Assuming the party is in formation, which is exactly what these sort of games did, then it could still be replicated in a freer environment. This is what I am trying to get my head around. All of the "strategy" elements that are being suggested as reasons why it is important, are elements that can work in the Freer movement. Which suggests to me that either there is some other element that makes it so, or that ultimately it is just about someone's preference.
Of course it's about someone's preference.
Of course a translation to free can 'work'. Our point is that difference takes it away from the 'classic' feel. You continually say you're trying to understand. But it's a preference. You won't understand. And continually saying you want to but seeming to be unable to is why I keep saying - just understand that there are some of us who do prefer it, and that you can't understand is just fine.
The arguments that you and the original guy have posted.
BTSuperFan wrote:The bottom line is the grid with teleporters, spinners etc.. Add a puzzle aspect to the games that cant be replicated with free motion. It adds an incredibly satisfying level of challenge, and if its taken out it will leave a very large hole that guts the game.
TheBruce wrote:Yes, but regardless, even if others had grid, it still made BT the experience that it was. As he said, take away the grid and many strategic elements are lost; gameplay mechanics will be much more 'modern' than 'classic'. A sequel will feel in that context more like the BT04 sequel than a BT Classic.
TheBruce wrote:A number of strategy components in the classic trilogy rely on the grid-based system.
Drool wrote:thebruce has a good point. One of the big obstacles in the originals were the tile-based traps, from HP or MP drain, to sticky tiles that you had to click several times to leave, to anti-magic tiles, to silent or dark tiles, to the dreaded spinners. And then, on top of that, the tiles that had multiple effects, like the death trap in the Catacombs that locked you in a 1x1 room with anti-magic, no teleport, -HP, and -MP. Or the tar pits in Tennebrosia that had -HP, sticky, and spinner (sticky spinners were the worst). There were also (rarely) +HP and +MP tiles, but those were few and far between.
Removing the grid kind of pulls the teeth from those traps and challenges. If nothing else, it seems it would make adding them much more complicated, since you couldn't just go, "Okay, x=12 y=11 is a spinner..." I'm not saying it couldn't be done, just that it seems like it would be a lot harder without a grid.
Drool actually gave some good examples here. I can't argue against some because having never experienced them I don't know them. But the concept of a tile based trap is not unusual, and as Drool admits, it would in theory be doable. More complicated but doable.
Yes, doable, translateable, but no longer faithful to the classic.
I'm not talking about 'walk into a zone get hit by a trap'. The intent of that is just about being hit by a trap. I'm talking about traps and navigational strategies that are specifically created around the grid-based structure of the map, spinners as an example. We already detailed out how spinners' and teleports' strategies relied on grid structure
. Yes of course they can exist
in a free environment, but gameplay strategy would be different, and the level design strategies would be enormously different in order to provide the same gameplay effects that a grid structure provides.
TheBruce wrote:This is why I said "a lot more has to change". So yes, "a number of strategy components in the classic trilogy rely on the grid-based system." If you take that away, of course they'd be replicated in some manner. But if the classic strategies are based on the 4-sided grid mechanic, then any "replication" would, by nature, not be the same. You can't "replicate" grid-based gameplay without a grid. You can only make a different game that promotes different strategies and content, and is at best only reminiscent in some way of classic grid strategies and content.
Then I specifically asked What elements?
Map layout. Some traps. Coordinates. Some puzzles. Graphics. Spacial awareness. This isn't about listing out numerous individual specific technical entities that need to be translated - as I've said the grid is a core element to the feel
of the BT world. It's a fundamental mechanic that may directly influence certain elements. And if you look at the game, from a navigational and technical standpoint, there really aren't a whole lot of elements to the game design anyway - most
of it is in level layout, with lots and lots of levels. The active dungeon crawling, lore and tidbits of information and interaction are generally not inherently affected by grid. And some of those will fall under what some people also consider core aspects to the classics that need to be retained in a faithful sequel. What the grid affects is your feel for how you are interacting with the environment. I like the analog immersion - not the realism. I like the grid mapping - not the automapping or complex free environments. I like the strategic aspect that the grid adds to certain elements of the environment.
A non-grid Bard's Tale I'm sure would still be great and fun, never denied that. But it would be much
farther from a faithful sequel to the classic trilogy, in my and others' opinions, than a free-movement environment, because we feel the grid is an essential element to the classic trilogy.
And if you ask "But whyyyyyyyyyyy?" once again I'll punch ya
Oh and Gizmo responded re LoG, which I stated I would not be sad to play BT in a similar format. (although I would rather a separated combat system. I am not a huge fan of that first person combat concept that EoB and LoG have)
I too would dislike first person combat or realtime combat. I like the 'Card'-style combat of the NPC/combat encounters.
TheBruce wrote:More often you didn't even know you hit a spinner until you found something 'change' as you continued on, because you had been mapping out the grid.
I questioned the above. Stating that this is an element of the graphics rather than the tile itself. Which you even mentioned in the same section.
I specifically described why it's necessarily reliant on grid and not graphics. Of course the display of your location uses
graphics, but the appearance and structure of what you see (and how easy it is to fool the player) is because of the relative 'simplicity' of the grid map layout. You can change the graphics all you want, but walls are physical sizes in the window. You see the floor and ceiling. Walls, doors, spaces are always in the same places. Regardless of the wall texture, the structure
of the grid map is paramount to the effect of the 4-direction spinner, or instantaneous transport, if the strategy on that specific square is to fool you into thinking you're somewhere you're not.
TheBruce wrote:Spinner concept = completely different in free movement, both in strategy and in immersion.
Now I'm not even talking about the immersion side at this point. As I said it is different things to different people. And if that was the one and only reason, then Cool, no worries.
Ok, that is one reason. So is that not then sufficient for a 'Cool, no worries'?
But you spoke about the strategy and I don't understand how it affects the strategy of the game, if the movement is "free" vs "grid". In theory the results are the same.
But they're not. Grid is a structural
component to map and certain tile effects. Translating to free movement environment necessarily
means some strategy has to change, both in gameplay and level/puzzle design.
Would you build a grid-based map and still allow free movement? I said in my last comment that that could be your best argument for free movement, but it's still not something I'd
prefer. Sure it would retain the grid-based map concern which addresses a bit of the point about grid as a whole, but free movement has other effects, one of which is immersion preference, which you ceded was "Cool, no worries". *phew* Another is how you depict 'spinning', also discussed.
Sure there is an element of variation in placement, but nothing that is not at least similar to being in a offset grid tile.
You will still be in exactly the same position when one of those traps hits whether you are in free or grid movement.
Because the action happens in "a point in time".
Traps don't hit at just a 'point in time', thay're also 'any point you're standing in a polygon region of the map space facing any direction'. If that region is still grid-based tiles, then it's 'any point you're standing in a square tile region facing any direction' as opposed to 'tile center and facing one of four directions'.
No, it was indeed the grid. The walls and doors had to match exactly. Being a grid, you had 1 of 4 directions to face. That meant designers only had to plan the appearance of walls and doors for 4 directions. If they wants you to be completely disoriented, they could make them each - the grid layout for each direction - appear identical.
Which I then said was not the case, because that is all graphics. The point of reference in a free movement may be in a different spot, but assuming that the graphics are indeed all identical, then it will still look the same no matter the point of reference you are at.
No, because the 'point of reference' in the grid system is the center of the tile. The walls are static sprites applied based on the grid layout for the squares ahead of you. That has nothing to do with the visual style of the wall textures.
The 'point of reference' in the free movement system produces a perspective from any point within the tile space with walls drawn at angles dependent on up to 180 degrees of horizontal visibility ahead of you.
Grid? Replicate the wall layout for the visible grid lines based on one of 4 viewing angles.
Free? You could copy the map poly data from one map location to another and try to mimick the polygon structure to the T, but you'd still have to lock the player location to one coordinate and one angle with identical map poly and texture layout in order to mask the fact that you've spun or been transported. And with spinning you'd have to not show any feasible 'spin' effect (which one might expect to see being in a meat-space environment as opposed to an analog one).
Once again, doable? Sure. Different? Yep.
You then started on Analog and Digital and Meat space. Which aside from adding a layer of confusion are not exactly accurate either. Because even when it is assumed your group takes up the whole of the 10x10 tile. As other pointed out, because you have a formation and certain characters would be attacked based on where they were. Hence within that 10x10 tile you have "positions". Thus there is an inherent "meat space" that exists based on the tile.
Yep, I talked about that with the issue of the 4x99 berserkers on one 10x10' square.
When the space is analog, you don't think about how 'realistically' the space works out. It's imagination. That's part of the immersion factor.
I also should point out that I am meaning from the technical/Gameplay point of view (hence strategies etc) the immersion element is not an argument I get into because it IS personal to everyone, and as such I can't comment on it, other than my own opinion.
From a preference standpoint, sure.
But say you're designing a board game; whether you decide to use square or hex grid or free movement on a board with dynamically shaped regions or no board at all and entire GM-spoken, you can certainly run studies to find an objective result that helps you decide which direction you'd like to go. Whether it's based on the demographic you want to appeal to, or a certain story you want to tell, or gameplay strategies you have in mind. There are objecive differences in gameplay and design between a grid-based system and a free-movement system. The type
of immersion people feel is just one difference that can be taken into consideration.
Whether one prefers one style over another? I agree it's entirely subjective. Which is why I'm fine accepting that you don't like grid, and that you don't understand why we do. My only beef is that you think the differences between grid and free are merely technical and out of date. When clearly there are examples of gameplay differences - not just in BT - that inherently affect the style
, and strategies
employed in a game.
You also incidentally accused me of not caring about other peoples preferences. Which is really the exact opposite of what I am doing. I am trying to understand exactly what it is about the grid that made it so important. Not because I want to rip it down, but because I want to understand WHY. I find questions are the best way of getting answers.
We infer that you don't actually care, because we explain why
we care, but you keep saying it's not enough. Constantly asking to understand why
when we explain why
comes off as though our opinions are unimportant. That's the problem. It's ok if you can't understand why
. I personally don't care if you understand why
, only that we do
and our opinions have value, even if you don't agree. We get you don't care for the grid. That's fine. We get you don't understand why we do care. That's fine. But you're coming off like because you can't understand why
that we don't have any valid points. That's the problem.
So let me just say one more thing here. If I have offended you in anyway with my line of questions, it was not my intent, and I apologise. I am simply trying to understand something that I have not had the experience of, and thus have to equate to my own slightly different experiences.
Oh i'm not offended
just a little frustrated sometimes, and when I get frustrated in forums I get wordy and stubborn