Larian Studios Forums Divinity - Original Sin Divinity - Original Sin - General The RPG to dwarf them all? A comparison to BG 2

I admit it: BG 2 is my personal favorite game of all times (until now). So it's quite natural for me personally to compare D:OS with BG 2 given the fact that both games are incidentially in the same genre...


Of course there are people who don't like BG 2 that much. There are even (numerous) people who think that BG 2's combat system is "weaksauce" (though most of them are just against RTwP combat in general and not against the particular basic systems working in the background). My post was just my personal assessment, no question. People are free to disagree and actually there are quite a few people here on this topic already who did so. I think that's great and I love to talk about my favorite games with other people. It's not so much about "Hey Larian, you have to adopt system X in D:OS" but more about "Hey Larian, there was once this great game called BG 2. It could be worth a second look why this game was good and where it was possibly lacking." I think a thread like that can be indeed thought provocing which is everything I ask for. Discussing about game mechnics, assessing their pros and cons, reflecting interfering systems, thinking about solutions, that's how game design comes to life in the first place. It can't be wrong to open your mind and think about different solutions. I mean there must be some reason why you came up with your solution in the first place so you must have pretty solid arguments for its existence. "Testing" these arguments against other solutions is a pretty strong and essential way of actually assessing whether you have a good and working system or not. And sometimes (or often) you just come to the conclusion that both systems are pretty cool and working and just solve the problem with different elements and features. That's indeed pretty cool because it adds variety to gaming.


I know. I just wanted to spike Swen a little bit for his "the RPG to dwarf them all" statement once in his blog. I do know that D:Os never was intended to be that game, to make that sure. Nevertheless Swen mentioned in the latest kickstarter update that with all the additional funding D:OS acutally is quite closer to this final "end goal" than Larian intially thought. Well, that statement needed a little assessment I thought for myself...


Then we are already two...


Well, the issue is (though some people might disagree again) than RPGs are the most complex and difficult games to develop. You need pretty strong skills in almost every possible department and you need a very good design for various interfering systems in the first place. This can be very tricky indeed. The problem here in particular is that "failures" or "weaknesses" in core systems are hard to solve or balance later in development. You can't just change your basic systems one month before release. That's illusional. So maybe BG 2's biggest strength was to rely on its pen & paper solution. That system was playtested for years with several editions and improvements made over the years and the biggest challenge was to adopt it to a computer experience. The challenge is even harder if you have to come up with every basic system on your own. There is hardly no experience whether things will work in the end or not. Of course you make a lot of internal playtesting but you will never be able to make real long-term tests with hundreds of people. I mean, look at the alpha and beta versions of D:OS. Can you even imagine what the game would look like without the tons of player feedback given to Larian during the past months and weeks? That's already a great source of both inspiration and system assessment and I hope that it will result in a pretty solid RPG experience.
And of course I know the realities of game development. It's pretty impossible to make a game of BG 2's scope today. I even wonder how they managed to make a game like that in 2000. Every today's bigger or smaller publisher would call them insane.
I also fear that my intial post here might look a little bit "overcritizicing" but that wasn't my intention. You could just read my Steam review to see that I actually pretty love D:OS. Comparing a game with my-all time favorite is imo already a damn honor. There is a great difference between being great and being almost perfect though. Maybe I would give BG 2 a 9.5/10 and D:OS an 8.5/10. That would still pretty much be a damn great game which makes a lot of things quite different than my personal reference but is nevertheless enjoying as hell. I do respect what Larian did with its resources and I think D:OS is a quite strong and entertaining game. But it could need some improvements here and there and some things are just impossible to fulfil today (like the scope of BG 2). That's just a reality and no actual critique.


That's a pretty decent assessment, I like it. I think that the development of D:OS is far too progressed to actually think about basic design enhancements or changes (like inventing some variations of the Vancian system). But as you said, it's worth considering the strenghts (and weaknesses) of such a system for future games (or even mods???). And as you perfectl said yourself, there is no need to adopt a system. There are endless possiblities to combine systems and to come up with new solutions based on old solutions.


To be honest, I'd always vote for more freedom. Giving the player various sliders and options to personalize their gaming experience before starting a new campaign would be a highly appreciated solution. I don't think that stuff like that should only be possible in an "ironman mode" though tbh. Why not seperating difficulty settings and other distinctive options to give the player even more freedom? Just add some sliders and toggles on top of difficutly settings (like no saving during fights, no resurrection/perma-death,...). It wouldn't be that much work to actually implement a system like that but it would result in a very important improvement for quite a few people (me included) I guess. PC gamers and especially RPG gamers imo always look for ways to personalize their gaming experience. Just give them options!


And again I agree. Like I said before, there is quite a difference between the "illusion of choice" and the "mechanical reactivity". Mechanical reactivity would mean a simple cause and effect system. Choosing A results in B. With a system not only based on mechanical reactivity but also on the illusion of choice there are also things possible like choosing A results in B and choosing C results in B as well (maybe with little deviations). The biggest problem with a system like that is that it's extremely challenging to create. You don't only have to write a lot of dialogues but they must be written and connected in a way to still actually make sense. Players should FEEL that their choice results in a fitting reaction but it doesn't have to be another reaction than another choice would have resulted in. That's the really tricky part. Bioware are quite good in doing so. It's one of the reasons why their games offer a huge load of different dialogue options (at least more than D:OS in its current state). Bioware was critizised for their "illusion of choice" model but imo the critique was rather unfair. You can always review a system from the end, deconstructing how it is created and stating "Hey, it's no real choice. It's just an illusion." That's quite easy but not very solid because you don't feel that way while you're playing (which is in fact way more important than everything else). While playing you have the feeling of having a choice just by the possibility to choose among different answers. More answers raise the possiblity to actually find one that fits your role and your thinking. Who really cares if another answer would have resulted in the same reward or answer? You maybe never find that out if you don't replay the game numerous times, always choosing different answers.

I talked a lot about dialogues now but I want to say again that I personally think that outside of dialogues roleplaying and decision making is pretty solid in D:OS. Its humurous take on many tropes and its own game world and systems and clever ideas make up for a lot which is missing in actual dialogues. However, I would really like more options in dialogue.

One thing I've mentioned on top of that is that I can't recall any dialogue line with a regular NPC that required a certain ability from my character. I think the initial charm, intimidate, reason system had a huge potential to open certain dialogue branches (maybe like in Mass Effect in which some dialogue lines are only accessible if you have the fitting reputition). It's pretty sad that maybe this potential won't come to fruition due to time and budget limitations.


I think we're pretty much on the same level, you and me. I agree again.
To be honest, games like Baldur's Gate and for example the Witcher have one great advantage in term of lore and the richness of their respective gaming worlds: both are based on novels or other sources of story and lore buildng. They can just make use of what is already there in most cases without the need to come up with completely new ideas and world mechanics and internal logics. That's probably a huge work relief for writers.
Elder Scrolls on the other hand is known for its lore. Lore in Elder Scrolls is one of its core features, one of its unique selling points. I mean, the latest Elder Scrolls games are that lacking in many aspects (like quests and story and internal logics for example) it would be a shame if they couldn't at least come up with some pretty decent lore...
Back to Divinity: I really hope that we will see at least some more lore and backstory in the final game. At least some books to read, some secrets to explore, some unique items, some additional dialogue lines about the world and stuff. I know that the time is short and I guess that the writers are already quite occupied but it would be a tragedy to not bestow Rivellon the respective honor it deserves in D:OS.


I think that in terms of art design D:OS truly stands out. The style of the game just fits the overall design of the game quite well, I absolutely agree. Same is true for BG 2 of course, which had a more "serious" world design based on a more serious story (in comparison to the more easy-minded and humorous take in D:OS).
Both 2D and 3D worlds have their pros and cons. As you've said, the transitions between maps are one of the biggest challenges in 2D worlds and you have to have some pretty decent imagination to not "fall out of immersion" here. But in general, classic 2D gamer like Baldur's Gate rely heavily on imagination. Their whole design is based on imagination (we shouldn't forget that these games were direct transfers of pen&paper games which were ALL about imagination...). Games with a coherent 3D design and world tend to take away from that need of imagination and add to the immersion by system (as I would call it). Today, we gamers are used to that kind of game since almost all the modern games we play are based on more or less realistic 3D worlds, created to be more movie-like with a heavy focus on senses and less focus on imagination (voice-overs instead of written dialogues are another one of these paradigm changes).
D:OS is imo a game which tries to cater to both possible game design approaches to a certain extend, the games-as-movie approach("please the senses") and the games-as-novels approach ("use your imagination"). That's really cool but it comes with certain compromises as you might expect. There is just no way to make the "perfect" game in terms of general game design. In the end it always comes down to personal taste.
However, there is one certain strength of 2D and distinctive levels than can't be rivaled by 3D coherent worlds: the human imagination can always add to what is missing but it cannot change what is there. That means: I can imagine the city of Athkatla even if only slices are presented to me. I just imagine the rest in my head. But I can't think of additional houses or other stuff in my mind and add them to Cyseal in my imagination. That just doesn't work because the world is coherent. There is nothing left for imagination.


You have my full support on each point mentioned.



5/10 because missing toilets. Real shame...