Divinity III Revealed ?
 

A little newsbit from gamebanshee. By now most of us knew there would be a Divinity 3. There was even talk from Larian Studios about them working on three different projects.
There is also more Dragon Commander screens also.:)

Link-http://www.gamebanshee.com/news/1081…ncept-art.html

Bring it on. :)

Div3 will be nice. I'm not really the right market for the other game. The dragon parts of Div2 were dull, so I hope that all of that stuff moves to Dragon Commander and they go back to straight crpg for Div3.

One piece of concept art? That's what you got me all excited about? ;)


I didn't mind the dragon sections as much as some people, but I agree they were mostly unnecessary. Hopefully Div3 will be more like Flames of Vengeance than Div2.

I'm a tease can't help it.:p More info about the game will be shown at E3 in june.

The dragon sections would have been much improved if you could target ground enemies instead of just flying ones and artillery. As it is, you don't feel any more powerful than you did before, since all you're doing is fighting a different type of enemy, and you can't even see ground units when you're flying.

I too hope it'll be like Flames of Vengeance, the more they move away from Diablo-esque combat-heavy quests the better. If the rest of Divinity II had been along those lines it would have been a fantastic game.

I had expected to love the dragon aspect but did not enjoy the flying combat that was somewhat forced on you when you left the valley. Between that and getting stuck on where to go ( I could never seem to find the next step) I stopped playing and never finished it. Its been deleted but I have it on steam in case I get really bored … or if it looks like DIV3 would make it worth while to finish. I loved the first half though.

To many games … have to make some hard choices. Right now I still need to finish Skyrim, just got Diablo 3, and TSW and GW2 is right around the corner and I am still playing RIFT with friends. Not to mention Grimlock needs to be finished as well.

There's an easy fix for "hard choices": Just buy every game you want to play and build up a huge backlog. I think that's how most of us are doing it :biggrin: .

On topic: Definitely looking forward to the Div 3 announcement here. I hope it's more classic style pure fantasy Divinity (like DKS) and not the Steampunky Dragon Commander kind of stuff that just isn't my personal cup of tea to be honest.
From the concept art it looks like we'll be soul-bound in Divinity 3, doesn't it? This could be fun. Larian are smart people. I have faith in them not repeating the mistakes from Beyond Divinity (where the companion was a pest).

Please tell me I'm not going to be soul-bound to a chicken!

There you go, and pre-order and believe every but of pre-release hype. Pretty soon you'll have no room to tie your shoelaces…. ;)

Personally, I'm fine with that decision, because Divinity just isn't a game of becoming powerful. It has story, like any "normal" RPG, too.
Plus, this way it teaches people to be flexible.

Me, I'm becoming more and more tired of this game play concept of games always centering around the question : "How do I become more powerful ? Eye Of The Beholder for example just didn't have it. Mere survival was enough challenge in itself.

I think Blizzard introduced this "powergaming" scheme at large scale. And, since then, games have more and more centered around it, like magpies circling a glittering gem. The result, as I see it, personally, is that this kind of game play scheme/concept has become kind of an "industry standard" for newer role-playing games.

The "playing of a role" has been replaced by "becoming stronger and bigger". And by "I fight, therefore I play a role".

Yoda said : "Wars not make one great."
In the "Action-RPG Age" this has been replaced by : "Social interactions not make one great". The point of view has been reversed.

Totally agree with you. However, it is also a matter of progression: you need your character to become stronger to progress and achieve the goals/finish the game. So game designers base the design of the world, quests, monster placement and stats according to this to provide gradual progression towards the end, and to limit the hard work on choices and consequences in games. This not only applies to crpgs but to all games.

I can only think of one game where your character can be content to being e.g. a trader to make bare living (survive) and that is in mount and blade, but you still need to get stronger to fend of bandits and improve your trade. I guess its human nature (partly greed!).

Also where is the fun and challenge in livining in a peaceful game world where your only task is to water the garden and feed the birds!

larni plz…
not another action rpg…

Interesting point by Alrik, about progression. I really enjoy character progression but it doesn't have to always be in terms of pure power - it could also be in the form of options (different abilities versus more powerful ones), different outfits (versus more powerful gear), better standing with locals (factions), more quests, more chances to RP, etc. But I do like some power increase, mixed in with others, as a sign of growth - but wouldn't have to be the main focus in every game.

As for hard choices … I have this weird quirk that to many choices can overwhelm me. If I look and see 4 games on my PC I can usually settle in and focus on one (usually one MMO and one SRPG). But when I had 14 of them … I was just lost. I couldn't decide on one, felt I had to many to ever finish, and floundered between them all. So I removed 10 of them :p which solved the problem.

One plus to steam is knowing I can still install them but the time it takes removes it as a casual option, leaving me to focus on the core games.

Back on topic - I did enjoy the divinity games … just lost motivation with the dragon combat. If I can get past that then it would be fine. But need motivation to bump it up on play list or a real dry spell in games. DIV3 might provide some extra motiviation if it looks real good.

Overall I thought the series was well done and cool minus my own personal issue with the flying combat.

Alrik - folks like a sense of achievement that's captured as new things doable with their characters. But I know some people are content to putter around in a sandbox without character growth…

Could you please give some examples of some RPGs of the last years where powergaming is its core gameplay element?

Frankly speaking, I don't have the feeling that current RPGs are about powergaming. You mention Blizzard so perhaps you are referring to Hack 'n Slashers, which is a genre that I avoid at all cost.

Yes, but of course ! This is necessary. It gives the player an actual feeling of achievement.

But what I rather don't like is when a game is "built around the character", and not vice versa.

Personally, I want to have the feeling of being a "visitor" within a living and breathing world.

Yes, I mean Action-RPGs. And thw worst thing is for me that you won't see any press release in current times without having the word "action" in it - which imho is a good sign of the powerfulness of the sub-genre.

Then have you tried Mount and Blade: Warband, in this game you are indeed a visitor and the world don't care about you as kings rise and fall, prices of goods rise and fall, maidens and princes get kidnapped, villages get pillaged, kings are backstabbed … etc. and start on your own and have the option of staying this way or be a trader, an army leader, a bandit, a prince, a husband or a king. It also has the best melee and army combat system that I have seen in recent years. This is a unique game that is totally overlooked and not centred around you as player.

Play Fallout: New Vegas

I find it strange to see how the term Hack 'n Slasher is sometimes interchanged with ARPGs. I tend to associate ARPGs with RPGs that incorporates gameplay mechanics that have their roots in action games (such as e.g. TPS/FPS) but by definition they do not necessarily have to sacrifice the depth of non-combat RPG elements.

Hack 'n Slashers are a different breed altogether and are not representative of the RPG development as a whole.

For me, hack & slay = Action-RPGs.

Because there just don't exist any other Action-RPGs which contain anything else than just hack & slay.

"Social interaction Action-RPG" ? No, impossible.