This is a random RPG, not Dungeon Siege

[sorophx]

So, less features = more for you?

is my name Philosoraptor or something? less features could very well mean a better game. that's why these choices are good.

 

multiple characters of the same class:

to keep the combat varied. I guess it's cool to go in with four mages, but that's what magicka is for. in a good video game this gives an opportunity to design better combat encounters

 

persistent characters:

wut?

 

level independent of host's level:

figure it out on your own, Sherlock

 

movement independent of other characters:

because this game is designed to be played on one machine, the online play was thrown as a complementary feature

[Tigranes]

They didn't scrap those things for story - they just created a very different game from the get go. It's hard for me to directly compare DS1/2 & 3 and say they added this and removed this, though, because I really thought the games were rubbish. I'm not interested in persuading anyone of that, though, esp. if you enjoyed your time with them.

 

I wonder how things would have turned out if Obsidian said "we'll create a DS3 that is very similar to DS1/2", but several things; (a) Chris Taylor has said GPG themselves would probably have gone down a single-hero route; (b) if we were talking about full multiplayer, Obsidian usually doesn't work on projects with full online MP, so who knows how it would have gone; © setting aside the question of whether DS1/2 were good or bad games, it was never a big franchise with tens of thousands of loyal followers like various other franchises that are being rebooted now - DS1 was, in fact, a derivative game made to capitalise on the tactical RPG boom at the time, and one used to get GPG, then a new company, off the ground. This doesn't make it a bad game, but it means there really weren't that many compelling reasons to make a direct sequel DS3 (which, of course, is bad news for those of you who did love DS1/2).

[Subliminal]

So, less features = more for you?

is my name Philosoraptor or something? less features could very well mean a better game. that's why these choices are good.

 

multiple characters of the same class:

to keep the combat varied. I guess it's cool to go in with four mages, but that's what magicka is for. in a good video game this gives an opportunity to design better combat encounters

 

persistent characters:

wut?

 

level independent of host's level:

figure it out on your own, Sherlock

 

movement independent of other characters:

because this game is designed to be played on one machine, the online play was thrown as a complementary feature

 

LOL, all of the action rpgs preceding this one had all of those "features"; removing them and not replacing them with something of greater or equal value is bad design.

 

 

Your posts are inane; do you really believe that taking away these things for a half-baked story is good? cant have a story/ intricate combat and real multiplayer I guess? These things are not contradictory.

[sorophx]

LOL, all of the action rpgs preceding this one had all of those "features"

suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure they did

[Subliminal]

They didn't scrap those things for story - they just created a very different game from the get go. It's hard for me to directly compare DS1/2 & 3 and say they added this and removed this, though, because I really thought the games were rubbish. I'm not interested in persuading anyone of that, though, esp. if you enjoyed your time with them.

 

I wonder how things would have turned out if Obsidian said "we'll create a DS3 that is very similar to DS1/2", but several things; (a) Chris Taylor has said GPG themselves would probably have gone down a single-hero route; (b) if we were talking about full multiplayer, Obsidian usually doesn't work on projects with full online MP, so who knows how it would have gone;

[Humodour]

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.

 

The Dungeon Siege games were pretty bland and generic. Fun, yes, replayable, heck no, and definitely generic high fantasy. DS1 had a bit more flare in some ways, but more boring combat (it basically played itself) and fewer role-playing elements than DS2 - there was little unique about it.

 

I really don't understand this fascination with wanting some sort of mystical sequel to DS1 or 2. You want a more Diablo-like game? Fine. That's different to saying this game doesn't fit the DS universe though - because frankly DS2 didn't fit the DS1 universe at all well either.

Edited June 8, 2011 by Krezack

[Xiaolin]

Thats all well and good, but Torchlight didn't have multiplayer either, and it was a fun and engaging action rpg. DS3 is not a fun and engaging action rpg. Its a story driven, dark alliance like couch co-op beat em up. Im all for pioneering new and innovative ideas. But everything I've seen from DS3 is very derivative; and not in the "that was fun, lets improve it" kind of way. Maybe the full retail game is different in some profound way from the promotional vignettes and demo; but I doubt it.

 

Quoted for truth.

 

Seriously focusing on story for this type of game ,not even mentioning using the DS ip, at the exclusion of MP is a collosally dumb idea. Just frikkin terrible. Everyone I know that was interested in this game has decided against it after finding out how MP is being treated. Even those that knew NOTHING about the Dungeon Siege franchise.

 

If Obsidian wanted to make a Final Fantasy game then thats what they should have done.

[Humodour]

My gripe is that they called it Dungeon Siege 3. The name 'Dungeon Siege' is already stupid, why tack on the number 3 when it's not a sequel and will thus enrage DS fans? A much better idea, given Obsid obviously wanted the brand name recognition, would have been 'Dungeon Siege: Jeyne Is A Big Fat Bitch' or something. You get the idea. Similar to how they did with Fallout: New Vegas.

 

Definitely no props for Obsid's marketing team.

[Darth InSidious]

The DS were very distinct

Well, they were distinctly unoriginal and distinctly mediocre, I'll give you that. They were distinctly poorly-written, distinctly ugly, and distinctly repetitive. Oh, they were distinctly railroaded, too.

 

If I chuck in a "verily" and perhaps some cod-Elvish, we can pretend I'm one of the six NPCs with any dialogue.

 

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.

Erm, I played video games around that time, as I suspect did most people around here.

 

The Dungeon Siege games were poorly-executed Diablo clones. When DSII came out the immediately recognisable features were the ugly graphics, terrible writing, horrendous railroading, meaningless spell/ability choices and colossal reliance on grind. Even multiplayer it's a pretty poor game. And when you consider the rest of the RPG cohort it came out with - KotOR II, Jade Empire, Fable: The Lost Chapters, Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines, and so on - it looks (and looked at the time) incredibly lacklustre. The only thing it had going for it was its multiplayer, and that wasn't exactly brilliant.

Edited June 8, 2011 by Darth InSidious

[Purkake]

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.

I was just about to ask what the "fans" thoughts of Space Siege, because for all intents and purposes it's more of the same.

 

Oh and cut down on the "quoted for truth" posts, they lack content. (not you, Morg)

Edited June 8, 2011 by Purkake

[Masasume]

Dungeon Siege 1 was like a cross between Diablo and a Baulders Gate game.

Dungeon Siege 2 was even more like Diablo, with the portals, waypoints, and the way you had to run back to your body, but it still had that Baulders gate western RPG style feel to it.

Dungeon Siege 3 feels like Diablo meets Fable 2/3. It's still a western style RPG, but it's more action RPG than Baulders gate style. This was clearly done to make 360/PS3 versions possible.

[Humodour]

Oh god, Dungeon Siege in no way felt like Baldur's Gate. Both DS games were linear as hell (DS1 had the illusion of openness) and did the RPG elements poorly (DS2 definitely improved on this). Kind of the opposite of Baldur's Gate.

 

By the way, I thought Dungeon Siege 1 was thoroughly beautiful (Dungeon Siege 2 on the other hand... urk).

 

I haven't played much of the demo yet and if I do discover that Obsid catered to the console crowd at the expense of their core market, that will be quite disappointing and may just be the final straw that stops me buying their games anymore. We'll see. Have to wait till I can try it on a decent computer.

[Hurlshort]

The DS series was super boring when it came to story, characters, dialogue and all that. DS3 already is a vast improvement on that after playing the demo.

 

My concern is that the gameplay and graphics of action games has come a long way since then, and DS3 seems stuck in time there. It looks outdated, and it plays like something that came out on the last generation of consoles.

[Humodour]

My concern is that the gameplay and graphics of action games has come a long way since then, and DS3 seems stuck in time there. It looks outdated, and it plays like something that came out on the last generation of consoles.

 

Hmm, that's definitely not the consensus I've been hearing around here, even from the DS fans critical of the controls and combat.

 

I and others have found it quite pretty, with smooth performance. What graphics options are you using? But hey, everyone has different tastes, this just might not be for you.

 

I remember when DS2 came out I really disliked the art direction. It was a step backwards. DS1 was beautiful. Lots of people agreed with me, lots disagreed. Same with BG2 - I hated the change in art direction but some quite enjoyed it.

[Masasume]

Oh god, Dungeon Siege in no way felt like Baldur's Gate. Both DS games were linear as hell (DS1 had the illusion of openness) and did the RPG elements poorly (DS2 definitely improved on this). Kind of the opposite of Baldur's Gate.

 

By the way, I thought Dungeon Siege 1 was thoroughly beautiful (Dungeon Siege 2 on the other hand... urk).

 

I haven't played much of the demo yet and if I do discover that Obsid catered to the console crowd at the expense of their core market, that will be quite disappointing and may just be the final straw that stops me buying their games anymore. We'll see. Have to wait till I can try it on a decent computer.

 

Depends on what Baldurs Gate games you played I guess. The ones I played felt a lot like Dungeon Siege.

Edited June 8, 2011 by Masasume

[Subliminal]

Thats all well and good, but Torchlight didn't have multiplayer either, and it was a fun and engaging action rpg. DS3 is not a fun and engaging action rpg. Its a story driven, dark alliance like couch co-op beat em up. Im all for pioneering new and innovative ideas. But everything I've seen from DS3 is very derivative; and not in the "that was fun, lets improve it" kind of way. Maybe the full retail game is different in some profound way from the promotional vignettes and demo; but I doubt it.

 

Quoted for truth.

 

Seriously focusing on story for this type of game ,not even mentioning using the DS ip, at the exclusion of MP is a collosally dumb idea. Just frikkin terrible. Everyone I know that was interested in this game has decided against it after finding out how MP is being treated. Even those that knew NOTHING about the Dungeon Siege franchise.

 

If Obsidian wanted to make a Final Fantasy game then thats what they should have done.

 

Lol, I imagine that they would add radial dialogue options to final fantasy aswell.

[Lexx]

My gripe is that they called it Dungeon Siege 3. The name 'Dungeon Siege' is already stupid, why tack on the number 3 when it's not a sequel and will thus enrage DS fans? A much better idea, given Obsid obviously wanted the brand name recognition, would have been 'Dungeon Siege: Jeyne Is A Big Fat Bitch' or something. You get the idea. Similar to how they did with Fallout: New Vegas.

 

Definitely no props for Obsid's marketing team.

 

The publisher decides about the name, not Obsidian.

[sorophx]

Depends on what Baldurs Gate games you played I guess. The ones I played felt a lot like Dungeon Siege.

if you mean Dark Alliance, then you shouldn't have mentioned it at all. most people here think Shadoews of Amn when they see "Baldur's Gate"

[Renevent]

The DS were very distinct

Well, they were distinctly unoriginal and distinctly mediocre, I'll give you that. They were distinctly poorly-written, distinctly ugly, and distinctly repetitive. Oh, they were distinctly railroaded, too.

 

If I chuck in a "verily" and perhaps some cod-Elvish, we can pretend I'm one of the six NPCs with any dialogue.

 

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.

Erm, I played video games around that time, as I suspect did most people around here.

 

The Dungeon Siege games were poorly-executed Diablo clones. When DSII came out the immediately recognisable features were the ugly graphics, terrible writing, horrendous railroading, meaningless spell/ability choices and colossal reliance on grind. Even multiplayer it's a pretty poor game. And when you consider the rest of the RPG cohort it came out with - KotOR II, Jade Empire, Fable: The Lost Chapters, Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines, and so on - it looks (and looked at the time) incredibly lacklustre. The only thing it had going for it was its multiplayer, and that wasn't exactly brilliant.

 

The vast majority of people who played them overwhelmingly disagree with you. What's even more amazing is the fact that Obsidian is using the IP...hello are you home?!?!?! If it was as you said why would anyone even come near this IP with a 10 foot pole? Right...because the reality is the game hits a positive chord with most gamers and is a very recognizable IP.

 

I already proved the statistics around the reviews and player reviews so I won't go there again, but obviously your comments have no merit to them what-so-ever. It's fine that you have your own personal opinion of the game, but it isn't shared among most gamers who played it.

Edited June 8, 2011 by Renevent

[sorophx]

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

[Sannom]

My gripe is that they called it Dungeon Siege 3. The name 'Dungeon Siege' is already stupid, why tack on the number 3 when it's not a sequel and will thus enrage DS fans? A much better idea, given Obsid obviously wanted the brand name recognition, would have been 'Dungeon Siege: Jeyne Is A Big Fat Bitch' or something. You get the idea. Similar to how they did with Fallout: New Vegas.

Replace 'Obsidian' by 'Square Enix' or 'Bethesda', please. Square is the one who purchased the IP and decided to use it, and they hired Obsidian to make the game.

 

Depends on what Baldurs Gate games you played I guess. The ones I played felt a lot like Dungeon Siege.

If you're talking about the console games, precise that you played Dark Alliance. The console games are widely different than the PC games.

 

What's even more amazing is the fact that Obsidian is using the IP...hello are you home?!?!?! If it was as you said why would anyone even come near this IP with a 10 foot pole?

The last game came out six years ago, the IP was pretty much forgotten, the expansion to consoles, both the publisher and developer changed : all these make a sequel that changes a lot of things acceptable. Plus, both Square Enix and Obsidian have some brand recognition that will make people interested in the game because of their name, and the expansion to consoles open to a brand new market that doesn't care about the previous games because they never played them. The success of Fallout 3, for example, was more thanks to new players who responded to Bethesda's brand than old Fallout fans.

[Renevent]

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

 

No, the games sold pretty well (about 1.7 million which was pretty dang good for a PC only game). I already posted the statistics regarding it's reception anyways so your little jokes are empty and hold no truth.

 

The last game came out six years ago, the IP was pretty much forgotten, the expansion to consoles, both the publisher and developer changed : all these make a sequel that changes a lot of things acceptable. Plus, both Square Enix and Obsidian have some brand recognition that will make people interested in the game because of their name, and the expansion to consoles open to a brand new market that doesn't care about the previous games because they never played them. The success of Fallout 3, for example, was more thanks to new players who responded to Bethesda's brand than old Fallout fans.

 

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.

Edited June 8, 2011 by Renevent

[sorophx]

that last quote isn't me. other than that: of course a lot of people have "heard" about Dungeon Siege... thanks to J.Statham

[Renevent]

Again, cute jokes but they are far from the truth. Although you inadvertently added to my point with it...yeah a game IP that only 3 people liked somehow also got a movie made out of it (terrible as it was).

 

It's ok if you didn't like the originals, but what you are trying to get across simply is something you would like to believe due to obsidian fanboyism, instead of something that actually is based on reality.

[sorophx]

yeah a game IP that only 3 people liked somehow also got a movie made out of it

you should read up on Uwe Boll. according to rumors he had been laundering money, and his movie business was just a coverup, so of course he'd pick the cheapest license available, duh.

 

btw, care to link the sales figures for DS? all I can find is some general statements about the game doing quite poorly...