Dungeon Siege II Rant

racolvin

Golden Member
Jul 26, 2004
1,254
0
0
First, take a look at my sig below and you can see the rig I'm running - not the hottest thing on wheels but its no slouch for stock with no overclocking.

Picked up DSII for myself and the wife this weekend, since we both liked the first one and we like to play together over our LAN. First thing I notice is that it comes on 4 CDs, not a DVD. Well, at least CompUSA didn't have a DVD version if one exists. "Lame" was all I could say.

Got it all loaded up and looked at the game options. Highest res supported on standard install is 1280x1024 but that's only once you're playing. The setup, character generation, and other interface options seem to be done in 800x600 for heavens sake! The graphic of the DSII logo and all the other interface controls is blocky and downright FUGLY. Reminds me of the way things looked on my Commodore 64 or an Apple IIe. That 800x600 stretched out on my 1920x1200 monitor was just nasty looking.

Once I got in-game, things didn't improve much. I had found a tip on the widescreen gaming forum on editing a file to raise the resolution support in-game and used that. Best it would do is 1600x1200, so I got a better resolution anyway. But the actual in-game graphics are, in my eye, no better than the ones from DS1! They took years to make DSII and this is the best they could do!?! I mean, I expect my characters to look like that in games like Age of Mythology or Battle for Middle Earth, since they have to be more simplistic for the computer to render so bloody many of them and animate them at once. But DSII doesn't have that sort of problem - there aren't hundreds of characters on screen at once moving and doing stuff, so why does this look like DS1 still? Wasn't all this wait supposed to be about mind-blowing graphics and the like?

Ah well, suffice to say I'm sorely disappointed. The wife and I will still play it (can't return it anyway), but after all the wait and the hype, I expected better.

R
 

Elcs

Diamond Member
Apr 27, 2002
6,278
6
81
Looking at it from 2 metres away on my dads 15" 25ms LCD, sempron 2400+, gf4 ti4400.... it looks goood.
 

grimlykindo

Senior member
Jan 27, 2005
546
0
0
You are definately right about the main screen being at 800X600 - I looks like sh!t

But once in game it looks AMAZING on my Samsung 997DF 19" CRT w/ X800XL

I run at 1280X1024 cuz at 1600X1200 the text was too small for my bad vision

I think its fact that you cannot use your optimal resolution on your LCD. Also it seem that the game probabaly wasn't designed to be played above 1280X1024.
 

InfiniteLurker

Senior member
Mar 3, 2004
235
1
81
Crap - I was looking forward to getting this, but I'm running the 2405 as well... Oh well, I'll just keep play HL2 - since that is a damn beautiful thing at 1920x1200...

(maybe we'll have better luck if Diablo III ever gets produced? :D)
 

Xyclone

Lifer
Aug 24, 2004
10,312
0
76
Originally posted by: InfiniteLurker
Crap - I was looking forward to getting this, but I'm running the 2405 as well... Oh well, I'll just keep play HL2 - since that is a damn beautiful thing at 1920x1200...

(maybe we'll have better luck if Diablo III ever gets produced? :D)

Diablo III! :heart:
 

duragezic

Lifer
Oct 11, 1999
11,234
4
81
Wouldn't DS2 at 1280x1024 look okay on the 2405FPW if you unscaled it so it had a little bit of black bars on the top and bottom and a couple of inches worth on the sides?
 

Hadsus

Golden Member
Aug 14, 2003
1,135
0
76
Originally posted by: duragezic
Wouldn't DS2 at 1280x1024 look okay on the 2405FPW if you unscaled it so it had a little bit of black bars on the top and bottom and a couple of inches worth on the sides?

Yeah, don't the Dells have the option of simply displaying the game screen at at 1:1 pixel ratio.....so that you can play with no interpolation but with the bars?

Still, I can't help but laugh. All this gushing about the 2405 and 'once you go LCD you won't go back to CRT.' It's not the game's fault, it's the monitor! :laugh:
 

racolvin

Golden Member
Jul 26, 2004
1,254
0
0
You can do the scaling thing if you use the analog connection ..if you use DVI, you can't.

Once I found the file to edit and change the res to 1600x1200, it looks so-so, except for the characers themselves. The environments looks nice as usual, but the toons themselves seem under-done somehow. I think my biggest beef is really that the game doesn't "look" any better than DS1, which makes me wonder what all this delay in getting DS2 out was. Supposedly it was a huge graphics update but so far I just don't see any improvement over the old one.

Some of the game mechanics are different sure, but did that take a few years worth of work?

Oh well

R
 

Schadenfroh

Elite Member
Mar 8, 2003
38,416
4
0
Originally posted by: Xyclone
Originally posted by: InfiniteLurker
Crap - I was looking forward to getting this, but I'm running the 2405 as well... Oh well, I'll just keep play HL2 - since that is a damn beautiful thing at 1920x1200...

(maybe we'll have better luck if Diablo III ever gets produced? :D)

Diablo III! :heart:

No Diablo III for you
 

Slickone

Diamond Member
Dec 31, 1999
6,120
0
0
As soon as I saw screenshots with the Final Fantasy rainbow of colors, I moved on. What happened? DS's weren't like that were they? Reminds me of some of the overcolored Diablo clones, like Revenant.
 

daveybrat

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Jan 31, 2000
5,752
958
126
It looks great to me on my Samsung 19" CRT and Geforce 6800. The graphics aren't revolutionary over the first, but the gameplay is still fun and i'm already addicted.

:)
 

racolvin

Golden Member
Jul 26, 2004
1,254
0
0
For those of you with 19 and 20" CRT - set your game resolution to 800x600 and you'll be able to get an idea of what I"m talking about :)
 

networkman

Lifer
Apr 23, 2000
10,436
1
0
I have a 21" CRT and run at 1024x768 - looks fine to me. But I didn't buy the game for the extreme graphics because NEWS FLASH! there aren't any. The reviews covered that - the graphics look about the same as the original Dungeon Siege; heck, it wouldn't surprise me if they used the exact same graphics library and merely added to it.. a little.
 

Hadsus

Golden Member
Aug 14, 2003
1,135
0
76
I've been back and forth on this one. I kinda liked the first one though I thought it was too easy. Reviews indicate that it's more of the same. For those who played DS 1, does DS 2 offer more of a challenge? If it doesn't I think I'll skip.
 

Xyclone

Lifer
Aug 24, 2004
10,312
0
76
Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
Originally posted by: Xyclone
Originally posted by: InfiniteLurker
Crap - I was looking forward to getting this, but I'm running the 2405 as well... Oh well, I'll just keep play HL2 - since that is a damn beautiful thing at 1920x1200...

(maybe we'll have better luck if Diablo III ever gets produced? :D)

Diablo III! :heart:

No Diablo III for you

Thanks for crushing my dreams, Schadenfroh, I no longer love you. :brokenheart:
 

brxndxn

Diamond Member
Apr 3, 2001
8,475
0
76
Wahahh.. wahhhh wahhhh wahhh!!!


I want my pretty graphics! I spent $600 on a video card and a million dollars on a monitor and I want all games to be the most beautiful thing since I never go outside! Wahh.. I don't rant about gameplay one bit. I only rant about graphics graphics graphics.. Wahh.. It's not pretty!

Ya.. DS2 doesn't have the best graphics around (though, they're still pretty good).. but I have found the gameplay to be absolutely wonderful - especially when compared to the lack of good RPGs (not mmorpgs) available.
 

Avalon

Diamond Member
Jul 16, 2001
7,567
156
106
News Flash:

When they released the original game, GPG said they were going to be using the same Siege engine for future titles. I already knew the graphics were going to look the same. However, they did do a nice job touching up on spell effects and the environment. Monsters are a bit more detailed as well.

Regardless, it's an RPG. You play it for the gameplay, not for it to outdo HL2 and D3's graphics. At least we only waited 3 years for this as opposed to Diablo 2 taking five.

So far, I'm enjoying this game as much as I enjoyed the original. I'm also wondering if there is a "chicken" level. I think I may have stumbled upon the entrance to such a place, but I do not understand the riddle it gave me.
 

GagHalfrunt

Lifer
Apr 19, 2001
25,284
1,996
126
Originally posted by: Hadsus
I've been back and forth on this one. I kinda liked the first one though I thought it was too easy. Reviews indicate that it's more of the same. For those who played DS 1, does DS 2 offer more of a challenge? If it doesn't I think I'll skip.


Skip it. Play balance is a joke, mostly you're just wading through whole hoardes of things that have not got the slightest chance of hurting you. No special tactics necessary, no good reflexes necessary, just point at monsters, click and they die. What's really annoying is that you can't save your position. When you save you restart back in the nearest town and everything you killed respawns. So you have to fight over the same piece of terrain and rekill the same bad guys just to get back to where you were. Truly miserable excuse for a game, in a lot of ways it's even worse than DS1.
 

AiponGkooja

Senior member
Jan 2, 2005
367
0
0
Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt
Originally posted by: Hadsus
I've been back and forth on this one. I kinda liked the first one though I thought it was too easy. Reviews indicate that it's more of the same. For those who played DS 1, does DS 2 offer more of a challenge? If it doesn't I think I'll skip.


Skip it. Play balance is a joke, mostly you're just wading through whole hoardes of things that have not got the slightest chance of hurting you. No special tactics necessary, no good reflexes necessary, just point at monsters, click and they die. What's really annoying is that you can't save your position. When you save you restart back in the nearest town and everything you killed respawns. So you have to fight over the same piece of terrain and rekill the same bad guys just to get back to where you were. Truly miserable excuse for a game, in a lot of ways it's even worse than DS1.

K, now how about you take it off of "omg I'm a little sissy" difficulty mode and see if you can wade into the hordes. :p That's the one thing I didn't like about DS1, but it lets you change difficulty WHILE playing, so I found a good spot for me.
 

GagHalfrunt

Lifer
Apr 19, 2001
25,284
1,996
126
Originally posted by: AiponGkooja
Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt
Originally posted by: Hadsus
I've been back and forth on this one. I kinda liked the first one though I thought it was too easy. Reviews indicate that it's more of the same. For those who played DS 1, does DS 2 offer more of a challenge? If it doesn't I think I'll skip.


Skip it. Play balance is a joke, mostly you're just wading through whole hoardes of things that have not got the slightest chance of hurting you. No special tactics necessary, no good reflexes necessary, just point at monsters, click and they die. What's really annoying is that you can't save your position. When you save you restart back in the nearest town and everything you killed respawns. So you have to fight over the same piece of terrain and rekill the same bad guys just to get back to where you were. Truly miserable excuse for a game, in a lot of ways it's even worse than DS1.

K, now how about you take it off of "omg I'm a little sissy" difficulty mode and see if you can wade into the hordes. :p That's the one thing I didn't like about DS1, but it lets you change difficulty WHILE playing, so I found a good spot for me.


If you feed your pet enough decent treasure to buff it out it can wade through the hordes without you. You don't even have to show up at all. The only people who could possibly like this piece of tripe are losers with low self-esteem looking for a game so easy that it beats itself.
 

warcrow

Lifer
Jan 12, 2004
11,078
11
81
I'm currently playing it at 1680x1050 on a 6800 Ultra. The game looks pretty good. Fun game.