Games

32951 readers

1252 users here now

Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.

Weekly Threads:

What Are You Playing?

The Weekly Discussion Topic

Rules:

Submissions have to be related to games
No bigotry or harassment, be civil
No excessive self-promotion
Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
Mark Spoilers and NSFW
No linking to piracy

More information about the community rules can be found here.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

128

Why do modern strategy games hate the grid? (lemmy.world)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

67 comments fedilink hide all child comments

OK, I finally took the plunge on Baldur's Gate 3, and, coming from playing several hundreds of hours of Solasta recently, the first thing I noticed is the lack of a combat grid.

Going back a bit further, my son and I spent a ridiculous amount of time playing Mario + Rabbids Kingdom Battle. We were super pumped for the sequel, but when it finally came out, it kind of fell flat for both of us. Whether or not it's down to this, I don't know, but they also removed the grid.

That game, of course, was an XCom-like. XCom used a grid, but a more recent Firaxis game, Marvel's Midnight Suns, got rid of the grid as well.

To me, all these gridless iterations of classic strategy games just aren't as engaging. I guess they're going for a more immersive rpg type of feel? But to me it seems to sacrifice the strategy aspect, and ultimately, judging based on my hours played, that always ends up being too great a sacrifice. My play time on Marvel's Midnight Suns is less than 10% of Xcom 2, and the same is true for Mario + Rabbids Sparks of Hope.

I'm sure BG3 is a great game, and I'm sure I'll enjoy the campaign, but so far it's not giving me the 'feels'.

Do you miss grids? Or did they only slow you down?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't expect any other crpg to take a swing at BG3's presentation in a very long time, honestly. Don't need fancy graphics. Would it be a better introduction to someone looking into getting into dnd? Might be running a one shot soon, my first one.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I may not be the right guy to answer that. What I played of it felt very... knowing. Tool-like. It really seemed to want you to know what you wanted to do with it, just in the way it presents itself. Once I got to playing it felt like a good one of those, though, it mostly didn't get in its own way as much as I feared it would.

I'm assuming you already played the Divinity Original Sin games if you're not considering rolling into those after BG3, right? Because those are pretty much more of that.

The other obvious "basically DnD" option is the Pathfinder duology, but those games go hard in ways I definitely would not recommend for "looking into getting" into anything. It's be ready to start over from an unwinnable scenario 30 hours in or stay away.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah, played dos2 as my first crpg, loved it to hell and back.

Saw pathfinder a while back but that one uses another system, right? Not 5e.

I'll probably jump into Solasta, then. Thanks!

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Not 5e. I'm not a tabletop guy, but my read on Pathfinder from Osmosis is that it's DnD for the people that never got over 3 or 3.5. Like, literally it's based on DnD through that whole open format they were trying to shut down recently. You can tell in the videogames, too. In many ways they feel more like the old BG releases than BG3. If those games were unreasonably huge and had some wild campaign-wide mechanics.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Hm, would you mind giving me an example of that whole open format thing? Not sure I understand the difference.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The core rules of d&d (mechanics but not settings) are available under a free license (it was the Open Gaming License, or OGL, although I have a feeling it's a different license (Creative Commons , maybe?) now following the backlash from earlier this year when Wizards tried to scrap the OGL and replace it with a worse license)

Pathfinder was originally based on the d&d 3.5e ruleset. I'm not sure how far it has diverged from that, as I've played neither. Solasta is based on d&d 5e (the latest version of the rules), but is in a non-d&d setting of their own creation. BG3 is also based on 5e (although less strictly than Solasta), but also has the D&D license, so can use the Forgotten Realms/Sword Coast setting

Personally, I enjoyed Solasta, and think it's a great representation of combat on 5e. The writing and story aren't amazing, and it lacks the crazy amount of freedom/choices of BG3, but mechanically, it's a great implementation of 5e rules.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

We're getting into the weeds of DnD now and I'm not into the tabletop side of things enough to be that guy for you, so I suggest you google these things from better sources.

But basically, as I understand it there is an open license that allows people to make RPGs based on the DnD ruleset and actually sell them. Been there for ages, it's at the core of several other popular systems, including Pathfinder's "just keep playing 3rd edition forever" take. Hasbro tried to shut that down and monetize those derivatives as part of a wider push to milk the recent mainstream popularity of DnD (on the plus side that's also how we got BG3 and the new movie, so... take the good with the bad, I guess?).

Fan pushback was swift, strong and mainstream, so I believe they pulled back on those plans for now.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Oh, I was unaware of the whole situation. Thanks! I'll look up info online about it all.