Dungeon Siege - How the hell was this ever popular?

[felipepepe]

So, I was playing Dungeon Siege today and it's just so bad...

Yeah, I get it graphics were good for the time, the world is huge and continuous, without a single loading screen, and you get a rather large party... but that's really enough to get so much positive press & fanboys, TO THIS DAY?

Exploration and story are non-existent. The whole world is a linear corridor, with bullshit reasons for you to ALWAYS take the long route around and explore pointless dungeons - "oh, the bridge is down, only way to reach town is through crypt!" or "oh, the gate is broken, only way to reach next town is through spider dungeon!". Characters are so generic and featureless you can actually kill your main character and keep playing, because not even the game cares.

On that note, character customization is null - you just give characters a bow, a melee weapon or spell and they'll gain skills & attributes by use. That's about all you'll do, as armor and equipment are just linear "replace 22 defense Leather Armor for 23 defense Mail Armor".

Combat is even worse. Not only you fight 98403284092809482309480394 billion copies of the same enemies, but your characters fight mostly by themselves. They get near an enemy, melee & ranged will attack while healers will heal and all will be auto-solved easily.

Seriously, the entire game is: walk down linear path, find enemy, watch party fight enemy, order them to loot everything, walk a bit more down the linear path, rinse and repeat...

Now look at this:

This shit came around the time of Diablo II, Neverwinter Nights, Morrowind, Gothic 1 & 2, Arx Fatalis, Arcanum, Wizardry 8, Icewind Dale 2, BG2, etc... how the fuck did it not only get so much positive press and fan ratings, but also two sequels?

Fuck, even Ross's Game Dungeon did a video PRAISING this aberration as a "fantastic experience":



All I can think of are edgy "cause casuals want a game with fancy graphics that autoplays" remarks or something about Microsoft's aggressive marketing and Chris Taylor's name in the box... maybe a few mods like the Ultima remakes... but even so... WTF is going on here Codex?

 

[FeelTheRads]

A local magazine once said about this game: "This is what Diablo 2 should have been."

Same magazine who said NWN1 was a great looking game.

Yeah, I don't know. Human stupidity?

 

[Darth Roxor]

dungeon siege is great, fuck you

 

[mindx2]

One word redeems this thing: LAZARUS

 

[Beastro]

The music was nice! :D

One thing that always annoye me was I couldn't figure out how to finish the game. I'd kill the end boss in the few times I'd slog through that awful midway Goblin dungeon, get to him and kill him only for the game not to end and no option in the menu to at least import my character and play over again at a higher level (was always a mystery to me why they have skill req spells that were so much higher than what you could realistically get to playing the game with a replay ability).

It was decent, I never knew it was thought of as awesome, the second one managed to blow it out of the water and even that was at best a decent game that didn't do anything wrong and added better gear farming.

The most praise I could give it was though was it was one of least annoying games I scoured around my house to play back in 2007 when I was internetless, though Cutthroats (shit ship combat, fun land raiding RTS side game which is all I played it for) was both one of the more annoying yet simply fun games I had at my hands.

Makes me wonder what the Ultima mod would be like on it. I think the disks survive the move.

 

[Neanderthal]

Well it had great music and graphics were pretty, made me think that it'd be perfect for an Ultima remake, which were pretty clairvoyant o me. It were also good for them mods, siegelets I think they're called. But yeah fucking game played itsen, worse were in multiplayer where you could set your character to follow another, game did literally play itsen, I went away mashed me tea, made a butty an came back to find nobdy had missed me. Then again I remember Chris Taylor saying in lead up to release that e were gonna fix what were wrong wi RPG games, that there weren't enough handholdin an accessibility, which shoulda scared everybody off.

Ironically the multiplayer campaign (Utraen Peninsula) were a better single player campaign than single player were, had some good dungeons an that, some pretty hard stuff an all. They shoulda switched em.

This kinda shits disappointin though, great engine, really modable and yet dev does fuck all ambitious wi it.

 

[ghostdog]

Dungeon Siege - How the hell was this ever popular?

Dungeon Siege is the key to understanding shitty game journos and reviewers.

 

[Beastro]

Well it had great music and graphics were pretty, made me think that it'd be perfect for an Ultima remake, which were pretty clairvoyant o me. It were also good for them mods, siegelets I think they're called. But yeah fucking game played itsen, worse were in multiplayer where you could set your character to follow another, game did literally play itsen, I went away mashed me tea, made a butty an came back to find nobdy had missed me. Then again I remember Chris Taylor saying in lead up to release that e were gonna fix what were wrong wi RPG games, that there weren't enough handholdin an accessibility, which shoulda scared everybody off.

Sad thing is, paying the multiplayer version offline by yourself was more fun than the single player campaign because it was nonlinear so you could run off and fight overleveled content that actually presented a challenge, especially since IIRC, playing it offline gave you zero companions so it was just you against the horde.

 

[Renevent]

Why I enjoyed Dungeon Siege:

1) Huge continuous world

As you already mentioned, but I disagree there was nothing worth exploring. There's tons of secrets and off track places worth exploring, and some hidden quests as well. The world was varied and felt like you and your party were on an epic adventure.

2) Party and skills

Not only did it allow for large parties, but there was a nice amount of skills and party options. Lots of cool spells to mix and match and and really liked the 'use it get better' system.

3) Items

I loved the item system. Huge array of different equipment options with uniques/etc and also really enjoyed the look of the weapons/armor. Was really fun exploring, killing shit, and finding new loot to outfit my party.

5) Graphics

The game had very nice graphics for it's day, and I really like the art style in general. They did a great job with weapons/armor, environments, enemies, everything. There was a ton of variation in the game and it looked great.

4) Online

I played the game online for a good stint and the original DS had a pretty active online community with some really cool mods as well.

 

[ERYFKRAD]

Eh, I find it perfect for mindless clickfesting.

But damn, I can't help but salute anyone with the patience to build a map in this thing.

 

[felipepepe]

Not only did it allow for large parties, but there was a nice amount of skills and party options.

Skills? There are no skills in DS1, only in DS2. if you're playing with non-magic characters, ALL you can do is choose who they will attack.

 

[Neanderthal]

Sad thing is, paying the multiplayer version offline by yourself was more fun than the single player campaign because it was nonlinear so you could run off and fight overleveled content that actually presented a challenge, especially since IIRC, playing it offline gave you zero companions so it was just you against the horde.

Aye an you could play as a dorf, a skelly or an alf giant an that if you ad expansion. I agree. Seem to remember readin in PC Zone at time that it had wracked up million sales shortly after release, though can't be certain.

 

[ERYFKRAD]

Not only did it allow for large parties, but there was a nice amount of skills and party options.

Skills? There are no skills in DS1, only in DS2. if you're playing with non-magic characters, ALL you can do is choose who they will attack.

Frankly the ENTIRE building of your character boils down to two things: choosing how to attacks and what items to use.

I guess some of the reasons it got a high review would be that no one gives a crap if the story is linear, seriously. As for the huge corridor that the game is, dungeons have enough side paths that you might take a while to get that the world is fucking linear.

 

[Beastro]

As for the huge corridor that the game is, dungeons have enough side paths that you might take a while to get that the world is fucking linear.

How so? You quickly learn that the first map is a river with little tributaries branching off of, and then as you progress you realize that design never changes.

The end result is you wall hugging or looking for signs on the main path of those tributaries.

Aye an you could play as a dorf, a skelly or an alf giant an that if you ad expansion. I agree. Seem to remember readin in PC Zone at time that it had wracked up million sales shortly after release, though can't be certain.

I never had those options, but like I said, I was internetless last time I played it unpatched.

Looking back on that little fact now, I can at least give it and the era it was made in praise for that.

 

[ERYFKRAD]

True, I suspect that gamejurnolols were oblivious to that bit though.

 

[Renegen]

1. There were not a lot of Diablo clones, and ones capable of playing online

2. Continuous world, it had that whole "technological leap" feel to it which was so key for the whole 90s as a guaranteed way to sell your game

3. Microsoft, they paid everyone probably

 

[Gord]

Dungeon Siege was the most boring game I ever played.
With some minimal effort in terms of of party composition and the right party/individual AI settings, the game did indeed play itself.

I feel bad admitting that I even finished it, if mostly for the fact that I like finishing games I started, not because I enjoyed it.
The 2nd part was not much better and I never tried 3, although I guess that 3 has not much more in common than the name.

 

[Starwars]

Fucking terrible game(s).

Dungeon Siege III should never have been in the same series seeing as how it's completely different, but it is a pretty fun action-game (with some minor RPG bits). Way more fun than the first two if you ask me.

 

[pakoito]

I remember DS2 fondly as a mindless hack-n-slash with some nifty in-dungeon secrets. Not so much about DS1.

 

[Atlantico]

Dungeon Shit. The first game I bought that made me angry, I had wasted my money on something so shitty. The first time hurts the most. So much boring, dumbass shit. Gah.

Didn't have much dungeon sieging either. Was any part of this game's presentation not misleading? Fuck this game, forever. Great, now I'm angry just remembering how fucking shit this game was.

Fuck.

 

[DwarvenFood]

Think people were (and are) starved for Diablo-like games. It wasn't in no way revolutionary.

 

[smileyninja]

I beat the game, then walked all the way back to my chicken farm passing all the bodies of the mobs I killed. That was something I've never seen before.

 

[markec]

I remember seeing previews of DS1, praises of stunning visuals, continuous world, great story and combat. I was hyped for it especially after first reviews praised it to Heaven.

Then I actually played it.

The game was incredibly dull, after Oblivion I consider it the worst game I ever played. I remember stubbornly pushing forward thinking to myself "The good parts might be just behind this corner, endure just a bit more."

Then I finished it.

DS2 was decent.

 

[Saber-Scorpion]

Atmosphere. At least, that's why I loved Dungeon Siege, at the time. It was great to just relax and wander around in this big continuous world with some of the best Jeremy Soule music playing in the background and watch as my party butchered weird-looking creatures for loot so we could get cooler-looking gear. And then we'd enter a new zone, and the scenery would change, and the music would change, and the color of the fog would change, and I'd wonder what creatures lived in this new environment.

Somehow all elements of the game just clicked aesthetically. Remember those bottomless pits full of fog? And you'd wander out onto a long rope bridge and see another zone below you, with more pits and more rope bridges, and enemies wandering around? Good stuff. Why don't more 3D RPG's use depth like that?

It's true that technically, the game itself is pretty terrible. There's barely any game at all. It's a linear hack-n-slash that literally plays itself. But sometimes you don't really want anything more than that. Sometimes that's just what you're looking for to wind down. As long as the presentation is good. And Dungeon Siege did present itself well.

So there's my defense of the game. Not very Codexian, but the game is impossible to defend in Codexian terms. I guess you could say it had Soule... It sang the blues, and I listened.

 

[Renevent]

Not only did it allow for large parties, but there was a nice amount of skills and party options.

Skills? There are no skills in DS1, only in DS2. if you're playing with non-magic characters, ALL you can do is choose who they will attack.

I meant magic spells...I used it interchangeably. There's was a pretty nice variety to them and what my point was.