“We believe RPGs are big … So we always believed the audience was there,” says Adam Smith

  • ono@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    It has been a while since I played Divinity: Original Sin 2, and I’m still in Act 1 of BG3, but from memory:

    D:OS2 has fewer bugs and better performance. This isn’t surprising, of course, since it has had more time for polish.

    From what I’ve seen so far, BG3 has:

    • More balanced battle mechanics. In particular, battles aren’t dominated by excessive surface/cloud effects or telekinetic barrel drops, and I haven’t yet had a fight where I felt unfairly disadvantaged by my party lacking one specific ability.
    • Far fewer instances of the targeting UI lying to me and causing frustration in battle.
    • More world to explore.
    • Richer lore, as told through books and journals all over the world. It reminds me a bit of Elder Scrolls in this respect.
    • More interesting writing. (This might be subjective, but I would be surprised if most people disagreed.)
    • More character depth.
    • More immersive voice acting. (For example, the voice actors almost always understand the context of their lines. They often didn’t in D:OS 2, which I found distracting.)
    • Better character animation (outside of cut scenes, some of which are a bit awkward).

    The gameplay is indeed similar, of course, as it’s the same kind of game, from the same studio, using a revision of the same engine. But this one is IMHO better in almost every respect, and I think I’m more likely to play it again when I’m done.

    i am somewhat suspicious that people think Baldur’s gate is some novel masterpiece

    Novel? Not really, except maybe to people who haven’t played its predecessor, or good BioWare games, or D&D. More like an improvement on what came before it.

    when really it’s that Divinity is super under rated

    Where in the world have you seen D:OS2 underrated? I sure haven’t.

    and relatively unknown by comparison.

    Well, yes, that’s to be expected. D:OS2 didn’t have half a century of role playing game history or Hasbro’s marketing budget behind it.

    • OttoVonGoon@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Hasbro’s marketing budget behind it.

      Agreed on all points except this one. Swen said that they had to pay Hasbro to use D&D and that Hasbro didn’t provide them with any funding.

      • TowardsTheFuture@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        To be fair the game still had a huge fucking budget. You don’t have that many voice lines and get them all to also do mo cap and make a CRPG with that much content on a small budget.

      • ono@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Swen said that they had to pay Hasbro to use D&D and that Hasbro didn’t provide them with any funding.

        I don’t think that precludes Hasbro from marketing the game. It might be interesting to see what promotional stuff they have had a hand in. At the very least, it’s on the digital games page of the official D&D site.

    • 1stTime4MeInMCU@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Thanks for your insights. I meant underrated in terms of exposure. As you indeed pointed out, it’s highly praised by those who have played it. And it’s not a hidden gem by any means it just feels less zeitgeisty than BG is. I haven’t actually seen the numbers so that could just be anecdotal.

      With your incidental review, I am excited to play it! Probably after Starfield though :)