Jump to content
BLaaR

Good Bye to Sacred as we used to love it.

Recommended Posts

Well after reading some user posted comments posted here :

http://www.trueachievements.com/n10479/sacred-3-details-and-screens.htm

And the users quoting where they read and saw what they are saying, I think I can safely say we will not get the same experience that we had in S1 and Sacred 2.

That is :

1. No loot. You will only get XP and gold from monsters which you can spend at town hubs.

2. No open world but instead relatively linear.

3. Quests. No more traveling up and down on the map to complete quests.

The list goes on, but the above is a real deal breaker for me. I do not want another Dark Siders type of game.

We sure will miss Ascaron no doubt !!

Edited by BLaaR
  • Like! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have definitely gone off the idea of Sacred 3!!!

Looks like it is going to be another modern arcade action game clone, labelled as an RPG!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I am moving towards Grim Dawn now.

ttp://www.kickstarter.com/projects/crateentertainment/grim-dawn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a 10 month old thread... I wonder what newer info is available.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah.. Well.. That's just it.. There really hasn't been much in the way of new info.

 

Which has led to speculation that Deep Silver (and Keen Games) have quietly stopped, gone back to the drawing board given the amount of anger, angst, and downright negative reaction to what they've shared thus far. We can only hope and pray that is the case - but I wouldn't hold my breath on that.

 

I suppose they underestimated how die hard we Sacred fans can be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am trying to hold on to hope until we at least see a beta and a release date.

 

I am also hoping for some more info at the trade show in August. That is where the last info was released, and IIRC where S3 was announced (? 2010 ?).

  • Like! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well.. there were those 5 screen shots - those were more recent than that...

 

Though those weren't exactly much to write home about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just don't get it. Why change someting that is a working formula. The only thing that got Sacred 2 was the bugs. Many could not get past the bugs. Other than that it is a great ARPG.

Only whish they had gambling and something like a transmorg cube. Just something more to spend all the hard earned loot instead off having millions rot in the chest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I posted on the Deep Silver forums... All may not be entirely lost.

 

Think it through.

 

1.) Deep Silver is a business and as such, they are out to make a profit.

2.) publishing games that suck does not pad that bottom line.

3.) There has been a CRAPLOAD of backlash about what DS's plans were for the game.

 

Sure, they could go ahead and publish Sacred 3 in the format they tried to sell us on but not too many people would buy it. That would not be good for them.

 

So I'd wager the powers that be in a rare moment of clarity decided to stop, rethink things, redo the game to make it more like what we, the people who are the loyal fans would be wiling to part our hard earned money on.

 

That's why things have been quiet.. almost too quiet...

 

At least, that's my observation... I could be wrong.

  • Like! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I'd wager the powers that be in a rare moment of clarity decided to stop, rethink things, redo the game to make it more like what we, the people who are the loyal fans would be wiling to part our hard earned money on.

 

That's why things have been quiet.. almost too quiet...

 

 

That's exactly what I was thinking too...that they had a change of heart (purse?) and are perhaps considering that desecrating the franchise with a quick money scheme like this could ruin it forever.

:)

 

gogo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone should open up a topic at Deep Silver Forums :

 

"Has Deep Silver gone back to the drawing boards for Sacred 3?... why is it so quiet?"

 

Keep it quiet DS if you're working hard to make us happy!

 

:bounce:

 

gogo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone should open up a topic at Deep Silver Forums :

 

"Has Deep Silver gone back to the drawing boards for Sacred 3?... why is it so quiet?"

 

Keep it quiet DS if you're working hard to make us happy!

 

:bounce:

 

gogo

 

That thread kind of already exists... See Please Stop Spoiling Us... The topic title and thread was posted with MUCH in the way of sarcasm and snark.

 

That's exactly what I was thinking too...that they had a change of heart (purse?) and are perhaps considering that desecrating the franchise with a quick money scheme like this could ruin it forever.

:)

 

gogo

 

The reply I got from my post above on DS's forum wasn't too positive... The guy clearly doesn't speak English as a first language (guessing he's German). Basically he said (I think) that that sort of thing hasn't happened at a major established studio since the 1990's and only happens at those smaller ones that use kickstarters (like the one for Grim Dawn).

 

Personally, I think these people are being way too pessimistic.

 

1.) Sacred Citadel is out - and the reviews (by the FANS - the ones that count) has not been too enthusiastic. It was intended to serve two purposes.

a.) whet people's appetites for the real Sacred 3

b.) make some money for DS/Koch Media.

 

It really hasn't worked out that way on either count. The reviews of Citadel - from the fans - has been "Meh... This retro 2D thing sucks."

 

2.) They released some screen shots, and other information on the Sacred 3 as it was. That's resulted in the digital version of "villagers at the gate" with torches, pitchforks and tar and feathers. The comments have been less than kind. Much of which could not pass DarkMatter's own censor bot. The gist of what most have posted reads: "I will NOT be buying Sacred 3 if this is what the game will be about."

 

3.) I am fairly certain that the people at Deep Silver and their parent, Koch Media are not into corporate suicide. They want to actually make money and survive - not wind up like Ascaron did in Bankruptcy court.

 

Ergo, I don't see how Deep Silver can, in reality, publish Sacred 3 - as it was - and survive the onslaught.

 

On the plus side... They DO have the source code for Sacred 1 and 2. As such, how hard could it be to redo the map in Sacred 2 to something different, redo the classes to match whatever they had planned in Sacred 3, do up an entirely new set of quests and atmosphere for a new game? OK.. So it would be a lot like Sacred 2 - but that wouldn't be THAT bad. Would it?

Edited by wolfie2kX
  • Like! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well ... it's not that easy (with the source code).

Sacred 1 had and has nothing to do with DS. But that's too old anyway ...
Even if DS managed to find a hard drive with "the code" on it, they couldn't do much with it. To decompile and analyse it, it's required to have a whole bunch of tools and servers running those tools. All of which died with Ascaron and Studio 2. There are however some things they could look at, just like the CM Patch guys do, but not more.

Also, I don't think a game mirroring Sacred 2 would be that succesfull. You need to evolve the genre. Many players were alienated by Diablo and sort of made the ARPG genre a little harder for everybody else. (At least that's what the DS producers told me at gc 2012 when we were given the Sacred 3 presentation.)

As for the lack of news ... hard to tell what's going on. I don't think we'll see extremely big differences between the hands-off preview version from 2012 and what it might look like whenever it resurfaces. Simply because it's pretty expensive to start nearly again from scratch when you're already 2 or 3 years into development.

I personally don't think DS planned to make a huge amount of money with Sacred 3 anyway after the "failure" of Sacred 2. Without digging it up again, Sacred 2 was way too expensive to be profitable, so DS' first aim needed to be a development without exploding costs. But going back to the drawing board would mean exactly that.

There might be some smaller changes to some features we've criticised but I really don't think that's going to be something major like an open world ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well then DS had better be prepared to lose their shirt on Sacred 3 then, because what we have seen on offer so far seems designed to drive us away, not make us want to buy it. Still I suppose it is better for the Sacred franchise to just die and leave us with good memories rather than descend into the pitifully inadequate wreck they are showing us which looks like something that belongs on a Nintendo DS!

(Yes kiddies, let DS lead you by the hand through the game. We'll tell you where you can go, who you can fight and when to press the button. You won't have to strain your intelligence by having to make any decisions at all. Won't that be nice for you?)

Edited by podgie_bear
  • Like! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well ... it's not that easy (with the source code).

Sacred 1 had and has nothing to do with DS. But that's too old anyway ...

Even if DS managed to find a hard drive with "the code" on it, they couldn't do much with it. To decompile and analyse it, it's required to have a whole bunch of tools and servers running those tools. All of which died with Ascaron and Studio 2. There are however some things they could look at, just like the CM Patch guys do, but not more.

Also, I don't think a game mirroring Sacred 2 would be that succesfull. You need to evolve the genre. Many players were alienated by Diablo and sort of made the ARPG genre a little harder for everybody else. (At least that's what the DS producers told me at gc 2012 when we were given the Sacred 3 presentation.)

As for the lack of news ... hard to tell what's going on. I don't think we'll see extremely big differences between the hands-off preview version from 2012 and what it might look like whenever it resurfaces. Simply because it's pretty expensive to start nearly again from scratch when you're already 2 or 3 years into development.

I personally don't think DS planned to make a huge amount of money with Sacred 3 anyway after the "failure" of Sacred 2. Without digging it up again, Sacred 2 was way too expensive to be profitable, so DS' first aim needed to be a development without exploding costs. But going back to the drawing board would mean exactly that.

There might be some smaller changes to some features we've criticised but I really don't think that's going to be something major like an open world ...

 

Of course they don't want to use the Sacred 1 source code. The point is they own the property - and can do what they like with it. They can take the map - or at least the general specifications for it and maybe convert it to something that can be used in the Sacred 2 engine.

 

As far as the servers, tools and such go - I would imagine that DS bought those along with the rights to the game. How else did they get Ice and Blood - and the related patches out?

 

I would agree that having Sacred 3 be a clone of Sacred 2 would kind of suck - but then again, it would at least feel like "home" for those of us who are hard core players. It wouldn't be that expensive either - as they've got the engine already built. Beyond tooling the new map and making it work, there's only the matter of writing quests - and that wouldn't be all that hard - given the CM Patch guys can do it. I know this - mainly because I helped them write one (Ancient Secrets).

 

I wouldn't classify Sacred 2 as being a "failure". In the years since it's been out, it's become what I would call a cult classic. Sure, Ascaron didn't make money on it - but then again, they went far beyond the realm of sanity in some respects. They put in a rock concert - which, while being exceedingly cool - was probably something that could have been cut and could have saved them a bunch of money.

 

I would also say that Sacred 2 has gotten a bit of a new life now that Deep Silver put it out on Steam and Amazon. There have been quite a few new people showing up here since that happened. Maybe if Ascaron did something like that, they might still have been around.

 

Nor do I see how Sacred 3 - as presented last year - "evolves" the genre... If anything having a game as it was presented last year makes it a throwback to stuff that came out in the 1990s... That speech smacks of doublespeak... Evolution means adding something new to the game format - not taking the very things that made the previous game so enjoyable and nearly infinitely replayable.

 

The bottom line - a game that doesn't sell is a waste of resources. Why produce something no one wants?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well what I don't get is why they call it "Sacred" if it clearly does not follow the design of the first two games.

I get that the Sacred fan base alone won't be enough to support an entire production and so they have to "expand" their target audience. But then please don't call the game "Sacred" call it something else and everyone would be content to see Sacred 2 as the last of the series and hang on to their fond memories of the games.

 

Introducing some run-of-the-mill console instance to instance game might attract a number of "new" players for a few hours, but it hardly seems like the kind of design that would have players hooked for hundreds and hundreds of hours. So you slap together a nice old hack and slash action game with a bit of loot, but please leave the title: "Sacred" out of it. Nothing could be more anti-Sacred from what I've read about this game.

 

I sincerely hope that the silence is more to do with DS rethinking their approach and less to do with "the less information we release, the less the Sacred fans will post negative feedback."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One more thing...

 

If players were alienated by Diablo (presumably D3), how would that make the ARPG arena HARDER to succeed in? Seems to me that it would make things a SLAM DUNK.

 

Just produce the kind of game the players WANT.

 

It's THAT simple. It's not rocket science. It's not even Differential Calculus. It's simple business 101:

 

How to get people to beat a path to your door?

 

Offer them something they WANT and would be willing to spend money on and deliver it in volume.

 

Volume Delivery isn't an issue - Steam/Amazon even removes the need for boxes, DVDs and paper manuals.

 

Therefore the only thing that need to be addressed - creating a game that people will WANT to spend money on.

 

Well what I don't get is why they call it "Sacred" if it clearly does not follow the design of the first two games.

I get that the Sacred fan base alone won't be enough to support an entire production and so they have to "expand" their target audience. But then please don't call the game "Sacred" call it something else and everyone would be content to see Sacred 2 as the last of the series and hang on to their fond memories of the games.

 

Introducing some run-of-the-mill console instance to instance game might attract a number of "new" players for a few hours, but it hardly seems like the kind of design that would have players hooked for hundreds and hundreds of hours. So you slap together a nice old hack and slash action game with a bit of loot, but please leave the title: "Sacred" out of it. Nothing could be more anti-Sacred from what I've read about this game.

 

I sincerely hope that the silence is more to do with DS rethinking their approach and less to do with "the less information we release, the less the Sacred fans will post negative feedback."

 

The thing is - if they continue down the path, they won't have even the Sacred fan base. Period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sincerely hope that the silence is more to do with DS rethinking their approach and less to do with "the less information we release, the less the Sacred fans will post negative feedback."

I hope it is the case that they are rethinking and "fixing" the game, and not DS got tired of the complains and started to hold back information about S3.

 

To date there are only 3 titles competing in the iso-ARPG type of game in my opinion :

 

Diablo, Sacred and Torchlight. (not including Titan Quest since the title died with Titan Quest and even though there was an expansion, there never was a Titan Quest II)

 

Diablo III turned out to be a huge miss and many turned their backs on it. Torchlight on the other hand went from strength to strength. I sure hope Sacred can follow what Torchlight did and go on to something better.

Edited by BLaaR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

personally don't think DS planned to make a huge amount of money with Sacred 3 anyway after the "failure" of Sacred 2. Without digging it up again, Sacred 2 was way too expensive to be profitable, so DS' first aim needed to be a development without exploding costs. But going back to the drawing board would mean exactly that.

There might be some smaller changes to some features we've criticised but I really don't think that's going to be something major like an open world ...

 

Couldn't agree more birne. Going back to the drawing board would mean tons of lost time and money put into the production cycle, something that is ALWAYS behind in the gaming industry. What we saw in that image preview was probably a few weeks off schedule/budget already. We might see some changes to the way the combat arts work (more than 1 or 2?) but nothing that would change the world or huge features like you said.

 

Just produce the kind of game the players WANT.

 

It's THAT simple. It's not rocket science. It's not even Differential Calculus. It's simple business 101:

 

How to get people to beat a path to your door?

 

Offer them something they WANT and would be willing to spend money on and deliver it in volume.

 

Volume Delivery isn't an issue - Steam/Amazon even removes the need for boxes, DVDs and paper manuals.

 

Therefore the only thing that need to be addressed - creating a game that people will WANT to spend money on.

 

Keep in mind that it's not just as simple as creating a game that people want. If they go back to the drawing board and start up from scratch, there is no way in hell they'd make enough revenue to cover the costs for almost two full production cycles. They somehow have to try and tailor the current product to suit the feedback they've been getting.

 

To date there are only 3 titles competing in the iso-ARPG type of game in my opinion :

 

Diablo, Sacred and Torchlight. (not including Titan Quest since the title died with Titan Quest and even though there was an expansion, there never was a Titan Quest II)

 

Diablo III turned out to be a huge miss and many turned their backs on it. Torchlight on the other hand went from strength to strength. I sure hope Sacred can follow what Torchlight did and go on to something better.

 

In the competing games, I would take out Sacred and put in Path of Exile. PoE has a MUCH bigger player base than the Sacred Series had, but that comes in part because the game is free to play. Also, there is basically a Titan Quest II with Grim Dawn, made by Crate. Although they are an indie studio, I feel the game is gaining popularity quite quickly. Definitely agree about Torchlight getting better and better each time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course they don't want to use the Sacred 1 source code. The point is they own the property - and can do what they like with it. They can take the map - or at least the general specifications for it and maybe convert it to something that can be used in the Sacred 2 engine.

I actually don't think so. They have the rights to the brand Sacred and its assets. But I wouldn't be so sure about the code itself. They could redo the map and everything from Sacred 2 though ...

As far as the servers, tools and such go - I would imagine that DS bought those along with the rights to the game. How else did they get Ice and Blood - and the related patches out?

Again, I'm not that sure about this. Ice & Blood was done by Studio2. The patch was done by one or two former Studio2 employees. I don't know how they did it, but they did not have the server and tool infrastructure Studio2 had while developing the game.

I would agree that having Sacred 3 be a clone of Sacred 2 would kind of suck - but then again, it would at least feel like "home" for those of us who are hard core players. It wouldn't be that expensive either - as they've got the engine already built. Beyond tooling the new map and making it work, there's only the matter of writing quests - and that wouldn't be all that hard - given the CM Patch guys can do it. I know this - mainly because I helped them write one (Ancient Secrets).

And how many hardcore players would that be? Not nearly enough to pay for the development ...

I wouldn't classify Sacred 2 as being a "failure". In the years since it's been out, it's become what I would call a cult classic. Sure, Ascaron didn't make money on it - but then again, they went far beyond the realm of sanity in some respects. They put in a rock concert - which, while being exceedingly cool - was probably something that could have been cut and could have saved them a bunch of money.

"Failure" in a financial manner. Yes, it wasn't only because Sacred2 sold poor, it was mainly because it was just too expensive.

Nor do I see how Sacred 3 - as presented last year - "evolves" the genre... If anything having a game as it was presented last year makes it a throwback to stuff that came out in the 1990s... That speech smacks of doublespeak... Evolution means adding something new to the game format - not taking the very things that made the previous game so enjoyable and nearly infinitely replayable.

That is your point of view and I can see what you mean. But that's not the only truth.

Evolve might have been a poor choice of words, but I still stand by what I meant: You can't redo just what you've done before. You have to take it further. Whatever that means is up to the producers and developers.

Whether you or the audience agree with them in the end is another story.

The bottom line - a game that doesn't sell is a waste of resources. Why produce something no one wants?

Again, this is your opinion. And I know it is shared by the majority of the old Sacred fans. But then again, how much of them are left? It's common knowledge that on the internet those with a negative opinion are the loudest which often leads to the impression of a majority against the thing in question. Whether this is really the case is hard to determine. But it might not be that easy just by looking at the internet.

 

I don't want to argue so much in favor of the Sacred 3 we've seen and read about although one could argue I'm playing the devil's advocate in this case.

Well what I don't get is why they call it "Sacred" if it clearly does not follow the design of the first two games.

I get that the Sacred fan base alone won't be enough to support an entire production and so they have to "expand" their target audience. But then please don't call the game "Sacred" call it something else and everyone would be content to see Sacred 2 as the last of the series and hang on to their fond memories of the games.

Because introducing new franchises is always more dificult, expensive and risky. Sacred is at least a known name. Plus, it's still in Ancaria and so on ...

One more thing...

 

If players were alienated by Diablo (presumably D3), how would that make the ARPG arena HARDER to succeed in? Seems to me that it would make things a SLAM DUNK.

 

Just produce the kind of game the players WANT.

 

It's THAT simple. It's not rocket science. It's not even Differential Calculus. It's simple business 101:

Doing what they want might be easy, getting to know what "they" want is not. Even figuring out who "they" are is a scientific field on its own.

Doing what the hardcore fans want might alienate the casual players and vice versa. If this was so easy, don't you think every developer with a right mind would do what "the players" want? But they don't. Because it's extremly hard to tell what is the right mix between getting old fans on board and open it up for everybody else.

The only way to do what the hardcore fans want is to develop a game that fits axactly in its niche ... and nowhere else. You don't make profit with those games if you're bigger than a little indie studio.

The thing is - if they continue down the path, they won't have even the Sacred fan base. Period.

What fan base?

I was there when Sacred 2 was released, I knew the (german) fan base when Sacred2 was released. Most of the people active on the forums after the release were not those, who hung around for years before. Nope ... Those most active were those drawn to the forums by the new Sacred 2.

Yes, most likely there won't be much more of the old fans around. When they don't like the new game, they're going to search something new. But there will be new users and players.

If that new community will be bigger than the old one is something that might be argued about. And even I think it's going to be smaller ... for various reasons.

 

So again ... I didn't like what I saw in 2012. And I'd really like to see that changed to something more "sacred". But I also know it is not that easy. It's impossible to make everybody happy. You need to find the mix. We agree on Sacred 3 not beeing the right mix. So, please, don't take this post too personal or anything. I just want to put things in perspective from my point of view which might be a little more moderate than that from a hardcore fan. (which does not mean I'm not a fan, I played Sacred1 1.0 :D... I'm just used to balance my opinion and the knowledge about the stuff.)

  • Like! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK.. So we're in agreement they could take the Sacred 2 engine and tweak the map to make it like the one in Sacred 1 - or for that matter, maybe come up with another map entirely. I figure there's probably more continents on Ancaria than just the two. Why not? We've got 7 on Earth...

 

Not having those servers and machines for continued work - that could be problematic. But still - how much could 6 or 7 year old software fetch? Seriously. There is such a thing as depreciation.

 

Honestly I don't have a clue as to how many hard core players there are - but I'd wager it's more than just "a few". There are about 26,700 members on DarkMatters.org - rough count. Many of them never posted, But they did take the time to register at the front door. Either way - its neither here nor there. No one expects ONLY hard core players to buy this. And of course we want new fans of the series. When someone new pops in, I do my bit to make them welcome and help them out with answers to their questions. That's the sort of place this is.

 

And I acknowledge that Ascaron blew far too big a wad of cash on making the game. Where, how and why - that doesn't really matter any more. Nothing can be done at this point to change things that are in the past. Nor do I insist that DS go up the same avenue.

 

Evolve is exactly the WRONG word for the situation. DEVOLVE - DEVO - is more like it.

 

Let's look at the facts - there is nothing "new" or particularly exciting in Sacred 3 from what we've been told. Not even the co-op play thing is all that new. Larian Studios did it with "Beyond Divinity" - the first sequel to "Divine Divinity". In Beyond Divinity, your character is soul forged to a death-knight. You build up both characters combat arts and skills and switch between them so you can get out of several layers of dungeon... And that came out in 2004... It was built on the same sort of engine as Sacred 1...

 

As far as making things that won't ever sell - what would be the point of creating something like that? Just to say you did it?

 

Fans come and go - and oddly enough they come back. They hear Sacred 3 is afoot and they will likely pop back in - if only to find out what everyone else thinks of the new game. Podgie_Bear - who posted up above used to be a long time regular here - he went away and now he's back.

 

Actually, finding out what "they" (and by that, I mean WE, the fans) want isn't that difficult. All they have to do is <insert drumroll here> ASK! And in reality, they probably don't even really have to do even THAT much. Every Sacred related site I've ever been on has at least ONE thread going back asking fans what they'd like to see in the game.

 

Funny thing - back in the day, when Ascaron was still around, they actually asked for feedback. Many of the people here and on SIF earned recognition in Sacred 2 (Grave markers with witty comments associated with their names) for their feedback. I've seen the threads, I've read a number of them as well.

 

You see, COMMUNICATION is essential to making the game something cool. And there really hasn't been much in the way of that with DS and Keen Games.

 

And you'd be surprised how many studios DO communicate with their players. The folks behind Grim Dawn have even done a Q & A session here on FDM. Their website/forums are a crucial resource for new ideas as well as fixing bugs.

 

No, I don't expect them to put every single tweak into the game. That would indeed be madness. But most developers do at least one of two things to keep everyone happy. They put in Nightmare modes to keep the hard core players happy and Happy Puppy Sunshine modes for those who are feint of heart. Or they do what Ascaron did - they put in the Bronze, Silver, Gold, Platinum and Niobium levels of difficulty.

 

The thing is - what DS is doing to Sacred 3 right now isn't going to make anybody really happy. Long time, returning customers will not return. Reviewers will likely say "Meh..." And those new fans they're counting on won't be there. One of the things about Sacred and Sacred 2 that made it enjoyable is that it was an open world. There's always some new corner you might have missed the first 10 times you played the game... Those are always fun - finding things you haven't found before.

 

But a linear game with no diversions - You've done it once, what's the point of replaying the game when it's going to be the same ol' same ol'?

  • Like! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't know about anyone else, but I rarely meet anyone who hasn't tried Sacred 2 and, despite all the bugs, NOT remain a fan for life. It's not just in these forums, I know people who picked up the game and pretty much don't drop the game for a long time. Hell, it was through a friend of mine that got me hooked on the game and ultimately lead me to this forum in the first place. Better believe that while the game may not be widely known as other big name titles, but it HAS a strong fanbase. It must be, because as of now, DS has shown nothing ever since S3 was announced followed by the backlash. So, this thing about 'not pleasing everyone', feedback takes lots of work, sometimes years, but this isn't nigh unattainable, either. Just keep your ear to the ground constantly. Afterall, it may not be easy to please everyone, but it is certainly easy to piff everyone off. Something that XBox One has learned the hard way. :P

  • Like! 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eh.. I actually know ONE guy... But then again, he's notoriously impossible to please. He's the guy who wants the Peter Jackson Voodoo Doll for Christmas every year. He wants it because he feels the LOTR trilogy (and likely the Hobbit series as well) were an abomination and Jackson too FAR too many liberties with the story line that is pure heresy.

 

Then again, he doesn't like my story - Sophia's Choice - either. :( I did say he was notoriously hard to please.

 

Oh well, NO autographed copy for him if I ever get this done and published! Ironically, he's the one who turned me onto the game series.

 

But I digress.

 

You've hit the nail on the head, squarely with one of them big ol' honkin' 2 handed Shadow Warrior only hammers. All it would take would be one guy per language. Or if you're lucky - find one who's multilingual and can do English, German, Italian, Spanish, French, etc... and have him scour the boards for posts on what they would like to see in the game. Make a list of things - and see which ones are reasonable (keep those) and which ones are insanely beyond reason (ditch those). Once the sites have been scoured, there can't be THAT much work to keep it up - maybe visit those sites again once or twice a week and see if there are any new posts that need to be looked at.

Edited by wolfie2kX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK.. So we're in agreement they could take the Sacred 2 engine and tweak the map to make it like the one in Sacred 1 - or for that matter, maybe come up with another map entirely. I figure there's probably more continents on Ancaria than just the two. Why not? We've got 7 on Earth...

No.

They could take the map and rebuild it in another engine. But I don't think thy could just take the Sacred 2 engine.

Not having those servers and machines for continued work - that could be problematic. But still - how much could 6 or 7 year old software fetch? Seriously. There is such a thing as depreciation.

Again, those tools and servers are absolutely vital for working with the engine. This is a custom engine after all. There are no standards you can just attach to. Those tools were written and developed by Studio 2.

Plus, even if they had those tools and servers, they had no idea how the engine works. They'd need to analyse and learn it, which consumes a lot of time.

Evolve is exactly the WRONG word for the situation. DEVOLVE - DEVO - is more like it.

That's still up for debate. Since it's only semantics I'll just leave it there :)

Actually, finding out what "they" (and by that, I mean WE, the fans) want isn't that difficult. All they have to do is <insert drumroll here> ASK! And in reality, they probably don't even really have to do even THAT much. Every Sacred related site I've ever been on has at least ONE thread going back asking fans what they'd like to see in the game.

You've hit the nail on the head, squarely with one of them big ol' honkin' 2 handed Shadow Warrior only hammers. All it would take would be one guy per language. Or if you're lucky - find one who's multilingual and can do English, German, Italian, Spanish, French, etc... and have him scour the boards for posts on what they would like to see in the game. Make a list of things - and see which ones are reasonable (keep those) and which ones are insanely beyond reason (ditch those).

You'd end up with hundreds of opinions. Contradicting opinions. And even those which are not wouldn't make a good game just tossed together. You need to have a vision, you need to have art direction and so on ... It's not just "let's look at what they want and make that happen". You need to choose from so many options ...

And this is not even taking in account what the developers want to do.

I see your point from a player's perspective wanting the developers to be mere servants to the demands of the fans. But that's not how games development works.

Yes, developers should get opinions from the players, look at the legacy of the game. But let the players dictate the new game? No.

Once the sites have been scoured, there can't be THAT much work to keep it up - maybe visit those sites again once or twice a week and see if there are any new posts that need to be looked at.

Until what point? It's not like you can just change the direction the game is headed middevelopment just because there was a good idea on the forums. You have to make decisions early on in development and stick with them (mostly).

 

Which brings me to ... did someone actually look at the thread in the official forums at DS where they asked for ideas? Yes, I know there are tons of threads around other forums about that but for some legal reasons they couldn't use that (their statement). So did somebody check that list and actually compared tht list to what we've seen so far? I didn't ... but maybe I should and come back with some analysis.

You see, COMMUNICATION is essential to making the game something cool. And there really hasn't been much in the way of that with DS and Keen Games.

True. Sadly ...

I can't say too much of anything because NDA and such, so you just have to believe me that I'm constantly trying to hammer "COMMUNICATION" into the heads of those involved with community and PR over at DS :/

  • Like! 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am curious about the analysis and the way DS came about the direction, because I do have a hard time believing that ditching the open world and streamlining gameplay to an arcade hack and slash were what the fan base wanted, and the open world plus the time to build your character and explore were integral parts of the series. I'm also having the hardest time finding anything within the DS forum that so much posed anything to the community what they wanted for the sequel. I see mayhap people suggesting things here and there, but otherwise lots of complaints. I realize companies should not be subservient to players, but I honestly swear the fan base wasn't even asked of their opinions at all, which is all I'm finding thus far. At this point, it's been a while since anything has happened, so an update is something I'd like to see.

  • Like! 2

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

×