Originally Posted by Wormerine
Originally Posted by Blackheifer
Let me clear something up, I simply didn't find Bg1 or 2 challenging in any way. I did all of those things, and I avoided taking advantage of the poor RTWP system and its shortcomings. I turned off the AI, I set up maneuvers, and summons, and spells and so forth but ultimately the combat was a "thing to get through" that didn't provide any real challenge.
I agree - especially compared to something like Pathfinder games, BG1&2 were a cake walk. 2e was also not very complex. Yes there were a lot of spells, but really that's all that was to it. Out of party of 6 maybe 2-3 characters required attention. I have managed to beat the game with little to no understanding of underying mechanics - and yeah, with that some fights took quite a bit of trial and error - some cheese, some experimentiation and some RNG luck. If one has a decent grasp on the mechanics though, BG1&2 become rather straightforward.

I definitely see more potential in BG3 combat, as long as they get rid of the "cheese" - for not it is a mixed bag for me. Some encounters I enjoy, other annoy me, and my enjoyment is always throttled by the knowledge that I can steam roll through any encounter if I stop handicapping myself.
Seems to me like a strawman to be comparing the old BG games to something being made today. The more appropriate comparisons would be the RTwP combat of Pathfinder to the TB combat of BG3. And for me, although I am yet to play BG3 and only have streams of others' games as my reference, the RTwP combat of the Pathfinder games is waaaaaaaaay better than BG3. Now, I do think there is way too much combat in WotR at the expense of other aspects of a cRPG, but that's a separate issue. The combat itself of WotR, in RTwP, is just soooooo awesomely fun, interesting, and challenging, compared with the utterly boring and tedious combat of BG3.