Baldur's Gate 3 - the 2nd thread

[213374U]

Just now, xzar_monty said:

But surely the fact of mindless filler combat is a feature of encounter design, not a question of TB vs. RTwP.

For instance, PoE and the White March in particular was full of mindless filler combat, but that was due to poor design, it had nothing to do with RTwP. In Deadfire, an awful lot of filler combat was cut out. Less encounters, a much better gaming design.

It's also possible that I misunderstood what you mean, in which case, please correct.

I haven't played Deadfire, so I'll take your word for it. If so, it's another reason why it's a pity that the game didn't outsell its predecessor.

I'm talking about my experience with RTwP and TB games, but you are right, this is just anecdote aggregation and doesn't prove a necessary consequence of RTwP as a system, per se. Padding of one kind of another is present in most genres, after all.

[Chilloutman]

1 hour ago, xzar_monty said:

Of course they are. Did you actually read what I wrote? I wrote that cRPG characters are not toy soldiers, like chess pieces are. They are representations of people, and we can all see them happily walking around the map. That's the point where your forced analogy to chess breaks down.

Again, chess is a great game, but the analogy is not helpful.

Those guys casting fireballs and resisting lightning are literally toy soldiers on battle map.

[Zoraptor]

They are toy soldiers on a battle map, when in combat and in computer RPGs. In D&D overall though they're meant to be more than chess pieces, they are meant to have personalities and skills beyond that. You can't get a chaotic evil pawn that decides it would be fun to kill his own side's queen because she's a bit snooty, obviously has money, and tried to get him killed...

[algroth]

26 minutes ago, Chilloutman said:

yet your argument made no sense, chess pieces are literally wooden toy soldiers on battle map. Its basically 1 to 1 with combat in CRPGs. In game characters are not humans either

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.

Edited March 2, 2020 by algroth

[Chilloutman]

1 hour ago, Zoraptor said:

They are toy soldiers on a battle map, when in combat and in computer RPGs. In D&D overall though they're meant to be more than chess pieces, they are meant to have personalities and skills beyond that. You can't get a chaotic evil pawn that decides it would be fun to kill his own side's queen because she's a bit snooty, obviously has money, and tried to get him killed...

yup but even in that scenario you have to roll a attack dice if you hit, it still follow same combat rules

[Chilloutman]

again you just use straw man arguments. There were TB video games for decades, but somehow its seems inconvenient for you. If you want another analogy its like comparing chess to table football. Both are completely viable forms of entertainment but one requires much more reflexes and other more strategy. Its same old story of tactics vs strategy. If you prefer reflex based games its fine by me, but calling TB clunky or tedious is irrational and in MY opinion just plain wrong and stupid.

 

Again some people enjoy that was you call  inconvenient any than you apply your logic on whole genre of games.

Edited March 2, 2020 by Chilloutman

[algroth]

Just now, Chilloutman said:

again you just use straw man arguments. There were TB video games for decades, but somehow not it seems inconvenient for sum it seems. If you want another analogy its like comparing chess to table football. Both are completely viable forms of entertainment but one requires much more reflexes and other more strategy. Its same old story of tactics vs strategy. If you prefer reflex based games its fine by me, but calling TB clunky or tedious is irrational and in MY opinion just plain wrong and stupid.

 

Again some people enjoy that was you call  inconvenient any than you apply your logic on whole genre of games.

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.

[Chilloutman]

whats that specific criticism?

[algroth]

8 minutes ago, Chilloutman said:

whats that specific criticism?

Read what we wrote in the previous page.

[Chilloutman]

yeah all i read is ¨I don´t like TB because I like real time more¨. And then some pseudointelectual mumbo jumbo about game being medium not suited for TB for some reason. Its just opinions, nothing else

[213374U]

20 minutes ago, algroth said:

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.

I don't know about that. It is a D&D game, and that system is designed to work in turns. The adaption of AD&D in BG/2 with its RTwP system had problems that wouldn't have existed if it had been a turn-based game. Things like "weapon speed" allowing you to move in, stab and get out before the fool with the halberd could hit back were never intended to happen in p&p. Haste shenanigans. Fake attack animations. LoS causing spell failure. Etc.

So while "doing things this way because they have previously been done thus" may not a very compelling argument, doing them that way because that's how they were originally designed to work is both objective and concrete.

Edited March 2, 2020 by 213374U

[Judicator]

1 hour ago, 213374U said:

I find it strange that people say that TB breaks immersion, is artificial or whatever, but RT with pause is fine. I mean, it's essentially the same contrivance, except that you mostly leave it on autopilot until the NPC script ****s up. Then you pause, correct and re-engage auto-pilot. Either that or you furiously micromanage your 4- or 6-man party, issuing new instructions every time a character finishes their current action, turning the game into a micro turn spacebar-mashing fiesta.

Disagree. RTwP is objectively faster and feels more "realistic". Also, you don't have to pause all the time. Melee characters don't need much micromanagement so you can focus on the spell casters.

[213374U]

I'm not going to get into what "feels" more "realistic". To me, both feel equally contrived.

And if melees don't need much micro, then that means their gameplay potential is wasted because you're just pointing them in a general direction and letting them autoattack. Which to me, "feels" "boring".

[Judicator]

Just now, 213374U said:

I'm not going to get into what "feels" more "realistic". To me, both feel equally contrived.

And if melees don't need much micro, then that means their gameplay potential is wasted because you're just pointing them in a general direction and letting them autoattack. Which to me, "feels" "boring".

Why? They do the same thing in turn based combat.

[213374U]

Pretty sure that the Warfare tree had as many skills as any of the magic ones.

[algroth]

Just now, 213374U said:

I don't know about that. It is a D&D game, and that system is designed to work in turns. The adaption of AD&D in BG/2 with its RTwP system had problems that wouldn't have existed if it had been a turn-based game. Things like "weapon speed" allowing you to move in, stab and get out before the fool with the halberd could hit back were never intended to happen in p&p. Haste shenanigans. Fake attack animations. LoS causing spell failure. Etc.

So while "doing things this way because they have previously been done thus" may not a very compelling argument, doing them that way because that's how they were originally designed to work is both objective and concrete.

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.

1 hour ago, 213374U said:

I find it strange that people say that TB breaks immersion, is artificial or whatever, but RT with pause is fine. I mean, it's essentially the same contrivance, except that you mostly leave it on autopilot until the NPC script ****s up. Then you pause, correct and re-engage auto-pilot. Either that or you furiously micromanage your 4- or 6-man party, issuing new instructions every time a character finishes their current action, turning the game into a micro turn spacebar-mashing fiesta.

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.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Eh, being able to stop time and mind control people who are one offhand comment from leaving the party isn't any more believable to me than everybody pausing (except for reactions) while a skinny nerd waves his hands around to hit them with a ball of fire. I prefer turn-based because I prefer slower paced combat and dislike the micro in late game rtwp games that inevitably gets ****ed up by any ai.

[Zoraptor]

I've often- well, occasionally, if a bit bored and thinking vaguely on the subject of game combat systems- wondered if a WeGo system would work well for D&D type games. ie you do the planning for each character as if they were operating in a turn but the turns all execute/ resolve 'simultaneously'. In theory that would allow for the detailed planning possible in a TB system without the potential slowness involved in waiting for 20 rats to each take their turn crawling and mostly missing their 20 individually animated attacks.

(The answer is probably it wouldn't work well for D&D, but I'd like to see someone try at some point. And yeah, in theory that is more or less what Infinity Engine RTwP was with the pause at round end option selected)

[Wormerine]

9 hours ago, IndiraLightfoot said:

-8 classes (a bit skimpy? I'm not into 5th ed, so I wouldn't know.).

Is that total, or what comes in Early Access? I remember that it will launch with only few classes, and the rest will be added later.

EDIT. From gameplay video it sounds like they are launching with 6 classes and 9 races.

EDIT2. Quick google suggest that the game is to come to early access with 8 classes and 15 races and add the rest later.

EDIT3. Another search says something else 

Edited March 2, 2020 by Wormerine

[ComradeYellow]

Classes and Races are what makes an RPG fantastic. As a white male of the working class I would know.

[213374U]

55 minutes ago, algroth said:

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.

You're saying that shortcomings when adapting a tabletop ruleset to a real-time computer environment should be corrected, even if it means deviating from the original ruleset — I agree. However, this starts from the premise that such adaption is necessary, because your subjective preference is for real-time, rather than it being an imposition of the medium. I don't agree with that premise.

If the system works well turn-based, there is no need to adapt it to work well in real time because there is no need for the game to play in real time. Of course, if we must have a real-time CRPG, it is better to use a ruleset that is built from the ground up with the understanding that it will be used in a real time environment. But this is not PoE 3.

Edited March 2, 2020 by 213374U

[algroth]

6 minutes ago, 213374U said:

You're saying that shortcomings when adapting a tabletop ruleset to a real-time computer environment should be corrected, even if it means deviating from the original ruleset — I agree. However, this starts from the premise that such adaption is necessary, because your subjective preference is for real-time, rather than it being an imposition of the medium. I don't agree with that premise.

If the system works well turn-based, there is no need to adapt it to work well in real time because there is no need for the game to play in real time. Of course, if we must have a real-time CRPG, it is better to use a ruleset that is built from the ground up with the understanding that it will be used in a real time environment. But this is not PoE 3.

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.

[Skarpen]

Let's be real there isn't a single game in existence where RtwP combat is any good.

[ShadySands]

If warlocks are in then I might pick this up after all

[Judicator]

10 hours ago, 213374U said:

Pretty sure that the Warfare tree had as many skills as any of the magic ones.

I'm not familiar with 5e, so I'll take your word for it.