RPGWatch Feature - Divinity: Original Sin II Review

If it was solely a business plan, they would probably be doing it again. Some developers are more passionate about their work than others. That becomes obvious when you compare the way it's done between different companies.

Business is part of it, but in the case of D:OS, I think they genuinely wanted to release something that was closer to their original vision.

I didn't say it was solely a business plan, but I'm sure it made good business sense to release an EE for the first game, which if I had to guess did not do quite as well out the gate as DOS 2 did. Since DOS 2 is gangbusters right now an EE might not make as much sense, ie since it's selling like hot cakes they don't really care about or need the extra sales that an EE would garner relative to the work it would take to create it. Business priorities.

I wouldn't be surprised to see the Divine Legends edition in a couple years.

It's irrelevant if the sequel has sold more than the first game originally did. No one in the history of business has ever said "Well, no need to do that.. we've made enough money."

If it was such good business sense, every company would be doing it.

If that's what you think then there's really no reason to keep discusing it.

It's more than just what I think, but I'm sure someone as qualified as you could explain why it would be incorrect.

@Fluent did you miss the part where someone mentions Sven in an interview said that they wont be making an EE edition because they didnt think it needed one?

If I remember correctly DOS was released at the time because they had to release the game in a state where they weren't completely happy with it, but which was needed because of financial reasons. After that the engine development moved on as did the game development, because they still wanted to release the game they envisioned. Sales of DOS were very good and that allowed them to make the EE version.
Unlike some other companies who release an EE version, the DOS EE version was free for everyone who owned DOS, so everyone could experience the game as they felt it should be experienced.
From speaking to Swen and others, I really don't believe that releasing the EE version was a plan from the start. It was born out of necessity.

Did it help in sales? Probably, but in reality I do think if they could have, they would have delayed the release of DOS and just released one version of the game.

Originally Posted by Fluent
I didn't say they did. But an EE, Legendary Edition, Super Improved Awesome edition is not just from the goodness's of devs hearts, no matter how respected the developer is. It's also a business plan for releasing the game twice.

I didn't say it's a terrible thing and saying it's a cash in does not make it a slur. It's a basic part of the business now. Everyone does it.

I thought the term "a cash in" meant something dubious, a cheap way of getting more money by unreasonable means. Since English is not my native language, I may be wrong, but it seems like others here perceive it in the same way.

pibbur who has yet to play the game.

From my point of view, both CDP and Larian actually gain from being the good guys, as something of a contrast to quite a few companies. Their good-guy image is to their benefit, as they're gaining quite a few fans, which in turn leads to a lot of publicity despite their general lack of marketing. Word-of-mouth works extremely well if people truly like you and what you're doing.

I definitely think it's deliberate, and I'm fairly certain they're aware of the fact that their relationship with their fans also yields a financial gain. However, the fact that they're gaining by being the good guys doesn't change the fact that they genuinely are the good guys.

Back to reviews, i dont think it is really possible to play a game 100% objectively, sure you can review a game as if you have never played a game before, but even that has subjectivity on the reviewers level. In the end it is best to find reviewers you agree more than 90% of the time and just read those reviews.

No offense to Maylander, but I dont think I can ever see eye to eye with him, Fallout 4 was one of my worst experiences in AAA gaming this generation, I beat it but it was such a chore to play, I hated the power armor mechanics, the building was just terrible, the combat was pretty average and the story and characters were boring. But I support him though even if i wont be reading his reviews anymore because there should be a reviewer for every taste so that people who have Maylander's taste can read reviews from him and decide on games.

I don't think there is anyone who has exact same taste as mine, so I prefer reading several reviews before making a purchase. I personally don't think anyone here on Watch will waste time and effort writing a review that is deliberately misleading. I just hope more people will write the review on the same game so we get some varied opinion

Originally Posted by Damian
Back to reviews, i dont think it is really possible to play a game 100% objectively, sure you can review a game as if you have never played a game before, but even that has subjectivity on the reviewers level. In the end it is best to find reviewers you agree more than 90% of the time and just read those reviews.

No offense to Maylander, but I dont think I can ever see eye to eye with him, Fallout 4 was one of my worst experiences in AAA gaming this generation, I beat it but it was such a chore to play, I hated the power armor mechanics, the building was just terrible, the combat was pretty average and the story and characters were boring. But I support him though even if i wont be reading his reviews anymore because there should be a reviewer for every taste so that people who have Maylander's taste can read reviews from him and decide on games.

If I feel a game is targeted towards a very specific audience, or will only be enjoyed by a specific audience, I generally try to point it out in the verdict, as seen in both the MEA and FO4 reviews.

A review will always be subjective, but I try to ensure that the verdict gives a good indication of whether or not the game will offer a good experience for that particular reader.

That also means the numerical value itself is worthless without context, which is always going to be the case, though it seems some people feel that their opinion should be shared by everyone.

Originally Posted by Maylander
…though it seems some people feel that their opinion should be shared by everyone.

Obviously, the only valid opinion is my opinion

Originally Posted by Myrthos
Obviously, the only valid opinion is my opinion

Always. So true. :-)

pibbur who … eh…

PS. Did you know that in Norwegian we have an expression "å pisse noen opp etter ryggen" (direct translation: pee on somebody's back). Which means "to flatter in obsequious manner". DS.

Great review, Maylander. Puts the game on the top of my next-to-play list.

pibbur who maybe should play number one first.

Originally Posted by JDR13
It's irrelevant if the sequel has sold more than the first game originally did. No one in the history of business has ever said "Well, no need to do that.. we've made enough money."

If it was such good business sense, every company would be doing it.

Such a bizarre comment. Determining the in and out times is the priority in business.
Timing out is most important as it leaves less room to correct a wrong determination (in moments are corrected by eating those who got it right in the first place)
Prediction is of the hottest importance in business, all modelization effort goes into it.

This company has a product and must determine when they get out of it. When they have made enough money off it so they can make money elsewhere.

The daily care of thousands people all over the world.

Originally Posted by Maylander
From my point of view, both CDP and Larian actually gain from being the good guys, as something of a contrast to quite a few companies. Their good-guy image is to their benefit, as they're gaining quite a few fans, which in turn leads to a lot of publicity despite their general lack of marketing. Word-of-mouth works extremely well if people truly like you and what you're doing.

I definitely think it's deliberate, and I'm fairly certain they're aware of the fact that their relationship with their fans also yields a financial gain. However, the fact that they're gaining by being the good guys doesn't change the fact that they genuinely are the good guys.

Good guys is an appreciation that does not rely on their behaviour other than serving. Whatever they do, they keep the good guys label as long as they keep serving.
Others adopting the same behaviour but not serving do not get the good guy label.

They are servants to people and as long as they keep serving, they are relieved from ethical, moral issues.

This is the issue of other companies: it feels like they are less and less serving people in priority and worse, sometimes, serving other people better. A simple shift in the focus of their priority target.

Originally Posted by Maylander

That also means the numerical value itself is worthless without context, which is always going to be the case, though it seems some people feel that their opinion should be shared by everyone.

Some people also seem to expect their opinions of other people's comments to be shared by everyone.

Take for example a comment that there is a problem when a reviewer gives the same rating to two rpg game marketed to essentially identical rpg audiences, (say ME:A and D:OS2 for example), when those two rpg games received vastly different ratings from a vast majority of a very large pool of published opinions.

For the record it wasn't and isn't my opinion that my view "should be shared by everyone." Nevertheless I continue believe my comment has a demonstrably valid basis, as outlined above.

At any rate thanks for your D:OS2 review. My opinion is that your review was flawed but should nevertheless receive a 4/5 rating (due to flaws). I feel compelled to add for the record that I do not expect everyone to share my opinion, any more than I feel compelled to accept your opinion as being flawless.

__

Originally Posted by RPGFool
My opinion is that your review was flawed but should nevertheless receive a 4/5 rating (due to flaws).

Wait, so… 4/5 wasn't score for the game but for the review? :confused:

It certainly wasn't the score of the review. We don't provide scores, but ratings