I love these types of games, personally. I like the RPG feel, without the need of going around continuously looking for fights to beef up my characters. So thats why I think this one will be good. word.

It could be great, after all I'm still having some fun with Diablo and Diablo 2. However, it could be more like Dungeon Siege, which was terribly boring.

I havent played Dungeon Siege, but it doesnt look like to me like it will be boring...i mean cmon...check out the trailer...lol. i think it will be fun...and RA Salvatore is on board with it. Sweeeeeet.

Although I love hardcore RPGs, I also really enjoy more action oriented rpgs, like Diablo 2 which I really enjoy. That said, from what I read of it, I'd formed the impression that it would be more like the Dark Alliance games. That's a good thing. Dark Alliance is one of the most fun hack 'n slash games that I've ever played.

(In fact, Getting Dark Alliance 2 out for Gamecube is the only reason I don't want Interplay to die this second. Publish it, then die.)

So all in all, as with most games of this type, I say it'll be either great fun, or utter tripe. Only time (and IGN) will tell.

I personally don't like them, I hated the first Dark Alliance and I haven't even tried the second one. I'm probably never going to play Demon stone or any other of these Forgotten Realms hack'n'slashes, because they are usually pretty linear and boring, that said I liked Diablo 1 and 2. And I had some fun playing Dungeon Siege online (took me some time to figure out, I didn't have to do anything to lvl up my character, as he could fight for himself :D ).

Those sorts of games are great fun, in short bursts, but only (IMO atleast) when playing multiplayer. It's fun to be able to just sit down with a friend and go through hacking everything to peices for a day - the great part about it is not needing to think!

Having looked at the movies, I'm not so sure. It's a little thing, but the art style looks WAY too much like the Lord of the Rings movies/games. I was hoping for a little... I don't know, brighter style. Granted, those are only two levels, so we shall see what we shall see...

One of my all-time favorite games was Diablo (although I found D2 boring after awhile). And while I like BG2 even more, it is because of the action aspect and the variety of gameplay that is offered with the various classes.

While I enjoy roleplaying, I tend to lean towards powergaming, and I find that BG2 let's me do both. I'm hoping Demon Stone has enough RP'ing elements to keep it interesting, but it's the action that I'm looking forward to.

I just get the feeling they are dumbed down compared "classic" rpgs. C'mon, look how much more depth something like Fallout has compared to say...Dark Alliance?

Obviously, you can't have a game of such complexity on consoles for a number of reasons.

Action RPGs are quite refreshing, compared to standard RPGs with standard problems arising. I love KotOR and I'm sure it's closer to action RPG than classic IE/Aurora type. I mean, I'll always prefer good plot and rich dialogue to hack and slash, but sometimes the plot isn't so rich and the dialogue system is transparent to a programmer. As a result, classic RPGs tend to become tiring after some time, while those Action RPGs are first of all intended for fun and they're successful in making it.

Taluntain...thats not true...theres a slew of great RPG games that are on consoles. There might be differences bw them and PC games, but I think consoles can support very detailed and complex games.

Chevalier...I agree about them being refreshing...no turn-based play can be a nice change of pace sometimes in my opinion.

And how about the gold announcement?? SWEEET!

Rutherford, what Tal meant is that there is NO way, at ALL, that a console game cannot, and will not, be as complex as the Fallouts or the Baldur's Gates.

No way.

Exactly. But not because the consoles couldn't support it, but because of interface and control issues. Since you see the picture from consoles on TV, from afar, all text and icons need to be big, so you can't fit nearly the same amount of it on screen as you can on the PC.

Controls are even more problematic. Playing a game like BG on consoles would be pure torture without a mouse and keyboard. Those are the main problems. Console games therefore need to be designed with all that in mind from the ground up.

I see what you're saying, and understand....i guess im just really excited for Demon Stone and really just want to see it turn out well...and i think it will.

Well, an example that shows that consoles can have as complex rpgs is Morrowind. That never gave me the impression of being merely an action-rpg and the rules system was rather complex and well thought out. Well, I must admit that I only played the computer version, but IIRC they are identical. The only thing that you can't really recreate is some kind of strategical aspect with an entire party, unless you go turnbased and play it completely on a grid and all, just like the d&d rules are in pnp. There are alot of examples of turnbased rpgs showing up on console and they are rather popular.

I grew up on console games, and I think action RPGs are far better suited to consoles than PCs. Sure, such games are probably going to look better on a PC, but to me it's all about the gameplay, and when I want pseudo-medieval hack and slash goodness, I want a controller in my hand. I like the Diablo games, for what it's worth (though I'd like them a lot less if didn't get the battle chest on eBay for 10), but I don't find myself playing them over and over and over the way I find myself going back to the Zeldas, Dark Clouds, and similar games. I guess I just have different expectations when it comes to console games vs. PC games. I enjoy them both equally. D&D type RPGs work better, much better, on PCs (I don't own an XBox so I can't comment on the relative quality of Morrowind). To be quite honest, before Baldur's Gate came along, I didn't like PC RPGs. Graphics were never, and are never a concern for me--if an RPG's story doesn't suck me in, I'm done, no matter how fun it might be to roll up my own character, which is why I'm such a Final Fantasy dork, and vastly prefer Baldur's Gate to Singleplayer Bites (er, Neverwinter Nights :p ).

In action RPGs, the story is important, but I value exploration and tactical combat as much, and this is where I think that despite the hardware limitations, console action-style RPGs out-class their PC counterparts on almost every level. Vagrant Story had a plot that ran circles around damn near everything on the consoles (and a lot of PC games at the time), and though you ran around hitting stuff it was far from a hack-and-slash game, combat actually required thought--button mashing can get you killed. Which, naturally, turned a lot of people off the game. It wasn't perfect, for instance I could have done without the asinine block puzzles, but I think it is a near-perfect example of an action RPG. It also had the best graphics the PS1 ever cranked out, incidentally.

I honestly think PC action RPG developers are too much in love with the hardware. Dungeon Siege is a prime example of this. It's a beautiful game, no doubt, but the gameplay is total, repetitive, ass, and encapsulates everything wrong with action RPGs on the PC. Click on that to go here. Click on that thing to attack it. Here a click, there a click, everywhere a click-click. 'Scuse me while I beat my head into my keyboard. I wish PC developers would spend more time on innovative gameplay, and better game balance and level design instead of how to make a shinier sword or jigglier elf boobs. I just don't see stuff like Dark Cloud's weapon buildup system or Vagrant Story's workshops in action RPGs on the PC, they all fall into the same basic assy mold of click here, kill that, collect kewl magic l00t, with a few odd variations. It's trite and boring and so 10 years ago, and considering the more traditional RPGs the PC has cranked out, I KNOW they can do better. Action-style RPGs don't have to be mindless hack-n-slash fests but unfortunately PC developers have yet to figure this out IMO.

As always, YMMV. :)

I've always held the opinion that PCs > consoles. The only thing that a PC can't do is play certain console games because they haven't been ported over and even then there are emulators (in production or already produced). Whereas consoles (as alerady mentioned) lack a mouse - almost an imperitive for FPS and Strategy games.

PC games also offer patches, editors and mods.

I don't think I'll enjoy the Action/RPG element of this game. I've always viewed AD&D to be more tactical and when I think hack'n'slash I think of the Icewind Dales. I don't really understand how you can base a game on AD&D and make it action oriented because the very nature of any 20d system takes care of the action for you. But they've probably taken out the 20d idea and use a 'toned down' version of AD&D. You better be able to pause the game as the sorcerer, I don't want to have to flick through a spellbook during combat.

I'm really not a fan of action/RPGs, but that's mainly because I'm no fan of action games. To me, action/RPGs feel like almost entirely action, with the RPG only a small portion, as if added as an afterthought. That said, I might have a look at Demon Stone, but I really doubt I'll end up playing it. Not to mention I don't have a console at home (the reason why I never played Dark Alliance), so unless it's ported to PC I'll never play it.

i could see it eventually making it to PC actually. tho i tend to stick with PC, its games like this that make me glad that i stuck with my PS2 and didnt just get rid of it the first time it busted. anyway, game comes out soon....anyone def def gettin it?