Games

32394 readers

1283 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 1 year 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 (5 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) (4 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 (3 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.

load more comments (2 replies)