Which past ARPG would have benefitted from GGGs approach?

"
Shagsbeard wrote:
Not to change the subject, but I think a better question is "How can GGG benefit from the approaches (and mistakes of) past ARPGs?"


for the benefits to be applicable, the games need to be really similar. there aren't many "free to play", "support us only if you like the game" and "no pay to win" online arpgs i can think of.

at the time i learned about poe i thought: "this stunt can only be pulled off by some altruistic new zealanders", nobody else would be crazy enough to try that. they already had my sympathy just for the facts above, i was really pissed about monetization (ripoff) schemes of other companies at that time.
age and treachery will triumph over youth and skill!
"
Shagsbeard wrote:
Not to change the subject, but I think a better question is "How can GGG benefit from the approaches (and mistakes of) past ARPGs?"


They can't. That's something you consider in the first place and they chose not to do so.
Definitely Hellgate London. I still cri everytiem I think about that rough gem of a game.
GGG banning all political discussion shortly after getting acquired by China is a weird coincidence.
Hellgate London got a FTP model after that asian company overtook iirc. But with XP boosts and stuff for sale. But I remember from a friend that it got new areas, bosses and stuff over time.

Sacred 1 maybe could have profitated from the GGG approach if the technology had allowed it.

The ARPG where this would fit the least is probably Titan Quest IT. That game just feels right and finished and I bet more content would rather make it worse. A few more balance patches would have been nice though.
"
Sexcalibure wrote:
"
Which past ARPG would have benefitted from GGGs approach?


Which approach you mean? the one that imply creating an awesome game with insane costumer interaction and then scrap it with shit content that lacks imagination and finition. When customer say that game is not the quality it used to be, simply say that this feeling is shared by a small part of the community, that the major part of the players like it, despite having surveys showing the opposite and online players reaching new lows.

benefitted from GGGs approach? NONE, it doesnt even benefit to GGG


The salt! I sure wouldn't play a game where I thought 1) they scrapped the good stuff, 2)the new content was shit, 3) it lacks imagination, 4)the quality has diminished, 5)the developers are lying to me, 6) the players are jumping ship. I wonder why you are?

I on the other hand think there are similar games out there that sure could have benefited. If Diablo wasn't Pay2Win on launch, embraced a more complex skill system, and had better gear it would have been an absolute juggernaut that Blizzard could have monetized for years.

Likewise Marvel Heroes has a fervent fanbase and amazing IP. Sadly the launch was so terrible, and their monetization model was so shady that it was panned. They eventually fixed the worst aspects, but it was too late. Weekly events have made it where having an event feel special is impossible. Daily login awards are the only reason they have the sad numbers they do. They also sold stash, but gave you 1 tab to start and bloated inventory in ways PoE could only dream of. I could go on, but it is making me sad. Marvel fans deserved better.
"
Barivius wrote:
"
Sexcalibure wrote:
"
Which past ARPG would have benefitted from GGGs approach?


Which approach you mean? the one that imply creating an awesome game with insane costumer interaction and then scrap it with shit content that lacks imagination and finition. When customer say that game is not the quality it used to be, simply say that this feeling is shared by a small part of the community, that the major part of the players like it, despite having surveys showing the opposite and online players reaching new lows.

benefitted from GGGs approach? NONE, it doesnt even benefit to GGG


The salt!
Welcome to 2016's internet, a place flooded by milenials that once they see somebody that disagree, they tag him with the "salty" tag . That way they can protect their own opinion without having to explain it because... "you are salty!"
ZiggyD is the Labyrinth of streamers, some like it, some dont, but GGG will make sure to push it down ur throat to make you like it
"
Welcome to 2016's internet, a place flooded by milenials that once they see somebody that disagree, they tag him with the "salty" tag . That way they can protect their own opinion without having to explain it because... "you are salty!"


I'm so old, we were saying people were salty when the best the internet could do was AOL or Compuserve (on a 14.4 modem). I had an opinion and gave it. I am wondering why someone who feels like you do is here?

As a non-millennial and very likely your elder I'd advise spend your time where you have a positive experience. This is especially true of a hobby. If you believe any of what you just said up there, you need to know that it is acceptable to walk away. I walked away from the other two games I mentioned, even though I genuinely wanted to like them and have the game succeed.
Last edited by Barivius on Jul 19, 2016, 6:47:22 PM
I always liked how Sacred 1 and 2 played out in that you never really felt like you were just "getting through it". You played them. You were always playing them. It wasn't some rush to some contrived "end game".
diablo 3s smooth gameplay with poes customization and gem system would be the god of ARPGs of all time.

sadly for the last 2 years GGG is focused on lifesupport via 3 month leagues , supporter packs and MTXes - blew like 30-50€ the last two months on RNG boxes for see and for know so eventhough ive no supporter packs dont confuse me with someoen that never spent a penny on this game since 2012 decemeber or jan when i joined i forgot.

GGG needs to put less resources into balance mtx and more onto removing cruel introducing act 5 and 6.

i mean years ago they said"ye we gone have 10 acts mayng" and here we are 4 years later with 1 more act added.

focus on more acts remove cruel so i dont have to torture myself going through the boring normal cruel to merc per new build playsytle where im just chugging bottles of alcohol to lessen the boredom of leveling.

besides that GGG started out great but now they are full on MTX this streamer this , supporter pack that and design your own unique give us 1k€ bandaids.

it can only last for so long until the game suffers a great depression in playerbase and paying customers.
"
Shagsbeard wrote:
I always liked how Sacred 1 and 2 played out in that you never really felt like you were just "getting through it". You played them. You were always playing them. It wasn't some rush to some contrived "end game".


I think that's a big part of what the open world encourages. Free-wheeling adventure where you choose where to go instead of following another link in the chain. Harder to design and balance but I find it more fun. Unfortunately the skills and monsters and items are so crappy and one dimensional compared to modern ARPGs like POE for example.

Part of it also may have been that it was a single player experience for your own enjoyment and not any online component to speak of other than rarely joining a friend or random person. No build of the month or worrying about what other players were getting, how fast they were getting it, or when a league was going to end.

Think though, as the theme of my original post - devs sticking around for years adding new content to the game continuously! Fixing/improving skills, making the monsters more challenging, diverse, nuanced. Adding cool new items to find. Having in game events. I imagine they would have liked to if they knew how to make it profitable. And fans of the series would have gotten such a better experience.

Like how with POE I get a vastly better experience now than I did in 2011. They've polished and perfected this game in so many ways it's staggering. We're spoiled.
"When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail."

Report Forum Post

Report Account:

Report Type

Additional Info