He wants a colorful amusement park RPG on rails that plays itself for him. He doesn’t want to be bogged down by silly things like gameplay mechanics, he wants to paint by numbers.
This aligns with my experience of a very particular kind of game designer. I worked with one who, in a casual conversation about games where someone said “there’s no wrong way to have fun,” they responded with “yes there is, and it’s my job to tell people what the right way is”.
This is not a systemic issue, at Ubisoft or anywhere else. It’s a particularity of a kind of person who is deeply drawn to games, but who also doesn’t see other people as, well, people. It’s a person who has made friends with games and game systems because they’re incapable of being friends with, well, sapient beings.
Video game studio projects tend to have multiple designers working on them, with the creative director (or just “director”) and lead designer working on large scale design things - genre, core loop, etc - and progressively less senior designers working on progressively smaller, progressively more soul crushing design work. Think things like item design and balance. Weirdly enough, the ones who think they’re the arbiter of fun don’t generally progress very high up this chain.
Not in team-based design environments, at least.
The OP isn’t wrong. Turn-based combat is falling out of favour with the majority of the new generation. Final Fantasy has dropped turn-based combat for the same reasons.
For several console generations now, all character expressions can be done in real-time. Actions such as ‘press the trigger and your character will shoot a gun’ and ‘press the button and your character will swing their sword’ can now be easily expressed without going through a command system.
It’s now common for gamers younger than me to love such games. As a result, it seems that it does not make sense to go through a command prompt, such as ‘Battle’, to make a decision during a battle.
It was always a design choice born from limitations. It’s not going to disappear, but it was destined to decline in use once those limitations disappeared.
No it isn’t. We had action games on the NES. pitfall wasn’t turn based. It’s a design choice that allows greater tactical choices.
They were never about hardware limitations. Limitations of imagination of the designers, maybe, but we’ve had action games for 35 years now.
Actions such as ‘press the trigger and your character will shoot a gun’ and ‘press the button and your character will swing their sword’ can now be easily expressed without going through a command system.
And yet we can’t purge ourselves of the awfulness that is quick-time events. I don’t buy the argument. It’s an attempt to handwave away trends without discussing real causes and effect. If the suggestion here were true, other similar mechanics, such as QTEs, would have been dead a long time ago, not be a core element of a huge number of triple-A titles.
It’s a design choice born from I’m playing the game while eating, if I twitch for timing I’ll spill my drink
Being confident in your answer doesn’t make you right.
More than one type of game exists. It is always a creative choice. Always has been. I could go into examples, but plenty of people have already provided those.
“There aren’t even messages in the menus to tell you about the useless cosmetics store! How can this even be a game?” -Ubisoft Dev Probably
You don’t even climb a single radio tower let alone 300 of them.
Am I the one that’s out of touch? No, it’s the almost half a million players who are mistaken!
I’ve played through Fallout 1 and 2 dozens of times.
I have yet to finish Fallout 4 or Fallout: New Vegas.
The sea change from “actual RPGs” to “shooters with occasional minor choices to make” enrages me.
I don’t blame you for avoiding Fallout 3 or 4… but you owe it to yourself to at least give New Vegas a chance! It’s just a much better game.
I’ve tried New Vegas three or four times. By the time I actually get to New Vegas and meet Mr. House, I’m overwhelmed by the number of things I’m supposed to be doing and dead dog tired of those fucking OP Legion assassins that show up to ruin my day every fifteen minutes.
Part of that is probably on me, because I’m the guy who wants to experience the whole game in a single play-through, and I try not to take on too many new quests until I’ve finished the ones I’ve already got. I’ve also been recently informed that if I rush to New Vegas and do Mr. House’s quest, the Legion assassins will back off for a bit, which is a big deal because my god I’m sick of them. I never would have tried that on my own, as there’s nothing in the game to give me a clue that they’re connected, but maybe I’ll give it another shot and do that.
Legion assassins are after you because you have a bad reputation with the legion. Just don’t do anything they will hate you for, and you’re fine. You can also wear their armor as a disguise.
I never would have tried that on my own, as there’s nothing in the game to give me a clue that they’re connected
It has to do with a plot point that you wouldn’t know about yet, its not supposed to just be a break from the legion assassins.
Legion assassins are after you because you have a bad reputation with the legion.
Oh.
Well shit.
So maybe I shouldn’t go to Nipton and toss a grenade at the Legionaries as they’re walking away after their leader finished shit-talking me.
They just explode in such an easy, satisfying way! How do they even know it was me? All the witnesses are unrecognizable flesh chunks!
Ok, maybe I will load up another try.
So maybe I shouldn’t go to Nipton and toss a grenade at the Legionaries as they’re walking away after their leader finished shit-talking me.
Probably not, but you can kill the leader later once you’re better equipped to take on assassins. He’s one of my least favorite characters so I always kill him unless I’m specifically trying to help the legion.
I understand that there are plenty of reasons to dislike a game, ANY game, BG3 included, but how tf “has no right to exist” is supposed to be an argument? Based on what, according to whom, because what?
Agreed
By their logic games like civ with its turn based fighting “had no right to exist” because counterstrike is popular…
Some people just enjoy being able to plan their actions and having a bird’s eye perspective on things.
Not to mention: Pausing.
Apparently Baldur’s Gate 3 never had a right to exist since Larian decided to make original sin 3 instead and now a true Baldur’s Gate 3 will never exist.
I fail to see why the game is titled BG3, instead of BG: .
BG series had concluded with ToB and an ending that was both satisfying and closed. There were no important loose ends worth pursuing afterwards. The game takes place in the same setting, same territory but that’s about that.
I hope to see how it’s going to be, where the story takes the protagonist, though.
One reviewer that played through that and BG 1&2 said there is a lot of connections to the previous games. So it may be a sequel in every sense.
Char name’s saga is over. Well maybe… idk
Carrying over a few story titbits makes it a sequel in every sense? Don’t you expect a game’s sequel to share gameplay characteristics? Baldur’s Gate 3 has a completely different story along with completely different gameplay - in what sense is it a sequel.
If Larian are now incapable of making a game that isn’t original sin they should’ve refused to partner with wizards of the coats and put a “3” în the title, but neither of them seem to have any integrity.
You can’t even pay to double the experience and money you get in game
that’s not what based means
Sarcasm exists.
