You deal with trash mobs faster. You fix this by design, typically the turn-based games that Larian makes have a lot less trash mobs.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Baldur's Gate 3 - Worldwide reveal stream - VOD available
- Thread starter Tovarisc
- Start date
Didn't they cancel the DA4? And according to rumors because it didn't have live multiplayer hooks, aka chasing that elusive mass market that will probably leave whatever new iteration of it boring.
Modern D&D doesn't really put you into trouble just because of a bad roll. But if you rely on the master to ignore dice results and keep characters alive... well that's bad.
In theory a tabletop game isn't more deadly on a computer than it is when played with a master. The numbers are the same, and it's not the job of the master to break rules just because it comforts the party. It's kind of cheesy.
I guess you mean in tabletop you can "roleplay" your way around a problem by doing something not explicitly written in the rules. Although that's more old school approach that isn't widespread now.
The original DA4 they were developing was "cancelled." They then restarted development. DA4 is being developed now and the last game in the series was a huge success.
Saying the series is on life support is wrong.
I was expecting real time combat given the IP, but I couldn't be happier that it's turn based =D
I made a thread last year about discovering solo modes for CRPGs, where you refuse or kill any potential companions, and how it finally opened the genre up to me being a huge solo RPG fan (TES, Fallout, ARPGs like Diablo). Divinity OS2 quickly became my favourite of the bunch out there due to the combat system, so I'm really happy to see that gameplay being transferred to a more "serious" setting and story.
I made a thread last year about discovering solo modes for CRPGs, where you refuse or kill any potential companions, and how it finally opened the genre up to me being a huge solo RPG fan (TES, Fallout, ARPGs like Diablo). Divinity OS2 quickly became my favourite of the bunch out there due to the combat system, so I'm really happy to see that gameplay being transferred to a more "serious" setting and story.
Those are Githyanki! Githzerai are the Gith faction with monks (and if I remember well, at war with the Githyanki).
THEY ARE ALL GREEN TO ME.
I always forget which one is which. So racist.
Role play is an old school approach... In a role playing game? In D&D, combat is often the last resort, as the high stakes of it means you'd rather get out of it through other means. And when combat do start, you can approach each situation in infinite ways, and you often should do that you're not in the mercy of the dice.
If that's not how you play D&D, I suggest getting better groups... Or playing Dungeon World.
Also, I don't TB fans coming just to say RTwP sucks. First, subjective, second - you won, OK? There are no more RTwP games anywhere, the market is with you! So can you all at least not be assholes about it for those of us who are actually fans of the original BGs...?
Actually, the more we get close ups and detailed graphic, the more it becomes antithetic to how a tabletop system works. So it's true that it looks wonky. It's the concept that is inherently flawed.
If combat is represented in full detail, from a closer point of view, then this goes straight against the concept of "abstracting it." Animations don't look good. You expect action but there's none, there are no parries and other moves.
It all works from a top down perspective, like the original BG, because you ARE detached from the action. The camera being distant from the action is coherent with the abstraction you have in combat.
But then if you go down in a closer perspective you aren't looking anymore to an abstract representation, you're looking into the action, and it doesn't look as much coherent.
It's like in Morrowind there were to-hit rolls, so you'd swing your weapon but "miss" even if your sword went right through the enemy model.
If combat is represented in full detail, from a closer point of view, then this goes straight against the concept of "abstracting it." Animations don't look good. You expect action but there's none, there are no parries and other moves.
It all works from a top down perspective, like the original BG, because you ARE detached from the action. The camera being distant from the action is coherent with the abstraction you have in combat.
But then if you go down in a closer perspective you aren't looking anymore to an abstract representation, you're looking into the action, and it doesn't look as much coherent.
It's like in Morrowind there were to-hit rolls, so you'd swing your weapon but "miss" even if your sword went right through the enemy model.
That's extremely lame, I'll just ignore it completely.
Figured this was the case - well, it's obviously the case - but it's nice to get confirmation. As much as I enjoyed DOS2 too, BG3 needs its own visual identity.
Wasn't Dragon Age Inquisition, like, the biggest commercial success that Bioware has had?
"Avoiding combat" isn't some sort of special quality that requires a master but is not possible in a computer game.
I meant being in combat and "inventing" a type of action not explicitly covered by rules.
And once again, you aren't at the mercy of the dice, like, ever. Modern style games like D&D5 are built around the illusion of danger. Old school was a lot more deadly. Gygax enjoyed finding creative ways to slaughter parties. Traps and then more traps. These days you have precise formulas so that you aren't supposed to meet any problem that you aren't statistically guaranteed to solve.
Random rolls are used to keep things varied and fresh, not to make a game inherently harder.
If a game uses critical rolls so that an enemy may roll a 01 and decapitate your character in one action, that's both deadly and random. But it's not a consequence of random rolls, it's a consequence of that system including actions that kill in one hit. D&D doesn't have critical hits even if it uses randomness, and it uses it within a system where in pretty much all cases "pure chance" only has mild effects and is not the major factor (and so the combat gets more tactical, rather than based on luck).
Also, removing randomness you obtain a "puzzle": a problem with one best solution. Once you have the solution you can then use it in all similar cases, because it's guaranteed to work. Only in a game like Dark Souls where you control directly the movement you don't need strict randomness, since you're dealing with the problem directly, and it is all about execution.
You either have action combat, or you have randomness.
Last edited:
How did you fare in DOS2? I've been meaning to restart the game (I've never gotten even close to finishing the game), but there's too much micromanagement with a full party. Maybe doing a solo run would make it more palatable.
Started playing DnD earlier this year and by far the most enjoyable part is the storytelling aspects, and from the gameplay footage they've nailed the presentation of that side of things, so I'm excited. Couldn't really care less how the combat is presented tbh
This is a point that should be really stressed more.
Even if you had mixed feelings about the pros and cons of turn-based compared to real-time, it's not a given at all that Larian could even come up with something decent as a RTWP combat system, while they are more than tested enough on the turn-based tactic.
By the way, I also believe that the opposition of "real time" and "turn based" is entirely misleading.
What people felt in BG's "real time" combat wasn't a feature of it being real time. It's just that the game was set so easy that it let you powerlevel and then steamroll through everything by just clicking on enemies and only pausing to toss the occasional spell. It's a matter of being able to IGNORE the tactical aspect because the game was forgiving.
In fact I remember a few occasions, especially in other games, where the real time aspect was extremely annoying since you had to time perfectly everything at every step.
Larian could very easily implement real time, because it's really the same thing: you just need to assign actions a duration. The only system that needs slightly more work is initiative, but that's also easily done. The difference between real time and turn based is essentially "interface."
On the other hand, people who play in real time DON'T WANT a game that requires CONSTANT pausing. That's annoying. So a real time game is usually set to pose much less challenge, so that it is more forgiving and doesn't require precise control at all times.
So, it's a matter of difficulty more than it's a matter of game mechanics.
What people felt in BG's "real time" combat wasn't a feature of it being real time. It's just that the game was set so easy that it let you powerlevel and then steamroll through everything by just clicking on enemies and only pausing to toss the occasional spell. It's a matter of being able to IGNORE the tactical aspect because the game was forgiving.
In fact I remember a few occasions, especially in other games, where the real time aspect was extremely annoying since you had to time perfectly everything at every step.
Larian could very easily implement real time, because it's really the same thing: you just need to assign actions a duration. The only system that needs slightly more work is initiative, but that's also easily done. The difference between real time and turn based is essentially "interface."
On the other hand, people who play in real time DON'T WANT a game that requires CONSTANT pausing. That's annoying. So a real time game is usually set to pose much less challenge, so that it is more forgiving and doesn't require precise control at all times.
So, it's a matter of difficulty more than it's a matter of game mechanics.
After I finished BG1+2 recently, I did some digging on the series and completely regret learning the existence of the books version of the games.
In reddit I see comments wishing the game developed by Obsidian instead.
If I were WoTC I would pick Larian too, makes more sense from business perspective.
After POE 2 and Outer Worlds I'm not sure if I would want to see Obsidian do BG 3. I think Larian has stronger writing team atm even if their writing, at least with DOS games, is bit more colorful.
Especially POE2 was.... :|
In an ideal world, I think BG3 would've been given to Obsidian(I really enjoyed PoE 1 & 2) and Larian would've spearheaded another D&D 5E game set elsewhere in the Forgotten Realms that played to their strengths. I'd probably enjoy the Larian game more(I prefer turn based), but I feel sorta bad for diehard BG fans who wanted a 3rd game that played like the originals.
Last edited:
Agreed. I like what I see, but I feel Obsidian would have been a better fit for a traditional BG game than Larian.
Larian: Turn-based, better writing
Obsidian: RTwP, worse writing
What makes a good BG? RTwP combat or the writing? Pick your poison.
Same.
I had fun plalying PoE2, tbh. I had a good time, but I often felt that something was lacking. That it could've been so much more.
DOS2 just felt much nicer, and I trust Larian to create a product that's better than the potential Obsidian alternative.
I wouldn't say Larian is necessarily better at writing than Obsidian. The story isn't the strongest part of D:OS. Larian are better at creating a fun game though.
I see what you're saying. I think there's plenty of run to be had from failures in the digital format as well. Enemies critically failing stuff is always hilarious. I love this kind of emergent stuff. If you get screwed too bad you can just reload.
Obsidian had two chances to come up with a competent BG successor and they more or less botched both.
I'm more than willing to give Larian a try at this point.
Even in the worst case scenario, it will be an absolutely robust product, with chances of greatness.
And no, I don't "feel bad for the old school fans of the series" since I'd count myself as one.
I'm more than willing to give Larian a try at this point.
Even in the worst case scenario, it will be an absolutely robust product, with chances of greatness.
And no, I don't "feel bad for the old school fans of the series" since I'd count myself as one.
I guess I just don't care about the name "Baldur's Gate." I mean, I liked the originals... And I am happy with how it ended. I just don't get why Larian is using the name and setting of Baldur's Gate when they could've made a whole new series in a fresh part of the Forgotten Realms without all of the baggage of making a sequel to a series that ended satisfactorily 20 years ago. Well, actually I do get why: marketing.
Anyways, I was just thinking out loud. I am super excited for this game. It's exactly what I want(turn based D&D 5e game). I just think using the BG3 name is probably a double-edged sword.
Larian is the absolute perfect fit for a new BG game. They are a breath of fresh air in almost all systems they do for their games. Just that little thing where you could break the arch so it fell and made a hole in the ground you could use to take a shortcut to the dungeon, or looting the bows from the undead warriors that would rise shows how fresh their ideas are regarding RPG systems.
This is actually what i didnt like, he played well, he understanded the rules as he is a main dev there, and yet, he was party wiped becuase the 90% dice rolls failed.
Fuck that nonsense. Percentages never should be mathematical exact, 90% for a human brain means it should hit nearly every time and maybe miss once in a blue moon. We already have had tons of devs talking about this in GDC, saying they have to tweak how percentages are perceived to not be realistic becuase people hate complete randomness. And yet, just in this video, we have this in full force, becuase i suppose its using real dice numbers. Dice numbers are fun when you are playing with real life people, in a group, and you can laugh about outcomes. Against an AI, alone, its trash game design.
Everything else is great, but that part make me want not to waste my time with this game, and thats sad becuase I love Larian games. I hope is tweaked, it didnt felt as trash in the DoS games.
The novelizations of BG were booted from canon at some point, they have numerous things that directly contradict them now (and in fact I'm not sure Abdel Adrian and Charname are actually meant to be the same person anymore).
Ew. Fuck no. If you need that, maybe get some mod to modify percentages, but I want to be able to miss a 99% chance, and I want to be able to win a 1% chance. Why would I want to get numbers that don't accurately tell me the chances?
Have they said anything about additional companions other than the origin characters ( that i guess are all infected by tadpoles)?
I didn't know people loved Baldur's Gate for the RTWP and not for story, companions, quest design and lore.
Seeing a lot of people being pissed because it's Turn Based and it's not "Baldur's Gate III" ONLY because the combat is different is really weird, really, really weird.
Seeing a lot of people being pissed because it's Turn Based and it's not "Baldur's Gate III" ONLY because the combat is different is really weird, really, really weird.
You mean like, people you meet along the way? I could see those existing, but probably not as heavily involved in the story? Maybe? Although they certainly could be, I guess.
...that's exactly what happened. That's what a mathematical 90% chance to hit means - a hit nearly every time, and then we saw that blue moon occurrence of a miss. This is a very confusing complaint.