Grunker's Divinity: Original Sin Co-op Mechanics Discussion Thread

Markman · Jul 7, 2014

What Metro said.
Grunker, shut up already and go play the game instead.

Renegen · Jul 7, 2014

Grunker said:
ffs renegen, you said yes to #4 which just says "this presents us with a dilemma". You said YES to that. You see the dilemma. What is your own solution to said dilemma if you won't ackknowledge mine? Or are you sticking with "just ignore the problem"?

Yes you'll miss a bit of content, biowarian c&c content as mentioned.
The game design is so open and has so much depth (meaning you don't have to do 100% of everything to feel like you're having fun) that it's ok to miss small amounts of meaningless content. What you're doing is drawing an artificial line at biowarian c&c and saying "how dare you Larian deprive this timeless choice from me while I was doing something else", you know what, you're also being deprived of the things I already stole, that's content too that you missed because you weren't there.

Grunker · Jul 7, 2014

Metro said:
E-Larp, yo.

It's not LARPing. The game-state changes accordong to your choice. However small the change, LARPing is fucking defined by the absence of the game ackknowledging your attempts at roleplaying. That's essentially the opposite of what D:OS does. It tracks the role-playing you do.

Grunker · Jul 7, 2014

Renegen said:
Yes you'll miss a bit of content, biowarian c&c content as mentioned.
The game design is so open and has so much depth (meaning you don't have to do 100% of everything to feel like you're having fun) that it's ok to miss small amounts of meaningless content. What you're doing is drawing an artificial line at biowarian c&c and saying "how dare you Larian deprive this timeless choice from me while I was doing something else", you know what, you're also being deprived of the things I already stole, that's content too that you missed because you weren't there.

It's hopeless. It's like arguing with a brick fucking wall. What, pray tell, is the point of co-op,dialogue if you're supposed to miss it?

Excidium · Jul 7, 2014

That's some AAA mindset right there

Grunker · Jul 7, 2014

Excidium said:
That's some AAA mindset right there

Haha, you could see that reply coming a mile away. Obvious bloody strawman.

According to you, If I argue that the co-op dialogue should serve its purpose, I'm arguing in the same way as a Mass Effect fanboy who wants to experience all content in the entire game without effort.

I'm fucking not, and you know it. I'm solely arguing that both players be involved in the co-op content they DO unlock/uncover. Not that the game goes out of its way to throw said content at us. It's the difference between a quest compass and a journal with basic functions.

Metro · Jul 7, 2014

The point of co-op is that Larian knew retards in their early 20's would baaaaaaaaaaaaw if the game didn't have co-op (and acheesemints and trading cards). Never once when I played games like Pool of Radiance or Fallout did I think... man this could really use co-op! Derpgeon Siege 3 has little 'conflict' dialogues like the ones here, it's cute, but utterly forgettable (much like the game itself). I don't know why you're harping about this, seems a silly point.

Excidium · Jul 7, 2014

Grunker said:
Haha, you could see that reply coming a mile away. Obvious bloody strawman.

According to you, If I argue that the co-op dialogue should serve its purpose, I'm arguing in the same way as a Mass Effect fanboy who wants to experience all content in the entire game without effort.

I'm fucking not, and you know it. I'm solely arguing that both players be involved in the co-op content they DO unlock/uncover. Not that the game goes out of its way to throw said content at us. It's the difference between a quest compass and a journal with basic functions.

To me the point of co-op dialogue is having the input of both players in quests they do together, you want to experience EVERY co-op dialogue instance regardless of where you are or what you are doing even flavor stuff that does fuck all and is just there. I mean it's cool if you both see it but otherwise it's not the end of the world.

Grunker · Jul 7, 2014

Metro said:
The point of co-op is that Larian knew retards in their early 20's would baaaaaaaaaaaaw if the game didn't have co-op (and acheesemints and trading cards). Never once when I played games like Pool of Radiance or Fallout did I think... man this could really use co-op!

Leave it to Metro to solve some very simple problems with a game feature by arguing for the removal of said feature, lol. "Anyone who's not playing it my way is playing it wrong," eh?

Anyway, co-op was obviously quite deliberate and a bunch of thought has been put into it. It was a strong concept of the game since very early in development and a prime feature during the Kickstarter. Co-op is not in because of imaginary 20-year-olds (what?) but because Larian wanted to make a p&pish multiplayer. Whether they succeeded is another matter.

Grunker · Jul 7, 2014

Excidium said:
To me the point of co-op dialogue is having the input of both players in quests they do together, you want to experience EVERY co-op dialogue instance regardless of where you are or what you are doing even flavor stuff that does fuck all and is just there, I mean it's cool if you both see it but otherwise it's not the end of the world

No, I don't. Just the co-op content that either of us actually discover.

Metro · Jul 7, 2014

Grunker said:
Leave it to Metro to solve some very simple problems with a game feature by arguing for the removal of said feature, lol. "Anyone who's not playing it my way is playing it wrong," eh?

Anyway, co-op was obviously quite deliberate and a bunch of thought has been put into it. It was a strong concept of the game since very early in development and a prime feature during the Kickstarter. Co-op is not in because of imaginary 20-year-olds (what?) but because Larian wanted to make a p&pish multiplayer. Whether they succeeded is another matter.

If that was the intent they didn't do a very good job. Which leads me to believe... yeah, it was throw in to generate more sales because there are plenty of idiots out there who absolutely refuse to buy a game that doesn't have co-op. Even in a fucking turn-based crpg.

Excidium · Jul 7, 2014

Grunker said:
No, I don't. Just the co-op content that either of us actually discover.

So you want co-op dialogue on content you guys are doing alone?

Grunker · Jul 7, 2014

Metro said:
If that was the intent they didn't do a very good job. Which leads me to believe... yeah, it was throw in to generate more sales because there are plenty of idiots out there who absolutely refuse to buy a game that doesn't have co-op. Even a fucking turn-based crpg.

You don't spend that much time and effort on a "throw-in". What you're claiming here is entirely ass-pulled. Co-op has been front-and-center in everything. Larian's done and talked about concerning this game since the Kickstarter.

Metro · Jul 7, 2014

You do when it generates more sales. Talking about it = marketing the feature.

doggfookker · Jul 7, 2014

Metro said:
If that was the intent they didn't do a very good job. Which leads me to believe... yeah, it was throw in to generate more sales because there are plenty of idiots out there who absolutely refuse to buy a game that doesn't have co-op. Even a fucking turn-based crpg.

I am pretty sure it was one of the main features that they implemented and constantly harped on because it was, you know, a pretty cool idea no one had really done before. It was a major point they brought up again and again. And Larian don't strike me as assholes who give too much of a fuck what bro-op fuckheads think. In fact, it was a feature Swen himself mentioned multiple times as something he specifically wanted the game to have so he could play it with his girlfriend.

Grunker · Jul 7, 2014

Excidium said:
So you want co-op dialogue on content you guys are doing alone?

Do you want me to go re-quote the 5-step simplified cut-out-in-cardboard-post i wrote on this page? The problem - and its solution - are both way fucking simple. There's no reason to turn it into a mess.

Excidium · Jul 7, 2014

There's no problem whatsoever. Just play the bloody game, I am experiencing 100% of the coop dialogue and putting on hold because you might miss some of it makes me a sad bunny

I mean I am trying really hard not to kill your hype by giving examples, but let's say this is no AoD

Renegen · Jul 7, 2014

I think the Co op features run a bit deeper and are part of the game design. Were they initially brought as a gimmick because it's a selling point? Maybe. But maybe they were there because Co op RPGs so far have sucked. You can see how the Co op influenced things like the 2 party system (obvious, but still), the elemental SYNERGY (which is way more fun when you complete a friend's combo than just doing it yourself), the great freedom provided by the engine, the line of sight stealth system, an actual pickpocket system that's not based on reloading the game. Honestly the discipline of keeping this game Co op friendly has produced a lot of great results.

Grunker · Jul 7, 2014

Excidium said:
There's no problem whatsoever.

Grunker said:
1) following each other around, only one player is able to act and be active in dialogue.

2) this is understandable and due to technical limitations. Only fix needed here is that dialogues display properly if characters are close to each other.

3) however, since only one character can be acting and active in most dialogue, it is perfectly understandable that players will NOT stick together 24-7, but explore the town at their own pace. No one wants to sit still while the other player actually plays the game.

4) this presents us with a dilemma, because the players being split (which is correct for them to be during parts of the game) means they'll miss a bunch of the co-op content in town/countryside that is so much fun to participate in.

5) the obvious solution is to enable long-distance participation in choice dialogue.

Your entire counter-argument to this is that basically players should instead choose a) to actually be active and, you know, PLAY the game, splitting up and missing content or b) "be a party", i.e. have one player initiate dialogue and do shit (play) while the other follows around passively ubtil co-op content happens or a fight starts.