Could we win XP in multiplayer matches?

[C2B]

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.

 

Reviews have been good so far on that front.

[Matt-C]

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.

 

No there is nothing wrong with some diversity. However Obsidian should of just gone with a completely new IP. The name Dungeon Siege 3 gives false impressions of what the game actually is. At no point am I claiming this will be a terrible game because of decisions Obsidian made. I'm simply saying that this game lacks many of the features that people enjoyed most about it's predecessors. I believe that I will enjoy this game for what it is, however that means me distancing myself from what 'Dungeon Siege' means to me, and that is quite unfortunate as Dungeon Siege is one of my all time favourite games.

[C2B]

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.

 

No there is nothing wrong with some diversity. However Obsidian should of just gone with a completely new IP. The name Dungeon Siege 3 gives false impressions of what the game actually is. At no point am I claiming this will be a terrible game because of decisions Obsidian made. I'm simply saying that this game lacks many of the features that people enjoyed most about it's predecessors. I believe that I will enjoy this game for what it is, however that means me distancing myself from what 'Dungeon Siege' means to me, and that is quite unfortunate as Dungeon Siege is one of my all time favourite games.

 

Good post. I disagree, but its reasonable and personal.

[Flouride]

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

 

I wouldn't be in such haste to put the "blame" on Obsidian on this though. Since no one that has posted on this thread (so far) has actually been in the negoations when the deal between Square-Enix and Obsidian was done it's pretty stupid to "blame" it only on them. We all know publishers play a huge factor on the final outcome with their mandates and expectations. And from a business point of view, I can completely see why Square-Enix didn't want to make a Diablo clone.

[Hassat Hunter]

GPG deliberately gave OE the opportunity to make DS3.

 

OE just said "sure."

It's not like they decided 'hey, let's make DS3. We should ask Square if they want that'...

[Flouride]

No there is nothing wrong with some diversity. However Obsidian should of just gone with a completely new IP. The name Dungeon Siege 3 gives false impressions of what the game actually is. At no point am I claiming this will be a terrible game because of decisions Obsidian made. I'm simply saying that this game lacks many of the features that people enjoyed most about it's predecessors. I believe that I will enjoy this game for what it is, however that means me distancing myself from what 'Dungeon Siege' means to me, and that is quite unfortunate as Dungeon Siege is one of my all time favourite games.

 

In a perfect world Obsidian would only be working with their own IPs. But since this the ****ty world we live in, publishers pretty much decide on the projects and Square-Enix wanted Dungeon Siege.

[C2B]

GPG deliberately gave OE the opportunity to make DS3.

 

 

Chris Taylor is in fact pretty enthusastic about this game. Also BECAUSE Obsidian has such a different approach to games than GPG.

 

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2010/09/14...ungeon-siege-3/

RPS: Tons of loot.

 

CT: Yeah. Really. And a progression through a world. But while historically we’ve been light on story, they’re going heavy on story. We’re trying to pull up our story-pants, and we’ve made positive steps with each iteration. Our company is very mechanical and technological, so [Gas Powered Games] tend to start with a technological innovation, and then design the game around that. The way Obsidian works, they do a better job of balancing all the various elements. They have a beautiful engine called the Onyx engine which is balanced and really state of the art, and they’ve got great storytelling, and then they’ve got good gameplay instincts on top of that.

 

I daresay they’re doing a better job than I would have done. I know that’s bull, but it’s true, because I’ve really taken to focusing on RTS.

Edited May 31, 2011 by C2B

[Hassat Hunter]

True.

It became pretty evident in DS2:BW GPG wanted more than mere Hack&Slash, so OE on the wheel seems like a natural evolution.

[C2B]

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

 

I wouldn't be in such haste to put the "blame" on Obsidian on this though. Since no one that has posted on this thread (so far) has actually been in the negoations when the deal between Square-Enix and Obsidian was done it's pretty stupid to "blame" it only on them. We all know publishers play a huge factor on the final outcome with their mandates and expectations. And from a business point of view, I can completely see why Square-Enix didn't want to make a Diablo clone.

 

It's personal preference. Also, I don't really think Obs would have been interested in making a diablo clone.

Edited May 31, 2011 by C2B

[ianSANE]

This is why Blizzard>all

They dont **** a great title up by doing stupid **** like this,

e,g WoW, Diablo, Sc2

/EndRage

[HoonDing]

Have we had "Dungeon Siege in name only" yet?

[Labadal]

A big feature like how the online will work is in 10 of 10 cases decided by the publisher. In fact, many things that one might think was Obsidian's idea was in fact the idea of the publisher. Ofcourse Obsidian has a say in how the game will play, but mostly they go by what the publisher wants.

 

What Obsidan probably had a say in: Art, story and overall dialogue. Some parts of gameplay, but they had something to follow, like there needs to be this and that in the game.

 

This is how it works for every developer that is working under a contract.

[Oner]

This is why Blizzard>all

They dont **** a great title up by doing stupid **** like this,

I could argue that, but it's mostly because of my personal preference, so no point.

 

 

Have we had "Dungeon Siege in name only" yet?

No.

Come on people, make my prediction true!

[C2B]

A big feature like how the online will work is in 10 of 10 cases decided by the publisher. In fact, many things that one might think was Obsidian's idea was in fact the idea of the publisher. Ofcourse Obsidian has a say in how the game will play, but mostly they go by what the publisher wants.

 

What Obsidan probably had a say in: Art, story and overall dialogue. Some parts of gameplay, but they had something to follow, like there needs to be this and that in the game.

 

This is how it works for every developer that is working under a contract.

 

While, I agree that this is how it works. I don't really think Obs and Square were in much disagreement in how the game should work. Again, I really don't think Obs would have wanted to make a simple diablo clone.

 

Though what Square did was naming it Dungeon Siege III. They wanted to distance it originally with a spin-off name

Can't find the interview though.

Edited May 31, 2011 by C2B

[Labadal]

A big feature like how the online will work is in 10 of 10 cases decided by the publisher. In fact, many things that one might think was Obsidian's idea was in fact the idea of the publisher. Ofcourse Obsidian has a say in how the game will play, but mostly they go by what the publisher wants.

 

What Obsidan probably had a say in: Art, story and overall dialogue. Some parts of gameplay, but they had something to follow, like there needs to be this and that in the game.

 

This is how it works for every developer that is working under a contract.

 

While, I agree that this is how it works. I don't really think Obs and Square were in much disagreement in how the game should work. Again, I really don't think Obs would have wanted to make a simple diablo clone.

 

Though what Square did was naming it Dungeon Siege III. They wanted to distance it originally with a spin-off name

Can't find the interview though.

 

They also wanted it to be more like the Seiken Densetsu games. As soon as I heard that, I more or less knew what to expect from the game, wich meant I was going to get it day one. They used the Dungeon Siege name because it was a western IP, but they could as well have used Secret of Mana 4 and done it in that universe instead. (I'm talking about square Enix.)

[Hassat Hunter]

This is why Blizzard>all

They dont **** a great title up by doing stupid **** like this,

Don't they force people online for playing SC2, banned people for CHEATING OFFLINE! and received hosts and hosts of critisism about Diablo III already? (graphics comes to mind first)

 

Sounds like stupid **** to me.

 

And I hear reports WoW becomes increasingly impopular, a trend Cataclysm couldn't counter even.

[xox perfect xox]

so i have heard that items and xp are saved only to the host for the online. is this true? am i alone in thinking that this is the worst design choice they could have gone with? there is no incentive to play with friends at that point they might as well made it single player only. why is it a company cant make a good dungeon crawling loot whoring rpg anymore? last good one was champions of norrath, sacred 2 was decent but i dont care for its skill system. if im wrong please tell me cause right now i cant possibly see how anyone in their right mind could think this was a good/better idea. for now im going to be canceling my pre order to many things comming next month for me to waste money on a game that COULD have been great but because of bad design choice turned out pointless and boring.

 

 

signed,

dissapointed fan

My exact thoughts sir

[Skyclad]

I'm new tot his series and while I'm a lifelong RPG player, I'm sort of new to online RPG's and a buddy and I are getting confused with all this online co-op XP talk. I take it from the comments here that you can't have one character that you can take to any online or offline game. What about my buddy and I who pre-ordered the game a while back and plan to ONLY play online with just him and I. Can we play the whole offline campaign online together? If so, if he joins my hosted game, does he retain the loot and xp when we start playing again? Also, if just him and I are playing online together, can we set up private games or must it be set to public all the time with morons bouncing in and out of the game? Lastly, we're getting the 360 version. Will we be able to get all achievements playing together online or will we have to go back through the whole game a second time in single player to get the achievements?

[C2B]

I'm new tot his series and while I'm a lifelong RPG player, I'm sort of new to online RPG's and a buddy and I are getting confused with all this online co-op XP talk. I take it from the comments here that you can't have one character that you can take to any online or offline game. What about my buddy and I who pre-ordered the game a while back and plan to ONLY play online with just him and I. Can we play the whole offline campaign online together? If so, if he joins my hosted game, does he retain the loot and xp when we start playing again? Also, if just him and I are playing online together, can we set up private games or must it be set to public all the time with morons bouncing in and out of the game? Lastly, we're getting the 360 version. Will we be able to get all achievements playing together online or will we have to go back through the whole game a second time in single player to get the achievements?

 

All yes (Well, I'm not sure about how private games work). You can. One of you just has to decide whos the host.

Edited May 31, 2011 by C2B

[MonkeyLungs]

This is going to be remembered as another horrible design decision by Obsidian entertainment. You guys make some cool games but come on.

 

The way the MP currently works should just be one option for MP.

 

MP Options:

1. Dedicated co-op for storyfans. Ie. the current way it is now.

2. Drop in drop out co-op with persistent character saves

----a. Story mode

----b. Free Roam Mode

3. PvP Mode(s)

4. Trading mode with larger lobbies so more gamers can meet up and trade.

Edited May 31, 2011 by MonkeyLungs

[C2B]

This is going to be remembered as another horrible design decision by Obsidian entertainment. You guys make some cool games but come on.

 

The way the MP currently works should just be one option for MP.

 

MP Options:

1. Dedicated co-op for storyfans. Ie. the current way it is now.

2. Drop in drop out co-op with persistent character saves

a. Story mode

b. Free Roam Mode

3. PvP Mode(s)

4. Trading mode with larger lobbies so more gamers can meet up and trade.

 

Yes, that would be good for a multiplayer focused and designed game. I agree.

 

It just isn't.

Edited May 31, 2011 by C2B

[Sannom]

In a perfect world Obsidian would only be working with their own IPs. But since this the ****ty world we live in, publishers pretty much decide on the projects and Square-Enix wanted Dungeon Siege.

No, in a perfect world Obsidian would still be working on external IPs but wouldn't have too much difficulties pitching their original IPs. I like Obsidian for the external stuff too!

 

This is why Blizzard>all

They dont **** a great title up by doing stupid **** like this,

e,g WoW, Diablo, Sc2

/EndRage

Opinions, I suppose. I know people who are getting rather annoyed at Blizzard's inability to evolve, both in gameplay and settings. The two projects they had who went out of their comfort zone (i.e strategy and Hack & Slash) were failures.

 

A big feature like how the online will work is in 10 of 10 cases decided by the publisher. In fact, many things that one might think was Obsidian's idea was in fact the idea of the publisher. Ofcourse Obsidian has a say in how the game will play, but mostly they go by what the publisher wants.

Dunno, I'm sure that the only thing I'm confident Square demanded (i.e multi-platform game) would have been enough to create all those changes.

 

Robert Baratheon is king because of a rebellion/ Maric was king because of a rebellion - check

I don't know A Game of Thrones, but was that guy the actual descendant of the reigning family?

[Frankie Godskin]

I don't want to be that guy who signs up to a forum and complains for his first post, but I'm so heartbroken about this design choice that I wanted to vent in a forum that might allow my voice to be heard by those responsible.

 

so i have heard that items and xp are saved only to the host for the online. is this true? am i alone in thinking that this is the worst design choice they could have gone with? there is no incentive to play with friends at that point they might as well made it single player only. why is it a company cant make a good dungeon crawling loot whoring rpg anymore? last good one was champions of norrath, sacred 2 was decent but i dont care for its skill system. if im wrong please tell me cause right now i cant possibly see how anyone in their right mind could think this was a good/better idea. for now im going to be canceling my pre order to many things comming next month for me to waste money on a game that COULD have been great but because of bad design choice turned out pointless and boring.

 

 

signed,

dissapointed fan

This is exactly how I feel. I've been looking forward to this game for months and now the rug's been pulled out from under me.

 

not only that but i have the problem of i was planning on playing with different groups of friends online. now its just like meh whatever, i mean even a mess of a game like the newest dnd game on the 360 arcade did the mp right design wise. guess ima be waiting for d3 still siiiigh.

 

You realize a diablo-style multiplayer framework simply doesn't work for a mainly story-driven game, right? It sort of breaks any sense of immersion or balance to have a level 30 friend bring his character into the early stages of your game.

I've never understood this argument. Maybe someone wants to break the balance early in his game. So what? Maybe some people like power-levelling their tiny friends. So what?

 

Is it really worth breaking a system to try to stop people from playing the game the way they want? I just don't get it.

Exactly. Let me play the game the way I want. If there's no PvP, then what's the difference if the game's a little imbalanced? It doesn't hurt anyone, and as long as I'm enjoying myself, that's what matters. And also, that's what'll keep me around to buy DLC and the next installment in the franchise.

 

And Drebbin--you hit the nail right on the head.

 

This decision seems to push you to play through the game with the same people all the time if you want that co-op experience. So If I start a game with a friend as the host and he has to stop playing at any given point, I have to stop playing also!! Then wait for him to continue the game before I can continue to progress my online character. Unless I continue with another created character on my own or start up another multiplayer character (from scratch) with someone else online.

 

Not necessarily - if you play on without your friend, then he/she comes back, they will be able to 'jump back' into their character, which will be auto-levelled to match your character. They just need to take a couple of minutes to distribute their newly gained points. While this means they miss out on a part of the game, that would have happened anyway in any system - it just means you don't have to waste time helping them level up and they doesn't have to give up playing with you because you're too far ahead.

In other words, your actions in the world have no lasting ramifications. You're completely expendable and are basically AI stand-in. As a matter of fact, you're so useless that if you leave and come back, there's no discernable difference.

 

While I personally have no big problem with the way multiplayer works, I can't help but feel like this will hurt sales in some way. I know a lot of people on other forums that were anticipating DS3 are no longer interested in the game. I can understand them to be honest. I myself never play with strangers, a.k.a. a quick game in co-op games, but I know this is not the case for most people. Most people just like to jump in and play.

This will certainly hurt sales. I prepaid this game in full and my friend pre-reserved it. He already got his money back and I'm transferring mine to a different title.

 

This decision seems to push you to play through the game with the same people all the time if you want that co-op experience. So If I start a game with a friend as the host and he has to stop playing at any given point, I have to stop playing also!! Then wait for him to continue the game before I can continue to progress my online character. Unless I continue with another created character on my own or start up another multiplayer character (from scratch) with someone else online.

 

Not necessarily - if you play on without your friend, then he/she comes back, they will be able to 'jump back' into their character, which will be auto-levelled to match your character. They just need to take a couple of minutes to distribute their newly gained points. While this means they miss out on a part of the game, that would have happened anyway in any system - it just means you don't have to waste time helping them level up and they doesn't have to give up playing with you because you're too far ahead.

 

But you can't play on if he's the host and all the progress is saved on his console.

 

I can have a group of 4 dedicated players, and the host either loses interest in the game or maybe or HD crashes, or his internet is out.

 

Now none of us can continue the game.

 

This is seriously retarded, and the sad thing is they could have gotten around this problem if they just gave it a little more effort. But it seems Obsidian is more about stubbornly making their game rather than a game for players to enjoy.

 

This game has gone from day one purchase to maybe I'll pick up from the bargain bin, which I have no doubt it will end up in fairly quickly.

Yup. This is awful for every reason you described.

[Frankie Godskin]

I agree that it would be much better if the saves were made on every character, allowing any of them to then play host and continue that game, possibly on their own or with other people. We will see if it is the size of the saves that make this problematic, since I'm not sure what other reason there could be.

 

That said, again, I think it's the height of exaggeration to say it's a gamebreaker for anyone.

Incorrect. It's a gamebreaker for my friend and I, both of whom are new to the franchise and are the target demographic.

 

But you can't play on if he's the host and all the progress is saved on his console.

 

I can have a group of 4 dedicated players, and the host either loses interest in the game or maybe or HD crashes, or his internet is out.

 

Now none of us can continue the game.

 

This is seriously retarded, and the sad thing is they could have gotten around this problem if they just gave it a little more effort. But it seems Obsidian is more about stubbornly making their game rather than a game for players to enjoy.

 

This game has gone from day one purchase to maybe I'll pick up from the bargain bin, which I have no doubt it will end up in fairly quickly.

 

 

How often does your friends lose HDs, also easily avoided by doing back-up save (on PC atleast) in case you are really that worried... Do they live in a rural area where Internet is down all the time? The game can be finished in 15 to 25 hours according to reviews, doesn't take a huge commitment if you ask me. Unless you play with some really casual players. But then again why would you choose someone like that as the host if you know how the multiplayer works.

 

Maybe Nathan or someone could tell if it's possible for the host to send the save file to someone else in case the host decides to quit playing.

 

You're missing the point, which is that for whatever reason the hosts stops playing, I only mentioned some possibilities but there could be many more, maybe he just went on vacation for a few weeks, maybe he has a busy project at work and won't be able to play for a few weeks, whatever the reason, everyone who was the part of that game who may have put 15-20 hours into the game are held hostage and have to start over.

 

This is a terrible system. There is no justifiable defense for it, and with a little bit of effort and creativity they could have avoided such a flawed system, they were either too stubborn or too lazy to do it, and neither speaks well of them.

I'm not a fan of calling things "retarded," but I feel your frustration.

 

But this? This is just a train wreck. The ONE THING that made me want this game is gone. That's two potential new customers lost. What a waste.

[Frankie Godskin]

You control a character in the host's game, and that XP/progress is saved with the host's. So you do gain XP, but you don't take it back into your local game.

 

If you continue to play with the host, however, you will always have your progress/loot/etc.

IMO this is the absolute worst decision you could EVER make in a online arpg. Everyone knows people don't want to be forced to play a character they cannot build and play with ALL friends ANYTIME they want.

 

Making us play with ONE player the entire campaign is complete garbage. Why not just make it like D2, sacred2 and probably countless others where you jump in a multiplayer game, do a couple qustst and take your character. Then you can simply join, or start another game anytime you want as long as the game is isnt farther than you are in the campaign you can get credit and continue. WHY CAN'T YOU DO THIS?

 

It wouldn't be a problem if you had a free play mode or something as well but forcing players to play like this is just bad.

 

I'm gonna rent it, and if i like it i will probably buy it but it still doesn't make sense to do this. It leads me to believe the devs COULDN'T pull it off. Anyone who says this is a design decision is a fool imo. They know what players want in their multiplayer rpgs, and the MAIN thing is persistant characters they can build and play with friends.

You're taking a leap of faith renting it. I haven't bothered downloading the demo because of this news. I'm writing this game off.

 

You control a character in the host's game, and that XP/progress is saved with the host's. So you do gain XP, but you don't take it back into your local game.

 

If you continue to play with the host, however, you will always have your progress/loot/etc.

IMO this is the absolute worst decision you could EVER make in a online arpg.

 

Well then its a good point that it isn't an online focused ARPG, isn't it? It has co-op with friends and thats it. Your whole argument is based on a assumption that just isn't fact.

 

And yes, thats why its also a design decision. And thats also why not WE are the fools but YOU are.

Don't you mean co-op with FRIEND? The host? OK i'll play along. So if it's co-op focused who thought i'd be a good idea to FORCE players to play with one host the ENTIRE campaign and have him keep OUR characters and not allow us to play CO-OP with ANY friend at ANYTIME with custom built characters?

 

I'd love to have heard that board meeting. (hey guys today we want to talk about core gameplay features and what we want in our co-op experience. Any ideas? Yes, we want to play the entire campaign with friends....ok ofcourse. (guy in the back)..we want to build awesome characters we can play cooperatively with all our friends. And jump in their games and help when they need it, and keep items and xp when we leave yeah!! (answer).....ummmm noooooo...i don't think we want that in our game, we want drop in drop out co-op but we think it's best if the host keeps all saves and characters......lmao REALLY!! You actually think they thought this? And all agreed it was a good idea? No way.

I hear you. Did someone who's played an ARPG before have a voice in these meetings? Doesn't sound that way.

e.