XBOX360 Demo Impressions

[blueboykc]

From memory, you are meant to have different starts, or at least different ways in which the starting bits unfold, depending on choice of character... because of course you're meant to run into the other 3 characters along the way and thus 'unlock' them for that campaign. This unlocking obviously doesn't apply to co-op, so I don't know what happens there, though.

thank you that makes me feel better..

[sorophx]

I don't know why they decided to do an action rpg with more focus on the story than the core gameplay and multiplayer.

sorry about having quoted you, this isn't directed at you, but at every DS fan out there. this seems to be a common misconception.

 

1) the original Dungeon Siege was a mediocre game, that appealed to those gamers, that tend to play anything that "lasts" (and for all the wrong reasons), no matter how bad it is. fact

 

2) Dungeon Siege 2 was a piece of trash that only got picked up by said gamers. fact

 

3) Obsidian tries to save the franchise (not their original intention of course, they're trying to exploit your weaknesses), and you start to go on about how they're ruining a "great concept". pah-lease

 

there was no core gameplay. Diablo 2 had core gameplay. neither of DS did.

 

and coming here saying that the ability to play over the Net is more important than story and proper implementation of RPG mechanics - just makes you people look like fools, seriously.

 

haven't played the demo, and I don't need to in order to see flaws in your argumentation. at least think a little before posting, sheesh.

[Tigranes]

Uh... I hope you're wearing bullet proof vests

 

I personally thought DS1/2 were rubbish, but certainly it had people who enjoyed it. In any case, if we accept that DS3 is a very different game (and it was always going to be, even if Chris Taylor made it), it is a bit of a risk to make an ARPG that gives more than a rat's arse about story and, well, anything that gets in the way of running around beating things up really fast.

 

Wish the PC demo would come out so that I can see for myself the most important part of the game - whether the combat, that 'core gameplay', is fun and well designed. (Even if we had the dream multiplayer bonanza some people want, game would suck if combat sucked.) Can people who have actually played the Xbox demo tell us about that a bit more? Surely that's the more interesting bit for all of us.

[blueboykc]

touchy touchy...apples and oranges..apples and oranges..

[blueboykc]

i enjoyed the combat..the stances are interesting and will take me a little to get used to but i like it..i saw a lot of complaints about it being slow and not feeling tight which i didnt see at all..

[blueboykc]

im curious which "you people" your referring too..i think im a little insulted..

[Matt-C]

I don't know why they decided to do an action rpg with more focus on the story than the core gameplay and multiplayer.

sorry about having quoted you, this isn't directed at you, but at every DS fan out there. this seems to be a common misconception.

 

1) the original Dungeon Siege was a mediocre game, that appealed to those gamers, that tend to play anything that "lasts" (and for all the wrong reasons), no matter how bad it is. fact

 

2) Dungeon Siege 2 was a piece of trash that only got picked up by said gamers. fact

 

3) Obsidian tries to save the franchise (not their original intention of course, they're trying to exploit your weaknesses), and you start to go on about how they're ruining a "great concept". pah-lease

 

there was no core gameplay. Diablo 2 had core gameplay. neither of DS did.

 

and coming here saying that the ability to play over the Net is more important than story and proper implementation of RPG mechanics - just makes you people look like fools, seriously.

 

haven't played the demo, and I don't need to in order to see flaws in your argumentation. at least think a little before posting, sheesh.

 

1) Dungeon Siege was by no means the greatest game ever or anything. However it appealed to a certain type of people. At the end of the day it was just a fun game you could play with your mates.

 

2) Dungeon Siege 2 was pretty bad compared to Dungeon Siege. I didn't enjoy it anywhere near as much as the original.

 

3) Obsidian aren't trying to save anything, other than their own jobs. Obviously their publisher realises that they are a bunch of failures when it comes to new IP so they are trying to ride the cash train of already existing IPs they have no history / experience with. At no point are we claiming the original Dungeon Siege to be a master piece... it was simply some mindless awesome fun. However here are Obsidian and their fanbois going on about Obsidians deep story that involves you to sit through 90% dialogue for a game... I mean where is the game part of the... you know computer/video game?

 

Obsidian should write books, not video games, that way they don't risk terrible graphics, lack of gameplay and game breaking bugs to ruin their product.

[sorophx]

At the end of the day it was just a fun game you could play with your mates.

so is every other game. why does Dungeon Siege 3 have to be exactly the same? its forte is in the hot seat obviously. I don't think I've played any good games with a 2-4 co-op on a shared screen since Champions of Norrath. besides, Diablo III is already doing that other thing (playing with your mates from other continents). come on, why limit yourself to this "LAN/online-only multiplayer hack-n-slash", when you can have so much more?

[themo]

Is there a paperdoll inventory screen in Ds3 (for pc) like Dungeon Siege 1 and 2? This feature is so critical to me, if the new dungeon siege doesn`t have it I won`t buy this game. I hate classical Rpg style "equipment" screens, you cannot see the whole item with this screen and this makes me doesn't want to get new loot...

Edited June 2, 2011 by themo

[blueboykc]

Is there a paperdoll inventory screen in Ds3 (for pc) like Dungeon Siege 1 and 2? This feature is so critical to me, if the new dungeon siege doesn`t have it I won`t buy this game. I hate classical Rpg style "equipment" screens, you cannot see the whole item with this screen and this makes me doesn't want to get new loot...

you mean like the inventory screen on champions of norrath where you see the items on your character? im not sure about the pc but on the 360 demo you see pic of the items and their stats and it compares them to what you already have equipped..

[Labadal]

I don't know why they decided to do an action rpg with more focus on the story than the core gameplay and multiplayer.

sorry about having quoted you, this isn't directed at you, but at every DS fan out there. this seems to be a common misconception.

 

1) the original Dungeon Siege was a mediocre game, that appealed to those gamers, that tend to play anything that "lasts" (and for all the wrong reasons), no matter how bad it is. fact

 

2) Dungeon Siege 2 was a piece of trash that only got picked up by said gamers. fact

 

3) Obsidian tries to save the franchise (not their original intention of course, they're trying to exploit your weaknesses), and you start to go on about how they're ruining a "great concept". pah-lease

 

there was no core gameplay. Diablo 2 had core gameplay. neither of DS did.

 

and coming here saying that the ability to play over the Net is more important than story and proper implementation of RPG mechanics - just makes you people look like fools, seriously.

 

haven't played the demo, and I don't need to in order to see flaws in your argumentation. at least think a little before posting, sheesh.

 

1) Dungeon Siege was by no means the greatest game ever or anything. However it appealed to a certain type of people. At the end of the day it was just a fun game you could play with your mates.

 

2) Dungeon Siege 2 was pretty bad compared to Dungeon Siege. I didn't enjoy it anywhere near as much as the original.

 

3) Obsidian aren't trying to save anything, other than their own jobs. Obviously their publisher realises that they are a bunch of failures when it comes to new IP so they are trying to ride the cash train of already existing IPs they have no history / experience with. At no point are we claiming the original Dungeon Siege to be a master piece... it was simply some mindless awesome fun. However here are Obsidian and their fanbois going on about Obsidians deep story that involves you to sit through 90% dialogue for a game... I mean where is the game part of the... you know computer/video game?

 

Obsidian should write books, not video games, that way they don't risk terrible graphics, lack of gameplay and game breaking bugs to ruin their product.

 

 

Reading your post, I am fairly certain you have never played an Obsidian game before. The 90% story must have been a game I have never played. And your comments about replayability that you wrote in one of the other threads crack me up. Their games offer far more replayability thanks to great choice and concequence.

 

I will withold judgement on Dungeon Siege III until I have tried it myself, but your comments about Obsidian games in general are untrue.

[themo]

you mean like the inventory screen on champions of norrath where you see the items on your character?

 

Yes, It's just like what we see when we press I (inventory) button in Diablo 2 or Dungeons Siege 2.

[Renevent]

I'm sorry a little late to this, but can someone confirm a few thing (or at least point to a detailed post)?

 

1. I heard you don't keep items/progress in MP? Is this true?

 

2. You can only play a character a single time through?

[blueboykc]

you mean like the inventory screen on champions of norrath where you see the items on your character?

 

Yes, It's just like what we see when we press I (inventory) button in Diablo 2 or Dungeons Siege 2.

im sorry i never played those..

[Matt-C]

I'm sorry a little late to this, but can someone confirm a few thing (or at least point to a detailed post)?

 

1. I heard you don't keep items/progress in MP? Is this true?

 

2. You can only play a character a single time through?

Both are true.

 

Although some may try to argue the first and say the save file stays with the host. This however means that other people can join the hosts game and play as 'your' character while you are offline. So it's not really your multiplayer character in any sense... So you only keep items/progress if you are the host.

Edited June 2, 2011 by Matt-C

[Renevent]

I'm sorry a little late to this, but can someone confirm a few thing (or at least point to a detailed post)?

 

1. I heard you don't keep items/progress in MP? Is this true?

 

2. You can only play a character a single time through?

Both are true.

 

Although some may try to argue the first and say the save file stays with the host. This however means that other people can join the hosts game and play as 'your' character while you are offline. So it's not really your multiplayer character in any sense... So you only keep items/progress if you are the host.

 

Thanks for the response...I guess.

 

All I can say is wow...what compelled them to make DSIII like this? I shrugged off the new control scheme, heavier story focus, and streamlined* mechanics hoping for at least a fun co-op experience with my brother-in-law....now I don't think I am even going to buy the game. How did design choices like this even get made? It boggles the mind. I mean, they basically took everything that was good about Dungeon Siege and changed into some story drive action game with light rpg elements. I don't think Obsidian is a "crappy developer" or anything, quite the opposite, I just am completely floored at how wrong they got it.

 

*euphemism

Edited June 2, 2011 by Renevent

[blueboykc]

apparently its all for the sake of the story from what i understand..so what i dont understand is why go the cheap route and not animate/cgi your cutscenes if the story is supposed to be so important?

[sorophx]

wth are you talking about, I don't even...

[Matt-C]

wth are you talking about, I don't even...

Summary: You Obsidian fanbois are saying we didn't get a Dungeon Siege 3 that was faithful to the original due to Obsidian focusing on the non existent story of Dungeon Siege, and they couldn't even get the story/dialogue/cut-scenes decent.

Edited June 2, 2011 by Matt-C

[Spider]

Thanks for the response...I guess.

 

All I can say is wow...what compelled them to make DSIII like this? I shrugged off the new control scheme, heavier story focus, and streamlined* mechanics hoping for at least a fun co-op experience with my brother-in-law....now I don't think I am even going to buy the game. How did design choices like this even get made? It boggles the mind. I mean, they basically took everything that was good about Dungeon Siege and changed into some story drive action game with light rpg elements. I don't think Obsidian is a "crappy developer" or anything, quite the opposite, I just am completely floored at how wrong they got it.

 

*euphemism

 

If you're planning to play with your brother-in-law and him only then you won't have a problem. One of you hosts the game, you play together, gain loot and experience. And when you start a new session and you'll both be where you left off. Your character will have the same loot and the same xp.

 

If the host keeps playing SP, or MP with someone else, from the same save, then yes, the non-host would suffer. But if they start a separate SP game that's fine.

[Matt-C]

Thanks for the response...I guess.

 

All I can say is wow...what compelled them to make DSIII like this? I shrugged off the new control scheme, heavier story focus, and streamlined* mechanics hoping for at least a fun co-op experience with my brother-in-law....now I don't think I am even going to buy the game. How did design choices like this even get made? It boggles the mind. I mean, they basically took everything that was good about Dungeon Siege and changed into some story drive action game with light rpg elements. I don't think Obsidian is a "crappy developer" or anything, quite the opposite, I just am completely floored at how wrong they got it.

 

*euphemism

 

If you're planning to play with your brother-in-law and him only then you won't have a problem. One of you hosts the game, you play together, gain loot and experience. And when you start a new session and you'll both be where you left off. Your character will have the same loot and the same xp.

 

If the host keeps playing SP, or MP with someone else, from the same save, then yes, the non-host would suffer. But if they start a separate SP game that's fine.

You are not helping. It's a terrible way to handle any kind of multiplayer. Obsidian should of saved themselves the shame and kept this singleplayer.

[Renevent]

Thanks for the response...I guess.

 

All I can say is wow...what compelled them to make DSIII like this? I shrugged off the new control scheme, heavier story focus, and streamlined* mechanics hoping for at least a fun co-op experience with my brother-in-law....now I don't think I am even going to buy the game. How did design choices like this even get made? It boggles the mind. I mean, they basically took everything that was good about Dungeon Siege and changed into some story drive action game with light rpg elements. I don't think Obsidian is a "crappy developer" or anything, quite the opposite, I just am completely floored at how wrong they got it.

 

*euphemism

 

If you're planning to play with your brother-in-law and him only then you won't have a problem. One of you hosts the game, you play together, gain loot and experience. And when you start a new session and you'll both be where you left off. Your character will have the same loot and the same xp.

 

If the host keeps playing SP, or MP with someone else, from the same save, then yes, the non-host would suffer. But if they start a separate SP game that's fine.

 

Yeah, if I played with him and only him (and vice versa) we would be ok...that's not the reality though. He plays a lot more than me and definetly would want to play with others when I wasn't around...and I would most likely play with other people as well from time to time.

 

The way DS3's online is setup is a total bummer...and I don't even really care much about the screen sharing issue..

[Spider]

Not helping you, no. Clarifying things for the person I quoted, yes. I think the way MP works here is better than in previous DS games so I don't share your agenda. But I can see how others may think differently, and that's fine. I still think giving accurate information is a good thing so people can decide for themselves what they like.

 

@Renevent: As long as you are the host in your game, he can play as much as he want with others and it won't affect your game at all. Or he can just start different playthroughs for different people and it'll still work fine. If neither of those options work for you, then no the MP solution here is kinda bad.

Edited June 2, 2011 by Spider

[Renevent]

There's plenty of MP solutions that work, including the previous Dungeon Siege's. He had his persistent character, and I had mine. All my (and his) progress transferred no mater who we played with or who hosted. For a RPG (especially a game in a series that focused on character building) they picked the worst possible MP design possible.

Edited June 2, 2011 by Renevent

[sorophx]

You Obsidian fanbois

no no no, I meant the "play the character through only once" and "not able to save progress on someone else's game" stuff. how the hell do you save a character on another person's console anyway? and how do you expect to join someone mid-game in that case? with your lvl 20 char, when the host is 10. wait for someone to pop up who's at exactly the same place in the game as you?

 

and what's that "play only once" thing? even Diablo forced players to start new characters if on the same difficulty level. besides, it doesn't tie in with the rest of the game.

 

It's a terrible way to handle any kind of multiplayer. Obsidian should of saved themselves the shame and kept this singleplayer.

you a 90's kid, aren't you? have you ever played any consoles other than xbox360, Wii or PS3? Nintendo 64 sounds familiar? Dreamcast? PS2 at least? that's how console games were before xbox live? split-screen or shared screen, game saved to a memory card or a similar devise, you can't have your character unless it's on your machine. you have it easy now.

 

and it's not like it should've always stayed that way. it's great that people today can connect via internet and play console games. but don't expect a game like that to mimic Battle.net