[PC Demo - Post your impressions.]

Ok, guys, after I played half of a demo I think for myself: “Nice combat system, though enemies looks bland and uninspiring and loot isn’t really unique in any way, however even with horrendous multiplayer I think I’ll give DS3 a chance”. But then I discovered one of the stupidest things ever implemented in any RPG:

 

ENEMY STRENGTH IS DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL TO YOUR CHARACTER LEVEL

 

I.e. LEVELING UP YOUR CHARACTER DOESN’T MEAN ANYTHING

 

What’s the point: enemy still be as strong anyway even in first possible location (if you actually would be able to comeback to it) or in the every next location. Character poor customization as a goal of leveling up doesn’t cut it: it’s not Oblivion with its variety.

 

Ok, this just destroyed my last good will towards DS3, I’m not even considering to rent it (even virtually if you know what I mean). Not worth my time.

 

Farewell DS3.

[Could we win XP in multiplayer matches?]

It actually boils down to a very simple design decision. Do you build an online multiplayer experience where the main point is to create, keep and build your character? Or do you build a co-operative system where the main point is to experience an instance of the game together with other people? Diablo 2 is an example of the former, and then all the other design decisions follow from that - i.e. you have 'New Game+' modes to grind your character up to level 99, you have a threadbare story and a modular campaign design so it never matters that you might jump all over the plotline or kill the same boss 500 times. On the other hand, you don't expect this from BG: Dark Alliance, some of the LOTR games, heck, even a Halo co-op campaign (which, from my experience, is kept separate from its online multiplayer). In a pure co-operative experience you see design decisions that are about helping make it easy for people to play together and keep up together and experience the story and gameplay together.

 

As C2B says it's not an online focused ARPG, and it seems that it never has been. I'd suggest Obsidian were quite foolish to not have made this crystal clear earlier on - they should have learned from AP that when people expect your game to be something different they get pissed off. But the design decision itself is perfectly fine - DS3 simply belongs to a different type/genre than, say, Diablo 2.

 

Personally I wouldn't have minded either way, online MP or co-op. But if DS3 were to go the online MP route, a million things about the game would need to be changed. The level cap is 30 right now - what's the point of keeping a single player running around if he will max that early? The game is story-heavy and with lots of dialogue - that will get really really boring if you want to grind a boss 500 times Mephisto-style. So on and so forth. If we keep DS3 as the game it is now, then just change it so you can carry across your characters, what changes, really? That won't make this game WOW or Diablo 2, like some people want.

 

It's a case of two different philosophies with accompanying design features and player experiences.

In case someone didn