Larian Studios Forums Divinity General Discussion Hopes for Divinity After BG3

My biggest hope for Divinity after BG3 and DOS2 is a more open start. I'll play the opening area over and over again trying different builds, but I fall off before getting to the mid game because I've played the opening too many times. (my own fault). But I think that is one advantage that open world RPGs have over larian's games. When you step out of that fallout vault in one playthrough and you go left and another you go right, it makes getting into a new playthrough much easier.
examples
DOS2, while there are a lot of things to do on fort Joy, you're still in the same general area with the same characters. You can just leave, but you'll be pretty underleved. imo
BG3 as well, you there are 2/3 major points to hit between the druid grove and the goblin camp you still tend to complete that story before moving onto the next area.

I want to be able to run straight to baulders gate, do some shenanigans to steal a crazy necromancer staff and then go back to some of the opening areas later. As the game stands I'll probably never play through Rivington again, because its just deep enough that my attention wont hold long enough on subsequent plays.

no idea how to make reactive story telling with this format. but I can dream

I like multiple start options. Perhaps even something like the original Dragon age and having an Origin story with multiple different origins, and more freedom.

My hope is they also add some additional mechanics --

Mounts - (horse, exotics) In some fashion (perhaps even if its used in overland travel/fast travel)? Its tried often but never fully fleshed out. In a turn based game probably would not be good for the tactical game but for travel only?
Camp - Have the camp grow based on what you can carry (i.e. purchase wagon, horse/s, packs and Hirelings?
Camp - Add camp upgrades that can do more than serve as a place to eat. But also add upgrades that can give temporary boosts, crafting, invite merchants etc.
Camp - Mobile - can move it throughout the maps.

Oh, I'll be all for keeping any start as short and optional as possible.

One of my favorite examples of great introductory segment has always been the first Dark Souls (and sometime later the same could have been said about Elden Ring, too): short to the point, with all the essential information you need, tense and atmospheric to enjoy at a slow pace if you are a first timer, but at the same time it can basically be skipped in a couple of minutes once you are familiar enough with what you are dealing with... AND it releases you immediately into the "open world" where you are free to engage with the rest of the game as you like.

I think the issue would be that DOS and BG have been more story driven RPG's rather than series like say, TES, Fallout, Far Cry etc. Which are more about being open world sandboxes.

The result is that a more open world tends to have a shallower and less interesting central story, with it being mostly ignorable through most of your gameplay. While story driven games are focused on that central story and exploration is a side element and as such it needs to restrict you to ensure that you properly progress the main story.

As far as boredom goes... I think the difference between the 2 styles merely shifts where the tedium occurs.

With a story based game, you might find the early-mid game more tedious as you play through it so often as every run.

With an open world game... Everything eventually becomes tedious as you go explore everything all the time (Unless you figure out certain places are not worth exploring like Elden Ring's many side dungeons with minor bosses and lame loot). With the main story also being far less enticing to follow through with especially after you already cleared out everywhere the story takes you beforehand.

Which is something I've personally encountered in games like Fallout 3, Fallout 4, Skyrim and Pillars of Eternity 2 where I've rarely if ever actually completed the main story because I've already explored every single place on the map before progressing it, meaning it doesn't provide me with any exp, loot or even a new place to explore so I have little interest in interacting with it.

I think the best compromise would be something like the early Bioware games. The likes of KotoR, DA:O and ME. Whereby they're story focused games that will string you along with the main story, but there are often multiple locations to go through and so you have some choice on which order you tackle them. This can allow for a little bit of extra replayability by offering a slightly different progression (Though, you normally need to go to all locations anyway so it's not perfect).

I suppose the logical continuation of this, given its aforementioned downside, would be something similar to that, but where you only go to one location and the main story continues on from whichever you picked. Of course, care would have to be taken to ensure that the story still feels interesting, reflecting your choice, rather than being some generic beat that is indifferent to which place you opted for. Like, ideally we'd get some actual "Choices matter" with each choice leading to unique outcomes and paths to choose from. The issue with this is it means you'd have to write an insane branched narrative to incorporate it (Which is why choices in video games have historically never mattered. As it takes up a lot of work to properly implement a branched story)

I don’t expect Larian to change how they structure their game. Having big acts per zone has strong advantages, especially for the multiplayer. It’s also not my favourite, but it is also good. And unique. It is to Larian, what open worlds are to Bethesda.

@Taril In my view m, Larian could be smarter with scenarios they design. My impression of Baldurs Gate3 is that it is fairly constrained “BioWare style” story, that you can refuse to engage with and break. A low hanging fruit is the Artifact. Narrative assumes player will get their hands on the artefact, and if they don’t they find a way to force players to have it in more and more outlandish way, the more player resists it.

If there is an expected sequence of events that have to happen and consequences it will go against player freedom. I would rather have more content be like the goblin camp quest. The game doesn’t assume that something can happen. You can handle the situation in variety of ways and have outcomes that the game will respect. You are also free to use a wealth of scripted and systemic options.

I mean, the goblin camp really only has 3 outcomes. You kill everyone in the camp. You attack the Grove instead of the camp. You ignore the camp (And its story proceeds without you, which would be literally one of the issues the OP doesn't like, as it interferes with going off to somewhere else to pick up some powerful loot before coming back to continue playing the early game).

None of them have any meaningful impact on the story because despite Act 1 focusing on the Goblin Camp so much, it's not actually part of the main story. Like at best it just slightly alters some side interactions based on you being allied with the Absolute (If you attacked the grove) or not (Either of the other 2 options)

It's about as relevant and freedom producing as the option to detonate Megaton in FO3. A side quest with nothing at all to do with the main story that can have lasting impacts on the game depending on choice (Notably, the evil route of detonating it will remove the Megaton settlement from the map and most of its inhabitants will disappear, those that survive are able to be found as ghouls)

Which is why it has more flexibility in how you directly interact with it, because it doesn't matter what you specifically choose to do, the end result is the same vaguely defined 3 outcomes (Yes, the merchant will still mention "Someone running around attacking everyone" even if you only kill the leaders and/or use the spoders to kill most of the camp).

This is why side-quests are usually the ones that offer more options, because they have a lack of consequences besides maybe an isolated change in its vicinity. Meanwhile, story quests are stricter and have less options because all options still have to funnel back into the same storyline, as to create a meaningful alteration you'd have to write 2 entirely different storylines based on that one decision.

This is also why "Evil Path" is often so underwhelming, because in lieu of doing anything appropriately different, you are railroaded into the same heroic good guy storyline... You just murder more people to make it "Eviler"

Which alludes to something that BG3 does, which is having very little on the map directly related to the main story. Most of the story moments are camp scenes, especially in Act 1. Which provides more freedom in what you interact with and how (Of course, as always, such things are undermined by experience gains. Whereby in order to not become underleveled, you have to interact with most content and then are shoehorned into "Fight it" or "Dialogue option to bypass combat" because things like sneaking past or ignoring encounters does not provide exp. Though at least it's not as bad as DOS2 where you had incentives to both dialogue option AND then murder everyone for double exp)

However, this does end up making the few interactions that do exist, feel a lot more awkward and forced. Such as the Artifact, the whole Moonrise thing (Along with the Temple of Shar), the Emperor etc.