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

That's not really what reactive means.

If opponent A makes a move, and you are player X ... you have to wait 23 turns to make your reaction. That is not "reactive" by definition.

In an RT game, I can instantly use bonus action, reaction action, free actions, etc. That is "reactive"

Okay, 'adjust' then?

But going back to your original statement:



Can I say that it is the PRECISE nature of combat where TB really shines?

Seems like we're going nowhere here.

Oh I see, sorry I misunderstood what it was you were trying to make a point of. Absolutely, and that is what I like about TB games. They are precise. This is actually part of the difference between "tactics" and "strategy".

Both TB and RT are "tactical" and "strategic" but the words are different for a reason. Tactics are fixed, they are the rules and concepts applied to a situation from which to derive a strategy, which are the actions employed to enact tactics.

RTS are real time strategy because the strategy is real time - you apply your tactics in real time. In a turn based strategy game, the strategy is turn based, you apply your tactics turn by turn. I know this sounds a bit childish to point out, but it is a crucial distinction, I think.

I like both Real Time and Turn Based games. Front Mission 4 is one of the most underrated TBS ever made. Dark Reign likewise is an unsung hero of RTS. My tastes are wide.

But I think that what BG is is RTwP because BG is a computer game first and foremost. DOS and BG3 are just TTG replicators, which I have zero interest in.

As I have said elsewhere, to me Baldur's Gate evokes more of general D&D game than the specific type of game it is. When I heard BG3, I didn't of the game itself. I thought of D&D. Baldur's Gate has become something of a flagship product that represents D&D as a whole, not so much the specific game. Probably because, like we're discussing in another thread, we came to the same game from different backgrounds.

I'm sure it sucks for you that the game is TB. But, as the saying goes, can't please everybody.

That's the big difference then. People who think of BG as a computer game and people who think of BG as a D&D game.

Quite historically, BG was never a D&D game until it was a computer game. And it is *the* computer game that has inspired basically every game development studio currently in existence.

Here; from the other thread I mentioned, very very topical because they say outright that they are not intending to make D&D by the numbers.





https://www.theringer.com/2018/12/21/18150363/baldurs-gate-bioware-1998-video-games

But Baldurs Gate was never good BECAUSE of D&D and that's the big big mistake of Larian. BG2 was successful EVEN it was D&D. Play temple of elemental evil, by the way turn based - it was boring as hell. Showing D&D was never ever a reason that BG was that legendary.

Okay, cool. Thanks for the pasted quote.

You can argue which impression the name "Baldur's Gate" should evoke, the game itself or the franchise it stood for. But it is silly to do so (for me, the games were forgettable; the franchise not at all). And I would say that while BG might be "*the* computer game that has inspired basically every game development studio currently in existence", D&D is *the" game that inspired them even more. Those roots aren't so old as to no longer be felt.

No they aren't. I kind of poke fun at this in my other thread, when I say there were people back when BG came out, the TTG purists, who said RT would never work. I joke about a fake conspiracy that they have been behind all the negative reviews of RTwP since, and that "DOS3" is their ultimate revenge. But it is just a joke, lol

Cheers.

I think you have that backwards. DnD isn't about the mechanics, it's about the story and enjoying that story by yourself or with other people. Turning the DnD world into a video game can make the journey of that story into a smooth or bumpy ride. Real time or turn based, either can make for an immersive experience you'll remember for years to come, it's all about the execution.

If turn based combat is a turn off, you'll have to wait for the next real time game to venture forth.

Bioware explained that they weren't trying to mimic the rules of tabletop because they were making a game for computers.

Check the interview in my post a few comments above.

Tactics is the individual tactics applied RIGHT NOW, Strategy is a Plan that is beeing executed

thus the difference between Turn based strategy (civilization) and turn based tactics (xcom)

Not quite what they said though.
They wanted to make an RPG and when the opportunity to make it an AD&D game presented itelf they jumped at it, being table top players themselves. What they realised was that their idea for fast paced Real Time combat didn't work with the AD&D rules "WITHOUT" adding the Pause mechanism.

This is actually quite crucial to qoute.

But in essence as usual, every one is right in their own way. It is true that BioWare never set out originally to copy D&D/build a D&D game, the license just fell in their lap and they adapted their original idea to suit.

Heck that is kinda what we have here right?

Either way, both STB (as we should call this due to it being Simultaneous) and RTwP have their merits and their pit falls, and this Thread and the poll on PC Gamer has proven that you're damned if you do or if you don't either way, because opinion on this particular mechanism is split relatively down the middle.

Heck even I can't decide which I really prefer, having played both systems in various games. RTwP is a mess, but it's a glorious mess where you get the feel of a real fight taking place with traded blows and spells flying, it's quite "hollywood", but frankly your control of it is suspect at best.

Turn Based can look very bland, control is a wonderful thing, and knowing why you were killed and what youd id wrong (or right!) is great, but it needs more to be happening to match the feeling of RTwP.

Are we not at a point where passive characters and monsters can't "pretend fight" whilst waiting to turn the tide? Melee swords clashing, shields blocking, ducking. Archers ducking behind rocks or leaning into trees for cover, notching arrows. Spell casters preparing spells, reading books or reaching in satchels for scrolls.

Yeah it could all be a bit too much, but I am not a fan of static characters waiting to be moved like Chess pieces. I really like the tactical flexibility, I love not being at the mercy of my 25 rolls vs their 25 rolls before something happens and if I don't pause right it's too late, but I miss the chaos. I do, I miss the feeling that that is what combat is, controlled chaos.

I also appreciate that these fine tunings, animations come later in the process, so it's possible this is to some degree planned for. But if not or if being discussed, then Larian, i'm fine with STB, but please find a way to put in some of that chaotic flavour with animations and shouts, noise, etc...

Thanks

Well put. Since both modes lend themselves well to different situations, why not come up with combat that lets you switch them on the fly? If balance is an issue, you could disable certain things/abilities and add incentives to prefer one to the other depending on the context. Again, it doesn't have to be a tabletop simulator.

A compromise like this often leads to either one or both being sub par. Two examples: Arcanum, which was a complete failure in that regard. Neither TB nor RT worked well and combat was the worst part of the game. Then there was Fallout Tactics, which actually pulled it off although you really had no reason to use real time unless you just wanted to dispose of a trash mob quickly.

Well, having a single combat mode doesn't make a game successful per se so I think your sample size is pretty small. It's Larian we're talking about, don't you think they have what it takes to get hybrid combat right?

Well that was just the two that came off the top of my head. Arcanum had two systems because they had to shoehorn real time for multiplayer due to publisher demanding it, and ran out of time to implement in properly. Thus real time sucks and makes the game trivially easy for casters as you can just spam low lvl spells as fast as you can click while controlling all other classes in combat is tedious. I think the reason for two systems in Fallout Tactics was the same, but they actually pulled it off pretty well in that you can play the game in real time, it's just a bit of a clusterfuck if there's more than a couple of enemies. I remember setting up ambushes in real time was very satisfying.

Point is, these games had two combat systems because of external pressure to add multiplayer, not because the developers felt that adding two combat systems was actually beneficial to the game. It's naturally better to have only one combat mode and spend as much time fine honing it than having to share that time between two combat systems. I'm sure Larian could pull it off if they had infinite resources to pour into combat systems, but that is rarely the case in game development (nor will infinite time and resources necessarily mean that the end product will be better).

If you can think of a similar RPG with real time and turn based combat systems that are actually both well implemented and support each other, I'd be happy to hear it. And before you say it, VATS doesn't count since it's hilariously broken and makes the new Fallouts trivially easy.

So there is no correlation between time, resources and the quality of the end product. I agree.

Do you think so? There's naturally correlation between sufficient resources and the quality of the end product, but throwing money on a game doesn't necessarily mean the end product will be better if other parts of the development process aren't in order.

Also, by that token, you could argue having only 3 recruitable party members is better than 4 because you get to use more resources on each character and spend time honing them. I do not see the soundness of this argument. You could come up with a million examples in this vein.