Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[itisnotlogical]

One of the biggest downfalls of Infinity and Aurora engine games for me was real-time-with-pause, so turn based is very welcome in my opinion. RTWP is just the worst of all worlds and I never feel like I'm in control of my characters.

[scriver]

So I got around to watching the reveal instead of just reading about it and I have mixed feelings. Some things are great and some things are greatly bad.

As I already mentioned: party initiatives and turns. Awful. Just awful. Makes TB combat a whole lot less interesting and removes a lot of the tactical depth. Makes the combat system and AI less challenging and much easier to cheese. Do not want. Don't understand why this was the part they had to change from their D:OS games. It was, like, the one good part about their system.

D:OS2 pre-made character style characters. Awful. Do not want. Pls remove. Don't make me feel like I have to be playing one of the GM's awful super original charactee do not steal pre-made characters to have any connection to the plot or world instead of being able to freely make my own, like in a real RPG.

Halflings -- just the fuck what even why do people always have to ruin halflings. Why can't they just look good.

Verticality/area design -- absolutely love what was showcased. I hope that's actually a through-going design and not just something made go look good for the initial phase of the game. It's absolutely something that's been missing from RPGs as of the last 10-15 years and I can't stress enough how much I want this kind of design thinking to make a comeback in place of boring flat corridor areas.

Art is just stunningly beautiful. I definitely think it feels more like Dragon Age: Origins than Baldur's Gate, but it looks good as shit. I'm not sure I will be able to run this on my computer, but I sure hope I can.

[Exerosp]

It's confusing that games like the Owlcat's pathfinder people want it turn based, but with Baldur's Gate they want it RTWP or however it's spelled.
I enjoyed Divinity 2 though so i'll enjoy BG3. I understand people feeling the combat is way too different compared to BG1 & 2 though. Valid complaint.

[scriver]

I, as somebody who enjoys both TB and RTwP but prefers TB, think that rpg fan base is pretty fairly divided into these two camps and both have very vocal people. Hence you can't make either without upsetting the fans of the other and they will make a mess.

[Iduno]

Larian's previous offerings have convinced me that I really can't be bothered with the tedium of carving through an entire RPG's worth of monsters one unit, one turn at a time.

Most of the fights don't take more than 1-2 hours. Each.

[Dunamisdeos]

I remember Divinity had pre-made characters and also the ability to make your own. I assume they've done the same thing here? After all,  that's how you accidentally get explicit scenes involving black dwarf on 7-foot tall crimson lizardman gay casual sex.

Not a fan of party initiative either, but it's not a dealbreaker for me. It does seem like it would be really, really easy to just sort of get unavoidably one-rounded.

[scriver]

I remember Divinity had pre-made characters and also the ability to make your own. I assume they've done the same thing here? After all,  that's how you accidentally get explicit scenes involving black dwarf on 7-foot tall crimson lizardman gay casual sex.

I know, the thing is that their pre-makes get special content and that feels like they're shitting on you for not playing one of their characters. It feels as if you show up to game day with your kewl character you want to play and the GM hands you a bunch of not-your character sheets and say "here, choose one of these instead. I mean, you can still use your character, but they're not going to have any plot relevance or integration whatsoever".

Not a fan of party initiative either, but it's not a dealbreaker for me. It does seem like it would be really, really easy to just sort of get unavoidably one-rounded.

None of it are dealbreakers for me either

[Iduno]

Not a fan of party initiative either, but it's not a dealbreaker for me. It does seem like it would be really, really easy to just sort of get unavoidably one-rounded.

I think you're underestimating just how many HP everything has. You're unlikely to one-shot a kobold anymore.

[ChairmanPoo]

I remember Divinity had pre-made characters and also the ability to make your own. I assume they've done the same thing here? After all,  that's how you accidentally get explicit scenes involving black dwarf on 7-foot tall crimson lizardman gay casual sex.

I know, the thing is that their pre-makes get special content and that feels like they're shitting on you for not playing one of their characters. It feels as if you show up to game day with your kewl character you want to play and the GM hands you a bunch of not-your character sheets and say "here, choose one of these instead. I mean, you can still use your character, but they're not going to have any plot relevance or integration whatsoever".

Not a fan of party initiative either, but it's not a dealbreaker for me. It does seem like it would be really, really easy to just sort of get unavoidably one-rounded.

None of it are dealbreakers for me either

Isnt Pathfinder Kingmaker kind of the same there?


Tbh: I think the Varnhold Lot approach was better, with a couple of core characters, and other fully customizable ones. I enjoyed a lot doing a "ragtag bunch of misfits"

[Dunamisdeos]

I mean I watched the gameplay.

The guy doing it died in the first fight of the game.

Also, I don't see the problem with having pre-made characters in there. It's not a competition between their characters and your own custom one. You can either play through the game with those characters because their stories interest you, or not. That's like saying "The other characters in Dragon Age shouldn't have fleshed out backstory because all I get is the main story".

I always made my own character and then brought one along as a companion. Always felt like that's what it was for anyway.

[scriver]

I remember Divinity had pre-made characters and also the ability to make your own. I assume they've done the same thing here? After all,  that's how you accidentally get explicit scenes involving black dwarf on 7-foot tall crimson lizardman gay casual sex.

I know, the thing is that their pre-makes get special content and that feels like they're shitting on you for not playing one of their characters. It feels as if you show up to game day with your kewl character you want to play and the GM hands you a bunch of not-your character sheets and say "here, choose one of these instead. I mean, you can still use your character, but they're not going to have any plot relevance or integration whatsoever".

Not a fan of party initiative either, but it's not a dealbreaker for me. It does seem like it would be really, really easy to just sort of get unavoidably one-rounded.

None of it are dealbreakers for me either

Isnt Pathfinder Kingmaker kind of the same there?

Not at all. What makes you think that,

[birdy51]

I'm very much interested in this game, but I have grave doubts about my laptop ever being able to run it. I plan to try to buy a proper PC at some point, but that's not in the cards for at least a few years due to space issues. : (

[Nighthawk]

As I already mentioned: party initiatives and turns. Awful. Just awful. Makes TB combat a whole lot less interesting and removes a lot of the tactical depth. Makes the combat system and AI less challenging and much easier to cheese. Do not want. Don't understand why this was the part they had to change from their D:OS games. It was, like, the one good part about their system.

It may make the game a little easier and a little messier, but I think it's for the best, mainly because it's a godsend for multiplayer. Instead of DOS(2)'s frankly exhausting "wait your turn to move" setup, you can take an action as soon as you're ready. Four people can theoretically take actions four times quicker, and the emphasis is placed on planning and teamwork.

There are plenty of ways to introduce challenge into a game with a group initiative system, and arguably group initiative makes the game deeper in some ways because you have more options at any given time. I don't see any need to be too worried over this change.

[scriver]

Don't pretend to have friends that you have fun with, friends are a myth

[delphonso]

I guess the point really is, with either style of turn-based, players want some level of complexity that is complimented by that style. DnD is built around mixed turns, so if it's a straight transfer of those rules, some things would work well, and others would be totally useless.