Jump to content
gogoblender

Would Sacred 3 be an awesome Mmorpg?

Recommended Posts

You give Sacred too much credit leet math skills real builds and since when were bugs a good thing?

 

Dude play WoW and experience end-game raiding or arena pushing for wrathful gear and gladiator titles its not as "Dumbed down" as you think and it makes Sacred look like kiddie FECAL MATTER! trust me ive played WoW for years picked up Sacred and this game was a walk through the park.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome to DarkMatters, Jose! The mode of Sacred 2 that I think would be able to relate best to WOW would be HC Closed (this is for PC) You'd get the account "worth" you do from WOW from Sacred 2 that way, and die once and you have to start all over.

 

You have to make perfect skill choices, make perfect bargaining network (done in advance so that your real toon is relayed from one bargainer to another to level 206... this releases an extra skill choice for your build. You'll also need high level smithers built into your network, so that you can socket for best possible yield from limited number of sockets.

 

Are you playing in EU or American servers?

 

:tongue:

 

gogo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The very best thing they could do with Sacred 3 is to go back to Sacred 1 + Underworld and work from there. Most especially the allowing for the old game arena set up. I know I will get a lot of Boo Hoo, but for me Sacred 1 and Plus was and still is the best release of Sacred,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The very best thing they could do with Sacred 3 is to go back to Sacred 1 + Underworld and work from there. Most especially the allowing for the old game arena set up. I know I will get a lot of Boo Hoo, but for me Sacred 1 and Plus was and still is the best release of Sacred,

 

You're not the only one, really. Sacred 2 is a great game in my opinion, and the gameplay of Sacred 2 is similar to Sacred 1. But Sacred 1 has certain distinctive features that are missing in Sacred 2. I at least hope they'll bring back some of the old classes, or a mix of sacred 1 and 2's classes and perhaps one or two new ones.

 

 

I personally think, and most of you would probably agree, that if the Seraphim is gone, Sacred isn't Sacred anymore. I do not mind any mixes of other classes like vampiress, dark elf, dwarf, shadow warrior (I think Shadow Warrior is a lot more interesting than Gladiator). Battle Mage, High Elf, and Dragon Mage share very similar traits, I think only one should return, or 2 with very distinctive differences (Dragon Mage much more emphasis on the Dragon part for example). The Dryad and Wood Elf also are very similar, where the Dryad had unique features with the blowpipe, the Wood Elf could turn the Bow into so much more than just that (multiple, exploding, homing arrows were pretty booming)

 

 

As to the OP, I don't think S3 should be an MMO just yet. I think the most important thing is that the new company first starts to pick up sacred for what it is, and then move forward with that. If they'll make it an MMO right off the bat (Instead of Sacred 4 or 5?) chances are very high it may not feel like Sacred at all. I'd rather not take that risk if I had the choice, and stick with the foundation for now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The very best thing they could do with Sacred 3 is to go back to Sacred 1 + Underworld and work from there. Most especially the allowing for the old game arena set up. I know I will get a lot of Boo Hoo, but for me Sacred 1 and Plus was and still is the best release of Sacred,

 

I disagree with that concept. Sacred 1 was, and is, indeed, a great game. But overall, I don't think it's better than Sacred 2... The only area where S1 beats Sacred 2 - the ending. The ending animation for S1 was pretty epic. The ending of Sacred 2 - not so much. But Sacred 2 is better, more engaging, more interesting than S1 - that's even with the bugs in Sacred 2...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With respect, I think there are plenty of mmo's out there as it is.

 

If anything, and this is just my opinion, I would like to go backwards ! I enjoyed playing the original Sacred more than the sequel. I didn't say that I don't like Sacred 2, it's just that I feel that the first was more fun, and had better classes.

 

I very much hope that DeepSilver can do the Sacred brand justice.

 

If it come to a vote, then I would say "no thankyou" to a Sacred mmo.

 

Cheers,

 

Steve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I disagree with that concept. Sacred 1 was, and is, indeed, a great game. But overall, I don't think it's better than Sacred 2...

 

I think that one's preference is probably for the version that you started with (either S1 or Sacred 2). Sacred 2 did have a lot of improvements (being able to manipulate the camera, modify the CAs, several of the new item mods, shared stash, more ranged weapons, buffs, diminishing returns on rune-useage, higher values of +CA from higher difficulty runes, being able to port to the island in MP), but for me most of the S1 CAs were more interesting & Sacred 2 just didn't feel as "fun", it was lacking something somewhere. For some reason it just didn't feel like it was more than the sum of it's parts & I have no idea why.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it was because, at least for me, I had no idea what Sacred 1 would be like. I had no preconceived ideas or notions about it. Just saw it was a fantasy RPG and gave it a go. On the other hand I had certain expectations for Sacred 2 and it had to live up to Sacred 1. Pretty much impossible. Probably why sequels in general never seem to be as good as the original. Of course there are always exceptions, but unfortunately Sacred 2 wasn't one of them for me. Don't get me wrong, I like Sacred 2, it just doesn't have that 'play til dawn breaks' hold on me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I disagree with that concept. Sacred 1 was, and is, indeed, a great game. But overall, I don't think it's better than Sacred 2...

 

I think that one's preference is probably for the version that you started with (either S1 or Sacred 2). Sacred 2 did have a lot of improvements (being able to manipulate the camera, modify the CAs, several of the new item mods, shared stash, more ranged weapons, buffs, diminishing returns on rune-useage, higher values of +CA from higher difficulty runes, being able to port to the island in MP), but for me most of the S1 CAs were more interesting & Sacred 2 just didn't feel as "fun", it was lacking something somewhere. For some reason it just didn't feel like it was more than the sum of it's parts & I have no idea why.

 

I think it was because, at least for me, I had no idea what Sacred 1 would be like. I had no preconceived ideas or notions about it. Just saw it was a fantasy RPG and gave it a go. On the other hand I had certain expectations for Sacred 2 and it had to live up to Sacred 1. Pretty much impossible. Probably why sequels in general never seem to be as good as the original. Of course there are always exceptions, but unfortunately Sacred 2 wasn't one of them for me. Don't get me wrong, I like Sacred 2, it just doesn't have that 'play til dawn breaks' hold on me.

 

Id say knuckles has the best answer to this for me. Sacred1+UW was the first RPG I played and the experience, along with the online community made it a great introduction to the genre. Expectations then for sacred 2 probably led to Sacred 2 not being quite the same, however, I'm still here playing a couple of years after release both for the game and the community. I think that as long as S3 is able to keep the multiplayer aspect the way it is (and add new features like has been discussed elsewhere) it will go along way towards dragging us all into it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I disagree with that concept. Sacred 1 was, and is, indeed, a great game. But overall, I don't think it's better than Sacred 2...

 

I think that one's preference is probably for the version that you started with (either S1 or Sacred 2). Sacred 2 did have a lot of improvements (being able to manipulate the camera, modify the CAs, several of the new item mods, shared stash, more ranged weapons, buffs, diminishing returns on rune-useage, higher values of +CA from higher difficulty runes, being able to port to the island in MP), but for me most of the S1 CAs were more interesting & Sacred 2 just didn't feel as "fun", it was lacking something somewhere. For some reason it just didn't feel like it was more than the sum of it's parts & I have no idea why.

 

Eh.. I don't know about that. I started with Sacred 1 Underworld and I find Sacred 2 to be better in many ways. Granted, I started with 2.43 and didn't have to suffer much with previous releases of the game. I found S1's CAs to be more of a pain in the backside - for instance, the BFG in S1 would only work for a short while before quitting on you - and when it was up, the bolts being shot out of it were so unbelievably slow, your target had plenty of time to avoid being hit.

 

I'll grant you that S1 DID have one character that was sorely missed in Sacred 2 - the Dwarf. It would have been cool to see Dwarves running around Ancaria - you gotta wonder just what sort of unique mount the dwarf would have gotten. That alone may have been why they weren't included in Sacred 2...

 

Ah well.. Maybe in Sacred 3...

 

 

 

I think it was because, at least for me, I had no idea what Sacred 1 would be like. I had no preconceived ideas or notions about it. Just saw it was a fantasy RPG and gave it a go. On the other hand I had certain expectations for Sacred 2 and it had to live up to Sacred 1. Pretty much impossible. Probably why sequels in general never seem to be as good as the original. Of course there are always exceptions, but unfortunately Sacred 2 wasn't one of them for me. Don't get me wrong, I like Sacred 2, it just doesn't have that 'play til dawn breaks' hold on me.

 

For me, Sacred 1 was kinda like deja vu... It looks and plays a LOT like games like Divine Divinity and Beyond Divinity.. Similar game engine and graphics. Those were cool enough, I suppose. But I liked Sacred 1 better. It was far more interesting than DD and BD.

 

Id say knuckles has the best answer to this for me. Sacred1+UW was the first RPG I played and the experience, along with the online community made it a great introduction to the genre. Expectations then for sacred 2 probably led to Sacred 2 not being quite the same, however, I'm still here playing a couple of years after release both for the game and the community. I think that as long as S3 is able to keep the multiplayer aspect the way it is (and add new features like has been discussed elsewhere) it will go along way towards dragging us all into it.

 

I'll agree that Deep Silver should build on the good parts of Sacred 2 and give us another rocking good story line and improve on what came before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

with too many mundane quests, storylining, overfilled with bland content galore, I don't think Sacred 2 is far off from a MMO title itself disguised as your traditional "hack n' slash" ARPG. Sacred 3 would need to be much better than sacred 2 before I remotely think of spending my dollar on another title. If Sacred 2 had a hard time being an awesome ARPG, how can you imagine sacred 3 being awesome as a MMO?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heya everyone.

 

As for sacred as an MMORPG id say no for the folloing reasons:

1: There are simply to many MMOs out there atm, and the contest would be REALLY high.

2: It wouldnt fit the story of the 2 previous games.

3: As many of you guys, I like to go solo in sacred, completing the single player part.

4: Personally I am playing LOTRO on EU Server Evernight, and I dont have time for 2 MMOs, nor cash.

 

My YES reasons:

1: IF they somehow would manage it, I think we would have a mature playerbase, a good gaming experience.

2: The Idea of a Sacred MMO could be cool, roaming around, hacking, slashing, and grouping up for the really hard stuff (instances/raids), and generally it would be a multiplayer freindly game.

 

 

In the end I would say no TBH.

I would rather see them make an exellent single player game, wich has Co-op options, because some of us still hold LAN parties, enjoying a weekend with freinds, and some hardcore gaming. For this when we are 3-6 ppl we do miss some good co-op games, and I think if they make it better than Sacred 2, it would rly be worth it.

It could work such as, when you start the game, its in a lobby (pls make this LAN, not online) ppl join the lobby and the host starts it as a intended co-op game. This would require that the game difficulty had to be adjusted automatically as to how many players are in the game, and not just how hard they hit you, but also visa versa.. that part we found REALLY boring and stupid in Sacred 2. we played 4 guys together, I decided to roll some kinda healing class to support my teammates, but they absolutely didnt need it, and 1 of them could more or less kill all the mobs solo.

 

So the answer to MMO is NO.

 

Dimhilion Out

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So the answer to MMO is NO.

 

Dimhilion Out

 

 

heh, after all this discussion, I'm kinda going the way of no...only because, as you mention Dimhilion, there are so many mmorpgs out there...and many one of the attractions of this game was the almost over-bloated amount of content it had? If it was to be an mmorpg, they'd have to work that much harder...imagine the bugs?

 

:lol:

 

gogo

 

p.s. and btw, welcome to DarkMatters Mark!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hehe many thanks Rommel.. And pls just call me Dim.

 

Btw what did people think of the "improved" co-op player part I suggested? am I alone in the search for a really good co-op hack n slash/RPG?

OFC the main part is single player, but I do like that you can play LAN with freinds and have some fun with that. Let me know your thoughts on that.

 

Dimhilion Out

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would rather see them make an exellent single player game, wich has Co-op options, because some of us still hold LAN parties, enjoying a weekend with freinds, and some hardcore gaming. For this when we are 3-6 ppl we do miss some good co-op games, and I think if they make it better than Sacred 2, it would rly be worth it.

It could work such as, when you start the game, its in a lobby (pls make this LAN, not online) ppl join the lobby and the host starts it as a intended co-op game. This would require that the game difficulty had to be adjusted automatically as to how many players are in the game, and not just how hard they hit you, but also visa versa.. that part we found REALLY boring and stupid in Sacred 2. we played 4 guys together, I decided to roll some kinda healing class to support my teammates, but they absolutely didnt need it, and 1 of them could more or less kill all the mobs solo.

I think that this is one of the differences between an aRPG & an MMO. aRPGs are all about the player (or a few players) taking on large numbers of monsters in a fairly short time frame, therefore it's more offensively focussed, since you need to kill a lot of (comparatively) low-ish HP monsters fairly quickly, so you end up with characters with fairly high damage/offense & comparatively low hp/defenses. In MMOs, the combat is more geared towards longer fights with smaller numbers of opponents, so characters are more defensively focussed than in an aRPG, it also allows the possibility of support classes like healers & buffers.

 

I've played Lotro as well & the combat there is quite different to Sacred & other aRPGs. For a start there are areas that can't be completed (or sometimes even attempted) with a single character, yet aRPGs often have an offline SP mode which means that all (or the vast majority) of the content has to be attemptable (not necessarily easy) by a single character.

 

I think the four main game modes which the Sacred series has had work well, SP, LAN, Open & Closed. Though I'd like to see the MP aspect tweaked to make it more focused on players joining parties & gaming together, rather than having several players in a single server each on their bit of the map, or worse, several people in their own locked servers. The problem is doing that without unbalancing the game (either giving parties too much of a bonus to XP/MF/etc, or single players too little XP/MF/etc).

 

And Sacred 2's MP restrictions on who can party up with who in a free game were an abomination & really did not help create a community...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And Sacred 2's MP restrictions on who can party up with who in a free game were an abomination & really did not help create a community...

 

Yeah.. But I can see where the devs were coming from on that. In Sacred 2, you can only party up with people who are bent the same way as your character - toward the light or dark side. The reasoning is simple - the light quests are different from the shadow quests. And for whatever reason, those quests don't mix.

 

Maybe in S3, they'll figure out a way to make it more like some of the Star Wars RPG games - where your decisions at various points in the game decide the outcome. Of course, that'll mean things are going to get a bit more complicated...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah.. But I can see where the devs were coming from on that. In Sacred 2, you can only party up with people who are bent the same way as your character - toward the light or dark side. The reasoning is simple - the light quests are different from the shadow quests. And for whatever reason, those quests don't mix.

 

And that's fine for Campaign mode, but if I'm playing in Free mode, I just want to play with my mates, not play with those of my mates who happen to be logged in with the same alignment character as I'm on with. There was an aweful lot of complaining in-game & on the SIF about this early on & I think that this is one case where "realism" (for want of a better term) should be trumped by playability & the "fun" factor of being able to play with my friends, rather than a subset of my friends.

 

I also think that the Light & Shadow campaigns should have been more different, IMO they were both slightly different shades of grey rather than Light & Shadow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also think that the Light & Shadow campaigns should have been more different, IMO they were both slightly different shades of grey rather than Light & Shadow.

 

True... I guess they didn't quite get the same memo on Ancaria about "thou shalt not kill..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My 2 cents here. There are plenty of MMOs out there-and not nearly enough Sacred-type games. I would much rather play a smart RPG over a lobotomized MMO any day of the week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

S3 would NEVER be an mmo because they could never balance the classes properly for that kind of gaming environment. MMO games are about group or guild type objectives and each class usually has a certain role. The sacred series had none of that since it was pretty much just a hack and slash rpg/adventure game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

S3 would NEVER be an mmo because they could never balance the classes properly for that kind of gaming environment. MMO games are about group or guild type objectives and each class usually has a certain role. The sacred series had none of that since it was pretty much just a hack and slash rpg/adventure game.

 

About this I disagree.

Guilds can take on their own 'character', either by choice or design. The exact 'character' is played by a 'people', who can have similar goals regardless of 'character' design or strengths and weaknesses.

 

With the right planning in guild creation, there should be no prob at all doing so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

S3 would NEVER be an mmo because they could never balance the classes properly for that kind of gaming environment. MMO games are about group or guild type objectives and each class usually has a certain role. The sacred series had none of that since it was pretty much just a hack and slash rpg/adventure game.

 

About this I disagree.

Guilds can take on their own 'character', either by choice or design. The exact 'character' is played by a 'people', who can have similar goals regardless of 'character' design or strengths and weaknesses.

 

With the right planning in guild creation, there should be no prob at all doing so.

 

The mechanics for a game of that kind of online scale simply don`t exist. There`s no true tank class with taunts and really no class that is dedicated to heal. There`s no crowd control. Unless you would prefer a zergfest and whoever isn`t dead at the end wins. Think original everquest, that was a good true mmorpg and this and that are two different animals. Sure you could make a world of warcraft clone and rename the classes to sacred style ones but it wouldn`t be sacred.

 

The gameplay we are used to in the sacred series cannot be applied to an mmo environment without significant rebalacning. After it was balanced to what they thought it should be like, it wouldn`t be a sacred game anymnore. So Sacred a hack and slash like the diablo and two worlds games, yes. Like everquest, dark age of camelot ,or wow. not really.

 

Unless you want it to be just like multiplayer is now but with just a server full of people instead of 5 or so.

Edited by Hammerhorde

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All I can say is that I hope at LEAST the game will support single player and multiplayer with the same character on an open net. I like to keep my file when the servers go down 6 years later haha. Also I want Lan back like the first two.

 

Past that, it will be sacred, and I will buy it. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

S3 would NEVER be an mmo because they could never balance the classes properly for that kind of gaming environment.

 

You're right. I think I keep forgetting that Sacred 2 was never really built to create a "classical" balanced gaming environment. It's the ultimate, most creative sandbox ever made, everything and almost anything is possible.

 

I guess then, for Sacred 2 to be become and MMorpg, it would have to completely rethink it's mechanics, not make them so open ended, and atually put in concrete number.

 

If that were done, a lot of what makes Sacred games appealing to me would disappear, and all we'd be left with, is Sacred 2's myth, lore... and honestly, does this game really have that much?

 

:)

 

gogo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing thats good about Sacred is that if you dont want to play multiplayer, you don't have to. If they balanced in an attempt to make it an mmorpg then some of the classes quite likely wouldn't be capable of running through every dificulty of the game alone, or there wouldn't be any availability for mixing and matching skill's and Combat Arts, only very few options would be feasible and that would really ruin sacred for me, it has to be a game where you can make an over powered character and then next go and make a crazy outside of the box type character that shouldnt be able t, but does survive. Take schots explosive teleporting HE for example....that would never work in a balanced mmorpg...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×