Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4
#466368 15/05/13 02:44 PM
Joined: May 2013
D
DarkNeo Offline OP
stranger
OP Offline
stranger
D
Joined: May 2013
Hello community! So far, everything I've seen in D: OS I like, I just did not convince me is the turn-based combat system.

And, in Divine Divinity was great! It was frantic, full of action, etc..

In D: OS noticed that a simple combat, with 1 or 2 enemies, you can take like 20 minutes or more, on something as simple as attacking and killing.

No, in games like Final Fantasy can look good, but I think it is well in the saga Divinity, being that was born a ARPG in real time.

Why they came to make a turn-based combat?

Do not could include an option to play it in real time?

It makes me a little sad that, that this was a great opportunity to continue the legacy of Divine Divinity, continue and improve the combat system, and so on. consolidate the saga as a new standard, as it was Diablo.

I would have loved another ARPG in real time.

Joined: Oct 2012
Location: India
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Oct 2012
Location: India
Actually, the previous games were meant to be Turn-Based, but they became Real-Time because of pressure from publishers.

For the videos shown, take into consideration they were demonstrating the combat and it would've at least doubled the time required for actually finishing the battle.

Plus, turn based games can be great fun if implemented right. Take the King's Bounty games, for example. The combat is deceptively simple to begin with, but can become extremely fun ans challenging later on.

Joined: Apr 2013
member
Offline
member
Joined: Apr 2013
D:OS is the true successor to DD, especially in terms of the combat system. There's so many realtime combat games out there that it's not even funny anymore

watser #466371 15/05/13 03:53 PM
Joined: Jan 2009
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jan 2009
No, they cannot and will not make an option to play it in real-time. Turn-based is an integral part of the design.

Joined: Oct 2004
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2004
This is the year of rpg turn base tactical combat !

Joined: Mar 2003
Location: Canada
Larian Studios
Offline
Larian Studios
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: Canada

The UI, etc, isn't finalized, many of the skills are not done and Larian was specifically demonstrating certain spells and combinations in the gameplay videos, so as Vinaysshenoy said, combat took longer than necessary.

In any case, there will be fewer opponents in D:OS than there were in DD.

Turn based combat can work better for party based games, and can be much more tactical than real time.

Raze #466386 15/05/13 09:20 PM
Joined: Apr 2013
Location: Germany
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Apr 2013
Location: Germany
Originally Posted by Raze

Turn based combat can work better for party based games, and can be much more tactical than real time.


Wow, but that's a highly controversial statement! RTwP combat in BG 2 for example was awesome and it was a party based game.

I agree that turn-based combat is even more tactical but RTwP has a more fluid and immersive gameplay. It's simply a decision which path you want to follow but there is no rule like "party based game = turn-based combat works better".

I like the turn-based approach in D:OS because we don't have much of these games today and I always support variety. Project Eternity will have RTwP combat, D:OS will have turn-based combat and it's not even decided for Torment which combat system will be implemented. So I think there will be at least one game and hopefully more than one for every old-school RPG fan. smile


WOOS
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: Canada
Larian Studios
Offline
Larian Studios
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: Canada

That statement is a fact (note the word 'can') and therefore not controversial at all (unless you want to claim real time combat always works better).

With a party, real time combat can force you to control a particular character to avoid problems with AI (an archer running around drawing nearby opponents into a fight, or a mage wasting high mana spells on weak opponents) or do a lot of pausing to micro-manage. The babysitting required in the first large fight in the BG 2 demo made me pass on the game. I've since bought it in a GOG sale, but haven't gotten around to giving it another try.

There are lots of ways to do both real time and turn based combat well or poorly, and lots of differences of opinion on where exactly a particular system falls on that scale. Personally, I don't have a strong preference for either (the details of how the combat system is implemented would be the determining factor, but just whether it was real time or turn based).

Raze #466392 16/05/13 12:02 AM
Joined: Apr 2013
Location: Belgium
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Apr 2013
Location: Belgium
Originally Posted by Raze

That statement is a fact (note the word 'can') and therefore not controversial at all (unless you want to claim real time combat always works better).

With a party, real time combat can force you to control a particular character to avoid problems with AI (an archer running around drawing nearby opponents into a fight, or a mage wasting high mana spells on weak opponents) or do a lot of pausing to micro-manage. The babysitting required in the first large fight in the BG 2 demo made me pass on the game. I've since bought it in a GOG sale, but haven't gotten around to giving it another try.


I never played the demo but a quick Google tells me the demo is basically Chapter 1. I can't recall any large fights in Chapter 1 of BG2. I am going to go out on a limb and assume unfamiliarity with the mechanics made things harder for you than they should have been. If you could describe the fight (like who/what you were up against) I can probably give some meaningful feedback and/or tips smile

Also you can pause BG2 so it's not "true" real time but RTwP, if you were playing it as a real time game I can imagine it wouldn't have been very enjoyable. As an aside: the underlying mechanics in BG2 are turn based as well (D&D) and iirc you can set it up to pause on every turn (I think only your turns though) if you so please.

Originally Posted by Raze
There are lots of ways to do both real time and turn based combat well or poorly, and lots of differences of opinion on where exactly a particular system falls on that scale. Personally, I don't have a strong preference for either (the details of how the combat system is implemented would be the determining factor, but just whether it was real time or turn based).


True enough, but since I like party based games (I consider 4 an *absolute minimum* to consider a game party based, depending on game mechanics this could be higher still) and controlling 4 or more characters in real time is just not realistically feasible I have a strong preference for RTwP or Turn Based.


* as usual this is imho (unless stated otherwise); feel free to disagree, ignore or try to change my mind. Agreeing with me is ofc also allowed, but makes for much worse flamewarsarguments.

It is a full moon night and ... bèèè! ... the Weresheep are out...
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: Canada
Larian Studios
Offline
Larian Studios
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: Canada

I am going to go out on a limb and assume unfamiliarity with the mechanics made things harder for you than they should have been.

Undoubtedly. At the time, though, it didn't seem worth the effort to check for options that could help. Nothing in particular about the other gameplay elements at the start of the demo was that appealing, so I didn't give the combat another shot.

For the fight in question, entering a largish area I sent 2 party member off to the right to fight a few bats, and the rest started left for another weak-ish opponent or two, when a bear came in from the front, so 2 (maybe just 1) of the left group went straight and had a tough time until the 1 (possibly 2) on the left was done and could join in attacking the bear. When that hectic fight (even with pause) was done, I realized I hadn't checked on the two that went right for awhile, and (wondering if they were still alive) found them standing around doing nothing, with barely any damage. Obviously it was my fault for not paying attention to everyone, or checking if there were any notifications or automatic settings for when a character was done doing what he was told to do, but at the time, even if there were such settings it seemed like there would still be too much babysitting required.

Raze #466396 16/05/13 04:49 AM
Joined: Apr 2013
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Apr 2013
IE based games are not RTwP, it's "fast forward turn based with pause".
Evidence is whenever you engage battle,
1.there are rolls to determine who can initiate action/attack first
2.you can "buffer" command to cast before it's your party member's turn to cast
3.AoE spells are rolled against each target in range in turns
4.You can cancel action and change to another if it's not your turn yet.
5.The matter that you can set the setting to pause when battle starts.

By realtime, which means there will always be cool down, which IE based game doesn't have. In IE based games you can't cast spell one after another "if" it's not your turn yet, they get buffered in queue. Even moves are pseudo to pretend it's realtime when it's not. ie. you can still move while enemy attack animation is on-going, the damage is based on result of roll, even if you are a few step away you still receive damage anyway.( There are no "mana" point either, you get only specific amount of charges, and must rest to regain charges after battle.)

That's why they said it's "modified DnD ver.X rules", because on table top you can't move until it's your turn. If you have no instruction before turn ends, it's essentially give up your priority. If the entire turn is not finished yet, you can still do things. It's all in the combat logs.(If you turn on those dice roll messages.)


Last edited by PenguinTD; 16/05/13 04:52 AM.
Joined: Apr 2013
Location: Germany
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Apr 2013
Location: Germany
Originally Posted by PenguinTD
IE based games are not RTwP, it's "fast forward turn based with pause".
Evidence is whenever you engage battle,
1.there are rolls to determine who can initiate action/attack first
2.you can "buffer" command to cast before it's your party member's turn to cast
3.AoE spells are rolled against each target in range in turns
4.You can cancel action and change to another if it's not your turn yet.
5.The matter that you can set the setting to pause when battle starts.

By realtime, which means there will always be cool down, which IE based game doesn't have. In IE based games you can't cast spell one after another "if" it's not your turn yet, they get buffered in queue. Even moves are pseudo to pretend it's realtime when it's not. ie. you can still move while enemy attack animation is on-going, the damage is based on result of roll, even if you are a few step away you still receive damage anyway.( There are no "mana" point either, you get only specific amount of charges, and must rest to regain charges after battle.)

That's why they said it's "modified DnD ver.X rules", because on table top you can't move until it's your turn. If you have no instruction before turn ends, it's essentially give up your priority. If the entire turn is not finished yet, you can still do things. It's all in the combat logs.(If you turn on those dice roll messages.)



Hm, but that's just your own type of "definition". Let's keep it simple. There are two "main" types, real time and turn-based. It's clear that there are many different ways to implement a real time game, there is not only one way. The possiblities range from fast paced hack'n'slay to very low paced "pause based" real time combat like in the IE games. Cool-down ablities and stacking of spells/attacks is not a basic requirement of real time combat games, these elements are only attemps to minimize the micromanagement while pausing. In many ways the old IE games felt like some sort of turn-based game because you had(?) to pause often and therefore you could really play it like some sort of turn-based game in which you choose the end of turn by yourself (when pausing the game). But, yes indeed, the IE games had the DnD mechanics and it's inner turn-based time system but that's not the same thing as a turn-based combat system in which the player is forced to very specific and mechanical turns and attack orders (based on initiative) and things like that. In real time party games you could choose yourself which of your characters you want to give which order in the sequence you like. And in the end everyone will perform the orders simultanously and not "turn-by-turn".
So the IE games ARE real time combat games because orders are not performed turn-by-turn and person-after-person but simultanously. You cannot argue against it. But yes, you can give the games some sort of "turn-based feeling" by using the puase funcionality often and regularly which is almost a requirement in high difficulty settings.

Imo the range of real time designs is much bigger than the very specific turn-based system. But you can still create very good games with both systms, especially for parties (since turn-based is quite senseless without a party).


WOOS
Raze #466417 16/05/13 03:14 PM
Joined: Apr 2013
Location: Germany
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Apr 2013
Location: Germany
Originally Posted by Raze

I am going to go out on a limb and assume unfamiliarity with the mechanics made things harder for you than they should have been.

Undoubtedly. At the time, though, it didn't seem worth the effort to check for options that could help. Nothing in particular about the other gameplay elements at the start of the demo was that appealing, so I didn't give the combat another shot.

For the fight in question, entering a largish area I sent 2 party member off to the right to fight a few bats, and the rest started left for another weak-ish opponent or two, when a bear came in from the front, so 2 (maybe just 1) of the left group went straight and had a tough time until the 1 (possibly 2) on the left was done and could join in attacking the bear. When that hectic fight (even with pause) was done, I realized I hadn't checked on the two that went right for awhile, and (wondering if they were still alive) found them standing around doing nothing, with barely any damage. Obviously it was my fault for not paying attention to everyone, or checking if there were any notifications or automatic settings for when a character was done doing what he was told to do, but at the time, even if there were such settings it seemed like there would still be too much babysitting required.


Shame on you for not playing BG 2. How can you call yourself a true RPG fan without having played BG 2? wink

There is one simple way to make the game less "hectic": just enable the auto-pausing option in the setting when you spot enemies. Then you can sort the whole thing without the need of giving fast orders and take your time for considering a strategy. And after that just leave one finger constantly over the pause button to be able to interrupt the gameplay in the second something happens which requires your micromanagement skills (low health, death, spell casted, change of position, new enemy spotted, change of weapons,.....)
It is faster than a turn-based game, no question, but you will get used to it and you really have to use the pause funcion VERY often, especially in high difficulty. But when you get arranged to that the game offers a much more fluid and immersive gameplay than most of the turn-based games which suffer from a "too mechanical" and slowed-down gameplay, especially if they use melee tactics (it's not that prominent in games which are based on ranged combat like XCOM).
So I will see how D:OS turns out. I think that it will be a great game, but I haven't seen that much of the actual combat systems and the balancing (since these kind of things are not really finished in pre-alpha). So lets see if it can come even close to my all-time favorite combat system of BG 2 (or Icewind Dale 2 which even improved on that a bit).... wink

Sidenote: one of the benefits of BG 2 was the adjustable AI settings of your characters/party members. You can for example forbid your ranger to automatically attack enemies. Or you can order your healer to always heal party members if their health is below a certain percentage (if the healer has a spell left)....:)

Last edited by LordCrash; 16/05/13 03:17 PM.

WOOS
Joined: Apr 2013
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Apr 2013
Originally Posted by LordCrash

fluid and immersive gameplay than most of the turn-based games
Even as a fan of BG, i found RTwP to be the least immersive kind of gameplay.
Sure, the logistics of a battle in which everybody takes turns to act is laughable at best, but with some time and, if everybody in the game is following the rules, i can just roll with it. The problem i have is the P in RTwP, pausing everyone's actions feels really intrusive, it never gives me the change to immerse myself when the game is constantly reminded me that i'm interacting with the world in a entirely different way that its inhabitants, and in a really blunt way, the transition is not organic or automatic, you are always aware of this because you have to perform it (there is some options in the game, but outside of pause on enemy sighted and pause on trap found, they just basically make you push the space bar a lot more).

Last edited by rupuka; 16/05/13 05:09 PM.
Joined: Apr 2013
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Apr 2013
Originally Posted by LordCrash

Hm, but that's just your own type of "definition".

Nah, the underlying mechanism is not "realtime" for sure.
By realtime, it means when I press something, if I'm not in animation of doing another, it starts right away. If I moved out of attacking range while enemy attack starts, I shouldn't be hit. If I saw a long casting spell, I should be able to react and evade or counter. In IE based game you can't do any of these. That's the main reason Diablo got popular in the first place, because it only roll dice when you hit to check for miss/resist/critical, and of course drops.

Quote

Cool-down ablities and stacking of spells/attacks is not a basic requirement of real time combat games, these elements are only attemps to minimize the micromanagement while pausing.

If you try to stack another spell before all parties in the turn finished, it should either fail or only come out when next turn starts and it's your turn to action.(It's being so long, and I think BG1 should be the former, and BG2 latter.)

And no, cool-down is there for balance and to prevent you stacking, thus increase the requirement for micromanagement to keep you on your toes. If you can stack spell in say Diablo 3, kiting would be so boring you fell asleep for endless click back and forth, and only spam spell key if it runs out. And by realtime, if you stack, it should come out right after your character becomes idle or only moving, which is not the case in IE games.



Quote

In real time party games you could choose yourself which of your characters you want to give which order in the sequence you like. And in the end everyone will perform the orders simultanously and not "turn-by-turn".

Which IE games do none of these, it buffers the order, and only perform it when it comes to that character's turn. There is no simultaneous action happen in any given time of IE games, it's a given fact that all actions are based on rolls, except movement with its special condition.
The simultaneous feeling of warrior's strike and wizard spell hitting almost at the same time is an well crafted illusion. (ie. if I gave a stealth theif's attack last, or pause after I saw rolls of first attack, then issue order, it will be rolled faster then my wizard's spell. ) If you also remember that all try and true synchronized attack orders gets interrupted when you encounter fast enemies, it brought you back to the turn-based nature of IE.

And the matter you can auto pause on your turn or each round is further proof that it's more turn-based than you would like to believe.

I think this system goes so far all the way to even NeverWinter Nights, which is closer to true hybrid of realtime and turn-based in my opinion. After NWN, RPGs departs to turn-based, Final Fantasy style turn-based(with action bar to fill), BioWare(true RTwP) style after NWN, and hack'n'slash.

There are just my opinions, and you may say to be able to play in realtime makes a game realtime in your definition. And I think it is possible to do a mod to enable this type of play, if this part of engine(roll/action) is exposed in the script part of a mod.

Joined: May 2013
D
DarkNeo Offline OP
stranger
OP Offline
stranger
D
Joined: May 2013
I in turn-based combat system I see too unnatural.

For the videos I've seen, let it rather go running, we find 2 enemies, the game will pause and start the fight, each with their turn.

While it is the turn to one, the other, are left standing there like nothing, not even a fighting stance, take a hit and still standing there as if nothing had happened.

Do not know, do not really like, he takes action, and the fun of a hack and slash.

For my taste, Divine Divinity was GREAT!

Why not follow in the same line?

Edit: Or at least it is in real time, but with the ability to pause the game and plan the battle, so we be happy at all.

Last edited by DarkNeo; 16/05/13 07:32 PM.
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: Canada
Larian Studios
Offline
Larian Studios
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: Canada

The animations are not all done in the pre-alpha builds shown during the kickstarter (most of the death animations were not done and the henchmen running animation looked bad until late in the kickstarter, etc). By the time the game is released characters should take a fighting stance, react to hits, etc.

Joined: Apr 2013
Location: Germany
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Apr 2013
Location: Germany
Originally Posted by PenguinTD
Originally Posted by LordCrash

Hm, but that's just your own type of "definition".

Nah, the underlying mechanism is not "realtime" for sure.
By realtime, it means when I press something, if I'm not in animation of doing another, it starts right away. If I moved out of attacking range while enemy attack starts, I shouldn't be hit. If I saw a long casting spell, I should be able to react and evade or counter. In IE based game you can't do any of these. That's the main reason Diablo got popular in the first place, because it only roll dice when you hit to check for miss/resist/critical, and of course drops.

Yeah, that's your definition of "real-time" but not mine. Diablo got popular because it was very fast-paced and you didn't have to use many tactics or things like that which you have to use in a party based game. Sure, the IE games are no hack'n'slay games but imo not every rea time combat game is a hack'n'slay game. Rolling dice/probability systems and the use of some "time unit" are nothing which can't be used in a real time combat game. But I will come back to that below.

Quote
Quote

Cool-down ablities and stacking of spells/attacks is not a basic requirement of real time combat games, these elements are only attemps to minimize the micromanagement while pausing.

If you try to stack another spell before all parties in the turn finished, it should either fail or only come out when next turn starts and it's your turn to action.(It's being so long, and I think BG1 should be the former, and BG2 latter.)

And no, cool-down is there for balance and to prevent you stacking, thus increase the requirement for micromanagement to keep you on your toes. If you can stack spell in say Diablo 3, kiting would be so boring you fell asleep for endless click back and forth, and only spam spell key if it runs out. And by realtime, if you stack, it should come out right after your character becomes idle or only moving, which is not the case in IE games.

Don't mix up party based games and games in which you only play with one character (like BG2 and Diablo). It's something completely different to manage a whole party with different skills/classes/types and to fight with only one character. In a party based game stacking of spells/skills is made to reduce micromanagment (to "casulize" it) by reducing the time you need to give your party members new orders each time they performed something. That would be for sure boring as hell in a hack'n'slay game like Diablo, no question. Cool-down can be used for balancing, right, but it's also a system which fits more to the wishes of the "new generation" of players who are not used to resting systems (like in BG2) which has its own problems.

And what's the point of your first sentence? Sure the actions of a stacked order will performed one after the other and not simultanously but that's not the point or at least I don't know where I had neglected that....


Quote
Quote

In real time party games you could choose yourself which of your characters you want to give which order in the sequence you like. And in the end everyone will perform the orders simultanously and not "turn-by-turn".

Which IE games do none of these, it buffers the order, and only perform it when it comes to that character's turn. There is no simultaneous action happen in any given time of IE games, it's a given fact that all actions are based on rolls, except movement with its special condition.
The simultaneous feeling of warrior's strike and wizard spell hitting almost at the same time is an well crafted illusion. (ie. if I gave a stealth theif's attack last, or pause after I saw rolls of first attack, then issue order, it will be rolled faster then my wizard's spell. ) If you also remember that all try and true synchronized attack orders gets interrupted when you encounter fast enemies, it brought you back to the turn-based nature of IE.

And the matter you can auto pause on your turn or each round is further proof that it's more turn-based than you would like to believe.

Well, if the game gives me the illusion that all my team members perform their orders simultanously there is in fact no difference for me to a "real" real time combat system. wink
You cannot neglect that the feeling of playing BG2 differs from playing a real turn-based game like Fallout or XCOM. If it's just an illusion, fine, I'm fine with that. Games are all about illusions and in the end the feeling and while playing matters the most to me (and not the systems/coding on which the games is based). I know that the IE games are based on the turn-based P&P DnD rules and I also know that they adapted these rules to a certain extend to make the game a RTwP game. Sure, the time units are stil turns/rounds but every game, even a hack'n'slay type of game needs some unit in which ingame time is measures. IMO it doesn't matter if this time units are turns/rounds or real-time seconds, that's just the coding and doesn't have anything to do with my gameplay experience.

But I think that's the difference between us two: you seem to define a game by its underlining systems but I define it by its actual gameplay. But tbh, the IE games are somewhere in the middle between a pure hack'n'slay game (which is not suited for a party based game) and a real turn-based game. So if you want to decide on a combat system for a party-based RPG you have to choose either RTwP (like the IE games) or turn-based (like XCOM). Now you can say "Hey, but both of them are some kind of turn-based system!", but it doesn't simplify it by any means. It's just a different wording of two things which are quite different while playing. wink


WOOS
Joined: Apr 2013
Location: Germany
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Apr 2013
Location: Germany
Originally Posted by DarkNeo
I in turn-based combat system I see too unnatural.

For the videos I've seen, let it rather go running, we find 2 enemies, the game will pause and start the fight, each with their turn.

While it is the turn to one, the other, are left standing there like nothing, not even a fighting stance, take a hit and still standing there as if nothing had happened.

Do not know, do not really like, he takes action, and the fun of a hack and slash.

For my taste, Divine Divinity was GREAT!

Why not follow in the same line?

Edit: Or at least it is in real time, but with the ability to pause the game and plan the battle, so we be happy at all.


You have to combine an RPG (story, character development, quests, dialogues, .....) with some sort of combat system and you have to generally choose between two directions: strategy or action. If you want to make an more fast-paced and action-oriented RPG you would use a real-time system and if you want to make a more strategic RPG you would use a turn-based system. Obviously Larian wanted to make a more strategic RPG so they used the latter. You don't have to agree on that (I would prefer a RTwP system myself) but you should respect it. But of course you have to like strategic games to a certain extend to have fun with D:OS. If you only like fast-paced action RPGs D:OS might be the wrong game for you. But don't be sad, there are much fast-paced action games (also RPGs) on the market so you will find some other games to have fun with. smile


WOOS
Raze #466434 16/05/13 10:24 PM
Joined: Apr 2013
Location: Belgium
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Apr 2013
Location: Belgium
Originally Posted by Raze

I am going to go out on a limb and assume unfamiliarity with the mechanics made things harder for you than they should have been.

Undoubtedly. At the time, though, it didn't seem worth the effort to check for options that could help. Nothing in particular about the other gameplay elements at the start of the demo was that appealing, so I didn't give the combat another shot.


You have been missing out.

Quote
For the fight in question, entering a largish area I sent 2 party member off to the right to fight a few bats, and the rest started left for another weak-ish opponent or two, when a bear came in from the front, so 2 (maybe just 1) of the left group went straight and had a tough time until the 1 (possibly 2) on the left was done and could join in attacking the bear.


I am very sure there are no bears anywhere in that chapter, so either that was added for the demo or it was something else (a Golem maybe, though nowhere do you run into a golem alongside mephits, so...?). And yes, I have played this game *a lot*.

Quote
When that hectic fight (even with pause) was done, I realized I hadn't checked on the two that went right for awhile, and (wondering if they were still alive) found them standing around doing nothing, with barely any damage. Obviously it was my fault for not paying attention to everyone, or checking if there were any notifications or automatic settings for when a character was done doing what he was told to do, but at the time, even if there were such settings it seemed like there would still be too much babysitting required.


Yeah, the problem I see here is you not being used to having to keep track of multiple characters. It most likely takes some getting used to if you come from games like Divine Divinity that don't have any notion of a "party" but imho it is well worth the effort.

In case you *do* decide to give BG another shot (which I would higly recommend you do if you enjoy RPGs), don't start with BG1 in the mistaken belief that would be a good idea for the story (while you will obviously miss out on some minor things it's not worth missing out on the HUGE improvement BG2 is over BG1 imo), BG2 is a lot better in many respects not in the least of which is accessibility.

Last edited by theBlackDragon; 16/05/13 10:25 PM.

* as usual this is imho (unless stated otherwise); feel free to disagree, ignore or try to change my mind. Agreeing with me is ofc also allowed, but makes for much worse flamewarsarguments.

It is a full moon night and ... bèèè! ... the Weresheep are out...
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4

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