Larian Studios Forums Divinity - Original Sin Divinity Original Sin - Beta I hope you guys are doing MAJOR balance work...

To be honest, I fully expected the playable part we got during the alpha ( and now the beta ) to be the first chapter, but there would be a playable prologue or something before that. Looks like I was wrong, but who knows.
On the other hand, D2 kind of began the same way, you are thrown into a story were things are taken for granted. But, to be, again, honest, D2 didn't really master narration : the story was cool, but it wasn't very well told. Sometimes you felt like there had been big changes in the blink of an eye, during a fade to black or just a cut...

And indeed, I never could bring myself to really play BG2! After what we could call the prologue, in Irenicus' jails, we are suddenly left to our own device in that giant, GIANT, city. Sure we go and explore, but the sheer amount of unsorted things to do quickly got the best of me. What's worse is that, here again, you do not have a clue what "difficulty" the quest you decide to undertake actually are, and, while this is quite realistic, it can prove very frustrating too. Hence the fact the whole game ( or rather what I played of it ) felt like a giant trial and error, meaning "I spend a long time going from A to B, just to die because I'm not strong enough". In short I felt like I was wasting my time getting frustrated by a game I had no idea what I was supposed to do since everything was pre-determined. Same thing with Might and Magic X legacy, actually : it's frustrating when you are told "Can you do X" or "can you go there Y", when the game isn't allowing you to do it at this stage because you just aren't strong enough.
BG1 in that regard was more linear, but it really help securing a good flow in the story. BG2 had a lot of very well done quests and an incredible content overall, but alas, I never could bring myself to ... well, plan what I had to do.
In contrast, Elder Scrolls games enable the player to go wherever they want, which can also be very overwhelming and, most often, actually IS overwhelming, but since they ( recently ) adopted the autoscaling system, you won't be punished for going somewhere too dangerous. In previous ES, you could flee fights easily anyway since it was all realtime. And you could rely on your acrobatics skills ( I mean, with you mashing the Jump and Run shortcut ) to avoid encounters.

But I digress. We're talking D:OS, here, and I think that so far they succeeded in giving us both freedom and directions. It's far more easy to see when you're threading in dangerous/deadly territory. But we still have to see the full scope of the content. Maybe later on, the game will effectively turns out to be way more open and further zones will actually give you room for exploration, and planification...

But isn't that the case already? In Alpha builds, the gates were opened. Now they are closed and the guards warn you it may not be time for you to go out yet. I myself didn't interact with them, but to open the gates the first time, you have to go through a dialogue. So really, you have the "freedom" to rush outside town right off the bat, but if you do so, even after being warned, there really is no room to complain that you get destroyed or you don't know what to do... Don't you think? :p

Finding the Mage in the Library is not logical? What?

NPCs in BG2 didn't really pointed themselves out. You could go to the Inn and find 3 (here 1), and they were just standing there. If you didn't talk to them, you never knew they were companions.
Has nothing to do with their quests they gave you upon joining or down the road eventually.

EDIT:
Look at all those new posts. Well, ALL gateguards do warn you when you try to exit their way, except for those at the topwest (how come?)... that *should* be a good enough indicator, but I assume now massively ignored by all?

No worries about the remarks, they are fair.

- In D:OS you lose if all your party dies. In BG2 you lose if the main character gets knocked out, regardless of the state of the party and if you could revive him.

- In D:OS you are dumped in unknown Cyseal with a goal: solve a murder, and are quickly directed to Arhu and Aureus. In BG2, you are dumped in a huge capital city with loads of side quests shoved in your face at every turn regardless of wether or not you are actually able to complete them, and all you got is litterally "onoz! Evil sorcerer!".

So, yeah, there are similarities, but they aren't handled the same way and it makes a difference.

If someone want to make a comparison between Original Sin an old school RPG, he should pick Ultima VII (which Larians explicitly quoted as an source of inspiration), a game where you don't know your position in the world map until you buy a sextant, and where you don't have a local map until you buy it. So, I would say that there is MORE THEN ENOUGH handholding in Original Sin.
This is a game about exploration, not about following a GPS-like quest marker. So, stop complaining and start exploring. I agree only on this: The current beta build DOES have balanced issues, nominally some awfully balanced skills. The encounter design is fine. Actually is among the things I'm enjoying the most.

Hey guys, would you please stop comparing D:OS to TES:S? Those are two COMPLETELY different games. D:OS is NOT an open world rpg, as it was mentioned before. And I hope it won't ever be. The difficulty isn't that high, it's beatable, with or without arrow spray. I guess some players lack the guts to play smth harder than Amalur. I wonder what would they say about Demon's Souls...

Do NPC's in Cyseal hint at the existence of Companions if you ask them bout Rumours?

If not, stuff like:
“You’re Source Hunters, huh? There’s a crazy old woman in the King Crab who claims she’s a Source Hunter too.” Or: “I’ve heard we have a Demon Hunter in Cyseal . A Demon Hunter, of all things! He’s apparently holed up in the Mayor’s upstairs library.” could hint to new players where to look for new companions.





Actually, if both Source Hunters die the game is over, which sucks.

I’m not a fan of the game ending immediately after both Source Hunters die – regardless of whether or not you could just revive them the same as you could revive them if only one died.

I know them both being dead kinda makes the main quest stop dead in its tracks, but I’d just add a new Quest to the log: “Revive the Source Hunters”. The source hunters have fallen. We cannot proceed without their aid, and must find a method to revive them."

Once one or both is revived, the quest vanishes from the log without a trace, but the quest comes back each time they both are dead. Certainly end the game if the battle party is defeated, but if one or both Companions are still standing, give them a chance to bring the Source Hunters back, don’t just arbitrarily end the game.

I'd say that the difficulty of all 3 Souls games is overstated. But I grew up with Super Ghouls 'n Ghosts ...

PS: Original Sin IS an open-world RPG. Point is, it's not an open world RPG for dummies, like Skyrim or Oblivion. It's more like Gothic (I and II) and Risen (I), if you want a recent term of comparison.

Actually, "comparing" is not "saying it's the same as". It's also "pointing out differences". The reason why TES games, Baldur's Gate games, Fallouts, Ultimas, are often referenced is because each game chose a different way to handle the RPG aspect.
So, yes, sure, TES games are open worlds, but it's still valuable to compare them to D:OS. Especially to remind that D:OS isn't an ES game and that things are indeed handled differently.
And also because sometimes, people seem to think that D:OS was intended to be an ES clone, which it clearly isn't.

And indeed, the game is not impossible as it stands now. It can be a bit more challenging to beat by not using the obviously mandatory skills like any form of healing, and I believe the point was that it's highly frustrating that some skills may actually be mandatory or too powerful to be ignored. Arrow Spray right now is clearly overpowered, and it's frustrating both for people not using it AND, actually, people using it. In the end the game still has a lot of balancing to do, as it's silly that playing dual mages clearly is the Easy mode while playing melee tends to be the hard mode. Kind of defeat the point of having multiple "classes" and variety.



"Open world" has become quite a marketting gimmick of late anyway... I wouldn't say the ES games are open world *for dummies*, especially considering they were among the first to include such a feature ( arena, daggerfall ). It's not even an easy thing to define "open world" nowdays, and I'd rather say that D:OS is a half-open world to be honest. Big map, with obvious walls, you can go where you want except you can't go where you want before you can, "level wise", or you will get destroyed. Same for MMX I already mentionned.

Actually open-world RPGs are WAY older than Arena. Games such TES I or II standed out for their dimension in the 90s, not for the inherent design philosophy.
That being said, the latest TES games ARE open-worlds for dummies. Simply because they hold your hand in any possible way... In games such these it's basically impossible: To find a mob stronger than you are; to get lost; to be unable to complete a quest, etc. Thank god Original Sin is not this kind of game.

I don't think that's fair. Static mobs, such as the ones in Morrowind, undermined the game's open world freedom by forcing you to learn (painfully) where you could and could not go. That's not an open world; that's an on-rails game that lets you stray off the beaten path but then clubs you over the head when you do. What you call open worlds for dummies I call true open worlds.

BGS went to the other extreme with Oblivion, but I think FO3 and Skyrim (as flawed as they are) finally got the formula right in regards to freedom of exploration. They are games designed for replayability, whereas DOS is designed for a single, intense playthrough.

Frankly, I can't see how people can call "exploration" the act of following passively a quest mark on a compass/minimap.
What you call true open world I call boring wandering around, and no, open world games with static mobs aren't false open-world. A) Because at any given level they give you many places/areas to visit b) Because usually they feature not-so-obvious ways to explore high level areas before you have the suggested level for doing that.
As for the replayability, I don't think a game where you can max all the skills, become master of all the guilds and finish (almost) all the quests in a single playthrough is designed for replayability. You need consequences to have replayability, ad TES games have VERY few of them.

Again: I'm REALLY glad that Original Sin has nothing in common with the latest TES game.

The quest system is one of the major reasons why I consider FO3 and Skyrim to be flawed: they also undermine exploration. If you ignore them, and even on subsequent play-throughs, it's a great feeling to be able to just go wherever you like (maybe an area that you never paid much attention to on previous play-throughs), instead of being forced to follow pretty much the same path every single fricking time.

Well... It isn't exploration when you just brainlesly follow a quest marker, I agree. What I call exploration as far as I'm concerned is the ability to ignore the quest marker to go do whatever you want to do. Which is why I think the ES games are true open worlds while MMX, D:OS, BG, etc are only "half open worlds". You can't go do whatever you please, either because you need to unlock a special ability first ( especially in MMX, Metroidvania syndrom ) or because, as mentionned by Artemis, you are rewarded with a club to the head anytime you try to wander off the beaten path and into territories you aren't actually suppose to go to at this point of the game.
I also said in another post that having limitations helps create a more realistic world where there are actual dangerous zones, while Oblivion/Skyrim do not features that kind of dangers. "Oh god, this is undead territory. Man, I'll just find a way around". This sentence is what makes half-opene worlds, well, "half-opened". You can go there, but you can't. On the other hand, when you come back with a vengeance and/or are able to beat the encounters there despite not being technically ready, you feel great. But... this isn't as open-worlded as a (modern)ES / bethesda's FallOut game.

At the end of the day, when you're done exploring and adventuring and you want to go back to the main quest, though, I'm always glad to have the possibility to get a quest marker, just to remind me of what and where I was supposed to go. Taking notes on a sheet of paper as you go is so 1990... Not all modern features are bad.




I'm not sure what you actually call "exploration" then, to be honest with you. I guess that's something that, maybe, got multiple meanings depending on one's past experience ...?



On that I agree : there aren't many consequences in a TES game. and re-playability is weak. That's because there are so many, many things to do in the first place that there probably isn't any need for replay, as one game, granted you want to go as far as you can in the content, can pack some serious hundred of hours. Actually, I hate re-playability, as I always felt it was a cheap way of boosting your game's life expectancy. Same goes for achievement, multiple endings, etc... I'd rather have one huge game than one small with multiple way to reach the end. Re-playability sounds, for me, like another marketing gimmick...
Although sometimes it's done right. The Mass Effect games almost did it, and while the main story is the same, I found myself discussing the events in my game with friends who just didn't get the same situation, especially in the final game.



Same, mainly because I absolutely never expected D:OS to be a TES clone! I came mainly for the co-op and turn-based combat :p

Everything needs polish and work at the moment concerning the UI to be honest. It's so clunky and non intuitive even old games are better at this. For example M toggles the map, but pressing M again doesn't close it. Or that changing the character doesn't change the current inventory so I have to press I again to change it. It irritates me to no end. Hopefully people play testing the game directly for developers already told them how bad it is.

As for quests they should be left alone as they are now. No need for markers. Map is pretty small and it's easy to find everything. What needs work is: marking the most important areas and maybe NPCs at least in first city(I assume there will be more?) for new players. Current markers are pretty useless or at least I found them useless.

Quest journal needs a major overhaul or at least more information concerning the quest. Even Inquisitor(a low budget rpg) done this better.

In any good RPG you wouldn't be able to see everything on one run, that's the whole point of choice and consequences.
You take an action, and have to deal with the effects.

IMO RPG's are very boring if nothing you do or so has any effect on the world whatsoever.

Well, melee is definitely in need of major love. I just started a new game with a water mage and fire mage and with the 2 of them alone it's a cake walk so far.

Splitting the inventory and the character selection has nothing to do with being "old school" or "being clumsy". It's just a way (fairly common these days, look at Wasteland 2) to handle things in RPGs. In Original Sin opening the inventory screen doesn't pause the game, so developers picked a system that allows players to control a particular party member while looking into a different party member's inventory. Additionally, you can use the arrows in the upper end of the inventory screen to switch between inventories. So I can't see where's the problem.

The journal gives you the exact amount of information you need to complete a quest without a dumb quest marker. In fact, you can easily complete all the quests in the beta relying only on that. Again, this is a game about exploration. Too much hand holding and the Ultima-vibe goes to hell (Ultima VII doesn't have even a journal).

I agree with the hotkeys issue you pointed out, though. In the current beta, you can close whatever screen you want with ESC, so it's not a big issue, but still it's an issue.

What really bugs me in the interface is that you are not allowed to switch character in the dialogue/trade screen. This is incredible annoying in a single player run.

I'm relying on the Oxford dictionaries about the meaning of the word exploration, and, honestly, I don't think that wandering around knowing exactly where you and your goals are, is somewhat pertinent to this definition: travel through (an unfamiliar area) in order to learn about it:
Walking around is walking around. Why did I call it boring (in TES games)? Because it lacks all the thrilling features of a well structured exploration gameplay: real dangers, hard to find/reach secrets, temporary inaccessible areas, locations where you can actually get lost, etc.
So, if true open world means no challenge and no sense of progression, I totally prefer half open world games.



I would hardly call RPG a game without consequences, achieved through non-linear storytelling or through game systems, or both. But this is not even the point: replayability is what drives you to re-install a game years after you beat it the first time. It's the reason why Darklands, Jagged Alliance 2 and X-Com are permanently installed in my laptop's hard drive. So, the lack of replayability in TES games it's a huge CON in my book.

Agreed on the definition of exploration - although knowing where you are and where you're going doesn't invalidate "exploration" in my opinion. That doesn't mean you know WHAT you will find To put it simply, exploration as I see it is more a matter of [i]what[i] than a matter of [i]where[i]. ( well it's obviously a matter of "where" to, as "exploration" mostly refers to points in space, unless you're exploring your inner self... Am I getting sidetracked here? Yes, I am ).
An unfamiliar place isn't necessary uncharted, but it's still fog of war. In a TES game, you have a map, but that absolutely makes sense as the lands you're doing your adventuring in has been inhabited for centuries, even millenias. That doesn't mean there aren't any treasures left to find, dangers to be battled, etc...

In a TES game ( let's consider oblivion and skyrim since they changed the rules by introducing autoscaling ), I still find danger. Mostly because I'm playing at the highest difficulty setting and my level 50 character can STILL be one-shot by mages, vampires, or *ancient* dragons. But I think it's a bit unfair to say you can't find hard to reach secrets or places. By wandering off the beaten path, you can find lots of ruins, tombs, caves, which may or may not hold valuable things. Getting lost, though, I admit, isn't in the menu. Dungeons are mostly small ( especially compared to Daggerfall ! Boy you COUL get lost back then ), and you've got the compass. Luckily, it's de-activable.

I'm more torn on the topic of temporary inaccessible areas. There are some in Skyrim actually, places you can't go before completing a task and ( basic example ) being provided the key. One could argue that you should be able to pick the lock, and I'd agree. But then again, there are RPGs ( like MMX, and to some extent DOS ) that completely prevent you to actually keep going in the world unless you followed the main storyline and unlocked entire areas. In MMX this is done using the two hard ways : High level monsters preventing you to progress in an undiscovered zone because they simply tear you to shreds, and needing "blessings" to walk on water, jump on mountains, etc ( metroidvania style ). In DOS, so far, it's only high level monster, which you can't beat unless you did some XP to gain levels, which you can't grind because there is no respawn.

So here are my views on full and half open worlds. They both bring something to the table, and while a full open world will put the accent on being able to go wherever you please and discover things emphasizing the "discovering" part of the "exploration", half-open worlds will put more restrictions and maybe feel more organic, emphasizing the "dangerous" part of the exploration. It's all a matter of preferences, in the end. I can live with both!

And about re-playability : sure, I get your point. A game that you will sometimes bring back ( or not even delete ) to play again, because it's not a finite experience. In that regard I hated the latest Xcom, which I didn't even finish, because I felt that it actually was a finite experience ( and well, not even finishing it, I'm not gonna replay it :p ), but I can relate that to a good old Civilization. Those games never leave my harddrive, because I often feel, like, a NEED to replay them !
But again, taking Skyrim as an example : I never uninstalled Skyrim since it went out in 2011. I still like playing it, the exact same way I like re-playing a Civ game. I just resume my character's adventures, play for a while, mod a while, and when the rush has passed, I put it to sleep again. Isn't that another kind of replayability ? Such a huge content and dedicated community that, well, you just never reach the end of it ? And I don't even have the addons!

As for consequences : funny enough, Skyrim is probably the first ES game to feature some real decisions, especially when it comes to allying with the stormcloacks or the empire. You can also either join or hunt the Dark Brotherhood. The Daedras' dilemmas : will you be a complete *ss or will you walk away. Part of the reason I see Skyrim as a real RPG is because choices and consequences really matter to *you*. You have to play your role, feel it, and feel bad when you do something bad. If you don't, and play Skyrim like you'd play a GTA game, sure, it's not a real RPG, just a big, uninteresting world. But let's not forget the whole story is a consequence to the world of Tamriel, that will be discussed in the next game, featured in new books, etc.
As far as modern RPGs goes, though, I think Fallout New Vegas is the open-world game that got the whole choices/consequences thing the most right. Not only were YOU feeling like sh!t doing some not-very-glorious things, but they would come back to bite you later on. The way you dealt with factions have a consequence on the ending, choices you make along the way too.

Okay, that's a big Wall of Text. I get carried away easily, it seems !
Basically, I'm just politely disagreeing with some of your points, but again I guess this is a matter of past experiences, what we grew up with. So don't feel threatened or insulted, this is merely an exchange of opinions :p