Dungeon Siege 3 is Dumbed Down Lazy Programming

[GuruChaz]

It's completly speculation at this point if this will ever happen and even more so if its gonna be by Obsidian but what would you like to see in a sequel?

 

 

Chris Taylor. Everyone else seemed to mess 3 up. Stop dumbing down classic games.

[GuruChaz]

Give this franchise back to Chris Taylor so he can do it right.

[Renevent]

There's a difference between design choices and 'lazy programming'.

[Purkake]

Do I really have to remind anyone of Supreme Commander 2 by Chris Taylor?

[Purkake]

Wait, so if I understand you correctly, and I am by no means an expert in these matters, you want the franchise given back to Chris Taylor?

[Flouride]

Do I really have to remind anyone of Supreme Commander 2 by Chris Taylor?

 

Aye, and he sold the DS franchise anyways as he didn't really want to work on it. And it's not like his interview with Eurogamer (when he was still considering on working on DS3) make it sound like it would be like DS 1&2.

[Flouride]

Wait, so if I understand you correctly, and I am by no means an expert in these matters, you want the franchise given back to Chris Taylor?

 

I think you might be right. I mean after he was clearly forced to sell the franchise to Square-Enix and every night Chris Taylor cries himself to sleep over the loss of his beloved DS franchise.

[GhostofAnakin]

I guess it's the new craze to refer to any game that doesn't fit what *you* want a game to be like as "lazy programming" or "dumbed down".

 

So by this criteria, Gears of War is a colossal failure and the developers are lazy because I didn't think it came close to the hype, and felt it was just another generic shooter. Am I doing this right?

[leeloodallas]

It's completly speculation at this point if this will ever happen and even more so if its gonna be by Obsidian but what would you like to see in a sequel?

 

 

Chris Taylor. Everyone else seemed to mess 3 up. Stop dumbing down classic games.

 

The original Dungeon Siege is "smarter?" Seriously?

[Purkake]

I believe the opposite in this case is "less streamlined".

[leeloodallas]

Well, "smartened up." Then again, you can't get much more streamlined than DS1.

[MonkeyLungs]

Yes you can it's called Dungeon Siege 3. You people denying that DS3 is more streamlined than DS1 are seriously reaching for imaginary straws. We don't even have to argue subjectives we can put the feature list for each game side by side and see the streamlining in pure objective detail.

[Purkake]

I've always wondered what the old school DS fan's answer to "it plays itself" was.

[Renevent]

The answer is it doesn't....that's an obvious gross over exaggeration that really doesn't even need a response.

 

Anyways I've played (and enjoyed) all three games in the series and in my mind there isn't a doubt that DS3 (mechanics wise) is a much less complex game. It also offers FAR less re-playability due to it's neutered online component...and frankly even if it had a better online system there really wouldn't be much incentive to keep playing anyways with it's light item system and level/group system.

 

With that said the narrative in DS3 is much better, and the fighting system is done very well. It also looks and sounds great. Overall a fun game but compared to the originals, they leave a lot to be desired.

Edited August 10, 2011 by Renevent

[Sannom]

The answer is it doesn't....that's an obvious gross over exaggeration that really doesn't even need a response.

Dunno, according to one testimony, in a multiplayer game, you can perfectly have only one guy play, let the other characters follow him with no input from the players, and the characters will do every thing by themselves, including attacking and leveling up. If that's not the epitome of 'playing itself', I don't know what is.

[Renevent]

The answer is it doesn't....that's an obvious gross over exaggeration that really doesn't even need a response.

Dunno, according to one testimony, in a multiplayer game, you can perfectly have only one guy play, let the other characters follow him with no input from the players, and the characters will do every thing by themselves, including attacking and leveling up. If that's not the epitome of 'playing itself', I don't know what is.

 

You can do that in Dungeon Siege III...hell...just have the second player enter the inventory screen and the AI literally plays your character for you including attacking and using skills.

 

The reality is if you are playing DS1 & DS2, it requires lots of input from the player.

Edited August 10, 2011 by Renevent

[hopfrog16]

The answer is it doesn't....that's an obvious gross over exaggeration that really doesn't even need a response.

Dunno, according to one testimony, in a multiplayer game, you can perfectly have only one guy play, let the other characters follow him with no input from the players, and the characters will do every thing by themselves, including attacking and leveling up. If that's not the epitome of 'playing itself', I don't know what is.

 

You can do that in Dungeon Siege III...hell...just have the second player enter the inventory screen and the AI literally plays your character for you including attacking and using skills.

 

The reality is if you are playing DS1 & DS2, it requires lots of input from the player. Fact.

 

Well... In multiplayer (on DS1), it depends. If you played a melee character, yes you could set them on follow and watch them kill everything. With casters or archers, you could do this as well, but it would be ill advised since it would get you killed often (without player input). That's one reason I enjoyed playing a caster in that game. More challenging, more than 100 spells at my finger tips, and different ways to play the same class (thanks to the wide selection of spells, heh). I had one nature/combat mage that focused in curses (no offensive spells, not even the orb... had to use the healing orb) and it was an odd, challenging, and effective way to play.

 

As for DS2, no, it doesn't play itself. Even though I liked DS1 better overall, and DS1 had a much better multiplayer community, I did enjoy the multiplayer style in DS2 more. I could play as an effective pure support character if I wanted to, and that's the role I enjoy playing the most in any game (you can thank EQ before it sucked for that... looooved the Shaman). =) Not to mention being able to take your own party members/pets from single player into a multiplayer match = win. =)

Edited August 10, 2011 by hopfrog16

[leeloodallas]

Yes you can it's called Dungeon Siege 3. You people denying that DS3 is more streamlined than DS1 are seriously reaching for imaginary straws. We don't even have to argue subjectives we can put the feature list for each game side by side and see the streamlining in pure objective detail.

 

Er, wow. DS2 was a step up in complexity from DS1 and forced you to become actively engaged in combat instead of just hitting the potion button. DS3 isn't streamlined vs. either of its predecessors. It's a different beast entirely, with a totally different focus: a new combat system that's nothing like its predecessors, branching quest lines and conversations, etc.

 

But if you want to put the feature list side by side and be "objective," be my guest. I'd be curious to see what you come up with.

[GreasyDogMeat]

The reality is if you are playing DS1 & DS2, it requires lots of input from the player.

I just played a bit of Legends of Aranna a while ago. Input involves clicking them into position with a potion button click here and there. I wouldn't call that a lot of input. The only fight that gave me any sort of challenge, which is to say very little, was the dragon fight against Scorch in the first game. The last seck boss was a joke. I think I cast about 5-10 healing wind spells total. I honestly think that was one of the easiest final boss battles played in a game... ever. Dungeon Siege 3 has given me more enjoyment and challenge in small mob fights than any battle has in the classic Siege games so far. Honestly can't take anyone seriously who thinks that the combat system in DS 3 is 'streamlined' or 'dumbed down' in comparison to the first game (still haven't played 2 yet).

 

At the end of the day I could only handle DS1 in 30 minute to hour long bursts before I just couldn't stand the game any more and HAD to do/play something else. DS3 had me glued to the TV for hours on end however and had an ending that left me satisfied, unlike the lame text epilogue of 1.

 

I will give the haters one thing, the game should not have been called Dungeon Siege. Fans of the mundane originals aren't going to find the same mundane elements in the sequel. Meh, I don't mean to sound hostile, but I've been playing the originals wondering what in the heck people were so attached to. The engine is stellar, especially for the time. I would have loved to have seen sequels to D&D infinity engine games developed on it with actual stories and the decent D&D rules.

[Renevent]

"Honestly can't take anyone seriously who thinks that the combat system in DS 3 is 'streamlined' or 'dumbed down' in comparison to the first game (still haven't played 2 yet)."

 

That's not what anyone is saying...at all. The combat system in DS3 is obviously more active...it's more like an action game. When people are talking about "streamlining" they are referring to the game mechanics (leveling, skills, spells, party system, quests, map design, multi-player, ect, ect).

 

The input comment was in reference to a few folks on this forum who like to say the games "play themselves"...that's obviously not true and an exaggeration.

Edited August 11, 2011 by Renevent

[hopfrog16]

The reality is if you are playing DS1 & DS2, it requires lots of input from the player.

I just played a bit of Legends of Aranna a while ago. Input involves clicking them into position with a potion button click here and there. I wouldn't call that a lot of input. The only fight that gave me any sort of challenge, which is to say very little, was the dragon fight against Scorch in the first game. The last seck boss was a joke. I think I cast about 5-10 healing wind spells total. I honestly think that was one of the easiest final boss battles played in a game... ever. Dungeon Siege 3 has given me more enjoyment and challenge in small mob fights than any battle has in the classic Siege games so far. Honestly can't take anyone seriously who thinks that the combat system in DS 3 is 'streamlined' or 'dumbed down' in comparison to the first game (still haven't played 2 yet).

 

At the end of the day I could only handle DS1 in 30 minute to hour long bursts before I just couldn't stand the game any more and HAD to do/play something else. DS3 had me glued to the TV for hours on end however and had an ending that left me satisfied, unlike the lame text epilogue of 1.

 

I will give the haters one thing, the game should not have been called Dungeon Siege. Fans of the mundane originals aren't going to find the same mundane elements in the sequel. Meh, I don't mean to sound hostile, but I've been playing the originals wondering what in the heck people were so attached to. The engine is stellar, especially for the time. I would have loved to have seen sequels to D&D infinity engine games developed on it with actual stories and the decent D&D rules.

 

Huh... I thought the last boss on Legends of Aranna was the weather guy (Shadow Master or something?). Overall, I liked Legends of Aranna's campaign much better than the original campaign. That said, however, none of them were the best single player experience I ever had. To be honest, the only reason I would play single player in DS1 would be to start off a new character to export into multiplayer (since single player had better loot than multiplayer in that game, especially the expansion).

 

DS3 definitely has DS1-2 beat in single player I feel (except when including player made siegelets... great modding community), but the opposite is just as true for multiplayer (even if DS3 didn't have the camera issues). Unfortunately, DS1's multiplayer ship has long since sailed with the removal of their hosted servers (people still try to organize multiplayer matches, but it really isn't the same).

 

I think the combat system in DS3 is awesome, and I would like to see it in a sequel. =) To be honest, though, I think the streamlining people are referring to is in the game mechanics/feature list... If DS4 had the ARPG combat, and the advanced story of DS3, but with a deeper leveling system, better loot, player customization, persistent characters, Newgame+, and of course a much improved multiplayer... I feel it would be one of the best titles of the year. =)

[MonkeyLungs]

Yes you can it's called Dungeon Siege 3. You people denying that DS3 is more streamlined than DS1 are seriously reaching for imaginary straws. We don't even have to argue subjectives we can put the feature list for each game side by side and see the streamlining in pure objective detail.

 

Er, wow. DS2 was a step up in complexity from DS1 and forced you to become actively engaged in combat instead of just hitting the potion button. DS3 isn't streamlined vs. either of its predecessors. It's a different beast entirely, with a totally different focus: a new combat system that's nothing like its predecessors, branching quest lines and conversations, etc.

 

But if you want to put the feature list side by side and be "objective," be my guest. I'd be curious to see what you come up with.

 

SP, MP, Online MP, Levelling system, Weapon Choice, Party Size, Map Size, Replayability, Character Save System, Number of players that can join, TOOLKIT, etc. etc. .... these are the things I am talking about. Not the Double Dragon combat that all of you seem to be so impressed by.

 

DS3 has multiplayer, BUT its hamstrung by the technically deficient camera. Also, less players.

No Mods.

DS3 wins in single player.

DS3 wins in couch co-op.

DS3 has a simple levelling system compared to the pother 2 games.

Weapon Choice for your characters is very limited in DS3.

Party size is limited in DS3.

DS3 has teeny tiny little maps.

DS3 has no persisten character saves and no newgame+ type feature.

DS3 has no toolkit.

 

For some people the increased attention to the conversations (even though there is hardly no sidequests and no in depth character quests) and the Double Dragon combat make it all worth in DS3. For me, those improvements aren't enough to make this a great game and alll the other missing elements detract from the experience for me. I am perfectly happy with the combat in RPG's being more about character ststas and gear and less about PUSHUN BUDDONS!

[leeloodallas]

SP, MP, Online MP, Levelling system, Weapon Choice, Party Size, Map Size, Replayability, Character Save System, Number of players that can join, TOOLKIT, etc. etc. .... these are the things I am talking about. Not the Double Dragon combat that all of you seem to be so impressed by.

 

DS3 has multiplayer, BUT its hamstrung by the technically deficient camera. Also, less players.

No Mods.

DS3 wins in single player.

DS3 wins in couch co-op.

DS3 has a simple levelling system compared to the pother 2 games.

Weapon Choice for your characters is very limited in DS3.

Party size is limited in DS3.

DS3 has teeny tiny little maps.

DS3 has no persisten character saves and no newgame+ type feature.

DS3 has no toolkit.

 

For some people the increased attention to the conversations (even though there is hardly no sidequests and no in depth character quests) and the Double Dragon combat make it all worth in DS3. For me, those improvements aren't enough to make this a great game and alll the other missing elements detract from the experience for me. I am perfectly happy with the combat in RPG's being more about character ststas and gear and less about PUSHUN BUDDONS!

 

*snerk* So many things to say, and yet I wonder if I should bother. And the sad thing is, I'm already adopting your rude and arrogant tone. And for that, I apologize.

 

1) The combat is not any less complex than DS1. Mages cast a single spell during the course of a battle. Archers shoot bows or goblin miniguns. Melee whacks away with a weapon. That's it. No abilities. No special attacks. No upgrading. DSLOA added orb spells for mages. The sole complexity came with the failure of companion AI. "Wait, Zed, I told you to attack that mage! Dammit, Gloern, the mage, not the summon! Ulora, stop running randomly across the map. The battle's HERE!" DS2 can arguably said to be more complex, though I'm not sure I buy that either. I'd probably say DS2 and DS3 are on a par with leveling complexity, though my personal inclination is to say that DS3's a little more complex.

 

2) A toolset has nothing to do with complexity of gameplay, or lack thereof. It's an additional boon for modders and, ultimately, players, but that's it.

 

3) Leveling was essentially meaningless in DS1, beyond allowing mages to use different spells. Other than that, it was just a number for archers and melee. Str/Dex mattered for non-casting classes, and the rest was just a number for the sake of numbers. DS2, you might be argue that there's a complexity difference in leveling, but not DS1. My inclination is to say that DS3 is more complex, in that you can choose how to level your abilities, but I can see someone arguing the opposite.

 

4) I'm not going to argue multiplayer, because, frankly, I don't care. I did my best to hack my way through the Utraean Peninsula map by running a local LAN game on my PC, and I didn't find it all that interesting. Single player DS3 has been far more enjoyable to me.

 

5) Save system. If you're arguing muliplayer DS1 or single and multiplayer DS2, the save system isn't actually all that different. Both games dump you back in your local town to rebattle respawned enemies. You made no progress in DS2 until you hit the next teleporter. I don't find that radically different than the save points in DS3, TBH. Either way, you're screwed if you quit too early before the next save point. At least you have more than one save slot in DS3 vs. DS2's single save system. Also, I don't play multiplayer, so I honestly don't care about having separate saves for my companion. If I were playing co-op with my husband, we'd share the same game, so who cares, again? I don't, because he doesn't give a crap about the game, so single player it is

 

6) Yes, increased attention to actual interaction does add complexity, sorry. You have to pay attention when you're talking, vs. just choosing the single conversation option as you do in DS2, or having no conversations or character interaction at all as in DS1. And, yes, requiring attention and brainpower is, in fact, the very definition of "adding complexity."

 

7) No, you don't just "PUSHUN BUDDONS" when you play. You maneuver. Plan. Choose where to focus. Fire off an ability. You want "PUSHUN BUDDONS," you should play DS1. Clicka-clicka-clicka.

[MonkeyLungs]

I'm not talking about a subjective judgement of "complexity of gameplay" here. I'm comparing feature lists to make it simple.

 

1. There are many more options at your disposal in combat in the older games. Whether they feel more or less complex to you is not my concern at the moment. Thre are more options, more skills, more party members, etc.

2. A toolset is part of the feature list for a game. Not having one means it was STREAMLINED out.

3. There are more choices and the chanc e for cross class character building in DS1 and 2. DS3 is more streamlined, which in turn may have added to a more balanced gameplay and possibly more fun for some people. The missing options equate to LESS features and LESS options and for myself this is a negative.

4. I don't care if you don't care. I'm not arguing care levels in care bear heartland. Multiplayer is stripped down and streamlined compared to the original titles.

5. Character save system ... I said it very clearly in my earlier post. I will sum it up in 3 words: PERSISTENT CHARACTER SAVES

6. The conversations needed brain power in DS3? Yes the conversation system is superior in DS3, I have NEVER argued differently. In fact I went as far as to say the the single player experience for DS3 wins out over the other 2 titles.

7. DS3 = Double Dragon combat in a ARPG-diablo-like-lite-item-hunting-short-campaign-with-no-newgame+ game. PUSHUN BUDDONS brah all the way. There isn't even the option for CONTINUOUS INPUT ... just PUSHUN BUDDONS.

[leeloodallas]

Free Dictionary defines "streamline" as: "3. a. To organize. b. To simplify." So, unless you've come up with some kind of new definition of "streamlining" that's all your own, then, yes, "streamlining" refers to making something less complex. And, yes, if you're going to use that word to compare DS1 to DS3, then I'm going to talk about "complexity of gameplay" since that's what the debate's about. Simple.

 

P.S. "PUSHUN BUDDONS" isn't English. I'm not sure what language it is. And if you can't bother to debate reasonably, i.e. "DS3 = Double Dragon combat in a ARPG-diablo-like-lite-item-hunting-short-campaign-with-no-newgame+ game," perhaps you shouldn't bother. Because you didn't even bother to address my point at all, and especially not in a form anyone can understand.

Edited August 15, 2011 by leeloodallas