This one is great. Battles were great. Certainly long enough. Think I spent over 50 hours here. Voice acting is funny. Skill tree was solid. Customizing weapons was certainly good. This is a huge game. Nobody talks about it though. So weird.

WOW, how come this game doesn't get more attention?

Hopefully the upcoming games Dragon Commander and Divinity: Original Sin don't have the same problem.


Welcome to the forum.

So it's a marketing thing

That's going to be tough to rely on word of mouth mostly. These games need to be super solid.

Larian is self publishing their upcoming games, so marketing is at least going to get more care than from publishers of their previous games.

Let's hope so; here in Spain is little known, despite the effort put on the translation, and receiving great reviews from the press (specially the DKS binomy).

Is just sad that mediocre RPG games with tons of marketing get more attention than Divinity... anyway, I'm eager to see next titles ^_^

Yea, I actually came across this game at a flea market that bought a surplus from a Game Stop that caught fire. The disc didn't work so I researched the game and after reading several reviews I tracked a copy down at a Game Stop that was 40 miles outside of my city. They only had one copy and it was the only one I could find near me so I went on a road trip and I'm glad everyday that I did! Awesome game! More people should know about it!

This is the world we live in though.

I have always considered myself a fan of RPGs since playing Gothic over 10 years ago. However, up until now, the only RPGs that I have really liked have been the Gothic or Risen games (Witcher series is well decent also). The problem with RPG games is that practically all the AAA titles come from two mega studios, Bethesda and Bioware. I personally have found any Bethesda or Bioware RPG to be utter fkn borefests completely packed with borefest content, with Disneyland characters and gaylord dialogue.

These mainstream blockbuster games are put together in a well funded production line environment and therefore come out technically brilliant (especially in recent years), but completely lacking in personality.

RPGs that come from smaller developers (who preferably aren't American) go through a much more haphazard development phase, but one which allows for much more inspired input from those working on the project.

Whilst the games from the US based mega-studios tend to run very well, create good first impressions, and gain very good reviews from the gaming media (no doubt largely due to thier huge marketing budgets), these games for me, are ultimately souless (Sykrim being amongst the worst) empty games that fail to capture my interest or inspire my imagination.....at least not beyond the sometimes stunning artwork that can be seen in a game like Skyrim.

Games from small independent developers, tend to be released full of bugs and technical problems. This has been true of every Piranha Bytes game except Risen and from what i can see, is also true of Larian's Divinity 2. Therefore, these games can make bad first impressions and with the lack of a big marketing budget, the gaming media seems more inclined to dish out brutal reviews of these games. However, it is the RPGs from the smaller developers that contain the attention to detial, inspired ideas, and other idiosyncracies that at least in my case, has the effect of getting me drawn into the game.

After spending a day or two being disgusted by the general performance and control scheme in Divinity 2, having only played 20 minutes of the game, I can already sense that this game has a certain charm about it and get the feeling that I could end up really enjoying it....despite the fact the game makes me use the fkn mouse instead of keyboard to select dialogue options such as 'Fortfahren' or 'Beenden' (German version)

Small RPG developers are more likely to produce rough diamonds that get slaughtered by the mainstream critics and therefore largely ignored.

Mega RPG developers produced giant glittering polished pigs that get heaps of praise from the gaming media and go on to sell millions of copies.

the game makes me use the fkn mouse instead of keyboard to select dialogue options such as 'Fortfahren' or 'Beenden'

Can't you still just hit '1', even if the option isn't numbered?

Yes, but the dialogue stops in between every sentence, and to continue, the cursor must be moved over 'continue' and clicked when the word lights up. Also when a conversation ends, the same thing applies.

Sloppy stuff.....even if the 1.03 patch fixes it.....the fact that there aint a keyboard option to begin with is sloppy.

Edit: Oh, I see what you mean, I shall give that a try.

Edit 2: Yup it works. Thank god for that. Just as well I am prone to having a little whinge now and then or I might have gotten through the whole game without knowing that.

Yes I've noticed that.

I started playing games back in the PS1 days. Games were still smart then. Lately, especially when it comes to D&D action rpgs, it feels like a drought. Skyrim was a disappointment to me.

There are several games I've enjoyed that get little attention. Some of them were darn near masterpieces imo. But yeah marketing has a huge impact. Not much I can do except tell a few people. They did enjoy DKS and were surprised as well.

If I was rich I wouldn't mind supporting gifted developers in marketing. Other than that I don't have an answer for getting the word out.

Thing is though, whilst I admit that I have spent way longer playing games like Mass Effect or Skyrim than they really deserved to be played (i.e. around 20 hours) as a result of good first impressions and the hype making me think that the magic will kick in if I just have a little more patience and give the game a little more time, ultimately I am forced to admit to myself that despite the high production values and sometimes stunning eye candy in these games, that I am bored out my fkn brains playing these souless empty uninspiring games.

But of course, I know that I am very much in the minority with statements like 'Skyrim, the biggest most overrated borefest that video gaming has ever seen'.

What is wrong with other people though that they cannot either see this or admit this to themselves? Is it the case that the sheer wieght of hype and the pressure of what the world tells an individual to think is great, can really overcome the fundamentals of what genuinely entertains and stimulates the individuals mind? I personally know people who have spent over 100 hours on Skyrim before admitting to themselves that most of the time they have spent on the game, that they were bored out thier heads, despite telling everyone they knew how great a game Skyrim was etc.

Risen was pretty bugged on the Xbox 360 and a poor port too. That put me off purchasing Risen 2 (also along with the fact that the combat system was broken and could be exploited in Risen 1 and the combat in Risen 2 looked worst and the inclusion of QTE's is always a bad in an RPG - unless it's a pure action-RPG) which I heard was dumbed down anyway.

Most who like the Elder Scroll games only do because it's open world and casual (i.e you can just jump in and play it kinda like a Call of Duty game, indeed it's no surprise to me when I see CoD fans talking about Skyrim) or they're the original fans of the series.

Bioware RPG's are pretty good, if we're talking about Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights and Dragon Age: Origins. Mass Effect 1 and 2 are alright but the third was too dumbed down and restricted whilst Dragon Age 2 was similarly a rush job. In fact the only Bioware games I've thought have been truly outstanding have been Baldur's Gate 1&2, Neverwinter Nights and Dragon Age: Origins. Couldn't care for KoTOR or Jade Empire (which I thought was a horrible game).

If you're calling recent Bioware characters "Disney characters" then you clearly skipped everything about Loghain Mac Tir, Duncan, Zevran, The Architect, Justice, Morrigan and Leliana from Dragon Age: Origins who not only have some pretty grim backgrounds (Leliana was raped and served as an assassin to her lesbian lover who betrayed her, Duncan actually murdered a Grey Warden before he became one, lived a life of crime as a child and was originally going to kill King Calian for the "best interest" of the Grey Wardens, even during Origins he demonstrates questionable morals as he kills Ser Jory at your ritual pretty much telling you that you have no choice but the drink the darkspawn blood, it's either that or you fight him to the death, meanwhile Zevran grew up in a whorehouse, was tortured as part of his training and even tells you about the people he's killed not feeling any remorse for them and Loghain Mac Tir's character is morally questionable which gives him further depth never-mind the fact that Simon Templeman - aka Kain from Legacy of Kain - voices him) but aren't black or white with their morals too.

Disney characters on the other-hand are divided into the tragic and upright hero who has never done any wrong and the always humorous dark villain. Now honestly the only characters in the Divinity series who contain any sort of depth are Damien, The Divine One, Zandalor (who sucks in comparison to his Divine Dinity counterpart who had more of a personality), Bellegar, General Augustus and that's about it. There are other characters who are "good" and have well-written by dialogue but there's nothing about their personality or background which make them unique individuals who people will talk and debate over in years to come.

If you're applying the "Disney characters labels" to all Bioware games then I'd have to question if you even played BG with Sarevok and Jon Irenicus.

I couldn't care much for Mass Effect characters though. The only truly good one was Thane Krios IMO.

Divinity 2 is good but a diamond? Flawed diamond but nothing amazing. Divine Divinity is the amazing gem - which IMO - surpasses even Baldur's Gate. For me Larian has yet to top that. The atmosphere in that game was brilliant along with the freedom, role-playing, quests, story and characters who you developed relationships with over the course of the story.

In any case, Divinity games have always scored quite well. It's the lack of advertising which has led to it being something relating to more of a cult-following. This was the same for the Souls series (Demon's Souls and Dark Souls) before word of mouth got out about them making them huge successes. Dark Souls as a result had a better marketing campaign.

Yeah but Elder Scrolls are garbage. Capcom created a game in two years (Dragon's Dogma) which pretty much destroyed the entire Elder Scrolls series. Dragon's Dogma is how an action-open-world-RPG should be done (although the story and lack of meaningful choices are its major flaws alongside it being Capcom as the developer and publisher).

Meanwhile Dark Souls just feels so old-school. Exploration is actually dangerous and feels rewarding and the world is actually WORTH exploring and actions have permanent consequences (i.e killing someone, betraying a covenant, completing quest-lines). This combined with the fact that nothing holds your hand made Dark Souls my personal GOTY.

I think Dragon Age: origins was a great game. As good as Baldur's Gate and Neverwinter in my book. Also, I think Divine Divinity is the greatest gem of Larian; but, I also believe Divinity 2 is almost at its level (and certainly, vastly superior to Dragon Age 2 or the Mass Effect series; mediocre or bad games that got weird praise from media).

Maybe it's true that Divinity lacks character depth (at least, in terms of character depth as Origins, for example), but makes up for with a great sense of humour, and a unique approach to the plot and narrative. And with this, I would say that Larian gives something that other developers can't give: true personality and creativity in a videogame. Something that, unfortunatelly, its fading from the worn AAA market.

I liked Dragon Age origins. My only complaint was it seemed to have an unbalanced difficulty. There were places I had to switch to casual to survive. That dream world was one. Haven't played Dragon's Dogma yet.

It took a few hours for DKS to grab me. Once it did though I was very impressed. Mostly the game play but the humor sure helped.

@Demonic.

Perhaps 'Disney-esque' was just my way of saying I generally can't stand the dialogue between characters in any Bioware game. I wouldn't care if an RPG chracter supposedly came into being due to a soldier raping a young girl, who had a son, who then raped his mum, who had another son, who killed the father of the son, who raped the sons mum, who had the son by raping his mum. Games developers can push as hard a hitting background behind the character as they like, if they don't manage to make me care about the chracters or the sub plots and overarching stories in the game, then it is all Disney as far as i am concerned. Dragon Age was every bit as stale and boring as Mass Effect was. To me, it was just Mass Effect in a fantasy setting (which ever game actually came first? I am not even motivated to find out). An RPG is not the same as a book. With an RPG, it is not so important how good or complex a story there is. What is important in an RPG is how the story is told and that involves engaging dialogue between characters that is also easy to digest, and most importantly, also pertains to the various tasks and activities involved with playing the game, thus being of direct interest to the gamer who is motivated towards finding a magic sword for example. A huge complex and 'heartbreaking' background that has no bearing on the things that actually have to be done in the game is superfluous and imo, damages the game. Bioware games are full of this sort of extensive 'filler material' that is totally irrelevant to the actual gameplay itself.

In a game like Risen or indeed Divinity II, the characters are actually all pretty simple with not a great deal of background behind any of them. But what the developers of those games do well (I play only on PC so cant speak for ugliness of console versions) is implement a bit of intrigue into the actual gameplay interactions between characters and factions, that are directly relevant to the flow and progress of the game.

Do you mean with this that you don't care about character background if developers don't manage to make you empathize with their creations? (I ask you this because english is not my language and I'm having trouble understanding this part)



I see this as two different styles in playing with narrative. I like both ^_^ I wish, though, that a bit of flavour is added to future characters in Divinity universe (note that I have said a bit; I don't want "deep" backgrounds for them)

What I mean is, that in Bioware games (Mass Effect for example), there is a huge amount of background information and dialogue between characters that doesn't really effect the gameplay. As a gamer playing an RPG, I have own set of interests and don't really give a crap about the hardships or background of some NPC in the game unless it is relevant to me.

For example, I couldnt give two craps whether an NPC was meant to be raped by her uncle or not, unless knowing this information meant that I could blackmail her uncle in order to obtain access to a restricted area, be given a big pile of gold or get my hands on a magic sword.

In the Bioware games, there is always far too much of this kind of bloat-info with no direct consequences on potential progress, rewards or pitfalls in the game....as if putting up with all the highly limited gameworlds and stupid invisible barriers werent enough.

I see, now I understand; thanks for clarifying ^_^

I think backgrounds and extra info about characters, history and such, could add a bit of flavour to the setting. I don't think this kind of content and the one that may be used to affect gameplay are mutually exclusive. But, at the end, everything depends in the general idea of the game -its identity, direction, or whichever name you wish to give.

And certainly, Bioware games tend to give insane amounts of background for almost everything, specially the latter titles. I agree with you: the contrast with gameplay limitations is irritating. Unfortunatelly, I see it as a consequence of the homogenization in the AAA industry. Nowadays, all producers want games to have almost every ingredient that made a blockbuster hit sales.

That is the way that all big media with big capital behind it has gone. The moneymen have thier tick sheet of what makes music, a game, or a film successful, and they comission the developers to deliver. Input from creative types is increasingly pushed to one side leaving very room for originality in the end product.

The best examples of this phenomena at work are with all the new mainstream music coming out that for a short while, almost succeeds in making you think you like the tune. This is because the artist (or the business people behind the artist) is using parts of rifts from 7-8 really good and well known popular music tracks from yesteryear, and just welding them together in the best way that their computer programs can fit, before getting some dancer to sing/mime to the end product which goes on to sell loads of copies to unsuspecting kids. But those who know better, know that the tune is pure and utter sh1t, find it almost unbearble to have to listen to it, and wonder in vain if a time will ever come again when modern music that gets airtime on MTV and the radio will ever again actually be any good.

Thing with music is that just one person can still work on a tune and produce an utterly brilliant piece of work at relatively low cost. Thier tune may never become well known, but that doesn't prevent it from being a masterpiece nontheless, that can stand shoulder to shoulder in every department with tracks from the likes of Pink Floyd, the Beatles, or pieces from Mozart. With modern computer games however, thier are huge costs involved in producing something that is up to the visual standards that we have come to expect, which is perhaps why truly immersive games bristling with individual character and personality that have come from 'indie' developers such as Larian, the end product looks and runs like something from ten years ago (NB*) and would really struggle to pass quality control of the big publishers and indeed that of the gaming masses, despite the brilliance that lies beneath its damn ugly skin.

NB* Actually, some games from over ten years ago look and run much better than Divinity 2. If you haven't already played it, check out Gothic 2 with a widescreen patch. Gothic 2, released in 2002, in most repsects looks like it was a generation ahead of Divinity 2 and is a blindingly good game to boot......perhaps my fav game of all time actually.

Mass Effect wasn't that great to me. I found the characters of Mass Effect 2 more interesting but learning everything about the characters and the universe wasn't really that relevant to me. Dragon Age: Origins on the other-hand was more interesting and dialogue wasn't sci-fi "mumbo jumbo" and was actually worth listening to.

Quite frankly a game featuring companions only talking about their tasks and nothing else leads to the characters being unbelievable and unrealistic especially in the case of Origins where you're travelling with these companions for months it makes sense that your character would get to know them. Nonetheless you can choose to ignore them and the only time they will talk to will concern plot-related subjects.



How else can they make you "connect" to the characters? If they only speak about the task at hand then we get the pawns from Dragon's Dogma which lack personality. You're not forced to speak to the companions anyway once you recruit them so if you wasted your time talking to them knowing you wouldn't like what they have to say then that's your own fault there.



What intrigue? The only character worth mentioning from Risen is the Inquistor. Now with Divinity 2 why should I even bother saving a world when the developers can't make me care for the characters? Even if there is some intrigue behind them how can that make me care when they are lacking in personality and history? Origins is one of the few RPG's that actually had me caring about the world and characters.

Maybe this is a bit out of place but... have you seen that Divinity 2 director's cut is the most sold game right now in GoG? In fact, it has been like that for two-three days ^_^

Not sure if this is good for Larian apart from the fact that with more games sold, more people knowing about them, but, at any rate, it is good news for me.

P.D.- Yes, I know this is due to the current GoG "pick and pay less" offer.

I am not going to get into a big boring and pointless argument over this. but we are arguing over semantics here.

When I speak of intrigue in Risen/Gothic, I mean the sort of intrigue that opens up in my own head due to being involved in the game. i.e. interactive intrigue, which by necessity, is a very simple form of intriuge. The intrigue in Origins on the other hand is intrigue that develops in the story i.e. passive intrigue. This sort of intrigue can be as simple or as complex as the games devs like, whether they manage to get the gamer to give a damn about any of it is another matter.

However, I cant really talk too much about Dragon Age as I decided it was sh1t very early on in proceedings. I can always tell very early on whether I am into a game or not. With Divinity 2, even in the training stage I felt that there was something very cool and alluring about this game (I posted as much on this website) and it turns out that I am absolutely loving the game. I never got that feeling with any Bioware or Bethesda game ever and trying to stick with these games and 'get into them', just leads to ever increasing boredom for me.

I guess it is a matter of personal taste but I find that the following general rules:

Euro RPG = good
US RPG = bad

tends to work well for me, notwithstanding the odd exception.

Dragon Age Origins is really a cool game. You just have to get pass that point where he drinks that blood (forget what it's called). It really shines after that. It's one of the few games where the voice acting didn't bore me. It was interesting.

Dragon Age 2 on the other hand didn't click with me.

I don't know what GoG is but any attention is better than nothing.

GOG is a digital distribution site, notable for their lack of DRM. GOG used to stand for Good Old Games, until they started listing more indie and new/newer games a year ago.

If you liked the Universe, you can read Robert Jordan "Wheel of Time", it's very close to be a copy of this universe (but no dragons).

@MatTheCat

I disagree of course but I've said my piece. Of course it's a matter of taste.

Bioware is a Canadian developer BTW and while I agree that there are some good RPG's from Euro developers right now in the past the best RPG's mostly came from the west (Ultima Series, Baldur's Gate series, Neverwinter Nights, Planescape, Fallout 1&2, Deus Ex, System Shock etc).

There are still a few good ones coming out from there but the western developers are now appealing to the mainstream audience sadly. In the end they suffer as proper RPG's fans (who form quite a large audience as those traditional RPG's launched on Kickstarter prove) look elsewhere, meanwhile the shooter/action fans these developers are trying to attract simply continue playing their shooter/action games which do the shooting/action better.

Dragon Age 2 wanted to be God of War but it failed. Mass Effect 3 wanted to be Gears of War but it failed. Skyrim is simply too dumbed down and lacks deep mechanics and tries to wow people with its visuals, open world and sandbox elements but remove that and you have a very shallow action-RPG with poor RP elements and a boring generic story.

If I want action then I'll go play Castlevania: Lords of Shadow and if I want shooting then I'll go play Halo. If these western developers want to attract fans of these games then they better start improving their gameplay. Action-RPG's like Dark Souls show that you can have good action combat gameplay and deep RPG mechanics and succeed. After Dark Souls all other action-RPG's just feel very lite in comparison especially with how they have sacrificed complexity and choice for accessibility for the ADHD gaming generation of today.

What the hell?! Did you ever read WOT?! Did you ever play Dragon Age?
I read them, I played them, and there is absolutely absolutely no link. It's like comparing Divinity to Harry Potter!

I enjoyed playing Dragon Age Origins, but now that I did so, it doesn't seem that great too me anymore. No replayability. As I look bach, I believe the Dragon Age universe too artificial.

No replayability? Are you serious? It was good for several playthroughs and more. Maybe it had no replayability for you but the general census was that it's generally a very replayable game if you enjoyed it.

The sequel on the other-hand wasn't very replyable due to lacking customization, no true consequences to choices and limited class customization with weapons specific to each class. Origins allowed you to create a dual wielding warrior, sword and shield warrior or two handed weapon warrior and you could even give them a bow and level them up in archery skills. DA2 on the other-hand only allowed you to create a sword/shield and two handed weapon warrior and the specifications didn't really add diversity, they were just extra skills.

Origins only starts lacking in replayability when you run out of ideas for class builds and go through every Origin having made every choice there is to make in different playthroughs.

I agree with you, but, I must say that Dragon Effect 2, despite being inferior to its predecessor in every aspect, it has more replay value than you might think: the customization is watered down, that's true, but there are some pretty heavy decisions to make: things that change entire sections and some tones/epilogues. The most noticeable one is Hawke's brother/sister fate -many things differ if you manage to bring him/her back from the Deep Roads alive and... "well". The outcomes in this matter surprised me because I thought it was pretty irrelevant. Apart from this, of course, it is the matter about allying with templars or mages (not that this is particularly well developed, but, hey, it is there, and changes the way the ending developes).

So, yes, I agree with you in everything except in that thing about big decisions; certainly, there are less climatic choices to be made, but there are some, and surprisnsingly, with some deep impact in plot developement.

Those "big" decisions only impact whether there is a character alive or not and doesn't really hold massive bearing on the plot. Your choice at the beginning with what faction you side with upon entering Kirkwall could have been designed where you actually play-through that year as either a mercenary or smuggler but instead your choice only leads to differences in dialogue and access to a different side quest.

Even if you bring Bethany/Carver back from the Deep Roads alive this has little bearing on the plot as they're taken away from your party anyway. Really only the choice of who you side with (Templars or Mages) is really plot significant.

In contrast Origins featured bigger decisions which not only impacted companions but the sub-plots as well. You had the Circle Tower sub-plot, the dwarven politics sub-plot, the elves and werewolves sub-plot, the Connor sub-plot and of course the Landsmeet. In fact you can actually abandon Redcliffe which leads to everyone in it dying. Fighting to defend it is an optional quest. In this instance I think Origins had more freedom too.

That's not to say I hated DA2. There were some neat features like the personality system. The companions were interesting and there were still enough choices to make it a role-playing game but the rush development shows and not just with the recycled areas. Consequences could have been more fleshed out as once promised and the city could have evolved based on our choices.

I was going to write down a long reply... but I don't think this is the place to do so

And both of us say more or less the same, anyway!

I played Skyrim for a week nonstop from the day it was released (11.11.11). From waking up to sleeping (less necessities such as taking a bath, cooking, eating, and depleting the drain), I played it for a week. I used my vacation leave just for this piece. Then it hit me. The game is just DAUGRS. Boring corpses. Used my unused vacation leave to travel lol.

I don't really see how skyrim is dumbed down gameplay wise compared to other elder scrolls game. They never really shined gameplay wise. Morrowind has a nice word, but my god the fights are painful.

Skyrim is more a platform for mod than an actual game. That said, there are a few interesting quests here and there hidden among the fetch quest.

Bethesda should take inspiration from fallout New Vegas. Now that was content, lots of interesting quests, interesting character build, and player agency.


Bioware used to make solid games, although their plots weren't necessarily brilliant, the gameplay used to be pretty nice. Now they've got some shitty writers that retcons things over and over, and they keep dumbing down the gameplay.

Mass effect claimed to be about player choice, but it's a total failure on that point.



Alpha protocol was much better in that regard.

Larian just has this skill, they make worlds with really a sense of wonders. They manages to be naive and serious, grim and humorous and the same time.


Dark souls is pretty overrated imo. Why ? Although there is some background if you track every item, the core story is really lacking. Unless you like conjectures without actual answer.

Gameplay wise, it's really most of the time a one trick pony. A decent shield and build will make the game smooth as a whole. What's irritating is how they don't explain core mechanics, and everyone has to wiki stuff.
The only good bosses are almost all in the Oolacile DLC.
The rest just have 1 or 2 method that make them incredibly easy, instead of a borefest otherwise.

Checkpoint and teleport placement ain't always ideal either.

Hi,

best remedy to forget all those games you do not find that great is ...
... start playing a Divnity game and all sorrow is gone for a loooong time !

For me it worked, YES !
I've played Skyrim - and other non-Divinity-games - , but after awhile I really must start playing again DD or DKS because I had again the urgent wish (and need) to see coming "a great fantastic fun to play game" my way, or better say: coming my Mind in !

1. Not really. The Prologue, Oscar, Frampt, Kaathe, Ingward and Gywndolin explain the entire premise and core story very clearly. The expansion adds to this greatly too furthering the whole "fire vs dark" aspect to the story.

The story is simply an example of quality over quantity and even the environment tells a story (i.e the big tree roots found in some areas can be traced down to Lost Izalith from whence all demons originated from after the chaos flame incident which you can learn about from Eingyi and Quelana as well as from items).

2. Well I've played through the game 7 times so far and have never had to "wiki" builds. If you were wiki'ing builds then it's only because you made a poor one by yourself. The game is meant to be challenging remember and not just in terms of combat but in terms of figuring out things for yourself.

If stuck with playing with a sword and shield then that explains why you got bored, it clearly weren't the build for you and you didn't want to experiment elsewhere preferring to stick to the generic "safe" PvP builds of the wiki.

My first character didn't even need a shield half-way into the game and stuck with two-handing a greatsword, I had another character two-handing an ultra-greatsword and then a dexterity-based warrior who used spear and ranged attacks. I could go on about my dual-wielding magic/pyromancy character or how each weapon has a different use, different attacks and different combos but then we'll be here all day.

You're entitled to your opinion as is anyone else but I can't see how you could call the bosses and combat of Dark Souls lame and yet hold Divinity 2 up as the perfect game out of all you listed. Divinity 2 was only good for its story, dialogue and role-playing. Gameplay wise it was a mess and the combat didn't know what it was. Divinity 2 can just about hold a flame to Divine Divinity and that's only due to the story, dialogue, quests and customization. You can also see the sacrifices made for the game to be on console.

Nope, the story really is lacking. You have hints and potential for a great story, but nothing is done with it. Frampt says you have to link fire, Kaathe says you need to bring a dark age.
No way to know the truth for sure, and no way to know the actual pros and cons of each choice.
Even the dark lord ending makes no sense, with frampt serving you after what happened.

There is nothing clear about it. And i don't see how the expansion expanded on flame vs dark. There was only dark in oolacile.


You never know why the war happened, why there is a giant raven helping you, or why the dragon won't reward you for killing ornstein but will reward you for giving scales.


The wiki is for the explanation of core mechanics like parry, the actual stats of gear, and the stat scaling.

My build was fine, I went with a shield because I wasn't going to gimp myself with the amount of dirty tricks the game has for you, and rolls are just make or break.
I wasn't going to exhaust all my endurance on a heavy weapon when ennemies can just dodge-phase through your sword.
Most weapons are honestly quite similar within a category, and there are some completely OP ones like katanas and such.



Ranged attacks are just a borefest tbh.


And I don't see where I said divinity 2 was perfect in that regard. It wasn't, but divinity 2 isn't overrated like dark souls. Combat was chaotic and sometimes became generic. Yes.


And again, almost all bosses are one trick ponies. Taurus, capra, hydras, gargoyle, quelaag, seath, etc.
Also no checkpoint before bosses.
When I've cleared an area, I don't want to redo it because I died before I could see the bosse's patern

Then that proves you didn't listen to much of the dialogue. Ingward (the wizard in New Londo) tells you that it was sacrificed (flooded) so that the Dark would be sealed away. From the Dark came the Darkwraiths who Ingward describes as "enemies to every living thing with a soul" meanwhile in the Artorias expansion you discover that the Oolacille residents "upturned the grave of primeval man" according to the Marvellous Chester as they were fooled by that "toothy serpent" most likely Kaathe who seemingly lives in The Abyss.

This "grave of primeval man" is inhabited by humanity sprites implying that humanity arose from The Abyss (thus supporting what Kaathe said that a human should be the "lord of dark") but the fact that the darkness of the Abyss has mutated all modern humans into monsters and destroyed Oolacille shows Frampt is telling the truth that the fire of the bonfire Gwyn linked going out would be disastrous for the world.

The war was a power-struggle. The gods arose and challenged the dragons for rulership. The Greek mythological influence throughout the game is strong. Gwyn himself even looks like Zeus. In Greek mythology the gods challenged the titans for rulership. Dark Souls just replaced the titans with dragons.

The story couldn't be anymore simpler to understand.

Asides from the main story there are also the sub-stories such Solaire's quest for his sun, Siegmeyer's quest for adventure, the cleric plot-line, Logan's quest for knowledge and his eventual descent into madness and of course the plot of the expansion: to rescue a princess.

Concerning the giant raven, why does there need to be an explanation? All it does is fly you to Lordran and the Everlasting Dragon is a hidden covenant where you level up in by giving dragon scales. None of the covenants are part of the story.

Without a shield you don't have to rely on rolls. You just rely on your armor and poise and you can still block without a shield or even parry. Enemies can't "dodge phrase" through your sword. Heavy weapons actually have an area effect. Even if it doesn't reach your enemy, swinging an ultra-greatsword near an enemy will stragger them.

Oh and those bosses? You listed the easiest ones. I was almost expecting Pinwheel to show up there. But yeah, what did you expect? Once you discover the weaknesses of the bosses and have a good build, they won't pose the same threat they once did.

that's your interpretation, which is quite different from most people theory (especially that Epic name bro unpleasant dude)

Heck, even the writer in an interview said it's obscure on purpose. He said he used to read western novels and he didn't understand half the things written, so he had to make asumptions. He tried to recreate that feeling for the game.

"Concerning the giant raven, why does there need to be an explanation"



Because he's important to the plot, otherwise, it can only be described as a plot device, like in Mass effect 2 when everyone goes on a shuttle so the normandy can be invaded
http://youtu.be/sah6gq5o1nQ?t=2m45s


" Dark Souls just replaced the titans with dragons."
That's an interpretation, not an actual explanation given.


Parry is a lame all or nothing mechanic, and is never explained in game.
Yes ennemies can dodge phase through your weapons, the same can happen for the player. I've been backstabbed while rolling, I've rolled through ennemy attacks, and same goes for my ennemies.

"Oh and those bosses? You listed the easiest ones. I was almost expecting Pinwheel to show up there. But yeah, what did you expect? Once you discover the weaknesses of the bosses and have a good build, they won't pose the same threat they once did. "

compare artorias and the guardian to most bosses of the original game. They require tighter timing as they are pretty fast and don't give you that much time to breath. Even with a decent build (though not super optimized one) and knowledge of pattern they pose at least a decent challenge. Most of dark souls bosses don't. They often have a "nuke" attack that can pown you but that's it. I don't remember many bosses as being actually difficult.
O&S are kind of random, they can get a good combo or just handicap each other.
Gwynn is pretty alright I guess. But besides him ? i don't remember any other as being challengin rather than a cheap one trick pony (well Sif had an interesting pattern but he ain't that hard )

I am making another run of this amazing game, for the first time in a couple of years. It will always be one of my alltime favorites. I have been lying in wait for new ones.

Sadly, I am no fan of isometric or turn based gameplay. I really felt they were onto a great thing with D2 DNS. However, it is their series and I wish them well.

Actually most now agree The Age of Fire is beneficial. I've already explained how the Age of Dark is "natural" for humanity just not the humans that live today. Either way the "Argument from numbers" counter is kinda weak when everything in the expansion speaks contrary to what most once believed.



Things like Solaire being the firstborn of Gwyn, origin of the gods, the Primordial Serpents, the lore of the kingdoms and of heroes are obscure but the main story is pretty much explained in full now thanks to the expansion.



You just admitted the writer made the things obscure on purpose. Clearly this is the case with the giant raven. There doesn't have to be a reason and he's not important to the plot. All he does is save you days/months of travelling by flying you from the undead asylum to Lordran. The fact that this giant raven just appears from nowhere and hands around with Kingseeker Frampt just opens up speculation of the player. That's what was meant.




It is an explanation. The gods wanted to take over. The prologue makes that clear.



Enemies don't roll and PvP is broken which is why I stick only with single-player but broken online mechanics hardly justify calling combat itself broken when it's not.



They're not supposed to be hard. Even the main director of the game says that Dark Souls is not meant to be a super hard game it's just meant to provide a challenging experience in vain of old traditional RPG's. Once you recognize the pattern of bosses and know their weaknesses they aren't meant to be hard to kill. Some people call Dark Souls a "3D Castlevania" because of the similarities with bosses (i.e recognizing the patterns before taking them out).

In the end that's what Dark Souls was: a solid traditional-action-RPG with well-performed combat mechanics made unique by it's way of telling story (whether it be of the world, history or characters) in an obscure manner and even using the environment itself in doing this as well as containing a fascinating world to explore and a variety of builds for the player to create while freely going through the game in a non-linear fashion.