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?
Grids certainly don’t slow me down, though they do reduce the spectacle and I suppose lower immersion. They certainly make me more aware that I am playing a game rather than taking actions in a world that actually exists. I’d say this is a feature rather than a bug though as they are often used in games that I want to be handling in that analytic piece moving fashion.
Yea, the games I mentioned are all turn based, so I’m not sure that immersion is really what I’m looking for. I will say that the opening combats in BG3 felt very chaotic, and I guess more immersive, but I also felt like I made a lot of dumb mistakes because I was treating it more like a shooter/hack & slash, rather than thinking my moves through.