so we buy the game what about the online?

[peri]

ok i buy the game its great and fun.

 

i want asking if obsidian intend to give us a patch or dlc to improve the online exprince?

 

now its time to move forwared and add new things to the game...

[Tigranes]

DLCs are almost certainly in the works if the game sells well (which is hard to tell yet since, you know, US release date is 22nd).

 

Patch is definitely coming; see the sticky in this forum.

[Matt-C]

DLCs are almost certainly in the works if the game sells well (which is hard to tell yet since, you know, US release date is 22nd).

 

Patch is definitely coming; see the sticky in this forum.

I think what TC is asking for is a patch to essentially rework how multiplayer mode works. The sticky in this forum mentions nothing about that.

[peri]

DLCs are almost certainly in the works if the game sells well (which is hard to tell yet since, you know, US release date is 22nd).

 

Patch is definitely coming; see the sticky in this forum.

 

yea i not complain just want more content, i want sepnd more money on this title

 

obsidian devs look on this forums? they know players will happy to get more?

 

i not have a problem pay 10$ per month for new DLC 4-5 hours, just want continue playing it.. the combat system is the best i see in ARPG(not include masterpiece demons souls), soo great...

Edited June 19, 2011 by peri

[Dk Slayer]

Yes, I want to spend a lot of $$$ on this title as well..

 

Obsidian, get working on dlc NOW I wanna extend my DS3 experience

[Tigranes]

A new character DLC would be awesome, but it might be too much work for a DLC.

[TormDK]

Yes, I want to spend a lot of $$$ on this title as well..

 

Obsidian, get working on dlc NOW I wanna extend my DS3 experience

 

I hope the americans read this forum before shelling out money on this title if their intent is to enjoy it in co-op mode.

 

For single player the camera is still annoying, but you can get used to it. When player Co-op however you are pretty much forced to play either as melee, or as ranged in order to have any sort of tactical freedom. Forget about dashing with Lucas' 2h ability, because chances are you'll go off screen and get warped back to the host. I'd hate to think how it is with 4 people playing.

 

So all you americans reading this before buying - Make up your mind regarding this title. If it's a single player experience you want go for it! But till Obsidian fixes the camera for Co-op play I would not advice getting this title. I would get my money back if Steam allowed it with the current setup.

[AddziX]

Yes, I want to spend a lot of $$$ on this title as well..

 

Obsidian, get working on dlc NOW I wanna extend my DS3 experience

 

I hope the americans read this forum before shelling out money on this title if their intent is to enjoy it in co-op mode.

 

For single player the camera is still annoying, but you can get used to it. When player Co-op however you are pretty much forced to play either as melee, or as ranged in order to have any sort of tactical freedom. Forget about dashing with Lucas' 2h ability, because chances are you'll go off screen and get warped back to the host. I'd hate to think how it is with 4 people playing.

 

So all you americans reading this before buying - Make up your mind regarding this title. If it's a single player experience you want go for it! But till Obsidian fixes the camera for Co-op play I would not advice getting this title. I would get my money back if Steam allowed it with the current setup.

I have just experienced four player co-op. I'd be pretty hacked off if I hadn't bought this primarily for single player. With two players online, you can just about get by. Four players, though? Forget about it.

Edited June 19, 2011 by AddziX

[Tigranes]

What I would do is try the demo, and make up my own mind.

[TormDK]

What I would do is try the demo, and make up my own mind.

 

Sure, except the demo doesn't do multi player. Nice try at a comeback though

 

As I said - I have no problems with the single player experience. Thats enjoyable enough if you're into Action RPGs. But current Co-op offerings do not live up what was expected by many. I would expect a larger amount of responses from the americans once we hit the 22nd, so it's not something you as a moderator, or Obsidian as the developer should try to downplay.

[Tigranes]

Demo features 2-player co-op (local, from memory).

[AddziX]

What I would do is try the demo, and make up my own mind.

Is there a demo for the 360 version in Europe now, then? I know North America had one, but we didn't see it unfortunately.

[peri]

Yes, I want to spend a lot of $$$ on this title as well..

 

Obsidian, get working on dlc NOW I wanna extend my DS3 experience

 

I hope the americans read this forum before shelling out money on this title if their intent is to enjoy it in co-op mode.

 

For single player the camera is still annoying, but you can get used to it. When player Co-op however you are pretty much forced to play either as melee, or as ranged in order to have any sort of tactical freedom. Forget about dashing with Lucas' 2h ability, because chances are you'll go off screen and get warped back to the host. I'd hate to think how it is with 4 people playing.

 

So all you americans reading this before buying - Make up your mind regarding this title. If it's a single player experience you want go for it! But till Obsidian fixes the camera for Co-op play I would not advice getting this title. I would get my money back if Steam allowed it with the current setup.

 

so we cant write one topic without crying and hate... we know the game not the best ever but its fun and we love to see more from obsidian..

[Dk Slayer]

What I would do is try the demo, and make up my own mind.

 

Sure, except the demo doesn't do multi player. Nice try at a comeback though

 

As I said - I have no problems with the single player experience. Thats enjoyable enough if you're into Action RPGs. But current Co-op offerings do not live up what was expected by many. I would expect a larger amount of responses from the americans once we hit the 22nd, so it's not something you as a moderator, or Obsidian as the developer should try to downplay.

 

What are you talking about ? The demo has both local and online multiplayer.. On the 360 anyway. You just can't choose your own co-op buddy, but u can join random online games..

 

Nice comeback, huh ?

[TormDK]

What I would do is try the demo, and make up my own mind.

 

Sure, except the demo doesn't do multi player. Nice try at a comeback though

 

As I said - I have no problems with the single player experience. Thats enjoyable enough if you're into Action RPGs. But current Co-op offerings do not live up what was expected by many. I would expect a larger amount of responses from the americans once we hit the 22nd, so it's not something you as a moderator, or Obsidian as the developer should try to downplay.

 

What are you talking about ? The demo has both local and online multiplayer..On the 360 anyway . You just can't choose your own co-op buddy, but u can join random online games..

 

Nice comeback, huh ?

 

"On the 360 anyway" - Good for the console owners then. I already own the game on Steam, so it's for some reason not letting me re-download the Demo to verify this for PC.

 

Not that it's going to change much regarding the online experience.

[Unreal Warfare]

I actually see the co-op decision as a plus with respect to Obsidian. Myself personally I like to play games like this with my friend, from start to finish, so actually the system works well for us. We're both of equal level, and the challenge is there because one of us hasn't imported an overpowered character with tons of rare loot. It makes the game a one hit kill fest while the other guy runs around being power levelled.

 

I can see the problem with this in one respect in regards to pugging, but the polar opposite also applies, it stops some random level 20 joining your game and one shotting everything, not that I can see why anyone would want to play a game like this with a random person anyway.

 

I do think that for online play and local PC play that they should have made a different decision in regards to the camera. Online each player should have their own screen, offline on PC players should be able to take advantage of Eyefinity (multiple monitors). I'm used to the camera style however seems I have played many games like this before.

Edited June 19, 2011 by Unreal Warfare

[MonkeyLungs]

I actually see the co-op decision as a plus with respect to Obsidian. Myself personally I like to play games like this with my friend, from start to finish, so actually the system works well for us. We're both of equal level, and the challenge is there because one of us hasn't imported an overpowered character with tons of rare loot. It makes the game a one hit kill fest while the other guy runs around being power levelled.

 

I can see the problem with this in one respect in regards to pugging, but the polar opposite also applies, it stops some random level 20 joining your game and one shotting everything, not that I can see why anyone would want to play a game like this with a random person anyway.

 

I do think that for online play and local PC play that they should have made a different decision in regards to the camera. Online each player should have their own screen, offline on PC players should be able to take advantage of Eyefinity (multiple monitors). I'm used to the camera style however seems I have played many games like this before.

 

 

Having a more feature rich multiplayer wouldn't detract from you having fun playing this game with your friend. It wouldn't stop you from playing start to finish. It wouldn't force you to play with randoms. It wouldn't mean people would be able to jump into your game uninvited and ruin your fun. It wouldn't stop you and your friend from staying at the same level and always playing youre chosen co-op characters together. It wouldn't force you to powerlevel or twink your characters. It would simply increase the ways the game could be enjoyed.

 

I can get the EXACT experience you describe in any multiplayer (non MMO) ARPG. One of my brothers lives in England .. we don't game together that much but when we do we have been playing Borderlands. Each of us has a character that we use only for co-op together. We only play those characters together. The fact that Borderlands has all the ****ing online options this games does not have does NOT stop us from having a co-op experience tailored exactly to our characters, to the levels we gain together, to the loot we gain together, etc etc etc.

 

So I think Obsidian's co-op decision is compete and utter amatuer design. The reasons they give you for this MP set up are PR speak, they will not and can not tell the truth about why it was designed this way publicly because they would have to admit that they cut corners to rush to market and cut costs and to give them a stronger chance of releasing a stable product.

Edited June 20, 2011 by MonkeyLungs

[Labadal]

I think they had to focus more on the engine, and some other parts like online had to be cut back. They aren't the biggest studio in the world, so building your own engine is no easy task. I think if they ever make a sequel, they will have more time for different features as the engine will already be there. Just my speculation.

[Pidesco]

The whole complain about co-op reminds me of people complaining when a game doesn't have any multiplayer.

 

First everyone seems to assume that adding multiplayer is a just adding netcode or something. That's just silly, of course.

 

More importantly, though, some games simply aren't designed to have specific features. Not everyone wants what you want in games, regardless of how many people want the same thing. People are diverse and have different tastes in games, and the fact this game wasn't designed for your co-op needs, doesn't mean no one will like the game.

[hopfrog16]

The whole complain about co-op reminds me of people complaining when a game doesn't have any multiplayer.

 

First everyone seems to assume that adding multiplayer is a just adding netcode or something. That's just silly, of course.

 

More importantly, though, some games simply aren't designed to have specific features. Not everyone wants what you want in games, regardless of how many people want the same thing. People are diverse and have different tastes in games, and the fact this game wasn't designed for your co-op needs, doesn't mean no will like the game.

 

That's true. =)

 

I think the point that people are trying to make, though, is that both the DS series and ARPGs have a very strong persistent multiplayer. Most DS fans and ARPG fans will notice this, and may even be disappointed I think (unless they just care about single player, or local basic co-op). That doesn't mean that it's a bad game, but these choices may effect sales... It's hard to say, though. We'll see. =)

[AddziX]

The whole complain about co-op reminds me of people complaining when a game doesn't have any multiplayer.

 

First everyone seems to assume that adding multiplayer is a just adding netcode or something. That's just silly, of course.

 

More importantly, though, some games simply aren't designed to have specific features. Not everyone wants what you want in games, regardless of how many people want the same thing. People are diverse and have different tastes in games, and the fact this game wasn't designed for your co-op needs, doesn't mean no will like the game.

With regards to this, people are being quite respectful as far as complaining is concerned. Almost everyone who has commented about the co-op has done so in a pretty practical and constructive way. And only a few trolls are hate posting because of it. On the whole, it sounds to me like people are very happy with the game, but players just see the decision to have this mechanic in a ARPG a little odd and that seems fair enough to me.

 

Personally, I think playing with two local players is acceptable, it's just online where it suffers, especially if you don't have any friends that play.

Edited June 20, 2011 by AddziX

[Labadal]

The whole complain about co-op reminds me of people complaining when a game doesn't have any multiplayer.

 

First everyone seems to assume that adding multiplayer is a just adding netcode or something. That's just silly, of course.

 

More importantly, though, some games simply aren't designed to have specific features. Not everyone wants what you want in games, regardless of how many people want the same thing. People are diverse and have different tastes in games, and the fact this game wasn't designed for your co-op needs, doesn't mean no will like the game.

With regards to this, people are being quite respectful as far as complaining is concerned. Almost everyone who has commented about the co-op has done so in a pretty practical and constructive way. And only a few trolls are hate posting because of it. On the whole, it sounds to me like people are very happy with the game, but players just see the decision to have this mechanic in a ARPG a little odd and that seems fair enough to me.

 

Personally, I think playing with two local players is acceptable, it's just online where it suffers, especially if you don't have any friends that play.

 

Some complaints are valid, and I agree with some of them, even if I had a great deal of fun with the game. But, there has been a lot of trolling. Especially the first few days.

[hopfrog16]

The whole complain about co-op reminds me of people complaining when a game doesn't have any multiplayer.

 

First everyone seems to assume that adding multiplayer is a just adding netcode or something. That's just silly, of course.

 

More importantly, though, some games simply aren't designed to have specific features. Not everyone wants what you want in games, regardless of how many people want the same thing. People are diverse and have different tastes in games, and the fact this game wasn't designed for your co-op needs, doesn't mean no will like the game.

With regards to this, people are being quite respectful as far as complaining is concerned. Almost everyone who has commented about the co-op has done so in a pretty practical and constructive way. And only a few trolls are hate posting because of it. On the whole, it sounds to me like people are very happy with the game, but players just see the decision to have this mechanic in a ARPG a little odd and that seems fair enough to me.

 

Personally, I think playing with two local players is acceptable, it's just online where it suffers, especially if you don't have any friends that play.

 

Some complaints are valid, and I agree with some of them, even if I had a great deal of fun with the game. But, there has been a lot of trolling. Especially the first few days.

 

Ohhhh... Could be worse. =)

 

http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/foru...play.php?f=1111

[MonkeyLungs]

The whole complain about co-op reminds me of people complaining when a game doesn't have any multiplayer.

 

A fair complaint from gamers who thrive on MP. I love both single player and multiplayer (co-op). My brother won't touch games without competitve multiplayer and he doesn't like pretty much any RPG that I like and feels like none of them is worth paying for. We disagree of course but its a valid critque for a consumer.

 

First everyone seems to assume that adding multiplayer is a just adding netcode or something. That's just silly, of course.

 

I don't care how hard it is to implement. These guys have living wage quality jobs and work in air conditioned offices. They should striving for legendary status with each and every game release. These guys are one of the studios featuring some developers who helped design some of greatest gaming experiences ever. I don't take streamlining lightly from these gentlemen/ladies. They chose to build Dungeon Siege 3 and they chose to streamline out some MP features. Now they get to see how those decisions pay off.

 

More importantly, though, some games simply aren't designed to have specific features. Not everyone wants what you want in games, regardless of how many people want the same thing. People are diverse and have different tastes in games, and the fact this game wasn't designed for your co-op needs, doesn't mean no one will like the game.

 

I have NEVER said that noone will like the game. I personally plan to buy it, at half price though. They cut half the features, it's worth half the price.

Edited June 20, 2011 by MonkeyLungs

[Horrorscope]

The whole complain about co-op reminds me of people complaining when a game doesn't have any multiplayer.

 

First everyone seems to assume that adding multiplayer is a just adding netcode or something. That's just silly, of course.

 

More importantly, though, some games simply aren't designed to have specific features. Not everyone wants what you want in games, regardless of how many people want the same thing. People are diverse and have different tastes in games, and the fact this game wasn't designed for your co-op needs, doesn't mean no one will like the game.

 

That sounds good.

 

But who doesn't want these?:

 

1. Free camera per player

2. Individual gold

3. Client Player Saves

 

Is anyone really against those? Perhaps some will work around not having those, but I doubt even those players would be opposed if they were added. Now the other 95% of players will demand those for this genre, the bar was set years ago, call it what it is.

 

Personally I got over the controls, but the whole buying point to me was co-op. In my case I'd only play with a set group, so the part that stops me from buying this is the camera part. You cannot expect many to play random online games without those rules above.

 

It's just what it is. Now it does look like a fine SP game, personally I am not looking for that.