Interview Divinity 2: The Dragon Knight Saga Interview

[VentilatorOfDoom]

It's a solid action RPG with some mildly original feautures, something i haven't played for years and years.

Your assessment is accurate.

i'm not sure what you're on about with the witcher, i haven't criticized the witcher for having cloned female heads.

It was just an example for stuff I could have been negative about if I cared. Which I didn't.

Let's do it the other way around: Which of the things I mentioned were unnecessarily negative? Or were not true?

 

[thesisko]

It has less skill and less spells. You could learn and upgrade spells from tomes, not only with skillpoints, resulting in a wider array of options to choose from. I'd wager one of the main reasons for cutting down on spells and abilities was that they thought they could balance the game better. Despite the number of spells/abilities in DD a lot weren't really balanced well. Some were quite powerful (Frost, Curse), others were way too powerful for their own good (Poison Weapon and this scorpion summoning thing) whereas others were pretty much useless.

I see, so it doesn't really feel like "dumbing down" then? As in removal of features because the developer thought the players were too stupid/impatient to understand. What's done better in Divinity 2/DKS and is it an equally good game overall? Do I miss anything by skipping the first game(s)?

 

[zelda64whatagreatgame]

It's a solid action RPG with some mildly original feautures, something i haven't played for years and years.

Your assessment is accurate.

i'm not sure what you're on about with the witcher, i haven't criticized the witcher for having cloned female heads.

It was just an example for stuff I could have been negative about if I cared. Which I didn't.

Let's do it the other way around: Which of the things I mentioned were unnecessarily negative? Or were not true?

it's not necessarily that i disagree with any of the things you're presenting to the developer but rather the balance between positives and negatives being brought up.
i think the dragon aspect helped elliviate the boredom that might have been caused by not forcing the player to use a varied amount of skills in combat. sure it wasn't as deep as one might want in an ideal world but i was genuinely surprised that the dragon had a decent level up system with skills of its own at all and that it worked quite well as a simple dragon dog fighter simulator.

 

[zelda64whatagreatgame]

i'm not necessarily against this tone in interviews but imo it should be reserved for developers the codex shouldn't really give a fuck about if they grant another interview, like Bioware or Bethesda.

 

[VentilatorOfDoom]

I see, so it doesn't really feel like "dumbing down" then? As in removal of features because the developer thought the players were too stupid/impatient to understand.

I would call it dumbing down. As Sven said in the interview the character system still supports a variety of viable builds, but to a lesser extent imo.

What's done better in Divinity 2/DKS and is it an equally good game overall?

I'd say it's an equally good game. Roughly. Still, the games are different. DD resembles more the infinity engine games, RTwP and iso-perspective and no jumping around.

Do I miss anything by skipping the first game(s)?

Yes.
I've read that for some the first dungeon in DD lead to frustration. It's probably best to start as mage because you start with the meteor strike spell which will easily get you thru that dungeon. Exactly as in Div2 you're not forced to stick to mage abilities from then on anyways.

it's not necessarily that i disagree with any of the things you're presenting to the developer but rather the balance between positives and negatives being brought up.
i think the dragon aspect helped elliviate the boredom that might have been caused by not forcing the player to use a varied amount of skills in combat. sure it wasn't as deep as one might want in an ideal world but i was genuinely surprised that the dragon had a decent level up system with skills of its own at all and that it worked quite well as a simple dragon dog fighter simulator.

i'm not necessarily against this tone in interviews but imo it should be reserved for developers the codex shouldn't really give a fuck about if they grant another interview, like Bioware or Bethesda.

You mean I should have made more cocksucking efforts to ensure a future interview?

1) That's not the Codexian way.
2) I don't think Sven was in any way offended.
3) It's always easier to mention things that ARE up to debate instead of

Seriously, XYZ was fucking awesome in your game!!! How awesome is XYZ going to be in your next project?

Well, let me tell you: it's going to be even awesomer than previously! It'll be more streamlined while retaining all the complexities 'n stuff. It will rock! Stay tuned.

Thanks.

 

[zelda64whatagreatgame]

I don't think Sven was offended but on the other hand i'm pretty sure he didn't really warm towards you either. Having a better balance, saying things you genuinely found good about the game as well as criticising (and apparently you agree with me that it was a satisfactory offering) is in my opinion not cocksucking, just an attempt to build a closer relationship to an interesting developer.

 

[thesisko]

I would call it dumbing down. As Sven said in the interview the character system still supports a variety of viable builds, but to a lesser extent imo.

I realize that the result of cutting down on skills and spells produced a less interesting system, but do you feel their intent was to make a less complicated game so as to not "confuse" gamers or mainly a shortcut to simplify balancing?

For instance, Bloodlines had a very simple character/skill system but I never got the feeling the game itself was designed for idiots. On the other hand I despise games that constantly remind me of what I should be doing (even what key I should be pressing), however many skills they might have.

 

[Black]

I don’t have a favourite RPG this decade

MY NIGGA! NONE OF THIS FUCKING "GOOD FOR WHAT IT IS" BULLSHIT, EITHER YES OR GET THE FUCK OUT, YEEEAEAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

 

[thesisko]

Does the whole game feel dumbed down or just the skill system? Considering you feel it's equally good overall, what's done better in the sequel?

 

[VentilatorOfDoom]

I realize that the result of cutting down on skills and spells produced a less interesting system, but do you feel their intent was to make a less complicated game so as to not "confuse" gamers or mainly a shortcut to simplify balancing?

I don't know their intent. They have a forum, ask there.

For instance, Bloodlines had a very simple character/skill system but I never got the feeling the game itself was designed for idiots.

Bloodlines had a very nice character system.

On the other hand I despise games that constantly remind me of what I should be doing (even what key I should be pressing), however many skills they might have.

How about you look for yourself, there's a demo.

 

[thesisko]

Thanks. I was more after the general feeling you got playing the game.

I felt like New Vegas treated me less like an idiot than Oblivion, even though Oblivion in fact has many more spells and skills.

 

[VentilatorOfDoom]

I felt like New Vegas treated me less like an idiot than Oblivion, even though Oblivion in fact has many more spells and skills.

A game can be "dumbed down" in comparison to its predecessor and still not be "treating you as an idiot".

 

[thesisko]

Of course.

But do you think of it as a "dumbed down sequel", or an equally good game, which has a more limited character system but is improved in other areas.

 

[DraQ]

I hope someone at Larian reads our forums - widespread desire to hug them, scarily atypical for all the sociopathic misanthropes dwelling here, should really warm their hearts.