Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 16 of 75 1 2 14 15 16 17 18 74 75
Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn [Re: kanisatha] #655807
26/09/19 05:59 PM
26/09/19 05:59 PM
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 857
Horrorscope Offline
old hand
Horrorscope  Offline
old hand

Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 857
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.

Last edited by Horrorscope; 26/09/19 06:00 PM.
Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn [Re: Horrorscope] #655810
26/09/19 08:51 PM
26/09/19 08:51 PM
Joined: Jun 2019
Posts: 44
Brent2410 Offline
apprentice
Brent2410  Offline
apprentice

Joined: Jun 2019
Posts: 44
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.

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn [Re: Brent2410] #655813
27/09/19 04:07 AM
27/09/19 04:07 AM
Joined: Jul 2019
Posts: 15
Goblin Lich Offline
stranger
Goblin Lich  Offline
stranger

Joined: Jul 2019
Posts: 15
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.

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn [Re: Brent2410] #655821
27/09/19 08:26 AM
27/09/19 08:26 AM
Joined: Jun 2019
Posts: 108
Artagel Offline
member
Artagel  Offline
member

Joined: Jun 2019
Posts: 108
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.

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn [Re: Goblin Lich] #655822
27/09/19 08:35 AM
27/09/19 08:35 AM
Joined: Jun 2019
Posts: 108
Artagel Offline
member
Artagel  Offline
member

Joined: Jun 2019
Posts: 108
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?

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn [Re: Artagel] #655824
27/09/19 09:10 AM
27/09/19 09:10 AM
Joined: Sep 2017
Posts: 1,151
_Vic_ Offline
old hand
_Vic_  Offline
old hand

Joined: Sep 2017
Posts: 1,151
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.

Last edited by _Vic_; 27/09/19 09:15 AM.
Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn [Re: fireflame] #655826
27/09/19 10:55 AM
27/09/19 10:55 AM
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,233
S
Sordak Offline
veteran
Sordak  Offline
veteran
S

Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,233
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.

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn [Re: Artagel] #655827
27/09/19 11:17 AM
27/09/19 11:17 AM
Joined: Oct 2017
Posts: 556
Midway Through Infinity
Try2Handing Offline
addict
Try2Handing  Offline
addict

Joined: Oct 2017
Posts: 556
Midway Through Infinity
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.


"We make our choices and take what comes and the rest is void."
Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn [Re: Try2Handing] #655829
27/09/19 01:20 PM
27/09/19 01:20 PM
Joined: May 2019
Posts: 805
Massachusetts, USA
kanisatha Offline
old hand
kanisatha  Offline
old hand

Joined: May 2019
Posts: 805
Massachusetts, USA
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.

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn [Re: Brent2410] #655830
27/09/19 02:24 PM
27/09/19 02:24 PM
Joined: Jun 2019
Posts: 39
NoVa, United States
BillyYank Offline
apprentice
BillyYank  Offline
apprentice

Joined: Jun 2019
Posts: 39
NoVa, United States

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.


FABRICATE DIEM, PVNK
Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn [Re: BillyYank] #655832
27/09/19 02:54 PM
27/09/19 02:54 PM
Joined: May 2019
Posts: 805
Massachusetts, USA
kanisatha Offline
old hand
kanisatha  Offline
old hand

Joined: May 2019
Posts: 805
Massachusetts, USA
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.

Last edited by kanisatha; 27/09/19 02:59 PM.
Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn [Re: fireflame] #655833
27/09/19 03:50 PM
27/09/19 03:50 PM
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,233
S
Sordak Offline
veteran
Sordak  Offline
veteran
S

Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,233
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.

Last edited by Sordak; 27/09/19 03:50 PM.
Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn [Re: Sordak] #655834
27/09/19 05:02 PM
27/09/19 05:02 PM
Joined: Oct 2017
Posts: 556
Midway Through Infinity
Try2Handing Offline
addict
Try2Handing  Offline
addict

Joined: Oct 2017
Posts: 556
Midway Through Infinity
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?

Last edited by Try2Handing; 27/09/19 05:04 PM. Reason: PS

"We make our choices and take what comes and the rest is void."
Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn [Re: fireflame] #655835
27/09/19 05:12 PM
27/09/19 05:12 PM
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,233
S
Sordak Offline
veteran
Sordak  Offline
veteran
S

Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,233
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.

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn [Re: fireflame] #655836
27/09/19 05:13 PM
27/09/19 05:13 PM
Joined: Oct 2017
Posts: 556
Midway Through Infinity
Try2Handing Offline
addict
Try2Handing  Offline
addict

Joined: Oct 2017
Posts: 556
Midway Through Infinity
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?

Last edited by Try2Handing; 27/09/19 05:13 PM. Reason: Nevermind, I didn't double-post

"We make our choices and take what comes and the rest is void."
Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn [Re: Sordak] #655837
27/09/19 05:30 PM
27/09/19 05:30 PM
Joined: Oct 2017
Posts: 556
Midway Through Infinity
Try2Handing Offline
addict
Try2Handing  Offline
addict

Joined: Oct 2017
Posts: 556
Midway Through Infinity
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.]

Last edited by Try2Handing; 27/09/19 05:39 PM. Reason: Bit of grammar. And then more grammar. Oof

"We make our choices and take what comes and the rest is void."
Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn [Re: Try2Handing] #655838
27/09/19 05:53 PM
27/09/19 05:53 PM
Joined: Jul 2019
Posts: 15
Goblin Lich Offline
stranger
Goblin Lich  Offline
stranger

Joined: Jul 2019
Posts: 15
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.

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn [Re: fireflame] #655839
27/09/19 06:58 PM
27/09/19 06:58 PM
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 4,460
The Frog & Hounds
vometia Offline

Duchess of Gorgombert
vometia  Offline

Duchess of Gorgombert

Joined: May 2010
Posts: 4,460
The Frog & Hounds
Group hug, guys: I need to go to bed, so be excellent to each other.


J'aime le fromage.
Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn [Re: Goblin Lich] #655840
27/09/19 07:00 PM
27/09/19 07:00 PM
Joined: Oct 2017
Posts: 556
Midway Through Infinity
Try2Handing Offline
addict
Try2Handing  Offline
addict

Joined: Oct 2017
Posts: 556
Midway Through Infinity
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.

Last edited by Try2Handing; 27/09/19 07:05 PM. Reason: PS

"We make our choices and take what comes and the rest is void."
Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn [Re: _Vic_] #655844
28/09/19 12:17 AM
28/09/19 12:17 AM
Joined: Jun 2019
Posts: 108
Artagel Offline
member
Artagel  Offline
member

Joined: Jun 2019
Posts: 108
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.

Page 16 of 75 1 2 14 15 16 17 18 74 75

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.2