I'm interested to see how many people actually care about real time with pause versus how many really don't want it in the game at all.

So, options are:

1. Turn Based Only - As is. Larian, don't waste time on RTWP at all. We want you to focus on other things. Even after release, we want you to focus on other things. Never add RTWP to this game.

2. Add RTWP asap as an optional gameplay. Larian, I REALLY care about RTWP so much I want you to include it even if it takes extra time to release the full game.

3. Add RTWP at some point maybe even after the game is released as an optional gameplay. Larian, I really want RTWP, but not at the expense of the game being released even later.

4. I don't care. Either way I'm fine. As long as the game isn't delayed to add RTWP, they can add it. I won't be upset. Also, I won't mind if they add it after release. Whatever. It's fine with me. Just don't implement it now if it messes with the release date.

Nah turn based only ... (opt 1)
Yes i mind even the option, i dont want Larian to spend time and resources on it. Nothing more, nothing less ...

This game was allways advertised as TB and every penny that this would cost would be better spend litteraly anywhere else. :-/

BOTH like Pathfinder Wotr.
That poll is confusing, wasn't sure how to vote. That second option, It looks like RtWp ONLY or is it ADD RtWp to Turn base (so Both)???

This would also let developers add minor/short interesting encounters; random stuff to flesh out the world. A natural fit for RtWp. Because having these kind of encounters with Turn Base only would make the game even more dreadfully slow.

Anyways something needs to be done to speed up Turn base mode...then I wouldnt mind just having it as is.

I prefer the game to do one thing, and do it well - one can't a make good RTwP and Turn-based system, at least one will suffer. So while I of course I don't mind an inferior mode being added for widening the audience (like in the case of PoE2) I do mind if it introduced issues to the "main" mode (like in PoE2).

I do like RTwP, but the only game that did it pretty well IMO had a dedicated system for it (PoE1&2). For BG3 I am happy for it to remain turn based, and I would rather see them take full advantage of it (add proper reactions!) then add RTwP on top. I only wish more RTwP RPGs were made to balance things out.

Voted for #4. I like turn based best, but I am fine with them adding RTwP as an option if it doesn’t cause issues.

I was really dissapointed when I learned that there would not have RTWP in the BG3 I was waiting for years.
But I like turn based game a lot too so in the end, I just don't care.

Add a convenient TB system to a RTWP game is not the same than adding RTWP to game designed to have tactical combats.
BG3 in RTWP would probably suck. I vote for 4.

Same, i firmly believe that updating an incorporated autopause system would have been the way to go. If done correctly it plays more or less the same but you don't have to suspend your disbelieve all the time at how stupid it is you can not have simultaneous actions that don't break the flow and look/feel more natural (who would not move or simple stand somewhere while being attacked or hit with something. To me it makes totally no sense to have: start of battle everybody freeze, from now on whoever got initiative get a free hit, while everyone has to keep standing still and it's your turn to hit an opponent who will gracefully stand still and patiently wait for your attack to hit or miss. But, not a hill I will die on as except for this, RtWP with autopaused tuned as it should, plays more or less the same. Except computers solved the issue of simultaneous actions and dice resolve already ages ago and I think it's moronic people prefer to pretend they're limited by the same artificial rules as TT. And on and on and on...

Turn-based is not a limitation - it’s gameplay style. Every game is an abstraction - or rather set of abstract game mechanics with a theme attached to them.

I guess it's up to subjective experience and expectations then. For me a game is a simulation, and fantasy crpg's are simulations of a fantasy world which are attractive forms of escapism where we can project our feelings and beliefs into. For a tabletop game, taking turns to act in the world makes sense because the tabletop technology doesn't really allow for a real time simulation, in computers however, this limitation is not there, not limited to pictures, maps, figures, and a GM, the world can now be animated and simply showed to the player. For me taking turns is either a necessity for non singleplayer (e.g. civ) or because of wanting to recreate a tabletop boardgame experience. Sadly I do not come to BG3 seeking a digitalised TT experience but rather a more technologically advance simulation of the D&D universe and it's basic rules/laws. But that's just my personal taste and I guess it's not the most commercially profitable to cater to

Edit: basically it's the whole 'chess pieces' not moving until they are told so that for me makes combat feel like an annoying minigame suspending the rules of reality and physics. Like how am I supposed to imagine a reason for all the goblins in the temple to stand still and not move during combat and taking turns in getting hit or trying to attack ? I simply can't come up with something except, it's an archaic remnant of when we were forced to take turn because we couldn't compute simulations with simultaneous actions going on. The fact that turns are linked to real time passing in TT further shows that turns are simply an abstraction to structure players interactions with and in the world and that in this world time is imagined as moving (e.g. potions and effects should be time based, not based on the 'pass turn' button given the technology allowing it and it being closer to the intended goal of simulating a world where we can act in as players). Anyway, this getting too philosophical again

Moving from RTWP to turn-based tactical combat is pretty much the only area where I feel Larian made a significant improvement over the original without losing anything in the trade-off.

I've never been a fan of that type of combat and even as a big fan of the old Infinity Engine games I always perceived as a compromise in otherwise excellent games, rather than an ideal solution.

I remember playing Temple of Elemental Evil back then and pretty much thinking "I wish we could have a big, expansive game like BG2 with this style of combat".

Due to the fact that it is impossible to go from tb to rtwp without creating a completely separate combat system (+ AI) or modification of the system to suit both modes results in a significant deterioration of tb, option 1 is the most sensible.

Well yeah, but it's built using very abstract mechanics. in RTwP you literally have a power to stop time from moving.

I am mostly just jesting. I get where you are coming from, even if I don't see it that way. In general I think I played enough games to just not buy "the immersion". I see systems, trigger points and artificiality in every game I play nowadays.

Pathfinder Wotr does it (both). Works pretty well. Yea its not incredibly perfect, nothing is.
Still its fun and can be fast/furious/risky when you want, or slow if you want to be tactical. Whatsmore you can switch system on the fly whenever you want; its part of the gameplay.

Encounters can be easily tweaked. Base game systems cannot.
I agree with a previous post that PURE turn base tactical system really gets me out of the game. All urgency and risk is gone. Its so incredibly slow, it feels almost too silly when you have TONS of enemies. Your too much IN CONTROL. I think thats great for difficult boss fights or major encounters...but is just overkill for regular mob encounters. Adding a bit of <CHAOS> with RtWp spices things up a bit and adds that bit of urgency and risk to the encounter.
Total control freaks really like Turn base...Its safe. Its comfortable. For me thats just too boring I like it wild and chaotic; I think its more surprising and fun.

As an example these first Imp encounters on the ship would work SO much better if it were RtWp! You get that urgency. Actually EVERY encounters on the ship should be RtWp; Its so incredibly silly taking your turn running towards the switch in the end...It stretches soooo long a sequence that should be fast and furious. You could risk it all by having 1 character RUN FOR IT in realtime while others protecting him and be done with it So much better pacing and you be like "is he gonna make it....". While in turn base you more like..." zzzz...oh, uh, my turn...easy as pie", I have calculated the trajectory, speed, x+y (cos5)2= SUCCESS!!

Anyways, too bad we can't have both for BG3.

I agree with Tuco that the change from RTwP to turn-based was for the better.

I could never really figure out what was going on in BG1 combats. Characters tended to clump together, I wasn't sure what the visual effects meant and I always felt like someone in the party was doing nothing because they were done casting their spell, or their target was dead or some other reason. In the end, I'd tap spacebar compulsively, effectively pausing twice every in-game second just to check that my party wasn't about to die out of nowhere.

Turn based combat provides legibility and focus. Those make for memorable moments which can link together to form a compelling combat narrative. He hit me so I shoved him so his pal threw a firebomb so I Misty Stepped. It's been a while since I last played BG1, but I don't recall having a fight that didn't go like: "enemies showed up so we all got into a sweaty pile to see who would drop dead first."

btw I also like Turn base. I wish we could have both.
What you mentioned is precisely why I love RTwP! That chaotic nature you CAN have. But also that total control that you CAN have. You only mentioned the chaos you created or don't understand.
Not sure what you did not understand about the system...You can position your party members, you have spells, abilities, pre-casting, you can be as strategic as you wish BUT there is this random element that can make it OH SHIT!?! It can be as fast or as slow as you make it.

In the end what I think BG3 needs is a FASTER turn base system. You can be on your AAA game, combat still drags on forever...

I can definitely see the appeal in chaos. I enjoy it myself if I understand the tools at my disposal to react to changing circumstances. However, BG1 never made me feel like I could find a clever way out of an unexpected corner. It was more along the lines of "well, someone did something and now Imoen is dead."

I was 12 and new to RPGs and DnD and had no grasp of the systems. (This is the first I've ever heard of pre-casting.) Sure you can pause, but it's not easy to figure out the link between cause and effect when everything happens all at once.

We agree there! I assume AI efficiency is going to be the key. Judging by DoS2, I believe Larian have what it takes to make the AI both quick and clever.

Turn based only. Add RTwP would limit the game and would require to remove features to accommodate the play style while forcing a pitiful turn based mode. If someone wants RTwP they can play pathfinder.

1) BG3 and TB didn't seem to match.

TB is a gameplay interesting with fights which are set for it with a limited number of opponents.
The problem is with BG3 taht you can have to deal with tons of opponents and so it became a real pain.

I will never forget my fight against all the goblins village. It was looooooooooooooooooooong and borinnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnng.
I had my team on a high ground and I just shot them and shove the ones who succeed at climbing the ladder. There was 10 ? 15 ennemies ? Way too much.

So if TB is excellent in DD2 or Fire emblem or expedition vikings or a lot of games, it feels like BG3 isn't fit for it, at least not for every fights.

2) RtwP isn't strategic ?

I don't get this point. Why it would or why it was no strategic in the first place ? I did a lot of fights in BG2 and 3, or POE, or Pathinfder, or tyranny and it was never fights where I was juste watching and waiting for the end. You have to manage your fight, stay focus to see the moves or incantations from the ennemies and act accordingly. I don't understand why it would be less strategic than TB.
I remembered having played Baldur's Gate Trilogy with mod which enhanced the difficulty of the game. It was damn challenging and strategic.
Anyway, people can prefer TB, but, for sure,RtwP is strategic. Just in a different way.
(If I would criticize TB I could say that you have often like 4-5 turns in your mind already set and so you are just waiting for the fight to go without any surprise or really interest since you already anticipate it.)

3) It should be the two. It's doable, it have been done and it's what they should have done.
Why not doing something people want if you can when it's not this hard or expensive to do ?
I don't appreciate this behaviour. Just saying.

At the end, I would like to have RtwP for the thrill (as someone epxlained) but I would be fine if it's just a GOOD TB. Problem is, BG3 haven't actually a good system of fighting.

So you like it more in turn based where time stops moving arbitrarily for all but one character at the time? I'm jesting too and I guess my tastes are outdated or don't fit the BG brand as much as I hoped but to me playing this in turn based is as if upon entering combat everyone somehow became a mage and they all cast timestop and their spells resolved consecutively. It's actually funny how weird it is to think how 'turn based' resembles how BG implemented timestop spells where you were either frozen yourself or froze everyone else and forced them to 'undergo your turn' without being able to do anything (obviously after the spell's duration rtwp chaos explodes again). I wonder if it's the absence of simultaneous action that bothers me in TB and what could be a way to amend this without going to Rtwp

As much as I'd love RTwP for a game scratching many of the similar itches BG3 leans toward doing for me, D&D 5e is turnbased. There's enough things to criticise for straying from RAW already, that'd be the biggest. (And it'd require a complete remake of the game on a fundamental level) so it just won't happen IMO.

At best some polish and iteration on certain encounters, such as the goblin village, needs to be made to protect from overly insane combat rosters.

I can accept your overall point, but this specific bit really bothers me (including when others keep saying this same thing). D&D 2e and 3e were TB too, and yet we got the IE games and the NwN games where RTwP worked totally fine. So this argument just doesn't wash.

Pathfinder is also turnbased -> yet P:Km and WotR are RTwP.

Something I haven't seen mentioned (apologies if I missed it) is that P:Km began as a RTwP game; TB was only added later. I'm not sure how much more difficult it'd be to add a RTwP mode onto TB game, but I could imagine it being more difficult.

Then complaining about straying from the ruleset it insists to inherit is hypocritical.

Edit: Not saying you are. Just that referring to those games as good interpretations of their ruleset at the time is inaccurate. If you change something that fundamentally changes how the game is played, then it's not an accurate translation. So making BG3 RTwP is one of the biggest deviations from 5e that could be made.

Whether it's better or worse is irrelevant.

I bet it would be more difficult. The AI itself would probably have to be rewritten as it would be moderately playable with the current one. In the case of RTWP, AI has to be relatively stupid for the player to have any chance.
Even with pathfinder how it works. The AI in the game is downright dumb, instead the opponents have extremely high stats. Blackwater before nerfs is probably one of the best-known examples.

Yes this is correct. I have been quite open about my personal views against D&D rules and mechanics, no matter its edition. And I have also been clear that I for one do agree with and support Larian's deviations from strict 5e adherence when and where it makes sense to me. This is the one big area in which I deviate from my fellow critics of BG3.

Their are better games to do speed runs on.

Besides...Sword Coast Legends tried and failed.

"D&D 5e is turnbased"

Well. it's an easy fact to state but it's not enough to understand what D&D is about. It's, from my point of view, veryyyy irrelevant.

Inded, D&D is a game created for people who was seeking adventures in fantasy worlds. They assemble in some caves, sometimes they disguise as the heroes they wanna be and they tried their best to immerse themselves in their adventures...

SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO D&D is about reduce the gap between the gamers and their wonderfull adventures in fantasy world. Their creator tried their best to immerse the gamers and I am sure that, if they could, they would have send them in their world like in "SAO" or all this webtoons talking about people in VR fantasy world.

What I mean is, they don't do D&D Turn-based because it was the best choice to immerse themselves. They choose turn-based cause it was the best choice REGARDING THEIR POSSIBILTY to immerse themselves !

So yeah D&D, a paper game, is turn-based because no one find how to do a real-time roleplay.

But, what is wonderfull is that with computer it's possible ! We can do it. BG1 and BG2 did it. Pathfinder did it. A lot of games did it.
And it's far more immersive to play a real-time fight than a turn-based one.

Turn-based game are good, this is not the question. They are good, but they are not the best choice if you want to respect the spirit of D&D.

More, if you want to stick with the "D&D5 is turnbased", so you have to had "it's paper game" and "it's all about imagination and narrative so drop the graphics" and maybe people should play it with a pen and... we could find tons of others examples which would be completely irrelevant.

The point of doing a D&D video game is to go further than the original system. If you don't want to change it... just sell board game and leave the video game for people who actually want to enhanced the system without hiding behind a "fact" as simple as "it was like this and that's all" to justify their personnal choice.

I tried BG3 openminded, I didn't agree with the Turn-based choice but as a player of a lot of them (DD, HOMM, KB, Waste, etc) I thougth, let's try.
Si I tried and it didn't keep his promise.
Firstly because the fighting system is far from equilibrate.
Secondly because it didn't respond to the spirit of BG and D&D.
Turn-based can be really good, but here it is not.

The fights in BG was intense, fast and furious. D&D is about adventure, amazement, thrill and excitement.
This is not what TB delivers. TB is kasparovly fun as long as it's balanced and without 15+ opponents, it's a nice, peacefull and quiet travel through a pleasnt journey. SO,this is fun but this is not BG fun.

Denying it means you don't understand what BG was.


Larian decided to go TB, it's their choice. It wasn't a necessity, it wasn't inevitable, it wasn't "for the best". It was because they can't stop themselves to force their Divinity model in a big licence.
It had nothing to do with D&D in first place. It just shows a kind of stubborness and excessive pride, from my point of view, and a misunderstanding (or a not-caring) of BG-licence.

So saying "D&D is turnbased" as an absolute argument to justify Larian's choice is irrelevant in a lot of ways.
It looks like a way to try to close a debate Larian can't win without admitting they don't understand or give a care about BG-spirit in the first place.

Because, at the end, when the game will be released and people will play it and it will be a success, it will ever be seen has à "Divinie Divinity : Baldur's Gate Cosplay".

But I'll play the game probably and even I will enjoy it at some point. Nevertheless, as huge as its success will be, intellectually, from a creative point of view, it will ever be a fail.

As this poll as few meaning since lots of BG fans leaved the forum a long time ago. It's one thing to see his favorite licence being used as a springboard to promote the gameplay of a studio, it's another one to have to listen people trying to convince you it's for the best interest of your favorite licence instead of admitting their greed.


PS: for people saying BG1 and 2 fights was messy and all. I don't really get it. I'm not a hardcore gamer, but I ever understand what was happening, which spell was summoned, who was hitting who... It was pretty clear from my point of view, fun to watch and interesting to play since there was this micromanagement with the thrill.
More, there was mod to level up the difficulty, making fights harder and really challenging at some point. You had to think carefully how you engaged them and you had to be watchful to take the right decision during the fights. It was fun.

After playing close to 100 hrs when EA was first released. Real time for sure. The rounds are so slow and boring. IMO, I will still play of course I just like a faster style game, oh and we/I run our table top games fast as well with house rules. Keeping the game flowing is important to me and my group.

To quote Red Letter Media (youtube channel on movie reviews etc...)
There was this incredible movie called Stand by Me (1986)...I think its the perfect allegory of so many modern <reboots>. Including games.
At this point <BG3> is a dead corps. Zero respect to the license or what it was. Like Star trek reboots and the new horrendous shows based on it. Like Star wars.

Out of morbid curiosity I took the journey in order to see that corpse, when I saw it I was appalled, shocked to what was done to it.
Now I can only move on, just saddened. But stronger and hopeful that something NEW and ORIGINAL will be created. Not just for the marketing $$$.

Glad people love it, more power to you. I was scammed into thinking it was a Baldur's Gate game.

This is a silly conversation. I mean, the game is TB, so what's the point of a million threads about RTWP? This is not going to change and frankly for the style and pace of the game there is no reason it should. Turn-based is a perfect fit for the way this game is structured. Multiplayer also works a LOT better with a turn based approach.

Bg1 and bg2 had multiplayer, but it was not a great system. Bg3 multiplayer is legit a LOT of fun. I am taking a break for a bit after 1,200 hours played - because Elden Ring - but I look forward to coming back to a finished game.

Ok back to Elden Ring - FromSoft has officially made my list of "awesome game studios that love gaming", next to Larian.

Anyway please finish game. Want play.

I must disagree here. Not with the middle part - I don't think Larian cares for continuing BG legacy. But unlike the films and IP you mention I do think they have artistic merit. Even though not my favourite of "cRPG renessaince" D:OS1, alongside with Disco Elysium, IMO they have been new two genuinely fresh entries into the genre, with potential to expand cRPG into new directions. I just wish Larian would continue to do their own thing, without skinning a classic IP and wearing its skin for marketing purposes.


Hopefuly, now when they achieved midespread acclaim, they won't follow ER with their own version of Cyberpunk77.

Wow, wow, wow, wow, woooow !
No, it's absolutely not "perfeclty fit" and it's one of the main reason TB seems to be so forced into it.

Expedition : vikings or expedition : rome are "perfectly fit" for TB. They have been created and thougth around this concept.
Lot of games have been thougth this way (numenera, DD, etc)

BG3 wasn't.
One example : fighting in the goblin's village, against 15-20 goblins it's DAMN BORING AND LONG AND NOT FUN. And that's the perfect proof that this game isn't structured for TB cause there is no game created with the ambition to have "boring, long and not fun fights".


Larian simply decided "we did TB, we'll do TB, no matter the subject, we'll crush it and put our TB in it. We'll take the licence, we'll take the D&D system and we are going to put OUR TB with OUR CATNIP/BARREL/SHOVE SYSTEM in it because we are the beeeeeeeeeest and there is nothing over TBBBBBBBBBBB and we don't give a crap about the licence we get !!!!!). I'm barely exaggerating.

IMO, this is pure arrogance.

Maybe I’m in the minority but I like the big fights in BG3 with lots of opponents. I don’t find them boring. It usually requires some strategy to deal with that many enemies. I genuinely enjoy the combat sections in this game and sometimes even initiate combat with random NPCs if I’m bored lol. I’d actually love some kind of battle game mode where you could just select a bunch of enemies and a location and fight them.

+1

Larian creates & gained their fame with TB games. D&D 5e rules are TB. So yes, BG3 being turn-based should be a perfect fit for both Larian and BG3.

The problem is that Larian doesn't seem to fully understand the rules of D&D 5e and/or that they expect players to shorten combats via use of cheese (or that Larian thinks that long combats are fun). This would STILL be a problem if Larian implemented RtwP, but probably be even worse because now Larian would have to create an entire RtwP system, adding many new possibilities for poor implementation.

mrfuji3, I am not expecting anything from Larian at this point. I did, I really genuinely did.
D&D is TB, I already explain my point of view avout this statement.
Curiously, BG was RTwP and D&D at the same time. So, nothing impossible here. Again, it's about will and I'm ok with that as long people don't try to persuade me it was inevitable and for the best.



QUOTE :
" I could never really figure out what was going on in BG1 combats. Characters tended to clump together, I wasn't sure what the visual effects meant and I always felt like someone in the party was doing nothing because they were done casting their spell, or their target was dead or some other reason. In the end, I'd tap spacebar compulsively, effectively pausing twice every in-game second just to check that my party wasn't about to die out of nowhere.

Turn based combat provides legibility and focus. Those make for memorable moments which can link together to form a compelling combat narrative. He hit me so I shoved him so his pal threw a firebomb so I Misty Stepped. It's been a while since I last played BG1, but I don't recall having a fight that didn't go like: "enemies showed up so we all got into a sweaty pile to see who would drop dead first." "



I... don't know how to react because I harldy understand. I can still clearly remember the visual effect of a lot of spell from BG1 and 2. Sometimes just seeing the incantation was enough to determinate what a wizard was going to cast. So I can't help bu think that you may have not play a lot to BG to be unable to read the fights. of cour,se sometimes, we had to tap spacebar compulsively, it was just how intense the fights was. Focus on the cast from a lich or the breath of a dragon. Look at this thug trying to go for my wizards or this guy who jsut disappeared after drinking a potion. It may not be perfect but I can't get how the fights would have been impossible "to figure out".
I mean, I'm not a hardcore gamer and I get it.

About your memories of BG... Again, can't say much. Personnaly, I have a lot of memories from epic fights. Sometimes I had this guy running in circle to avoid being killed, sometimes it was this dragon surrounded by all of my invocation just to keep him busy and focus to the other side of the room. There was this lich which was a damn pain in the ass. All this bowman, I had to deal with my thief so they wont shut down my wizards. The giants, the drows, the illithids.
There was this fight when I leave the Nashkel's Mines, unexpected, intense. I was exhausted since I didn't try to sleep surrounded by the kobolds, so I had to deal with this mercenaries with low spells. Good position, good focus, good used of spell and abilities and just a bit of luck and we overcame it !
I can rememer this first assassin, the demogorgon, irenicus, the rats, the spiders ! and so much more !


My memories from BG3 ?

Of course there was some great times and nice fights (although...) but most of them wasn't really worth remembering or not in the good way.

" I shoved him, so he came to me, so I shoved him, so he came to me, so I shoved him, so he died."
and its variation
" He shoved me, I shoved him, He shoved me, I shoved him."
or this one
" He shoved me, so I died"
but, ok it's not all about shove (or barrel...) there are all this fights...
" Ho a minotaur ! a fun fight! No, wait, I'm dead."
" Ho, two red hat ! We are 4 guy surviving intense crash, should be fine. Ho wait, they rape me, let me try again.... I just climb to the higher place of this witch's place and shove and send arrows."
Better !
I fight minthara ! it was like....
"she killed my friend. I made him stand up. She killed him again. I made him stand up again. Ho ! She killed him again! No problem... I'm gonna make him stand again. But wait... Whaaat is she doiiiiiiing!!! killing him again !!! No probelm, I made him stand again ! And I will win cause I have this girl dealing 1-2 damages from the back. Just need to be patient, 30 minutes shoudl be enough.
I fights somes duergars too, really funny.
"Hello boss, you wanna fight ? What ? you have people popping from everywhere in the high ? Ho... and they shove half of my team dead in one round ?
Hmmmmm.... let's reload it.
I placed my team, I tried, I reloaded and reloaded until... I win the shove contest being the first doing it !
What a wonderful fight. All this magics, this skills, this tricks, just to end up with a lame "shove".

I feel sorry because I enjoyed DD and DD2, I enjoyed lot of games in TB, I'm actually enjoying Expedition : Rome TB and I was full of hope to enjoy BG3 TB when I tried it, but what they did ? This is not good job.

Haha, yeah I always felt like I was playing some version of Rock-em-sock-em robots with 6 players. It was SO much harder to set up complex coordinated maneuvers with the weird stuttering pause and then watch nothing turn out correctly methodology behind RTWP.

On top of that there was way more ways to cheese the AI, like have dangerous foes run in circles around a "locked" on aggro target while you plink away at them (like Drizzit). Combat never felt satisfyingly in any kind of intellectual or tactical capacity.

Combat was more like two people turning hoses on each other to fight, except one is an idiot and easily tricked.

Yeah, CD Project Red is off the list after that whole Cyberpunk debacle.

I mean FromSoft just rolled up and showed everyone you don't have to create a game that appeals to the lowest common denominator and that people will legitimately enjoy a challenging experience with a good story and no p2w or loot boxes or any other crap.

It's - of course- up to us, the fans and gamers to hold them to account and keep them honest with constructive feedback. Nothing lasts forever, and I am sure EA is already offering them bucketloads of money to buy them out and ruin their IP's.

Sure. D&D games can work perfectly well as RtwP (though I personally dislike that gameplay style). Bg1&2, Pathfinder games, etc are all extremely successful examples, so it's clearly not impossible.

For Larian specifically though, at this moment in their company, I'd say it was inevitable that they'd make BG3 a TB game. If anyone is to blame for BG3 being TB, it's WotC for choosing Larian.
But obviously Larian's current implementation of D&D 5e has a lot of problems, problems which were neither inevitable or for the best. And for that we can definitely blame Larian.

I totally agree !

From my point of view, Obsidian would have been a clever choice since PoE already feel a little like BG.

Blackheifer, I can't get how you play BG 1and especially 2 until the end if you just let your party rush in ?
You didn't used spell ? You never dissipate magic defenses of a lich or extra wizard ?
I can't imagine how someone could won the game without thinking some fights.
Saying BG1 and 2 was like looking at a fight of orcs and soldiers in warcraft 3 is not serious.

You had to think carefully where and when used some spells. stun people, slow some others, haste yours, protect them, etc etc.
There was a lot of spells and skills.

But, please, tell me how you beat the demogorgo for example. I'll be glad to learn it.

PS: Drizz't was known to be a sort of easter egg and funny (still hard) to fight. Speaking abotu cheesy fight in BG 1 and 2 but playing BG3.... ha ha ?

My issue with the whole RTwP and TB thing is the fact that this is a game that is trying (And ho boy is it) to be a 5e game.
5e is, in my opinion impossible to turn into a RTwP video game. You have so many context sensitive abilities and actions that trying to convert them all into Real Time would either require them to all be gutted, changed to be unrecognizable, or straight up removed.
I don't see how you can have Bonus Actions in RTwP or even the proper reactions that 5e requires. (Smite, Counterspell, Class abilities, etc.)


This comes back to Larian adding a lot of strange things to 5e in general. Shove being what it is as well as all their explosive barrels. I feel if they would tune back all the exploits it would be more memorable.

I fully admit to never have played BG1/2, as the RTwP never really appealed to me, nor did 2e D&D. (THAC0, Why do I want my stats to be high to have a low or negative number? What is this madness?) That and it was a visual mess when I tried to play Planescape Torment. It was not very clear what was going on in combat.

And yet we are stuck with a crap TB mode in Owlcat's PF games that still doesn't play like pathfinder does.

How don't the TB modes in Owlcat's games play like pathfinder? The vast majority of mechanics seemed to work perfectly fine in TB; maybe the enemy AI wasn't perfect but I wouldn't say that made the mode "crap."

Also, the TB modes are optional - the default (reflecting the way the game is designed to be played) is RtwP. So yes, a lot of the fights can take forever in TB because they're balanced for RtwP. But the option to play in TB enables us to make precise tactical actions against hard enemies, then switch to RtwP for easy encounters, which is very nice imo.

He speaks the truth !

Takes a bite of the steak...chew, chew, chew...one second please.

Sip, wipes mouth...chew, chew, chew.

Mmmm....chew, chew, chew...pause...swallow.

I'm sorry, "What was that?".

Oh yes...turn based is the best thing to happen to D&D since SSI.


Now perhaps even more stealthy investigation and puzzles outside of combat at full speed (or not...you missed something!).

Turn base needs a major speed boost for <minor> encounters OR if Larian implements <lore friendly interesting and unique random world battles based on areas, time of day etc...> aka : random encounters. To flesh out that incredibly static time stopped world they created (borderline copy pasted from DOS2...).

It feels like pre-game events Irenicus (BG2) created this <pocket plane> world Faerun within Faerun for his amusement and we are his prisoners in this time stopped artificial world (BG3) trying to harness and understand the powers of the mindflayers...

WHOA,WHOA there, this thread is NOT about Unreal Engine 5.x or about RTwP, don't hijack my thread!

This discussion is about Larian Studios expanding their horizons with the next game they choose to make!
Meaning, should they make a open world RPG or even a Open World RPG with at worst, TB fights.
Get out of this "isometric" lane that they have been in since D:OS 1.

As I said two pages ago, it may be a risk, it may be that they don't want to take any RISK, just do the same style of game play, I don't know but it benefits us gamer's to have Developers take risks.

What kind of game should they try and get, continue with their own IP (DOS world) or acquire something new.
Seems like WoTC are having some licensing issues atm, this wont effect BG3 but it may if Larian tries to do another game based on their IP.

And Unreal Engine only comes to mind is if they do decide to do something different , they probably will need to ditch their current game engine and they are not big enough/financially to develop their own engine (no way).

@hitmac lol I think you are in a wrong thread. Who is hijacking now?

Honestly, if Larian would do their RTwP, like they do the exploration it would be pretty unplayable. You would press pause, and not everyone would stop moving, because of “reasons”

I love the combat in BG3. It actually FEELS like a D&D session with friends. It's a nice touch, and it's really fun. I played the first two Baldur's Gate games when I was a teenager in the late 90s and early 2000s, and I absolutely adore them. However, change can be a very good thing. This is a change that I really like and I wouldn't want Larian to waste any time or resources on a RTWP feature.

Wrong thread there buddy

My apologies!

Let me clear something up, I simply didn't find Bg1 or 2 challenging in any way. I did all of those things, and I avoided taking advantage of the poor RTWP system and its shortcomings. I turned off the AI, I set up maneuvers, and summons, and spells and so forth but ultimately the combat was a "thing to get through" that didn't provide any real challenge.

BG3 on the other hand is a much harder game, with a steep learning curve. It has more complex systems and allows for strategic encounters. At close to 1,800 hours all-told I have my own Discord dedicated to it with some of the best players and have trained dozens of new players on the mechanics. It worries me significantly how some gamers are going to learn how to play this game, and I hope Larian allows for a lower difficulty setting to help ease people into it. People who are not detail oriented are going to have a hard time.

However, all of that is incidental to the fact that:

1. Larian has clearly stated their position on TB and RtwP
2. The community has voted with a more than comfortable majority supporting JUST TB.


And yet these discussions keep happening. It seems an inability to accept the results and move on - preferably to other games that support what you guys are looking for. I would say its a kind of madness organized around the idea of "I want to make sure everyone knows how much I hate this game, so I am not going to move on". Therapy can help, or maybe Ayuasca.

To be fair, I think this thread was accidentally necro-ed and previously hadn’t been updated since May last year, which also seems to be the last time someone posted in the RtwP mega thread. I’m sure that the topic has reared its head on more than one occasion since, but it feels like most people have indeed accepted the situation and moved on.

(I also find BG3 combat much more interesting and strategic than that of the previous BG games, btw.)

I agree - especially compared to something like Pathfinder games, BG1&2 were a cake walk. 2e was also not very complex. Yes there were a lot of spells, but really that's all that was to it. Out of party of 6 maybe 2-3 characters required attention. I have managed to beat the game with little to no understanding of underying mechanics - and yeah, with that some fights took quite a bit of trial and error - some cheese, some experimentiation and some RNG luck. If one has a decent grasp on the mechanics though, BG1&2 become rather straightforward.

I definitely see more potential in BG3 combat, as long as they get rid of the "cheese" - for not it is a mixed bag for me. Some encounters I enjoy, other annoy me, and my enjoyment is always throttled by the knowledge that I can steam roll through any encounter if I stop handicapping myself.

Seems to me like a strawman to be comparing the old BG games to something being made today. The more appropriate comparisons would be the RTwP combat of Pathfinder to the TB combat of BG3. And for me, although I am yet to play BG3 and only have streams of others' games as my reference, the RTwP combat of the Pathfinder games is waaaaaaaaay better than BG3. Now, I do think there is way too much combat in WotR at the expense of other aspects of a cRPG, but that's a separate issue. The combat itself of WotR, in RTwP, is just soooooo awesomely fun, interesting, and challenging, compared with the utterly boring and tedious combat of BG3.

I am not sure what you mean by that - the biggest difference between 2000s and now is eyecandy, and in that regards Pathfinder doesn't present itself that much better than BG1&2. Combat wise the games aren't actually that different. I can't really think of anything Pathfinder had, that BG1&2 didn't (more complex ruleset of course, but I don't think that's what we are discussing).

Well for me it is a big part (though perhaps not all of it). I hated 2e and considered it to be horribly boring and simplistic in every way, including of course combat. By contrast I love 3.5e and consider 3.5e combat to be both challenging and fun at the same time. But it's not just that. Having it be RT(wP) makes it so very dynamic, realistic, and way more challenging than TB combat. This is why combat in WotR is truly a joy for me, so long as I'm not fighting through a million demons in an entire city.

In fact, if there is just one thing Larian could do to make BG3 a significantly better and more fun game for me, it would be if they gave me an auto-resolve option for all combats. A lesser but still acceptable alternative would be to allow me to change the difficulty settings anytime anywhere, and give me a hyper-easy combat difficulty setting, so that I can breeze through all combats quickly and not be bogged down in the tiresome tedium of BG3 combat.

Personally I like turn based only. I am happy if it stays that way.

However, if it could be added eventually (without delaying the release) so that others might enjoy it, I am fine with that. I wouldn't use it, but the more people who like and enjoy the game, the better.

Not trying to be dismissive of people who disagree with my position, but it really seems like with a sample of almost 100 people, a supermajority supports turn-based only. A fifth of players want to see RTwP at some point. That's not a lot. Now, that may not be representative of the whole player population (I actually think it would be higher for turn-based for casual Larian fans), but it is convincing for me.

A big complaint I saw for the Pathfinder turn-based mode is that long battles become REALLY long and REALLY boring. A game built around RTwP can be fundamentally different in structure from a game built for turn-based.

He does.
But I think Larian doesn't want easy encounters. In an ideal turn-based game, every combat encounter should require enough thought and strategizing to warrant the sole use of turn-based.

So either Larian ups the difficulty of the encounters or gives RTwP for easy encounters? I'd prefer bigger, harder encounters.

/looks at Shove and Barrels in Pockets

Larian doesn't have history of caring about balance either. This leads to a problematic situation Josh Sawyer described in his post about balance in single player RPGs.
https://www.tumblr.com/jesawyer/161302725596/balance-in-single-player-crpgs

If certain options are too powerful you either:
1) design with them in mind, meaning other choices become non-viable limiting actual player choice and introducing trap choices

2) you don't design for them, and as such players who make those choices can have unengagingly easy experience.

For me in games without pvp balance is good when it makes all classes viable and fun but doesn’t make everything the same. I like having some fun powers and some areas a class excels at. Things can be too balanced, which to me makes the combat not fun.

I would invite you guys to check out Temple of Elemental Evil by Troika games plus the 20 year fanbase patches. If you want to compare Bg3 to something from the past ToE is an incredible, challenging game with a LOT of combat. It is based on the 2e system and is 100% Turn Based only. It is a very challenging game.

I actually really hope that ToE can one day be re-created in the BG3 engine. Heaven. ToE is one of those amazing games that is a cult classic with a dedicated group of people who still support it.

I'm torn. There's the part of me that wants everyone to get what they want and that says "sure put in RtwP for the fans even if I'll never use it"!

The other part of me thinks that there are soo many other things that should be done instead. If you are going to dive into the guts of the engine I think the chain system would need to be the priority. And that assumes that engine changes would not come at the cost of the story.

I never gave it a decent shake, and I meant to return to it someday. From what I remember ToEE used 3.5 edition though.

Personally, my favourite real-time D&D adaptation was IWD2 - it couldn’t quite implement 3rd edition in the Infinity Engine, so it went for something between 2&3. 3rd edition (same with Pathfinder) is great for single character builds, but I find it too tedious to manage, remember and comprehend party of 6-10ish characters.

Exactly. Do we want RTWP or:

GM Mode, DLC, additional Races, Bug Fixes, subclasses, more spells, character save and export, Bug Fixes, more DLC, UI Improvements, Higher levels and Bug fixes.

This is a good point. I got sick of barrel cheesing in DOS2, so I guess my brain edits barrels out of Larian games automatically. My first run on DOS2 there's a spot in the Blackpits with a difficult fight for low-levels except you can just scatter barrels around and nuke from a distance. Second time around, ignored every barrel everywhere. Now I they don't exist to me.

I played Pathfinder and can point to one or two fights that I know would make me agree with this point of view. However, I think that if the game had been designed for TB only, they would have re-thought those battles. So, not to say that TB HAS to be a negative. but it would probably inform certain other game play decisions.

I don't (thus far) see anything that would fall into that category. But I haven't seen very much of the game so far. Are there any HUGE multi-wave battles? Are they presented without opportunity to pause? If not, I can't see this being a major issue.

Again, I agree with your point of view. I wouldn't use TBwP myself (unless there was a VERY compelling reason to do so). Just playing devil's advocate. But ultimately, I suspect that there aren't enough players clamoring for it to make it worth the effort.

of course you can have dnd game in rtwp could be better or worse depaning on how it would be made. Never use Pathfinder as an example that game and it's mode is not even real RTwp... and it's bad. IF you going to use examples at least use good ones like Dragon age origins for a base to build from.

Not like it's worth going into it because it doesn't matter at this point and for this game at all.

Yeah, make it more like Neverwinter Nights... Wait...

RTWP all day every day, its a staple of the series and should be MANDATORY to put it in, or at the very least an option to use so I don't have to deal with that garbage turn based combat. Its the very reason I just could not play more than an hour of DOS1 and 2 because I was bored out of my skull and literally fell asleep in my chair at one point because the gameplay was interrupted because I had to take 20 minutes to kill some rando enemies when if it was RTWP I could do it in about 30 seconds. Just look at the recent Pathfinder games if you want an example of RTWP done and done well as those games are fun, engaging and have excellent gameplay flow.

Granted the turn based emulates a table top game very well, but the thing is I don't want a random encounter to take a half hour in a video game where pacing and flow is key, while table top is meant to be more slower and methodical.

Yes this is a necro but god dammit turn based just pisses me off like you wouldn't believe, and felt like I got conned when I bought the DOS games.

Yes but RTWP ruins Multiplayer. BG3 multiplayer is amazing. Bg1-2 Multiplayer was abysmal.

With multiplayer you really can only do Real time (Neverwinter Nights 1 and 2) or Turn based (Bg3, Temple of Elemental Evil).

Look, and there is a game for you as you mentioned. Pathfinder is a single player experience and its RTWP. Its Turn based mode is dogshit and it doesn't do multiplayer. So not my cup of tea, but you have fun.

Original BG was with RTwP and I'd love to see in third game too. I just played Pathfinder and it worked as a charm! If you read this Larian, please put the option into the game. Much love and thank you for your effort.

Though I love RTwP, the way every encounter in BG3 are <staged> and designed the same like a final fantasy tactics game, its just impossible at this point to have both. Whats more there are not even random encounters. Larian could of designed something interesting there...mixing fast paced/urgent RTwP elements for random or minor encounters...and go full on tactical mode for major/big encounters to make the game less of a <map encounter A, B, C, D etc...> bore and flesh out the world/immersion a bit more, and tie its RTwP roots to the BG franchise.

In the end the game encounters plays out exactly like DOS1. Like it or not WoTr at least gives you the option to do both, and both work pretty well depending on the situation. Now if you want to go 100% turn base, Solasta is so much more in-depth, and it works there without being too boring.

Yup, the TB combat system of BG3 is the one thing I don't like about the game that I have come to terms with and accepted as something I have to live with. So if everything else on my list of shortcomings in the game get addressed, I'll be okay with the TB combat, as crappy as it is.

I really don't see the point of a D&D game without multiplayer - which is what every person asking for RTWP is really asking for. I'm not saying single player doesn't have value, it's just that without multiplayer it feels like you are throwing the game onto a bonfire where it doesn't have longevity.

Neverwinter Nights is still used as a platform for D&D - and 21 years later it's still good. I played it myself, online (mostly PvP arenas), for years. It was the online capability that has kept it relevant over the years.

What we DON'T have is a similar platform that is turn based. BG3 may become the game of the decade if Larian keeps supporting and expanding it's multiplayer capability. Solasta just doesn't cut it, neither does Tailspire (if that ever leaves EA, maybe) but it barely works as is and doesn't have the capability of BG3.

Anyway, I will keep trying to be the voice for multiplayer on this forum - which is severely underrepresented in my opinion. I think a lot of people offer their opinions without a thought to how it affects multiplayer.

Nope. I see it exactly the opposite way. TT gaming is what's for MP, and the computer medium is all about replacing the nuisance of having to play with other people and being able to play a game by yourself. Therefore for me, ALL computer games should be SP, with MP added on in some of those games if it makes sense and can be technically done. But SP should be the focus - ALWAYS.

Thankfully, several other major RPG developers, Bethesda, Bioware, CDPR, Obsidian, inXile, have all in recent years come to exactly this same conclusion, and have shifted their focus (at least for RPGs) to SP at the expense of MP.

I think calling it a nuisance is very unfortunate and it would go a long way towards addressing the toxicity in the gaming community if more people engaged in more small-group - long-term -multiplayer games as it would help people train in socialization.

Granted not all multiplayer is healthy, especially the huge MMO's that don't create infrastructure for communities to develop or the giant shooter platforms where anonymity thrives. Generally speaking Isolation is bad, and speaking for the US, we have a huge problem with it and it's leading to a lot of negative mental health outcomes.

The last MMO that went out of it's way to create solid community infrastructure was Vanilla WoW - they then decided to go in the opposite direction and wrecked it for the $$.

Anyway, I will continue to be an advocate for what Larian is doing in the multiplayer space and make sure I am helping to build a space for that sort of thing with my Discord.

Huh, I’ll admit that seems an unwarrantedly strong statement to me. I don’t see why all computer games (or even all cRPGs) should be one thing or another. Yes, cRPGs are a fantastic resource for those who don’t have others to play with or don’t want to play with them (both those things apply to me!), but I can also see they’re potentially great at connecting people who do want to play with others across the globe and giving them a fun social experience. Sure, those people could play TTRPGs as well, but so what? There are many reasons I can see why someone might not want to play a TTRPG but would want to play a multiplayer cRPG, or might want to do both at different times as they scratch slightly different itches.

Because personally I have almost no interest in multiplayer gaming, I’m always happy when games that prioritise the single player experience come out. And a bit grumpy when a studio whose output I often enjoy, like BioWare, spend time on developing a multiplayer-focused game like Anthem rather than something I’d actually want to play. And I’m selfishly relieved when it appears that commercial drivers seem to be encouraging companies to create the kinds of games I like to play, particularly when it looked for a while as though things were going in a different direction.

But I feel this totally is self-interest on my part rather than some sort of (moral? practical? commercial?) imperative placed on developers by the very nature of computer games.

When I’m looking at the bigger picture, I’m all for there being lots of different kinds of games that will keep all kinds of gamers happy.

And I fully appreciate that, as Blackheifer says, when there’s a game that can manage to be great fun as a multiplayer as well as satisfying as a single player experience, as it sounds like BG3 has a fair chance of being, multiplayer can indirectly benefit singleplayer by extending the game’s longevity and fanbase, meaning that there’ll be more incentive to invest in it and sequels that single players will enjoy. Though I also don’t share his feeling that there’s no point in a D&D game without multiplayer, as I can see that for developers whose vision less naturally supports it, trying to bolt it on can compromise a good single player experience for the sake of a disappointing multiplayer one. Sometimes I do think it is best to do one thing well.

Qualifying the act of playing video games with other people a "nuisance" is downright sociopathic. It would be like saying you don't need social relationship with anyone because ChatGPT is a thing.

Okay, I’d suggest we steer well clear of psychological diagnoses of other forum members.

Personally, I might also call the idea of playing with others a “nuisance”. While I can’t speak for kanisatha, that would be more than half joking in my case. But with a kernel of truth that for the time I spend playing a game I do appreciate not having to worry about the effect what I’m doing has on others or trying to balance their desires and preferences against my own, and possibly all the more so just because those are things I do worry about very much in other areas of my life and are sometimes sources of stress.

I’ll admit that I do sometimes also worry that all this says something less than flattering about my mentality and social skills, but still wouldn’t welcome unsolicited comments on that from others!

I sure do love to play games solo, but the advantages of multiplayer just can't be denied. Saying that all multiplayer is a nuisance is insulting to all those who partake in it. It can be a fun social activity where you can find and play with friends, it can be a competitive experience where you fight against something that isn't arbitrary lines of code, it can even be a creative endeavor where you can partake in the construction of something bigger than you can ever achieve (see sandbox games). I can't see any difference between video games and any other activity that can be shared with others. Having a multiplayer on a game such as BG3 makes so much sense to me since each character of a group is complementary of the others. Each person can fit a role and specialize in it, making it a different experience from having to juggle with many mechanics all at once.

By the way, wasn't this thread about turn based vs real time? I think the debate has shifted quite a bit there.

I wouldn’t take it that way. One person can find multiplayer a “nuisance” personally without that casting shade on others who enjoy it. Though I’ll admit that it would seem good manners to try to make clear that no insult was meant, if that feels like a way someone is likely to take a post. I didn’t think that mine could come across that way, but feel free to correct me if that was wrong?

And :moderator hat now firmly on: I would encourage anyone who does feel insulted by a post to respond constructively, or else take the moral high ground and not respond at all. Or if they don’t feel able to do either of those, report the offending post. And very definitely not potentially escalate the situation by throwing around psychological diagnoses that are unlikely to be welcome. That’s just likely to end in tears.


:Moderator hat partly off again: Fair point. It’s relevant to the extent that some folk are saying that turn-based is better for multiplayer (I wouldn’t know), but the relative merits of single player and multiplayer game modes might be best saved for another thread. Though given it feels like pretty much everything that could possibly be said about turn-based vs RTWP has probably already been said many times over between this thread and the 95-page megathread on the topic, I don’t see any great harm in the odd diversion into more tangentially-related topics if the OP doesn’t object, and as long as the side topic doesn’t drag on too long.

:Moderator hat back on, feel like I’m doing some sort of music hall dance here: If single vs multiplayer experience is a topic that grows arms and legs here, and looks like something folk want to talk about, I can hive off that discussion into another thread. If a couple of folk say they’d like me to do that, I will.

I wouldn't draw such hard lines, but in general agree with the sentiment. I personally don't care much for multiplayer in computer games. I much prefer table-top gaming for human interactions, and I have always seen computer games for "when friends are unavailable, or want to be left alone".

What 90s RPG proves (Fallout/BG1&2) that one can have a fully satisfying RPG experience in single player. As such I do see Larian RPG design, which still seems to rely on coop interactions to fully work as a step backward.

I do see appeal of multiplayer titles though, and understand how it can appeal to some.


That statement suggests that singleplayer games aren't being played 21 years later. I am not sure how true that is. I never touched NWN1 after initial playthrough, as the game held no value to me. On the other hand, I have been replaying BG1&2, Fallouts and other singleplayer focused cRPGs every couple years. I still play Thief1&2/Systemshock2 everyonce in a while. I have UFO: Enemy Unknown modded and installed at all times. Different games for different audience I suppose.


edit:
Not really. Playing with others can be fun, amount of legwork and organizing required to get there is a "nuisance". Singleplayer gaming is hassle free - I have an hour or two free: sit in the chair/couch, get tea/whiskey/wine beer, and play what I like, for as long as I feel like.

Both single player and multiplayer have positives for me!

For single player I can play whenever I want and don’t have to coordinate with other people’s schedules. I can play for a short or long time depending on what I am doing that day.

In single player I can really focus on the story and characters. I make the choices I want and can take my time talking to characters, reading things, and exploring.

The positives for me for multiplayer are that I can do things with people I can’t easily get together with in person, for example during Covid or people that live far away. It is also fun to see other people’s characters and what they pick for choices.

The design needs of both can sometimes clash if done in the same game, but I think BG3 has done a great job of making an outstanding single player game that also includes multiplayer! I prefer turn-based over RTwP in general, though, so for myself having the single player game be turn based isn’t a negative.

Sure. I was wording it that way to offset and counter what I felt was an unwarrantedly strong claim by @Blackheifer about MP over SP.

Sorry, but I said what I said earlier precisely because I don't believe this is possible. And I don't find this to be true for any games that I am familiar with, an admittedly small sample heavily skewed towards cRPGs. The things that go into making an MP game good run counter to a good SP experience, and I suspect vice versa. And this seems to be the very conclusion that major RPG studios like Bethesda, Bioware, and CDPR have come to, because they have released statements saying as much, saying they don't believe it is possible for them to make a game with both SP and MP where both end up equally good, and that adding in MP does take away from the SP experience, and so they are going to be making SP-only games or MP-only games with the SP-only games being their main focus.

Thank you.

For my part I believe very passionately that the primary reason why Western society is going to shit these days is exactly because "virtual socializing" has replaced actual socializing for many people, and especially younger people, where "virtual socializing" is an oxymoron, in fact the exact opposite of socializing with people.

I like actual socializing with people, and that is 100% of how I socialize, and don't at all care if some people want to label that old-fashioned or whatever.

^This! So this.

And also, I can play the way I want to play, and not have to compromise/acquiesce with someone else's playstyle/settings/preferences/roleplaying choices.

personally, multiplayer is fun only with the right people, I prefer solo because if I want to pause for a smoke break or just read an ingame book I won't get rushed knowing I have get back fast

Multiplayer game functionality and design makes single player game absolutely worst. It's a give and take. And for a Baldur's gate RPG game I'd rather it be a single player story experience.
Witcher 3. One of the last few series of games that doesn't tack on multiplayer. One of the reasons I like it so much and that its so good.

Its always a <because of multiplayer> we have to do things like this or that trade off for the main game.
Things it makes worst:

Inventory management
Item creation and balance
UI design / on screen character selection
Spells and abilities
Main character story progression
ALL Dialogues
Encounter design

Unless of course the game designed around being a completely multiplayer game experience!

I must assume that you're referring to all of the hack n slash, shoot em up FPS games out there, or Diablo / Final Fantasy, etc. stuff, because my SO and I have found a grand total of 4 games that we're able to really enjoy together. BG3, DOS2, DOS, and RDO while it lasted. Well, we kind of like Solasta, but didn't really get into it that much.
Everything else that seemed like it would be really cool, just turned out to not actually be a co-op multiplayer RPG, but something...different. Less-than, in our opinion.
BG3 is the ONLY game we've found that really meets the criteria of being an inclusive, co-op, RPG that allows deep diving into character creation and levelling, a rich storyline, beautiful graphics...but it's the turn based combat that allows you to actually think about your next move, strategize and cooperate with your other characters, whether you're playing co-op multiplayer, or single player controlling 4 characters.

At least that's our opinion on the matter.

If you do have some suggestions for the plethora of other multiplayer games that apparently we've missed, please let me know!

Yes, Larian makes easily best coop RPGs in the business. Which is great for people who want 100h+ coop campaign, and is not so great for people (like myself) who don't care for that.

Yup, and also: inability to pause the game during exploration; centrality of the main character (the PC) to the story; party movement; and of course the biggie, combat. All optimized for MP, and therefore sucky in SP.

I also though feel that, for myself at least, I'd much rather play BG3 solo than, Witcher 3, WoTR, Fallout, etc etc.

I still feel like I'm missing something though. Hours and hours spent searching and watching different co-op videos, and it just seems like there's nothing else out there.
Although when we found RDO, that was a surprise as we didn't realize we would enjoy the co-op part as much as we did.

I know I'm veering off-topic here as this is the turn-based vs RTWP thread, but when the argument gets brought up (as I've seen many times) about there being so many multiplayer games and BG3 needs to ditch the co-op, it strikes a nerve. Mostly because that feels totally false, from my perspective at least.

There seem to be many, many "RPG" solo games out there, but BG3 is about the only co-op option that I can find. Larian has a niche here I think, and I just can't imagine them even considering giving it up to just be another one of the many.

I agree. While Larian titles aren't my favourite ones, I do think they are the biggest gust of fresh air we had in RPG scene in a while. Personally, I liked D:OS1 the most, as I felt it embraced being a coop, while D:OS2 and BG3 try to balance being both coop and singleplayer game. For the record, I think compromises happen on both sides - BG3 could be a much better coop game, if it is all it was trying to be.

Fair enough, but as a long time RPG fan, I can't say I am not disappointed, that first big budget cRPG to come in a long time is by design something I am not quite on board with, especially if it's wearing a skin of an IP that made me adore the genre to begin with. I will still take BG3 over any of the Dragon Ages though.

I don't really care if Larian wants to make their game MP-focussed at the expense of SP. All I have said is that they need to then be honest about that and tell prospective buyers that's what the game is. For example, when I, long ago, checked out the Neverwinter RPG, its developer explicitly says that the game is meant to be played MP and although it could be played SP that's not a good way to play the game. So I never bought the game, but I respect the developer for their honesty.

Also, striking a nerve goes both ways. For me, it strikes a nerve in me that the ONE game I have been wanting for so long and been hoping for and waiting for for so long, a third game in the BG franchise, ends up being a MP game pretending to be a SP game. We had an MP version of the original BG games. That was BG: Dark Alliance. As much as a HUGE fan of BG as I was, I never even bothered to check out BG:DA when it first came out because it was meant to be MP and so I had no interest in it. So, if Larian is being true to what it is making, this should be BG:DA 3 and not BG 3.

BG3 is one of my favorite games to play in single player, and after the full release it could be my favorite game! So, I disagree with marketing BG3 as a multiplayer only game and also think many single player Dragon Age fans would like BG3 too if they like or at least don’t mind turn-based combat.😊

Well I didn't say it was MP-only, but that MP is how you are supposed to play it, though you can still also play it SP.

Hello I can understand that Larian decided to continue on the turns base system that they already master greatly with their other RPGs.

But I feel like during the explorations we should get the pause functionnality, as it has ALWAYS be the case with ALL the other Baldur's Gate cRPG.

I understand that the turn-based system add some interesting possibilities, but I'm so used to being able to pause that it doesn't feel natural not being able to. And each time I click the turns system, we are blocked to play character one after the other, while the whole interest of stopping time is to synchronise everyone...

I'm playing Solasta and I'm happy to find back the pause system, during explorations, it's so handy, everything stops immediately, we can chain multiple pauses until the moment the NPC goes just far enough for us to sneak comfortably, progressively... in turns system where we actually play only one character to sneak in, it's very tedious to constantly skip all the other characters or make them do many small moves.

Since the possibility to block the time and actions is already implemented, I feel we should be able to pause anytime during the game. It also feels weird when I need to get away from the computer for 5-10mn to have to keep my characters hanging like this, instead of having a pause available instantly.

Also, in Pillars of Eternity 2, they manage to offer to take the RTWP OR the turns system both available. We have to choose at the beginning of the game and we can't change afterwards. Actually I was convinced that it was better with the turns... except that there are lots of fights with trash mobs and it becomes particularly tedious to spam always the same boring actions, whereas in real time with pause, with AI scripts, the common fights are taken care of in matter of seconds. This is so much more pleasant. Anyway I don't think Larian studios will develop an alternative fight system now, but I do believe we should at least get a pause functionnality.

I genuinely don't see how multiplayer being an option makes single player less good.
BG3 is literally the best game I played in 12 years and I thoroughly enjoy it both in single player and multiplayer.

I am glad you like it.

As someone who plays RPG in singleplayer only, I find quite a few perplexing designs in BG3 that can only be explained as "but multiplayer". I also find some usual RPG features that I value very much - quality of custom protagonist dialogue choces and writing, companions, immersion - to be below a standard I grew accustomed to. Some of them might not be result of multiplayer but just quality of the content, but for example I am convinced that companions are affected by being NPCs, playable characters and coop buddy avatars. Similarly custom character's content will likely serve as a basis for origin content as well, which would explain why it's so bland and non-discript.

BG3 is impressive in terms of much it does, but I personally value games that do fewer things very well, over a game with multiple underdeveloped ideas. The problem that by reaching for such a wide audience, I don't care for a lot of what BG3 offers, while what interests me is of mixed quality.

Just throwing my agreement behind Wormerine.

+1

My hope was this was due to it being EA...

+1

And to emphasize, the issue is not that it has MP. The issue is that many game design decisions have been made explicitly for the benefit of MP at the expense of the SP experience, for example how party movement is handled.

I didn't mention party controls as I am doubtful if this is a choice that favours multiplayer. I can't see how it would make multiplayer experience better. In the best case scenario (full on 4 player coop) one controls one character and the game plays about as well if the game used the classic system. Also most post KOTOR Bioware singleplayer RPGs used similar control scheme - I suspect Larian is just following the newer trend.

I would invite you to consider that the problem isn't multiplayer -it's RTWP. RTWP is just a bad system overall and completely incompatible for multiplayer. Or another way to put that is IF you are going to make a RTWP game then you should only make it single player.

OR if you are going to make an RTWP game then you have to remove the pause ability in Multiplayer. Although I can't argue that was the only problem with bg1 and 2 multiplayer. It was just bad on so many levels I mean you have to all stay on the same map AND you have to transition together. Ugh.

It's just a little ludicrous to me that people think Multiplayer is the problem. I don't think singleplayer is the problem - I love Single Player as well*. I am going to play Bg3 in both multiplayer and single player because in single player I will be able to go slower and read everything properly and enjoy all the lore and atmosphere.

Meanwhile Turn-based and full Real Time work great with both single and multiplayer and one doesn't detract from the other.

*I retract my earlier statement about D&D meant to be played as multiplayer. Sometimes you just want to play by yourself and that's fine.

Okay, folks, I just want to point out that the comments that this latest set of posts are responding to were a couple of months old.

As always, I have no problem with necro-ing threads on an old topic rather than starting a new one if someone has something new to say, but would suggest we’re clear on why we’re reopening the discussion so we don’t inadvertently resurrect every strand of conversation and digression in the thread.

Not that I’m saying that’s what’s happening here, just thought it was worth flagging the age of the original comments in case anyone hadn’t noticed.

It’s an elvish post age is of little concern 😂j/k

The way I see it, in the classic way of controling the whole party (click a button or gather by drawing a box with the mouse) one person could conceivably take control of the whole party, whereas with this chain method a person has to manually link their character to the party for someone else to gain control of their character. But there ought to be very easy ways around this in MP, so I dunno. The abomination that is the uniquely-Larian chain method just seems like Larian's being cussed: "We invented it so we're gonna' stick with it no matter how utterly stupid and horrible it is."

Why is this such a big deal? I'd much rather have thread necroing than people creating new duplicate threads willy-nilly or the mods merging threads into ridiculous "mega" threads.

Perhaps read the message of mine that you quoted again, as I feel I’d just be repeating myself and thought I was clear that it’s not a big deal

I don't know if anything changed in BG3 but in D:OS1&2 who controls who is a separate UI from the chain system. You would assign what characters are under whose control and that's it. Chain was used to managed character who are already under your control only.

Well that's good to know.

But that still leaves the question of why Larian would insist on using this party movement mechanic instead of an existing widely-used one that works perfectly well.