Reviews

[C2B]

Err, that's not accurate. Armor definitely changes the appearance of your character.

 

Two different magazines reported this though. Problem with the review code?

[Nathaniel Chapman]

Err, that's not accurate. Armor definitely changes the appearance of your character.

 

Two different magazines reported this though. Problem with the review code?

 

Not every piece is unique, but there are a lot of variations. Could be an issue, I'll look into it.

[Olauron Mor-Galad]

Err, that's not accurate. Armor definitely changes the appearance of your character.

 

Two different magazines reported this though. Problem with the review code?

 

Not every piece is unique, but there are a lot of variations. Could be an issue, I'll look into it.

It was stated in the article on www.gametech.ru that only rare "gold" armor changes character appearance. This is really strange as even in the first gameplay trailer we saw the opposite. It is quite natural that there are some pieces with identical models, but still there is a misunderstanding. Would you be so kind to clarify, what kind of armor changes the appearance of a character: only unique armor with fixed parameters (in fixed location) or conventional armor with random parameters (in random locations) as well?

[Tigranes]

Maybe they expected every single gauntlet to give the character a clearly different look, for example, which is clearly not possible in any game with randomised loot system. If the game randmoly generates Sturdy Gauntlet +2 and Sturdy Gauntlet of Fire +1 they may look the same or hardly different. I don't see how it could be otherwise unless you create a randomised system for generating ten thousand variations of textures.

 

The more important question is whether you get clear visual differences between types and tiers of equipment, i.e. whether your lvl30 character with a couple of unique equipment will look very different from a lvl20 guy. And I think the videos clearly show that we do.

[Eriksharp]

Thanks Tigranes.

I have a question, what is the max. level? 30?

Is Obsidian going to sell DLCs after the game will be released?

In the local coop, the XP is saved for both players? or only the host?

[Oner]

Thanks Tigranes.

I have a question, what is the max. level? 30?

Is Obsidian going to sell DLCs after the game will be released?

In the local coop, the XP is saved for both players? or only the host?

1:Yes.

2:Probably.

3:Progress is saved at thost, but should he play without you for a few hours, and then you join the game, you'll automatically raised to the same level as he is.

[Eriksharp]

Thanks Tigranes.

I have a question, what is the max. level? 30?

Is Obsidian going to sell DLCs after the game will be released?

In the local coop, the XP is saved for both players? or only the host?

 

If I play coop local with a friend, I with my gamertag and he with his gamertag, only with a friend, i don't play anymore in a History mode, we have our level and xp, or only the host?

[Oner]

Everyone retains gear and xp, but the host has the save.

[Eriksharp]

Thanks Tigranes.

I have a question, what is the max. level? 30?

Is Obsidian going to sell DLCs after the game will be released?

In the local coop, the XP is saved for both players? or only the host?

 

If I play coop local with a friend, I with my gamertag and he with his gamertag, only with a friend, i don't play anymore in a History mode, we have our level and xp, or only the host?

 

Ok, thanks, thanks.

The last question and i'm going to sleep, in Spain is 1:27 am xD.

If i play with the player what he was host, but in this match I'm the host, we can load our characters from the other match, or the host is going to be ever an only person?

 

PD: sorry, my english is not so good xD

[Oner]

I guess you'd have to send the save file to each other, but again, I'm just guessing.

[Sannom]

There are reviews out in France too, the official PS3 magazine and the Consoles+ magazine. Both give it a 14/20. In both cases, it seems to be the game's classicism and 'safeness' that brings it down (the PS3 magazine is especially telling : the short review is only praise, but the mark is just average), along with some graphical shortcomings (Consoles+ really didn't like character models in conversation). They both praise story and the building of a coherent, diverse world. Both aren't really impressed at the consequences of player choice.

 

Also, there is a guy in a cell bearing a strong resemblance to Sten who was born so deformed that people thinks that he is a Krug.

Edited May 30, 2011 by Sannom

[WorstUsernameEver]

Pretty low scores so far.

[Flouride]

Pretty low scores so far.

 

Above 80 is considered pretty good in some countries. 14/20? What a random rating scale

[Bendu]

Never expected 90+ scores.

[WorstUsernameEver]

Above 80 is considered pretty good in some countries. 14/20? What a random rating scale

 

Hasn't there been only one score above 80 though? 14/20 would more or less indicate a 7 which, depending on the publication, means either "average" or "mediocre".

And I may be wrong, but I remember the reception for other action-RPG these last few years (see Torchlight) to be much more enthusiastic, albeit not quite as much as for AAA titles (for obvious reasons). I'd just like to understand whether it's a problem within the game, a mismatch of expectations (maybe they were expecting deeper RPG elements and a more modern presentation?) or if it's just the genre in general to receive such a lukewarm response.

[C2B]

Pretty low scores so far.

 

Eh...

 

85%+85%+80%+74%+whatever the french score translates to is actually pretty good. DS is not exactly a franchise (anymore) that gurantees high scores compared to Franchises that Obs worked on in the past. Also we still haven't seen the american scores which will be the most important regarding metacritic.

 

On a personal note I don't really care about the negative points so far (and the ones I do are entirly subjective) so all happy by me.

[Tigranes]

They're bad scores if they're from a US game mag; from European ones, they're decent.

 

Of course, American ones generally tend to focus a huge amount on production values and accessibility for their final scores, even if they praise other elements like story in their actual review content.

[pmp10]

Above 80 is considered pretty good in some countries. 14/20? What a random rating scale

 

Hasn't there been only one score above 80 though? 14/20 would more or less indicate a 7 which, depending on the publication, means either "average" or "mediocre".

And I may be wrong, but I remember the reception for other action-RPG these last few years (see Torchlight) to be much more enthusiastic, albeit not quite as much as for AAA titles (for obvious reasons). I'd just like to understand whether it's a problem within the game, a mismatch of expectations (maybe they were expecting deeper RPG elements and a more modern presentation?) or if it's just the genre in general to receive such a lukewarm response.

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.

[lithographer]

They're bad scores if they're from a US game mag; from European ones, they're decent.

 

Of course, American ones generally tend to focus a huge amount on production values and accessibility for their final scores, even if they praise other elements like story in their actual review content.

 

 

 

European reviewers have a higher tolerance for crap.

[Tigranes]

Fight about the points, not the people.

[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)

[Morgoth]

I don't know, European journalists tend to give Euro developed RPGs higher scores, because these tend to be developed for the Euro market in mind. See Risen, Gothic or Divinity 2.

 

Other stuff however, like Halo and Gears of War seem to be worshipped by US reviewers (93%+ scores) while many Euro magazines aren't so impressed.

[pmp10]

Euro reviewers are much more lenient than the US equivalents.

Or maybe they focus on other game aspects more in line with the expectation of their target audience?

You just need to look at AP reviews to see that European gamers have somewhat different expectations.

[Pidesco]

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.

[HoonDing]

Most of Bethesda's and BioWare's games were buggy messes at release.

 

I don't think European games are generally more buggy. Both Drakensang games for instance, had zero bugs & performance issues.

Edited May 31, 2011 by virumor