topeira

My absolutely worst fears have come true and i lost nearly all interest in the game. apparently , while the console control scheme is an action oriental control scheme, the PC mouse+kyb control scheme is the archaic point+click one. i took the sources from the "previews" thread so i'm sure u've seen the already. nothing new - IGN quote: "How will the control scheme of a keyboard and mouse behave? Is the game a 'cursor point and click' or a more action oriented WASD + mouse to aim scheme?

personally i think that action games i can play with one hand demand a lot less of my skills and concentration and im not interested in them. i like games that require dexterity and good reflexes. something i can feel good at and challenged with. if it's shallow and easy than it's boring to me. of course racing games can let u do that. i am not talking about THAT genre.

i stil dont get it. if i play in one game with someone and my character is level 10 and then i play with someone else and we start from the beginning, will i be a level 10 character in a world where my friend is level 1 and the enemies are weak? that's not challenging nor fun. and the other way around is true as well. i know your character will be boosted to match the level of the mission and the other player but maintaining statistics is kinda contrary to this notion, no? i figured that your character's stats are saved on that particular game, so when u r playing with the same friend than you will have a persistent character, but if u play a new game with another friend than u will have a new persistent character for THAT game. im not sure what they're doing there.

@Lord Elvewyn - by your disposition and self indication of lack of hand-eye coordination i'd assume u r rather a mature gamer. for you i WOULD recommend Assassinc reed. perhaps the latest ones (assassins creed2 or assassins creed: brotherhood) as even though they are considered action games they are very good for casual gamers who are new to games. these games have mature story, fun reference for history and u actually learn something by playing them also have a light RPG elements to them. not by improving the main character but by upgrading it's tools, armor and weapons and even main villa. my friend used to play them every night after he tucked the kids to sleep when his wife was watching since they loved the story and feel of the game. also Fable 3 should come out for the PC in may, in case u didnt know. u might like that one too. i wouldnt recommend batman or god of war or devil may cry though. those are kinda hard core and tough, as games. 99% of the time a console version is identical to the PC version. besides Dragon age 1 and deathspank i dont think any multiplatform game was considered different between the consoles and the PC. it's important that that the feel will be the unified across all platforms. wait, u played "the force unleashed"? ah, than u DO know action games!! gotcha! this game has the type of control i think (and hope) DS3 will have. minus the "mouse movement for camera control". the way u moved "starkiller" in the TFU and the way u shose which direction u attack in is the same way DS3 plays on consoles. this is how i hope DS3 will play with a keyboard as well. WASD to move and chose direction of attacks. other buttons to block and attack and change stances etc. i just really REALLY dont want any cursor on screen. one of the biggest things that separate action games from RPG games is that action games give u a block\dodge options. this lil addition means a lot. if u r given an option to defend yourself than that means that the entire combat system implements an AI that is suitable for blocking and evading. meaning AI that has certain attack patterns, certain attack animations (to allow reacting to it) and usually the ability to defend themselves by blocking or dodging. DS3 DOES have blocking and dodging which means that players need an action type of control scheme. not a P&C control scheme that fits this type of games a lot less. p.s. - did u play magicka? it has a P&C control scheme but it has an interesting gameplay concept and it's a very humorous game. i wouldnt call it an RPG though, even if it feels like one. andd Deathspank is also a P&C RPG that is both funny and innovative in it's art design. a definite recommendation for you, if u havent tried it yet.

i like both FPP and 3rd PP. i love seeing my character when it's customizeable. in Oblivion i play (yeah, i just got into it a few weeks ago) in 3rd person perspective. my immersion comes from the camera perspective as well as how much of the world is interactive (open worlds are far more immersive than linear ones) and good graphics. also sometimes cutscenes can take away from immersion, taking control out of player's hands. but this is not a discussion about immersion so i prefer to live it at that. it's a personal taste. also which control scheme is better is also a matter of taste. i lean heavily towards direct control while other think that a point-n-click is fine. ...but they're wrong of course... my point is - the controller's control scheme is action oriented. not point-n-clik.i am afraid the keyboard scheme will be different. enemy AI and combat mechanics is handled differently depending how the control scheme works. if the game is catering for the controler than it wont feel right if the player is forced to play with a point-n-click scheme. i am afraid of obsidian making the keyboard control scheme feel wrong compared to the console's version. and im pretty sure u can plug two controllers. if it's 4 players co-op than why not? on my PC i have the "remote" for my xbox360 controller and if a friend brings another 260 controler than that second controller communicated with the remote automatically and works instantly. this is how me and my friends played magicka. p.s. - no, i do not want to play with a controller nor i have two of them to play co-op with.

im just having a discussion i will definitely wait until its out and then ask. just thinking that the consoles have a more action oriented control scheme and im scared the PC \keboard version will have a different control scheme. i only saw this done in one game - deathspank. now im scared

if u havent heard of Assassins creed or batman : arkham asylum than i feel like your experience with action games is a bit limited to have a proper discussion. can't you think of action games u've played that had some sort of overhead camera? i can even include God of war as an example. the way i see it, DS3 is a lot like Lara croft and the guardian of light - the camera is isometric (high and far above character heads) and u cant rotate it. WASD keys are for movement. mouse is for aiming the guns\spear or block direction. if u press W than the character goes UP. press D+S and it walk diagonally down and right. in FPS if u press D+S than u walk backwards and right. there is no down and up since directions are relative to the direction in which the player is looking, which constantly changes since the player control the camera. in Lara croft and the guardian of light (LCGOL from now on, if u dont mind (-: ) directions are absolute and the mouse is used to aim the direction in which u shoot. in DS3 there is not much shooting which makes me wonder what would the right thumb stick \mouse will be used for. now that i've seen the 3rd character (femal gun slinger) i think we will need a mouse\right thumb stick to aim. here comes the huge advantage of the action control scheme - if u use the same mouse button to move and aim than u cant walk in one direction and shoot at the same time. in diablo\torchlight\magicka (awesome game) u cant walk away from the enemies while still shoot at them. once u shoot u stop! same goes with melee attacking and walking. u cant do them both. because of that u r very limited in how u can defend yourself. its really cumbersome to navigate and attack in conjunction. u can only walk to one place, stop, attack, inevitably get hit (since u cant escape) than walk away. also in action oriented games its easy to pres A and then occationally tap S in order to move right but slightly down to adjust your direction. these small quick and frequent changes in the direction in which u move are essential to get around a tight battlefield and are possible with direct control. with a point-n-click scheme its a lot less easy. about disconnection - first of all, yes. the camera is disconnecting. the closer the camera to the player's character the more you feel close to him. simple psychology. but im talking about the control scheme. in LCGOL u hold A than u walk left until u let go. that's a direct connection to the control of the character. it feels like im moving the character. in Diablo style game i click on a map and the character moves there automatically. taking turns, changing directions, climbing stairs and ladders , all without my direct control. it's less DIRECT therefore i feel less connected. also in a more action oriented game u can attack the air. u can try and hit an enemy and miss. u can attack "between" enemies and hit them both cuz of the arc of attack of your weapon. in swing a sword in a direction, kinda like in real life. in a point and click u can't do any of those things. if u click on the floor and not on an enemy than u walk there instead of attack him. u cant miss. the game dictates if u swing or attack. its disconnecting. and as i said it's a lot harder to move and attack alternatively. a lot harder to attack right and quickly left and quickly move and quickly attack. if WASD controls your direction\facing that it's as easy as D+attack and A+attack and no relatively slow and precise mouse aiming is needed. it's just faster. for a game that looks twitchy like DS3 this speed is needed. about camera control - in an action game like AC or batman or GOW or Fable or Darksiders or Tron or Prince of persia (and the action games list goes on and on (NOT oblivion and not FPS games) the camera constantly being rotated byt eh player so u can look around. its the direction in which u are looking but it's disconnected from the player's character (u can move in one direction but the camera faces the other direction, unlike in oblivion or FPSs ot ME). once combat begins it goes backwards and shows more of the combat. the player needs to constantly adjust the camera to see what's going on better. because of the direct control of the camera it's impossible to play two players co-op on the same screen because the second player will get confused but the changes of the camera or he will have it very hard to orient himself when the camera is kinda close to the OTHER player. in DS3 same-screen co-op IS possible therefore the camera needs to be static so both players can see themselves. also it has to be far enough so the player(s) wont feel the need to rotate it to see what's going on around them. it also needs to be HIGH enough so the perspective wont cause objects in the button of the screen to obscure and disappear if not close enough. since in DS3 the camera is isometric and in none of the videos i've seen a constant camera movement (like i do in every assassins creed or fable video) than i assume that there will be pretty limited camera movement. zoom levels, yes, but that doesnt mean the mouse or right thumb stick controls the camera. it might have cluncky camera movement like in certain point-and-click games but that means adjusting the camera is not done by the mouse or right thumbstick and it's being adjusted rarely. to conclude - if with the controller u have direct action oriented control and in the PC u DONT than there is a very big difference between how the games feel in both versions. im worried it will feel as clunky as a diablo game (which i hate with passion) instead of a tactile action game like LCGOL or Marvel ultimate alliance or any other action game. luckily for you, and im throwing a big guess here, it DOES look a little like DS3 will have a point and click control scheme. why? cuz i've just looked at the katarina trailer again. there wasnt even ONE shot that showed her shooting while walking. this probably means she can't do it. therefore it seems like it IS a point and click. pheeeew. that was long. thanks for bearing with me

I'd have to disagree. Point and click works well, and is DS consistent. Using an FPS style control system would not be a good idea. Depending on the camera angles\how it (WASD style control) was implemented it might even be really old school - old school as in DOS generation side scrolling. Mouse precision's better. As for keys to block and attack, is this a console fighting game Street Fighter etc, or PC's DS? it doesnt matter how DS used to be but how THIS game is, and since its so vastly different than the older control scheme is irrelevant. i am not talking about a control scheme like FPSs. im talking about how action games like Assassins creed\fable\batman:AA is. DS3 is a lot more like AC or Fable than DS1 or DS2 in terms of combat. the biggest difference between AC and DS3 is that in DS3 u can't control the angle of the camera. because of that i expect an AC type of control scheme. there is something extremely disconnected in how the old DS and diablo games are played. u tap a ground like in a strategy game and the character walks automatically there. it's a lot less like i am moving my character but rather like im telling the character where to go and HE's walking as i told him. it's like I AM not the same as the character. he's just doing what im telling him. and the notion that i can't attack any time i want but only if i aim precisely at an attack-able object is strange. action games like AC\fable\batman have a much much more tactile feeling to how u control the character. diablo (or dragon age) style games feel a lot like strategy games with less characters. the controller scheme in DS3 looks and feels a lot mroe action oriented and more tactile. if the keyboard scheme is going to be like in diablo games im gonna be really disappointed and definitly not going to come anywhere near the game. and i DO have a controller but i am not using it cuz i dont like it. my G\F is using it if we play co-op and in DS3 if we play co-op than i will need to use the keyboard, therefore i need the game to feel like an action RPG and not like a strategy game for me and an action game for her.

i am worried a bit about the differences between the way movement and combat is done on the consoles and how it's done on the PC. Diablo type games on the Pc use the mouse-for-everything method where u left click on the ground and do auto-moving and left click on enemies to attack them or auto-walk to them and attack. this method has a lot of disadvantaged compared to the way console games solve the movement issue since there is no mouse - u push the thumbstick in the direction u wanna go and the character walk there. a different button is meant for attacking. i truely hope the control scheme on the PC will not be a point-n-click method of diable but more of a WASD for movement, other keys to attack, block etc. though it seems like the mouse movement will not be used in this game since the players don't have any control over the camera.

some like to breeze through a game while others prefer to have a great challenge. sometimes in SP it's nice to have a hard and rewarding game while in co-op it's more fun to constantly move along. one thing is for sure - one difficulty is never enough. most games that dont have difficulty settings are too easy (fable, GTAIV, Assassins creed etc etc) Has it been confirmed if the game will have a few difficult settings?

i can assume the keyboard option will be kinda like marvel ultimated alliance. at least i really really hope there is no mouse pointed or cursor in the game. the consoles dont need it and i see no reason why the keyboard would. maybe it's just that the WASD keys move the character and other keys are for attacks. there is even no need for a mouse, if u ask me. maybe to rotate the camera but this is not a 3rd person game like AC or Fable. the camera looks static and automatic most of the time so i am not sure we will need a mouse. if this becomes a point and click method i am not getting the game at all.

as a matter of fact im not sure if what is writting in this preview from IGN contradicts what we thought or not.... http://pc.ign.com/articles/115/1154653p1.html i am still wondering about this - if i join my friend's game as , say, anjali, and i play for a while with him and then quit. can he keep playing with ANOTHER character that isnt anjali so the skill set of anjali won't change? so the next time i join i will be able to take anjali with the same skills she had when i quit (and the extra XP that was added while my friend was advancing the campaign)? or will all characters, even the ones that my friend didnt have as AI buddies, get new skills? i assume it's my first guess, though.

i think u misunderstood our assumptions - if your friend is playing lucas and is on level 10 and a lter point in the game and u want to play with him than : A) u cant be lucas because that character is taken. B) you WILL join your friend in whatever level he is in. C) your character's level will be identical to your friend (if he is at level 10 and u just joined for the first time u will also be automatically level 10) and u will need to spend a few minutes putting your XP into your character before starting to play. D) if u leave the game with that character u just costumized than u cant take it to your own game. we assume it will only be a part of your friend's game. E) if u go back to your friends game after another long time u havent played while he HAS than again - your saved character will get the same level as your friend but will probably keep all the skills u created for it but now u will have even more XP to put into newer skills. this is how we GUESS it will work. we'll see. i hope a new official word comes from the devs on some website to make this more clear.

secret of what? j\k. no. dont know what that is. hold on , let me ask. ..... oh, thank you, youtube. my, that's an old one. As far as I know, you will gain xp on local co-op on the char you play. You just can't port that char into another save game. It's "stuck" on the person's save game who you played it with. if this is the case than im prefectly fine by that. it makes sense, balance wise, and i am all for balance. in this type of game at least.

You all gain xp, loot and advance in the story, but only in that save game that that the host has (that's for co-op). I don't see what the problem is if you are planning on playing it with your friends. What stops you from continuing that save later on together? There's still no confirmation how it's done in online mulplayer mode, but I would imagine they are pretty much as the same as with co-op on same machine. As to why change things towards easier to do? Porting the game to 3 different platforms is easier? Also you need to have some sense of realism. Obsidian and Square-Enix aren't making this game with the same infinite budget as Blizzard uses for it's games. Not to mention they are resurrecting an IP that wasn't a huge hit to begin with. If things go well with DS3 you might see more features added later on to the game via dlcs/expansions/sequels. Companions, yes you can customize them as in you get to choose where to put their talent points etc. Ascaron, the company behind Sacred 2 (multiplatform), didn

If your gf is level 13 and when you previously played Lucas was lvl 10 your Lucas will be lvl 13 as well. I would imagine that the Lucas that was stored on her save game will keep the points you choose (+ those your gf chose when shen continued her save), so you don't have to respec him everytime, but that just my guess. From game balancing point of view that makes the most sense to me. Since there's no point at all to continue to play with your Lucas if let's say your Lucas is lvl 5 and your gf is lvl 15. Those level 15 mobs would whack the **** out of your Lucas. Or your GF would have to take you to some low lvl area to do some old sidequests she skipped to get you some levels. Not very fun if you ask me yeah. this is what i imagine will happen as well. (im talking about local co-op. not online. me and my girl love sitting side by side) i am just thinking that me and her will probably only play together and none of us will advance without the other one playing so all i really want is that whenever she loads up the save game than we will have both of our characters just where we left them so we can continue right where we left off with the same characters. i was (and still am) worried that whenever i join the game i will have to do some character customization to my lucas before we continue playing. im pretty just her character will be persistent and that's the most important thing for me - make her enjoy the game and have a seamless experience with a character she will grow attached to. on top of that i want my character to be as persistent as possible and it makes sense that my character's stats and skills will be stored somewhere so when i join than i can either chose either a new character or my old lucas that i put a few hours into building. the rumors about not gaining XP on local co-op has me worried...

so are you thinking that if, for example, my GF is playing an anjali, she gets to level 10, and i join at a certain point as lucas than i get a level 10 character and put my XP into skills so i have a working level 10 lucas with level 10 skills? if that is true, what happens if we stop playing and continue later on? i am sure her anjali will still have her character as it was but do u recon that my lucas will be stored so the next time me and her get to play than i will be able to pick MY lucas from the last point i played with him? or will i have to costumize lucas AGAIN every time i join her game? for example, if she played without me and get to level 13 and i join, will i get a fresh out of the box lucas but with enough XP to be a level 13 OR will i get my level 10 lucas and i will have to use only the exprience between the level 10 i previously had to level 13 anjali is?

interesting news, rafoca. thanks. what im wishing for is a nice local co-op. i want to play with my G\F and i just want her to have the option to play as anjali and be the host while i jump in as whoever i want. she likes playing as females and i want her to have the most out of the experience. i dont mind the down sides of being the player who joins because if the game is fun as SP than i will play a separate game alone as lucas or whatever character i feel like when my girl is not around. however do u know if a player can start the game as any character he pleases and have the remaining 3 get unlocked during the game or is it that u start as lucas and have a chance to change characters as u unlock them in the only order in which they get unlocked?

i dont know if this subject was discussed or not so im having at it: as far as i read on these forums, in local co-op the joined in player can not level up or get experience? is that true? is his character not persistent? how does that work? im not here to complain. im just curious. For example - if im playing the main character, say the warrior, and im half way through the campaign and a second player joins in- 1) how will he get to decide which character he plays?! is it predetermined somehow or does he have any saying in who he plays? 2) how does the game determine what abilities and level that secondary player gets when he joins? the same as the character that is currently in the game with the main player (the warrior in this example)? 3) how does the AI character in an off-line game gets leveled up? is it automatic? or does the player decide how to advance his AI teammate? 4) just in case i didnt get it - if the joining player DOES get to level up the secondary character, what is he leveling up? his own character [which he gets to keep leveling from the last point he played it] or the AI character [which keeps leveling up if he doesnt play with the main player who plays the game offline occasionally]? there are too many things i do not understand and since i havent played DS1 or 2 than others might have better guesses than me.

i never played neither of these so i need explanation - how is too many options a bad thing? what's wrong with Sacred 2?

i'd imagine that monsters like creatures and even endead dont have to block to appear "convincing" while humanoid creatures (orcs, goblins, humans) DO need to block. however when a dev avoided touching the subject on another thread i can assume you are correct, tigranes.

In most isometric type RPGs all the AI knows how to do is run towards the player and attack until dead. since this game is slightly more action oriented i wonder if the AI can block and dodge and be challenging for more reasons than their numbers or their large amount of health points. from looking at the 12 minutes GDC presentation of yesteryear i could spot a single enemy doing a single thing but to charge at the player. i know most of RPG players dont care about AI. they jsut want a blade-fodder AI that can be killed in one hit so they get XP, but i am interested in a combat that is fun. i know the game was tweaked to be easier for the sake of the presentation as it's oftenl done, but i can only assume the only tweaks that were made are for the heath of the player and maybe, MAYBE, the health of the enemies.

thanks a lot for the reply, mr. developer good news. but now it makes me ask more questions 1) can one block in all stances or only with the shield stance? 2) is there an advantage to blocking with a certain stance rather than with the other? 3) do enemies block? 4) if enemies block, how does the player get through the block? 5) when u block , are u immune to damage completely or are u just taking less damage from attacks? 6) if when u block u are immuned to damage completely from all directions than is that like an invulnerability button that only prevents you from moving around (then u roll)?

i think that if combat is too simple and doesnt challenge you in a way that u feel u need to play better than it doesnt excite. and if u constantly doing a combat that doesnt excite than it becomes a chore. something u just want to get over with to get the loot instead of something u enjoy doing for the sake of simply doing it. this is the case with assassins creed and fable 2 + 3, IMO - combat has no challenge nor depth and it loses it's means as entertainment. it becomes merely a means to an end instead of being the end. know what i mean?

in most RPGs there is not a lot of need for the player's skill as a gamer. it's just "tap the attack button until everyone is dead and occasionally heal during the inevitable damage taking". more action oriented games give the player the ability to avoid damage by either getting out of harms way or defending themselves with blocking. heavier action oriented games may give players an extra reward for defending themselves with skill but letting them counter. DS was always a hack and slash RPG with little care for players skill. DS3 seems more action oriented. so my question is - will we be able to block in this game (on purpose. not auto block determined by the stats of the character)? and if we will, than is it possible in all stances? also, if we CAN block, is the block protecting us from all directions or only from one side? i think i've seen a blocking stance in one gameplay vid and only with the shield+sword. not sure if it was active blocking or auto blocking or just the way the hero stands when idle. i would love some clarification.