Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Mega-threads and Guides The Turn-Based/Real Time with Pause topic

You mean the conversation we've been having for the last two pages? Silly? I hardly think so. I've been enjoying it.


That's the thing. Some of us like the fact that RTWP offers a unique feel that TB can't. In RTWP you coordinate things so that they actually happen simultaneously. It feels good when you manage to pull off good coordination involving multiple characters and actions within a short amount of time, like 2 or 3 seconds, for example. There's a sense of urgency in that. In TB you simply know when exactly an effect expires - if not this turn then next turn - and can take all the time you want to make your moves. Some of us appreciate the feel of the RTWP system. But, if you care about nothing but the technical aspect, that's fine too.


"How does that not coincide with commitment to actions?" I find it amusing that you're asking me this. To me, both these criteria are true for games like BG, DAO, NWN, PoE. Thus, they are "tactical" to me. However, you have been insisting that these games have no such thing as "commitment to actions", because they are all RTWP and thus "you can change movement at any point" - whatever you mean by this. Have you found your answer yet?

1) If you agree that both of these criteria DO apply to the aforementioned games, THEN you agree that they all have your so-called "commitment to actions" factor (because apparently you believe they coincide), which, in turn, makes them all "tactical" (by your definition of "tactical" so far). At this point you'll be contradicting yourself, and undoing pretty much every single thing you've said for the last two pages in this thread. You know, when something like this happens, it's usually because the person has no idea what they've been talking about.

2) On the other hand, if you say that these criteria do NOT apply to the aforementioned games.... Well, I wouldn't say you're wrong (though the legion of fans of these games would), but this would be one hell of a minority opinion. To say the BG and NWN games don't have much for player to learn and/or their combat doesn't get more complex and fun when you learn and apply what you have learned... Umm, ok.

It's yes or no mate. There is no 3rd option for you.


Here's what you said several posts earlier:

Now that you're pulling out a new "definition", I must say I don't see how these two definitions relate to each other...?


Are you saying in a RTWP game you have an unlimited amount of options to take, and don't have to use the correct options to beat encounters? And you can't fail even if you use the wrong options? And that it's not important to learn what your enemy is capable of doing, what immunities they have, what defenses they have, and so on?


"Absolute control over what happens in RTWP"? I can't control what an enemy does, if that's what you mean. Except when I open up their scripts and script them to do exactly what I want them to. Or are you saying in a TB game you don't have absolute control over your own characters? I'm getting a bit lost here.


Exactly. You nailed it. It's exactly because it's an RTWP game, so players find it acceptable. Good for them. It is you who don't find it acceptable. Which is your opinion. You and other "hardcore" TB fans who can't see much beyond whether an encounter is a "trash mobs encounter" or not. An encounter helps set up atmosphere and build immersion. If an encounter happens at the right location, has the right difficulty, then it helps enhance the story flow and the role-playing experience.

An encounter can be a test of your tactical ingenuity, sure, but you don't have to treat every single encounter that way, you know. The moment you see a "trash mobs encounter" and you're like, "What is THIS? What were they thinking making a dumb encounter like this?! What an INSULT!" The moment you see that "This encounter is not worth my time and effort", you conclude that the whole system is bad. Some fights are there for you to fight, while other fights are there just because... it makes sense that they are there. It makes sense to the character you're role-playing.

You don't sound much like a real "role-player" to me. You sound more like someone whose only craving is to prove how good they are at tactical combat against a computer. You can't appreciate an encounter that consists of the right enemies, is placed at the right location, and has a reasonable difficulty for the time and place in which it takes place.


Yes, now you're explaining your point. I was looking for that, but just couldn't find it. Sorry about that. So basically you're saying RTWP is also an inferior system because its AI handling is naturally more taxing on the computer. I don't know what to tell you mate. There must be a reason why all RTS games exist. Because "RTWP" is just RT, With a Pause added. You're basically saying all RTS games in existence would be better as TB. Sure, it's your opinion. But you'll have to find a real RTS player to argue about this. Although I do play some RTS games, I'm not much into the genre in general.


What definition? I simply said, "Making the computer check for various conditions is part of making AI smarter." You're saying I'm wrong?

So, after two pages worth of discussion, my observation is that, you like to make "generalized conclusions" such as:
- "The only reason people like RTWP is because of some conservative clinging to the Infinity engine games."
- Because in a RTWP game, you can "change your movement at any point", so the whole system is less tactical, because you don't have to "commit to your actions".
- RTWP system is also bad because it makes "trash mobs encounter" more acceptable.
- "Kiting" is "stupid" and you cannot do it in real life. (What, you mean a person can't run and shoot with a gun at the same time? I see that in movies all the time and usually don't find it stupid.)

I like the fact that you can make conclusions such as these without any solid example or reasoning from ANY game OR real life that clarifies or supports or proves your points. Even at this very moment, you have never clearly explained what you really meant by "you can change your movement at any point" - which has been one of your major arguments, and how exactly it makes the combat less tactical.