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

Truly large scale? Nah, I don't think most computers could have handled such a thing but for its time I think the scale was just fine. Icewind Dale even more so.

You'd be wrong:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmUXjsQyppo

This is a small battle BTW.

And also the fact that they were not intending to make Baldur's Gate 3.

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."

Here is a twist for y'all: for me BG was never about DnD. For me BG was the first 2 games of the series. DnD was secondary to the particular story, characters, gameplay. For me DnD part of BG was mostly of narrative kind: places, gods and demons, etc.. I didn't (and still don't) care about DnD mechanical part. If they keep the narrative, story, characters and RT party based gameplay I don't care if it's DnD or not.

DnD was always just a tool to deliver the narrative of the game. Analogy would be: game engine. I don't care what game engine is used as long as it plays as fun and is a continuation of the same narrative. A lot of people get hung up on "how DnD it is" argument, and specifically on mechanical part of it which is not why I (and probably many others) love BG.

I also don't get why then DnD purists don't bring up the stink about it being 5e instead of adnd2, if it's mechanics what bothers you so much. 5e is quite different from adnd2 that was used at the time (and in a sense more limiting).

Again, imo if anything was lackluster in original games it's probably DnD gameplay mechanics part. IMO the further we go gameplay wise from tabletop towards more engaging and fun digital - the better. Trying to closer emulate playing tabletop for me is a negative thing. What I liked in BG DnD ruleset adaptation (and by the way, they didn't do a 1:1 with the adnd2 ruleset) was that it removed the worst parts of DnD (or at least moved them under the hood) - the annoying and boring TB and all the obnoxious rolling for everything. It made game play as something actually enjoyable instead of wasting your time at every step "cause tabletop digital game".

If I wanted to play BG, but closer to DnD and tabletop I would be looking at the physical game market and board games, not digital games. cRPG are supposed to be the striving to become a role-playing experience without frustrations and limitations of physical games. Trying to be "closer to tabletop" simply sounds backwards to me.

So it should be a first- or third-person action rpg? That would make it really engaging to the big mass of players out there. They are a clear majority over us all on this forum.

How about simoultaneus turn-based?

The information available about both games makes it clear that Larian's D&D game is much less Baldur's Gate 3 than Black Isle's cancelled game was.

Heck, the executive producer for Larian's D&D RPG couldn't even think of a single way in which Larian's "BG3" is actually a sequel to the series:

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

So, Larian's "BG3" is a sequel because it's a party-based RPG with colourful character and with combat in it - and the combat uses a D&D ruleset. He didn't even dare add that Baldur's Gate has specifically RTwP combat - because, of course, Larian's "BG3" doesn't.

There are loads of games that fit Walgrave's description that aren't called Baldur's Gate series games, and there are thousands that fit the description if not counting the D&D ruleset qualifier.

Walgrave's claim is the equivalent of saying that any first-person game where you play as a single character and use a variety of weapons to shoot at lots of things is a DOOM series game or a Half-Life series game. What Walgrave is saying is that there is no similarity between Larian's D&D game and the Baldur's Gate series and so he couldn't think of something that actually justifies calling Larian's "BG3" a Baldur's Gate series game.

I don't know if anyone remembers games like Jagged Allience 2 (the greatest turn based RPG ever made) or Temple Of Elemental Evil (great combat, flawed game otherwise) but both actually had better combat than the IE games due to being turn based.

Please don't try to say this as though a fact. This is your opinion. Others have a very different opinion.

TB is reminiscent of chess. RTwP is reminiscent of the magnetic/vibrating football game

you strategise multiple paths of movement and eliminate choice with each opponent turn, you have to react [...] to the unfolding combat.

Yes, D&D has references to actual time units, like a turn taking 6 seconds. But that didn't have any real effect on the gameplay. If they said one turn equals 60 seconds, the game would have played the same. It just would have left players wondering why they can only move 20 or 30 feet in 60 seconds, as an example.



I think TB does this too, only better.