Jump to content

Dungeon Siege was terrific, but DS2 was dreadful.


Recommended Posts

Which one will DS3 resemble (if either)?

 

I really enjoyed the core gameplay in Dungeon Siege. You design your character, select your party members, ansd they fight according to their abilities, with you having the option to give them greater direction. but if the player does nothing, the characters (all of them, even the main PC) still engage in combat on their own based on their variouos settings (willingness to engage and pursue and whatnot).

 

DS2 did nothing of the sort. DS2 adopted a much more Diablo-style of combat that required constant input, and the selected character would never do anything at all without direction.

 

Dungeon Siege's combat was rather derisively referred to as "click-and-watch". And I loved it.

 

Assuming DS3 resembles its predecessors at all, will the Dungeon Siege gameplay style be available to players?

God used to be my co-pilot, but then we crashed in the Andes and I had to eat him.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ds2 combat and plot were superior to DS1. The only thing DS1 did better was beautiful landscapes.

 

So yeah, I fail to see your point. If you're the click and watch type of guy, DS3 is not for you (nor is Baldur's Gate for that matter!), it's that simple (don't take my word for it, read the reviews). Obsidian is not going to change this - it's quite deliberate because it's a big market (Diablo clones/action RPGs).

Link to post
Share on other sites
Did any of the previous Dungeon Sieges have 4-player co-op?

Dungeon Siege 1 wasn't so limited :( It allowed up to 8 players in co-op and even included a multi-player only campaign. Dungeon Siege 2, however, only allowed up 4 players in co-op although according to the Wikipedia article on it there is a simple .ini file edit to allow up to 8.

Link to post
Share on other sites

DS1 on big difficulty gave no freedom at just watch style,cause you couldn't defeat all the monsters in location in one fight.DS2 had options to make characters do the job themselves if player wished(just look at options sometimes!).And,yes,4 coop multiplayers sounds disasterous for me..DS2 multiplayer is so boring..I wish DS3 would become much more entartaining with even just my suggestions at my topic..

Link to post
Share on other sites
Which one will DS3 resemble (if either)?
Please read this thread, there are many links for Dungeon Siege III previews. The game can turn out to be quite different from what you expect depending on your view.

 

I really enjoyed the core gameplay in Dungeon Siege. You design your character, select your party members, ansd they fight according to their abilities, with you having the option to give them greater direction. but if the player does nothing, the characters (all of them, even the main PC) still engage in combat on their own based on their variouos settings (willingness to engage and pursue and whatnot).
At the moment, there is a drop-in/out multi-player mode, where AI and multi-players can change any time. If the function is allowed even to the last player, it may end up with something similar to your description. Even in that case, it is quite unlikely that DSIII can be played as real-time combat with pause games such as Bulder's Gate/Icewind Dale series since the game is out for consoles, too. Technically, all AI appears to be possible but there must be balance issues, too. In any case, I have to remind you that all of these are just hypothetical. Edited by Wombat
Link to post
Share on other sites
The only thing DS1 did better was beautiful landscapes.

Also, the variety (and originality) of enemies, and the greatly larger variety of spells.

^

 

 

I agree that that is such a stupid idiotic pathetic garbage hateful retarded scumbag evil satanic nazi like term ever created. At least top 5.

 

TSLRCM Official Forum || TSLRCM Moddb || My other KOTOR2 mods || TSLRCM (English version) on Steam || [M4-78EP on Steam

Formerly known as BattleWookiee/BattleCookiee

Link to post
Share on other sites

16 player co-op gogogo

"Alright, I've been thinking. When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade - make life take the lemons back! Get mad! I don't want your damn lemons, what am I supposed to do with these? Demand to see life's manager. Make life rue the day it thought it could give Cave Johnson lemons. Do you know who I am? I'm the man who's gonna burn your house down! With the lemons. I'm going to to get my engineers to invent a combustible lemon that burns your house down!"

Link to post
Share on other sites

DS2 was actually the same "click and watch" like DS1, with the difference that every few seconds one needed to active a power that instantly decimated a large cohort of mooks. Only boss fights required a little more attention from the player.

 

Apart from plot, DS2 is way better than the first game because of side quests that spanned across entire chapters and required one to revisit several world locations.

The ending of the words is ALMSIVI.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dungeon Siege's combat was rather derisively referred to as "click-and-watch". And I loved it.

 

 

You enjoy games that play themselves? May I ask why? Doesn't that defeat the point of a game?

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 had a better and longer gameplay in ds1 then 2 because of the mods, there were alot of maps, mods, communities, pvp and if the zonematch wasn't destroyed then it would still be a really nice game ;)

 

in ds2 the singeplayer and multiplayer is good, improved engine but they lack the things i said in ds 1 :p, ds 2 has a toolkit but after patch 2.1?> that was also over :)

 

If Obsidian makes dungeon siege 3 then they really should listen to what people has to say about it ;)

Edited by Huib-Bloodstone
Link to post
Share on other sites
Dungeon Siege's combat was rather derisively referred to as "click-and-watch". And I loved it.

You enjoy games that play themselves? May I ask why? Doesn't that defeat the point of a game?

Sawyer may agree with you. However, haven't heard of the ancient argument that Infinity Engine plays itself? I'm a kind of real-time with pause or pseudo turn-based player, myself. However, there are those who seem to be fond of playing IE games like a sport manager game. They find fun in building a team (party), choosing equipments for while not bothering with further micro-management at all. The Baldur's Gate's spiritual successor
Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't honestly manage to imagine someone who plays Baldur's Gate and Dragon Age without at least a little bit of micromanaging and goes far.

Not even on easy.

I don't know whether that was the case with Dungeon Siege, but if it was, and the game seemed to be designed to give you some input (after all it's an RPG, not a football managerial game :)) then it's bad design.

Pure and simple.

Or, in other words, if it looks like I have to play the game but even not playing it the game wins itself.. it's bad design. It really, really is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't say I ever micromanage and I don't usually agonize over equipment (like I knew some did in Diablo 2).

 

In fact I usually only even paused in Baldur's Gate when I wanted to throw a spell from a magic caster.

 

I don't remember any game that played itself outside of demo mode; never understood that argument.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I can't honestly manage to imagine someone who plays Baldur's Gate and Dragon Age without at least a little bit of micromanaging and goes far.

Not even on easy.

I don't know whether that was the case with Dungeon Siege, but if it was, and the game seemed to be designed to give you some input (after all it's an RPG, not a football managerial game :shifty:) then it's bad design.

Pure and simple.

Or, in other words, if it looks like I have to play the game but even not playing it the game wins itself.. it's bad design. It really, really is.

We are not talking of preventing the player(s) from putting any input in DSIII. DS III requires some imput...but the OP is asking if there is an option of letting AI does our tasks. Since there is drop in/out system for NPCs, the option may be available to PC, assuming the player for the PC is also a human being who can be called by nature or some other daily activities. Then, if everybody were able to drop out, then, wouldn't it leave the game to All AI, would it? If someone wants to watch it, why do you need to prevent him/her from doing that especially when you don't need to drop out by yourself? Even if there is such option, it doesn't mean it robs game-play of you. You will still be able to play the game in your own way.

 

I can't say I ever micromanage and I don't usually agonize over equipment (like I knew some did in Diablo 2).

 

In fact I usually only even paused in Baldur's Gate when I wanted to throw a spell from a magic caster.

 

I don't remember any game that played itself outside of demo mode; never understood that argument.

Yes, in (A)D&D system, magic plays a great role. I don't know how it works in Dungeon Siege 1/2 and Dragon Age, though. However, I've gotten an impression that, in DSIII, the players don't need to shift among characters even if they are allowed to do so. If the AI is made like that, it is possible that the same AI is applied to PC and I cannot come up with any reason to go against that possible additional option since it seems to be a simple extension of the existing function (I'm not a programmer, so correct me if I'm wrong, though).

 

Again, all of these are just hypothetical and we need the devs to decide about it. Personally, I don't mind either way especially since "all AI mode" would be optional.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 Members: Nathaniel Chapman, Krezack, Joseph Bulock

 

Thanks alot Krezack. You scared them off.

 

Actually Joseph 'Choices choices choices' 'Mr.Cinematics' (those were one of the things I would never criticize in Alpha Protocol, they were nice, really) Bulock is still reading.

And probably thinking we're all dumb for discussing design in such an uneducated manner.

Or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I can't honestly manage to imagine someone who plays Baldur's Gate and Dragon Age without at least a little bit of micromanaging and goes far.

Not even on easy.

With the Advanced Tactics mod, I only micromanage the mage in Dragon Age.

 

In Baldur's Gate, I simply gave all characters missile weapons, set their script to ranged and micromanaged the mage & cleric to occasionally buff and throw an offensive spell. The reason why Baldur's Gate 2 came up with those ridiculous thousand-and-one spell protections, was to prevent for the game to be played on autopilot.

 

Both games are far from the paragons of tactical combat they are presumed to be.

Edited by virumor

The ending of the words is ALMSIVI.

Link to post
Share on other sites
they are far from the 'interactive save screen' I've seen them implied to be in this thread.
I hope it didn't come from my posts since, if so, you must have read into them with your own framing. What I was saying is, simply, that BG/IWD series allowed the players to involve in the game-play in different levels depending on their preferences.

 

I wonder if there is an option where the players can have a control on the whole party instead of each character like in BG/IWD series and DA for these manager type players than more action-focused ones. Of course, according to the information revealed so far, DSIII seems to be more-action focused and require constant input from the players but, is it possible for the players to control multiple characters while reducing the depth of input for each character, making it play like BG/IWD series, putting more focus on special ability usages (the alternative for the spells) and deployments? There must be balance/controller issues and, I, myself, think this option is very unlikely although it sounds interesting on paper.

 

I'm simply curious. We still don't know how exactly the multi-player functions, which leads to quite many questions/possibilities. Even for the drop-in/out MP, how good NPCs' AI should be? If AI is "too" good, then, doesn't make the contribution from human players less important? Didn't the same discussion happen to even Baldur's Gate? Isn't the effect multiplied in a game where the players are supposed to be controlling fewer characters such as AI 3: Human player1?

 

These are flows of my thought when I was writing my previous posts here. I admit that the Infinity Engine-ish gameplay option is crazy, though.

Edited by Wombat
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...