Divinity: Original Sin 2 Pre-Release Thread

[Lacrymas]

I hope they aren't eyeing Twitcher 3 and DA:I as inspirations for the game lolol. D:OS is already missing the RPG part of this RPG (for me, it's more like a character-centric tactical game instead of an RPG), so copying stuff from those games won't help matters. They should look into Fallout, Age of Decadence, Planescape Torment, and the other usual suspects, for guidance in this.

 

[Aenra]

You neglected to add ' "i think" they should look into '

I am perfectly fine with having one company deep in systems and tacticool combat, another in story and c&c, etc. If -you- would like them all to have the exact same priorities and exact same goals .. your call. Not everyone's.
Also, who told you they haven't looked into the above? Understanding and implementing are two vastly different concepts. Subjective ones at that.

 

[Lacrymas]

You neglected to add ' "i think" they should look into '

I am perfectly fine with having one company deep in systems and tacticool combat, another in story and c&c, etc. If -you- would like them all to have the exact same priorities and exact same goals .. your call. Not everyone's.
Also, who told you they haven't looked into the above? Understanding and implementing are two vastly different concepts. Subjective ones at that.

I actually have no idea what their inspirations, priorities or goals are. I was just musing on what they should look into for adding some RPG into the whole mix, if that's what they want. I also don't want to preface everything with "I think", it should be fairly obvious that it's me thinking this, I don't even know what else it could be. Unless split personalities? lulz.

 

[Aenra]

Well i may have phrased it wrongly. When i am being too obvious people find me rude and understandably so, i usually lack patience. And tact. You will however find me satisfyingly analytic this time

What does 'adding some RPG into their mix' entail exactly? That thus far they have been producing some variant of it, not wholy compliant with the RPG standard as you so deem to define it? That they have been making a totally different type of games altogether perhaps? Or that in terms of the future there is a specific "quality", again to your understanding (and one you have thus far failed to name) that they need more of? Because you see the titles you named have wholly different strengths and weaknesses between them.

Hence my hinting (without the above, or what it signifies..) that i am fine with different strengths and weaknesses. My indirect way of urging the conversation forward while indicating you said nothing at all. Other than a "they should", followed by no clear objective whatsoever.

 

[Lacrymas]

Well i may have phrased it wrongly. When i am being too obvious people find me rude and understandably so, i usually lack patience. And tact. You will however find me satisfyingly analytic this time

What does 'adding some RPG into their mix' entail exactly? That thus far they have been producing some variant of it, not wholy compliant with the RPG standard as you so deem to define it? That they have been making a totally different type of games altogether perhaps? Or that in terms of the future there is a specific "quality", again to your understanding (and one you have thus far failed to name) that they need more of? Because you see the titles you named have wholly different strengths and weaknesses between them.

Hence my hinting (without the above, or what it signifies..) that i am fine with different strengths and weaknesses. My indirect way of urging the conversation forward while indicating you said nothing at all. Other than a "they should", followed by no clear objective whatsoever.

Let's go about it this way - what do you think an RPG has that no other genre of game does? What is the commonality (there are actually 2, but one of them isn't specific to RPGs) between the titles I listed?

 

[Aenra]

I'd name more than two, but on the assumption i understood you?
First of all, neither of the two is RPG-explicit; more like centric.. On top of that, both of which (iso and tb) are aspects already characterising D:OS and D:OS 2 (BD and DD as well for iso)
Now if you ever find the wish to pinpoint/answer anything lacking from your previous posts, i'd be happy to read it

 

[Lacrymas]

First of all, neither of the two is RPG-explicit; more like centric.. On top of that, both of which (iso and tb) are aspects already characterising D:OS and D:OS 2

Nope :p It's actually character-centric role-playing. I.e. a stat-based one. You aren't inserting yourself into an RPG, you are playing a different character entirely. You get the choices/playstyles your stats (i.e. strengths, skills and abilities of your character, not yourself) allow. That's the core of the RPG (for me, but I think it's pretty accurate) and everything else is built around this. Isometric, turn-based (I also seem to recall that P:T isn't turn-based, RTwP I think) and all that jazz is incidental and not specific to RPGs, like you said.

 

[Aenra]

I also seem to recall that P:T isn't turn-based, RTwP I think

I don't remember tbh, been many years; And i can't be asked looking, lol, i take your word for it and stand corrected

And..not what i'd call an RPG (the herecy)..don't need stats to have choices open or closed to you, we just got used to having them signifying those; nor do i find it the most rewarding when i am a priori constrained to extremely specific character templates, but my idea of "RP"ing in general varies vastly from that of most here..
edit: RPG for me means one thing alone, and the ways to achieve that are many. A game where i can role play. Simple as that. And i can only role play when i have many paths, many choices, plenty of freedom, and zero initiative. I make that. You shove stuff down my throat, the more you do, the less i can relate, just not willing to. For it becomes "a" story, not one i am making. It is predefined, origins-wise at least. Games people enjoy here, i enjoy too, but i sure as hell do not RP in them.

Least i got what you seem to have found lacking. On the one hand, yeah, i admit i did not feel particularly invested in any of my chars; nor did i find a pronounced difference between this or that build, in terms of choice limitations. Combat-wise, sure.
On the other hand, for D:OS at least, this was a good thing for me. It was a game that (at least so it communicated its purpose to me) i was meant to have fun in, fun in the sense of goofing around, trying crazy ideas, laughing, cheesing the mechanics to see how to break it, occasionally/in between enjoy some good fights. It did very well on that. And unless i got it all wrong, i think this was its purpose exactly. As i have mentioned elsewhere, so many of the actions i did? I would not have even considered trying them on a different title. Different mindset (and i'm extremely pleased i did get to try them).

While 'more' of what it lacked could have in theory made it even better..i'm happy nobody chanced it. Emphasizing certain aspects can make for a stricter game, a way too serious/self-conscious game, or sometimes both. So considering where Larian's strengths lay, i'm happy it was what it was. Which is precisely why i worry about how all that extra "story" will translate itself in D:OS 2. Not in the sense of the writing per se but in sense of mechanics, openess and progression as aided/hindered due to it. To be seen. Quality-wise? If i get to approach D:OS 2 with the same mindset i approached its sibling, i do not care.

 

[Lacrymas]

And..not what i'd call an RPG (the herecy)..don't need stats to have choices open or closed to you, we just got used to having them signifying those; nor do i find it the most rewarding when i am a priori constrained to extremely specific character templates, but my idea of "RP"ing in general varies vastly from that of most here..

That is what freedom in an RPG ultimately means though. You actually are less free to RP when you *always* get the same choices. You aren't RP'ing then, but clicking dialogue choices. It feels even more constrained and pidgeonholed. All your characters are virtually the same puppets that don't actually have their own character and the world doesn't react to them as individuals. Don't get me wrong, I think D:OS is good and I can't wait for the EE and I backed D:OS2 the minute PayPal was opened (KS doesn't accept Visa Electron), but, for me, it's lacking the RPG part ;d That's why I think all of the recent KS RPGs failed in their tries to imitate the old classics, even though some of them specifically name-dropped them. The initial premise and logic of the old RPGs seems to have slipped through the cracks and they are trying to recapture the wrong things. What Larian are trying to do escapes me however. The hiring of more writers and the Origins are the source of my confusion. What are they trying to achieve with these elements? If stat-based (in this case - background-based) RP, then why not just tie this to your stats instead of an arbitrary background? The Vault Dweller from Fallout didn't need a bajillion backgrounds to be an actual entity in the world. Story is in RPGs to give you an interesting incentive and setting to RP in, not just to have it in general, Spec Ops: The Line has a marvelous story that didn't need RPG elements. They are separating too many elements of the game needlessly. Stats for combat, origins for RP, party-based just to be party-based (Fallout NEEDED to have party members because you could build a pure int/cha character who was a wimp with weapons and you couldn't progress through the battles). That is what I mean when I say that stat-based RP'ing is the core of the whole idea and everything else is logically forced because of this initial premise. I hope I explained it well enough for you to understand where I'm coming from :p

 

[Aenra]

That is what freedom in an RPG ultimately means though.You actually are less free to RP when you *always* get the same choices. You aren't RP'ing then, but clicking dialogue choices

I don't get that, you'll have to explain it again am afraid... Ok, obviously a limited/limiting set of choices makes any game less an RP one. But who said lack of stats means always getting the same choices? Who said you gotta have stats in the first place, let alone primary and secondary and filler ones too in order to be presented with choices?
Me, i just think most of the time.. blue or red? I take red, there, choice made
And speaking of which, why do you stick to dialogue c&c? Can be the same for even the most basic of things, as much as the devs can handle. Dialogue c&c is there to give the illusion of choice. Not choice. Choices can be made in regard to everything.

I can understand that in your mind they are linked with stats, and perhaps your reasoning does not even matter, apples and oranges end of the day. Your mistake i think begins by projecting that on this specific game.

(i will sound like a fanboy, but i'm not)
They are not trying to imitate 'old' school gaming. They have their own ideas that they put forward, and their own mentality that they are attempting to see materialised. It being pushing this whole fucking thing forward. IF, and a major IF, they achieve the fleshing out of lore/story/backgrounds they envision while keeping everything else on the complexity level already existing in D:OS I, then they will have succeeded. Now the extent of said success is in itself a different and equally subjective matter, but the fact is they at least aspire to do just that.
And i think it is a step forward, when aside from that accursed fucking dialogue C&C you get a ton of extra options behind those, combined with inter-relations based on either or both of these combined. Even more so when there's yet more potential to be made out of it by allowing a multitude of ways to employ them in not only combat, but progression, lore (and how the story changes by you) and even geography. The actual land. You add some interactivity levels i at least was sorely in need of, and yes, i think it's a good step forward. And that's with one toon. You will be controlling four was it? Possibilities, branches, they open up geometrically.

To use your example, Vault boy was Vault boy. Water making gizmo or we all die was water making gizmo or we all die. Succeed or muties destroy remained succeed or muties destroy. You get some flavour choices in between. The story is set, fixed and unalterable. It is only your reactions to it that can be customised. Would it not have been even more awesome a title if it was not 'only' Vault boy? If it could also have been tribal born in the middle of fuckistan, "vault? What vault?", Enclaver born in the Enclave, or even vault girl abused then escaped and vault boy killing everyone and then leaving the vault for good? How about "fuck the village elder? Let them all die?" (and i mean a proper "fuck them", not end-game credits, but an actual, different ending due to it) More choice, more openess, same combat and tactics and cities and items.
Perhaps your notion of choices is just different from mine?

(Don't stick to Perception or how many AP it allows me, that will always be there, sans the naming itself. It's not a choice in itself, it is the signifier of said choice. You chose a scout or a sniper in some other game, you chose to boost Perception in Fallout. Same choice. One has a box you tick seven times like an aspie, the other just asks you)

 

[Lacrymas]

I don't get that, you'll have to explain it again am afraid... Ok, obviously a limited/limiting set of choices makes any game less an RP one. But who said lack of stats means always getting the same choices? Who said you gotta have stats in the first place, let alone primary and secondary and filler ones too in order to be presented with choices?

I'm going to separate this so I can explain it better. Stat-based choices are the way to tie them to your character. Tying them to previous choices CAN be done, but it's usually half-assed. Alpha Protocol is a good example of this being done well. If they manage to pull it off, great. That's not RP-ing a character though, but RP-ing yourself (ironically)

And speaking of which, why do you stick to dialogue c&c? Can be the same for even the most basic of things, as much as the devs can handle. Dialogue c&c is there to give the illusion of choice. Not choice. Choices can be made in regard to everything.

I'm not, a choice can simply be bashing your opponents' skulls. It can be going into a certain house or solving a quest in a specific manner. It depends on how it's done and how the world reacts to those specific choices.

They are not trying to imitate 'old' school gaming. They have their own ideas that they put forward, and their own mentality that they are attempting to see materialised. It being pushing this whole fucking thing forward. IF, and a major IF, they achieve the fleshing out of lore/story/backgrounds they envision while keeping everything else on the complexity level already existing in D:OS I, then they will have succeeded. Now the extent of said success is in itself a different and equally subjective matter, but the fact is they at least aspire to do just that.
And i think it is a step forward, when aside from that accursed fucking dialogue C&C you get a ton of extra options behind those, combined with inter-relations based on either or both of these combined. Even more so when there's yet more potential to be made out of it by allowing a multitude of ways to employ them in not only combat, but progression, lore (and how the story changes by you) and even geography. The actual land. You add some interactivity levels i at least was sorely in need of, and yes, i think it's a good step forward. And that's with one toon. You will be controlling four was it? Possibilities, branches, they open up geometrically.

D:OS not, but all the other RPGs out of KS specifically name-dropped the old ones and the whole pitch was trying to be like them. They just didn't get the logic behind the idea and started going into the separate elements of the old games without finding their common ground. It's like writing a novel using sentences and paragraphs, but none of them are logically connected to each other.

To use your example, Vault boy was Vault boy. Water making gizmo or we all die was water making gizmo or we all die. Succeed or muties destroy remained succeed or muties destroy. You get some flavour choices in between. The story is set, fixed and unalterable. It is only your reactions to it that can be customised. Would it not have been even more awesome a title if it was not 'only' Vault boy? If it could also have been tribal born in the middle of fuckistan, "vault? What vault?", Enclaver born in the Enclave, or even vault girl abused then escaped and vault boy killing everyone and then leaving the vault for good? More choice, more openess, same combat and tactics and cities and items.
Perhaps your notion of choices is just different from mine?

The main quest isn't all that important. It just creates the first impetus for starting your adventures and a background for which your character can progress using his/her own skills. You aren't getting flavor choices, you cannot act in a way that your character personally cannot. You can't sneak into Gizmo's "apartment" to plant a bug if you aren't a sneaky character, but you can trick him to confess using a wire (if you have enough Speech skill), or just outright killing him. The world would react in a different way depending on what choice you made. Choices are the way your character goes into specific situations, not necessarily tied to the story as a whole. You should actually refrain from affecting the main quest wildly because it creates a stress for development and it's hard to program such differences.

C&C, story, combat, party members, side quests are all built around the idea of this character-based RP and aren't there simply for being there. Their purpose is to create a reactive world in which you can RP a dozen different characters and get a different experience every time. There is nothing wrong with not doing it this way, but I think it goes fairly away from the core of the RPG. The whole advantage of the video game medium is to give you choices, and separating an RPG from any other type of game can be difficult. There is this unspoken consensus that RPGs are the hardest genre to develop (or maybe I just think that), because it all relies on that logical beginning of tying everything together and doing it well.

 

[Aenra]

So unless i lost your train of thought entirely..it seems there is not so much a disagreement with my views, as a weariness of the new/cautiousness in accepting it's doable. Just as, in terms of your fallout example, it is not so much a refusal of the merrits of backgrounds, reactive stories and so forth, as much as your putting other systems higher in your priorities list

But, to move from the general to the specific, Larian already has said systems in place, and expanded at that (they will be come release). It is precisely that which allows them, so they promise anyway, to focus on story, character fleshing out, extrea mechanics, etc. The interelation of which you will i hope agree allows for some pretty impressive potential overall.

Last thing, and Larian unrelated (again):

Their purpose [you talk about Fallout here] is to create a reactive world in which you can RP a dozen different characters and get a different experience every time

This goes back to what i was saying. No one said this is wrong, just to put that out there. What you seem to neglect however, is that all the above happen within one cocoon of a context, unbreakable. You adapt to it and make the best out of it, always accepting that both its begininng and its end are fixed and immutable, ie:
It is one thing to have a setting-specific context, and quite another to have a fixed social/political function within it as well (namely a fixed """main""" story). Pick what you like, but try real, real hard to convince me that the former (where the course of events is not pre-arranged) allows for less RPing than the latter (where it is pre-determined, and only your response to it may be altered). Because all your posts seem to imply that somehow.. which is unreasonable ..

 

[Lacrymas]

It is one thing to have a setting-specific context, and quite another to have a fixed social/political function within it as well (namely a fixed """main""" story). Pick what you like, but try real, real hard to convince me that the former (where the course of events is not pre-arranged) allows for less RPing than the latter (where it is pre-determined, and only your response to it may be altered). Because all your posts seem to imply that somehow.. which is unreasonable ..

It's incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to create a game which isn't predetermined in some way. All of this gives you the illusion of choice by taking into account a lot of actions that you can take. I fully realize that it's an illusion. Programming a story which writes itself is kinda weird and it's going to be schizophrenic, if nothing else. Like I said, the main story is this far, far speck of dust in the horizon which gives you an overarching goal (in Fallout). I wasn't talking about Fallout in that sentence you quoted though, that's why it was in a different "paragraph". I was saying that C&C, story, combat, party members and side quests are forced *from* the inclusion of stat-based RP, so it could give you maximum illusion for whatever way you build your character. They have a logical reason for being there. I already mentioned why party-members and story were included in my other post and the others are to complete the illusion. If what you are saying is true and they are trying to tie the RP to everything, then great.

 

[Aenra]

You spin back in circles now.

Do not take the empirical in order to judge the possible, as you seem prone to do. Especially since this is a discussion on purely a theorhetical level. You either state what others seem to imply in terms of the possible, or move back to defending a position i have well understood. The question i posed still stands

As for the illusion of choice, everything is just that. We were discussing the signifiers, not the signifieds. If you find number crunching (do you count your Int stat IQ every day? Or do you raise it in segments weekly perhaps?) more versimilar to an organic, believable act-and-grow-due-to-it type of system, props to you, a gazillion of RPGs out there employing just that tactic for you. Apples and oranges. Just please don't tell me this is THE one and only way where/how choice may be represented in a virtual environment. Really, just don't..not in 2015 ^^

 

[Lacrymas]

You spin back in circles now.

Do not take the empirical in order to judge the possible, as you seem prone to do. Especially since this is a discussion on purely a theorhetical level. You either state what others seem to imply in terms of the possible, or move back to defending a position i have well understood. The question i posed still stands

As for the illusion of choice, everything is just that. We were discussing the signifiers, not the signifieds. If you find number crunching (do you count your Int stat IQ every day? Or do you raise it in segments weekly perhaps?) more versimilar to an organic, believable act-and-grow-due-to-it type of system, props to you, a gazillion of RPGs out there employing just that tactic for you. Apples and oranges. Just please don't tell me this is THE one and only way where/how choice may be represented in a virtual environment. Really, just don't..not in 2015 ^^

Then I don't understand your question. I never said it's the only way, so no idea where that came from, I even mentioned Alpha Protocol as an example of doing it differently. If you can give me an example where character-centric (i.e. not self-insertion) RP is done without the inclusion of stats, then please share, I know of no such thing. The RPGs that came from KS are anything but organic and believable, especially in the RP part, so no idea where you are getting *that* from either.

 

[agris]

christ, fuck and be done with it!

 

[Arkeus]

christ, fuck and be done with it!

What do you have against foreplay

 

[Aenra]

What do you have against foreplay

he was probably stingy with his stat points allocation ^^

 

[Doktor Best]

I hope they aren't eyeing Twitcher 3 and DA:I as inspirations for the game lolol. D:OS is already missing the RPG part of this RPG (for me, it's more like a character-centric tactical game instead of an RPG), so copying stuff from those games won't help matters. They should look into Fallout, Age of Decadence, Planescape Torment, and the other usual suspects, for guidance in this.

If you mixed Witcher3 with the game system of divinity you would actually get some pretty fucking good product.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9000 mit Tapatalk 2

 

[Aenra]

don't feed it;
leave it be and it shall crawl back to the forest

 

[Lacrymas]

I'm not a troll, so feeding "it" won't do anything :p Doktor Best you'd just get D:OS with the map size of the Witcher. I don't know if that's a good idea, Witcher 3's map is already too big and it feels empty. Some would argue that that's the point, but I don't see it. Putting more stuff in without a purpose just for it to feel "big" actually has the opposite effect of making it feel small because of the lack of content.

 

[Aenra]

wasn't you i was refering to, lol

 

[Doktor Best]

I was talking about the narrative. You can say what you want about witcher 3 but the writing was top notch, and the absolute weak spot of larians divinity.

 

[a Goat]

They should look into Fallout, Age of Decadence, Planescape Torment

No

 

[Infinitron]

GOG is holding a contest to design their character in D:OS 2: http://af.gog.com/news/design_the_goghero_in_divinity_original_sin_2?as=1649904300