Guys, you compare apples to oranges. Wheeled dialog with linear cinematic narrative is one thing, hundred of options per every freaky player race imaginable is another. They've got less in common than Christians and Buddhists do, other than both belonging to religion.
Far from it. Comparing regressions of DA:O and DA2 is truth be told more akin to compare red apples to green apples. Or whatever fruit you fancy for that.
Again: it's a matter of presentation that Bioware and EA made in the past. So of course tastes will differ.
the wheel only worked in games like mass effect and alpha protocal. the thing those two have in common? new ips not sequels that shoe horned in the wheel [ fallout 4 da 2]. that being said i liked the wheel in dai it showed the wheel can have alot of options if bioware tried.
When ME 2 (or was it 3?) added action in mid-dialogue/film sequences, I felt it was really novel and a super-cool addition to standard scripted dialogues. I don't care if it's a wheel or a list, that's just the UI. What matters is what's underneath or on top of it. Shooting ppl in the face mid-dialogue like a real renegade was just so bad ass. Give me more of that!
In my earlier post I stated that I would go into the why of not thinking the D:OS turn combat being a particularly good implementation of turn based combat later on. So here it is. If it differs between OS 1 and 2, it is regarding 2.
Reason 1: the action point system where you can perform multiple actions per turn. This works ok for movement and standard attacks but causes issues with spells and combos, which are a large part of the combat system. You can cast rain and a lightning attack in the same turn, without the enemies being able to react in an obvious manner. Firstly, this makes these combos much too easy to perform. Secondly, it destroys immersion if enemies stand still during the lengthy rain animation, idly waiting for the inevitable shock. Compare to XCOM where a basic combo is using an explosive to destroy cover and then taking a shot. Here your team actually has to work together, as each member can usually perform only one of the two required actions.
Reason 2: the initiative system. Forcing interleaving of party members and enemies in the turn order causes several issues. It devalues initiative modifiers. It causes metagaming where enemies are kept alive in order to not impact the action order in a harmful manner. It does not work well with ambushes. It is also limits encounter design, think quick swarm vs lumbering behemoth. It also encourages single character combos (see 1) even more over party combos.
Reason 3: the switch to combat is often not handled gracefully, with individual members being outside of combat or with default movement leaving your party conveniently clustered for an AoE attack. A positioning phase at the start of combat would help.
Reason 4: excessive mobility which negates a lot of strategy of positioning. Jumping over fighters to backstab the mage is a level 1 ability. Most skill trees have a similar ability, be it flying, teleporting or rushing. In fact, the main reason positioning still matters in the game is to manipulate the AI to direct attacks the way you want.
There are other things I dislike about the combat like the armor system but those are not tied quite as directly into their turn based system in itself.
one of the worst ideas in the history of mankind. this can only suck because it's 5th edition. not that I kept up with d&d after I read the list of changes they planned for 4th edition (my favourite is the reduction of alignments. demons and devils are now the same, LOLOL), but I really doubt they rolled all they fucked up there back for 5th. if I only needed 1 reason to never consider buying it, that would be sufficient... but it only starts there.
next reason is that we are in the year 2019, so the graphics will be flashy like a superhero movie and the writing will be full of pc propaganda. mechanics will be dumbed down cause it has to be on console too. also that new team can never get the SCOPE of baldur's gate right. in the games, you go all the way from level 1 noob to a literal god! you can't beat that, and they surely won't repeat it either. honestly, I expect this to be some kind of assassin's-creed-style (not that I would have played any of those, don't get me wrong) action rpg where you have a few elements of d&d like mindflayers here and there but certainly NOTHING in common with either the spirit or the setting of the original. at the very best it will be a dragon age: origins-clone, and honestly, even that game wasn't particularly good. oh and expect scaling enemies, the bane of any kind of realism in rpg settings. I mean they sure scaled up the city of baldur's gate already in the trailer, lol (MEGAAAA).
so like I said, making this is a bad bad baaad idea and if you have even a shred of respect and adoration for the classic titles you will not buy or play this inane disgrace to the legacy of the best rpg trilogy of all time. there should never be a bgiii, the story was over, it's that simple! who even had the idea, who holds the rights?!
PS: just read this: "Set 100 years after original"
HAHAHAHAHAHAAAA. everything I said above just got amplified by the factor 10. anybody expecting ANYTHING from this can't be right in the head!
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?
For me, two turn based games stands out as particularly well made combat-wise: Jagged Alliance 2, and if you want something a bit more RPGey, Temple of Elemental Evil. If I had to mention games from the last decade that I enjoyed the combat of more than D:OS I'd put up Age of Decadence and Dead State.
I also enjoyed the new X-COM games' combat more than the D:OSeses? But I wouldn't really hold them up as a good example of TB.
Reason 1: the action point system where you can perform multiple actions per turn. This works ok for movement and standard attacks but causes issues with spells and combos, which are a large part of the combat system. You can cast rain and a lightning attack in the same turn, without the enemies being able to react in an obvious manner. Firstly, this makes these combos much too easy to perform.
Secondly, it destroys immersion if enemies stand still during the lengthy rain animation, idly waiting for the inevitable shock.
Guess I just don't have this problem. My first real TB game was HoMM4, which is known as the only one in series where defender strikes simultaneously with attacker. It seemed ok to me at first, until I played HoMM3 where attacker gets the first strike, then defender responds (if still alive). Let's just say, simultaneous actions don't work, unless it's a phase system with planning first and action later.
Reason 2: the initiative system. Forcing interleaving of party members and enemies in the turn order causes several issues. It devalues initiative modifiers. It causes metagaming where enemies are kept alive in order to not impact the action order in a harmful manner.
That sounds like chess? Even if not, there're TB systems that don't have any initiative at all. I don't see how it's metagaming though, because supposedly you're playing by the system's rules and turning them into your advantage?
Reason 3: the switch to combat is often not handled gracefully, with individual members being outside of combat or with default movement leaving your party conveniently clustered for an AoE attack. A positioning phase at the start of combat would help.
Same as in HoMM, don't see it as a problem. HoMM does have tactics skill, allowing you to reposition units before the combat, and it was the one skill I avoided like plague, because once acquired it made me click extra time before every goddamn battle even if I didn't want to take advantage of it. God, the RAGE.
Reason 4: excessive mobility which negates a lot of strategy of positioning. Jumping over fighters to backstab the mage is a level 1 ability. Most skill trees have a similar ability, be it flying, teleporting or rushing. In fact, the main reason positioning still matters in the game is to manipulate the AI to direct attacks the way you want.
Not being able to block the enemy sounds bad, but otherwise I see nothing wrong with manipulating AI. That's the entire point of TB games, to manipulate the opponent to play by your rules, which you can't do in RT due to lack of sufficient control and time for analysis.
@LMTR14 Well that’s a strong point of view. But fair enough. If you’re not interested then you’re not interested.
One thing I will say though is that your comment about them scaling up Baldur’s Gate the city in the trailer makes no sense. Of course it’s gonna be much bigger now. As you rightly pointed out in a later comment this game is based 100 years after the previous games and if I’m not mistaken in D&D lore Baldur’s Gate has grown a lot since then.
Plus I’d also like to point out that this is one of those pretty abusive to the other side statements that apparently don’t exist as I apparently ‘can’t be right in the head’ for having any interest in this game ?
@spacejaws I LOVED Third Age. You are literally only the second person I've ever encountered who also played it.
I'm not suprised, just me and my brother are the only people I know of. As an RPG fan on Gamecube I wasn't exactly spoiled for choice lol. Even so it was great really deserved more attention.
I'll just pop back in to say the 5th edition is really good. Everyone will have their own preference, but the general view on 5th by the table top community is that it's top notch. Worthy of. Ring compared against 3.5 and 2.5.
Having played everything from 2.5 and on, I'd say it edges out 3.5 as my favorite edition.
@LMTR14
They rolled back *everything*. Salvatore and Greenwod did their best to restore most of the story and the ruleset is more like a mix of AD&D2 and D&D3 than anything else.
They even ressurect old settings, like Ravenloft and Eberron (more are hinted at).
Seriously, if they went any more back on their changes they would reprint AD&D2..
Not saying that you have to like it, but you should give 5E a chance before you condem it.
I think you can find a free "trial" version, with limeted classes and backgrounds, so you can check it out without having to pay money blind.
It's a very insightful interview, I recommend to spend time and listen to it. Here are two parts:
- Will you make 3rd person RPG like Divinity 2?
- I'm not married to a particular format. We find a formula that is interesting... So the big thing I already mentioned to you is that you have to have the systems, you have to have the narrative and exploration, and so forth, challenging combat... Well if we figure out here is a really good combat system that will work well in 3rd person, why not? I mean, with pleasure. Recently we have little bit into the turn-based mode because we really like turn-based. There's a lot of fun, there's a lot of stuff not done yet in turn-based that we could still do. But there's absolutely no reason why we don't go 3rd person.
- The trick about good turn-based combat is making every single decision really matters. That's the player agency we talked about earlier. The game reacts to what you do and it matters. This is a fundamental core unit of gameplay. Much harder, well that's not necessarily much harder, in 3rd person. So if have to manage a party, think turn-based is much superior to real-time. Because in real-time they have to give you a pause button. That's because it goes too fast so you can't do the decision, or you have to leave it to an AI. If you leave it to an AI it's not really player agency anymore.
Oh, and he covers in detail action points in D:OS and D:OS 2. By limiting the number of action points they wanted to make a player think more about what they will do now and then.
(...)
- Will you make 3rd person RPG like Divinity 2?
- I'm not married to a particular format. We find a formula that is interesting... (...)But there's absolutely no reason why we don't go 3rd person.(...)
IMO Divinity 2 is a decent game, but compared to other third person action RPG's, is not that great. IMO the best ones are Dark Souls and Dragon's Dogma. I usually play as an caster but the implementation of Ranger on DD was so cool, the fact that longbows doesn't have nerf ranges and all cool stuff that you can do made me be an main ranger on DD. played DD many times, but only reached level cap with an Ranger.
Imagine ranger using D:OS logic. No, you can't hit this cyclops larger than an house at 14m, he is out of your range. You used tenfold flurry? Wait 50 seconds to use again. The skill is on cooldown.... All improvements that you charname does only change numbers, he barely get any new cool ability.
Archery on Dragon's Dogma is the best implementation of archery in a fantasy game. There are shortbows, good for close/medium range and longbows, you can purchase all types of arrows, blast arrows, poison arrows, petrify arrows, can target enemy parts, like feet, arms and it affect the enemy, an armored cyclops that has an armor much thicker than an normal armor can stop your arrows. Ff you hit in enemy armor will deal no damage, but if you hit on unarmored parts, deal full damage, in other words, armor works in a realistic way. With precise shots in "weakspots", you can even remove the armor of armored cyclops. Also, there are no "hardcaps", making your arrow disappear in mid air like most mmos have. The arrow loses damage and precision at very long range, but if you have comet shot, you can snipe enemies weakspots and is so fun and amazing. To make DD better, only if they added crossbows, and trowing weapons too, trowing Javalins for eg. But the archery of DD is the best.
@LMTR14
They rolled back *everything*. Salvatore and Greenwod did their best to restore most of the story and the ruleset is more like a mix of AD&D2 and D&D3 than anything else.
They even ressurect old settings, like Ravenloft and Eberron (more are hinted at).
Seriously, if they went any more back on their changes they would reprint AD&D2..
Not saying that you have to like it, but you should give 5E a chance before you condem it.
I think you can find a free "trial" version, with limeted classes and backgrounds, so you can check it out without having to pay money blind.
yeah they took the issues people had with 4th and fixed them. if anything it's just more streamlined compared to 3rd.
- The trick about good turn-based combat is making every single decision really matters. That's the player agency we talked about earlier. The game reacts to what you do and it matters. This is a fundamental core unit of gameplay. Much harder, well that's not necessarily much harder, in 3rd person. So if have to manage a party, think turn-based is much superior to real-time. Because in real-time they have to give you a pause button. That's because it goes too fast so you can't do the decision, or you have to leave it to an AI. If you leave it to an AI it's not really player agency anymore.
Well, then they failed in this regard, imo, with the D:OS games, because most combat decisions didn't really matter. They were the exact same decisions, across all the characters and across turns, just repeated again and again. So mind-numbingly tedious and boring.
What's with Larian's zealous opposition to including pause? It is ridiculous. In D:OS, yes the combat is TB and so doesn't need pause. But the rest of the game outside combat is real-time. Why not provide pause? Why the radical opposition to it? So utterly stupid.
I think it was a part of the game design, which you don't like, but I liked. If you trigger a trap you face the consequences without any chance to stop. If you caught fire, you have to act soon without any option to pause. Not stupid at all for me.
It's actually the same system as a TB combat in the sense that you get consequences of your every action. Every action matters. While not in combat, you have to be careful about what you do. While in combat, you have to think about each of your actions.
If you listen to the interview, and not just read those 2 small parts I included, you'll hear how much they evolved from D:OS to D:OS 2 (and it you play these games, you'll see it as well). I can't agree at all with you that combat decisions don't matter, sorry. I had to choose timing to use special arrows, grenades, stealth to enter the battle hidden with several characters, choose whom I want to teleport, where and when, which enemy should I target first, etc etc. And they plan to evolve from D:OS 2 for BGIII.
I'm really sad you found the games and combat boring and tedious. To me, you've missed a lot of fun, but everyone is different. It's sad for me other people couldn't find the same joy and fun I have when I play these games.
Yep, pause outside of combat would completely kill the feeling of risk when dealing with traps or when sneaking / thieving around. This is basically how Pillars of Eternity works, and while they're great games, they haven't really evolved much from what BG was in terms of thieving, traps, or aspects of dungeon crawling outside of combat. OTOH, the OS series has advanced the genre in a new and better direction here.
In fact, just speaking from my experience with the first game, this is strongest aspect of the game. The fact that you can use all your spells and all your items outside of combat, while also having to face severe non-combat risks, means that dungeon crawling is much more dynamic than it was in BG or even is in PoE.
As an additional thought, I think players should always stop themselves for a second when they're asking for a feature that will greatly lower a game's difficulty.
Yeah, who wants to be able to walk away from the game to go to the bathroom or maybe another family member needs something. Those people are weak and should be ashamed for even thinking of ever walking away from the screen!
"As an additional thought, I think players should always stop themselves for a second when they're asking for a feature that will greatly lower a game's difficulty. "
That's right! The screen should also flicker off at random intervals for 6 seconds at a time. It makes the game more difficult, so asking for anything else is bad!
That's right! The screen should also flicker off at random intervals for 6 seconds at a time. It makes the game more difficult, so asking for anything else is bad!
If properly implemented, that's not as bad an idea as you may think. Some games do have enemies that can mess with interface itself (e.g. Transistor), and if nothing else I think we could use more of it.
Yeah, who wants to be able to walk away from the game to go to the bathroom or maybe another family member needs something. Those people are weak and should be ashamed for even thinking of ever walking away from the screen!
"As an additional thought, I think players should always stop themselves for a second when they're asking for a feature that will greatly lower a game's difficulty. "
That's right! The screen should also flicker off at random intervals for 6 seconds at a time. It makes the game more difficult, so asking for anything else is bad!
This just isn't a thoughtful post, i'm sorry. First off, there's zero risk in 99% of the game from stepping away from a moment or even sitting idle for an hour. You can obviously step away at any moment during turn-based combat and be fine. Out of combat, you are almost never in danger unless you are in the act of doing something such as moving through a dungeon (and thus traps) or sneaking through a room with patrolling guards or some such.
I've stepped away from OS plenty of times to use the bathroom, text somebody or make a call or whatever. It has MOMENTS of active danger that depend on the player triggering those moments, but it doesn't chain you to the keyboard.
Comments
Again: it's a matter of presentation that Bioware and EA made in the past. So of course tastes will differ.
Reason 1: the action point system where you can perform multiple actions per turn. This works ok for movement and standard attacks but causes issues with spells and combos, which are a large part of the combat system. You can cast rain and a lightning attack in the same turn, without the enemies being able to react in an obvious manner. Firstly, this makes these combos much too easy to perform. Secondly, it destroys immersion if enemies stand still during the lengthy rain animation, idly waiting for the inevitable shock. Compare to XCOM where a basic combo is using an explosive to destroy cover and then taking a shot. Here your team actually has to work together, as each member can usually perform only one of the two required actions.
Reason 2: the initiative system. Forcing interleaving of party members and enemies in the turn order causes several issues. It devalues initiative modifiers. It causes metagaming where enemies are kept alive in order to not impact the action order in a harmful manner. It does not work well with ambushes. It is also limits encounter design, think quick swarm vs lumbering behemoth. It also encourages single character combos (see 1) even more over party combos.
Reason 3: the switch to combat is often not handled gracefully, with individual members being outside of combat or with default movement leaving your party conveniently clustered for an AoE attack. A positioning phase at the start of combat would help.
Reason 4: excessive mobility which negates a lot of strategy of positioning. Jumping over fighters to backstab the mage is a level 1 ability. Most skill trees have a similar ability, be it flying, teleporting or rushing. In fact, the main reason positioning still matters in the game is to manipulate the AI to direct attacks the way you want.
There are other things I dislike about the combat like the armor system but those are not tied quite as directly into their turn based system in itself.
Thought that was pretty brave at the time and at least it would be 'unique' in this day for Western RPG's. Do it you cowards!
next reason is that we are in the year 2019, so the graphics will be flashy like a superhero movie and the writing will be full of pc propaganda. mechanics will be dumbed down cause it has to be on console too. also that new team can never get the SCOPE of baldur's gate right. in the games, you go all the way from level 1 noob to a literal god! you can't beat that, and they surely won't repeat it either. honestly, I expect this to be some kind of assassin's-creed-style (not that I would have played any of those, don't get me wrong) action rpg where you have a few elements of d&d like mindflayers here and there but certainly NOTHING in common with either the spirit or the setting of the original. at the very best it will be a dragon age: origins-clone, and honestly, even that game wasn't particularly good. oh and expect scaling enemies, the bane of any kind of realism in rpg settings. I mean they sure scaled up the city of baldur's gate already in the trailer, lol (MEGAAAA).
so like I said, making this is a bad bad baaad idea and if you have even a shred of respect and adoration for the classic titles you will not buy or play this inane disgrace to the legacy of the best rpg trilogy of all time. there should never be a bgiii, the story was over, it's that simple! who even had the idea, who holds the rights?!
PS: just read this: "Set 100 years after original"
HAHAHAHAHAHAAAA. everything I said above just got amplified by the factor 10. anybody expecting ANYTHING from this can't be right in the head!
For me, two turn based games stands out as particularly well made combat-wise: Jagged Alliance 2, and if you want something a bit more RPGey, Temple of Elemental Evil. If I had to mention games from the last decade that I enjoyed the combat of more than D:OS I'd put up Age of Decadence and Dead State.
I also enjoyed the new X-COM games' combat more than the D:OSeses? But I wouldn't really hold them up as a good example of TB.
Guess I just don't have this problem. My first real TB game was HoMM4, which is known as the only one in series where defender strikes simultaneously with attacker. It seemed ok to me at first, until I played HoMM3 where attacker gets the first strike, then defender responds (if still alive). Let's just say, simultaneous actions don't work, unless it's a phase system with planning first and action later.
That sounds like chess? Even if not, there're TB systems that don't have any initiative at all. I don't see how it's metagaming though, because supposedly you're playing by the system's rules and turning them into your advantage?
Same as in HoMM, don't see it as a problem. HoMM does have tactics skill, allowing you to reposition units before the combat, and it was the one skill I avoided like plague, because once acquired it made me click extra time before every goddamn battle even if I didn't want to take advantage of it. God, the RAGE.
Not being able to block the enemy sounds bad, but otherwise I see nothing wrong with manipulating AI. That's the entire point of TB games, to manipulate the opponent to play by your rules, which you can't do in RT due to lack of sufficient control and time for analysis.
One thing I will say though is that your comment about them scaling up Baldur’s Gate the city in the trailer makes no sense. Of course it’s gonna be much bigger now. As you rightly pointed out in a later comment this game is based 100 years after the previous games and if I’m not mistaken in D&D lore Baldur’s Gate has grown a lot since then.
Plus I’d also like to point out that this is one of those pretty abusive to the other side statements that apparently don’t exist as I apparently ‘can’t be right in the head’ for having any interest in this game ?
I'm not suprised, just me and my brother are the only people I know of. As an RPG fan on Gamecube I wasn't exactly spoiled for choice lol. Even so it was great really deserved more attention.
Having played everything from 2.5 and on, I'd say it edges out 3.5 as my favorite edition.
They rolled back *everything*. Salvatore and Greenwod did their best to restore most of the story and the ruleset is more like a mix of AD&D2 and D&D3 than anything else.
They even ressurect old settings, like Ravenloft and Eberron (more are hinted at).
Seriously, if they went any more back on their changes they would reprint AD&D2..
Not saying that you have to like it, but you should give 5E a chance before you condem it.
I think you can find a free "trial" version, with limeted classes and backgrounds, so you can check it out without having to pay money blind.
https://www.bilibili.com/video/av56027142/
It's a very insightful interview, I recommend to spend time and listen to it. Here are two parts:
- Will you make 3rd person RPG like Divinity 2?
- I'm not married to a particular format. We find a formula that is interesting... So the big thing I already mentioned to you is that you have to have the systems, you have to have the narrative and exploration, and so forth, challenging combat... Well if we figure out here is a really good combat system that will work well in 3rd person, why not? I mean, with pleasure. Recently we have little bit into the turn-based mode because we really like turn-based. There's a lot of fun, there's a lot of stuff not done yet in turn-based that we could still do. But there's absolutely no reason why we don't go 3rd person.
- The trick about good turn-based combat is making every single decision really matters. That's the player agency we talked about earlier. The game reacts to what you do and it matters. This is a fundamental core unit of gameplay. Much harder, well that's not necessarily much harder, in 3rd person. So if have to manage a party, think turn-based is much superior to real-time. Because in real-time they have to give you a pause button. That's because it goes too fast so you can't do the decision, or you have to leave it to an AI. If you leave it to an AI it's not really player agency anymore.
Oh, and he covers in detail action points in D:OS and D:OS 2. By limiting the number of action points they wanted to make a player think more about what they will do now and then.
she is to busy being in dragon age origins
IMO Divinity 2 is a decent game, but compared to other third person action RPG's, is not that great. IMO the best ones are Dark Souls and Dragon's Dogma. I usually play as an caster but the implementation of Ranger on DD was so cool, the fact that longbows doesn't have nerf ranges and all cool stuff that you can do made me be an main ranger on DD. played DD many times, but only reached level cap with an Ranger.
Imagine ranger using D:OS logic. No, you can't hit this cyclops larger than an house at 14m, he is out of your range. You used tenfold flurry? Wait 50 seconds to use again. The skill is on cooldown.... All improvements that you charname does only change numbers, he barely get any new cool ability.
Archery on Dragon's Dogma is the best implementation of archery in a fantasy game. There are shortbows, good for close/medium range and longbows, you can purchase all types of arrows, blast arrows, poison arrows, petrify arrows, can target enemy parts, like feet, arms and it affect the enemy, an armored cyclops that has an armor much thicker than an normal armor can stop your arrows. Ff you hit in enemy armor will deal no damage, but if you hit on unarmored parts, deal full damage, in other words, armor works in a realistic way. With precise shots in "weakspots", you can even remove the armor of armored cyclops. Also, there are no "hardcaps", making your arrow disappear in mid air like most mmos have. The arrow loses damage and precision at very long range, but if you have comet shot, you can snipe enemies weakspots and is so fun and amazing. To make DD better, only if they added crossbows, and trowing weapons too, trowing Javalins for eg. But the archery of DD is the best.
yeah they took the issues people had with 4th and fixed them. if anything it's just more streamlined compared to 3rd.
Well, then they failed in this regard, imo, with the D:OS games, because most combat decisions didn't really matter. They were the exact same decisions, across all the characters and across turns, just repeated again and again. So mind-numbingly tedious and boring.
What's with Larian's zealous opposition to including pause? It is ridiculous. In D:OS, yes the combat is TB and so doesn't need pause. But the rest of the game outside combat is real-time. Why not provide pause? Why the radical opposition to it? So utterly stupid.
It's actually the same system as a TB combat in the sense that you get consequences of your every action. Every action matters. While not in combat, you have to be careful about what you do. While in combat, you have to think about each of your actions.
If you listen to the interview, and not just read those 2 small parts I included, you'll hear how much they evolved from D:OS to D:OS 2 (and it you play these games, you'll see it as well). I can't agree at all with you that combat decisions don't matter, sorry. I had to choose timing to use special arrows, grenades, stealth to enter the battle hidden with several characters, choose whom I want to teleport, where and when, which enemy should I target first, etc etc. And they plan to evolve from D:OS 2 for BGIII.
I'm really sad you found the games and combat boring and tedious. To me, you've missed a lot of fun, but everyone is different. It's sad for me other people couldn't find the same joy and fun I have when I play these games.
In fact, just speaking from my experience with the first game, this is strongest aspect of the game. The fact that you can use all your spells and all your items outside of combat, while also having to face severe non-combat risks, means that dungeon crawling is much more dynamic than it was in BG or even is in PoE.
As an additional thought, I think players should always stop themselves for a second when they're asking for a feature that will greatly lower a game's difficulty.
"As an additional thought, I think players should always stop themselves for a second when they're asking for a feature that will greatly lower a game's difficulty. "
That's right! The screen should also flicker off at random intervals for 6 seconds at a time. It makes the game more difficult, so asking for anything else is bad!
If properly implemented, that's not as bad an idea as you may think. Some games do have enemies that can mess with interface itself (e.g. Transistor), and if nothing else I think we could use more of it.
This just isn't a thoughtful post, i'm sorry. First off, there's zero risk in 99% of the game from stepping away from a moment or even sitting idle for an hour. You can obviously step away at any moment during turn-based combat and be fine. Out of combat, you are almost never in danger unless you are in the act of doing something such as moving through a dungeon (and thus traps) or sneaking through a room with patrolling guards or some such.
I've stepped away from OS plenty of times to use the bathroom, text somebody or make a call or whatever. It has MOMENTS of active danger that depend on the player triggering those moments, but it doesn't chain you to the keyboard.