almost everything as normal gameplay and there are many things you can try and it can work what you normally do not see in computer games.
- In the beginning you can get an intellect devourer as companion. Basically its just a series of skill checks but in BG3 you see what your char does with every step, in Kingmaker you would only have a dialogue box with skill checks and text.
- In the goblin camp you can sneak to put poison in their drinks, you invite them to drink and pretend to drink yourself and then half of them die and you can convince the others that you did not poison them. In Kingmaker this would be a book event, in BG3 you do the sneaking yourself and have a cinematic scene when you talk to them.
I think BG3 could set new standarts for games and it would be perfect if it combines its own look, interactivety and story with the rule implementation of Solasta. Sticking closer to the DnD rules would mean for me that different classes feel more different and you have a stronger connection to your own char.
Kingmaker and WotR are great games and I enjoy playing them. They are good in telling an epic story. But they are “a nerds wet dream and everybody elses nightmare”. The pathfinder system is the most complex system I have ever seen and I can totally understand if many new players feel lost and might even quit the game. On my first playthrough I made a terrible char and I had to switch to story mode and even then some fights lasted very long. On my second playthrough I did much better and normal difficulty felt normal. And I am far from being an expert player.
Owlcat should stick to what they are doing because those games are great.
But I guess the % of players who finish the game will be rather low and there will be tons of comments like “the game is hard as hell” or “the game is cheating” or simply “it sucks”.
No, it is not but it is really hard to understand this.
Well, it is still between the two extremes:
- Disco Elysium is a great game that I enjoyed a lot and often its super funny to fail forward.
- Age of Decadence tells you from the start that you will likely die if you fight or give a wrong answer. To some degree this enforces role playing because as fighter you should fight as unfair as possible and as talker you should avoid fighting at all costs.
Note: I have never played dark souls or similar games.
I am not good with action games and I like turn based much better.