For those wanting to play the game single player your character will be able to recruit companions to help you on your quest. Different characters will be made available depending on your alliances and enemies and will all have their own opinions on the world around them as well as specialised skills.

 

Square Enix also confirmed the world will change and develop depending on your choices made in game and also evolves over time. The decisions your character makes will mould the story, as well as impacting the way different races and settlements act around you.

 

http://www.incgamers.com/News/23138/square...dungeon-siege-3

Edited June 11, 201015 yr by Krezack

It seems Obsidian has the power to turn every ruin into gold

Okay now im interested.

Interesting, but I'll have to see how companions are developed and how much resources they've put into the story branching.

I'm not expecting something as massive as Alpha Protocol, but MotB-like branching would be fine to me.

As for the companions, I hope they don't end up underdeveloped since this time Obsidian has to design the game taking into account that it may be played in co-op.

Actually, that could turn out good though, I never liked mandatory companions.

Squenix English press release and google-translated French press release are telling us what is nearly identical to IncGamers' DS3 news.

DS II was as much story-driven as Dragon Age: you had to save the world from an Ancient Evil in a Giant Fetch Quest, but there was a (ridiculously predictable) twist in the end. Characters were pretty fun as well, there was even some banter depending on party composition.

 

So yeah, I can't see what's so surprising about this news.

You mean the impenetrable shield vs everything cutting sword twist?

No, the "lulz, I was actually an evil wizard in disguise". Worst Xanatos gambit ever.

Edited June 11, 201015 yr by virumor

I.. totally don't remember that.

I thought the Evil Wizard plot was pretty cool, even if in hindsight it was cliched. It may have been reasonably simple, but that's not a bad thing. They chose something compelling and fleshed it out and polished it. It wasn't bad at all. Better than a lot of other game plots out there (certainly better than the Diablo series for example).

 

They could have, after all, not had that plot twist and you'd be left with the plot being simply "X is bad. Follow him to the end and kill him." That would of sucked.

As far as I can recall, Square Enix produced games tend to have strong polish (which seems to be an issue with Obsidian's previous games). So maybe this time that flaw won't be held against them?

By the way, are we sure Obsidian is using Onyx for this game?

By the way, are we sure Obsidian is using Onyx for this game?

 

I've not seen it confirmed so I think the jury is still out.

The description is too vague for me to be convinced....it wouldn't be that hard, for example, to envision DS1 or DSII core gameplay being the same, with some surface npc alliance stuff added in. I'm not saying I wouldn't like that...I would...but only saying that it doesn't necessarily mean it's going to feel very different from the hack n slash so many here dislike.

 

But it is good to hear that they're going to make some changes in chr-driven direction. Time will tell how far it goes.

 

...however, since one of the things I liked about DS/Diablo etc is a fast pace game rather than lots of story immersion, I'm also hoping there won't be too many convo menu's/cutscenes for me to clickclickclick my way through. I know I'm probably in the minority there, here, tho. ;p

By the way, are we sure Obsidian is using Onyx for this game?

 

I've not seen it confirmed so I think the jury is still out.

 

Considering Square Enix has their own 3d multi-purpose, multi-platform game engine they like to use, it's possible they're using that instead.

I bet the game is more or less locked down. Remember the days when the forums opened at a point where your suggestions might actually, in a tiny way, influence something?

^ I don't know about that. Why did AP go from infinite to finite ammo?

 

I'm not sure that's something to weep for, anyway. I mean, my suggestions could get in, but on the other hand, there's a risk that yours could too!

That's great!

You know, that's true - now that AP has come out, infinite ammo would have been terrible. I shudder to think of the complaints if it was retained.

Would it have been terrible? I haven't spent a single $ on ammunition and I've never been close to running out. So the game basically has infinite ammo already (at least for the pistol).

Tranquilizing rounds are f***ing expensive, and impossible to find on the field, so if you want to go a non-lethal route, you will have to buy some, at least every two or three missions! But I agree that as far as "normal" ammunition goes, it could have been unlimited, there wouldn't have been a difference.

I never had to buy some (good thing to, considering the price).

True, the specialized ammo is rarer. But as far as I recall the specialized ammo wasn't necessarily going to be infinite anyway.

 

But the backlash was big enough that I think it was the correct call to skip infinite ammo. I just don't think it would have made a difference had they not.

 

As an aside, I'm not a huge fan of the tranq rounds. My personal opinion is that if you're going through the game the non-lethal way, you should have to work for it. The tranq rounds (aside from the cost) makes the non-lethal way identical to the other way, which kind of cheapens the experience in my book. I had a couple of missions where I didn't want to kill anyone, but I just switched ammo and played the game in the exact same way.

 

To keep it in a DSIII context, infinite arrows is a good thing in fantasy RPGs, especially if it's more of a hack & slash in terms of gameplay. Or at least make a skill that provides ammunition for you, and to keep it balanced have those arrows also increase damage. If the game uses branching skill trees, that skill could then branch into things like explosive arrows and multi-shot arrows.

DS1 and 2 both had infinite arrows, so I doubt that's suddenly going to change for III.

I thought the Evil Wizard plot was pretty cool, even if in hindsight it was cliched. It may have been reasonably simple, but that's not a bad thing. They chose something compelling and fleshed it out and polished it. It wasn't bad at all. Better than a lot of other game plots out there (certainly better than the Diablo series for example).

 

I am assuming that was sarcasm.... you really have something against the Diablo series.