What would you like to see in a Dungeon Siege IV?

[GhostofAnakin]

Since the DLC just came out, I'm back to playing Dragon Age 2. It underlined to me how much I enjoy the party interactions (ie. sidequests, backstories, interactions with them, etc.) that were missing in Dungeon Siege III. I can't stress enough how much I want that feature in any future DS titles (or DLCs/expansion packs).

[C2B]

Since the DLC just came out, I'm back to playing Dragon Age 2. It underlined to me how much I enjoy the party interactions (ie. sidequests, backstories, interactions with them, etc.) that were missing in Dungeon Siege III. I can't stress enough how much I want that feature in any future DS titles (or DLCs/expansion packs).

 

Yeah, I didn't particulary enjoy Dragon Age 2s party interactions (for a varity of reasons) but the amount of it in DSIII was rather disappointing. What I liked though was when they sometimes interacted with the NPCs (Especially Anjali was great there). Thats something that a lot (most) crpgs do not have and I hope they would do a lot more (and in other future games too) of that and other interactions.

Edited July 30, 2011 by C2B

[GhostofAnakin]

Yeah, I didn't particulary enjoy Dragon Age 2s party interactions (for a varity of reasons) but the amount of it in DSIII was rather disappointing. What I liked though was when they sometimes interacted with the NPCs (Especially Anjali was great there). Thats something that a lot (most) crpgs do not have and I hope they would do a lot more (and in other future games too) of that and other interactions.

 

I was referring less about the actual DA2 quality of interaction (though I actually enjoyed it), than I was about that kind of thing, where you have the opportunity to talk to, learn about, and even undertake a quest or two for those companions. IMO, they feel a lot more fleshed out the more you get a chance to have dialogue with them.

 

DS3 was good in the way it integrated the companions into dialogue in various scenes, but it fell short, IMO, when it came to actually giving you a chance to get to know them better. I also think the game was screaming for a personal sidequest for each companion.

 

One of my favorite parts of an old Obsidian game was the party interaction in KOTOR II. Learning about those traveling with you, expanding on the lore around them and their backgrounds, ranks up there among my favorite features from that game. That's one area where I think DS3 dropped the ball.

[C2B]

Yeah, I didn't particulary enjoy Dragon Age 2s party interactions (for a varity of reasons) but the amount of it in DSIII was rather disappointing. What I liked though was when they sometimes interacted with the NPCs (Especially Anjali was great there). Thats something that a lot (most) crpgs do not have and I hope they would do a lot more (and in other future games too) of that and other interactions.

I was referring less about the actual DA2 quality of interaction (though I actually enjoyed it), than I was about that kind of thing, where you have the opportunity to talk to, learn about, and even undertake a quest or two for those companions. IMO, they feel a lot more fleshed out the more you get a chance to have dialogue with them.

 

I didn't... say anything else? What? I fully agree that conversation between the player charachter and the companions is pretty low in DSIII.

 

Though actually party interaction has been done better before too than in DA2.

Edited July 31, 2011 by C2B

[MonkeyLungs]

Since the DLC just came out, I'm back to playing Dragon Age 2. It underlined to me how much I enjoy the party interactions (ie. sidequests, backstories, interactions with them, etc.) that were missing in Dungeon Siege III. I can't stress enough how much I want that feature in any future DS titles (or DLCs/expansion packs).

 

 

DS3 could have really used increased party interraction and maybe be able to walk around with as aparty of 4 ... might make the levels feel cramped though. A bunch of sidestories for each character would be nice too.

 

EDIT: I'm just 100% agreeing with you on the need for more party based content in DS3.

Edited July 31, 2011 by MonkeyLungs

[Renevent]

Not really, they all play very similarly and choosing which characters to have in your group really make little difference. It might have been their intention to make each character so independent (and complete) which might be cool for some folks, my opinion is it kinda makes the group aspect much less interesting.

 

You are just saying that the game isn't just healer-tank-dps. That is good, because that model has been done to death. The roles are very different, and vary a lot depending on the type of fight, and even on the build (my human-focus Anjali plays a lot like a tank, while my friend's archon build is a savage glass cannon, relying on immolation when she gets overrun).

 

No, that's not what I am saying at all. You are talking about the MMO trinity that has nothing to do with my comments.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Yeah, I didn't particulary enjoy Dragon Age 2s party interactions (for a varity of reasons) but the amount of it in DSIII was rather disappointing. What I liked though was when they sometimes interacted with the NPCs (Especially Anjali was great there). Thats something that a lot (most) crpgs do not have and I hope they would do a lot more (and in other future games too) of that and other interactions.

 

I was referring less about the actual DA2 quality of interaction (though I actually enjoyed it), than I was about that kind of thing, where you have the opportunity to talk to, learn about, and even undertake a quest or two for those companions. IMO, they feel a lot more fleshed out the more you get a chance to have dialogue with them.

 

DS3 was good in the way it integrated the companions into dialogue in various scenes, but it fell short, IMO, when it came to actually giving you a chance to get to know them better. I also think the game was screaming for a personal sidequest for each companion.

 

One of my favorite parts of an old Obsidian game was the party interaction in KOTOR II. Learning about those traveling with you, expanding on the lore around them and their backgrounds, ranks up there among my favorite features from that game. That's one area where I think DS3 dropped the ball.

It didn't drop the ball, it's an action RPG, not an RPG like KOTOR. The emphasis is on combat and loot, not character interaction and quests.

 

Btw, another thing I'd like is to have the mini-map be a different color for the paths you've already visited, otherwise it's impossible to explore areas with lots of interconnecting paths and know if you already explored there or not.

[C2B]

Yeah, I didn't particulary enjoy Dragon Age 2s party interactions (for a varity of reasons) but the amount of it in DSIII was rather disappointing. What I liked though was when they sometimes interacted with the NPCs (Especially Anjali was great there). Thats something that a lot (most) crpgs do not have and I hope they would do a lot more (and in other future games too) of that and other interactions.

 

I was referring less about the actual DA2 quality of interaction (though I actually enjoyed it), than I was about that kind of thing, where you have the opportunity to talk to, learn about, and even undertake a quest or two for those companions. IMO, they feel a lot more fleshed out the more you get a chance to have dialogue with them.

 

DS3 was good in the way it integrated the companions into dialogue in various scenes, but it fell short, IMO, when it came to actually giving you a chance to get to know them better. I also think the game was screaming for a personal sidequest for each companion.

 

One of my favorite parts of an old Obsidian game was the party interaction in KOTOR II. Learning about those traveling with you, expanding on the lore around them and their backgrounds, ranks up there among my favorite features from that game. That's one area where I think DS3 dropped the ball.

It didn't drop the ball, it's an action RPG, not an RPG like KOTOR. The emphasis is on combat and loot, not character interaction and quests.

 

Btw, another thing I'd like is to have the mini-map be a different color for the paths you've already visited, otherwise it's impossible to explore areas with lots of interconnecting paths and know if you already explored there or not.

 

I wouldn't say that. The games pretty much a hybrid between the two.

[GhostofAnakin]

It didn't drop the ball, it's an action RPG, not an RPG like KOTOR. The emphasis is on combat and loot, not character interaction and quests.

 

Eh, I disagree. Obsidian put their spin on the franchise, which was more emphasis on story and character, and less on hack & slash and loot. Just look at the complaints from DS1 & 2 fans that the game was changed significantly from the previous two installments, primarily about how there's less emphasis on combat and loot, and more story and deeper characters. So in that respect, it should be compared to games like KOTOR, NWN, Dragon Age, etc. because that's the sort of thing they were going for.

[Wrath of Dagon]

It didn't drop the ball, it's an action RPG, not an RPG like KOTOR. The emphasis is on combat and loot, not character interaction and quests.

 

Eh, I disagree. Obsidian put their spin on the franchise, which was more emphasis on story and character, and less on hack & slash and loot. Just look at the complaints from DS1 & 2 fans that the game was changed significantly from the previous two installments, primarily about how there's less emphasis on combat and loot, and more story and deeper characters. So in that respect, it should be compared to games like KOTOR, NWN, Dragon Age, etc. because that's the sort of thing they were going for.

Combat and loot are constant, so I don't see how there's less emphasis. Sure, they did add writing and characters, it wouldn't be an Obsidian game otherwise, but the structure is still quite different from the games you mentioned. Normal RPG quests involve lots of character interaction, in DS3 there's almost none, and what there is usually doesn't affect anything. It's always been called an action RPG, so I don't see how you can say that's not what they were going for. You could legitimately compare it to DAO, except DAO has a lot more pointless blather, and really tedious combat through repetitive boring levels. It's unbelievable to me how much DS3 is better than DAO, and obviously on a much smaller budget too.

[C2B]

I have to revise my statement. Its a hybrid between a lot of gernes. Somewhere between a ARPG, a Gauntlet like Console-Style ARPG an action game and a crpg.

 

Also what? There are several instances of charachters interaction. There are also 2-3 quests that are completly non-combat in Stonebridge. Remembering the past is actually one of my favourite Obsidian quests. And theres background/lore to all the quests.

Edited August 1, 2011 by C2B

[GhostofAnakin]

It's always been called an action RPG, so I don't see how you can say that's not what they were going for. You could legitimately compare it to DAO, except DAO has a lot more pointless blather, and really tedious combat through repetitive boring levels. It's unbelievable to me how much DS3 is better than DAO, and obviously on a much smaller budget too.

 

If I can legitimately compare it to DA:O, and DA:O has companion dialogue and sidequests associated with those companions, then why am I off by saying DS3 should have had that stuff too? Dragon Age 2 is another game that's an action RPG -- no chance in heck it's a strategic RPG, given how with the way enemies drop in from parachutes it's impossible to use any sort of strategy in combat and combat basically devolves into "smash button repeatedly until enemy is dead -- and it, too, has companion interaction and companion-specific sidequests.

 

I liked DS3, you don't have to convince me that it was a good game. But I think it's a valid comment to suggest they could have done more with the companion/party interactions than what was there. And I think comparing it to similar games that have that feature is also valid.

Edited August 1, 2011 by GhostofAnakin

[Wrath of Dagon]

With DAO they weren't trying to make an action RPG, the problem is their RPG elements weren't implemented well, so all you're left with is a bunch of filler combat where real RPG content should've been, so it plays like a bad action RPG. With DS3, Obsidian obviously set out to make an action RPG, so they never planned to put all the usual content you'd expect from an RPG. I'm not sure extended companion interactions would've fit here, or else they might as well have made a full RPG. Not that I'm against full RPG's, I just don't think that's what they were going for.

 

Edit: May be we're using the term ARPG with different meanings. I mean a game with primary emphasis on loot and combat, not that it has "actiony" combat. New Vegas for example also has "action" combat, but I wouldn't call it an ARPG.

Edited August 1, 2011 by Wrath of Dagon

[WorstUsernameEver]

Combat and loot are constant, so I don't see how there's less emphasis. Sure, they did add writing and characters, it wouldn't be an Obsidian game otherwise, but the structure is still quite different from the games you mentioned. Normal RPG quests involve lots of character interaction, in DS3 there's almost none, and what there is usually doesn't affect anything. It's always been called an action RPG, so I don't see how you can say that's not what they were going for. You could legitimately compare it to DAO, except DAO has a lot more pointless blather, and really tedious combat through repetitive boring levels. It's unbelievable to me how much DS3 is better than DAO, and obviously on a much smaller budget too.

 

It has an influence system, no-combat quests and puzzles. Nothing bad in asking those elements to be developed more, if you ask me.

[Wrath of Dagon]

I guess I'll have to get back to you on non-combat quests, I haven't done any yet. Puzzles have been as rudimentary as can be so far, though I don't see why an ARPG can't have puzzles. The main difference to me is precisely the reliance on character interaction and player choice, both for quests and for story, and by that criteria DS3 is definitely an ARPG.

[C2B]

I guess I'll have to get back to you on non-combat quests, I haven't done any yet. Puzzles have been as rudimentary as can be so far, though I don't see why an ARPG can't have puzzles. The main difference to me is precisely the reliance on character interaction and player choice, both for quests and for story, and by that criteria DS3 is definitely an ARPG.

 

Compared to every other Diablo Style ARPG I played there is a lot more of that around too. I'd think you already did fight Rajani? How was the conversation after not player choice?

[GhostofAnakin]

I guess I'll have to get back to you on non-combat quests, I haven't done any yet. Puzzles have been as rudimentary as can be so far, though I don't see why an ARPG can't have puzzles. The main difference to me is precisely the reliance on character interaction and player choice, both for quests and for story, and by that criteria DS3 is definitely an ARPG.

 

Are you saying DS3 has less player choice than your typical RPG? If anything, it's got more than most. And with some of those choices, it significantly changes things later on in the game (Rajani's outcome being one of the bigger examples of this).

 

Plus, there's tons of dialogue. I'm not sure how you can think there's less dialogue in this game than you'd find in games like DA, KOTOR, or NWN. The dialogue with NPCs is just as much as any other RPG I listed above. Click on any main quest (or even some sidequest) NPCs, and they'll go on for a novel about their issue and backstory behind the issue they want you to solve.

 

So it's not like Obsidian didn't spend time fleshing out dialogue with characters you meet. They just didn't apply that same amount to your companions, which is why that was one of my "wish list" for the next game.

[Wrath of Dagon]

I guess I'll have to get back to you on non-combat quests, I haven't done any yet. Puzzles have been as rudimentary as can be so far, though I don't see why an ARPG can't have puzzles. The main difference to me is precisely the reliance on character interaction and player choice, both for quests and for story, and by that criteria DS3 is definitely an ARPG.

 

Compared to every other Diablo Style ARPG I played there is a lot more of that around too. I'd think you already did fight Rajani? How was the conversation after not player choice?

You still have to fight her though, it's all scripted, you only make a choice afterwards. There may be a few points where you do make a decision, but for the most part you just have to fight your way through to solve the quest. Take the Sand People quest in KOTOR, there were multiple options to do it, and you didn't have to fight the Chief at all. There's a similar quest in DS3, but the only solution is combat. That's what I mean by different game structure.

 

As far as talking to NPC's, yes it's there but it's one sided. Mostly you just query them on different topics, there's normally no consequences except on influence. If Anakin meant he wanted more info from the companions, I guess that would've fit, but I don't see anything more extensive without going beyond the scope of what the game was meant to be.

Edited August 1, 2011 by Wrath of Dagon

[C2B]

I guess I'll have to get back to you on non-combat quests, I haven't done any yet. Puzzles have been as rudimentary as can be so far, though I don't see why an ARPG can't have puzzles. The main difference to me is precisely the reliance on character interaction and player choice, both for quests and for story, and by that criteria DS3 is definitely an ARPG.

 

Compared to every other Diablo Style ARPG I played there is a lot more of that around too. I'd think you already did fight Rajani? How was the conversation after not player choice?

You still have to fight her though, it's all scripted, you only make a choice afterwards. There may be a few points where you do make a decision, but for the most part you just have to fight your way through to solve the quest. Take the Sand People quest in KOTOR, there were multiple options to do it, and you didn't have to fight the Chief at all. There's a similar quest in DS3, but the only solution is combat. That's what I mean by different game structure.

 

As far as talking to NPC's, yes it's there but it's one sided. Mostly you just query them on different topics, there's normally no consequences except on influence. If Anakin meant he wanted more info from the companions, I guess that would've fit, but I don't see anything more extensive without going beyond the scope of what the game was meant to be.

 

So its like most rpg quests? Granted it isn't as muti-solution to tackle like other crpgs. But you still have choices (And these Choices still matter in multiple of these quests). And I have played multiple "CRPGs" that featured less options to deal with the result of these quests.

 

In fact in terms of dealing with Obsidian antagonists you have a lot of options to deal with the ones you meet during your journey. That aspect was very well done. The different options to do so were also easily justifiable. Also something thats not always the case in Obsidians games.

 

(A little Off-Topic but Jeyne probably is the most well done "grey" prime Obsidian antagonist. She has believable reasons for her actions and is as far away from a moustache twirler as you can get.)

Edited August 1, 2011 by C2B

[GhostofAnakin]

As far as talking to NPC's, yes it's there but it's one sided. Mostly you just query them on different topics, there's normally no consequences except on influence. If Anakin meant he wanted more info from the companions, I guess that would've fit, but I don't see anything more extensive without going beyond the scope of what the game was meant to be.

 

That's pretty much what I've been saying all along ...

 

I'm not sure what you thought I was referring to with regards to "more" when it came to your party companions.

[Starwars]

I think the main thing I would want in a sequel would be a world that simply feels a bit larger, with a bit more branching. A bit more content where the player has to search in order to find it. DS3 has sidequests and optional objectives but it's pretty much put right in the path of the main quest anyways so it's sorta pointless in that regard. Less of a corridor-design overall, open the quests and areas up a bit.

 

As far as the more "classic" RPG stuff goes, convos and choices and all that. Well, I'm the type of guy that will pretty much always welcome more choices in games so I would welcome that personally. But, what I mentioned above would be my number one thing to improve upon in a sequel I think.

[Sannom]

I think the main thing I would want in a sequel would be a world that simply feels a bit larger, with a bit more branching. A bit more content where the player has to search in order to find it. DS3 has sidequests and optional objectives but it's pretty much put right in the path of the main quest anyways so it's sorta pointless in that regard. Less of a corridor-design overall, open the quests and areas up a bit.

Yeah, it's funny because I think DS3 has some good old BG2-like side-quests in Raven's Rill, with Gunderic Manor and the Crypt of Heroes being entire dungeons dedicated to side-quests, and they are off the beaten path, even if not by much. Of course the player will always receive the quests, but still, I thought it was nice. Unless I missed something mandatory to do in those dungeons? For example, do we have to complete Gunderic Manor to get our second companion after the bridge? I'm playing Katarina and wanted to do the Manor with Lucas, but he wasn't at the bridge. Also, funny that you get a bigger insight into Leona's character by doing her quest after freeing Raven's Rill.

 

But later, there are no more of those. More dungeons like that in Stonebridge at least would have been nice!

[Wrath of Dagon]

Critical damage needs to be better explained. Right now I have no idea if the trade offs are worth it.

[Morgoth]

People seriously want a sequel to this underwhelming and unremarkable game?

 

Please.

[C2B]

People seriously want a sequel to this underwhelming and unremarkable game?

 

Please.

 

Oh, my. Other eople have different opinions than Morgoth. On the Obsidian boards. The horror.

 

(Meant as a joke)

Edited August 3, 2011 by C2B