There was a turning point where game design evolved to the next level.
That's called improved technology, the same technology that pushed RPG into the same action oriented style that I've seen just as much hate here (tes, etc)
Since then, games have become stale and devolved back to more simplistic times.
Except, it hasn't, if anything it continues to just copy what's mainstream, and spoiler alert, that's not tb games, let alone tbs games, heck even RTS games aren't even in the mainstream. Oh also to your little quip about imagining if command and conquer was tb, I suggest you do some googling because turn based strategy games wargames have always existed, Elemental fallen enchantress: legendary heroes being of my personal favorites, and that's not even bringing up civilizations or so of the other 4x games.
Like I said, if that is what the game developer actually had in mind instead of selling more units to controller users then great.
My problem is when a game that is clearly better in real time gets the axe in order to appeal to a broader audience.
I liked the old final fantasy games that were turn based but I moved on when games like Baldur's Gate came out.
Really? That is your go too? Not civilizations, or chrono trigger you no a rpg that just like BG set a standard in the industry and is debated by many to be better than even bg and motor
There is a reason why no RPG has matched or surpassed Baldur's Gate after 20 years and it has nothing to do with creativity, or hardware.
Except as I started above, chrono trigger is actually argued to be just as good of not better than it as it's praised as one of the best rpgs of all time and set industry standards. But not only is Chrono trigger is argued to be better but some people actually argue that KOTOR surpasses BG. (Pss, it does)...
It seems to me writing off turn-based games is writing off about 75% of the entire RPG and strategy genre. I don't have a problem with turn-based AT ALL, I just don't want it for Baldur's Gate. But in regards to Larian, their Dungeon Master feature in D:OS2 is universally praised, and about 100x better than whatever the hell Sword Coast Legends was supposed to be.
Yes, I have written off more than 75% of RPG's as not worth my time and money. It seems to me that people like Dragon King enjoy a much broader stroke of games then I do. The last thing I want to do is see RPG's continue to copy what is mainstream. The reason why RTS games have disappeared is for that very reason. I never played RTS games that were turn based because they have absolutely no appeal to me. I'm sure you guys will love BG3. I doubt it will be talked about in two years but it will be consumed by obsessive consumers in mass, no doubt.
@kanisatha I'm sorry if you feel that way. I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm not trying to dismiss your opinion. I'm only trying to get you to give some other systems a shot and arguing that they're more similar to what you like, than not. The games based off initiative systems can still be lots of fun. The fact that @JuliusBorisov and I read your posts and took the time to respond shows we're not just dismissing your opinions. I only took issue with you calling the arguments straw man arguments.
@DrHappyAngry, I appreciate your words. I'm also able to see from your post where there was a misunderstanding between us. I was not calling your and other people's arguments strawmen. I was saying some people (again, not you) were trying to turn my arguments into strawmen.
I feel like I've lost the plot in the last 30+ posts or so.
Turn based is neither worse nor better than RTwP. Both do certain things better than the other, but it's entirely subjective as to which is better.
I dont see any structural reason to think that BG could only be made by an indie developer. Furthermore, I wouldnt exactly consider Larian triple A in scope (from what I can tell).
Individual players have their own tastes as it relates to D:OS (and D:OS2), but critically, they're arguably the best received isometric RPGs of the last decade. All things being equal, I'm glad a company that has a history in making isometric RPGs and which has made the most critically acclaimed Isometric RPG (Again, arguably - but Metacritic supports this) of the decade is the one getting the nod to make the game. That's also just my opinion.
You know I think I could enjoy turn based games more if it wasn’t so heavily designed around movement. I think that’s what slows it down for me, these big lumbering movements to position yourself in flank and watch a % go from 30 to 70 and still miss.
The design in general kind of bores me but I’ve still to properly play Divinity OS, I got to the first city and dropped it in favour of beating Pillars of Eternity. Feel like I would enjoy it more if it was literally a turn based scene like Final Fantasy(I know I’m a heathen) with context based choices(position at window/go round back/fight as group or split into smaller teams).
The grid based gameplay is what irks me about turn based not the actual mechanics. Although I must say the positioning, flanking etc getting finally to your turn, seeing that 85% hit rate and still missing and waiting for an entire turn to try again is absolutely infuriating. RtWP definitely feels more fulfilling in that regard. Turn based makes me feel like I am constantly unlucky and failing.
It seems to me writing off turn-based games is writing off about 75% of the entire RPG and strategy genre. I don't have a problem with turn-based AT ALL, I just don't want it for Baldur's Gate. But in regards to Larian, their Dungeon Master feature in D:OS2 is universally praised, and about 100x better than whatever the hell Sword Coast Legends was supposed to be.
I think you're underestimating the percentage of current cRPGs that are TB. My estimate would be they are about 90%. And people writing games off in that way cuts both ways. Before Obsidian announced their TB mode for PoE2, there were tons of posts on their forum from people saying they will not bother to try the PoE games because they were not TB.
For myself I have not automatically written off a game for being TB. I've already stated that I bought and played the heck out of D:OS1. I just found its combat to be utterly horrible. However, I would still have been ok with the game if other parts of the game had been to my liking, but I also didn't care for their style of humor, the tone of the writing, the cartoonish artwork, and that fact that the game was clearly designed to be a co-op game first and foremost. I backed T:ToN which is TB, and that game I actually liked a whole lot, because even though TB you could avoid combat altogether in almost all instances amazingly including even for the final boss battle. For many others, this was what they disliked about the game, but for me T:ToN was an awesome game and my only major complaint is that it was far too short. Finally, I've also backed Realms Beyond, again a TB game, because I figured it'd be the closest thing I'm going to get to a D&D cRPG and because I want to support and encourage a new studio in the hope that some of their future RPGs will use RTwP.
It seems to me that people like Dragon King enjoy a much broader stroke of games then I do.
No I just don't brush every single game genre with a broad stroke which is a norm on these types of forums. Even in the genres I hate, shooters, I can find at least something somewhere I like it.
The reason why RTS games have disappeared is for that very reason.
Except it hasn't, it never disappeared I'm just beginning to thing you actually think the genre was much larger in the mainstream than it actually was. Spoiler alert, a lot of game genre actually is a lot more niche then we want to emit.
...this actually hurt my head... If a game is RTS then its not TBS. Only thing that can come close to this with be real time with pass and that's still not tbs
I'm sure you guys will love BG3. I doubt it will be talked about in two years but it will be consumed by obsessive consumers in mass, no doubt.
Honestly, I'm sure I won't play bg3, I'm just not all that interested. Heck, I Bobby iwd due to how good people said it was and yadda and can't even bring myself to finish it because I ultimately lost interest while playing
So your point is that you don't like my opinion or how I brush away games that don't interest me? I don't care dude, better get over it. I like Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 and don't want to see it go turned based or taken on by a big company that is directly controlled by it's producer and investors. I am perfectly aware that all of these games that I am not interested in sell to large numbers of people who like them. They wouldn't be made otherwise. If you are upset that I hate games that you like then there is nothing I can do about it.
and as much as i talk about the shadowrun games they to are also slow. the god mode cheat also speeds up combat as well as making the battles easier as i suck at srpgs.
That literally takes the fun out of them. Dos, shadowrun are all tactical games. You don't play them for speedy action, you play them to plan and strategize how you are going to beat your current opposition..
This is shocking to me seeing this come from people in this forum especially since I can throw a stone in the on this forum and chances are ill hit a post about someone talking about tactics and planning in bg.
Yeah BG has great tactics but it it real-time. You can (to an extent) react to what is happening around you. I can't stand turn-based games that make me stand there and just take it when an enemy comes at me. I enjoyed Shadowrun for everything but the combat.
Also - Shadiwrun is a good example of how turn-based games silo the different aspects of the game: you are in movement, or in conversation, or in combat, and the actions you can take are totally defined and limited by which state you are in. Then the actions become limited and unimaginative a fire spell is indistinguishsble from a lightning spell, is indistinguishable from a bow and arrow, is indistinguishable from a rifle, etc.
BG only has one "mode," and the tactics encompass anything you can do inside the game world. There's a much larger and smoother spectrum of possible abilities, and very few of them are dependent on the circumstances.
I lik turn-based play for games like Civ... but in an RPG I want an engine that gives me more freedom.
@subtledoctor
Wow i completely miss this...i enjoy shadowrun but Sr issues go way deeper than it's combat. The game series as a whole felt more like a proof of concept then a fully detailed game and honestly that's arguably due to what it was trying to build on. A table top game what was broken into multiple levels and layers from the real world to the digital world, to the spiritual and magical world.
It felt like all was started but wasn't properly fleshed out like one would imagine such a game to be.
Also, fire spell being little different from a electric spell has nothing to do with the combat system that's a issue of engine limitations. Final fantasy tactics, a much older tbs, with a much weaker engine had no problem distinguishing between fire, lightning and ice spells and actually had more effects then freaking bg. We really need more games where we can turn people into frogs, chickens, and even undead.
I turned a freaking wizard into a frog...god i miss that game!
Also i actually don't remember much difference between "modes" of bg even compared to shadowrun. You bring up how your either in movement, convo, or combat but really your no less restricted in bg.
I don't remember being able to just cast a fireball or being able to backstab someone while in the middle of a conversation. In fact i specifically remember having spells interrupted by enemies who wanted to stop and monologue in the middle of combat.
So i would argue that the freedom of bg is just a illusion.
So your point is that you don't like my opinion or how I brush away games that don't interest me? I don't care dude, better get over it. I like Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 and don't want to see it go turned based or taken on by a big company that is directly controlled by it's producer and investors. I am perfectly aware that all of these games that I am not interested in sell to large numbers of people who like them. They wouldn't be made otherwise. If you are upset that I hate games that you like then there is nothing I can do about it.
Actually no i was just pointing it the be in half the crap you were spewing while acting like you had some hear mental because you didn't like tbs. You're the only who care xyz game sells, which is why you continued to regurgitated it like it was protection against evil spell, *insert whatever bg reference helps you sleep at night.*
If you don't like people challenging what you say then keep it to yourself.
I couldn't care less about your opinion and I'm not upset that you like games that I think are turds. I didn't quote your posts and try to break them down and argue with you because I honestly don't care. Dime a dozen, I heard it all before.
I couldn't care less about your opinion and I'm not upset that you like games that I think are turds. I didn't quote your posts and try to break them down and argue with you because I honestly don't care. Dime a dozen, I heard it all before.
Oh dear lord, I must be a monster. How dare I come onto a forum a place fill with multiple people, and onto a topic, a place where discussions happen, to have a discussion about something with someone who has a opposite opinion then me. Dear God how dare I!
Using a forum for its attended purpose and expecting the other side to do the same.
I think it's time for you to let it go man. I came on this forum and used it to voice my opinion, not argue with people who have differing opinions. You do not agree with me, note taken. Lets move on and let others discuss as they will.
If that happened, I swear I wouldn't even come on here and say anything. I'd just pretend it didn't happen and ignore it altogether. Even if it was true. Baldur's Gate 3 does not exist and will never exist lol.
@subtledoctor My comment was in direct response to this, "When I say immersion-breaking, I mean the mechanics of how TB combat plays out, the very idea that someone would politely wait for their turn to kill their enemy. Consider this example. Let's say one of my party members is getting hammered by multiple enemies. He's fighting back, but with multiple enemies on him he's taking a lot of hits and may even soon die. There's another party member standing right next to him. But he cannot help out in any way because, well, it's just not his turn yet and he has to wait for his turn. Now I can totally accept a character not being able to act because they don't have the necessary skills/attributes, they're out of spells to cast, they have a mallus on them such as being frozen or entangled or whatever, etc. But not being able to act because it's not yet your turn? That's just utterly bogus to me."
Saying something is immerison breaking because no one politely stands still to get stabbed is ridiculous IS an example of taking an abstract mechanic and translating it directly irl.
There's a reason we're still here 20 years after BG was released. It's not because of the engine, or RTwP combat, or the engine, or the ruleset, or the engine.
It's because both entries in the series told an engaging story with fun and interesting companions. If BG3 does that it will not matter if it's set in Waterdeep or Kara-Tur, in the Time of Troubles or the current 5e timeline, whether it's turn-based or RTwP, or whether it's 2e or 5e.
I don't know. I thought Final Fantasy 7 had a great story with a cool villain but I couldn't play it more than twice because of the gameplay. If you think about it. The story of Baldur's Gate 2:
Mysterious man kidnaps your friend. He steals your soul and you track him down and kill him. The end.
What was fun for me was the adventure but the adventure is used up after one playthrough. After that it's all about gameplay and the gameplay is the only reason I come back 20 years later. Of course it has to have a cool atmosphere that is fun to retread and the situations that lead up to fights are more enjoyable if they are done with style. Cool unique items to collect are great in combination with fun character building. A fun game can be built in many different ways but Baldur's Gate has stood the test of time in ways that most others have not. In my opinion it would be a shame to make a Baldur's gate title that does not have Baldur's gate gameplay. I have no objections to 5E in a new shiny engine but I do think effort should be made to keep what was special about Baldur's Gate intact and that goes beyond characters and story.
@subtledoctor Just wanted to clarify. Your intial response made it seem you were interpreting my comment as a broad statement. I was just replying to a specific part of a post.
though...
"1) Sorry, if it really comes down to brass tacks, I don't think you can deny that a turn-based abstraction is more immersion-breaking than a running-time abstraction system. (Though, careful you don't fall into the uncanny valley - hello, Morrowind!)"
Yeah, I can. Neither one really taxes suspension of disbelief.
Larian (or anyone else doing BG3) can always design the game as being both TB and RTwP (by selecting desired game style in options), like Obsidian did in the latest PoE2 patch. Admittedly, I have not played PoE2 yet (waiting for PS4 version) but adding TB always seemed a very smart move to me.
I don't understand some of the arguing on here about whether turn-based or real time is more "immersive". I can see a preference for gameplay, but not the immersion argument. These are games, not simulators. The point of combat in this sub-genre of RPG's is tactics and strategy. Which wouldn't really be the determining factors in some real life battle between twelve people with swords and clubs. I think the above references to chess are apt. The combat in these games wasn't fun to the extent that it truly resembled medieval violence.
It's also just weird to have an argument that consigns multiple generations of RPG's to being "non-immersive" simply because they existed prior to having the tech even have playable realtime.
I seriously wonder: are you, folks who say that writing in DOS games is somehow of a bad quality, indeed aware of the actual story and writing after 1st chapters of each game? Eg. In DOS 1 EE only 20% of players found Icara's cabin. And the main story, the actual- and very grim- events starts developing only after that. Only less than 10% of players found a way to handle Tenebrium, and without it you can't understand the core aspects of the story as you simply can't access the appropriate areas.
Does this narrative about writing and goofiness come from first 2-5 hours in the game, something you maybe didn't like and dropped the game because of it, and then read in a review or an opinion about "bad writing "?
On a side note, since both DOS games don't give players a clue about the actual serious events happening in the world until after the big 1st chapter is over, or even later, don't be afraid that a potential illithid in a teaser is a spoiler for a story. An npc or a fraction- probably, but most likely not even close to the main story.
Ok, I want to revisit this as I took it to heart and reattempted to play the game, but this time being critical of what I wasn't liking in the game. I had a lot more written, but lost it. So far I am up to meeting the Captain of the Legion and I already have numerous gripes and it starts with:
Character Creation is backwards. Players are presented with preset characters, which is fine, but players are then able to go into the preset characters and change whatever they want to change and this is where issues start creeping up.
The player scrolls through meta descriptions of the classes and chooses one. I personally first chose Knight because it said it offered leadership and fighting abilities. Awesome, a tanky leader who can also be charismatic towards people the pair meet but I would prefer him to be a Dex based tank instead of a strength and make the changes from Two-handed weapon style to single weapon style. Put in points in Charisma instead of bodybuilding. Choose the politician trait (+2 to CHR -1 to INT which this character doesn't seem to need). Once making the changes, I go back to the start screen and see my Dex based Knight still has a two-handed sword equip. That IMO seems to hinder my character at the beginning, so I actually have to scroll through the classes and find one that is equipped with a Dex based single handed weapon. I lose all the changes I made and have to design the character again. Frustrating and I haven't even started the game.
I will also note, the player is forced to take a skill based abilities even though the game gives them the option first to choose something else. With only one generic talent (staff of magnus that all characters have) there is no way to actually forgo Man-of-Arms or similar abilities for something like Blacksmithing. This is poor design. It is also poor design to have the Skills two menus away from the Abilities next to it. New players have to constantly go back and forth to determine which Ability would suit their playing style better.
A Waste of My Talent. Tied to character creation with the early part of the game is a lack of talent options. For example with Charisma. The description reads: "Charisma determines the first impression you make on other people and your talent for charming, intimidating and reasoning." For someone who likes his dialog options this is definitely one that I wanted to max out. HOWEVER, the skill never came into play on my first 4-5 conversations even though the writers of the game had every opportunity to do so. I should have been able to convince Ragequin that I wasn't the thief of the stone, I could have reasoned with the guards on the bridge for them to take my word that I wasn't an Orc, I could have persuaded the Wizard or the guard captain to give me something extra for helping out with the murder investigation, or convinced one of the legionnaires after the Orc battle to spare some equipment or healing pots. Could those points been better to spend elsewhere figuring I am now leveling up and have another point (which I can't put in anything I have already put a point in).
Lockpicking also seemed completely pointless as one can just bash any chest they find and you actually need one use lockpicks to make use of the skill. Before someone says "well bashing things deteriorates your weapons" I found a spare bow and a spare knife in the first tutorial dungeon in case they do break. I would rather have my point back for something else. Things like this make me want to restart the game.
Level design is bad. Why is the first thing I get to interact with in the game a wooden crate that contains gold? Is this a looter? Why I am being rewarded for talking a couple of steps forward away from the beach? Why am I now running around collecting shells in a path that splits into two in a circle? What's the point of splitting the path to the point where a person can miss part of the tutorial in the guy that attempted to fly off the cliff (granted, that tutorial part is then completed after the first undead fight).
Why is the first thing I come across in the tutorial dungeon a locked chest that I have to bash open, and then the next two chests are suppose to teach me about lockpicking and finding keys? You already taught me a simplest way to open up the chest so these next two are pointless (and also out of the way where they can be missed).
And why can't I fish with the fishing pole I found? What's its purpose? Why is it there? I guess it can go in my sac with the 20 or so shells (each with a different design, so they don't stack!) I have also been collecting for some unknown reason.
Oh and about the tutorial, just because I did it 2 and half years ago or more, doesn't mean I remember everything. Allow me to switch it back on to relearn some of the tactics I need to play the game. Right now I can only disable it, or enable any tutorial I haven't seen.
The game throws so much at you, that it even forgets about plot points in dialog. So I am chasing people who stole something from the crypt and come across 2 drunk guards who these thieves would have had to pass but No dialog about the thieves, just some mistrust and either a fight or an escort. Fine. (Maybe the thieves went and used the unguarded waypoint portal that once the orcs find can wreck havoc in town)
Come upon the talking cat/mage. Another opportunity to ask about who might have stolen from the crypt and what they might have taken. Nope, just directions to the Legionnaire Captain. Great, he'll want to hear about the latest orc fight, the burning ship the other legionnaire told me about and the thieves. Nope. No dialog options for any of these either. If the game cannot even keep track of these key plot points how is the player going to do it?
The limited dialog options even carry over to other conversations, While walking through the market I am forced to overhear two NPCs talking about if one should steal a fish. I have no way to ignore the private conversation and then am trust into it with him asking me if he should take the fish or not. A or B. Right or Wrong, no other options like offering to buy the fish for the man (which seems simple and could be in character for a lot of players). I also find it amusing that you can tell the man not to steal the fish and chastising him for even thinking about it and then go ahead and steal one yourself.
I will also say having the captain the farthest waypoint away and having to walk through a market of named NPCs who gamers are trained to talked to, more poor design choice. By the time the player gets to him, they will already have a lot of information overload and forget what their first purpose was.
Minor Issue The Legion Captain dismissing the theory that Source Magic was involved in the murder. This man seems more respectable and believable than a Wizard who wants to be a cat which puts the player at a conflict of how important the murder is to the plot. If the person in charge of investigating it is being dismissive of a possible lead, why should the player be any different especially when the source of the Source magic theory isn't all that stable himself.
That is how far I have gotten and I have already thought about restarting. With so many other games in my collection that can tell better stories and be more immersive, I may drift away from it again and not reach that cabin Julius is talking about. If I am already noticing issues in level design and dialog options this early, am I really expecting them to get better if I just invest a few more hours into it?
Am I to expect that the company behind this game has improved enough to take on Baldur's Gate III? I am still going into BG III with an open mind and giving Larian every opportunity to deliver a game they think lives up to the IP they have taken over. Good luck.
Comments
Except, it hasn't, if anything it continues to just copy what's mainstream, and spoiler alert, that's not tb games, let alone tbs games, heck even RTS games aren't even in the mainstream. Oh also to your little quip about imagining if command and conquer was tb, I suggest you do some googling because turn based strategy games wargames have always existed, Elemental fallen enchantress: legendary heroes being of my personal favorites, and that's not even bringing up civilizations or so of the other 4x games.
Except your personal appeal isn't universal.
No, you just want to see them get the ides
of March treatment.
Really? That is your go too? Not civilizations, or chrono trigger you no a rpg that just like BG set a standard in the industry and is debated by many to be better than even bg and motor
Except as I started above, chrono trigger is actually argued to be just as good of not better than it as it's praised as one of the best rpgs of all time and set industry standards. But not only is Chrono trigger is argued to be better but some people actually argue that KOTOR surpasses BG. (Pss, it does)...
@DrHappyAngry, I appreciate your words. I'm also able to see from your post where there was a misunderstanding between us. I was not calling your and other people's arguments strawmen. I was saying some people (again, not you) were trying to turn my arguments into strawmen.
Turn based is neither worse nor better than RTwP. Both do certain things better than the other, but it's entirely subjective as to which is better.
I dont see any structural reason to think that BG could only be made by an indie developer. Furthermore, I wouldnt exactly consider Larian triple A in scope (from what I can tell).
Individual players have their own tastes as it relates to D:OS (and D:OS2), but critically, they're arguably the best received isometric RPGs of the last decade. All things being equal, I'm glad a company that has a history in making isometric RPGs and which has made the most critically acclaimed Isometric RPG (Again, arguably - but Metacritic supports this) of the decade is the one getting the nod to make the game. That's also just my opinion.
The design in general kind of bores me but I’ve still to properly play Divinity OS, I got to the first city and dropped it in favour of beating Pillars of Eternity. Feel like I would enjoy it more if it was literally a turn based scene like Final Fantasy(I know I’m a heathen) with context based choices(position at window/go round back/fight as group or split into smaller teams).
The grid based gameplay is what irks me about turn based not the actual mechanics. Although I must say the positioning, flanking etc getting finally to your turn, seeing that 85% hit rate and still missing and waiting for an entire turn to try again is absolutely infuriating. RtWP definitely feels more fulfilling in that regard. Turn based makes me feel like I am constantly unlucky and failing.
I think you're underestimating the percentage of current cRPGs that are TB. My estimate would be they are about 90%. And people writing games off in that way cuts both ways. Before Obsidian announced their TB mode for PoE2, there were tons of posts on their forum from people saying they will not bother to try the PoE games because they were not TB.
For myself I have not automatically written off a game for being TB. I've already stated that I bought and played the heck out of D:OS1. I just found its combat to be utterly horrible. However, I would still have been ok with the game if other parts of the game had been to my liking, but I also didn't care for their style of humor, the tone of the writing, the cartoonish artwork, and that fact that the game was clearly designed to be a co-op game first and foremost. I backed T:ToN which is TB, and that game I actually liked a whole lot, because even though TB you could avoid combat altogether in almost all instances amazingly including even for the final boss battle. For many others, this was what they disliked about the game, but for me T:ToN was an awesome game and my only major complaint is that it was far too short. Finally, I've also backed Realms Beyond, again a TB game, because I figured it'd be the closest thing I'm going to get to a D&D cRPG and because I want to support and encourage a new studio in the hope that some of their future RPGs will use RTwP.
Which tb rpgs aren't even the mainstream style of rpg, action rpg are.
Except it hasn't, it never disappeared I'm just beginning to thing you actually think the genre was much larger in the mainstream than it actually was. Spoiler alert, a lot of game genre actually is a lot more niche then we want to emit.
...this actually hurt my head... If a game is RTS then its not TBS. Only thing that can come close to this with be real time with pass and that's still not tbs
Ok?
Honestly, I'm sure I won't play bg3, I'm just not all that interested. Heck, I Bobby iwd due to how good people said it was and yadda and can't even bring myself to finish it because I ultimately lost interest while playing
Wow i completely miss this...i enjoy shadowrun but Sr issues go way deeper than it's combat. The game series as a whole felt more like a proof of concept then a fully detailed game and honestly that's arguably due to what it was trying to build on. A table top game what was broken into multiple levels and layers from the real world to the digital world, to the spiritual and magical world.
It felt like all was started but wasn't properly fleshed out like one would imagine such a game to be.
Also, fire spell being little different from a electric spell has nothing to do with the combat system that's a issue of engine limitations. Final fantasy tactics, a much older tbs, with a much weaker engine had no problem distinguishing between fire, lightning and ice spells and actually had more effects then freaking bg. We really need more games where we can turn people into frogs, chickens, and even undead.
I turned a freaking wizard into a frog...god i miss that game!
Also i actually don't remember much difference between "modes" of bg even compared to shadowrun. You bring up how your either in movement, convo, or combat but really your no less restricted in bg.
I don't remember being able to just cast a fireball or being able to backstab someone while in the middle of a conversation. In fact i specifically remember having spells interrupted by enemies who wanted to stop and monologue in the middle of combat.
So i would argue that the freedom of bg is just a illusion.
If you don't like people challenging what you say then keep it to yourself.
Using a forum for its attended purpose and expecting the other side to do the same.
(Psst, that's sarcasm btw)
We know absolutely nothing about the game yet.
Saying something is immerison breaking because no one politely stands still to get stabbed is ridiculous IS an example of taking an abstract mechanic and translating it directly irl.
It's because both entries in the series told an engaging story with fun and interesting companions. If BG3 does that it will not matter if it's set in Waterdeep or Kara-Tur, in the Time of Troubles or the current 5e timeline, whether it's turn-based or RTwP, or whether it's 2e or 5e.
Did I mention it's not the engine?
Mysterious man kidnaps your friend. He steals your soul and you track him down and kill him. The end.
What was fun for me was the adventure but the adventure is used up after one playthrough. After that it's all about gameplay and the gameplay is the only reason I come back 20 years later. Of course it has to have a cool atmosphere that is fun to retread and the situations that lead up to fights are more enjoyable if they are done with style. Cool unique items to collect are great in combination with fun character building. A fun game can be built in many different ways but Baldur's Gate has stood the test of time in ways that most others have not. In my opinion it would be a shame to make a Baldur's gate title that does not have Baldur's gate gameplay. I have no objections to 5E in a new shiny engine but I do think effort should be made to keep what was special about Baldur's Gate intact and that goes beyond characters and story.
though...
"1) Sorry, if it really comes down to brass tacks, I don't think you can deny that a turn-based abstraction is more immersion-breaking than a running-time abstraction system. (Though, careful you don't fall into the uncanny valley - hello, Morrowind!)"
Yeah, I can. Neither one really taxes suspension of disbelief.
It's also just weird to have an argument that consigns multiple generations of RPG's to being "non-immersive" simply because they existed prior to having the tech even have playable realtime.
Ok, I want to revisit this as I took it to heart and reattempted to play the game, but this time being critical of what I wasn't liking in the game. I had a lot more written, but lost it. So far I am up to meeting the Captain of the Legion and I already have numerous gripes and it starts with:
Character Creation is backwards. Players are presented with preset characters, which is fine, but players are then able to go into the preset characters and change whatever they want to change and this is where issues start creeping up.
The player scrolls through meta descriptions of the classes and chooses one. I personally first chose Knight because it said it offered leadership and fighting abilities. Awesome, a tanky leader who can also be charismatic towards people the pair meet but I would prefer him to be a Dex based tank instead of a strength and make the changes from Two-handed weapon style to single weapon style. Put in points in Charisma instead of bodybuilding. Choose the politician trait (+2 to CHR -1 to INT which this character doesn't seem to need). Once making the changes, I go back to the start screen and see my Dex based Knight still has a two-handed sword equip. That IMO seems to hinder my character at the beginning, so I actually have to scroll through the classes and find one that is equipped with a Dex based single handed weapon. I lose all the changes I made and have to design the character again. Frustrating and I haven't even started the game.
I will also note, the player is forced to take a skill based abilities even though the game gives them the option first to choose something else. With only one generic talent (staff of magnus that all characters have) there is no way to actually forgo Man-of-Arms or similar abilities for something like Blacksmithing. This is poor design. It is also poor design to have the Skills two menus away from the Abilities next to it. New players have to constantly go back and forth to determine which Ability would suit their playing style better.
A Waste of My Talent. Tied to character creation with the early part of the game is a lack of talent options. For example with Charisma. The description reads: "Charisma determines the first impression you make on other people and your talent for charming, intimidating and reasoning." For someone who likes his dialog options this is definitely one that I wanted to max out. HOWEVER, the skill never came into play on my first 4-5 conversations even though the writers of the game had every opportunity to do so. I should have been able to convince Ragequin that I wasn't the thief of the stone, I could have reasoned with the guards on the bridge for them to take my word that I wasn't an Orc, I could have persuaded the Wizard or the guard captain to give me something extra for helping out with the murder investigation, or convinced one of the legionnaires after the Orc battle to spare some equipment or healing pots. Could those points been better to spend elsewhere figuring I am now leveling up and have another point (which I can't put in anything I have already put a point in).
Lockpicking also seemed completely pointless as one can just bash any chest they find and you actually need one use lockpicks to make use of the skill. Before someone says "well bashing things deteriorates your weapons" I found a spare bow and a spare knife in the first tutorial dungeon in case they do break. I would rather have my point back for something else. Things like this make me want to restart the game.
Level design is bad. Why is the first thing I get to interact with in the game a wooden crate that contains gold? Is this a looter? Why I am being rewarded for talking a couple of steps forward away from the beach? Why am I now running around collecting shells in a path that splits into two in a circle? What's the point of splitting the path to the point where a person can miss part of the tutorial in the guy that attempted to fly off the cliff (granted, that tutorial part is then completed after the first undead fight).
Why is the first thing I come across in the tutorial dungeon a locked chest that I have to bash open, and then the next two chests are suppose to teach me about lockpicking and finding keys? You already taught me a simplest way to open up the chest so these next two are pointless (and also out of the way where they can be missed).
And why can't I fish with the fishing pole I found? What's its purpose? Why is it there? I guess it can go in my sac with the 20 or so shells (each with a different design, so they don't stack!) I have also been collecting for some unknown reason.
Oh and about the tutorial, just because I did it 2 and half years ago or more, doesn't mean I remember everything. Allow me to switch it back on to relearn some of the tactics I need to play the game. Right now I can only disable it, or enable any tutorial I haven't seen.
The game throws so much at you, that it even forgets about plot points in dialog. So I am chasing people who stole something from the crypt and come across 2 drunk guards who these thieves would have had to pass but No dialog about the thieves, just some mistrust and either a fight or an escort. Fine. (Maybe the thieves went and used the unguarded waypoint portal that once the orcs find can wreck havoc in town)
Come upon the talking cat/mage. Another opportunity to ask about who might have stolen from the crypt and what they might have taken. Nope, just directions to the Legionnaire Captain. Great, he'll want to hear about the latest orc fight, the burning ship the other legionnaire told me about and the thieves. Nope. No dialog options for any of these either. If the game cannot even keep track of these key plot points how is the player going to do it?
The limited dialog options even carry over to other conversations, While walking through the market I am forced to overhear two NPCs talking about if one should steal a fish. I have no way to ignore the private conversation and then am trust into it with him asking me if he should take the fish or not. A or B. Right or Wrong, no other options like offering to buy the fish for the man (which seems simple and could be in character for a lot of players). I also find it amusing that you can tell the man not to steal the fish and chastising him for even thinking about it and then go ahead and steal one yourself.
I will also say having the captain the farthest waypoint away and having to walk through a market of named NPCs who gamers are trained to talked to, more poor design choice. By the time the player gets to him, they will already have a lot of information overload and forget what their first purpose was.
Minor Issue The Legion Captain dismissing the theory that Source Magic was involved in the murder. This man seems more respectable and believable than a Wizard who wants to be a cat which puts the player at a conflict of how important the murder is to the plot. If the person in charge of investigating it is being dismissive of a possible lead, why should the player be any different especially when the source of the Source magic theory isn't all that stable himself.
That is how far I have gotten and I have already thought about restarting. With so many other games in my collection that can tell better stories and be more immersive, I may drift away from it again and not reach that cabin Julius is talking about. If I am already noticing issues in level design and dialog options this early, am I really expecting them to get better if I just invest a few more hours into it?
Am I to expect that the company behind this game has improved enough to take on Baldur's Gate III? I am still going into BG III with an open mind and giving Larian every opportunity to deliver a game they think lives up to the IP they have taken over. Good luck.