Divinity Divinity: Original Sin 2 - Definitive Edition

[Quillon]

This game overwhelms the fuck out of me, can't keep track of shit at this point... I'm thinking of restarting on the easiest mode - solo and kill everyone I see, to keep shit simple

 

[DeepOcean]

On 1996, Diablo I had only three character builds, traditional RPGs offered much more in complexity.
On 2017, Path of Exile, Diablo clone, offer more build diversity than most modern traditional RPGs.

Ehhh... game designers, something got seriously wrong all those years.

 

[Payd Shell]

On 1996, Diablo I had only three character builds, traditional RPGs offered much more in complexity.
On 2017, Path of Exile, Diablo clone, offer more build diversity than most modern traditional RPGs.

Ehhh... game designers, something got seriously wrong all those years.

If you think Path of Exile has any real build diversity you are very, very wrong. Just because there are hundreds of points to spend in a tree doesn't mean each point has the same value.

 

[deama]

For those people who are near the end of the game, or have beaten it, how was/is Arx? I find it pretty boring/annoying. It feels like they tried to pad it way too much, they should have just had a giant fight in Arx or something simpler to end it.

 

[MWaser]

You hear that Chess players? The fact that your opponent gets a turn every time you do ruins all planning and strategy! No fair!

That's a really shitty strawman, and I really pray I don't need to explain to anyone why.

How is it a strawman? People keep saying they need uninterrupted consecutive turns for the game to have any strategy; I'm not making that up, and if I'm misrepresenting that argument, please clarify.

Oh, good, so I actually do need to explain it. Well listen here you twit:
Chess is a game designed entirely on the basis of back-and-forth player turns between 2 players, existing without an initiative system, a way to unintentionally lose or intentionally skip turns that you are forced to take (which can create a problem on its own), and without any existing possibility for multiple turns to occur consequently for one player without the other player taking a turn.
And notably, it's player turns, not unit/pieces turns. DivOS' mechanics do not give you a combined party turn on which you can choose which of your strategic pieces you would like to move. Nor does the opponent. However, this forced opponent turn interjection mechanic forcefully adds a player turn mechanic to the unit turn mechanic in a sloppy way, causing sudden forceful changes in unit orders whenever a unit dies, and in the very process of establishing the turn order in the first place, completely disregarding the unit initiative mechanic.

What I'm basically saying, in case you haven't gotten the point, is that you're comparing 2 systems that are so radically different in their composition that drawing comparison in the first place is nothing more than a shitty attempt at grasping for attention by naming a mechanic that superficially appears identical from a well regarded classic strategy game, and attempting to use that as an argument about why forcing this very mechanic into a game built with a radically different system is good. If you're not satisfied with being told how much of a strawman that is to simplify the mechanics to the most basic of levels and disregarding all actual foundations and leaving only the appearances is, then let me also mention that mentioning chess in particular looks like a pretty pathetic attempt at pandering to authority. Some kind of ancient "strategy game" authority, I would recon.

You hear that Chess players? The fact that your opponent gets a turn every time you do ruins all planning and strategy! No fair!

The game is literally built around having normal initiative mechanics. It is like trying to drive a car without a steering wheel.

That implies you have no control over your characters; you can't "steer" them, when obviously you can.

Is your brain capable of abstract thought? The way you're simplifying everything and taking everything too literally at face value, I'm starting to doubt it. Sure, it was a bad metaphor because it's not a comparable level of gimping (making something difficult to control and predict and saying as if it makes something completely uncontrollable and useless) but you just made it worse by going along with it and derping at the implications of the analogy rather than the things it was supposed to be an analogy to.

 

[Payd Shell]

Well the initiative system of Original Sin 2 can be played like any other system you just need to know how it actually works so you can make adjustments to your strategery

 

[Grampy_Bone]

Oh, good, so I actually do need to explain it. Well listen here you twit:
Chess is a game designed entirely on the basis of back-and-forth player turns between 2 players, existing without an initiative system, a way to unintentionally lose or intentionally skip turns that you are forced to take (which can create a problem on its own), and without any existing possibility for multiple turns to occur consequently for one player without the other player taking a turn.
And notably, it's player turns, not unit/pieces turns. DivOS' mechanics do not give you a combined party turn on which you can choose which of your strategic pieces you would like to move. Nor does the opponent. However, this forced opponent turn interjection mechanic forcefully adds a player turn mechanic to the unit turn mechanic in a sloppy way, causing sudden forceful changes in unit orders whenever a unit dies, and in the very process of establishing the turn order in the first place, completely disregarding the unit initiative mechanic.

What I'm basically saying, in case you haven't gotten the point, is that you're comparing 2 systems that are so radically different in their composition that drawing comparison in the first place is nothing more than a shitty attempt at grasping for attention by naming a mechanic that superficially appears identical from a well regarded classic strategy game, and attempting to use that as an argument about why forcing this very mechanic into a game built with a radically different system is good. If you're not satisfied with being told how much of a strawman that is to simplify the mechanics to the most basic of levels and disregarding all actual foundations and leaving only the appearances is, then let me also mention that mentioning chess in particular looks like a pretty pathetic attempt at pandering to authority. Some kind of ancient "strategy game" authority, I would recon.

So you disagree with my choice of metaphor, okay, but that's still not a strawman. A strawman argument is when you make up a fake position your opponent isn't actually taking. I didn't do that, Luckmann and others have stated repeatedly that the initiative system prevents you from making any kind of plan (his exact words). I disagree, and used chess as a counter-example where taking different turns doesn't prevent planning. Yeah, it's a tongue-in-cheek, semi-trolling example, but where are we having this discussion again? Obviously I used chess because it's a game everyone is familiar with. That's not an appeal to authority; that would be if I said "Scorpia the RPG Reviewer agrees with me" or something like that.

Then after I get obscene, unhinged insults from badly triggered edgelords, who somehow failed to even grasp I was making an analogy, you accuse me of not giving someone else's analogy the benefit of the doubt.

 

[canakin]

I'm about to finish this. Boy, it was disappointing armor system sucked ass, they somehow managed to make the itemization even worse than D:OS and half the stats are useless. It's a 5/10 tops. Hope Larian goes bankrupt.

 

[DeepOcean]

Journos are for the first time in about 20 years actually praising a turn based combat rpg with plenty of meaningful content, combat that is actually challenging, choices that sometimes actually have consequences, NPC's that don't repeat the same couple of lines ad nauseam or are walking wikipedias ...
All things the self-declared monocled gentlemen here are complaining about have been sorely lacking the last decade and a half. Sure, some things need improvement and a couple of bugs need to be fixed but out of the gate it's maybe the most complete rpg experience since BG2 and less flawed at release than most Codex classics from yesteryear. And this one is even not turn based!
Reaction on the codex by the usual suspects: butthurt and edginess. Looking at the last couple of pages I still see this Lacrymas guy going at it like he's the prime authority on RPG's... probably still has to play the first minute of this game himself.
Still reading a lot of insightful posts but a couple of bad apples have really turned this place into a bad parody of itself the last couple of years didn't they.

RPGCodex, a site about RPG DISCUSSION is a site full of bigots that dare to DISCUSS about a RPG. Thank you for trying to shame us for DISCUSSING about a RPG on a RPG FAN SITE dedicated to RPG DISCUSSION, random internet guy, we are now enlighted and will totally stop our ways because of you.

 

[DeepOcean]

So you disagree with my choice of metaphor, okay, but that's still not a strawman. A strawman argument is when you make up a fake position your opponent isn't actually taking. I didn't do that, Luckmann and others have stated repeatedly that the initiative system prevents you from making any kind of plan (his exact words). I disagree, and used chess as a counter-example where taking different turns doesn't prevent planning. Yeah, it's a tongue-in-cheek, semi-trolling example, but where are we having this discussion again? Obviously I used chess because it's a game everyone is familiar with. That's not an appeal to authority; that would be if I said "Scorpia the RPG Reviewer agrees with me" or something like that.

Then after I get obscene, unhinged insults from badly triggered edgelords, who somehow failed to even grasp I was making an analogy, you accuse me of not giving someone else's analogy the benefit of the doubt.

It doesn't prevent planning if it is something transparent, like on the shadowrun games where you finish your turn, then it is the ai turn, but when the Ai cheats like NPCs constantly jumping turn orders and other non-transparent initiative queueing results, this can lead to difficulty on planning and there is the problem of incentives to abuse the system by keeping almost dead enemies on CC to fuck up with the Ai turn order. I don't like when the system used to determine turn orders isn't transparent.

 

[Grampy_Bone]

It doesn't prevent planning if it is something transparent, like on the shadowrun games where you finish your turn, then it is the ai turn, but when the Ai cheats like NPCs constantly jumping turn orders and other non-transparent initiative queueing results, this can lead to difficulty on planning and there is the problem of incentives to abuse the system by keeping almost dead enemies on CC to fuck up with the Ai turn order. I don't like when the system used to determine turn orders isn't transparent.

It's a fair point. It's not quite as bad as The Banner Saga, where in a team of 6v1, the 1 guy gets to go 6 times in a single turn.

Divinity OS2 does have a Delay Turn button, which gives you some control. It reminds me a lot of D&D 3E, especially with how they've commoditized AP.

I agree Wits is a poor stat right now, and I've said before that the game could use a randomized turn system like 3E does. But it does give you more tools for predicting and planning turns than a lot of other turn-based games. It's also just silly to say 100% transparent turn prediction is foundational to all turn-based gaming (that was Luckmann's argument). Nonsense. Just look at Felipepepe's Art of Turn Based RPGs article and tell me how many of those games have 100% predictive turns? With a GUI element clearly showing turn order? Not the majority. Graphical displays showing turn order is a recent innovation. In the Wizardry games, you give all your characters orders and hope for the best; even with high speed stats you can't predict how the turn will play out. That doesn't mean you can't make guesses and try to plan a strategy at all. That stuff is as old as gaming itself.

 

[Monkeyfinger]

For those people who are near the end of the game, or have beaten it, how was/is Arx? I find it pretty boring/annoying. It feels like they tried to pad it way too much, they should have just had a giant fight in Arx or something simpler to end it.

I like arx, it has some really good battles. Driftwood and nameless isle felt padded. There were a ton of fights and they were all easy, i hardly ever got any of my armors taken down to 0, yet they took 10 minutes to finish because enemies take so long to act. Weak filler trash fights should take 30-60 seconds to beat.

 

[Urthor]

TIL act 4 is just pretty bugged in this game. NPCs like Jahan literally don't appear, and the area has actual issues. Feels super unfinished and none of the reviews picked up on that fact because nobody got that far in Divinity before filing copy.

 

[Ventidius]

As some have mentioned, late game is exceedingly buggy, which isn't surprising. I even had the game crash after the cutscene that came after the final battle, and had to re-do the latter. :/

Apart from that, I had few technical issues early game and mid-game, aside from some wonkiness with some of the quests.

 

[Nerevar]

Games like this aren't a diamond dozen, I'm enjoying playing this game in my spear time. The writing is superb.

 

[Black]

Games like this aren't a diamond dozen, I'm enjoying playing this game in my spear time. The writing is superb.

There's quite a lot of typos from what I've seen. Should've speared more time on checking their writing.

 

[Immortal]

Games like this aren't a diamond dozen, I'm enjoying playing this game in my spear time. The writing is superb.

There's quite a lot of typos from what I've seen. Should've speared more time on checking their writing.

Are you sure it's a typo??

"There's no time to spear.."

 

[Darth Roxor]

Games like this aren't a diamond dozen, I'm enjoying playing this game in my spear time. The writing is superb.

There's quite a lot of typos from what I've seen. Should've speared more time on checking their writing.

OVER A MILLION WORDS!!!!!!!! strikes again

 

[Ruzen]

Lucckman was pointing out things that he felt were major issues about the game because he saw them as taking away from enjoying the experience as a whole. (It's not a question about feeling, the issue is real as a brick.)

If anyone thinks the majority of the complains in this thread exist (WTF?)for the sake of nitpicking ( You call broken initiative system is nitpicking?) and complaining for the sake of complaining (Complaining to who? None of the people here can actually change something. It's called discussing.) then you're all clearly missing the point. Even people who bring out the review scores merely do it because even if they enjoy the game or think it's good in multiple levels but unenjoyable due to a clusterfuck of broken-ass mechanics, they're doing it to show that, in their opinion, this scoring is not done in a fully objective or thorough manner(SO?). In fact, I'm quite sure a lot of people who would rate the game a 9/10 or 10/10 after the first chapter or two could change their opinions later due to an increasing amount of glaring issues that you notice as the game piles up nonsense that you have to deal with. ( One of these people could be you too)
In that case, pointing out that a 9/10 or 10/10 score for a game they wouldn't give a score beyond 7/10, (Ahh. So you think the scores are important way to rate their feelings about the game) regardless of their enjoyment of it or not(You wouldn't say half of the game: Tha Combat and plus the char creation PLUS the level-gating in all accounts-skills,enemies and items affecting exploration too. Oh my looks like there are major things to affect the whole "experience"), and calling it shilling or the people scoring and reviewing them "stoopid causals"(This has become a race card for people like you FFS stop using this non-logic thing) is just a form of expressing their disappointment with how the issues they have seem to be blatantly looked over, and perhaps worry over the fact that if the game seems to be doing amazingly both in scores and sales regardless of its issues that it reduces the chances of the big issues being fixed in the way that is desirable to them.(I think most of the people who enjoy the game at the peak of the hype mountain -including you- are not aware of what they are playing and not questioning their "tactical rpg's" mechanics not trying to find out what they are playing.)

 

[Prime Junta]

Lucckman was pointing out things that he felt were major issues about the game because he saw them as taking away from enjoying the experience as a whole. (It's not a question about feeling, the issue is real as a brick.)

If anyone thinks the majority of the complains in this thread exist (WTF?)for the sake of nitpicking ( You call broken initiative system is nitpicking?) and complaining for the sake of complaining (Complaining to who? None of the people here can actually change something. It's called discussing.) then you're all clearly missing the point. Even people who bring out the review scores merely do it because even if they enjoy the game or think it's good in multiple levels but unenjoyable due to a clusterfuck of broken-ass mechanics, they're doing it to show that, in their opinion, this scoring is not done in a fully objective or thorough manner(SO?). In fact, I'm quite sure a lot of people who would rate the game a 9/10 or 10/10 after the first chapter or two could change their opinions later due to an increasing amount of glaring issues that you notice as the game piles up nonsense that you have to deal with. ( One of these people could be you too)
In that case, pointing out that a 9/10 or 10/10 score for a game they wouldn't give a score beyond 7/10, (Ahh. So you think the scores are important way to rate their feelings about the game) regardless of their enjoyment of it or not(You wouldn't say half of the game: Tha Combat and plus the char creation PLUS the level-gating in all accounts-skills,enemies and items affecting exploration too. Oh my looks like there are major things to affect the whole "experience"), and calling it shilling or the people scoring and reviewing them "stoopid causals"(This has become a race card for people like you FFS stop using this non-logic thing) is just a form of expressing their disappointment with how the issues they have seem to be blatantly looked over, and perhaps worry over the fact that if the game seems to be doing amazingly both in scores and sales regardless of its issues that it reduces the chances of the big issues being fixed in the way that is desirable to them.(I think most of the people who enjoy the game at the peak of the hype mountain -including you- are not aware of what they are playing and not questioning their "tactical rpg's" mechanics not trying to find out what they are playing.)

 

[Sjukob]

Spoiler

After a long journey Red Prince finaly found his end . I was hoping for a peaceful solution , but he didn't listen . I'm planning to side with Lucian and drain the world of the source , hope I wouldn't have to kill Ifan for this .

 

[Utgard-Loki]

complaining about balancing is cute and all, but i just found the biggest bug yet:

the undead elf skull has facial animations.

pls fix this immediately, thanks.

 

[Fenix]

Oh my god, I just read that

redditor Ulminati

Don't ever leave the Codex, kids

In fact it is the same as recently patched "infinite damage loop" exploit.

 

[Akka]

The itemization in this game is disgusting,you can't wear anything for more than 30 minutes and bam totally outdated.It's laughable,especially when they put those armor level gated sets in and they are complete garbage by the time you get them.
As soon as I level up it's over for me,I have to go change everything and this disgusts me to no end.

And gotta love finding my best items in a barrel through lucky charm,so much for fighting for good equipment.

True, but there is mods fixing that

 

[toro]

Just asking, what did Avellone write?

credits