Dungeon Siege 2 - Anyone got it?

[Bob the Insane]

Opinions? How similar to the first one? Anything changed?

[doc_bean]

There's a demo if you want to try it, it's a hefty download though (approx. 1GB).

I downloaded it but haven't played it yet.

[screwtype]

I've got the demo but it says it requires XP to play, and since I have Windows 98, I haven't tried to run it.

I hope the full game will not require XP or I won't be buying it.

[Spino]

Haven't played DS2 but based on the reviews it sounds like a rehash of the original with more eye candy and a few more features. I found the original to be incredibly mindless after awhile and it felt like a chore to clear it. There's only so many hours I can take of run, kill, loot, upgrade, rinse & repeat. Pity the DS series doesn't have much depth because the graphics, animation and music are excellent.

http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/914954.asp

[Goofball]

Spino, was the original DS anything like the BG/Icewind Dale games? If I liked those, would I like DS?

[Ser Clegane]

Spino, was the original DS anything like the BG/Icewind Dale games? If I liked those, would I like DS?

Storyline and character development is next to non-existant. So I would say it has nothing in common with BG, maybe more with IW which is more like a classical dungeon crawl.

I would say in terms of concept it's pretty close to Diablo II - much better with regard to graphics, not quite as good with regard to how addictive it is.

The term "mindless" fits actually quite well - but for some reason I still liked it as it was quite polished and sometimes a mindless "dungeon hack" is what I like to do for an hour when I get home from work. ~;)

So I played it until the end and actually had a good time while doing so - but I would not say that it really left a lasting impression...

[Mongoose]

If it's anything like the original, then stay away from it. Clicking on enemies, defeating them, and looting can only be fun for so long...

[Samurai Waki]

Played the Demo... pretty good, a lot more immersive characters and dialogue. Although I have to say whoever hired the voice actors for the characters SUCKED! I still kind of like the system of looting and stuff, but man, it gets ridiculous after awhile on how much loot you can score, and there are a lot enchanted items. I do like some of the new killing effects and stuff, nothings better than seeing my lvl 6 Elven Mage blast H'aku (little monster dudes) into gibs. The Gore factor in itself is worth it. It's fun, but some of the play features are a little annoying. having that said, it would probably be fun with mp. I might just buy it someday. From the Demo I'd give this game an 8.1 out of 10

[Spino]

Spino, was the original DS anything like the BG/Icewind Dale games? If I liked those, would I like DS?

No. The BG games were famous for their excellent storylines and character development, two factors which helped to make them some of the best crpgs ever made. Speaking purely in terms of storyline and plot progression DS doesn't even come close to BG or BG2. As far as Icewind Dale 1 & 2 are concerned, despite their emphasis on combat verus story I think they were still far more compelling than Dungeon Siege in the 'depth department'.

[screwtype]

Spino, was the original DS anything like the BG/Icewind Dale games? If I liked those, would I like DS?

It does have similarities with BG, in that you have a small group of characters (up to eight, I use six with two mules for loot) and you run around clearing dungeons and stuff. The most obvious difference is that BG is 2D and DS is 3D.

In game terms though I'd give DS a much better rating. I actually hate the BG series of games, with the constant little bunches of pathetic monsters which attack you and are just a nuisance to despatch, the D&D game system which is unsuited to computer gaming, the endless boring little quests to complete, and the really annoying personalities of your heroes.

DS certainly has its own limitations - it's totally linear, with only one way through the game for example. But I actually like that because you can't get lost and I hate getting lost in 3D games. It's also little more than a pure hack 'n' slash. And yet I've enjoyed it, which is more than I could ever say for BG. I think what keeps me interested is that I've always had a fascination for archaeology and DS gives you lots of cool ancient ruins and stuff to explore - most of it done quite well with pretty cool graphics, which adds to the immersion. Some of the monsters are also kind of cute.

So I keep playing it just to see what the next environment will be like. The combat is totally relentless and very samey though (although still more immersive than BG IMO). I actually got totally sick of it half way through and only recently went back to it, and am finding it quite enjoyable again. But you can't play it all the time.

The Ice Caves is the bit I disliked most because it seemed to go on for a long time and it's easier to get lost there than any other part of the game. In fact that's the bit where I originally gave up playing.

If you do take a look at it, I might as well tell you that one of the game's weaknesses is that magic users are not very useful, except for healing spells (and healing spells don't earn you much XP so you don't advance your magic user very far by using them. The XP for magic users is in combat spells). When it comes to killing stuff, warriors are considerably better.

Also, once you have built up a warrior to say, strength 20 or so, it's pretty easy to get him up to be a level 20 magic user as well. So it's probably best to build up your characters' fighting skills before their magic skills. But then there are strengths and weaknesses to every strategy. I hear that some hardy players even go through the game with just one character, who eventually becomes an uber-character because he gets all the XP points. But I wouldn't recommend that on a first campaign.

[econ21]

Spino, was the original DS anything like the BG/Icewind Dale games? If I liked those, would I like DS?

The original DS had some similarities with Icewind Dale - they are both largely plotless dungeon hacks. However, I found the combat in IWD very balanced (in the sense of continually challenging), varied and tactical (formation mattered, choice of spells/targets etc was crucial). You'd have to continually have to optimise your charactersa and tactics to survive. Creating a party and and levelling it was a joy, thanks to the rich, solid DnD rules underlying it.

By contrast in DS, the combat was very fast paced and repetitive. The game seemed to play itself and the combat to be pretty witless (the only tactical decision was knowing when to pull out a wounded character). Creating a party was tedious, picking up bland soulless members with a very generic and second rate levelling system. IMO, the differences are so great, it's kinda like the difference a TW game and a RTS. I'd rate IWD a 6/10 and DS a 2/10.

BG is a whole other thing, IMO. The story is worth caring about and the sub-plots are interesting. In BG2, it becomes very cinematic with vividly drawn NPCs. The original DS had nothing corresponding to this (and IWD had only faint echoes). To me, BG1 is a 9/10 and BG2 a 10/10.

So for my two cents, a person who liked BG/IWD may well despise DS. From Screwtype's post, it may work the other way too!

[dessa14]

i thought diablo 2 had a more intensive storyline then the original dungeon seige that was like being stabbed in the eye with a soldering iron, you couldn't even save mp games in the original DS.
i loved diablo 2, but after the first time its pretty boring.
thanks,
dizzy

[Meneldil]

Not worth the money. It's just DS with (a few) more (eye candy) features. DS was already not that good, but this one is quite loosy. Quite a shame, coming from the guy who made Total Annihilation.

[screwtype]

Creating a party and and levelling it was a joy, thanks to the rich, solid DnD rules underlying it.

I hate levelling up in BG. You get a random increase in your character's stats so you have to keep reloading over and over until you get the maximum possible stats - and of course the reloading sequence is about as tedious as it could be. But you really need to do it because the amount of hitpoints some character types get when levelling up is quite pitiful even at the maximum.

As to the "rich, solid DnD rules", I'm afraid I must totally disagree. Having a large bunch of spells with, for example, different ranges of effect and different time durations might work well amongst a group of people playing it out on paper, but on a computer with the much greater number of potential combats, it becomes a complete nuisance trying to remember the exact effects of each and every spell. You constantly have to reference everything to work out which is the best spell to employ. Or else just rely on one or two spells most of the time. In addition to that, a whole host of spells are next to useless and never used anyway.

Also, you can't use just any spell in your kit, you have to have "memorized" it first and if you come across a combat where you don't have the right spell memorized, it's reload a save game, memorize the right spell, sleep overnight to actualize the memory (with the possibility that one or more night attacks by a bunch of the usual pushover monsters will delay you further), and continue the game. And then, when you finally get back to the initial combat, your character only has to get hit with one spell or arrow to abort his spell, and it's redo the entire sequence over again.

How anyone could find this sort of tedium enjoyable is beyond me.

And then there's the combat. Most of the time you are seeing off monster groups that are pitifully easy to annihilate - and there's little useful loot to show for it. But then, occasionally, instead of the pathetically easy groups, you get a tough area where the monsters are so superior that your party is getting a character killed every few steps. In other words, there is no balance to the combat. It's always either too easy or too hard.

The other problem I have with BG's implementation of the DnD rules is that there's no way to fight the combat on a turn-by-turn basis which is what DnD rules were designed for. I've played and enjoyed Dnd computer games which use the turn by turn system and I much prefer it. But BG runs it in all realtime which means you can't really keep track of what is happening - even if you use the pause button a lot.

Did I mention the constant disk changes?

Gah.


By contrast in DS, the combat was very fast paced and repetitive. The game seemed to play itself and the combat to be pretty witless (the only tactical decision was knowing when to pull out a wounded character). Creating a party was tedious, picking up bland soulless members with a very generic and second rate levelling system. IMO, the differences are so great, it's kinda like the difference a TW game and a RTS.

Yes, it is repetitive but graphically it's quite colourful and there's usually a pretty good balance between your party and the monster parties. Fights usually last long enough for you to make adjustments in real time too, which can't be said for BG when a couple of bandits with fire arrows will have your characters dropping their lunch boxes in microseconds. But I agree it lacks variety.

As for DS's leveling system though, I think it's brilliant - at least in concept. I like the idea of a totally open ended system where you can develop any character along any path, so that you're not just locked in depending on character class. I also like the idea of levelling up in skills in addition to character stats. The problem with the system is that it hasn't been developed enough. Magic users are just not powerful enough - certainly not enough to compensate for their other weaknesses.

[Meneldil]

No offense, but if you can't win a fight or cast the good spell in BG, that's not the game's fault. You just suck/aren't good at BG. Period.
Yeah, there's was some annoying stuffs like the save/reload loophole when you leveled, but fights aren't unbalanced. Some fights are easy because you're in an area for low level parties. If you get killed every few seconds, leave the area, get a few level and come back later.

Now, surely, DS is some total repetitive crap where you never have to cast a spell or to use your mouse during a fight. Just look at your characters attacking the opponents with 2 differents animations, and if needed, heal your wounded guys (although the game was so easy that you could end it without ever using the heal spells, or casting any spell for that matter).
At least, in Diablo, fights were fun because you actually had to do something, unlike what usually happens in DS.

And, as it has already been stated earlier, I'm not going to talk about the total lack of storyline, the blank character, etc.

[screwtype]

No offense, but if you can't win a fight or cast the good spell in BG, that's not the game's fault. You just suck/aren't good at BG. Period.

I didn't say I couldn't win a fight in BG. What I said is that 90% of the fights are so easy they're just a nuisance and the other 10% half your characters get killed every few steps.

And I just remembered something else I really hate about BG. The way the morons in your party tread on each other's toes all the time. I mean, they have this "sacred circle" around their feet and nothing else can enter it, so they are always cannoning into each other, stumbling over each other and generally getting in each other's way. It really drove me crazy. With DS you don't have that, characters can move straight past one another, no problem.


Now, surely, DS is some total repetitive crap where you never have to cast a spell or to use your mouse during a fight.

Yeah, look, I'm not going to defend DS. Everything you say about it is true. It's a mindless hack n slash.

However as someone else said sometimes that is all you want. And there are very few irritating features in the game, it all runs smoothly and logically, whereas BG manages to be annoying in some way in just about every department.

As I've said what I like about DS is the exploration, I really don't care about the game's other limitations. With BG, you spend half your time reloading the game for some reason or another, or swapping disks. It totally kills any possible immersion factor for me, and I can't understand why other people don't find it as annoying to play as I do, but there's no accounting for taste I guess ~:)

[Alexanderofmacedon]

It seems pretty good if you ask me...

[econ21]

I hate levelling up in BG. You get a random increase in your character's stats so you have to keep reloading over and over until you get the maximum possible stats - and of course the reloading sequence is about as tedious as it could be. But you really need to do it because the amount of hitpoints some character types get when levelling up is quite pitiful even at the maximum.

I re-rolled to get max HP first time round but ended up with an indestructible character when I got to the city. A better rule of thumb I followed later was re-roll if you get a 3/10 or less. Strangely in NWN, I am totally relaxed about HPs on levelling - probably because you spend less time at low levels.


...becomes a complete nuisance trying to remember the exact effects of each and every spell. You constantly have to reference everything to work out which is the best spell to employ. Or else just rely on one or two spells most of the time. In addition to that, a whole host of spells are next to useless and never used anyway.

Most low level DnD spells are not so useful, although I suspect buffing spells are the secret to power in DnD (where a lowly +1 modifier can sometimes double your effectiveness). But spell casting really comes into its own in BG2, when you have these arcane protections and counter-protections spells so that mage duels become wonderous. I remember bumpy into a lone mage in BG2: he did something like cast immunity to magic weapons, confused my party and a couple of other things. My party of 6 ended up walking round in circles unable to hurt him. That's what a mage is supposed to be like.


Also, you can't use just any spell in your kit, you have to have "memorized" it first ...

Yes, I never liked this aspect of DnD. I'd much prefer a "mana" type system. Memorising is less of a constratint at high levels (eg BG2) when mages have so many spells, they rock. I can imagine nursing a mage through BG1 might be frustrating.


And then, when you finally get back to the initial combat, your character only has to get hit with one spell or arrow to abort his spell, and it's redo the entire sequence over again.

That - like the low HP for mages - is one reason it's fun. Protecting your own spellcasters and disrupting the enemy's is the bread and butter of dnd tactics.


How anyone could find this sort of tedium enjoyable is beyond me.

IMO, a typical encounter in IWD can be more tactical than a battle in MTW - in the sense of having more options, more to think about and control. So it's enjoyable as a strategy game. But I actually don't like just fighting battles - I need the hook of a campaign, story or levelling system to keep me interested. BG and BG2 had this - and in BG2, these aspect rival those of the best CRPGs.


And then there's the combat.... It's always either too easy or too hard.

I did not find that. Yes, on each map there might be half a dozen easy combats and one challenging one, but I did not die often. The only fight I had to reload a lot was the final one in BG1 and it was fitting that it should be so challenging. BG1 was probably too easy overall, if you relied on bows - it was about right if you had only one archer in your party. Part of the problem you encountered may be fighting at low levels, when a couple of good hits can kill you. Walk into a random ambush of 8 bandits in BG1 at level 2 and you're dead. NWN started you out at about level 3, which seems sensible to limit that problem.


The other problem I have with BG's implementation of the DnD rules is that there's no way to fight the combat on a turn-by-turn basis which is what DnD rules were designed for.

They added a "pause at end of turn" option at some stage in the series (probably as a patch for BG1). It's not necessary for BG1 (as you don't have many options), but almost essential for BG2 (where you'll likely have 3+ spellcasters with tons of spells). Unfortunately, it totally disrupts the flow of combat, so it makes the game less fun on a cinematic level. Somehow NWN and KOTOR managed integrating turns into a real time game much better.