Dungeon Siege 3 is Dumbed Down Lazy Programming

[Renevent]

Actually MunkeyLungs is debating just fine...he's listed the points behind his reasoning and they are all valid points. You can decide not to "care" of course but that doesn't change them.

 

At this point you are resigned to just quote the dictionary and criticize his use of slang. You know exactly what he meant by "PUSHUN BUDDONS" which is why you responded to it directly in your previous post.

 

Anyways if the conversation system and more action orientated combat system equates more complexity for you, hey, that's fantastic. There are other people however who view the things that MunkeyLungs listed as more meaningful complexity so they view DS3 as streamlined in that regard...it's a perfectly valid viewpoint since it's based on real mechanics and they are directly comparable. Just deal with it.

Edited August 15, 2011 by Renevent

[MonkeyLungs]

Thank you Renevant.

 

I will try a single sentence. There are less gameplay options available in Dungeon Siege 3, less gameplay modes, and less of a focus for online multiplayer and no toolset.

 

Also the pushun buddons thing is just a pet peeve of mine ... I vastly prefer contiuous input unless the combat system requires multi button combos a' la Ninja Gaiden. DS3 could work very well with conintuous input. I remember when Diablo 2 came out and everyone was so stoked that you could just hold the mouse button down to keep attacking because clicking the mouse button over and over was very painful. Continuous input and the current style could also very peacefully co-exist allowng gamers to mash buttons or click mouse over and over or choose the more ergonomic option of coninuous input.

[Monokli]

in ds1 only melee and ranged were lacking variability: they were equip->kill->loot, then rinse and repeat: in ds2 they along with mages got their specialties trees and powers, yet still lacked the massive list of options spells gave to mages.

 

Unfortunately the spell types were hardcoded(ds1, didnt bother with ds2) otherwise I would have remedied the issue.

 

As for the game playing itself... You could just as well say Starcraft plays itself because the units/party members automatically attack when attacked/ordered to attack. As for following players in mp: still sub-par compared to a player doing it, especially as a mage.

 

in multiplayer both ds1 and ds2 beat ds3: 1 and 2 have LAN and online, which means couch coop is available if players have laptops and a couch (desktop is far more superior imo). No split/ shared screen, up to 8 players in ds1 single character, and possibility for full party export to mp + skydomes and sky planes in ds2. Ds2 mp games come in 2x3 man parties, 3x2 man parties or 4x single character parties. Thats when we don't use mods: there is one to increase party size in mp for ds2.

 

In ds1 shines the deep moddability of the siege engine: dsdll, as one or two fans made a full Ds MMO client/server system using c++

 

ds3 is hopelessly limited compared to all that.

 

Yeah the combat is more actiony, but as a spellcaster I prefer a vide variety of spells(20-100), not being limited to two types of standard attacks FOR THE ENTIRE GAME.

[MonkeyLungs]

Yeah the combat is more actiony, but as a spellcaster I prefer a vide variety of spells(20-100), not being limited to two types of standard attacks FOR THE ENTIRE GAME.

 

Thanks for your post Monokli, the part I quoted really goes to the heart of my argument. More options just makes the games more fun for me. I can apply this sentiment of mage spellcasters and their arsenal to other facets of the game ... game modes, numberof party members, number of players, available weapon choices for characters, ability to cross class etc. etc.

 

DS3 is completely streamlined compared to DS1 and DS2 and to my favorite ARPG's (diablo-like-item hunt-combat heavy-character building games).

[MonkeyLungs]

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.

 

Streamlining, especially when it comexs to games, does indeed mean to simpify. Folks like me used to say dumbed down but streamlining has just as negative a connotation now so I don't mind using the marketing term against them. And yes, I believe simplifying games is a negative thing.

 

I don't mind debating complexity of gameplay, however it becomes more subjective when we do that which is why I was just comparing feature lists. It's the first thing I do when I evaluate a new game ... for instance if the game is an ARPG-diablo-like-loot hunting-level up game then I compare that game to titles I hold in high regard and I fitrst compare things like game modes, number of players available for online matches, number of available party members if its party based, types of weapons available, number of skills, number of spells, are there mounts? etc. etc. Then I delve into subjective territory like quality of story, presentation of characters, the way the game plays coupled with an evaluation of the controls, how is the voice acting?, how do I feel about the art direction, etc.

 

I think I am debating you in a perfectly reasonable fashion, abstaining from personal insults and trying to convey my thoughts on the game and game design in general. These are ... like ... just my opinions man.

[james1976]

One of the bad things about DS3 though is both players stuck on the same screen. One runs one way and the other runs a different way and suddenly someone dies because they got trapped and couldn't move. Yeah, that's challenging but in a bad way. It's one thing to make players work together more but it's another to restrict their movements in combat. Also I wouldn't say there's a lot of freedom in the game. Not to mention..."streamlined" is a bad word in itself. What it really means is "we are making things less complex so it appeals to a larger audience". DS3 lacks complexity.

 

I am not saying DS3 itself is a bad game totally. It's got some good points and I'd really like to see what happens in the story after DS3 as a result of the choices a player makes during the game. But it's certainly not something that will sit on my shelf for years to come.

[spamslots]

As I just posted elsewhere, I have no problems with DSIII's gameplay or interface. I read the reviews, I knew it would be an action RPG, I knew I needed a gamepad. The gameplay was fun enough, for me. What none of the reviews said is that THERE IS SO LITTLE TO THE GAME.

 

I finished a hardcore playthrough, all quests completed, at 10 hours, and that was with time wasted on grinding so I had more health and couldn't be 2 shotted if I screwed up in a boss fight. I could have completed it in 8. More skilled twitch gamers can probably skip the sidequests and finish it in 6 hours.

 

That's ridiculously little content for a $50 game.

 

There are not enough locations. The locations are not big enough. There are only 2 towns. There are not enough quests. There are not enough character models. Dialogue is very nearly meaningless.

 

This is a game that was obviously rushed to completion. It is worth $10-15. I have not felt so pissed at a game I paid for in a long time.

[GhostofAnakin]

The problem I've always had with people who say that how long the game is should determine the price tag, is they ignore the fact that games that are in a genre other than RPG tend to be much shorter than even the shortest RPG.

 

It's one thing if you're disappointed with the overall content or features or what have you. But if you're judging a game's worth by how long it takes to finish, then most action/adventure/shooter games are likely to be on your hate list as well since those tend to be a heck of a lot shorter than DS3.

Edited September 3, 2011 by GhostofAnakin

[Guest RytGansta]

I'm just gonna say, off the top of my head and not wanting to offend anyone, that even though reviews gave the marks they gave, one thing I knew for sure: Obsidian impressed me with NWN 2 and I was sure they weren't going to disappoint with DS3, and they didn't. I LOVE THE GAME. The characters, the story, the soundtrack, the combat system, the skills. Man, I can almost say I felt for the Legion's plight as well as Odo's.

[spamslots]

Anakin, you miss the point. It is NOT the number of hours that's the problem, the number of hours is a sign of utter lack of content, which definitely is a problem when a product is priced the same as equivalent titles that have so much more to them.

 

Also, your response is silly. The fact is, DS III is being marketed as an action-rpg. Why are you using a comparison to action games and shooters as a defense for how short it is?

 

Sports games inherently have further replay because the primary object is developing skills and competing with your friends. The same thing applies to shooters and fighting games, wherein the main point is online competition. In action games and shooters, the content is the action game and the mechanics. That means you get hours more play time out of them based on the number of sports teams and players or on the complexity of online team-play or the number of cars and tracks there are to drive. That is how you judge the content in other categories of gaming.

 

Compare DS III to other action-rpgs and it has NO CONTENT. The likes of Sacred 2, Two Worlds II and Torchlight are its competitors and in terms of how much there is to see and do and fight they have orders of magnitude more stuff. It is SUPPOSED to have more content. Even if you're going by multi-player, DS III just does not have enough going for it.

 

Again, it's not like DS III has a short but exquisitely crafted campaign. It's not like it's comparable to short but beautiful games like Ico. DS III has generic artwork, dungeons and puzzles and monsters.

 

I'm not saying DS III sucks completely. I actually like its gameplay. I'm saying it sucks for having such a high price point when it has a mere fraction of the size and content of other action rpgs that are also priced at $40-50. Hell, Mass Effect 1&2, Fallout 3 & New Vegas are technically action-rpgs too since they're hybrid-shooters and they also blow DSIII away in terms of stuff, and when they were new, they were PRICED at the same level.

[GhostofAnakin]

Also, your response is silly. The fact is, DS III is being marketed as an action-rpg. Why are you using a comparison to action games and shooters as a defense for how short it is?

 

I'm not defending it, per se. I'm defending (for lack of a better word) the notion that somehow game length has any bearing on the quality of the game, RPG or not.

 

If your issue is the content, then I've already said that's more than valid. But you seemed to stress how long it took you to finish, as though that short game length in itself explained the lack of content that you felt was missing. So I took that to mean you were suggesting that it being short was the reason it was lacking. In which case I disagree. Short games can have much more, and much better content than longer games, and vice versa.

Edited September 4, 2011 by GhostofAnakin