This game is a really good game and so far despite the butt load of bugs i'v been encountering still a good game and i was really enjoying my self untill i found out one thing that destorys the whole game with little chance of recovery. Now for those of you who want to remain ignorant to the fact do not read down............


















I cant fu@king believe enemies never respawn WTF is up with that????? Thats total fu@king trash that makes the 60 bucks i just spent on this game wasted!!!!!! Thats the stupidest sh@t EVER!!!!


Edit: 360 version.


No respwaning enmies means the following HUGE downfalls

1: NO LOOT FARMIN
2: LIMITED LOOT
3: LIMITED GOLD
4: NO GOING BACK TO OWN ENIMES WITH YOUR NEW WEAPON
5: LIMITED LEVELS

And a lot of other downfalls i cant think of atm. I cant even begain to imagine what the DEVS were thinking about when they decided to make there no respwans. This basicly limits this game to Just following a path of Mobs laid out forceing you to move forward to gain levels. You cant call this game a RPG............. they should relabel it to an action adventure. If i could get my money back i would.

I kinda like no respawning enemies. It gives you an idea of where you've been since there's no fog of war. The game gives you enough enemies near your level so you can make progress without resorting to grinding respawns. It's just a matter of finding them sometimes.

Limited respawns could come in handy to level or grind for loot, if it was restricted to a certain location or along the borders of cleared areas, etc. Generally speaking, though, I don't want to have to kill the same opponents over and over again.

an old topic discussing respawning : One small question about enemies


Welcome to the forum.

I edited my starter post so people could better understand what NO RESPWANS MEAN.

Limited Respawn would indeed be nice. Now i'm even wearier about using Mindread...

I read all the posts in the link you posted and the people who posted there are entitled to their opinion and i am entitled to mine. So.... in my opinion this game is catered to to casual players
who will only play for maybe an hour a day witch is not a bad thing. But for more hardcore players this game is a bust. Becasue you can not keep grinding untill you reach max level this game HAS A FORCED END. once you've killed every thing thats it... This game cannot be called a RPG. A real RPG lets you keep playing untill you want to stop this one forces you. I wont my money back.....

Casual players are not generally very keen on 50+ hour RPGs.

If a game has an ending it can't be an RPG? You are certainly entitled to your opinion and choice of games, but I don't think you know what an RPG is. Neither Diablo or WoW invented the RPG, and while respawning is certainly possible in an RPG, it is absolutely not a requirement.

Right now you can play the game for 50+ hours, explore everywhere, get to level 35 and finish the game... and that's crap. However, get rid of the ending, and respawn monsters so you can fight them over and over for two years until you reach level 999, and that would be an RPG?

Regarding your earlier comment about the game 'limiting' you to moving forward to progress, there are quests to do and places to explore. You are not bound to a railroad track style gameplay if you can not kill the same opponents over and over.

I don't think this is a game for casuals at all. I mean, in this game you can go off exploring in the wrong direction, meet up with higher level enemies, die and perhaps lose quite a bit of time if you hadn't saved recently. Doesn't sound like something casuals would take a liking too. Anyway, saying this is not an RPG is way off base. Sounds to me like you came in looking for MMORPG style play which you could have discovered was not the case with a download of the demo or some research online.

Your all misinterpreting what im saying..... well no surprise there. When i say a real rpg has no end what im trying to say is that you can literly for as long as you want kill mobs of bad guys. thats what i mean when i say a real RPG has no end. I know what an MMO is. This game can not be called a RPG becasue there HAS TO BE A END. this game forces a end when you run out of eneimes to kill that is why it can not be called a RPG. I Have played maybe 40-50 RPG games in my life and not in any has there ever been no respwans.

That is why this game is not an RPG.

You are kidding right?!?!?!?! Many acclaimed RPG's had no respawns. You probably can't name 10 true RPG's like that, much less 40-50. Sorry you are disappointed, maybe you should go back to WoW.

shadowdef, kill mobs of bad guys for as long as you want - does not make a game into an RPG. What you`re suggesting is an MMORPG.
RPG`s are games where your choices of doing things alter the end result of the quest/game and not about killing bazillions of enemies, take Fallout 2 for example. The only reason why MMORPGs are called mmoRPGs is because there are quests, if there`d be no quests - MMORPGs could be renamed to MMOAction/Tactical games.
Please name the RPGs where you had respawns.

QFT

NERD RAEG

I would suggest looking up what RPG actually stands for. It seems to me you have a horrible twisted interpretation of it in your mind.

Wow, I love this game because it's NOT a respawning turd/ loot fest clone like Diablo, Sacred, and others, and I do not have to worry about playing multiplayer with the 99% of cheaters out there dupping items in other RPG's!

Divinity 2 is a nice change from the clones mentioned, and the 40 plus hours I already have in the game have been well worth the money!

Thanks Dev's for NOT making this game a respawn clone of every other game out there!

Limited respawns, confined to certain areas of the game would have been nice. But I have to say, given how much back & forth running I've done if there were respawns everywhere it would be incredibly annoying...

I have love/hate thing with respawns...sometimes I appreciate them sometimes I hate them. A game that splits the difference gets it just right in my book

Hey you can always kill the training goblins over and over again if you really feel the need.

Damn, and here I was just last night finding myself loving the fact that once I kill enemies...they are dead. A game does not have to be grind/farm fest in order to be considered an RPG. Rather than forcing you to go forward, as you put it, it instead encourages you to explore the world and do all of the side quests (which thankfully are not tacked on after thoughts). That is what I think the motive in no respawns are, and is a much welcomed one for a change from my point of view.

Should probably read these to better understand what RPG means.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role-playing_game

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role-playing_video_game

You certainly presented your argument in a mature fashion.

I for one was kind of happy to learn that there are no respawning enemies. And it certainly doesn't detract from this being an RPG.

What a skewed view you have, OP. In the future, read reviews and research games before buying them. With a bit of research it's quite obvious that enemies do not respawn in this game. Oh, and more importantly, just because you think certain elements make or break an RPG, does not make it so.

In my opinion, Larian should have implemented respawning enemies. For the people who don't like fighting enemies that you already defeated use shrines or just run. As long as you run away and dont run straight melee and magic won't hit you. Ranged attacks might but you could just use a potion/food. But potions & food cost money, well, kill some monsters that you already killed and it will drop something that you could buy a potion or more from. If I would have known that once you beat the game there isn't much to do anymore aside from new game/achievements/finish side quests I would have waited until this was worth 30-40 off of craigslist.

I'm only into Maxos Temple (that ain't very far into the story) but the game lost some value because of this for me. I like fighting enemies over again when I load the game, its not like its going to take a long time. More loot, more gold, more exp, more levels.

Questions: What is the level cap for this game? And what is your estimate on what level your character would be when he/she finished the main quests and any side quests you've done on the way?

I was really looking forward to the game. It looked like a keeper, but the aspect of no respawning enemies will probably make me play it through once or twice and then sell it off of craigslist. The story seems good so far though.

One of the Larians mentioned a technical level cap around 60, but practically you are only going to reach about level 34 or 35 by the end of the game.

Thanks for the answer. Its for sure a one and done for me. So when was the last rpg to not have respawn or random spawn?


Edit: Was looking at the Mass Effect 2 Collectors Edition at Amazon and then the Dragon Age: Origins Collectors Edition and found out DA:O doesn't respawn any enemies either. Good thing I decided to wait & still waiting for DA:O to drop to 20 dollars or less.

Neither of Larian's previous games in this series had respawns. There was a resurrect spell you could use in Divine Divinity, though (if you left the area, resurrected creatures would turn hostile, and you could return to kill them again), and in the after-game battlefields for Beyond Divinity you could keep generating new battlefields (which were areas with several merchants and randomly generated dungeons).

Dragon Age: Origins has no respawns, but there is a low(?) chance of a random encounter traveling on the map.

A rather high chance for an encounter actually almost 1 every journey. Which is kinda nice. Long journeys even 2 sometimes.
As for the 'grinding' bit. When I played D1 and D2 it never was a problem due to the large quantities of mobs. If this is still the case throughout the game I don't mind. It even gives a sense of satisfaction to 'clear all'.
On the other hand it's a shame one cannot transfer a char to a 'high difficulty' to try and reach that virtual levelcap.

Another product of MMORPG culture I guess.

I mean, as long as there are enough enemies to help you level adequately, I would much rather kill new mobs in new areas rather than go back to the same area and mobs over and over just to level.

And here I thought grind was supposed to be a bad thing. It's what you are forced to do when a game doesn't provide enough new challenges for you to level on before moving to the next area.

But I guess MMOs have created a new brand of gamer that likes to just mindlessly grind easy stuff in order to progress in the game.

Infinite monsters do provide a few problems. They are really annoying when backtracking through the game (especially flinching). They also let you get a higher level and more gold, making it easy/easier to defeat bosses and to progress through the game.

The fact is this game is not hack and slash.

Actually, most of your cash and gears do not come from non boss enemies.

I prefer NO respawns!

If I wish to kill more enemies again, I love to start over again from the beginning or from a earlier savegame!

Now I play also Oblivion IV Elder Scrolls (on xbox) and that game has NO respawn ...

EdIT:
I have more than enough money and other good loot found in this game!

Your mistaken.
That game they call an RPG Oblivion does have Respawn!

Sorry, I was "thinking" this because I haven't seen respawn yet .. BUT I'm at the beginning of Oblivion now, so sorry!

By the way, Oblivion looks very nice !

This is off subject.....but if this game is no a "hack and slash" game I don't know what one would be........ It's not a Titan Quest,a Sacred,or a Diablo and so on style game..... The game IMO is more of a cross between Baldur's Gate and Assasin's Creed.

Even the Uruk Hai need to be polite and constructive. What would Saruman say? Tsss...

Are you aware that you can make a valid point without constantly dropping the f bomb? It shows a lack of maturity and intelligence when someone can only express their feelings through offensive language.

It's completly understandable that some people want to kill the same enemies over and over, yet if this one aspect of the game can really ruin it for you, you'd better spend a bit more time searching information about the game.

Not all games offer respawns, learn to live with it and don't start whining about how bad the game is cause it doesn't offer respawns.
It's the way the developers wanted it to be, wether you like it or not.

Well there is that one area where you can force respawns near the end even though the xp does eventually reduce to near nothing i hear once you get a few levels above them. Wasn't that enough for you to go and constantly kill over and over and over?

I did 38 ;P
It is possible ;P

I love the fact that there's no respawning of enemies!
First, it's totally neccesary or the XP debt from mindreading will be totally useless... It puts you in a hard position, makes you not want to waste a mindread.

Then secondly... It's what makes this world more alive than any other world, you kill some mobs for some NPC's and they're actually gone, forever. You go through an area and poof you really 'cleared' the area. Totally awsome to walk through the environment when you got rid of the villains and everything is nice and quite. That gave a great feeling of satisfaction
Although I do admit, one mob randomly here and there wouldn't really hurt that much but still overall... I think it's a pleasant thing.

It baffled me at first as well, but there's some unique things in this game that I began to appreciate after a while, I wouldn't go as far as saying they 'reinvented' the genre, but some things are a bit different and some things are somewhat oldskool

OP: Just to let you know most western rpgs don't have respawn and my some of my most favorite are among them

To each his own I suppose, but I absolutely hate respawning the way it is handled in MMOs. It makes your achievements so utterly pointless when an NPC asks you to defeat some evil boss, you go out and wade your way through hordes of enemies to defeat the big bad guy only to find that he's alive and well ten minutes later and you can go back and defeat him again if you want to. It's really bad for my suspension of disbelief -- but then I'm the kind of guy who plays games to be immersed in a world and a story and not to prove myself or to gather huge amounts of loot, XP or whatever. I just don't see the fun in all of that competitive stuff. Sure, I enjoy the sense of pride when I find myself progressing, getting cool skills etc. but that's just a nice extra to me. So I'm very happy about the way it's handled in D2.

Now in Oblivion, the respawning is handled very well, I think. You don't notice it. And I seem to recall that the dead bodies of defeated enemies stay there on the ground. Once you've finished a quest, you've really finished it - it's a living world. The only thing I really wish they had done was rebuilding Kvatch.

Now I feel like playing Oblivion again:)

I agree with Chimeray. For me respawn KILLS even the slightest level of realism and hurts atmosphere in the world. World filled with unending hordes of enemies is totally forced (artificial) like big arena created only for grinding. It has its sense in MMORPG but in a story-driven single player RPG its IMHO nonsense and big mistake.

Its only a pity that there are players so deeply affected by simplistic MMO culture that they cant see ANYTHING beyond MMO grinding and gaming style. If another RPG is not designed the same way as MMORPGs they think its bad and awful game. Why they cant learn or experience something new? Are they so "simple" (silly) that they can understand and enjoy only grinding and hunt for items?

i love it that this game does not respawn enemies, if you like respawning enemies try far cry 2

Here's what I wrote today on RPGWatch :

Yes.

You won't get your money back.

I assume this is the exact reason why you tried your very best to keep yourself away from the Realms Of Arcania trilogy.

We all know this trend in RPG genre. But success of Dragon Age (and other RPGs like Drakensang in RPG-positive Germany) may help to give social side of RPGs a little more credit. People buy these "real" RPGs, but there are less publishers who are willing to support these games alongside "easy money" FPS shooters ("each year new CoD" formula) or other mostly action games marketed by graphics.




Its usual in many genres. Something is popular, others try to copy that to get easy money.




For me, social interaction in Drakensang was ok. If you choose hero with initial high social skills you can find more dialog branches in interaction with NPCs from the start (even in very first dialog in the game with sergeant Erland there was this "hidden" dialog option). You can also use it to intimidate or persuade someone in many dialogs. But I agree that it was far from ideal state - social skills could have more impact on a game (for example - option to persuade NPC to help you vs some monsters in a quest (or NPC could give you some strong weapon), while more fighter-type hero would never get that help and have to fight alone with weapons he already has). Dialog texts in english could also benefit from a little more work on characters (less formal language would be much better) etc.

I hope that developers bring to Drakensang: River of Time more detail, more TDE lore, overal better characters and deeper quests - and the game will sit on RPG throne as the best title in the year AFTER Dragon Age. (very optimistic )
BTW: Alrik, could you confirm that from your experience as tester?

At least I can confirm that Radon Labs has polished the gamne in a lot of places.

To me, the experience was nearly as good as in Drakensang, but I haven't played too far into the game - not further then the demo, in fact. THe only difference is that I know what comes directly after the end of the demo ... But that is predictable from the demo's end as well ...

Personally, I had indeed the impression as if the social interaction was enhanced a bit more. Which is actually something I'm looking forward to.

there are respawning mobs : on broken valey use the damned device to spawn new enemys after u got wings go to that flng fortress when is ghost kill all mobs and go to doors give bad answer all mobs on this lvl will respawn u can make this till your dont get borred or mobs stop give exp .

imho the not resp mobs are not problem most of modern crpg dont use respawns but hard lvled mobs in d2 sux the whole idea of damage based on your and enemy lvl is stupid becosue by half of game ur underleved even if u make 90% of all quests and kill every single mob and by secodn half of game ur overleveled becouse every mobs are lower lvl than u and they dont do any damage to u

even if u try go to cliffs before u got wings u got no chances to kill anythign thre cuz they are lik 7 lvls over u and they kill u instantly but after u got your wings they are just anyoing rats who hit u for 10 but have alot of hp so u need by 40 minutes kill this retardet creatures jsut to make one quest an is uber borring

I am sorry, I might be extremely retarded, but I don't understand your so-called english.
What is that FLNG fortress? And what do you mean by saying "when is ghost kill all mobs" ?
What is crpg - crap role-playing game? If so, then perhaps I agree you on this point, that Ego Draconis is cRPG, because of this no-respawning system. I'm guessing that sooner or later there will come out a modification that will allow every and each of the game world monsters to respawn, otherwise your leveling is extremely limited. And if you haven't done quests in order, you will most likely run into to groups of enemies that your current level and abilities do not give you even a chance to be victorious, especially in dungeons, where your physical movement is limited. Or, as you already said, you will be fighting monsters that are lower level than yours, and the experience you gain, will be insufficient to level-up in order to enjoy this game.
Also, I would like to make another statement about this game's summoning system. There is a huge hole, or you might even call it a bug, that your summoned creatures do not follow you, especially when you cross a river or climb a ladder. Of course, you might say that they teleport, if they cannot reach you by foot, but that teleporting system is also absolutely bugged, because it rarely works and even if it does, there is a slight chance that your creatures won't always attack your enemies, but just run around and make it more difficult to beat your opponents.

i mean keara flyng fortess . in her chambers is ghost of her dead man
u need speak with statues and name them if u do that wrong and go to doors of keara room mobs on whole level will respawn = infinite lvling
also i dont see any reazon why dont kill much bigger mobs than u i was even try on lvl 15 kill this elite in mine tower like 20 times but no way
but if the enemy lvl is not like 10 lvl more than u u can win
anyway after u got magic lvl 30 is god mode on cuz everything hit u for 0 and its sux like hell

You can also fight never ending mobs in the Maxos Temple in the maze.

There are areas of respawning mobs they're just not everywhere.

Even if there are respawning mobs at some locations in the game, there is no infinite leveling. As soon as your in-game avatar is 5 levels above enemies, the XP gained will be 0.

Of course, if you return to Broken Valley when you're level 30+ mobs there will be very easy since they're all level 27 there. Same for Aleroth. The point is to try to do everything when your level is the same as your enemies.

That's normal in any game that has any form of respawning enemies.

nope
if enemys got auto lvl adjust but not crap like in oblivion :P
also the whole 5 lvls aboute = unkilable is stupid

@Farflame: More on Drakensang 2 to be found here : http://www.rpgwatch.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1060991508#post1060991508

OH MY GOD..... I LOVE the fact that the monsters don't respawn, personally. What am immature ranter! Larian, please don't listen to him, good job with lack of respawn. I HATE respawn!

Thing to bear in mind is that the passage of time in this game is tied inexorably to story progression (consider the constant presence of the merchant who constantly says he's going to leave soon but never does, as the sun never sets no matter how long you let the game idle), so as a result, unless there is a specifically good reason for enemies to respawn (as would be the case with Mook Makers), once you've wiped a map of enemies, it makes a lot of sense for there to be no more enemies on that map for the rest of the "day," at least. Again, tied inexorably to story progression.

Pyrion, nicely said.

crpg = computer role playing game.

There is no need to criticise someone in this forum for their 'so-called english"

Even though this is the English forum a lot of people here do not have have english as their first language.

A bit more tolerance wouldn't hurt you, I'm sure.

I don't have any problem with either. Every game that is design with respawning enemies, or no respawning enemies, is designed like that from the start, and so there isn't any problem with it beacouse everyting is built around it. Fable 1 would have been 40% less fun (out of 140% :)) if it didn't have respawning bandits on the roads betwen towns. Risen would never be as satisfying and as atmospheric if it didn't respawn only selected enemies in selected places between chapters.

By the way, speaking of grinding for XP, consider landing in the Fjords and taking the long scenic route on foot instead of flying, you'll have plenty of mobs to fight then.

shadowdef.... crybaby -.-

i think its actually better if enemies dont respawn. Feels more...... Realistic

I'm sorry but it sounds like most people here are just trying to avoid admitting they may have bought a game with a serious flaw.

Let me ask you this: is there any reason not to have respawning enemies? What is the benefit to the game experience in eliminating respawns to someone who wants respawning enemies? (which by the way will be ALOT of people)

I, too, am disappointed to hear that this game will only have a limited number of enemies in the game to kill, and that your character will only be able to advance so far before the final confrontation is thrust upon him. In my opinion that makes this game no different than a first person shooter like half life in terms of progressing through the world.

In half life you kill enemies and they stay dead, you move on to the next level until you reach the final challenge. By then you are more powerful due to the fact that you have new guns, but you're only just so powerful and there nothing at all you can do to change that. This game is exactly like that. You get to level 35 and thats it. You can change your weapons or abilities sort of like you can change guns in half life, but thats the limit on your control over the situation.

The OP is correct that this fails to be an RPG. RPGs arent just about choosing one of 4 text replies from a menu in a dialogue box. RPG's are about having complete control over your character, what he does, where he goes. Thats why the VAST MAJORITY of games that style themselves as RPG's allow sufficient opportunities for combat that anyone can bring their character to any level of power they wished before completing the game.

In a game like this, theres no reason to even have levels. Just make everything level one and balance all encounters around level 1. Dont show numbers and you've saved yourself alot of work. It would be just like devil may cry or a similar game. No levels, just powerups and gear.

But hey i guess they wouldn't be able to really call it an RPG if it didnt have RPG elements.

non i dont even read your post
THERE IS NO RESPAWN in most of modern rpg's
There is respawn in HACK AND SLASH games AKA : diablo, sacred , titan quest
There is semi respawn in oblivion and semi respawn in morrowind : only monsters respawn human/deadric enemys dont

IF u like GRINDING and ifninite exping go play hack and slash, or World OF Noobs.. i mean Warcraft.. hmm
D2 is somehow clone of gothic in some aspects, and there is no repawn in gothic ( eccept g3 but that game was not real gothic but bugfest bs )

The point is grinding != rpg at all. whole infinite exp shiet is stricly h&s
go check wizardry or m&m. I Dont say grinding is bad at all but TBH i play titan quest few days agoo and need to sit and kill the same mobs over and over and over again is freeking borring like hell and is nothing to do with rpg .

and TBH i rly dont care are thre respawn or there is no respawn if mobs are balanced. so bad in d2 they are not but that is another story . also comparing D2 to HL2 is pointless hl is totally diferent story

I am so pleased i read this thread, I for one cannot abide respawns and this post has made my mind up about the game which i will now be definately buying. I once tried a game called Sacred and after realising the amount of respawns shelved the game very quickly.

1. I'm sorry, but it sounds like you are misinformed and haven't read the entirety of those posts.



2. For some there is, some there isn't. When there is no obvious benefit to a feature, such as respawns, there is no need for it to be implemented. Therefore, for those that want respawns just for the sake of max-leveling and being uber, there are plenty of MMO's/FPS's/etc. that cater to those folks. I get the feeling that no matter the genre of game, you and the OP would react the same if there was no way to further your uberness to the absolute max level.



3. Limited number is relative...so, limited relative to what? Apparently, the game can be completed, so apparently one can level as far as required to win the game.



4. Half- life??? You compare this game to a science fiction FPS???

5. You get to level 35 and that's it? What if you could get to level 60? Or 100? Then you ask why not 150 ?!?!



6. Name me 10 true RPG's that do this. Or even 5. Not that it will be the VAST MAJORITY, but at least might give some credence to your argument. Doubtful, but possible.



7. LOL, just showed your gaming heritage and where your opinions come from. Naming a hack and slash game that originated on consoles. Figures.



8. Since you are comparing hack and slash/FPS titles to RPG's, it's easy to assume you have no idea what you are talking about.

9. Welcome to the forum.

[/quote]

It saddens me to see how the MMORPG's are influencing the gaming community. Where does this belief that RPG's have to have respawns come from?
'Cause those MMO's have respawns to keep their players (wheter monthly paying or not) entertained for the longest duration possible, suddenly every game has to have respawns?
How does playing a role have anything to do with respawning creatures and since when is not having respawns considered a flaw?

As SheaOhmsford pointed out, Devil May Cry cannot be compared to Divinity. Furthermore, though there are no actual levels in DMC, you do gain more power throughout the game, so basically gaining levels and powering up your character are the same(Red Orbs=experience), so stating that everything is 'level 1' is just a load of crap.

RPG's are not about complete control, there will always be limits to what your character can do or achieve. And well, level 35 might be the maximum level to achieve, but does WoW or GW (which both feature respawns) don't have a maximum level too? What is it that you want then? The possibility to go into infinite, or am I missing something?

I can understand some people like grinding, but that doesn't mean every game has to be a grindfest.

I think Divinity 2 is an RPG and sure does benefit from NOT having respawns. Why?

1. There is no fast travel or teleportation in this game, neither can you fly as dragon everywehere. Because of this, it would be very annoying if you had to fight the same mobs over and over again. Imagine yourself becoming stronger and the mobs staying the same, you'd be butchering them, which is no fun. But if the mobs level-up just like the player, you will have the feeling your character is not progressing at all.
2. The enemies are pretty hard to defeat, especially in the beginning and for inexperienced players. I am happy they stay dead when I defeat them. It would be horrible if they were to respawn again somewhere I had already passed. This also gives me the feeling I am actually doing something in a REAL world. Respawning mobs is just so... lame... and MMO or multiplayer RPG-ish.
3. By NOT having respawning mobs, the player is more stimulated to do quests and solve them for the extra XP. It would be silly if you could reach the maximum level or max out your favorite skill by killing a mob over and over again. Now you have to explore the world, take risks and fight new enemies. That's so much more fun than just holding down the attack button, right?

Because Divinity 2 is like this and not like, say Sacred 2, it's a different type of game. A different type of RPG. Considering games ranging from Fallout 3, World of Warcraft, Sacred 2 and Borderlands are called RPG, I wouldn't see why Divinity 2 isn't one!

I don't think the debate here is whether it is or isn't classified as some sort of RPG. I think everyone, with the few obvious exceptions, would say that it is a damn fine RPG. It is whether it should have respawns and whether the lack thereof makes it less of an RPG. To the latter notion, I say it is a wildly ludicrous and unsubstantiated claim.

yep there is no real need for respawn in this type of rpg but they cut make thatmobs at last higher lvls on fjords :P

So your argument is that if its hack and slash its not a "real" rpg. Isn't that convenient. For you.
You know I dont like strawberry ice cream. I wasnt aware that I could just declare that its not really ice cream. Thats damn convenient.

No idea why you would think that. The majority of people responding on this thread are rabidly defending the lack of respawns. The flood of people who did a fanboy bum rush on my first post is further evidence.




Im sorry but you cant just arbitrarily declare that a feature many people would find desirable is not needed just because YOU wouldnt find it desirable. The fact is that having respawns doesnt cramp anyones playstyle. Not having them does. People like "getting to max level and being uber". Implying that it is dumb and unimportant is, again, entirely your own belief which is in opposition to a likely vast group of people who passed this game over, possibly because of the lack of this "unnecessary feature.



Limited number is not relative. Limited is limited. If i want to fight the final boss before reaching the max level attainable, you wouldnt have any problem with that. But suddenly if i want to level beyond that and make the final boss "easier" then OMG thats so wrong and unnecessary? What?



Yes i compare this game to half life, and i explain exactly how they are almost perfect mirrors of eachother in terms of progression through the story, and character power relative to the environment. The fact that you cant or wont grasp my point is alarming.



Yes why not? That is what im asking. Why not? Why is that bad? Why is allowing me to level as far as i would like to go a bad thing?



Oh please. I know how this shakes down. I name 5 or 10 rpgs and then you launch into an explanation about how they arent really RPG's. Who are you to put me to the question? How about YOU name for ME 10 RPGs that DONT have respawns? That way i get to tell YOU why they suck.




ROFL i mention that ive played DMC before and suddenly you know all about my "gaming heritage"? What are you, a child? Because thats the sort of assumption only a child would jump to. Chances are i was playing video games before you were capable of forming words, so my "gaming heritage" is the heritage of gaming itself.



And heres more self serving nonsense about how "hack and slash" titles arent real RPG's. Such a convenient rule to make when having this argument. Heres a hint. If its got a protagonist that you control, a story that you progress through, and a system designed to interact with the environment and scale your own ability to effect said envirnment based on your participation, ITS AN RPG. Cutting out games from the genre because you dont like them is complete logical fail.



Was that supposed to be witty?

I'm going to agree with shadowdef and nonsensei. Everyone has their own way of playing games. Some ppl search every nook and cranny while some just blow through the game at their own pace. Me, personally, i like to grind. It feels good to be able to go back and level up. Especially in this game, where, if you don't save often, u can see that gameover screen within seconds.

Is it that bad if i want to make my game a little less stressful by leveling up? Even on Easy i get destroyed. So when i can't go back to grind, it makes the game feel like if you do something wrong u have to start over. This leads to stress which, is the reason why i'll be soon returning this game to GameStop.

I'm glad there's no level scaling like Oblivion but having no respawn is just like nonsensei says. It makes the game feel less of an rpg and more of a linear fps.

The majority of people responding on this thread are rabidly defending the lack of respawns. The flood of people who did a fanboy bum rush on my first post is further evidence.

So calling the game a total trash waste of money (expletives deleted) is apparently reasoned discourse, but if you disagree that respawning is absolutely essential, then that is 'rabid'?
There was no fanboy bum rush on your first post. There was a fair bit of reaction to your rather strange notions of what an RPG is, but that had nothing to be with being a fanboy, as it had noting at all to do with the game or Larian.


Im sorry but you cant just arbitrarily declare that a feature many people would find desirable is not needed just because YOU wouldnt find it desirable.

Likewise, you can not declare a feature necessary because you find it desirable.


The fact is that having respawns doesnt cramp anyones playstyle.

So how do I avoid having to kill the same opponents over and over when they respawn along my path back to town?
How do I get any sense of accomplishment clearing an area when 5 minutes later there is no difference from when I started?
How do I become immersed in the gameworld when nothing I do makes a difference?

Limited respawns, such as along the borders of cleared areas, could fit into the gameworld, but the game was designed from the start without respawn. The whole risk-reward dynamic of mindreading, enemy balancing, game pacing, etc, would all be different if Larian had decided to introduce respawning opponents. It can not be tacked on as an after-thought.


If its got a protagonist that you control, a story that you progress through, and a system designed to interact with the environment and scale your own ability to effect said envirnment based on your participation, ITS AN RPG.

Don't forget that if it has an ending or doesn't have respawning opponents then it can not be an RPG.

!!!SPOILER!!!

Surprise, there is actually a spot where you can grind endlessly for exp, and the mobs don't stop. (Well, for the most part.) The quest in aleroth chapel where you have to defend Zandalor for 60 seconds. I went from just below level 30 to level 33 before I finally got lucky enough and the enemies backed him into a corner where they couldn't him anymore. Oh well, that's that I get for going pure melee I suppose.

Wrong, do the math, I did. And because they disagree with your notions of respawns and what an RPG is, they are simply fanboys, and their opinions are not relevant?




Raze beat me to this with the most succinct answer, however, I didn't do any such thing. Simply stated a rational justification for why the devs didn't implement such a system, and offered alternative venues to seek such gratification.




You missed the point entirely, when is enough, enough? Maybe there isn't for you, but even WoW has "endgame" level max. Just because you can grind endessly, and some would say mindlessly, there is still a limit to how far you can go. If you wanted to argue there should be DLC or expansions, then I'll certainly buy that argument. The point of this game is to reach the ultimate goal of defeating the final boss, with many subplots mixed in.




RPG's, we're talking RPG's here. Action or otherwise...check the gamesites, halflife is labeled a FPS.




Bad? No. Unrealistic? Yes.




Because we would digress into what an RPG really is, which you and others have already done. I didn't say that your list would suck, I challenged you to come up with a list to prove me and the "fanboys" wrong, which you obviously can't.




Because you jump to name and compare non-RPG's...doesn't take freshman level psychology to figure that one out. Also, I was there when JFK was shot, and remember it, so unless you were playing on supercomputers that had the prcessing power of my wristwatch, I doubt you were playing computer games when I was a tot.



All that means is that plenty of games have RPG elements, but that doesn't make that aspect the true allure of the game, or a TRUE RPG. If so, then a lot of smart folks have wasted time and money by developing and marketing games as FPS, strategy, sims, shooters, etc. Kind of like your ice cream analogy...they are ALL ice cream, just different flavors of ice cream...this one is just your strawberry.




Nope, spirited debate is all good and it passes the time on a boring day at work.

nonsensei hack and slahs is not real rpg. hack and slash is hack and slash u want see real rpg go play baldurs gate . in rpg game u actually got good exp for questing and u can solve problems in another way than killing every one hack and slash = diablo titan quest DS sacred . rpg = morrowind baldurs planescape etc . the diferecens are quitte esential if u dont see it ur simply n00b and is end of story .

also nonsensei the fiat cinquacento is a car and aston martin db9 is a car, but word "car" for fiat is != the word "car" for db9 even if both got 4 wheels

Raze answers that correctly.




Well in this statement its crystal clear you doesnt know anything beyond YOUR own playing style and your own gaming preference. It DOES cramp a lot. If you would read previous posts you should know why many of us dislike respawn. If you cant live without it, I think there are many other games you may find suitable for your liking - especially MMORPGs.




Why should be boss fight easy anyway? Bosses are bigger creeps? Maybe its designed this way. You have complete control on a way you will develop your character, which skills, weapons or playing style you will prefer and master. I think its more than enough to beat a boss. If you cant beat him, you do something wrong or you cant play RPG games and develop your character - but then dont blame a game. If you have problem with difficulty - be honest and write it and dont try to cover your problems under a mess of so-called-arguments.

For me boss is a creature/demon or unnatural being beyond human possibilities. To think that you can relatively easily level up and be stronger than a boss is IMHO weird and a little naive. If you are mortal human, you can be Achilles or king Arthur but you will never be Basilisk, Fafnir or Surt. If the creature is mortal then there is some way to kill it and be a hero but it shouldnt be easy fight with opponent on YOUR = human level.


BTW inteligent gamer doesnt need respawn. He is able to explore, to develop, to choose sides in a story, to learn and to master a hero/skills/tactics. Designers give him all tools to win a game and enjoy it. Frankly - gamestyle "to be a superhero you need only to kill more stupid and easy respawning mobs" is for noobs. It may seem a little harsh comment but that it is. Note - if you like respawn, ok. But why should you need it in EVERY RPG (or "RPG")? And dont tell us you cant learn and be better...




He didnt say its bad. He just clearly pointed out that this idea is ridiculous and doesnt have any sense. ALL games (and not only computer games) are somewhat limited. Only in your fantasies you can do anything. It doesnt make difference if the game would allow you to go max. to 35th or 50th or 150th level. There are always some limits and it has NOTHING to do with quality of the game, with the story, the world, dialogs, level of interaction, quality of quests, fight system etc.





Really? In arcade games or FPS shooters you also progress through some story, you have slight level of interaction with environment (jump, take things, open doors...), you can scale your ability... so for you arcade or FPS games are RPGs? Many genres can be described as RPG this way. So it seems more like a mess and not description of a genre. I assume its desperate try to make some argument over your core idea "there must be respawn and I cant live without it". Man, give us a break...

Theyre fanboys because they are defending the fact that a feature is missing from a game and twisting a negative into a positive. It doesnt have anything to do with disagreeing with me. A measured analysis of this situation would make a normal person wonder why Larian didnt include an option for respawn so that both playstyles could accommodated. Instead people just say "its fine you arent a real RPG fan". Thats being a fanboy.




Then ill post Raze's comment here and respond to it.



Why would killing opponents be something you would want to avoid?
How does having to clear an area again deny your sense of accomplishment for clearing it the first time? Wouldnt that just mean your are satisfied with having cleared it twice? Double the satisfaction.
How does having to kill some enemies again equate to not having any effect on the game world? Thats an overreaction.

I disagree that respawns cannot be tacked on as an after thought. The solution to mind reading is simple: instead of consuming XP just provide a limited number of times it can be used. As for the enemy balancing and game pacing, yes that would be upset. Thats the idea. Some people like to earn that effect. Thats the point of respawns.





Enough is enough when I say its enough. Not when some developer says its enough. I want to be able to level as much as i please and then decide on my own that its time to finish the game. At my leisure. Lets be honest here. Capping the number of available enemies in the game is tantamount to controlling how long players can play. its really just a step short of simply teleporting you to the final boss when the last enemy dies and forcing the final confrontation on you, then closing the program. I want control over when that happens, and its not an unreasonable request for $49.95.




I'm talking about how progression through the game world reminds me of playing an FPS. You're stuck on a locomotive heading to the final destination at a tightly controlled pace. there might be a few forks in the road but they all lead to the same place at the same time. The fact that this "RPG" reminds me of an "FPS" the most, despite the more cosmetic differences, is the point. That's not a good thing.




How is it unrealistic? Plenty of games have done it.



Such a predictable response to which the obvious answer is that you didn't provide a list either, so i guess you obviously cant, too.



Actually it apparently does take a freshmen level of psychology to figure that one out because you were wrong. I'm naming games that this game reminds me of. The fact that not a single one of them is an RPG is telling.

And yes, of course, once the question of age comes up suddenly everyone is a geriatric. Im 27. I played a hand-me-down atari when i was a kid, and have been gaming ever since. Saying that my gaming history originates from Devil May Cry is dumb.



Says you! Again, youre defining what an RPG is and then declaring that games which dont meet YOUR definition are not true RPGS, but merely have "RPG elements". Again, the self serving rule emerges.

Diablo is not RPG game Diablo is H$S game jesus NONSENSEI u dont see the diferences?
most important is ANY H&S got MULTIPLAYER and is why thre is respawn
same nwn got respawn in multiplayer servers for same reazon
look on DAO there is NO RESPAWN and wtf is DAO suffers by this NO ITS NOT
the real problem wih d2 is bad balanced lvls of mobs or should i say lack fo big lvl mobs so your whole lvling point is from ass , becoue on lvl 30+ every mob can suck your sword or whatever so what a point in power lvling yourse;f anyway ? if u like to get lvl 30 on lvl 3 mobs and than by whole game run around and kill everything on one shoot get some trainers imho is good for noobs like u or use some cheats cuz game is "to hard" without brainless grinding whatever . this game is freeking to easy without power lvling posibilities so how bad this was be if thre is mob rspawn ? even worst

Theyre fanboys because they are defending the fact that a feature is missing from a game and twisting a negative into a positive.

So it is not just a matter of opinion, your position is absolutely correct, and no reasonable person could possibly disagree. The mere act of disagreeing proves a person unreasonable, or a liar, obviously motivated to come up with some desperate excuses because they are a fanboy.

So why was it that Larian, with complete control over the game design, somehow failed to implement this essential feature? I think there are a few more of those desperate excuses if you read the introduction in the manual...


It doesnt have anything to do with disagreeing with me.

Must be nice that your preferred playstyle matches up so well with the universal perfect truth of RPG game design.


A measured analysis of this situation would make a normal person wonder why Larian didnt include an option for respawn so that both playstyles could accommodated.

Perhaps they don't like respaning opponents? Maybe they didn't want to make a Diablo clone?
There are a lot of options they could have included, but didn't. Why not add an option for party members, with lots of interaction and personal history/quests, etc, for people who prefer to play party based games? Or is it ridiculous to compare a feature to a universal gaming truth such as respawning?


Instead people just say "its fine you arent a real RPG fan". Thats being a fanboy.

Nobody is arguing you can't like the style of games that you like, or that that isn't a perfectly valid position. It is not the only valid position, however.


Why would killing opponents be something you would want to avoid?

It can be very boring and repetitive, IMO, when you have to keep doing it over and over.
I have played games with respaning opponents, or random encounters, and have taken advantage of that to level when I've had trouble, or to get enough gold for new equipment, etc. However, the games in question were designed with that dynamic from the start. Sometimes there was enough to the game that respawning didn't bother me, sometimes I had to take breaks from the hack and slash, and a couple times I've just become too bored with it to continue. It is not up to the game to conform to my expectations, though.


How does having to clear an area again deny your sense of accomplishment for clearing it the first time?

By making it completely pointless.

Wouldnt that just mean your are satisfied with having cleared it twice? Double the satisfaction.

Doing pointless things over and over for diminishing rewards isn't my idea of unlimited satisfaction.


How does having to kill some enemies again equate to not having any effect on the game world? Thats an overreaction.

By definition, if you do something, and some short time later everything is back where it started, you had no effect. You have a little extra experience and loot, but the world itself is unchanged.


Enough is enough when I say its enough. Not when some developer says its enough. I want to be able to level as much as i please and then decide on my own that its time to finish the game.

Are there any games that meet that criteria? Even MMOs designed to be played for years have level caps. I don't know of any game that uses levels without at least a technical level cap.


Capping the number of available enemies in the game is tantamount to controlling how long players can play.

You can play as long as you wish. There is some a practical limit on how long any particular instance of the game can be played, but that is true of almost every game. RPGs as a group tend to have the longest playtime, but I think very few would meet your infinite playtime requirement.

*grabs a chair and some popcorn*

I love a good debate. The combatants are even using proper grammar and punctuation: a rare theat!

Don't mind me, do continue but keep the name calling to a minimum.

Theyre fanboys because they are defending the fact that a feature is missing from a game and twisting a negative into a positive. It doesnt have anything to do with disagreeing with me. A measured analysis of this situation would make a normal person wonder why Larian didnt include an option for respawn so that both playstyles could accommodated. Instead people just say "its fine you arent a real RPG fan". Thats being a fanboy.

Firstly, there were many posts against respawms that were first posts or less than 10 posts. Hardly counts as fanboys in my book. Secondly, Larian probably did a MEASURED ANALYSIS of their resources, coupled with their vision of the game, and concluded respawns couldn't/shouldn't need to be implemented. Besides, how would they accomodate your request...a on/off toggle? I can't even imagine the technical problems or dev resources that option would spawn or eat up.

Why would killing opponents be something you would want to avoid?
How does having to clear an area again deny your sense of accomplishment for clearing it the first time? Wouldnt that just mean your are satisfied with having cleared it twice? Double the satisfaction.

How does having to kill some enemies again equate to not having any effect on the game world? Thats an overreaction.

I drove from Florida to New York and back over the holidays...I was damn glad I got through it and I sure don't want to do it again, UNLESS I HAVE TO! No more of an overreaction than his point.

I disagree that respawns cannot be tacked on as an after thought. The solution to mind reading is simple: instead of consuming XP just provide a limited number of times it can be used. As for the enemy balancing and game pacing, yes that would be upset. Thats the idea. Some people like to earn that effect. Thats the point of respawns.

Come again? What in the hell does one have to do with the other? As for being tacked on later, that's accomplished more readily with DLC and expansion packs...make the game bigger/longer AND have more enemies to fight.

Enough is enough when I say its enough. Not when some developer says its enough. I want to be able to level as much as i please and then decide on my own that its time to finish the game. At my leisure. Lets be honest here. Capping the number of available enemies in the game is tantamount to controlling how long players can play. its really just a step short of simply teleporting you to the final boss when the last enemy dies and forcing the final confrontation on you, then closing the program. I want control over when that happens, and its not an unreasonable request for $49.95.

You could play this or any other game 24/7/365 if you so choose. As others have said, EVERY game has it's limits...there might be different restrictions, but they exist. Diablo 2, WoW, Civ4, Baldur's Gate, Sacred, the list goes on...but at some point, you accomplish all there is to accomplish and you either start over, or you move on to another game. That's debatable for MP and MMO, but IMO, those are the main two types of games that you can come close to what you are describing.

I'm talking about how progression through the game world reminds me of playing an FPS. You're stuck on a locomotive heading to the final destination at a tightly controlled pace. there might be a few forks in the road but they all lead to the same place at the same time. The fact that this "RPG" reminds me of an "FPS" the most, despite the more cosmetic differences, is the point. That's not a good thing.

Oblivion, NWN, Fallout, KOTOR, Starcraft, Gothic, Div2...examples of less or more linearity, but all have the same thing in common: no matter what path you choose, or is chosen for you, the game was designed to have a final battle. It's the nature of the game...


How is it unrealistic? Plenty of games have done it.

Lists, man, lists...I ain't from Missouri, but show me anyway.

Such a predictable response to which the obvious answer is that you didn't provide a list either, so i guess you obviously cant, too.

"face palm"...don't work that way, I challenged first, it's called put up or shut up. From a favorite movie, "I triple-dog dare you".

Actually it apparently does take a freshmen level of psychology to figure that one out because you were wrong. I'm naming games that this game reminds me of. The fact that not a single one of them is an RPG is telling.

And yes, of course, once the question of age comes up suddenly everyone is a geriatric. Im 27. I played a hand-me-down atari when i was a kid, and have been gaming ever since. Saying that my gaming history originates from Devil May Cry is dumb.

Isn't that where that game came from where that little white dot keeps respawning, so you can hit it over and over? It's all so clear now...

Says you! Again, youre defining what an RPG is and then declaring that games which dont meet YOUR definition are not true RPGS, but merely have "RPG elements". Again, the self serving rule emerges.

Nope, call me a sheep...I'm very unoriginal and follow the herd, if you will, that pretty much say the same thing. Larian, Bioware, Bethesda, Interplay, Black Isle, etc., you know, the ones that develop and call their games RPG's.

*takes a chair and joins Greever in amazed contemplation*

So, are you two sharing popcorn during your 10 minute lunch break, or is the second patch done and you have lots of time to lounge around???

Take your time and enjoy. Its clear that combatants are mostly higher levels and are skilled in more areas, right? They are able to dodge jabbing of their opponents and strikes them with Hammers of Ultimate True. They can smash enemy ideas using spells like Tornado of Arguments and fill up paragraphs with rain of fire like dragons attacking Fortress of Epic Developer's Fails. What a battle...

You developers work for many months to bring us some visually epic battles in a game. And we fans can do the same using mere - words.




You must be glad that you have such inspiring and amazing fan community here, dont you?
Well, although we are amazing (of course noone can deny that, we have Hammers...) I must admit that there is something lacking a bit. This debate still needs a little better font and few effects like flashing words to be as much stunning and awe-inspiring as watching Avatar...

I created this account just so I could thank the OP for saving me some cash.

I was researching this game by browsing the forums, as I do every time Im considering a new game.

And thanks to this thread being so close to the top he has saved me a lot of time and some cash. I watched the trailers and game-play vids and thought this was so cool I need it.
Then I come here and a few posts in I find out that enemies do not re-spawn? I agree WTF! is that?

whats the point of trying to build a character if the enemies that you want revenge on and can't wait to show how powerful youve become, never come back for a rematch?

I'm going to continue through the forums and find out if the character at least can carry on into the next new game you start. I would imagine that you could at least load your same character into a new game and continue building it, but I figured enemy re-spawn was a given too.

That and a horrible combat system that's severely broken are the main reasons I couldn't stick with gothic 3.

anyway thanks again to the OP.

Awesome. Thanks for wasting your time and our time.

Like i said to some others, i wouldn't rely too much on what other players say. If you're a little skeptical then rent it and see how you like it. It's a great game in my opinion (even though i despise the ending).

First of all where I am its 2am , so pretty much anything I do when I get home from work this late is a waste of time, so no worries there.

Second of all to the poster that actually had something to add to the thread rather than his post count.

Im not going to rule it out yet, still taking a look at opinions on other features the game does have. From what Ive see of it, it would still be worth playing even knowing its ending may not be so good.
Though now that I know the ending may not be up to snuff, it may actually lessen the blow when/if I find out how it ends. Just seems like when ever you find that next GREAT game that could pull you in, its missing that 1 thing that you really like in a game. Then you find one that has that 1 thing and it missing all the supporting elements that it needs to make that 1 thing great lol

Just a little disappointed I guess, been a while since theres been what I consider a really good rpg style game, and for a minute it looked like I had found it. Definitely going to be one of those rent before buy kinda deals though.

Well im a sucker when it comes to rpgs lol. When it comes to rpgs i just buy them and play them (good bad or ugly lol). This game, for me, i was mostly a time filler so i could pre-occupy myself until the games that i want real badly come out. It did serve it's purpose well . The game has some upswings like how many sidequests it has, which is alot (this would consume alot of your time in Div 2) and of course being a dragon, which was a nice feature.

I think it is more a case of people not liking the ending than the ending not being good (of course some people may mot like it and think it is not good). I know enough of the ending (because a few people don't know or care enough to use spoiler tags) to know why many people don't like it, but I'll have to finish the game to decide if it is a good ending, or not.

Fact is: there are more people who DON'T like the ending than there are people who DO like the ending. I think that's even normal, as it is completely human to hope for good endings, to be winning.

That's what I think. We're not used to a 'bad ending'.

For me it is not a waste of time... IF I enjoy a game (like D II or DD) I can play it for months!

And I know the ending (and I was disappointed on that moment) of D II, but I play it all over again!!
I give it more time, more chances! And be honest, I love the "female hero" much more! Her moves are nicer and more fun to look at! Hmmmm ...

But the most important thing is:
I enjoy to play it And I take Divinity II - Ego Draconis like it IS!

I wouldn't be so quick to judge based on only a very vocal minority on a forum.

To use a very extreme position, role-playing games, in which the out-played role merely consists of killing enemies of any kind,

are to me rather war-playing games, than "role"-playing games.

In a recent theory I developed, the accent, the focus of a game might be a hint towards the culture of the people who are fond with it.

In a - that's how I call it - warrior-based culture, the focus of a game would NOT be diplomacvy, as diplomacy would be considered "weak" and "unstrong".

Such a culture would have the focus on the strength and the brute force of a warrior being able to kill enemies of any kind.



Action-RPGs of any kind do have the focus on killing. Killing is the ultimate solution of a conflicht the character has with any opposed character.

Killing also eleminated to need to negotiate; as negotiation would be considered "slow" and "energy-consuming" by those who believe that simple killing is "fast" and "swift" and doesn't need too much energy - and no thinking at all. Just good reflexes, and nothing but. All kind of thought goes into the process of finding weaknesses of the opposing characters and exploiting them.

From that standpoint, Action-RPGs might well be a mirror of our current culture. People prefer Action-movies, especially some of those where a warrior-type hero kills quite a lot of enemies to fulfull what he wants (there are almost never women doing that) like Rambo, for example.

The TV shows us in almost every show that violence is the method to solve conflicts people prefer - not some "slow, clumsy" negotiation.

Which is why hardcore Action-RPG players would - as I assume - absolutely HATE PS:T, because in PS:T, Wisdom and Talking is king !

In a warrior-culture, talking is nonsense, and killing and violence are considered as being "truthful" for a "real warrior".

That's why games based on riddle-solving like Advbenture games are not high in the reputation of Action-RPG players : They find it exhausting to think too much about simple "riddles". Destroying the source of the riddle would be a far better and a far quicker method.


Now, in our current culture, Action-RPG spread; other types of RPGs are not produced in the same quantity. It is Action-RPGs, which sell IN MASSES, and so it is Action-RPGs which money-greedy companies want to produce and make profits with.

These are the times when the masses speak, and they obviously don't want to use their brains, to put it cynically.

alrik adventure games are mostly stupid cuz all ridlles are retardet . no one ever in real life thinks that piece of gum puted in to laser will make lasser blow up and open doors.
most of riddles in 99 % of adventure games are simply unreal and u cannot rly use your inteligence to solve them u need find out what creazy idea to solve that problem was guy who make game .. thre are of course adventure games that use real life logic like post mortem i rly love that game and most of riddles are from reeal life so u can use your real life knowledge to solve them .. pls try shizm or reah 2 most retardet adventure games ever i sit like2 hours and try to find out how to open gate nd wtf ? u need turn off 4 taps in freeking 4 diferent spots of city .. how the hell that works ?? i have no idea but this kind of riddles are in this 2 games , and in most of other adventure games. so not only action rpg players dislake adventure games

In the past I play many adventuregames! The "Myst"-set I found very good, except the last one of that set... But Myst I and Riven (Myst II) I found the best of that set ...

But I play now almost only RPG because it has a much better replayability than adventures (they have not or a little bit - after years not playing them!).
Puzzlegames I play sometimes too, for me also addictive!

I love the puzzles set in Divinity II, but the most of them are for me easy. But it's well-balanced in D II .. its is an RPG, not a puzzlegame or adventure. But I'm happy I can use my brains and not only hack and slash!

they could have made it accessable with the control panel, diffculty slider

Well, maybe I play different adventure games than you do.

My favourite one is still Indy Jones and the Fate of Atlantis - everything is totally logical there.

Second : Monkey Island.

Third ... Well, maybe Simon the Sorcerer. Action-RPGs don't have many kjokes, but this one definitively has !

Keepsake has also become a favourite of mine - partly, because it comes with a function to solve everything your bran cannot solve.


To me,Action-RPGs are stupid and retarded. No-one would be able to run through such a mass of monsters like I've seen it in Sacred 1 and in Blizzard's D2. No-one would survive, if this was real.

And THEN you say that "most of riddles in 99 % of adventure games are simply unreal" ???
You say this, although RPGs aren't much more real either ? An arrow that splits itself, magically isn't very logical, imho. To battle your way through tons of monsters without your blade becoming worn-out and your armor battered isn't realistic either.

I rather battle with my BRAIN instead of my mouse-attached fingers.

Now that we know that your number 2 favorite game is Monkey Island, please go play with the children

Me ??? As a 40-year old guy ? Are you insane ???

How old are you, by the way ?

Did you just insult Monkey Island?
If so, I think it's you who needs to go out for recess.

I see your point, but I dont think that people appraise so much "warrior-based" culture. For example recent war in Iraq ignited big protestations over the world. Problem is that people are uneducated and dont care. They seek "big fun", easy money, no limits - so they dont respect anything. Diplomacy needs very different direction - inteligent and patient person able to learn, communicate with people rised from different cultures,, make own opinions based on facts (!!! - nowadays many people think shit based on primitive black/white logic and accept stupid "opinions" from mainstream media etc. - just like sheeps), respect your partner - if you are egoistic, nobody will listen to you and your diplomacy attempt will end in ruin. So "diplomacy" is too difficult and time-consuming for them. Simple-minded and egoistic person knows usually only easy methods like force, lies... And from that standpoint, ARPGs seems to mirror their needs - players can be superheroes (to please an ego), can have many items, gameplay is easy (silly) so it matches their level of thinking etc. (Note - ARPGs can be easy relax also for inteligent/older persons, so I'm not saying that ALL players are stupid)

Now they will beat me for this opinion .

But on the other hand - there are situations when "force" is better solution than "words". Not everyone is reasonable and will listen to words...

PROBLEMS:
NO RESPAWN IN SHOPS!!!
NO ENEMY RESPAWNS!!!
NO GRAPHIC ENGINE OPTIMIZATION!!!
NO BLOCK !!!
Everything ealse is PERFECT!!!.... JUST FIX THE ABOVE!!!

Lack of enemy respawns is not a problem that needs fixing, it is a design choice. Same for active blocking. Merchant inventories do respawn; try leveling or completing a couple quests (perhaps a time based reset would help in situations where that is impractical).
Any graphics engine optimizations would be good, though.

Holy crap...after reading the first page and realizing that most people had no idea what they are talking about (for instance relating respawns to mmorpgs is retarded, many rpgs have respawns ie the whole final fantasy series, the whole star ocean series, the fable games etc etc) I decided to just skip to the end. =) Now in this game respawns everywhere would have been horrible. However, I do think there should be some dungeons/side areas where mobs do respawn to give the game a higher replay value as for how it is, it has NO replay value whatsoever. One big thing that many people like about rpgs is that they are games you can keep going back to, however seeing as there are no respawns anywhere and after seeing the ending (I wont go into detail on this) I will never pick up this game again. I actually feel like I should be refunded for buying it. For anyone new, I would not advise buying this game at all as it is not a purchaser, but a renter. (For consoles, if you have pc wait until it drops to 10 bucks.)

In the game "Loki:Heroes of Mythology" you can choose between which type of game you want to begin OR continue. You can play it where the mobs remain dead as you progress through the game OR you can at from any save game, "re-set" the mobs and play the game either way you choose.

To be honest, with the sheer mob density I'm very glad that I can play through and they stay dead. That said, I think having the choice is a nice feature for an ARPG game to have.

Since I haven't been able to play D2 yet (hopefully soon) I'll have to wait and see...but I'm sure there was a design reason for this.

But the idea of certain locations that re-spawn sounds like an interesting idea

ps - I believe 2 Worlds works the same way, as in the mobs stay dead...well at least after you kill their astral spirits after you kill the the 1st time lol

Seems like ARPGs tend to have re-spawns and more conventional RPG games don't.

Regards

What you say may be true for the other games you list but it's not necessarily true for Oblivion. Oblivion does have a main quest and if one chooses to do that main quest it does have a final battle. But the player does not have to do the main quest.

In addition, all of Bethesda's games are designed to continue after the player has completed the main quest (if the player even chooses to do the main quest). I have been playing Oblivion pretty consistently since release and have only done the main quest once, on my first playthrough. I am planning to start another game within the next few weeks and when I do I don't plan to touch the main quest. There is plenty to do after - or instead of - the final battle.

Garbage or not Garbage : Fallout 3 :
http://www.crispygamer.com/features...really-like-fallout-3-all-that-much.aspx

Bethesda & BioWare games will never receive scores under 9.0 from "professional" reviewers. They're backed by too large a money train for this.

Becaose they are good

Yeah, Bethesda and Bioware make the largest most memorable games in the genre

Count me among those that vastly prefer games without respawns, BTW. It was my main beef with Sacred 2: I got sooooo tired of killing those bloody kobolds!

As for whether a "real" RPG should have respawns or not, there's no answer to that. Some do, some don't. It's not a defining characteristic of the genre at all, certainly. It's like the inventory issue: does a suit of armor take up more inventory space than a potion, or not? Do you have fixed space, or a weight limit, or unlimited inventory? There are good games that do it each of these ways, and none of them are more or less RPGs than the others, though everybody has their preference. Personally I prefer an unilimited inventory, in which case size doesn't matter. I do understand the other points of view, though.

A game developer has a lot of decisions to make. The respawn thing is one of them. Every decision is gonna please some players and not others. If any one feature is absolutely critical to you as a player, it's your responsibility to find out ahead of time which games have it and only buy those *shrug*. If you don't do that, nobody to blame but yourself.

It's just ignorant to claim that it's a vital feature for an RPG, or for that matter that everybody ought to share your point of view about it. That shows not just your ignorance of the range of RPGs, but also your ignorance of game communities :p

And yes, I'm another of those who has been playing CRPGs as long as there WERE any... seen it all... so please don't try the "u noob" argument

you're definitly not a 'n00b'. Pleased to meet you, actually. Well spoken.

Now for respawning. It's indeed a choice. RPG's like Divinity II are about doing quests. That means that the player has to take on a quest, go looking around for the whereabouts of the quest-objective, and then locate the questgiver again. Some quests go beyond just these two, and involve 'intermediate' persons or quest-items. Having to kill the very same enemy twice or even more during a single quest, that's not the way to go IMHO.

The devs just have to make the game big enough, so that there are plenty of enemies to be slain :p

This "respawn" problem was on Two worlds aswell, but with two worlds you could ACTUALLY go online and kill monsters on there with friends and they ACTUALLY respawned when you logged off and then back on.. this would be a great idea for this game but i guess we will have to wait and see what they do.

Respawning monsters hurts immersion for many players, including myself. Grinding is not fun, and whoever considers it fun should get his head checked.

There. I presented better arguments than op with no effort.

This. Nicely put. Short and to the point

there is a place in the game where u can farm unlimitedly not so good exp/min but still u will have kinda big area where there is respawns which provide exp every time u kill them.


didnt read the whole thread so i dont know if this has been already said here or fixed in the game patch but it was there before patch atleast(havent been there after patched the game).

if u want to know where, ask me by email: leripe@gmail.com, since it devs may fix it if its announced here in upcoming patches.

I just couldnt resist answering the OP here.I actually dont have any Divinity series of games but im an RPGer since 1980 so yeah i qualify to give an opinion.Respawns a la MMO or diablo style are the realm of mindless grinding to achieve max level.I used to think MMOs were the future of gaming.LMAO!Yeah right.After 7 years of straight MMO play i can tell you this simply isnt the case.Ive gone back to RPGs because of the utter stupidity in most MMOs nowadays.Its refreshing to see story again.Its refreshing not to deal with-"WTF i pwned you noob!"LOL!Limited spawns that make sense,like random spawns while traveling from one area to another,are good for RPGs.Walking into an area to kill respawning rats or skeletons over and over and over...no thank you.
In conclusion i will be adding the divinity series to my shopping cart for the future.

Hello, All!

This has been an interesting read, both for the history/information, and to see how wonderfully public schools have been performing (*you're out buzzer*).

1. We each have our opinions on each game we play. That's a fact, isn't it? So what follows is
2. "Not all opinions will be the same." That does not give permission to come ranting and raving throwing a temper tantrum like a 2-year-old who has a limited vocabulary of "adult words."

3. The game developers have many decisions to make, more than any of us (even hardcore gamers, unless they have a programming background or something) will ever realize. They must base final decisions on what is best for their goal ("A great game"). There are so many steps. . . kind of like quests, if you think about it (Larian Worker #1-- My job is to create the environment. Okay. . . hmmm.... taps out a few calculations into the computer... Weeee, a nice bedroom scene! Oh, wait, that's not the game we're making. Okay, let me try this again. *Enter Larian Worker #2* Yo, #1, have you got a draft of the environment yet? I've gotta throw these beasts in there and see if the coloring will stand out or make them invisible? #1: Uh... I have a draft, but I don't think you want to put beasts in it. #2 Well, I need something. Send me what you have. . . *about a 2 minute break* NUMBER ONE!!! You gotta check this out! I made a chicken, goblin, and fanged bunny in that enviro and looked what happened!" *leaves to your imagination*

Now, getting back on track, depending on how many people are working on a particular part of the game, how many aspects of the game they cover, then how everything interacts, then the tweaking when something doesn't interact correctly. . . that's a lot of work. So, they get close to the desired goal, but there's still a few turds that wouldn't flush-- they have to hack and slash out of the game whatever does not fit within that world. Kind of like book writing-- a good book can easily get you to have "willing suspension of disbelief" (which I think is the purpose of RPG-- get me out of my life for a bit, eh?). But everything in the story has to fit into the world. Just because a game carries a genre "RPG" does not obligate it to include every known usage of all RPG's. Setting limits is hard, but it must be done to achieve the final goal (Divine Divinity 3???--- can't wait for it!).

How far out of life do you want to get when you play? Your tastes (likely) will not match up with every game in the genre. Shoot, even my hubby and I have disagreements over RPGs (especially inventory size). That's called "life." You try something out, you may like it or you may not. You may want to put "it" on the shelf to try again later, and sell or give it away. The choice is yours. You are the one putting down money on the game-- research a little on it before dropping half-a-century on a game! You can learn even from the "negative" reviews, if it happens that the reviewer has similar interests to yours, and learn from positive reviews. Don't just look at the "score"-- read what the author has taken the time to write and then make a decision.

If it turns out you don't like, in this case, the game, then offer constructive criticism (which pretty much leaves out words like "Fuck" and "shit")-- In another thread a Larian rep actually asked for further help from the willing! How cool is that? But running around brandishing foul language is like a toddler with poop on his hands complaining (Toddler, you shouldn't put your hands down your diaper. In fact, I think it's time we potty train you!). It stinks, it's messy, and doesn't do anyone any favors. However, pointing to the soap could be helpful in this instance.

To the lurking Larians eating popcorn. . . does it have some butter on it? Mind sharing some with me? Oh... do I have brown on my nose now? Oops!

I've played Ego Draconis through, and while the ending wasn't what I expected, I can't say it 'ruined' the game. . . it's just making me look forward to the next one, because now I've really got an axe (warhammer, sword. . .take your pick) to grind!!

I, for one, appreciated the realism in this game (like the Affair, the egos, the shopkeeps who try to swindle you, that a bloody white rabbit can kick my butt). But best of all, Larian's absolute best features, in my opinion, are their humor and Kirill's music! Humor and music and good story writing. . . they've got that down the best! None of this "and now for the pre-quel." or "Remember Boss-O, well he's back and meaner than ever!" Um. . . how'd he come back? Was my playing not good enough?

Back to the positive note to end, though. Music A++, Main storyline A+, Side stories A, Music A+++

Great job, Larian (particularly workers #1 and #2-- got a great visual from that imaginary setting).

Sincerely,

~~CierraShore
p.s.
I hope my writing came out clearly-- I accidentally took my sleepy med too early. OOoops. Off to bed!

Nice to read it
I always, before I ever played one game or use any other computer program, I'm wondering about "the makers" of all these programs (and making a game is also programming with C++ etc etc, isn't it?) !!

I'm sure to make a game, the team of developers have spend many and many hours for making one game! Much more hours than 1 player spend on playing the whole game.
But "how" much hours spend a game developer on 1 game??? I'm curious!

That's one of the reasons I play a game full of patient and give each game many chances before I "destroy" them forever (put them away or sell them).
But I buy only a game if "something" got my attention when I see the game in a store or on internet! My feeling can be wrong sometimes, but most of the time I buy a game and have a lot of fun with it! But I buy sometimes a game (or other stupide things in my life I didn't use or only use 1 time ) I didn't like! That's life!

'No respwaning enmies means the following HUGE downfalls

1: NO LOOT FARMIN
2: LIMITED LOOT
3: LIMITED GOLD
4: NO GOING BACK TO OWN ENIMES WITH YOUR NEW WEAPON
5: LIMITED LEVELS

And a lot of other downfalls i cant think of atm. I cant even begain to imagine what the DEVS were thinking about when they decided to make there no respwans. This basicly limits this game to Just following a path of Mobs laid out forceing you to move forward to gain levels. You cant call this game a RPG............. they should relabel it to an action adventure. If i could get my money back i would'




Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight

You've never played DD or BD before, have you? None of those have respawning enemies!
Though there was a glitch in DD that made me kill some enemies over and over again, getting loot and exp from it too. I took over the units so they'd fight for me, went out of their sight, came back and suddenly they were my enemies again. LOVELY :P
I did this a whole hour against the dragon riders or something.

The points you raised also clarifies why the developers thought no respanwing enemies were neccesary.
1-3 No loot farming, you can just farm farm farm and buy the best equipement available and own pretty much everything with it, right? Potions? I'll just buy a shitload, I've got plenty of money!

4 Yeah, shame.

5 Limited levels? I don't see the difference between levels that spawn enemies over and over again and levels that just spawn them once o.O


So what's the outcome? The developers didn't include respawning so they had more control over the difficulty in the game, or at least... That's what I'm guessing. If it's too hard, you have to focus elsewhere first. You can't just farm until you outlevel every mob by 5 and finish every area in a breeze.

Also what's the bonus of non-respawning enemies. More believeability of the scenario and a sense of achiement after clearing an area of mobs, there's finally peace again.

Why do you wanna farm in the first place? Is this an MMORPG? Hell no.

They should make at least animals to respawn