What are you playing now?

[Malcador]

Got Divine Divinity from GOG, figured what the hell.

[Maria Caliban]

I played Dungeon Siege 3 to a point today where I just stopped and uninstalled it.

 

It's certainly well designed for this kind of genre, but there's just not enough diversity in the game that keeps me going. I guess Diablo 3 probably won't be better, so I think I'll just quit Hack'n Slash games alltogether.

I'd be shocked if Diablo III wasn't better than DS III in terms of gameplay.

[Hurlshort]

I played Dungeon Siege 3 to a point today where I just stopped and uninstalled it.

 

It's certainly well designed for this kind of genre, but there's just not enough diversity in the game that keeps me going. I guess Diablo 3 probably won't be better, so I think I'll just quit Hack'n Slash games alltogether.

I'd be shocked if Diablo III wasn't better than DS III in terms of gameplay.

 

I'm guessing the implementation will be better, but last year I went back and played Diablo 2, and the whole and hack and slash thing is rather drab. I thought DS3 actually spiced it up, but I've only put in a few hours so far.

[Morgoth]

I'd be shocked if Diablo III wasn't better than DS III in terms of gameplay.

Yeah, it should certainly have more ways to kill baddies. God I so hope I get into the beta.

 

DSIII, while technically competent and very polished, feels lacklustre and very limited in scope. It's like they had either a too small team or not enough time to develop, or both.

It's just not a very ambitious game.

 

If Obsidian wants to land a smash hit, they better double their staff and take at least 3 years dev time like Bethesda does to accomplish an ambitious and outstanding product.

 

Other than that, I played and finished the Killzone 3 demo today. Quite to my suprise, I enjoyed it a lot. Funny how games I'm looking forward to nowadays often fail while other games I hardly notice turn out to be utter fun.

[Walsingham]

I'd be shocked if Diablo III wasn't better than DS III in terms of gameplay.

 

DSIII, while technically competent and very polished, feels lacklustre and very limited in scope. It's like they had either a too small team or not enough time to develop, or both.

It's just not a very ambitious game.

 

 

Taking devil's advocate here.

 

What has been the number one complaint by people about New Vegas and Alpha Protocol? Over-ambitious, bugs, too hard to understand/control. Are you ssurprised that they'd see how they'd fair by trimming all those down?

[Morgoth]

I rather want another AP or Fallout NV from Obsidian, I don't mind the bugs and glitches.

[Walsingham]

I rather want another AP or Fallout NV from Obsidian, I don't mind the bugs and glitches.

 

So do I, man. But this is a company we're talking about. They have to make money so they can make games at all. That means making crowd pleasers, not just art for us eggheads.

Edited July 3, 2011 by Walsingham

[LadyCrimson]

I keep watching the Diablo3 gameplay & Arena vids. The action looks great, I just hope the skills/game mechanics match.

[Maria Caliban]

I rather want another AP or Fallout NV from Obsidian, I don't mind the bugs and glitches.

 

So do I, man. But this is a company we're talking about. They have to make money so they can make games at all. That means making crowd pleasers, not just art for us eggheads.

I'm not sure if you're being ironic or not.

 

Fallout: New Vegas was a crowd pleaser. It made over $300 million in a month.

[Lexx]

Well, it got boosted by Fallout 3.

[Maria Caliban]

I don't recall FO:NV as being more complex or harder to control than FO:3. Even if it got a boost, it's still a crowd pleaser. It's user metacritic is just as high as FO: 3.

[Volourn]

"So do I, man. But this is a company we're talking about. They have to make money so they can make games at all. That means making crowd pleasers, not just art for us eggheads. "

 

LV made a heck of a lot of money and sold a lot of copies and reviews were ehavily positive by both professionals and gamers. Not so much with DS 3 (or AP).

 

 

"Well, it got boosted by Fallout 3."

 

You are underselling the DS franchise which was/is very popualr and sold millions. A lot more than any FO game but FO3. If DS3 doesn't sell or isn't a 'people please'it's the fault of Obsidian not the franchise.

Edited July 3, 2011 by Volourn

[entrerix]

seems to me like obsidians best games are always when they get to use someone elses tech. they clearly spend more money on the game than on the technology. nwn2, kotor 2, FNV, all good or great games, none of which were built from scratch (well maybe nwn2 since that engine was so altered, and yet that was the most troublesome of the three with regard to tech)

 

then ap and dungeon siege 3 come out, mostly built from scratch by obsidian, and are generally considered mediocre at best.

 

seems to me, as much as i like obsidian, they are better off improving the work of others, than building something totally on their own.

 

i really hope they get to make a mini-sequel or spin off of skyrim. and i am super duper fingers crossed that they get another crack at making a fallout game, new vegas is probably my favorite game of the last 5 years.

[Malcador]

One day Obsidian will do it right.

[Tale]

Finished Dungeon Siege 3. Really enjoyed it.

[greylord]

I'd be shocked if Diablo III wasn't better than DS III in terms of gameplay.

 

DSIII, while technically competent and very polished, feels lacklustre and very limited in scope. It's like they had either a too small team or not enough time to develop, or both.

It's just not a very ambitious game.

 

 

Taking devil's advocate here.

 

What has been the number one complaint by people about New Vegas and Alpha Protocol? Over-ambitious, bugs, too hard to understand/control. Are you ssurprised that they'd see how they'd fair by trimming all those down?

 

Hmmm, the biggest REAL problems that many don't state (some do).

 

It's too hard on Easy and Normal...but not hard enough on hard? They need to separate the degrees of difficulty more.

 

However, it's VERY apparant on why this is a problem in AP due to the save system. There isn't one. Instead it saves for you. This wouldn't be so bad if it always saved at critical points right before...let's say a boss battle. However...it doesn't always do this. Maybe it was a planned bug, maybe it wasn't.

 

It was one that annoyed me. Hardest boss for me was

Marbourg

on most of my playthroughs. First time it was especially aggravating as the game didn't save...so everytime I died I had to go through three rooms full of bad guys, killing at least 8-10 guys before I even got to the boss. Peeved me off. I'd have at least learned to save right before the boss fight on the second go round, much less the fifth or sixth.

 

THAT'S what many call bad game design (or a bug, whichever they want to call it). That was on normal, so expected difficulty, but the saving system made it go from expected...to downright frustratingly bad.

 

If it was a bug, at least change it so people can save anytime...even if there's a bug, at least you can overcome such things with your own intelligence. If it was by design...well...as I said already, that's bad game design.

 

I'm more inclined to think the critical point system was flawed however...the first time

I took out the three triads assassinations I died on the third guy and had to start over at the very beginning

however the next time it saved after

each time I killed one target, shortly thereafter it saved

making me think times when it didn't save were more of bugs instead of planned.

 

That said, I'm replaying AP AGAIN...so marvelous overall except for that critical save system.

currently at the end on Darcy Boss on hard...and he's kicking my arse...

Not certain I'll be able to finish it however...but pretty close to the end...three more big battles (or two depending on how you count).

 

I think most of the complaints about buggy and other items could have been forgiven if the save system hadn't been so atrocious...truthfully. I'd have patched it, and I think that would have gotten rid of 75% of the complaints

the rest being on getting one's arse kicked by Brayko...who I actually never had many problems with...for some reason Marbourg is the one I have problems with

 

[Monte Carlo]

FO:NV is Obz's best game to date, period.

 

Although I haven't played DS3, I didn't like the demo much.

[Tigranes]

That was a bug for you, the game autosaves at those points.

[Tale]

Just beat Super Scribblenauts, too. On to the S levels.

[Labadal]

Trying to decide a build for Star Wars: KOTOR. Can't decide on anything. I do inted to do an evil playthrough this time.

[Tale]

Trying to decide a build for Star Wars: KOTOR. Can't decide on anything. I do inted to do an evil playthrough this time.

I always enjoyed the caster. That spell that steals health from everyone around is enough to beat the game with.

[Flouride]

Picked up Star Wars: Empire at War from Steam. Quite nice, for the few euros I spent

Now if I could only force myself to finish L.A Noire....

[HoonDing]

I'm continuing my replay of Two Worlds 2 anyway.

 

I forgot how fun and addictive the game is, once you get going (well, at least the first two chapters).

[Pidesco]

I played Dungeon Siege 3 to a point today where I just stopped and uninstalled it.

 

It's certainly well designed for this kind of genre, but there's just not enough diversity in the game that keeps me going. I guess Diablo 3 probably won't be better, so I think I'll just quit Hack'n Slash games alltogether.

I'd be shocked if Diablo III wasn't better than DS III in terms of gameplay.

 

 

I find this surprising. Diablo's strength was never in the gameplay proper, which was designed to be as simple and mindless as possible. The point of Diablo was grinding and item hunting for the sake of character building. It didn't play itself to the point of the original Dungeon Siege, but the combat was still pretty lackluster.

 

DS3, on the other hand, has sweet, responsive combat that really shines through the tight controls, and the emphasis on player skill. Conversely, it falls flat in the character building options, given that it only allows you 30 levels and the itemization is comparatively shallow. In some ways Dungeon Siege 3 is the exact opposite of Diablo 2.

 

DS3 is just the sort of hack and slash CRPG I wanted to see on the PC, and I'm playing it avidly.

[Nepenthe]

If Obsidian wants to land a smash hit, they better double their staff and take at least 3 years dev time like Bethesda does to accomplish an ambitious and outstanding product.

Is it just me or does this statement display a total lack of understanding of how (game) business functions?