munk

That yellow book is always moving around. Did you kill the dragon in the winter region of the seraphim? I used to run back and forth to get the yellow marker to where it should be . Sometimes just running through the area will reset it properly. I'm sure someone here will know the precise way to reset, but running back has always worked for me. I had no problem with my last play through, killing the dragon seems to help, and also activating the portal. Recently the book appeared in a cave in the desert on the way to the tower, and I ran back and reset the thing. Anyway, it's not a big deal. You're game isn't lost.

About every two to three years, maybe about every five years...I stop by to say hello. I've had several names, starting when Yahoo took my email address away and I had to punt. There's no one here who would know me, but I'm always very grateful to see some familiar names when I revisit the forum. I don't know what a Gogoblender is, and hope I've spelled the name right, but this presence and others are a kind of warm mile marker for me. You see, I've always loved Sacred. I've always played Sacred. I've a shoe box somewhere, (we just moved again) filled with various builds I've compiled over the years as a resource to begin again. My adult children laugh at this, though most of them also grew up playing Sacred. I have Sacred and Sacred 2 on the comp, and Sacred 2 on the old Xbox 360. I started with dial-up internet and the original factory forum. You don't know how long and how precarious all those patches were that Ascaron issued in the first couple years. The download would take all night and in the morning when you checked, if any little thing went wrong, you had to start all over. I'm almost 68 now, and I began with the Atari 5200 when I was in my twenties. I was fascinated by gaming and knew it was the future. What other genre will eventually combine nearly every art discipline, and holds the promise of user interaction? My oldest son started on Doom when he was just five. All the predictions of his becoming a sociopath because of Doom did not bear out. We moved onto Diablo. Then Sacred, Bethesda Elder Scrolls, etc. Every year or so it's time for Sacred again. I return because the game is great, and warm, and human. I find peace and sometimes even a little joy playing. The mistakes I made in the early days would astound you. We used to leave the runes laying on the ground if they weren't for our characters. It was funny, the game actually maintained those scattered runes each time you returned. I could look over a field of sparkling runes in the early morning. Every return to the forum, I read new explanations of how damage was calculated, or various other factors, and observed what was written in stone in one era would change in another. Not sure why that is, but the original game changed in route by the manufacturer, and changed again when it was crammed into Underworld. You may not remember we actually lost a few quests when that happened. There was a quest in Faeries Crossing, if I recall that right, (and the name of the town) where a NPC sent you to the undead cave just around the corner. There was a quest given by a soldier in the right hand corner of the stockcade-like structure on the outskirts of Braverock that would take you to the forgotten archway and a cave just adjacent to the far left of the town. Those are two I remember because I always played them. I could start a thread about bone-head mistakes I've made playing the game. None of this was intuitive to me. In the earliest days I often had unused skill points, not knowing what to do with them. You folks are geniuses compared to me. The analysis of the builds is incredible. What a great formula Sacred game designers invented. Surprisingly, I like Sacred a little better than number two, perhaps because of its simplicity, and maybe because its just a little warmer and friendlier to me. I can't recall now if the Dryad's blowgun penetrated walls on the comp version of Sacred 2, or just on the Xbox, but was sad when it was 'corrected' on the Xbox 360 platform. The plague was also modified so the game didn't crash. I've crashed Sacred Underworld with the vamperic horde. Sigh. Always intended to march north from the desert and destroy the ice elves. Sacred is like an old friend to me. I thank the game and you for being here.

As title says, I've a level 69 Seraphim (silver) that was about to fight nuk nuks in underworld and had left Purgatoria, (or whatever its called) and wham, she can't cast a spell or pick up any object. She can swing a sword. That's it. Downloaded the patch, added Sacred Reborn, shook the bones and waa laa; She Still Can't do Squat. I've tried removing her spells, changing her equipment...anything I can think of. Rebooted my computer. I'm playing off the old Gold Disk, except it's been downloaded to my comp. I exported her character to see if re-immersion would still carry the bug, don't know yet as I haven't wanted to begin yet again... In all the years of playing Sacred, this never happened to me. Now, it's not a crisis, I've had lots of computers over the years and lots of Sacred characters, but it is interesting. Has this happened lots to many folks, and am I just boring you? Long lost sacred user, munk. Long Live Sacred.

The majority of the purchasers gave Sacred 3 one star, (11 people out of 25) But enough took pity and selected 3 stars, about 5 posters, that Sacred 3 was raised from the bottom to appear even half way respectable. There was concensus it bore nearly no relationship to the Sacred franchise, one reviewer even suggesting one would have to leave their expectations at the door before they could enjoy the game. I trust the actual buyers at Amazon more than the professional reviewers anyway. I think it was GN that thought Red Dead Redemption about the greatest game of all time, and most rated it very highly, and the Add-on, Undead Nightmare , got more points than had Shivering Isles not many years before; 10 out of 10 I think. (Yes, I enjoyed RDR; no, I do not think it in the running for greatest rpg of all time) Sacred 3 is selling for around 28 bucks American or so, pretty rapid fall for a fairly new release. I don't think the company will get their money out of their effort, whatever that effort was. One purchaser who was positive about the game said he thought there would be little replay for most people. Play it once and put it in a box somewhere.....and indeed there were already used copies for sale. Now, that's how capitalism is supposed to work! If it's an inferior product that fails to meet needs you pay at the marketplace for your bad work. I am very heartened to see "unbended' still unbent and moving forward. I

My impression of shards and now weapon spirits, and I'm not a tech guy, is they sound like after-thoughts to inflate the balloon enough so it looks like a real ball. But it's still a balloon. Linear game is a no for me. A serious breach by itself to quit right there, with a mere one percent chance the game is still Sacred; but it's not even that close. There is no in- depth character build- and no involved combat art development, and no variety of combat arts. What the actor's voices sound like, or how silly, much like any issues with the artwork, could be overlooked if the fundamentals were intact. None of the fundamentals are intact. And remember- Deep Silver asked for input several places on-line. They should not have asked; makes it worse, if it could be worse. Whoever made the decisions to gut Sacred did not understand the fan base. It was not just a swashbuckling pre-teen children's game- though it could be that too, such was the charm and ingenious design,- very wide appeal. Sacred franchise was a product for intelligent players, attracting sophisticated, often technically minded young people as well as families and children from the broader population. And Sacred was a top level game, not a low-level knock-off. But the market people must have sneered and discarded the, 'intelligent' player as a non-issue, because superficial offerings from everyone in the industry have done just fine. They think. If this were true though, the newest Elder Scrolls franchise of Skyrim would not have sold millions and millions from a public hungry for challenge, any challenge, or at the least fewer insults and less boredom. Sacred 3 could've had it all. We're going to get a McDonald's Burger, probably a Big Mac instead of a sirloin steak or even a decent burger with homemade fries. After you discard the three pieces of white bread and the shredded lettuce, and remove the fillers from the meat product, there isn't much 'meal' left. The oils, fats and calories drive your hunger away, but a couple hours later, often with heart burn, it comes back. Only by now you know better, and won't go there again anytime soon. That's what will happen to Sacred players with Sacred 3. Maybe I'm wrong. After all, they sold enough Big Macs to climb to the Moon on them, right? Trouble is, McDonald's arrived on the cheap, and never claimed to be anything other than fast food. Sacred began at the top. It's been said many times here in this forum the best hope would be a good game- not a Sacred game- but a good game ironically with the title we think the world of. I'm not confident of that, because linear games with shallow development and gameplay are not what I spend time with. The gamble for the company with the copyright is that their Sacred cartoon series introduced over the last few years will become the new fan base for their launch. There is a line of thought in the gaming industry which believes multiplayer on-line gaming neatly sidesteps any issues; lack of AI, detailed world, character development, plot or game depth, and that costly game development. They're counting on you and your peers to interact and provide the missing elements in their product. Their game is a platform for you to interact with each other, very little else, and of course any fees or online registrations are economic icing on the cake. That is the future they want. They said as much when they told you that, 'most players were online multiplayer' anyway for Sacred ll so that's what we did in Sacred 3.' Paraphrase, quotes mine.

I was wondering when Minecraft would hit the Elder Scrolls RPG form. Now, where's that missing AI?

Of course not; aren't programers and designers following the guidelines set by those with the money to pay their salaries? I don't blame a programer for a linear Sacred 3 without deep character builds, anymore than I'd blame a Vietnam vet for that war in Asia. But don't sell me a comic-book and tell me it's a famous Russian novel....

Or someone (s) on top insisted release sooner rather than later, perhaps seeing further investment of resources would not be productive. When Gothic for Xbox was released the cut-scenes were beyond bad- mere sketches of cut scenes never developed. Someone decided no further development.... make what money could be made and get it over with. And that's what happened, too. On a more positive outlook, perhaps Sacred 3 is tidy and complete, not needing the few weeks more, because there really wasn't that much to tidy and complete.

both my use of Xbox and PC have this problem; many times the spell will gather foes, and then fail to launch and or knock them around. We just stand there, eyeing one another, until they decide to hit me and I decide the spell has failed. thought it might be my technique, and have tried everything. I just don't get it. Love the spell, bread and butter for this guy, but when it fails, so does my enjoyment. I've quit toons rather than put up with this. It seems to fail in waves, might stop working for 8x straight then work fine for 3 more, then back to putz. What am I doing wrong? as always, thank you very much. munk

I learned a lot- compared to the little I knew before. Very interesting stuff.

There is this stance, being repeated and expressed in many different ways, (for over a year-since S3 facts became understood) which says we can't judge until we actually have Sacred 3 on the screen in front of us. This appears very reasonable, fair, and not being knee jerk . The idea, to wait and see, is valid in so many ways, it's hard to disagree. If Betty Boop gained 400 pounds would we still want to see her in a brief slinky outfit singing her song-'I want to be loved by you, by you, and nobody else but you'? (in the cartoons..of course) It might be good for a laugh, and then she could put some clothes on, but most would no longer turn to her for entertainment if they'd paid to see Betty Boop. We could laugh at her for being an entirely different cartoon, but she would not be Betty Boop. (We could add a horrible disfigurement from a car accident with Roger Rabbit driving that left half of her face removed. She can't walk because a leg is missing; so you won't be hiking and exploring the local park trails with her beside you. -Assuming you were a cartoon also, or were in a movie with cartoons... She can't dance, can't sing. They'll add the graphite blade soon, Warner Bros promises.... Oh, and she's now an idiot with an IQ of 62 because of brain damage from the accident- so there's no character to appreciate any longer, or chances to grow and experience variation in experience.. er uh...talk about a strained illustration.) OK, crazy example- you don't know who Betty Boop is- try Mae West, or anyone. Jennifer Anniston? Tasteless examples, too crude; how about the comic book version of, As I Lay Dying done in 12 pages? Fear and Loathing without Las Vegas? One could still say, we'll have to wait and see Betty Boop, or Mae West, Jennifer Anniston, or brouse all 12 pages of a Marvel adaptation of Faulkner- but there are some things you do not have to see first hand to know they've failed. If S3 is a good game I'll believe those of you here who try it. But it won't be a good game in the Sacred series, it will be a good game with an ironic name, Sacred 3. No open world, no in-depth character development-that's not Sacred. It has about as much relationship to Sacred as John Lennon's tooth (now in private hands) does to musical genius. That is to say, not much, if any. You can't remove fundemental features of a product, call it by the same name, and expect the same response from those who enjoyed the product before change. You shouldn't label it as the previous product. What isn't fair is a company removing intrinsic features and then expecting you to be, 'fair'. I want something Sacred to come along.

If it's the sword I think it is, I've recieved it several times while fighting. Sometimes it doesn't show up for a long time, it's possible some of my toons have never had it. Often the level of the sword is too low when my character finds it.

these posts are what I came for, why I wanted to ask. thanks all. Oh, just an aside about Morrowind- it did not have the AI of Oblivion. I forget what Beth called that AI in Oblivion, but it's gone. They returned to the Morrowind model in Skyrim, but without Morrowind's layers of factions and that societal context they had going. They never returned to Morrowind's level of 'book' literacy. There's a surface layer of 'grit' and 'harder hitting' realism in Skyrim's writing that is at first glance superior to Oblivion's simpler approach, but it is only skin deep. There isn't really anything there, and it lacks the suggestive beauty of Morrowind, where you really felt you were picking paths between factions in a strange land. Its all just soup in Skyrim, nearly word salad. They faked it. But that was enough for most players.. As an ecomomic target, 'kiddies' will always be a powerful one. But it is not the only one, and the market just keeps growing and widening. There are more adults on the planet than kids. Those adults want games that are playable. This is not 1965 or even 1985, adults spend bucks on entertainment, and movies are on the decline. It's the lego bloks model. Adults who grew up on Legos do not build legos at age 30, usually, but the toys they do use are much more expensive. That could and does include video games. If I've learned anything from this thead, it's that as soon as these engines are cheaper to get, there may be better games. Lego can't get much of the adult market, but someone is going to, because it is there and largely untapped. I could have said the whole thing by using 'toy's; the cheap games are toys, and adults want better. ...I love the idea of a free engine. to my mind, that is .....a gift, spiritual, God inspired, freeing...its, well, a person who participated in that project would be like....Gutenberg, mechancial printing press. I looked it up. If there are people who think like that in this world right now, we aren't licked at all. SX255, thanks for posting that.

Silver_Fox, you put a lot of ideas foreward for me to think about. Thank God! Wish I could get a transfusion of information and analogue from all you knowledgable people. There are many games I don't know-and the tech side my son understands while I do not. AI may never be 'good as a human' at this stage of our tech, but it won't be that way forever. More importantly, AI remains the most desired achievement. Gaming is supposed to feel real? They can't get away with better graphics each year as a replacement for interaction, er, can they? I don't think so. The wild card has to be the small children playing now, having grown up with toys I only dreamed of while watching Startrek, (the one with Capt Kirk) Human beings are smarter than the business is giving them credit for, and those children are maturing and will want more than better, 'splat' effects when their hero kills a bad guy. You could look at the sideshows the industry has given us as a diversion- the unspoken thing in the room, the beast everyone is afraid to mention, is still AI, and the diversions won't change that. Isn't it intrinsic to the art form? I think it is. If they do not push that, then games will never be much more than improved Asteroids. Hollow. Todd Howard said another thing I remembered, for reasons other than he would hope. He's said that the spell making in Skyrim, for instance, had to go because of the graphics- he said reluctantly. He has his priorities wrong. The features he chopped off should never be sacrafised for better visuals. It's the other way around. Apparently, high definition is a over-valued goal, and they are not thinking of the game as a whole. I get that they developed while the industry had lower tech and clumsy graphics, and have always wanted the visuals to be superb. Didn't we all want that? But that's not the end goal. Someone could take what the tech could bear today and with equal or better than Oblivion level graphics push AI beyond what it has ever been- and have character building and attributes and all else. I'm subscribed to Grim Dawn, if that's the right word, and while I like it, glad it's here, support the direction, it is not really a Sacred game. It's a step in the right direction. You said Sacred used Character development because it didn't have as much choice in action and plot advancement. And that's exactly why Sacred is re-playable. But repeatable games don't take a bite out of sales-that's apples and oranges, a different market. I don't believe for a second that Sacred or Oblivion took sales from the hordes of buyers who would purchase another 8 hours of Halo, with their always new release coming next year. That 'event' in the marketplace will always exist- it's like the pop music market for young teens. I don't know what Pve and PvP are. You know, I watched Television in the 60's and much of that programing is contrived and lighweight by today's standards. We wanted more, but the networks were afraid. All the issues they were afraid of then have been hammered out over and over today, with more realistic, filled-out relationships. These things do change. I see the programing today has it's own set of pitfalls and stereotypes too. I just hope this doesn't mean I'll have to wait for my children's generation to mature to see great games. I hope it's not that long. It was disturbing to see so many elder scrolls fans not notice or not care about the huge cuts in character building and choice. But that just leaves a big window open for another company to put out a product that does. I guess ranting is one of the things I do best. Too bad I never made any money at it. Oh-the opposing maps of the two fps says it all. I didn't actually know that. They have shortened everything, haven't they? I wonder how much of that is the devalued US dollar?

I go back to the Atari 5200. I was old then- 30- most people that age would not get themselves an game system. But I was a reader, SF, classics, loved movies, comics, pop art forms, and always music. What was wrong with fun? Nothing. Doom came and went, Hexen, Heretic, Diablo, others...then Sacred. Sacred really did it; I thought Diablo was great, but Sacred was a place you could go back to, live in. And we did- my son grew up with Sacred. (He started on Doom when the media was filled with dire warnings about children and gore and what would happen to them. My son is one of the most moral and honest persons you will meet. The secret was parenting, not gaming. Leave a kid alone with Doom and no parent around at all and maybe the child will take instruction from the screen....) When Elder Scrolls reached Morrowind, it was a milestone for everybody, but when they reached Oblivion, it was a high water mark. Why? AI, Open World, Character build variations, and great stories and adventures. The Holy Grail, to me, in gaming was AI. Did the game react to the player? Did NPC's react to the player's actions, have memory of those actions, and how independently could they respond? There were games at the top of the heap that had a wide variation in character building, and choices to make with tools and spells and abilities. Attributes and Skills choice, and how that affected game play. Sacred 1 and 2 both have a level of character building not seen in games today. RPG's were coming into their own. Remember Two Worlds? Gothic? Now look at where we are just a few years later. AI is gone. For real time reaction to player we have multi-player games; you react to your peers. In single player RPG we have ruins and caves to explore. When the last dark hole has been found, there isn't much reason to go back and do it again. Character building is deciding which sword you'll swing, to bow or not to bow, heavy or light armor and how cute your girl or guy looks in that outfit. Skyrim dropped attributes to three, and spellmaking is now cookie cutter with far fewer choices, and you cannot make your own. You cannot make your own enchantments/spells on equipment either; you choose from a very simple menu of pre-assigned values depending upon your skill level. It's not about 'what kind?" of affect so much as it is, 'how much?" The AI in Oblivion, once proudly held as a pinnacle, was quietly dropped and initially few even realized was gone. Skyrim looked the same- no- much better- those potato heads were gone, so it must be better, right? At this stage in our technology, you can pretty much say every new game in a series has the opportunity to look better than the one before. That's graphics, pixels, definition; not gameplay. First person shooters seem to dominate what young people want. Those haven't changed much, they look better, feel more responsive with superb graphics, and the online multi experience has swelled with participation. But what has happened to my beloved RPG? In Oblivion an NPC could be made to love or hate you, and would remember, has shared history. In Oblivion when you saved the world shopkeepers and passer-bys thank you. In Skyrim NPC's dont realize their 'wife' has expired, her body lying twenty feet away, let alone you saving the world. Mages dont know you're head of the college. You are alone in a vast world. When you finish with that empy world, you are done. The Big Empty. Stranger in a Strange land. This isn't a debatable point. Bethesda dropped AI and thought minispeeches by NPC's would mimic enough to pass inspection. Having Guards in Skyrim know you're the Listener for the Dark Brotherhood is an appalling breach, a sloppy replacement for AI, for the lack of true feedback or response. A shopkeeper that follows you into your home, repeating for the 20th time the same speech he always blathers is not AI or communication. It's a bore. It's tedious. And you can't make him stop! You don't have conversations in Skyrim; you listen to their inane scripts over and over. The only choices in interaction are the few scripted conversations with NPC's in major quests where you sometimes have option 'A" or "B", and these are few in the body of play. This is Fallout format. This is Red Dead Redemption format. This is surrender. Bethesda doesn't even bother to write much script for major companions. AI is hard, writing possible script choice is hard. Graphics are easy by comparison, and if there are enough places to go, who will miss these things? Character building is still there, but much simplified, and with pre-canned outcomes. Choice is losing the battle in modern RPG's. Why? I've tried the Draconis stuff, Risen, Witcher; if anyone knows of a great RPG please tell me. Reckoning was pretty good- not much choice- but good- having promise of future improvement, the add-on was fantastic, but that franchise died. Oblivion was far from perfect. Good minds can debate how to handle the leveling problem of opponents in the game and assets like legendary blades, and NPC conversations were often trite, but it had AI, wide character and attribute combination build possibilities and interaction with game world. The game had constant variation. NPC's thought for themselves. The game unfolded differently each time it was played because of this. Sure, AI was simple, but they tried, and it worked. Now no one does. It's in the ashcan of history. Modern games have dropped Good and Evil; it's all moral relativism now. In previous Elder Scrolls you could redeme yourself if black- evil- in Skyrim no one knows or cares you murdered Lydia. There are no consequences for your actions because there is no scripting for NPC's other than basic. They don't know if you are of good karma or bad. Saving the world or telling your companion to touch that daedric pillar for their sacrafise to a dark god are equally ignored. You can't even get the Xbox achievement unless you complete all the evil acts in the Daedric questline. I'm not a Priest, don't attend church or have an axe to grind, but making all possible actions in an RPG equal mirrors the same moral relativism the Western World currently flirts with. I believe a game can provide an opportunity to role play- you are not going to become a thief because you play one on Skyrim. But I also believe having no in- game, and now little industry- wide division between morality and immorality is dangerous. They are not the same- that is why they are role played. Yes, games are political. They do intentionally attempt to shape public opinion. I guess that's human, but acceptance of differing choices in personal and family life is one thing, accepting no difference between murder and self sacrifice is clumsily done and destructive. I don't really need video games to shape my political decisions, but it seems politics have crept into everything. That too, can be seen as a restriction of choice formerlly left to the owner player. The folks here who researched the math behind the spells and actions inside Sacred could have hammered this topic out of the ballpark in far fewer words. I'm not a research guy. Hope some of what I've said rings a bell, and hasn't done to you what that liitle girl in Whiterun Skyrim does to me, "I'm not afraid of you, I'll fight anyone, elders, kids, ...." Whatever RPG makers decide we can still do in the future, I hope they return the ability to close the door on that little girl. Character build variations, attributes, action and spell making, interaction with NPC's and AI are all diminshed, but at the least bring back the 'A' button and halt that conversation! I'm hoping the new wave of community- start games, like Grim Dawn and hopfully Unbended, will push aside the complacency of the big boys. That's how capitalism works, you know, when there's a need, someone finds a way and if it's wanted enough it's successful. I'm hoping gifted persons on computers will still build games that'll break through. The movie, Night Of The Living Dead, started as a small project by a teacher with amatuers; now it's the forefather of an entire genre. It can happen. It must happen if I'm going to be playing any new game in the next ten years, or if I'll simply be using antiquated equipment with inferior graphics to play games that are superior in every other way to what is being done. Why are they killing choice?

Probably at least an incorporated face in Nevada or Del.

Grim Dawn; (for those who mentioned it- Ryanrocker etc) I bought into Grim Dawn because my son told me it was Sacred -like. It isn't- It's Diablo like. Pretty much Titan Quest -esque. Some of same people making it, same format. Both Titan Quest and Grim Dawn are fun, by all means have some, but don't expect Sacred. While not exactly linear it's not even close to the kind of open world Sacred one and two have. The fighting is densely packed. Thats what you'll be doing. Neither franchises have the attention to the world of a Sacred. Nor that great balance between conflict and being able to look around and enjoy. Eldest son agreed, being surprised himself at how close to Diablo in feel and arrangement Titan and Dawn are. Grim Dawn recently released the next chunk of game region, probably the 2nd out of 3. You have zombies, magic, guns, and a post apoc world. It's on Steam. Both Titan Quest and Grim Dawn are enjoyable- but there is nothing Sacred like out there that I've found. If anyone knows a game like Sacred, let us know. You know what I mean; a game that has more in common with Sacred than just the name Sacred.

Sounds to me like they raised a Dream, had it splatted down by lawyers and copyrights, yet are rising again. Sounds like...Sacred to me. Henceforth called unbended or whatever they want. The world is filled with fantasy characters. While you can't make another Seraphim in high heels, you can make a Angel. The world is also filled with knock-offs you can't challenge. Almost every game or book out there has ties to other books, movies and games. The original Sacred was advertised by critics as Diablo without the mistakes, or improved Diablo. Remember that? Diablo couldn't stop Sacred, and Deep Silver can't stop you or me from making a game similar to Sacred 1, or Morrowind, or even Hexen. I suspect this forum will have to do its part and call the new game a name without anything Sacred in it. I remain very hopeful and will still donate when the dust settles. The new characters show they are on new ground. The world will have trees, water and birds in it. You can't copyright those things. Right now there's a huge hole screaming to be filled in gaming, this could be the start.

I'm going to start another thread about modern games. Bottom line; If Ascaron had survived, their efforts would have earned my trust for Sacred 3, had they modified just a few features. The current licensee has dropped All of the aspects that made Sacred, it's the dollar cake in a plastic wrapper at the Quick Store passing for Marie Calender's.

Cut scenes featuring lore do not make a Sacred game, if there is a deficit of lore and historical context in the game experience. I don't want that kind of lore, if that's lore. The initial reviews on the game mentioned there was very little reference to older Sacred games. I wonder if cutscenes are hastily assembled er...bandages placed on the game to stop percieved bleeding? It must be Sacred; the 30 second short on the screen says so. Maybe they can show pictures of an open world too....and diagrams of character development not available in game, to invite the belief we are developing our characters. It would take a book to portray what is missing from Sacred 3 at that rate. ....I always wanted one of those Volkswagon campers....my 62 Van was broadsided by a semitruck, with me inside, and it never rode again. Those camper vans were the Holy Grail, they even had.....a handful more horsepower! sigh.

My smallest son is playing one of the Lord of Rings games, Conquest, and I thought of Sacred 3. Sounds about the same. As mentioned, pre-assigned goals requiring clever manipulations of controls on keyboard or controller is the 'game'. Path pretty much linear. Sure, you'll turn sometimes, there might be several paths, just clobber your way through and you'll find it. Memorize the path and conflicts. Variety is trying it with a different weapon or character. Conquest has those too. I always figured the reason they did Sacred 3 in this form is cost saving. Less work for them. When asked about the lack of an open world the studio told one poster, 'we're working on something right now I think you'll like" that's my paraphrase, not exact quote. So perhaps there is some hope for future efforts, but I dunno. Who will show up to investigate future Sacred efforts if Sacred 3 is bad? I recall the studio also said since Sacred 2 fans generally played multiplayer online the open world was not needed. They seem to have missed the part where friends played together and, went to different parts of the world exploring.

It wasn't a game after the novelty wore off....had a new sword of recundis or some such, and by the time the mob was through, I'd leveled 3X and the sword lost some of its useful life range. And the drop rates changed; at first there'd be a flash of green or gold and a goodie, but when the horde was over a hundred + members there were no more great drops. I don't know if the rates changed or if the horde was simply so big you couldn't see much and by the time they'd left the area the items had vanished. I think I'd have seen good drops. The game no longer was fulfilling it's 'obligations'. Things weren't working normally. the screen staggers too- you know- delayed frames, lagging, everything jumping and stopping, not much fun. There were a few great moments, like crossing the desert riverbed using the narrow walk bridge- the Horde was too big and flowed under and around like a black flood. And who could forget a single orc following his script and attacking the hero, not noticing the army beside him? But for a game? No way. It's not a game anymore. You just watch. Think I swung the boss sword 4 times. I've made vampire's out of dragons before, but didn't get a permanent vampire dragon stooge with the horde. (You can't make a vampire out of a zombie but your other vampire stooges can. /-least I haven't been able to-/ That was interesting; an undead zombie turned into an undead vampire zombie) We had several of those.

I know this is treason, heresy amongst the sophisticates, but every word you said is true, Podgie_Bear. (..and a perfect example is what Beth studios did with Skyrim, not half the game of Oblivion. Same trend. Pulled the wool over the eyes, and the ones who noticed and said something about it left the official Beth forum after a few weeks, not bothering to counter the chorus of yay sayer and gameoftheyear devoted critics. I guess I should do another thread rather than pour all that out, but choices, character interaction, and character development all shrunk drastically. Todd said after Oblivion that he finally figured out how to 'make a game', but the truth is he finally figured out how Not to Make a Game and have it pass for one. That universal AI they were so proud of was quietly dropped. I think of it as being alone in a vast world. Nothing the lead character does matters nor is noticed by any npc.. The game is done when the last cave is explored.) Getting back to Sacred then, the game did not talk down to the audience. It may not have had much AI- but npc's did change in their response to the Demon lady, for instance, and they had so many other seriously great assets anyway, like real character development AND a vast world and variety of actions and spells/techniques, which the user put together. Would anyone expect Shakespeare to make a light abridged play? (even his farces are considered masterpeices..) Human beings who went to concerts, enjoyed plays, novels, and other works of art expected an occasional challenge, and young people knew they had some work to do to come up to the creation. That was the fun, the adventure, the....meaning. We've come a long way from the day when a huge crowd of people would wait on the docks for the ship to arrive with the latest chapter from Mark Twain or Charles Dickens. Those weren't snob crowds- they were everybody! Why are we making games that are built for the lcd and assuming they cannot understand and enjoy a great work? Games have the potential to become the next, er, bring in a french word here, they are very good at finding nouns for these things, staple of entertainment. Most recently, Radio- to movies to games. Gaming is or has the potential to be an interactive art form, unprecedented and having aspects from all the other fields. So new and so Giant. I'm not a highbrow guy. I just think when you want to listen to the Beatles or Bach, you should hear them, and not a soft version. You don't need dumbed down Mozart, Faulkner, Hemmingway, Celine, or Cohen brothers. You can make art and make it mass marketed. People like great things. There are many wonderful movies that have taken me decades to understand, and enjoy on other levels than when I first saw them. That doesn't mean there isn't room for a lark and fun, but there's got to be room for meat (choose your main course) at the table, or else we all eat McDonald's. I don't even like games that are so tricky you spend the entire time trying to unlock a door and find all the puzzles. There's room for those, I guess, but that's not what I mean when I think of a great game. I can't figure out why they are so rare. People are still smart, what happened? Well, sorry for going on- Happy Easter to all and just happy to those who choose no Easter, but I gotta go eat the big meal. munk

I was told Kickstarter does not provide for Europe. There is another company/service in Europe that does the same job. don't know what their name is.

I've been playing around with undead followers ala, "The General" and now have an army that is out of hand and will not die- can't count them, well over a 100, orcs, ogres, bears, even zombies have joined in. Turn into a vampire will not kill them. Quitting the game will not kill them. I've one save with 'only' 30 undead and will be working with this to save my character. Level 45 or so. Don't want to lose her. It was a lot of fun while it lasted- now it's more like the Sorcerer's Apprentice and things are definately out of hand. munk PS; OK, here is what has transpired since initial post; the save with only 30-40 undead, after 2 or 3 times turning back and forth Vampire, did die. However, the save with 100-150+ did not. No amount of turning into vampire, into human, or quiting game removed the mob. My son, who was estatic over this news, took the mob north to the ice elves and the two blue dragons. He got lost along the way and picked up many elves and bears. He fought one blue dragon- its health was half down but his mob then lost the fight. ( I was in another room and missed this) He said the remainder of the army disapeared into puffs of black smoke, which is how the undead evaporate from the game. I can't believe a blue dragon held them off. Because of the smoke, I'm wondering if something else occurred too. Well, I'd say be very careful if you are a vampire and buidling semi permanent mobs of undead. They may not die. I forgot to tell you that my Vampire was on Silver level.