why the hate on BG3

[KateMicucci]

what is the difference between a tactical game and an RPG for you people?

Tactical games have good combat. RPGs aren't allowed to have good combat.

 

[luj1]

what is the difference between a tactical game and an RPG for you people?

Well you tell me

Tabletop RPG:

Spoiler

CRPG:

Spoiler

 

[luj1]

There is literally no difference, except in the medium you are using to play (your computer)

"Tactical RPG" is what an RPG is, so no need to add "tactical"

 

[rusty_shackleford]

what is the difference between a tactical game and an RPG for you people?

Well you tell me

Tabletop RPG:

Spoiler

CRPG:

Spoiler

There is literally no difference, except in the medium you are using to play (your computer)

"Tactical RPG" is what an RPG is, so no need to add "tactical"

if wargaming was the same as RPG, there would have been no need to create the term RPG.

 

[KateMicucci]

what is the difference between a tactical game and an RPG for you people?

Well you tell me

Tabletop RPG:

Spoiler

CRPG:

Spoiler

He said tactical game and rpgs

Why are you talking about tabletop games?

 

[Reinhardt]

there would have been no need to create the term RPG.

Agree. Rpgs was a mistake.

 

[luj1]

Naming them as such was.

 

[Darth Canoli]

if wargaming was the same as RPG, there would have been no need to create the term RPG.

Wargaming involves armies where RPG involves a party of adventurers usually up to 6-8 (sometimes slightly more).

Tactical RPG usually involves larger parties, like Battle Brothers with parties up to 24 and more with mods or UFO with 12-16 units (maybe more, i don't remember).

 

[rusty_shackleford]

if wargaming was the same as RPG, there would have been no need to create the term RPG.

Wargaming involves armies where RPG involves a party of adventurer.

Tactical RPG usually involves larger parties, like Battle Brothers with parties up to 24 and more with mods or UFO with 12-16 units (maybe more, i don't remember)

RPGs involve you roleplaying as your character
wargaming involves you controlling an army

 

[Reinhardt]

Rpg - killing monsters with your bros and raising stats.

 

[Joyvankek]

The biggest mistake was applying the tag RPG to anything that had character creation and stats.
While forgetting that these stats, were supposed to affect the way you interact with the world and quests, other than just having basic class creation.
Tactical RPG is just an cRPG. There were also good all out mixes of strategies with RPGs like "Original War", where you could spread communism to dinosaurs.

 

[Darth Canoli]

RPGs involve you roleplaying as your character
wargaming involves you controlling an army

Don't be a retard, what you describe is tabletop RPG, do you dress up and talk like a Barbarian while playing a CRPG?

Don't answer that, even if you did, it wouldn't make it a RPG.

 

[pomenitul]

No idea what you people are arguing about as there is no such thing as BG3. BG3 doesn't exist.

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

what is the difference between a tactical game and an RPG for you people?

It's almost like asking what is RPG.
The dividing line is thin and blurry, but for me the deciding factor would be the continuity of the world.

Pure RPGs usually would have a seamless transition from exploration to combat, while Tacticools can be chunked by separate combat missions (i.e. Troubleshooter, Blackguards, X-Coms).

Yes, the difference between a squad-based tactics game and an RPG is exploration (plus character progression/customization), since RPGs share combat with the tactical wargames from which they sprung. No exploration, no RPG.

As for full party control versus AI control of party members, there might be justification for the latter in a real-time combat system that is also action-based; for example, Dragon's Dogma has an excellent action-based combat system, but it would be impossible for the player to control more than one character at a time. However, it is generally unnecessary even in real-time combat systems that are not action-based, such as Dungeon Master and its descendants, and AI control is always and everywhere a mistake in a turn-based system, where there is no obstacle to the player controlling all party members. Control of all party members allows the player to make tactical decisions similar to those that would be made in a tabletop RPG where each PC is controlled by a different player cooperating with the others. Both Fallout and Arcanum would have been greatly improved if the player controlled the entire party during combat (and Arcanum should have ditched the alternative real-time combat system entirely).

 

[rusty_shackleford]

you can't roleplay as a party
simple as

 

[†††]

you can't roleplay as a party
simple as

What if I'm schizophrenic?

 

[rusty_shackleford]

you can't roleplay as a party
simple as

What if I'm schizophrenic?

multiple personality disorder doesn't exist

 

[Butter]

Tell us about how you roleplay murderhobo #9485 in Underrail.

 

[Non-Edgy Gamer]

Yes, the difference between a squad-based tactics game and an RPG is exploration (plus character progression/customization), since RPGs share combat with the tactical wargames from which they sprung. No exploration, no RPG.

It doesn't need to be exploration per se. It just needs to be non-combat actions.

And there's nothing technically stopping an RPG from having a wargame tacked onto it or vice versa. The Crusader Kings series does this serviceably well. However, there are usually some pretty clear lines as to where one begins and the other ends.

you can't roleplay as a party
simple as

It's technically possible, just not common.

If you go to the let's play section here, people do something similar, writing what various characters say and do. And I think D:OS1 had 2 main characters you roleplayed in single player. You also kind of had to do this at times in ToEE iirc. BG and KtoR2 had some scarce moments of party roleplaying as well, though very few. And there are several blobbers that let you use different characters to do non-combat actions. Wizardry etc. It's also technically possible to do this in BG3, as it is a multiplayer game.

However, I don't really see how making it so that there are six characters would enhance roleplaying, other than to overpower the player's party in non-combat as well.

 

[fizzelopeguss]

A lot of 2010+ newfags calling the BG games classics. They were absolutely pilloried here back in the day as the harbingers of decline.

 

[FreeKaner]

you can't roleplay as a party
simple as

You aren't roleplaying a party in party RPGs generally, you are simply controlling their actions for convenience as it's a singleplayer game. In general it's the MC that gets involved in direct interactions and recently the companions independently interject, disapprove of your actions or leave the party. If the roleplaying situation is considered, it's more akin to giving orders to your party members. AI is just not great at handling these, let alone giving them personality. However even if good AI was involved that not only was able to handle the systems but actually give sensible choices to the characters for them to behave in a way that makes sense for character & motives, resulting only using 1 character in an isometric RPG probably wouldn't be much fun without tactical party play. It works better if the game's system would allow for more attention consuming gameplay, which works for first person gameplay or if it was akin to a moba which would get mixed reactions at best.

Though I definitely think that being allowed to build your party members, especially if you can build them completely freely is causing some of the degenerate tendencies in gameplay & balancing. However we have people finding even that too restrictive and using "reroll" mods have near absolute freedom in companion's level up choices in other games like owlcat ones that are already bloated beyond belief.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

you can't roleplay as a party
simple as

You aren't roleplaying a party in party RPGs generally, you are simply controlling their actions for convenience as it's a singleplayer game. In general it's the MC that gets involved in direct interactions and recently the companions independently interject, disapprove of your actions or leave the party. If the roleplaying situation is considered, it's more akin to giving orders to your party members. AI is just not great at handling these, let alone giving them personality. However even if good AI was involved that not only was able to handle the systems but actually give sensible choices to the characters for them to behave in a way that makes sense for character & motives, resulting only using 1 character in an isometric RPG probably wouldn't be much fun without tactical party play. It works better if the game's system would allow for more attention consuming gameplay, which works for first person gameplay or if it was akin to a moba which would get mixed reactions at best.

Though I definitely think that being allowed to build your party members, especially if you can build them completely freely is causing some of the degenerate tendencies in gameplay & balancing. However we have people finding even that too restrictive and using "reroll" mods have near absolute freedom in companion's level up choices in other games like owlcat ones that are already bloated beyond belief.

What part of "simple as" didn't you get?

 

[FreeKaner]

What part of "simple as" didn't you get?

The part where you were supposed to argue how you are roleplaying as a party, rather than in charge of a party. Oh you didn't type that part out, my bad, keep at your wanna-be cool one liners.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

What part of "simple as" didn't you get?

The part where you were supposed to argue how you are roleplaying as a party, rather than in charge of a party. Oh you didn't type that part out, my bad, keep at your wanna-be cool one liners.

You are in charge of a party in fallout and arcanum. You give them general strategy prior to combat.
What you can't do is mind control them to tell them exactly what to do and how to do it.
Simple as.

 

[FreeKaner]

This only works in games that develop an AI for the party and even then it has mixed results. Games which attempted this like Mass Effect or DA:I tend to have terrible AIs as game devs can't or won't develop competent AIs for one off singleplayer games. I don't oppose this in practice or in terms of flavor, it's just impractical.

In terms of interacting with the game world, as that's also what RPGs are about and not the "tactical combat" which you were opposing above, you are playing from the POV of the MC. It's MC's relationship with companions that dictate their relation in party which you don't control and instead influence from choices of MC. You also interact with the game world, including dialogue with rest of the world and individual companions from MCs POV. If you are roleplaying as the party you would also control the companions relationships between each other, interject with them, interact with NPCs from their POV and all other interactions that take place in the game. It's different from controlling troops without personality or interaction with the general world like in war games.

CO-OP is an alternative and there is nothing wrong with it of course. People like it too if their reaction to DOS1/2 are any indication and it must be because I can't imagine why those games would be so popular otherwise.

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

A lot of 2010+ newfags calling the BG games classics. They were absolutely pilloried here back in the day as the harbingers of decline.

Tell me more about the old Codex.