My demo impression (different than the average impressions)

[Draganta]

First of all, I find it kinda lame that EU Xbox players didn't get access to the demo. You forced me to create an american live account! But I understand that this decision is made by MS/Square Enix, so no problem.

 

To the point: I want to talk about my impression of the demo. You probably expect the same game-bashing threat, the same kind that is flooding this forum already. Nope! I am actually positive about the game! And the strange thing is: I am an old school DS fan. Only Obsidian game I ever played was New Vegas, and I didn't like it a bit. So we can all agree on the fact that I am no Obsidian fanboy, but still enjoyed this new Dungeon Siege installment.

 

Ok, now I will really get to the point:

 

The first thing that cought my eye were the graphics. They are not bad, but they are also not cutting egde. No problem, as I don't care much for graphics in a good RPG anyway. The graphics are good enough (DS2 had horrible graphics for it's time, so it's a welcome change). The combat starts off a bit boring, but that is because we start with only 1 ability. It get's more interesting later on. The animations in combat are nice, and it actually requires some tactics (especially in the cave where you rescue the prisoners). That is a very nice plus, as Dragon Age 2 lacked strategy (what a **** game that was, but this is not the place to discuss this). I played only a small while, then I decided to go co-op with a bud.

 

First thing we notice is the fact that we can't move away too far from eachother. At first it bothered me a bit, but then I thought: it's better. I remember DS1 multiplayer, where my mates always wandered off every time we met a fork on the road. Very annoying! I ended up beating bosses on my own, while the other whined: Please wait, want to fight too! Don't take all the loot!! This is fixed now. You have to get used to this, but it isn't bad at all!

 

Co-op still also requires some tactics, you can't just walk around blasting the closest enemies you see. You will die. Corrent me if i'm wrong, but isn't this the most important part? This is why Dragon Age 2, the RPG the whole world was waiting for, failed. I'm glad DS3 has it!

 

Now the things I didn't like:

 

Interaction. The interaction with the environment is very simpel and dull. I can't enter houses, can't have conversations with other NPC's. I can understand why this is done though. If every NPC could interact, it wouldn't be an action RPG anymore. Still, it would be better if we could enter at least a house or 2 in a village, like the one in the demo. And maybe talk to some villagers for a small side quest.

 

Dungeons. This game is called 'Dungeon' Siege, right? Can you tell me what dungeon I am sieging exactly? Because I don't see any. Yeah, I have been in the manor, and in the cave, but I am missing the optional dungeon encounters. I loved that in DS1. We were walking around in the frozen forests with a few pals, and suddenly, we walk upon a caved in entrance on the ground (sometimes other friends missed this out, because the group was seperated, this won't happen in DS3 though ). As we enter, we discovered that it was some kind of an old temple ruin underground. Awesome! I really miss this.

 

No game is perfect, neither is DS3. But from my impression of the demo, this will be a very fun game to play, especially on co-op. Finally another good RPG on the console, as many others have failed before. It looks good, it plays good, requires tactical approach in many battles, has a strong lore, and has a few weak points that I can live with. A pretty solid game if you ask me.

 

Congratulations Obsidian, you just received a seal of approval by a hardcore Dungeon Siege 1 player!

Edited June 1, 2011 by Draganta

[C2B]

Interaction. The interaction with the environment is very simpel and dull. I can't enter houses, can't have conversations with other NPC's. I can understand why this is done though. If every NPC could interact, it wouldn't be an action RPG anymore. Still, it would be better if we could enter at least a house or 2 in a village, like the one in the demo. And maybe talk to some villagers for a small side quest.

 

Dungeons. This game is called 'Dungeon' Siege, right? Can you tell me what dungeon I am sieging exactly? Because I don't see any. Yeah, I have been in the manor, and in the cave, but I am missing the optional dungeon encounters. I loved that in DS1. We were walking around in the frozen forests with a few pals, and suddenly, we walk upon a caved in entrance on the ground (sometimes other friends missed this out, because the group was seperated, this won't happen in DS3 though ). As we enter, we discovered that it was some kind of an old temple ruin underground. Awesome! I really miss this.

 

 

Apparently, there will be more Dungeons later (From a review I read). I don't know if there are optional ones though, hopefully they will have. However we have already heard about villages with sidequest so I wouldn't worry too much about that front.

Edited June 1, 2011 by C2B

[Draganta]

Interaction. The interaction with the environment is very simpel and dull. I can't enter houses, can't have conversations with other NPC's. I can understand why this is done though. If every NPC could interact, it wouldn't be an action RPG anymore. Still, it would be better if we could enter at least a house or 2 in a village, like the one in the demo. And maybe talk to some villagers for a small side quest.

 

Dungeons. This game is called 'Dungeon' Siege, right? Can you tell me what dungeon I am sieging exactly? Because I don't see any. Yeah, I have been in the manor, and in the cave, but I am missing the optional dungeon encounters. I loved that in DS1. We were walking around in the frozen forests with a few pals, and suddenly, we walk upon a caved in entrance on the ground (sometimes other friends missed this out, because the group was seperated, this won't happen in DS3 though ). As we enter, we discovered that it was some kind of an old temple ruin underground. Awesome! I really miss this.

 

 

Apparently, there will be more Dungeons later (From a review I read). I don't know if there are optional ones though, hopefully they will have. However we have already heard about villages with sidequest so I wouldn't worry too much about that front.

 

That is nice to hear! The first village was really a disappointment, but then again, it wasn't an important village either. As for people who complain about the multiplayer part, I can understand it, but what's so bad about playing the game with the same persons all the time? It doesn't bother me at all, as I am going to play with a pal and my GF anyway.

[rafoca]

I see yor point, buddy. I bet I will enjoy DS3, but the camera thing (which I didn

[Flouride]

I know Obsidian didn

[rafoca]

I know Obsidian didn

[C2B]

I know Obsidian didn

Edited June 1, 2011 by C2B

[Flouride]

LOL You are really stressed, buddy!

 

Relax. I am not talking about your family or about you, I am talking about a game that you didn

Edited June 1, 2011 by Flouride

[rafoca]

I know Obsidian didn

Edited June 1, 2011 by rafoca

[C2B]

I know Obsidian didn

[MonkeyLungs]

It is technically way way way EASIER to design co-op the way Obsidian has designed it. It is much more difficult and time consuming to develop a fully functional robust multiplayer game.

[C2B]

It is technically way way way EASIER to design co-op the way Obsidian has designed it. It is much more difficult and time consuming to develop a fully functional robust multiplayer game.

 

Heres though. Making a "fully functional robust multplayer game" was never the plan with DSIII but a single player ARPG you can enjoy with friends. Thats where also all the work went into.

 

I think this is the reason for all of the arguments about here. Different expectations.

Edited June 1, 2011 by C2B

[lethale123]

Heres though. Making a "fully functional robust multplayer game" was never the plan with DSIII but a single player ARPG you can enjoy with friends. Thats where also all the work went into.

 

I think this is the reason for all of the arguments about here. Different expectations.

 

you can't blame us on the arguments though...with the lack of information and all.

[C2B]

Heres though. Making a "fully functional robust multplayer game" was never the plan with DSIII but a single player ARPG you can enjoy with friends. Thats where also all the work went into.

 

I think this is the reason for all of the arguments about here. Different expectations.

 

you can't blame us on the arguments though...with the lack of information and all.

 

Nope, I'm not. If you haven't informed yourself its quite clear that you wouldn't have known that. We knew next to nothing about the MP and how much importance it had till February too. Though, from then on it became pretty clear. There wasn't any info that its going to be co-op heavy either. There was a hint that its going to be more "casual"/buddy co-op since the first interview however.

Edited June 1, 2011 by C2B

[MonkeyLungs]

It all just sounds like excuses to me. I don't believe developer hype for games, been burned way too many times. Developers can't seem to tell the truth, maybe their projects have certain levels of non-disclosure? Maybe all game developers go to the same PR conferences? I don't really know and I don't really care. I believe in gameplay when I play it and I believe in my own analysis of game systems. I have been playing RPG's since before computers so I know what I like.

 

A strong story, pre-determined characters, and the le vel 30 cap are not mutually exclusive with fully featured multiplayer. We need to see MORE FEATURES from developers in sequels and even fresh IP's. MORE FEATURES and MORE OPTIONS than games in the past. Not cut features and cropped gameplay with a nice marketing PR fluff.

[C2B]

It all just sounds like excuses to me. I don't believe developer hype for games, been burned way too many times. Developers can't seem to tell the truth, maybe their projects have certain levels of non-disclosure?

 

Except none of the developers here ever said anything like that?

 

Also thats not how development works "More, MORE, MORE in EVERYTHING" is just not workable. In no buisness or company in or outside the gaming industry.

 

Edit: There was the Destructoid article but that was more of a misinterpretation on our part.

Edited June 1, 2011 by C2B

[MonkeyLungs]

You guys are just parotting developer PR speak. They don't have to speak they have you c2B. More options, more choices and more features is actually quite possible for game developers to achieve when making a sequel the fact that you are unable to understand this tells me alot about your understanding of games.

 

I will always lean towards the side of defending the consumer and arguing with developers, game companies, publishers, and especially fanboys because I think games can and should be better, more in depth, less streamlined, and full of options.

[C2B]

So, I'm working for Obsidian and what I say counts for the company?

 

Have to ask Nathaniel for payment sometimes.

Edited June 1, 2011 by C2B

[C2B]

You guys are just parotting developer PR speak. They don't have to speak they have you c2B. More options, more choices and more features is actually quite possible for game developers to achieve when making a sequel the fact that you are unable to understand this tells me alot about your understanding of games.

 

Serious answer though. I'm a mostly hardcore RPG gamer. I like complexity, deep systems and a deep narrative about games. However quantity of features =/= quality or complexity.

 

Also the reason I (and many others) like/love Obsidian is because they make things more complex.

Edited June 1, 2011 by C2B

[tangmcgame]

You guys are just parotting developer PR speak. They don't have to speak they have you c2B. More options, more choices and more features is actually quite possible for game developers to achieve when making a sequel the fact that you are unable to understand this tells me alot about your understanding of games.

 

I don't have a problem with your beliefs, but it behooves you to keep a few things in mind.

 

a) Not every game, even within the same genre, seeks to deliver the same experience; what a large amount of options is in one game is clutter in another.

 

b) Not every game has the same budget and development time. Game design is about achieving as much as possible with what you've got. Blizzard can iterate forever because they've got the resources to make it work (and, likely, because they made sure in their contract that Activision can't strongarm them). Not every developer has that luxury, and so the "more, more, more" mentality isn't feasible. I think it's more accurate to describe game design as "as much as we can afford."

 

c) "More, more, more" doesn't mean "better." A wealth of options that aren't very different at all is essentially the same as no options. Likewise, a multitude of options that aren't balanced means there's really only one true option. Sometimes, a few well-developed, fleshed out and balanced options is preferable to many inferior ones.

 

d) The last is a bit more subjective, but I'd urge you to remember that if you aim to advocate for players, remember that player tastes are often quite varied. Not everyone prefers games the way you seem to. It's good to push developers to make great games, but that doesn't mean they should all fit your image of how games should look. We need all kinds of different games for all kinds of different tastes. Furthermore, pushing a single overriding agenda, pushing developers to all head in the same direction, means that games will end up bland, predictable, uninspired, and boring. I'd rather trust to team creativity, let different developmental ideologies thrive, and realize that improving a game can come in a lot of forms besides just adding content.

 

EDIT: As an example, let me offer Blizzard as a company that defies the "more, more, more" mentality. They have the budget and manpower to iterate at a high rate for a long, long, long time, and even they opt, inevitably, for paring down options and perfecting the few that are available.

Edited June 1, 2011 by tangmcgame

[C2B]

You guys are just parotting developer PR speak.

 

Just noticed this.

 

Again, where is that developer PR speak I'm supposendly parrotting from? Would be nice if you have a link before baseless insulting me. Everything I've posted so far are my own beliefs and words.

Edited June 1, 2011 by C2B

[tangmcgame]

You guys are just parotting developer PR speak.

 

Just noticed this.

 

Again, where is that developer PR speak I'm supposendly parrotting from? Would be nice if you have a link before baseless insulting me. Everything I've posted so far are my own beliefs and words.

 

The logic is thus: I don't like this game, therefore nobody can like this game, therefore anyone who says they like this game must be a "fanboi", "company stooge", or some other derogatory term (or term meant in a derogatory manner).

 

It's rooted in believing that one's opinion is "correct" while ignoring the fact that it's an opinion, not a fact.

Edited June 1, 2011 by tangmcgame

[C2B]

You guys are just parotting developer PR speak.

 

Just noticed this.

 

Again, where is that developer PR speak I'm supposendly parrotting from? Would be nice if you have a link before baseless insulting me. Everything I've posted so far are my own beliefs and words.

 

The logic is thus: I don't like this game, therefore nobody can like this game, therefore anyone who says they like this game must be a "fanboi", "company stooge", or some other derogatory term (or term meant in a derogatory manner).

 

It's rooted in believing that one's opinion is "correct" while ignoring the fact that it's an opinion, not a fact.

 

In terms of Obsidian I'm actually pretty much a fanboy.

Still I have my own beliefs and react on them even regarding Obsidian. (I'm actually myself disappointed in some aspects of DSIII. Nothing to do with Multi or graphics and not a gamebreaker though.)

Edited June 1, 2011 by C2B

[MonkeyLungs]

Obsidian is one of the last of big budget studios making RPG's. They create some amazing dialogue and C&C in their games. They have made some of my favorites and many of their members come from studios that long ago in the forgotten times made RPG's of legend.

 

The multiplayer for DS3 is a cheap cop out. Maybe they are saving their real MP approach for Icewind Dale 3?

 

More options in and of itself does not mean better. I wasn't advocating for crap options. More good options is always better. More good gameplay is always better. And multiplayer that allows for a varied approach on the multiplayer gameplay is better.

 

1. MP the way we have it now. Story focussed with the host controlling saves. Peiople who don't like the other modes can play this mode until you get bored and trade the game in.

2. Story mode where players can bring THEIR version of the character with them whether they play single player or multiplayer. Multiple difficulty levels so that players bringing advanced character to the story still can advance and find a challenge. (IE. Sacred 2 Bronze-Silver-Gold-Platinum-Niob)

3. Free mode where you can explore the world without having to engage in story if you don't want. Free mode should feature OPTIONAL PVP.

4. Focussed MP modes like team dungeon challenges where the host can select from a robust list of options to fine tune each dungeon experience for them and their friends.

5. Trading mode with larger lobbies allowing players to trade items.

[MonkeyLungs]

Let me be clear here: DS3 is probably going to be a really fun single player experience. I hope we see some signature Obsidian Dialogue and C&C. However if this stuff is the focus then I wonder why they didn't just make the game Single Player with couch co-op only.

 

Having all the advancement for characters tied to the Host's save is just poor design. Tethering the characters together so they are forced to remain in relatively the same gameplay area is poor design that has been derided by the gaming community and critics for other games and this game. This will hurt sales. I want Obsidian to make a big pile of money so they can make a really amazing Icewind Dale 3. I don't want reviewers and gamers to slaughter their newest game like they did with Alpha Protocol which happens to be the most underrated game released in recent times. Of course they made their bed with the MP design already. Oh well here's hoping they get it right in Icewind Dale 3.