Kingmaker - Companion Romances

[Copper Coin]

If you actually listened to my arguments, you would understand that the reason I dislike 100+ hour games is because the quality of content suffers as a result. Not because I'm upset that I can't get 100% completion (which I could care less about).

What your argument ignores is that most RPGs are balanced around gaining experience and quest rewards from sidequests. This makes doing most sidequests in RPGs essential in order to succeed. If I skip 80 hours of side content in Kingmaker, in all likelihood I wouldn't be able to beat the final boss.

I wasn't implying that you don't have a job or hobbies, but I'm amazed that anyone with a semi-busy schedule would have the motivation to play a 120 hour playthrough of a game. For me to do that, it would need to be one of the best games ever.

 

[Copper Coin]

Also a relevant fact: The vast majority of players do not finish RPGs over 30 hours long. You can prove this to yourself by looking at the completion rates of any RPG on steam.

 

[TheRealFluent]

Modern games aren't built that way anymore. You will be able to beat Kingmaker I'm sure in 30-40 hours, just like FFXV (which took me 50, yet I left 50+++ hours on the table.) There will be some form of clever level scaling or encounter scaling to balance how powerful the party is vs. the enemies. Or super tough areas that are 100% optional and hold great loot but you have to do the side content to complete them (if you want to.)

And azarhal's point is that the game is not about completion. So what if people don't complete it? It's the journey, not the destination. The journey of knowing you're on an epic 100+ hour RPG sometimes makes you play the whole way through, savoring it. Sometimes you get bored at 50 hours or less, but it's gaming, not a race to the finish.

And trust me, I sympathize with you. I'm learning myself to more enjoy the journey and not race to the finish. Except for FFXV, which I started disliking near the end and just wanted to finish. But for an epic 100+ hour RPG? Give me those all day. The content will be fine, choose to do the things you find interesting.

Just my 2 cents. Love you all.

 

[Saxon1974]

Good Lord I am no longer the target audience for CRPGs. Thankfully I always have my collection of older games.

 

[Copper Coin]

I just don't understand how 100+ hours of content turned into a selling point for games.

Every RPG I've played like that has been the same - Inconsistent quality, lazy quest design, unbalanced systems, trash mobs, illusion of choice, ect.

 

[TheRealFluent]

I just don't understand how 100+ hours of content turned into a selling point for games.

Every RPG I've played like that has been the same - Inconsistent quality, lazy quest design, unbalanced systems, trash mobs, illusion of choice, ect.

Have you played Baldur's Gate? I recently finished my 2nd 100 hour run of it and while I didn't 100% the game, it kept me interested the whole way.

 

[ilm]

I'm with SC on this. No patience for boring filler content. A 20-30 hour game is fine, and I expect all 30 hours to consist of high-quality quests and engrossing story.

Of course, it is debatable whether I might just need to train myself seeing past the grinding and only partially complete a game avoiding all boring stuff. But that's hard.

Edit: in addendum, it is also a matter of *finding* all the good quests beneath the rubble, which often requires doing (a lot of) the fetch quests.

 

[TomRon]

I think there's a difference between subgenres, and also agree with @azarhal; about the character maxing out. Once that happens I tend to start skipping things as well.

Skyrim got boring for me after about 20-30 hours, finished it in 80 and wasn't sorry to pick up something else. PoE with both expansions took roughly the same time but I didn't start speeding until the last 5-10 hours. Baldurs gate starts to drag when you get to Baldurs Gate, while I don't remember ever getting bored in BG2. T:ToN felt too short at about 30 hours.

It's all about the quality of content and the "fun" of the game, never about the actual hours.

 

[KeepitClean]

I'll be honest and just say that having gay stuff in a game is a big minus if not directly insulting. If you want to make a gay friendly game by all means go for it, target those people and be happy with it. But the modern times theory that we must accept gay couples kissing, singing, hand in hand in parks , cafes anywhere, and now in games (bioware to blame...) is in my book a bad sign of the times.

Again, everyone can do anything they want in their private life but it is very insulting that they try to promote their abnormality upon us. And the worst is that it infiltratrated the gaming industry, where young people or kids get their world contaminated out of the blue. The times we live in..

 

[Ripper]

Ah, you're one of those. Yeah, keep on keeping it clean, buddy.

 

[purpleblob]

I have no problem with straight/gay/lesbian/whatever romances as long as it's not forced down on players, preferably well written too.

Also, on length of the game, I agree with TomRon. I don't think there is a "sweet spot" game length, it all depends on the quality of the content. I was never bored of BG2, and that's one massive game. On the other hand, I was bored of several other games within first 20 hours or so (which feel like such a drag).

 

[Copper Coin]

The Baldurs Gate series is the definition of quantity over quality to me. It does many things alright, but nothing great, and is very rudimentary compared to modern CRPGs.

- Barebones dialogue
- Barebones quest design (murderhobo simulator)
- Almost no narrative choices or sidequest reactivity
- Huge amount of poorly designed trash mobs (BG2 especially)

I also 100% believe that if both games were condensed significantly they could of been better quality, tighter experiences.

 

[Copper Coin]

I agree with Tomron and Purpleblob that games have different sweet spots, but anything over 60 hours is sacrificing too much quality for quantity in my opinion.

 

[lostforever]

I too generally agree that games have different sweet spots for different people however in my experience if a game is going beyond 70+ hours then chances are they are adding fillers...

There was a time I was happy with 100+ hours as sweet spots but as I grow older and played mroe games certain elements becomes boring.

 

[TomRon]

I'll be honest and just say that having gay stuff in a game is a big minus if not directly insulting. If you want to make a gay friendly game by all means go for it, target those people and be happy with it. But the modern times theory that we must accept gay couples kissing, singing, hand in hand in parks , cafes anywhere, and now in games (bioware to blame…) is in my book a bad sign of the times.

Again, everyone can do anything they want in their private life but it is very insulting that they try to promote their abnormality upon us. And the worst is that it infiltratrated the gaming industry, where young people or kids get their world contaminated out of the blue. The times we live in..

Yep, imagine we're living in a time where (at least in parts of the world) you don't get executed for loving the wrong person. And doing so in public? Preposterous. These liberal tendencies are indeed scary.

 

[Archangel]

The Baldurs Gate series is the definition of quantity over quality to me. It does many things alright, but nothing great, and is very rudimentary compared to modern CRPGs.

- Barebones dialogue
- Barebones quest design (murderhobo simulator)
- Almost no narrative choices or sidequest reactivity
- Huge amount of poorly designed trash mobs (BG2 especially)

I also 100% believe that if both games were condensed significantly they could of been better quality, tighter experiences.

You mean they would be considered even better than 9/10 games and classics they are now?
You are full of shit. Trash mobs and freedom to explore were one of the strengths of BG games, not its weaknesses. There was nothing in the game forcing you to explore everywhere and fight everyone.

 

[Ripper]

Taking a look at his introductory post, I think I get the picture. Not worth engaging too seriously, I would say.

 

[Copper Coin]

You are full of shit. Trash mobs and freedom to explore were one of the strengths of BG games, not its weaknesses.

Trash mobs are a strength? Really? I agree about the freedom of exploration though, which is one of the reasons I prefer the first game over the second.

Anyways, on the topic of Baldurs Gate let's just agree to disagree. I find certain people get emotional whenever it's criticized.

 

[azarhal]

Modern games aren't built that way anymore. You will be able to beat Kingmaker I'm sure in 30-40 hours, just like FFXV (which took me 50, yet I left 50+++ hours on the table.) There will be some form of clever level scaling or encounter scaling to balance how powerful the party is vs. the enemies. Or super tough areas that are 100% optional and hold great loot but you have to do the side content to complete them (if you want to.)

Kingmaker is based on a pnp adventure where each chapter is meant for a specific level range with its own storyline. If they stick to the source material design, level scaling isn't going to be needed.

It's also not really a modern game. Most players will get discourage by just looking at the character creation options. Hell, I'm discouraged just looking at it. They went crazy with the feature set support.

 

[Archangel]

Trash mobs are a strength? Really? I agree about the freedom of exploration though, which is one of the reasons I prefer the first game over the second.

Anyways, on the topic of Baldurs Gate let's just agree to disagree. I find certain people get emotional whenever it's criticized.

A fair amount of trash mobs that are not on critical path are a strength. Having every battle being hard and hand crafted gets just as boring as having all combat being trash combat.

Also in BG1 and Bg2 you could use trash battles to level up your solo characters or all mage parties and other such fun combinations.