Divinity Divinity: Original Sin 2 - Definitive Edition

[Semper]

I have

tag img in your and other posts but no actual pic - why?

perhaps your anti virus blocks access to that site.

 

[Luckmann]

you will believe a black wolf can fly

Also, Boreale is correct, Reactive Shot was fucked in the last patch and is now completely fucking bonkers. It's not orbital insertion as per the codex astartes, but it's damn well close.

 

[Israfael]

They fixed it, it was mentioned in the notes. Before the patch it did not scale off the weapon damage, now it does, apparently (don't have an archer in my party, so i don't really know)

 

[Black]

Another decline I didn't mention is that the game loves dialogue ambushing you. In my case I was leading with my secondary character who had no points in persuasion but all the points in lucky charm for maximum loot. *Poof* and he's at the mercy of some talky npc and can't talk his way out to save his life. Gotta reload to talk with my main guy who actually has points into persuasion.

 

[Eyestabber]

• Fixed melee attackers sometimes being able to still attack enemies on a higher ledge

Dat sense of humor

Is anyone using the saving throws mod? I glanced at it on the workshop, but it just looks like a lousy band-aid over a shitty system. Is a proper "rollback to how it was in the first game" mod even possible? And why do modders for this particular game (mostly) only seem to care about lazy cheat mods anyway!? õ.O

 

[Luckmann]

Another decline I didn't mention is that the game loves dialogue ambushing you. In my case I was leading with my secondary character who had no points in persuasion but all the points in lucky charm for maximum loot. *Poof* and he's at the mercy of some talky npc and can't talk his way out to save his life. Gotta reload to talk with my main guy who actually has points into persuasion.

This is extremely frustrating, yeah, especially since it can happen when someone is already in a conversation, jerking you out of a conversation and then when you restart it, the options have changed because it's no longer the first time you talk to them.

 

[Darth Roxor]

They fixed it, it was mentioned in the notes. Before the patch it did not scale off the weapon damage, now it does, apparently (don't have an archer in my party, so i don't really know)

The deal is that it's not supposed to do any damage upon casting. Meanwhile now it does.

 

[Black]

Volrath why are you butthurting me?

 

[Chaotic_Heretic]

Volrath why are you butthurting me?

Because he likes the residual cocaine in Swen's shit and think that it is the best thing eva.

Cannot into Criticism.

 

[Kaldurenik]

It would be nice if you could change who is talking in the middle of the conversation if everyone in the party is within range. There are a number of times when the game auto starts a conversation and... its not the face of the party.

 

[Modron]

It would be nice if you could change who is talking in the middle of the conversation if everyone in the party is within range. There are a number of times when the game auto starts a conversation and... its not the face of the party.

Yeah party rpgs should emulate how Storm of Zehir did conversation skill checks, most capable member and what not.

 

[Pablosdog]

yeah the convo shit is random and stupid. The quests are still broken. I loaded an earlier save before namless isle and I still can't complete around a handful of quests.

 

[Luckmann]

It would be nice if you could change who is talking in the middle of the conversation if everyone in the party is within range. There are a number of times when the game auto starts a conversation and... its not the face of the party.

Yeah party rpgs should emulate how Storm of Zehir did conversation skill checks, most capable member and what not.

I'm still kinda shocked that not more games use the Storm of Zehir approach, it was excellent. A mix between Storm of Zehir and DOS1 would be nothing short of amazing. In terms of dialogue interaction, DOS2 is a step backwards, objectively so.

 

[Arnust]

Or just the Wasteland 2 thing of having the party members' prompts under the text box to choose who takes on the discussion instance whenever you want. It was nice there albeit hadn't much effect besides the Kissass/Smartass/Hardass checks, imagine how nice to have it would be here.

 

[Quillon]

It would be nice if you could change who is talking in the middle of the conversation if everyone in the party is within range. There are a number of times when the game auto starts a conversation and... its not the face of the party.

Yeah party rpgs should emulate how Storm of Zehir did conversation skill checks, most capable member and what not.

I'm still kinda shocked that not more games use the Storm of Zehir approach, it was excellent. A mix between Storm of Zehir and DOS1 would be nothing short of amazing. In terms of dialogue interaction, DOS2 is a step backwards, objectively so.

Or just the Wasteland 2 thing of having the party members' prompts under the text box to choose who takes on the discussion instance whenever you want. It was nice there albeit hadn't much effect besides the Kissass/Smartass/Hardass checks, imagine how nice to have it would be here.

Fuck total control in narrative; creating a party of characters without personality, making decisions for everyone individually---even arguing among each other while both characters are you(hey DOS1), fuck it.

In DOS2's case its in between the two approaches mixed with heavy laziness on design side for single player gaming; its never explained why we can make narrative choices for others in the party when we have a main character...which also has been massively overlooked by players, even in here.

 

[Abu Antar]

There are several ways to do the whole: Who is going to engage in the dialog scenario? As long as it is not handled like in Divinity: Original Sin 2. I just control my Persuasion character all the time.

 

[Luckmann]

I loved that in Storm of Zehir, you could choose the character speaking at any one time, during the course of a conversation, meaning that you effectively simulated the situation in which different characters are all speaking to a single (or multiple) individuals at once, a bit like interjection by CNPC:s, although you had full control (CNPC:s, what few there were, only got character-appropriate lines, if I recall correctly).

I loved that in D:OS1, the actions and choices of different players could result in a conflict of interest wherein both parts resolved their differences either by arguing or by opposing Persuasion/Intimidate/etc., and then the plot or sub-plot or dialogue moved onwards based on the result of that. It is much superior to wherein D:OS2, choices for one person exists in a vacuum, even if you're right there. We noticed this especially after speaking to a certain tortured prisoner in Fort Joy, from which we got a password to use when speaking to a couple of other disloyal guards. Despite the fact that I listened in on the entire conversation, I could not provide the password when speaking to the disloyal guards - however, after loading, the player that had the conversation with the tortured prisoner (note: only one person could speak to him, because he ran away as soon as it was over) could provide the password.

But the only reason I even knew of this was because I had had the conversation before: had we played in a vacuum, there was no way to know that these were the people we were even supposed to give the password. We could've gone the entire game wondering who we were supposed to give that password.

It's extremely annoying how the game is presented as co-op, but everything is essentially oppositional, even in terms of content; you talk to someone, you will be the only one to have that conversation, or, someone else talks first, and then you talk to an NPC, and you get the exact same conversation. If one character is carrying a plot/dialogue-relevant piece (a letter, etc.) only that player can mention it in a conversation.

It's like you're in a party, but not really. D:OS1 did this a lot better - the assumption was, simply, that you would be playing with friends, and that you'd be playing as a party. Meanwhile, the Arena in D:OS2 forces a PvP confrontation unless you choose to forfeit, in multiplayer, but it does no such thing in singleplayer, for the sole reason that there happens to be more than two players in a mechanical sense, while completely ignoring the narrative - after all, narratively, what is the difference between Ifan as a CNPC and Ifan as played by my co-op partner? Fucking nothing. Yet we're forced into fighting eachother.

We're constantly forced into choosing who takes point, who wins, who picks up the reward(s), and so on. D:OS1 felt like we were playing together, even outside of combat; D:OS2 feels like we're playing beside eachother, only truly cooperating with eachother in encounters.

Sure, we wait for eachother and we listen in on eachother's conversations, we read important books up loud to eachother, and we send eachother items when needed (because fuck having a shared inventory, apparently), but it's not the same.

It's like the game doesn't know what it wants to be good at. Is it meant to be a single player/co-op multiplayer game, or is it meant to be an oppositional, competitive and mutually hostile multiplayer game? D:OS1 did the former better, and who the fuck actually wants to play the latter in a turn-based CRPG?

 

[AwesomeButton]

Why does the camera need to rotate 360deg? I don't see how this enhances my experience in any way. Sure, it makes it easier for the area designers, but what does the player gain?

 

[Lacrymas]

I've been advocating for 2D everything (including character models) for a while, 3D is fine and all, if a bit silly most of the time, but 2D has something special.

 

[Luckmann]

Why does the camera need to rotate 360deg? I don't see how this enhances my experience in any way. Sure, it makes it easier for the area designers, but what does the player gain?

Well it makes it possible to see all angles of everything, I guess? I can't even subjectively support this beyond "I like it", and while you could probably achieve the same thing with less rotation, I always hated semi-fixed rotation/panning for some reason, no doubt completely irrational. Always makes me go "Just a little bit more for fucks sake!".

 

[AwesomeButton]

Maybe I'm too OCD, but I feel like a cameraman all the time I'm playing. Every time the party switches direction, I feel an urge to adjust the camera again.

 

[MWaser]

Why does the camera need to rotate 360deg? I don't see how this enhances my experience in any way. Sure, it makes it easier for the area designers, but what does the player gain?

Full camera control in a game is good. It's better to have too much control than to have gimped and limited camera control which pisses you off that your view is blocked off.

 

[Nerevar]

Need to be able to zoom in on the 3DPD waifus.

 

[Quillon]

I loved that in Storm of Zehir, you could choose the character speaking at any one time, during the course of a conversation, meaning that you effectively simulated the situation in which different characters are all speaking to a single (or multiple) individuals at once, a bit like interjection by CNPC:s, although you had full control (CNPC:s, what few there were, only got character-appropriate lines, if I recall correctly).

I loved that in D:OS1, the actions and choices of different players could result in a conflict of interest wherein both parts resolved their differences either by arguing or by opposing Persuasion/Intimidate/etc., and then the plot or sub-plot or dialogue moved onwards based on the result of that. It is much superior to wherein D:OS2, choices for one person exists in a vacuum, even if you're right there. We noticed this especially after speaking to a certain tortured prisoner in Fort Joy, from which we got a password to use when speaking to a couple of other disloyal guards. Despite the fact that I listened in on the entire conversation, I could not provide the password when speaking to the disloyal guards - however, after loading, the player that had the conversation with the tortured prisoner (note: only one person could speak to him, because he ran away as soon as it was over) could provide the password.

But the only reason I even knew of this was because I had had the conversation before: had we played in a vacuum, there was no way to know that these were the people we were even supposed to give the password. We could've gone the entire game wondering who we were supposed to give that password.

It's extremely annoying how the game is presented as co-op, but everything is essentially oppositional, even in terms of content; you talk to someone, you will be the only one to have that conversation, or, someone else talks first, and then you talk to an NPC, and you get the exact same conversation. If one character is carrying a plot/dialogue-relevant piece (a letter, etc.) only that player can mention it in a conversation.

It's like you're in a party, but not really. D:OS1 did this a lot better - the assumption was, simply, that you would be playing with friends, and that you'd be playing as a party. Meanwhile, the Arena in D:OS2 forces a PvP confrontation unless you choose to forfeit, in multiplayer, but it does no such thing in singleplayer, for the sole reason that there happens to be more than two players in a mechanical sense, while completely ignoring the narrative - after all, narratively, what is the difference between Ifan as a CNPC and Ifan as played by my co-op partner? Fucking nothing. Yet we're forced into fighting eachother.

We're constantly forced into choosing who takes point, who wins, who picks up the reward(s), and so on. D:OS1 felt like we were playing together, even outside of combat; D:OS2 feels like we're playing beside eachother, only truly cooperating with eachother in encounters.

Sure, we wait for eachother and we listen in on eachother's conversations, we read important books up loud to eachother, and we send eachother items when needed (because fuck having a shared inventory, apparently), but it's not the same.

It's like the game doesn't know what it wants to be good at. Is it meant to be a single player/co-op multiplayer game, or is it meant to be an oppositional, competitive and mutually hostile multiplayer game? D:OS1 did the former better, and who the fuck actually wants to play the latter in a turn-based CRPG?

I can see DOS1's approach was better for co-op but not by a long shot for single player and in DOS2, SP-side is improved while taking away from Co-op it seems tho which is not enough for me to be happy with its SP.

Fuck total control in narrative; creating a party of characters without personality, making decisions for everyone individually---even arguing among each other while both characters are you(hey DOS1), fuck it.

But creating a party of character and making decisions for everyone individually is the point of single player role playing video games.

Letting us create a party of characters is developers' design decision. In narrative, making a single character and influencing others is the point of SP RPGs, at least the ones I like. Sure our character can make decisions for everyone in the party but if the game is good, they would react/agree or disagree with us/fite us etc.

Anyway for WL2/SoZ approach: If I was to create a full party of characters, I'd still wan't a designated main character and I'd rather see them create "narrative pieces" which should work according to any given companions's capabilities so companions themselves should speak out if their certain skill/ability/maybe personality trait(which I have set for them before) is applicable for a situation...to which my designated character should have the option to interject/influence :D

 

[Luckmann]

Maybe I'm too OCD, but I feel like a cameraman all the time I'm playing. Every time the party switches direction, I feel an urge to adjust the camera again.

Rebind the camera to Q/E. That way, you can control the camera by WASD/QE constantly, it's pretty nice, instead of feeling like you have to assume direct control of the camera and re-adjust with MMB all the time. To me, it greatly enhances the flow.

The only caveat is that switching quickly between Q & E, the camera locks up, so you have to make sure you're only pressing one of them at a time, and also, you have to reassign it every fucking time you launch the game because it doesn't save properly - they will overlap with the shortcut for opening the character screen.

Best part is that you can still keep MMB functionality for when you actually want to use that to quickly switch around.

I can see DOS1's approach was better for co-op but not by a long shot for single player and in DOS2, SP-side is improved while taking away from Co-op it seems tho which is not enough for me to be happy with its SP.

Since you only create a single character in D:OS2 singleplayer, using D:OS1:s approach would've been irrelevant for singleplayer, so that's a completely moot point.