Hello. I became interested in this game since there are too few decent RPGs being released this year. But by the looks of it, it reminds me more of Drakensang then Baldurs Gate type game, which is a setback for me. I never played first Divine Divinity and i'm not going to since reviews say that its far from being as serious in roleplaying as Bioware games. This game positions itself more seriously in FAQs, but screenshots of dialogues show only yes-no sentences and that worries me. So, have we finally found a rival studio to Bioware or will this game be just a Drakensang with better graphics? Any hints what to expect?

Don't be fooled by those reviews that say Divine Divinity is a Diablo clone. DD is awesome game and is realy worth playing.

Ok, I don't know what this Drakensang looks like but I can asure You that Divinity II will be one of those rare games with deep story and true RPG style.

Why this need to match up Divinity II with some other game? The game it will probably be most like (at least in terms of dialogue, which seems to be your measuring stick for an RPG) is Divinity I, which is fantastic.

It's unlike the Bioware games in terms of not having a party-based gameplay, other than that, everything I've read about Div II suggests nuanced dialogues, multiple quest outcomes, etc.

What's wrong with Drakensang anyways?

I highly doubt this game could even be a "challenge" to Bioware; just look at how international websites speak plenty and lengthy of Dragon Age and Mass effect 2, but rarely mention Divinity 2. Just stating a fact here (besides, I do not feel much sympathy for Bioware's marketing choices - geeze, have you ever visited the Dragon Age forums and saw how they mostly talk only about sex scenes and virtual romances? Feels like it's an erotic game, not an rpg.... ).

I too don't know much how Divinity 2's story and gameplay work out - I wish the developers showed us more of that. But I don't care, since in a few weeks the german version will be released, and supposedly some nice german player will post his or her impressions in these forums, and so I'll FINALLY know if Divinity 2 is more like Fable 2 or more like Oblivion or more like Neverwinter Nights 2 or else....

Drakensang is a nice game, what's wrong with it? My only big gripe about that game, is how you're basically forced to stay in a certain area for each chapter, which I found to be very limitating (for example, I wanted to go fetch the nazilooking elf dude as my henchman, but I found out I'm allowed to go in that area only by the end of the game. What's the point in that?)

@ Lun-Sei Sleidee: Nazilooking elf?? lol... never thought of that when I saw him

@ Topic: Well, most certainly Div 2 will have no great similarities with BG. It's not party-based, it's not DnD, it's not quasi-turn-based and of course it's not in isometric perspective.

Btw, this of course also applies to Drakensang, which was quite similar to BG in this respect(similar PnP system, party-based, quasi-turn-based etc).

If you look for games comparable to Div 2 I think you should expect a game more in line with Morrowind or Oblivion, but perhaps less sandbox-ish and with more humour, not so repetitive dialogues and some unique possibilities (turn into a dragon, mindread etc).

And I think you really cannot compare both companies at all. They are very different in scope, size and budget (presumably).

Well, my problem with Drakensang is that while design and graphics very nice, level of interaction with the world could be much better. I dont have problems with story-based gameplay that gets you kicked from one location to another without choice, but I usually expect that this will be compensated by ability to influence this story. And since i'm Neutral Evil in DnD terms I find it really hard to play a RPG in such strictly good alignment like Drakensang offered. This is general European cliche actually, only CD Project with Witcher managed to break it, German, Russian and other European RPG-makers usually stick to holy crusade theme which is annoying.
As for Oblivion, while I didnt get its style right away and finished it only a year after I bought it preferring to replay BG and KOTOR first, after that I found it quite replayable and enjoyable game. Just sticking to house and stuff collecting, exploring, can be fun as I discovered, but that's not what I look for in RPGs initially.

@Ech_Heftag
Mindread? Thats quite challenging to implement.

Ah, another one jumping on the wagon of Bioware's "dark & gritty" role-playing experience ?

Another fan of "the darker the fantasy setting, the better" games ?

No, I doubt that Div2 will be either like Drakensang OR Dragon age - personally, I position it in the middle, so to say.

From my standpoint of view, you're asking the wrong question.



Well, I have read several comments at RPGWatch, whoch calöled Drakensang "refreshing" BECAUSE of so many "dark & grotty" RPGs nowadays ... I have serious difficulties remembering ANY "good alignment" RPGs in recent times - EVERYTHING tends to be "the darker, the better" nowadays.

In fact, we are getting flooded by dark fantasy settings, and even TDE was influenced so much by dark settings (which you can't see in Drakensang, by the way), that there have been erupted serious discussions whether the current, dark-influenced TDE is still the original, "real" TDE setting ! (TDE = The Dark eye).

Me, I have gained the impression that there are currently 2 groups of people trying to push and influence games into their directions, no mstter whatr other people say :

- gamers who want MP above everything else
- gamers who want a "dark & gritty" game above everything else.

Nowadays, I find myself as being in the minority, because I want SP-only games with a fairy-tale like setting. EVERYINE believes that this is complete crap and must be thrown out immediately !

"The darker, the better" is the current fashion in gaming, and if you manage to tell me 5 role playing games with "good alignment" fairy-tale like settings, you'll get 10 virtual rubber points from me ...

Alrik, I still think you're exaggerating the spread of the grimness in games. It's just a trend in fantasy games just as it is in fantasy novels and movies, but it doesn't dominate. Not even close, I'd say.



Fable
Morrowind
Drakensang
Sacred
Arcanum
Divinity
Siege of Avalon
Silverfall

If by "good alignment" you mean playing good is the only option, then maybe none of these games qualify, and I'd be against that anyway. This is because I like choices and enough games have given me various choices on how to handle situations - it would take a really great game story for me to not care about removing choices.

From a new player (like yourself), i have to say that i am playing divine divinity for a week now and i'm loving it.


I only realized the game existed after seeing the D2 preview, and i realized on this forums that there were 2 games previous to this adventure RPG story.

I tried them (even though i had a very hard time geting them bought online) and i'm loving it.

Divine DIvinity is now a very aged game (of course since its very old), but honestly i dont care about the low-tech graphics because the story is AWESOME.

Dont be fooled by the reviews you might have seen (even though a couple reviews out there point Divine Divinity as one of the best RPGs ever). Try it out. DOnt expect a cutting edge graphic, but expect a very compeling story and an amazing soundtrack.


Trust me or not, but in 1 week i was made a fan. Heck, in 1 hour or less i was already a fan.

Good luck.

My exact thoughts About Divinity2, as far as I can see, it can't be compared to other games, it is more like a sum of other games good features plus dragon shifting but I'll wait to play it before making a final statement.

Alrik

I'm not that much into setting itself, I just need the ability to roleplay dark side. Jade Empire gave this posibility in a pretty much fairy-tale good-alignment setting. Perhaps you didnt noticed, but there is only 3 modern cRPGs that actually have substantial, balanced and very well written "dark path" - two KOTORs and to a lesser extent Jade Empire. Thats it. BG 2, while my fav game and having great variety of choices, still slightly biased in this matter - you could turn Viconia from evil but you could not turn Aerie to evil for example. Witcher is a gray moral RPG, so while its better than Drakensang its still not enough for me. And as for "good" RPGs and their variety, flixerflax said enough about this.

Sorry for quoting basically all of your post, but I must say I do agree with everything you stated here. To tell the truth, I like both the "dark and gritty" and the "colorful and shiny" (my eyes however tend to be naturally attracted to the latter of the two).
What I don't like, it's how the dark setting is becoming predominating, and not only in modern rpgs, but in modern videogames in general. I say it's a mirror of our current society and thus sadly it can't be avoided until the times change. It may not look like that, but we're not living in a good period.

To return to the moral choices thing: I like that, because I myself often don't know wether I'll make my character be good or evil during my gameplay. I tend to like playing Lawful Evil types of character, but anyway, I don't think it's just a matter of being given the choice to be evil (I can still accept that a videogame would rather prefer you play as the good hero/heroine), it's more of a matter of being given CHOICES. For example, Drakensang has no real choices apart from "do the quest/ refuse the quest"???

Level of interaction in Divine Divinity was a major plus about Divine Divinity, and you can be sure Larian won't drop that this time around.

I don't think the comparison with Dragon Age will stand. Of course Dragon Age will sell a lot more copies due to the giant marketing campaign they have, and BioWare (and to an extent, EA) are really gambling big on it. I'm sure Dragon Age will be a great game, and I'll definitely buy it once its price goes down.

As for Divinity 2, I am thinking it will sell better than the original Divine Divinity, but due to the limited marketing budget will not be a big name. The good thing here is that Larian made a classic with Divine Divinity, and they can confirm that status of being a "good games" company with Divinity 2.

I, for one, am a supporter of Bioware and I think they are the only big name out there that makes good RPG's. And I'll definitely support Larian as best I can in their quest to get to that level. I am convinced Divinity II will be a very enjoyable game.

However, as was said before, you can't really compare it to Drakensang or Dragon Age. Make it an improved Gothic 2. That's what I'd compare it to. Not sandboxy and boring like Oblivion, but not as storybound as your usual Bioware game.

My 5 cents: IMHO, it has a style of its own, is fun to play, offers quite a challenge, makes you smile from time to time, explores new ideas and tries to avoid repetitivity by continuously introducing new gameplay elements. There's a dearth of good rpgs out there, so if there's a few coming out (and I count among them), I'm a happy man. And while I haven't played the other ones, I do think it can stand the comparison with anything I've seen without blushing at all.

Lar

I realy think its impossible to please everyone out there. WHile some enjoy the open-world exploration mode/freedom, some might find it anoying and lose interest when overwhelmed with so much to do. Some love the fact you can be "evil" and everything you do influenciate later actions while some may like to be "directed" in the right way to play the game because its easier.


For example, i loved the big dungeouns in Divine Divinity, while i know a couple people that stoped playing as soon as they felt they were completely lost and had over 15 quests to do.

I can't stand a game like morrowind, while the same people that felt lost in DD enjoyed morrowind because it was more "eye candy". Anyways, its sometimes quite dificult to explain what makes you like a game and especialy an RPG.

There is a certain "je ne sais quoi" about larian, blizzard and bioware that makes me feel drawn into their games, and for some reason when i point out the best games of my live, almoust all are from them.

They are all diferent and shouldnt be compared imho, like D2 and dragon age also shouldnt be compared.

Personally, I think there's no way for those of us outside Larian to judge exactly what Divinity 2 is comparable to as a game because we can't actually play it, yet. And there's definitely no way anyone can compare it with Dragon Age as neither game has been released so I doubt a single person on Earth has played both.

As a side note, I have to say the 'dark path' in Jade Empire is absolute rubbish. It's 'nasty little schoolboy pulls wings off flies' mentality, not true evil at all. The attempt to pretend it's not evil is even MORE embarrassing. The only fault in an otherwise awesome game.

I'm going to add Overlord to the list of RPG games where you can play as good (Or evil - well, 'evil lite') as you want, BTW. And yes, it is an RPG - moreso than many that are billed as such.

I personally think Div II can't be compared at all to Drakensang, DA, or other PARTY based RPG's. Maybe from a storyline point of view, but I really think it is better compared to Diablo, the supposed King of single player, single-hero type games. But I truly think Divinity did it SOOOOO much better. Far better story and much better interaction with NPC's and more open environment. I think battle.net and multi-player carried Diablo far past what the game really was.

I really expect Div II to carry on the tradition of the first game. Some people just seem to have "it", and I think the Larian dev team proved they have "it" with Divinity. Now they have the experience to build on an awesome game and make the successor even better. Diablo 3 will probably sell way more games, but I would wager will be technically a much better game. Just my 2 cents.

The best single character RPG is The Witcher, IMO. Hands down win, no rivals. That's the level all others must compete with...

Hard to refute, but I still think it could be improved upon, and has been in some aspects in previous games. On one hand, the biggest thing in my mind, is the "role" in RPG. The ability to choose from multiple character classes, with different abilities, is crucial. And can't forget male or female...less important to some, more to others. It's one of the things I loved about DD and Diablo. Gameplay strategies had to be adjusted for each type of character build. You can't have this in Witcher, at least not nearly to the same degree. On the other hand, you certainly have choices that affect the story and gameplay, and the story is pretty much phenomenal.

All Divinity 2 needs, in my opinion, is to be different enough to not make everyone feel like they've played this before. I believe it will have no problem doing so though.

And I just want to add that I think people overestimate the value of the word "role" in RPG. It is not specified in role-playing game that the role has to be chosen by the player. When you'll play Call of Duty: Future Warfare 8, you'll be playing as private Joe or something. No matter how limited Joe's role is in that game, you'll still be playing his role, making it a role-playing game. When you play Diablo, you might play the role of a big barbarian that likes to run around and kill monsters. It's not very deep, but it's a role. My point is, the words "role-playing" mean nothing other than you're playing the role of someone other than yourself. But note that I do not dispute the use of RPG as the name for the genre of games that are about character development stat-wise and story-wise.

Absolutely agree. However, and people differ on this, I prefer to choose the role in the game I buy, not have the game choose the role for me. I have played the others and enjoyed them, just not as much. Plus, the latter reduces replay options IMO.

The Witcher, is, indeed, in my opinion also, the best RPG to come out since 2002(?) with the Neverwinter Nights/Gothic II/Morrowind triad. Drakensang came close, but it's kind of a different animal, that caters to different tastes, I think. I think Drakensang appeals more to hardcore roleplayers, while the Witcher offers up a much better story, realism and dialogue.

The Witcher, however, also has its flaws:

- Awful engine. Really, how good does your PC have to be to play a game? It's out two years ago, I have a PC and a laptop with good specs and graphics cards and I still can't play fluidly enough despite all the updates and the Enhanced Edition.
- Its stability and compatibility was horrid at first. Patches fixed this for the most part.
- lack of character creation & development. Sure, it's a tradeoff for an in-depth story with a great character, but it's still something I find quite important.
- Combat system. It was like a different take on Diablo. The combo's are nice, but it's still click for an attack. I wish they had made available a Legacy of Kain-type autoface all-keyboard OTS mode, because I really dislike the spot-hunting with mouse cursors, especially in my preferred OTS mode. Pause, scroll camera, wait for it, wait for it... click. That's very annoying.

I'm sure i'm forgetting a few minor gripes, but these were all very important things to me. In all honesty, The Witcher is still one of the titles I'd never want to get rid of, it is one of my favorite roleplaying games, but it's not the end-all to roleplaying games, it's not perfect, and it can be much improved upon.

In all honesty, while I usually dislike console games, I'm really curious about the console version of The Witcher... While they keep saying it's not an upgraded Witcher, I'm starting to believe that it really is.

I don't like The Witcher.... I don't like anything about it. As a first thing, the fact I'm playing a pre-made character who already has his own story and personality kinda makes me feel like it's a japanese rpg.
As a second thing, I got bored fast of the dialogues and all. I don't know why... I just never got into the story.
As a third thing, I saw there's some sort minigame in which you win cards (actually very nicely drawn, however) by sleeping with random hot babes?? That's a bit too cheesy for an rpg with a supposedly good plot!

The graphics, as I recall, were pretty ok, however.

On a side note, MY favorite rpg was Neverwinter Nights 2.... the main storyline was just very silly, but, the dialogues and party interaction were awesome.

Well I think the Witcher was pretty good, but by no means the best RPG ever.

For me, this title goes without debate to Wizardry 8. It has the most perfect skillsystem in any RPG (a mixture of level-ups and learning-by-doing, but without the exploitation problems of Bethesda's games), it has a HUGE amount of classes, a very good combat system (the only problem whatsoever was the somewhat tricky issue of aiming spells since you never know your initiative for sure) and it has 100% gameplay, no cutscenes, no interruptions etc.
The balancing was also very good, difficult, but doable.
It was basically an open-world and you could do whatever you want, like in Bethesda's games.
Then it has random enemy encounters, so no game was the same, which led to incredible replayability.

Last but not least it has quite decent graphics (of course outdated today) and still runs on Vista without any compatibility issues.

Well, I think games like Oblivion are just a giant sandbox. I liked Morrowind because it looked great and had very interesting content.. but Oblivion looked nowhere near as good as Morrowind (talking about the scenery, not the graphics). Even though I've never played Wizardry games, I never felt I'd like it, because of its focus on magic and it being first-person. In every game I play I try to go without magic, or as close to that as possible. And I need third person, I'm always annoyed by first-person games. I went third-person in Morrowind, even though that was not hard, what with the crosshair being in your main char's plexus and all. Being a combat-oriented character and having no worthwhile combat system (check out Drakensang's btw, THAT is a good RPG combat system), nor being able to see the character I'm controlling, would turn me off of a game. That is not to say it's not a good game, just that it wouldn't be my taste.

As for NWN2... what exactly did you like about that game? I'm a big fan of NWN, the original game is still one of my favorite games ever... And I think NWN2 was the most disappointing game ever. It suffered from the same engine problems as The Witcher, its graphics were awful, pathfinding was dreadful, the physics were silly, the conversation skills problem hadn't been addressed and was actually even made worse because it was a real party-based RPG, the AI was horrible, the voice acting was bleh, and the story was worse than the original one, etc. etc. The only thing I liked about NWN2 was the character creation system, save for the graphical problems with that. I would've preferred cartoony graphics over that. When Drakensang came out, it felt like what NWN2 should've been, because it had a solution for most of the big problems that NWN2 had, and there were loads. The only thing NWN2 did better was its character creation. That was it.

btw, my favorite RPG ever is Baldur's Gate II: Shadows of Amn

Well, I didn't think there was someone who actually thought the story of NWN was better than the story of NWN2. o_O; NWN's main plot was awful, in my opinion, it was like the basic story of a kid's cartoon. Now, a little kid maybe could find that plot vaguely interesting, but how about an adult?
NWN2's plot, while it too was very silly on its premise (chosen hero against generical big evil), managed to compensate it with the great dialogues and interactions. It's like the main plot there was merely the excuse for all the events, the emotions, the drama, etc.

I still agree about how the game was buggy, had bad AI, somewhat disappointing graphics, etc. etc. Everything, but the voiceacting - at last some of that voiceacting wasn't bad at all; I really liked Sand's and Bishop's a lot, for example.

And still, what can I say? With all its evident flaws, NWN2 really managed to involve me like no other rpg. I don't know how it managed to do so; maybe it was the good writing so that even the stupidest, useless and most pretentious thing a character would say, ended up seeming so charming.

And for some reason, it's really the only rpg in which above all others I felt I was playing MY own character. Morality, decisions, and all.

Drakensang doesn't come even close to that - it doesn't give you even the slightest superficial hint of choices, morality, decisions, or deep party interactions.

Role playing is more about being allowed to play the character the way you choose than being able to pick things like class/race/gender, etc (Though those are never bad!). You may be restricted to playing Geralt, but you do have some choice of just how good/bad you want him to be.

I'll agree that that side of things could definitely be a lot better, but in terms of being able to make real choices that affect plot, story and outcome - which should all be absolute requirements of any game marketed as an RPG - I don't recall seeing better.

Which I suppose is a rather long and rambly way of saying that I agree with you, mostly

You didn't mind the railway tracks? They frustrated the heck out of me! Too much 'go here, do this, then go there' with almost no room to do anything out of order. I hated that. HUGE improvement over the original (Completely execrable) NWN, I'll grant you, but I like to feel like I'm making the story, not that the story is making me.

***

Best cRPG of any type is still PS:T, IMO. Nothing since then has come close.

Funny you should mention this. I have played NWN2 plenty (started it plenty anyway ) but always with a good character. I got bored and loaded it again recently, playing a shady, somewhat evil rogue type, goning the route of aligning with Axle and Moire. I was completely disappointed that I was still eventually awarded the Keep by Nasher. Not having read any storylines in the past on websites or what have you(I try to never do that), I was mildly PO'd. I thought I'd have to storm it and take it over in pursuit of the overall goal, and fend off the Greycloaks for the rest of the game. My point is, I should have seen it coming, given the parallels (railroad tracks)I had already encountered.

With all that aside though, I consider it a pretty decent game though. It sucked when it first came out, as buggy as it was, but I find it very playable now and fairly enjoyable. With the community and developer mods, and D&D party based rules, it still offers tons of variations for replayability.

***


BG2 and PS:T are my all time faves.

D2 ist'n party-based RPG, but I wont mind if it would be similar to Drakensang by some degree.

IMHO Drakensang and Witcher are probably two best RPGs from last few years. Im not huge fan of big sandbox games like Oblivion (good by its own merits, but world is too shallow, bad dialogues etc.). Drakensang has some flaws - closing of old map areas, some NPCs are generic (but it can be said about almost all RPGs), level of realism and some quests could be better, some skills could have better and wider implementation. But it was still great game with some strong points - by far the best combat system of all RPGs nowadays (for example combat in Witcher or Gothic 3 was pretty bad), maybe best RPG system (from hardcore point of view), plenty of non-combat skills (its important for me, all Diablo clones allow to kill, explore and solve simple quests, RPGs should offer more), social skills to enhance dialogues, good story, some interesting NPCs and dialogues (it could be better, english translation has its flaws, but some NPCs and situations were great - and again, many RPGs could have better dialogues), little mix of heroic "bright" story and some darker themes (politics, corruption). And no stupid overstuffed and generic huge armors (expensive and mostly useless).

I could enjoy dark game. Fateful game where the world is heading to some terrible conflict or event. Game with troubled hero chased by his own decisions and... his own mistakes. Game when you will try to stop some madness, something out of reach - war between nations, eruption of huge volcano that would kill whole country etc. World driven by aloofness, greed, hate or lack of food - game when you will feel the value of life and value of virtues - to make friend, to cooperate, to be fairly-minded, to have responsibility, to build (not only kill), to know when to fight and when to talk. In dark world it should be hard for a hero to dont let it down in himself and other people.

For example hype about Dragon Age seems like anything but REAL dark game. It seems more like bloody "sandbox" to satisfy needs of mindless teenagers - they want to kill hordes of beasts, they want to have sex, they want to be big heroes (hero is mostly killer, no thinking about purpose of their deeds), they want to have super stuff anybody has (I am the best, i have super weapon +100), they want to see blood and naked girls (symbol of maturity?), they want to be bad guys because its "cool" (at least in games they can act freely and selfishly, no laws, no resposibility, no bonds to friends, no goal, no self-developing, everything is easy at hand etc.). Well its NOT dark world, its in fact childish fairy tale, only in dark setting.

So I agree with Alrik. All RPGs dont need dark setting. And if you want to do dark world, do it right, no virtual copy of fantasy cliché with more blood.


(Sorry for long post)


Note: Heroes should represent something, at least few virtues, right?

Really? I thought Drakensang actually did that better - they didn't have as many choices, but only because they left out the ones that really didn't matter. NWN2 was full of it, and, as the guy above me said, you can't really influence anything except your own abstract "alignment" thing. I've played good and evil characters, and even if you're a real dumb kind of superficial "torture ants" evil, it doesn't really change a thing. Let alone an evil person who hides his evil streak, you just magically become good, and if you do something evil then, everybody hates you. It's silly... Sure you have great character creation options, but you really can't be a profound character in NWN2. Definitely not as profound as, say, the Witcher.

Drakensang left no more options than NWN2 in that regard, but at least they were honest about it and didn't make a whole useless system around it. And you didn't HAVE to hoard conversation skills and charisma with your main char just to get people to do stuff. My favorite class is Ranger. Tough shit, buddy, you're not going to persuade a damn thing in the whole game, no matter who your party members are. Big fun.

Personally I thought NWN1's storyline was very simple, but it was fun and obvious. NWN2 is a mess. Its story is a mess, people keep trying to kill you when you're in the door of your own tavern, the party member's personal quests are annoying little distractions, the whole business with Shandra was transparant and boring... how many times did she get abducted again? How do the Githyanki get into the tavern and abduct her without anyone noticing, when I'm good enough to easily kill like 25 of them in one fight? They don't even have rogues, and I am a rogue. And you couldn't even pretend not to care about her, sheesh. Who believes a pint of fresh blood is the only way through a door? Blastglobes, anyone? Elanee wanted to sleep with me even though I never actually put her in my party after getting Qara. I got as much influence as possible with Khelgar but he still became a monk, because I was a Ranger... Grobnar keeps talking and singing to everyone's dismay, but he doesn't wanna sing me a song before my fight with whathisname? Sure knows how to pick his moments, that guy.

Meh, maybe it's just me. I never found a place in NWN2 that was anywhere near as interesting as Beorunna's well... or Port Llast.. or Luskan... in the original NWN. I thought Crossroad Keep could've been great... but it turned out not to be.

Why is no-one making colourful RPGs anymore ?

You know, the thing is is that this is true in every genre now-a-days, not even just RPGs.
Name just about any game that's come out recently that actually has an in-depth storyline and you can tell that in the end, regardless of a "karma" system, the backstory is terribly dark and evil.
I can name a few games right off the bat that aren't RPGs and count. inFamous and Resistance are two game series that fit into this greatly. You can play through the entire game and by the end, a terrible and dark thing will occur that just changes the entire mood into a negative one, with some plot "twist" like "Evil is coming" or just the entire game deals with evil all around.

A lot of games recently have this fake wedged in "karma" system where the player can be evil or good, but in the end it makes no difference. Nothing changes by the player being one way or the other.

It is refreshing to see new things where you can be truly good. That's a story-based thing that has left gaming in recent years. What ever happened to the games where in the end, you destroyed evil and the world was at peace? I haven't seen many of those games in the last 3-4 years.

Sorry, just thought I'd add that as I read this thread.

I'd preferred not to see such games till the end of my life.

Why not? Why does everything have to be so negative? We're playing a game, not real life. Yeah, real life may be negative often, but why does our entertainment stay that way when we have a choice? Well apparently we don't have a choice anymore. I can't think of a single game that's new (and not a remake) that is positive at the end. Where through all your hard work, something actually changed. That's what an RPG is supposed to be about. Where you work to get something done, and in the end it gets done. But in recent RPGs you work and work and work and get nothing in the end. You break through legions of enemies and reach the final boss/supposed ultimate evil, you kill him, just to learn he wasn't the actual evil and you have to wait for a sequel that may or may not come. It's too based on being led into a sequel game. I feel like in recent games, I'm being laughed at. I do all kinds of things in the game and in the end, I feel unaccomplished. I did nothing. Where in old games, you worked and worked and worked and all that hard work was for the better. In the end your job is done, and you don't learn of some cliche stitched on bigger evil at the end of the game. In the end of the old games, you got your job done. But not anymore.

My question is, why is everything negative? What happened to the good in things? It doesn't seem to exist anywhere.

I must admit, I like both types of games, depending on my mood. You can create a great game where the main character is a Paladin of extraordinary virtue and an equally great game where the main character is a low-down underhanded no-good scoundrel. Or you can create something where the main character could be either or neither at the player's choice.

Both approaches have a place at the table to me and I wouldn't want to see either vanish. Just as the Fantasy genre in literature has many divisions, all happily taking up shelf space, there is no reason why games cannot do the same.

I think the prototypical lawful good 'hero' is not of this time. Society is more complicated than that now, and thus, the anti-hero is easier for people to relate to. Of course, the best choice is someone who can be either side of the spectrum, or anywhere in the middle. But it's a precarious balance between freedom of choice and good story, because a good game needs both, but that's extremely difficult to attain.

If all of our heroes are cynical and deeply corrupt, what does that say about us and our society? Nothing good, surely...

Okay, this reveals a lot about the people who want to play evil ones.

Even in our hopelessy corrupted and criminalized real life society, where murder and deepest corruption of the very sould can be seen every day even in the smallest supermarket, even there do exist a handful of "truly good" people. They might not be met in the most evil, corrupted supermarket around the corner - except for a short, as timeless as possible sneak-through in order to buy a few foodstuffs - buying ! remember that ! Not even stealing or snatching away from the handbag of the old granny nearby ! - but they are still there, lurking around the corners, hiding fom the darkest, corrupted evil that is called Politicians !

I think I have seen a few of them during the last days.

Still, I think there is too much going on, you can't solve every problem without creating more, you can be as good as you want to and never really make your area good... It's like Batman.. He's a prototypical hero, but he is not enough to ever make Gotham City a peaceful, quiet city... That's a village mentality. So he just does what he can. That doesn't mean he's an anti-hero, it just means it's not just about good and evil. Good people do bad things all the time. And to really make a difference, you have to sometimes descend into cruelty and crime yourself. What is good, and what is evil? That is the question nowadays. Would you kill an innocent person if you knew for certain they would end up killing your family? And would that be right? Become a murderer or lose everything dear to you. It's the choices you make. That's far more realistic (and interesting, IMO) than some random group who kills and maims for pure pleasure.

I rather believve the Sheep-theory :

Mostr of all people are just sheep. They want no harm, just stand there and eat and feel good.

The evil ones are the wolves, and the shepherd hounds are the policemen.

According to your theory, something like the German volunteering firemen would not be possible, because no-one would want to do similar good deeds - and that all of the time. For the society as a whole.

volunteers usually do it for what they get out of it. To think you get nothing back for being a volunteer, that's an illusion. True selfless acts are exceedingly rare. I mean, I have been a volunteer for many things, all of those things were things I enjoy doing. Nobody goes volunteer-oil drilling.

Yes, but enjoying things is part of what makes humans human, I thought.

Your reply sounds as if you are trying very hard to play positive sides down.

meh, I just think the sheep and the wolves are equally neutral - they're just surviving the way they know how... The shepard dogs protect the weak, but every one of them is thinking about their own belly at any time.

Well, sheep can kill wolves, too, if they do it right.

true, but that only proves my point that they're no different from the wolves in terms of good/evil :p

Divine Divinity was a diablo 2 + baldur's gate 2 hybrid. And yes, it was one of the best cRPG's in the history.

Well, they dont want to play clear evil. Most of them just want to do everything they want. They dont understand what is "to be good". They understand only "what is good for me and no matter if its bad for you". Evil hero is symbol to do everything freely, selfishly, without restrictions - and thats what they want. Its a way to escape from a world.

Its not easy and obvious thing to listen to others, to be able to create and have bonds, to abide laws or traditions, to learn, to self-develop. You must be educated from childhood to accept it and learn how to communicate and live in society. Only children wants everything quickly, without work and without restrictions - and many things can be "restrictive" - to be kind to friends it also some kind of restriction and needs to be learnt. To abide the law in society, to respect older generation, to work hard to buy something expensive - its also some kind of restriction and need some work. If so many people are selfish or dumb and want everything easy and quickly (unfortunately "dumb" is really the right word), its logical that companies (TV, movie/game/music industry etc) present them everything in their way of thinking. Companies just wants to earn money. Evil heroes are only an example of this trend.

And yes, its definitely mindless... But what can we do about it? To create and support games that are fun but also have some "EDUCATIONAL VALUE"? Nothing obvious and distracting, but something deeper in characters, in a story and actions of NPCs that will grab you to think about it? Maybe...

Maybe its off topic, but definitely interesting topic.

To me, it's rather a question of what comes from within ?

I can force someone into folowing laws,
or I can try to ignite the conscience in someone.

And that - imho - has something to do with empathy.

Most games I know don't favour empathy and compassion anymore. The old Vitues of Ultima seem to be lost.

Instead, games like the action RPGs by Blizzard are so designed that they don't even imply compassion. all that counts is killing. Killing, nothing more, no mercy. Only killing vbrings one to the end goal, so to say.

One must step back and actually consider that this is NOT a real-life-lesson, but instead that of an in-game world. (With)In Blizzard's Action-RPGs it works very well, but how far is the ability to actually step back from all of this developed ? Especially in younger players ?

Because the deed of actual "stepping back" and being aware of the own self and its actions is imho quite a thing which must be learned ? Are *all* gamers able to "step back" and look at the own deeds made within a game, look at the emotions they felt meanwhile doing certain in-game deeds ?

I often hear the argument of rationalizing a game ... I believe that this is also a learning process which must be made.

One must actually learn to distinguish between the "game self" and the "real life self" !

I do hope that all gamers succeed with this learning lesson, but I fear that some don't as far enough as they should to, imho.

Of course. I didnt mean that you have "to force" someone to understand. There are more ways of learning and education. Some may be slight but have strong effect. Yes, ignite the conscience is the way.

I am pleased that you mentioned Ultima and virtues. Ultima series (Ultima Underworld) is one of my all time favourites. And system of virtues is perfect example of the thing I wrote about in previous post (that "educational value" that doesnt look educational at all). I seemed so interesting and deep to me (years ago when I played the game) that I had to think about the world and what means to be hero to inspire people, not just killer of monsters - and what is the "way to be avatar".