Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 35 of 94 1 2 33 34 35 36 37 93 94
Joined: Sep 2014
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Sep 2014
Originally Posted by korotama

Truly large scale? Nah, I don't think most computers could have handled such a thing but for its time I think the scale was just fine. Icewind Dale even more so.



You'd be wrong:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmUXjsQyppo

This is a small battle BTW.

Joined: Aug 2019
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Aug 2019
Originally Posted by Ellderon
Originally Posted by korotama

Truly large scale? Nah, I don't think most computers could have handled such a thing but for its time I think the scale was just fine. Icewind Dale even more so.



You'd be wrong:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmUXjsQyppo

This is a small battle BTW.

Nah we were talking about Baldur's Gate.

Joined: Jul 2014
D
member
Offline
member
D
Joined: Jul 2014
Originally Posted by Raze
Originally Posted by Delicieuxz
If Black Isle didn't think it right to call their cancelled 'Baldur's Gate 3' game Baldur's Gate 3 due to the differences it had with BG1 and BG2

And also the fact that they were not intending to make Baldur's Gate 3.


The information available about both games makes it clear that Larian's D&D game is much less Baldur's Gate 3 than Black Isle's cancelled game was.

Heck, the executive producer for Larian's D&D RPG couldn't even think of a single way in which Larian's "BG3" is actually a sequel to the series:

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2020-02-27-baldurs-gate-3-interview
Quote
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."

So, Larian's "BG3" is a sequel because it's a party-based RPG with colourful character and with combat in it - and the combat uses a D&D ruleset. He didn't even dare add that Baldur's Gate has specifically RTwP combat - because, of course, Larian's "BG3" doesn't.

There are loads of games that fit Walgrave's description that aren't called Baldur's Gate series games, and there are thousands that fit the description if not counting the D&D ruleset qualifier.

Walgrave's claim is the equivalent of saying that any first-person game where you play as a single character and use a variety of weapons to shoot at lots of things is a DOOM series game or a Half-Life series game. What Walgrave is saying is that there is no similarity between Larian's D&D game and the Baldur's Gate series and so he couldn't think of something that actually justifies calling Larian's "BG3" a Baldur's Gate series game.

Joined: Mar 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Mar 2020
The funny thing in all of this is that at the end of the day we all like the Baldur's Gate series because of the Story and the characters right? No?
The Combat system was always just a means to an end.

I remember Severok, Minsc, IRENICUS! the Saga, not the fact that I reloaded the game 20 times to time the pause and casting/attacks so that I could win a fight I was underpowered for.

To that end, if the story and characters grab me, then the system will be as it will be, like with say Witcher 3, make my choices matter, make things come back to haunt me later on, engage me and remind me that this is the Sword Coast and Baldur's Gate! I just think too much emphasis is on a a pre-alpha build right now that is heavy on showing off system and light on story and tone and visuals.

I am mindful that I am waffling though in the debate specifically around TB vs RTwP. It's tough, I like both for different reasons and Baldur's Gate 2 is my favourite PC game EVER (and I'm over 40), I just want to add that I guess there are those who place less emphahsis on the combat system and more on the story and that Pace doesn't have to be provided by how quickly you clear a large area of scripted encounters.

But I do understand those who worry how TB might impact a game and lead to a diluted combat experience (quantity wise). I too am not sure I could imagine fighting my through the Underdark in BG2 with a TB system, but I would miss the option of being able to do so if I chose to.




Last edited by Riandor; 04/03/20 12:32 PM.
Joined: May 2019
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: May 2019
Originally Posted by Nyxery
Here is a twist for y'all: for me BG was never about DnD. For me BG was the first 2 games of the series. DnD was secondary to the particular story, characters, gameplay. For me DnD part of BG was mostly of narrative kind: places, gods and demons, etc.. I didn't (and still don't) care about DnD mechanical part. If they keep the narrative, story, characters and RT party based gameplay I don't care if it's DnD or not.

DnD was always just a tool to deliver the narrative of the game. Analogy would be: game engine. I don't care what game engine is used as long as it plays as fun and is a continuation of the same narrative. A lot of people get hung up on "how DnD it is" argument, and specifically on mechanical part of it which is not why I (and probably many others) love BG.

I also don't get why then DnD purists don't bring up the stink about it being 5e instead of adnd2, if it's mechanics what bothers you so much. 5e is quite different from adnd2 that was used at the time (and in a sense more limiting).

Again, imo if anything was lackluster in original games it's probably DnD gameplay mechanics part. IMO the further we go gameplay wise from tabletop towards more engaging and fun digital - the better. Trying to closer emulate playing tabletop for me is a negative thing. What I liked in BG DnD ruleset adaptation (and by the way, they didn't do a 1:1 with the adnd2 ruleset) was that it removed the worst parts of DnD (or at least moved them under the hood) - the annoying and boring TB and all the obnoxious rolling for everything. It made game play as something actually enjoyable instead of wasting your time at every step "cause tabletop digital game".

If I wanted to play BG, but closer to DnD and tabletop I would be looking at the physical game market and board games, not digital games. cRPG are supposed to be the striving to become a role-playing experience without frustrations and limitations of physical games. Trying to be "closer to tabletop" simply sounds backwards to me.

I fully agree.
But I'll go even further. For me the attraction to D&D games is not D&D per se but rather the setting, Forgotten Realms. That's what I love about D&D games because the Realms is my most beloved fantasy setting of all. The D&D rules I can take or leave. That's why BG3 deviating from D&D 5e rules is the one argument I have not been a party to as a critic of the game, because I am totally ok with the game deviating from D&D rules. I think D&D rules are crap, and I want cRPG devs to develop new rulesets and mechanics for their games that are as far-removed from D&D as possible. In fact, I wish WotC would be willing to license just the FR setting, so studios can create games using the FR setting (and lore) but using their own rulesets.

Joined: May 2019
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: May 2019
Originally Posted by Waeress
So it should be a first- or third-person action rpg? That would make it really engaging to the big mass of players out there. They are a clear majority over us all on this forum.

For me that would be just fine. I consider The Witcher 3 to be one of the awesomest RPGs ever made.

My order of preference: RTwP cRPG >>> ARPG >>>>>>>>>>>>>> TB cRPG

Joined: May 2019
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: May 2019
Originally Posted by Ellderon
How about simoultaneus turn-based?

That's exactly what we have here, and it is exactly what I proposed months ago as a way to improve TB combat for me. I give credit where credit is due, and in this case I am happy that at least Swen has opted for simultaneous TB rather than traditional TB.

Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
Originally Posted by Delicieuxz
Originally Posted by Raze
Originally Posted by Delicieuxz
If Black Isle didn't think it right to call their cancelled 'Baldur's Gate 3' game Baldur's Gate 3 due to the differences it had with BG1 and BG2

And also the fact that they were not intending to make Baldur's Gate 3.


The information available about both games makes it clear that Larian's D&D game is much less Baldur's Gate 3 than Black Isle's cancelled game was.

Heck, the executive producer for Larian's D&D RPG couldn't even think of a single way in which Larian's "BG3" is actually a sequel to the series:

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2020-02-27-baldurs-gate-3-interview
Quote
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."

So, Larian's "BG3" is a sequel because it's a party-based RPG with colourful character and with combat in it - and the combat uses a D&D ruleset. He didn't even dare add that Baldur's Gate has specifically RTwP combat - because, of course, Larian's "BG3" doesn't.

There are loads of games that fit Walgrave's description that aren't called Baldur's Gate series games, and there are thousands that fit the description if not counting the D&D ruleset qualifier.

Walgrave's claim is the equivalent of saying that any first-person game where you play as a single character and use a variety of weapons to shoot at lots of things is a DOOM series game or a Half-Life series game. What Walgrave is saying is that there is no similarity between Larian's D&D game and the Baldur's Gate series and so he couldn't think of something that actually justifies calling Larian's "BG3" a Baldur's Gate series game.



So true

Hey, our RPG is nearly as all RPGs with new rules. That's why we call it Baldur's Gate 3!!

Last edited by Maximuuus; 04/03/20 02:13 PM.
Joined: Mar 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Mar 2020
I'll post my thoughts on this matter from my thread here as well:

The turn based combat & team initiative is honestly a much better combat mode for the game than RT+pause. I still play the original games this day, but I use a mod called Sword Coast Stratagems that makes the game a lot more challenging, partly by giving enemy spellcasters the same advantages you have (pre-cast buffs & protection spells etc.). There's a reason they were nerfed in the original game: RT+pause is just not a very good system for tactical combat. You have to set the autopause settings very tight if you want full control over your characters, which makes the game super slow. Also the characters aren't super responsive, meaning that sometimes they don't act on their turn but on the next turn, which might mean they're dead. So, the IE games are great but the combat was somewhat chaotic, I always felt I lacked control over my characters.

I don't know if anyone remembers games like Jagged Allience 2 (the greatest turn based RPG ever made) or Temple Of Elemental Evil (great combat, flawed game otherwise) but both actually had better combat than the IE games due to being turn based. Now a game doesn't have to have tactical combat to be good, but I think that D&D with all the different abilities and characters works best when you have to most control in battle, which basically means turn based.

Joined: Mar 2019
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Mar 2019
TB is reminiscent of chess. RTwP is reminiscent of the magnetic/vibrating football game

Joined: May 2019
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: May 2019
Originally Posted by anjovis bonus
I don't know if anyone remembers games like Jagged Allience 2 (the greatest turn based RPG ever made) or Temple Of Elemental Evil (great combat, flawed game otherwise) but both actually had better combat than the IE games due to being turn based.

Please don't try to say this as though a fact. This is your opinion. Others have a very different opinion.

Joined: Mar 2019
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Mar 2019
Originally Posted by kanisatha
Please don't try to say this as though a fact. This is your opinion. Others have a very different opinion.


There is a whole lot of opinion=fact going on around here and most of it is coming from the BG2 loyalists who want a replica of BG2.

Joined: Mar 2020
Banned
Offline
Banned
Joined: Mar 2020
Originally Posted by Emrikol
TB is reminiscent of chess. RTwP is reminiscent of the magnetic/vibrating football game

Gary Gygax is quoted numerous times as saying "D&D is not chess".

It's actually literally printed in the 1e and 2e and ADND books. "D&D is not like chess".

Joined: Mar 2019
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Mar 2019
And RTwP isn't really like that football game either. Come on; you're the art guy. Give me a little latitude.

Joined: Mar 2020
Banned
Offline
Banned
Joined: Mar 2020
Well, conceptually, battle in D&D is "real time" ... I think they called it "game time" up until 3.5 edition when they took it out and made the complete switch to being turn based.

But if you look in the PHB (even 5e), everything is based on units of time. Combat is broken into rounds, each round is 6 seconds of game time (5e). You can have 1, or you can have 100 players acting in that 6 second time frame. Movement is calculated in rounds. Spell durations are based on rounds. The game is actually based on a conceptual real-time framework. We take turns when we play the game as a table top board game because of physical limitations of running a game, not because the game is turn based. I would argue that the game BECAME turn based under Wizards to make it easier for non-gamers to grasp.

Think of how your game battles would translate into a story - look at how novels like Dragonlance read, which were actual game sessions before publishing (different from the RA Salvatore Drizzt books which were just flat fiction). It actually happens in real time. I have always thought it was a silly sort of supsension of disbelief to sit and pick my nose while multiple enemies took turns doing things that I couldn't react to.

It is the REACTIVE nature of combat where real time shines. rather than being chess (which D&D is not), where you strategise multiple paths of movement and eliminate choice with each opponent turn, you have to react in real time to the unfolding combat.

I will absolutely concede that as a technology, RTwP is still young and has had many flaws in the past (such as pathing errors, or huge diablo like trash fights "just cuz"). But, in my estimation, RTwP is far closer to the 'game world' experience of what DND is.

I do concede as well that, when we talk about multiplayer, TB is far easier to implement.

Joined: Mar 2019
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Mar 2019
Yes, D&D has references to actual time units, like a turn taking 6 seconds. But that didn't have any real effect on the gameplay. If they said one turn equals 60 seconds, the game would have played the same. It just would have left players wondering why they can only move 20 or 30 feet in 60 seconds, as an example.

Quote
you strategise multiple paths of movement and eliminate choice with each opponent turn, you have to react [...] to the unfolding combat.


I think TB does this too, only better.

Joined: Mar 2020
Banned
Offline
Banned
Joined: Mar 2020
Originally Posted by Emrikol
Yes, D&D has references to actual time units, like a turn taking 6 seconds. But that didn't have any real effect on the gameplay. If they said one turn equals 60 seconds, the game would have played the same. It just would have left players wondering why they can only move 20 or 30 feet in 60 seconds, as an example.

Quote
you strategise multiple paths of movement and eliminate choice with each opponent turn, you have to react [...] to the unfolding combat.


I think TB does this too, only better.


Well, yes, because you literally extracted my definition of chess (TB games) and then appended my out of context conclusion about real time.

Prime example of how to cherry pick and misconstrue a quote to change the message as it was originally written.

Joined: Mar 2019
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Mar 2019
Would it make sense to say

"With TB, you strategize multiple paths of movement and eliminate choice with each opponent turn, you have to react in real time to the unfolding combat?"

No. So, I basically took what you think are the strengths of RTwP and said I think TB does the same but only better. Is this better?

"With TB, you're better able to strategize multiple paths of movement and eliminate choice with each opponent turn, and better able to react to the unfolding combat"

Joined: Mar 2020
Banned
Offline
Banned
Joined: Mar 2020
I think by technical definition, it isn't a matter of better or worse, but of static vs dynamic. TB is static. RT is dynamic. TB is proactive (you think about the moves before they happen, and extrapolate). RT is reactive (you make your moves based on the immediate inputs).

Last edited by kungfukappa; 04/03/20 07:10 PM.
Joined: Mar 2019
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Mar 2019
TB is reactive too. The opponents make unexpected moves, requiring you to adapt. Have you played DOS2?

Page 35 of 94 1 2 33 34 35 36 37 93 94

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5