kanisatha

And is it? It's been out for a while now. Balance isn't that important, tbh. But a good TB is a whole other experience and would get me back in the game if it was good enough! Mechanically? Yeah TB is great. Some things in the game are a lot better than they were in RTwP, but that's balance stuff that can be sorted out. So long as it's clear this is opinion and not fact. Mechanically and otherwise, nothing's better for me. No objective answer can be provided about whether it is 'better'.

Yup, as I also suggested in the the other thread. But I feel there won't be a PoE3 at all, and they will simply go straight to the new game, some sort of TB 'Pillars tactics' game as Sawyer himself at one point in the past mused about in a post somewhere.

Just gone past 100 hours playing Witcher 3. The porblems I was having with the combat are mostly gone now that I've gotten used to the system and the controls. Really lovin' the story, the setting and the character of Geralt. As a completionist, it is quite possible I'll end up with over 500 hours just on this first play through.

I'm a professor of international relations coasting towards retirement. Meanwhile I try to spend as much of my time as possible on my passions of (not in any particular order) gardening, craft beer, playing cRPGs, and listening to my large collection of CDs.

P:K is RPGWatch Editor's Choice and Gamer's Choice GotY.

Oh I agree. I was just saying maybe they *should* if they are going to be true to what they claim to believe.

I'd rather see a "Fallout: Tactics"-style game with TB combat that is independent of the main series. Exactly! If you want to make a TB game in the PoE setting, go make *that* game. A new game. Don't ruin a franchise that is precious to fans of RTwP, precious precisely because they cannot get that anywhere else.

Right, so you start the game in the other mode--the non turn-based mode. Problem solved. It's a real brain teaser why people construe it as an either-or situation, because it isn't. There's nothing to push you away, because you can still play it in the traditional manner. Turn-based is 100% optional. Except for that @AeonsLegend is talking about a future Pillars 3, so the point of your post?

If PoE3 is TB-only then I will not touch it, not because I won't play any TB game but because I will consider it to be Obsidian throwing us RTwP fans under the bus. Mostly I won't touch it because I don't like TB-only experiences (ironic because back in the 90s I loved TB games like Fallout, FFT, whatnot). This is not meant to be spiteful, just not my cup of tea. Who knows, maybe some higher-up at Obsidian is making some cold calculus about whether or not the # of RtwP fans they would lose would be made up for by the # of TB fans they gain. I hope not, because I like PoE as a world and would be sad if I missed out on it because they decided to lean into a game mechanic I didn't like. But this is exactly why I (and I suspect quite a number of others) will be so very angry. Right now the PoE series is the ONLY old-school classic RPG made by a reputable major developer that uses RTwP. Every single other game in this category is TB. So taking away my one and only RTwP game to reward the "every game must be TB" crowd would seriously piss me off.

Yup, their breakthrough is pretty amazing and awesome. I wonder if all the people in the world who are Israel-haters and/or are antisemitic will stand by their 'principles' and disavow the cure for themselves.

Ah yes. The royal "everyone." LOL

If PoE3 is TB-only then I will not touch it, not because I won't play any TB game but because I will consider it to be Obsidian throwing us RTwP fans under the bus.

No, the only conclusion one might draw at this point is that RTwP and TB have somewhat different audiences for isometric RPGs. Yes, people exclusively in the latter group are jumping into the pool, but is it a large group or just a brief surge? ^This. Plus, all current sales cannot be attributed to the addition of TB. Many people, myself included, choose to wait until a game has been out six months to a year before they buy it.

Not quite. It did have a solid story, and sold well enough for BIS to see a decent profit. As IwD2 was being released discussion had begun on an IwD3, but then BIS imploded and that was that.

I'd like to know from Obsidian what additional improvements, features, content and bug fixing on the RTwP side got cut or sacrificed to free up resources for the TB mode?

Definitely must be RTwP, because the identity of the PoE franchise is RTwP. If possible include a TB mode, but nothing that works well for RTwP should be sacrificed for the TB mode.

Cuz they liek, own Obz. Seriously ? Oh, well. Ok. Yup, and inXile too. Both were bought by Microsoft last November. As @Chairchucker said, working with a D&D license has become a major pain in the ass on account of how overprotective WotC has become lately. Developers would rather just make a game similar to the old IE games but where they own the IP.

There's nothing illogical about the concern of future PoE games being exclusively TB. It is a perfectly reasonable conclusion to draw from this addition of a TB mode to PoE2, especially since we know that Sawyer has always preferred TB over RTwP. So as someone else posted here, maybe he wanted PoE to be TB all along but grudgingly went with RTwP because PoE was presented as a spiritual successor to the IE games. Sorry but I don't see the addition of a TB mode to this game as being purely altruistic. My conclusion is that this is being done so that (a) an already existing stable game can be used as a testbed to develop a TB combat system thereby lowering the development cost and with the potential for receving useful beta-tester-like feedback from existing players, and (b) if a decision is made to develop a PoE3 (a big if to be sure), keeping it from being a complete shock to RTwP fans when it is announced that the game will be exclusively TB.

I don't think I have seen anyone being upset that Obsidian has added this option (few bitter posts about priorities, or doubts if it was a worthy investment, but nothing outrageus), those some people do seem to be worried that if PoE3 happened they might choose to go turn-based, which wouldn't appeal to them personally. Fair enough. Well summarized, @Wormerine. Thank you. Let's be honest: if tomorrow Larian were to announce that they're going to be making D:OS3 as a RTwP game, there would literally be rioting in the streets from the TB fans. And I would sympathize with those fans. For me, the singular most important positive characteristic of the PoE series is that they are RTwP games. Everything else about these games is secondary with respect to why I love these games. I think it is eminently reasonable for me to want one damn old-school classic RPG series made by a proven quality developer to be RTwP. Adding in yet another way to play the game is absolutely nothing to get upset about... If the turn-based play is unchanged, what on Earth would there be for Larian customers to get upset about? Your mistake is to think it's an either-or situation--it's not--never has been. Obsidian is simply adding another mode in which to play the game! So, your argument is defeated before it starts, actually. Why take the time and trouble just to falsely describe the situation? Deadfire RTwP hasn't gone anywhere that I can see... Maybe you should actually take the time to read people's posts before responding. @Wormerine pointed out that some of us are concerned that this is just a step towards a future PoE3 that is ONLY TB. I responded by saying yes that is my concern, and asking how D:OS fans would react if Larian decided to make D:OS3 ONLY RTwP. So either your reading comprehension is piss poor or you are deliberately misrepresenting my points for whatever asinine reasons.

I don't think I have seen anyone being upset that Obsidian has added this option (few bitter posts about priorities, or doubts if it was a worthy investment, but nothing outrageus), those some people do seem to be worried that if PoE3 happened they might choose to go turn-based, which wouldn't appeal to them personally. Fair enough. Well summarized, @Wormerine. Thank you. Let's be honest: if tomorrow Larian were to announce that they're going to be making D:OS3 as a RTwP game, there would literally be rioting in the streets from the TB fans. And I would sympathize with those fans. For me, the singular most important positive characteristic of the PoE series is that they are RTwP games. Everything else about these games is secondary with respect to why I love these games. I think it is eminently reasonable for me to want one damn old-school classic RPG series made by a proven quality developer to be RTwP.

That is something to be said about stat/roll based combat and a turn based system giving player time and space to analyze the situation and choose the best tools for the job.It's like D&D was designed to be turn-based or something! D&D, like any and all other pnp games, was not 'designed' to be turn based but rather *had* to be turn based because that is the only way you can do things with a bunch of people seated around a table. It is a limitation of pnp gaming, and the point of progressing to computer gaming is to overcome the limitations and weaknesses of pnp gaming.Whilst I agree with the other poster that mentions both PnP and videogames having their own strengths and limitations, I also agree with the overall point here. TTRPGs, at least the likes of DnD and its offspring as far as I'm aware, are largely driven by the act of speech and performsnce, and by consequence the information always had to be delivered sequentially, not simultaneously. In terms of combat, it *has* to be developed a move at a time as everyone can't just shout their moves on the spot at the same time and hope the rest to follow what is happening and what everyone is doing and respond adequately. Videogame as a medium removes the need to render actions and situations into words - why not show them instead - and so it allows for several actions to occur or be depicted simultaneously. For TTRPGs the turn-based system is a necessity whereas for videogames it is not, and hence you cannot assume that just because a tabletop source has turn-based combat it is also the ideal or superior form for its videogame adaptation. They're not the same systems working within tge same mediums and boundaries and shouldn't strive to necessarily be alike. Now with regards to RTwP as applied to the IE games I do feel many of its worst aspects are leftovers from the TT experience directly shoehorned into the videogame medium. But already Pillars, and Deadfire since, have been designed not as duplicates or representations of tabletop systems but systems built specifically for a videogame - it's why Josh has largely altered systems, combat and so on for the TT PoE. Already these games flow much smoother and feel more intuitive and rewarding as RTwP experiences over tgeir predecessors. It's a mistake to assume the system in these games was "made to be turn-based", it's certainly a departure from that and I'm sure the TB mode on Deadfire is likely to be wildly different than its RTwP experience. Personally I do far prefer RTwP combat to TB in general - I find it way more immersive and intuitive, whilst the pacing doesn't feel anywhere as clunky. But that's me of course. If you prefer TB instead then you do you - though I don't see why we have to go ahead and behave like utter asshats with all the "sorry fans, what I prefer is superior" remarks. Don't be a ****, seriously. (Written from my phone so apologies for any typos) Really like this post and agree. Back in the days when I had my TT gaming group and DM'd D&D games, the one rule I always threw out in my game was initiative. I actually did make my players all announce their actions essentially simultaneously, and then we'd resolve the actions based on factoring the time needed for an action to happen. As such a player could not just base their action on what other players said out of character. If you wanted to tell another party member to do this or that it had to happen in character at a cost to you, and it also then meant the enemy knew as well. So even back then, playing TT, my group and I were always trying to overcome what we saw as the highly unrealistic nature of acting sequentially.

That is something to be said about stat/roll based combat and a turn based system giving player time and space to analyze the situation and choose the best tools for the job. It's like D&D was designed to be turn-based or something! D&D, like any and all other pnp games, was not 'designed' to be turn based but rather *had* to be turn based because that is the only way you can do things with a bunch of people seated around a table. It is a limitation of pnp gaming, and the point of progressing to computer gaming is to overcome the limitations and weaknesses of pnp gaming. Not really. At best the move from PnP to CRPGs trade strengths for other strengths. PnP is still the king of narrative and player agency. Players are able to have real, tangible effects and changes on the worlds they play in. They can build a legacy. They also have almost complete freedom to do anything they can justify in the limited rules set, and maybe more if the DM is feeling generous. As you pointed out, the trade off is the needed abstraction of turns to control the utter chaos that various situations would devolve into. CRPGs can get rid of the needed abstractions of turn based combat. They can also show you visually what is going on, not just describe it with words and figures. But you are limited to only what the designer can envision and implement. Generally once you are done playing a game there no option to continue in that setting as a new player, dealing with the repercussions of your previous characters impact on the world. One method is not inferior to the other, they simply have different appeals. I actually agree. I was speaking only to the issue of combat mechanics/system in an RPG.

That is something to be said about stat/roll based combat and a turn based system giving player time and space to analyze the situation and choose the best tools for the job. It's like D&D was designed to be turn-based or something! D&D, like any and all other pnp games, was not 'designed' to be turn based but rather *had* to be turn based because that is the only way you can do things with a bunch of people seated around a table. It is a limitation of pnp gaming, and the point of progressing to computer gaming is to overcome the limitations and weaknesses of pnp gaming.

Sure. 'Cause you said so. By definition doing things sequentially is inferior to and less complex than doing things simultaneously.

It is easier to implement a turn based game on top of a real time game than vice versa, so if this turn-based mode is successful then we can see POE 3 on the same engine, which means it will also be a real time game at its core with a turn base mode added. This is much better than never seeing POE 3. I think this is a great move from Obsidian and I wish them success. Maybe. I can also see that because TB is a simpler and less sophisticated concept than RTwP and easier to build than RTwP, a PoE3 could be only TB. And I'd rather have no PoE3 than that since that would be a major betrayal of the very idea of this game.