Divinity Divinity: Original Sin - Enhanced Edition

[Ninjerk]

oh

 

[Immortal]

 

[Bubbles]

How far we've come from the days when enemies spawning out of thin air behind you was considered a design flaw.

 

[Immortal]

How far we've come from the days when enemies spawning out of thin air behind you was considered a design flaw.

I didn't see that in the trailer.. just awesomeness.. don't tell me they are adding Raining GuardsMen Combat...

 

[Bubbles]

It's too early to tell, but that tactician mode preview looks worrying.

 

[Athelas]

Well, I suppose it is possible that they docked onto the beach you start out on immediately after you did, and that they forgot to anchor their boat so that it conveniently drifted away leaving no trace.

 

[Lacrymas]

Are you talking about the two extra skeletons behind the characters? They don't come out of thin air, necromancers summon them. I think the original three's bones are lying there from the beginning, they can just add 2 more skeleton piles in the mix. Somewhat related question - why is it protected by a password and where can we find this password, if we can at all?

 

[Lacrymas]

It seems like it isn't password protected anymore, it sounds well thought-out and fun - http://larian.com/news/divinity-original-sin-enhanced-edition-tactician-mode-preview/

 

[Bubbles]

Are you talking about the two extra skeletons behind the characters? They don't come out of thin air, necromancers summon them. I think the original three's bones are lying there from the beginning, they can just add 2 more skeleton piles in the mix.

Nah, they're just summoned up from the ground. As I said, it's too early to tell if the enemies being warped in behind the party is going to be a common occurrence in TM or not. I just hope it isn't.

 

[Aenra]

Reading comments here and then reading the 'article' itself reminds one of the futility of conversation;

The way they explain it sounds 'ok' to me. Not grand, have seen this 'adapt to the players' moves' before (hint), and it almost never means nice things. But since this game is a touch complex/open with its combat options, am 'ok' with how they went about it.
Some excellently pointless sarcasm from Bubbles as well, his eloquence at least elevates him above the sociopathic nerd stalker Roguey. And his notion of humour sure makes him more preferable to read. But having a necromancer summon two mobs behind you hardly strikes me as decline a design flaw. On the contrary, i am kinda bored with having all the fucking enemies in front of me, as is the norm.

My worries remain the same:
- Emphasis on story and younger gen players could hypothetically mean a steady, gradual shift to more cutscenes + interactive movies and less player input. I hope it never gets to that, and that is aside the "story" quality.

- The aesthetics and overall visual 'tone' might work well enough for D:OS and D:OS 2 (as in their fitting the games' mood), might be of sufficient appeal to attract said younger gen players, but they also make my inner pessimist fret with worry as i know i, and people like myself, become less and less the demographic as time goes by. Inevitable perhaps, but still. I cannot know when the balance will shift and to what an extent, but i sure hope the 'shiny' and 'loud' element does not get to intensify.

 

[Lacrymas]

They said it reacts to specific tricks and strategies players have used in the past to defeat enemies, not that it reacts to your every move. The most advanced AI I know of is in, funnily enough, F.E.A.R. 1. It's different there though, because the AI actually has to react to you in real time. They truly are making tactical mode more challenging in way that isn't cheap. Most other "RPGs" just raise the numbers of the enemies. That's stupid and isn't challenging, only tedious. In tactician mode they'll have different kinds of ammo, use more spells, be more numerous etc. People who were criticizing the "behind you spawns" are actually thinking of DA2, where they spawned MORE enemies when you killed the ones you had at the start, usually behind your party. That's incredibly bad design. Enemies trying to ambush you from behind are fine if there is a logical way these enemies could do that. Like bandits from the shadows, skeletons raising from the ground, elementals forming from the ...elements, etc.

 

[Roguey]

Why would you make Boreas harder

 

[Aenra]

The most advanced AI I know of is in, funnily enough, F.E.A.R. 1. It's different there though, because the AI actually has to react to you in real time ... Enemies trying to ambush you from behind are fine if there is a logical way these enemies could do that

Haven't played F.E.A.R., will give it a try. I hope it's not trigger happy? Don't even know what it is, lol

As for the positioning, yes, agreed in theory; i just do not see an issue here in particular. Yet anyway. We have a necromancer summoning two extra spawns, albeit behind you. So in such an example (or its derivatives), i just don't see it as a bad thing. If overdone of course, then yeah, different matter for sure. Same with bloating, i'd agree in theory, everyone here does. Only reason i have not brought it up, is that again in this scenario, we had assurances there would not be any.

 

[Ivan]

play FEAR. now.

 

[Roguey]

FEAR's AI is an illusion btw

http://www.gamespy.com/pc/fear/698080p1.html

Monolith fully integrated this system with the enemy's dialogue and game environments in an effort to create the illusion that the AI was smarter than it actually is. F.E.A.R. was widely lauded for the ability of its soldiers (both singly and in squads) to flank the player. In reality, the AI wasn't flanking at all -- it was moving from one cover area to another cover area. Because of the skill exhibited by the level designers, that next cover area was to the side of the player's location (or where the designers assumed the player would be), so when the AI moved to that location, it created a seamless illusion of the enemy flanking you.

Adding a final layer to the illusion was the notion that the AI called for reinforcements. As the player slugged it out with the game's bad guys, one of them would call out for reinforcements. Then, when the player moved forward, they would come across an enemy squad rushing toward them. The squad was always there, regardless of whether or not reinforcements were actually "summoned," but because of the dialogue, the player creates a connection that really isn't there.

 

[Lacrymas]

It worked good though. AI is always an illusion one way or the other. Besides, it isn't just AI that is important, level design is also a factor, like it says in that quote. Creatively using the environment to boost the illusion of the AI is a crucial skill and trick. Dialogue was used to enhance the feeling of the AI working cooperatively. F.E.A.R's AI is an example of all factors being interconnected, like it should be for everything else. That's why I always advocate all elements of a game be geared towards a coherent whole and not just randomly being thrown in there because it's fashionable or some other nonsensical reason.

 

[Athelas]

If the enemies in FEAR had truly intelligent A.I., they wouldn't loudly announce their next course of action every few seconds.

 

[Lacrymas]

If the enemies in FEAR had truly intelligent A.I., they wouldn't loudly announce their next course of action every few seconds.

They aren't announcing them loudly, you could hear their thoughts/radio communications. It was part of the story.

 

[Aenra]

bah..it's a shooter!?! I thought..What did you make me download, lol, you mad?

How, why would you even compare the AI of a first person, action-centric game with that of a turn-based (read: i can pause) RPG? One relies on finger reflexes and focus, the other on systems' knowledge and critical thinking, sans any pressure; Entirely different scenarios.
Anyway, since you did make me download it..it works there, yes; Which is even more impressive considering what Roguey posted. If so however, we need applaud their level design rather than the AI. Can't believe i'm discussing shooters now, lol

I need my pills. Where's my nurse, i need some healing. Been paralysed by this.. Wrong thread.

 

[Lacrymas]

If so however, we need applaud their level design rather than the AI. Can't believe i'm discussing shooters now, lol

Credit where credit is due :p It's not one thing though, it's a combination of all elements and that is what makes it good.

 

[aleph]

FEAR's AI is an illusion btw

http://www.gamespy.com/pc/fear/698080p1.html

From the same article though:

First of all, the AI powering F.E.A.R. was based around the idea of giving the AI a need. As illustrated by Orkin, this need could take the form of Alma (the creepy little girl in F.E.A.R.) being hungry and wanting to eat, but in terms of the game, this means something like "see player, attack player, find cover." The actions that the AI could take to satisfy its need are strung together and happen based on the player's actions; each action the AI can take is assigned a "cost" and the AI goes for the least expensive action.

As demoed by Orkin, the AI sees the player and wants to kill the player. The AI then runs through its possible actions, like take cover, attack, or melee-attack. The player fires on the AI and the AI looks for cover; once behind cover, the AI will take note that the player is aiming his weapon at it, so the AI will try to suppress the player by firing blindly.

So calling F.E.A.R's AI an illusion is not correct.

 

[Roguey]

All games have AI, yes. That isn't particularly exceptional.

 

[aleph]

All games have AI, yes.

If that were only true...

 

[Perkel]

All games have AI, yes. That isn't particularly exceptional.

actually it is. Most of shooters have really dumb AI

 

[Roguey]

actually it is. Most of shooters have really dumb AI

Far Cry was released a year earlier. Ignoring trickery, is it really that much better?