I never had unbalanced issues. The game was difficult and relied on the player to prepare, be competent, and research the classes. Like a classic game. We need more games like that.
@@danielw.8356. I partially disagree. The game has design flaws, especially in gameplay and in Kingdom management. Kingdom management specifically was poorly done.
Click the little person at the bottom of the portrait list. Click "Open Portraits Folder." Replace the images in the folder with the same name, size, and file type. Go back to the game and choose the folder you want.
Cheers mate. I have a hard time getting into the game because I usually play all of my CRPGs on normal. This one is insanely punishing even at that difficulty. Your video is ace. Any tips to survive efficiently on early levels?
I would say that my best advice is play for a while on Easy. This allows you to get used to quirks of the game and develop the strategies that help you survive. I have been working on what I want to say about the Difficulty in the game so I hope to have a video on that coming soon. The video will not be about strategies or tips on how to play on harder levels, but more about why the game seems so hard in general and how the Difficulty options affect that.
i would suggest when you start, turn linzi into sylvan sorcerer and the dwarf into a druid when they hit 2, pick smilodon for animal companion, maybe even make your main guy someone who can get a animal companion. its like having 2 characters in 1 :) gives you a major edge
Pretty much what Tony said, turn the difficulty down when you first play the game. There are so many mechanics to learn and party members need to be fairly well optimised in build and spells/skill to succeed even in "normal" difficulty. You'll probably screw up in creation of your pc and the way you level party members the first time you play because of the overwhelming number of choices but the more you play and familiarise yourself with everything the better prepared you become to start over.
@@mikeclarke3990 nornal difficulty is fine for 90% of encounters. Save a lot and get comfortable with restarting encounters when you have bad rolls. I'd also suggest to turn down the difficulty for the Boss encounters, because in my experience every single one of them is tuned to be rather unfair, especially when the game doesnt let you rest beforehand. ALWAYS bring like 25-30 rations into dungeons and boss fights. They are kinda mandatory. Also: using the combat slow motion goes a long way in micromanaging your group, so that everyone is always doing something useful. If you just play the battles with pause and on full speed, you'll easily miss ambushing enemies, party members being idle or even out of position.
@@faselfasel2864 I agree, I play on mostly challenging with a few tweaks, but before you know the system and rules I'd start with easy. An explanation why www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder_Kingmaker/comments/9jw7z1/enemy_difficulty_vs_enemy_stat_adjustment/
Excuse me while I rant about customizable difficulty settings in games... I have watched a number of so-called UA-cam streamer-pros play through - not only this game - but other games as well. They pride themselves by playing on the hard or harder difficulty to show off how good they are. CohhCarnage and Asmongold, for example. But then what they do is scum-save their way through the game - replaying battles, locks, dialogue failures - until they get the outcome they want. The effect of this is that they deceive themselves and their ego so they can tell their peers how they beat the game at said difficulty. What they have really done is play the game on an easier mode. It's tedious to watch these people replay scenarios over and over again until they get it right. I don't mind that games have an easy medium and hard mode that are hard coated for players to choose from, but having endless customizable choices of this game takes away from the challenge that it would otherwise have. Games like Dark Souls have created a following partly because there is only one difficulty and people want to test themselves against it. That game gives legitimate bragging rights for beating it. Something that I have never heard discussed, though I have never looked for, is the idea that part of the interest in playing certain games is that you are not just testing yourselves against the game itself but against humanity. We go into games assuming that the devs have calibrated their game according to the ability of real human beings. When I play a game on normal mode, I assume that the average human is like me, and I should be able to beat it. If I fail to beat it, I feel ashamed that I am below average. When better players beat a game on higher difficulty, it means that they are better than their peers when they get things like no-hit runs or speed runs. Their excitement comes from the fact that they are better than other players - not that they're better than the game but that they're better than other human beings. This is an ego thing which is part of the excitement and challenge - which is why someone like CohhCarnage plays the game on higher difficulty so that he can feel superior against other humans. People are social creatures and that is part of the draw of games. The fact that players complain that a game is unfair begs the question, "unfair to whom?" The very nature of the complaint assumes that it's unfair to human beings. If the game is hard for hard's sake, then who cares? What they are really complaining about is they don't want to be ashamed into believing that they can't do something that other players are able to do. They assumed that the devs should have taken more time to calibrate the game against real humans. This reveals the unspoken understanding that they are actually playing a game - not against the game per se, but against other humans. If people just want to play the game and win, then they would set it on easy mode and be done with it. This is basically what a walking simulator is, and I wouldn't find that interesting. PvP games bypass this ambiguity by its very nature testing one directly against another human.
G'day mate. Thanks for saving me hours of reading!
Watching this again. Refreshing my memory for Wrath of Righteous!
G'day mate. Thanks!
2 years later , and I have to ask what's up with the 7 dislikes?
Thank you, stuff I hadn't thought about here :D
For a game that is very unbalanced, this video helps in loads, thank you.
It’s balanced for the most part
Now
I never had unbalanced issues. The game was difficult and relied on the player to prepare, be competent, and research the classes. Like a classic game. We need more games like that.
@@danielw.8356. I partially disagree.
The game has design flaws, especially in gameplay and in Kingdom management.
Kingdom management specifically was poorly done.
I really enjoyed this video. Very pleasant, helpful, and thoughtfully done.
cool information thanks for the suggestions to setup the autopause
Love this, thank you! Love your other vids too! I play on Xbox One & I love it!
Glad you enjoy it!
Can you make a video about how to change portraits in the game, please?
Click the little person at the bottom of the portrait list. Click "Open Portraits Folder." Replace the images in the folder with the same name, size, and file type. Go back to the game and choose the folder you want.
Terms and Conditions? Ain't nobody got time fo dat
Thank you for this video.
best regards
Cheers mate. I have a hard time getting into the game because I usually play all of my CRPGs on normal. This one is insanely punishing even at that difficulty. Your video is ace. Any tips to survive efficiently on early levels?
I would say that my best advice is play for a while on Easy. This allows you to get used to quirks of the game and develop the strategies that help you survive.
I have been working on what I want to say about the Difficulty in the game so I hope to have a video on that coming soon. The video will not be about strategies or tips on how to play on harder levels, but more about why the game seems so hard in general and how the Difficulty options affect that.
i would suggest when you start, turn linzi into sylvan sorcerer and the dwarf into a druid when they hit 2, pick smilodon for animal companion, maybe even make your main guy someone who can get a animal companion. its like having 2 characters in 1 :) gives you a major edge
Pretty much what Tony said, turn the difficulty down when you first play the game. There are so many mechanics to learn and party members need to be fairly well optimised in build and spells/skill to succeed even in "normal" difficulty.
You'll probably screw up in creation of your pc and the way you level party members the first time you play because of the overwhelming number of choices but the more you play and familiarise yourself with everything the better prepared you become to start over.
@@mikeclarke3990 nornal difficulty is fine for 90% of encounters. Save a lot and get comfortable with restarting encounters when you have bad rolls. I'd also suggest to turn down the difficulty for the Boss encounters, because in my experience every single one of them is tuned to be rather unfair, especially when the game doesnt let you rest beforehand.
ALWAYS bring like 25-30 rations into dungeons and boss fights. They are kinda mandatory.
Also: using the combat slow motion goes a long way in micromanaging your group, so that everyone is always doing something useful. If you just play the battles with pause and on full speed, you'll easily miss ambushing enemies, party members being idle or even out of position.
@@faselfasel2864 I agree, I play on mostly challenging with a few tweaks, but before you know the system and rules I'd start with easy.
An explanation why
www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder_Kingmaker/comments/9jw7z1/enemy_difficulty_vs_enemy_stat_adjustment/
Was.... was that a TTS Top 20 Primarchs reference?
Sorry but I have not idea what you are talking about
Excuse me while I rant about customizable difficulty settings in games... I have watched a number of so-called UA-cam streamer-pros play through - not only this game - but other games as well. They pride themselves by playing on the hard or harder difficulty to show off how good they are. CohhCarnage and Asmongold, for example. But then what they do is scum-save their way through the game - replaying battles, locks, dialogue failures - until they get the outcome they want. The effect of this is that they deceive themselves and their ego so they can tell their peers how they beat the game at said difficulty. What they have really done is play the game on an easier mode. It's tedious to watch these people replay scenarios over and over again until they get it right.
I don't mind that games have an easy medium and hard mode that are hard coated for players to choose from, but having endless customizable choices of this game takes away from the challenge that it would otherwise have. Games like Dark Souls have created a following partly because there is only one difficulty and people want to test themselves against it. That game gives legitimate bragging rights for beating it.
Something that I have never heard discussed, though I have never looked for, is the idea that part of the interest in playing certain games is that you are not just testing yourselves against the game itself but against humanity. We go into games assuming that the devs have calibrated their game according to the ability of real human beings. When I play a game on normal mode, I assume that the average human is like me, and I should be able to beat it. If I fail to beat it, I feel ashamed that I am below average. When better players beat a game on higher difficulty, it means that they are better than their peers when they get things like no-hit runs or speed runs. Their excitement comes from the fact that they are better than other players - not that they're better than the game but that they're better than other human beings. This is an ego thing which is part of the excitement and challenge - which is why someone like CohhCarnage plays the game on higher difficulty so that he can feel superior against other humans. People are social creatures and that is part of the draw of games. The fact that players complain that a game is unfair begs the question, "unfair to whom?" The very nature of the complaint assumes that it's unfair to human beings. If the game is hard for hard's sake, then who cares? What they are really complaining about is they don't want to be ashamed into believing that they can't do something that other players are able to do. They assumed that the devs should have taken more time to calibrate the game against real humans. This reveals the unspoken understanding that they are actually playing a game - not against the game per se, but against other humans. If people just want to play the game and win, then they would set it on easy mode and be done with it. This is basically what a walking simulator is, and I wouldn't find that interesting. PvP games bypass this ambiguity by its very nature testing one directly against another human.