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.
If everyone is moving around at the same time during that interval between the automatic pauses, then no, it is not remotely the same thing as what goes on in TB combat like there is in DOS and BG3. And it is comments like these that have led (and still lead) me to wonder if you really do know the what everyone else means by 'turn-based'.
I don't know how to explain it any better. TWICE I have explained a minimum of at least SIX different ways that turn based games do TB gaming. Clearly you want to define TB in only ONE way, the way that YOU prefer, and so all other possibilities are irrelevant to your narrow world view. Clearly you don't understand what turn based CAN mean.
Originally Posted by Emrikol
Originally Posted by Vlad the Impaler
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.
Combining two genres (hack/slash and problem/puzzle) and calling the combination "pure" is nonsensical. Even so, there is more to these games than that (exploration, story, character interaction, effects of choices).
And now you dishonestly cherry pick a comment out of context to misrepresent what I mean. And you have the gall to accuse me of being nonsensical.
Originally Posted by Emrikol
Originally Posted by Vlad the Impaler
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.
These sentiments have been made by others before you and have been debated elsewhere on these forums. Although, I believe that such arguments should handled specifically (i.e. issue by issue) instead of by blanket statements, so this is the place to discuss how you believe TB will "ruin Baldur's Gate."
Silly me, I thought the point of this thread was to get input and ideas from the players and not to merely give us the false illusion that input from us matters. Silly me, I thought Larian actually might be willing to listen.
Originally Posted by Emrikol
Originally Posted by Sven_
[quote=Emrikol] We don't really know how difficult it is to accommodate both. We can only speculate.
Actually, that is not a good find. I followed the link and all I see is lame rationalizing with a false dilemma. An RPG that uses RTwP combat does not HAVE TO have "a higher volume of trash encounters." Such a game can have zero "trash encounters" if the developers choose to not put any trash encounters in it. EVERY encounter in a RTwP RPG can be "meaningful encounters" if the developer makes every encounter meaningful. If this means no random encounters that are possible in D&D, assuming this hasn't changed, then sobeit. Don't have any random encounters. And I bet THIS is the reason RTwP D&D games had "trash encounters," because the damn rules of D&D called for rolling up random encounters and NOT because they were RTwP instead of TB. I bet other TB games that were NOT based on the D&D rule set didn't have as many "trash encounters" because the rules made up for those games didn't call for fandom encounters and so that they were TB didn't have anything to do with it. There is no immutable law of physics or game design that makes any encounters in a RTwP game trash encounters and makes every encounter in a TB game meaningful. Encounters in an RPG are as meaningful or not meaningful as the designer makes them.
Last edited by Vlad the Impaler; 24/08/2007:13 AM.
