Videogames Latest: Starfields of Glory

[IlyaP]

40 minutes ago, Rhom said:

Is it turn based?  I assumed it was real time with pause like the others.

It's completely turn-based. Larian don't like RTwP, which makes me sad. (I know it's not everyone's cup of tea, but I will always prefer it to turn-based.)

[Toth]

Just trying to figure out the battle system in Space Engineers. My first starfighter is... not very creative: https://i.imgur.com/1Ss5YV2.png

Got a bit startled that I have to assign the guns to the mouse before I can shoot.

[grozeng]

7 hours ago, Rhom said:

 

Yeah, I have a couple of TB drives.  They really aren’t that expensive these days.  They plug in with a USB and basically function like a really big thumb drive. 

Sorry to hijack the thread, but are they safe?  My wife wants everything on the computer and an external drive just in case one fails.  So if I put it on  2 external will that be just as good?  Do they need to stay plugged in or can I put it on an external drive and then keep it in a fireproof box?  That may make her feel better.  I can say we are doing this to make sure they are completely safe, not because I want to free up space for a game

I need to check my computer, but it is not too old.  When I bought it a couple of years ago I made sure most of the parts were top of the line, so they are probably near the minimum needed to play now (hopefully).

[Rhom]

4 hours ago, grozeng said:

Sorry to hijack the thread, but are they safe?  My wife wants everything on the computer and an external drive just in case one fails.  So if I put it on  2 external will that be just as good?  Do they need to stay plugged in or can I put it on an external drive and then keep it in a fireproof box?  That may make her feel better.  I can say we are doing this to make sure they are completely safe, not because I want to free up space for a game

I need to check my computer, but it is not too old.  When I bought it a couple of years ago I made sure most of the parts were top of the line, so they are probably near the minimum needed to play now (hopefully).

I don’t see why not.  

[IlyaP]

7 hours ago, grozeng said:

Sorry to hijack the thread, but are they safe? 

Safe as in not likely to fail? Or safe as in secure with encryption? 

If the former: absolutely. Think of them as glorified USB flash drives. 

If the latter: you can also password protect anything that you want quite easily.

7 hours ago, grozeng said:

My wife wants everything on the computer and an external drive just in case one fails.  So if I put it on  2 external will that be just as good? 

Just as good in what sense? 

As a general rule, given that nothing is forever, I recommend double-backing up everything - as in: back up everything to at least 2 external drives, in case one fails. (With SSDs this can also happen if you mistreat it. Also keep SSDs and HDDs away from magnets or speakers, as a general rule.)

7 hours ago, grozeng said:

Do they need to stay plugged in or can I put it on an external drive and then keep it in a fireproof box? 

You can do both. Generally, if you're not going to be accessing the external drive much, once you've backed everything up, safely eject the media via your system tray (the little area in Windows OS, which I'm guessing you're using?). I advise people to always do this, rather than simply disconnecting the external drive by pulling the cable out of the USB slot. 

But once you've backed everything up, and if you know you're not going to use it again, yes, you can put it in a fireproof box. Just make sure said box is away from anything magnetic. And don't continuously reuse it, by deleting and adding new stuff. You can only add/remove so many times from an SSD drive before it starts to show a bit of wear and tear (this is known as program/erase (P/E) cycles.)

7 hours ago, grozeng said:

That may make her feel better.  I can say we are doing this to make sure they are completely safe, not because I want to free up space for a game

Just the safety of the material on the drive is important, and you want to give her peace of mind, invest in at least 2 drives, and double-back them up, just in case one gets accidentally damaged, however unlikely it might be.

7 hours ago, grozeng said:

I need to check my computer, but it is not too old.  When I bought it a couple of years ago I made sure most of the parts were top of the line, so they are probably near the minimum needed to play now (hopefully).

Per PCGamer, these are the recommended specs for Baldur's Gate III: 

Minimum:

OS: Windows 7 SP1 64-bit
Processor: Intel i5-4690 / AMD FX 4350
Memory: 8 GB RAM
Graphics: Nvidia GTX 780 / AMD Radeon R9 280X
DirectX: Version 11
Storage: 150 GB available space

Recommended:

OS: Windows 10 64-bit
Processor: Intel i7 4770k / AMD Ryzen 5 1500X
Memory: 16 GB RAM
Graphics: Nvidia GTX 1060 6GB / AMD RX580
DirectX: Version 11
Storage: 150 GB available space

[ASOIAFrelatedusername]

3 hours ago, IlyaP said:

Per PCGamer, these are the recommended specs for Baldur's Gate III: 

These are no longer up to date. The changed it earlier this year I believe. Steam and GOG list these:

Minimum:

• OS: Windows 10 64-bit
• Processor: Intel I5 4690 / AMD FX 8350
• Memory: 8 GB RAM
• Graphics: Nvidia GTX 970 / RX 480 (4GB+ of VRAM)
• DirectX: Version 11
• Storage: 150 GB available space
• Additional Notes: SSD required

Recommended:

• OS: Windows 10 64-bit
• Processor: Intel i7 8700K / AMD r5 3600
• Memory: 16 GB RAM
• Graphics: Nvidia 2060 Super / RX 5700 XT (8GB+ of VRAM)
• DirectX: Version 11
• Storage: 150 GB available space
• Additional Notes: SSD required

 

 

[Darryk]

21 hours ago, IlyaP said:

It's completely turn-based. Larian don't like RTwP, which makes me sad. (I know it's not everyone's cup of tea, but I will always prefer it to turn-based.)

*sigh* Making a Baldur's Gate game that goes against the Baldur's Gate tradition.

[Heartofice]

Wow, I didn't realise Baldurs Gate 3 was going to be turn based combat! My initial reaction is 'well thats going to be shit'

However I played Pillars of Eternity more recently than playing the original BG and honestly I never liked the combat, was just super awkward, loads of pausing to do stuff. Maybe turn based would be better.

I haven't played these sorts of games properly for years though so I'm pretty open to it.

[Relic]

Combat in BG3 is just fine. Yeha it sort of sucks you have to hit the end turn button, but it's more strategic than the occasional mess BG2's combat could be. I've played a few hours of early access and the game is sweeeeeet

[IlyaP]

4 hours ago, ASOIAFrelatedusername said:

These are no longer up to date. The changed it earlier this year I believe. Steam and GOG list these:

Oh woah, I didn't know this! Thank you for the updated data, @ASOIAFrelatedusername!

[IlyaP]

57 minutes ago, Relic said:

Combat in BG3 is just fine. Yeha it sort of sucks you have to hit the end turn button, but it's more strategic than the occasional mess BG2's combat could be. I've played a few hours of early access and the game is sweeeeeet

I never thought of the combat in BG2 as being messy, but each player will bring their own attitude/perspective on this stuff. I grew up playing RTwP, and love the hell out of the Pillars games, like @Heartofice, and never quite took to turn-based games, even modern ones, so I suspect I won't be playing BG3. 

Which is okay. There are always other things out there.

[Relic]

1 minute ago, IlyaP said:

I never thought of the combat in BG2 as being messy, but each player will bring their own attitude/perspective on this stuff. I grew up playing RTwP, and love the hell out of the Pillars games, like @Heartofice, and never quite took to turn-based games, even modern ones, so I suspect I won't be playing BG3. 

Which is okay. There are always other things out there.

It was sometimes a mess, with your Frontline face tanking, characters moving to weird spots in order to cast spells, and the occasional Aoe mishap. I often paused combat in BG2 and similar games, to micromanage. But I do agree that allowing the combat to flow on its own had its upside. 

[IlyaP]

16 minutes ago, Relic said:

It was sometimes a mess, with your Frontline face tanking, characters moving to weird spots in order to cast spells, and the occasional Aoe mishap. I often paused combat in BG2 and similar games, to micromanage. But I do agree that allowing the combat to flow on its own had its upside. 

If that was something that occurred, I confess, I never really noticed - I tend to get invested in and play for the story. But I also really enjoyed that action management component to Real Time with Pause, oddly enough - as it let me coordinate my players as I wanted, and not have this weird "now everyone goes according to when the magic clock says so!" mechanic, that I loathed as a teen and don't enjoy any more now.

[Luzifer's right hand]

On 7/20/2023 at 2:24 PM, IlyaP said:

It's completely turn-based. Larian don't like RTwP, which makes me sad. (I know it's not everyone's cup of tea, but I will always prefer it to turn-based.)

I bounced hard of the Original Sin games and I'm not excited about BG3 despite the fact that BG1+2 are probably my most replayed games.

Jagged Alliance 2 is the only turn based RPGish game I still play sometimes. Apart from that I always found turn based inferior(for RPGs).

Jagged Alliance 3 actually looks good but all other reboots of that franchise failed and I will give it a try after it is on sale at some point.

Edited July 21, 2023 by Luzifer's right hand

[Gorn]

3 hours ago, IlyaP said:

I never thought of the combat in BG2 as being messy, but each player will bring their own attitude/perspective on this stuff. I grew up playing RTwP, and love the hell out of the Pillars games, like @Heartofice, and never quite took to turn-based games, even modern ones, so I suspect I won't be playing BG3. 

Which is okay. There are always other things out there.

Real-time management of six characters is inherently messy. BG1 & 2 "fixes" it by using D&D turns in the background taking 6 seconds each, which means that melee martial characters take a swing, and then stare menacingly at their opponent for the next 5 seconds while standing in the same spot (which goes unnoticed by the player since they have 5 other characters to manage and worry about).

Pillars of Eternity made the mistake of trying to improve this by speeding up everyone's actions to be more realistic, which (for me) made combat unmanageable without pausing every two seconds, at which point you might as well go with turn-based.

Personally, whenever an RPG gives me an option to play it turn-based, I take it and I don't look back. That's how I played Pillars of Eternity 2 and Pathfinder: Kingmaker, and that's how I'm currently playing Wrath of the Righteous.

As for "Baldur's Gate tradition", they are D&D games. D&D is turn-based. The first two games are the ones going against  tradition, the third is returning to it.

[Heartofice]

10 minutes ago, Gorn said:

Pillars of Eternity made the mistake of trying to improve this by speeding up everyone's actions to be more realistic, which (for me) made combat unmanageable without pausing every two seconds, at which point you might as well go with turn-based.

Yeah this is pretty much what I was getting at. Initially I just let fights play out, but once you start doing badly you feel the need to micromanage everything and that just becomes incredibly tedious. 

[Luzifer's right hand]

17 minutes ago, Gorn said:

Real-time management of six characters is inherently messy. BG1 & 2 "fixes" it by using D&D turns in the background taking 6 seconds each, which means that melee martial characters take a swing, and then stare menacingly at their opponent for the next 5 seconds while standing in the same spot (which goes unnoticed by the player since they have 5 other characters to manage and worry about).

Pillars of Eternity made the mistake of trying to improve this by speeding up everyone's actions to be more realistic, which (for me) made combat unmanageable without pausing every two seconds, at which point you might as well go with turn-based.

Personally, whenever an RPG gives me an option to play it turn-based, I take it and I don't look back. That's how I played Pillars of Eternity 2 and Pathfinder: Kingmaker, and that's how I'm currently playing Wrath of the Righteous.

As for "Baldur's Gate tradition", they are D&D games. D&D is turn-based. The first two games are the ones going against  tradition, the third is returning to it.

Without modding BG1+2 have cosmetic attacks. If you know the mechanics you get to a point where attacks happen quicker than animations in BG2 with buffed warriors pretty quickly though. 9-10 attacks per round is crazy fast.

Apart from that you can actually mix item usage and other things in. The game is way too easy that way without a difficulty mod though. Wands and potions are incredible strong in the first game. The molotov style potions actually penetrate spell protections and magic resistance. You can kill a demi lich in like one round by just throwing potions from 6 characters in BG2 lol...

Edit: pausing often does not fee like turned based at all to me as stuff is still happening in parallel. Not having the option to give orders to a party member while it is under attack is incredible unsatisfying to me.

Edited July 21, 2023 by Luzifer's right hand

[Gorn]

38 minutes ago, Luzifer's right hand said:

Without modding BG1+2 have cosmetic attacks. If you know the mechanics you get to a point where attacks happen quicker than animations in BG2 with buffed warriors pretty quickly though. 9-10 attacks per round is crazy fast.

You're right, the cosmetic attacks do exist in the originals to make the melee characters look busier than they actually are during combat.

I remember reading somewhere that Bioware developers in BG1 intentionally made low attack dice rolls more likely than high ones in order to slow down the combat and make it more tactical. I don't know if that was carried over into BG2.

[IlyaP]

1 hour ago, Gorn said:

Real-time management of six characters is inherently messy. BG1 & 2 "fixes" it by using D&D turns in the background taking 6 seconds each, which means that melee martial characters take a swing, and then stare menacingly at their opponent for the next 5 seconds while standing in the same spot (which goes unnoticed by the player since they have 5 other characters to manage and worry about).

If you are willing and have the time, could you expand upon this a bit? The reason for asking is: I am not an under the hood mechanics kind of guy. My experience with D&D is a DM-modified version of 2.5ed during my high school years, jusf as BG1 was released - which I played over and over and still go (hell, I still know where to find the ankheg armor in the Friendly Arm Inn map to the south-east!), but I was and am a lore and history guy, not a mechanics guy. 

So when it comes to the combat in BG1, I would pause the moment action started, assign actions, and get down with the violence. Wax, rinse, repeat. 

I never noticed the timing observations you made, ditto Pillars of Eternity 1 and 2, both of which are addictive drugs in my life and games I love dearly. 

[Luzifer's right hand]

6 minutes ago, Gorn said:

You're right, the cosmetic attacks do exist in the originals to make the melee characters look busier than they actually are during combat.

I remember reading somewhere that Bioware developers in BG1 intentionally made low attack dice rolls more likely than high ones in order to slow down the combat and make it more tactical. I don't know if that was carried over into BG2.

There is also a mechanic that prevents one shotting level 1 characters with less than 14 hp. The games have a lot of hidden tweaks to the 2nd edition.

In the original BG1 haste actually doubled your attacks/spells per round which meant that you actually attacked surprisingly often if you knew the buff system. Haste+slow on enemies was devastating.

When it comes to unmoded Icewind Dale is more tactical I feel tough.