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

[–] anakin78z 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

BG1&2 weren't turn based, so I don't think it's quite the same thing. I did enjoy both of those games though, in their own right. What's CCG?

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

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.

[–] anakin78z 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

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.