Your point has already been debated a lot, but I'm gonna summarize my answers :
Baldurs gate 1&2 did it, so why would Baldur's gate 3 not be able to do it, twenty years later, with more money, more staff, and advanced technology?
I don't know if I really have "a point", aside from seeing some problems in a larger party size given where the game currently is. And while Larian certainly does have more staff and more money than the original BG team, that in itself is not an automatic fix to all problems.
Further, more advanced tech can be a double-edged sword. Advanced tech is pretty to look at but harder and more time consuming to create. NPCs used to just be a couple of voice lines, a couple of images, a creature file, and then text. Now they are fully textured, fully animated, fully voiced, and body and facial gestures has to match the dialogue too. An interaction between two NPCs requires multiple voice artists.
And the combat turn was rather abstracted in the Infinity Engine days. I am pretty sure they made it work by fixing certain actions to certain frames during the combat turn. Movement begins at frame x, attack 1 happens at frame y, spellcasting can start at frame z. A character that missed that deadline in the current turn would then wait until the next turn to perform that action. And movement was so much simpler, purely 2D, no disangage, no jump, no dash, no action surge, so AI pathfinding during combat was fine. Was there even attacks of opportunity in BG2?
Simplified combat turns allowed for everybody to execute their actions concurrently without everything becoming an imcomprehensible mess. This in turn made it feasible to many actors to be part of a combat without slowing everything to a crawl. The fine control over exactly what each character would do during a turn was lost, but that was acceptable back then. But would that sort of rules simplification still be acceptable now, though?
I agree with you that more tech = highter standard for graphism, but so far Larian has done the most beautiful computer C-RPG ever done, so I don't think graphism is a problem. About animation, its mostly motion capture, so basically you hire some people to do the scene and you refine animation. Regarding voice and animation, doing a companion isn't more complicated than doing a random NPC, given absolutly ALL dialogue are scripted and have cinematic . Same for voice acting.
Combat was turn based as well in RTWp, basically it was ''fast turn'' system . I invite you to read this to see how Baldur's gate system worked https://baldursgate.fandom.com/wiki/Time_System . It was basically the same, except it felt more realistic, it was faster, and each fight didn't take 10 minutes to proceed, not to mention the infamous goblin fortress fight which take one hours and half to do and is way too long. Waiting six second for an enemy to decide what his move will be is too long in my opinion. But yeah basically RTWP is a turn based system, read my link and you'll see precisly how it was so well thought.
There was no attack of opportunity in BG2, not because of the technology but because it wasn't a rule in the second edition. Same for disengage. This could have been just as easily scripted, as its depend on the distance between two character. As a side note, I don't like attack of opportunity and I don't think they are an improvement over the second edition. Taste, you know.
No,the fine control over character wasn't lost in baldurs gate as you could pause time as many time as you wanted, to micromanage every single one of your party member. if anything, you had more control than in a turn based system. And the rules weren't simplified, they were adapted for video game medium (again, read link).
Originally Posted by Zefhyr
I love RtwP.
You see a mess where I see a fight. You want to give order, you used the pause. It was, in a way, more realistic and more intense. And it never was less strategic, you just had to be careful and aware of your ennemies.
I play and appreciate both RtwP and Turn-based. Turnbased is like chess, slow and all about the reflexion.
RtwP is more like an actual match, there is still reflexion but in a more epic way.
Actually, I love pathfinder which is RtwP. They put a turnbased mod cause they are nice and listening developers but I never used and will used it.
As the two of this systems are interesting, cause BG was RtwP cause it should have stayed RtwP. ^^
(And I think they choose RtwP cause it gave this realistic feeling, turned-base cant give you).
(And, by the way, when I played BG3 (months ago, I asked a refund since) I found the fights long, boring and not DAT strategic ^^" (though I liked DD 1 and 2))
PS: yeah there was attack of opportunity in BG, disengaging was risky ! ^^ (at least I believe from my memories... é.ê)
Pretty much this. +1
Last edited by Hachina; 02/08/2104:56 PM.
If it's what it's takes to save the world, then the world doesn't deserves to be saved - Geralt