Dungeon Siege (PC) Review

Nameless farmer working on his peaceful land. A wounded man appears, informing you about an attack from the orcs (they are called krug, but come on, they are orcs), right before stereotypically leaving his last breath on your arms. You begin your adventure, and go to the next town, right before continuing the same process a couple of times, trudging through areas that have names, but could very well be named 'Forest Land,' 'Swamp Land,' 'Snow Land,' meeting people who basically tell the hero/heroine to keep on adventuring, until he/she eventually finds out that an evil evil-doer was awakened, and is doing evil things. You kill him, the credits roll, and you realise that you don't remember why you even started this odyssey, and who that guy in the beginning was. In the words of John Carmack, "story in a game is like story in a porn film. It's expected to be there, but it's not that important." Correct? Oh, heeeeeell no!

Whether a title has tons of dialogue, a short introductory cut-scene, or just environmental storytelling, plot and presentation do matter, as they provide the necessary incentive. Dungeon Siege is frankly more lifeless than a medieval fantasy board game the likes of HeroQuest (which, yes, is a masterpiece, fellow Gen-Xers and Millennials). There's nothing to care about here. Apart from the main character, whose only role is to be an avatar of the player, the rest are NPCs that are there to sell you some stuff, say something a tad more complex than "welcome to Corneria," or join your party. Now, compare that with Diablo which took place in a very small region, but had a storyline worth paying attention to, as well as the lore to support it…

In the end, all there is to see here is the action, so how does Dungeon Siege plays? Well, taking its cue from PC RPGs, and of course hack 'n' slashers like Diablo, players click on the world to make the character move, click on an item like a door or lever to interact with it, and click on an enemy to start fighting. Now, while the bulk of the experience here (more than 90%) is said fighting, don't expect to participate that much in what is going on in the screen. The biggest criticism towards this, even from people that liked it, has always been the fact that it plays itself. Sure, one needs to be cautious, and be ready to force the character into drinking a health potion, but he/she can do it automatically, just a bit slower. Babysitting. That's all that can be done here. 10 hours of walking towards an enemy group, and watching the party hacking, slashing, and zapping the opposition, while the player feeds them health and mana when needed.

One would assume that things get a bit more tactical later on, or at higher difficulties. Not really, as the same kind of strategy will be required: don't attract too many enemies, heal when needed, rinse-repeat. You can assign formations, but it's really all about having the "tanks" in the front, while the weaklings in the back use ranged attacks, or heal their wounded friends. This relentless repetitiveness becomes even worse due to how linear the world is. It wouldn't be an exaggeration to say that this is one of the most linear games ever made, with the few deviations from the path usually leading to something insignificant, like a generic piece of equipment that you already have five pieces of. Do the character classes add some sort of variety? Well, for starters there are no classes. Stats, and the ability to use specific types of weapons or magic increase through use. Therefore, one uses bows a lot? Then he or she becomes better with them - and that's about it. Compare that to the skill tree of Diablo II, or the vast assortment of abilities in CRPGs, and it's easy to see that Dungeon Siege is way too simplistic.

So, the question is this: how did a game which is objectively boring, got so much love back then to lead to the creation of two more instalments? In all honesty, nostalgia is probably the one to blame. Take a quick look at comments underneath the few available reviews that float online, or under play-throughs, and you'll see that most express exactly that: their nostalgic feelings. "Oh, this is the first game I've played!", "ah, the memories," "This music brings me back," and so on and forth. Nostalgia is a force stronger than gravity. As an example, this critic will die defending the original The Legend of Zelda and Metroid no matter how archaic most people find them to be, and while there are plenty of concrete reasons for that, nostalgia is definitely a factor.

If anything, Dungeon Siege had atmosphere, and managed to be engrossing despite its generic aesthetic, with the existence of something as simple as bridge being considered a landmark that stands out from the forgettable grasslands, dungeons, and caverns. There's nothing special to point at, as the visuals have quickly lost their luster, and the music, while good, it's just… there. For some strange reason, however, this draws you in. Maybe because there are no loading screens to break the immersion, or the fact that this genuinely feels like an adventure, since it all begins with a simple farmer, and ends up being a quest of a bunch of battle hardened heroes that are facing a great evil. And then repetition kicks in, and you pray that something different will happen to break the monotony, and it never does. In other words, play Diablo II.