EPTThat doesn't mean everyone wants that, obviously. But the group that does want it is certainly significant.
Diablo IV - Page 126
| Forum Index > General Games |
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21979 Posts
That doesn't mean everyone wants that, obviously. But the group that does want it is certainly significant. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26192 Posts
On May 29 2024 23:42 evilfatsh1t wrote: the point about pacing is the most important for me, but the pacing decision is the inevitable consequence of the change in the market over the years for sure. gamers now are just better at games. ever since pro starcraft people have opened their eyes to what players could be capable of on a keyboard and mouse. i think for a while there was definitely a thought that increased speed = increased difficulty and the demand for higher difficulty existed because of sweatlords who wanted games that could test their mechanical limit. if you really go deep into psychology you could also make the argument that the world we live in now with instant gratification, short attention spans and everything being fast paced ties in to the psyche of the typical gamer now. its just what people want nowadays, not just in games. we look back at the slower paced d1 and d2 with nostalgia but even i have to admit that although i love to go back to d2 every now and then, i speedrun through all 3 difficulties. i cant help that ive also fallen victim to the impatient world we live in now and i probably couldnt bear to play d2 the way i first did when it came out. Aye, tis a world of dopamine hits and grind for the thing these days! I mean it always has been to some degree of course, I’m not gonna go full boomer on it. If there’s been a shift I think it’s been in getting the dopamine hit from the intrinsic enjoyment of the game experience itself, to a more extrinsically motivated one of ‘unlock the shiny thing’. I mean it would be odd I guess if this hadn’t become more prevalent given it’s how such a big chunk of our culture and economic life is structured. I think gamers also massively neglect the mobile gaming sector in any conversations about gaming as a whole. It’s absolutely massive and there’s been some clear bleedthrough from what has worked in that sector. | ||
|
Manit0u
Poland17507 Posts
On May 30 2024 00:28 Gorsameth wrote: I think PoE has shown people want to go fast, any attempt by its developers to slow the game down has consistently been met with big resistance by its player base. That doesn't mean everyone wants that, obviously. But the group that does want it is certainly significant. The most vocal group is not the same as the largest group. From some of the past examples we've already seen that it's typically quite the opposite. On May 30 2024 02:50 WombaT wrote: I think gamers also massively neglect the mobile gaming sector in any conversations about gaming as a whole. It’s absolutely massive and there’s been some clear bleedthrough from what has worked in that sector. That's probably because 99% of mobile "games" aren't even real games and are just apps to facilitate the store and milking of money. The amount of actual games on mobile (you know, normal games that you have to pay for) is miniscule. | ||
|
Fleetfeet
Canada2608 Posts
In the case of ARPGS like evilfatsh1t mentions the natural progression for 'being good' progresses towards speed clearing, so casual players are likely to be accelerated along that path just by experiencing content from 'good players'. I don't mean to say that atmospheric exploration CANT exist in the current landscape (Fallout 3+ and Dark Souls come to mind) just as a consideration for diablo-like ARPGs it changes how you'd have to approach design. | ||
|
Manit0u
Poland17507 Posts
I can only hope that Titan Quest 2 will be more like the old stuff. | ||
|
iamperfection
United States9645 Posts
On May 30 2024 03:30 Fleetfeet wrote: It's also worth mentioning that the way we gather and process information is wildly more efficient than it was then. I'm sure all of us old fuck gamers can remember reading the SCBW or Diablo manuals and talking to the few friends at school that also played games. That for most of us was pretty much the sum of our info... Nowadays? Youtube video titled "I beat THE BUTCHER at LEVEL ONE", a bunch of posts of guides on Blizzard forums and/or Reddit, entire Discords devoted to the game, live streams of the game etc etc etc. It's very easy to get information about a game and experience what 'being good' looks like, and try emulate that. In the case of ARPGS like evilfatsh1t mentions the natural progression for 'being good' progresses towards speed clearing, so casual players are likely to be accelerated along that path just by experiencing content from 'good players'. I don't mean to say that atmospheric exploration CANT exist in the current landscape (Fallout 3+ and Dark Souls come to mind) just as a consideration for diablo-like ARPGs it changes how you'd have to approach design. I think this is a good point. I played last epoch blind on hardcore and it was a lot of fun just going through the bosses not knowing what to expect. | ||
|
Fleetfeet
Canada2608 Posts
LE definitely suffers from samey-feeling enemies like Manit0u is talking about - I literally can't remember any normal mobs outside of Jahith Bears. I don't think that itself is a problem though, D2 was already pushing emphasis away from normal mobs feeling unique and putting all that emphasis on bosses, and imo D2/PoE/LE bossfights are obviously an improvement over D1. There's stuff lost in that (The buildup for The Butcher in D1 is famous for a reason, and Leoric, and Lazarus have these long stages to build up the tension) that I honestly thing D2 did and did better but then D3 kinda shit the bed on because their bosses were so cardboard and "OHH JUST YOU WAIT NEPHILIM IMMA GET YOU NEXT TIME" rather than actually being scary. | ||
|
andrewlt
United States7702 Posts
On May 29 2024 12:20 Manit0u wrote: I don't think there's much to be gleaned from D1 sales. Back then very few people were "gamers." I strongly believe though that if they released an updated version of D1 (modern graphics, more customization options, skill trees for characters - even just passives) it would be a smash hit. People would probably appreciate a game that you can finish in 1 day with high replay value. D4 T2 on release was what you are looking for. Half of the 10 players who played it probably post on this thread. Even the no life streamers zoomed past the campaign on T1. | ||
|
FaCE_1
Canada6182 Posts
| ||
|
Manit0u
Poland17507 Posts
I much preferred the old approach, where most people didn't even finish Hell difficulty in D1/D2. And it was difficult because it wasn't just numbers but you had to take a completely different approach to how you play. You get less resists while monsters get more, also monsters immune to certain damage types show up so you need a way to work around that. I kinda dislike the idea that the game starts at the end at max level. D2 did it in a very elegant way where it's not easy to finish max difficulty and even then you won't be maxed out. Most people who go that far will get to like level 86-87 and probably move on to a new character.The amount of people that reach level 94 in D2 is very small and those who reached 99 are even rarer still since it requires some serious dedication and thus commands great respect. | ||
Excalibur_Z
United States12240 Posts
On June 02 2024 12:21 Manit0u wrote: It really baffles me though. Why go with this design (was already in D3) where you have like 58 difficulty levels, with names like "Torment XIII"? All that changes is that the numbers get bigger. I much preferred the old approach, where most people didn't even finish Hell difficulty in D1/D2. And it was difficult because it wasn't just numbers but you had to take a completely different approach to how you play. You get less resists while monsters get more, also monsters immune to certain damage types show up so you need a way to work around that. I kinda dislike the idea that the game starts at the end at max level. D2 did it in a very elegant way where it's not easy to finish max difficulty and even then you won't be maxed out. Most people who go that far will get to like level 86-87 and probably move on to a new character.The amount of people that reach level 94 in D2 is very small and those who reached 99 are even rarer still since it requires some serious dedication and thus commands great respect. The short answer is: it's better. The decision to add immunities back into D2X was met with harsh resistance from the community, and rightly so. They influenced player behavior in a negative way, where players would rather ignore and run past immune enemies than fight them. The increased blanket resist reduction was more understandable, even if it was a lazier solution to mudflation. Having a billion difficulties makes progression feel less meaningful (and D2 really incentivized finishing difficulties through character title rewards), that's true. But at the same time, it reduces the brick wall feeling. If you're an average D2 player, chances are you complete Normal difficulty around level 35, Nightmare around 60. But you're encouraged to stay in Normal until 50 and Nightmare around 80, because the leap in difficulty (especially into Hell) is so dramatic.You might dip your toe in to get a Den of Evil skill point, but realistically, you're probably going to the previous difficulty to grind out some more levels. The other nice thing about having so many difficulties is that it gives the designers endless runway to account for power creep. When too many players are sailing through Torment VI, add Torment VII... then eventually VIII... and that's how we got to where we are today. That's why Greater Rifts are endless, too. That's something that's a lot harder to do in D2 by nature of how the game is built. | ||
|
uummpaa
238 Posts
D4 started out with a way that took you long to reach lvl 99 and they diminished it ever since, which leads me to belive a big number of the playerbase wants it that way (i like the D2 way more but its not a dealbreaker imho) while i dont think anybody really likes the never ending inflation of difficulty lvls, they are somewhat of a necessity since D3 and 4 are not designed to be a game you can finish. if you want to endlessly add content to your game this is bound to happen (WoW for example just squishes stats every couple expacs because of that) D2 was never made for that, once you did the final boss on highest difficulty and reached max lvl, you were done and everything beyond was up to you. if you want to be cynical you can attribute that to modern devs wanting to get more money out of ips with seasons which are considerably less work than making a new game all the time | ||
|
Manit0u
Poland17507 Posts
On June 02 2024 16:21 uummpaa wrote: if you want to be cynical you can attribute that to modern devs wanting to get more money out of ips with seasons which are considerably less work than making a new game all the time Well, the endless runway sounds good on paper but in practice all it means is that it's more of the same and just the numbers are getting bigger. In D1/D2 difficulty changes had more profound effects. D3/D4 have many more difficulty levels while having less monster variety than D1 had. That is beyond lazy in my book. I wouldn't mind infinite difficulty level scaling as long as each of those would introduce some interesting twist rather than just another dps check. | ||
|
uummpaa
238 Posts
On June 03 2024 02:18 Manit0u wrote: Well, the endless runway sounds good on paper but in practice all it means is that it's more of the same and just the numbers are getting bigger. In D1/D2 difficulty changes had more profound effects. D3/D4 have many more difficulty levels while having less monster variety than D1 had. That is beyond lazy in my book. I wouldn't mind infinite difficulty level scaling as long as each of those would introduce some interesting twist rather than just another dps check. D3 and 4 have MORE monster variety, it just doesnt matter because everything is just exploding when it enters the screen, and wether one prefers either 1/2 or 3/4 style is only due to preference. the biggest "problem" here is that two almost diametrically different game designs for ARPGs are present in the same francise but until AI is at a place where it can create custum challenges the only way to scale infinetly is to dial up life and damage sadly, and at this point i am beyond done with that type of gameplay loop | ||
|
Manit0u
Poland17507 Posts
On June 03 2024 05:58 uummpaa wrote: D3 and 4 have MORE monster variety I have counted it and D1 has D4 beat in the types of monsters you can encounter  | ||
|
Excalibur_Z
United States12240 Posts
| ||
|
Fleetfeet
Canada2608 Posts
On June 03 2024 07:49 Excalibur_Z wrote: I will say to Manit0u's point about monster variety, despite enemies differing in attack animations and behaviors, dealing with enemies in D3 and I assume D4 feels very samey (and I think PoE falls into this trap too). In D2, you have to be very aware of which monster packs have spawned because your tactics need to change, usually as a result of enemies being resistant to your primary damage school. In D3/PoE the goal is to reach a power level where enemies just passively explode around you by the hundreds and you oftentimes don't even see or acknowledge the type of enemy you've just gibbed. Enemies in D3 (and I think D4 too?) have no inherent resistances which leads to this degenerate form of gameplay. I honestly don't remember that of D2, outside of playing sorc and encountering (your damage type) immune enemies. I remember it more in Median Patch D2 (fairly popular mod?) where you had Daystars and other stuff on the map that brought a different sense of fear through unique design and interaction. To D3's credit, they tried to make packs feel unique through the Arcane Laser / Molten / Waller etc packs. I remember playing with a friend and needing to call out type affixes on packs because they were dangerous to one of us. It was a decently effective system imo, though it did feel like the system was too shallow and eventually it became tedious. | ||
|
Miragee
8608 Posts
On June 03 2024 07:11 Manit0u wrote: I have counted it and D1 has D4 beat in the types of monsters you can encounter Where did you find a complete list of D4 monsters? I mean, I knew D4 would be at the low end, especially considering the size of the game. However, I find this hard to believe. D1 had like 20 different monsters (tbf, no redundant ones, everyone was different). I only played the D4 beta and encountered 5-10 different monsters. Do you basically encounter those same monsters throughout all acts? | ||
|
uummpaa
238 Posts
On June 03 2024 07:11 Manit0u wrote: I have counted it and D1 has D4 beat in the types of monsters you can encounter wow, i didnt know that, thats kinda amazing in the sadest way i just want to see a world now in that D4 was developed with less cynical goals from the start. | ||
|
Harris1st
Germany7006 Posts
On June 02 2024 16:21 uummpaa wrote: yeah the immunities were bad, since they forced you into certain skills, which i never liked D4 started out with a way that took you long to reach lvl 99 and they diminished it ever since, which leads me to belive a big number of the playerbase wants it that way (i like the D2 way more but its not a dealbreaker imho) while i dont think anybody really likes the never ending inflation of difficulty lvls, they are somewhat of a necessity since D3 and 4 are not designed to be a game you can finish. if you want to endlessly add content to your game this is bound to happen (WoW for example just squishes stats every couple expacs because of that) D2 was never made for that, once you did the final boss on highest difficulty and reached max lvl, you were done and everything beyond was up to you. if you want to be cynical you can attribute that to modern devs wanting to get more money out of ips with seasons which are considerably less work than making a new game all the time That's exactly the problem: Since everything is meant as GaaS, games can never be just done. And as somebody else already mentioned, it's much easier to add another difficulty to an existing game by turning some health and damage numbers up and down than make a new game. Sadly it works and enough people actually buy battle passes and skins. Then a bunch of coders get fired because you don't need them anymore. Then eventually the game/ community needs something new but it's shit because half the workforce got laid off. | ||
| ||
