Replaying Dungeon Siege

One tip, if anyone does pick the game up: Don't build your party beyond six-ish people (excluding pack animals). I'm succeeding as I'm nearing the end of the game, but it's damn difficult.

 

The game was enjoyable for me only in short spurts. However, I'd get to the same point in each game I started, then stop for a while and start over with a new character built slightly different. I still have the physical game, so I might as well reinstall it and see how interested I get.

 

I do that with practically every RPG I've ever played. Usually after finishing it once while grumbling the whole way about how my character is sub-optimal. Then I restart it with variations until I get sick of the game.

 

I thought skyrim too plain, another modern rpg optimized for consoles, and dumbed down to fit today's audience.
Still, i love it!

 

I found optimal characters sucked on Skyrim, they made the game way too easy and just completely uninteresting after a point. I've got the new Dawnguard DLC now and I'm glad it offers a few more options on how to play that aren't horrendously overpowered (werewolf and vampire skill trees), plus the fact I'm giving an unarmed build a serious go this time which makes things more challenging. Plus I'd be lying if I said the unarmed finishing moves didn't arouse me.

 

Despite this being a quote chain wherein I add nearly nothing in contribution, this bears repeating.

It's the same reason I never finished Arcanum, Skyrim (like DE said), and many many other games.

 

Am I the only one who rigorously plans out what character they're going to make before giving a game a serious go? After initially playing a game for a while to get a feel for it, I'll then restart the game but this time with a character I've meticulously planned out to the smallest detail - for example in Arcanum I'll factor in every bonus from equipment I'll get and every boost from blessings too. I find this circumvents the whole sub-optimal deal as for the purpose I've designed my character for they are optimal (for example the Skyrim character I've designed doesn't deal the most damage possible, but for an unarmed character they are probably the best that you could make).

I guess the way I see it these are roleplaying games so there's nothing wrong producing a character sheet for characters I'm going to make, even if it is a bit nerdy to bust out a calculator every time I want to play a game and spend an hour or so planning. At least when I do play, I can feel satisfied with the character I've made. Trouble is, this approach only makes bugs in games more exasperating (I'm looking at you Skyrim, and probably Arcanum before Drog got his hands on it) as then the character you've put so much thought into feels incomplete.

 

Sure, and then five minutes after you get past the point you stopped at the first time, you find a kick-ass item that changes the way you want to have built your character, and you're back to being sub-optimal again.

At least if you play it the whole way through once before going back to fine-tune your character, you get the chance to finish the game before becoming sick of the first few levels. Otherwise you just end up like Philes.

 

True, but most games now have wikis detailing all kick-ass items so you don't have to miss out. You don't even have to spoil how to get the item for yourself if you don't want, but an awareness of it being out there will at least make you take it into account when coming up with a character. That way no optimalness* is lost out on.

Also repeating the first area of a game does make you more efficient at blitzing through it next time, though tedious it is usually over before you know it.

*Making up words is fun.

 

I only care about the best builds and combinations if there is multiplayer involved. If it is co-op I don't like to be the weak link and if it is pvp well I don't want my build to be the reason I only do 10 damage and my opponent does 20. For single player though the character feels for realistic if he has faults as well as strengths.

 

Truly a fate worse than death.

 

Or Me

 

Well this is what I mean when I say optimal for what I designed them for. Sometimes I will make a character who's all out awesome in every way, but I'll rarely finish the game with them because they're not a challenge. So instead I'll design an unusual character who could be considered the best in some way (usually in a non-combat area or it an area which has limitations - liked unarmed in Skyrim or Arcanum) and then play through with them; any flaws are introduced purposefully rather than having them crop up because of lack of planning. Then I feel satisfied that they are top in some area, but at the same time playing through the game isn't now a cakewalk either. Also choosing an unusual play style influences how I role-play the character too, which keeps things interesting.

 

God I don't even remember what the Void looks like anymore.

Fuck, I don't even remember what Shrouded Hills looks like, it's been two years since I booted up that game.

 

Two years? Pah! I haven't booted up that game for twenty years!

 

I typo'd. Meant to say two hundred years!

 

That's a thing i love to do; in most games i play a stealthy build, where i can backstab virtually anything and shit, but when it comes to direct combat, i'm pretty much screwed. I've always thought it adds immersion.

 

Yes. My character. Planning is like having sex with me: wild, unexpected, often involving a mix of both ranged and melee skills, and leaves others confused as to how or why it occurred.

 

Who are you, Inspector Gadget?