Larian Studios Forums Divine Divinity (English) Suggestions Learn from Fallout :)

Fallout was a GREAT game, and very similar to DD in many ways, here I lay some Ideas from Fallout to the next Divinity:

- Personal Traits/Perks
Choose your char to be for ex. alchoolic(More Str and Con but needs to drink booze all the time, etc

- Detailed reputation system
If you dig a grave youll get Gravedigger on your Rep, Kill a child get Childmolester, etc

- Much more easter eggs
fallout had a huge amount of easter eggs, monty python, mastigator, etc

- Areas with Random/respawing creeps
this game realy needs a place with respawned creeps...

- Speech finesse based on Inteligence
If you have 1 INT you char would speak like: You give money, yes? I are Tom! and people would just ignore you, or say you are to dum to speak with

- Possibility to solve most quests with High Int+Speech
A high Int char would be able to solve most quests with a nice charmed speech

- Aimed Shot Skills
Possibility to aime your arrows/punches/slashing to a certain part of the body, eyes=offence loss legs=movement loss, etc

- Critical Strikes

Well just think about this plz DD team <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/up.gif" alt="" />

Actually it was DD a bit similar to Fallout: Fallout was made before ;0).


Sounds interesting. I wouldn't mind having that.


For some reason, Arcanum didn't have this. It will certainly make the game less linear.


Easter Eggs are always welcome but DD has a good bunch of them.


Look the FAQ for Riftrunner about Battlegrounds: it's an area with randomly generated quests/maps and it looks that there are respawnable monsters.


Was discussed here before. I love the idea yet it requires a large ammount of programming.

Yes, that's a good idea. In Arcanum you could play a character without combat skills still finish the game.


I don't really like the idea of than in a real time game. Fallout was Turn-Based, remember? :0)


There are criticals in DD1!

Yes I know Fallout was first, I played Fallout 1 when it came out... a long time ago.

About the Critical Strikes, in fallout when you did a critical you knew it! the enemy would fall(or fly back) to the ground and lose APs(If I remember correctly <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />)

The "fall to the ground" strike, and the aimed shot strike worked nice in Neverwinter Nights <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> realtime too

Well this are just some ideas...

PS: Fallout had another great eyecandy, if you killed the enemy with a blow that was very powerfull he would die in a very "gore" way, head blows off, hole in chest with ribs showing, etc.

oka DATD, you've pushed it! I'm going on *hush* google to "search" out what this Arcanum is, it sounds nice.

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shame.gif" alt="" />


edit: damn, I looked at the home site, and looked at the pics, very nice, sweet looking. may have to look into gettin' it. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ouch.gif" alt="" />

I rather enjoyed the "gore" in Fallout 2 ,some of it made me lol, and you could toggle it on/off in the menu, so it was down to the individual, great idea ...put it in <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/badsmile2.gif" alt="" />

Im with Spick on this one.
What also was funny in fallout is that you had the gory part of the battle written in the text box. Sometimes it was funny as hell. It was also implimented in fallout tactics...

man, now I need to get the demo for Fallout 2 and Acranum.

I enjoyed Fallout 2 more than Fallout. I think it was more interactive and *points above* has more gore in it <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

Although, the Baldur's Gate games were highly based on the Fallout games game-play, I still believe that Fallout and Fallout 2 are too slow. I am glad that they made combat flow smoother in the BG games and Planescape Torment. NWN? Oh geez.. sorry, it could be either an overdose of the typical BG and IWD game methods or it was just really a bad game (that had good marketing/adverstising), but, I looked at the game and was extremely disappointed. I was expecting it will turn out to be way better than its predecessors but it wasn't. They ruined most of the D&D 3e rules for one thing. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" />

I haven't played Arcanum. I have heard good things about it though.

I am hoping that DD2 will be a good game or even better than the first one.

Really? I thought BG was real time and the dialogue choises existed before Fallout.

Fallout 1 is from 1996(run in DOS!!!) Baldurs Gate was released in 98.

I personaly dont like any of the Bardurs Gate games, the thing with several heros takes off a great deal of fun in playing an RPG... you just cant get that much attached to your hero, and playing a lone wolf hero all alone against the world is just too cool <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

The combat system in Fallout was turnbased, and that is much slower than realtime(BG DD etc) but it has its good points: much more intense battles, where one single Time Unit can save your life; much less tedious hack and slash, etc...

I think turnbase combat is not better than realtime, but its not worst too, its just diferent. Games like UFO(X-COM) and Jagged Alliance were awsome turnbased games.

(First: bg2 - is perfect)

But BG is not realtime (D&D rules are turn-based in essence) - just realtime over turnbased. And I never loose the feeling of the "TURN", while playing BG2 - it is here and it is obvious.

Agree with Gia: NWN - is just a waste of time. I compleete 2 acts and throw it away - just not interesting.

I didn't like UFO because there was so much turn based combat, I felt like I was getting nowhere.

Shadow Watch was a lot better, in my opinion. It was entirely turn-based combat, but it was alright because you felt like the story was progressing. You had six characters, each with unique skills you could train them in. The game was fairly short, but there was a lot of replay value in the random story flow. A good turn-based semi-RPG.

ew, the demo for Acranum is great, no wonder you talk about it alot DATD.

Shadow watch was pretty interesting because of it's cartoonish animations and the random game generator. Every time you play, the game is completely different. Yet after finishing it (it was too easy btw), I put it in some bin and never returned to it.

Totally agree on gore. It was discussed before.
It will be cool to see those nice bloody finishing moves animations.
<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> Not that because I am violent, but it really looked impressive.

impressive sells! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/up.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />

Fallout Tactics... my entire squad was blown apart with missiles several times and each time the number of pieces left was different! Talking about impressive death animations!

Just mentioning F2 animations for death from acid (was it pulse rifle) melting into green slime, shock (laser?) turning into skele and burst (my favourite).
Those were excellent.

Shock rifle animation was great!
And the laser cut the person in 2...
What I also like in Fallout are floaters: the enemy displays emotions.
Like in F: T, I knew a mutie was hiding behind a boulder. I rolled there with my giant APC and he saw it and said "Mother!".

Fallout was da shiznit.

I apologize if this has been mentioned, (I just skimmed through), but fallout 1 has SOME easter eggs, and all of them out of the way/inobtrusive, etc. Just wanted to point out that F2 set a very different example. F2 attempted to ooze humor, (and I did find it funny), but all that oozing made the game a bit messy too imho. Most oppinions I've heard agree that F2 overdid the eastereggs. I just wanted to make the distinction.

Oh and I think DD scores pretty well with humor, but I think it misses a great many opportunities as well. (largely an issue with the somewhat spartan dialogue menus... When you do have dialogue choices they often seem meaningless, as you get the same/similar response with no change in reputation with the npc regardless of what you choose to say.)

I agree that more dialogue=more work, but it isn't much more programming, just more thoughtful/thorough scripting. (once the dialogue program is written it's simply a matter of making deeper scripts for the pc and npcs).

What I'd really like to see is consistency. I mentioned in the combat thread that I don't think DD is as deep a RPG as Fallout was. A big part of that is the unoriginal quests, (lots and lots of the basics), but more of it is the dialogue and the avenues your character can take. I chalk it up to consistency. Why can I bully so few characters? Why do I hear about completely different town issues from each neighbor, with no crossover? (not always but all too often) Imo thoroughly scripted dialogues, along with an enjoyable story, are what MAKE a role playing game. You just can't get immersed when your character never says what you want him to say, (obviously impossible to please everyone, but 3 options instead of 2 or 1 would go a long ways).