Baldur's Gate RTwP vs TB in Baldur's Gate 3 - Discuss!

[adddeed]

Turn based combat is tame and boring. Real time with paus makes battles feel more like battles (ie clusterfuck of combatants with spakrs flying and crap like that). Also makes you make minute b minute decision and change strategy on the fly.
Turn based is to much like chess.

 

[DalekFlay]

I prefer turn-based and don't care what the name on the title screen is.

 

[mondblut]

In the late 1990s, I mostly played Diablo and Command & Conquer games and felt completely indifferent towards pretty much all TB games.

And nothing of value was lost.

I bought BG only because it was RTwP, believe it or not.

Oh, we do believe.

RTwP made the IE games dumbed down for casuals

...right.

 

[hell bovine]

1) RTwP is bad because the baldur's gate manual contained incorrect information, or was that an unconnected example?
2) You don't have to have perfect clarity of knowledge to understand what is happening. Ask a professional at any sport the physics underlying how they do what they do and most won't be able to give you the basics, that doesn't mean they don't understand what they're doing in a relevant sense. Most info in BG is clear enough for a teenager to pick up (a +1 sword adds +1 to your attack roll, something with lower AC makes you harder to hit, this spell does that, when you get hit while casting a spell you have a chance to be interrupted, etc.).

That's the point: you need only a very shallow understanding of the mechanics to be competent in BG, because combat is so easy. What you complain about in turn based is, ironically, true for BG: the game is easy mode by default. Becuse any complicated maneuvers involving positioning & character movement? The computer is always sabotaged the most in rtwp. The player can at least hit the spacebar and reissue orders (unfun as it is having to guide your characters around their own feet), but the computer can't. So you end up with 'great design' like enemy thieves backstabbing your characters in the face, to make up for the fact that they can't position themselves in battle in BG.

 

[Achilles]

I don't understand why we still treat RTwP troglodytes as real people.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

DOS1 & 2 on Tactician are far harder than any RTwP game I've played on any difficulty.
A major benefit of turn-based combat is that it allows for much "better"(computationally complex) AI.

 

[NJClaw]

Being able to easily win battles doesn't mean you understand the combat mechanics; it just means that the game is so easy you can win with left-click and autoattack. Take for example the initiative/weapon speed/attacks in a round debate that has been going on for years. It's because a) the manual says one thing and b) the game does another while failing to provide relevant information.

1) RTwP is bad because the baldur's gate manual contained incorrect information, or was that an unconnected example?
2) You don't have to have perfect clarity of knowledge to understand what is happening. Ask a professional at any sport the physics underlying how they do what they do and most won't be able to give you the basics, that doesn't mean they don't understand what they're doing in a relevant sense. Most info in BG is clear enough for a teenager to pick up (a +1 sword adds +1 to your attack roll, something with lower AC makes you harder to hit, this spell does that, when you get hit while casting a spell you have a chance to be interrupted, etc.).

With TB you have the time and information to take informed decisions. It's as simple as that. With RTwP you have to guess where the enemy will be when your casting animation ends and to me that's simply not that fun. A TB system allows you to build far more interesting encounters, because you can place monsters and give them abilities counting on the fact that the player will always have all the information he needs to make choices. That's it, at least for me.

The problem is not just "understanding what's going on", the problem is that they have to build encounters understandable in RTwP.

To the bold part: yeah exactly. That's the difference and that's what some people (including myself) enjoy. If you don't enjoy it, that's fine: don't play RTwP games! As to the second part, I don't think it's true. I have had more fun with challenging encounters in BG1/2/ToB and IWD1/2 than in any other game. And I actually love tactical turn-based games; always play them on max difficulty and enjoy doing so, but none have ever matched the complexity and challenge of the infinity engine gameplay + encounter design (with AI mods, but we're talking about theoretical RTwP system).

Man, what the fug. I enjoy RTwP games, the fact that I think a TB Baldur's Gate would be more fun to me doesn't mean that whenever I play a RTwP game my eyes hurt and I shit myself.

 

[Kaivokz]

Man, what the fug. I enjoy RTwP games, the fact that I think a TB Baldur's Gate would be more fun to me doesn't mean that whenever I play a RTwP game my eyes hurt and I shit myself.

You just said RTwP mechanics are “simply not that fun.” Why would that indicate to me, or anyone, that you enjoy RTwP?

That's the point: you need only a very shallow understanding of the mechanics to be competent in BG, because combat is so easy. What you complain about in turn based is, ironically, true for BG: the game is easy mode by default. Becuse any complicated maneuvers involving positioning & character movement? The computer is always sabotaged the most in rtwp. The player can at least hit the spacebar and reissue orders (unfun as it is having to guide your characters around their own feet), but the computer can't. So you end up with 'great design' like enemy thieves backstabbing your characters in the face, to make up for the fact that they can't position themselves in battle in BG.

BG with tactics mod installed you can still play and understand despite the challenge, and that is a better indication of the potential of RTwP. What kind of argument are you even giving here? That RTwP shouldn’t mindlessly ape BG1 in every way, down to manual typos? That is trivially true.

Half of the TB people say RTwP is ez mode and half say it is inhumane to control 6 units in real time and process the information accurately. Sounds more like rationalization of a preference than an actual argument.

 

[hell bovine]

BG with tactics mod installed you can still play and understand despite the challenge, and that is a better indication of the potential of RTwP.

What potential? The tactics mod is hilarious, but the author made no secret that he coded the enemies to cheese & cheat their way through, e.g. with forcespell scripts. Which are also used by enemies in the original game.

SCs is way better, but even then it's in spite of rtwp, not because of it. It's still limited by design "solutions" like thieves front-backstabbing. It still is limited by the ai not being able to pathfind their way around the battlefield and avoid aoes.

 

[Lacrymas]

Half of the TB people say RTwP is ez mode and half say it is inhumane to control 6 units in real time and process the information accurately. Sounds more like rationalization of a preference than an actual argument.

Those aren't contradictory. Being inhuman/designed by aliens doesn't mean uncontrollable or hard, it means inelegant and clusterfuck-y as if not designed for humans. Not being able to accurately control your own units or assess the battlefield due to fundamental design is not a virtue.

 

[Lacrymas]

Mmm, the RTwP tears are sweet this season

 

[Heroic Liberator]

Molti nemici, molto onore.

 

[DJOGamer PT]

Real Time is all about quick thinking over continous periods of time, mastery over the game's technical aspects and making the most optimal and effiecient actions in the moment-to-moment gameplay.
As such the fun and challenge comes from being in "grueling" situations that demand constant focus and action and prevailing over all that chaos.

Turn-Based is much like chess. It rewards cautious, analytic study and deliberate actions, that benefit the long-term success over temporary triumph.
The entertainment and difficulty lies in making tight, stable and reliable plans that last throughout the conflict, outwit the oponent and achieve the best possible outcome.

Real Time with Pause is shit, exactely because in trying to synthesize both these designs, it ends compromising both of them and inheriting none of their qualities.
It can never be as hectic and challenging as RT for the simple reason you can completely break the flow as many times as you want. And it can never be as cerebral as TB since the real time action doesn't allow for any sense of order and long lasting strategy to the conflict.
It is the casuals system. Made for those that can't rise to the mastery demanded by RT and don't have the head for the measured thoughtfulness of TB.

/thread

 

[NJClaw]

Molti nemici, molto onore.

Holy moly macaroni, this is getting political.

 

[Heroic Liberator]

Molti nemici, molto onore.

Holy moly macaroni, this is getting political.

Me ne frego, camerata! :^)

 

[ga♥]

Mmm, the RTwP tears are sweet this season

You are a poser Lacrymas. You are clueless on everything.
High chances you never played any of the IE games, as you it was already clear when you tried to paint "Ascension" as trivial. Yet you are overjoyous we get this cancer of BG3.

 

[Kaivokz]

It is the casuals system. Made for those that can't rise to the mastery demanded by RT and don't have the head for the measured thoughtfulness of TB.

RTwP is casual, while the best selling, mainstream market, console gamer battle system of Original Sin is ... what? For pros?


Turn based games can be fun, but it’s not like you’re beating a chess master at chess (who can easily be beaten by a computer, himself); you’re beating a subpar AI in a scenario designed to be beaten. You don’t need calculated genius for that, or even much patience, or usually even much foresight. Certainly not on the normal difficulty that most people play at.

The same is true of RTwP. Any style of RPG can be made challenging by a clever designer, but at the end of the day it’s a controlled environment designed to be beaten. The purpose is the enjoyment you get out of it, not the “accomplishment” of winning.

 

[Theodora]

"Consoles ports mean a game is casual", I didn't know we were back to tween platform wars.

This thread is boring and circular and nobody's opinion is going to be changed (in fact most people aren't even reading your reply, or mine).

 

[Kaivokz]

"Consoles ports mean a game is casual", I didn't know we were back to tween platform wars.

I didn't say console ports mean a game is casual. I said it has mass market appeal, and implied that the mass market (yes, esp. the market of consoles) is exactly where you go to find systems suited for casuals.

This thread is boring and circular and nobody's opinion is going to be changed (in fact most people aren't even reading your reply, or mine).

Have you been to the codex before?

 

[Mr. Magniloquent]

I prefer RTwP. It's more efficient and visceral. The greater uncertainty makes it more cerebral, as you must constantly adapt and anticipate. TB allows players to act unimpeded with total certainty. It's a far more flattering and less risky mode of play. The drip feed of enemy activity is also easier to follow, further soothing the player's anxiety.

That being said, BG3 being TB is likely positive. It encourages stricter adaptation of D&D mechanics. The more Larian stays inside this box, the better.

 

[Serious_Business]

No one said that TB required more "skill" than rtwp or that TB was like chess - if anything it probably something like knowledge (of the game's systems and AI), which indeed can create the impression that efficient players of TB games are "skilled" - the distinction between knowledge and skill is in fact a bit blurry here. But the point is more that rtwp is a bastardized system that implies a lot of automation and always was thought of as a kind of "compromise" to appeal to an action-oriented kind of audience. In the end, it creates its own kind of experience, which certaintly isn't very convincing, even if it can I suppose require more skill than TB. The fact is that this peculiar experience changes what player control entails in terms of choice and awareness of the game's progress. Inherently it doesn't serve much, except to make the game faster - and sometimes more confusing. We have to remember of course that the IE engine was built at first with real-time strategy games in mind ; at the time such games were quite popular, but they are very dead now. Is this a bad or good thing, I wouldn't know, but I know that the difference between a TB, 4X kind of strategy game, and something like Warcraft, is tremendous ; the real time aspects imply, there, a huge simplification in the systems. With rpgs this is probably debatable, but you could never translate a superior tactical system to rtwp - not that all TB games present "superior tactical systems". Might and Magic games for example didn't suffer much from their transformation to real-time, because they are pretty whack-a-mole (I do enjoy them, but for the exploration more than the tactical aspects of it).

 

[ItsChon]

A tactical RPG is still an RPG. All I did was cite RPGs with the best combat systems. It doesn't matter that they don't have as many words as PS:T or MotB, they're still RPGs. You seemed to resent the citation, and I don't know why you would.

I resent the citation because the combat systems in tactical RPGs work so well due to how the game is structured, I.E missions. How would the same combat systems work in a game like IWD? You would have to make fundamental changes to the amount of enemies there are, the encounters, the types of skills the enemies have, and a host of other things. How the characters move around when not in combat, how the dialogue work, shopping and inventory management, out of combat actions, etc. I liked IWD, and I liked it for all the reasons that make it IWD. The reason I differentiate between "tactical" RPGs and "regular" RPGs, is because a game like ToEE already has all the mechanics and systems in place that are needed for a "regular" RPG (dialogue, walking around out of combat, interacting with NPCs, etc), and the plug and switch wouldn't require as much changes to the system it has versus if you were to plug and switch say JA2.

And putting all that aside, I don't necessarily always want to play the same TB combat system. What's wrong with having some variety?

 

[Latro]

How would the same combat systems work in a game like IWD?

Fallout and Underrail are both clear examples of TB-RPGs...which you've played, and should really know how they work.

How the characters move around when not in combat, how the dialogue work, shopping and inventory management, out of combat actions,

Wouldn't be terribly different...

RTwP is a way to get intuitive and easy to understand hack-n-slash gameplay with a bit more advanced mechanics in, there's nothing "primal" about it.

 

[DJOGamer PT]

muh what matters is enjoyment you get out of eating shit

lol
Gtfo you moron
I was talking about the objective quality of each systems design, not what people may like the most or how hard the game is

 

[DalekFlay]

And putting all that aside, I don't necessarily always want to play the same TB combat system. What's wrong with having some variety?

Though I prefer turn-based, there's also nothing wrong with RtwP for some variety (and "action" RPGs for that matter). I'm playing Pathfinder: Kingmaker at the moment and purposely not using the turn-based mod, because I enjoy RtwP as well, it changes things up from the turn-based games I play, and obviously the game was designed for it. There's room in this world for lots of different kinds of RPGs. The main issue here is BG 1 and 2 were RtwP, so changing things gets the RtwP fans all fussy.