I cannot detect Obsidian in Dungeon Siege 3.

[sea]

Let's compare DS2 and DS3 (I didn't play full DS3 so correct me if I'm wrong.)

Party: DS2 has it (and each party member has a big sidequest only he/she can activate), in DS3 you only have one follower.
Gameplay: DS2 let you control each of your party members (and activate special attacks which are crucial for winning certain encounters), in DS3 you control only one character.
Character system: DS2 didn't have classes or levels and characters developed skills they used, in DS3 Obsidian intoduced classes and experience points on level-ups.
Co-op: in DS2 it wasn't fucked up, whereas in DS3...
And the "actually press some buttons" part is just some edgy crap.
All in all, comparing Dungeon Siege 2 and 3 is akin to comparing Baldur's Gate and Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance.

Uh.

So more party members automatically means it's a better game, even if the game is designed and balanced around two?

Your companion is crucial in Dungeon Siege 3 and can be swapped out at any time. Also, arguably there is story appeal to using a specific character for the whole game.

Use-based skill leveling without classes is better than class-based with XP leveling... why?

It's a trade-off. Yeah you don't import characters in co-op but it means you can jump into someone's game at any time and get auto-leveled to where you need to be. It also encourages experimentation and lets you unlock achievements easier.

So letting AI routines play the game for you is more fun than controlling characters directly? Dungeon Siege 3 has a rhythm to its gameplay that revolves around smart ability management in order to keep your resources as full as possible, and the game is specifically designed to make you vary your abilities. In the late game you cannot just button-mash attack and expect to win.

Don't get me wrong, your arguments are fair and I agree with some of your conclusions, but saying things like "bigger party = automatically better" is a logical fallacy. There are upsides and downsides to the mechanics in both games and they are meant to accomplish different things. This is not a case where one is intrinsically better than the other.

 

[ohWOW]

l
It took the lead designer six hours to beat one particular boss fight of his own game

That explains why Obsidian's game are shit

 

[Zboj Lamignat]

Let's compare DS2 and DS3 (I didn't play full DS3 so correct me if I'm wrong.)

Party: DS2 has it (and each party member has a big sidequest only he/she can activate), in DS3 you only have one follower.
Gameplay: DS2 let you control each of your party members (and activate special attacks which are crucial for winning certain encounters), in DS3 you control only one character.
Character system: DS2 didn't have classes or levels and characters developed skills they used, in DS3 Obsidian intoduced classes and experience points on level-ups.
Co-op: in DS2 it wasn't fucked up, whereas in DS3...
And the "actually press some buttons" part is just some edgy crap.
All in all, comparing Dungeon Siege 2 and 3 is akin to comparing Baldur's Gate and Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance.

Uh.

So more party members automatically means it's a better game, even if the game is designed and balanced around two?

Your companion is crucial in Dungeon Siege 3 and can be swapped out at any time. Also, arguably there is story appeal to using a specific character for the whole game.

Use-based skill leveling without classes is better than class-based with XP leveling... why?

It's a trade-off. Yeah you don't import characters in co-op but it means you can jump into someone's game at any time and get auto-leveled to where you need to be. It also encourages experimentation and lets you unlock achievements easier.

So letting AI routines play the game for you is more fun than controlling characters directly? Dungeon Siege 3 has a rhythm to its gameplay that revolves around smart ability management in order to keep your resources as full as possible, and the game is specifically designed to make you vary your abilities. In the late game you cannot just button-mash attack and expect to win.

Don't get me wrong, your arguments are fair and I agree with some of your conclusions, but saying things like "bigger party = automatically better" is a logical fallacy. There are upsides and downsides to the mechanics in both games and they are meant to accomplish different things. This is not a case where one is intrinsically better than the other.

He is not talking about DS, DS2 does not play itself and has classes. It also has many more things, is very different than DS bar the engine and is generally pretty good as far as h'n's games go. DS3 is not good as far as anything goes, it's a shit, boring, pointless game so you can say that it's in fact more faithful to DS principles than DS2 was

 

[Alex]

(...snip)

I used to have one of those. I wonder where it is, though given the nature of crazy straws, I probably wouldn't want to use it 20 years after they were made... Heck, they left a funny taste when they were new...

 

[Black_Willow]

DS2 (...) has classes.

AFAIK classes in both DS1 and 2 are only names for sets of character's stats, like "knight" for a character with high melee and strenght.

 

[Zboj Lamignat]

DS2 has four classes (plus there were some added in the expansion I believe, never played it), but you can level in any of them if you want.

 

[Black_Willow]

DS2 has four classes (plus there were some added in the expansion I believe, never played it), but you can level in any of them if you want.

Oh well, seems my memory isn't as good as it used to be.

 

[bhlaab]

I think DS3 was largely an excuse to make an in-house engine.

But I found it fun. Not particularly good, but fun to mash through.