Codex Review RPG Codex Review: Divinity: Original Sin 2

[Darth Roxor]

chess is not an rpg

unless i missed something but the definition changes so fast these days

 

[Brancaleone]

Is the hell-hamster trying to tell me that my hopes for another DOS1 with non-random loot, a solid story, non-idiotic writing and less of a drop in content-quality in the second half of the game were indeed rather foolish?

except i believe the hell-hamster doesn't ascribe any of the above qualities to dos1 and in fact explicitly states it's guilty of them too

I meant that it was rather foolish of me to hope that they would improve DOS1 formula by keeping its strengths and fixing its shortcomings (the four things I listed were my biggest gripes with DOS1).

Oh well, at least I got a really entertaining review out of DOS2.

 

[vivec]

chess is not an rpg

unless i missed something but the definition changes so fast these days

Mechanical elements of being deterministic or RNG have nothing to with being an RPG. What if the pawns could gain ability points by kills and open different moves?

 

[Blakemoreland Hybrid Boss]

What is interesting is that according to this review this is a bad game, yet it won the GOTY poll with a landslide. What does this tell of the Codex?

That most codexers want to indulge in dumbdown games with pretty graphics and will rationalise any criticism that puts their self-delusion in jeopardy. “The Witcher 3” is considered here to be the best cRPG of the past 5 years. That tells you a lot about the “refined tastes” and “highbrow players” of this place.

chess is not an rpg unless i missed something but the definition changes so fast these days

Mechanical elements of being deterministic or RNG have nothing to with being an RPG. What if the pawns could gain ability points by kills and open different moves?

cRPGs are not games with small number of moves, so your point about the merits of deterministic systems is moot.

 

[Kyl Von Kull]

Into the Breach:

But in the age of Jagged Alliance and X-Com and Battle Brothers, most look at RNG as a form of percentages, odds, and risk-taking. None of those reside within Into the Breach. Every single aspect of detail is covered with absolute determinism. Like any good puzzle game, things aren’t where they should be and you need to put the pieces where they rightfully fit. The schism between a good score and a smoldered run is solely the responsibility of the player. You have but the greatest weapon at your disposal: time. And, similar to the fantastic and also RNG-less Invisible Inc., there's an even more powerful tool you may be keen on using: the ability to revert time and restart at least one turn a fight.

Divinity Orginal Sin 2:

Reflecting on what I’ve written so far, I must admit, it’s almost impressive that the DOS1 combat formula could be downgraded so much, and that someone, somewhere, actually thought some of these changes were good ideas. The sad fact of the matter is that the combat mechanics in DOS2 are simplified to the point of stupidity. Everything is near-deterministic. To hit rolls might as well not exist. There’s no damage reduction other than elemental resistances. Spell failure and penetration doesn’t exist, neither do saving throws. The only remaining “random” element are damage thresholds, and that’s hardly anything to write about.

Oh the consistency...

Not to beat a dead horse, but ITB is a strategy/puzzle game played on, what, an 8x8 grid? Actually killing enemies isn’t even the focus of many missions. Usually you have one elegant solution that gives you the best possible outcome. The frequent comparison to chess is somewhat apt.

D:OS2 is an RPG and though deterministic, its encounters are not set up as puzzles. That might actually be interesting, but given how armor neuters special abilities it would be very hard to implement with the current rules. And probably it wouldn’t be fun unless the puzzle fights were very difficult.

In fact, the fights in D:OS were often far more puzzle-like because you could use status effects from the get-go. But in any case, Into The Breach vs D:OS2 is a silly comparison.

RNG may not necessarily be better than determinism in turn based RPG combat (although I agree with the hamster that deterministic mechanics are worse), but at the end of the day the execution of either system is what’s important. And Larian’s execution leaves a lot to be desired here. Who truly believes the combat in DOS2 is better than the combat in its predecessor?

If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it...

 

[Ismaul]

You'd think the reviewer would properly learn the system before criticizing. Darth Roxor, I am disappoint.

It’s also very apparent just how little thought went into this system. Tell me, why would you raise One-handed, when the ability Warfare gives +5% damage with all physical attacks, and also governs warrior-type skills? Why would you raise Huntsman above the level required to unlock ranger-type skills, when it only increases damage made from high ground by 5%/point, while Ranged increases all ranged damage by 5% and also gives additional crit chance on top?

While the game isn't clear in communicating its mechanics, this passage shows you don't even know what you're talking about. One-handed is admitedly a terrible skill, but not for the reasons advanced. One could take One-handed instead of Warfare, because one-handed attacks are not all physical damage. That much should be obvious to anyone with 0 knowledge of the game given the information in your review. Same kind of reason applies for Hunstman vs Ranged. Huntsman also appplies to magical ranged attacks, while Ranged only works with bows and crossbows, contrary to what you said.

Now, you clearly also have no idea about how damage is calculated in this game. The formula is Base weapon/spell damage X (1 + Stat + Weapon ability increases) X (1 + Element ability increases, Warfare for physical) X (1 + Crit multi + Heigth advantage increases). If you don't build towards the three multiplier groups but just focus on one, thinking all +5% are equal, you'll do shit damage. This is why Warfare and Hunstman are better than One-handed and Ranged, because they multiply your damage, and the multiplier group where Weapon Ability increases are calculated is already going to be getting points from your stats. Weapon Abilities suck because they have a low impact on the damage formula for most characters, not because "Skill-Unlocker Abilities" do everything better.

Take an example. Say we're using a bow, doing 100 damage. We put 20 pts in Finesse, 10 points in Ranged. That gives us 100 x (1+ (30 x 5%)) = 250 damage. Let's put the 10 points in Huntsman instead of Ranged. That gives us 100 x (1 + (20 x 5%)) x (1 +(10 x 5%)) = 300 damage.

Your analysis of the skill system is as shallow as you claim the skill system to be. And I have only begun reading that "review".

Note I am not saying DOS2's skill system is good. Just that you clearly fail at showing where and why it fails.

 

[J_C]

What is interesting is that according to this review this is a bad game, yet it won the GOTY poll with a landslide. What does this tell of the Codex?

That its populated by trash like you.

Wait, do I know you? I'm sorry, but I can't remember every nobody on the Codex.

 

[Darth Roxor]

While the game isn't clear in communicating its mechanics, this passage shows you don't even know what you're talking about. One-handed is admitedly a terrible skill, but not for the reasons advanced. One could take One-handed instead of Warfare, because one-handed attacks are not all physical damage. That much should be obvious to anyone with 0 knowledge of the game given the information in your review. Same kind of reason applies for Hunstman vs Ranged. Huntsman also appplies to magical ranged attacks, while Ranged only works with bows and crossbows, contrary to what you said.

With relation to all of the above, I was using mental shortcuts when referring to physical or ranged or whatever damage. What you are bringing out here to somehow show that zomg darth roxor sooo clueless is nothing but grasping at minutiae. The same thing I do when referring to "warriors" when there are no warriors in this game.

Now, you clearly also have no idea about how damage is calculated in this game.

And the game is not at all helpful in communicating that given the tooltips for warfare or weapon skills wrt damage increases are identical

Your analysis of the skill system is as shallow as you claim the skill system to be.

Yet I don't see how all the above makes muh shallow analysis any different or wrong. I say you should pump everything into one ability. You say you should pump everything into one ability. Much difference.

Take an example. Say we're using a bow, doing 100 damage. We put 20 pts in Finesse, 10 points in Ranged. That gives us 100 x (1+ (30 x 5%)) = 250 damage. Let's put the 10 points in Huntsman instead of Ranged. That gives us 100 x (1 + (20 x 5%)) x (1 +(10 x 5%)) = 300 damage.

That 300 is only from high ground. How will the 250 compare on basic high ground bonus without huntsman?

 

[Roguey]

Their waffles are nothing to talk about either, forgettable like Larian games.

If you really want to get a Belgian's goat, remind them that the French ended up receiving credit for their fries.

 

[FreeKaner]

Their waffles are nothing to talk about either, forgettable like Larian games.

If you really want to get a Belgian's goat, remind them that the French ended up receiving credit for their fries.

Belgians are p. much would-be French that ended up being a separate country because of Spanish and English anyhow.

 

[Grunker]

in an rpg: rng >>>>>>>>>>>>> determinism

I know this is what you said, I'm just observing that it is a retarded point of view. Like saying milk is better than sugar in coffee (ok bad example in that case the correct choice is neither but you catch my drift as they say in Need for Speed)

 

[Iluvcheezcake]

Shit story killed both games for me :/

 

[Ismaul]

That 300 is only from high ground. How will the 250 compare on basic high ground bonus without huntsman?

Oh yeah I forgot to factor in the default +20% for high ground. That would be 300 (ranged) vs 320 (hunstman) instead. The example was just to show that not alll +5% are equal anyways. The difference would be much bigger in a real scenario of someone maximizing the damage formula vs someone failing at it. And there's still the factor where Ranged applies to bow/crossbows while Huntsman also applies to wands/magic.

Yet I don't see how all the above makes muh shallow analysis any different or wrong. I say you should pump everything into one ability. You say you should pump everything into one ability. Much difference.

I'll repeat myself: it fails at showing where and why the system fails, while you claim you actually do. You can't just say "Oh hey, at least I got the conclusion right, even if whatever came before is bullshit, so it's all good." This is supposed to be a review/critique, not "Fuck you: Suck my dick: Roxor's muh personal opinion on DOS2". And even if it was, you're still wrong, and it deserves to be pointed out. One thing is for sure, it reduces your credibility as someone that can accurately review this title.

And the game is not at all helpful in communicating that given the tooltips for warfare or weapon skills wrt damage increases are identical

I remarqued on that. That would be a good criticism.

 

[Darth Roxor]

such is life i suppose

 

[vivec]

cRPGs are not games with small number of moves, so your point about the merits of deterministic systems is moot.

How does that even compute? My point is that those complex systems are well suited for deterministic mechanics. If cRPGs are complex (i.e. with a large number of moves per event) then they *are* well suited for deterministic results.

 

[Blakemoreland Hybrid Boss]

Roxor has a thing for generalizing his own preference, but saying that determinist system are somehow inherently worse than variance-based ones is one of the more absurd and obvious examples of this.

It’s a phenomenon I’ve been noticing for a while now among turn-based “tactical” games – this strange desire to remove any and all randomness. If you ask me, it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what the genre is about. For starters, it’s well-known that no plan survives contact with the enemy, and randomness in tactical games is meant to simulate this. When everything can be solved by a Brilliant Strategy™ executed from start to finish without disruption, you are no longer playing a tactical game but a glorified puzzler, where everything is predictable and by extension repetitive. An important aspect of tactics is adjusting to unforeseen failures and complications, thinking on the fly how to turn a defeat around. In games like DOS2, that aspect is thrown out the window. Also, I think most importantly, unless Skynet happens, players will always have an advantage over the enemy AI when it comes to plan development and execution, which is exactly why the AI needs a little leg up in the form of RNG throwing a spanner into the player’s schemes. Though it’s important to remember that the player can benefit from RNG-induced failures on the enemy’s side too, which always leads to memorable and fun battles. But I digress.

So, to sum up Roxor's arguments:

• Randomness in tactical games helps to simulate what happens in real battles, which are intrinsically unpredictable.
• It is tacitly engaging to adjust to unforeseen failures, which are possible in a RNG system, but not in a deterministic system.
• If your plans can be perfectly executed due to the deterministic system, battles become predictive and repetitive.
• The advantage that players already have over the enemy AI becomes even more staggering in a deterministic system, because players cannot have a bad roll or a critical miss.

So in the light of all the criticisms mentioned above what is your response? You jump over his arguments and accuse him of “generalizing his own preference”. No arguments, no examples. No nothing. You are the one "generalizing your own preference", buddy.

 

[Freakydemon]

Review points out the issues with the combat revision of DOS 2 accurately enough but kinda goes off into the deep end for the rest. What I really missed was the whimsical not too serious Larian homebrand but I guess that wouldn't gel much with the main story of DOS 2 being a takedown/deconstruction of sorts of the previously established Divinity lore.

Their waffles are nothing to talk about either, forgettable like Larian games.

If you really want to get a Belgian's goat, remind them that the French ended up receiving credit for their fries.

Well their origins are French. The spread/popularisation was by a German who learned how to make fries in Paris, then brought em to Belgium to sell em on fun fairs and it kinda spread from there to become a Belgian classic. It's a very Belgian tale all in all.

 

[Grunker]

No arguments, no examples. No nothing.

No way!

 

[Perkel]

Proper review. I wanted DOS2 hard to be good but in the end it disappointed me completely.

DOS1 whimsical nature worked for game because it made player not care about story, quest and characters much which means all player focus went into good part. Combat
DOS2 grimdark theme with supposed improved writing only exposes something which was only improved but never was good. But this time you can't fall on combat to save the day.

What is interesting is that according to this review this is a bad game, yet it won the GOTY poll with a landslide. What does this tell of the Codex?

Because there are a lot of DOS1 fanboys who wanted DOS2 to be good game and they voted without playing it or finishing it or which is more important thinking about it.

I fully expect DOS2 after year or two to not even reach DOS1 ranking on topXX. It would be somewhere between Mass Effect 3 and Two Worlds 2.

You'd think the reviewer would properly learn the system before criticizing. Darth Roxor, I am disappoint.

Yes tell me about all that elemental damage you do with your fire sword or something. Oh btw that damage goes nowhere because it is countered by magical shield which means that before you take out both physical and magical armor your weapon does less damage than normal weapon.

One of few retarded ways armor system is broken.

 

[Grunker]

Okay, just to indulge you a little. This argument highlights the issue:

The advantage that players already have over the enemy AI becomes even more staggering in a deterministic system

This is stupid. Very stupid. Computers always compensate this deficit by just throwing you in unequal situations - this is true for variance-based systems as well. It's a false problem, in other words, and the same goes for all of Roxor's examples. Battles become repetitive? No, they don't, if you and your foes have sufficiently differantiated abilities that you have to use different ones in different ways based on the obstacle you are facing.

Determinist vs. variance is not a case of better or worse, they're different things and can both be done very poorly or well. That's why the generalization is so meaningless. You can always argue over specifics - but arguing over genres, which this debate ultimately is about, is futile.

 

[Blakemoreland Hybrid Boss]

How does that even compute? My point is that those complex systems are well suited for deterministic mechanics. If cRPGs are complex (i.e. with a large number of moves per event) then they *are* well suited for deterministic results.

Your comparison is too reductive and simplistic to work. One of the many differences between chess games and cRPGs is that the last attempt to provide some of the adrenaline and unpredictableness of real battles. In fact, they attempt to simulate many features you have in actual battles such as different classes of combatants, stats, the use of weapons, injuries, health, penalties, death, etc. Strategy games and especially cRPG’s are simulationist games by nature. You would have to be blind to ignore this aspect, even with all the simplifications and abstractions. Chess, on the other hand, is completely abstract, and the fun lies in the different tactics that result from the ungodly amount of variations and combinations. In order for that to work, you need simple basic principles and pieces the will generate complexity in the long term. It’s a completely different system with entirely different needs. The idea that you can do the same system in a cRPG or a strategy game reflects a shallow understanding of both systems. I don’t want a chess game to become like a strategy game, or vice-versa. That sucks.

 

[FreeKaner]

Now this review is out of the way, the thing I am looking forward to most regarding video games in 2018 is Darth Roxor Pillars of Eternity 2 review.

 

[vivec]

How does that even compute? My point is that those complex systems are well suited for deterministic mechanics. If cRPGs are complex (i.e. with a large number of moves per event) then they *are* well suited for deterministic results.

Your comparison is too reductive and simplistic to work. One of the many differences between chess games and cRPGs is that the last attempt to provide some of the adrenaline and unpredictableness of real battles. In fact, they attempt to simulate many features you have in actual battles such as different classes of combatants, stats, the use of weapons, injuries, health, penalties, death, etc. Strategy games and especially cRPG’s are simulationist games by nature. You would have to be blind to ignore this aspect, even with all the simplifications and abstractions. Chess, on the other hand, is completely abstract, and the fun lies in the different tactics that result from the ungodly amount of variations and combinations. In order for that to work, you need simple basic principles and pieces the will generate complexity in the long term. It’s a completely different system with entirely different needs. The idea that you can do the same system in a cRPG or a strategy game reflects a shallow understanding of both systems. I don’t want a chess game to become like a strategy game, or vice-versa. That sucks.

I am not sure where you are going there. But I am sure you are wrong about deterministic games not being good simulations. I have a PnP system I wrote right before me which is almost entirely deterministic and fully simulationist.

I, myself, prefer simulationist approaches where I try to gamify as many real-life aspects of combat into the rules. So I think you are convoluting two different things here.

 

[Outlander]

Here at RPG Codex, first we shit on the game. Then someone shits on he who shat upon the game. Then more people shit upon the shitters, and so on, and so on.

We are buried in nothing but shit.

Well...

 

[Prime Junta]

Tell me, why would you raise One-handed, when the ability Warfare gives +5% damage with all physical attacks, and also governs warrior-type skills? Why would you raise Huntsman above the level required to unlock ranger-type skills, when it only increases damage made from high ground by 5%/point, while Ranged increases all ranged damage by 5% and also gives additional crit chance on top?

Fortunately, they have a separate ability point pool, because they are mostly uninteresting and would hardly warrant investing any points that you could instead pump into 5% damage increases.

Depending on your character archetype, a few of them will be must haves, and the rest will be either trap options or very minor boosts to pick once you’ve run out of the useful stuff.

Balance is not a function of firepower

Hey Darth Roxor it looks like Josh hijacked your account.

Spoiler

Nice review. Agree about everything, more or less.

Spoiler