kellek Posted June 7, 2011 Posted June 7, 2011 For any fans of Dungeon Siege 1 and 2, this game is not the same. I almost feel like they had another RPG already made, bought the naming rights of Dungeon Siege from Gas Powered Games, and slapped on the title. Dont get me wrong, the game itself is not bad. Yes, the game is basically meant for consoles with the PC version being an afterthought (the irony), but it doesnt even remotely resemble either of its predessors. Sadly for me, my opinion only, the Dungeon Siege series is dead. Even if they made the controls for PC bearable, it still is just a completely different RPG than what fans of the series are used to. Again, its not a bad thing, I just wont be buying the game. Also, making the demo available for PC users was probably not the smartest move money wise. Had the demo not been released, my brother and I would have snatched up 2 copies just due to name recognition alone. Now, I doubt I touch this in the bargain bin 9 months from now. I would love to end this post with some suggestions for the devs on things they can improve on, but "scrap everything" and start over just isnt constructive. Not angry, just massively dissappointed that the series is over.
hopfrog16 Posted June 7, 2011 Posted June 7, 2011 For any fans of Dungeon Siege 1 and 2, this game is not the same. I almost feel like they had another RPG already made, bought the naming rights of Dungeon Siege from Gas Powered Games, and slapped on the title. Dont get me wrong, the game itself is not bad. Yes, the game is basically meant for consoles with the PC version being an afterthought (the irony), but it doesnt even remotely resemble either of its predessors. Sadly for me, my opinion only, the Dungeon Siege series is dead. Even if they made the controls for PC bearable, it still is just a completely different RPG than what fans of the series are used to. Again, its not a bad thing, I just wont be buying the game. Also, making the demo available for PC users was probably not the smartest move money wise. Had the demo not been released, my brother and I would have snatched up 2 copies just due to name recognition alone. Now, I doubt I touch this in the bargain bin 9 months from now. I would love to end this post with some suggestions for the devs on things they can improve on, but "scrap everything" and start over just isnt constructive. Not angry, just massively dissappointed that the series is over. This. ^
Starwars Posted June 7, 2011 Posted June 7, 2011 I actually can't think of a game more fit for the epithet "some random game" than the old Dungeon Siege games. Listen to my home-made recordings (some original songs, some not): http://www.youtube.c...low=grid&view=0
Renevent Posted June 7, 2011 Posted June 7, 2011 (edited) The DS were very distinct among the arpg's back then. Had a pretty unique character/group system, well developed game world, excellent online, and was developed by a very well known developer (GPG). Chris Taylor is also a very well known game designer and back then it was definitely well known he was involved in the game. In addition, out of 59 reviews the game holds a 8.6 average which is pretty dang good: http://www.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/dungeonsieg...%3Bcritic-score Most gamers who played video games around that time know well of the DS series...some random game isn't a good way to describe them at all. I know you would like to believe that because of your loyalty to Obsidian, but's it's just not true. Edited June 7, 2011 by Renevent
Oner Posted June 7, 2011 Posted June 7, 2011 (edited) To give credit where it's due, DS2 (dunno about 1) is one of those few games where playing an archer is viable from the start, not just after the second chapter *cough* Gothic 2 *cough*. Edited June 7, 2011 by Oner Giveaway list: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1DgyQFpOJvyNASt8A12ipyV_iwpLXg_yltGG5mffvSwo/edit?usp=sharing What is glass but tortured sand?Never forget! '12.01.13.
MechanicalLemon Posted June 7, 2011 Posted June 7, 2011 The DS were very distinct among the arpg's back then. Had a pretty unique character/group system, well developed game world, excellent online, and was developed by a very well known developer. Chris Taylor is also a very well known game designer and back then it was definitely well known he was involved in the game. Most gamers who played video games around that time know well of the DS series...some random game isn't a good way to describe them at all. I know you would like to believe that because of your loyalty to Obsidian, but's it's just not true. Man, I played DS1/DS2 back in the day. I never played online so maybe I missed out on some key experience but to put it lightly, the games were like interactive screensavers. Auto-attack to win. DS2 was a bit better in that regard by introducing powers and skill trees. That's not to say they weren't fun though. From what I've seen, DS3 corrects the issues I mainly had with the first two games: voice acting, writing, combat.
Renevent Posted June 7, 2011 Posted June 7, 2011 (edited) The DS were very distinct among the arpg's back then. Had a pretty unique character/group system, well developed game world, excellent online, and was developed by a very well known developer. Chris Taylor is also a very well known game designer and back then it was definitely well known he was involved in the game. Most gamers who played video games around that time know well of the DS series...some random game isn't a good way to describe them at all. I know you would like to believe that because of your loyalty to Obsidian, but's it's just not true. Man, I played DS1/DS2 back in the day. I never played online so maybe I missed out on some key experience but to put it lightly, the games were like interactive screensavers. Auto-attack to win. DS2 was a bit better in that regard by introducing powers and skill trees. That's not to say they weren't fun though. From what I've seen, DS3 corrects the issues I mainly had with the first two games: voice acting, writing, combat. I think the beauty of the game lies is their skill system, item system, open-ish maps, tons of secrets, and the excellent online. Granted the combat could be described as more passive than some of the other games of the time (I think interactive screensavers is a major exaggeration though) but they were fun games that had a lot to offer. In my opinion, of course :D Edited June 7, 2011 by Renevent
MechanicalLemon Posted June 7, 2011 Posted June 7, 2011 (edited) The DS were very distinct among the arpg's back then. Had a pretty unique character/group system, well developed game world, excellent online, and was developed by a very well known developer. Chris Taylor is also a very well known game designer and back then it was definitely well known he was involved in the game. Most gamers who played video games around that time know well of the DS series...some random game isn't a good way to describe them at all. I know you would like to believe that because of your loyalty to Obsidian, but's it's just not true. Man, I played DS1/DS2 back in the day. I never played online so maybe I missed out on some key experience but to put it lightly, the games were like interactive screensavers. Auto-attack to win. DS2 was a bit better in that regard by introducing powers and skill trees. That's not to say they weren't fun though. From what I've seen, DS3 corrects the issues I mainly had with the first two games: voice acting, writing, combat. I think the beauty of the game lies is their skill system, item system, open-ish maps, tons of secrets, and the excellent online. Granted the combat could be described as more passive than some of the other games of the time (I think interactive screensavers is a major exaggeration) but they were fun games that had a lot to offer. In my opinion, of course :D Oh, I definitely agree. I would love DS3 to have the open environments DS1 had (DS2 was unfortunately pretty linear and DS3 looks to be about the same. Stonebridge in DS3 looks a bit more open so hopefully that will change). The skill system seems to allow a lot of customization so far and it seems like there's too much loot, heh. I never had the chance to play online, although I imagine it must have been a blast to have a huge party of friends playing together. Edited June 7, 2011 by MechanicalLemon
hopfrog16 Posted June 7, 2011 Posted June 7, 2011 The DS were very distinct among the arpg's back then. Had a pretty unique character/group system, well developed game world, excellent online, and was developed by a very well known developer. Chris Taylor is also a very well known game designer and back then it was definitely well known he was involved in the game. Most gamers who played video games around that time know well of the DS series...some random game isn't a good way to describe them at all. I know you would like to believe that because of your loyalty to Obsidian, but's it's just not true. Man, I played DS1/DS2 back in the day. I never played online so maybe I missed out on some key experience but to put it lightly, the games were like interactive screensavers. Auto-attack to win. DS2 was a bit better in that regard by introducing powers and skill trees. That's not to say they weren't fun though. From what I've seen, DS3 corrects the issues I mainly had with the first two games: voice acting, writing, combat. I think the beauty of the game lies is their skill system, item system, open-ish maps, tons of secrets, and the excellent online. Granted the combat could be described as more passive than some of the other games of the time (I think interactive screensavers is a major exaggeration though) but they were fun games that had a lot to offer. In my opinion, of course :D Heh... To be honest I hated the single player. For me the multiplayer and the modding community is what the game was about.
Renevent Posted June 7, 2011 Posted June 7, 2011 I liked both, though MP is what kept me coming back to the game. I actually just replayed DS2 about 6 months ago with some people I met on a forum
sorophx Posted June 7, 2011 Posted June 7, 2011 For any fans of Dungeon Siege 1 and 2, this game is not the same. who gives a flying f? Walsingham said: I was struggling to understand ths until I noticed you are from Finland. And having been educated solely by mkreku in this respect I am convinced that Finland essentially IS the wh40k universe.
kellek Posted June 7, 2011 Author Posted June 7, 2011 For any fans of Dungeon Siege 1 and 2, this game is not the same. who gives a flying f? I would say fans who wanted to play Dungeon Siege 3.
hopfrog16 Posted June 7, 2011 Posted June 7, 2011 For any fans of Dungeon Siege 1 and 2, this game is not the same. who gives a flying f? I would say fans who wanted to play Dungeon Siege 3. Exactly. The DS fanbase may not be very big, but that doesn't mean we don't have the right to be disappointed. =P
rafoca Posted June 7, 2011 Posted June 7, 2011 I will miss having a pet and making it grow. That was an awesome feature they
sorophx Posted June 7, 2011 Posted June 7, 2011 I would say fans who wanted to play the original Dungeon Siege with prettier graphics fixed Walsingham said: I was struggling to understand ths until I noticed you are from Finland. And having been educated solely by mkreku in this respect I am convinced that Finland essentially IS the wh40k universe.
hopfrog16 Posted June 7, 2011 Posted June 7, 2011 I would say fans who wanted to play the original Dungeon Siege with prettier graphics fixed Hmmm... It usually isn't a good thing to judge people abruptly and categorize them according to the way you think they are. =P I hope you don't make that a habit in life...
Morgoth Posted June 7, 2011 Posted June 7, 2011 Lol, there's such a thing as Dungeon Siege fans? Next you're telling me there are hardcore follower of Space Siege. I only care about DSIII because of Obsidian, not because of the franchise. Rain makes everything better.
sorophx Posted June 7, 2011 Posted June 7, 2011 It usually isn't a good thing to judge people abruptly and categorize them according to the way you think they are I'm not judging anybody, nor am I splitting them into categories. expecting DSIII to be exactly like the first game wasn't very wise to begin with. so what's the point of even talking about it here? so it's not like the first game, big deal, it's better, that's what counts. and the thing about "not being able to see my char's paper doll, boo hoo" and all that jazz - is just pathetic I can understand how some people could like the original more (even though I personally think it's a steaming pile of crap), but it's no excuse for insulting the devs for taking the franchise in another direction. don't play it, keep playing the other two. who cares? Walsingham said: I was struggling to understand ths until I noticed you are from Finland. And having been educated solely by mkreku in this respect I am convinced that Finland essentially IS the wh40k universe.
Renevent Posted June 7, 2011 Posted June 7, 2011 (edited) Lol, there's such a thing as Dungeon Siege fans? Next you're telling me there are hardcore follower of Space Siege. I only care about DSIII because of Obsidian, not because of the franchise. Yeah, there is. Lots of people like Dungeon Siege. Space Siege on the other hand... And to sorophx your comments never actually address anything people actually say. Nobody is asking for a replica of the first games with just updated graphics. Edited June 7, 2011 by Renevent
hopfrog16 Posted June 7, 2011 Posted June 7, 2011 It usually isn't a good thing to judge people abruptly and categorize them according to the way you think they are I'm not judging anybody, nor am I splitting them into categories. expecting DSIII to be exactly like the first game wasn't very wise to begin with. so what's the point of even talking about it here? so it's not like the first game, big deal, it's better, that's what counts. and the thing about "not being able to see my char's paper doll, boo hoo" and all that jazz - is just pathetic I can understand how some people could like the original more (even though I personally think it's a steaming pile of crap), but it's no excuse for insulting the devs for taking the franchise in another direction. don't play it, keep playing the other two. who cares? Who exactly are you referring to then, if not DS fans (the guy you quoted? I doubt it, since he never even implied that he wanted a duplicate of the original)? I never said I wanted an exact copy of the first game (nor did any of the other fans that I have seen post in the forums). Games have improved a lot since a decade ago, so I was looking forward to a new and improved game that kept the core elements of what Dungeon Siege was (persistent multiplayer, modding, etc etc...). New gameplay? That's fine by me if it's well done (and I think it was for the most part), though I'm sure other fans' opinion would differ. If you've read my posts, you would know that I haven't insulted DS3 or it's devs at all (which is why I'm a bit confused why you are being so defensive). Heh... Or at least as far as I can remember. Voicing my disappointments with some design choices? Sure... But every game is going to have expectations for a gamer... fan or not. I'm not saying DS3 is a bad game at all... As I've said in previous posts, I plan on getting it in the future (it's a lot like CoN I think, and that isn't a bad thing). I can be critical even with games I enjoy (yes, even with the DS series since that is a pretty easy thing to do, heh). That being said, however, I feel disappointed with DS3 as a Dungeon Siege game, which I was looking forward to as a fan of the series... The franchise really is dead, I think (or at least what I feel it once represented).
sorophx Posted June 7, 2011 Posted June 7, 2011 The franchise really is dead well, that's what I've been saying. it's dead and good riddance, if "you" can't understand why they picked this project, well that's too bad, but don't come whining here Walsingham said: I was struggling to understand ths until I noticed you are from Finland. And having been educated solely by mkreku in this respect I am convinced that Finland essentially IS the wh40k universe.
Subliminal Posted June 7, 2011 Posted June 7, 2011 The franchise really is dead well, that's what I've been saying. it's dead and good riddance, if "you" can't understand why they picked this project, well that's too bad, but don't come whining here The devs said they scraped these gameplay elements for story: - multiple party members as the same class/character - persistent characters - level independent of hosts level - new game+ - movement independent of other characters But from what I've played and seen in promotional videos, the story sucks; generic fantasy at its finest So what were left with is what? A crappy game, with crappy gameplay, with absolutely no replayability. So tell me, why did they "pick" this project? Why are these design choices good?
sorophx Posted June 7, 2011 Posted June 7, 2011 - new game+ that's the only thing I'd miss from your list, everything else makes sense to me from the design standpoint Walsingham said: I was struggling to understand ths until I noticed you are from Finland. And having been educated solely by mkreku in this respect I am convinced that Finland essentially IS the wh40k universe.
Subliminal Posted June 7, 2011 Posted June 7, 2011 - new game+ that's the only thing I'd miss from your list, everything else makes sense to me from the design standpoint So, less features = more for you? Nothing I listed contradicts anything They've added. And you failed to answer my questions...
hopfrog16 Posted June 7, 2011 Posted June 7, 2011 The franchise really is dead well, that's what I've been saying. it's dead and good riddance, if "you" can't understand why they picked this project, well that's too bad, but don't come whining here What?... Are you trying to troll, or are you really that ignorant?...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now