Ares42

@atheistpreacher: When they put D3 on console (and kinda standardized controls for arpg on controller) they made it so you're constantly auto-targetting the closest enemy in the direction you're pointing, and it's pretty much stayed that way since. So you're always gonna target something useful with your spells. You just can't put in the center of a blob, or on a more important enemy in the back. One of the nice things about this system though is that you can't really whiff abilities, and it makes hold casting far easier.

Playing this game reminds me a LOT of playing Destiny when it first came out. It has this overhanging feeling of the developer not quite understanding the game they're making. The gameplay is still engaging, and the systems and features aren't broken or anything, but so many minor details are just "off". I've been struggling with nailing down what exactly the problem is since my first couple of hours with the game, and after completing the campaign I still can't really put it into words. It's just like a complete lack of cohesive direction.

The most damning thing though is that I'm sitting here, looking at the map, and I'm thinking "Do I even want to keep playing ?". There's a lot of things I could do, but are any of them actually engaging ? My character has already been fairly set in stone for the last 20+ hours, and gear has so far been very uninteresting. Even the "major build pieces" I've gotten never felt like a significant difference. My Ubiworld lizardbrain isn't getting intrigued by the open-world "collectathon" aspect either. I dunno... game's weird man... I kinda just wish it was a more focused experience than it is.

Also, talking about the skill system, it's literally the D3 system with a worse UI and less options. I thought you even had less skill options, but going back and comparing it became super obvious that it's the same exact thing with only 2 runes per skill and far less interesting passive skills.

Constantly. I would say I could divide my game collection into two piles, one that's the games I buy, play and never touch again, and another which are games I consistently come back to every 3-5 years. And that second pile is starting to get fairly big. After jumping out of WoW Classic last summer (which is sorta this kinda thing as well) I've gone on a rager through my library and replayed something like 15+ of my favorite classics (like Arkham series, Skyrim/Fallout and several AC games.) Many of them for the fourth of fifth time.

I'm certainly an outlier though, and I did it quite a bit less the last decade when I was very much on the "play every new game" wagon. But even then I would replay games I really loved the first time around a couple of years later.

Don't want the genre to die, but people need to stop calling games souls-likes and just call them Action-RPGs again. Yes, the Souls series re-invented the genre, but at their core they are still simply Action-RPGs. Naming genres after games is just dumb and makes no sense in the long run.

I have a strong feeling that the perpetual delays are due to MS not allowing the game to release before it's in a pretty good shape. Bethesda would've shipped it on the original date last fall and just fixed it later as always. They didn't delay any of their last three titles that released in rough shapes, so why would they suddenly delay a game an entire year ? MS however just won't accept broken games on release after the whole Halo debacle.

No, that's not what I said. I said Trying to convince people that something they enjoy is "wrong". Which is a very different thing. You can talk to someone all you want about the troubles of your marginalized group and how you wish things were etc etc, and try to get them to understand. But once you start telling them what they're doing is wrong and bad you're being invasive and confrontational, which a lot of people will respond negatively to.

In a small group situation this can usually (but not always) be dealt with as you can hash things out and have a real conversation about things, but once you scale things up that kinda conversation isn't possible anymore. So you now just create a lot of negativity and tension around the subject without any real means of resolving it.

@navster15: My point, as I tried to state in my first post, is that the approach of trying to convince people that something they enjoy is "wrong" usually does more harm than good for whatever the cause might be. As I already stated, the entire discussion about conflict and societal change is not relevant to that point. Wether or not conflict is required for societal change doesn't have anything to do with whether or not that kind of approach is effective or not.

I never made this claim. Nothing I've talked about has been about the specific topic of marginalized groups. I've been talking about the methodologies used in this conflict.

@retris: What ? That's neither relevant to what I was talking about nor even close to being true. Just in my lifetime our society has changed in extreme ways no one could've ever predicted through innovation and science, and you believe most of it was challenged through conflict ? The world is a completely different place now and that changes peoples attitudes and perceptions of all kinds of things.

@retris: I'm not denying that it can lead to positive results, but with the amount of times it has ended up being ineffective or backfiring I wouldn't exactly recommend it.