Do people care about the story?

[Humodour]

I figured that most people couldn't care less about the story.

 

Well, the less simple gamers do.

 

I think the fact that story-driven games are wildly successful in the marketplace is pretty obvious evidence.

[Humodour]

My thoughts are that the Subliminal and Matt-C accounts are probably owned by the same troll.

[sorophx]

oh, only two? I think Renevant and a bunch of others are his too

[Matt-C]

No, this is my only account here.

[kirottu]

Good story is always a plus.

[Pidesco]

There's no point in discussing who's an alt and who isn't.

 

 

I'm looking forward to the story, myself.

[Humodour]

I'm looking forward to the story, myself.

 

Me too! I do hope Obsidian patches in a better PC control scheme though.

[Subliminal]

oh, only two? I think Renevant and a bunch of others are his too

 

Yes, everyone that dislikes the game must be a troll; cause its got GOTY written all over it...

[MonkeyLungs]

We'll see soon enough if their decision was a good one. Is couch co-op and focus on story based co-op play with no persistent character and only one multiplayer mode enough to counter balance the lack of a robust multiplayer component?

 

It's obvious to me that the real deal here is money and development time. Within the budget and timeframe they had, the team decided that streamlined multiplayer option with a focus on the characters and dialogue would be their best bet for delivering the most stable product. This is just supposed to be a little 'slam dunk' project. A cost+ job with probably some bonuses for milestones and sales numbers. They can probably get by on sales of around 1,000,000 copies across all platforms.

 

I like Obsidian so I hope this goes well and they gain a favorable faction bonus with Square because I don't think the Sega stuff went down so well. This game just isn't even trying to be legendary as it seems very happy with taking a mediocre approach to game design. That's what disappoints me.

[Subliminal]

We'll see soon enough if their decision was a good one. Is couch co-op and focus on story based co-op play with no persistent character and only one multiplayer mode enough to counter balance the lack of a robust multiplayer component?

 

It's obvious to me that the real deal here is money and development time. Within the budget and timeframe they had, the team decided that streamlined multiplayer option with a focus on the characters and dialogue would be their best bet for delivering the most stable product. This is just supposed to be a little 'slam dunk' project. A cost+ job with probably some bonuses for milestones and sales numbers. They can probably get by on sales of around 1,000,000 copies across all platforms.

 

I like Obsidian so I hope this goes well and they gain a favorable faction bonus with Square because I don't think the Sega stuff went down so well. This game just isn't even trying to be legendary as it seems very happy with taking a mediocre approach to game design. That's what disappoints me.

 

Couldn't have said it better myself. A change in direction for a franchise isn't bad by default. But this doesn't seem like they added anything/ changed the arpg format in a way that hadn't been done before on previous gen consoles (baldur's Gate: dark alliance comes to mind).

 

If you look bethesda's recent co-op game hunted; it was recieved pretty terribly for this very reason. It looks and feels like very little polishing went into it. Getting the same vibe from DS3.

[sorophx]

If you look bethesda's recent co-op game hunted; it was recieved pretty terribly for this very reason. It looks and feels like very little polishing went into it.

have you played Hunted? at least to chapter 2? because it seems we were right all along, you make assumptions based on something somebody said somewhere. Hunted is as polished as Gears of War, for example. if you think GoW is a disaster, then you have problems with your criteria, otherwise you're just full of ****

[Subliminal]

If you look bethesda's recent co-op game hunted; it was recieved pretty terribly for this very reason. It looks and feels like very little polishing went into it.

have you played Hunted? at least to chapter 2? because it seems we were right all along, you make assumptions based on something somebody said somewhere. Hunted is as polished as Gears of War, for example. if you think GoW is a disaster, then you have problems with your criteria, otherwise you're just full of ****

 

Stop trolling, honestly. Hunted is in no way, shape or form polished. Then you make some strange comparison to GOW, then you say if I don't like GOW then I have problems?! LMAO. K..

 

 

 

We have very different standards for quality it seems.

[sorophx]

Hunted is in no way, shape or form polished.

and you know that how exactly? stop trolling, honestly

[Sannom]

(1) We'll see soon enough if their decision was a good one. Is couch co-op and focus on story based co-op play with no persistent character and only one multiplayer mode enough to counter balance the lack of a robust multiplayer component?

 

(2) This is just supposed to be a little 'slam dunk' project.

(1) There are plenty of games who are successful without any multiplayer component, I don't understand why DS3 needs to have it to be successful.

 

(2) Slam Dunk projects use existing technology and focus on adding content without changing the gameplay too much. Think Fallout 2, Knights of the Old Republic 2 and New Vegas. DS3 does neither of those, it's not a Slam Dunk.

 

 

have you played Hunted? at least to chapter 2? because it seems we were right all along, you make assumptions based on something somebody said somewhere. Hunted is as polished as Gears of War, for example. if you think GoW is a disaster, then you have problems with your criteria, otherwise you're just full of ****

You should quiet down, too. Some of the bashers are really annoying, but you're not doing us a favor here!

[sorophx]

I'm just having a little fun

[Gfted1]

If an opinon cant be expressed without somehow insulting the recipient then do everyone a favor and go cool off somewhere else.

[rafoca]

I

[hopfrog16]

I

[Flouride]

Good story, dialogue etc. are really important in a crpg.

[Renevent]

I don't care much about the story line or dialog...I care more about the world a RPG is set in and the depth of it's mechanics. A perfect game to illustrate this is something like Arx Fatalis. Atmosphere, environmental interactivity, lots of options to solve quests/puzzles, things like that.

 

Story in my opinion gets in the way of a truly great RPG giving a false feeling of choice and options. Games these days have their little dialog wheels where you can usually chose 2-3 basic actions, most having very little effect other than a slight change in a cut-scene or dialog. Meanwhile, the things that need to get cut (or minimized) from a RPG in order to develop rich stories and "deep" NPC interaction is everything I actually enjoy as allowing a player too much freedom can mess with the pacing and cause all sorts of issues.

 

Not to say there hasn't been any games to pull off both, but these days it's so rare. As it pertains to Dungeon Siege...well now we have an entirely linear game with a much less open skill system and less interactivity. Were going from A -> B now and the story is the driving force. For me that sucks, I am sure others like this it's all preference I certainly realize that. But to me it's more Final Fantasy (and not the good old ones) then Dungeon Siege and I'm not happy about that.

 

Playing games like Dragon Age it's like a freaking soap opera. I really don't care about all these interpersonal relationships and their petty resolutions. Totally uninteresting.

 

You know what RPG I had the most fun with recently? Eschalon Book II lol! Sure, it has dialog and a story, but it's an old school game more about surviving and building up your character to progress through a very hostile world. Difficult and fun!

 

Kinda went off on a tangent there...but yeah that basically answers the question

Edited June 9, 2011 by Renevent

[MonkeyLungs]

(1) We'll see soon enough if their decision was a good one. Is couch co-op and focus on story based co-op play with no persistent character and only one multiplayer mode enough to counter balance the lack of a robust multiplayer component?

 

(2) This is just supposed to be a little 'slam dunk' project.

(1) There are plenty of games who are successful without any multiplayer component, I don't understand why DS3 needs to have it to be successful.

 

(2) Slam Dunk projects use existing technology and focus on adding content without changing the gameplay too much. Think Fallout 2, Knights of the Old Republic 2 and New Vegas. DS3 does neither of those, it's not a Slam Dunk.

 

 

have you played Hunted? at least to chapter 2? because it seems we were right all along, you make assumptions based on something somebody said somewhere. Hunted is as polished as Gears of War, for example. if you think GoW is a disaster, then you have problems with your criteria, otherwise you're just full of ****

You should quiet down, too. Some of the bashers are really annoying, but you're not doing us a favor here!

 

It certainly doesn't need several multiplayer modes to be successful but it wouldn't hurt.

 

The way multiplayer works in this game IS going to frustrate many gamers, both reviewers and players. People can keep ignoring this all they want but the truth will out.

 

The story might be really impressive and make it all worthwhile though. I guess we'll find out.

 

Slam dunk or not they are taking the 'safe' route as far as design is concerned. One single player storyline, four heroes with pre-determined looks/backstories, restrictive corridor-like map design, and one multiplayer mode playable in couch co-op or online.