Dungeon Siege was terrific, but DS2 was dreadful.

[Irrelevant]

Watching a dynamic battle play out is fun, having that battle change according that you've done is fun, participating in that battle is fun as well, I liked The Sims for this reason.

Huh, thats why those games are popular.

Edited July 14, 2010 by Irrelevant

[odjntrade]

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.

 

I'm a little confused about the direction of your statement. Magic plays a great role, I don't know how it works in these games, don't need to switch between party characters, if the AI is made like that. The first two parts made sense but that magic does play a great role and I would wager that you aren't lying about not knowing those systems. Switching between characters is technically not necessary for you to ever switch between characters unless we're talking about a game with no AI at all. I doubt Obsidian would do that to its players since it would create a pseudo turn based games and they are moving away from it (all manual controlled characters means increased pause times as you switch and it essentially becomes what most games originally were). AI controlled characters are practically required at this time. I imagine we'll be seeing something similar to Final Fantasy XII in the respect of party members. They have a default AI that can be modified (hopefully not the gambit system specifically) but it is very similar to DAO's system. Just that DAO had you do a lot more manually. So as for your last portion on programming, I'm assuming "like that" refers to what I just described on AI controlled characters with slightly modified combat patterns and, if the player can switch between characters, the player's character must be created with the same basic components as his team. So if they give you the option of not having manual control of a character then you have the ability to simply watch. I don't care for that gameplay myself but if it is already supported why not give it to the players.

 

Dungeon Siege's magic (in part 2, never played 1) didn't give you a lot of control as to targeting. You simply cast the spell and it does damage to enemies in front or around you. I didn't care for it too much. I got the first artifact in the game and was heading for the second when I lost interest. The lock picking and trap minigames had a sharp difficulty scale so that if you weren't ready to pick it, you shouldn't really bother. Rarely was I able to pick a lock while being 3 levels too low for it (excessively rare). On the overall I didn't care for the game but I saw soooooo much potential within it. I do hope that Obsidian is able to bring out those elements that made me enjoy that glitchy unpolished **************************************************

[Wombat]

@odjntrade Sorry, I cannot understand what you are saying...

 

Personally, I'd like to put my inputs where it has meaning, or when they have tactical importance in the combat game-play. "You point, I punch." - As Minsc pointed out in his best dialogue in whole BG series, I don't feel involvement in pushing/clicking a punch button repeatedly. That part should be done by script in Infinity Engine format.

 

Now, about DS3, while I don't find a problem in the control scheme in DS3 in multi-players and a human and an AI combination, if the ratio becomes a human and 3 AI players, then, I think it would radically reduce the tactical importance of the human player. One extreme solution would be to give the players an option to play it like IE games but allowing a certain level of control such as generic command to each AI characters while pausing may give the players feel of control to the combat. In any case, whatever solutions would be for this possible issue, there should be some middle grounds in a single-player scenario or when other players dropped out.

[Sylvius the Mad]

It's the need for constant clicking, when the character should be able to just keep doing what I had him doing, that annoys me.

 

This is why I can't stand Diablo, and couldn't play The Witcher (that combat system was frightful).

 

I do not mind at all having to identify a target for my characters, but assuming it's an action game rather than a detailed tactical game (more like Diablo and less like Dragon Age), then the party members will ostensibly be able to select a target themselves.

 

The question then becomes whether we can let the AI run all the characters. Dragon Age actually had a mod (made by BioWare - they'd use it for testing) that allowed you to leave the tactics on for all of the characters at once (effectively unselecting everyone).

 

Dungeon Siege allowed the focus of gameplay to be on building an effective party rather than getting viscerally involved in the combat.

[Humodour]

In Diablo you hold the mouse button down, you don't keep clicking.

 

And a lot of skills were multi-target, AOE, or auto-target, so you didn't need to change targets much at all.

[HoonDing]

Will DS3 even use a party? From the only preview that mentioned combat, it sounded Divinity 2 or Demon Stone like, i.e. one or two game characters & continuous involvement of the player being necessary.

[Humodour]

I'd prefer if it didn't I think, but yes, it will.

 

The party might be Fallout-like, though (not player controlled).

[Wombat]

In Diablo you hold the mouse button down, you don't keep clicking.

 

And a lot of skills were multi-target, AOE, or auto-target, so you didn't need to change targets much at all.

Really? IIRC, I could only play the demos for both Diablo and Diablo II but the mindless clicking when swarmed by outnumbering enemies put me off. I can play some action games such as shooters especially when positioning is a key rather than finger-hurting clicking...no Serious Sam for me. The game-play of Oblivion is O.K. to me, too. So, I guess it is mainly how frequent I have to repeat clicking/button-mushing (for me, it's not a game-play but a labor).

 

I know DSIII is going to be an action RPG but, if AI is capable of playing characters without screwing up PC, then, I don't see a problem in the designers allowing some people like me or some other people in this thread to control the frequency of the input.

 

Will DS3 even use a party?

Nothing is official but multiple resources mentioned that the "party" is upto four members. That said, indeed, the possible issue I mentioned can be solved simply by limiting the number to two. After all, how to solve the issue depends on the designers.

[Purkake]

You only had to keep clicking in Diablo 1.

 

I don't really know where D2 got the reputation for being all clicking all the time, holding down the button comes pretty naturally.

[Wombat]

You only had to keep clicking in Diablo 1.

 

I don't really know where D2 got the reputation for being all clicking all the time, holding down the button comes pretty naturally.

I don't know how other people found it but, to me, it didn't make so much difference once swarmed by enemies...

[Purkake]

With a Barbarian you could just hold down the button and mow down enemy after enemy when they swarmed you.

 

I guess someone didn't know about the wonders /players 8

[Wombat]

I tried it with the demo, which was downloaded/installed in a blink (!) on my virtual environment. It functions and probably save my fingers from hurting but it doesn't save the game from the familiar monotonous feel. Back to the old time, I tried Diablo and quite many of their clones but, somehow, I couldn't make myself go further than demos. The game-play is not for me, I guess.

[Purkake]

It's so much better with some other people.

[Humodour]

I tried it with the demo, which was downloaded/installed in a blink (!) on my virtual environment. It functions and probably save my fingers from hurting but it doesn't save the game from the familiar monotonous feel. Back to the old time, I tried Diablo and quite many of their clones but, somehow, I couldn't make myself go further than demos. The game-play is not for me, I guess.

 

IMHO, this feeling happens because you play by yourself. It evaporates when you play with others.

[Wombat]

Hmmm...I haven't played them in multi-player. When Diablo series were popular, I played demos and was left with a tons of question marks. I simply couldn't figure out why they seem to be so fun to the others. I guess I played it all wrong then.

 

This may be related with many other cases such as the recent example of the view of shooter players vs that of RPG players to Alpha Protocol. Designers have to deal with the expectations/framing of the players since their games should capture players as soon as the players start playing it, or, at least, the designers should keep players' attentions while they are still trying to figure out the game-play. I think I was much more patient than recent gamers about Diablo (clones), though. I remember even a CD Projekt designer was trying to figure out how to implement tutorial of the original Witcher without putting off the players years ago and was saddened when I read quite many players' comments complaining of the introductory part of AP.

[Wombat]

Back on topic, the description of Dragon Age 2 combat here, which I stumbled upon today, seems to be near to what I imagined.

With the bumpers you can switch between characters in your party. Anyone you're not controlling will be handled by the AI. If the action is getting a little too hectic you can still stop it and issue commands to your party by holding the left trigger. This ability seems to work much like the squad commands in Mass Effect. You can also pause the action to carefully set spell target areas. Alongside our hero Hawk we had a female mage fighting with us in this battle. Her fire spells deal damage in a radius, and we were able to pause the fight and move the circle of death around the battlefield before casting.

Just for sure, I'd write down my idea in this thread.

• 1. (A) controllable PC(s) with uncontrollable AI NPCs. (The feature reported by multiple sources)
  2. (A) controllable PC(s) with AI NPCs which can be indirectly controlled by the player(s) through generic command such as offensive/defensive/use items.
  3. (A) controllable PC(s) with AI NPCs which can be directly controlled through pause. (Exactly shown in DA2 example above)
  4. Infinity Engine style control under the top-down view. (This is most "radical" for an ARPG and probably crazy.)
  

Of course, if any idea above (especially the 4th one) is far from the format the designers planning, they should rather ignore my opinion here. For example, Valve made a first person mode for Alien Swarm but, probably, due to the apparent clunkiness, they wisely didn't include it as a choice chosen from default menu. Likewise, if the designers don't feel the implementation is not good enough for mass market, I don't think they should make it easily accessible especially considering the "reputation" of Obsidian. For, after all, as long as Obsidian keep their originality and quality in the content area, I can overlook if the game-plays are made for other people.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Regardless of whether there's a party, it's the need for constant inputs I'd like to avoid. Needing to select a new target every 2 seconds isn't fun. Having to click to swing my sword or fire a spell (or even hold down a button to keep doing it) isn't fun.

 

If the enemies don't routinely fall in 1-2 blows, then selecting a new one isn't a big deal. But if I'm one-shotting everything (as was often the case in Dungeon Siege, particularly early in the game) I'd like my character not to stand there like an idiot in-between foes.

[Purkake]

What everyone seems to be missing is that you don't have to target the enemies for most things, just targeting the ground or even a general direction was good enough in Diablo. Nothing like enemy after enemy falling to your flamethrower/lightning/ice thingy.

[Vuguroth]

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.

 

You're wrong. DS2 did something of the sort through rampage. If you really don't want to play your selected character, then make it a curser. Drown/infect is one hell of a way to get easy AOE damage + opening up vulnerabilities. Or a healer. Both can be put in autocast slot.

 

DS2 wasn't dreadful. Your topic is to me quite disturbing and I feel a great urge to insult you in many various ways because your inability to enjoy DS2, which is a real top of the top kind of game.

 

 

Will DS3 even use a party? From the only preview that mentioned combat, it sounded Divinity 2 or Demon Stone like, i.e. one or two game characters & continuous involvement of the player being necessary.

 

Chris stated in an interview with German Eurogamer, I think it was, that he's done with multiple character parties. There's just too much to do. DS3 will, according to that, be focused on playing a single hero.

 

I think it sounds great for two reasons:

Easier to develop great multiplayer

More focus on the center of gameplay

 

I do love the effects of, for example, death beam and an ice bolt hitting a target together. Thus I hope for single player possibilities such as quests including a companion, so that you can enjoy the combinations.

Also the character builds + pets of DS2 were so incredible - many times above all other rpg's. Partys made that even richer because of combo possibilities. I mean who doesn't love that incredibly flashy party of a melee character using a spellcaster staff, but no spells.

[HoonDing]

DS was pretty much the only party-based action RPG, which set it apart from the many single-hero type ones like Diablo, Sacred & Divine Divinity. I'd like it to remain that way... not to mention Diablo 3 & Kingdoms of Amalur will be the main competitors, and both use the single-hero type.

[WorstUsernameEver]

Didn't the PR announcement talk about gathering companions? Granted, I'm not sure if you'll have the possibility to control them or not, but it seems that the game won't be a single-hero type.

[Flouride]

Didn't the PR announcement talk about gathering companions? Granted, I'm not sure if you'll have the possibility to control them or not, but it seems that the game won't be a single-hero type.

 

It did. Chris Taylor? spoke about not having any companions in one of his interviews. But that was when he was supposed to make the game.

[WorstUsernameEver]

It did. Chris Taylor? spoke about not having any companions in one of his interviews. But that was when he was supposed to make the game.

 

As you point out, that was when people thought that he was working on Dungeon Siege III (something he confirmed he wasn't a little bit after, but the damage was done).

And since Obsidian is working on this, I'd trust the PR announcement more...

[Flouride]

It did. Chris Taylor? spoke about not having any companions in one of his interviews. But that was when he was supposed to make the game.

 

As you point out, that was when people thought that he was working on Dungeon Siege III (something he confirmed he wasn't a little bit after, but the damage was done).

And since Obsidian is working on this, I'd trust the PR announcement more...

 

Exactly. Also it was confirmed in pretty much all of the E3 previews.

[Volourn]

"DS was pretty much the only party-based action RPG,"

 

ME series would ahve diasagreed with you if you hadn't cheated with 'pretty much'.

Edited July 28, 2010 by Volourn