Jump to content

CM Patch Devs want to know what you think!

Sign in to follow this  
Silver_fox

Preview article about Sacred 3 gameplay features

Recommended Posts

OmegaDL50    10

While all these complainments are completely true the obvious fact is that using "Sacred" trademark helps very much to reach a lot of more people who would be definitely not interested in brand new game like that. Right now you can see some posts on Steam like "Sacred 2 was awesome, gonna buy Sacred 3 100%". So it depicts how big is the influence of that one word: Sacred whereas lack of it would consequent in less interest. More interest = more money. Understandable.

They have to know what they are doing and I don't believe that they didn't expect negative feedback from Sacred fans. Maybe they faced a choice like "Use Sacred trademark, make somehow another game, say goodbye to old fans and make Sacred a trilogy, end the franchise and earn some money or don't focus on that game". Maybe they had that game already planned and just added the Seraphim. Maybe not.

Of course I don't find that twist enjoyable but kind of understand it.

Most of the time companies that do this it backfires. It has been evident in many game series that do these kinds of changes over the years and they all had the same outcome. Fan backlash and the game getting heavy criticism by gamer and journalist alike.

 

Look at Diablo 3 for example. All of the decisions Jay Wilson was adamant in being progression for the series was met with a large degree of criticism even from publications like Rock Paper Shotgun, Kotaku, RPGamer, Eurogamer, Destructoid and many other game news coverage websites.

 

It wasn't until Jay Wilson basically stepped down and could no longer taint the game did things start to turn around such as the removal of the auction house, better itemization, and various other improvements. It was one mans arrogance and believing he was more correct over "fan base desires" that it systematically hurt the game.

 

Sacred 3 is the same way. The long time fans know what they want out of a Sacred sequel. Deep Silver and by extension Keen Games is doing the same thing with Sacred 3, that Jay Wilson did with Diablo 3. Make changes the existing fan base doesn't want and ignore them.

 

History has a tendency to repeat. I can go on with many examples of game series have dramatic changes that aren't positive that show very little in common with a previous title and almost every single time has been met with heavy criticism.

 

That fan who found Sacred 2 awesome in the Steam Forums, is probably assuming Sacred 3 is going to be same experience Sacred 2 provided but bigger / improved. However with a little research we both know this is not even the case.

 

Sacred 3 being called "Sacred 3" will NOT save it from long time fans that played the previous game expecting an improved experience to the previous game in the series. If anything by your example It will do the exact opposite.

 

No game ever goes unscathed ignoring the wants of the long time existing fan base and gets away with it. In the 28 years I've been playing video games, I have not seen this happen once. Be it Mega Man fans, Final Fantasy fans, Sim City / The Sims, and so many others.

Edited by OmegaDL50
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OmegaDL50    10

FWIW, I think the mandatory henchmen in SP were removed.

Well that would be interesting. If this is indeed the case, I wonder what other changes were made. I'll just sit and wait until the release and see what happens.

 

Being slightly off topic - I just realized I Sacred 2 Gold isn't installed since I formatted my HDD two weeks ago, lets rectify that situation and get back into the game. Is that huge Sacred 2 world map still available on this website. I also need to grab that community patch to maximize my Sacred 2 experience.

Edited by OmegaDL50

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gogoblender    1,448

 

While all these complainments are completely true the obvious fact is that using "Sacred" trademark helps very much to reach a lot of more people who would be definitely not interested in brand new game like that. Right now you can see some posts on Steam like "Sacred 2 was awesome, gonna buy Sacred 3 100%". So it depicts how big is the influence of that one word: Sacred whereas lack of it would consequent in less interest. More interest = more money. Understandable.

They have to know what they are doing and I don't believe that they didn't expect negative feedback from Sacred fans. Maybe they faced a choice like "Use Sacred trademark, make somehow another game, say goodbye to old fans and make Sacred a trilogy, end the franchise and earn some money or don't focus on that game". Maybe they had that game already planned and just added the Seraphim. Maybe not.

Of course I don't find that twist enjoyable but kind of understand it.

Most of the time companies that do this it backfires. It has been evident in many game series that do these kinds of changes over the years and they all had the same outcome. Fan backlash and the game getting heavy criticism by gamer and journalist alike.

 

Look at Diablo 3 for example. All of the decisions Jay Wilson was adamant in being progression for the series was met with a large degree of criticism even from publications like Rock Paper Shotgun, Kotaku, RPGamer, Eurogamer, Destructoid and many other game news coverage websites.

 

It wasn't until Jay Wilson basically stepped down and could no longer taint the game did things start to turn around such as the removal of the auction house, better itemization, and various other improvements. It was one mans arrogance and believing he was more correct over "fan base desires" that it systematically hurt the game.

 

Sacred 3 is the same way. The long time fans know what they want out of a Sacred sequel. Deep Silver and by extension Keen Games is doing the same thing with Sacred 3, that Jay Wilson did with Diablo 3. Make changes the existing fan base doesn't want and ignore them.

 

History has a tendency to repeat. I can go on with many examples of game series have dramatic changes that aren't positive that show very little in common with a previous title and almost every single time has been met with heavy criticism.

 

That fan who found Sacred 2 awesome in the Steam Forums, is probably assuming Sacred 3 is going to be same experience Sacred 2 provided but bigger / improved. However with a little research we both know this is not even the case.

 

Sacred 3 being called "Sacred 3" will NOT save it from long time fans that played the previous game expecting an improved experience to the previous game in the series. If anything by your example It will do the exact opposite.

 

No game ever goes unscathed ignoring the wants of the long time existing fan base and gets away with it. In the 28 years I've been playing video games, I have not seen this happen once. Be it Mega Man fans, Final Fantasy fans, Sim City / The Sims, and so many others.

Post was a good read

as an aside... didn't they make a ton of money off the auction house>? Have they ever disclosed the coffers on that anywhere?

 

:)

 

gogo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OmegaDL50    10

Post was a good read

as an aside... didn't they make a ton of money off the auction house>? Have they ever disclosed the coffers on that anywhere?

 

:)

 

gogo

Blizzard according to these two articles makes up to 15% on each real money transaction in the auction house.

 

http://kotaku.com/5906675/blizzard-will-take-a-big-cut-of-any-money-you-try-to-make-from-playing-diablo-iii

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2012/05/blizzard-to-take-up-to-15-percent-of-diablo-iii-real-money-auction-house-sales/

 

However these articles are dated back since 2012 so the information may be inaccurate.

 

Still just imagine the scenario

 

Let's say there was 5 Million trades at $20 each on the Auction house (5,000,000 x $20 = $100,000,000 and Blizzard gets 15% of this. Blizzard is walking away with $15,000,000 on virtual trades. Money that they will use for server maintenance and continued support of the game. It basically is paying for itself.

 

But since Blizzard shutdown the Real Money trading, They'll need to find another way to make up the extra funds.

 

Also people working within this system could make some decent money

 

For example - http://venturebeat.com/2014/03/19/meet-the-gamers-who-earned-big-in-the-now-closed-diablo-iii-real-money-auction-house/ (Article dated March 2014 so it's recent and shows just what was going on behind the scenes)

Edited by OmegaDL50

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Flix    2,840

 

FWIW, I think the mandatory henchmen in SP were removed.

Well that would be interesting. If this is indeed the case, I wonder what other changes were made. I'll just sit and wait until the release and see what happens.

 

Being slightly off topic - I just realized I Sacred 2 Gold isn't installed since I formatted my HDD two weeks ago, lets rectify that situation and get back into the game. Is that huge Sacred 2 world map still available on this website. I also need to grab that community patch to maximize my Sacred 2 experience.

 

Yeah, that's all we can do at this point, is just wait. I'm waiting for a demo.

 

That big map Schot made should be available for download around here somewhere. It's on the SacredWiki too.

 

For Sacred 2, you might as well install the CM Items Mod too to max out your game content. It unlocks a lot more stuff items-wise and fixes a few things. It's planned on being added to the next CM Patch release. Yes I'm plugging my own mod.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aegis    249

While all these complainments are completely true the obvious fact is that using "Sacred" trademark helps very much to reach a lot of more people who would be definitely not interested in brand new game like that. Right now you can see some posts on Steam like "Sacred 2 was awesome, gonna buy Sacred 3 100%". So it depicts how big is the influence of that one word: Sacred whereas lack of it would consequent in less interest. More interest = more money. Understandable.

They have to know what they are doing and I don't believe that they didn't expect negative feedback from Sacred fans. Maybe they faced a choice like "Use Sacred trademark, make somehow another game, say goodbye to old fans and make Sacred a trilogy, end the franchise and earn some money or don't focus on that game". Maybe they had that game already planned and just added the Seraphim. Maybe not.

Of course I don't find that twist enjoyable but kind of understand it.

I'd LOVE to be as optimistic about this, and I would like to think that companies do know what they're doing... but unfortunately, especially within these past few years, I'd have to sadly disagree with you. Look no further than Microsoft and what they tried to do with the XBox One; they botched their marketing so much with the DRM, the mandatory Kinect, and the constant TV talk that many XBox fans ended up ditching that console for Sony's PS4. Best part, Microsoft claimed to have done their research and expected the backlash, but the moment they saw how bad it really was, they did a 180 and reversed their policies. So that went real well. And do not get me started on Nintendo. Old skool fans are heartbroken to see what they've done wit the WiiU, and THAT is a topic unto itself. Companies are not infallible, so I would have to say that Deep Silver does not really know what they're doing with the Sacred brand. I could understand if they're making changes to a game where the initial installment absolutely blew chunks, or if the game did not garner a lot of attention to the point where it warrants such a makeover, but those would have to be extreme cases. Tomb Raider I see happened the way it did because the series turned into utter trash and needed the makeover. Otherwise, omega hit it on the head with his statement, a massive change to a series often backfires and gives bad press. I don't know if the game will turn out well or not, but when I see 'Sacred 3', I expect an ARPG with an open world, not an arcade hack and slash. I can find the latter elsewhere, be it Devil May Cry, or even old skool like, oh, Gauntlet or Golden Axe.

Remember, we live in a world where the fan base can turn on you just for changing a voice actor (Metal Gear Solid V), or change a character's hair (DMC: Devil May Cry). Here, we are messing with something much deeper, and that is the core gameplay. And the worse part is the fans were asked for feedback long ago only for all of that to be ignored. A fan who is hardcore into this game as I have been, you're gonna have to do a lot of convincing for me to touch this game, never mind promote word of mouth to the casual who might even consider it.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ryanrocker    200

Remember, we live in a world where the fan base can turn on you just for changing a voice actor (Metal Gear Solid V), or change a character's hair (DMC: Devil May Cry). Here, we are messing with something much deeper, and that is the core gameplay. And the worse part is the fans were asked for feedback long ago only for all of that to be ignored. A fan who is hardcore into this game as I have been, you're gonna have to do a lot of convincing for me to touch this game, never mind promote word of mouth to the casual who might even consider it.

Gotta hand it to you Aegis, this was a beautiful read. As you stated above, I don't think Deep Silver/Keen did their research on the game and jumped to some hasty changes without checking in with anyone first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Silver_fox    394

You know, guys, after reading the last few messages in this topic, there is only one thing I have on my mind. I don't think that Deep Silver does not know what they are doing with S3, I have a feeling that they are knowing it only too well: they are trying to turn in a profit, get their money and forget about it all. This is the way they developed S3 - it has no vast and expensive features, nothing original and innovative that could have been costly and/or risky. They cut out all the features of the original that required careful attention of many developers to be good and balanced, both in world-design and in gameplay mechanics. Then they keep silent about the possible downsides of the game and promote pre-orders with many bonuses, just to get as much money as they can right now. With what they did out of this game, it does not look like the development was incredibly expensive, so they are probably hoping to rise enough money out of pre-order hype to cover for it, and don't really care what happens afterwards.

 

Yes, there were several cases recently when developers made unwelcome changes to their games, received fan backlash and changed for the better either with patches or probably with the next installments. But take a look at the games that were mentioned: Diablo, Resident Evil, Devil May Cry - all of them are incredibly famous, almost iconic for their subgenres, with previous installments being very well-received both by critics and by public. These series are well-known, well-marketed, and have really huge fan-bases, so one failed installment is not enough to bring them crashing down. There is a point in continuing these series and making them comply the fans' demand.

 

Sadly, this is not the case with Sacred, as much as we like it. Yes, the first two games gathered solid and loyal fan-base, but it's not an incredibly big one. Sacred games never were outstandingly popular (not to the point where even non-gamer would recognize the name) and critical response for them was not very good - the more respected gaming sites and magazines rated the games average or even poor. Sacred is our favorite under-rated game, and we know it. It's like a rough diamond, where you can find interesting mechanics and world to explore, but only if you agree to cope up with bugs and things that do not work so well, and if you care to look for interesting features and discover them. The first two games were not as bad as to warrant a total makeover... besides, it's not even a real makeover when it's a game of a different genre. But I don't think that the series would be able to survive a failed installment and get back to its tracks. I'm not even sure whether or not I wish for S3 to be successful - if this game would get better response than predecessors, Deep Silver would continue in the same vein, if it would fail, I'm afraid they'd just decide the series does not sell and abandon it entirely.

 

I'm sorry for sounding pessimistic, but in the world of gaming publishers, where expense/profit ratio is the king, we are unlikely to see overly-ambitious projects (capable of driving the studio bancrupt) like Sacred 2 often. Yes, there was the last Tomb Raider, which, from what I remember, sold very well, but it still was not enough to cover for incredible expenses. But that's another big name again...

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aegis    249

My only issue is why pick up Sacred in the first place? However big or small the money spent, that is still a waste to buy the series only to essentially ditch it.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SevPOOTS    89

I think the main problem stems from the fact Deep Silver knew Ascaron was overly ambitious with Sacred 2, unfortunately going over budget when you factor the costs just porting the game to consoles. Weren't they also working on a 2nd expansion after Ice and Blood, which never saw completion because of the bankruptcy?

 

Deep Silver thinking Ascaron handled the game wrong in terms of QA when they acquired the license, handled development duties to Keen Games and basically told them "Do everything the opposite Ascaron did"

 

Here at DarkMatters.org, the largest Sacred community on the web, I've seen posts of people especially annoyed when Deep Silver basically kept this community almost entirely in the dark, nevermind reusing the same footage repeatedly and keeping most details on on the game mum. Another change. Ascaron was very open and communicated with it's fanbase.

 

As I said Deep Silver is doing everything the opposite that Ascaron did. Minimal fan communication, removal of open world and more heavily instanced locations, no inventory management or loot beyond weapon spirits, forced multiplayer (Even offline you have forced AI helpers)

 

It's one thing to prevent the mistakes Ascaron did going over budget, but it's an completely different matter entirely by making the game have almost nothing in common with it's predecessors except the name.

 

Well a name means nothing without the main aspects that made the series enjoyable to begin with. In fact they could probably give the game an entirely different name and no one would be none the wiser it had anything to do with Sacred...because the only two existing references is the name of the world Ancaria and the Seraphim class, remove these two things and it is basically a completely different game.

I've read before that the Sacred/Sacred2 Devs were active in DarkMatters.org before?

Because I encountered a tomb in Sacred UW that says soemthing like:

"bal h blah the x member in the forums " -- or something like that.

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

Sign in to follow this  

×