Reviews

[Xiaolin]

Really 70-75% is better than average even accounting for modern score inflation.

And we can't really compare the game to Torchlight (indy game) just as we can't compare it to Guardian of Light (XBL/PSN) or DDO (pseudo-mmo).

Since DS3 launches for a full price in retail it's production values will be judged against the AAA titles.

If it doesn't present anything exceptional in other areas it's simply unlikely to consistently score 80% (or more) because the high budget is clearly not there.

 

Torchlight is an Xbla game not an Indie game, and yes I can judge DS3 against it. It is quite clearly in the same genre. Although I dare say (aside from the lack of mulitplayer in Torchlight) Torch is of higher quality. DS3 while it looks okay it certainly does not cater to MP which is really the only reason I would buy a game like this, and also why I didnt buy Torchlight, as good as it is, on 360. That and I have it on steam already...

[lithographer]

Fight about the points, not the people.

 

 

I apologize thats really how I meant it. If you look at the scores for games like Dragon Knight Saga (or Divinity 2), Sacred 2, Risen, and that gothic game...what was it called? Arcania? Euro reviewers are much more lenient than the US equivalents. I think Euro devs are much more lenient due to percieved hardships that smaller devs have. Its not easy to compete with Bioware (actually canadian right? though they do have offices in US) or Bethesda. Both devs recieve much in the way of leniency based on prior success and the high production values they put into games because of their wallet size. However because of the budget gap European Rpgs seem to have way more bugs, glitches, and other nonsense things going on in the final version of the game than most north american releases. Granted niether come out perfect but you wouldn't take a like Risen and put it next to Mass Effect or Oblivion and call it an even playing field. Then there are other aspects of production like sound and voice overs that I've never really seen a European developer be able to match. Witcher 2 though may be the exception...however on one of my comps the sound is yet to work (and no its not the comp)

 

 

Risen is much, much better designed than Oblivion and with fewer bugs to boot.

 

 

I think that is a matter of opinion. Even with Oblivion's three voice actors I'd say the dialog carries much better through that than Risen. All other aspects are a matter of opinion. Unfortunately for me, I am comparing console versions of the game. The pc, as I well know, is an entirely different matter.

[Tigranes]

If you look at the distribution of scores, you don't see a trend of Europeans giving all games an easier time; you see several trends that include (a) US scores heavily punishing certain aspects, such as high difficulty, while going easy on other aspects, such as story, while the EU scores have different priorities; (b) slight bias towards games from their own regions for both sides, though this may not be intentional; © tendency for US to give AAA titles high scores because they are AAA, though this may, again, be related to how US scores value production values a lot more.

 

Whether you think either side is better or worse depends on where your own priorites lie. Of course, it's then complicated by factors such as reviewers often going by their personal opinion, some reviews being influenced by indirect bribery in ads and exclusives, etc.

[pmp10]

Torchlight is an Xbla game not an Indie game, and yes I can judge DS3 against it. It is quite clearly in the same genre.

Can't say I agree on that.

Existence of loot and similar camera position doesn't necessarily put those games in the same genre.

And even if they were the comparison is pointless as they launched at completely different price points.

[Epic777]

- no optical difference when you equip your hero with a new armor

 

? Is there a problem with the review code? Because there are sure as hell different armors.

 

I think there are different types of armors and not every single armor is different looking. Not sure what they were expecting though, it's almost impossible to make every single piece of armor/item unique for a loot-heavy game. I guess they could've randomized them some more, but it probably fell out of the scope of the project.

Have you heard of Titan Quest?

[rafoca]

- no optical difference when you equip your hero with a new armor

 

? Is there a problem with the review code? Because there are sure as hell different armors.

 

I think there are different types of armors and not every single armor is different looking. Not sure what they were expecting though, it's almost impossible to make every single piece of armor/item unique for a loot-heavy game. I guess they could've randomized them some more, but it probably fell out of the scope of the project.

Have you heard of Titan Quest?

 

Not only Titan Quest, but Too Human, Sacred 2, Silverfall, Torchlight and the list goes on. Actually, it is pretty common in this kind of genre being able to see the looks of your recent acquired armor/weapon.

[Bendu]

Have just played Torchlight today. It has plenty of loot which looks all the same.

[Nathaniel Chapman]

Yeah, there is loot that changes the visual appearance of your character. We probably could have done a better job distributing those armor pieces, but it's definitely there and it's not a small amount.

[Dabu]

@UP: So Nathaniel, how do you feel about all of those reviews and opinions about demo?

[Epic777]

- no optical difference when you equip your hero with a new armor

 

? Is there a problem with the review code? Because there are sure as hell different armors.

 

I think there are different types of armors and not every single armor is different looking. Not sure what they were expecting though, it's almost impossible to make every single piece of armor/item unique for a loot-heavy game. I guess they could've randomized them some more, but it probably fell out of the scope of the project.

Have you heard of Titan Quest?

 

Not only Titan Quest, but Too Human, Sacred 2, Silverfall, Torchlight and the list goes on. Actually, it is pretty common in this kind of genre being able to see the looks of your recent acquired armor/weapon.

Well, i mean in TQ every single blue or epic piece of loot has it's design, and they are all diffirent. More than 2000 pieces with it's own design, and they never repeat, think of it.

[Nathaniel Chapman]

@UP: So Nathaniel, how do you feel about all of those reviews and opinions about demo?

 

Outside of the... rarefied air of the forums, the reception to the demo's been pretty positive. So I'm happy about that. I'm not unsurprised that our multiplayer is disappointing to some people here, but I think that there are also a lot of people (who are not likely to coincide with the hardcore players on the board) that will appreciate how multiplayer works. I'm not saying that I wouldn't like to have done things to make everyone happy, but I also have a clear understanding of what the realistic alternatives were in actually developing the game, which is a benefit of knowledge that a developer gets that fans don't. Not that it should matter to you guys, since you pay 60 bucks for the game regardless of the development circumstances.

 

As for the hardcore player's reaction here, again, it's understood and I appreciate both the positive and negative comments. I'm also reading other forums where the comments skew more positive, and that's encouraging. I think the only thing that's a little disappointing is seeing people here who don't like the demo personally insulting the team (many of whom spent countless 12+ hour days working on the game), but what can you expect, it's the internet

 

We knew from the start that we weren't making Diablo 3 and we chose a different path. The core game wasn't designed to be played with randoms, and it just wasn't feasible or smart from a quality perspective to include a bunch of different modes for different styles of play (a PvP mode, a "go game with no story, no C&C, with random players" mode, etc).

 

The kind of co-op that we knew went well with our core gameplay was playing through the game, from beginning to end, with family or friends. We included online because we felt that would let people who were physically separated to play together. Our goal wasn't to make Borderlands, or Diablo, and while I appreciate that there are people who wish we did, I'd argue that there are also people who will appreciate how we've done co-op in a way that makes it really, really easy to play through a story-driven ARPG with your buddies.

 

On the flipside, I think even if you leave out multiplayer and co-op entirely, a 15-20 hour single player ARPG with good combat, loot, and story is a good value. For people who like the core game, I think they are getting a really good value. For people who don't, that's okay and they are entitled to their opinions.

 

I don't have really strong opinions on the reviews because 1) I haven't been able to read the source text and 2) I don't speak the native languages, so it's hard to really make a judgement on them. I don't really know that it matters what I think of the reviews, since everyone's entitled to their opinions, though, regardless of what I think

[Matt-C]

Outside of the... rarefied air of the forums, the reception to the demo's been pretty positive. So I'm happy about that.

 

Based on what I have seen in forums, news posts, etc it's been about 50/50. Now considering these are people that were actually interested in the game at some point during the development cycle but now are not, how can you be happy about that?

 

I'm not unsurprised that our multiplayer is disappointing to some people here, but I think that there are also a lot of people (who are not likely to coincide with the hardcore players on the board) that will appreciate how multiplayer works.

 

Overall the response to the multiplayer has been very negative. Where are all these people you speak of? Other than a few loyal Obsidian fans on this forum defending it (hell even half of the 'fanbois' are not even defending this one).

 

I'm not saying that I wouldn't like to have done things to make everyone happy, but I also have a clear understanding of what the realistic alternatives were in actually developing the game, which is a benefit of knowledge that a developer gets that fans don't. Not that it should matter to you guys, since you pay 60 bucks for the game regardless of the development circumstances.

 

Not everyone, but I'm sure if you aimed for over 50% that would be appreciated. As the people who enjoy what you have done with the multiplayer is far less than that.

 

As for the hardcore player's reaction here, again, it's understood and I appreciate both the positive and negative comments. I'm also reading other forums where the comments skew more positive, and that's encouraging. I think the only thing that's a little disappointing is seeing people here who don't like the demo personally insulting the team (many of whom spent countless 12+ hour days working on the game), but what can you expect, it's the internet

 

You tampered with an already existing series and dramatically changed it. It's not just the internet where you will find harsh comments and people speaking negatively about the product you produced.

 

You mention people working hard on this game, who cares? Working hard doesn't get you anywhere if you can't deliver results. You guys aren't in school anymore where you get a certificate for effort/participation. So don't bother mentioning peoples 12+ hour days if you have failed to deliver.

 

We knew from the start that we weren't making Diablo 3 and we chose a different path. The core game wasn't designed to be played with randoms, and it just wasn't feasible or smart from a quality perspective to include a bunch of different modes for different styles of play (a PvP mode, a "go game with no story, no C&C, with random players" mode, etc).

 

No you weren't making Diablo 3, you were making Dungeon Siege 3, this is where you seem to be confused. I understand what Obsidian have set out to create, however why use an existing IP that doesn't fit this end goal in the slightest? At the end of the day what is going to sell millions more copies and be played 10 years from now? Will it be DS3 or Diablo 3 with it's PvP mode, "no story' and ability to play with randoms... Damn Blizzard for not being smart and lacking quality.

 

You guys keep using the excuses 'but we set out to do this, and I think we achieved that'. It doesn't make it any less of a terrible idea. Say if I set out to break the law, and I accomplished that, should I be respected that I achieved something stupid? No, and neither should you.

 

I'm sorry if you personally feel insulted Nathaniel Chapman, however you work in an industry where this is going to happen for the rest of your life. So man up and wipe away the tears and accept that there are going to be people that just don't like the decisions you have made, welcome to a little thing we call life.

[Matt-C]

We probably could have done a better job

QFT

[Renevent]

Matt-C there absolutely no reason to be rude to the developers. Good design decisions or not, I am sure every single one of the them poured their heart into the game.

[Matt-C]

Matt-C there absolutely no reason to be rude to the developers. Good design decisions or not, I am sure every single one of the them poured their heart into the game.

Yes maybe my criticism went a little too far. There are plenty of things in my life I poured my heart into that turned out to be complete failures. You learn and become better from things like this, but only if you actually realise your mistake and accept it.

[Purkake]

I'm not saying that I wouldn't like to have done things to make everyone happy, but I also have a clear understanding of what the realistic alternatives were in actually developing the game, which is a benefit of knowledge that a developer gets that fans don't. Not that it should matter to you guys, since you pay 60 bucks for the game regardless of the development circumstances.

This is a large part of the problem for the current AAA-driven industry. If you(I guess it was the publisher's decision, but still) make a $60 game that doesn't quite live up to other $60 games you'll get crushed in reviews and have meager sales as 80%+ of those games do. Now look at Torchlight, it's a fun self-published $20 game(now down to $15) that got near universal praise, sold well and almost no one complained about its shortness or other minor flaws(well, they did want multiplayer and they're getting in in the sequel...). My point is that moving away from the status quo, focusing on your strengths and innovating can go a long way sometimes.

Edited June 2, 2011 by Purkake

[Sannom]

Damn Blizzard for not being smart and lacking quality.

Blizzard certainly could use some smarts and making games that aren't copies of their successes of the last decade.

[Purkake]

Shots fired!

[Nathaniel Chapman]

Matt-C there absolutely no reason to be rude to the developers. Good design decisions or not, I am sure every single one of the them poured their heart into the game.

Yes maybe my criticism went a little too far. There are plenty of things in my life I poured my heart into that turned out to be complete failures. You learn and become better from things like this, but only if you actually realise your mistake and accept it.

 

I think it's premature to presume that DSIII is a failure. It's also arrogant to assume that, because it's not the game you wanted, it's not a game that anyone wants. Honestly there's really nothing else to say about this - everyone who reads this forum can understand that you're not happy with the direction of the game and repeatedly posting it isn't going to achieve much other than giving you carpal tunnel and annoying people who want to actually discuss the game.

[tangmcgame]

I think it's premature to presume that DSIII is a failure. It's also arrogant to assume that, because it's not the game you wanted, it's not a game that anyone wants. Honestly there's really nothing else to say about this - everyone who reads this forum can understand that you're not happy with the direction of the game and repeatedly posting it isn't going to achieve much other than giving you carpal tunnel and annoying people who want to actually discuss the game.

 

QFT

[Matt-C]

Matt-C there absolutely no reason to be rude to the developers. Good design decisions or not, I am sure every single one of the them poured their heart into the game.

Yes maybe my criticism went a little too far. There are plenty of things in my life I poured my heart into that turned out to be complete failures. You learn and become better from things like this, but only if you actually realise your mistake and accept it.

 

I think it's premature to presume that DSIII is a failure. It's also arrogant to assume that, because it's not the game you wanted, it's not a game that anyone wants. Honestly there's really nothing else to say about this - everyone who reads this forum can understand that you're not happy with the direction of the game and repeatedly posting it isn't going to achieve much other than giving you carpal tunnel and annoying people who want to actually discuss the game.

QFT

[Nathaniel Chapman]

I'm not saying that I wouldn't like to have done things to make everyone happy, but I also have a clear understanding of what the realistic alternatives were in actually developing the game, which is a benefit of knowledge that a developer gets that fans don't. Not that it should matter to you guys, since you pay 60 bucks for the game regardless of the development circumstances.

This is a large part of the problem for the current AAA-driven industry. If you(I guess it was the publisher's decision, but still) make a $60 game that doesn't quite live up to other $60 games you'll get crushed in reviews and have meager sales as 80%+ of those games do. Now look at Torchlight, it's a fun self-published $20 game(now down to $15) that got near universal praise, sold well and almost no one complained about its shortness or other minor flaws(well, they did want multiplayer and they're getting in in the sequel...). My point is that moving away from the status quo, focusing on your strengths and innovating can go a long way sometimes.

 

I agree with you. I think there are a lot of alternatives to the 60$ AAA, console market that are really interesting.

 

On the flipside, the value proposition of DS3 versus (some) other AAA games is quite good. Not every RPG, or even every ARPG, is an infinitely replayable online grinding game, nor do they have to be. Some very well reviewed and well loved AAA ARPGs don't have local or online co-op at all. So I guess I just inherently reject the idea that DS3 is somehow not providing value for the price.

 

The reality of development is that time spent on X means less time spent on Y. Some of those decisions were based on technology and development resources, some on what we do well as a company, and some on what Square-Enix wanted. But we always keep in mind what we think gamers want, and it's also critical to remember that gamers are a complicated bunch. If you go over to some unnamed RPG superfan forums, they can barely agree what an RPG even is, let alone what makes one good - and that's about the most concentrated group of gamers you could imagine. When you expand it out to the broad gaming community, there's a huge diversity of tastes. So just because you don't want something doesn't mean that there aren't a million+ people who do.

 

In this case, we made specific decisions to focus on some things (responsive action combat, an RPG and loot system with deeper and more interesting character development choices, story and dialog, interesting quest content, buddy based co-op) and not on other things. Some people will be happy with that, and some won't, and that's something that we understand and live with as game developers.

 

Also the honest truth is that DS3, more than any other game I've worked on, has had people coming up to me after playing it, saying, "this is exactly the game I've been wanting"! It's true that those people aren't necessarily Dungeon Siege superfans (though some are) or internet forum posters. But their opinions count just as much as anyone else's, and the verdict is still out on whether or not there are more of them, or more people upset with our direction.

[Purkake]

I agree with you. I think there are a lot of alternatives to the 60$ AAA, console market that are really interesting.

 

On the flipside, the value proposition of DS3 versus (some) other AAA games is quite good. Not every RPG, or even every ARPG, is an infinitely replayable online grinding game, nor do they have to be. Some very well reviewed and well loved AAA ARPGs don't have local or online co-op at all. So I guess I just inherently reject the idea that DS3 is somehow not providing value for the price.

 

The reality of development is that time spent on X means less time spent on Y. In this case, we made specific decisions to focus on some things (responsive action combat, an RPG and loot system with deeper and more interesting character development choices, story and dialog, interesting quest content, buddy based co-op) and not on other things. Some people will be happy with that, and some won't, and that's something that we understand and live with as game developers.

 

Also the honest truth is that DS3, more than any other game I've worked on, has had people coming up to me after playing it, saying, "this is exactly the game I've been wanting"! It's true that those people aren't necessarily Dungeon Siege superfans (though some are) or internet forum posters. But their opinions count just as much as anyone else's, and the verdict is still out on whether or not there are more of them, or more people upset with our direction.

I understand and I wasn't saying anything about the the value, it's just that $60 games get bunched in with other $60 games regardless of any other qualities. It would be very interesting to actually see average playtimes for different games. On one hand you have stats that say that only ~50% of people finish games like Mass Effect and Gears of War, on the other hand you have people putting hundreds of hours into Oblivion, Minecraft, Diablo and the like. Value is about as subjective as you can get,

 

Have you ever considered self-publishing or more budget-oriented side-projects?

Edited June 3, 2011 by Purkake

[Nathaniel Chapman]

I agree with you. I think there are a lot of alternatives to the 60$ AAA, console market that are really interesting.

 

On the flipside, the value proposition of DS3 versus (some) other AAA games is quite good. Not every RPG, or even every ARPG, is an infinitely replayable online grinding game, nor do they have to be. Some very well reviewed and well loved AAA ARPGs don't have local or online co-op at all. So I guess I just inherently reject the idea that DS3 is somehow not providing value for the price.

 

The reality of development is that time spent on X means less time spent on Y. In this case, we made specific decisions to focus on some things (responsive action combat, an RPG and loot system with deeper and more interesting character development choices, story and dialog, interesting quest content, buddy based co-op) and not on other things. Some people will be happy with that, and some won't, and that's something that we understand and live with as game developers.

 

Also the honest truth is that DS3, more than any other game I've worked on, has had people coming up to me after playing it, saying, "this is exactly the game I've been wanting"! It's true that those people aren't necessarily Dungeon Siege superfans (though some are) or internet forum posters. But their opinions count just as much as anyone else's, and the verdict is still out on whether or not there are more of them, or more people upset with our direction.

I understand and I wasn't saying anything about the the value, it's just that $60 games get bunched in with other $60 games regardless of any other qualities. It would be very interesting to actually see average playtimes for different games. On one hand you have stats that say that only ~50% of people finish games like Mass Effect and Gears of War, on the other hand you have people putting hundreds of hours into Oblivion, Minecraft, Diablo and the like. Value is about as subjective as you can get,

 

Have you ever considered self-publishing or more budget-oriented side-projects?

 

As for big questions in terms of Obsidian's strategy, that's a better question for someone like Feargus.

 

I will say that 1) I think there is a market for lower-budget games at lower price points and 2) I think that there is even a market for 50/60$ niche games as long as you control scope.

 

I also think that things like Steam and the various App Stores really help lower the barrier of entry for self publishing, which make it even more attractive.

 

And yeah, you're definitely right that value is subjective. I spent 50 bucks on Portal 2 and I walked away completely happy, even though I spent about 6$ an hour on the game. Whereas I'd be upset to pay 60 bucks on a bad game - even if it lasted hundreds of hours

[Tigranes]

Actually, if you look at the completion rate, I suspect that Oblivion, Diablo, etc have many 'quitters' as well. And then you get weird things like people paying $60 to play a FPS that finishes in 8 hours and not complaining, even if they don't play MP afterwards.

 

Your point stands though, the price tag is often used as a blanket measure. I'm guessing that the 2D game they seem to have going right now is an effort at diversifying.