Larian Studios Forums Divinity - Original Sin Divinity - Original Sin - Enhanced Edition This is the worst Enhanced Edition

This is the worst Enhanced Edition I'eve ever had the displeasure of playing.

Seriously, I bought the PC / Steam version just because of this 'Enhanced Edition'.

You guys seriously spent time and money to give the 'guy with many cheeses' a new voice, but didn't bother to fix game breaking and often occurring bugs from the Classic version?

For instance, the glitch where 'non-host' player's inventory / health will glitch, and he'll have to leave the game and join again to fix it.

You guys nerfed some builds to hell, why? It was FUN to play as specialized classes, like man-at-arms only. Now we have to use hybrid builds.

You made the Teller of Secrets not restock when you level up, whyyyyyyyy?
Why is gold used for now? Jesus christ!

Seriously this is so much boring than the 'classic' edition. Still ridden with glitches. Sadly it took me too long to realize it, and now I'm unable to ask Steam for a refund.

If you have the original game, the Enhanced Edition was free.

If you paid $60 and don't have the original version you are screwed.

Which makes me wonder, Raze: can I still get the classic game (for a reasonable price) somewhere?

As you know, I 'lost' my classic game, and the EE version is no good for me, since I have Vista.

Is there still a place where I can buy the classic version (even if as a physical CD)? I've looked around on the internet, but all shops I found now only sell the EE version.

What about those with XP/Vista that want to play D:OS?

Is there any way to get the classic version?

The Humble Store still has D:OS Steam keys, and purchasing the EE on Steam also give the Classic version. I think it does on GOG, as well, but have not seen that confirmed, and the fact you already have the EE there may complicate matters.

I bought the Enhanced edition on steam and a few weeks ago i noticed I now own the Classic version. Check your steam library you might already own it.

I own both games on GOG, btw. They are treated as separate games.

To the guy with Vista...man, I suggest you update soon because you are already missing the game compatibility boat. But, maybe this game is one of, say, the two or three games you own?

I'm not one to let himself being 'pushed' (there is really no other way to describe it) into buying 'new' stuff without a reason. A reason that isn't invented by the same company that sold you the old and now wants you to buy their newest thing yet again, that is.

I'm thinking of updating (computer and OS) when the next TES game comes out.

2 or 3 games? I don't quite understand the rationale you used to come to that conclusion. I think I own about 150+ games. Granted, most of them I haven't played yet. The ones I do play are mostly RPG's or tactical games. I also have the tendency to not buy them brand-new at premium prices, but to wait a year or so, until they've dropped in price. (Nowadays, this can happen through stark promotions on Steam and GOG and the like too, of course).

Most of my games I bought below the 10-15 euro mark, even. That's the way I operate, and I noted that for games from 2010 onward, it really isn't all that noticable anymore: graphics still look quite decent on full settings, and the gameplay is the same or better, with less bugs (thnks to the patches). The only thing is to have some patience but since I have such a large stock of games still to play, I can easily overcome a timeperiod of a year or two. IT's mainly a matter of not letting you be swooped up with all the hype, but for the rest it has nothing but advantages to wait a little.

Granted, there are a few exceptions, but as a whole, I don't buy games when they just come out: most are severely overpriced (imho). Which one can also see since in other localities, they're sold at a third of the price, often. Notable exceptions are TES games, which, I admit, the hype got me too (ever since Morrowind) - but then again, I clock more than 800+ hours on those, and some indie games I want to support, if they're reasonable with their pricesettings (like Torchlight 2 or the future 'The Bards' Tale).

And Vista works just fine, with those games. ;-)

Can't last forever, I'm aware of that, but that wasn't really the core of the problem I had. If the rule of Larian or its distributors was to give an EE version *in addition to* the old one, I can see nothing wrong with it, and they handled more than correctly. No complaints there. My case was something else entirely (but is more or less resolved, now).

@AidBand

The point is that there are several gaming API-related developments that almost every *new* game *requires*--not "supports"--but requires. For instance--can't run the EE on d3d9, etc. I know of some rather foolish people who balk at spending $90 on an OS that will last them five years and be supported for every one of those years with free updates--yet they won't hesitate to drop $300 on a new GPU that won't run in anything but semi-compatibility mode because their ancient OS API and drivers hobble it...;) And they'll replace those every two years. I call that fairly stupid, really.

Nobody is "pushing" anybody...;) If you like tech and enjoy gaming, the new stuff is just fun...I get a lot of pleasure from it. It's way, way better than the old. Vista was great when it shipped--I bought it and really liked it--had no problem with it. But it is a kludge compared with Win7 (Vista 2.x, really), and Win10 completely destroys it. And, had you bumped to Win7 when you should have--it is way, way better than Vista in every department--you could now get Win10 free for life. Yea, wow, that's really "pushed"...;)

There is no rationale you can present to me which will bring me around to your point of view because I know better...;) I'd really hate to try and find Vista drivers these days for newer hardware...;) Anyway...my humble opinion is that you are making life much harder and far less rewarding for yourself than it could be--imo, there's never been a better time to buy new hardware, and Win10 is the last OS you'll ever need (because Microsoft has no intention of ending development like it did for Vista)--I'd think that would appeal to you. Perhaps you just haven't thought it through. My oldest games are 30 years old and run splendidly on Win10x64--in fact, I don't have any game that won't run under Win10x64. It is far more backwards-compatible than I recall Vista being--it's not even a close contest, IIRC. (I own 2x the number of games you mentioned, but numbers aren't really the issue, here.)

I guess it all depends on how much computer gaming means to you as a hobby...I've been in it for decades and I'm still nowhere near tired of it. "New and improved" turns the world, don't ya' know...;)

We aren't that far away from d3d12 *required* games hitting the market--and that takes more than just the proper OS, too. These aren't criticisms--of course not. They're just pertinent observations...;)

" Yea, wow, that's really "pushed"...;)"

Yes, it still is. I mean: you ARE aware they're doing it because they want to continue to earn money, don't you? On itself, it would be perfectly possible to continue development (including drivers) for Vista - as XP has proven.

Had I 'bumped' to win7, I would already have been pushed to win7 from Vista in the first place, costing me money, so it's still being 'pushed'. Mind you, it's not like I don't understand the rationale for them doing it, it's just that it's rather foolish of people *not* to realise they're being pushed into it. And of course one IS being pushed, Waltc; you said it yourself; after a while, you can't *but* upgrade, because they don't support it anymore, drivers get abandoned, etc.


"There is no rationale you can present to me which will bring me around to your point of view because I know better...;)"

What rationale would that be? Bring you to my point? What? I'm not following you. I was merely pointing out what I did and was going to do, I didn't give any rationale for bringing you around whatever, since that wasn't my aim at all. I'm just saying how I see things. And I see things as a company trying to push me into buying their new product once again, by stopping their support (and others following suite, of course). And me deciding when I will get annoyed enough to contemplate buying it, yet once again, at an appropriate time. Which will be, as said, when the next TES game comes out and I'm going to buy a new computer anyway.

What has that to do with bringing you to my point? I doubt you even have vista anymore, so why would I want to bother with it, even if I felt inclined to do so (which I don't)? No, everyone should do as he sees fit.

I'm just saying I won't budge on the OS, until the next TES game in a few years. In the mean time, I'll keep myself busy with all the games I still have left to play, which DO play on Vista. So I don't see the issue. It's like saying you are driving a new Tesla-SUV and how wonderful that is and I should buy it too at 80000 dollar, while I'm saying my old car is still good enough, and I'll probably buy it when I feel like it at a more reasonable cost and after my car gets really too broken for my own taste.

It's true that win10 is claimed to be perpetual, and I agree that's more to my liking. I also think it's foolish and naive to expect that this 'free eternal upgrading' will really be either eternal, or free.

"I've been in it for decades and I'm still nowhere near tired of it. "New and improved" turns the world, don't ya' know...;)"

Hey, whatever makes your clock tick is fine with me. In fact, I'm glad with early adopters like you. You guys pay premium prices and are paying for the grunt amount of companies when they are maximising their profits, and once they're passed your table, and can't squeeze out anymore, only then are the prices going to drop.

The same is true with hardware, btw. People who buy the very best graphical cards when they come out are paying premium prices and loads of money for it, that (imho) is completely foolish and absurd. But it's thanks to these overpaying parvenus that the cards eventually get mass-adopted and go down the ranks of the graphical cards at more reasonable prices. For me, it's nonsensical behaviour, since you pay triple the price for something you could buy only a year later far cheaper, but I *DO* realise that it's thanks to fools like that, that it *does* lower in price so much and so rapidly, and indeed, they give incentive to 'new and improved' stuff, which is again oversold to the same gadgetfreaks and trendsetting hipsters.

No, I'm truly grateful there are such wasteful spenders in the world, so I can buy the same thing much cheaper and more economically a bit later. And the nice thing is, they never seem to find it wasted money, so everyone is happy...

PS."(I own 2x the number of games you mentioned, but numbers aren't really the issue, here.)"

No, it isn't. It sounds like you are comparing the length of dicks, here. ;-) The 150+ was an estimate of how many I had in my online libraries. I still have a truckload of them in some boxes as physical dvd's too. I don't actually know how many I have, really, but *I* wasn't comparing dick-sizes. ;-) I was just countering your strange conclusion I only had 2-3.


And no doubt DX12 games will start to pop up more and more, but let's not use hyperbole: you know as well as I do, that all games will still support DX11 too, for the near future. Just like DX11 games still run on DX9, for the most part. Don't get me wrong: I'm all for DX12. I think it's a great improvement. But, just like all the rest, one can manage a few years without it just fine. You seem to misunderstand my viewpoint as being against it, but that's not really it. I just don't care enough for it, to follow the herd and hasten my decision (especially if that's being forced upon you - for good or for worse) and certainly not when paying premium prices for it.

I'll make the decision on my own of when I'll make the transition, and in my reasoning and rationale, I make a cost-benefit decision, not a grab-the-next-tech-hype decision. If people want to pay premium prices for whatever they fancy or because it 'drives innovation' and they feel like that's worth all the money they pour into it, they should do it, for sure. Just like I hope enough people will buy Tesla-cars at their current crazy prices, so I can maybe get one a few years later for a fraction of the price they paid for it.

I agree someone has to fall for it, for it to become viable as a businessmodel for those companies. But I rather not be the one to overpay something just to be the first, nor am I charitable enough to throw my money away for the idea one is 'driving innovation or the economy', or whatever. The cool thing is, for those early adopters it's *worth it*. It's a waste of money in an objective sense, but that doesn't matter, since the worth of something is largely measured subjectively.

I just happen to temper my irrational subjective motives with a more logical ratio when spending my money, that's all. Some others clearly don't. Which is their prerogative, as it is mine, since we each decide of our own money what is worth how much.