If you're bad at video games you shouldn't review games at all.

"

Kelvynn wrote:

"

I_NO wrote:

His sunder is like 3 DPS

HAHAHAHAH

He is reviewing the game for this audience: casual gamers who have never seen PoE. This is the experience they are expected to have. Following your logic, those people shouldn't even try PoE.

If Chris was anything like you, this game would fail instantly.

"HAHAHAHA"...

Just because he is reviewing for his audience doesn't give him the right to not address objective game features. That's not called a review.

His car analogy is on point, except for it is the core principle behind any arpg, mmo hell even more single player rpgs are about developing your character and pushing its limits within the context of the game.

In some games that means you can be a conversational mastermind, that is still pushing the limits of your character its just in a non combat form.

Story focused rpgs being exempt obviously as your playing those like an interactive book, the combat is usually just a pacing mechanic for the general story.

game reviewers are often clueless though you kinda have to find one that sees things in a similar way to yourself and follow them exclusively because most are of a mind that if it isn't casual friendly it sucks. Diablo 3 has only two things on PoE, polish and accessibility I can't really think of a single other category where it excels in comparison.

Yet these days apparently that's all we want, this dude should review crusader kings his head would explode.

PoB'd the most genereic bs build at 71. Sunder + multistrike + melee phs + 100 dps weapon = 10.2k deeps. Guess he didnt get lucky throwing random gems in his slots.

"

Abdiel_Kavash wrote:

I too am instantly an expert at every game I pick up for the first time.

+1


This just in: people who never played a game don't know if they're playing it well.

More at 11.

"

kaepae wrote:

A game presents soft rules that create expectations of players. It is a valuable design pattern to gradually introduce these to newer players before they enter the deep.

its to game discretion what rules it should introduce directly and what rules should be found out by player
certainly a lot of niche games and games back in the day did not do this.

"

This follows best practices in life and is core to most, if not all, major games. This is not the same as hand holding the new across the game. Just the start.

blanket statement that I dont find true. major games ? what is a major game ? games that make money ? dont give a rats ass about that. good games ? games nowadays are 99% crap, so lets talk about simple examples that disprove your point

baldurs gate, candlekeep to friendly arms inn road. you can go anywhere, but you will die because of higher level toons. nowhere in the game is it presented as a warning to you. you find that out by exploring and trial and error. instead of telling information, you get to find out by experimenting. show, not tell.

you want a modern game thats not sucky ? dark souls. the first time you encounter a mimic (of course, given that you start blindly), you will die and there wont be ANYTHING you can do it. and just like titus in that video, you wont do it again becvause youll learn by failure. this is something that older games did, but modern casual gamers are allergic to failure. zero sympathy from me too because these new gamers think even niche games should be accessible to them

and again, we can discuss hundreds of games from late 80s and 90s that Ive played that disprove your point. gaming started a long time ago.

"

The game would warn for those who need it.

youre trying to cater to everyone again. nicve games dont do that.

"

The new player I introduced did not learn anything in many occasions of death, as it was not traceable for them to figure out why they died. Nor were they prepared for it.

and ? I fail to see the issue here. a game like dwarf fortress the new player will fail 25 times and it will take a while for him to learn, patience is required.

again, I dont see why a niche game has to adjust to lowest common denominator player, and not vice versa.
not to mention, gaming USED to be like this. so the console 'entertain me every second by rubbing my clit' crowd comes along and now they want ALL games to be approachable. I think not. again, this is why niche gaming is dying.

you know, good colleges departments have weeder classes? they weed out people who arent good enough for them, and do it quite brutally. you do hws and then midterms expect you to expand few steps more because they test your understanding and not your memorization or ability to regurgitate. why cant there be niche games that weed out casuals ?

a game like dwarf fortress, of course, weeds out casual players naturally because of ascii graphics.

"

Well, you got me by taking the sentence apart. My meaning was to say it is promoted just as an ARPG, there's little niche about it. It's not a game that relies on a small group of gamers' more private environment, known only by the experienced in ARPG, hard to find, etc. It has hit the big screens and that is where I consider its image in/from.

sure, at this point. at the end of 2012/start of 2013 it wasn't.

"

Ok. Perhaps you want this time back? It may have become more mainstream than it was.

of course I do. 2013 poe was amazing

"

Because of successful gaming patterns being good for budget that fuels the game, which in the end benefits all.

benefits all ? nonsense. Ill take a gem of a niche game that makes the company bankrupt, but the game will be forever a masterpiece over a polished turd accessible to everyone that makes company $$$. so yeah, a dead good game >>>>>>>>>> alive shitty game

for example, skyrim is a shit game to me. it made big money and is accessible to anyone ? so ? its not even the best or second best TES game. daggerfall beats it in every way as an exploration RPG.

"

I do not see how your gaming experienced is diminished if a friendly learning environment is presented.

even the phrase 'friendly learning environment' makes me shudder. you are fixated on the idea that each game has to be accessible to everyone ? why, I have no fucking clue

"

But the drowning should not be mandatory to learn.

in many games, if its mandatory then its mandatory.

"

The game should introduce ways to swim and to practice.

no, it shouldnt. stop trying to making niche games into something like what 10k other games do. by doing this, you are killing off niche gaming.

heres vault d weller's interview about age of decadence, one of crpgs nowadays that doesnt suck:

"

It's a hardcore game. What does it mean? Well, if accessible means 'a game that can be enjoyed by everyone, including your grandma and the neighbors’ cat', then hardcore would be the exact opposite of that. It's a game made for a very specific market, a market abandoned long ago simply because it's a niche within a niche. Even been in the middle of nowhere? Endless empty land stretching out in every direction, an antique gas station, and a diner that says, "I bet you a silver dollar you ain’t man enough to eat the special and live to tell the tale". Well, that's our niche. We've moving in and setting up shop there.

modern gamers want for every diner like that to serve starbucksm, so to speak. is it not clear why people like me, who were brought up when games were pure exploration and problem solving instead of stupid, pure dumb entertainnment, want some of these diners intact ? that a hipster would be so scared of entering the contingent would be weeded out ?

"

There surely is a different approach from studios than there used to be.

yes, and thats a fucking shame.

"

I still don't see how a smoother entry would prevent an end game that caters to your preference.

because I like games that bend me over and fuck me with no lube from the beginning, and not engage in meaningless foreplay by telling me how good I am by performing mundane task. I dont see what endgame does with anything. I like leveling. I like rerolling. leveling is already piss easy compared to 2013.

*Siiiiiigh*

OTL

Really, I_NO?

The guy specifically said "as someone who prefers to focus on the skill of combat...". That clearly means "As opposed to the under-the-hood buildmonkeying PoE exemplifies and focuses on". The whole review was clearly not aimed at PoE diehards; those guys already have their opinions and don't need reviews. He was reviewing it in a general sense, and frankly? I find the verdict fair. Path of Exile is deliberately anachronistic and old-fashioned, hewing close to the conventions of Ye Olden Times while other games are experimenting with ways to change things up and engage newer players who don't share that nostalgia boner. That means people who aren't on board with its deliberate rusticness aren't going to get the same charge out of it that old D2 vets are.

That is, if you recall, why Blizzard ended up throwing away Diablo entirely on a gamble to Overwatchify D3 - so the game would have smoother, more visceral gameplay and thus broader appeal.

I don't recommend Path to my friends without a mountain of caveats; the game has a massive knowledge floor and requires significant time and attention investment to learn properly. Once you're in you're in and none of that matters much, but a great many folks these days would appreciate knowing ahead of time that you don't get to start playing Path properly until at least three hundred hours into it. That's the sort of thing someone might - very rightfully - feel they have a right to know about a game before they try and get invested in it.

7.6 doesn't mean "the game is utter shite and nobody should buy it ever". It means "the game has appeal, but not universal appeal and while it's worth trying, it may not be for everybody."

"

kaepae wrote:

"

Sprinklepacket wrote:

99% of games out there do this. Make the game easier and more streamlined for new players. Can we not have at least one game that doesnt do this? Learning from dying over and over again is fun for some people, can we please have at least one niche game made for these people? This was pretty much the entire intended design direction for the game that they said over and over from the start, that wraeclast isnt a forgiving place.

Its like taking one of those weird experimental movies and being like, hey can we streamline this and make it make more sense for mainstream appeal? Theres a million movies like that, let the people who like this one enjoy it in the niche style it is and stop trying to change it into something else. Plenty of other games/movies to enjoy. A game doesn't have to be for everyone and thats okay.

Well, again, I'm talking storymode here, not the entirety of PoE. Let the endgame be as ruthless as the core wants it. I do not see how this experience is reduced if the starting portion is smoother and more inviting to the new players.

makes even less sense. the casual gamer will stop playing after the story, and vets have to slog through dumbed down story. you try to cater to everyone, end up catering to no one

Was his dps that low? Innocence is a huge(for a beginer or a really low dps build) dps check with the ES recharge.

This reminds me of that reviewer of Cuphead and the struggle at the tutorial:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOjXaAZHEQE

That's the problems with these types of reviewes. The have to review all sorts of games, some of which are not their thing. The game may be good, for YOU. YOU may be good at it. It doesn't mean everyone is the same.

TL;DR: He sucks at it, and it's not his thing. Different people different preferences

"

kikeuy wrote:

Was his dps that low? Innocence is a huge(for a beginer or a really low dps build) dps check with the ES recharge.

This reminds me of that reviewer of Cuphead and the struggle at the tutorial:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOjXaAZHEQE

His DPS is like TWO.

SHIEEEEEEET build even sunder couldn't carry him.