C2B

I think a patch came out yesterday. Try it.

And which would those be? The very last two of the MISC section? Because those are the only two in the list that I haven't seen/acquired in the single-player. Yup. Though, it should be possible to get them in local with a second controller. Haven't tested it yet though.

What do you mean by that? If we are talking purely narrativly DSIII is one of the most logical games I have seen in years. Not an attack just genuinly interested on your reasons here. Its probably an oversight like you say (And if I remember right a Dev said that the quest actually should close at that point). Its still a lot less than in other Obsidian games though. I don't know if DSIII is low-budget. It definitly did not have remotly the budget of F:NV and probably went somewhat under than other projects but it still got some attention by SQE.

So, after two more long days of gaming Dungeon Siege III is done for me till I replay it again (and some more patches and hopefully DLC have come out). Definitly the game I had most fun with this year and my favourite Hack n' Slash of all time. Though DX:HR will probably take my GOTY place. Clocked in hours is ~75. Steam has 77 but I also left the gaming playing at times and did other stuff for a short while.

Edit: Something about stones and glasshouses.

I really have to disagree on the "It has too be more like a CRPG/proper RPG" mentionings. Manly because the reason that the combat system and all other things work so well in this game (especially compared to all other Obsidian Games) is BECAUSE the game is such a mix between Gauntlet like Hack n' Slash and CRPG. I'd certainly enjoy making the system more complex from the one we have now. But I'd hate if too much was changed and we'd end up with just another mess again. Keep it as an RPG-Lite with fun combat. Its not the worst thing in the world if Obsidian has one. There is a room for good hybrids as Mass Effect proved.

It's completly speculation at this point if this will ever happen and even more so if its gonna be by Obsidian but what would you like to see in a sequel? Me Also. For a possible fourth game use a bigger team of designers/writers. And dedicate a small team to make online modes/improve the online experience.

Getting your old Job back sure is nice. Was he Lead on EQ2 before too?

This is completly irrelevant. There are still a lot of female gamers that HAVE to play a male persona in most games. Do you think its always easy for them? There are 2 male options and 2 female options. So, its pretty even.

Well, there are only a few games that have ever really *wowed" me compared to other media/activities. And theres really only a handful of games that reached decent for me.

No on both accounts. 1. Top down isn't obselete. At all. One advantage for example is a better visibility on the entire field. Not just in the direction you are looking 2. Cutscenes are money and timesinks IMO. The handdrawn sequences are way more atmospheric to me than a costy and boring cutscene. And there are many who dislike them especially in hardcore rpg groups. In games about choice they get even more useless and even prevent them. Nobody would invest in a costly cutscene that has only 1-2 changes from the other. I wouldn't mind if it went more rpg though it shouldn't go too far with it. At the moment its a fine mix between elements from different gernes and I like it this way. I'd more appreaciate it if the dialog system/dialogs in general would be improved/expanded. I don't really think adding 10+ more classes is a good idea if they become unbalanced/ individual classes suffer in other aspects. Already the charachters are a bit underdeveloped in terms of story so maybe just 1-2 charachters more or staying with the current base of 4 and making more individual story sequences would interest me more. Obsidian has (for the first time) made a really good combat system (No, I don't consider NVs to be that good. Passable) so I'm a bit wary regarding it.

I don't see why anyone who chose not to use it would complain... right? They will still complain because you give them this view and they would see that for example the feet etc. of creatures have very low textures. They would complain about the animations in the lower angle looking really bad. They would complain.... For a DSIII example here: The online mode. Its there. So people complain about the thethered camera/non-progessivity/shared camera in it (And they have the right to). If it would only support local there would be a lot less complaining.

May also have something to do that Jeyne basically used the church towards the end for her own needs.

Yeah, and in the case of DSIII the attempt would be halfassed. The games art assets, Level Design, Animations and so on are just not made for it but especially created for the top down view and would look completly horrid in a lower angle (And from the low angle shots in preview material and dialouge sequences. They do) . This has actually been said too by one of the devs IIRC. Again, I can see it as an ini solution but a direct implentation would only raise more complaints that it would solve.

The problem is that DS 1 and 2 was not designed for top down view DS1 was top down/iso. The camera there worked better though as it had better zoom and you could scroll. Rereading your first post. Am I right thinking that you meant just to zoom the camera out more to see whats ahead? Because my answer was more for the people that wanted Witcher 2 style third person view. I'm with you if its that though I think it works well enough at the moment.

Yes, a game that does EVERYTHING. Because doing EVERYTHING automatically makes a game better (not worse) and is so realistic. Less is More was something they never teached you, nah?

My 80 CHF (different currency) weren't wasted. Got a decent amount of fun out of it. The features listed for example are pretty uninteresting to me. On the other hand DSIII does some things/features better I'm more interested in regarding games. Not to say that the same counts for you (it obviously don't) and that you are not justified, just saying that there are different opinions. So you aren't still playing Dungeon Siege 3 online? Did you already beat the game with all four characters? Getting "a decent amount of fun" doesn't sound satisfactoy to me, you should be way more stoked about it. I was hoping the ardent defensders of the title would be showing a little more enthusiasm still. Never played online. On my fifth playthrough (Playthrough 2-3 were rather run through the game for dialog bits on casual). Had one playthrough local with a buddy. Around 50 hours played. And decent is decent. If you are interpreting it as a device to reassure your own worldview, your problem.

That would end in mediocrity. Because you end up with the same game and too much time spent on over the top fundamentals. And some of too humans failings are actually the result of that.

No its not. Its not the same. Whethever your DSIII complain bias wants to see it or not.

That Dungeon Siege III isn't concepted like Too Human? That Too Human was never designed as a pure Top Down Game? That this comparison is complete bonkers? Again, the battle system, art assets, level design and so on that DSIII provides are designed with the top down perspective in mind. Thats why they look and are as good as they are. They wouldn't work remotly as well in third person.

Oh, gotcha. Misunderstanding. Sorry. Ultimately, it sounds like people want three camera fixes. __________________________________________________________________________ Multiplayers want separate screens. Old-school RPG and RTS top-down players would like the camera able to be zoomed out more so they can see more of their surroundings. New school RPG players wouldn't mind seeing an empty sky box, and would rather be able to zoom in more and look forward once in a while. __________________________________________________________________________ For reasons I posted in the other thread the first two "should" be integrated directly in the game. The third one should maybe just an easier option to mod in/ini solution. Otherwise there would just be complaints.

...for you. It's not an issue... for you. Then HOW is it an issue? At all? What is the advantage? The levels/art design/combat and so on are ALL designed for the top down perspective (which is also why it looks so good in that perspective). The game will look MUCH worse if you actually went into a similiar perspective (as pretty much shown in trailers and the dialog sequences). You probably won't see as far ahead as you think and you won't get any advantages in combat either.

I was obviously asking if the ending mentions it if you leave it intact and give the mansion to her. The ending doesn't mention the heart of Nagog.

Yes, it has been confirmed that the quest should close if you choose that option. Will probably be adressed in a further patch.

I don't really think this is an issue. At all. The game/battle system/levels/art assets everything was designed for top down view and work. Whats so bad about it? It would greatly benefit from having a zoom function but thats about it. Also what would be the benefit from seeing further?