I love most of these but one I don’t think anyone knows about is Bloody Roar on PS1. Typical fighter but each character could also transform into a different beast mode with a new move set. Tons of fun although I don’t think it’s aged well at all.
That was BR2. BR1 was kinda distinct because instead of the bat lady it had a heavyset middle-aged warthog woman - most anime-styled fighting games only include female characters for T&A (like the bat lady).
I like both, frankly. I get going with free positioning in BG3, mostly because that's how it is in both BG1&2 and Divinity OS 1&2, so it'd be a weird change. But also, it makes sense on CRPGs where you're trying to depict very fluid, dynamic "do what you want" situations more than tactical precision.
I do hate in BG3 when I accidentally step on something or a command to do something places a character on top of a hazard first, but... you know, table top jank captured, I suppose.
I will say that I'm not sure "immersion" is what the grid triggers for me one way or the other, though. Mostly grid tactical games are about optimization and precision while free roaming is about looser, fluid improvisation. If it's a full-on tactics game I'd prefer a grid for that reason, for narrative RPGs I can go either way.
I did like Midnight Suns quite a bit, although that's because I'm also a CCG guy and a superhero nerd, so that angle works for me. Weirdly, it was XCOM 2 that didn't quite do it for me compared to the first.
Hah, yeah, I guess they technically weren't. Could have fooled me, because if you didn't play those by pausing, queuing up every action and then only unpausing until you can queue up the next I don't know how your brain works. BG3 is basically a Divinity sequel, though, and it goes for that same improvised feel where you're supposed to go through the game chucking bags full of rotten fish at enemies instead of engaging with the actual combat rules. I agree that it's a very different feel in both, though.
CCG is "Collectible card games". I look at Midnight Suns as a card game with some positioning mechanics, more than a tactics game. It makes a lot more sense like that, in terms of the small puzzle-like encounters and the turn optimization and so on.
Oh gosh, I vaguely remember the pausing & queueing up action thing. I usually played 2 player, and I’m trying to remember if that paused everyone or not.
Yea, I saw Midnight Suns as a mashup between something like XCom and a CCG. I haven’t played too many CCGs, though I did enjoy Slay the Spire. I see the cards as adding some randomness to the game, but as far as the tactical positioning it doesn’t really change things for me. I remember the environment actually factoring in quite a bit… pushing people into things, or throwing things. I guess the lack of grid didn’t really hurt that, but I wonder if I would have enjoyed it more if the grid had been there. Ultimately I don’t know if it’s the grid itself, or just a fundamental shift in style of gameplay that leads to me not enjoying these games as much.
Yeah, in Midnight Suns specifically I don't think the grid would have worked, because that game is built on grinding extra turns and extra damage from interactions, so you need to be able to line up things with each other. Like, you don't just want to hit, you want to hit so that the guy goes flying into an explosive that topples a thing that then falls on another guy. It's more of a puzzle game than anythign else sometimes. They even have a challenge mode in there with those sorts of setups.
I think it's perfectly fair to be mostly into grid tactics, it's almost a different genre. I don't think you can legitimately look at BG3 or Midnight Suns and suggest it's the same type of thing as Final Fantasy Tactics or even XCOM. There's connective tissue there, but it's like comparing, say, Devil May Cry and Tekken.
Unless they start offering on-prem or there are some very high profile server hacks I don’t see that being possible. Unlike media and client software they don’t need to provide the core functionality to end users, just the output.
I like that they donnt use the grid. Feels more natural. That being said, I would occasionally like a measurement tool or something so you can see if you’re within 5/60 ft or whatever
I mean, I don't mind too much the lack of a grid system but I just can't get used to the turn-less combat system of games like "Pillars of Eternity", Tyranny or Pathfinder.
They are great, though. It's just a nitpick I have.
I’m currently in two different D&D campaigns. One plays combats on the regular 5ft grid, the other is “theatre of mind” where where everything is just described. Both are fine, I don’t really feel like I lose anything with either method, it’s just two different abstractions for the same ideas.
Larian’s previous game, Divinity Original Sin: 2, was still highly tactical despite its lack of grid-based positioning or targeting. The game used its mechanics of skills, freer movement, and surfaces/clouds to really shake up each battle and make them unique. Each combat was like a little puzzle. For me, who usually bounces off the likes of XCOM, it was absolutely brilliant. BG3 is much the same, just with a different ruleset (and I’m glad I was familiar with it beforehand. It must be daunting to be thrown into 5e without having a book thrown at you).
Being a nerd now, there is actually a grid in these games, but it’s only used for navmeshes and the surfaces. The game doesn’t expose either of these to you in-game. Visually, the edges of surfaces are messy and extend/retract from where they technically are according to the engine. I suppose you can kind of see the navmesh grid by clicking all around the edges of walkable areas, but other than walking up to edges, the navmesh has little impact on anything else.
Woah I didn’t know that game was about to be released 😮. It’s been on my wish list for a long time. Well, I know what I’ll play tomorrow now that I completed Blasphemous 2!
I feel like a lot of design decisions downstream are dependent on that choice. You could absolutely lock gridless combat to a grid, but I don't think it'd feel the same.
I'm trying to remember a game that has done that, because I'm pretty sure there's at least one.
Even in tabletop rpgs, I advocate for the removal of the grid. I prefer to do combat in the style of tabletop wargames, free movement in any direction, treating each inch of movement as 5 feet (for D&D and Pathfinder).
I’vealways seen grids as a way to simplify what is otherwise a challenging mechanic to track and utilize. They function as something of a “good enough” for when you are willing to sacrifice accuracy for simplicity. And there’s something to be said for the way that simplicity can be appealing to the player, as it get some of the more fiddily mechanics out of the way and frees you up to focus on more substantial or engaging mechanics like character builds and team comps.
So, do I miss then when they’re replaced with the more intricate measurement systems that they were designed to simplify? Not really. But I can certainly see why some would feel that way.
I prefer grids myself, I’ve never gotten very far in gridless strategy games I’ve played (Mario+Rabbids, Valkyria Chronicles) because I just have too hard a time keeping track of what I can do with any given unit when I don’t have the grid for reference. That said, I can understand the appeal to some as an immersion enhancement, as others have said, and as something of a “modernization” of turn-based strategy allowing for more freedom of movement. Cool if you enjoy that kind of thing in strategy, but just not my jam. I was raised on Fire Emblem in the genre, lol.
bin.pol.social
Aktywne