Dungeon Siege 3 - PC Demo On Steam

Am I hearing that if you want to enjoy this game, you *must* have a console controller?
Hey, why not add that you have to get a wheel with breaks and especially great gameplay you'll have if your good old joystick you used with c-64 still works.

For god's sakes…

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
I liked Duke a lot in my teens, but I'd take one Obsidian game over ten Dukes

Well, that depends. If we could get a true sequel to Duke Nukem 3D that actually lived up to the original, I'd take that over anything from Obsidian.

Personally, Obsidian has never blown me away, and I've never understood the way they're placed on a pedestal by some people around here. I've yet to be really impressed by anything they've done.

That said, I still haven't played FO:NV yet, and I've got a feeling that I might really like that one.

I like the new character cutomization system in this, most people in the original dungeon seiges 1 had one class tree and not a mix because mixed classes were very weak. And the 2 optional paths per skill. I think that the story is decent from what i can tell but its dungeon seige so its not a big deal to me. I think the problem is that the controls for the 2 heroes in the demo lend themselves to the controller rather than a mouse and KB.

Some of the complaints are ludicrous here though. Complaining a cage wasnt made of metal? An npc wasnt wounded in combat but it says he was wounded in it? I get the feeling that people were expectign the witcher when they were playing this.

If the biggest problem is the PC controls, it's not really an issue. That sort of thing can be fixed in a patch.

I liked it personally.

I don't think the PC controls were as bad as some make them out to be, though there is certainly something off about them and they could use some improvement (notably, where's key mapping FFS ?)

Arguably it doesn't feel much like the original Dungeon Siege, but since DS was hardly anything to write home about, I can't say I care.

If anything it feels more like a spiritual sequel to Snowblinds's Dark Alliance/Champion of Norath games - which is certainly fine by me since these where very good hack'n slash games!

So yeah I've really enjoyed the demo, as far as hack'n slash goes it seems really good, so unless you come in expecting some sort of actual RPG, I see no cause for dissapointment here.

(On a side note Obsidian's Onyx engine looks pretty neat)

-Sergorn

Originally Posted by Damian Mahadevan
Some of the complaints are ludicrous here though. Complaining a cage wasnt made of metal? An npc wasnt wounded in combat but it says he was wounded in it? I get the feeling that people were expectign the witcher when they were playing this.

I don't think it's ludicrous at all. Expecting a plot, even a thin one, to make sense and operate within its own set of rules is not the same thing as expecting Shakespeare. It's one thing if something is being presenting as intentional campy shlock or ridiculous farce, but I expect even a light romp with a bare bones story to be coherent. It doesn't have to be epic but it needs to make sense.

Originally Posted by JDR13
Personally, Obsidian has never blown me away, and I've never understood the way they're placed on a pedestal by some people around here. I've yet to be really impressed by anything they've done.

I feel the same way. I've certainly enjoyed every Obsidian release (although I haven't gotten around to playing New Vegas yet), but I've never felt like any of their games were truly spectacular or great in any way. I think the love-fest for Obsidian in certain corners boils down to two things: They are a humble "underdog" company, which makes them an easy-to-like developer that you want to pull for, and some of their team members have ties to the Black Isle Studios days.

Personally, I'm pulling for Obsidian not because of its ties to Black Isle but because they are one of the few studios that give a damn about writing and story. You should really try FO:NV - it's a great game from an RPG perspective.

So, are you solo in this or can get get NPC's to join you?

Originally Posted by aries100
It is the publishers that'll decide whether or not a patch is coming or not.
As I played, the demo, I found the same issues with the demo (and the full game, probably) as Brumbek did.

I know it's the publishers. Problem is most of Obsidian's games are so buggy and flawed at release that they get horrible reviews which makes the publisher not want to invest in a patch. So it's still Obsidian's fault.

Originally Posted by exmachinax
I'm tired of hearing how a demo can be used to judge a game.

Yes you can, and are in fact, supposed to. The word "demonstration", defined as something that proves or makes evident. DS3 demo proved and made evident how bad DS3 will be.

Originally Posted by Damian Mahadevan
Some of the complaints are ludicrous here though. Complaining a cage wasnt made of metal? An npc wasnt wounded in combat but it says he was wounded in it?

I expect a coherent and logical story. Why should DS3 not be on the same level as a proper RPG? DS3 costs $50, Witcher 2 costs $50. Why the pass for DS3? It's time we treat Obsidian as we do other dev's, no more of this, "Well, it's good for an Obsidian game."

Originally Posted by Motoki
I don't think it's ludicrous at all. Expecting a plot, even a thin one, to make sense and operate within its own set of rules is not the same thing as expecting Shakespeare. It's one thing if something is being presenting as intentional campy shlock or ridiculous farce, but I expect even a light romp with a bare bones story to be coherent. It doesn't have to be epic but it needs to make sense.

Thank you for understanding my comment, Motoki! At least you and I realize a story should be internally consistent. I might be willing to forgive such foolish story presentation if the gameplay was good, but as we also discussed, it ain't.

I think it's great and I played it on PC - the controls were not that bad in my opinion.

Hardcore is actually hardcore, character customization is fun though not as diverse as I would have liked. The story is better than I expected and dialogue is fairly engaging for a button smasher. Flavor text is nice, combat is tactical.

I don't know what people where expecting from this one. It never wanted to be a Dragon Age or Witcher type of game.
.

Originally Posted by Brumbek
I know it's the publishers. Problem is most of Obsidian's games are so buggy and flawed at release that they get horrible reviews which makes the publisher not want to invest in a patch. So it's still Obsidian's fault.

Except LucasArts invested in patches (well they refused to invest for them to reintegrate cut contents, but they did let them patch the major issues), so did Atari, or Bethesda.

Indeed as a matter of fact in all of Obsidian's history only SEGA did not let them patch their game. And it's pretty clear they didn't want to invest anything in Alpha Protocol : they sat on the completed game for SIX MONTH without never even announcing its delay until the official release date had passed. Even worst they did not even let Obsidian continue working on the game during this time while they could have. They also did not even bother to have the game's voice acting localised in other langage which for this kind of "cinematic CRPG" is basically unheard of and proof if anything they wanted to invest as little as possible on it. And advertizing ? What advertising ?

There's no way you can blame Obsidian for not patching Alpha Protocol - Sega could have had them solve issues before it was even released but they refused to spent a single more dime on it. Their fault.

My belief is that there was some really bad blood between Obsidian and Sega, possibly due to the cancellation of Aliens Crucible (I wish we'd get the full story on that one), and Alpha Protocol kinda paid the price for it.

(Oh and thus far Alpha Protocol is the only Obsidian game that was a commercial failure, KOTOR2, NWN2 and New Vegas all sold very well)

-Sergorn

Originally Posted by Sergorn
There's no way you can blame Obsidian for not patching Alpha Protocol - Sega could have had them solve issues before it was even released but they refused to spent a single more dime on it. Their fault.

That might be true, but your judgment of the situation is too one-sided. You just can't assign all the blame to the publisher.

The people in charge at Obsidian knew very well that Sega was a risky publisher with a bad track record. But they took the risk, I assume because they wanted to have a shot at their own IP, they wanted to develop the game they wanted to make. And they took the risk on the back of their fans, knowing that the post release support would be dodgy at best.

Originally Posted by Motoki
I don't think it's ludicrous at all. Expecting a plot, even a thin one, to make sense and operate within its own set of rules is not the same thing as expecting Shakespeare. It's one thing if something is being presenting as intentional campy shlock or ridiculous farce, but I expect even a light romp with a bare bones story to be coherent. It doesn't have to be epic but it needs to make sense.

What is coherent? Where would witches get a hold of metal cages and carry them there? May the delivery system they have there isnt as advanced as ours today? Ans saying the wood has been cursed for so long in other games to block magic in other games or in a way has been ok for so long why complain about it now?

As for the wounded in combat that wasnt wounded in combat, assume he stepped on glasss or something, i suspect that he was supposed to take a few hits normally. And again a lot of games do this in the past. No one ever complained about this in the past why start now?

It seems most people here are trying to find fault with the game then to enjoy the game for what it is.

I expect a coherent and logical story. Why should DS3 not be on the same level as a proper RPG? DS3 costs $50, Witcher 2 costs $50. Why the pass for DS3? It's time we treat Obsidian as we do other dev's, no more of this, "Well, it's good for an Obsidian game."

I knwo i am goign to get a lot of flak for this but does Witcher 2 have a vast loot system, did witcher 2 have much tactical combat? Multiplayer? They are not the same.

I think it's fine to not like DS3, I can certainly understand why. But the complaints about coherent and logical stories as raised in this thread isarejust hogwash and would apply to most RPGs, even ones that are more realistic in tone than DS3 (a very loot-heavy hack'n'slasher). Hell, in the Witcher 2 (a game that I would say aims for a much more "realistic" and down-to-earth tone) guards react to me drawing my sword in town (good) but at the same time I'm completely free to barge into people's homes and take all their stuff. Not to mention stuff like pwning Letho in the actual gameplay portion, only to have him defeat you in the cutscene after.

The cage complaints, and the guy getting wounded in DS3 are about the nitpickiest complaints I've heard. That's not excusing OEI. If it comes down to it, it's excusing every damn RPG maker ever.

Originally Posted by Sergorn
There's no way you can blame Obsidian for not patching Alpha Protocol

Well yes, mainly because AP did get patched. It got patched relatively late and in a somewhat bizarre fashion with Sega releasing the US version (without telling anyone it was US only) with no fanfare well prior to the international one plus they barely mentioned when the international version was released either; and not all issues got fixed- but then it's very rare for all issues to be fixed no matter who the publisher/ developers are.

(Oh and thus far Alpha Protocol is the only Obsidian game that was a commercial failure, KOTOR2, NWN2 and New Vegas all sold very well)

That bears repeating.

For DS3 specifically, Squeenix seems to have quite reasonable aims. They weren't talking Ray/ Greg style of needing to sell 10 million copies, but of aiming for 1 million. DS3 clearly is not a huge project in terms of team or financing, hence its apparently rather limited scope.

Originally Posted by exmachinax
I'm tired of hearing how a demo can be used to judge a game.
Because it is a small PART of a game and can't be used to JUDGE a WHOLE game.

A demo obviously serves to people see if they have interest in buying the WHOLE game. And that's it. Just like the trailer for a movie, or some free chapter of a book. It serves to attract (or not) people to it.

But you can't JUDGE a WHOLE product (be it a game, movie or book) just by experimenting a small part of it.

Yes I can. Every demo I tried that was shit the full game was shit to. Dont make excuses for the developers.

I can't believe all this drama over an action rpg…

first of all, sorry for my broken english.

DS3 is the perfect exemple why developper should concentrate their work either on PC or console. Im sad to see some great game that could have been so much more if they werent trying to adapt their game on both system at once. U see what they trying to do, and they fail so badly by doing so.

I tried the demo of ds3 on PC and the menus and interface are beyond garbage. Tell me about non intuitive way to enter , select, equip, manage and view item /spell/etc… I could have pass the interface and have a great time if the game was playable… and no.. the control are worst than the menu… i died like 6 time on the witches at the end of demo because i couldnt avoid and run back her AoE. the camera always getting stuck and there is no decent ways to really control the character when you have to be quick and react. Too bad, cuz, since torchlight, i desperetly search for a good hack-n-slash. I would enjoy DS3, the combat system seem interesting, the spell and abilities appears to be fun.. but when i have to fight more against the character than the mob, my fun rapidly decrease.

DS3.. you have to fix that, you were so close to become my medication for ''waiting Diablo 3''…

Originally Posted by exmachinax
I'm tired of hearing how a demo can be used to judge a game.
Because it is a small PART of a game and can't be used to JUDGE a WHOLE game.

A demo obviously serves to people see if they have interest in buying the WHOLE game. And that's it. Just like the trailer for a movie, or some free chapter of a book. It serves to attract (or not) people to it.

But you can't JUDGE a WHOLE product (be it a game, movie or book) just by experimenting a small part of it.

That is not true. And u said it yourself :''A demo obviously serves to people see if they have interest in buying the WHOLE game''.. So basicaly, it serve to judge if we gonna love the whole adventure. And by that, developpers have some advantage to show us the best part of the game, so we can be impress.. A movie trailer serve this exact same purpose; When u see a bad trailer, u will not think that maybe the movie still good, even if the trailer suck.. u just know that you arent going to like it.

Plus, with a game demo, we defenitely can judge the accuracy of control, the interface and try the combat mechanics (things that will not change in the entire game). DS3 failed in all those ways (that my opinion, i agree). So yes, I can Judge DS3 fail to deliver something that worth 50$, my 50$ at least.