Jump to content

Matt-C

Members
  • Content Count

    134
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Matt-C

  • Rank
    (3) Conjurer
  1. I'm assuming this was changed for release as I was able to beat the boss first time on hardcore with no trouble at all.
  2. Unfortunately before playing Dunegeon Siege 3 you have to come to realise that it's only 'Dungeon Siege' by title and not by gameplay. The team at Obsidian obviously didn't want to make Dungeon Siege but were forced to by the Square Enix. So they tried to merge parts of DS with the type of RPG they typically create... resulting in some kind of terrible mess. It's a shame really because it both tarnishes the DS series and has caused a lot of hatred towards Obsidian. Obsidian had the choice - do they completely sell out (instead of partially selling out) and make a game they have no passion for (DS & DS2) or do they attempt to make DS3 into a game they have some passion for and hope to convince fans of the series to like it. Unfortunatley for the fans they picked the former and fell short - however at least the 18 months they spent on development was probably more enjoyable for them compared to if they had to create a game they had no passion for. Maybe one day there will be a true successor to Dungeon Siege however it's probably best we don't get our hopes up after what happened with Dungeon Siege 3.
  3. Its amazing that you are still lurking around here. Can't live without us, na? Just out of curiosity C2B do you still regularly play Dungeon Siege? Or was I correct in that it's re-playability is next to nothing? I remember playing South Park 64 when I was younger. The game was pretty terrible, but offered some laughs. I'm betting Obsidian can't produce something to that standard.
  4. Will Obsidian screw Southpark up like they did Dungeon Siege? I'm voting yes.
  5. As predicted the game was pretty much a complete failure. It offered no kind of re-playability so people moved on from it quite quickly. It's unfortunate, as a Dungeon Siege sequel this game had a lot of potential, however the developers took it in a direction clearly the vast majority (proven by how dead these forums are / lack of sales / generally low review scores) were not happy with.
  6. and yet you don't mention the most important factor... re-playability... DS3 wasn't the least bit memorable.. there was no reason to go back to it... and these forums prove that... they completely died less than a month after release... The Diablo 2 forums are more active than these forums... 11 years on...
  7. more or less, the Dungeon Siege legacy has already been destroyed by Obsidian... so meh whatever.
  8. Are you trying to imply that DS3 has a good storyline? It doesn't. A game doesn't need a massive epic story to be good... one could argue that you know the gameplay is the most important aspect... but hey if you prefer sitting around for half of the game listening / reading dialogue (which is terrible writing in the case of DS3) rather than actually playing a game with amazing gameplay.... then well I guess that's up to you.
  9. No, you played the same game, it simply means you are easily satisfied with low quality games. If anything this game got higher scores than it deserved.
  10. 3/10 huh? Wow, I guess we should all be glad that games aren't actually rated based on your scale. because using an inflated scale is so much better... here have a 6/10 because your game made in on the shelves.... a 3/10 is actually being generous for DS3.
  11. The only challenging part of boss fights are the all the additional mobs... the bosses themselves are easy as anything. This only tells me that Obsidian can't make challenging encounters without having to resort to spamming the player with lots of enemies... and this is only on hardcore.
  12. Seriously? I've never played any other Obsidian game other than Fallout: NV for two hours (had to turn it off because of how terrible it was)... Considering how bad DS3 is I can barely imagine how bad previous Obsidian titles are... =/
  13. However the resources were not used wisely, should that cost then be pushed on to the purchaser? All it does is give the company a terrible reputation of 'wait for bargain bin, if that' for each new game they develop. So from a business perspective it is not reasonable. Maybe if this was the last game for the developer to ever make it would be okay from a business perspective to have an inflated price to begin with to see how many people buy it... but they need to create/maintain a reputation otherwise it will simply destroy chances of future products being a success.
  14. The game is comparable to that of an XBLA game, so paying anything more than that seems like a rip off to me. In fact I've spent more time playing every single XBLA game I've purchased compared to DS3... considering I also forced myself to play through DS3 four times (playing a different character and different choices barely adds anything to make an additional playthrough worthwhile)... The only replayability DS3 offered was to get all achievements, not the actual game itself. Don't be stupid. Unless you happen to be able to see the future there is no way to know how much you are going to enjoy something... you only have expectations. This game failed to meet those expectations for many, there for they are not happy with the price they paid and deemed it not to be fair. It's like going to a restaurant and getting a meal... you have a general expectation of what it's going to be like, and how much you are typically willing to spend on it... however it was completely ****ed up and tasted terrible... does it still mean the meal was at a fair price? of course not.
×
×
  • Create New...