MonkeyLungs

Thanks for your post Monokli, the part I quoted really goes to the heart of my argument. More options just makes the games more fun for me. I can apply this sentiment of mage spellcasters and their arsenal to other facets of the game ... game modes, numberof party members, number of players, available weapon choices for characters, ability to cross class etc. etc. DS3 is completely streamlined compared to DS1 and DS2 and to my favorite ARPG's (diablo-like-item hunt-combat heavy-character building games).

Thank you Renevant. I will try a single sentence. There are less gameplay options available in Dungeon Siege 3, less gameplay modes, and less of a focus for online multiplayer and no toolset. Also the pushun buddons thing is just a pet peeve of mine ... I vastly prefer contiuous input unless the combat system requires multi button combos a' la Ninja Gaiden. DS3 could work very well with conintuous input. I remember when Diablo 2 came out and everyone was so stoked that you could just hold the mouse button down to keep attacking because clicking the mouse button over and over was very painful. Continuous input and the current style could also very peacefully co-exist allowng gamers to mash buttons or click mouse over and over or choose the more ergonomic option of coninuous input.

I'm not talking about a subjective judgement of "complexity of gameplay" here. I'm comparing feature lists to make it simple. 1. There are many more options at your disposal in combat in the older games. Whether they feel more or less complex to you is not my concern at the moment. Thre are more options, more skills, more party members, etc. 2. A toolset is part of the feature list for a game. Not having one means it was STREAMLINED out. 3. There are more choices and the chanc e for cross class character building in DS1 and 2. DS3 is more streamlined, which in turn may have added to a more balanced gameplay and possibly more fun for some people. The missing options equate to LESS features and LESS options and for myself this is a negative. 4. I don't care if you don't care. I'm not arguing care levels in care bear heartland. Multiplayer is stripped down and streamlined compared to the original titles. 5. Character save system ... I said it very clearly in my earlier post. I will sum it up in 3 words: PERSISTENT CHARACTER SAVES 6. The conversations needed brain power in DS3? Yes the conversation system is superior in DS3, I have NEVER argued differently. In fact I went as far as to say the the single player experience for DS3 wins out over the other 2 titles. 7. DS3 = Double Dragon combat in a ARPG-diablo-like-lite-item-hunting-short-campaign-with-no-newgame+ game. PUSHUN BUDDONS brah all the way. There isn't even the option for CONTINUOUS INPUT ... just PUSHUN BUDDONS.

Er, wow. DS2 was a step up in complexity from DS1 and forced you to become actively engaged in combat instead of just hitting the potion button. DS3 isn't streamlined vs. either of its predecessors. It's a different beast entirely, with a totally different focus: a new combat system that's nothing like its predecessors, branching quest lines and conversations, etc. But if you want to put the feature list side by side and be "objective," be my guest. I'd be curious to see what you come up with. SP, MP, Online MP, Levelling system, Weapon Choice, Party Size, Map Size, Replayability, Character Save System, Number of players that can join, TOOLKIT, etc. etc. .... these are the things I am talking about. Not the Double Dragon combat that all of you seem to be so impressed by. DS3 has multiplayer, BUT its hamstrung by the technically deficient camera. Also, less players. No Mods. DS3 wins in single player. DS3 wins in couch co-op. DS3 has a simple levelling system compared to the pother 2 games. Weapon Choice for your characters is very limited in DS3. Party size is limited in DS3. DS3 has teeny tiny little maps. DS3 has no persisten character saves and no newgame+ type feature. DS3 has no toolkit. For some people the increased attention to the conversations (even though there is hardly no sidequests and no in depth character quests) and the Double Dragon combat make it all worth in DS3. For me, those improvements aren't enough to make this a great game and alll the other missing elements detract from the experience for me. I am perfectly happy with the combat in RPG's being more about character ststas and gear and less about PUSHUN BUDDONS!

Damning people to hell for their opinions surely is mature! People have good reasons for not liking the game. They have been discussed to death. The game sold badly, has a tiny online community, and exemplifies some of the worst facets of streamlining. I consider the game to be OK and worth only $20 - 30 ... There are some nice elements to the game but the things that are left out are what drags the experience down for me ... and corridor maps.

Call me a sceptic but I'll believe that an update like that is incoming when I see it announced by Chapman or another Obsidian employee.

Yes you can it's called Dungeon Siege 3. You people denying that DS3 is more streamlined than DS1 are seriously reaching for imaginary straws. We don't even have to argue subjectives we can put the feature list for each game side by side and see the streamlining in pure objective detail.

Absolutely. Every opinion is valid and welcome as far as I'm concerned. The more debate, the better.

Times like this, I'm glad I play single-player on the PC I'm having a blast with the combat also. Trying to go back to DA2 or, hell, DS2, is hard. Combat's so dull by comparison. I think the combat is better in both of the games you mentioned. Double Dragon style simple button smashing combat doesn't impress me and I would much prefer continuous input. I like mashin buddons if the game is complex like Ninja Gaiden but DS3 is not.

Incorrect. I beat the game with 4-player co-op - two on the couch, two online. It was magic. Nay-sayer. Incorrect. Online play is an abomination and an insult to gaming.

What kind of pony?

A sequel more like its previous games? That is an odd request. This game has plenty of mouse clicking/button mashing as well. I would prefer continuous input to this cheap attempt at action combat. It's about as in depth as Double Dragon. Dodge rolling truly is an amazing innovation in combat mechanics. So according to you DS3 has a really in depth character system that offers more choice than "older dungeon crawlers"? What dungeon crawlers are you referring to here? Did you know that DS1 and DS2 had much more in depth character systems? Yeah its lame when RPG's make stats and loot important This I agree with. If the devs are going to strip away all of the other common feratures that give loot hunting diablo like ARPG's a lifespan, maybe they should at least trade by providing a more in depth story. I agree here as well. Jade Empire had more character interraction and quests. Some people just prefer the gameplay of Torchlight and enjoy the randomized dungeon maps and loot hunting. Some people like DS3 better, to each their own. Your argument is fine, its what you think about the game. I happen to disagree with you quite a bit but who cares? I'm not living in the past though ... I want diablo-like ARPG's to have depth and replayability built in from the ground up. DS3 is clearly trying to be some kind of hybrid between a diablo like arpg and and a more stpory focussed rpg but it doesn't really offer either side of the equation to satisfying levels. Making gamers share the same screen for online play when those gamers are using separate machines is a technical deficiency I will not forgive. The only reason people accept shared screen for couch co-op is because nobody has figured out how to output two versions of the program to two displays from the same console yet. Its why people will system link, or LAN party if they have the necessary equipment. Having your own screen is good and people merely tolerate sharing a screen for couch co-op because of the technology limitations. There is NO excuse for forcing a shared screen in online play. Obsidian should have kept working on the game until this was rectified. Instead they chose quick turn around and low budget. Wonder how Square feels about the result?

It's a really streamlined game. The online MP is a copy of the couch co-op experience ... lazy. The game is short and short on quests and sidequests. The game features corridor maps that feel cramped. The game is a massive departure from previous Dungeon Siege titles. Some people think the double dragon combat makes up for all of this, some don't.

Much deeper item system is very needed. In all ways imaginable. Also to compliment this, crafting and the possiblility for everything to have multiple uses such as vendor/trade/breakdown for components/quest material. The game is super bare bones though, almost like a really well done tech demo. It isn't someything I would sell for $60.

I like the abilities. I wish there were more but I felt that the ones that were included were done well.

Even the loot drops could be sorted out with persistent character saves because then a group of friends could take turns hosting so each character had a chance for the increased percentage of drops.

Seems like the new Deus Ex is making a return to many of the design goals of the first game ... but could be lies, developers do like to lie about their games. Bad controls though? I'm guessing it will have pretty standard FPS controls ... after playing DS3 I would think you would be very used to crappy controls. There are some cool seeming games coming out but I've become so jaded I don't even trust my favorite developers anymore. Everything keeps getting streamlined. I might just keep playing Borderlands and Sacred 2 on my Xbox and old RPG's on my old PC.

It's a hybrid unless they changed focus. First person survival horror action rpg. The new Deus Ex is supposed to be a little bit first person shooter a little bit RPG. I'm sad that Arcanum 2 isn't coming out as well but it doesn't seem like the industry has any intention of returning to turn based, isometric RPG's. Most RPG's now are hybrid-ized to include more action styled gameplay.

Yes crap takes it a bit far. People here call me a big hater and hate me but I think the game is OK. However, OK just is not cutting it for me. I'm really picky when it comes to games.

There are a bunch of RPG releases upcoming. Many are hybrids but that shouldn't bother fans of DS3. Dead Island looks pretty cool, there is also Dark Souls. Lots of stuff besides Skyrim I'm not even going to bother listing them all.

I don't think there will be any DLC.

The answer is persistent character saves like every other ARPG (diablo - like) on the market. A character save that can be used for single or multi player ... you know one of the major complaints of things lacking in this game. I think it is YOU who doesn't really understand and just wants to be contrarian for the sake of it. There ARE disproportionate item drops because almost everything is geared towards the host ... most testing has shown about 75% geared towards the host's character archetype. So if the host is playing Lucas, then more stuff drops for Lucas. Again it is YOU who lacks understanding. Plenty of members on this forum besides myself have come to this conclusion.

The only title in your list I would put int the same category as DS3 is Torchlight. Torchlight doesn't have Newgame+ but it does have the ability toretire characters and heirloom an item. It also doesn't need Newgame+ for your current character because it has a procedurally generated Shadow Vault for endless dungeon delving. If you call everything that isn't turn based an ARPG then how about I choose a new name like Diablo-type-action-rpg-looting-level up game.

DS3 could have really used increased party interraction and maybe be able to walk around with as aparty of 4 ... might make the levels feel cramped though. A bunch of sidestories for each character would be nice too. EDIT: I'm just 100% agreeing with you on the need for more party based content in DS3.

Yerah the other tw issues DO really need to be fixed. none of these issues will be fixed though. The game is what it is and it isn't going to change anymore. OMG! Hater! Fable not the same as DSIII. We don't really how hard it would be in the end. Granted the change from a shared camera is big but you could still improve the camera in different ways. Still going to go with "In the next iteration of the game" for any sort of Camera fix. If it were simple (And cost effective); it would have been done already. There will be no Dungeon Siege 4.