Pathfinder: Kingmaker - First Impressions

Yesterday, in passing, I mentioned there's a game I'm playing now that seems like it might have some traction, something that's been hard to find in games of late. Since the only thing that successfully sunk its claws in this year was Baldur's Gate 3, I guess it shouldn't be much of a surprise that this is something similar.

The game is Pathfinder: Kingmaker, currently on sale for a massive 84% off, which is why I have it. It's an isometric rpg from a Russian studio by the name of Owlcat Games, a pretty good name in my book. It was partly funded through a Kickstarter, one of those really rare ones that not only ended up doing what it said it was going to but in something like the timescale it proposed, the campaign having begun in 2017 and the game coming out just over a year later.

It was originally published by Deep Silver, an Austrian company I've never heard of and a couple of years ago the publishing rights transferred to another unfamiliar name, Knights Peak. That, though, is a subsidiary of someone much better known, at least to me - MY.games, formerly MY.com, publishers of, among other things, Allods Online.

Hey! Look, everybody! I can read Wikipedia!

While I'm cribbing, I suppose I ought to mention how Pathfinder was already a well-established RPG system long before any of this. A decade before, in fact.

Before I started doing this "research", I thought it was a spin-off from the forty-year old classic from Palladium Games, but it turns out to be another Pathfinder altogether. It's from a company called Paizo Publishing and it's based on 3rd Ed. Dungeons and Dragons, which apparently is somehow open source now. How did that happen?

More importantly, why did Owlcat decide to use the same name as another extremely similar system? It's not like we're short of generic fantasy nouns. In this case, confusion doesn't just seem possible, it seems inevitable.

Anyway, that's the provenance. What about the game?

It's weird. I mean, it's not weird as in spooky or strange or outlandish. Just weird in that it looks like other games I've played but doesn't entirely feel like any of them when I'm playing.

It looks like all the Baldur's Gate games or Solasta or Solasta II or Divinity Original Sin 1 or 2 or like any other isometric RPG you might be able to name. They all look the same, don't they? Possibly more so than any other genre I can come up with.

It sort of plays like them, too, but only sometimes. The bits where you click to move your party around an open area or through a dungeon, stopping to engage in turn-based battles that take literally hours to resolve. Or the bits where you find every container in a room and loot it and find you can hardly move. Or when you wander around a safe haven selling all the crap you dragged back to town and making small talk with the locals.

All that stuff is there and about as entertaining as it always is. The beating heart of all these games is always the combat, of course. As long as that's good, the rest is a bonus. 

I had a bit of an issue with the combat in P:K (Unfortunate abbreviation, that...) at first because it defaults to some kind of real-time action combat where your party is controlled by AI and you have to hit the space bar to pause it every time you want to take charge. Once I found out how to toggle that off, though, everything was peachy.

It's D&D so all the spells and abilities are at least vaguely familiar, even though I think this might be the first time I've played anything specifically based on the 3rd edition. It seems ferociously complicated even for D&D, with a ludicrous amount of choice at just about every stage. Leveling up requires a degree in advanced RPG mechanics.

Still, in the end it's just move your little pieces about, set some baddies on fire, hit some other baddies with lumps of metal and remember to save often so you can do it all again when it goes wrong, which it will. It's what they call a gameplay loop, I believe, and a pretty solid one at that. (I had a whole sarcastic aside about Stars Reach here but I took it out. It seemed unnecessarily cruel.)

There's a story, too, naturally. Usually at this point I'd say something abut how it's the same story it always is but actually it's not. It's one of the weird aspects of the whole thing. The set-up is that some noble recruits a bunch of people, of whom you 're one, to go into a contested region between two political powers, remove the faction that's trying to establish themselves in the hinterland and then take over and govern it properly. Or something like that. I wasn't paying as much attention as I could have been.

Even weirder, there are two teams, yours and one led by a sociopathic gnome (As though there's any other kind.) and you have to get the whole thing done in three months or before the gnome's crew, whichever comes first, or you lose. It's very odd and made odder because it's all so perfunctory. 

Nothing in the main storyline seems to be explained in any detail, even though there's a huge amount of explanatory text for everything else. You can click on highlighted words and get gobs of lore about the gods or the cities of the world and every minor NPC with a quest seems to have far too much to say but as for why the player character wants to become a landholding baron/ess or why anyone would let them is a lot harder to parse.

My best guess is that it's like one of those classic fairy tales, where the King offers a third of his kingdom to anyone who can free the land from the threat of the Dragon, except in this case it's just some murdering bastard with horns on his hat who turns out to have had a really bad childhood.

The whole fairy-tale element is compounded by the way many of the non-combat dice rolls are presented as pages of parchment in a storybook. Not only that, it's a storybook that's being written by one of your party, a halfling Bard of relentlessly good cheer, who I'm surprised the always-angry Barbarian hasn't stuffed into a barrel and thrown into a river before the end of the first day.

When you run into one of these skill checks, you get to pick them from a list and the bard re-writes history according to how the dice fall. It's quite enjoyable although I'm not sure it's more enjoyable than just watching the dice was in BG3. Still, points for effort, I guess.

Some of the conversations are voiced and the acting is competent but not so much so as to make me want to listen to it all the way through. I tend to read the text and flip to the next stage long before whoever it is has finished talking. I do like the party, though. They're all quite characterful, even if there is one who sometimes sounds more like a Valley Girl than an adventurer.

The art design is excellent. It's a charming game to look at, especially if you like parchment. There's a lot of parchment. 

One thing that I noticed as I was looking up some stuff online was that Pathfinder:Kingmaker is reckoned to be very difficult at the start. Where most similar games lead you fairly carefully through content appropriate to your level, apparently this one just lets you charge through the main storyline long before you're equipped to deal with the fights. 

I've seen a bit of that but mostly I've been keeping to things I ought to be able to handle and that's been difficult enough. There's been a lot of limping through with everyone more than half dead and a few times where I've had to reload and do something else altogether. 

What makes it feel a lot more difficult - and certainly slower and more tedious - than it probably should is the number of times people miss. Geez! Some of these people couldn't hit a barn with a baseball bat. Not if you gave them three goes.

And it's not only the party, either. It's not at all unusual for an entire round of combat to go by with no-one being able to hit anyone! It may be faithful to the rules but it's very poor entertainment. I'm guessing it's a lot less noticeable if you let the game run in real-time, as the default settings would suggest the devs expected but that takes most of the fun out of the whole concept from my way of thinking. If I wanted to play an action rpg I'd go get my head examined.

Something similar applies to traveling on the abstract overland map and setting camp, both of which are heavily prone to being interrupted by random encounters, some of which are with the aforementioned kinds of completely inappropriate, far too powerful enemies I was trying to avoid. All of that put together made the first few sessions something of a trial and yet I persisted, which must mean I was having some kind fun, even if it was the masochistic kind.

The same Reddit threads I saw that made a lot of the low-level difficulty suggested things started to improve around Level 3. That seems like it would be quick to arrive but it's not, really. I dinged Level 3 just before I started writing this and I had over eight hours played.

I did go out and give it another go to see if it had gotten any better and it did seem as if it might have, so I'm optimistic. I'm slightly less optimistic about the ticking timer. Three months might sound like a lot but I've burned through a month of that already and it feels like I've hardly done anything. 

I guess I'd better get on with it instead of sitting here talking about it. I'd hate to think that pesky gnome was going to beat me to it. Whatever it is.