Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback Turn Based vs. Real Time With Pause Poll

Qualifying the act of playing video games with other people a "nuisance" is downright sociopathic. It would be like saying you don't need social relationship with anyone because ChatGPT is a thing.

Okay, I’d suggest we steer well clear of psychological diagnoses of other forum members.

Personally, I might also call the idea of playing with others a “nuisance”. While I can’t speak for kanisatha, that would be more than half joking in my case. But with a kernel of truth that for the time I spend playing a game I do appreciate not having to worry about the effect what I’m doing has on others or trying to balance their desires and preferences against my own, and possibly all the more so just because those are things I do worry about very much in other areas of my life and are sometimes sources of stress.

I’ll admit that I do sometimes also worry that all this says something less than flattering about my mentality and social skills, but still wouldn’t welcome unsolicited comments on that from others!

I sure do love to play games solo, but the advantages of multiplayer just can't be denied. Saying that all multiplayer is a nuisance is insulting to all those who partake in it. It can be a fun social activity where you can find and play with friends, it can be a competitive experience where you fight against something that isn't arbitrary lines of code, it can even be a creative endeavor where you can partake in the construction of something bigger than you can ever achieve (see sandbox games). I can't see any difference between video games and any other activity that can be shared with others. Having a multiplayer on a game such as BG3 makes so much sense to me since each character of a group is complementary of the others. Each person can fit a role and specialize in it, making it a different experience from having to juggle with many mechanics all at once.

By the way, wasn't this thread about turn based vs real time? I think the debate has shifted quite a bit there.

I wouldn’t take it that way. One person can find multiplayer a “nuisance” personally without that casting shade on others who enjoy it. Though I’ll admit that it would seem good manners to try to make clear that no insult was meant, if that feels like a way someone is likely to take a post. I didn’t think that mine could come across that way, but feel free to correct me if that was wrong?

And :moderator hat now firmly on: I would encourage anyone who does feel insulted by a post to respond constructively, or else take the moral high ground and not respond at all. Or if they don’t feel able to do either of those, report the offending post. And very definitely not potentially escalate the situation by throwing around psychological diagnoses that are unlikely to be welcome. That’s just likely to end in tears.


:Moderator hat partly off again: Fair point. It’s relevant to the extent that some folk are saying that turn-based is better for multiplayer (I wouldn’t know), but the relative merits of single player and multiplayer game modes might be best saved for another thread. Though given it feels like pretty much everything that could possibly be said about turn-based vs RTWP has probably already been said many times over between this thread and the 95-page megathread on the topic, I don’t see any great harm in the odd diversion into more tangentially-related topics if the OP doesn’t object, and as long as the side topic doesn’t drag on too long.

:Moderator hat back on, feel like I’m doing some sort of music hall dance here: If single vs multiplayer experience is a topic that grows arms and legs here, and looks like something folk want to talk about, I can hive off that discussion into another thread. If a couple of folk say they’d like me to do that, I will.

I wouldn't draw such hard lines, but in general agree with the sentiment. I personally don't care much for multiplayer in computer games. I much prefer table-top gaming for human interactions, and I have always seen computer games for "when friends are unavailable, or want to be left alone".

What 90s RPG proves (Fallout/BG1&2) that one can have a fully satisfying RPG experience in single player. As such I do see Larian RPG design, which still seems to rely on coop interactions to fully work as a step backward.

I do see appeal of multiplayer titles though, and understand how it can appeal to some.


That statement suggests that singleplayer games aren't being played 21 years later. I am not sure how true that is. I never touched NWN1 after initial playthrough, as the game held no value to me. On the other hand, I have been replaying BG1&2, Fallouts and other singleplayer focused cRPGs every couple years. I still play Thief1&2/Systemshock2 everyonce in a while. I have UFO: Enemy Unknown modded and installed at all times. Different games for different audience I suppose.


edit:
Not really. Playing with others can be fun, amount of legwork and organizing required to get there is a "nuisance". Singleplayer gaming is hassle free - I have an hour or two free: sit in the chair/couch, get tea/whiskey/wine beer, and play what I like, for as long as I feel like.

Both single player and multiplayer have positives for me!

For single player I can play whenever I want and don’t have to coordinate with other people’s schedules. I can play for a short or long time depending on what I am doing that day.

In single player I can really focus on the story and characters. I make the choices I want and can take my time talking to characters, reading things, and exploring.

The positives for me for multiplayer are that I can do things with people I can’t easily get together with in person, for example during Covid or people that live far away. It is also fun to see other people’s characters and what they pick for choices.

The design needs of both can sometimes clash if done in the same game, but I think BG3 has done a great job of making an outstanding single player game that also includes multiplayer! I prefer turn-based over RTwP in general, though, so for myself having the single player game be turn based isn’t a negative.

Sure. I was wording it that way to offset and counter what I felt was an unwarrantedly strong claim by @Blackheifer about MP over SP.

Sorry, but I said what I said earlier precisely because I don't believe this is possible. And I don't find this to be true for any games that I am familiar with, an admittedly small sample heavily skewed towards cRPGs. The things that go into making an MP game good run counter to a good SP experience, and I suspect vice versa. And this seems to be the very conclusion that major RPG studios like Bethesda, Bioware, and CDPR have come to, because they have released statements saying as much, saying they don't believe it is possible for them to make a game with both SP and MP where both end up equally good, and that adding in MP does take away from the SP experience, and so they are going to be making SP-only games or MP-only games with the SP-only games being their main focus.

Thank you.

For my part I believe very passionately that the primary reason why Western society is going to shit these days is exactly because "virtual socializing" has replaced actual socializing for many people, and especially younger people, where "virtual socializing" is an oxymoron, in fact the exact opposite of socializing with people.

I like actual socializing with people, and that is 100% of how I socialize, and don't at all care if some people want to label that old-fashioned or whatever.

^This! So this.

And also, I can play the way I want to play, and not have to compromise/acquiesce with someone else's playstyle/settings/preferences/roleplaying choices.

personally, multiplayer is fun only with the right people, I prefer solo because if I want to pause for a smoke break or just read an ingame book I won't get rushed knowing I have get back fast

Multiplayer game functionality and design makes single player game absolutely worst. It's a give and take. And for a Baldur's gate RPG game I'd rather it be a single player story experience.
Witcher 3. One of the last few series of games that doesn't tack on multiplayer. One of the reasons I like it so much and that its so good.

Its always a <because of multiplayer> we have to do things like this or that trade off for the main game.
Things it makes worst:

Inventory management
Item creation and balance
UI design / on screen character selection
Spells and abilities
Main character story progression
ALL Dialogues
Encounter design

Unless of course the game designed around being a completely multiplayer game experience!

I must assume that you're referring to all of the hack n slash, shoot em up FPS games out there, or Diablo / Final Fantasy, etc. stuff, because my SO and I have found a grand total of 4 games that we're able to really enjoy together. BG3, DOS2, DOS, and RDO while it lasted. Well, we kind of like Solasta, but didn't really get into it that much.
Everything else that seemed like it would be really cool, just turned out to not actually be a co-op multiplayer RPG, but something...different. Less-than, in our opinion.
BG3 is the ONLY game we've found that really meets the criteria of being an inclusive, co-op, RPG that allows deep diving into character creation and levelling, a rich storyline, beautiful graphics...but it's the turn based combat that allows you to actually think about your next move, strategize and cooperate with your other characters, whether you're playing co-op multiplayer, or single player controlling 4 characters.

At least that's our opinion on the matter.

If you do have some suggestions for the plethora of other multiplayer games that apparently we've missed, please let me know!

Yes, Larian makes easily best coop RPGs in the business. Which is great for people who want 100h+ coop campaign, and is not so great for people (like myself) who don't care for that.

Yup, and also: inability to pause the game during exploration; centrality of the main character (the PC) to the story; party movement; and of course the biggie, combat. All optimized for MP, and therefore sucky in SP.

I also though feel that, for myself at least, I'd much rather play BG3 solo than, Witcher 3, WoTR, Fallout, etc etc.

I still feel like I'm missing something though. Hours and hours spent searching and watching different co-op videos, and it just seems like there's nothing else out there.
Although when we found RDO, that was a surprise as we didn't realize we would enjoy the co-op part as much as we did.

I know I'm veering off-topic here as this is the turn-based vs RTWP thread, but when the argument gets brought up (as I've seen many times) about there being so many multiplayer games and BG3 needs to ditch the co-op, it strikes a nerve. Mostly because that feels totally false, from my perspective at least.

There seem to be many, many "RPG" solo games out there, but BG3 is about the only co-op option that I can find. Larian has a niche here I think, and I just can't imagine them even considering giving it up to just be another one of the many.

I agree. While Larian titles aren't my favourite ones, I do think they are the biggest gust of fresh air we had in RPG scene in a while. Personally, I liked D:OS1 the most, as I felt it embraced being a coop, while D:OS2 and BG3 try to balance being both coop and singleplayer game. For the record, I think compromises happen on both sides - BG3 could be a much better coop game, if it is all it was trying to be.

Fair enough, but as a long time RPG fan, I can't say I am not disappointed, that first big budget cRPG to come in a long time is by design something I am not quite on board with, especially if it's wearing a skin of an IP that made me adore the genre to begin with. I will still take BG3 over any of the Dragon Ages though.

I don't really care if Larian wants to make their game MP-focussed at the expense of SP. All I have said is that they need to then be honest about that and tell prospective buyers that's what the game is. For example, when I, long ago, checked out the Neverwinter RPG, its developer explicitly says that the game is meant to be played MP and although it could be played SP that's not a good way to play the game. So I never bought the game, but I respect the developer for their honesty.

Also, striking a nerve goes both ways. For me, it strikes a nerve in me that the ONE game I have been wanting for so long and been hoping for and waiting for for so long, a third game in the BG franchise, ends up being a MP game pretending to be a SP game. We had an MP version of the original BG games. That was BG: Dark Alliance. As much as a HUGE fan of BG as I was, I never even bothered to check out BG:DA when it first came out because it was meant to be MP and so I had no interest in it. So, if Larian is being true to what it is making, this should be BG:DA 3 and not BG 3.

BG3 is one of my favorite games to play in single player, and after the full release it could be my favorite game! So, I disagree with marketing BG3 as a multiplayer only game and also think many single player Dragon Age fans would like BG3 too if they like or at least don’t mind turn-based combat.😊

Well I didn't say it was MP-only, but that MP is how you are supposed to play it, though you can still also play it SP.

Hello I can understand that Larian decided to continue on the turns base system that they already master greatly with their other RPGs.

But I feel like during the explorations we should get the pause functionnality, as it has ALWAYS be the case with ALL the other Baldur's Gate cRPG.

I understand that the turn-based system add some interesting possibilities, but I'm so used to being able to pause that it doesn't feel natural not being able to. And each time I click the turns system, we are blocked to play character one after the other, while the whole interest of stopping time is to synchronise everyone...

I'm playing Solasta and I'm happy to find back the pause system, during explorations, it's so handy, everything stops immediately, we can chain multiple pauses until the moment the NPC goes just far enough for us to sneak comfortably, progressively... in turns system where we actually play only one character to sneak in, it's very tedious to constantly skip all the other characters or make them do many small moves.

Since the possibility to block the time and actions is already implemented, I feel we should be able to pause anytime during the game. It also feels weird when I need to get away from the computer for 5-10mn to have to keep my characters hanging like this, instead of having a pause available instantly.

Also, in Pillars of Eternity 2, they manage to offer to take the RTWP OR the turns system both available. We have to choose at the beginning of the game and we can't change afterwards. Actually I was convinced that it was better with the turns... except that there are lots of fights with trash mobs and it becomes particularly tedious to spam always the same boring actions, whereas in real time with pause, with AI scripts, the common fights are taken care of in matter of seconds. This is so much more pleasant. Anyway I don't think Larian studios will develop an alternative fight system now, but I do believe we should at least get a pause functionnality.