Critical Cricism...I hate to say it, but I agree

[Bakercompany86]

 

And of course, before that we had tabletop games, the biggest and most influential one being Dungeons & Dragons.

 

<3 Warhammer Fantasy and 40k

[rafoca]

I have to say something about the graphics. I hate to say this, but I played Sacred 2 yesterday and that game looks better than DS3. Wow!

[Alpha]

^^^

 

wow, deadly premonition graphics look better than Sacred 2 graphics. (J/k)

 

DS3 looks better than Sacred 2 by miles.

[MonkeyLungs]

No. Sacred 2 anhiliates DS3 in graphics. Graphics encompass all aspects of the visual art presented to you. Sacred 2 has a massive open world with beautiful landscapes and hidden secrets everywhere. I didn't even get the achie vement for exploring 60% of the map until hundreds of hours into the game. In cities you can enter all the homes and castles. There are dungeons everywhere. Character models are better in DS3 but everything else pales in comparison. Lack of enough different armor and weapon types detracts from the better looking character models of DS3 though.

 

As far as lovingly crafted game worlds go DS3 isn't even in the same league/ballpark/sport as Sacred 2.

[deteego]

Obsidian and DS3 are 1000 times better than BioWare (or any other RPG developer right now, and that include SquEnix.. FF13? a joke).

 

Come on, really.I wouldn't compare Bioware and Enix to Obsidian, because Obsidian is not even allowed to step in the shadows of Bioware and Enix.

 

Based on history, look back and see how many bestseller Bioware and Enix had, Obsidian still have way to go.

 

I do agree that FF 13 is not that good, and even Bioware's DA2, but Obsidian's Alpha Protocol/Fallout new vegas aint something to write home about either.

 

Maybe your thinking i hate Obsidian, i dont, i like them, and support them by buying the games they create.

 

Actually Fallout vegas was one of the highest rated games according to metacritic, it would have gotten an even higher rating if it wasn't for the initial technical issues that unfortunately most of bioware games have

[deteego]

Now as far me being ignorant and clueless, I dont think so. I have been a long time fan of the DS series which originated on the PC and considering I shelled out $50 for the damn game and since I am the one who is not satisfied with it so yeah I'll spout all the hate for it I want. As far as not knowing what I am talking about? Yeah I think I do, considering how many games I have played and all the Dungeon Siege time I have put in you bet your ass I do.

 

And yes I said it, ARCADE! Are you kidding me? You really think this game is some hard hitting in depth RPG? The damn game lasts 12 to 14 hours max. The game play is way to similar to that of Fable or Kingdom Hearts two very ARCADE style games, and yes even Gauntlet (especially the sword of seven sorrows).

 

Depth is not the same as game length

 

Portal for example had quite a lot of depth, yet it only lasted a few hours

 

The gameplay of DS3 is loads better then DS1/DS2, even though its not as long (however judging by the fact that there is a menu section for DLC, it appears that Obsidian will start releasing DLC content on DS3). DS3 has much more "depth" in terms of both gameplay and lore then the older DS's in the series, it just happens to be a bit shorter compared to the other epic bioware rpg's (that have 40+ hours of gameplay)

Edited June 28, 2011 by deteego

[MonkeyLungs]

The gameplay of DS3 is only 'loads better' to people who like to push buttons and appreciate the more actiony take on combat.

[Oner]

No. Sacred 2 annihilates DS3 in graphics. Graphics encompass all aspects of the visual art presented to you. Sacred 2 has a massive open world with beautiful landscapes and hidden secrets everywhere. I didn't even get the achievement for exploring 60% of the map until hundreds of hours into the game. In cities you can enter all the homes and castles. There are dungeons everywhere.

And none of these have anything to do with graphics.

[Vilhelm]

The gameplay of DS3 is only 'loads better' to people who like to push buttons and appreciate the more actiony take on combat.

 

So I guess the gameplay of DS1/DS2 is only 'loads better' to people who like to click the mouse button and appreciate the more automatic take on combat?

[MonkeyLungs]

No. Sacred 2 annihilates DS3 in graphics. Graphics encompass all aspects of the visual art presented to you. Sacred 2 has a massive open world with beautiful landscapes and hidden secrets everywhere. I didn't even get the achievement for exploring 60% of the map until hundreds of hours into the game. In cities you can enter all the homes and castles. There are dungeons everywhere.

 

And none of these have anything to do with graphics.

 

I think world design and art direction have everything to do with graphics. Sacred 2 looks lightyears better to me than DS3.

 

 

The gameplay of DS3 is only 'loads better' to people who like to push buttons and appreciate the more actiony take on combat.

 

So I guess the gameplay of DS1/DS2 is only 'loads better' to people who like to click the mouse button and appreciate the more automatic take on combat?

 

Yes that is about right. People who didn't mind the more automated type of combat for their party because for them the MECHANICS of the gameplay that were part of the underlying ruleset were just as much a part of the gameplay and depth of gameplay as pushun buddons is to other folks.

 

I would prefer combat that has lots of semi automated features and a really in depth rulesystem and a great combat log to a combat system like DS3 anyday.

 

An action game needs to be like Ninja Gaiden (Xbox 1 version) quality to really get me excited about pushun buddons.

[Vilhelm]

I would prefer combat that has lots of semi automated features and a really in depth rulesystem and a great combat log to a combat system like DS3 anyday.

 

Then I definitely wouldn't go back to Dungeon Siege and Dungeon Siege II. The IE games do that infinitely better.

[MonkeyLungs]

I love IE games. Very very fun games.

[Oner]

No. Sacred 2 annihilates DS3 in graphics. Graphics encompass all aspects of the visual art presented to you. Sacred 2 has a massive open world with beautiful landscapes and hidden secrets everywhere. I didn't even get the achievement for exploring 60% of the map until hundreds of hours into the game. In cities you can enter all the homes and castles. There are dungeons everywhere.

 

And none of these have anything to do with graphics.

 

I think world design and art direction have everything to do with graphics.

Yes.

 

massive open world

hidden secrets everywhere

enter all the homes and castles

exploring 60% of the map

These however, have no relation to how the game looks. Which is what graphics are about. Looks, visuals.

[Alpha]

No. Sacred 2 anhiliates DS3 in graphics. Graphics encompass all aspects of the visual art presented to you. Sacred 2 has a massive open world with beautiful landscapes and hidden secrets everywhere. I didn't even get the achie vement for exploring 60% of the map until hundreds of hours into the game. In cities you can enter all the homes and castles. There are dungeons everywhere. Character models are better in DS3 but everything else pales in comparison. Lack of enough different armor and weapon types detracts from the better looking character models of DS3 though.

 

As far as lovingly crafted game worlds go DS3 isn't even in the same league/ballpark/sport as Sacred 2.

well , i was talking about graphics...indeed sacred 2 is better for the others things you mentioned. Except for the lack of story/cutscenes.

Edited June 28, 2011 by Alpha

[MonkeyLungs]

Massive open world with hidden secreats everywhere has to do with world design and art direction. You really have to go off the beaten path to see some of the amazing vistas, like hidden waterfalls and caves and statues. These have to do with the art direction and presentatioon of the visual world because they are presented visually. You have to explore the hand crafted environments to really get the most out of the graphics because the world design and art direction are tied together.

 

I also believe that being able to go into all buildings and castles etc. is a part of the graphics because it is tied to world design and art direction. Part of the art direction was to make the hamlets and towns in such a way that allows for the player to fully explore the buildings in the town or hamlet.

 

All of these elements work together to bring the graphical representaion of the gameworld to life.

[Bakercompany86]

Now as far me being ignorant and clueless, I dont think so. I have been a long time fan of the DS series which originated on the PC and considering I shelled out $50 for the damn game and since I am the one who is not satisfied with it so yeah I'll spout all the hate for it I want. As far as not knowing what I am talking about? Yeah I think I do, considering how many games I have played and all the Dungeon Siege time I have put in you bet your ass I do.

 

And yes I said it, ARCADE! Are you kidding me? You really think this game is some hard hitting in depth RPG? The damn game lasts 12 to 14 hours max. The game play is way to similar to that of Fable or Kingdom Hearts two very ARCADE style games, and yes even Gauntlet (especially the sword of seven sorrows).

 

Depth is not the same as game length

 

Portal for example had quite a lot of depth, yet it only lasted a few hours

 

The gameplay of DS3 is loads better then DS1/DS2, even though its not as long (however judging by the fact that there is a menu section for DLC, it appears that Obsidian will start releasing DLC content on DS3). DS3 has much more "depth" in terms of both gameplay and lore then the older DS's in the series, it just happens to be a bit shorter compared to the other epic bioware rpg's (that have 40+ hours of gameplay)

 

 

Well said.

 

Portal 2 was a masterpiece as far as i'm concerned

 

DS3 has some of the best combat i've seen in a dungeon crawler. Its not just running around spamming abilities like Diablo II (although I still love D2). DS3's combat feels like a perfect balance that forms into a nice flow with each character.

[AlienOne]

Wait, what? Bioware's in charge of Ultima Online?

 

(See included pic)

 

 

Bioware

the ORIGINAL Neverwinter Nights

Not exactly.

 

Heh. I'll just trust that you're smart enough to know that I was referring to the original Neverwinter Nights game that preceded NWN2.

 

"Alien"

Edited June 28, 2011 by AlienOne

[rafoca]

Massive open world with hidden secreats everywhere has to do with world design and art direction. You really have to go off the beaten path to see some of the amazing vistas, like hidden waterfalls and caves and statues. These have to do with the art direction and presentatioon of the visual world because they are presented visually. You have to explore the hand crafted environments to really get the most out of the graphics because the world design and art direction are tied together.

 

I also believe that being able to go into all buildings and castles etc. is a part of the graphics because it is tied to world design and art direction. Part of the art direction was to make the hamlets and towns in such a way that allows for the player to fully explore the buildings in the town or hamlet.

 

All of these elements work together to bring the graphical representaion of the gameworld to life.

 

Yes. Also, it is known that the more you put in the game the more you have to sacrifice the graphics in order to everything run ok. I am amazed on how Sacred 2 looks better and have more depth. The natural thing would be Sacred 2 looking worse because it has much more features than DS3. I can imagine how great the game could be today on consoles if Ascaron have not bankrupted. Those guys were talented.

 

I had some framerate and slowdowns in Sacred 2, but I also got in DS3, but in areas that, to me, should not happen at all.

 

Btw, I love the water in Sacred 2.

[AlienOne]

Actually Fallout vegas was one of the highest rated games according to metacritic, it would have gotten an even higher rating if it wasn't for the initial technical issues that unfortunately most of bioware games have

 

Metacritic all-time best PC game scores list簻龜㰺烻γ䨾烉

 

I see 7 of Bioware's games on that list on the first page, and none of Obsidian's.

 

Just sayin'.

 

"Alien"γ%5d"]ok[/url]

Edited June 28, 2011 by AlienOne

[MonkeyLungs]

To bring us back to DS3 ... world design.

 

I think if you can't/aren't willing to make a big open world for an ARPG and you want to make corridor maps then you need to make huge amounts of corridor maps ... and possibly provide some procedurally generated dungeons. Developers skimping on world design is a real let down for me.

 

If your maps are going to broken up into zones then make the zones really big and impressive like Borderlands.

 

If your game is a collection of corridor maps then provide alot of them and preferably don't make corridor maps because they suck.

 

If you are going to make an open world map make it fun to explore and packed with hidden secrets.

[hopfrog16]

Massive open world with hidden secreats everywhere has to do with world design and art direction. You really have to go off the beaten path to see some of the amazing vistas, like hidden waterfalls and caves and statues. These have to do with the art direction and presentatioon of the visual world because they are presented visually. You have to explore the hand crafted environments to really get the most out of the graphics because the world design and art direction are tied together.

 

I also believe that being able to go into all buildings and castles etc. is a part of the graphics because it is tied to world design and art direction. Part of the art direction was to make the hamlets and towns in such a way that allows for the player to fully explore the buildings in the town or hamlet.

 

All of these elements work together to bring the graphical representaion of the gameworld to life.

 

Yes. Also, it is known that the more you put in the game the more you have to sacrifice the graphics in order to everything run ok. I am amazed on how Sacred 2 looks better and have more depth. The natural thing would be Sacred 2 looking worse because it has much more features than DS3. I can imagine how great the game could be today on consoles if Ascaron have not bankrupted. Those guys were talented.

 

I had some framerate and slowdowns in Sacred 2, but I also got in DS3, but in areas that, to me, should not happen at all.

 

Btw, I love the water in Sacred 2.

 

I agree... Sacred 2 had some really great water effects in that game. It's also kind of interesting to me how some of the rivers in that game are named after ones I live by (like the Skookumchuck). I have a feeling the people/person behind that decision were drift fishermen that loved fishing the rivers over here... I wouldn't blame them.

[MonkeyLungs]

Also the little fishing villages and the pirate hideouts that didn't have anything to do with the main quest but were just cool.

[athlondude]

Games that Blow DS3 away

 

Diablo 1 and 2

Baldours Gate

Neverwinter Nights 1 and 2

Sacred 1 and 2

Titan Quest

Dungeon Siege 1 and 2

Torchlight

Fate

Mass Effect 1 and 2

Knights of the old Republic 1 and 2

Elder Scrolls all of them

Kingdom Hearts all of them

Gauntlet all of them

Fable

Pacman

Space Invaders

Pong

 

Need I say more?

[GreasyDogMeat]

Diablo 1 & 2

Baldours Gate

Neverwinter Nights 1 and 2

Sacred 1 and 2

Titan Quest

Dungeon Siege 1 and 2

Torchlight

Fate

Mass Effect 1 and 2

Knights of the old Republic 1 and 2

Elder Scrolls all of them

Kingdom Hearts all of them

Gauntlet all of them

Fable

Pacman

Space Invaders

Pong

 

Need I say more?

-Diablo 1 & 2: Like them for their settings, but I like DS 3 more for it's story & combat.

-Baldur's Gate: Agree

-Neverwinter nights 1 & 2: Agree about 2 but only agree about 1 if you include expansions.

-Titan Quest: I like the setting, but I rage quit this damn game. Player respawn system killed it.

-Dungeon Siege 1 & 2: Dungeon Siege 1 is crap and doesn't compare well at all to 3. I have yet to play 2. How anyone fondly remembers this tech demo excused as a game is beyond me.

-Mass Effect 1 & 2: Agree

-Knights of the Old Republic 1 & 2: Agree

-Elder Scrolls Series: Disagree. Horrible writing and, with few exceptions, dull quests. Games can still be enjoyable, but a lot more searching and work is required to find the fun. If you had said Fallout 3 or New Vegas I'd agree.

-Fable: Don't get me wrong... I do like farting and burping at people but Dungeon Siege 3 was more fun.

-Never played Sacred, Torchlight, Fate, Kingdom Hearts or Gauntlet. Tried Torchlight demo but it got boring quickly. Music was awesome though.

-Pacman, Space Invaders & Pong: Drugs are bad for you. Not sure why I bothered to respond to you reading this last part because you are obviously being a troll.

Edited June 29, 2011 by GreasyDogMeat

[XxTaLoNxX]

Games that Blow DS3 away

 

First of all, who cares? It's a game. You play it and enjoy it, or you eff off and sthu. You offer criticism with no real points and nothing constructive.

 

Diablo 1 and 2

Baldours Gate

Neverwinter Nights 1 and 2

Sacred 1 and 2

Titan Quest

Dungeon Siege 1 and 2

Torchlight

Fate

Mass Effect 1 and 2

Knights of the old Republic 1 and 2

Elder Scrolls all of them

Kingdom Hearts all of them

Gauntlet all of them

Fable

Pacman

Space Invaders

Pong

 

Need I say more?

 

Diablo and Diablo 2 - were great... for their times. Now, they are not. So this is redundant because if those games were released now they would be laughed at.

Baldur's Gate - Ok, it was good. But again it suffers from the same redundancy as Diablo references. It WOULD NOT be acceptable in today's market.

In fact, screw this, every game you have listed is old and played out. None of those games released today would be acceptable. And Fable? Are you kidding me? After reading that I instantly knew that you are either trolling or actually don't know what a good game is. In no way does Fable blow DS3 out of the water. Pong? Pacman? Space Invaders? Whatever.