Larian Banner: Baldur's Gate Patch 9
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 36 of 95 1 2 34 35 36 37 38 94 95
Joined: Mar 2020
Banned
Offline
Banned
Joined: Mar 2020
That's not really what reactive means.

If opponent A makes a move, and you are player X ... you have to wait 23 turns to make your reaction. That is not "reactive" by definition.

In an RT game, I can instantly use bonus action, reaction action, free actions, etc. That is "reactive"

Last edited by kungfukappa; 04/03/20 07:16 PM.
Joined: Mar 2019
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Mar 2019
Okay, 'adjust' then?

But going back to your original statement:

Quote
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.


Can I say that it is the PRECISE nature of combat where TB really shines?

Seems like we're going nowhere here.

Joined: Mar 2020
Banned
Offline
Banned
Joined: Mar 2020
Oh I see, sorry I misunderstood what it was you were trying to make a point of. Absolutely, and that is what I like about TB games. They are precise. This is actually part of the difference between "tactics" and "strategy".

Both TB and RT are "tactical" and "strategic" but the words are different for a reason. Tactics are fixed, they are the rules and concepts applied to a situation from which to derive a strategy, which are the actions employed to enact tactics.

RTS are real time strategy because the strategy is real time - you apply your tactics in real time. In a turn based strategy game, the strategy is turn based, you apply your tactics turn by turn. I know this sounds a bit childish to point out, but it is a crucial distinction, I think.

I like both Real Time and Turn Based games. Front Mission 4 is one of the most underrated TBS ever made. Dark Reign likewise is an unsung hero of RTS. My tastes are wide.

But I think that what BG is is RTwP because BG is a computer game first and foremost. DOS and BG3 are just TTG replicators, which I have zero interest in.

Joined: Mar 2019
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Mar 2019
As I have said elsewhere, to me Baldur's Gate evokes more of general D&D game than the specific type of game it is. When I heard BG3, I didn't of the game itself. I thought of D&D. Baldur's Gate has become something of a flagship product that represents D&D as a whole, not so much the specific game. Probably because, like we're discussing in another thread, we came to the same game from different backgrounds.

I'm sure it sucks for you that the game is TB. But, as the saying goes, can't please everybody.

Joined: Mar 2020
Banned
Offline
Banned
Joined: Mar 2020
That's the big difference then. People who think of BG as a computer game and people who think of BG as a D&D game.

Quite historically, BG was never a D&D game until it was a computer game. And it is *the* computer game that has inspired basically every game development studio currently in existence.

Here; from the other thread I mentioned, very very topical because they say outright that they are not intending to make D&D by the numbers.



Quote
BioWare planned for Baldur’s Gate to be a blend of old and new. “It was kind of this examination of the old Gold Box games in terms of their depth and their adherence to the [D&D] rules,” Oster says, referring to a series of D&D RPGs produced by Strategic Simulations, Inc. in the late ’80s and early ’90s. “But then bringing that forward into an almost real-time-strategy-style interface.”

“It became pretty obvious pretty quick that there was no way you were gonna be able to play the depths of D&D in real time without ever pausing the game,” Oster says. “That’s when we came up with the ‘pause and play’ plan.” That addition enabled players to stop in the middle of the game, queue up commands to their party, and then restart the real-time action. Although Baldur’s Gate didn’t invent this “active pause” approach, it did help popularize it. “When you play Fallout to this day with the V.A.T.S. system for the slow-motion targeting, I think you can trace the origins of all that back to the ‘pause and play’ idea,” Greig says. Those mechanics made Baldur’s Gate a technical improvement upon previous RPGs...

Baldur’s Gate became the best-selling game in the two weeks following its release, moving 175,000 copies in that time and vindicating BioWare’s pre-release outreach. It topped 500,000 by the end of February and hit the 1.5 million mark by May 2001. “This is a 100 percent standard procedure now for any game,” Greig says. “A key part of the marketing is engaging with the core audience and doing developer diaries, and they’ve got teams of people whose job is just to do this.” Inadvertently, BioWare had helped guide developers in how to sell games as well as how to make them.

“The ones that have been successful haven’t tried to remake what we did, because when we made it we weren’t trying to make Baldur’s Gate,” Kristjanson says, adding, “You can reduce that too much to, ‘Oh, this should be authentic D&D with the numbers.’ Well, even D&D isn’t authentic D&D. It’s every group has their house rule, and that house rule is because of the way that your particular collection of awesome weirdos wants to play it.”


https://www.theringer.com/2018/12/21/18150363/baldurs-gate-bioware-1998-video-games

Last edited by kungfukappa; 04/03/20 07:58 PM.
Joined: Feb 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Feb 2020
But Baldurs Gate was never good BECAUSE of D&D and that's the big big mistake of Larian. BG2 was successful EVEN it was D&D. Play temple of elemental evil, by the way turn based - it was boring as hell. Showing D&D was never ever a reason that BG was that legendary.

Last edited by ThreeL; 04/03/20 08:10 PM.
Joined: Mar 2019
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Mar 2019
Okay, cool. Thanks for the pasted quote.

You can argue which impression the name "Baldur's Gate" should evoke, the game itself or the franchise it stood for. But it is silly to do so (for me, the games were forgettable; the franchise not at all). And I would say that while BG might be "*the* computer game that has inspired basically every game development studio currently in existence", D&D is *the" game that inspired them even more. Those roots aren't so old as to no longer be felt.

Joined: Mar 2020
Banned
Offline
Banned
Joined: Mar 2020
Originally Posted by Emrikol
Okay, cool. Thanks for the pasted quote.

You can argue which impression the name "Baldur's Gate" should evoke, the game itself or the franchise it stood for. But it is silly to do so (for me, the games were forgettable; the franchise not at all). And I would say that while BG might be "*the* computer game that has inspired basically every game development studio currently in existence", D&D is *the" game that inspired them even more. Those roots aren't so old as to no longer be felt.

No they aren't. I kind of poke fun at this in my other thread, when I say there were people back when BG came out, the TTG purists, who said RT would never work. I joke about a fake conspiracy that they have been behind all the negative reviews of RTwP since, and that "DOS3" is their ultimate revenge. But it is just a joke, lol

Joined: Mar 2019
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Mar 2019
Cheers.

Joined: Mar 2020
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Mar 2020
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 think you have that backwards. DnD isn't about the mechanics, it's about the story and enjoying that story by yourself or with other people. Turning the DnD world into a video game can make the journey of that story into a smooth or bumpy ride. Real time or turn based, either can make for an immersive experience you'll remember for years to come, it's all about the execution.

If turn based combat is a turn off, you'll have to wait for the next real time game to venture forth.

Joined: Mar 2020
Banned
Offline
Banned
Joined: Mar 2020
Originally Posted by Schuesseled
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 think you have that backwards. DnD isn't about the mechanics, it's about the story and enjoying that story by yourself or with other people. Turning the DnD world into a video game can make the journey of that story into a smooth or bumpy ride. Real time or turn based, either can make for an immersive experience you'll remember for years to come, it's all about the execution.

If turn based combat is a turn off, you'll have to wait for the next real time game to venture forth.

Bioware explained that they weren't trying to mimic the rules of tabletop because they were making a game for computers.

Check the interview in my post a few comments above.

Joined: Mar 2013
S
veteran
Offline
veteran
S
Joined: Mar 2013

Tactics is the individual tactics applied RIGHT NOW, Strategy is a Plan that is beeing executed

thus the difference between Turn based strategy (civilization) and turn based tactics (xcom)

Joined: Mar 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Mar 2020
Originally Posted by kungfukappa

Bioware explained that they weren't trying to mimic the rules of tabletop because they were making a game for computers.

Check the interview in my post a few comments above.

Not quite what they said though.
They wanted to make an RPG and when the opportunity to make it an AD&D game presented itelf they jumped at it, being table top players themselves. What they realised was that their idea for fast paced Real Time combat didn't work with the AD&D rules "WITHOUT" adding the Pause mechanism.

This is actually quite crucial to qoute.

But in essence as usual, every one is right in their own way. It is true that BioWare never set out originally to copy D&D/build a D&D game, the license just fell in their lap and they adapted their original idea to suit.

Heck that is kinda what we have here right?

Either way, both STB (as we should call this due to it being Simultaneous) and RTwP have their merits and their pit falls, and this Thread and the poll on PC Gamer has proven that you're damned if you do or if you don't either way, because opinion on this particular mechanism is split relatively down the middle.

Heck even I can't decide which I really prefer, having played both systems in various games. RTwP is a mess, but it's a glorious mess where you get the feel of a real fight taking place with traded blows and spells flying, it's quite "hollywood", but frankly your control of it is suspect at best.

Turn Based can look very bland, control is a wonderful thing, and knowing why you were killed and what youd id wrong (or right!) is great, but it needs more to be happening to match the feeling of RTwP.

Are we not at a point where passive characters and monsters can't "pretend fight" whilst waiting to turn the tide? Melee swords clashing, shields blocking, ducking. Archers ducking behind rocks or leaning into trees for cover, notching arrows. Spell casters preparing spells, reading books or reaching in satchels for scrolls.

Yeah it could all be a bit too much, but I am not a fan of static characters waiting to be moved like Chess pieces. I really like the tactical flexibility, I love not being at the mercy of my 25 rolls vs their 25 rolls before something happens and if I don't pause right it's too late, but I miss the chaos. I do, I miss the feeling that that is what combat is, controlled chaos.

I also appreciate that these fine tunings, animations come later in the process, so it's possible this is to some degree planned for. But if not or if being discussed, then Larian, i'm fine with STB, but please find a way to put in some of that chaotic flavour with animations and shouts, noise, etc...

Thanks

Joined: Aug 2019
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Aug 2019
Well put. Since both modes lend themselves well to different situations, why not come up with combat that lets you switch them on the fly? If balance is an issue, you could disable certain things/abilities and add incentives to prefer one to the other depending on the context. Again, it doesn't have to be a tabletop simulator.

Joined: Mar 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Mar 2020
Originally Posted by korotama
Well put. Since both modes lend themselves well to different situations, why not come up with combat that lets you switch them on the fly? If balance is an issue, you could disable certain things/abilities and add incentives to prefer one to the other depending on the context. Again, it doesn't have to be a tabletop simulator.


A compromise like this often leads to either one or both being sub par. Two examples: Arcanum, which was a complete failure in that regard. Neither TB nor RT worked well and combat was the worst part of the game. Then there was Fallout Tactics, which actually pulled it off although you really had no reason to use real time unless you just wanted to dispose of a trash mob quickly.

Joined: Aug 2019
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Aug 2019
Originally Posted by anjovis bonus
Originally Posted by korotama
Well put. Since both modes lend themselves well to different situations, why not come up with combat that lets you switch them on the fly? If balance is an issue, you could disable certain things/abilities and add incentives to prefer one to the other depending on the context. Again, it doesn't have to be a tabletop simulator.


A compromise like this often leads to either one or both being sub par. Two examples: Arcanum, which was a complete failure in that regard. Neither TB nor RT worked well and combat was the worst part of the game. Then there was Fallout Tactics, which actually pulled it off although you really had no reason to use real time unless you just wanted to dispose of a trash mob quickly.

Well, having a single combat mode doesn't make a game successful per se so I think your sample size is pretty small. It's Larian we're talking about, don't you think they have what it takes to get hybrid combat right?

Joined: Mar 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Mar 2020
Originally Posted by korotama
Originally Posted by anjovis bonus
Originally Posted by korotama
Well put. Since both modes lend themselves well to different situations, why not come up with combat that lets you switch them on the fly? If balance is an issue, you could disable certain things/abilities and add incentives to prefer one to the other depending on the context. Again, it doesn't have to be a tabletop simulator.


A compromise like this often leads to either one or both being sub par. Two examples: Arcanum, which was a complete failure in that regard. Neither TB nor RT worked well and combat was the worst part of the game. Then there was Fallout Tactics, which actually pulled it off although you really had no reason to use real time unless you just wanted to dispose of a trash mob quickly.

Well, having a single combat mode doesn't make a game successful per se so I think your sample size is pretty small. It's Larian we're talking about, don't you think they have what it takes to get hybrid combat right?


Well that was just the two that came off the top of my head. Arcanum had two systems because they had to shoehorn real time for multiplayer due to publisher demanding it, and ran out of time to implement in properly. Thus real time sucks and makes the game trivially easy for casters as you can just spam low lvl spells as fast as you can click while controlling all other classes in combat is tedious. I think the reason for two systems in Fallout Tactics was the same, but they actually pulled it off pretty well in that you can play the game in real time, it's just a bit of a clusterfuck if there's more than a couple of enemies. I remember setting up ambushes in real time was very satisfying.

Point is, these games had two combat systems because of external pressure to add multiplayer, not because the developers felt that adding two combat systems was actually beneficial to the game. It's naturally better to have only one combat mode and spend as much time fine honing it than having to share that time between two combat systems. I'm sure Larian could pull it off if they had infinite resources to pour into combat systems, but that is rarely the case in game development (nor will infinite time and resources necessarily mean that the end product will be better).

If you can think of a similar RPG with real time and turn based combat systems that are actually both well implemented and support each other, I'd be happy to hear it. And before you say it, VATS doesn't count since it's hilariously broken and makes the new Fallouts trivially easy.

Last edited by anjovis bonus; 05/03/20 01:49 PM.
Joined: Aug 2019
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Aug 2019
So there is no correlation between time, resources and the quality of the end product. I agree.

Joined: Mar 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Mar 2020
Originally Posted by korotama
So there is no correlation between time, resources and the quality of the end product. I agree.


Do you think so? There's naturally correlation between sufficient resources and the quality of the end product, but throwing money on a game doesn't necessarily mean the end product will be better if other parts of the development process aren't in order.

Joined: Aug 2019
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Aug 2019
Also, by that token, you could argue having only 3 recruitable party members is better than 4 because you get to use more resources on each character and spend time honing them. I do not see the soundness of this argument. You could come up with a million examples in this vein.

Page 36 of 95 1 2 34 35 36 37 38 94 95

Moderated by  Nicou 

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