Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Mega-threads and Guides The Turn-Based/Real Time with Pause topic

Gyor

1:34PM

kanisatha wrote: »

» show previous quotes


Hey I predicted right at the beginning the combat system could be something that is a hybrid of TB and RTwP or something completely new. 

If someone has a full translation of the article, please post.


I'm thinking something like the VATS system from Fallout 3/New Vegas, real time, but you pause and it becomes turn based. Obviously instead of using Fallout 2 style turn based combat while paused it will use modified D&D 5e rules. I'd be cool with that, it'd stop the rift in the fan base. Purists of one camp or the other will be disappointed that there side doesn't get everything, but not so much that they won't deal with it.

Yes it will take resources, but your talking about a budget that is likely in the 10 of millions of dollars with a team measured in the hundreds, they have those resources to spare, and once the essencial elements and encounter design rules are done, it won't take much to expand upon it.

This would actually allow for a lot of cool systems and flexible game play.

Google translate version below.

https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&nv=1&rurl=translate.google.ca&sl=auto&sp=nmt4&tl=en&u=https://www.gamestar.de/artikel/baldurs-gate-3-erstes-gameplay-video-gamescom-kampfsystem,3345782.html&xid=17259,15700022,15700186,15700191,15700256,15700259,15700262&usg=ALkJrhhd_qqFJ4W-MnMI1NWweriuewsHAQ

More interview info below, but part of it's behind a pay wall, including his answer on the question what classes and races are in it. *bites though a pipe in frustration*.


https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&nv=1&rurl=translate.google.ca&sl=auto&sp=nmt4&tl=en&u=https://www.gamestar.de/artikel/baldurs-gate-3-preview-early-access-kamera,3345543.html&xid=17259,15700022,15700186,15700191,15700256,15700259,15700262&usg=ALkJrhiIwBMfR1WTLUo6c8vpMmD5neYRLg

Yup, I stand by my early-on prediction that the combat system will be something that is a hybrid of elements of RTwP and TB or else something completely new.

Similarly, I stand by my prediction that the perspective will be a hybrid of third-person and top-down with fully rotatable camera(s).

I could see that being a great solution, but I'm not sure how it would work with 5e.

Nope. I just don't see it... the former bit. I'm trying to imagine a hybrid between Turn Based and Paused based, some way in which both systems can be active. But it wouldn't work. Sure, you can swap details between the 2, mix and match features, add in inconsequential stuff and use it as a selling point, calling it a hybrid. But at the end of the day, it can still ONLY be Turn Based or Pause.

It cannot be both.

Because it comes down to the fundamental design, and the flow of the game. Any combat system where all on screen characters DO NOT immediately attack (per scripts obv.) whenever in range of a target (i.e what the BG series has always been) is NOT RTwP.

And conversely, any combat system in which the above happens, and there is NO immediate queue style combat setup like D:OS, Elemental Evil, etc, whenever an enemy appears on screen, is NOT Turn Based.

That's just the facts. You cannot make the game do both of those things at the same time.

...

Unless of course you do what Obsidian did w/ PoE2 in a post release patch and give us both options from the start. But that's basically double the work for Larian. Will we get that?

And as for something completely new.... yea, No. It STILL can really only be 1 or the other.

I'm telling ya... this announcement's going to be major. Lot of possible pre-orders just floating in the air...

Exactly where did I say both? I specifically said hybrid (or else something new).

https://www.pcinvasion.com/amp/baldurs-gate-iii-the-case-for-a-turn-based-combat-mode/ PC invasion makes a damn good case for turn-based combat, but I think it misses a, few arguments.

Doesn't make any case at all other than to say 'it's what I want so that's how it should be.' The author's a narcissistic jackass.

Also there is yet again the false claim that RTwP is an "old" design and TB is the "hip new" thing. TB existed before RTwP came along. TB is the old, as in ancient old, design. Then RTwP came along as a new way of setting up gameplay. But at some point after 2000, devs decided to abandon the new system, RTwP, and go back to the old system, TB. Going BACK to the old way doesn't make something "new".

I was tempted to stop reading after the "The main issue with pausable real-time combat in CRPGs like Baldur’s Gate is the argument that it lacks tactical depth." bit.

Lmao.

But decided to read the rest anyway.

After the claim above, the article goes on "You are forced to micromanage all your party characters at once, buffing them up and setting up spells. Then you get to passively watch them hack and miss very often.", then stops there. Umm, ok....? "You are forced to micromanage"... because... it's a real-time game? And what does "passively watch them hack and miss very often" even mean? Don't want to be mean or act high and mighty, but this person doesn't sound like he knows what he's talking about. He sounds like another player who is turned off as soon as he hears "micromanagement". Disliking the games or even saying they lack tactical depth is his opinion, fair enough, but if this is all he could come up with to convince readers that the system "lacks tactical depth", or that TB is a superior system, then I find it hard to take him seriously. Yeah, go tell that to the players who really played the BG games and knew their stuff.

How does this article even "make a good case"? There isn't any decent reasoning in it.

A problem with RTWP is that people playing on console have a harder time to manage a big party. If you ask me, this is probably the main reason why the DA games' combat got worse and worse. Consoles.

That being said, Swen did say in an interview that "We are moving forward, so we don’t want to go look backward." when he was answering the question about gameplay. This sounds like a hint that they won't return to the RTWP system. The fact that they "would prefer to show it rather than talk about it" is another hint. They don't want to deal with the backlash from the fans of the original games who want RTWP. Just my thoughts, of course. I may very well be wrong.

This article is a much better opinion article that actually has some solid reasoning behind why the writer prefers RTWP over TB:
Opinion: Why RTWP?

(EDIT: essentially, in this article, the writer says that RTWP is exciting because everything happens at the same time, and his quick example is on point, when he says that "a well-timed critical hit from an axe could lead to victory". He also says that TB combat inevitably makes combat feels dragged out sometimes, especially when there are two many enemies and each of them gets a whole turn just to do simple moves. At least you can say that this guy knows what he's talking about.)

Yep, the ol' RTwP 'lacks tactical depth' canard is the most specious "argument" of all. Not only in BG but also in IwD, NwN, PoE, and P:K games, i routinely set up battle formations, engage in tactical positioning including flanking and the like, use cover, coordinate actions among multiple characters, etc. And I do this quite comfortably.

The hard, cold truth is this: It is not the systems that are different. RTwP and TB are equivalent systems that are equally functional for engaging in deep tactical gameplay. What's different are the players, where some can handle RTwP while others cannot. And those that cannot don't want to admit to this, so they come up with silly, ridiculous, and utterly specious "arguments" for why RTwP is bad, when the problem lies with them and not the system.

I didn't see the author act either like a jackass or a narcissist or a jackass and I think that is harsh, he was just another person with an opinion upon making an argument, like we all are.

I know. And I explained why I feel any type of hybrid they could come up won't work because it isn't going to be able to please everyone, since no form of hybrid can be both TB and Pause at the same time. Try to work it out yourself. It's not possible without pissing one side off because at some point it will end up forcing you to play one way or the other.


Well, they are different to me. And it's because of what you said about the fallacy of TB being the newer design. BG and real time action was the next step in the RPG evolution. Things just got muddled with licenses after a point, then the retro phase happened.

Circle the wagons folks.
Pausing every few microseconds is the pinnacle of strategic depth.

So is spending 10 minutes watching 12 enemies taking their turn making inconsequential moves ("inconsequential" because you know you're going to wipe them out in the next 2-3 turns no matter what).

"Pausing every few microseconds". Except, not necessarily. You don't have to mash that button. You can totally play without pausing, if you want to. Custom character scripts help.

Shows how much you really know about the system or what you're talking about, right?

One of the things I like about RTwP is that, when it's done right, I can choose my level of micromanagement. The advanced party AI in the BGEEs is the closest I've found to my goal of actually playing a party leader. I've only played a little of DoS, and I haven't checked to see if there's any party automation available yet, since I'm still learning the combat system.

I wouldn't be surprised if it is turned based where the turns are then enacted in real time:

ie. Everyone chooses the actions for the turn, then once all actions are chosen, the turn activates!

BUT I think Larian has already chosen the style, and will stick to it!

The fact they have said they will show the combat (in my opinion) means they have already chosen a form, and knowing the significant value placed on the combat form, are not willing to say either way until they show what they have come up with.

Arguing over which is best is probably moot! (although RtwP is obviously best ... hahaha!!!!)

RTWP is not the problem.
D&D 2nd Ed. was.
Melee characters did lack tactical depth, with almost no other choice than hacking until the sword connects with the target (it changed a bit with high levels and ToB)
And there was not Attack of opportunity either.
There wasn't much positionnal gameplay (except for backstabbing may be)

I mean , take a look at Pathfinder : it is RTWP, and much more interresting that Baldur ever was (gameplay wise)

Just bitter now.

Btw, was there anything released that makes you think they are in fact making it an Action RPG?


Exactly. A good Pause based system is made better by a game with really good scripting as well as variation and depth in zone/enemy capabilities. You could spend hours going through your parties' tactics and scripts for general as well as item-, enemy-, environmental- specific considerations based on where you are in the game.

This is a major question I have for Larian. D:OS was good, but they need to up the level for BG.


So they've already chosen it, but are not yet done preparing a simple video example? Do they need somebody to help them with uploads?


This is an interesting comment. My first thoughts are Icewind Dale 2, which used 3rd ed rules, and while it was a slightly tweaked engine/gamecode (which btw was lost when Interplay sold the license or something - that's why there's no IWD2EE) it played basically the exact same way as the original games. I mean there were Feats and in some cases, vastly different rules and considerations, but the output on screen was very familiar in terms of how you manipulated the UI, how you made decisions, and what it looked like on screen when you un-paused the action.

Point being, Larian could try and advance that concept - taking an updated ruleset and finding some way of incorporating it into a system that replicates how BG1 and BG2 looked and felt on screen, and it could work. Again though, can Larian manage that? We'll see I guess.

You mean something ala Vagrant Story?

I have no idea. My universe of video games I play is very narrow and specific.

With the latter, I meant that the perspective would switch between the two, third person and top down, not that the perspective would literally be some combination of the two.

Well, if we go by the video of them talking about engines, apparently the DOS2 Definitive Ed. is the basis for whatever BG3 will look like, so it will more or less be like that.

And that pretty much rules out an Action RPG like Dragon's Dogma.

It's worrying to me, as no game in this style has ever impressed graphically, starting with NWN.