Renevent

Well I'm primarily a PC gamer so my opinion of concessions like that due to console limitation isn't positive to begin with. BUT... I don't think that's the case here. The graphics aren't that amazing and I've played plenty of games on the consoles with open levels (or at least much more so that DS3). My personal opinion is this is a design choice intended to keep the player on the right track and push the story forward. This kind of philosophy seems everywhere in the game...they don't want the player making mistakes, getting lost, ect...it's a different kind of game. No, not really. Those areas are actually pretty open (scale is key to looking at the map). Whole villages, ruins, large fields, farms, ect are in there. Plus like I said earlier the hidden stuff wasn't just a singe chest 20 feet from the road...it was elevators down into a small dungeon...you could go inside most houses...there was many interconnecting paths...ect. It's not open world, but it certainly isn't a corridor like what the DS3 demo shows. Whether or not the full game opens up more is something yet to be seen, but as it stands the complaint is valid. Its a corridor. And not more open. At all. Also there is still entire villages (as shown in the demo) you can still go into houses (also shown in preview material) and so on. I've also played through this map just to say. If you believe it or not. The areas were wider and had more space. Fact. There were more branching routes and interconnecting areas. Fact. The hidden areas actually opened up into mini dungeons and some actually had exits in entirely new areas...not just a treasure chest 20 feet from the road. Now, maybe the full game opens up but as it stands no, DS3 (the demo) is not as open as the original games.

It's not that the original was some amazingly complex game, but that the new one is even further dumbed down that the originals. Get it? And I'm saying that despite the "omg so many skillz0rs!" argument about the older games, DS3 still looks like it involves the player far more. Get it? Having plenty of skills is all fine and well (and like I said, I tend to prefer that approach myself) but it means absolutely jack if the core experience is dumbed down. From what I've seen, DS3 looks to be a far better designed game in that it actually involves the player far more. Again, it's true that it provides a slightly different experience (which is a fair point) but I would certainly not call it dumbed down if it manages to keep a decent challenge. It's not just that they had more, but they also had a more open system too...allowing more variation. DS3 is a very confined and linear system. Whether or not you enjoy the more action orientated controls is a different matter all together.

I didn't know you were an aspiring game designer. must be cool to be able to tell exactly how a skill system works by just looking at it. I'm really sorry to have wasted your time, mister professional Are you honestly saying you can't look at the skill system and understand how it works? It's a very simple system with linear progression...not like a D&D game that has many options and lots of mixing and hybridization.

Well I did sit down and play the game...and well...it wasn't that fun. Then, I know this is going to sound crazy, I talked about the things that killed the fun of the game. Seriously though, I do still plan on giving the game a chance...going to give the another go with a fresh perspective. Maybe if I pretend this game has nothing to do with Dungeon Siege it will be better lol.

It's not that the original was some amazingly complex game, but that the new one is even further dumbed down that the originals. Get it?

I think you are correct in that in will be basically branching corridors rather than open areas. You kinda see a little of that in the demo...there are a few places that you can't go in the demo which seem to branch off a bit.

ToEE...now there's a great game...at least we can agree on something.

No, disagree completly. DS as mentioned had no depth. Depth does NOT equate to a large amount of things to put points in or a large amount of abilites. Its how complex something is actually handled and executed that gives it depth. Just saying something doesn't make it true. You see, I listed the things in the originals that made it more complex and open ended. It's quantifiable dude. I don't believe you really played the originals. I did. And all the difference you listed.... Didn't make really any at all. It was still shallow and no you couldn't do very interesting charachters with it. It was horribly broken to begin with, it didn't influence combat etc. You did not...all you have done is simply disregarding the factual information and said "more doesn't equal better". It wasn't broken for me, though based on your responses I'd imagine it was too complicated for you. You are right, the new leveling system is much better for someone like you

Boy you are dense as they come. First of all, I have voiced my complaints in great detail...try going back and actually reading my posts for a change. Now, to the skill screen comment, my referencing the screen wasn't to point out how pretty it was, but to show that we already can see the entire skill system and that it's not going to change magically to something else when the game releases. I thought that was pretty obvious...

No, not really. Those areas are actually pretty open (scale is key to looking at the map). Whole villages, ruins, large fields, farms, ect are in there. Plus like I said earlier the hidden stuff wasn't just a singe chest 20 feet from the road...it was elevators down into a small dungeon...you could go inside most houses...there was many interconnecting paths...ect. It's not open world, but it certainly isn't a corridor like what the DS3 demo shows. Whether or not the full game opens up more is something yet to be seen, but as it stands the complaint is valid.

Or maybe you didn't play the originals (at least enough to really understand what was going on)? Let's take DS2... Here are all the spells: http://ds.heavengames.com/library/ds2/spel...tml?type=Nature http://ds.heavengames.com/library/ds2/spel...tml?type=Combat Here is what the skill layout looked like: http://ds.heavengames.com/ds2/skills.html (can't really see but EVERY character had access to 4 different skill trees) Then, based on what skills you chose (and their respective levels) you also gain access to powers that are basically devastating special attacks. You start out a blank slate and and you can choose multiple paths, mix and max, and come up with some really interesting characters. That's the real key...in DS3 you are stuffed into a single character 'type' and then can make some basic choices in how to progress in that character. It's very confined compared to the originals...though...not so bad for a console game.

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 said nothing about the screen being prettier nor was that the basis of my complaint.

I'm not sure...I can't imagine that's totally true. I noticed some of the swords I found had extra effects (glowing, ect) but the base of it looked similar. Armor...pretty sure everything I found was basically the same base model with different stat effects. But it's very early in the game so I'm guessing different item models do show up and reflect on your character. If not, this would be a mistake on Obsidian's part of epic proportions, I mean so huge I really can't imagine they would make it.

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 Tell me, what is going to change in the full game? Is the leveling screen(s) just placeholders? Are you privy to some information everyone else is not?

No, disagree completly. DS as mentioned had no depth. Depth does NOT equate to a large amount of things to put points in or a large amount of abilites. Its how complex something is actually handled and executed that gives it depth. Just saying something doesn't make it true. You see, I listed the things in the originals that made it more complex and open ended. It's quantifiable dude. I don't believe you really played the originals.

Seriously? When in the world had DS open maps? It was a corridor game from the beginning. You mean that everything was on one map? Yeah, thats also the case here. DS was NEVER EVER open world. I would never consider DS as a "open world game"...but compared to DS III...I understand what people are complaining about. The game is almost claustrophobic in how restrictive the paths are...it's nothing but corridors for the most part. For reference, here is a map from DS2: http://www.gamebanshee.com/dungeonsiegeii/...eilynjungle.php There was WAY more room to explore, lots of hidden stuff, and it felt much more organic. The hidden stuff wasn't a treasure chest 20 feet from the main corridor (like in DS3) but rather elevators down into small dungeons, trap doors, ect. Maybe DS3 does open up in the full game, but based on my demo experience it's nowhere near as open as the previous games.

Whatever you need to tell yourself. And it's not just "less"...like a few less skills/spells or something. It's totally restrictive and linear compared to the other games in the series. Less levels, less skills, less spells, less open class design, no hybridization...the list goes on. Obsidian consolized the game and made it's leveling system less complex.

Serious answer though. I'm a mostly hardcore RPG gamer. I like complexity, deep systems and a deep narrative about games. However quantity of features =/= quality or complexity. Also the reason I (and many others) like/love Obsidian is because they make things more complex. Me too...problem is DSIII appears to be even less complex than the originals...and it's not like those were extremely complex games to begin with. No, I'm saying now something. DSIII has much more depth regarding leveling than DS or most RPGs. The large difference between the abilities, the Talents and ESPECIALLY the profifencies assure that. You are out of your mind. There are far less options, its far more restricted, there are less levels, less skills/spells, less character hybrids (ie none in DS3). Then it had multiple skill trees (for EVERY character) you could specialize or hybridize into as well. The leveling in DS3 is very one dimensional and very console orientated. You really cannot have played the previous games to even begin to think that...

It doesn't matter, because it wasn't part of the discussion (what is and isn't a RPG)...you only brought that in because you didn't understand what I was talking about (or simply like to argue irrelevant points). The reality is DS III is less complex than DS I & II anyways...so even if we did want to have that discussion it would be pointless for you. DSIII comparatively is linear, less open ended in it's mechanics, has shallow leveling system...basically been consolised. The one aspect DSIII seems to have more depth is story/dialog but even then I am not sure how much it actually adds to the game. From my demo experience it's certainly not hard core RPG quality (like fallout or something). Dungeon Siege wasn't really about this stuff anyways so for me personally this isn't a good improvement (I played DS for the leveling, loot, open-ish multiplayer, ect).

LOL WUT? I am getting the impression that me and you aren't really having an debate here, but rather you are instead arguing with yourself (or with a made up version of my arguments that only exist in your brain).

Serious answer though. I'm a mostly hardcore RPG gamer. I like complexity, deep systems and a deep narrative about games. However quantity of features =/= quality or complexity. Also the reason I (and many others) like/love Obsidian is because they make things more complex. Me too...problem is DSIII appears to be even less complex than the originals...and it's not like those were extremely complex games to begin with.

so you already played through the whole game? Do you believe the game somehow turns into a completely different game when you buy the full game? You think the leveling screen(s) are just place holders for a much more open and robust leveling system? No, most of my complaints will absolutely be in the full game too. Certain things, though, like maybe the loot system gets better or perhaps the world opens up slightly could also improve...though I doubt it.

And naturally yours is superior. Yes, context is important here. Also no DS had no depth in its rpg mechanics. The combat was utterly not challenging and way too breakable. And that is for the mechanics alone. Dungeon Siege's rpg mechanics were world class compared to DSIII. You had more choices and it was way more open ended. To even suggest otherwise is just displaying ignorance. Also the item system in the originals seemed better, though maybe the demo didn't have enough into the game to really make a determination. With that said none of the Dungeon Siege were masterpieces or anything and other games had deeper systems...but DSIII obviously has streamlined (euphemism for dumb down) systems and much less depth. Oh, and I never said 'mine were superior' or anything like that...you are just talking about different things than I am. You are and the other person are using arguments that have absolutely nothing to do with what my complaints are about. Again, I wasn't talking about hardcore rpg's, defining the rpg genre, or anything remotely similar to that.

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 even make sense...call it whatever you want. And guess what, DSIII qualifies even less as an RPG under the criteria you use. You think adding a pointless dialog wheel while making the rest of the game utterly linear and simplified makes it more of a RPG? Wrong. Yeah that's what I said right? Can you read and comprehend what other people say prior to responding?

Same to you. There is a reason Dungeon Siege has a dubious reputation under hardcore rpg players. It's not a hardcore RPG...so again what does that have to do with anything? Both of you are missing my points by a million miles. Further more, Dungeon Siege III isn't a hardcore RPG either...even less so the than previous two IMO. Maybe has more story depth (yet to be seen) but certainly not on a mechanical level. Never said that. But you ARE talking about which has more/better rpg mechanics. You are putting a different spin on the rpg mechanics that I am referring to. Not talking about 'hardcore rpg' mechanics in the same sense that you are. So please understand the context prior to responding.