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

[Bubbles]

When people say "premade", they just mean the name, looks and background of the character. And you can still freely make your own character, but then you lose access to the character-specific quest lines.

 

[imweasel]

Ha. I enjoyed how the previewer played one of the Origin characters ... and didn't like her, avoiding her dialogue options as much as possible.

Same here. I played the alpha with Sebille and I noticed that I hardly ever chose any of her personal dialog options simply because she is a psycho, which is not what I really wanted to roleplay. You could say I was essentially roleplaying her out of character.

That said, I like the idea of origin quests and think it works, but not the character specific dialog options.

 

[Lacrymas]

One can't help but wonder what's the point of having options outside the "origin" you chose. Everything else would ultimately be out-of-character and contradict that "origin story".

 

[Zombra]

One can't help but wonder what's the point of having options outside the "origin" you chose. Everything else would ultimately be out-of-character and contradict that "origin story".

Not sure if serious. Origin characters aren't necessarily one-dimensional. Whatshername the murderer could scream "I MURDER YOU" but sometimes she can still say "pass the salt" instead. Up to you exactly how you want to play them.

 

[SniperHF]

Sometimes when playing it's a case of wanting to reveal your own motives to other characters or not.

Like the IFAN guy I played as will have an option like
1. Sure I'll help you, if it means getting out of this prison.
2. No, I'm not helping you.
3. [IFAN] Fine I'll help you, but only so I can get out of here and save my son.

 

[Lacrymas]

Zombra, Origin characters would be as one-dimensional as they write them. The concern here is them being jarringly out-of-character, but that's one pitfall of having origin stories AND choices in the first place and one of the reasons I'm vehemently opposed to them. The choices me, you, anyone else and, by extension, the characters in any given medium make *every time* is intimately tied to who we are and that is what makes us interesting. Strip that away and what remains? There is also the problem of character development, a character who is schizophrenic and has constantly contradicted itself (because you didn't want to play it "one-dimensionally") can have no development because there is no character. It would simply be a quasi-entity which forces events in other characters' and NPCs' lives. Which is fine in a personality-less RPG protagonist, but not one who has an established one. And before you note that, the choices you are given as the origin character (I mean those [Sabille], [Lohse] etc. tags, which is also a problem of the omniscient UI) IS the established personality. Maybe if they removed those tags it would be better and not as obvious, but eh. There may be situations where you are given only the option of the origin story, but that goes back to the first problem of being pointless to be given other options if they are going to force it like that.

 

[Zombra]

Uh ... personalities can have more than one facet.

 

[Lacrymas]

That's a very simplistic view of personalities. Multi-faceted ones are not those that act randomly and can never be predicted or never establish a certain pattern, that is unheard of even in people with multiple-personality disorders or other mental illnesses. The most obvious evidence of this is criminal profiling. Personalities in fiction have to be, above all else, logical and non-contradictory, if they aren't that then the entire exercise is pointless. This is also why the term "out-of-character" exists. There IS an example of having a character be contradictory (and where it works) in James Joyce's Finnegan's Wake, but in there it's not clear if the characters with the same initials are the same person. Not to mention that it doesn't really have anything to do with what I said, because the choices one makes is ALWAYS tied to his personality (being forced to make a certain choice is not part of your personality), no matter how one-dimensional or multi-faceted it is. Even the way someone speaks is personality-influenced, so maybe Larian had the right idea to have the PC's dialogue be in indirect speech. That is, of course, a solution to a problem they themselves introduced by having both established characters and choices.

 

[Zombra]

That's a very simplistic view of personalities.

No, it's actually more complex than your view. A person will not always react the exact same way in similar situations. And even if they did, there's nothing wrong with one player playing an origin character differently than another player. Perhaps MY version of Lohse is less concerned with her whatever quest and more concerned with something else. This is called an "interpretation". It's something you do when you interact with a game instead of reading it like a book.

 

[JasonNH]

PC Gamer Interview with Swen: How Divinity: Original Sin 2 will evolve in Early Access

A few interesting points for me:

• EA will remain Act 1, though there is an opening tutorial likely to be added on top of it.
• Primary additions to EA will be features, including game master mode and new skill trees.
• In addition to social media collection, a lot of balancing decisions coming from in game malware collecting your stats.
• Expect several iterations of the memory skill to see which one works best.
• Swen was surprised by complaints about physical and magical armor. He's not sure how much is dictated by people's reluctance to let go of DOS1 mindset.
  
• Looks like demands for VO are pushing him to include it.
• He is surprised about some of the pushback concerning indirect dialogue.

 

[Bubbles]

"The third-person [view] that we’re using in the dialogues, it fits well with roleplaying and the origin system we’re doing. We’re getting resistance to that from certain corners. I’m interested to see if that is universal resistance or just a couple people who don’t like it."

I doubt that the resistance is anywhere close to universal.

 

[Lacrymas]

Zombra, again, you have to explain how, not just state that it is. You should also probably brush up on your reading comprehension, maybe even take into account context. 1) I'm not talking about different versions of the same character (which isn't even clear if it's ultimately the same character), I'm talking about one character in one playthrough. 2) There can be no proof that the same person will react differently in the SAME situation (literally), because when you replay a game it's not a similar situation, it's the *same* one. 3) Characters are not up for interpretation when you are the one making choices for them, it's not a musical piece where interpretation (and the better a musician is the more he'll tell you that there is only ONE interpretation of a given piece and that's how it is played) is a key component of bringing the piece into actuality, since interpretation is done of other people's work or actions, not your own. In this context you aren't interpreting their origin stories, since they are given at the start and there is no interpretation in "He's a mercenary and is looking for his son". Fulfilling blanks like "why did he become a mercenary?" is not interpretation, it's fan-fiction. 4) There is no logic or point behind a character which isn't concerned with its plot.

This whole thing creates a hugely massive divide between the character, the narrative and the player. Firstly, you have established characters with personalities, but you can override them, which makes them pointless. Secondly, since you can override them there can be no character development of any kind since there is no established character, but you need development to make the characters and their personal quest meaningful because they actually DO have established personalities, you just override them which makes them pointless and any development impossible, and it creates a circle in which there is no way out. This is already starting to burst at the seams, but there is more - there is no place for a pointless character in any narrative, so by making them pointless you rip them out from their own "story" (they do have personal narratives in the form of the quests), and since non-entities can not affect the narrative outside of a bad writer, you create a plot which isn't moved by its characters (which is bad in of itself) and in the process making "origin stories" pointless because they aren't tied to their own characters, and are just a random quest you decide to accept before even being plunged into the game world, which is itself bad because it's outside of the process. In the end you have characters which aren't affected by their own character, history and personality, and even their goals and motivations, doesn't that sound schizophrenic and impossible in any realistic context? I might not be explaining this properly or enough, but I'll see what else isn't clear.

 

[LESS T_T]

http://www.divinity.game/newsposts/2016/9/29/thank-you

Thank you
September 29, 2016

So, it's been two weeks since Divinity: Original Sin 2 steamed into Early Access. There's been a lot of talk in Larian HQ about how it’s been going, and- well... We love you people!

We love the adventurers that saved Gareth from the ruins.
We love the ones that left him to burn.
We love the rogues that stole everything in Fort Joy.
We love the mages that teleported into situations we never predicted.
We love every heroic gesture, every dastardly deed, every bug uncovered and every dialog you broke because you said "huh, I wonder if they thought of this..." (We hadn’t, but we have now, thanks to you!)
We love that you tell us about the bits of the game that work and we love that you keep hammering at the bits that don't (yet).

But most of all, we love how much YOU love the game.

It's easy for us to spend months staring at our screens, fretting about every little flaw, and some days you forget about how much fun this is. But you people - you wonderful, beautiful people - are the antidote to every glaring mistake and frustrating bug. Each positive review, each forum post about how much fun you had, each tweet laughing about something that you discovered - they're all fuel for the fire that will drive this to be an RPG to remember.

Two weeks ago, tens of thousands of people joined our team, and the strength that you brought with you has invigorated us all. We boast about the community that we have and what you bring to the Larian team, but this time you've just blown us away.

So thank you. From the bottom of our hearts: THANK YOU.

There's still a long way to go - we have maps to make and bugs to fix, but after two weeks of feedback, we’re confident that we're on the right track. And with you all by our side, we're sure that we'll stick to it.

Thank you for taking these first few steps with us; we can't wait to share the rest of the journey with you.

Love and Fireballs,

-Team Larian

PS. Just because you get a nice letter, it doesn’t mean you’re off the hook for reporting bugs! Get back to work! *Cracks whip.*

 

[Zombra]

I'm talking about one character in one playthrough.

And one character in one playthrough can be portrayed as complex enough to have multiple possible responses to situations. I can press "nicey" in one conv and "meany" in the next conv without breaking character. A character can sing more than a single note and still be consistent.

There can be no proof that the same person will react differently in the SAME situation (literally), because when you replay a game it's not a similar situation, it's the *same* one.

If I play a game twice with the same character, and portray them differently in the SAME situation, and I have done this, then I have proven that the SAME character can react differently in the SAME situation. It is proven. It is a fact. I have done it. It has happened.

Characters are not up for interpretation when you are the one making choices for them

Of course they are. You pick how they act. That's what interpretation is, and that's what role-playing is.

(and the better a musician is the more he'll tell you that there is only ONE interpretation of a given piece and that's how it is played)

Ahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahaha.

In this context you aren't interpreting their origin stories, since they are given at the start and there is no interpretation in "He's a mercenary and is looking for his son".

Of course you aren't "interpreting" historical facts. You're interpreting how the character would respond to them. By, you know, making choices about it.

There is no logic or point behind a character which isn't concerned with its plot.

Of course there is. The point is whatever the player wants it to be, as long as he doesn't throw the backstory completely out the window.

This whole thing creates a hugely massive divide between the character, the narrative and the player. In the end you have characters which aren't affected by their own character, history and personality, and even their goals and motivations, doesn't that sound schizophrenic and impossible in any realistic context?

That conclusion would be valid if your premises were valid, but they're not. A premade character is not carved from a block of stone. An RPG is not a book or movie.

 

[Lacrymas]

Zombra, the important parts: You and dialogue options are not the character, a predefined character is someone else entirely and has very specific reactions to specific stimuli, you overriding the personality makes the personality pointless. That is what the whole problem is, having a predefined personality that is pointless because it doesn't affect anything and you are free to "correct" it however you want. Just ditch the predefined part and give us stats like Fallout then, it wouldn't scream so loudly if they did that.

I'm talking about a real human being when I'm talking about reacting to the same situation, not replays. That can't be proven and I'd wager that if it could a person would make the same choice every time.

You have no idea how profoundly ignorant the laughing part is.

You can't role-play a predefined character, and you see you can't by the tags in the dialogue options, they are the "real" responses of the character in question, because that role is already chosen (it's a mercenary who wants to find his son or a schizophrenic psychic or whatever), everything else is by definition out-of-character and is overriding the "dominant" personality. By overriding the personality, you make development impossible and their personal quest becomes meaningless and just another thing on the bucket list. It's not about being mean or nice, it's about character depth and place. If there weren't any tags or any specific dialogue options then it might not be so bad, but alas.

There literally can not be a character who isn't concerned with its own plot, that character would be a foreign entity and, again, by definition be pointless in the narrative. If you don't see how that's a problem and an artistic incompetence then I really can't help it any further. Only hack writers say "oh, the point is whatever you want it to be", yeah, no, that's just absurd and amateurish beyond belief.

The structures and "pillars" of a narrative transcend mediums and are still fundamental for something to be called a competent narrative. Without them it's just random, inconsequential scribblings that mean nothing to nobody. The characters having a role in their own story is one of the basics of every written work ever, it would be so utterly pointless to be otherwise. It's not a video game writer's place to "experiment" with narrative tools when the structure of the narrative is so ...basic. If it was something like Finnegan's Wake then sure, but it's not.

 

[hilfazer]

Can we still influence cooldowns of abilities? (no, i'm not going to call them 'skills')

 

[Lacrymas]

When are we going to get the EA on GOG? It's already been 2 weeks :p

 

[imweasel]

"The third-person [view] that we’re using in the dialogues, it fits well with roleplaying and the origin system we’re doing. We’re getting resistance to that from certain corners. I’m interested to see if that is universal resistance or just a couple people who don’t like it."

I doubt that the resistance is anywhere close to universal.

The love for it is definitely not universal either. You actually seem to be the only person praising this annoying drivel. Most people seem to either hate it or they simply don't care.

Swen was surprised by complaints about physical and magical armor. He's not sure how much is dictated by people's reluctance to let go of DOS1 mindset.

I wonder how long it will take until Swen finally realizes that the entire new stat system is not very good.

 

[Zombra]

Zombra, the important parts: You and dialogue options are not the character, a predefined character is someone else entirely and has very specific reactions to specific stimuli

No it doesn't. It has some very specific options which you may or may not choose to enact as part of your interpretation of the character. Again: just because a character has a background does not mean every reaction is pre-graven in stone.

I'm talking about a real human being when I'm talking about reacting to the same situation, not replays. That can't be proven and I'd wager that if it could a person would make the same choice every time.

Wrong again. Once again I'm living proof. Yesterday someone asked me, "How are you?" and I said, "Doing good." Someone else asked me the same question and I said, "I don't know, I'm feeling weird lately." The world didn't come to an end. I am a complex character with a neurochemically biased personality, yet my reactions are not 100% predictable and sometimes I even push againt the traits written on my character sheet.

You have no idea how profoundly ignorant the laughing part is.

Ahahaha, thanks for reminding me. Oh man. Hahahahaha. Hahahahahahaha. Ahhhh. Enlighten me.

You can't role-play a predefined character, and you see you can't by the tags in the dialogue options, they are the "real" responses of the character in question, because that role is already chosen (it's a mercenary who wants to find his son or a schizophrenic psychic or whatever), everything else is by definition out-of-character and is overriding the "dominant" personality. By overriding the personality, you make development impossible and their personal quest becomes meaningless and just another thing on the bucket list. It's not about being mean or nice, it's about character depth and place. If there weren't any tags or any specific dialogue options then it might not be so bad, but alas.

No it isn't. There is no "real" response. The tagged response is a unique option unlocked by that character's unique background. But he doesn't have to respond that way. A character is not a block of stone.

I've even seen screenshots where there are more than one Origin-tagged response available for a given character. If it's in character for the Red Prince to attack someone, and it's also in character for the Red Prince to negotiate with them, how can you say that there is only One True Response that the Red Prince would make?

There literally can not be a character who isn't concerned with its own plot, that character would be a foreign entity and, again, by definition be pointless in the narrative. If you don't see how that's a problem and an artistic incompetence then I really can't help it any further. Only hack writers say "oh, the point is whatever you want it to be", yeah, no, that's just absurd and amateurish beyond belief.

Don't be silly. An artist may have a point in mind when they create something, but if the viewer takes away something else from it, they're not "wrong". That's why art and science are two different words.

The structures and "pillars" of a narrative transcend mediums and are still fundamental for something to be called a competent narrative. Without them it's just random, inconsequential scribblings that mean nothing to nobody. The characters having a role in their own story is one of the basics of every written work ever, it would be so utterly pointless to be otherwise. It's not a video game writer's place to "experiment" with narrative tools when the structure of the narrative is so ...basic.

Of course it is. An RPG is not a book or movie.

-----

Listen. If your logic is correct, then no RPG should ever have dialogue options. Because every character has a point of view already. It should look at your character, determine his POV, and force the appropriate deterministic response. But clearly this is not the case. It is OK for a PC's response to a situation to be indeterminate and up to the player to interpret. So why is this acceptable for "Dwarf Fighter with smuggling background" but not "Lizard Man fallen royalty dude"?

 

[Lacrymas]

You are confusing dialogue options with a multi-faceted personality. What you are giving as an example of "the same situation" is not the same situation, it's a similar one, which is, of course, missing the point. Choosing to murder a child in one dialogue option and choosing to save one in the other is not "character depth", it's the inability of the writer to write consistently. You need stuff to happen in-between that would change the character's reaction. It's ok for a game like Fallout where stats ARE the character because there you don't have a character, you have a quasi-entity which forces events. There's no need for consistency, development or all this, according to you, inconsequential bullshit that just prevents "roleplaying". There are a lot of other things you are missing the point of, like that we are talking about choices, not dialogue options, but I have explained enough and I won't repeat myself since I was as clear as I could be. Enjoy your non-entities that don't matter to their own plot. And people wonder why video game writing is in shambles.

 

[Zombra]

Choosing to murder a child in one dialogue option and choosing to save one in the other is not "character depth", it's the inability of the writer to write consistently.

Please make up your mind. Are you talking about real life people who can react differently to similar things, or block-of-stone fictional characters who must always stick to a one-dimensional script or be branded "inconsistent"?

It's ok for a game like Fallout where stats ARE the character because there you don't have a character, you have a quasi-entity which forces events.

But that is exactly what is being presented here. It's just that some of these "quasi-entities" have a background story that goes with them, and more dialogue options. No other difference.

There's no need for consistency, development or all this, according to you, inconsequential bullshit that just prevents "roleplaying".

It's OK if you don't like the origin characters, but there absolutely is a "need" for them. Some people like them and have fun with them (even if you can't wrap your head around how to role-play them). That's all that's necessary or required. And nothing Larian has done prevents roleplaying; you just don't get how interpretation works.

There are a lot of other things you are missing the point of, but I have explained enough and I won't repeat myself since I was as clear as I could be. Enjoy your non-entities that don't matter to their own plot. And people wonder why video game writing is in shambles.

You mean enjoy the characters I play in an RPG? Thanks, I generally do and I intend to continue. I'm delighted to exercise my options in games - it's why I play RPGs in the first place. It's kind of hard to imagine why you would ever play them though - you'd clearly be happier with noninteractive hobbies.

 

[Infinitron]

When are we going to get the EA on GOG? It's already been 2 weeks :p

They said October.

 

[Efe]

so according to lacrymas dialogue choices spread out far so as to be opposites are bad and everyone should have the same single/similar option? (save child by fighting / save child by bribe / save child by kidnapping other guys family i guess this wont work for you)
you want writer to dictate how character will act but Is the one roleplaying here YOU or the writer behind character?

maybe what you want is more similar to 'cinematic' games like tomb raider or assassins creed.

also in case you go about trying to raise this opinon around, please keep in mind system as it is doesnt prevent either of us from playing as we see fit but on the other hand what you want outright denies my preference.

 

[veevoir]

so according to lacrymas dialogue choices spread out far so as to be opposites are bad and everyone should have the same single/similar option? (save child by fighting / save child by bribe / save child by kidnapping other guys family i guess this wont work for you)
you want writer to dictate how character will act but Is the one roleplaying here YOU or the writer behind character?

maybe what you want is more similar to 'cinematic' games like tomb raider or assassins creed.

also in case you go about trying to raise this opinon around, please keep in mind system as it is doesnt prevent either of us from playing as we see fit but on the other hand what you want outright denies my preference.

Yes, I'll help
Yes, I'll help but tell me more
What is the reward, I'll help
No, I'll help.

 

[Grotesque]

this thread is autism "incarnate".