Could we win XP in multiplayer matches?

[lasthearth]

So they set out to make an loot centric ARPG that is targeted at people who didn't like Diablo?

 

Okay, then they are terrible at this thing called running a business.

 

Yes, naturally. Making 9000 clones of the same game is helping the gerne and market evolve. Deriviating from that is "running the business".

 

Well, we'll see, I predict this game will bomb, and ultimately that's the proof that they don't know how to run a gaming company.

[C2B]

So they set out to make an loot centric ARPG that is targeted at people who didn't like Diablo?

 

Okay, then they are terrible at this thing called running a business.

 

Yes, naturally. Making 9000 clones of the same game is helping the gerne and market evolve. Deriviating from that is "running the business".

 

Well, we'll see, I predict this game will bomb, and ultimately that's the proof that they don't know how to run a gaming company.

 

Your whats wrong with the gaming industry.

[lasthearth]

Making what consumers want is how a industry survives. A industry that doesn't will soon cease to be an industry.

[pmp10]

Well, we'll see, I predict this game will bomb, and ultimately that's the proof that they don't know how to run a gaming company.

I'm not sure how you intend to measure the level of 'bombing' but don't you think that the target audience is decided upon by the publisher?

[Oner]

So the game will bomb because ...it has co-op. Allriiiiight...

[C2B]

So the game will bomb because ...it has co-op. Allriiiiight...

 

No, because Obsidian didn't just make a Diablo clone. How dare they *shakes fist*

[Oner]

Now I'm imagining Obs announcing their newest project: Diablo Siege 3: Not a Diablo clone I swear.

Edited May 29, 2011 by Oner

[Flouride]

Naturally it's a wise move to make Diablo 3 but better with the shorter amount of time and way way less staff. If I ever I get the money to open up a gaming company I'll hire lasthearth as the CEO.

[Tigranes]

Don't get personal guys.

[UndeadLegacy]

I can understand the reasons behind this decision to keep the save with the host, I just don't like the idea of it. I thought it was a miss print when I read it earlier today then I did some research and found it to be true really bad idea guy's it's going to alienate people and not promote co-op play at all, why would I go play with my friend or whoever if it's not going to benefit my character that i'm trying to build.

 

Gamers who don't know this going in are going to be really pissed, and those who already don't like obsidian for whatever reason but are willing to try this game given the benefit of the doubt will never buy another game from obsidian again.

 

I know it's already too late and the game is most likely being published as I type this but I really think they made a big mistake here, there are other ways to achieve what they are trying to do.

[Matt-C]

I think the issue is that Obsidian has tried to make Dungeon Siege 3 something that it's not. I get that they are big on story etc, however when it comes down to it Dungeon Siege was simply a Diablo clone, nothing wrong with that.

 

What myself and I'm sure many others enjoyed about the original was the online / local co-op of up to 8 players, massive amounts of loot, huge modding community, no level cap (it was 150 in the original but impossible to get due to the crazy amounts of xp required for levels 120+), etc.

 

The arguments many have provided supporting the decision of this style of co-op would be valid if it was a completely new IP. However at the end of the day this is Dungeon Siege, a series that already has an existing fan base, largely due to many features that are not present in Dungeon Siege 3. That's the issue when it comes to this crazy choice of co-op Obsidian has chosen. Although I do admit that even if this wasn't Dungeon Siege I would see this form of co-op as being pretty stupid.

 

As someone mentioned earlier, Resident Evil 5 was a game that was story centric game that allowed players to keep their own characters and progress... why couldn't of it been handled like that? Yes that does mean the ability for a level cap character to run through the game with a level 1 character, but who honestly cares? If you want to go through the game with the intended difficulty, no one is going to stop you from doing so.

 

Honestly I don't think they have respected the original fans of the series. DS3 is missing a large chunk of the features that made many of us fall in love with Dungeon Siege all those years ago. Unfortunately this seems to be one of those 'sequels by name only' types of games having almost nothing to do with the original. This game should have received a different title (from what I gather many of the people supporting the decisions Obsidian have made never actually played the original Dungeon Siege) if it's not going to stay true to it's predecessors.

 

At the end of the day, we are going to have to learn to accept the game for what it is. I have no doubt that I will find the game fun and enjoyable, however it won't be anywhere near the game I had hoped it to be. It's just unfortunate that I and many others associate the title of this game with something completely different.

[C2B]

Gamers who don't know this going in are going to be really pissed, and those who already don't like obsidian for whatever reason but are willing to try this game given the benefit of the doubt will never buy another game from obsidian again.

 

No.

[lithographer]

Not making an online arpg in 2011 is just a step backwards. Trying to defend an obviously short sighted and almost arrogant design decision is just weak. Everyone will blast through the single player and then there will be nothing left to do. In design, as in just about everything else, you don't "fix" what isn't broken. Obsidian has made a really short sighted and dumb decision here. ARPG are about online play and loot gathering ... taking both away in favor of some percieved "different take" is just a bad idea. Good luck.

[lithographer]

Gamers who don't know this going in are going to be really pissed, and those who already don't like obsidian for whatever reason but are willing to try this game given the benefit of the doubt will never buy another game from obsidian again.

 

No.

 

 

 

Actually a lot of people will be really pissed off. Obsidian has made a classically stupid decision. For no real reason either. Its not like Diablo 2 didn't have a story. There was a way to make everyone happy here and Obsidian just decided to make what they wanted to make and not deliver to fans of the genre. Big mistake always.

[C2B]

Gamers who don't know this going in are going to be really pissed, and those who already don't like obsidian for whatever reason but are willing to try this game given the benefit of the doubt will never buy another game from obsidian again.

 

No.

 

 

 

Actually a lot of people will be really pissed off. Obsidian has made a classically stupid decision. For no real reason either. Its not like Diablo 2 didn't have a story. There was a way to make everyone happy here and Obsidian just decided to make what they wanted to make and not deliver to fans of the genre. Big mistake always.

 

Still no. And yes they had a reason and they made good on it.

Edited May 31, 2011 by C2B

[lithographer]

Gamers who don't know this going in are going to be really pissed, and those who already don't like obsidian for whatever reason but are willing to try this game given the benefit of the doubt will never buy another game from obsidian again.

 

No.

 

 

 

Actually a lot of people will be really pissed off. Obsidian has made a classically stupid decision. For no real reason either. Its not like Diablo 2 didn't have a story. There was a way to make everyone happy here and Obsidian just decided to make what they wanted to make and not deliver to fans of the genre. Big mistake always.

 

Still no. And yes they had a reason and they made good on it.

 

 

I the only thing for which there is no reason is your blindly defending a stupid design decision. Play the demo and tell me that full online co-op wouldn't have been awesome.

[C2B]

Gamers who don't know this going in are going to be really pissed, and those who already don't like obsidian for whatever reason but are willing to try this game given the benefit of the doubt will never buy another game from obsidian again.

 

No.

 

 

 

Actually a lot of people will be really pissed off. Obsidian has made a classically stupid decision. For no real reason either. Its not like Diablo 2 didn't have a story. There was a way to make everyone happy here and Obsidian just decided to make what they wanted to make and not deliver to fans of the genre. Big mistake always.

 

Still no. And yes they had a reason and they made good on it.

 

 

I the only thing for which there is no reason is your blindly defending a stupid design decision. Play the demo and tell me that full online co-op wouldn't have been awesome.

 

I'll play it but I can still tell you already. No. Its not designed that way. Some of the reasons are already posted in the other thread.

[Matt-C]

Gamers who don't know this going in are going to be really pissed, and those who already don't like obsidian for whatever reason but are willing to try this game given the benefit of the doubt will never buy another game from obsidian again.

 

No.

 

 

 

Actually a lot of people will be really pissed off. Obsidian has made a classically stupid decision. For no real reason either. Its not like Diablo 2 didn't have a story. There was a way to make everyone happy here and Obsidian just decided to make what they wanted to make and not deliver to fans of the genre. Big mistake always.

 

Still no. And yes they had a reason and they made good on it.

 

Just curious, did you play Dungeon Siege 1 / LOA?

[C2B]

Just curious, did you play Dungeon Siege 1 / LOA?

 

Yep, a few years back and recently again in preparation. I never really played it for the gameplay though (which has tons of problems) but because an Ex-Betrayer at Krondor guy worked on it. I was saddened that the narrative took a step back in the game (as I had high hopes for it) but I still enjoyed the lore.

Edited May 31, 2011 by C2B

[Matt-C]

Just curious, did you play Dungeon Siege 1 / LOA?

 

Yep, a few years back and recently again in preparation. I never really played it for the gameplay though (which has tons of problems) but because an Ex-Betrayer at Krondor guy worked on it. I was saddened that the narrative took a step back in the game (as I had high hopes for it) but I still enjoyed the lore.

 

So you can understand why the people that played and really enjoyed the games are pretty angry at what has become of Dungeon Siege 3?

 

The people that actually played it, the gameplay appealed to them, that is what we enjoy! Why would you continue with a series but remove the key elements that the fans loved? Every single forum I go to I see people confused / saddened / angry over what has become of this game.

 

Sure Dungeon Siege 3 may appeal to you, but that's probably because you didn't even like the gameplay of the original.

 

For a second think if you liked Dungeon Siege for the gameplay, now do you understand why all of us are so annoyed at Obsidian's fail attempt at a co-op experience?

[Hassat Hunter]

Not making an online arpg in 2011 is just a step backwards.

*cough*

The Witcher II

*cough*

Dragon Age 2

*cough*

Mass Effects III

*cough*

Skyrim

*cough*

Edited May 31, 2011 by Hassat Hunter

[C2B]

Just curious, did you play Dungeon Siege 1 / LOA?

 

Yep, a few years back and recently again in preparation. I never really played it for the gameplay though (which has tons of problems) but because an Ex-Betrayer at Krondor guy worked on it. I was saddened that the narrative took a step back in the game (as I had high hopes for it) but I still enjoyed the lore.

 

So you can understand why the people that played and really enjoyed the games are pretty angry at what has become of Dungeon Siege 3?

 

Yes, understand. Further than that, no. First off the second game already changed that. Secondly theres more ways than one to stay faithful to an original and theres also more than one group of fans (entitlment isn't really an argument that works for me).

Edited May 31, 2011 by C2B

[Flouride]

Not making an online arpg in 2011 is just a step backwards. Trying to defend an obviously short sighted and almost arrogant design decision is just weak. Everyone will blast through the single player and then there will be nothing left to do. In design, as in just about everything else, you don't "fix" what isn't broken. Obsidian has made a really short sighted and dumb decision here. ARPG are about online play and loot gathering ... taking both away in favor of some percieved "different take" is just a bad idea. Good luck.

 

Why do you think it was Obsidian that made this decision? Usually decisions like this are made by the publisher who actually pays for the development.

[C2B]

Not making an online arpg in 2011 is just a step backwards. Trying to defend an obviously short sighted and almost arrogant design decision is just weak. Everyone will blast through the single player and then there will be nothing left to do. In design, as in just about everything else, you don't "fix" what isn't broken. Obsidian has made a really short sighted and dumb decision here. ARPG are about online play and loot gathering ... taking both away in favor of some percieved "different take" is just a bad idea. Good luck.

 

Why do you think it was Obsidian that made this decision? Usually decisions like this are made by the publisher who actually pays for the development.

 

No, that was a decision by Obsidian most likely. The game is designed in such a way in the first place.

 

However since that is the case this is not a bad thing nor do I think Obsidian would have strengths in making an OnlineARPG

Edited May 31, 2011 by C2B

[Tigranes]

I can understand people criticising the design decision because they really wanted online MP, or think it's too much of a change in the franchise, but I'm not sure what "this is 2011" even means. What's wrong with having some diversity and different games that focus on different features to make them good? It's not like an ARPG without online MP is crap by default (as evidenced by, uh, gazillions of ARPGs out there).

 

I guess it puts a lot of pressure on the buddy co-op though - they sacrificed a lot of things to concentrate on it, so it needs to be very fun to make the game really stand out.