DS3 Rminds me of Icewind Dale

[GreasyDogMeat]

Dark Alliance 2 has much more features and replay value than DS3. So it's the streamlined spiritual successor? Not to mention shouldn't this game feel like the successor to DS1 and 2? Oh wait "NOT THE FOCUS OF THE GAME!"

What are these extra features you are talking about? No comment on replayability yet. I wouldn't mind trying a different character in Dark Alliance at some point. I've only played the original and its sequel once but I enjoyed them. I haven't finished DS 3 yet (I'm playing little bits at a time) but so far I'm enjoying it more so than I enjoyed Dark Alliance 1 & 2.

 

As for DS 3 not being the successor to DS 1 & 2... well what can I say but they used the license to make a Dark Alliance style game. I can see why DS fans are mad, but I loved the Dark Alliance style of action RPG and I'm glad DS 3 is closer to it than DS 1 & 2.

 

Well, both BG: DA 1&2 had Newgame+ modes (a very unique take at Newgame+, too), and if I remember correctly, they both had persistent multiplayer characters.

True, but you didn't max out in DA 1 or 2. Supposedly you hit level 30 in DS 3 by the end of the game. I'm not a huge fan of +newgame modes unless you don't max out. The problem with persistant characters in multiplayer is you'd end up joining someones game and either they would be higher level doing all the work or you would be. I know because I did play a bit of couch coop in DA 2 and I ended up doing all the work in someone else's game because they needed help with a boss. I really don't mind the implementation of coop in DS 3, its the camera. While you still had to stay close in DA 2 it was no where as bad as DS 3.

[hopfrog16]

Dark Alliance 2 has much more features and replay value than DS3. So it's the streamlined spiritual successor? Not to mention shouldn't this game feel like the successor to DS1 and 2? Oh wait "NOT THE FOCUS OF THE GAME!"

What are these extra features you are talking about? No comment on replayability yet. I wouldn't mind trying a different character in Dark Alliance at some point. I've only played the original and its sequel once but I enjoyed them. I haven't finished DS 3 yet (I'm playing little bits at a time) but so far I'm enjoying it more so than I enjoyed Dark Alliance 1 & 2.

 

As for DS 3 not being the successor to DS 1 & 2... well what can I say but they used the license to make a Dark Alliance style game. I can see why DS fans are mad, but I loved the Dark Alliance style of action RPG and I'm glad DS 3 is closer to it than DS 1 & 2.

 

Well, both BG: DA 1&2 had Newgame+ modes (a very unique take at Newgame+, too), and if I remember correctly, they both had persistent multiplayer characters.

True, but you didn't max out in DA 1 or 2. Supposedly you hit level 30 in DS 3 by the end of the game. I'm not a huge fan of +newgame modes unless you don't max out. The problem with persistant characters in multiplayer is you'd end up joining someones game and either they would be higher level doing all the work or you would be. I know because I did play a bit of couch coop in DA 2 and I ended up doing all the work in someone else's game because they needed help with a boss. I really don't mind the implementation of coop in DS 3, its the camera. While you still had to stay close in DA 2 it was no where as bad as DS 3.

 

I guess a lot of the things people would say about the fact that you can max out your level by game's end, and therefor it wouldn't be ideal to have Newgame+ or persistent multiplayer is... Why would it be designed like this in the first place? Newgame+ and persistent multiplayer are pretty basic features for ARPGs, I feel.

 

As for level differences in games with persistent multiplayer, the answer to fixing that is something RPGs with multiplayer have been doing for a long time... Allow the host to dictate what level ranges can join a game. If you don't want someone to jump into your game and kill the boss for you, just set the level ranges to 1+ or 1- of your level. You may be fine with the multiplayer DS3 has now, but I assure you that there are plenty of people who were turned off by this choice. The lack of this feature alone is what prevented me from buying the game day one (and I do love BG: DA style ARPGs). =P

[GreasyDogMeat]

I guess a lot of the things people would say about the fact that you can max out your level by game's end, and therefor it wouldn't be ideal to have Newgame+ or persistent multiplayer is... Why would it be designed like this in the first place? Newgame+ and persistent multiplayer are pretty basic features for ARPGs, I feel.

 

As for level differences in games with persistent multiplayer, the answer to fixing that is something RPGs with multiplayer have been doing for a long time... Allow the host to dictate what level ranges can join a game. If you don't want someone to jump into your game and kill the boss for you, just set the level ranges to 1+ or 1- of your level. You may be fine with the multiplayer DS3 has now, but I assure you that there are plenty of people who were turned off by this choice. The lack of this feature alone is what prevented me from buying the game day one (and I do love BG: DA style ARPGs). =P

Good points I suppose. I've never been big on RPG multiplayer so these problems aren't as big for me. As far as the single player portion goes it has been better than the Dark Alliance games.

[hopfrog16]

I guess a lot of the things people would say about the fact that you can max out your level by game's end, and therefor it wouldn't be ideal to have Newgame+ or persistent multiplayer is... Why would it be designed like this in the first place? Newgame+ and persistent multiplayer are pretty basic features for ARPGs, I feel.

 

As for level differences in games with persistent multiplayer, the answer to fixing that is something RPGs with multiplayer have been doing for a long time... Allow the host to dictate what level ranges can join a game. If you don't want someone to jump into your game and kill the boss for you, just set the level ranges to 1+ or 1- of your level. You may be fine with the multiplayer DS3 has now, but I assure you that there are plenty of people who were turned off by this choice. The lack of this feature alone is what prevented me from buying the game day one (and I do love BG: DA style ARPGs). =P

Good points I suppose. I've never been big on RPG multiplayer so these problems aren't as big for me. As far as the single player portion goes it has been better than the Dark Alliance games.

 

That's good to know. From what I hear from one of my buds, it does have great single player. =)

Edited June 24, 2011 by hopfrog16

[sorophx]

Dark Alliance 2 has much more features and replay value than DS3.

ghah, just disappear already, too much awesome for one person