Monocause
Arcane
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2008
- Messages
- 3,656
A year ago or so I got bored with Divine Divinity and read that the sequel is different. My interest was ruined when I read how the Codex (and some mainstream review sites) bashed the game.
Now I decided to 'demo' it, and, well. I didn't get far but I found it more likeable than Divine Divinity.
The beginning was a bit painful - the UI is kinda crap, so is most of the voice acting. The visuals aren't that bad, but they don't help getting around. Playing around in a resolution lower than 1280x960 is a chore (not much visible and camera controls are sloppy at 1024x768), but the developers apparently didn't think about improving readability of the text or doing something with the small, small icons in the inventory - there is a 1600x1200 option, but I conjecture that the game must be unplayable that way. I could go on and list all these basic design fuck-ups, but that's not the point.
The point is, the game is fun. It has an interesting skill system and a more interesting premise than DD. Battles are harder - less of a mobfest, more of enemies that can kill you in a couple of blows. BD switched to being a party-based ARPG instead of being a Diablo clone DD was, coupled with a RTwP system which could be done better (no autopause? Geez) but makes the combat more unforgiving and yes, tactical - as tactical as ARPGs get from my experience.
So why the hate? Does the game get worse later on? Or were you people just disillusioned with BD because it's not really a proper DD sequel? I realise that the world is reportedly smaller and more linear, but seems to me that the game makes up for it by improving on other parts of the gameplay.
If someone uninstalled it five minutes after starting a new game due to design flaws mentioned before, give BD another try. You can get used to the UI and the general production values, they just require... a bit more leniency from the player than a decent game usually would - but after half an hour or so all the flaws stopped bugging me. Combat, the skill system and some other stuff seem worth the initial pain to me.
DISCUSS!!!
Now I decided to 'demo' it, and, well. I didn't get far but I found it more likeable than Divine Divinity.
The beginning was a bit painful - the UI is kinda crap, so is most of the voice acting. The visuals aren't that bad, but they don't help getting around. Playing around in a resolution lower than 1280x960 is a chore (not much visible and camera controls are sloppy at 1024x768), but the developers apparently didn't think about improving readability of the text or doing something with the small, small icons in the inventory - there is a 1600x1200 option, but I conjecture that the game must be unplayable that way. I could go on and list all these basic design fuck-ups, but that's not the point.
The point is, the game is fun. It has an interesting skill system and a more interesting premise than DD. Battles are harder - less of a mobfest, more of enemies that can kill you in a couple of blows. BD switched to being a party-based ARPG instead of being a Diablo clone DD was, coupled with a RTwP system which could be done better (no autopause? Geez) but makes the combat more unforgiving and yes, tactical - as tactical as ARPGs get from my experience.
So why the hate? Does the game get worse later on? Or were you people just disillusioned with BD because it's not really a proper DD sequel? I realise that the world is reportedly smaller and more linear, but seems to me that the game makes up for it by improving on other parts of the gameplay.
If someone uninstalled it five minutes after starting a new game due to design flaws mentioned before, give BD another try. You can get used to the UI and the general production values, they just require... a bit more leniency from the player than a decent game usually would - but after half an hour or so all the flaws stopped bugging me. Combat, the skill system and some other stuff seem worth the initial pain to me.
DISCUSS!!!