lithographer

This is a large part of the problem for the current AAA-driven industry. If you(I guess it was the publisher's decision, but still) make a $60 game that doesn't quite live up to other $60 games you'll get crushed in reviews and have meager sales as 80%+ of those games do. Now look at Torchlight, it's a fun self-published $20 game(now down to $15) that got near universal praise, sold well and almost no one complained about its shortness or other minor flaws(well, they did want multiplayer and they're getting in in the sequel...). My point is that moving away from the status quo, focusing on your strengths and innovating can go a long way sometimes. I agree with you. I think there are a lot of alternatives to the 60$ AAA, console market that are really interesting. On the flipside, the value proposition of DS3 versus (some) other AAA games is quite good. Not every RPG, or even every ARPG, is an infinitely replayable online grinding game, nor do they have to be. Some very well reviewed and well loved AAA ARPGs don't have local or online co-op at all. So I guess I just inherently reject the idea that DS3 is somehow not providing value for the price. The reality of development is that time spent on X means less time spent on Y. Some of those decisions were based on technology and development resources, some on what we do well as a company, and some on what Square-Enix wanted. But we always keep in mind what we think gamers want, and it's also critical to remember that gamers are a complicated bunch. If you go over to some unnamed RPG superfan forums, they can barely agree what an RPG even is, let alone what makes one good - and that's about the most concentrated group of gamers you could imagine. When you expand it out to the broad gaming community, there's a huge diversity of tastes. So just because you don't want something doesn't mean that there aren't a million+ people who do. In this case, we made specific decisions to focus on some things (responsive action combat, an RPG and loot system with deeper and more interesting character development choices, story and dialog, interesting quest content, buddy based co-op) and not on other things. Some people will be happy with that, and some won't, and that's something that we understand and live with as game developers. Also the honest truth is that DS3, more than any other game I've worked on, has had people coming up to me after playing it, saying, "this is exactly the game I've been wanting"! It's true that those people aren't necessarily Dungeon Siege superfans (though some are) or internet forum posters. But their opinions count just as much as anyone else's, and the verdict is still out on whether or not there are more of them, or more people upset with our direction. You know Nate I believe everything you say here, that is to say I believe you believe it. However when it comes to the entertaiment business if you want to sell something you need to give the people what they want. Instead it seems like you guys just made the game you wanted. This is great for the starving artist, but I'm going to assume Square is going to want to see some $$$. Its like you had a wheel to make and decided it should be square for no other reason than you guys prefer squares. Who makes an arpg where you can't progress you character on harder levels? Whats the point of loot if you can't take it with you? Forget the lousy multiplayer, but to tamper with something so fundamental is just bizarre. Titan Quest, Diablo, Sacred, and even little old Torchlight....you had achetypes from which to draw, previous commercial successes by which you could draw inspiration and create anew and your solution was to make essentially an adventure game with the appearance of a top down arpg. To add insult to injury not only did you guys have those previously mentioned games to draw upon, you also had the first two iterations of the game series...yikes what a mess.

I apologize thats really how I meant it. If you look at the scores for games like Dragon Knight Saga (or Divinity 2), Sacred 2, Risen, and that gothic game...what was it called? Arcania? Euro reviewers are much more lenient than the US equivalents. I think Euro devs are much more lenient due to percieved hardships that smaller devs have. Its not easy to compete with Bioware (actually canadian right? though they do have offices in US) or Bethesda. Both devs recieve much in the way of leniency based on prior success and the high production values they put into games because of their wallet size. However because of the budget gap European Rpgs seem to have way more bugs, glitches, and other nonsense things going on in the final version of the game than most north american releases. Granted niether come out perfect but you wouldn't take a like Risen and put it next to Mass Effect or Oblivion and call it an even playing field. Then there are other aspects of production like sound and voice overs that I've never really seen a European developer be able to match. Witcher 2 though may be the exception...however on one of my comps the sound is yet to work (and no its not the comp) Risen is much, much better designed than Oblivion and with fewer bugs to boot. I think that is a matter of opinion. Even with Oblivion's three voice actors I'd say the dialog carries much better through that than Risen. All other aspects are a matter of opinion. Unfortunately for me, I am comparing console versions of the game. The pc, as I well know, is an entirely different matter.

I apologize thats really how I meant it. If you look at the scores for games like Dragon Knight Saga (or Divinity 2), Sacred 2, Risen, and that gothic game...what was it called? Arcania? Euro reviewers are much more lenient than the US equivalents. I think Euro devs are much more lenient due to percieved hardships that smaller devs have. Its not easy to compete with Bioware (actually canadian right? though they do have offices in US) or Bethesda. Both devs recieve much in the way of leniency based on prior success and the high production values they put into games because of their wallet size. However because of the budget gap European Rpgs seem to have way more bugs, glitches, and other nonsense things going on in the final version of the game than most north american releases. Granted niether come out perfect but you wouldn't take a like Risen and put it next to Mass Effect or Oblivion and call it an even playing field. Then there are other aspects of production like sound and voice overs that I've never really seen a European developer be able to match. Witcher 2 though may be the exception...however on one of my comps the sound is yet to work (and no its not the comp)

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.

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.

European reviewers have a higher tolerance for crap.

Its awesome, it looks great and is basically everything I've been waiting for in an arpg. Of course knowing the online play is totally gimped and worthless makes this all irrelevant. Removing classes and making you play "named characters" and removing tried and true online play has turned this into a decent single player hack and slash that'll last about 15 hours, where they could have not been so arrogant and changed those two things and made a game that could have lasted a couple of years. Dumb.

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.

Not making an online arpg in 2011 is just a step backwards. Trying to defend an obviously short sighted and almost arrogant design decision is just weak. Everyone will blast through the single player and then there will be nothing left to do. In design, as in just about everything else, you don't "fix" what isn't broken. Obsidian has made a really short sighted and dumb decision here. ARPG are about online play and loot gathering ... taking both away in favor of some percieved "different take" is just a bad idea. Good luck.

What? No, that's not the case. You control one guy. You can have human friends or AI henchmen-style friends, but it's not going to be squad combat. I think you've got completely the wrong impression somehow, so maybe we can wait for some real info to clear things up before making judgments. Thanks for the response. This temporarily allays my worst fears. I think we all need more info. I just have such high hopes for this game I really want it to play like a diablo for the console (even though I'll play it on pc with my xbox pc controller)

The last two aren't revelead yet. I realize this, so are you suggesting that this is simply demo footage in the sense that this is not representitive of the actual gameplay but of just how the game will look? That in the footage current there are supposed to be two other people there that Obsidian has cloaked in a veil of pre-marketing adjustment?

I'm not sure the first one of those can be assumed. If what I've read is true (and there isn't much) you have to control up to three other ai characters. I don't understand why Obsidian would tamper with the tried and tested arpg model and opt to add a Baldurs Gate strategy element, but it would make sense that in "co-op" you'd only be assuming the role of one of the AI characters and not entering the game as your own unique toon. This would coniside with the regrettable rumor circulating that in the "co-op" or "online multiplayer" portion of this game only the main character or host will garner any benefit from loot or exp. Again why Obsidian would be so bullish about doing something so obviously without thought is beyond my comprehension. Lionhead did the same thing with Fable 2 and people rioted. Obsidian has the luxury of being the first Dev to bring a legitimate arpg to the consoles and it seems like they're going out of their way to F it up. I love the art style too which makes their decisions seem that much more painful. Time will tell I suppose, however it would be really nice to have some concrete information. On a side note, does anyone know if the pc version will support a controller?

Everything I've read thus says that you have to work with three ai characters...yet in every vid I've seen only two characters at most at work. So is that bs or what?