Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hello All,

First time poster, long time player. I see this as a good thing. That genre is lacking quality titles, and we that Obsidian has very talented people. Also, if I'm not mistaken, some from the older Interplay team that used to develop this type of title as well. My wife and I were just having this argument the other day; about the lack of titles in the ARPG genre. We picked up Sacred 2 for the 360, and are enjoying it's large, open map, and decent, if not fragmented, story line. Before that, the last titles we enjoyed were on the PS2/XBOX world. BG:DA 1, somewhat 2, Champions 1, somewhat 2, and the Hunter Games. She plays games. She plays RPG's, and MMOs as well. For our couch co-op, we love those titles. She's not really into anything else, so, we haven't had much game time recently.

I am definitely looking forward for this title, and what Obsidian can do with it. They've got me sold so far on the focus on co-op, not just side-by-side play. And Fallout: New Vegas- but that's a whole other section.



Link to post
Share on other sites

Have anybody played Demon's Souls? I'm recently surprised by some positive reviews on Demon's Souls although I haven't played the game. The focus seems to be building a learning curve for each play style. Different from Diablo style reward which addictiveness is controlled by well-calculated loot system, the best "reward" of the game is given for the players only who find their ways of adapting to the harsh world. That is, character advancement is there for keeping the players interested in the game-plays than in-game "rewards." Rather than giving quantitative "progressions" with something like +5 sword/similar ability boosts, it would be more interesting to give the players qualitative progressions which expand the tactical depth of game-plays with an appropriate learning curve. In the same context (and to my surprise), the game seems to reject the low accessibility idea. The game is difficult from the beginning, which makes the players conscious of their approaches. They seem to have proven that it is wrong that difficult games won't be successful, at least, as long as the designers are careful in forming learning curves for the players. Thinking about that, after all, what designers do seems to be ultimately to make sure what kind of game-play experience they'd like to offer to their players.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Triple posts...there seem to be no activity on this board... :)


About 31:00, their reference to loot system explains exactly why I couldn't get into ARPGs. It reminds me of mastering which tries to lure players with loot. Blizzard seems to be very good at adjusting the randomness but, to my eyes, it's still a gamble out of the players' control. If addiction cannot but be one of important factors in gaming, I'd like to be lured by gradually gaining control of the situation by learning from failures rather than psychological tricks woven into random loot mechanics. Of course, RPG rulesets are based on calculated randomness but I'm a kind of person who prefers point system to free die-rolls in character creation. Naturally, while I agree with Chapman's design philosophy about difficulty level and it's application to DSIII, I wonder how they manage to balance the actual game-play between the players with phat loot and those without them. Some players would definitely want to enjoy the powers of their loots (epicureans*) while it may turn off some other players (stoics), who find challenges/obstacles and the process of overcoming them is rewarding. I think, phat loot is the same line of thinking with simply increasing HP of "bosses". To my eyes, there appear to be a gap between Chapman's design philosophy, which seems to be more akin to the design concept of Demon's Souls, and Blizzard's loot system.


Then, another question from the same interview: "How designers could balance a game for millions of people with so many different people and preferences? (14:00)" For example, the idea of self-policing is, actually, working as a "house rule" for each players such as unnecessarily strict resource management, non-mini-max. In deed, with 90's CRPG, we often see some people go for various types of exploitations but these required a certain knowledge about how the game system works. Basics seem to remain the same. Without tools to overcome obstacles/guides which support less experienced players, they will soon or later stop playing. "The goal is not to punish the players but to keep them playing." Otherwise, some players/situations need a certain variant of what game masters do in PnP sessions. Hopefully, Square Enix is capable to offer Obsidian a division of QA people.


* I think these terms are pretty fair. Usually, "stoics" regard "epicureans" as stupid while epicureans regard stoics as masochists but we are talking of games where people spend their own time in their preferred ways.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

"The Dungeon Siege games are all about combat."





"This is, arguably, Obsidian's worst area of development."




" NWN2 (well, at least that one expansion), KOTOR2, and AP all have engrossing storylines, great characters, and a myriad of choices, but are horribly buggy, poorly balanced"


NWN2: yes


KOTOR2: Had a good toi great story.,


AP: Wa sjust plainc rap alla round.



NWN2's combat was very, very good. Awesomesauce.


KOTOR2 or AP weren'tm that buggy.



As for why they are doing this? Why not? While I disliked DS series, DS3 has potential to be good unlike AP. DS3 could be a fun game. And, it being an action ropg doesn't rule out it having a good story. See JE, ME series, and BL. Besdies, it's story cna't be worse than AP.


DS3 will hoepfully be a nice rebound for Obsidian and get them back oin track to making fun, interetsing games like NWN2. :sorcerer:


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing to me that seems weird about Obsidian making it is that it seems so random. I've never been given the impression that Dungeon Siege is a hot property that needs to continue. After the movie, I figured it would be binned and forgotten. Maybe that's a flaw in my perspective. Dungeon Siege just isn't important enough to continue as its own property.


I can see Obsidian making this exact game all on their own. But why is it part of the Dungeon Siege property? Who was it that said "You know what game there needs to be a sequel to, even if we can't get access to the original developers? Dungeon Siege!"


Sort of like if we suddenly heard Valve was at work on Haze 2.

"Show me a man who "plays fair" and I'll show you a very talented cheater."
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.

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.

  • Create New...