MonkeyLungs

I believe he meant persistent character saves. So you could take your version of Anjali into a friend's game.

If you both only play together it might not be that big of a deal. I really don't get it either though.

Who cares which games have or haven't ... this IS a standard for PC gaming. Failing to allow for user configurable key binding is a BS console design flaw. (I play on Xbox btw) I think not having remappable buttons on console is also completely lame. If I want to change what buttons or keys do what then let me. Cutting corners with your product then asking people for money is not cool no matter who does it.

A fair complaint from gamers who thrive on MP. I love both single player and multiplayer (co-op). My brother won't touch games without competitve multiplayer and he doesn't like pretty much any RPG that I like and feels like none of them is worth paying for. We disagree of course but its a valid critque for a consumer. I don't care how hard it is to implement. These guys have living wage quality jobs and work in air conditioned offices. They should striving for legendary status with each and every game release. These guys are one of the studios featuring some developers who helped design some of greatest gaming experiences ever. I don't take streamlining lightly from these gentlemen/ladies. They chose to build Dungeon Siege 3 and they chose to streamline out some MP features. Now they get to see how those decisions pay off. I have NEVER said that noone will like the game. I personally plan to buy it, at half price though. They cut half the features, it's worth half the price.

Well, that would involve someone I know who owns the game instead of randoms on the internet, now wouldn't it? Might sound a little sad but I don't exactly know anyone else who owns the game. Nope it wouldn't. Having a persistent save of your own character doesn't have to involve anyone else at all. It just means you would have a save of your version of Lucas to play in single player, or multiplayer if you CHOOSE. Also a persistent character save makes it easier to play with randoms and meet new friends to play the game with because you have your own version of Anjali and if you don't like the group you are with you can leave and find another group until you meet some cool new mates to games with (it's really not that hard I promise, a lot of gamers are actually *gasp* really cool and I've met some great folks on Xbox Live). our own version of the character would let you host or join a game and never lose progress on your character.

Doesn't change that the other issues malkere pointed out are true. Whether or not those issues hold weight with you is a different matter, but for him they take away from the experience.

It is NOT basically the same thing. Lack of persistent character save means everything is tied to the host save file. Yes people can enjoy the game together (if they can handle the whack co-op camera). However, if for any reason, you can't continue with your same group then you have to either make a new character of your own and ONLY host or you have to level up a character on someone elses save. Lack of persistent save for your version of the character, tethered together smother session online camera, very slim feature list. These are major problems for the game and I personally wouldn't ignore them even if I loved the game.

You don't like newgame+ in ARPG's like DS3 and ME. Got it. I 100% disagree that combat is Diablo 2 is somehow less deep than DS3. DS3 plays more like some streets of rage type game than Diablo but that doesn't give the combat more depth. More of a fighting game feel maybe. I think they could compete just fine with the right game, mechanics, and feature list. Whether the will to compete is there is up to Obsidian. I don't think they should make streamlined ARPG either though. I think they should just make old school style rpg's with cheaper budgets and deeper more complex gameplay and really in depth stories and actually conquer a segment of games that are highly underrepresented instead of trying to make the new **** streamlined experience for NewFans.

Thanks for the review. I like to read gamer reviews ... even when I don't agree with them. Seems like the single player experience is quite solid, that's cool. Too Human is more awesome than this game though. Sacred 2 controls, while I guess kind of similar, are lightyears ahead of this game. Also sacred 2 has a good camera, and every player gets their own camera online. The fact that you can go anywhere in Sacred 2 does NOT promote chaos. It allows for freedom. There is only chaos in your MP game if that's how people want to play. If people are working together, then they are working together. It also means one character can head to a town and afk for a couple minutes if they need to and the other players can keep playing without kicking them out of the game. To be honest I'd rate the game 60 right off the bat just for having gimped MP. It doesn't mean I wouldn't have fun with the single player but it deserves severe reductions for gimped MP and limited feature list alone. People review games way to highly anyway. Too Human is one of my favorite ARPG's and I'd score it 65 - 70 for instance. It had a lot of negatives but I still love the game. I'd give sacred 2 an 80 and that is hands down my favorite ARPG.

Having a more feature rich multiplayer wouldn't detract from you having fun playing this game with your friend. It wouldn't stop you from playing start to finish. It wouldn't force you to play with randoms. It wouldn't mean people would be able to jump into your game uninvited and ruin your fun. It wouldn't stop you and your friend from staying at the same level and always playing youre chosen co-op characters together. It wouldn't force you to powerlevel or twink your characters. It would simply increase the ways the game could be enjoyed. I can get the EXACT experience you describe in any multiplayer (non MMO) ARPG. One of my brothers lives in England .. we don't game together that much but when we do we have been playing Borderlands. Each of us has a character that we use only for co-op together. We only play those characters together. The fact that Borderlands has all the ****ing online options this games does not have does NOT stop us from having a co-op experience tailored exactly to our characters, to the levels we gain together, to the loot we gain together, etc etc etc. So I think Obsidian's co-op decision is compete and utter amatuer design. The reasons they give you for this MP set up are PR speak, they will not and can not tell the truth about why it was designed this way publicly because they would have to admit that they cut corners to rush to market and cut costs and to give them a stronger chance of releasing a stable product.

If the story and character progression is good enough I'm the kind of player that would play each character. I've already given up on MP but I like single player games tons.

I do believe there is a level limit much lower than that of Diablo but with the way this game goes I can agree with the direction Obsidian chose. While you want multiplayer you don't want someone dragging in their level 30 friend to complete the campaign for them while they are "just taken along for the ride". Instead you can scale things to the "intended" level area. What I dislike is that your using that players build; which could be a mixture of different playstyles making up to make one shoddy character. Oh man that would be really tragic ...maybe if someone had invented hosting options for multiplayer, something, some kind of option list for setting up a game room that would allow the host to determine the level ranges acceptable in the game they want to host. I wonder why no games have ever thought of this before?

You wouldn't rather have a persistent save of your version of Reinhart or Lucas, Katarina, or Anjali to take with you to other friends games and play through the story with them and maybe find some different weapons or armor?

Notice here where you compare DS3 to a 'hybrid game like Mass Effect'. ME's New Game + is trash. You replay the entire game for an achievement, a fraction of your levels for scaling, and no new items or designed difficulty mode. I was just pointing out that the very exact game you compared DS3 to actually has a new game + feature. You argued that this very specific type of gameplay doesn't lend itself to newgame+. Do you have a point or are you just bouncing around making contrary statements to anyone that criticises your beloved little DS3? I think Mass Effect could have added some greater incentive to improve Newgame but that doesn't mean that Dungeon Siege 3 shouldn't even attempt it. It also doesn't mean that Action RPG's (the gnere both Mass Effects and Dungeon Siege belong to) shouldn't have newgame+ modes. One further point: ACTION RPG'S BY THEIR VERY NATURE ARE HYBRIDS HENCE THE NAME OF THE GENRE. ACTION+RPG.

Oddly enough ... Mass Effect supports Newgame+ and has all kinds of incentives for such.

The whole idea that games can only innovate or move forward with BEDDUR GRAFIX is really sad. What games need to do is innovate in areas such as: 1. Story reactivity 2. Branching narrative 3. Feature lists and gameplay options (WHY DO NEW GAMES HAVE LESS GAMEPLAY THAN OLD ONES?) 4. Enemy AI Graphics and peoples obsession with SHINY SHINY SHINY is more harmful to games than consoles. FFS there are PSP games with way more gameplay options, feature lists, AND in depth MP than DS3.

Yes the MP is super gimped. Obsidian chose to strip away features from the game to increase their chances for relatively stable release. A bunch of parrott NewFans will chime in and say "IT WASN'T THE FOCUS OF THE GAME" but they just like to regurgitate PR Speak.

Well of course, you can't play something with abysmal graphics like Planescape Torment and other games he listed. I tried but just couldn't. Your brain is just too accustomed to higher standards. His ranking list is pretty silly and irrelevant in that regard. Maybe for you. Personally I can play old games just fine. Many of the environments in the old games still hold up well today. The art direction in these old gems is also far superios to much of the new games. You make absolutely no sense. The guys list is well thought out, I wouldn't keep the same order but I can get a sense of his tastes from that list. Gameplay > Graphics

Did you miss Bioware's latest release Alpha? Bioware got a much differernt reception than they expected. Fans were really let down. I'm not sure if I will even buy DA3, won't touch TOR with someone else's 10 foot pole, and I am sincerely worried about Mass Effect 3. Times are tough so people are pumping out simpler titles with shorter dev cycles, I understand. I'm still going to criticise the direction of games and I won't pay full price for half quality products. I want FEATURE RICH games. I hate streamlining. If I have to I'll just go back to PC gaming and just only play old games.

I don't disagree with the guy just to be contrary, and I doubt many other do either, but feel free to throw out whatever straw men you like. The fact is I have different taste and different opinions on what makes a game good. I also have different opinions on rating games and games get automatic subtractions for lack of features I consider crucial. I also hate streamlining with a passion and can't stand the current trend in videogames. I agree with what I agree with and I disagree with what I disagree with based on my own opinions not just to be contrary. Jim Sterling likes dumbed down games. Games industry likes dumbed down games and ad dollar$.

Nobody is exaggerating anything. The online aspect is important and it's gimped. It might not make the game bad overall but it certainly detracts from it and for those who wanted to play pure co-op it is a game killer.

Square Enix is the publisher. DLC will depend on sales I'm guessing.

OP, Are you going to play again as other characters or have you exhausted the fun of this "very well made game?" Is the story and the C&C good enough to make you want to play again to see the differences?

His conclusion sucks. He tells you what you can or can't demand. I have news for him: asking for features present in the previous games in the same f***ing series, or asking for features from the best of genre is NOT unreasonable. I can and do and will ask for more than just "this was a fun little game." They are asking full price. I expect a full feature list. This is before I get into subjective of what is done well or done badly. Just a comprehensive feature list that includes the options and gameplay features that I find to be required for a title to be worth full price. You can't sell swag for high grade price and expect discerning customers to be quiet about it.

Too Human did the whole revamp the resources thing already. Health orbs drop from enemies, combo meter for specials builds by being good at combat. Really good players can build their combo meter super fast by using alot of variety in their attacks and taking no damage. Bad payers get less combo meter.