kanisatha

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.

That makes about as much sense as an earlier argument that the inclusion of Story Mode somehow devalued the experience of Path of the Damned. This isn't a zero-sum thing. Just because players might find a new game mode enjoyable, it surely hasn't made RTWP worse, right? You are absolutely right in principle here, and I fundamentally disagree with the post you're responding to. However, it does concern and bother me because every bit of resource being spent on this addition is a bit of resource that could have and should have been spent on making the RTwP game, which is THE game, even better. If they want to make a TB game, they should go and make that game (a separate new game). PoE2 was presented to me as a backer as a RTwP game, and so that's the game that PoE2-related resources should be spent improving. And yes, there are plenty more improvements and also more content additions and expansions that could be made to the game. In fact, my expectation is that future patches for the game will almost exclusively cater to the demands of the TB fans (who will surely complain very loudly about how this mode doesn't fully satisfy their preferences), and that will only add to my antipathy.

*cough* CRPD with the Witcher series was the first software company to abandon the "take their money and run" Electronic-Arts business plan--Larian came right along behind them with EE versions for D:OS and D:OS2...then definitive versions and so on. (You didn't know that Larian released the Definitive Version of D:OS 2 at the end of August '18?) InXile is doing it right now with BTIV (the upcoming patch will fundamentally change the game and make many, many improvements) and Bard's Tale Trilogy is still being worked on (BT3 has yet to ship) but I'll wager InXile has easily outsold the originals already by quite a margin--and the last game in the trilogy hasn't shipped nor has the legacy mode for all three BT titles. What a great thing--they've taken good games of yore and made them great by continuing to work on and improve them. You can bet it's put money in their pockets and will pay them dividends for years to come! Obsidian is actually late to the party, but better late than never! What's a waste is abandoning games 6-8 months after shipping them--regardless of what they need, or how they might be improved to more closely match the developers' original plans and goals for the game. What polishing, refining, and improving your games will do for a company is ensure that those titles keep returning income for many years after development ceased--D: OS 2 still regularly tops the Steam sales list--and it's all because of all the extra work and time that went into the Definitive Edition. CDPR made a fortune on their Witcher games after establishing a solid reputation for W1 and W2 through their constant refinement of those games--which are still selling today. The Software graveyard is full of games that were abandoned long before it was time--that nobody today remembers, etc. What the heck are you talking about? Please show me where Larian has added a RTwP mode for either D:OS game. I was clearly asking if Larian will be following Obsidian's example by providing a RTwP mode for D:OS2. Oh, and I own all those games you've listed except for D:OS2. No need to be patronizing.

Granted, it's easier to restrict a complex system into a turn-based one rather than going the other way around. Personally I think it speaks to the nature of most turn-based systems though. They are fine when it's an elegant and simple rule set with emergent play like chess or go. But when it's a lot of complex systems that actually narrow you into a few optimal and correct actions, where the roles of different units further restrict the intended use. Then turn-based games become extra-bottle necked by the restriction on unit movement and positioning. No amount of neat environmental interactivity and combination of spells really impresses me because at the end of the day they are just different expressions of things that affect underlying numbers and values on the field. It's why I love Advanced Wars and Into The Breach. Or even Civilization. Simpler positional mechanics with positional objectives. But I find X-Com, D:OS, and Banner Saga to be rote chores. Where position is necessary to protect your heath, and then forces you down a path of attack where the setup and arrangement of units with preordained roles narrows the players ability of choice. I'm interested to see how one of the best RTwP games fares with these heavy shackles put upon it. I've always considered RTwP a far better system when dealing with very complex stat-value based systems where positioning is also important to play. JRPGs generally do better with their complex stat-value systems when they have little to no positioning, and instead are about balancing damage and defense from a numerical perspective. Well put. The core beauty of PoE 1 and 2 is the tactical complexity and sophistication of their RTwP combat system. TB is a downgrading, a radical simplifying of that system. Combat in D:OS was the most mind-numbingly boring thing I have ever done with a computer, and that includes word processing, which is why I will not ever play D:OS2 even if the game is gifted to me.

The same thought went through my mind. I remember Sawyer posting in the old Black Isle forum way back when.

I think it is a waste of their time and resources. Don't think it will make an appreeciable difference in income for Obsidian. But let's see if the TB fans now argue for Larian following Obsidian's lead. I very much doubt it. D:OS2 is perfect as is, right? Only RTwP games need to be 'fixed' with TB mode.

http://forums.grapeocean.com/ But their forums are pretty dead. Nothing posted in months. They do provide occasional KS updates.

Wasn't one (or more) of the NwN premium modules made by Ossian? I imagine they want a good-sized cut of profits since they have nothing else going for them. So, once you pay Hasbro, then BioWare, then Ossian, then Steam, you're down to not very much at all left for Beamdog.

Also 'Black Geyser: Couriers of Darkness'.

For me almost everything you're asking for would just become tedious busy work you have to juggle. The combat is what a lot of people are here for, with dialog and plot being a secondary concern. All that other stuff is just annoyances I don't want in the way of what I'm playing for. We all have our preferences. I play these games for everything in them other than the combat, and combat is the pain-in-the-ass tedious busywork chore I have to tolerate and slog through in order to enjoy the rest of the game.

If you ask them, the answer is yes. Even the porn industry was created by aliens. It's the watch it to be entertained, see what can be great visuals of rather obscure parts of the world, want to scream out that a hypothesis is not proof, and ponder on if they just have a massive inferiority complex because humanity has apparently achieved nothing on its own, merely by the aid of something else. I also like watching this show, but @Raithe you hit it right on the head. Massive inferiority complex. The aliens are everything, we are nothing. And the cliche subtext: they are going to save us from our own stupidity. I always wonder, if we couldn't have evolved naturally and someone else had to have created us, then why not the same for the aliens? So who created them? Older and more advanced aliens? Well, take that argument all the way back and you have ... God, right?

If you ask them, the answer is yes. Even the porn industry was created by aliens. It's the watch it to be entertained, see what can be great visuals of rather obscure parts of the world, want to scream out that a hypothesis is not proof, and ponder on if they just have a massive inferiority complex because humanity has apparently achieved nothing on its own, merely by the aid of something else. I also like watching this show, but @Raithe you hit it right on the head. Massive inferiority complex. The aliens are everything, we are nothing. And the cliche subtext: they are going to save us from our own stupidity. I always wonder, if we couldn't have evolved naturally and someone else had to have created us, then why not the same for the aliens? So who created them?

Thanks all for the very helpful TW3 tips! Combat is a little better now that I've made it to level 3. But I still have great difficulty managing to attack, parry/dodge/roll, and cast signs all in very quick order. By the time I figure out what I need to do and then figure out what key I need to press to do it, I'm pretty much dead.

I doubt there is much opposition - it would just take work. Considering the stash is shared there is fairly little need for access to "unused party members". I think it would be nice to have as if you do want to transfer a weapon equipped by non-active party member it is slighly inconvenient to do. Still, I would describe it as a niche quality of life feature. They did it easily enough in NwN2. For me, and I suspect for quite a few others, it is way more than a niche quality of life feature. I find it extremely frustrating to have to keep swapping party members in and out of my party when I need to redistribute equipment, and this would rank very high on my list of things I'd want in my games.

I posted about this a couple of weeks ago but nobody seemed interested. Please don't spoil. I'm recording the episodes so I can binge-watch them all at once.

Yup, been beating this drum myself for years now. Just don't understand the opposition to giving us this.

He's actually said as much both in a post on the Beamdog forum a while back and in an interview with a gaming website in which he says he considers everything done with NwN2 to have been a bad mistake and that OE took NwN2 in the wrong direction.

So I've been playing Witcher 3 for a few days now, and while I really like the game overall, I am really hating combat even though I'm playing on the easiest setting. It is especially tiresome and painful when up against multiple enemies. Any practical combat (mechanics) tips? I'm playing on PC with keyboard and mouse.

Bro, how could you forget the classic post GB non FR D&D game Planetscape: Tournament? Thing about the FR games is that theoretically it's a pretty diverse setting, but they hardly ever use anything apart from its Tolkienesque bits like the Sword Coast and that has got really, really stale even with the dearth of recent D&D games. It would be fine- better at least- having only one 'world' if people used the other parts of that world a bit more. Huh. I always thought ToEE was set in Greyhawk. I guess not. Never played that game, obviously.

You don't have a party of companions traveling with you, but there are memorable characters that you have to visit during quests. You also get to accompany/escort certain characters during some quests. At any rate, you won't feel alone. The game has a full cast of colorful characters, each with their own story. Thank you! I went ahead and picked up the game (along with Tower of Time). Another question about TW3: I know there are a LOT of mods out there for the game. I hate having to mod my games. Are any mods absolutely essential to playing TW3? As in, without them my game will be sort of broken?

Point being, you can't really compare the D:OS series to anything. That's how unique it is, and it's the real factor to its success. It was never trying to become a spiritual successor to anything that came before, and completely succeeded in what it set out to do, a rarity in today's gaming market. One could argue that the D:OS series are barely cRPGs, but it's the closest classification that exists for a game merging tactical combat with cRPG-type exploration. I can easily see D:OS2 leading the charge for a revival of turn-based tactical combat in the near future. Or at the very least, inspiring a lot of turn-based combat systems in taking field conditions into account. You are right about this, and this is exactly why it bothers me when people try to create an equivalency between PoE2 and D:OS2 to justify their claim for a TB PoE2. D:OS2 is not an RPG. It is a TB tactical combat game with some RPG elements thrown in as a very secondary aspect of the game. And the fact that it is a tactical combat game first and foremost is why I don't care for it. As a separate note, it also bothers me greatly that some TB fans (obviously not all, but including some in this forum) have an entitlement attitude when it comes to their preference for TB over RTwP, meaning that a developer who creates a RTwP game must as an obligation include a TB option if they want their game to be considered "good", because making the game RTwP was a "mistake".