Reviews

[C2B]

GamesAktuell.de Video Review

 

 

Score isn't posted on the website so far. They mainly praised the differences in Gameplay between the charachters, the enviroments and the design of the dungeons. They critizize the presentation of dialouge sequences (puppet like animations, Charachter Models don't look as good in close-ups) and the PC controls.

 

They gave it a recommendation at the end for every ARPG/RPG Fan and one of them called it "a little more than your typical ARPG".

Edited June 11, 2011 by C2B

[lithographer]

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.

 

 

You know Nate I believe everything you say here, that is to say I believe you believe it. However when it comes to the entertaiment business if you want to sell something you need to give the people what they want. Instead it seems like you guys just made the game you wanted. This is great for the starving artist, but I'm going to assume Square is going to want to see some $$$. Its like you had a wheel to make and decided it should be square for no other reason than you guys prefer squares. Who makes an arpg where you can't progress you character on harder levels? Whats the point of loot if you can't take it with you? Forget the lousy multiplayer, but to tamper with something so fundamental is just bizarre. Titan Quest, Diablo, Sacred, and even little old Torchlight....you had achetypes from which to draw, previous commercial successes by which you could draw inspiration and create anew and your solution was to make essentially an adventure game with the appearance of a top down arpg. To add insult to injury not only did you guys have those previously mentioned games to draw upon, you also had the first two iterations of the game series...yikes what a mess.

[sorophx]

if you want to sell something you need to give the people what they want.

heh, what planet have you been living on? if you want to sell something you need to make people believe they need it. it's a lot simpler than trying to figure out what is it exactly that they want

[Tigranes]

Who makes an arpg where you can't progress you character on harder levels?

 

Yeah, there's a few hundred of those out there, some of them selling a lot of copies.

 

Complaining about what you don't like is one thing, imagining that what you don't like = nobody likes, will fail, people will die, planets will explode is... odd.

[Renevent]

I'm hearing a lot of reports from dirty pirates that the campaign is only about 10 hours...

[Flouride]

I'm hearing a lot of reports from dirty pirates that the campaign is only about 10 hours...

 

And how is this related to reviews?

 

I'm pretty sure the game can be finished in 10 to 15h if you skip sidequests, don't bother with the dialogue at all etc. But then again the same goes to pretty quite many games if you skip content and rush through it. If the game only lasted 10h it would have been mentioned on the reviews we've already seen. You know, from actually legit sources and not from some ADHD kids.

[Renevent]

Well the developers said it was 20-25 (I think someone posted that earlier) and of course this is related to reviews...it's something that will effect a person's enjoyment from the game. It may not be a professional review, but it's a from a player review.

 

It also may not be true...so we will see as the game rolls out.

[Cyn!c]

Well the developers said it was 20-25 (I think someone posted that earlier) and of course this is related to reviews...it's something that will effect a person's enjoyment from the game. It may not be a professional review, but it's a from a player review.

 

It also may not be true...so we will see as the game rolls out.

 

I tend to take a bit longer with most games like this, because I actually read stuff and try to do everything. That being said, 10 hours is incredibly short. Quite disappointing if true. Let's hope they can extend the life of the game with an expansion or some DLC.

[C2B]

I'm hearing a lot of reports from dirty pirates that the campaign is only about 10 hours...

 

And how is this related to reviews?

 

I'm pretty sure the game can be finished in 10 to 15h if you skip sidequests, don't bother with the dialogue at all etc. But then again the same goes to pretty quite many games if you skip content and rush through it. If the game only lasted 10h it would have been mentioned on the reviews we've already seen. You know, from actually legit sources and not from some ADHD kids.

 

~15 hours from reviews I gathered so its not unresonable even with Dialouge (Also include that this is a game they created from scratch). That said from streams I can already tell that there is going to be a lot of replayability for me since there seems to be a lot of specific dialouge/reactions, gameplay differences between charachters and choices later on. Also thanks to the rather fast pace of the game, replaying won't be such a bother similiar to AP.

Edited June 13, 2011 by C2B

[Oner]

While 10 hours would be disappointing, Sin: Episodes' ~3-4 hours have yet to be topped.

Edited June 13, 2011 by Oner

[Flouride]

I tend to take a bit longer with most games like this, because I actually read stuff and try to do everything. That being said, 10 hours is incredibly short. Quite disappointing if true. Let's hope they can extend the life of the game with an expansion or some DLC.

 

Do everything, read everything and play with a challenging difficulty level and you won't finish the game in 10 hours. If the game actually lasted 10 hours the European reviews would have commented on it.

[Renevent]

The person (well a few different people) claimed to have done everything they could find in the game...still only 10 hours.

Edited June 13, 2011 by Renevent

[Morgoth]

10 hours? I'm sorry Obsidian, but that's not enough.

 

A game has to be at least 11 hours long to be worth a purchase.

[Flouride]

The person (well a few different people) claimed to have done everything they could find in the game...still only 10 hours.

 

I'm sorry if I'm not gonna take your word / some random pirate kiddies word for it.

[sorophx]

I can't believe y'all are buying into this 10 hours thing

[Flouride]

Asked the reviewer from Pelit how long it took him. "Close to 20 hours on normal difficulty"

[Renevent]

I didn't ask anyone to take my word, nor did I say it was a fact. I just said what I've read from multiple accounts of people who actually played the game.

 

You guys seem to blindly believe what people tell you, though

[tenthousandface]

Maybe those reviewers spent their tiem for abilities' mastery

 

If some developer heard me, I suggest the game remove that NPC who sell gold equipment then make BOSSes can respawn and harder to defeat, and if you can, add a system works as more tiem you spend to kill BOSS more little reward you get.

 

Sorry for my poor English

Edited June 13, 2011 by tenthousandface

[SirPetrakus]

The game is easily a 8/10. Anyone who says it's a bad game, anyone at all, has way too high standards. Not to mention most games that do get 9/10 are usually undeserved. Also, who in their right mind would give a DOA game a higher score than this? Not to be demeaning to whatever studio made the 3DS DOA game (I don't think it was Itagaki's Team Ninja this time), but it's a fighting game who's selling point is jiggling boobies and last time I checked ...

 

 

... we had that ground covered as well!

 

Only complaint I have is the lack of strafing on the keyboard controls. Hardly bothered, though, as I also have a 360 controller.

 

Also, from what I hear from other gamers who pirated the game already, in higher difficulties, the game is insanely gratifying. I'm content with playing the demo on normal, for now, but once I get my hands on the game, I will be sure to try the 'Hardcore' difficulty.

[Oner]

Also, from what I hear from other gamers who pirated the game already, in higher difficulties, the game is insanely gratifying.

I hope so.

[Sannom]

Also, from what I hear from other gamers who pirated the game already, in higher difficulties, the game is insanely gratifying.

Opinions seem to vary wildly from people on the Steam fora and people on the Something Awful fora, for example. A discussion on the latter seems to imply that some bosses are a lot more difficult when playing coop.

[brandysnap]

The person (well a few different people) claimed to have done everything they could find in the game...still only 10 hours.

 

I'm sorry if I'm not gonna take your word / some random pirate kiddies word for it.

 

i agree.

 

as far as im concerned, anyone that says theyve played the pirate version (any pc version because its steamworks and therefore not available at all anywhere except pirating) , should have their 'opinion' ignored completely.

 

if they are willing to steal so easily, then they are very likely to lie just as easily.

[Oner]

That's...not how things work.

Some/many may lie (haters gonna hate, etc), but user reviews on their own tend to be rubbish. Professional reviews have their fair share of flaws, but they are at least professional. Players just tend to write off gameplay because of their own mistakes (as evident in some threads here) and come up with insane definitions of subjective.

 

I haven't seen the player play, so how should I know if there's merit in what s/he says? Took ten hours? Maybe he skipped every cutscene and dialogue and lore books. Possibly some optional dungeons too. Maybe he didn't, who knows.

 

 

Besides, I don't value someone's opinion who can't remember the name of the char they played with for hours.

[Renevent]

Regardless of what you think, they've played it (and finished it) and you haven't. It is true they can lie, misrepresent their play style, and all other manner of inconsistencies...but I've seen at least 10 different accounts and they all are saying generally the same thing. I've seen anywhere from 8 to 15 hours as the amount of time taken, with most around 10-12. They claim they did most/all the side stuff as well.

 

Could they be lying? Could they have all simply blasted through the game? Of course...but it's certainly a trend and it's more than one person.

 

"Besides, I don't value someone's opinion who can't remember the name of the char they played with for hours. rolleyes.gif"

 

Who would that be?

[Oner]

"Besides, I don't value someone's opinion who can't remember the name of the char they played with for hours. rolleyes.gif"

 

Who would that be?

No one specific, though I've seen Marcus, Lukas, Alani and some other variants.