C2B
-
Posts
4194 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by C2B
-
-
No, I am comparing it to the very first map. The difference is even worse if you look at some of the other larger maps (like azunite desert) in DS.
Honestly, you are either ignorant or dishonest. I've already provided the proof...discussion is over.
Well, then we didn't play the same games apparently. Because my experience of said "very first map" was different.
Anyway, yeah. Discussion over if you want.
Edit: Clarifing here: The first area also had bigger points in it I'll give you that. But smaller too and I didn't really notice more (less actually) stuff than in the DS demo.
-
The areas were wider and had more space. Fact.
There were more branching routes and interconnecting areas. Fact.
The hidden areas actually opened up into mini dungeons and some actually had exits in entirely new areas...not just a treasure chest 20 feet from the road.
Now, maybe the full game opens up but as it stands no, DS3 (the demo) is not as open as the original games.
1. No, they were not. Actually, what are you even comparing it too? The largest areas in DsI/II? There are several spots in the first two DS games that were even closer together in the demo. Same for your second and thrid point.
2. Unable to say of a demo that CLEARLY closed of areas.
-
It's not just that they had more, but they also had a more open system too...allowing more variation. DS3 is a very confined and linear system.
Whether or not you enjoy the more action orientated controls is a different matter all together.
No, and now you've given away that you don't know how the system even works. You can't just make a omnipotent charachter since the system doesn't allow it. Again, proficencies and how they are handled (with the point limit) play a large part in it.
-
That's still very much a corridor, Renevent.
No, not really. Those areas are actually pretty open (scale is key to looking at the map). Whole villages, ruins, large fields, farms, ect are in there. Plus like I said earlier the hidden stuff wasn't just a singe chest 20 feet from the road...it was elevators down into a small dungeon...you could go inside most houses...there was many interconnecting paths...ect.
It's not open world, but it certainly isn't a corridor like what the DS3 demo shows. Whether or not the full game opens up more is something yet to be seen, but as it stands the complaint is valid.
Its a corridor. And not more open. At all. Also there is still entire villages (as shown in the demo) you can still go into houses (also shown in preview material) and so on. I've also played through this map just to say. If you believe it or not.
-
I'm amazed that people still hold up the original games as complex or... well, not dumbed down. The number of skills means absolutely jack, it's all in how they are used in the game. Now, most generally speaking, I certainly prefer to have a larger variety of skills to play around with but there is also a reason why Dungeon Siege is known for "playing itself". The very core of the Dungeon Sieges, and the reason why I personally hold it in very low esteem (even as far as action-RPGs go) *is* that they're incredibly tepid experiences. I would've liked a greater skill variety in DS3 but the game looks far more engaging and involving to the player than the old games do. I tried playing them around the times they were released, and have tried again now that I have them on STEAM due to the pre-order bonus, and I'm sorry. But Dungeon Siege is almost the definition of a dumbed down game.
I can certainly understand that someone might be upset at DS3 because it's taking a different direction, taking cues from console action games and having the pre-defined characters. But complaining that DS3 is dumbed down is incredibly hilarious when you consider the history of this series.
It's not that the original was some amazingly complex game, but that the new one is even further dumbed down that the originals. Get it?
Its not dumbed down. At all. It got way more complex in how skills are handled and how they affect the gameplay not to mention its challenging this time around.
-
You did not...all you have done is simply disregarding the factual information and said "more doesn't equal better".
It wasn't broken for me, though based on your responses I'd imagine it was too complicated for you. You are right, the new leveling system is much better for someone like you
If you say so. Little weird since my all time favourite gameplay game is TOEE and I inkonsequential charachter builiding but yeah. You say it.
-
It doesn't matter, because it wasn't part of the discussion (what is and isn't a RPG).
The reality is DS III is less complex than DS I & II anyways...so even if we did want to have that discussion it would be pointless for you. DSIII comparatively is linear, less open ended in it's mechanics, has shallow leveling system...basically been consolised. The one aspect DSIII seems to have more depth is story/dialog but even then I am not sure how much it actually adds to the game. From my demo experience it's certainly not hard core RPG quality (like fallout or something). Dungeon Siege wasn't really about this stuff anyways so for me personally this isn't a good improvement (I played DS for the leveling, loot, open-ish multiplayer, ect).
No, disagree completly. DS as mentioned had no depth. Depth does NOT equate to a large amount of things to put points in or a large amount of abilites. Its how complex something is actually handled and executed that gives it depth.
Just saying something doesn't make it true. You see, I listed the things in the originals that made it more complex and open ended. It's quantifiable dude. I don't believe you really played the originals.
I did. And all the difference you listed.... Didn't make really any at all. It was still shallow and no you couldn't do very interesting charachters with it. It was horribly broken to begin with, it didn't influence combat all that much etc.
-
This isn't Diablo or World of Warcraft. Get over it!
Diablo didn't even have names or AFAIK backstories! xD
It did. Not very backstory/backstorys though but they are all part of the lore. That said they weren't very different during the game.
-
Less does not matter. More doesn't make something more complex if it isn't executed well.
-
Wait, DS open maps (one of the few strong points of the games) are gone and replaced by cramped corridors like in pretty much every console game? For real?
Seriously?
When in the world had DS open maps? It was a corridor game from the beginning. You mean that everything was on one map? Yeah, thats also the case here. DS was NEVER EVER open world.
-
It doesn't matter, because it wasn't part of the discussion (what is and isn't a RPG).
The reality is DS III is less complex than DS I & II anyways...so even if we did want to have that discussion it would be pointless for you. DSIII comparatively is linear, less open ended in it's mechanics, has shallow leveling system...basically been consolised. The one aspect DSIII seems to have more depth is story/dialog but even then I am not sure how much it actually adds to the game. From my demo experience it's certainly not hard core RPG quality (like fallout or something). Dungeon Siege wasn't really about this stuff anyways so for me personally this isn't a good improvement (I played DS for the leveling, loot, open-ish multiplayer, ect).
No, disagree completly. DS as mentioned had no depth. Depth does NOT equate to a large amount of things to put points in or a large amount of abilites. Its how complex something is actually handled and executed that gives it depth.
-
You guys are just parotting developer PR speak. They don't have to speak they have you c2B. More options, more choices and more features is actually quite possible for game developers to achieve when making a sequel the fact that you are unable to understand this tells me alot about your understanding of games.
Serious answer though. I'm a mostly hardcore RPG gamer. I like complexity, deep systems and a deep narrative about games. However quantity of features =/= quality or complexity.
Also the reason I (and many others) like/love Obsidian is because they make things more complex.
Me too...problem is DSIII appears to be even less complex than the originals...and it's not like those were extremely complex games to begin with.
No, I'm saying now something. DSIII has much more depth regarding leveling than DS or most RPGs.
The large difference between the abilities, the Talents and ESPECIALLY the profifencies assure that.
-
t 'hardcore rpg' mechanics in the same sense that you are.
And naturally yours is superior. Yes, context is important here. Also no DS had no depth in its rpg mechanics. The combat was utterly not challenging and way too breakable.
And that is for the mechanics alone.
-
Damn...take off the fanboy blinders.
Same to you.
There is a reason Dungeon Siege has a dubious reputation under hardcore rpg players.
It's not a hardcore RPG...so again what does that have to do with anything? Both of you are missing my points by a million miles.
Further more, Dungeon Siege III isn't a hardcore RPG either...even less so the than previous two IMO. Maybe has more story depth (yet to be seen) but certainly not on a mechanical level.
Never said that. But you ARE talking about which has more/better rpg mechanics.
-
Damn...take off the fanboy blinders.
Same to you.
There is a reason Dungeon Siege has a dubious reputation under long time hardcore rpg players.
I won't bash it (too much) and I still enjoyed my time with the previous Dungeon Siege titles but....
-
The dialog was nowhere near bad in the Demo. Same for the Voice-Acting. Everything was well written and acted Imo.
-
GRIN is also a horrible Dev
I liked bionic commando and bandits
Corrected it a little. Was biased
. Anyway, the second (edited) point is a more important than the first. Also Obsidian had more to do with the american branch anyway. -
Squeenix appears to be one of the few publishers that hasn't treated Obsidian like crap
heh, GRIN's history with Square makes it hard to see it as a "good publisher"
And from what we've seen. Yes, Square Enix treated Obsidian well.
Also there is a difference between the Branch of Squee that was in Europe when the GRIN contract began and the one now.
-
Yeah, if the game is good enough it doesn't need a Fan base (particularly DS one which is, as you noted, not big), as you have said, to be a good-seller.
Although this is not uncompatible with the statement I made. I think they are going to lose probably 85% of the fan base, and doing so, if I were the Obsidian chief designer I would seriously think if what I have made is right, or "loyal" to the name of the game.
You must not forget the game is called Dungeon Siege 3, not "Generic fantastic name: First Edition". That's what I'm talking about, it is Dungeon Siege no more. BUT, as I have said, if the singleplay gameplay is fine, it would be another good RPG game. But just forget it is named DS or it has a nice MP.
Its still connected to Dungeon Siege in multiple ways though. That you can associate a game ONLY with the gameplay is a little... biased and must not hold true for all fans of a series.
Edit: Also again, DSII was already plenty different in that regard.
-
Well it would naturally be better to have more female charachters/female versions. But I'm pretty happy with the 2/2 ratio in DSIII as long as the charachters are unique enough.
What I noticed about the main charachters so far is that they are played up versions of "stereotypes" for comedic purposes. In that sense the whole thing reminds me a lot of Alpha Protocol already.
-
I would probably give it a try (PC version), but I advise DS fans will be terribly dissapointed. I think the demo will make no good to Obsidian as they are going to lose a lot of sells from the fan base.
We'll see. There is also a huge base who didn't really like the gameplay of the first two DS games where Obsidian can draw from. Its too early for sales predictions anyway. Also it will not lose all DS Fans. Draganta, whos also a long time DS Fan, quite likes it.
-
Just curious here.. I have an xbox pad for my PC. I'm sure alot of people do.
Even if theres P&C too I think Obsidian will need their asses whupped if they don't have a 'pad' mode for PC gamers.
Also, from Demo.. is it true?
Theres Pad Support and you're even allowed to do local co-op on the PC.
So, theres really no reason to get the console version other than preference.
-
Just curious here.. I have an xbox pad for my PC. I'm sure alot of people do.
Even if theres P&C too I think Obsidian will need their asses whupped if they don't have a 'pad' mode for PC gamers.
Also, from Demo.. is it true?
Theres Pad Support and you're even allowed to do local co-op on the PC.
So, theres really no reason to get the console version other than preference.
-
and dont be so defensive its just my opinion if you dont like it dont read it..i keep getting told everyones entitled to one no matter how wrong or obtuse it is..
Yup. I just gave my opinion too.
Also why I went defensive
the more i think obsidains just lazy.You can call me a fanboy, but I have a personality where I'm seeing someone or something getting insulted unfairly I jump on defense for that person/thing. Its a little charachter flaw but I like it. Probably wouldn't have said anything otherwise.
MonkeyLungs plays the demo ... yeah who the f cares.
in Dungeon Siege III: General Discussion
Posted · Edited by C2B
No.
Also I can say the same thing for both of us. Zilch. Don't act so high and mighty.