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

[Lacrymas]

You people have no reading comprehension :p This is in the context of choices of predefined characters, not a blank slate one. That means that one choice out of 2 opposites is going to be out-of-character 100% every time. This is a problem because you choose your character in the char-gen, so [Sabille] choosing to save a lizard aristocrat (for example) because the UI tells me I can do it is so far out-of-character that it's hilarious. Not only does it make the predefined character pointless, but it also creates a schizophrenic one if you constantly choose paradoxical choices and then confuse it for a multi-faceted personality (which also confuses dialogue options for a multi-faceted personality). This also makes character development impossible because there is nothing develop from, since everything is random. YOU can choose to play consistently, but nobody knows that at Larian so they can't write any development because they give you contradictory ways to play a character. And if there is no development there is no point of having predefined characters, since they are always going to be a blank slate one, only with a name and backstory which don't matter. If there were no origin stories in char-gen, but you "activate" them during the game, by dialogue options or something else, AoD style, then this whole problem would be non-existent. Of course they shouldn't populate the dialogue options with "Lizard-aristocrats kept me as a slave" because it's too specific, it should be "I was kept as a slave" THEN you can role-play that it was lizard-aristocrats and the UI wouldn't contradict you constantly. It creates even more role-playing options because you aren't forced to play as an elf woman named Sabille if you want to have been a slave. They can also not allow you to make specific choices when it contradicts the character, like that Sabille example above, you are only given the option to not save the lizard-aristocrat. That can be interesting because it's a consequence of the choice you made earlier.

 

[Jimmious]

You know our reading comprehension might improve a bit if you use paragraphs once in a while

 

[Lucky]

You people have no reading comprehension :p This is in the context of choices of predefined characters, not a blank slate one. That means that one choice out of 2 opposites is going to be out-of-character 100% every time. This is a problem because you choose your character in the char-gen, so [Sabille] choosing to save a lizard aristocrat (for example) because the UI tells me I can do it is so far out-of-character that it's hilarious. Not only does it make the predefined character pointless, but it also creates a schizophrenic one if you constantly choose paradoxical choices and then confuse it for a multi-faceted personality (which also confuses dialogue options for a multi-faceted personality). This also makes character development impossible because there is nothing develop from, since everything is random. YOU can choose to play consistently, but nobody knows that at Larian so they can't write any development because they give you contradictory ways to play a character. And if there is no development there is no point of having predefined characters, since they are always going to be a blank slate one, only with a name and backstory which don't matter. If there were no origin stories in char-gen, but you "activate" them during the game, by dialogue options or something else, AoD style, then this whole problem would be non-existent. Of course they shouldn't populate the dialogue options with "Lizard-aristocrats kept me as a slave" because it's too specific, it should be "I was kept as a slave" THEN you can role-play that it was lizard-aristocrats and the UI wouldn't contradict you constantly. It creates even more role-playing options because you aren't forced to play as an elf woman named Sabille if you want to have been a slave. They can also not allow you to make specific choices when it contradicts the character, like that Sabille example above, you are only given the option to not save the lizard-aristocrat. That can be interesting because it's a consequence of the choice you made earlier.

No, they are giving you too much credit and assuming that you know what you're talking about. What your line of thinking leads to is a game that plays itself with the player only ever as a passive observer, as the characters within the game would only ever act in a specific way with no room for deviation. They would walk in the only way that their character would suggest, they would fight in the only way their character would suggest and they would talk in the only way their character would suggest. Your latter example would be no different then your objections to the first, the choice of origin being replaced with your first action, as any action you take would suggest the next, and the next, and the next.

What you're missing is that having multiple dialogue options is a tool that can be used to suggest things about a character by a good writer - an Origin having the option to kill or spare someone can be interesting because it can suggest that they're unhinged to a degree that sparing and killing are almost the same to them, or that they're still lucid enough to recognise when letting someone live is in their better interests than killing them. How you want to do this depends on how much room for interpretation you want to give to the player and what other dialogue options you give throughout the game. It's a different way of writing then you would use when it comes to writing a linear story, which is something that games should take advantage of rather than unnecessarily limiting themselves, especially when the vision you are trying to impose on them isn't even as universally accepted as you're trying to portray it when it comes to literature.

 

[Lacrymas]

You aren't saying literally anything apart from ad hominem attacks with no explanations. The only thing that matters is the "multiple choices mean that they are equal in the eyes of the characters", while this is true, and could be interesting, that would only work if every character has custom dialogue each time or are given choices only in specific situations. Otherwise it's just a character who has no character and is a blank slate, which makes the origin stories pointless. I already explained why choices in blank slate characters aren't a problem. About the literature part - show me a great work of literature with a standard narrative structure, i.e. no Finnegan's Wake or The Naked Lunch-type structures, where characters have contradicting personalities without development in-between. You can also show me someone reputable who has said "there's no need for consistent writing in literature, everything can be random".

 

[Lucky]

You aren't saying literally anything apart from ad hominem attacks with no explanations. The only thing that matters is the "multiple choices means that they are equal in the eyes of the characters", while this is true and could be interesting that would only work if every character has custom dialogue each time or are given choices only in specific situations. Otherwise it's just a character who has no character and is a blank slate, which makes the origin stories pointless. I already explained why choices in blank slate characters aren't a problem. About the literature part - show me a great work of literature with a standard narrative structure, i.e. no Finnegan's Wake or The Naked Lunch-type structures, where characters have contradicting personalities without development in-between. You can also show me someone reputable who has said "there's no need for consistent writing in literature, everything can be random".

It seems you understand neither what an ad hominem is nor your own point, so that the explanations don't register either shouldn't surprise me.

And no, I'm not going to engage your nonsensical literature claims because they are irrelevant to the game and your insistence to state them as normative is baffling. This is your point to proof, not mine, and if you seriously believe that what you're claiming boils down to 'consistent writing' then there is no helping you.

 

[Lacrymas]

I.e. "I can't do it", fair enough.

 

[Lucky]

I.e. "I can't do it", fair enough.

Big of you to admit it.

 

[Lacrymas]

Oh, I can back my claims

http://www.ohio.edu/people/hartleyg/ref../fiction/character2.html

https://www.google.bg/url?sa=t&sour...ggjMAE&usg=AFQjCNGOXZSpYDXp88-IiWV0UWEJgV4CyQ

I'll post more when I get back home

The problem is that you can't

 

[Lucky]

Oh, I can back my claims

http://www.ohio.edu/people/hartleyg/ref../fiction/character2.html

I'll post more when I get back home

The problem is that you can't

Going back on your word? Also, no, you can't and I'm not going to provide proof for you either. First you need to realise what it is that you're claiming and in what way it relates to this videogame. Here's a hint, it's not about character development in the literary sense.

 

[Lacrymas]

Okay, provide proof for what YOU are saying and I'll do my best to understand.

 

[Lucky]

Okay, provide proof for what YOU are saying and I'll do my best to understand.

If by that you mean that you want an example of a game that has pre-established characters with multiple dialog options that are dissimilar yet all in-character, I would suggest playing Pathologic.

 

[Lacrymas]

...but that's what I've been saying. That if you have predefined characters with options you need to have all dialogues/choices be custom and not uniform (they are uniform in DOS2 and that is the problem). Well, for the things that matter, it's overkill to have different options for "let me see your wares". Character-defining options are a different matter.

 

[Lucky]

...but that's what I've been saying. That if you have predefined characters with options you need to have all dialogues/choices be custom and not uniform (they are uniform in DOS2). Well, for the things that matter, it's overkill to have different options for "let me see your wares". Character-defining options are a different matter.

I think I might see why you have a problem with those choices. Think of them more like cues for the player. It might help if you relate them more to theatre performances, improvisation theatre and interactive theatre, than novels and such.

 

[Zanzoken]

Swen is too busy playing Origin Stories to read all of your shitposts

 

[Zombra]

Lacrymas, what you're overlooking is that there is a middle ground between predefined 100% deterministic stonework scripted character and utterly random faceless whatever nobody doesn't matter. You assume that the origin characters are 100% predefined when there is no reason to believe that. If it were true then your observations would be valid, but it isn't and it's not meant to be. They are partly predefined. The fact that the Red Prince can be an ivory-tower Enchanter or a hardened veteran Fighter should have been a hint. The backgrounds and unique options are a starting point for the player to choose how they want to portray the character.

 

[Zombra]

Oh, I can back my claims
http://www.ohio.edu/people/hartleyg/ref../fiction/character2.html

Interesting reading. Too bad the part about implicit characterization, and the entire section on dramatic characterization, directly contradict your model of rigid, static, predictable explicitly defined characters. Next time cite a source that actually backs you up instead of the opposite.

 

[Lacrymas]

How does it contradict it? The character is still one and the same, you just have to deduce it from how they act instead of being told what they are (which Larian does in char-gen). There can be no deduction when all the dialogues and choices are random. It even strengthens my case. It's not about being set in stone, it's about the character not being forced to act out-of-character. Example: Sabille has 2 options - either murder a lizard-aristocrat or try to resist the temptation to murder it (stat check), while whoever else has other options - try to help the lizard to hatch its eggs or get someone else to do it or refuse to help it. There's no logic in having Sabille either murder the lizard or help it hatch its eggs, those are contradictory in the context of Sabille's character and don't make sense at all when playing her. You still get choices and options, just not those that are jarringly out of place.

 

[Zombra]

There can be no deduction when all the dialogues and choices are random.

"Random" is a concept you made up here. The only way a character will be portrayed as "random" is if the player literally closes his eyes when pressing dialogue keys.

It's not about being set in stone, it's about the character not being forced to act out-of-character. There's no logic in having Sabille either murder the lizard or help it hatch its eggs, those are contradictory in the context of Sabille's character and don't make sense at all when playing her.

"In character" or "out of character" is not defined by the origin stories. It's defined by the player, in the same way that an actor may use his own persona to inform the portrayal of a character in a play, but to a much greater degree. The difference is that the actor has to stick to a prewritten script, but a game player does not. The game player writes his own story as he goes. This is the important difference you continually fail to acknowledge.

How does it contradict it?

When the audience is allowed (or forced) to deduce aspects of a character, subtext becomes an acceptable means of description. That necessarily means that the text itself is incomplete and open to interpretation (there's that word again). At this point, author intent is interesting but ultimately immaterial. There may indeed be a thousand reasons why Sebille saves the lizard eggs. It is up to the player to decide for himself whether it makes sense, since the player is not merely audience but co-author. The actor may decide that his character hates ice cream, even though there is nothing about it in the text, and inform his portrayal accordingly ... again, as long as he doesn't break script. And again, in an RPG there is no script, regardless of what you would like.

 

[Lacrymas]

So, if a player can characterize any character in any way he wants, what's the point of there being different characters when in the end they can all be the same? Is that what good video game writing is? This smacks of Bethesda's recent offerings where the main character can literally be anything without consequences or contradictions.

 

[Bubbles]

Is that what good video game writing is?

Let's ask the game developers themselves:

 

[Lucky]

So, if a player can characterize any character in any way he wants, what's the point of there being different characters when in the end they can all be the same? Is that what good video game writing is? This smacks of Bethesda's recent offerings where the main character can literally be anything without consequences or contradictions.

It is a form of videogame writing that can be done well and offers a tremendous amount of freedom and versatility, if the player is capable of dealing with being both audience and participant. I have not played Skyrim, but from what I've read about it it's bad because the game does not respond to your actions much, whilst D:OS 2 has the aforementioned competitive questing.

 

[Lacrymas]

Freedom and versatility compared to what? What is the difference between Ifan helping hatch the eggs or Sabille helping hatch the eggs? Is the game going to acknowledge that that is something peculiar of Sabille to do? If it doesn't, then why are we doing it? For head-canon? When has head-canon been seen as an alternative to actual writing and consequences?

 

[Zombra]

So, if a player can characterize any character in any way he wants, what's the point of there being different characters when in the end they can all be the same? Is that what good video game writing is?

You might as well say, "Why let players choose race and class?" or "Why let players have dialogue options at all?"
The point is the same as it has always been: to give the player fun options, or if you prefer, to allow him to author an enjoyable story. And players enjoy the reactivity of exclusive options. When a unique dialogue choice pops up because my character is a Dwarf or has high Intelligence, it's cool; though I don't have to choose it. The origin options are a more extreme version of this same idiom.

And PCs can't all be the same. I have no idea why you said that. That's the point of exclusive options. An Elf can't pick the Dwarf dialogue choices, and a Noble can't do anything that requires the Barbarian tag. I don't see you complaining about that; yet again, the origin options are simply an extension of this system.

And yes, it is good game writing to give the player these options, even if they don't fit your preconceived ideas about a character.

For head-canon? When has head-canon been seen as an alternative to actual writing and consequences?

Ah, now we're talking about subtext again. We agree that subtext isn't real canon! Good! It turns out that how Sabille should act is an assumption on your part, just as much "headcanon" as anyone else's. You're raging about people being able to play their character in a way that you don't like ... but that's just like your opinion man. Get off your high horse about how a character must act ... and go back and read my post you seem to have conveniently overlooked.

 

[Lucky]

Freedom and versatility compared to what? What is the difference between Ifan helping hatch the eggs or Sabille helping hatch the eggs? Is the game going to acknowledge that that is something peculiar of Sabille to do? If it doesn't, then why are we doing it? For head-canon? When has head-canon been seen as an alternative to actual writing and consequences?

In this case, compared to removing the option for Sabille to hatch the eggs, which removes an entire angle of acting out her character from the scene.

Consequences here are partially mechanical and partially the responsibility of the player to maintain their intended characterisation. For example, if Sabille hatches the eggs the game could remember this and it could come into play for a questline, however even if the game never provides a moment for her tot state her reason for doing so the player would still need to have one and this might inform how they have her act in other scenes.

 

[Lacrymas]

So the origin stories are just another "feat" (like Black Widow in Fallout) you can choose at the start and you can sometimes use it for dialogue options? That's it? What if I don't ever choose any of the special options? What would be the difference between the characters then? Is there a difference at all? What happens when you realize this and every playthrough is essentially the same, just a bit of flavor text changed around?

I'm not raging at how other people play their characters, I'm raging that I'm not given a character at all even though I chose to be Sabille, warrior-slave of the lizard-people, how is that so hard to grasp? Every one of them is a blank slate with an additional dialogue option popping here and there, which just seems to replace feats/skills from others games, it's just way worse because they are gender, race and background locked from the start.