Larian Studios

The Turn-Based/Real Time with Pause topic

Posted By: fireflame

The Turn-Based/Real Time with Pause topic - 13/06/19 11:50 AM

Original title: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn

Hello, as a BG fan I would like an active pause to stay, but your Divinity Original Sin fans think turn per turn is better.People argue turn per turn feels closer to DnD games. On the other hand, when there are many enemies, turn per turn can give the impression fights are slow. I am truly hoping active pause will remain, or that both choices will be there.

Edited to add:
Polite notice from the old fat surly goth adminatrix

Please put your turn-based/real-time-with-pause/general chaos/whatevs commentary, speculation, likes, dislikes, love, hate and general adoration of any of the former in this topic please. That would be terribly lovely of you all.

Thank you.

-v
Posted By: Mint Finkeldove

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 13/06/19 01:49 PM

I wish they would show a gameplay video and be done with the debate so we can all move forward. We know they are using the same turn based engine just the next generation of it.

The forums all over the internet are a mess right now because people are torn without knowing exactly the game style. I hope the delay isn't going to do more harm than good.

D&D players are very vocal about thier game and rightly so as a lot of us have been playing for decades.

Here's to hoping to see a gameplay video this week so we can get on with the hype!
Posted By: chad878262

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 13/06/19 02:37 PM

Play Temple of Elemental Evil with the patches/fixes available from the modding folks over at Circle of Eight. Turn based combat in a D&D game does not have to feel slow at all, if it is implemented with the appropriate mechanics and gives players the options they can get at a PnP table as much as possible. RtwP would honestly feel more appropriate if they are going to continue the Baldur's Gate franchise/naming convention, but as a fan of PnP and the mechanical side of D&D I find turn based combat to be great fun when it's done right. I've never actually played Divinity 2: Original Sin, though I did play a bit of Divine Divinity. I am just commenting on the fact that good and bad D&D games have been made with real time with pause as well as turn based combat. Combat can be fun in either system, it is more a matter of making it fun, challenging and engaging.
Posted By: Iuris Tantum

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 15/06/19 07:00 PM

As was already mentioned, turn-based combat doesn't necessarily mean it's slow. Temple of Elemental Evil has an option called "Concurrent Turns", which makes it so that everytime two or more enemies have consecutive turns they'll all act at the same time, not one by one.

Temple of Elemental Evil presented solutions to traditional problems that were never adopted by other developers, sadly, despite being a greatly innovative game in the turn-based realm, I think if that game were to have a remaster today that improved a lot of its issues (none of them combat related) it'd be hailed as a modern master piece.
Posted By: MrN1CKERS

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 15/06/19 11:38 PM

So I have been playing Pillars of Eternity 2, which I consider to be the closest spiritual successor of the BGate franchise. It’s newly released turn based mode actually manages to not betray everything I love about infinity engine gameplay. Its core feels intact, I even recommend playing that way for extra tactical space, especially on higher difficulty. The pacing does take a dip, and that is the main problem. Baldur’s Gate typically navigates complex encounters with ease, and if you don’t pause at the right time you might be screwed. It’s a lot snappier that way but can get hectic especially with epic mage battles. All said if the game tries to be cinematic in the way of Dragon Age or the Witcher, I think real time with pause will keep cinematic pacing better. So I’m waiting to see how far they lean in which direction. If it’s isometric I’ll be down for turn based, but 3rd person id prefer real time
Posted By: 0Muttley0

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 16/06/19 09:35 AM

The whole argument is really making me worried. Worried for Larian's future. We D&D fans can be horrible and unforgiving at times. Me personally would prefer turn based, as I struggle with RTwP in multiplayer as there tends to be no pausing and I struggle with the pace. On saying that, I still really enjoy my multiplayer RP sessions either way. So I'm not going to get too worked up over which method is used. Some of the arguments for and against seem a bit superficial and petty in my own opinion. My main concern is that the player base will react negatively to something that isn't that important overall(again my own opinion) and the game fails unnecessarily. A lot of my fears are based on the player reactions to Sword Coast Legends and how that led to N-Space's demise. Sure there were what was perceived to be a lot of failings in that game. I myself thought it failed in a few places, but I still had a lot of fun with what we were given.

My advice to players?
We are being given a gift, sure one we pay money for, but a gift nonetheless. Have fun with what we are given, don't let something like game mechanics overshadow the potential fun to be had, and most importantly don't forget D&D is about the imagination and the wonderful stories we can tell. Any tool that lets us tell stories(even stories with a story) is a wonderful thing I think.

Love and sausages people.
Posted By: dlux

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 16/06/19 09:59 AM

Originally Posted by fireflame
Divinity Original Sin fans think turn per turn is better

I'm a Divinity fan (check my badges) and strongly believe that Baldur's Gate should stay RTwP-based. I'd actually be disconcerted if Larian attempted to fix the Baldur's Gate series by making the sequel turn-based.
Posted By: kanisatha

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 16/06/19 02:16 PM

Thank you @dlux. As someone who is not a fan of the D:OS games but is a passionate fan of the BG games, I truly appreciate your stance.
Posted By: kanisatha

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 16/06/19 02:25 PM

I disagree with the idea that we should accept whatever game Larian gives us and be happy with it. I have very strong feelings about any game that carries the "Baldur's Gate" name, and that means there are some red lines for me:

1) In translating tabletop rules to a video game, yes it will be necessary to make some modifications to make a game work. But beware of gutting entire systems of rules that are fundamental to D&D, for example the system of spell slots, spell memorization, and resting to renew spells. Replacing this system with cool-downs, for instance, would nullify the game as a true D&D game.

2) The game must stay true to D&D and Forgotten Realms lore. Period.

3) The game must be party-based.

4) The single-player side of the game cannot be secondary to the co-op side of the game. The game's systems and content must be built from the ground up equally for single-player as for co-op.
Posted By: Archaven

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 16/06/19 06:30 PM

i just like to chime in to cast my vote.. please don't make this turn-based. the first and second baldur's gate game has never been turn-based. i know larian possibly have so much of turn-based experiences that their success (both DOS and DOS2 were turn-based). I really hope that they dont be so eager to slap a DOS clone with Baldur's Gate title. I don't mind if they can come out with a hybrid system but essentially still the RTwP system.
Posted By: Mint Finkeldove

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 16/06/19 08:33 PM

They said they are using the same engine as the last two Divinity games plus an updrade. I highly doubt they are just going to scrap the whole turnbased side that has made them so famous over the last few years. If anything they will add stuff to the DM mode and maybe, just maybe create some kind of RTwP side. But Turn Based is definitely in as Wizards of the Coast hired them based on that sucess.

RTwP just failed a few years ago with Swords Coast Legends and no one batted an eye.
Posted By: Stahl33

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 16/06/19 11:21 PM

D&D tries to get as close to reality in a simulated world as possible!

It relies entirely upon internal consistency.

PnP can only do Turn based play, but with computers we can move forward to a more realistic type of game play. How is taking turns to have a go realistic? It isn't! RTwP is by far more realistic and in the vein of true D&D IMO.

I do hope that their engine 4.0 allows RTwP!
How realistic is it for a bunch of characters to move around and do stuff before another character has a chance to do anything? Next thing you know they are dead! It is so unrealistic!! It does lead to some interesting tactics, but nothing that can't be done on RTwP.

Also TB takes a lot longer to play. Not every fight should be extremely risky or hard... Again that isn't realistic. Having some harder fights and some easier fights is what it would be like if forgotten realms was real.... TB would make such fights tedious, but RTwP means you can just let them have a good old hit, so you sit back and watch, and the fight is done for you. Misses with D&D?? No issue, just sit back and pause when you need specific things done. Harder fights? Micromanage as you need too.... It is not an issue!

RTwP does require some AI and "programming" of the characters that you use, but it just saves time in the long run!

Please if people are going to argue TB versus RTwP please describe why they prefer one over the other rather than just using "I prefer" or "TB rules" etc...

Posted By: Dark_Ansem

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 17/06/19 09:51 AM

I'm totally happy with either one really.
Posted By: Archaven

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 17/06/19 03:40 PM

the baldur's gate i grew to love wasn't really about co-op or multiplayer but single-player. it seems their motto of 'gathering a party' is all about multiplayer or co-op this time. which in my eyes a wrong approach. they might as well make a new title but don't call it baldur's gate 3. but baldur's gate online?
Posted By: Iuris Tantum

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 17/06/19 05:17 PM

Originally Posted by Stahl33
D&D tries to get as close to reality in a simulated world as possible!

It relies entirely upon internal consistency.

PnP can only do Turn based play, but with computers we can move forward to a more realistic type of game play. How is taking turns to have a go realistic? It isn't! RTwP is by far more realistic and in the vein of true D&D IMO.

I do hope that their engine 4.0 allows RTwP!
How realistic is it for a bunch of characters to move around and do stuff before another character has a chance to do anything? Next thing you know they are dead! It is so unrealistic!! It does lead to some interesting tactics, but nothing that can't be done on RTwP.

Also TB takes a lot longer to play. Not every fight should be extremely risky or hard... Again that isn't realistic. Having some harder fights and some easier fights is what it would be like if forgotten realms was real.... TB would make such fights tedious, but RTwP means you can just let them have a good old hit, so you sit back and watch, and the fight is done for you. Misses with D&D?? No issue, just sit back and pause when you need specific things done. Harder fights? Micromanage as you need too.... It is not an issue!

RTwP does require some AI and "programming" of the characters that you use, but it just saves time in the long run!

Please if people are going to argue TB versus RTwP please describe why they prefer one over the other rather than just using "I prefer" or "TB rules" etc...


How is pausing in the middle of the action any more realistic than TB? If anything TB is more realistic because the pace is even throughout the encounter, instead of being constantly interrupted by pauses.

"Also TB takes a lot longer to play."
Not necessarily true.

"Not every fight should be extremely risky or hard"
Doesn't have anything to do with TB.
Posted By: kanisatha

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 17/06/19 05:51 PM

Originally Posted by Archaven
the baldur's gate i grew to love wasn't really about co-op or multiplayer but single-player. it seems their motto of 'gathering a party' is all about multiplayer or co-op this time. which in my eyes a wrong approach. they might as well make a new title but don't call it baldur's gate 3. but baldur's gate online?

Swen has said the game will be both single player and co-op, but I very much share your concern too. Playing the D:OS games it is very obvious the focus for the devs was the co-op game. The games could still be played single player if someone wanted to do so, and as such they marketed them as single player too, but the truth is they were not BUILT for the enjoyment of the single player preferring people. Is this how they will approach BG3 as well? Or will the single player experience be a conscious and equal focus of the devs in building the game? This is a huge question for me.
Posted By: Savuyar

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 17/06/19 07:23 PM

I'm a conservative gamer - slapping the space bar to manage the combat in the original BG games while keeping an eye on the status box still seems exhilarating to me.
Posted By: kanisatha

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 17/06/19 07:41 PM

Originally Posted by Savuyar
I'm a conservative gamer - slapping the space bar to manage the combat in the original BG games while keeping an eye on the status box still seems exhilarating to me.

Yeah I feel the same way. That combat is too "chaotic" is the criticism of RTwP that I especially just cannot relate to. For me combat being chaotic is precisely what makes it interesting and entertaining and realistic and yes, exhilarating. A good combat system should be sub-optimal, messy, chaotic, and imperfect in terms of battle results.
Posted By: Nobody_Special

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 17/06/19 08:00 PM

Baldur's Gate had both RTwP and Turn based. While RTwP was the default setting, it was possible to change it to pause after each turn. They should implement both ways of playing like the Baldur's Gates games offered.

Also Sword Coast Legends did not fail because of it being RTwP, but because it didn't follow the rules of D&D.
Posted By: Iuris Tantum

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 17/06/19 08:18 PM

Originally Posted by Nobody_Special
Baldur's Gate had both RTwP and Turn based. While RTwP was the default setting, it was possible to change it to pause after each turn. They should implement both ways of playing like the Baldur's Gates games offered.

Also Sword Coast Legends did not fail because of it being RTwP, but because it didn't follow the rules of D&D.

The "pause after each turn" option in BG isn't equivalent to a turn-based solution, because it doesn't offer any of the commodities a turn-based game would give you - most notably clear Initiative information which is critical for strategical planning in a battle.
Posted By: kasapnecmi

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 18/06/19 03:57 AM

Originally Posted by kanisatha
I disagree with the idea that we should accept whatever game Larian gives us and be happy with it. I have very strong feelings about any game that carries the "Baldur's Gate" name, and that means there are some red lines for me:

1) In translating tabletop rules to a video game, yes it will be necessary to make some modifications to make a game work. But beware of gutting entire systems of rules that are fundamental to D&D, for example the system of spell slots, spell memorization, and resting to renew spells. Replacing this system with cool-downs, for instance, would nullify the game as a true D&D game.

2) The game must stay true to D&D and Forgotten Realms lore. Period.

3) The game must be party-based.

4) The single-player side of the game cannot be secondary to the co-op side of the game. The game's systems and content must be built from the ground up equally for single-player as for co-op.


I agree with everything stated here %100
Posted By: Sordak

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 18/06/19 12:25 PM

Turn based combat is a better system and i dont think there is even an argument of the contrary to be made.
RTWP is a terrible system that leads to Basic attacks following a turn based models while spells are cast in real time, this leads to an even stronger case of caster supremacy, one of the prime problems with non 4E DnD.

I dont expect it to be either of course, judging by what Sven said, i expect an action combat system.

But to entertain the point a bit more.
RTWP simply is a combat system that is very unrewarding and leads itself to lazy encounter design. In an RTWP system, the player never has to commit to any plan of action, instnatly beeing able to cancel any descision and change it for somehting else, it leads to a lot of frantic pausing.
It also invalidates the initiative system from DnD and will lead to a devaluation of one of the primary stats.

The only reason people like RTWP is because of some conservative clinging to the Infinity engine games. Temple of Elemental Evil is the most accurate implementation of any DnD system into a video game engine to date and it used turn based combat. of course it also was a broken mess and took years of modding to make it play properly, and thats why the system was never adopted.
Think of it that way. Did the Infinity engine games play like the gold Box games? no they didnt.
So why should future DnD games be held back by past glorioes, Larian isnt even using the same base ruleset as infinity engine games.

Furthermore, look at the companies that keep making these kinds of games. Beamdog has basically dug up the corpse of baldurs gate and implemented a bunch of thingst hat already existed as free mods, and to add insult to injury made it impossible to buy the original verison of the game anywhere.
and then theres PoE by Obsidian, a game series that since has also implemented Turn based combat because quite frankly its a better system.
You dont go around stealing ideas from failed competitors. They failed for a reason. Both of these companies wanted to make BG3, and WOTC shut them down because they couldnt move past their own nostalgia goggles.

The fear of creating new types of gameplay comes from a certain kind of game. Tripple A RPGs, Skyrim, Fallout 4 and the like are known to "dumb down" games. And this is correct. But does OS2 look dumbed down compared to any other CRPG?
The fear is unfounded.

And to put a Bandaid on all of that. IF, and i don think it will be that way, but IF we get a turn based System, im 90% sure well get an RTWP option.
OS2s engine already allows to attack and cast outside of combat. Turns already are associated with a number of seconds in the game engine.
If they use the same combat system, theyll sureley implement RTWP as an option to satiate the Nostalgic Boomer Fans.
Posted By: Iuris Tantum

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 18/06/19 03:27 PM

Originally Posted by Sordak
Temple of Elemental Evil is the most accurate implementation of any DnD system into a video game engine to date and it used turn based combat. of course it also was a broken mess and took years of modding to make it play properly, and thats why the system was never adopted

What do you mean by "the system was never adopted"? What system?
ToEE had a lot of development trouble and was developed in 1 year. That's why it was so buggy and is lacking in everything that isn't combat and character customization.

Originally Posted by Sordak
Furthermore, look at the companies that keep making these kinds of games. Beamdog has basically dug up the corpse of baldurs gate and implemented a bunch of thingst hat already existed as free mods, and to add insult to injury made it impossible to buy the original verison of the game anywhere.

I agree with the general sentiment on Beamdog, but you still get a key for the original games when you buy the EE on GoG.
Posted By: kanisatha

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 18/06/19 03:54 PM

Originally Posted by Sordak
Turn based combat is a better system and i dont think there is even an argument of the contrary to be made.
RTWP is a terrible system that leads to Basic attacks following a turn based models while spells are cast in real time, this leads to an even stronger case of caster supremacy, one of the prime problems with non 4E DnD.

I dont expect it to be either of course, judging by what Sven said, i expect an action combat system.

But to entertain the point a bit more.
RTWP simply is a combat system that is very unrewarding and leads itself to lazy encounter design. In an RTWP system, the player never has to commit to any plan of action, instnatly beeing able to cancel any descision and change it for somehting else, it leads to a lot of frantic pausing.
It also invalidates the initiative system from DnD and will lead to a devaluation of one of the primary stats.

The only reason people like RTWP is because of some conservative clinging to the Infinity engine games. Temple of Elemental Evil is the most accurate implementation of any DnD system into a video game engine to date and it used turn based combat. of course it also was a broken mess and took years of modding to make it play properly, and thats why the system was never adopted.
Think of it that way. Did the Infinity engine games play like the gold Box games? no they didnt.
So why should future DnD games be held back by past glorioes, Larian isnt even using the same base ruleset as infinity engine games.

Furthermore, look at the companies that keep making these kinds of games. Beamdog has basically dug up the corpse of baldurs gate and implemented a bunch of thingst hat already existed as free mods, and to add insult to injury made it impossible to buy the original verison of the game anywhere.
and then theres PoE by Obsidian, a game series that since has also implemented Turn based combat because quite frankly its a better system.
You dont go around stealing ideas from failed competitors. They failed for a reason. Both of these companies wanted to make BG3, and WOTC shut them down because they couldnt move past their own nostalgia goggles.

The fear of creating new types of gameplay comes from a certain kind of game. Tripple A RPGs, Skyrim, Fallout 4 and the like are known to "dumb down" games. And this is correct. But does OS2 look dumbed down compared to any other CRPG?
The fear is unfounded.

And to put a Bandaid on all of that. IF, and i don think it will be that way, but IF we get a turn based System, im 90% sure well get an RTWP option.
OS2s engine already allows to attack and cast outside of combat. Turns already are associated with a number of seconds in the game engine.
If they use the same combat system, theyll sureley implement RTWP as an option to satiate the Nostalgic Boomer Fans.

Attacking and mocking people who have a different preference than you sure is going to win over people. Keep dreaming.

But two can play at that game. RTwP is superior to TB in every single way. TB is a shitty old system that is a leftover holdover from tabletop gaming and clings to the limitation of tabletop gaming that no longer applies when using a computer medium. TB is essentially for people who don't have the mental capacity to handle RTwP. It serves the lowest common denominator as a dumbed-down combat system, and so of course if you want your game to sell to the dumb masses who are incapable of appreciating a sophisticated game, then you go with TB (see for example D:OS2). See? Easy-peasy.
Posted By: Try2Handing

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 18/06/19 04:09 PM

Quote
RTWP is a terrible system that leads to Basic attacks following a turn based models while spells are cast in real time

What? In BG games, for example, you can make anywhere from 0 to 9 basic attacks per 6 seconds, while you can cast exactly one spell per 6 seconds unless you have the Improved Alacrity effect. So I have no idea what you mean by this.

If anything, you have "caster supremacy" because being a caster is generally more exciting and stimulating than being an auto-attack machine. Being a caster generally means you are capable of handling a lot of different kinds of situations. You can choose to spam spells or be an auto-attack machine, you can buff your summons and watch them wreck things, and in most cases, it takes a caster to counter a caster. Also, mages/sorcerers are OP as hell in BG2/NWN. At least, these are the reasons why I personally prefer being a caster over a typical fighter. Has nothing to do with what combat system the game uses. I prefer magic path in HOMM3 too.

Quote
The only reason people like RTWP is because of some conservative clinging to the Infinity engine games.

Yeah? I don't know... I'm sure there are plenty of players like me - I like RTWP well enough. It works. I enjoyed Divine Divinity. I enjoyed Dragon Age Origins. And I can enjoy TB at the same time. I enjoyed HOMM3. I enjoyed DOS games. So am I a "conservative clinging to the Infinity engine games"? Why don't you tell me? Cause you seem to know me better than I know myself. How do you know that every single person who can enjoy RTWP combat is a "conservative clinging to the Infinity engine games"?

Posted By: mhroczyn

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 18/06/19 07:03 PM

I wouldn't mind if we would get sth in the shape of NWN2 combat system or even NWN.
Posted By: Sordak

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 18/06/19 07:08 PM

Iuris Tantum ToEEs engine was never adopted in the same way that the infinity engine was, later DnD games used different systems, not that there were many good DnD games after that.
and yes you can get the old games, but only if you buy the overpriced enhanced edition that offers nothing that free mods dont offer, besides an expansion that was universally hated.



Originally Posted by kanisatha
[
Attacking and mocking people who have a different preference than you sure is going to win over people. Keep dreaming.

But two can play at that game. RTwP is superior to TB in every single way. TB is a shitty old system that is a leftover holdover from tabletop gaming and clings to the limitation of tabletop gaming that no longer applies when using a computer medium. TB is essentially for people who don't have the mental capacity to handle RTwP. It serves the lowest common denominator as a dumbed-down combat system, and so of course if you want your game to sell to the dumb masses who are incapable of appreciating a sophisticated game, then you go with TB (see for example D:OS2). See? Easy-peasy.


You can take my comments any way you want, that doesnt make it wrong.
Especialy considering you have to misrepresent my argument to "turn the tables" on me.
Your argument would work if you were arguing in favor of proper real time combat, which you are not. It is however true that turn based combat is a holdoer from tabletop games and boardgames, however it is also one that was expanded upon by computer gameplay by simplifying the math as it is done by the computer.

I also like that you used your played up outrage over my post to repeat the same tired old nonsense i heard from those that cling to RTWP.
So lets put this to rest: RTWP is not a more complicated system than turn based.
It is not harder, it does not require more attention, in fact the opposit is the case. You do not have to commit to an action in RTWP, you can go back on any descision you make.
RTWP is literaly, as you put it, a dumbed down system for the masses.
You chose the wording here not me, RTWP was a way to make DnD combat simpler for the PC gaming audience that didnt want to spend a lot of time on the filler encounters. Filler encounters that in modern game design, should not even exist anymore.



As for Try2Handing

I am refering to spells beeing able to start casting at any point. as such the system for casting and that for melee and ranged attacks works in a different way.
And yes as you see, Caster supremacy is a thing in DnD (save for 4e anyway), and as you rightuflly point out, this is moreso true in RTWP.
As far as i know, things like ToB that attempted to fix this in 3.5 were never implemented into any of the RTWP rulesets.
Meanwhile actions like trip or disarm generaly dont work very well in hectic RTWP combat, a Battlemaster fighter based on 5E rules would be much more capeable in a turn based setting.

And yes, i also enjoyed those games, i especialy enjoy Icewind Dale 2. Doesnt mean i want another game with that system.
As far as im concerned, were getting something different alltogether, and if we get turn based, well have RTWP as an option to placate the fans.
But if we end up getting stuck with a sub par combat system due to fan pressure, then the entire game is going to pay the price of this stubbornnes.
Posted By: Iuris Tantum

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 18/06/19 07:52 PM

Originally Posted by Sordak
Iuris Tantum ToEEs engine was never adopted in the same way that the infinity engine was, later DnD games used different systems, not that there were many good DnD games after that.
and yes you can get the old games, but only if you buy the overpriced enhanced edition that offers nothing that free mods dont offer, besides an expansion that was universally hated.

I get what you're saying now. I was just confused by what you meant by "systems". One of the other reasons for ToEE's engine being largely ignored though was the fact that the industry was moving away from isometric perspectives, in large part because of a collapsing PC market, so the demand for engines ready to do that was very low.

I agree with your overall sentiment though. As I already expressed and elaborated in the other RTwP v. TB thread, RTwP seems to be defended solely by people who don't care much for the combat and would rather get it over with asap. I don't get why they have such strong feelings on the combat system when they can just skip it by playing on lower difficulties.
Posted By: Try2Handing

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 18/06/19 11:22 PM

Quote
I am refering to spells beeing able to start casting at any point.

Well, since the whole system is round-based, and that you can make multiple attacks per round, there has to be spacing in between attacks. This makes sure that you can always make exactly your maximum Attacks per Round per any 6s interval - no more, no less (unless you deliberately take long pauses in between attacks) - no matter when you start counting. I see nothing "bad" about this. On the other hand, you can only cast exactly one spell within any 6s interval, each spell has its own cast time, and some spells have cast time of exactly 6s. There is simply no "spacing" in between casts. If you cancel your spell casting, you have to wait until the next round to be able to start another casting, which is quite punishing. The "instant casting" is only true when you're looking at one single 6s interval in which you have not made any special action. This is getting more technical than it needs to, but my point is, I don't see how this particular technical detail would make the whole RTWP system "bad". To me, it takes time to basic attack, it takes time to cast a spell, and you can only make that many basic attacks and special actions within a round. Simple as that. You can start basic attacking at any point. It takes time to make one attack, just like it takes time to cast a single spell.

Now if what you're really trying to say is that, the RTWP sytem compromises the real D&D combat, then that is true, since the table-top D&D, the real thing, is TB. But after this point, it's just a matter of opinion. To you, this naturally makes RTWP a subpar system. Fair enough. To others, like me, we can enjoy RTWP just fine provided the whole combat system is done well.

Quote
[,...]as you rightuflly point out, this is moreso true in RTWP.

I did not point out any such thing. At this point I believe I need to ask you to clarify what exactly you mean by "caster supremacy". If you mean "casters are OP", then how is it a result of the combat being RTWP? If they are "OP", then it's because their spells are OP and that they can do a wide range of things. If you change the whole BG games into TB, without changing how all the spells work, I bet mages/sorcerers will still be OP.
Posted By: loudent

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 18/06/19 11:47 PM

Originally Posted by Sordak
Turn based combat is a better system and i dont think there is even an argument of the contrary to be made.
RTWP is a terrible system that leads to Basic attacks following a turn based models while spells are cast in real time, this leads to an even stronger case of caster supremacy, one of the prime problems with non 4E DnD


This is just patently false. I'll admit that it's been a while since I played BG 1/2 so I can't say if that specific system allowed it, but I know in NWN1 and NWN2 at least you cannot just start casting whenever. You're action is put into a queue (just like any other) and you start it when a new "round" ticks over. So whether or not you can just start casting is a function of the system you build.

And, I believe an argument to the contrary *can* be made. RTWP (or RTWoP) supports Multi-play better. Also, TB makes caster's stronger because Area-affect spells are more effective since the enemies/friends aren't moving when you cast it. You can precisely target. RTWP forces you to be more tactical: Gauging where the enemies are going to go, keeping back your party members from the blast area.

Better, IMO
Posted By: Iuris Tantum

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 19/06/19 03:19 AM

Originally Posted by loudent
Originally Posted by Sordak
Turn based combat is a better system and i dont think there is even an argument of the contrary to be made.
RTWP is a terrible system that leads to Basic attacks following a turn based models while spells are cast in real time, this leads to an even stronger case of caster supremacy, one of the prime problems with non 4E DnD


This is just patently false. I'll admit that it's been a while since I played BG 1/2 so I can't say if that specific system allowed it, but I know in NWN1 and NWN2 at least you cannot just start casting whenever. You're action is put into a queue (just like any other) and you start it when a new "round" ticks over. So whether or not you can just start casting is a function of the system you build.

And, I believe an argument to the contrary *can* be made. RTWP (or RTWoP) supports Multi-play better. Also, TB makes caster's stronger because Area-affect spells are more effective since the enemies/friends aren't moving when you cast it. You can precisely target. RTWP forces you to be more tactical: Gauging where the enemies are going to go, keeping back your party members from the blast area.

Better, IMO

Are you familiar with the concept of "Casting Time" at all?
Also I like how you conveniently ignore real time with pause innovations when it's convenient - like the most recent RTwP systems having re-target abilities for spells (pillars of eternity 2 and kingmaker) which completely nullifies that line of thought.
Furthermore, how would you even translate Reactions to a RTwP system? Reactions are EXTREMELY important in D&D 5E.
Posted By: kasapnecmi

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 19/06/19 04:55 AM

Originally Posted by Iuris Tantum


I agree with your overall sentiment though. As I already expressed and elaborated in the other RTwP v. TB thread, RTwP seems to be defended solely by people who don't care much for the combat and would rather get it over with asap. I don't get why they have such strong feelings on the combat system when they can just skip it by playing on lower difficulties.


Please don't generalise one person's sentiments to everyone. I care a lot about combat, and one of the best parts of Baldur's Gate series' was its combat system. After playing the same game 10 times, the story loses it's effectiveness, and you start only focusing on the combat. That's the main reason why many people still continue to enjoy Baldur's Gate after numerous times of playing it. And it being RTwP has a huge effect in this. I know a lot of people who feel similarly, so no need to generalise everyone you don't agree with just for the sake of trying to win the argument.
Posted By: Sordak

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 19/06/19 09:23 AM

Try2Handing

Casters are OP because in RTWP half of the Martials options dont even exist. Its a fundamental flaw with DnD. And the only edition that fixed this flaw, 4e, was universally hated by purists and thats why WOTC now locks any usefull maneuvers for martials behind the Battlemaster subclass for fighters.
RTWP makes the whole thing worse by making movement far too safe, thus making martial battlefield controll even harder to achieve.

Iodent
i talked about the way it works in icewind Dale because thats the last RTWP game i played.
NWN 2 has a very different engine with its own problems stacked on top.
I also dont think RTWP supports multiplayer better, id id play NWN2 Storm of Zehir in multiplayer quite a bit and the result is... having to pause a lot for both players.
Having your actions suddenly interrupted because the other player wanted to adjust one of his characters, which especialy in NWN2 can lead to a lot of dumb stuff like your character forgetting what he was supposed to do.

meanwhile OS2s multiplayer combat works extremley well.
And if you dont like waiting, several games have figure dout how to do simultanious turns which also does away with that problem.

You are also exactly wrong about casters. in Turn based, you mut commit to your movement as you rightfully point out. This means you must predict what your enemy is going to do on his turn.
In RTWP; you can change the direction of your move at any point and immediatly react. Thus its less tactical as there are less risks to be taken.

Iuris Tantum
Agreed on reactions, theres more than just that, i realy wanna see how RTWP pulls off stuff like grappling, but no system so far has even attmepted that.

kasapnecmi
why dont you explain what makes the combat system good.
Because in my opinion, you just stop paying attention to 5/6 fights. Oh look its goblins again, lets just autoattack them to death. or lets just cast fireball and thats that.
From what ive heard from people that enjoy RTWP, the parts about RTWP they actually like, as in, the planning ahead, the thinking what each character is going to do.
The identifying of enemy casters and what they are going to do.
All of that exists in turn based systems. But without the tedium of trash monsters.
Posted By: Iuris Tantum

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 19/06/19 01:16 PM

Originally Posted by kasapnecmi
Originally Posted by Iuris Tantum
I agree with your overall sentiment though. As I already expressed and elaborated in the other RTwP v. TB thread, RTwP seems to be defended solely by people who don't care much for the combat and would rather get it over with asap. I don't get why they have such strong feelings on the combat system when they can just skip it by playing on lower difficulties.


Please don't generalise one person's sentiments to everyone. I care a lot about combat, and one of the best parts of Baldur's Gate series' was its combat system. After playing the same game 10 times, the story loses it's effectiveness, and you start only focusing on the combat. That's the main reason why many people still continue to enjoy Baldur's Gate after numerous times of playing it. And it being RTwP has a huge effect in this. I know a lot of people who feel similarly, so no need to generalise everyone you don't agree with just for the sake of trying to win the argument.

What do you enjoy about BG2 combat? I can perfectly see that BG1-2 are the best RTwP systems still 20 years later, in large part because they efficiently use its strengths to its full potential (by having you fight trash mobs a lot of the time and allowing spammable resting, + spaced out units and very good sound feedback that compensates for the lack of feedback on combat/messy combat log) but I can't really see anything that couldn't be done better in a turn-based system.
Posted By: Hawke

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 19/06/19 01:25 PM

Originally Posted by Iuris Tantum
Originally Posted by kasapnecmi
Originally Posted by Iuris Tantum
I agree with your overall sentiment though. As I already expressed and elaborated in the other RTwP v. TB thread, RTwP seems to be defended solely by people who don't care much for the combat and would rather get it over with asap. I don't get why they have such strong feelings on the combat system when they can just skip it by playing on lower difficulties.


Please don't generalise one person's sentiments to everyone. I care a lot about combat, and one of the best parts of Baldur's Gate series' was its combat system. After playing the same game 10 times, the story loses it's effectiveness, and you start only focusing on the combat. That's the main reason why many people still continue to enjoy Baldur's Gate after numerous times of playing it. And it being RTwP has a huge effect in this. I know a lot of people who feel similarly, so no need to generalise everyone you don't agree with just for the sake of trying to win the argument.

What do you enjoy about BG2 combat? I can perfectly see that BG1-2 are the best RTwP systems still 20 years later, in large part because they efficiently use its strengths to its full potential (by having you fight trash mobs a lot of the time and allowing spammable resting) but I can't really see anything that couldn't be done better in a turn-based system.


They were until last year, but Pathfinder Kingmaker has done it better. The game's encounters aren't as good but the system itself is clearly better.
Posted By: Sordak

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 19/06/19 02:23 PM

you mean that game that people constantly complain about because of its crit based early game issues and the complete overpoweredness of summoned monsters?

Kingmaker certainly is the best implementation of RTWP and of the 3.PF system to date, hence why so many people complain about it.
Posted By: Iuris Tantum

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 19/06/19 02:25 PM

Originally Posted by Hawke
Originally Posted by Iuris Tantum
Originally Posted by kasapnecmi
Originally Posted by Iuris Tantum
I agree with your overall sentiment though. As I already expressed and elaborated in the other RTwP v. TB thread, RTwP seems to be defended solely by people who don't care much for the combat and would rather get it over with asap. I don't get why they have such strong feelings on the combat system when they can just skip it by playing on lower difficulties.


Please don't generalise one person's sentiments to everyone. I care a lot about combat, and one of the best parts of Baldur's Gate series' was its combat system. After playing the same game 10 times, the story loses it's effectiveness, and you start only focusing on the combat. That's the main reason why many people still continue to enjoy Baldur's Gate after numerous times of playing it. And it being RTwP has a huge effect in this. I know a lot of people who feel similarly, so no need to generalise everyone you don't agree with just for the sake of trying to win the argument.

What do you enjoy about BG2 combat? I can perfectly see that BG1-2 are the best RTwP systems still 20 years later, in large part because they efficiently use its strengths to its full potential (by having you fight trash mobs a lot of the time and allowing spammable resting) but I can't really see anything that couldn't be done better in a turn-based system.


They were until last year, but Pathfinder Kingmaker has done it better. The game's encounters aren't as good but the system itself is clearly better.

I'm talking about the RTwP system not 2E AD&D vs Pathfinder/D&D 3.5.
Posted By: kanisatha

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 19/06/19 05:36 PM

Originally Posted by Hawke
Originally Posted by Iuris Tantum
Originally Posted by kasapnecmi
Originally Posted by Iuris Tantum
I agree with your overall sentiment though. As I already expressed and elaborated in the other RTwP v. TB thread, RTwP seems to be defended solely by people who don't care much for the combat and would rather get it over with asap. I don't get why they have such strong feelings on the combat system when they can just skip it by playing on lower difficulties.


Please don't generalise one person's sentiments to everyone. I care a lot about combat, and one of the best parts of Baldur's Gate series' was its combat system. After playing the same game 10 times, the story loses it's effectiveness, and you start only focusing on the combat. That's the main reason why many people still continue to enjoy Baldur's Gate after numerous times of playing it. And it being RTwP has a huge effect in this. I know a lot of people who feel similarly, so no need to generalise everyone you don't agree with just for the sake of trying to win the argument.

What do you enjoy about BG2 combat? I can perfectly see that BG1-2 are the best RTwP systems still 20 years later, in large part because they efficiently use its strengths to its full potential (by having you fight trash mobs a lot of the time and allowing spammable resting) but I can't really see anything that couldn't be done better in a turn-based system.


They were until last year, but Pathfinder Kingmaker has done it better. The game's encounters aren't as good but the system itself is clearly better.

It is also a really good system in the absolute, as is the PoE system. Both are superior to the D:OS system in every possible way including being more sophisticated, deep and tactical.
Posted By: Try2Handing

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 19/06/19 10:12 PM

Originally Posted by Sordak
Casters are OP because in RTWP half of the Martials options dont even exist. Its a fundamental flaw with DnD. And the only edition that fixed this flaw, 4e, was universally hated by purists and thats why WOTC now locks any usefull maneuvers for martials behind the Battlemaster subclass for fighters.
RTWP makes the whole thing worse by making movement far too safe, thus making martial battlefield controll even harder to achieve.

If it's a "fundamental flaw with DnD", then it has nothing to do with a system being RTWP and not TB.

If by "movement being too safe" you mean the kiting strategy is too good in the BG games, then that's true. But this has nothing to do with whether your character is a caster or not. You can hit and run with any character. In the case of casters, it is mostly because there are spells that make your character completely invulnerable to everything. In the case of archers, then it is because the BG games do not have an Attack of Opportunity mechanics (and maybe other PnP mechanics that I'm not aware of). I don't see why these mechanics can't be implemented, at least to some extend, in a RTWP game, however. In NWN you will take a lot of AOO's if you move about recklessly in combat. The first Pillars of Eternity game implements a ridiculously heavy AOO mechanics, with every single enemy and their dog being able to perform AOO, that cripples spellcasters and the whole combat experience in general.

So the bottom line is, this starts to sound like a "balancing" problem to me, which can be handled just fine without having to change the whole system from RTWP to TB or vice versa.

Originally Posted by Sordak
Because in my opinion, you just stop paying attention to 5/6 fights. Oh look its goblins again, lets just autoattack them to death. or lets just cast fireball and thats that.
From what ive heard from people that enjoy RTWP, the parts about RTWP they actually like, as in, the planning ahead, the thinking what each character is going to do.
The identifying of enemy casters and what they are going to do.
All of that exists in turn based systems. But without the tedium of trash monsters.

I don't see how this cannot happen in a TB game? You're speaking as if "the tedium of trash monsters" is something that only exists in a RTWP game. If I'm playing a TB game and see that "it's golins again", then yeah, you bet I'm just gonna autoattack them to death, or instant kill them with a fireball. If anything, having to do this in TB would make it even more tedious. I don't know - you've been trying to convince everyone that TB is a superior system, but most of the times you're citing reasons that have nothing to do with the system being RTWP or TB.

Originally Posted by Sordak
in Turn based, you mut commit to your movement as you rightfully point out. This means you must predict what your enemy is going to do on his turn.

If you say RTWP is "less tactical" because you generally don't have to commit as strongly in a plan of action, fair enough. That is your opinion. IMO, "commitment" is hardly the single factor that determines just how "tactical" a game's combat is. To me, how tactical it is depends on the depths of mechanics, the level of interaction between different abilities, interaction between characters and environment, cross-class combinations, the possibilities of unorthodox and creative strategies, timing your various attacks for better results, coordinating and positioning party members, and numerous other finer, obscure details which you probably won't find out unless you use an editor to open up the game's data or read them on a wiki.

Originally Posted by Sordak
In RTWP; you can change the direction of your move at any point and immediatly react. Thus its less tactical as there are less risks to be taken.

In TB, you can "predict", but you can play the "predict" game just fine in RTWP, if you like predicting. In RTWP, I can change my course of action and immediately react, but so does every single enemy. The real problem here is AI, which is a scripting problem. You want the AI to be able to react in a smart manner. To me, it is not "less" tactical or risky. It is simply a different kind of tactical and risky. In RTWP you can pause and think, but it doesn't change the fact that time is ticking, and sometimes, in the toughest fights, you have to time your moves perfectly. When there are 12 combatants on the battlefield, there's plenty of tactics and risks in keeping track of how long various effects last and timing your various offenses and defenses from all party members. In TB you can sit back and leisurely do whatever you want within your turn, and just sit back and watch enemies do whatever they want within their turn. This is one of the things that make RTWP *fun* - a faster pace and more frantic experience, without having to compromise the tactical aspect. Not to mention, RTWP simply reflects a real fight better. Period.

In the particular case of Baldur's Gate 2, all it needs is a few select mods that rebalance items and abilities and improve AI across the board. If you say BG2 + Item Revisions + Spell Revisions + SCS is not "tactical" and challenging, then I have no idea what is.
Posted By: loudent

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 20/06/19 12:35 AM

Originally Posted by Iuris Tantum

Are you familiar with the concept of "Casting Time" at all?


Yes, but I'm not sure how that tracks. Are you saying TB you start casting and other people take their moves? then your spell goes off. To be fair, I haven't played a game that supports that but yes, it does nullify that one point

Quote

Also I like how you conveniently ignore real time with pause innovations when it's convenient - like the most recent RTwP systems having re-target abilities for spells (pillars of eternity 2 and kingmaker) which completely nullifies that line of thought.


yes, I am unaware of those innovations

Quote

Furthermore, how would you even translate Reactions to a RTwP system? Reactions are EXTREMELY important in D&D 5E.


well, I am not a 5e D&D expert but so far reactions have things like counter spell or things like that. It's easy enough to flash a button when a reaction is available it's also fairly easy to select a "mode" (i.e. if I can, always counterspell my current target) with all kinds of options. Same way modern games implement contingency type spells.

Again, all of that aside the bottom line is that TB does not support MP as well as RTWP. In addition unless you're advocating it to be TB all the time (as opposed to just in combat) you have the transition problem (do we leave the 50 npcs to take their turn or do we transport to a battlefield without them). RTWP allows you to have engagements anywhere, anytime and you don't have to do a transition.
Posted By: loudent

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 20/06/19 12:38 AM

Originally Posted by Sordak
Try2Handing
Iodent
i talked about the way it works in icewind Dale because thats the last RTWP game i played.
NWN 2 has a very different engine with its own problems stacked on top.
I also dont think RTWP supports multiplayer better, id id play NWN2 Storm of Zehir in multiplayer quite a bit and the result is... having to pause a lot for both players.
Having your actions suddenly interrupted because the other player wanted to adjust one of his characters, which especialy in NWN2 can lead to a lot of dumb stuff like your character forgetting what he was supposed to do.
.


Yes, in RTWP, for MP I always disable the pause. When you're driving one PC you shouldn't need it.
Posted By: kasapnecmi

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 20/06/19 01:48 AM

Originally Posted by Sordak

kasapnecmi
why dont you explain what makes the combat system good.
Because in my opinion, you just stop paying attention to 5/6 fights. Oh look its goblins again, lets just autoattack them to death. or lets just cast fireball and thats that.
From what ive heard from people that enjoy RTWP, the parts about RTWP they actually like, as in, the planning ahead, the thinking what each character is going to do.
The identifying of enemy casters and what they are going to do.
All of that exists in turn based systems. But without the tedium of trash monsters.


There are a lot of things, but the main thing is the flow in RTwP is realistic. If you want to make a new decision, you can pause and give the command and let it flow. It's both tactical, and realistic. TB is not realistic, because, I know this might come as a surprise to you guys, but real combat in real life would actually be real time. Nobody waits for each other to take their turns. Pausing in RTwP does not represent taking turns, it actually represents the ability to make an instant decision, just like how you would do in real combat as if you were fighting.

Your point about goblins and thrash mobs etc is not relevant to the system, it's about the encounters. So yeah, you can criticise the encounters in Baldur's Gate 1, but that doesn't make the system itself any worse. Another thing that can be criticised for the Baldur's Gate games is the AI. The AI for RTwP needs to be much more sophisticated as RTwP requires many more parameters for the AI to take into, and those parameters are constantly changing, not just once per each turn. However, there is a mod called SCS(Sword Coast Stratagems) for Baldur's Gate which makes the AI incredibly sophisticated and provides a huge amount of tactical depth to the combat, more than you can have in TB as in TB the parameters and the possibilities are limited.

So, if a mod developed by 1 person for a 20 year old game can provide this sophisticated tactical depth which makes the game replayable unlimited times, then Larian has no excuses not being able to implement that sophistication in their own AI with RTwP. I'm sure they're able to do it, but I'm not sure why we are even debating the system as we are talking about a Baldur's Gate game here, not Divinity as far as I know. Larian has the ability to implement any combat system, just because they have done TB for some Divinity games doesn't mean their skills are limited to TB only.
Posted By: Artagel

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 20/06/19 02:17 AM

Just found this forum, very excited, wanted to jump into the first ragin' debate and give my 2 shekels..


From a very, very general perspective, and I mean after just watching a few second's worth of footage of the 2 systems... this should be fairly simple I'd think. This is Baldur's Gate... it's gotta be RTWP, doesn't it?

Baldurs Gate is just not a game in which once combat begins, your characters are standing still, doing.. 'animations'... while waiting for their turn. It's just not part of it's identity. It's not part of it's design.

I get that this is a fundamental characteristic of Turn Based combat and an identifying feature of what that style of combat is and what it looks like (and I fully get that building your game around that system is a legit and successful style of game design). But the pace of BG was never that segmented. It is intense and punishing because of how that Space Bar effects everything. It ushered PnP tabletop into the digital age where you no longer have to wait. It transformed the state of computer RPG's forever.

If Larian agreed to take the reigns of an epic franchise like this, and they are not planning on totally changing something that central to the franchise's identity, then I honestly can't imagine this is even a question for them.


Again, so excited to be here! Thanks Larian and Good Luck!!!
Posted By: Sordak

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 20/06/19 10:58 AM

Ill apologize for replying to everyone but theres a lot ot unpack here.

Kanisatha:
Sure it is buddy, and you obviously know what tactical means and dont just use that word to discribe "thing i like".
Nobody discribes Kingmaker as a tactical game. While OS2 is getting a spinoff thats a spiritual successor to THE tactical combat game series (xcom).
Summoning 3D6 Dire ponies truly is the pinnacle of squad tactics.

Try2Handing:
there was a comma missing. Its a flaw with RTWP to amplify the problem. Caster supremacy is a fundamental flaw in DnD since ADnD.
Only 4E didnt have it and grognards didnt like it as a result.
On kiting: kiting is a stupid mechanic, its been stupid in MMOs and its stupid in RPGs. You cannot do it in any tabletop RPG and you cannot do it in real life, its a flaw of the RTWP system.
Baldurs gate doesnt have attack of opportuniy because attack of opportunity wasnt an official rule in 2E, it was an optional rule IIRC and was introduced in the third edition.
But from how i see it, it doesnt work well in NWN2 either, RTWP doesnt work well with AoO detection. ToEE does it better. And AoO generaly is pretty weak in DnD because you tend to get only 1 unless you pay feat tax.

So its a balance AND an RTWP problem.
What i meant with movement beeing to safe is basically the reason why kiting works: you move at the same time as the enemy, so the enemy cannot catch you, in a turn based game this wouldnt be possible. Simmilarly, you can change directions any time, so you dont have to commit to positioning. Making it inhernetly less tactical.

On trash mobs:
No such thing in a well designed turn based game. There isnt a single trash fight in OS2 or in Xcom, or in Final Fantasy tactics. There were trash fights in ToEE because the game was made with a specific DnD module in mind.

On What you consider tactical: And all of those things you mention that you can do in RTWP; you can also do in turn based. Meanwhile in RTWP you cannot manipulate the turn order, you cannot effectiveley block movement, you cannot do things as throw items form your inventory, you cannot do off-turn actions and laying traps for your enemies in such a way.
Basiclaly Turn based can do everything RTWP can do, but also more.

On your last paragraph: you discribe artificial difficulty, thats not tactical. And other than what you discribe as the "pace" of RTWP, those things can be done by turn based. Immediate reaction is not a good thing, you can have it as your opinion that it is, but as far as im concerned, what makes chess tactical is the part that where you make a mistake, your opponent takes your pawn.
What would not be tactical is if you make a mistake, your opponent moves your pawn and you go "oh nono, i didnt mean to do that" and just redo your turn.

Ioudent
Your entire point seems to be that Turn based doesnt do multiplayer well which has been disproven by OS 1 , OS2 and of course countless other games that do this combination and do it well. Im pretty sure multiplayer with turn based combat is FAR more popular than RTWP. Peresistant servers dont do RTWP so the only kinds of RTWP MP i see is Baldurs gate and Icewind dale aswell as the NWN campaigns.
Meanwhile the entire 4X genre lives off turn based multiplayer, OS1 and 2 not even to speak of the insane ammount of turn based japanese games that feature multiplayer.
If anyhting, RTWP is considered a hassle for multiplayer and is turned off in almost all cases where more than 2 people are involved.
And you admit it yourself. You turn it off in multiplayer.
So realy you are advocating for Real time, which is a different beast alltogether.

On AI:
you dont know what you are talking about, simple as that.
RTWP AI can constantly react, the only thing "Complicated" about this is that the AI constantly has to check states. This is more taxing on your CPU but it doesnt make the AI "smarter".
A turn based AI needs to take potentail turn of the enemy into consideration rather than only react to current states. Which is not something AI usually does. Other than that, there is no difference.

kasapnecmi
RTWP is 1.) not realistic and 2.) if it were, realism is not what makes a good combat system.
Immediate perfect reaction of every combatant is not realistic.
Pausing in RTWP doesnt simulate a real life combat situation, it simulates a perfect coordination and perfect reaction of all combatants. Removing any risk taking at all.
Meanwhile, turn based simulates a real time combat by having initiative, by having actors commit to an action and by having plans go wrong.
Both of these things are mechanical abstractions, neither is realistic. If you want realistic, play Mount and Blade or some other HEMA simulator.

Trash mobs: you are flipfloping. On one hand RTWP is good because it makes dealing with trash mobs easier... but then you dont need trah mobs. Yeah exactly, you dont need trash mobs, and thats why you dont need RTWP. you are making my point for me.

Artagel
dont know what to tell you mate. No. The infinity engine beeing RTWP was just something that happened more on accident than anyhting else.
I get that you like it more, but dont make it sound like some grand revelation, it was a thing that happened because of circumstance and nothing more.
Posted By: kasapnecmi

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 20/06/19 11:19 AM

Originally Posted by Sordak

kasapnecmi
Trash mobs: you are flipfloping. On one hand RTWP is good because it makes dealing with trash mobs easier... but then you dont need trah mobs. Yeah exactly, you dont need trash mobs, and thats why you dont need RTWP. you are making my point for me.


RTwP is not just better for thrash mobs, it's better for all combat. It provides more tactical depth in addition to realistic flow for sophisticated encounters. Stating the same things over and over again doesn't make your arguments more valid btw, but feel free to keep trying.
Posted By: Sordak

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 20/06/19 11:57 AM

Ok.
Funny how i explained exactly why RTWP is not what you discribe it to be.
While you keep repeating that it is the best combat system (for all combat!) without explaining yourself at all.
Posted By: Bukke

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 20/06/19 01:38 PM

Since when is pre-buffing then right-clicking the enemy once considered tactical depth?
Posted By: kanisatha

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 20/06/19 01:53 PM

Originally Posted by kasapnecmi
Originally Posted by Sordak

kasapnecmi
Trash mobs: you are flipfloping. On one hand RTWP is good because it makes dealing with trash mobs easier... but then you dont need trah mobs. Yeah exactly, you dont need trash mobs, and thats why you dont need RTWP. you are making my point for me.


RTwP is not just better for thrash mobs, it's better for all combat. It provides more tactical depth in addition to realistic flow for sophisticated encounters. Stating the same things over and over again doesn't make your arguments more valid btw, but feel free to keep trying.

We all know what he is, so don't keep feeding him. He's the classic know-nothing, loud-mouth, blowhard who thinks throwing out a wall of asinine nonsense will impress people.
Posted By: Sordak

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 20/06/19 03:42 PM

still waiting for those actual arguments
Posted By: Try2Handing

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 20/06/19 10:25 PM

Originally Posted by Sordak
you cannot do it in real life

This point is not very relevant but how can you be sure that you can't "kite" in real life? You tried doing it before?

Originally Posted by Sordak
ToEE does it better. And AoO generaly is pretty weak in DnD because you tend to get only 1 unless you pay feat tax.

Not sure what you mean by you tend to get only 1, but have you played PoE2? That game does AoO decently, IMO.

Originally Posted by Sordak
Meanwhile in RTWP you cannot manipulate the turn order, you cannot effectiveley block movement, you cannot do things as throw items form your inventory, you cannot do off-turn actions and laying traps for your enemies in such a way.

You cannot manipulate turn order because.... RTWP is not TB? Though, Pathfinder: Kingmaker does have an initiative order system. It wasn't very good, apparently, when I last played it, and I didn't play it for long, either, so I can't say much, but I think the possibility of something akin to a "turn order" can be implemented in RTWP. That said, this is simply an inherent feature of TB, nothing more, nothing less.

Not sure what you mean by "effectively block movement". But you sure can do things like throw items from your inventory and set traps in BG games during combat.

Originally Posted by Sordak
you discribe artificial difficulty, thats not tactical

Umm, no. That's why I said "the real problem is AI". "Real", as in, it's a separate issue, although it is related to the overall tactical depth of the combat. Combat mechanics won't mean much if the AI is too primitive.

Originally Posted by Sordak
And other than what you discribe as the "pace" of RTWP, those things can be done by turn based. Immediate reaction is not a good thing, you can have it as your opinion that it is, but as far as im concerned, what makes chess tactical is the part that where you make a mistake, your opponent takes your pawn.

"Those things can be done"? What, exactly, can be done by TB? You're saying TB can produce exactly the same kind of feel as RTWP? So you can play a TB game but feel like you're playing a RTWP one?

Originally Posted by Sordak
What would not be tactical is if you make a mistake, your opponent moves your pawn and you go "oh nono, i didnt mean to do that" and just redo your turn.

Quite, but what are you trying to say? Are you trying to say that RTWP system is inherently a more forgiving system? If so, I won't try to convince you otherwise, since it's a matter of opinion. To me, how tactical a game's combat is is indicated by two things:

1) How much there is in the game for the player to learn, and
2) As you learn and gain deeper understanding of game mechanics, when you actually apply all that knowledge, the combat consistently gets more sophisticated, exciting, and rewarding.


That is it. How much you have to "commit" doesn't really play any role here. If anything, it measures how "punishing" the combat is, which doesn't necessarily have anything to do with how "tactical" it is. You like your game punishing? Fair enough. You can think that a TB system is more "punishing" by nature, sure, but if you claim a RTWP game cannot be punishing, that is just ignorant.

At this point, it's quite clear to me that the key factor that defines "tactical" for you is "whether you have to pay for your mistakes or not, and how much". You've been speaking as if in a RTWP game it's impossible to make mistakes, that there's little to no punishment, that plans can't go wrong, that there is no "committing to a plan", and that you can undo every single move. Most of your reasoning so far hinges on these points. This is flat out nonsense, to put it politely. You can't have played any decent RTWP game for any significant length of time and seriously say something like this. I'm tempted to ask what RTWP games you have actually played, on what difficulty, and how many times, and so on, but... nevermind.

Originally Posted by Sordak
Basiclaly Turn based can do everything RTWP can do, but also more.

Based on your reasoning so far, what you're really saying is: you can do TB things in a TB game. Which is about the same thing as saying "you can do RTWP things in a RTWP game."

Originally Posted by Sordak
On trash mobs:
No such thing in a well designed turn based game. There isnt a single trash fight in OS2 or in Xcom, or in Final Fantasy tactics.

This is a plain encounter design problem. Has absolutely nothing to do with what combat system the game is running. The BG games are twenty-year-old games. Back then everything was still fairly primitive, especially in the first game. In BG, the random encounters with hobgoblins, kobolds, etc. are there mostly so that there is something for the player to do, since the wilderness maps are pretty big and there isn't much going on in them. Again, the game was very primitive. These encounters can happen repeatedly in a short time when your party wander about; they need to be easy encounters. One of the key things to keep in mind here is that these games did not try to be punishing, like modern games tend to do. The developers simply wanted there to be things for the player to do, as an attempt to keep the games from getting too monotonous. It's as simple as that. Claiming that this is a flaw of the RTWP system makes no sense.

In fact, even in modern games, if you turn the difficulty slider all the way to the left, most encounters automatically become trash mobs encounters. I'm just going to repeat myself here: this is a problem of encounter design and balancing.

Originally Posted by Sordak
RTWP AI can constantly react, the only thing "Complicated" about this is that the AI constantly has to check states. This is more taxing on your CPU but it doesnt make the AI "smarter".

I don't know. Making a generalized conclusion like "This is more taxing on your CPU but it doesnt make the AI "smarter"" without any concrete example is... not convincing. I'm sorry, but if anything, it makes you sound like you don't know what you're talking about. Making the computer check for various conditions is part of making AI smarter. How else do you enable AI to react to different events and scenarios? Have you looked at codes from Sword Coast Strategems for the BG games, or other mods that improve AI? Or are you saying all these mods do is slowing down the games without actually making the AI smarter? Or am I just misunderstanding you very badly?

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess you've never played BG2 with any significant investment into it. Which means you would have no idea what its combat is like when "properly" modded.
Posted By: _Vic_

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 20/06/19 11:50 PM

[Linked Image]

I enjoyed the RTwP of the bg/IWD/Poe/pathfinder series, but also the TB of DoS,Torment, etc.

In the last installment of POE2 you have the option at the start to choose Turn based or RTWP. The game is the same besides combat. So, why not both?
Posted By: Artagel

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 21/06/19 02:35 AM

Originally Posted by Sordak
Artagel
dont know what to tell you mate. No. The infinity engine beeing RTWP was just something that happened more on accident than anyhting else.
I get that you like it more, but dont make it sound like some grand revelation, it was a thing that happened because of circumstance and nothing more.


Say what?

A grand revelation is exactly what it was. As this is a BG3 forum, I'll assume you've played the previous BG games, but I'm not sure you realize how leading-edge the RTwP dynamic was. It almost certainly was the first system that allowed people who never played pnp tabletop DnD a chance to seamlessly experience it on the computer, in a triple A title, without any prior knowledge of the DnD game. People waited years and years for such a thing. That's not something that occurred by "accident'.

Furthermore, to say that the way in which the RTwP dynamic was designed was an accident is a massive insult to the people who created it. The programmers who interpreted the pages and pages of rulebooks and manuals into a working, real-time system in which you could use all those stats, player states, tables, etc, to define and dictate exactly what happened whenever you un-paused your game and watched the engine work? All their work was an accident? I don't think so.

Posted By: Archaven

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 21/06/19 03:07 PM

Originally Posted by _Vic_
[Linked Image]

I enjoyed the RTwP of the bg/IWD/Poe/pathfinder series, but also the TB of DoS,Torment, etc.

In the last installment of POE2 you have the option at the start to choose Turn based or RTWP. The game is the same besides combat. So, why not both?


I have played POE2 for few hundred hours in RTwP. Have you played POE2? I know how it likes when playing TB in POE2. Yes why not both? But i simply think that either mode may cause shortcomings or restrictions against each other.
Posted By: Artagel

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 21/06/19 03:43 PM

I would venture to hypothesize, based on the divide in the community and statement by 'Raze' recently that they are primarily focused on getting back to work on the game, that any comment on something as significant as this would have been made by now if there was good news for both sides.

Perhaps somebody brought up the fact that if Obsidian can do both systems with PoE2, maybe it's worth looking into here. Again, this is only if the above is correct.

Maybe it's not?

Honestly, the lack of a release date makes it hard to frame a lot of these discussions because we don't have any place to start in terms of what we know about the game.
Posted By: kanisatha

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 21/06/19 05:48 PM

As I said in the poll thread, I don't see any point to making these requests here. The game has been in production since at least late 2017. Something as central to a game as its combat system and other similar core mechanics will have been among the very first things Larian decided on and set all the way back then. And I'm sure their choice was TB, based on the false "lesson" they've taken away from the sales success of D:OS2. And since then, I am sure they have also been porting over other systems directly from D:OS2, because they've been told by D:OS fans and reviewers those systems are "the best" ever created. This is why I have no doubt this game will be essentially a D:OS game (in terms of its look and feel and how it plays) but of course with a D&D coat of paint over it.
Posted By: Bukke

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 21/06/19 07:49 PM

Originally Posted by kanisatha
As I said in the poll thread, I don't see any point to making these requests here. The game has been in production since at least late 2017. Something as central to a game as its combat system and other similar core mechanics will have been among the very first things Larian decided on and set all the way back then. And I'm sure their choice was TB, based on the false "lesson" they've taken away from the sales success of D:OS2. And since then, I am sure they have also been porting over other systems directly from D:OS2, because they've been told by D:OS fans and reviewers those systems are "the best" ever created. This is why I have no doubt this game will be essentially a D:OS game (in terms of its look and feel and how it plays) but of course with a D&D coat of paint over it.

While I also believe that central gameplay elements such as the combat system were decided on a long time ago, I disagree with the notion that there's 'no point' for those who are interested in the game to express their hopes and/or wishes for the game. Pillars of Eternity 2 was initially released as a RTwP-only game and added an option to play the game in turn based mode approximately a year after its initial launch.
If BG3 releases with only one option and there's a sufficient amount of requests for the other option, I don't see why a company with Larian's capabilities (and apparently also a major budget according to recent interviews) wouldn't be able to implement such a feature.
Posted By: Artagel

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 21/06/19 08:54 PM

It's going to be an extremely polarizing announcement.

I do not envy the mods here whenever that moment arrives.
Posted By: Nobody_Special

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 21/06/19 09:02 PM

Well it has been said in an interview by Swen that they are going to follow the D&D combat systems.

Originally Posted by Swen
With respect to the combat system, this is based on D&D, so we’re using their combat system.


https://www.pcgamesn.com/baldurs-gate-3/larian-developer-interview
Posted By: Bukke

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 21/06/19 10:10 PM

Originally Posted by Nobody_Special
Well it has been said in an interview by Swen that they are going to follow the D&D combat systems.

Originally Posted by Swen
With respect to the combat system, this is based on D&D, so we’re using their combat system.


https://www.pcgamesn.com/baldurs-gate-3/larian-developer-interview

Keep in mind that his answer was in reply to the interviewer asking how many of D:OS2's features that'd get used in BG3. Aside from confirming that it'll be based on 5e, Swen has been reluctant to share details about BG3's system, so we still don't know if it'll be TB, RTWP, both or something completely different.
Posted By: Sordak

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 22/06/19 11:40 AM

Try2Handing
Im not gonna debate wether or not kiting is a sensible combat strategy in real life. This debate has become silly enaugh
What i mean by only getting one AoO is that in most DnD editions (that have AoO) you only get one Attack of Opportunity per turn, in 3E you could take a feat that increased the ammount of AoOs by your dex modifyer, in 5E your AoO is your reaction, you only get one reaction per turn, which makes it even worse than the original rule from 3E since you cannot use your reaction to do anyhting else.

Yes turn order is an inherent feature of turn based systems, also a good one because you can play around it. It makes initiative matter more and you can deliberatley delay your turn to set up plays. Its nuance missing in other systems.

Obviously a turn based game isnt going to FEEL like RTWP, but it can emulate all of its features, theres no feature RTWP has that cannot be done in turn based.
The opposit is not true.

1) How much there is in the game for the player to learn, and
2) As you learn and gain deeper understanding of game mechanics, when you actually apply all that knowledge, the combat consistently gets more sophisticated, exciting, and rewarding.

How does that not coincide with commitment to actions?
You will need to learn what your enemy is capeable of doing on his turn, you cannot react immediatly, thus you need to know what kind of options the enemy has.
For what its worth, your definition is not what i would use to discribe what "Tactics" means.
What tactics means to me is that you have a limited ammount of options to take and have to use the correct options to beat the encounter, while you fail when you use the wrong ones.
In a game like lets say Skyrim, you have almost no options, you can hope that the enemy health bar depletes before yours does.

Im also ot saying that you have absolute controll over what happens in RTWP; the chess analogy was obviously en exagrated one. But my point about movement isnt wrong is it. And yes, i did play several old infinity engine games aswell as NWN 2 which last time i checked was RTWP too, aswell as Dragon Age Origins and Inquisition (tho the latter bareley is RTWP as the tactical camera is basically pointless)

Encounter design: you are not wrong that this is an encounter design issue, but RTWP so far has led developers to employ this kind of encounter design because it blends better.
Filler encounters are a way of padding the game, in RTWP, players find this acceptable, in turn based they dont as it gets boring.
Also XCOM is older than Baldurs gate so that argument doesnt count.

On AI: no? My point is that making the computer check every second rather than every turn doesnt make it smarter, it just does the same thing more ofthen.
Its descision making progress isnt any more advanced.
by your definition, the WoW AI would be a golden glorious god of AI design.

And yeah, if you base my opinion on RTWP games based on what mods ive installed, well idk what to tell you honestly. I like to play my games vanilla and the only mods i tend to use are those that enable a higher resolution. Modding comes for second and third playthrough and i dont have time for that with most games.
Posted By: Archaven

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 22/06/19 04:41 PM

Originally Posted by kanisatha
As I said in the poll thread, I don't see any point to making these requests here. The game has been in production since at least late 2017. Something as central to a game as its combat system and other similar core mechanics will have been among the very first things Larian decided on and set all the way back then. And I'm sure their choice was TB, based on the false "lesson" they've taken away from the sales success of D:OS2. And since then, I am sure they have also been porting over other systems directly from D:OS2, because they've been told by D:OS fans and reviewers those systems are "the best" ever created. This is why I have no doubt this game will be essentially a D:OS game (in terms of its look and feel and how it plays) but of course with a D&D coat of paint over it.


i afraid i have to agree with you there. i've watched many of the interviews with sven. although he's reluctant to admit, it's very obvious they have changed the game to be a pure turn-based game. there's no other better way if you ask me? if their main focus is "gather your party". their cover up for being co-op and mutliplayer focused. i hope i'm proven wrong, but i very much believed that's what Larian has done.

not that bg3 will suxs with TB nor i doubt Larian's ability to make an awesome game. it's just that what they have done is making warcraft 3 (it's an RTS) to World of Warcraft. who ever said WoW suxs? as it's one of the most successful game in history that has top 15M active subes a decade ago? but think of those people who loved the Warcraft 3 franchise. Think of what Blizzard has done to their fanbase in the name of money? They are like the RTwP players.. and DOS2/TB are WoW players.
Posted By: kanisatha

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 22/06/19 08:22 PM

But for me, the way Swen is putting things makes it far worse than just that it will be TB. Bad enough that as a fan of RTwP I will be forced to accept TB, but it certainly looks like the main reason they've chosen TB is because of multiplayer and a possible DM mode, which clearly demonstrates that the single-player experience will be sacrificed to the benefit of multiplayer. In other words, the game will be built first and foremost for multiplayer play and optimized for this, but if someone wants to play it (sub-optimally) single-player, they can. Larian appearing to make the single-player game secondary to the multiplayer game is what has me the most upset.
Posted By: Parry

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 22/06/19 10:39 PM

Interesting, if predicable discussion. Personally, I hope for TBS, but not like OS's turn based (seriously, why would anyone live anywhere so close to so many inexplicable poisonous and explosive barrels?). I have played the BG series a couple times, but funnily enough I never really liked the RTwP for party based games. I started with Champions of Krynn/Pools of Radiance/Buck Rogers (seriously, that game was great, the one shining gem out of that failed franchise). As such, I was really attached to the tactical TBS combat of those series. If we could make snappy TBS combat in the 80's, we should be able to do it now.
Posted By: Jargoyle

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 23/06/19 12:47 AM

I trust Larian to create their vision. I hate RTwP. Won't whine about it if it is, but I am a turn based fanboy.
Posted By: Try2Handing

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 23/06/19 04:38 AM

Originally Posted by Sordak
This debate has become silly enaugh

You mean the conversation we've been having for the last two pages? Silly? I hardly think so. I've been enjoying it.

Originally Posted by Sordak
Obviously a turn based game isnt going to FEEL like RTWP, but it can emulate all of its features, theres no feature RTWP has that cannot be done in turn based.
The opposit is not true.

That's the thing. Some of us like the fact that RTWP offers a unique feel that TB can't. In RTWP you coordinate things so that they actually happen simultaneously. It feels good when you manage to pull off good coordination involving multiple characters and actions within a short amount of time, like 2 or 3 seconds, for example. There's a sense of urgency in that. In TB you simply know when exactly an effect expires - if not this turn then next turn - and can take all the time you want to make your moves. Some of us appreciate the feel of the RTWP system. But, if you care about nothing but the technical aspect, that's fine too.

Originally Posted by Sordak
1) How much there is in the game for the player to learn, and
2) As you learn and gain deeper understanding of game mechanics, when you actually apply all that knowledge, the combat consistently gets more sophisticated, exciting, and rewarding.

How does that not coincide with commitment to actions?

"How does that not coincide with commitment to actions?" I find it amusing that you're asking me this. To me, both these criteria are true for games like BG, DAO, NWN, PoE. Thus, they are "tactical" to me. However, you have been insisting that these games have no such thing as "commitment to actions", because they are all RTWP and thus "you can change movement at any point" - whatever you mean by this. Have you found your answer yet?

1) If you agree that both of these criteria DO apply to the aforementioned games, THEN you agree that they all have your so-called "commitment to actions" factor (because apparently you believe they coincide), which, in turn, makes them all "tactical" (by your definition of "tactical" so far). At this point you'll be contradicting yourself, and undoing pretty much every single thing you've said for the last two pages in this thread. You know, when something like this happens, it's usually because the person has no idea what they've been talking about.

2) On the other hand, if you say that these criteria do NOT apply to the aforementioned games.... Well, I wouldn't say you're wrong (though the legion of fans of these games would), but this would be one hell of a minority opinion. To say the BG and NWN games don't have much for player to learn and/or their combat doesn't get more complex and fun when you learn and apply what you have learned... Umm, ok.

It's yes or no mate. There is no 3rd option for you.

Originally Posted by Sordak
For what its worth, your definition is not what i would use to discribe what "Tactics" means.
What tactics means to me is that you have a limited ammount of options to take and have to use the correct options to beat the encounter, while you fail when you use the wrong ones.

Here's what you said several posts earlier:
Originally Posted by Sordak
In RTWP; you can change the direction of your move at any point and immediatly react. Thus its less tactical as there are less risks to be taken.

Now that you're pulling out a new "definition", I must say I don't see how these two definitions relate to each other...?

Originally Posted by Sordak
You will need to learn what your enemy is capeable of doing on his turn, you cannot react immediatly, thus you need to know what kind of options the enemy has.

Are you saying in a RTWP game you have an unlimited amount of options to take, and don't have to use the correct options to beat encounters? And you can't fail even if you use the wrong options? And that it's not important to learn what your enemy is capable of doing, what immunities they have, what defenses they have, and so on?

Originally Posted by Sordak
Im also ot saying that you have absolute controll over what happens in RTWP; the chess analogy was obviously en exagrated one. But my point about movement isnt wrong is it. And yes, i did play several old infinity engine games aswell as NWN 2 which last time i checked was RTWP too, aswell as Dragon Age Origins and Inquisition

"Absolute control over what happens in RTWP"? I can't control what an enemy does, if that's what you mean. Except when I open up their scripts and script them to do exactly what I want them to. Or are you saying in a TB game you don't have absolute control over your own characters? I'm getting a bit lost here.

Originally Posted by Sordak
in RTWP, players find this acceptable, in turn based they dont as it gets boring.

Exactly. You nailed it. It's exactly because it's an RTWP game, so players find it acceptable. Good for them. It is you who don't find it acceptable. Which is your opinion. You and other "hardcore" TB fans who can't see much beyond whether an encounter is a "trash mobs encounter" or not. An encounter helps set up atmosphere and build immersion. If an encounter happens at the right location, has the right difficulty, then it helps enhance the story flow and the role-playing experience.

An encounter can be a test of your tactical ingenuity, sure, but you don't have to treat every single encounter that way, you know. The moment you see a "trash mobs encounter" and you're like, "What is THIS? What were they thinking making a dumb encounter like this?! What an INSULT!" The moment you see that "This encounter is not worth my time and effort", you conclude that the whole system is bad. Some fights are there for you to fight, while other fights are there just because... it makes sense that they are there. It makes sense to the character you're role-playing.

You don't sound much like a real "role-player" to me. You sound more like someone whose only craving is to prove how good they are at tactical combat against a computer. You can't appreciate an encounter that consists of the right enemies, is placed at the right location, and has a reasonable difficulty for the time and place in which it takes place.

Originally Posted by Sordak
On AI: no? My point is that making the computer check every second rather than every turn doesnt make it smarter, it just does the same thing more ofthen.
Its descision making progress isnt any more advanced.

Yes, now you're explaining your point. I was looking for that, but just couldn't find it. Sorry about that. So basically you're saying RTWP is also an inferior system because its AI handling is naturally more taxing on the computer. I don't know what to tell you mate. There must be a reason why all RTS games exist. Because "RTWP" is just RT, With a Pause added. You're basically saying all RTS games in existence would be better as TB. Sure, it's your opinion. But you'll have to find a real RTS player to argue about this. Although I do play some RTS games, I'm not much into the genre in general.

Originally Posted by Sordak
by your definition, the WoW AI would be a golden glorious god of AI design.

What definition? I simply said, "Making the computer check for various conditions is part of making AI smarter." You're saying I'm wrong?

So, after two pages worth of discussion, my observation is that, you like to make "generalized conclusions" such as:
- "The only reason people like RTWP is because of some conservative clinging to the Infinity engine games."
- Because in a RTWP game, you can "change your movement at any point", so the whole system is less tactical, because you don't have to "commit to your actions".
- RTWP system is also bad because it makes "trash mobs encounter" more acceptable.
- "Kiting" is "stupid" and you cannot do it in real life. (What, you mean a person can't run and shoot with a gun at the same time? I see that in movies all the time and usually don't find it stupid.)

I like the fact that you can make conclusions such as these without any solid example or reasoning from ANY game OR real life that clarifies or supports or proves your points. Even at this very moment, you have never clearly explained what you really meant by "you can change your movement at any point" - which has been one of your major arguments, and how exactly it makes the combat less tactical.
Posted By: V4skunk

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 23/06/19 12:56 PM

Just got to the Underdark in BG2EE about 70 hours in. BG2EE looks dated but ohhhh boy it blows DOS2 out of the water in depth, tactics during combat and just ways to break the game..
Also the amount of different ways to complete a quest is also superior to DOS2.
BG3 has to be RTwP, TB is archaic and the battles drag out far too long and offer zero realism and are no way near as entertaining.
To the guy that said BG2 is just about pre buffing your party and clicking on the enemy! Stop playing on easy difficulty on story mode! In reality your party wouldn't last 5 seconds against a caster with a few mobs.
Posted By: Sordak

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 23/06/19 02:40 PM

Try2Handing
Ok, you like the feel of RTWP, i hate it.
Theres no arguing taste.

Mate, can you please stop acting as if ive said that RTWP games are literaly braindead? You realize im playing them right? I wouldnt be playing them if i wouldnt like them, i just like turn based games more.
So stop misrepresenting my point. You are saying RTWP is more tactical than turn based,
YOU said that, so i dont know how i am contradicting myself here. You claimed RTWP was more tactical because of these things, i said Turn based also does this things, and is better because you have to commit to actions more.
Also you conveniently ignore the other points ive made like off turn actions and turn order management that RTWP cannot emulate.

And thus goes your next point. Exactly, youve got infinite options in RTWP, well, not infinite, you are still dealing with spellcast times, spell slots and buffs.
But more than in turn based.
Thus its harder to make a "Wrong" descision.
Again think of the chess analogy from earlier. When i said tactics means having to make the right choice, it also means that the easier it is to go back on your mistake, the less tactical something is.
Hence why the most tactical games are those like chess where the board is laid out to you, and the outcome is entierly based on someone making a mistake.

I also obviously never said that you controll your enemies, so please let go of that sillyness.

On Trash encounters.
It was you who said trash encounter were a problem with encounter design.
And now suddenly they are amazing because they "build atmosphere"? Pardon me but how do trash encounters build atmosphere exactly?
No brain random encounters on the world map dont build nearly as much atmosphere as a well coordinated ambush.
What is more immersive, going throuhg the dark forest and beeing attacked by 10 identical packs of Wolves before you make it through, or going through the dark forest, constantly beeing stalked by a pack of wolves, teasing the encounter, and eventually beeing ambushed when you least expect it?

Cause im pretty sure not a lot of people would say the first is more atmospheric.
And yes, i do want to have a challenge when playing. thats why its a game. You can go play the aristocrat about "Roleplayign" all you want, good combat doesnt make roleplaying go away. I DM IRL, i draw pictures of every single character and enemy of my games, i print that stuff out and think about the encounters i will throw at my players.
I make them anticipate them and tease them with whats to come, and then i arrange genuinly interresting setpieces with several ways of solving them.
I obviously dont want to win there, but i want to challenge my players, both in terms of roleplaying with tough descisions to make, aswell as with combat difficulty, with challenges to be overcome.

On AI:
Let me remind you, you said RTWP needs more advanced AI, i said it doesnt. Its just more taxing AI, not smarter AI. I didnt say RTWP AI is somehow a bad thing. Its not like it actually is very tough on your CPU, most games are real time, but real time AI isnt "Smarter" than turn based AI.
The combat pace and the AI are two things that are completley unrelated most of the time. WoW is real time and has some of the dumbest AI in gaming.


Kiting.
the only real lfie example of kiting would actually be mongol horse archers, an archer running away from a dude with a sword and stopping every couple of meters to fire a shot is quite frankly ridiculous.

This whole discussion isnt going anywhere.
Your point basically boils down to "RTWP is better because i like the feel more".
Your entire pretense on how its supposedly a better system is gone by now, you flip flop on issues like trash encounters or willfully misunderstand me.
I dont know what to tell you...
Posted By: Artagel

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 23/06/19 07:08 PM

Originally Posted by Sordak
Obviously a turn based game isnt going to FEEL like RTWP, but it can emulate all of its features, theres no feature RTWP has that cannot be done in turn based.


All characters and enemies on the screen moving or attacking at the same time.

Done.

Why are you still trying to argue about this? The above is clearly a perspective you are not able to grasp. Which is fine. Let's move on. My money's still on Larian doing what Obsidian did with POE2 and adding both options.
Posted By: Sordak

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 23/06/19 09:23 PM

My money is, as ive said, on them doing an action combat system thats neither RTWP nor turn based.
Im arguing that turn based is better than RTWP, not that i think they are doing turn based.

In fact, if we arent getting a new system, i think them doing both is the most likeley option aswell.

And yes, you are correct that bit turn based cannot do, Thankfully.
Posted By: Artagel

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 23/06/19 09:53 PM

Originally Posted by Sordak
My money is, as ive said, on them doing an action combat system thats neither RTWP nor turn based.
Im arguing that turn based is better than RTWP, not that i think they are doing turn based.

In fact, if we arent getting a new system, i think them doing both is the most likeley option aswell.

And yes, you are correct that bit turn based cannot do, Thankfully.


A combat system that's neither TB or RTwP? How would that work?
Posted By: Sordak

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 23/06/19 10:13 PM

real time mostly, something like dragons dogma.
or RTWP in the Dragon Age 2 / Inquisition sense.

When Sven talks about attakcs not missing, i cannot imagine turn based (OS1 and 2 got accuracy stats) or RTWP (all RTWP games i know have misses)
So i imagine a combat system where you directly controll one characters and whack people with attacks, thats the only system in which i can see not hitting someone beeing "Not fun".
Which makes me think that the combat will be action based, with maybe some party stuff like a "tactical view" where you can give commands.
Posted By: Phi 42

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 23/06/19 11:29 PM

Originally Posted by Sordak
Also you conveniently ignore the other points ive made like off turn actions and turn order management that RTWP cannot emulate.
Full move turn order management can't be done, yes. Other question is: why should it be done? Initiative handling can be done. There are multiple games proving that. The "advantage" of TB here is that characters don't move in TB they warp from place to place while interacting with the terrain and can't be interrupted exept for AoOs. RTwP allows actively catching a non-sneaking character that goes for a gap between controlled spaces. I'd claim that RTwP is harder to abuse here. And I am caling it abuse.
Originally Posted by Sordak
And thus goes your next point. Exactly, youve got infinite options in RTWP, well, not infinite, you are still dealing with spellcast times, spell slots and buffs.
But more than in turn based.
Thus its harder to make a "Wrong" descision.
Again think of the chess analogy from earlier. When i said tactics means having to make the right choice, it also means that the easier it is to go back on your mistake, the less tactical something is.
Hence why the most tactical games are those like chess where the board is laid out to you, and the outcome is entierly based on someone making a mistake.
So RTwP has more options? when did that happen? Yes there are more options regarding the exact direction you are moving and how to walk curves in a momentuous manner. Turns and actions can (and should and do in many cases) exist in RTwP too, so the actual actions are still just as restricted. and all the meticulous amounts of placement and puzzling you want to do in TB always seemed to be more complex and actually more diverse than you think RTwP could be. confused And I do not know how more options translates in less "wrong" options. Just does not compute.
Originally Posted by Sordak
On Trash encounters.
It was you who said trash encounter were a problem with encounter design.
And now suddenly they are amazing because they "build atmosphere"? Pardon me but how do trash encounters build atmosphere exactly?
No brain random encounters on the world map dont build nearly as much atmosphere as a well coordinated ambush.
What is more immersive, going throuhg the dark forest and beeing attacked by 10 identical packs of Wolves before you make it through, or going through the dark forest, constantly beeing stalked by a pack of wolves, teasing the encounter, and eventually beeing ambushed when you least expect it?

Cause im pretty sure not a lot of people would say the first is more atmospheric.
And yes, i do want to have a challenge when playing. thats why its a game. You can go play the aristocrat about "Roleplayign" all you want, good combat doesnt make roleplaying go away. I DM IRL, i draw pictures of every single character and enemy of my games, i print that stuff out and think about the encounters i will throw at my players.
I make them anticipate them and tease them with whats to come, and then i arrange genuinly interresting setpieces with several ways of solving them.
I obviously dont want to win there, but i want to challenge my players, both in terms of roleplaying with tough descisions to make, aswell as with combat difficulty, with challenges to be overcome.
Props to you as DM. You seem to take Preparation seriously and i respect that.
Now on to the point: Yes, fighting the same pack of wolves for the umpteenth time is a stupid waste of time. It does not build immersion at that point. And trash quickly tends to become just that. But that is because it feels like there is no consequence to it and no reason for it. This type of trash (especially the random encounter) takes away player agency. But if your goal is to clear a nest of giant rats.... trashmobs galore. It does not make sense to just have 5 or maybe 10 giant rats in the nest, there are bound to be 30+ and most of them won't be a challenge. In TB, where fights need full time attention and can't move beyond certain speeds the combat would suck hard. in RTwP you'd still be peeved, but it would be much better and the game would not be forced to break immersion by removing enemies that should be there.
There is not a thing that keeps good developers from chasing the players with a pack of wolves in just the way you described. Not a single thing. It is about Encounter design and you can fail or win at it either way.
There is a mechanic that can be used to make all encounters challenging. Its name is "Level scaling" and it is bad. Some encounters should be easy, because the world just works that way. Others should be near impossible, but you can have those in both systems. The easy ones suck in TB and suck far less in RTwP.
Originally Posted by Sordak
On AI:
Let me remind you, you said RTWP needs more advanced AI, i said it doesnt. Its just more taxing AI, not smarter AI. I didnt say RTWP AI is somehow a bad thing. Its not like it actually is very tough on your CPU, most games are real time, but real time AI isnt "Smarter" than turn based AI.
The combat pace and the AI are two things that are completley unrelated most of the time. WoW is real time and has some of the dumbest AI in gaming.
I don't know where to start here... RTwP and TB need different AIs. That's it. Moving on.
WoW AI does not check sh**. Okay, the PvP isle AI does check some sh**, but it is still a very basic AI. All bosses and about every mob though? Scripted. And the scripts are very easy ones just consisting of timers, chances and for bosses and some odd enemies there are triggers based on healh points or mana. This is barely AI and most know that. Starcraft AI is actually a bit intelligent.
D:OS2 AI was "how do I drop at least one enemy to the least amount of life possible" (I am not sure, but it sure felt like that) and used anything it had for that. Especially knowing that Fane is undead. I don't think it ever took creating ground effects that hinder me into consideration, but many D&D players will agree with me on the effectiveness of grease.
Originally Posted by Sordak
Kiting.
the only real lfie example of kiting would actually be mongol horse archers, an archer running away from a dude with a sword and stopping every couple of meters to fire a shot is quite frankly ridiculous.

This whole discussion isnt going anywhere.
Your point basically boils down to "RTWP is better because i like the feel more".
Your entire pretense on how its supposedly a better system is gone by now, you flip flop on issues like trash encounters or willfully misunderstand me.
I dont know what to tell you...
Kiting is ridiculous. Okay. What about TB is restricting me from it though? D:OS2 had action points for that, but D&D... I Don't think there is a rule against it in the Players Handbook. For archers maybe, but what if a bard runs away while shouting insults? I could pull that off in TB. Kiting depends on the enemy owning no ranged attack anyway.
I started out liking TB more, but I can't help but think that your arguments are... flimsy. And that some arguments for RTwP or some other hypothetical system are just... good?
Posted By: Try2Handing

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 24/06/19 03:30 AM

Originally Posted by Sordak
You are saying RTWP is more tactical than turn based,
YOU said that, so i dont know how i am contradicting myself here. You claimed RTWP was more tactical because of these things, i said Turn based also does this things, and is better because you have to commit to actions more.

Heh. Except, I have never said such thing. Go ahead and re-read all of my posts until this point, if you're inclined to. I have never once said that RTWP is more tactical than TB. The only one who's been comparing which is more tactical than which here is you. The only thing I've been doing until now is challenging your rationale behind why you think TB is more tactical than RTWP. This is what I said:

Originally Posted by Try2Handing
To me, it is not "less" tactical or risky. It is simply a different kind of tactical and risky.

I said, "it's a different kind of tactical." Unlike you, I don't make generalized conclusions like one system is inherently more tactical than the other one simply because of one single vague factor which is "you can change directions any time". I would judge a game individually how tactical it is, based on my own criteria, no matter which combat system it is running.

Originally Posted by Sordak
Also you conveniently ignore the other points ive made like off turn actions and turn order management that RTWP cannot emulate.

As a matter of fact, I did not ignore that. In reply to you, I said:

Originally Posted by Try2Handing
You cannot manipulate turn order because.... RTWP is not TB? [...] That said, this is simply an inherent feature of TB, nothing more, nothing less.

How can you say something like "you can't manipulate turn order in an RTWP game" when THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS TURN ORDER TO BEGIN WITH??? You realize how dumb this reasoning sounds, right?? This is literally like saying an orange is better than an apple because an apple is not an orange. As if an apple not being an orange is inherently a flaw of the apple. Of course, someone could argue that it is possible to implement a (semi) turn order and initiative system in an RTWP game, which is why I mentioned the case of Pathfinder: Kingmaker, which attempts to implement this element, in that same statement. Kingmaker might have not done it very well, but at least it proves that it may be possible.

As for your so-called "off-turn actions", you know why I didn't say anything about it? Because I wasn't sure what you really meant by that. In fact, I wasn't sure about a lot of things you said, because of the fact that you rarely clarify the things that you say. In most cases, however, I tried to guess what you really meant, to keep this discussion efficient. Now, I'm going to guess that by "off-turn actions" you mean "free actions" triggered by certain conditions which do not take place during the combatant's turn. If this is what you meant, then I don't see why such things cannot be implemented in RTWP. NWN does have Attack of Opportunity, at least. Other than this, you will have to list some specific "off-turn actions" which you believe are impossible to implement in a RTWP game.

See, a problem with your arguments is that you don't clarify what you say by specific details, leading to your arguments have little to no meaning most of the time. There may be a problem of "animation priority" when implementing free actions in real time, but I don't believe it is impossible to resolve.

Originally Posted by Sordak
Exactly, youve got infinite options in RTWP, well, not infinite, you are still dealing with spellcast times, spell slots and buffs.
But more than in turn based.
Thus its harder to make a "Wrong" descision.
Again think of the chess analogy from earlier. When i said tactics means having to make the right choice, it also means that the easier it is to go back on your mistake, the less tactical something is.
Hence why the most tactical games are those like chess where the board is laid out to you, and the outcome is entierly based on someone making a mistake.

You're literally just repeating yourself, yet still without any concrete example or a specific combat situation that demonstrates that "you have more options in RTWP than in TB", that it is indeed "harder to make a wrong decision", or "easier to go back on your mistake" in an RTWP game. You realize all these are just very generalized statements, right? They are not backed up by any reasoning or clarification whatsoever. "More options"... what options, exactly? Are these options only available to the player but not to the AI? As for "it is easier to go back on your mistakes", let's for the sake of argument assume that such a thing is true in an RTWP game. Then it would be true for both the player and the AI. This is also true for your so-called "you can change directions any time".

This is what led to my argument which is "this is an AI and encounter design problem". How punishing the game is can completely be adjusted by encounter design: how powerful the enemies are, what they are capable of doing, how deadly their attacks are, and so on. The problem here is to design the enemies so that they are powerful combatants, and script them so that they can take advantage of all the various mechanics available to them, in a way that makes the encounter challenging and punishing. Generally speaking, a "powerful enemy" naturally means you have fewer options to deal with it, and a "tough encounter" naturally means you have fewer options than an average encounter, and mistakes naturally tend to be costly. Otherwise, we wouldn't say the enemy is "strong" or the encounter is "tough" to begin with. This is my counterargument to your claim that one system is inherently more tactical than the other simply by virtue of their natural features.

Originally Posted by Sordak
I also obviously never said that you controll your enemies, so please let go of that sillyness.

Oh, I'm sorry for misunderstanding you. But I did say I was getting a bit lost, didn't I? I also said "if that's what you meant", and asked "or are you saying...?". However, seeing as you never clarified what you meant by "you have absolute controll over what happens in RTWP.", my misunderstanding is quite justified, IMO. Here we are again. The situation in which you don't clarify your generalized statement or back it up with any sort of reasoning. This is getting old. You didn't say you can control your enemies; you only said "you have absolute controll over what happens in RTWP." Right. I can see how a misunderstanding would happen. You don't want people to misunderstand you? Tip: try to explain what you mean and clarify what you say.

I can vaguely guess what you may be trying to say, and you may have a point, but, as I said, your argument is mostly meaningless if you don't back it up or at least clarify it somehow.

Originally Posted by Sordak
On Trash encounters.
It was you who said trash encounter were a problem with encounter design.
And now suddenly they are amazing because they "build atmosphere"? Pardon me but how do trash encounters build atmosphere exactly?
No brain random encounters on the world map dont build nearly as much atmosphere as a well coordinated ambush.
What is more immersive, going throuhg the dark forest and beeing attacked by 10 identical packs of Wolves before you make it through, or going through the dark forest, constantly beeing stalked by a pack of wolves, teasing the encounter, and eventually beeing ambushed when you least expect it?

Sigh. Not sure where I should begin here. Although, most people who read both my original post and this counterargument of yours will probably find this pretty lame. Suggestion: try quoting someone before you counter them, ok? Helps a lot. Requires a bit of extra work, but it helps other people follow the discussion better, and also helps you avoid confusing what someone did or did not say.

First, I didn't say "they are amazing", ok? I said they help do this and that, as in, they can be used as a tool for such purposes. They won't be "amazing" if they are set up badly.

"How do trash encounters build atmosphere exactly?" I also already said it. Simply by consisting of the right enemies, being placed at the right location, and having the right difficulty. This is my opinion. You can agree with it, or don't.

The rest of what you say here simply further proves what I said: you don't sound like a real RPG gamer, but more like a tactical combat nerd who can't see much beyond "how tough a fight is".

This feels like explaining 1 + 1 = 2, but here's a random, simple example:

Your party is on the outskirts of a peaceful village. Suddenly you run into a pack of one lich, two greater mummies, and three greater skeleton warriors. It is one hell of a fight. The enemies are much more powerful than your typical kobold, and have extraordinary synergy and coordination. You have to employ every single tactical trick you have up your sleeve, but you beat them fair and square, get amazing loot, and it feels amazingly good.

To you, this encounter would build atmosphere wonderfully solely because it is a "well coordinated ambush".

To me, this encounter would be fine if there is a very good reason why the hell those enemies show up there in the first place. It is given by the scenario that we beat them, so let's assume that this encounter already has reasonable difficulty.
Originally Posted by Sordak
What is more immersive, going throuhg the dark forest and beeing attacked by 10 identical packs of Wolves before you make it through, or going through the dark forest, constantly beeing stalked by a pack of wolves, teasing the encounter, and eventually beeing ambushed when you least expect it?


Originally Posted by Sordak
Cause im pretty sure not a lot of people would say the first is more atmospheric.

"The first" is a very vague example you pulled out of nowhere without much context or background to it. 10 may be a bit much, but then this is just an exaggeration you came up with. Now if your forest is big and is known to have a lot of wolves, then I see no problem with being attacked by several packs of two or three by the time you make it through said forest. The question here is simply whether it makes sense or not, for your party to be attacked several times along the way like that. This has nothing to do with the fact that the wolves may be "trash" enemies.

The second example is just a way of setting up an encounter. Sure, it works. As long as it makes sense. I mean, if there is exactly one pack of wolves in the entire forest, and if the wolves are so smart that they can recognize when an entire party "least expect an attack from wolves".

Originally Posted by Sordak
And yes, i do want to have a challenge when playing. thats why its a game. You can go play the aristocrat about "Roleplayign" all you want, good combat doesnt make roleplaying go away.

That is right. This is exactly why I said "you sound more like someone whose only craving is to prove how good they are at tactical combat against a computer." You play games simply "for a challenge". You do realize "Story Mode" or "Casual Mode" exist for a reason, right? There are those of use who can appreciate other stuff a video game has to offer, aside from how "tactical" or how "punishing" every single encounter you run into is.

Originally Posted by Sordak
I DM IRL, i draw pictures of every single character and enemy of my games, i print that stuff out and think about the encounters i will throw at my players.
I make them anticipate them and tease them with whats to come, and then i arrange genuinly interresting setpieces with several ways of solving them.
I obviously dont want to win there, but i want to challenge my players, both in terms of roleplaying with tough descisions to make, aswell as with combat difficulty, with challenges to be overcome.

Good to know. You do you mate.

Originally Posted by Sordak
On AI:
Let me remind you, you said RTWP needs more advanced AI, i said it doesnt. Its just more taxing AI, not smarter AI. I didnt say RTWP AI is somehow a bad thing. Its not like it actually is very tough on your CPU, most games are real time, but real time AI isnt "Smarter" than turn based AI.
The combat pace and the AI are two things that are completley unrelated most of the time. WoW is real time and has some of the dumbest AI in gaming.

I'm getting deja vu. Are you? Yet one more time you claimed that I said something which I did not. Why don't you go ahead and quote the section in which I said "RTWP needs more advanced AI"? I also never said "real time AI is smarter than TB AI". As such, I can't tell what the point of this part of your argument is.

Originally Posted by Sordak
Kiting.
the only real lfie example of kiting would actually be mongol horse archers, an archer running away from a dude with a sword and stopping every couple of meters to fire a shot is quite frankly ridiculous.

Ridiculous? My question is, can it be done, or not.

Originally Posted by Sordak
Your point basically boils down to "RTWP is better because i like the feel more".
Your entire pretense on how its supposedly a better system is gone by now, you flip flop on issues like trash encounters or willfully misunderstand me.
I dont know what to tell you...

Except, that has never been my point. Again, I have never once claimed that RTWP is a better system than TB. I said, some players, myself included, can appreciate the unique feel of RTWP combat. I never said "I like the feel more". There's a difference there. Don't believe me? Go ahead and re-read my past posts.

I'm repeating myself here, but everything I've done up to this very point is challenging your rationale behind why you think TB is a better system, because, frankly, your reasoning is ridiculously bad. I did make a few comparisons between the two systems here and there, but throughout this entire discussion I have never once stated that I prefer one system over the other. I can understand if you get the impression that I've been "defending" the RTWP system, but no, that's not what I've been doing. Let me tell you then: personally, I'm one who can appreciate either system for what it is, and can enjoy both as long as the combat itself is good.

You're just not very good at this, are you? You're not sure what you yourself are talking about, and you don't have a very good grasp on what *I* have been saying, either.
Posted By: Try2Handing

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 24/06/19 05:10 AM

@Sordak:
Here's an idea I have for you: grab Baldur's Gate 2, then try fighting Kangaxx the Lich/Demilich, or Shangalar and his goons. Try doing these fights around level 14-16, without learning what these enemies are capable of doing, and without coming up with any specific strategy or preparation, while making only random and casual moves during the fights. I'd suggest that you have some balancing mods installed, but vanilla will do.

Then get back to me and tell me how it goes and what you think. Are these fights "tactical" enough for you? If not, what would you suggest can be done to make them more so? Or are you going to say that these fights are guaranteed to be more tactical if they are done in turn based, no matter how the enemies are designed and scripted?
Posted By: Sordak

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 25/06/19 07:08 PM

The lenght of these posts is getting beyond ridiculous
At this point you do little more than hide behind personal insults. No i wont quote you, why? because i dont wanna waste that much time on a completley pointless debate. Im replying to you out of curtesy.

So lets get to the few actual points youve made:
"How does RTWP have more options", you simply have more possible moves per time unit.
To give you a DnD example, turns in older DnD editions lasted a minute, in later edition a couple of seconds. Thats essentialy the difference here. Smaller time increments to make descisions.
Here you make the same mistake you accuse me of making, because ive given an example of this before.

Lets say you are fighting two melee enemies and a wizard, you have a ranger and a fighter, the enemy wizard is currently obscured, so you now have the choice, do you move the ranger closer to the wizard, hoping that your fighter can keep the melee enemies occupied, or do you keep the ranger behind the fighter were he is safe but cannot take a shot at the wizard.
In a turn based game, thats a descision. In rtwp, you move your ranger to attack the wizard, if the enemy melee character goes after your ranger, you can immediatly backpedal and kite him.
In a turn based game, or tabletop DnD, this would mean your ranger gets tied down in melee.

Just to give you a very simplistic example.

Clear enaugh for you?

"Off turn actions"
are not only actions like attacks of opportunities, but also things like distracting shot if youve played DnD 4E. They are ways to interrupt and deal with the enemies turn, ofthen they re required to have a setup. Overwatch in Xcom is another example or a very simmilar ability in DOS2.
if you play MTG or simmilar games, they are something like Instants in that. The height of this that ive seen in a real time game would be Attack of opportunity, and even that didnt work all that well IIRC in NWN.

Seeing a pattern here?
There is an action economy in turn based games.
Something entierly missing from RTWP games.
And yes, this is the same argument as you make with the turn order. "It doesnt exist in RTWP so why bother": because its good, because its fun, because it opens up gameplay options that you otherwise dont have.
At the end of the day, its gonna boil down to "I like thing" versus "i dont like thing". But thats why i like one thing.
And the reason i dont like the other thing is because i find constantly having to press pause and re adjust my positioning and micromanage everything to be tedious and not impactfull.
It doesnt feel tactical it feels like beeing an elementary school teacher. Especialy if the Companion AI decides it wants to take over.

And story mode realy shouldnt be a matter of debate here.
Every game is bound to have a difficulty slider for those that want to have it easier, OS2 does too. But id say for the sake of discussion one should focus on the standard difficulty.

And the rest is just drivel, you can accuse me of one thing or another, i dont care.

Phi: just try it out then, its not, its tedious.
It might sound good on paper, but the execution turns every fight into one of two different beasts:
1. pre buff and auto attack
2. constantly pause and micromanage, slowing everyhting to a crawl
Posted By: Lemernis

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 26/06/19 12:41 AM

Disclaimer: I have never played a turn based CRPG.

I was initially unsettled by the thought of the game not being RTwP as BG1 and 2 are. I love combat in the BG games. My first thought was please don't fix what ain't broken. But the more I think about it, TB in a CRPG gives me indefinite time to make combat decisions (actually more than I would get in a tabletop game).

And I'm gonna be honest that I micromanage battles to the hilt in BG by pausing like damn near every other second. Or pausing even literally microseconds apart.

For how I play at least, I realized what in the world am I worried about here? I actually like the fact that with TB I'm making decisions slower and not having to react in such a micromanaged way.

Other side of that coin: the kind of neat thing about RTwP in the BG games is that it feels like the game engine almost has to be doing a fair bit of squeezing and stretching in order to get all the variables that are being calculated into each 6 second real time round. Maybe it's an illusion, but if this is so it feels like it adds a bit of a random variable to the battles. I'm not so sure how seamlessly each round stitches together in real time either. Those more knowledgeable about D&D mechanics and the coding can speak to that.

But anyway in the BG games I compulsively pause so often as I micromanage the battle anyway, that after reflecting about it a bit, I think I would rather just have one six second round at a time to worry about, and plenty of time to plan and adjust as the battle progresses.
Posted By: V4skunk

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 26/06/19 12:49 AM

I doubt most of the people here have even played BG2! Or if so I on easy difficulty with story mode engaged.
To the guy above, in BG2 the tactics are way beyond dos2 during a fight. The depth comes by countering enemy casters and their protection spells while buffing your own party then hitting them with de buffs and heavy hitting spells, all while you are trying to tank their most powerful melee with your own and trying to get your thief to back stab an enemy caster and ranged to pick off the weak. All with in the space of a few minutes. Obviously pause is heavily required, some BG and IWD set pause at the end of a turn which is every 6 seconds.
Posted By: Try2Handing

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 26/06/19 02:55 AM

Originally Posted by Sordak
The lenght of these posts is getting beyond ridiculous

Crazy, right? It just shows how bad the points you've made so far are. I can make full-length essays simply out of questioning those points.

Originally Posted by Sordak
So lets get to the few actual points youve made:
"How does RTWP have more options", you simply have more possible moves per time unit.
To give you a DnD example, turns in older DnD editions lasted a minute, in later edition a couple of seconds. Thats essentialy the difference here. Smaller time increments to make descisions.
Here you make the same mistake you accuse me of making, because ive given an example of this before.

I must say, I still don't quite get it. "More possible moves per time unit?" Doesn't time stand still in your "turn" in a TB game? In the BG games, for example, how many attacks or how many special actions you can take per round is decided by the rules, so even if you change the games to TB, it shouldn't change how many "possible moves" you can make in your turn, unless you're using a different rule set.

And what's the point of comparing different rule versions? We were talking about how "RTWP has more options than TB", as you claimed. "Smaller time increments to make decisions"? When in a TB game there isn't even a concept of "time"? I mean, you have ALL the time in the world to think and play your turn in a TB game, no?

Originally Posted by Sordak
Seeing a pattern here?
There is an action economy in turn based games.
Something entierly missing from RTWP games.
And yes, this is the same argument as you make with the turn order. "It doesnt exist in RTWP so why bother": because its good, because its fun, because it opens up gameplay options that you otherwise dont have.
At the end of the day, its gonna boil down to "I like thing" versus "i dont like thing". But thats why i like one thing.
And the reason i dont like the other thing is because i find constantly having to press pause and re adjust my positioning and micromanage everything to be tedious and not impactfull.
It doesnt feel tactical it feels like beeing an elementary school teacher. Especialy if the Companion AI decides it wants to take over.

"There is an action economy in turn based games." Alright, now you're starting to make more solid points. This is the kind of arguments I hoped you'd make.

Let me point out something, however. In your example involving the ranger, fighter, and others, what you described in the RTWP scenario is what we call "micromanagement". In an RTWP game, you will have to do such little movements for every single party member of your party, unless you're playing solo, of course. And this is what I meant by there are players who appreciate the feel of an RTWP game. Micromanaging an entire party can be fun, especially in situations in which you have very little time, like a couple seconds, to micromanage and coordinate several party members to achieve great results. This is why I mentioned a "sense of urgency". The sense of racing against time. In a TB game, you don't get to do this (or have to do this, depending on how you look at it). In a TB game you can take all the time you need to manage one character at a time before moving on to the next combatant.

You may ask "what's fun about having to hit the Pause button every half a second?" Well, it's part of the system, part of the game. It's part of "how you beat an encounter". Players like me like it. Or at least, we can live with it. Just as you like the "action economy" in a TB game. Now if you say there is a less overall sense of tactics just because we can micromanage the characters, then I'll say we have differing opinions. I'll leave this at that.

Originally Posted by Sordak
At the end of the day, its gonna boil down to "I like thing" versus "i dont like thing". But thats why i like one thing.

You are right. One of your original points, fifteen posts ago, is that, you like TB better, because it offers something RTWP doesn't. Instead of saying exactly this, however, you said "RTWP is less tactical" - which is what I don't agree with. So I'm just going to say that, the opposite is also true: RTWP also offers something TB doesn't. As for what you like better, and what you prefer, I have no problem with it.
Posted By: Sordak

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 26/06/19 10:04 AM

V4Skunk and more of the same.
the problem isnt that its not hard enaugh. its that when its hard, you pause constantly and constantly micromange your positioning.
Instead of making descisions with lasting impact, you constantly make micro adjustments.
And im sorry, but how does any of the "tactical" things you discribe BG having not exist in OS2, somehow i think you do what you accuse other people of doing: you havent actually played it.

Try2Handing
good grief, will you never shut up with those little jabs at me?

Alright, so you sitll dont get it after giving you two very obvious examples.
So let me try again maybe ill get through your willfully ignorant thick skull.

In RTWP, you can give commands in a smaller increment of time as constitutes one round in DnD. I dont know how simpler i can make this point, i hope even you understand this.
This leads to gameplay in which instead of letting what constitutes to one turn in DnD.
In 2E a Round (a turn beeing made out of several rounds) is 6 seconds long.
In RTWP , you can give inputs more ofthen that in 6 seconds intervals, this means that you can adjust your movements more ofthen than you can in DnD or a turn based game, this means you have more options in the sense of different kind of moves you can take.

And youve figured one part of the argument out, i dont like Micromanagement.
You still however failed to see the other very very simple point im making.

Micromanagement is not the same as tactics. Constantly adjusting your party in micro increments to what the enemy is doing, is not particulary tactical gameplay.
its reactive gameplay.
You constantly can make the "Ideal" move, its just very very tedious to do so.

And now you can say ok but thats not yur definition of tactics, but bear with me here for a while
Cause that was the very simple point that you somehow wanted me to make complicated:

In a turn based game, you observe the situation, you plot the correct course and you execute an action.
Then you see your action play out and see if your gambits paid off.
In a RTWP game, you judge the current battleifeld situation and react to it, then, you immediatly pause again to see the enemy reaciton, and you adjust your maneuver accordingly.

Do you see the fundamental difference here?
And do you see why one of these would be judged as superior by someone who enjoys thinking about his actions before he does them?
Posted By: aerendhil

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 26/06/19 01:09 PM

Ok I've been thinking this through.
Neither RTWP nor Turn based make sense for a multiplayer game

Turn based is boring if one of the player takes too long (I am looking at you Scythe )
RTWP is essentialy RT since nobody gets to pause the game.

Now, let's take a look at how some japanese RPG do it : intiative gauge.

in multi, each player could choose an action during a turn that last 6 seconds then all actions would be resolved according to initiative.
in solo play, it would be essentialy turn based.
Posted By: Try2Handing

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 26/06/19 01:28 PM

Originally Posted by Sordak
Micromanagement is not the same as tactics. Constantly adjusting your party in micro increments to what the enemy is doing, is not particulary tactical gameplay.
its reactive gameplay.
You constantly can make the "Ideal" move, its just very very tedious to do so.

No, micromanagement doesn't necessarily mean "tactics". Like I said, it is just one of the things that differentiate RTWP from TB. Simple as that. And I got that you don't like micromanagement. That's fine.

Originally Posted by Sordak
In a turn based game, you observe the situation, you plot the correct course and you execute an action.
Then you see your action play out and see if your gambits paid off.
In a RTWP game, you judge the current battleifeld situation and react to it, then, you immediatly pause again to see the enemy reaciton, and you adjust your maneuver accordingly.

Do you see the fundamental difference here?
And do you see why one of these would be judged as superior by someone who enjoys thinking about his actions before he does them?

Yes, you made this point with your archer and fighter example. I got that. I'm just surprised it took you this long to start making clear and agreeable arguments.

This factor, however, is in no way the single factor that makes a game "tactical". There are plenty of tactical decisions to be made elsewhere. If you let this one factor stop you from enjoying RTWP games as a whole, it's your loss. Big loss, seeing as there are some amazing RTWP games out there.
Posted By: Sordak

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 26/06/19 03:52 PM

Well yes. But thats my point.
Thats why i consider TB more tactical, which if i recall correctly was your entire point of contention.

And im not saying thats the only factor, im also not saying RTWP is completley brainless or without any tactic or merit.
Im saying its less tactical.

But thats not even why i dislike it.
I dislike it because i dislike constant micromanagement.
It doesnt satisfy me, i dont feel like i turned around the fight, it makes me feel like im a teacher trying to get a bunch of screaming children loaded into a school bus.
Posted By: Artagel

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 26/06/19 05:15 PM

Originally Posted by aerendhil
Ok I've been thinking this through.
Neither RTWP nor Turn based make sense for a multiplayer game

Turn based is boring if one of the player takes too long (I am looking at you Scythe )
RTWP is essentialy RT since nobody gets to pause the game.

Now, let's take a look at how some japanese RPG do it : intiative gauge.

in multi, each player could choose an action during a turn that last 6 seconds then all actions would be resolved according to initiative.
in solo play, it would be essentialy turn based.


I'll be honest, and I know this doesn't really matter, but I could not care less about multiplayer, especially in a game like this.

And I really hope that in terms of design, Larian doesn't prioritize mp in the slightest until well after they complete the bulk of the game's structure, not the least of which being... ahem, the combat system.
Posted By: kanisatha

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 26/06/19 06:01 PM

Originally Posted by Artagel
Originally Posted by aerendhil
Ok I've been thinking this through.
Neither RTWP nor Turn based make sense for a multiplayer game

Turn based is boring if one of the player takes too long (I am looking at you Scythe )
RTWP is essentialy RT since nobody gets to pause the game.

Now, let's take a look at how some japanese RPG do it : intiative gauge.

in multi, each player could choose an action during a turn that last 6 seconds then all actions would be resolved according to initiative.
in solo play, it would be essentialy turn based.


I'll be honest, and I know this doesn't really matter, but I could not care less about multiplayer, especially in a game like this.

And I really hope that in terms of design, Larian doesn't prioritize mp in the slightest until well after they complete the bulk of the game's structure, not the least of which being... ahem, the combat system.

Sorry to bear bad news, but mp will be THE most important element of this game. And this is not only because that's what Larian wants (based on D:OS2) but also what WotC wants. Sp will be a secondary after-thought. You're supposed to play the game mp, but of course you can choose to play it sp if you want, though you'll have to accept that your sp experience will be subpar.
Posted By: Archaven

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 26/06/19 06:11 PM

Originally Posted by Artagel
Originally Posted by aerendhil
Ok I've been thinking this through.
Neither RTWP nor Turn based make sense for a multiplayer game

Turn based is boring if one of the player takes too long (I am looking at you Scythe )
RTWP is essentialy RT since nobody gets to pause the game.

Now, let's take a look at how some japanese RPG do it : intiative gauge.

in multi, each player could choose an action during a turn that last 6 seconds then all actions would be resolved according to initiative.
in solo play, it would be essentialy turn based.


I'll be honest, and I know this doesn't really matter, but I could not care less about multiplayer, especially in a game like this.

And I really hope that in terms of design, Larian doesn't prioritize mp in the slightest until well after they complete the bulk of the game's structure, not the least of which being... ahem, the combat system.


same here. i have both DOS games. although they have SP, i think their main focus was really the co-op. BG3 unfortunately will be the same fate as well. all of their interviews were mostly talking about co-op, tabletop, playing with friends. i know i'm possibly alone, i love most of my games Single Player. i do play multiplayer but the experience was mostly ruined by strangers. i don't really have the commitment or time to play competitively in a clan or something. but i understand that is their vision. why are the industry now mostly focusing on GaaS thingy?
Posted By: Bukke

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 26/06/19 07:00 PM

Multiplayer means multiple sales for every player that buys a copy. wink

I don't remember if it was after D:OS1 or D:OS2's release, but at some point Swen made a statement saying he was surprised that Larian's internal data pointed towards a majority of the players playing the game in single player mode despite the game mostly being advertised as a coop game. I think the single player playerbase is significantly larger, but the multiplayer/coop playerbase is more vocal since coop mode for this kind of game is a fairly uncommon gimmick for an already somewhat niche genre.
Posted By: Artagel

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 26/06/19 07:13 PM

Originally Posted by Archaven
same here. i have both DOS games. although they have SP, i think their main focus was really the co-op. BG3 unfortunately will be the same fate as well. all of their interviews were mostly talking about co-op, tabletop, playing with friends. i know i'm possibly alone, i love most of my games Single Player. i do play multiplayer but the experience was mostly ruined by strangers. i don't really have the commitment or time to play competitively in a clan or something. but i understand that is their vision. why are the industry now mostly focusing on GaaS thingy?


You are most assuredly NOT alone in that reality.

Especially when you consider who will be the core audience for a game in this franchise. If Larian does in fact prioritize mp over campaign and the end product is not up to prior standards, they WILL lose sales. And if they believe otherwise, then they were the wrong company to give the license to.
Posted By: Sordak

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 26/06/19 08:50 PM

man you people sure are trying to get youself mad arent you.
"its going to be MP focused and thats baad"

Come on. you are just looking for things to be upset about.
Was OS in anyway less fun when played alone?
I played it single player and in coop, both of them, imo coop is a better expirience but having controll of all characters obviously is a lot nicer.
Posted By: vometia

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 27/06/19 04:20 AM

Originally Posted by Bukke
Multiplayer

ew

Originally Posted by Bukke
I don't remember if it was after D:OS1 or D:OS2's release, but at some point Swen made a statement saying he was surprised that Larian's internal data pointed towards a majority of the players playing the game in single player mode despite the game mostly being advertised as a coop game. I think the single player playerbase is significantly larger, but the multiplayer/coop playerbase is more vocal since coop mode for this kind of game is a fairly uncommon gimmick for an already somewhat niche genre.

I suppose I'm surprised that they're surprised, though perhaps I shouldn't be as it seems that the entire traditionally SP games industry is having a bit of a love-affair with MP at the moment. I'd agree that the MP fans are by their very nature rather more outspoken; in saying that, I'm slightly loath to imply that the two groups are separate and never the twain shall meet, but it would be interesting to see a Venn diagram as I suspect that while it exists, the overlap isn't gigantic.
Posted By: Sordak

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 27/06/19 07:41 AM

im pretty sure the multiplayer circle would be wholly submerged in the singleplayer circle.
Its not that easy to find people that have time to play, especialy more than one other person
Posted By: greg700

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 27/06/19 05:17 PM

I was and still am a huge BG fan.

In my view, multiplayer is great as long as you don't mess up single player.

Combat system for single player should in my view be:
-Real time with pause to conserve the feeling of playing a BG game. This mechanic is part of the essence of what makes BG BG.

Combat system for multiplayer should in my view be:
-(Like before): Real time with pause and then game admin can allow or not other players to pause.

-(New): What about paced real time with pause?
--Let's say a combat starts, game automatically pause for X amount of time (where X is configurable by the game admin). During this pause, each player could determine their next action. Once action determined, each player could either wait for X to get expired or press space bar to indicate they are ok with the choice they made (if both of them press space, then game resume before the end of X). This way, a strange pause initiated by one of the player will never occur since pause will be handled by game instead of player.
---We could also define Y resume amount time. This would determine how much time game will run before next pause. Maybe Y should be hardcoded by the game rather than configurable to make sure everybody feels a similar experience in combat (also, if Y is too long, then you are at risk of having a player do nothing until next pause which is undesirable)

-(Both): Game admin could either choose "realtime with pause" or "paced realtime with pause"
Posted By: Celnathor

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 05/07/19 02:25 AM

I don't care. At all. Okay, that's not quite true. I probably have a tiny, tiny bias in favor of RTWP, but BG3 could be an excellent game with either one.

BG2 is one of my 2 or 3 favorite games of all time. D:OS2 was an excellent game. The common thread in both games was the attention to detail in the game design that made the characters and the world feel alive.

So long as Larian doesn't pull a Dragon Age Inquisition with the combat mechanics I'm not too worried.
Posted By: kanisatha

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 05/07/19 02:35 AM

I'd rather have DA:I mechanics than D:OS2 mechanics. In fact, DA:I mechanics would be quite nice.
Posted By: Try2Handing

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 05/07/19 03:00 AM

Originally Posted by kanisatha
I'd rather have DA:I mechanics than D:OS2 mechanics. In fact, DA:I mechanics would be quite nice.

I'm curious what exactly you meant by "DA:I mechanics". Characters suddenly freezing and you have to switch to them, hit jump once to unfreeze them, then switch back to whomever you were previously controlling? Almost non-existent balance? Literally unkillable class (Knight *cough* Enchanter *cough*)? Characters moving about by themselves in combat like clueless geese, taking AoE damage unnecessarily, even though you told them to stay still? Characters refusing to use abilities on target because they keep trying to get closer to the target, even though they CAN'T get ANY closer? (Hard to describe this, it seems like a hitbox detection issue. Just try using Twin Fang on a Pride Demon from behind, you'll see.)

Or mechanics such as every impact from ability can proc elemental damage from Prismatic Greataxe, and each elemental proc can crit?

Or mechanics such as majority of enemies just basic attack? All enemies have is health. Enemy ability usage is ridiculously shallow. The "Walk Softly" trial advertises "enemies gain new traits and abilities..." - OF COURSE the mages gain Fade Cloak (who'd have thunk?). But nothing else. Archers gain Leaping Shot. Other than these, just more health. And MORE health. And more straight immunities to stuff. NOTHING ELSE.

I am sorry, but DA:I combat is a big pile of trash. Abysmal balance and stupid concepts aside, from the technical standpoint, the whole "combat" of that game doesn't even function properly most of the goddamn time. The character freezing issue would happen like every 5s in every fight holy **** I swear they never played their own game at all.
Posted By: Sordak

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 05/07/19 11:23 AM

We are operating on levels of contrarianism not thought possibly by science

DA:I is pretty much the worst combination of MMO combat and RTWP. Its an MMO where you are constantly babysitting your party while the tactical camera flat out doesnt work properly , animations glitch around and IIRC you couldnt even disable party AI
Posted By: vometia

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 05/07/19 11:48 AM

Originally Posted by kanisatha
I'd rather have DA:I mechanics than D:OS2 mechanics. In fact, DA:I mechanics would be quite nice.

Hmm. There was a great deal about Inquisition that I liked, but its mechanics isn't really one of them. Especially the likes of boss battles with the ME-style repeatedly regenerating shields whose only purpose was to prolong a combat encounter I was already not enjoying. But perhaps I'm just a habitual malcontent.
Posted By: kanisatha

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 05/07/19 03:37 PM

Originally Posted by vometia
Originally Posted by kanisatha
I'd rather have DA:I mechanics than D:OS2 mechanics. In fact, DA:I mechanics would be quite nice.

Hmm. There was a great deal about Inquisition that I liked, but its mechanics isn't really one of them. Especially the likes of boss battles with the ME-style repeatedly regenerating shields whose only purpose was to prolong a combat encounter I was already not enjoying. But perhaps I'm just a habitual malcontent.

I meant only its RTwP combat system, not its rules. Also how a third person game would shift to isometric during combat. But I would note that things happening to prolong encounters (which did happen in the DA games) that I was already not enjoying is EXACTLY how I would describe my experience playing D:OS.

@Try2Handing, I played DA:I all the way through to its end, including all of its DLCs, and never once experienced any of the technical issues you are describing. As for its mechanics, yes, I can agree that some of its mechanics was not to my liking. I especially dislike cool-downs. But again, my point is not to defend DA:I but rather to say that however bad DA:I combat was D:OS combat was worse (for me).

I don't have the time to play too many games, and my personal tastes in the types of games I like are extremely narrow. As such the universe of games I have played is not that large. But within that universe, combat in D:OS was the worst of all.
Posted By: Try2Handing

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 05/07/19 04:13 PM

@kanisatha
Yeah I didn't mean to be aggressive. The mention of "DA:I combat" just triggered me a bit. My point is that there are so many bad things about DA:I combat that it's hard (EDIT: no, more like impossible) to pick out something "decent' that you'd say you'd like to see in another game. It doesn't do anything unique or original.

So you basically mean being able to switch back and forth between the typical top-down view and 3rd person view? Then DA:O does it just fine. DA:O's "core system" is solid and works smoothly.
Posted By: kanisatha

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 05/07/19 05:56 PM

Originally Posted by Try2Handing
@kanisatha
Yeah I didn't mean to be aggressive. The mention of "DA:I combat" just triggered me a bit. My point is that there are so many bad things about DA:I combat that it's hard (EDIT: no, more like impossible) to pick out something "decent' that you'd say you'd like to see in another game. It doesn't do anything unique or original.

So you basically mean being able to switch back and forth between the typical top-down view and 3rd person view? Then DA:O does it just fine. DA:O's "core system" is solid and works smoothly.

No problem. I appreciate your civility.

I myself preferred DA:O much more than DA:I, so maybe I should have made my point using DA:O as my example rather than DA:I. smile
Posted By: Archaven

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 05/07/19 06:57 PM

I played both DAO and DAI. I prefer DAI graphics but i much prefer the combat in DAO. I played DAI in nightmare difficulty and that game was.. more like an action game than RPG (combat-wise). Most enemies have inflated HP. Played as Knight Enchanter, and soo many immolate spam don't even nudge much of enemies HP. The real damage comes from fire mine? But kinda like the Knight Enchanter playstyle. You are actually a mage tank.

Anyway, i would prefer that magic to be actually powerful in RPG and tactical games. It feels "meaningless" and "stupid" that 100 fireballs can barely kill a bandit (that's exaggeration but you get the idea).
Posted By: Omegaphallic

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 06/07/19 06:20 PM

Gyor

1:34PM

kanisatha wrote: »

» show previous quotes


Hey I predicted right at the beginning the combat system could be something that is a hybrid of TB and RTwP or something completely new. 

If someone has a full translation of the article, please post.


I'm thinking something like the VATS system from Fallout 3/New Vegas, real time, but you pause and it becomes turn based. Obviously instead of using Fallout 2 style turn based combat while paused it will use modified D&D 5e rules. I'd be cool with that, it'd stop the rift in the fan base. Purists of one camp or the other will be disappointed that there side doesn't get everything, but not so much that they won't deal with it.

Yes it will take resources, but your talking about a budget that is likely in the 10 of millions of dollars with a team measured in the hundreds, they have those resources to spare, and once the essencial elements and encounter design rules are done, it won't take much to expand upon it.

This would actually allow for a lot of cool systems and flexible game play.

Google translate version below.

https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&nv=1&rurl=translate.google.ca&sl=auto&sp=nmt4&tl=en&u=https://www.gamestar.de/artikel/baldurs-gate-3-erstes-gameplay-video-gamescom-kampfsystem,3345782.html&xid=17259,15700022,15700186,15700191,15700256,15700259,15700262&usg=ALkJrhhd_qqFJ4W-MnMI1NWweriuewsHAQ

More interview info below, but part of it's behind a pay wall, including his answer on the question what classes and races are in it. *bites though a pipe in frustration*.


https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&nv=1&rurl=translate.google.ca&sl=auto&sp=nmt4&tl=en&u=https://www.gamestar.de/artikel/baldurs-gate-3-preview-early-access-kamera,3345543.html&xid=17259,15700022,15700186,15700191,15700256,15700259,15700262&usg=ALkJrhiIwBMfR1WTLUo6c8vpMmD5neYRLg

Posted By: kanisatha

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 07/07/19 12:12 AM

Yup, I stand by my early-on prediction that the combat system will be something that is a hybrid of elements of RTwP and TB or else something completely new.

Similarly, I stand by my prediction that the perspective will be a hybrid of third-person and top-down with fully rotatable camera(s).
Posted By: Omegaphallic

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 09/07/19 06:54 PM

Originally Posted by Iuris Tantum
As was already mentioned, turn-based combat doesn't necessarily mean it's slow. Temple of Elemental Evil has an option called "Concurrent Turns", which makes it so that everytime two or more enemies have consecutive turns they'll all act at the same time, not one by one.

Temple of Elemental Evil presented solutions to traditional problems that were never adopted by other developers, sadly, despite being a greatly innovative game in the turn-based realm, I think if that game were to have a remaster today that improved a lot of its issues (none of them combat related) it'd be hailed as a modern master piece.



I could see that being a great solution, but I'm not sure how it would work with 5e.
Posted By: Artagel

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 10/07/19 01:39 AM

Originally Posted by kanisatha
Yup, I stand by my early-on prediction that the combat system will be something that is a hybrid of elements of RTwP and TB or else something completely new.

Nope. I just don't see it... the former bit. I'm trying to imagine a hybrid between Turn Based and Paused based, some way in which both systems can be active. But it wouldn't work. Sure, you can swap details between the 2, mix and match features, add in inconsequential stuff and use it as a selling point, calling it a hybrid. But at the end of the day, it can still ONLY be Turn Based or Pause.

It cannot be both.

Because it comes down to the fundamental design, and the flow of the game. Any combat system where all on screen characters DO NOT immediately attack (per scripts obv.) whenever in range of a target (i.e what the BG series has always been) is NOT RTwP.

And conversely, any combat system in which the above happens, and there is NO immediate queue style combat setup like D:OS, Elemental Evil, etc, whenever an enemy appears on screen, is NOT Turn Based.

That's just the facts. You cannot make the game do both of those things at the same time.

...

Unless of course you do what Obsidian did w/ PoE2 in a post release patch and give us both options from the start. But that's basically double the work for Larian. Will we get that?

And as for something completely new.... yea, No. It STILL can really only be 1 or the other.

I'm telling ya... this announcement's going to be major. Lot of possible pre-orders just floating in the air...
Posted By: kanisatha

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 10/07/19 05:56 PM

Originally Posted by Artagel
Originally Posted by kanisatha
Yup, I stand by my early-on prediction that the combat system will be something that is a hybrid of elements of RTwP and TB or else something completely new.

Nope. I just don't see it... the former bit. I'm trying to imagine a hybrid between Turn Based and Paused based, some way in which both systems can be active. But it wouldn't work. Sure, you can swap details between the 2, mix and match features, add in inconsequential stuff and use it as a selling point, calling it a hybrid. But at the end of the day, it can still ONLY be Turn Based or Pause.

It cannot be both.

Exactly where did I say both? I specifically said hybrid (or else something new).
Posted By: Omegaphallic

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 10/07/19 07:48 PM

https://www.pcinvasion.com/amp/baldurs-gate-iii-the-case-for-a-turn-based-combat-mode/ PC invasion makes a damn good case for turn-based combat, but I think it misses a, few arguments.
Posted By: kanisatha

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 10/07/19 11:57 PM

Originally Posted by Omegaphallic
https://www.pcinvasion.com/amp/baldurs-gate-iii-the-case-for-a-turn-based-combat-mode/ PC invasion makes a damn good case for turn-based combat, but I think it misses a, few arguments.

Doesn't make any case at all other than to say 'it's what I want so that's how it should be.' The author's a narcissistic jackass.

Also there is yet again the false claim that RTwP is an "old" design and TB is the "hip new" thing. TB existed before RTwP came along. TB is the old, as in ancient old, design. Then RTwP came along as a new way of setting up gameplay. But at some point after 2000, devs decided to abandon the new system, RTwP, and go back to the old system, TB. Going BACK to the old way doesn't make something "new".
Posted By: Try2Handing

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 11/07/19 12:55 AM

I was tempted to stop reading after the "The main issue with pausable real-time combat in CRPGs like Baldur’s Gate is the argument that it lacks tactical depth." bit.

Lmao.

But decided to read the rest anyway.

After the claim above, the article goes on "You are forced to micromanage all your party characters at once, buffing them up and setting up spells. Then you get to passively watch them hack and miss very often.", then stops there. Umm, ok....? "You are forced to micromanage"... because... it's a real-time game? And what does "passively watch them hack and miss very often" even mean? Don't want to be mean or act high and mighty, but this person doesn't sound like he knows what he's talking about. He sounds like another player who is turned off as soon as he hears "micromanagement". Disliking the games or even saying they lack tactical depth is his opinion, fair enough, but if this is all he could come up with to convince readers that the system "lacks tactical depth", or that TB is a superior system, then I find it hard to take him seriously. Yeah, go tell that to the players who really played the BG games and knew their stuff.

How does this article even "make a good case"? There isn't any decent reasoning in it.

A problem with RTWP is that people playing on console have a harder time to manage a big party. If you ask me, this is probably the main reason why the DA games' combat got worse and worse. Consoles.

That being said, Swen did say in an interview that "We are moving forward, so we don’t want to go look backward." when he was answering the question about gameplay. This sounds like a hint that they won't return to the RTWP system. The fact that they "would prefer to show it rather than talk about it" is another hint. They don't want to deal with the backlash from the fans of the original games who want RTWP. Just my thoughts, of course. I may very well be wrong.

This article is a much better opinion article that actually has some solid reasoning behind why the writer prefers RTWP over TB:
Opinion: Why RTWP?

(EDIT: essentially, in this article, the writer says that RTWP is exciting because everything happens at the same time, and his quick example is on point, when he says that "a well-timed critical hit from an axe could lead to victory". He also says that TB combat inevitably makes combat feels dragged out sometimes, especially when there are two many enemies and each of them gets a whole turn just to do simple moves. At least you can say that this guy knows what he's talking about.)
Posted By: kanisatha

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 11/07/19 02:49 AM

Originally Posted by Try2Handing
I was tempted to stop reading after the "The main issue with pausable real-time combat in CRPGs like Baldur’s Gate is the argument that it lacks tactical depth." bit.

Lmao.

Yep, the ol' RTwP 'lacks tactical depth' canard is the most specious "argument" of all. Not only in BG but also in IwD, NwN, PoE, and P:K games, i routinely set up battle formations, engage in tactical positioning including flanking and the like, use cover, coordinate actions among multiple characters, etc. And I do this quite comfortably.

The hard, cold truth is this: It is not the systems that are different. RTwP and TB are equivalent systems that are equally functional for engaging in deep tactical gameplay. What's different are the players, where some can handle RTwP while others cannot. And those that cannot don't want to admit to this, so they come up with silly, ridiculous, and utterly specious "arguments" for why RTwP is bad, when the problem lies with them and not the system.
Posted By: Omegaphallic

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 11/07/19 02:51 AM

Originally Posted by kanisatha
Originally Posted by Omegaphallic
https://www.pcinvasion.com/amp/baldurs-gate-iii-the-case-for-a-turn-based-combat-mode/ PC invasion makes a damn good case for turn-based combat, but I think it misses a, few arguments.

Doesn't make any case at all other than to say 'it's what I want so that's how it should be.' The author's a narcissistic jackass.

Also there is yet again the false claim that RTwP is an "old" design and TB is the "hip new" thing. TB existed before RTwP came along. TB is the old, as in ancient old, design. Then RTwP came along as a new way of setting up gameplay. But at some point after 2000, devs decided to abandon the new system, RTwP, and go back to the old system, TB. Going BACK to the old way doesn't make something "new".


I didn't see the author act either like a jackass or a narcissist or a jackass and I think that is harsh, he was just another person with an opinion upon making an argument, like we all are.
Posted By: Artagel

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 11/07/19 05:14 AM

Originally Posted by kanisatha

Exactly where did I say both? I specifically said hybrid (or else something new).

I know. And I explained why I feel any type of hybrid they could come up won't work because it isn't going to be able to please everyone, since no form of hybrid can be both TB and Pause at the same time. Try to work it out yourself. It's not possible without pissing one side off because at some point it will end up forcing you to play one way or the other.

Originally Posted by kanisatha
The hard, cold truth is this: It is not the systems that are different. RTwP and TB are equivalent systems that are equally functional for engaging in deep tactical gameplay. What's different are the players, where some can handle RTwP while others cannot. And those that cannot don't want to admit to this, so they come up with silly, ridiculous, and utterly specious "arguments" for why RTwP is bad, when the problem lies with them and not the system.

Well, they are different to me. And it's because of what you said about the fallacy of TB being the newer design. BG and real time action was the next step in the RPG evolution. Things just got muddled with licenses after a point, then the retro phase happened.
Posted By: Sordak

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 11/07/19 10:47 AM

Circle the wagons folks.
Pausing every few microseconds is the pinnacle of strategic depth.
Posted By: Try2Handing

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 11/07/19 05:07 PM

Originally Posted by Sordak
Pausing every few microseconds is the pinnacle of strategic depth.

So is spending 10 minutes watching 12 enemies taking their turn making inconsequential moves ("inconsequential" because you know you're going to wipe them out in the next 2-3 turns no matter what).

"Pausing every few microseconds". Except, not necessarily. You don't have to mash that button. You can totally play without pausing, if you want to. Custom character scripts help.

Shows how much you really know about the system or what you're talking about, right?
Posted By: BillyYank

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 12/07/19 01:23 AM

Originally Posted by Try2Handing
Originally Posted by Sordak
Pausing every few microseconds is the pinnacle of strategic depth.

So is spending 10 minutes watching 12 enemies taking their turn making inconsequential moves ("inconsequential" because you know you're going to wipe them out in the next 2-3 turns no matter what).

"Pausing every few microseconds". Except, not necessarily. You don't have to mash that button. You can totally play without pausing, if you want to. Custom character scripts help.

Shows how much you really know about the system or what you're talking about, right?


One of the things I like about RTwP is that, when it's done right, I can choose my level of micromanagement. The advanced party AI in the BGEEs is the closest I've found to my goal of actually playing a party leader. I've only played a little of DoS, and I haven't checked to see if there's any party automation available yet, since I'm still learning the combat system.
Posted By: Stahl33

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 12/07/19 01:31 AM

I wouldn't be surprised if it is turned based where the turns are then enacted in real time:

ie. Everyone chooses the actions for the turn, then once all actions are chosen, the turn activates!

BUT I think Larian has already chosen the style, and will stick to it!

The fact they have said they will show the combat (in my opinion) means they have already chosen a form, and knowing the significant value placed on the combat form, are not willing to say either way until they show what they have come up with.

Arguing over which is best is probably moot! (although RtwP is obviously best ... hahaha!!!!)
Posted By: aerendhil

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 12/07/19 08:01 AM

RTWP is not the problem.
D&D 2nd Ed. was.
Melee characters did lack tactical depth, with almost no other choice than hacking until the sword connects with the target (it changed a bit with high levels and ToB)
And there was not Attack of opportunity either.
There wasn't much positionnal gameplay (except for backstabbing may be)

I mean , take a look at Pathfinder : it is RTWP, and much more interresting that Baldur ever was (gameplay wise)
Posted By: Artagel

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 12/07/19 07:43 PM

Originally Posted by Sordak
Circle the wagons folks.
Pausing every few microseconds is the pinnacle of strategic depth.

Just bitter now.

Btw, was there anything released that makes you think they are in fact making it an Action RPG?

Originally Posted by BillyYank
One of the things I like about RTwP is that, when it's done right, I can choose my level of micromanagement. The advanced party AI in the BGEEs is the closest I've found to my goal of actually playing a party leader. I've only played a little of DoS, and I haven't checked to see if there's any party automation available yet, since I'm still learning the combat system.

Exactly. A good Pause based system is made better by a game with really good scripting as well as variation and depth in zone/enemy capabilities. You could spend hours going through your parties' tactics and scripts for general as well as item-, enemy-, environmental- specific considerations based on where you are in the game.

This is a major question I have for Larian. D:OS was good, but they need to up the level for BG.

Originally Posted by Stahl33
The fact they have said they will show the combat (in my opinion) means they have already chosen a form, and knowing the significant value placed on the combat form, are not willing to say either way until they show what they have come up with.

So they've already chosen it, but are not yet done preparing a simple video example? Do they need somebody to help them with uploads?

Originally Posted by aerendhil
RTWP is not the problem.
D&D 2nd Ed. was.
Melee characters did lack tactical depth, with almost no other choice than hacking until the sword connects with the target (it changed a bit with high levels and ToB)
And there was not Attack of opportunity either.
There wasn't much positionnal gameplay (except for backstabbing may be)

I mean , take a look at Pathfinder : it is RTWP, and much more interresting that Baldur ever was (gameplay wise)

This is an interesting comment. My first thoughts are Icewind Dale 2, which used 3rd ed rules, and while it was a slightly tweaked engine/gamecode (which btw was lost when Interplay sold the license or something - that's why there's no IWD2EE) it played basically the exact same way as the original games. I mean there were Feats and in some cases, vastly different rules and considerations, but the output on screen was very familiar in terms of how you manipulated the UI, how you made decisions, and what it looked like on screen when you un-paused the action.

Point being, Larian could try and advance that concept - taking an updated ruleset and finding some way of incorporating it into a system that replicates how BG1 and BG2 looked and felt on screen, and it could work. Again though, can Larian manage that? We'll see I guess.
Posted By: Dark_Ansem

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 12/07/19 08:41 PM

Originally Posted by kanisatha
Yup, I stand by my early-on prediction that the combat system will be something that is a hybrid of elements of RTwP and TB or else something completely new.

Similarly, I stand by my prediction that the perspective will be a hybrid of third-person and top-down with fully rotatable camera(s).


You mean something ala Vagrant Story?
Posted By: kanisatha

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 13/07/19 02:37 PM

Originally Posted by Dark_Ansem
Originally Posted by kanisatha
Yup, I stand by my early-on prediction that the combat system will be something that is a hybrid of elements of RTwP and TB or else something completely new.

Similarly, I stand by my prediction that the perspective will be a hybrid of third-person and top-down with fully rotatable camera(s).


You mean something ala Vagrant Story?

I have no idea. My universe of video games I play is very narrow and specific.

With the latter, I meant that the perspective would switch between the two, third person and top down, not that the perspective would literally be some combination of the two.
Posted By: Artagel

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 15/07/19 09:00 AM

Originally Posted by kanisatha
With the latter, I meant that the perspective would switch between the two, third person and top down, not that the perspective would literally be some combination of the two.

Well, if we go by the video of them talking about engines, apparently the DOS2 Definitive Ed. is the basis for whatever BG3 will look like, so it will more or less be like that.

And that pretty much rules out an Action RPG like Dragon's Dogma.

It's worrying to me, as no game in this style has ever impressed graphically, starting with NWN.
Posted By: Lemernis

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 15/07/19 10:03 AM

Originally Posted by Artagel
Originally Posted by kanisatha
With the latter, I meant that the perspective would switch between the two, third person and top down, not that the perspective would literally be some combination of the two.

Well, if we go by the video of them talking about engines, apparently the DOS2 Definitive Ed. is the basis for whatever BG3 will look like, so it will more or less be like that.

And that pretty much rules out an Action RPG like Dragon's Dogma.

It's worrying to me, as no game in this style has ever impressed graphically, starting with NWN.


The Witcher series started out NWN's Aurora engine, but upgraded with REDengine. I don't own any of the Witcher games but looking at videos doesn't it fall into the category?
Posted By: Wintermist

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 15/07/19 10:12 AM

I think the larger the Party is, the more I want Turn Based combat as an option.

Ideally though, if they can make it have both then that's of course optimal smile
Posted By: Sordak

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 15/07/19 12:01 PM

Originally Posted by Lemernis
Originally Posted by Artagel
Originally Posted by kanisatha
With the latter, I meant that the perspective would switch between the two, third person and top down, not that the perspective would literally be some combination of the two.

Well, if we go by the video of them talking about engines, apparently the DOS2 Definitive Ed. is the basis for whatever BG3 will look like, so it will more or less be like that.

And that pretty much rules out an Action RPG like Dragon's Dogma.

It's worrying to me, as no game in this style has ever impressed graphically, starting with NWN.


The Witcher series started out NWN's Aurora engine, but upgraded with REDengine. I don't own any of the Witcher games but looking at videos doesn't it fall into the category?


People here dont understand what "Engine" means and just assume it means each game in one engine is a reskin of one another.
Dragon Commander was built in an earler verison of Original Sins engine so obviously the engine means nothing in that regard.
Posted By: vometia

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 15/07/19 02:02 PM

Originally Posted by Artagel
Originally Posted by kanisatha
With the latter, I meant that the perspective would switch between the two, third person and top down, not that the perspective would literally be some combination of the two.

Well, if we go by the video of them talking about engines, apparently the DOS2 Definitive Ed. is the basis for whatever BG3 will look like, so it will more or less be like that.

And that pretty much rules out an Action RPG like Dragon's Dogma.

Not necessarily. I'm not seeing why Divinity 2 (IMHO Dragon's Dogma is a lot like it) couldn't be done with the OS2 engine, for example. I'd wondered about that at the time of DOS and it was apparently impractical at the time but perhaps not so much now; but this is conjecture on my part and I don't really know.

The engine does have some awkward limitations as of OS2 though, perhaps partly with the isometric setting being an excuse, but a particularly serious problem is that the pathing is only two-dimensional, like the original Doom. Though it's possible to give the illusion of 3D using raised areas of terrain, it isn't. I guess it depends how deeply that design decision is embedded.
Posted By: Danielbda

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 17/07/19 11:12 PM

I think the divinity engine and combat would be perfect for bg3.
Most features in 5ed simply rely on turns, such as Assassinate and gloom stalker's extra attack.
Posted By: Clockwork

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 26/08/19 08:49 PM

Originally Posted by Danielbda
I think the divinity engine and combat would be perfect for bg3.
Most features in 5ed simply rely on turns, such as Assassinate and gloom stalker's extra attack.

Be more honest. It's not perfect for BG3, it's perfect for saving money.
Which is what you want, right? You want to recycling the same tools you used for your earlier turn based games and save some money that way.

Changing the franchise to turn-based is frankly a massive disrespect to the precious two games.
Let's not pretend the previous games didn't have concepts of turns and rounds. Giving someone an extra attack per round, or applying some special conditions to the 1st round was never an issue in the previous games.

You are incorrect.
Posted By: kanisatha

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 26/08/19 08:56 PM

Originally Posted by Clockwork
Originally Posted by Danielbda
I think the divinity engine and combat would be perfect for bg3.
Most features in 5ed simply rely on turns, such as Assassinate and gloom stalker's extra attack.

Be more honest. It's not perfect for BG3, it's perfect for saving money.
Which is what you want, right? You want to recycling the same tools you used for your earlier turn based games and save some money that way.

Changing the franchise to turn-based is frankly a massive disrespect to the precious two games.
Let's not pretend the previous games didn't have concepts of turns and rounds. Giving someone an extra attack per round, or applying some special conditions to the 1st round was never an issue in the previous games.

You are incorrect.

This^. That RTwP doesn't truly represent how PnP D&D works is the single biggest piece of false propaganda out there being pushed by people demanding that every RPG must be TB.
Posted By: Omegaphallic

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 26/08/19 10:40 PM

Originally Posted by kanisatha
Originally Posted by Clockwork
Originally Posted by Danielbda
I think the divinity engine and combat would be perfect for bg3.
Most features in 5ed simply rely on turns, such as Assassinate and gloom stalker's extra attack.

Be more honest. It's not perfect for BG3, it's perfect for saving money.
Which is what you want, right? You want to recycling the same tools you used for your earlier turn based games and save some money that way.

Changing the franchise to turn-based is frankly a massive disrespect to the precious two games.
Let's not pretend the previous games didn't have concepts of turns and rounds. Giving someone an extra attack per round, or applying some special conditions to the 1st round was never an issue in the previous games.

You are incorrect.

This^. That RTwP doesn't truly represent how PnP D&D works is the single biggest piece of false propaganda out there being pushed by people demanding that every RPG must be TB.


It's not false propaganda, 5e is very much designed for Turn Based, to do 5e faithfully its has to be turn based and it's not me saying that, its Tactical Adventures saying that, a company in that is actually turning 5e SRD rules into a video game, with a playable free demo coming with its September 3rd Kickstarter. They've come put and said you can't properly do 5e with RTwP, it has to be turn based. Honestly I was on the fence about what I thought this game would be, even concidering the possibility of a hybrid until I read what a company with actual real world experience in turning 5e into an actual video game had to say about it. Larian would run into the same sort of challenges as TA.

I'll see if I can find the link to the interview where this was discussed.
Posted By: Omegaphallic

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 26/08/19 10:45 PM

Here is the interview I was referring to.

https://www.enworld.org/threads/a-chat-with-solasta-5e-video-game-developers.666696/

Don't shoot the messenger.
Posted By: Clockwork

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 26/08/19 10:57 PM

Originally Posted by Omegaphallic
It's not false propaganda, 5e is very much designed for Turn Based

2nd edition was made for turn based on the table top as well. And look where it got Baldur's Gate.

Your arguments are nothing more than propaganda.
Posted By: _Vic_

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 26/08/19 11:48 PM

Originally Posted by Omegaphallic
Here is the interview I was referring to.

https://www.enworld.org/threads/a-chat-with-solasta-5e-video-game-developers.666696/

Don't shoot the messenger.

Hummm, they really make their case well. Some of the things they said have sense. If you want rules like bonus actions or reactions fully implemented does not make much sense to make`em in RTwP.
Posted By: Clockwork

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 27/08/19 12:45 AM

Originally Posted by _Vic_
If you want rules like bonus actions or reactions fully implemented does not make much sense to make`em in RTwP.

Weak excuses.
You know pause is a feature in Badur's gate? Just pause the round if you want to prompt the player for reaction.

But I know why you guys use this weak-willed defeatism attitude.
Because it's already been decided Larian wants to save money and use their old turn-based tools.
Posted By: Omegaphallic

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 27/08/19 03:52 AM

Originally Posted by Clockwork
Originally Posted by Omegaphallic
It's not false propaganda, 5e is very much designed for Turn Based

2nd edition was made for turn based on the table top as well. And look where it got Baldur's Gate.

Your arguments are nothing more than propaganda.


Propaganda?!?! Is turn based combat a political or religious movement now?

Posted By: Omegaphallic

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 27/08/19 03:54 AM

Originally Posted by Clockwork
Originally Posted by _Vic_
If you want rules like bonus actions or reactions fully implemented does not make much sense to make`em in RTwP.

Weak excuses.
You know pause is a feature in Badur's gate? Just pause the round if you want to prompt the player for reaction.

But I know why you guys use this weak-willed defeatism attitude.
Because it's already been decided Larian wants to save money and use their old turn-based tools.


What defeatism? I'm fine with turn based.
Posted By: Clockwork

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 27/08/19 04:10 AM

Originally Posted by Omegaphallic
What defeatism? I'm fine with turn based.

Defeatism, when you use bad excuses, instead of creativity.
When you insist something is impossible, while refusing to consider the possibilities.
When you pretend you are so smart and insist the reaction mechanism is impossible, but in reality it's just because you are a lazy developer who wants to save money and recycle tools.

All to the detriment of Baldur's Gate.
If Bioware had the same defeatist attitude as Larian, and insisted the 2nd Edition must be turn based, the Baldur's Gate series would have never even existed.

What's next? Why don't you turn Street Fighter into Turn-based while you are at it.
You're so happy about making things sour for the original fanbase after all.
Posted By: Nobody_Special

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 27/08/19 05:40 AM

Originally Posted by Clockwork
Originally Posted by Danielbda
I think the divinity engine and combat would be perfect for bg3.
Most features in 5ed simply rely on turns, such as Assassinate and gloom stalker's extra attack.

Be more honest. It's not perfect for BG3, it's perfect for saving money.
Which is what you want, right? You want to recycling the same tools you used for your earlier turn based games and save some money that way.

Changing the franchise to turn-based is frankly a massive disrespect to the precious two games.
Let's not pretend the previous games didn't have concepts of turns and rounds. Giving someone an extra attack per round, or applying some special conditions to the 1st round was never an issue in the previous games.

You are incorrect.

Originally Posted by Clockwork
Originally Posted by Omegaphallic
It's not false propaganda, 5e is very much designed for Turn Based

2nd edition was made for turn based on the table top as well. And look where it got Baldur's Gate.

Your arguments are nothing more than propaganda.


Originally Posted by Clockwork
Originally Posted by _Vic_
If you want rules like bonus actions or reactions fully implemented does not make much sense to make`em in RTwP.

Weak excuses.
You know pause is a feature in Badur's gate? Just pause the round if you want to prompt the player for reaction.

But I know why you guys use this weak-willed defeatism attitude.
Because it's already been decided Larian wants to save money and use their old turn-based tools.


Originally Posted by Clockwork
Originally Posted by Omegaphallic
What defeatism? I'm fine with turn based.

Defeatism, when you use bad excuses, instead of creativity.
When you insist something is impossible, while refusing to consider the possibilities.
When you pretend you are so smart and insist the reaction mechanism is impossible, but in reality it's just because you are a lazy developer who wants to save money and recycle tools.

All to the detriment of Baldur's Gate.
If Bioware had the same defeatist attitude as Larian, and insisted the 2nd Edition must be turn based, the Baldur's Gate series would have never even existed.

What's next? Why don't you turn Street Fighter into Turn-based while you are at it.
You're so happy about making things sour for the original fanbase after all.


None of your post have any merit in this discussion as they do not give any reason as why RTwP is better than Turn-Based. You have only called names to discredit someone else's view on the subject. You have directed most of your comments toward Larian Studio without even knowing if, or why they may choose Turn-Based over RTwP. That can only be speculation at this point.

I can give several of my speculations.
  • Larian has stated that they want to follow the 5E rules as closely as possible.
  • WotC told Larian to make it turn-based so that people who play the game can easily go to play tabletop and vice versa.
  • Other RPG's who had RTwP have now included patches or Mods that make their games Turn-based because people like Turn-Based.

But I do know one thing. Calling people names or degrading them never gets your way!
Posted By: Sordak

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 27/08/19 10:33 AM

Defeatism? thats rich.
Considering that your camp, which i am now convinced consists of a single guy with multiple accounts simply because of how simmilar the posts are getting, keeps going with the most uncharitable interpretation of anything possible.

Why would anyone use Turn Based, a very popular game system right now, instead of the GLORY that is RTWP, an old system that exists due to convenience at the time?
IT must be LAZYNESS; it must be SAVING MONEY, saving money in the most expensive game the company has ever made.
Its justa money grab afterall.

Man, who sounds defeatist here?
I just dont like RTWP , its a blatantly bad system.
Im glad if its anything but that, so im not gonna be defeatist about it.
IF its RTWP, ill still play it, but ill call that lazy, because thats just rehashing a game that came out ages ago, without actually improving the formula.

Chances are, well end up with an action RPG system and this entire thread will look realy stupid in hindsight.
Posted By: Omegaphallic

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 27/08/19 01:42 PM

Originally Posted by Clockwork
Originally Posted by Omegaphallic
What defeatism? I'm fine with turn based.

Defeatism, when you use bad excuses, instead of creativity.
When you insist something is impossible, while refusing to consider the possibilities.
When you pretend you are so smart and insist the reaction mechanism is impossible, but in reality it's just because you are a lazy developer who wants to save money and recycle tools.

All to the detriment of Baldur's Gate.
If Bioware had the same defeatist attitude as Larian, and insisted the 2nd Edition must be turn based, the Baldur's Gate series would have never even existed.

What's next? Why don't you turn Street Fighter into Turn-based while you are at it.
You're so happy about making things sour for the original fanbase after all.


You do realize I'm not a developer right? I have no reason to find creative solutions to mixing 5e with RTwP as it's not my job and I'm fine with TB.

And if they came out with a Street Fighter turn baed CRPG I'd totally play that. Mortal Kombat Turn Based CRPG even more so, but only if it was pre boob size nerf.
Posted By: Omegaphallic

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 27/08/19 01:44 PM

Originally Posted by Nobody_Special
Originally Posted by Clockwork
Originally Posted by Danielbda
I think the divinity engine and combat would be perfect for bg3.
Most features in 5ed simply rely on turns, such as Assassinate and gloom stalker's extra attack.

Be more honest. It's not perfect for BG3, it's perfect for saving money.
Which is what you want, right? You want to recycling the same tools you used for your earlier turn based games and save some money that way.

Changing the franchise to turn-based is frankly a massive disrespect to the precious two games.
Let's not pretend the previous games didn't have concepts of turns and rounds. Giving someone an extra attack per round, or applying some special conditions to the 1st round was never an issue in the previous games.

You are incorrect.

Originally Posted by Clockwork
Originally Posted by Omegaphallic
It's not false propaganda, 5e is very much designed for Turn Based

2nd edition was made for turn based on the table top as well. And look where it got Baldur's Gate.

Your arguments are nothing more than propaganda.


Originally Posted by Clockwork
Originally Posted by _Vic_
If you want rules like bonus actions or reactions fully implemented does not make much sense to make`em in RTwP.

Weak excuses.
You know pause is a feature in Badur's gate? Just pause the round if you want to prompt the player for reaction.

But I know why you guys use this weak-willed defeatism attitude.
Because it's already been decided Larian wants to save money and use their old turn-based tools.


Originally Posted by Clockwork
Originally Posted by Omegaphallic
What defeatism? I'm fine with turn based.

Defeatism, when you use bad excuses, instead of creativity.
When you insist something is impossible, while refusing to consider the possibilities.
When you pretend you are so smart and insist the reaction mechanism is impossible, but in reality it's just because you are a lazy developer who wants to save money and recycle tools.

All to the detriment of Baldur's Gate.
If Bioware had the same defeatist attitude as Larian, and insisted the 2nd Edition must be turn based, the Baldur's Gate series would have never even existed.

What's next? Why don't you turn Street Fighter into Turn-based while you are at it.
You're so happy about making things sour for the original fanbase after all.


None of your post have any merit in this discussion as they do not give any reason as why RTwP is better than Turn-Based. You have only called names to discredit someone else's view on the subject. You have directed most of your comments toward Larian Studio without even knowing if, or why they may choose Turn-Based over RTwP. That can only be speculation at this point.

I can give several of my speculations.
  • Larian has stated that they want to follow the 5E rules as closely as possible.
  • WotC told Larian to make it turn-based so that people who play the game can easily go to play tabletop and vice versa.
  • Other RPG's who had RTwP have now included patches or Mods that make their games Turn-based because people like Turn-Based.

But I do know one thing. Calling people names or degrading them never gets your way!


Too bad this forum doesn't have a like or xp button.
Posted By: Clockwork

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 27/08/19 02:01 PM

Originally Posted by Sordak
Man, who sounds defeatist here?
IF its RTWP, ill still play it, but ill call that lazy,

In other words, if Baldur's Gate 3 is like its predecessors, you might just barely tolerate it,
This is like admitting you were never a fan of the series to begin with. Maybe the developers shouldn't pander to you at all.

The Defeatism camp is the one who insist d&d 5e is impossible to implement in real-time. The people who are weak willed and give up at the 1st excuse to give up.
By definition my camp cannot be defeatists. Because we are saying it was possible to turn d&d 2e and 3e into real-time, it would be just as possible to turn 5e into real-time.
We see solutions where you see impossibility. That's the difference between our arguments.


Originally Posted by Sordak
Why would anyone use Turn Based, a very popular game system right now, instead of the GLORY that is RTWP, an old system that exists due to convenience at the time?

This argument is more of a side-note, but the Baldur's Gate franchise sold 3,5 million copies by the time Throne of Bhaal expansion was released.
You're speaking to a fanbase that had an active modding community a decade after the game launched. Things have slowed down as we approach the 2nd decade anniversary, but it's still a testament to how big and dedicated the fanbase was.
(I'm not talking about silly reskin mods, but hundreds of elaborate ones that added new quests and character dialogues, and even the ones who merged together both games and both expansions)

That's the legacy you are disrespecting when you use arguments like this.
Posted By: Omegaphallic

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 27/08/19 02:25 PM

Originally Posted by Sordak
Defeatism? thats rich.
Considering that your camp, which i am now convinced consists of a single guy with multiple accounts simply because of how simmilar the posts are getting, keeps going with the most uncharitable interpretation of anything possible.

Why would anyone use Turn Based, a very popular game system right now, instead of the GLORY that is RTWP, an old system that exists due to convenience at the time?
IT must be LAZYNESS; it must be SAVING MONEY, saving money in the most expensive game the company has ever made.
Its justa money grab afterall.

Man, who sounds defeatist here?
I just dont like RTWP , its a blatantly bad system.
Im glad if its anything but that, so im not gonna be defeatist about it.
IF its RTWP, ill still play it, but ill call that lazy, because thats just rehashing a game that came out ages ago, without actually improving the formula.

Chances are, well end up with an action RPG system and this entire thread will look realy stupid in hindsight.


It's @@@ weird to me as someone who still has goldbox games to see people referring to Turn Based as the new shiny thing, with RTwP as the old gonard stuff as the first CRPGs I played were all turned based. The Goldbox Games, Ultima Games, Fallout 2. What was old is new again. I do understand the turn based mechanics have changed a lot and the technology is a lot more advanced and that part of this is due to the success of newer TTRPGs which are turned based.

What is old is new again.

Back To The Future...
Posted By: Clockwork

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 27/08/19 02:44 PM

Originally Posted by Omegaphallic
It's @@@ weird to me as someone who still has goldbox games to see people referring to Turn Based as the new shiny thing,

That's because it isn't. It's a deceptive argument more than anything.

Pillars of Eternity was launched around the same time Original Sin was launched. and the turn-based rpg sold less than the real-time rpg.
Posted By: kanisatha

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 27/08/19 03:20 PM

Originally Posted by Omegaphallic
Here is the interview I was referring to.

https://www.enworld.org/threads/a-chat-with-solasta-5e-video-game-developers.666696/

Don't shoot the messenger.

I've been following their game from the moment it was announced and will be backing their KS. They have said very clearly that they don't see TB as being superior or better than RTwP, but for their vision for their game and based on their personal preference, they have decided on TB over RTwP. So there is no objective argument there in favor of TB over RTwP.

I am fine with people who say TB is just their personal preference. We all can have preferences, and mine is for RTwP.

But I am not going to sit by and allow someone to claim, as though a fact, that TB is inherently better than or superior to RTwP or that TB is what is "appropriate" for a game because tabletop something something. That is what I consider to be complete BS nonsense.
Posted By: _Vic_

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 27/08/19 03:54 PM

Yeah, I will possibly back the game too because of the d&D rule's implementation, adding jump and fly,... amongst other things.

I am ok with both, tb and RTwP played very good games either way. My vote was to use both like in POE2, but we already know that, as stated, it is not going to be the case.
I just wonder how you can make rules like bonus action, ready action, reactions, etc in an RTwP game, and if they will implement those into the game, if the game is in RTwP.
https://crobi.github.io/dnd5e-quickref/preview/quickref.html
And that video shows that this studio deemed that it is doable in TB. Good to know from experience.









Posted By: Clockwork

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 27/08/19 06:14 PM

Originally Posted by _Vic_
I just wonder how you can make rules like bonus action, ready action, reactions, etc in an RTwP game

Why is this repeated over and over like it's a mystery of the universe?
If the game wants a reaction from the player, the game will just pause and prompt the player for actions. This has existed for decades.
Want to ready your weapon? Just click the weapon icon.
Want to ready your shield? Just click the shield icon.
Want to jump on top of that wall? Just use that toggleable section of the wall which developers have prepared for you, the game makes an acrobatics check or dexterity check and the character is up on that wall.

There is no super mystery about any of this.
Posted By: _Vic_

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 27/08/19 06:18 PM

Yeah, because four-five characters with a ready, a bonus and a reaction per turn (turns are usually 6 seconds) pausing for prompt every time ( 5x3=15 automatic pauses in 6 seconds to issue orders) are not going to slow an RTwP combat game at all, no sir...

ed: And let us not talk about how you could manage the ·"help" action, but you can do it, but you will have to pause every few seconds because you do not know exactly the initiative order in RT. I wonder if they could make this into a real combat situation without making it very slow.

Allow me to rephrase my previous question: how can you make this mechanics, not possible, but manageable in RTwP?
I am afraid they do not, so we could lose these fun mechanics if the game is not TB.
Posted By: Clockwork

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 27/08/19 06:57 PM

Originally Posted by _Vic_
Yeah, because four-five characters with a ready, a bonus and a reaction per turn (turns are usually 6 seconds) pausing for prompt every time ( 5x3=15 automatic pauses in 6 seconds to issue orders) are not going to slow an RTwP combat game at all, no sir...

Those pauses can be turned off if you don't want to deal with them. It's as simple as turning off the a.i. for the party members.
If the player wants a particular character to ready something, just enable the checkboxs for it.
If the player wants to be prompted 6 times for reactions, then the player must deal with the fact that the game slows down a bit. This is something voluntary.
If not? Then just turn off reactions for 4 or 5 of them.

Originally Posted by _Vic_
And let us not talk about how you could manage the ·"help" action

There it is again. The defeatist mindset.
You will get much farther if you think constructively and use your creativity.

If a heavy lever needs to be pulled and you want "help", just select two characters, move them to the lever, and the game will calculate whatever Advantage check, or whatever STR check is needed.
Posted By: _Vic_

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 27/08/19 07:16 PM


Well, if you turn them off it is the same as if you do not have them, so what is the point if you can have a game mode that you can have all of them without disadvantages?
Sounds like "You have to do this way no matter what because I like it, even if it would be easily attainable with a different game mode" Ockam´s razor, pal.

Oh, I can think creatively many ways to do it, but I am afraid the developers do not have that luxury, having time and budget constraints, so I am afraid they simply do not use this fun features.

The"help" action? you can do it that way but you do not know the exact initiative order in RT usually so it could be troublesome.

Posted By: Clockwork

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 27/08/19 07:22 PM

Originally Posted by _Vic_
Well, if you turn them off it is the same as if you do not have them

This is false. For example I could turn it off for 5 out of 6 characters if I preferred to have the combat run more smoothly.

Secondly, if you were a creative and constructive person, you could even suggest the reactions are part of the NPC's Battle a.i.

Originally Posted by _Vic_
Oh, I can think creatively many ways to do it, but I am afraid the developers do not have that luxury

If Larian does not allow its developers to be creative and constructive, then perhaps it's a studio that does not deserve the Baldur's Gate 3 license.
Posted By: _Vic_

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 27/08/19 07:54 PM

Nope, I am a realistic person. Ideas are good. You can have lots of them, abstract ideas, everybody. Go for infinity and beyond! eternity is your limit
but later you have to implement them. I am pretty sure there are full of amazing ideas in Larian. They always came up with something new in their games, sometimes they critical hit, sometimes they get a natural one.

An architect ( some of them are real penpal general armchairs) can come to you with this incredible idea of a building in the shape of the Igdrassyl tree, with spires and transparent lifts in the exterior running in horizontal and vertical; multiple penhouses and restaurants in the treetop. All celebrating the fusion of human and nature. He states that you can do it with proper time and materials and asks you to crunch the numbers for that._(JFTR, that design would be highly inadvisable due to thousands of practical problems that you would encounter day-to-day. The people that hired Santiago Calatrava and guys like him maybe do not care, but usually, it is not the case)

Well, The fact that it is possible to do it does not mean that you can (or should) do it.


Let us remember the map-travelling feature in ME:Andromeda. It was amazing the detail of every planet you move to, and the animation and movement of the travel was well made, but, every time you have to move from point A to point B you had like 45 seconds of inescapable animation (amazing animation, but that were 45 seconds delay every time you left a planet), and you have to scan every planet in the 14 systems of the galaxy of andromeda.
So, due to negative feedback, they have to make an emergency patch to allow instantaneous space travel. To the point that nobody ever uses that feature because as every veteran in every game ever always skips things that are pure time-eaters, and because it was very annoying the wait for starters.

Those were days of work lost that could be used elsewhere due to lack of playtesting, and an example of how a cool feature badly implemented usually annoy players because causes too much time consuming, requires too many steps to do a simple action or has a messy UI; Those are things that are avoided in game creation. Because they could be amazing, but nobody is going to use it due to the way we made them.

Ed: So, I think your approach is doable, but it would be likely to be cut before game launch if it is indeed made like this due to negative feedback of the playtesters.

Posted By: Clockwork

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 27/08/19 08:55 PM

Originally Posted by _Vic_
Let us remember the map-travelling feature in ME:Andromeda. It was amazing the detail of every planet you move to, and the animation and movement of the travel was well made, but, every time you have to move from point A to point B you had like 45 seconds of inescapable animation (amazing animation, but that were 45 seconds delay every time you left a planet), and you have to scan every planet in the 14 systems of the galaxy of andromeda.
So, due to negative feedback, they have to make an emergency patch to allow instantaneous space travel. To the point that nobody ever uses that feature because as every veteran in every game ever always skips things that are pure time-eaters, and because it was very annoying the wait for starters.

These two situations are not really comparable.
The a.i. feature in BG2 was never in the way for anyone, people who wanted to manually issue orders for all 6 characters were free to do that. And people who wanted 1 to 5 of the characters to be a.i. assisted where free to do that. It was a flexible system that let everybody toggle their preferences on the fly.

I'm sure there were naysayers back in the day who insisted the first Baldur's gate games should have been turn based.
But the millions of sales, and fans world wide have proven you wrong, d&d HAVE been made real-time with great success.
Posted By: _Vic_

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 27/08/19 10:03 PM

Clockwork, some of the things you say have a certain logic, mistaken logic but at least makes sense, but you really ruin everything with your insistence in discredit in a personal way, people with a different opinion, it only diminishes your points. It is uncalled for and frankly, bothersome.

Ai off does not affect the rules of the game, its like sound of or hide helmets. Also does not cause annoyance or bugs, be it on or off (At least in the unmodded game). If you say that the ME: A comparison does not stand, yours is... well...
Posted By: Laith

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 28/08/19 08:56 PM

Originally Posted by Clockwork
Originally Posted by _Vic_
Well, if you turn them off it is the same as if you do not have them

This is false. For example I could turn it off for 5 out of 6 characters if I preferred to have the combat run more smoothly.

Secondly, if you were a creative and constructive person, you could even suggest the reactions are part of the NPC's Battle a.i.

Originally Posted by _Vic_
Oh, I can think creatively many ways to do it, but I am afraid the developers do not have that luxury

If Larian does not allow its developers to be creative and constructive, then perhaps it's a studio that does not deserve the Baldur's Gate 3 license.


Honestly this is not bg2, this is not the studio who made bg2. Thats a good thing. And if you see all the things this studio has done to get to where they are literally they were rock bottom with no money; creativity is what landed them BG3. If you dont like larian, or turn based dont play dnd, dont play any games with said mechanic. Like why not just go play a rtwp game or go stick around on bg2 ? People are not going to build games for nostalgic reasons just to make a quick buck or to please just one small niche community.

Secondly its based on 5e for a reason which got wotc millions of new players which you can guarantee would not bother with bg2.....ever. so if you honestly think theyre going to cater to the small steam community that want rtwp which i might add you might as well take a turn all that pausing.....

Honestly clockwork you say things that dont take into account that you know little how developers work, money, time, marketing, sacrifice and how wotc works in general with who they decide to hire and the audience they are trying to reach. Those players playing 5e are going to want a video game and it will not be bg2 with updated graphics. You also have to take into account stadia. Every stadia commercial host bg3 trailer either at the beginning or end of their trailer. This means this is a bigger breakthrough for larian because wotc + stadia debut. That means its designed to have multiplayer online so ppl can play a TT dnd video game online with their friends as if they are playing 5e at the table at a friends house.

That being said "turning off the pause" or having it on makes zero sense to implement on this type of platform. People cant let personal tastes whether nostalgic or otherwise cloud their judgement or accusing a studio of not being worthy of a game when YOU have no idea what wotc wants or how to develop a game yourself. Not to mention the sacrifices made. Now that they have backers and more money they can do more, before they didnt. The mistakes in Os2 were many but updates cost money and man power to fix so unfortunately these things went unfinished because of money. Thats not the case here. They are not going to make a game like the hundreds of others out there that didnt even sell well except to people in a niche group and still be able to appeal to 5e TT players, stadia players and gamers. Its ridiculous that you arent thinking this big and youre not incorporating all the factors. Its not bout pleasing people from years ago which the gaming community was even smaller then and even smaller for rpg games. Its about innovation and advancement with 5e, gaming, ai programing and all those things incorporate backers aswell as the audience wizards is going for.

I dont say any of this for debating but rather people have to think critically about things before being harsh just because you think you know better or what it takes to make a game. You can be cheap and recreate the past which will be extremely cheap and not as rewarding or you can be innovative in the present. Vic has been critically thinking on every post he makes and considers both styles and how they would work mechanically on the platforms this game will release on. Instead of just mouthing off "rtwp takes skill", "tb is for noobs", etc.Then theres the statement of just give the option to turn off the pause button but i HAVE NEVER seen one player play without it. No point in having it in the setup theyre going for. Im not saying any of this in defense of xyz but i am saying these convos wouldnt be happening if people didnt try to act like the past is better and applies to now or that the entire dnd community from adnd1e to 5e should conform to people who love bg2 from ages ago. I love bg2, sarevok for days but id rather see BG move forward from that mechanic and i dont care if its Tb or something we domt even expect. I want TT in my dnd game not an updated bg2 game from way back in the day. I dont want to descend into avernus with same old nostalgic musing just cause it sells to a niche community, i want to be impressed by fresh thinking. Obviously wotc chose them for that. So you just have to deal with it or dont play.
Posted By: Clockwork

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 28/08/19 09:05 PM

Originally Posted by Laith
People are not going to build games for nostalgic reasons just to make a quick buck or to please just one small niche community.

Your community is even smaller than the real-time RPG community.
Original Sin II sales don't even hold a candle to the Baldur's Gate games.
Even new entries like Pillars of Eternity outsold Original Sin.

First, realise just how small you are before you talk like this towards others.
It's you who is the tiny minority niche, trying to hijack a larger franchise and destroying it.
Posted By: Infiltrator

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 28/08/19 10:00 PM

I'm pretty sure the game has been decided as a TBS a long time ago. The didnt wanna say it because they'd rather show it.

Here's why:

1. Sven mentioned an exampe, during a fight you can set a chair on fire, pick it up and smash it on someone's head. I can see this working in a TBS pretty easily, but in RTWP? It would be a nightmare to micro this while you are getting beat up by random monsters at the same time.
2. This is gonna be a MP game from the ground up like DoS2. Do you know what 4+ people, fighting a battle at the same time, while all having a pause option would look like? Worse than a slide show for sure. You unpause, one guy pauses. He unpauses, but the 3rd guy isnt done. So he pauses amd the first one messes his thing now cos he didnt expext it. Literally unplayable, people.
3. TBS is something that is natural for dnd, it would be a lot easier to implement features that had to be cut in RTWP.
4. Juat cos itw TBS it can be vastly different than in DoS2.
Posted By: Laith

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 28/08/19 10:10 PM

Whats "my" community?

Also i never stated i was big.

I never said it outsold bg2 and i mentioned i was a fan of it but want something more akin to TT, naturally since ive from 1e onward.

To your last statmrnt what niche do i belong to as a gamer in both videogame and TT? Hope you realize we are talking about rpgs as a whole, NOT video gaming in general otherwise the whole topic is null. I thin

I think your assuming much, i never said os2 outsold other titles i simply said the style of videogames rtwp, tb, rpgs in general do not garner attention in general. Youll also find that there are far more people playing TT than you think if thats what youre talking about. And great job not addressing in the platforms i mentioned in which the mechanics you want would work. As the last sentence of my post still stands.

And btw no one besides people that want a niche whether it be tb or rtwp or RTS style like SC or WC3 will care. Those that want anything specific will be mad they didnt get what they want. You cant please everyone.

Did you play any dos at all are you just here to vent your hate? Ive played all of these rpgs and they each do something good, theres something i love about them all even ToT. Im just realistic about the situation. Where it looks like your coming from this petty community tb vs rtwp flame war. Which is the wrong way to be. I enjoyed both styles of play but the problem is as i said you and others are trying to force an opinion on others and larian just because of personal tastes.

Youve taken your stance and attitude as someone who is judging things based on community wars and have assumed im on a said when ive played and enjoyed all of these no matter their mechanics. So youve assumed wrong about me and my stance just because ive played far too many pause plays and dont want another. Anyone can understand that. Something new would be quite refreshing. Sorry you cant handle that.

Why are you here if you dont like larian? If you dont like dos? Do you even like dnd TT? I mean thats kinda what their goal is with bg3. Waste of time for you to be here just for the sake of complaining with whatever community wars people have created. Why cant you all just play rpgs and accept them for what they and be honest when something has been done a thousand times too many and want something new. Why try to be petty with ppl who want a breath of fresh no matter what mechanic that is for a Dnd videogame(being specific so my context isnt misunderstood )
Posted By: Laith

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 28/08/19 10:11 PM

Originally Posted by Infiltrator
I'm pretty sure the game has been decided as a TBS a long time ago. The didnt wanna say it because they'd rather show it.

Here's why:

1. Sven mentioned an exampe, during a fight you can set a chair on fire, pick it up and smash it on someone's head. I can see this working in a TBS pretty easily, but in RTWP? It would be a nightmare to micro this while you are getting beat up by random monsters at the same time.
2. This is gonna be a MP game from the ground up like DoS2. Do you know what 4+ people, fighting a battle at the same time, while all having a pause option would look like? Worse than a slide show for sure. You unpause, one guy pauses. He unpauses, but the 3rd guy isnt done. So he pauses amd the first one messes his thing now cos he didnt expext it. Literally unplayable, people.
3. TBS is something that is natural for dnd, it would be a lot easier to implement features that had to be cut in RTWP.
4. Juat cos itw TBS it can be vastly different than in DoS2.


Exactly
Posted By: _Vic_

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 28/08/19 10:29 PM

Originally Posted by Infiltrator
I'm pretty sure the game has been decided as a TBS a long time ago. The didnt wanna say it because they'd rather show it.

Here's why:

1. Sven mentioned an exampe, during a fight you can set a chair on fire, pick it up and smash it on someone's head. I can see this working in a TBS pretty easily, but in RTWP? It would be a nightmare to micro this while you are getting beat up by random monsters at the same time.
2. This is gonna be a MP game from the ground up like DoS2. Do you know what 4+ people, fighting a battle at the same time, while all having a pause option would look like? Worse than a slide show for sure. You unpause, one guy pauses. He unpauses, but the 3rd guy isnt done. So he pauses amd the first one messes his thing now cos he didnt expext it. Literally unplayable, people.
3. TBS is something that is natural for dnd, it would be a lot easier to implement features that had to be cut in RTWP.
4. Juat cos itw TBS it can be vastly different than in DoS2.


Agreed.
To be honest I do not care RTwP or TB in general, I play both types of games(D&D in TB like in Pool of radiance and TOEE was good, D&D in BG, IWD, and the other IE games was superb), but what I want is a faithful representation of D&D5e, and I think to do it in RTwP is going to cut lots of fun features of 5e, even more if you consider that the game is going to be multiplayer and in Stadia.

And to be honest I do not really care if the game does the same mechanics of their predecessor. When the fallout franchise became a 3D shooter most people got angry. I was a little skeptic too, but when I tried I had my blast with Fallout: new vegas and tons of fun.
That said, please do not make BG3 a shooter... one is enough. That tabletop conversion went well with Warhammer Vermintide, but please don't.

The guys making Solasta, a game based in D&D 5e, chose to do it that way, In TB, and are planning to include 90% of the ruleset, even the jump, and flying mechanics.

If the game is RTwP? I will bough it and play it anyway, its Larian, its Baldur´s gate, and you never have enough games based in this setting.

Posted By: Clockwork

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 28/08/19 10:31 PM

Originally Posted by Laith
People are not going to build games for nostalgic reasons just to make a quick buck or to please just one small niche community.

Originally Posted by Laith
Whats "my" community?
Also i never stated i was big.
I never said it outsold bg2

You know exactly what you did, and I even helped you with the quotes.Your crowd is the tiniest one in this discussion, it's your crowd that should not be pandered to.
Posted By: Clockwork

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 28/08/19 10:33 PM

Originally Posted by _Vic_
but what I want is a faithful representation of D&D5e

You didn't have to hijack Baldur's Gate to achieve this. It could have been anything else.

Guess what? Baldur's Gate fans want faithful representation of Badur's Gate.
Posted By: kanisatha

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 28/08/19 11:03 PM

There is a huge difference between faithfully creating a D&D game versus faithfully creating a TT game, D&D or otherwise. Saying that for the game to be true to D&D it has to be TB is a false and disingenuous claim because the very existanse of BG1, BG2, IwD1, IwD2, NwN1, NwN2 prove beyond any doubt that you can make a faithful D&D game, regardless of edition, with RTwP.

Now, if the claim is that for the game to be a faithful representation of TT gaming it needs to be TB, yes I agree. But I counter that argument by saying if you want to play a TT game go and play a TT game! Larian has been tasked with making a roleplaying VIDEO game, NOT a goddam TT simulator, and especially not taking a cherished classic RPG franchise like BG and turning it into a piece-of-shit TT simulator. I don't want a TT simulator. I want an RPG video game that is liberated from the annoying and aggravating shackles of TT gaming.

Lastly, yes, all you D:OS fans can talk all you want about how "awesome" Larian is, and all you want about Larian's "creativity." But none of that has any resonance with me at all. I consider the D:OS games to be complete shit. I don't even agree that they qualify as true RPGs. And all the so-called "innovative" elements in those games are trite, superficial crap to me. So for me, it is incumbent upon Larian to prove to me they know what they're doing in making BG3 'cause I have not drunk the Larian Kool-Aid.
Posted By: Laith

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 28/08/19 11:29 PM

Baldurs gate is DnD, Avernus is Dnd, the game has dnd written on it. I dont think youre getting the point cause youre trying to quote people on purpose to make this into a community war when multiple have stated that they want something new or they dont care what the format is. they already stated that their goal is to apply dnd 5e to a video game, i.e. NOT rtwp because thats not their goal.

No one is hijacking a franchise you must be delusional because no one on these forums or anyone else is getting paid to make bg3 besides larian and they havent taken any opinions from gamers. So youre statement is unfounded. Youre looking to lash out at people and blame other gamers for ruining something we arent involved in even making and just found out about the past year......-_____-

Btw do you honestly think google would promote a rtwp game on a debut on stadia????? Youve got to be mental. Google knows where to stick its cash and its not personal opinions. Again you should address the things i said instead of trying your hardest to make it into some community battle where gamers are ruining a franchise when hell no one even seen any footage yet. We dont even have a gameplay trailer yet and your flipping of for no reason....

Ive stated as well as others that we want a dnd5e game thats like TT, some of us dont care what the format is others of us do. But if larian is making it like tabletop and players like me who play TT which btw baldurs gate is from the TT AND NOT SEPARATE FROM DnD want a game thats like tt. I dont care how the make that as long as it has the 5e rulings which unfortunately cannot be accomplished with what your fighting ppl over.

Stop trying to make it a war, im part of ALL rpgs whether they have been rtwp or tb, i also love rts like wc3 and sc series. No one is killing a franchise because the gamers arent involved in making the game nor has anyone seen the game. No one is even being pandered to either no one even knew what divinity was ppl played and liked it and those that didnt just didnt.

I might add more sales does not mean a better product, many rpg i played had great sales but people didnt like them. We just have to hope they dont mess up mages like they did dos2, lol

Posted By: Laith

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 28/08/19 11:40 PM

You should stop trying to speak for everyone here, i love adnd1e all the way to 5e, and i also love bg2(hail sarevok) i also loved, ToT, ToEE, POE, etc.... im a fan of all these, but i also like dos as well so does that mean im here to ruin youre franchise because i like 5e rules in a genre that has become linear? No because theres no Larian/Wotc poll asking people if they want tb or rtwp.

Like its obvious you people came here just to complain cause if you dont like larian or dos games then theres no reason for you to be here. So am i not allowed to like baldurs gate and dos? Can i not be a fan of multiple TT and videogames? Am i not allowed to like multiple studios and formats? Like seriously is no one allowed to like dos just because you guys are in disagreement??

Btw theres been many examples of this mechanic vs mechanicand why things would or wouldnt work, but instead of acknowledging that you just bring things that arent relevant or say "you can have 5e rules with rtwp" like i know you guys dont even know the rules of 5e much less previous editions and most dont even know baldurs is part of dnd canon and that bg1-2 was not intended to be made as a TT video game but a video game with TT elements. HUGE differences.
Posted By: Clockwork

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 28/08/19 11:49 PM

Originally Posted by Laith
People are not going to build games for nostalgic reasons just to make a quick buck or to please just one small niche community.

Originally Posted by Laith
I dont think youre getting the point cause youre trying to quote people on purpose to make this into a community war

All I see is you being the instigator of this "war", trying to pin the blame on someone else. Or did you already forget what you yourself have said?

Anyway, I think one of the reasons for theses clashes is the Larian developers don't realise what it is they have picked up.
This Baldur's Gate fanbase has some crazy dedication to it, for example:
http://www.pocketplane.net/mambo/
And
https://www.gibberlings3.net/
These people have developed mods for that BG2 game, and have continued to do so for longer than a decade after that game launched.
The last batches of these mods were released FOURTEEN years after the launch of the game.

That's the heritage Larian has picked up. And along the journey you're going to bump into a lot of people who loved these games for what they were.
Posted By: Laith

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 28/08/19 11:58 PM

You only quote things i say and accuse me of xyz but people can read for themselves. You cant address anything im saying because you are on these forums to vent your disagreement. You dont like larian which totally fine but not discussing mechanics and why they would or wouldnt work and instead choosing to blame players for things their not involved in the making of as if theres a wotc poll is ridiculous. And the fact youre accusing others and now me this when i clearly have stated the opposite just shows your own mindset. Infiltrator made a post on paage 8. Re read it. Thats all the explanation anyone would need for why google and wotc wouldnt want to implement something that i myself and you have played many times over. Its pretty obvious youre stance and purpose of being on these boards. And thanks for quoting me that way others can just see that youre desperately trying to make it as if im apart of some tb community that doesnt exist even though i love and and have played all rpgs of many different styles.
Posted By: Clockwork

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 29/08/19 12:02 AM

Originally Posted by Laith
you are on these forums to vent your disagreement. You dont like larian

Actually I have proof right here I came to this forum to help the developers: http://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=654805#Post654805 <- My post number 1 in this forum.
So you're wrong about that one, but thanks for judging me with prejudice.

Anyway, my quotes of you proves you are the one trying to instigate war and hostility.
Posted By: Laith

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 29/08/19 12:06 AM

You forget im a bg fan myself, not to mention i play the tt 1e to 5e whixh not even modders even play. But just because there are fans does not mean the present modern day has to bend to that. What i would say is to keep mpdding and keep playing BUT guess what. Mike who is the owner of dnd is a HUGE bg fan and played it non stop and guess what he still chose larian. So if you going to point fingers or be upset Dnd is his baby that means if he wants larian he gets larian despite me or you and what fans want. Wait til you see the game before pointing fingers and hating and accusing others of "ruining a franchise". Surely a small community that u say exist cant ruin a whole franchise even tho you know we didnt get a poll or have even seen the game yet. smirk
Posted By: Laith

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 29/08/19 12:08 AM

Youre not helping by that post or any of the things youve said like saying larian shouldnt have the liscence to bg3 because you think they arent being constructive. You actually think through all those posts youre helping? Go back and read your own posts bro
Posted By: Clockwork

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 29/08/19 12:19 AM

Laith You can't be that big of a fan if you don't care about the original gameplay foundation being ripped to shreds and replaced by something else.
All you care about is turn-based table top.
You're more of a D&D fan than a BG fan.

Originally Posted by Laith
Youre not helping by that post or any of the things youve said like saying larian shouldnt have the liscence to bg3 because you think

I have the right to hold those opinions.
If the developer is so constrained by resources and funds that they are forced to recycle assets and tools of their previous projects instead of developing new tools for BG3, then they might not be the right developer for this mission.
It's an objective stance one can have.
You don't have the resources => Go develop something else
Posted By: AlchemicalBehold

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 29/08/19 06:11 AM

Having met Larian a few times, and talked with them as well as D&D devs- I am excited Larian is at the helm.
BG 1 and 2 were great stories for their time, and okay mechanically.

Larian was allowed to develop BG3 due to the rich worlds they created in Original Sin 1 and 2.

The amount of vitriol in the thread from a handful of very vocal people is amazing.

I look forward to a turn based, 5e ruleset game.

Based on their past successes, and excellent ongoing sales of DDOS2, it'll be a guaranteed hit.

You can wax poetic about rtwp (I do hope they have a option for that for those that crave it)- but
It was never my favourite part of the originals.
Posted By: Omegaphallic

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 29/08/19 09:26 AM

Originally Posted by AlchemicalBehold
Having met Larian a few times, and talked with them as well as D&D devs- I am excited Larian is at the helm.
BG 1 and 2 were great stories for their time, and okay mechanically.

Larian was allowed to develop BG3 due to the rich worlds they created in Original Sin 1 and 2.

The amount of vitriol in the thread from a handful of very vocal people is amazing.

I look forward to a turn based, 5e ruleset game.

Based on their past successes, and excellent ongoing sales of DDOS2, it'll be a guaranteed hit.

You can wax poetic about rtwp (I do hope they have a option for that for those that crave it)- but
It was never my favourite part of the originals.


Me as well.
Posted By: Hawke

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 29/08/19 10:17 AM

I think Larian should make BG3 a thrid Person Action RPG I think we can all agree on that. smirk
Posted By: Sordak

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 29/08/19 10:44 AM

I was going to post something that would have gotten me banned here.

You dont need to like every little detail of a game in order to be a fan.
I like games in which the core mechanic was quite frankly terrible. Morrowind is still my favorite RPG, and holy crap was its combat awfull.
Likewise i like infinity engine games, but RTWP and the controll scheme were the worst part about these games. Even if i like Icewind dale the most, which is arguably nothign but combat.

And the idea that Larian is somehow recycling...
Like dude, thats literaly their most expensive project yet, you realy think they are recycling
And Clockwork you have the right to hold any opinion, but i have the right to laugh at you for it.

As for action RPG.
man, if this turns out to be Western Dragons Dogma with multiplayer, then i think ill sink so many hours into this game that somenes gonna have to pry me from my chair, and my friends too while theyre at it.
Posted By: korotama

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 29/08/19 10:53 AM

I guess I'm a fan of RTwP despite its flaws. While I've been thoroughly enjoying Divinity: Original Sin (can't comment on the sequel as it's not in my library yet) I can't help but notice how much of the time spent in-game is directly attributable to taking turns in combat. BG3 is billed as a 100-hour adventure but I sincerely hope this does not mean that over 90% of those 100 hours will boil down to combat. If D:OS weren't turn-based, it would probably take half as long to beat it. Nevertheless, I'm open to turn-based combat if it is done in a way that staves off tedium and boredom. Take Battle Chasers: Nightwar for example. It's a JRPG/WRPG crossover that was a huge blast for me when I played it. Combat wasn't used as filler and the comic book visuals kept things from becoming a bore.

If Larian ultimately chooses TB over RTwP I humbly suggest that they throw lots of different camera angles into the mix, come up with a variety of quirky and vivid character battle animations, write lots and lots of banter, taunts etc. and finally provide us with a plethora of abilities, buffs and modifiers that make every monster encounter as unique as humanly possible. Also, please no cutting corners on the soundtrack, I'm fairly certain no one would appreciate hearing the same battle theme looping over and over again throughout the entire game.
Posted By: kanisatha

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 29/08/19 01:37 PM

Nowhere in the forum rules does it say that you have to be a D:OS fan or a Larian sycophant to be on this forum. In fact, to my way of seeing things, it is exactly people like me that Larian should be listening to and trying to engage in a conversation if they are sincere in wanting to become better at what they do. So until a mod tells me I can't criticize the D:OS games in this forum, I will continue to do so.

The D:OS games had weak stories and silly quests, superficial characters, and simplistic munchkin-y character development. The writing overall was atrocious. The world was trite and boring, and largely empty of anything worth exploring. The artwork was cartoonish. The so-called humor was asinine and not humerous at all. The crafting system was a painful chore. Combat was a tedious, repetitive slog-fest that took forever and involved merely loading up all your characters with the same set of 3-4 spells and then spamming those spells. As such, the supposedly 100 hours game actually only had about 30 hours of content and the rest of the "100 hours" was suffering through the stupid combat. Furthermore, the vaunted "environmental reactivity" merely involved oil barrels and water puddles very conveniently available in every battle and very conveniently positioned exactly where you want them just so you could squeal and clap your hands with delight at the big boom! Like a child.

So yes, if this is what I'm going to get packaged as a Baldur's Gate game, and since my take on the D:OS games is the only frame of reference I have for what Larian is capable of or likes to do with its games, then as a passionate Baldur's Gate fan who considers those games to be like a hundred times better than the D:OS games I have every right--and justification--to be really angry about my cherished franchise being taken over and turned into a joke.
Posted By: Clockwork

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 29/08/19 02:27 PM

Originally Posted by _Vic_
Oh, I can think creatively many ways to do it, but I am afraid the developers do not have that luxury, having time and budget constraints, so I am afraid they simply do not use this fun features.

Originally Posted by Sordak
And the idea that Larian is somehow recycling...
Like dude, thats literaly their most expensive project yet, you realy think they are recycling
And Clockwork you have the right to hold any opinion, but i have the right to laugh at you for it.

It was _Vic_ who suggested Larian might not have the resources to implement D&D 5E into real-time. That's what prompted me to argue they might be the wrong studio for this project.

If your camp could make up its mind, I would be happy about that.

Originally Posted by Sordak
Even if i like Icewind dale the most, which is arguably nothign but combat.

Well this just proves my previous point, some of you guys don't even hold BG as your favourite in the genre, so it's really no wonder you don't mind it being mangled to death.
It's important that we understand each other.
I understand that you're not that big of a fan of BG.
And I want you to understand that the other side absolutely revere the Baldur's Gate series.

When we understand each other we've progressed 1 step further.
Posted By: vometia

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 29/08/19 02:34 PM

Originally Posted by kanisatha
Nowhere in the forum rules does it say that you have to be a D:OS fan or a Larian sycophant to be on this forum. In fact, to my way of seeing things, it is exactly people like me that Larian should be listening to and trying to engage in a conversation if they are sincere in wanting to become better at what they do. So until a mod tells me I can't criticize the D:OS games in this forum, I will continue to do so.

Criticise all you want. There aren't many rules beyond stuff that's actually illegal, though I may intervene if it gets personal or excessively disruptive. Beyond that, it's up to forum members as to whether or not they think a particular approach is going to win people over.
Posted By: Omegaphallic

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 29/08/19 02:38 PM

Originally Posted by vometia
Originally Posted by kanisatha
Nowhere in the forum rules does it say that you have to be a D:OS fan or a Larian sycophant to be on this forum. In fact, to my way of seeing things, it is exactly people like me that Larian should be listening to and trying to engage in a conversation if they are sincere in wanting to become better at what they do. So until a mod tells me I can't criticize the D:OS games in this forum, I will continue to do so.

Criticise all you want. There aren't many rules beyond stuff that's actually illegal, though I may intervene if it gets personal or excessively disruptive. Beyond that, it's up to forum members as to whether or not they think a particular approach is going to win people over.


The cultural libertarian approach to moderating, I like it.
Posted By: Omegaphallic

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 29/08/19 02:45 PM

Originally Posted by Clockwork
Originally Posted by _Vic_
Oh, I can think creatively many ways to do it, but I am afraid the developers do not have that luxury, having time and budget constraints, so I am afraid they simply do not use this fun features.

Originally Posted by Sordak
And the idea that Larian is somehow recycling...
Like dude, thats literaly their most expensive project yet, you realy think they are recycling
And Clockwork you have the right to hold any opinion, but i have the right to laugh at you for it.

It was _Vic_ who suggested Larian might not have the resources to implement D&D 5E into real-time. That's what prompted me to argue that are the wrong studio for this project.

If your camp could make up its mind, I would be happy about that.

Originally Posted by Sordak
Even if i like Icewind dale the most, which is arguably nothign but combat.

Well this just proves my previous point, some of you guys don't even hold BG as your favourite in the genre, so it's really no wonder why you don't mind it being mangl's important that we understand each other.
I understand that you're not that big of a fan of BG.
And I want you to understand that the other side absolutely revere the Baldur's Gate series.

When we understand each other we've progressed 1 step further.


It's not a size issue, Larian studios has over 300 people working on this game. No it's that why do RTwP when turn based is alot easier to do with 5e and you know you will have alarge market for it based on their last two smashing successes of games. Why do things the hard way for a minority of people.
Posted By: Clockwork

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 29/08/19 02:52 PM

Originally Posted by Omegaphallic
No it's that why do RTwP when turn based is alot easier to do with 5e and you know you will have alarge market for it based on their last two smashing successes of games. Why do things the hard way for a minority of people.

Because the game sales say the real-time fans are actually the majority, while it is you turn-based guys who are the minority.

It's a great question for yourself, Larian has absolutely no reason to support you, the minority.
Posted By: Omegaphallic

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 29/08/19 02:54 PM

Originally Posted by kanisatha
Nowhere in the forum rules does it say that you have to be a D:OS fan or a Larian sycophant to be on this forum. In fact, to my way of seeing things, it is exactly people like me that Larian should be listening to and trying to engage in a conversation if they are sincere in wanting to become better at what they do. So until a mod tells me I can't criticize the D:OS games in this forum, I will continue to do so.

The D:OS games had weak stories and silly quests, superficial characters, and simplistic munchkin-y character development. The writing overall was atrocious. The world was trite and boring, and largely empty of anything worth exploring. The artwork was cartoonish. The so-called humor was asinine and not humerous at all. The crafting system was a painful chore. Combat was a tedious, repetitive slog-fest that took forever and involved merely loading up all your characters with the same set of 3-4 spells and then spamming those spells. As such, the supposedly 100 hours game actually only had about 30 hours of content and the rest of the "100 hours" was suffering through the stupid combat. Furthermore, the vaunted "environmental reactivity" merely involved oil barrels and water puddles very conveniently available in every battle and very conveniently positioned exactly where you want them just so you could squeal and clap your hands with delight at the big boom! Like a child.

So yes, if this is what I'm going to get packaged as a Baldur's Gate game, and since my take on the D:OS games is the only frame of reference I have for what Larian is capable of or likes to do with its games, then as a passionate Baldur's Gate fan who considers those games to be like a hundred times better than the D:OS games I have every right--and justification--to be really angry about my cherished franchise being taken over and turned into a joke.


BG3 will be based on D&D 5e which is a very solid system with plenty of worth while builds.There are countless abilities and spells in D&D. Also we know for the most part that the tone of BG 3 is very different and the art is not cartoonish.
Posted By: kanisatha

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 29/08/19 03:09 PM

Originally Posted by Omegaphallic
Originally Posted by Clockwork
Originally Posted by _Vic_
Oh, I can think creatively many ways to do it, but I am afraid the developers do not have that luxury, having time and budget constraints, so I am afraid they simply do not use this fun features.

Originally Posted by Sordak
And the idea that Larian is somehow recycling...
Like dude, thats literaly their most expensive project yet, you realy think they are recycling
And Clockwork you have the right to hold any opinion, but i have the right to laugh at you for it.

It was _Vic_ who suggested Larian might not have the resources to implement D&D 5E into real-time. That's what prompted me to argue that are the wrong studio for this project.

If your camp could make up its mind, I would be happy about that.

Originally Posted by Sordak
Even if i like Icewind dale the most, which is arguably nothign but combat.

Well this just proves my previous point, some of you guys don't even hold BG as your favourite in the genre, so it's really no wonder why you don't mind it being mangl's important that we understand each other.
I understand that you're not that big of a fan of BG.
And I want you to understand that the other side absolutely revere the Baldur's Gate series.

When we understand each other we've progressed 1 step further.


It's not a size issue, Larian studios has over 300 people working on this game. No it's that why do RTwP when turn based is alot easier to do with 5e and you know you will have alarge market for it based on their last two smashing successes of games. Why do things the hard way for a minority of people.

Except for the millions in sales of games like Skyrim and Inquisition and Witcher 3. Actually it is TB games like D:OS that are niche games. The true reason the D:OS games sold as well as they did is co-op and DM mode.
Posted By: kanisatha

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 29/08/19 03:12 PM

Originally Posted by Omegaphallic
Originally Posted by kanisatha
Nowhere in the forum rules does it say that you have to be a D:OS fan or a Larian sycophant to be on this forum. In fact, to my way of seeing things, it is exactly people like me that Larian should be listening to and trying to engage in a conversation if they are sincere in wanting to become better at what they do. So until a mod tells me I can't criticize the D:OS games in this forum, I will continue to do so.

The D:OS games had weak stories and silly quests, superficial characters, and simplistic munchkin-y character development. The writing overall was atrocious. The world was trite and boring, and largely empty of anything worth exploring. The artwork was cartoonish. The so-called humor was asinine and not humerous at all. The crafting system was a painful chore. Combat was a tedious, repetitive slog-fest that took forever and involved merely loading up all your characters with the same set of 3-4 spells and then spamming those spells. As such, the supposedly 100 hours game actually only had about 30 hours of content and the rest of the "100 hours" was suffering through the stupid combat. Furthermore, the vaunted "environmental reactivity" merely involved oil barrels and water puddles very conveniently available in every battle and very conveniently positioned exactly where you want them just so you could squeal and clap your hands with delight at the big boom! Like a child.

So yes, if this is what I'm going to get packaged as a Baldur's Gate game, and since my take on the D:OS games is the only frame of reference I have for what Larian is capable of or likes to do with its games, then as a passionate Baldur's Gate fan who considers those games to be like a hundred times better than the D:OS games I have every right--and justification--to be really angry about my cherished franchise being taken over and turned into a joke.


BG3 will be based on D&D 5e which is a very solid system with plenty of worth while builds.There are countless abilities and spells in D&D. Also we know for the most part that the tone of BG 3 is very different and the art is not cartoonish.

Yes I agree, so there is the potential for someone to make a really good D&D 5e RPG. The question is whether Larian's BG3 will be such a game, and that's where I have serious questions and a high level of skepticism.
Posted By: Omegaphallic

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 30/08/19 01:54 AM

Originally Posted by kanisatha
Originally Posted by Omegaphallic
Originally Posted by kanisatha
Nowhere in the forum rules does it say that you have to be a D:OS fan or a Larian sycophant to be on this forum. In fact, to my way of seeing things, it is exactly people like me that Larian should be listening to and trying to engage in a conversation if they are sincere in wanting to become better at what they do. So until a mod tells me I can't criticize the D:OS games in this forum, I will continue to do so.

The D:OS games had weak stories and silly quests, superficial characters, and simplistic munchkin-y character development. The writing overall was atrocious. The world was trite and boring, and largely empty of anything worth exploring. The artwork was cartoonish. The so-called humor was asinine and not humerous at all. The crafting system was a painful chore. Combat was a tedious, repetitive slog-fest that took forever and involved merely loading up all your characters with the same set of 3-4 spells and then spamming those spells. As such, the supposedly 100 hours game actually only had about 30 hours of content and the rest of the "100 hours" was suffering through the stupid combat. Furthermore, the vaunted "environmental reactivity" merely involved oil barrels and water puddles very conveniently available in every battle and very conveniently positioned exactly where you want them just so you could squeal and clap your hands with delight at the big boom! Like a child.

So yes, if this is what I'm going to get packaged as a Baldur's Gate game, and since my take on the D:OS games is the only frame of reference I have for what Larian is capable of or likes to do with its games, then as a passionate Baldur's Gate fan who considers those games to be like a hundred times better than the D:OS games I have every right--and justification--to be really angry about my cherished franchise being taken over and turned into a joke.


BG3 will be based on D&D 5e which is a very solid system with plenty of worth while builds.There are countless abilities and spells in D&D. Also we know for the most part that the tone of BG 3 is very different and the art is not cartoonish.

Yes I agree, so there is the potential for someone to make a really good D&D 5e RPG. The question is whether Larian's BG3 will be such a game, and that's where I have serious questions and a high level of skepticism.


Hopefully we will get a taste of BG 3 at Pax West and find that out
Posted By: Laith

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 01/09/19 07:58 AM

Best answer is this. Youll hate on larian and you hate turn based but you will still buy it. Yes you will buy and play it. I love how people always hate on a studio or game but they still buy it any way. So theres no reason to even bother debating anything because whatever they choose to do all the old gatekeepers will still buy it no matter what salt theyre are throwing. laugh
Posted By: Laith

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 01/09/19 08:07 AM

Wotc owns the rights so theres not potential unless they deem it so. They didnt let obsidian or any of the other studios have it because they didnt like how they designed their games. So Mike and people like Nathan get the say so on that. Besides to many people complained about PoE anyway.
Posted By: Sordak

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 01/09/19 12:24 PM

Turn based has had a renaissance.
RTWP tried the same but failed.

Action RPGs will always be the mainstream appeal however, hence why Dragon Age moved towards that.
i wouldnt be surprised if baldurs gate 3 will too.
Posted By: Omegaphallic

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 02/09/19 01:36 PM

Originally Posted by Sordak
Turn based has had a renaissance.
RTWP tried the same but failed.

Action RPGs will always be the mainstream appeal however, hence why Dragon Age moved towards that.
i wouldnt be surprised if baldurs gate 3 will too.


The Market for Pure Action games is flooded, no need for another. Besides Larian Studios achievex it's greatest success with turn based games and Action is even less compatible with 5e then RTwP. There is at least an outside chance they figured out how to make RTwP work with 5e, there is zero chance of 5e working with Action.
Posted By: kanisatha

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 02/09/19 02:20 PM

Nobody has yet been able to explain to me exactly why RTwP would not work with D&D 5e rules. Everything that can be done with TB can equally be done with RTwP. Everything. The only meaningful difference between the two systems is that in RTwP the player decides when they want the game to pause and the action to stop, whereas in TB it is built into the game when the game will be paused. Every single thing in 5e rules, including initiative and reactions and counter-spellcasting, can just as easily be handled in RTwP as in TB. So the game being TB has nothing whatsoever to do with the faithful implementation of 5e rules. An honest fan of TB should at least own up to this. The true reason for going TB is entirely, 100%, because of co-op play and a possible DM mode.
Posted By: Omegaphallic

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 02/09/19 02:51 PM

Originally Posted by kanisatha
Nobody has yet been able to explain to me exactly why RTwP would not work with D&D 5e rules. Everything that can be done with TB can equally be done with RTwP. Everything. The only meaningful difference between the two systems is that in RTwP the player decides when they want the game to pause and the action to stop, whereas in TB it is built into the game when the game will be paused. Every single thing in 5e rules, including initiative and reactions and counter-spellcasting, can just as easily be handled in RTwP as in TB. So the game being TB has nothing whatsoever to do with the faithful implementation of 5e rules. An honest fan of TB should at least own up to this. The true reason for going TB is entirely, 100%, because of co-op play and a possible DM mode.


I do prefer turn based, I don't think I've tried to hide that, but I'm being honest in that I don't think they can impliment 5e rules right with RTwP. I don't say that to convince Larian as the decision has already been made, I'm just giving my reasoning why I think it will be turn based.
Posted By: kanisatha

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 02/09/19 03:26 PM

Originally Posted by Omegaphallic
Originally Posted by kanisatha
Nobody has yet been able to explain to me exactly why RTwP would not work with D&D 5e rules. Everything that can be done with TB can equally be done with RTwP. Everything. The only meaningful difference between the two systems is that in RTwP the player decides when they want the game to pause and the action to stop, whereas in TB it is built into the game when the game will be paused. Every single thing in 5e rules, including initiative and reactions and counter-spellcasting, can just as easily be handled in RTwP as in TB. So the game being TB has nothing whatsoever to do with the faithful implementation of 5e rules. An honest fan of TB should at least own up to this. The true reason for going TB is entirely, 100%, because of co-op play and a possible DM mode.


I do prefer turn based, I don't think I've tried to hide that, but I'm being honest in that I don't think they can impliment 5e rules right with RTwP. I don't say that to convince Larian as the decision has already been made, I'm just giving my reasoning why I think it will be turn based.

Oh, absolutely. I also agree that none of these discussion have any value in terms of how the game is going to be, because Larian has (subjectively) made their choices and won't be changing any of it. But my point is simply that objectively speaking, RTwP can work just as well as TB, and TB v. RTwP is purely about people's personal, subjective preference. But I keep seeing posts where some (not all) fans of TB (and yes sometimes the other side as well) try to claim that objectively speaking TB is the more "appropriate" or "correct" choice, because the pnp system is TB blah blah, and that's what I end up pushing back against.
Posted By: _Vic_

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 02/09/19 05:41 PM

Bg3 is going to be a videogame and Larian already made their choice about the combat mechanics, and they are working on it.
Logically, It is going to be a videogame based in D&D 5e so no one expects that playing bg3 is going to be exactly like playing a D&D tabletop game with your friends because those are very different platforms. One will be a video game, the other is a social adventure simulation tabletop game.
And surely Larian´s goal is to make a good videogame, not a perfect simulation; and Sven Vincke already stated that some rules are going to be bend (because, as I said before, they are making a videogame and you have to adapt things, cut others; the same as in the videogame adaptation of VTMB 1&2: they will never use "mask of a thousand faces" for lots of practical reasons, for example).

But if someone will want to do the most faithful representation of a D&D 5e ruleset in a videogame will find it difficult to do it in real-time, even in real-time with pause, because of the nature of some of the mechanics of 5e. Anyone with a minimum experience in the tabletop will surely see some of the problems. There are plenty of reasons already stated in this thread so I do not think to repeat them is needed.
Posted By: Try2Handing

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 02/09/19 09:33 PM

Originally Posted by _Vic_
And surely Larian´s goal is to make a good videogame, not a perfect simulation; and Sven Vincke already stated that some rules are going to be bend (because, as I said before, they are making a videogame and you have to adapt things, cut others; the same as in the videogame adaptation of VTMB 1&2: they will never use "mask of a thousand faces" for lots of practical reasons, for example).

That is the question here, isn't it? Are they trying to "make a really good video game that can hold a candle to the original games", or are they trying to "recreate a tabletop experience that represents the D&D 5e ruleset as faithfully as possible"?

I bet among fans of the original games, many are pure video gamers who don't much care for how "faithfully" the games represent the tabletop rulesets, or "how many rules were bent" in the making of the games. So are they trying to satisfy these fans, or are they trying to satisfy the PnP crowd who may or may not even be fans of the original games to begin with? They can certainly try to achieve both, but then we know it's not possible to satisfy everyone.

I wonder if the devs ask themselves, "which crowd is our main target?". I wonder if they have a "prioritized" target group in mind. Or are they actually always like, "we're going to try to satisfy all sorts of fans". IMO this factor has a big impact on how they're shaping up the game.
Posted By: _Vic_

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 02/09/19 10:27 PM

Oh, no, Sven Vincke was pretty clear about that when he stated already that they are going to make a videogame first and not a perfect D&D simulator. He even gave hints about things are going to be included and not.
The thing about they don´t say anything specific is the combat.

Sven Vincke: "With respect to the combat system, this is based on D&D, so we’re using their combat system. We had to make a few tweaks, but we’re also trying to bring the stuff that you use in combat to overcome your foes, and which relates to how you imagine the fight to be, and how you imagine your characters doing things. We’re trying to make that possible within the game. So expect something that’s going to give you quite a lot of freedom when it comes to combat"

https://www.pcgamesn.com/baldurs-gate-3/larian-developer-interview


MM: "Our idea is that you can change things, even lore, as long as you show and don't tell why it might be changing"
https://www.rpgsite.net/interview/8...nd-partnership-with-wizards-of-the-coast

but they tweak some things to make D&D a videogame experience. What things? We do not know, but they give us some clues:

Swen Vincke how fully his studio is adapting D&D’s character progression, and he said:

“That’s actually been one of the things that we’ve been struggling with, because it’s a very slow leveling process in the books,” he says. As D&D players will know, gaining ten or 12 levels on the tabletop is a journey that could last weeks, but for a videogame, it’s “not a lot.”

Nevertheless, Larian is making a D&D game. Therefore: “We wanted to stick to it. So we’re figuring out ways of letting you still feel that you’re progressing in a meaningful manner, but in a videogame manner.”


https://www.pcgamesn.com/baldurs-gate-3/leveling-system

https://www.rpgsite.net/interview/8...nd-partnership-with-wizards-of-the-coast


We want to show the combat, not talk about it"
https://www.gamestar.de/artikel/baldurs-gate-3-erstes-gameplay-video-gamescom-kampfsystem,3345782.html



In this podcast, they also semi-confirmed the wish spell but also stated that some spells were banned. They use a three-color-coded list of spells. Green is good to go! like magic missile. Red is "never gonna happen". He didn´t enter into specifics but they said that is High-level stuff. Wish is accepted because it has a role in storytelling
https://kotaku.com/the-ranger-class-is-getting-some-changes-in-d-d-and-ba-1835659585



Misses from dice rolls. “The very obvious one would be that you tend to miss a lot when you roll the dice, which is fine when you’re playing on the tabletop, but it’s not so cool when you’re playing a video game,” Vincke said. “We had to have solutions for that.”
https://www.pcgamesn.com/baldurs-gate-3/leveling-system


One thing in particular is that they never make comparisons with previous games, nor make any references (When they asked about what ending of the baalspawn saga they will use they do not even remembered =P ), and they said repeatedly that the prelude of BG3 is based in D&D campaigns, not in the story of BG1&2. I think that their priorities do not seem to include particulars from the classic saga, sadly.
Posted By: korotama

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 03/09/19 07:35 PM

If BG3 ends up having turn-based combat please give us cinematic camera angles akin to the PS1-era Final Fantasy entries. It will make monster encounters seem less repetitive I'll bet.
Posted By: Artagel

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 03/09/19 08:18 PM

Originally Posted by kanisatha
Yes I agree, so there is the potential for someone to make a really good D&D 5e RPG. The question is whether Larian's BG3 will be such a game, and that's where I have serious questions and a high level of skepticism.

Soon as that gameplay vid drops, we will have our answer.
Posted By: korotama

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 03/09/19 08:26 PM

Originally Posted by Artagel
Originally Posted by kanisatha
Yes I agree, so there is the potential for someone to make a really good D&D 5e RPG. The question is whether Larian's BG3 will be such a game, and that's where I have serious questions and a high level of skepticism.

Soon as that gameplay vid drops, we will have our answer.

To be honest, I'm not sure "soon" is listed as an entry in Larian's dictionary. I guess Descent into Avernus and the miniatures are part of the overall marketing effort but I feel that many fans of the series are not necessarily avid DnD players but primarily interested in the legacy of the Bhaalspawn saga and the Infinity Engine games. Perhaps the trailer was released too soon as I've thought of the post-announcement period mostly in terms of a dry spell since then.
Posted By: Artagel

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 03/09/19 08:38 PM

Originally Posted by Try2Handing
I bet among fans of the original games, many are pure video gamers who don't much care for how "faithfully" the games represent the tabletop rulesets, or "how many rules were bent" in the making of the games.

There are TONS of these fans. Way more gamers who don't play D&D (who for years have never even heard of the tabletop game) vs gamers who play D&D. This is why the BG series was so popular to begin with. Simple math...

There are STILL way more fans who are gamers who didn't, don't currently, and will never play D&D, than gamers who play D&D. Way more.

And here's the thing Larian and even WOTC surely know... but are still hesitant to admit....

MANY of those fans probably WILL NOT BE BUYING BG3:
- if it's TB
- if it's overly muddled and SLOWED DOWN by an engine that tries too hard to incorporate elements from a tabletop experience that they NEVER CARED ABOUT
- if it's significantly out of "character" for a BG game.

That's the reality...

Clock's ticking on that gameplay vid.
Posted By: korotama

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 03/09/19 08:42 PM

Very succinctly put, Artagel. I hope they won't lose sight of the potentially sore lack of overlap between DnD aficionados and BG fans.
Posted By: _Vic_

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 03/09/19 10:45 PM

I am pretty sure that a great chunk of people started in D&D because of BG, the IE games and ToEE, NWN, etc.(And possibly they left when 4e XD)
And many more of D&D players know and love the games. I do not think it is grounds for yet another "brand new" community war in this thread.
Posted By: Sordak

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 04/09/19 07:45 PM

what do you think? How many more people will NOT buy the game if its Turn based, opposed to how many people wont buy it if its RTWP.

Lets face it, RTWP isnt the same as action combat, its even more obscure and more specific than turn based.

And lets get real, its not gonna be either one
Posted By: Brent2410

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 06/09/19 09:53 AM

Originally Posted by Sordak
And lets get real, its not gonna be either one


As opposed to what? There's no other good way to control multiple characters simultaneously outside these two systems.

Even controlling one person, if they were going to do an ARPG, they would've continued the Dark Alliance series. A FPP game is waaaaay out of Larian's wheelhouse and the engine they use probably won't support it. A TPP OTS D&D game is already a thing and it's completely dead.

So BG3 will be a battle royale roguelite MOBA card game? Lets get real, it's going to be RTwP or TB isometric top down.
Posted By: Hawke

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 06/09/19 10:00 AM

Originally Posted by Brent2410
Originally Posted by Sordak
And lets get real, its not gonna be either one


As opposed to what? There's no other good way to control multiple characters simultaneously outside these two systems.

Even controlling one person, if they were going to do an ARPG, they would've continued the Dark Alliance series. A FPP game is waaaaay out of Larian's wheelhouse and the engine they use probably won't support it. A TPP OTS D&D game is already a thing and it's completely dead.

So BG3 will be a battle royale roguelite MOBA card game? Lets get real, it's going to be RTwP or TB isometric top down.


Larian has now over 200 all over the world employees that are more than enough to make a third-person game. They are no longer a cute Belgian indie studio. And Swen loves to talk about his dream game which will be AAA game, so sooner or later they will be abandoning the old perspective.
Posted By: Brent2410

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 06/09/19 10:03 AM

Sooner or later is not now. They already said they would be recycling their D:OS2 engine for BG3.
Posted By: Hawke

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 06/09/19 10:21 AM

Originally Posted by Brent2410
Sooner or later is not now. They already said they would be recycling their D:OS2 engine for BG3.


An engine is a tool, you can do whatever you want with it. Aside from that, they have already said that they are not using the same version of the engine.
Quote
Baldur’s Gate III will not use the same game engine as the Original Sin series. “We’ve been in development on this game for several years already. It’s not the same engine as those two, but it is our own engine. It’s built on the technology that we already have,” Vincke said.


https://venturebeat.com/2019/06/06/...es-place-after-dds-descent-into-avernus/

Why are people discussing something when they can't be bothered to google facts a few secs?
I can tell you with absolute certainty that BG3 will be a third-person game with optional iso cam game like Neverwinter 2 or Dragon Age it's the next logical step in their development.
Posted By: _Vic_

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 06/09/19 10:31 AM

Originally Posted by Hawke
Originally Posted by Brent2410
Originally Posted by Sordak
And lets get real, its not gonna be either one


As opposed to what? There's no other good way to control multiple characters simultaneously outside these two systems.

Even controlling one person, if they were going to do an ARPG, they would've continued the Dark Alliance series. A FPP game is waaaaay out of Larian's wheelhouse and the engine they use probably won't support it. A TPP OTS D&D game is already a thing and it's completely dead.

So BG3 will be a battle royale roguelite MOBA card game? Lets get real, it's going to be RTwP or TB isometric top down.


Larian has now over 200 all over the world employees that are more than enough to make a third-person game. They are no longer a cute Belgian indie studio. And Swen loves to talk about his dream game which will be AAA game, so sooner or later they will be abandoning the old perspective.


Old perspective? o.O Action 3rd person games are as old as videogames themselves, from platform adventures to beat-em ups to shoot-em ups. RTwP is in fact a more modern mechanic in videogames.

https://www.history.com/topics/inventions/history-of-video-games
Posted By: Brent2410

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 06/09/19 10:46 AM

Originally Posted by Hawke
third-person game with optional iso cam game like Neverwinter 2 or Dragon Age

Sounds an awful lot like an isometric RTwP with an optional TPP to me. Controlling one character in a TPP while you let AI control your party doesn't exactly speak "Baldur's Gate" or "Dungeons & Dragons" to me. These are the same people that say it doesn't take "skill" because TB and RTwP aren't action games. You're at a baseball game complaining that nobody is scoring touch downs.

Baldur's Gate is traditionally isometric RTwP. D&D is traditionally TB. There's no good argument for TPP action game here besides you're bored with Witcher.
Posted By: Hawke

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 06/09/19 10:56 AM

Of course, it's going to be a game with either a RTWP or turn based combat but it will have 3rd Person exploration. Though I still don't see why that even matters. There are so much more important aspects of RPG than one detail about the combat system.
Posted By: Brent2410

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 06/09/19 11:02 AM

Because you're on a thread discussing the merits of different combat systems?
Posted By: Hawke

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 06/09/19 11:13 AM

Originally Posted by Brent2410
Because you're on a thread discussing the merits of different combat systems?


Please do continue, I just came here to correct some false info about the engine. smile
Posted By: Brent2410

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 06/09/19 11:51 AM

Originally Posted by Hawke
I just came here to correct some false info about the engine. smile

Except you were here before that? Even so, you quote Swen saying it's a different engine built on technology they already have. I could link an article claiming that it's the same engine. You can add or change a few things and call it a new engine, when really it's just an upgraded engine... but that's really all just semantics.

Regardless, my point still stands. They're not building a completely new engine from the ground up - they're using parts of what they already have. I don't see them taking the game in a drastically different direction... but I suppose we'll see.
Posted By: WizardPus

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 06/09/19 10:05 PM

You know, I'm a fan of the original BG and love RTwP. However, I just tried out a new Kickstarter game that is turn-based like DOS. Solasta crown of the magister. It is using the complete 5e ruleset and has a really nice feel to it (part of it is using light, options like pushing enemies off clifts or dropping objects on them. Using the surroundings and light etc. I actually enjoyed the demo a lot and seeing the 5e ruleset in full online play. I also enjoyed DOS but it never felt "serious" enough to be a DnD contender like BG should be.

With that said, I am now completely open to the turn-based, especially if they include a GM mode for tabletop play with friends after finishing the campaign. If they match the feel (or exceed it) then I think I can be fully converted to turn-based combat.

Either way, I think I'm going to be happy. I'm more concerned too if it will feel like a real DnD experience or if it will be more cartoony like DOS. I trust Larian to make this good either way, they definitely have passion and skill.

Posted By: Omegaphallic

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 07/09/19 01:47 AM

Originally Posted by WizardPus
You know, I'm a fan of the original BG and love RTwP. However, I just tried out a new Kickstarter game that is turn-based like DOS. Solasta crown of the magister. It is using the complete 5e ruleset and has a really nice feel to it (part of it is using light, options like pushing enemies off clifts or dropping objects on them. Using the surroundings and light etc. I actually enjoyed the demo a lot and seeing the 5e ruleset in full online play. I also enjoyed DOS but it never felt "serious" enough to be a DnD contender like BG should be.

With that said, I am now completely open to the turn-based, especially if they include a GM mode for tabletop play with friends after finishing the campaign. If they match the feel (or exceed it) then I think I can be fully converted to turn-based combat.

Either way, I think I'm going to be happy. I'm more concerned too if it will feel like a real DnD experience or if it will be more cartoony like DOS. I trust Larian to make this good either way, they definitely have passion and skill.



We see the kind of visuals we can expect in BG3 in the trailer which is very different from DOS2.

And yeah Solasta is very fun, TB for the win.
Posted By: _Vic_

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 07/09/19 02:27 AM

Originally Posted by WizardPus
You know, I'm a fan of the original BG and love RTwP. However, I just tried out a new Kickstarter game that is turn-based like DOS. Solasta crown of the magister. It is using the complete 5e ruleset and has a really nice feel to it (part of it is using light, options like pushing enemies off clifts or dropping objects on them. Using the surroundings and light etc. I actually enjoyed the demo a lot and seeing the 5e ruleset in full online play. I also enjoyed DOS but it never felt "serious" enough to be a DnD contender like BG should be.

With that said, I am now completely open to the turn-based, especially if they include a GM mode for tabletop play with friends after finishing the campaign. If they match the feel (or exceed it) then I think I can be fully converted to turn-based combat.

Either way, I think I'm going to be happy. I'm more concerned too if it will feel like a real DnD experience or if it will be more cartoony like DOS. I trust Larian to make this good either way, they definitely have passion and skill.


Kudos to you, I also downloaded the demo in steam and the game looks great. I look forward to backing if they promise that there will be more races and classes.
Posted By: Tuco

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 07/09/19 06:32 AM

Originally Posted by Omegaphallic

We see the kind of visuals we can expect in BG3 in the trailer which is very different from DOS2.

And yeah Solasta is very fun, TB for the win.

No, we don't.
CGI trailers have typically hardly any telling on the sort of visual style you can expect from a party based RPG.
Posted By: Artagel

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 07/09/19 07:12 AM

Originally Posted by Hawke
I can tell you with absolute certainty that BG3 will be a third-person game with optional iso cam game like Neverwinter 2 or Dragon Age it's the next logical step in their development.


Originally Posted by Brent2410
I could link an article claiming that it's the same engine...... They're not building a completely new engine from the ground up - they're using parts of what they already have.


Tick, tock.
Posted By: Omegaphallic

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 07/09/19 08:20 AM

Originally Posted by Tuco
Originally Posted by Omegaphallic

We see the kind of visuals we can expect in BG3 in the trailer which is very different from DOS2.

And yeah Solasta is very fun, TB for the win.

No, we don't.
CGI trailers have typically hardly any telling on the sort of visual style you can expect from a party based RPG.


It's from the game itself and not just the beginning. Plus they've said it doesn't look like DOS2.
Posted By: Tuco

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 07/09/19 01:18 PM

Originally Posted by Omegaphallic

It's from the game itself and not just the beginning. Plus they've said it doesn't look like DOS2.

Sure, and I'm glad of it. Then again that doesn't mean it will look like the CGI teaser either.

P.S. I have no clue what the first sentence is referring to.
Posted By: Hawke

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 07/09/19 01:42 PM

Originally Posted by Omegaphallic
Originally Posted by Tuco
Originally Posted by Omegaphallic

We see the kind of visuals we can expect in BG3 in the trailer which is very different from DOS2.

And yeah Solasta is very fun, TB for the win.

No, we don't.
CGI trailers have typically hardly any telling on the sort of visual style you can expect from a party based RPG.


It's from the game itself and not just the beginning. Plus they've said it doesn't look like DOS2.



Completely and utterly wrong the trailer was made by a different company called unit image and isn't even rendered in the new Divinity Engine thus does not represent the final game at all.
Source https://www.unit-image.fr/film/baldurs-gate-3/
So the trailer tell us absolutely nothing about the final game!
Posted By: Goblin Lich

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 07/09/19 03:15 PM

From the business perspective of wizards of the coast, i don't see RTWP making much sense.
They would please some fans of the old games if going for RTWP, but that isn't to profitable compared to capitalizing on the surge of new people in the hobby that has been exposed to DnD from the likes of Critical Role. Since turn based would be a lot more faitful to the actual 5e roleplaying game then RTWP, I think advertising to players that you can experience 5e by playing Baldurs Gate 3 is a much better idea then going for RTWP to please some of the old fans.
It would work the other way as well, people that has not played the pen and paper game, might get more intrested in doing so after playing Baldurs Gate 3, if its turn based.

Also, why would Wizards say that Larian is the perfect studio for the job, if they are not planning for turn based, when Larian is known for turn based.

Why not both? Some have asked. Well its a lot more work ofc. But if you look at the tacked on Turn based from Pillars 2, that dosent go over to well. Some of the combat mechanics like incresed attack speed dosent work in turn based, it just make you go first in a turn, wich isn't that huge. The engame bosses are extremly slow fights because they are made for a system where attacks happen much more rapidly. When doing turn based you need to design the game for it, removing useless trash fights, and instead have mostly intresting, harder fights. And having to powerful healing so fights go on forever isn't a good idea.

So I don't think we'll see both systems either.
Posted By: captainmike2

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 07/09/19 05:34 PM

I def like turn per turn
Posted By: Omegaphallic

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 07/09/19 05:53 PM

Originally Posted by Goblin Lich
From the business perspective of wizards of the coast, i don't see RTWP making much sense.
They would please some fans of the old games if going for RTWP, but that isn't to profitable compared to capitalizing on the surge of new people in the hobby that has been exposed to DnD from the likes of Critical Role. Since turn based would be a lot more faitful to the actual 5e roleplaying game then RTWP, I think advertising to players that you can experience 5e by playing Baldurs Gate 3 is a much better idea then going for RTWP to please some of the old fans.
It would work the other way as well, people that has not played the pen and paper game, might get more intrested in doing so after playing Baldurs Gate 3, if its turn based.

Also, why would Wizards say that Larian is the perfect studio for the job, if they are not planning for turn based, when Larian is known for turn based.

Why not both? Some have asked. Well its a lot more work ofc. But if you look at the tacked on Turn based from Pillars 2, that dosent go over to well. Some of the combat mechanics like incresed attack speed dosent work in turn based, it just make you go first in a turn, wich isn't that huge. The engame bosses are extremly slow fights because they are made for a system where attacks happen much more rapidly. When doing turn based you need to design the game for it, removing useless trash fights, and instead have mostly intresting, harder fights. And having to powerful healing so fights go on forever isn't a good idea.

So I don't think we'll see both systems either.


I agree, there are a lot more D&D fans now then BG 1&2 fans and even more so if one excludes BG fans that willing to except TB.
Posted By: kanisatha

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 08/09/19 02:22 PM

Swen Vincke himself has said repeatedly that some things in D&D don't translate well to a video game and as such those things should be changed. Well, the #1 D&D thing that doesn't translate well to a video game is TB combat. So, by Swen's own logic, it should be changed, because in a video game TB combat is mind-numbingly slow, boring, tedious, aggravating, un-fun crap. But of course it won't be changed because TB is what's "cool" with today's generation of mentally lazy people, and we will be getting a crappy TB combat game.
Posted By: vometia

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 08/09/19 03:02 PM

Originally Posted by kanisatha
Swen Vincke himself has said repeatedly that some things in D&D don't translate well to a video game and as such those things should be changed. Well, the #1 D&D thing that doesn't translate well to a video game is TB combat. So, by Swen's own logic, it should be changed, because in a video game TB combat is mind-numbingly slow, boring, tedious, aggravating, un-fun crap. But of course it won't be changed because TB is what's "cool" with today's generation of mentally lazy people, and we will be getting a crappy TB combat game.

I'm not a fan of TB, but I suspect this line of reasoning will generate more heat than light; not least as it's pretty much exactly the same argument employed by fans of srs rpg* against the menace of Teh Casuals who are compromising video games' intellectual purity.

Edit: * the fraternity who are pretty much "TB or GTFO" I mean. Not that I'm an arbiter of anything, given that I reckon Oblivion is at least the equal of Morrowind (okay, with mods) and both are better than Skyrim; New Vegas isn't as good as people say; and that Andromeda is second only to Mass Effect in the overall series.
Posted By: _Vic_

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 08/09/19 04:53 PM

I would be cool if we can have more than 5 posts in a row making a reasoned case instead of ad-hominem arguments "Wut I like is da best and the others are retards/fanboys and the companies that do not do da games I like are shit"

Originally Posted by Goblin Lich
From the business perspective of wizards of the coast, i don't see RTWP making much sense.
They would please some fans of the old games if going for RTWP, but that isn't to profitable compared to capitalizing on the surge of new people in the hobby that has been exposed to DnD from the likes of Critical Role. Since turn based would be a lot more faitful to the actual 5e roleplaying game then RTWP, I think advertising to players that you can experience 5e by playing Baldurs Gate 3 is a much better idea then going for RTWP to please some of the old fans.
It would work the other way as well, people that has not played the pen and paper game, might get more intrested in doing so after playing Baldurs Gate 3, if its turn based.

Also, why would Wizards say that Larian is the perfect studio for the job, if they are not planning for turn based, when Larian is known for turn based.

Why not both? Some have asked. Well its a lot more work ofc. But if you look at the tacked on Turn based from Pillars 2, that dosent go over to well. Some of the combat mechanics like incresed attack speed dosent work in turn based, it just make you go first in a turn, wich isn't that huge. The engame bosses are extremly slow fights because they are made for a system where attacks happen much more rapidly. When doing turn based you need to design the game for it, removing useless trash fights, and instead have mostly intresting, harder fights. And having to powerful healing so fights go on forever isn't a good idea.

So I don't think we'll see both systems either.


In the interview, Swen already stated combat is not up for debate. Also said BG3 will only have 1 combat system but he didn't say which system.
: https://www.gamestar.de/artikel/baldurs-gate-3-erstes-gameplay-video-gamescom-kampfsystem,3345782.html
https://www.gamestar.de/artikel/baldurs-gate-3-preview-early-access-kamera,3345543.html

If we are talking business, here is the list of best-selling RPG games and RPG franchises of all time: 60% of the videogames with most players are turn-based, 70% of the most successful franchises are turn-based or had turn-based games at some point. Most of them still have titles in 2019. The three indisputable best-selling franchises of all time are mostly turn-based games.

https://vgsales.fandom.com/wiki/Best_selling_RPG_games

I do not say that those games there are the "best RPG there is" and there is also many action and good RTwP videogames in the list, but we can say TB in videogames is a success. You can also cater to D&D fans but the TB games, in general, have a very large audience too. The sales figures of recent TB games (Persona, Fire Emblem, Dragon Quest, DoS2, etc) vs the low sales of RTwP games also confirms this tendency.

In the case of PoE2, they created the TB option because of the abysmal sales figures that this game had from the start, so they do not planned it first, indeed (A pity the sales of that game because that was one of the games in my top20 CRPG list, and I think it will be for a long time). Even Pathfinder kingmaker has a mod that turns the game into a TB game (IIRC in Owlcat games they had an intense debate prior to the launch of the game RTwP vs TB, more polite than here, I hope).

From my perspective, RTwP or TB depends on the type of game. If you are for a grinding game with respawning enemies when you have to fight the same enemies with different colors a hundred times, by all means, make it RTwP or it is going to be awfully everlasting! If there is a set number of tactical fights and scripted interactions I prefer TB because in RT you usually do not have time to find about it nor enjoy it.

The use of RTwP mechanic with D&D 2e, 3.5e or Pathfinder 1e gave us very great games, and they created masterpieces; VTMB have a very good game and another one in the making, and I think making a TB videogame of V:TM is a very bad idea, innecessary. The devs did not even consider it.
But IMHO D&D 5e have some mechanics that are simply not manageable in RT nor RTwP (reactions, help, delay, bonus actions, etc, etc, just find lots of examples in this thread) Even game developers like the ones of Solasta addressed that. And any player with a minimum knowledge of the tabletop knows about it. But I do not think Larian is going for a perfect adaptation, and even Miles Myers of WotC accepted that; they are open to change things.





Posted By: Goblin Lich

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 08/09/19 11:07 PM

Originally Posted by kanisatha
Swen Vincke himself has said repeatedly that some things in D&D don't translate well to a video game and as such those things should be changed. Well, the #1 D&D thing that doesn't translate well to a video game is TB combat. So, by Swen's own logic, it should be changed, because in a video game TB combat is mind-numbingly slow, boring, tedious, aggravating, un-fun crap. But of course it won't be changed because TB is what's "cool" with today's generation of mentally lazy people, and we will be getting a crappy TB combat game.


I belive he was talking about specific spells or abilities like Wish. Something like that is just impossible in a game to give the same freedom as at the table. The Suggestion spell would be another example that will have to be restricted, hopefully you will at least be able to use Suggestion in conversations for premade options it provide.

Originally Posted by _Vic_


But IMHO D&D 5e have some mechanics that are simply not manageable in RT nor RTwP (reactions, help, delay, bonus actions, etc, etc, just find lots of examples in this thread) Even game developers like the ones of Solasta addressed that. And any player with a minimum knowledge of the tabletop knows about it. But I do not think Larian is going for a perfect adaptation, and even Miles Myers of WotC accepted that; they are open to change things.



I agree that 5e gameplay working in a smooth way might be difficult to implement. Having reactions go of asking if you wish to activate this and that will probobly be awful. Reducing perfect control for players by implementing automated triggers might be a way to solve it. For counterspell they could let players decide "use this if enemy casts 3;rd level or higher spell or a healing spell." as an example. I dont see any problem with bonus actions / free actions etc.

Posted By: Omegaphallic

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 09/09/19 12:24 AM

Originally Posted by _Vic_
I would be cool if we can have more than 5 posts in a row making a reasoned case instead of ad-hominem arguments "Wut I like is da best and the others are retards/fanboys and the companies that do not do da games I like are shit"

Originally Posted by Goblin Lich
From the business perspective of wizards of the coast, i don't see RTWP making much sense.
They would please some fans of the old games if going for RTWP, but that isn't to profitable compared to capitalizing on the surge of new people in the hobby that has been exposed to DnD from the likes of Critical Role. Since turn based would be a lot more faitful to the actual 5e roleplaying game then RTWP, I think advertising to players that you can experience 5e by playing Baldurs Gate 3 is a much better idea then going for RTWP to please some of the old fans.
It would work the other way as well, people that has not played the pen and paper game, might get more intrested in doing so after playing Baldurs Gate 3, if its turn based.

Also, why would Wizards say that Larian is the perfect studio for the job, if they are not planning for turn based, when Larian is known for turn based.

Why not both? Some have asked. Well its a lot more work ofc. But if you look at the tacked on Turn based from Pillars 2, that dosent go over to well. Some of the combat mechanics like incresed attack speed dosent work in turn based, it just make you go first in a turn, wich isn't that huge. The engame bosses are extremly slow fights because they are made for a system where attacks happen much more rapidly. When doing turn based you need to design the game for it, removing useless trash fights, and instead have mostly intresting, harder fights. And having to powerful healing so fights go on forever isn't a good idea.

So I don't think we'll see both systems either.


In the interview, Swen already stated combat is not up for debate. Also said BG3 will only have 1 combat system but he didn't say which system.
: https://www.gamestar.de/artikel/baldurs-gate-3-erstes-gameplay-video-gamescom-kampfsystem,3345782.html
https://www.gamestar.de/artikel/baldurs-gate-3-preview-early-access-kamera,3345543.html

If we are talking business, here is the list of best-selling RPG games and RPG franchises of all time: 60% of the videogames with most players are turn-based, 70% of the most successful franchises are turn-based or had turn-based games at some point. Most of them still have titles in 2019. The three indisputable best-selling franchises of all time are mostly turn-based games.

https://vgsales.fandom.com/wiki/Best_selling_RPG_games

I do not say that those games there are the "best RPG there is" and there is also many action and good RTwP videogames in the list, but we can say TB in videogames is a success. You can also cater to D&D fans but the TB games, in general, have a very large audience too. The sales figures of recent TB games (Persona, Fire Emblem, Dragon Quest, DoS2, etc) vs the low sales of RTwP games also confirms this tendency.

In the case of PoE2, they created the TB option because of the abysmal sales figures that this game had from the start, so they do not planned it first, indeed (A pity the sales of that game because that was one of the games in my top20 CRPG list, and I think it will be for a long time). Even Pathfinder kingmaker has a mod that turns the game into a TB game (IIRC in Owlcat games they had an intense debate prior to the launch of the game RTwP vs TB, more polite than here, I hope).

From my perspective, RTwP or TB depends on the type of game. If you are for a grinding game with respawning enemies when you have to fight the same enemies with different colors a hundred times, by all means, make it RTwP or it is going to be awfully everlasting! If there is a set number of tactical fights and scripted interactions I prefer TB because in RT you usually do not have time to find about it nor enjoy it.

The use of RTwP mechanic with D&D 2e, 3.5e or Pathfinder 1e gave us very great games, and they created masterpieces; VTMB have a very good game and another one in the making, and I think making a TB videogame of V:TM is a very bad idea, innecessary. The devs did not even consider it.
But IMHO D&D 5e have some mechanics that are simply not manageable in RT nor RTwP (reactions, help, delay, bonus actions, etc, etc, just find lots of examples in this thread) Even game developers like the ones of Solasta addressed that. And any player with a minimum knowledge of the tabletop knows about it. But I do not think Larian is going for a perfect adaptation, and even Miles Myers of WotC accepted that; they are open to change things.







You mean Mike Mearls? I agree with just about all of this, although if there is any white wolf game with TB, I'd want it to be Chronicles of Darkness not World of Darkness as I like Chronicles of Darkness better, a game based on Changeling: The Lost or Geist: The Sin Eater would be awesome, perhaps darker then most audiences are used to as Changeling are all victims of abuse and hunted and all kinds of other nasty things, and Sin Eaters deal with the horrors of death and an uneotld that wants to eat you.
Posted By: _Vic_

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 09/09/19 04:49 AM

Originally Posted by Goblin Lich

Originally Posted by _Vic_


But IMHO D&D 5e have some mechanics that are simply not manageable in RT nor RTwP (reactions, help, delay, bonus actions, etc, etc, just find lots of examples in this thread) Even game developers like the ones of Solasta addressed that. And any player with a minimum knowledge of the tabletop knows about it. But I do not think Larian is going for a perfect adaptation, and even Miles Myers of WotC accepted that; they are open to change things.



I agree that 5e gameplay working in a smooth way might be difficult to implement. Having reactions go of asking if you wish to activate this and that will probobly be awful. Reducing perfect control for players by implementing automated triggers might be a way to solve it. For counterspell they could let players decide "use this if enemy casts 3;rd level or higher spell or a healing spell." as an example. I dont see any problem with bonus actions / free actions etc.


Ok, it was already discussed so I keep it short:
I do not think it is impossible but I think it is not manageable. First of all, one turn is usually 6 seconds. You have one action or ready action, one reaction, one bonus action per character and per turn. And I think you will have 4-5 characters in your control. that makes 5x3=15 actions in 6 seconds plus the enemies actions. You have to automate a lot if you want to make it manageable. And BG will be a MP game.
If you make reactions automatic they are not reactions anymore. I mean, It is ok if you make attacks of oportunity or counterspell automatic, they already made it in NWN, P:k, etc. But you only have one reaction per turn, and if they do not allow you to choose if you want to use it or not, or against whom you want to use it (maybe you want to block with your fighter or use cutting words with your bard against the bashing of the ogre, not against the goblin with the dagger. Maybe you want to protect your squishy caster instead of your full-armored fighter; or even do nothing at all. You cannot do it if the game makes automatic choices for you). Also, not all reactions are easy as counterspells or attacks of oportunity.
In RTwP you do not know the initiative order, so the tactical options of ready, delay or help do not make sense or are not even useful because of the turns last 6 seconds, even if they allow you to use them. You simply have the next action of the next turn to worry for, why care?.

Normally there are no problems with bonus actions like attack with the blade in your left hand because you do not have to decide anything in there, but In pathfinder and some other games, in my experience even if you use your bonus action to, for example, mark an enemy with your hunter or cast a quick spell you usually have to wait and make another pause in less than 6 seconds to do another action, because if not you lose the action in this turn(because you make a simple attack instead of using a skill, move, cast another spell, etc) and you have to wait to the next one. Make it five times, one for each character.
At least some core features like advantage/disadvantage or inspiration could be easily translated to either TB or RTwP.
And before you say anything, it will be a MP game, so forget about using "pause after cast a spell" or things like that because you are hampering the progress of the other members of the party. Let´s be realistic here. If you ever played BG2 in MP you know what I mean.


I know many people do not like to micromanage or do not care about most of these tactical features or some others, but there are people like me that do like them. I a game RTwP game, even more, MP RTwP, I am afraid that most of this fun features are going to be automatized, cut off or simply you nor the enemies are not going to use them due to time restraints.

I do not mean to say that BG3 must be a perfect representation of the tabletop game, because I already have the tabletop game to do that, even if that would be awesome. As I said before, I am ok with pathfinder or 2e, 3.5e videogames in RTwP, but IMHO do not think 5e is suited for TB because several tactical options and fun features are going to be watered down, and the devs of Solasta agreed with that vision, and they know better because they are already making a videogame out of it.

Posted By: Goblin Lich

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 09/09/19 07:20 AM

Originally Posted by _Vic_


If you make reactions automatic they are not reactions anymore. I mean, It is ok if you make attacks of oportunity or counterspell automatic, they already made it in NWN, P:k, etc. But you only have one reaction per turn, and if they do not allow you to choose if you want to use it or not, or against whom you want to use it (maybe you want to block with your fighter or use cutting words with your bard against the bashing of the ogre, not against the goblin with the dagger. Maybe you want to protect your squishy caster instead of your full-armored fighter; or even do nothing at all. You cannot do it if the game makes automatic choices for you). Also, not all reactions are easy as counterspells or attacks of oportunity.



I meant that reactions can have a system like FF12's Gamibits kinda. So you would get to create triggers that your characters react to. As for cutting words you could take "always ask" if you wish to use it, or you might want to have "ask to use if *insert characters* is targeted" in order to aviod using it on tanks. Or if you wish to have quicker gameplay "use if *insert characters* is targeted" . It will be intresting to see what larian has come up with.
Posted By: _Vic_

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 09/09/19 11:18 AM

Originally Posted by Goblin Lich
Originally Posted by _Vic_


If you make reactions automatic they are not reactions anymore. I mean, It is ok if you make attacks of oportunity or counterspell automatic, they already made it in NWN, P:k, etc. But you only have one reaction per turn, and if they do not allow you to choose if you want to use it or not, or against whom you want to use it (maybe you want to block with your fighter or use cutting words with your bard against the bashing of the ogre, not against the goblin with the dagger. Maybe you want to protect your squishy caster instead of your full-armored fighter; or even do nothing at all. You cannot do it if the game makes automatic choices for you). Also, not all reactions are easy as counterspells or attacks of oportunity.



I meant that reactions can have a system like FF12's Gamibits kinda. So you would get to create triggers that your characters react to. As for cutting words you could take "always ask" if you wish to use it, or you might want to have "ask to use if *insert characters* is targeted" in order to aviod using it on tanks. Or if you wish to have quicker gameplay "use if *insert characters* is targeted" . It will be intresting to see what larian has come up with.


Oh, something like the trigger effects of the IA in POE and DAO. It´s not perfect but that could work [Linked Image]
Posted By: kanisatha

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 09/09/19 03:28 PM

You guys are missing my basic point, which is that there is no objective gameplay reason for BG3 to be TB. And yes, all the posts above only strengthen my point. It is entirely a subjective preference. It is a subjective preference for players, and it is also a subjective preference for Larian, though of course they will spin it as having been an objective decision. Outside of gameplay reasons there is certainly an objective reason for Larian to choose TB: purely the reason of making more money off the game.

Am I making this point in a provocative way? Sure. But that's only because I am really tired of the many, many posts here and elsewhere proclaiming that TB is the one true way for combat in an RPG, the "best", the "most appropriate", the "most authentic", blah blah blah, and everyone needs to just accept this truth.

Well, it's not objective truth in any way. RTwP is fun for me whereas TB is utterly boring. In TB combat, one might as well just have the AI run the combat. What would be the difference? The player's input is not even really needed in TB. The AI can just apply "the rules" in a perfect and optimal way. TB does not give players more choice. Exactly the opposite: it takes away player control, and the game tells the player exactly when to do what things, and if you follow the perfect script for your actions then the battle will work out perfectly for you. Heck, for many TB games, for their more "difficult" battles, there are even websites out there that will tell you exactly what you should do with each of your characters in each turn, turn by turn, in order to perfectly beat the battle.

For me, a game is not a true RPG if the combat is not chaotic and confusing and sub-optimal in terms of the decisions you make in the battle. That's how roleplaying works, and that is what is fun.
Posted By: _Vic_

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 09/09/19 04:41 PM

I made a search for the terms <"TB is the one true way for combat in an RPG, the "best", the "most appropriate", the "most authentic"> in this thread and your post was the one and only result every time, but whatever floats your boat, pal.

You have to excuse me, but when you say "just have the Ai run the combat", ¿are you really say it is a pro for RTWP vs TB? Because in every game I played in RTwP besides BG2&IWD2 I killed all the random encounters and trash mobs with the ia in auto-combat and making a coffee or chatting in wattsapp. Be P:K, BG, POE, Tyranny, DAO, Divinity classics... You only need to take control vs minibosses, bosses and some difficult encounters. Ah, BG2 and V:TM redemption, because the IA was so awful that used all the blood at once and make all the party go blood frenzy. Good times.
If you want to sell RTwP, just say "more dynamic combat" "requires split-in-time decisions", etc, etc, but do not try to pitch that the player input is not required because you are going to lose in every comparison.

And you really need to tell me what TB games you play, because the only games I know that use IA are JRPG. And it usually is not a very good one. The IA in Fire emblem games, Tactics ogre, FF tactics, etc is not very good. Even if you want to use it, you usually control what unit you want to level up, so it requires micromanagement. And your frontline fighters tend to charge blindlessly and let themselves be surrounded and killed.

I do not think in Dragon quest or Lunar silver star, bravely second or Sword or shin megami tensei or legend of heroes, grandia, Final fantasy VI-X.... the Ia is particularly good. At least I do not use it.

The dungeon crawlers, like Etrian Oddysey, Infinite adventures, Operencia, elminage gothic, etc have an autoattack option too, but you end up dead in a few fights unless you are fighting very inferior mobs.

The western TB games I know, from Underrrail to fallout 1-2, Arcanum, Battle Chasers: Nightwar, all the King´s bounty, Warhammer:Mordheim, Age of decadence, Torment, This is the police 1&2, All the Demon rise games, Dead age, Dead state, Dungeon Rats, Azure saga, forged of blood, knights of the chalice, Divinity OS 1&2, Eien no Aselia, Anachronox, Regalia, Xcom 1&2, Mutant Y0, Hard west, Labyrinth of refrain, TOEE, POR, ... Do not even have a proper IA.








Posted By: korotama

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 09/09/19 06:20 PM

Perhaps the combat system will be in the vein of this game?
http://www.vgchartz.com/game/73124/final-fantasy-xv/
Seems to have sold just fine. On another note, I'm not sure that Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire's poor sales have anything to do with RTwP combat. I beat the first game and felt it was pretty lackluster so I stayed well away from the sequel. It was a cute homage to Baldur's Gate but when judged on its own merits it fell rather flat because the setting didn't prove compelling enough for me. The characters, the world, the lore, I mean everything was by and large forgettable.
Posted By: Hawke

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 09/09/19 07:18 PM

No one cares about sales figures from ancient franchises. Claiming that Turn-based RPGs are the best selling RPGs is simply wrong FF hasn't been turn-based since the early nineties. If Larian cares only about the money they have to make an open-world Action RPG aka TES clone those games sold tens of millions of copies, only the Pokemon games sold better in the last 2 generations and Pokemon is something else entirely.
Posted By: Sordak

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 09/09/19 08:38 PM

"Heres evidence that 5E doesnt work in real time"
"All of the above strenghtens my point that there is no evidence that 5E works in real time".

Well, i guess we can conclude that this isnt going anywhere
Posted By: kanisatha

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 09/09/19 09:44 PM

Originally Posted by _Vic_
I made a search for the terms <"TB is the one true way for combat in an RPG, the "best", the "most appropriate", the "most authentic"> in this thread and your post was the one and only result every time, but whatever floats your boat, pal.

I never said people used those exact words. Those words were my words, my characterization of what many on the pro-TB side were saying or implying. But whatever. Seems like you are bent on misrepresenting my points and then making straw man claims against me.

Originally Posted by Hawke
No one cares about sales figures from ancient franchises. Claiming that Turn-based RPGs are the best selling RPGs is simply wrong FF hasn't been turn-based since the early nineties. If Larian cares only about the money they have to make an open-world Action RPG aka TES clone those games sold tens of millions of copies, only the Pokemon games sold better in the last 2 generations and Pokemon is something else entirely.

I completely agree with this, and have pointed this out myself before. If the argument is that Larian will want to design the game to maximize sales, then making the game very similar to games like Skyrim/Witcher 3/DA3 would be the way to go - all RT(wP) games. Using TB is not about what works best in an RPG or what works best for D&D or even what will sell more. Those are specious arguments. TB is Larian's personal, subjective preference. And it is the personal, subjective preference of the fans of Larian's recent games. All the justifications that are being tossed about for why the game should be TB are just complete BS. If someone says they're glad the game is going to be TB because that is their personal preference, I respect that and am fine with that. Everyone is entitled to their personal preferences. But don't try to tell me TB is how it should be.
Posted By: kanisatha

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 09/09/19 09:54 PM

Originally Posted by korotama
Perhaps the combat system will be in the vein of this game?
http://www.vgchartz.com/game/73124/final-fantasy-xv/
Seems to have sold just fine. On another note, I'm not sure that Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire's poor sales have anything to do with RTwP combat. I beat the first game and felt it was pretty lackluster so I stayed well away from the sequel. It was a cute homage to Baldur's Gate but when judged on its own merits it fell rather flat because the setting didn't prove compelling enough for me. The characters, the world, the lore, I mean everything was by and large forgettable.

Exactly right. There are several reasons why PoE2 did not sell that well (and noting that it actually sold ok; just not "great" as defined by D:OS2 sales numbers). The game being RTwP was NOT one of those reasons. Claiming that adding TB mode boosted sales hugely is a complete fallacy. TB mode only increased sales marginally, and even that is a loaded claim because TB mode came at about the same time as the game's release on consoles, and as such the additional sales could just as easily have been driven by console sales.

I personally found the game's setting and lore and characters to be awesome (and conversely the setting, lore and characters of the D:OS games to be weak and boring). But for others, you @korotama being a good example, it was the other way around. Purely personal preference. That's just how things are. And if BG3 sells hugely, it will have ZERO to do with TB combat and rather because D&D and the Forgotten Realms are hugely popular.
Posted By: korotama

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 09/09/19 10:00 PM

Originally Posted by kanisatha
Originally Posted by korotama
Perhaps the combat system will be in the vein of this game?
http://www.vgchartz.com/game/73124/final-fantasy-xv/
Seems to have sold just fine. On another note, I'm not sure that Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire's poor sales have anything to do with RTwP combat. I beat the first game and felt it was pretty lackluster so I stayed well away from the sequel. It was a cute homage to Baldur's Gate but when judged on its own merits it fell rather flat because the setting didn't prove compelling enough for me. The characters, the world, the lore, I mean everything was by and large forgettable.

Exactly right. There are several reasons why PoE2 did not sell that well (and noting that it actually sold ok; just not "great" as defined by D:OS2 sales numbers). The game being RTwP was NOT one of those reasons. Claiming that adding TB mode boosted sales hugely is a complete fallacy. TB mode only increased sales marginally, and even that is a loaded claim because TB mode came at about the same time as the game's release on consoles, and as such the additional sales could just as easily have been driven by console sales.

I personally found the game's setting and lore and characters to be awesome (and conversely the setting, lore and characters of the D:OS games to be weak and boring). But for others, you @korotama being a good example, it was the other way around. Purely personal preference. That's just how things are.

Oh, I should have pointed out I played Pillars of Eternity prior to beating the Bhaalspawn saga. It only falls flat in hindsight because after completing BG I began holding virtually every RPG to its standards. Narrative-wise most games (including role-playing ones) seem weak and feel like a downgrade from BG to me. My gaming habits were fundamentally changed at that point (quit gaming for all intents and purposes, these days I only replay BG and fiddle around with the old Infinity Engine stuff). Okay, I may be exaggerating. I'm playing FFVIII:Cash Grab Edition right now for a stroll down nostalgia/memory lane.
Posted By: _Vic_

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 10/09/19 05:16 AM

Sadly the BG saga and Planescape Torment "ruined" every other RPG´s story in existence for most of us... there are not many titles that resist the comparison.

Originally Posted by Hawke
No one cares about sales figures from ancient franchises. Claiming that Turn-based RPGs are the best selling RPGs is simply wrong FF hasn't been turn-based since the early nineties. If Larian cares only about the money they have to make an open-world Action RPG aka TES clone those games sold tens of millions of copies, only the Pokemon games sold better in the last 2 generations and Pokemon is something else entirely.

If we follow your logic they should make a Pokemon: Sword coast conversion instead of a D&D simulator, because Pokemon games have more sales than TES by far (Please NO).

I think you forgot conveniently the third best-selling franchise, Dragon quest, 76 millions worldwide ( doubles the witchers sales, 26 million more than Elder scrolls games). Dragon Quest XI, launched in 2019 sold 4 million copies worlwide, and they are still TB games. And let us talk about Shin megami tensei, Persona, Octopath traveler, Ni no kuni, The "Tales of" series etc... All games from no more than 2 years ago, all TB games and all with over a million sales. even DOS games in their niche had respetable sales.
https://twinfinite.net/2018/11/heres-how-dragon-quest-xi-sales-rank-vs-other-popular-jrpgs-this-gen/
https://vgsales.fandom.com/wiki/Best_selling_RPG_games

No matter the prejudices or personal tastes, when you start crunching numbers you can see that no matter what you think or say, TB is a thing. Numbers do not lie.
Action and TB existed since almost the beginning of the history of videogames, and both will be here for a long time, because there are plenty of people that like them.

Posted By: korotama

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 10/09/19 06:43 AM

Originally Posted by _Vic_
Sadly the BG saga and Planescape Torment "ruined" every other RPG´s story in existence for most of us... there are not many titles that resist the comparison.

Originally Posted by Hawke
No one cares about sales figures from ancient franchises. Claiming that Turn-based RPGs are the best selling RPGs is simply wrong FF hasn't been turn-based since the early nineties. If Larian cares only about the money they have to make an open-world Action RPG aka TES clone those games sold tens of millions of copies, only the Pokemon games sold better in the last 2 generations and Pokemon is something else entirely.

If we follow your logic they should make a Pokemon: Sword coast conversion instead of a D&D simulator, because Pokemon games have more sales than TES by far (Please NO).

I think you forgot conveniently the third best-selling franchise, Dragon quest, 76 millions worldwide ( doubles the witchers sales, 26 million more than Elder scrolls games). Dragon Quest XI, launched in 2019 sold 4 million copies worlwide, and they are still TB games. And let us talk about Shin megami tensei, Persona, Octopath traveler, Ni no kuni, The "Tales of" series etc... All games from no more than 2 years ago, all TB games and all with over a million sales. even DOS games in their niche had respetable sales.
https://twinfinite.net/2018/11/heres-how-dragon-quest-xi-sales-rank-vs-other-popular-jrpgs-this-gen/
https://vgsales.fandom.com/wiki/Best_selling_RPG_games

No matter the prejudices or personal tastes, when you start crunching numbers you can see that no matter what you think or say, TB is a thing. Numbers do not lie.
Action and TB existed since almost the beginning of the history of videogames, and both will be here for a long time, because there are plenty of people that like them.


I wish my old system could run Dragon Quest XI. It looks like a great little romp. As stated a few pages back, I could bear with turn-based combat if the camera shots were as dynamic and diverse as this: https://youtu.be/-7FyEJQJUVA?t=53
Posted By: Omegaphallic

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 10/09/19 09:14 AM

https://www.google.com/amp/s/gaming...on-in-revenue-according-to-superdata/amp

DOS2 made 85 million dollars and that was without the huge brand recognition that D&D 5e, Baldur's Gate, and the Forgotten Realms has. It was a turn based.

Also Larian used Kickstarter to allow themselves to self publish so they could make the game they wanted, which was a turn based game, unlike many if the preDOS1&2 games where they could only get funding for none turn based games. So it's not just money it's a personal preference thing.
Posted By: Hawke

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 10/09/19 09:43 AM

Originally Posted by Omegaphallic
https://www.google.com/amp/s/gaming...on-in-revenue-according-to-superdata/amp

DOS2 made 85 million dollars and that was without the huge brand recognition that D&D 5e, Baldur's Gate, and the Forgotten Realms has. It was a turn based.

Also Larian used Kickstarter to allow themselves to self publish so they could make the game they wanted, which was a turn based game, unlike many if the preDOS1&2 games where they could only get funding for none turn based games. So it's not just money it's a personal preference thing.


Swen denied that long ago! source: https://www.pcgamer.com/pubg-tops-premium-pc-digital-market-with-714-million-in-2017/


"If only that were true," he said. "I don’t know where they got that data but we’re currently at 1.3M units, so even if you disregard VAT, the cut Steam and GOG take, and the price differences per country (i.e. you assume we sell the game at $45 everywhere), you still don’t get to $85 million. My faith in Superdata numbers received a big blow today. But that doesn’t take away that we’re still super happy about so many people picking up D:OS 2."

Superdata explained the discrepancy in a follow-up statement saying that its estimates are "based on partnerships with publishers, developers and payment providers," which enable the creation of "bottom-up algorithms for individual games based on the point of sale tracking data of over 160 million paying customers."

"Occasionally we see differences in definitions and recognition for revenue—for example, when people are reporting gross vs net revenue (SuperData is always gross), deferred revenue, non-GAAP accounting practices, and other allocations which may show different figures depending on the source. For compliance reasons, we also don't typically comment on feedback from private companies—who may be motivated by investor concerns—outside of a formal data relationship," a rep said. "However, Divinity: Original Sin 2 was a breakout success in 2017—commercially and critically—and we congratulate Larian."

Posted By: Omegaphallic

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 10/09/19 01:48 PM

Well that is disappointing. But it was enough that they could hire a shit load more people to do BG3.
Posted By: kanisatha

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 10/09/19 02:41 PM

Originally Posted by Hawke
Originally Posted by Omegaphallic
https://www.google.com/amp/s/gaming...on-in-revenue-according-to-superdata/amp

DOS2 made 85 million dollars and that was without the huge brand recognition that D&D 5e, Baldur's Gate, and the Forgotten Realms has. It was a turn based.

Also Larian used Kickstarter to allow themselves to self publish so they could make the game they wanted, which was a turn based game, unlike many if the preDOS1&2 games where they could only get funding for none turn based games. So it's not just money it's a personal preference thing.


Swen denied that long ago! source: https://www.pcgamer.com/pubg-tops-premium-pc-digital-market-with-714-million-in-2017/


"If only that were true," he said. "I don’t know where they got that data but we’re currently at 1.3M units, so even if you disregard VAT, the cut Steam and GOG take, and the price differences per country (i.e. you assume we sell the game at $45 everywhere), you still don’t get to $85 million. My faith in Superdata numbers received a big blow today. But that doesn’t take away that we’re still super happy about so many people picking up D:OS 2."

Superdata explained the discrepancy in a follow-up statement saying that its estimates are "based on partnerships with publishers, developers and payment providers," which enable the creation of "bottom-up algorithms for individual games based on the point of sale tracking data of over 160 million paying customers."

"Occasionally we see differences in definitions and recognition for revenue—for example, when people are reporting gross vs net revenue (SuperData is always gross), deferred revenue, non-GAAP accounting practices, and other allocations which may show different figures depending on the source. For compliance reasons, we also don't typically comment on feedback from private companies—who may be motivated by investor concerns—outside of a formal data relationship," a rep said. "However, Divinity: Original Sin 2 was a breakout success in 2017—commercially and critically—and we congratulate Larian."

THANK YOU @Hawke!!! Some people like to talk about D:OS2 as though it's the coming of the messiah. Even if we assume sales now are about 2M, which is quite generous, (a) the old BG games made 20 years ago have put up similar numbers, and (b) that's nothing compared with major AAA RPG titles. And making a AAA game is what Larian is aspiring to with BG3. If they believe making the game TB is all it will take to make the game a AAA-level success, because that's the line a handful of TB fanatics on this or other forums are frantically pushing, they're in for a rude shock.

For me, my calculation on whether the game is something I will buy is very simple. If as expected the game is TB, that's a huge strike against it but not an absolute one. Given that TB combat is 'want to drive an icepick through my brain' boring for me, I would ask myself: If I could magically remove all the (boring and horrible) combat from the game, is what is left of the game worth my money and especially my time to want to play? Combat, even under the best of circumsances, is my least liked part of an RPG. It's all the things that happen outside of combat in the game that are interesting to me and which motivate me to want to play the game. So it is possible, even if difficult to accomplish, that a game could have horrible combat (from my pov) but still be attractive to me because (a) combat is only a small part of the game and not the majority of the game; and (b) the outside of combat parts of the game are absolutely fantastic.
Posted By: Omegaphallic

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 11/09/19 01:04 PM

I wish Larian would just answer the question of is it turn based or RtWP, silent treatment is starting to get old.
Posted By: kanisatha

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 11/09/19 01:11 PM

Come on! We all already know it is going to be TB, don't we?
Posted By: _Vic_

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 11/09/19 01:37 PM

No news from Larian for a while, about combat or otherwise. In gamescon they only presented the DoS2 port for nintendo switch -groan- Not even Divinity FH.
Posted By: Hawke

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 11/09/19 02:16 PM

Originally Posted by _Vic_
No news from Larian for a while, about combat or otherwise. In gamescon they only presented the DoS2 port for nintendo switch -groan- Not even Divinity FH.
Anyone who was at PAX West could at least play a demo
Off screen Fallen heroes footage from PAX West https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbpeKeSE10c
Posted By: Sordak

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 11/09/19 04:36 PM

man watching this guy play is painfull
Posted By: Nobody_Special

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 11/09/19 05:43 PM

I found this TTRPG that two Larian employees participated in at Gamescon. It was the Murder in Baldur's Gate adventure. But Yeah the silences is tormenting. I have seen people talking about other games on these forums that are supposed to release after this game and have more information then BG3



Looks like someone else posted about this video. Didn't see until I got down to that tread.
http://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=655437&gonew=1#UNREAD
Posted By: Artagel

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 12/09/19 01:54 AM

Originally Posted by korotama
I wish my old system could run Dragon Quest XI. It looks like a great little romp. As stated a few pages back, I could bear with turn-based combat if the camera shots were as dynamic and diverse as this: https://youtu.be/-7FyEJQJUVA?t=53

Oh, man... if BG3 ends up being that... (and basically, that's what TB is to millions of BG fans)... lol
Posted By: _Vic_

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 12/09/19 06:24 AM

I do not think that BG3 would look like that, mostly because in Dragon quest you cannot move in the battlefield. For BG3 they promised environment interactions, a combat based in D&D5e rules, etc.
ED: The previous DoS games had isometric 3D view, and they said they are going to use the DOS Larian game engine 4.0 to make BG3 so I do not think they took a step behind. https://fextralife.com/baldurs-gate-3-interview-with-larian-and-wizards-of-the-coast/

I like the Dragon Quest game series very much, but If you want a more dinamic TB combat I will take the example of "Battle chasers: nightwar" or "The Last Remnant" or some other titles, like grandia or "tales of" series.
You have camera changes, taunts in battle, cool battle music, reactions in the enemy´s turn, etc. Makes a more enjoyable experience.



Posted By: korotama

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 12/09/19 06:57 AM

Originally Posted by _Vic_
I do not think that BG3 would look like that, mostly because in Dragon quest you cannot move in the battlefield. For BG3 they promised environment interactions, a combat based in D&D5e rules, etc.

I like the Dragon Quest game series very much, but If you want a more dinamic TB combat I will take the example of "Battle chasers: nightwar" or "The Last Remnant" or some other titles, like grandia or "tales of" series.
You have camera changes, taunts in battle, cool battle music, reactions in the enemy´s turn, etc. Makes a more enjoyable experience.




Yeah I actually mentioned Battlechasers as a vivid example of intense TB combat a couple pages back but The Last Remnant takes the cake hands down. Played that one too. Heck, if BG3 is going to be Mad Max in Hell, will the soundtrack also contain rock and metal? Tiny nuts and bolts can make all the difference after all especially when it comes to repetitiveness.
Posted By: _Vic_

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 12/09/19 07:11 AM

I sure hope that it does. I heard "Last Remnant" battle and boss themes dozens of times and still makes my heart race. Or Undertale´s, Castlevania SOTN, Grandia 2, etc

ED: They even used a "Bloody Tears" theme version in the "Castlevania" series in Netflix, and it was awesome. Not guitar-themed like the original, but still... the feels, man the feels laugh
Posted By: korotama

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 12/09/19 07:24 AM

I'm a big fan of SOTN's original soundtrack for that matter. Here's a nice arrangement of the boss theme:
Posted By: Artagel

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 14/09/19 04:26 AM

Originally Posted by _Vic_
........You have camera changes, taunts in battle, cool battle music, reactions in the enemy´s turn, etc. Makes a more enjoyable experience.

Not in my opinion...
Posted By: Omegaphallic

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 14/09/19 05:17 PM

Dark Envoy is going Turned based Combat as well.
Posted By: _Vic_

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 14/09/19 06:09 PM

Originally Posted by Omegaphallic
Dark Envoy is going Turned based Combat as well.


RT exploration, TB combat and Coop Mp (and a mode 1 vs 1 when one of the players is the final boss ¿?). Another one, like Realms Beyond (Based on Open D&D 3.5 and already funded), Solasta (D&D 5e) , Wasteland 3, Dark crystal Tactics, Phoenix point, etc. Looks like it´s trending right now.

Black geyser is still RTwP, tho. I do not think they are going to change it now.

Originally Posted by Artagel
Originally Posted by Tuco
Man, since the confirmation that this title even existed it's almost baffling how stingy of any real information Larian has been.
They went through E3, Gamescom and PAX with literally nothing to show or confirm about its structure, making their public apparitions rather awkward for how pointless and inconstant they felt.

It makes almost the impression that the reveal itself was some sort of premature ejaculation and they have very little to say about it in the first place.

Pretty simple... They saw how many fans didn't want TB, realized they did not want to lose thousands of pre-order sales, and are now scrambling to add RTwP.

Or.... they could have read this forum and realized the exact opposite, and are currently adding a TB mode to make more people happy.

It is not only in this forum, tho. I was surprised by the polls in the forums I know. Its 50-50% in most of them. I never thought that a thing like that will be cause a debate. I thought the lore and the story will be more controversial. Maybe it is because Swen Vincke and company do not gave much information.
https://rpgcodex.net/forums/index.p...te-3-was-turn-based-or-real-time.128016/
https://steamcommunity.com/app/1086940/discussions/0/1639788130267067237/?ctp=2
https://www.reddit.com/r/DivinityOr...bg3_turn_based_vs_real_time_with_pause/r
https://www.rpgwatch.com/forums/showthread.php?t=26593
https://rpgcodex.net/forums/index.p...ased-action-place-your-bet.128044/page-3
https://www.enworld.org/threads/should-baldurs-gate-3-be-turnbased-or-real-time-with-pause.660574/

I think in the end, no matter what combat they chose, someone is going to make a mod with the opposite combat type like they did in P:K. XD





Posted By: Artagel

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 15/09/19 04:21 AM

Originally Posted by _Vic_
I think in the end, no matter what combat they chose, someone is going to make a mod with the opposite combat type like they did in P:K. XD


Sure. Meanwhile they lose out on 50% of PC sales until well after that mod is released, if it's released, and if it is, Larian better hope it's well made or people will return the game.

Not exactly an inspiring tactic to present to WOTC...
Posted By: Hawke

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 15/09/19 08:50 AM

Originally Posted by Artagel
Originally Posted by _Vic_
I think in the end, no matter what combat they chose, someone is going to make a mod with the opposite combat type like they did in P:K. XD


Sure. Meanwhile they lose out on 50% of PC sales until well after that mod is released, if it's released, and if it is, Larian better hope it's well made or people will return the game.

Not exactly an inspiring tactic to present to WOTC...


So let me get this straight you belive that Divinity Original Sin 2 which sold more than 2.5 million copies would have sold more than 5million with an optional RTWP mode? Because I really doubt that.
Posted By: Try2Handing

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 15/09/19 10:46 AM

Originally Posted by Hawke
So let me get this straight you belive that Divinity Original Sin 2 which sold more than 2.5 million copies would have sold more than 5million with an optional RTWP mode? Because I really doubt that.

Not that I'm particularly invested in the discussion or interested in an argument of any sort, but I'm just pointing out that there's a difference there. DOS2 is Larian's own thing, they could do whatever they wanted to, going with whatever formulas or systems they came up with. Other than the core things that worked well in DOS, they didn't have to worry too much about sticking with anything specific. On the contrary, BG3 is "supposedly" the successor of a classic series. There are veterans and fans, and hell, there are fanatics too, of the original games who *expect*, *want*, and *demand* certain things from this game. It's only to be expected that a number of players will be turned off if certain aspects diverge too far from those in the original games.
Posted By: _Vic_

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 15/09/19 02:25 PM

It is even worse with this game. It is like the perfect storm: You have hardcore old BG admirers, new bg gamers, D&D tabletop players, enthusiasts of Larian or the DoS games, casual players attracted by the brand, etc etc and a mix and match of the aforementioned. All of them expecting different things from the same game.


To be honest, there are as many different opinions as there are people. That is why you create mods in the first place, so you can choose and change the SP game to your liking. That is why I hope they gave a good editor and mod support.
Posted By: BillyYank

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 15/09/19 05:38 PM

Originally Posted by Artagel
Originally Posted by _Vic_
I think in the end, no matter what combat they chose, someone is going to make a mod with the opposite combat type like they did in P:K. XD


Sure. Meanwhile they lose out on 50% of PC sales until well after that mod is released, if it's released, and if it is, Larian better hope it's well made or people will return the game.

Not exactly an inspiring tactic to present to WOTC...


Despite how loud they are, I'm pretty sure the "RWTP or nuthin'" and the "TB or nuthin'" segments of the gaming population are actually pretty low.
Posted By: Brent2410

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 15/09/19 11:10 PM

Originally Posted by BillyYank
Despite how loud they are, I'm pretty sure the "RWTP or nuthin'" and the "TB or nuthin'" segments of the gaming population are actually pretty low.


The split between RTwP and TB is about 50/50 in the polls I've seen. I would be interested in the overlap each group shares with the "or nuthin."
It's a metric I think will be interesting. Here's a strawpoll. Share it around where you want. https://strawpoll.com/5we4h165
Posted By: Tuco

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 16/09/19 09:22 AM

As I already said weeks ago, I'd be more or less fine with whatever they pick, if well executed, and quite frankly I doubt any arguing among users is going to change whatever Larian most likely already decided and set in stone a couple of years ago.


That said, I have to say I tend to resent the ongoing implication among several users that "If you are an old school BG fan you'll prefer RTWP" (typically followed by "if you prefer turn-based you are probably just a recent Larian fan").

I'm 41, I played all these games when they launched and I was even an "adult" already back then, I still hold BG2 pretty damn close to the top spot of best RPG ever made (at very least in the top 3 for me, for the plurality of things that it did right) and I STILL think the real-time part of its combat used to be one of its weakest elements and something resembling a hybrid between DOS or Temple of Elemental Evil would make for a better game, with better battles, given some proper encounter design.
Posted By: vometia

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 16/09/19 09:30 AM

Originally Posted by BillyYank
Despite how loud they are, I'm pretty sure the "RWTP or nuthin'" and the "TB or nuthin'" segments of the gaming population are actually pretty low.

This is usually the case AFAICT. Even when forums in general were much more of a thing than they are today, the people who you'd see on forums were only a small subset of gamers overall and typically weren't that representative of what the majority actually want. It seems that as often as not, when studios have given the loudest voices what they want it's come back to bite them so most seem to approach things with some caution and solicit opinions from a much broader range of sources.
Posted By: kanisatha

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 16/09/19 03:03 PM

Originally Posted by Omegaphallic
Dark Envoy is going Turned based Combat as well.

The Dark Eye: Book of Heroes, which is based on a TT RPG system, is going RTwP. Not much of a TB trend if at all. Seems like it's primarily the D&D-based games (Realms Beyond, Solasta, BG3) that are going TB. And it is precisely because those three games are D&D-related that I will even consider playing them (backed the first two; am open to BG3). Dark Envoy as a TB game gives me no incentive to bother with it (whereas I did play and enjoy Tower of Time).
Posted By: Hawke

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 16/09/19 03:43 PM

The thing is you really can't compare all the other CRPG in recent years with BG3. Since they were all done by small teams with Indie budgets. BG3 seems to have a budget that at least is in the upper AA area. The CGI trailer, they made must have cost a small fortune(the studio who made it usually works for AAA studios like Ubisoft and Sony!!!) which should give us an idea of how much money Larian is willing to spend on this game. So I highly doubt Larian cares about these small teams are doing, the same way Activision doesn't care about Indie shooters like Insuregeny are doing.
Posted By: _Vic_

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 16/09/19 03:58 PM

Originally Posted by kanisatha
Originally Posted by Omegaphallic
Dark Envoy is going Turned based Combat as well.

The Dark Eye: Book of Heroes, which is based on a TT RPG system, is going RTwP. Not much of a TB trend if at all. Seems like it's primarily the D&D-based games (Realms Beyond, Solasta, BG3) that are going TB.


List of some of the TB RPG games in the making only in 2019 (a few of them already launched):

Trails of cold Steel III, Divinity: Fallen Heroes, Wasteland 3, Realms Beyond, Solasta, Stygian: Reign of the Old Ones, Disgaea 4, Tale of Ronin, Ash of gods: Redemption; Dark Crystal Tactics, Forged of Blood, The Hand of Merlin, Overland, Ultimate Adom, Othercide, Indivisible, Project Sakura Wars,Broken lines, Iron Danger, Edge of eternity, Unsung Story: Tale of the Guardians, Romancing Saga, Soul Saga, Utarerumono: Prelude to the fallen, Dungeon of Naheulbeuk: The amulet of chaos, Crist Tales, Wildermyth: Stories of the Yondering Lands, We are the Plague, Eidolons: Nethergate, Encased, Heralds of the Order, Knights of the Chalice, RAM Pressure, Broken Lines, Grand Guilds, Tenderfoot Tactics, The Protagonist, Arcadian Atlas, Alder’s Blood, ColonyShip-4: Survivors, Guile & Glory: Firstborn, Monster Sanctuary, Rising Lords,...

https://www.gamepressure.com/games/ps4/rpg/turn-based/33
https://turnbasedlovers.com/lists/top-upcoming-tactical-turn-based-rpgs-of-2019/

Some promising RTwP titles too: Black geyser or The Dark eye: Book of Heroes. I loved the Drakensang titles based in TDE (also RTwP, but uses a isometric 3rd person view similar to Dragon age games),

ED:
Originally Posted by Hawke
The thing is you really can't compare all the other CRPG in recent years with BG3. Since they were all done by small teams with Indie budgets. BG3 seems to have a budget that at least is in the upper AA area. The CGI trailer, they made must have cost a small fortune(the studio who made it usually works for AAA studios like Ubisoft and Sony!!!) which should give us an idea of how much money Larian is willing to spend on this game. So I highly doubt Larian cares about these small teams are doing, the same way Activision doesn't care about Indie shooters like Insuregeny are doing.


I certainly hope they find inspiration or ideas in those indie games if they need outside input, not in AAA RPG games like Pokemon or Monster hunter...
Posted By: kanisatha

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 16/09/19 04:40 PM

Originally Posted by Hawke
The thing is you really can't compare all the other CRPG in recent years with BG3. Since they were all done by small teams with Indie budgets. BG3 seems to have a budget that at least is in the upper AA area. The CGI trailer, they made must have cost a small fortune(the studio who made it usually works for AAA studios like Ubisoft and Sony!!!) which should give us an idea of how much money Larian is willing to spend on this game. So I highly doubt Larian cares about these small teams are doing, the same way Activision doesn't care about Indie shooters like Insuregeny are doing.

Agreed. From what I've been able to read about it, seems like the money they're putting up would qualify it as a AAA game. Which then also means they will want sales in the tens of millions which is an order of magnitude greater than D:OS2 sales. That's why I doubt the game will be isometric. I think it will be third-person, and likely to also have some action elements to it (though not a fullblown ARPG). And certainly very fancy graphics.

Re. the "ragin' debate," I still feel they may surprise us and use a combat system that is not RTwP but not quite TB either.
Posted By: Try2Handing

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 16/09/19 06:35 PM

Originally Posted by kanisatha
That's why I doubt the game will be isometric. I think it will be third-person, and likely to also have some action elements to it (though not a fullblown ARPG). And certainly very fancy graphics.

In other words... this will be like how DAO evolved into DA2 and then DAI?

Goodness me.
Posted By: kanisatha

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 16/09/19 06:44 PM

Originally Posted by Try2Handing
Originally Posted by kanisatha
That's why I doubt the game will be isometric. I think it will be third-person, and likely to also have some action elements to it (though not a fullblown ARPG). And certainly very fancy graphics.

In other words... this will be like how DAO evolved into DA2 and then DAI?

Goodness me.

Well I happened to like the DA games, including DA2, so ....
But I don't think BG3 will be quite like DA:I, because for one thing we've already established it won't be RTwP.
Posted By: Try2Handing

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 16/09/19 07:29 PM

Originally Posted by kanisatha
Well I happened to like the DA games, including DA2, so ....
But I don't think BG3 will be quite like DA:I, because for one thing we've already established it won't be RTwP.

You like the games, but do you also believe that both DA2 and DAI are a step up from DAO? A definite improvement? Pretty visuals don't count. Better visuals in sequels are par for the course.

Either way, it was just a joke. I was being sarcastic about how the DA series got worse and worse. It is an example of how NOT to make sequels.
Posted By: Artagel

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 16/09/19 09:53 PM

Originally Posted by Hawke
So let me get this straight you belive that Divinity Original Sin 2 which sold more than 2.5 million copies would have sold more than 5million with an optional RTWP mode? Because I really doubt that.

I don't think you got that straight.

Whatever you typed has nothing to do with my post.
Posted By: Artagel

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 16/09/19 09:58 PM

Originally Posted by Hawke
The thing is you really can't compare all the other CRPG in recent years with BG3. Since they were all done by small teams with Indie budgets. BG3 seems to have a budget that at least is in the upper AA area. The CGI trailer, they made must have cost a small fortune(the studio who made it usually works for AAA studios like Ubisoft and Sony!!!) which should give us an idea of how much money Larian is willing to spend on this game. So I highly doubt Larian cares about these small teams are doing, the same way Activision doesn't care about Indie shooters like Insuregeny are doing.

This I agree with.

At least the first part.... I have no idea what Larian prioritizes. They've never had a budget like this before.
Posted By: Artagel

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 16/09/19 10:20 PM

Originally Posted by kanisatha
Re. the "ragin' debate," I still feel they may surprise us and use a combat system that is not RTwP but not quite TB either.

This was posted weeks ago, and it's just not possible.

You CAN NOT have a system where you combine different aspects so it's partially TB and partially RTwP... It really does have to be one or the other, because you're talking about how the player manipulates time during combat. I'm not going to go into it again, search the thread if you need to, but it's just not possible.

The camera perspective really doesn't matter In this regard.
Posted By: Omegaphallic

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 17/09/19 12:56 PM

Originally Posted by Hawke
The thing is you really can't compare all the other CRPG in recent years with BG3. Since they were all done by small teams with Indie budgets. BG3 seems to have a budget that at least is in the upper AA area. The CGI trailer, they made must have cost a small fortune(the studio who made it usually works for AAA studios like Ubisoft and Sony!!!) which should give us an idea of how much money Larian is willing to spend on this game. So I highly doubt Larian cares about these small teams are doing, the same way Activision doesn't care about Indie shooters like Insuregeny are doing.


I have no doubt that Larian cares what these studios are doing, because they are fans too! I wouldn't surprised if some of them back these smaller studio VRPGs games kickstarters as fans.
Posted By: kanisatha

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 17/09/19 06:47 PM

Originally Posted by Artagel
Originally Posted by kanisatha
Re. the "ragin' debate," I still feel they may surprise us and use a combat system that is not RTwP but not quite TB either.

This was posted weeks ago, and it's just not possible.

You CAN NOT have a system where you combine different aspects so it's partially TB and partially RTwP... It really does have to be one or the other, because you're talking about how the player manipulates time during combat. I'm not going to go into it again, search the thread if you need to, but it's just not possible.

The camera perspective really doesn't matter In this regard.

Yeah, and just like the last time so too here you are misrepresenting what I am saying. I never said anything about it being partially one and the other. I am talking about a system that takes one OR the other and then makes some technology-based changes to it to make it more palatable to those who don't like that type of system. In Realms Beyond, for example, the devs have talked about having an option to completely skip over the animations for the enemy and even for your party as a way of speeding things up. They have also said you can set up AI profiles for your party members and then have the AI auto-resolve combats for you, a feature I intend to use a lot. But the feature I am thinking of that Larian could potentially use, in a TB system, is to allow me to input the actions for all of my party members all at once and then have the AI resolve everything simultaneously. This way I won't have to suffer through the usual tedium and irritation of a sequence of turn-taking.
Posted By: _Vic_

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 17/09/19 09:59 PM

Originally Posted by Omegaphallic
Originally Posted by Hawke
The thing is you really can't compare all the other CRPG in recent years with BG3. Since they were all done by small teams with Indie budgets. BG3 seems to have a budget that at least is in the upper AA area. The CGI trailer, they made must have cost a small fortune(the studio who made it usually works for AAA studios like Ubisoft and Sony!!!) which should give us an idea of how much money Larian is willing to spend on this game. So I highly doubt Larian cares about these small teams are doing, the same way Activision doesn't care about Indie shooters like Insuregeny are doing.


I have no doubt that Larian cares what these studios are doing, because they are fans too! I wouldn't surprised if some of them back these smaller studio VRPGs games kickstarters as fans.


Yeah, most of them seem to know and respect each other. The devs of Inxile, obsidian, Larian, CD projekt, the defunct Troika,... are joking together in twitter, they put photos in the gamecons,... some of them worked in several games of those companies like Chris Avellone. Josh sawyer and Tim Cain used to talk in their interviews about Dos or Pathfinder:kingmaker in a appreciative way, as Swen Vincke did with tyranny.

Some of them are even D&D fans too, they put a show together playing a short PA in a games con. And it showed that It wasn´t the first time they played.
Posted By: Omegaphallic

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 19/09/19 10:19 AM

Originally Posted by _Vic_
Originally Posted by Omegaphallic
Originally Posted by Hawke
The thing is you really can't compare all the other CRPG in recent years with BG3. Since they were all done by small teams with Indie budgets. BG3 seems to have a budget that at least is in the upper AA area. The CGI trailer, they made must have cost a small fortune(the studio who made it usually works for AAA studios like Ubisoft and Sony!!!) which should give us an idea of how much money Larian is willing to spend on this game. So I highly doubt Larian cares about these small teams are doing, the same way Activision doesn't care about Indie shooters like Insuregeny are doing.


I have no doubt that Larian cares what these studios are doing, because they are fans too! I wouldn't surprised if some of them back these smaller studio VRPGs games kickstarters as fans.


Yeah, most of them seem to know and respect each other. The devs of Inxile, obsidian, Larian, CD projekt, the defunct Troika,... are joking together in twitter, they put photos in the gamecons,... some of them worked in several games of those companies like Chris Avellone. Josh sawyer and Tim Cain used to talk in their interviews about Dos or Pathfinder:kingmaker in a appreciative way, as Swen Vincke did with tyranny.

Some of them are even D&D fans too, they put a show together playing a short PA in a games con. And it showed that It wasn´t the first time they played.


This is why ideas in other games will likely inspire BG3.
Posted By: Omegaphallic

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 21/09/19 02:28 AM

Originally Posted by Try2Handing
Originally Posted by Hawke
So let me get this straight you belive that Divinity Original Sin 2 which sold more than 2.5 million copies would have sold more than 5million with an optional RTWP mode? Because I really doubt that.

Not that I'm particularly invested in the discussion or interested in an argument of any sort, but I'm just pointing out that there's a difference there. DOS2 is Larian's own thing, they could do whatever they wanted to, going with whatever formulas or systems they came up with. Other than the core things that worked well in DOS, they didn't have to worry too much about sticking with anything specific. On the contrary, BG3 is "supposedly" the successor of a classic series. There are veterans and fans, and hell, there are fanatics too, of the original games who *expect*, *want*, and *demand* certain things from this game. It's only to be expected that a number of players will be turned off if certain aspects diverge too far from those in the original games.


It's uses the same basic location as BG1, but other then that it's not really a sequel, the sooner people accept it and judge it for what it really is, Baldur's Gate 5e, the sooner we can move on.
Posted By: 0Muttley0

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 22/09/19 01:12 PM

Originally Posted by Omegaphallic


It's using the same basic location as BG1, but other than that it's not really a sequel. The sooner people accept that and judge it for what it really is, Baldur's Gate 5e, the sooner we can move on.


NWN2 wasn't a 'sequel' per se either. Same with D:OS 2 wasn't really a 'sequel'
Posted By: Hawke

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 22/09/19 03:04 PM

Yeah and Final Fantasy XV is the fourteenth sequel to Final Fantasy crazy

They called it Baldurs Gate because fewer people would care if it was called Dungeon's and Dragons: Illithid uprising. It's the oldest trick to make your game more interesting by connecting it to an IP people remember. People who expect a sequel to Baldurs Gate should be prepared for massive disappointment.
Posted By: _Vic_

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 22/09/19 04:53 PM

Originally Posted by Hawke
Yeah and Final Fantasy XV is the fourteenth sequel to Final Fantasy crazy

They called it Baldurs Gate because fewer people would care if it was called Dungeon's and Dragons: Illithid uprising. It's the oldest trick to make your game more interesting by connecting it to an IP people remember. People who expect a sequel to Baldurs Gate should be prepared for massive disappointment.


I agree. One thing in common in all the interviews about bg is that they distanced themselves from the classic BG trilogy. They do not even name one game.

I think they could do a very good game, but I do not think the game will be a continuation in story, mechanics, etc... of the previous games.
Posted By: Omegaphallic

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 22/09/19 07:50 PM

Agr
Originally Posted by _Vic_
Originally Posted by Hawke
Yeah and Final Fantasy XV is the fourteenth sequel to Final Fantasy crazy

They called it Baldurs Gate because fewer people would care if it was called Dungeon's and Dragons: Illithid uprising. It's the oldest trick to make your game more interesting by connecting it to an IP people remember. People who expect a sequel to Baldurs Gate should be prepared for massive disappointment.


I agree. One thing in common in all the interviews about bg is that they distanced themselves from the classic BG trilogy. They do not even name one game.

I think they could do a very good game, but I do not think the game will be a continuation in story, mechanics, etc... of the previous games.


Agreed, I mean at the very least we know the mechanics are different, 5e instead of 2e.
Posted By: Artagel

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 23/09/19 10:59 PM

Man this message-board is lucky to have so many members who, without a SECOND of actual gameplay footage or any SPECIFIC INFO about actual gameplay or combat, are so sure about how disappointing and unworthy the game will be to other people and how glorious and enjoyable it will be to them.

So how's it work? Do we have to take a test to get in, or can we just convert at the community center?
Posted By: Artagel

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 23/09/19 11:05 PM

Originally Posted by kanisatha
Yeah, and just like the last time so too here you are misrepresenting what I am saying. I never said anything about it being partially one and the other. I am talking about a system that takes one OR the other and then makes some technology-based changes to it to make it more palatable to those who don't like that type of system. In Realms Beyond, for example, the devs have talked about having an option to completely skip over the animations for the enemy and even for your party as a way of speeding things up. They have also said you can set up AI profiles for your party members and then have the AI auto-resolve combats for you, a feature I intend to use a lot. But the feature I am thinking of that Larian could potentially use, in a TB system, is to allow me to input the actions for all of my party members all at once and then have the AI resolve everything simultaneously. This way I won't have to suffer through the usual tedium and irritation of a sequence of turn-taking.


How did I misrepresent what you said when you just now clarified what you said, and it still doesn't make any sense?

I don't care how much you tweak it or how little player input responsibility there is, if you program the game so when enemies are on screen (combat mode begins) and everything stops and waits for input, IT'S NOT RTWP.

Also, AI profiles were in the previous titles. They worked fine in DnD 2.0, 3.0, 3.5. There's no reason they can't work again. 5.0 doesn't have some mandatory question and answer mode they have to replicate, does it? I didn't think so.
Posted By: Hawke

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 24/09/19 08:27 AM

Originally Posted by Artagel
Man this message-board is lucky to have so many members who, without a SECOND of actual gameplay footage or any SPECIFIC INFO about actual gameplay or combat, are so sure about how disappointing and unworthy the game will be to other people and how glorious and enjoyable it will be to them.

So how's it work? Do we have to take a test to get in, or can we just convert at the community center?


I have played all of the 6 Divinity games from Larian and they were all good so I simply don't believe Larian is even capable of making a bad game not as long as Swen is with them at least.
Posted By: Horrorscope

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 24/09/19 02:08 PM

I think I'm pretty much done with RtwP unless they build the best AI/Scripting system I've ever seen and it best be easy to use with predictable outcomes. PoeT2 has a lot of options there, but so much of it doesn't work out like you want it to, and with that fail I'm just tired of the janky stop/start action. Theoretically I can see liking it but the AI and controls have to be there. I'd say so far the best attempt at this was Dragon Age 2, which was good and easy to use, to the point I rarely paused, imo that is how the system should be, good enough to play real-time always or almost always with very few needed pauses.
Posted By: _Vic_

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 24/09/19 02:52 PM

I found the combat in DA2 fun, a little repetitive but well made, but I think there are better RTWP games. In NWN-NWN2, for instance, you can sequence actions in a queue ( like spells or skills) and issue orders to your characters instead of making several pauses. Very useful for spellcasters and thieves.

And about good IA... well, I usually prefer to play the game, not watch the IA fighting, but I know many people do not like micromanage the party. Unless the game is full of trash mobs and repetitive encounters I usually prefer to handle the party myself. If you have too many fights that you won using auto-fight without issuing an order like in phone games I tend to get bored. I liked that in BG2 or Drakensang games you have to issue orders even in most random encounters.
Posted By: kanisatha

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 24/09/19 05:39 PM

It makes no sense to me at all that people say pausing in RTwP is jarring/a pain etc. and yet somehow the 'pausing' in TB combat is fine.
Posted By: _Vic_

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 24/09/19 05:51 PM

Because the game pauses automatically for you, you do not have to pause yourself >XDD
Posted By: Artagel

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 24/09/19 09:12 PM

Originally Posted by Horrorscope
I think I'm pretty much done with RtwP unless they build the best AI/Scripting system I've ever seen and it best be easy to use with predictable outcomes. PoeT2 has a lot of options there, but so much of it doesn't work out like you want it to, and with that fail I'm just tired of the janky stop/start action. Theoretically I can see liking it but the AI and controls have to be there. I'd say so far the best attempt at this was Dragon Age 2, which was good and easy to use, to the point I rarely paused, imo that is how the system should be, good enough to play real-time always or almost always with very few needed pauses.


For a triple A RPG in 2019 that's not too much to ask. Or even expect.

We'll see....
Posted By: Horrorscope

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 24/09/19 10:53 PM

Originally Posted by _Vic_
I found the combat in DA2 fun, a little repetitive but well made, but I think there are better RTWP games. In NWN-NWN2, for instance, you can sequence actions in a queue ( like spells or skills) and issue orders to your characters instead of making several pauses. Very useful for spellcasters and thieves.

And about good IA... well, I usually prefer to play the game, not watch the IA fighting, but I know many people do not like micromanage the party. Unless the game is full of trash mobs and repetitive encounters I usually prefer to handle the party myself. If you have too many fights that you won using auto-fight without issuing an order like in phone games I tend to get bored. I liked that in BG2 or Drakensang games you have to issue orders even in most random encounters.


Yep we all have our likes, but the moment I'm pausing a lot, I just want TB then. You say you would get bored and who I'm I to argue what you will or won't get bored of, but I see a meta where ones scripts/orders are carried out to your command and you tweak them if needed. I want my non-controlled characters to do their thing smartly, which I find that to be the key wording vs basic/stupid things they typically do left unattended while I'm controlling another, aka how Dragon Age's work mostly, DA2 more specifically. Trying to control too many characters with the status quo I think I'm just past that now, it feels like a UI/AI fail.
Posted By: Horrorscope

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 24/09/19 10:54 PM

Originally Posted by kanisatha
It makes no sense to me at all that people say pausing in RTwP is jarring/a pain etc. and yet somehow the 'pausing' in TB combat is fine.


When you have a 100% TB game the flow remains the same, aka non-jaring. When you have both, to me they are both masters of neither, aka janky. Simple, next.
Posted By: Artagel

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 24/09/19 11:57 PM

Originally Posted by Horrorscope
When you have a 100% TB game the flow remains the same, aka non-jaring. When you have both, to me they are both masters of neither, aka janky. Simple, next.

That's kind of a false equiv. 100% RTwP isn't 100% real time... because there's pausing.

What's jarring is knowing every fight no matter how big or small will always be paused and never left up to the player. Some would say a deal breaker...
Posted By: vometia

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 25/09/19 03:52 AM

Most RTwP* seems to give me control of the pause button and how often I use it, if at all. Currently playing Greedfall which uses the same system and it works well enough. The only real problem is me: I'm hasty, impatient and kinda rubbish at combat in whatever form it's presented.

Edit:

* that I've encountered, I mean.
Posted By: kanisatha

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 25/09/19 01:04 PM

Originally Posted by vometia
Most RTwP* seems to give me control of the pause button and how often I use it, if at all. Currently playing Greedfall which uses the same system and it works well enough. The only real problem is me: I'm hasty, impatient and kinda rubbish at combat in whatever form it's presented.

Edit:

* that I've encountered, I mean.

Yes exactly. In RTwP I as the player have full control over when and how often I want to pause, whereas in TB the game is forcibly pausing the game for me out of my control. I cannot even begin to wrap my head around why anyone would want to cede this control of their game to the game system.
But apparently choosing to pause the game yourself is a problem, but the game forcibly pausing even if you don't want it to do so is wonderful.
Posted By: Artagel

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 25/09/19 09:53 PM

Originally Posted by vometia
Most RTwP* seems to give me control of the pause button and how often I use it, if at all. Currently playing Greedfall which uses the same system and it works well enough. The only real problem is me: I'm hasty, impatient and kinda rubbish at combat in whatever form it's presented.

Edit:

* that I've encountered, I mean.

Is that only a single controllable character?

I know there are people saying there is a chance BG3 will look like that (how are the graphics?), an ARPG... but I have doubts that any studio would opt for such a drastic departure from the previous games.
Posted By: vometia

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 26/09/19 09:12 AM

Originally Posted by Artagel
Is that only a single controllable character?

I know there are people saying there is a chance BG3 will look like that (how are the graphics?), an ARPG... but I have doubts that any studio would opt for such a drastic departure from the previous games.

It is, but Dragon Age: Oranges and the Mass Effects (I think... it's been a while) worked in the same way with multiple party members. Sometimes it was fun in Oranges to guide my party around by controlling Dave, my imaginatively-named mabari.

As for departures, Larian have already done that extensively with the Divinity series, which has gone from fixed-perspective isometric real-time to third-person real-time to tactical to variable perspective isometric turn-based, so I certainly won't be making any bets.
Posted By: Horrorscope

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 26/09/19 05:59 PM

Quote
Yes exactly. In RTwP I as the player have full control over when and how often I want to pause,


And I'm ok with that personally if I don't have to pause often, but I find myself pausing a lot or using checkbox pauses in gameplay options, then to me it becomes a poor mans TB. Thus I need smart AI to carry out orders and almost all attempts at this imo have failed. Imo the two need to be paired together RtwP with good AI, if it is definable by the user or the game does it well.
Posted By: Brent2410

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 26/09/19 08:51 PM

Originally Posted by Horrorscope
Thus I need smart AI to carry out orders and almost all attempts at this imo have failed. Imo the two need to be paired together RtwP with good AI, if it is definable by the user or the game does it well.


Can't agree more - and it brings me to MY main criticism of real time. If you're relying on AI to control 3/4 of your party in a party based game - then you are missing out on 3/4 of the combat experience. The only time I enjoy real time is if I can keep pauses to a minimum... which means I have to solo or run 3 beaters that I can actually trust the AI with. Personally I don't want a party based game that is tuned for solo and I would never trust an AI on a caster class. A turn based system that respects your time fixes all of those problems.
Posted By: Goblin Lich

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 27/09/19 04:07 AM

Originally Posted by Brent2410
Originally Posted by Horrorscope
Thus I need smart AI to carry out orders and almost all attempts at this imo have failed. Imo the two need to be paired together RtwP with good AI, if it is definable by the user or the game does it well.


Can't agree more - and it brings me to MY main criticism of real time. If you're relying on AI to control 3/4 of your party in a party based game - then you are missing out on 3/4 of the combat experience. The only time I enjoy real time is if I can keep pauses to a minimum... which means I have to solo or run 3 beaters that I can actually trust the AI with. Personally I don't want a party based game that is tuned for solo and I would never trust an AI on a caster class. A turn based system that respects your time fixes all of those problems.


Same here. I have tried so many times to play RtwP games, I want to like them, because the story is probobly great, but combat is just so god damn bad it's almost unplayable. It's like "Lets do Turn Based, except -pulling out your hair- levels of annoying!" One of the worst gameplay systems i've ever encountered, it's up there with quick time events. If Larian makes BG3 into RtwP I hope they do it relly well, so maybe I can start enjoying those types of games more. Altho i don't see them doing it for many reasons. Imagine playing with friends, everyone constantly pausing, what a nightmere.
Posted By: Artagel

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 27/09/19 08:26 AM

Originally Posted by vometia
It is, but Dragon Age: Oranges and the Mass Effects (I think... it's been a while) worked in the same way with multiple party members. Sometimes it was fun in Oranges to guide my party around by controlling Dave, my imaginatively-named mabari.

As for departures, Larian have already done that extensively with the Divinity series, which has gone from fixed-perspective isometric real-time to third-person real-time to tactical to variable perspective isometric turn-based, so I certainly won't be making any bets.

Oranges was indeed a fun game, but I personally enjoyed it and it's sequel way more for the story and lore than the actual gameplay. I remember them saying it was a spiritual successor to BG, but then not understanding why I was forced to use the blandly written NPCs with oddly set up stats that kept dying because of poorly balanced damage models and the marginal AI (which was well-intentioned, to be sure).

As for Larian's ability to continue tradition while shaking up the gameplay and style, I agree with their own games it's been effective. With Baldur's Gate, let's just say I'm not holding my breath.

Posted By: Artagel

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 27/09/19 08:35 AM

Originally Posted by Goblin Lich
Originally Posted by Brent2410
Originally Posted by Horrorscope
Thus I need smart AI to carry out orders and almost all attempts at this imo have failed. Imo the two need to be paired together RtwP with good AI, if it is definable by the user or the game does it well.


Can't agree more - and it brings me to MY main criticism of real time. If you're relying on AI to control 3/4 of your party in a party based game - then you are missing out on 3/4 of the combat experience. The only time I enjoy real time is if I can keep pauses to a minimum... which means I have to solo or run 3 beaters that I can actually trust the AI with. Personally I don't want a party based game that is tuned for solo and I would never trust an AI on a caster class. A turn based system that respects your time fixes all of those problems.


Same here. I have tried so many times to play RtwP games, I want to like them, because the story is probobly great, but combat is just so god damn bad it's almost unplayable. It's like "Lets do Turn Based, except -pulling out your hair- levels of annoying!" One of the worst gameplay systems i've ever encountered, it's up there with quick time events. If Larian makes BG3 into RtwP I hope they do it relly well, so maybe I can start enjoying those types of games more. Altho i don't see them doing it for many reasons. Imagine playing with friends, everyone constantly pausing, what a nightmere.

Jeez, what RTwP games have you guys been playing?
Posted By: _Vic_

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 27/09/19 09:10 AM

Originally Posted by Artagel
Originally Posted by Goblin Lich
Originally Posted by Brent2410
Originally Posted by Horrorscope
Thus I need smart AI to carry out orders and almost all attempts at this imo have failed. Imo the two need to be paired together RtwP with good AI, if it is definable by the user or the game does it well.


Can't agree more - and it brings me to MY main criticism of real time. If you're relying on AI to control 3/4 of your party in a party based game - then you are missing out on 3/4 of the combat experience. The only time I enjoy real time is if I can keep pauses to a minimum... which means I have to solo or run 3 beaters that I can actually trust the AI with. Personally I don't want a party based game that is tuned for solo and I would never trust an AI on a caster class. A turn based system that respects your time fixes all of those problems.


Same here. I have tried so many times to play RtwP games, I want to like them, because the story is probobly great, but combat is just so god damn bad it's almost unplayable. It's like "Lets do Turn Based, except -pulling out your hair- levels of annoying!" One of the worst gameplay systems i've ever encountered, it's up there with quick time events. If Larian makes BG3 into RtwP I hope they do it relly well, so maybe I can start enjoying those types of games more. Altho i don't see them doing it for many reasons. Imagine playing with friends, everyone constantly pausing, what a nightmere.

Jeez, what RTwP games have you guys been playing?


Well, any RTwP game, if you take into account the "imagine playing with friends, everyone constantly pausing, what a nightmare". MP in RTwP is a mess ( So much that most of the games do not even try to implement it). In Dragon age: inquisition they disabled the pause in multiplayer. Even in Neverwinter nights 1 and 2 in many servers.

One of my favorite games of all time, BG2, is practically implayable in multiplayer. You have to talk every time with your party members to organize the pauses and even so, it became more and more annoying the more you play.
Posted By: Sordak

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 27/09/19 10:55 AM

i love this debate

"Man like, RTWP is like... more controll man, its like turn based but you can pause whenever so its like... more tactical my dude"

Its like you think i havent actually played any of these games. It never actually plays out that way.
You can try to dissect the argument one way or another but the truth is that RTWP always plays out in the same way and thats either mindless or trying to babysit a bunch of preschool children and stop them from wandering off.
Posted By: Try2Handing

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 27/09/19 11:17 AM

Originally Posted by Artagel

Jeez, what RTwP games have you guys been playing?

Not everyone can micromanage. More than 2 characters at once, that is.
Posted By: kanisatha

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 27/09/19 01:20 PM

Originally Posted by Try2Handing
Originally Posted by Artagel

Jeez, what RTwP games have you guys been playing?

Not everyone can micromanage. More than 2 characters at once, that is.

Yes this is what it really comes down to, but people don't want to own up to it, for reasons of pride or ego.

I'm not trying to insult anyone. We all have things we're good at and things we're not good at. I myself am limited in my ability to handle games that require a lot of hand-eye coordination because I did not grow up playing video games, have never played console games, and as such trying to play with mouse and keyboard a game that requires a lot of hand-eye coordination is extremely difficult. So the argument that RTwP games require too much micromanaging and multitasking that is difficult for some people I can appreciate. All other arguments are BS.
Posted By: BillyYank

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 27/09/19 02:24 PM


Originally Posted by Brent2410
Originally Posted by Horrorscope
Thus I need smart AI to carry out orders and almost all attempts at this imo have failed. Imo the two need to be paired together RtwP with good AI, if it is definable by the user or the game does it well.


Can't agree more - and it brings me to MY main criticism of real time. If you're relying on AI to control 3/4 of your party in a party based game - then you are missing out on 3/4 of the combat experience. The only time I enjoy real time is if I can keep pauses to a minimum... which means I have to solo or run 3 beaters that I can actually trust the AI with. Personally I don't want a party based game that is tuned for solo and I would never trust an AI on a caster class. A turn based system that respects your time fixes all of those problems.


For my play style, it's just the opposite. I find it tedious when I have to be 6 different people during a combat. I'd much rather be the squad leader and be able to trust that the party AI would behave reasonably. That's why I love the advanced AI scripts in the latest version of the BG:EE's. It's not perfect, but I can trust it to handle the melee guys, and almost always handle the archers, while I control the casters and worry about positioning. I have a lot of fun in fights, trying to win them without pausing. If they would port those scripts to IWD:EE, I'd be in heaven. (I'd really be in heaven if someone would remake Jane's Fleet Command with AI that sophisticated.)

I remember, back in the day, there was a certain segment of the BG modding community that was obsessed with scripts. There were some who had the goal of creating combat script robust enough that they could win every fight, including the boss fights, without touching the mouse. I doubt they ever succeeded, but the fact that they were trying does bring up a point that I think get's lost in this debate.

More important than whether it's RT or TB, the real test of a combat system is how wide a spectrum of play styles it can accommodate. In the IE games, you can micromanage, control each sword blow, each arrow, if that's your thing. Or you can set up the fight and let (some of) your party members handle it themselves. Regardless of whether this game ends up RT or TB, I'd still like the option of setting some party members on autopilot and be able to trust that they'll behave, if not intelligently, at least reasonably.
Posted By: kanisatha

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 27/09/19 02:54 PM

Originally Posted by BillyYank

Originally Posted by Brent2410
Originally Posted by Horrorscope
Thus I need smart AI to carry out orders and almost all attempts at this imo have failed. Imo the two need to be paired together RtwP with good AI, if it is definable by the user or the game does it well.


Can't agree more - and it brings me to MY main criticism of real time. If you're relying on AI to control 3/4 of your party in a party based game - then you are missing out on 3/4 of the combat experience. The only time I enjoy real time is if I can keep pauses to a minimum... which means I have to solo or run 3 beaters that I can actually trust the AI with. Personally I don't want a party based game that is tuned for solo and I would never trust an AI on a caster class. A turn based system that respects your time fixes all of those problems.


For my play style, it's just the opposite. I find it tedious when I have to be 6 different people during a combat. I'd much rather be the squad leader and be able to trust that the party AI would behave reasonably. That's why I love the advanced AI scripts in the latest version of the BG:EE's. It's not perfect, but I can trust it to handle the melee guys, and almost always handle the archers, while I control the casters and worry about positioning. I have a lot of fun in fights, trying to win them without pausing. If they would port those scripts to IWD:EE, I'd be in heaven. (I'd really be in heaven if someone would remake Jane's Fleet Command with AI that sophisticated.)

I remember, back in the day, there was a certain segment of the BG modding community that was obsessed with scripts. There were some who had the goal of creating combat script robust enough that they could win every fight, including the boss fights, without touching the mouse. I doubt they ever succeeded, but the fact that they were trying does bring up a point that I think get's lost in this debate.

More important than whether it's RT or TB, the real test of a combat system is how wide a spectrum of play styles it can accommodate. In the IE games, you can micromanage, control each sword blow, each arrow, if that's your thing. Or you can set up the fight and let (some of) your party members handle it themselves. Regardless of whether this game ends up RT or TB, I'd still like the option of setting some party members on autopilot and be able to trust that they'll behave, if not intelligently, at least reasonably.

Well said! This is me too.

One of the main reasons I really love PoE2 is because they chaged most (not all) casting abilities to per encounter rather than per rest. In the IE games you ddn't want the casters on auto because they'd end up using up their spells and you wouldn't have any left until the next rest. But because in PoE2 most of those abilities are per encounter, I don't mind putting even spellcasters on auto, and for that reason actually like having and using spellcasters in my party which I never liked to do in the IE games.
Posted By: Sordak

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 27/09/19 03:50 PM

I love how you act as if managing 6 different dudes in RTWP takes skill.

It doesnt. Its tedious.
Come back to me when you get good at RTS games. Where you dont have a pause option and instead of managing 6 dudes, you manage 200.

Nobody is "too stupid" to play RTWP, nobody "doesnt want to admit it because of his ego".
Micromangement in RTWP is a tedium problem, not a skill problem.
Posted By: Try2Handing

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 27/09/19 05:02 PM

Originally Posted by Sordak

It doesnt. Its tedious.

Well if you want to look at it that way. *shrug*.

I'm no world level RTS player, but I'm decent at games like AoE, AoM, Rise of Nations, Total War. I enjoyed them a lot too. What about you?

That said, I don't know how bringing in RTS games in here proves anything. If you gives each of those 200 dudes 30 spells, 10 types of potions, 5 special abilities, 6 item abilities, a bunch of spare weapons and rings and belts, I bet you'd want to be able to pause the game too. On the other hand, if in BG2 instead of controlling 6 dudes I have to control 200 dudes but all 200 of them are exactly the same "click-and-basic-attack" meat shield minions, while having the ability to keep spawning more of them from some base, then chances are I wouldn't need to pause either.

This argument is so effing stupid lmao.

Both BG and BG2 must be tedious beyond all hope then, because generally you have to pause a lot in these games. *Google "best RPG's of all times" lists" => *BG2 at #2-#3 in all of them*. Yeeaaahh riiiight. Boring as #$&@. Well you can keep hating. This whole series's got enough fans all over the world, we don't need you.

PS: remind me why you're here again?
Posted By: Sordak

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 27/09/19 05:12 PM

yes? Was this supposed to be some gotcha? i say this because i enjoy RTS quite a bit, especialy the likes of Supreme commander, WBC, Dawn of war, AoX, Age of Empires 2 even tho im not a big fan of that series, and of coruse the allmighty spellforce series that somehow managed to both be a good RTS and a party based real time RPG with phenominally better controll schemes than RTWP games ever had.
Oh yeah and total war but id argue thats a genre of its own


my argument is actually more valid than yours.
Again, an RTS game doenst let you pause, RTWP does. its irrelevant how many abilities youve got in an RTWP game as you have as long as you want to actually use them, there is no skill involved in managing characters with tons of abilities, as you can take your time with it, it adds tedium, not complexity.

Not to mention that you wont have 6 characters that do these things, youll have 2 or 3. Your fighter, your ranger and your rogue are going to be in auto attack mode all combat, with your Wizard, your cleric and your druid doing the actual casting.

Im not sure if you play a lot of RTS games, since in most RTS games, having 200 identical dudes probably means you are going to lose, especialy older ones around the time warcraft 3 came out, im thinking of games like Armies of Exigo, warlords battlecry, spellforce 1 and 2, thats games in which almost all non basic units have abilities that need tobe used, Dawn of War is another example, not to mention company of heroes where you gotta watch firing cones and whatnot.

And thatsnot even counting having to manage your economy at the same time.

I made this argument in comparison. What you claim RTWP does, RTWP does not. RTS does. RTWP does not stress you wiht having to controll a lot of units, it annoys you by constantly having to babysit them.


And yet again, you hate filled little bag of bile, i dont say i dislike infinity engine games, im saying your argument is wrong. which it demonstrably is.
I liked these games, i played these games, but i didnt like em becuase RTWP combat, and im farily sure most people that love Baldurs Gate dont do so because of the combat system.
Just like people who love oblivion dont love it for its graphics.
Posted By: Try2Handing

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 27/09/19 05:13 PM

And here's the thing, people hate on (to keep it simple, let's just talk about BG games) BG's "RTWP" system, but the truth is

YOU DON'T HAVE TO PAUSE

Playing the game without pausing makes you *less effective* in combat, but the game is COMPLETELY BEATABLE without pausing. It will take some skill and a lot of understanding of game mechanics to beat the game with a party of 6 WITHOUT pausing though. Just don't play with mods like SCS or "Improved [anything]" because it may actually be impossible in that case.

You hate pausing? Well here's the good news: you DON'T HAVE TO. But apparently if you don't pause you can't beat the game, and so you hate it. Or am I getting it completely wrong?
Posted By: Try2Handing

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 27/09/19 05:30 PM

Originally Posted by Sordak
there is no skill involved in managing characters with tons of abilities, as you can take your time with it, it adds tedium, not complexity.

having 200 identical dudes probably means you are going to lose.


Yet being able to take your time to consider your options is exactly the same thing TB does. But somehow it's tedious in RTWP but not in TB??

The difference here is in RTWP you need to be able to realize all the things that happen in a fight when all combatants make actions at the same time. It takes understanding of how combat works in general if you want to keep track of everything that's going on and how to *effectively* react to it all, when there are two mages and two clerics casting different spells at the same time, while an assassin backstabbing your own mages and another one or two bruisers pressure your team. That kind of thing. It's not about "being able to take as much time as you need".

Sure, let's play this little game. Let's say I have 200 dudes. 40 of them are counter-infantry archers, 60 of them are counter-archer infantry, 40 of them are counter-cavalry infantry, 40 of them are counter-infantry cavalry, 20 of them are ballistae. All this doesn't change a single thing I said: they are all click-and-attack expendable minions. Sure, you move them around, you position them, you target the right targets with them. But you don't have to select the right spell, drink the right potion, put on the right gear, etc. etc., for each of them. And, you can keep spawning more and more of them at base. You don't have to resurrect each of them at a temple or cast Resurrection on them.

I like how you keep making completely irrelevant "arguments" while thinking you are being convincing.

Originally Posted by Sordak
And thatsnot even counting having to manage your economy at the same time.

Yeah I know. It usually boils down to selecting the right building and hitting the right hotkey as quickly as you can, which you should be able to do after playing the game long enough.

[NOW I really double-posted. My apologies.]
Posted By: Goblin Lich

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 27/09/19 05:53 PM

Originally Posted by Try2Handing
Originally Posted by Sordak

It doesnt. Its tedious.

Well if you want to look at it that way. *shrug*.

I'm no world level RTS player, but I'm decent at games like AoE, AoM, Rise of Nations, Total War. I enjoyed them a lot too. What about you?

That said, I don't know how bringing in RTS games in here proves anything. If you gives each of those 200 dudes 30 spells, 10 types of potions, 5 special abilities, 6 item abilities, a bunch of spare weapons and rings and belts, I bet you'd want to be able to pause the game too. On the other hand, if in BG2 instead of controlling 6 dudes I have to control 200 dudes but all 200 of them are exactly the same "click-and-basic-attack" meat shield minions, while having the ability to keep spawning more of them from some base, then chances are I wouldn't need to pause either.

This argument is so effing stupid lmao.

Both BG and BG2 must be tedious beyond all hope then, because generally you have to pause a lot in these games. *Google "best RPG's of all times" lists" => *BG2 at #2-#3 in all of them*. Yeeaaahh riiiight. Boring as #$&@. Well you can keep hating. This whole series's got enough fans all over the world, we don't need you.

PS: remind me why you're here again?


He was responding to the argument that people who do not like RtwP can't micro manage by saying he have been playing games successfully where (high speed) micro management i very important. "30 spells, 10 types of potions, 5 special abilities, 6 item abilities, a bunch of spare weapons and rings and belts, I bet you'd want to be able to pause the game too." yeah, playing a game like this real time would be insane, wich is why turnbased is much better for it.

Some people have said when you make a party, you make a bunch of mele guys and archers, then have 1-2 mages that "you" control, while the AI can handle the others because they have no abilities requiring thought (there are hopefully games where this is not a thing, im just saying what I have experienced, but my exposure to RtwP games are a lot lower then for others in here most likeley.). This is also how I have been forced to play these games, wich I find so boring. I would like to play a cool mele class like in Divinity Original Sin 2, but instead im forced to control the mage more then anything else.
Posted By: vometia

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 27/09/19 06:58 PM

Group hug, guys: I need to go to bed, so be excellent to each other.
Posted By: Try2Handing

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 27/09/19 07:00 PM

Originally Posted by Goblin Lich
yeah, playing a game like this real time would be insane, wich is why turnbased is much better for it.

Generally speaking,

I have no problem with people claiming TB would be a better system for a game like this. That's their opinion.

I have no problem with people hoping BG3 will be TB so they will be able to enjoy it.

Because at the end of the day, the devs have made up their mind on what they want to do and won't change their mind just because we're here making a fuss out of this issue.

What triggers me is dumb reasoning in combination with stating one's opinions with a condescending attitude as if they're the "correct" opinions and somehow superior to others'.

PS: I'll just stop talking now and move on from this argument just so mods won't get grumpy. We've been down this road before.
Posted By: Artagel

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 28/09/19 12:17 AM

Originally Posted by _Vic_
Well, any RTwP game, if you take into account the "imagine playing with friends, everyone constantly pausing, what a nightmare".

No, I don't take that into account. Like at all.

There's a hundred games out there already that I can play if I want MP.

And if by any remote chance Larian are sacrificing core BG elements and gameplay dynamics in order to make a multi-player first, co-op, cross-play, mobile friendly mess... Heh... I hope they like losing money.

Still no gameplay footage, huh?

Tick, tock.
Posted By: Hawke

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 28/09/19 03:29 AM

Originally Posted by Artagel
Originally Posted by _Vic_
Well, any RTwP game, if you take into account the "imagine playing with friends, everyone constantly pausing, what a nightmare".

No, I don't take that into account. Like at all.

There's a hundred games out there already that I can play if I want MP.

And if by any remote chance Larian are sacrificing core BG elements and gameplay dynamics in order to make a multi-player first, co-op, cross-play, mobile friendly mess... Heh... I hope they like losing money.

Still no gameplay footage, huh?

Tick, tock.

You're delusional if you really believe that a game that plays exactly like Baldurs Gate 2 would be more successful than a coop friendly. I am honestly shocked that there are still CRPG devs around that to not include Coop at all in their games after the resounding success of DOS 2. Even a bad coop mod is better than having none at all. And I say this as someone who rarely plays Coop.
I really would like to know if Swen actually believes that Stadia will be a success or if he just likes getting money from Google? (who doesn't?)
Posted By: _Vic_

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 28/09/19 03:29 AM

Originally Posted by Artagel

Originally Posted by Artagel

Jeez, what RTwP games have you guys been playing?


Originally Posted by _Vic_
Well, any RTwP game, if you take into account the "imagine playing with friends, everyone constantly pausing, what a nightmare". MP in RTwP is a mess ( So much that most of the games do not even try to implement it). In Dragon age: inquisition they disabled the pause in multiplayer. Even in Neverwinter nights 1 and 2 in many servers.

One of my favorite games of all time, BG2, is practically implayable in multiplayer. You have to talk every time with your party members to organize the pauses and even so, it became more and more annoying the more you play.

No, I don't take that into account. Like at all.

There's a hundred games out there already that I can play if I want MP.

And if by any remote chance Larian are sacrificing core BG elements and gameplay dynamics in order to make a multi-player first, co-op, cross-play, mobile friendly mess... Heh... I hope they like losing money.

Still no gameplay footage, huh?

Tick, tock.



We know almost nothing about BG3, but they already stated that it will have co-op multiplayer, and stadia no less so it is a fact.

Originally Posted by Hawke
Originally Posted by Artagel


And if by any remote chance Larian are sacrificing core BG elements and gameplay dynamics in order to make a multi-player first, co-op, cross-play, mobile friendly mess... Heh... I hope they like losing money.

You're delusional if you really believe that a game that plays exactly like Baldurs Gate 2 would be more successful than a coop friendly. I am honestly shocked that there are still CRPG devs around that to not include Coop at all in their games after the resounding success of DOS 2. Even a bad coop mod is better than having none at all. And I say this as someone who rarely plays Coop.
I really would like to know if Swen actually believes that Stadia will be a success or if he just likes getting money from Google? (who doesn't?)


The problem is that CRPG are usually made by small indie studios, so they have budget constraints. At least that is what devs like the french studio of Solasta or the ones of Realms beyond said. They would like to, but they do not have the cash grin

Seems Larian does not have those restraints anymore.
Posted By: Artagel

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 28/09/19 03:48 AM

Originally Posted by Hawke
You're delusional if you really believe that a game that plays exactly like Baldurs Gate 2 would be more successful than a coop friendly. I am honestly shocked that there are still CRPG devs around that to not include Coop at all in their games after the resounding success of DOS 2. Even a bad coop mod is better than having none at all. And I say this as someone who rarely plays Coop.
I really would like to know if Swen actually believes that Stadia will be a success or if he just likes getting money from Google? (who doesn't?)

I'm delusional...?

Where did I say it has to have no co-op mode at all?


Originally Posted by _Vic_
We know almost nothing about BG3, but they already stated that it will have co-op multiplayer, and stadia no less so it is a fact.

Again, I never stated it wouldn't, or that it shouldn't have a co-op mode.

In point of fact I always fully expected it to.
Posted By: _Vic_

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 28/09/19 03:54 AM

Originally Posted by Artagel
Originally Posted by Hawke
You're delusional if you really believe that a game that plays exactly like Baldurs Gate 2 would be more successful than a coop friendly. I am honestly shocked that there are still CRPG devs around that to not include Coop at all in their games after the resounding success of DOS 2. Even a bad coop mod is better than having none at all. And I say this as someone who rarely plays Coop.
I really would like to know if Swen actually believes that Stadia will be a success or if he just likes getting money from Google? (who doesn't?)

I'm delusional...?

Where did I say it has to have no co-op mode at all?


I think @Hawke pointed out that the cash invested in creating an MP is never going to waste because after the success of DoS2 (and MP coop games in general), having a game with Coop-MP guarantees a steady amount of buyers. So they will never lose money as you said if they allocate resources to create a good MP mode, even if it costs some features due to the need to adapt the game to MP.

That I agree but do not know if that is desirable, tho.
Posted By: Sordak

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 28/09/19 07:02 AM

Way to miss my entire point. Not that im exactly surprised.
Yes you dont need to pause, but you can.


Im not getting into the argument of how Turn bsaed i different from RTWP, ive done this to no end already.

Point is: RTWP is in no ways more complicated than Turn based is, if you want to get int o complicated frantic management, play RTS games.
RTWP is in no ways more complicated, its just more annoying.

And i dont care about the multiplayer boogeyman.
Multiplayer is a great feature and i like playing my RPGs that way, nobody forces you to do it, and saying that complexity is going to get sacrificed for the sake of multiplayer..... please, you can say a lot about OS, even i you hate it, but not that its somehow dumbed down for multiplayer.
Posted By: Hawke

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 28/09/19 02:07 PM

The best part of RTWP is the sense of immediacy you don't get in a turn-based game. the issue is always the micromanaging but that is the challenge in RTWP it's why people like it. Since you feel like a leader who has to manage formations in real-time and make sure everyone is doing what he should do. Personally, I have never seemed that as tedious but then again I grew up with RTS games in the nineties and early 2000s
Posted By: kanisatha

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 28/09/19 03:27 PM

Originally Posted by Hawke
The best part of RTWP is the sense of immediacy you don't get in a turn-based game. the issue is always the micromanaging but that is the challenge in RTWP it's why people like it. Since you feel like a leader who has to manage formations in real-time and make sure everyone is doing what he should do. Personally, I have never seemed that as tedious but then again I grew up with RTS games in the nineties and early 2000s

@Hawke, once again you're exactly right. Managing my party, setting up fighting formations, making sure everyone is doing their part, and all of that in RT w/ minimal pausing, this is exactly what makes combat interesting and exciting and immersive and challenging for me. It is about as far from tedious as anything can possibly be, and, by contrast, what makes TB so utterly boring and tedious and stupid for me. In TB, combat becomes a pain-in-the-ass chore part of the game, something to get through as quickly as possible because it is the sucky crappy part of the game.
Posted By: Artagel

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 28/09/19 06:34 PM

Originally Posted by kanisatha
@Hawke, once again you're exactly right. Managing my party, setting up fighting formations, making sure everyone is doing their part, and all of that in RT w/ minimal pausing, this is exactly what makes combat interesting and exciting and immersive and challenging for me. It is about as far from tedious as anything can possibly be, and, by contrast, what makes TB so utterly boring and tedious and stupid for me. In TB, combat becomes a pain-in-the-ass chore part of the game, something to get through as quickly as possible because it is the sucky crappy part of the game.

Yup, and depending on the difficulty and complexity of the combat system, getting your party to the point where they can survive combat without the micro-managing can often be a long process, one that takes you most of the game to accomplish.

Obviously, party make-up has alot to do with all of this, which is why I always liked creating my own characters so I can set that bar as high or low as possible.

Of course, some set the difficulty to easy and don't want to bother with any of it. Which is perfectly fine.
Posted By: Brent2410

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 29/09/19 09:54 AM

Everyone that's saying you can play the BG games in real time, if you have skill, gotta upload a vid of them beating Melissan on insane without cheesing rests or pausing. Once you've done that, think about how many times you reloaded and tell me it wasn't tedious with a straight face. And after that, realize you're an unstoppable god behind a keyboard and us filthy casuals want something we can enjoy too.

I have quite a few hours on both BG and D:OS series. Every fight in the BG series is either mind-numbingly easy or equally mind-numbingly tedious - with rare few exceptions. Every fight in D:OS makes me think about what I want to do - without me wanting to bash my face off the keyboard in frustration... which is desirable. I don't know if you can attribute that to the combat system or the development or the fact that the BG series is simply 16 years more dated. But, hey, that's just my experience.
Posted By: Hawke

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 29/09/19 10:05 AM

Originally Posted by Brent2410
Everyone that's saying you can play the BG games in real time, if you have skill, gotta upload a vid of them beating Melissan on insane without cheesing rests or pausing. Once you've done that, think about how many times you reloaded and tell me it wasn't tedious with a straight face. And after that, realize you're an unstoppable god behind a keyboard and us filthy casuals want something we can enjoy too.

I have quite a few hours on both BG and D:OS series. Every fight in the BG series is either mind-numbingly easy or equally mind-numbingly tedious - with rare few exceptions. Every fight in D:OS makes me think about what I want to do - without me wanting to bash my face off the keyboard in frustration... which is desirable. I don't know if you can attribute that to the combat system or the development or the fact that the BG series is simply 16 years more dated. But, hey, that's just my experience.


No one claims that Bg2 is perfect there are other RTWP games with much better combat like Pathfinder Kingmaker, Deadfire or even Dragon Age Origins. If you just improve the interface you get a much better experience like in PKM.
Anyway, I never understand how anyone can say that BG 2 is one of the greatest RPG a when it has no skill system and basically all quest involve killing something, thus providing too little role-playing. Those are the areas where Larian has to improve a lot more than in the combat.
Posted By: Sordak

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 29/09/19 12:37 PM

i still fail to see how tedium is skill, if you have infinite ammount of time to do the managing, its not hard
Posted By: kanisatha

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 29/09/19 02:18 PM

Originally Posted by Hawke
Originally Posted by Brent2410
Everyone that's saying you can play the BG games in real time, if you have skill, gotta upload a vid of them beating Melissan on insane without cheesing rests or pausing. Once you've done that, think about how many times you reloaded and tell me it wasn't tedious with a straight face. And after that, realize you're an unstoppable god behind a keyboard and us filthy casuals want something we can enjoy too.

I have quite a few hours on both BG and D:OS series. Every fight in the BG series is either mind-numbingly easy or equally mind-numbingly tedious - with rare few exceptions. Every fight in D:OS makes me think about what I want to do - without me wanting to bash my face off the keyboard in frustration... which is desirable. I don't know if you can attribute that to the combat system or the development or the fact that the BG series is simply 16 years more dated. But, hey, that's just my experience.


No one claims that Bg2 is perfect there are other RTWP games with much better combat like Pathfinder Kingmaker, Deadfire or even Dragon Age Origins. If you just improve the interface you get a much better experience like in PKM.
Anyway, I never understand how anyone can say that BG 2 is one of the greatest RPG a when it has no skill system and basically all quest involve killing something, thus providing too little role-playing. Those are the areas where Larian has to improve a lot more than in the combat.

Right on. It is roleplaying that has become so much better in other RPGs since the release of BG2, and appropriately so given the 'R' built right into 'RPG'. And because for me the D:OS games were a gigantic step backwards in this regard, Larian has a whole heck of a lot to prove to me.

Yes, combat was terrible in BG2. But sorry, combat was equally if not more terrible in the D:OS games. They didn't make me want to think about what I wanted to do. All I needed to do was to spam the same combination of spells from all my characters again and again, and maybe blow up an oil barrel or two. So I learned that the best way to handle combat encounters in D:OS was to just lower the difficulty setting all the way down to facilitate very quick bashing of the enemies with simple melee, and move on. I did this NOT because combat was challenging but rather because it was mind-numbingly boring.
Posted By: Brent2410

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 29/09/19 10:22 PM

Originally Posted by Sordak
i still fail to see how tedium is skill, if you have infinite ammount of time to do the managing, its not hard

Agreed. Which is why I didn't say BG was mind-numbingly difficult. Every big fight boils down to two things. Do you have the correct party composition, and do you have the required sanity to pause every few seconds to make sure everyone is doing what they should be doing.
Posted By: Try2Handing

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 30/09/19 08:41 AM

Originally Posted by Brent2410
Everyone that's saying you can play the BG games in real time, if you have skill, gotta upload a vid of them beating Melissan on insane without cheesing rests or pausing.

Melissan Fight No Pause

This, is to settle the question "Can it be done or not?". Just so there won't be any doubt about it. Not Insane difficulty because the game is meant to be played at CORE RULES. Besides, not that it would have mattered, as the party took almost no damage.

Now that that's out of the way, let me say a few things.

- No, I definitely don't expect the majority of players would try to do something like this.

- This is without pausing at all. If you just pause a few times, it would be more forgiving and easier to pull off. Unless you're going to tell me, "No, pausing 5 times already makes it boring." I have nothing to say to that.

- How many times did I reload? You have no idea how many times I reload on all the big fights throughout the game, and NOT because it takes a lot of retries to win, but simply because it's fun. For this video, I didn't keep count, but I assure you, it was *nothing*. Maybe even fewer times than some players need when playing normally.

- This video is to demonstrate what careful planning, good execution, and good understanding of the game, can achieve. To answer your question, "Was it tedious?" No, it wasn't. Learning your enemies, knowing that you can do better, trying to come up with the best plan, refining your execution, then seeing it all comes together - if you can't find fun in this while playing a combat-heavy game, well, that is a shame.

- Now if you say, "yeah ok, cool, most players are not as hardcore as you." Seriously, what does it take, really? Read ingame descriptions. Keep in mind the important details. Experiment and play around with your toolbox. Pay attention to how things work. It's not like it takes days and nights studying and doing research.

- Now let me ask you something. Have you ever *try* to play the game without pausing? In vanilla BG, there is an engine bug in which if you pause the game while an enemy is casting a spell, they will be interrupted. This is why sometimes I play through vanilla BG without pausing if there are enemy casters. To me, this makes the game fun in a different way. Chances are you'd need an entirely different approach to the same fight, as well as more careful planning and very good execution to pull it off. It forces you to execute fast and precisely, and this unusually hectic gameplay makes the game exciting to me.

- So the bottom line is, I get that there are different types of players. Some really only play for the story. But honestly, sometimes people complain a game is boring or whatever, yet they can't be bothered to try and find out if there is a way to make the game more fun for them and also can't be bothered to try and get better at the game they're playing, either.
Posted By: Goblin Lich

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 30/09/19 12:39 PM

Originally Posted by Try2Handing
- So the bottom line is, I get that there are different types of players. Some really only play for the story. But honestly, sometimes people complain a game is boring or whatever, yet they can't be bothered to try and find out if there is a way to make the game more fun for them and also can't be bothered to try and get better at the game they're playing, either.


If a game design require you to play in a certain way that is both harder and not what is intended gameplay, to be more fun. Do you really expect people, who already find it boring, to bother to get so familiar with the game that they can play it in such a manner? Thats ridiculous.
Posted By: Hawke

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 30/09/19 01:18 PM

Originally Posted by Goblin Lich
Originally Posted by Try2Handing
- So the bottom line is, I get that there are different types of players. Some really only play for the story. But honestly, sometimes people complain a game is boring or whatever, yet they can't be bothered to try and find out if there is a way to make the game more fun for them and also can't be bothered to try and get better at the game they're playing, either.


If a game design require you to play in a certain way that is both harder and not what is intended gameplay, to be more fun. Do you really expect people, who already find it boring, to bother to get so familiar with the game that they can play it in such a manner? Thats ridiculous.


You know your own personal feelings are just that. Just because you hate RTWP does not mean you have a right to declare that it's a bad system even there are people who enjoy it. Seems to be common among the turn-based fraction while most RTWP fans can enjoy turn-based combat, the TB fans will stop at nothing to make RTWP seems like a bad system when it was used in so many great beloved games that by their definition are all crap, just because they use a system that you don't like.
Is it really so hard to admit that RTWP can be fun but it's just not for you?
Posted By: Brent2410

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 30/09/19 02:05 PM

Originally Posted by Try2Handing
Not Insane difficulty

lol
Originally Posted by Try2Handing
How many times did I reload? For this video, I didn't keep count

rofl
Originally Posted by Try2Handing
"Was it tedious?" No, it wasn't.

Imagine spending 5 minutes on setting up in a 5 minute 45 second boss fight and saying it wasn't tedious with a straight face.
gz tho, you for sure did something not a lot of people can do.
Posted By: Goblin Lich

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 30/09/19 02:20 PM

Originally Posted by Hawke
Originally Posted by Goblin Lich
Originally Posted by Try2Handing
- So the bottom line is, I get that there are different types of players. Some really only play for the story. But honestly, sometimes people complain a game is boring or whatever, yet they can't be bothered to try and find out if there is a way to make the game more fun for them and also can't be bothered to try and get better at the game they're playing, either.


If a game design require you to play in a certain way that is both harder and not what is intended gameplay, to be more fun. Do you really expect people, who already find it boring, to bother to get so familiar with the game that they can play it in such a manner? Thats ridiculous.


You know your own personal feelings are just that. Just because you hate RTWP does not mean you have a right to declare that it's a bad system even there are people who enjoy it. Seems to be common among the turn-based fraction while most RTWP fans can enjoy turn-based combat, the TB fans will stop at nothing to make RTWP seems like a bad system when it was used in so many great beloved games that by their definition are all crap, just because they use a system that you don't like.
Is it really so hard to admit that RTWP can be fun but it's just not for you?


In Final Fantasy 8, you can draw magic to power up your team, but this is incredibly slow, so a lot of people hate it. But you can develop special abilities that lets you transform items into magic wich is quick and effective, but how does this help? People who dosen't like the game aren't gonna be bothered to find out about that. And I like that game, but i certenly understand those who dosen't. The magic system is really bad, since the most intuitive approach to obtain magic in it is boring. So saying "people should play the game in a certain way that make it more fun" dosen't make much sense. It's not a good game design if people need to "play it right".
Try2Handing seem to think it's the players job to figure out how to make the game fun, wich i dissagre with.
Posted By: Try2Handing

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 30/09/19 04:32 PM

Originally Posted by Brent2410
Originally Posted by Try2Handing
Not Insane difficulty

lol
Originally Posted by Try2Handing
How many times did I reload? For this video, I didn't keep count

rofl
Originally Posted by Try2Handing
"Was it tedious?" No, it wasn't.

Imagine spending 5 minutes on setting up in a 5 minute 45 second boss fight and saying it wasn't tedious with a straight face.
gz tho, you for sure did something not a lot of people can do.

What's the point of asking the question "Was it tedious?" if you were not willing to believe the answer? I'd "rofl" here too were I not busy facepalming.

If you watch that video and believe that cranking up the difficulty to Insane would have made a difference, it only proves how bad and ignorant you are at the game. I suspected as much, to be honest, judging by the fact that you thought it impossible without "rest cheesing". I can make another video on Insane just for the sake of clearing this up, but I don't see much point in proving something to someone who is not willing to believe or open their eyes.

You notice I killed Melissan instantly every time, right? You notice the fight drags on more because of its design, with all the cutscenes and whatnot, right? How long would it take *you* for this fight, normally? And how many times would *you *need to reload?

Did you actually *watch* the video, or did you simply look at how long it is?

Making fun of "preparation", when that is exactly what this game is about. I didn't know you wanted a "speedkill". Could've just said so. I made this with the intent to show that it actually doesn't take "god-tier" maneuver and also doesn't have to be super cheesy. But of course, if I had made a speedkill video chances are you'd try to find something else to make fun of.

You're clearly one who has no idea what this game is about, and how to play it. But what's disappointing here is when someone proves just how bad you are at the game, all you can say is "lol".

It's been a cool argument.

PS: this is even worse than arguing with Sordak. Dude at least always argues back with his perspective and *some* reasoning.
Posted By: Try2Handing

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 30/09/19 04:48 PM

Originally Posted by Goblin Lich

If a game design require you to play in a certain way that is both harder and not what is intended gameplay, to be more fun. Do you really expect people, who already find it boring, to bother to get so familiar with the game that they can play it in such a manner? Thats ridiculous.

...

Read the very first bullet point I said in that post.

The point of the video, like I said, is simply to answer the question "can it be done or not?", and also to eventually prove that, this game is simply *not* for some people. There is no point for these people to come here whining the game is "boring" and whatnot with their stupid reasoning, because this game is simply NOT FOR THEM. So they really should just shut the fuck up.

"What is intended gameplay." Exactly. The intended gameplay is to pause. The video was an answer to those who can't enjoy the INTENDED gameplay. Like I pointed out, you can't enjoy the "normal" gameplay, you also can't be bothered to try and play it in a "not normal" way to see if it's more fun, you also can't be bothered to get better at the game.
Posted By: Goblin Lich

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 30/09/19 05:13 PM

Originally Posted by Try2Handing
Originally Posted by Goblin Lich

If a game design require you to play in a certain way that is both harder and not what is intended gameplay, to be more fun. Do you really expect people, who already find it boring, to bother to get so familiar with the game that they can play it in such a manner? Thats ridiculous.

...

Read the very first bullet point I said in that post.

The point of the video, like I said, is simply to answer the question "can it be done or not?", and also to eventually prove that, this game is simply *not* for some people. There is no point for these people to come here whining the game is "boring" and whatnot with their stupid reasoning, because this game is simply NOT FOR THEM. So they really should just shut the fuck up.

"What is intended gameplay." Exactly. The intended gameplay is to pause. The video was an answer to those who can't enjoy the INTENDED gameplay. Like I pointed out, you can't enjoy the "normal" gameplay, you also can't be bothered to try and play it in a "not normal" way to see if it's more fun, you also can't be bothered to get better at the game.


It's fun to see how you try and twist and turn all arguments. I responded to the last bullet point, wich said "people complain a game is boring or whatever, yet they can't be bothered to try and find out if there is a way to make the game more fun for them and also can't be bothered to try and get better at the game they're playing, either.".
And this thread is about what system people would prefer BG3 to be, so "whining" as you put it, is kinda the point of the thread. Anyway, not gonna go on talking with someone like you, cheers.
Posted By: vometia

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 30/09/19 06:08 PM

Guys, be nice.
Posted By: Try2Handing

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 30/09/19 07:51 PM

There are different kinds of "whining". There's people who have differing opinions and they say what they think and what makes them think that way. And then there's people who's completely clueless and have no idea what tf they're doing with the game, but instead of simply saying "This combat's not for me" or "I can't get into this kind of combat", they trash talk like they know very well what they're talking about. And when someone points out that they're clueless, they'd like "lol".

Originally Posted by Brent2410
gz tho, you for sure did something not a lot of people can do.

...But was still not satisfied with the fact that I played on Core Rules. If NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE could do what is done in that video on CORE RULES, then WHY should I play on Nightmare??? The only reason I didn't do that on Nightmare is precisely because everyone would be like "no one would even try to do this" if I had. But I believe it's clear enough this guy has no idea what he's talking about. Anyone who has actually played this game at all will know right away that in the video that I posted, there was *minimal* preparation. Almost no group self-buffs, no summonings. Some steps could actually be skipped.

Originally Posted by Brent2410
5 minutes on setting up in a 5 minute 45 second boss

Clearly just a very, very lousy attempt to make his argument "legit". Probably didn't even bother to watch past the first minute. You issued a challenge, I answered it. That's better than anything you've done or have to show so far. Get the hell out of here.

Originally Posted by Goblin Lich
Do you really expect people, who already find it boring, to bother to get so familiar with the game that they can play it in such a manner?

See what I'm talking about? That was on Core Rules. Not even Nightmare. Although like I said, it wouldn't have made a difference. Nightmare simply doubles all the damage you take.

Originally Posted by Goblin Lich
try and twist and turn all arguments

I wasn't twisting or turning anything. You asked me "Do you really expect people, who already find it boring, to bother to get so familiar with the game that they can play it in such a manner?", and I simply pointed out that I answered just that, "No, I don't", in the post right above yours.

To Vometia (and maybe other mods): my sincere apologies. I try my best to keep things from getting out of hand.
Posted By: vometia

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 01/10/19 03:11 AM

Originally Posted by Try2Handing
To Vometia (and maybe other mods): my sincere apologies. I try my best to keep things from getting out of hand.

It wasn't aimed at anyone in particular, and I know how it is when we feel strongly about a subject (btdt etc) but I think there's always a better communication of ideas and perspectives when focusing on the subject rather than one's "opponent". Plus I'm old and I get tired and grumpy!
Posted By: Brent2410

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 01/10/19 03:55 AM

Originally Posted by Try2Handing

Originally Posted by Brent2410
5 minutes on setting up in a 5 minute 45 second boss

Clearly just a very, very lousy attempt to make his argument "legit". Probably didn't even bother to watch past the first minute. You issued a challenge, I answered it. That's better than anything you've done or have to show so far. Get the hell out of here.

I literally timed it... And didn't include any time that you weren't in control of your characters. Sorry objective fact isn't legit enough for you. If this doesn't showcase the fanboy gatekeeping, then nothing does. Thanks for proving my point while trying to argue against it though.

Edit: I was even generous enough to include the time you spent attacking something longer than you needed to during time stop into the "active combat" time... Thought it feels painfully similar to beating the dead horse of trying to get you to understand literally anyone's perspective beside your own.
Get the hell out of here?
Gladly.
Posted By: Sordak

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 01/10/19 07:48 AM

my favorite video game is polishing door handles because if i tie both my hands behind my back and place an onion in my mouth, its a truly challenging expirience




and before someone calls this an ad hominem: let me reiterate the points at hand.
>People who dont like RTWP are lazy because they dont want to manage 6 characters at once
>actually you dont have to since its called real time WITH PAUSE
>But what if i place arbitrary restrictions on myself and not pause the game

And thats where it stops beeing an argument and goes off to clown world.
you cannot argue for the "virtue" of a system (and use that to dismiss adherants of another system) by proposing to not use the mechanic the system is designed for.
I might aswell say Fighting Game players have terrible reflexes because i play Dark Souls without dodge rolling and rely entierly on parrying.
Posted By: Anuh

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 01/10/19 10:42 PM

When "Torment: Tides of Numenera" was in development, i wrote on inXile forum about balance: If dialogues are shallow, combat system must be thoughtful and sophisticated. If game consisted huge amount of reading, that text must be counter-weighted by the fast combat system.

I tried to remind them: if you tighten the string too much, it will snap, if you leave it too slap, it won't play.

Almost all didn't take it seriously, someone thought that i am a troll.

Well, You can go and see the results; even hardcore RPG veterans admit that the game is a bit boring. On Steam few backers even wrote that combat system literally killed gameplay for them and it is easier to talk your character out of combat than to be engaged in one. Someone wrote, that it is more "interactive book" than an RPG.

One guy in that forum wrote to me, saying that T:ToN was designed as backers wanted. All right, what about all other folks, who can pay to developers much more, when the game is ready? If inXile had made the game more interesting to wider audience, they could raised more money to make better patches and maybe the addon.

Turn-based combat system now is some sort of a bad trend. That is not because many "indie" developers don't make enough efforts to calculate proper mechanics. They not lazy, quite the opposite. It because they just don't have money to hire additional programmers to make real-time combat system. In case of T:ToN limited budget was the real issue and they cut out too many good ideas. But Larian have all resources they need to make game mechanics well.

If Baldur's Gate 3 will have turn-base combat system, it won't be Baldur's Gate anymore. It will be Original Sin 3 - D&D Edition. Or, worse, Tides of Numenera. Or even worse: ToEE with fancy graphics.

Why ToEE has turn-based combat system and radial menu? "Troika" claimed that they want to make "true tabletop experience". The truth is much more simple. With turn-based combat they didn’t have to spend time adjusting the rules.

Don't get me wrong: Original Sin 3 - D&D Edition can be very good, considering how good was two previous games. I fear it just be less Baldur than it could be.

Make a decent triquel is often harder, than make something new. In case of Baldur's Gate 3 Larian should look back in order to move forward. I mean by that: good story, good dialogues, RTwP combat system similar to Infinity-engine era. Don't waste time to make online "achievements". Don't try to please SJW, feminists, and "PC principals", who will shout the loudest and never buy the game. Don't make any sort of lootboxes. And never ever, God forbid, flat minimalistic UI.

And another important thing: If BG3 will be driven by Unity Engine, native GNU/Linux version will be much appreciated. Windows 10 became much more mad this days.

Please, write what you think about all that.
Posted By: Artagel

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 01/10/19 11:58 PM

Originally Posted by Sordak
...you cannot argue for the "virtue" of a system (and use that to dismiss adherants of another system) by proposing to not use the mechanic the system is designed for....

Originally Posted by Brent2410
Everyone that's saying you can play the BG games in real time, if you have skill, gotta upload a vid of them beating Melissan on insane without cheesing rests or pausing...

Originally Posted by Try2Handing
This is to settle the question "Can it be done or not?". Just so there won't be any doubt about it...

How many times did he say he wasn't arguing for the "virtue" of the system?

Heh... my man not even trying to hide the bias...

Posted By: Artagel

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 02/10/19 12:02 AM

Originally Posted by Anuh
When "Torment: Tides of Numenera" was in development, i wrote on inXile forum about balance: If dialogues are shallow, combat system must be thoughtful and sophisticated. If game consisted huge amount of reading, that text must be counter-weighted by the fast combat system.

I tried to remind them: if you tighten the string too much, it will snap, if you leave it too slap, it won't play.

Almost all didn't take it seriously, someone thought that i am a troll.

Well, You can go and see the results; even hardcore RPG veterans admit that the game is a bit boring. On Steam few backers even wrote that combat system literally killed gameplay for them and it is easier to talk your character out of combat than to be engaged in one. Someone wrote, that it is more "interactive book" than an RPG.

One guy in that forum wrote to me, saying that T:ToN was designed as backers wanted. All right, what about all other folks, who can pay to developers much more, when the game is ready? If inXile had made the game more interesting to wider audience, they could raised more money to make better patches and maybe the addon.

Turn-based combat system now is some sort of a bad trend. That is not because many "indie" developers don't make enough efforts to calculate proper mechanics. They not lazy, quite the opposite. It because they just don't have money to hire additional programmers to make real-time combat system. In case of T:ToN limited budget was the real issue and they cut out too many good ideas. But Larian have all resources they need to make game mechanics well.

If Baldur's Gate 3 will have turn-base combat system, it won't be Baldur's Gate anymore. It will be Original Sin 3 - D&D Edition. Or, worse, Tides of Numenera. Or even worse: ToEE with fancy graphics.

Why ToEE has turn-based combat system and radial menu? "Troika" claimed that they want to make "true tabletop experience". The truth is much more simple. With turn-based combat they didn’t have to spend time adjusting the rules.

Don't get me wrong: Original Sin 3 - D&D Edition can be very good, considering how good was two previous games. I fear it just be less Baldur than it could be.

Make a decent triquel is often harder, than make something new. In case of Baldur's Gate 3 Larian should look back in order to move forward. I mean by that: good story, good dialogues, RTwP combat system similar to Infinity-engine era. Don't waste time to make online "achievements". Don't try to please SJW, feminists, and "PC principals", who will shout the loudest and never buy the game. Don't make any sort of lootboxes. And never ever, God forbid, flat minimalistic UI.

And another important thing: If BG3 will be driven by Unity Engine, native GNU/Linux version will be much appreciated. Windows 10 became much more mad this days.

Please, write what you think about all that.

Good post.

We'll see if Larian was wise in how they put those resources to use.
Posted By: Goblin Lich

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 02/10/19 01:36 AM

Originally Posted by Anuh

Turn-based combat system now is some sort of a bad trend. That is not because many "indie" developers don't make enough efforts to calculate proper mechanics. They not lazy, quite the opposite. It because they just don't have money to hire additional programmers to make real-time combat system. In case of T:ToN limited budget was the real issue and they cut out too many good ideas. But Larian have all resources they need to make game mechanics well.


Bad trend? What is this trend you are talking about?

T:ToN was one of the most successful kickstarters ever when it comes to games, with 4x the budget of Original Sin 1, and 2x the budget of Original Sin 2. T:ToN is just a bad game, the budget was not the problem. I highly doubt RTwP is a huge tax to the budget if any, compared to turnbased.
Posted By: Sordak

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 02/10/19 08:32 AM

First Turn Based was newfangled stuff, now turn based is supposedly lazyness because its ... cheaper? What?
Why on earth would RTWP be more expensie to make. i think the assumptions made about game design in order to push for your preferred playstyle are staggering.
And then every post comes up with some completley different convoluted reason why turn based is "bad".

The absolute ammount of seethe amazes me.
Posted By: Anuh

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 02/10/19 11:09 AM

Quote
T:ToN is just a bad game, the budget was not the problem.

It is not bad at all. It is worse than it could and should be. That was my point.

Quote
And then every post comes up with some completley different convoluted reason why turn based is "bad".

Turn-based fans make their assumptions, real-time fans - making theirs. There is nothing wrong with that. Some people want BG3 to have D:OS combat system. I found their argument unconvincing. By the way, think about what Wikipedia said about RTwP: ...It can also help players who desire extra time for analysis before issuing actions. Do you see? With RTwP you can take your time, your cup of coffee and think carefully before make the next move. It is not shooter mechanics in any way.

RTwP isn't real time system after all. It is modified turn-based. Throwing polyhedral dice and calculating the outcome based on class, abilities etc. - all those essential elements are still there! The difference is that calculations, that in tabletop game can lasts hours with pen and paper, computer makes immediately. Less primary school algebra, more Dragons!
Posted By: Sordak

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 02/10/19 11:19 AM

i dont know what thats supposed to mean.
See, now we have both arguments saying "But RTWP is basically turn based see!?" and "RTWP is totaly action and management see?"

Realy RTWP is a system that came out of neccesity and it doesnt know what it wants to be.
Its a bad system.
And for the record, i dont believe its gonna be either Turn based or RTWP, and if itll be RTWP itll be Dragon Age 2 style RTWP rather than Baldurs Gate style.
Posted By: Anuh

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 02/10/19 02:25 PM

Originally Posted by Artagel
Good post. We'll see if Larian was wise in how they put those resources to use.

Thank you, good man. Hope is still lives in my heart.

Originally Posted by Sordak
Realy RTWP is a system that came out of neccesity and it doesnt know what it wants to be.

You are mistaken. RTwP system is not a person, not a moody girl. It is sub-program and mathematics.

Originally Posted by Sordak
...itll be Dragon Age 2 style RTWP rather than Baldurs Gate style.

How on earth did you came to that conclusion? DA series traces their roots from BG1 and BG2. Then was NWN, and then DA. Have you read the story of how DA2 was made, about EA swallowed Bioware and all that. EA gave to developers too litte time to finish the game and they had to made console versions also. In case of Larian studios that is not the issue.

You see, that was exactly the discussion we had on inXile forum. People were afraid, that after DA2 and DA3 T:ToN can became as fast as Quake. Too shallow for a proper RPG. So I think I understand you fears. It is my worst expectations also, just from a different point of view. BG3 can became too slow to read, too slow to fight, have too many of unimportant elements without real purpose. You understand? Also too much of one side, too little of the other.

And, come to think of that, nobody from the either side of the argument want to see BG3 fast, shallow and stupid. Nobody wants it to have "action-oriented gameplay" as DA2. Read this guy on the first page: http://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=652997#Post652997

My friend, big BG fan, didn't create account here, and ask me on his behalf to write this: Baldur's Gate is and always was Baldur's Gate. It should stay that way. Otherwise it wouldn't be BG anymore.
Posted By: Sordak

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 02/10/19 04:50 PM

you dont understand my point about DA2
it was about the camera perspective, you convolute two arguments
Posted By: Anuh

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 02/10/19 08:42 PM

Originally Posted by Sordak
you dont understand my point about DA2
it was about the camera perspective, you convolute two arguments


I have read you replies again and find nothing about camera perspectives at all. Sorry, I thought we are talking about combat system core mechanics, not camera angles. I even have read some of your posts back. Your discontent can be applied to Turn-based system as well. For example, "tedium of trash monsters" can happen in either type of combat. Just remember the ToEE battles.

Also you wrote: "if we get turn based, well have RTWP as an option to placate the fans." This statement is just dreams and from developer's perspective will look plain silly.

Again, i don't argue about particular qualities of TB of RTwP systems. I am talking about heritage of the whole series and achieving balanced gameplay.
Posted By: Nobody_Special

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 02/10/19 09:58 PM

Originally Posted by Anuh
Originally Posted by Artagel
Good post. We'll see if Larian was wise in how they put those resources to use.

Thank you, good man. Hope is still lives in my heart.


My friend, big BG fan, didn't create account here, and ask me on his behalf to write this: Baldur's Gate is and always was Baldur's Gate. It should stay that way. Otherwise it wouldn't be BG anymore.


So who are you really? Artagel?????
Posted By: Sordak

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 03/10/19 07:09 AM

literaly getting too lazy to create his thirtieth sock puppet account with two posts, both of which are in this thread
Posted By: Anuh

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 03/10/19 09:58 AM

Originally Posted by Nobody_Special
So who are you really? Artagel?????

I don't read all Artagel's posts. If he wrote something similar, that is OK. And yes, i have a friend who don't speak English at all.

Originally Posted by Sordak
literaly getting too lazy to create his thirtieth sock puppet account with two posts, both of which are in this thread

You were on topic in few first pages. Now you are busy of judging other people instead of having reasonable polite discussion.

It seems that this "raging debate" turned into regular bickering. It will be good to hear someone from developers team so this thread at least will have meaningful ending.
Posted By: Sordak

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 03/10/19 10:25 AM

Im mereley observing a trend that people with very few posts make accounts to specifically post in this thread, having opinions very simmilar to other accounts with very few posts that specifically post in this thread.
Posted By: Artagel

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 03/10/19 01:09 PM

Wtf?

Originally Posted by Anuh
It seems that this "raging debate" turned into regular bickering. It will be good to hear someone from developers team so this thread at least will have meaningful ending.

The only meaningful ending will come when Larian finally shows the gameplay footage they were supposed to have shown this summer, and either a ton of pre-orders get cancelled, or a forum full of fanboys crash their own message board.
Posted By: Try2Handing

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 03/10/19 05:51 PM

Originally Posted by Brent2410

I literally timed it... And didn't include any time that you weren't in control of your characters. Sorry objective fact isn't legit enough for you. If this doesn't showcase the fanboy gatekeeping, then nothing does. Thanks for proving my point while trying to argue against it though.

Edit: I was even generous enough to include the time you spent attacking something longer than you needed to during time stop into the "active combat" time...

I don't know what you included in your timing, but even if you include all the time for setting up traps and inventory management, what I'd call "preparation" is only roughly 3 minutes. But then how else do you use trap spells/skills? And inventory management is disallowed too? You don't have to manage inventory and don't have to move characters around in TB, right? So yeah, you'll have to excuse me if I don't trust your "literally timed it".

You wanted a video on that fight in real time. I gave you that. Then you started to nit-pick at completely irrelevant factors. You started acting like "not playing on Insane" is a problem. The original argument was about the systems, wasn't it? RTWP vs. TB. And somehow playing on the intended difficulty is suddenly a problem now? If you don't already know, the system revolves around Core Rules. And you "lol"d when I said it wasn't tedious for me. I used all spells as they are supposed to be used. If this is tedious for you, fair enough. But you don't get to decide if it is tedious for me or anyone else. If this is tedious for you, then the game's not for you. Looks to me like you were just trying a bit too hard there to "win" the argument based on irrelevant factors. Well, nice try.

Most importantly, any "preparation" I did was *outside of combat*. Meaning the preparation that you laughed at has nothing to do with whether the system is RTWP or TB, which is the original issue that started all this. So you're clearly just making fun of the attempt in order to try to "stay relevant", as if your arguments still have some meaning or validity. Unless you're trying to tell me that in a TB game "out-of-combat preparations" doesn't exist, at all. Now this is just plain stupid.

In the end, what this whole video challenge drama shows is that you know almost nothing about how this game is supposed to be played. After all, you simply can't know much about a game whose core mechanics you dislike. There's nothing wrong with not knowing much about a game. It's just that I find it laughable when someone talks all sorts of bs while pretending the opposite, and then acts like a complete loser when the argument starts getting serious. Simple as that. There's nothing wrong with disliking the game, either. You'll have to accept the fact that there are plenty of others who can enjoy exactly the same thing that bores you. You can keep "lol"ing if that makes you feel more secure or if that's the best you can do to undermine someone else's argument.

So are you out of here yet?
Posted By: Try2Handing

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 03/10/19 06:04 PM

Originally Posted by Sordak
Im mereley observing a trend that people with very few posts make accounts to specifically post in this thread, having opinions very simmilar to other accounts with very few posts that specifically post in this thread.

That is something you can't prove, isn't it? There's nothing unusual about new members coming in sharing similar opinion. This topic is pinned, after all. And there are only really a few opinions: either you're for TB, or you're for RTWP, or neither. So naturally there will be many who share the same opinions...
Posted By: vometia

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 04/10/19 03:22 AM

Knock it off with the accusations of forum members being sock-puppets and asserting what other people's opinions are, please. Discuss the pros and cons of the subject, and the speculation if you must, but be civil.
Posted By: Anuh

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 04/10/19 12:05 PM

Originally Posted by Artagel
Lot of possible pre-orders just floating in the air...

Originally Posted by Artagel
...when Larian finally shows the gameplay...

You absolutely right. I wonder, what is wrong with putting few lines of text on the BG3's site? "It will D&D5, it will be in 2.5D/3D, it will be same/different combat, it will be great". I mean, why keep suspense on this? By all means hide the scenario details, just tell us, what are you making - submarine or a plane.

I remembering what had happen with "Torchlight". When developers making the second part, they told - it will "...serving as an intermediate step toward long before planned MMO". Imagine, what would happen if they waited till the last moment and said: aaaaaand it will be free-to-play MMO. And reaction of those, who awaited usual single player - What, why, how? Second "Second DotA"? Another Red shirt guy moment.

That talk about burning chair in the interview with Mr. Vincke make me worried. What it will be - funny cutscene during dialogue or a "combo move button" on the spell bar in Turn-based battle? Say, on 27th turn "rage bar" is charged and you can apply this move. NWN2-MoB-style bar. But where do you take this chair, if your character standing in the opposite corner? If in RTwP you will run to it, your enemy will just move away. Your party leader, his enemy and this chair must be pretty close. They must be prepositioned when battle begins. This situation more likely indicates turn-based style.

And then Mr. Mearls said: "...coming to life in the authentic way in Baldur's Gate 3." And i don't know what to await now.
Posted By: Artagel

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 05/10/19 12:24 AM

Originally Posted by vometia
Knock it off with the accusations of forum members being sock-puppets and asserting what other people's opinions are, please. Discuss the pros and cons of the subject, and the speculation if you must, but be civil.

Wanted to ask you if the latest update to Greedfall had much effect.

I keep hearing from ppl that it's a hell of a lot of fun.
Posted By: Artagel

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 05/10/19 12:34 AM

Originally Posted by Anuh
You absolutely right. I wonder, what is wrong with putting few lines of text on the BG3's site? "It will D&D5, it will be in 2.5D/3D, it will be same/different combat, it will be great". I mean, why keep suspense on this? By all means hide the scenario details, just tell us, what are you making - submarine or a plane.

I remembering what had happen with "Torchlight". When developers making the second part, they told - it will "...serving as an intermediate step toward long before planned MMO". Imagine, what would happen if they waited till the last moment and said: aaaaaand it will be free-to-play MMO. And reaction of those, who awaited usual single player - What, why, how? Second "Second DotA"? Another Red shirt guy moment.

That talk about burning chair in the interview with Mr. Vincke make me worried. What it will be - funny cutscene during dialogue or a "combo move button" on the spell bar in Turn-based battle? Say, on 27th turn "rage bar" is charged and you can apply this move. NWN2-MoB-style bar. But where do you take this chair, if your character standing in the opposite corner? If in RTwP you will run to it, your enemy will just move away. Your party leader, his enemy and this chair must be pretty close. They must be prepositioned when battle begins. This situation more likely indicates turn-based style.

And then Mr. Mearls said: "...coming to life in the authentic way in Baldur's Gate 3." And i don't know what to await now.

I was not here obviously for the DOS 2 release, but I'm sure there were more updates and info prior to release than this.

You're the 2nd or 3rd person to say these things he's said in interviews "indicates it will be TB", but I re-listen and it just sounds like the kinds of things you can only do in a tabletop setting and it's more then likely an example of some D&D situation Mearls told him about one time and he's just repeating it there. For what reason, I don't know.

Honestly, I would just like to know the time frame. Is it being released in 2019? Is it 2 years away? Why the tease? Do they just enjoy this thread and want it to go on and on?
Posted By: vometia

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 05/10/19 03:59 AM

Originally Posted by Artagel
Wanted to ask you if the latest update to Greedfall had much effect.

I keep hearing from ppl that it's a hell of a lot of fun.

Not sure, I'd already done two fairly complete play-throughs by the time it came out and I'm not quite ready for a third! It's mostly bug-fixes, I think, and though there were some reported howlers my personal experience is that it was remarkably bug-free game for something with some fairly complex and interwoven quests. It apparently addresses one of the biggest gripes I had at the outset which was terrible motion sickness, but after a day or two I habituated to it (sometimes I do, sometimes I don't), partly in conjunction with increasing the FoV to the widest-but-one setting and reducing the mouse sensitivity from about halfway to a quarter. And sprinting everywhere, since endurance isn't a worry.

If the Bioware itch needs scratching I would strongly recommend it. IMHO its strengths are the fairly interesting personal quests and well-written characters. Setting is a mixed bag: beautiful and hand-made rather than auto-generated, though the over-use of a brown filter and Dragon Age style re-use of interiors detracts a little; plus it's not truly open-world, again like DA, though some of the regions are quite large.

Voice acting is excellent; subtitles are mixed, seemingly having some (well, most) done by a proper translator and a few being sometimes a bit Zero Wing.

Most of the "this is awesome but..." is the result of them being a tiny studio, which other people are varyingly forgiving about, the detractors pointing out that having a AAA price tag it should be a AAA quality game. I'd say overall it is, my main feeling being that it's a little short compared to what I'm used to at around 35 hours if you do everything. Then again, that's twice as much as you tend to get from a typical shooter.

So if you want more Bioware-style gameplay I'd definitely recommend it, but it's very different from the Original Sins. And not having played the BG series I'm not sure where that fits in: from what I've gleaned, somewhere in the middle.

It also has its share of meme-friendly arrow-to-the-knee style lines, and I'm going to be forever stuck with the mental image of a grinning Kurt bursting into the room in the middle of the romance scene yelling, "stand aside, things are about to get dicey!"
Posted By: 0Muttley0

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 05/10/19 09:36 AM

Where is this game available for pre-order? I can't find it.
Posted By: Hawke

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 05/10/19 12:02 PM

Originally Posted by 0Muttley0
Where is this game available for pre-order? I can't find it.


Nowhere, Larian started preorders yet.
Posted By: Omegaphallic

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 05/10/19 03:47 PM

It amazes me folks are still argueing over RTwP vs TB still, what is left to be said until Larian starts releasing details on BG 3.
Posted By: 0Muttley0

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 06/10/19 02:18 PM

Originally Posted by Hawke
Originally Posted by 0Muttley0
Where is this game available for pre-order? I can't find it.


Nowhere, Larian started preorders yet.


I thought so. No idea why people are claiming that people are going to be cancelling their pre-orders in that case.
Posted By: vometia

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 06/10/19 03:40 PM

Originally Posted by 0Muttley0
I thought so. No idea why people are claiming that people are going to be cancelling their pre-orders in that case.

It's a statement of intent. Once it's available for pre-order, they'll pre-order it so they can cancel it. It's what I would do if I was sufficiently outraged about whatever was outraging me at the time.
Posted By: SorcererVictor

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 17/10/19 10:29 AM

There are a lot of good turn based adaptations like ToEE and Pool of Radiance 2 : Ruins of myth drannor and a lot of good real time with pause adaptations like NWN1/2, BG1/2, etc. What i never saw is a "lets ignore the rules" adaptation who managed to be good.
Posted By: loudent

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 23/10/19 12:30 AM

So, this might be a moot argument because it turns out we can have both. Not sure how it was pulled off but Pathfinder: Kingmaker its RTWP and a pretty good one. I downloaded a turn-based mod and it worked nearly flawlessly. Just like you'd expect a turn based to work. As long as Larian implements mechanics in a similar way to that game we should be able to have both.
Posted By: Sordak

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 23/10/19 08:24 AM

which kind of assumes that well have a standard system, im fairly sure the comabt system will be seperate to both of these and the way the rules are altered wont make those two systems an option.

at this point id be willing to bet money on it
Posted By: Hawke

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 23/10/19 09:11 AM

Swen said that they have already decided on a combat system and that it only has one.
Posted By: kanisatha

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 23/10/19 12:55 PM

Originally Posted by Hawke
Swen said that they have already decided on a combat system and that it only has one.

Yeah and this has been repeated like a million times on every forum out there and including in this forum and people still keep bring up their fantasy of having both. I don't get it.

My only hope is that their TB system will be moddable such that someone will make a decent RTwP mod for the game.
Posted By: Endlesswave

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 31/10/19 07:47 PM

I hope it's strictly RTwP only because I'd like to organize the way I fight with picking whichever character I want to order around first then proceed from there. Every turned based game that part is automatic which I strongly dislike. RTwP lets me organize my long range fighters and spell casters first then I can send in the close ranger fighters etc. Just makes more sense to me. Gives me more of a sense of being able to control my party better. But that may just be me...
Posted By: Omegaphallic

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 02/11/19 06:05 PM

This thread has been drained to the marrow, but it still keep going like some unkillable form of undead zombie.
Posted By: Raze

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 03/11/19 01:05 AM


It's still better than the Steam discussion version. evil
Posted By: KenkuWizard

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 06/11/19 11:45 PM

Having played Divinity OS2, BG2 and the recent Solasta demo, I think turn-based would be best. Real-time multiplayer is tough when you have that many buttons to press and options to choose from - you only need to play Stellaris with multiple friends to experience that issue, with players constantly pausing the game and saying "can we speed the timer up" or "can we please slow it down a lot, I can't keep up". I admit it'd feel a little crummy that RTwP would be missing as a staple of the series, but I honestly think it'd make for a far better multiplayer experience, and I know Larian are pushing for that, here.

It also makes 5e's addition of Reactions work far better - for example, the Shield spell. It's supposed to give you the option to activate it when an attack hits you each round using that one Reaction. You can't let it autotrigger for the player else it'll consume their Spell Slots in no time. The only way to ask the player 'hey, do you want to use this to block this attack that would be hitting you' would be to outright auto-pause the action and have a box pop up that says "DO YOU WANT TO USE SHIELD?". Now imagine having that happen EVERY combat round, EVERY cycle of 5 or 6 seconds seconds. The design of Reactions is inherently incompatible with RTwP, unless you take the approach of having Reactions be instant-cast once-per-round abilities, but that still doesn't solve the issue of how Shield and similar abilities work that proc "when you are hit by an attack".

With all this considered, I feel turn-based is the only suitable way forward. The 5e ruleset and potential for 6 players in multiplayer play make it difficult for me to imagine BG3 using RTwP, as much as I do like that system.
Posted By: Omegaphallic

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 09/11/19 07:27 PM

"So what was one of the biggest changes you made to Divinity: Original Sin during production?

It used to be a real-time game. We made it turn-based. I see that Yakuza has been taking from our book. [laughs]

I asked myself, “What are we doing? We’re making a real-time game because they told us.” Publishers told us that there’s no way you’re going to get your distribution deals if it’s turn-based. It needs to be real-time, blah, blah, blah. We’ve been conditioned into thinking real-time. I was in the shower, I was like, “What are we doing? We’re gonna be competing with Blizzard making an action RPG? We can’t compete with Blizzard, we don’t have the resources. But no one is making turn-based RPGs anymore. So maybe that’s where we should be going.” And that was a really good move."

This was from a just released interview with Larians CEO.

It's not a complete lock the BG3 will be turn based, but it's clear that Larian Studios has a preference for turn based.

Posted By: kanisatha

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 10/11/19 03:10 PM

Oh please!! Of course it is a lock that it will be TB. Larian clearly will not be making a non-TB game anytime in the foreseeable future. If anything, I think these remarks make clear that Swen believes all games should be TB, which is the typical attitude of TB fans.
Posted By: Omegaphallic

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 11/11/19 06:10 AM

Originally Posted by kanisatha
Oh please!! Of course it is a lock that it will be TB. Larian clearly will not be making a non-TB game anytime in the foreseeable future. If anything, I think these remarks make clear that Swen believes all games should be TB, which is the typical attitude of TB fans.


Thanks that is reassuring!

Now to convince the makers of the Witcher series that Witcher 4 needs to be a party turn based as well!
Posted By: Omegaphallic

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 12/11/19 05:06 PM

"Larian is making Baldur's Gate 3 now and Baldur's Gate is such a beloved franchise. How are you going to live up with the fans' expectations?

Swen: I don't think we can live up to the expectations. I think that's impossible. Those expectations are soaring through to the roof. What we're doing is we're making our type of Dungeons & Dragons with a lot of love for what came before and with also putting our own stamp on it.

That's literally the only way we could approach it. We don't want to make a clone of Baldur's Gate 2. We want to make Baldur's Gate 3. It's based on the 5th edition of Dungeons & Dragons so there's a lot of stuff that I think that we're going to add into it. There are also innovations and things you haven't seen before but we'll never know which one the fans are going to like it or not. I hope the fans like it because we put a lot of effort into it."

The qoute above is from the latest interview with the CEO of Larian Studios, if there was any doubt about this game being TB instead of RTwP it should be banished by now.
Posted By: Delicieuxz

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 18/11/19 10:51 AM

Originally Posted by kanisatha
Oh please!! Of course it is a lock that it will be TB. Larian clearly will not be making a non-TB game anytime in the foreseeable future. If anything, I think these remarks make clear that Swen believes all games should be TB, which is the typical attitude of TB fans.


Originally Posted by Omegaphallic

The qoute above is from the latest interview with the CEO of Larian Studios, if there was any doubt about this game being TB instead of RTwP it should be banished by now.


Nothing about that quote implicitly suggests which type of combat system the game will have.

I think that you two associate Larian with TB more than they do, themselves. Larian made two TB games, D:OS 1 and 2, and a lot of games before that which didn't use TB.

There are a lot of ways in which Larian's Baldur's Gate is pressed to live up to expectations, not the least of which is the writing - and there was some concern over who is working on the writing for BG3 and their past style of writing. There's also the combat. There's also things like world building, and other things.

Larian's "type of Dungeons & Dragons" isn't about a particular combat system that we know of. Larian hasn't made a D&D game before.

Personally, I don't see how a game could be authentically Baldur's Gate withotu RTwP combat. It's the game that popularized if not created the RTwP RPG genre. To not have RTwP would be like getting the license to make a new Star Wars film and replacing the characters and lore with Star Trek characters and lore. RTwP was literally created for Baldur's Gate, and Baldur's Gate created RTwP. It'd be a betrayal of Baldur's Gate's legacy and a disrespect to its fans to have BG3 not be RTwP - and I'm sure Larian knows it. If they didn't want to make Baldur's Gate, including with the combat it is synonymous with... why would they have requested to make Baldur's Gate?
Posted By: Omegaphallic

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 18/11/19 01:50 PM

Originally Posted by Delicieuxz
Originally Posted by kanisatha
Oh please!! Of course it is a lock that it will be TB. Larian clearly will not be making a non-TB game anytime in the foreseeable future. If anything, I think these remarks make clear that Swen believes all games should be TB, which is the typical attitude of TB fans.


Originally Posted by Omegaphallic

The qoute above is from the latest interview with the CEO of Larian Studios, if there was any doubt about this game being TB instead of RTwP it should be banished by now.


Nothing about that quote implicitly suggests which type of combat system the game will have.

I think that you two associate Larian with TB more than they do, themselves. Larian made two TB games, D:OS 1 and 2, and a lot of games before that which didn't use TB.

There are a lot of ways in which Larian's Baldur's Gate is pressed to live up to expectations, not the least of which is the writing - and there was some concern over who is working on the writing for BG3 and their past style of writing. There's also the combat. There's also things like world building, and other things.

Larian's "type of Dungeons & Dragons" isn't about a particular combat system that we know of. Larian hasn't made a D&D game before.

Personally, I don't see how a game could be authentically Baldur's Gate withotu RTwP combat. It's the game that popularized if not created the RTwP RPG genre. To not have RTwP would be like getting the license to make a new Star Wars film and replacing the characters and lore with Star Trek characters and lore. RTwP was literally created for Baldur's Gate, and Baldur's Gate created RTwP. It'd be a betrayal of Baldur's Gate's legacy and a disrespect to its fans to have BG3 not be RTwP - and I'm sure Larian knows it. If they didn't want to make Baldur's Gate, including with the combat it is synonymous with... why would they have requested to make Baldur's Gate?


Baldur's Gate is not it's own brand or setting, it's apart of the Forgotten Realms, it's a single city within the Forgotten Realms. It's the same world/brand as games like Neverwinter 1&2, Eye of the Beholder, Al Qadim, Pool of Radiance, Azure Bonds, Pool of Radiance 2, ect...

RTwP is not an inheriant trait of the Forgotten Realms, some FR games are TB, others are real time, others weirder things, ect...

And replacing Star Wars characters with Star Trek characters and lore would be a huge improvement because Star Wars sucks, it's the repetitive epic, it hasn't been good since after Jabba the Hutt died and Princess Laia stopped wearing the gold bikini. It's the Cardassian repetitive epic. Star Trek rules, Star Wars drools.

Posted By: Kaspar

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 19/11/19 03:36 AM

Has there been any indication yet that it'll be the type of game where RTWP or TB are even relevant? That's to say, are we sure it's not going to be something more mainstream, in the Witcher sort of mold?
Posted By: Delicieuxz

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 19/11/19 05:37 AM

Originally Posted by Omegaphallic

Baldur's Gate is not it's own brand or setting, it's apart of the Forgotten Realms, it's a single city within the Forgotten Realms. It's the same world/brand as games like Neverwinter 1&2, Eye of the Beholder, Al Qadim, Pool of Radiance, Azure Bonds, Pool of Radiance 2, ect...

RTwP is not an inheriant trait of the Forgotten Realms, some FR games are TB, others are real time, others weirder things, ect...

And replacing Star Wars characters with Star Trek characters and lore would be a huge improvement because Star Wars sucks, it's the repetitive epic, it hasn't been good since after Jabba the Hutt died and Princess Laia stopped wearing the gold bikini. It's the Cardassian repetitive epic. Star Trek rules, Star Wars drools.



Baldur's Gate is certainly its own brand, just like Neverwinter Nights and Icewind Dale are. They all take place in Forgotten Realms, but that doesn't mean they aren't distinct. Baldur's Gate is THE RTwP game because it created the genre and the RTwP genre came into existence for the purpose of Baldur's Gate. There's nothing else that would be appropriate for it.

Your preference of Star Trek over Star Wars does not challenge the point that to gut an IP's legacy and replace it with another, particularly a competitor's legacy, is to disregard the IP that you're working with. There's no point in working with it in the first place if that's what is going to be done to it.
Posted By: Hawke

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 19/11/19 11:53 AM

Originally Posted by Kaspar
Has there been any indication yet that it'll be the type of game where RTWP or TB are even relevant? That's to say, are we sure it's not going to be something more mainstream, in the Witcher sort of mold?


Nope could be anything as of now. We only know that it will be a party-based RPG so it could be more like Dragon's Dogma although I find that unlikley.
Posted By: Kaspar

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 19/11/19 12:52 PM

Originally Posted by Hawke
Originally Posted by Kaspar
Has there been any indication yet that it'll be the type of game where RTWP or TB are even relevant? That's to say, are we sure it's not going to be something more mainstream, in the Witcher sort of mold?


Nope could be anything as of now. We only know that it will be a party-based RPG so it could be more like Dragon's Dogma although I find that unlikley.


Thanks. I was just wondering, as it appears to be a larger production with the Google Stadia tie-in, which made me wonder if it's likely to be a more console-first style of game, rather than the more PC-first hardcore RPG we've been used to.
Posted By: Artagel

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 22/11/19 11:10 AM

Originally Posted by Omegaphallic
Baldur's Gate is not it's own brand or setting, it's apart of the Forgotten Realms


lol
Posted By: Artagel

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 22/11/19 11:12 AM

Originally Posted by Delicieuxz
Nothing about that quote implicitly suggests which type of combat system the game will have.

I think that you two associate Larian with TB more than they do, themselves. Larian made two TB games, D:OS 1 and 2, and a lot of games before that which didn't use TB.

There are a lot of ways in which Larian's Baldur's Gate is pressed to live up to expectations, not the least of which is the writing - and there was some concern over who is working on the writing for BG3 and their past style of writing. There's also the combat. There's also things like world building, and other things.

Larian's "type of Dungeons & Dragons" isn't about a particular combat system that we know of. Larian hasn't made a D&D game before.

Personally, I don't see how a game could be authentically Baldur's Gate withotu RTwP combat. It's the game that popularized if not created the RTwP RPG genre. To not have RTwP would be like getting the license to make a new Star Wars film and replacing the characters and lore with Star Trek characters and lore. RTwP was literally created for Baldur's Gate, and Baldur's Gate created RTwP. It'd be a betrayal of Baldur's Gate's legacy and a disrespect to its fans to have BG3 not be RTwP - and I'm sure Larian knows it. If they didn't want to make Baldur's Gate, including with the combat it is synonymous with... why would they have requested to make Baldur's Gate?


Well said.

Also, I didn't know that about Larian's other games.
Posted By: Omegaphallic

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 25/11/19 12:03 AM

Originally Posted by Artagel
Originally Posted by Delicieuxz
Nothing about that quote implicitly suggests which type of combat system the game will have.

I think that you two associate Larian with TB more than they do, themselves. Larian made two TB games, D:OS 1 and 2, and a lot of games before that which didn't use TB.

There are a lot of ways in which Larian's Baldur's Gate is pressed to live up to expectations, not the least of which is the writing - and there was some concern over who is working on the writing for BG3 and their past style of writing. There's also the combat. There's also things like world building, and other things.

Larian's "type of Dungeons & Dragons" isn't about a particular combat system that we know of. Larian hasn't made a D&D game before.

Personally, I don't see how a game could be authentically Baldur's Gate withotu RTwP combat. It's the game that popularized if not created the RTwP RPG genre. To not have RTwP would be like getting the license to make a new Star Wars film and replacing the characters and lore with Star Trek characters and lore. RTwP was literally created for Baldur's Gate, and Baldur's Gate created RTwP. It'd be a betrayal of Baldur's Gate's legacy and a disrespect to its fans to have BG3 not be RTwP - and I'm sure Larian knows it. If they didn't want to make Baldur's Gate, including with the combat it is synonymous with... why would they have requested to make Baldur's Gate?


Well said.

Also, I didn't know that about Larian's other games.


Read the interviews with Sven about making DOS1&2 turn based. The other games weren't turned based because publishers would allow them to, once they published their games, they were able to make them the way they wanted to, turn based. Plus they face less competition in turnbase.
Posted By: Thrall

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 30/12/19 02:38 AM

Originally Posted by Delicieuxz

Personally, I don't see how a game could be authentically Baldur's Gate withotu RTwP combat. It's the game that popularized if not created the RTwP RPG genre. To not have RTwP would be like getting the license to make a new Star Wars film and replacing the characters and lore with Star Trek characters and lore. RTwP was literally created for Baldur's Gate, and Baldur's Gate created RTwP. It'd be a betrayal of Baldur's Gate's legacy and a disrespect to its fans to have BG3 not be RTwP - and I'm sure Larian knows it. If they didn't want to make Baldur's Gate, including with the combat it is synonymous with... why would they have requested to make Baldur's Gate?


That is a false analogy. Characters and lore is not combat mechanic and combat mechanic does not define a film or a game.
There are star wars games with FPS, Real time strategy, Shoot 'em up and etc. There are still Star War games with Star War characters, lores and etc.
Posted By: Turretsyndrome

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 01/01/20 05:12 PM

I really hope that Larian sticks with Turn-based and doesn't give RTwP any thought. The vision that they have about BG3, to make a genuine table-top experience is not possible with RTwP. This is why WotC even approached them.

And as far as my personal taste is concerned, the few games I played that had RTwP, had frustrating gameplay because of how stupid character AI generally was and how much hand-holding I had to do to ensure they survived. I only really was able to tolerate it in DA:O and enjoy it in DA 2 because of the Tactics system implemented in those two games. DA:I Tactics system was just a much more simplified version of the previous two games and made the combat horrible again. Having to constantly pause to correct basic actions of characters was never a very enjoyable experience and in-fact allowed for the contrary to happen.

Larian made the bold move of going with Turn-based combat at a time when isometric RPGs were coming back from a long pause, and when their peers decided to play safe. They were innovative in the way they implemented certain mechanics which greatly augmented the combat system and dramatically increased the fun factor of TB. With D:OS 2, they were able to polish the system even more(combat verticality).

I would be terribly disappointed if they decide to go the RTwP route. It would be an unnecessary risk and even if well implemented I feel that it might make it a good game but not a memorable one.
Posted By: Frenzy-kun

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 06/01/20 10:19 AM

I hope they respect the saga that made us fans of RPGs. If they cannot be up to the task, better give the license to another studio. I expect that if the license was given to Larian is because they can make a Baldur's Gate sequel, not a different game with the Baldur's Gate logo on it.
Posted By: Hawke

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 06/01/20 01:47 PM

Deadfire's complete financial failure has probably killed RTWP for good. I expect even Pathfinder Wrath of the Righteous will offer turn-based gameplay + their beloved RTWP.
Posted By: Consulor

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 06/01/20 01:58 PM

My thoughts exactly. Even tho PoE II wasn't a bad game, it sold poorly and I think that it is not only due to Obsidian's failed marketing campaign.
Posted By: kanisatha

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 06/01/20 02:51 PM

Originally Posted by Hawke
Deadfire's complete financial failure has probably killed RTWP for good. I expect even Pathfinder Wrath of the Righteous will offer turn-based gameplay + their beloved RTWP.

Show me one shred of evidence PoE2 sold poorly because it was RTwP.

Oh, and a recent interview with WotR director confirms RTwP will be the (only) combat system for the game. Thank God there's at least one studio out there that knows how to make good cRPGs.
Posted By: Frenzy-kun

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 06/01/20 03:18 PM

The fact that the marketing was terrible doesn't ring a bell? Maybe it's also because the combat was weak in the first game, way behind the original TBwP. Then we have kingmaker, which is a bag of bugs and very questionable design decisions. Yet, it was profitable.
Posted By: Hawke

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 06/01/20 09:33 PM

Originally Posted by kanisatha
Originally Posted by Hawke
Deadfire's complete financial failure has probably killed RTWP for good. I expect even Pathfinder Wrath of the Righteous will offer turn-based gameplay + their beloved RTWP.

Show me one shred of evidence PoE2 sold poorly because it was RTwP.

Oh, and a recent interview with WotR director confirms RTwP will be the (only) combat system for the game. Thank God there's at least one studio out there that knows how to make good cRPGs.


Even Obsidian added Turn based later on. And I do not need to prove that it's what the whole industry thinks, DOS 2 outsold literally every other CRPG made in years.
Pathfinder was a new IP and I fear that Wrath of the Chosen won't be as popular because even POE1 was a huge hit then. I am really excited about WOTR and I personally enjoy RTWP but the majority thinks it's too complicated.
Owlcat Games is a small Russian studio they can make their games so cheaply that it can survive with sales in the lowe 100ks, Larian with their 200-300 devs simply can't.
Posted By: kanisatha

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 07/01/20 03:51 PM

Originally Posted by Hawke
Originally Posted by kanisatha
Originally Posted by Hawke
Deadfire's complete financial failure has probably killed RTWP for good. I expect even Pathfinder Wrath of the Righteous will offer turn-based gameplay + their beloved RTWP.

Show me one shred of evidence PoE2 sold poorly because it was RTwP.

Oh, and a recent interview with WotR director confirms RTwP will be the (only) combat system for the game. Thank God there's at least one studio out there that knows how to make good cRPGs.


Even Obsidian added Turn based later on. And I do not need to prove that it's what the whole industry thinks, DOS 2 outsold literally every other CRPG made in years.
Pathfinder was a new IP and I fear that Wrath of the Chosen won't be as popular because even POE1 was a huge hit then. I am really excited about WOTR and I personally enjoy RTWP but the majority thinks it's too complicated.
Owlcat Games is a small Russian studio they can make their games so cheaply that it can survive with sales in the lowe 100ks, Larian with their 200-300 devs simply can't.

Adding TB did not help PoE2 sales much at all. PoE2's sales woes had very little if anything to do with RTwP and rather with a whole slew of other factors including not having co-op and not being on consoles and being pirate-themed. In the industry, big AAA games are still very much RT or RTwP. D:OS2 sold somewhere between 1.5 and 2 M copies. Relative to other niche games like PoE, that's high. Relative to mainstream RPGs like DA:I, Skyrim and Witcher 3, that is paltry. So being the highest selling game among a bunch of low-selling niche games is not a meaningful achievement at all.

TB is just a fad at present for a small segment of gamers who can't handle anything complex and want everything to be easy and dumbed-down (even while giving them the false perception that they are playing a challenging game). If those people are the extent of your audience, sure, go TB and cap your sales at 2 M. Meanwhile, Witcher 3 has crossed over 35 M units sold and recently set a record for a 4 year old game by having 100,000 people playing it on Steam alone. So RTwP fans like me will go play awesome games like Witcher 3 and ignore silly TB games like BG3. Plus, we still have the REAL Baldur's Gate games available to play too. Why bother playing a fake BG game?
Posted By: Sordak

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 07/01/20 07:36 PM

it didnt help PoE sales because it came out way after the fact
Posted By: Hawke

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 07/01/20 11:28 PM

In which parallel dimension is The Witcher 3 an RTWP game? The number for DOS 2 is higher it's around 3.5 million for Pc alone and BG3 will be a AA with a huge license game so sales will be even higher. DOS 2 alone was one of the highest-grossing games on Steam for 3 years! They made more money than most Action RPG more money than most Action RPGs!
https://store.steampowered.com/sale/2019_top_sellers
https://store.steampowered.com/sale/winter2018bestof/
https://store.steampowered.com/sale/2017_best_sellers/
Pathfinder doesn#t even appear in that list it simply didn't make enough money
So stop pretending like turn-based RPGs aren't outselling RTWP ones it is simply wrong.
Posted By: kanisatha

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 08/01/20 02:21 PM

Originally Posted by Hawke
In which parallel dimension is The Witcher 3 an RTWP game? The number for DOS 2 is higher it's around 3.5 million for Pc alone and BG3 will be a AA with a huge license game so sales will be even higher. DOS 2 alone was one of the highest-grossing games on Steam for 3 years! They made more money than most Action RPG more money than most Action RPGs!
https://store.steampowered.com/sale/2019_top_sellers
https://store.steampowered.com/sale/winter2018bestof/
https://store.steampowered.com/sale/2017_best_sellers/
Pathfinder doesn#t even appear in that list it simply didn't make enough money
So stop pretending like turn-based RPGs aren't outselling RTWP ones it is simply wrong.

Wrong. Swen himself was asked about this in an interview last year and he laughed and asked the reporter where they were getting their numbers from because Larian did not make anywhere near that kind of money or sell that many copies of D:OS2. Then he went on to confirm that sales (at that time) were a little over 1.5M, so I am extrapolating that to about 2M now. To compare D:OS2 to major AAA ARPGs is downright laughable but feel free to keep at it. It only flies on this forum.
Posted By: a.g.letters

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 10/01/20 10:26 AM

Well, if it becomes a real-time gameplay, then there should be a reasonable game flow or at least in the options it is scalable for the game type.

I like it when I have long real-time battles like an old school MMORPG.

So I get continuous damage, but still my HP bar does not jump like stupid immediately to 0. Instead, you can assess the damage and, in real time, use healing spells with magic time, as it is in an MMORPG.

Likewise, enemies get slower damage and, as I said, do less to the player / group. So that the fights there are just longer, but there is still a good flow of play. So you can bring magic times in and do not have to have these stupid cooldowns on many talents.

In addition, a better different gameplay and feeling can be integrated for the individual classes.
Now that the fighting is more linear and you have time, you can also get involved in mechanics that are otherwise hardly possible.
So a barbarian can also get angry and then reduce it via styles. A shooter aims for a while and slows down the bow etc. so that it looks more like a real shooter.
Mages and healers have magic times and can also use dot spells better, or druids have heal over time, which then also works very well and is a good alternative to the direct spells of the cleric.

In addition, you can also very well incorporate AI behavior so that the group appears realistic and the NPCs appear so that they really have their own soul, will, and combat experience.

Furthermore, the worlds can also be limited directly with the strength of the mob. Because you will very quickly recognize in the course of the fight that it is better not to go here, because you had to suddenly do everything for a simple enemy in a border fortress to defeat him, but it is clear that you are still too low for this zone is and you will die ..

I am not a fan of HP ping pong, where enemies do massive damage and you only need pause buttons and drink potions. This is silly and disturbs the feeling of tanks and healers etc.
It is also unattractive when enemies die too quickly and somehow you get nothing.

Well balanced gameplay is much better there ..
Actually, the good old MMORPGs do the best.
You just have to transfer this sensibly into the single player games and not make it too heavy on action.

Above all, you could then leave it to the players via option switches how they want their fights.
Short and crisp, or longer and more manageable.

___


The situation is different with turn-based RPGs.

Here the basic concept is completely different and the gameplay is absolutely decelerated anyway.
Depending on the round of things to do, wizarding classes mostly benefit, but the dynamics draw much more from melee classes.

How do you want to convey a real feeling of rage when it can only be seen otpically through rounds, but is not conveyed through the gameplay?
If I build up anger in real time and then combat styles can be selected from certain rage levels onwards, and then I let the anger flow into actions and damage, it has a rousing and dynamic effect in real time. You can never convey that in turn-based combat, but in the end you choose such a class in order to stand out from other melee fighters.

I also like turn-based RPGs like the DOS series, so it's not ..
But if we also have real time, the break portion there should be narrowly limited to the really fat boss fights, where one intervenes here and there in the actions of the AI-controlled group members.
Although that would not be necessary even there, if you implement it sensibly and the AI ​​can be controlled well by adjustable tactics, etc.
Posted By: Sordak

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 10/01/20 10:59 AM

i understand what you mean with oldschool MMOs and i long wondered why there hasnt been a CRPG that emulates oldshcool MMO raiding with RTWP combat.

That beeing said, DnD as a ruleset doesnt lend itself to that.
Maybe 5E does because it gets very high HP numbers on higher levels. But class mechanics in 5E arent very differentiated, thats because DnD is a game where an idividual plays a class, so its less important for a Sorceror and a Mage to have different Spells as it is to have different mechanics of attaining them.

Well, that appears to be the current philosophy anyway
Posted By: Frenzy-kun

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 12/01/20 04:42 PM

So, then should BG3 be a block game because Minecraft outsells everything? Or there are other reasons behind a decision to choose a genre?
Posted By: ChavaiotH

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 16/01/20 06:34 AM

Free moving and turn based fights and actions like in D:OS.
Posted By: Shabu

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 28/01/20 08:11 AM

Has Larian said If BG3 will be turn based or pause n go like bg1-2?

Wonder how hard it would be to have both? Maybe a mod makes all happy here ?
Posted By: Hawke

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 28/01/20 11:56 AM

Originally Posted by Shabu
Has Larian said If BG3 will be turn based or pause n go like bg1-2?

Wonder how hard it would be to have both? Maybe a mod makes all happy here ?


Nope they haven't which one we get but we know we won't get both systems.
Posted By: etonbears

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 28/01/20 07:57 PM

With the caveat that I only played PnP D&D in the 1970s and 1980s, I don't think either TB or RT really capture the tabletop ideal.

To do that you would pause at the start of a combat round, wait for all actors to enter their orders ( so it works with either single or multi-player ) then run the round with all 5e reactions being offered as they occur ( with auto-pause or maybe a temporary UI button ).

It would probably be quicker than turn-based as well as overcoming its time-serialization problem, without going to full real-time. If it were possible to restrict reactions to simple one-click activation ( again, I don't know much about 5e ) then each round could complete fully in real-time, even in multi-player.


Obviously BG3 only continues the City/Setting, not the original story; and clearly it will be using modern technology, and from what little has been said, BG3 may not be just DOS with 5e rules.

Larian do seem to be spending a lot of money on the game, so I suspect they will need to appeal to a wider audience than DOS to break even, which may also indicate significant differences to their recent games.



Posted By: Brent2410

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 29/01/20 02:46 PM

Originally Posted by etonbears
I don't think either TB or RT really capture the tabletop ideal. To do that you would pause at the start of a combat round, wait for all actors to enter their orders ( so it works with either single or multi-player ) then run the round with all 5e reactions being offered as they occur ( with auto-pause or maybe a temporary UI button ).

In tabletop if you're 60ft away from an enemy and they use their turn to move 30ft towards you - then you can move 30 feet towards them and attack them on your turn. In the system you described, they would both (or neither) be able to attack.

Additionally, and perhaps my biggest gripe about the system you describe, say combat just started. I rolled max for initiative, I go first. I cast fireball at the grouped up enemies and they all get hit. In the system you describe, I cast fireball at a set spot and during the animation they get to simultaneously use their move to walk out of the AoE that they WOULD have been in on PnP.

I realize that, in regard to immersion, the entire round happens in the same 6 seconds for everyone - but that simply isn't how it plays. Nobody should know that better than a PnP veteran that has ever tried casting an AOE spell in a RTwP game.
Originally Posted by etonbears

Larian do seem to be spending a lot of money on the game, so I suspect they will need to appeal to a wider audience than DOS to break even, which may also indicate significant differences to their recent games.

The D&D branding itself will bring in the wider audience, regardless of the system they use. It has been polled anyway. Only 8.5% or 9.5% wouldn't play the game due to the system. Turn Based wins in polls - both in "prefer but will play regardless" AND in "won't play unless turn based"
Posted By: vometia

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 29/01/20 04:06 PM

Originally Posted by Brent2410
The D&D branding itself will bring in the wider audience, regardless of the system they use. It has been polled anyway. Only 8.5% or 9.5% wouldn't play the game due to the system. Turn Based wins in polls - both in "prefer but will play regardless" AND in "won't play unless turn based"

Risky. I'll put up with TB if it's a series I'm already invested in or otherwise have a reason to be specifically interested, but if it's something that might've caught my attention and was 50/50 as to whether or not to buy it would push the consensus towards not interested. Maybe if I was coming from a D&D background I might have a different opinion.
Posted By: kanisatha

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 29/01/20 06:30 PM

Originally Posted by Brent2410
Additionally, and perhaps my biggest gripe about the system you describe, say combat just started. I rolled max for initiative, I go first. I cast fireball at the grouped up enemies and they all get hit. In the system you describe, I cast fireball at a set spot and during the animation they get to simultaneously use their move to walk out of the AoE that they WOULD have been in on PnP.

I don't know how it is in 5e as I stopped playing PnP D&D at 3.5e, but this is not true in 3.5e D&D. You can start casting your spell at your initiative point, but your spell goes off only after your spellcasting time has elapsed which, if that spellcasting time is a full round, would be at the end of the round. So your targets can in fact move out of your AoE before the spell goes off. And, that is exactly as it should be. Maybe 5e has done away with casting time for spells, in which case that would be yet another huge negative against 5e.

@etonbears, I completely agree with how you describe a good comat system for replicating tabletop gaming. If that is what was meant by a game being "turn-based" then I would be much more favorable towards it. But TB as it is generally understood is immersion-breaking and unrealistic and completely sucks.
Posted By: Thrall

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 30/01/20 06:37 AM

Turn-based is the best combat mechanic for RPG. It allow us to have total control on every aspect of the combat.
While RTWP is chaotic, counterintuitive and can easily go out of control for many players especially the newbies.
Posted By: etonbears

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 30/01/20 10:54 PM

Originally Posted by Brent2410
Originally Posted by etonbears
I don't think either TB or RT really capture the tabletop ideal. To do that you would pause at the start of a combat round, wait for all actors to enter their orders ( so it works with either single or multi-player ) then run the round with all 5e reactions being offered as they occur ( with auto-pause or maybe a temporary UI button ).

In tabletop if you're 60ft away from an enemy and they use their turn to move 30ft towards you - then you can move 30 feet towards them and attack them on your turn. In the system you described, they would both (or neither) be able to attack.


Well, that depends on how you relay your intent to the DM / videogame. If both combatants are moving to melee attack each other from 60ft apart, each with 30ft movement in a six second round, neither would know what the other intended to do, so each would simply express their intent to attack the other, and it is up to the DM / videogame to resolve the outcome.

In this case, by the end of the round, the combatants would have closed the gap to melee distance, and both would therefore attack, in initiative order. Had one combatant not decided to close the gap, then neither combatant would be in a position to melee attack, as they are still 30ft apart. Depending on the rules being followed, and how the DM / videogame choose to operate, the moving combatant unable to attack may be offered some alternative action instead, or just lose the attack for that round.

Interestingly, in the 5e strict turn order case where the same two combatants are closing to attack each other, the combatant with the higher initiative that goes first will never be able to attack, since it can only just reach the lower initiative party with a double-distance movement. The lower initiative party, however, then gets a free attack, which does not seem to be an ideal resolution.

Originally Posted by Brent2410

Additionally, and perhaps my biggest gripe about the system you describe, say combat just started. I rolled max for initiative, I go first. I cast fireball at the grouped up enemies and they all get hit. In the system you describe, I cast fireball at a set spot and during the animation they get to simultaneously use their move to walk out of the AoE that they WOULD have been in on PnP.


I suppose that depends on how you view resolution of multiple actions within a bounded time. It is generally up to the DM in PnP to decide how to resolve the actions in a time period. Earlier PnP versions used 60 second bounds with action resolution suggested to be at the end, after all movement, but in initiative order. Later versions reduced the bounds to 6 seconds and removed all possibility of simultaneous actions ( no tied initiative ), to the point where 5e actually uses the notion of turns based on initiative. But ultimately, it is still up to the DM to decide how that 6 second bound is resolved because PnP was always deliberately loosely defined, with rules and interpretations chosen by the playing partners.

If I were to act as DM to encode the situation you describe above in a 5e videogame, in accordance with my suggested notions of resolution, your fireball would happen immediately, because you did not indicate movement prior to action, you have highest initiative, and 5e actions are not specified to take any time. Had you also specified movement before the spell cast, the position of the other combatants may, of course, change according to their orders/intent. To me, that would seem to be more reasonable than destroying temporal continuity, but opinions differ.

Originally Posted by Brent2410

I realize that, in regard to immersion, the entire round happens in the same 6 seconds for everyone - but that simply isn't how it plays. Nobody should know that better than a PnP veteran that has ever tried casting an AOE spell in a RTwP game.


I suppose I'm trying to point out that there are multiple ways to consider and to implement the spirit of a rule-set in a medium for which they were not designed. RTwP was one way selected in the original BG to try to benefit from the videogame medium. As this thread shows, some people thought it a masterstroke, and some thought it garbage. I thought it was a decent effort, for the time, but hardly perfect.

In my view, the best attempt to give a D&D game adequate control without losing the fluidity offered by the computer medium was NWN2. The AI for non selected party members, and the ability to queue orders for multiple rounds made for an acceptable experience. It could have been better, as I sometimes still needed to pause, but learning from that experience, a modern attempt at something similar could do a good job.

Plus, of course, there are NWN2 modules that are fan-made versions of IWD, BG/ToSC, and SoA/ToB, which are fun re-runs of the originals.


Originally Posted by Brent2410

Originally Posted by etonbears

Larian do seem to be spending a lot of money on the game, so I suspect they will need to appeal to a wider audience than DOS to break even, which may also indicate significant differences to their recent games.

The D&D branding itself will bring in the wider audience, regardless of the system they use. It has been polled anyway. Only 8.5% or 9.5% wouldn't play the game due to the system. Turn Based wins in polls - both in "prefer but will play regardless" AND in "won't play unless turn based"


Well, maybe. The estimated PnP player base is 15 million, with 10 million 5e players. Obviously, not all are also computer gamers, but there are also quite a few million computer gamers that like party-based fantasy RPGs that don't like PnP. But, unless Larian seek to offer an experience that appeals to those that prefer real-time RPGs, I doubt they can expect more than 5-10 million sales, even with the BG and D&D names. Purely speculation, of course, and ultimately the game quality and reviews will likely determine reach.

If they don't spend more in game creation and marketing for BG3 than their profits from D:OS2 they will be fine, but we really don't know what their budget calculations are; the flashes we have seen just looks high-ish budget. They definitely have not kept up their promise of frequent communication!
Posted By: etonbears

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 30/01/20 11:04 PM

Originally Posted by vometia
Originally Posted by Brent2410
The D&D branding itself will bring in the wider audience, regardless of the system they use. It has been polled anyway. Only 8.5% or 9.5% wouldn't play the game due to the system. Turn Based wins in polls - both in "prefer but will play regardless" AND in "won't play unless turn based"

Risky. I'll put up with TB if it's a series I'm already invested in or otherwise have a reason to be specifically interested, but if it's something that might've caught my attention and was 50/50 as to whether or not to buy it would push the consensus towards not interested. Maybe if I was coming from a D&D background I might have a different opinion.


I have much the same view even though I do come from a D&D background. I don't hate TB, but when they are combat-heavy in content I find them difficult to like. For me, BG3 would have to be a step-up in all other aspects of play from D:OS to be worth slogging through that sort of TB-combat.
Posted By: etonbears

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 30/01/20 11:12 PM

Originally Posted by Thrall
Turn-based is the best combat mechanic for RPG. It allow us to have total control on every aspect of the combat.
While RTWP is chaotic, counterintuitive and can easily go out of control for many players especially the newbies.


A valid opinion, but not shared by everyone.

Supporting both would be a better choice, as well as possibly expand the market reach.
Posted By: Sordak

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 31/01/20 09:02 AM

why do people who havent played OS think that it has infinity engine encounters.
it doesnt, theres no trash encounters.

also a little fix on the initiative thing.
wrong, the character with the higher initiative WOULD attack since he can charge on top of a movement, thats why the charge action exists
Posted By: kanisatha

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 31/01/20 03:57 PM

Originally Posted by Thrall
Turn-based is the best combat mechanic for RPG. It allow us to have total control on every aspect of the combat.
While RTWP is chaotic, counterintuitive and can easily go out of control for many players especially the newbies.

Wrong. Maybe TB gives you the perception that you are in control of everything, but not me. There are many things I can do in combat in RTwP which a TB system does not allow me to do. A TB system forces me to act according to a script that has been determined for me by the system, which is the exact opposite of having control.
And yes, RTwP is chaotic. Good. That is exactly how combat should be. It should be chaotic, messy, and result in outcomes that are sub-optimal. Anything else is fake combat.
Posted By: Archaven

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 31/01/20 04:59 PM

Originally Posted by kanisatha
Originally Posted by Thrall
Turn-based is the best combat mechanic for RPG. It allow us to have total control on every aspect of the combat.
While RTWP is chaotic, counterintuitive and can easily go out of control for many players especially the newbies.

Wrong. Maybe TB gives you the perception that you are in control of everything, but not me. There are many things I can do in combat in RTwP which a TB system does not allow me to do. A TB system forces me to act according to a script that has been determined for me by the system, which is the exact opposite of having control.
And yes, RTwP is chaotic. Good. That is exactly how combat should be. It should be chaotic, messy, and result in outcomes that are sub-optimal. Anything else is fake combat.


Valid points. TB encounters are easier for developers to script and design how the encounter/battle should be resolved. Often in linear or scripted tactics/strategy.
RTwP is chaotic and very hard for developers to manage the encounters and can even flung out balance for inexperienced developers especially like Larian as their strengths that they have shown were turn-based combat.

But one noticeable problem of RTwP in Pillars of Eternity 2 was pause spamming for me. This happen in my opinion possibly how the developers design the AI. They were moving too fast and AI changing targets without much penalty nor restrictions. Combining this with casting time and friendly fire, even with the introduction of the spell re-targeting doesn't solve the problem at all.
Posted By: kanisatha

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 31/01/20 06:30 PM

Originally Posted by Archaven
Originally Posted by kanisatha
Originally Posted by Thrall
Turn-based is the best combat mechanic for RPG. It allow us to have total control on every aspect of the combat.
While RTWP is chaotic, counterintuitive and can easily go out of control for many players especially the newbies.

Wrong. Maybe TB gives you the perception that you are in control of everything, but not me. There are many things I can do in combat in RTwP which a TB system does not allow me to do. A TB system forces me to act according to a script that has been determined for me by the system, which is the exact opposite of having control.
And yes, RTwP is chaotic. Good. That is exactly how combat should be. It should be chaotic, messy, and result in outcomes that are sub-optimal. Anything else is fake combat.


Valid points. TB encounters are easier for developers to script and design how the encounter/battle should be resolved. Often in linear or scripted tactics/strategy.
RTwP is chaotic and very hard for developers to manage the encounters and can even flung out balance for inexperienced developers especially like Larian as their strengths that they have shown were turn-based combat.

But one noticeable problem of RTwP in Pillars of Eternity 2 was pause spamming for me. This happen in my opinion possibly how the developers design the AI. They were moving too fast and AI changing targets without much penalty nor restrictions. Combining this with casting time and friendly fire, even with the introduction of the spell re-targeting doesn't solve the problem at all.

Very good points, although in Pillars 2 I never had a problem with the AI. But differemt people of course can have different experiences. Also, Pillars 2 does allow you to slow down time if you want.

But for me ultimately, it's not about whether time is running at real-time or slower or stopped completely (i.e. TB). It's about whether the actions of the various characters, both my party and the enemy, are scripted by the game to happen in a set order or whether I get to have the actions of my party happen according to my preference. Most importantly, I want a system where not only do I get to decide when each of my characters will do something but also where I can have two or more of my characters act simultaneously. And most of all, a system where my characters are not standing there magically frozen like statues while an enemy is wailing on them, where a character can even be killed without them having been able to have taken any actions themselves. That is just completely bogus and fake and immersion-breaking.

Now someone can tell me that that is just how D&D works. Well, if Swen is going to say he needs to change things in the D&D rules that don't work well in a videogame, then for me this is rule #1 that needs to have a stake driven through it's evil heart.
Posted By: etonbears

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 31/01/20 08:33 PM

@Sordak : I am going to assume your comments are aimed at me, but it is difficult to be sure as you did not choose to say,

Originally Posted by Sordak

why do people who havent played OS think that it has infinity engine encounters.
it doesnt, theres no trash encounters.


You must have some superpower that let's you know who has played which games to make such a comment...

Games made with the Infinity Engine had a variety of simple to complex encounters, some I liked, some I didn't. The quality of the encounters was more dependent on the game designers than the engine, per se. Particularly, low level encounters in 2e rules of BG1 would tend towards the simple, and I agree that the designers could have done a better job. However, these are now very old games, made at a time when video games were less polished in many ways, and when the market did not sustain heavy investment in game production, so I do not judge them by comparison to modern games.

I have played D:OS, and have mentioned such in other comments. More accurately, I have completed the first map based around the town ( I forget the name ), and moved on to the second map with the forest ( I forget the name ). As you can probably tell from my lack of detailed recall, the game did not make a hugely positive impression on me ( although it may just be approaching senility ). The engine seems to have good basic rendering and media handling, the camera handling through the environment was also good ( although I dislike fixed orientation axonometric projections ), and the rigid and deformable modelling was all to a good, modern standard. The rest, unfortunately, was not especially memorable, or sophisticated. Lacking any real motivation from the story, the repetitive and very slow combat means I have lost interest for the moment.

I have no doubt I will eventually finish it at some point. I do not think it is a bad game, particularly if its design choices mesh with your personal preferences, and like the Infinity Engine games, I will not judge it against high-budget AAA games. It was made with a limited budget, to cater for a particular market segment, and seems to have done well; that segment probably just does not include me.


Originally Posted by Sordak

also a little fix on the initiative thing.
wrong, the character with the higher initiative WOULD attack since he can charge on top of a movement, thats why the charge action exists


I do not know which rule set you are used to using; presumably 3.5, or you have house rules ( D&D has always encouraged you to use and ignore whatever best suits your group ). However, for the purposes of the discussion with @Brent2410, and because we are discussing a game that will implement 5e rules, I assumed that standard 5e would be the correct choice. I do not play PnP any more, but the 5e rules are freely available from WotC, and it would appear that the charge action has been removed.

My comment did specify 5e rules, and did note that a double-distance move was possible ( the "Dash" action ). Were a charge action to still be available, it would certainly add another option to the scenario.
Posted By: Brent2410

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 01/02/20 07:47 PM

Right, dash requires a full action, so you cannot attack if you travel above your max movement in one turn. You can use whatever mental gymnastics you need to in order to justify RTwP being truer to PnP over TB - but there's literally a mechanic called turn order soooo. I'm all for the people that say they prefer RTwP games over TB. When you start saying that RTwP is better at translating the PnP experience, however, you're just flat out wrong. I'm not bashful about admitting I'm more of a fan of PnP over crpgs. I play crpgs because I like the underlying rpg system (DnD core rules) and every time I replay one I have a constant dull pain over the RTwP implementation. That's just my cup of tea tho, I'm not debating the merits of either system.
Posted By: dlux

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 01/02/20 08:18 PM

I'd be very disappointed if the sequel to the legendary Badlur's Gate series doesn't have real-time with pause combat. That would essentially mean that Larian was never interested in making a true sequel and are only using the IP for brand recognition.

My 2 cents.
Posted By: dlux

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 01/02/20 08:25 PM

Originally Posted by etonbears
Originally Posted by Thrall
Turn-based is the best combat mechanic for RPG.

A valid opinion, but not shared by everyone. Supporting both would be a better choice [...]

If they do support both, then they should design the game around RtwP-combat and then slap on a turn-based mode similar to what Obsidian did with Pillars of Eternity 2.

I like turn-based RPGs (check my tags), but I have zero interest in playing a turn-based Baldur's game. I am sure that many others feel the same.
Posted By: dlux

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 01/02/20 08:33 PM

Originally Posted by Hawke
Deadfire's complete financial failure has probably killed RTWP for good.

1. PoE II now also has a turn-based mode. It changed nothing.
2. Pathfinder: Kingmaker outsold PoE II by a very a large margin.

What does that tell us? Probably that your assumption is very subjective and just plain wrong. I personally don't like the PoE series either and never even touched PoE 2, but I think that Pathfinder: Kingmaker is absolutely brilliant.
Posted By: Sordak

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 01/02/20 10:41 PM

etonbears well you prove my point there dont you?
I wasn ttalking about the ENGINE but about the DESIGN.
Infinity engine games (and other DnD games of old like ToEE) feature random encounters (not all infinity engine games do IIRC, but most)

That assumption is what i responded with.
Saying Turn based combat s too in depth and cumbersome for a combat heavy game implies that a game is "combat heavy" by having lots of combat.
Like the infinity engine games do.
The original sin games are very combat centric, but actually dont have a lot of it compared to many other CRPGs, theres no respawning enemies in those games and no resetting encounters.
Hence every encounter is more like a puzzle, or like a setpiece encounter in a DnD campaign.

THAT was my point. That someone suggesting that this combat system is tiresome, clearly hasnt played the games to the extent where they realize that such tiresome encounters arent part of this developers routine.
Simmilarly, you played Cyseal and Luculla forest so maybe this hasnt occured to you, either that or, like some people i know, you brute forced the fights rather than utilizin all tools available to you.
Which is why i think you came to the conclusion that the combat is, quote, "Repetetive".

Ive heard numerous complaints about OS combats but it beeing repetetive certainly was never one of em.


On Charging: i actually made a mistake there, 5e, again, proves to be a terrible Edition of DnD and i simply forgot because i played a Barbarian and had the Charger feat last time i played that system.
In older editions of DnD, chariging was a basic action that anyone could undertake in which you could move up to your speed (in one direction, towards one enemy) and make a basic attack. This could be done by anyone.
This rule specifically existed because of the scenario you discribed. Or to avoid it to be precise.
Now 5e is a System that tried to get rid of "rules bloat" and then introduce the same crap but with a hefty feat tax, because fuck martials.

dlux:
1. the TB mode came out later
2. Pathfinder has a massiveley popular TB mod

Idk. I get your argument for continuity.
I personally dislike RTWP but i wouldnt mind it because its a staple of the series.
But realy its not that great a combat system and i wouldnt bother to see it go.
Posted By: Hawke

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 01/02/20 10:48 PM

Originally Posted by dlux
Originally Posted by Hawke
Deadfire's complete financial failure has probably killed RTWP for good.

1. PoE II now also has a turn-based mode. It changed nothing.
2. Pathfinder: Kingmaker outsold PoE II by a very a large margin.

What does that tell us? Probably that your assumption is very subjective and just plain wrong. I personally don't like the PoE series either and never even touched PoE 2, but I think that Pathfinder: Kingmaker is absolutely brilliant.



Here https://store.steampowered.com/sale/winter2018bestof/ Deadfire is mentioned in the highest-grossing games on Steam but not Kingmaker. Both are missing from the 2019 list unlike the turn based DOS2 (I wonder why? cool)
Deadfire had a bigger development team and was made in California and made the insane mistake of being fully voiced. Meaning it failed despite making more money
How much more is unknown but when you look at Steam charts I think you can say that their sales were similar https://steamcharts.com/app/640820
https://steamcharts.com/app/560130
Kingmaker was made by 25 Russians in less than 2 years without full voice acting so their budget was only a fraction of Deadfire's.

So what do we learn out of this? making an RTWP game with a big budget in a western country is financial suicide, Larian won't be dumb enough to make such a mistake.

Posted By: Brent2410

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 02/02/20 05:30 AM

I don't go in for the continuity argument. Plenty of game series grow out of their genre. GTA, Risk of Rain, Fallout... and that's just off the top of my head. Hell, even Baldur's Gate had an ARPG offshoot that was enjoyable. Sometimes sequels are good; sometimes they aren't. Doesn't have much to do with how true they stay to the previous releases.
Posted By: korotama

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 02/02/20 08:48 AM

It's hard to tell if a game's combat system is a make-or-break factor for its financial success. An RPG should be more than just the sum of its parts. What killed PoE for me was the lack of an engaging narrative and scarcity of interesting characters. The latter felt like a gaggle of hitchhikers to me who were only along for the ride and tried to display interest in your quest merely out of courtesy. The story wasn't much I could relate to either. Siege of Dragonspear gets a lot of flak for being political at times but overall I enjoyed it more because the developers attempted to capture the mood of the times as they saw fit. Nods to real-world issues shouldn't be a no-go for entertainment media in my view but you run the risk of being preachy or propaganda if you're not careful.
Posted By: Sordak

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 02/02/20 08:57 AM

well good to know beamdog has one fan.
Only the political parts of dragonspear were also badly written and stupid.

I for one dont play medieval fantasy RPGs so an NPC gives me a half on hour lecture that boils down to "its ma'am"
Dragon age also did this.

Also yes, a combat system is part of the financial success, sure witcher showed us that it certainly isnt the only reason, but for a CRPG its a big part, since combat is essentaly the biggest part of CRPG gameplay
Posted By: korotama

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 02/02/20 09:10 AM

Originally Posted by Sordak
well good to know beamdog has one fan.
Only the political parts of dragonspear were also badly written and stupid.

I for one dont play medieval fantasy RPGs so an NPC gives me a half on hour lecture that boils down to "its ma'am"
Dragon age also did this.

Also yes, a combat system is part of the financial success, sure witcher showed us that it certainly isnt the only reason, but for a CRPG its a big part, since combat is essentaly the biggest part of CRPG gameplay

No, not exactly a fan but that's a long story.
That's a succinct way to put it. "Lectures" as you say are indication of poorly thought-out writing. The storyteller doesn't have to take anyone's side of the argument, they only have to provide exposition and allow the player to act on it. What Beamdog did was insert political correctness into BG, which obviously didn't sit well with lots of fans but that's not the only way to go about it.
All I'm saying is that while combat has a major role to play, most people will not quit over unintuitive combat if the story and remaining aspects of gameplay are any good.

Posted By: Hawke

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 02/02/20 11:29 AM

I thought their enhanced editions were pretty good mods. cool
Though you still need a lot more free mods like the enhanced edition to fix their mistakes...
Posted By: Shabu

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 03/02/20 03:25 AM

Have to say, I recently started Pillars of Eternity 2 now turn based and upped the difficulty. At least in that system, its a much more strategic and tactical experience.

I typically always liked the real time and pause method, however I would love to see turn based version of D&D 5e implementation. In the POE2 example, it makes that system really shine.
Posted By: Brent2410

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 03/02/20 10:02 AM

Originally Posted by Shabu
However I would love to see turn based version of D&D 5e implementation.

Solasta: Crown of the Magister had a demo up a while back (Sept2019?). It was based off of 5e - pretty barebones as it's not anywhere close to release - but it was a pretty damn good representation of a modern TB 5e game. I'm sure you could find some game play vids. Demo only took like ~30 min, IIRC.
Posted By: 0Muttley0

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 03/02/20 10:38 AM

Originally Posted by Brent2410
Originally Posted by Shabu
However I would love to see turn based version of D&D 5e implementation.

Solasta: Crown of the Magister had a demo up a while back (Sept2019?). It was based off of 5e - pretty barebones as it's not anywhere close to release - but it was a pretty damn good representation of a modern TB 5e game. I'm sure you could find some game play vids. Demo only took like ~30 min, IIRC.



Had a quick look. Yet another great looking RPG that lacks multiplayer frown
For me multiplayer is a must have these days.
Posted By: Brent2410

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 03/02/20 02:24 PM

Originally Posted by 0Muttley0
Had a quick look. Yet another great looking RPG that lacks multiplayer frown
For me multiplayer is a must have these days.

I can understand the sentiment. However, it is their first game and it was a Kickstarter. Taking that into consideration, I think it'll be a studio to keep our eyes on going forward. If the game does well, budgets will increase, and hopefully we'll see multi and a full 5e license.
Posted By: Shabu

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 03/02/20 06:10 PM

Originally Posted by Brent2410
Originally Posted by Shabu
However I would love to see turn based version of D&D 5e implementation.

Solasta: Crown of the Magister had a demo up a while back (Sept2019?). It was based off of 5e - pretty barebones as it's not anywhere close to release - but it was a pretty damn good representation of a modern TB 5e game. I'm sure you could find some game play vids. Demo only took like ~30 min, IIRC.


I missed the demo window but quite excited for that release as well. Love seeing 5e titles coming !!! Moar plz!
Posted By: kanisatha

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 04/02/20 05:10 PM

Deadfire was NOT a financial failure. Enough with the hyperbole. Obsidian has said very clarly that they ended up making money on Deadfire. The issue was that sales were a disappointment relative to Obsidian's expectations for the game, including that it was lower than the sales of the first game.

Nobody has yet provided me with any proof that TB combat is what drove D:OS2's sales. It could've been TB, but there are several other factors that differentiate that game from other similar contemporary cRPGs, so claiming TB was the cause is completely spurious. Furthermore, there are plenty of contemporary TB RPGs out there with abysmal sales numbers.
Posted By: dlux

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 05/02/20 11:43 AM

Originally Posted by Hawke

So what do we learn out of this? making an RTWP game with a big budget in a western country is financial suicide, Larian won't be dumb enough to make such a mistake.

I honestly don't even know how you can claim such nonsense, seeing that Baldur's Gate is considered to be the holy grail of CRPGs, sold millions of copies and put Bioware on the map.

Not to mention that Dragon Age: Origins was marketed as a spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate and also sold millions of copies, even more than Original Sin 2, despite it not even having multiplayer.

Also, the new Pathfinder: Wrath of the Righteous Kickstarter is already extremely successful less than one day in. Not surprising, seeing that Pathfinder: Kingmaker sold almost one million copies. It probably would have sold even more if it wasn't so buggy at launch.

That all said, RTwP is probably "financial suicide" in your household, but not in the rest of the world.
Posted By: dlux

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 05/02/20 12:07 PM

Originally Posted by korotama
It's hard to tell if a game's combat system is a make-or-break factor for its financial success. An RPG should be more than just the sum of its parts. What killed PoE for me was the lack of an engaging narrative and scarcity of interesting characters.

The developers of the PoE series were apparently scrambling and looking for answers as to why PoE 2 was severely underperforming. They subsequently tried to "fix" the game by slapping on a turn-based mode and hoped for a resurgence... It changed nothing, because the true problem is the game/series in its entirety.

Turn-based combat also did nothing for Torment: Tides of Numenera. The game still flopped really hard.
Posted By: kanisatha

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 07/02/20 09:50 PM

Originally Posted by dlux
Turn-based combat also did nothing for Torment: Tides of Numenera. The game still flopped really hard.

^This. So this.
Apparently, when a TB game is successful, its success is only because the game was TB.
But if a TB game is a failure, the game being TB had nothing to do with the failure.

How freakin' amazingly convenient. laugh
Posted By: Sordak

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 07/02/20 11:58 PM

you could say the same about RTWP and Kingmaker
Sometimes a good game is good, sometimes a bad game is bad.
Youd think Kingmaker had sold worse if it were TB?
Youd think Tides wouldve sold better if it was RTWP?
Posted By: Omegaphallic

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 13/02/20 06:30 PM

Originally Posted by Sordak
you could say the same about RTWP and Kingmaker
Sometimes a good game is good, sometimes a bad game is bad.
Youd think Kingmaker had sold worse if it were TB?
Youd think Tides wouldve sold better if it was RTWP?


We will get to find out, because Owlcat just announced that it's doing a turn based mode for Wrath of the Righteous, and it's not even a stretch or social goal, because they have already started making it.

Below is the Pathfinder: Wrath of the Righteous Kickstarter post with details.

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/owlcatgames/pathfinder-wrath-of-the-righteous/posts/2755596

Side note its triggered a spike in backers at a time that had seen things slow down, Mawahahaha.
Posted By: Sordak

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 13/02/20 08:19 PM

realy?
hahaha, this is odd!
Owlcat said they didnt plan on that
but they got huge success and the modder that made the mod for PFK doesnt want to continue it (because he constantly has to upate it and doesnt get paid) so its a realy cool move by them.

Tbh, Owlcat is ag reat developer and the Wrath fo the Righteous Kickstarter is proving that quite a bit,t hey got a firm grasp on what their community wants and what constitutes a good game
Posted By: Hawke

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 13/02/20 11:46 PM

Owlcat Game went full traitor refunded and called the police! crazy

In truth, it's a huge waste of money they should have stuck with RTWP since there is no way both combat systems will be equally good and I say that as someone who hopes BG3 is exclusively turn-based.
Posted By: Sordak

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 14/02/20 07:05 AM

how can you be mad about whats literaly the best of both worlds.
Also they are basing it off the mod...
Posted By: Hawke

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 14/02/20 09:02 AM

Originally Posted by Sordak
how can you be mad about whats literaly the best of both worlds.
Also they are basing it off the mod...


I am not mad, I just don't like companies waste time and money trying to please everyone which is simply impossible.
Posted By: kanisatha

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 14/02/20 06:42 PM

Well, the bottom line is that Owlcat has pulled the rug out from under developers being able to hide behind the lame excuse that having both will be too much cost/work. If Owlcat, a very small indie studio, can do it, others can do it too - and especially others with deep pockets like Larian for example. So all the studios out there developing TB cRPGs refusing to consider adding a RTwP mod will now have their true motives exposed, which is: "All RTwP games must include a TB option for them to be considered good games. But a TB game does not have to include a RTwP option because it is perfect just as a TB game." This is the true mentality of the pro-TB crowd. All the talk of "why not have both?" comes up only in the context of forcing a RTwP game to add TB, but never for a TB game to add RTwP. It's rank hypocrisy.
Posted By: Omegaphallic

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 15/02/20 01:53 PM

Originally Posted by kanisatha
Well, the bottom line is that Owlcat has pulled the rug out from under developers being able to hide behind the lame excuse that having both will be too much cost/work. If Owlcat, a very small indie studio, can do it, others can do it too - and especially others with deep pockets like Larian for example. So all the studios out there developing TB cRPGs refusing to consider adding a RTwP mod will now have their true motives exposed, which is: "All RTwP games must include a TB option for them to be considered good games. But a TB game does not have to include a RTwP option because it is perfect just as a TB game." This is the true mentality of the pro-TB crowd. All the talk of "why not have both?" comes up only in the context of forcing a RTwP game to add TB, but never for a TB game to add RTwP. It's rank hypocricy.


For the record I support BG3 having both. We will hopefully know what it is on the 27th.
Posted By: dlux

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 16/02/20 03:01 PM

It is normal for a developer to be fully dedicated to the combat system they choose and make it as fun as possible. Owlcat Games essentially told fans they aren't completely committed to their own RTwP combat system, so I also felt obligated, although somewhat remorseful, to cancel my pledge. $100 to start wasn't much, but it could have been more.

The funniest thing is that their decision to appease to the vocal minority of turn-based advocates did not pay off at all. Pledges just continued to drastically fall during the mid-campaign slump. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Originally Posted by Omegaphallic
For the record I support BG3 having both. We will hopefully know what it is on the 27th.

Not gonna happen. Swen has said they will support one combat mode or the other and not both, which makes perfect sense. This two-track approach of supporting both TB and RTwP in one game is just dumb.


Posted By: korotama

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 16/02/20 03:26 PM

I don't see why having more options is necessarily a bad thing. Difficulty settings (which affect gameplay to various extents) have become a genre staple just to name one. If the budget allows it and the core experience isn't rubbish, it shouldn't do any harm. I emphasize the core experience needs to be fleshed out since offering players ten different ways to polish a turd isn't much of an improvement over coming up with just one. Admittedly, if there's a high likelihood that the game will suffer because of divided attention on the devs' part they are better off working on just one feature. Anyways, until someone conducts a poll that is up to scientific standards with respect to gamers' preferred combat mode I'd be wary of ranking particular audiences by order of magnitude.
Posted By: Hawke

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 16/02/20 06:28 PM

Why do so many gamers still think games make themself or grow on trees.? frown
Why is it so hard to understand that time is a resource in game development? Devs who work on an additional combat system cannot create content. Even trying to make sure that combat systems are balanced and bug-free is simply impossible and shouldn't even be attempted at all.
Posted By: korotama

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 16/02/20 07:18 PM

Originally Posted by Hawke
Why do so many gamers still think games make themself or grow on trees.? frown
Why is it so hard to understand that time is a resource in game development? Devs who work on an additional combat system cannot create content. Even trying to make sure that combat systems are balanced and bug-free is simply impossible and shouldn't even be attempted at all.

Actually, that's not the most reprehensible thing about gamers in this day and age. Offshoring, crunch and paying developers peanuts so the former can get their latest fix just in time have plagued the industry for a while now. Sometimes I find it hard to sympathize with people on both ends of the industry's pecking order. Should I feel bad for the CEO who won't be able to afford a brand new speedboat this year because of low earnings? Maybe I should feel sorry for the code monkey who doesn't dare to speak out against crappy corporate policies or the low industry standards because that would be freakin' socialism and besides, wage slaves are better off than unemployed slaves. I don't know, I can't say I have a dog in this fight. Regardless, your point is simply a spin on time and resource management which could be applied not just to combat but virtually every other feature characteristic of a video game. You can play DQXI in both 2D and 3D modes and it doesn't appear to have affected the game's quality adversely judging by aggregate review scores.
Posted By: kanisatha

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 17/02/20 04:56 PM

Originally Posted by Hawke
Why do so many gamers still think games make themself or grow on trees.? frown
Why is it so hard to understand that time is a resource in game development? Devs who work on an additional combat system cannot create content. Even trying to make sure that combat systems are balanced and bug-free is simply impossible and shouldn't even be attempted at all.

This would be perfectly fine if it were applied as a principle equally across the board. The issue is the double standard, that it totally makes sense for a RTwP to HAVE to include a TB option but a TB game shouldn't waste resources on adding a RTwP option. It is this double standard that I am questioning.
Posted By: Brent2410

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 18/02/20 05:53 AM

Originally Posted by kanisatha
This would be perfectly fine if it were applied as a principle equally across the board. The issue is the double standard, that it totally makes sense for a RTwP to HAVE to include a TB option but a TB game shouldn't waste resources on adding a RTwP option. It is this double standard that I am questioning.

A game designed around TB will have fewer, more meaningful encounters and games designed around RTwP usually have a higher volume of trash encounters. Translating those two between each other... A game where the encounters are designed around having RTwP would be minding numbing with a TB system slapped on. A game where the encounters are designed around having a TB system where a RTwP system is just slapped on will simply have incredibly difficult encounters.

I hope they just pick a system and make it good. It's wasted resources either way if they're not going to dump a massive amount of time in balancing to make them both feel good. A BG1 & BG2 TB conversion would suck just as much as a D:OS 1&2 RTwP conversion, IMHO.
Posted By: Raze

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 18/02/20 07:18 AM

Originally Posted by kanisatha
It is this double standard that I am questioning.

That isn't a double standard. Adding a turn based mode to a RTwP system is essentially automatically pausing and managing when NPCs can act. It may not be possible to add real time to a system designed from the start as turn based, and if there are no fundamental blockers (there would need to a system added to handle interrupting actions, etc), there would still be issue that would need to be addressed (for example, all animations and skill effects, etc, may need to be adjusted, since their time could suddenly impact balance where it isn't a factor in turn based).
There may be time based mechanics it would be difficult or impossible to cut up into discrete turns, but in general adding turn based to a real time system is a lot easier than the other way around (depending on the details of the design).
Posted By: kanisatha

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 18/02/20 03:06 PM

Originally Posted by Brent2410
Originally Posted by kanisatha
This would be perfectly fine if it were applied as a principle equally across the board. The issue is the double standard, that it totally makes sense for a RTwP to HAVE to include a TB option but a TB game shouldn't waste resources on adding a RTwP option. It is this double standard that I am questioning.

A game designed around TB will have fewer, more meaningful encounters and games designed around RTwP usually have a higher volume of trash encounters. Translating those two between each other... A game where the encounters are designed around having RTwP would be minding numbing with a TB system slapped on. A game where the encounters are designed around having a TB system where a RTwP system is just slapped on will simply have incredibly difficult encounters.

I hope they just pick a system and make it good. It's wasted resources either way if they're not going to dump a massive amount of time in balancing to make them both feel good. A BG1 & BG2 TB conversion would suck just as much as a D:OS 1&2 RTwP conversion, IMHO.

Ok this I completely respect. I disagree, but I respect that you are treating both RTwP games and TB games equally.

I wait to hear from TB fans why it is ok to expect a RTwP game to include a TB option but not ok to expect a TB game to include a RTwP option.
Posted By: kanisatha

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 18/02/20 03:09 PM

Originally Posted by Raze
Originally Posted by kanisatha
It is this double standard that I am questioning.

That isn't a double standard. Adding a turn based mode to a RTwP system is essentially automatically pausing and managing when NPCs can act. It may not be possible to add real time to a system designed from the start as turn based, and if there are no fundamental blockers (there would need to a system added to handle interrupting actions, etc), there would still be issue that would need to be addressed (for example, all animations and skill effects, etc, may need to be adjusted, since their time could suddenly impact balance where it isn't a factor in turn based).
There may be time based mechanics it would be difficult or impossible to cut up into discrete turns, but in general adding turn based to a real time system is a lot easier than the other way around (depending on the details of the design).

Nope, don't buy this for even one second. How very convenient for the TB side.
Posted By: Thrall

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 18/02/20 03:36 PM

Originally Posted by kanisatha

Nope, don't buy this for even one second. How very convenient for the TB side.


And who care if you buy or not rolleyes
Posted By: kanisatha

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 18/02/20 04:44 PM

Originally Posted by Thrall
Originally Posted by kanisatha

Nope, don't buy this for even one second. How very convenient for the TB side.


And who care if you buy or not rolleyes

And you're a hypocrit.
Posted By: Artagel

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 18/02/20 06:38 PM

Just a little over a week until we find out how smart.... or dumb... Larian is. smile

...

I've actually began to think about how graphics heavy the game will be. Obviously the dragon at the end was a cutscene, but that much mocap has me wondering if there will even be any isometric...
Posted By: Archaven

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 19/02/20 01:32 PM

Originally Posted by Artagel
Just a little over a week until we find out how smart.... or dumb... Larian is. smile

...

I've actually began to think about how graphics heavy the game will be. Obviously the dragon at the end was a cutscene, but that much mocap has me wondering if there will even be any isometric...


what IF it isn't isometric? it's a witcher like 3rd person game? well then both RTwP and TB fans can argue no more *chuckle*
Posted By: kanisatha

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 19/02/20 02:08 PM

I think it's possible they may come up with some system that is both third-person and TB. I personally would find it completely stupid, but they may think that's what it means to be cutting-edge, innovative, "next-gen", etc.
Posted By: Waeress

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 19/02/20 07:50 PM

The next King's Bounty game is apparently trying out 3rd person exploring a'la Withcer etc joined with turn based tactical combat.
That's a game from a different genre sure, but it looks like it could work well for that and a new take on that series.
Posted By: Hawke

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 19/02/20 10:44 PM

Originally Posted by Waeress
The next King's Bounty game is apparently trying out 3rd person exploring a'la Withcer etc joined with turn based tactical combat.
That's a game from a different genre sure, but it looks like it could work well for that and a new take on that series.


I can say with absolute certainty that they have 3rd Person exploration as well. They use face-scanning which would be utterly pointless in anything but a 3rd Person/1st person camera. Anyone who still believes BG3 will be completely isometric is simply ignoring facts
Posted By: etonbears

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 21/02/20 10:40 AM

Originally Posted by Archaven
Originally Posted by Artagel
Just a little over a week until we find out how smart.... or dumb... Larian is. smile

...

I've actually began to think about how graphics heavy the game will be. Obviously the dragon at the end was a cutscene, but that much mocap has me wondering if there will even be any isometric...


what IF it isn't isometric? it's a witcher like 3rd person game? well then both RTwP and TB fans can argue no more *chuckle*


Swen has already stated in an interview that the camera system would not be the same as D:OS, so you can probably assume that it won't be axonometric, or not exclusively so. Many games, including later D&D-based games used selectable and/or gamer-controllable camera systems.

I don't actually understand why there is any assumption that BG3 is in any way limited by previous D&D games or previous cRPG games or Larian's previous games. Swen founded Larian because he wanted to make great video games. D:OS was the result of analysing where a small company without many resources could produce a profitable product, but that is not necessarily a comfortable place to stay, and not likely to be where Larian WANT to stay.

You can read what Swen has said in various interviews in a variety of ways, and twist it to support what you want to be true. From the snippets in the teasers we have seen, clearly the production quality has taken a huge leap upwards, and the game is much more ambitious than Larian's previous games. It is encouraging to me that the studio are self-published and driven by a desire to produce the best game possible until they run out of money, but that still tells you very little about what they are aiming for.

We'll see soon enough which of the game's preceding influences Larian consider most important.

Posted By: etonbears

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 21/02/20 11:44 PM

Originally Posted by Brent2410
Right, dash requires a full action, so you cannot attack if you travel above your max movement in one turn. You can use whatever mental gymnastics you need to in order to justify RTwP being truer to PnP over TB - but there's literally a mechanic called turn order soooo. I'm all for the people that say they prefer RTwP games over TB. When you start saying that RTwP is better at translating the PnP experience, however, you're just flat out wrong. I'm not bashful about admitting I'm more of a fan of PnP over crpgs. I play crpgs because I like the underlying rpg system (DnD core rules) and every time I replay one I have a constant dull pain over the RTwP implementation. That's just my cup of tea tho, I'm not debating the merits of either system.


Well, I actually suggested that something other than TB or RTwP might work better, somewhat as a devil's advocate. My personal preference for combat is RT control over one character with mechanisms in place to influence the others through pre-set instructions ( like DA:O ) or maybe shouted orders of some kind. Both RTwP and TB break the flow and require me to control the other characters, which I prefer not to do.

What works best depends on what Larian are trying to do. If the intent is to provide a PnP 5e multiplayer simulator with BG3 as a game module, then you would follow the 5e rules and definitely implement it as TB, possibly requiring a DM seat to play.

However, if the intent is primarily to provide an RPG video game that is based on the 5e rules, then their decisions are less clear cut. It depends more obviously on their "vision" for the game than what the rules themselves actually say. I don't remember any computer-based D&D title that actually implemented the PnP rules correctly and completely; some were always modified or dropped, either because they made no sense in a video game context, or because they were impractical to implement.

As @Hawke points out in another post, creating video games is nowhere near as easy as many gamers think. I used to like PnP because of the feeling of being able to explore and interact, at will, with a completely different world, where combat was just one occasional activity. That has not really been possible in computer games yet, because building all the world-evolution systems that would be needed is beyond what is practical in a discrete game. So my best hope is for a well-written, well-paced story with multiple ways to advance; but my fear is that it will just be a series of fetch-and-carry quests inerspersed with unavoidable combat.
Posted By: Sordak

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 27/02/20 01:21 PM

So with the recent leaks, i guess we can conclude this discussion with:

Its both.

Congratulations, these 24 pages were literaly pointless, whod have thunk it
Posted By: Omegaphallic

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 27/02/20 07:49 PM


Originally Posted by Sordak
So with the recent leaks, i guess we can conclude this discussion with:

Its both.

Congratulations, these 24 pages were literaly pointless, whod have thunk it


Swen specifically said he wasn't going to do that, so it looks like he fibbed, or more likely like Owlcst saw the division this was causing in the fan base amd tried to solve it.
Posted By: Dark_Ansem

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 27/02/20 08:34 PM

Turn based. Video confirms.
Posted By: dlux

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 27/02/20 08:40 PM

Yep. Shameless IP cash-in confirmed.

This isn't Baldur's Gate.
Posted By: dmsephiroth

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 27/02/20 08:52 PM

Just made a new account (dunno what happend to my old, but nvm).

Larian as a very very old Baldurs Gate Fan i am just very ! disappointed.

This is not baldurs gate 3 what you are showing. This is DOS 2 Clone with even the same char-creation and ships in the beginning?
The camera is also not rly good again, again a horribil turned-based fighting system..IN BALDURS GATE ?! Are you kidding us? Please....start again from scratch. This is no baldurs gate and will never be, sorry to tell you.
Even the music is not fitting for baldurs gate world ( thou its not bad) and the graphic design is TOO colorfull and bright too.
The maincharacter have only indirect dialoges, except in cutscenes ? Also an immersion-killer for me.

I will not buy it, im still disappointed from dos 1+2 and now dos 3 (cough bg 3-rippoff) will not be better. You had a huge chance to make something great, but this will not hype baldurs gate fans, im sorry. ( sorry for my emotional posting, but its just my disappointment)
Posted By: Dark_Ansem

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 27/02/20 08:53 PM

I mean, why is it IP cash when D&D is acrually turn-based?
Posted By: Doomlord

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 27/02/20 09:29 PM

Yes DnD pnp is turn based, Dungeons and dragons online, neverwinter nights 1 & 2 Bg 1& 2 the rolls were behind the scenes to allow for a free flowing game. So as I said in a earlier post, its their game they have the right to make it anyway they want, I will have to hold out for neverwinter nights 3 or BG3. Pretty sad day
Posted By: Dark_Ansem

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 27/02/20 09:34 PM

There's a Neverwinter Nights 3 coming??
Posted By: Doomlord

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 27/02/20 09:34 PM

Originally Posted by Sordak
So with the recent leaks, i guess we can conclude this discussion with:

Its both.

Congratulations, these 24 pages were literaly pointless, whod have thunk it



Im watching the live stream now, combat is turn based, not both. Out of combat you can move out of turn based for travel purposes, Combat is turn based.
Posted By: korotama

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 27/02/20 09:43 PM

Turn-based is not a deal-breaker for me but I implore the devs to keep a few things in mind:
1) More camera angles please, I want it to pan and zoom in on the character when they're launching an attack etc. The kill shots were all bugged in the preview but I liked the concept nonetheless. Combat doesn't feel fluent/seamless right now. Sometimes it's like watching paint dry.
2) More variety in the soundtrack. If regular battles are going to take several minutes each looping one and the same track over and over will give me (and probably not just me) a headache.
3) The characters ought to have (more) battle cries and taunt the enemy occasionally (vice-versa as well), stuff in that vein will make fighting less boring.
Can't think of anything else right now but to me combat seems to be the weakest link in the chain at the moment. I was rather impressed with everything else.

Posted By: Dark_Ansem

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 27/02/20 09:44 PM

Originally Posted by korotama
Turn-based is not a deal-breaker for me but I implore the devs to keep a few things in mind:
1) More camera angles please, I want it to pan and zoom in on the character when they're launching an attack etc. The kill shots were all bugged in the preview but I liked the concept nonetheless. Combat doesn't feel fluent/seamless right now. Sometimes it's like watching paint dry.
2) More variety in the soundtrack. If regular battles are going to take several minutes each looping one and the same track over and over will give me (and probably not just me) a headache.
3) The characters ought to have (more) battle cries and taunt the enemy occasionally (vice-versa as well), stuff in that vein will make fighting less boring.
Can't think of anything else right now but to me combat seems to be the weakest link in the chain at the moment. I was rather impressed with everything else.



All excellent points. A template for a custom soundset (combat only at least) would be welcome.
Posted By: Delicieuxz

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 27/02/20 09:50 PM

Listen to Larian prattle dishonestly like manipulative con-men:

Quote
Part of the decision is that we know turn-based, and secondly, it’s that Fifth Edition [D&D] is played in rounds, so it kind of made sense.


Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 are also played in rounds. Being played in rounds has no bearing on whether something makes sense to be TB or RTwP.

Quote
A round can be an increment of time, and you can do it real-time and pause, but it made sense – again, I’m not saying you can’t do these things in real-time and pause, but I think it’s a lot harder

It lets you do things like separating the party and having one person on high ground and one person on low ground. It means when the combat starts, there’s a better sense of, ‘I’m going to get a sense of the tactical situation. I’m going to send this person over here, I’m going to do that, I’m going to send this person behind and shove an enemy.’

That level of control and being able to just zoom out and say, ‘okay, what am I doing here? What do I think I want to do?’ I can go into my inventory, I can just take stock. I don’t feel like I waste movement as much.


Literally, all of that is possible in RTwP, and without wasting any movement. Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 feature an auto-pause option that pauses the game after each character round so that not a single inch of movement is wasted. But playing in a way that doesn't waste any movement actually takes more time than playing in real-time. So, there's nothing "harder" about RTwP - and previously people have even been trying to argue that BG3 ought to be TB because it makes the game harder. So, it really appears that dishonest people will flip-flop any which way to rationalize what they want, rather than basing their proposals on understanding and reason.

And it seems clear that Larian are sellouts and con-men, as well as hack developers if they went with TB because "we know turn-based". The probable reality is that they simply calculated that they could exploit Baldur's Gate's fans and D:OS fans by making BG3 a reskin and clone of D:OS while using the BG name.
Posted By: The Storyteller

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 27/02/20 09:58 PM

Dont have much time to go in details just now but , for me :

For this kind of game, turn based combat is perfectly fine. My worries on BG3 is not here at all.
Posted By: Dark_Ansem

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 27/02/20 09:59 PM

Originally Posted by The Storyteller
Dont have much time to go in details just now but , for me :

For this kind of game, turn based combat is perfectly fine. My worries on BG3 is not here at all.


Could you please elaborate on your second statement?
Posted By: The Storyteller

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 27/02/20 10:09 PM

Tomorrow yes. Just now going to sleep. 5 hours left until i wake up for my job !
But to resume it : when i play on a game like this i personnaly dont mind about having nervous fights.

In the DoS games, for exemples, turn based combat never was a immersion-breaking thing. I was deeply involved in the story and the characters...
So if it s like DoS 2 , yes, i m ok because i love DoS type of games.

If a want nervous fight on RPG , i play to anothers games ( bethesda games for exemples ).
I dont expect intense fights from a larian game.

If they give me a wonderfull story, well written characters and a GM mode... i ll be happy.

It s my personnal view of course.
Posted By: Nyxery

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 27/02/20 11:05 PM

As a BG fan and somewhat of a Divinity fan I would prefer to have either options or real time with pause. I would also prefer if there was an option to play with classic ruleset instead of Larian's idea of good for cRPG (no offense, they are very much right in regard of mainstream audience that is not familiar with cRPG at all).

I just don't want to play Divinity spinoff with all same gameplay. I love Divinity for what it is, but I also love BG for what it is. I would not want one to replace the other.

Also I really do hope there will be no crafting and randomly rolled stats like in Divinity. I really would prefer loot to be the way it was in BG, also hopefully no "leveled" loot. Or at least an option to not have any of that.

I'm hoping it will be as faithful to the original games as possible.
Posted By: Delicieuxz

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 27/02/20 11:14 PM

Yeah, BG 3 definitely needs to be able to be played in RTwP.

This reveal is so incredibly disappointing. Larian gave off an impression that they were a studio of integrity and talent, but here they've sold-out and are proving themselves to be a one-trick pony that doesn't have confidence in themselves to do anything other than their D:OS formula. I guess that the mask has come off. They had a one-hit wonder and don't believe in themselves enough to do right by another series' needs.

Buying a license for Baldur's Gate was pointless for Larian. They're just doing fan-service to D:OS fans with it. This means they'll be losing money due to WotC taking a big cut from their profits, while they aren't serving the fans of BG and will just have people upset with them. They would have had just as much attention if they'd made another D:OS game - which is precisely what it appears they have been doing.

Calling this game Baldur's Gate 3 is a lie. And Larian is hereby shown to be without integrity or courage, showing that they believe themselves to be a one-trick pony studio without the talent to do something different.
Posted By: _Vic_

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 27/02/20 11:24 PM

I still cannot understand why people are so bent in saying that the gameplay showed that it is a DoS2 clone if they are clearly using the D&D5e ruleset and spells. I mean, no cooldowns, dice rolls, misses, critical misses, spell slots, the dying 5e mechanics, skills like shove, the mage hand...

So, Fallout 4-NV and Mass effect are a Call of duty clone because they are both 3rd person FPS?
And I suppose Skyrim and Witcher 3 are a clone of Assassins creed because they are Action RPGs too...

The combat ruleset is very diferent, as it is the combat mechanics in DOS games and the ones you use in 5e. If you say that the graphics are similar... well they are using an improved version of the game engine of Larian so...

Neverwinter nights 2 and the first witcher game both use the Aurora engine and nobody that played those games will say that they are both clones because the games have very different mechanics even if they look similar.

I am not going to say that I´m thrilled with the idea but Sven Vincke from Larian and Mike Mearls from WoTC keep on saying that the videogame is based in D&D5e, sword coast setting, and the Baldur´s gate Adventures MiBG and DiA; not in the first games. They were very forthright even from the first interview so I kinda expected that.
Posted By: Maximuuus

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 27/02/20 11:35 PM

Just 3 simple exemple that are exactly the same in DoS :

1) The way they move the rocks and other items.
2) The way they can throw grease and flame it.. (same for the barrel)
3) The line appearing for you to target ennemies...

I'm not saying this is bad, I llove BG1 and 2 and I like D:OS... But open your eyes if you don't understand "why people say it's the same".
Posted By: Delicieuxz

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 27/02/20 11:43 PM

Originally Posted by _Vic_
I still cannot understand why people are so bent in saying that the gameplay showed that it is a DoS2 clone if they are clearly using the D&D5e ruleset and spells. I mean, no cooldowns, dice rolls, misses, critical misses, spell slots, the dying 5e mechanics, skills like shove, the mage hand...

So, Fallout 4-NV and Mass effect are a Call of duty clone because they are both 3rd person FPS?
And I suppose Skyrim and Witcher 3 are a clone of Assassins creed because they are Action RPGs too...

The combat ruleset is very diferent, as it is the combat mechanics in DOS games and the ones you use in 5e. If you say that the graphics are similar... well they are using an improved version of the game engine of Larian so...

Neverwinter nights 2 and the first witcher game both use the Aurora engine and nobody that played those games will say that they are both clones because the games have very different mechanics even if they look similar.

I am not going to say that I´m thrilled with the idea but Sven Vincke from Larian and Mike Mearls from WoTC keep on saying that the videogame is based in D&D5e, sword coast setting, and the Baldur´s gate Adventures MiBG and DiA; not in the first games. They were very forthright even from the first interview so I kinda expected that.


Changing the background ruleset can be subtle thing that doesn't ultimately change the experience of playing a game. Or, it could change the experience quite a bit, for good or bad. But unless either the old or new system was particularly bad, I think it will hardly make a difference to the experience of playing the game. Playing D:OS 2 with its original TB combat and playing D:OS 2 with its combat replaced with D&D 5e rules is likely just about identical experience. It certainly won't be like playing the game with RTwP, or even better, playing an entirely different game with RTwP.

Basically, the underlying ruleset doesn't mean nearly as much as some people are making it out to be. The large majority of players probably couldn't even tell the difference. In either situation, they're choosing actions per turn, and those actions they choose per turn either succeed or fail. That's what they experience. You don't directly experience the background rulesets, you experience your actions succeeding or failing.

RTwP vs TB isn't as subtle a change as that, it changes the direct experience of the combat, and it shapes how environments are designed.

Ultimately, it's appearing as though Larian have sold-out and consider themselves a one-trick pony. I thought Larian had more confidence in themselves and also more integrity than what they're showing here. This is a very disappointing move by Larian. And their claims of wanting to be accurate to D&D is just a cop-out, making them even more disappointing.

Larian could have made a D&D game without using the Baldur's Gate series. They could have made a D&D game that includes the city Baldur's Gate, without claiming it's Baldur's Gate 3. They could even have made a D&D game that includes the city Baldur's Gate while including the name Baldur's Gate in the game title without claiming that the game is the third entry in the original Baldur's Gate series. But what Larian have chosen to do is to cash-in on the original Baldur's Gate series' name and the goodwill it has from its fans while being unfaithful to the series and betraying its fans. It's a sell-out move. This game that Larian has shown is not a Baldur's Gate 3, and it appears to instead be a D:OS 2.5 or a D:OS 3.
Posted By: _Vic_

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 27/02/20 11:43 PM

So, since I can move a rock in Assasins creed and in Teltale´s The walking dead game, they are clones. Thanks for enlighten me.
Posted By: _Vic_

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 27/02/20 11:48 PM

Originally Posted by Delicieuxz
Originally Posted by _Vic_
I still cannot understand why people are so bent in saying that the gameplay showed that it is a DoS2 clone if they are clearly using the D&D5e ruleset and spells. I mean, no cooldowns, dice rolls, misses, critical misses, spell slots, the dying 5e mechanics, skills like shove, the mage hand...

So, Fallout 4-NV and Mass effect are a Call of duty clone because they are both 3rd person FPS?
And I suppose Skyrim and Witcher 3 are a clone of Assassins creed because they are Action RPGs too...

The combat ruleset is very diferent, as it is the combat mechanics in DOS games and the ones you use in 5e. If you say that the graphics are similar... well they are using an improved version of the game engine of Larian so...

Neverwinter nights 2 and the first witcher game both use the Aurora engine and nobody that played those games will say that they are both clones because the games have very different mechanics even if they look similar.

I am not going to say that I´m thrilled with the idea but Sven Vincke from Larian and Mike Mearls from WoTC keep on saying that the videogame is based in D&D5e, sword coast setting, and the Baldur´s gate Adventures MiBG and DiA; not in the first games. They were very forthright even from the first interview so I kinda expected that.


Changing the background ruleset can be subtle thing that doesn't ultimately change the experience of playing a game. Or, it could change the experience quite a bit, for good or bad. But unless either the old or new system was particularly bad, I think it will hardly make a difference to the experience of playing the game. Playing D:OS 2 with its original TB combat and playing D:OS 2 with its combat replaced with D&D 5e rules is likely just about identical experience. It certainly won't be like playing the game with RTwP, or even better, playing an entirely different game with RTwP.

Basically, the underlying ruleset doesn't mean nearly as much as some people are making it out to be. The large majority of players probably couldn't even tell the difference. In either situation, they're choosing actions per turn, and those actions they choose per turn either succeed or fail. That's what they experience. You don't directly experience the background rulesets, you experience your actions succeeding or failing.

RTwP vs TB isn't as subtle a change as that, it changes the direct experience of the combat, and it shapes how environments are designed.

Ultimately, it's appearing as though Larian has sold-out and considers themselves a one-trick pony. I thought Larian had more confidence in themselves and also more integrity than what they're showing here. This is a very disappointing move by Larian. And their claims of wanting to be accurate to D&D is just a cop-out, making them even more disappointing.

Larian could have made a D&D game without using the Baldur's Gate series. They could have made a D&D game that includes the city Baldur's Gate, without claiming it's Baldur's Gate 3. They could even have made a D&D game that includes the city Baldur's Gate while including the name Baldur's Gate without claiming that the game is a part of the original Baldur's Gate series. But what Larian has chosen to do is to cash-in on the Baldur's Gate name and goodwill while being unfaithful to the series and betraying its fans. It's a sell-out move.



I´m pretty sure that if you change the game mechanics, story and stuff you change the way you play the game, even if you use the same engine. Or you are trying to say that the first Witcher game and NWN2 are the same game because they use the same engine?. Or Disco Elysium and Pillars of eternity? Mass Effect, Last of us Metal gear solid and Halo are the same game because you use firearms to shoot stuff?

There are so many differences between D&D5e rules in character creation, skills and combat mechanics and the ones that are used in DoS games that I could be here until tomorrow. You do not have cooldowns for starters, you have to rest to regain abilities so you have a limited number of spells you can use in combat. You do not do more damage from above, like in dos games, you can sneak everywhere in dos games, not in shadows or places with cover, You do not have character classes so your character can learn any ability or spell, you do not have to roll to see if you make it, you do it or not in dos....etc, etc, To be honest, the only thing they have in common is that they are both turn-based games.
Posted By: Artagel

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 27/02/20 11:52 PM

Verdict: In.

Larian: Incredibly, amazingly, and yes... predictably, Stupid.

*Sooooo* much money they will lose. I'll be surprised if they are still around in a few years.

That cgi was incredible. But once Sven started talking and you saw the dated graphics, re-used color palettes, and that utterly BORING TB gameplay as he fumbled through a clearly not ready for reveal build of the game... it becomes clear how much of a mistake this has been.

I mostly feel bad for the hard core BG and IE fans who were excited about the game but were unaware of the possibility of this change until now. Just lots of angry gamers about to let Larian and WOTC know they done ****** up.

...

lol.
Posted By: _Vic_

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 27/02/20 11:57 PM

There are a lot of TB and D&D fans out there, I´m sure they are not worried about sales.
Posted By: Nyxery

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 28/02/20 12:48 AM

I dunno, I wouldn't say I'll be angry if it turns out to be more Divinity and less BG. I'll just be disappointed and will very likely just skip. Can always go for another BG1-2 playthrough, or play smth like Pathfinder - which is not the same universe, but delivers on similar cRPG real-time combat.

To be honest I didn't have high hopes when it was announced, because I definitely saw the probability that they will be too afraid to deviate from DOS formula, or that they will not have manpower to make something that would really be next level. And that's not even on them - industry proved time after time that resurrecting old titles usually turns out bad either to shoddy quality and lack of effort, or due to new developers not understanding what "faithful to the series" means.

I'm cautiously looking forward to the new Vampires: The masquerade, but I won't be too surprised if some stuff like this comes up closer to the release (aka "we are toning down on rpg element, it will feature 1 skill tree and action gameplay").

I hope the build they shown was old and they do have real time combat planned and more strict PnP ruleset. But if it's not there I won't mind just skipping another IP resurrection attempt.
Posted By: MBG3GA

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 28/02/20 02:35 AM

Is it feasible to have RTwP and Turn Based as options? I've played most of the D&D games that have been made, and I'd love to play BG3, but turned based is not something I'm going to play because, aside from being a colossal waste of time, it breaks the illusion to see these guys just kind of standing around shifting their weight from side to side or running in place while one person/monster attacks. Maybe they step forward to make their attack and step back. Then the next person steps up and does their little dance and goes back to their designated spot. I'm sure it works well for RTS but it's unsuited to Dungeons & Dragons. And no, even after Temple of Elemental Evil was patched, it still sucked precisely because it was turn based. Even games like Eye of the Beholder 2 had real time combat (without pause), which was still better than turn based.
Posted By: El Brutus

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 28/02/20 03:16 AM

I see all this rage and I'm reminded of a year 2008 when a little game called Fallout 3 came and blew everyone away. Sure it's different, but that doesn't mean it's automatically a bad thing. In fact the situation is very similar.
Posted By: cryocore

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 28/02/20 03:56 AM

Does no one remember how bad RTwP pause is? Can anyone name an RPG that has this system, where the combat is actually good?

None, of the Infinity Engine games had good combat in my opinion. In fact it is generally the only thing people agreed was a negative aspect of those games.

PoE and Tyranny suffer because of RTwP. POEII is better with TB due to being actually able to chain abilities and use support skills/spell effectively. Sure this is subjective, but the fact that all skills and abilities can now be used properly confirms that in terms of being able to play the character(s) you created TB is the only viable option.

Dragon Age is one of the best examples of the RTwP system being ok, but its filled with trash mob fights, and only works because of the almost TB implementation. You can't play that game effectively with RT, you need to constantly pause, making it essentially a TB game in all but name.

Fallout 3... well as much fun as VATS was, it is a compromise and it make real time useless, and there lead to playing it as TB almost required. FO4 proves how bad VATS is when you cant stop it, and 76 nails the point home.

KoTOR. Maybe the best RTwP combat system ever made. And again its because it leans of TB roots, and combat sequencing that is essentially TB in execution.

RTwP is inferior in any party based game. You limit control, reduce the ability to use your skills, spells, and abilities, and rely on automation which weakens agency.

The only reason to want RTwP is if you want to speed up the game. And if that's the case then play an aRPG like The Witcher series, or Skyrim. These are also great games, and seem more in line with the experience people want to complain about the lack of RTwP.

The Gold Box games (Pool of Radiance, Curse of the Azure Bonds, Secret of the Silver Blades, Champions of Krynn, etc) clearly demonstrate how much better DnD combat is when it uses rounds/turns.

For DnD TB is the only logical option. As much as I love BG (as you can see below), the move to TB is the most welcome change, even more than the graphical upgrade.

If you like RTwP, I get it and I am sorry that you're unhappy. But it's been 20 years and much has changed. Complaining about it not being in the game, would be akin to complaining that thac0 is no longer in the game. It's just not relevant anymore.

[Linked Image]

Also don't dare make statements about old school BG/IE fans. You speak for yourself, not anyone else. I am one of the most loyal and longtime fans of the BG games, and I do not consider RTwP to be even remotely important to the identity of the franchise. If you do, then in my opinion you've missed the point of what the games are actually about.
Posted By: Robymyz

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 28/02/20 04:27 AM

Originally Posted by cryocore
Does no one remember how bad RTwP pause is? Can anyone name an RPG that has this system, where the combat is actually good?

None, of the Infinity Engine games had good combat in my opinion. In fact it is generally the only thing people agreed was a negative aspect of those games.

PoE and Tyranny suffer because of RTwP. POEII is better with TB due to being actually able to chain abilities and use support skills/spell effectively. Sure this is subjective, but the fact that all skills and abilities can now be used properly confirms that in terms of being able to play the character(s) you created TB is the only viable option.

Dragon Age is one of the best examples of the RTwP system being ok, but its filled with trash mob fights, and only works because of the almost TB implementation. You can't play that game effectively with RT, you need to constantly pause, making it essentially a TB game in all but name.

Fallout 3... well as much fun as VATS was, it is a compromise and it make real time useless, and there lead to playing it as TB almost required. FO4 proves how bad VATS is when you cant stop it, and 76 nails the point home.

KoTOR. Maybe the best RTwP combat system ever made. And again its because it leans of TB roots, and combat sequencing that is essentially TB in execution.

RTwP is inferior in any party based game. You limit control, reduce the ability to use your skills, spells, and abilities, and rely on automation which weakens agency.

The only reason to want RTwP is if you want to speed up the game. And if that's the case then play an aRPG like The Witcher series, or Skyrim. These are also great games, and seem more in line with the experience people want to complain about the lack of RTwP.

The Gold Box games (Pool of Radiance, Curse of the Azure Bonds, Secret of the Silver Blades, Champions of Krynn, etc) clearly demonstrate how much better DnD combat is when it uses rounds/turns.

For DnD TB is the only logical option. As much as I love BG (as you can see below), the move to TB is the most welcome change, even more than the graphical upgrade.

If you like RTwP, I get it and I am sorry that you're unhappy. But it's been 20 years and much has changed. Complaining about it not being in the game, would be akin to complaining that thac0 is no longer in the game. It's just not relevant anymore.

[Linked Image]

Also don't dare make statements about old school BG/IE fans. You speak for yourself, not anyone else. I am one of the most loyal and longtime fans of the BG games, and I do not consider RTwP to be even remotely important to the identity of the franchise. If you do, then in my opinion you've missed the point of what the games are actually about.



Well put , and as i said in my previous topic on which you commented , i personally dislike turn based , but the main reason i play these games has always been for the storytelling and characters , and it won't be a deal breaker for me , yes it is disappointing and i came here to discuss and voice my concern/opinion...i will just have to put my faith in the developers that they will do their best to make a game worthy of the Baldur's gate legacy...nice pic btw , it's the equivalent of showing your dick size in gaming terms hehehe
Posted By: Delicieuxz

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 28/02/20 06:58 AM

Originally Posted by cryocore
Does no one remember how bad RTwP pause is? Can anyone name an RPG that has this system, where the combat is actually good?

What a load of arrogant speak. Do YOU not remember how much better RTwP is than TB? Are you unaware that TB is inferior in any party-based game? See how easy it is to throw out unsubstantiated and patently untrue words? And your words are as unsubstantiated and untrue as any.

Dragon Age: Origins, Pillars of Eternity, Tyranny, Pathfinder: Kingmaker, KOTOR, Infinity Engine games... all games with enjoyable combat. If you don't like it... well, that's just you and don't you dare pretend to be speaking for everybody else.

Meanwhile, PoE 2 added TB and it didn't help the game's sales out at all and the Steam reviews for the game didn't improve by even a single percentage point. And Torment: Numenera went with TB and the game tanked - and one of the reasons it did so is because it didn't have RTwP combat, and that made a lot of fans of Planescape: Torment angry.

So, as you can see, TB simply isn't relevant anymore. Especially not in a series that is known for its RTwP combat like Baldur's Gate is - and even more so when the game in question is the father of the RTwP genre.


Quote
None, of the Infinity Engine games had good combat in my opinion. In fact it is generally the only thing people agreed was a negative aspect of those games.

Like you said, that's your opinion. But the combat can certainly be improved from those games. Why would you think it wouldn't be? Did DA:O not improve over IE games? BG3 is the game to improve it in - while still keeping it RTwP. BG 3 should have its own take on RTwP that is better than everything done previously.


Quote
PoE and Tyranny suffer because of RTwP. POEII is better with TB due to being actually able to chain abilities and use support skills/spell effectively. Sure this is subjective, but the fact that all skills and abilities can now be used properly confirms that in terms of being able to play the character(s) you created TB is the only viable option.

Ridiculous comment. PoE II had TB added to it and it didn't improve the Steam score of the game even 1 percentage point. And sales of the game didn't improve, either. So much for TB being popular.


Quote
Dragon Age is one of the best examples of the RTwP system being ok, but its filled with trash mob fights, and only works because of the almost TB implementation. You can't play that game effectively with RT, you need to constantly pause, making it essentially a TB game in all but name.

That is a truly ridiculous thing to say. Dragon Age: Origins is one of the best RTwP games, and PC RPGs, there is - and its combat is a key part of what makes it a great game. And Dragon Age: Origins' combat is a lot more fun than D:OS 1 and 2's combat. Having trash mobs isn't a result of a combat system but of the encounter designs.

If you think DA:O is "basically TB", then let's have that "basically TB" combat in BG3 - that should satisfy all the TB fans and the RTwP fans in one go. But DA:O isn't "almost TB", it's a really good implementation of RTwP. It sounds to me like you don't have a good conception of what RTwP is.


Quote
Fallout 3... well as much fun as VATS was, it is a compromise and it make real time useless, and there lead to playing it as TB almost required. FO4 proves how bad VATS is when you cant stop it, and 76 nails the point home.

Who uses VATS while playing F3? It's pointless. F3 is a real-time game with a pointless VATS system that a person can use for novelty. It RTwP isn't its combat style, FPS is..


Quote
KoTOR. Maybe the best RTwP combat system ever made. And again its because it leans of TB roots, and combat sequencing that is essentially TB in execution.

Again, your comments show that you don't have a solid understanding of what RTwP is. And so I have to question whether you've actually played these games you mention. RTwP is built on-top of TB rounds. RTwP is an evolution and improvement over TB.


Quote
For DnD TB is the only logical option.

You should have told that to 1999 BioWare. No doubt, they would have been so successful if all IE games had been TB. Oh wait, they have a TB combat mode and yet people play them in RTwP mode. Clearly, RTwP is preferred to TB.


Quote
If you like RTwP, I get it and I am sorry that you're unhappy. But it's been 20 years and much has changed. Complaining about it not being in the game, would be akin to complaining that thac0 is no longer in the game. It's just not relevant anymore.

You're out of the loop. Despite its rough launch, Pathfinder: Kingmaker has done really well and is getting a sequel that people are excited for. Torment: Numenera was TB and people were angry and the game tanked. TB was added to PoE 2 and nobody cared - because TB just isn't relevant anymore.


Quote
Also don't dare make statements about old school BG/IE fans. You speak for yourself, not anyone else.

Congratulations on making the most hypocritical post possible. You should have considered your own advice before you made your post where you asserted a bunch of bogus claims pretending that you spoke for everybody.

Your post is entirely biased opinion asserted as though you speak for everybody, when you are clearly only speaking for yourself, and seemingly from a perspective of not even being very familiar with what RTwP is.
Posted By: dmsephiroth

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 28/02/20 07:15 AM

@ Robmyz

only speak for yourself man !

RTCOMBAT is soo much better than the stupid and boring TB combat.

I don t want to fight vs bugs every time and look +wait till the shit moves towards me. I want so smash little minions and stop the game and make rly important decisions at bossfights or at an ambush. Thats the real feeling of a GOOD RPG. Not this sleeping like TB games. Bec. of that and other facts i rly do not like dos 1+2 and now i was hyped bec. of my beloved baldurs gate +new game+.
And what do we get? a DOS 2 rip off.

Please larian, rename it DOS 3 and its ok, but pretty please...do not ruin the name of baldurs gate with your TB combat and +funny+ humore and lame music+graphic stuff.
Posted By: The Storyteller

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 28/02/20 07:33 AM

Well i dont think larian must change their plans for this game...

Speaking of Fallout even if it not exactly the same thing... remember Fo 1 et 2 was turn based for combat. When the third opus of the franchise came out many of "self proclamed true fans" go into absolutely mad bad buzz... because the turn by turn gameplay was gived up.

Here ... for larian it's the opposite. They cant please everyone. It s impossible.

The worse part of it ... if BG3 happen to be just a remastered version of old BG games... not sure it will make good sell in 2020.
Dont forget... angry geeks are usually the more audible of the internet but they're not always illustrative of the whole community. Think about it... how many actual players exept old ones have played BG 1 and 2? Not so many i think.

nostalgia is not always good advicer.
Posted By: Maximuuus

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 28/02/20 07:36 AM

RTwP had nearly no upgrade since 2000... Of course it's nearly impossible to quote about a "good" RTwP game except Baldur's Gate 1 and 2.
I had a great feelings when I learned Larian's going to devellop BG3 but they betray nearly all fans of the original games to create a new genre : the "Original Sin like".

Posted By: Delicieuxz

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 28/02/20 07:47 AM

Originally Posted by The Storyteller
Well i dont think larian must change their plans for this game...

Speaking of Fallout even if it not exaxtly the same thing... remember Fo 1 et 2 was turn based for combat. When the third opus of the franchise came out many of "self proclamed true fans" go into absolutely mad bad buzz... because the turn by turn gameplay was gived up.

Here ... for larian it's the opposite. They cant please everyone. It s impossible.

The worse part of it ... if BG3 happen to be just a remastered version of old BG games... not sure it will make good sell in 2020.
Dont forget... angry geeks are usually the more audible of the internet but they're not always illustrative of the whole community. Think about it... how many actual players exept old ones have played BG 1 and 2? Not so many i think.

Nobody wants a remastered BG1 or BG2. When Half-Life 2 came out, was it just a remastered Half-Life 1? When The Witcher 3 came out, was it just a remastere The Witcher 2? Of course not. So, why would a BG3 simply be a remastered BG1 or BG2? If BG3 has TB combat, does that mean it's just a remastered D:OS? Actually, it looks like it's just a remastered D:OS2. But it shouldn't.

BioWare said that Dragon Age: Origins was the spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate - their own take on the BG style made without a D&D license. Was it just a remastered Baldur's Gate? Of course not. But it did contain RTwP combat and its combat had improved massively over Baldur's Gate's combat. DA:O is a contender for having the most fun combat system in PCRPG history - and its combat is RTwP.

Larian don't have to please everyone. They have to make a game for the series they have chosen to make a game for - and Baldur's Gate is THE father of the RTwP genre and is THE game that should present the next evolution for the RTwP genre. What Larian are doing by adding TB combat and not RTwP to a supposed "BG3" is disgraceful.

Originally Posted by Maximuuus
RTwP had nearly no upgrade since 2000... Of course it's nearly impossible to quote about a "good" RTwP game except Baldur's Gate 1 and 2.

If you think that, then I have to suspect that you haven't played any RTwP games since 2000. Because RTwP has evolved many times over since 2000. Give Dragon Age: Origins a try. It has wonderful RTwP combat that's a lot more fun than either D:OS or D:OS2's combat.
Posted By: The Storyteller

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 28/02/20 08:09 AM

Originally Posted by Delicieuxz
Give Dragon Age: Origins a try. It has wonderful RTwP combat that's a lot more fun than either D:OS or D:OS2's combat.


Well i think it s a matter of individual tastes.
I like bioware games but no... not for everyone. I prefer DoS 2 gameplay style than DAO one.

For me the "combat engine" turn by turn or rt is not what make the heart of an IP. The Lore, the characters do. For me at least.

So even if i understand that people who like rtwp are sad... i continue to have faith about the good storytelling and immersion that larian had prove they are good to provide.

Maybe this is why we do not agree. You put the BG name before all... i m here to play to an Larian game because their previous games was for me again... the best ot the genre this last years, even if the game was not a BG title it was the same for me. Actually... with players tendancy to idolising their old IP... we ll agreed with the fact than larian had better to let BG die , too risky, and stick up with DoS. Not for the same reason... many old fans are mad about their beloves IP change in some way they dont like. I m worried about my actual favorite rpg game dev company. They dont have the shoulders like bigs studios to deal with a huge bad buzz.
Posted By: korotama

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 28/02/20 08:15 AM

Originally Posted by The Storyteller
Originally Posted by Delicieuxz
Give Dragon Age: Origins a try. It has wonderful RTwP combat that's a lot more fun than either D:OS or D:OS2's combat.


Well i think it s a matter of individual tastes.
I like bioware games but no... not for everyone. I prefer DoS 2 gameplay style than DAO one.

For me the "combat engine" turn by turn or rt is not what make the heart of an IP. The Lore, the characters do. For me at least.

So even if i understand that people who like rtwp are sad... i continue to have faith about the good storytelling and immersion that larian had prove they are good to provide.

Maybe this is why we do not agree. You put the BG name before all... i m here to play to an Larian game because their previous games was for me again... the best ot the genre this last years, even if the game was not a BG title it was the same for me. Actually... with players tendancy to idolising their old IP... we ll agreed with the fact than larian had better to let BG die , too risky, and stick up with DoS. Not for the same reason... many old fans are mad about their beloves IP change in some way they dony like. I m worried about my actual favorite rpg game dev company. They dont have the shoulders like bigs studios to deal with a huge bad buzz.


Uh no, that's not the treatment you give a well-established IP that boasts millions of fans. The name is supposed to give you an idea of what you can expect. Right now they could have simply called it Divinity: Sword Coast or something in that vein so there would be less negative feedback. It's apparent to me that someone in WoTC management wants to coalesce Divinity and BG players into a single fandom in order to milk them dry. We shall see how that pans out.
Posted By: Maximuuus

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 28/02/20 08:20 AM

Yeah, DA:O is nearly the only try of a RTwP "all public" game these next 10 years.... (not speaking about oldschool rpg of course).
And the upgrade is not sufficient for actual video game industry. Just look at DA2 and DA3...

Larian could clearly do it. Imagine the video we had yesterday with RTwP... You had an all new type of gameplay with the core gameplay mecanics of Baldur's Gate.
(of course, it probably require modifications/adjustments).

They just create an "Original Sin like". All of us will forget it in the past few years, such as all "wow-like", "skyrim-like", "diablo-like" and so on... They could choose to become legends but they didn't.
Posted By: The Storyteller

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 28/02/20 08:26 AM

You just say with another words what i just said.
I understand that lot of people are here because of the BG name... but not all.
And yes i think you re right when you say the exact same game with an another name would be better and safer.

Here...
BG's fans are worried about their IP...
Larian fans are worried about the futur of the company they love ( for Divinity saga ) if BG3 is a sell failure. I dont mind too much for BG3 for exemple ( and was sad that divinity fallen heroes was delayed for that )...

Two point of view...

Think its a toxic relationship between Larian and WotC because of fandoms of each side are not "compatible" with the other.
Hope a good end to this... tired of drama around Bethesda games and the "true/false fans" endless discussion.

I dont want the same thing here...

We will see.
Posted By: korotama

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 28/02/20 09:05 AM

Originally Posted by The Storyteller
You just say with another words what i just said.
I understand that lot of people are here because of the BG name... but not all.
And yes i think you re right when you say the exact same game with an another name would be better and safer.

Here...
BG's fans are worried about their IP...
Larian fans are worried about the futur of the company they love ( for Divinity saga ) if BG3 is a sell failure. I dont mind too much for BG3 for exemple ( and was sad that divinity fallen heroes was delayed for that )...

Two point of view...

Think its a toxic relationship between Larian and WotC because of fandoms of each side are not "compatible" with the other.
Hope a good end to this... tired of drama around Bethesda games and the "true/false fans" endless discussion.

I dont want the same thing here...

We will see.

I get your point but why should Larian fans (who have a variety of games custom-tailored for them) feel entitled to tell BG fans what BG is supposed to be about and how it should play? I don't presume to tell Divinity fans or fans of any other franchise what direction their favorite series should head in next, that's just plain arrogant and I've played D:OS by the way. Sure, the fan bases overlap to an extent but as feedback for the demo has started pouring in you can tell they're still miles apart.
Posted By: The Storyteller

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 28/02/20 09:44 AM

I see your point.

The game can change a lot between now and release anyway...
And even if i prefer personnaly turn based combat i will not cry if the game change for a rtwp if the narrative aspects of the game are good... ( and in my case i m not certain about purchasing BG 3 yet... but not because this tb or rtwp... the potential lack of GM mode will be more decisive in my case )

Maybe we can all have satisfaction.
Time will tell.
Posted By: Xysh84

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 28/02/20 09:57 AM

Look, I get it.

They have decided to go for a combat system that works for other games, even in the core of D&D rules it works that way, but in my case I don't play any game turn based cause I find it really boring. Everything seems to move very slow and you come in and out from combats thinking that was kind of "another" game inside the actual game (I just talk for personal experience and opinion and I understand not everyone shares).

When it comes to BG I'd have at least expected to have the same rules as the previous games: A choice between RTwP or TB so you can choose and it will clearly make everyone happy (at least on that area).

I think Larian thought about this when they got together for the first time to work on the game. I get that there is a time frame to release the game and they have a lot of work to do still, but things like this should have been considered long ago. If they were, that means they knew it would reach this stage in which people will be disappointed but expected to sell anyways.

I'm a huge fan of BG1, SoA, BG2, ToB, IWD etc etc cause I fell in love with those mechanics and I believe that If they do not want to work on this issues that can make a huge difference for the buyers, sells will be at risks, but again, this is my opinion.

Posted By: Nyxery

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 28/02/20 10:20 AM

Whoever is saying TB is superior to RTwP is just trying to pass their opinion as an objective truth. All the "bad" RTwP games listed had good combat, and only times I would say there were issues was when they tried to move closer to TB. Also I'm fairly certain that if Larian wanted they could make really solid RTwP experience. But I guess in their eyes it's a risk, and they'd rather reinforce the impression that they became one trick studio. Can they really not make a non TB game that's good?
Posted By: Lying Dandy

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 28/02/20 10:26 AM

I'm happy they went with turn-based, personally. I don't hate RTwP - I have very fond memories of the original games and I also loved the Pillars of Eternity games(especially Deadfire). I feel for the RTwP fans, but I personally wanted a D&D 5e game more than a hard sequel to Baldur's Gate.

They could have avoid all this disappointment by calling it something else(and setting it somewhere else in the Realms!), but I imagine Wizards made the decision for marketing reasons.
Posted By: Thrall

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 28/02/20 11:30 AM

Larian and Wizards of the Coast has made a wise decision to ditch RTwP .
Baldur's Gate 3 will be the best in the series groovy
Posted By: blurpo

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 28/02/20 11:32 AM

Turn based is really the best option, the game is based on D&D which is a turn based system for crying out loud.
Posted By: Dark_Ansem

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 28/02/20 12:34 PM

Could someone please lock this thread?
Posted By: Krymm

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 28/02/20 12:49 PM

TLDR - RTWP is you giving commands (movement AND actions) to your characters and the AI determining how well it is carried out whereas Turn based has you EXECUTING movements and actions INSTANTLY where you have FULL control without a poorly designed AI (pathing) interfering with your planned actions and also increases party diversity because GOOD players of RTWP figured out decades ago that having a primarily ranged party with maybe 2 melee tanks to bottleneck the enemy is the most efficient way to play every combat scenario.....in EVERY RTWP game....cause AI pathing sucks in EVERY RTWP game. And Auto-pause does NOT fix this, only furiously pausing multiple times a second to make sure move commands (or attack commands relying on movement/proximity) arent deviated from for unforeseen reasons such as body blocking a pathing scenario, etc for a second or 2.

So, my input into this is simple: Real time w/ pause (even auto pause to simulate turn based) is just too restrictive and irritating at times due to poor AI. Things such as pathing can screw up your commands to the AI leading to wasted time which translates into either lost damage, lost efficiency, or increased damage taken, or loss of an advantageous position but not because of anything you did, because of poor AI. The prime example with Real Time w/ Pause (abbreviated to RTWP) problems is when it comes to bottle-necked doorways or tight corridors where you give a command but because 1 of your characters or an enemy is temporarily in the way, the AI party starts walking in weird/different directions as the AI attempts to figure out how to path through.

Attacks likewise that require AI pathing can get messed up sometimes and in EVERY RTWP game the ideal (overly simplistic) party is a group of ranged damage dealers (as many as possible) with only the bare minimum tanks to bottleneck the enemy - usually 2 suffices. This is NOT interesting or intelligent enough to be engaging anymore or after you've played your 10th RTWP game with the same AI pathing issues.

It's 1 thing of your plan fails because of your chosen actions, its entirely another if the AI doesnt execute your actions as you input them because it just straight up sucks, leading to your plan failing. i'd rather have that control in my hands and do it myself. It also leads to more viability in more melee-heavy parties as the pathing issues dont force you to go primarily ranged to take advantage of the poor AI the enemies also have. Last game i played that had RTWP was Pillars of Eternity 2 and it STILL had AI pathing issues so the AI tech has not come a long way yet and tbh, after they released the turn based patch early this year - it became a MUCH more enjoyable experience, and less annoying. So from practical experience, turn based is just the preferred combat method unless AI is drastically improved to make the player feel more in control rather than the AI putzing around.
Posted By: Maximuuus

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 28/02/20 01:27 PM

Anyway those thinking that somes are complaining for nothing don't give a f**** about the name of this game.
It could have been Waterdepp, Sundabar, The Underdark or anything else, they don't care but it's finally the only problem
(if you forget that we'll never have THE BG3 we waited for about 20 years).

No matter if you are happy or not to see a new TB in the universe of the forgotten realms with the D&D rules...
You can love Larian's games or not, love TB or not, love what you saw yesterday or not... this changes nothing...
This game is not a BG game... Exept for his name, the universe and the rules.
Absolutely nothing in the basic gameplay elements we saw yesterday looks like it...

Check how TB has evolved since 1997. Then compare to RTwP...
And please don't talk about Pathfinder or PoE... I love these game but they cannot expect the sucess Larian could pretend to.. or DA:O or Mass Effect that choose "wisely" to completely change the gameplay of these licence... leading them nearly to their dead...

Do:S is probably going to become a legend of video games in 10 years or more and this is what Larian should have done with a Baldur's Gate 3, rebuild (nearly dead) game mecanics and continue to redifine what is video games for the past few years.
This game could have be a part of the legend of Baldur's Gate. Even if it's a good game, it's not going to be more than a forgetable "Divinity : Original Sin like".
Posted By: vometia

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 28/02/20 01:29 PM

Originally Posted by Dark_Ansem
Could someone please lock this thread?

No, because it'll just go back to being discussed in every other thread.
Posted By: Robymyz

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 28/02/20 01:46 PM

@Dmsephiroth ,brother i think you misread my comment , i said i DISLIKE the turn based combat , im all in on the RTwP gameplay , i started a different topic with my own thoughts on why RTwP is the best way to go smile
Posted By: Nobody_Special

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 28/02/20 01:56 PM

Originally Posted by vometia
Originally Posted by Dark_Ansem
Could someone please lock this thread?

No, because it'll just go back to being discussed in every other thread.


What do you mean go back? It is already spreading its ugly head to other threads.


Oh by the way. I prefer Turn base when I play And I am a BG1 & 2 Fan. I also like the DOS2 which I purchased to play when I found out Larian Studio was making BG3. I am hopeful for a DM Mode with a Toolset. I agree with WotC and Larian Studios when they say the Baldur's Gate IP is about the City and not just one story.


Posted By: vometia

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 28/02/20 02:02 PM

Originally Posted by Nobody_Special
What do you mean go back? It is already spreading its ugly head to other threads.

Yeah, I was going to address that when I was less sleep-deprived. Maybe it would be lazy of me to just rename this "The TB vs. RTwP Forum".
Posted By: Sordak

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 28/02/20 02:05 PM

"Forgettabel divintiy original sin like"

Opposed to the unforgettable "Baldurs gate likes" like PoE
Bruh. Larian made their own subgenre of CRPG, meanwhile theres a gorillion of Infinity engine clones.
Posted By: Maximuuus

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 28/02/20 02:52 PM

Originally Posted by Sordak
"Forgettabel divintiy original sin like"

Opposed to the unforgettable "Baldurs gate likes" like PoE
Bruh. Larian made their own subgenre of CRPG, meanwhile theres a gorillion of Infinity engine clones.


I agree. That's why I was so hyped when I learned that Larian took BG3 instead of Obsidian (even if I like "some" of their games).
Just hoped they would have created their own NEW subgenre with this BG3, not only an improvement of what they had already done.
Posted By: _Vic_

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 28/02/20 03:31 PM

Interview with with Larian's David Walgrave, executive producer on Baldur's Gate 3,

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2020-02-27-baldurs-gate-3-interview

"You changed some stuff. Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 had "real-time with pause" combat, you've gone turn-based. The camera is that sort of third-person-isometric hybrid...

Walgrave: It's 2020!

Is that basically the reason why - you felt you needed to modernise it?

Walgrave: So, I think that in spirit it's still the successor of Baldur's Gate 1 and 2. Because there are so many things that people who did play and like Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 will still recognise in the new one. It's still about your party. It's still about big personalities clashing with each other and relationships. It's still a party-based game, you still need to do combat, you will recognise a lot of D&D rules - even if you haven't played D&D in 20 years. You will still recognise all the spells, et cetera.

So, to me it's a true sequel, but we are bringing it into the 21st century by saying, "Look, it's glorious 3D. It has really nice cinematics. We're taking it further with systemics, we applied the 'Larian philosophy', which is like, oodles of content and hidden features and hidden stuff everywhere." So to me it's a good sequel.

The choices that we made are ours. Why did we go for turn-based instead of real-time with pause? Because D&D to us is a turn-based game and we're really good - or we have become really good - with turn-based combat. So that, I think, is one of our strengths, and trying out real-time with pause for now, just because the originals were that? It's a big risk. Because the team would have to think completely differently, our combat would be completely different. And we didn't really feel good about that. Normally we do try out a lot. Normally we try out a lot before we make a decision, but with real-time with pause and turn-based we didn't, we just said "Okay it's just gonna be turn-based."

Posted By: dlux

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 28/02/20 04:06 PM

Originally Posted by vometia
Maybe it would be lazy of me to just rename this "The TB vs. RTwP Forum".

That might be a good idea, since it seems to be the only thing that everyone is discussing.
Posted By: Damazig

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 28/02/20 04:08 PM

Such disappointment, I hoped for real time pause and play just like the previous Baldurs Gate games, but instead they went for Turn Based. Same for the looks, I hoped it would look and feel more like a Baldurs Gate 3, instead it just looks like a Divinity 3.
Posted By: Xysh84

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 28/02/20 04:19 PM

Originally Posted by _Vic_

"Normally we do try out a lot. Normally we try out a lot before we make a decision, but with real-time with pause and turn-based we didn't, we just said "Okay it's just gonna be turn-based."


Exactly what I said.

Originally Posted by Xysh84

I think Larian thought about this when they got together for the first time to work on the game. I get that there is a time frame to release the game and they have a lot of work to do still, but things like this should have been considered long ago. If they were, that means they knew it would reach this stage in which people will be disappointed but expected to sell anyways.




Originally Posted by _Vic_

So that, I think, is one of our strengths, and trying out real-time with pause for now, just because the originals were that? It's a big risk. Because the team would have to think completely differently, our combat would be completely different. And we didn't really feel good about that



I also understand that they did not feel good with RTwP Mechanics, but that does not mean everyone will like this system.

It is true that they might be good with TB mechanics cause they have already work with it, but bringing another episode of a saga in which something as basic as the combat system is completely different... you might disappoint fans on the way and I guess you can actually see that on this thread.
Posted By: Maximuuus

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 28/02/20 04:58 PM

Originally Posted by _Vic_
Interview with with Larian's David Walgrave, executive producer on Baldur's Gate 3,

Walgrave: So, I think that in spirit it's still the successor of Baldur's Gate 1 and 2. Because there are so many things that people who did play and like Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 will still recognise in the new one. It's still about your party. It's still about big personalities clashing with each other and relationships. It's still a party-based game, you still need to do combat, you will recognise a lot of D&D rules - even if you haven't played D&D in 20 years. You will still recognise all the spells, et cetera.




Okay... so take the obvious element of each recent good RPG (party, personnalities, party again, combat), add a little bit of D&D for the calculations, add the spells, and you have Baldur's Gate.
They clearly assume they choose the easiest way...
Posted By: Sordak

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 28/02/20 05:05 PM

The interview certainly puts some perspective on things.

We ought to consider.
Larian isnt in this boat alone this time around.

Im pretty sure WOTC told them not to experimen ttoo hard.
Larian is known for games like Dragon Commander or Beyond divinity wehre they tried out realy odd things.

I think this time they realized they got a big IP and they cant just fuck around
Posted By: MBG3GA

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 28/02/20 05:08 PM

"It was never really a question," Baldur's Gate III design producer David Walgrave said, according to USG. "We've been doing turn-based for a while now. We're pretty good at it. Dungeons & Dragons is turn-based in itself, so it makes a lot of sense."

In other words, we're doing turn based because we already know turn based, and in our unknowledgeable viewpoint, we think this is how D&D is supposed to be, so we're just going to shoehorn it in.

In a tabletop game, you use your imagination. We roll individually and speak one at a time because of the limits of the dungeon master and human speech. We don't actually imagine the action happening like in a turn based video game. All the action is happening simultaneously. In a video game, you have visual representation, so it should appear realistic. The rounds and turns in D&D are measurements of time and the actions performed, NOT a mandate to perform pugilistic kabuki theater.
Posted By: Sordak

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 28/02/20 06:14 PM

thats a strange argument to make.
youre not wrong, but by the same logic

Why RTWP?
Sure baldurs gate 2 did have that, but because of limitaitons of the time.

Yes it was set in forgotten realms, why not in dark sun? Its a much more interresting setting. "Oh because we already know faerun" well, thats an unknowledgeable viewpoint.


Most studios are good at one thing or another.
You dont hire a FIFA developer to make a Sequal to Call of Duty do you?
Posted By: dlux

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 28/02/20 06:22 PM

Originally Posted by Sordak

Why RTWP?
Sure baldurs gate 2 did have that, but because of limitaitons of the time.

Wut

Originally Posted by MBG3GA

In a tabletop game, you use your imagination. We roll individually and speak one at a time because of the limits of the dungeon master and human speech. We don't actually imagine the action happening like in a turn based video game. All the action is happening simultaneously. In a video game, you have visual representation, so it should appear realistic. The rounds and turns in D&D are measurements of time and the actions performed, NOT a mandate to perform pugilistic kabuki theater.

Well said.
Posted By: Horrorscope

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 28/02/20 06:43 PM

Originally Posted by MBG3GA
"It was never really a question," Baldur's Gate III design producer David Walgrave said, according to USG. "We've been doing turn-based for a while now. We're pretty good at it. Dungeons & Dragons is turn-based in itself, so it makes a lot of sense."

In other words, we're doing turn based because we already know turn based, and in our unknowledgeable viewpoint, we think this is how D&D is supposed to be, so we're just going to shoehorn it in.

In a tabletop game, you use your imagination. We roll individually and speak one at a time because of the limits of the dungeon master and human speech. We don't actually imagine the action happening like in a turn based video game. All the action is happening simultaneously. In a video game, you have visual representation, so it should appear realistic. The rounds and turns in D&D are measurements of time and the actions performed, NOT a mandate to perform pugilistic kabuki theater.



Yep that sounds definitive, any comments I had that maybe it would be added... I'll assume fully gone.
Posted By: Damazig

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 28/02/20 07:00 PM

Yes its more than obvious they never even considered RTWP, so no point in crying more about it, or even asking, just move along. I've already backed Pathfinder
Posted By: Hephaestus

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 28/02/20 07:10 PM

I came here and registered just to join this conversation.

While I would, as an old school fan, prefer RTwP overall, I recognise that it will likely never happen. OK. Having said that, however, I have to speak out against party-based turns/initiative.

First of all, D&D doesn't use party turns. So if you're trying to make something that is true to D&D, use individual initiative.

Second, and this point is more important, party turns are an unbalanced mess. They lead to situations where one character gets mobbed and downed all at once before the player can react. Not only does it feel terrible when this happens, it's also completely unrealistic. No one is going to stand around in combat while enemies pound on them for 6 seconds.

I also don't really understand why they would take a system that uses individual initiative (D:OS2) and then spend the time and effort to strip out that superior system to give us this terrible alternative.

I can handle RTwP not being a part of this game. It's been 17 years since BG 2 came out, I'm happy for the genre to change. But I definitely will not be happy when I get into combat and party wipe because I didn't get a chance to react to what was going on before my characters got downed. That is serious rage quit territory. That is like uninstall and refund territory.
Posted By: 4verse

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 28/02/20 08:12 PM

3 Words: SWORD COAST LEGENDS ...

Posted By: Delicieuxz

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 28/02/20 08:19 PM

Originally Posted by _Vic_
Interview with with Larian's David Walgrave, executive producer on Baldur's Gate 3,

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2020-02-27-baldurs-gate-3-interview

"You changed some stuff. Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 had "real-time with pause" combat, you've gone turn-based. The camera is that sort of third-person-isometric hybrid...

Walgrave: It's 2020!

Now that's an idiotic response. Nevermind that TB is even older than RTwP and RTwP was created to be an evolution of TB, and that RTwP continues to be an evolution of TB even in 2020.

Here's a translation of Walgrave's response: WotC saw sales figures for D:OS2 and Larian heard the sound of money at the idea of exploiting the Baldur's Gate fanbase and greed overcame them.

There is obviously no integrity or concern for what's the best fit in 2020 behind this decision.

Originally Posted by Sordak
Why RTWP?
Sure baldurs gate 2 did have that, but because of limitaitons of the time.

Where did you get that idea from? It's wrong. There were loads of TB PC games out when BG invented RTwP, and BG's RTwP system actually calculates rounds in the background. It would have been less work for BioWare to go full TB-only in BG than to implement RTwP. But James Ohlen wanted Baldur's Gate to be real-time and Ray Muzyka wanted it to be turn-based, and so they created a system that caters to fans of both styles. There was never a factor of technical limitations at play, and if there had been it would have been simpler to just implement TB.

Originally Posted by MBG3GA
"It was never really a question," Baldur's Gate III design producer David Walgrave said, according to USG. "We've been doing turn-based for a while now. We're pretty good at it. Dungeons & Dragons is turn-based in itself, so it makes a lot of sense."

In other words, we're doing turn based because we already know turn based, and in our unknowledgeable viewpoint, we think this is how D&D is supposed to be, so we're just going to shoehorn it in.

So, it was a cash-grab move from Larian from the start.

And with that comment, Walgrave is essentially stating that Larian isn't a talented studio but is a one-hit wonder / one-trick pony. No studio with confidence in its talents would claim 'this is what we're good at so it's all we're going to stick to, even when the project plainly calls for something else'. If they couldn't do service to the project, then they should have passed on it. Why didn't they? Money, obviously. What they're doing is unethical and is wrong by the IP and wrong by the fans of the series.
Posted By: AnonySimon

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 28/02/20 08:20 PM

I personally want RTwP, but ONLY if they also include a number of things such as:

Extensive AI for your own PC as well as each of your companions. I am talking like IWD2's level of extensive AI, where each class has like 10 different AI options. I don't consider PoE's AI options to be anywhere near extensive enough (they had like 3 different AI options each).

An extensive customizable pause setting that lets you choose what pauses the game. Including options like pause when critically hit, pause on player's turn, pause on enemies turn, pause when enemy bloodied (reduced to half health), pause when player ally blooded, pause on combat start, etc.

Without these things included, it makes playing RTwP frustrating as I don't want to HAVE to dictate the actions of any particular character, but my own.
Posted By: Nyxery

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 28/02/20 08:29 PM

Yeah, sadly the more I look at what they said and what they shown the more I see the disconnect. I was actually hyped when they announced it, because Larian I knew wasn't afraid to experiment and push the envelope. Larian I see here is too afraid to let go of DOS formula.
Posted By: kanisatha

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 28/02/20 09:28 PM

Well at least now finally the Larian fanboys can't hide behind the lame argument that we don't know anything about the game so it can't be criticized.

No surprises for me. I was expecting a crappy game, and that's what I saw in the demo. This is just D:OS pretending to be D&D. And the claim that they have "improved" the TB combat system is the most pathetic line of all. This TB system is worse than ever. Just watching that demo of the fight against the devourers was mind-numbingly painful. I can't imagine actually playing through that shit. But the good news maybe that at least now D:OS gets to be only the second shittiest game in this genre, because at least D:OS is not a fake like this so-called BG game.
Posted By: Artagel

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 28/02/20 09:33 PM


Originally Posted by Delicieuxz
Where did you get that idea from? It's wrong.

Oh no... Don't do that...




Posted By: dmsephiroth

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 28/02/20 09:34 PM

Originally Posted by Robymyz
@Dmsephiroth ,brother i think you misread my comment , i said i DISLIKE the turn based combat , im all in on the RTwP gameplay , i started a different topic with my own thoughts on why RTwP is the best way to go smile


Haha sry bro, i read a quote as your comment at all ^^

All good ;-))

And im happy im not the only one, who loves RTWP and dislikes tb combat smile
Posted By: Artagel

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 28/02/20 09:35 PM

Originally Posted by kanisatha
Well at least now finally the Larian fanboys can't hide behind the lame argument that we don't know anything about the game so it can't be criticized.

No surprises for me. I was expecting a crappy game, and that's what I saw in the demo. This is just D:OS pretending to be D&D. And the claim that they have "improved" the TB combat system is the most pathetic line of all. This TB system is worse than ever. Just watching that demo of the fight against the devourers was mind-numbingly painful. I can't imagine actually playing through that shit. But the good news maybe that at least now D:OS gets to be only the second shittiest game in this genre, because at least D:OS is not a fake like this so-called BG game.

Dude, I had thought about messaging you and maybe getting you to record you reaction to the gameplay reveal.

I kinna wish I had remembered to now. Dammit.
Posted By: Anuh

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 28/02/20 10:06 PM

Chris Tapsell: Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 had "real-time with pause" combat, you've gone turn-based.
David Walgrave: It's 2020! ... Normally we try out a lot before we make a decision, but with real-time with pause and turn-based we didn't, we just said "Okay it's just gonna be turn-based."
David Walgrave: Look, it's glorious 3D. It has really nice cinematics ... So to me it's a good sequel.


So "Divinity Original Sin 3" is now should be pronounced "Baldur's Gate 3". Well, OK.

Oh boy, another good game series get to the dead end of "modernising". After Elder Scrolls, Gothic, Neverwinter, HoMM, Disciples, Dawn of War, Medal of Honor, Civilization, Stronghold, Command & Conquer and many more. Yes, yes, you will say that some of them are very popular now in that new dresses and makeups and I will agree. I just old and I remember them, when they were younger, cleverer and more interesting to be with, somehow.

I don't even want to get into polemics about UI, half empty bottom bar, this useless top plate "In Combat" with red outline, as if I don't have eyes and don't understand that it is a combat, not a dialogue. That minimap with coordinates; local elves are not even in a glimpse of discovery of how to build a skateboard and yet somehow have fully assisted GPS with tracking.

The future advertisements (and today impressionable journalists) will say that all changes are for the best, and Larian moving old outdated genre to a whole new level... Of what? They only write this because they need something clever to write. If something is presented properly, overloadness with details becomes variability, something that peoples never need becomes the only thing to have, and part of the series that makes it great becomes an obsolete part we need to get rid of (and replace with whatever we have now in our pocket, yeah).

I won't buy Baldur's Gate 3 not because it is bad game. No, it is potentially very good and interesting RPG. I won't buy it because it is just too different from the old Infinity-engine masterpiece that I'm sure many players here love very much. I just don't need another "Original Sin". I have played two already.

Imagine, that Starcraft III will get combat mechanics from Heroes of Might and Magic III. Or DOOM 6 is out with vast dialogues and gentle look to the internal feminine personality of the main character. It will be a weird future. No reasonable continuity of the established line, no care about decades of heritage.

Artists and story-makers surely paying attention to those important things. But producers don't. "It is easier to make game turn-based because we already have a large part of the code from other game? Oh good, we will use it, then". They don't need to care about heritage, they just in a business of making money out of peoples, who waisting their time playing virtual toys.

Yesterday is was fashionable to have RTwP, today public prefers Turn-Based. It is irrelevant that you, yes - you prefers RTwP combat. Opinion of a person don't matter. They operate with bigger numbers, percentages, masses of peoples. It is not because they hate you - they simply don't need to care, what individuals write in this small corner of the Internet.

It is perfectably understandable, that the studio constantly searching different ways to minimize production costs. They have found one. Now they will convince people through repeated advertising that "this product" is exactly as the old one, except that company make it even better. Larian is not unique in this - pretty much everybody else doing it the same way.

Bigger crowd, bigger sales. It's not personal, Sonny...

AFTER THOUGHTS: If Larian want to create a new RPG based on improved technology they have from the previous project, and they planning to make it so radically different from "Baldur's Gate" series, that even classic combat system has been labeled as "obsolete" and already has been thrown out, why bother with old obsolete name as well? New game for the new year must have a new name. I propose the following: "D&D: Origins"; "Funky Elves - A Graphics Tale"; "Pool of Randomness" or my personal favorite "Tales of The Fans's Loss".
Posted By: kanisatha

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 28/02/20 10:16 PM

Originally Posted by Artagel
Originally Posted by kanisatha
Well at least now finally the Larian fanboys can't hide behind the lame argument that we don't know anything about the game so it can't be criticized.

No surprises for me. I was expecting a crappy game, and that's what I saw in the demo. This is just D:OS pretending to be D&D. And the claim that they have "improved" the TB combat system is the most pathetic line of all. This TB system is worse than ever. Just watching that demo of the fight against the devourers was mind-numbingly painful. I can't imagine actually playing through that shit. But the good news maybe that at least now D:OS gets to be only the second shittiest game in this genre, because at least D:OS is not a fake like this so-called BG game.

Dude, I had thought about messaging you and maybe getting you to record you reaction to the gameplay reveal.

I kinna wish I had remembered to now. Dammit.

Well right up to the end I kept a tiny little bit of hope alive that Larian would surprise me with something I could consider to be good. But now it is clear there is nothing, literally nothing, about this game that can redeem it for me. And that is very sad for me as a passionate fan of both the original BG games as well as the Forgotten Realms setting. I mean, if everything else about the game was awesome and the TB combat was the only negative, that would've been a different story. But here everything is trash. I mean, if you find a person who is unfamiliar with both the D:OS games and the original BG games/FR setting, and had them play a bit of D:OS1/2 and this game, they will surely say the games are the same. It is indisputable that this game is exactly the same as D:OS but with some kinda'-sorta' application of D&D 5e rules.

Bottom line, my reaction was actually quite anti-climactic. No freakout or anything like that. Just a profound sadness that I will be denied the ability to play a game called Baldur's Gate 3, something I've been so waiting for for 20 years.
Posted By: IzalNan

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 28/02/20 11:58 PM

I know that BG has not been TB however I think that this is not what made it a BG game. I have said and I will always say that BG is about the story. To me this has always been what brought me back so many times to replay the game. Each time finding new ways to play and exploring how different parties and actions effect the story. One of the key features of D&D is the ability to tell a story with your friends. In my experience I found it very difficult to play BG1 and BG2 with my friends. I think that this was one of the major flaws of the BG series. A typical attempt would end up in people wandering off around the map, starting combat and dying before anyone could get to them.

I understand that multiplayer in BG could be very effective with the right players. However I have run into constant issues of people not being ready or casting there spells on the wrong person. I think that having TB combat will change the way that we can play this game by enabling awesome multiplayer moments. which, in my opinion is what D&D is all about.
Posted By: Thrall

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 29/02/20 12:05 AM

Originally Posted by cryocore
Does no one remember how bad RTwP pause is? Can anyone name an RPG that has this system, where the combat is actually good?
None, of the Infinity Engine games had good combat in my opinion. In fact it is generally the only thing people agreed was a negative aspect of those games.

RTwP is inferior in any party based game. You limit control, reduce the ability to use your skills, spells, and abilities, and rely on automation which weakens agency.


QFT. All those games with RTwP would actually be much better if it's turn based or just plain real time.
Posted By: Horrorscope

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 29/02/20 12:45 AM

Originally Posted by Thrall
Originally Posted by cryocore
Does no one remember how bad RTwP pause is? Can anyone name an RPG that has this system, where the combat is actually good?
None, of the Infinity Engine games had good combat in my opinion. In fact it is generally the only thing people agreed was a negative aspect of those games.

RTwP is inferior in any party based game. You limit control, reduce the ability to use your skills, spells, and abilities, and rely on automation which weakens agency.


QFT. All those games with RTwP would actually be much better if it's turn based or just plain real time.


I tried so hard, too hard to make Poe2 and Kingmaker play great in realtime, the scripting to me was just broken though (I will surrender that perhaps if I were smarter and put in 100 hours maybe I could get there). To me it is stupid for everyone to have all these skills and they will only use them reliably when you pause and tell them to and hope that fires because your pausing in-turn, that imo completely borks realtime for me, faux TB. The one part of Real time argument I get is, you don't have lengthy battles and can quickly move through, and that is why I'm so much for good scripting AI, so when you play your guy I don't have to baby sit the others and have very good results from them, not basic attack, basic attack and just a little more than that. It's maddening, in the iso world I don't think Real Time has ever played out well, fast perhaps, but not well per move.
Posted By: MBG3GA

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 29/02/20 02:46 AM

Certainly no one was clamoring for turn based combat during the Infinity Engine era. Baldur's Gate 1 as a game was so amazing at the time for many reasons, but RTwP was one of the big innovations. Who would have wanted to go back to turn based when we finally got to see our characters fighting? No one said, oh my God this is so chaotic, I just can't take it. That's why you pause when you need to, and issue new commands when necessary. If you don't like pause and want pure real time combat, no one is forcing you to pause either. I also assume that, programming-wise, they could add turn based combat into an RTwP game as an option. It would turn on this restrictive overlay with squares that makes characters step back and forth one at a time. You could even incorporate the turn based code into a spell, Mordenkainen's Turn Based Time Wasting, that prevents characters from doing anything other than a PE class jog in place.
Posted By: Elvenoob

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 29/02/20 03:04 AM

5e has a lot more options available to every character all the time, I feel like the turn-based format they're rolling with helps players keep up with martials having more abilities that're always on the go, and spellcasters always having an array of cantrips on the go instead of falling back on a crossbow or something when they're out of slots.

They said on the stream they did of the demo that they were initially planning to use the real-time pause style but when they looked at what players would be capable of doing at any one moment, they felt the turn based style (Which isn't as restrictive as you might have thought) is far more suitable for a game adaptation of 5e specifically.
Posted By: Artagel

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 29/02/20 06:42 AM

Originally Posted by kanisatha
Well right up to the end I kept a tiny little bit of hope alive that Larian would surprise me with something I could consider to be good. But now it is clear there is nothing, literally nothing, about this game that can redeem it for me. And that is very sad for me as a passionate fan of both the original BG games as well as the Forgotten Realms setting. I mean, if everything else about the game was awesome and the TB combat was the only negative, that would've been a different story. But here everything is trash. I mean, if you find a person who is unfamiliar with both the D:OS games and the original BG games/FR setting, and had them play a bit of D:OS1/2 and this game, they will surely say the games are the same. It is indisputable that this game is exactly the same as D:OS but with some kinda'-sorta' application of D&D 5e rules.

Bottom line, my reaction was actually quite anti-climactic. No freakout or anything like that. Just a profound sadness that I will be denied the ability to play a game called Baldur's Gate 3, something I've been so waiting for for 20 years.

Yep.

You had it pegged well early.

I watched that first video of the Sven guy running around his office like a dork in a crown after acquiring the D&D license, and what that looked like... but I'll admit I was still around 50-50 they'd at least be able to come up with something that looks like BG and might be worth our time.

But then watching that reveal... it's honestly exactly what I should have expected from the start.

NBD though. There's always something new coming out.
Posted By: korotama

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 29/02/20 08:24 AM

Originally Posted by kanisatha
Well at least now finally the Larian fanboys can't hide behind the lame argument that we don't know anything about the game so it can't be criticized.

No surprises for me. I was expecting a crappy game, and that's what I saw in the demo. This is just D:OS pretending to be D&D. And the claim that they have "improved" the TB combat system is the most pathetic line of all. This TB system is worse than ever. Just watching that demo of the fight against the devourers was mind-numbingly painful. I can't imagine actually playing through that shit. But the good news maybe that at least now D:OS gets to be only the second shittiest game in this genre, because at least D:OS is not a fake like this so-called BG game.


To resume the last few months:
Sven: You know, I don't think it's possible to meet fan expectations, when making a game you have to take creative risks.
proceeds to make D:OS3
gameplay reveal lands at PAX
Sven: What do you think guys!?
Woke millennials cheer with their mouths wide open
Sven: Thank you. Glad you like it. Anyway, early access for Divini - errr BG3 is right around the corner. Stay tuned!
Woke millennials cheer with their mouths wide open
Video game journalists: Baldur's Gate 3 is shaping up to be an original take on the series even if it looks, plays and has exactly the same bugs as Divinity: Original Sin
Posted By: dlux

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 29/02/20 08:44 AM

Originally Posted by Delicieuxz
Originally Posted by MBG3GA
"It was never really a question," Baldur's Gate III design producer David Walgrave said, according to USG. "We've been doing turn-based for a while now. We're pretty good at it. Dungeons & Dragons is turn-based in itself, so it makes a lot of sense."

In other words, we're doing turn based because we already know turn based, and in our unknowledgeable viewpoint, we think this is how D&D is supposed to be, so we're just going to shoehorn it in.

So, it was a cash-grab move from Larian from the start.

That pretty much sums it up.

Larian never had any intention of making a true Baldur's Gate sequel, they just wanted to make a straight-up D:OS 2 clone right from the very beginning. Larian could have just made D:OS 3, but then they wouldn't have gotten those WotC/D&D and Baldur's Gate nostalgia dollars.

I have supported both of Larian's Kickstarters, I even backed D:OS 1 when it was just at ~20K dollars and did everything I could to support them and spread the word, as they were a struggling studio. I would have never expected them to pull an EA and just completely s**t all over what so many fans love and cherish dearly, simply out of pure greed.

There is much more to life than video games, but it is a hobby that I admire, and such a move is feels like a kick in the gut, and it really hurts.
Posted By: 4verse

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 29/02/20 12:32 PM

To impute greed to Larian/Swen is the most ridiculous thing ever.

He and his team have a vision and that might look different from yours - and to be honest, I also see some issues and IMHO Larian did not do itself a favor to take on BG and apply its own philosophy to it, b/c of diehard BG-fans of which there are many.
But nonetheless lets not lose control over our horses here: Swen makes great RPG games; but fans are greedy themselves. Fans often dont want to evolve and/or change and/or iterate and I can totally relate to that. As I implied here and said elsewhere: This game is called BG but as far as I can tell from 15 Min of pre-alpha(!) it seems more like NWN or even DOS:D&D.
BUT it is still - despite all cries of naysayers - going to be a great D&D game with some Larian philosophy woven in. Just maybe not „good old BG“.
If packaging means more than content to you ... well, maybe you want to rethink your priorities, ignore the - in some peoples opinion not so appropriate - game title and play a still great D&D game (which seems to stay very true to the rule set I might add, which is very important to me).
Posted By: Elvenoob

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 29/02/20 12:36 PM

What is this conspiracy theory level reasoning for saying money was their only motivating factor in taking on Baldur's gate 3?

Like, that's not what their comment said, that's not what ANYONE from the company has said.

Yes this is capitalism so all artistic endeavours are polluted by greed to some degree, just like the rest of society, but I really don't think it's as severe in this case as you're making out.
Posted By: vometia

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 29/02/20 01:27 PM

Originally Posted by Elvenoob
Yes this is capitalism so all artistic endeavours are polluted by greed to some degree, just like the rest of society, but I really don't think it's as severe in this case as you're making out.

Quite. It is about money because it has to be: there's no point in going for a level of artistic purity that will have such niche appeal that it'll put them out of business. Some may disagree and there's certainly no shortage of celebrated artists who died paupers to demonstrate that point. But I think in most cases there has to be a balance. I don't see Larian is skirting the territory of insert-publisher-you-love-to-hate in terms of squeezing a franchise until the pips squeak; perhaps that might be seen as a "well you would say that, wouldn't you?" but I'm neither an employee nor a (particularly rabid, anyway) fangirl. I'd like to think just someone with realistic expectations, though I admit I'll still gripe if I don't get what I want!
Posted By: Maximuuus

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 29/02/20 01:34 PM

Don't be naive... Of course they won't say "yea we do it only for money"...

They just said : we take no risks about gameplay but look, it's D&D (paper obvious) turn base gameplay, we added visible dice roll so it's call BG3.

This is not a conspiracy... This is how it works in gaming industry. Larian can't be the "divinity" only studio anymore and has to change, such lots before them (Bioware, EA, Obsidian soon I guess now they are ruled by microsoft). They all sold their souls to "many more easy" money.

The only try of upgrading oldschool RP>G gameplay is Dragon Age and it was 6 years ago for DA:I.
Hey DA:I had the same base gameplay as BG (RTwP) and it has been a real success.
I'm not considering Larian should have done the same. DA:I is not such a great game to me but RTwP could also make money... It just need a little bit more risks and ambition.
Posted By: Ellderon

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 29/02/20 02:49 PM

Why not simoulataneus turn-based?
Posted By: korotama

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 29/02/20 03:28 PM

Originally Posted by Elvenoob
What is this conspiracy theory level reasoning for saying money was their only motivating factor in taking on Baldur's gate 3?

Like, that's not what their comment said, that's not what ANYONE from the company has said.

Yes this is capitalism so all artistic endeavours are polluted by greed to some degree, just like the rest of society, but I really don't think it's as severe in this case as you're making out.

I like how we're all pretending on this thread that Baldur's Gate is a niche series with a small die-hard cult following despite selling millions of copies long before Larian became a household name in the industry. I don't see this as old-fashioned capitalism (whatever you may want to call it) but rather as rent-seeking behavior that overbloated, parasitic companies tend to exhibit (I'm not talking about Larian).
Posted By: Ratherz

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 29/02/20 04:47 PM

I'm happy. RTwP sucks, pausing all the time to micromanage sucks. And if it doesn't need micromanaging, that means it's too easy. So turnbased is better because you need to micromanage but you don't need to spam pause button every second to watch a slide show
Posted By: Sordak

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 29/02/20 05:05 PM

>WOTC wants to make money
IQ 180 deducing skills.

but realy, the Mona Lisa was a comission for money.

Not all art is soulless because it was made for comercial reasons, or for that matter, requried comercial success in order to perpetuate itself.
Its a weak argument.

Calling something a cash grab is, again, ridiculous.
A cash grab is quick, cheap and low risk.

This is the opposit of that, they expanded the studio greatly, poured resources into it and are facing a hostile community.
A cash grab would be literaly all the other DnD games that were facebook tier shovelware trash.

That or all the blatant Infinity engine clones living only off peoples nostalgia
Posted By: Ardeis

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 29/02/20 05:56 PM

For me it's RTwP hands down, it's the reason I liked DOS but didn't love it.

RTwP I find so much more fluid, you can choose to micro manage or not & respond on the fly. It allows for both single enemy fights or huge fights with dozens of oozes or waves of guards. Turn based I find jarring, slow and limiting (most notably you can't really have more than 10 or so combatants). And it limits the number of encounters because the combat phase is so long.

The downside of RTwP for me is it's less true to tabletop; but I do think that can be adjusted if you somehow included, for example, some sort of initiative roles at the start of combat. Nevertheless, I do feel it works better in digital format than turn based.

NB. just my opinion, don't hate me.
Posted By: Dark_Ansem

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 29/02/20 06:00 PM

Originally Posted by Ardeis
For me it's RTwP hands down, it's the reason I liked DOS but didn't love it.

RTwP I find so much more fluid, you can choose to micro manage or not & respond on the fly. It allows for both single enemy fights or huge fights with dozens of oozes or waves of guards. Turn based I find jarring, slow and limiting (most notably you can't really have more than 10 or so combatants). And it limits the number of encounters because the combat phase is so long.

The downside of RTwP for me is it's less true to tabletop; but I do think that can be adjusted if you somehow included, for example, some sort of initiative roles at the start of combat. Nevertheless, I do feel it works better in digital format than turn based.

NB. just my opinion, don't hate me.


Ahhh, you demand not to be hated! That's impossible, with some people being part of the salt brigade!
Posted By: korotama

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 29/02/20 06:10 PM

Originally Posted by Sordak
>WOTC wants to make money
IQ 180 deducing skills.

but realy, the Mona Lisa was a comission for money.

Not all art is soulless because it was made for comercial reasons, or for that matter, requried comercial success in order to perpetuate itself.
Its a weak argument.

Calling something a cash grab is, again, ridiculous.
A cash grab is quick, cheap and low risk.

This is the opposit of that, they expanded the studio greatly, poured resources into it and are facing a hostile community.
A cash grab would be literaly all the other DnD games that were facebook tier shovelware trash.

That or all the blatant Infinity engine clones living only off peoples nostalgia

In my view, part of the community is only reciprocating WotC's and Larian's hostility towards the people who are fans of.. well, BG! Perhaps people on the other side of the aisle are too quick to call naysayers "nostalgic" but I'm not sure anyone wants BG3 to be a remake or rehash. The team had ample time to think about what they were going to show us at PAX. Honestly, a cameo or two would have left series veterans thinking "ah, this no longer feels alien to me" but instead it was more like Divinity fans saying to themselves "oh, this is right up my alley". Combat isn't the biggest issue here anymore.
Posted By: Dark_Ansem

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 29/02/20 06:15 PM

Originally Posted by korotama
Originally Posted by Sordak
>WOTC wants to make money
IQ 180 deducing skills.

but realy, the Mona Lisa was a comission for money.

Not all art is soulless because it was made for comercial reasons, or for that matter, requried comercial success in order to perpetuate itself.
Its a weak argument.

Calling something a cash grab is, again, ridiculous.
A cash grab is quick, cheap and low risk.

This is the opposit of that, they expanded the studio greatly, poured resources into it and are facing a hostile community.
A cash grab would be literaly all the other DnD games that were facebook tier shovelware trash.

That or all the blatant Infinity engine clones living only off peoples nostalgia

In my view, part of the community is only reciprocating WotC's and Larian's hostility towards the people who are fans of.. well, BG! Perhaps people on the other side of the aisle are too quick to call naysayers "nostalgic" but I'm not sure anyone wants BG3 to be a remake or rehash. The team had ample time to think about what they were going to show us at PAX. Honestly, a cameo or two would have left series veterans thinking "ah, this no longer feels alien to me" but instead it was more like Divinity fans saying to themselves "oh, this is right up my alley". Combat isn't the biggest issue here anymore.



To be honest, I'm not sure I've seen this hostility. Where is it?
Posted By: Sordak

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 29/02/20 06:19 PM

or the veterans would have complained about nostalgia milking.

Minsc showing up in the forest for no reason would have been even more jarring.
Also every single recurring charcter from BG2 must have quite a few levels under their belt so introducing them early in the game would obviously break the flow of the progression
Posted By: korotama

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 29/02/20 06:20 PM

Originally Posted by Dark_Ansem
[/quote]
To be honest, I'm not sure I've seen this hostility. Where is it?

http://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=656918#Post656918
Posted By: korotama

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 29/02/20 06:23 PM

Originally Posted by Sordak
or the veterans would have complained about nostalgia milking.

Minsc showing up in the forest for no reason would have been even more jarring.
Also every single recurring charcter from BG2 must have quite a few levels under their belt so introducing them early in the game would obviously break the flow of the progression

Perhaps, but then again, why are you worried about progression in a demo build that's supposed to showcase your game outside of a cinematic trailer?
Posted By: Dark_Ansem

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 29/02/20 06:45 PM

Originally Posted by korotama
Originally Posted by Dark_Ansem

To be honest, I'm not sure I've seen this hostility. Where is it?

http://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=656918#Post656918[/quote]

I'd argue that's mostly a cheap passive-aggressive way out.
Posted By: korotama

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 29/02/20 06:48 PM

Originally Posted by Dark_Ansem
Originally Posted by korotama
Originally Posted by Dark_Ansem

To be honest, I'm not sure I've seen this hostility. Where is it?

http://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=656918#Post656918

I'd argue that's mostly a cheap passive-aggressive way out.

Exactly. Passive-agressive has been the name of the game since June lol.
Posted By: Dark_Ansem

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 29/02/20 06:56 PM

Originally Posted by korotama
Originally Posted by Dark_Ansem
Originally Posted by korotama
Originally Posted by Dark_Ansem

To be honest, I'm not sure I've seen this hostility. Where is it?

http://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=656918#Post656918

I'd argue that's mostly a cheap passive-aggressive way out.

Exactly. Passive-agressive has been the name of the game since June lol.


I mean, ok, perhaps, but it's also a since admission of "you can't make everyone happy"-
Posted By: korotama

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 29/02/20 07:03 PM

No, I guess not but at least they can make Divinity fans happy. I'm happy for them too. laugh
Posted By: Sahl

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 29/02/20 08:44 PM

I don't usually frequent these forums very often. But I had to come and write abit.

Let me first start by saying, that I played the original BG's on release and that I am a D&D fan. I am most likely due to nostalgia, abit biased towards RTwP. But when looking at this game I think TB makes perfectly sense, this is good progression and it sparks my interest, even more so because I felt like it look like we could do the "If you can think it, you can do it) approach.

I look forward to this game and I trust Larian to do a good job, they actually strike me as a studio that cares about lore and setting, they are a good suit for this. Ty Larian for your tiresome fight to get this into reality, this is something many fans forget, without you we might not have a game like this, nor progression.. What was the alternative? another Dragonspear like game? no ty.

Posted By: Sordak

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 29/02/20 08:51 PM

Obviously its not a demo build, its the start of the game.
They are literaly shwoing the first 10 minutes of the game, why put in cameos when you gotta take em out later again? Especialy when youre so early in development
Posted By: korotama

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 29/02/20 09:22 PM

Originally Posted by Sordak
Obviously its not a demo build, its the start of the game.
They are literaly shwoing the first 10 minutes of the game, why put in cameos when you gotta take em out later again? Especialy when youre so early in development

I don't know if that's what game developers normally show off at PAX but that booth was a prime opportunity to put many fans at ease as far as lore continuity, the setting etc. When it comes to cameos, a tutorial area would have fit such a purpose perfectly. I think many people will happily give BG3 a chance regardless of their preferred combat system if it acknowledges past games in some way, form or shape.
Posted By: Xzar+Monty4lyfe

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 01/03/20 12:57 AM

Speaking for myself, they could have gotten away with tb combat if they had nailed other critical aspects of continuity with the original series. In Kingmaker I turn on the tb mod for difficult fights, because for me it helps with being tactical. I don't dislike it. But they nailed next to nothing, so the tb combat becomes the feather in their cap of failure.
Posted By: Boeroer

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 01/03/20 06:04 AM

Failure to meet your individual expectations you mean I guess.

It's funny: reading threads here gives the impression that a majority dislikes the current state of BG3.
Yet, if you read threads on Twitter it's the complete opposite.

It seems that BG grognards (no offense) don't use Twitter too much but prefer to post in forums while more casual (no offense) RPG players seem to use Twitter (and maybe other platforms I don't use frequently).

Also, the mobile version of this forum is really bad, jeez...
Posted By: Waeress

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 01/03/20 06:50 AM

I just love the end result of the PC Gamer twitter poll on RTwP vs TB.
33 337 votes, 53.6% TB, 46.4% RTwP.
It's so even and enforces my idea that half of the possible players will prefer the other way, so there is no possible way to win and no way to make more money by chosing one of the two (well, that depends partly on overlap, are TB or RTwP fans more likely to accept the other system?).
Posted By: vometia

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 01/03/20 06:56 AM

Originally Posted by Boeroer
Also, the mobile version of this forum is really bad, jeez...

The software is fairly ancient. An update is mooted for... well, some point, anyway.
Posted By: Sordak

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 01/03/20 07:07 AM

i wouldnt say its impossible to make money.
Divitny OS2 certainly made money.

but yes its hard to please both camps.
tho i guess most TB fans wouldve played RTWP aswell, while grogs seem to be overly zealous in their hatred for NEW GAME BAD.

but thats the pont.
Even if ti was rtwp theyd have hated it for some other reason.
like the "its too cartoony" thing which comes up and isn tbased in any reality

Its about hating the new thing, because they feel like their love for an old thing is under attack
Posted By: Boeroer

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 01/03/20 07:42 AM

Thanks for the answer. Luckily I spend most of my forum time at the PC. smile
Posted By: Boeroer

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 01/03/20 07:46 AM

Originally Posted by Sordak

like the "its too cartoony" thing which comes up and isn tbased in any reality

Well... while I basically agree on the rest: D:OS is too cartoony for me as well. "Cartoony" might not be the right word though. More like "goofy".
However, I didn't see this goofyness in the BG3 gameplay reveal. And the cinematics surely weren't goofy at all.
Posted By: wpmaura

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 01/03/20 07:50 AM

I will always prefer turn based. Iovdd toee after the unofficial patch
Posted By: korotama

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 01/03/20 08:31 AM

Originally Posted by Boeroer
Failure to meet your individual expectations you mean I guess.

It's funny: reading threads here gives the impression that a majority dislikes the current state of BG3.
Yet, if you read threads on Twitter it's the complete opposite.

It seems that BG grognards (no offense) don't use Twitter too much but prefer to post in forums while more casual (no offense) RPG players seem to use Twitter (and maybe other platforms I don't use frequently).

Also, the mobile version of this forum is really bad, jeez...


Social media networks are big fans of censorship so you can't rely on visible feedback to tell if your product has been well received in total. For example, to me Twitter seems to be pedophiles' (both closeted and self-admitted) preferred social media platform but you need to conduct a study if you want conclusive answers. The question is: Does anyone care about the negative feedback? There are lots of D:OS players so the game will sell lots of copies regardless of how much resemblance it bears to the previous ones.
Posted By: Nyxery

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 01/03/20 09:11 AM

Actually found social media comment by Boeroer quite good. It's a good question and a good answer.

Not everyone engages with social media, at least from my generation (including me). Many feel that it's just a waste of time (reasonably so), or that you can only get in trouble with it (also reasonably, angry Twitter mobs are known to have caused some people to lose their jobs). Especially now, when "censorship" is at it's highest on said media. One could even say that platforms such as Twitter are echo chambers. A lot of people who happen to be fans of original 2 games are much more likely to be used to forums as means of communication, hence why you see us here and not on, say, Twitter.
Posted By: Sordak

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 01/03/20 09:27 AM

mate, Zuckerberg has no interrest in supressing opinions in baludurs gate

Also nyxery, likewise, this generation also likes to show up in forums, while others dont.
and those people hwo like to complain ten dot show up in forums to do just that.
Funny ho that works
Posted By: Nyxery

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 01/03/20 12:04 PM

Oh, I wasn't talking about that kind of censorship. I just meant how majority will use all means available (ordinarily - downwotes, in some cases as far as reports for stuff like instigation, trolling, etc., and almost always social pressure of vocal faction on the media of choice).

Case study: try going on Reddit and posting an unpopular opinion. It will get buried under a pile of dislikes and will never see the light of day. Your karma will take hit too. You may even get reported, depending on how bad is your study subreddit is.

People really don't like opinions that contradict the "accepted" opinion of their platform. And the "accepted" opinion is usually determined rather early on in the life cycle of that platform/community, and from that point begins the process of selection: people with "correct" opinions are welcomed, accepted and encouraged to stay and participate in "positive discussion", while people with "incorrect" opinions are made feel unwelcome, marginalized (unsurprisingly, since any "wrong" opinions are not allowed to gather any significant following in said community/resource) and ultimately leave and don't come back. Now, if we move to a platform that's not about just 1 thing, it gets more complex - there may be more topics that require you to have a "correct" opinion. And that's where we get to the censorship. While what I am about to describe may not be an explicit form of censorship, it nevertheless is limiting how freely people can express what they think. Say, your opinion aligns with what's established as "correct", but a topic comes up where you don't agree to the popular opinion. Most of the people will just either stay quiet, or reluctantly agreed with the majority because now there is a good amount of social pressure on them. On platforms like Twitter such social pressure might go beyond the internet and spill over into personal life - for example it may get you fired (which I am using purely as an example of it going too far, it's unlikely to happen over an opinion about some video game, or is it?).

Of course the degree of severity of what I described varies, and often you will find some people still going against the majority, but these results will always be biased in favor of platforms dominant faction. It's somewhat of a vicious cycle - these communities do their best to attract people who agree and chase off people who don't, therefore there is always majority that agrees and because there is always a majority that agrees it's hard for unpopular opinions to gain any friction, therefore people with unpopular opinions stay quiet or leave, etc.

While this is not explicit censorship, it achieves the same goal: keeps some of the people quiet either through social pressure or via technical means such as downvoting, reporting, feed display algorithms that hide controversial topics, etc..

Also as you could have noticed I didn't mention the actual owners of said platforms. They may or may not have some indirect influence via search algorithms and feed personalization, but all of it is the work of people who use the platform as users, sometimes user appointed moderators and such.

Point is: social platforms tend to degrade into echo chambers where any "incorrect" opinions are not welcome. So "most people on Twitter" is a poor indication of anything - asking Twitter or similar echo chambers about anything is just that - yelling your questions into an echo chamber.
Posted By: korotama

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 01/03/20 12:05 PM

Regardless, the fact that some opinions (that may be neither illegal nor immoral) are being suppressed compels people not to make an account on various social media networks or to continue perusing them. I agree with Nyxery in that Western countries are all about echo chambers, baby.
[Linked Image]
Posted By: Nyxery

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 01/03/20 12:10 PM

Yeah, I really didn't want to bring up politics (since it's not one, not two, but who knows how many cans of worms) but politics are a really good example of how social media work and "soft censor" speech. Another good example would be academia and how it's borderline dangerous to express any non-liberal opinion there, or worse publish or just do research that's not colored with liberal ideology. People get expelled, suspended, etc..

But again, I'd rather not talk politics. Gib RTwP.
Posted By: korotama

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 01/03/20 12:15 PM

Originally Posted by Nyxery
Yeah, I really didn't want to bring up politics (since it's not one, not two, but who knows how many cans of worms) but politics are a really good example of how social media work and "soft censor" speech. Another good example would be academia and how it's borderline dangerous to express any non-liberal opinion there, or worse publish or just do research that's not colored with liberal ideology. People get expelled, suspended, etc..

But again, I'd rather not talk politics. Gib RTwP.

Sure thing. Do you know why it's taking countries so long to declare the coronavirus outbreak a pandemic? It's because Wall Street wants to keep the markets afloat as long as they can according to rumors. Echo chambers can threaten lives too. Either way, looks like we're not getting RTwP.
Posted By: Sordak

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 01/03/20 04:25 PM

Well its funny because those opinions that get drowned out are the pro TB ones by hordes of 5 post new accounts screaming for RTWP.

and comparing this to a liberals censoring conservatives argument....
RTWP always seemed to be the system of progressives when you look at PoE, Siege of Dragonspear or Nu-Bioware : ^)

just to trigger you a bit
Posted By: Sarezar

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 01/03/20 04:59 PM

I am one of those people who has played BG1/BG2/IWD1/IWD2/PoE1/PoE2 for countless hours. And played with this "real time" combat both back when it was first released and with the newer games that use it. And I simply cannot see how people prefer it over the turn-based combat system.

The amount of time I lost by having to pause/unpause, pause/unpause, pause/unpause, plus the time I lost by having to reload because my companions ran into my Fireball/Flamestrike/Bladebarrier or walking/pathing got stuck, simply made the game very slow. The amount of times I got frustrated because the game mechanics would not let me do what I wanted or just simply got stuck was unreal.

Yes, it's "faster" when you have to fight 4 low level bandits x 100 times. But that was never a fun part of the BG games. In Divinity games - and from what the demo showed us it's the same in BG3 - every encounter is memorable. Even when in your mind the encounter was "the one with the big bouncy dude that blows the trumpets with the 2 wolves and the 4 little gremlins by the lighthouse", it is memorable. How many people remember those 4 bandits from BG2? No not those. Not those either. The 34th group of 4 bandits from the 100 groups of 4 bandits you fought. Yeah that one. Do you remember it?

I remember every single encounter from both Divinity OS games. Every single one.

Still, I get the frustration from those who wanted this "fake real time" combat. If you prefer something, you will be disappointed when it's not the thing you prefer.
I'm just glad they are offering a system that allows both truly tactical combat and meaningful encounters throughout the game.
Posted By: korotama

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 01/03/20 06:09 PM

Originally Posted by Sordak
Well its funny because those opinions that get drowned out are the pro TB ones by hordes of 5 post new accounts screaming for RTWP.

and comparing this to a liberals censoring conservatives argument....
RTWP always seemed to be the system of progressives when you look at PoE, Siege of Dragonspear or Nu-Bioware : ^)

just to trigger you a bit

I don't see why I should be triggered as I'm not even remotely "conservative". Depends on what you'd like to conserve but frankly my list isn't very long. You see pro-TB opinions being drowned out, others might see threads and comments that suggest the contrary so none of that allows us to draw definitive conclusions about the community as a whole. A well-made poll might have but obviously it's too late now since all the important design decisions appear to have already been made.

Originally Posted by Sarezar

I remember every single encounter from both Divinity OS games. Every single one.


So do I. Mostly because every single encounter was agonizingly long. On the other hand, I couldn't tell you much about the story because the overwhelming majority of the hours I've clocked in together with my buddy can be chalked up to taking turns fighting monsters. Sure, multiplayer is different but I didn't notice the pace picking up when I switched to single player mode. Maybe they'll tone it down a notch for BG3? Sure would be great.
Posted By: dlux

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 01/03/20 06:41 PM

Originally Posted by Sarezar
I simply cannot see how people prefer it over the turn-based combat system.

Because RTwP is fun.

RTwP is faster paced.
RTwP is more realistic.
RTwP doesn't make you constantly wait.
RTwP allows larger scale battles.

D&D tabletop players also imagine that combat is happening in real time and not playing out like fantasy kabuki theater. So why not try to make combat in a CRPG, that has a visual representation of the world and characters, simulate reality as closely as possible?

I mean, I also like turn-based combat, but I don't want every damn CRPG to be turn-based, for these very reasons. Especially not my favorite IP, which is Baldur's Gate.

Originally Posted by Sarezar
the time I lost by having to reload because my companions ran into my Fireball/Flamestrike/Bladebarrier

Have you tried being honest with yourself and just turning down the difficulty slider?
Posted By: Ugmaro

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 01/03/20 07:13 PM

Originally Posted by dlux
Originally Posted by Sarezar
I simply cannot see how people prefer it over the turn-based combat system.

Because RTwP is fun.

RTwP is faster paced.


I mean, if you're playing on some low difficulty setting where you don't need to micro-manage everyone for any 0.3s period you can steamroll any combat encounter in turn based as well, it won't take long because you don't need to think about anything, I promise you that. Personally I didn't mind my characters running into fireball as much as I did mind them not doing anything without 10000 hours of AI setting up (without the AI setting up they'd just waste spell slots casting magic missles at basic 1 hp rats)
Posted By: Nickolaidas

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 01/03/20 07:30 PM

Originally Posted by Nyxery
Oh, I wasn't talking about that kind of censorship. I just meant how majority will use all means available (ordinarily - downwotes, in some cases as far as reports for stuff like instigation, trolling, etc., and almost always social pressure of vocal faction on the media of choice).

Case study: try going on Reddit and posting an unpopular opinion. It will get buried under a pile of dislikes and will never see the light of day. Your karma will take hit too. You may even get reported, depending on how bad is your study subreddit is.

People really don't like opinions that contradict the "accepted" opinion of their platform. And the "accepted" opinion is usually determined rather early on in the life cycle of that platform/community, and from that point begins the process of selection: people with "correct" opinions are welcomed, accepted and encouraged to stay and participate in "positive discussion", while people with "incorrect" opinions are made feel unwelcome, marginalized (unsurprisingly, since any "wrong" opinions are not allowed to gather any significant following in said community/resource) and ultimately leave and don't come back. Now, if we move to a platform that's not about just 1 thing, it gets more complex - there may be more topics that require you to have a "correct" opinion. And that's where we get to the censorship. While what I am about to describe may not be an explicit form of censorship, it nevertheless is limiting how freely people can express what they think. Say, your opinion aligns with what's established as "correct", but a topic comes up where you don't agree to the popular opinion. Most of the people will just either stay quiet, or reluctantly agreed with the majority because now there is a good amount of social pressure on them. On platforms like Twitter such social pressure might go beyond the internet and spill over into personal life - for example it may get you fired (which I am using purely as an example of it going too far, it's unlikely to happen over an opinion about some video game, or is it?).

Of course the degree of severity of what I described varies, and often you will find some people still going against the majority, but these results will always be biased in favor of platforms dominant faction. It's somewhat of a vicious cycle - these communities do their best to attract people who agree and chase off people who don't, therefore there is always majority that agrees and because there is always a majority that agrees it's hard for unpopular opinions to gain any friction, therefore people with unpopular opinions stay quiet or leave, etc.

While this is not explicit censorship, it achieves the same goal: keeps some of the people quiet either through social pressure or via technical means such as downvoting, reporting, feed display algorithms that hide controversial topics, etc..

Also as you could have noticed I didn't mention the actual owners of said platforms. They may or may not have some indirect influence via search algorithms and feed personalization, but all of it is the work of people who use the platform as users, sometimes user appointed moderators and such.

Point is: social platforms tend to degrade into echo chambers where any "incorrect" opinions are not welcome. So "most people on Twitter" is a poor indication of anything - asking Twitter or similar echo chambers about anything is just that - yelling your questions into an echo chamber.


I think the way the negative or criticism-y opinions are presented is the most important thing. If you walk inside a positive forum about BG3 and start whining about how 'Larian ruined BG' or how 'they became sell-outs', it's quite possible that you're going to be marginalized and kicked out. There's constructive criticism and there's drama that borders on trolling.

When I hear how BG3 is not BG because of the UI or the portrait position in the screen, I can't help but shake my head in disbelief. Like, really? THIS is what made Baldur's Gate for you guys? The whole point of BG3 *for you guys* is a nostalgia trip? You want to see the old UI to think that this is the game you remember playing? You want the portraits from top to bottom to remember the game you used to play?

I mean, were the BG fans ever D&D fans at all?

Originally Posted by Ugmaro
Originally Posted by dlux
Originally Posted by Sarezar
I simply cannot see how people prefer it over the turn-based combat system.

Because RTwP is fun.

RTwP is faster paced.


I mean, if you're playing on some low difficulty setting where you don't need to micro-manage everyone for any 0.3s period you can steamroll any combat encounter in turn based as well, it won't take long because you don't need to think about anything, I promise you that. Personally I didn't mind my characters running into fireball as much as I did mind them not doing anything without 10000 hours of AI setting up (without the AI setting up they'd just waste spell slots casting magic missles at basic 1 hp rats)


And let's not forget those amazing moments in the old games …

Oh yes, it was f&%king awesome when an enemy mage would start the battle by casting mass confusion on my party and everyone would start running around, while the only PC who could cast dispel magic on ONE of the PCs was almost guaranteed to fail, BECAUSE THE F&%KING SPELL WOULD TARGET THE PLACE THE PC WAS STANDING AT THE TIME YOU CAST IT - meaning that by the time the spell is on its way to hit the character, the confused character has ran to the other side of the screen, making dispel magic utterly useless. What fun! What amazing times! What amazing battle system! How jolly it was when I reloaded the battle 20 times until I would get a chance to save vs this spell!

F&%k the real-time-pause RTUEIORUJADP battle system. F*$k it to hell, burn it to the ground, and I hope to God I don't ever see it in a D&D game ever again.

Baldur's Gate never became a cult hit because of the real-time pause system. People loved the lore, the setting, the characters, the music, the customization, the (back then) AAA production values and the cheating b&*%shit they would pull in order to spare themselves of difficult encounters (i.e. dying from a boss battle, then loading the game and casting fireball in the under-fog-of-war-area the boss character is in order to kill most of his underlings and damage him before the battle actually starts in order to have an edge when it does - yeah, we all did that).

BG3 is the most D&D video game I've ever seen since Temple of Elemental Evil and I don't care what the BG1-2 purists say. They wear their nostalgia goggles proudly, forgetting the silliness the original games had and accusing Larian Studios of making BG3 is light-hearted adventure (which is another HUH!? complaint - was I the ONLY ONE who saw the intro video or the teaser almost a year back ?).
Posted By: Ugmaro

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 01/03/20 07:48 PM

Originally Posted by Nickolaidas
Originally Posted by Nyxery
Oh, I wasn't talking about that kind of censorship. I just meant how majority will use all means available (ordinarily - downwotes, in some cases as far as reports for stuff like instigation, trolling, etc., and almost always social pressure of vocal faction on the media of choice).

Case study: try going on Reddit and posting an unpopular opinion. It will get buried under a pile of dislikes and will never see the light of day. Your karma will take hit too. You may even get reported, depending on how bad is your study subreddit is.

People really don't like opinions that contradict the "accepted" opinion of their platform. And the "accepted" opinion is usually determined rather early on in the life cycle of that platform/community, and from that point begins the process of selection: people with "correct" opinions are welcomed, accepted and encouraged to stay and participate in "positive discussion", while people with "incorrect" opinions are made feel unwelcome, marginalized (unsurprisingly, since any "wrong" opinions are not allowed to gather any significant following in said community/resource) and ultimately leave and don't come back. Now, if we move to a platform that's not about just 1 thing, it gets more complex - there may be more topics that require you to have a "correct" opinion. And that's where we get to the censorship. While what I am about to describe may not be an explicit form of censorship, it nevertheless is limiting how freely people can express what they think. Say, your opinion aligns with what's established as "correct", but a topic comes up where you don't agree to the popular opinion. Most of the people will just either stay quiet, or reluctantly agreed with the majority because now there is a good amount of social pressure on them. On platforms like Twitter such social pressure might go beyond the internet and spill over into personal life - for example it may get you fired (which I am using purely as an example of it going too far, it's unlikely to happen over an opinion about some video game, or is it?).

Of course the degree of severity of what I described varies, and often you will find some people still going against the majority, but these results will always be biased in favor of platforms dominant faction. It's somewhat of a vicious cycle - these communities do their best to attract people who agree and chase off people who don't, therefore there is always majority that agrees and because there is always a majority that agrees it's hard for unpopular opinions to gain any friction, therefore people with unpopular opinions stay quiet or leave, etc.

While this is not explicit censorship, it achieves the same goal: keeps some of the people quiet either through social pressure or via technical means such as downvoting, reporting, feed display algorithms that hide controversial topics, etc..

Also as you could have noticed I didn't mention the actual owners of said platforms. They may or may not have some indirect influence via search algorithms and feed personalization, but all of it is the work of people who use the platform as users, sometimes user appointed moderators and such.

Point is: social platforms tend to degrade into echo chambers where any "incorrect" opinions are not welcome. So "most people on Twitter" is a poor indication of anything - asking Twitter or similar echo chambers about anything is just that - yelling your questions into an echo chamber.


I think the way the negative or criticism-y opinions are presented is the most important thing. If you walk inside a positive forum about BG3 and start whining about how 'Larian ruined BG' or how 'they became sell-outs', it's quite possible that you're going to be marginalized and kicked out. There's constructive criticism and there's drama that borders on trolling.

When I hear how BG3 is not BG because of the UI or the portrait position in the screen, I can't help but shake my head in disbelief. Like, really? THIS is what made Baldur's Gate for you guys? The whole point of BG3 *for you guys* is a nostalgia trip? You want to see the old UI to think that this is the game you remember playing? You want the portraits from top to bottom to remember the game you used to play?

I mean, were the BG fans ever D&D fans at all?

Originally Posted by Ugmaro
Originally Posted by dlux
Originally Posted by Sarezar
I simply cannot see how people prefer it over the turn-based combat system.

Because RTwP is fun.

RTwP is faster paced.


I mean, if you're playing on some low difficulty setting where you don't need to micro-manage everyone for any 0.3s period you can steamroll any combat encounter in turn based as well, it won't take long because you don't need to think about anything, I promise you that. Personally I didn't mind my characters running into fireball as much as I did mind them not doing anything without 10000 hours of AI setting up (without the AI setting up they'd just waste spell slots casting magic missles at basic 1 hp rats)


And let's not forget those amazing moments in the old games …

Oh yes, it was f&%king awesome when an enemy mage would start the battle by casting mass confusion on my party and everyone would start running around, while the only PC who could cast dispel magic on ONE of the PCs was almost guaranteed to fail, BECAUSE THE F&%KING SPELL WOULD TARGET THE PLACE THE PC WAS STANDING AT THE TIME YOU CAST IT - meaning that by the time the spell is on its way to hit the character, the confused character has ran to the other side of the screen, making dispel magic utterly useless. What fun! What amazing times! What amazing battle system! How jolly it was when I reloaded the battle 20 times until I would get a chance to save vs this spell!

F&%k the real-time-pause RTUEIORUJADP battle system. F*$k it to hell, burn it to the ground, and I hope to God I don't ever see it in a D&D game ever again.

Baldur's Gate never became a cult hit because of the real-time pause system. People loved the lore, the setting, the characters, the music, the customization, the (back then) AAA production values and the cheating b&*%shit they would pull in order to spare themselves of difficult encounters (i.e. dying from a boss battle, then loading the game and casting fireball in the under-fog-of-war-area the boss character is in order to kill most of his underlings and damage him before the battle actually starts in order to have an edge when it does - yeah, we all did that).

BG3 is the most D&D video game I've ever seen since Temple of Elemental Evil and I don't care what the BG1-2 purists say. They wear their nostalgia goggles proudly, forgetting the silliness the original games had and accusing Larian Studios of making BG3 is light-hearted adventure (which is another HUH!? complaint - was I the ONLY ONE who saw the intro video or the teaser almost a year back ?).


If there was a tipping system here I'd mash the hell out of that button. Thank you very much for the good laughs! smile
Posted By: Nickolaidas

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 01/03/20 08:15 PM

Originally Posted by Ugmaro
If there was a tipping system here I'd mash the hell out of that button. Thank you very much for the good laughs! smile


(smiles) Any time!
Posted By: AnonySimon

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 01/03/20 09:50 PM

I think my primary reason for wanting RTwP over Turn Based is that in Turn Based games you HAVE to micromanage the actions of EVERY party member, EVERY round. Atleast, that is my experience with every Turn-Based game I have played. While every RTwP game I have ever played has always included an AI system so that you can generally let the party manage themselves for a couple rounds. Maybe people like micromanaging every party member, every round. I don't. If I was only micromanaging my own character, I would be more fine with Turn Based, but it looks like that is only the case in Multiplayer.

Ofcourse, as I have said before, RTwP is only as good as the A) precoded AI, and B) how thorough you make the pause settings. For example, PoE had very poor AI options, but decent default pause settings. So you can't put half-effort into writing the AI.
Posted By: Nickolaidas

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 01/03/20 10:02 PM

Originally Posted by AnonySimon
I think my primary reason for wanting RTwP over Turn Based is that in Turn Based games you HAVE to micromanage the actions of EVERY party member, EVERY round. Atleast, that is my experience with every Turn-Based game I have played. While every RTwP game I have ever played has always included an AI system so that you can generally let the party manage themselves for a couple rounds. Maybe people like micromanaging every party member, every round. I don't. If I was only micromanaging my own character, I would be more fine with Turn Based, but it looks like that is only the case in Multiplayer.

Ofcourse, as I have said before, RTwP is only as good as the A) precoded AI, and B) how thorough you make the pause settings. For example, PoE had very poor AI options, but decent default pause settings. So you can't put half-effort into writing the AI.


I don't like the chaos in RTwP. Everything happens at the same time and the things that happen lack impact, because I mostly miss it and I have to pause and check on every monster to see whose most wounded, who just got hit and the like - messages scroll like crazy and I generally dislike the lack of focus on a specific monster or PC.

In turn-based games, I love the 'it's my turn now!' feel that I get from every single creature, as it becomes the star of the game for a little while and everything is shown from its own perspective. Which is also why I love the new X-COM games as well. You can also control the pace of the battle as you like. And I like how the camera focuses on each creature each time.

In RTwP, you almost feel like a distant observer, where shit happens and no one really matters. There's chaos everywhere, yet at the same time, everything lacks impact.

Don't really know how to describe it.
Posted By: wpmaura

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 01/03/20 10:36 PM

Nostalgia this is the EXACT same arguments with Baldurs Gate smile
Posted By: Turretsyndrome

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 02/03/20 07:38 AM

Originally Posted by Nickolaidas


I don't like the chaos in RTwP. Everything happens at the same time and the things that happen lack impact, because I mostly miss it and I have to pause and check on every monster to see whose most wounded, who just got hit and the like - messages scroll like crazy and I generally dislike the lack of focus on a specific monster or PC.

In turn-based games, I love the 'it's my turn now!' feel that I get from every single creature, as it becomes the star of the game for a little while and everything is shown from its own perspective. Which is also why I love the new X-COM games as well. You can also control the pace of the battle as you like. And I like how the camera focuses on each creature each time.

In RTwP, you almost feel like a distant observer, where shit happens and no one really matters. There's chaos everywhere, yet at the same time, everything lacks impact.

Don't really know how to describe it.


Great points and this is something that I've always been saying about RTWP.

My own take on this is that RTWP is not very "RPG" like. In RTWP, your speed, your reaction, your ability to be conscientious about what's happening on the battlefield and what's happening to all characters on the screen every half a second is what's focused on. In TB, that is not the case.

The characters' abilities, attributes and capabilities are what are highlighted in TB, in RTWP, it's mostly about how fast you can move and that always puts me off. Not to mention, the enemy AI in terms of reaction speed can always have an upper hand in RTWP.

Posted By: Zogun

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 02/03/20 08:19 AM

Originally Posted by AnonySimon
I think my primary reason for wanting RTwP over Turn Based is that in Turn Based games you HAVE to micromanage the actions of EVERY party member, EVERY round. Atleast, that is my experience with every Turn-Based game I have played. While every RTwP game I have ever played has always included an AI system so that you can generally let the party manage themselves for a couple rounds. Maybe people like micromanaging every party member, every round. I don't. If I was only micromanaging my own character, I would be more fine with Turn Based, but it looks like that is only the case in Multiplayer.

Ofcourse, as I have said before, RTwP is only as good as the A) precoded AI, and B) how thorough you make the pause settings. For example, PoE had very poor AI options, but decent default pause settings. So you can't put half-effort into writing the AI.


This is exactly how I feel as well. RTwP let's you "speed through" easy encounters or rely on the AI and put more focus on the harder/important fights.

Something that would work for me as an alternative to the time consuming, focus demanding nature of TB would be the possibility to let the AI control my party. Then I could choose to pay less attention during smaller, easier fights (and maybe even learn new tactics from the AI's perspective) and pay full attention and control the fight during boss fights or more important fights.

Posted By: Boeroer

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 02/03/20 09:14 AM

An argument could be made that "easy" encounters are unnecessary filler fights and that every encounter in a game should be challenging and rewarding.

Being able to breeze through easy fights is fun once or twice - but becomes boring at some point (at least for me). So for me (who likes several RTwP games and has no clear preference) this is not a convincing argument.

TB combat does indeed take more time if you insist to use too many combatants. Some encounters are fun with a ton of enemies - and if it's just to give you the feeling of a chaotic, "swarmy" combat (hello wichts in PoE) and here RTwP has an advantage. But it is easier to design and balance challenging yet fair encounters with TB.

I think RTwP caters more to an audience that also likes action RPGs games but isn't overly fond of chess (don't take this literally) while TB is more of a puzzle. There ae exceptions of course (FTL vs. Into the Breach - one is RTwP, the other TB - both quite puzzle-ish). I like both approaches.
Posted By: Nyxery

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 02/03/20 10:52 AM

Yeah, I defo agree that RTwP is more appealing for people who want to focus more on story and the world, and we look for different kinds of fun in a BG game. On the other hand I feel like TB crowd is more interested in playing aforementioned chess/puzzle style combat. This is also why you will often notice RTwP folks say that TB feels like it's just there to waste/pad playtime.

We want combat as an exciting part of story, and fighting 6 rats for 5 minutes (exaggerating) sounds neither exciting not flowing with the story.

Fighting large crowds of relatively weak enemies is a great way to deliver on power fantasy or story (for example storming a keep, or fighting in a large scale skirmish). And TB sadly pads time like crazy when it comes to large fights. It also makes them feel less chaotic, which is a bad thing considering that often large scale fights are meant to be chaotic. And yes, as all things these should be used in moderation. They can feel great and refreshing in RTwP, while in TB they are almost guaranteed to get annoying fast.

Another problem with TB is that it has too much downtime when you just sit and watch AI do it's turn. Personally, it's second biggest deal breaker for me - I want to be playing, not waiting and watching.

Next big one is that you have to micromanage your entire party at all times. Again, I prefer to play my character and let party do their thing, only micromanaging them when required. I love putting some gear on them, picking some spells for them to use (although I'd rather have a "suggested level up" pop-up that would hopefully save me from screwing up too bad). I like to think of my party as somewhat self sufficient companions that can hold their own if needed and who can make use of what PC gives/suggests them, and PC as the party leader who sometimes tells everyone what to do, but mostly lets them go about it in their own way. This is probably a number one deal breaker for me - having no AI to manage my party while I focus on experiencing my main character. When I sit down to play, let's say, a rogue I want to play a rogue, I don't want to also play cleric, and warlock, and ranger, and fighter. I wouldn't complain if I have to sometimes exercise some direct control, but only for really difficult stuff like bosses.

Another problem is narrative pacing. TB takes a lot more time. For example chasing a bad guy who sends his cronies to cover his escape will feel pretty ok in RTwP, because you can deal even with several waves of them pretty quick. TB will drag it out much longer an will (imo) stop feeling like a chase. TB really screws with the time passed perception - story-wise it may have been only a few minutes, while IRL it was more like a dozen. And I don't agree with a defense "but that's how PnP works" - in PnP we are forced to do turns because of the limitations it implies, nobody imagines the fight we have as they happen at the table - we all imagine it happen about at the same time. Most accurate representation of this imo would be pure RT. But this is where digital limitations come in - first the fact that game needs to be playable in single player mode, next that we need to use UI and controls to process and react to what's going on (as opposed to just "being there" and naturally swinging sword/casting spells as it happens more naturally in our internal narrative). For this reason we do need pause and AI - one to provide us with time to interface with the game and another to substitute for the lack of DM and fellow adventurers. Imagine playing DnD, but it's just DM and you, playing 4 characters at once. What an awkward game of DnD that would be! Overall, TB just feels like a chore for me that I begrudgingly power through to continue with the story. I still wouldn't turn it down to story difficulty because I want challenging fights now and then, when and where it feels appropriate, but I can't help but feel that it's just there to artificially put metaphorical spokes into my metaphorical wheel of story progression.

Despite above being pretty much how I personally feel abot TB, I think a lot of RTwP fans feel similar on what I've described.
Posted By: Nyxery

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 02/03/20 11:16 AM

Here's a good example for why weak enemies are needed (imo):

Imagine using a fireball that is a level 3 spell at an appropriate level (let's say 3 lvl 3 spell slots per long rest) and not killing anyone. Or using same fireball with a higher level slot and not turning your enemies into neat piles of ash. That's a feelsbad. And if we talk about going somewhat closely to DnD ruleset - spells have rather limited amounts of uses and require rest to replenish. It's not divinity where your only limiting factor is cool down and so gain.

Also if they want true DnD experience AP as we know it from DOS has to go. In DnD moving doesn't eat into your action count*, and characters have set amount of actions, bonus actions and movement they can perform each turn, as well as some ways to perform extra actions, reactions, etc.. That is of course if they actually meant it when they were saying that they want to be true to PnP and it wasn't just an excuse to put minimal work into gameplay.

For all cool things about DOS it never really delivered on power fantasy for me. My character never felt particularly strong, in particular due to the fact that there was no powerful high level spells that you could use consistently and very little encounters with weak enemies to draw out that engagement type. If game didn't tell me I would never really consider my character a god (in the end of DOS2).

If that's the level of power fantasy they want to shoot for (non-existent)it will be a pretty miserable DnD experience.
Posted By: Zogun

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 02/03/20 12:54 PM

Originally Posted by Nyxery
Yeah, I defo agree that RTwP is more appealing for people who want to focus more on story and the world, and we look for different kinds of fun in a BG game. On the other hand I feel like TB crowd is more interested in playing aforementioned chess/puzzle style combat. This is also why you will often notice RTwP folks say that TB feels like it's just there to waste/pad playtime.

We want combat as an exciting part of story, and fighting 6 rats for 5 minutes (exaggerating) sounds neither exciting not flowing with the story.

Fighting large crowds of relatively weak enemies is a great way to deliver on power fantasy or story (for example storming a keep, or fighting in a large scale skirmish). And TB sadly pads time like crazy when it comes to large fights. It also makes them feel less chaotic, which is a bad thing considering that often large scale fights are meant to be chaotic. And yes, as all things these should be used in moderation. They can feel great and refreshing in RTwP, while in TB they are almost guaranteed to get annoying fast.

Another problem with TB is that it has too much downtime when you just sit and watch AI do it's turn. Personally, it's second biggest deal breaker for me - I want to be playing, not waiting and watching.

Next big one is that you have to micromanage your entire party at all times. Again, I prefer to play my character and let party do their thing, only micromanaging them when required. I love putting some gear on them, picking some spells for them to use (although I'd rather have a "suggested level up" pop-up that would hopefully save me from screwing up too bad). I like to think of my party as somewhat self sufficient companions that can hold their own if needed and who can make use of what PC gives/suggests them, and PC as the party leader who sometimes tells everyone what to do, but mostly lets them go about it in their own way. This is probably a number one deal breaker for me - having no AI to manage my party while I focus on experiencing my main character. When I sit down to play, let's say, a rogue I want to play a rogue, I don't want to also play cleric, and warlock, and ranger, and fighter. I wouldn't complain if I have to sometimes exercise some direct control, but only for really difficult stuff like bosses.

Another problem is narrative pacing. TB takes a lot more time. For example chasing a bad guy who sends his cronies to cover his escape will feel pretty ok in RTwP, because you can deal even with several waves of them pretty quick. TB will drag it out much longer an will (imo) stop feeling like a chase. TB really screws with the time passed perception - story-wise it may have been only a few minutes, while IRL it was more like a dozen. And I don't agree with a defense "but that's how PnP works" - in PnP we are forced to do turns because of the limitations it implies, nobody imagines the fight we have as they happen at the table - we all imagine it happen about at the same time. Most accurate representation of this imo would be pure RT. But this is where digital limitations come in - first the fact that game needs to be playable in single player mode, next that we need to use UI and controls to process and react to what's going on (as opposed to just "being there" and naturally swinging sword/casting spells as it happens more naturally in our internal narrative). For this reason we do need pause and AI - one to provide us with time to interface with the game and another to substitute for the lack of DM and fellow adventurers. Imagine playing DnD, but it's just DM and you, playing 4 characters at once. What an awkward game of DnD that would be! Overall, TB just feels like a chore for me that I begrudgingly power through to continue with the story. I still wouldn't turn it down to story difficulty because I want challenging fights now and then, when and where it feels appropriate, but I can't help but feel that it's just there to artificially put metaphorical spokes into my metaphorical wheel of story progression.

Despite above being pretty much how I personally feel abot TB, I think a lot of RTwP fans feel similar on what I've described.


I will let you argue for my case from now on! This is exactly 100% spot on how I feel!
Posted By: Sordak

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 02/03/20 01:55 PM

"you need trash encounters to deplete spell slots" is a ridiuclous argument.

instead of having 7 trash encoutners wehre your wizard is stuck using the crossbow, why not have 3 good encounters that drain the spell slots because they are hard.

It baffles my mind how people can consciously argue in favor of BAD combat design.
Posted By: Skeletonized

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 02/03/20 02:40 PM

Originally Posted by Nyxery
Yeah, I defo agree that RTwP is more appealing for people who want to focus more on story and the world, and we look for different kinds of fun in a BG game. On the other hand I feel like TB crowd is more interested in playing aforementioned chess/puzzle style combat. This is also why you will often notice RTwP folks say that TB feels like it's just there to waste/pad playtime.

We want combat as an exciting part of story, and fighting 6 rats for 5 minutes (exaggerating) sounds neither exciting not flowing with the story.

Fighting large crowds of relatively weak enemies is a great way to deliver on power fantasy or story (for example storming a keep, or fighting in a large scale skirmish). And TB sadly pads time like crazy when it comes to large fights. It also makes them feel less chaotic, which is a bad thing considering that often large scale fights are meant to be chaotic. And yes, as all things these should be used in moderation. They can feel great and refreshing in RTwP, while in TB they are almost guaranteed to get annoying fast.

Another problem with TB is that it has too much downtime when you just sit and watch AI do it's turn. Personally, it's second biggest deal breaker for me - I want to be playing, not waiting and watching.

Next big one is that you have to micromanage your entire party at all times. Again, I prefer to play my character and let party do their thing, only micromanaging them when required. I love putting some gear on them, picking some spells for them to use (although I'd rather have a "suggested level up" pop-up that would hopefully save me from screwing up too bad). I like to think of my party as somewhat self sufficient companions that can hold their own if needed and who can make use of what PC gives/suggests them, and PC as the party leader who sometimes tells everyone what to do, but mostly lets them go about it in their own way. This is probably a number one deal breaker for me - having no AI to manage my party while I focus on experiencing my main character. When I sit down to play, let's say, a rogue I want to play a rogue, I don't want to also play cleric, and warlock, and ranger, and fighter. I wouldn't complain if I have to sometimes exercise some direct control, but only for really difficult stuff like bosses.

Another problem is narrative pacing. TB takes a lot more time. For example chasing a bad guy who sends his cronies to cover his escape will feel pretty ok in RTwP, because you can deal even with several waves of them pretty quick. TB will drag it out much longer an will (imo) stop feeling like a chase. TB really screws with the time passed perception - story-wise it may have been only a few minutes, while IRL it was more like a dozen. And I don't agree with a defense "but that's how PnP works" - in PnP we are forced to do turns because of the limitations it implies, nobody imagines the fight we have as they happen at the table - we all imagine it happen about at the same time. Most accurate representation of this imo would be pure RT. But this is where digital limitations come in - first the fact that game needs to be playable in single player mode, next that we need to use UI and controls to process and react to what's going on (as opposed to just "being there" and naturally swinging sword/casting spells as it happens more naturally in our internal narrative). For this reason we do need pause and AI - one to provide us with time to interface with the game and another to substitute for the lack of DM and fellow adventurers. Imagine playing DnD, but it's just DM and you, playing 4 characters at once. What an awkward game of DnD that would be! Overall, TB just feels like a chore for me that I begrudgingly power through to continue with the story. I still wouldn't turn it down to story difficulty because I want challenging fights now and then, when and where it feels appropriate, but I can't help but feel that it's just there to artificially put metaphorical spokes into my metaphorical wheel of story progression.

Despite above being pretty much how I personally feel abot TB, I think a lot of RTwP fans feel similar on what I've described.


Hear hear!
Posted By: Stabbey

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 02/03/20 02:54 PM

I never played the original BG games. I don't think I played a lot of RTwP games. The only ones I've played recently were Pillars of Eternity and Masquerada: Songs and Shadows.

In both of those games, I found the RTwP combat to be pretty clunky because I had to constantly, CONSTANTLY pause the game to change what my various party members were doing, because with 3-5 party members and 4-5 enemies all roaming around trying to use abilities or melee on each other at once, almost all tactics attempted go out the window immediately.

RTwP is well, kinda crappy. With so many characters, the only way to play it is with constant pausing, and that's just inferior turn-based gameplay.
Posted By: kanisatha

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 02/03/20 03:58 PM

Originally Posted by Nyxery
Yeah, I defo agree that RTwP is more appealing for people who want to focus more on story and the world, and we look for different kinds of fun in a BG game. On the other hand I feel like TB crowd is more interested in playing aforementioned chess/puzzle style combat. This is also why you will often notice RTwP folks say that TB feels like it's just there to waste/pad playtime.

We want combat as an exciting part of story, and fighting 6 rats for 5 minutes (exaggerating) sounds neither exciting not flowing with the story.

Fighting large crowds of relatively weak enemies is a great way to deliver on power fantasy or story (for example storming a keep, or fighting in a large scale skirmish). And TB sadly pads time like crazy when it comes to large fights. It also makes them feel less chaotic, which is a bad thing considering that often large scale fights are meant to be chaotic. And yes, as all things these should be used in moderation. They can feel great and refreshing in RTwP, while in TB they are almost guaranteed to get annoying fast.

Another problem with TB is that it has too much downtime when you just sit and watch AI do it's turn. Personally, it's second biggest deal breaker for me - I want to be playing, not waiting and watching.

Next big one is that you have to micromanage your entire party at all times. Again, I prefer to play my character and let party do their thing, only micromanaging them when required. I love putting some gear on them, picking some spells for them to use (although I'd rather have a "suggested level up" pop-up that would hopefully save me from screwing up too bad). I like to think of my party as somewhat self sufficient companions that can hold their own if needed and who can make use of what PC gives/suggests them, and PC as the party leader who sometimes tells everyone what to do, but mostly lets them go about it in their own way. This is probably a number one deal breaker for me - having no AI to manage my party while I focus on experiencing my main character. When I sit down to play, let's say, a rogue I want to play a rogue, I don't want to also play cleric, and warlock, and ranger, and fighter. I wouldn't complain if I have to sometimes exercise some direct control, but only for really difficult stuff like bosses.

Another problem is narrative pacing. TB takes a lot more time. For example chasing a bad guy who sends his cronies to cover his escape will feel pretty ok in RTwP, because you can deal even with several waves of them pretty quick. TB will drag it out much longer an will (imo) stop feeling like a chase. TB really screws with the time passed perception - story-wise it may have been only a few minutes, while IRL it was more like a dozen. And I don't agree with a defense "but that's how PnP works" - in PnP we are forced to do turns because of the limitations it implies, nobody imagines the fight we have as they happen at the table - we all imagine it happen about at the same time. Most accurate representation of this imo would be pure RT. But this is where digital limitations come in - first the fact that game needs to be playable in single player mode, next that we need to use UI and controls to process and react to what's going on (as opposed to just "being there" and naturally swinging sword/casting spells as it happens more naturally in our internal narrative). For this reason we do need pause and AI - one to provide us with time to interface with the game and another to substitute for the lack of DM and fellow adventurers. Imagine playing DnD, but it's just DM and you, playing 4 characters at once. What an awkward game of DnD that would be! Overall, TB just feels like a chore for me that I begrudgingly power through to continue with the story. I still wouldn't turn it down to story difficulty because I want challenging fights now and then, when and where it feels appropriate, but I can't help but feel that it's just there to artificially put metaphorical spokes into my metaphorical wheel of story progression.

Despite above being pretty much how I personally feel abot TB, I think a lot of RTwP fans feel similar on what I've described.

I agree with a lot of this. The only difference for me is that I would (and have when trying to play D:OS) go ahead and lower the difficulty to the bottom when approaching a TB fight in order to get through it as fast as possible. For me TB is that aggravating. Playing through a TB encounter literally makes me feel like wanting to drive a spike through my skull. A game is supposed to be pleasurable, something you enjoy doing. If I wanted aggravation and frustration, I get enough of that from the real world.
Posted By: kanisatha

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 02/03/20 04:03 PM

Originally Posted by Boeroer
An argument could be made that "easy" encounters are unnecessary filler fights and that every encounter in a game should be challenging and rewarding.

Being able to breeze through easy fights is fun once or twice - but becomes boring at some point (at least for me). So for me (who likes several RTwP games and has no clear preference) this is not a convincing argument.

TB combat does indeed take more time if you insist to use too many combatants. Some encounters are fun with a ton of enemies - and if it's just to give you the feeling of a chaotic, "swarmy" combat (hello wichts in PoE) and here RTwP has an advantage. But it is easier to design and balance challenging yet fair encounters with TB.

I think RTwP caters more to an audience that also likes action RPGs games but isn't overly fond of chess (don't take this literally) while TB is more of a puzzle. There ae exceptions of course (FTL vs. Into the Breach - one is RTwP, the other TB - both quite puzzle-ish). I like both approaches.

Well the problem there is that in TB, all combat encounters become "filler" encounters (for me). Firstly, I strongly disagree that they are/can be more challenging. For me, RTwP encounters are challenging. TB encounters are decidedly not. Ever. And then add to this the aggravating, annoying, tedious, boring nature of a TB encounter results in my wanting to get through it as quickly as possible. In TB games, if I were given a button that I could press to skip through the encounter entirely, that would be lovely and awesome.
Posted By: Sordak

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 02/03/20 04:08 PM

still love hwo TB is the boring and agrevating one, not the one where either the "combat" bit is teaching your AI to autoattack or constantly pausing to micromanage everything
Posted By: ZeshinX

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 02/03/20 06:02 PM

Honestly for me, I can work with TB or RTwP. I've played both and both offer something to enjoy, so I'm not too concerned about it with this game.

Generally, I find RTwP a more energetic style of combat with a larger sense of agency. It also tends to be absolute and total chaos where even the best tactics ultimately break down and which character is doing what and at what stage becomes almost impossible to discern (and at high levels when the most powerful spells are flying, good luck even finding your characters in the visual maelstrom of it all lol).

I find TB a much more glacial, plodding approach with excitement occurring in fits and bursts. It also lends itself far better to a tactical, thinking approach and is (to me) far, far easier to manage and track party actions. Something that truly helps augment the innate dullness of TB is a soundtrack of supreme quality and excellent sound and visual design for the actions when they do occur.

Basically, RTwP is a rock concert, while TB is a stage musical.
Posted By: kanisatha

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 02/03/20 07:14 PM

Hey all you RTwP fans, I would urge you to go check out The Dark Eye: Book of Heroes, which is set for release in 2Q/2020. We are getting screwed over and discriminated against by the TB orthodoxy that exists these days, so we need to support every single RTwP cRPG that is released. And this happens to actually be a really good game.

And of course also do consider supporting the new (second) Pathfinder game Wrath of the Righteous, whose kickstarter campaign is closing in on $1.5M and still has about a week to go.
Posted By: Doomlord

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 02/03/20 07:18 PM

Originally Posted by Nyxery
Yeah, I defo agree that RTwP is more appealing for people who want to focus more on story and the world, and we look for different kinds of fun in a BG game. On the other hand I feel like TB crowd is more interested in playing aforementioned chess/puzzle style combat. This is also why you will often notice RTwP folks say that TB feels like it's just there to waste/pad playtime.

We want combat as an exciting part of story, and fighting 6 rats for 5 minutes (exaggerating) sounds neither exciting not flowing with the story.

Fighting large crowds of relatively weak enemies is a great way to deliver on power fantasy or story (for example storming a keep, or fighting in a large scale skirmish). And TB sadly pads time like crazy when it comes to large fights. It also makes them feel less chaotic, which is a bad thing considering that often large scale fights are meant to be chaotic. And yes, as all things these should be used in moderation. They can feel great and refreshing in RTwP, while in TB they are almost guaranteed to get annoying fast.

Another problem with TB is that it has too much downtime when you just sit and watch AI do it's turn. Personally, it's second biggest deal breaker for me - I want to be playing, not waiting and watching.

Next big one is that you have to micromanage your entire party at all times. Again, I prefer to play my character and let party do their thing, only micromanaging them when required. I love putting some gear on them, picking some spells for them to use (although I'd rather have a "suggested level up" pop-up that would hopefully save me from screwing up too bad). I like to think of my party as somewhat self sufficient companions that can hold their own if needed and who can make use of what PC gives/suggests them, and PC as the party leader who sometimes tells everyone what to do, but mostly lets them go about it in their own way. This is probably a number one deal breaker for me - having no AI to manage my party while I focus on experiencing my main character. When I sit down to play, let's say, a rogue I want to play a rogue, I don't want to also play cleric, and warlock, and ranger, and fighter. I wouldn't complain if I have to sometimes exercise some direct control, but only for really difficult stuff like bosses.

Another problem is narrative pacing. TB takes a lot more time. For example chasing a bad guy who sends his cronies to cover his escape will feel pretty ok in RTwP, because you can deal even with several waves of them pretty quick. TB will drag it out much longer an will (imo) stop feeling like a chase. TB really screws with the time passed perception - story-wise it may have been only a few minutes, while IRL it was more like a dozen. And I don't agree with a defense "but that's how PnP works" - in PnP we are forced to do turns because of the limitations it implies, nobody imagines the fight we have as they happen at the table - we all imagine it happen about at the same time. Most accurate representation of this imo would be pure RT. But this is where digital limitations come in - first the fact that game needs to be playable in single player mode, next that we need to use UI and controls to process and react to what's going on (as opposed to just "being there" and naturally swinging sword/casting spells as it happens more naturally in our internal narrative). For this reason we do need pause and AI - one to provide us with time to interface with the game and another to substitute for the lack of DM and fellow adventurers. Imagine playing DnD, but it's just DM and you, playing 4 characters at once. What an awkward game of DnD that would be! Overall, TB just feels like a chore for me that I begrudgingly power through to continue with the story. I still wouldn't turn it down to story difficulty because I want challenging fights now and then, when and where it feels appropriate, but I can't help but feel that it's just there to artificially put metaphorical spokes into my metaphorical wheel of story progression.

Despite above being pretty much how I personally feel abot TB, I think a lot of RTwP fans feel similar on what I've described.


+2 smile
Posted By: ThreeL

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 02/03/20 07:33 PM

By the way guys... Baldurs Gate was always turnbased in its core -> but not super slow!
Please explain me why the hell pausable realtime (with turn mechanics like bg always was!!!) is bad ad all?
For a turnbased player there is no difference if you first press space on your own or the game does it for you automatically
Posted By: Nyxery

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 02/03/20 08:29 PM

Originally Posted by ThreeL
By the way guys... Baldurs Gate was always turnbased in its core -> but not super slow!
Please explain me why the hell pausable realtime (with turn mechanics like bg always was!!!) is bad ad all?
For a turnbased player there is no difference if you first press space on your own or the game does it for you automatically


It's not just a matter of pressing space. RTwP is technically still turn based (under the hood), just turns are processed continuously and simultaneously, which obviously results in it being real time. TB on the other hand staggers out this process to be a single turn at a time, making it much more drawn out and imo somewhat of a snoozefest.

Bottom line: RTwP is just much more engaging due to fluidity and the core idea that you only slow down the games tempo when you need to, while TB doesn't give you that choice and simply sets it to a fixed slow speed (you can still do your turns quicker, but waiting for AI turns and the fact that they are not done in paralel makes it inherently slower). TB does deliver on this puzzle-like engagement that it's acolytes love, but frankly I just don't see what's there is to love about TB. Well done RTwP can be played in TB mode if the player really wants to, but without all the drawbacks of being exclusively TB. Also RTwP can be just as difficult and satisfying as TB, but without all the frustrations and time wasting.
Posted By: Nyxery

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 02/03/20 08:52 PM

To be honest, looking at the reveal and their past statements it sounds like Larian are having serious game design issues. Any game studio relies on a set of keys disciplines such as: Tech, Art, Design, UR/UX. There are ofc subdivisions and etc (like level design), but generally these 4 are the ones you can't make a good game without.

With emphasis we've been seeing on CGI trailers and "dialogues like dragon age" I think it's safe to say that they are spending a good chunk of provided budget on Art department (which imo is not bad by itself, but should have never been the first priority).

Tech department seems to be doing not so good - they are after all reusing old engine (and this is probably one of the reasons why they went with TB and why the demo resembles DOS so much) and they do have technical issues like non-functional saves (whic I'm guessing they broke while trying to cram in the dnd ruleset).

Larian's UR/UX doesn't worry me as much, since they didn't put out any abhorrent UI jobs as of yet, and seem to be generally doing well.

But design seems to be in big trouble. Larian is known to try things in past, but what people forget to mention is that while they try new things and some of them really work, they always seem to lack any polish. And since DOS it seems even that creativity is gone and all they do now is TB, but even sticking to 1 type of gameplay is not helping - both DOS and DOS2 had balance issues, numerous design loopholes, inept crafting systems, questionably fun combat. Was it fun because it was well polished or because it was just new and unique (for a time) due to the use of environment and interactions with surfaces and substances? For me this novelty worn of by DOS2 to be honest, and combat felt stale and boring. But even then, they do have some of the good ideas crop up here and there (like source, which is fun in theory), they just never really polish them. I was expecting to see significant improvement in DOS2 to the combat and crafting, but they pulled a pretty typical Larian thing - got sidetracked adding origin characters, tags, source, while neglecting core combat gameplay. What's worse to me DOS2 combat felt somehow even more stale and boring than DOS - probably due to AP changes (but maybe more).

I'd be seriously concerned for their systems design - it seems like it suffers from ADHD and can't really finish and polish anything, instead just chaotically leaps from one thought to another, barely seeing it through. At least they are allegedly using DnD 5e, so at least they won't have to be really creative this time around - but then again, they did say that they want to do "their take on it" so I'm worried it will be again barely finished and without any polish whatsoever.

I'm also concerned with writing - while it clearly evolved since early Larian days, and I quite love it, it does have a very specific flavor to it. And they did talk about "telling a story with their twist on it", so I'm concerned it will just be DOS3 but in Forgotten Realms. BG had much darker tone than Larian is accustomed to and not nearly as much humor (which was also quite darker).

I find it worrying that "cinematic" dialogues and upgraded graphics are taking the spotlight in most of the promotion and a lot of other media. This is not what BG was about. It was never, in fact, about mass effect/dragon age esque cinematic experience, it was first and foremost about Gorion's Ward and their party. I also disagree with their opinion that BG was always about, well, the city of Baldur's Gate. In fact you didn't even spend all that much time in the city. Sure, some chapters happened in there, but you traveled far and wide. It was always about Gorion's Ward, Minsc, Boo, Dynaheir, Kzar, Monterion, and many other companions, about Baal and his legacy and other adjacent things. Them saying "it was always about the city" just rings false to me and sounds more like an attempted to justify whatever we will find in the story. It worries me that they are already setting up justifications for BG3 being anything but.

Also they like to harp on missing attacks in RPGs and how bad it is, but it's really fake news:missing an attack only blows in TB, because with it's snail pace every attack feels much more important. RTwP has no such issue, as well as any other non TB rpg gameplay - misses are inconsequential most of the time and just serve as one of the knobs to tune dps/fight duration, and some more advanced things. Failed rolls and missed attack have never been a "problem", except when you make your bed with TB and now suddenly mundane miss chances become frustrating. And then when you absolutely want to hit that 1 important attack there is always stuff like true strike, etc. to make sure you do.
Posted By: Maximuuus

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 03/03/20 07:38 AM

Don't seek, they just use a name (with the 3) waited for about 20 years to create a new DoS like with other rules in the Forgotten Realms.
Posted By: Sordak

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 03/03/20 08:59 AM

im only realy replying here out of princle.
Im getting bored of the tired old nonsense u im afraid this echo chamber will grow even worse if theres not one or two people telling you youre full of shit.

They are not "reusing" the engine, they are updating t. Theyve been using this engine since Dragon Commander, maybe even Divinity 2 (which is not OS2 for the newcommers here)
Original sin was Verison 2, OS2 was verison 3 and this is version 4.

>on the technical side
idk. They appear to have built a very good network of interconnected systems, something very few RPG developers bother to make so if ail to see the problem here.

>UI
is placeholder. You dont start with Ui development when your feature set isnt set in stone do you?
Posted By: Raze

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 03/03/20 09:32 AM

Originally Posted by Nyxery
Tech department seems to be doing not so good - they are after all reusing old engine

The game engine has been, and is being, significantly updated (moreso than from Dragon Commander to D:OS or D:OS to D:OS 2).


Originally Posted by Nyxery
and why the demo resembles DOS so much

The graphics for the character models, environment, etc, are all improved, the camera system has been updated (some of which is in progress).


Originally Posted by Nyxery
technical issues like non-functional saves (whic I'm guessing they broke while trying to cram in the dnd ruleset)

With significant overhauls of the engine, things like the save system have to be redone, as well. It isn't just the in-game mechanics that changed. The same was the case with the previous games, though it was mostly functional in the prototype builds when D:OS and D:OS 2 were first shown, in or leading into the respective Kickstarters.


Originally Posted by Nyxery
And since DOS it seems even that creativity is gone and all they do now is TB

Since D:OS all we've done is RPGs, as well. If that's an argument for RTwP, it's an argument to be creative with the genre, as well.


Originally Posted by Nyxery
both DOS and DOS2 had balance issues

And Divine Divinity's end game...


Originally Posted by Nyxery
Also they like to harp on missing attacks in RPGs and how bad it is

The only people I've seen harping on that are those who think any concern over missing too much means the enviable destruction of the entire system.
A single miss is slower in turn based, but real time combat can be slow, tedious and/or annoying with too much missing, as well.
Posted By: Delicieuxz

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 03/03/20 09:54 AM

Originally Posted by Raze

Originally Posted by Nyxery
and why the demo resembles DOS so much

The graphics for the character models, environment, etc, are all improved, the camera system has been updated (some of which is in progress).

Right now, it just looks like DOS2. And if "BG3" hadn't been announced and you showed it to someone who'd played DOS2, they'd immediately think it's DOS2.

The goofy movement and action animations, the mouse cursors, the text font, are all directly unmodified DOS2's. And the UI kept DOS2's style and just moved things around a bit. Either all of this is placeholder, or Larian is making a specific very strong effort to make everything about "BG3" make people think of DOS2, in order to make people buy it based on thinking of it as more DOS2 content, or to get people who buy "BG3" to possibly buy DOS2 because it looks the same.

Either way, "BG3" does not look like its own game, it visually looks very much like DOS2. And I don't find that to be a positive thing because it emphasizes that "BG3" is DOS2 in D&D and a cash-grab exploiting the name while not delivering on what it represents (which is supposed to be itself and not DOS).
Posted By: Raze

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 03/03/20 10:38 AM

Originally Posted by Delicieuxz
And if "BG3" hadn't been announced and you showed it to someone who'd played DOS2, they'd immediately think it's DOS2.

Um... show representative screenshots of D:OS 2 and BG3 to any of your non-gaming friends, and see if they fail to identify the differences in graphics and dialogue system.


Originally Posted by Delicieuxz
or Larian is making a specific very strong effort to make everything about "BG3" make people think of DOS2, in order to make people buy it based on thinking of it as more DOS2 content, or to get people who buy "BG3" to possibly buy DOS2 because it looks the same.

At least a couple people have already bought D:OS 1 and 2 after seeing the presentation for BG3, entirely aware that the games are different. Using similar UI design elements would not trick anyone into buying BG3 for more of D:OS 2, and even if it could work it would be counter productive.


Originally Posted by Delicieuxz
"BG3" is DOS2 in D&D

There were lots of differences shown during the presentation, and more will become apparent leading up to Early Access and release.


Originally Posted by Delicieuxz
while not delivering on what it represents

You mean not making some of the design decisions that you want.
Posted By: arajaja

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn - 03/03/20