Subliminal

I don't know what kind of logic it is to imply that: -the end user shouldn't have expectations/ opinions about a product -it would take 15 minutes to get used to those controls

metacritic shows only 29, and a lot of them are 100/100 which explains the high average score, but reeks of "arrangements" Lol, well, lets see what DS3 gets MY guess: 4/10

The dialogue scenes (of which there are many) zoom right in to the characters, aka the screen shot that was posted. DS3 =/= birds eye view.

blessed be the ignorant Right. Okay, its an interactive novel; it still uses dx9 but looks 100x better than ds3

FO3/ FONV are rpg's, not fps. FO3/FONV use dx9... A modern FPS:

Yes, they should've cut out the cinematics, the dialogues and the VO because they're not graphics or gameplay. How is that what you got from what he said?

Thats what the mods/devs said when people asked about: - Lack of multiplayer - not being able to play more than one of each character in a single game - lack of new game + - lack of persistent characters in multiplayer - tethered multiplayer - more, The game is being touted as story driven; I'm as confused as you.

Not for story, demos are there to showcase graphics and gameplay nothing more. Most games only start to get ineresting after the prologue, which is basically when DS3 demo finished. The demo, the vignettes (http://store.steampowered.com/app/39160), and the prerelease info are enough for me; nothing groundbreaking in the story info they're trying to sell the game with; so either poor marketing or poor story

So, we should buy this game out of a sense of piety now? The graphics aren't terrible, but certainly not AAA.

No, but it would be stupid to do so. /Edit: Also I don't understand the story-rage now. As far as I can remember, DS never was about the story, wasn't it? I mean, up to some point it didn't even had any deeper lore that it cared about at all. The "rage" as you put it is about the design decision to remove a lot of features in favor of "story"; which has demonstrated itself to be mediocre. And if the story starts like a b movie, I'm pretty sure it will end like a b movie. Theres nothing dumb about drawing conclusions based upon the demo, thats what its there for.

what, all 3 and a half players? we already know that, they're all here Go to any forum other than this one, people don't like what they've seen, nor do they like the lack of features.

Me. Other gamers. I mean you can take a look yourself at what the DS fans are complaining about (it feels odd saying that since I would normally consider myself a DS fan), and it seems to be focused on mainly one thing: combat mechanics (including control scheme). Other complaints include: multiplayer (which they haven't even tried yet considering it's not in the demo), and uh... help me out here. Given how utterly bland, non-original, and boring the combat mechanics and control schemes were for the original DS games (and how widespread this sentiment is among those who've played DS - and I don't just mean DS fanboys) I feel rather secure making a judgement call about the depth and value of the Dungeon Siege franchise. I mean Dungeon Siege certainly isn't known for it's brilliant plot, excellent dialogue, great role-playing opportunities, or unique universe (as generic high fantasy as you can get). I don't want to give off the impression I didn't find the DS games fun - I did. I've even replayed them and the MP is an OK romp between Diablo or Torchlight sequels. I'm just looking at this from a critical perspective - the DS games were jack of all trades and master of none. Obsidian clearly decided to cater to their specialty with DS3 - roll playing and storytelling. I think that more than anything it is this change from a generic fun game (action RPG) to a specialised, more niche game (more traditional RPG) that has DS fans so riled. I love how people like yourself say Obsidian have focused on storytelling rather than the other key features that DS1 had. The story in DS3 is so bad it isn't even funny, which I would be completely okay with... if you know it wasn't the primary focus of the game... but it is and fails so bad at it. Then you have the voice acting... oh dear god I don't even want to start on that one. The combination of terrible graphics (playing on max setting for everything) and shocking voice acting made me want to claw my eyes out while praying for my eardrums to explode. My sentiments exactly. Story mode? Not a good choice for an action rpg. Bad story with tons of dialogue? Lol, how do people defend this? http://store.steampowered.com/app/39160/ Watch the vignettes about the individual backstories. Is that a good story to anyone!? Terrible, 1 dimensional, generic fantasy archetypes. He's absolutely right though, the DS ip isn't known for its plot, dialogue or story; so why make it the star of the show for a sequel? Why try to make the ip/ genre into something it isn't?

Quoted for truth. Seriously focusing on story for this type of game ,not even mentioning using the DS ip, at the exclusion of MP is a collosally dumb idea. Just frikkin terrible. Everyone I know that was interested in this game has decided against it after finding out how MP is being treated. Even those that knew NOTHING about the Dungeon Siege franchise. If Obsidian wanted to make a Final Fantasy game then thats what they should have done. Lol, I imagine that they would add radial dialogue options to final fantasy aswell.

is my name Philosoraptor or something? less features could very well mean a better game. that's why these choices are good. multiple characters of the same class: to keep the combat varied. I guess it's cool to go in with four mages, but that's what magicka is for. in a good video game this gives an opportunity to design better combat encounters persistent characters: wut? level independent of host's level: figure it out on your own, Sherlock movement independent of other characters: because this game is designed to be played on one machine, the online play was thrown as a complementary feature LOL, all of the action rpgs preceding this one had all of those "features"; removing them and not replacing them with something of greater or equal value is bad design. Your posts are inane; do you really believe that taking away these things for a half-baked story is good? cant have a story/ intricate combat and real multiplayer I guess? These things are not contradictory.

that's the only thing I'd miss from your list, everything else makes sense to me from the design standpoint So, less features = more for you? Nothing I listed contradicts anything They've added. And you failed to answer my questions...

well, that's what I've been saying. it's dead and good riddance, if "you" can't understand why they picked this project, well that's too bad, but don't come whining here The devs said they scraped these gameplay elements for story: - multiple party members as the same class/character - persistent characters - level independent of hosts level - new game+ - movement independent of other characters But from what I've played and seen in promotional videos, the story sucks; generic fantasy at its finest So what were left with is what? A crappy game, with crappy gameplay, with absolutely no replayability. So tell me, why did they "pick" this project? Why are these design choices good?

Ignoratio Elenchi. Regardless, maybe if they made it story driven... Or not a racing game. The sheer volume of complaints directed towards the direction taken for the franchise should be a concern shouldn't it? I'd like to know what makes these choices great; rather than hear how our concerns are not the direction you were going for... I've already encountered the "Big Rigs" defense. Its not applicable to what I'm saying, nor to the questions I've posted. Saying that people would complain regardless of the product, that it was a sequel in name only is preposterous; and is disproven by the fact that that has not happened for every sequel ever released...

Look, frankly, Dungeon Siege doesn't even HAVE a 'feel'. DS1 and DS2 were quite different, and DS3 is different again (for the better, based on what little I've played so far). But what I really wanted to point out is that, while I agree with Pidesco, he is a moderator, not an Obsidian employee. Please don't misinterpret his comments as coming from Obsidian. This makes absolutely no sense. First, dungeon seige 1/2 had features, the absence, or addition of features (in particular, CORE gameplay features) means that the game has been taken in a new direction; and one that me and many others think requires explanation. To say that DS1/2 didn't have a feel would be like saying that the diehard movies or something didn't have a feel. If you went to see diehard 16 and it was a romantic comedy, you would think it was a crappy diehard movie, EVEN IF YOU LOVED ROMANTIC COMEDIES. Dungeon Seige 1 and 2 were action RPG's. Dungeon Seige 3 is... something else. Dialogue trees/ Multiple cutscenes per encounter/ "story centric" gameplay are additional features, fine, but why add them? Why add them in a way that contradicts the formula established by countless, highly successful, arpgs? The changes don't seem to make the game better, the story (atleast in the demo/ promotional material) seems to be generic and flimsy. Which is expected in an ARPG, NOT a game that touts its story as its redeeming feature. Why do you like it? Why is it better than having the features the series started with? This is what the people defending it don't seem to know. Do you like generic fantasy stories THAT much? That you would forgo action in an action rpg for 2d cutscenes and dialogue trees? I've yet to see anyone say, "OMG feature X in DS3 is so awesome!" DS3 is different sure, but certainly not better; atleast if you want to consider it an action RPG. Action RPG's are about gameplay at the end of the day, and the gameplay here is a few decades behind DS1/2, diablo 2 and even Torchlight. If you want to consider it a deep and engrossing, story driven masterpiece, fine, but the story seems lackluster to me, as do the majority of the new "features".

Ignoratio Elenchi. Regardless, maybe if they made it story driven... Or not a racing game. The sheer volume of complaints directed towards the direction taken for the franchise should be a concern shouldn't it? I'd like to know what makes these choices great; rather than hear how our concerns are not the direction you were going for...