what does /v think about divinity: original sin 1/2?
 Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
 UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
what does?
what does /v think about divinity: original sin 1/2?
Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
im pretty sure there is no board called /v think about divinity: original sin 1/
he was obviously talking about the sequel to that board
This was funnier to me than it should have been.
I've started the first one twice and played for like 15 minutes. I'm curious to try again sometime. I don't know why it wasn't holding my interest.
maybe there should be
1 is a pretty good game. Biggest drawback I'd have to say is wacky balance (teleport breaks the game) and the story is very railroaded, it's not really a "pick your own adventure" RPG.
2 improves upon mostly every aspect of 1, except the way gear scaling works which is my biggest issue with the game. You level up once and suddenly all the gear you get of that level is 30% better than last level. Thats interesting in the first couple levels after which it becomes a bit of a chore where each time a character levels up you go scour vendors for an on-level item for him becausei t's just so much stronger.
For both I really enjoy the setting and fantasy. The coop is also implemented in a very fun way
Overall I think they're both solid 8/10s for me, with 1 on the lower end of 8 and 2 on the upper end of 8
I have not yet played BG3 yet so I can't tell you how it compares
>I have not yet played BG3 yet so I can't tell you how it compares
It doesn't have D:OS2's gear progression, so it's better in that aspect. Also, a far more restrained combat system and no AoE-spam. There's a much bigger focus on conversations and decisions about how you resolve quests.
Characters become a lot stronger with lvl5, but there isn't such a steep increase in power, so you don't end up oneshotting entire enemy teams by teleporting them into a clump, getting double-turn with Fane and wiping them all out with max-level Source powers.
sounds pretty good, I've just been holding off because it didn't run well for me and crashed a ton. Not a huge fan of DnD to begin with so I'm fine saving it for later when I can be fricked to get a new pc
the constant shopping for 4 people is one extremely annoying feature in the game for me. The fact that you level up once or twice and all your gear becomes obsolete is very frustrating.
The power gap between levels was already toned down in OS2, gear can last +3~4 levels and more if they have set bonuses. In OS1 gear lasts 2 levels at most. Especially for physical weapons, it's worth teleporting back to town and crafting a full set of affix-less weapons because they are easily +10% more powerful.
Only played 2. Haven't finished it but it's ok, the humor is pretty cringy though.
Garbage armor system, garbage writing, garbage characters, garbage RP options, your fricking companions have more content than you, garbage UI, garbage end game. Still a great game with a fun combat system and sick OST mind you but don't expect a ground breaking RPG.
Quintessential larianslop
DOS2 is legit one of the worst games I have ever played
i played 1 recently as my first crpg, i thought it was a good game with shit writing.
I very much enjoyed using oil, fire ice and thunder to completely and utterly frick up the battlefield
patiently waiting for divinity 2 to go on sale (ps4)
i tried giving 1 a try after playing 2 but i thought it was some kind of a couple game with the 2 main characters.
you gather companions for a party of 4
i ran fire earth wizard with ice lightning enchanter, a bowuser and a melee tank
smartass
yeah don't play it with your bro unless you're closet homos and want to confess to him.
>divinity 2 to go on sale (ps4)
it's windows/xbox360 only
a cut above other crpg slops but worse than bg3.
you might argue dos 2 had better story, combat, music, and longer campaign. but bg3 is more cinematic and weighty when it comes to dialogue and story-telling, which is a huge deal in a crpg.
DivOS1 was decent.
DivOS2 was trash.
>Innate source skill for custom characters is a sphere that restores armor in an area, regardless of race
>Innate (and exclusive!!!) source skill for Fane is a FRICKING EXTRA TURN
I prefer the first game tbh, could just pick it up and have fun. I’m personally not a fan of the armor system in 2.
Tbh I only prefer BG3 because of the presentation. The combat is on par with DV1
Gameplay is solid.
Story and writing is dog shit, specially the second one.
x10 that for bg3.
Lizard sexo
great gameplay
great soundtrack
great story
fun companions
honestly? it's one of my all time favorite games
Great game. Normalgays who never play CRPGs are sucking off BG3 because of the cinematics, diversity, and sex focus, but DOS has none of that bullshit and no shitty tabletop dicerolls.
>dos has none of that bullshit
I dont disagree with your point in general but on sex focus in particular, DOS2 did introduce the weird sex scene shit. It was weird then and it's weird now. I'm not a sex negative person or anything but the way these games implement it tells me their idea of a romantic relationship is tumblr erotic fanfics.
I'll never forget playing thru DOS2 with my friend and introducing a sex scene against his will, so he had to watch my dwarf in a room with some elf b***h, while the narrator details how his dick gets sucked. It was hilarious but also what the frick, why did they unironically make this?
filtered chud
>I didn't play the game
I specifically remember a vague question being thrown at me and my friend after act3 which lead to both of us unwillingly fricking our companions.
Please have a nice day
>Do you want to bone the skeleton.
>Yes!
>wtf why is the narrator telling me Fane is fricking me!?!?!?
The narrator saying you boned is not the same as BG3.
It was never that specific
And I'd argue skipping a Cutscene is better then mashing skip through walls of text
I dont remember it being hidden but I did force my friend to watch the narrated implied sex scene between two skeletons
I wish I put Prince in my team instead of Beast, I thought he was going to be a funny pirate dwarf man but instead he was fricking boring.
Ifan was cool but he was a whiny c**t because I wanted to fix the world in the objectively best way instead of letting him get his petty murder to fix his ego.
I just forced myself to play through OS2, 90-100. After around the middle of the second act I lowered the difficulty from Classic mode to Explorer. The game's engine is impressive, it runs nice and you can interact with the world n' stuff, but sometimes that is clunky. All these cool little engine features don't change the fact that all the characters are fricking boring, their stories are uninteresting, almost every single npc you meet tries to backstab you at some point, the game even goes as far as fricking you over hard after the first act (the scene where Dallis just wipes out half of the support cast that you painstakenly saved and listened their stories to, and she just burns them all to a crisp). Some of the combat encounters are absolutely fricking moronic and designed to kill you on your first try. Don't even get me started on the fricking anti-heal mechanics in this game that are purely there for your misery. Oh and of course Lucian, whom you have no fricking interaction with other than reading about his attrocities, is actually totally mistunderstood and the dev's lovechild who can do no wrong and if you side with him and sacrifice yourself, only then you get the supergood ending. Frick this overrated trash / 10
*90-100 hours playtime I meant to say
>Oh and of course Lucian, whom you have no fricking interaction with other than reading about his attrocities, is actually totally mistunderstood and the dev's lovechild who can do no wrong and if you side with him and sacrifice yourself, only then you get the supergood ending
They had to tie it to Divinity:not-OS II somehow. /shrug
Not BG3/10
Get fricked incel /misc/chuds nice try
Are you really so mad about gay people that you're bringing up other CRPGs
lol, LMAOOOOO even
KILL YOUR SHINING LIGHT
Joke's on you, I'm safe among friends.
Never forget it
Binged on it when it was released, it fricking sucks
Last thread's replies were a polar opposite of this one's. What the frick gives? Time zones?
Probably unironic third worlder shitposting. I'd be willing to believe that most people posting in here shitting on these games have not played a single CRPG in their lives, and only do it because BG3 is the big controversial new thing.
>controversial
I doubt anyone outside of /misc/tard incels on Ganker is in disagreement that it's one of, if not the best game ever made in human history
This 100%, BG3 is proof we live in the golden age of gaming
and we are indeed currently on Ganker. It's just how it is
I feel like incels should just try playing BG3
I played through BG3 twice. Also played through DivOS2 thrice. Guess which one I liked better.
If you've had sex: BG3
If you haven't: OS2
I had sex with Fane in OS2. Never bonked any of the companions in BG3.
Based yumestacy.
I don't know what that means.
Kind of obvious when someone hasn't played BG3, it's hard to argue this point
Yeah, you're exactly proving my point. Trying to make some moronic baitpost about BG3 in a Div OS thread and I'm thinking you have not played either franchise and are just some homosexual indian shitskin or mexican sitting in a little dirt hovel typing all this shit up thinking you're funny
either you like OS1 and hate OS2 or vice versa, it's split 50/50 down the middle.
I love both, and I like BG3.
Div OS1: no playable skeletons
Div OS2: playable skeletons
BG3: no playable skeletons
we have gone backwards
i liked them but they feel really shallow and meaningless. the tone and reliance on environment gimmicks kind of ruins them long-term, they're fun popcorn adventures and nothing more.
d2's final act on release was so bad. all the effort went into the EA section.
Keeping it together, Bree?
os1 was more fun for me and my coop friend. It doesn't start off as strong as 2 did but once the adventure kicks in it was a lot better than 2.
I've been replaying Original Sin 1 these days and... it's a lot worse than I remember.
Also, this fight is impossible on Tactician.
I remember stunlocking this dumb butthole 100 to 0
Lone wolf is so hilariously broken I’ve never played with it
DOS2 baited me hard. All my friends told me you could be whatever you wanted and the game allowed for tons of freedom, even the reviews said it was one of the best roleplaying games out there, but it's not. Fort Joy, or as I like to call it "the great filter", will tell you if your build is going to work or not. Basically if you can't clear the first stage, it's a shit build and it's not gonna work. There's a disparage in class power and certain builds are vastly more viable than others.
I played through the game twice; once in a party, and once solo. The party members are all OC donut steel characters, the only based party member is the dwarf (common Dwarf win) and the rest are insufferable, but the game expects you to adventure with them because if you don't you miss out on like 60% of the actual story. Specifically Thane. If you don't adventure with Thane, you're missing out on so much shit.
It also has some really frustrating moments, such as the oil field fight where EVERYTHING gets set on fire, and the part where you have to navigate that fricked up destroyed terrain to find the succubus b***h. Also I hated how Source powers were hyped up to be some insanely powerful destructive force when they really aren't. You have to spend a lot of source points to cast them, and the effect isn't even that good for most source skills. Keyword is "most", because certain skills like pyroclastic eruption will instantly clear the entire screen of enemies in one cast, or grasp of the starved being able to one-shot the strongest enemy in the game.
yeah the antifa dwarf is the best character, but he has way less writing than the others for some reason.
Larian's writing instincts are inscrutably bad.
DOS1 probably requires you to run a thief, the amount of fricking traps...
I felt the same way. It gives the illusion of freedom but so much simply doesn't work or doesn't work together with another party member. There can be some fun about making a party that works well together, if it's done right. But between DOS2 and BG3, I prefer BG3 where it really doesn't matter what's in your party and the characters are just separately fun to play.
I'm going to make a pointlessly exhausting post now that nobody is going to read anyway, where I list my opinions on RPGs I've played over the years, not alphabetically sorted because i'm just writing from memory:
>Pillars 1
Interesting setting completely ruined by moronic worldbuilding and really horrible walls of text, which leads to a completely forgetable endboss. Has a few good side characters and the combat system is solid.
>Pillars 2
Better implemented lexicon system that helps you understand all the bullshit trivia of the world, unfortunately the game's story is beyond fricking stupid, there is no boss fight and even though the game repeatedly urges you to be quick to get to the finale, it doesn't matter. All the sidequests are fricking shit and except for farmboy all the characters are complete garbage. Ship combat was fricking stupid and there's only one very annoying music track for hand to hand ship combat. Thank god you can tell the big bad that life is fricking stupid and he should end it all, the only funny part of the game.
>Tyranny - Absolute best RPG opener I've played in a long time. Great story, good world building, cool scenery. Unfortunately this game was backstabbed hard by both dev studio and publisher. Could be an absolute gem of a game if it had been developed more. Best potential and style. It's too bad we will probably never see a sequel. Some characters are lame, and the whole overabundance of women and forced equality really unnecessarily messed with the game. Intended Bronze age feeling never really came up.
>Torment 2 - Loved Torment 1, read through the whole game and massively enjoyed it. 2 on the other hand had an interesting story told in the worst fricking way possible. The coolest parts were unironically the still screen stories, especially the one where the big bad hunts you. Extremely confusing nanite future world with apparently no rules or logic messes too much with the player's expectations. Super boring and barely memorable.
Why would you insult torment by calling nu male era a sequel?
I'm just writing shit as I go, yeah nu-Torment is a disgrace.
Anyway, what else do I have stored in my brain...
>Wasteland 2
I enjoyed it, it was a little weird and sometimes clunky, but game mechanics were solid and I wanted to see where the games goes. Too bad they took away the redhead at the last third of the game, which caused a huge power vaccuum.
>Underrail
I played through that game with no character building guide or any wiki shit. I was a ranged weapons smg spammer. First half of the game was pure suffering, had to throw molotovs and grenades everywhere, those stalkers fricked me really hard and the invisible dudes in the final area also annoyed the shit out of me, but what kept me going was the exploration and unique game world. Yeah I think the game was worth it, but still. it was really painful to play through.
>Lionheart
This game is the epitome of early 2000s game design failure. First half is super fun, setting is cool and unique, game mechanics are horribly dated but leveling is still fun. Then the second half happens and this is where the devs ran out of money and time and all you do is kill SWARMS of OP enemies to level up and get an absolute shit ending, plus the end boss is completely fricking OP unless you do some bullshit trickery beforehand.
>Bard's Tale
See Lionheart, except for the bullshit boss and ending. After fighting a million waves of enemies the actual evil ending is a twisted good ending for the main character where he gets to score big time, fricking kek.
>I'm going to make a pointlessly exhausting post now that nobody is going to read anyway,
I stopped reading here. A post this long needs a hook, not an admission up front that it sucks.
I played dos2 coop with two good buddies we had the frickin time of our lives. It will always be a 9.5/10 for me because of that experience. It’s a great game solo too, I started playing a solo campaign as well when they started to not be able to go as fast as I wanted
Playing BG3 made me appreciate the combat/spell system in DoS 2 so much more
It is literally the opposite for me but it's subjective.
Action point systems are superior.
It's basically why I switched to PF2e from 5e
True
If DOS2 had push and knockback effects it would be a 10/10 game
Yeah I never played any DnD, but as a game mechanic, I liked being bale to move freely and then use action/bonus over having moves and attacks tied to the same thing.
But keep in mind that it limits you too.
If you don't need to move that turn, a part of your action economy is tied to the assumption that you want to move each round.
So if you're right next to an enemy, all you have is a wasted move action and one attack action, whereas in a system like PF2e, you'd have up to 3 attack actions.
Also if in DnD an enemy is beyond your movement speed range and you need to get to melee, you now need to burn the single action you get and attack next round, instead of spending two actions to move and one to attack.
An action point system grants a lot more flexibility in that sense.
In Act 1, should be investing in a lot of skills and the Memory necessary to use them?
That's how you make early OS1 tolerable imo, but here it feels like everyone online just builds to the point where you unlock respecing anyway, so more/more expensive skills don't seem like a wise investment compared to primary attributes.
Depend, you should pick out a playstyle first and how many skills do you need. Some really good skill can be obtain through item like the ring that give healing and the gloves that give teleport. If you play SUmmoner, it's advice to try to get the Summon skill to level 10 asap.
In these games i just always make sure I have a melee character and an utility mage/buffer type character. Div OS 1 early game felt genuinely unplayable without having your mage teleport your melee character into the fray (or explosive barrels) and in div os 2 you downright needed spells early game because of how slow phys damage was to start out
Is playing DOS2 on tactician as a first playthough a bad idea?
I hear it's a lot harder than BG3 tactician
BG3 tactician is a joke.
I have 350 hours in DoS 2 and tactician can still kick my ass from time to time
i dunno. It's the type of game where your characters become exponentially powerful as they level. So you'll start off dying to aggressive rabbits but by the end you'll be finishing fights in 1 turn, no matter the difficulty.
I liked it much more than BG3.
D&D is not a good system for a video game. Combat was much better in Divinity.
Got halfway through then dropped it. Good game, carefully crafted, but just didn’t click with me for some reasons.
Fun and engaging games, but the world & plot isn't particularly interesting. I can play Age of Decadence (comparative indie jank) over & over again, but get bored of DoS2 by the middle of the second act.
I’ve tried to play it twice now and dropped it both times while still at Fort Joy. I don’t think CRPGs are for me. I really enjoyed Grim Dawn (ARPG I know…).
If you wanted to play a turn based RPG with great terrain interactions and alterations and each character having 20+ skills/spells to use without the need to rest to replenish them, but also one of the worst and most boring stories you will ever experience in your life, this game is for (you).
better than BG3
Is this chart accurate?
I think just playing and learning how to play tactician yourself is less effort than trying to remember which skills these are from tooltip alone
My build for now has been teleporting oil barrels, but I was curious about other skills
The ultimate skill rotation involve Apotheosis (source cost -3) and Skin Graft (reset all abilities), available in both magic and phys flavors. I dunno if you should look it up since it breaks the game, but the dev seem to expect you to have them by Arx with the amount of reinforcements there.
You dont have to minmax just dont do obviously moronic useless shit. Tactician really really isn't that bad, it's more about how you approach each fight than minmaxing.
I like the spells mages get in Div:OS2, really makes you feel powerful as an aoe caster, you can also do a lot of stuff to set-up your spells that doesn't take several turns. In contrast, mages feel so cucked in BG3, you only get 1 spell (2 if you're a sorc on a limited resource) per turn and most of the spells are utility to the point that you're a glorified condition applier.
I prefer the DoS2 spell system vastly, but mages in BG3, like in 5e, are absolutely busted if you just go full blastercaster.
I played a kill-everything run with a party of 4 evo wizards on tactician mode, it was piss-easy
Running 4 of the same classes in BG3 doesn't feel good when every item is unique and incentivizes diverse builds.
>Running 4 of the same class in a crpg doesnt feel good
I love watching zoomers discover this genre for the first time and noting their observations
I did it just to see if I could and it turned out way more OP than I expected.
There's plenty of equipment to bump your AC and resistances and enough items to boost your spell damage to accommodate four casters.
Not that you even need items, Evo Wizard X/Fighter 2 multiclass means 8 fireballs on round 1, and if the enemy is immune to fire just nuke 'em with magic missile. You could do this run naked no problem
funny
well-written
whimsical
1 was okay, 2 was dumpster fire. If you think otherwise, you're wrong.
Then I'm wrong and happy about it.
300+ hours of being wrong and I've probably had a better time than you
Imo, anyone who played base game DOS 2 didn't play actual divinity, it's unbelievably superior with Epic Encounters and submods.
DOS2 was okay. I liked encased/colony ship better. Pathfinder WOTR was also better IMO.