Poll: DLC or a new multiplayer?

[AdDugg]

So I'm posting here because I think how Obsidian hadled the multiplayer aspect of Dungeon Siege 3 is a slap in the face of gamers who have supported their company through out the years.

 

What would you guys rather have first, some single player DLC or a new online mode, similar to something like Sacred 2 or D&D Daggerdale?

Edited June 22, 2011 by AdDugg

[C2B]

Singleplayer DLC. More sophisticated online mode for a possible Dungeon Siege IV.

[AddziX]

Singleplayer DLC. More sophisticated online mode for a possible Dungeon Siege IV.

With this one. I think reworking the multiplayer would be better suited to a sequel where there is more development time and testing. To rework the multiplayer/camera issues would probably mean recoding the rest of the game to fit around it, and that's probably not likely. DLC, though. There are a lot of features that people would like to see, and these have their own threads so I won't post them again.

[greylord]

I put down MP.

 

I think the current version is geared more towards those on consoles who want to play with their buddy...which is GREAT! I'm glad they included that option.

 

HOWEVER, with the complaints of how it's handled online or PC to PC, I think it's a big enough chunk that a better MP mode would probably be the better thing for them to work on at this point...

 

IMO (as if it had to be said).

[Oner]

Singleplayer DLC. More sophisticated online mode for a possible Dungeon Siege IV.

+1

[AdDugg]

I agree that adding a new mode would take alot of time and resources but I just don't think they (Obsidian) should be allowed to get away with adding such a horrible mode and expecting us to just put up with it.

 

I don't like companies taking my money, giving me a crap excuse for a mode and then trying to fob it off with weak excuses.

 

I'll stop ranting now because I'm going off topic.

 

Keep in mind though that with the way the multiplayer aspect is at the moment, this game won't servive a month online due to returns and trade ins, so with less people able to buy DLC, how long will DLC support last if no one is buying it?

 

If the online is fixed, then people will keep the game as something different to play online and henceforth they have a larger market to target for DLC.

 

Just my opinion mind, so I could be wrong about everything.

[Flouride]

So I'm posting here because I think how Obsidian hadled the multiplayer aspect of Dungeon Siege 3 is a slap in the face of gamers who have supported their company through out the years.

 

What would you guys rather have first, some single player DLC or a new online mode, similar to something like Sacred 2 or D&D Daggerdale?

 

I wouldn't consider it a slap in the face. It's the first time their game even includes multiplayer option.

 

But that said, I would personally prefer more SP content via DLC. But I hope Square-Enix let's them fine tune some of the elements (both sp&mp) in the game. Nor would I mind if they added an arena like feature like in Magicka to the game.

[C2B]

So I'm posting here because I think how Obsidian hadled the multiplayer aspect of Dungeon Siege 3 is a slap in the face of gamers who have supported their company through out the years.

 

What would you guys rather have first, some single player DLC or a new online mode, similar to something like Sacred 2 or D&D Daggerdale?

 

I wouldn't consider it a slap in the face. It's the first time their game even includes multiplayer option.

 

Your forgetting NWN2 here.

 

That had its own problems though and wasn't really an online experience in the "co-op" sense.

[Bakercompany86]

I can see where the coop experience in DS3 definitely leans towards console guys over PC guys. Its set up to favor a static group of 4 buddies as opposed to the randomness of online gaming.

 

Looks like the imported character option would be the best bet. That alone would take a ton of new code I would think.

They would have to:

-Change the entire main menu interface to support the actual character instead of the game save, which is what it favors now. Your game save is your character, so they'd have to enable the character portion of the game save to be its own entity instead of part of the game save.

-Change the loot tables to favor all characters present. If all 4 are playing, it should be 25%/25%/25%/25% with no exceptions.

-Implement new netcode allowing this new separate entity (being the characters) to exist by itself as well as matchmaking code that would be able to search by missing characters in a game as well as monitoring the characters progress to better match you to a game around your location in the games plot. This means taking it from matching you up with a game that just has an empty slot, to completely rewriting the matchmaking to support independent characters with their own place in the story, their gear, and their talents/abilities.

 

Having said all that, it might not be realistic to see this patched into a game. I'd be willing to pay for a DLC that had these fixes if thats what it takes. DS3 is a game that is so close to being perfect that i'm willing to hold onto it and possibly pay for these changes.

 

A game like Brink, or Hunted: TDF, I've completely given up on as they have so many problems it would take an entirely new game to remedy their issues. Obsidian has developed a game head and shoulders above the rest of the competition. And with that said, they not only have my $60 but my ongoing support and patience.

 

I hope they can implement these things and make this a 10/10 game.

Edited June 22, 2011 by Bakercompany86

[seville57]

DLC, DSIII is not a mp game and I don't play mp, only a single player game.

Edited June 22, 2011 by seville57

[brandysnap]

at the moment id rather just have a working game because the latest patch today has killed the game.

 

after its fixed, ill vote for dlc.

[Tel Prydain]

I like that the Multiplayer element of this game is tailored for groups of friends who want to experience the game together. This is infinitely preferable to the level mixing

[Flouride]

Your forgetting NWN2 here.

 

That had its own problems though and wasn't really an online experience in the "co-op" sense.

 

Though they had a built engine for that which included the mp part. Not really sure how much they worked on mp part of NWN2.

[Labadal]

Singleplayer DLC. More sophisticated online mode for a possible Dungeon Siege IV.

 

This, but I don't want small DLC. Give me an expansion with a new playable character or two. The way Dragon Age: Origins - Awakening worked.

[Tigranes]

I've said this a hundred times, but inserting the Super Awesome Multiplayer Mode into a finished game just like that isn't simple. If you think they should have put it in whatever the cost, that's fine - that's your opinion. But it's worth noting what's involved, at least;

 

(a) a reworked character development system to make a higher level cap viable (no, changing '30' to '99' and calling it a day doesn't work)

(b) a redesigned encounter system, more content, and/or new game+ to make (a) work (no, new game+ doesn't just involve adding 30 to all monsters' levels, unless you want one of those half-arsed implementations)

© an extended and redesigned loot system

(d) a matchmaking infrastructure for PC, lobbies/chat rooms, new UI, etc

(e) code for multiplayer itself that may include PvP, trade, friends/invites, etc

(f) persistent investment and support for connection problems, server upkeep, anti-cheating support, etc

...and more.

 

Now, if the question is, "should we expect all ARPGs to have a Diablo-style persistent multiplayer", I'm not going to get into that again... in terms of what is realistically possible, I'd say things like new characters, slightly increased level cap, new areas or slightly reworked camera could happen.

[Alpha]

had to vote for DLC because there wasn't an option to both.

[FaceGoober]

I want to see new multiplayer...

 

They should fix the multiplayer side of this game and make it so you can do what every ARPG likes and wants which is continued play and their own personal online character that they can build up and cultivate into a wreaking machine with fully geared up gold everything and all the bells and whistles...

Obviously the camera needs to be sorted which is a no brainer (I still can't believe they released the game with that camera for multiplayer).

 

DLC is going to be pointless because people are going to be trading this game pretty quick thanks to Multiplayer being ass and single being too quick and easy...

I'm not going to wait around for some DLC for single player as I brought this game for the Co Op experience just like 80-90% of the people who bought DS3...

 

So fix multiplayer, don't do it in dungeon siege 4 because you would have already destroyed hopes for the game and lost about 50% of the people who brought DS3. Its worth putting in the extra effort to fix the Multi in DS3 because then you will already have the general idea and coding that could be ported across for DS4 (if you make it) and you will retain A LOT more customers who will buy the DLC, buy DS4 and in the long run obsidian will make a lot more money which is what all this is about for you guys...

 

Think about it....

 

*edited*

I do actually like the game and thought I flamed Obsidian a little hard so toned it down...

Good job on the whole guys but seriously Multiplayer is going to kill this game a lot earlier than it should be and you should jump in and fix it FAST

Edited June 23, 2011 by FaceGoober

[Bakercompany86]

Features that either don't make the cut or fail to meet expectations probably aren't a factor of the developer being lazy, but more of a budget and time thing.

 

Clearly Obsidian spent a lot of time rendering a beautiful world, excellent sound, and fantastic gameplay elements. The multiplayer is missing a couple things that probably could have been fixed in a bit more time of development.

 

But unlimited time is usually a resource developers outside of Blizzard don't have.

 

Thankfully we have the patch system. And if everyone continues to post constructive feedback requesting these fixes, they may be able to implement them in the future via patch or DLC.

[jesse]

I vote for multiplayer... if it isn't fixed or at least made a little more modern, I won't be purchasing any DLC or subsequent releases.

 

The multiplayer experience really speaks to the quality of the product, which is like a beautiful ripe avocado that has its side cut off and left out for a few days... it's very brown at that end and looks disgusting but if you cut that part out a bit you'll see it's still ripe and tasty underneath. I know the analogy is pretty bad, but I'm just saying I won't keep buying a semi-browned yet delicious avocado when I have plenty of other avocado vendors willing to sell me a whole ripe one.

[hopfrog16]

Persistent multiplayer and Newgame+. If DS3 had this, it would be a day 1 purchase for me. =P

 

So, I voted for Multiplayer.

[KilluforFREE]

I had this game on full paid off pre-order a month in advance and i wanted it so badly UNTIL i found out about the multiplayer.....what kind of garbage is that seriously.. All im asking for is to let me import characters to other people games...i dont even care about camera angles or anything (although the loot divide would be nice). I still have not picked this game up from the store and i am seriously debating on whether i should even hope for a new multiplayer mode or if i should just cancel that reserve and get something else... even a 15 dollar game like Dungeon Hunter:alliance on psn has a good multiplayer AND IT WAS 15 DOLLARS...i soooo wish for the best for this game but i really neeeed a better multiplayer to grab this game SO I VOTE MP

[AdDugg]

I've said this a hundred times, but inserting the Super Awesome Multiplayer Mode into a finished game just like that isn't simple. If you think they should have put it in whatever the cost, that's fine - that's your opinion. But it's worth noting what's involved, at least;

 

(a) a reworked character development system to make a higher level cap viable (no, changing '30' to '99' and calling it a day doesn't work)

(b) a redesigned encounter system, more content, and/or new game+ to make (a) work (no, new game+ doesn't just involve adding 30 to all monsters' levels, unless you want one of those half-arsed implementations)

 

[Tigranes]

As far as we can tell nobody at Obsidian or Square ever set out to do a persistent MP mode, so it wasn't a question of rushing.

 

Now if you begin from the premise that a MP game should always have persistent MP by default and anything that does not do so is a problematic or incomplete game, then of course everything else falls into place - devs' explanations are excuses, the company must be lazy/stupid/incompetent/evil/unethical/crazy/bankrupt/hate you, etc., etc. This isn't necessarily incorrect (who knows), but it isn't really a logical way to go.

 

I'm not interested in persuading anyone that thinks DS3 needed persistent MP or DS3 is crap without it, since that's their opinion and that's clearly predicated on what they will enjoy. That's fine. I do think that this insistence some people have on extending their preference onto a statement about what video games should be and what gamers deserve is a separate argument, and one without a lot of merit. Are people that are happy with DS3's MP all spineless bottomlickers? Or, uh, they have different needs and wants from you?

[Bendu]

Looks like an expansion pack could please both sides.

[Lexx]

Except the publisher, as DLCs bring more money. :>

 

I'd like to see improvements to the multiplayer first. I just need two things anyway: 1. a camera that isn't fixed on all player characters and 2. a bigger radius in which the players can walk around without stopping anyone.