Also just want to add that saying "TB has not place in RPG's" is just a weird thing to say given that's how pretty much all tabletop games function. And I also fail to see how turn-based is breaking of "true RP" but a pause button isnt.
To repeat, I don't care one bit how tabletop games play. As far as I am concerned, it is completely irrelevant. We are talking about video games here, and it was very obviously implied that I was talking about computer RPGs and not RPGs generally.
That's fine, but it isnt irrelevant to other people - and their opinions are just as valued as your own.
Please don't misrepresent me by taking what I said out of its context. I did not say how TT games play is irrelevant in general. I am very clearly saying it is irrelevant to the point I am making.
Assessing whether a game is "good" or not involves a collection of (multiple) factors for most people. For you, the combat system of the game is not one of those factors. For me, it is, and an important one at that. But by no means is it the only factor, or even the most important factor.
Relax - I wasn’t trying to misrepresent you. I was emphasizing that comparing it to table top as a medium is valuable for some others in this thread (myself included).
I think it's still worth stressing that the compelling aspect of these games, in the combat part at least, isn't how well they represent reality. If you want an RPG with a "realistic" depiction of combat, I think action-RPG's where you control a single character would be more your flavor.
There's a big reason why we see people on these boards also talking about games like XCOM. And it's not just because that game has a few RPG elements. The combat systems in these tactical/strategy RPG's will continue to succeed to the extent that they resemble fun strategy games like chess or even Starcraft, and not to the extent that they emulate real life.
DinoDin, NWN1 you control a single character. Can have henchman, party members, familiars, summons, etc; but still a single character control. And nwn1 works fine. BG1/BG2/IWD/IWD2 are also easily solable.
I just wanted to point out the fact that the legendary Paradox Grand Strategies (like Europa Universalis IV, Hearts of Iron IV, Stellaris, Crusader Kings II and so on), which are undoubtedly some of the very best strategy games ever made, if not the best, are all real time with pause.
What do I mean by that? Oh no, I dare not mean anything. Just come to your own conclusions.
DinoDin, NWN1 you control a single character. Can have henchman, party members, familiars, summons, etc; but still a single character control. And nwn1 works fine. BG1/BG2/IWD/IWD2 are also easily solable.
True, and the base module for NWN1 is trash exactly for this reason, among others. DnD is not designed to really be a solo or even two-person party experience. Its combat system was largely ripped from tabletop wargames that preceded it. It's a wonderful, imo, mix of strategic gameplay and roleplaying, which is what explains its longevity both as tabletop and video games.
I also disagree strongly that the IE games are "easily solo-able". It's possible to solo them yes, but that's a veteran-level challenge on the scale of a no-reload challenge. It requires immense memorization of the game's content and rule system.
I just wanted to point out the fact that the legendary Paradox Grand Strategies (like Europa Universalis IV, Hearts of Iron IV, Stellaris, Crusader Kings II and so on), which are undoubtedly some of the very best strategy games ever made, if not the best, are all real time with pause.
What do I mean by that? Oh no, I dare not mean anything. Just come to your own conclusions.
While I remain committed to my position that RTwP and TB are equally good, I will say that I do *love* me some Paradox Interactive grand strategy games. That they are so successful with a real time format (as opposed to a turn based variant, such as Civ - which is also very successful) just underscores that any system will work if the developers are talented enough.
I also disagree strongly that the IE games are "easily solo-able". It's possible to solo them yes, but that's a veteran-level challenge on the scale of a no-reload challenge. It requires immense memorization of the game's content and rule system.
Just telling that I soloed IWD:EE on insane difficulty (albeit with double damage turned off, I won't lie) as a Dragon Disciple. My only previous experience was upto the first level of Dragon's Eye with a party, a run which I never completed, so the second half of my solo run was completely blind...
I just wanted to point out the fact that the legendary Paradox Grand Strategies (like Europa Universalis IV, Hearts of Iron IV, Stellaris, Crusader Kings II and so on), which are undoubtedly some of the very best strategy games ever made, if not the best, are all real time with pause.
What do I mean by that? Oh no, I dare not mean anything. Just come to your own conclusions.
While I remain committed to my position that RTwP and TB are equally good, I will say that I do *love* me some Paradox Interactive grand strategy games. That they are so successful with a real time format (as opposed to a turn based variant, such as Civ - which is also very successful) just underscores that any system will work if the developers are talented enough.
@BallpointMan If you Paradox gang, you rock! Enough said.
In most IE, the XP obtained is party based. So a sorcerer or a fighter/mage/cleric can level up relative fast. And since sorcerers doesn't need scrolls to learn spells, he can get spells like stop time early on.
One game that is insanely hard to solo as a arcane caster is nwn2. Mainly because they did everything that they could to destroy arcane casters. One summon limit, removed spells like stop time, nerfed most spells like black tentacles and missile storm from nwn1, made spells which ignore SR don't ignore(...) and also forced you to start all boss fights at CQB and dispelled all defenses(except weapon buffs). With spell fixes or warlock reworked i can solo NWN2 and is only a little harder than BG/IWD due the lack of spell trigger and chain contingency...
But some people really believe that tactical game = party control and is a thing that makes no sense IMO. If i an comboing animate undead + cloudkill on pathfinder kingmaker as a solo sorcerer, i an not doing something "tactical"? But if i use the same tactic while micromanage my party members, now i an doing something tactical? PFKM is also harder to solo due resting mechanics. I always preferred to play with small parties on games like this. Because have to micromange everything is just boring.
I think it's still worth stressing that the compelling aspect of these games, in the combat part at least, isn't how well they represent reality. If you want an RPG with a "realistic" depiction of combat, I think action-RPG's where you control a single character would be more your flavor.
So long as you are saying this for yourself, it is fine. But for me, my immersion takes a huge hit when the combat is fake, and fake is exactly how I would describe TB combat.
So a general question for everyone. What are the criteria by which you (personally) judge whether an RPG is "good"? Don't include things like good story, characters, customization, consequences, branching dialog, etc., because I expect those are important criteria for all of us. For example, my criteria are (not in any rank order):
The game should not be first person
The game should be party-based, with fully fleshed-out companions
The game should be built for single-player first and foremost, and multiplayer only secondarily
The game should use a RTwP combat system
Every encounter in the game should be resolvable without resorting to combat
The game should freely allow saving anywhere anytime
Every word/sound in the game should be presented in written form also (because I am hearing impaired)
I think it's still worth stressing that the compelling aspect of these games, in the combat part at least, isn't how well they represent reality. If you want an RPG with a "realistic" depiction of combat, I think action-RPG's where you control a single character would be more your flavor.
So long as you are saying this for yourself, it is fine. But for me, my immersion takes a huge hit when the combat is fake, and fake is exactly how I would describe TB combat.
No, what I'm saying is an objective standard that I think game designers should strive for. If an element of a game is realistic, that's a bonus. But gameplay elements shouldn't be included or set a certain way merely because they are more realistic. What you're suggesting, imo, is a prioritization of a subjective criteria. Again, I'm the one who is fine with either game mode.
A strategy-testing gameplay element, like combat in these kinds of RPG's doesn't have to be a certain way. All it needs to do is offer strategic depth similar to a game like chess or go.
And I think this is besides the point anyways on TB vs RTwP. Turn-based is no less real than a pause button. And no less real than controlling multiple characters directly. No less real than taking multiple sword blows and just carrying on.
I'm reminded of people who complain that the resting-magic system in DnD isn't "natural" with this conversation. As well I'm reminded of the TB grognards who poo-pooed BG after it became successful for "dumbing down" the genre. It's the same misapprehension, imo. You may have this particular narrow taste, but I don't think the reasoning that it's more real holds up to scrutiny.
So a general question for everyone. What are the criteria by which you (personally) judge whether an RPG is "good"? Don't include things like good story, characters, customization, consequences, branching dialog, etc., because I expect those are important criteria for all of us. For example, my criteria are (not in any rank order):
The game should not be first person
The game should be party-based, with fully fleshed-out companions
The game should be built for single-player first and foremost, and multiplayer only secondarily
The game should use a RTwP combat system
Every encounter in the game should be resolvable without resorting to combat
The game should freely allow saving anywhere anytime
Every word/sound in the game should be presented in written form also (because I am hearing impaired)
I dont think this is something I can really do. The things that make a game "good" for me are those criteria that you established are probably true for everyone.
The only other thing I would say is: The game play systems should be fun to play, and work effectively together. This is the way that I can play franchises like The Witcher and the Elder Scrolls games. They both are very different in how combat works, and are both different perspective. In my opinion, they're effective and fun games to play.
A lot of fallout 1/2 fans also hated the "fps combat" on 3/new vegas. But lets be real, be turn based is a small change compared to fl2 to 3, compared to heretic 1 to 2, among other examples. If you don't play a RPG because it is turn based, you will gonna lose ToEE, most gold box including Dark Sun : Shattered Lands and a lot of cool stuff.
A lot of fallout 1/2 fans also hated the "fps combat" on 3/new vegas. But lets be real, be turn based is a small change compared to fl2 to 3, compared to heretic 1 to 2, among other examples. If you don't play a RPG because it is turn based, you will gonna lose ToEE, most gold box including Dark Sun : Shattered Lands and a lot of cool stuff.
Fallout 1 & 2 versus the Bethesda Fallouts is a great comparison. Glad you brought them up, as they hadn't occurred to me. But clearly the first two games have a combat system that relies almost entirely on tactics, even when it's just one character much of the time. Whereas the later games, while having some tactical elements, are more geared towards testing reflexes, reactions, like a first person shooter. In many ways they're radically different games in a way that RTwP vs TB isn't for the subgenre.
Hopefully the TB bullies won't be successful in bullying every one of these developers to make only a TB game.
Seems to me the vast majority of these are going to either be mobile projects or stuff like the Candlekeep Board Game conversion. There isn't any real indication anything other than BG3 is an actual honest to god CRPG.
No, in a separate interview the CEO of WotC specifically said there will be multiple RPGs for PC and that they want to make games in the full range of RPG genres including AAA and open world games. The new studio that WotC started up with Bioware vets James Ohlen and Chad Robertson, Archetype Entertainment, is working on an RPG they describe as "sci-fi." Since WotC is only focused on making games in their two franchises, D&D and M:TG, some people are speculating this game could be a Spelljammer game.
Enough of your "TB bully" farce. I have only seen " I refuse to play any TB game ever" crybaby crap. Remember that your alleged "real-time" game is mechanically turn based. Performing each character's actions in initiative order. The difference is the puppet show...er...graphical animations. Of course, there is the option to accidently move your mage, thusly disrupting and wasting the much needed spell. Yes, pause and verify which character is active before issuing orders, of course. That is why it's called "accidental". Real-time, in my opinion, is not suited for team/party play. It is almost essential for solo play, though. I understand that waiting for a mob of kobolds to move gets tedious turn after turn. Individual initiative should break this up, though groups with similar stats tend to clump together. To each his own, as they say, but don't call out bullying on everyone with strong feelings on the subject.
@shabadoo One could see being called a crybaby as bullying. Its not really a farce if its actually happening.
Insulting others is against forum policy. *edit again* I'm not saying you are intentionally bullying. But its real easy to make someone feel so. If someone feels bullied, then they are being bullied. The burden is not on the other person to prove that their own actions went too far.
*edit*
crap, that was supposed to be an edit to my first post. Sorry for the double, twas accidental.
Hopefully the TB bullies won't be successful in bullying every one of these developers to make only a TB game.
I don't think it matters anymore. If BG3 sells well, expect nothing but games apeing it from WotC for the foreseeable future.
That is a distinct possibility. But since Chris Cox has said on the record that he wants to make games that represent every RPG genre and playstyle, I'm willing to wait and see. I know for you this is no comfort at all given your game preferences, but for me even a D&D game that is just like DA:I or Skyrim would be very welcome in contrast with a game just like D:OS. But as @jjstraka34 noted, if the games are strictly mobile - or in my case even strictly console - then I too won't get to play them because I will only play games available through Steam.
@kanisatha That's funny, because I refuse to play ANY games through Steam.
Yeah I get that about some people. I'm neither for or against Steam. I just like having all my games in one place, and since I started out with Steam many years ago, for better or worse it is Steam now.
Someone could also see calling every politically incorrect way of speaking "bullying" as being overly sensitive. I was complaining ... there may be some roughness. Plus, saying that acting a certain way is crybaby crap is different than calling someone a crybaby. I don't see having a preference in game style and voicing that preference as bullying. I don't see lobbying for, or defending, your preference as bullying per se. Choice is ideal, but not always feasible. Demanding your way or no way, while your decision, is ridiculous. Maybe the TB bullies are quieter right now because they're getting their way. Maybe the RTwP fans feel bullied because they aren't. But calling everyone who defends TB a bully is, btw, bullying.
The last comments in this thread are the opposite of what I imagined in the OP. Please stop that.
There is no need, for real, to fight and prove who is winning or losing: with P:WotR and BG3 both camps are getting games they wish. And more games with different gameplay will appear in the future. Because all the opinions and wishes, be it RT or TB, are loud, clear and read by game developers all over the world .
While I don't condone abusive behavior, people must be allowed free expression. I attacked no one, I called out a specific behavior for what I see it to be. Besides, how many things in life go exactly as you first imagined they would? If anyone felt offended or personally attacked, my apologies. I try to maintain at least a small bit of respect for others, but I'm only human. But calling every voice of dissent "bullying" is, at best, misguided. At worst, it's absolutely dishonest and manipulative. Bullies are out there, yes. Stop crying wolf at everyone who strongly disagrees with you.
Whew!!! Taking a breath now...
Okay, with that said I'll just reiterate my position on the subject and be gone. Team/party based games= TB. Solo games=RT
Obsidian and Owlcat are pretty much the only studios making good old-school cRPGs as far as I am concerned. So this story troubles me greatly as someone who struggles with playing games in first-person. I've already had to miss out on The Outer Worlds, and having to miss out on a second major Obsidian game in a row is rather painful to contemplate.
So a question for any of you who love first-person cRPGs: would you be so kind as to make a case for me of the strengths of first-person games and how first-person games can be good role-playing experiences? Please try and convince me that playing in first-person can work for me.
Just FYI, my aversion to first-person games is not one of those physiological issues. It's just that as someone who's never played console games and who only plays on a PC using mouse and keyboard, first-person tends to be very jarring and aggravating. I never seem to be able to move properly and go where I want to go, and especially get around objects. I never seem to have good situational awareness of what's going on around me and tend to miss a lot, not just lurking foes but also things in general that you can interact with when they are on the periphery of forward vision. And of course, combat is what's most aggravating as I find it very hard to properly target and hit my opponents, with this becoming even more difficult if an ally is also nearby and I need to avoid hitting my ally.
Obsidian and Owlcat are pretty much the only studios making good old-school cRPGs as far as I am concerned. So this story troubles me greatly as someone who struggles with playing games in first-person. I've already had to miss out on The Outer Worlds, and having to miss out on a second major Obsidian game in a row is rather painful to contemplate.
So a question for any of you who love first-person cRPGs: would you be so kind as to make a case for me of the strengths of first-person games and how first-person games can be good role-playing experiences? Please try and convince me that playing in first-person can work for me.
Just FYI, my aversion to first-person games is not one of those physiological issues. It's just that as someone who's never played console games and who only plays on a PC using mouse and keyboard, first-person tends to be very jarring and aggravating. I never seem to be able to move properly and go where I want to go, and especially get around objects. I never seem to have good situational awareness of what's going on around me and tend to miss a lot, not just lurking foes but also things in general that you can interact with when they are on the periphery of forward vision. And of course, combat is what's most aggravating as I find it very hard to properly target and hit my opponents, with this becoming even more difficult if an ally is also nearby and I need to avoid hitting my ally.
Please share your thoughts.
I feel like Obsidian working on games with more mass appeal than old-school RPGs was a given after being scooped up by Microsoft. I don't really mind since they've proven that their strengths translate well across different genres.
And while I'm not going to try and convince you to keep trying first-person (if it doesn't work for you, it doesn't. Sometimes it be like that), I will say that audio is a much more integral part of the gameplay when compared to isometric games. I don't know your gaming setup, but if you're having trouble reading what's happening on the screen I'd urge you to use headphones and spend some time experimenting with the audio settings. And always check every nook and cranny for hidden goodies, but that's just good advice in general
Obsidian and Owlcat are pretty much the only studios making good old-school cRPGs as far as I am concerned. So this story troubles me greatly as someone who struggles with playing games in first-person. I've already had to miss out on The Outer Worlds, and having to miss out on a second major Obsidian game in a row is rather painful to contemplate.
So a question for any of you who love first-person cRPGs: would you be so kind as to make a case for me of the strengths of first-person games and how first-person games can be good role-playing experiences? Please try and convince me that playing in first-person can work for me.
Just FYI, my aversion to first-person games is not one of those physiological issues. It's just that as someone who's never played console games and who only plays on a PC using mouse and keyboard, first-person tends to be very jarring and aggravating. I never seem to be able to move properly and go where I want to go, and especially get around objects. I never seem to have good situational awareness of what's going on around me and tend to miss a lot, not just lurking foes but also things in general that you can interact with when they are on the periphery of forward vision. And of course, combat is what's most aggravating as I find it very hard to properly target and hit my opponents, with this becoming even more difficult if an ally is also nearby and I need to avoid hitting my ally.
Please share your thoughts.
I feel like Obsidian working on games with more mass appeal than old-school RPGs was a given after being scooped up by Microsoft. I don't really mind since they've proven that their strengths translate well across different genres.
And while I'm not going to try and convince you to keep trying first-person (if it doesn't work for you, it doesn't. Sometimes it be like that), I will say that audio is a much more integral part of the gameplay when compared to isometric games. I don't know your gaming setup, but if you're having trouble reading what's happening on the screen I'd urge you to use headphones and spend some time experimenting with the audio settings. And always check every nook and cranny for hidden goodies, but that's just good advice in general
Thanks. My gaming setup is pretty good. I have a really nice gaming desktop, GTX980, and dual-monitors with the main one quite large and 4K. But, I am hearing impaired. I'm not deaf, so I can hear sounds just fine, but the clarity of speech varies from voice to voice. And my hearing aid won't allow earphones because of feedback. So yes, I have to read everything on the screen to know what's going on and cannot rely on audio guiding me on anything.
Comments
Relax - I wasn’t trying to misrepresent you. I was emphasizing that comparing it to table top as a medium is valuable for some others in this thread (myself included).
There's a big reason why we see people on these boards also talking about games like XCOM. And it's not just because that game has a few RPG elements. The combat systems in these tactical/strategy RPG's will continue to succeed to the extent that they resemble fun strategy games like chess or even Starcraft, and not to the extent that they emulate real life.
What do I mean by that? Oh no, I dare not mean anything. Just come to your own conclusions.
True, and the base module for NWN1 is trash exactly for this reason, among others. DnD is not designed to really be a solo or even two-person party experience. Its combat system was largely ripped from tabletop wargames that preceded it. It's a wonderful, imo, mix of strategic gameplay and roleplaying, which is what explains its longevity both as tabletop and video games.
I also disagree strongly that the IE games are "easily solo-able". It's possible to solo them yes, but that's a veteran-level challenge on the scale of a no-reload challenge. It requires immense memorization of the game's content and rule system.
While I remain committed to my position that RTwP and TB are equally good, I will say that I do *love* me some Paradox Interactive grand strategy games. That they are so successful with a real time format (as opposed to a turn based variant, such as Civ - which is also very successful) just underscores that any system will work if the developers are talented enough.
Just telling that I soloed IWD:EE on insane difficulty (albeit with double damage turned off, I won't lie) as a Dragon Disciple. My only previous experience was upto the first level of Dragon's Eye with a party, a run which I never completed, so the second half of my solo run was completely blind...
@BallpointMan If you Paradox gang, you rock!
One game that is insanely hard to solo as a arcane caster is nwn2. Mainly because they did everything that they could to destroy arcane casters. One summon limit, removed spells like stop time, nerfed most spells like black tentacles and missile storm from nwn1, made spells which ignore SR don't ignore(...) and also forced you to start all boss fights at CQB and dispelled all defenses(except weapon buffs). With spell fixes or warlock reworked i can solo NWN2 and is only a little harder than BG/IWD due the lack of spell trigger and chain contingency...
But some people really believe that tactical game = party control and is a thing that makes no sense IMO. If i an comboing animate undead + cloudkill on pathfinder kingmaker as a solo sorcerer, i an not doing something "tactical"? But if i use the same tactic while micromanage my party members, now i an doing something tactical? PFKM is also harder to solo due resting mechanics. I always preferred to play with small parties on games like this. Because have to micromange everything is just boring.
So long as you are saying this for yourself, it is fine. But for me, my immersion takes a huge hit when the combat is fake, and fake is exactly how I would describe TB combat.
The game should not be first person
The game should be party-based, with fully fleshed-out companions
The game should be built for single-player first and foremost, and multiplayer only secondarily
The game should use a RTwP combat system
Every encounter in the game should be resolvable without resorting to combat
The game should freely allow saving anywhere anytime
Every word/sound in the game should be presented in written form also (because I am hearing impaired)
No, what I'm saying is an objective standard that I think game designers should strive for. If an element of a game is realistic, that's a bonus. But gameplay elements shouldn't be included or set a certain way merely because they are more realistic. What you're suggesting, imo, is a prioritization of a subjective criteria. Again, I'm the one who is fine with either game mode.
A strategy-testing gameplay element, like combat in these kinds of RPG's doesn't have to be a certain way. All it needs to do is offer strategic depth similar to a game like chess or go.
And I think this is besides the point anyways on TB vs RTwP. Turn-based is no less real than a pause button. And no less real than controlling multiple characters directly. No less real than taking multiple sword blows and just carrying on.
I'm reminded of people who complain that the resting-magic system in DnD isn't "natural" with this conversation. As well I'm reminded of the TB grognards who poo-pooed BG after it became successful for "dumbing down" the genre. It's the same misapprehension, imo. You may have this particular narrow taste, but I don't think the reasoning that it's more real holds up to scrutiny.
I dont think this is something I can really do. The things that make a game "good" for me are those criteria that you established are probably true for everyone.
The only other thing I would say is: The game play systems should be fun to play, and work effectively together. This is the way that I can play franchises like The Witcher and the Elder Scrolls games. They both are very different in how combat works, and are both different perspective. In my opinion, they're effective and fun games to play.
Fallout 1 & 2 versus the Bethesda Fallouts is a great comparison. Glad you brought them up, as they hadn't occurred to me. But clearly the first two games have a combat system that relies almost entirely on tactics, even when it's just one character much of the time. Whereas the later games, while having some tactical elements, are more geared towards testing reflexes, reactions, like a first person shooter. In many ways they're radically different games in a way that RTwP vs TB isn't for the subgenre.
Hopefully the TB bullies won't be successful in bullying every one of these developers to make only a TB game.
Seems to me the vast majority of these are going to either be mobile projects or stuff like the Candlekeep Board Game conversion. There isn't any real indication anything other than BG3 is an actual honest to god CRPG.
I don't think it matters anymore. If BG3 sells well, expect nothing but games apeing it from WotC for the foreseeable future.
Insulting others is against forum policy. *edit again* I'm not saying you are intentionally bullying. But its real easy to make someone feel so. If someone feels bullied, then they are being bullied. The burden is not on the other person to prove that their own actions went too far.
*edit*
crap, that was supposed to be an edit to my first post. Sorry for the double, twas accidental.
That is a distinct possibility. But since Chris Cox has said on the record that he wants to make games that represent every RPG genre and playstyle, I'm willing to wait and see. I know for you this is no comfort at all given your game preferences, but for me even a D&D game that is just like DA:I or Skyrim would be very welcome in contrast with a game just like D:OS. But as @jjstraka34 noted, if the games are strictly mobile - or in my case even strictly console - then I too won't get to play them because I will only play games available through Steam.
Yeah I get that about some people. I'm neither for or against Steam. I just like having all my games in one place, and since I started out with Steam many years ago, for better or worse it is Steam now.
There is no need, for real, to fight and prove who is winning or losing: with P:WotR and BG3 both camps are getting games they wish. And more games with different gameplay will appear in the future. Because all the opinions and wishes, be it RT or TB, are loud, clear and read by game developers all over the world .
Whew!!! Taking a breath now...
Okay, with that said I'll just reiterate my position on the subject and be gone. Team/party based games= TB. Solo games=RT
Obsidian and Owlcat are pretty much the only studios making good old-school cRPGs as far as I am concerned. So this story troubles me greatly as someone who struggles with playing games in first-person. I've already had to miss out on The Outer Worlds, and having to miss out on a second major Obsidian game in a row is rather painful to contemplate.
So a question for any of you who love first-person cRPGs: would you be so kind as to make a case for me of the strengths of first-person games and how first-person games can be good role-playing experiences? Please try and convince me that playing in first-person can work for me.
Just FYI, my aversion to first-person games is not one of those physiological issues. It's just that as someone who's never played console games and who only plays on a PC using mouse and keyboard, first-person tends to be very jarring and aggravating. I never seem to be able to move properly and go where I want to go, and especially get around objects. I never seem to have good situational awareness of what's going on around me and tend to miss a lot, not just lurking foes but also things in general that you can interact with when they are on the periphery of forward vision. And of course, combat is what's most aggravating as I find it very hard to properly target and hit my opponents, with this becoming even more difficult if an ally is also nearby and I need to avoid hitting my ally.
Please share your thoughts.
I feel like Obsidian working on games with more mass appeal than old-school RPGs was a given after being scooped up by Microsoft. I don't really mind since they've proven that their strengths translate well across different genres.
And while I'm not going to try and convince you to keep trying first-person (if it doesn't work for you, it doesn't. Sometimes it be like that), I will say that audio is a much more integral part of the gameplay when compared to isometric games. I don't know your gaming setup, but if you're having trouble reading what's happening on the screen I'd urge you to use headphones and spend some time experimenting with the audio settings. And always check every nook and cranny for hidden goodies, but that's just good advice in general
Thanks. My gaming setup is pretty good. I have a really nice gaming desktop, GTX980, and dual-monitors with the main one quite large and 4K. But, I am hearing impaired. I'm not deaf, so I can hear sounds just fine, but the clarity of speech varies from voice to voice. And my hearing aid won't allow earphones because of feedback. So yes, I have to read everything on the screen to know what's going on and cannot rely on audio guiding me on anything.