'Divinity: Original Sin 2 – Definitive Edition' Coming to Mac Next Year

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
50,015
11,298



Divinity: Original Sin 2 - Definitive Edition is coming to Mac next year. The critically acclaimed role-playing game from Larian Studios featured in yesterday's Apple event in New York, where Apple unveiled new Macs and iPad Pros.


The RPG title is being developed in partnership with Mac porting studio Elverils and Apple's Metal engineering team, and promises to feature all the content from the PC version as well as the following additional features exclusive to Mac, as confirmed by MacGamerHQ:
[*]64-bit Metal 1.2 support
[*]eGPU support (10.13+ only)
[*]V-sync support (10.13+ only)
[*]Support for Apple MFI controllers and rumbling support on selected controllers
[*]MacBook Touch Bar support
[*]MacBook trackpad and selected gestures support
This is very surreal. Very proud of everyone. pic.twitter.com/eABRsWY2M5 - Very Games Michael (@Cromwelp) October 30, 2018

Elverils plans compatibility with systems running macOS 10.13 and 10.14 macOS, with potential for 10.12 support further down the line, while MacBook Pro Touch Bar support should equate to quick access to in-game features like the journal or map.

Divinity: Original Sin 2 will also support HDR, iCloud backups, and cross-play between Windows and macOS systems.


More information including pricing is expected as the game gets closer to its Q1 2019 release, when it should be available to purchase on both Steam and the Mac App Store.

Article Link: 'Divinity: Original Sin 2 - Definitive Edition' Coming to Mac Next Year
 
  • Like
Reactions: star-affinity

Janichsan

macrumors 68020
Oct 23, 2006
2,100
4,627
Cool news! Wonder why it's not Metal 2, though. Or what does Metal 1.2 mean?
Could either be a mistake, or they mean "Metal 1.2 and higher". They need to make use of Metal 2 features when they want to support eGPUs. But Metal 2 is only available in High Sierra and Mojave, and they are planning to support Sierra as well ("further down the line").
 
  • Like
Reactions: star-affinity

GeneralChang

macrumors 68000
Dec 2, 2013
1,546
1,213
Been playing this since it was new, definitely one of the purest RPG experiences you can get on a computer. Really maintains that feel of classics like Baldur's Gate while adding even more player choice and modern conveniences. Excellent game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: star-affinity

wubsylol

macrumors 6502
Nov 6, 2014
364
333
Cool news! Wonder why it's not Metal 2, though. Or what does Metal 1.2 mean?
It’s probably just a typo, but Metal version numbers are misleading at any rate. “Metal 2” is just “Metal 1.2” with more functionality, but those functions are only supported on High Sierra and Mojave. It’s not like DirectX11 vs 12 where operational methods are quite different.

Metal is just Metal.
 

Eric5h5

macrumors 68020
Dec 9, 2004
2,413
438
Finally! The first one was very good.

promises to feature all the content from the PC version as well as the following additional features exclusive to Mac, as confirmed by MacGamerHQ:
[...]
[*]V-sync support (10.13+ only)
The PC version doesn't have vsync?

--Eric
 

panjandrum

macrumors 6502
Sep 22, 2009
369
462
United States
This is great news for those Mac gamers who don't run Windows via. Bootcamp. The DOS games are pretty compelling in many regards. There is some great stuff, like the way they somehow managed to interject whimsy into an essentially serious story.

But, do keep in mind that you will have to enjoy true turn-based combat that can't be defeated. It's like Fallout 1 & 2. You have to micro-manage every little tiny thing during combat, which is extremely tedious and time-consuming, even on the easiest difficulty settings. It's too bad, because it means I've never been able to make it all the way through, despite really liking the overall concept (same happened to me with Fallout 1 & 2). I really, really like old-school RPGs like BG and IWD etc., along with the more recent DAO (my personal favorite) and PoE. The difference is that in those games you set up one form or another of AI scripting/actions for combat situations and can set a variety of auto-pause states and/or manually pause when necessary.

So most true-classic and retro-classic RPGs actually provide far more flexibility in terms of combat mechanics than DOS, as they can be as turn-based as you wish, without absolutely forcing you to use an exclusively micro-managed turn-based system. It's a real oversight on the part of the developers as it unnecessarily limits the appeal of the titles.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ikir

Eric5h5

macrumors 68020
Dec 9, 2004
2,413
438
Turn-based is not at all tedious, if the combat is interesting and varied, which DOS was. Realtime-with-pause is far more annoying, and essentially an admission that they failed to make the combat interesting, so you have to automate it as much as possible and get it over with quickly. I bought two RTWP games that were supposed to be all-time classics, and gave up after a few hours due to how aggravating they were, so I avoid them all now. Real time only works properly if you're controlling one character.

If the number of reviews on Steam is any indication, proper turn-based does not limit the audience, and indeed increases it quite a bit compared to RTWP games.

--Eric
 
Last edited:

panjandrum

macrumors 6502
Sep 22, 2009
369
462
United States
Turn-based is not at all tedious, if the combat is interesting and varied, which DOS was. Realtime-with-pause is far more annoying, and essentially an admission that they failed to make the combat interesting, so you have to automate it as much as possible and get it over with quickly. I bought two RTWP games that were supposed to be all-time classics, and gave up after a few hours due to how aggravating they were, so I avoid them all now. Real time only works properly if you're controlling one character.

If the number of reviews on Steam is any indication, proper turn-based does not limit the audience, and indeed increases it quite a bit compared to RTWP games.

--Eric
You may have skim-read what I wrote. I'm not opposed, at all, to turn-based combat, if you like it! Personally, I find it very tedious and time-consuming, and I'm far more into the story-and-character-and-exploration elements of RPGs - the last thing I want to do is spend 10 minutes micro-managing a combat that I would prefer to be over in a much shorter time and get back to the exploration, meeting new characters, and learning more of the story. That's a preference where we obviously differ, which is no problem.

Many RPGs, including a huge array of the classics, allow you to tweak these preferences to the player's satisfaction. Many of them could be completely turn-based if you so desired, or only auto-pause on occasion, or even just pause manually if that was your desire. That gives me what I want, and gives you what you want. It's not a failure in any way; it allows people to play these games in the way they prefer. The DOS games don't do this, at all, it's pure turn-based without any meaningful way to play the games in a less micro-managing manner.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: GeneralChang

Eric5h5

macrumors 68020
Dec 9, 2004
2,413
438
I didn't skim it. It's fine to have your own preferences, but you decided to speak for everyone ("It's a real oversight on the part of the developers as it unnecessarily limits the appeal of the titles"), and that's not true. The evidence is that DOS2 has vastly outsold RTWP RPGs. Also, it's not really feasible from a game design perspective to make a game that's both RTWP and actual turn-based. You end up with a poor compromise...if the game can work as RTWP, it's designed to have trash battles that are boring as turn-based. It would be like asking for XCOM to be RTWP, it's just not compatible with the design of the game.

--Eric
 

panjandrum

macrumors 6502
Sep 22, 2009
369
462
United States
I didn't skim it. It's fine to have your own preferences, but you decided to speak for everyone ("It's a real oversight on the part of the developers as it unnecessarily limits the appeal of the titles"), and that's not true. The evidence is that DOS2 has vastly outsold RTWP RPGs. Also, it's not really feasible from a game design perspective to make a game that's both RTWP and actual turn-based. You end up with a poor compromise...if the game can work as RTWP, it's designed to have trash battles that are boring as turn-based. It would be like asking for XCOM to be RTWP, it's just not compatible with the design of the game.

--Eric
Go play most of the classic classic RPGs. BG, BGII, etc. You will see what I'm talking about. They can be, let me reiterate this clearly because, trust me, you *are* missing the point (either that or you simply don't want to see my point), they can be as auto-paused-purely-turn-based-as-the-player-desires. They can be played just like DOS, *or* they can be played other ways, if the player desires, and they do it all perfectly well. In other words, they encompass more than a single play-style. Many other developers have done something you claim is "not compatible" with the design, but that simply isn't the case. Sure, there are plenty of cases where a dev borks it completely, like Dragon Age Inquisition, where they tried unsuccessfully to implement a more pure-RPG play-style along with an action style. But, there are plenty of titles where the devs gave us the style of play you prefer, and the style of play I prefer, and did them both brilliantly in the same title.

To clarify, let's take a basic logic puzzle; in one case I'll design a video game that people can only play with their nose. Let's call it "Divine Optical Signs (DOS)", for the sake of argument. Lots of people like DOS, it sells very well, and is extremely well-done. Unfortunately, a significant portion of players really don't like playing games with their nose. They prefer to play games with their chin and/or earlobes. Let's say that you come along and design another great game, and your game, let's call it "Boulders Grate" (BG). In BG, you've taken into consideration that in-addition to playing with one's nose, some players prefer using other body-parts. You design BG with this in mind, thus appealing to players that DOS does not appeal to. I'm sorry, it's been far too long since my philosophy of logic classes to map that out as an actual, mathematical logical-problem, but I'm sure you get the point now.
 

Eric5h5

macrumors 68020
Dec 9, 2004
2,413
438
Yeah, as I said, I've already played a couple. They don't work as both RTWP and turn-based. This isn't theoretical on my part, it's real, based on first-hand experience. It's not possible to design mutually exclusive systems that work equally well as one or the other, and no, you haven't listed any examples of games that successfully did.

Auto-pausing does not magically make it actually turn-based as far as design goes. You just have a game designed for real-time that can auto-pause, but given that it was designed for real-time, there's no reason to. In no way is it "purely turn-based as the player desires." What I desire is meaningful tactical combat that can't just play itself out in real time with occasional player intervention, optionally or not. Taking a real-time game and saying "see, you can pause it" as throwing a bone to turn-based fans does not somehow make the combat interesting to play as turn-based. (On the flip side, if you had a RT game that was complex enough that you're more or less forced to pause constantly, why the heck wouldn't it just be turn-based to begin with?)

It's totally fine for developers to create turn-based games for the audience that wants to play turn-based games. They are not "limiting" their audience. Let's pick a reasonably popular and well-known example of RTWP like Pillars of Eternity: that has 7.5K reviews on Steam, compared to DOS2, which has 30K reviews though it's been out much less time and costs more. That's like claiming that a developer of a first-person shooter is "limiting" their audience by not also making it a football game, for people who want to play football games and don't like first-person shooters. If you want RTWP games, cool, go play them. If you don't like turn-based games, cool, don't buy them, but it's petty to begrudge their existence, since clearly there's an audience for them.

--Eric
 

panjandrum

macrumors 6502
Sep 22, 2009
369
462
United States
Yeah, as I said, I've already played a couple. They don't work as both RTWP and turn-based. This isn't theoretical on my part, it's real, based on first-hand experience. It's not possible to design mutually exclusive systems that work equally well as one or the other, and no, you haven't listed any examples of games that successfully did.

Auto-pausing does not magically make it actually turn-based as far as design goes. You just have a game designed for real-time that can auto-pause, but given that it was designed for real-time, there's no reason to. In no way is it "purely turn-based as the player desires." What I desire is meaningful tactical combat that can't just play itself out in real time with occasional player intervention, optionally or not. Taking a real-time game and saying "see, you can pause it" as throwing a bone to turn-based fans does not somehow make the combat interesting to play as turn-based. (On the flip side, if you had a RT game that was complex enough that you're more or less forced to pause constantly, why the heck wouldn't it just be turn-based to begin with?)

It's totally fine for developers to create turn-based games for the audience that wants to play turn-based games. They are not "limiting" their audience. Let's pick a reasonably popular and well-known example of RTWP like Pillars of Eternity: that has 7.5K reviews on Steam, compared to DOS2, which has 30K reviews though it's been out much less time and costs more. That's like claiming that a developer of a first-person shooter is "limiting" their audience by not also making it a football game, for people who want to play football games and don't like first-person shooters. If you want RTWP games, cool, go play them. If you don't like turn-based games, cool, don't buy them, but it's petty to begrudge their existence, since clearly there's an audience for them.

--Eric
I'm sorry, but it remains clear that you have misread and/or failed to understand my original posts and all subsequent ones. In no way do I begrudge the existence of purely turn-based games. I very simply pointed out that DOS is this type of game and only this type of game. I don't exactly know what your issue is with BG, BG2, IWD, POE, etc. Those are all examples of games that do precisely what I'm talking about perfectly well. Those are great examples of games designed to be turn-based with options to dictate how often you wish to bypass the turn-based auto-pausing and allow the AI to manage parts of the combat.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.