Renevent

I thought the fight with the witch was pretty good. Loot seemed pretty good too, though not sure how deep it get's in the full game.

Well, they were distinctly unoriginal and distinctly mediocre, I'll give you that. They were distinctly poorly-written, distinctly ugly, and distinctly repetitive. Oh, they were distinctly railroaded, too. If I chuck in a "verily" and perhaps some cod-Elvish, we can pretend I'm one of the six NPCs with any dialogue. Erm, I played video games around that time, as I suspect did most people around here. The Dungeon Siege games were poorly-executed Diablo clones. When DSII came out the immediately recognisable features were the ugly graphics, terrible writing, horrendous railroading, meaningless spell/ability choices and colossal reliance on grind. Even multiplayer it's a pretty poor game. And when you consider the rest of the RPG cohort it came out with - KotOR II, Jade Empire, Fable: The Lost Chapters, Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines, and so on - it looks (and looked at the time) incredibly lacklustre. The only thing it had going for it was its multiplayer, and that wasn't exactly brilliant. The vast majority of people who played them overwhelmingly disagree with you. What's even more amazing is the fact that Obsidian is using the IP...hello are you home?!?!?! If it was as you said why would anyone even come near this IP with a 10 foot pole? Right...because the reality is the game hits a positive chord with most gamers and is a very recognizable IP. I already proved the statistics around the reviews and player reviews so I won't go there again, but obviously your comments have no merit to them what-so-ever. It's fine that you have your own personal opinion of the game, but it isn't shared among most gamers who played it.

I liked New Vegas more than FO3, but I find the reaction from hardcore fans hypocritical as well. It had *some* slightly better quests, and some tweaks here and there, but in large it felt and played exactly like the original FO3. I am not saying you can't enjoy one more than the other, but going from "it's total crap!" to "this is what a fallout sequel should be like!" is just silly.

Yeah, there is. Lots of people like Dungeon Siege. Space Siege on the other hand... And to sorophx your comments never actually address anything people actually say. Nobody is asking for a replica of the first games with just updated graphics.

I liked both, though MP is what kept me coming back to the game. I actually just replayed DS2 about 6 months ago with some people I met on a forum

Man, I played DS1/DS2 back in the day. I never played online so maybe I missed out on some key experience but to put it lightly, the games were like interactive screensavers. Auto-attack to win. DS2 was a bit better in that regard by introducing powers and skill trees. That's not to say they weren't fun though. From what I've seen, DS3 corrects the issues I mainly had with the first two games: voice acting, writing, combat. I think the beauty of the game lies is their skill system, item system, open-ish maps, tons of secrets, and the excellent online. Granted the combat could be described as more passive than some of the other games of the time (I think interactive screensavers is a major exaggeration though) but they were fun games that had a lot to offer. In my opinion, of course :D

The DS were very distinct among the arpg's back then. Had a pretty unique character/group system, well developed game world, excellent online, and was developed by a very well known developer (GPG). Chris Taylor is also a very well known game designer and back then it was definitely well known he was involved in the game. In addition, out of 59 reviews the game holds a 8.6 average which is pretty dang good: http://www.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/dungeonsieg...%3Bcritic-score Most gamers who played video games around that time know well of the DS series...some random game isn't a good way to describe them at all. I know you would like to believe that because of your loyalty to Obsidian, but's it's just not true.

I think I may still get the game, but I completely 100% agree with the OP. This isn't a Dungeon Siege game...at least game play wise. It may or may not still be a fun game, but as an old school DS player I think the devs were WAY off. Reading forums all over the web, it seems that is the opinion of most gamers too. Right or wrong the general consensus I am seeing is people (who were fans of the older games in the series) and generally not happy with the new direction of the game at all.

Sure the host can...the second you log off he can play that character and assign loot/new skill points/ect.

That review pretty much echoed my own opinion about the demo. Didn't get a chance to replay it last night though but I do want to give it at least one more try.

The areas in the video do look a little better...not to the extent I would like though. At the very least it's not corridor constraining so I think I can deal with it.

Matt-C there absolutely no reason to be rude to the developers. Good design decisions or not, I am sure every single one of the them poured their heart into the game.

that's BS, and if you don't realize it, you're hopeless It's not BS, you have consistently either misrepresent things, or take arguments out of context, or whatever. The game has streamlined mechanics, made some simpler, reduced map size, tethered people in multi-player...and many other concessions I have no intention of re-listing. This is the reality of the game. Obsidian also added some stuff, like dialog wheels and more emphasis on story. If you like what they added and don't care about what was compromised to get it...hey...more power to you enjoy the game. But for someone like me, who enjoyed practically everything they dumb downed, it sucks. To me it's a very significant departure from the series and honestly I think it was a HUGE mistake. Maybe it will work out for Obsidian though...who knows.

I don't think we understand each other. you don't like the "concept", not the system itself, because you haven't seen how any of the choices affects gameplay. Diablo 2 had a pretty linear system, a skill tree and stats, it was simple but effective, and allowed for a lot of variety. which people didn't know about until they actually played the game and figured out ways to make certain character builds for different situations. seriously, I feel like I'm talking to a six year old We don't understand each other because you are a dishonest a-hole who is literally just willing to say anything regardless of how little truth it has. Just like that other fanboy trying desperately arguing a futile position about the maps....even after hard evidence is provided. The example you use is Diablo 2? Diablo 2 did not have a linear system, it had 30 skills across 3 skill trees per character. It had 99 character levels that you would have to build up over 3 play throughs. In addition, it had a VERY deep item system (including rune words, crafting, ect) as well that complimented the builds. I can tell you right now with absolutely no uncertainty that DS3's leveling system will offer nowhere near the nuance that Diablo 2's system offered.

It's quite easy to compare, actually. There is clear differences even at the very begging of DS2. DS3 is much more confined and the general design behind it's map is clearly different than DS2. So no, both games (as it stand now) are not 'more or less' the same...well ok maybe it is. The originals were more and the new one is less. Maybe this changes in the full game. Perhaps this is just some tutorial level in the demo...I sure hope so. It's not a deal breaker for me either way, but kinda just a little disappointing.

Don't think too hard, might hurt your head lol. And what scale are you referring to? Fish scales?

It's not even close...I've played the demo and the term corridor is exactly how the maps are setup. Like what has been said in this thread before the originals aren't some open world game or anything, but compared to the DS3 demo it's a huge difference. It's not just space either...there was more to do in that area as well. I didn't find any dungeons, hidden chambers, ect in the demo at all. I used to love find a level in a ruin in DS2 and seeing a platform take you down into a mini dungeon...fun stuff. Does it open up in the full game? Do they add more of these cool secret areas too? Guess we will have to wait and see though :D

No it isn't. But yeah, I stop arguing and I do not admit that I'm wrong because I'm not. It absolutely is, all the map pictures are taken the same exact way. It's the same exact scale. You are wrong and I have now proven it 3 ways with hard evidence. Keep on digging your hole though...it's pretty funny at this point.

The scale is the same as the first map genius. How about you just admit you were wrong and stop arguing such a clearly dishonest position?

Thers a difference in how a map is built and presented regarding the available space and perception of the user. You posted a map of a corridor. Nothing else in relevance to the actual size or how its structured or what sense of scale it uses. Proof can be looked at very differently from person to person. Zilch. Edit: Actually we went away from the point I originally wanted to make. I give up before I'm just saying things I don't want to. Feel mighty if you want. http://www.deadbuzzard.net/Azunite_Desert_copy.jpg Here's another picture...dots are enemies/characters/ect. Now you have scale too Proof is proof...and you have none, zero, zilch, nada. You are just a fanboy who refuses to be truthful (or is just ignorant). The FACT is the Dungeon Siege demo had very constrained corridor like areas that basically got you from point a to b as fast as possible. The older games, while had their share of linear paths too, also had areas that had a lot of space and multiple interconnected paths. In addition, the older games had a lot of secret areas that weren't just a little alcove off the road, but mini dungeons and other hidden areas. There was none of that in the DS3 demo. Maybe in the full game, but not in the demo.

Thers a difference in how a map is built and presented regarding the available space and perception of the user. You posted a map of a corridor. Nothing else in relevance to the actual size or how its structured or what sense of scale it uses. Proof can be looked at very differently from person to person. Zilch. Edit: Actually we went away from the point I originally wanted to make. I give up before I'm just saying things I don't want to. Feel mighty if you want. http://www.deadbuzzard.net/Azunite_Desert_copy.jpg Here's another picture...dots are enemies/characters/ect. Now you have scale too Proof is proof...and you have none, zero, zilch, nada. You are just a fanboy who refuses to be truthful (or is just ignorant).

No you can't, because I actually posted proof

Well, then we didn't play the same games apparently. Because my experience of said "very first map" was different. I played DS2 and the DS3 demo, not sure what game you were playing. I also posted a picture which conclusively shows what I am talking aboutso your "experience" and what you remember means exactly zilch. "But smaller too and I didn't really notice more (less actually) stuff than in the DS demo. " Really? There were hidden underground side dungeons in the demo? Enemy villages? Elevators down to secret chests? The fact you are even pretending there was MORE stuff in the DS3 demo is f'in ridiculous. Why am I am being a "douche-bag" towards you? It's because I rarely deal with people so intellectually dishonest such as yourself.

1. No, they were not. Actually, what are you even comparing it too? The largest areas in DsI/II? There are several spots in the first two DS games that were even closer together in the demo. Same for your second and thrid point. 2. Unable to say of a demo that CLEARLY closed of areas. No, I am comparing it to the very first map. The difference is even worse if you look at some of the other larger maps (like azunite desert) in DS. Honestly, you are either ignorant or dishonest. I've already provided the proof...discussion is over. The only thing left is whether or not the full game opens up a great deal (not just talking more branching) and if there will also be a nice amount of side dungeons/secret areas/ect.

No, and now you've given away that you don't know how the system even works. You can't just make a omnipotent charachter since the system doesn't allow it. Again, proficencies and how they are handled (with the point limit) play a large part in it. What???