I think BG3 has elements that AoC aspires to. Its a group focussed rpg which is very difficult. You must be well supplied, understand the tactics and also have a great deal of luck to progress. Of course, in BG3 you can save all the time which you can't do in an MMORPG so I imagine AoC will be less of a challenge than BG3.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
BG3 is a Baldur's Gate game. And it is a D20 game. And it is a D&D game.
So...it would have to have truly horrible gameplay for RPG players to choose not to play it.
And all of those things are niche within the rpg genre. I know you're oldschool and have quite a narrow definition of rpg, but as that list indicates "the majority" considers action rpgs to be the biggest rpgs.
Yes, BG really exploded in its popularity, cause it's an amazing game, but its design/mechanics are still quite niche under the rpg umbrella. Otherwise there'd be way more "d&d-like" games on that list.
That is the craziest claim I have ever heard of.
But... OK. I understand what you are trying to say.
But, no...
BG3 is popular because Baldur's Gate, D20 and D&D are wildly popular among RPG fans and - the gameplay of this online version does not abysmally suck.
BG3 is not just a "D&D-like game".
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I think BG3 has elements that AoC aspires to. Its a group focussed rpg which is very difficult. You must be well supplied, understand the tactics and also have a great deal of luck to progress. Of course, in BG3 you can save all the time which you can't do in an MMORPG so I imagine AoC will be less of a challenge than BG3.
Well... Ashes has a focus on massively multiplayer groups.
(I think you mean Ashes will be more of a challenge because you can't save the game all the time?)
I think BG3 has elements that AoC aspires to. Its a group focussed rpg which is very difficult. You must be well supplied, understand the tactics and also have a great deal of luck to progress. Of course, in BG3 you can save all the time which you can't do in an MMORPG so I imagine AoC will be less of a challenge than BG3.
Well... Ashes has a focus on massively multiplayer groups.
(I think you mean Ashes will be more of a challenge because you can't save the game all the time?)
No. I mean it will be less of a challenge because you will be wiped and wiped and wiped and then have to farm off the experience debt. Rather than getting wiped, reloading and hitting a brick wall until you learn the tactics. Thus, AoC will be less challenging because you will be with like minded individuals and will succeed or fail together.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited August 2023
You will only gain massive xp debt from being wiped and wiped and wiped if Corruption does not work as it's intended to work. Also, you don't drop levels from xp debt, so...
I didn't mean from PvP, I meant from PvE. There is no PvP in BG3. It is unlikely you will be wiped and wiped in PvP because your combat effectiveness in PvP only reduces from Corruption and not the death penalties.
But, no...
BG3 is popular because Baldur's Gate, D20 and D&D are wildly popular among RPG fans and - the gameplay of this online version does not abysmally suck.
BG3 is not just a "D&D-like game".
Dygz, Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 had a 2.000 to 3.000 concurrent player peak according to Steam, BG3 just hit 800.000,
it's a very niche game that was able to burst out of its bubble
LMAO - there is no reason to gain massive xp debt from being wiped and wiped and wiped from Ashes PvE.
But... OK.
There's every reason. Its a competitive game where bosses equal resources and loot. You'll wipe and learn the tactics rather than wipe, reload and learn the tactics.
But, no...
BG3 is popular because Baldur's Gate, D20 and D&D are wildly popular among RPG fans and - the gameplay of this online version does not abysmally suck.
BG3 is not just a "D&D-like game".
Dygz, Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 had a 2.000 to 3.000 concurrent player peak according to Steam, BG3 just hit 800.000,
it's a very niche game that was able to burst out of its bubble
Ah yes of course, Baldur's Gate 2, one of the most popular games of the year 2000.
Unfortunately it didn't do well on the Steam Platform, basically first released in 2003.
Tragic, but a clearly relevant lesson for the modern day.
Lesson No.1: Combat system can push a large amount of players away from the game.
I for example, am never going to touch BG3 due to the turn based-goofy-top-down-whatever type of combat it has. I realize that it's a great RPG and there's a lot of depth, but due to the combat system that's just so unfun, and unenjoyable to me, it's enough for me not to play the game.
Now I don't care if the game has THE best combat system out there, but it just has to be good enough in order to not drive a large number of players away.
Bruh I can take off my shoes and throw them at you. I can leap around, i can shove you off ledges, I can pick a corpse up and slam you with it, I can light all sorts of things on fire (then dip my weapons in said fire to hit you with), I can freeze puddles, I can turn into all sorts of animals, I have a massive list of spells that do various things from combat to out of combat utility.
But hey, if turn-based is so horrible for you that you shriek in terror and run the other way, I feel sorry for you having never played pokemon when you grew up.
And this is what I contribute that ashes should take note of. The vast amount of generic actions people can take in combat. Being able to use your environment to your advantage and deal with enemies in a strategic manner like causing them to fall off a cliff or lighting the flora in an area on fire. These add a depth of strategy to bg3 that can help you deal with very difficult situations. You just need to be smart enough to create it.
It's a great game, but since it is so different to what Ashes is trying to be, I dont thi j there is much tou can learn from it other tha very broad strokes.a
What do you guys think can be learned and used from Baldur's Gate 3 in Ashes?
Obviously many features can't be directly transferred from a CRPG to a MMORPG, but I think some things can.
The attention to detail in the world and quests and dialogue is pretty amazing. The branching dialogue trees with real consequences are really good in and of themselves. Obviously we can't have the same level of different permanent consequences in an MMORPG, but I really hope Intrepid focuses on this so NPC dialogues are more than just slightly different flavors with the same outcome. BG3 is setting a new bar I think, and if Ashes can come even somewhat close to that, it would be amazing.
The world design is great, with all kinds of hidden things and areas, where you need to pay a little attention. Great for explorer types.
The ability to go dark-side. I am playing as The Dark Urge right now, and I don't think Ashes can or should go *that* dark, because holy... But I really enjoy the option to not just be a goody two-shoes character. Yeah, we are back to resettle Verra and kick the Ancients out, but maybe they really aren't all that bad. Maybe co-existence is possible? Or at least maybe they can be controlled and used. They can be a powerful tool for peace.
On the flipside, I think the Ashes character creator is going to be superior. For example, I think there are too few options to modify faces and bodies in BG3. So Ashes will have that going for itself.
Edit: Oh and please keep the thread spoiler-free.
As I hate BG3 because it has nothing to do with BG1 and 2, I can only see the mistakes to be avoided for AOC.
- Don't trash the character creator
- Don't integrate mechanics with visible dice rolls
- Avoid mechanics that automatically interact with the environment (jumping, climbing, etc.), as they're old-fashioned and boring.
- Work on the scenario
Also Larian has been blamed for several years for selling an unifinished early access. But Im fine with it. I would be ok to play AOC in early access with bugs and a low % of the full content to be a tester.
edit : sorry for answering to my own post, It's a mistake.
People that "blamed" them for selling unfinished early access are - for lack of a more delicate term - morons.
The game was sold as unfinished. I purchased it as unfinished in it's first week of being made available. I didn't even consider playing it until this past weekend.
Buying an early access game and complaining that it is unfinished is no different to playing Ashes during alpha 2 and complaining that it is unfinished.
As to you not liking it because it isn't related to BG1 and 2, so what? The game itself is amazing. Just pretend it has a different name.
As to what we can learn from BG3 - one simple thing, imo.
A game can be a part of a niche genre, but not be niche itself.
But people already knew that (if they were paying attention).
MMO's in the mid 2000's were niche, WoW wasn't. FPS games in the early 90's were niche, Doom wasn't. History based 4x games are niche, Civilization isn't.
Gaming has a long line of niche genres (at specific times) that have stand out popular games. BG3 is just a game in a niche genre that has stood out.
The problem is, this won't relate to Ashes at all - and people wanting Ashes to be successful don't want Ashes to follow BG3 in this regard.
BG3 is popular because of how hand crafted it is. People are exploring how each decision changes things, reactions characters have to different situations, that sort of thing. They will be done in a few weeks - and the population will drop right back down until there is some DLC or some such.
A game like Ashes needs to keep it's population entertained day after day, so they keep logging in week after week, and keep paying their subscription month after month.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Ah yes of course, Baldur's Gate 2, one of the most popular games of the year 2000.
Unfortunately it didn't do well on the Steam Platform, basically first released in 2003.
Tragic, but a clearly relevant lesson for the modern day.
Pretty sure I played Baldur's Gate 1 and 2, but did not play them on Steam.
By 2003 we would have beat both of those games. And I would not be thinking of Steam to play expansions.
Of course - my preference would be to play with more players, so by 2003, I would have been playing EQ and EQ2 and Anarchy Online. Along with a bit of Asheron's Call and DAoC.
Rather than Baldur's Gate expansions.
Also, Baldur's Gate II: Shadows of Amn is an Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd Edition computer role-playing game. It released in September 2000.
D&D 3E released in 2000, so the BG2 ruleset was already basically obsolete.
D&D 3.5 released in 2003, so...again BG2 ruleset was still obsolete by the time it was available on Steam.
Ah yes of course, Baldur's Gate 2, one of the most popular games of the year 2000.
Unfortunately it didn't do well on the Steam Platform, basically first released in 2003.
Tragic, but a clearly relevant lesson for the modern day.
?? how does that change the fact that games like BG, basically tabletop RPG sims are niche?
Team fortress 2 is a 2007 game and its still top 5 on steam with average 200k concurrent players.... because shooters ain't niche, CSGO also an old game and its top 3, good try tho.
Coming from a guy that only bought BG3 to support a good studio and not expecting a ton out of the game, i've been incredibly impressed with the game.
I haven't played a turn based game in well over a decade, it's just not something I enjoy. I am enjoying this because the attention to detail, the stories, the cinematics etc are all incredible.
What I learned from this game is as a company you have to be transparent, be yourself, make your game and make it with attention to detail and you will grow a fanbase. Larian added another fan this weekend with this game.
Ah yes of course, Baldur's Gate 2, one of the most popular games of the year 2000.
Unfortunately it didn't do well on the Steam Platform, basically first released in 2003.
Tragic, but a clearly relevant lesson for the modern day.
?? how does that change the fact that games like BG, basically tabletop RPG sims are niche?
Team fortress 2 is a 2007 game and its still top 5 on steam with average 200k concurrent players.... because shooters ain't niche, CSGO also an old game and its top 3, good try tho.
Just to make absolutely sure I understand here...
You are trying to use the Steam Numbers of a Team Shooter game, a game with literally 'Team' in the name, that would have been bought on Steam, given who makes it, to what is basically a single player RPG, originally released before Steam itself, to make a point about those games not being niche.
So... is it that the actual point being made just whooshed entirely over your head?
You are trying to use the Steam Numbers of a Team Shooter game, a game with literally 'Team' in the name, that would have been bought on Steam, given who makes it, to what is basically a single player RPG, originally released before Steam itself, to make a point about those games not being niche.
jesus, its so annoying talking with nerds that want to drop their IQ to win a forum discussion,
I'm saying shooters are way more popular than single player RPGs like baldurs gate, obviously
I just gave a random example that came to mind, but theres plenty of other non-steam single player shooters that have high player counts, Call of Duty, Hitman, GTA, Halo etc etc
BG3 is the first of its kind to burst its niche bubble, thats the whole point
Mobile looking games has never been my style 😬 But I’ve watched a couple of gameplays. And the sound design for spells sounds amazing. Ashes sfx is quite meh.
Lesson No.1: Combat system can push a large amount of players away from the game.
I for example, am never going to touch BG3 due to the turn based-goofy-top-down-whatever type of combat it has. I realize that it's a great RPG and there's a lot of depth, but due to the combat system that's just so unfun, and unenjoyable to me, it's enough for me not to play the game.
Now I don't care if the game has THE best combat system out there, but it just has to be good enough in order to not drive a large number of players away.
Bruh I can take off my shoes and throw them at you. I can leap around, i can shove you off ledges, I can pick a corpse up and slam you with it, I can light all sorts of things on fire (then dip my weapons in said fire to hit you with), I can freeze puddles, I can turn into all sorts of animals, I have a massive list of spells that do various things from combat to out of combat utility.
But hey, if turn-based is so horrible for you that you shriek in terror and run the other way, I feel sorry for you having never played pokemon when you grew up.
And this is what I contribute that ashes should take note of. The vast amount of generic actions people can take in combat. Being able to use your environment to your advantage and deal with enemies in a strategic manner like causing them to fall off a cliff or lighting the flora in an area on fire. These add a depth of strategy to bg3 that can help you deal with very difficult situations. You just need to be smart enough to create it.
That's cool and all, and I realize it has a lot of depth, but it's still turn based. My main point here is that a lot of people actively avoid the game because of that.
Pokemon just isn't that comparable, I mean this is 2023, and you're comparing it to something 20+ years old at this point. Or even WoW pet battles, which I'm okay with. They are turn based, yet I don't feel so repulsed by them at all.
Something about BG3 having turn based combat makes it feel cheap, unfun/boring, and mobile-game-esque to me. Especially the isometric view and click to move.
There's an entire world, with great graphics, and great depth to everything in the game, yet when you enter combat, it feels and looks like a complete letdown.
I've yet to pin-point what it is exactly about it, but it just feels constrained, and it doesn't feel like it's free flowing. I feel like I'm enclosed when I enter the combat, and I don't feel any freedom to do whatever I want to when it happens.
Like I said, I can't really explain what it is about the turn-based combat that's so repulsive to me, but I just know that it is, at least when that sort of combat is introduced to RPGs, like BG3, D:OS2, etc.
As to BG3 not feeling free flowing - it isn't supposed to feel free flowing. It is supposed to feel deep, you are supposed to consider your options rather than just flow from one action in to the next.
As a combat type, it isn't for everyone. However, saying the game feels mobile-esque seems somewhat out of place - a mobile phone simply wouldn't be able to deal with the combat system, even if it "looks" simple.
As to BG3 not feeling free flowing - it isn't supposed to feel free flowing. It is supposed to feel deep, you are supposed to consider your options rather than just flow from one action in to the next.
As a combat type, it isn't for everyone. However, saying the game feels mobile-esque seems somewhat out of place - a mobile phone simply wouldn't be able to deal with the combat system, even if it "looks" simple.
I don't know how to describe it, but it's not a classic 3rd person view camera.
It does feel mobile-esque to me though, just because of the type of combat system being used, I don't care how deep and complex it is, it still looks like one.
I'm fine with considering my options before engaging in combat, but once I do engage, I don't want it to be stop-go type of gameplay constantly. Once I enter the combat, I want to have agency over my actions, and I want to be able to move around freely, attack freely, disengage/run away freely, all at the same time, rather than press a button, then wait for the action to complete, then maybe move if possible, etc.
As to BG3 not feeling free flowing - it isn't supposed to feel free flowing. It is supposed to feel deep, you are supposed to consider your options rather than just flow from one action in to the next.
As a combat type, it isn't for everyone. However, saying the game feels mobile-esque seems somewhat out of place - a mobile phone simply wouldn't be able to deal with the combat system, even if it "looks" simple.
I don't know how to describe it, but it's not a classic 3rd person view camera.
Quite honestly, I'm have assuming you are accidently looking at BG2, not BG3. It has an isomatric view and looks like it could be a mobile game.
The camera isn't a "classic 3rd person" camera, because you are not playing as one character in most of BG3. They can't just fix the camera on one character.
I'm fine with considering my options before engaging in combat, but once I do engage, I don't want it to be stop-go type of gameplay constantly. Once I enter the combat, I want to have agency over my actions, and I want to be able to move around freely, attack freely, disengage/run away freely, all at the same time, rather than press a button, then wait for the action to complete, then maybe move if possible, etc.
It's fine that the game isn't for you, I am just addressing factual inaccuracies.
As to BG3 not feeling free flowing - it isn't supposed to feel free flowing. It is supposed to feel deep, you are supposed to consider your options rather than just flow from one action in to the next.
As a combat type, it isn't for everyone. However, saying the game feels mobile-esque seems somewhat out of place - a mobile phone simply wouldn't be able to deal with the combat system, even if it "looks" simple.
I don't know how to describe it, but it's not a classic 3rd person view camera.
Quite honestly, I'm have assuming you are accidently looking at BG2, not BG3. It has an isomatric view and looks like it could be a mobile game.
The camera isn't a "classic 3rd person" camera, because you are not playing as one character in most of BG3. They can't just fix the camera on one character.
No I am looking at BG3, and it might very well be because you control more than one character (which coincidentally is also why I dislike turn based games like this one, as I do want to only control one character).
I'm fine with considering my options before engaging in combat, but once I do engage, I don't want it to be stop-go type of gameplay constantly. Once I enter the combat, I want to have agency over my actions, and I want to be able to move around freely, attack freely, disengage/run away freely, all at the same time, rather than press a button, then wait for the action to complete, then maybe move if possible, etc.
It's fine that the game isn't for you, I am just addressing factual inaccuracies.
Please stop doing that, as it contributes to nothing but unnecessary arguments. I'd much rather argue about the whole essence of point I'm making, rather than only about some detail that I got wrong.
This is why people dislike having arguments with you btw
And yeah, the game sadly isn't for me. I would very much like it to be for me, and I would like to enjoy it, but it's simply not possible due to the combat system. It's the same thing with a lot of people I've interacted with, they're just not willing to play the game due to the combat system.
As I've said in my first reply, I hope Ashes nails the combat system, in order not to further alienate even more players from even trying the game. It doesn't need to be amazing, but it needs to be good. It needs to be accessible to all players, rather than being a niche combat system only enjoyed by some (Lost Ark for example had a good combat system, but I found the PvP to be absolutely unbearable and unenjoyable due to it having fighting game mechanics included, with staggers, loads of cc, cc immunities and stuff).
Please stop doing that, as it contributes to nothing but unnecessary arguments. I'd much rather argue about the whole essence of point I'm making, rather than only about some detail that I got wrong.
This is why people dislike having arguments with you btw
Often times, one wrong detail is a symptom of a larger misunderstanding.
You are talking a lot about BG3's combat. I am averaging one combat engagement every 2 hours of gameplay. It is concievable that I could fight even less than that.
The larger picture here of what I am getting at - you thinking the game is mobile-esque, isometric, issues with the camera and a focus on combat - all lead to the notion that you have made some fairly big assumptions about the game without seeming having played it.
This is why I was pointing out actuall factual inaccuracies - so that people could see that your opinions were based on not having played the game.
That's fine - if you already know that turn based games aren't for you, you shouldn't play a turn based game.
But that should probably be the limit of your opinion on it.
Please stop doing that, as it contributes to nothing but unnecessary arguments. I'd much rather argue about the whole essence of point I'm making, rather than only about some detail that I got wrong.
This is why people dislike having arguments with you btw
Often times, one wrong detail is a symptom of a larger misunderstanding.
You are talking a lot about BG3's combat. I am averaging one combat engagement every 2 hours of gameplay. It is concievable that I could fight even less than that.
The larger picture here of what I am getting at - you thinking the game is mobile-esque, isometric, issues with the camera and a focus on combat - all lead to the notion that you have made some fairly big assumptions about the game without seeming having played it.
This is why I was pointing out actuall factual inaccuracies - so that people could see that your opinions were based on not having played the game.
That's fine - if you already know that turn based games aren't for you, you shouldn't play a turn based game.
But that should probably be the limit of your opinion on it.
Well I think I made it pretty clear that I haven't played the game, because I pointed out numerous times that the combat system is stopping me from even trying the game out.
If I describe it as mobile-esque, it's because it's the first thing I though of when I looked at its combat gameplay. It might not be the best way to describe it, but that's how I felt when I saw it, because something reminded me of mobile games that had the same turn based gameplay.
Isometric is just a wrong word that I used, because I saw it was a sort of a weird 3rd-person view angle. It's not that deep at all.
All I was trying to do, is explain why I dislike the combat system, or more specifically the turn-based combat in BG3. I still don't know what's the exact reason, but I'm at least a bit closer to figuring it out. That's why I listed a few reasons why I might dislike it. That's it.
Isometric is just a wrong word that I used, because I saw it was a sort of a weird 3rd-person view angle. It's not that deep at all.
Yes, and this is why I corrected you. Many people know what an isoletric view is (think Transport Tycoon), and so incorrect comments like that need to be corrected imo - even if they were just a mistake.
However, since the camera is more manuverable in BG3 than in almost any game I have ever played (none immediately come to mind that have more camera freedom), I still think your issue with it is built on a false assumption or incorrect information.
If you saw a "weird 3rd-person view angle", it is because someone put the camera in a weird 3rd-person view.
Is there a definition for the BG-like camera pov? Cause it's just slightly zoomed in isometric view. It's not 3rd person, cause it's way too far from the characters. Obviously you can control the camera, but I just scrolled through 12h of a stream and 90% of the time (outside of the cutscenes) the camera is like 20m above the characters.
How is that not isometric (even if just a bit zoomed in)?
Comments
But... OK. I understand what you are trying to say.
But, no...
BG3 is popular because Baldur's Gate, D20 and D&D are wildly popular among RPG fans and - the gameplay of this online version does not abysmally suck.
BG3 is not just a "D&D-like game".
(I think you mean Ashes will be more of a challenge because you can't save the game all the time?)
No. I mean it will be less of a challenge because you will be wiped and wiped and wiped and then have to farm off the experience debt. Rather than getting wiped, reloading and hitting a brick wall until you learn the tactics. Thus, AoC will be less challenging because you will be with like minded individuals and will succeed or fail together.
Dygz, Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 had a 2.000 to 3.000 concurrent player peak according to Steam, BG3 just hit 800.000,
it's a very niche game that was able to burst out of its bubble
But... OK.
There's every reason. Its a competitive game where bosses equal resources and loot. You'll wipe and learn the tactics rather than wipe, reload and learn the tactics.
Ah yes of course, Baldur's Gate 2, one of the most popular games of the year 2000.
Unfortunately it didn't do well on the Steam Platform, basically first released in 2003.
Tragic, but a clearly relevant lesson for the modern day.
Bruh I can take off my shoes and throw them at you. I can leap around, i can shove you off ledges, I can pick a corpse up and slam you with it, I can light all sorts of things on fire (then dip my weapons in said fire to hit you with), I can freeze puddles, I can turn into all sorts of animals, I have a massive list of spells that do various things from combat to out of combat utility.
But hey, if turn-based is so horrible for you that you shriek in terror and run the other way, I feel sorry for you having never played pokemon when you grew up.
And this is what I contribute that ashes should take note of. The vast amount of generic actions people can take in combat. Being able to use your environment to your advantage and deal with enemies in a strategic manner like causing them to fall off a cliff or lighting the flora in an area on fire. These add a depth of strategy to bg3 that can help you deal with very difficult situations. You just need to be smart enough to create it.
People that "blamed" them for selling unfinished early access are - for lack of a more delicate term - morons.
The game was sold as unfinished. I purchased it as unfinished in it's first week of being made available. I didn't even consider playing it until this past weekend.
Buying an early access game and complaining that it is unfinished is no different to playing Ashes during alpha 2 and complaining that it is unfinished.
As to you not liking it because it isn't related to BG1 and 2, so what? The game itself is amazing. Just pretend it has a different name.
A game can be a part of a niche genre, but not be niche itself.
But people already knew that (if they were paying attention).
MMO's in the mid 2000's were niche, WoW wasn't. FPS games in the early 90's were niche, Doom wasn't. History based 4x games are niche, Civilization isn't.
Gaming has a long line of niche genres (at specific times) that have stand out popular games. BG3 is just a game in a niche genre that has stood out.
The problem is, this won't relate to Ashes at all - and people wanting Ashes to be successful don't want Ashes to follow BG3 in this regard.
BG3 is popular because of how hand crafted it is. People are exploring how each decision changes things, reactions characters have to different situations, that sort of thing. They will be done in a few weeks - and the population will drop right back down until there is some DLC or some such.
A game like Ashes needs to keep it's population entertained day after day, so they keep logging in week after week, and keep paying their subscription month after month.
By 2003 we would have beat both of those games. And I would not be thinking of Steam to play expansions.
Of course - my preference would be to play with more players, so by 2003, I would have been playing EQ and EQ2 and Anarchy Online. Along with a bit of Asheron's Call and DAoC.
Rather than Baldur's Gate expansions.
Also, Baldur's Gate II: Shadows of Amn is an Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd Edition computer role-playing game. It released in September 2000.
D&D 3E released in 2000, so the BG2 ruleset was already basically obsolete.
D&D 3.5 released in 2003, so...again BG2 ruleset was still obsolete by the time it was available on Steam.
?? how does that change the fact that games like BG, basically tabletop RPG sims are niche?
Team fortress 2 is a 2007 game and its still top 5 on steam with average 200k concurrent players.... because shooters ain't niche, CSGO also an old game and its top 3, good try tho.
I haven't played a turn based game in well over a decade, it's just not something I enjoy. I am enjoying this because the attention to detail, the stories, the cinematics etc are all incredible.
What I learned from this game is as a company you have to be transparent, be yourself, make your game and make it with attention to detail and you will grow a fanbase. Larian added another fan this weekend with this game.
Just to make absolutely sure I understand here...
You are trying to use the Steam Numbers of a Team Shooter game, a game with literally 'Team' in the name, that would have been bought on Steam, given who makes it, to what is basically a single player RPG, originally released before Steam itself, to make a point about those games not being niche.
So... is it that the actual point being made just whooshed entirely over your head?
jesus, its so annoying talking with nerds that want to drop their IQ to win a forum discussion,
I'm saying shooters are way more popular than single player RPGs like baldurs gate, obviously
I just gave a random example that came to mind, but theres plenty of other non-steam single player shooters that have high player counts, Call of Duty, Hitman, GTA, Halo etc etc
BG3 is the first of its kind to burst its niche bubble, thats the whole point
What game are you talking about here that is mobile looking?
That's cool and all, and I realize it has a lot of depth, but it's still turn based. My main point here is that a lot of people actively avoid the game because of that.
Pokemon just isn't that comparable, I mean this is 2023, and you're comparing it to something 20+ years old at this point. Or even WoW pet battles, which I'm okay with. They are turn based, yet I don't feel so repulsed by them at all.
Something about BG3 having turn based combat makes it feel cheap, unfun/boring, and mobile-game-esque to me. Especially the isometric view and click to move.
There's an entire world, with great graphics, and great depth to everything in the game, yet when you enter combat, it feels and looks like a complete letdown.
I've yet to pin-point what it is exactly about it, but it just feels constrained, and it doesn't feel like it's free flowing. I feel like I'm enclosed when I enter the combat, and I don't feel any freedom to do whatever I want to when it happens.
Like I said, I can't really explain what it is about the turn-based combat that's so repulsive to me, but I just know that it is, at least when that sort of combat is introduced to RPGs, like BG3, D:OS2, etc.
Like, it isn't even an option.
As to BG3 not feeling free flowing - it isn't supposed to feel free flowing. It is supposed to feel deep, you are supposed to consider your options rather than just flow from one action in to the next.
As a combat type, it isn't for everyone. However, saying the game feels mobile-esque seems somewhat out of place - a mobile phone simply wouldn't be able to deal with the combat system, even if it "looks" simple.
I don't know how to describe it, but it's not a classic 3rd person view camera.
It does feel mobile-esque to me though, just because of the type of combat system being used, I don't care how deep and complex it is, it still looks like one.
I'm fine with considering my options before engaging in combat, but once I do engage, I don't want it to be stop-go type of gameplay constantly. Once I enter the combat, I want to have agency over my actions, and I want to be able to move around freely, attack freely, disengage/run away freely, all at the same time, rather than press a button, then wait for the action to complete, then maybe move if possible, etc.
The camera isn't a "classic 3rd person" camera, because you are not playing as one character in most of BG3. They can't just fix the camera on one character.
It's fine that the game isn't for you, I am just addressing factual inaccuracies.
No I am looking at BG3, and it might very well be because you control more than one character (which coincidentally is also why I dislike turn based games like this one, as I do want to only control one character).
Please stop doing that, as it contributes to nothing but unnecessary arguments. I'd much rather argue about the whole essence of point I'm making, rather than only about some detail that I got wrong.
This is why people dislike having arguments with you btw
And yeah, the game sadly isn't for me. I would very much like it to be for me, and I would like to enjoy it, but it's simply not possible due to the combat system. It's the same thing with a lot of people I've interacted with, they're just not willing to play the game due to the combat system.
As I've said in my first reply, I hope Ashes nails the combat system, in order not to further alienate even more players from even trying the game. It doesn't need to be amazing, but it needs to be good. It needs to be accessible to all players, rather than being a niche combat system only enjoyed by some (Lost Ark for example had a good combat system, but I found the PvP to be absolutely unbearable and unenjoyable due to it having fighting game mechanics included, with staggers, loads of cc, cc immunities and stuff).
You are talking a lot about BG3's combat. I am averaging one combat engagement every 2 hours of gameplay. It is concievable that I could fight even less than that.
The larger picture here of what I am getting at - you thinking the game is mobile-esque, isometric, issues with the camera and a focus on combat - all lead to the notion that you have made some fairly big assumptions about the game without seeming having played it.
This is why I was pointing out actuall factual inaccuracies - so that people could see that your opinions were based on not having played the game.
That's fine - if you already know that turn based games aren't for you, you shouldn't play a turn based game.
But that should probably be the limit of your opinion on it.
Well I think I made it pretty clear that I haven't played the game, because I pointed out numerous times that the combat system is stopping me from even trying the game out.
If I describe it as mobile-esque, it's because it's the first thing I though of when I looked at its combat gameplay. It might not be the best way to describe it, but that's how I felt when I saw it, because something reminded me of mobile games that had the same turn based gameplay.
Isometric is just a wrong word that I used, because I saw it was a sort of a weird 3rd-person view angle. It's not that deep at all.
All I was trying to do, is explain why I dislike the combat system, or more specifically the turn-based combat in BG3. I still don't know what's the exact reason, but I'm at least a bit closer to figuring it out. That's why I listed a few reasons why I might dislike it. That's it.
Yes, and this is why I corrected you. Many people know what an isoletric view is (think Transport Tycoon), and so incorrect comments like that need to be corrected imo - even if they were just a mistake.
However, since the camera is more manuverable in BG3 than in almost any game I have ever played (none immediately come to mind that have more camera freedom), I still think your issue with it is built on a false assumption or incorrect information.
If you saw a "weird 3rd-person view angle", it is because someone put the camera in a weird 3rd-person view.
How is that not isometric (even if just a bit zoomed in)?