I’m really glad I never really developed an interest in Diablo. Correct me if I’m wrong, but this is supposed to be the same sort of genre as Minecraft Dungeons and Torchlight, right? Not some weird fucking pretend MMO where disabling features at players’ expense is just okay?
Activision-Blizzard’s obsession with stripping player freedom out of their games is suffocating. This franchise used to have mods, now you’re not even allowed to trade if they find out that people who don’t want to grind are duping items.
It is one the best games in its respective genre. I only play RPGs and this game has easily toppled Witcher, Elder Scrolls, and other games like Pillars of Eternity and so on.
It’s not your type of game, it seems. Not that it isn’t one of the best RPGs in it’s class.
It is definitely my type of game. Crpgs are my jam, this doesnt mean ill blindly praise it as the best rpg ever and it doesnt mean i wont criticize it. The interface really sucks. The tooltips and info on skills and classes are lacking. The decision to move away from real time with pause and small party size changes the identity of a bg game. It is better than many games and i agree it is better than pillars but it is far from the best rpg ever made is all i am saying.
I agree with you on some of your points. The interface (with a controller) is only ever annoying as all hell when I’m trying to look for an item that a puzzle needs. I have a strong character with buffs to carry more weight and after awhile the plethora of items in my inventory are just overwhelming. That’s my fault for being a hoarder, not the game per se. lol The same happened in the Witcher, and can happen in games like Oblivion/Skyrim. I guess what constitutes an amazing RPG game to me is that it respects my choices whether good or bad, makes me face the consequences good or bad, let’s me play the way I want to unless absolutely necessary to keep me in line with what needs to be done to progress, and to let my imagination run wild while letting me experiment with different ideas or plans. I guess with all that said, I take RPG games pretty seriously as in I will legitimately place myself into the game both visually (if I can with the tools provided) and especially morally. “What would I really do in this situation?” Type of player.
I can’t really comment on your other points because I haven’t played any of those other games you mentioned, but this point stuck out to me:
The tooltips and info on skills and classes are lacking.
I’m honestly baffled by this. All of the tooltips and in-game documentation have been immensely helpful to me, as someone who’s pretty new to DnD and has never really played this type of game before. Being able to drill down into the tooltips is incredible, since everything is always a few hovers away, even the most basic beginner concepts. I don’t have to go digging through some in game manual to find stuff that was introduced at the beginning of the game, I just have to hover over a couple things and it’s right there.
I replied to soemone above with some criticisms of the tooltips. I am jist copying and pasting caise i am lazy and typing on a phone sucks. I think a lot of the information is vague. Take fear for instance, fear says it makes people fearful and that they will be easier to hit. How much easier to hit? Advantage? +1? If you check the linked description of fearful, it doesnt mention anything about being easier to hit. Other issues, spell descriptions dont provide aoe info, some dont even say whether or not they are aoe like acid splash. Other examples, chromatic orb doesnt tell you how much damage other types will deal, and If spells have surface effects, the effects are not linked or explained. Haste doesnt tell you how long the lethargic debuff will last. Cc spells dont say if enemies get a save each turn or not. Like this isnt just a few spells this is numerous spells and skills from many different classes. I jist think in a tactical turn based rpg, the info should always be clear.
I just think it is ridiculous that i cant make valid criticisms of a game i really like without getting downvoted. Like am i nitpicking? In some areas yes, but thats how you separate great games from masterpieces.
The decision to move away from real time with pause and small party size changes the identity of a bg game
You could’ve just led with that so we know which vocal minority you’re coming from. I’m sure if it was RTWP with the exact same interface and tooltips, you’d be praising the game.
The interface needs a lot of quality of life improvements. Some issues include no toggle to disable the annoying dice roll mechanic, the autotalk on click when clicking on companions, and the game just seems to eat inputs all the time. The lack of options to change the ui size sucks too. One of my biggest issues is the limited inventory management, like inaccessible inventory of all companions at once (including non party companions), no quick stack, and when you sort inventory it wont stack the items of the same type either. I just feel with the amount of testing done, these are things that should have been apparent. Imean there are some things the interface does well, like how easy it is to customize and access skills and spells. Again i like this game. I still give it an A, but its not the best rpg ever.
Also, i think dismissing me completely because i like rtwp and larger parties is pretty lame. Baldurs gate invented the real time with pause system afaik and it was core to its identity and the way the game played out tactically. It really brought something to the tabletop genre by allowing all turns to play out at the same time which made it more immersive imo. Also, i feel like they spent so much time writing and voicing these characters that it is an error how they limit your interaction with them with small parties, and honestly few companion choices overall. This game just feels like dragonage/divinity which is fine, i liked both of those games, but it doesnt feel as much like bg as i would like.
Edit: forgot a line aboutui size and to add a bit about tooltips and info. I think a lot of the information is vague. Take fear for instance, fear says it makes people fearful and that they will be easier to hit. How much easier to hit? Advantage? +1? The description of fearful doesnt mention anything about being easier to hit. Other issues, spell descriptions dont provide aoe info, some dont even say whether or not they are aoe like acid splash. Other examples, chromatic orb doesnt tell you how much damage other types will deal, and If spells have surface effects, the effects are not linked or explained. Haste doesnt tell you how long the lethargic debuff will last. Cc spells dont say if enemies get a save each turn or not. Like this isnt just a few spells this is numerous spells and skills from many different classes. I jist think in a tactical turn based rpg, the info should always be clear.
Thank you. Good to know I’m not alone in this, I literally don’t understand why this game is praised so much, it seems like it barely works, seems weird as hell, I don’t understand the replayability and the gameplay is just… Clicking menus?
It shouldn’t be when they were talking about making that shit retroactive for games that were already released. Unity proved they cannot be trusted. Besides, developers should move to other engines for the sole reason of sending a message to the other guys in the industry like Epic’s Unreal Engine. Pull shit like this and you’ll lose out on the developers. Make them realize that Unity was a failed experiment and no one wants to be like them.
I’d love an open world game where you start as a Star Trek ship and just explore for hundreds of hours, stumbling upon adventures/civilizations taken directly from the massive repo of lore that exists from all the shows.
Have you tried Bridge Commander or the not actually star trek, but still totally star trek game Artemis?
They’re basically that. Randomly generated scenarios where you, and a few friends, command a Starfleet vessel to solve dilemmas or just exist in the world. The fun is mostly in the MP aspect (though Bridge Commander can be played solo), and the missions are pretty samey and mostly explained through text briefings. But it really feels like being on the bridge of the Enterprise.
I work on a product that strives for Section 508 compliance, despite the fact that any improvement we make will only be used by fewer than 1% of our userbase.
Yes, we can and do exactly fault developers for ignoring users with disabilities.
Catering, and ignoring. are two completely different words with two completely different meanings. Did you read the article?
Everything they touch on is so incredibly vague that there is no way to make out what the problem actually is.
“fast-paced gameplay (34 per cent)”
34% complained about the gameplay being too fast-paced. What where they playing? No one knows. Could be sitting playing Call of Duty and raging about being 360 no scoped for all we know.
The article is vague on everything. And that’s always on purpose. They’re vague on purpose to maximize outrage. Oh this sounds horrible, look at this, the devs are not catering to disabled players. Should we mention that the kid with 1 hand is upset he can’t play CS:GO competitively? Nah, just call it “lack of customisable control options”
I’m sorry, but 99.99% is a laughable hyperbole. A huuuuge number of people have disabilities and disabilities are extremely diverse. A simple example is colour blindness. Google says 8% of men and 0.5% of women are colour blind. Video games frequently do use colour in a way that makes colour blindness a problem and colour blind modes are an accessibility option.
Google also says 15% of the world has some degree of hearing impairment. That’s admittedly biased towards seniors, but I can find numbers that say 9% of 20-39 year old Canadians have detectable hearing losses. Captions are an accessibility option.
And those are just two examples. There’s tons of disabilities out there. Even when an individual disability might only be 0.1% of the population, add them all together and there’s a substantial number of people who are left out by lack of one accessibility option or another. Aside from obvious disabilities, there’s also just general worsening of reaction times as people age.
Just because someone has a disability, doesn’t mean it’s game-breaking. Yes, 8% of men are red/green colour-blind. But that doesn’t mean 100% of those can’t tell the colours apart. You can be more or less colour-blind. Or so my friend says, because he is colour-blind, but have never experienced that to be an issue in games. Red for him doesn’t look like red does to me. But he still knows what red is. And believe it or not. Most developers don’t exactly use a colour-blind test palette for their gameplay or menus.
Subtitles have been around since at least the playstation2 era. I feel like you would almost struggle to find a modern game that doesn’t have subtitles these days.
You may think my hyperbole is laughable but your response does nothing but follow suit. If you suffer from bad hearing, I’m sorry to say that you might not be able to fully experience a game with speakers. Might want to get a pair of headphones, so that you can 1. Amplify the volume if needed. and 2. raise or lower frequencies you can’t hear, into a range that you can hear. It’s going to sound a little distorted perhaps but at least you will be able to hear it. I’m sure developers do their best to create captions that are important. But I don’t think you understand just what a monumental task it would be to create an automated system for full CC captions of the ambience in a game.
And I’m sorry, did you just list lack of reflexes and reaction time as a disability to gaming? If you don’t have any arms, basketball might just not be for you. If you suffer from bad reaction time. Maybe pick a game that doesn’t rely on reaction time. That’s not on the devs. That’s on you.
While I argue your response is an equity Vs equality issue and your basketball argument kind of conflicts your previous statement, there is the the huge difference of individual cost per game to cater to a/all disability. As you mention automation of these systems aren’t really feasible and although guidelines can be put in place. They are still a significant investment of time and money. You can implement them into an engine but you still need the game to integrate it and although some things might be easy across multiple games (colour blind overlays) some won’t (mechanic driven considerations).
I have no clue. VR has its uses, but it absolutely has no place in my daily life like the zuck wants to believe.
There would be more sympathy for Meta of they actually produced something innovative, but they aren’t. The screens and the lenses might be getting better and the device might be getting a few ounces lighter, but that is about it. Maybe augmented reality is getting a bit better? Whatever they are doing, it can’t justify the billions they have spent on it.
Despite some of the players complaining, a lot of the audience likes the pay-to-win mechanic. It's not a game funded purely by whales; a lot of average players will spend money on the loot boxes. "I like that it means I don't have to grind for ages, I don't have time for that" and "it feels like the sports trading cards I had when I was a kid" are a couple of the reasons I hear somewhat regularly. The idea that it could be designed to not be grindy in the first place doesn't even occur to them.
I am trying to convince my best friend to not buy the same cashgrab game every year but my mans just can’t stop himself. At least he doesn’t partake in any microtransactions.
Are they still working on buffing the shit out of the same modern day protagonist as before or what? I only got about halfway through Odyssey (but looked up the ending) and skipped Valhalla.
At this point I agree. I loved the modern day stuff up until the end of 3. But then Black Flag just made it a boring slog with maybe one or two good ideas.
I can’t believe they didn’t create any mods for BF, could easily have been like Skyrim in terms of longevity. People would have added full on trading and fleet mods like the old school Syd Meyers games. What a waste of dev time to create so much potential and justet it die.
Ubisoft did finally make a stand alone version that’s in beta right now. Skull and Bones. They promised all the cool stuff we wanted and it’s totally separate from assassin’s Creed, but unfortunately they seemed to have botched it and there’s even fewer features than in Black Flag. Ubisoft just doesn’t seem to be able to make anything else except progressively worse AC games.
Oh I loved Black Flag but I wasn’t excited for it like the previous titles and the present day stuff was just kinda spinning it’s wheels while making meta jokes about Ubisoft.
Very fair! I go back to replay it with excitement and it always drops off my face when I remember how god awful the present day stuff is… can’t believe it took until Odyssey to give us an option to skip
games
Ważne
Magazyn ze zdalnego serwera może być niekompletny. Zobacz więcej na oryginalnej instancji.