I do not know if it would be needed, because we already know that there´s no respawning of enemies so I hope we do not have the usual repetitive trash-mobs fight but tactical combats instead; but It would be great if they allow a speedbar or a FF option in BG3.
And a button to "select/unselect all". At least in the gameplay, Sven did not link the characters most of the time and go "lone wolf" most of the time. Maybe that was intended.
Not if the game has "Faster enemy turns" "Enemy instant turns" or a speedbar..., like almost any game of the same category in existence.
I always found puzzling that so many people talk about long enemy turns... What games do you play , guys? =D the only games I know do not have that option in this decade are the turn-based mode of POE2 and DoS games. Even the 2000s "Arcanum" game had that option.
Any total war game, for starters. And lots of games are still awfully slow even with "faster" turns enabled.
Those are strategy games, man.
ED: And Total war games have a "FastForward" option, FYI.
Still takes time because in strategy games, unlike in RPGs, all enemy civilizations move every time you finish your turn (build, train, use diplomacy, move armies, fight,...) even if you cannot see them or you´re not nearby.
Turns in total war last that long in low-end computers because they have to make a lot of calculus off-screen and that could take a lot of time for your PC.
That´s not applicable to RPGs.
It's not my fault nearly all modern turn based games are strategy games
Knights of the chalice, Trails of cold Steel III, Disgaea 4, Tale of Ronin, Ash of gods: Redemption; Dark Crystal Tactics, Realms of arkania 2, Operencia, Forged of Blood, The Hand of Merlin, Overland, Ultimate Adom, Othercide, Indivisible, Project Sakura Wars,Broken lines, Iron Danger, Edge of eternity, Unsung Story:
Tale of the Guardians, Romancing Saga, Soul Saga, Utarerumono: Prelude to the fallen,
Dungeon of Naheulbeuk: The amulet of chaos, Crist Tales, Wildermyth: Stories of the
Yondering Lands, We are the Plague, Eidolons: Nethergate, Encased, Heralds of the Order,
, RAM Pressure, Broken Lines, Grand Guilds, Tenderfoot Tactics, The Protagonist, Arcadian Atlas, Alder’s Blood, ColonyShip-4: Survivors, Guile & Glory: Firstborn, Monster Sanctuary, Rising Lords,...
..beg to differ.
Look, I think it´s my fault to assume you know what you´re talking about. With your obvious loathing of TB-games it´s safe to assume you are not interested in them. I doubt we could have a constructive and informed discussion based in hearsay. It's pointless to discuss turn-based-mechanics options with people that do not play TB games, so it´s better we move on instead of derailing this thread.
It is more than a little disappointing to see studios like Owlcat and Obsidian offer TB for those who prefer that type of play while others like Larian and inXile won't do the same for RTwP fans. I'd add that there are many, many reasons besides "enemy turns take too long" to prefer RTwP.
"Despite being turn-based, which allows you to have an authentic D&D experience and really deliberate over your moves as a team, BG3’s combat is much faster than DOS2.
We invested heavily into what drives our animation pipeline, and specifically made tweaks to improve the feel and motion in combat. The increased brevity and flow is down to many, many changes shaving off microseconds (and sometimes entire seconds). For example, another character’s turn will begin - behind the scenes - as the previous character is ending their animation. Even things as simple as combining move animations with the hit of a melee strike shaves seconds off combat.
BG3’s combat is now set so that each combatant takes a turn at a time but there’s a twist. If multiple combatants of the same faction follow one another in the turn order, then you can simultaneously command each of them.
That means that based on the results of the initiative roll, you’ll experience a different tactical puzzle in each combat that really mixes everything up but still allows you to react to the “cards” you’re “dealt”, so to speak. (There aren’t literally any cards, sorry MTG fans!) Between the RNG of initiative, and the planning, you should be able to have a fresh experience with every combat while still being able to predict and plan with friends how to combine spells and abilities, and ultimately win the fight.
Baldur’s Gate 3 is a party-based game that you can play alone, controlling each character, or as a party of up to four where each person rolls their own character. (It’s of course possible to also play as 2, or 3 people, with AI, etc).
In multiplayer, when your avatars and companions are next to each other in the turn order players can simultaneously control characters. This allows you to communicate with your friends and combine spells and abilities to take advantage of more brains on the battlefield, and more hands on the keyboard. This, compared with Divinity: Original Sin 2, drastically reduces the amount of time each player would have to wait between turns, since they’re able to move together."
"Our stealth mechanics now also take light and darkness into account. You can be obscured or heavily obscured so that even when you are caught in the visibility cones of the enemy, you still have a chance to slip through unseen. Of course, that is if your enemies don’t have darkvision. Here’s a little table that summarizes how light, darkness and darkvision affect stealth.
Things get even more interesting when you discover you can manipulate light by using spells or throwing water at a torch, as lighting is dynamic, and thus shadows are also."
"Despite being turn-based, which allows you to have an authentic D&D experience and really deliberate over your moves as a team, BG3’s combat is much faster than DOS2.
We invested heavily into what drives our animation pipeline, and specifically made tweaks to improve the feel and motion in combat. The increased brevity and flow is down to many, many changes shaving off microseconds (and sometimes entire seconds). For example, another character’s turn will begin - behind the scenes - as the previous character is ending their animation. Even things as simple as combining move animations with the hit of a melee strike shaves seconds off combat.
BG3’s combat is now set so that each combatant takes a turn at a time but there’s a twist. If multiple combatants of the same faction follow one another in the turn order, then you can simultaneously command each of them.
That means that based on the results of the initiative roll, you’ll experience a different tactical puzzle in each combat that really mixes everything up but still allows you to react to the “cards” you’re “dealt”, so to speak. (There aren’t literally any cards, sorry MTG fans!) Between the RNG of initiative, and the planning, you should be able to have a fresh experience with every combat while still being able to predict and plan with friends how to combine spells and abilities, and ultimately win the fight.
Baldur’s Gate 3 is a party-based game that you can play alone, controlling each character, or as a party of up to four where each person rolls their own character. (It’s of course possible to also play as 2, or 3 people, with AI, etc).
In multiplayer, when your avatars and companions are next to each other in the turn order players can simultaneously control characters. This allows you to communicate with your friends and combine spells and abilities to take advantage of more brains on the battlefield, and more hands on the keyboard. This, compared with Divinity: Original Sin 2, drastically reduces the amount of time each player would have to wait between turns, since they’re able to move together."
"Our stealth mechanics now also take light and darkness into account. You can be obscured or heavily obscured so that even when you are caught in the visibility cones of the enemy, you still have a chance to slip through unseen. Of course, that is if your enemies don’t have darkvision. Here’s a little table that summarizes how light, darkness and darkvision affect stealth.
Things get even more interesting when you discover you can manipulate light by using spells or throwing water at a torch, as lighting is dynamic, and thus shadows are also."
Sounds nice that you can play with 2, 3, 4, with IA, etc. in MP It would come in handy if someone has to leave or the net goes down here, as usual.
Also it seems darkvision became a very important feature if you are playing a rogue or some sneaky character, for players and enemies alike.
""Despite being turn-based, which allows you to have an authentic D&D experience and really deliberate over your moves as a team"
And RTWP can't do this because?
Things like reactions, initiative and so on are near impossible to be implemented on RtWP...
The most faithful D&D adaptation ever(ToEE) was turn based.
I an glad with 4 party size. Micromanage huge party is never fun.
The way BG3 is handling reactions is totally doable in RTwP. The only difference is that if it had been done that way in a RTwP game, the TB crowd would've used that as yet another fake reason to bash that RTwP game.
And initiative? Really? Initiative was fully implemented in the IE games, in the NwN games, and now in the Pathfinder games.
As for party size, for me micromanaging a 6-person party is the funnest part of the IE games. Take that away and you take away most of my fun playing those games.
When I watch the video I have a couple of thoughts. 1. This might take a lot of space on my harddisk. 2. How short of a story is this going to be with such graphics. 3. Seem to be scared to show the actual gaming experience and in game graphics. 4. Maybe, maybe not.
When I played bg1 the first time I remember I wanted the same game but with a map even ten times larger.
You beamdog already created this with nvn and all its player made mods.
I'm not sure if I need anything more.
The guys that made the maps and character designs/animations are not the same that write the story and dialogues, they work separately and in paralel -just saying-
The guys that made the maps and character designs/animations are not the same that write the story and dialogues, they work separately and in paralel -just saying-
Yes, but intense graphics take up most a games budget. Its why so many AAA titles are short.
Yes, but intense graphics take up most a games budget. Its why so many AAA titles are short.
Yeah, and nowadays I just feel its so unnecessary. AAA games are fast becoming like Hollywood movies, I see Hollywood movies as losing sight of the art of film making because of an overreliance on postfilming animation, effects and digital manipulation, and with games they're losing the sight of the fact interactivity is what videogames are about and instead making (barely) interactive movies.
And whilst BG3 clearly isn't quite like that, I just don't think it makes a tonne of difference to me that they do it in full 3D like they have, if it was designed more like the Pillars games say in terms of graphics and interface, I'd be happier. You know, as long as the optimisation wasn't as horrible as Pillars 2.
The guys that made the maps and character designs/animations are not the same that write the story and dialogues, they work separately and in paralel -just saying-
Yes, but intense graphics take up most a games budget. Its why so many AAA titles are short.
I don't know about this. Admittedly I only know AAA RPGs, and even that only within the fantasy genre, but Skyrim, DA:I, and TW3 are all quite long games. And at least with TW3, very little of it, if any, is filler content. It is almost entirely some really great roleplaying. If most AAA RPGs or ARPGs were like TW3, I would enthusiastically and wholeheartedly embrace them.
I dont see any reason to believe that having good graphics or impressive animations means anything other than that those things were well done.
Extrapolating that good animations somehow means that the story will be deficient doesnt make sense, because we dont know if the story telling is good or bad and furthermore, cannot know if there is a causal relationship between bad story telling and good animations/graphics(Even after the fact)
TB is absolutely an authentic representation of table top RPG. RTWP is authentic too. It depends on if you're trying to recreate the theater of the mind of everything happening at once (RTWP) or the iterative process of how the initiative order is resolved at the table.
Ah man. I am definitely getting hyped for Baldur’s Gate 3 now. Larian look like they are doing a fantastic job. I can’t wait to get my hands on this game and dive back in to the fantasy world that got me into RPG’s in the first place ?
I dont see any reason to believe that having good graphics or impressive animations means anything other than that those things were well done.
Extrapolating that good animations somehow means that the story will be deficient doesnt make sense, because we dont know if the story telling is good or bad and furthermore, cannot know if there is a causal relationship between bad story telling and good animations/graphics(Even after the fact)
TB is absolutely an authentic representation of table top RPG. RTWP is authentic too. It depends on if you're trying to recreate the theater of the mind of everything happening at once (RTWP) or the iterative process of how the initiative order is resolved at the table.
Yep, I still don't get this curdmudgeonly attitude about how games just aren't what they used to be.
There is such a diversity of games you can have access to today that it just doesn't seem like a fair assessment. Yes, it's true that some big studios are making the cinematic, linear games with limited interactivity. But one, those games have existed for a long time. Some people like those games. And two, there is no shortage of sprawling, highly interactive games. Hell, Larian themselves are credited with adding a great deal of interactivity/multi-solution quests to this subgenre!
As kanistha said above, the Witcher 3 and Skyrim are absolutely not cinematic-focused, are highly interactive and are highly non linear. And they're the biggest sellers in RPG's. It's just not the case that consumers have to put up with linear, cinematic focused games crowding up the market.
As for party size, for me micromanaging a 6-person party is the funnest part of the IE games. Take that away and you take away most of my fun playing those games.
I strongly disagree. In fact, micromanaging they with their suicidal AI is a chore. When i mean by suicidal AI, think in a area affected by cloudkill, ice storm, 6 skull traps, a dealyed blast fireball. Why my party members needs to rush in that area to kill themselves??? Playing solo or at best with 3 companions is where BG2 is great.
""Despite being turn-based, which allows you to have an authentic D&D experience and really deliberate over your moves as a team"
And RTWP can't do this because?
Things like reactions, initiative and so on are near impossible to be implemented on RtWP...
The most faithful D&D adaptation ever(ToEE) was turn based.
I an glad with 4 party size. Micromanage huge party is never fun.
None of this demonstrates why RTWP can't "allow you to have an authentic experience and really deliberate over your moves."
TOEE was, at best, a cult hit as well. And had a LOT of issues.
My point is that there are a lot of cool games who are TB.
Also, Neverwinter from 1991 was turn based. Neverwinter Nights 1 was RtWP. Nobody criticized then from it. In that time, TB was viewed as a thing from the past and this is why many RPG games from late 90s to earlier 00s are RtWP. Is not that RtWP is superior.
Most SSI games was turn based games and they are faithful like IE. You can not like Larian, can not like cooldowns, stat stickie itemization and other dos2 "stuff", but Larian did a amazing job making turn based more "popular" again.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHYPKMZVfqw
Between RtWP and TB, i honestly like Both. TB allow more tactic and RtWP allow more frenetic large scale combat. Imagine having 10 casts of animate dead on PFKM(you can with metamagic) or 10 * (d4+2) undeads serving you and fighting a group of 20+ wild hunt archers. Watching each one attacking will take an eternity. Sure, concurrent turns and other things can speed up the combat. most DM's will treat a mob of undead using homebrew or not "rules" to not slow the combat BUT a computer don't need to waste hours in tedium to roll each undead attacking.
That said, IMO RtWP is better for large scale battles and TB for small scale.
I prefer RTwP for sandbox, grindy games or games with lots of repetitive encounters, and TB for games with fewer, tactical encounters and more complicated combat mechanics.
Yes this is where I diverge from some of the RPG purists, for whom a game being a good RPG and having awesome graphics are polar opposites: you can have only or the other but not both. I profoundly disagree, and of course have already brought up TW3 as a superb example of a game with incredible, cinematic-quality graphics (hello, sex on a unicorn ) and also incredible, quality roleplaying. When I played TW3, very quickly I actually started thinking of myself as being Geralt. That's how immersed the game made me feel. That game single-handedly sold me on AAA ARPGs. Heck even my deeply-seated desire for having party companions, and therefore not caring much for solo-play games, was assuaged by that game because even though you only controlled Geralt, you always had friends and companions around you in the game with whom you got to interact in very meaningful ways.
I love all the elements that go into a game being a truly awesome RP experience. But I also love the third-person perspective and being able to see my character in great detail on my wonderfully large 4K display. Call me crazy, but I don't see any contradiction there.
As for party size, for me micromanaging a 6-person party is the funnest part of the IE games. Take that away and you take away most of my fun playing those games.
I strongly disagree. In fact, micromanaging they with their suicidal AI is a chore. When i mean by suicidal AI, think in a area affected by cloudkill, ice storm, 6 skull traps, a dealyed blast fireball. Why my party members needs to rush in that area to kill themselves??? Playing solo or at best with 3 companions is where BG2 is great.
Based on what you've said in the past, I suspect your view is the result of you liking to play spellcasters a lot, and as such, yes, a spellcasting-heavy party of six would probably be a chore to handle. In my case, I hate D&D-style spellcasting, and always opt for spellcasting only as minimally necessary in my parties. So the ideal party for me is four melee and two missile-ranged characters, with spellcasting only as the secondary class in multiclassed characters. As such even my so-called "spellcasters" are, most of the time, shooting with missile weapons rather than spellcasting. That's how I like it, and that is not only NOT a chore but actually a blast to micromanage in combat.
In P:Km, I not only have my four melee and two bow-wielders, but also have three animals (from my PC, Amiri, and Ekun). I adjust my difficulty settings to compensate for not having much spellcasting support, and then have a blast with my melee-heavy party.
As for party size, for me micromanaging a 6-person party is the funnest part of the IE games. Take that away and you take away most of my fun playing those games.
I strongly disagree. In fact, micromanaging they with their suicidal AI is a chore. When i mean by suicidal AI, think in a area affected by cloudkill, ice storm, 6 skull traps, a dealyed blast fireball. Why my party members needs to rush in that area to kill themselves??? Playing solo or at best with 3 companions is where BG2 is great.
Based on what you've said in the past, I suspect your view is the result of you liking to play spellcasters a lot, and as such, yes, a spellcasting-heavy party of six would probably be a chore to handle. In my case, I hate D&D-style spellcasting, and always opt for spellcasting only as minimally necessary in my parties. So the ideal party for me is four melee and two missile-ranged characters, with spellcasting only as the secondary class in multiclassed characters. As such even my so-called "spellcasters" are, most of the time, shooting with missile weapons rather than spellcasting. That's how I like it, and that is not only NOT a chore but actually a blast to micromanage in combat.
In P:Km, I not only have my four melee and two bow-wielders, but also have three animals (from my PC, Amiri, and Ekun). I adjust my difficulty settings to compensate for not having much spellcasting support, and then have a blast with my melee-heavy party.
Yep. I love using powerful magic in high magical settings and powerful firearms in post apocalyptic games. Melee weapons, is very rare for me to like playing melee in any game. Mount & Blade Warband is one of the few exceptions. Exactly because on M&B, armor actually deflects fast swinging blades, blunt weapons are best vs armor and being a knight charging with a horse and a spear is very fun. That said, i've soloed BG2:SoA on Legacy of Bhaal as a necromancer. I can't find a thread of this challenge but detailed details of my playtrough here > https://www.reddit.com/r/baldursgate/comments/hrxn15/my_experience_soloing_soa_lecagy_of_bhaal_as_a/
But on PFKM, some encounters are extremely harsh for heavily caster based parties. Spawn of Rovagug is the most iconic example.
For BG3, necromancers are the weakest specialization on 5e, their undead creations are too weak and fragile, and they can't finger succubus OHK enemies with finger of death and wail of the banshee. On BG2, necromancers are considered a average specialization, diviners since most divination spells can't be properly translated to a CRPG, is the weakest specialization. But on 5e, they are so weak that i will not play BG3 as one.
It's not that games with high graphics budgets can't also have high budgets for gameplay systems or content. It's that not every AAA game has the budget of The Witcher 3, and when you're working with a limited budget in a market where the industry standard is an ever-advancing approximation of photorealism and full VO, you'll need to spend lots of money in those areas in order to effectively market your game, and you'll have to cut corners somewhere. And "somewhere" typically means gameplay systems and content, because systems and content become a lot more expensive to produce as you crank the graphical fidelity and voiceover knobs.
This, along with the tendency to appeal to wider audiences, is what is usually behind the trend of the simplification, or to use the buzz term, the dumbing down of many RPG series over the years. Several big RPG developers have gradually changed focus from offering a high degree of player choice and complex systems to facilitate role-playing freedom to offering smoother, more streamlined, more cinematic experiences that are also easier to market because they're tailored to produce flashy screenshots and trailers. The Elder Scrolls is a good example of a series that has been cutting back on gameplay systems with each new title since the early 2000s. BioWare also followed the same trajectory with a lot their later games—granted, I haven't played any of them past ME3.
This, along with the tendency to appeal to wider audiences, is what is usually behind the trend of the simplification, or to use the buzz term, the dumbing down of many RPG series over the years. Several big RPG developers have gradually changed focus from offering a high degree of player choice and complex systems to facilitate role-playing freedom to offering smoother, more streamlined, more cinematic experiences that are also easier to market because they're tailored to produce flashy screenshots and trailers. The Elder Scrolls is a good example of a series that has been cutting back on gameplay systems with each new title since the early 2000s. BioWare also followed the same trajectory with a lot their later games—granted, I haven't played any of them past ME3.
The reverse is also true. More is not always better when it comes to gameplay and gameplay options. You may call it "dumbing down", but the engineer calls it streamlining. Taking features that are either inconsequential or not universally loved and removing them for the sake of attempting to improve the experience.
D&D is a wonderful example of this. 4th edition was more complicated than 3rd or 5th edition in many ways, but these unnecessary complications detracted from the enjoyment of the game for a lot of people. So they "dumbed down" (streamlined) the edition, and most fans have responded very positively to the changes.,
It's not that games with high graphics budgets can't also have high budgets for gameplay systems or content. It's that not every AAA game has the budget of The Witcher 3, and when you're working with a limited budget in a market where the industry standard is an ever-advancing approximation of photorealism and full VO, you'll need to spend lots of money in those areas in order to effectively market your game, and you'll have to cut corners somewhere. And "somewhere" typically means gameplay systems and content, because systems and content become a lot more expensive to produce as you crank the graphical fidelity and voiceover knobs.
To respond to your first point - we dont know a ton about the budgets of these games, and it's not something you can easily look at and say "Well if they spent half as much on graphics, the game would have been twice as good" - that's not provable
Also, the original canard here that isnt proven either is that games are generally getting worse. First that's a purely opinionated position and second I dont find that to be the case (at all). I think games are as good as they've ever been.
The reverse is also true. More is not always better when it comes to gameplay and gameplay options. You may call it "dumbing down", but the engineer calls it streamlining. Taking features that are either inconsequential or not universally loved and removing them for the sake of attempting to improve the experience.
Another great example of this is the recent XCOM reboots. The two-move system is, superficially, more simplified than the original game's action point system. And it allows for some less diversity of play, but, imo, it's a much better system. And the game doesn't lack at all for strategic/tactical depth in the grand scheme.
I don't think it's true at all the games today are generally less complex than their predecessors. Computers and consoles did not use to have the resources to implement very many complex systems. Especially in lengthy games like RPG's. I'm sorry but even the beloved Baldur's Gate is a less complex game than many of the RPG's coming out today, especially the ones made in its image: PoE, Pathfinder, and Original Sin. That's not an argument that these games are better than BG, but complexity has undeniably grown.
And if I'm to go even further back, D&D titles such as the goldbox games are incredibly shallower experiences than the highest selling party based RPG's of today. I'll concede the point on Bethesda games, and I'm not a fan of Skyrim, but that's just one studio. OTOH, series like the Witcher grew in complexity. As did the Dark Souls games.
Comments
And a button to "select/unselect all". At least in the gameplay, Sven did not link the characters most of the time and go "lone wolf" most of the time. Maybe that was intended.
It's not my fault nearly all modern turn based games are strategy games
Knights of the chalice, Trails of cold Steel III, Disgaea 4, Tale of Ronin, Ash of gods: Redemption; Dark Crystal Tactics, Realms of arkania 2, Operencia, Forged of Blood, The Hand of Merlin, Overland, Ultimate Adom, Othercide, Indivisible, Project Sakura Wars,Broken lines, Iron Danger, Edge of eternity, Unsung Story:
Tale of the Guardians, Romancing Saga, Soul Saga, Utarerumono: Prelude to the fallen,
Dungeon of Naheulbeuk: The amulet of chaos, Crist Tales, Wildermyth: Stories of the
Yondering Lands, We are the Plague, Eidolons: Nethergate, Encased, Heralds of the Order,
, RAM Pressure, Broken Lines, Grand Guilds, Tenderfoot Tactics, The Protagonist, Arcadian Atlas, Alder’s Blood, ColonyShip-4: Survivors, Guile & Glory: Firstborn, Monster Sanctuary, Rising Lords,...
..beg to differ.
Look, I think it´s my fault to assume you know what you´re talking about. With your obvious loathing of TB-games it´s safe to assume you are not interested in them. I doubt we could have a constructive and informed discussion based in hearsay. It's pointless to discuss turn-based-mechanics options with people that do not play TB games, so it´s better we move on instead of derailing this thread.
CONFIRMED: SCRIVER HATES TURN BASED GAMES AND LARIAN, THE NATIONAL ENQUIRER CONFIRMS.
"Despite being turn-based, which allows you to have an authentic D&D experience and really deliberate over your moves as a team, BG3’s combat is much faster than DOS2.
We invested heavily into what drives our animation pipeline, and specifically made tweaks to improve the feel and motion in combat. The increased brevity and flow is down to many, many changes shaving off microseconds (and sometimes entire seconds). For example, another character’s turn will begin - behind the scenes - as the previous character is ending their animation. Even things as simple as combining move animations with the hit of a melee strike shaves seconds off combat.
BG3’s combat is now set so that each combatant takes a turn at a time but there’s a twist. If multiple combatants of the same faction follow one another in the turn order, then you can simultaneously command each of them.
That means that based on the results of the initiative roll, you’ll experience a different tactical puzzle in each combat that really mixes everything up but still allows you to react to the “cards” you’re “dealt”, so to speak. (There aren’t literally any cards, sorry MTG fans!) Between the RNG of initiative, and the planning, you should be able to have a fresh experience with every combat while still being able to predict and plan with friends how to combine spells and abilities, and ultimately win the fight.
Baldur’s Gate 3 is a party-based game that you can play alone, controlling each character, or as a party of up to four where each person rolls their own character. (It’s of course possible to also play as 2, or 3 people, with AI, etc).
In multiplayer, when your avatars and companions are next to each other in the turn order players can simultaneously control characters. This allows you to communicate with your friends and combine spells and abilities to take advantage of more brains on the battlefield, and more hands on the keyboard. This, compared with Divinity: Original Sin 2, drastically reduces the amount of time each player would have to wait between turns, since they’re able to move together."
"Our stealth mechanics now also take light and darkness into account. You can be obscured or heavily obscured so that even when you are caught in the visibility cones of the enemy, you still have a chance to slip through unseen. Of course, that is if your enemies don’t have darkvision. Here’s a little table that summarizes how light, darkness and darkvision affect stealth.
Clear area = always visible.
Lightly obscured = stealth check.
Lightly obscured + enemy has darkvision = visible.
Heavily obscured = undetected.
Heavily obscured + enemy has darkvision = stealth check.
Things get even more interesting when you discover you can manipulate light by using spells or throwing water at a torch, as lighting is dynamic, and thus shadows are also."
And RTWP can't do this because?
Things like reactions, initiative and so on are near impossible to be implemented on RtWP...
The most faithful D&D adaptation ever(ToEE) was turn based.
I an glad with 4 party size. Micromanage huge party is never fun.
Yes, I did, my apologies.
Sounds nice that you can play with 2, 3, 4, with IA, etc. in MP It would come in handy if someone has to leave or the net goes down here, as usual.
Also it seems darkvision became a very important feature if you are playing a rogue or some sneaky character, for players and enemies alike.
None of this demonstrates why RTWP can't "allow you to have an authentic experience and really deliberate over your moves."
TOEE was, at best, a cult hit as well. And had a LOT of issues.
And initiative? Really? Initiative was fully implemented in the IE games, in the NwN games, and now in the Pathfinder games.
As for party size, for me micromanaging a 6-person party is the funnest part of the IE games. Take that away and you take away most of my fun playing those games.
When I played bg1 the first time I remember I wanted the same game but with a map even ten times larger.
You beamdog already created this with nvn and all its player made mods.
I'm not sure if I need anything more.
Yes, but intense graphics take up most a games budget. Its why so many AAA titles are short.
Yeah, and nowadays I just feel its so unnecessary. AAA games are fast becoming like Hollywood movies, I see Hollywood movies as losing sight of the art of film making because of an overreliance on postfilming animation, effects and digital manipulation, and with games they're losing the sight of the fact interactivity is what videogames are about and instead making (barely) interactive movies.
And whilst BG3 clearly isn't quite like that, I just don't think it makes a tonne of difference to me that they do it in full 3D like they have, if it was designed more like the Pillars games say in terms of graphics and interface, I'd be happier. You know, as long as the optimisation wasn't as horrible as Pillars 2.
Extrapolating that good animations somehow means that the story will be deficient doesnt make sense, because we dont know if the story telling is good or bad and furthermore, cannot know if there is a causal relationship between bad story telling and good animations/graphics(Even after the fact)
TB is absolutely an authentic representation of table top RPG. RTWP is authentic too. It depends on if you're trying to recreate the theater of the mind of everything happening at once (RTWP) or the iterative process of how the initiative order is resolved at the table.
Yep, I still don't get this curdmudgeonly attitude about how games just aren't what they used to be.
There is such a diversity of games you can have access to today that it just doesn't seem like a fair assessment. Yes, it's true that some big studios are making the cinematic, linear games with limited interactivity. But one, those games have existed for a long time. Some people like those games. And two, there is no shortage of sprawling, highly interactive games. Hell, Larian themselves are credited with adding a great deal of interactivity/multi-solution quests to this subgenre!
As kanistha said above, the Witcher 3 and Skyrim are absolutely not cinematic-focused, are highly interactive and are highly non linear. And they're the biggest sellers in RPG's. It's just not the case that consumers have to put up with linear, cinematic focused games crowding up the market.
I strongly disagree. In fact, micromanaging they with their suicidal AI is a chore. When i mean by suicidal AI, think in a area affected by cloudkill, ice storm, 6 skull traps, a dealyed blast fireball. Why my party members needs to rush in that area to kill themselves??? Playing solo or at best with 3 companions is where BG2 is great.
My point is that there are a lot of cool games who are TB.
Also, Neverwinter from 1991 was turn based. Neverwinter Nights 1 was RtWP. Nobody criticized then from it. In that time, TB was viewed as a thing from the past and this is why many RPG games from late 90s to earlier 00s are RtWP. Is not that RtWP is superior.
Most SSI games was turn based games and they are faithful like IE. You can not like Larian, can not like cooldowns, stat stickie itemization and other dos2 "stuff", but Larian did a amazing job making turn based more "popular" again.
Between RtWP and TB, i honestly like Both. TB allow more tactic and RtWP allow more frenetic large scale combat. Imagine having 10 casts of animate dead on PFKM(you can with metamagic) or 10 * (d4+2) undeads serving you and fighting a group of 20+ wild hunt archers. Watching each one attacking will take an eternity. Sure, concurrent turns and other things can speed up the combat. most DM's will treat a mob of undead using homebrew or not "rules" to not slow the combat BUT a computer don't need to waste hours in tedium to roll each undead attacking.
That said, IMO RtWP is better for large scale battles and TB for small scale.
I love all the elements that go into a game being a truly awesome RP experience. But I also love the third-person perspective and being able to see my character in great detail on my wonderfully large 4K display. Call me crazy, but I don't see any contradiction there.
In P:Km, I not only have my four melee and two bow-wielders, but also have three animals (from my PC, Amiri, and Ekun). I adjust my difficulty settings to compensate for not having much spellcasting support, and then have a blast with my melee-heavy party.
Yep. I love using powerful magic in high magical settings and powerful firearms in post apocalyptic games. Melee weapons, is very rare for me to like playing melee in any game. Mount & Blade Warband is one of the few exceptions. Exactly because on M&B, armor actually deflects fast swinging blades, blunt weapons are best vs armor and being a knight charging with a horse and a spear is very fun. That said, i've soloed BG2:SoA on Legacy of Bhaal as a necromancer. I can't find a thread of this challenge but detailed details of my playtrough here > https://www.reddit.com/r/baldursgate/comments/hrxn15/my_experience_soloing_soa_lecagy_of_bhaal_as_a/
But on PFKM, some encounters are extremely harsh for heavily caster based parties. Spawn of Rovagug is the most iconic example.
For BG3, necromancers are the weakest specialization on 5e, their undead creations are too weak and fragile, and they can't finger succubus OHK enemies with finger of death and wail of the banshee. On BG2, necromancers are considered a average specialization, diviners since most divination spells can't be properly translated to a CRPG, is the weakest specialization. But on 5e, they are so weak that i will not play BG3 as one.
This, along with the tendency to appeal to wider audiences, is what is usually behind the trend of the simplification, or to use the buzz term, the dumbing down of many RPG series over the years. Several big RPG developers have gradually changed focus from offering a high degree of player choice and complex systems to facilitate role-playing freedom to offering smoother, more streamlined, more cinematic experiences that are also easier to market because they're tailored to produce flashy screenshots and trailers. The Elder Scrolls is a good example of a series that has been cutting back on gameplay systems with each new title since the early 2000s. BioWare also followed the same trajectory with a lot their later games—granted, I haven't played any of them past ME3.
The reverse is also true. More is not always better when it comes to gameplay and gameplay options. You may call it "dumbing down", but the engineer calls it streamlining. Taking features that are either inconsequential or not universally loved and removing them for the sake of attempting to improve the experience.
D&D is a wonderful example of this. 4th edition was more complicated than 3rd or 5th edition in many ways, but these unnecessary complications detracted from the enjoyment of the game for a lot of people. So they "dumbed down" (streamlined) the edition, and most fans have responded very positively to the changes.,
To respond to your first point - we dont know a ton about the budgets of these games, and it's not something you can easily look at and say "Well if they spent half as much on graphics, the game would have been twice as good" - that's not provable
Also, the original canard here that isnt proven either is that games are generally getting worse. First that's a purely opinionated position and second I dont find that to be the case (at all). I think games are as good as they've ever been.
Another great example of this is the recent XCOM reboots. The two-move system is, superficially, more simplified than the original game's action point system. And it allows for some less diversity of play, but, imo, it's a much better system. And the game doesn't lack at all for strategic/tactical depth in the grand scheme.
I don't think it's true at all the games today are generally less complex than their predecessors. Computers and consoles did not use to have the resources to implement very many complex systems. Especially in lengthy games like RPG's. I'm sorry but even the beloved Baldur's Gate is a less complex game than many of the RPG's coming out today, especially the ones made in its image: PoE, Pathfinder, and Original Sin. That's not an argument that these games are better than BG, but complexity has undeniably grown.
And if I'm to go even further back, D&D titles such as the goldbox games are incredibly shallower experiences than the highest selling party based RPG's of today. I'll concede the point on Bethesda games, and I'm not a fan of Skyrim, but that's just one studio. OTOH, series like the Witcher grew in complexity. As did the Dark Souls games.