Larian Studios Forums Divinity General Discussion What races are planned for Divinity and party size? Expecting more or less?

Saying TDU has nothing to do with an evil route is a bit of a stretch, isn't it?

Agreed that their story is not exclusive to the evil route. But the marketing campaign presented this playstyle as a way to do despicable things, most violent thoughts come true basically.

This was a known premise and a first and most important choice towards building the evilest of playthroughs.

Let's back my words up a little since we don't want to be throwing general statements out there, right?

Feel free to revisit Pannel from Hell reveal stream, more precisely around 4:28:00 mark.

Edit: Though on a second thought TDU is more about evil exposition other than evil choices. So I would more likely agree with you I think.

Taril, no, ARPG took time before becoming popular. Diablo was controversial within the RPG genre as it didn't feature any roleplay element except playing a class and choosing some skills. Dragon Commander's mechanics were never popular, you have almost no games like that. Anyway, your argument isn't good, ARPG sells more than TB games, people will most likely play a RDR2, TW3, TES... than a TB game. No, they have decided to follow the standardized route like Bethesda did many years ago, like CD Projekt is doing, Ubisoft... which leads to less creativity overall, and less risks taken.
I've never heard of sex being a taboo in video games, that's a first in 45 years of gaming I have... That some countries don't want it, yes, and it's pretty easy to filter it, but they included it because it sells. No wonder BG3 is one of the most sold TB game (if not the most), it includes something the market wants, sex, and kinks.
Other D&D games are relevant to make a comparison. That's the purpose of bringing them. Anyway, you bring another argument in favor of less creativity and more standardization based on what sells, which is the opposite route of creativity and taking risks.

Yes... But Diablo 1 released in 1997. But by the time Divine Divinity came out in 2002, Diablo 2 had come out and took the world by storm in 2000.

When Larian released their game, ARPG was THE biggest thing because of D2.


What on Earth are you going on about?

They made ARPG games back when ARPG games were popular because they wanted to make money.

After they made their money, they started making TB games, the games they wanted to make.

They're following a route of making games they like. Which is what CDPR does too, they like to make story driven games so that's what they make.

This is different to Bethesda/Ubislop who are banking on selling the same game ad infinitum just with a different coat of paint. Which is plainly evident in how games have changed over time.

Larian and CDPR have been refining their games. Making mechanics better and more polished. Bethesda/Ubislop are making the same games with no improvements besides some graphical updates.


Then you must have been living under the worlds largest rock.

There have been numerous controversies in regards to nudity and sex in video games and continual decisions to never include nudity even during sex scenes used in video games (Which still caused some media outcry for being too raunchy just because 2 characters in their undies rub against each other)

Like, there's a reason why we have plenty of violent video games that are rated 12+ or 15+ but any nudity instantly makes a game 17+. With it only being in very specific cases of extreme violence such as Manhunt or Calisto Protocol where violence is given an 18+ or AO rating.


Yes. I never denied that it is popular among consumers.

Taboos are a societal thing, not an individual thing.

Sex is very frowned upon by society. Which is why current governments are going so hard against pornographic sites on the internet because "Won't somebody think about the children!" meanwhile violence is shown all over the place, including actual real world violence like the viral videos of Alex Pretti's execution.

It's also why age ratings are much harsher on sex than anything else (Even profanity and drugs can still get 12+ or at worst 15+ ratings. Nudity is the ONLY thing that instantly makes media 17+) and is the most prominent reason for Watershed in TV scheduling.


But they are literally irrelevant.

They have nothing to do with how Larian produces games. They are not evidence of Larian producing games, as Larian didn't make them. Nor are they evidence of what Larian uses for inspiration because they have nothing to do with Larian or their interests.

It's like if I started talking about CoD as a representation of how Larian makes games. CoD only features humans (Except the newest one which went off the deep end) thus Larian only makes games with humans in and will only make games with only humans in.

It's asinine because it has no tangible relation to them.


You might want to get your eyes checked, because that's not what I said at all.

I merely pointed out that non-standard characters they have made have been popular. Thus there is more evidence to show that taking a risk will pay off.

Had these non-standard characters not been popular, then there would be less chance of taking a creative approach or making risks because it would be shown that doing so isn't likely to pay off.

Just because something has shown to not be a mistake doesn't automatically mean "Less creativity and more standardization". It simply means it's more tenable for similar actions to be used again.

I hope they take still notice of this and don't cater to a loud mini-minority or their own ambitions too much. I don't want a game which plenty of uncommon possibilities if that resulted in lacking polishing all over it.

If they have so many resources and so much time to make it huge and perfect in any way, ok. If not, they should prioritize wisely.

I have some similar concerns.

They do say that this game will have more "Breadth and depth" of which the breadth would indicate having a lot of possibilities.

Though, whether this will translate into "Uncommon/unpopolar" possibilities that end up being underdeveloped or if it will manifest as simply alternate paths along the more popular route will be a key distinction.

Personally, I'd much rather get one route that is fleshed out with lots of (Meaningful) choices, than a bunch of routes that are mostly shallow and uninteresting.

Even more so considering Larian's view on what an "Evil" path entails (I.e. Murderhobo). The lack of nuance and understanding of what "Evil" is just isn't to my taste. Unlike other studios such as Owlcat who do provide some actually convincing "Evil" routes that make sense and aren't just you murdering everyone for the sake of murdering everyone (Like, yes, bunches of people die if you become a Lich in PotR... But the key part of it is that you get incredibly powerful Lich abilities to help you get through the game. You sacrifice these lives and also push away several companions to get personal power)

Even as a Githyanki Tav, you still get (or at least got until Patch 6-ish) lectured by Lae'zel about Githyanki language and culture and you're somehow supposed to know everything about Faerûn, like you're some cauliflower-eared istik. It's important news to the player (and possibly some companions), but there is (or was) no option to say you grew up in a Crèche as well. It was just one hole in an otherwise really wonderful fabric, but during some stretches, especially in Act 3, I almost felt forced to take a rare Githyanki dialogue option, because I felt I wasn't doing them enough. So, while it would have been nice to have more context/background for a Githyanki Tav, I wouldn't drop a thousand gold pieces to pick up two copper pieces. My actual peeves are not being able to give Karlach a Gondian heart with infernal ice-cooling and getting Omeluum to sling the stone. Adrenaline aside, this was one of the reasons we got into that metal bathtub in the first place!

"Prioritizing wisely" however often translates to "prioritizing my preferences". Which is why I think prioritizing their own ideas and stories will lead to a better and more cohesive final product, since as people have previously pointed out, listening to the fanbase tends to prioritize those who shout the loudest.

The biggest issue with most evil routes is that they simply remove options from the game without much in the way of pay off.

I do not want to simply kill everybody that my character comes across if I decide to role-play a more morally challenged character. The individual in question may not even be outright evil, just callous and an opportunist.

On the other hand, if a particular antagonist has nuance and/or charisma then I believe there should be an option to defect and work with that character.

I'd argue that modern fantasy is so bland, in many cases, because it assumes that the player wants to be the 'good guy' at every possible turn.

Most people want to be good guys and gals, thankfully, a sign of the human nature developed in the hundreds of thousands of years we lived as hunters and gatherers, later partly included in (and partly excluded from) ideologies/religions when circumstances of life had greatly changed and left the humans with a lot of social, economical and mental problems.

"Evil" in human affairs usually comes from different interests and ideologies, with often quite small differences in addition, then it's a matter of where you are and to what you belong, nothing very special. "Evil" in games however is often absolutely exaggerated or mind-numbingly dumb, it feels forced to go that way, as many features and structures of fantasy worlds are without sense. Would really anyone worship Shar for example of follow the dumb BG murder ideology stuff? In my opinion "evil" usually lacks enough depth to be immersive and interesting.

Larian of course should and will follow their ambitions and make a game with a lot of "agency". Knowing that most of the evil stuff will not interest me, out of egoism I just hope that they will not spread themselves too thin, for the rest.

Of course, one has to factor in the nature of video games as escapism.

Playing an evil character has a draw to it for someone who is good in life. As they can experience something new and different to what they're used to.

For example, I have no desire to be a criminal... But playing games like GTA, Thief, The Getaway, Mafia, Hitman etc. Is fun. It allows me to experience something different.


Oh absolutely.

Not only do we have people in real life who follow "Questionable" ideologies. But in D&D settings, there are actually tangible benefits for siding with evil gods. Like, literally you can be a Cleric of Shar and get cool powers.

This is often true in other settings. In fantasy, there are often actual gods (Or god-like entities) that bestow gifts upon their followers. Thus adding some actual logic behind faith in them, as opposed to real life where faith is just based on feeling as though it is real.

On a side note;

Something that often bothers me about games and their morality systems is that it's quite often just a binary thing. You're either goody-two-shoes paragon of the people, or you're Jerky McJerkFace the murderhobo. There's no inbetween, no neutral or morally grey representation.

It's especially apparent when looking at the Star Wars universe... I hate both the Jedi and the Sith. The Jedi are way to uptight and annoying and the Sith are far too "Chaotic Stupid". There exists the middleground, the Grey Jedi which are more morally ambiguous but they barely ever, if at all, get any screentime.

All this get compounded on by horrendously awful implementations of "Morality Scales" which basically force you to make all "Good guy" or "Bad guy" options in order to build up enough morality points to select options later on... For example, when I did a full playthrough of Mass Effect, my Paragon character took every Paragon option except 2, once in ME2 and once in ME3 (They weren't even "Bad" options. They were either logical or simply human) and as a result I couldn't get the Paragon ending in ME3...

While I considered my character lawful evil, at least at the beginning of BG3, it was simply the reasonable thing to side with the druids first since they were more likely to have a cure than the goblins. Then there were all the telepathically linked good-aligned companions. So, to secure victory, some balancing of the scales was necessary, but it was a plausible enough bad-does-good scenario for me. Adventuring colleagues from opposing ends of the axis don't necessarily become life-long friends, but they can align towards a shared goal for a time. In AD&D you can take an alignment warning in stride, and having your protest noted that the group can't butcher all the guards due to stealth, will preserve your chaotic evil alignment.

Back in the late 1980s and early 1990s many RPGs tended to be quite restrictive when it came to evil. You had evil NPC-only races (Orcs, Drow, Githyanki, Duergar,...) and had to hand your character sheet to the game master if you turned into a vampire or fell to the Dark Side of the Force. I always thought that was boring and tried to find out why. I'd say four out of five gamers got bored or overwhelmed by the evil path quickly, as most other players weren't fond of being associated with a murderous maniac and of course in-game consequences, like becoming a wanted and hunted criminal. Then I had players who really enjoyed being the mass-murderer or shaman of a dark totem, but that led to player complaints, because to them it was like working with a difficult method actor. On the other hand, we had a highly enjoyable campaign with Drow player characters in Forgotten Realms and a still ongoing historical vampire campaign set in the world of Shadowrun that started in imperial Rome and advanced to the 30-years-war over the last decades. Yes, they kill people for their blood, but it rarely hits the wrong people and they have to save the world from weird otherworldly beings, dangerous cults and of course other vampires. Even a maniacal Bhaalist can work in a group against a greater and stronger evil, at least for a time, while there are also numerous examples how you can turn a chaotic good rebel leader or the lawful neutral cleric into the villain of a campaign.