That is true, and I'm making some assumptions myself as well. I'm assuming the combat speed will be improved by release. I Highly doubt it will be released the way it is now because the biggest issue is how long the AI is taking to make their moves / decisions which I fully believe will be improved on. I'm not denying there is an issue with combat the way it is. But I also feel that a game being Turn Based is not a death sentence to a DnD game especially a 5e game. We have enough pseudo DnD games, I want a real DnD 5e game, and really do hope they iron out some of the issues with the current combat.
but if I had to choose RTwP or Turn Based for a 5e game. 100% of the time I will take Turn Based. For multitudes of reasons and not restrict my thinking to hey BG1/BG2 where RTwP so BG3 needs to be as well. I'm looking at the systems they are based on and the potential of the game being built in that system. Honestly who doesn't want an awesome game that is as close to a true DnD experience as possible.
The game having TB combat is not at all a "death sentence." I don't think anyone has said that. The game has already sold pretty well and will no doubt be financially successful, simply because it is a D&D game and it is called 'Baldur's Gate.'
I am someone who does not want a game that is as close to a true D&D experience as possible, because I want a video game and do not want a tabletop experience. So I want things to be changed from standard D&D mechanics wherever that would improve the game relative to providing a good VIDEO game experience.
Again, a lot of people like turn based. XCOM, for instance, is one of the greatest games ever made and a cornerstone of the strategy game genre and is turn based. Your argument would suggest we can't have any turn-based games and still have a good video game.
To put it another way; the video game genre is a big place. We have games that are literally visual novels, we have games that are real time strategy, we have turn based strategy, shooters, platformers, rhythm games...To say that turn based games cannot be good games is absurdly subjective. I respect your opinion, but if you believe that generically we can't have a discussion because it's not a debate, it's an assertion.
If you want to talk about got BG3 fails fundamentally as a turned based strategy game, fine. If you want to say how those problems could be fixed by it being RTWP, fine. But maybe step back from saying it's bad because of what it is fundamentally, versus how it implements itself and what it is trying to do.
What are you talking about? I explicitly said a game being good is a subjective thing. That means there is no objective rule that says this is what makes a game good. For me, personally and subjectively, a game being TB automatically puts a big negative hit on that game. If the non-combat parts of that game are excellent, I will both say so and very likely even end up playing the game, suffering through the crappy combat just to enjoy those excellent other parts of the game. But if the non-combat parts of that are nothing to write home about, then I wouldn't care to suffer through a combat system I hate to play that game. Seems pretty reasonable to me.
I don't think anyone has said that. The game has already sold pretty well and will no doubt be financially successful, simply because it is a D&D game and it is called 'Baldur's Gate.'
