Some of the things that you call tactical, other people call annoyance. Yes, BG has not had a targeting function for spells in its over a decade existence, but that doesn't really prove anything because other tactical games do have this feature and I don't see people saying that they're not tactical due to that feature or that these targets are bad game design. And I strongly disagree with your stance that having a target for spells would oversimplify BG1.
In the end, if such an option were implemented, it would be an option so I don't really see the reason for you guys to keep this discussion going on.
My spellchecker doesn't recognize it. In any case, it was more that he kept using the word every other damn paragraph that bugged me. Not everyone goes to the lengths that Aliteri was talking about to keep their spells precise, and the term "millimetric" in this instance is pure hyperbole. Repeating it over and over again doesn't make it a valid term for what's happening, and I didn't appreciate the arrogant (yes, arrogant) assumption that everyone who uses a targeting system is abusing it in that way.
You talk about me being arrogant (not for taking offense, but for admitting that I felt insulted), but of the two of us, your position is the one that is assuming everyone else must be wrong.
I'd say we both are arrogant, after all arrogance is a matter of usurpation and me believing myself right until proven contrary is arrogant. Which makes me point that out on you sort of pointless, hah.
and would go so far as to condemn some players for wanting to use the analog when you can just as easily disable it for yourself.
All I'm saying is that since Baldur's Gate is a RTwP game, the analog and the pause function makes the game not just easier but removes any challenge as far as friendly fire goes. Targetting spells is neither challenging nor fun. A easier way to do that would be removing friendly fire altogether.
What I'm proposing is that instead of choosing between having the analog or not, you choose between a RTS combat with the analog or a RTwP without it.
Then, it becomes a matter of playstyle, not difficulty.
And for the record, "millimetric" isn't a word. Stop using it.
I blame CRPGs for teaching me english, you see I'm not a native speaker. Google lied to me. I apologize for any similar issues you had when reading my posts.
But hey, as long as a word succesfully conveys what it was trying to, then it does exist. And since the word millimeter does 'exist' in the formal english vocabulary, you could have figured out what I was trying to say.
Some of the things that you call tactical, other people call annoyance. Yes, BG has not had a targeting function for spells in its over a decade existence, but that doesn't really prove anything because other tactical games do have this feature and I don't see people saying that they're not tactical due to that feature or that these targets are bad game design. And I strongly disagree with your stance that having a target for spells would oversimplify BG1.
In the end, if such an option were implemented, it would be an option so I don't really see the reason for you guys to keep this discussion going on.
What things?
Not everyone goes to the lengths that Aliteri was talking about to keep their spells precise, and the term "millimetric" in this instance is pure hyperbole.
Ally A is a wizard; Ally B is a fighter. Enemy A is a fighter, in close combat with Ally B. Ally A knows that Enemy A is fifteen feet away from him, and Ally B is ten feet away. So Ally A, rather than casting Flaming Arrow, casts Fireball, targeting a spot on the ground twenty-five feet behind Enemy A. The blast engulfs Enemy A, but narrowly misses Ally B.
Now change that to
Ally A is a wizard; Ally B is a fighter. Enemy A is a fighter, in close combat with Ally B. Ally A knows that Enemy A is eleven feet away from him, and Ally B is ten feet away. So Ally A, rather than casting Flaming Arrow, casts Fireball, targeting a spot on the ground twenty-five feet behind Enemy A. The blast engulfs Enemy A, but narrowly misses Ally B.
Add a few more enemies and yes, millimetric, a word or not, is rather apropriate.
Well just to put my 2 cents worth in, if this were implemented I fear I would like it too much to turn it off. It would simply be too helpful. The original argument - it would make the game more tactical - doesn't stand because a) having to guess adds an extra tactical variable, and b) it's an advantage only for the player, not the AI, and therefore introduces imbalance to the game. Now, do you really want to eliminate all the danger out of casting Fireball?
That's really not a good reason to not add it to the game. You also have the option to play the game on Very Easy but do you always play on that difficulty setting?
Would a target radius make the game easier? Of course. Is that a justification to not include easier difficulty settings in games? I don't think so.
I can see and empathise with both sides. Regardless, this really would be a substantial usability feature, and one that would go a long way to acclimate and assist new players. The OP's suggestion bears merit.
@Igneous as with nearly all these requests they would have to be optional, and while I heavily favour the vanilla version some people may enjoy it as a feature. However as the developers only have limited time, is the argument is more about whether this is a feature that should be included at the expense of other features, and I just don't think it warrants that attention.
Also I like to think bears merit is an award given out by bears
Mark the area that will be affected by a spell. It is very annoying to intuit where to cast a fireball spell to not hurt your allies. Sorry for my bad english!
I think a good idea that the game mode "easy" area of effect might be visible. modes while more difficult to effect areas would not be shown (as normally)
What happened to learning by trial and error? I guess Little Jimmy can't be expected to handle failure anymore.
Exactly, people want everything handed on a silver platter these days! As many said some spells can't even have "areas" and other like breath of fire are just totally useless. Why fill the game with more useless UI. Just play the game and learn. Is it too much for players today? Asking them to PLAY the game?
Hmmmm, you are surrounded by kobolds shooting fire arrows at you. Your party is fighting for their lives short sword wielding kobolds are closing in for the kills. What are the chances that you will be cool headed enough to make the calculations so that only enemies are affected by your web/stinking cloud/fireball? Chances and risks has to be taken and magic IS dangerous. I had my fair share of NPC's going down from a stinking cloud and that has caused me to reload more times than I care to remember but it has also taught me about the powers of magic and secretly I have loved it. I think there should be even more friendly fire. The first time I played ADD I killed a party member with a crossbow bolt and that was extremely fun in a very weird way
If you ask me, I wouldn't like this 'area-marking' novelty. IMHO, the charm of BG is that, you can't directly know where the AoE spell is going to trigger/explode/take place. Kind of agree with Technophobe here - players need to adjust to this. For example: I've been playing BG for quite some time, so many hours invested into this game and with time, I leaned to aim my fireballs/skull traps with extreme care, not to fry/blast my own party members. You just *feel* it as time passes. Of course, it can be extremely disorientating at first, but, believe me, with this you train your eyes and accuracy.
My Fireball spells tend to be "the opening salvo" in fights because my melee aren't in the thick of things yet.
And that's the thing. In DA:O I could easily spam Fireball thorought the battle, long after the enemy closed range on me because of how insanely precise I could aim my attacks (though there's also the issue of DA:O using a mana-based spellcasting system that encourages spell spamming, but that's something else entirely), effectively making Fireball one of the most overpowered spells in the game.
Totally agree with your point. Fireball is a very powerfull, but also dangerous spell. That's why it's one of my favourites. One of my favourite moments in the game is when I really have to use it, but my melee is in the fray, so I either have to try and pull them out quickly, use some fire resistance or sacrifice them. It a lot more fun than precisely moving the characters in such a position that they wont be hit by the spell. I also loved when some archers joined the fight or new monsters were coming towards the group, and I think most of us know that "You are sooo mine!" feeling Dangerous aoe spells should be used as openers, situational or last resort spells. Or if you really want to use them in the heat of the battle, you have to be very careful. Not just spamming them. When your own are locked in close combat you can use magic missles, acid arrow, aghnazzar's scorcher, finger of death, chain lightning, flame strike, death spell, flame arrow, etc. There are so many spells that can't hurt your companions. If you give target circles for aoe spells, you are making them that more powerful, which would kinda diminish the usefulness of these other spells.
@Bhryaen: Your description of the situation isn't quite accurate.
"New practicing mage picks up spellbook after learning the spell Fireball. The spellbook reads:
Fireball: Expected blast radius: 15'. Use with extreme caution.
The mage, who has never cast this spell before, thinks, 'I'm going to need a ruler.' "
A spellbook tells the caster the exact effects to expect from the spell he casts. This includes blast radius. If you know that the blast will be 30 feet across, then as long as you can tell what "30 feet" looks like, you can get a fairly precise expectation of the effect.
In fact, even before you learn the spell, much of your training as a wizard involves understanding the geometry of your spellcasting. If you've spent years learning that, it's not a great leap to say that a talented wizard could target his spells precisely enough to duplicate the effect of a "targeting circle".
While they can practice it a lot, I'm still not sure that in a heated combst situation the mage could make such a precise shot. Not to mention that I don't think magic is so predictable. Sometimes the radius is a foot wider, sometimes smaller. At least that's how I think it would work (I'm not saying we should put such a factor in the game!). And through the game interface you even have the advantage to position your companions to the exact place where you want them to, while in reality you would only be able to shout: "Fall back a bit! Fireball incoming!". You could try to shout "Move 4 feet North-West!" though, but yeah, think about it
That said, I'm not in favour of this. BUT as I see it, there are two clear groups here, both are very strong-minded, and since it's not a competitive multiplayer game an option for this wouldn't hurt. Who am I to tell others how they should play the game?
I am not a fan of visible area of effect. Magic should not be predictable, it's a wild power and it's nature is sometimes unknown. But I understand some people want that, so I wouldn't mind if there was option to turn it on and off.
Not having a visible radius of effect of spells is not a lack of BG. It's an aspect of the game. It just makes it neccesary to actually know some spells before using them, or otherwise suffer from friendly fire.
Take a look at Neverwinter Nights 2 and you will see how greatly this feature was implemented. DA:O can't be compared with these two games. It lacks complexity and atmosphere. It is only my opinion. If this game is meant only for veterans then visible area of effect is not necessary.
@Ignwarr23 I've never seen NWN2's system. How does it differ from DAO's super-obvious-white-circle type of targeting cheat?
I disagree with you on the "only for veterans" charge entirely: the original BG had no veterans, and as a result of its approach to things like combat realism, it now has veterans. The extra targeting is not necessary regardless: Fireballs still work, and you can still cast them successfully. The only difference is that you have to learn rather than have it handed to you in a metagamed manner. In fact, unlike what @Senash suggests, you truly can cast a "precise shot" even without any conspicuous targeting system and without being a veteran. Just takes practice to get good at it, and it's not exactly difficult- and anyway, it's sort of fun to miscalculate at times.
The target circles just look like you're using some sort of scoping weapon in a shooter game. That's fine for those games, and it even makes sense if it's simulating an actual weapon scope, but in BG you're just using eyesight and mental calculation, even if you know the radius of the circle is exactly 10'. Can anyone here identify exactly 10' by eye?
I don't get this 'if its only for elitist hardcores/veterans' argument. How many people have already played Baldur's Gate? Thousands? Millions? They were all beginners at the game and got better overtime. Or is it because of the conception of how supposedly stupid the younglings are?
@Aliteri there are three facets of the argument. The first facet is that, yes, the video game culture has advanced to the point where having a "guiding line" for magic effects is not only common, but anticipated. To not include this option (as, I say again, an option) has the undesirable effect of telling modern gamers, "You don't need to see where your spell's going to go, and if you think you do, you're wrong." (Telling the customer they're wrong is usually a bad idea.)
The second facet is that the game is based on D&D, which is a turn-based RPG that frequently allows players to make these precise calculations during combat. Allowing players to utilize the same tools in a game that doesn't include a battle grid (which would normally allow players to "eyeball" the distance between two points) is a half-step toward honoring the spirit of the game on which Baldur's Gate is based.
The third facet is that, for many players, the initial frustration of casting fireball only to realize that it's "a lot bigger than I thought it was" may be a turn-off. Not a "reload your last save and try again" turn-off, but a "quit the game and return it" turn-off. Allowing these players to utilize a tool that helps them through that initial learning curve will stop that frustration and allow the player to just enjoy the game.
Not everyone plays these games for the "intense, immersive strategy". It's an isometric RPG using sprite animation; realism isn't exactly on the table. For a lot of people, the story is enough, and that's okay. For some of these people, having the gameplay interfere with the story (such as by accidentally destroying your entire party with a wayward lightning bolt) is a big enough hindrance to spoil the experience. I know that the first time I saw Lightning Bolt in action, I thought, "That's a damn terrifying spell, and not at all what I wanted to have happen."
I would be fine with having this be a toggle in Advanced Options, set by default to "Off" so that users who don't want it don't have to fiddle at all. And honestly, I probably wouldn't use it myself. But I think that not including it would be a mistake, for the reasons I stated above.
@Aosaw, I think its great you put lots of thought into your opinions and replies, however I disagree with you three facets you have mentioned. You say guiding lines for magic is anticipated, I have never know anyone anticipate for guided magic lines, I just dont think its a feature that needs attention, I dont think it makes people not want to play it.
The second facet is irillevent, yes it is based on the D and D turned based rpg however it is not D and D, if you want to play with figurines and a girdded map then do so, However Baldurs Gate is a game and does not have to have grid lines and magic graphics to help people who wont buy/play a game just because they cant be bothered to understand some of the physics in the . As I have said not including grid lines or magic graphics will not put people off from playing it, they either like the look of it or not.
The third facet about frustration of casting fireball is just your opinion, at the beginning of my learning cruve whilst playing baldurs gate I had killed myself with fireball many times, however you eventually learn and get a feel for it, for me that makes being a wizard great in this game, learning the spells and understanding what they do, sometimes you just take risks with lightining bolt and area effect spells its just how the game is and I love it that way.
@Aosaw No, those are three unrelated arguments. I was asking why, after 5 million sales, must we fall into the illusion that new players are going to kill themselves over the game's challenge.
'(Telling the customer they're wrong is usually a bad idea.)'
Not really, that's part of half-decent game design - the ones that don't offer you a false sense of gratification.
'The second facet is that the game is based on D&D'
Key word: based around. None of the Infinity games ever tried to be absolute emulators of the tabletop experience, often as a design decision, perhaps sometimes due to the constraint of resources but often because its simply not possible - CRPGs and Tabletop RPGs aren't the same.
As a clear example of how important is that realization, let me bring you to @Ingwarr23's argument: 'BG doesn't let you practice'.
If true, then that would be the heaviest argument for the spell radius, for reasons that don't even need to be said.
But then you wouldn't have some many posters in this thread claiming that people 'want things on a silverplate'. Obviously those people, everyone who was one day a new player to BG practiced and overcame their limitations.
Obviously, BG do allows us to practice - in ways similar to the tabletop experience (the pause function being there in a attempt to emulate the turn based experience - therefore bringing it closer to the tabletop games as well) but also in ways that, ideally, are way and above the original intent of the tabletop experience, the fact that you can save before a boss fight and reload. Only a no-reload challenge of BG keep you on your toes to the point that you can't practice, only something that very few of the 'veteran' has ever been able to accomplish is actually closer to the tabletop experience than the original BG.
'Not everyone plays these games for the "intense, immersive strategy".'
If a friend of mine doesn't want to play a strategy game, then I'll recommend him games that actually aren't strategy.
'For a lot of people, the story is enough, and that's okay. For some of these people, having the gameplay interfere with the story'
And those people are the poor victims of a terrible cultural trend.
'Gameplay' and 'Story' aren't segregated. The best videogame story is told through both, at the same time with as little segregation as possible. 'Dialogue' and 'Combat' are 2 out of many facets of a CRPG's storytelling.
The best playthrough of Baldur's Gate is the one where Sarevok's death screen plays after a epic battle where he lives up to the promise of being really powerful. The one that actually lets you experience your villain's power - not the one that lets you steamroll through him just to see the dialogue.
Saying that some people just like the 'story' is like saying that there should be a skip button in Call of Duty because such silly sections of gameplay (shootings for Christ's sake) are not part of the story of modern soldiers.
Would I like that CRPGs in general introduced both a nice combat system and multiple ways to solve problems? Would I want to the option of creating a character that doesn't have to fight his way through every issue? Would I like if developers managed to tell a story that doesn't imply that you're 'Commander Sheppard', the guy who battled his way through the entire trilogy? That'd be rather interesting, it would be the correct, the RPG way of appeasing to people that don't like combat.
But that's for the future - we are talking about Baldur's Gate, a game that came out in 1998.
And Baldur's Gate is the story of a party of people that adventure through the Sword Coast solving most of their problems with their martial skills, just like your average heroic fantasy novel. If you don't want to experience combat, if you like to experience combat, then you don't like the story of Baldur's Gate told through the interactive medium of video games - you might as well as watch the dialogue from a walkthrough
'For some of these people, having the gameplay interfere with the story (such as by accidentally destroying your entire party with a wayward lightning bolt)'
Interference? Are you insane? You said it yourself:
"That's a damn terrifying spell, and not at all what I wanted to have happen."
That's a freaking Lightning Bolt! And you tell me that when the game lets you experience its power, its interfering with the story? Madness! I can't imagine that the game's story doesn't actually assume that you know a freaking Lightning Bolt is freaking terrifying or should be handled with care!
There are ways to wield the Lightning Bolt spell effectively without actually needing practice - elemental resistance, through potions, equipment or spells, and even full immunity with one of the globe spells.
Ugh, we're falling into the same pattern we were in before, Aliteri. Get off your damn high horse.
I think this would be a useful feature. I'm clearly not the only person who thinks that. The fact that you don't want to use it doesn't mean that everyone who does want to use it is wrong, or spoiled, or an idiot, or somehow lesser than you. You say that gameplay and story aren't segregated, which is true - but for some people, a device to make the gameplay smoother, more intuitive, and (yes) even easier adds to the experience by allowing the player to immerse themselves in the characters of the story, rather than just the mechanics.
Anyway, I'm done. Again. Not sure why I came back - oh right, because I still think this would be a good feature to have, and I don't think it would take much to implement. The business reason for including it is clear; the business reason for not including it is stupid and elitist.
Which of them is going to sell more copies of the game?
I can understand that people don't want to use the feature, but what I can't understand is people saying that something like this shouldn't even be in the game because "its the wrong way to play" or it "cheapens the experience". If someone can enjoy a game with spell targets, then more power to them.
Elitist would be if I was actually advocating for something that only a small segment of the playerbase could accomplish - that isn't the case. Millions have played Baldur's Gate as it is and millions aren't a elite, they are a playerbase. Please, cut the populist arguments.
What I'm advocating here, choosing between the pause function and the spell targetting is actual modularity (advanced options), a choice between playstyles with different strategic potentials and points of view.
The difference between that and the difficulty slider is that a difficulty slider is something that you want to overcome from the start - ideally you'll become better as you play the game and higher difficulty settings will become less of a inconvenience to you - as opposed to modular difficulty - which shouldn't just be a choice of different levels of challenge, rather different types of game.
As it is, the thread's proposal is a simple change in difficulty levels, which isn't really a 'advanced option' rather something to be left on the difficulty slider. All I tried to do is to develop the discussion into something deeper.
Millions of players have played vanilla BG for years. By that logic BGEE shouldn't even exist.
And how do you know that a significant portion of the people that played BG wouldn't like such an option? I would. But here you are telling me that I'm wrong for wanting such an option. That's why I call it an elitest attitude. "I did it, my way is the best way". Well, I did it too, and I'd like the option because it would improve my enjoyment of BG.
But like I mentioned in my previous post, the worse part of this discussion is when you defend that there shouldn't even be an option to have spell targets. That's just baffling.
The more I read this thread, the more I agree with the optional version of this. The main reason why I "turned" is that if someone really wants to know and calculate the area the spell will affect, he/she simply needs to use a ruler or something to measure the exact distance on their screen. After that, they can always use that to measure if the spell will hit them party member or not. So if they really want to know the area so much, we should let them have the option to let the game show them the exact area. In my opinion though: it's your loss guys... To answer @Bhryaen: don't get me wrong, I totally agree with what you've said. You CAN cast precise shots. With practice (and you don't even need that much), you can hit whatever you want, without measuring distances. Even in the second half of my first playthrough, or maybe earlier, with my sorcerer, I was able to judge the area my spell would cover, just by eyesight. I was launching fireballs and webs in a way that my companions werent affected, but the enemies fighting with them were. BUT still, I made a mistake once or twice, albeit rarely. As everyone else I think. Still I was never mad at the system. I was mad at myself for making such a stupid mistake, but I accepted that I have to live with that, and (back to my previous comment) it actually enhanced the fun I had. I had to correct the mistake I've made, and yeah, thats how it works. Even if you practice a lot, you can still make mistakes! Playing with target reticles and such and quick loading all the time is just killing the whole game in my mind. Everyone makes mistakes. Sometimes you hit your companions with the fireball/dispel/web, and yeah, it sucks, but in a good way I mean, come on Bhryaen, tell me that even after you mastered the casting of aoe spells, you've never made a mistake
Comments
Some of the things that you call tactical, other people call annoyance. Yes, BG has not had a targeting function for spells in its over a decade existence, but that doesn't really prove anything because other tactical games do have this feature and I don't see people saying that they're not tactical due to that feature or that these targets are bad game design. And I strongly disagree with your stance that having a target for spells would oversimplify BG1.
In the end, if such an option were implemented, it would be an option so I don't really see the reason for you guys to keep this discussion going on.
Anyway, I'm done debating it, as I said.
What I'm proposing is that instead of choosing between having the analog or not, you choose between a RTS combat with the analog or a RTwP without it.
Then, it becomes a matter of playstyle, not difficulty. I blame CRPGs for teaching me english, you see I'm not a native speaker. Google lied to me. I apologize for any similar issues you had when reading my posts.
But hey, as long as a word succesfully conveys what it was trying to, then it does exist. And since the word millimeter does 'exist' in the formal english vocabulary, you could have figured out what I was trying to say. What things? Now change that to Add a few more enemies and yes, millimetric, a word or not, is rather apropriate.
That's really not a good reason to not add it to the game. You also have the option to play the game on Very Easy but do you always play on that difficulty setting?
Would a target radius make the game easier? Of course. Is that a justification to not include easier difficulty settings in games? I don't think so.
Also I like to think bears merit is an award given out by bears
I guess I don't have a problem if it's tied to difficulty setting. And I suppose I could restrain myself from using it.
Just play the game and learn. Is it too much for players today? Asking them to PLAY the game?
Chances and risks has to be taken and magic IS dangerous. I had my fair share of NPC's going down from a stinking cloud and that has caused me to reload more times than I care to remember but it has also taught me about the powers of magic and secretly I have loved it. I think there should be even more friendly fire. The first time I played ADD I killed a party member with a crossbow bolt and that was extremely fun in a very weird way
Dangerous aoe spells should be used as openers, situational or last resort spells. Or if you really want to use them in the heat of the battle, you have to be very careful. Not just spamming them. When your own are locked in close combat you can use magic missles, acid arrow, aghnazzar's scorcher, finger of death, chain lightning, flame strike, death spell, flame arrow, etc. There are so many spells that can't hurt your companions. If you give target circles for aoe spells, you are making them that more powerful, which would kinda diminish the usefulness of these other spells. While they can practice it a lot, I'm still not sure that in a heated combst situation the mage could make such a precise shot. Not to mention that I don't think magic is so predictable. Sometimes the radius is a foot wider, sometimes smaller. At least that's how I think it would work (I'm not saying we should put such a factor in the game!). And through the game interface you even have the advantage to position your companions to the exact place where you want them to, while in reality you would only be able to shout: "Fall back a bit! Fireball incoming!". You could try to shout "Move 4 feet North-West!" though, but yeah, think about it
That said, I'm not in favour of this.
BUT as I see it, there are two clear groups here, both are very strong-minded, and since it's not a competitive multiplayer game an option for this wouldn't hurt. Who am I to tell others how they should play the game?
Not having a visible radius of effect of spells is not a lack of BG. It's an aspect of the game. It just makes it neccesary to actually know some spells before using them, or otherwise suffer from friendly fire.
DA:O can't be compared with these two games. It lacks complexity and atmosphere.
It is only my opinion.
If this game is meant only for veterans then visible area of effect is not necessary.
I've never seen NWN2's system. How does it differ from DAO's super-obvious-white-circle type of targeting cheat?
I disagree with you on the "only for veterans" charge entirely: the original BG had no veterans, and as a result of its approach to things like combat realism, it now has veterans. The extra targeting is not necessary regardless: Fireballs still work, and you can still cast them successfully. The only difference is that you have to learn rather than have it handed to you in a metagamed manner. In fact, unlike what @Senash suggests, you truly can cast a "precise shot" even without any conspicuous targeting system and without being a veteran. Just takes practice to get good at it, and it's not exactly difficult- and anyway, it's sort of fun to miscalculate at times.
The target circles just look like you're using some sort of scoping weapon in a shooter game. That's fine for those games, and it even makes sense if it's simulating an actual weapon scope, but in BG you're just using eyesight and mental calculation, even if you know the radius of the circle is exactly 10'. Can anyone here identify exactly 10' by eye?
Maybe you would accept an inprecise visible area of effect ?
The second facet is that the game is based on D&D, which is a turn-based RPG that frequently allows players to make these precise calculations during combat. Allowing players to utilize the same tools in a game that doesn't include a battle grid (which would normally allow players to "eyeball" the distance between two points) is a half-step toward honoring the spirit of the game on which Baldur's Gate is based.
The third facet is that, for many players, the initial frustration of casting fireball only to realize that it's "a lot bigger than I thought it was" may be a turn-off. Not a "reload your last save and try again" turn-off, but a "quit the game and return it" turn-off. Allowing these players to utilize a tool that helps them through that initial learning curve will stop that frustration and allow the player to just enjoy the game.
Not everyone plays these games for the "intense, immersive strategy". It's an isometric RPG using sprite animation; realism isn't exactly on the table. For a lot of people, the story is enough, and that's okay. For some of these people, having the gameplay interfere with the story (such as by accidentally destroying your entire party with a wayward lightning bolt) is a big enough hindrance to spoil the experience. I know that the first time I saw Lightning Bolt in action, I thought, "That's a damn terrifying spell, and not at all what I wanted to have happen."
I would be fine with having this be a toggle in Advanced Options, set by default to "Off" so that users who don't want it don't have to fiddle at all. And honestly, I probably wouldn't use it myself. But I think that not including it would be a mistake, for the reasons I stated above.
The second facet is irillevent, yes it is based on the D and D turned based rpg however it is not D and D, if you want to play with figurines and a girdded map then do so, However Baldurs Gate is a game and does not have to have grid lines and magic graphics to help people who wont buy/play a game just because they cant be bothered to understand some of the physics in the . As I have said not including grid lines or magic graphics will not put people off from playing it, they either like the look of it or not.
The third facet about frustration of casting fireball is just your opinion, at the beginning of my learning cruve whilst playing baldurs gate I had killed myself with fireball many times, however you eventually learn and get a feel for it, for me that makes being a wizard great in this game, learning the spells and understanding what they do, sometimes you just take risks with lightining bolt and area effect spells its just how the game is and I love it that way.
'(Telling the customer they're wrong is usually a bad idea.)'
Not really, that's part of half-decent game design - the ones that don't offer you a false sense of gratification.
'The second facet is that the game is based on D&D'
Key word: based around. None of the Infinity games ever tried to be absolute emulators of the tabletop experience, often as a design decision, perhaps sometimes due to the constraint of resources but often because its simply not possible - CRPGs and Tabletop RPGs aren't the same.
As a clear example of how important is that realization, let me bring you to @Ingwarr23's argument: 'BG doesn't let you practice'.
If true, then that would be the heaviest argument for the spell radius, for reasons that don't even need to be said.
But then you wouldn't have some many posters in this thread claiming that people 'want things on a silverplate'. Obviously those people, everyone who was one day a new player to BG practiced and overcame their limitations.
Obviously, BG do allows us to practice - in ways similar to the tabletop experience (the pause function being there in a attempt to emulate the turn based experience - therefore bringing it closer to the tabletop games as well) but also in ways that, ideally, are way and above the original intent of the tabletop experience, the fact that you can save before a boss fight and reload. Only a no-reload challenge of BG keep you on your toes to the point that you can't practice, only something that very few of the 'veteran' has ever been able to accomplish is actually closer to the tabletop experience than the original BG.
'Not everyone plays these games for the "intense, immersive strategy".'
If a friend of mine doesn't want to play a strategy game, then I'll recommend him games that actually aren't strategy.
'For a lot of people, the story is enough, and that's okay. For some of these people, having the gameplay interfere with the story'
And those people are the poor victims of a terrible cultural trend.
'Gameplay' and 'Story' aren't segregated. The best videogame story is told through both, at the same time with as little segregation as possible. 'Dialogue' and 'Combat' are 2 out of many facets of a CRPG's storytelling.
The best playthrough of Baldur's Gate is the one where Sarevok's death screen plays after a epic battle where he lives up to the promise of being really powerful. The one that actually lets you experience your villain's power - not the one that lets you steamroll through him just to see the dialogue.
Saying that some people just like the 'story' is like saying that there should be a skip button in Call of Duty because such silly sections of gameplay (shootings for Christ's sake) are not part of the story of modern soldiers.
Would I like that CRPGs in general introduced both a nice combat system and multiple ways to solve problems? Would I want to the option of creating a character that doesn't have to fight his way through every issue? Would I like if developers managed to tell a story that doesn't imply that you're 'Commander Sheppard', the guy who battled his way through the entire trilogy? That'd be rather interesting, it would be the correct, the RPG way of appeasing to people that don't like combat.
But that's for the future - we are talking about Baldur's Gate, a game that came out in 1998.
And Baldur's Gate is the story of a party of people that adventure through the Sword Coast solving most of their problems with their martial skills, just like your average heroic fantasy novel. If you don't want to experience combat, if you like to experience combat, then you don't like the story of Baldur's Gate told through the interactive medium of video games - you might as well as watch the dialogue from a walkthrough
'For some of these people, having the gameplay interfere with the story (such as by accidentally destroying your entire party with a wayward lightning bolt)'
Interference? Are you insane? You said it yourself:
"That's a damn terrifying spell, and not at all what I wanted to have happen."
That's a freaking Lightning Bolt! And you tell me that when the game lets you experience its power, its interfering with the story? Madness! I can't imagine that the game's story doesn't actually assume that you know a freaking Lightning Bolt is freaking terrifying or should be handled with care!
There are ways to wield the Lightning Bolt spell effectively without actually needing practice - elemental resistance, through potions, equipment or spells, and even full immunity with one of the globe spells.
I think this would be a useful feature. I'm clearly not the only person who thinks that. The fact that you don't want to use it doesn't mean that everyone who does want to use it is wrong, or spoiled, or an idiot, or somehow lesser than you. You say that gameplay and story aren't segregated, which is true - but for some people, a device to make the gameplay smoother, more intuitive, and (yes) even easier adds to the experience by allowing the player to immerse themselves in the characters of the story, rather than just the mechanics.
Anyway, I'm done. Again. Not sure why I came back - oh right, because I still think this would be a good feature to have, and I don't think it would take much to implement. The business reason for including it is clear; the business reason for not including it is stupid and elitist.
Which of them is going to sell more copies of the game?
This elitest attitude is pretty aggravating.
We are both on our high horses >.>
@Tanthalas
Elitist would be if I was actually advocating for something that only a small segment of the playerbase could accomplish - that isn't the case. Millions have played Baldur's Gate as it is and millions aren't a elite, they are a playerbase. Please, cut the populist arguments.
What I'm advocating here, choosing between the pause function and the spell targetting is actual modularity (advanced options), a choice between playstyles with different strategic potentials and points of view.
The difference between that and the difficulty slider is that a difficulty slider is something that you want to overcome from the start - ideally you'll become better as you play the game and higher difficulty settings will become less of a inconvenience to you - as opposed to modular difficulty - which shouldn't just be a choice of different levels of challenge, rather different types of game.
As it is, the thread's proposal is a simple change in difficulty levels, which isn't really a 'advanced option' rather something to be left on the difficulty slider. All I tried to do is to develop the discussion into something deeper.
Millions of players have played vanilla BG for years. By that logic BGEE shouldn't even exist.
And how do you know that a significant portion of the people that played BG wouldn't like such an option? I would. But here you are telling me that I'm wrong for wanting such an option. That's why I call it an elitest attitude. "I did it, my way is the best way". Well, I did it too, and I'd like the option because it would improve my enjoyment of BG.
But like I mentioned in my previous post, the worse part of this discussion is when you defend that there shouldn't even be an option to have spell targets. That's just baffling.
To answer @Bhryaen: don't get me wrong, I totally agree with what you've said. You CAN cast precise shots. With practice (and you don't even need that much), you can hit whatever you want, without measuring distances. Even in the second half of my first playthrough, or maybe earlier, with my sorcerer, I was able to judge the area my spell would cover, just by eyesight. I was launching fireballs and webs in a way that my companions werent affected, but the enemies fighting with them were.
BUT still, I made a mistake once or twice, albeit rarely. As everyone else I think. Still I was never mad at the system. I was mad at myself for making such a stupid mistake, but I accepted that I have to live with that, and (back to my previous comment) it actually enhanced the fun I had. I had to correct the mistake I've made, and yeah, thats how it works. Even if you practice a lot, you can still make mistakes! Playing with target reticles and such and quick loading all the time is just killing the whole game in my mind. Everyone makes mistakes. Sometimes you hit your companions with the fireball/dispel/web, and yeah, it sucks, but in a good way