Divinity Divinity: Original Sin - Enhanced Edition

[Horus]

In Divinity, you basically throw a dice and do what the dice tells you. Of course if you don't care about dialogues this will probably not bother you, but for me this is a big issue.

Oh man what an atrocity. Who would have though that dice results would affect the outcome. What an original and unique idea for RPG's.

 

[sser]

Only time it bothered me was if the "rebel AI" was disagreeing with a solution to a puzzle. Like, I knew how to solve it, but the AI would be like herrrmmm, nope, it's this, let's argue! And I'm like you fucking moron, I read the solution in the book, why are we even arguing over this?

Sometimes there'd be a lot of questions for that puzzle to get through. At this point, rebel AI went off because it's just too much of a hassle.

I didn't really have an issue with the system itself. I don't believe there is a good way to do "Charisma" battles in games and I wonder if the very concept of Divinity's roshambo was just a stab at the futility of even trying to make charisma battles "a thing" in the first place.

 

[Doctor Sbaitso]

The penalty for failing to avoid combat is a real bitch. When they get the drop on you it usually means it will hurt.

 

[Chaotic_Heretic]

Does 100%+ air resistance help you survive the bolt in the guardian tomb?

Also it quite easy if you charm one of them, knockdown another, blind the third and then off the 4th. 1k+ air damage from a charmed guardian kills another one by the time it wears off.

 

[cvv]

Does 100%+ air resistance help you survive the bolt in the guardian tomb?

Nope, nothing does. Not even the invulnerability spell.

And yeah, those guardians hurt but theyre not that tough.

 

[Konjad]

My party just got stuck by a game breaking bug:

http://www.larian.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=519085

Disappointing, I cannot access the main content at the end, but it was a fun game up to this point.

Spoiler

Inner Source Temple door and beyond refuses to open claiming "I have not yet ascended" even though I have 14 spent blood stones. One of the portals got stuck and ZixZax is bugged and will not open it regardless of how many stones I spend. Worse, the bug was set very early in the game when I quickly used two in a row (I assume), so going back to that previous save would essentially be re-rolling...all this after a good 100+ hours (I savored the game and took it very slow), a shame.

Equip a tenebrium weapon and beat the shit out of the doors, as I did. It takes a while (and you'd better have blacksmith skill or buy 20 weapons) but you can continue with the game afterwards.

 

[Abu Antar]

Can't you just use telekinesis on the chests in the Gaurdian Temple? I think that's what I did.

Also, sorry to hear about game breaking bugs. It would anger me to no end. I might even have given my screen an evil glare. Is it possible to send in saves to Larian so that they can check if they can fix your problem?

 

[Orma]

Queshtion about the tomb with the stone guardians btw

Is it possible to actually get into the side chambers and/or loot the chests littering the place? Or is that just jewbait.

You can get into the side chambers. Ignore the chests, there is only shit inside.

Spoiler

You need a character with high perception to uncover a path to the main chamber, if your perception is low than you can play the hot/cold game. You will need to use the pyramids to get into the other chamber.

Spoiler

Throwing the pyramid didn't work for me. I'm guessing you need a very high teleportation skill, I had 4 and my toon still got zapped.

Spoiler

Summon a spider. Spiders have really high perception.

 

[Turisas]

wat

Well, are you gonna have sex with your doppelganger, kill him or rob a bank while he establishes a rock-solid alibi for you? You have to do at least one of those.

 

[Volourn]

"The penalty for failing to avoid combat is a real bitch. When they get the drop on you it usually means it will hurt."
\
No. Combat is easy. Nothing hurts.

 

[Volourn]

Onwe of the worst designs in any so called RPG ever. Top 3 to be sure.

'Old skool'? My fukkin' azz.

 

[Raghar]

wat

You should quote properly, Pretty Princess.

 

[J_C]

I just encountered the best Codex specific content in the game. I met a band of red imps in the Homested, which were named after Codexians. Jaesun, Argthoron, Crooked Bee etc. They were all retarded (who would have thought). Oh, I sacrificed them and sent them back to their demon overlords with the Watchers.

 

[Mareus]

In Divinity, you basically throw a dice and do what the dice tells you. Of course if you don't care about dialogues this will probably not bother you, but for me this is a big issue.

Oh man what an atrocity. Who would have though that dice results would affect the outcome. What an original and unique idea for RPG's.

You miss the point. The problem is not dice rolls per se, but the way they affect dialogue choices. As I already explained before, when dice rolls affect things like your moral choices, you are doing it wrong. I never played a roleplaying game where your decision about attacking innocent people is based on a dice roll. For example, at the very beginning you find two drunkards that want to take you to some wizard. Let us say you want to roleplay a good character and you decide to not resist for obvious reasons. Well, your other character who is a rascal might interfere and protest. The problem becomes evident when this moral dilemma is resolved by a dice roll and you are forced to kill innocent people, something a good character would never do. The mark of good design is to have the freedom of choice. Likewise, the mark of bad design is having the freedom of choice taken away from the player. Now, I know you cannot always get what you want, but when that is the case one needs a better explanation then just a random dice roll.

For a single player game at least, why not let the player decide at the beginning of the game who is the leader of the group and have the other character just protest if he does not agree with your choices, and then apply penalties to leadership and personal relations which could translate in not having certain bonuses in combat. That would improve the single player experience a lot in my opinion. As for multiplayer, you can have the damn minigame for all I care, but please choose a minigame that is not based completely on luck. Something a kin to battle cards comes to mind, so that skill is at least somewhat involved. Or just do the damn skill checks, like in every other RPG.

 

[Gregz]

My party just got stuck by a game breaking bug:

http://www.larian.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=519085

Disappointing, I cannot access the main content at the end, but it was a fun game up to this point.

Spoiler

Inner Source Temple door and beyond refuses to open claiming "I have not yet ascended" even though I have 14 spent blood stones. One of the portals got stuck and ZixZax is bugged and will not open it regardless of how many stones I spend. Worse, the bug was set very early in the game when I quickly used two in a row (I assume), so going back to that previous save would essentially be re-rolling...all this after a good 100+ hours (I savored the game and took it very slow), a shame.

Equip a tenebrium weapon and beat the shit out of the doors, as I did. It takes a while (and you'd better have blacksmith skill or buy 20 weapons) but you can continue with the game afterwards.

Edit: OMG this is actually working

 

[NotAGolfer]

In Divinity, you basically throw a dice and do what the dice tells you. Of course if you don't care about dialogues this will probably not bother you, but for me this is a big issue.

Oh man what an atrocity. Who would have though that dice results would affect the outcome. What an original and unique idea for RPG's.

You miss the point. The problem is not dice rolls per se, but the way they affect dialogue choices. As I already explained before, when dice rolls affect things like your moral choices, you are doing it wrong. I never played a roleplaying game where your decision about attacking innocent people is based on a dice roll. For example, at the very beginning you find two drunkards that want to take you to some wizard. Let us say you want to roleplay a good character and you decide to not resist for obvious reasons. Well, your other character who is a rascal might interfere and protest. The problem becomes evident when this moral dilemma is resolved by a dice roll and you are forced to kill innocent people, something a good character would never do. The mark of good design is to have the freedom of choice. Likewise, the mark of bad design is having the freedom of choice taken away from the player. Now, I know you cannot always get what you want, but when that is the case one needs a better explanation then just a random dice roll.

For a single player game at least, why not let the player decide at the beginning of the game who is the leader of the group and have the other character just protest if he does not agree with your choices, and then apply penalties to leadership and personal relations which could translate in not having certain bonuses in combat. That would improve the single player experience a lot in my opinion. As for multiplayer, you can have the damn minigame for all I care, but please choose a minigame that is not based completely on luck. Something a kin to battle cards comes to mind, so that skill is at least somewhat involved. Or just do the damn skill checks, like in every other RPG.

You suck.
Hard.

The dice roll is not the explanation, dumbass. It just simulates discussions in your little two man party, nothing more. You know, to make it feel more like an adaption of PnP RPGs and less like a choose the best answer metagame (see Baldur's Gate and co.).

and to solve your "problem"
Just choose another AI personality for your companion. Problem solved.

 

[Mareus]

The dice roll is not the explanation, dumbass. It just simulates discussions in your little two man party, nothing more. You know, to make it feel more like an adaption of PnP RPGs and less like a choose the best answer metagame (see Baldur's Gate and co.).

Nice strawman. Dice roll being an explanation are your words, not mine. So congratulations for knocking down an argument I never made. What I am saying is that these dice rolls affect what you will do next in the game - sometimes contrary to moral attributes of your character. That is bad roleplaying design.

and to solve your "problem" Just choose another AI personality for your companion. Problem solved.

Why don't you stick to playing golf and leave the discussion about roleplaying to roleplayers? You obviously have no clue what roleplaying even means, considering that you think choosing a different AI personality is part of the fix. Roleplaying is all about playing with different characters and actually having your companion protest and argue with you significantly enhances the roleplaying experience. When roleplaying is done right, even the most incompatible characters can lead to the most amazing adventures.

 

[Horus]

In Divinity, you basically throw a dice and do what the dice tells you. Of course if you don't care about dialogues this will probably not bother you, but for me this is a big issue.

Oh man what an atrocity. Who would have though that dice results would affect the outcome. What an original and unique idea for RPG's.

You miss the point. The problem is not dice rolls per se, but the way they affect dialogue choices. As I already explained before, when dice rolls affect things like your moral choices, you are doing it wrong. I never played a roleplaying game where your decision about attacking innocent people is based on a dice roll. For example, at the very beginning you find two drunkards that want to take you to some wizard. Let us say you want to roleplay a good character and you decide to not resist for obvious reasons. Well, your other character who is a rascal might interfere and protest. The problem becomes evident when this moral dilemma is resolved by a dice roll and you are forced to kill innocent people, something a good character would never do. The mark of good design is to have the freedom of choice. Likewise, the mark of bad design is having the freedom of choice taken away from the player. Now, I know you cannot always get what you want, but when that is the case one needs a better explanation then just a random dice roll.

For a single player game at least, why not let the player decide at the beginning of the game who is the leader of the group and have the other character just protest if he does not agree with your choices, and then apply penalties to leadership and personal relations which could translate in not having certain bonuses in combat. That would improve the single player experience a lot in my opinion. As for multiplayer, you can have the damn minigame for all I care, but please choose a minigame that is not based completely on luck. Something a kin to battle cards comes to mind, so that skill is at least somewhat involved. Or just do the damn skill checks, like in every other RPG.

Nah, i just wanted to joke about the example you gave. Other than your example i agree with you. Winning arguments for the character with a retarded mini games is the worst way to solve problems. Not to mention the randomness and weakness of the mini game becoming painfully obvious when playing it against the computer.

Wish they chosen better way to tackle this problem. Even the bioware's over the top and simple random cinematic choices are hell of a better than this. At least in those games you can choose what to do as a character(to a degree ofc) instead of being forced by a stupid mini game to kill people/do things you don't want.

 

[RK47]

Mareus
D:OS doesn't care what you larp as, and only grants traits bonuses on convo choices to pick.
Pretending to care more than the traits and having some kind of living AI as your partner will only lead to disappointment, depression, and eventually suicide. Don't be that guy.
The game doesn't care if it's depiction of rascal murdering guards is larptastic or not, nor should you. It only grants traits accordingly, hence that is what you should do.
Just game the traits or don't. Be done with it.

 

[katyafrost]

Wow, this thread is huge! Is the game ready to be played in its entirety or should I wait for another patch before spending all day/night gorging on this?

 

[Tigranes]

Go for it.

 

[katyafrost]

Go for it.

I was hoping for a "wait a few more weeks" . Got a lot of gardening to do and now the weeds may win if I play my ks copy of D:OS!

 

[Gregz]

Just finished, took my time and savored it.

Is good, a solid 9/10

Combat is too easy, save-scum exploits abound (this can be considered a feature however), and many of the puzzles aren't very logical...but they did hundreds of things right...it's a great game.

Crowdfunding works.

 

[katyafrost]

Just finished, took my time and savored it.

Is good, a solid 9/10

Combat is too easy, save-scum exploits abound (this can be considered a feature however), and many of the puzzles aren't very logical...but they did hundreds of things right...it's a great game.

Crowdfunding works.

That is wonderful to see. Are there plans for an expansion?

 

[Rupuka]

For example, at the very beginning you find two drunkards that want to take you to some wizard. Let us say you want to roleplay a good character and you decide to not resist for obvious reasons. Well, your other character who is a rascal might interfere and protest. The problem becomes evident when this moral dilemma is resolved by a dice roll and you are forced to kill innocent people, something a good character would never do. The mark of good design is to have the freedom of choice.

I would argue that a more essential mark is having consequences; if a lot of choices lead to the same conclusion, they are meaningless, ergo outcomes are more important. And a big part of consequences is dealing with them.

Is easy to see the problem with someone who murders a quest giver and afterwards complains about not being able to do the quest, he wants to have his cake and eat it too. And similarly, wanting a heartless character without having to deal with any of the possible consequences of that, while pretending that some meaningless leadership debuff is somehow a fair tradeoff, is definitely not "roleplaying done right", is a system that makes the entire choice pointless.

If you concern is making the "good" character behave consistently then, good news, there is nothing forcing him to actually participate in the fight, you can left the two drunkards to the rascal, hell, if you are roleplaying as a self-righteous ass you can take your larping to the next level and have that character attack the other one. The entire scenario can be handed in a couple of ways because the choices don't stop with the dice roll. The only thing the game is "forcing" on you is making a violent character (personality that you picked) act violently (if you lose a dice roll or a minigame that is heavily affected by the social stat). That's less "having the freedom of choice taken away from the player" and more, dealing with the obvious consequences of your choices.

 

[RK47]

Is easy to see the problem with someone who murders a quest giver and afterwards complains about not being able to do the ques

Yeah obviously the solution is to complete the quest then murder the fuckwit.
Fuck the hype. Stop the bullshit. Start the truth.