What I think about this game

[yayihaveanemail]

Okay, so I came to these forums to see what the general opinion was of this game, to see if people actually agreed with my opinion or not. What I found was that people did agree with me, but they didn't tend to coherently put it on these forums, so here's my little rant about what I think about this game.

 

This game is more like Dragon Age than Dungeon Siege. I can see why you guys used the name of Dungeon Siege, as it probably generates a LOT of sales (Example: The Me who regrets purchasing it), but it is SERIOUSLY misleading and I'm not the only one angry about this. I'm not one to play a game for a storyline. I don't need people talking to me every 5 minutes about how this guy sucks and this guy lied to me and this girl is evil and I need to save the world. This game ISN'T bad by any means. It's actually a decent game for the right crowd, but you totally attracted the wrong type of audience when you tagged your game with the name of Dungeon Siege. I came to kill stuff, get loot, get crazy spells, kill more stuff, and make my character crazy as hell. All of these features are severely crippled in this game. The spells are pretty cool.... at first. Unfortunately, having only 6 spells that you can possibly get throughout the entire game is incredibly boring, and makes killing stuff boring in consequence. When I played the gunner, every single boss fight and enemy was the same exact thing. Buff yourself, shoot the machine gun, blink away, shoot the machine gun more, recover MP, repeat. It sounds complicated on paper, but it's actually incredibly simple. I expected more depth to combat than this. The loot system was also incredibly disappointing, as there really is very little customization involved. There is sometimes the choice of whether to go this specific stat, or this specific stat... but there is no choice in what playstyle you really want to go for. There is only one way to play each character, and that's probably the most depressing aspect of this game.

 

And on to the multiplayer.... it runs smoothly. And that's the only good thing I have to say about it. I had a friend who played this game with me (note past tense) and we enjoyed it for a while, until I realized that I couldn't save my character with him. I realize what you wanted to accomplish with this type of system, but it just isn't fun at all. I want to experience the feeling of getting stronger with my character with my friend, customize my character with him, and just have a good time. Instead, I'm hestitant to spend any of my money to buy my own equipment, because it won't benefit him at all, he can't use it when I leave, and he wants to keep the money for himself. It's really fun for the main character, but for everyone else, it just seems like a wasted effort. It's not something you can load yourself later on. You have to wait for your friend to log on so that you can continue your adventure with him. Also, there's very little teamwork involved at all, which makes me wonder why you even made this game multiplayer. Everyone just kites enemies around by themselves, and the only thing you can possibly do for an ally is revive them if they go down. Otherwise, you're just kiting the target that you found and struggling with the camera controls because your ally is going for a different enemy which in turn cripples your view. Also, this game can really do without the puzzles and finding hidden objects as part of a quest. Single player games do well with this game, but when you bring multiplayer into the mix, you are just making the game miserable to play. Puzzle games are meant to be played alone. I shouldn't have to wait for my friend to be able to find out how to get past a certain quest.

 

Overall, my main complaint is the fact that you made a great single player game, added a multiplayer functionality that really shouldn't be used, advertised it as a hardcore multiplayer game, and got undeserved sales from people who didn't want this type of game. That's really all there is to it. I'm really disappointed in what you guys did, and I'm adding Obsidian Entertainment to the list of companies I should be extremely hesitant to buy from, which already includes EA games, Activision, and Epic Games.

[MonkeyLungs]

I also wonder why so many features that seem essential to me were left out. Further, I think it was disingenuous to use the Dungeon Siege name if they weren't going to at least have as many basic features as the other games.

 

The MP is 100% not appealing to me. Lack of persistent character saves and the tethered camera is the kill shot from the game to my ability to enjoy MP.

 

The tethered camera in online MP is a technical deficiency that should never be repeated in any game ever again.

[Tigranes]

Generally I tend to agree that the MP camera sucks and can understand people that enjoyed DS1/2 and feel hard done by.

 

It's worth noting that (a) your character IS saved, just to that game, so if you keep playing with your friend you'll have that sense of progress - but you can't export the character, no. (b) game was never marketed as hardcore MP title, it was marketed as a couch co-op title. (And a bloody good one it would be, too, with a zoomed out camera.)

[Bakercompany86]

Gunner? Machine gun? Blink? What game are you talking about?

[Oner]

Gunner? Machine gun? Blink? What game are you talking about?

Katarina, Flintlock Fury, weird synonym for dodge roll.

[XxTaLoNxX]

Yeah those are pretty odd words for very basic names and skills. But of all the poor reviews I was actually able to agree with some of the points and quantify others from the OP's perspective.

[Bakercompany86]

Gunner? Machine gun? Blink? What game are you talking about?

Katarina, Flintlock Fury, weird synonym for dodge roll.

 

Yeah I got that, I guess the wording said to me "I didn't pay attention to anything."

[Alpha]

I feel pity of gamers that rather play a game without good/interesting storyline ; just because they want to play with friends ala L4D games.

Edited July 5, 2011 by Alpha

[hopfrog16]

I feel pity of gamers that rather play a game without good/interesting storyline ; just because they want to play with friends ala L4D games.

 

Huh... Why is that? Playing with people online is the best thing about gaming as far as I'm concerned. A story can be played through to all of it's ends and that's it, but when you play with people online there is the human variable that creates a new experience each time. It can be good or bad, but in the end it is always different. =)

[yayihaveanemail]

Yes I know that I use weird wording. I play too many Blizzard games. And @Alpha... well.. I'm not even sure what to say here. I could just as easily say that I feel pity for people that play video games for the storyline instead of playing with friends. We play for different reasons. Get over it.

[MonkeyLungs]

I think its best when the game lets you do both. Story based single player and free mode SP, story based MP and free mode MP and MP PvP ... <--- That's what i would like to see in alll ARPG's. If the game is missing one of those modes then I consider that a deficiency.

 

EDIT: And I have to say I consider those 5 modes of gameplay to be the baseline and woudl not complain if there were more modes available. I want developers to try and make us the last game we ever need to play. They will fail of couorse, because we are gamers, but the closer they get to that goasl the better the game wil be for fans of that genre.

 

DS3 has a really meager feature list and lacks so many options I consider essential.

Edited July 5, 2011 by MonkeyLungs

[Bakercompany86]

I think its best when the game lets you do both. Story based single player and free mode SP, story based MP and free mode MP and MP PvP ... <--- That's what i would like to see in alll ARPG's. If the game is missing one of those modes then I consider that a deficiency.

 

EDIT: And I have to say I consider those 5 modes of gameplay to be the baseline and woudl not complain if there were more modes available. I want developers to try and make us the last game we ever need to play. They will fail of couorse, because we are gamers, but the closer they get to that goasl the better the game wil be for fans of that genre.

 

DS3 has a really meager feature list and lacks so many options I consider essential.

 

I really wish this game had an arena, I can't tell you how bad I want that in DSIII.

 

I'd take a New Game+ as a runner up, but I think i'd rather have an arena as I don't typically like to play through the same story multiple times. I'm doing so just because this game is actually fun enough for me, and after playing Reinhart i'm having a blast with Lucas.

 

But man, definitely need something tacked on to keep the replay up.

[XxTaLoNxX]

I think its best when the game lets you do both.

 

I 100% agree. And that is why games like Halo do so well.

 

Story based single player and free mode SP, story based MP and free mode MP and MP PvP ... <--- That's what i would like to see in alll ARPG's. If the game is missing one of those modes then I consider that a deficiency.

 

A flaw. That's how I see it. Although missing just one of those wouldn't really bother me to the extent of calling a game bad. It just may not be for me. And then I move on.

 

EDIT: And I have to say I consider those 5 modes of gameplay to be the baseline and woudl not complain if there were more modes available. I want developers to try and make us the last game we ever need to play. They will fail of couorse, because we are gamers, but the closer they get to that goasl the better the game wil be for fans of that genre.

 

DS3 has a really meager feature list and lacks so many options I consider essential.

 

Well said.

[Bakercompany86]

I wouldn't say DSIII is lacking in features, as I don't feel its really lacking anything. I do wish it had one or two more options for play however. Like one more mode of any type. I really love the 4 player coop in this game and all the enemy types. It's ripe for some sort of alternate game type. Even a DOTA like tower defense mod would be really cool, if only you could have more than 4 players.

[vAddicatedGamer]

I haven't played Dungeon Siege 1 and 2 myself, but I guess I would be pissed if I bought a sequel and found out that that sequel has very different mechanics and different emphasis. Some players who prefer less story-oriented hack and slash (like D2) will find this off-putting. Although to be fair, I believe there was a demo - so instead of having absolute faith in the franchise (despite a change of hands), one would have largely avoided the issue altogether.

 

Having 9 skills can be a bit boring in the long run though. Yes, there are various ways to customize it via proficiency (is it proficiency?) and various strategies employed with it. But there is only so much to cycle through and so much to see. Not sure how "simple" the game is - Normal was quite manageable without thinking too much about the build - but there are underlying mechanisms which might be worth thinking about in hardcore maybe? For example, choosing gears, how to build up your skills/passive bonuses, combination of skills vs certain enemies, chaos effects - they all can lead to interesting combinations.

 

Gears could definitely use more depth though. Not sure what the sentiment regarding D2 is, but I found the system to be highly gratifying - set items, socketing, Horadric cube, charms, unique properties of some items (skill increase, skill use otherwise not accessible to a character, release charged bolts upon getting hit). This is one of the main reasons why D2 has massive amount of replayability (to some of us). Though admittedly Blizzard spent long years honing the system.

 

I must admit that the independence from stocking up prior to a battle - buying a crapload of potions, collecting a huge amount of charms, town portals - quite refreshing.

[Matt-C]

I feel pity of gamers that rather play a game without good/interesting storyline ; just because they want to play with friends ala L4D games.

Are you trying to imply that DS3 has a good storyline? It doesn't. A game doesn't need a massive epic story to be good... one could argue that you know the gameplay is the most important aspect... but hey if you prefer sitting around for half of the game listening / reading dialogue (which is terrible writing in the case of DS3) rather than actually playing a game with amazing gameplay.... then well I guess that's up to you.

[XxTaLoNxX]

I feel pity of gamers that rather play a game without good/interesting storyline ; just because they want to play with friends ala L4D games.

Are you trying to imply that DS3 has a good storyline? It doesn't.

 

Subjective. That's your opinion, but I doubt it's the majority opinion from the gamers who played the game.

 

A game doesn't need a massive epic story to be good... one could argue that you know the gameplay is the most important aspect... but hey if you prefer sitting around for half of the game listening / reading dialogue (which is terrible writing in the case of DS3) rather than actually playing a game with amazing gameplay.... then well I guess that's up to you.

 

Again, subjective. But I find your comment odd because DS3 had good gameplay as well as a good story.

[Lycidas]

I feel pity of gamers that rather play a game without good/interesting storyline ; just because they want to play with friends ala L4D games.

Are you trying to imply that DS3 has a good storyline? It doesn't. A game doesn't need a massive epic story to be good... one could argue that you know the gameplay is the most important aspect... but hey if you prefer sitting around for half of the game listening / reading dialogue (which is terrible writing in the case of DS3) rather than actually playing a game with amazing gameplay.... then well I guess that's up to you.

I know this concept might be new to you but your opinion =/= fact.

[Alpha]

I feel pity of gamers that rather play a game without good/interesting storyline ; just because they want to play with friends ala L4D games.

Are you trying to imply that DS3 has a good storyline? It doesn't. A game doesn't need a massive epic story to be good... one could argue that you know the gameplay is the most important aspect... but hey if you prefer sitting around for half of the game listening / reading dialogue (which is terrible writing in the case of DS3) rather than actually playing a game with amazing gameplay.... then well I guess that's up to you.

Yeah, i guess you found Sacred 2 ( i am not talking about loot, big world etc) better because you rather read wallotext , accept mission and kill enemies without a meaning at all , just for the pleasure of play with friends . Play with friend is good but is not what makes games good at all; there are others ingredients that can help the game to be better IMO. The story on DS3 is good ; not mediocre like haters say; also the gameplay is amazing not bad like the HATERS (in caps ) say.

Edited July 8, 2011 by Alpha

[MonkeyLungs]

Sacred 2 has so many quests with quite intrictae storylines. Some you have to really get out into the wilds of the maps to find. Just because you have to read instead of listen to voice overs doesn't mean there is no meaning to the quests. I prefer an ARPG to be minimally voiced, Sacred 2 handles this just fine. I'm not the biggest fan of voice over for all lines in an RPG anyway, even when the voice over is good. I just think all those resources would be better spent on gameplay. Going full voice over adds limitatuions to dialogue as well in that the more depth you want in your dialgue system the more cost you incur for your voice over work and this can lead to a streamlined story or a streamlined amount of quests. Sacred 2 has over 600 quests .... they really don't all need to voiced, reading them is really cool too.