Dexterryu

There are a bunch of reasons...

1. It's fairly rare that a new game (even a sequel) is really good. Many of them are knock-offs/copy cats of a game that was really good, but are a significant drop in quality.

2. Most new games release in a poor, buggy, unoptimized state.

3. Games loaded with micro-transactions quickly erode trust, or cause games to bomb on release.

The games on that people keep playing and coming back to and that have legs are ones that treat their fans as customers and the devs have a good pulse on what new features and QOL additions they should be adding. They earn trust rather than lose it.

7 minutes ago, Keyser_Soze said:

 

I would probably recommend what I did with Best and say try the first one (Dark Arisen) when it goes on sale for $5 (which happens often). It's essentially the same game but a bit more rough to look at. If you jive with it then maybe decide to move on to Dragon's Dogma 2.

 

I really think it's a "you have to try it and find out" type game. The priorities of this game are basically your list in reverse. Very fun combat, exploration is fun and there are a lot of things to discover (no real dungeons so to speak). And the story is kind of whatever, and there meaningful choices to the quests, a lot of them have multiple outcomes and sort of character development but I think you yourself have to decide you care for the character rather than the game making you care about them. I would still say it's a bit more straightforward than the first game where my beloved ended up being the witch girl which was very strange later in the game.

 

I think you might find something to like here but like I said maybe try the first one.

24 minutes ago, Bacon said:

The story is very poor and worse than the first game's. I am not saying this out of nostalgia, it's just true in this game. DD2 has made some improvements but this is not one of them. I say poor, but it isn't that the story is actually bad, but that it hardly exists. What exists is bland and lacks fleshed-out characters.

 

There is a lot to explore but very little worth finding. You will find some weapons and armor, but the strongest weapons and gear come from merchants. Caves and dungeons are pretty shallow with only "trash mobs" or basic enemies. There are a few with boss monsters but they are on the rarer side and pretty cool. There is no narrative element for most dungeons unless you are required to go there via a quest but even then there is no real story there, it's just a cave or dungeon. They all seem to have unique layouts but not in a way that is worth praising their design. If you are just a fan of seeing what's out there, exploration is good because there is a lot to see. Basically just the first sentence again.

 

The combat is fun. It is also simple and easy. The problem with combat is the lack of enemy variety (even less unique bosses than base DD1). There are about 5 boss monster types that you'll fight regularly, and the game is littered with trash mobs.  So you are most often presented with the same kinds of encounters over and over again and none of these encounters require you to play differently. There are more than 5 boss-type monsters but they are rarer or simply only one of them exists. At level 50 there are no serious threats in the game. There is an extra lives mechanic with an item called a wakestone, but I only used those to revive myself after jumping off a cliff to my death because it is faster than running.

 

Edit: While I have not beaten the game, I don't believe it is worth 70 bucks. If this were 40-50 bucks I'd say that would be a fair price. Despite my complaints, I do have fun just killin' and travelin', even if that is growing stale. It is pleasing to kill big monsters.

Thank you both. This definitely sounds like a wait for a big discount/sale type game. I did try the first one though not until recently. It was hard for me to gauge because it was very dated in pretty much every aspect... quests, character interactions, and world design (felt big, full of 'stuff', but empty of substance).

Hey all.

Would love to ask your opinions about the game and whether based on the post below if I would enjoy it. I have not purchased it yet, but am thinking about it. I initially was very interested but the bugs, performance, and some of the reviews have made me hesitate. Especially at a $70 price tag. I love RPGs, and they're probably my favorite genre but like anyone I like some more than others.

What I like most about RPGs - Story and Characters:
Looking at the RPGs that I've loved the most. The Witcher series stands out to me as the best. The characters are fleshed out, complex, and their are meaningful choices to be made and consequences. Recently BG3 stands out, and historically ME trilogy and Dragon Age: Origins stand out (the sequels were decent, but a big step down). While I liked Skyrim the silent, bland, player character and robotic NPCs. How are the story and NPCs in DD2? Are the pawns generic or do they have real back stories and such?

Exploration:
I love the exploration and risk/reward of Elden Ring. The dungeons were dangerous and challenging. Witcher comes to mind here, but more because the exploration and side quests did a great job of having story elements to them rather than a just a random copy/paste bethesda style dungeon.  I've heard DD2 has great exploration and dungeons to find, but do they have narrative elements? Do they fit the story or are they just some place to find that's filled with more monsters?

Combat:
Souls/Elden Ring are the gold standard for me. BG3 too, but it's a totally different approach. Witcher was serviceable but not great. Where does DD2 fall? It looks cool from the reviews I saw but it's also an area where most reported a lot of the jankiness. 

This board has always done well steering me to good decisions. Appreciate the help/thoughts!

On 4/1/2024 at 2:10 PM, 5timechamp said:

I needed another time sink game.. I went an bought this old indie title called Diablo 3 hope it keeps me busy… so far it feels like an advanced variation of gauntlet but with a bit more addiction

Diablo 4? It's endgame is far from perfect but the mainline game is really quite good. Most of the negativity around it is a repetitive endgame and endgame loot being a little stale.

Hell Divers 2 is another good option.

On 3/9/2024 at 11:58 PM, Phaseknox said:

Ghost Recon: Wildlands is good, it’s one of my favorite open world games.

It was OK, but it's not Ghost Recon. It's 3rd person far-cry with a military/spec-ops plot.

 

On 3/9/2024 at 7:03 PM, XxEvil AshxX said:

You know what they should be taking inspiration from? Fucking Ghost Recon.

So so true. Somewhat encouraged by Ready or Not inspiration, but the other 3 do not impress me. If I wanted to play COD/Battlefield, I'd play COD/Battlefield.

Definitely the most fun I've had in a co-op game since ME3. It's just the right mix of good gunplay, tactics, progression, and hilarity.

On 1/18/2024 at 4:12 PM, best3444 said:

I know Indy rarely used guns but I hope in this you can use a gun throughout. The whip might get to repetitive. 

I actually kinda hope the opposite. There are TONS of FPS games out there. The fighting in the movies was mostly fist fights and/or smartly taking advantage of the environment. Rarely was fighting just about fighting... it was about rescuing/chasing/obtaining someone or something. Overall, I hope the combat in the game has some plot driven reason vs just mowing down the bad guys.

It looks good, but I also don't see it as a day 1 purchase at that price.

On 1/9/2024 at 5:56 PM, Dexterryu said:

 

I'd say less polarizing and more some venues are less about crapping all over it until they see the final product. Once the final product hits and people see it all, they'll have a firmer opinion. I'd bet there will be several generous scores just related to the fandom of the source material but I anticipate this game to bomb hard in the reviews and sales.

I'd love for the game to be good. I hope it is, but early impressions sounds eerily similar to Redfall to me.

2 minutes ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

Those previews are all over the place. A game this polarizing is not good. Maybe it’s not as bad as everyone hating it, but it’s gonna lead to some very confused consumers. But I wonder if anyone that doesn’t hate it now, just doesn’t hate it yet. 

I'd say less polarizing and more some venues are less about crapping all over it until they see the final product. Once the final product hits and people see it all, they'll have a firmer opinion. I'd bet there will be several generous scores just related to the fandom of the source material but I anticipate this game to bomb hard in the reviews and sales.

The Dev's trying to get people to believe that it isn't a live service game feels pretty tone def to me. Pretty much every hands on I saw says it feels like a live service game.

As for the co-op game play, I think the coop shooter/super hero stuff has been played out from the sense that beyond just hanging out and fighting bad guys together is kind of played out. I say that vs games where the mechanics are built around a high degree of cooperation (It Takes Two/A Way Out) or tactics (Ready or Not/GTF) in order to be successful.

Beyond the DC universe is there much that would make 100s of the same fight over and over again much different than borderlands?

22 minutes ago, Paperclyp said:

Apologies if I’m a little prickly but inciting the bud light controversy while saying generally that it’s a tough time to be a white man did set me off a bit.

I think it was just a matter of focusing on the controversy vs how I was using it to articulate my sentiment that companies pander. Where I attempted to tie it to the conversation was to say that in many businesses ID&E is part of how they brand themselves as "good" to customers/advertisers/media. In my first hand experience often ID&E has been prioritized over actual measurable performance.

13 hours ago, Paperclyp said:

 

The bud light "campaign" was a single tik tok or something that was targeted by grifters acting in bad faith to run a nonsense hate campaign at trans people and the stupid beer company, which, you're right, sure did work real well. Which is something. But it has little or nothing to do with what we're talking about. 

 

Let's not stray too far from the point I'm pushing against. I mean wtf are we even talking about at this point. Here's what I took issue with: 

 

 

This is baseless nonsense - the evidence being that you guys "are in meetings" and the real data is being hidden. Essentially every metric says you're wrong. White men in that age group have some of the lowest unemployment in the history of the tracking of that statistic. Activision's demographics are easily surfaced. In 2022 (the next report will come out in March) their workforce was 73 percent male. 68 percentage of their hires were male. 56 percent of their hires were white. 

 

Now, if you want to sell me the idea that a white male making a lot of money is more likely to be laid off than a black woman making a fraction of that, I would totally believe that! But it is not a challenge for white males 40-55 to find a job by any metric, and they in fact have the LOWEST unemployment rate of any demographic except for white women 55-64. 

 

You're operating on "I'm right because I can feel it." 

And so are you. You are cherry picking data points to articulate your beliefs. There is a certain amount of "duh" here when we're talking about a company like Activision, which is a male dominated field (IT & Developers) making a product who's target audience is also male by a high percentage.

You're also inferring a lot of meaning out of my earlier post about job security and marketability of males 40-55 and refusing to see the meaning behind it... which is that from a demographic perspective, have little protection from a policy/public perception perspective. I have experienced this protection first hand on several occasions (I once had an employee of a protected class routinely ignore their responsibilities, leave work for hours to do errands (their laundry), and had general poor performance, year over year. HR would do nothing specifically because of their "class". Had that person been a white male, they'd have been gone very quickly.

This is not to say that companies are targeting white males. They are not. White males are the "safest" to lay off when they need to cut costs or cycle their workforce with lower cost new grads.

3 minutes ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

Companies "don't care" about anything -- because they are intangible things, that aren't sentient.

The priorities of companies are set by their Board, and by the management team.  Their personal agendas and objectives coalesce around what they do.

ESG ratings are now a very visible way that companies can be measured around diversity.  Since there are very few board members that want to be viewed as being "against" ESG, almost every company will set a target for the management team for achievement of ESG.  This causes management bonuses to be tied to achievement of ESG -- which are largely easily controllable -- so senior management will ensure their targets are hit to maintain their bonuses.

Bingo. Perfectly said.

1 hour ago, Paperclyp said:

Wait what does bud light have to do with this? If anything that whole situation would encourage these companies to release the “real” data that proves the white guys are getting the short end of the stick.

Nothing directly beyond this: Companies care about their brand/image more than anything else. That's what brings in both customers and talent in potential hires. They are in an interesting spot right now in trying to attract new graduates (who place a high value on ID&E) and top talent (who primarily care about $$ and getting stuff done). The bud light campaign last year pissed off their primary customers and hurt their brand, costing them billions in sales and market value.

Most companies really don't care about ID&E (they care about $$ and share value), but they do care about it from the perspective that not being ID&E friendly gets them killed by the media. So they pander (which blew up in Bud Lights face).

9 minutes ago, Paperclyp said:

This does not move the needle much for me in the “middle aged white guys have it tough right now” argument. 

If you're waiting for data you'll never find it because no one will ever say it and will actively hide it for a multitude of reasons. As you saw with the Bud Light fiasco last year, businesses don't want to piss of a major demographic. So it's something that you can consciously ignore if you wish.

1 minute ago, Paperclyp said:

I don’t doubt those conversations happen, but conversations are a far cry from impact on a systemic level. 

I should probably be more clear. There are not conversations about targeting white males. There absolutely conversations about protecting others for ID&E reasons. Higher performing people (with the data to back it up) are let go due to protecting lower performing  (also with data) employees that fit an ID&E statistic.

4 minutes ago, Paperclyp said:

I’m sorry but I’m going to need to see some hard data before I believe this narrative that white males are being disproportionally targeted. I am guessing any data you can find will show you quite the opposite.

 

I take no joy in people being laid off… but I did find the language used by this man and his legal team to be quite funny. 

I can tell you that I am in a role where these factors are actively discussed and play directly into decisions for ratings/reviews and potential layoffs.

It's kind of 2 fold right now. 

1. You have the normal process of corporations pushing out older, higher compensated employees for younger that they feel will perform at a similar level.

2. You have all of the ID&E efforts going on that effectively protects anyone that is not a white male, regardless of performance.

The combination makes job security and finding opportunities a challenge for white males aged 40-55, regardless of their ability to perform.

Great sale on some great games... too bad I have all of the ones I might have wanted.

On 10/26/2023 at 1:57 PM, Bacon said:

I just came across this video and I feel it describes what I have seen from the trailers.

 

The number of mobs is definitely a major reason I get that DS2 vibe. But overall, this video describes the issues I picked up on from the trailers and previews.

 

And just a heads up that this guy didn't beat the game as he didn't like it. I know some might say, "well you didn't beat the game so opinion invalidated," but in his 15 hours, he describes issues I pieced together on my own without even playing it.

 

I'll still prolly give it a shot someday, just so my takes have something to back them up but not until a deep discount, or maybe even a lil

I picked this up on steam and played about 90 minutes before I refunded it. As a FS fan (and Lies of P) the Dark Souls 2 feeling  and comparison is spot on and just like DS2 I wanted to like it but just didn't. It has all of the ingredients, but for whatever reason it just doesn't fit right to my tastes.

11 hours ago, 5timechamp said:

Honestly at this point its not the sidequests that are important as much as the baked in mechanics for the NPCs, AI etc during some of these games… in GTA this manifests itself with random crimes or arguments you can get into at random moments.. the mechanics and emergent gameplay from those situations make full use of the beautiful maps in these games.. a simple mugger you chase can shoot at you, fight you, or even steal a car to try and get away.. the random factors make the game better

 

Ghost Recon Wildlands biggest flaw is that it has one of the very best maps of its generation, but most gunfights are relegated to towns or enemy bases… If the game populated random patrols in the environment the replay value would be endless specially if it had a well developed QRF system..

 

again, sidequests in and of themselves are fine but its the mechanics and ability to generate emergent gameplay that truly sets some open world games apart..

 

for example.. I loved Red Dead Redemption the missions are great… but what I will remember most is going into Tall Trees and the sheer terror of Bear attacks, vicious and merciless

 

 

Emergent event's are great... they're neither padding nor plotted. They're just there and make the world feel dynamic and alive. So honestly a bit of a different topic.

On 10/26/2023 at 2:47 PM, crispy4000 said:

 

I like the idea of many people in a settlement giving you vague clues to a side quest rather than quest markers and explicit directions.  I'd want to hear rumors about something mysterious happening in the woods up there.  Then piece together what actually happened myself.

On 10/26/2023 at 1:57 PM, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

Quests also often feel pencil whipped. Too often there’s no clues to follow or find. 
 

Starfield is a recent example of this issue. I land at a settlement and overhear an altercation between characters. I talk to one who tells me a bit of what’s going on who then tells me to go talk to character 2. Where is character 2? Don’t know. No “they’re probably hiding their office in the building to left there. On the second floor”. So all I have is a name and because the quest markers have bugged out and aren’t appear I have no idea where this person is. I eventually find the person. Who tells me I need to find some security person who went missing outside of the compound. There’s no blood on the ground. Tracks left behind. A trail of breadcrumbs, nothing. Just wonder around until I stumble across the person. I find the person and get them back. Now I need to check out some complex/building or

something nearby. Where? Who knows. Around. The NPC knows it exists, but they couldn’t be bothered to have a line of dialog pointing me in a direction. 
 

Too often it feels like magic quest trails or way points serve to be just as much crutches for the developers as it is for us. But worse so when they use it as such, because it means we have to too. 

Calling out Witcher 2 & 3 on this as a great example of what to do vs what not. They integrated clues, witcher senses, etc... to help you find/hunt whatever it was in everything from main quests, side quests, and quick contracts.

15 hours ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

A game that always bothered me in quest design was Dragon Age Origins. A great evil is coming to bring about the apocalypse. I need armies to fight it off. And the game devolves into nested quests, because everyone needs me to do them a favor. It would get so bad at times I’d forget what I was trying to do for the main quest. lol

Ironically, this is something I find fairly realistic. Look at what happened with Covid and with Global Warming. Regardless of where you fall politically it's universally challenging to understand the objective truth due to the amount of media manipulation & misinformation (Aside: "Don't look up" articulates this so well). So despite what the Grey Wardens knew to be an apocalyptic threat, the general population and nobility were basically shrugging their shoulders and greedily maneuvering to gain power.

On 10/23/2023 at 1:24 PM, AbsolutSurgen said:

To me "Side Quest" and "Something To Do in The World" are synonyms, as long as there is some sort of reward received for doing the thing. 

On 10/23/2023 at 2:17 PM, gamer.tv said:

Side quests for the sake of it (collect 40 of something) are awful. If they progress a side element or non-essential part of a story or allow you to get/upgrade your character, they’re fine. 

Responding to the two above. Yes, quality is largely a thing here but also narrative value. That's what makes something have a little impact vs just being filler.

On 10/23/2023 at 3:07 PM, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

The whole discussion makes me think of this video I saw a while back. 
 

 

And I kind of agree. I am often less likely to finish open world games due to burnout or a sense of being overwhelmed with so much to do. 
 

More often I want a world to feel open and vast more than I want an endless world. And when Devs create a big open world they feel a duty to fill it with quests and little things to do. As if they need to justify the size. As if the world will feel empty if they don’t. 
 

I still feel like this is part of why Elden Ring ended up not feel overwhelming. You can miss things and not even know it. And the ignorance of that doesn’t bother you. You just run into something. Now it could do better with a journal system to keep track of the quests you do find, but it’s lack of half holding felt freeing and less stressful. 
 

I think side quests will always be a bit at odds with the narrative in many games. You take away the choice to do side quests and people might get upset. Depending on the story they are telling you might not be able to even complete side quests after a main quest. So no matter the urgency devs may want to still give players the chance to mill around doing other stuff. 

 

Some easy side quest styles I like are when you’re asked to do something as part of a main mission, or while on a main mission you find or read something important and later find a person interested in it. It feels a bit more organic and doesn’t distract from the main mission and the main narrative. 
 

In Horizon Zero Dawn the side quests kind of annoyed me. Here I am trying to find the people responsible for a viscous assault who are threatening to destroy everyone and Aloy is also seemingly the only person that can do literally anything. How the fuck did any of these people survive to adulthood or to build a society is beyond me. That being said I felt very rewarded when at the climax of the game you are aided by everyone you took time out to help. Mass Effect 2 was kind of similar except you were punished one way or another if you waited too long to do the major side quests (loyalty missions). 
 

I don’t think when it comes to side quest design the issue is open worlds. I think the greater issue is the story being told and whether the design of the side quests have any cohesion with the main story. Both in how they fit in story wise, but also how they are given to the player. But a lot of it stems from why the side quests exists at all. And often it only exists as a cheap way to pad out the game’s run time and to make a world seem more alive than it really is. 

 

Great points on Elden Ring (both the not-overwhelming part and the journal).

As for side quests being at odds with the narrative, that depends. Ideally they should be able to deliver one of two things: 1 - Adding something to the main narrative or 2 - Be worthy of standing on it's own in a way that's good enough that you'd want to do it after completing the main game.

I like to call back to Witcher 3 on this one because they really nailed the aspect of being a Witcher with the contracts board.

• The means of getting the quest from the board felt like a very in-world way of accepting the quest.
• They were almost always local to the village (no traveling to a remote corner of the world to deliver a love note).
• They were all "Witcher things" kill x monster that is doing evil things and get paid.
• They generally had a mini-story with a few ways of solving it.
• They fit just as well for living in the world after the main narrative as during.
• They weren't in your face pestering you to do them while you were doing the main quests (a la Cyberpunk/Far Cry 5 & 6).