Game News Divinity: Original Sin Kickstarter Update #66: Hardcore Mode Overview

[Xenich]

That is not what I was saying. The game IS worth playing, the game is a very good game. It has its problems, but it is a solid game right now.

But you haven't played it yet, so how would you know?

I am not the type of gamer that plays games over and over. Once I play through a game, it is very rare that I play through it again. So, it goes without saying that if they have a large amount of changes planned for the game as well as an increased difficultly, then it is certainly worth waiting for. Taking that to mean that we think the game is "not worth playing" is really stretching to support your point.

Protip™: If it was worth playing, you'd be playing it.

You just said, you haven't even finished it yet. I mean, if it's worth playing, how come you haven't played it? I mean, right through to the end that is.

That's like saying this bagel I'm eating is a really sweet and awesome bagel! Totally worth eating! And then not taking another bite.

At best I could say it sounds like you're saying it's only worth playing once... and only once. And that doesn't sound like a good RPG to me.

But then again, you haven't played it, so you also wouldn't know.

???

I have logged over a hundred hours on the game all through beta and into release. What the hell do you mean I haven't played it? How could you even determine such by what little I provided? It seems you are making extreme leaps to try and cling to your position as valid.

I played the game a ton, played a lot with my friend. We enjoyed the game, it had its problems as I said (we thought it could be a little more difficult), but aside from that, we were having fun. We stopped playing because we saw they were going to release a hardcore version and we were interested in that. As for playing a game more than once? How the hell does that mean a game is worth playing at all? I only read books once because I can remember everything about the story the moment I start the first page. Reading it over again serves no real enjoyment to me as it is the exploration of the story for the first time (the ups and downs, the mystery, the turn moments) that is why I play. I don't play many games over again. In fact, I think I have only played a couple and those were games that I hadn't touched in 15-20 years. So your argument is a pretty thin one here.

For craps sake, why is it so hard for you to understand that people actually like a game and want to hold off to see it for all that it will be in the next push that comes? Why do you make ignorant assumptions that it is because we think the game sucks? That is a pretty damn weak argument.

 

[GloomFrost]

That is not what I was saying. The game IS worth playing, the game is a very good game. It has its problems, but it is a solid game right now.

But you haven't played it yet, so how would you know?

I am not the type of gamer that plays games over and over. Once I play through a game, it is very rare that I play through it again. So, it goes without saying that if they have a large amount of changes planned for the game as well as an increased difficultly, then it is certainly worth waiting for. Taking that to mean that we think the game is "not worth playing" is really stretching to support your point.

Protip™: If it was worth playing, you'd be playing it.

You just said, you haven't even finished it yet. I mean, if it's worth playing, how come you haven't played it? I mean, right through to the end that is.

That's like saying this bagel I'm eating is a really sweet and awesome bagel! Totally worth eating! And then not taking another bite.

At best I could say it sounds like you're saying it's only worth playing once... and only once. And that doesn't sound like a good RPG to me.

But then again, you haven't played it, so you also wouldn't know.

???

I have logged over a hundred hours on the game all through beta and into release. What the hell do you mean I haven't played it? How could you even determine such by what little I provided? It seems you are making extreme leaps to try and cling to your position as valid.

I played the game a ton, played a lot with my friend. We enjoyed the game, it had its problems as I said (we thought it could be a little more difficult), but aside from that, we were having fun. We stopped playing because we saw they were going to release a hardcore version and we were interested in that. As for playing a game more than once? How the hell does that mean a game is worth playing at all? I only read books once because I can remember everything about the story the moment I start the first page. Reading it over again serves no real enjoyment to me as it is the exploration of the story for the first time (the ups and downs, the mystery, the turn moments) that is why I play. I don't play many games over again. In fact, I think I have only played a couple and those were games that I hadn't touched in 15-20 years. So your argument is a pretty thin one here.

For craps sake, why is it so hard for you to understand that people actually like a game and want to hold off to see it for all that it will be in the next push that comes? Why do you make ignorant assumptions that it is because we think the game sucks? That is a pretty damn weak argument.

I know, right. Some posts in this thread almost made me think that I really know NOTHING about anything. That divinity is worthless crap coz five people haven't completed it and would rather wait for the next patch, that giving FREE extra content and improvements is bad, that patching a game REGULARLY is bad oh and ofcourse if you don't want to or simply have no time to complete a game more then once than this game automatically sucks ass.
P.s. dead state developers are probably the best devs in the world. They released borderline unplayable product with a shit load of bugs(despite the early access), removed the proper ending ( I still have no idea why), said that the next patch is in a months time coz they are going on vacation and finally made some stupid ass statement about how they lose money because of piracy. Now that is a proper respectfull attitude towards customers.

 

[Volrath]

I can't believe you let DU troll you guys like that.

 

[shadow9d9]

I never said that the original sin is AAA goty, it does have a lot of serious problems. I just said that it is not complete shit and more then playable and enjoyable atm as it is. It is up to everyone individually whether to play it now or wait for the next patch. If those 5 other people would rather wait, then it is up to them. But I am sure that a lot more then 5 people even on this thread have completed it.

Well those 5 who are posting, haven't.

Also big games like that will ALWAYS be glitchy at the beginning, they will ALWAYS be unbalanced, nothing can change that. For example have you heard about the KILLAP RESTOTATION PROJECT for fallout 2. The latest version of it came out like a year ago while the game itself came out in 1998!!!

You didn't just compare actual game developers to a fan-made mod project, did you?

Incidentally, I've completed Fallout 2 several times, with multiple different play-throughs. I didn't "stop" 5 hours in and wait for the patch. That's how you can tell a game is worth playing. Because, you know, you actually play it.

And yeah NO ONE forces you to buy games the day they are released btw. A lot of people wait for months for a game to be properly patched, especially rpgs.

I'm not saying anyone is forcing me. What I'm trying to work out is: is this game worth playing? And by playing I mean finishing. From start to finish. All the way through. Not some "Oh, I only got 5 hours in and it was great and I haven't touched it since". That's not playing a game. And I don't trust reviewers who don't finish games.

Certainly not an RPG anyway. We used to hate reviewers who did that. Play 5 hours, rave about the game, completely miss that the last half was assed and full of game-breaking bugs. But AAA+ GOTY buy now 5 stars!

I kickstarted DOS and bought 2 copies. I still haven't started it yet. I wait for games to be fully patched before playing and I am in no rush. I haven't started W2 either, which I kickstarted, or Xenonauts, which I kickstarted.

So you don't know if the game is worth playing either.

That is not what I was saying. The game IS worth playing, the game is a very good game. It has its problems, but it is a solid game right now.

But you haven't played it yet, so how would you know?

I am not the type of gamer that plays games over and over. Once I play through a game, it is very rare that I play through it again. So, it goes without saying that if they have a large amount of changes planned for the game as well as an increased difficultly, then it is certainly worth waiting for. Taking that to mean that we think the game is "not worth playing" is really stretching to support your point.

Protip™: If it was worth playing, you'd be playing it.

You just said, you haven't even finished it yet. I mean, if it's worth playing, how come you haven't played it? I mean, right through to the end that is.

That's like saying this bagel I'm eating is a really sweet and awesome bagel! Totally worth eating! And then not taking another bite.

At best I could say it sounds like you're saying it's only worth playing once... and only once. And that doesn't sound like a good RPG to me.

But then again, you haven't played it, so you also wouldn't know.

So you ignored the content of my post. Brilliant hack job.

"Protip™: If it was worth playing, you'd be playing it."

Protip: If there are other games to play, then there is no reason to rush to play a game before the definitive, fully patched version is out. That is why I sometimes wait years to play a game. I am absolutely not in a rush.

Your whole argument about whether something is "worth playing" seems to be more "necessity to play right this moment," which is of course a personal decision for everyone. Your whole argument is weak because of this.

"it's only worth playing once... and only once. And that doesn't sound like a good RPG to me."
As you said, for you it isn't. Luckily, no one else governs their decisions or their opinions based on what random idiot on the internet thinks and tells them to think.

"That's like saying this bagel I'm eating is a really sweet and awesome bagel! Totally worth eating! And then not taking another bite."- Which is perfectly reasonable to anyone with a brain...considering the bagel wouldn't ever go bad, would continue to improve, and the person eating isn't particularly starving at that very moment.

 

[DarkUnderlord]

RPGCodex: Trolls bitching about games they haven't played, while others are busy playing.

These people aren't playing it though. That's the problem. They're busy telling everyone how awesome this game is to play... while they don't play it. With some who haven't even started. But they bought 2 copies!!!

We had this nice thread, with people posting their impressions as they were playing the game. And you know, completing it too. But naaaah, let's take random one-liners as evidence instead.

[Poll] Did anyone finish Divinity: Original Sin?

Did you finish D:OS?
Yes, I finished it. 105 vote(s) 37.6%
I played it but didn't finish it. 133 vote(s) 47.7%
I haven't played it (kingcomrade). 41 vote(s) 14.7%​

Taking only those who actually started playing = 238, 56% of which haven't bothered finishing it.

Comments include:

good game, but for me completely lacking in the story department. even a shit story can be compelling tho so it's not really about that. it's more like.. tone and mood.

I finished it. Like everyone says, the combat becomes sometimes too easy and so the game less interesting, but still a good game.

Combat (the main attraction) becomes trivial by the end, and story doesn't get any less trivial at the same time. Stopped playing after realizing that I'm going through the same motions in every battle with trash mob #132 and pressing 1 repeatedly in every dialog.

Stopped after dicking around in Phantom Forest for a while, co-op buddy didn't want to continue aftewards. It gets really tiring near the end when both main chars are OP as fuck and encounters just aren't interesting enough (all those identical death knight groups, ugh).

Good game, but not good enough to make me want to play it to the end.

There's a whole bunch of similar comments. The game becomes "tiring", is fun for the first act but peters out, "I was rather bored by the end", "found it rather meh overall", "The fact that there are black holes and everything totally out of context in the story does not help either".

Now I can see why Larian are making that patch. The game, as it stands, just isn't worth starting because chances are you're not even going to bother finishing it.

And said Fallout 2 also being a horribly buggy and apparently broken at release, yet I still completed it for the first time without any patches... I bet some of you are still waiting for the game to be finished before playing it, amirite?

I don't think there's a person here waiting for FO:2 to be "finished" before playing it. That's my point. Despite FO:2's obvious problems, I think everyone who played it, played it through to the end.

When it comes to D:OS. they don't. Over half give up before the end.

I have tons of games I am not playing because I don't feel like it. I don't however go shitting all over them on forums, when I have no fucking clue on about what kind of an experience they can deliver. And I wouldn't appreciate it if someone would for example use the fact that I haven't finished Banner Saga as evidence for that game being crap.

The key here is, I doubt you also tell people how worth playing those games you aren't playing are. I've got people here, who haven't finished it, telling me "it's worth playing" because "it's solid". Where-as people who have actually finished it are using words like "tiring" and talking about a "meh" story that falls apart. That's not exactly "solid".

Maybe it would help if I re-phrase the question: Is D:OS worth playing now - in its current state - right through to completion?

People who answer "yes", despite not bothering to finish it themselves are called hypocrites.

I have logged over a hundred hours on the game all through beta and into release. What the hell do you mean I haven't played it? How could you even determine such by what little I provided?

You said yourself that you haven't finished it. See, "played it" denotes the completion of "playing". If you said "I am playing it" then it's something you're doing or are in the process of doing. The fact you haven't bothered to finish the game tells me more about what you think of the current state of the game than whatever words you want to use to convince yourself that the KickStarter you backed is worth it.

I played the game a ton, played a lot with my friend. We enjoyed the game, it had its problems as I said (we thought it could be a little more difficult), but aside from that, we were having fun. We stopped playing because we saw they were going to release a hardcore version and we were interested in that.

Again, and thus not interested in playing the game as it was released.

There's a difference between a game that's worth playing (and by that, I mean to completion) when it's released, and a game that needs to be patched before it's worth playing.

As for playing a game more than once? How the hell does that mean a game is worth playing at all? I only read books once because I can remember everything about the story the moment I start the first page.

Books != RPGs. 'twas a noble effort at a strawman though. Good RPGs should provide multiple different experiences as you play-through. See Fallout. Bad RPGs get boring, tiring and make you want to give up before you see the end. Oh wai...

For craps sake, why is it so hard for you to understand that people actually like a game and want to hold off to see it for all that it will be in the next push that comes? Why do you make ignorant assumptions that it is because we think the game sucks? That is a pretty damn weak argument.

You like it.

It's a good game.

No really.

You just don't want to play it at the moment.

Uh-huh.

I know, right. Some posts in this thread almost made me think that I really know NOTHING about anything. That divinity is worthless crap coz five people haven't completed it

Correction: Over half of those who started playing haven't completed it.

and would rather wait for the next patch, that giving FREE extra content and improvements is bad, that patching a game REGULARLY is bad oh and ofcourse if you don't want to or simply have no time to complete a game more then once than this game automatically sucks ass.

There's a difference between a game getting "FREE extra content" because it adds to a game, versus a game that needs "FREE extra content" because the game, in its current state is not worth finishing.

You can't be so dense as to not see the difference.

So you ignored the content of my post. Brilliant hack job.

You mean the fact you put a whole lot of money into games you haven't played? No, I got that point. You haven't played it, you made that clear:

I kickstarted DOS and bought 2 copies. I still haven't started it yet.

So how the fuck do you know what you're talking about in order to give a valid opinion on the product?

At best, you're assuming the game is good (despite you not having played it) simply because you've put money into it (you bought two copies!!). There are actually studies done on that. At worst, you're just being idiotic.

"Protip™: If it was worth playing, you'd be playing it."

Protip: If there are other games to play, then there is no reason to rush to play a game before the definitive, fully patched version is out. That is why I sometimes wait years to play a game. I am absolutely not in a rush.

Your whole argument about whether something is "worth playing" seems to be more "necessity to play right this moment," which is of course a personal decision for everyone. Your whole argument is weak because of this.

D:OS is totally worth playing! In like, 20 years from now! There's no rush! There are just... better games to play right now. But D:OS is still worth playing! One day! Eventually!

Surely you're not that dumb.

 

[Davaris]

Now I know why Unity marketing goes on about saving time.

I don't think there's a person here waiting for FO:2 to be "finished" before playing it. That's my point. Despite FO:2's obvious problems, I think everyone who played it, played it through to the end.

When it comes to D:OS. they don't. Over half give up before the end.

What made me finish FO2 was good memories of FO1. I was hoping it would get better.

I suggest the Kodex spend time on another study, to find out how truly awful this game is. A useful question could be the following: "Of those that completed D:O2, are you a fan of Larian's earlier games?"

 

[Neckbeard Shitlord]

Now I know why Unity marketing goes on about saving time.

You save the most time, by not having to play at all!

 

[Xenich]

You said yourself that you haven't finished it. See, "played it" denotes the completion of "playing". If you said "I am playing it" then it's something you're doing or are in the process of doing. The fact you haven't bothered to finish the game tells me more about what you think of the current state of the game than whatever words you want to use to convince yourself that the KickStarter you backed is worth it.

Lots of assumptions. Are you trolling? Your arguments are not based on any logical structure, only unsupported assumptions. For instance, you make the assumption I backed the kickstater, I didn't. You make the assumption I haven't finished the game because it sucks, yet I explained why I didn't. No matter what I said, you kept telling me what I am really thinking and why. Your argument is invalid on all counts. Even from a subjective means it fails to make a sound position. All you are doing is pulling unsupported accusations out of the air and then proclaiming yourself correct.

Again, and thus not interested in playing the game as it was released.

There's a difference between a game that's worth playing (and by that, I mean to completion) when it's released, and a game that needs to be patched before it's worth playing.

Again, you are telling me what I am actually thinking and why I think it. It is so arrogant and pretentious that it is delusional. You can't seem to accept anything but your assumption being correct. Honestly, and respectfully, that is a serious case of denial.

Books != RPGs. 'twas a noble effort at a strawman though. Good RPGs should provide multiple different experiences as you play-through. See Fallout. Bad RPGs get boring, tiring and make you want to give up before you see the end. Oh wai...

Straw man? Do you even know what a fallacy is, much less what a straw man is? You have to be trolling... because by your writing ability, I don't think you really are that stupid to misuse such. I compared to a book to explain "my" personal points when playing a game. In a book, there are plot twists, story progressions, etc... In this game, there are also such. This also translates to aspects of game play discovery (ie new skills, interactions with the game in situations, etc...). On a first play through, these are all intriguing to me, but on a second play through, I have already experienced it, and therefore not interesting to me enough to experience it a second time. So, like a book, I don't replay games all that often. If it is just for the mechanics, I play games like RTS, 4x4 strategies, etc... as those are all about the "game" and not the culmination of game/story aspects that most RPGs are. Go ahead, take your top 10 RPGs of all time and I will tell you I have only played them once. Now if we use your logic, that means the game is shit right? Because a good game according to your criteria will be played more than once? Honestly though, all of this is pointless because you are arguing a "subjective" position.

Here is a tip, don't argue subjective issues as if they are objective ones, it is really an ignorant endeavor. Good RPGs are subjective. What you like, I may not like. What I find important, you may not find important. Your attempt to define a subjective term as if it is a standard is a pointless process of ignorance or that of arrogance... or just simple narcissistic trolling.

You like it.

It's a good game.

No really.

You just don't want to play it at the moment.

Uh-huh.

Yes, /gasp.... I like it... imagine that... someone likes something you don't. Just think how much more you might learn if you were to break out of that shell of ignorance and realized the difference between subjective and objective positions, valid/invalid, sound/unsound... why... a logic class could do you wonders!! Imagine how much you will learn!

Edit:

Let me explain in a way you might understand better according to my personal position on the issue.

Lets say you are making brownies, yet I only like one because I don't care for eating a lot of sweets. You offer me a plain brownie, but... you tell me that if I wait, you are going to add some frosting and sprinkles to that brownie. I like brownies, a plain brownie is quite good, but having some frosting and some sprinkles would be even better. As I said, because I only care to eat one brownie, I would rather wait until you put the frosting and sprinkles on. So... I wait.

So... are you going to tell me I am wrong? That I am waiting because I secretly hate brownies and hope that the frosting will make the brownie tolerable?

 

[Drowed]

I don't think there's a person here waiting for FO:2 to be "finished" before playing it. That's my point. Despite FO:2's obvious problems, I think everyone who played it, played it through to the end.

I didn't. I only finished Fallout 2 many years later, with Killap's patch (and restoration project). But, hey, you can tell yourself what you want, right? You seems to be able to read the minds of others and distort phrases in the most insane forms until they say what you want them to say. So, yeah.

 

[Volrath]

I didn't. I only finished Fallout 2 many years later, with Killap's patch (and restoration project). But, hey, you can tell yourself what you want, right? You seems to be able to read the minds of others and distort phrases in the most insane forms until they say what you want them to say. So, yeah.

I don't think I ever finished Fallout 2. I ended up in San Francisco and said to myself eeehm, maybe later. Later never happened.

 

[Major_Blackhart]

Wizardry 8 is one of those games you finish only once and a while.
Party building and experimentation is too fun.

 

[murloc_gypsy]

Is this going to be the D&D 3.5 TOTAL CONVERSION EDITION?

No? Okay--

 

[Markman]

Its just people being faggots. Oh, I'll wait for the patch etc... its just bullshit, if they wanted to play it, they would. 4 out of 5 guys that DU quoted will probably wait for the sequels patch till they get around playing the original in the first place.

Fact is that the game is a massive time investment and is too long for its own good. But it doesnt mean its bad or unfinished or not worth playing. It got that old school feel pimped with modern tech. Definetly worth playing, its the best thing Larian released so far.

 

[abnaxus]

Gonna play it in a year or five.

 

[Zeriel]

Its just people being faggots. Oh, I'll wait for the patch etc... its just bullshit, if they wanted to play it, they would. 4 out of 5 guys that DU quoted will probably wait for the sequels patch till they get around playing the original in the first place.

Fact is that the game is a massive time investment and is too long for its own good. But it doesnt mean its bad or unfinished or not worth playing. It got that old school feel pimped with modern tech. Definetly worth playing, its the best thing Larian released so far.

Yeah, I feel the same way about D:OS I feel about TOEE: it's a monumental achievement just on the technical and gameplay side, even if the story lets it down a little. I don't think the plot or storyline is out-and-out bad, though, it just doesn't live up to the excellence of the rest of the game. It's also a great illustration of how focusing on niche gameplay facets can really harm the coherence of the plot. They admitted as much themselves, that being able to complete the game even if you kill everyone and offering half a dozen options to finish every quest really limited how interesting they could make the story. (Cue Roguey saying thats because they're amateurs.)

 

[Athelas]

TOEE

a monumental achievement just on the technical and gameplay side

wat

It's also a great illustration of how focusing on niche gameplay facets can really harm the coherence of the plot. They admitted as much themselves, that being able to complete the game even if you kill everyone and offering half a dozen options to finish every quest really limited how interesting they could make the story.

I'm pretty sure the story sucking had to do with...you know, the story sucking. I don't recall anyone complaining about those things specifically, which seem like positives to me.

 

[Xeon]

I hope hardcore mode allow you an option for thirst and starvation, there is already a lot of foods and drinks.

 

[Xenich]

Fact is that the game is a massive time investment and is too long for its own good.

Yeah, far too long of a game. Needs to be much shorter!

 

[Roguey]

(Cue Roguey saying thats because they're amateurs.)

You betcha. New Vegas.

 

[DarkUnderlord]

Lots of assumptions. Are you trolling? Your arguments are not based on any logical structure, only unsupported assumptions. For instance, you make the assumption I backed the kickstater

Uhhh... Where do I make that assumption? You did notice I'm replying to about 4 different people right, and that not all comments are directed to you.

You make the assumption I haven't finished the game because it sucks, yet I explained why I didn't.

Your position isn't logically consistent in that your actions don't match your words. You're like the snake oil salesman selling snake oil and when asked if he uses his own product, "No, I stopped using it because I'm waiting for the next batch! But you should totally buy this batch... Right now!".

All I'm trying to determine is the answer to one simple question: Is D:OS worth playing now, or should I wait for the patch?

So far I've got a bunch of players saying "Yes, play it now! Totally worth playing!" who then aren't playing it themselves. Note the disconnect there. "Do as I say, not as I do".

Again, you are telling me what I am actually thinking and why I think it.

There's what you're thinking and there's what you're doing. One day your brain will try to connect the two and it will blow your mind.

Straw man? Do you even know what a fallacy is, much less what a straw man is?

You compared playing RPGs to reading books. RPGs are nothing like reading books. Books don't change based on your actions within them. In fact, you can't even take action within a book. You are a static observer. RPGs (again, good RPGs) change as you play them.

You literally said "I don't read books twice! Therefore there's no need to play RPGs twice!". It's a strawman because books aren't RPGs. If you really do think books are RPGs, then you're playing the wrong sort of RPGs. And that too, tells me much more than anything else you've written.

Go ahead, take your top 10 RPGs of all time and I will tell you I have only played them once. Now if we use your logic, that means the game is shit right?

Yep. I played Fallout 1 and 2 multiple times. Arcanum several times. Bloodlines several times. Even ToEE a few times because it had different endings and things I'd missed the first few times through. Each play-through was worth it to experience that thing I'd missed the first time. Be that the X-Files quest in Arcanum or The Glow in the original Fallout.

You don't "miss things" in a book. And you can't "read it differently" the second time through and find an entirely new chapter that you missed.

A good RPG on the other hand...

Here is a tip, don't argue subjective issues as if they are objective ones, it is really an ignorant endeavor. Good RPGs are subjective. What you like, I may not like. What I find important, you may not find important. Your attempt to define a subjective term as if it is a standard is a pointless process of ignorance or that of arrogance... or just simple narcissistic trolling.

Slightly different when you're telling me something's worth playing... when you're not playing it yourself.

Let me explain in a way you might understand better according to my personal position on the issue.

Lets say you are making brownies, yet I only like one because I don't care for eating a lot of sweets. You offer me a plain brownie, but... you tell me that if I wait, you are going to add some frosting and sprinkles to that brownie. I like brownies, a plain brownie is quite good, but having some frosting and some sprinkles would be even better. As I said, because I only care to eat one brownie, I would rather wait until you put the frosting and sprinkles on. So... I wait.

So... are you going to tell me I am wrong?

Wrong in what? By your actions you are saying "this brownie is not worth eating". That's the point. Do you notice that? As much as you may try to tell yourself "I love brownies!" your very actions are saying "but this one is not worth eating". In fact, you may love brownies but here's a brownie you're not willing to eat.

Because there are better brownies.

When it comes to D:OS I've been told it's "worth playing" except it's by all these people who aren't playing it because:
- There are better games to play.
- D:OS will be better later.
- It can wait a few years.

Once again, that's not a game that's worth playing. Much like your plain brownie isn't worth eating. After all, as you've just said yourself, why eat a plain brownie when you can have one with frosting?

Incidentally, someone who really loved brownies would eat both and ask for more but that's beside the point.

That I am waiting because I secretly hate brownies and hope that the frosting will make the brownie tolerable?

Take a look at your actions. Remove the emotion you clearly have invested in brownies and look at what you are doing. You have a brownie. You love brownies. You've been given the opportunity to eat it...

... but you're not going to.

So I think I'll eat one of these better brownies thanks, and leave this boring, uninteresting, plain brownie alone.

I didn't. I only finished Fallout 2 many years later, with Killap's patch (and restoration project). But, hey, you can tell yourself what you want, right? You seems to be able to read the minds of others and distort phrases in the most insane forms until they say what you want them to say. So, yeah.

The point is: Would you argue, in your own opinion, that Fallout 2 is a game worth playing unpatched? I've got no issue if you're not playing it. And I've got no issue if you didn't play the game. But I do have an issue with someone who's telling me "yeah, this game is totally worth playing!" while they themselves are not playing it. Even worse when they say it's because there are better games to play right now and this totally awesome game that's definitely worth playing... can wait.

 

[JarlFrank]

I finished the game months ago. Fuck patches, it's good as it is.

 

[Deleted member 7219]

You betcha. New Vegas.

What was wrong with the story in New Vegas?

The stuff for Caesar's Legion was pretty weak and you really had to go with NCR or Mr House to get the best stuff, but I don't think the non-linearity really took that much away from the game.

 

[Tigranes]

The day when DU finally trolls it up. I'm proud of you, boy.

 

[Zed]

the thing with Divinity is that they're not just patching broken shit -- they patch in new content as well.
so there's a completionist aspect to it as well, not just being afraid of bugs. it's like waiting for the LOTR extended before watching them or whatever. it's common and normal.

that said, it is probably bullshit what people are saying about playing it later. you'd play it now if you really wanted to.

 

[Morality Games]

What was wrong with the story in New Vegas?

The stuff for Caesar's Legion was pretty weak and you really had to go with NCR or Mr House to get the best stuff, but I don't think the non-linearity really took that much away from the game.

Is that what Roguey was saying? I would assume he would approve of NV because Josh Sawyer was project leader.