131
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 14 Jun 2024
131 points (97.8% liked)
Games
16920 readers
918 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
It's really sad that Blizzard has no idea what makes D2 a great game, especially considering they just released D2R so we can relive the glory for ourselves. D4 on release was nowhere close to D2, it was more like a toddler trying to make an MMO.
In D2, you can feel your character become more powerful with levels alone. In fact, gearing basically doesn't matter for most of normal difficulty, it's almost entirely level focused. D4 scales content to your players level, meaning every level you gained made you weaker. No shit people didn't want to go for a long XP grind, who wants to continually grind to do less damage?
Maybe it's because I grew up with 8 and 16 bit rpgs but I despise level scaling. It really takes the enjoyment out of playing for me so I just don't play games that have it. Some games have min and max enemy levels based on location but others keep the enemies in lock step to you and it just makes playing the game feel pointless. In either case, every game with level scaling would be better without it.
The only kind of scaling I am okay with is how new enemy types will only start appearing after level X. You still feel like you're getting powerful, but at the same time you start getting slightly more challenging enemies sprinkled in. However you only really need this in non-linear games where you expect and encourage the player to go anywhere they want instead of having complete control over the progression and how things ramp up.
Like Fallout New Vegas and 4 do. Though even those could be a bit better.
Na... Honestly
Baldurs gate and bgII had an open world where you could go anywhere. Go to certain places early game, you'd get hard fucked up. Go there later, you could make progress.
I loved the feeling of getting more powerful and that was what unlocked more of the game.
The best example of this is any game from Piranha bytes. Especially first Gothic was prime example. You're such a piece of sht at the beginning that every single even the most basic creature will give you hard time killing it or will smash you with one hit in case of stronger ones.
But as you level up and get better gear things will change drastically. Even couple levels or stronger weapon will enable you to progress to new part of map, because now you're able to finally kill the pack of wild flies guarding the passage.
Few levels later you can even go through forest without constant fear of wolf attack. And at the end you smash shadowbeasts like it's nothing... This feels awesome and that's what level scaling absolutely ruins.
It's the mostly same for the games I mentioned, it's just incredibly easy to become OP in them so it's not that hard of a roadblock and it still scales enemies beyond just adding in new types. NV has static leveled areas and FO4 spawns more difficult enemies the further away you move from Sanctuary. You can go anywhere right at the start, but you're not gonna have an easy time fighting dearhclaws and cazadores at level 1.
I still recall putting dark souls down for a solid couple months after being frustrated that I couldn't beat the area after the first boss.
Because my dumbass thought that I was supposed to go through the graveyard with all the skeletons and got my shit handed to me repeatedly. Honestly made me love the game more when I realized there was a little path up to the right to go to the actual next area...
I like this way too, as long as they don't make every area start at the same easy level. It's fun to find places you can't do yet. I think the new enemies thing works even better if it's more like they start to show up in areas you previously cleared out, rather than appearing in places you haven't been yet.
I still don't know what exactly it was about Assassins Creed Odyssey that made it work so well for me overall, but I liked the level scaling in it. Areas had a minimum level, so I'd try to go there at lower levels and get my ass beat. But being higher level didn't make the areas that much easier, because they would scale up to me. What gave me a feeling of progression was my available toolkit to deal with enemies as time went on.
When the dev doesn't have enough resources or time or werewithall to make different areas with different mobs, they reuse the existing areas to pad out the grind. Level scaling is a sign of lazy development.
At the very least, FromSoftware continues to prove that level scaling is not a requirement. I honestly think that without their influence, we would have seen a lot more adoption of the practice. It's the kinda brain-dead idea that comes from an MBA who's sole focus is reaching the widest audience possible .
Weirdly enough the D4 skill tree is even worse than the one (I know not really a tree) in D3. The first abilities almost don't matter and are just "filler" for your resource regen or cooldowns and the main abilities are just a handful, most of them kinda meh and with barely any progression & variety behind them.
As for D2R I wish they would've gone a bit farther with it, like an item filter feels like a must have with how much it spams loot onto your screen to the point where it does not display everything. This can cause you to literally not see something like a high rune on the ground because of some trash items taking up the tooltip space. Or things like the vanity system from D3 and D4 (minus the micro transactions).
Whatever... They lost touch with their base in favor of a new one that they can milk. Their profits and shareholders will love it though. I'm done with them.
It's funny you mention your first skills (basic skills) are just filler because this season some of the meta builds use basic skills as the main damage dealer so you don't need to even think about resource regen as they don't use it. Rogue and Sorcerer both have their best builds use the basic skills and work around them. There's still a lot to be desired with balancing and endgame but I feel they are turning things around gradually.
I don't care about seasons, or rather more accurately I do not like seasons, but that makes me not care about whatever they do within a season. And season rewards are just there for FOMO, which I hate even more.
Honestly, I can't get behind d2r. D2 still runs perfectly fine, my Battlebox still installs, and I know it won't have any bullshit from this side of the 2010's
Seriously, give it a go. It's honestly a great remaster. There are some extra runewords added and some other small stuff, but it's basically D2 with nicer graphics and prettier cutscenes. Gameplay is unchanged, warts and all. We even get ladder resets again!
I may try it, I just can't get behind paying blizzard more money.
Yeah, that's fair. I guess I'm hopeful that things have changed after Microsoft bought them, but they probably still suck.
I agree that an item-filter would have been a nice addition, but with Blizzard you have to take a hardline #NoChanges approach. Otherwise you'll get something like the WC3 remaster, or every Classic WoW expansion. They did add a few small additions after the remaster was released, like Helltides and some new Runewords, but they're all thankfully ignorable if you want to.
I agree, it feels very artificial and it breaks my perception of the game almost immediately.
In path of exile, you kind do the same thing. You want to fight stronger enemies because you are stronger and by doing it, you can get more and better rewards. But it's ultimately your decision when you want to face harder content. Not some algorithm that is tied to your precieved gear level.
They adjusted the level scaling for S3, with different thresholds depending on the world tier you're in. As you approach the monster level cap for a given world tier, the scaling slows down so that it's outpaced by the player level.
I agree it shouldn't have scaled 1:1 all the way to max level on launch, but people are super quick to forget how well D4 was generally received on launch. It was literally used as a counterexample to games that launched badly, "it was more like a toddler trying to make an MMO" seems like a dishonest characterisation to me. What complaints do you have that aren't long since resolved?
I mean, releasing one of the worst ARPGs of all time isn't exactly a triumphant launch. I think D4 is fine now that it's effectively become a sequel to D3, which is why I tried to use the past-tense as much as I could, but D4 was only received well by casuals. Every ARPG fan I know and every content creator I watched played it for like 2 days, realized there were deep systemic issues, and dipped.
That's just not consistent with the reality that Diablo 4 was released to wide acclaim. Wolcen was far worse than D4 in almost every area. I think you just got farmed for engagement, because contrarianism is trendy.
Everyone I know that played at launch when I asked if it was worth getting told me no, even more so after the first few patches
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_IV#Reception
There wasn't really any discontent online about the base game mechanics until there was discontent about the live service content for S1 a couple of months later.
I might be ignoring nonsense complaints like about barb nerfs despite barb being consistently the most powerful class by a significant margin to this day, simply due to having more slots for more affixes & legendary powers
people were literally criticising the game so much on all the Diablo-related r/'s that i had to unsub from each one. like, yeah, it got good ratings, but if anything, that only served to further incense the ones displeased.
there was a lot of stupid, toxic bs, for sure, but there were also players dipping out before the first season even began -- myself included. like, this is just me, obviously, but D4 at launch was straight up the most let down i've ever been by a game.
for brevity's sake, i gotta say that season 4 made me wanna give D4 another shot. & you know, it's fun now, but there are still elements to it that make me want to scream & that's not gonna change, because it's all a part of their vision for the core experience of the game.
Ya, that's a subreddit for an online game tho - being a circlejerk of negativity is like its primary function, even for breakout hits like Helldivers or The Finals. It's part of why I left reddit completely, and why "someone online said it's bad" doesn't pass the sniff test for legitimate criticism for me. As an ARPG enthusiast, I went in with the expectation that it was neither POE nor Diablo Immortal; that I'd play it alongside other ARPG's cyclically; that it'd be made or broken by the quality of the seasonal content & meta.
I understand it fell short of others' expectations, but I think that's primarily an issue with the expectations. That I'd rather play D4 right now over PoE or Last Epoch doesn't mean that those aren't great games, they just don't have that fresh content right now and that's ok, despite that you can easily find equivalent negative discourse about it. And if D4 S5 sucks, the inverse will also be true.
yeah, okay. all i'm saying is, parts of the internet were practically incandescent with negativity towards the game, a not insignificant amount of which had to do with the base mechanics. like, there are content creators currently reporting on how season 4 is turning things around, which wouldn't be noteworthy if the game hadn't been hemorrhaging players almost immediately after launch.
D4 released to "wide acclaim" where the critics are concerned, yes, but a sizable portion of the audience clearly didn't agree. like, the game was practically a meme until recently.
I think you're playing into a content creator-driven narrative that doesn't quite exist for the reasons you think. It isn't quite as simple as D4 bad, followed by D4 saved (or the delicate nuance of 'D4 mid'). Indeed masses already flipped their use of these polar opposite terms several times since its release. This is more of a treadmill you're on to drive engagement, views. If you're bored with a game, that doesn't necessarily have to be because the game is bad. It could just be that the available content has run its natural course for you. This explanation just doesn't compel people to watch videos about it, though. It can be more satisfying to have it explained to you that there is a problem with the game, that some external factor is inhibiting your enjoyment of it.
I just don't think that is an accurate representation of reality in this case. I think the latent majority audience isn't terminally online, doesn't form their opinions based on what a content creator said, doesn't watch a line on the steam charts page and cheer when its direction validates them. They just play the game until they're done, and enjoy their time with it. And that by no means is the same thing as being a 'casual'.
i get where you're coming from, i believe, but i don't mean the, well, "treadmill," specifically. there were players testing D4 extensively & finding out that 1) some mechanics, while baffling, appeared to be working as intended (necro minion behaviour, for one) & 2) some mechanics were not working as intended (armor chief among them, IIRC). add to this the monetisation, lack of content, dungeon / map design & a whole bunch of other things people had legitimate problems with from the get-go... well. i mean. i know kind of a silly amount of people with a long history with Blizzard / Diablo, some of whom i wouldn't feel weird calling Blizzard fanboys. not a single one picked up the game at all. like, not that my peers are the alpha & omega; i just kinda hadn't thought about this much before, but it's bizarre how many friends & relatives i was sure would eat up anything by Blizzard just straight up ignored the game. again, it's not really about the treadmill as much as like, just old-fashioned word of mouth, i think. it didn't take long at all for Blizzard to post their "so, uh, things are gonna change" damage control video, which to me says they know they messed up (for what it's worth), when everyone & their dog were reporting on the game selling a buttillion copies only a little while before.
i believe i may have been coming on a bit strong. apologies. i don't at all mean to be saying that D4 was overwhelmingly criticised by everyone, just that the reception seemed to be mixed enough where two people could have an entirely different view of it, depending on the environment. you know? there were people who were primed to hate it no matter what, absolutely, but also a veritable mountain of legitimate critique that i don't want to be dismissed, because the game was not ready for launch. the "beta testing" showed as much, but of course, it was already too late to change anything. & you know, what boils my piss is, there were folks saying, "have fun with a year's worth of beta testing you paid for." because they were right. they shouldn't have been right about this. this shouldn't be happening.
I wrote out a longer reply but my phone died partway through. Suffice to say, fair enough, I can't argue with your lived experience. I still disagree about several of your points - minion AI was reworked in S4 - outside a couple of isolated incidents, monetisation is relatively fair - timeline/urgency of dev/community response re: post-launch corrections ("damage control" mode specifically followed a horrible S1 mid-season patch). But ultimately your opinion is valid and I'm happy to agree to disagree.
lmao this is such a slimebag thing to say. whether or not you find my opinion valid is irrelevant, because that's not what this is about. like, why respond at all if you're so unwilling to engage with what is actually being said?
Your overall point seems to be that despite the wide acclaim on launch & yourself / your peer group's historic enthusiasm for blizzard games, you came to the conclusion it wasn't worth engaging with the game via word-of-mouth. What is there to argue about that? The reasons you shared generally don't ring true to me, but I'm not the arbiter of your collective impressions. At the start of this comment chain I tried to elucidate genuine reasons to dislike it - either reasons that haven't been already addressed for a significant part of the game's lifecycle, and aren't ones where D4 is simply guilty by association with blizzard or another of their games. I think the reasons you've given generally fall into these categories.
on initial dev/community response, I agree specifically vulnerable damage didn't take long to be revealed as overpowered & that cheapened the launch meta. The first dev stream primarily served to address that issue. I'd agree it was significant enough an issue to warrant addressing quickly, but I'd disagree that the response was outside the scope of general expectation for post-launch corrections to the meta of an ARPG. Here I think you're mistaking the acknowledgement of any fault with the game as going into "damage control" mode, likely due to the issue being played up by commentators. I acknowledge they went into that mode later - following the S1 mid-season patch.
on sticking with bad design, or the intention behind it, it's hard to respond about the examples you've given because the fact both minions & dungeons have been reworked exemplifies that isn't true. Minions received small updates in S2, buffs & further reworks in S4. Many of the more annoying dungeon affixes were removed for S2 - lightning storm affix was also removed for S4. You could certainly argue that they were intentional parts of the design during the development stage, but that dev time was straight up sacrificed to improve it, so it's clear to me they aren't staunch about really any part of the design. Indeed following the codex reworks, running a normal dungeon is no longer necessary at any stage of the game (except for the sorc lvl15 quest). You can still get aspects that way if you want, but you can also get them all from salvaging gear over time. It's optional content, and additionally there are many small tweaks over the seasons I'd describe as "surprises" - minor things like new animations for normal mobs in particular locations, spider elites creeping down from the roof of a cave, and other small touches that cumulatively make dungeons more interesting / less repetitive. These are mostly not mentioned in patch notes and as such have been almost completely ignored by commentators.
on monetisation, as someone that has had multiple battle passes, they aren't worth it. There's simply very little motivation to buy them or any of the individual paid cosmetics in the game, because they aren't meaningfully better than the free cosmetics. My toons don't wear my paid cosmetics - it's literally more interesting to go without transmog. The free cosmetics are good enough & that way there's at least variety in what's displayed on the loading screens. When you refer to monetisation as a problem with this game, my question in response is - acknowledging the state of live service game monetisation is generally predatory - how could it be less so in D4? Isn't an entirely optional system that doesn't involve fomo about as good a place as you could expect the monetisation to be in?
There are 2 exceptions in my mind regarding generally anti-consumer stuff (the isolated incidents I referred to earlier). That is 1. additional DRM that was in place during the early access period for purchasers of the collector's edition, and 2. the dark pattern implementation causing unintentional activation of S1 battle pass tokens for that same group. These are both things I disagree strongly with on principle, and if anyone dropped the game because of them - I'd agree with them. Indeed when my buddy ran into DRM roadblocks during early access, I promptly refunded my collector's edition and purchased the standard one upon launch instead.
Now in regards to yours/your friends initial impressions, I think it's worth considering the impact of external factors such as Blizzard's reputation, and the general launch state of the litany of games released post-covid delays during 2022-23, both of which I think served to negatively impact interest at launch. IIRC it was their first major non-WoW release following the revelation of issues that culminated in the DFEH lawsuit, and the resulting major changes in company structure. I actually think D4's launch state is pretty admirable overall in light of those issues, but could certainly understand if Blizzard fans were trepidatious about continuing to support them at the time. Against a backdrop of failed major launches, it'd at least make a lot of sense to wait for post-launch independent feedback.
And likewise if they had held off until that S1 midseason patch where everything was nerfed to shit and people logged in to find their builds suddenly needed extensive reworking, I'd agree with anyone dropping interest in the aftermath of that. I did too, temporarily.
Lastly, keep in mind that they had Megan Fox advertising the game in Superbowl ads. I don't think it's the case that D4's launch state was bad and caused a noteworthy player exodus. I think that ARPG's simply aren't that mass-marketable, and that advertising reached a lot of people that otherwise wouldn't pay D4 any mind, and that group just aren't generally interested in that kind of game. And so once they reconciled how it was advertised vs what it is, they stopped playing. From my perspective, that isn't meaningful in terms of analysing whether it's a good game.
Isn’t that the point of him saying about “the consumptive nature”? They couldn’t do what they wanted to, because they were doing a live service (that a large portion of people do want) so concessions had to be made.
I don’t think they are saying they tried doing it, it’s just the two ideas couldn’t coexist.
Eh, it sounds to me like they're saying "we tried to imitate D2 exactly, but people don't want it anymore." That's just flat out a lie though, because they didn't imitate D2 at all. In the article, the mention that a player could conceivably take years to drop specific "uber uniques." While true that it would take a lot of time to drop it naturally, D2 had a pretty robust trading economy in it's later years. Unless you were specifically going solo, you had the option to save up. It took time, but it was a goal that was accomplishable on ladder.
Unless they changed it when I wasn't looking, uber uniques are not tradable in D4 at all. I'm not necessarily going to argue for or against that, it's a game design choice, but it's specifically not the choice made by D2. Obviously players aren't going to want to grind for years for a specific item, but they never had to in the past.