Am I the only one who thinks that Path of Exile 2 is better than Diablo 4?

DI > D4
Mercenaries master craft service Mercenaries My IGN TreeOfDead
https://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/2037371 Vouch
Mercenaries veiled crafting all service all crafts mods
Mercenaries SC master craft service Mercenaries SC craft mod!
Veiled crafting Service Settlers craft PM: TreeOfDead
"
TreeOfDead wrote:
DI > D4


Diablo 1 is still the greatest Diablo experience of all time. Nothing can beat the darkness, the simplicity, the story. It created a monster of a genre and a brand name for itself. Still to this day it feels amazing.
"
Aynix wrote:
"
RitualMurder wrote:
regardless D4 will take a big chunk of this community away and probably make the league dropoffs even sharper once released.

just facts


"facts" when most people who playe PoE hate on Blizzard and anything they make. PoE playerbase is not interested in Diablo. Some people will go test it since its new and shiny and they will be back after a month nax.



Ehhhh sorry bud those two things aren't mutually exclusive. I hate on Blizzard all the time, but diablo has been THE best arpg I've played (speaking ofc of D1, D2, and D2R). Yea PoE is dope, but with every new league the problems of meaningless combat and bloat become more and more apparent.

D4 would have to be SUCH a shitshow to have me not wanting to play for a good while. It's absolutely possible, it's Blizzard of course. But what I think many people here are missing with D4 is it's a fresh start, a WHOLE new game. Even PoE2 can't do that.

I'm definitely part of the 'poe playerbase' that's interested in Diablo. And while we all know where the smart money is, I'm hoping D4 turns out very good.
I won't miss 4 billion floor effects and 10 million kinds of damage with 10,000 kinds of mitigation needed.
"
Phrazz wrote:

Are you serious here?


Yes. If they wouldnt like it they would not play it. Thats simple logic. You may not like it, you may not be target audience or genre wont be interesting for you but you cant say "i dont like it so its shit".

You cant say that Witcher 3 is better game than Fifa for example. Target audience is different. If you have a dude with 3 kids that can play for 4h a week he will never choose Witcher. He will say its long and boring. Hell a co-worker of mine says Skyrim is shit because there is to much talking.

Simple games like Candy Crash have just different target audience. Candy Crash is very good game, for the people that were looking for something like it. Simple.
"
kuciol wrote:
Simple games like Candy Crash have just different target audience. Candy Crash is very good game, for the people that were looking for something like it. Simple.


I disagree completely.

Do popular games always do something right? Of course. Do they do A LOT of things right? Sure. But a lot of games are using addiction mechanics, FOMO, push notifications to remind you to play, P2W to make you invested and stuff like that. If a developer succeed doing that, is the game necessarily "good"? No. it's not. Is it "better" than a game with less players? Of course not.

I just think we define "good" differently, no matter how objective or subjective we are. I wouldn't call the most popular song in the world for "the best song ever". I wouldn't call the most viewed movie "the best movie ever".

Candy Crush IS one the most played games ever, mostly because it's on mobile, it's addictive as hell, it reminds you to play it and it's very "available". Does those things make the game "the best game ever"? Of course not. Hell, even Candy Crush players wouldn't call it the best game ever.

Popularity IS NOT the same as quality. You're turning sheep mentality into a measurement of quality. You're not calling Candy Crush "a very good game", you are calling it one of the best games ever made. Best. Not popular. Not successful. But "best".

Find other words, please.
Bring me some coffee and I'll bring you a smile.
"
Phrazz wrote:


I disagree completely.

Do popular games always do something right? Of course. Do they do A LOT of things right? Sure. But a lot of games are using addiction mechanics, FOMO, push notifications to remind you to play, P2W to make you invested and stuff like that. If a developer succeed doing that, is the game necessarily "good"? No. it's not. Is it "better" than a game with less players? Of course not.

I just think we define "good" differently, no matter how objective or subjective we are. I wouldn't call the most popular song in the world for "the best song ever". I wouldn't call the most viewed movie "the best movie ever".

Candy Crush IS one the most played games ever, mostly because it's on mobile, it's addictive as hell, it reminds you to play it and it's very "available". Does those things make the game "the best game ever"? Of course not. Hell, even Candy Crush players wouldn't call it the best game ever.

Popularity IS NOT the same as quality. You're turning sheep mentality into a measurement of quality. You're not calling Candy Crush "a very good game", you are calling it one of the best games ever made. Best. Not popular. Not successful. But "best".

Find other words, please.


You must make a very clear distiction betwen game and its monetization. Game can be good despite being P2W.

I didnt say Candy crash is the best game ever i said its very good. You need to undestand that you are not the center of the universe and your personal opinion is just that. It doesnt make game good or bad. It is the biggest since it cuts from bigger pie. Mobile market is bigger than PC and Console markets (all of them) combined.

What even is the measure of "good" if not how well the game does? The goal of games is to bring enjoyment to people and make money for the company and if it does that for milions of players doesnt it make it good?

How many games that were considered "amazing" died because nobody wanted to play them? They werent so amazing after all it seems. If nobody wants your product it isnt as good as you think, is it?

Again your personal feelings or even critics reviews, user scores etc do not make the game good or bad. It is how well it fits to the taste of its target audience. Complexity, genre, graphics etc they are irrelvent in the grand scope of things. They mean nothing if hardly anyone is willing to waste his time on that game.
Diablo 4 is the worst Diablo and lost to Path of Exile 2.
Blizzard stock in free fall!

Uploaded an awesome Exsanguinate Freeze Explosion build on the forums - https://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/3508506
Last edited by Kiss_Me_Quick#4554 on Jun 16, 2022, 9:28:09 AM
"
Kiss_Me_Quick wrote:
Diablo 4 is the worst Diablo and lost to Path of Exile 2.
Blizzard stock in free fall!



Buy low, sell high. If anyone thinks that Activision/Blizz wont be churning out moneymakers again at some point, that's just delusional hate.

It's not in my personal investment portfolio currently, but I might consider, given its history, a purchase at around $50. (52 week low and high is $56 & $100 respectively)

Edit: and with the new CoD and D4 on the horizon, both in the next 12 months, you could actually make a decent amount of money here.
"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."
- Abraham Lincoln
Last edited by DarthSki44#6905 on Jun 16, 2022, 9:57:34 AM
"
kuciol wrote:
You must make a very clear distiction betwen game and its monetization. Game can be good despite being P2W.

I didnt say Candy crash is the best game ever i said its very good. You need to undestand that you are not the center of the universe and your personal opinion is just that. It doesnt make game good or bad. It is the biggest since it cuts from bigger pie. Mobile market is bigger than PC and Console markets (all of them) combined.

What even is the measure of "good" if not how well the game does? The goal of games is to bring enjoyment to people and make money for the company and if it does that for milions of players doesnt it make it good?

How many games that were considered "amazing" died because nobody wanted to play them? They werent so amazing after all it seems. If nobody wants your product it isnt as good as you think, is it?

Again your personal feelings or even critics reviews, user scores etc do not make the game good or bad. It is how well it fits to the taste of its target audience. Complexity, genre, graphics etc they are irrelvent in the grand scope of things. They mean nothing if hardly anyone is willing to waste his time on that game.


You indirectly said that Candy Crush is the best game ever, because it's the most popular game ever - and you are using popularity as a measurement of quality.

I AM distancing my personal feelings. One of MY favorite games of all time, is Heroes of Might And Magic 2, but I wouldn't call it the best. Far from. I wouldn't call Candy Crush bad either. But to automatically call it "the best", just by numbers alone? Stupidity, in my eyes.

Following you logic, an easy game is automatically better than a hard game, because it will, from the get-go, in 9/10 situations, reach more players. Following my logic, there are more metrics than popularity to consider when a game is going under the loop. There's a reason why we have both "good" and "popular" in our vocabulary, and those two words do not mean the same thing.

Popularity does NOT equal quality. It's not that simple.
Bring me some coffee and I'll bring you a smile.
Last edited by Phrazz#3529 on Jun 16, 2022, 10:09:58 AM

Report Forum Post

Report Account:

Report Type

Additional Info