Jump to content

Dungeon Siege 3 not party-based, solo instead


Recommended Posts

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 by Krezack
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Reasons why Dungeon Siege is NOT a Diablo clone:

- DS has multicharacter parties.

- DS doesn't have boring pre-defined classes, but the players develop the characters.

- DS has packmules!

- DS has a huge map without any loading bars between areas, even when teleporting!

- DS has 10.000+ spells, and even more items!

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.
Link to post
Share on other sites
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 ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
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 :unsure:

 

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.

Reasons why Dungeon Siege is NOT a Diablo clone:

- DS has multicharacter parties.

- DS doesn't have boring pre-defined classes, but the players develop the characters.

- DS has packmules!

- DS has a huge map without any loading bars between areas, even when teleporting!

- DS has 10.000+ spells, and even more items!

Link to post
Share on other sites

edit-dp

Edited by Slowtrain
Notice how I can belittle your beliefs without calling you names. It's a useful skill to have particularly where you aren't allowed to call people names. It's a mistake to get too drawn in/worked up. I mean it's not life or death, it's just two guys posting their thoughts on a message board. If it were personal or face to face all the usual restraints would be in place, and we would never have reached this place in the first place. Try to remember that.
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Notice how I can belittle your beliefs without calling you names. It's a useful skill to have particularly where you aren't allowed to call people names. It's a mistake to get too drawn in/worked up. I mean it's not life or death, it's just two guys posting their thoughts on a message board. If it were personal or face to face all the usual restraints would be in place, and we would never have reached this place in the first place. Try to remember that.
Link to post
Share on other sites
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?
Link to post
Share on other sites
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! :(

Notice how I can belittle your beliefs without calling you names. It's a useful skill to have particularly where you aren't allowed to call people names. It's a mistake to get too drawn in/worked up. I mean it's not life or death, it's just two guys posting their thoughts on a message board. If it were personal or face to face all the usual restraints would be in place, and we would never have reached this place in the first place. Try to remember that.
Link to post
Share on other sites

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... :)

“Things are as they are. Looking out into the universe at night, we make no comparisons between right and wrong stars, nor between well and badly arranged constellations.” – Alan Watts
Link to post
Share on other sites
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)

Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

“Things are as they are. Looking out into the universe at night, we make no comparisons between right and wrong stars, nor between well and badly arranged constellations.” – Alan Watts
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

“Things are as they are. Looking out into the universe at night, we make no comparisons between right and wrong stars, nor between well and badly arranged constellations.” – Alan Watts
Link to post
Share on other sites
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!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Um, it's pretty much the definition of powergaming!

Well, I suppose as far as maxing stat potentials are concerned, it is, yes. :lol: 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). :)

“Things are as they are. Looking out into the universe at night, we make no comparisons between right and wrong stars, nor between well and badly arranged constellations.” – Alan Watts
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...