Your response was the hassle of pausing. Which is something you need to do in RT as well, as per the initial question was about RT vs RTwP as was mine, not about who felt what way about Turn Based Combat. And as an aside, as I do expect you to answer the actual question, the more considerate, inclusive opinion would be hoping for turn based to be included as an option more regularly going forward instead of forcing it on others because you don't like manually pausing.
Okay so I am not sure I actually understand your question. Are you saying there is a full, none stop RT game using CRPG style with party control? In the various RT games I have played, most RTS or shooter style games, I used pause to step away from the game, never to make actions.
I dont understand in BG1 there is a setting to make it turn based. I try to read true the wall of text here but I think somehow it went to another direction. This thread should be about something else. But it really is just complain about turn based combat. But somehow I have the feeling that ppl are saying and telling stories about BG1 from wiki pages and redit. If someone really played BG1 then she / he knows turn based combat was optional. https://imageupload.io/4Ev4akDyGBRbGJk
I dont understand in BG1 there is a setting to make it turn based. I try to read true the wall of text here but I think somehow it went to another direction. This thread should be about something else. But it really is just complain about turn based combat. But somehow I have the feeling that ppl are saying and telling stories about BG1 from wiki pages and redit. If someone really played BG1 then she / he knows turn based combat was optional. https://imageupload.io/4Ev4akDyGBRbGJk
Pause after end of round.
Your link is blocked by Norton security as a known harmful site. Be careful. I didn't try the autopauze options, but it seemed to me that pause at end of turn is not the same as pause for every player within a turn. Is it ? I might have to retry a run one day, trying out these options. But anyway, as said, RTWP was one of the reasons I stopped. There were some others, like endless trots through the wilderness with nothing exciting happening. But I guess you could always argue, welll then don't explore all of the wilderness. etc....
I dont understand in BG1 there is a setting to make it turn based. I try to read true the wall of text here but I think somehow it went to another direction. This thread should be about something else. But it really is just complain about turn based combat. But somehow I have the feeling that ppl are saying and telling stories about BG1 from wiki pages and redit. If someone really played BG1 then she / he knows turn based combat was optional. https://imageupload.io/4Ev4akDyGBRbGJk
Pause after end of round.
Your link is blocked by Norton security as a known harmful site. Be careful. I didn't try the autopauze options, but it seemed to me that pause at end of turn is not the same as pause for every player within a turn. Is it ? I might have to retry a run one day, trying out these options. But anyway, as said, RTWP was one of the reasons I stopped. There were some others, like endless trots through the wilderness with nothing exciting happening. But I guess you could always argue, welll then don't explore all of the wilderness. etc....
No its not I think it's better for a couple of reasons. For example in bg3 the turn end when your turns end and not really after everyones turn end. And this is baaaad. For example blade ward is not functional because it's actually working for only 1 turn instead of 2.
In BG1 it was round and end of turn. For example if you could cast blade ward i bg1 you could get It active for two full rounds. Because the turn ended after the last enemy used his action. This is even worst with 1 round de buffs buffs.
I dont understand in BG1 there is a setting to make it turn based. I try to read true the wall of text here but I think somehow it went to another direction. This thread should be about something else. But it really is just complain about turn based combat. But somehow I have the feeling that ppl are saying and telling stories about BG1 from wiki pages and redit. If someone really played BG1 then she / he knows turn based combat was optional. https://imageupload.io/4Ev4akDyGBRbGJk
Pause after end of round.
Back when the game released, one of the biggest complaints about the game was that is was RTwP and not just turned based. The majority of the community back then begged for turn based.
I dont understand in BG1 there is a setting to make it turn based. I try to read true the wall of text here but I think somehow it went to another direction. This thread should be about something else. But it really is just complain about turn based combat. But somehow I have the feeling that ppl are saying and telling stories about BG1 from wiki pages and redit. If someone really played BG1 then she / he knows turn based combat was optional. https://imageupload.io/4Ev4akDyGBRbGJk
Pause after end of round.
Your link is blocked by Norton security as a known harmful site. Be careful. I didn't try the autopauze options, but it seemed to me that pause at end of turn is not the same as pause for every player within a turn. Is it ? I might have to retry a run one day, trying out these options. But anyway, as said, RTWP was one of the reasons I stopped. There were some others, like endless trots through the wilderness with nothing exciting happening. But I guess you could always argue, welll then don't explore all of the wilderness. etc....
No its not I think it's better for a couple of reasons. For example in bg3 the turn end when your turns end and not really after everyones turn end. And this is baaaad. For example blade ward is not functional because it's actually working for only 1 turn instead of 2.
In BG1 it was round and end of turn. For example if you could cast blade ward i bg1 you could get It active for two full rounds. Because the turn ended after the last enemy used his action. This is even worst with 1 round de buffs buffs.
I guess we're getting offtopic, but I think that blade ward examle is a minor inconvenience compared to the tactical advantage of being able to assess the battlefield when it's your turn for action.
I took the habit of having Gale summon a water elemental after camp. (I guess any elemental will do, but I liked the WE's noise most ) This creature stays with you until next long rest. It can teleport a great distance and attack in the same round. It has been a fantastic weapon in combat, because it is also quite hardy. It can hold off/occupy several enemies for a long time, block passages etc.... but you have to be able to see where to move it on the battlefield when it is its turn. This goes for so many different cases. When Lae'zel knocks an opponent prone with her shield as a reactiion, that can change your plan for the next move. Shadowheart's spirit guardians can be mighty useful, but you also have to get to the right position to use them effectively. And so on and so on..... It's all tactics that can only fully come to fruitition in turn based combat when the character can see the situation at the start of its turn.
Your response was the hassle of pausing. Which is something you need to do in RT as well, as per the initial question was about RT vs RTwP as was mine, not about who felt what way about Turn Based Combat. And as an aside, as I do expect you to answer the actual question, the more considerate, inclusive opinion would be hoping for turn based to be included as an option more regularly going forward instead of forcing it on others because you don't like manually pausing.
Okay so I am not sure I actually understand your question. Are you saying there is a full, none stop RT game using CRPG style with party control? In the various RT games I have played, most RTS or shooter style games, I used pause to step away from the game, never to make actions.
...you were the one that brought Real Time CRPGs into the conversation. So either you were just not talking about CRPGs for half of that sentence randomly, or you were advocating for RTwP CRPGs to remove the pause feature to make them fully Real Time. And you were asked what good removing the pause would do when you can just not use it to keep the game in Real Time. And you said you don't like to have to pause if you get distracted from the game.
My question was trying to figure out what conversation you thought you were having.
So the RTwP to me creates an un-needed step to the game mechanic. Most people play RTwP as essentially turn based anyway by passing every turn. The issue becomes that just a momentary laps can result in the RT aspect playing a second or even 3rd turn if you look away. This resulted, when the games where released with many gamers asking for a pure turn based mode and that is what I have advocated.
So the RTwP to me creates an un-needed step to the game mechanic. Most people play RTwP as essentially turn based anyway by passing every turn. The issue becomes that just a momentary laps can result in the RT aspect playing a second or even 3rd turn if you look away. This resulted, when the games where released with many gamers asking for a pure turn based mode and that is what I have advocated.
I actually do not think most people play rtwp as turn-based most of the time. I think they pause during the important, difficult battles, but during the easy battles they let the real-time take its course.
Back when the game released, one of the biggest complaints about the game was that is was RTwP and not just turned based. The majority of the community back then begged for turn based.
No they did not. RTwP was a new idea, and it was immensely popular at that time precisely because of how well it worked in BG1.
Originally Posted by Zentu
So the RTwP to me creates an un-needed step to the game mechanic.
Again, wrong. The only reason the TB mechanic exists is because in any tabletop game you have no other alternative than for players to go in turns. It is a LIMITATION of TT gaming. That limitation does not exist in the computer medium, and so computer games can (and should) do away with that limitation. It is the logical thing to do.
Back when the game released, one of the biggest complaints about the game was that is was RTwP and not just turned based. The majority of the community back then begged for turn based.
No they did not. RTwP was a new idea, and it was immensely popular at that time precisely because of how well it worked in BG1.
I am not sure if you where there at the time, I was at launch and call tell you that a lot of the player base did not like the RTwP mechanic.
If I were an optimist, I'd say there is still some hope for BG3 becoming closer to 5e D&D (but to me, that's not nearly as important), but no hope at all that they will even attempt to change BG3 to feel (at least a bit more) like an actual Baldur's Gate game. Many of Larian's game (and world) design decisions go literally exactly the opposite way.
This has probably been posted a few times before, but:
Larian's philosophy to world design is even more compressed, but BG2 already laid out the path that Bioware would develop later: EVERYTHING in BG2 solely exists to provide loot, NPCs or adventure for the player. You don't even explore and find locations in the countryside without getting a quest leading to it (in that sense, BG3 actually has the upper hand, despite its compressed maps). Still, BG2 is the definition of a game world built for you.
BG2 is in major parts an overcorrection to vocal fan criticism leveled at the first game (too empty! Boring forests! Not enough to do! Not enough epic levels and loot!). The same way as Thief 2 was an overcorrection to criticism leveled at Thief the same year (too many zombies!) As such, it turned out the way it did. Rather than improving the aspects criticized, they tossed them out completely each and went the opposite directions. But yeah, BG1 is an altogether different experience. BG1 "simulates" the Sword Coast (within the confines of its engine). By modern standards, when you start out, it's even almost an A(D&D) surival sim, with weapons occasionally breaking and initially dangerous wildlife that can kill quickly right from the start.
BG2 already moved far closer into the theme park territory, compared to BG1 it IS a D&D theme park as it crams everything into its maps, vampire, dragon and beholder lairs here too are just a click apart. And as Bioware were developing more and more "movie like" experiences later, every location is staged for your adventure. If you find a shack in the woods in BG1, it may contain nothing -- because, that's natural. If you find anything in BG2, you can bet there's somethin to be found for you there. Kingdom Come Deliverance is a different first-person format and doesn't contain fantasy. But exploring it reminded me a lot of BG1. The devs built plenty space (and forests..) that exist because it exists -- like, in a world proper, rather than an amusement ride.
As an aside, Larian's platonic ideal is actually Ultima, in particular 7. But it seems pretty clear by now that they don't champion the world simulation aspects of it, like every NPCs having a purpose and routines; and the world being the world because that's what worlds are like: you may travel plenty without not much action happening. But rather, the object interaction aspects of it. That you could pick up anything and everything and fiddle with it in some way. In terms of exploration etc. , BG1 is much closer to Ultima 7.
Like, nobody doubt BioWare capability to write, even games like Mass Effect Andromeda is decently written despite the bad technical faulties.
But Larian games evolved from DOS1 to BG3 - it's stay true to their RPG philosophy. They remain a cRPG developer.
BioWare went from BG2 to Mass Effect (barely an RPG) in the same span of time. BioWare went on from making a barely RPG to "story focus" "roleplaying" experience such as Anthem, Mass Effects and Dragon Age Inquisitions (even DAO itself is watered down BG2!)
So yes, let's praise BioWare for their world building, but do not try to tell us, BG2 is a better Roleplaying Game than BG3, in most people head's, a Role playing game just means "A good written game with binary choices".
1. Characters that act on their own motivations and desires. 2. Dead ends in empty rooms. 3. Having to face the consequences of your actions. 4. Being able to fail."
Quite true.
I feel Larian does not create immersive worlds, they build fun densely packed theme parks.
It just reminded me of the bowl of goat's milk that old Winthrop used to put outside his door every evening for the dust demons. He said the dust demons could never resist goat's milk, and that they would always drink themselves into a stupor and then be too tired to enter his room..
Back when the game released, one of the biggest complaints about the game was that is was RTwP and not just turned based. The majority of the community back then begged for turn based.
No they did not. RTwP was a new idea, and it was immensely popular at that time precisely because of how well it worked in BG1.
I am not sure if you where there at the time, I was at launch and call tell you that a lot of the player base did not like the RTwP mechanic.
Yes I was. I was a very active presence on both the Bioware and Black Isle forums.
So yes, let's praise BioWare for their world building, but do not try to tell us, BG2 is a better Roleplaying Game than BG3, in most people head's, a Role playing game just means "A good written game with binary choices".
Sorry, but I'm going to tell you exactly that, that BG3 is an absolutely lousy roleplaying game. It is precisely in roleplaying choices that I have my strongest criticisms for BG3. BG3 is a very glitzy superficial game that gives you the illusion of choices and alternative approaches to problem-solving, but where in reality your choices don't matter much and railroading is the norm in the game. Furthermore, even those illusory choices are over a very narrow range, where many other RPGs do give a much broader range of roleplaying choices than BG3. BG3 talks a good talk about such things as choices and consequences and options for roleplaying, but it does not walk the walk, even to the extent that the original BG games did.
1. Characters that act on their own motivations and desires. 2. Dead ends in empty rooms. 3. Having to face the consequences of your actions. 4. Being able to fail."
Quite true.
WELL SAID..... The one downfall to BG2 was they made the game way more Monty Haul in the amount of look they provided. They took the criticisms from BG1 and over compensated.
So yes, let's praise BioWare for their world building, but do not try to tell us, BG2 is a better Roleplaying Game than BG3, in most people head's, a Role playing game just means "A good written game with binary choices".
Sorry, but I'm going to tell you exactly that, that BG3 is an absolutely lousy roleplaying game. It is precisely in roleplaying choices that I have my strongest criticisms for BG3. BG3 is a very glitzy superficial game that gives you the illusion of choices and alternative approaches to problem-solving, but where in reality your choices don't matter much and railroading is the norm in the game. Furthermore, even those illusory choices are over a very narrow range, where many other RPGs do give a much broader range of roleplaying choices than BG3. BG3 talks a good talk about such things as choices and consequences and options for roleplaying, but it does not walk the walk, even to the extent that the original BG games did.
Glitzy superficial. Illusion of choices. Railroading. ----that's just BG2, except in BG2 you even have less choices and more illusion.
Can you give me an example of what are these choices you think is just illusion in BG3?
) This creature stays with you until next long rest. It can teleport a great distance and attack in the same round. It has been a fantastic weapon in combat, because it is also quite hardy. It can hold off/occupy several enemies for a long time, block passages etc.... but you have to be able to see where to move it on the battlefield when it is its turn. This goes for so many different cases. When Lae'zel knocks an opponent prone with her shield as a reactiion, that can change your plan for the next move. Shadowheart's spirit guardians can be mighty useful, but you also have to get to the right position to use them effectively. And so on and so on..... It's all tactics that can only fully come to fruitition in turn based combat when the character can see the situation at the start of its turn. 
