How’s this compare to DOS2/PoE?

[HouNDDoG]

Just wondering how it compares to those games? I loved em both, I tried pathfinder the first game for a couple hours but couldn’t get into it. Hoping this is better for me. Story/quests/exploration/characters? Thanks guys!

[SLG-Dennis]

I'm probably just not old enough yet, I started with TT after playing BG II (because of it and its inherent limitations), not before. And I was barely double numbers in age back then.

Oprindeligt skrevet af Triangle:

Oprindeligt skrevet af SLG-Dennis:

They note ARPG as a subcategory of CRPGs, which makes both of them CRPGs. They also classify BG II specifically as a cRPG (classic). Diablo II is not a RPG for me at all, though. There is no roleplaying involved in being one of 8 classes with no real questline, customizing or anything else that involves roleplay.

Role play can also be about building and evolving a class (or role). So, in Diablo's case, you're specializing a character into specific fighting role which you then play in combat.

Ah, I see. Yeh, that is not roleplay for me. Roleplay at the minimum needs to involve decision making, structure of a influencable structure and character development beyond a few items and pushing a stats button.

What you describe is basically "skilling", there is no play and especially no role involved.

[Dixon Sider]

Oprindeligt skrevet af SLG-Dennis:

Just looked up local wikipedia. It says CRPG is Computer Roleplaying Game and it lists The Witcher 3 and Skyrim together with Neverwinter Nights and Baldurs Gate II. So i guess that abbreviation is burned.

Wikipedia is not always correct. In terms of classification of media, that responsibility relies on trend. Wikipedia has no say. It can influence, but we consider Pathfinder and Baldurs Gate to be CRPGs almost unanimously, despite being on consoles.

[SLG-Dennis]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Dixon Sider:

Oprindeligt skrevet af SLG-Dennis:

Just looked up local wikipedia. It says CRPG is Computer Roleplaying Game and it lists The Witcher 3 and Skyrim together with Neverwinter Nights and Baldurs Gate II. So i guess that abbreviation is burned.

Wikipedia is not always correct. In terms of classification of media, that responsibility relies on trend. Wikipedia has no say.

Wikipedia does mirror the trends though, by virtue of participators. Hence local wikipedias can have different opinions on that, and usage could be different on culture - like i never had CRPG as "Computer Roleplay", but I'm not from the US.

[SLG-Dennis]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Dixon Sider:

Oprindeligt skrevet af SLG-Dennis:

Weird, I've always understood CRPG as classic roleplaying game.

That is how the new trend is. It used to mean computer back when computers and consoles were different. Now CRPG wouldn't even exist because CRPGs are on consoles. Classic just makes more sense so people use it that way.

I don't get that one, so you say CRPG is now Console Roleplaying games? How come consoles and pcs are no longer different, huh?

[SLG-Dennis]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Dixon Sider:

Oprindeligt skrevet af SLG-Dennis:

That's actually funny, I'm not totally sure, but most of my TT was with 4 players and most adventures seem to be 4 player as well. So i wonder where the hate on DOS and BGIII for only having four people comes from, just because classic rpgs had 6. I also prefer six though and modded DOS2 to have 6.

In a turn based game it makes sense, but even then, I like a huge group. I played Dungeon of Naheulbuk (sorry for spelling) recently and had a blast. It was 8 people >,>

But with real time, the more you have, the more complicated it gets. Its not really like that with turn based games.

I actually do not use turn based in WOTR, i'm trained to control six people via pausing very frequently in a fight. I do not have issues with turn based in BG3, but i would never want to enable it in WOTR. Not even for playful darkness or any other harder encounters. (People said its easier with it, though)

[Dixon Sider]

Oprindeligt skrevet af SLG-Dennis:

Oprindeligt skrevet af Dixon Sider:

Wikipedia is not always correct. In terms of classification of media, that responsibility relies on trend. Wikipedia has no say.

Wikipedia does mirror the trends though, by virtue of participators. Hence local wikipedias can have different opinions on that, and usage could be different on culture - like i never had CRPG as "Computer Roleplay", but I'm not from the US.

Wikipedia is a website that has someones opinion. They are not an official media categorizor or anything like that. I could show you a post on Urbandictionary that can counter any evidence you find of C=computer

[Dixon Sider]

Oprindeligt skrevet af SLG-Dennis:

I actually do not use turn based in WOTR, i'm trained to control six people via pausing very frequently in a fight. I do not have issues with turn based in BG3, but i would never want to enable it in WOTR. Not even for playful darkness or any other harder encounters. (People said its easier with it, though)

Ya I'm avoiding turn based as well. I turned off the option in the settings. Real time best time lol

[SLG-Dennis]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Dixon Sider:

Oprindeligt skrevet af SLG-Dennis:

Wikipedia does mirror the trends though, by virtue of participators. Hence local wikipedias can have different opinions on that, and usage could be different on culture - like i never had CRPG as "Computer Roleplay", but I'm not from the US.

Wikipedia is a website that has someones opinion. They are not an official media categorizor or anything like that. I could show you a post on Urbandictionary that can counter any evidence you find of C=computer

Urbandictionary is a much more opinionated page than wikipedia that is at least quality controlled, so I doubt that would get us anywhere. (I've been a wikipedia admin, so biased, disclaimer)

Also, there is no official media categorizer, journalists also only have an opinion, which basically makes the local majority opinion the fact.

It's fun though, as the first entry on CRPG on Urbandictionary i found is "Computer Roleplaying Game" :D (And hence the opposite of C not being Computer)

[BIG E.]

Oprindeligt skrevet af SLG-Dennis:

Oprindeligt skrevet af Dixon Sider:

In a turn based game it makes sense, but even then, I like a huge group. I played Dungeon of Naheulbuk (sorry for spelling) recently and had a blast. It was 8 people >,>

But with real time, the more you have, the more complicated it gets. Its not really like that with turn based games.

I actually do not use turn based in WOTR, i'm trained to control six people via pausing very frequently in a fight. I do not have issues with turn based in BG3, but i would never want to enable it in WOTR. Not even for playful darkness or any other harder encounters. (People said its easier with it, though)

Because Larian knows how to balance their game around turn based combat. Like i normally like turn based more but not in Pathfinder because every fight takes half an hour due to the fact that you miss a lot.

[SLG-Dennis]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Khorne:

Oprindeligt skrevet af SLG-Dennis:

I actually do not use turn based in WOTR, i'm trained to control six people via pausing very frequently in a fight. I do not have issues with turn based in BG3, but i would never want to enable it in WOTR. Not even for playful darkness or any other harder encounters. (People said its easier with it, though)

Because Larian knows how to balance their game around turn based combat. Like i normally like turn based more but not in Pathfinder because every fight takes half an hour due to the fact that you miss a lot.

Right. Playful Darkness with my totally not optimized noob party would be horrible in turn based, despite people say its easier. Like, thing couldnt kill me, but I couldnt kill it either, took fifteen minutes of hitting at least, lol. In turn based that would be insane.

[SLG-Dennis]

I do need to stress though that I like a lot that they give people the free choice and especially the option to like switch during an encounter as they like. That's true choice!

[Red Phantom]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Triangle:

Genres are important (but a bit reductive). It would be a good idea to know whether or not DoS or PoE are even in the same genre as this game. I think a good conclusion to what genre these two games are in would be "it's complicated"

In my personal opinion, PoE is definitely intended to be in the same genre because it's a party-based, RTwP game very loosely based on table-top style rules and is obviously influenced by games like BG. DOS is arguably more like Ultima because its main focus is on interact-ability with the environment and simulation, and isn't intended to be a table-top style gaming system, so it's definitely not in the same exact vein as games like BG and PF but it still kind of falls under the original genre heading. I think the important distinction in this particular case is whether or not the game is based on table-top RPG systems, which is a distinction that existed even in the early days of cRPGs.

[SLG-Dennis]

I would classify PoE as Classic RPG as well, as being based on a tabletop is not a requirement for me to be that. It's more about how the game works. But I guess opinions are different there as well.

[Red Phantom]

Oprindeligt skrevet af SLG-Dennis:

I would classify PoE as Classic RPG as well, as being based on a tabletop is not a requirement for me to be that. It's more about how the game works. But I guess opinions are different there as well.

It's just that those types of game mechanics are a distinct legacy of table-top RPG systems. So while POE or other games (such as the original Fallout) aren't directly based on existing table-top games, they're still based on the general systems involved in terms of character attributes, level progression, and RNG based interactions such as skill checks and combat rolls (a direct facsimile of rolling dice on a table top in order to see whether or not an action is successful).

[SLG-Dennis]

That's not really my personal main thing to define what a classic RPG is, for example needs to have the typical top down view thingie, BG3 by your definition would be a classic RPG, by mine it is definitely not, though, despite being absolutely based on a TT. RTwP is also a hard requirement for being a classic RPG for me.

BG3 fulfills all of your stuff, but I do not consider it a cRPG. The classicness also comes from the view and the how to play for me, actually especially from that. BG3 is DOS2 with TT rules, but not a cRPG. I still think it will be a very good game, but neither a real successor to the name nor even a game of the same genre. The inheritor for BG2 is the Pathfinder series for me, and WOTR it's master. (And by chance, the whole mythic path and secret ending stuff is pretty BG2 TOB like, with legend being uneligible in Pathfinder, but the only path in BG2 so that really helps a lot)