Larian Studios Forums Divinity: Original Sin 2 Divinity - Original Sin 2 - General Thoughts on single player experience

I do not want to be forced to roleplay more than one character against each other. It's pointless.

Also, Competitive questing and the DM/GM mode already goes against that stated goal, so that pledge is already broken.

Who said anything about forced? Hell, if you had read my first bit I talked about the OPTION to control multiple characters, which through that OPTION you get competitive questing in Single Player.

Also DM Mode is a completely separate animal from the main campaign so that isn't even included in there.

Sabotaging yourself in single player makes no sense (and is entirely optional in multiplayer), but competitive questing will result in there being more options and quest solutions, and NPCs reacting more to your characters as individuals than as a group, more replayability, etc.

I honestly don't see how competitive questing is sabotage, regardless it gives me a chance to see the other side of a quest chain and determine which side I actually want to succeed.

That was my point (replying to Stabbey), that not having sabotage in single player doesn't make competitive questing any less of a benefit.

I included the word "forced" to specify that I didn't care if it was an option as long as it wasn't the ONLY option.



Resources and time will be spent on it, so it matters. But I suppose someone did make the good point - that DM mode might be multi-player only, but Love and Hate is more of a single-player only thing.



Maybe... but I tried thinking about that from a different angle, and wondered what would prevent those options and quest solutions from appearing in a single-player game, and only make them possible in a multiplayer game. Off the top of my head, I couldn't think of anything which would prevent those choices from appearing in a hypothetical single-player only game. In my opinion, that makes the argument - that it is only the presence of multiplayer which is responsible for that wealth of choice - hold less water.

Multiplayer isn't required for those choices to exist, but the presence of multiplayer does enforce that standard, and removes the temptation to cut corners in particular situations to make certain quest scripting easier, or if time starts to run out, etc.

Rather than try to think of things that would prevent these options in a single player game, try coming up with other motivations that would get a developer to decide to more than quadruple a lot of the dialogue and add many more quest solutions based on different party members. Freedom and immersion, etc, could be done quite well with much less work.
Of course a particularly strong vision or gameplay plot mechanic for a game could do this, but the fact that party based single player games do not generally have dialogue and quests based on all the different party member races (if an option) or origins (if they have any) means this is not generally considered a desirable feature given the relative benefit and resource cost compared to other aspects of the game.

is it possible to play single player mode with only a single character?

i ask, b/c i like the challenge of playing a game solo that is originally meant to be played in a group (like eg baldurs gate)

I believe I may have the best of two worlds since I'm going to play it coop with 1 friend, meaning we should get Love&Hate from the second character we control each =)



Same here :p
Sure it goes against all the hard work done for the game but as a challenge for a new playthrough it's neat !
Although I think I had an answer to that, which was that it should be very possible. Especially with the Mask should it be interesting to do. Although it depends on whether there will be 4-men based puzzles ( like, everyone has to split up for a bit in order to stand on a different pressure plate ). Also depends on the possible inclusion of a Lone Wolf equivalent, which sounds harder to do this time around since the game is designed for 4 characters rather than 2+2.

I seriously don't know why people are against the option of creating and controlling the RP of multiple characters, it already exists in DivOS and since DivOS2 is using the same engine then all they should feasibly have to do to implement it is not take it out.

They are already writing MP dialogue so it's not like this would add a significant work load.

Hell, I even have a simple idea of how making multiple characters could work. After making your first character a box pops up asking if you would like to make another one, click yes and boom, another character, then another box, and another if yes again, and another till you made all 4 or only as many or few as you want to make. That way Stabbey could only make just one character, I could make two, and everyone is happy.

I think Larian should reconsider the depth of the love&hate aspect for SP which means that it should go even deeper than they said in the KS video updates. For example, Swen said that companions would only tell you if they like or dislike certain action of the PC but they'd never actively act against the PC. I think that if Larian really want DOS 2 to be their very own BG2 they should aim for similar depth for interaction with your companions which means that some of them should be able to turn against you in case you act severly and thouroughly against their convictions. Of course D&D is based on a rigid set of attitudes (good, neutral, bad and its detailed attitudes) but something like that already exists in DOS with the predefined character traits for your 2nd PC (like loyal, charming, friendly). I think the system could work similarly, but - and that's good - also in a way more differentiated manner which means that the relationship between characters is based on various traits and a chain of respective actions of the PC.

Of course a system like that would require a goood amount of available companions (along the lines of BG2 or more) so that you have a chance to build up a party that "follows" your ethical attitude within the game and so that you have a chance to substitute characters that leave your party or even turn against you if you act in opposition to their convictions.

I really hope Larian gives this a second thought because it would imo enhance the narrative experience for the SP in a way many people have good memories of after playing the old Infinity engine games. It would give party interaction and the relationship to your companions a more realistic and more in-depth aspect that would give you another incentive to reconsider your narrative decisions within the game aka "Do I really want to kill this guy for money, if it means that this certain companion might be pissed about it and might even leave my party or turn against me?" That would add another layer of narrative depth to the SP experience that would imo make up for the non-existing competitive questing in SP. If Bioware could do it for BG2 in 2001 I'm pretty sure that Larian would be able to pull it off in 2015/2016 as well - even in an advanced and evolved manner.

Because majority of playerbase is not schizophrenic and doesn't really fancy talking and debating with themselves in a RPG (which is what the absurd dual dialog is in SP) Aside that I fully agree with your post. As long as it is optional it is no problem at all. But it wasn't optional in D:OS. On release day there were no (even now half-assed, imo) AI personalities. So you had 2 puppets with about as much character depth as a puddle on the road and if you wanted to experience the full game you had to enable dual dialog, and thus lead schizophrenic debates with yourself over the matter of stolen fishes (woohooooo!) (example) Worse, these dual dialogs did not develop the character, they only affected stats. So as a powergamer you *had* to actually game the dialog and not roleplay..

Mind you, in RPG's I can accept 1 puppet, aka 1 char that does what I want* and says what I want* (with the restrictions of his defined history and backstory) but D:OS pushed it too far by making the 2 puppets not just identical from the outset but also incredibly boring personalities. I honestly wouldn't even TALK to the source hunters as they are portrayed in D:OS and I don't think I would want to fight for "their" side after D:OS either.

To be frank, if it is an option I want to join the side in D:OS 2 that fights source hunters.

Anyway, this is all long debated to death. As long as a 2nd puppet is optional no problem...

On the other hand, you could call a writer schizophrenic because he writes full blown characters all by himself, including their conversations and eveery other kind of interactions =) Or children who likes to create their little world with their legos and stuff.
but I'm just nitpicking.

I have nothing against full RP control of the characters. Sure, it somehow sounds weird given the apparent goals of Larian which is, this time around, giving real life to the party members. It also somehow defeat the purpose of the hidden agendas, and could even be assimilated to some kind of "cheat" since you could disregard your characters feeling when it doesn't suit your playstyle.
However I fully expect that people wanting to RP the four characters are precisely NOT going to cheat.

What's more, it's "just" a matter of allowing single players to actually fully customize their party right from the start, and I REALLY, REALLY want that feature too. I'm going to play coop anyway, but I never feel like a recruited party member is "mine" when I didn't get to create them myself. In BG, I always create my own party. In PoE I'm annoyed I had to go with companions. In DOS1 I took lone wolf. In Skyrim / tes games I NEVER play with companions ( I feel they are authentic lone wolf kind of games ). Sole exception I had so far is Fallout New Vegas.

So, yeah, while I don't really care about roleplaying all my characters, I really care about having the possibility of creating all my characters myself, and I feel like this is a common goal. So just give us the possibility to add as many handmade characters as we want at the start of the game and everyone's going to be happy =)

Playing games like BG with a generic party is imo completely pointless and the game was NEVER made to be like that. Neither was DOS or PoE. Actually, a lot of what is great about them is about the companions. It's much of the heart of the narrative experience.

So making something like that would be the complete opposite direction than what Swen told us so far about the vision for DOS2, to blend narrative better into the gameplay and enhance it on almost every level. DOS2 is meant to be Larian's BG2, not it's Icewind Dale...

The issue with companions in game like BG is that they never really feel like a true part of the story, but rather like optional content - even if the main plot is what makes the player meet them. I mean, Imoen is around sure, but we can just tell her not to come. Same for Khalid and Jaheira - you meet them as part of the plot but that's it, somehow.
Companions in BG2 were a tad tighter to the PC ( Imoen served a bigger purpose this time around ) as far as I could see, but still, you could bring whoever you wanted based on personal likings.

The biggest issue with party-based cRPG is that party members rarely really matter.

It's not a surprise then that people would like to just dismiss them entirely. Hell, sometimes their little problems completely contradict the main plot, like, "help me reclaim my castle!" "yeah but I'm kind of on the clock here, who knows what the bad guy are doing to my childhood friend..." "I won't like you if you don't help me" "okay then".
Creating your own party ensures that you can optimize your group, and a lot of players like optimization/theorycrafting in their games. You will avoid being annoyed with petty irrelevant problems if you don't like that or feel it's out of place.
Not to mention you may not get to choose the starting stats of the characters, prompting you to possibly choose between a char whose story you're interested in, but with bad starting caracteristics which would give you a handicap ; or a character with the exact attributes you're looking for, but a story that you can't even care about. Bioware is very good at forcing you to bring along characters you don't like because otherwise you would suck at fighting...

Of course, the intended goal with DOS2 is to make the party members relevant. However I trust it should work either way, since it is theorized for now that the party members will get their origin stories from the pool of available stories minus the one you chose for your own character. So, hiding the dialogues lines or making them available to the player, there's not a big difference. It can be even funnier to find out that by choosing solution X you really did put character Y in a corner, and try to solve that - or just get along with it.


TL:DR ; some people like creating a balanced team ; DOS2 should not suffer from the "handcrafted story for specific party member" like BG/lots of cRPG ; it's just a matter of enabling people to create as much characters as they want to and giving them full control.

Companions are a pet peeve of mine. The problem is that you can't force them into a player's party. Remember what's-her-face-the-farm-girl from NWN2? People threw a hissy fit because of her. That complicates things obviously. The best companions are from MotB and KotOR2. In KotOR2 Kreia WAS the story, while in MotB the story actually started and could proceed because of the actions of your companions (Imoen getting kidnapped doesn't count as *her* action). You couldn't have assaulted the Fugue Plane if Kaelyn hadn't gathered an army before that. The story wouldn't even start if Safiya didn't exist and you couldn't get the best ending without Gann's involvement. THOSE are good companions, not random people who you just meet for no particular reason. You could also totally ignore them, if you so desire. The story should move because you and the people around you (i.e. companions) move it, not because the universe decides you are its chew toy du jour. All the elements and characters being part of the story is what (good) writing is all about. It's an accomplishment if you can do it. I actually threw a tantrum over at the Obsidian forums because the characters were nobodies and had no involvement/connection to the plot.

About you making your own characters - giving more option is always good, so go wild. Some people don't feel schizophrenic debating,talking and sharing opinions with themselves :p

If someone is interested - http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/75911-the-disconnection-between-companions-and-the-overall-story/ I'm the OP.

Nhhhh...

I think there is a difference. The proper analogy would be that you are given a world defined very tightly by say, Larian, and you as normal person suddenly are given the task of creating characters in that world, something Larian was supposed to pay writers for and do itself, even though you paid money with the explicit goal to have this done for you by writers that are vastly more proficient than you.

For me that would make a game a no-buy. I buy RPG's for story and immersion. And if I had to do something like described above I would not feel like I had gotten what I wanted out of that buy. In fact I would feel scammed. I guess I am just strange like that

What it comes down to is that I can agree that there should be options to cater to all playstyles. But properly written companions with character development, feels, and immersion, are for me an ABSOLUTE must and I would say make up 70% of the buying value for me. It just goes to show that everyone looks for different things in their games, and that is totally ok. As long as D:OS 2 does not repeat D:OS 1's mistakes.

In case you wonder, remaining % is 15% music and 14% gameplay and 1% graphics. ;P

Ps.: Properly written can mean locked classes, but I would be OK with it assuming I can define their level up path from level 1 onwards. (I hated that in PoE, now patched, but I don't play now, I played on release).. eh, I mean I hated that they leveled to your level on some template (which REALLY gimped the Mage)

Absolutely! And with the way DOS2 seem to be developped, I still strongly believe both playstyles can be accommodated for.



Yes, exactly. Such a disconnection between the companions and the story is what brought me to just avoid them. They may have some interesting personal stories, I generally play them during a first playthrough ( Bioware games force you to bring companions along anyway ), but if I can avoid them for new playthroughs I will. DOS1 even had a talent to get rid of companions without suffering the consequences gameplay-wise ( sorry, Adora ).
In the end, I just prefer to have a blank slate team to better enjoy the main plot with no awkward, out-of-place companions interactions.

Funny enough, one game that had a nice approach of various companions with their own origin stories was Seiken Densetsu 3 aka Secret of Mana 2. You chose the main character and their story would become the "main" plot. The two others characters would imply different interactions based on where they are coming from whenever you would set foot in their homeland, and their nemesis would be different ( I believe it worked in couples - 6 heroes sharing 3 nemesis ). I always liked that in this game, and this is a reason why I sometimes play it again. ( class system was fun too. )

After playing Bioware games, I can't really get into the story when I don't have "buddies" with me, with whom I can communicate, share feelings and insights etc.
I tried Witcher (the first one) 3 times, but I was too alone in the world. If there wasn't Siegfried and Shani, I would have ended with it even sooner.

Bad news for you: D:OS2 will not be like KotoR2 or MotB.

As far as I know, it goes like this:
- There are 4 escaped prisoners and you create 1 of them.
- You select a background for your char.
- The other 3 companions will have backgrounds you have not selected for your char. (not sure how. is it random, can you select it, something else?)

So regarding one background, you can be this person, it can be a party member or you will never see him. It can be that you have background A and a companion has background B and when you play the game again it can be the other way around.

I think it will depend all on how your companions are selected and how they interact with you and the other companions. Since you are all escaped prisoners, you have a reason to work together. But you should have the option to abandom them and play alone. (Though I always used a full party in RPGs.)

By the way: Were EXP divided between party members in D:OS1?