Just saw the price of that d3 remake.. called d4.. 69 EURO fkn standart edition??

"

Phrazz wrote:

With todays production costs and budgets, I think $70 is an OK price of a video game that is more or less designed to (try to) give you 100+ hours of entertainment. The problem, as I see it, is when full-priced, AAA games also throws in-game stores, season/battle passes and MTX'es at you.

If I pay nothing for a video game, I expect/I'm OK with having to pay for certain things. When I pay $70 for a video game, that price should include everything.

This. I like PoE model, where you choose if you want to spend money or not (I did spend more then 70 during the years).

"

Destructodave wrote:

Its rare to find a game that isnt fun to play for a few months. Especially a live-service and/or grindy game, like a Diablo, PoE, Lost ark, Warframe, Destiny, etc. Most Arpgs are so similar they are all fun for awhile, too.

They all have a honeymoon period. WoW expansions operate on this and so do most MMO expansions.

In a way, I envy you.

I've tried all of those games, and D3 didn't keep my attention for more than the first weekend; I play PoE a lot so that one's a success; Warframe is my go-to game when I've got nothing to play and really need to shoot something; Lost Ark lasted me for quite a while; but Destiny bored me so quickly I got a refund. In WoW, 8.2 was absolutely great, but then 9.0 ended up being so disappointing I haven't even looked at Dragonflight.

So, out of 7 examples, that's 4 hits and 3 misses for me, except that all f2p games are in the hits, and the p2p are mostly in the misses.

Yeah, I'm not exactly excited for D4

"

Foreverhappychan wrote:

Seriously though.

I'm not sure you are.

Look, I'm a simple guy; I go where my interest takes me, no matter the monetization model. If I'll find D4 interesting, I'll pay what I have to pay to get the experience I need, be that a few stash tabs or a $70 price tag. I don't judge a game based on the price or model, I judge it based on how it appeals to ME as a gamer.

And PoE appeals to me. Why? Because I like grinding. I like building. I like planning. I like thinking. And I often do not like a game that holds my hand and always tells me what the "right" choice is. The same goes for games that do not have "wrong" choices, and therefore no right choices (or more correctly: no choices at all). I like exploring, not just the 'fighting', but everything else too. I like games where "reaching the top" isn't straight forward, nor guaranteed - but based on the choices you make along the way. And that is how I choose to play PoE. Would I view PoE differently if it was a standard Pay-to-play game? Not at all.

And I've played 'most' ARPG's. I'm still here and not there, and it has nothing to do with the monetization model. Well, I say I'm still here, but I haven't played in 5-6 weeks, but that's just a minor burnout on the genre as a whole.

"

Foreverhappychan wrote:

Seriously though. What special charm does it have? What about it transcends its free to play nature that isn't somehow rooted in the fairness of its free to play model? The complexity of the system? It's a Gordian Knot and everyone here knows it. I am playing Titan Quest on my tablet with a ps4 controller right now and to me it is a more charming, enjoyable experience as an arpg than PoE has been for years. .

You seem to be looking at it with your lens on and not attempting to try to see it from other perspectives. The monetization of the game isn't the sole decider of worthiness, and even if it was, F2P vs. P2W is too simplistic a view for what POE's cost model is.

Even further, there are very few games that offer the build customization and itemization of POE. The visuals of POE tend to be more appealing to me as well. I saw another thread discussing POE vs D3 graphics and I without question prefer POE graphics over D3 (not combat mechanics or clarity, simple graphics). D3 feels a little cartoony to me.

Some people view the grind of POE as a detractor whereas I view it as a core part of the game that I enjoy. The game doesn't just hand you things. There are things in this game that I still can't do consistently; though admittedly that is partially because I refuse to build a one-shot glass cannon uber killer.

There are items that I have not had or used to this day in spite of them being in the game a long while. One example being Atziri's Acuity. Some will view that as a detractor but again, I view that as a positive considering how much time I put into this game.

I'm not knocking other people's preferences and I realize my preferences will never be a part of the majority of the bell curve, but that's okay. People are allowed to enjoy different things. What tends to grind my gears (said in the Peter voice) is people who think all games need to be the same in terms of depth, grind, casual friendly, etc. Why do we need two Diablo 3 like games? We already have one. POE is quite unique in how it approaches difficulty and depth. Some of us enjoy the portion of the bell curve that they've selected. It will never be the most popular. It doesn't need to be since we already have the other approaches to this genre spoken for.

"

Phrazz wrote:

.......
And PoE appeals to me. Why? Because I like grinding. I like building. I like planning. I like thinking. And I often do not like a game that holds my hand and always tells me what the "right" choice is. The same goes for games that do not have "wrong" choices, and therefore no right choices (or more correctly: no choices at all). I like exploring, not just the 'fighting', but everything else too. I like games where "reaching the top" isn't straight forward, nor guaranteed - but based on the choices you make along the way. And that is how I choose to play PoE. Would I view PoE differently if it was a standard Pay-to-play game? Not at all.

Sign every word !

"

Nubatron wrote:

I'm not knocking other people's preferences and I realize my preferences will never be a part of the majority of the bell curve, but that's okay. People are allowed to enjoy different things. What tends to grind my gears (said in the Peter voice) is people who think all games need to be the same in terms of depth, grind, casual friendly, etc. Why do we need two Diablo 3 like games? We already have one. POE is quite unique in how it approaches difficulty and depth. Some of us enjoy the portion of the bell curve that they've selected. It will never be the most popular. It doesn't need to be since we already have the other approaches to this genre spoken for.

I think where it gets grey in context is taking a subjective opinion on something, or a game as a whole, and then extrapolating that into an objective conclusion about it. (This can go both ways)

Essentially the concept that there may be very good games out there that someone just doesn't like, and vice versa. I won't hate on people that like Call of Duty, but I'm not oblivious to how successful it is volume wise, how popular it is, and how many enjoy it. It's foolish imo to say that CoD is "bad" or "trash" solely on personal perception.

Wrapping this back to PoE, there are any things that turn people off of the game, that often seem intentionally designed that way, or are continually pushed in a more hostile direction league to league. I suppose that's OK for the more dedicated, more masochistic player, who would basically play whatever GGG pushed, but surely most are capable of seeing why that would give a bad taste to a larger swathe of players.

I will say it again, that QoL and accessibility are not bad things, but often it's seems that GGG believes they are (and then act surprised when the community receives it poorly). It's strange to be sure, and why I think the "Vision" memes and this perception they are out of touch get decent traction. It's often very confusing and errors on the side of being negative towards the general player experience, and I'm not 100% sure why they do it this way?

"

DarthSki44 wrote:

I think where it gets grey in context is taking a subjective opinion on something, or a game as a whole, and then extrapolating that into an objective conclusion about it. (This can go both ways)

Essentially the concept that there may be very good games out there that someone just doesn't like, and vice versa. I won't hate on people that like Call of Duty, but I'm not oblivious to how successful it is volume wise, how popular it is, and how many enjoy it. It's foolish imo to say that CoD is "bad" or "trash" solely on personal perception.

I disagree here, but you already knew that. "bad" and "trash" will always be subjective terms - and are always meant as subjective remarks. If we should boil EVERY discussion down to numbers, there would be no discussions. I will ALWAYS separate between "popular" and "good". I will ALWAYS advocate for Elden Ring to be a batter game than Clash of Clans. Sure, Clash is a super-approachable, F2P game on a very approachable platform everyone own. But the same foes for D3 versus PoE: Diablo 3 will ALWAYS be more approachable than PoE because of its difficulty and target audience (with more focus on direct gameplay than building, planning and theory crafting), and therefore more popular. Will that automatically make it a better game? IMO, no.

The same goes for Dream Theater, Tool or whatever versus Britney Spears. Making art that appeals to more people doesn't necessarily make it "better art".

"

DarthSki44 wrote:

I will say it again, that QoL and accessibility are not bad things, but often it's seems that GGG believes they are (and then act surprised when the community receives it poorly). It's strange to be sure, and why I think the "Vision" memes and this perception they are out of touch get decent traction. It's often very confusing and errors on the side of being negative towards the general player experience, and I'm not 100% sure why they do it this way?

The devil is in the details. No one is going to disagree with QoL and accessibility generically.

As an example, QoL for trading to me includes identifying when an item requested vs. the item put in the window is different which seems like a simplistic check that seems possible since they already identify the item in the stash. It doesn't seem like a stretch to extend that information to the most recent item requested vs. what is in the window. Or conversely the offered currency vs. what was actually put in the window. Or trading across server instances as another example. But others think QoL for trading means fully automated trades; a line they've clearly drawn as too far with a manifesto explaining why.

Accessibility in terms of things like color blindness support or other accessibility technologies seems reasonable as well, until you get into the possibility of highly automated macros and things like that. Is that too far?

You won't get pushback on better QoL or accessibility. You might when you discuss the specifics of what that means though.

"

Phrazz wrote:

"

DarthSki44 wrote:

I think where it gets grey in context is taking a subjective opinion on something, or a game as a whole, and then extrapolating that into an objective conclusion about it. (This can go both ways)

Essentially the concept that there may be very good games out there that someone just doesn't like, and vice versa. I won't hate on people that like Call of Duty, but I'm not oblivious to how successful it is volume wise, how popular it is, and how many enjoy it. It's foolish imo to say that CoD is "bad" or "trash" solely on personal perception.

I disagree here, but you already knew that. "bad" and "trash" will always be subjective terms - and are always meant as subjective remarks. If we should boil EVERY discussion down to numbers, there would be no discussions. I will ALWAYS separate between "popular" and "good". I will ALWAYS advocate for Elden Ring to be a batter game than Clash of Clans. Sure, Clash is a super-approachable, F2P game on a very approachable platform everyone own. But the same foes for D3 versus PoE: Diablo 3 will ALWAYS be more approachable than PoE because of its difficulty and target audience (with more focus on direct gameplay than building, planning and theory crafting), and therefore more popular. Will that automatically make it a better game? IMO, no.

The same goes for Dream Theater, Tool or whatever versus Britney Spears. Making art that appeals to more people doesn't necessarily make it "better art".

To an extent yea, but where does it end? Surely you agree that there are games that are "good" that you just don't like? We agree there? Hopefully....

Can a game be widely praised, or appreciated if no one plays it? Can the Game of The Year (whatever you think of that award) win if its only be played by a few thousand? What makes a small, or even not so small, subset of opinions, have larger meaning in context of performance or reception?

Again saying a game isn't good, because you say so, isn't a strong argument imo, which seems to be what we are headed in your line of thinking.

Popular vs. Good. Very different things. One is quantitative and the other is qualitative. Or more specifically objective vs. subjective.

Popular is something that can be measured and compared using metrics like units sold, active players, etc. Good is a personal measure. The most you can get from someone who believes something is bad is that they believe others are able to find it good.

I remember watching Lost in Translation and hating every moment of it. It was truly a bad movie to me, and yet that thing won a metric shit ton of awards. The best I can do is say that someone else found it to be a good movie.

Another example is describing a food as good. That's a very personal observation, not a universal constant.

Also, my signature line.