Support NeoGAF

[nynt9]

The game's out with absolutely no marketing or talk about it. Has anyone here played it yet? How is it?

It's got a 62 on Metacritic but we all know how review scores are truly the epitome of measuring a game's actual worth.

Here's a trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFCURzNgCYo

Apparently the game is quite different from the previous Sacred games and developed by a different studio as well.
gripe I've heard is that you can't aim your skills, they go in the direction your character is facing, and you control your character with WASD, not the mouse.

To quote The Escapist's review:

The open environments are replaced with stages selected on a world map, the traditional dungeon crawling action has a distinct brawler vibe to it, and the idea of sprawling character progression and loot has been replaced with a streamlined and linear leveling system. The result is a game that's still quite enjoyable to play, but far more repetitive, restrictive, and ultimately exhausting.

That sounds pretty damning. Without loot or progression, what is there to this game?


lol:

Just played the first mission (on 360) and boy... It's not even the gameplay that bothers me the most (but don't expect Sacred 2). The voiceacting and attempts at humour are grating. What were they thinking?

And why the fuck do I need that blue circle around my character when playing solo? (Diablo III console only does this when in multiplayer).

Also... where's the loot? Am I missing something here?

And this is probably the most useless manual ever:

 

[Xater]

You should probably trust the review scores with this one. I have heard nothing but bad things about it.

 

[NeoGeoOwner]

I love it. My GOTY so far. Try it out. It's perfect.

Yours,

Franck

 

[Jimmyfenix]

You should probably trust the review scores with this one. I have heard nothing but bad things about it.

Yep this game is one huge bummer.

 

[DidntKnowJack]

No loot, no open world, rpg elements removed, it plays nothing like past games and has become nothing but an isometric brawler.

There was some discussion earlier in the week in this thread.

 

[reptilescorpio]

Play Asia have it for $30 at launch too, publisher dropped the ball on this one. Had no faith in it.

 

[Tak3n]

I like it if you have a couch pc...play it with my son...using controllers it is not as bad imo as some of the reviews suggest... price is the big issue.

 

[Black Door]

I've heard that Sacred Citadel has more RPG elements in it than this game

 

[Forsythia]

This game is a piece of shit. Okay, maybe that's a bit too harsh, but there are some really big flaws. As I've said before:

Just played the first mission (on 360) and boy... It's not even the gameplay that bothers me the most (but don't expect Sacred 2). The voiceacting and attempts at humour are grating. What were they thinking?

And why the fuck do I need that blue circle around my character when playing solo? (Diablo III console only does this when in multiplayer).

Also... where's the loot? Am I missing something here?

And this is probably the most useless manual ever:

No loot. WTF. Good thing Diablo III Ultimate Evil Edition is out in a few weeks!

I've started playing Diablo III again after playing a few levels of this. That wasn't that good an idea, as now it really shows what a turd this game is.

The one thing I dislike the most is that this doesn't feel like a game, but like a chore, clearing mob after mob, grinding for money to upgrade weapons and armour. The combat isn't fun. It's boring.

And they should patch this game so I can turn off the voice of the weapon spirits. These voices are so annoying I'm not choosing the spirit which has the best effects, but I choose the one with the least annoying voice. (Or maybe I should just turn all voices off, it's not like there is a character that has something worthwile to say)

They should have called it something else then Sacred 3, and make it a spinoff. The game would not be any better, of course, but at least people wouldn't be expecting a sequel to Sacred 2.

 

[Carcetti]

It feels like playing Diablo without loot or open maps. Or maybe it would be more accurate to say it's like a budget version of Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance games. The voice acting is hilarious for all the wrong reasons, too.

Managed about 3 levels before uninstalling.

 

[Nemesis_]

It's EBGames Exclusive in Australia too. :/

 

[Corpekata]

Holy shit at that manual.

 

[witchedwiz]

This is an action game... And an overly simple One..
Nothing to do with the old sacreds...
Personally, trash bin..
Loved the first One, liked the second (design was not good, but the game was good overall)..
This One, could have least have the decency of NOT using the name sacred, given it shared no gameplay element with the previous iterations.. And practically is not even a rpg anymore..

 

[Rolf NB]

Changes might be for the better. Sacred 2 was utterly pointless to play despite having "all the good stuff" (in the sloppiest checkbox way imaginable).

 

[Devilgunman]

It shouldn't be called Sacred. No loot and RPG element is ridiculous. I almost pre-order this game and now I'm glad I didn't do.

 

[DidntKnowJack]

Yeah that manual is something else. So useful. I never knew the A button was the one marked "A".

 

[Jenenser]

Played it yesterday and i am still pissed at this garbage.

don't buy. (maby at 10-15$)
this is a sacred game in name alone.

 

[Jimmyfenix]

That manual.

 

[Hoho for breakfast]

I was going to say how I'd probably try it for $20 but after reading just the responses so far, no thanks. What a joke.

It sounds like it should be some mobile game. It doesn't look much better either.

 

[Lain]

I played it and I like it but it's a completely different game from the previous Sacred.
This is more of a brawler with no open world and no real loot and little customization.
It's more of a co-op score based action game, where the goal seems to be killing more enemies than your buddies, doing more damage and doing it better to get the highest score at the end of a mission. Any skill or weapon/armor upgrade is unlocked at set levels and must be bought with golds that are accrued during missions. There is a nice aspect that lets the player remove the last upgrade bought in a skill/weapon/armor for free refunding the gold spent, and picking certain souls seems to offer some interesting options for the co-op.

While I wanted a new Sacred like the old games, I still had fun with it, also because I paid comparatively little for it and knew what I was getting, so I wasn't disappointed.
The simplicity of the gameplay coupled with the changes and using the Sacred 3 name have done this game a massive disservice.

For Sacred fans looking for a new entry that keeps with the past or improves on it, this is a huge disappointment, even if the game isn't bad (although it is overpriced for what it is).

 

[kulapik]

All I've heard is that it's shit.

Also lol at that manual.

 

[ChipotIe]

Actually there has been a lot of talk about it and it all boils down to this isn't what we were waiting for/ how can you call this downloadable arcade game Sacred 3.

 

[Rolf NB]

I played it and I like it but it's a completely different game from the previous Sacred.
This is more of a brawler with no open world and no real loot and little customization.
It's more of a co-op score based action game, where the goal seems to be killing more enemies than your buddies, doing more damage and doing it better to get the highest score at the end of a mission. Any skill or weapon/armor upgrade is unlocked at set levels and must be bought with golds that are accrued during missions. There is a nice aspect that lets the player remove the last upgrade bought in a skill/weapon/armor for free.

So it's like Wackylands Boss with co-op?

 

[GenericUser]

It's got a 62 on Metacritic but we all know how review scores are truly the epitome of measuring a game's actual worth.

Picked up the second sacred years ago and it blew. Really really bad game. I almost thought I lost interest in action RPGs but then thankfully Diablo 3 came around and taught me otherwise. Won't touch any sacred games anymore.

 

[nynt9]

I guess nothing is Sacred, eh?

 

[UrbanRats]

.

I can't stop laughing at this.

 

[Kelegacy]

The first Sacred was great but I don't think there is a way to play it at hd resolutions today, or in wide screen. I would love a mod/patch for that. I have Sacred 2, but there is something endearing about the first that I really liked. Maybe the graphics and fixed camera or something (at least I think it was fixed isometric!)

 

[Revolutionary]

That manual is amazing.

 

[Carlius]

terrible game if you are a fan of sacred. decent game if you love hack n slash stuff. its simple, too simple and casual.

 

[OmegaDL50]

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"

Over 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 basically 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 (EDIT: Apparently forced AI helpers were removed in the final version. Still that doesn't salvage the damage done.)

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 enjoyed Sacred 2 because of it's open world and flexible character growth mechanics.

This so called "Sacred 3" took the two things that made the two previous Sacred titles enjoyable and removed them. Disappointing, very, disappointing.

 

[Lain]

So it's like Wackylands Boss with co-op?

I don't know that game. I think an apt comparison might be that it's like Sacred Citadel 2 but named Sacred 3?

I'm going to add that I think the game looks nice, especially when downsampling:

Not the best looking game and not the kind of visuals expected for the price they ask for it (it should have been a 25€ game top), but still nice nonetheless.

 

[Uncle Rupee]

I'm going to add that I think the game looks nice, especially when downsampling:

Not the best looking game and not the kind of visuals expected for the price they ask for it (it should have been a 25€ game top), but still nice nonetheless.

The trees look like they were modeled by someone who has never seen an actual tree before. And the textures and lighting make this look like a confusing mess.

 

[Messofanego]

I've heard nothing but "goddamn terrible" things.

Matt Lees, Jim Sterling, and Totalbiscuit had a go at it on the podcast: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsuzAUDHHyE#t=2m06s

 

[shark sandwich]

I knew it was a bad sign when there were several trailers on Steam, but none of them showed more than 1-2 seconds of gameplay.

 

[Slayven]

Was this game made a new team or something? People that never played the Sacred games?

 

[dmr87]

I watched TB's video of it, no thanks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=To9mlwF95k4&list=UUy1Ms_5qBTawC-k7PVjHXKQ

 

[Samus4145]

I put up a video a couple days ago of the first and most of the second level.

No loot, lite, lite, lite rpg elements, linear levels. Sacred 3 is the video game equivalent of the No fun allowed image.

 

[sgjackson]

I knew it was a bad sign when there were several trailers on Steam, but none of them showed more than 1-2 seconds of gameplay.

yeah i know nothing about sacred but i was chilling with a friend who was looking into this and was wondering why the game has a half-dozen pre-rendered trailers

 

[NoirVisage]

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"

Over 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 basically 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 (EDIT: Apparently forced AI helpers were removed in the final version. Still that doesn't salvage the damage done.)

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 enjoyed Sacred 2 because of it's open world and flexible character growth mechanics.

This so called "Sacred 3" took the two things that made the two previous Sacred titles enjoyable and removed them. Disappointing, very, disappointing.

You may be on to something.


I got the game thanks to a game stop manager who let me borrow it, it started it out more promising than I imagined, then around the 6th area monotony set in. HARD.. I knew where my leveling was going to take me and it just didn't feel like enough to keep going, the enemies were samey in look from the distance it shows, and the not giving me the option to use ALL of my abilities made combat a snooze since you end up picking the most effective abilities overall amd spamming them. I gave it a chance and it's soulless, I'm glad I got to experience Sacred 2..wish the series didn't have to die like this.."Not like this.."

 

[vulva]

are blind guardian in it?

 

[Z3M0G]

Glad I checked for this thread. A buddy is a huge Sacred 2 fan and this was his next planned purchase. Just saved him some cash.

 

[Fatalmephisto]

I'm a huge fan of the franchise and I still am but Sacred 3 when I found out they took a liner approach this time. It killed the game for me. That's what made Sacred and Sacred 2 so good. I loved in Sacred just roaming around a huge open world and exploring stuff.

 

[Xevren]

I'm glad I only rented it, it was truly awful. I really can't think of anything positive to say for this game at all. It tries so hard to be funny that you end up just wanting to turn it off too.

 

[TheFLYINGManga_Ka]

Doesn't look that bad seeing IGN's video review.

It's more Guantlet then Diablo.

A fun hack slash.

I'd get it for cheaper.

 

[licktheenvelope]

Every reviewer I respect has basically said it's horrendous and the upgrade system makes no sense + it's a game that should be loot focused that has no loot.

 

[TheFLYINGManga_Ka]

Every reviewer I respect has basically said it's horrendous and the upgrade system makes no sense + it's a game that should be loot focused that has no loot.

Looks like they were going for a arcade style game.

 

[Ishida]

I seriously cannot believe this is real.

 

[DJ88]

Ohhhh, so the A button, is the A button.

Awesome, thanks manual!

 

[ced]

Finished it in coop with my wife, its like Sacred Citidel, not 2.

Its just an arcade button masher, its $20 good.

 

[FourMyle]

Changes might be for the better. Sacred 2 was utterly pointless to play despite having "all the good stuff" (in the sloppiest checkbox way imaginable).

Not sure if the changes are for the better, but Sacred 2 was seriously one huge, sloppy and contrived game. Like you said, it felt like they wanted to fill out a checkbox of features for their game but never actually thought about how those features might interact with each other and cared very little about polish/accessibility. The combat felt very weightless and unrewarding as well.

IIRC in Sacred 2 it was actually recommended by players to not level up your skills too high because after a certain point the cooldowns become too long and outweigh the increased power from leveling them up..