Larian Studios Forums Divinity - Original Sin Divinity - Original Sin - Enhanced Edition How is thes game so popular? It bloody sucks.

I think the OP gives valid and illustrated criticism of the game. That he "throws" a tantrum is not really a problem, as I don't think everyone want to be entangled in a pointless "gentlemanly" debate: just want to state his piece and get out. Being angry and spiteful might be his problem, not ours?

Most of OP points are actually workable. Perhaps they are slightly annoying at first, for new players, but you quickly learn to accomodate and focus on the more enjoyable parts of the game, like the fights, as OP mentioned.

There's several tips for inventory management (selling to appropriate merchants, having containers in your inventory...), a little investment in hydrosophist (you really do not need to pick the healing master spell, which is not the best choice at this rank/level to begin with) for group health management, walking more incrementally around lava for path finding management, being wary of what you click on in cities...



Raze, sometimes your comments surprise me. You're supposed to represent the company, and thus I don't think you can lower yourself as much as us (customers, or not - you don't even have to be one to register in this forum?). Most of your post in this thread I feel is fine (aside the master spell in hydro, the adept spell water of life is an AOE healing spell), but I think you'd best avoid "looking" biased. It is difficult indeed, but I think it is effective.

To be more specific, the designers of the game made some choices. Having to repair items is a design choice which can, for instance, force players to get OUT of a dungeon after playing in it for some time (break game immersion to force the player to consider some rest away from the game?), or after playing in it inefficiently (punish inefficiency and force to re-enter dungeon and reset it). Or it can be something that enforces immersion: it is like a simulation of a "real" fantasy world. Or it can be thoughtless copy-paste from the genre itself, a pointless artifact.

Laying out the trade-off as you sometimes do is really nice. But siding is less so: you don't need to as you weren't the designer (I believe?). Some players will prefer one side, others the other side. You don't have to defend ideologically the designer choice: just present the trade-off.

I can't help but notice that, on one side you harshly invite the OP to play "auto healing, auto resurrecting etc..." games (it wasn't his point, which makes it even worse), and stress on how auto-healing outside of combat might not be on boat with the game's overall design, but on the other side you say that it's best for the RPS mini game to artificially get rid of the ties (when it involves AI). This is inconsistent taken at face value (less so when you lay out the context, design-wise, of those features, but that's the problem when you debate like that with users).



It's not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing. Designers make choices that will "hurt" some players and rejoice some others. Aknowledge (or ignore, but don't abrase) and move on.

Perhaps customers will be abrasive and whatnot, but unless you yourself are really cool when you're abrasive (sick buuuurn!), I think it's best not to stoop at that level. You want to defend the game's interest, not delve on your customer's character. If a customer is abrasive to the point of disruption, then take action, but why even adress it otherwise?

If you attack somebody's intelligence when this person makes, perhaps unelegantly, some good point, you might alienate those who agree with this point (and there might be plenty, as designers do make choice). This is dangerous because those points can be, all things considered, really secondary.