Comments on: Thoughts: The Division 2

By: innokenti

innokenti — Sun, 14 Apr 2019 15:45:28 +0000

I’ve found the size and balance of stuff like Pillars, M&MX and so on to be about right. You can get sucked in and have lots of interesting fun with content and mechanics, but it’s easy to complete a satisfying subset of the game if you enjoy it without it being a constant time-sink.

The crafted content of Pillars 2 is very good, but endlessly cycling through it with numbers is significantly less appealing than doing a runthrough with a different character/archetype.

I’m happy with RPGs not being infinite. Roguelike-likes I think have the space covered satisfactorily in many ways as I’d be happy to say run FTL many many more times.

By: innokenti

innokenti — Sun, 14 Apr 2019 15:42:40 +0000

I’ve found that I am far less interested in the loop of numbers going up in something constantly rising and endless like Division/Destiny because it is progress for the sake of progress but the expectation is you just sink time into the level up or other improvement and that’s kind of the focus.

But I would be content withe more like Diablo 3, which has a relatively short basic level loop where you can try out a bunch of different stuff (and with the seasons easily do many different characters) but can take as much of the long-tail endgame as you want. I guess part of it is that all the Diablo classes are quite so different and there is a huge variety of skills and combinations?

By: Cola Powered Gamer

Cola Powered Gamer — Tue, 09 Apr 2019 09:32:23 +0000

Long time reader, first time poster here. Good review, I agree with most of the things you said. Read your blog has inspired me to start my own, so please take a look at:

https://colapoweredgamer.wordpress.com

By: drinkwithskeletons

drinkwithskeletons — Tue, 02 Apr 2019 11:14:10 +0000

Of those, the only one that really feels like it has a coherent development philosophy is Ubisoft, and I can’t think of the last Ubisoft game I played that I didn’t bounce off of. They’re so slick and corporate that even games that I theoretically should love just don’t grab me. I didn’t even like Black Flag, the game that everyone assured me was a great pirate game even if I didn’t like Assassin’s Creed.

By: Byronic Fate

Byronic Fate — Tue, 02 Apr 2019 02:23:32 +0000

It feels really strange to say I haven’t played an EA game, Ubisoft game, or Activision game in a long time when they control so much of the pool of action. I haven’t played an Ubisoft game since Far Cry 3, an EA game since bad company 2, and an Activision game since Mech Warrior (unless you count their brief oversight of total war). I’m just thankful this nexus of other games has always existed in the small patina of these massive giants. I’m not sure what I would do otherwise as I think these big companies’ descents into mediocrity are consistent and on purpose. Sadly I think the impatience of the average gamer will now always keep these ‘games as a live service’ thing alive. I can’t really see any silver lining in these new dark clouds ahead. Epic’s no monopoly will probably be even more repugnant in ways too. No roadmaps, lootboxes, live services, or candy in hell will keep me in gaming if these will be the only companies to remain.

By: drinkwithskeletons

drinkwithskeletons — Mon, 01 Apr 2019 15:44:17 +0000

I can’t complain too much, since I play a ton of Destiny 2, but I feel like the recurring weakness in so many of these games is that the loot is remarkably uninteresting. Diablo 3 has equipment sets and a few items that rather dramatically change up how you approach gameplay, but it feels like the Division, Destiny, and Anthem all have a very low ceiling for game-altering effects. I contend that the only reason that Borderlands is so popular is that it’s the only one of these “looter shooter” titles that actually has the potential for meaningful loot.

RE: the cyclical nature you object to. Have you ever played Monster Hunter? Capcom have basically been doing this for years now, and they’ve always been up-front that their position is that people should play each entry, enjoy as much of it as they like, and then, if they want to, move on to the next one in the future, with the understanding that if they skip one they won’t really be missing out on much. I think it’s a reasonable attitude to have.

By: ilitarist

ilitarist — Mon, 01 Apr 2019 14:04:15 +0000

With raising popularity of those infinite shooter-looters I’m wondering why their forefathers – RPGs – have dropped the idea. Games like Fallout 4, Pillars of Eternity 2, Divinity Original Sin, Dragon Age Inquisition, Might & Magic X, and many others look like a perfect opportunity to insert some kind of infinite challenge. Older games tried to do that – like Oblivion with its always leveling up opponents unlike Fallout 4. Or classic Roguelikes having infinite dungeons. Or JRPGs always having a lengthy postgame. In some, like Disgaea, this postgame is much longer than the game itself. Final Fantasy series had retroactively added said postgame to many of remade games. Even freaking Planescape Torment had something like that!

Strange that the genre that was all about crunching numbers stopped being that. I myself am more interested in raising numbers in some sort of a tactical environment. Assassins Creed Odyssey had swallowed me still.