Dungeon Siege 3 not party-based, solo instead

[Humodour]

1 day before Obsidian announced DS3, Chris Taylor from Gas Powered Games said that Dungeon Siege 3 would be solo and that he was sick of parties.

 

http://kotaku.com/5013942/dungeon-siege-3-...-could-fly-solo

 

There will be some things that are very much like Dungeon Siege 1 and 2, but some things will be simplified. I am done with multi-character parties; I really think that it's all going to be about a single hero. It's too much to manage

 

Interesting. I don't mind either way, however Square Enix have said that "For those wanting to play the game single player your character will be able to recruit companions to help you on your quest."

 

Will these companions be similar to Fallout 1/2 companions in that they follow you but are not directly controllable?

Edited June 13, 2010 by Krezack

[WorstUsernameEver]

You mean 2 years before right?

[Sannom]

Don't be ashamed Krezack, you're not the first one to do it Someone on the AP board did the exact same thing

[Humodour]

Well ****.

[Draganta]

The thing that Chris said, doesn't apply for DS3. Back then, there was no DS3 under development.

[Humodour]

The thing that Chris said, doesn't apply for DS3. Back then, there was no DS3 under development.

 

Incorrect.

 

Worry not, yon fantasy fans, as GPG founder Christ Taylor reveals to Eurogamer.de that Dungeon Siege 3 is indeed in the works...though some major changes might be separating it from the first two entries in the series.

[Sannom]

Incorrect.

 

Worry not, yon fantasy fans, as GPG founder Christ Taylor reveals to Eurogamer.de that Dungeon Siege 3 is indeed in the works...though some major changes might be separating it from the first two entries in the series.

 

Guess what, two days after that news, it turned out people didn't understand what Chris Taylor said, because he sent a communique to say that Dungeon Siege 3 wasn't in development

[Draganta]

Incorrect.

 

Worry not, yon fantasy fans, as GPG founder Christ Taylor reveals to Eurogamer.de that Dungeon Siege 3 is indeed in the works...though some major changes might be separating it from the first two entries in the series.

 

Guess what, two days after that news, it turned out people didn't understand what Chris Taylor said, because he sent a communique to say that Dungeon Siege 3 wasn't in development

 

Yep, he was interviewed again, and he said that DS3 wasn't in development. Im too lazy to google it, but I'm sure it is out there.

[Humodour]

Sounds more like him backpedalling to cover his arse than the truth! :D but oh well, it matters not now - Obsid is in charge.

[Slowtrain]

edit-dp

Edited June 15, 2010 by Slowtrain

[Slowtrain]

I have no clue how things could be simpified from DS1. Seriously. That game was so banal, it was all ready ludicrous.

 

the way developers and publishers are approaching video games now, it's as if they've decided gamers are pretty much less competent than an amoeba.

 

 

No, no don't make us do or think ANYTHING. It would be way too frightening.

[Spider]

I have no clue how things could be simpified from DS1. Seriously. That game was so banal, it was all ready ludicrous.

 

you haven't played Space Siege them?

[Oner]

I have no clue how things could be simpified from DS1. Seriously. That game was so banal, it was all ready ludicrous.

 

the way developers and publishers are approaching video games now, it's as if they've decided gamers are pretty much less competent than an amoeba.

 

 

No, no don't make us do or think ANYTHING. It would be way too frightening.

While I agree with the general assessment.. DS 1, really? A 2001-2 game that had a somewhat more complex sequel instead of more streamlining is the best example of the current SIMPLIFY IT fad you could come up with?

[Slowtrain]

While I agree with the general assessment.. DS 1, really? A 2001-2 game that had a somewhat more complex sequel instead of more streamlining is the best example of the current SIMPLIFY IT fad you could come up with?

 

 

Dude, we're talking about DS1. It's like saying we need to simplify 1 + 1. At some point, there's nowhere left to go.

 

I never played DS2, but I'm not surprised it was more complicated. It would be hard not to be. And now backwards?

 

 

It's a PERFECT example of the current trend to produce games that are apparently designed to be playable by one-celled organisms. Hopefully Obs will find some way to add interest to the game instead.

 

 

@spider. No, I never did. And I'm not sad about it either!

[LadyCrimson]

I knew of a lot of people that ended up playing the solo game without any party members anyway. IIRC you didn't have to 'hire' them, tho there might've been a quest or two where you needed one, don't remember. I myself went through with nothing but mules as a party, one time. That was really funny...except when I had to make them go one at a time across a bridge cause of bad pathfinding. heheh

 

I dunno....I didn't mind the npc party in DS, precisely because you didn't have to use them. But I think I'd at least like the option to have a couple tag along, if I wanted, and sounds like Square Enix may be doing that.

 

Six total in party might be a bit much, tho....it was certainly awkward at times in DS1. Slightly better in DS2, in terms of pathfinding/fighting & switching them in & out type management, but still...

[Oner]

It's a PERFECT example of the current trend to produce games that are apparently designed to be playable by one-celled organisms. Hopefully Obs will find some way to add interest to the game instead.

Nope. They made a hack 'n' slash with a free-form class system. And it's not like they had 40 years to properly over-complicate the system anyway.

Besides, what's the point of a complicated RPG if players will either min-max it (IWD) or the story overwrites stats anyway (anything Bioware ever)

[LadyCrimson]

what's the point of a complicated RPG if players will either min-max it (IWD)

What do you mean by min-max it? Do you mean people purposely power-gaming or under-power gaming? Or something else?

[Oner]

what's the point of a complicated RPG if players will either min-max it (IWD)

What do you mean by min-max it? Do you mean people purposely power-gaming or under-power gaming? Or something else?

For example giving the fighter low mental stats and high physical stats, then make a bard or paladin to be the talker of the party.

[LadyCrimson]

what's the point of a complicated RPG if players will either min-max it (IWD)

What do you mean by min-max it? Do you mean people purposely power-gaming or under-power gaming? Or something else?

For example giving the fighter low mental stats and high physical stats, then make a bard or paladin to be the talker of the party.

Oh ok, I understand now. Not quite power-gaming perhaps, but imo not too far off, really.

[Humodour]

what's the point of a complicated RPG if players will either min-max it (IWD)

What do you mean by min-max it? Do you mean people purposely power-gaming or under-power gaming? Or something else?

For example giving the fighter low mental stats and high physical stats, then make a bard or paladin to be the talker of the party.

Oh ok, I understand now. Not quite power-gaming perhaps, but imo not too far off, really.

 

Um, it's pretty much the definition of powergaming!

[LadyCrimson]

Um, it's pretty much the definition of powergaming!

Well, I suppose as far as maxing stat potentials are concerned, it is, yes. But I tend to think of power-gaming as being a whole concept that includes more than only min-maxing starting stats. If a person min-maxes starting stats in a vid-game but otherwise plays through a game more 'naturally' I don't find that terribly power-gamer.

 

To me power gaming is more about when one is almost solely concerned only with game activities that make you the "best" in all areas, as fast as possible, such as reloading endlessly to try to acquire the known "best gear" or "best" outcome possible rather than taking/accepting what you get/1st chose, or being "rushed" by friends to level up fast/get to the end game in order to be able to hunt for said gear. I met players in Diablo2 who didn't even know who the end-boss in Act1 was cause they were AFK while their friend was killing.

 

Then of course there's the meticulous, obsessive gamer who in some ways resembles power-gamers because of their obsession with experimenting/tinkering, but will often strongly deny it since they're not concerned with speed of progression or being best per se, but the challenge of beating the odds of collecting all armor sets or something. (me).