sorophx

so, once again, DS is a better RPG than DS3 because its leveling screen is prettier? and I have problems understanding what others say? you seem to not be able to understand your own words

I tried beating Sephiroth with my party at least 10 times before giving up. I still have that save game, but I'll be damned if I ever load it

you know how in FF8 you had to attach magic to your chars to make them truly powerful? every FF game had a similar system that I, a 13 year old ***, couldn't get a full understanding of. so at some point I would hit a wall, because my characters were always too weak. I also could never guess if the bosses had exploitable weaknesses. I should probably mention that I usually played Japanese imported versions, though

here we go again a person that played through one game a million times, and only saw 1% of the other, keeps saying that other is POSITIVELY less complex? what are you, captain Obvious? of course a demo version of a console game is less complex than a PC monstrosity with almost nothing original left in it because of mods

it matters to this discussion, in the long run it doesn't since I couldn't care less what genre it is. what does matter is people's perception and expectations and the fact that they can't explain to themselves or to others why they like or dislike this or that. pulling stuff like "DS was an awesome RPG, and DSIII is a crappy adventure game", what else could one expect?

so not only you consider every game that has a leveling system RPG, you're also psychic. ok, no more questions

so you already played through the whole game?

could never beat it... but I was young and stupid, couldn't understand the game's mechanics. actually, the only Final Fantasy games I had been able to finish were 8 and 10, both with in-depth guides, on my own I could never figure out how to evolve my characters

so I guess Diablo also is an RPG then?

so am I. DS is not an RPG even putting an "A" in front of it doesn't qualify it as one.

you don't have a cartridge with that and a working SNES? for shame

Alpha Protocol is more RPG than DS

if you think DS was more RPG than DS3 is, you have another thing coming. you obviously don't know anything about Obsidian, but even saying that DS is any kind of RPG is an insult to my intellect

very sneaky

I liked bionic commando and bandits

heh, GRIN's history with Square makes it hard to see it as a "good publisher"

if there are no royalties involved, and Obsidian isn't publishing the game, this will actually be a good thing. it's an independent company, they don't need the "DS fan base". if people can't appreciate their games for what they are, nobody's going to try and hold these people

you're talking about SquareEnix, right? because they are the ones calling the shots.

because DS wasn't a console game? so did PS2, that's not my point.

ddin't expect that to happen afaik he's pretty crappy, haven't read myself, though, and not sure about the earlier stuff, though. I never said he was a bad writer it's just that MaM is a tad overrated in my opinion

no no no, I meant the "play the character through only once" and "not able to save progress on someone else's game" stuff. how the hell do you save a character on another person's console anyway? and how do you expect to join someone mid-game in that case? with your lvl 20 char, when the host is 10. wait for someone to pop up who's at exactly the same place in the game as you? and what's that "play only once" thing? even Diablo forced players to start new characters if on the same difficulty level. besides, it doesn't tie in with the rest of the game. you a 90's kid, aren't you? have you ever played any consoles other than xbox360, Wii or PS3? Nintendo 64 sounds familiar? Dreamcast? PS2 at least? that's how console games were before xbox live? split-screen or shared screen, game saved to a memory card or a similar devise, you can't have your character unless it's on your machine. you have it easy now. and it's not like it should've always stayed that way. it's great that people today can connect via internet and play console games. but don't expect a game like that to mimic Battle.net

wth are you talking about, I don't even...

so is every other game. why does Dungeon Siege 3 have to be exactly the same? its forte is in the hot seat obviously. I don't think I've played any good games with a 2-4 co-op on a shared screen since Champions of Norrath. besides, Diablo III is already doing that other thing (playing with your mates from other continents). come on, why limit yourself to this "LAN/online-only multiplayer hack-n-slash", when you can have so much more?

sorry about having quoted you, this isn't directed at you, but at every DS fan out there. this seems to be a common misconception. 1) the original Dungeon Siege was a mediocre game, that appealed to those gamers, that tend to play anything that "lasts" (and for all the wrong reasons), no matter how bad it is. fact 2) Dungeon Siege 2 was a piece of trash that only got picked up by said gamers. fact 3) Obsidian tries to save the franchise (not their original intention of course, they're trying to exploit your weaknesses), and you start to go on about how they're ruining a "great concept". pah-lease there was no core gameplay. Diablo 2 had core gameplay. neither of DS did. and coming here saying that the ability to play over the Net is more important than story and proper implementation of RPG mechanics - just makes you people look like fools, seriously. haven't played the demo, and I don't need to in order to see flaws in your argumentation. at least think a little before posting, sheesh.

NUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU! not you too seriously, this book is notorious for being mentioned as "favorite" by teenage girls and and otherwise mentally impaired. not that it's a bad book, but not even close to his other works (like the play about time travel, or my personal fave of his; Dog's Heart (or w/e it's called in English)).