hopfrog16

Really? I liked the pip-boy. =P It felt to me like I had more options to choose from, whereas I feel that a lot of console games try to oversimplify everything for me and give me a small/basic UI. Then again I started as a PC gamer, but had to move to consoles for financial reasons... So that may be why I feel that way, heh. =)

Oh really? I hope you don't make a habit of stereotyping and judging people. Don't be silly, I judge nobody. I hate everyone equally. Heh. =)

Oh really? I hope you don't make a habit of stereotyping and judging people.

Yes. Also, it is known that the more you put in the game the more you have to sacrifice the graphics in order to everything run ok. I am amazed on how Sacred 2 looks better and have more depth. The natural thing would be Sacred 2 looking worse because it has much more features than DS3. I can imagine how great the game could be today on consoles if Ascaron have not bankrupted. Those guys were talented. I had some framerate and slowdowns in Sacred 2, but I also got in DS3, but in areas that, to me, should not happen at all. Btw, I love the water in Sacred 2. I agree... Sacred 2 had some really great water effects in that game. It's also kind of interesting to me how some of the rivers in that game are named after ones I live by (like the Skookumchuck). I have a feeling the people/person behind that decision were drift fishermen that loved fishing the rivers over here... I wouldn't blame them.

I think PvP would have been awesome with the play style this game has. =) Meh... Don't think we'll ever see it, though. =P

Huh. I guess Dungeons & Dragons doesn't count for anything (Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson more specifically, heh).

Well how about this, enable persistent characters who keep their loot. When joining a game you get notified of the host's level and vice versa. If you're level 10 joining a level 20 game, the monsters will most likely destroy you, very fast. Likewise, if someone joining your team is too OP'd or weak, you'd just deny them. MP is about fun and cooperation so if someone isn't playing nice, just boot them. I'm not a big multiplayer gamer, but it seems to me that the MP has a large number of people upset and I think there are some simple things that could be done to change this. Ultimately if they enable persistent characters then PvP will also be possible which I think would be unreal in this game considering the combat system it has. Might be totally unbalanced but would still be fun for a bit. Hmmm... Instead of any level joining any game, why not just allow the host to designate what level ranges can join their game before they even create the match, like most of the RPGs that support multiplayer do? Because unless you limit it to 2-3 levels it creates an unbalanced game. And if you do that you restrict a large amount of a playerbase. That's... the point. If balance matters to you, you will be able to control that aspect with the level ranges YOU choose (as the host). Does that limit the amount of people that would be allowed to join your game? yes. It doesn't matter, though, because when people have incentive to play online (via persistent characters), more people will want to play. All you have to do now is look at the amount of matches being played online at the moment. That amount isn't normal for a brand new game (at least from what I saw it was pretty damn small). When my bud showed me the online multiplayer for that game, he hosted it, and I was amazed just how long people would stay before they left. Everyone who joined left in under 5 minutes of play (across 3 different matches)... Eventually we just got bored and stuck to local co-op (which I found to be a hell of a lot of fun... Good system for local, bad system for online).

Well how about this, enable persistent characters who keep their loot. When joining a game you get notified of the host's level and vice versa. If you're level 10 joining a level 20 game, the monsters will most likely destroy you, very fast. Likewise, if someone joining your team is too OP'd or weak, you'd just deny them. MP is about fun and cooperation so if someone isn't playing nice, just boot them. I'm not a big multiplayer gamer, but it seems to me that the MP has a large number of people upset and I think there are some simple things that could be done to change this. Ultimately if they enable persistent characters then PvP will also be possible which I think would be unreal in this game considering the combat system it has. Might be totally unbalanced but would still be fun for a bit. Hmmm... Instead of any level joining any game, why not just allow the host to designate what level ranges can join their game before they even create the match, like most of the RPGs that support multiplayer do?

These are the first week sales for Alice: Madness Returns in EMEAA... Xbox360 - 11,644 http://gamrreview.vgchartz.com/sales/33815...adness-returns/ PS3 - 9,556 http://gamrreview.vgchartz.com/sales/33816...adness-returns/ PC - 1,351 (wow... must be online downloads mostly... those don't seem to count towards the chart #) http://gamrreview.vgchartz.com/sales/33814...adness-returns/ I've heard Alice hasn't been selling well (from my local Gamestop, heh), and these numbers seem to support that... Bleh...

Well folks, I checked up on vgchartz.com (which is by no means the end all be all of accurate sales charts), and these are the numbers for the first week of sales that are listed for EMEAA. Xbox360 - 16,519 http://gamrreview.vgchartz.com/sales/45443...geon-siege-iii/ PS3 - 10,596 http://gamrreview.vgchartz.com/sales/45442...geon-siege-iii/ PC - 10,447 http://gamrreview.vgchartz.com/sales/47140...geon-siege-iii/ Keep in mind there is simply not enough information (or accurate information, rather) yet to make any kind of sales predictions (but I hope it sells well). If anyone has a more accurate chart, send links please!

ppl who like apple r n00bz LAWL!!!!1

Agreed. To be honest, the only time I've ever seen online "shared screen" gaming was with a board game, like chess. It really is puzzling to me why this path was chosen. =P

Agreed. =)

...Congratulations... ...High fives all around... This thread needs to be locked. I can't think of anything honestly useful resulting from this thread... Just a bunch of hate. =P

Yeah, pretty much. Agreed. I do not refute any of these points; mostly because I wanted to put another quote box around a quote box which contains a quote box. But how many quote boxes are enough?

This. ^ Sorry... I just love the cheesy grin. =)

Sacred 2? Nope multiplayer you shared a co-op screen. ie. not split screen. I know for offline multiplayer you shared one screen.. but online I am not sure about. DS3 is the only ARPG/Hack-n-Slash/Dungeon Crawler (that I know of, but I have played quite a bit of them since I love this style of game) that uses a shared screen online.

A very nice post. I may not be a huge fan of Obsidian games, but I can understand why someone would be for sure. =) Speaking of Troika, am I the only one who would like to see a sequel/improved version of Arcanum? =O

I think DA2 was better. It has some great characters, good plot and totally fantastic dialogs, not like the boring prequel, where you were running through dungeons for couple of hours and nothing happened... Didn't like Origins, loved DA2. And btw. DA2 had the best dialog-wheel I've ever seen. It was something between Alpha Protocol and Mass Effect. Great thing. Eh... To be honest I didn't really care for the dialogue wheel in DA2... It felt very limited to me (good guy option, sarcastic option, bad guy option). I will say, though, that I did like the combat system better than DA1, and the skill trees. Everything else, however, I felt DA1 did better.

Good points I suppose. I've never been big on RPG multiplayer so these problems aren't as big for me. As far as the single player portion goes it has been better than the Dark Alliance games. That's good to know. From what I hear from one of my buds, it does have great single player. =)

What are these extra features you are talking about? No comment on replayability yet. I wouldn't mind trying a different character in Dark Alliance at some point. I've only played the original and its sequel once but I enjoyed them. I haven't finished DS 3 yet (I'm playing little bits at a time) but so far I'm enjoying it more so than I enjoyed Dark Alliance 1 & 2. As for DS 3 not being the successor to DS 1 & 2... well what can I say but they used the license to make a Dark Alliance style game. I can see why DS fans are mad, but I loved the Dark Alliance style of action RPG and I'm glad DS 3 is closer to it than DS 1 & 2. Well, both BG: DA 1&2 had Newgame+ modes (a very unique take at Newgame+, too), and if I remember correctly, they both had persistent multiplayer characters. True, but you didn't max out in DA 1 or 2. Supposedly you hit level 30 in DS 3 by the end of the game. I'm not a huge fan of +newgame modes unless you don't max out. The problem with persistant characters in multiplayer is you'd end up joining someones game and either they would be higher level doing all the work or you would be. I know because I did play a bit of couch coop in DA 2 and I ended up doing all the work in someone else's game because they needed help with a boss. I really don't mind the implementation of coop in DS 3, its the camera. While you still had to stay close in DA 2 it was no where as bad as DS 3. I guess a lot of the things people would say about the fact that you can max out your level by game's end, and therefor it wouldn't be ideal to have Newgame+ or persistent multiplayer is... Why would it be designed like this in the first place? Newgame+ and persistent multiplayer are pretty basic features for ARPGs, I feel. As for level differences in games with persistent multiplayer, the answer to fixing that is something RPGs with multiplayer have been doing for a long time... Allow the host to dictate what level ranges can join a game. If you don't want someone to jump into your game and kill the boss for you, just set the level ranges to 1+ or 1- of your level. You may be fine with the multiplayer DS3 has now, but I assure you that there are plenty of people who were turned off by this choice. The lack of this feature alone is what prevented me from buying the game day one (and I do love BG: DA style ARPGs). =P

What are these extra features you are talking about? No comment on replayability yet. I wouldn't mind trying a different character in Dark Alliance at some point. I've only played the original and its sequel once but I enjoyed them. I haven't finished DS 3 yet (I'm playing little bits at a time) but so far I'm enjoying it more so than I enjoyed Dark Alliance 1 & 2. As for DS 3 not being the successor to DS 1 & 2... well what can I say but they used the license to make a Dark Alliance style game. I can see why DS fans are mad, but I loved the Dark Alliance style of action RPG and I'm glad DS 3 is closer to it than DS 1 & 2. Well, both BG: DA 1&2 had Newgame+ modes (a very unique take at Newgame+, too), and if I remember correctly, they both had persistent multiplayer characters. If you haven't tried the Newgame+, I would highly recommend it. =)

One of the worst crimes of that game, I felt, was the terrible map design... Reusing maps over and over... Really? There were also holes in the maps that weren't properly sealed (anyone who has ever tinkered with a map editor could notice this if they looked hard enough) that led to an infinity of emptiness. The game looked considerably worse, in both design and texture, than it's predecessor. There was zero imagination used in the creation of the map's designs. To be honest, it was insulting to me as someone who enjoys playing games, and as someone who enjoys making maps for games... I may not like some aspects of DS3, but Obsidian has handled Dungeon Siege's franchise with LOADS of more respect than Bioware had for it's own series.

Are you sure? Ugh... What a disappointment of a game. =P

Thats impossible to count. Also there are other players that actually like the game because it didn't focus on these things but other qualities. I agree with that. I'm sure, though, that those people number much less than those that wanted the persistent multiplayer and newgame+ features...