algroth

Where do you draw the line between "taking influence from" or "bearing similarities to" and "being derivative of", though? Yes, I do think the Eoran setting is partly designed to bring memories of Faerun, but it's doing a lot that is different and unique and not really moved by (and often deliberately subversive of) the high fantasy standard set by Tolkien. If I'm not mistaken, Josh deliberately avoids Tolkien as a source as well, having expressed exhaustion at his pervasiveness in high fantasy and so on.

I do think there's more going on with the Eora setting to separate it from the Tolkien tradition, between what you already mention as well as the more Renaissance-based setting and so on. The narrative is also distinctly different from his work. But back to DnD, there's plenty of settings in it that are pretty different to the Tolkien tradition, be they the more Lovecraftian Ravenloft, the post-apocalyptic Dark Sun, the stranger and more surreal/far-out Planescape, or the more space opera-like Spalljammer to give some examples.

My point is that the adaption is made necessary because the DnD system *doesn't* work well turn-based when translated as is to the videogame medium. It might be my subjective preference but that's what this is all based on at the end of the day.

I'd argue the opposite myself. Maybe weapon speed allowed for such a tactic that wasn't an issue with TB mode but in that case rules of engagement for the videogame adaptation ought to be revised, instead of reverting to an even more literal translation of the system into a new medium. The way I see it, the TT system as is doesn't work in a CRPG so I'd look how to tweak and adapt it so as to provide an experience that better uses the medium it's in from a systems, narrative and mimetic degree whilst also evoking the feel or idea of the source material at the same time. In this sense I think Pillars does a very good job at polishing and improving the IE systems and at evoking some of the D&D feel, but could also do more to make combat even more flexible so as to open to more roleplay or strategy options within it and so on. It's a contrivance or artifice, I agree, but I do think it's less jarring with the diegesis than TB is because it's much easier to abstract the "pause" plane from the "real" plane as it's a literal pause in action or time, where all characters interact with one another simultaneously, opposite to seeing every character acting individually at a time whilst everyone else stands in place in what seems like a continuous, linear timeline. It also doesn't help from a narrative perspective to see what should allegedly be a battle, i.e. a moment that normally should be frantic and chaotic, be chopped up to fine bits of individual actions in what seems like a vacuum of idleness - yes, you would be chopping up a sequence using the pause button in RTwP, but I do think that a lot of the chaotic or frantic effect remains in seeing all characters act simultaneously and so on. To make a comparison, if you pause a battle sequence in a film, the image will be a still one but in the frame you'll still see a dynamism or tension that even in that still image captures a sense of chaos or disarray. I do think immersion, feel and storytelling is affected differently in both cases, though again I also feel pacing is the biggest concern for me.

Read what we wrote in the previous page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition Again, you're ignoring the context. A game like chess or like table football do not have the same objectives or intentions to an RPG, let alone a *videogame* form of RPG. They do not operate remotely alike. Likewise we're giving arguments regarding the application of TB in videogames as a direct and oft incorrect translation of the PnP experience - which is turn-based by default. Tradition or "fidelity" on its own isn't a very compelling argument in favour of any decision, let alone one about adapting a particular experience or genre to an entirely different medium. You're relying on far-fetched comparisons and strawmans and not actually addressing the specific criticisms we brought up.

There are many reasons why it's not a one-on-one comparison, though. Videogames are by definition an audiovisual medium as much as they are an interactive one, and the mimetic quality in videogames is far different to that of board games. Also as Xzar and Zoraptor point out, there's a narrative and immersive intention to RPGs that chess doesn't possess at all, and the pieces on a chess board aren't characters in any fashion beyond distinguishing some basic mechanical difference between it and other pieces. Furthermore, you're basing your qualms over something no one actually said or implied either: no one said TB was stupid or lazy, just that it's tedious and clunky in the context of a CRPG - to use another example you gave, a horse might act as a replacement for a car in certain contexts or even be advised in a rural environment for example, but in an urban one or in long distance travel a car would be far more advantageous, because again, context matters. You can argue that you'd love to ride a horse in town because you find it more fun than driving a car, but the disadvantages and inconveniences it'd bring would be pretty undeniable, and a perfectly understandable reason why the majority would probably prefer not doing that.

The other massive difference between TTRPGs and CRPGs I feel is also that TB in the former isn't just fulfilling a strategic or comprehensive role, it's also aiding the game's performative component. If a player fails a roll, that fail can still act as a catalyst for a scene or situation or change - typical example is how often a failed roll can so often produce a humorous outcome and so on. I think this sort of performative value in CRPGs is lost because for the most part a game - which in some level is an automated DM - can't improvise or account for such events the way a human DM can. In a way, failing in TTRPGs is part of the fun - far less so in most CRPGs. Disco Elysium is the odd one out as a game that actually tapped into the performative side of CRPGs really well, but its approach to "combat" - if you can call it that - is completely different to what more traditional DnD-based/inspired CRPGs do. In most CRPGs a fail is a fail, and in TB mode especially the end result is frustration and a lot of wasted time before you can attempt an action again. RTwP doesn't add the performative element at all but it at least mitigates these frustrations a lot more.

I'll be playing the DOS games shortly so I might have to change my tune here in the future, but as it stands right now, I do feel that turn-based is something of an appendage in the CRPG sphere left from the TT days for the above reason you mention. Since DnD and derivatives are usually verbally communicated and are hugely dependent on dialogue between the players, there's no way players can interact with one another simultaneously without turning a combat sequence into sheer incomprehensible cacophony. TB needed to exist back then because every player controlled a separate unique piece and they all had to communicate with one another what they were doing or wanted to do, and back to the DM who ran the scenario and so on - but a lot of those things are simply automated and happen either in the background or as part of an audiovisual experience instead, and are allowed to happen simultaneously whereas before it would've broken a scene. Worse yet, in single player RPGs the case is often that a player has to play the role of four to six different characters at once, meaning cycling through that many turns themselves whilst also having to wait on the X turns X amount of enemies take when themselves acting. Maybe some of this can be automated or juxtaposed, i.e. all enemies acting in simultaneous fashion or having turns being assigned to parties/players opposite to characters, but I do still feel that is one degree of artifice more than is really necessary. I think an issue that RTwP runs into often, and which is often replicated in the way the community criticized the system and speaks in favour of TB instead, is that very often RTwP doesn't convey the flexibility that either TTRPGs have, or DOS managed with its implementation of the TB system, and in turn assume flexibility and RTwP combat to be mutually exclusive. I think the issue here is that a lot of RTwP games treat pause as a literal pause, a moment you can stop time to assign any actions you otherwise could in real time if you had the speed or time to do so. I think that the pause system could be taken further, as demonstrated to an extent by games like Transistor or even The Outer Worlds with its TTD-specific mechanics and so on: basically start treating pause as a strategic interface opposite to a mere time stop, opening for many more options such as terrain interactions, specific actions with enemies like dialogue or the likes, or bodypart targets, that could otherwise be concealed in real time mode for example. I don't see why you'd need to divide and dilate combat sequences by having one character act at a time when you could literally have them all act simultaneously whilst allowing the player to set or take a turn as they need them to manage their party and actions - you'd be saving time, you'd be creating a more immersive or natural flow in the combat in turn and so on. Again I hear DOS handles TB exceptionally well so maybe they also find ways to make TB flow better and not become the bloated, stilted experience I usually find it to be, but at least in the BG3 presentation it feels exactly like TB usually feels for me.

I wonder how much of that alleged 100+ gameplay will be spent resolving encounters that would otherwise last under a minute in RTwP. The demo already felt really stilted and frustrating, and isn't it meant to be one of the tutorial fights as well?

Not saying it's a bad thing in the least. I think they're the best part of "fantasy comfort food", to be frank: they could play up that archetype in every fantasy game and I'd lap it up. But I do appreciate a company attempting to do something different, and probably more interesting, with dwarves every once in a while. I think it worked with Sagani. Less so with Konstanten (who in some ways also felt closer to that dwarven archetype than Sagani did too).

Don't forget cussing in Scottishoid too.

I also thought Sagani was very good, but she's generally overlooked as a dwarf companion because she isn't another Gimli clone.

He just wants to pet that electric rodent.

I'm surprised by your distaste for South Korean films in particular, as it's been an especially thriving scene throughout the past twenty years. If you don't mind me asking, which ones have you seen?

There's no doubt a degree of sexism involved in the performance of films and cutural artifacts that seem aimed more squarely at young female audiences than young male ones - I do think the former sees much more vitriolic criticism than the latter even before the films are released, and people seem way more open to entertaining a film like Shazam as a good one than, say, Twilight, High School Musical or Pitch Perfect. That said, I don't think "featuring female characters" = "aimed at young female audiences" (case in point: Tomb Raider), and I don't think Birds of Prey seems a particularly "female-oriented" film to begin with. I'd figure just as many if not more people went to see it because Margot Robbie is smokin' as Harley, than because of any representation value, and it likely flopped *not* because it's a more "female-leaning film" but because Suicide Squad is absolute dog**** and the rest of the DCEU with it (sans Wonder Woman and Shazam).

Uh, no? It's simply the best film of the year, regardless of what ethnicity the director is. No one who's seen or is even mildly aware of the film would even begin to think that, though some bigots who read bad faith into every win by a non-white might. And it's not the first time a film was nominated for both Foreign Language and Best Picture - just last year we had Roma for example (which should've won, btw) - but it is the first time a film in a non-English language wins BP.

You should give it a shot, it's utterly brilliant.

YES. YES. YES. Oscars are based tonight. Possibly the best Best Picture win ever. GO WATCH IT, EVERYONE.

Can endorse RPG Maker as a starter option, or even the Neverwinter Nights games if you'd like. For the former, there's even several resources and tilesets you can use to make a more Western-looking isometric RPG if you so wish, which you can find at their official site.

This is very good considering a lot of people also ended up playing the game via GamePass instead, which wouldn't be factored into this number. Congrats Obsidian!

I absolutely disagree. I found the satire to be quite witty and poignant, and never intrusive when the story required to take itself seriously. I don't recall ever feeling the silliness took me out of the experience or undercut an otherwise grim and dramatic moment - heck, the tone was often outright sardonic. A lot of the humour had a very gallows quality to it - you laugh, but you can't help see how they so often mimick the increasingly absurd reality we live in. In comparison BioWare's never felt this brazenly political and declamatory.

Kingdom Come: Deliverance is free on the Epic Store next week!