Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General Senior Combat Designer Hasn't Even Played BG1 or 2

turn based is more "tactical" by traditional definition, real time is more "strategic" by the same. their level of complexity is mutually exclusive from their core concept.

risk and chess are both turn based games, one is considerable more complex than the other, just like poker is a more complex turn based game than go fish.

real time is more dynamic, which is more immersive. it is absolutely true that real time with pause titles have had balance issues and other problems in the past, but that is because it is a new technology comparatively. it should be nurtured and not stomped in to the ground by luddites who resist change. They were the ones back in 1998 who said it would never work, and they are still saying it today. For them, DOS3 is a victory and they are holding it dearly.

I truly believe that going back to turn based is a regression for computer gaming. Baldur's Gate was never meant to be a replica of the table top game. Both Larian and Wizard have ignored this and this is why fans have become upset at them.

Baldur's Gate2 was a singleplayer game, with multiplayer slapped on top of it.

D:OS1&2, and it seems BG3 are multiplayer games, with singleplayer slapped on top of it.

That's just how it is, that's what Larian does.

We have all read the articles, so what by the nine hells are you on about?

You don’t currently like what you have seen, or read, ok we get it, your opinion is in every thread and I welcome criticism... but to suggest what you have in this particular thread is for me borderline out of order.

I’m no Larian fan boy. I’ve played 5hours of DoS2, vs insane hours in BG and NWN (The game and Admin’ed a large server). I’ve seen or read nothing that suggests what you say.

I and other fellow BG players from long back are here because we are intrigued and excited that there even will be a BG3. It looks in good hands but I like others see areas that I would like tonally and visually shifted more towards BG. But I’m not going to sit here and criticize a developer of this game because back in 2001 he preferred playing FF games to BG2 and then apply that to the company being in anyway disingenuous towards fans of the franchise.

I hate echo chambers so criticism is great, but this thread is just bizarre.

huh? How so? None of the party based RPGs are "strategic".

Wow... followed this through 3 sub reddits before it ended here and I have to say this was the dumbest take on it so far...

Why does it always resort to some sort of name calling or insults? I am requesting to lock this thread before it gets worse. You guys are getting as bad as steam.

You're calling the people who want turn-based combat luddies who resist change.
..Yet you are literally resisting the change that's coming to Baldur's Gate 3.

Also, this is the problem, right here; You see turn-based as 'regression' instead of what it is; a different way to enjoy a game. Equally valid.
You see it as an enemy to be fought; an evil thing that's ruining games.

But you're wrong. it's just a different way to play. Baldur's gate is not cheapened by using turn-based combat. It's not a relic of the past anymore than real time with pause (which was around 20 years ago) is.

They are just two ways to enjoy a game. So enjoy the bloody game.

I mean, if you don't like turn-based combat; fine. But don't insult us just because we like something different. And don't get all 'better than thou', because TBwP is not better. Nor is it worse.



You literally called TB proponents 'luddites', then ask why people resort to name calling.

No one is insulting you, well I’m not... I just don’t see what you see one bit. Your contributions in other threads have not been my cup of tea, but challenge is good. This one I felt was too far. Maybe locking it is a good idea.

Request another thread you started to be locked? Interesting.

By the way:

Truth. This here is ultimately the biggest issue I have with the game by far. I find RTwP to be superior to TB in every way. but I am open to the idea of games being TB and still playing them. The RTwP v. TB issue, as I see it, is actually a subpart of the MP v. SP issue. Larian and many on this forum want to claim that the game is TB because D&D is TB. I say bullshit. This game is TB because that's what works for MP. That's the real reason the game is TB.

I am cynical enough to say that the issue with TB is that it is all Larian knows and so they aren't willing to try something out of their comfort zone. So when Wizards came along and said "we want your game to sell the D&D table top experience" Larian breathed a sigh of relief, and so now their entire communications strategy revolves around "bringing the table top experience, which is turn based" ...

even though, in my opinion, table top is a simulation of real time, and every time someone stops play to look up a rule, or ask the GM a question is like pausing. Turn based is ONLY there to facilitate combat, and so I agree that it is easier for them to make turn based multiplayer.

They are just a tool for Wizards now.

If that's true, then the tie goes to TB, since TB can accommodate SP and MP where RTwP can accommodate only SP.

Except for the last 20 years of BG coop games that are still being played to this day.

Fair enough (though technically there are many games out there that are RT/RTwP and MP that seem to work fine). But I can accept that. However, Larian (and others) should be honest about this, because if they are honest in this way, the reactions of many fans (on both sides I would imagine) would be quite different. I can see myself being open to a game that is excellent in every other way but suffers from having TB combat. But I will absolutely NEVER touch a MP game (and that includes MP games that can be played SP) no matter how fantastic a game it may be.

By many accounts, the MMO Neverwinter is a very good game as MMO games go, and seems to be receiving very good support from its developer. And it can be played SP if you wish. But that game is an automatic and hard 'no' for me because "MP with SP slapped on to it" is not acceptable.

I'm not gonna get into if turn-based or real-time is better as theres another topic for that and it seems like a circular discussion. But I will point out that other games have gone from turn-based mechanics to real time and then back to turn base with great success. Xcom for example, the original was turn based and later the UFO series were real time with pause and now with firaxis back to turn base. No ones calling firaxis luddites for that decision.

Success is not going to be determined by the mechanics of combat only by how immersive and fun the game will turn out to be and theres more to a dnd game than combat, although it will certainly play a part in the ratio of success. Bottom line is that it being turn based or real time based is not a big deal.

I am calling luddites the TTG purists who think that a computer game is supposed to match 1:1 a TTG.

So you're whining that people are resorting to name-calling..and then resort to name-calling, yourself.


I see, I see. Tell me; do you know what 'hypocrite' means?

It's interesting how you can use the term disingenuous when describing Larian, however, happen to blatantly lie in your OP and continued posts without any evidence.

How am I lying?

Ummm

"Senior Combat Designer Hasn't Even Played BG1 or 2"