tangmcgame

I like how Xiolin apparently defines "agreeing with and excited about the design choices of the dev team" as "sucking up", and disagreeing with him makes me a self-righteous smartass. The self-righteous bit struck me as particularly ironic. I wasn't attacking you. I was pointing out where I thought your logic wasn't working. I understand you don't like this game and there's nothing wrong with that, but you need to stop assuming that your opinion is the "correct" one. And it's probably best to realize that no amount of complaining about it at this point (to your audience of 30 or so people) is going to change anything of meaning on this game. You've stated your grievances. What more are you trying to accomplish here?

I'd like to see where you got the data that suggests "nearly everyone" will dislike the multiplayer. I know that's the prevailing sentiment on the forums, but it may surprise you to learn that people who go on forums to talk about games are a tiny minority of the people that actually play the games. This small group often has some of the strongest opinions of what a game should be, and generally people are most likely to offer an opinion when it is negative. That is, people who don't like something are more likely to log on and say so than people who don't. This is both completely unfounded and offensive (unless you're holding the information about how many hours were logged for each portion of the project). They put tons of effort into the multiplayer, I'm sure. They just didn't make it the way you wanted it to be and you're choosing to (once again) express that disappointment in a way meant to demean the people you perceive to have ruined "your" game. Torchlight? It's generally regarded as a very good dungeon crawler and yet it has NO multiplayer whatsoever. Sure, that's the biggest criticism of the game, but the lack of multiplayer hasn't stopped it from becoming a massive success. I would offer that dungeon crawlers are judged on how good or bad they are. Based on the demo, DS 3 looks to be a pretty good or even great dungeon crawler. This is debatable as some people want sequels with a strict adherence to the games before it in terms of gameplay whereas some other people are in favor of experimentation and new approaches. I can't say you're wrong on this point, but I don't think you're right.

Or almost any game ever. Or read a comic book or seen many movies.

For those curious what all those extra stats mean, they're described under the help option in the pause menu. Just scroll down to "Statistics." In the two mentioned cases, Retribution damages an attacker when it hits you and Momentum adds to the amount of Focus you generate with an attack.

QFT

And we are supposed to be sympathetic or constantly encourage higher quality? Having played the demo extensively I can safely say that my game experience would be almost completely the same even if I could make Lucas with boobs or give Anjali a dong. Maybe "higher quality" is a lot more broad than what you're trying to reduce it to. Just because it isn't giving you the options you want doesn't make it a lower quality game.

I fully admitted I didn't play the original games much. I was speculating based on the little experience I had and I qualified all of my arguments. I've got a few questions if you wouldn't mind answering them: 1) What were the similar options for ranged or melee focused characters? Did they receive move lists that were that long? 2) Were there any spells generally regarded as useless or ignored because there were better options? 3) Did spells scale with level, or did they replace one another as you gained levels? 4) Did characters who opted for a strong spell ability end up with an effective basic attack of some kind? 5) How much did gear stats affect characters? Did it just open up more spell/gear options by boosting the base stats? 6) How effective were split, hybrid, or essentially non-pure builds? This is entirely debatable. It looks like there's plenty of depth and complexity to me with three or more build options per character and plenty of stat options available to let you season your build to taste.

Didn't the original DS games have 4 stats that increased through use and that was it? Where did it get more complex than this game? Presumably in DS3 you'll have enough points to get all of your button-mapped abilities, but then you've got two passive modifier pools to tweak and alter. That's at least as complex as saying "I will attack with a sword or club all game to be a warrior." Maybe I didn't play long enough to see where the game got truly deep and complex, much less complex to the point where it makes a 2.5-axis build system look simple and boring. With gear, there are more bonus types in this game so there's room for more builds based on gear alone. Stack hp/defense and retribution. You're a porcupine. Stack warding instead of retribution and you're a stun machine. Opt for agility and will and suddenly you're focus abilities get ludicrous, but if you'd rather a more rounded build you'll drop the will for attack. Again, maybe I didn't play the old ones long enough to see the multitude of gear types and resulting builds. Maybe I didn't play long enough to see how even the core stats resulted in as wide a range of mechanical results. I think people resent being locked into a character personality, sex and look, and I can maybe see that point. Then again, with prebuilt characters there's more opportunity for a stronger story. It doesn't have to all be about Generic Man or Woman. I'm not saying it guarantees a better story, but it enables the writers in a lot of ways. It seems like people are remembering the tabula rasa characters of DS 1 and 2 more fondly than perhaps they deserve. I don't see how anyone can take an honest look at the DS 3 character and loot system and say they are shallow. I see the two previous statments as completely independent issues, but I feel like hardcore fans of the originals blur the line between the two issues quite a bit and it tends to make them view DS 3 more negatively than it deserves.

I kinda' see your first point, though to be fair the combat abilities go a long way to rectifying this. They all hit hard and look spectacular. As far as armor/weapon models, I've seen at least three armor types for Anjali as well as multiple sword and spear models with varying glowing effects depending on stats. I haven't checked Lucas's armor as often, but I'm inclined to believe his armor changes are the most subtle and least substantial.

ITT: Matt-C continues his tantrum. It is now well past his nap time.

Says you. However, the success of Torchlight disagrees with your claim. Also, UndeadLegacy said what I'm thinking.

Just noticed this. Again, where is that developer PR speak I'm supposendly parrotting from? Would be nice if you have a link before baseless insulting me. Everything I've posted so far are my own beliefs and words. The logic is thus: I don't like this game, therefore nobody can like this game, therefore anyone who says they like this game must be a "fanboi", "company stooge", or some other derogatory term (or term meant in a derogatory manner). It's rooted in believing that one's opinion is "correct" while ignoring the fact that it's an opinion, not a fact.

I don't have a problem with your beliefs, but it behooves you to keep a few things in mind. a) Not every game, even within the same genre, seeks to deliver the same experience; what a large amount of options is in one game is clutter in another. b) Not every game has the same budget and development time. Game design is about achieving as much as possible with what you've got. Blizzard can iterate forever because they've got the resources to make it work (and, likely, because they made sure in their contract that Activision can't strongarm them). Not every developer has that luxury, and so the "more, more, more" mentality isn't feasible. I think it's more accurate to describe game design as "as much as we can afford." c) "More, more, more" doesn't mean "better." A wealth of options that aren't very different at all is essentially the same as no options. Likewise, a multitude of options that aren't balanced means there's really only one true option. Sometimes, a few well-developed, fleshed out and balanced options is preferable to many inferior ones. d) The last is a bit more subjective, but I'd urge you to remember that if you aim to advocate for players, remember that player tastes are often quite varied. Not everyone prefers games the way you seem to. It's good to push developers to make great games, but that doesn't mean they should all fit your image of how games should look. We need all kinds of different games for all kinds of different tastes. Furthermore, pushing a single overriding agenda, pushing developers to all head in the same direction, means that games will end up bland, predictable, uninspired, and boring. I'd rather trust to team creativity, let different developmental ideologies thrive, and realize that improving a game can come in a lot of forms besides just adding content. EDIT: As an example, let me offer Blizzard as a company that defies the "more, more, more" mentality. They have the budget and manpower to iterate at a high rate for a long, long, long time, and even they opt, inevitably, for paring down options and perfecting the few that are available.

Also worth noting, it looks like all healing in the game is scaling as it's based on a percentage of maximum hp. So, a tank Anjali is going to be stacking Stamina out the wazoo and then Agility after that. Retribution and Chaos: Vampire would probably be prime perks as well (among others, I'm sure).

Reinhart might do alright with his illusion/teleport spell. I think he'd do better as a control option rather than as a tank. If you build him to maximize aoe stuns and slows, he can theoretically keep everything out of reach long enough to be mowed down. Anjali actually has a lot of options in the tanking department. First, she has a large amount of self-heal: healing from her immolation ability (by standing in it), the 50% healing ability everyone has, and a passive that, when maxed, causes 50% of hits she takes to proc some healing. Second, she has terrain control and an aggro pet (that you can boost hp on). Third, she can causes some fairly significant aoe stuns if you stack Agility (her immolate ability combined with the passive that gives crits a stun chance). While you're stacking Agility, you can pick up a passive that adds a percentage of it to her Block. Later abilities increase healing she receives by a percentage, give her a damage barrier that explodes in an AOE, give more proc benefits to crits, and make her blocking much more brutal. EDIT: Oh, and you can build her Inner Warmth ability (heals 50% over 30 seconds, defensive ability) to INSTANTLY heal her for 10% of her maximum health. That's one of the few burst healing abilities in the game.