|
|
Post by mysterd on Sept 19, 2009 13:32:32 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Hildor on Sept 19, 2009 20:16:51 GMT
DO WANT!
|
|
|
|
Post by Alrik on Sept 19, 2009 20:40:20 GMT
If you've already played Divinity 1, then you might give them your suggestions ...
|
|
|
|
Post by mysterd on Sept 20, 2009 2:48:25 GMT
I wish it was going to more than just digital distribution.
I hope it goes to retail outlets.
|
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Sept 20, 2009 3:12:11 GMT
If it's popular enough, I'm sure it will.
Not a bad idea and I'd be very tempted myself. I have a lot of good memories of the original DD.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ubereil on Sept 20, 2009 8:23:15 GMT
Unfortunantly for Larian I have far more good memories of their forum than of their games. I acually suspect I'll pass on DD2 for instance.  Übereil |
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Sept 20, 2009 10:18:25 GMT
I'll give DD2 a chance if they ever release it in Britain, but BD was just NOT a good game, so my expectations are not very high. Plus I really think that the perspective change was a big mistake.
|
|
|
|
Post by mysterd on Sept 20, 2009 12:35:32 GMT
I'll give DD2 a chance if they ever release it in Britain, but BD was just NOT a good game, so my expectations are not very high. Plus I really think that the perspective change was a big mistake. BD was quite different -- a much more linear world b/c of the way they split the worlds into actual chapters; a much darker story; and it had a (forced) 2-man party. I did like it -- but I never finished it, though. D2 does look pretty good, to me. But, I wonder if that perspective change -- third-person behind the player, which usually uses WSAD and more direct style of controls -- will aggravate fans of DD and BD who liked the point-and-click style. I don't know if there's still an option to click-and-point to move around, even w/ the camera in 3rd person -- maybe German gamers or anyone w/ D2 already can clear that up for me? It won't bother me, likely -- since I like both styles of gameplay -- just as long as I feel it's done right and all. Some old-school Fallout fans did NOT like the switch from 3rd person with click-and-point to say Fallout 3's 1st person/3rd person behind the player camera with WSAD direct-control style (you can switch b/t the two camera viewpoints). I thought it worked fine, myself -- since I'm a click-and-point RPG buff and a TPA/FPA buff (Third-Person Action/First-Person Action) which usually uses direct controls (WSAD/Cursors to move). But, I don't think these kind of changes made everybody happy here on Fallout 3; and I'm sure the same probably will be said about D2. I think Sacred 2 really figured it out very well how to move fully into 3D w/out alienating any old Sacred fans -- with options of different camera modes accessible to the player (Free Cam a la NWN series;, 3rd person behind the player; etc etc); and ALSO that the player can use WSAD for direct movement or just go ahead and click-and-point if they want. |
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Sept 20, 2009 12:45:02 GMT
I don't mind the 3rd person view - used to it from all that Tomb Raider playing, after all. But I really don't think it's the best style for an RPG. It tends to be used for games with a very heavy combat focus (Enclave) or that require serious acrobatics (TR). Sure, it may just be a case of what I'm used to, but the change is something I can't see as a good sign seeing as there's no actual need for it.
I did finish BD, but I doubt I'll play it again. Too much annoyance with inadvertent declarations of war on entire animal species and other things that wound me up; no real replay value as it's an incredibly linear game. And the skill system frankly sucked, especially after the beautiful simplicity of DD. There aren't actually many single character systems that beat that out and the BD system certainly wasn't one of them.
|
|
|
|
Post by mysterd on Sept 20, 2009 13:33:26 GMT
I don't mind the 3rd person view - used to it from all that Tomb Raider playing, after all. But I really don't think it's the best style for an RPG. Well, DD is 3rd person -- as your character's shown on-screen!  It's just side-scrolling here, not behind the character! But, I get what you mean, though -- DD did NOT have a direct control set-up (WSAD), which is normally used in action games and shooters. And usually action games w/ direct controls keep the camera always placed behind the player character. Keep in mind -- DD was actually pretty combat heavy, even though it still had all the strong RPG elements of being able to (often) make decisions on quests and whatnot that could cause the outcome of the quest and game to be different. I'm hoping Divin 2 continues this onslaught of being combat-heavy AND having quests w/ decision-making. It's what I liked about it -- it felt like a much deeper Diablo. I think the 3rd person behind the character viewpoint w/ direct controls has worked fine for games w/ very little acrobatics, when executed right -- see Vamp: Bloodlines; Fable; Fallout 3; and Gothic series. Though, those games above did have a good deal of combat -- those games did allow you to make decisions on how to finish quests. Vamp: BL and Fable did have multiple-endings, I should note. Yeah, I didn't like that -- declarations of war on an animal species. That was goofy. Did the game have multiple different endings? Usually, if a game is somewhat linear in format; especially if the world isn't open to the player at all times -- if there's lots of decision-making in quests that can alter the game's final outcome -- see The Witcher and PST -- that makes the game replayable. I didn't get super far in BD -- but, did it follow that format at all? Though, I should note -- I don't replay most 30+ hour games.... Oh yeah -- DD's skill system was much better; I agree. |
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Sept 20, 2009 14:13:22 GMT
BD only has one ending. It's a good ending, don't get me wrong, but the whole game is a lead up to this one single ending - so definitely no multiple endings.
DD I'd say is borderline on whether it's an RPG or an Action-RPG, but that was part of the charm. Not too many games are right on the border like that. They really blended the best elements of both, giving the player a ton of choice on where to go and what to do, and a lot of action.
|
|
|
|
Post by mysterd on Sept 20, 2009 14:19:48 GMT
DD I'd say is borderline on whether it's an RPG or an Action-RPG, but that was part of the charm. Not too many games are right on the border like that. They really blended the best elements of both, giving the player a ton of choice on where to go and what to do, and a lot of action. Silverfall (Original) and Silverfall: EA is another one I'd say is also on the borderline -- since you do have choices often on what to do w/ a quest; usually two options. Usually it's one towards Nature and the other one is towards Technology. Sacred 2 -- is kind of interesting. Most quests, one way to go only. Do the quest and that's it. Though, there are a few I seen, that give you a choice -- i.e. one quest had me pick to kill enemy or let enemy go; another quest had me decide to kill enemy or side w/ the enemy. With Sacred 2 -- also worth nothing, after creating your character when you ready to begin the game, you have to decide to do either the Light Side or Shadow Side Quests. I chose Light, first time around. If I do replay it for Shadow Side, I'll let you know if much is different or not... Yeah, so it ain't super-replayable -- unless you want to replay the game as a different character-class. |
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Sept 20, 2009 14:26:04 GMT
With two characters to be developed and not the greatest character class options... That's not gonna add much replayability.
|
|
|
|
Post by mysterd on Sept 20, 2009 14:48:08 GMT
With two characters to be developed and not the greatest character class options... That's not gonna add much replayability. Thing is, you really need to find a balance, when you have a party of two or more -- and with a party of two, you're likely going to be stuck in a bind. You'll likely either have TWO tanks; or one magic user and one tank. Those should be a good balance. Try doing say one thief and a dark knight -- yeah, you'll likely get wrecked, since the thief won't do too much damage and you won't have a healer in the party. |
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Sept 20, 2009 15:22:16 GMT
Right. And therefore - very low replayability.
|
|
|
|
Post by janggut on Sept 21, 2009 6:36:15 GMT
i hate Fallout 3 for the fact that it's first person perspective. i can't stand first person games. give me headache.
|
|
|
|
Post by mysterd on Sept 21, 2009 21:33:43 GMT
i hate Fallout 3 for the fact that it's first person perspective. i can't stand first person games. give me headache. You can switch it into third-person (behind the character), if you feel so inclined... |
|
|
|
Post by mysterd on Sept 27, 2009 17:58:52 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Hildor on Sept 27, 2009 18:21:54 GMT
Getting into drool mode *removes keyboard*.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Sonar Chicken on Sept 28, 2009 22:07:44 GMT
Any resolution? Cool... ;D
|
|
It's just side-scrolling here, not behind the character! 
