Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2
Joined: Aug 2012
addict
OP Offline
addict
Joined: Aug 2012
that is the question asked by Larian on their fessebook
(here is the post : http://www.facebook.com/DivinityOriginalSin/posts/593839890642347)

In my opinion it should be an open world but that we have to discover through the scenario : I mean in D2, I was really frustrated when I discovered that you cannot go back to the first region once damian overtake it !!
I probably missed some quest or things the first time I played (not the second one^^).
Of course you should not be able to werhever you want as a level 1, you might have somes areas with stronger monster while you evolve in the story, but you should be able to go back in the places you went for example to complete a quest you put in standby for some reason or to see again the npc you interracted with...

Exploration has also always been an important part in larian games with a lot of hidden things so it is up to you to go in some places where the main story might not send you...


"-Oh that's fullmoon, cuttie cuttie sheep
-baaaaaaOOOOORGH"
***Sprotch***

Weresheeps will rule the world (At least one night every 29 days)
Joined: Jan 2009
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jan 2009
Both philosophies have their merits.

Open worlds feel more realistic, they let you move around at your own pace, do things in basically any order you want. It can let you figure out and solve problems on your own.

Linear design's strength is telling a coherent story. If you have to go from A to B to C in that order, and can't go from F to A to C to B to D, this makes the story flow better, and have a consistent pace and buildup.

I did like the open world of Divine Divinity, but I did not mind the linearity of Divinity 2's cut-off point, because that made the threat of Damian real. He wasn't a nebulous guy just hanging out in a fortress waiting for you to come kill him, he was active and causing problems.

Yes, some people were probably upset at not being able to finish off one or two quests, but it also made the players react emotionally - Damian killed people they knew, people they had helped. That drew the players into the story in a deeper way than if the valley had stayed safe and untouched forever. It gave you a reason to care.

Divine Divinity took place in the middle of a war between the humans and orcs. That war stayed basically static. You could fight as much or as little as you wanted and it changed nothing. People would have understandably been annoyed if the orcs could sweep the humans away and overrun the lands and kill people, making a lot of quests unable to be completed. That's part of the paradox of open worlds, you get freedom to move, but the world must mostly remain static and unchanging.

In Divinity 2, you had plenty of time to do Broken Valley before its destruction. It sent you to the Maxos Temple and Sentinel Island as well, which had higher level enemies. If you'd been putting things off for that long, it was your own choice. Plus, Talana gave a very clear warning before the point of no return. If all that time spent wasn't enough to make you finish up Broken Valley, you had no one to blame but yourself.

Joined: Sep 2011
member
Offline
member
Joined: Sep 2011
Unless Larian proves otherwise, I doubt they can make a good open world. From what happened in Divinity 2, I would vote for Larian to make D OS linear. Why?

IMO there is a gameplay issue. First off, I've played Divinity 2 so much that I'm afraid to even look at my playing hours. I've reached Level 49 and killed Ygerna in seconds, all in nightmare mode. However, Divinity 2 has the issue of spiking difficulty. The Zagan encounter is notorious. Granted, in my last play I didn't notice the spikes in difficulty because I already knew what to expect. Still, my experience is negligible compared to the public. Google "Divinity 2 difficulty" and you'll encounter a lot of articles discussing the problem.

Difficulty scaling is important in open world rpgs. Skyrim implemented a level scaling method to address this (of course, a mod was created to remove it). Unless Larian gets a sense of proper difficulty scaling, an open world will make it worse. You have players moving in unpredictable directions.

As a potential customer, because of the editor, I will be satisfied with a linear, high quality, turn-based RPG.

warning, further opinions ahead:

Was the "open world" question thrown out because Larian's game designers wanted to do it? Or was it presented on the table because it makes the game more marketable? If the question of "open world" came in because the designers feel strongly about it then, I will change my statement and say... heck, go for it if you're passionate about it.


Last edited by J747L; 25/01/13 07:27 AM. Reason: I meant Ygerna, not Talana doh
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: Canada
Larian Studios
Offline
Larian Studios
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: Canada

You have players moving in unpredictable directions.

And when they get killed they should try a different direction. Difficulty scaling makes character progression completely pointless.


I'm fine with mostly open. If there is going to be a plot, there will need to be some kind of structure for the main story line, which will necessitate at least some areas being opened, blocked off or changed in response to completed quests or specific encounters. I'm also fine with a linear main plot, but no/few side quests and linear exploration would not be good.

Joined: Sep 2011
member
Offline
member
Joined: Sep 2011
Originally Posted by Raze
Difficulty scaling makes character progression completely pointless.


Why would it make it pointless? If a PC is overpowered due to his/her build and the difficulty scaling ai decided to increase the power of the monsters spawned (in some or all areas), wouldn't that be a service to the PC's progression?

Scaling goes either way up or down in difficulty.

p.s. Anyway, I can already foresee many disagreeing with what I posted cause these are features that the player shouldn't know while playing the game. I'll just leave it at that anyway.

Further Edit: what I meant originally for difficulty scaling was a consistent challenge rating scale. My bad.
When I talked about level scale, or difficulty scaling a.i. that was when I was referring to the environment being changed for the player.

Last edited by J747L; 25/01/13 04:56 AM.
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: Canada
Larian Studios
Offline
Larian Studios
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: Canada

The problem with a consistent challenge rating is that if you run into opponents that you find too hard (even with close to the best available equipment), you can not go level up somewhere else and return, because they will then be stronger, as well. Early in the game you might be able to level and adjust your stats/skills to suit problem opponents, but that would be much harder late in the game.
If the game detects you are having trouble and make opponents weaker for you, then I don't see any point in allowing character builds, if they are all going to be equal.

I can see partial level scaling to keep weak opponents from getting to just be a nuisance, but IMNSHO strong opponents should not be nerfed.

Theoretically, dynamic difficulty scaling could work well in a shooter or action game where the focus is on the skill of the player, but once you start building a character with a choice of stats and skills, those choices should matter.

Joined: Sep 2011
member
Offline
member
Joined: Sep 2011
This argument is too familiar. Been there, done that. Please refer to my old post with regards to what I'm referring with the consistency of challenge rating

http://www.larian.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Main=27954&Number=451058#Post451058

Last edited by J747L; 25/01/13 06:28 AM.
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: Canada
Larian Studios
Offline
Larian Studios
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: Canada

You are correct that the level of opponent should reflect their difficulty, in general (an opponent 5 levels higher than your character being noticeably tougher than one 2 levels higher, etc). I don't have a problem with certain opponent types being being more or less vulnerable to particular character builds, or just being tougher/weaker than similar opponent types. Overall, though, level should at least be a rough indicator of an opponent's challenge rating (initially the level may be all you know about an opponent, other than appearance).

Joined: Jun 2003
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Jun 2003
I don't like any kind of scaling. It was especially a problem in TES:Oblivion, and on a much smaller scale in Skyrim (scaling there was more limited). But oblivion just destroyed the point of leveling due to its scaling. Never a challenge because of going into a dungeon/place you were still way too low level for.

IMO, was the first DivDiv still best, bit of sandboxy, but still lots of quests with different solutions/approaches. Lots of places to discover, and a whole bunch you needed to mark cause you got your ass kicked. So you could go later back to that place and totally destroy all enemies.

With scaling you can remove the entire leveling system altogether, if the entire world gets stronger with you.

Joined: Aug 2012
addict
OP Offline
addict
Joined: Aug 2012
another options could be opening new area when you progress in the story and not close the other one like in Fable...

and I must agree on one point that stabbey mentionned, when the valley was distroyed I felt painful and may be more involve, that is true !! but I definitely prefer open world, usually when a story is good I cannot quite it for optionnal quest and those quest come later.

But I definitely prefer an open world even if your actions make some change on that world (I take again the example of those soldiers I mentionned above) and it is good to see that your action have an impact but it is really frustrated when you miss some parts of the game and if there is a wonderful pretty zone it is always godd to go back there for taking a break (in D2 I wanted to go back to see that pretty waitress you rescued from the guards^^)


"-Oh that's fullmoon, cuttie cuttie sheep
-baaaaaaOOOOORGH"
***Sprotch***

Weresheeps will rule the world (At least one night every 29 days)
Joined: Dec 2012
P
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
P
Joined: Dec 2012
My vote for an open world!

Joined: Aug 2012
addict
OP Offline
addict
Joined: Aug 2012
I see that once again PUVer and I agree with me smile


"-Oh that's fullmoon, cuttie cuttie sheep
-baaaaaaOOOOORGH"
***Sprotch***

Weresheeps will rule the world (At least one night every 29 days)
Joined: Jan 2009
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jan 2009
I think an open world like the one Divine Divinity used (with fixed enemy levels) would work fine.

Ways to avoid getting wiped out by wandering into high-level monsters could be that you can see the level of the enemy, and maybe there are carefully-placed auto-saves.

Joined: Aug 2009
Location: Soviet Empire
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Aug 2009
Location: Soviet Empire
DD as pretty much open world, no? Well, except few story-dependant locations (the Desert and final Dungeon), but otherwise you were free to visit all of them. I see no issues why DOS can't be DD-like.

Joined: Apr 2005
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Apr 2005
I agree with Kein : DD-like wink

DD is a Masterpiece, why not take all the strong things from DD and place new ideas and new technologies into D:OS.
Of course NOT the purpose to make a copy of DD ... I only can't never forget DD, how an awesome RPG it is, and that's important :
That a game is IN the minds of many gamers for yearssssss !!
smile



On 7th of february 2015 : I start a new adventure in the Divinity world of Original Sin,
it's a Fantastic Freaking Fabulous Funny ... it's my All Time Favorite One !
Joined: Oct 2004
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2004
I hope for a world similar to DD and D2 (I do not consider D2 an open world in the same sense as skyrim). Having some events that cause world effects (making parts of the world no accessible) is fine with me but having random (very large) caves and such which are optional but story enhancing is also good.

Joined: Aug 2011
Location: Serbia
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Aug 2011
Location: Serbia
Open world and without level scaling!

Joined: Oct 2004
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2004
definitely no level scaling but good gradual increase of difficulty so you know what is going to happen. Btw I really like the idea of throwing in random story bits in optional side quests. For example (not related to original sin story plot) if there is a wicked dictator that kills potential adversary then an optional quest might result in several hour exploration of a cave for a (corky example) lost child of a local village and as a by product you might find the skeleton of an assassinated adversary which might kick off another optional quest to motivated the villagers against the dictator by finding additional evidence as to who and why this person was killed.

Joined: Dec 2012
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Dec 2012
Definitely no scaling whatsoever, and how about an open but somewhat changing world? You can go to most places (if you can find a way to survive) almost from the start, a few open at story nodes, a few close, others change in various ways, but you get clear warnings and a chance to go back and finish up before something gets locked away / quests become impossible to complete / etc.


"We're all humans." Let's try to be more!
"The chief obstacle to the progress of the human race is the human race."
"If you're falling off a cliff you may as well try to fly, you've got nothing to lose."
Joined: Oct 2004
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2004
Were the previous games (divine divinity and divine divinity 2) considered open world or linear ?

Page 1 of 2 1 2

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5