My demo impression (different than the average impressions)

[C2B]

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.

 

Edit: Ok, can work with that. Thanks.

 

That still needs a tremendous amount of time to design/develop/implent/balance/test though.

Edited June 1, 2011 by C2B

[Matt-C]

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.)

 

Can you tell me why you are a fanboy? From what I can tell they honestly make the most boring games around... I understand the market they cater to though... the 'im **** at video games and would rather sit through an interactive movie' type people. I really tried to play Fallout: New Vegas, I looked past the **** bad graphics that literally made we want to vomit, but god damn the game was so boring I just had to turn it off after an hour. I'm surprised this development studio is still in business in all honesty.

[Sannom]

From what I can tell they honestly make the most boring games around...

 

You've obviously never tried a Bioware or Bethesda game then, if we want to stay in the RPG genre.

 

I understand the market they cater to though... the 'im **** at video games and would rather sit through an interactive movie' type people.

 

Okay, let me retract my earlier statement, you obviously know Bioware, but for some reason you're confusing them with Obsidian .

[Tigranes]

Settle down, people. We're pretty laissez-faire about moderation but I'm sure we'd all rather talk about stuff than scream and whine.

[Matt-C]

Settle down, people. We're pretty laissez-faire about moderation but I'm sure we'd all rather talk about stuff than scream and whine.

Would love to talk about fun stuff, but when Obsidian lacks to provide a fun experience in this game, it becomes somewhat difficult.

[lychee26]

Can you tell me why you are a fanboy? From what I can tell they honestly make the most boring games around... I understand the market they cater to though... the 'im **** at video games and would rather sit through an interactive movie' type people. I really tried to play Fallout: New Vegas, I looked past the **** bad graphics that literally made we want to vomit, but god damn the game was so boring I just had to turn it off after an hour. I'm surprised this development studio is still in business in all honesty.

 

I sort of wonder why your on this forum then. It seems to me that the only reason your here is to try and tell everyone you think Obsidian sucks and that everyone should think that too. Not everyone thinks the same as you, so stop trying to force your point of view down everybody's throats. Let people like the things they like without being harrassed like that.

 

If you stop doing that, then people will stop trying to argue with you, and then everyone will be happy.

Edited June 2, 2011 by lychee26

[Renevent]

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.

 

Me too...problem is DSIII appears to be even less complex than the originals...and it's not like those were extremely complex games to begin with.

[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.

 

Me too...problem is DSIII appears to be even less complex than the originals...and it's not like those were extremely complex games to begin with.

 

No, I'm saying now something. DSIII has much more depth regarding leveling than DS or most RPGs.

 

The large difference between the abilities, the Talents and ESPECIALLY the profifencies assure that.

Edited June 2, 2011 by C2B

[Renevent]

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.

 

Me too...problem is DSIII appears to be even less complex than the originals...and it's not like those were extremely complex games to begin with.

 

No, I'm saying now something. DSIII has much more depth regarding leveling than DS or most RPGs.

 

The large difference between the abilities, the Talents and ESPECIALLY the profifencies assure that.

 

You are out of your mind. There are far less options, its far more restricted, there are less levels, less skills/spells, less character hybrids (ie none in DS3). Then it had multiple skill trees (for EVERY character) you could specialize or hybridize into as well. The leveling in DS3 is very one dimensional and very console orientated.

 

You really cannot have played the previous games to even begin to think that...

Edited June 2, 2011 by Renevent

[C2B]

Less does not matter. More doesn't make something more complex if it isn't executed well.

[Renevent]

Less does not matter. More doesn't make something more complex if it isn't executed well.

 

 

Whatever you need to tell yourself.

 

And it's not just "less"...like a few less skills/spells or something. It's totally restrictive and linear compared to the other games in the series. Less levels, less skills, less spells, less open class design, no hybridization...the list goes on.

 

Obsidian consolized the game and made it's leveling system less complex.

Edited June 2, 2011 by Renevent

[rafoca]

QUESTION: When you change your equipment, does your character still looks the same? It is the second time I see someone saying that. just want to confirm. This is a letdown if true

[Renevent]

QUESTION: When you change your equipment, does your character still looks the same? It is the second time I see someone saying that. just want to confirm. This is a letdown if true

 

I'm not sure...I can't imagine that's totally true. I noticed some of the swords I found had extra effects (glowing, ect) but the base of it looked similar. Armor...pretty sure everything I found was basically the same base model with different stat effects. But it's very early in the game so I'm guessing different item models do show up and reflect on your character. If not, this would be a mistake on Obsidian's part of epic proportions, I mean so huge I really can't imagine they would make it.

[MonkeyLungs]

I got a couple reskins for armor models. The developers have said they have plenty of loot in the full game. Maby low level loot table doesn't have as much variety?

[rafoca]

QUESTION: When you change your equipment, does your character still looks the same? It is the second time I see someone saying that. just want to confirm. This is a letdown if true

 

I'm not sure...I can't imagine that's totally true. I noticed some of the swords I found had extra effects (glowing, ect) but the base of it looked similar. Armor...pretty sure everything I found was basically the same base model with different stat effects. But it's very early in the game so I'm guessing different item models do show up and reflect on your character. If not, this would be a mistake on Obsidian's part of epic proportions, I mean so huge I really can't imagine they would make it.

 

YES! This kind of game needs that. It is one of the major parts of this genre. God, even Dragon Age 2 changed the appearence of the characters, and it is a game really focused on story.

 

This will really be a mistake of epic proportions. EPIC!

[tangmcgame]

Didn't the original DS games have 4 stats that increased through use and that was it? Where did it get more complex than this game? Presumably in DS3 you'll have enough points to get all of your button-mapped abilities, but then you've got two passive modifier pools to tweak and alter. That's at least as complex as saying "I will attack with a sword or club all game to be a warrior." Maybe I didn't play long enough to see where the game got truly deep and complex, much less complex to the point where it makes a 2.5-axis build system look simple and boring. With gear, there are more bonus types in this game so there's room for more builds based on gear alone. Stack hp/defense and retribution. You're a porcupine. Stack warding instead of retribution and you're a stun machine. Opt for agility and will and suddenly you're focus abilities get ludicrous, but if you'd rather a more rounded build you'll drop the will for attack. Again, maybe I didn't play the old ones long enough to see the multitude of gear types and resulting builds. Maybe I didn't play long enough to see how even the core stats resulted in as wide a range of mechanical results.

 

I think people resent being locked into a character personality, sex and look, and I can maybe see that point. Then again, with prebuilt characters there's more opportunity for a stronger story. It doesn't have to all be about Generic Man or Woman. I'm not saying it guarantees a better story, but it enables the writers in a lot of ways.

 

It seems like people are remembering the tabula rasa characters of DS 1 and 2 more fondly than perhaps they deserve. I don't see how anyone can take an honest look at the DS 3 character and loot system and say they are shallow. I see the two previous statments as completely independent issues, but I feel like hardcore fans of the originals blur the line between the two issues quite a bit and it tends to make them view DS 3 more negatively than it deserves.

Edited June 2, 2011 by tangmcgame

[MonkeyLungs]

Without making any specific comment on the levelling system (i want to build some full characters first) i want to say that in general i favor more complexity in the character systems in these games than most games deliver. Sacred 2 had an intense levelling system that really rewarded careful planning. You could also completely ruin your character and not fully realize it until you hit Niob (the highest difficulty level). If any of you haven't played sacred 2 and like this genre then I urge you to go and play the game, you can ride a giant spider and crush people with your telekentic powers.

[Renevent]

Didn't the original DS games have 4 stats that increased through use and that was it? Where did it get more complex than this game? Presumably in DS3 you'll have enough points to get all of your button-mapped abilities, but then you've got two passive modifier pools to tweak and alter. That's at least as complex as saying "I will attack with a sword or club all game to be a warrior." Maybe I didn't play long enough to see where the game got truly deep and complex, much less complex to the point where it makes a 2.5-axis build system look simple and boring. With gear, there are more bonus types in this game so there's room for more builds based on gear alone. Stack hp/defense and retribution. You're a porcupine. Stack warding instead of retribution and you're a stun machine. Opt for agility and will and suddenly you're focus abilities get ludicrous, but if you'd rather a more rounded build you'll drop the will for attack. Again, maybe I didn't play the old ones long enough to see the multitude of gear types and resulting builds. Maybe I didn't play long enough to see how even the core stats resulted in as wide a range of mechanical results.

 

I think people resent being locked into a character personality, sex and look, and I can maybe see that point. Then again, with prebuilt characters there's more opportunity for a stronger story. It doesn't have to all be about Generic Man or Woman. I'm not saying it guarantees a better story, but it enables the writers in a lot of ways.

 

It seems like people are remembering the tabula rasa characters of DS 1 and 2 more fondly than perhaps they deserve. I don't see how anyone can take an honest look at the DS 3 character and loot system and say they are shallow. I see the two previous statments as completely independent issues, but I feel like hardcore fans of the originals blur the line between the two issues quite a bit and it tends to make them view DS 3 more negatively than it deserves.

 

Or maybe you didn't play the originals (at least enough to really understand what was going on)?

 

Let's take DS2...

 

Here are all the spells:

 

http://ds.heavengames.com/library/ds2/spel...tml?type=Nature

http://ds.heavengames.com/library/ds2/spel...tml?type=Combat

 

Here is what the skill layout looked like:

 

http://ds.heavengames.com/ds2/skills.html (can't really see but EVERY character had access to 4 different skill trees)

 

Then, based on what skills you chose (and their respective levels) you also gain access to powers that are basically devastating special attacks. You start out a blank slate and and you can choose multiple paths, mix and max, and come up with some really interesting characters.

 

That's the real key...in DS3 you are stuffed into a single character 'type' and then can make some basic choices in how to progress in that character. It's very confined compared to the originals...though...not so bad for a console game.

[rafoca]

That's the real key...in DS3 you are stuffed into a single character 'type' and then can make some basic choices in how to progress in that character. It's very confined compared to the originals...though...not so bad for a console game.

 

Considering I

[Oner]

Hey guys, I have the awesomest idea! How about instead of arguing wether 4 skills are more complex than 3, or why game 3 isn't the exact copy of 1; we wait till the game comes out, all of us shut the hell up, sit down and ENJOY the game and HAVE FUN.

 

You heard of fun, right? It's that state when you're having a good time.

 

Instead of bitching how the game doesn't have that all-important-that-every-game-should-have secondary or tertiary, sometimes unimportant feature, you take game for what it is, what it offers and has.

 

I didn't like the idea of FO3 being a "dumber" game than FO1-2. Didn't stop me from sitting down and having FUN.

 

Many/all of you said how DS1 wasn't an amazing game, just fun, than I don't see what's so hard about accepting 3. I doubt you all sat down to play 1 and were like "If this game doesn't have at least 5 different armor colors, I'm uninstalling it!" (well, not all of you at least.)

 

 

*sigh* this part of the forum was sooo much more fun 2 weeks ago, when people were waiting for info and trailers. Now the constant whining and bitching is just disgusting.

DS3 has it's flaws I'm sure, but honestly, it's not the mess Alpha Protocol was, but you people act like it's even worse. It may not be your dream project, horrible. There's nothing wrong with it either SO GET OVER IT AND TRY HAVING FUN FOOLS.

 

 

There, now I feel better.

[Starwars]

I'm amazed that people still hold up the original games as complex or... well, not dumbed down. The number of skills means absolutely jack, it's all in how they are used in the game. Now, most generally speaking, I certainly prefer to have a larger variety of skills to play around with but there is also a reason why Dungeon Siege is known for "playing itself". The very core of the Dungeon Sieges, and the reason why I personally hold it in very low esteem (even as far as action-RPGs go) *is* that they're incredibly tepid experiences. I would've liked a greater skill variety in DS3 but the game looks far more engaging and involving to the player than the old games do. I tried playing them around the times they were released, and have tried again now that I have them on STEAM due to the pre-order bonus, and I'm sorry. But Dungeon Siege is almost the definition of a dumbed down game.

 

I can certainly understand that someone might be upset at DS3 because it's taking a different direction, taking cues from console action games and having the pre-defined characters. But complaining that DS3 is dumbed down is incredibly hilarious when you consider the history of this series.

[Renevent]

I'm amazed that people still hold up the original games as complex or... well, not dumbed down. The number of skills means absolutely jack, it's all in how they are used in the game. Now, most generally speaking, I certainly prefer to have a larger variety of skills to play around with but there is also a reason why Dungeon Siege is known for "playing itself". The very core of the Dungeon Sieges, and the reason why I personally hold it in very low esteem (even as far as action-RPGs go) *is* that they're incredibly tepid experiences. I would've liked a greater skill variety in DS3 but the game looks far more engaging and involving to the player than the old games do. I tried playing them around the times they were released, and have tried again now that I have them on STEAM due to the pre-order bonus, and I'm sorry. But Dungeon Siege is almost the definition of a dumbed down game.

 

I can certainly understand that someone might be upset at DS3 because it's taking a different direction, taking cues from console action games and having the pre-defined characters. But complaining that DS3 is dumbed down is incredibly hilarious when you consider the history of this series.

 

It's not that the original was some amazingly complex game, but that the new one is even further dumbed down that the originals. Get it?

[tangmcgame]

I fully admitted I didn't play the original games much. I was speculating based on the little experience I had and I qualified all of my arguments. I've got a few questions if you wouldn't mind answering them:

 

1) What were the similar options for ranged or melee focused characters? Did they receive move lists that were that long?

 

2) Were there any spells generally regarded as useless or ignored because there were better options?

 

3) Did spells scale with level, or did they replace one another as you gained levels?

 

4) Did characters who opted for a strong spell ability end up with an effective basic attack of some kind?

 

5) How much did gear stats affect characters? Did it just open up more spell/gear options by boosting the base stats?

 

6) How effective were split, hybrid, or essentially non-pure builds?

 

 

It's not that the original was some amazingly complex game, but that the new one is even further dumbed down that the originals. Get it?

 

This is entirely debatable. It looks like there's plenty of depth and complexity to me with three or more build options per character and plenty of stat options available to let you season your build to taste.

Edited June 2, 2011 by tangmcgame

[Renevent]

Hey guys, I have the awesomest idea! How about instead of arguing wether 4 skills are more complex than 3, or why game 3 isn't the exact copy of 1; we wait till the game comes out, all of us shut the hell up, sit down and ENJOY the game and HAVE FUN.

 

You heard of fun, right? It's that state when you're having a good time.

 

Instead of bitching how the game doesn't have that all-important-that-every-game-should-have secondary or tertiary, sometimes unimportant feature, you take game for what it is, what it offers and has.

 

I didn't like the idea of FO3 being a "dumber" game than FO1-2. Didn't stop me from sitting down and having FUN.

 

Many/all of you said how DS1 wasn't an amazing game, just fun, than I don't see what's so hard about accepting 3. I doubt you all sat down to play 1 and were like "If this game doesn't have at least 5 different armor colors, I'm uninstalling it!" (well, not all of you at least.)

 

 

*sigh* this part of the forum was sooo much more fun 2 weeks ago, when people were waiting for info and trailers. Now the constant whining and bitching is just disgusting.

DS3 has it's flaws I'm sure, but honestly, it's not the mess Alpha Protocol was, but you people act like it's even worse. It may not be your dream project, horrible. There's nothing wrong with it either SO GET OVER IT AND TRY HAVING FUN FOOLS.

 

 

There, now I feel better.

 

Well I did sit down and play the game...and well...it wasn't that fun. Then, I know this is going to sound crazy, I talked about the things that killed the fun of the game.

 

Seriously though, I do still plan on giving the game a chance...going to give the another go with a fresh perspective. Maybe if I pretend this game has nothing to do with Dungeon Siege it will be better lol.

[C2B]

I'm amazed that people still hold up the original games as complex or... well, not dumbed down. The number of skills means absolutely jack, it's all in how they are used in the game. Now, most generally speaking, I certainly prefer to have a larger variety of skills to play around with but there is also a reason why Dungeon Siege is known for "playing itself". The very core of the Dungeon Sieges, and the reason why I personally hold it in very low esteem (even as far as action-RPGs go) *is* that they're incredibly tepid experiences. I would've liked a greater skill variety in DS3 but the game looks far more engaging and involving to the player than the old games do. I tried playing them around the times they were released, and have tried again now that I have them on STEAM due to the pre-order bonus, and I'm sorry. But Dungeon Siege is almost the definition of a dumbed down game.

 

I can certainly understand that someone might be upset at DS3 because it's taking a different direction, taking cues from console action games and having the pre-defined characters. But complaining that DS3 is dumbed down is incredibly hilarious when you consider the history of this series.

 

It's not that the original was some amazingly complex game, but that the new one is even further dumbed down that the originals. Get it?

 

Its not dumbed down. At all. It got way more complex in how skills are handled and how they affect the gameplay not to mention its challenging this time around.

Edited June 2, 2011 by C2B