|
|
|
enthusiast
|
enthusiast
Joined: Jun 2020
|
Kill this thread, please (doesn't matter whether in real-time or turn-based).
|
|
|
|
|
|
apprentice
|
|
apprentice
Joined: Aug 2020
|
I don't seem to understand what TB is? That's just crazy. Well, you say a lot of weird shit that makes it seem like you don't (passivity, being a spectator, turns that run while you're away). I don't know what games you're thinking of, but that crap doesn't sound like DOS (yes, DOS, Divinity Original Sin, the games made Larian, the makers of the game whose forum you are on). EXACTLY why/how is that weird. How in the world is it sooooooooooooooooo bloody hard to understand what I've explained? Whether that crap I've been talking about sounds like DOS or not is totally irrelevant since we are supposed to be talking about Baldur's Gate, Baldur's Gate 2, Baldur's Gate 3 and whether or not BG3 will use and should use a RTwP system just like BG & BG2 did, just like the IWD series did. So, either BG3 will play like and FEEL like BG and BG2 or it won't. DOS is irrelevant. It sure seems like you would rather play DOS than Baldur's Gate. I would rather play Baldur's gate. So far it doesn't look like BG3 is going to provide that opportunity. It might look like BG. It might sound like BG. But it won't feel like BG because the play of TB games feels different from the play of RT and RTwP games. FACT: In an IGoUGo TB game once I end my turn and the computer continues the gameplay and runs the other side's turn I become a spectator. I have issued my orders and once I end my turn I can no longer influence what is going to happen nor what is happening. I can sit there and watch, or I can get up and walk away while the computer takes its turn. Since there is NOTHING I can do about what is happening my presence is totally irrelevant. I could get up and walk away and the end result when the turn runs its course would be EXACTLY the same regardless of whether or not I stick around to watch it. I don't even need to watch what happens to know what happened after I walked away from the computer while it took the other side's turn because I can figure out what happened just by analyzing the results. Assuming that we are dealing with few enough units, or characters, for me to be able to do my turn in say 2-3 minutes (i.e. 20-30 seconds on average per unit/character with six units/characters) then when I take my next turn it doesn't matter if I spend 2-3 minutes on my turn, or 2-3 hours, or 2-3 days, or 2-3 weeks. It's a turn base game so there is ZERO urgency to it. ZERO immediacy to it. ZERO immergence, because I don't need to solve that puzzle now. I can solve that puzzle at any time. I could spend five minutes deciding what order to give to the first unit/character than pay attention to a movie for a while. Then spend 1 minute on the next unit/character and then watch the movie for a while. Then spend 30 seconds on the third unit/character and then get up and spend about eight minutes making a cup of coffee in my French press before going back to give unit/character three it's order after thinking about for another couple of minutes. Then I could spend 20 minutes thinking about what order to give the fourth unit/character only to decide to change the order I gave to the 2nd character and then give unit/character four it's order after thinking about it a few more minutes. Then give unit/character five its order after one minute, and give unit/character six its order after two minutes, then end the turn and watch the movie some more while the computer plays the other side because once again I am now an irrelevant bystander and observer, or not if I'm not observing the game because I'm watching or doing something else. Whatever is going to happen is going to happen and my attention to it is totally irrelevant. So, if DOS is a turn based IGoUGo game or a WeGo game (both sides issue their orders at the same time and then both sides run their turn at the same time) then I could play the combat turns in DOS EXACTLY like how I've described here just as if it were any TB IGoUGo tactical wargame. I'd be a passive observer when the computer does the other sides turn IF I bother to observe while the computer runs the other side's turn. Sometimes when I end my turn when playing Panzer Corps 2 or other TB games I get up and go make some coffee or tea or a snack because it doesn't matter it I watch what the other side does during its turn. I can't change or influence anything at that stage of the game because the computer is doing its thing for the other side's turn and the RNG gods are doing their thing and my presence is totally irrelevant to the results. Because my presence only matters when I'm taking my turn, my presence becomes irrelevant again when I end my turn, if we are discussing an IGoUGo TB game. Even if we were talking about an IGoUGo with reaction or a WeGo with reaction the situation remains the same if all reactions are automatic and thus happen without any input from the player. For example, in Panzer Corps 2 my AT units and AA units and Arty units automatically fire supporting fire in reaction to what the the other side does when the necessary conditions are met. All units automatically fire defensively if they are attacked by an adjacent unit. Arty units return fire if another Arty unit fires on them. Big gun Arty units automatically fire counterbattery fire in support of other targets if the right conditions are met. I don't have to do, and cannot do, anything about what happens because it all happens automatically once I end my turn. On the other hand, some IGoUGo with reaction and WeGo with reaction TB games can involve more interactivity when the reaction opportunities require a decision by the player. Such as in Steel Panthers when the player has to decide whether or not a unit fires when an enemy unit moves within the engagement range that has been set for it. So, for example, if I have a German 88 sitting on a hill with its engagement range set at 15 hexes (750 yards if memory serves) then I get an option to fire at every enemy unit that moves within that range. If I choose to not fire on the first unit that gets within 15 hexes it moves to 14 hexes and I get to fire again if I want. If I don't fire at 14 hexes it moves again until it expends all of its movement points or I fire on it. And as long as my 88 has a LOS on that target or any other target I get a chance to fire every time a unit within range moves another hex closer. If I don't fire on the first unit that gets within range I get the same opportunities on each succeeding target that comes within range. If I held all reaction fire until after all enemy units stopped moving I get one final opportunity to fire any and all of my units at any targets within range, and enemy units can fire back at anything target they spot and is within range if it has LOS. Phased WeGo with both auto and non-auto reaction is the next best thing to RTwP because the player's attention is absolutely necessary for making those reaction decisions. But in a standard IGoUGo TB game the player is an irrelevant observer when the other side takes its turn.
|
|
|
|
|
|
apprentice
|
|
apprentice
Joined: Aug 2020
|
Kill this thread, please (doesn't matter whether in real-time or turn-based). Except it absolutely matters to whether some people will play it at all or play it for long. Some players will tolerate the game if it is TB and if other elements are sufficiently satisfying. And some players won't.
Last edited by Vlad the Impaler; 22/08/20 10:44 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
|
I can give you a fact : BG3 won't play and feel like BG1/2 at all because NOTHING looks like BG... On the other hand, the similarities with DoS are visible.
Last edited by Maximuuus; 22/08/20 12:01 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
|
Also, when you speak of all your favorite games being TB, are you speaking just of cRPGs or of videogames generally?
Games in general. Though with turn based encompassing a rather wide range of experiences (from empire managements, to tactical squad battles, and stealth) I don’t see why a well developed TB mode wouldn’t be a great fit for a cRPG.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: May 2019
|
Well, the most boring, tedious, repetitive, brain-dead combat I've ever encountered in a videogame was in D:OS. If that is the case, I would say it is derived more from the encounters being too easy. Trying it solo or in MP, it was not the case. But with full group by level 14 or so (on Tactician), on my first play through, combat was too easy. The combat in any game can be so described if it is easy enough. This is a good point, one that I would agree with generally (applying to any game). But given how much I dislike the very concept of TB combat, for me it was actually a blessing to have combat be easy in D:OS, and in fact I even learned later into the game to deliberately lower the difficulty level all the way down just before a combat encounter just so I could breeze through the combat as quickly as possible. I think one way to bridge the gap between TB fans and RTwP fans is indeed to make combat encounters in cRPGs (a) fewer in number, and (b) smaller in scale and scope (including no artificial bloating of enemy hit points or immunities). If combat itself were a smaller part of the game/lesser focus of the game, then both sides may be able to live with the opposite combat system because they get enough enjoyment out of those parts of the game beyond combat. But if combat is the most important experience of the game, the core experience of the game, then speaking just for myself I have to say I cannot tolerate TB combat. As an example, I enjoyed playing T:ToN even though it has TB combat. Why? Because combat itself was a much smaller part of the game; combat was not the central feature of the game. So even though the combat was terrible, this was offset by all out-of-combat parts of the game that I personally found very enjoyable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: May 2019
|
Kill this thread, please (doesn't matter whether in real-time or turn-based). If you don't care for the discussion in this thread, there's a very easy solution: don't bother visiting it. Many others here value having this thread to discuss something that is important to them. It's not all about what is important or useful just for you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Mar 2019
|
If Larian makes BG3 turned based it won't be Baldur's Gate. Well, that's the subject of another thread. But in case you don't know, Larian most certainly is making BG3 turn based Well, considering the FACT that the title of this thread is "ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn" it appears that my comment fits EXACTLY with the subject of THIS thread. Considering how after waking up in the middle of the night and my first conscious thought is what you say here - well, 2nd conscious thought after thinking that I need to use the bathroom - I can now say that I have never ever been so disappointed before in my life about a pending game. I've been eagerly waiting around 18 years for BG3 to come out because BG2 and its expansions are hands down the best RPG games I've ever played. But sadly Larian is going to ruin it. Instead of staying faithful to the FEEL of the Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale games, they are turning BG into a different kind of role playing game and throwing D&D skins onto it so they can call it Baldur's Gate 3. Now I'm not even sure I'll play it. If they were to release it today, I know I wouldn't play it. But six weeks from now I'll probably be over my disappointment enough to give it a try even though I KNOW it absolutely will not FEEL the same as playing BG or BG2. There won't be any sense of urgency. There won't be any excitement. There won't be any intensity. There won't be any sense of immediacy. It will just be another endless series of problems/puzzles to solve at my leisure. Because I have NEVER played any turn based game of any kind in any genre that can match the feeling of playing a RT or RTwP game like the Icewind Dale and Baldur's Gate series of games. Temple of Elemental Evil was a very close second. I was referring to how BG3 will or will not be a "Baldur's Gate" game, which this most recent opinion of yours even further substantiates. Maybe this thread is where you will find that kind of discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Mar 2019
|
I can give you a fact : BG3 won't play and feel like BG1/2 at all because NOTHING looks like BG... On the other hand, the similarities with DoS are visible. I agree with that. But I think that is a good thing
|
|
|
|
|
|
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Mar 2019
|
Well, the most boring, tedious, repetitive, brain-dead combat I've ever encountered in a videogame was in D:OS. If that is the case, I would say it is derived more from the encounters being too easy. Trying it solo or in MP, it was not the case. But with full group by level 14 or so (on Tactician), on my first play through, combat was too easy. The combat in any game can be so described if it is easy enough. This is a good point, one that I would agree with generally (applying to any game). But given how much I dislike the very concept of TB combat, for me it was actually a blessing to have combat be easy in D:OS, and in fact I even learned later into the game to deliberately lower the difficulty level all the way down just before a combat encounter just so I could breeze through the combat as quickly as possible. I think one way to bridge the gap between TB fans and RTwP fans is indeed to make combat encounters in cRPGs (a) fewer in number, and (b) smaller in scale and scope (including no artificial bloating of enemy hit points or immunities). If combat itself were a smaller part of the game/lesser focus of the game, then both sides may be able to live with the opposite combat system because they get enough enjoyment out of those parts of the game beyond combat. But if combat is the most important experience of the game, the core experience of the game, then speaking just for myself I have to say I cannot tolerate TB combat. As an example, I enjoyed playing T:ToN even though it has TB combat. Why? Because combat itself was a much smaller part of the game; combat was not the central feature of the game. So even though the combat was terrible, this was offset by all out-of-combat parts of the game that I personally found very enjoyable. I like a lot of combat and exploration, with a good story to tie it all together. But, yes, if a game was to have very little emphasis on combat, I don't think it would matter which system was used.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: May 2019
|
Well, the most boring, tedious, repetitive, brain-dead combat I've ever encountered in a videogame was in D:OS. If that is the case, I would say it is derived more from the encounters being too easy. Trying it solo or in MP, it was not the case. But with full group by level 14 or so (on Tactician), on my first play through, combat was too easy. The combat in any game can be so described if it is easy enough. This is a good point, one that I would agree with generally (applying to any game). But given how much I dislike the very concept of TB combat, for me it was actually a blessing to have combat be easy in D:OS, and in fact I even learned later into the game to deliberately lower the difficulty level all the way down just before a combat encounter just so I could breeze through the combat as quickly as possible. I think one way to bridge the gap between TB fans and RTwP fans is indeed to make combat encounters in cRPGs (a) fewer in number, and (b) smaller in scale and scope (including no artificial bloating of enemy hit points or immunities). If combat itself were a smaller part of the game/lesser focus of the game, then both sides may be able to live with the opposite combat system because they get enough enjoyment out of those parts of the game beyond combat. But if combat is the most important experience of the game, the core experience of the game, then speaking just for myself I have to say I cannot tolerate TB combat. As an example, I enjoyed playing T:ToN even though it has TB combat. Why? Because combat itself was a much smaller part of the game; combat was not the central feature of the game. So even though the combat was terrible, this was offset by all out-of-combat parts of the game that I personally found very enjoyable. I like a lot of combat and exploration, with a good story to tie it all together. But, yes, if a game was to have very little emphasis on combat, I don't think it would matter which system was used. "Less" combat, not "very little" combat.  I personally would be quite happy playing a cRPG that had no combat at all, but I fully appreciate that many others like the combat part. So I'm not advocating reducing combat to almost nothing, just shifting the balance between combat and exploration (if we use this word for everything not combat) a bit more to the exploration side.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jan 2009
|
I am sure you're being sarcastic, in which case I would ask: exactly what am I saying here that is not polite or respectful? There is not one single word there that is a personal attack on anyone else. Not one. I am merely expressing my personal experiences as a gamer. That's it. No bad words. No cuss words. No judgment or labeling of anyone else. So exactly what are you talking about? It's the "boring, tedious, repetitive, brain-dead" part. Hope that helps! You can't set the combat difficulty to the lowest level and then complain that it's too easy.
That straw man totally misses the real point.
No, you're missing the point. It's not a straw man. I'm pointing out that your defense of the pauses in RTwP applies almost exactly to turn-based combat, but apparently that concept is beyond your ability to grasp.
And now that you have resorted to a childish ad hominem attack you obviously have no credibility whatsoever and don't deserve another nanosecond of time.
I don't see any "childish ad hominem" there. You're the one saying that you are unable to pay attention to turn-based games when it's not your turn. Are we supposed to treat you credibly when you say stuff like that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: May 2019
|
I am sure you're being sarcastic, in which case I would ask: exactly what am I saying here that is not polite or respectful? There is not one single word there that is a personal attack on anyone else. Not one. I am merely expressing my personal experiences as a gamer. That's it. No bad words. No cuss words. No judgment or labeling of anyone else. So exactly what are you talking about? It's the "boring, tedious, repetitive, brain-dead" part. Hope that helps! You can't set the combat difficulty to the lowest level and then complain that it's too easy. So I cannot criticize something from the D:OS games because that's not polite and respectful? Yeah right. Very convenient. My words describing combat in D:OS were eminently reasonable words. You can certainly disagree with my characterization, but there's absolutely nothing wrong with my words. As for the rest, clearly you've chosen to respond without closely reading my words. I did not complain the combat was too easy. That was someone else's characterization. My characterization was what you quote, and then I further said that because I found the combat so aggravating (due to being boring, tedious, repetitive, brain-dead) I chose to lower the difficulty so that I could get through it easier and faster. Not something complicated to understand.
|
|
|
|
|
|
apprentice
|
|
apprentice
Joined: Aug 2020
|
Then how do you explain RTwP games having a TB option? This same argument should equally apply there as well, yet the TB mode in P:Km works very well according to TB fans themselves. Seems like this is a very convenient one-sided argument being made only from the TB side, that all RTwP games should have a TB option but not vice versa because TB games cannot have a RTwP mode something something. I don't buy it for even a second. Seems like a self-serving argument from TB fans so that they can have everything their way. We don't really know how difficult it is to accommodate both. We can only speculate. It might be easier to add TB to a RTwP game, or vice versa, or more likely, depends on the mechanics of the game itself. As for Kingmaker, if I understand correctly, the game had an underwhelming reception, so it was in their best interest (i.e $$) to try to make it more appealing/accessible. Conversely, DOS2 had no such need to add a RTwP option, because of how well the game did (and probably continues to do). If it hasn't started already because of the success of DOS2, a hit with BG3 might spell the end of RTwP (or slumber, at least). The thing is, adding TB mode to a RTwP game is VERY easy for at least some games because the IWD and BG games already do that for all practical purpose. All a player has to do to play those games in turn based mode is select the "round" option for when the game automatically pauses and the it will pause at the end of each round, which is functionally the same thing as pausing at the end of each turn. The word "turn" has ambiguous meaning that varies from game to game. So, if a "turn" is the period of time during which characters/units execute the orders they were given until a timer expires or until all of the actions are complete then the IWD and BG games ALREADY make it possible to functionally turn a RTwP game into a TB game. Just select the timing for the pause to only "Turn" or "Round" or whatever works for a particular terminology of a game and never pause at any other time. And walla, it's a friggin TB game.
Last edited by Vlad the Impaler; 23/08/20 04:43 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
apprentice
|
|
apprentice
Joined: Aug 2020
|
A good turn-based games can keep me glued to the screen for hours. The games which do make me distract myself are those no requiring much of my imput to play - like Elite, or AssCreeds Dragon Age: Origins actually. Combat in that was brain-dead repetitive bore. Almost the same with Tyranny. Turnbased games are generally the complete opposite - no visual flare to distract so it's all killer no filler, or it's crap. Well, the most boring, tedious, repetitive, brain-dead combat I've ever encountered in a videogame was in D:OS. And filler trash mobs were plentiful in it too. Even the goblin combat encounters we've seen so far in BG3 come across to me as tedious brain-dead filler combat. In other words, pure hack and slash problem/puzzle solving that is fundamentally not much different from playing Risk or a small unit tactical wargame.
|
|
|
|
|
|
apprentice
|
|
apprentice
Joined: Aug 2020
|
Kill this thread, please (doesn't matter whether in real-time or turn-based). After thinking about this some more since I first responded I have changed my mind. You are correct. If Larian Studio has already made the firm decision to ignore the legacy of the Baldur's Gate games, and the Icewind Dale games, and every other D&D video game I've played, except for two that I can think of, by changing the next BG game into a TB game instead of RTwP then they might as well close out this thread because any contrary preferences and opinions are obviously totally irrelevant. They might as well cease with conning us with the illusion that our/other preferences really matter. If Larian is determined to do BG3 as a TB game just because that's how they always do their games then oh well. This is the reason why I have never played a Larian game before. There's a reason why I have never played any other TB RPG except the one D&D I know of that is TB with a phased TB system of some kind and Betrayal at Krondor which was the first RPG I ever played. That is also the only non D&D TB RPG I have ever played. Since I haven't played TofEE in so long I don't remember if it is phased IGoUGo with reaction or phased WeGo with reaction. But I gave it chance as a TB RPG only because it is a D&D game. I played through it once and was done with it, because it is TB. So yeah, end this farce and close out this thread because apparently any discussion about this issue is totally pointless.
|
|
|
|
|
|
apprentice
|
|
apprentice
Joined: Aug 2020
|
I can give you a fact : BG3 won't play and feel like BG1/2 at all because NOTHING looks like BG... On the other hand, the similarities with DoS are visible. That's why the chances of me playing BG3, the game I have been looking forward to some day getting to play more than any other game, are getting smaller by the day. The more I read here the more convinced I am that all Larian is doing is taking DoS and putting D&D/BG skins on it, and adding BG characters in it, just so they can call it BG3. At least I have enhanced BG and BG2 and can still play them. In fact, I'm very close to finishing up BG again and then starting BG2 again. Everything I read in here tells me Larian is going to ruin Baldur's Gate.
Last edited by Vlad the Impaler; 23/08/20 05:10 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
apprentice
|
|
apprentice
Joined: Aug 2020
|
That straw man totally misses the real point.
No, you're missing the point. It's not a straw man. I'm pointing out that your defense of the pauses in RTwP applies almost exactly to turn-based combat, but apparently that concept is beyond your ability to grasp.
CAN a player do what I describe in a RTwP game? Sure, absolutely. A player CAN do those things. But WHY? Doing that in a RTwP game totally defeats the entire point and purpose of playing a game like that. That's why I have never ever done those things when playing a RTwP game - because doing those things defeats the whole point of playing that kind of game. On the other hand, doing those things when playing a TB game makes perfect sense because it's a great convenience and the point/purpose of the game is very different. Just because someone CAN do something doesn't mean it makes much sense to do it except when necessary because sometimes you just have to take a break to go do something.
So yes, your comment absolutely IS a straw man, and it's a lie of omission because you conveniently ignore the important context of the two very different situations and the two very different purposes of different kinds of games. And since Intro to Logic is one of the seven Philosophy courses I tutor it is literally my job to recognize when someone is using a logical fallacy. Again, you are using two. The purpose of RT combat is to produce a sense of immediacy, urgency, danger, and excitement when simulating combat in whatever genre the combat is occurring. When done effectively that immediacy, urgency, danger, and excitement also pay off with emersion. A FPS, or a flight sim or space sim or tank sim or ship sim, doesn't need a pause because my character/unit is the only one I'm controlling so my character/unit lives or dies on how well I do in the fight by effectively executing my skills and possibly even tactics depending upon the game. Pause isn't necessary in many small unit games, like for example a tank sim where I'm commanding and controlling one tank while leading a platoon of four or five tanks because in a sim or tactical wargame one of the points is to simulate the command and control and fog of war of tactical combat. I can control my tank and issue movement orders and targeting orders to the other tanks, but how well they do depends upon their skills (really the whims of the RNG gods) and how well I do in my tank is up to me and my skills. Now, if we were to expand the number of units from one or a handful to 20 or 30 or more then it could make perfect sense to have a pause function because then effective control of a larger number of units my require a pause function, OR changing to a phased WeGo with reaction TB system. Scale matters.
But in the RT combat of an RPG with a party of six the only way to simulate the amount of control a party leader can have over what amounts to a fireteam, or to simulate six individuals simultaneously making decisions on the fly during combat, is by BRIEFLY pausing long enough for the player to issue new orders and then unpause to get back to the action as soon as possible. The POINT/PURPOSE of RT and RTwP is to make as sense/feeling of emersion, urgency, immediacy, excitement and tension possible, and the more the better. Unless someone prefers the much more leisurely pace of a TB game. Sometimes I prefer the former. Sometimes I prefer the latter. I always prefer the former when playing an RPG. That's one of the reasons why I don't play certain RPGs, because they are turn based. Another reason I don't play certain RPGs is because I cannot run a party. All of the RPGs I play where I can't control a full party but can still enjoy it are also an FPS, like for example the Fallout games. If we could run a whole party in Fallout New Vega or Fallout 4 like we can in certain D&D games, FNV and F4 would be near perfect PRGs and equal to if not better than the Baldur's Gate games.
[quote=Stabbey][quote=Vlad the Impaler]
And now that you have resorted to a childish ad hominem attack you obviously have no credibility whatsoever and don't deserve another nanosecond of time.
I don't see any "childish ad hominem" there. You're the one saying that you are unable to pay attention to turn-based games when it's not your turn. Are we supposed to treat you credibly when you say stuff like that? Well then you are willfully blind. Your comment about my supposedly short attention span is a childish ad hominem attack, and a lame false dilemma. There isn't a damn thing wrong with my attention span when I'm playing a game that requires any attention. CONTEXT matters.
Last edited by Vlad the Impaler; 23/08/20 05:56 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
|
The more I read here the more convinced I am that all Larian is doing is taking DoS and putting D&D/BG skins on it, and adding BG characters in it, just so they can call it BG3.
Many people pointed it out for me but there is a lot of real estate between: Faithful recreation of BG1&2 > DnD reskin of D:OS2. As someone who played both D:OS1&2 BG is definitely not a reskin. It is however Larian RPG, not Bioware RPG. If you were hoping for fan-like continuation of BG IP, that was clear that won't be the case once it was clear who was making it... at least to those familiar with Larian sensibilities. I don't think it's a bad thing by any means, but that also means I might not enjoy it in singleplayer. There is a reason why all RTwP vs TB has been contained to this thread. And yeah, there is no way there will be RTwP option - too much of Larian design revolves around TB system. In something like Deadfire or pathfinder it's just the matter of how combat plays out. In Larian RPG entire coop structure (and now even stealth and trap design) relies on game being turn based.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Support
|
|
Support
Joined: Mar 2003
|
There is a reason why all RTwP vs TB has been contained to this thread. Yes, a large portion of topics created after the announcement were on this subject, and it was being brought up in completely unrelated topics ('how can you ask about a graphics issue, when the real problem...').
|
|
|
|
|
