@Chimera
I kind of agree with your point about magic (that is my reason for a cooldown on long rests), but I wanted to have an example of what I mean with balance..
I actually believe that BG1 was a bit better on that front actually. More recruits to chose from and mages are not that nuts.
Actually, the problem of BG2 and especially ToB was a weakness of AD&D in general.
The high-level range was not well thought out, because it was thought that few characters lived (and played) through all that level. Wizard have just more to gain after a certain point.
Add that problem to the amount of money and magic scrolls in BG2 and you have wizards who can literly prepare for every possibility with jsut a bit of scouting.
The problem of high-level warriors comes from TSR & Wizards utter lack of creativity when it comes to creating demi-god fighters. Creating high power mages is jsut easier than to pull off a "believable" fighter with a lot of power without giving him some magical abilities.
Magic is flashy, invincible fighters are (thought to be) boring.
Hell yeah, MrBtongue is a video game analysis God! I'm piously awaiting His return to the YouTubes.
Yes, he nailed an point that few people see. More diversity of stuff that the PC can do = less balance.
I don't know why this is a problem in SP games. For eg, an VtMB run as Nosferatu will be much harder than with an Tremere for eg, have seduction capped at zero and be monstrous looking in a game very focused on investigation, dialog and social life and being unable to be seen in the city without breaking the masquarede is an hard challenge. While other clans can walk into an club and with high seduction, get free blood dolls, an nosferatu needs to eat rats. While other clans can get discount from prostitutes, prostitutes refuses the nosferatu, run, screams on fear and breaks the masquarede. Even getting firearms and ammo become much harder. And the main appeal of a Nosferatu clan is exactly the idea of being forced to roleplay as an outcast.
Is unbalanced? Yes, but who cares? It increases the immersion, replayability, and variety on the game.
Another example is Dark Souls. An Paladin(STR/FHT) would have an much easier time in the game than an swordsman that refuses to use armor. It makes sense in DkS world, it makes sense lore wise and it increases the replayability. Also, isn't broken on pvp. So, what is the problem?
Other example? On Pokemon red, an CHILDREN's game. Those who start with Squirtle or Bulbasaur has an much easier time against the first and second gym leader. Is this a problem? Real life is not balanced. You can see how ranged weapons can be "op" on Battle of Agincourt. If fictional stuff exist, they will not be balanced too and as longs it makes sense in the fictional world, i an fine.
Yeah, I've always been of the opinion that unbalanced combat and character options lead to increased fun and replayability. It isn't fun to play an overbalanced game where everything plays the same and your options are virtually cosmetic, and it especially isn't fun to replay it.
I think the question of game balance is a tricky one. On the one hand, I'm a strong believer in that classes and builds should be balanced so that no player feels that they're being unduly handicapped or struggling because of a choice they made (this is particularly important for tabletop games, because it's just not fun to see your friends doing awesome things, but you're stuck feeling like window dressing because your class is underpowered), but at the same time, making it so that all classes/builds wind up giving the same feeling (like what WotC did with 4th Ed in giving everybody the same style of powers with regards to Dailies etc.) is a mistake because that leads to a feeling of "sameness" despite your choices.
To use another example, at high levels, Warriors should feel sturdy and resilient because of their high armor and HP, Mages should feel sturdy and resilient because they now have access to good defensive spells, Rogues should feel sturdy and resilient because of improved stealth skills and feats/abilities that allow them to drop into stealth immediately to escape or re-position themselves etc. Essentially all 3 classes are about the same in terms of survivability, but the way they go about surviving feels and plays very differently to each other.
"I believe Baldur’s Gate III should indeed turn away from nostalgia and part with tradition. In a great feature published last year on The Ringer, BioWare co-founder Trent Oster shed some light on why they decided to make Baldur’s Gate a real-time combat RPG.
BioWare planned for Baldur’s Gate to be a blend of old and new. “It was kind of this examination of the old Gold Box games in terms of their depth and their adherence to the [D&D] rules,” Oster says, referring to a series of D&D RPGs produced by Strategic Simulations, Inc. in the late ’80s and early ’90s. “But then bringing that forward into an almost real-time-strategy-style interface.”
From the very start, Baldur’s Gate was about parting with the old and trying out the new. No doubt it saw great success in this experiment, and its legacy lives on. However, we have to take into account that this paradigm of real-time strategy adopted in the late 90s is no longer new. And the current paradigm of turn-based combat has very little to do with the Gold Box RPGs that Oster cites. Just as genres and franchises can evolve over the years, so too can combat modes and the design of those modes. Divinity: Original Sin II features a greatly honed and expertly designed turn-based mode. It can and it should be the basis for the combat mode we will see in Baldur’s Gate III."
Note that Baldur's Gate didn't innovate the older Gold Box games by taking one of the existing franchises, making a sequel to it and replacing its core gameplay elements. Instead, it started its own franchise. Which, in my opinion, is the correct and more respectable way to go about it.
"I believe Baldur’s Gate III should indeed turn away from nostalgia and part with tradition. In a great feature published last year on (...)as genres and franchises can evolve over the years, so too can combat modes and the design of those modes. Divinity: Original Sin II features a greatly honed and expertly designed turn-based mode. It can and it should be the basis for the combat mode we will see in Baldur’s Gate III."
This remembers me of Jay "*** that loser" Wilson talking about D3.
Anyway, say that the genre """evolved"", offering less verticality, less options, less cool spells, less weapon variety, less depth, less choices and consequences, less immersion and more BS mechanics like cooldowns and stats linked towards gear(how my muscle mass can be determined by my jacket?)
Divine Divinity IMO is the best Larian games, exactly by being the game with less modern BS... ironically earlier 3D games like Morrowind has projectiles that fells more like projectiles than most mmos and modern games. On Morrowind, projectiles doesn't just disappear mid air after few meters. And there are no cooldowns or other BS mechanics. Also, in Morrowind you can use trowing weapons.
I knew exactly this reaction would follow when I posted that link.
My IMO: the D:OS games have a correct approach towards a TB gaming, a TB combat is fun and I like it more, D:OS 2 is the best Larian's game, and those Map and dialogue MEMEs are completely unrelated to the D:OS games.
I knew exactly this reaction would follow when I posted that link.
It's nice when people agree with a point that you're trying to make, but it shouldn't discourage or frustrate you when people offer differing opinions. Yes, a logical and well laid out argument can sometimes change minds, but a lot of this discussion comes down to deep-seated, proudly held, subjective preferences that people have been developing throughout their lives, and you can't expect to simply dislodge those with arguments. But it's fine, there's nothing wrong with having different opinions.
Honestly, I think even the agree-like-insightful system plays into our natural craving for validation and encourages ego-driven dramatics and unproductive discussion. But then, that's the internet for you. It's certainly fun, but it often devolves into bickering rather quickly.
Oh, there's my soapbox! It was under my feet all along!
One thing that Larian hinted at about BG III was that it will be a hardware demanding game. It is also true that the past has shown us a continuous trend in which numerous studios negleted their map layouts, railroading them in favour for making level designs look more pretty instead.
I don't want to imply things here, but seeing actual ingame footage could help a long way to dispel such thinking from potential customers. Especially since this concern is a seperate matter from combat modes.
That games used to be "more complex" is a often repeated claim. It is also false.
It is often proven by compairing classical games with "random" modern mainstream games.
It also just takes a certain aspect of the old game and ignores the weaknesses of the old games.
Also, since when is the number of possible answers an indication of complexity or quality?
Most of the old where linear and it really did not matter that much in what way you respond.
Often enough your lines where basicly ignored. (Also, most of the times you only get three answer possibilites anyways..)
There is also the matter that often enough you did not really knew what the tone was.
One memory I have which quite annoyed me was from NWN1.
Linu tells a story about a Zent she met. If you say "That sounds like a Zent" she reacts annoyed, because you are apparently admiring the Zents or so. But no, that was jsut cliched Zent behaviour and my character wanted to acknowledge that..
Anyways, no, the games are not less complex than 20 years ago. The style has changed (more cineastic) sure, but saying they have become less complex is factualy wrong. It also disregards the vast majority of games that where made back then in favor of just remembering the "good" games.
And before you say, "Dragon Age 2 was a mainstream success and thus it is fair to compare it with Planescape Torment", no it is not fair. Because PT was critically acclaimed back in the day, while Dragon Age 2 had critics point out the rushed state. Also, PT got high scores ... and low sales..
One of the differences I *do* see is that many genres that where popular 20 years ago, are not really popular nowadays. Which may make it easier to find uneven comparisons.
One of the differences I *do* see is that many genres that where popular 20 years ago, are not really popular nowadays. Which may make it easier to find uneven comparisons.
That's one part of it, another is that modern games are often less complex from a gameplay perspective than older games from the same studios and franchises. Makes it easy to focus on simplifying gameplay trends when they affect a bunch of franchises you used to care about.
You kind of need to interpret those memes in that context for them to make sense to you.
One of the differences I *do* see is that many genres that where popular 20 years ago, are not really popular nowadays. Which may make it easier to find uneven comparisons.
That's one part of it, another is that modern games are often less complex from a gameplay perspective than older games from the same studios and franchises. Makes it easy to focus on simplifying gameplay trends when they affect a bunch of franchises you used to care about.
You kind of need to interpret those memes in that context for them to make sense to you.
Sometimes Studios simplify their games to get a wider appeal, true.
But there where always attempts to turn a niche studio int a maisntream one by reducing some complexity, that is not new.
I actually more annoyed by the first one than the second one.
The favorite target is Dragon Age 2 and putting it against the incedibly niche game Planescape Torment.
But even if you think that comparison makes sense, it overlooks something rather important:
DA2 is not bound by having justt 3 possible answers and PT has not always a dozen possible answers.
For one, people like to ignore that often a lot of "answers" are actually questions, which just inflates the numbers.
Also, at their core, all infinity engine games are more or less linear (PT giving the most freedom through dialogue) which kinda reduces the importance of answers.
I have heard that DA2 dialogue gets ridiculed by being just "Help", "Help with a joke" and "Not help, but still doing it".
Having that is called variety in Baldurs Gate which, surprise surprise, does the bloody same!
PT is, as far as I can remember, the most verbiose game of its generation - and people did not want to play it. It is *not* a good example for the games of 90s and 00s.
I have heard that DA2 dialogue gets ridiculed by being just "Help", "Help with a joke" and "Not help, but still doing it".
Having that is called variety in Baldurs Gate which, surprise surprise, does the bloody same!
It's funny you should mention that, I've been thinking about the same thing recently in the context of the various Baldur's Gate games, especially SoD, which seems to operate very close to the "good guy answer", "jokey guy answer", "bad guy answer" paradigm, and interestingly almost always in that order. Perhaps the main reason for its dominance is that SoD features quest dialog in a much larger relative proportion than BG1 and BG2.
I think my favorite Baldur's Gate in terms of which game has the "best" dialog is BG1, because it has a lot of NPCs with unique, often quite extensive tangential dialog exchanges that are mostly pointless from a gameplay perspective, their only purpose being to flesh out the game world and amuse the player. Since these dialogs have no "real" purpose, the writers had a lot of freedom to experiment with weird and creative ways in which to guide them. Perhaps the most cited example for how weird the dialogs can get in BG1 is Portalbendarwinden, the ascetic hermit who can make the player character lose their cool and chew him out for being too enigmatic.
Quest dialog is also sometimes unexpectedly creative in BG1, like in the case of the halfling Perdue, who makes you guess what type of monster he's had a confrontation with before sending you on a fetch quest to retrieve his short sword. Little weird tangents like that can do a lot to make the game feel less like a game and more like a lived-in fantasy world.
I like how a TB combat is done in the D:OS games. I was very sceptical at trying an RPG with a TB combat, but it's exactly D:OS 2 which made me change my mind.
And once again, D:OS2 is NOT an example of TB combat done right. Far from it.
Can you name a game (or games) where a TB combat is done right, to your opinion? And what are the differences between the TB combat implementation in that game (games) and the D:OS games?
And once again, D:OS2 is NOT an example of TB combat done right. Far from it.
Can you name a game (or games) where a TB combat is done right, to your opinion? And what are the differences between the TB combat implementation in that game (games) and the D:OS games?
I do not think it is a matter of right vs wrong, but more of better vs worse on a sliding scale. But here are some examples of strictly turn based combat which I find to be superior to D:OS 1 and 2.
Goldbox (up to character level 9 or so)
XCOM (modern version)
Ultima 5
MM6 to MM8
If you want to add the phrase based variant also Wizardry 6 and 7.
Admittedly mostly older games except XCom but I have not played many modern RPGs with turn based combat.
I am on mobile so I will go into reasons of WHY I find thise to be better later on.
Good that you mention XCOM. According to Swen, he likes XCOM battle and thinks that Divinity: Fallen Heroes will have a better TB combat exactly because the game will mix D:OS and XCOM.
MM6 to MM8 can be played in RT, you can pause and unpause there whenever you want.
Goldbox is mentioned in the article in the context that it's a TB game from older times.
And once again, D:OS2 is NOT an example of TB combat done right. Far from it.
Can you name a game (or games) where a TB combat is done right, to your opinion? And what are the differences between the TB combat implementation in that game (games) and the D:OS games?
Not really, because I avoid TB RPGs generally. The only TB games I've recently played, besides D:OS, are T:ToN and BT4. T:ToN I liked but that was mainly because the system allowed you to avoid combat most of the time. BT4 I hate, worse even than D:OS.
But I can tell you what a "good" TB system would be for me in theory. I, the player, should have complete control over how my party characters' actions are handled within the respective "turns" of each character. So, I should be able to determine the sequence in which a character does their action - move a little, take an action/attack, then move a little more; act, then move; move, then act; etc. I should be able to hold the actions of characters to exactly when I want to take them, not just hold to the end of everyone else's turns. Two or more characters should be able to act simultaneously, either because their "initiative" was the same (which should be possible) or because one characater held their action until the same time as another character. and in this way act jointly in a coordinated way. Actions should be carriable across turns, so a character can start an action in one turn and complete it in a subsequent turn (especially spellcasting). Actions should be subject to interruption. All characters should have some measure of minimal ability to immediately react to being attacked.
All of these things I would want in a good TB system, since all of these things are essentially available to me in a good RTwP system.
I find it extremely ironic that Larian/Vincke pride themselves in believing that the D:OS games are all about player freedom. Being able to kill any character and not suffer any major consequences is NOT player freedom. That's just stupid game design. True player freedom is in being able to handle combat in absolutely any way you want to, and not be limited to a very rigid structure for how your characters get to act. The D:OS combat system essentially tells the player exactly when they get to act within a very rigid turns structure, and also tells them exactly how they can/cannot do things within the structure of each turn. It is extremely limiting.
The player freedom Larian talks about includes not only being able to kill any character. First and foremost, it includes the freedom of your approach towards quests: wherever you go, what you say, which quest you choose first. You can steal an item, get an item from a corpse, use your charisma to persuade an opponent to give it to you. This is not stupid at all. And being able to kill someone and later find another way to solve a quest is a great approach.
"Essentially telling the player exactly when they get to act within a very rigid turns structure" is not different from RtwP games. You act according to the initiative - you can as a player affect that initiative. You can start a battle being hidden. You can set a trap. You can position your character where you want.
Acting jointly in a coordinated way will be possible in their next game - Divinity: Fallen Heroes, which they position as an upgrade on the D:OS system. So maybe you shouldn't be so critical of someone's "pride".
It's sad that you say "D:OS2 is NOT an example of TB combat done right. Far from it." when in fact you avoid TB RPGs generally. Maybe the better position would be: I don't like TB combat. Only if a game implemented my ideas, maybe I could give it a chance.
I like how a TB combat is done in the D:OS games. I was very sceptical at trying an RPG with a TB combat, but it's exactly D:OS 2 which made me change my mind.
And once again, D:OS2 is NOT an example of TB combat done right. Far from it.
Can you name a game (or games) where a TB combat is done right, to your opinion? And what are the differences between the TB combat implementation in that game (games) and the D:OS games?
The greatest problem of D:OS turn based is the slow animations. I an indifferent between RtWP and Turn based if turn based is done properly. But some examples >
M&M VI-VIII. You can choose between turn based or real time and on turn based, i usually use turn based against strong foes and real time against weak foes. On Arena, i usually switch from both modes many times in the same "encounter"
Wizardry 7 and Grimoire : heralds of the winged exemplar too, but is only turn based.
Arcanum is another example. In fact, real time is broken on Arcanum, but turn based is decent.
An interesting comment from ChimpoTalks Gaming 3 weeks ago in the video bellow "Despite beating all the Baldur's Gate games, I can't do real time /w pausing anymore after Divinity Original Sin. Thank you so much for this. Pathfinder was a pass for me until you created this MASTERPIECE of a mod."
It is often proven by compairing classical games with "random" modern mainstream games.
It also just takes a certain aspect of the old game and ignores the weaknesses of the old games.
.
Even if you pick the most critical acclaimed game, like skyrim or D:OS, they give much less options than old school games. You don't need to compare DA2 with BG, you can compare BG with Skyrim for eg
Good that you mention XCOM. According to Swen, he likes XCOM battle and thinks that Divinity: Fallen Heroes will have a better TB combat exactly because the game will mix D:OS and XCOM.
MM6 to MM8 can be played in RT, you can pause and unpause there whenever you want.
Goldbox is mentioned in the article in the context that it's a TB game from older times.
Using elements from XCOM may help, but I am still sceptical. I know it is a controversial opinion, but I think Larian is quite bad at designing core game systems while the XCOM team is extremely good in this regard. This includes character creation and development, combat and itemization. In fact, I think it is quite impressing that the D:OS games are good games (not great) despite those flawed underlying systems.
MM: designed to offer the player the option to use either real time or turn based, not constantly switch in the same encounter. What I am saying is that if you play it purely turn based in combat, it is already better designed than OS.
Goldbox is mentioned, but annoyingly in a way that implies that OS has far transcended the quality of the combat system, which could not be more wrong. IMHO, of course, but discussions of game quality tend to be opinion based anyway.
@SorcererV1ct0r
I'm not going to compare BG to Skyrim, because that does not really make much sense.
I would be willing to compare Morrowind with Skyrim, though I heard that many people prefer Morrowind and fair enough.
D:OS.. still havn't played that far, but the dialogues I have seen.. are about the same ammount as BG had.
DA2.. Is not nearly as bad as many people claim. And the Dragon Age series doesn't really have that much less talk options if look behindthe wheel system.
But, what I meant was that people do rarely compare the entire games, only certain aspects.
I like the Infinity Engine graphics just fine, but I still have to admit that D:OS just looks better, putting aside the difference in atmosphere.
The ruleset of the IE is clunky and overly complecated, yet oddly limiting - there are modern games who do that better.
The quality of writing did not go down, they are still well written games produced today and some of them are mainstream successes.
I don't mind it if people say that the things that mattered the most to them are less of a focus nowadays, but calling it a "devolution" is ..absurd.
The last modern mainstream game I played was Fallout 4 (got it for nearly free through a sale) and before that... NWN:EE.
I rarely play these kind of games nowadays, but *I* believe that it has something to do with my taste and preferences and *not* because modern games have gone down in quality, because they did not.
Using DA2 as an example of dumbed down scripts or less dialogue is really disengenuous. The one or two word options on the wheel all lead to a paragraph or two of actual script. A lot more dialogue than any of the IE games. Just because its not put into a dialogue box, doesn't mean its not there.
I'm not going to compare BG to Skyrim, because that does not really make much sense.
I would be willing to compare Morrowind with Skyrim, though I heard that many people prefer Morrowind and fair enough..
Compare to Morrowind then.
No polearms, no mark/recall, no levitation, no trowing weapons, no attributes, <<<insert more 5000 things>>>
I like the Infinity Engine graphics just fine, but I still have to admit that D:OS just looks better, putting aside the difference in atmosphere.
The ruleset of the IE is clunky and overly complecated, yet oddly limiting - there are modern games who do that better.
No, the rules are very easy to grasp. Mainly the basic ones. THAC0, Saves, what attributes do...
About graphics, i honestly don't like cartoonish graphics. But is just my preference.
Using DA2 as an example of dumbed down scripts or less dialogue is really disengenuous. The one or two word options on the wheel all lead to a paragraph or two of actual script. A lot more dialogue than any of the IE games. Just because its not put into a dialogue box, doesn't mean its not there.
Dialog wheel is another modern BS that should't exist.
With this, you need to make every possible answer to have 3 or 4 options. while with an list, you can have 2 or 99 options.
Not that DA2 didn't dumbed down on other aspects of its predecessor. The removal of all playable races besides human and the "monkey jumping" encounters being my greatest dislike of this. Yikes!
That is not to say I didn't hated the wheel dialogues. IMHO it's a matter of presentation. Having three short choices at most of times *feel* far more limited. Even if the dialogue trees underlying are in fact far more fleshed out. Same with the Mass Effect franchise.
Comments
I kind of agree with your point about magic (that is my reason for a cooldown on long rests), but I wanted to have an example of what I mean with balance..
I actually believe that BG1 was a bit better on that front actually. More recruits to chose from and mages are not that nuts.
Actually, the problem of BG2 and especially ToB was a weakness of AD&D in general.
The high-level range was not well thought out, because it was thought that few characters lived (and played) through all that level. Wizard have just more to gain after a certain point.
Add that problem to the amount of money and magic scrolls in BG2 and you have wizards who can literly prepare for every possibility with jsut a bit of scouting.
The problem of high-level warriors comes from TSR & Wizards utter lack of creativity when it comes to creating demi-god fighters. Creating high power mages is jsut easier than to pull off a "believable" fighter with a lot of power without giving him some magical abilities.
Magic is flashy, invincible fighters are (thought to be) boring.
Complexity/Depth VS accessibility
Open world VS Linearity
Variety and fun VS Balance
Here is an video that explains my point.
Yes, he nailed an point that few people see. More diversity of stuff that the PC can do = less balance.
I don't know why this is a problem in SP games. For eg, an VtMB run as Nosferatu will be much harder than with an Tremere for eg, have seduction capped at zero and be monstrous looking in a game very focused on investigation, dialog and social life and being unable to be seen in the city without breaking the masquarede is an hard challenge. While other clans can walk into an club and with high seduction, get free blood dolls, an nosferatu needs to eat rats. While other clans can get discount from prostitutes, prostitutes refuses the nosferatu, run, screams on fear and breaks the masquarede. Even getting firearms and ammo become much harder. And the main appeal of a Nosferatu clan is exactly the idea of being forced to roleplay as an outcast.
Is unbalanced? Yes, but who cares? It increases the immersion, replayability, and variety on the game.
Another example is Dark Souls. An Paladin(STR/FHT) would have an much easier time in the game than an swordsman that refuses to use armor. It makes sense in DkS world, it makes sense lore wise and it increases the replayability. Also, isn't broken on pvp. So, what is the problem?
Other example? On Pokemon red, an CHILDREN's game. Those who start with Squirtle or Bulbasaur has an much easier time against the first and second gym leader. Is this a problem? Real life is not balanced. You can see how ranged weapons can be "op" on Battle of Agincourt. If fictional stuff exist, they will not be balanced too and as longs it makes sense in the fictional world, i an fine.
To use another example, at high levels, Warriors should feel sturdy and resilient because of their high armor and HP, Mages should feel sturdy and resilient because they now have access to good defensive spells, Rogues should feel sturdy and resilient because of improved stealth skills and feats/abilities that allow them to drop into stealth immediately to escape or re-position themselves etc. Essentially all 3 classes are about the same in terms of survivability, but the way they go about surviving feels and plays very differently to each other.
"I believe Baldur’s Gate III should indeed turn away from nostalgia and part with tradition. In a great feature published last year on The Ringer, BioWare co-founder Trent Oster shed some light on why they decided to make Baldur’s Gate a real-time combat RPG.
BioWare planned for Baldur’s Gate to be a blend of old and new. “It was kind of this examination of the old Gold Box games in terms of their depth and their adherence to the [D&D] rules,” Oster says, referring to a series of D&D RPGs produced by Strategic Simulations, Inc. in the late ’80s and early ’90s. “But then bringing that forward into an almost real-time-strategy-style interface.”
From the very start, Baldur’s Gate was about parting with the old and trying out the new. No doubt it saw great success in this experiment, and its legacy lives on. However, we have to take into account that this paradigm of real-time strategy adopted in the late 90s is no longer new. And the current paradigm of turn-based combat has very little to do with the Gold Box RPGs that Oster cites. Just as genres and franchises can evolve over the years, so too can combat modes and the design of those modes. Divinity: Original Sin II features a greatly honed and expertly designed turn-based mode. It can and it should be the basis for the combat mode we will see in Baldur’s Gate III."
https://www.pcinvasion.com/baldurs-gate-iii-the-case-for-a-turn-based-combat-mode/
This remembers me of Jay "*** that loser" Wilson talking about D3.
Anyway, say that the genre """evolved"", offering less verticality, less options, less cool spells, less weapon variety, less depth, less choices and consequences, less immersion and more BS mechanics like cooldowns and stats linked towards gear(how my muscle mass can be determined by my jacket?)
Divine Divinity IMO is the best Larian games, exactly by being the game with less modern BS... ironically earlier 3D games like Morrowind has projectiles that fells more like projectiles than most mmos and modern games. On Morrowind, projectiles doesn't just disappear mid air after few meters. And there are no cooldowns or other BS mechanics. Also, in Morrowind you can use trowing weapons.
This picture illustrate te DEvolution of RPG's.
And here is the DEvolution of FPS games.
My IMO: the D:OS games have a correct approach towards a TB gaming, a TB combat is fun and I like it more, D:OS 2 is the best Larian's game, and those Map and dialogue MEMEs are completely unrelated to the D:OS games.
It's nice when people agree with a point that you're trying to make, but it shouldn't discourage or frustrate you when people offer differing opinions. Yes, a logical and well laid out argument can sometimes change minds, but a lot of this discussion comes down to deep-seated, proudly held, subjective preferences that people have been developing throughout their lives, and you can't expect to simply dislodge those with arguments. But it's fine, there's nothing wrong with having different opinions.
Honestly, I think even the agree-like-insightful system plays into our natural craving for validation and encourages ego-driven dramatics and unproductive discussion. But then, that's the internet for you. It's certainly fun, but it often devolves into bickering rather quickly.
Oh, there's my soapbox! It was under my feet all along!
I don't want to imply things here, but seeing actual ingame footage could help a long way to dispel such thinking from potential customers. Especially since this concern is a seperate matter from combat modes.
It is often proven by compairing classical games with "random" modern mainstream games.
It also just takes a certain aspect of the old game and ignores the weaknesses of the old games.
Also, since when is the number of possible answers an indication of complexity or quality?
Most of the old where linear and it really did not matter that much in what way you respond.
Often enough your lines where basicly ignored. (Also, most of the times you only get three answer possibilites anyways..)
There is also the matter that often enough you did not really knew what the tone was.
One memory I have which quite annoyed me was from NWN1.
Linu tells a story about a Zent she met. If you say "That sounds like a Zent" she reacts annoyed, because you are apparently admiring the Zents or so. But no, that was jsut cliched Zent behaviour and my character wanted to acknowledge that..
Anyways, no, the games are not less complex than 20 years ago. The style has changed (more cineastic) sure, but saying they have become less complex is factualy wrong. It also disregards the vast majority of games that where made back then in favor of just remembering the "good" games.
And before you say, "Dragon Age 2 was a mainstream success and thus it is fair to compare it with Planescape Torment", no it is not fair. Because PT was critically acclaimed back in the day, while Dragon Age 2 had critics point out the rushed state. Also, PT got high scores ... and low sales..
One of the differences I *do* see is that many genres that where popular 20 years ago, are not really popular nowadays. Which may make it easier to find uneven comparisons.
That's one part of it, another is that modern games are often less complex from a gameplay perspective than older games from the same studios and franchises. Makes it easy to focus on simplifying gameplay trends when they affect a bunch of franchises you used to care about.
You kind of need to interpret those memes in that context for them to make sense to you.
Sometimes Studios simplify their games to get a wider appeal, true.
But there where always attempts to turn a niche studio int a maisntream one by reducing some complexity, that is not new.
I actually more annoyed by the first one than the second one.
The favorite target is Dragon Age 2 and putting it against the incedibly niche game Planescape Torment.
But even if you think that comparison makes sense, it overlooks something rather important:
DA2 is not bound by having justt 3 possible answers and PT has not always a dozen possible answers.
For one, people like to ignore that often a lot of "answers" are actually questions, which just inflates the numbers.
Also, at their core, all infinity engine games are more or less linear (PT giving the most freedom through dialogue) which kinda reduces the importance of answers.
I have heard that DA2 dialogue gets ridiculed by being just "Help", "Help with a joke" and "Not help, but still doing it".
Having that is called variety in Baldurs Gate which, surprise surprise, does the bloody same!
PT is, as far as I can remember, the most verbiose game of its generation - and people did not want to play it. It is *not* a good example for the games of 90s and 00s.
It's funny you should mention that, I've been thinking about the same thing recently in the context of the various Baldur's Gate games, especially SoD, which seems to operate very close to the "good guy answer", "jokey guy answer", "bad guy answer" paradigm, and interestingly almost always in that order. Perhaps the main reason for its dominance is that SoD features quest dialog in a much larger relative proportion than BG1 and BG2.
I think my favorite Baldur's Gate in terms of which game has the "best" dialog is BG1, because it has a lot of NPCs with unique, often quite extensive tangential dialog exchanges that are mostly pointless from a gameplay perspective, their only purpose being to flesh out the game world and amuse the player. Since these dialogs have no "real" purpose, the writers had a lot of freedom to experiment with weird and creative ways in which to guide them. Perhaps the most cited example for how weird the dialogs can get in BG1 is Portalbendarwinden, the ascetic hermit who can make the player character lose their cool and chew him out for being too enigmatic.
Quest dialog is also sometimes unexpectedly creative in BG1, like in the case of the halfling Perdue, who makes you guess what type of monster he's had a confrontation with before sending you on a fetch quest to retrieve his short sword. Little weird tangents like that can do a lot to make the game feel less like a game and more like a lived-in fantasy world.
And once again, D:OS2 is NOT an example of TB combat done right. Far from it.
Can you name a game (or games) where a TB combat is done right, to your opinion? And what are the differences between the TB combat implementation in that game (games) and the D:OS games?
I do not think it is a matter of right vs wrong, but more of better vs worse on a sliding scale. But here are some examples of strictly turn based combat which I find to be superior to D:OS 1 and 2.
Goldbox (up to character level 9 or so)
XCOM (modern version)
Ultima 5
MM6 to MM8
If you want to add the phrase based variant also Wizardry 6 and 7.
Admittedly mostly older games except XCom but I have not played many modern RPGs with turn based combat.
I am on mobile so I will go into reasons of WHY I find thise to be better later on.
MM6 to MM8 can be played in RT, you can pause and unpause there whenever you want.
Goldbox is mentioned in the article in the context that it's a TB game from older times.
Not really, because I avoid TB RPGs generally. The only TB games I've recently played, besides D:OS, are T:ToN and BT4. T:ToN I liked but that was mainly because the system allowed you to avoid combat most of the time. BT4 I hate, worse even than D:OS.
But I can tell you what a "good" TB system would be for me in theory. I, the player, should have complete control over how my party characters' actions are handled within the respective "turns" of each character. So, I should be able to determine the sequence in which a character does their action - move a little, take an action/attack, then move a little more; act, then move; move, then act; etc. I should be able to hold the actions of characters to exactly when I want to take them, not just hold to the end of everyone else's turns. Two or more characters should be able to act simultaneously, either because their "initiative" was the same (which should be possible) or because one characater held their action until the same time as another character. and in this way act jointly in a coordinated way. Actions should be carriable across turns, so a character can start an action in one turn and complete it in a subsequent turn (especially spellcasting). Actions should be subject to interruption. All characters should have some measure of minimal ability to immediately react to being attacked.
All of these things I would want in a good TB system, since all of these things are essentially available to me in a good RTwP system.
I find it extremely ironic that Larian/Vincke pride themselves in believing that the D:OS games are all about player freedom. Being able to kill any character and not suffer any major consequences is NOT player freedom. That's just stupid game design. True player freedom is in being able to handle combat in absolutely any way you want to, and not be limited to a very rigid structure for how your characters get to act. The D:OS combat system essentially tells the player exactly when they get to act within a very rigid turns structure, and also tells them exactly how they can/cannot do things within the structure of each turn. It is extremely limiting.
"Essentially telling the player exactly when they get to act within a very rigid turns structure" is not different from RtwP games. You act according to the initiative - you can as a player affect that initiative. You can start a battle being hidden. You can set a trap. You can position your character where you want.
Acting jointly in a coordinated way will be possible in their next game - Divinity: Fallen Heroes, which they position as an upgrade on the D:OS system. So maybe you shouldn't be so critical of someone's "pride".
It's sad that you say "D:OS2 is NOT an example of TB combat done right. Far from it." when in fact you avoid TB RPGs generally. Maybe the better position would be: I don't like TB combat. Only if a game implemented my ideas, maybe I could give it a chance.
The greatest problem of D:OS turn based is the slow animations. I an indifferent between RtWP and Turn based if turn based is done properly. But some examples >
M&M VI-VIII. You can choose between turn based or real time and on turn based, i usually use turn based against strong foes and real time against weak foes. On Arena, i usually switch from both modes many times in the same "encounter"
Wizardry 7 and Grimoire : heralds of the winged exemplar too, but is only turn based.
Arcanum is another example. In fact, real time is broken on Arcanum, but turn based is decent.
Is OFFTOPIC, but if you like Turn Based games and is playing PfK, i recommend to try this mod. Make PfK turn based https://www.nexusmods.com/pathfinderkingmaker/mods/109?tab=description
An interesting comment from ChimpoTalks Gaming 3 weeks ago in the video bellow "Despite beating all the Baldur's Gate games, I can't do real time /w pausing anymore after Divinity Original Sin. Thank you so much for this. Pathfinder was a pass for me until you created this MASTERPIECE of a mod."
Even if you pick the most critical acclaimed game, like skyrim or D:OS, they give much less options than old school games. You don't need to compare DA2 with BG, you can compare BG with Skyrim for eg
Using elements from XCOM may help, but I am still sceptical. I know it is a controversial opinion, but I think Larian is quite bad at designing core game systems while the XCOM team is extremely good in this regard. This includes character creation and development, combat and itemization. In fact, I think it is quite impressing that the D:OS games are good games (not great) despite those flawed underlying systems.
MM: designed to offer the player the option to use either real time or turn based, not constantly switch in the same encounter. What I am saying is that if you play it purely turn based in combat, it is already better designed than OS.
Goldbox is mentioned, but annoyingly in a way that implies that OS has far transcended the quality of the combat system, which could not be more wrong. IMHO, of course, but discussions of game quality tend to be opinion based anyway.
I'm not going to compare BG to Skyrim, because that does not really make much sense.
I would be willing to compare Morrowind with Skyrim, though I heard that many people prefer Morrowind and fair enough.
D:OS.. still havn't played that far, but the dialogues I have seen.. are about the same ammount as BG had.
DA2.. Is not nearly as bad as many people claim. And the Dragon Age series doesn't really have that much less talk options if look behindthe wheel system.
But, what I meant was that people do rarely compare the entire games, only certain aspects.
I like the Infinity Engine graphics just fine, but I still have to admit that D:OS just looks better, putting aside the difference in atmosphere.
The ruleset of the IE is clunky and overly complecated, yet oddly limiting - there are modern games who do that better.
The quality of writing did not go down, they are still well written games produced today and some of them are mainstream successes.
I don't mind it if people say that the things that mattered the most to them are less of a focus nowadays, but calling it a "devolution" is ..absurd.
The last modern mainstream game I played was Fallout 4 (got it for nearly free through a sale) and before that... NWN:EE.
I rarely play these kind of games nowadays, but *I* believe that it has something to do with my taste and preferences and *not* because modern games have gone down in quality, because they did not.
Compare to Morrowind then.
No polearms, no mark/recall, no levitation, no trowing weapons, no attributes, <<<insert more 5000 things>>>
No, the rules are very easy to grasp. Mainly the basic ones. THAC0, Saves, what attributes do...
About graphics, i honestly don't like cartoonish graphics. But is just my preference.
Dialog wheel is another modern BS that should't exist.
With this, you need to make every possible answer to have 3 or 4 options. while with an list, you can have 2 or 99 options.
That is not to say I didn't hated the wheel dialogues. IMHO it's a matter of presentation. Having three short choices at most of times *feel* far more limited. Even if the dialogue trees underlying are in fact far more fleshed out. Same with the Mass Effect franchise.