Replayability

[Indigo]

Is it possible to replay the game with the same character after you finished the game , in case i want to farm for better gear .

[MonkeyLungs]

There is no New Game +, or progression from one difficulty level of the game to the next difficulty level with the same character, ststas, gear etc. like diablo, sacred type games.

[Matt-C]

This is basically what makes the large amount of loot pointless =(

[Indigo]

And what makes me consider if i should buy it or not ... no replayability and the multiplayer is kinda not so much fun from one perspective ... Playing with friends and beeing happy that we get some nice loot together ... instead only the one that hosts gets everything . Pretty much took out everything that was fun in the other first two games and made it boring .

Edited June 5, 2011 by Indigo

[Tigranes]

Host doesn't 'get everything'. It's not like the host player keeps the loot and XP you have earnt, you just can't transfer it to other games (which would be silly in a level 30 cap game anyway). You play together and everyone gets their own XP and loot. The limitation is that that XP & loot stays in that game.

 

(If you still don't like it, fair enough, but we might as well get it crystal clear)

[Matt-C]

Host doesn't 'get everything'. It's not like the host player keeps the loot and XP you have earnt, you just can't transfer it to other games (which would be silly in a level 30 cap game anyway). You play together and everyone gets their own XP and loot. The limitation is that that XP & loot stays in that game.

 

(If you still don't like it, fair enough, but we might as well get it crystal clear)

The host player does keep the loot and XP you have earned. This also means that other random players can join the hosts players game and play your character while you are offline etc. The only way for what you have just described to work would be if the hosts game was private and only the same other 3 players joined the game every single time. This makes it very difficult to have four of the same people online at the same time to progress through the game. Many of us live busy lives and just want to be able to jump on for an hour each night and play some multiplayer irrespective of whether 3 of the same friends are on or not. So this leaves a situation of you always choosing to host to keep your progress...

 

It's a very strange decision as many players interested in this sort of game like persistent characters, however the drop in drop out of this is more akin to an older FPS style game, because hell even the latest FPS games have persistent characters/profiles.

Edited June 5, 2011 by Matt-C

[Alpha]

^^^

 

the other players keep the loot and exp too as long as keep playing with the same host via continue if i am not wrong.

[Tigranes]

Yes, other people could jump in and play your character, level him up, etc., if the host allowed it - so you'd want a reliable host if you wanted to prevent 'coop adultery'. But the host can't mess with someone else's character directly - they don't 'own' your xp/loot in that sense. The host can't make your character run around, die, take your loot, spend your skill points.

[Matt-C]

you just can't transfer it to other games (which would be silly in a level 30 cap game anyway).

 

It's amusing you have defended a terrible design choice(persistent characters across games) with the use of another terrible design choice (max level 30). It seems that one terrible decision on Obsidians (storytelling? lol) part has caused a cascade effect that ruined every other part of the game.

[Matt-C]

And what makes me consider if i should buy it or not ... no replayability and the multiplayer is kinda not so much fun from one perspective ... Playing with friends and beeing happy that we get some nice loot together ... instead only the one that hosts gets everything . Pretty much took out everything that was fun in the other first two games and made it boring .

 

I suggest still trying the game, Obsidian deserve a chance. Maybe pick up the demo or rent it first. Although it would be best if you don't go into it thinking you are going to be playing a sequel to Dungeon Siege.

Edited June 5, 2011 by Matt-C

[Indigo]

i will try the demo , but i expected too much from the game and now i feel disappointed ...

[rc deaths agent]

Host doesn't 'get everything'. It's not like the host player keeps the loot and XP you have earnt, you just can't transfer it to other games (which would be silly in a level 30 cap game anyway).

I don't know...I think having a level cap of 30 would be fine in online if the progression was handled right. I like a bit of a slower leveling system anyways and as long as it was rewarding and meaningful it would be fine.

[hopfrog16]

Host doesn't 'get everything'. It's not like the host player keeps the loot and XP you have earnt, you just can't transfer it to other games (which would be silly in a level 30 cap game anyway).

I don't know...I think having a level cap of 30 would be fine in online if the progression was handled right. I like a bit of a slower leveling system anyways and as long as it was rewarding and meaningful it would be fine.

 

Personally I think you're right on this. I've played plenty of persistent multiplayer games with low level caps (after all, most D&D based games have a low level cap, but they are always a blast in terms of persistent multiplayer). That being said, the system would have to be a lot more advanced than what it is for that, and what they have now isn't going to change. =P Good for some people, bad for others.

[MonkeyLungs]

Host doesn't 'get everything'. It's not like the host player keeps the loot and XP you have earnt, you just can't transfer it to other games (which would be silly in a level 30 cap game anyway).

I don't know...I think having a level cap of 30 would be fine in online if the progression was handled right. I like a bit of a slower leveling system anyways and as long as it was rewarding and meaningful it would be fine.

 

Exactly. There is no reason that a lower level cap game can't feature a new game +. Some games have level 50 caps and support new game + or continued play with the same character and loot. This can actually be more fun because then you have a good amount of playtime dedicated to max level gameplay and hunting the best best best loots! Some game even upgraxde the AI of enemies when you are playing max level gameplay. It's really damn fun.

[Tigranes]

You can make it work with a lower level cap, but ARPGs have traditionally depended on fairly fast level-ups for players in terms of how progression is built. MMOs are obviously different (though MMOs are known to put some people off precisely because you need to grind so long to level up).

[Renevent]

Yes, other people could jump in and play your character, level him up, etc., if the host allowed it - so you'd want a reliable host if you wanted to prevent 'coop adultery'. But the host can't mess with someone else's character directly - they don't 'own' your xp/loot in that sense. The host can't make your character run around, die, take your loot, spend your skill points.

 

Sure the host can...the second you log off he can play that character and assign loot/new skill points/ect.

[Tigranes]

We don't know if that's possible, actually. That is, for the host to change characters on the fly.

 

We do know that a lot of the loot is class/character-specific, so even if a host decided to be an idiot and was able to log in as your character, the worst he/she can do is, I don't know, sell your equipment.

 

That kind of griefing is a worry in MMOs or MP games with a competitive / persistent element, but I don't see why anybody would bother doing that in something like DS3 where there's no PVP, that doesn't screw a character you've built for 6 months, etc.

[Oner]

That kind of griefing is a worry in MMOs or MP games with a competitive / persistent element, but I don't see why anybody would bother doing that in something like DS3 where there's no PVP, that doesn't screw a character you've built for 6 months, etc.

Griefers don't need a reason.

That said, it's not like new loot is hard to get.

[hopfrog16]

That kind of griefing is a worry in MMOs or MP games with a competitive / persistent element, but I don't see why anybody would bother doing that in something like DS3 where there's no PVP, that doesn't screw a character you've built for 6 months, etc.

Griefers don't need a reason.

That said, it's not like new loot is hard to get.

 

Aye... This may become a problem if people who don't know better try to play openly over the internet with random strangers. The people that control your companions could just unequip and destroy everything your companion has and screw with their skills in a bad way. I've read that no build can be built so badly that the character is unusable in interviews, but I suspect this may not be true in a hardcore match. Is the money in the match shared with everyone? If so they could just spend all of it on useless stuff at the vendors. Hopefully I'm wrong... Would be terrible if someone tried out the online co-op just to find out the hard way that something like this could happen. Especially if they had already invested a lot of time into that character. =P

[Tigranes]

True, you always find idiots doing it for the sake of it. I'm thinking it's also possible that the host will not be able to change his character, if the co-op is built on top of single player (i.e. if the logic is, you're playing a SP game, imagine if your buddy can drop in and pick up a character, now he can - then it wouldn't make sense for you to randomly change your character every 3 minutes). But then, that would be a rather silly limitation for the host character, too.

[Matt-C]

True, you always find idiots doing it for the sake of it. I'm thinking it's also possible that the host will not be able to change his character, if the co-op is built on top of single player (i.e. if the logic is, you're playing a SP game, imagine if your buddy can drop in and pick up a character, now he can - then it wouldn't make sense for you to randomly change your character every 3 minutes). But then, that would be a rather silly limitation for the host character, too.

 

I'm only getting this game to grief randoms by letting them play with me for 75% of the story and then not letting them join my game ever again.

Edited June 7, 2011 by Matt-C

[ShadowScythe]

True, you always find idiots doing it for the sake of it. I'm thinking it's also possible that the host will not be able to change his character, if the co-op is built on top of single player (i.e. if the logic is, you're playing a SP game, imagine if your buddy can drop in and pick up a character, now he can - then it wouldn't make sense for you to randomly change your character every 3 minutes). But then, that would be a rather silly limitation for the host character, too.

 

I'm only getting this game to grief randoms by letting them play with me for 75% of the story and then not letting them join my game ever again.

 

Because they totally rely on you to get access to the story.

 

Besides it looks like griefing was never really going to be an option seeing as the co-op is designed to be local couch co-op with friends and family and online co-op only as a means to hang out with friends when you are separated.

 

So...good luck with that.