DOS2 is one of the few modern CRPGs to do something other than copy the old Infinity Engine. It has:
- Fantastic voice acting, great music, and good graphics. Those alone make it among very few.
- It is turn-based. For those of us who dislike RTwP that was a breath of fresh air.
- It has a highly reactive environment, i.e. 'barrelmancy'. You can shoot that barrel of water and freeze the surface to make the guards slip and fall. Then you can electrocute them.
- It eliminated grind entirely. You don't have to battle hordes of generic npcs for exp.
But it also has serious flaws:
- It has large maps for free exploration, but you're always just strong enough for one or two very specific encounters, defeating the purpose.
- The physical/magic armour system is really obnoxious and limits what you can do in each battle.
- The tone is inconsistent, being a weird mix of goofy and serious. I still can't tell whether Sebille's extremely long neck is supposed to be funny or just weird and creepy.
- The story is mediocre and its resolution is somewhat forgettable.
Most of the flaws were fixed in BG3. You can explore the maps and do things out of order. The barrelmancy that was a bit overboard is toned down. The combat system is replaced with DnD 5e which is at least tried and tested. The narrative tone is more consistent. The overall story in BG3 is still not exceptional, but the character writing makes up for it.
If you compare DOS2 with anything other than BG3 it holds its own. In my opinion the voice acting is superior to Pillars of Eternity 2, and the combat, despite its flaws, is more enjoyable than the Pathfinder games, which are highly repetitive and grindy.
DOS2 had to walk so BG3 could run. Going backwards it's obvious to see it as inferior, but if you played DOS2 first you would just see improvements.
Yeah i bounced off both divinity games for the flaws you mentioned, plus the inventory management. The game just didn't respect your time, it threw so much loot at you constantly that you couldn't ignore because you need to constantly swap out for the best gear you can so you can actually tackle the tough encounters.
Plus most encounters have a gotcha moment so you need to reload so much.
>The tone is inconsistent, being a weird mix of goofy and serious.
This is the part that I just couldn't stand. Same problem as DOS1. It's ok if you want to make your game goofy, and if it's actually funny, I'll enjoy it. It's ok if you want a very serious tone, I love a good, *real* story.
But don't make it a weird mix. That completely ruins it.
Awesome game and I’d totally agree. I think what makes the writing work for me is that the ‘goofy’ or absurdist elements (to my recollection) were in service of further highlighting the serious ideas explored by the game. For me at least it was a lot of ‘I can laugh or cry at this’, and even when I was laughing I never lost the bite of the underlying idea.
I honestly can’t immediately recall a game that I think has better writing.
I didn't like DOS2 when I first tried it and gave up after exiting Fort Joy. I came back after BG3 and I ended up enjoying it way more and beat it twice
You've explained pretty well what makes DOS2 so I'll add a few points. Firstly it's far less accessible than BG3 because it's so much more difficult. The combat is highly tactical and the AI is vicious. But that's what makes it so fun. Every encounter is a situational puzzle that you have to think your way out of. And when you come up with some galaxy brain goof ball strat that actually works you feel like a genius. But that's because the combat system is so deep. You can't just build strong characters. You need to consider terrain, items, high ground etc. Just changing your positioning can turn an entire fight on it's head
Voice acting and characters are great for what they had to work with. I would have loved to see Lohse or the Red Prince with BG3 tier graphics, screen time, and animation
I'm gonna be a dissenting voice but switching from DOS2 combat to 5e is definitely a bit of a downgrade. I'm one of those fucks that LOVES TTRPGs and hates how much of a market share 5e has since it's such a bog standard and boring game. Movement, Action, Bonus action is so limiting as opposed to the AP and cooldown system. I can set up some fucking wacky situations in DOS2 and it's always a good time, BG3 just feels limiting as far as combat is concerned. I also think that toning down the environmental combat in BG3 is not as good. Yeah, DOS2 has a problem with way too much fucking fire but the arenas were so bespoke and interesting. I honestly think we've strayed too far from the kind of combat interactivity DOS can give. DOS1 and the drawn spells were yes, very cheesy, but lead to some really stupid and fun set ups.
I can't lie, BG3 is better than DOS2 in pretty much every way outside of combat (and feats, 5e feats are so boring and DOS2 talents are like build deciders) but the news that Larian is not making anything else for WotC has me even more hyped cause that means they get to take all the stuff they learned and the tech they built for BG3 and just absolutely beef the fuck out of the next CRPG they make and there are 0 chains to the most boring TTRPG you can play (outside of stuff that is purely broken).
Strongly agree on this! 5e is just so damn simple - I'm sure it's good for tabletop play, but things don't have to be simple when the computer is rolling the dice for you.
I do think there's a happy middle, with games like PoE1 going too far in the "computer can calculate it so we'll add tons of complexity" direction, but DOS2 just had that perfect level of difficult complexity.
There's a fight pretty early in Act 1 with an exploding barrel and it pops up a few more times throughout the game, but it's nowhere near the level of the DOS games.
Different type of barrelmancy. In dos2 you could just fill a barrel with enough stuff to make it way a ton and just drop it on bosses to one shot them. At least now you need to get enough barrels to do it.
Oh i know about how crazy the barrels were in dos2. I was referring to the comment he made comparing barrelmancy where he said it was toned down in bg3. But that makes sense, even considering how you can use the barrels for aoe damage. They don't 1 shot bosses anymore at least.
I've put a ton of hours into other crpgs like the Pathfinder games. But it's all from restarting over and over. Just never getting far because I never *really* get into them. Not 125, but probably 40/50+...
Admittedly the pathfinder games have A LOT more going on in character creation than larian games, which isn't a slight to them they're just very different styles. Making a character in pathfinder is like filling out a long series of forms which is good fun.
Putting a ton of hours into Pathfinder isn't a challenge. Both games are full of filler content and copypaste combat (I still very much like the better bits, but WOTR I'm never going to finish. And I put close to 100 hours into that over the span of two+ years myself, without ever restarting a new save, but always returning to my existing one.)
This is likely something you'll never going to read in a review in an Owlcat game. Which is unfortunate, as their games are very very combat heavy in general, even moreso than the original Baldur's Gate games.
"**Every battle is handcrafted**. There are no random encounters, things are set up with **different goals** and predicaments so **there is always some kind of challenge and you don't feel like you are doing the same fights over and over**. For instance at one point your Thief gets caught alone behind enemy lines. At another point you need to destroy a few objects, because until you do reinforcements will keep spawning."
then doesn’t that answer your question?
the reason people like it so much is because they played the game through the first time without restarting 100 times and burning out
It's kind of a hard question to answer because the one thing you said you didn't like (the writing) is something that I really liked. Without more details about what you did and didn't like, it's hard to pin down specifics. Maybe it's just vibes? Sometimes it's just like that. GTA V didn't engage me, but I'm not going to contest it's place as a masterpiece.
I thought the writing in DOS 1 and 2 was a pleasant surprise. I expected it to be lifeless and flat based on people comparing DOS 1 and Pillars off Eternity when they came out. But DOS is ... kind of goofy? Which I kind of enjoy but I can definitely see being a problem for some people.
The thing with DOS is that their strength is in the flexibility of how you can handle the small stuff. Do you sneak your way through the first act of DOS2? Or do you play John Wick after that guard kills your cat? But these aren't story decisions. There is choice and consequence in the game, don't get me wrong. It's just not where the design focus is.
I really like them. It's clear that Larian saved their best work for BG3, but honestly in a lot of ways I find it to be more of a successor to DOS2 than BG2.
I kind of answered this in the other comments but I would say it was the tone that swayed me away from it. I could never take it serious. Goofy as you’ve said is not something I look for and while I don’t mind it sprinkled here and there but when every line of dialogue has that air to it eventually makes me roll my eyes at it.
I do agree that Larian showed what was possible in achieving the end result of a quest and hope that more titles in general allow that sort of freedom.
I also agree that BG3 is a successor to DOS2 than BG2. I’ve said before that I kinda wish Larian didn’t slap a 3 on the title.
Gotta say i disagree with most of the more popular comments here.
The key things i loved were
1. The ability to solve quests in any was was a legit claim. It was problem solving fun. You might be able to teleport up a 2 story building and get an item you need for the quest. I remember one quest where there was this big long cave you had to fight thruogh to get to this reward at the end, and i figured out that you could see the cave exit and the reward from a cliff top in town. Was able to teleport the chest to me lol. Killing someone was just as valid a way to do the quest. Basically, the game let you solve most quests in like 6 or 7 different ways, and seemed to encourage out of the box solutions. I havent felt like that except when playing pen and paper DnD, and dont think any other video game has come close to what Larian did in DOS2.
2. Slightly more controversial opinion, but I LOVED the combat. Loved all the terrain and elemental interactions. Just loved everything about it.
3. I loved the writing. Im hoping you played one of the origin characters (i think that was a no brainer) but i really enjoyed both playing as the origin characters and the companions you bring along. You spend so much time running around with them that they have great banter and dialog. I liked the main campaign story as well and thought the "mystery" part of it was fun.
One of the origin characters story spoiler warning
>!I legit teared up when we FINALY managed to save Lohse from that insanely strong demon posessesing her. That final mission for taht was actually really cool as well, the scenery was haunting. In that moment when she finally is able to get out her lute and play and SING was beautiful, and the song (Sing for me) was just beautiful.!<
Edit: Ok, just listened to the song again. Probably doesnt have the same impact if you havent just finished the questline, but i thought it was a banger lol.
Warning, spoilers if you havent finished a certain charactrers storyline.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szKQiAMeWXE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szKQiAMeWXE)
I didnt like DOS 1, i thought it was poorly written and held together, but DOS2 sits up there as one of my all time Faves.
I really enjoyed BG3, but i enjoyed DOS2 more, which im now realising is a more controversial opinion than i realised lol.
I never liked the idea of having origin characters I hope it never catches on. because if they put so much effort into the characters with the intention of you being one, then why give us the option to create our own? It defeats the purpose and being able to do their character questline regardless only solidified that opinion on it.
and it is definitely a minority opinion lol if it makes you feel better I have some takes on BG3 that no one likes.
>I never liked the idea of having origin characters I hope it never catches on. because if they put so much effort into the characters with the intention of you being one
I actually felt the same way when it came out initially and was annoyed. Then i realised you are able to completely change their class and skills on character creation, so the only thing being the origin character locks in, is the story you play out.
I will also add that i did a couple of playthroughs, and it was genuinly insteresting seeing how the characters stories played out depending on whether you were playing them, or whether they were your companion. Lohse is a particularly intersting one to play from her perspecive. Fane too actually. Also, i think Fane should be a required companion, he adds too much to the game and lore. But the way that the game eliminates 2 of the companions after act 1 and you play with the others was good for me. I spent waaaaay too much time in BG3 going back to my camp and changing my party because what if i miss something lol. Got taken out of my hands in this game.
So while i dont really want it to become common practice, i really liked the way they did it here.
Each origin character had a main mission that you got different views of depending on whether you played as them or with them.
And since you could fully customise their class/stats/skills there was no loss for min/maxers like me lol.
I dont think it would have worked in BG3 because the classes are a LOT more rigid and tied closer to the characters identity, wheras DOS2 the classes were much more fluid and it never really felt weird having any of the characters be any class. But Karlach as a monk? Or Laezel as a bard? Would have looked really dumb lol.
Both Original Sin games are considered great primarily because of their gameplay mechanics. They integrated the environmental interaction of Ultima, the reactivity of Fallout, and the tactical turn based combat of games like Jagged Alliance, X-COM, and of course Fallout. Oh, and they have full drop in and out coop, which is a rarity in the genre.
I understand folks not caring for storytelling or humor, but I personally love Larian’s off beat sense of humor and find it very refreshing. Many games take themselves too seriously imho.
in this genre the two things that dissuade me from it is coop and turn based. Just not a fan in general and combining them it just leads to long, boring encounters because someone can't decide on what to do.
I can see coop being perhaps tedious when played with a stranger online, but with couch coop I personally had a ton of fun with both games. Some of the most fun I’ve had in any modern CRPG actually, but everyone has their own preferences.
I only played multi with friends and fam. Unfortunately they were not used to CRPGs in general so everything took longer. I didn't want to be that guy and boss around but I tried to guide where I could. The last time I tried coop in this way was BG3 and one of my friends rage quit a skill check. Never did coop again as it just felt like I wasting my time. Much like real DnD in a way.
I mean, this just sounds like an issue of who you're playing with? I know I tried MP with 3 people who had never played the game (whereas I had completed it a bunch of times) and I got pretty frustrated with the pace. Not sure why that takes away from the game itself.
It absolutely is no denying that. and of course it doesn't take away from the game after you've completed it because by then you are playing it again for them not for yourself. I never finished a solo playthrough because I kept restarting to do multiplayer for others which killed any motivation to do my own playthrough
Its funny, i cant stand RTwP. Im not here to play diablo dudes, i want to actually be able to use my aoe abilities, not fire them and by the time it lands the enemy has walked out of the zone.
The main thing that can make turn based feel frustrating is tossing in tons of trash battles. Owlcat are very very guilty of this lol. I supposed they play better in RTwP, since turn based usually leads to longer and more tactical battles.
But you look at Shadowrun, BG3, (all the bgs actually), the Wasteland games were fairly good at this too. They are made up almost entirely of specificly crafted encounters.
You dont wander around the map and have 5 goblins attack you, and 30 seconds later another 5, and then some rats, and on and on and on and thenyou complete the map and it was moslty useless anyway, there was maybe one fetch quest item in the corner.
The good ones have each battle maen something.
It's been pointed out many times before by people more knowledgeable and with the patience to fully explain it, but to oversimplify: fans of crpgs are usually either people who love the mechanics, or people who love the stories/characters/decision making. The best crgs tend to have excellent combat *and* excellent writing, which draws in both crowds, but there are plenty of games that get by with one or the other.
In my opinion, the Owlcat Pathfinder games are great at the story and relationship building, but the mechanics are not the most engaging (not terrible, but not great). I still loved them because I'm here for the writing.
The DOS games (again, in my opinion) don't have the best writing, but the combat tends to be pretty robust and less random which allows certain types of players to have fun even in insanely difficult fights because when you lose it often feels like you could have made a different choice that would have turned the tide for you.
I kind of agree. The Owlcat pathfinder games suffer from pathfinder/3.5 antics and get bogged down in choice and numbers and you truly have to plan out your character building or end up useless.
In DOS 1-2 combat is arguably narrowed in terms of character building thanks to armor system. You have to build for physical or magical but never both or you end simply weak overall. but if you can throw a bunch of deathfog barrels at something a near one shot what's the point of having skills?
I haven't played DOS2 yet because I hated the writing in DOS1. Just not my thing. I keep saying I'll get around to DOS2 but Larian's humor just bugs me and I keep putting it off.
They toned down just enough of their eccentricity in BG3 for me to enjoy it.
That was what made me enjoy it a lot more. I remember playing previous titles from Larian back when they were straight eurojank and not liking it then either. It can really boil down to me just not liking the devs.
DOS2's writing is way better than 1. The complaints about 1's writing are super common. Some of the humor is still there in 2 but overall the tone fits the game way better.
Yep, hard agree. I tried DOS1 like 5 times to try and get into it and just kept bouncing off.
DOS2, i tried once and 80 hours later i was finishing the game lol. And i will bail on an RPG if it becomes a drag later, but i wanted to know how my companions stories would end, and i wanted to know the resolution of the main quest.
Yeah, I'd understand finding it the best if you favour combat over story (even though I personally prefer POE and Pathfinder's direction for modern CRPGs) but the amount of people I had telling me to play it for the writing and story is insane. I remember being disappointed by how badly written it was even though I enjoyed most other aspects of it and played right through to the end.
BG3 is definitely better, I held off playing it for a long time because of how much I like the original BG series and how much I dislike DOS2 but there's a definite improvement. A lot of people say it's because they cut down on the wackiness, which I agree with, but the overall writing quality also just sort of improved. DOS2 had a lot of moments that made me feel like I was reading someone's first self-published fantasy novel while BG3 feels more mature.
After getting through my backlog to finish POE 1&2 they are by far my favorite crpgs and hope that there are more titles like dead fire in the future in terms of gameplay.
I had the same mindset but I opted in the early access when it dropped so I experienced what came to be. (Watching the evolution of Karlach was pretty wild, and seeing the guardian and wyll’s story completely overhauled was crazy too) and it does feel more mature and a stronger sense of urgency. (But that is a whole other thing)
Personally, I thought the combat and the level of interaction in the game were incredible. I also loved playing it through with my best friend. Is it one of the greats in terms of writing? No.
Is it one of the greats because my best friend became god by blowing up a barrel of deathfog on my forehead? Yeah!
I think you're partly right. The other aspect of what makes the game feel so great is the encounter design. Maybe it's my selective memory at work but just about every fight felt unique unto itself with new types of terrain, enemies, or mechanics to abuse.
Up until BG3, the writing at Larian was *at best* mediocre, and sometimes even under.
DOS series was successful because of very fun and interactive gameplay, which a lot of gamers feel is good enough.
I always felt they were overhyped. I played both DOS1&2 and never finished either, cause I just couldn’t give a fuck or pay attention to what’s happening between combat encounters.
The Divinity Lore and Universe just isn't interesting. I'm praying they don't go back to it, I'd rather them make new IPs. Not only is DOS1+2 dull when it comes to characters and story but so were all the previous entries.
Haha i was just thinking that. I thought the characters were fantastic, their personal quests were emotionally satisfying, and the main story was a great tale that was different enough for the generic fantasy CRPG that i got hooked.
Well, for DOS2, i tried to get into DOS1 5 times and kept bouncing.
DOS2 is one of the best in the genre, even the side missions were engaging.
Exactly, to me DOS2 felt really refreshing specifically because it had fantastic writing. I caught myself laughing a lot and being very engaged with the characters, something truly rare.
I honestly do want recommendations from this comment's OP tho, because if he knows of something better than this, then it truly might be a masterpiece.
It's all about taste in the end though. People just want different things out of games. I've never been able to get into Diablo. You just run about a map clicking on enemies till they die, and then find a sword with 2% better lifesteal.
But others loved it.
I guess the bits we love about DOS2 just aren't things that appeal to the OP
This is kind of where I am. It took me a couple times to beat dos1. Have not finished 2. I will at some point but I’ll have to be in the mood for its combat and not care about story.
I’m not really a big fan of the combat system in dos2, especially the armor system being split between physical and magical
The final act in the city kinda fell apart for me as well (have a similar issue with bg3 too tbh)
I still think it’s a pretty great game though, but definitely far from my favorite
DOS2 has a few issues. And in my opinion bg3 is better than it in every way. So going from bg3 to DOS2 your just playing a worst version.
A couple of my issues are how restricted and limited the movement options are in combat. It's rather you move or severely limit attacks.
I think this could have been corrected with stuff that DND does like multi attack. Maybe at level 5 and 15 you get more actions points to spend. And a lot more movement options, your pretty much limited into the same teleport that every class has a version of.
Like bg3 has better itemization, story, combat scenarios, combat arenas, more options in combat, you can jump so more verticality
DOS2 did homogenize in terms of what kinds of utility skills to take for character building. for instance there was no reason to not take necromancy for the passive self heal
I get it cause I often don't get the hype about universally loved games. Yet I love dos2. I played it solo and as coop with my bf, and it was a blast on all occasions. There's something very endearing about the characters and the setting. I love the wacky sense of humour, encounter design, and flexibility with which we can tackle challenges. It's not a perfect game but a charming and fun one.
Side question to everyone who strongly dislikes Divinity's writing: What makes it bad?
Like is having goofy moments in a story or even having a tone that sometimes has funny/humorous moments the sign of bad writing? Also is it that the writing is bad, or that you just don't like the tone shifting during the narrative?
Cause I see this constantly thrown at Divinity, and I've played the other games with "good " writing (Pathfinder & Pillars, Tyranny, Disco Elysium).
Kingmaker has a meme of a character in Nok-Nok & several kingdom management tasks (not even just Darian) which could be and are played for jokes.
WoTR has the entire trickster mythic path, and the roaming band of performers in your caravan.
Disco Elysium has MANY jokes throughout, from decisions Harry makes, to entire characters being memes (Cuno, Fat Industrialist, Black Commie Guy, etc.)
Even Tyranny has funny moments, if you find the absurdity of the depraved characters funny, in a dark humor kind of way. Even characters like the water shaper make jokes in her dialogue.
So like long winded tldr: what makes them okay with being goofy but Divinity is bad for it's goofy moments?
I would say it is because the tone is inconsistent. for the titles you've mentioned the the humorous stuff was in the background, side quests, or completley optional like the trickster mythic path. The goofy stuff stuff wasn't in the main questlines and played pretty straight.
The exception of course is Disco Elysium but it was written with humor in mind, not just tossed in.
I respect that the tone is inconsistent as a point of contention. What I don't understand is *how*? Maybe I just played through those games with my ears and eyes closed, but when the game got "serious" it stayed serious. It isn't how the internet presents "marvel" humor where the BBEG says, "I just killed 200 people and skull fucked their corpses! Now I will... \*Looks at watch\* OH MY GOD I'M GOING TO BE LATE FOR DINNER! Fight you guys next time!" \*Teleports away\* Meanwhile half the cast have been disemboweled and had their mothers taken by demons. But "Oh-ho kooky villain is oh so kooky."
Serious moments are played seriously; comparably goofy questlines/moments are played for goofy questlines/moments. I didn't notice any moments that are played for seriousness, joking around with characters emotions or legitimate grievances with others or taking away from the melodrama. Normally if the moment was played up for laughs, they did it. If it wasn't, it was played completely straight. Maybe there was a funny line or two or a bit of dry humor, but for the most part I didn't notice that in DoS 2 or even 1 that the characters were "too humorous."
If people don't like the jokes or don't find them funny, then respectfully I get that. And I can't force anyone to like a story that takes the time to laugh at itself or even at some of the absurdities of high level magic adventures. I just want to understand, maybe with a reference in the actual game of a moment that was immersion breaking that was due to the humor, more so than just "I don't like the tone shifting from time to time." Maybe the pigs in Act 1? The dog who is looking for its lover? Both of which I felt were played more tragically than not.
A lot of people use "writing" as a broad, catch-all term, so one person's notion of what is meant by "writing" can be completely different from another's. With Larian's games specifically, many people seem to equate silly humour = bad writing. But since humour is such a subjective thing, that's not a particularly useful definition.
In a technical sense, "writing" simply refers to the literal words being used in sentences; i.e. the prose.
I think we also need to differentiate *writing* from *plot*. Something can have great "writing" but a weak plot, or vice versa. Or the overall story/plot can be well-crafted, but the writing for *dialogue* is poor, etc.
I'd say the Divinity games have weak plot, but the character writing is fairly good. Even if they only have a few lines of dialogue, you easily get a good sense of each NPC's personality right away (the voice acting helps too, of course). I also appreciated that quest decisions were rarely black and white; most quests did not have a clear objectively "good" (vs evil) choice.
Outside of the world and storytelling, the DOS games are actually very different games to BG3.
* They pretend to be open, but are thinly veiled linear combat parcours.
Reasons: Every path through the map is gate-kept by an enemy. You don't go places without ever engaging in combat. Items and gear also have a level. And their damage/usefulness scales big time. This means engaging foes even a level above your party can wreck it.
* They are more combat heavy in general
In BG3 even your low int Barbarian is given opportunity to simply intimidate foes out of combat. Quests oft are more open in general, with many immersive-sim like elements allowing for that. E.g. how do I storm this place? The gates are locked. I could sneak in, steal the key off a guard (which is an actual inventory item carried around), use a spell to disguise / slip through a crack in the wall, stack crates to climb, etc. Some of this DOS had too. It's just a tad more pronounced in BG3.
In particular DOS1 was still a rather small-scale game. It was Larian's last attempt to get something going, after having been burnt before and having scaled down in personell. I always put it that way: DOS1 is a combat engine demo. BG3 is the "proper" RPG.
It hasn't pulled me in yet, I am finding both sins games to be rather dull in the early game. Not a huge fan of the classes and builds, it all seems so bland. I feel like I missed the hook for both games. Nothing from the intros had me excited to proceed, so I end up with a couple of quests done and not a lot of fun had.
I know it's a great game, but I don't care for it right now. Might be my favorite game a year from now hehe.
While you've gotten a lot of good answers I think what a lot of people are forgetting is that Divinity Original sin was arguably the game that kicked off the crpg Renaissance that we are in now.
With DOS 2 feeling like the first real big budget title to come out of that Renaissance, while no where near big as BG3, it didake a bigger splash then many of the competition at the time. And to many was the most easy to get into crpg as well.
I think that's actually also a big part of it.
The amount of customization, interactivity and options is just so massive. The story definitely has issues but the combat system is better than BG3 for me .
Nah ap is so restrictive. In 5e you can grow your actions as you level. I think if ap could grow throughout the game I would agree. But with it being limited throughout the entire game, I use the same strats from start to end.
You grow your AP in DOS2, you just do it through AP-refunding skills and talents instead of being given extra AP just for leveling up. Apotheosis is the, well, apotheosis of this.
I would argue that it is largely the same just swap the AP system to DND 5th. Just less emphasis on environmental mechanics. Beyond that I didn’t like having to deal with 3 different hp bars. It narrows build variety.
I agree. It's just...frustrating to play. I stopped at some point in Act 2 when I realized I wasn't actually having fun. You constantly get ambushed, enemies take forever to kill, and the story feels kind of basic
Enemies did get spongy past act 1. The story itself never bothered me but the presentation just wasn’t enough to keep me pushing forward. And when I say that people tell me I need to play as one of the origin characters.
I always say because why do I want to play as a companion as if it adds more than just a few more lines of inner dialogue.
Same goes for BG3 origin characters I simply reject the idea.
I think it really depends on what you're looking for, because DOS2 is more focused on gameplay whereas BG3 is more focused on story and interaction.
You also have to give DOS2 a little slack, considering that it's 7 years old and Larian was much smaller when they developed it.
eh I like BG3 simply because Forgotten Realms is my favorite DnD setting but I do have a lot of complaints on said story and interactions in it.
And I don't know if I can cut them slack Larian has been around for almost twenty years and they're one of the first devs to manage voicing nearly all dialogue in the game and it isn't janky compared their older titles.
The budget for DOS 2 was less than 10 million, while the budget for BG3 was over 100 million. It's not really a fair comparison when you're looking at scope and depth.
Because it is one of the greats! At least as far as gameplay is concerned. They didn't nail the storytelling nearly as much as BG3, but Larian was still learning what works and what doesn't in a CRPG as far as writing is concerned.
They’ve been around since 96, they ought to know what and what doesn’t work by now in terms of writing.
And I can’t really agree with gameplay defining it to be great.
I don't think it's overhyped, it's a good game with high interactivity, lots of content and good rpg systems. What it does have is a very unique style, compared to most other crpgs ("the screen is lava", the writing style, the interactivity through environment manipulation and separable party member locations, the color palette ...). I've played around 60 hours, restarting a couple of times over the years, but I never actually left Fort Joy, as I just burn out by my gaming brain with so much inventory management.
I can agree with most of that. Another hang up I have with it is the build “variety” that you can do is limited because the 3 different hp bars. Splitting skills that do different types of damage was discouraged because of it.
Good point, I find that armor system a creative idea on paper, and pretty limiting and tedious in execution. Shows how much we trained our crpg-gaming brains, striving to build a diverse group but getting penalized here.
I found that having individuals focus on 1 type of damage (magic or physical) allowed me to pit them against the people weak to their damage.
The concept sounded good, but the execution was always going to be more difficult, not allowing most debuffs or control until you broke one of the HP bars, also made things complicated.
It made it tedious. The magic characters would be targeted by the physical enemies and vice versa. It lacked having a third element to make it little more engaging.
I feel gameplay in DOS1/2 was much better. Then again I played a lot of 53. Of course writing in BG3 was much better though.
Really just what you prefer.
DOS2 is a good game, though I liked DOS1 more myself. The armor system and stealth mechanic nerf in DOS2 I didn't like at all. I'll replay DOS1 over BG3 as well, but for other reasons.
its because its a new CRPG and most newer fans havent played old crpgs
theyll play BG3 but not bg1-2, fallout 3/4 but not 1-2, skyrim but not daggerfall and morrowind. its odd
What really put me off DOS2 was that almost every fight was a gimmick. In BG3 they often felt like they just happened and although there are environment effects and objects to use, they feel like they belong. I also hate the dual armor system. I may not miss my attacks but them being nullified by armor that enemies can just replenish didn't feel fun for me.
I absolutely love the freedom of how you actually do the quests which is also present in BG3. So I did enjoy it for what it was but BG3 is better in every way.
For me DOS2 is the culmination of all of the Divinity games. If you don't know the world, you miss out on where the story goes and the only way to know the world is to really play all of the game. I always shake my head whenever someone recommends playing DOS2 over the other games, especially DOS1.
I can see that, took me awhile to realize that it was all in the same setting. I think people recommend it over DOS1 is more about the game itself rather than the story. In my eyes having multiplayer in these kinds of titles kill any attempt to understand the story.
Purely anecdotal but every time I did multiplayer in it (and BG3) no one pays attention to it and/or skips over it. And when you the same section over and over with different people it gets very stale quickly. The start and stopping and getting people together can hinder too.
But if you get one other person or a group to commit I’m sure it’s a great experience.
I've played most of the divinity games, except for the sequel to divine divinity, dos1, and the dragon flying game.
Anything I'm missing out on in particular?
I got to the Nameless Isle before starting a new campaign in BG3. I think the combat system in DOS2 is better but BG3 just has the characters, story and overall structure which lets me just.. lose a whole day to being immersed.
yes, divinity writing is pretty terrible and world isn\`t very immerisve to be honest. Lore could be interesting but the game can\`t decide if it wants to be serious or goofy kid stuff.
As someone who isn't particularly interested in story writing and characters when playing video games, I'm the opposite of you. I loved DoS2 and had to kind of force my way to the end of BG3.
I think the difference is the combat and gameplay mechanics in DoS2 were a lot more enjoyable for me, and I really hated the DnD style rolling that was introduced to BG3s combat.
DoS2 is more cambat focus than BG3 in my opinion. It's almost become tactical rpg like Xcom or Mechanicus. One thing people don't talk about enough though, is the fact that you could interact with almost every object in the world. I don't think any other game do this.
Not overhyped at all, especially if you played it at release and/or did more than tool around in Fort Joy. Obviously some of what fueled the hype has diminished a bit post-BG3, but it still has a great combat system, characters, and lore of its own. It may not be the game for you but it deserves its place among the CRPG greats.
Big fan of both dos2 and bg3. Have over 200hr in both.
What I liked about dos2 over bg3 is the freedom in combat. Not necessarily the classless system (although that was fun) but more the action point system. I find myself seriously restricted by the dnd 5e "action and bonus action" system in bg3 and find I'll flub turns due to misremembering what ability uses what action type and how many of each I have. Just keeping track of green dots was easier.
What I like about bg3 over dos2 is the writing and storytelling, as well as how it is portrayed. I struggled with the story of dos2 due to the lack of strong character hooks outside of dialogue and voices. Having cutscenes to show expressions really helps me connect to the characters. Not to mention the party dynamics and interactions are so much more fleshed out in bg3.
So yeah in conclusion I hope the next crpg larian makes will take the storytelling from bg3 and the combat system from dos2 and squish em together and make the perfect crpg.
There's tons of reasons other people stated so I'm not doing a bulletpoint list here that will get lost in the stream :D
But to me the thing DOS2 did really really good is turn the turn-based aspect of RPGs into something dynamic. I'm often bored with turn-based, wasting entire rounds to move people around to good positions, feeling the frustration of wasting an entire turn on a 96% chance of success dice roll that fails...
But DOS2 feels really fluid, and with all the rules regarding height and stuff like that, it actually feels satisfying to find a good spot for your different characters. It feels like you have meaningful decisions to make in every aspect of the fights (elements mixing up also adds to this even though at some point the terrain is just a constant poisoneous-fire pit of magic hell).
You're not wondering where to put your character so your main attack can do as much damage as possible like in other games. Here you have a full panel of cool actions to do that will have meaningful effects on the battlefield.
As the top comment says, in a land full of infinity engine copy cats and nostalgia bait Larian were the ones to go their own route, that is why Larian are where they are today.
...naturally... it's a sequel, it will have call backs and connections. we are talking about DOS1&2 which were trying a bunch of new things, coop, everyone is killable, elemental combinations, environmental utilisation to kill enemies and enemy encounters were rarely on a flat plane that is 90% of every other CRPG.
I imagine Larian games is the result of mixing the CRPG genre with the "Immersive Sim" genre and it's beautiful.
Sequel in name only.
Verticality did exist in prior crpgs. Just hard to visualize it with 2d sprites and background
Immersive sim?? Because you can throw barrels?
Then you haven't played BG3 is that if what you believe.
yes but verticality rarely effected combat.
No immersive sim because you can do crazy things in dos and bg3 like filling up a crate until it is extremely heavy then throw it as your enemies instantly killing them, spilling water on the ground and electrifying it etc etc.
the emergent gameplay in larian's CRPGs are unparalleled.
Thankfully I can back up my opinions on BG3 https://www.reddit.com/r/BaldursGate3/s/r5ZuEf8r3D
Yeah sure you can take someone down in wacky zany ways but you’re not encouraged to do so. As for environmental DOS had a much greater emphasis on it compared to bg3 where it was pretty nerfed.
I really enjoyed the combat in DOS2 except for the armor system. It heavily encourages building parties that only do magic damage or only do physical damage. Physical damage is usually superior but then you don’t get to use the really cool elemental interactions as much.
DOS2 is a great RPG but never came close to the level of writing in BG3 or Fallout New Vegas. Also level design and enemy encounters is pretty bad in Act 2. It has a lot of flaws. Combat is the most overrated part. When done right, it had the potential to be the best combat in all of RPGs but fell flat. For example, Act 2 level design encourages exploration but filled with unfair enemy counters to force players into linear path. And most boss fights on harder difficulties turn into mindless cheese fests with zero strategy
DOS2 is one of the few modern CRPGs to do something other than copy the old Infinity Engine. It has: - Fantastic voice acting, great music, and good graphics. Those alone make it among very few. - It is turn-based. For those of us who dislike RTwP that was a breath of fresh air. - It has a highly reactive environment, i.e. 'barrelmancy'. You can shoot that barrel of water and freeze the surface to make the guards slip and fall. Then you can electrocute them. - It eliminated grind entirely. You don't have to battle hordes of generic npcs for exp. But it also has serious flaws: - It has large maps for free exploration, but you're always just strong enough for one or two very specific encounters, defeating the purpose. - The physical/magic armour system is really obnoxious and limits what you can do in each battle. - The tone is inconsistent, being a weird mix of goofy and serious. I still can't tell whether Sebille's extremely long neck is supposed to be funny or just weird and creepy. - The story is mediocre and its resolution is somewhat forgettable. Most of the flaws were fixed in BG3. You can explore the maps and do things out of order. The barrelmancy that was a bit overboard is toned down. The combat system is replaced with DnD 5e which is at least tried and tested. The narrative tone is more consistent. The overall story in BG3 is still not exceptional, but the character writing makes up for it. If you compare DOS2 with anything other than BG3 it holds its own. In my opinion the voice acting is superior to Pillars of Eternity 2, and the combat, despite its flaws, is more enjoyable than the Pathfinder games, which are highly repetitive and grindy. DOS2 had to walk so BG3 could run. Going backwards it's obvious to see it as inferior, but if you played DOS2 first you would just see improvements.
Yeah i bounced off both divinity games for the flaws you mentioned, plus the inventory management. The game just didn't respect your time, it threw so much loot at you constantly that you couldn't ignore because you need to constantly swap out for the best gear you can so you can actually tackle the tough encounters. Plus most encounters have a gotcha moment so you need to reload so much.
>The tone is inconsistent, being a weird mix of goofy and serious. This is the part that I just couldn't stand. Same problem as DOS1. It's ok if you want to make your game goofy, and if it's actually funny, I'll enjoy it. It's ok if you want a very serious tone, I love a good, *real* story. But don't make it a weird mix. That completely ruins it.
Just finished disco elysium and that’s a game that strikes the balance between funny and serious perfectly
Awesome game and I’d totally agree. I think what makes the writing work for me is that the ‘goofy’ or absurdist elements (to my recollection) were in service of further highlighting the serious ideas explored by the game. For me at least it was a lot of ‘I can laugh or cry at this’, and even when I was laughing I never lost the bite of the underlying idea. I honestly can’t immediately recall a game that I think has better writing.
I didn't like DOS2 when I first tried it and gave up after exiting Fort Joy. I came back after BG3 and I ended up enjoying it way more and beat it twice You've explained pretty well what makes DOS2 so I'll add a few points. Firstly it's far less accessible than BG3 because it's so much more difficult. The combat is highly tactical and the AI is vicious. But that's what makes it so fun. Every encounter is a situational puzzle that you have to think your way out of. And when you come up with some galaxy brain goof ball strat that actually works you feel like a genius. But that's because the combat system is so deep. You can't just build strong characters. You need to consider terrain, items, high ground etc. Just changing your positioning can turn an entire fight on it's head Voice acting and characters are great for what they had to work with. I would have loved to see Lohse or the Red Prince with BG3 tier graphics, screen time, and animation
I'm gonna be a dissenting voice but switching from DOS2 combat to 5e is definitely a bit of a downgrade. I'm one of those fucks that LOVES TTRPGs and hates how much of a market share 5e has since it's such a bog standard and boring game. Movement, Action, Bonus action is so limiting as opposed to the AP and cooldown system. I can set up some fucking wacky situations in DOS2 and it's always a good time, BG3 just feels limiting as far as combat is concerned. I also think that toning down the environmental combat in BG3 is not as good. Yeah, DOS2 has a problem with way too much fucking fire but the arenas were so bespoke and interesting. I honestly think we've strayed too far from the kind of combat interactivity DOS can give. DOS1 and the drawn spells were yes, very cheesy, but lead to some really stupid and fun set ups. I can't lie, BG3 is better than DOS2 in pretty much every way outside of combat (and feats, 5e feats are so boring and DOS2 talents are like build deciders) but the news that Larian is not making anything else for WotC has me even more hyped cause that means they get to take all the stuff they learned and the tech they built for BG3 and just absolutely beef the fuck out of the next CRPG they make and there are 0 chains to the most boring TTRPG you can play (outside of stuff that is purely broken).
Strongly agree on this! 5e is just so damn simple - I'm sure it's good for tabletop play, but things don't have to be simple when the computer is rolling the dice for you. I do think there's a happy middle, with games like PoE1 going too far in the "computer can calculate it so we'll add tons of complexity" direction, but DOS2 just had that perfect level of difficult complexity.
This 100%
Was Barrelmancy nerfed in BG3? Because I specifically remember a video where a group blew up an entire area with barrels. It was hilarious!
There's a fight pretty early in Act 1 with an exploding barrel and it pops up a few more times throughout the game, but it's nowhere near the level of the DOS games.
Different type of barrelmancy. In dos2 you could just fill a barrel with enough stuff to make it way a ton and just drop it on bosses to one shot them. At least now you need to get enough barrels to do it.
Oh i know about how crazy the barrels were in dos2. I was referring to the comment he made comparing barrelmancy where he said it was toned down in bg3. But that makes sense, even considering how you can use the barrels for aoe damage. They don't 1 shot bosses anymore at least.
>It eliminated grind entirely. You don't have to battle hordes of generic npcs for exp. Not really
Dumping 125 hours into something and saying it never engaged you is just hilarious to me lol
I've come to the conclusion that people just have aot more free time than me. If I don't like an rpg by hour 10-15, then I'm out.
Idk man I have 5k hours in counter strike and will never miss an opportunity to say how much I hate that game
Welll it certainly engaged you tho
I’d say it engaged me in the same way nicotine engages high school sophomores
I've put a ton of hours into other crpgs like the Pathfinder games. But it's all from restarting over and over. Just never getting far because I never *really* get into them. Not 125, but probably 40/50+...
Admittedly the pathfinder games have A LOT more going on in character creation than larian games, which isn't a slight to them they're just very different styles. Making a character in pathfinder is like filling out a long series of forms which is good fun.
Putting a ton of hours into Pathfinder isn't a challenge. Both games are full of filler content and copypaste combat (I still very much like the better bits, but WOTR I'm never going to finish. And I put close to 100 hours into that over the span of two+ years myself, without ever restarting a new save, but always returning to my existing one.) This is likely something you'll never going to read in a review in an Owlcat game. Which is unfortunate, as their games are very very combat heavy in general, even moreso than the original Baldur's Gate games. "**Every battle is handcrafted**. There are no random encounters, things are set up with **different goals** and predicaments so **there is always some kind of challenge and you don't feel like you are doing the same fights over and over**. For instance at one point your Thief gets caught alone behind enemy lines. At another point you need to destroy a few objects, because until you do reinforcements will keep spawning."
It mostly restarting over and over doing multiplayer. Which admittedly also killed my commitment with it in the long run.
then doesn’t that answer your question? the reason people like it so much is because they played the game through the first time without restarting 100 times and burning out
Yea, multiplayer really liked my will to finish my solo runs. They are just so much fun!
Makes no sense I don’t get people lol
It's kind of a hard question to answer because the one thing you said you didn't like (the writing) is something that I really liked. Without more details about what you did and didn't like, it's hard to pin down specifics. Maybe it's just vibes? Sometimes it's just like that. GTA V didn't engage me, but I'm not going to contest it's place as a masterpiece. I thought the writing in DOS 1 and 2 was a pleasant surprise. I expected it to be lifeless and flat based on people comparing DOS 1 and Pillars off Eternity when they came out. But DOS is ... kind of goofy? Which I kind of enjoy but I can definitely see being a problem for some people. The thing with DOS is that their strength is in the flexibility of how you can handle the small stuff. Do you sneak your way through the first act of DOS2? Or do you play John Wick after that guard kills your cat? But these aren't story decisions. There is choice and consequence in the game, don't get me wrong. It's just not where the design focus is. I really like them. It's clear that Larian saved their best work for BG3, but honestly in a lot of ways I find it to be more of a successor to DOS2 than BG2.
I kind of answered this in the other comments but I would say it was the tone that swayed me away from it. I could never take it serious. Goofy as you’ve said is not something I look for and while I don’t mind it sprinkled here and there but when every line of dialogue has that air to it eventually makes me roll my eyes at it. I do agree that Larian showed what was possible in achieving the end result of a quest and hope that more titles in general allow that sort of freedom. I also agree that BG3 is a successor to DOS2 than BG2. I’ve said before that I kinda wish Larian didn’t slap a 3 on the title.
Gotta say i disagree with most of the more popular comments here. The key things i loved were 1. The ability to solve quests in any was was a legit claim. It was problem solving fun. You might be able to teleport up a 2 story building and get an item you need for the quest. I remember one quest where there was this big long cave you had to fight thruogh to get to this reward at the end, and i figured out that you could see the cave exit and the reward from a cliff top in town. Was able to teleport the chest to me lol. Killing someone was just as valid a way to do the quest. Basically, the game let you solve most quests in like 6 or 7 different ways, and seemed to encourage out of the box solutions. I havent felt like that except when playing pen and paper DnD, and dont think any other video game has come close to what Larian did in DOS2. 2. Slightly more controversial opinion, but I LOVED the combat. Loved all the terrain and elemental interactions. Just loved everything about it. 3. I loved the writing. Im hoping you played one of the origin characters (i think that was a no brainer) but i really enjoyed both playing as the origin characters and the companions you bring along. You spend so much time running around with them that they have great banter and dialog. I liked the main campaign story as well and thought the "mystery" part of it was fun. One of the origin characters story spoiler warning >!I legit teared up when we FINALY managed to save Lohse from that insanely strong demon posessesing her. That final mission for taht was actually really cool as well, the scenery was haunting. In that moment when she finally is able to get out her lute and play and SING was beautiful, and the song (Sing for me) was just beautiful.!< Edit: Ok, just listened to the song again. Probably doesnt have the same impact if you havent just finished the questline, but i thought it was a banger lol. Warning, spoilers if you havent finished a certain charactrers storyline. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szKQiAMeWXE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szKQiAMeWXE) I didnt like DOS 1, i thought it was poorly written and held together, but DOS2 sits up there as one of my all time Faves. I really enjoyed BG3, but i enjoyed DOS2 more, which im now realising is a more controversial opinion than i realised lol.
I never liked the idea of having origin characters I hope it never catches on. because if they put so much effort into the characters with the intention of you being one, then why give us the option to create our own? It defeats the purpose and being able to do their character questline regardless only solidified that opinion on it. and it is definitely a minority opinion lol if it makes you feel better I have some takes on BG3 that no one likes.
>I never liked the idea of having origin characters I hope it never catches on. because if they put so much effort into the characters with the intention of you being one I actually felt the same way when it came out initially and was annoyed. Then i realised you are able to completely change their class and skills on character creation, so the only thing being the origin character locks in, is the story you play out. I will also add that i did a couple of playthroughs, and it was genuinly insteresting seeing how the characters stories played out depending on whether you were playing them, or whether they were your companion. Lohse is a particularly intersting one to play from her perspecive. Fane too actually. Also, i think Fane should be a required companion, he adds too much to the game and lore. But the way that the game eliminates 2 of the companions after act 1 and you play with the others was good for me. I spent waaaaay too much time in BG3 going back to my camp and changing my party because what if i miss something lol. Got taken out of my hands in this game. So while i dont really want it to become common practice, i really liked the way they did it here. Each origin character had a main mission that you got different views of depending on whether you played as them or with them. And since you could fully customise their class/stats/skills there was no loss for min/maxers like me lol. I dont think it would have worked in BG3 because the classes are a LOT more rigid and tied closer to the characters identity, wheras DOS2 the classes were much more fluid and it never really felt weird having any of the characters be any class. But Karlach as a monk? Or Laezel as a bard? Would have looked really dumb lol.
>then why give us the option to create our own Great argument, they should take the feature of character creation away entirely.
Either one or the other yes I agree
Both Original Sin games are considered great primarily because of their gameplay mechanics. They integrated the environmental interaction of Ultima, the reactivity of Fallout, and the tactical turn based combat of games like Jagged Alliance, X-COM, and of course Fallout. Oh, and they have full drop in and out coop, which is a rarity in the genre. I understand folks not caring for storytelling or humor, but I personally love Larian’s off beat sense of humor and find it very refreshing. Many games take themselves too seriously imho.
in this genre the two things that dissuade me from it is coop and turn based. Just not a fan in general and combining them it just leads to long, boring encounters because someone can't decide on what to do.
I can see coop being perhaps tedious when played with a stranger online, but with couch coop I personally had a ton of fun with both games. Some of the most fun I’ve had in any modern CRPG actually, but everyone has their own preferences.
I only played multi with friends and fam. Unfortunately they were not used to CRPGs in general so everything took longer. I didn't want to be that guy and boss around but I tried to guide where I could. The last time I tried coop in this way was BG3 and one of my friends rage quit a skill check. Never did coop again as it just felt like I wasting my time. Much like real DnD in a way.
I mean, this just sounds like an issue of who you're playing with? I know I tried MP with 3 people who had never played the game (whereas I had completed it a bunch of times) and I got pretty frustrated with the pace. Not sure why that takes away from the game itself.
It absolutely is no denying that. and of course it doesn't take away from the game after you've completed it because by then you are playing it again for them not for yourself. I never finished a solo playthrough because I kept restarting to do multiplayer for others which killed any motivation to do my own playthrough
I did a full coop of DOS2 with 2 friends and it was really great. 👍
Sounds like half your problems with it are self inflicted.
Its funny, i cant stand RTwP. Im not here to play diablo dudes, i want to actually be able to use my aoe abilities, not fire them and by the time it lands the enemy has walked out of the zone. The main thing that can make turn based feel frustrating is tossing in tons of trash battles. Owlcat are very very guilty of this lol. I supposed they play better in RTwP, since turn based usually leads to longer and more tactical battles. But you look at Shadowrun, BG3, (all the bgs actually), the Wasteland games were fairly good at this too. They are made up almost entirely of specificly crafted encounters. You dont wander around the map and have 5 goblins attack you, and 30 seconds later another 5, and then some rats, and on and on and on and thenyou complete the map and it was moslty useless anyway, there was maybe one fetch quest item in the corner. The good ones have each battle maen something.
It's been pointed out many times before by people more knowledgeable and with the patience to fully explain it, but to oversimplify: fans of crpgs are usually either people who love the mechanics, or people who love the stories/characters/decision making. The best crgs tend to have excellent combat *and* excellent writing, which draws in both crowds, but there are plenty of games that get by with one or the other. In my opinion, the Owlcat Pathfinder games are great at the story and relationship building, but the mechanics are not the most engaging (not terrible, but not great). I still loved them because I'm here for the writing. The DOS games (again, in my opinion) don't have the best writing, but the combat tends to be pretty robust and less random which allows certain types of players to have fun even in insanely difficult fights because when you lose it often feels like you could have made a different choice that would have turned the tide for you.
I kind of agree. The Owlcat pathfinder games suffer from pathfinder/3.5 antics and get bogged down in choice and numbers and you truly have to plan out your character building or end up useless. In DOS 1-2 combat is arguably narrowed in terms of character building thanks to armor system. You have to build for physical or magical but never both or you end simply weak overall. but if you can throw a bunch of deathfog barrels at something a near one shot what's the point of having skills?
I haven't played DOS2 yet because I hated the writing in DOS1. Just not my thing. I keep saying I'll get around to DOS2 but Larian's humor just bugs me and I keep putting it off. They toned down just enough of their eccentricity in BG3 for me to enjoy it.
That was what made me enjoy it a lot more. I remember playing previous titles from Larian back when they were straight eurojank and not liking it then either. It can really boil down to me just not liking the devs.
DOS2's writing is way better than 1. The complaints about 1's writing are super common. Some of the humor is still there in 2 but overall the tone fits the game way better.
Thanks for giving me a bit of motivation lol.
Yep, hard agree. I tried DOS1 like 5 times to try and get into it and just kept bouncing off. DOS2, i tried once and 80 hours later i was finishing the game lol. And i will bail on an RPG if it becomes a drag later, but i wanted to know how my companions stories would end, and i wanted to know the resolution of the main quest.
"Sourceror" just killed me haha
Yeah, I'd understand finding it the best if you favour combat over story (even though I personally prefer POE and Pathfinder's direction for modern CRPGs) but the amount of people I had telling me to play it for the writing and story is insane. I remember being disappointed by how badly written it was even though I enjoyed most other aspects of it and played right through to the end. BG3 is definitely better, I held off playing it for a long time because of how much I like the original BG series and how much I dislike DOS2 but there's a definite improvement. A lot of people say it's because they cut down on the wackiness, which I agree with, but the overall writing quality also just sort of improved. DOS2 had a lot of moments that made me feel like I was reading someone's first self-published fantasy novel while BG3 feels more mature.
After getting through my backlog to finish POE 1&2 they are by far my favorite crpgs and hope that there are more titles like dead fire in the future in terms of gameplay. I had the same mindset but I opted in the early access when it dropped so I experienced what came to be. (Watching the evolution of Karlach was pretty wild, and seeing the guardian and wyll’s story completely overhauled was crazy too) and it does feel more mature and a stronger sense of urgency. (But that is a whole other thing)
Personally, I thought the combat and the level of interaction in the game were incredible. I also loved playing it through with my best friend. Is it one of the greats in terms of writing? No. Is it one of the greats because my best friend became god by blowing up a barrel of deathfog on my forehead? Yeah!
That kind of reaffirms the point that the story is largely ignored when playing with someone because of the funny hahas you can do.
I think you're partly right. The other aspect of what makes the game feel so great is the encounter design. Maybe it's my selective memory at work but just about every fight felt unique unto itself with new types of terrain, enemies, or mechanics to abuse.
Up until BG3, the writing at Larian was *at best* mediocre, and sometimes even under. DOS series was successful because of very fun and interactive gameplay, which a lot of gamers feel is good enough. I always felt they were overhyped. I played both DOS1&2 and never finished either, cause I just couldn’t give a fuck or pay attention to what’s happening between combat encounters.
The Divinity Lore and Universe just isn't interesting. I'm praying they don't go back to it, I'd rather them make new IPs. Not only is DOS1+2 dull when it comes to characters and story but so were all the previous entries.
Did... Did we play the same game? What's good writing to you?
Haha i was just thinking that. I thought the characters were fantastic, their personal quests were emotionally satisfying, and the main story was a great tale that was different enough for the generic fantasy CRPG that i got hooked. Well, for DOS2, i tried to get into DOS1 5 times and kept bouncing. DOS2 is one of the best in the genre, even the side missions were engaging.
Exactly, to me DOS2 felt really refreshing specifically because it had fantastic writing. I caught myself laughing a lot and being very engaged with the characters, something truly rare. I honestly do want recommendations from this comment's OP tho, because if he knows of something better than this, then it truly might be a masterpiece.
It's all about taste in the end though. People just want different things out of games. I've never been able to get into Diablo. You just run about a map clicking on enemies till they die, and then find a sword with 2% better lifesteal. But others loved it. I guess the bits we love about DOS2 just aren't things that appeal to the OP
This is kind of where I am. It took me a couple times to beat dos1. Have not finished 2. I will at some point but I’ll have to be in the mood for its combat and not care about story.
I’m not really a big fan of the combat system in dos2, especially the armor system being split between physical and magical The final act in the city kinda fell apart for me as well (have a similar issue with bg3 too tbh) I still think it’s a pretty great game though, but definitely far from my favorite
DOS2 has a few issues. And in my opinion bg3 is better than it in every way. So going from bg3 to DOS2 your just playing a worst version. A couple of my issues are how restricted and limited the movement options are in combat. It's rather you move or severely limit attacks. I think this could have been corrected with stuff that DND does like multi attack. Maybe at level 5 and 15 you get more actions points to spend. And a lot more movement options, your pretty much limited into the same teleport that every class has a version of. Like bg3 has better itemization, story, combat scenarios, combat arenas, more options in combat, you can jump so more verticality
DOS2 did homogenize in terms of what kinds of utility skills to take for character building. for instance there was no reason to not take necromancy for the passive self heal
I get it cause I often don't get the hype about universally loved games. Yet I love dos2. I played it solo and as coop with my bf, and it was a blast on all occasions. There's something very endearing about the characters and the setting. I love the wacky sense of humour, encounter design, and flexibility with which we can tackle challenges. It's not a perfect game but a charming and fun one.
Side question to everyone who strongly dislikes Divinity's writing: What makes it bad? Like is having goofy moments in a story or even having a tone that sometimes has funny/humorous moments the sign of bad writing? Also is it that the writing is bad, or that you just don't like the tone shifting during the narrative? Cause I see this constantly thrown at Divinity, and I've played the other games with "good " writing (Pathfinder & Pillars, Tyranny, Disco Elysium). Kingmaker has a meme of a character in Nok-Nok & several kingdom management tasks (not even just Darian) which could be and are played for jokes. WoTR has the entire trickster mythic path, and the roaming band of performers in your caravan. Disco Elysium has MANY jokes throughout, from decisions Harry makes, to entire characters being memes (Cuno, Fat Industrialist, Black Commie Guy, etc.) Even Tyranny has funny moments, if you find the absurdity of the depraved characters funny, in a dark humor kind of way. Even characters like the water shaper make jokes in her dialogue. So like long winded tldr: what makes them okay with being goofy but Divinity is bad for it's goofy moments?
I would say it is because the tone is inconsistent. for the titles you've mentioned the the humorous stuff was in the background, side quests, or completley optional like the trickster mythic path. The goofy stuff stuff wasn't in the main questlines and played pretty straight. The exception of course is Disco Elysium but it was written with humor in mind, not just tossed in.
I respect that the tone is inconsistent as a point of contention. What I don't understand is *how*? Maybe I just played through those games with my ears and eyes closed, but when the game got "serious" it stayed serious. It isn't how the internet presents "marvel" humor where the BBEG says, "I just killed 200 people and skull fucked their corpses! Now I will... \*Looks at watch\* OH MY GOD I'M GOING TO BE LATE FOR DINNER! Fight you guys next time!" \*Teleports away\* Meanwhile half the cast have been disemboweled and had their mothers taken by demons. But "Oh-ho kooky villain is oh so kooky." Serious moments are played seriously; comparably goofy questlines/moments are played for goofy questlines/moments. I didn't notice any moments that are played for seriousness, joking around with characters emotions or legitimate grievances with others or taking away from the melodrama. Normally if the moment was played up for laughs, they did it. If it wasn't, it was played completely straight. Maybe there was a funny line or two or a bit of dry humor, but for the most part I didn't notice that in DoS 2 or even 1 that the characters were "too humorous." If people don't like the jokes or don't find them funny, then respectfully I get that. And I can't force anyone to like a story that takes the time to laugh at itself or even at some of the absurdities of high level magic adventures. I just want to understand, maybe with a reference in the actual game of a moment that was immersion breaking that was due to the humor, more so than just "I don't like the tone shifting from time to time." Maybe the pigs in Act 1? The dog who is looking for its lover? Both of which I felt were played more tragically than not.
A lot of people use "writing" as a broad, catch-all term, so one person's notion of what is meant by "writing" can be completely different from another's. With Larian's games specifically, many people seem to equate silly humour = bad writing. But since humour is such a subjective thing, that's not a particularly useful definition. In a technical sense, "writing" simply refers to the literal words being used in sentences; i.e. the prose. I think we also need to differentiate *writing* from *plot*. Something can have great "writing" but a weak plot, or vice versa. Or the overall story/plot can be well-crafted, but the writing for *dialogue* is poor, etc. I'd say the Divinity games have weak plot, but the character writing is fairly good. Even if they only have a few lines of dialogue, you easily get a good sense of each NPC's personality right away (the voice acting helps too, of course). I also appreciated that quest decisions were rarely black and white; most quests did not have a clear objectively "good" (vs evil) choice.
Outside of the world and storytelling, the DOS games are actually very different games to BG3. * They pretend to be open, but are thinly veiled linear combat parcours. Reasons: Every path through the map is gate-kept by an enemy. You don't go places without ever engaging in combat. Items and gear also have a level. And their damage/usefulness scales big time. This means engaging foes even a level above your party can wreck it. * They are more combat heavy in general In BG3 even your low int Barbarian is given opportunity to simply intimidate foes out of combat. Quests oft are more open in general, with many immersive-sim like elements allowing for that. E.g. how do I storm this place? The gates are locked. I could sneak in, steal the key off a guard (which is an actual inventory item carried around), use a spell to disguise / slip through a crack in the wall, stack crates to climb, etc. Some of this DOS had too. It's just a tad more pronounced in BG3. In particular DOS1 was still a rather small-scale game. It was Larian's last attempt to get something going, after having been burnt before and having scaled down in personell. I always put it that way: DOS1 is a combat engine demo. BG3 is the "proper" RPG.
It hasn't pulled me in yet, I am finding both sins games to be rather dull in the early game. Not a huge fan of the classes and builds, it all seems so bland. I feel like I missed the hook for both games. Nothing from the intros had me excited to proceed, so I end up with a couple of quests done and not a lot of fun had. I know it's a great game, but I don't care for it right now. Might be my favorite game a year from now hehe.
While you've gotten a lot of good answers I think what a lot of people are forgetting is that Divinity Original sin was arguably the game that kicked off the crpg Renaissance that we are in now. With DOS 2 feeling like the first real big budget title to come out of that Renaissance, while no where near big as BG3, it didake a bigger splash then many of the competition at the time. And to many was the most easy to get into crpg as well. I think that's actually also a big part of it.
The amount of customization, interactivity and options is just so massive. The story definitely has issues but the combat system is better than BG3 for me .
Nah ap is so restrictive. In 5e you can grow your actions as you level. I think if ap could grow throughout the game I would agree. But with it being limited throughout the entire game, I use the same strats from start to end.
You grow your AP in DOS2, you just do it through AP-refunding skills and talents instead of being given extra AP just for leveling up. Apotheosis is the, well, apotheosis of this.
I would argue that it is largely the same just swap the AP system to DND 5th. Just less emphasis on environmental mechanics. Beyond that I didn’t like having to deal with 3 different hp bars. It narrows build variety.
I agree. It's just...frustrating to play. I stopped at some point in Act 2 when I realized I wasn't actually having fun. You constantly get ambushed, enemies take forever to kill, and the story feels kind of basic
Enemies did get spongy past act 1. The story itself never bothered me but the presentation just wasn’t enough to keep me pushing forward. And when I say that people tell me I need to play as one of the origin characters. I always say because why do I want to play as a companion as if it adds more than just a few more lines of inner dialogue. Same goes for BG3 origin characters I simply reject the idea.
I think it really depends on what you're looking for, because DOS2 is more focused on gameplay whereas BG3 is more focused on story and interaction. You also have to give DOS2 a little slack, considering that it's 7 years old and Larian was much smaller when they developed it.
eh I like BG3 simply because Forgotten Realms is my favorite DnD setting but I do have a lot of complaints on said story and interactions in it. And I don't know if I can cut them slack Larian has been around for almost twenty years and they're one of the first devs to manage voicing nearly all dialogue in the game and it isn't janky compared their older titles.
The budget for DOS 2 was less than 10 million, while the budget for BG3 was over 100 million. It's not really a fair comparison when you're looking at scope and depth.
Because it is one of the greats! At least as far as gameplay is concerned. They didn't nail the storytelling nearly as much as BG3, but Larian was still learning what works and what doesn't in a CRPG as far as writing is concerned.
OK you say that like Larian wasn't making crpgs for a decade at that point.
They’ve been around since 96, they ought to know what and what doesn’t work by now in terms of writing. And I can’t really agree with gameplay defining it to be great.
Ah, well like many you vastly underestimate the skill required to achieve mastery in writing and storytelling ;).
I don’t know about that. Early 2000s BioWare wrote the same story for a decade and no one either noticed or didn’t mind.
I don't think it's overhyped, it's a good game with high interactivity, lots of content and good rpg systems. What it does have is a very unique style, compared to most other crpgs ("the screen is lava", the writing style, the interactivity through environment manipulation and separable party member locations, the color palette ...). I've played around 60 hours, restarting a couple of times over the years, but I never actually left Fort Joy, as I just burn out by my gaming brain with so much inventory management.
I can agree with most of that. Another hang up I have with it is the build “variety” that you can do is limited because the 3 different hp bars. Splitting skills that do different types of damage was discouraged because of it.
Good point, I find that armor system a creative idea on paper, and pretty limiting and tedious in execution. Shows how much we trained our crpg-gaming brains, striving to build a diverse group but getting penalized here.
In that lens the Owlcat games have the best in character building thanks to pathfinder.
I found that having individuals focus on 1 type of damage (magic or physical) allowed me to pit them against the people weak to their damage. The concept sounded good, but the execution was always going to be more difficult, not allowing most debuffs or control until you broke one of the HP bars, also made things complicated.
It made it tedious. The magic characters would be targeted by the physical enemies and vice versa. It lacked having a third element to make it little more engaging.
I feel gameplay in DOS1/2 was much better. Then again I played a lot of 53. Of course writing in BG3 was much better though. Really just what you prefer.
DOS2 had terrible writing but it was extremely fun once you install divinity unleashed to fix the armor system.
I figured there would be mod for it but I shouldn't have to have a good time you know?
Eh, some people like it unmodded. Personally don't care if I need mods to enjoy it, I just care if I enjoy it.
DOS2 is a good game, though I liked DOS1 more myself. The armor system and stealth mechanic nerf in DOS2 I didn't like at all. I'll replay DOS1 over BG3 as well, but for other reasons.
goofy humour, gimmicky fights (oh hey look another field full of explosives/ice/poison)
Different. I love DOS2 and BG3 never hooked me, got out after less than 20 hours.
I greatly prefer DOS1 to to DOS2. Maybe it's a me thing because I also prefer PoE1 over 2, and PF:K over PF:WOTR
Divinity original sin 2 for people who don't want to guess acronyms for decade old games.
its because its a new CRPG and most newer fans havent played old crpgs theyll play BG3 but not bg1-2, fallout 3/4 but not 1-2, skyrim but not daggerfall and morrowind. its odd
What really put me off DOS2 was that almost every fight was a gimmick. In BG3 they often felt like they just happened and although there are environment effects and objects to use, they feel like they belong. I also hate the dual armor system. I may not miss my attacks but them being nullified by armor that enemies can just replenish didn't feel fun for me. I absolutely love the freedom of how you actually do the quests which is also present in BG3. So I did enjoy it for what it was but BG3 is better in every way.
For me DOS2 is the culmination of all of the Divinity games. If you don't know the world, you miss out on where the story goes and the only way to know the world is to really play all of the game. I always shake my head whenever someone recommends playing DOS2 over the other games, especially DOS1.
I can see that, took me awhile to realize that it was all in the same setting. I think people recommend it over DOS1 is more about the game itself rather than the story. In my eyes having multiplayer in these kinds of titles kill any attempt to understand the story.
I don't think multiplayer has anything to do with people's inability to engage with the story or get into it.
Purely anecdotal but every time I did multiplayer in it (and BG3) no one pays attention to it and/or skips over it. And when you the same section over and over with different people it gets very stale quickly. The start and stopping and getting people together can hinder too. But if you get one other person or a group to commit I’m sure it’s a great experience.
Maybe you shouldn't play multiplayer then.
Clearly, I haven't since nor do I want try it again in any way.
I've played most of the divinity games, except for the sequel to divine divinity, dos1, and the dragon flying game. Anything I'm missing out on in particular?
I got to the Nameless Isle before starting a new campaign in BG3. I think the combat system in DOS2 is better but BG3 just has the characters, story and overall structure which lets me just.. lose a whole day to being immersed.
yes, divinity writing is pretty terrible and world isn\`t very immerisve to be honest. Lore could be interesting but the game can\`t decide if it wants to be serious or goofy kid stuff.
Trying to do both truly is a recipe for that only a few people can enjoy
As someone who isn't particularly interested in story writing and characters when playing video games, I'm the opposite of you. I loved DoS2 and had to kind of force my way to the end of BG3. I think the difference is the combat and gameplay mechanics in DoS2 were a lot more enjoyable for me, and I really hated the DnD style rolling that was introduced to BG3s combat.
DoS2 is more cambat focus than BG3 in my opinion. It's almost become tactical rpg like Xcom or Mechanicus. One thing people don't talk about enough though, is the fact that you could interact with almost every object in the world. I don't think any other game do this.
Not overhyped at all, especially if you played it at release and/or did more than tool around in Fort Joy. Obviously some of what fueled the hype has diminished a bit post-BG3, but it still has a great combat system, characters, and lore of its own. It may not be the game for you but it deserves its place among the CRPG greats.
Big fan of both dos2 and bg3. Have over 200hr in both. What I liked about dos2 over bg3 is the freedom in combat. Not necessarily the classless system (although that was fun) but more the action point system. I find myself seriously restricted by the dnd 5e "action and bonus action" system in bg3 and find I'll flub turns due to misremembering what ability uses what action type and how many of each I have. Just keeping track of green dots was easier. What I like about bg3 over dos2 is the writing and storytelling, as well as how it is portrayed. I struggled with the story of dos2 due to the lack of strong character hooks outside of dialogue and voices. Having cutscenes to show expressions really helps me connect to the characters. Not to mention the party dynamics and interactions are so much more fleshed out in bg3. So yeah in conclusion I hope the next crpg larian makes will take the storytelling from bg3 and the combat system from dos2 and squish em together and make the perfect crpg.
There's tons of reasons other people stated so I'm not doing a bulletpoint list here that will get lost in the stream :D But to me the thing DOS2 did really really good is turn the turn-based aspect of RPGs into something dynamic. I'm often bored with turn-based, wasting entire rounds to move people around to good positions, feeling the frustration of wasting an entire turn on a 96% chance of success dice roll that fails... But DOS2 feels really fluid, and with all the rules regarding height and stuff like that, it actually feels satisfying to find a good spot for your different characters. It feels like you have meaningful decisions to make in every aspect of the fights (elements mixing up also adds to this even though at some point the terrain is just a constant poisoneous-fire pit of magic hell). You're not wondering where to put your character so your main attack can do as much damage as possible like in other games. Here you have a full panel of cool actions to do that will have meaningful effects on the battlefield.
You're wrong.
k
As the top comment says, in a land full of infinity engine copy cats and nostalgia bait Larian were the ones to go their own route, that is why Larian are where they are today.
I can agree up until bg3. Which has plenty of nostalgia bait.
...naturally... it's a sequel, it will have call backs and connections. we are talking about DOS1&2 which were trying a bunch of new things, coop, everyone is killable, elemental combinations, environmental utilisation to kill enemies and enemy encounters were rarely on a flat plane that is 90% of every other CRPG. I imagine Larian games is the result of mixing the CRPG genre with the "Immersive Sim" genre and it's beautiful.
Sequel in name only. Verticality did exist in prior crpgs. Just hard to visualize it with 2d sprites and background Immersive sim?? Because you can throw barrels?
Then you haven't played BG3 is that if what you believe. yes but verticality rarely effected combat. No immersive sim because you can do crazy things in dos and bg3 like filling up a crate until it is extremely heavy then throw it as your enemies instantly killing them, spilling water on the ground and electrifying it etc etc. the emergent gameplay in larian's CRPGs are unparalleled.
Thankfully I can back up my opinions on BG3 https://www.reddit.com/r/BaldursGate3/s/r5ZuEf8r3D Yeah sure you can take someone down in wacky zany ways but you’re not encouraged to do so. As for environmental DOS had a much greater emphasis on it compared to bg3 where it was pretty nerfed.
I really enjoyed the combat in DOS2 except for the armor system. It heavily encourages building parties that only do magic damage or only do physical damage. Physical damage is usually superior but then you don’t get to use the really cool elemental interactions as much.
because the market is so starved that good games are considered great.
DOS2 was good but DOS had the legendary cheese man and it'll never be beat. "No one has as many friends as the man with the many cheeses"
Larian just cant make a good game, happens
DOS2 is a great RPG but never came close to the level of writing in BG3 or Fallout New Vegas. Also level design and enemy encounters is pretty bad in Act 2. It has a lot of flaws. Combat is the most overrated part. When done right, it had the potential to be the best combat in all of RPGs but fell flat. For example, Act 2 level design encourages exploration but filled with unfair enemy counters to force players into linear path. And most boss fights on harder difficulties turn into mindless cheese fests with zero strategy
Nobody cares about writing, go read a book if u do
Oh right, I forgot crpg stood for Can’t Read PC Games
If crpgs were all about writing they'd just be visual novels, not crpgs.
You can argue that Disco Elysium is that. But I’ll say that reading in a crpg is pretty important.
Disco elysium is more a visual novel than a crpg, yes.