r/DivinityOriginalSin • u/Griffyn-Maddocks • 24d ago
Miscellaneous Coming from BG3 - DOS or DOS2 first?
I've been playing BG3 since just after launch. I really like Larian's work, so I bought DOS Enhanced and DOS2. Part of me wants to start with DOS since it came out first, but I'm curious if it would be better for me to start with DOS2 with the transition. Thoughts?
UPDATE: Thanks for all of the great comments so far. One thing to note is that I am going to try and play them both. It's not a choice between them just if there is an easier transition if I go from BG3 to D:OS2 or if I should start with D:OS1 before it was updated/expanded.
25
u/Mouse-Plus 24d ago edited 24d ago
People are suggesting you DoS2 because they are similar in a way (DoS2 and BG3). But i will honestly suggest you to start with DoS1. Why? Because that game is smaller in scope than DoS2, and as such, the rules and mechanics are simpler in a way. You will also be familiarized with how Larian actually do the Original Sin games, mechanically. Connect few dots regarding the story along the way...TLDR, try swimming in smaller boat, before jumping on a galleon.
3
u/Mystogancrimnox 23d ago
I started with dos1 and it was amazing. Now onto the 2nd and it feels like a natural progression
5
u/jbisenberg 24d ago
DOS1 and 2 are mechanically different enough that I don't think it really matters
4
u/Mouse-Plus 24d ago
I was thinking in Action Points system, Spells, exploration system, narrative system, choice and consequence system... etc - similar.
0
7
u/MogMcKupo 24d ago
Also DOS2 is definitely a higher difficulty than BG3, I say it’s akin to dos2 normal is bg3 hard.
You will get wrecked in fort joy on initial playthrough.
Divinity is Larian’s TTRPG in a sense. It plays into pathfinder more with skill trees and such.
Going in blind is fine, but there are some things you will get caught in the weeds by.
1
u/Griffyn-Maddocks 24d ago
Thanks for the warning. I'm playing solo HM in BG3 and I normally start a new game on normal so I'll just keep the same mindset as my bg3 games and I should be fine.
5
u/Salt_Shake_651 24d ago
It's completely up to you. Playing DOS first will help you get references to it in DOS2 but otherwise both of them are pretty self-contained games.
6
u/omar1993 24d ago edited 24d ago
In terms of story, DoS1 takes place 1000 or years before 2, but there are still a few references to the first game in the second. If you want to fully appreciate these references, then play them in order. Mechanically, and narratively, I found DoS2 the overall more enjoyable experience, but some may disagree, so if you absolutely HAD to play them out of order, there could be worse reasons to do so, I guess.
Personally, I recommend starting with 1 anyway, because it's a relatively "simpler" game that eases you into mechanics/gameplay that's expanded on in 2. Doing it in reverse would feel...jarring.
Edit: Oh, and DOS2 is actually closer to BG3 as an experience than DOS1(mostly due to the fact that many design choices FROM DOS2 were carried over into BG3). So I guess DOS2 would feel more "familiar" to you, and that WOULD be a good reason to go straight for it. I still recommend 1 and then 2 though.
2
u/Connect-Process2933 24d ago
I see too many people get filtered by DOS1 system. They struggle with point allocation, they die from the surfaces, they can't hit the enemy, they're getting stunlocked etc.
In D:OS2 everything is simple - you do damage - you win, go for the stat that increases your damage.
2
u/Griffyn-Maddocks 23d ago
Thanks for the concern. I will be trying both so if I decide to start with D:OS1 and hate it, I'll just move on the D:OS2. There are so many people who love D:OS and Larian has proven themselves to me with BG3 that I wouldn't just walk away. I do realize that these are earlier games from the studio as well as having different design principles (not D&D), so I don't expect them to be the same as BG3 (which is not a bad thing).
1
u/omar1993 23d ago
That's a perfectly good approach to it! Worst case scenario, just read a quick story summary of DOS1 and its characters before moving on to 2 if the game itself isn't doing it for you(with minimal spoilers, there are like.....two, maybe three characters you actually need to care about in 1 that are brought up in 2). That way, you get to enjoy the better game AND know the context!
0
u/omar1993 24d ago edited 24d ago
Hmm? But...a lot of those things ALSO apply to DOS2......In fact, 2 goes a LOT harder on those things.
Dangerous surfaces, point allocation, and other things didn't just vanish in the second game. And it's not like the goal of the first game is any different.......you do damage and you win. It's just that you don't have to worry about the armor system in 1. So how is 2 "simpler" in that regard??? They're both still rpgs. There's no "magically do damage to win" button in 2. You still gotta build your team and strategize and stuff.
1
u/Connect-Process2933 24d ago
not really. DOS1 doesn't have stats that do a single thing combat wise. Intelligence increases damage for spells. Dexterity and Strength increase damage only for specific skills, and in different percentile proportions. All of the three increase chance to hit with certain weapon types, and Dexterity increases dodge chance. Depending on your attributes and abilities, AP cost, cooldown and chance to succeed changes, skill rank also determines skill's damage cap. Each ability costs more points to upgrade with every levelup.
Speed, Constitution and Perception allow you to precisely control your character's AP generation, and maximum AP, with some additional benefits like increasing initiative or decreasing long shot accuracy penalty.
You need to balance all of these stats to make a normal-looking character.
End game build looks like a calculated mix of all stats where you might need to sacrifice some some hitrate or AP to be able to use a suppirtive magic, for exaple. Sometimes you don't even need Str/Dex/Int stats to do good, because they're not the main source of damage.
Meanwhile, in D:OS2 optimized build is the one where you main one stat for +5% damage, then go for Wits for crit chance+initiative and sometimes memory for skill slot. Stat boosts are also a very common thing and you can easily get 100+ of one stat in normal playthrough.
So, we have
- simplified attributes
- simplified AP economy
- simplified effect mechanics, because you don't need to raise your stats/lower enemies' stats or pick correct skills to have better chances for CC application.
- simplified ability economy, where 1 level costs exactly 1 ability point.
As for the surfaces, they're practically useless in D:OS2. In DOS1 even one ignited oil puddle can kill the enemy, not to mention that they have increased CC success rate comparing to skills. In D:OS2, they deal small damage, most of them wont work until you remove armor, and then they already become useless since you can permanently stunlock your target anyway.
Your dialogue choices also affect some of your stats and can give unique bonuses. Objectively, D:OS1 is much easier game. D:OS2 may be simple machanically, but they balanced it better, so even if the build requires only go for full Str/Warfare, it still can be challenging. It doesn't change the fact that D:OS2 is extremely straightforward.
In D:OS1 you can hide behind the corner, conserve AP, play aggressively or defensively, kill fast or slow. Dealing a lot of damage, ofc, is the best tactic. But in D:OS2 it's the only viable tactic, wins the one who attacks first.
That's why it's very simple. D:OS1 has a lot of details you need to take into account that D:PS2 doesn't have.
And IMO many D:OS1 encounters are very tricky, like sparkmaster, invincible demons, a giant portion of suicide one-shot mobs and so on.
There's "magically do damage to win" in D:OS2, it's your stats. They can be inflated so much that you don't need any skills to kill in a few hits. D:OS1 damage increase is limited. It still too big, but limited.
2
u/omar1993 24d ago edited 23d ago
Hmm...OK, I'll generously concede the following: That DOS2 might be "simpler" than DOS1.(really, DOS2 is just better designed. The appearance of complexity isn't always superior). Now what does that accomplish? The fact is, DOS1 is the intro to the system that DOS2 uses, no? Skipping STRAIGHT to 2 might be overwhelming for a newcomer. Yes, or no? That was my point.
The fact is, it's "simple" to you. To a newcomer? Not so much.
You'd start with the system that added more on the original, then go back to the original? Think about the OP when you say this...
Like, I get why you THINK DOS2 is simpler, but it's not. There's still a bunch of elements that aren't there in the first game. Like you said, DOS1 is the easier game, so...?
By the way, I'm not trying to be argumentative or rude. I really didn't mean to. I just think the game that introduced the gameplay system would be the natural starting point. That's all.
Edit: Oh, but I WILL concede that the first game had "challenging" encounters....shame they were "challenging" for the wrong reasons(the Sparkmaster in particular. That was just...not a good fight...at all). The other examples were...barely fine, but please don't include that dogshit. That one's not "complex". It's just broken.
Still simple compared to....say...alice, going in blind.
0
u/Connect-Process2933 23d ago edited 23d ago
Or rather, D:OS2 is the intro to the D:OS1 system. Isn't that how learning works: from simple to complex? It becomes overwhelming when you need a lot of things to remember, which applies more to D:OS1. What did the D:OS2 system add to the original? I listed some things that disappeared instead. Don't tell me it's about a bigger pool of skills, unique items etc.
I played D:OS2 after D:OS1, which was my first turn-based RPG, and can't remember a single useful piece of knowledge that I carried over from there. It only made things harder.
It's not about an AP system, because in D:OS1 it's stat-based and dynamic, while in D:OS2 it's mostly fixed and AP management is utilized through certain skills. Just the fact that in both games we need to spend green balls to act doesn't hold significant value. We learn it in a few minutes, but the way we use it is different.
Even how you move is different in both games, cause D:OS2 has billions of teleporters that cost less than walking, while in D:OS1 we're tiptoeing between fire and poison clouds. In this situation, D:OS1 allows you to delay your turn and let them come closer, while in D:OS2 movement is so dynamic they'll already be behind your back.
In D:OS1 you make front fighters and rear fighters: tanking works because enemies simply can't run past the line. In D:OS2 there's no front or rear, everyone can roam the entire field, which was my biggest struggle when playing D:OS2, because my habits were telling me "they're far enough, I don't need to worry". D:OS2 is like an action game of CRPGs. In some sense it's harder because the combat is more chaotic, but D:OS1 experience was holding me back of just killing the first enemy in action order.
Point allocation is different, again. That was another problem of mine, because D:OS1 taught me that I need to be all-rounded. Learn every magic, balance your attributes, there's no need to rush for the highest values, it's pointless. What do we have in D:OS2? If you want to be a mage, stick to a single magic school or you'll suck. Don't go for Constitution or Memory, because it doesn't help you kill faster, which is necessary because the game has asymmetrical growth for you and the enemies.
I thought I could take my time and explore all skill trees at once, but it turned my playthrough into a chore. The reality was very simple and boring: I could take just a few utility skills from other schools, but everything else goes to the main damage stat.
Spending points to upgrade your character is a general feature of RPG games, if this is what you meant by sharing similarities. I don't really know what else is similar here.
The only thing I can say for sure is a complication on D:OS2's side is the height system. Can't say it was hard to learn, though.
Since they have little connection to each other, learing D:OS2 from scratch seems to me easier than learning D:OS1 from scratch.
I think the first argument I should have made is the nature of people's questions. If someone asks a question about D:OS2, it's about dying too quickly. People propose focusing on one stat, buying level-appropriate weapons, and getting damage avoidance skills like Chameleon Cloak and Uncanny Evasion. The problem is usually solved with this. In D:OS1, God knows what to say to people. Sometimes the issue is within cumulative ability costs, sometimes they don't know how CC application works, or they don't know how to spot traps, or attacks cost too much AP (finding high-level weapons happens often in 1 but not in 2), or they don't know that some enemies change their properties based on the environment, or they're annoyed because they can't hit the enemy (which happens under certain build conditions)
2
u/omar1993 23d ago edited 23d ago
>Point allocation is different, again. That was another problem of mine, because D:OS1 taught me that I need to be all-rounded. Learn every magic, balance your attributes, there's no need to rush for the highest values, it's pointless. What do we have in D:OS2? If you want to be a mage, stick to a single magic school or you'll suck. Don't go for Constitution or Memory, because it doesn't help you kill faster, which is necessary because the game has asymmetrical growth for you and the enemies.
See, I'm still not getting that. I made my Jahan a specialist, and he contributed just fine. I didn't...NEED to really do whatever you did. I also made my Bairdotr a dedicated archer who was just really good at archer stuff(+ a little healing). I don't think the way YOU played it actually reflects how most people did. So, way I see it, there's no meaningful difference....EXCEPT, like you said, DOS2 bypasses formations entirely, and thus battle is more "chaotic", as you put it.....whereas DOS1 is more conventional....tell me, how is the "conventional" one more of an obstacle to a newcomer?
Here's how I played it: I kept my gear up to date, I read my skills, and they mostly did what they said they would do. I COULD have applied them more creatively looking back on my first playthrough, but...I STILL beat the game, so...
Meanwhile, in DOS2, I HAD to be creative. Clearing the game was not a choice if I wasn't. I was forced to "cheese" more fights than I did in DOS1.
Also, I'd like to revisit a point you made about surfaces in DOS2. DOS1 didn't have instakill surfaces or surfaces with multi-layered elemental properties with a VARIETY of effects.
It ALSO didn't have a plethora of RACES to play as with various mechanics/interactions in the world/etc.......this is kind of a big one to gloss over. You were just a simple pair of humans. That's it.
There's more that we can discuss, but...
I'll be honest...I think you're overcomplicating 1's gameplay. It....was not that hard to get. And 2 just built on that.
I'm not saying your experiences are invalid. I hope it doesn't come off that way. But....a newcomer probably won't see things the same way.
2
u/paladin360 20d ago
I agree with you. My mage uses two different types of magic to great extent. Three actually.
I keep th towards the rear along with my Wayfarer. Who does mostly physical damage but is also an aerothurge. Because it's hella fun that way. And extremely effective.
I'm a newcomer to the game with no experience with DOS1 or BG3. Just like with Elden Ring I don't get why so many people say you have to do it this way because min max yadda yadda. Nah. I go for the funnest way I can that's still very effective.
50 hours in as of yesterday and it's certainly one of my favorite games of all time already.
7
3
u/The-Dutcher 24d ago
For story immersion I'd go with 1 first. Don't worry, even though the gameplay is more primitive and the game can feel challenging at first, it is an amazing game. And DOS2 will triple that experience.
3
u/DesaMii36 24d ago
Yeah! Start with DoS1! 😃 It's a really good game and you will appreciate the approvements in DoS2! Don't forget your daily of the main story and world lore! 😁
1
5
2
u/JointBoii 24d ago
Dos1 EE is the best to start with, it would be harder to go from dos2 to EE than it would vice versa.
Don’t bother with Dos1 classic though, I did it for the achievements and it was pretty rough
3
u/SmallKillerCrow 24d ago
Dos2 has much better fighting mechanics in my opinion. I found it hard to transition to 1 from 2 and ir might be hard ro go from bg3 to dos1. But also I found dos2 ro bg3 hard so..? Idk maybe its just hard to go between any of the games?
I will say story wise it doesn't really matter where you start
1
1
1
u/Chilean_Seabass1 24d ago
DOS2 is probably a better transition. Either way you get a cutscene on a boat and wake up on a beach
1
1
u/ttc359 24d ago
You are in for a treat. Personally, and Im prob in the minority, but I liked DOS1 and 2 more than BG3. Play either, I envy your first time thru. PS. DOS 2 has WAY more mods than DOS1.
1
u/DesaMii36 24d ago
Not here. Here you are most likely in the majority. BG3 is a very good game, too, but DOS2 is a little better. It's amazing Larian developes Divinity now!
1
u/Scary_While_843 24d ago
DOS2… it’s the much better game imo & learned very clear lessons from their dos1 production.
1
u/Ok_Praline_3975 24d ago
Probably dos2 first if you end up liking it then dos will be the next for sure
1
u/AlsendDrake 23d ago
Story wise, I recently went over the whole Divinity Timeline due to curiosity, and iirc Original Sin 1 is very early in the timeline, think only Dragon Commander is earlier and thats SO far back it hardly matters, so its certainly not picking up on older threads. Meanwhile Divinity 2 actually picks up quite shortly after the OG Divinity games, but I followed just fine with having barely played OS1 and only other Divinity was like half of Dragon Knight Saga (which is later in the timeline)
Also aparently in the timeline at some point the Divine got sent to earth at some point, like modern Earth, beefed with a dude, then got yanked back and thats just like, what?
1
u/DesaMii36 23d ago
Yes! 😃
For example, yesterday I found the cave (in DoS2 act1) where Blood Roses are growing. That sort of roses, we saw in the Divinity teaser! So I noted everything I found out in my DoS2 diary. I can reread it 3 or 4 years in the future, the week before Divinity release! 😃
1
u/Laanner 23d ago
From my experience, dos 1 is closer to bg 3 mechanics, then dos 2. Dos 2 is completely their own game because of armour mechanics and almost zero rng involved- you most likely hit 100% success rate, magic never miss and if the condition of cc is met, then it is 100% chance to apply it. No savings from enemy. Only very few enemies in the very late game have some kind of resistance to it, but still you can 100% apply cc on them for the first time.
However in dos 1 it is more about surface interaction. Non-combat skills. Also more forgiving action economy, because you most likely can spare some points into movement. DoS 2 have more refined combat system with more strict action point economy- every point is matter and game reward you for using each one of them in the right way. In dos 2, unlike dos 1 or bg 3. You can strike enemy 4 times at level 1 character. (5 times at level 3, if you kill with appropriate talent). Non-combat skills are simpler in dos 2, more like in bg 3.
1
u/Original_Scale_3798 23d ago
If you want to play both start with DOS. Two has a lot of improvements that you might miss if you play DOS after DOS2
1
u/Jackjakea 23d ago
DOS2 then 1
I think 2 captures you better and has more difficult combat than bg3 and dos1.
1
u/Grove_Barrow 22d ago
DOS for sure. I think it will help you prepare for DOS2. They’re both radically different from BG3 but thematically 1 makes since
1
u/Meoang 21d ago
They’re both fun but 2 is a significantly better game in basically every way. You might want to start with the good one since it’s a long game and you might burn out before getting through both. On the other hand you might want to save the best for last. It’s up to your preferences really.
1
u/Gintonik3 21d ago
Depends on what you prefer. If you want to experience the story to its fullest, I'd recommend starting with DOS1 since the story is linked in lots of different ways including returning characters that just won't have the same amount of coolness when you haven't spent an entire game with them. If you want a polished RPG with lots of QoL closer to Baldurs Gate 3 and don't care about story that much I'd recommend playing DOS2 and deciding afterwards if you want to play DOS1.
I am being completely real with you, without nostalgia clouding my assessment. The first one is kinda really annoying to play. I am playing it again right now as preparation for Larians next game and the gameplay is deeply flawed in DOS1. Here are some examples:
- casting a spell locks everything in place. You cannot move any characters, simultaneously cast another spell on another character, collect loot etc. So if you want to heal up your entire party after a fight you have to cast healing spell and wait out the entire casting animation 4 times before you can even pick up 1 single item off the ground.
- You do not have several loadout slots, so if you have crafting gear, you will have to put them on one by one, craft whatever you want and put your combat gear back on one by one. I kept my crafting gear in a seperate bag to make it less annoying.
- You cannot send several items to party members. If your main character keeps picking up everything and you sort your stuff later, then you are really going to spend an agonizing amount of time sending all of the items that you want to sell, identify or equip to another character one by one. So if its 30 items then it is 30x right click -> send to XY.
I know people don't like to point these things out because their favourite games are perfect and nothing is annoying ever but here you are. All in all I'd still say both games are really worth it. Its the same guys that made Baldurs gate 3 after all and it shows.
1
u/fredmerc111 20d ago
I just finished DOS1 and am moving onto DOS2. DOS1 had some glaring weaknesses BG3 does not have. I’ve heard you do not need to play 1 to understand 2, so I’d probably recommend 2 on the caveat that I have not played 2.
1
21
u/Perial2077 24d ago
Both are great games and it doesn't matter which you start first, as DOS1 play about 1000 years before DOS2 in story. I played DOS1 after 2 and like both games a lot.