Originally Posted by Zefhyr
Denohonator
I would like you give me some names of games +1 who didn't respect their predecessor.
To respect the basics didn't mean you can't evolve.
Look at Age of Mythology, it respects the basics, still it's innovating.

You said: "The only argument for RTwP I've seen is "BG1 and BG2 had it""

Sadly, you didn't read all of my messages.
I said why, in my opinion, RTwP will better fit BG3 than TB. My point was RTwP is more epic than TB. It's like comparing chess to.... I don't know, lasertag ? Sure Chess is fun but it doesn't have the thrill and the excitement of a good old lasertag when it moves and shoots everywhere.
So RTwP is well suited cause this is the essence of BG. The thrill of the fights, the eye of the tiger.
Secondly, and this is an major point, it's as if you take another game like... I don't know... CoD and just said "we're going to do CoD +1 but it's gonna be TB cause you know it's more strategic and more fun" Well, ok, maybe for you, maybe you're right, but this is not the basic's of the game you take the name of.
I could keep talking about the better feeling RTwP gives about fights but I just move forward to another point.

I don't think the "heavy work" argument is valid when talking about doing a good game. And I don't think it should be this hard to have both of the possibilities considering a lot of games did it.
I am EVER, EVER, EVER, deceived when devs just want to impose their point of view on gameplay when they could easily satisfy everybody.

A good example is "kingdow come deliverance". Never get why the guys decided than you could save only in beds. It was silly and made things so difficult for no valid reasons.
And here we are. Larian could just do both of TB and RTwP (which BTW will give them the opportunity to improve their skills, trying to dev something new for them).
But apparently it looks like they wont be doing it and why ? Because it would be hard to do ? No, just because they want to impose their point of view even if it's against the basics of the game they align themself with and against the will of a big part of their gamer...

True story.

PS: RTwP is way more "realistic" than TB too (which is, also, a big point).


Fallout is an example of a game series in which gameplay took a major turn after the first two games going from turn based isometric to realtime FPS. Some people didn't like the change, but look where the series is now.
Or let's say Final Fantasy games. They've gone from turn based top down to third person and then realtime. Also highly successful.

I admit I don't really know of game series that went from realtime to turn based, but it's really just a question of what the devs want to make and what the audience wants to play. Larian decided that turn based would be that more so than RTwP.

I would be more supportive of RTwP if right now, they were at the start of development and wanted to know what the audience wants. But they've already put the game in a turn based engine, designed core gameplay and encounters for turn based, etc. I think it would be foolish for them to go for RTwP at this point, when they could just make a great turn based game.

I don't see what you're trying to say with Kingdom Come: Deliverance. They made a design choice you don't agree with?

They definitely could do both TB and RTwP. But should they?

Also, you say they impose their point of view. They are making the game. They can do what they want. Also, while they are going against a core system in previous BG, at the same they are going for a core system of D&D 5e.

I admit I haven't read all your reasonings for RTwP, but what you're saying here is that it's more epic and exciting. That's a subjective experience. We can talk preferences all we want. What I responded to was that you think BG3 should have RTwP because it's BG, and that is the argument that I don't think is good. You merely told me why you would prefer RTwP. That doesn't defend that statement. I get that you prefer RTwP but that doesn't mean BG3 should have it because it's BG.