Divinity: Original Sin 2 Early Access Thread [GAME RELEASED, GO TO NEW THREAD]

[aleph]

Nostalgia =/= skillful presentation of the narrative. Not to mention that manuals which reveal the plot/setting were necessitated by early games because they didn't have enough space on the disc.

This sounds awfully like the "argument" that early rpgs were only turn-based because of technical limitations.

Anyway, it does not need to be a printed manual. Information about the setting can also be given in game, in the form of a well written journal/codex/whatever, see Witcher 3 for example. In a well-develop setting there will always be information that unknown to the player but should be common knowledge "in-setting". It is really grating, when the player character has to ask around for stuff that should be common knowledge, like the name of the ruling kine, recent events everybody still talks about, the majority religion, etc... The developers can of course always force an amnesiac protagonist or farm boy from a remote region into the narrative. But that gets old really fast.

 

[Zombra]

No, because the stats of your character aren't part of the narrative.

Of course they are. Or are a story about a genius scientist and a story about a battle-hardened rifleman identical? Your character's skills and stats come from somewhere.

 

[DraQ]

A good option would be being able to pre-configure other character's personality and then treat them like recruited NPC. But it would be hard to do and test.

The configuration wasn't granular, but 1 did have ai personalities you could assign.

Yeah, but it was pretty bad in practice.

A lot of the time it successfully cock-blocked any desirable outcome, including forcing you to try and RPS your way to the right answer in fucking riddles, because apparently having personality equals being dumb.
Second PC with set personality felt more like a ball and chain you dragged behind you than an actual autonomous character. The fact that you were only limited to predefined personalities and that the choices had mechanical effects that could be completely pointless for certain builds only exacerbated the problem.
Plus dialogue choices almost always involved binary choices between opposites rather than prioritization between different axes while presets didn't support such prioritization anyway - a choice between just being an asshole and being a saint will never be an interesting one. Interesting choices involve tradeoffs and priorities.

Sure, some, even many exchanges worked - usually when involving an external incentives for assholery or less moral axes (like considerate VS blunt), but the moments that did not work effectively disincentivized using this system altogether.

Anyway an alternative for full party would be sort of extended Wizardry 8 system, where individual party members voice their concerns, wishes and observation, interact with each other and (here comes the 'extended' part) may be impacted by interaction and prior choices, but defer the actual decision to the player.

 

[Lacrymas]

This sounds awfully like the "argument" that early rpgs were only turn-based because of technical limitations.

Anyway, it does not need to be a printed manual. Information about the setting can also be given in game, in the form of a well written journal/codex/whatever, see Witcher 3 for example. In a well-develop setting there will always be information that unknown to the player but should be common knowledge "in-setting". It is really grating, when the player character has to ask around for stuff that should be common knowledge, like the name of the ruling kine, recent events everybody still talks about, the majority religion, etc... The developers can of course always force an amnesiac protagonist or farm boy from a remote region into the narrative. But that gets old really fast.

Turn-based systems are a part of the actual game, written manuals aren't. You are conflating two different problems as well, one is the handling of the characters-as-audience-proxy within the narrative (someone not knowing common knowledge) and the other is narrative information outside of the game itself. How writers handle the presentation of the setting is up to them and their personal skill.

Of course they are. Or are a story about a genius scientist and a story about a battle-hardened rifleman identical? Your character's skills and stats come from somewhere.

The numerical representation of them isn't part of the narrative. You can have different starting zones/narratives based on the stats you chose, but nobody is going to say in the story itself "oh, you have 10 in intelligence! That makes you a super genius". Unless it's some kind of meta-commentary which includes UI information, but context.

 

[Black]

I said stop fighting.
Because so far DOS 2 isn't worth fighting over.

 

[aleph]

You are conflating two different problems as well, one is the handling of the characters-as-audience-proxy within the narrative (someone not knowing common knowledge) to out-of-game information. How writers handle the presentation of the setting is up to them and their personal skill. The other is narrative information outside of the game itself.

These two things are connected, narrative information outside the game is one way of solving the problem of "not knowing common knowledge". Also, I don't see why
narrative information outside the game is supposed to be a problem.

 

[Zombra]

Of course they are. Or are a story about a genius scientist and a story about a battle-hardened rifleman identical? Your character's skills and stats come from somewhere.

The numerical representation of them isn't part of the narrative. You can have different starting zones/narrative based on the stats you chose, but nobody is going to say in the story itself "oh, you have 10 in intelligence! That makes you a super genius". Unless it's some kind of meta-commentary which includes UI information, but context.

lol. So if the fourth wall isn't broken, stats have no impact on RPGs and character attributes have nothing to do with character history. Wow. Somebody skipped their coffee this morning. Take a break and rethink, dude.

 

[Lacrymas]

aleph, it's a problem the same way reading a book's setting in a pamphlet outside the book is. It just isn't structurally sound and shows an inability to weave that information in the narrative within the game/book.

Zombra, I have no idea what you are talking about at this point. Either you are misreading or we are talking about two different things. I'm saying that the *numerical representation* of the stats (which is the char-gen) isn't a part of the narrative, the same way the number of the level isn't. The same way a piano (the physical object that is a piano) isn't part of the music of a piano sonata, even the written notes aren't a part of it, or the same way the text itself isn't part of the narrative of a book. If you aren't getting this then I can't explain it any better.

 

[Zombra]

Zombra, I have no idea what you are talking about at this point. Either you are misreading or we are talking about two different things. I'm saying that the *numerical representation* of the stats (which is the char-gen) isn't a part of the narrative, the same way the number of the level isn't. The same way a piano (the physical object that is a piano) isn't part of the music of a piano sonata, even the written notes aren't a part of it, or the same way the text itself isn't part of the narrative of a book. If you aren't getting this then I can't explain it any better.

I get it, but you're wrong and your analogies are wrong.
A character who is good at picking locks has a history, and that history is different from a character who can lift a car. Numbers in RPGs mean things.

 

[Cnaiur]

If there's one thing I hope OS2 will do differently, it's not including shitty puzzles like at the end of the first game. That shit killed any motivation to keep on playing for me.

 

[aleph]

aleph, it's a problem the same way reading a book's setting in a pamphlet outside the book is. It just isn't structurally sound and shows an inability to weave that information in the narrative within the game/book.

What does "structurally sound" even mean with regard to a book? And would it change anything if the information from the pamphlet was put into an appendix?

 

[Lacrymas]

Zombra, you have to explain why I'm wrong, not just say that I am. Yes, characters who can pick locks have a different backstory than someone who can't, but the number on the UI is just that - a number which represents that ability or the mastery thereof, it's not the ability itself. It's a helpful guide for the player and a part of the calculations the game has to make, it is not an in-narrative explanation. That explanation may be "the character grew up on the streets", but it can never be "this character has a lock-picking score of X". In this train of thought the character generation is sound and doesn't clash with the narrative.

aleph, oh, that's quite a fundamental part of literature. I thought this was studied in school? The structural "wholeness" of a narrative? In the most basic sense the whole text has to have some kind of logical completeness, otherwise it's just a string of random/disconnected events or even sentences. The setting is a part of the narrative (the plot to be precise) and it MUST have an effect on the "story", this is not negotiable. How an author weaves it into the "action" shows how he has mastered his craft. It is a mark of genius to be technically proficient. Let's say that it's a part of the much lauded "suspension of disbelief". If you want more information, you can read up on the writings of Samuel Coleridge, the "father of Romanticism". Even Tolkien has an essay about settings. It's not just about cramming it into the physical dimensions of the book, which is having it as an appendix. Everyone can see that the Cliff's notes of a book isn't the book, no matter how you twist it and it can never substitute the book, it's the same way with the setting being on a pamphlet.

 

[Zombra]

Yes, characters who can pick locks have a different backstory than someone who can't, but the number on the UI is just that - a number which represents that ability or the mastery thereof, it's not the ability itself. It's a helpful guide for the player and a part of the calculations the game has to make, it is not an in-narrative explanation.

So it's OK if a character has Smuggling skill, but it's not OK to have "Background: Smuggler" on the character sheet. Got it. ... That's very stupid.

And really, your whole thing about character history not being allowed outside of in-game dialogue is stupid anyway. I liked KOTOR 2, and the "you don't know who the fuck your character even is until later" is a cute gimmick for one game, but to want that as the standard for all RPGs? Again ... stupid. What a pain in the ass to blunder around with no identity until somebody in the game told me. It's like filming a movie without letting the actors see the script first. "Just read your lines off the teleprompter, you can figure out your motivation as you go along." I guess I'll pick this dialogue option and see what some writer decided that would mean my character is.

Fuck that. I have the courage and creativity to make a character myself, up-front. The more robust and detailed chargen is, the better, and that includes backstory. I don't want to wake up in a hospital bed with no idea what the fuck I'm doing there - again - and have my own personality fed to me over an intercom. In books, just because the reader doesn't know the history doesn't mean the characters don't. How can I role-play a character when I have no idea what the hell is going on?

I want the devs to give me some fucking credit for contributing to the story, not throw darts at a dialogue board and hope my character turns out cool.

 

[aleph]

aleph, oh, that's quite a fundamental part of literature. I thought this was studied in school? The structural "wholeness" of a narrative? In the most basic sense the whole text has to have some kind of logical completeness, otherwise it's just a string of random/disconnected events or even sentences.

It is really unclear what you try to say here, because in the first sentence you use wholeness and in the second completeness. I assume you think these two words are close enough in meaning to be interchangeable. So, are trying to say that a text has to consist of set of logiaclly connected parts to form a narrative?

The setting is a part of the narrative (the plot to be precise) and it MUST have an effect on the "story", this is not negotiable. How an author weaves it into the "action" shows how he has mastered his craft.

It is however not necessary for the setting to be explicitly spelled out to influence the narrative. Outside of fantasy and sci fi, iImplied settings are actually the normal case since there settings are used which familiar to most readers.

Everyone can see that the Cliff's notes of a book isn't the book, no matter how you twist it and it can never substitute the book, it's the same way with the setting being on a pamphlet.

These two things are completely different, you can't compare what is essentially a summary of a book (Cliff's notes) to additional information (the setting pamphlet) which help to "frame" the narrative better.

 

[Lacrymas]

Zombra, if Background: Smuggler doesn't give any kind of stat boosts, then yes. Context. Background =\= abilities, especially when those abilities are numbers for game calculations. They might be connected, but aren't the same, sorry.

aleph, yes, that's what I'm trying to say, wholeness and completeness in this context are interchangeable. Both the Cliff's notes and the setting pamphlets are something that is outside the book and can't be considered part of it, because they aren't, that was the point. Nothing else matters in this context. Again this word, context, funny how it shows up so frequently. It also doesn't matter if the setting is spelled out or not, all that matters is that it's woven into the narrative. It's especially bad if the setting is very important, but that information is in the pamphlet.

These are all basic things, this isn't something that I conjured up just now and nobody has ever heard of before. You might think these are trivial concerns that nobody cares about, but they aren't, they are fundamental. It's also starting to get off-topic.

 

[ushas]

On a different note. I don't play DoS2, but from the shared pictures the text in asterisks loosely reminds me Choose Your Own Adventure styles.

Will you:
Say you are lost and ask for shelter for the night? Turn to 135.
Pretend to be a peasant looking for work? Turn to 174.
Decide to ask directions for Port Bax? Turn to 288.

That's quiet refreshing.

But then this second-person narrative gets mixed with something akin usual screenplay-like style or so... So how does it work together?

Personally [looking at the screenshots], I would prefer more unified style. If one really wants to go for the second-person, then why not make it the actual core for the game's storytelling? In CYOA it's also usually direct speech which is quoted, not the other way around.

So I don't know, for example, going from

towards something like

As inverting seems easy to do. But I'm not a writer.

And if I understand correctly there is also the issue of direct speech pc<->party members. I dunno, I don't know how it works. My guess is just that having it in quotation marks may also help distinguish what's going on.

 

[DragoFireheart]

Never even played D:OS 1.

Gotta buy it for PS4.

 

[Maggot]

ushas First pic looks better to me to be honest. Second one looks like he's saying "Notice that he seems to be quite alone" out loud.

 

[Zombra]

These are all basic things, this isn't something that I conjured up just now and nobody has ever heard of before. You might think these are trivial concerns that nobody cares about, but they aren't, they are fundamental.

You're talking about fundamentals of literature, not role-playing. I respect your expertise in the former, but that same education (and bias) is hampering your understanding of the latter. You expect to be told a static story, but RPGs aren't movies or even books - you can't participate in a movie or book. Limiting RPGs by trying to make them nothing more than good books is decline, decline, decline. If the rules become the same, RPGs will be truly dead.

 

[anus_pounder]

So how many people who played the EA here used Larian's characters as opposed to making their own? Haven't touched their originals atm and I'm not too interested in doing so either, personally.

 

[ushas]

ushas First pic looks better to me to be honest. Second one looks like he's saying "Notice that he seems to be quite alone" out loud.

I see what you mean. That's presumption from other games. I imagined all direct speach to be in quotation marks, so with some open mind that can become clear the same way as arterisks. Though, I'm not sure whether players would be willing to adapt. But regardless, their current system with default text to be direct speech and rest in asterisks is also confusing to some. So more important is whether players will get used to answering to the implied question "What will you do?" (or perhaps it would be better if it's actually written there?) instead of "What are you saying?".

 

[anus_pounder]

Yup they are. But despite being 'companions', most of the NPC dialogue was directed at the Red Prince instead of my special snowflake character. While I'm sure this is because the Prince, due to pathfinding, ended up closer to events than my own character I still say its Larian mocking for me daring to use my own character rather than their premades.

 

[veevoir]

Yup they are. But despite being 'companions', most of the NPC dialogue was directed at the Red Prince instead of my special snowflake character. While I'm sure this is because the Prince, due to pathfinding, ended up closer to events than my own character I still say its Larian mocking for me daring to use my own character rather than their premades.

I actually hate it a lot. There's a reason my ctive character is.. my active character. Conversations starting at random with other party members piss me off. I understand if those are character-specific (there are some npcs unique to some party members, tied to their story), but all others - fuck that.

 

[Zombra]

Wow, sounds like they can't even do a Chosen One RPG right. Choose your Mary Sue I guess and watch the movie.

I think I'll name my PC Ishmael.

 

[Morality Games]

Aren't the premade chars the companions you can recruit?

Anyway, got a few hours into this so here's a few random thoughts:
- the camera zoom still sucks, needs to be higher.
- dialogue style is weird, but I got used to it pretty quick so fuck it.
- not sure if I like the way armor works. Magic armor, let's say that's OK but If I hit some fucker with a motherfucking hammer he should feel that shit and even fall on his ass, not just chip his armor.
- is combat somewhat faster than the first one or am I imagining things?
- Music is like, just there. Nothing noticeable about it. At least it's not annoying.

Also,

Spoiler

What's the deal with the cat? Is it the mage guy from D:OS? Does it serve a purpose, 'cause it simply got shot by some dude near a gate.

Spoiler

Most likely put there to set a dark tone and demonstrate this time forward it isn't going to be as light hearted and fun as the original game -- doubt the cat is the same guy, but there's a thematic contrast between a lolzy talking cat greeting you at the entrance of the town and a cat getting shot at the front of the gate of an internment camp