Larian Studios Forums Divinity - Original Sin Divinity - Original Sin - General Concerns about respawns

This is my first post on this forums, but I enjoyed Divine Divinity for quite a time and eagerly waiting on release of Divinity: Original Sin, with mostly 1 thing I didn't like about series: No respawns.

These are the reasons for no-respawn system to be disliked:

1. You get that Infinity -/+1 Sword, but there is barely anything left in the world to taste its power, and thus you actually don't get to enjoy your new sword.

2. Such-and-such chest has 10% chance to have such-and-such rare item. Missed opportunity? This opportunity is pretty much gone forever. No-respawns of mobs makes limited amount of chests feel even more limited and punishing if RNG doesn't favor you.

3. Some people like RPGs for its grinding aspect, and use it as option when they can't proceed in some encounter in order to gain more levels/get better gear. Realistically, there is possibility to have terrible luck with random drops, which might make you to consider practices, which are immersion-breaking with major-offender being save-scumming (example: in DD on first playthrough I didn't get any useful item in Aleroth and had gigantic problems with Skeletal Guardians and Conjurers in the dungeon. Second walkthrough (with a little bit of save-scumming) I had good enough set to stand incomparably better chances against those as melee).

4. Save-scumming. Knowing that you have one and only chance to get good item from such and such elite mob (or treasure chest), I feel like it is my duty to keep save-loading until mob will drop desired item. For perfectionists like me it becomes a pure nightmare, which turns each chest, bookshelf and elite mob into save-scumming session.

5. It makes game to feel more linear than it is. You have option to clear that cave on side of the road, but once you cleared it, you no longer have such option anymore and you no longer have reason to revisit that cave and its close surroundings, thus making most areas to be 1-time effort.

I have concerns about respawn system in D:OS. From what I know, this game doesn't have respawns, but it will support Multiplayer, and as such, there will be possibility to join repopulated world (or at least - more populated) and could be used as workaround for those of us who like respawns. Perhaps there could be option somewhere in menus to allow respawns (at least for mobs, containers aren't that important) for people like me, for whom no-respawns is a huge immersion breaker and major reason to do a lot of save-scumming.

Respawning is more immersion breaking than no-respawning. If you get a quest to clear monsters from x area, it doesn't make much sense to do that, get the reward and go back and all the monsters are also back.

1. I do agree that it can be a bit underwhelming to end up with nothing left to kill just as you reach the crux of your power. One way to handle that kind of issue is to have some bonus dungeons which can be repeated.

2. The Divinity series has always had unique loot in the same place every time, and the rest is random. There's no such thing as a particular chest which has a 10% chance to spawn a specific item. I don't see any reason why that would be changed for D:OS.

3. It's impossible to guarantee that every build will be able to handle every situation. From what I hear, the game world should be open enough that you can do other things if you get stuck on a certain enemy.

4. No such thing in Divinity. See 2.

5. I don't understand what you're talking about. Even in games which do have respawning enemies, there's not really a lot of good reasons to revisit areas you've already visited. I guess you're thinking of games like Diablo which have unique monsters that have a chance for better drops, but D:OS is not going to be a loot-fetish game like that one. There's no such thing as Pindleskin runs in the previous Divinity games, and I don't think D:OS is going to start adding them. If that's what you're most interested in, I think you'll be disappointed.

I also prefer the no-respawning much better than respawning, mainly because of the following reasons:

- Your actions have consequences and make you feel like you have actually altered the game's world. Otherwise, if say the villagers ask you to clear the nearby forest from orcs, then why should you care about their request if you know that orcs will respawn in that forest anyway the very next day?

- Let us say, you want to travel from A to B. And you were traveling the way from A to B already nine times. Then it is just frustrating to have to fight exactly the same monsters for the 10th time while all you want is just arrive at B as soon as possible (That was one of the main points while I gave up on playing The Witcher... it was so incredibly tedious...)

Totaly agree with Stabbey and Elwyn-It`s very frustrating to fight against the same opponents at 1023123rhd time-and at Turned-based combat in addition when battles become like torment...

I welcome respawn for only reason-the plot reason-but very hardly and non-global world one i.e respawn within one area or specials areas or very special events ex.General Stone`s Flying Fortress where there stand device constantly creating Walking Armors, and you need to stop that madness,there is not respawn exactly-but such things I would like ...

One more example is Divinity 2 Fov there were undead invasion it`s not difficult to imagine that there were SO many undead and already killed were changed by new ressurected,well somehow....

But I think it`s not good exuse for respawn -It must have done for player`s comfort because Larian worried about difficulty of the Fov and gave us opportunity to grind so many we want

And Sauro welcome to the forum!

I understand that some people prefer no-respawn systemm and no-respawn system has its own benefits. Seeing as this game will support Multiplayer, I foresee possibility of workaround for no-respawn factor via Multiplayer. As such, I suggest an option for single-player mode somewhere in game menu to allow/disallow respawns to occur, to avoid going through more elaborated workarounds.

Having finite mobs might lead to such situations as - you kill some finite orcs first, and only then you find someone who would give you quests for those orcs. There were such examples in other games, where it would lead to broken quests.

I described as non-game specific example of why some people don't like no-respawn factor. Example from Divine Divinity: Amulet of Glory, which is very potent and unique magic item, and which can appear either with very irrelevant or low bonuses (and as such be seen as wasted) and might appear with truly interesting bonuses.

There is also another big "con" in my book about no-respawns. it usually means arbitrarily finite resources, such as gold. You can spend your gold on identifying some items, which end up being cursed, so you can't sell them, and be left without gold, and if you are in need of some potions/other things in order to help yourself further in the game, you might find yourself screwed. While this situation is hypothetical, being aware of finite resources might make you extremely frugal, being afraid that there always might be some vendor near corner who might sell something very useful at very high price.

I had a really nasty example of this happening in one old game Yendorian Tales 3, which also had no respawns - when around 30-40 hours in the game I am suddenly asked to give 100k gold to NPC in order to proceed further in the game. Needless to say, mobs in local area were very hard so I spent some gold on equipment to be able to kill them and found myself in unwinnable situation - no gold and all mobs (source of gold) are dead, but instead of starting from scratch I simply ended up cheating my way through.

Thanks!

Having multiplayer would not effect respawning (the person joining the game would take over a character that the host would otherwise be controlling themselves, so there is no need to scale the number or strength of opponents based on number of players). However, if mods can not implement respawning directly, they could presumably add areas focused exclusively on loot and combat.

Yes, Divine Divinity did have certain rare items which had completely random modifiers, but appeared in the same place each time. That could prompt saving and reloading. Respawning enemies would not change that.

One solution is to have enemies give random drops which had a chance to be extremely good. Another is to have the extremely good items with fixed stats in the same location each time. The second solution would make it more predictable. Random items are more for a Diablo-like game where item fever is part of the point, I don't think Original Sin will be an "item fever" game.


One solution for accidentally killing special quest monsters might be to only have them spawn if you take the quest. Another is to consider the conditions met if you kill them before getting the quest in the first place.


The Yendorial Tales example is an argument against poor use of gating progress - poor game design, not an general argument against no-respawns. gates can be designed more intelligently with multiple ways around them. In this game for example, Larian said you can kill everyone and still be able to complete the main quest.

I thought this discussion was already done months back. Doesn't mean I'm asking anyone to stop.


What I remember is that the plan was that the world will be mostly non-respawning. There can be a few places where it might make sense for monsters to creep back in, like, say, a magical forest, or a cursed graveyard.

Sometimes (in some games) I like respawning; sometime in some games I dislike respawn-ing. Both direction has issues (positive and negative). Sadly there is no right answer here. Therefore I will accept the system the creator hands me though I hope they will not yield to public pressure in either direction.

oh what have you done, I had this kind of topic on here before and it was the same thing "I wanna clear it all out" Honestly I think with the tool set we can make respawns. For those of us who understand just because you clear what you see...does not mean you have eliminated everything,nor does it mean more will just move in.

Now seriously to those of you who are just down right stuck in the mud over this, that respawns will break the game.. do you honestly plan on just playing the game once..rushing to the end and being done? Dunno about you all.. but when I get a game I love just exploring around. Plus with the turn based combat on here~ super excited to just roam around killing monsters.

Also from my understanding the game is open ended, meaning once you complete the final task you can keep roaming around. Bet that is when the forums will be flooded with the same people here not wanting respawns going "Am bored, make a new expansion" a week or so after release.

Unless I am mistaken, this was one of the questions during one of the Twitch TV sessions. And - if I remember correctly - it was said that the game has a fixed ending. Something needs to happen and afterwards the game is just over, so you cannot keep roaming around after you see the credits. (Which is, I think, quite logical because it is an RPG with a deep story line and not an endless survival game a la minecraft...)

oh no! this changes everything...now unsure I want to get it. *sad face*

Unless the game was a loot-fest or very small I have generally had very little urge to revisit cleared areas. There generally is no point to do so. If the evil-skeleton spawning wizard living in the creepy castle is dead all that will be left a few weeks from when you cleared it is an empty castle... (unless some bandits moved in or something, but that's not respawning...)

If the game is set up in a good way non-respawning monsters will not be an issue. It never was in The Witcher, or BG, or KotOR (1 & 2), or VtM: Bloodlines...

On that note, The Witcher (the first Witcher, that is, the combat in the second sucked so hard I gave up halfway through chapter 1) didn't have respawns (none at all, every monster was either there, or spawned due to a quest trigger) so I'm not sure how it could have made the game tedious.

I must agree that even if I also think that non-respawning is a really good thing for Divinity's game (more immersion, real impact on the story etc etc...) and I think that Larian should continue this way, I understand Sauro's concerns.

I personnally cleaned sevral times D2 looking for interesting items or XP, I saved before ended quests with interesting rewards to get the best rewards etc... My point is that, ok, non-respawning is really interesting, ok there are plenty of optionnal quests but IMO may be not enough :s
Larian promised a more deep game, a more rich game and I really trust them, I am sure that D:OS will provide us a shitload of optionnal quests or hidden chests or other stuff like that. So the ones who only care about the main story could focus only on that without so much trouble (I never had problems finishing the Divinity games rushing, the stuff you loot or get by the quest and the one you can buy is enough if you play well) and the ones who want to take their time, explore the world or want to grab more XP or stuff before continuing the main adventure can also do it !!

I think it`s not respawn matter -"Global AI" or "Living World Simulation" will match better to this - it`s like S.T.A.L.K.E.R , hmmm if Larian have quite enough resources then why not??

But latter is not correctly at some point because Larian disagree with term of ''World Simulation"
and I believe S.T.A.L.K.E.R. world system based on respawn but well-hidden...

While I do not know factually I strongly suspect D:OS level system does not support respawning (or more specifically infinite exp from respawning). Just because a game does not have respawning does not mean it cannot have a certain amount of randomness (as well as branching story arcs) that support replay. One game that I enjoy (and played many time) that has no respawning is king bounty legend (and crossroad).

On the other hand a game that I enjoyed (and played many times) with respawning was titan quest (or for that matter wizardry 8).

Both systems can work quite well.

hmm I guess they cannot make a game to please everyone, and the majority of the users on the forums are against so many things...seems everyone just wants to smash smash everything and it's gone forever.

About the castle and the evil wizard, whos to say once he/she is dead~ there is not another looking to claim the place (as in another caster, so thus a respawn with a random name)
It's like in life, when someone moves away and their house is left. Does it just stay empty? that is the end of that house, now it's just an empty shell. Nope..new people move in.

I guess it doesn't matter, now that I have found the game is a one shot play (as in you play, beat it and credits..start a new character(s) from the start) Not really looking forward to it as much as I used to...

If you really want to fight the same enemies (with a different name) over and over again then this really isn't the game for you, and never was (the no-respawns was known well before the KS ended). There's enough games where grinding respawns is the name of the game, though I don't know of any that are turn based (might be a market there, I dunno)

Frankly having to beat non-scaling monsters over and over again in turn-based combat would get old real fast for me.

As well, if I go someplace I want there to be a *good* reason for it, if I go back there I want a good reason to go back. Not like Skyrim's autogenerated "go kill that respawned bandit leader for the 20th time" quests.

Well, my take on it is Larian is trying to make an immersive game where your actions have actual consequences. One way to show this NPC's disappear when killed or get affected as a result of a decision of a quest. Also bands of Orcs and other creatures don't respawn when you have cleared an area or affected an area due to the way you solved a quest.

Also a poster above me nailed it when he mentioned exp and character trait game mechanic limitations.

If they did have respawns and you could grind your char to max lvl and gear before you were 1/4 through the game, that would kind of ruin a lot of the game for the other 3/4th of the game.

Also of note are the mods. Yes you may beat the game and not have any more interest on revisiting the main campaign, but mods are free and keep you busy for quite some time.

I have been itching for a game like this where the world is dynamic and actually reflects my actions and deeds. I was hoping Skyrim would have been that game, but sadly not so much.

End point is I think you will certainly get your monies worth.

Frontiers might interest you. The campaign has ended but I am eagerly anticipating the release (didn't back high enough for alpha access). Well, assuming you didn't come accross it already, of course