I'm not sure why you repeatedly make these posts where you inaccurately state my and others' arguments. I don't think they're constructive posts, I think they're provocative. State your opinions and state your case. But don't make it seem like my argument could be boiled down to literally "Hey man you should just have more sympathy!" That is not at all a fair summary of what I just wrote.
To follow up here, let me give an example of how *I'm* sympathetic to a Larian design choice that I'm not a fan of, in both OS and in what may come in BG3.
I'm not wild about the emphasis on multiplayer elements in the OS games. I'll probably never multiplay them, I'll probably never multiplay BG3. I think it results in fewer resources spent on making the single player as excellent as possible AND even adds elements that make it worse.
One example is the rock, paper, scissors to resolve stat-check in dialogue in OS1. I believe this was added to help game-ify debates between the two protagonists when they're making a dialogue-related roleplaying decision. And it's understandable there. But it bled into dialogue checks with NPC's. I realize there's a way around it, but it's clearly the base way you were intended to play the game. There's other multiplayer-friendly elements too, such as certain sidequest puzzles being more easily solved with two players.
I don't care for these parts. These parts make my experience of the game worse.
But! I'm sympathetic as to why Larian designed the games this way. These games have clearly drawn an audience of not only hardcore CRPG fans but folks who want a co-op experience as well. In fact, without these concessions to co-op play, these games (the sequel at least) probably doesn't get as big of a budget as it would have otherwise.
Those are the market realities today. These games cannot be mere copies of BG series with souped-up graphics and 5e rules and hope to be successful. BG3 cannot succeed commercially by only capturing the original series' audience. I'm not trying to be rude with this next statement, but it will be a blunt reality. The hard truth, is that Larian *doesn't* have to have sympathy for the tastes of a small minority of BG fanbase. That tiny slice of the market isn't going to determine whether BG3 is economically viable.
Def agree with you on this doctor. Tho I'm not a proponent of either system. They can both work. But for sure both BG and PoE showed that these systems can not only work but deliver something innovative.
Btw, a fireball in BG is a lvl 3 spells. Usually people clear dozens of kobolds, gnolls, xvarts, gibberlings, bandits without this spell, taking each enemy one by one, with Sleep if you have it.
Funny, my experience just today shows that you are wrong. At level 7, toward the end of the game, I got ambushed by ~14 kobold commandos in a mod encounter added by NTotSC. 14 archers with fire arrows can be quite dangerous. Charname's Mirror Image spell was exhausted in less than a round and he was taking damage. So I took them all out with... that's right, a Fireball.
What are you talking about in terms of being wrong? What does this example have to show? I meant that usually the player has to go through many fights against those enemies before reaching the lvl 5, so he can't kill hordes of them with a single spell for many playing hours.
As for later levels, killing multiple targets in seconds is what can happen both in RtwP and TB, if these targets are low-level. In DOS1 when I came to Hiberheim (a location for lvl 10 characters) being lvl 16, I breezed through many fights there just by casting chain lighting or meteor shower (which you can cast before the battle starts, so fights ended the same time they started).
Is not necessary to watch all video to pick the point that i an trying to make, only the beginning. He mentions that after they changed how armor and magic armor worked from 1 to 2, he noted that all fights works in the same way. So, i would probably like much more D:OS1 over D:OS2 but don't wanna put more money at risk. He mentions other problems like stat inflation, the fact that some choices are only illusion of choices, etc.
And if you see his video, you can see clearly. One change on how armor works leaded to an chain reaction of changes even on Larien's games. And it always happens. Diablo 2 to 3, Morrowind to Oblivion(...) So, if Vinke really wanna change everything, i wonder what will be the end result. For example,an spell with 400 feet + 40 feet per caster level range but that requires an ranged touch attack can work well. The same spell where you will barely miss will be an entire different spell... Other example? Spell focus necromancy. If my finger of death will almost always hit, why have this feat in the first place? this talking only about misses/saves.
There are the leveling that IMO D&D has one of the best and an organic way to fell powerful instead of just damage inflation(mainly for casters) and "sleep spam" that Pathfinder Kingmaker already "solved" by making time matters and resting supplies more limited.
Oh, this armor argument has been mentioned so many times by people on the Codex (who still made DOS2 their game of the year) as a big flaw of DOS2.
I have thought about this a lot, and playing the first game after the second I can understand why the devs did that. This armor means that you can't freeze/stun/blind 4 or more enemies a turn, so that basically they can't do anything if your characters have high initiative. In the same time, it makes tactical decisions more meaningful: imagine using your Battering Ram to knockdown 3 enemies and see how each of them saved against your ability and, and you are now surrounded by enemies far away from the rest of the party.
The change to the armor system between DOS1 and DOS2 shows the company continued to evaluate their approach and search for a more rewarding system.
But anyway, the armor system in DnD is completely different.
it's hard to argue that the company has a track record that's incompetent or unethical.
Which has never been what I've been arguing. I've never denigrated the company and when it comes to their two most recent games I've never called them bad as a whole, I've called their combat system bad which I do genuinely believe, but I actually do think I understand why Original Sin 2 did so well and thats because it did a number of things well, like being accessible, having good artistic presentation, having a good online set up, and generally feeling like a certain type of PnP RPG come to life.
None of these things are directly applicable to why I liked Baldur's Gate so much though, which is pretty much the story and atmosphere. And the rest is rather simple logic, because no matter what a company says through PR, this is how they all think.
Our game, Original Sin 2 in this case, sold 3.5 million copies.
Baldur's Gate is a name people know
So if we make a variant on the game that sold 3.5 million copies and call it Baldur's Gate 3, it will sell as much or even more
If they aren't doing that, if their intent was to really change their approach entirely because they looked at BG1 and BG2 and said "we absolutely want to follow those games" they'd probably be crowing at the hills that that is what they are doing.
What they have said looks exactly like they're tacitly telling people to expect a Divinity game with a D&D Baldur's Gate skin.
And what matters to me isn't the question "Will it be good?" in some kind of objective sense, its "Will I like it?" And right now I'm not seeing much reason to believe the answer to the really prudent question will be positive.
I'm not sure why you repeatedly make these posts where you inaccurately state my and others' arguments. I don't think they're constructive posts, I think they're provocative. State your opinions and state your case. But don't make it seem like my argument could be boiled down to literally "Hey man you should just have more sympathy!" That is not at all a fair summary of what I just wrote.
I'm not sure why you repeatedly make these posts where you inaccurately state my and others' arguments. I don't think they're constructive posts, I think they're provocative. State your opinions and state your case. But don't make it seem like my argument could be boiled down to literally "Hey man you should just have more sympathy!" That is not at all a fair summary of what I just wrote.
With all that said, when Pathfinder Kingmaker came out, the most loud outcry (aside from bugs) was unanimous "DnD is turn based by nature! Change the combat system! RTwP does not work here!!!". I disagreed at first - to me, everything worked just fine (as it was in BG, NWN, PoE, etc.) but it made me think... DnD IS turn based by nature, is not it?
This is worth highlighting, because I don't think it holds as much water as people give it credit for.
Yes, tabletop D&D is, generally, more or less turn-based. But stop and think about what we're describing: a handful of people sitting around a table trying to describe multiple independent characters' actions on a second-to-second and minute-by-minute basis. It has to be turn-based. That is a limitation of D&D - not a design feature. Deviating from turn-based would result in a unmanageable mess of talking over one another, spilled sodas, money being stolen from the bank (sorry that's a different game), etc.
Change the format, and you change the limitations. What the (original) BG games demonstrated is that the D&D ruleset can be transposed into a clockwork system where you still announce your actions in a turn based manner, just like tabletop - I click Charname and have him attack an orc; then I click Jaheira and have her cast Entangle; then I click Minsc... etc. But because we have this machine, a computer on which to play the game, we can make those announcements while time is frozen and then set the clock moving and watch those actions unfold in a fluid, simultaneous manner.
Tabletop D&D doesn't feature that simultaneity, because it can't - not necessarily because it wouldn't like to. So this argument that turn-based systems are some how more "true" to D&D is actually without merit. RTwP systems enhance turn-based D&D adding fluidity and moving things along faster while still being true to the underlying mechanism and rules.
You might still like turn-based games better, and that is 100% fine! They give a different experience, and can be very good, in different ways. I just don't think we should pretend that is anything other than subjective preference.
I've been saying this exact thing again and again, here and in other forums. You have done an excellent job of laying out this point in detail, @subtledoctor. Thank you for this!
If we're going to be talking about having sympathy, I would like to say this:
Many, many fans of classic RPGs, encompassing both the yays and the nays wrt BG3, have been yearning for a modern follow-on to Baldur's Gate for almost 20 years now. We each may have different reasons for loving the original BG games, and have different expectations for what a new game should be like, but we ALL have been hoping for some sort of new BG-like game for a very long time. Finally, finally! we now have that game. For many of you, this game is exactly (or close to it) what you've been waiting for, and so you get to walk away feeling happy, joyous, excited, satisfied, hyped. Good for you. But for many others, myself included, who have been waiting for this moment with just as much hope and anticipation as you yays, this game is so not what we wanted, and we get to walk away bitterly disappointed, sad, crushed, possibly even devastated. If our positions were reversed, I would feel very sad for the people on the other side, feel a tremendous amount of sympathy and empathy, and wish Larian would make this game in such a way that it isn't just me who gets to enjoy it and be happy but ALL fans of the original games.
Change the format, and you change the limitations. What the (original) BG games demonstrated is that the D&D ruleset can be transposed into a clockwork system where you still announce your actions in a turn based manner, just like tabletop - I click Charname and have him attack an orc; then I click Jaheira and have her cast Entangle; then I click Minsc... etc. But because we have this machine, a computer on which to play the game, we can make those announcements while time is frozen and then set the clock moving and watch those actions unfold in a fluid, simultaneous manner.
Back in the day when my friends and I had a tabletop gaming group, this is how we used to run things in our pnp games. We all hated the concept of "initiative" as being unrealistic. So, at the beginning of each round, everyone had to announce their actions at the same time. Then, factoring in such things as weapon speed, spell casting time, any afflictions affecting someone (held, entangled, hasted, slowed, etc.), relevant attribute factors (DEX for example) and so on, the actions would be resolved by the DM based on how much time each person's actions will take to happen. So time still mattered, but everyone decided on their actions at the same time. This meant that unless you hold your action to the end of the round, you couldn't base your action on the consequences of others' actions in the current round, and could benefit from seeing what someone else did only at the end of the current round or the next round. It was a way of making tabletop gaming more "real time."
I can't find it now but it was something about how you can game the initiative system to make sure you always act first.
You can indeed do that if you improve Initiative (via items giving you extra Initiative, or by improving your Perception stat). But it's only so in DOS1. They solved this in DOS2, which is why the criticism about the DOS2 combat @SorcererV1ct0r linked - I don't agree with it.
I have thought about this a lot, and playing the first game after the second I can understand why the devs did that. This armor means that you can't freeze/stun/blind 4 or more enemies a turn, so that basically they can't do anything if your characters have high initiative. In the same time, it makes tactical decisions more meaningful: imagine using your Battering Ram to knockdown 3 enemies and see how each of them saved against your ability and, and you are now surrounded by enemies far away from the rest of the party.
The change to the armor system between DOS1 and DOS2 shows the company continued to evaluate their approach and search for a more rewarding system.
In DOS2 your characters and enemies take their turns one after another during each round (and even if your one character is the first to start the battle, you won't be able to break everything because of the armor system).
I can't find it now but it was something about how you can game the initiative system to make sure you always act first.
You can indeed do that if you improve Initiative (via items giving you extra Initiative, or by improving your Perception stat). But it's only so in DOS1. They solved this in DOS2, which is why the criticism about the DOS2 combat @SorcererV1ct0r linked - I don't agree with it.
I have thought about this a lot, and playing the first game after the second I can understand why the devs did that. This armor means that you can't freeze/stun/blind 4 or more enemies a turn, so that basically they can't do anything if your characters have high initiative. In the same time, it makes tactical decisions more meaningful: imagine using your Battering Ram to knockdown 3 enemies and see how each of them saved against your ability and, and you are now surrounded by enemies far away from the rest of the party.
The change to the armor system between DOS1 and DOS2 shows the company continued to evaluate their approach and search for a more rewarding system.
In DOS2 your characters and enemies take their turns one after another during each round (and even if your one character is the first to start the battle, you won't be able to break everything because of the armor system).
I am not sure this is a good solution, though. If you are entire party has higher initiative than the entire enemy group, why should not everyone of your characters move first? It also leads to shenanigans where you leave certain enemies alive in order to not mess up the initiative order. And it devalues the initiative stats quite a bit. Let's also not ignore that there is a substantial minority of D:OS fans which think the combat was better in the first game.
This meant that unless you hold your action to the end of the round, you couldn't base your action on the consequences of others' actions in the current round,
This conversation reminds me of something JuliusBorisov mentioned about D:OS turn-based combat. I can't find it now but it was something about how you can game the initiative system to make sure you always act first. And it reminded me of why I like RTwP, because it allows enemies to have a first-over advantage in some situations (especially with SCS). Plus with aura-affecting spells and items, it means combat plays out like kanisatha's tabletop game, everyone committing to their action without knowing the opponent's. While retaining more fluidity of possible reactions as far as movement. When done well (when done well) it's a really nice system.
It works in turn based systems just as fine, if you introduce phases. Typical example is Wizardry 8 - you issue your party orders, then hit "begin turn" and depending on how good or bad your prediction was they either succeed or waste their turn unable to execute the order.
Another phase-based game I liked very much is Eien no Aselia https://store.steampowered.com/app/445420/Aselia_the_Eternal_The_Spirit_of_Eternity_Sword/ - despite seeming simplicity it's very possible to spend five minutes looking at yours and enemies' stats and trying to figure out the best possible combination that'll let you finish the mission and get bonus XP for quick vistory.
Yeah phase-based can be a good solution, and there may even be other things you could do to TB systems to make them play better/more smoothly. I am not outright hostile to TB in general. I just found the D:OS games' TB system specifically to be just utterly deplorable.
Tabletop D&D doesn't feature that simultaneity, because it can't - not necessarily because it wouldn't like to. So this argument that turn-based systems are some how more "true" to D&D is actually without merit. RTwP systems enhance turn-based D&D adding fluidity and moving things along faster while still being true to the underlying mechanism and rules.
Can not agree more!
I have a feeling, the reason for that request for TBC for Pathfinder was only due to serious lack of adaptation of the system, and we indeed had on the screen what you described as "diviation from turn-based that resulted in a unmanageable mess of talking over one another, spilled sodas and stolen money".
However (!) Pathfinder (due to it's ... let's call it limitations) did give a feeling of (deformed) "tabletop sessions". And that feeling could be enhanced (probably) by complete imitation of tabletop D&D with TBC. So, as weak as the argument is, in some cases it can be valid? At least now we can try and see for sure.
I find it interesting that you can mod the game to that extent; it's definitely on my (too long, too little time) list to try.
Interesting indeed. You are very brave to even consider trying that thing out: with enourmous number of random encounters in the game one PT with TBC should take years of real time.
Btw, ever notesed how RTwtP games do implement TBC sometimes, but TBC games never do anything like that? I wonder why...
And what matters to me isn't the question "Will it be good?" in some kind of objective sense, its "Will I like it?" And right now I'm not seeing much reason to believe the answer to the really prudent question will be positive.
Well said! And the idea behind Larian as a chosen one for BG3 being "studios with well selling games plus well established franchise should results in big money" probably the right one. Still, the resulting game should be good (as a stand alone game from a good studio). Should you learn that Larian make a new 5th edition DnD game situated in Forgotten Realms - would not you be interested? Even if it's with TBC?
Yes, you do not care about objectivity, you said it, but you do not give the game a chance at all. And not because of physical inability to play it, even not because it's a different genre - just because it's not "the old style".
Why do I keep telling obvious things? Jealousy mostly. You see, you might not like the game you were waiting for, but I personally will not be able to play 2(!) games I was very excited about after announce - Cyberpunk and Outer World. Motion-sickness prevents me from playing FPV games - it can not be fixed, it's a physical limitation I have to live with. I belong to (not too small, btw) minority that is always ignored - and always will be - and have to miss out on the games I want. To see someone refusing to try the game for the reason "I am sure I will not like it" makes me sad (and envious to that someone's freedom).
So, even though I understand the need to vent, may be wait a bit with judgment? No one here saw what we are about to get. Larian are good, their games are top quality, they are passionate about games in general and BG3 in particular. And it's a new real pure DnD game! In the very worst case it will be an interesting experiment.
No more patronizing rants, I promise. Just want the game to succeed (and can not wait to get to BG once again with that complete newbie feeling).
P.S. @JuliusBorisov DOS2 soundtrack is great (Larian knows how to choose composers), but DOS1 ... You don't have to play the game, just listening is enough
I'm not sure why you repeatedly make these posts where you inaccurately state my and others' arguments. I don't think they're constructive posts, I think they're provocative. State your opinions and state your case. But don't make it seem like my argument could be boiled down to literally "Hey man you should just have more sympathy!" That is not at all a fair summary of what I just wrote.
Kettle, meet pot
Eh, not really. I've since cleared this up with doctor to my satisfaction, but I think a point bears repeating here generally. If you write a dialogue-style post attempting to summarize the past discussion, where you give your opponent literally *one line*, how is that a fair summary? It's a strawman style argument, and I think it's fair to point that out.
I know this is foolish to even think... But what if they developed both a TB and RTwP version of the game? If both are each satisfying in their own way they just might sell twice as many games...
Then no one feels deprived. Having one's cake and eating it too.
I prefer RtWP, but lets be honest. How many turn based games we got in past 10 years??
On Steam, if you use the tags RPG and turn based, you get page after page of games. If you use RPG and real time with pause, maybe a single page. The vast majority of games in recent years in the classic RPG genre (I want to be clear: in this specific genre) have been TB.
I know this is foolish to even think... But what if they developed both a TB and RTwP version of the game? If both are each satisfying in their own way they just might sell twice as many games...
Then no one feels deprived. Having one's cake and eating it too.
I'll probably pick it up somewhere down the line, if, and only if they decide to also include a RTwP mode. Or at least a choice to skip combat in its entirety. Otherwise my interest in this title is pretty much nil.
The alternative would be to wait for a RTwP mod. Given that fans of the Pathfinder: Kingmaker game did create a TB mod for it. So maybe the same thing could happen to Baldur's Gate 3 as well. Just with RTwP that is.
I prefer RtWP, but lets be honest. How many turn based games we got in past 10 years??
On Steam, if you use the tags RPG and turn based, you get page after page of games. If you use RPG and real time with pause, maybe a single page. The vast majority of games in recent years in the classic RPG genre (I want to be clear: in this specific genre) have been TB.
Yes, but most of then aren't Baldur's Gate level of epicness. Few of then reach even PoE 1/2 level of epicness... Pathfinder Kingmaker is the best modern RPG and is RtWP.
Most of then are just fix protagonist, RPG-MAKER games...
Anyway, any modern game that puts an skill like "Slayer change" will do it in the worst way possible. Will put the ability on CD or something stupid instead of making an powerful ability with a lot of downsides including perma party reputation loss.
Comments
I'm not wild about the emphasis on multiplayer elements in the OS games. I'll probably never multiplay them, I'll probably never multiplay BG3. I think it results in fewer resources spent on making the single player as excellent as possible AND even adds elements that make it worse.
One example is the rock, paper, scissors to resolve stat-check in dialogue in OS1. I believe this was added to help game-ify debates between the two protagonists when they're making a dialogue-related roleplaying decision. And it's understandable there. But it bled into dialogue checks with NPC's. I realize there's a way around it, but it's clearly the base way you were intended to play the game. There's other multiplayer-friendly elements too, such as certain sidequest puzzles being more easily solved with two players.
I don't care for these parts. These parts make my experience of the game worse.
But! I'm sympathetic as to why Larian designed the games this way. These games have clearly drawn an audience of not only hardcore CRPG fans but folks who want a co-op experience as well. In fact, without these concessions to co-op play, these games (the sequel at least) probably doesn't get as big of a budget as it would have otherwise.
Those are the market realities today. These games cannot be mere copies of BG series with souped-up graphics and 5e rules and hope to be successful. BG3 cannot succeed commercially by only capturing the original series' audience. I'm not trying to be rude with this next statement, but it will be a blunt reality. The hard truth, is that Larian *doesn't* have to have sympathy for the tastes of a small minority of BG fanbase. That tiny slice of the market isn't going to determine whether BG3 is economically viable.
What are you talking about in terms of being wrong? What does this example have to show? I meant that usually the player has to go through many fights against those enemies before reaching the lvl 5, so he can't kill hordes of them with a single spell for many playing hours.
As for later levels, killing multiple targets in seconds is what can happen both in RtwP and TB, if these targets are low-level. In DOS1 when I came to Hiberheim (a location for lvl 10 characters) being lvl 16, I breezed through many fights there just by casting chain lighting or meteor shower (which you can cast before the battle starts, so fights ended the same time they started).
Oh, this armor argument has been mentioned so many times by people on the Codex (who still made DOS2 their game of the year) as a big flaw of DOS2.
I have thought about this a lot, and playing the first game after the second I can understand why the devs did that. This armor means that you can't freeze/stun/blind 4 or more enemies a turn, so that basically they can't do anything if your characters have high initiative. In the same time, it makes tactical decisions more meaningful: imagine using your Battering Ram to knockdown 3 enemies and see how each of them saved against your ability and, and you are now surrounded by enemies far away from the rest of the party.
The change to the armor system between DOS1 and DOS2 shows the company continued to evaluate their approach and search for a more rewarding system.
But anyway, the armor system in DnD is completely different.
Yes, it's hard to substitute Kirill, but the DOS2 soundtrack by Borislav Slavov is great as well!
Which has never been what I've been arguing. I've never denigrated the company and when it comes to their two most recent games I've never called them bad as a whole, I've called their combat system bad which I do genuinely believe, but I actually do think I understand why Original Sin 2 did so well and thats because it did a number of things well, like being accessible, having good artistic presentation, having a good online set up, and generally feeling like a certain type of PnP RPG come to life.
None of these things are directly applicable to why I liked Baldur's Gate so much though, which is pretty much the story and atmosphere. And the rest is rather simple logic, because no matter what a company says through PR, this is how they all think.
Our game, Original Sin 2 in this case, sold 3.5 million copies.
Baldur's Gate is a name people know
So if we make a variant on the game that sold 3.5 million copies and call it Baldur's Gate 3, it will sell as much or even more
If they aren't doing that, if their intent was to really change their approach entirely because they looked at BG1 and BG2 and said "we absolutely want to follow those games" they'd probably be crowing at the hills that that is what they are doing.
What they have said looks exactly like they're tacitly telling people to expect a Divinity game with a D&D Baldur's Gate skin.
And what matters to me isn't the question "Will it be good?" in some kind of objective sense, its "Will I like it?" And right now I'm not seeing much reason to believe the answer to the really prudent question will be positive.
Kettle, meet pot
Those kind of statements are not productive.
I've been saying this exact thing again and again, here and in other forums. You have done an excellent job of laying out this point in detail, @subtledoctor. Thank you for this!
Many, many fans of classic RPGs, encompassing both the yays and the nays wrt BG3, have been yearning for a modern follow-on to Baldur's Gate for almost 20 years now. We each may have different reasons for loving the original BG games, and have different expectations for what a new game should be like, but we ALL have been hoping for some sort of new BG-like game for a very long time. Finally, finally! we now have that game. For many of you, this game is exactly (or close to it) what you've been waiting for, and so you get to walk away feeling happy, joyous, excited, satisfied, hyped. Good for you. But for many others, myself included, who have been waiting for this moment with just as much hope and anticipation as you yays, this game is so not what we wanted, and we get to walk away bitterly disappointed, sad, crushed, possibly even devastated. If our positions were reversed, I would feel very sad for the people on the other side, feel a tremendous amount of sympathy and empathy, and wish Larian would make this game in such a way that it isn't just me who gets to enjoy it and be happy but ALL fans of the original games.
Just my take on sympathy.
You can indeed do that if you improve Initiative (via items giving you extra Initiative, or by improving your Perception stat). But it's only so in DOS1. They solved this in DOS2, which is why the criticism about the DOS2 combat @SorcererV1ct0r linked - I don't agree with it.
In DOS2 your characters and enemies take their turns one after another during each round (and even if your one character is the first to start the battle, you won't be able to break everything because of the armor system).
I am not sure this is a good solution, though. If you are entire party has higher initiative than the entire enemy group, why should not everyone of your characters move first? It also leads to shenanigans where you leave certain enemies alive in order to not mess up the initiative order. And it devalues the initiative stats quite a bit. Let's also not ignore that there is a substantial minority of D:OS fans which think the combat was better in the first game.
Another phase-based game I liked very much is Eien no Aselia https://store.steampowered.com/app/445420/Aselia_the_Eternal_The_Spirit_of_Eternity_Sword/ - despite seeming simplicity it's very possible to spend five minutes looking at yours and enemies' stats and trying to figure out the best possible combination that'll let you finish the mission and get bonus XP for quick vistory.
Can not agree more!
I have a feeling, the reason for that request for TBC for Pathfinder was only due to serious lack of adaptation of the system, and we indeed had on the screen what you described as "diviation from turn-based that resulted in a unmanageable mess of talking over one another, spilled sodas and stolen money".
However (!) Pathfinder (due to it's ... let's call it limitations) did give a feeling of (deformed) "tabletop sessions". And that feeling could be enhanced (probably) by complete imitation of tabletop D&D with TBC. So, as weak as the argument is, in some cases it can be valid? At least now we can try and see for sure.
Interesting indeed. You are very brave to even consider trying that thing out: with enourmous number of random encounters in the game one PT with TBC should take years of real time.
Btw, ever notesed how RTwtP games do implement TBC sometimes, but TBC games never do anything like that? I wonder why...
Well said! And the idea behind Larian as a chosen one for BG3 being "studios with well selling games plus well established franchise should results in big money" probably the right one. Still, the resulting game should be good (as a stand alone game from a good studio). Should you learn that Larian make a new 5th edition DnD game situated in Forgotten Realms - would not you be interested? Even if it's with TBC?
Yes, you do not care about objectivity, you said it, but you do not give the game a chance at all. And not because of physical inability to play it, even not because it's a different genre - just because it's not "the old style".
Why do I keep telling obvious things? Jealousy mostly. You see, you might not like the game you were waiting for, but I personally will not be able to play 2(!) games I was very excited about after announce - Cyberpunk and Outer World. Motion-sickness prevents me from playing FPV games - it can not be fixed, it's a physical limitation I have to live with. I belong to (not too small, btw) minority that is always ignored - and always will be - and have to miss out on the games I want. To see someone refusing to try the game for the reason "I am sure I will not like it" makes me sad (and envious to that someone's freedom).
So, even though I understand the need to vent, may be wait a bit with judgment? No one here saw what we are about to get. Larian are good, their games are top quality, they are passionate about games in general and BG3 in particular. And it's a new real pure DnD game! In the very worst case it will be an interesting experiment.
No more patronizing rants, I promise. Just want the game to succeed (and can not wait to get to BG once again with that complete newbie feeling).
P.S. @JuliusBorisov DOS2 soundtrack is great (Larian knows how to choose composers), but DOS1 ... You don't have to play the game, just listening is enough
Eh, not really. I've since cleared this up with doctor to my satisfaction, but I think a point bears repeating here generally. If you write a dialogue-style post attempting to summarize the past discussion, where you give your opponent literally *one line*, how is that a fair summary? It's a strawman style argument, and I think it's fair to point that out.
Then no one feels deprived. Having one's cake and eating it too.
I'll probably pick it up somewhere down the line, if, and only if they decide to also include a RTwP mode. Or at least a choice to skip combat in its entirety. Otherwise my interest in this title is pretty much nil.
The alternative would be to wait for a RTwP mod. Given that fans of the Pathfinder: Kingmaker game did create a TB mod for it. So maybe the same thing could happen to Baldur's Gate 3 as well. Just with RTwP that is.
Yes, but most of then aren't Baldur's Gate level of epicness. Few of then reach even PoE 1/2 level of epicness... Pathfinder Kingmaker is the best modern RPG and is RtWP.
Most of then are just fix protagonist, RPG-MAKER games...
Anyway, any modern game that puts an skill like "Slayer change" will do it in the worst way possible. Will put the ability on CD or something stupid instead of making an powerful ability with a lot of downsides including perma party reputation loss.