@Buttercheese "6.3 DO NOT MAKE CHARNAME ABDEL ADRIAN. If we can't choose who Charname was in our game, just don't mention their name at all. But I am gonna be pissed if Abdel is gonna be there."
Sorry, this one is already confirmed. Muder in Baldur's Gate is canon with the game, so Abdel Adrian it is.
It mixes in well in PoE, but for BG/FR I'd rather not have firearms at all. It's like when you visit Irenicus' dungeon after BG1 and it's full of machinery, it's so weird and doesn't fit the rest of the theme at all. Never understood why they added that.
Unpopular opinion but I really like the weird machinery in Irenicus's dungeon and in the Planar Sphere, I wish there was an IE game which would heavily feature machinery/steampunk type elements.
I agree it doesn't really suit BG that well, but it is quite cool.
It mixes in well in PoE, but for BG/FR I'd rather not have firearms at all. It's like when you visit Irenicus' dungeon after BG1 and it's full of machinery, it's so weird and doesn't fit the rest of the theme at all. Never understood why they added that.
Unpopular opinion but I really like the weird machinery in Irenicus's dungeon and in the Planar Sphere, I wish there was an IE game which would heavily feature machinery/steampunk type elements.
I agree it doesn't really suit BG that well, but it is quite cool.
The Island nation of Lantan is not far from BG and it's very Steam Punkish. Heck even BG and Waterdeep have steam punkish elements.
It's back. They talk about it in the Sword Coast Adventurers Guide.
Do they give any good reasons as to how it was retconned back in?
Apparently instead of it exploding as a result of smokepowder blowing up (which in some way was connected to magic failing during the spellplague) it was instead transported (like Halruaa) to another world
Atmosphere. Connecting to the initial sense of the topic, I would love to find atmosphere again. And to find myself sitting at that dusty desk like an afternoon of 20 years ago...
With Owlcat's announcement that they will include a TB mode option for their new Pathfinder game, something they've been planning on from the very beginning because apparently there is very little extra work or cost involved, the big question for me now is why other studios won't do the same. I don't see any reason whatsoever for Larian to not include a RTwP option in BG3. So if they don't, then it is only because they're saying to us RTwP fans to drop dead. From now I will be holding every TB cRPG to the new standard that Owlcat has set.
With Owlcat's announcement that they will include a TB mode option for their new Pathfinder game, something they've been planning on from the very beginning because apparently there is very little extra work or cost involved, the big question for me now is why other studios won't do the same. I don't see any reason whatsoever for Larian to not include a RTwP option in BG3. So if they don't, then it is only because they're saying to us RTwP fans to drop dead. From now I will be holding every TB cRPG to the new standard that Owlcat has set.
I honestly think this is actually going to be the norm moving forward. RTwP is too niche to sell on its own.
I will say that it is easier to turn a RtwP game into a turn based game than the other way around. That maybe one reason why RTwP may get shafted here.
TB combat has both a longer lifespan (thus an insane amount of games through 34 years of video game history) and is more widely used inside and outside the rpg genre at large. So, yes, RtTwP is a niche market of an already tiny niche market (crpg's). No big revelation here, really.
With Owlcat's announcement that they will include a TB mode option for their new Pathfinder game, something they've been planning on from the very beginning because apparently there is very little extra work or cost involved, the big question for me now is why other studios won't do the same. I don't see any reason whatsoever for Larian to not include a RTwP option in BG3. So if they don't, then it is only because they're saying to us RTwP fans to drop dead. From now I will be holding every TB cRPG to the new standard that Owlcat has set.
These things have a labor cost. Any hours spent by the company's programmers and designers creating a second mode, is time not spent balancing or perfecting the game itself. I don't think multiple options like this are a good idea. Deadfire's own TB system has a radically different balance than its initial system (and not a good one).
I don't know why players assume that features are essentially free.
Owlcat is doing a Kickstarter. Their main task right now is to cater to their audience. Based on a lot of factors, they decided to add a TB mode into their next game and announced that during the Kickstarter campaign. Thus they get more support and more funding.
Larian is not doing a Kickstarter this time. With P:K it was possible to determine the combat style (RTwP) and whether the TB mode can be used as well. With BG3, we don't even know how the engine will look and feel, it won't be an isometric game (according to Gamestar).
Before even requesting to include an RTwP option (or a TB option) into BG3, we need to understand how the gameplay (especially combat gameplay) looks.
Another factor is what @DinoDin says - the TB system in Deadfire is quite different from the RTwP system. It's lucky that it works, - according to even Obsidian own interviews. We can only praise Owlcat if their engine and the game work nicely both with RTwP and TB - but it doesn't mean other studios can do the same, no matter the engine and game design.
Even if the game end up being good. Will live up to the hype? I mean, a BG3 is like a RPG version of Half Life 3, even if the game is amazing. Not delivering all hype can make the costumer see the game as bad due his frustrated expectations....
i feel like they may be catering to the wrong audience. the only people i ever see complaining about crpgs with rtwp combat is rpg codex. and if dead fire is any indication just adding tb combat just makes the encounters slower as they were not designed with that in mind.
With Owlcat's announcement that they will include a TB mode option for their new Pathfinder game, something they've been planning on from the very beginning because apparently there is very little extra work or cost involved, the big question for me now is why other studios won't do the same. I don't see any reason whatsoever for Larian to not include a RTwP option in BG3. So if they don't, then it is only because they're saying to us RTwP fans to drop dead. From now I will be holding every TB cRPG to the new standard that Owlcat has set.
These things have a labor cost. Any hours spent by the company's programmers and designers creating a second mode, is time not spent balancing or perfecting the game itself. I don't think multiple options like this are a good idea. Deadfire's own TB system has a radically different balance than its initial system (and not a good one).
I don't know why players assume that features are essentially free.
Nobody said anything about it being free. I only asked whether TB fans who want a TB option in every RTwP game agree that there should then be a RTwP option in every TB game. That is all I am asking.
If Larian wants to cater to their audience, they shouldn't have touched BG. Nothing in their past catalog says they can do a good BG game. They haven't done anything that operates on similar systems.
If Larian wants to cater to their audience, they shouldn't have touched BG. Nothing in their past catalog says they can do a good BG game. They haven't done anything that operates on similar systems.
Have you played their last 2 games? I have, and strongly think the opposite of what you have written.
With Owlcat's announcement that they will include a TB mode option for their new Pathfinder game, something they've been planning on from the very beginning because apparently there is very little extra work or cost involved, the big question for me now is why other studios won't do the same. I don't see any reason whatsoever for Larian to not include a RTwP option in BG3. So if they don't, then it is only because they're saying to us RTwP fans to drop dead. From now I will be holding every TB cRPG to the new standard that Owlcat has set.
These things have a labor cost. Any hours spent by the company's programmers and designers creating a second mode, is time not spent balancing or perfecting the game itself. I don't think multiple options like this are a good idea. Deadfire's own TB system has a radically different balance than its initial system (and not a good one).
I don't know why players assume that features are essentially free.
Nobody said anything about it being free. I only asked whether TB fans who want a TB option in every RTwP game agree that there should then be a RTwP option in every TB game. That is all I am asking.
I won't mind a RTwP option in a TB game. Would I want it? Probably. Would I demand it? Absolutely no. As I understand that gameplay and game design might just not allow for that.
I can't imagine how a RTwP system could be implemented into DOS games. They are just different. Please note that I don't discuss here which mode is better. DOS games will only work with TB combat. In the same time, BG3 might be as far away from a DOS game as possible.
I won't mind a RTwP option in a TB game. Would I want it? Probably. Would I demand it? Absolutely no. As I understand that gameplay and game design might just not allow for that.
I can't imagine how a RTwP system could be implemented into DOS games. They are just different. Please note that I don't discuss here which mode is better. DOS games will only work with TB combat. In the same time, BG3 might be as far away from a DOS game as possible.
But isn't that a very convenient thing? Effectively saying: All RTwP games can be made into TB, but TB games cannot be made into RTwP, so we TB fans can get what we want but you RTwP fans have to suck it.
No, I don't say that. I specifically mention that sometimes gameplay and game design might just not allow for a switch (both ways). Again, we can only praise Owlcat if their engine and the game work nicely both with RTwP and TB - but it doesn't mean other studios can do the same, no matter the engine and game design.
No, I don't say that. I specifically mention that sometimes gameplay and game design might just not allow for a switch (both ways). Again, we can only praise Owlcat if their engine and the game work nicely both with RTwP and TB - but it doesn't mean other studios can do the same, no matter the engine and game design.
Ok fair enough. But for me it only comes down to the willingness of the developer to make the effort and not anything that is outside their control.
No, I don't say that. I specifically mention that sometimes gameplay and game design might just not allow for a switch (both ways). Again, we can only praise Owlcat if their engine and the game work nicely both with RTwP and TB - but it doesn't mean other studios can do the same, no matter the engine and game design.
Ok fair enough. But for me it only comes down to the willingness of the developer to make the effort and not anything that is outside their control.
Again. It's not about willingness. It's a cost-benefit analysis: Is it a better game overall with two, lesser polished modes or is it a better game overall with one, higher polished mode?
As Julius said above, there may be good reasons for game studios to pursue both, in the Owlcat/Kickstarter example. But there are also, perfectly reasonable reasons, for a studio to prefer creating just one combat mode.
One additional factor to take into account is that RTwP works far from ideal in MP, unlike TB. This is one of those game design factors that sometimes make it impossible to add RTwP system into a TB game.
PoE and P:K don't have MP. It's one of those cost-benefit decisions: can we include a MP mode into our game? You can object and say that MP is available in vanilla BG, - yeah, but is it smooth? Is it fluent as modern standards require? Even Dragon Age: Origins didn't have MP. DA: Inquisition has MP, and it's a RtwP game, so there can be exceptions, - but look again at DA:I gameplay. Is it tactical? I'd say that tactics is not the main point of DA:I, unlike, say, in D:OS games.
So just like with adding another mode, it's all not about the willingness of the developer to make the effort, - usually, it's about cost-effectiveness.
And here we have a company that had to grow till 350 people now, - so they're already putting a lot of money and effort into the game. If with all that money and effort the game allows for only 1 type of combat gameplay, then no willingness in the world can change that.
Comments
Sorry, this one is already confirmed. Muder in Baldur's Gate is canon with the game, so Abdel Adrian it is.
Unpopular opinion but I really like the weird machinery in Irenicus's dungeon and in the Planar Sphere, I wish there was an IE game which would heavily feature machinery/steampunk type elements.
I agree it doesn't really suit BG that well, but it is quite cool.
The Island nation of Lantan is not far from BG and it's very Steam Punkish. Heck even BG and Waterdeep have steam punkish elements.
It's back. They talk about it in the Sword Coast Adventurers Guide.
Do they give any good reasons as to how it was retconned back in?
Apparently instead of it exploding as a result of smokepowder blowing up (which in some way was connected to magic failing during the spellplague) it was instead transported (like Halruaa) to another world
The retconnings of D&D get more and more ridiculously lazy I feel.
I honestly think this is actually going to be the norm moving forward. RTwP is too niche to sell on its own.
I will say that it is easier to turn a RtwP game into a turn based game than the other way around. That maybe one reason why RTwP may get shafted here.
These things have a labor cost. Any hours spent by the company's programmers and designers creating a second mode, is time not spent balancing or perfecting the game itself. I don't think multiple options like this are a good idea. Deadfire's own TB system has a radically different balance than its initial system (and not a good one).
I don't know why players assume that features are essentially free.
Larian is not doing a Kickstarter this time. With P:K it was possible to determine the combat style (RTwP) and whether the TB mode can be used as well. With BG3, we don't even know how the engine will look and feel, it won't be an isometric game (according to Gamestar).
Before even requesting to include an RTwP option (or a TB option) into BG3, we need to understand how the gameplay (especially combat gameplay) looks.
Another factor is what @DinoDin says - the TB system in Deadfire is quite different from the RTwP system. It's lucky that it works, - according to even Obsidian own interviews. We can only praise Owlcat if their engine and the game work nicely both with RTwP and TB - but it doesn't mean other studios can do the same, no matter the engine and game design.
Have you played their last 2 games? I have, and strongly think the opposite of what you have written.
I won't mind a RTwP option in a TB game. Would I want it? Probably. Would I demand it? Absolutely no. As I understand that gameplay and game design might just not allow for that.
I can't imagine how a RTwP system could be implemented into DOS games. They are just different. Please note that I don't discuss here which mode is better. DOS games will only work with TB combat. In the same time, BG3 might be as far away from a DOS game as possible.
Again. It's not about willingness. It's a cost-benefit analysis: Is it a better game overall with two, lesser polished modes or is it a better game overall with one, higher polished mode?
As Julius said above, there may be good reasons for game studios to pursue both, in the Owlcat/Kickstarter example. But there are also, perfectly reasonable reasons, for a studio to prefer creating just one combat mode.
PoE and P:K don't have MP. It's one of those cost-benefit decisions: can we include a MP mode into our game? You can object and say that MP is available in vanilla BG, - yeah, but is it smooth? Is it fluent as modern standards require? Even Dragon Age: Origins didn't have MP. DA: Inquisition has MP, and it's a RtwP game, so there can be exceptions, - but look again at DA:I gameplay. Is it tactical? I'd say that tactics is not the main point of DA:I, unlike, say, in D:OS games.
So just like with adding another mode, it's all not about the willingness of the developer to make the effort, - usually, it's about cost-effectiveness.
And here we have a company that had to grow till 350 people now, - so they're already putting a lot of money and effort into the game. If with all that money and effort the game allows for only 1 type of combat gameplay, then no willingness in the world can change that.