I like RTwP better than Turn based. It allows for player agency and skill expression missing from turn based systems since you are allowed to react and change strategies to what is happening rather than what has happened. Due to the high damage nature of many turn-based crpgs deaths frequently happen without making a mistake. Good example of this is Underrail where most deaths happen before you get a turn, meaning no counterplay. I don't know why RTwP ultimately died, but I know that recent games with this style have had very boring abilities. Sleep in bg3 has by itself presented itself with more "Aha, Eureka!" moments where the fight is over because I threaded the needle by using a situational ability in the perfect situation. This did not happen to me in Poe 2: Deadfire. I am perhaps the biggest hater of using Tabletop systems for video games on earth, but I still agree, the spells in bg3 can be more fun that recent RTwP titles. Polearm master is much cooler than “deal 20% more dmg with 2-handed weapons”, since the former changes how you play and what is optimal even if the latter is probably a better passive ability. Poe 2 spells like "Expose vulnerabilities", “Wall of draining”, “Chill fog” are really good and can make otherwise unwinnable fights easy, but they're boring. The added depth of RTwP allows the player to interrupt important casts or change a cleric’s action from an offensive spell mid cast to an AoE heal, reposition party members from an incoming fireball, drag enemies to a chokepoint without it taking 5 years. This doesn't change the fact that nearly all of the skills used in recent RTwP titles are either DMG or numerical buffs/debuffs, making these decisions seldom needed. Instead we could have spells that immediately change which next moves are the optimal ones, spells like sleep, hold person, hypnotic pattern. I have no hope of any good cRPGs coming out using RTwP in the next 10 years or so since every game will copy BG3.
To be honest, I am getting very tired of RTwP. I end up just prefering to create classes that are "just spam attack" friendly, because I find casting or using abilities tedious and annoying. The main problem against turn-based is the time dedicated. If you design a game as RTwP and use turn-based, you will spend an eternity and combat will be boring, really boring. You need a game designed as turn-based directly, this is why combat design in DOS2 or BG3 is far superior to Pathfinder WOTR (turn-based mode).
I also prefer turn-based, and I always have, even back in 2002. However, I don't hate RTwP. There is something very gripping about it. Action is always happening, and time flies by! I'm excited to see people take the mechanic and develop it, because I don't think it fits in the classic CRPG model.
As much as I loved bg1 and bg3 back in the day, I have always hated rtwp. I even hated in in those games. I just loved they rest of the game enough to deal with it. Rtwp has always felt like a compromise that is the worst of both worlds.
@@Aestus_RPG I really loved the presentation and dynamism of Deadfire's combat. Coming from never having played RTwP (and thinking I would hate it after experiencing DOS2), I tried it and really enjoyed its pace. I just think it gives you a more visceral feel and makes you feel the heat of the moment instead of the sludge that turn-based can be. I still love both systems and it's quality for me, usually depends what the game is balanced and designed around.
@@leftovernoise Yeah, I agree with this take. Planescape Torment is an even more extreme example where the RTWP combat is *by far* the worst part of the game to the point that it's barely tolerable, but it's worth suffering through because the rest of the game is so brilliant. I don't think RTWP as a system is entirely without merit, but I have a strong preference for turn-based, and the RTWP CRPGs I *have* played, I would have enjoyed even more if they were turn-based instead.
Some great real time with pause games in the RPG genre for those interested: Planescape Torment, Arcanum (choice between real time and turn-based), and my personal favorite Dragon Age: Origins. All three are some of the best written games I’ve played.
I think turn-based is more accessible to a majority of players. I know some people that would not play at all if a game was RTWP. But it makes sense for ppl who know/like CRPGs.
Played the demo, the combat system is actually really good, hopefully they earn a good profit and can upgrade their engine to make higher resolution games in the future, I'll buy this for sure.
4x games like Crusader Kings are also a great use of the system. The feeeling of control that Ck3 gives me has made me bleed 1.7k hours of my wortless life into it already.
Finding it hard to get into pathfinder. Also found it hard to get into Tyranny. Thought I couldn't play cRPG's until I found Divinity, and then obviously pre-ordered baldurs gate 3 years ago and wasn't disappointed. I feel bad for people that feel the same in the other direction, but turn based feels more pure and fitting for what are digital table top systems.
I prefer it myself, but ultimately I find what really matters is just learning a system. CRPGs reward knowledge, once you pass a basic threshold of knowledge combat flows, builds are spontaneous and fun, role play is easier, etc. The advantage of turn based is like Sawyers says, its easier to learn. I don't think they are more pure to the genre, its just lower barrier of entry.
In my opinion, it should be possible to choose between RTwP and turn-based combat, as they solved in Pathfinder, for example. Additionally, there was the possibility to set the AI of the character. For me, turn-based combat kills the immersion in the game and is simply boring. In addition, I am addicted to Action Points, so sometimes I lose a character senselessly.
The reason why people like turn based more is because they have absolutely 0 micro, coming from an RTS background rtwp is no issue and i prefer it because it saves time
