Am I the only one like Dungeon Siege III?

[darkewaffle]

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.

You explained that because DS3 doesn't have "X", it's not worth playing because it "kills the experience"; I simply made a point that other games that don't have "X" are both playable and exceptional. Kind of like you lumping DS1/2 in the same league as DAO/FO3/NWN/et al despite their differences simply because they had "X".

"Functionality"? I think games are judged more often by how they play, not what they can do. A great feature on a lousy game is still a lousy game, a great game without extra features is still a great game. Primary and tertiary concerns for most.

And while they're fun, I don't think either of DS2 or DS3 really [would] take advantage of such a feature anyway, I wouldn't describe either of them as having much replay value given their fairly linear, actiony nature.

 

[thespyder]

You explained that because DS3 doesn't have "X", it's not worth playing because it "kills the experience"; I simply made a point that other games that don't have "X" are both playable and exceptional. Kind of like you lumping DS1/2 in the same league as DAO/FO3/NWN/et al despite their differences simply because they had "X".

Ok. One last time unto the breach. I compared DS3 in with games like Diablo, DS1-2, Baldur’s Gate and Titan Quest. All of these games are RPG games with heavy multi-player elements. All have Multi-player friendly and significantly better interfaces and utility than DS3. And since DS3 is a successor to both the Diablo series and a direct line descendant of DS1-2 which had significantly improved robust Multi-player functionality (ala the ability to build and carry across multiple “Campaigns&#8221 the lack is significant and noticeable.

If all other aspects of the game got 100% marks, the fact that the Multi-player component of a Multi-player focused franchise game is poorly designed at best would make for a poor game. As I have stated before, that is the major focus and driver for the franchise. You can play single player and you can play multi-player, but on it’s own, the Multi-player components of 1 and 2 are significantly better than in three. Game breaker. Then there are the poor targeting features and the general brevity of the game on top of that. Apples to Apples, DS3 does not compare to DS1 or even DS2 (which was not as good a game as DS1 but was MUCH better than DS3 for it’s time).

"Functionality"? I think games are judged more often by how they play, not what they can do. A great feature on a lousy game is still a lousy game, a great game without extra features is still a great game. Primary and tertiary concerns for most.

Multi-player is NOT an “Extra Feature”. It is the wholesale MAINSTAY of the franchise up to this point. On it’s own, DS1 and DS2 (much the same as the Diablo series before it and Titan Quest more recently), the Dungeon Siege franchise would never have gotten to a second game, much less a third one if not for the robust Multi-player. Neither game was that great without it. Or even very good. They were actually pretty mediocre without that function.

But even if what you say is true, apples to apples, DS1 and DS2 were pretty for their day and had reasonable stories, much like DS3. The fact that DS1-2 have the robust Multi-player make them better by definition than DS3. Or DS3 as WORSE. And DS3 has other problems as well. None of this is in contention. And no amount of avoiding the issue or obfuscating with other unrelated games or topics changes this.

And while they're fun, I don't think either of DS2 or DS3 really [would] take advantage of such a feature anyway, I wouldn't describe either of them as having much replay value given their fairly linear, actiony nature.

You make my case above without understanding it. DS1 and DS2 were intended to be dungeon crawls that you could do with friends. Their ‘replayability’ was almost exclusively in the robust Multi-play components. Components that you sell short and dismiss. Once I beat DS1 and 2 solo, I dove into playing online with friends. And now DS3 doesn’t even have that. What does that say.

 

[darkewaffle]

Ok. One last time unto the breach. I compared DS3 in with games like Diablo, DS1-2, Baldur’s Gate and Titan Quest. All of these games are RPG games with heavy multi-player elements.

Multiplayer was not the point of contention. You'd been going off that that the lack of "[progress] which can be maintained over multiple play-throughs" is what really would 'kill' it for you. That was the tie that bound it to those other games; multiplayer hasn't even been mentioned in the last few posts. They work together, yes, but are not mutually inclusive.

What I was getting at is that I don't think a 'new game plus' or 'import' feature (whatever you wish to call it, "persistent progress") would serve a purpose in DS3 and personally I thought it was wasted in DS2. When I beat DS2 I tried the second level of the campaign but for me the appeal of doing the exact same thing again with higher numbers just isn't there.

Between time spent in D2 and various MMOs I've more than had my fill of games passing off 'treasure hunting' as replayability or gameplay. I'm content to beat the game once and then maybe once with my friends and put it down. And considering that even if DS3 had more developed multiplayer capacity you'd still not be doing anything but, essentially, grinding the game for shiny items with big numbers, I don't see the need for it. I'd actually guess that's about the extent of DS2 multiplayer as well.

I think the co-op is appropriate to the scope and style of the game, nothing more.

 

[shortylickens]

BUMP!

I lied.
It didnt take me long to get tired and stop exploring. Combat is too cumbersome to keep playing for very long. Quests seem interesting, but there are too many long walks to get to important places.

I REALLY wish Microsoft hadnt sold off the franchise to Square. They dumbed it down and consolized it to the point of suck, and they probably ruined the series much like EA does with everything else.
I think they tried too hard to compete with the upcoming Diablo 3, which they cant beat anyway. Should have stuck with the old forumula instead of Generic Console Fantasy Action Game # 253.

 

[WT]

This thread at least spurred me to reinstall DS 2:Broken World and finish that expansion. I played the HELL out of DS1 and DS2, duped a crapload of items and used a coupla sweet mods, and even had DS3 on my short wishlist with Steam, but after perusing this thread, another playthru of DS2:BW is probably a better idea.

Luckily, I have CD/DVD media of all games so I don't have the MP issues that Steam users have.

 

[JamesV]

For reference Dungeon Siege is not an RPG. Its hack'n'slash with multiple people in your party, and some pretty nice art direction.

For reference, everyone has their own definition of what a RPG is.

Role playing can be simply building a character in a game that has no story and no dialog or interactions at all. I am defining the characters role by how I build them, and playing that character within it's role, which is role playing.

Alot of people will say something like The Witcher is role playing, playing against dialog trees, which I'd argue is a choose your own adventure and not a roleplaying game - you are not playing a role if you only have static limited options; you are choosing a path.

As for Dungeon Siege, picked up all 3 on sale at Steam, played 3 for about an hour, then put 12 hours into 1. DS 3 really isn't Dungeon Siege imo... take away the party and it's more Dungeon Solo. Can't siege a castle with one guy.