Yeah but romances in Divinity:Original Sin are gonna be a bit diffrent because you actually can interact,talk agree or disagree with the other character and have discussions with him/her(best if there is a friend or another player playing with you) so I hope in the end the romances in Divinity won't be a dark screen filled with giggles and grunts.
Last edited:
Fighter and Barbarian update, just left me cold. Thief's now the only one who can do any decent damage, while the traditional warriors are relegated to being a target dummy and cleaning up trash. I fucking hate how everybody has to copy fucking WOW. And the attributes make no fucking sense at all, I don't even know what they're supposed to represent, is might physical strength or what? The game itself sounds fucking interesting as hell but they're taking their fucking time releasing any proof for us backers, ah well grumble over.
The after hours Angry Joe's interview... 
[video=youtube;J8E-MR1V05E]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8E-MR1V05E[/video]
[video=youtube;J8E-MR1V05E]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8E-MR1V05E[/video]
Barbarians sound like they deal a lot of damage. Damage boni everywhere - when outnumbered, when below a stamina threshold, when defeated - plus auto splash damage, plus rolling against the opponent's weaker defense. They sound great!
Besides, the weapon specializations give me a bit of hope that Fighters are flexible enough to deal good damage. Otherwise, two-handed and ranged weapons specializations wouldn't make a whole lot of sense. Keep in mind that what they're showing us is but a fraction of each class' skills and abilities.
I haven't been able to keep up with everything related to the campaigns I backed, but from what I understood from the early Eternity updates, they were focusing on explaining the differences and improvements over traditional cRPG's, especially compared to the Infinity Engine games. If they gave more detail about one class than the others, it might be because that class features more changes and/or improvements while the others are closer to what we already know. I think fighters are a well understood and generally well executed class that doesn't really need an introduction. I hope so at least, I might have to go and read that latest update and then stick my foot in my mouth.
There were updates for each and every class in the game.
- Update #52 - Monk
- Update #56 - Paladins
- Update #62 - Ciphers
- Update #71 - The Heavy Hitters: Rogues and Rangers
- Update #74 - The Mob Rulers: Wizards and Druids
- Update #78 - The Leaders of the Band: Chanters and Priests
- Update #81 - The Front Line: Fighters and Barbarians
Big spoilers for the beginning of the game:
http://uk.ign.com/articles/2014/07/24/pillars-of-eternity-seems-to-push-all-the-right-rpg-buttons
http://uk.ign.com/articles/2014/07/24/pillars-of-eternity-seems-to-push-all-the-right-rpg-buttons
Where is the spoiler? They only showed the character creation kit and some gameplay without many spoilers at all.
If you ignore the fact it appears to cover the games intro ~20mins.
Still... first recent look for me and I like what I see. Are some people unhappy with the graphics 'cos it doesn't bother me at all, doesn't strike me either.
Just skipped through it to take a look at the environments. As long as the tutorial is unlike NW2, its fine by me. Still can't get past its giant wall of cheese.
I really like the way the textures look, so real like I could reach into my screen and grab the stone or the grass. The characters have that unfortunate "stock" D&D look, but higher level gear usually fixes that issue :yes
True... only thing to add i really noticed graphically was the lack of shadows, maybe its just this build, or shadows are traded for the complex background, perhaps static bgs takes a little getting used to again.
I watched the whole thing but only streamed the plot... my impression was motb.
What's that even meaning? It doesn't look more generic as every other game out there, Witcher 3 included if you ask me. I really hate this bland term...
One niggle, after playing Divinity it's gonna be hard going back to the non interactive painted canvasses of the Infinity engine game, but then again that's what they promised us in the pitch so that's hardly Obsidian's fault, and most rpg's take a few hours getting used to anyway.
Generic like Baldur's Gate, IWD,,NWN,Dragon Age,Witcher, and TES. That is his point.
Non generic would be something like PS:T, Dark Sun, Ravenloft, Eberon etc.
Rule of thumb, if something is mostly familiar and instendly recognisable, it's generic. That isn't bad per se, generic sells well, and it's not an indicator of quality.
It's a fact that non generic settings don's sell as well as generic ones, because the player feels completely lost at the start, while in the more familiar ones he knows the general rules from the start.
It doesn't matter if the elves are an ancient civilazation in the magical woods who hold humans in contempt, or oppressed by the racist humans, the player knows instantly that elves are a separate race, live propably longer and haven't good relations with humans. That is instantly familiar concept, used in a ton of works, thus generic
That's all just a question of classifications and definitions. I could easily call PS:T generic as well - if I choose the classification wide enough.
You could just talk about rather known classifications "like Tolkien fantasy", "dark fantasy, "cyberpunk" or whatever. These are more or less transparent definition without any personal weighting involved. Generic instead is a shallow term based on a non-transparent personal classification and could therefore mean anything. It's also not clear whether it contains a personal weighting or not. Therefore the term generic should be avoided in general.
If you want to talk about something in a rational disccusion use clear, transparent and objective terms, not something deficient and intransparent like generic which evokes defensive reactions in many people since the term is used in many cases as a bad attribute. Point is that you can never be sure whether that' intended or not.
Didn't realize a simple word would hurt sensibilities. We all know what generic means in this context: unbranded. Essentially, something you can't call your own because it's not different enough to the standard elements we all know about. We all play cRPGs I assume, therefore you can agree that D&D is the staple of generic and that doesn't mean it's bad. Don't really know why it caused such a fuss. Sure, you can think of a category broad enough to classify The Witcher, Torment and Tetris together, but it stops being useful because its not indicative of any distinctive features (eg. the set containing all video games or the set of things that react to buttons). We can go deeper into the subject of classification and similarity but this is not the time or place.
PoE is generic in that it is instantly recognizable as a typical fantasy setting with standard, non distinguishable features. And I'm really looking forward to playing it.
PoE is generic in that it is instantly recognizable as a typical fantasy setting with standard, non distinguishable features. And I'm really looking forward to playing it.
Last edited: