So, I'm only just getting started with DOS2. I just had my first taste of it's TB combat. Still a bit perplexed by it, but I'm fine with it thus far. As mentioned above, I micropause all the time in BG anyway. I was actually a little disconcerted by not figuring out how to pause during combat if there even is a way to do it in DOS2. That's how strong the reflex is, lol.
Choosing each action within a turn looks fine. This was a very rudimentary fight. I still have to see what it's like controlling a party this way. And managing and dealing with more advanced skills, weapons, spells, and the like. But at just the very first introduction to it... I kind of like it.
Still way too early to have any idea whether I might eventually like it better than the BG games. But I can see how I actually might be able to appreciate mechanics more with TB. I'm very curious to see how 5e will translate.
Again I was initially like "Nooooo!" when I first saw that TB seemed more likely than RTwP for BG3. But actually seeing what a good quality TB game is like, I'm kind of digging it so far.
One of the things that has not been touched on in these debates is that two combat systems can be "turn based" in a superficial labeling sense but be completely different systems. I for one see the combat system of TT D&D being completely different from the combat system of the D:OS games, even though both are labeled "turn based" systems. So the big question for me, should BG3 be TB as I expect it will be, is whether for the BG3 combat system they stay true to D&D 5e rules or largely ditch those rules (based on a claim that they are "not fun" and "don't work in video games") and replace them with systems borrowed from the D:OS games.
One of the things that has not been touched on in these debates is that two combat systems can be "turn based" in a superficial labeling sense but be completely different systems. I for one see the combat system of TT D&D being completely different from the combat system of the D:OS games, even though both are labeled "turn based" systems. So the big question for me, should BG3 be TB as I expect it will be, is whether for the BG3 combat system they stay true to D&D 5e rules or largely ditch those rules (based on a claim that they are "not fun" and "don't work in video games") and replace them with systems borrowed from the D:OS games.
I did get the feeling that the turn-system will be different from DOS, but it is hard to say how much it differs.
It could be a completly different system, or it could be like windows - looking new but still have dos lying beneath the surface.
I personally can't say if a complete overwhole is really needed or if the current system is adaptable to a larger party and the 5E ruleset.
[Also, I apologize for that joke, but I have been dying to make it ever since I learned the acronym of the game. ]
One of the things that has not been touched on in these debates is that two combat systems can be "turn based" in a superficial labeling sense but be completely different systems. I for one see the combat system of TT D&D being completely different from the combat system of the D:OS games, even though both are labeled "turn based" systems. So the big question for me, should BG3 be TB as I expect it will be, is whether for the BG3 combat system they stay true to D&D 5e rules or largely ditch those rules (based on a claim that they are "not fun" and "don't work in video games") and replace them with systems borrowed from the D:OS games.
I did get the feeling that the turn-system will be different from DOS, but it is hard to say how much it differs.
It could be a completly different system, or it could be like windows - looking new but still have dos lying beneath the surface.
I personally can't say if a complete overwhole is really needed or if the current system is adaptable to a larger party and the 5E ruleset.
[Also, I apologize for that joke, but I have been dying to make it ever since I learned the acronym of the game. ]
But that's the thing. The D:OS system is fundamentally different from the D&D system. I don't see how the former can be "adapted" to D&D rules. D&D rules are about initiative and rounds and spellcasting time and weapon speed and the like. Characters can even have the same initiative and thus act simultaneously. Actions can be carried over into a future round depending on time needed for that action to complete.
The D:OS system has none of these things. In DO:S everything a character does happens within their turn and are fully completed and resolved within their turn. Then that character is completely done, and it is the next character's turn. Things are very strictly compartmentalized and sequential in a 'per turn per character' structure.
Well, I kinda forgot spellcasting time, but still, I do see a couple of methods if you would feel the need to modify the system.
On the other hand, I fail to see why they would do that and not create a new system which "just" incorporates the experiences made in D:OS.
I mean, they change the engine (or even swithc to another one) for the artstyle, then why go to the hassle to try to adapt the old TB system instead of building one for 5E.
In the end, I believe they will use a different system, because I think it will be easier than to modify the old.
Depending on the language the game is in, I'm pretty sure they can import/recreate parts that would work with 5E without having to worry about incompatible parts.
In case you are wondering how I would implement casting time and similiar stuff:
Effects that you keep till your tunr comes up again and modified initiative for the next round to simulate the length the action would take.
I.e. your spell takes longer to cast than 1 round, so you start to cast (effect) and then get a extra turn in which all your AP are used to actually cast the spell.
That is actually the approach many old rpgs I played used.
Again I was initially like "Nooooo!" when I first saw that TB seemed more likely than RTwP for BG3. But actually seeing what a good quality TB game is like, I'm kind of digging it so far.
Well, I wouldn't call OS2's combat good quality turn based, but the reasons for it are not really clear early on. And in a way its not the turn based mechanics, or rules or whatever that's the issue, its actually the skill system. It really causes the combat to become severely repetitive once you're a chunk into act 2. Even though it has many problems, I would rather play the combat in Fallout 1 than Original Sin, because at least there, your attacks are decided by what resources you have and what you choose to equip in terms of weapons and armour, rather than a really abstract system based around skill books and cooldowns where you constantly do the same sequence over and over.
But that's the thing. The D:OS system is fundamentally different from the D&D system. I don't see how the former can be "adapted" to D&D rules. D&D rules are about initiative and rounds and spellcasting time and weapon speed and the like. Characters can even have the same initiative and thus act simultaneously. Actions can be carried over into a future round depending on time needed for that action to complete.
The D:OS system has none of these things. In DO:S everything a character does happens within their turn and are fully completed and resolved within their turn. Then that character is completely done, and it is the next character's turn. Things are very strictly compartmentalized and sequential in a 'per turn per character' structure.
Their 'Arena' offspin in the Larian engine makes alternating actions between characters within one full turn possible: one character can move up, then another character can use some ability that enables the first character to finalize its turn which allows close cooperation.
According to what I read about it a few weeks ago.
But that's the thing. The D:OS system is fundamentally different from the D&D system. I don't see how the former can be "adapted" to D&D rules. D&D rules are about initiative and rounds and spellcasting time and weapon speed and the like. Characters can even have the same initiative and thus act simultaneously. Actions can be carried over into a future round depending on time needed for that action to complete.
The D:OS system has none of these things. In DO:S everything a character does happens within their turn and are fully completed and resolved within their turn. Then that character is completely done, and it is the next character's turn. Things are very strictly compartmentalized and sequential in a 'per turn per character' structure.
Their 'Arena' offspin in the Larian engine makes alternating actions between characters within one full turn possible: one character can move up, then another character can use some ability that enables the first character to finalize its turn which allows close cooperation.
According to what I read about it a few weeks ago.
I like this approach. It sounds similar to how ie XCOM and Shadowrun plays out. Both offer great tactical battles in turn based mode and are a joy to play. I am especially fond of SR Dragonfall and Hongkong whose combat is realyl cool (although the character skills might lean a bit too heavily on passive bonuses if you are not a caster).
Yes, it sounds similar to XCOM because this is what they're targeting. According to Sven, he likes this combat more.
Q: Fallen Heroes’ battle system is very similar to the one seen in Original Sin 2…
A: Yeah, except that it’s switched to team-based initiative. And they changed quite a lot of stuff so that it would become more tactical, it plays differently than Original Sin 2. To be honest, I think the combat is actually better.
No. I have my preference between a TB combat and a RTwP combat - the TB. That is theoretically, for gaming. But I'll be happy with whichever combat they choose, even real-time like in the Witcher or the Elder Scrolls. I like DOS1 and DOS2 and see how and why these games are good (for me). I trust this developer based on that, and everything I've been hearing from them about BGIII doesn't contradict my wishes.
If the game is being designed with consoles and controllers in mind then it will be turn based. Thats if it is isometric view, if its a Dragonage looking over your character angle then it will be real time.
If the game is being designed with consoles and controllers in mind then it will be turn based. Thats if it is isometric view, if its a Dragonage looking over your character angle then it will be real time.
I doubt that it will be real time and/or have a camera set up like (console) Dragon Age.
It would also a pretty deal-breaking thing for a lot of people. Even within the mainstream..
Also, don't forgot that it is possible to port the original infinity engine games to console (they will be released soon and BioWare considered doing that back in the day actually..) so there is little reason to deviate from isometric view.
TB will be a deal-breaker for a lot more people than will be third-person perspective. Even many fans of old-school RPGs are nowadays tired of the isometric perspective. If you browse the forums of studios like Obsidian, inXile, and yes also Larian, there are tons of posts from fans saying enough with the isometric view. Isometric is popular pretty much only on this forum (and maybe the Codex).
However, third-person perspective does not necessarily mean RTwP. My take is that it will be something very similar to DA:I but TB, in that the game will be in third-person perspective, but will switch to isometric during combat which will be TB.
If the game is being designed with consoles and controllers in mind then it will be turn based. Thats if it is isometric view, if its a Dragonage looking over your character angle then it will be real time.
TB will be a deal-breaker for a lot more people than will be third-person perspective. Even many fans of old-school RPGs are nowadays tired of the isometric perspective. If you browse the forums of studios like Obsidian, inXile, and yes also Larian, there are tons of posts from fans saying enough with the isometric view. Isometric is popular pretty much only on this forum (and maybe the Codex).
However, third-person perspective does not necessarily mean RTwP. My take is that it will be something very similar to DA:I but TB, in that the game will be in third-person perspective, but will switch to isometric during combat which will be TB.
DA:I Tactical view was clunky and unusable (for me) on PS, no idea if it worked better on pc.
And while isometric being popular with the codex guys is indeed a reason against it, but I'm not so sure about it being that unpopular. Granted, there are always people who dislike a style, but the ammount of forum-goers that go for or against something is not really a secure way of gauging popularity.
Active people are a small minority and people who are against something are usually more active than people who think something is passable.
Active people are a small minority and people who are against something are usually more active than people who think something is passable.
This.
It's not advisable to draw conclusions based on what you see in the forums for the obvious reason that we humans are hardwired to express our opinions loudly when we are displeased, but much more rarely so when we are content or happy. On average. I have no idea what portion of gamers are even on forums; 1%? 10%? And if some of those post open displeasure of a feature, of course the company should listen to that feedback and contemplate it, but it doesn't mean they should change their vision and decisions based on that.
Active people are a small minority and people who are against something are usually more active than people who think something is passable.
*cough*Fallout76*cough*
Whenever a developer is able to "shrug off" the vocal majority of customers largely depends on their own studio's size and monetary reservoir. For mid and smaller sized gaming companies? It becomes a death sentence more often than not. Hello Games was lucky enough to escape that fate, other studios were not.
F76 is not really an argument agaisnt my point..
All I said was that "if 10 people are angry about something you can not really say that the remaining 90 hated it or liked it."
Forums are UNrepresentive, not ANTIrepresentive, you know.. =P
Your point about studio-size is something I overlooked, true.
The more mainstream a game is, the higher the ammount of the "silent consumer group".
Small studios often try to settle into niches and build a loyal fanbase. Since the active forumites are the target group of small niches studios, such studios should, of course, listen to the base.
On that topic, I read a good article about BioWare some time ago:
The journalist theorizes that the mainstream-appeal, BW got through Mass Effect -and to a lesser degree Dragon Age- they tried to change from a medium sized company that builds upon a good sized loyal fanbase to a mainstream focused studio. But their attempt to keep their loyal fans happy, weakend their game as the design lacked focus, a golden mean fallacy if you will.
So, the thing to worry about Larian and BG3 is there targeted group. Will they try to turn it into a mainstream tripple-A game, or will they focus on a loyal fanbase (the BG group, the isometric group, the divinity group etc).
There is no problem in trying to get buyers outside of the main focus group, but you need a main target or you create an unfocused and messy gameplay experience.
I get the feeling Larian wants to become the BioWare of old, creating games that have some appeal to mainstream-rpg players but are loyal to the fanbase.
But I don't know how their venture into mainstream success changed their design philosophy.
Comments
Choosing each action within a turn looks fine. This was a very rudimentary fight. I still have to see what it's like controlling a party this way. And managing and dealing with more advanced skills, weapons, spells, and the like. But at just the very first introduction to it... I kind of like it.
Still way too early to have any idea whether I might eventually like it better than the BG games. But I can see how I actually might be able to appreciate mechanics more with TB. I'm very curious to see how 5e will translate.
Again I was initially like "Nooooo!" when I first saw that TB seemed more likely than RTwP for BG3. But actually seeing what a good quality TB game is like, I'm kind of digging it so far.
I did get the feeling that the turn-system will be different from DOS, but it is hard to say how much it differs.
It could be a completly different system, or it could be like windows - looking new but still have dos lying beneath the surface.
I personally can't say if a complete overwhole is really needed or if the current system is adaptable to a larger party and the 5E ruleset.
[Also, I apologize for that joke, but I have been dying to make it ever since I learned the acronym of the game. ]
The D:OS system has none of these things. In DO:S everything a character does happens within their turn and are fully completed and resolved within their turn. Then that character is completely done, and it is the next character's turn. Things are very strictly compartmentalized and sequential in a 'per turn per character' structure.
On the other hand, I fail to see why they would do that and not create a new system which "just" incorporates the experiences made in D:OS.
I mean, they change the engine (or even swithc to another one) for the artstyle, then why go to the hassle to try to adapt the old TB system instead of building one for 5E.
In the end, I believe they will use a different system, because I think it will be easier than to modify the old.
Depending on the language the game is in, I'm pretty sure they can import/recreate parts that would work with 5E without having to worry about incompatible parts.
In case you are wondering how I would implement casting time and similiar stuff:
Effects that you keep till your tunr comes up again and modified initiative for the next round to simulate the length the action would take.
I.e. your spell takes longer to cast than 1 round, so you start to cast (effect) and then get a extra turn in which all your AP are used to actually cast the spell.
That is actually the approach many old rpgs I played used.
Well, I wouldn't call OS2's combat good quality turn based, but the reasons for it are not really clear early on. And in a way its not the turn based mechanics, or rules or whatever that's the issue, its actually the skill system. It really causes the combat to become severely repetitive once you're a chunk into act 2. Even though it has many problems, I would rather play the combat in Fallout 1 than Original Sin, because at least there, your attacks are decided by what resources you have and what you choose to equip in terms of weapons and armour, rather than a really abstract system based around skill books and cooldowns where you constantly do the same sequence over and over.
Their 'Arena' offspin in the Larian engine makes alternating actions between characters within one full turn possible: one character can move up, then another character can use some ability that enables the first character to finalize its turn which allows close cooperation.
According to what I read about it a few weeks ago.
I like this approach. It sounds similar to how ie XCOM and Shadowrun plays out. Both offer great tactical battles in turn based mode and are a joy to play. I am especially fond of SR Dragonfall and Hongkong whose combat is realyl cool (although the character skills might lean a bit too heavily on passive bonuses if you are not a caster).
Q: Fallen Heroes’ battle system is very similar to the one seen in Original Sin 2…
A: Yeah, except that it’s switched to team-based initiative. And they changed quite a lot of stuff so that it would become more tactical, it plays differently than Original Sin 2. To be honest, I think the combat is actually better.
That was not about BGIII.
Yes but isn't it your argument (and hope?) that that's the system they're going for?
I doubt that it will be real time and/or have a camera set up like (console) Dragon Age.
It would also a pretty deal-breaking thing for a lot of people. Even within the mainstream..
Also, don't forgot that it is possible to port the original infinity engine games to console (they will be released soon and BioWare considered doing that back in the day actually..) so there is little reason to deviate from isometric view.
However, third-person perspective does not necessarily mean RTwP. My take is that it will be something very similar to DA:I but TB, in that the game will be in third-person perspective, but will switch to isometric during combat which will be TB.
Nope, right now they only plan BG3 for PC and stadia
https://www.rpgsite.net/interview/8677-baldur-s-gate-iii-interview-at-e3-2019-we-chat-with-larian-ceo-swen-vincke-about-baldur-s-gate-and-partnership-with-wizards-of-the-coast
DA:I Tactical view was clunky and unusable (for me) on PS, no idea if it worked better on pc.
And while isometric being popular with the codex guys is indeed a reason against it, but I'm not so sure about it being that unpopular. Granted, there are always people who dislike a style, but the ammount of forum-goers that go for or against something is not really a secure way of gauging popularity.
Active people are a small minority and people who are against something are usually more active than people who think something is passable.
This.
It's not advisable to draw conclusions based on what you see in the forums for the obvious reason that we humans are hardwired to express our opinions loudly when we are displeased, but much more rarely so when we are content or happy. On average. I have no idea what portion of gamers are even on forums; 1%? 10%? And if some of those post open displeasure of a feature, of course the company should listen to that feedback and contemplate it, but it doesn't mean they should change their vision and decisions based on that.
Whenever a developer is able to "shrug off" the vocal majority of customers largely depends on their own studio's size and monetary reservoir. For mid and smaller sized gaming companies? It becomes a death sentence more often than not. Hello Games was lucky enough to escape that fate, other studios were not.
All I said was that "if 10 people are angry about something you can not really say that the remaining 90 hated it or liked it."
Forums are UNrepresentive, not ANTIrepresentive, you know.. =P
Your point about studio-size is something I overlooked, true.
The more mainstream a game is, the higher the ammount of the "silent consumer group".
Small studios often try to settle into niches and build a loyal fanbase. Since the active forumites are the target group of small niches studios, such studios should, of course, listen to the base.
On that topic, I read a good article about BioWare some time ago:
The journalist theorizes that the mainstream-appeal, BW got through Mass Effect -and to a lesser degree Dragon Age- they tried to change from a medium sized company that builds upon a good sized loyal fanbase to a mainstream focused studio. But their attempt to keep their loyal fans happy, weakend their game as the design lacked focus, a golden mean fallacy if you will.
So, the thing to worry about Larian and BG3 is there targeted group. Will they try to turn it into a mainstream tripple-A game, or will they focus on a loyal fanbase (the BG group, the isometric group, the divinity group etc).
There is no problem in trying to get buyers outside of the main focus group, but you need a main target or you create an unfocused and messy gameplay experience.
I get the feeling Larian wants to become the BioWare of old, creating games that have some appeal to mainstream-rpg players but are loyal to the fanbase.
But I don't know how their venture into mainstream success changed their design philosophy.