Showing 1-20 of 12,000 entries
Jul 1 @ 1:56am
In topic RP Advice
Originally posted by Vortex138:
This is true. Will that end a quest line though or is just a one off quest? I'd rather not mess up an entire line of quest for refusing one of them.
I think at some point you are going to have to make a choice between RP and metagaming, otherwise this sort of dilemma will keep coming up and you will end up not having a satisfying RP experience

Besides, one of tne of the sweet things about giving RP a fair go, is that there might be content you haven't seen before on the next play-through.
Originally posted by mazrados:
I mean it's so unrealistic. Even larger planes have 2 pilots.
Ships in X4 generslly have co-pilots who can take over the controls when you leave them. You would have to go out of your way to avoid this entirely.
Freedom to choose and change your own path, to buy, sell, salvage, capture/steal, manufacture, abandon, crew, modify your own ship. To fly, dock/undock and walk around in almost everything in the game. To enjoy a working simulation that you can affect with your activity from the smallest scale to the largest, and watch it really responding to your activity and that of the AI.
Originally posted by Lord Zultron:
And on top of that if its really such a big issue make a map like no mans sky or eve online where yous see clusters of sectors and when you click into them only then you get live information update. This would eliminate the whole issue by itself as only one sector would display live information

This jumped out at me because it would potentially ruin the game for me to have "one live sector at a time". I would be very much against this as a solution to the problems you are experiencing.
Originally posted by Corn Syrup Denier:
Curious since I haven't seen anything
There's an open beta getting updates, and we have been told more content is coming, so it seems they are actively developing the game and fixing bugs.
Originally posted by dulany67:
Originally posted by Replicant:

I'm guessing he meant Path of Exile and not Pillars of Eternity.
Ahhh... I apologize then.
Completely understandable, outside the context of OP's thread I would think "PoE = Pillars of Eternity" 100 times out of 100. Will change for clarity.
lol at the "rtwp dogpile". Tactical pause per Baldur's Gate II isn't remotely the same kind of gameplay as Path of Exile/Diablo. If you think it is I suggest you actually play a variety of RPGs rather than obsessively mounting a "defence against rtwp" where nobody mentioned wanting it at all :D

Anyway, OP. there really isn't anything Diablo-like in a D&D setting at the moment. There are other diablo-likes (Grim Dawn might be worth your time). If purely being real-time might be enough to float your boat, there is an ARPG D&D game "Dark Alliance" but beware it is of questionable merit and not at all like Diablo - I would do your research before diving in on that one.

Edit: Path of Exile for clarity
Jun 16 @ 11:51am
In topic I don't understand. Where is Multiplayer ?
Don't care about multi-player myself, but I sure would appreciate a skirmish mode and maybe eventually some open-ended gameplay of some sort.
Jun 1 @ 9:16am
In topic New game announcement today right?
Hopefully not warhammer.
Would love to see an OGL adventure with some space / time / multidimensional travel.
May 31 @ 6:33am
In topic Move and Shoot at the same time.
I don't even think it's all that unrealistic for them to not move and shoot, if you can suspend disbelief at how they operate in large close formations maybe 3+ ranks deep whilst running over rough unknown terrain, and engaging enemies who can suddenly be at close quarters from any/all directions.

If you're going to move around like that fine, but if you want to shoot you will have to do something different like eg: stop moving, slow down, spread out, split into squads or re-form facing the foe, if you don't you are going to shoot each other.
May 31 @ 6:26am
In topic Is there a sandbox
I would love this, if the devs get the opportunity at some point.
Originally posted by TradeGy:
Originally posted by Lilith:
I tried Skirmish i hated it...i was really hopping for something more like CoH not having a small ass map either. sadly this a big RTS issue and why so many are failing they keep trying to do new stuff and COH1 Worked. CoH2 failed horribly as it lost that RTS feel much like how this game is.


This game Screams it wants to be a RTS but it fails to capture that.

Biggest issue with Skirm is maps are to
small.
Theres no base building.
Theres no Fortifactions.
Theres no defense structures other then 3 turrets that require supply points...thats a waste..please remove the cost and add a resource method..

This game is not ready it is at least a year or two away....

Lets not forget how the AI Cheats at high difficulty like lolwat they are almost unbeatable at max unless you remove the unit cap or increase it to 100 like most games and make basic units cost 1 unit.


This game needs a year or more. im sorry i'm a big RTS Nut and big SST fan and this game gets RTS part on 25%

The rest is a lack of units and no Co-op or MP which is a major RTS Feature.

This game just is not ready it has no re-playability either sorry but i will have to pass on this game.

The wave part is also broken they do not send to your main starter base if you have a base closer so you can cheese them and bait away from ever touching your starter base.

Starship Troopers - Terran Command is more real time tactics than strategy. This game was never intended to be played like SC, CoH or C&C unlike these RTS' where APM matter and you play more macro, ST - TC focuses entirely on the micro level.

The game is built around the line of fire mechanic meaning you cannot ball up like it is possible in other games, you need to think about how and when to move.

Agreed, this is RTT kind of gameplay. To my way of thinking this is great - a deeper, better battlefield experience rather than the optimised build-and-rush gameplay of Trad-RTS franchises.

I think if they developed this for 5 years and made it deeper in every aspect, it would end up more like a Total War game than a starcraft-type deal, and that's a good thing.
May 31 @ 6:10am
In topic No multiplayer in 2022? lol wut?
I bought the game for the single player and the tactical play, which is an important difference between this game and traditional RTS.

Probably wouldn't bother with a multi-player RTS, or if I did it would be through gritted teeth because Starship Troopers.
May 30 @ 12:45pm
In topic Problems with BG Fans
Originally posted by Pan Darius Kairos:
Originally posted by Gaven:
Cause Larian has demostrated over a long period of time that they are not very good writters at all, theya re ok at witless humour but thats it. You might love Original Sin 2 as much as you want but you cant say it had interesting lore/good story and thats what a BG fan wants above everything.

Their sense of humor is one of the best things about Larian.

Of course that sense of humour isn't everyone's cup of tea. It's one of the things I am not so sure about for a BG game, personally.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_25l7nwMmA
May 30 @ 5:30am
In topic Problems with BG Fans
Originally posted by peremptor:
What people loved about BG1-2 was the complex interactions in the gameplay that led to powergaming and further modding that enhanced and increase the gameplay diversity and difficulty... that's the reason I replayed it a few times back in the day with different builds and parties (bg1-2 vanilla and then through bg tutu).

Ended up soloing it as a sorcerer and abusing wish in the endgame... fun times. POE1-2 are decent but the gameplay itself is kinda blah from what mates have told me. I mean it's the kind of CRPG you don't get much replay value out of from what I can tell.

Hopefully BG3 has great gameplay that I find replayable but its based on a D&D version I personally don't care for so I'm not expecting much.

I think PoE 1 suffered because the developers bought into a certain kind of feedback that sounds great in a self-indulgent post on the 'dex, but was not actually good feedback from a design perspective.

They invested a great deal of time and money pre/post release in making sure builds and strategies were equally viable, obsessively balancing and re-balancing and re-re-balancing classes, encounters and... in the end reducing the whole thing to a kind of mediocre soup of "stuff that all plays about the same". A shame because it was clearly a labour of love, until they over-cooked it.

As you say, much of the fun of the older games comes from the asymmetry, the replay value of being able to make it as cheesy or difficult as you liked, change the difficulty curve and so on.

Originally posted by Gaven:
Cause Larian has demostrated over a long period of time that they are not very good writters at all, theya re ok at witless humour but thats it. You might love Original Sin 2 as much as you want but you cant say it had interesting lore/good story and thats what a BG fan wants above everything.

I think it's kind of a minimum expectation that a BG game will have some memorable writing of characters and/or story. even if that's not what you come for, and even if it isn't Shakespeare. Writing in RPGs tends to be a bit bad anyway, and it's not like most of us couldn't enjoy a Fable, Diablo or Divinity game with a gun held to our heads, but if you make a BG game people are going to hope for a character or two they will remember 20 years later.
May 29 @ 6:03am
In topic Problems with BG Fans
Yeah, I think PoE had its own problems that led it to occupy a small niche within an already small niche. Not sustainable for second game sales, too many weren't interested from a limited pool.

Pathfinder is very healthy for the subgenre, and once they have a few games under their belt they are going to be even healthier as they pick up new gamers. You can make a modest-to-great amount of money with RPGs that are "proper" in some sense. Knocking more mainstream RPGs off their perches or selling many millions is not necessarily a sign of success, because a lot of great things about RPGs do not have ... broad appeal.
Originally posted by Alealexi:
Originally posted by Mr Fred:
Since some special snowflake mod decided to randomly delete posts I'll copy mine again since said mod was too bad at its job to delete TWO other posts that had my complete quote in it:

"I hate the edition they chose for the game and will comment on it at every turn but I would never downvote the game for it as it was always advertised as such. End product is going to be a 7/10 casual and streamlined experience that even I'm sure will be entertaining for one full run.

Make me sad to think this could have become a 10/10 GOTYAY with infinite replay value if only they picked a REAL edition. Maybe some modder will do a complete overhaul someday and everyone get to be happy who knows."

Its either a super grave offensive post (protip: it clearly isnt) that deserve a ban or you guy need to stop with the sneaky censorship and deleting random posts without asking or telling anyone.

Could you elaborate on what you mean by real edition? 5e is the best by far after staring off on 3.5.

Some people are not all that impressed by 5e because it is streamlined and stuff. I know people who play and enjoy it.

Personally, I think streamlined rule-sets have real advantages for tabletop play but aren't necessarily as good a fit for a computer game where you make ZERO improvement to the flow and atmosphere of a computer game by making things simpler and removing calculations.

When a computer is GM, nobody has to stop for even one second to do the numbers, anyway... it's under the hood for when you want the enjoyable experience of nerding out on the mechanics and data, and invisible when you want to role play. All you achieve by removing that stuff is a less interesting game.

That's before we get to elements that actually work against the flow on a computer where in an ideal world you could run your simulation (if it is a good simulation) in real time, like action economy which tends to lead to games that simulate table-top play, not the (obviously real-time) events D&D is trying to represent, because you have to inject pauses all over the place. This seems particularly irksome for a series like Baldur's Gate which was one of the big series to do something more ambitious with the turn-by-turn play (ie: adapt it and run it all simultaneously).

I don't think that needs to be a problem in itself, rules can be adapted for the medium, and there's any good reason you have to avoid turn-based play for an RPG... but we have yet to see someone do it successfully with 5e.

Not to mention another game that took a half-hearted stab at 5e and was really not too successful (once bitten twice shy, and all that).

Personally I am more interested in "last gen" rule-sets for D&D/Pathfinder from a pure computer gaming perspective, rather than because of the inherent crapness of the newer ones as table-top systems.
May 26 @ 10:37am
In topic Turn based?
Originally posted by Replicant:
Originally posted by Altair:
You are 100% right OP, this is not Baldur's Gate. It does not mean that it is a bad game, but it should not pretend to be something it isn't.

It still is Baldur's Gate, though or D&D in general. It's also not pretending to be something it's not.

But hey, more power to you.

The publisher called it "Baldur's Gate 3" which is distinct from any other name with "Baldur's Gate" in it - it represents a choice to explicitly say "this is a sequel to Baldur's Gate II".

That wasn't some unhappy accident, or something nobody gave much thought to. It is a sales tactic, part of the publisher's strategy, and there will have been an estimated number of people (+dollar amount) who would buy it on the strength of the other games.

Sometimes companies slap a strong brand name on something which is a wholly new product, or tenuously (if at all) related. As long as any necessary disclaimers are put somewhere (somewhere it is hoped you won't read them) it's nice and legal, like.

Happens everywhere from the automotive industry to TV production. That's what's happened here, and I think it's fine to acknowledge it.

If I can sound a positive note for BG fans here, there is no point in mourning for the series, it is already made, and concluded by the last game, a true classic. The games are are still available to play, to boot. Nothing is lost for Baldur's Gate as a series if this game is terrible.

On the other hand, Larian might reach new heights and make something quite good, in which case everybody wins. Nothing to lose but the price of admission.
Originally posted by MCX:
Or maybe because looking at the turnaround on the Original Sin games people expected a full release in two years' time rather than two classes?

But why would they? The functionality and level of content that needs to be made and tested is absolutely immense, even before you get to the meat of the game's writing. A realistic expectation would be a turnaround "when it's ready" and then a wait for at least one semi-mandatory expansion.
As MaGicBush says, using the Steam controller support might be an option. You can open Steam in big picture mode and configure your controller or download someone else's config.

Often this is better than PC controller support anyway, frankly.
Showing 1-20 of 12,000 entries