Which has nothing to do with timed progression.
It has to do with the overall concept. I don't really care if Zelda had time progression. It's a different game with a different design.
BG2's use of time tracking was very occasional and, as I said, when they had events happen as a result of that, they could simply have an NPC walk in from the edge of screen. The same with NWN.
BG3's design is more cinematic. Just triggering a dialog or a dream or whatever in the middle of nowhere can result in clipping and other issues.
Story pacing and development works in books too, and they're even less cinematic than NWN2.
Books aren't even games. Why are you taking your comparisons further away from what BG3 is?
The day/night cycle and the abstract camp aren't a package deal, for fuck's sake, just see Throne of Bhaal for an example.
Ok, then drop the abstract camp argument. I didn't bring it up.
My original was point about the cinematic nature of the game, as well as the plot being centered around time progression, meaning that day/night cycles will be a difficult to track and manage element. And one that's unneeded.
Cope. Again:
At first, you think it's going to be around a week (meta: obviously not). Then, you see that you aren't transforming. But if you rest enough, and I've tested it, you start hitting events like Lae'zel going nuts and possibly trying to kill you, or everyone having fever dreams. Finally, you can start gaining minflayer powers, depending on your choices.
What about that isn't time progression?
Oh, right, it's all time progression, and that's why you skipped over it.
The point there is that they already fucked with the timeframe, so they could fuck with it some more!
Yeah, just make it take a year's worth of rests! Oops. Except if they do that, some players will say it takes too long, and others will say it's too short.
All someone has to do is go afk for a while and they've ruined their story progression.
As I said many posts ago, there are ways to work around this, but it's not WORTH it to Larian.
Again, you build your gameplay, then you write your story around it. Otherwise, if you put the cart before the horse, you don't get anywhere.
Chicken or the egg argument. Waste of time. Just like sticking in a tedious time management minigame that doesn't actually do anything.
My premise is that day/night cycles are beneficial in open-world cRPGs. I'd settle for a mostly cosmetic one, but I'd also welcome a more mechanically meaningful one. Which I told you on the next fucking line after the one you quoted.
Nigger, you just now skipped over my sentences. Be less butthurt about it.
And I know you'd "welcome" an expensive to develop feature like schedules, for example. We've been over that. You're just adding new features that weren't in BG games to the price tag, so it's irrelevant.
"Don't criticise this shit design because it's meant to be shit."
"The design is shit because it doesn't have one niche feature that I can't shut up about."
Great, then you can tell your story outside of camp too.
As I said, some cinematics can only occur in camp. It's how they manage the animation problem.
You need to take a break from the thread, you're having trouble reading.
Your fault for ninjaing my edit. You say I need to take a break, but here you are spamming refresh and making semantic arguments.
The "illusion of the open world" is cosmetic
Yes, it is. And the rest of what you suggested is stuff BG 1 & 2 didn't even make much use of.
I'm glad you think you can make a AAA game with all these features cheaply and think that you can design a 3D, cinematic game like a 2D game. Go do that.
