C2B

Because a: story is their strong point b: it makes DS3 unique among rogue-likes. It doesn't make it unique. It makes it a throwaway title instead of a classic that can stand the test of time. Thats "strongly" subjective.

Yes, that would be good for a multiplayer focused and designed game. I agree. It just isn't.

Yes, because everything that focuses differently is "casual". Also, I'm pretty happy with myself. Thanks

Nah, its something unrelated and probably just makes for me sense anyway.

All yes (Well, I'm not sure about how private games work). You can. One of you just has to decide whos the host.

Umm to play it with your buddies like once a week continuing the game you started together? Yeah if u intend on not playing it until your friend comes back in one week ... that falls under the casual gamer i was talking about and i said that the casual gamer will like it... in another post Buahahahahhahahahhahahahahahaha You probably don't realize the irony in that, but Buahahahhahahah Edit: Sorry for that post. Had to get it out. I'm a horrible person I know. Edit2: You're still right though.

Another tweet

There was no hype about elobarte online. In fact how the co-op works now was the first information released regarding multiplayer to controversial discussion.

While, I agree that this is how it works. I don't really think Obs and Square were in much disagreement in how the game should work. Again, I really don't think Obs would have wanted to make a simple diablo clone. Though what Square did was naming it Dungeon Siege III. They wanted to distance it originally with a spin-off name Can't find the interview though.

I wouldn't be in such haste to put the "blame" on Obsidian on this though. Since no one that has posted on this thread (so far) has actually been in the negoations when the deal between Square-Enix and Obsidian was done it's pretty stupid to "blame" it only on them. We all know publishers play a huge factor on the final outcome with their mandates and expectations. And from a business point of view, I can completely see why Square-Enix didn't want to make a Diablo clone. It's personal preference. Also, I don't really think Obs would have been interested in making a diablo clone.

Chris Taylor is in fact pretty enthusastic about this game. Also BECAUSE Obsidian has such a different approach to games than GPG. http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2010/09/14...ungeon-siege-3/

US just got it today. 22 June is the XBOX360 demo for europe. If you have a strong enough PC you could try the steam version on June 7th.

No there is nothing wrong with some diversity. However Obsidian should of just gone with a completely new IP. The name Dungeon Siege 3 gives false impressions of what the game actually is. At no point am I claiming this will be a terrible game because of decisions Obsidian made. I'm simply saying that this game lacks many of the features that people enjoyed most about it's predecessors. I believe that I will enjoy this game for what it is, however that means me distancing myself from what 'Dungeon Siege' means to me, and that is quite unfortunate as Dungeon Siege is one of my all time favourite games. Good post. I disagree, but its reasonable and personal.

Another Tweet http://twitter.com/#!/Kush3

Reviews have been good so far on that front.

Why do you think it was Obsidian that made this decision? Usually decisions like this are made by the publisher who actually pays for the development. No, that was a decision by Obsidian most likely. The game is designed in such a way in the first place. However since that is the case this is not a bad thing nor do I think Obsidian would have strengths in making an OnlineARPG

1. Narrativly, gameplay, atmospherical (to name the most important). Also audio, structure, pacing, you name it. 2. You provided enough. Just because you played that game for years to come doesn't make you into something of a god regarding it. Also that still means that a third group as small as it may be exists. And that other groups and mixes between them exist too. Entitlement! (Though I understand this position as I'm also in the Fallout fandom. Just not one of them) 3. Yep. Here we agree. Just clarifing here that "many" isn't anywhere near 100%. That said I haven't played the game yet. If I play it and I notice that they halfassed the elements it stayed faithful to then I'm sending you an apology message.

New Preview by XBOXaddict http://www.xboxaddict.com/Preview/116/Dungeon-Siege-3.html

Level 30 Cap, predefined charachters, highly limited customization (It has more depth though but that doesn't really matter here) No, it wouldn't have lasted on online basis and it wasn't designed that way. Do you work for Obsidian? Level caps can be raised and all of those other points were just bad ideas...so I guess it was meant to be a single player rpg-lite and not a arpg like the previous Dungeon Siege games. Bad ideas all around. Oh, thanks for your generous insight of how games or an rpg "should" be. Truly I'm amazed. Not an 'RPG' in general, but that is how Dungeon Siege should be. You have to be careful taking an existing series and drastically changing it, especially if you are going to remove many of the elements that made it so successful (from a fan base perspective) in the first place. Ah, I'm just going to repeat my argument from the other thread: 1. Theres more ways than one to stay (at least a little) faithful to an original. 2. Theres also more than one group of fans (Stop with the entitlement) 3. "how something should" does not apply generally. Its a personal preference.

Yep, a few years back and recently again in preparation. I never really played it for the gameplay though (which has tons of problems) but because an Ex-Betrayer at Krondor guy worked on it. I was saddened that the narrative took a step back in the game (as I had high hopes for it) but I still enjoyed the lore. So you can understand why the people that played and really enjoyed the games are pretty angry at what has become of Dungeon Siege 3? Yes, understand. Further than that, no. First off the second game already changed that. Secondly theres more ways than one to stay faithful to an original and theres also more than one group of fans (entitlment isn't really an argument that works for me).

Level 30 Cap, predefined charachters, highly limited customization (It has more depth though but that doesn't really matter here) No, it wouldn't have lasted on online basis and it wasn't designed that way. Do you work for Obsidian? Level caps can be raised and all of those other points were just bad ideas...so I guess it was meant to be a single player rpg-lite and not a arpg like the previous Dungeon Siege games. Bad ideas all around. Oh, thanks for your generous insight of how games or an rpg "should" be. Truly I'm amazed.

Yep, a few years back and recently again in preparation. I never really played it for the gameplay though (which has tons of problems) but because an Ex-Betrayer at Krondor guy worked on it. I was saddened that the narrative took a step back in the game (as I had high hopes for it) but I still enjoyed the lore.

No. Actually a lot of people will be really pissed off. Obsidian has made a classically stupid decision. For no real reason either. Its not like Diablo 2 didn't have a story. There was a way to make everyone happy here and Obsidian just decided to make what they wanted to make and not deliver to fans of the genre. Big mistake always. Still no. And yes they had a reason and they made good on it. I the only thing for which there is no reason is your blindly defending a stupid design decision. Play the demo and tell me that full online co-op wouldn't have been awesome. I'll play it but I can still tell you already. No. Its not designed that way. Some of the reasons are already posted in the other thread.