Path of Exile, Gameplay Criticism
|
A number of posts have been removed from this thread for being antagonistic or off-topic. Please remember to follow the Code of Conduct when posting on the Path of Exile forums.
| |
" Thanks. It's a hard topic, and POE was a major motivator in going at it. The basic setback is "consistent", in that it (ideally) always punishes things in proportion to the time over which errors occur, the assumption being that death is only a culmination of other errors, not anything special otherwise. However, I think what you mean by "consistent" is that, no matter what, death always carry some penalty, even if players die right next to a checkpoint (or with zero level XP, etc). This is the "death should feel like death" argument, which I would file under the "thrill" category. In the video, I admit that the basic setback does not optimize thrill. I don't think thrill has a testable limit like the other purposes of penalty have: Some players don't need much penalty to experience thrill, and other players need perma-death. (One way that the basic setback can be consistent in this way is through the loss of a "life", like in Super Mario Brothers, or through the loss of a portal in POE. "Lives" act sort of like another health meter for errors to accumulate on. This is a consistent penalty, but it doesn't necessarily "feel" like death.) In short, I agree, the basic setback does not consider consistency in the way I think you mean, but on the other hand, I can't think of any rule that uniquely does. |
|
|
very nice, your video summarizes well the current problems of the game.
| |
" I should have been more specific, sorry. I meant consistency regarding the lore, regarding realism in a way. And some games did/do care about that and did have things for that (the most simple is to throw you back at a check point, as in "the story cannot continue if you die, that's game over, try again"). For example (and I am taking one of my favourite game of all time : Might and Magic VII) : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-769mViN81s When you would come back, you would have no more gold, and 'external' NPC that had joined you would be gone. Which is why I mentioned the notion of immersion. More like consistent with the universe/lore. Of course, the ideal is a compromise between 'realism' (let's go with that in this case instead of consistent) and fun, a middle ground. I feel that many game developers don't give a damn about such things though, which I find sad :(. In PoE, it has never been this way, and it will never be, I just wanted to add something that I though could be relevant regarding penalties in games :). SSF is not and will never be a standard for balance, it is not for people entitled to getting more without trading.
| |
" It's unfortunate that controversy is necessary to compete for attention, but however ironically, I am thankful. What we need is for a real official census to be taken by the developers (like an in-game news popup), asking players to volunteer their opinions of how important various issues are. |
|
" This statement, if true, is only indicative of a completely incompetent feedback response team. I don't know, but results suggest that there are two or three staff members who comb the forums for useful critical feedback (both positive and negative) and then feed it to the developers. And I for one believe they are competent enough to find it, because GGG fairly consistently acts on it. (Would prefer better up-front QA, but fuck, I'll take whatever crumbs are thrown my way.) On the other hand, you are correct when it comes to any and all decisions which transparently affect large numbers of players. I.e., anything controversial. So you're not entirely wrong. Wash your hands, Exile!
|
|
" Well, if we take the lab as an example ..... that huge joke of a thread likely got somewhat scraped, as the lab got improved in a good way, yet GGG didn't really listen to the amount negative stuff ( being echoed over and over by a small group of individuals, true ) and could pick some meaningful elements from it. So ... they definitely have a team to find the feedback that they need imo, at least on their own forums. I don't know about reddit where the outcries might be just much bigger, I don't really go there. SSF is not and will never be a standard for balance, it is not for people entitled to getting more without trading.
| |
" Proof is in the pudding, as always. If GGG didn't observe feedback, then they'd be uncharacteristically competent about acting on it. I'm looking through your post for something I disagree with, so we can have a juicy argument about it, but finding nothing. Can you please be more contrary, so we can argue? People who post shit I agree with are boring. QA and design. QA and design. QA and design. Wish these two things would define their priorities more consistently, but fuck me for a dreamer. Wash your hands, Exile!
|
|
|
You're still posting shit no one can disagree with. Didn't you recently criticize me for doing something similar?
Yawn. But your point that staff designated to interact with the community would ultimately make no difference is on point. I don't give a fuck if Bex validates my post that XYZ design flaw remains unfixed. If it's fixed, I'm validated. I don't need to feel artifically involved. I'm happy if the game is good. Then I can go play it and not post feedback here. Better QA > Better community engagement. Any day of the week. Wash your hands, Exile!
|
|
|
this video is actually SO PERFECT
|
|
