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?
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.