Delayed...

[C2B]

Well from the destrctoid interview they had with Nathan Davis. That sounded great and what I was hoping for until I watched this newer preview G4TV had with Lead Designer Nathaniel Chapman. It sounds totally different between what each other said. They should have it where single player and co-op are different meaning that you'll have characters dedicated for each like they did in Two Worlds 2. If they don't change it then I won't be getting this game.

 

http://www.g4tv.com/videos/52047/Dungeon-S...nds-On-Preview/

 

It doesn't sound different. They are just talking about totally different things. Theres nothing overlapping.

 

What exactly do you mean?

 

Edit: Watched the g4 one again. Nothings overlapping or really contradicting. For the points that are unclear: WE JUST DON'T KNOW YET. DSIII has a very special co-op system from begin with.

Edited April 17, 2011 by C2B

[rafoca]

Console owners know how much time can take for a patch to arrive on XBL/PSN, so delaying the game is good new in fact.

[Xile]

Well from the destrctoid interview they had with Nathan Davis. That sounded great and what I was hoping for until I watched this newer preview G4TV had with Lead Designer Nathaniel Chapman. It sounds totally different between what each other said. They should have it where single player and co-op are different meaning that you'll have characters dedicated for each like they did in Two Worlds 2. If they don't change it then I won't be getting this game.

 

http://www.g4tv.com/videos/52047/Dungeon-S...nds-On-Preview/

 

It doesn't sound different. They are just talking about totally different things. Theres nothing overlapping.

 

What exactly do you mean?

 

Edit: Watched the g4 one again. Nothings overlapping or really contradicting. For the points that are unclear: WE JUST DON'T KNOW YET. DSIII has a very special co-op system from begin with.

 

 

You watched the G4TV video right? At the 1:25 mark he says when you join someones game you pick the character you want to play then you come in at the level that works for "THEIR" game with the appropiate level and gear that works. That's Not what was said to destructiod. Your single player characters will be distinct from your multiplayer characters -- however both can be persistently grown, equipped and adventured with over multiple game sessions. Now how can your multiplayer character progress when you automatically come in at the right level that fits to the game of the person your joining?

 

Either way the only way I'm getting this game is if I have my own character that I can use and level up myself. I don't want another Fable 2.

[Oner]

It's one thing to have persistent, growing characters (which they still are, despite starting on say, lvl 10), but what's the point of joining a game midway through and beginning on lvl 1?

 

If you want to start from scratch, join a new game, not one 8 hours in.

 

On the other hand, say every match/session/whatever you join in multiplayer ends at lvl 5, you just keep repeating the same first few hours of the game. This way you can pick up from where you left off with other people and not be penalized for it.

[C2B]

You watched the G4TV video right? At the 1:25 mark he says when you join someones game you pick the character you want to play then you come in at the level that works for "THEIR" game with the appropiate level and gear that works. That's Not what was said to destructiod. Your single player characters will be distinct from your multiplayer characters -- however both can be persistently grown, equipped and adventured with over multiple game sessions. Now how can your multiplayer character progress when you automatically come in at the right level that fits to the game of the person your joining?

 

Either way the only way I'm getting this game is if I have my own character that I can use and level up myself. I don't want another Fable 2.

 

Because the charachter you progress is used in your own hosted multiplayer game? Maybe you get some scaled items/experience? Maybe said charachter is scaled to the game you join with your customization?

Edited April 29, 2011 by C2B

[hopfrog16]

You watched the G4TV video right? At the 1:25 mark he says when you join someones game you pick the character you want to play then you come in at the level that works for "THEIR" game with the appropiate level and gear that works. That's Not what was said to destructiod. Your single player characters will be distinct from your multiplayer characters -- however both can be persistently grown, equipped and adventured with over multiple game sessions. Now how can your multiplayer character progress when you automatically come in at the right level that fits to the game of the person your joining?

 

Either way the only way I'm getting this game is if I have my own character that I can use and level up myself. I don't want another Fable 2.

 

Because the charachter you progress is used in your own hosted multiplayer game? Maybe you get some scaled items/experience? Maybe said charachter is scaled to the game you join with your customization?

 

To be honest, the last example you gave wouldn't bother me as much. One of the whole points in multiplayer is to feel like you're contributing your strengths to a group through the character you've built (at least for me... probably why I enjoy playing support type characters). Having to use characters I haven't started with and with points already spent into things I don't want would bother me (assuming the host already spent the character's points), but being able to use characters I've built from the ground up (even if the quality of his gear, or the power of his skills are scaled down to fit the level of the host) would be a good thing I think.

 

Meh... This whole discussion really is pointless, though. As you've already pointed out, no one knows exactly how online co-op will work, and with less than 2 months before the release I highly doubt we will be informed until after the fact. If you folks would like, I could tell you all how it is exactly the day of it's release (since I have preordered it).

[greylord]

Console owners know how much time can take for a patch to arrive on XBL/PSN, so delaying the game is good new in fact.

 

I agree. I heard that and thought Square Enix hopefully are putting Obs through the Ringer (unlike Beths, or Sega) with any bugs they find to try to ensure that it's pretty much bug free...at least I hope so...after the FF XIV fiasco

[Tigranes]

It's the other way round, since publishers usually do the QA for medium sized devs like Obs.

[greylord]

They may do the QA, but I assume they'll turn the repair work (fixing the dang bugs) back to the developer, along with contracting them out to create patches after the games release. If the developer puts out a game that is too buggy, the QA is going to ram it back down the developer's throats with so many bugs they'll drown the dev. to the ground in some case...wearing them all out. If the developer releases a pretty strong game to the publisher's QA, it won't be so terrible...

 

It's true that some of the other Obs releases didn't have the QA too kick down the door and say fix it, but at the same time some of the bugs shouldn't have made it past the alpha stage IMO. It's a dual relationship between them, so yes, QA HAS to catch the bugs, but it's on the developer to give them something that works in the first place, and back to them after the QA finds it.

 

AT least thats my understanding of how the relationship works. So I'm hoping QA does a great job finding the bugs, which in turn will make Obs probably work all that much harder.

 

If Obs released a good candidate, then it shouldn't be too painful at all.

 

If they didn't, then if SE QA is good, then the amount of kickback Obs gets perhaps would inspire them to release something that causes less pain on the hindend later on.

 

I don't know if it's good OR bad, I'm just hoping that their is great testing on it so that it works great at release without really needing a patch to smooth things out!

 

Don't worry however, I'm still buying it the day of release regardless, I'm just hopeful that with the slightly extended time (it's not much, so I imagine it was actually a good candidate that SE got for final QA...it just needed a tweak here or there...OR other difficulties with the publisher such as natural phenomenon, economic hinderances or other unexpeted events pushed it back).

[Tigranes]

In good projects the QA works with the developer - bugsquashing has to happen all the time, not "here's our Beta version, get back to us with 317 bugs to fix". A buggy game can have many causes (convoluted development process, rushed schedule, bad tools, change of tools, bad management, etc), so Obsidian surely is part of the problem, but it really depends on whether SE has given them a good investment in QA, whether the delayed time is being used well, etc.

 

Anyway, yes, it's important for Obs to make DS3 bug free esp. after they've come out and said it. Personally I've seen so many more buggy games that Obs don't seem that out of the ordinary, but you never want gamebreaking bugs for anyone.