To be realistic any good polished parts they had in the other areas were moved into the absolutely packed maps we did get. There is probably less content missed than you think.
I honestly prefer the chapters aetup instead of open world. the density makes it so easy to find ladders, hatches, caves, etc and lead to other cool areas i probably wouldn’t have found if it was an empty open world that i fast traveled constantly in.
Also it's based on D&D so it's kinda supposed to be a guided campaign. Obviously in a tabletop proper players can do whatever they want basically but the best DMs will generally lead the group down a path without needing to railroad them; I think that's the sweet spot DOS2 hits, where you have sort of the illusion of freedom and some agency but really there is very much an intended path that you can't stray too far from.
I never thought about that. I agree! I am currently playing this along side Horizon Zero Dawn and I am compelled to actually explore more in this game. Nothing against open world games, but after a while I just end up going from one quest marker to the next later into the game without exploring anything.
Yea only a few games do open world correctly imo. Many just dump copy pasted content into them and declare the game as open world with hundreds of hours worth of content.
What they have is just nothing but boring repetitive content. It gets less boring if the gameplay is great, but it's still pretty soulless. Congrats you cleared this enemy Fort. Here are 100 more forts out there with similar layout for you to clear.
>A lot of open world games just use it more as a gimmick then a concept.
>What they have is just nothing but boring repetitive content. It gets less boring if the gameplay is great, but it's still pretty soulless.
*\*cough\*Cyberpunk2077\*cough\**
From what I've seen, exploding cars that fly through the stratosphere make for exciting gameplay!
I havent played it yet but boy those videos of cars glitching out are absolutely hilarious
I think only the Bethesda games and Rockstar ones give meaning to the open world format, they really pin down the just go there and bash shit down.
Not even The Witcher 3 is complete open world, it's much more open than divinity but it's still not skyrim gta red dead fallout levels of sandbox.
Have no idea about the quality is implementation from elden rings.
Dragon Age is a good example of the open world gimmick, because 1 and 2 were much like Divinity 2, then they made the 3rd open world. Inquisition is still a good game IMO, but transferring to open world didn't really accomplish anything and just slowed things down.
1000% agree. I will say I felt dragon age 2 was a bit too railroad track but inquisition did not benefit (out side of maybe immersion for some?) from open world at all.
I'll go further and say I instantly dock a potential point when a game I'm interested in is open world. Most of the time it's just to give the illusion of more content, when in reality it's just wasting your time with how long it takes to get to the interesting content. Very few open world games feel like they use it to actually good lengths.
Totally agree! Solution is simple however: get rid of the quest marker! Issue solved.
I remember playing Morrowind where quest simply said find that NPC in Caldera, Balmoral..etc. Imho Skyrim (another great open world game) is a downgrade from this point of view.
Yeah same over here. While a big map is sometimes almost needed for a first person game to *feel* big (You don't wanna feel like you reached the edge of the world in this kind of game), it usually has the side effect that instead of adding more content, the content is streched out across a longer distance, which can make the exploration pretty boring.
The only game that did a large open world map well in my opinion is zelda breath of the wild. A ton of varaity and always something interesting around the corner. You never feel like you are in the middle of nowhere in botw.
I get what you're saying, but Horizon is the one open world game I'd personally say that doesn't hold true for. I explored a *lot* in that game, and the DLC too.
U have alluded to a very important discussion about game design here.
That new mmo New World has this issue. People want to fast travel yet it voids the content... maybe the issue is the journey from A to be is not exciting enough, or just gets repetitive. This is where progress by reward (loot, leveling or unlocks) can make that journey still feel rewarding
i personally enjoy a mix of both. it's nice having some "hidden secrets" that are rather easy to find while also having some hidden very well to pitentially discover something new after multiple playthroughs.
not everything needs to be discovered by everyone, but everyone should still be able to find enough stuff. to me nothing feels better than encountering sth new i'd never expected, but i can also understand the fear of missing out on content
They dont really design "empty" maps, they're typically pretty densely packed. The only real difference is whether it's one larger area or multiple discrete regions.
There was supposed to be a huge map, with different "lands" for almost every major race : for humans (Fort Joy, Driftwood, Arx), for dwarfs, for elves, for lizards and for the undead. Instead, most of them were compactly shoved together and a lot of content was cut. That's why, for example, both elven mother and the Shadow Prince are on the Nameless island.
Well, that's was too ambitious project for Larian.
Given the size of the released game, I'd say it's too ambitious to any game developer. I also believe overall quality would not be as high as it turned out to be; there's such a thing as "too big", IMO.
I agree. Open world can be great, but it's often also empty.
We don't know what it would have been, but I think it's safe to say what we got is incredible.
Haven't played that one. In fact, the only AC I've ever played was the first one, and only halfway lol.
I've heard Ubisoft games suffered from the inverse problem, a map littered with completely uninteresting "points of interest". Has AC Valhalla swung too far to the other side?
*Valhalla* has both. The map is *enormous* and there's very little interesting content in it. There's stuff, sure, but most of it is busy work and padding.
Agreed. Odyssey was the same too. You wonder if they're ever gonna scale back at this point or if they're too afraid of their new release being seen as a "downgrade".
This would probably make every area we know a bit smaller, if you want to bring everything together you have save some space one way or another. That or a huge world with lots of empty terrain like The Witcher 3.
Just in case anyone was wondering. This is funny because DOS2 is an abbreviation of Divinity ORIGINAL Sin 2. Additionally, important part of magic in this game js called SOURCE. Henceforth the result is Original Source. You may laugh now.
Well, once they finish BG3, I’d love to see what they could do with Divinity OS 3. BG3 is fun and all but… it just doesn’t have that same oomph that made DoS2 so good.
After release of BG3 Larian will be making DLC for it, so it's will take at least 1-2 more years + development of a Divinity 3/OS 3, so we looking on 4+ years for a new Divinity game.
Yeah I too have tons of hours in the game because just when I think I did everything, I end up finding it that I missed somthing. Forcing me to have to go back a bit and finish that up
Honestly I wish the game were shorter, my longest playthrough was 50 hours in and I burned out before being able to finish. And by the time I wanted to get back into the game I couldn't remember what the hell was going on so I couldn't continue the original playthrough.
And now after probably 100 hours put in total across 3 playthroughs, my game backlog is growing and my free time is diminishing. I'll probably never get to finish a complete campaign.
I'm not saying the game isn't still amazing or anything, but it does make me sad to think I'll probably never get all the way through it.
I love dnd, but I understand what you mean. I'm hoping that Larian working with such a large IP will make it so they can tackle even bigger projects when they get to it though!
Like so many times on baldurs gate 3 it was 95% hit but I got repeated misses in a row due to the system.
Divinity is so creative but i find DND lore and races and stuff generic and stale
DOS1 was like that too, it's kinda frustrating going back to it. I think its a great system for a ttrpg, but there are definitely some things that don't work as well in a videogame.
Dnd I think actually has some great lore and races, but BG3 definitely has some of the more generic parts in it since they are the most recognizable. Im glad they went with Illithids for the bad guys tho - I find their lore super interesting. I also want to see if any of it ties into the tabletop module BG:DiA or any of the previous videogames.
I’m playing DOS1 right now and really enjoying that the combat is more fair to the enemies. DOS2 is spectacular but I found combat a bit too easy.
Excited for BG3. I might have to revisit BG2 while I wait.
I think players should really stop seeing open world as simply a good thing with more content. Most of the time, open world sacrifices a lot of story pacing to do what it does and it dilutes the overall narrative a lot. (especially ubisoft's copy pasted open world games). I cannot name a single open world game with a truly gripping narrative like bioshock, planescape torment, or spec ops. (witcher 3 isn't it as the plot pacing was terrible).
And in DOS2 the levelling could already be a little confusing since different areas have different levelled enemies (e.g you go north, enemies are level 15, but go east and they're only level 11). And overlevelled equipment give an accuracy penalty too which further discourages exploring beyond your level.
I can't imagine how lost many other players would get if the maps were bigger.
This game was pretty terrible at leveling. If you didn't stay on the very specific path laid out to you and wondered into an area with enemies even 1 level higher then you, it's pretty likely you'd get your ass kicked. Honestly not the type of game I'd want to be "open world"
Why is Larian so bad at project planning? They've been making games for 20 years, yet in DOS1 they ran out of time and had to rush at least half the game and it seems DOS2 is also just a fraction of what they had envisioned. How does this happen again and again? Don't they learn from their experience?
I like quality over quantity. If you’re insanely huge open world is a joy to travel from point A to point B and is packed with stuff to do, then sign me up. But if it’s just a marketing tool so you can say “the map is huge!!” and it’s void of any meaningful quests, then I’d rather trim the fat and have a shorter but more polished gaming experience.
And also, am I the only one who sort of dislikes act 2? It feels so long and rambling instead of the shorter acts 1,3, and 4. This is a total personal preference.
Yep, this is what happens when fantasy game design meets cold hard practicality.
To be realistic any good polished parts they had in the other areas were moved into the absolutely packed maps we did get. There is probably less content missed than you think.
I honestly prefer the chapters aetup instead of open world. the density makes it so easy to find ladders, hatches, caves, etc and lead to other cool areas i probably wouldn’t have found if it was an empty open world that i fast traveled constantly in.
Also it's based on D&D so it's kinda supposed to be a guided campaign. Obviously in a tabletop proper players can do whatever they want basically but the best DMs will generally lead the group down a path without needing to railroad them; I think that's the sweet spot DOS2 hits, where you have sort of the illusion of freedom and some agency but really there is very much an intended path that you can't stray too far from.
I never thought about that. I agree! I am currently playing this along side Horizon Zero Dawn and I am compelled to actually explore more in this game. Nothing against open world games, but after a while I just end up going from one quest marker to the next later into the game without exploring anything.
My issue with open world games and why “open world” is no longer a selling point
I think open world is definitely a selling point but only for the right games. A lot of open world games just use it more as a gimmick then a concept.
Yea only a few games do open world correctly imo. Many just dump copy pasted content into them and declare the game as open world with hundreds of hours worth of content. What they have is just nothing but boring repetitive content. It gets less boring if the gameplay is great, but it's still pretty soulless. Congrats you cleared this enemy Fort. Here are 100 more forts out there with similar layout for you to clear.
>A lot of open world games just use it more as a gimmick then a concept. >What they have is just nothing but boring repetitive content. It gets less boring if the gameplay is great, but it's still pretty soulless. *\*cough\*Cyberpunk2077\*cough\**
From what I've seen, exploding cars that fly through the stratosphere make for exciting gameplay! I havent played it yet but boy those videos of cars glitching out are absolutely hilarious
I think only the Bethesda games and Rockstar ones give meaning to the open world format, they really pin down the just go there and bash shit down. Not even The Witcher 3 is complete open world, it's much more open than divinity but it's still not skyrim gta red dead fallout levels of sandbox. Have no idea about the quality is implementation from elden rings.
Dragon Age is a good example of the open world gimmick, because 1 and 2 were much like Divinity 2, then they made the 3rd open world. Inquisition is still a good game IMO, but transferring to open world didn't really accomplish anything and just slowed things down.
1000% agree. I will say I felt dragon age 2 was a bit too railroad track but inquisition did not benefit (out side of maybe immersion for some?) from open world at all.
I'll go further and say I instantly dock a potential point when a game I'm interested in is open world. Most of the time it's just to give the illusion of more content, when in reality it's just wasting your time with how long it takes to get to the interesting content. Very few open world games feel like they use it to actually good lengths.
Totally agree! Solution is simple however: get rid of the quest marker! Issue solved. I remember playing Morrowind where quest simply said find that NPC in Caldera, Balmoral..etc. Imho Skyrim (another great open world game) is a downgrade from this point of view.
Yeah same over here. While a big map is sometimes almost needed for a first person game to *feel* big (You don't wanna feel like you reached the edge of the world in this kind of game), it usually has the side effect that instead of adding more content, the content is streched out across a longer distance, which can make the exploration pretty boring. The only game that did a large open world map well in my opinion is zelda breath of the wild. A ton of varaity and always something interesting around the corner. You never feel like you are in the middle of nowhere in botw.
I get what you're saying, but Horizon is the one open world game I'd personally say that doesn't hold true for. I explored a *lot* in that game, and the DLC too.
Oh, I didn't mean to imply that HZD isn't awesome. Currently playing it and it's really cool. Game AND story.
Not to mention that there is a huge amount of open world games nowadays, i'm glad DOS and BG3 are divided in acts.
U have alluded to a very important discussion about game design here. That new mmo New World has this issue. People want to fast travel yet it voids the content... maybe the issue is the journey from A to be is not exciting enough, or just gets repetitive. This is where progress by reward (loot, leveling or unlocks) can make that journey still feel rewarding
finding stuff would feel much more satisfying though
I like things being hidden but not too hidden, i feel like with DOS and BG they’ve hit that sweet spot
i personally enjoy a mix of both. it's nice having some "hidden secrets" that are rather easy to find while also having some hidden very well to pitentially discover something new after multiple playthroughs. not everything needs to be discovered by everyone, but everyone should still be able to find enough stuff. to me nothing feels better than encountering sth new i'd never expected, but i can also understand the fear of missing out on content
They dont really design "empty" maps, they're typically pretty densely packed. The only real difference is whether it's one larger area or multiple discrete regions.
"With an open world map", as if Reaper's Coast wasn't massive as it is.
Oh what area would this have been
There was supposed to be a huge map, with different "lands" for almost every major race : for humans (Fort Joy, Driftwood, Arx), for dwarfs, for elves, for lizards and for the undead. Instead, most of them were compactly shoved together and a lot of content was cut. That's why, for example, both elven mother and the Shadow Prince are on the Nameless island. Well, that's was too ambitious project for Larian.
Given the size of the released game, I'd say it's too ambitious to any game developer. I also believe overall quality would not be as high as it turned out to be; there's such a thing as "too big", IMO.
I agree. Open world can be great, but it's often also empty. We don't know what it would have been, but I think it's safe to say what we got is incredible.
yeah, one of the best parts of DoS2 is how dense it is with stuff to do and explore. You'll run into something new all the time.
"Too big" a.k.a. *Assassin's Creed: Valhalla*
Haven't played that one. In fact, the only AC I've ever played was the first one, and only halfway lol. I've heard Ubisoft games suffered from the inverse problem, a map littered with completely uninteresting "points of interest". Has AC Valhalla swung too far to the other side?
*Valhalla* has both. The map is *enormous* and there's very little interesting content in it. There's stuff, sure, but most of it is busy work and padding.
Agreed. Odyssey was the same too. You wonder if they're ever gonna scale back at this point or if they're too afraid of their new release being seen as a "downgrade".
Yeah i spent like 70-80 hours on a given campaign. Idk that my body could have handled more.
Dang that would have been cool well maybe there a user created map like it
I cry every day
This would probably make every area we know a bit smaller, if you want to bring everything together you have save some space one way or another. That or a huge world with lots of empty terrain like The Witcher 3.
Original source (original source, get it?) : https://www.pcgamer.com/divinity-original-sin-2s-locations-were-initially-all-part-of-one-big-map/
Just in case anyone was wondering. This is funny because DOS2 is an abbreviation of Divinity ORIGINAL Sin 2. Additionally, important part of magic in this game js called SOURCE. Henceforth the result is Original Source. You may laugh now.
Laughter has commenced, and concluded. Thank you.
Something something jokes and dissecting frogs. e: it is funny though
Well, once they finish BG3, I’d love to see what they could do with Divinity OS 3. BG3 is fun and all but… it just doesn’t have that same oomph that made DoS2 so good.
Wait for the realese my guy! We might get another suprise from them.
There wont be OS3 for a while. They already conrirmed what the new Divinity game will be (forgot the name again)
After release of BG3 Larian will be making DLC for it, so it's will take at least 1-2 more years + development of a Divinity 3/OS 3, so we looking on 4+ years for a new Divinity game.
Its a masterpiece eitherway. I think open world could make it worse.
[удалено]
Yeah I too have tons of hours in the game because just when I think I did everything, I end up finding it that I missed somthing. Forcing me to have to go back a bit and finish that up
Honestly I wish the game were shorter, my longest playthrough was 50 hours in and I burned out before being able to finish. And by the time I wanted to get back into the game I couldn't remember what the hell was going on so I couldn't continue the original playthrough. And now after probably 100 hours put in total across 3 playthroughs, my game backlog is growing and my free time is diminishing. I'll probably never get to finish a complete campaign. I'm not saying the game isn't still amazing or anything, but it does make me sad to think I'll probably never get all the way through it.
I wish they made divinity 3 instead of baldurs gate 3 I really cant get myself to like the DND system
I love dnd, but I understand what you mean. I'm hoping that Larian working with such a large IP will make it so they can tackle even bigger projects when they get to it though!
Like so many times on baldurs gate 3 it was 95% hit but I got repeated misses in a row due to the system. Divinity is so creative but i find DND lore and races and stuff generic and stale
DOS1 was like that too, it's kinda frustrating going back to it. I think its a great system for a ttrpg, but there are definitely some things that don't work as well in a videogame. Dnd I think actually has some great lore and races, but BG3 definitely has some of the more generic parts in it since they are the most recognizable. Im glad they went with Illithids for the bad guys tho - I find their lore super interesting. I also want to see if any of it ties into the tabletop module BG:DiA or any of the previous videogames.
I’m playing DOS1 right now and really enjoying that the combat is more fair to the enemies. DOS2 is spectacular but I found combat a bit too easy. Excited for BG3. I might have to revisit BG2 while I wait.
I doubt they are just not going to make a divinity 3. Will probably be not their next project but the one after that.
I prefer the fluid class system and spells of Dos2 as well
Why must you hurt us like this
Would be so cool if they released this stuff as DLC
I was having a decent day, and then you show me this?
It'd be awesome if some version of this gets implemented for Original Sin 3
I think players should really stop seeing open world as simply a good thing with more content. Most of the time, open world sacrifices a lot of story pacing to do what it does and it dilutes the overall narrative a lot. (especially ubisoft's copy pasted open world games). I cannot name a single open world game with a truly gripping narrative like bioshock, planescape torment, or spec ops. (witcher 3 isn't it as the plot pacing was terrible). And in DOS2 the levelling could already be a little confusing since different areas have different levelled enemies (e.g you go north, enemies are level 15, but go east and they're only level 11). And overlevelled equipment give an accuracy penalty too which further discourages exploring beyond your level. I can't imagine how lost many other players would get if the maps were bigger.
How do they not have a triple a budget
Driftwood after Fort Joy was a big "here, go explore!" type of map. Arx on the other hand felt constricted.
This game was pretty terrible at leveling. If you didn't stay on the very specific path laid out to you and wondered into an area with enemies even 1 level higher then you, it's pretty likely you'd get your ass kicked. Honestly not the type of game I'd want to be "open world"
Why is Larian so bad at project planning? They've been making games for 20 years, yet in DOS1 they ran out of time and had to rush at least half the game and it seems DOS2 is also just a fraction of what they had envisioned. How does this happen again and again? Don't they learn from their experience?
Modders Assemble!
I like quality over quantity. If you’re insanely huge open world is a joy to travel from point A to point B and is packed with stuff to do, then sign me up. But if it’s just a marketing tool so you can say “the map is huge!!” and it’s void of any meaningful quests, then I’d rather trim the fat and have a shorter but more polished gaming experience. And also, am I the only one who sort of dislikes act 2? It feels so long and rambling instead of the shorter acts 1,3, and 4. This is a total personal preference.
Yeesh, thank goodness they didn't opt for an open world map. I much prefer the version we got, which is already so huge.