MonkeyLungs

It's great that you came. You almost made it too late but luckily just in time as well. They need all the brave defenders they can get, stand your ground young soldier!

if they werent going to do it right it shouldnt have been added at all..any developer with half a brain knows in this type of game thats what drives the co-op..its pretty much pointless now..theres a huge amount of potential customers now that are going to pass on this game for that simple reason..i know for a fact my friends are not buying it..i hope when its all said and done obsidian has to explain it was this decision that cost so many sales of the game to square.. You sir have serious entitlement issues. It's not your thing, ok, it's not about doing it "right" or not, it's simply not the genre for it. It's like complaining that Portal doesn't have guns that actually shoot bullets, it's not the same genre and for good reason. Diablo 3 was already going to do it, and would do it better thanks to higher budget and staff that are more experienced in these kinds of things. And it's incredibly arrogant to talk about loss of sales, for every sale they lose off people who want multiplayer lootem grindfests they can just as easily gain a sale for people who want a fun qstorybased arpg to play with some friends. ShadowScythe, You really have no idea what you are talking about. The TRUTH WILL OUT when this game releases. You can have great story based co-op AND free roam co-op AND PVP AND Item trading all in the same package. Technical difficulties, time, budget, and a lack of desire to make a legendary title are what held back the multiplayer. You can believe all the PR speak you want but I know game developers are not allowed to speak honestly with the public. The story and a solid single player experience can make this game be fun but NOTHING will change the fact that the multiplayer is gimped.

Didn't champions of Norath and Champions: Return to Arms have 4 player Co-op? Those were last gen games. You also had to have some peripheral to allow for 4 player. It was like a PS2 link or something. Return to Arms was awesome.

The save file is tied to story as are the characters for that file. You cannot have YOUR character. It is just the character you choose to start with and then whomever joins you may pick one of the three other characters. The items you find during this playthrough are saved just like any other game but they are a part of the save file for that game.

I will have to play a maxed out character to make a real comment on the character system. If the skills are well balanced and there are actually different types of builds it should be alright.

Alpha Protocol is awesome bugs and all ... just sayin. If the story for Dungeon Siege turns out even half as good as AP it will be a fun game (with gimped multiplayer ... sorry I couldn't resist).

I think for Obsidian they know damn well this wasn't the best way to set this up but they had to choose the cheapest easiest method for getting the game running. There are like 4 people who post here plus the moderators who ardently defend this decision but they all say the same thing and basically want us to believe that the focus on story is enough of a reason to gimp MP like this. They probably just couldn't figure out how to code the MP properly so we got this neutered version. You people do realise that being able to have a PERSISTENT SAVE OF A YOUR VERSION OF A CHARACTER wouldn't break the story in co-op? They would have to account for level difference somehow but the host could choose what levels to allow in their game and problems solved for everyone. But then we start getting into ADDING gameplay optuions and EXPANDING multiplayer and these days its all about shortchanging gamers and STREAMLINING.

on a stable OS it doesn't exist It exists also on consoles. The bug exists regardless of platform because the BUG IS IN THE F'ING GAME CODE NOT THE OS.

This is one of the most underrated games this generation. Hell yes I'd love a sequel. Further the game should have been greenlighted with a sequel right off the bat even if the first didn't meet expectations. With a full sweep of refinement to core gameplay and enhanced familiarity with the game engine the sequel would have been a comeback king. This one is right up there with Too Human and Phantom Dust in my list of games that gamers just slept on and for some reason just didn't see the same way I did.

The S storm on this hasn't even begun. Multiplayer is so gimped I think this game would have been much better off if it would have been cut from the game allowing the devs to focus entirely on making a great single player experience.

It's a pox on gaming and its hurting quality. Release now fix later, lets hype our stuff up and pay some reviewers and get some pre-order sales and worry about all the bugs and lackluster gameplay later .... Pre-order only helps publishers and developers while hurting gamers. Pre-ordering is right up there with streamlining on my list of crap that's not good for gaming. Remember though guys ... These are just like, my opinions man. ::dude::

and it's present in DSIII. you don't like the implementation, that's fine. nobody's forcing you. it's just your general tone. shared camera? oh my god, this is truly a disaster. no PvP? even worse. multiplayer sucks! do you think Obsidian will be making DS4, and hope that they will listen to you then? or do you think your feedback will magically be implemented into a completed game? this whole business reminds me of NWN so much, it makes me sick Drop in drop out MP is gimped and after the retail release you guys will SEE and HEAR the reaction from gamers. It won't be good. Shared camera is a disaster and it will negatively impact reception to the game. Game fans are getting wise to the review industry as well. Word of mouth is a strong force in gaming and is becoming stronger. DA2 devs paid off reviewers all over the internet and it didn't help them, it was their worst selling release to date.

Reserving a copy is your incentive? The retail shops create those PERCEIVED shortages because they suck at inventory management and probably do very little homework on the games they stock. The video games aren't going to 'run out' dude.

Controller Feedback for the Xbox 360 controller is not used very well. Better use of the rumble effects ie controller feedback would be appreciated.

F 3D. I hate 3D's intruasion into gaming. It's just another useless graphical sideshow for developers to take in while neglecting to actually innovate in important areas like: complexity, content, AI, gameplay systems, world building, QA, etc.

I'll wait for a price drop. Also pre-ordering games needs to stop. At least until developers add real incentive to pre-order (and I don't mean reatrdo land free in game items). Right now it's a really bad trade. If you wait a few months to buy DS3 you will get a patched up version for less than half the original price. Why pre-order? Pre-order is a developer/publisher scam that does not improve quality for gamers.

I wonder what they said about DA2 Choosing a pre-determined character (aka Hawke) -even though you could customize her/him- was heavily criticised by fans of Origins, myself included.

Reboots suck. Refinement is what gamers want in sequels. Reboots like the DA2 reboot suck hard. This is an even more brutal reboot. At this point the game needs the story to save it but we shall see. Everyone always says "the demo doesn't show the full game so you can't judge it". BS. The full game is always slightly better than the demo but the demo offers plenty of opportunity to figure out if you will enjoy something. People said the same rubbish about the DA2 demo but I was able to gain a strong enough opinion to know that I would have been p'd off if I would have paid full price for DA2. So I waited until I could get it for 30 bucks. DS3 is going to have a hard time convincing large numbers of gamers to pay full price. Original Dungeon Siege fans who don't do their homework are going to be really disapointed. People hoping for a solid MP ARPG experience are going to be disapointed.

Well Wombat I am pointing out what I feel is "wrong with the design decisions" of DSIII. I am comfortable pointing out flaws I perceive in the design. I don't care what their 'scope' is. I don't care what their budget was, or their timeframe vfor completion. I don't care about publisher/developer relations. i just care aboutt he game and what kind of options/features it has. This title is missing some essential features. AND @ sorophyx: YOU don't get it. Your description of what Obsidian expects from the player for the multiplayer experience doersn't NEED to be the only option for MP. It would be better if their current MP model was simply ONE option out of several. Not sure what point you are trying to make with your 'basement nerds' statement though. Drop in/drop out co-op and gaming outside of your normal circle of 'friends' is a big feature for many online games and a big selling point for Xbox Live and PSN. You can make new friends that way too.

(1) There are plenty of games who are successful without any multiplayer component, I don't understand why DS3 needs to have it to be successful. (2) Slam Dunk projects use existing technology and focus on adding content without changing the gameplay too much. Think Fallout 2, Knights of the Old Republic 2 and New Vegas. DS3 does neither of those, it's not a Slam Dunk. You should quiet down, too. Some of the bashers are really annoying, but you're not doing us a favor here! It certainly doesn't need several multiplayer modes to be successful but it wouldn't hurt. The way multiplayer works in this game IS going to frustrate many gamers, both reviewers and players. People can keep ignoring this all they want but the truth will out. The story might be really impressive and make it all worthwhile though. I guess we'll find out. Slam dunk or not they are taking the 'safe' route as far as design is concerned. One single player storyline, four heroes with pre-determined looks/backstories, restrictive corridor-like map design, and one multiplayer mode playable in couch co-op or online.

We'll see soon enough if their decision was a good one. Is couch co-op and focus on story based co-op play with no persistent character and only one multiplayer mode enough to counter balance the lack of a robust multiplayer component? It's obvious to me that the real deal here is money and development time. Within the budget and timeframe they had, the team decided that streamlined multiplayer option with a focus on the characters and dialogue would be their best bet for delivering the most stable product. This is just supposed to be a little 'slam dunk' project. A cost+ job with probably some bonuses for milestones and sales numbers. They can probably get by on sales of around 1,000,000 copies across all platforms. I like Obsidian so I hope this goes well and they gain a favorable faction bonus with Square because I don't think the Sega stuff went down so well. This game just isn't even trying to be legendary as it seems very happy with taking a mediocre approach to game design. That's what disappoints me.

Having a robust multiplayer with several options for modes of play ie: Free Roam, Free Roam PvP, Story Mode with difficulty levels and continued gameplay across difficulty levels is not mutually exclusive to having a story mode with strong co-op. They are just separate modes of play. Making an action rpg with robust multiplayer does NOT mean you are making Diablo. Is every modern FPS making Goldeneye or Doom or Castle Wolfenstein? Diablo spawned a sub-genre that now has its own standards and many games within the sub genre.

I would have liked to see more of a sense of urgency from the characters in the demo. Stuff is kind of going to hell for these last remnants of the legion and there must be some treachery happening and stuff is burning and people are dead etc etc. ...

What can change the focus of a game?

Yeah that kind of stuff.