This is a random RPG, not Dungeon Siege

[Renevent]

I know about Uwe Boll...that has nothing to do with anything.

[sorophx]

that has nothing to do with anything.

case closed

[Subliminal]

The vast majority of people who played them overwhelmingly disagree with you.

what, all 3 and a half players? we already know that, they're all here

 

Go to any forum other than this one, people don't like what they've seen, nor do they like the lack of features.

[Renevent]

that has nothing to do with anything.

case closed

 

Yeah, your case certainly is closed. In fact, it never was even opened. Next time try adding something relevant to the conversation.

[Sannom]

Baloney, you go on any popular gaming forum and ask people if they have heard of Dungeon Siege and the vast majority will say yes. Not saying everyone will say they thought it was a good game or anything, but what you are saying is without merit.

Well, I have 'heard' about Dungeon Siege, but apart from the very basics I couldn't tell you much about it! Party-based, fantasy, and no limits on the distance at which characters can exchange items.

The facts are, GPG abandoned the franchise when Chris Taylor went back to strategy games, Space Siege tainted the whole franchise for a lot of people and the franchise wasn't 'big' to begin with.

[Renevent]

Baloney, you go on any popular gaming forum and ask people if they have heard of Dungeon Siege and the vast majority will say yes. Not saying everyone will say they thought it was a good game or anything, but what you are saying is without merit.

Well, I have 'heard' about Dungeon Siege, but apart from the very basics I couldn't tell you much about it! Party-based, fantasy, and no limits on the distance at which characters can exchange items.

The facts are, GPG abandoned the franchise when Chris Taylor went back to strategy games, Space Siege tainted the whole franchise for a lot of people and the franchise wasn't 'big' to begin with.

 

You admittingly not knowing much about the franchise excludes you from telling anyone what the facts are surrounding the game.

 

It sold well, reviewed well, and is a very well known franchise. Everything else you said is just your perception based on not knowing much about it.

Edited June 8, 2011 by Renevent

[sorophx]

It sold well, reviewed well, and is a very well known franchise.

don't know about the first part, but the "reviewed well" bit...

 

There

[Renevent]

It sold well, reviewed well, and is a very well known franchise.

don't know about the first part, but the "reviewed well" bit...

 

There’s never been a better action RPG for any system. Yes, it's even better than "Diablo."

100/100 score, that explains a lot

 

Out of 59 reviews (averaged) it has a 8.6 and out of almost 4000 player reviews is holds a 8.3 average. That's a very solid score rating from both players and reviewers alike.

 

Now, is it possible for you to actually say something relevant or do you always just post inane babble?

 

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/dungeonsiege/index.html

 

*edit*

 

It also won many awards from a multitude of gaming sites/magazines when it was released:

 

http://www.microsoft.com/games/dungeonsiege/9a.aspx

 

Tell me...do you think DS3 will be as warmly received?

Edited June 8, 2011 by Renevent

[sorophx]

59 reviews

metacritic shows only 29, and a lot of them are 100/100 which explains the high average score, but reeks of "arrangements"

[Renevent]

59 reviews

metacritic shows only 29, and a lot of them are 100/100 which explains the high average score, but reeks of "arrangements"

 

And gamespot show 59...what's the difference?

 

You have no legs to stand on...you are literally talking out of your ass.

 

You are wrong and I have proven it, it's time to deal with reality now and stop being such a fanboy (or fangirl).

[Subliminal]

59 reviews

metacritic shows only 29, and a lot of them are 100/100 which explains the high average score, but reeks of "arrangements"

 

Lol, well, lets see what DS3 gets

 

MY guess: 4/10

[sorophx]

And gamespot show 59...what's the difference?

 

You are wrong and I have proven it

there's a world of difference, but you wouldn't know it even if it hit you on the head

 

sure you have, don't strain yourself

[rafoca]

Making a sequel, IMO, is getting all the good things the prequels did well, make it better and include in the sequel (plus the other things devs may find cool)

 

What I think should be in this sequel:

 

-Polymorph Spells

-Co-op did it right

-Taking back with your character all the things you got playing in co-op

-No online screen sharing (I can live with that in local co-op tho, if the game is huge and the feature would be hard to implement, like in Sacred 2)

-Item crafting

-Runes

-Tons of spells and enough skills for other playthroughs

-Man/Female for all classes

-Equal XP/Gold sharing in co-op

 

That

Edited June 8, 2011 by rafoca

[Renevent]

And gamespot show 59...what's the difference?

 

You are wrong and I have proven it

there's a world of difference, but you wouldn't know it even if it hit you on the head

 

sure you have, don't strain yourself

 

Believe me, proving you wrong isn't causing any strain at all lol. You literally have no valid arguments and nothing you say is backed up by evidence or sound logic.

Edited June 8, 2011 by Renevent

[sorophx]

Believe me

excuse me if I don't

[Renevent]

Believe...or don't believe...the reality of the situation is the same.

Edited June 8, 2011 by Renevent

[sorophx]

Making a sequel, IMO, is getting all the good things the prequels did well

 

-Polymorph Spells wut?

-Taking back with your character all the things you got playing in co-op you're missing the big picture

-No online screen sharing I could agree with that, I wonder if there's a reason behind that decision other than time constraints

-Item crafting pfft, pah-lease

-Runes never worked in any of the games I've played. imo, leaving this crap out is a good thing

-Tons of spells and enough skills for other playthroughs you have four different classes with different skills, that will have you covered for months, if that's the on;y thing you look for in video games

-Man/Female for all classes this is just stupid, not going into that, some people really need to see a psychiatrist

-Equal XP/Gold sharing in co-op it's not in DS3?

 

so what are the good things anyway?

[Subliminal]

Making a sequel, IMO, is getting all the good things the prequels did well

 

-Polymorph Spells wut?

-Taking back with your character all the things you got playing in co-op you're missing the big picture

-No online screen sharing I could agree with that, I wonder if there's a reason behind that decision other than time constraints

-Item crafting pfft, pah-lease

-Runes never worked in any of the games I've played. imo, leaving this crap out is a good thing

-Tons of spells and enough skills for other playthroughs you have four different classes with different skills, that will have you covered for months, if that's the on;y thing you look for in video games

-Man/Female for all classes this is just stupid, not going into that, some people really need to see a psychiatrist

-Equal XP/Gold sharing in co-op it's not in DS3?

 

so what are the good things anyway?

 

How is s/he missing the big picture? There are 9 skills per 4 classes (36, just in case you needed help) thats about as many as 1 of the 7 classes in diablo 2. Theres no argument for anything you said, "pfft, pah-lease" is an agrument against item crafting? Diablo 2 had crafting, and that game was releases ages ago, lol.

 

not getting rewards in co-op is epic fail; theres not getting around that. Honestly, I hope the SP and couch co-op and story are amazing, I really do. I'm not getting my hopes up though.

[sorophx]

diablo 2's "crafting" was the weakest part of the game. the big picture is you can't allow characters of a higher level into someone's campaign, because that would break the game, maybe you enjoy that kind of stuff, but I only play co-op games if the people I play with are of the same level +/- 1, otherwise the whole purpose of playing together is defeated. that's the reason you don't get any rewards if you're not the host, though this one could be addressed by the devs.

 

anything else? what would you do without me, I'm afraid to imagine

Edited June 8, 2011 by sorophx

[rafoca]

Making a sequel, IMO, is getting all the good things the prequels did well

 

-Polymorph Spells wut?

-Taking back with your character all the things you got playing in co-op you're missing the big picture

-No online screen sharing I could agree with that, I wonder if there's a reason behind that decision other than time constraints

-Item crafting pfft, pah-lease

-Runes never worked in any of the games I've played. imo, leaving this crap out is a good thing

-Tons of spells and enough skills for other playthroughs you have four different classes with different skills, that will have you covered for months, if that's the on;y thing you look for in video games

-Man/Female for all classes this is just stupid, not going into that, some people really need to see a psychiatrist

-Equal XP/Gold sharing in co-op it's not in DS3?

 

so what are the good things anyway?

 

How is s/he missing the big picture? There are 9 skills per 4 classes (36, just in case you needed help) thats about as many as 1 of the 7 classes in diablo 2. Theres no argument for anything you said, "pfft, pah-lease" is an agrument against item crafting? Diablo 2 had crafting, and that game was releases ages ago, lol.

 

not getting rewards in co-op is epic fail; theres not getting around that. Honestly, I hope the SP and couch co-op and story are amazing, I really do. I'm not getting my hopes up though.

 

haha he is probably just a troll. Everything I pointed out is pretty default in any Action/RPG these days. Polymorph spells was one of the most fun things featured in DS1. Good times...

[Renevent]

diablo 2's "crafting" was the weakest part of the game. the big picture is you can't allow characters of a higher level into someone's campaign, because that would break the game, maybe you enjoy that kind of stuff, but I only play co-op games if the people I play with are of the same level +/- 1, otherwise the whole purpose of playing together is defeated. that's the reason you don't get any rewards if you're not the host, though this one could be addressed by the devs.

 

anything else? what would you do without me, I'm afraid to imagine

 

Have you actually played Diablo II online? At all? You realize you can set the +/- level range for co-op games...which is 10 years old now? You could even make them private and play with only friends you know.

[Subliminal]

diablo 2's "crafting" was the weakest part of the game. the big picture is you can't allow characters of a higher level into someone's campaign, because that would break the game, maybe you enjoy that kind of stuff, but I only play co-op games if the people I play with are of the same level +/- 1, otherwise the whole purpose of playing together is defeated. that's the reason you don't get any rewards if you're not the host, though this one could be addressed by the devs.

 

anything else? what would you do without me, I'm afraid to imagine

 

 

So, the "solution" they chose is the only one that could work? lol, look at FFXI, they have a system that changes the stats/level of you to match that of the lowest level party member.. you get to keep you character/ gain xp/ but have a persistent character.

 

Play with your friends, and your friends only then; no reason to force that on everyone who enjoys playing with random people. Theres no reason they couldn't do both, you could limit the levels of who could join in diablo 2.

 

 

The "big picture" is that this game is not what it could be; and advocating for less features just makes you look ignorant.

[sorophx]

Have you actually played Diablo II online?

no? that's not the point? if you have to make it private to enjoy the game, doesn't it mean that you're wrong and I'm right?

 

the bottom line: having the possibility to join any game regardless of your character's level just for the sake of having it is a bad move, you don't agree, that's fine, keep living in your imaginary world. instead of making a whole system to filter who can and cannot play with you online Obsidian decided to not have it at all. you're saying it's very bad and will ruin the game for everyone, when in fact it's not bad, it's a viable solution and will only ruin the game for you.

[Renevent]

Have you actually played Diablo II online?

no? that's not the point? if you have to make it private to enjoy the game, doesn't it mean that you're wrong and I'm right?

 

the bottom line: having the possibility to join any game regardless of your character's level just for the sake of having it is a bad move, you don't agree, that's fine, keep living in your imaginary world. instead of making a whole system to filter who can and cannot play with you online Obsidian decided to not have it at all. you're saying it's very bad and will ruin the game for everyone, when in fact it's not bad, it's a viable solution and will only ruin the game for you.

 

Of course that's the point! You are ignorant about it yet talking like you know something.

 

Did you even read what I wrote? You did NOT have to make it private...you could set the level range and anyone meeting that level range could join you. You can ALSO make private games so you can play with only friends too. These are called OPTIONS...so those who (like you) want to only play with people of similar level easily can, and those who like a different online experience can do so as well.

 

You are the one living in an imaginary world...you literally have no f'ing clue about anything.

Edited June 8, 2011 by Renevent

[Subliminal]

Have you actually played Diablo II online?

no? that's not the point? if you have to make it private to enjoy the game, doesn't it mean that you're wrong and I'm right?

 

the bottom line: having the possibility to join any game regardless of your character's level just for the sake of having it is a bad move, you don't agree, that's fine, keep living in your imaginary world. instead of making a whole system to filter who can and cannot play with you online Obsidian decided to not have it at all. you're saying it's very bad and will ruin the game for everyone, when in fact it's not bad, it's a viable solution and will only ruin the game for you.

 

Look at the post I made right above yours. Seriously, removing stuff so that everyone HAS to play how you apparently like to is hilaribad. And you dont have to make it private at all, in fact, the default setting in diablo 2 is -/+ 5 levels iirc. The fact is that that game had OPTIONS; use them, dont, cheat on open bnet, play single player, play on closed bnet, play hardcore, play with low levels, play with high levels. Removing choice =/= good design.

 

Edit: lol, great minds?

Edited June 8, 2011 by Subliminal