Not gonna lie.  I was very disappointed the BG3 will be TB.  However, another side to this is that forcing a company to make an entirely new kind of combat system they are not used to when they are already good at a different one is rather stupid and counterproductive.  If it's got to be TB, at least it's Larian doing it, who are among the best at doing modern TB stuff.  

On 5/8/2020 at 1:36 PM, injurai said:

I see altering the quintessential RTwP series into TB one, fundamentally different than simply offering a new TB game. Fans of RTwP enjoy plenty of other TB games. It's understandable to be annoyed at such a switch. While TB people (at least the vocals ones) are diametrically opposed to letting RTwP games just be. We saw this with Torment and again with BG.

At this point BG3 is just "A Forgotten Realms game set in Baldur's Gate." It's basically a marketing stunt to captivate new audiences off of the prestige of a series they would never actually take interest in. It's just fashion branding to be honest. So you might just say "well it wasn't ever really a BG3, let it go." And people are... but that's not how the game was spun when first being revealed, people had to attenuate to Larian's marketing garble.

When RTwP advocates get annoyed you get the following:

Yuppie trying to dismiss the merits of RTwP without engaging: "Ooh look I'm also "grognard" who likes BG, but I'm also hip and trendy who doesn't "reee" like those ugly old school grognards who can't get with the times."

At which point the actual grognard points out that the yuppie is by definition not a grognard, and the yuppie responds "See what I mean, all that ugly gatekeeping. Good riddance."

(I say this more as a yuppie millennial on the younger side myself, who prefers RTwP.)

You have hoards of people who read lengthy fantasy books who would have no problem reading all of Pillars 1 text. Then you have people who moan about an RPG actually world building before their eyes; Who get upset that the game isn't mostly strategy, but then don't want to even grok the actual tactics and strategy of the RTwP system. I enjoy TB, but I'm frankly annoyed by how the vocal TB players portray RTwP games, and further how those same people want the rich text to be chopped down. PoE1 is really not a bad lore dump, and it's like reading a graphical novel at best. This isn't Game of Thrones. Live and let live, but this should go both ways. Why is RTwP always encroached upon?

My point is vocal TB fans force preference falsification on RTwP communities, they manufacture consent, they lead devs away from the existing market base, convince devs that the market just isn't there. When in fact tons of people engage with all the aspects of narrative and tactics of these infinity-like games. At best you just need to offer an easy story mode for the few that just want story. Which Obsidian actually does! Bless them! Like, I can't imagine a more wholesome and thoughtful approach than Obsidian's, and yet you have InXile and Larian bending over backwards for people that really just prefer the flashy 3D graphics of Divinity to the flat look of Pillars. Once people actually play the games normally they cite Deadfire as being one of the most gorgeous games ever, but it looks flat in trailers. The problem is that these games can be a hard sell, especially in the manner in which the market understands marketing. How will you convince the fantasy reader to set aside FF14 and pick up Pillars when all you do is market it to people who most enjoy lighting barrels on fire to achieve sparkly dazzling easy wins, instead of DnD style tactical exploits. How do you draw in the RTS fans. How will you draw in the avid readers, the lovers of graphic novels, the lovers of visual novels? How will you make it a rich experience for grognards and new comers a like? I think Obsidian does, and mostly the issue is market exposure, not the market.

Yeah, I'm saying a lot. But it's all true. Obsidian has been doing great work at modernizing RTwP and I'd hate to see it fall the wayside. A reason enough to be skeptical of fighting a two front war.

A perfect post. Agree with every last word, especially that people being upset with BG3 specifically is completely different from people being upset with a game being TB/RTwP. Just taking Larian as an example, yes a lot of RTwP fans are angry in their BG3 threads, but no RTwP fans are angry in their D:OS threads. That's all the evidence one needs, the pontificatings of certain individuals who've appointed themselves as the grand wizards of all things on this forum not withstanding.

They went nuhuuuuts. Nutsy nutsy nutsy nuts. 

But now they cooled off. One can read the BG3 forums again without seeing a rant about TB in BG3 (or one about BG3 looking like D:OS 3) in every single thread. 

What also cooled down: "Please Larian don't push a leftist political agenda in BG3" - as if Larian ever did that in the first place. Or as if they would listen to some guys who think that everything they don't agree with is "shoving politics down their throats". 

"Grand Wizard" or not: you won't see me getting ridiculously mad about developers' decisions for a game. Obviously it's easier to be reasonable if you don't get mad. It's also a lot easier then to refrain from personal attacks.

Edited May 10, 20205 yr by Boeroer

On 5/8/2020 at 8:36 PM, injurai said:

I'm saying a lot. But it's all true.

This is such a red flag when writing down an opinion piece. Writing down ones opinions is fine. But please don't claim it's fact or "the truth". I'm also posting a lot of opinions but you'll never see me claiming that it's the unwithspoken truth.

Edited May 10, 20205 yr by Boeroer

I go with Turn-Based. To be honest, I am fine with either, but as Josh prefers turn-based, I would rather have him work on PoE that he believes is best it can be, rather then try to second guess what people who like RTwP would want to play. 

On top of that, I looked through his table top design long long time age, there was this mechanic where units with lowest initiative would commit to actions first, and go up from there which seems like a really cool concept. 

On 5/8/2020 at 6:36 PM, injurai said:

At this point BG3 is just "A Forgotten Realms game set in Baldur's Gate." It's basically a marketing stunt to captivate new audiences off of the prestige of a series they would never actually take interest in. It's just fashion branding to be honest.

I will be the devils advocate, and say it’s far too early to judge that. Oh boy, believe me, I have my doubts about BG3, but it still be a nice surprise. 

EDIT: 

Quote

My point is vocal TB fans force preference falsification on RTwP communities, they manufacture consent, they lead devs away from the existing market base, convince devs that the market just isn't there.

Larian has not expressed a desire to make RT roleplaying game. They expressed an opinion that RT combat using DnD was chasing trends at the time (Diablo), was messy and not a good match for the system. Not to mention, that introducing RT would create problems in their multiplayer oriented RPG design.

As to market... there is this big elephant in the room, and that's Larian works brutally outsell PoEs. It's not like people didn't give it a try. PoE1 sold well, PoE2 didn't. As far as the engine goes D:OS2 is pretty fantastic. Just wrapped up my playthrough today, and I can confirm that I didn't love the content but if Obsidian were still independed I would wish for them to be hired to make a sequel in that engine, like in old good KOTOR2/F:NV/NWN2 times. I think they could really killed it with D:OS2 engine at their fingertips. 

Edited May 11, 20205 yr by Wormerine

He also prefers classless. PoE only had classes because of "spiritual successor of BG" limitations. Same as RTwP (with which I'm fine). Would you also be ok with the removal of classes (and an big ability pool - with prerequisites I guess) or would that be too much?

The TTRPG changed quite a bit during the last year. I don't know if the inverse initiative is still a thing. Makes sense though. I find myself passing on my turn in Battle Brothers a lot because it's often beneficial to have the last turn - especially during phases of tactical movement.

Edited May 10, 20205 yr by Boeroer

The limited experience I've had with classless cRPGs (Shadowrun Returns and D:OS) raised doubts whether classless is all that it's cracked up to be. In both games, attempts to develop a hybrid build that was proficient in two combat styles results in a character that's bad at both. All the build guides I read recommended building your character in a way that ends up looking a lot like a class. 

That highly depends on the abilites/perks etc. available. In theory a classless system should lead to a bigger variety of builds - because everybody has access to everything. Think of a Deadfire where your character had access to all abilities of all classes. If a system pushes you to only take a certain type of abilities because else your character would suck then it sounds as if that system wasn't designed with much synergy between different abilities in mind. Or it uses a lot of deep vertical trees which also prevent good "hybrid" builds. 

Classless doesn't mean you can't have archetypes (basically a pre-defines package of values and abilites which can emulate a class - can be nice for beginners who don't understand mechanics too well yet).

 

Vertical trees were the problem in both games I mentioned. The cost of improving an ability rank was greater for each rank, which meant you couldn't diversify much without weakening yourself. I dunno how common that approach to classless systems is. 

Edited May 10, 20205 yr by Rooksx

5 hours ago, Boeroer said:

He also prefers classless. PoE only had classes because of "spiritual successor of BG" limitations. Same as RTwP (with which I'm fine). Would you also be ok with the removal of classes (and an big ability pool - with prerequisites I guess) or would that be too much?

Oh, that's a good one. I wouldn't reach for pitchfork, but there is a good chance I would like it less. In theory, I have nothing against using class-less system, though judging by previous titles I generally prefer class-system in team based games, and classless system in single character games (such as Fallout or Arcanum).

One thing I definitedly attatched to are static attributes. I dislike constantly raising attributes (like in D:OS2 or Dragon Age: Origins) - I feel they are neither interesting mechanically, and make little sense "immersion" wise. 

8 hours ago, Boeroer said:

This is such a red flag when writing down an opinion piece. Writing down ones opinions is fine. But please don't claim it's fact or "the truth". I'm also posting a lot of opinions but you'll never see me claiming that it's the unwithspoken truth.

I'm well aware of the fallacy, I wrote that as a facetious stinger to fess up to the fact I wrote such a wall of text. Because what I touch on is of existential in nature, saying "it's true that these things exist" is trivially tautological. I'm really just bringing these things into scope to defend RTwP and defend various positions held by that camp as valid, and pointing out that often you see RTwP communities being encroached upon and asked to pipe down their complaints. The whole post is a concession the the issue being one of value arguments, and that while both positions are equal depending on what you argue, I'm making the claim that RTwP gets encroached upon and the frustration of it is meet with unfair slander and unwillingness to break from the mold. The mold being the fix to RTwP is always TB, as if TB systems can't be garbage in their own right.

The whole point is simply if there is more will for TB, then so be it, but that doesn't mean that RTwP systems are simply broken cludgey unfun systems that the market is adverse to. Dragon Age is essential RTwP and receives heaps of love. It's camera and modern graphics make it a much easier sell the the audiences that are looking for a fantasy rp kick. Many beloved TB systems are actually ATB-like, or have action queue and auto-play features. Which is really not that different from RTwP other than usually a fixed grid movement scheme. I simply don't buy the value claims against RTwP. I do buy that Larian is more comfortable, and that TB might be easier to adapt 5e into on behalf of Wizards who approached them. I'm not hating on Larian, I know it wasn't put up to vote like Torment was. But the frustration from RTwP fans is absolutely valid, and the market interest is absolutely there, so TB fans defending what they won't lose is just sour when it comes down to trashing RTwP to justify something that was done for totally different reasons.

I won't say RTwP is bad. I like it. It has several advantages compared to TB and vice versa. Besides that it's all trends and circles.

I just don't think that die-hard RTwP fans behave any better than TB fans, hence my "nuts" comment. If you have the impression that TB fans are worse: it just might be that there are more of them, especially in the Larian forum. But when I look at that forum: the RTwP guys were def. the more unreasonable ones by far - which is understandable because they were mad (while TB guys got what they wanted). But still that illustrates my point: one group isn't better than the other.

 

Edited May 11, 20205 yr by Boeroer

@injurai

for real-time strategy style it would be helpful to bring back things from the past:

attacks of opportunity like in pillars or pathfinder need to go so as to make movement free and a more interesting tactical choice

change of weapons during combat should not take up time or just a fraction of time as it is now

countering needs to be more present, like why do the spiders in pathfinder not throw net and disable you so that you need free action to counter that (i would have preferred that instead of the permanent strength lowering they do – meaning your char at some point can’t carry his weapons or can’t move because of overload and dies with strength 0)

abilities overkill needs to go – you need hours during char creation to read through and decide between all abilites that are already available at level 1. The first encounters are easy fights anyway. I’d wish they were more scarce but impactful. Sure, in Bg2, fighters could have got whirlwind attack sooner and there could have been a couple more abilities available in the game but they didn’t crowd your interface and it felt special to use them.

As a side note, i’d wish i could zoom out more in pathfinder; also the chars blend with the (sometimes) dark background so i can’t tell them apart that well.

Other than that the story so far is very good in pathfinder and motivates to carry on. Like also the scripted interactions from both pillars and pathfinder.

It's somewhat odd that people would so vociferously object to BG3 being turn-based given that the underlying DnD system is TB. Suspect that they've donned their rose-tinted spectacles and are forgetting that the BG games constantly betrayed the fact that they're not truly RT in an awkward way. Order your party member to attack. He moves to the enemy, then just stands there doing nothing. After a few seconds he starts attacking. It always looked so weird and would make me wonder for a bit if the 'attack' command hadn't worked, all because in a supposedly RT game everyone has to literally wait their turn before doing anything. 

The only trouble I feel about BG3 being a TB 3D game with some similarities with D:OS is that it's called "Baldur's Gate". I feel that they are using the old holy name for marketing purpose.

At first glance, they seem to be making a great game, so it's OK. Making great DnD-based games is totally fine. If they do with their own skills, it's even better. TB, RTwP, it doesn't really matter for me. In addition, BG combat system grew old, very old, so it's probably better to move on.

However, what they are doing is no more "Baldur's Gate" than Neverwinter Nights serie. That's the problem. So I still feel they are a bit robbing the "Baldur's Gate" name.

But they put Dragon riding Githyankis in the trailer for an epic "lesser evil" rescue, and this is enough for me to forgive them.

22 minutes ago, Elric Galad said:

 In addition, BG combat system grew old, very old, so it's probably better to move on.
 

beamdog is basically living on bringing the old IE games to modern pc-s, so... (though hardly anybody asked them to change the ui and introduce chars that are out of place but that's another story)

59 minutes ago, 4ward said:

beamdog is basically living on bringing the old IE games to modern pc-s, so... (though hardly anybody asked them to change the ui and introduce chars that are out of place but that's another story)

The fact the I still play them because of nostalgia is kind of different of my expectations for a newer game.

Just finished a IWD:EE run and I was cursing the Druid spell list for being so meh compared to PoE (and they are better in IWD than BG !)

Edited May 11, 20205 yr by Elric Galad

I also played IWD EE and enjoyed it - but I wouldn't want those mechanics in any contemporary CRPG.

21 hours ago, Wormerine said:

To be honest, I am fine with either, but as Josh prefers turn-based, I would rather have him work on PoE that he believes is best it can be, rather then try to second guess what people who like RTwP would want to play.

I have stated on many occasions how much respect I have for Josh, but as far as PoE goes I actually think it would be better if Josh walked away from PoE and left it to someone else to take the lead on any future PoE game. I think Josh is an extremely talented game designer, and clearly very passionate about his craft. But I disagree with him on many of his preferences for game design.

I'm in favour of both modes -- it's like two games for the price of one! Buuuut, if I really had to choose, I'd go with RTwP, because it spares you from wasting time on trash encounters and I find that preferable to easier in TB boss fights. 

8 hours ago, Elric Galad said:

However, what they are doing is no more "Baldur's Gate" than Neverwinter Nights serie. That's the problem. So I still feel they are a bit robbing the "Baldur's Gate" name.

Upside is that using the BG name easily hooks people. Downside is that some people feel gypped when they don't get whatever they were expecting out of a game that bears the hallowed name. Upside could outweigh the downside. 

Gamers do need to be a bit more realistic out of what to expect from a modern RPG game though. BG2 was a product of its time. A replica that meets contemporary technical expectations is unlikely to be economic, or even desirable. 

1 hour ago, kanisatha said:

I have stated on many occasions how much respect I have for Josh, but as far as PoE goes I actually think it would be better if Josh walked away from PoE and left it to someone else to take the lead on any future PoE game. I think Josh is an extremely talented game designer, and clearly very passionate about his craft. But I disagree with him on many of his preferences for game design.

After that talk about dialogue, I'd actually like to see Josh take on a role primarily as the dialogue and relations designer. Focusing on the writing, characters, and world/lore. It would be nice if he was back in the seat largely as a creative lead, and someone else took on the role of directing, and maybe some fresh blood in designing combat as well.

The Civ games have a new designer for each game, and the cite the reason being fresh eyes contribute more. Pillars could benefit from the same, but I think Josh still has a lot to add. Especially with his history background, and fact lots of this worlds lore, setting, and themeing comes from him.

1 hour ago, Rooksx said:

Upside is that using the BG name easily hooks people. Downside is that some people feel gypped when they don't get whatever they were expecting out of a game that bears the hallowed name. Upside could outweigh the downside. 

Gamers do need to be a bit more realistic out of what to expect from a modern RPG game though. BG2 was a product of its time. A replica that meets contemporary technical expectations is unlikely to be economic, or even desirable. 

PoE2 fullfills this definition well enough for me. And if a couple of bad decisions (main story, ship battle) have been made during developpent, that's not a problem of budget.

That is also why I feel a "true BG3" would be unecessary for me. I'd rather go with a fresh game, DnD Lore why not (Planescapish preferrably, I Hope so much that BG3 is going to bring us to a Gith city.).

That said, calling what they do BG3 still feels cheesy.

4 hours ago, injurai said:

After that talk about dialogue, I'd actually like to see Josh take on a role primarily as the dialogue and relations designer. Focusing on the writing, characters, and world/lore. It would be nice if he was back in the seat largely as a creative lead, and someone else took on the role of directing, and maybe some fresh blood in designing combat as well.

The Civ games have a new designer for each game, and the cite the reason being fresh eyes contribute more. Pillars could benefit from the same, but I think Josh still has a lot to add. Especially with his history background, and fact lots of this worlds lore, setting, and themeing comes from him.

Well, correct me if this is not true, but my understanding is that for both PoE games the DLCs had someone other than Josh being the lead on making them. And for me, for both games, the DLCs were significantly better than the base game. My personal opinion, but just saying. Obsidian has a lot of very talented individuals who have the chops to be project lead. Having Josh be the overall creative director of the studio is perfect. But someone else can and should be project lead on a PoE3.