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

A valid opinion, but not shared by everyone.

Supporting both would be a better choice, as well as possibly expand the market reach.

why do people who havent played OS think that it has infinity engine encounters.
it doesnt, theres no trash encounters.

also a little fix on the initiative thing.
wrong, the character with the higher initiative WOULD attack since he can charge on top of a movement, thats why the charge action exists

Wrong. Maybe TB gives you the perception that you are in control of everything, but not me. There are many things I can do in combat in RTwP which a TB system does not allow me to do. A TB system forces me to act according to a script that has been determined for me by the system, which is the exact opposite of having control.
And yes, RTwP is chaotic. Good. That is exactly how combat should be. It should be chaotic, messy, and result in outcomes that are sub-optimal. Anything else is fake combat.

Valid points. TB encounters are easier for developers to script and design how the encounter/battle should be resolved. Often in linear or scripted tactics/strategy.
RTwP is chaotic and very hard for developers to manage the encounters and can even flung out balance for inexperienced developers especially like Larian as their strengths that they have shown were turn-based combat.

But one noticeable problem of RTwP in Pillars of Eternity 2 was pause spamming for me. This happen in my opinion possibly how the developers design the AI. They were moving too fast and AI changing targets without much penalty nor restrictions. Combining this with casting time and friendly fire, even with the introduction of the spell re-targeting doesn't solve the problem at all.

Very good points, although in Pillars 2 I never had a problem with the AI. But differemt people of course can have different experiences. Also, Pillars 2 does allow you to slow down time if you want.

But for me ultimately, it's not about whether time is running at real-time or slower or stopped completely (i.e. TB). It's about whether the actions of the various characters, both my party and the enemy, are scripted by the game to happen in a set order or whether I get to have the actions of my party happen according to my preference. Most importantly, I want a system where not only do I get to decide when each of my characters will do something but also where I can have two or more of my characters act simultaneously. And most of all, a system where my characters are not standing there magically frozen like statues while an enemy is wailing on them, where a character can even be killed without them having been able to have taken any actions themselves. That is just completely bogus and fake and immersion-breaking.

Now someone can tell me that that is just how D&D works. Well, if Swen is going to say he needs to change things in the D&D rules that don't work well in a videogame, then for me this is rule #1 that needs to have a stake driven through it's evil heart.

@Sordak : I am going to assume your comments are aimed at me, but it is difficult to be sure as you did not choose to say,



You must have some superpower that let's you know who has played which games to make such a comment...

Games made with the Infinity Engine had a variety of simple to complex encounters, some I liked, some I didn't. The quality of the encounters was more dependent on the game designers than the engine, per se. Particularly, low level encounters in 2e rules of BG1 would tend towards the simple, and I agree that the designers could have done a better job. However, these are now very old games, made at a time when video games were less polished in many ways, and when the market did not sustain heavy investment in game production, so I do not judge them by comparison to modern games.

I have played D:OS, and have mentioned such in other comments. More accurately, I have completed the first map based around the town ( I forget the name ), and moved on to the second map with the forest ( I forget the name ). As you can probably tell from my lack of detailed recall, the game did not make a hugely positive impression on me ( although it may just be approaching senility ). The engine seems to have good basic rendering and media handling, the camera handling through the environment was also good ( although I dislike fixed orientation axonometric projections ), and the rigid and deformable modelling was all to a good, modern standard. The rest, unfortunately, was not especially memorable, or sophisticated. Lacking any real motivation from the story, the repetitive and very slow combat means I have lost interest for the moment.

I have no doubt I will eventually finish it at some point. I do not think it is a bad game, particularly if its design choices mesh with your personal preferences, and like the Infinity Engine games, I will not judge it against high-budget AAA games. It was made with a limited budget, to cater for a particular market segment, and seems to have done well; that segment probably just does not include me.




I do not know which rule set you are used to using; presumably 3.5, or you have house rules ( D&D has always encouraged you to use and ignore whatever best suits your group ). However, for the purposes of the discussion with @Brent2410, and because we are discussing a game that will implement 5e rules, I assumed that standard 5e would be the correct choice. I do not play PnP any more, but the 5e rules are freely available from WotC, and it would appear that the charge action has been removed.

My comment did specify 5e rules, and did note that a double-distance move was possible ( the "Dash" action ). Were a charge action to still be available, it would certainly add another option to the scenario.

Right, dash requires a full action, so you cannot attack if you travel above your max movement in one turn. You can use whatever mental gymnastics you need to in order to justify RTwP being truer to PnP over TB - but there's literally a mechanic called turn order soooo. I'm all for the people that say they prefer RTwP games over TB. When you start saying that RTwP is better at translating the PnP experience, however, you're just flat out wrong. I'm not bashful about admitting I'm more of a fan of PnP over crpgs. I play crpgs because I like the underlying rpg system (DnD core rules) and every time I replay one I have a constant dull pain over the RTwP implementation. That's just my cup of tea tho, I'm not debating the merits of either system.

I'd be very disappointed if the sequel to the legendary Badlur's Gate series doesn't have real-time with pause combat. That would essentially mean that Larian was never interested in making a true sequel and are only using the IP for brand recognition.

My 2 cents.

If they do support both, then they should design the game around RtwP-combat and then slap on a turn-based mode similar to what Obsidian did with Pillars of Eternity 2.

I like turn-based RPGs (check my tags), but I have zero interest in playing a turn-based Baldur's game. I am sure that many others feel the same.

1. PoE II now also has a turn-based mode. It changed nothing.
2. Pathfinder: Kingmaker outsold PoE II by a very a large margin.

What does that tell us? Probably that your assumption is very subjective and just plain wrong. I personally don't like the PoE series either and never even touched PoE 2, but I think that Pathfinder: Kingmaker is absolutely brilliant.

etonbears well you prove my point there dont you?
I wasn ttalking about the ENGINE but about the DESIGN.
Infinity engine games (and other DnD games of old like ToEE) feature random encounters (not all infinity engine games do IIRC, but most)

That assumption is what i responded with.
Saying Turn based combat s too in depth and cumbersome for a combat heavy game implies that a game is "combat heavy" by having lots of combat.
Like the infinity engine games do.
The original sin games are very combat centric, but actually dont have a lot of it compared to many other CRPGs, theres no respawning enemies in those games and no resetting encounters.
Hence every encounter is more like a puzzle, or like a setpiece encounter in a DnD campaign.

THAT was my point. That someone suggesting that this combat system is tiresome, clearly hasnt played the games to the extent where they realize that such tiresome encounters arent part of this developers routine.
Simmilarly, you played Cyseal and Luculla forest so maybe this hasnt occured to you, either that or, like some people i know, you brute forced the fights rather than utilizin all tools available to you.
Which is why i think you came to the conclusion that the combat is, quote, "Repetetive".

Ive heard numerous complaints about OS combats but it beeing repetetive certainly was never one of em.


On Charging: i actually made a mistake there, 5e, again, proves to be a terrible Edition of DnD and i simply forgot because i played a Barbarian and had the Charger feat last time i played that system.
In older editions of DnD, chariging was a basic action that anyone could undertake in which you could move up to your speed (in one direction, towards one enemy) and make a basic attack. This could be done by anyone.
This rule specifically existed because of the scenario you discribed. Or to avoid it to be precise.
Now 5e is a System that tried to get rid of "rules bloat" and then introduce the same crap but with a hefty feat tax, because fuck martials.

dlux:
1. the TB mode came out later
2. Pathfinder has a massiveley popular TB mod

Idk. I get your argument for continuity.
I personally dislike RTWP but i wouldnt mind it because its a staple of the series.
But realy its not that great a combat system and i wouldnt bother to see it go.

Here https://store.steampowered.com/sale/winter2018bestof/ Deadfire is mentioned in the highest-grossing games on Steam but not Kingmaker. Both are missing from the 2019 list unlike the turn based DOS2 (I wonder why? )
Deadfire had a bigger development team and was made in California and made the insane mistake of being fully voiced. Meaning it failed despite making more money
How much more is unknown but when you look at Steam charts I think you can say that their sales were similar https://steamcharts.com/app/640820
https://steamcharts.com/app/560130
Kingmaker was made by 25 Russians in less than 2 years without full voice acting so their budget was only a fraction of Deadfire's.

So what do we learn out of this? making an RTWP game with a big budget in a western country is financial suicide, Larian won't be dumb enough to make such a mistake.

I don't go in for the continuity argument. Plenty of game series grow out of their genre. GTA, Risk of Rain, Fallout... and that's just off the top of my head. Hell, even Baldur's Gate had an ARPG offshoot that was enjoyable. Sometimes sequels are good; sometimes they aren't. Doesn't have much to do with how true they stay to the previous releases.

It's hard to tell if a game's combat system is a make-or-break factor for its financial success. An RPG should be more than just the sum of its parts. What killed PoE for me was the lack of an engaging narrative and scarcity of interesting characters. The latter felt like a gaggle of hitchhikers to me who were only along for the ride and tried to display interest in your quest merely out of courtesy. The story wasn't much I could relate to either. Siege of Dragonspear gets a lot of flak for being political at times but overall I enjoyed it more because the developers attempted to capture the mood of the times as they saw fit. Nods to real-world issues shouldn't be a no-go for entertainment media in my view but you run the risk of being preachy or propaganda if you're not careful.

well good to know beamdog has one fan.
Only the political parts of dragonspear were also badly written and stupid.

I for one dont play medieval fantasy RPGs so an NPC gives me a half on hour lecture that boils down to "its ma'am"
Dragon age also did this.

Also yes, a combat system is part of the financial success, sure witcher showed us that it certainly isnt the only reason, but for a CRPG its a big part, since combat is essentaly the biggest part of CRPG gameplay

No, not exactly a fan but that's a long story.
That's a succinct way to put it. "Lectures" as you say are indication of poorly thought-out writing. The storyteller doesn't have to take anyone's side of the argument, they only have to provide exposition and allow the player to act on it. What Beamdog did was insert political correctness into BG, which obviously didn't sit well with lots of fans but that's not the only way to go about it.
All I'm saying is that while combat has a major role to play, most people will not quit over unintuitive combat if the story and remaining aspects of gameplay are any good.

I thought their enhanced editions were pretty good mods.
Though you still need a lot more free mods like the enhanced edition to fix their mistakes...

Have to say, I recently started Pillars of Eternity 2 now turn based and upped the difficulty. At least in that system, its a much more strategic and tactical experience.

I typically always liked the real time and pause method, however I would love to see turn based version of D&D 5e implementation. In the POE2 example, it makes that system really shine.

Solasta: Crown of the Magister had a demo up a while back (Sept2019?). It was based off of 5e - pretty barebones as it's not anywhere close to release - but it was a pretty damn good representation of a modern TB 5e game. I'm sure you could find some game play vids. Demo only took like ~30 min, IIRC.

Had a quick look. Yet another great looking RPG that lacks multiplayer
For me multiplayer is a must have these days.