Larian Studios Forums Divinity - Original Sin Divinity - Original Sin - General This game ruined RPGs for me...

Pretty much. What makes this game amazing is the mechanics. As you said, its story is okay, but it is the systems that make it a winner. That is to be expected though, Larians games were never super strong on story. They have a light hearted feel to them and that works.

what

Everything I have seen on Dragon Age Inquisitions and The Witcher 3 looks fantastic. I think they will both nail it. Of course EA is terrible but they have an amazing engine in Frostbite 3 and gave a lot of freedom to the team for Dragon Age this time. So much from E3 seemed to be what they learned from DA1 (good) and DA2 (bad).

I believe the only reason DA1 was greaet was that bioware was acquired by EA during development. Probably >80% of development have been done already before EA had a significant influence over it. I did not remember any DLC at all from that game, but an expansion which did make an overhaul on the story.

DLCs became common with some games. You could thank the ex-CEO of EA who resigned after being voted as one of the worse companies in two consecutive years or voting season.

Bioware that made DA1 does not exist anymore. It is just a name now that EA markets off of. The games are going to be hard gimmicks, massively hyped and will end up again with angry players. It is a circle of behavior that is all too common now and one you see with the MMOs out there. People keep coming back though, which is why I linked the "EA in a Nutshell" Youtube video.

Yep, what an outcome. I could go in detail and write an roman about these points, but i dont want to spoil anyone. You will see yourself, or let ignorance take the upper hand...

Dragon Age's strength doesn't lie in the gameplay, area design, story or anything that's related to general gameplay.

Dragon Age: Origins would be an average to crappy RPG in my eyes, if not for the incredible work they put into the characters, voice acting, character progression (I mean what they learn as persons, not the levelling process) and their relationships with each other.
Just listening to Alistair and Morrigan barking at each other, entertained me for hours.

I would've probably cried or at the very least been very sad if any of the characters died during the story.

Can't say that about any game and in that regard, DAO is exceptional and has an area where it excels over DOS.

Which is why some refer to it as a relationship simulator and an extremely weak RPG in terms of mechanics and development. Nothing wrong with people liking the games, to each their own, but the problem is with people calling it a quality RPG and then expecting everything else to mimic it.

Cool story bro.

I second your 'what' with another. What?

I... just... okay....

EA has nothing to do with the failing of DA2 or ME3. Bioware is to blame for everything but they have listened to fan feedback for Inquisition and that shows with the reintroduction of multiple player races, the return of the tactical camera and customizable companions again.



Just out of curiosity...

Did you play Origins at all?

In terms of mechanics and development, it's just as hardcore as Original Sin. I have no idea what that poster up above is going on about.

-Three different races which influence statistics.
-Three different classes.
-Six different origins which impact the story and character development.
-Armor and weapons require certain statistics to wield.
-Six specializations for each class.
-Skill system.
-Crafting system.
-AI companion management (i.e setting their scripts).
-Tactical and strategic combat based on skills and statistics.
-You only level up to LV 20-25 in the main campaign. The game doesn't feel like action-RPG dungeon crawling romp where it's all about gaining levels and looting.

That's not to mention how you have dialogue skills (i.e intermediate, persuade etc) that are based on statistics unlike Original Sin's minigame persuasion system.

The role-playing is far superior to Original Sin too thanks to character interaction which Divinity: Original Sin lacks with its companions.

Dragon Age: Origins was never called a relationship simulator. That's Dragon Age 2 and even with that, the romances and companion interaction were all optional. "Relationship simulator" just an insult used against recent Bioware games because of how Bioware talk a lot about the romances nowadays as opposed to traditional RPG elements. It doesn't help that half the writers also talk about the romances on twitter.

But yeah, Dragon Age: Origins was as traditional as an RPG got. It's emphasis was on questing, role-playing choices, statistic combat, talking and most importantly, role-playing a character (the freedom you had was amazing as you could make anything from a ruthless anti-hero to a religious knight).



Mass Effect 2 was developed when Bioware was under E.A and it turned out pretty good.

Dragon Age 2 was a flop because Bioware rushed it and took away features which made the original one great. It was Bioware's decision to take the combat and turn it into an action mess.

Mass Effect 3 was a flop because they took even more RPG elements away (you only get two dialogue choices most times) and ending the series with a poor ending. Bioware's poor writing there had nothing to do with E.A.

I hate E.A as much as the next guy but they have nothing to do with development.

Remember why Larian decided to go independent?

It was basically because of publisher pressure. Bioware is not independent, so it's not all about them. How much their overlord butts in DOES matter.

Yeah, I have no desire to get into a long detailed discussion about why DA is what it is. I can already see that you won't accept my discussion as you are already excusing publishers involvement in the process.


Answer to one of your questions though. Yes, I did play all of Origins, even did the expansion. I disagree greatly, but getting into that isn't going to matter.

ME2 was fun, no doubt, but it was disappointing because they stripped all the RPG elements (albeit however minor they were) from the first game. I can't fathom how you could actually believe that EA had no say whatsoever in the development of DA2, ME2/3, etc. Bioware exists in name only. They are wholly owned by EA. It's like Eidos Montreal and Square Enix. When EM was bought out by SE, the former effectively ceased to exist (and they've stated as such on the EM forums), except in name only.

By the way, I do want to specifically address one comment, as it directly corresponds to my point.



Just as it was Larian's decision to make DD a real-time action RPG? Just as it was Larian's decision to make D2 a third person action RPG? And Larian wasn't even owned by the publisher, just funded by them. How much more control do you think EA exerts, as owner of the Bioware brand?

If you really believe EA had no say in any of those development decisions, you're just deluding yourself.

And I can argue you're biased as well judging by all your previous negative posts on Bioware.

But you seem to forget that different people have different opinions and I was merely disagreeing with yours.

I'm aware publishers can be involved (i.e development time, release dates, marketing, shooting down ideas etc) but it was Bioware's choice to make DA2 what it was just as it was their choice to write those endings for ME3.



ME2 hadn't stripped many RPG elements out. In fact it was deeper as it replaced armor sets with individual armor pieces with their own benefits and statistics. Skill trees were numbered down but you were given a choice to evolve an ability at the end. Most of the skill trees in the original simply consisted of weapon skills anyway (i.e assault rifle, pistol) and ME2 replaced them with more abilities.

ME1 gave the illusion of choice but none of your choices in the story mattered or had any impact (other than the choice to save either Kaiden or Ashley). ME2 on the otherhand had choices that had impact and you could even end up with everyone dying in the end.

ME2 was the perfect mix between action and RPG. It was a proper action-RPG with gameplay far superior to the first. ME3 steered completely towards action shooter territory.

I'm on the Bioware forums so I read all the developer blogs, the developer comments on the forums and their twitter posts where they go into detail why they're going their route and why they genuinely think it's for the best. I'm not denying EA doesn't have a say in things but half the stuff is also Bioware's decisions (i.e romances, story, writing) and I just find it funny when fans say EA made the ending of ME3.

And Divine Divinity originally started as The Lady, the Mage and the Knight, a real time action-RPG.

I'll have to find the quote, but I'm certain I read (or perhaps it was in one of the videos) where Swen stated that DD was originally planned as a turn-based game, but their publisher insisted on real time.

Lets be fair to EA though they are the ones who green-lit Dragon Age. No doubt the reason most Bioware "RPGs" have been declining in quality has something to do with EA but I can safely assume Bioware are also the issue.

I may be in the minority but I didnt think Mass Effect 2 was a good RPG at all other than the writting and some of the environments but other than that it was just an average shooter and then Mass Effect 3 came along and was so uninspired and dull that its frustrating because I loved ME1 to bits and was hoping they would expand on the RPG elements but clearly they decided not to.

Then there is DA2 which is an awful game. Though DA:I is looking better but I will probably get it on Xbox One because I got DA2 on PC and was stuck with it and couldnt get rid of it, so if DA:I is bad then I can just trade it in.

Never said it wasn't Bioware's fault, but lets be honest, how many of the original Bioware people are still working for Bioware now that EA owns them? My point is, Bioware is not Bioware, it is EA games with EA hires making games using Biowares name.

It is the same thing with Blizzard. When they bought out by the big companies, all of the original staff moved on. Blizzard isn't Blizzard anymore, the talent left the building, all that is left is the name.

That is correct. None of their titles were conceptualized to be action games. That was due to the publishers demands. I don't know why Demonic is claiming the Action RPG thing. Swen stated exactly the opposite many times when it concerned the divinity games and what they always dreamed of making.

I'm not disagreeing with you, in fact i have this same debate constantly with people. I nearly got killed in work when I said Mass Effect 3 was an awful game! But then ofcouse the usual "oh its just the ending" and I have to constantly explain myself that the ending isn't the issue with that game, regardless of how bad it was.