Am I the only one like Dungeon Siege III?

[Corporate Thug]

I picked it up on a whim from Amazon fro $5. I sank about 6 hours in it yesterday...pretty fun, basic, straight forward crawler I would say. The only think that I don't really like is (1) unlimited inventory takes out any incentive to make decision, just pillage all loot you run across and (2) the sell/barter system is a bit strange. I bought an expensive item from a seller. It took me forever to figure out where the item is stored, and now that I found it, I don't know how to use it -- not sure if seller sell from different classes or what.

Otherwise, very fun. I figure it's well worth the $5 for the 10-15 hours of entertainment I'll get out of it.

 

[Qbah]

Was fun for me too. I think I paid 20€? Easy and pretty brainless. Didn't expect much, didn't get much. 20€ was OK imo. 5$ is a great price!

 

[CPA]

I've put in about 27 hours and am enjoying it. Don't care for the save checkpoints, but it's not gamebreaking.

 

[Pheran]

I enjoyed playing co-op with a friend quite a bit, though I have the Xbox version. It's rather vanilla as RPGs go, but co-op makes it worthwhile.

 

[shortylickens]

Its OK. First was the best and the 2nd was decent. 3rd is pretty but not as much fun.

If they could redo the engine on 1, let you do higher res and/or widescreen I'd be quite happy. They wouldnt even have to remake the music or textures or anything.

 

[PrayForDeath]

Its OK. First was the best and the 2nd was decent. 3rd is pretty but not as much fun.

If they could redo the engine on 1, let you do higher res and/or widescreen I'd be quite happy. They wouldnt even have to remake the music or textures or anything.

Yea I've only played 1 and it was very addictive. Kept me glued to the screen for hours.

 

[shortylickens]

Yea I've only played 1 and it was very addictive. Kept me glued to the screen for hours.

Simple, intuitive yet fun gameplay is almost always a winner. A lot of folks complained F3 felt dumbed down compared to F2, but overall the public loved it.

 

[PrayForDeath]

Simple, intuitive yet fun gameplay is almost always a winner. A lot of folks complained F3 felt dumbed down compared to F2, but overall the public loved it.

On a side note, you're approaching the 33,333 number

 

[darkewaffle]

Me and a few friends got DS3 through the Steam sale a few weeks ago when it was down to like $20, we've actually had a blast playing co-op. The game itself isn't amazing and has a few things that could be done better; but it looks good, it isn't a complete pushover, and all four of us can play together at once.

 

[Raduque]

I tried the demo and couldn't get into it. Both the game, and the fact I couldn't get into it were very disappointing considering I loved the first two.

 

[thespyder]

I enjoyed playing co-op with a friend quite a bit, though I have the Xbox version. It's rather vanilla as RPGs go, but co-op makes it worthwhile.

Yeah, um.....???

From everything that I have read, the Multi-player is what killed it. The implementation was HORRIBLE. Really sucky camera angles on anyone except the "Main Character". The fact that you couldn't play with anything other than a generic character (no importing from one game to the next). Just some of the really horrendeous decisions made surrounding the game.

Every other poster I have seen has said that the single player was fairly medeocre but at least playable. And that anyone who played Multi-player immediately saw why the reviews were so low.

 

[darkewaffle]

The only substantial problem with multiplayer was the camera. Anyone hung up on the lack of 'importing'/'exporting' characters is just torqued because they feel like they aren't accomplishing anything if they don't have shiny items to show for it. It completely misses the scope and scale of the game; it's not an MMO, it's a game which can be played co-op. It's more Golden Axe or Shadow Over Mystara than Diablo 2 or WoW.

 

[thespyder]

The only substantial problem with multiplayer was the camera. Anyone hung up on the lack of 'importing'/'exporting' characters is just torqued because they feel like they aren't accomplishing anything if they don't have shiny items to show for it. It completely misses the scope and scale of the game; it's not an MMO, it's a game which can be played co-op. It's more Golden Axe or Shadow Over Mystara than Diablo 2 or WoW.

Which is more or less the point. The original DS games (1 and 2) were RPG games where you built a character that you could take into different games. What you have here is a total generic toon that starts fresh every single time you play. It's like saying "Don't get torked off that Mario and Luigi aren't in Super Mario Bros." It is the meat and bread of the game.

More or less it reduces a DS game to something like God of War. Great story. Lots of fun and action. Great graphics. But NO RPG elements what so ever. Not to knock GoW (one of my most favorite games of all time) but it isn't an RPG. So why a DS game (which should have been an RPG because that is what the Franchise was built on) that isn't an RPG?

Look, all I am saying is that the Franchise was originally Multi-player group action where you built up a toon that was uniquely yours. Then you took that toon into multi-player games and played with other unique characters. Players built different ability sets and collected unique items to augment the play. None of that is in evidence in DS3.

And you and I have discussed this before. You appear to enjoy the rich story lines but don't like any of the "Decisions" that go with an RPG. While I think you are missing out on the true wonder of an RPG, I respect that isn't your preference. Those of us who enjoyed DS 1 and 2 enjoyed it for exactly the aspects that were stripped out of DS3 almost to a teee.... hence the horrible reviews and all of the major bad press about the game.

And at the end of the day, saying that an RPG style game without RPG elements is a "Good game" is like saying that Halo would be a good game without shooting or killing anyone. It's fundamental elements to the type of game that it is that are missing.

Not to mention that the other aspect that I read really sux about the game was the simple game mechanics of attack. With the PC DS1 and 2, you point and click your enemy. With the new one, you manuvered in the direction of an enemy and hit attack (and hoped).

 

[darkewaffle]

Generic toon? Starting over? Have you even played the game? You assume the role of one of the story characters, just because you can't customize their hair doesn't make it "not an RPG". That seems like an extremely narrow description of an entire genre if that's your tipping point.

Traditional RPG elements abound, you're free to pick and choose which quests you take. You can be a jerk and demand compensation for everything you do, you can be a goodie two shoes and refuse it all. You can explore every nook and cranny of every map for every last chest and side quest and special enemy or charge straight to the end. Character appearance changes with equipment, levelling up allows you to customize abilities to specialize or create a playstyle, you can take control of any of your companions at any given time and customize all their equipment as well.

Whether that defines a RPG to you or not is irrelevant, but you can't really argue that these are not typical RPG mechanics. It's an arcadey RPG, ultimately not that different than DS2, just shallower. But only because DS2 was a larger game with more sidequesting; they're both very action oriented with fairly linear stories. I don't know if you're looking at it with rose tinted glasses or what, but I played DS2 pretty extensively and there was not much there to 'reduce'. Doesn't mean I didn't enjoy it, but referring to it like some kind of heavy RPG is really off the mark.

And unless you're trying to play with a new host every time (eg: again, completely missing the concept. trying to treat it like an mmo or diablo clone.) then you aren't starting over. I played with the same three friends every time. We each played the same character every time, picking up right where we left off, same gear same gold same levels same specialties. What's the problem here aside from "I can't take my shiny items back to my computer"? But even if you could, just what exactly are you going to do with them? Running people through the story is meaningless, 'farming' gear is senseless, and there's no bank to store the stuff in even if you wanted to keep it.

 

[thespyder]

so yet again you and I are going to have to agree to disagree. To me an RPG isn't only about rich and diverse storyline with multiple paths. It is also unique and customizable character which can be maintained over multiple play-throughs (ala.. Diablo/Titan Quest/DS1-2, BG-Series, IWD-Series, NWN1-2, DA:O, Fallout, etc...). All of which have BOTH elements, not just the diverse story line. Failure to have one half of that equation means it is 1/2 (or less) of the game that the other ones. so this factor alone would kill the experience for me for DS3.

As for completely missing the concept, I think you are taking the game's failure and setting THAT as the concept. In other words, you are artificially setting the bar far lower than it should be and saying "See. This game meets X need and Y need is above and beyond (and therefore unnecessary)". That may be just fine for your play style. But if you compare the original two to that criteria, they are twice the game that DS3 was. I liked DS1-2 but found them to be more or less Diablo but with better graphics. So therefore derivative and not very original. Minus even the ability to extend my toon across multiple "Campaigns" it would have fallen FAR short of even the Diablo experience and not been worth my time.

Not to mention the camera angles and the "Consolized" targeting system which made it even more un-playable (in my view).

 

[StinkyPinky]

I'd buy it for $5 if it was on Steam. I expect they will have a -66% or even -75% sale on it this sale.

 

[darkewaffle]

so yet again you and I are going to have to agree to disagree. To me an RPG isn't only about rich and diverse storyline with multiple paths. It is also unique and customizable character which can be maintained over multiple play-throughs (ala.. Diablo/Titan Quest/DS1-2, BG-Series, IWD-Series, NWN1-2, DA:O, Fallout, etc...). All of which have BOTH elements, not just the diverse story line. Failure to have one half of that equation means it is 1/2 (or less) of the game that the other ones. so this factor alone would kill the experience for me for DS3.

If that's what it takes, I guess it would kill the experience for Skyrim, Oblivion, The Witcher, The Witcher 2, just about any Zelda or Final Fantasy game, Half-life, Half-life 2, KOTOR, Dragon Age (You can import to Awakening, to far as I recall that's it) and I'd bet countless others, true? I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill. It can be a fun feature, but given the scope of DS3's story and the arcadey direction of the co-op rather than a MMO style multiplayer, it wouldn't really serve a purpose.

As for completely missing the concept, I think you are taking the game's failure and setting THAT as the concept. In other words, you are artificially setting the bar far lower than it should be and saying "See. This game meets X need and Y need is above and beyond (and therefore unnecessary)". That may be just fine for your play style. But if you compare the original two to that criteria, they are twice the game that DS3 was. I liked DS1-2 but found them to be more or less Diablo but with better graphics. So therefore derivative and not very original. Minus even the ability to extend my toon across multiple "Campaigns" it would have fallen FAR short of even the Diablo experience and not been worth my time.

There have been successful and revered games designed this way. Shadow Over Mystara is one of most highly praised arcade games of all time; DS3's co-op setup is remarkably similar. Co-op requires multiple players, but co-op modes and multiplayer modes are not the same ideas. It's not what you want, fine, but treating it as though it's inherently flawed is quite unfair. Hell, it's not that different from a LAN party; localized multiplayer.

Not to mention the camera angles and the "Consolized" targeting system which made it even more un-playable (in my view).

Yea the auto-aim was pretty strong, but pointing and clicking is still pointing and clicking. I mean there's nothing stopping you from putting your cursor right over your enemy's head, it's just if you twitch and click the ground beside it, you're still going to hit.

You appear to enjoy the rich story lines but don't like any of the "Decisions" that go with an RPG.

Huh? If you're playing any Dungeon Siege game looking for a rich storyline then you're looking in the wrong place. My point was that your character's weren't "generic", they were simply pre-defined by the plot. You aren't making your own identity in Ehb, you're taking up the mantle of an already existing 'person'.

 

[shortylickens]

For reference Dungeon Siege is not an RPG. Its hack'n'slash with multiple people in your party, and some pretty nice art direction.
In that sense it is either better or worse than Titan Quest depending on your priorities.

If you like custom building one character to be perfect, then you want TQ.
If you like managing a party to be balanced and fun, but dont care if individuals sometimes lose their unique flavor, DS is for you.

Also, you cant warp around in DS and monster never respawn. If you suddenly realize you dont like how you've built your characters, you are permanently boned. In TQ and D2, you can keep reloading, hacking through the same monsters, and grinding your XP up. You can also buy back skill points and redistribute them to make the perfect character for any situation. If a boss with elemental damage is kicking your butt, you can redo skills to better protect yourself. I had to when I realized the scroll of elemental resistance wasnt powerful enough by itself and you can only use scrolls once every couple minutes. Also I couldnt find enough resistance armor in the shops.

 

[KaOTiK]

I never played the original 2 DS games, but I liked DS3 and was happy with it.

 

[you2]

The 2nd DS was ok (not great); i really didn't like the first at all. Titan quest was (significantly) better than both ds 1 and ds2 imho.

 

[thespyder]

...snip...

Really honestly trying to determine if you are trolling or if you are honestly not getting the point.

In either case, have fun with DS3. Or DA2 as you have stated you also enjoyed.

Neither are what I consider even medeocre games.

 

[shortylickens]

OK, you guys convinced me.
I went ahead and have DS 3 a second glance. Aside from the glaring consolitis and the fact I despise Square for raping one of my favorite franchises, I am actually enjoying myself. The art direction and graphics are simply gorgeous, gameplay is mediocre but still having fun exploring.
Playing the pirate babe and got myself some nice weapons. Have a rifle that vampires health and a shotgun that bleeds extra damage. Combat is kind of a snooze, but not so bad I wanna stop exploring.

Since I got absolutely nothing going on over the holidays, I may keep at this. If it gets better I'll continue playing during the school year.


STILL want a remake of DS 1 though. Not gonna give up on that.

 

[you2]

Yea; it is a fun little game (kind of short); but not really the same sort of game as ds or titan quest.
-
Grim Dawn should be good if that is the sort of game you want. I was never a huge fan of the DS games because they had potential never realized.
-
What I really want is a DS like game with a quest tree like dragon knight saga or wizadry 8. THe problem with DS (for me) was that interactions and choices you made were horribly bland to non existing. The problem (for me) with a game like skyrim is that the store line lacks emotion and direction. I don't mind a game with a bit of direction but i want the deep development. In recent years I think Dragon Age was best in this area (story telling); I just didn't care for the actual mechanics of the game - so taking something like titan quest, bg2 or wizardry 8 (all three have different mechanics; so it depends on the play style - titan quest is twitch; bg2 is closer to wizadry 8 but pausing is optional) and tossing in Dragon Age story telling and that would be the sort of game I want.

 

[darkewaffle]

Really honestly trying to determine if you are trolling or if you are honestly not getting the point.

In either case, have fun with DS3. Or DA2 as you have stated you also enjoyed.

Neither are what I consider even medeocre games.

Your point came across as "I heard it was bad and it's not what I want. That makes it a bad game." Fair enough for you, but if you insist on dropping in a thread to give your uninformed opinion on a game you haven't even played, expect some feedback.

I paid for it, I played it. It was fun, it has redeeming qualities. It's a decent game.

 

[thespyder]

Your point came across as "I heard it was bad and it's not what I want. That makes it a bad game." Fair enough for you, but if you insist on dropping in a thread to give your uninformed opinion on a game you haven't even played, expect some feedback.

I paid for it, I played it. It was fun, it has redeeming qualities. It's a decent game.

Hmm. My opinion is uninformed yet you are the one comparing it to Half Life and to Zelda. Interesting.

It's a decent game? That doesn't have half of the functionality of the previous game in the franchise. Much like DA2 was a "Decent game"? Nuff said.

But at least you answered my question.