Why can't the RtwP Taliban make peace. Even the Afghani managed it.
Yep; Single player RPG's are different than MMOs by a reason. While WoW players generally only plays WoW, people who like pathfinder, will eventually check other games in the market; Including divinity. I remember a guy saying that BG3 will take out costumers from beamdog's enhanced edition and i believe that is the opposite. People who liked BG3 will try BG2/1 to b see how different they are. Maybe during the launch date of BG3 but in long therm, it will bring more relevance for the seires.
But my problem is not with turn based games. I love ToEE. I have a problem with slow combat. Sword Coast LEgends is RtWP and has slow combat. Gothic 1 REMAKE(at least the teaser) has a much slower combat than the original gothic and becomes very boring by it among tons of other problems. Wizardry 8 has slow combat and i can't enjoy Wiz8 by it. Tyranny too. Too boring the slow combat.
As longs Larian isn't inflating the health values of monsters, i can enjoy the game despite the slow animations. Trash encounters when one fireball can solve then are completely different than trash encounters that takes minutes to complete.
I wanna feel like i an using powerful weaponry/spells vs powerful enemies. If the enemies can soak hundreds of hits and me too, nothing fell powerful nor intense. The armor system on dos2, number inflation and mmo style itemization takes out 99% of the tension on the game. To the point that i was spending 40 minutes in trash mobs.
HEll, i an playing returning 2.0 for Gothic 2 at moment, a mod that is criticized by inflating enemy health and even with inflated enemy health, i can kill a gruop of orcs and a elite orc in less than 20 seconds with Spear of Darkness(Necromancer). They also can tear me apart with few hits.
My biggest complaint with turn based is you get into a fight, all the enemies are in position already but your guys are just huddled in a ball. I'm about half through Wasteland but always being caught off guard and having to spend the first turn running for cover is getting annoying. Its unrealistic for one of your guy's to stand rigid still while a madman with an axe runs from 10m at him. Now I know RTWP has many problems too but they don't get as repetitive as turn based can. I haven't played D;OS so I don't know if they addressed turn based problems in it.
Finally watched the reveal last night. I have to say, it looks absolutely fantastic. It looks way more DA:O than BG, and I'm talking visual design here, not perspective, in fact it looks so great that I'm unsure my old gaming device will even be able to run it, which would be sad. When I first saw the pictures of the character models some months back I really wondered if that could be correct but they really delivered in that aspect.
Areas look okay. Definitely feel more like D:OS than BG2 or DA:O, but less cartoonish than the D:OS games were. I love the vertically, it's something that's been direly missing from every computer RPG (regardless of genre) since Morrowind and like the first Risen game. I loathe how the terrain of rpg games have basically become a plane plain over the years instead of the adventure fun-lands they should be (it's ridiculous how when you play the old Gothic games with their blocky square cliffs they still have more enjoyable environment than modern games because they were built with the intention of being explored). I know one shouldn't base expectations too much on presentations and the first areas of the game (keeping in mind how developers tend to front-load features into the games early environments compare to the later ones) but if they actually deliver on this then it's going to be something I've been waiting for for a long time. So I hope it will be great and great enough to set precedence for a culture change in this regard.
I didn't really take to the physics of the pushing and characters falling horizontally over the screen and such. It feels way too cartoonish for my tastes. I hope they reign that in for the final product.
I like that they went turn-based, but I really wish they had gone with individual initiatives. It's a big part of DnD and I really think going as a group removes a lot of the tactical depth and what makes TB interesting to me. It's one of the things I like the least about the new X-COM games, for example. It makes it too easy to cheese the combat system and AI.
I absolutely to the point of boiling over hyperbole cannot contain my dislike for that they chose to bring in their character system from D:OS. I don't want the game to be made for your awful characters, Larian. I want to make my own. One of the chief pillars of an rpg is being able to make your own. Giving me a plate of characters to choose from just gives me the impression that these are the ones the story is *supposed* to be about and that my ownly made character will just be relegated to the sidelines plot- and quest-wise. Like an awful GM only allowing you to play as one of his pre-made characters, and if you choose to make your own he has no connection to the plot because the plot was written for those pre-mades.
And no, I don't think like this is like DA:O origins at all. I really liked those, but those have a completely different design than D:OS2's. DA:O allowed your origins to give you a place in the world, a background and in-setting context, but your character was still your character. D:OS2's origins were not just origins but full fledged characters, not just a background or context for the world but with personality, identity, their whole personae up and to including special dialogue choices just for their characters decided for them. I absolutely hate it. It's the opposite of what I want in a game. It's the opposite of what I think is the purpose of an RPG. It feels like what you'd expect from a shitty Left4Dead knock off rather than a DnD based game.
Halflings look dumb as shit. I don't understand why they always have to make the coolest race look dumb. The whole "enlarged babyface head" 5e design of them is the worst, making them look like nothing but comical relief. Even the ridiculous 3rd edition "Halflings have elongated xenomorph skulls" look was better.
So yeah. It's a mixed bag. I wanted to end this on a positive note, but I kind of gushed about the big major positives up top so I don't know what's left... Oh, right! I dont think it was outright mentioned but I think it was implies by the scene where the player met the cleric and by how the presenteur talked around it: I got the distinct feeling that they are going to use the tadpole mental connection as an inplot reason for the meta around how these characters are able to function as a unit (ie the player having control over them all). Which could be cool. It's a pretty good justification in my opinion, at least.
And that's all I can think of right now. Thanks for reading, rant over.
I absolutely to the point of boiling over hyperbole cannot contain my dislike for that they chose to bring in their character system from D:OS. I don't want the game to be made for your awful characters, Larian. I want to make my own. One of the chief pillars of an rpg is being able to make your own. Giving me a plate of characters to choose from just gives me the impression that these are the ones the story is *supposed* to be about and that my ownly made character will just be relegated to the sidelines plot- and quest-wise. Like an awful GM only allowing you to play as one of his pre-made characters, and if you choose to make your own he has no connection to the plot because the plot was written for those pre-mades.
According to what I've been told here by other fans, you CAN create your own custom character, and it supposedly will be just (almost?) as well integrated into the story as playing one of the "pre-gens". I absolutely hated this idea as well, but I'm mollified somewhat by the new knowledge and so I'll wait to see how it actually plays out.
Also, Halflings are the best race?? Well, at least you didn't pick Gnomes...
You could create your own characters in D:OS2 as well, so I never thought you couldn't in BG3. The thing is that there was absolutely stupid to make your own character in D:OS2 because the game was made for playing one one of the pre-made characters. They had special plots and story integration/connection that you would lose out on if you didn't pick one of them.
from my understanding it is useing the dos 2 system. sure you can make your own character but if you don't use one of the pre made ones you miss out on content.
I like that they went turn-based, but I really wish they had gone with individual initiatives. It's a big part of DnD and I really think going as a group removes a lot of the tactical depth and what makes TB interesting to me. It's one of the things I like the least about the new X-COM games, for example. It makes it too easy to cheese the combat system and AI.
Agreed, not a fan of the "side initiative" even in the TT D&D. My theory is that they made it that way so you could have simultaneous turns in the multi coop mode.
I hope you could have the option to switch it on and off in single player.
from my understanding it is useing the dos 2 system. sure you can make your own character but if you don't use one of the pre made ones you miss out on content.
Swen stated that you will always miss out on content in a single run: different choices - deliberate or caused by an ability check - will open and close different paths possibilities.
And he said that when you make your own character, there will be special content based on your class, race, and whatever they think of.
But your own assumptions are of course more valuable that the statements of the developer.
from my understanding it is useing the dos 2 system. sure you can make your own character but if you don't use one of the pre made ones you miss out on content.
Swen stated that you will always miss out on content in a single run: different choices - deliberate or caused by an ability check - will open and close different paths possibilities.
Not comparable.
But your own assumptions are of course more valuable that the statements of the developer.
Yes, my own assumptions are in fact more valuable than the empty words of somebody trying to sell me something.
Well, usually the authors and creators are the ones that know best the game they are making and the goals they want to attain, even if they couldn´t make it in the end or the final result was flawed somehow.
Usually the developers are the ones that lie the most about what the game will be like in order to get you to buy it too.
They also tell the truth more than anyone else about the game. Because... They know the game.
The only evidence we have at the moment is that the amount of content is supposedly even or close to between the pre-gens and custom characters. Full stop.
"Glad to see the conversation has gotten to the "My side is less toxic than your side" so quickly."
Well, considering that "my" side hasn't insulted anyone yet. More like we haven't been toxic at all. BTW, this isn't the first time. Last year, someone said that everyone who can't see how great Larian's new game will be must have mental problems. Its a pattern.
"Glad to see the conversation has gotten to the "My side is less toxic than your side" so quickly."
Well, considering that "my" side hasn't insulted anyone yet. More like we haven't been toxic at all. BTW, this isn't the first time. Last year, someone said that everyone who can't see how great Larian's new game will be must have mental problems. Its a pattern.
"Glad to see the conversation has gotten to the "My side is less toxic than your side" so quickly."
Well, considering that "my" side hasn't insulted anyone yet. More like we haven't been toxic at all. BTW, this isn't the first time. Last year, someone said that everyone who can't see how great Larian's new game will be must have mental problems. Its a pattern.
You *actually* believe that? Interesting.
Being patronizing is still kinda toxic. You aren't doing the argument any favours.
How about we just slip by all the attacks on fandom and go back to either being hyped or dissapointed about what is to come. To each their own but 'my side, your side' doesn't drive meaningful discussion at all.
"Glad to see the conversation has gotten to the "My side is less toxic than your side" so quickly."
Well, considering that "my" side hasn't insulted anyone yet. More like we haven't been toxic at all. BTW, this isn't the first time. Last year, someone said that everyone who can't see how great Larian's new game will be must have mental problems. Its a pattern.
You *actually* believe that? Interesting.
Being patronizing is still kinda toxic. You aren't doing the argument any favours.
How about we just slip by all the attacks on fandom and go back to either being hyped or dissapointed about what is to come. To each their own but 'my side, your side' doesn't drive meaningful discussion at all.
I agree, and I apologize for contributing to the toxicity. I wasnt making a claim to not being toxic.
Anyone who suggests that only one group is being discourteous in their conversation is missing that both groups are complicit.
There are certainly toxic people on both side. Looking at the skeptics (I admit to being one), they seem to be fairly equally split in just saying that it will probably be a decent/good RPG, just not a real BG successor and some adding that they think it is cashgrab on top of that. Either way I think there is a lot of the Larian fan crowd which is fairly aggressive to even mild aggressive.
Huge amount of upvotes and all the upvoted answers are basically just shitting on RTwP. I am fine with people preferring TB over RTwP - hell, I like both systems. I love XCOM. But to claim that there aren't legimate reasons why people may prefer RTwP and them all just piling onto that - I find this to be extremely narrow-sighted. And I find it very sad that those people who never liked RTwP now crowd into the BG fan community and tell fans of the original games that their preferred system sucks.
For what it's worth my main concern with the current combat design is that the combination of party initiative and D&D spells usually leads to combat being decided by the initiative roll. I think even the rulebook cautions against that while offering it as an variant rule. And let's face it: this problem even was the reason why Larian introduced forced interleaving of friendly and enemy characters in D:OS 2. I am not sure what they are thinking here and that worries me.
I like that they went turn-based, but I really wish they had gone with individual initiatives. It's a big part of DnD and I really think going as a group removes a lot of the tactical depth and what makes TB interesting to me. It's one of the things I like the least about the new X-COM games, for example. It makes it too easy to cheese the combat system and AI.
Agreed, not a fan of the "side initiative" even in the TT D&D. My theory is that they made it that way so you could have simultaneous turns in the multi coop mode.
I hope you could have the option to switch it on and off in single player.
The group initiative/simultaneous move piece is one of the very few aspects of the game that I like. It can possibly make the crappy TB combat maybe just a tiny little bit more bearable.
"Glad to see the conversation has gotten to the "My side is less toxic than your side" so quickly."
Well, considering that "my" side hasn't insulted anyone yet. More like we haven't been toxic at all. BTW, this isn't the first time. Last year, someone said that everyone who can't see how great Larian's new game will be must have mental problems. Its a pattern.
it does not help that the side that thinks we are wrong pretty much want us to shut up and not state our opinion.
There are certainly toxic people on both side. Looking at the skeptics (I admit to being one), they seem to be fairly equally split in just saying that it will probably be a decent/good RPG, just not a real BG successor and some adding that they think it is cashgrab on top of that. Either way I think there is a lot of the Larian fan crowd which is fairly aggressive to even mild aggressive.
I appreciate you admitting your bias upfront (and before anyone is upset: My bias is clear as someone who is excited about the game). I see a lot of fandom shaming in that crowd - Opinions that range from "You're not a fan if you think this is good" to arguments where the subtext is the legacy of BG is being destroyed, so anyone who likes what they're seeing is complicit in that.
There's plenty of aggressiveness to go around.
I'm not speaking of other forums. Their disposition is immaterial as they are not here and I am not there.
There are certainly toxic people on both side. Looking at the skeptics (I admit to being one), they seem to be fairly equally split in just saying that it will probably be a decent/good RPG, just not a real BG successor and some adding that they think it is cashgrab on top of that. Either way I think there is a lot of the Larian fan crowd which is fairly aggressive to even mild aggressive.
Huge amount of upvotes and all the upvoted answers are basically just shitting on RTwP. I am fine with people preferring TB over RTwP - hell, I like both systems. I love XCOM. But to claim that there aren't legimate reasons why people may prefer RTwP and them all just piling onto that - I find this to be extremely narrow-sighted. And I find it very sad that those people who never liked RTwP now crowd into the BG fan community and tell fans of the original games that their preferred system sucks.
For what it's worth my main concern with the current combat design is that the combination of party initiative and D&D spells usually leads to combat being decided by the initiative roll. I think even the rulebook cautions against that while offering it as an variant rule. And let's face it: this problem even was the reason why Larian introduced forced interleaving of friendly and enemy characters in D:OS 2. I am not sure what they are thinking here and that worries me.
i noticed the negativity towards rtwp recently. people have been wanting all crpg to be tb for so long that now that the vocal minority [ i seen this mind set on rpg codex alot] got what they want they feel they are even more entitled as now most crpgs are catering to them.
so we now see the tb side looking down on the rtwp fans as inferiors and as out of date as most crpgs are now tb and less are rtwp.
For what it's worth my main concern with the current combat design is that the combination of party initiative and D&D spells usually leads to combat being decided by the initiative roll. I think even the rulebook cautions against that while offering it as an variant rule. And let's face it: this problem even was the reason why Larian introduced forced interleaving of friendly and enemy characters in D:OS 2. I am not sure what they are thinking here and that worries me.
Heh, the funny thing is, in tabletop D&D, the initiative role IS pretty much a crucial component of victory, especially if your spellcaster gets to go first. That first strike with a Confusion/Fireball/Sleep spell can make the difference between victory and defeat, especially in battles against overwhelming odds.
But yeah, I'm REALLY hoping that the final game will have initiative (does 5E still use Initiative??) that's individually rolled. The current system of "one team goes first, then the other team" feels REALLY artificial, and I feel that staggered initiative opens up the doors to much more strategic fights (probably the biggest selling point of TB combat); for instance, say my Fighter gets to go first, but if he charges into the goblin ranks, that means my Wizard (who goes third) can't throw in his FIreball for maximum effect anymore. So instead, I opt to have my Fighter move to block the ramp leading up to my Wizard, preventing the Goblin Warchief (Initiative 2) from reaching him and allowing my Wizard to toss that Fireball and take out the bulk of the goblin warband. Of course, if INSTEAD the Goblin Shaman had been Initiative 2, THEN maybe I'd charge my Fighter in to engage and hopefully kill him before he can get his spells off.
I can't speak for other players, but in TB games this kind of strategic brainstorming and the weighing of pros and cons is where a large part of the fun of TB combat comes from for me.
i find it puzzling that they choose to do party vs enemy on turns as apposed to single initiatives
i thought they were "trying" to stay as close to 5th edition rule set as possible no?
I don't have my rulebook here, but I think it is allowed as a variant rule (with a warning about the large impact of one side winning initiative). It does make things easier for the DM.
One real deviation will be that they are not properly implementing reactions except attacks of opportunities. This is a huge deal, as it takes a lot of the defensive toolkit away you would normally use to deal with the enemy having initiative and to deal with things happening when it is not your turn.
I think the TB-RTwP debate plays into a larger discussion about game design priorities. The way I see it, RPG video games exist on a spectrum where one end represents tactics and strategy and the other end represents realism and immersion. Think of it as a slider—the more an RPG focuses on making you think about character stats, tactics, equipment, progression, etc. while you're playing it, the less it focuses on making you feel immersed in the game's world, lore, story, atmosphere, etc. while you're playing it. (And vice versa.)
Of course that's a simplified view, most great RPGs are not on either end of the spectrum and instead have large stores of both strategic and immersive content, letting the player decide where they want to direct their focus, but I do think the decision whether the game is designed around turn-based or real-time combat, and also the decision of how strategic/involved the fights are, definitely push it towards one end or the other. On one side of the spectrum you have more tactics-y games like Divinity: Original Sin where the game expects and strongly encourages you to take an active interest in combat, tactics and stat-based decision-making, on the other side you have more action-y games like Morrowind that take a much more relaxed approach to stats and combat decisions and instead let you get lost in the game's (often highly detailed) world without worrying too much about the numbers.
(Though on a side note, I do think games like Fallout 1 & 2 that feature turn-based but still relatively simple and fast-paced combat fall more in the middle of the strategy-immersion slider, though these games come from a different lineage and have quite a different approach to Larian's games.)
I see the Baldur's Gate games (1 & 2) as falling somewhere in the middle. Thanks to their real-time with pause approach their combat system is very versatile, allowing for both highly tactically involved fights, such as boss fights, as well as fast-paced, low effort fights against trash mobs—sometimes hordes of them at a time, and everything in between.
To me this approach is ideal for a fantasy adventure RPG, as it lets the game designers break up the game's pacing and vary up how much attention it demands from the player from fight to fight, area to area and moment to moment.
It also lets the game designers create a large open world and populate it with encounters of varying difficulty, letting the player's decisions determine when they come across each encounter and consequently how difficult it is. An encounter that's highly difficult if the player finds it when they're level 1 could be trivial if they find it five levels later, and due to the versatility of the combat system both situations are compelling enough. The game designers don't need to heavily rely on level scaling or implement a more linear game world in order to make the encounters work, unlike in a more strictly tactically-minded game where every fight has to be designed around the player's estimated power level in order to keep the difficulty and tactical involvement in the necessary sweet spot.
I don't think any approach is objectively better than any other, each have their own pros and cons. It all depends on your priorities and preferences. That said, I do consider it unfaithful to the original games' established values and disrespectful to the fans, for a sequel to come in and significantly change the emphasis from role-playing to action (*cough* TES *cough*), from immersion to strategy (*cough* BG3 *cough*), and so on.
If a developer wants to experiment with the principal design priorities within a franchise without agitating the fans, it's probably a safer bet for them to establish a spin-off (*cough* Fallout Tactics *cough*).
Comments
Let's not associate the different sides here with actual terrorist groups, please. That's not helpful.
Yep; Single player RPG's are different than MMOs by a reason. While WoW players generally only plays WoW, people who like pathfinder, will eventually check other games in the market; Including divinity. I remember a guy saying that BG3 will take out costumers from beamdog's enhanced edition and i believe that is the opposite. People who liked BG3 will try BG2/1 to b see how different they are. Maybe during the launch date of BG3 but in long therm, it will bring more relevance for the seires.
But my problem is not with turn based games. I love ToEE. I have a problem with slow combat. Sword Coast LEgends is RtWP and has slow combat. Gothic 1 REMAKE(at least the teaser) has a much slower combat than the original gothic and becomes very boring by it among tons of other problems. Wizardry 8 has slow combat and i can't enjoy Wiz8 by it. Tyranny too. Too boring the slow combat.
As longs Larian isn't inflating the health values of monsters, i can enjoy the game despite the slow animations. Trash encounters when one fireball can solve then are completely different than trash encounters that takes minutes to complete.
I wanna feel like i an using powerful weaponry/spells vs powerful enemies. If the enemies can soak hundreds of hits and me too, nothing fell powerful nor intense. The armor system on dos2, number inflation and mmo style itemization takes out 99% of the tension on the game. To the point that i was spending 40 minutes in trash mobs.
HEll, i an playing returning 2.0 for Gothic 2 at moment, a mod that is criticized by inflating enemy health and even with inflated enemy health, i can kill a gruop of orcs and a elite orc in less than 20 seconds with Spear of Darkness(Necromancer). They also can tear me apart with few hits.
Areas look okay. Definitely feel more like D:OS than BG2 or DA:O, but less cartoonish than the D:OS games were. I love the vertically, it's something that's been direly missing from every computer RPG (regardless of genre) since Morrowind and like the first Risen game. I loathe how the terrain of rpg games have basically become a plane plain over the years instead of the adventure fun-lands they should be (it's ridiculous how when you play the old Gothic games with their blocky square cliffs they still have more enjoyable environment than modern games because they were built with the intention of being explored). I know one shouldn't base expectations too much on presentations and the first areas of the game (keeping in mind how developers tend to front-load features into the games early environments compare to the later ones) but if they actually deliver on this then it's going to be something I've been waiting for for a long time. So I hope it will be great and great enough to set precedence for a culture change in this regard.
I didn't really take to the physics of the pushing and characters falling horizontally over the screen and such. It feels way too cartoonish for my tastes. I hope they reign that in for the final product.
I like that they went turn-based, but I really wish they had gone with individual initiatives. It's a big part of DnD and I really think going as a group removes a lot of the tactical depth and what makes TB interesting to me. It's one of the things I like the least about the new X-COM games, for example. It makes it too easy to cheese the combat system and AI.
I absolutely to the point of boiling over hyperbole cannot contain my dislike for that they chose to bring in their character system from D:OS. I don't want the game to be made for your awful characters, Larian. I want to make my own. One of the chief pillars of an rpg is being able to make your own. Giving me a plate of characters to choose from just gives me the impression that these are the ones the story is *supposed* to be about and that my ownly made character will just be relegated to the sidelines plot- and quest-wise. Like an awful GM only allowing you to play as one of his pre-made characters, and if you choose to make your own he has no connection to the plot because the plot was written for those pre-mades.
And no, I don't think like this is like DA:O origins at all. I really liked those, but those have a completely different design than D:OS2's. DA:O allowed your origins to give you a place in the world, a background and in-setting context, but your character was still your character. D:OS2's origins were not just origins but full fledged characters, not just a background or context for the world but with personality, identity, their whole personae up and to including special dialogue choices just for their characters decided for them. I absolutely hate it. It's the opposite of what I want in a game. It's the opposite of what I think is the purpose of an RPG. It feels like what you'd expect from a shitty Left4Dead knock off rather than a DnD based game.
Halflings look dumb as shit. I don't understand why they always have to make the coolest race look dumb. The whole "enlarged babyface head" 5e design of them is the worst, making them look like nothing but comical relief. Even the ridiculous 3rd edition "Halflings have elongated xenomorph skulls" look was better.
So yeah. It's a mixed bag. I wanted to end this on a positive note, but I kind of gushed about the big major positives up top so I don't know what's left... Oh, right! I dont think it was outright mentioned but I think it was implies by the scene where the player met the cleric and by how the presenteur talked around it: I got the distinct feeling that they are going to use the tadpole mental connection as an inplot reason for the meta around how these characters are able to function as a unit (ie the player having control over them all). Which could be cool. It's a pretty good justification in my opinion, at least.
And that's all I can think of right now. Thanks for reading, rant over.
According to what I've been told here by other fans, you CAN create your own custom character, and it supposedly will be just (almost?) as well integrated into the story as playing one of the "pre-gens". I absolutely hated this idea as well, but I'm mollified somewhat by the new knowledge and so I'll wait to see how it actually plays out.
Also, Halflings are the best race?? Well, at least you didn't pick Gnomes...
I hope you could have the option to switch it on and off in single player.
Swen stated that you will always miss out on content in a single run: different choices - deliberate or caused by an ability check - will open and close different paths possibilities.
And he said that when you make your own character, there will be special content based on your class, race, and whatever they think of.
But your own assumptions are of course more valuable that the statements of the developer.
Not comparable.
Yes, my own assumptions are in fact more valuable than the empty words of somebody trying to sell me something.
They also tell the truth more than anyone else about the game. Because... They know the game.
The only evidence we have at the moment is that the amount of content is supposedly even or close to between the pre-gens and custom characters. Full stop.
Glad to see the conversation has gotten to the "My side is less toxic than your side" so quickly.
Well, considering that "my" side hasn't insulted anyone yet. More like we haven't been toxic at all. BTW, this isn't the first time. Last year, someone said that everyone who can't see how great Larian's new game will be must have mental problems. Its a pattern.
You *actually* believe that? Interesting.
Being patronizing is still kinda toxic. You aren't doing the argument any favours.
How about we just slip by all the attacks on fandom and go back to either being hyped or dissapointed about what is to come. To each their own but 'my side, your side' doesn't drive meaningful discussion at all.
I agree, and I apologize for contributing to the toxicity. I wasnt making a claim to not being toxic.
Anyone who suggests that only one group is being discourteous in their conversation is missing that both groups are complicit.
If you look at the D:OS reddit you can find this thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/DivinityOriginalSin/comments/fb00oh/their_only_defences_were_nostalgia_for_the_old/
Huge amount of upvotes and all the upvoted answers are basically just shitting on RTwP. I am fine with people preferring TB over RTwP - hell, I like both systems. I love XCOM. But to claim that there aren't legimate reasons why people may prefer RTwP and them all just piling onto that - I find this to be extremely narrow-sighted. And I find it very sad that those people who never liked RTwP now crowd into the BG fan community and tell fans of the original games that their preferred system sucks.
For what it's worth my main concern with the current combat design is that the combination of party initiative and D&D spells usually leads to combat being decided by the initiative roll. I think even the rulebook cautions against that while offering it as an variant rule. And let's face it: this problem even was the reason why Larian introduced forced interleaving of friendly and enemy characters in D:OS 2. I am not sure what they are thinking here and that worries me.
it does not help that the side that thinks we are wrong pretty much want us to shut up and not state our opinion.
I appreciate you admitting your bias upfront (and before anyone is upset: My bias is clear as someone who is excited about the game). I see a lot of fandom shaming in that crowd - Opinions that range from "You're not a fan if you think this is good" to arguments where the subtext is the legacy of BG is being destroyed, so anyone who likes what they're seeing is complicit in that.
There's plenty of aggressiveness to go around.
I'm not speaking of other forums. Their disposition is immaterial as they are not here and I am not there.
i noticed the negativity towards rtwp recently. people have been wanting all crpg to be tb for so long that now that the vocal minority [ i seen this mind set on rpg codex alot] got what they want they feel they are even more entitled as now most crpgs are catering to them.
so we now see the tb side looking down on the rtwp fans as inferiors and as out of date as most crpgs are now tb and less are rtwp.
Heh, the funny thing is, in tabletop D&D, the initiative role IS pretty much a crucial component of victory, especially if your spellcaster gets to go first. That first strike with a Confusion/Fireball/Sleep spell can make the difference between victory and defeat, especially in battles against overwhelming odds.
But yeah, I'm REALLY hoping that the final game will have initiative (does 5E still use Initiative??) that's individually rolled. The current system of "one team goes first, then the other team" feels REALLY artificial, and I feel that staggered initiative opens up the doors to much more strategic fights (probably the biggest selling point of TB combat); for instance, say my Fighter gets to go first, but if he charges into the goblin ranks, that means my Wizard (who goes third) can't throw in his FIreball for maximum effect anymore. So instead, I opt to have my Fighter move to block the ramp leading up to my Wizard, preventing the Goblin Warchief (Initiative 2) from reaching him and allowing my Wizard to toss that Fireball and take out the bulk of the goblin warband. Of course, if INSTEAD the Goblin Shaman had been Initiative 2, THEN maybe I'd charge my Fighter in to engage and hopefully kill him before he can get his spells off.
I can't speak for other players, but in TB games this kind of strategic brainstorming and the weighing of pros and cons is where a large part of the fun of TB combat comes from for me.
i find it puzzling that they choose to do party vs enemy on turns as apposed to single initiatives
i thought they were "trying" to stay as close to 5th edition rule set as possible no?
I don't have my rulebook here, but I think it is allowed as a variant rule (with a warning about the large impact of one side winning initiative). It does make things easier for the DM.
One real deviation will be that they are not properly implementing reactions except attacks of opportunities. This is a huge deal, as it takes a lot of the defensive toolkit away you would normally use to deal with the enemy having initiative and to deal with things happening when it is not your turn.
Of course that's a simplified view, most great RPGs are not on either end of the spectrum and instead have large stores of both strategic and immersive content, letting the player decide where they want to direct their focus, but I do think the decision whether the game is designed around turn-based or real-time combat, and also the decision of how strategic/involved the fights are, definitely push it towards one end or the other. On one side of the spectrum you have more tactics-y games like Divinity: Original Sin where the game expects and strongly encourages you to take an active interest in combat, tactics and stat-based decision-making, on the other side you have more action-y games like Morrowind that take a much more relaxed approach to stats and combat decisions and instead let you get lost in the game's (often highly detailed) world without worrying too much about the numbers.
(Though on a side note, I do think games like Fallout 1 & 2 that feature turn-based but still relatively simple and fast-paced combat fall more in the middle of the strategy-immersion slider, though these games come from a different lineage and have quite a different approach to Larian's games.)
I see the Baldur's Gate games (1 & 2) as falling somewhere in the middle. Thanks to their real-time with pause approach their combat system is very versatile, allowing for both highly tactically involved fights, such as boss fights, as well as fast-paced, low effort fights against trash mobs—sometimes hordes of them at a time, and everything in between.
To me this approach is ideal for a fantasy adventure RPG, as it lets the game designers break up the game's pacing and vary up how much attention it demands from the player from fight to fight, area to area and moment to moment.
It also lets the game designers create a large open world and populate it with encounters of varying difficulty, letting the player's decisions determine when they come across each encounter and consequently how difficult it is. An encounter that's highly difficult if the player finds it when they're level 1 could be trivial if they find it five levels later, and due to the versatility of the combat system both situations are compelling enough. The game designers don't need to heavily rely on level scaling or implement a more linear game world in order to make the encounters work, unlike in a more strictly tactically-minded game where every fight has to be designed around the player's estimated power level in order to keep the difficulty and tactical involvement in the necessary sweet spot.
I don't think any approach is objectively better than any other, each have their own pros and cons. It all depends on your priorities and preferences. That said, I do consider it unfaithful to the original games' established values and disrespectful to the fans, for a sequel to come in and significantly change the emphasis from role-playing to action (*cough* TES *cough*), from immersion to strategy (*cough* BG3 *cough*), and so on.
If a developer wants to experiment with the principal design priorities within a franchise without agitating the fans, it's probably a safer bet for them to establish a spin-off (*cough* Fallout Tactics *cough*).