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

No, because it'll just go back to being discussed in every other thread.

@Dmsephiroth ,brother i think you misread my comment , i said i DISLIKE the turn based combat , im all in on the RTwP gameplay , i started a different topic with my own thoughts on why RTwP is the best way to go

What do you mean go back? It is already spreading its ugly head to other threads.


Oh by the way. I prefer Turn base when I play And I am a BG1 & 2 Fan. I also like the DOS2 which I purchased to play when I found out Larian Studio was making BG3. I am hopeful for a DM Mode with a Toolset. I agree with WotC and Larian Studios when they say the Baldur's Gate IP is about the City and not just one story.

Yeah, I was going to address that when I was less sleep-deprived. Maybe it would be lazy of me to just rename this "The TB vs. RTwP Forum".

"Forgettabel divintiy original sin like"

Opposed to the unforgettable "Baldurs gate likes" like PoE
Bruh. Larian made their own subgenre of CRPG, meanwhile theres a gorillion of Infinity engine clones.

I agree. That's why I was so hyped when I learned that Larian took BG3 instead of Obsidian (even if I like "some" of their games).
Just hoped they would have created their own NEW subgenre with this BG3, not only an improvement of what they had already done.

Interview with with Larian's David Walgrave, executive producer on Baldur's Gate 3,

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2020-02-27-baldurs-gate-3-interview

"You changed some stuff. Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 had "real-time with pause" combat, you've gone turn-based. The camera is that sort of third-person-isometric hybrid...

Walgrave: It's 2020!

Is that basically the reason why - you felt you needed to modernise it?

Walgrave: So, I think that in spirit it's still the successor of Baldur's Gate 1 and 2. Because there are so many things that people who did play and like Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 will still recognise in the new one. It's still about your party. It's still about big personalities clashing with each other and relationships. It's still a party-based game, you still need to do combat, you will recognise a lot of D&D rules - even if you haven't played D&D in 20 years. You will still recognise all the spells, et cetera.

So, to me it's a true sequel, but we are bringing it into the 21st century by saying, "Look, it's glorious 3D. It has really nice cinematics. We're taking it further with systemics, we applied the 'Larian philosophy', which is like, oodles of content and hidden features and hidden stuff everywhere." So to me it's a good sequel.

The choices that we made are ours. Why did we go for turn-based instead of real-time with pause? Because D&D to us is a turn-based game and we're really good - or we have become really good - with turn-based combat. So that, I think, is one of our strengths, and trying out real-time with pause for now, just because the originals were that? It's a big risk. Because the team would have to think completely differently, our combat would be completely different. And we didn't really feel good about that. Normally we do try out a lot. Normally we try out a lot before we make a decision, but with real-time with pause and turn-based we didn't, we just said "Okay it's just gonna be turn-based."

That might be a good idea, since it seems to be the only thing that everyone is discussing.

Such disappointment, I hoped for real time pause and play just like the previous Baldurs Gate games, but instead they went for Turn Based. Same for the looks, I hoped it would look and feel more like a Baldurs Gate 3, instead it just looks like a Divinity 3.

Exactly what I said.





I also understand that they did not feel good with RTwP Mechanics, but that does not mean everyone will like this system.

It is true that they might be good with TB mechanics cause they have already work with it, but bringing another episode of a saga in which something as basic as the combat system is completely different... you might disappoint fans on the way and I guess you can actually see that on this thread.

Okay... so take the obvious element of each recent good RPG (party, personnalities, party again, combat), add a little bit of D&D for the calculations, add the spells, and you have Baldur's Gate.
They clearly assume they choose the easiest way...

The interview certainly puts some perspective on things.

We ought to consider.
Larian isnt in this boat alone this time around.

Im pretty sure WOTC told them not to experimen ttoo hard.
Larian is known for games like Dragon Commander or Beyond divinity wehre they tried out realy odd things.

I think this time they realized they got a big IP and they cant just fuck around

"It was never really a question," Baldur's Gate III design producer David Walgrave said, according to USG. "We've been doing turn-based for a while now. We're pretty good at it. Dungeons & Dragons is turn-based in itself, so it makes a lot of sense."

In other words, we're doing turn based because we already know turn based, and in our unknowledgeable viewpoint, we think this is how D&D is supposed to be, so we're just going to shoehorn it in.

In a tabletop game, you use your imagination. We roll individually and speak one at a time because of the limits of the dungeon master and human speech. We don't actually imagine the action happening like in a turn based video game. All the action is happening simultaneously. In a video game, you have visual representation, so it should appear realistic. The rounds and turns in D&D are measurements of time and the actions performed, NOT a mandate to perform pugilistic kabuki theater.

thats a strange argument to make.
youre not wrong, but by the same logic

Why RTWP?
Sure baldurs gate 2 did have that, but because of limitaitons of the time.

Yes it was set in forgotten realms, why not in dark sun? Its a much more interresting setting. "Oh because we already know faerun" well, thats an unknowledgeable viewpoint.


Most studios are good at one thing or another.
You dont hire a FIFA developer to make a Sequal to Call of Duty do you?

Wut


Well said.

Yep that sounds definitive, any comments I had that maybe it would be added... I'll assume fully gone.

Yes its more than obvious they never even considered RTWP, so no point in crying more about it, or even asking, just move along. I've already backed Pathfinder

I came here and registered just to join this conversation.

While I would, as an old school fan, prefer RTwP overall, I recognise that it will likely never happen. OK. Having said that, however, I have to speak out against party-based turns/initiative.

First of all, D&D doesn't use party turns. So if you're trying to make something that is true to D&D, use individual initiative.

Second, and this point is more important, party turns are an unbalanced mess. They lead to situations where one character gets mobbed and downed all at once before the player can react. Not only does it feel terrible when this happens, it's also completely unrealistic. No one is going to stand around in combat while enemies pound on them for 6 seconds.

I also don't really understand why they would take a system that uses individual initiative (D:OS2) and then spend the time and effort to strip out that superior system to give us this terrible alternative.

I can handle RTwP not being a part of this game. It's been 17 years since BG 2 came out, I'm happy for the genre to change. But I definitely will not be happy when I get into combat and party wipe because I didn't get a chance to react to what was going on before my characters got downed. That is serious rage quit territory. That is like uninstall and refund territory.

3 Words: SWORD COAST LEGENDS ...

Now that's an idiotic response. Nevermind that TB is even older than RTwP and RTwP was created to be an evolution of TB, and that RTwP continues to be an evolution of TB even in 2020.

Here's a translation of Walgrave's response: WotC saw sales figures for D:OS2 and Larian heard the sound of money at the idea of exploiting the Baldur's Gate fanbase and greed overcame them.

There is obviously no integrity or concern for what's the best fit in 2020 behind this decision.


Where did you get that idea from? It's wrong. There were loads of TB PC games out when BG invented RTwP, and BG's RTwP system actually calculates rounds in the background. It would have been less work for BioWare to go full TB-only in BG than to implement RTwP. But James Ohlen wanted Baldur's Gate to be real-time and Ray Muzyka wanted it to be turn-based, and so they created a system that caters to fans of both styles. There was never a factor of technical limitations at play, and if there had been it would have been simpler to just implement TB.


So, it was a cash-grab move from Larian from the start.

And with that comment, Walgrave is essentially stating that Larian isn't a talented studio but is a one-hit wonder / one-trick pony. No studio with confidence in its talents would claim 'this is what we're good at so it's all we're going to stick to, even when the project plainly calls for something else'. If they couldn't do service to the project, then they should have passed on it. Why didn't they? Money, obviously. What they're doing is unethical and is wrong by the IP and wrong by the fans of the series.