MonkeyLungs

I've only played the demo but for me the main points I am looking for now that I know what to expect: 1. Hopefully less-corridory maps (this seems to be confirmed). 2. Loot. I'm not even going to try and judge this on the demo ... 3. Dungeons. I'm hoping for some big dungeons with lots of interactivity. 4. Story. Hopefully some cool twists and C&C that help replay value. 5. Can't really test out the character system unless I can max a character. Unfortunately I think I am going to have to wait for the price to go down. If you guys at Obsidian care why, here's why: For full price the game needs to be fully featured. I compare 3rd Person Action RPG's to Sacred 2. In that title there is: --Single player, story + free modes with 5 difficulty levels that support New Game+ up to the final difficulty level. That's Bronze, Silver, Gold, Platinum, Niob difficulty levels for Single Player Story Mode and Free Mode. --There is also Multiplayer with Story + Free Mode and 5 difficulty levels. --There is also Multiplayer PvP which is basically just Multiplayer Free Mode with PvP also 5 difficulty levels. ***Through all of these different gameplay modes you can take your character, level up, collect loot, and improve your character. ***These are pre-set characters with their own backstory. Each character has a unique class quest that spans the entirety of a single player adventure. Each character begins the campaign from their own perspective of the story. --There is a Light and a Dark campaign. --Four of the six characters can choose to complete either the Light or Dark campaign. --Two of the characters have their alignments tied to their respective story. --There are over 600 quests, some are really basic and some are very involved. --A massive overland seamless map sits on top of hundreds upon hundreds of dungeons that run beneth the world. The world is hand crafted and more massive than most gamers will ever fully explore (even those that love the game). *****4 Player Co-op ***2 Players playing couch co-op can go online together from the same Xbox*** *****Characters -that are not playing on the same Xbox- are not tethered to each other in any way. You can be on the other side of the gameworld from your companions if you want. ****!!**Every character has a unique mount! Your combat talents and normal attacks work while riding your unique mount. The game also features Horses for travel before you have quested for your mount.**!!**** --- TLDR version: A full price game needs to stack up to the best in the genre for Xbox 360 for my money. I hope you guys sell a bunch of full priced copies so you make that money. I'll be waiting for that $20 - 30 price window.

GTA IV and Red dead look really good. Also as far as maps go ... Sacred 2 says hi. Compared to the PC version, GTAIV looks horrible. Ditto for Risen. Red Dead Redemption doesn't have a PC version, so there isn't a point of comparison. Sacred 2 doesn't sport particularly demanding graphics. They are better than DS3 graphics on Xbox 360 at least. I've been playing both this morning.

And we are supposed to be sympathetic or constantly encourage higher quality?

GTA IV and Red dead look really good. Also as far as maps go ... Sacred 2 says hi.

The amount of work that "Michelle Thorton" would have required pretty much made sure there was only Michael in the game. Properly that is from the narrative perspective. You can always do it the BioWare way and have every romancable npc in the game to be "playersexual" instead of reacting properly to the character the player is actually playing. Not to mention it would have required lots and lots of more different reactions from all npcs you meet in the game as relationship between let's say Michelle and Heck/Madeleine would have been way different than the ones those charachters have with Michael. Yeah it would have been almost double the work. It would have been awesome though.

Who cares what other games have done, lack of options in other games doesn't excuse the continued trend? Also there are plenty games that have semi defined characters that can be either male or female. And Lucas could be named something different and be the surviving daughter of the grand master. I'm sure the story doesn't hinge upon Lucas' ****. Edit: Why do you guys edit the word p.e.n.i.s?

Without making any specific comment on the levelling system (i want to build some full characters first) i want to say that in general i favor more complexity in the character systems in these games than most games deliver. Sacred 2 had an intense levelling system that really rewarded careful planning. You could also completely ruin your character and not fully realize it until you hit Niob (the highest difficulty level). If any of you haven't played sacred 2 and like this genre then I urge you to go and play the game, you can ride a giant spider and crush people with your telekentic powers.

I'm going to hold off on assessing the levelling system until I've built some full characters ... only fair I think.

Alpha Protocol should have allowed you to play a female agent. One of its larger offenses in my opinion. Same goes here. I'm sorry but I would prefer male and female for each character type/class. So they have to have double the amount of the characters? Tough ****. This should be standard. This is one of Sacred 2's biggest problems as well.

Forsooth! Verily I actually would prefer text with fallout (1,2) style talking heads for important conversations and voice overs for the villains monologues and such.

I got a couple reskins for armor models. The developers have said they have plenty of loot in the full game. Maby low level loot table doesn't have as much variety?

I think roguelikes are rpg's. I also think rpg has many sub-genre within its own ranks. I never win the 'what makes an rpg argument' even though i've been playing them since before they were on computers. People don't want to agree on what an rpg is for some reason.

The demo maps are quite small. Burning peope is pretty nifty though (in the game).

Just to not be such a negative nancy. The dungeons and enemy variety and quest C&C and loot could turn this into a fun single player title. The character level up system seemed quite cool.

Torchlight is not a 60 dollar SKU ...

Obsidian makes some really awesome games. There are some legendary developers at that studio that worked on games near and dear to many many rpg super nerds. That said I'm quite stunned at some of the design choices for DS3. My quick thoughts from the demo: 1. Pretty cool menu design in terms of artwork but where is the paper doll for the equipment screen? Would have been nice to have one to see armor changes on the character right there in the inventory. 2. Corridor maps? Really guys? 3. I'm on the fence with combat. I didn't play enough to get a real sense for it. 4. Multiplayer: The design philosophy surrounding MP in DS3 is appalling to me. I think the game should have had couch co-op only and no online multiplayer. 5. I wish the protagonist didn't have a voice actor for dialogue. Maybe just for making comments while walking about etc. I don't really need to hear my character talk. I realize this is the way of the new s*** though. 6. Graphics = mediocre and environments seem to be corridor maps. Graphics not such a big deal to me, for me gameplay > graphics. However, world design is intrinsicly tied to gameplay so corridor maps are a downer. This won't matter if the dungeons are Pro. Lots of things I can't comment on because I have no knowledge of the full game, just the demo. My verdict on this title is going to rest on a few key elements: 1. The dungeons. I hope they are great with puzzles, traps, secret rooms/pathways, tricks, non combat elements, interactivity. 2. Enemy variety. Hopefully they have some cool enemies and bosses. 3. Loot. The demo is not long enough to accurately judge but I'm getting a bad feeling. 4. C&C. If there are some interesting branching pathways this will be a great plus. Other stuff: --- I wish Obsidian would have got to make Alpha Protocol 2 instead of this game. --- Corridor maps guys wtf? --- Sacred 2 is still the champ by a few million lightyears. --- Don't f*** up Icewind Dale 3. --- Brayko has a killer soundsystem.

Hey sorophyx: Dreamcast had online gameplay. PSO anyone??? Way ahead of its time. Um it also had a web browser which my Xbox 360 doesn't even have.

Sacred 2 says HI. sorry about having quoted you, this isn't directed at you, but at every DS fan out there. this seems to be a common misconception. 1) the original Dungeon Siege was a mediocre game, that appealed to those gamers, that tend to play anything that "lasts" (and for all the wrong reasons), no matter how bad it is. fact 2) Dungeon Siege 2 was a piece of trash that only got picked up by said gamers. fact 3) Obsidian tries to save the franchise (not their original intention of course, they're trying to exploit your weaknesses), and you start to go on about how they're ruining a "great concept". pah-lease there was no core gameplay. Diablo 2 had core gameplay. neither of DS did. and coming here saying that the ability to play over the Net is more important than story and proper implementation of RPG mechanics - just makes you people look like fools, seriously. haven't played the demo, and I don't need to in order to see flaws in your argumentation. at least think a little before posting, sheesh. Well you quoted me so I am just going to state very clearly. I did not mention dungeon siege 1 or 2 in my posts. The great concept they are ruining is the concept of robust, highly varied multiplayer in an action rpg with players allowed to have persistent saves of THEIR character so they play drop in drop out co-op with THEIR character with rasndom people OR friends over PSN, Xbox Live or using their PC. It doesnb't have to become any more complicatecd than that.

I was thinking the dialogue would be better. It weas just the demo but I wasn't overly impressed. I really wish they would have only done limited voice overs for really important events and that the protagonists had no voices. Voice acting is one of the key elements in the new s*** game design paradigm that is detracting from actual gameplay. Time and money MUCH better spent elsewhere. I would prefer more environments, deeper gameplay, more lore and greater variety and depth to the dialogue brought to us via text. Baldur's Gate 2, Fallout 1 and 2 had as much voice acting as we ever need in a videogame.

Let me be clear here: DS3 is probably going to be a really fun single player experience. I hope we see some signature Obsidian Dialogue and C&C. However if this stuff is the focus then I wonder why they didn't just make the game Single Player with couch co-op only. Having all the advancement for characters tied to the Host's save is just poor design. Tethering the characters together so they are forced to remain in relatively the same gameplay area is poor design that has been derided by the gaming community and critics for other games and this game. This will hurt sales. I want Obsidian to make a big pile of money so they can make a really amazing Icewind Dale 3. I don't want reviewers and gamers to slaughter their newest game like they did with Alpha Protocol which happens to be the most underrated game released in recent times. Of course they made their bed with the MP design already. Oh well here's hoping they get it right in Icewind Dale 3.

Obsidian is one of the last of big budget studios making RPG's. They create some amazing dialogue and C&C in their games. They have made some of my favorites and many of their members come from studios that long ago in the forgotten times made RPG's of legend. The multiplayer for DS3 is a cheap cop out. Maybe they are saving their real MP approach for Icewind Dale 3? More options in and of itself does not mean better. I wasn't advocating for crap options. More good options is always better. More good gameplay is always better. And multiplayer that allows for a varied approach on the multiplayer gameplay is better. 1. MP the way we have it now. Story focussed with the host controlling saves. Peiople who don't like the other modes can play this mode until you get bored and trade the game in. 2. Story mode where players can bring THEIR version of the character with them whether they play single player or multiplayer. Multiple difficulty levels so that players bringing advanced character to the story still can advance and find a challenge. (IE. Sacred 2 Bronze-Silver-Gold-Platinum-Niob) 3. Free mode where you can explore the world without having to engage in story if you don't want. Free mode should feature OPTIONAL PVP. 4. Focussed MP modes like team dungeon challenges where the host can select from a robust list of options to fine tune each dungeon experience for them and their friends. 5. Trading mode with larger lobbies allowing players to trade items.

You guys are just parotting developer PR speak. They don't have to speak they have you c2B. More options, more choices and more features is actually quite possible for game developers to achieve when making a sequel the fact that you are unable to understand this tells me alot about your understanding of games. I will always lean towards the side of defending the consumer and arguing with developers, game companies, publishers, and especially fanboys because I think games can and should be better, more in depth, less streamlined, and full of options.

Tethering the players together is pointless design. Having such limited multiplayer is going to hurt this game in sales. This isn't me being hyperbolic, this is the truth. This is why they tried to hide the info on MP for so long bec ause they know it is lackluster. Having a nice 20 hour story is all well and good but games that stand the test of time do so on their gameplay. Everyone out here in the NEWFAN video game "I like RPG's!" world that eats up this 'cinematic experience' and 'this is different kind of co-op, we're in it together, the game is ddesigned for a very specific experience' are just doing harm to gaming as a whole. After you play that 20 hour story a few times (maybe some of you - ie. a TINY fraction- will actually play through 4 times) then you are just going to put this game on the shelf and wait for the next hyped up lack of substance game. And people will still be playing Diablo 2.

It all just sounds like excuses to me. I don't believe developer hype for games, been burned way too many times. Developers can't seem to tell the truth, maybe their projects have certain levels of non-disclosure? Maybe all game developers go to the same PR conferences? I don't really know and I don't really care. I believe in gameplay when I play it and I believe in my own analysis of game systems. I have been playing RPG's since before computers so I know what I like. A strong story, pre-determined characters, and the le vel 30 cap are not mutually exclusive with fully featured multiplayer. We need to see MORE FEATURES from developers in sequels and even fresh IP's. MORE FEATURES and MORE OPTIONS than games in the past. Not cut features and cropped gameplay with a nice marketing PR fluff.

It is technically way way way EASIER to design co-op the way Obsidian has designed it. It is much more difficult and time consuming to develop a fully functional robust multiplayer game.