Good Game, Bad Dungeon Siege

[thempc]

As the title says, the game itself isn't bad.

 

The controls needs somewhat getting used to and the failure of implemening personal keybindings (switching right mousebutton for middle etc),

is something indie developers forget to add to games, not developers like you guys, bit of a shame.

 

Other than that the game is pretty well done.

 

 

For the subject of "Dungeon Siege", you totaly missed the boat there.

 

You see a lot of dev's do this, and its bad, you take a game which is good (like Dungeon Siege 1) and decide to make a sequel,

which on itself is a GREAT idea! Though the problem is that those dev's dont keep the "Dungeon Siege" aspects of the game and

people that played the first 2 parts will be deeply, deeply disappointed at the fact that this is no Dungeon Siege anymore.

 

The story is certainly a followup of Dungeon Siege and by the first looks, the story fits with the previous games.

The problem with this game is that the entire "Gameplay" and "Game Logic" are certainly not Dungeon Siege, developers dont realize this, or don't seem to,

but disappointed fans, is not something which will do good on your reputation, and therefor it would have been MUCH better

if the game was released using a different title.

 

Why? Well because then we will not expect you (the developers) to give us Dungeon Siege and we (the end-user) will not have

the feeling that the dev's were only using the name so the game would sell.

 

If you would have wanted to make a sequel of Dungeon Siege 1, which i fullly support, you should have take the gameplay mechanics and

other key features of the game in account more then you did this time, because not doing this will ruin your sequel.

 

 

Conclusion:

Don't try to make sequels of games if your not able to actualy make it a sequel, just name it something else and both the dev's and

end-users will be happier, because they did'nt get any false hope.

 

 

Grtz,

TheMPC

[Pidesco]

It's uncanny.

[thempc]

It's uncanny.

 

Meaning?

[Pidesco]

From before by me:

 

If someone decided to make a sequel to Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing, some dude would show up to complain that the sequel was Big Rigs in name only.

[Subliminal]

From before by me:

 

If someone decided to make a sequel to Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing, some dude would show up to complain that the sequel was Big Rigs in name only.

 

Ignoratio Elenchi.

 

Regardless, maybe if they made it story driven... Or not a racing game.

 

The sheer volume of complaints directed towards the direction taken for the franchise should be a concern shouldn't it? I'd like to know what makes these choices great; rather than hear how our concerns are not the direction you were going for...

[Orchomene]

What was really specific in the Dungeon Siege gameplay that would be required in a sequel ?

For me, as far as I remember, the gameplay in DS was close to a diablo like action RPG. But well, I may be wrong.

[Pidesco]

It had a mule, you see. And no loadings. And snazzy graphics. And it played itself. And it had a nonsensical name. And yeah.

[Humodour]

The sheer volume of complaints directed towards the direction taken for the franchise should be a concern shouldn't it? I'd like to know what makes these choices great; rather than hear how our concerns are not the direction you were going for...

 

Look, frankly, Dungeon Siege doesn't even HAVE a 'feel'. DS1 and DS2 were quite different, and DS3 is different again (for the better, based on what little I've played so far).

 

But what I really wanted to point out is that, while I agree with Pidesco, he is a moderator, not an Obsidian employee. Please don't misinterpret his comments as coming from Obsidian.

[KillerGremal]

It had a mule, you see. And no loadings. And snazzy graphics. And it played itself. And it had a nonsensical name. And yeah.

Maybe you should start with the 8 resp. 6 party members, number/type of stats and character development (how classes grow), control scheme, ...

 

 

 

The sheer volume of complaints directed towards the direction taken for the franchise should be a concern shouldn't it? I'd like to know what makes these choices great; rather than hear how our concerns are not the direction you were going for...

 

Look, frankly, Dungeon Siege doesn't even HAVE a 'feel'. DS1 and DS2 were quite different, and DS3 is different again (for the better, based on what little I've played so far).

 

But what I really wanted to point out is that, while I agree with Pidesco, he is a moderator, not an Obsidian employee. Please don't misinterpret his comments as coming from Obsidian.

Quite different... !???

I could imagine that many DS1/DS2 gamers won't share this point of view - specially when facing this DS3.

[Renevent]

I think I may still get the game, but I completely 100% agree with the OP.

 

This isn't a Dungeon Siege game...at least game play wise. It may or may not still be a fun game, but as an old school DS player I think the devs were WAY off. Reading forums all over the web, it seems that is the opinion of most gamers too. Right or wrong the general consensus I am seeing is people (who were fans of the older games in the series) and generally not happy with the new direction of the game at all.

[Subliminal]

The sheer volume of complaints directed towards the direction taken for the franchise should be a concern shouldn't it? I'd like to know what makes these choices great; rather than hear how our concerns are not the direction you were going for...

 

Look, frankly, Dungeon Siege doesn't even HAVE a 'feel'. DS1 and DS2 were quite different, and DS3 is different again (for the better, based on what little I've played so far).

 

But what I really wanted to point out is that, while I agree with Pidesco, he is a moderator, not an Obsidian employee. Please don't misinterpret his comments as coming from Obsidian.

 

 

This makes absolutely no sense.

 

First, dungeon seige 1/2 had features, the absence, or addition of features (in particular, CORE gameplay features) means that the game has been taken in a new direction; and one that me and many others think requires explanation.

 

To say that DS1/2 didn't have a feel would be like saying that the diehard movies or something didn't have a feel. If you went to see diehard 16 and it was a romantic comedy, you would think it was a crappy diehard movie, EVEN IF YOU LOVED ROMANTIC COMEDIES.

 

Dungeon Seige 1 and 2 were action RPG's. Dungeon Seige 3 is... something else. Dialogue trees/ Multiple cutscenes per encounter/ "story centric" gameplay are additional features, fine, but why add them? Why add them in a way that contradicts the formula established by countless, highly successful, arpgs? The changes don't seem to make the game better, the story (atleast in the demo/ promotional material) seems to be generic and flimsy. Which is expected in an ARPG, NOT a game that touts its story as its redeeming feature.

 

Why do you like it? Why is it better than having the features the series started with? This is what the people defending it don't seem to know. Do you like generic fantasy stories THAT much? That you would forgo action in an action rpg for 2d cutscenes and dialogue trees?

 

I've yet to see anyone say, "OMG feature X in DS3 is so awesome!"

 

DS3 is different sure, but certainly not better; atleast if you want to consider it an action RPG. Action RPG's are about gameplay at the end of the day, and the gameplay here is a few decades behind DS1/2, diablo 2 and even Torchlight. If you want to consider it a deep and engrossing, story driven masterpiece, fine, but the story seems lackluster to me, as do the majority of the new "features".

[thempc]

From before by me:

 

If someone decided to make a sequel to Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing, some dude would show up to complain that the sequel was Big Rigs in name only.

 

I think the replies made by fellow end-users says enough.

[kirottu]

I have only played DS2, but aside from controls it really felt like a sequel.

[Subliminal]

From before by me:

 

If someone decided to make a sequel to Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing, some dude would show up to complain that the sequel was Big Rigs in name only.

 

Ignoratio Elenchi.

 

Regardless, maybe if they made it story driven... Or not a racing game.

 

The sheer volume of complaints directed towards the direction taken for the franchise should be a concern shouldn't it? I'd like to know what makes these choices great; rather than hear how our concerns are not the direction you were going for...

 

 

I've already encountered the "Big Rigs" defense. Its not applicable to what I'm saying, nor to the questions I've posted.

 

Saying that people would complain regardless of the product, that it was a sequel in name only is preposterous; and is disproven by the fact that that has not happened for every sequel ever released...

[HoonDing]

What was really specific in the Dungeon Siege gameplay that would be required in a sequel ?

For me, as far as I remember, the gameplay in DS was close to a diablo like action RPG. But well, I may be wrong.

A party.

[thempc]

*bump*

[Oner]

Colbert bump?

[thempc]

Bump of hatred

[Renevent]

Bumplestiltskin

[Monokli]

Well, the game still isn't as good as any of the predecessors:

 

Camera is too close: when you spot an enemy it will be at you in <=3 seconds. Dungeon siege had it twice or wait maybe THRICE as far up. Can't even see what luke is doing

 

Anjali's fire form is imba. She already has access to a healing method without orbs because all 3 points are spent in AoI's Cauterize (that's the healing right?), and AoI also deals with melee-ers trying to attack her (literally) hot body, while her spear lunge is useless.

 

No click somewhere to tell the character to move there. Worse, the camera turns around when you move with your cursor. Total ****ing BULL****!

 

Fluff rape: Anjali's existence, Steampunk Stonebridge, automatons (WHERE ARE MY ****ING GOBBOTS????!?!?!?!?). **** steampunk why does everyone have to go for it?

 

Small areas in the demo. I heard that it gets more branchy and maybe just MAYBE somewhat more open after it, but demo gives off bad impression.

[Oner]

Well, the game still isn't as good as any of the predecessors:

You're right. It's better.

[Cyn!c]

OP should post on the Square Enix forums. Here's the thing, they bought and now own the IP. They can do whatever they want with it. They had a specific vision in mind, and tasked Obsidian with bringing that vision to life. They saw a gap left by hugely popular console titles like BG:DA and CoN and, intelligently in my mind, sought to fill this gap.

 

If it is a good game, Obsidian should be praised. If you are annoyed about the dilution or changing of the nature of the IP, it's actually got nothing to do with them. The publisher owns the rights and it was their decision from the outset to make this style of ARPG.

 

If this was a sequel released by the original dev, gas powered games, then frustration against them would be fine(bioware and DA2 is an example) but it's not. Obsidian just did a really good job, but they were working to a brief.

[MechanicalLemon]

Well, the game still isn't as good as any of the predecessors:

 

Camera is too close: when you spot an enemy it will be at you in <=3 seconds. Dungeon siege had it twice or wait maybe THRICE as far up. Can't even see what luke is doing

 

Fluff rape: Anjali's existence, Steampunk Stonebridge, automatons (WHERE ARE MY ****ING GOBBOTS????!?!?!?!?). **** steampunk why does everyone have to go for it?

 

I agree that the camera needs to be zoomed out a bit more.

 

DS1 was steampunk though, so I don't see the lore rape here. It's been a hundred years since DS1 and Stonebridge has grown by that time so it's not a stretch to see the city as it is. I would recommend reading the timeline on the DS3 site. It sums up DS1 and what has happened since then. Really good stuff.

[Alpha]

Well, the game still isn't as good as any of the predecessors:

You're right. It's better.

this.

[Renevent]

Well, the game still isn't as good as any of the predecessors:

You're right. It's better.

this.

 

 

If you like linear story driven console RPG's with limited multiplayer...sure.