Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Oct 2011
- Posts
- 8,617
Whatever GGG has in store for POE2 it will at least have some substance and a proper end game, that's gauranteed. I don't think anything Blizzard have come up with is going to worry GGG at all.
** Diablo 4 Thread **
- Thread starter Teaf
- Start date
Whatever GGG has in store for POE2 it will at least have some substance and a proper end game, that's gauranteed. I don't think anything Blizzard have come up with is going to worry GGG at all.
I think it's just different perspectives, how much free time people have to put into gaming and whether their gaming is centred around one title for extended periods of time. There have been a lot of games in the last few years that I couldn't get 30 hours out of.
Someone who puts thousands of hours into the PoE endgame was never going to be satisfied with D4. For others, D4 is the game they've put the most hours into in such a short space of time.
A game doesn't have to have hundreds or thousands of hours of content to be truly appreciated.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Oct 2011
- Posts
- 8,617
It's the worst of both Worlds, there's no real end game to speak of, and every season you have to start new characters. In POE there's endless end game, but you have to start afresh every season, in Grim Dawn there's no seaons or end game, but a ton of build diversity and variety meaning you can just re-roll and beat the game again if you want.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Oct 2011
- Posts
- 8,617
It's a general point i'm making about reviewing games, it's nothing to do with POE or D4 really. What I'm saying is, I see a lot people saying "Got my money's worth" out a game which got me thinking that's not really a high bar to get over when discussing the relative merits of a game, and its quite shallow as a metric. It's nothing to do with having thousands of hours of content like FFXIV or being one of those little 6 hour story driven indie games that cost you a tenner, how much or how little content there is makes no difference.
I just think "I got my money's worth" doesn't tell us much.
Last edited:
I haven't seen many people say that? They've explained why, and again it's from their perspective.
People getting burned out after putting 100+ hours into it over the course of a month doesn't signify a shallow appreciation of it.
I'll absolutely admit that it's launched in a poor state for people who want that endgame grind, but it's not a million miles away from being a game that sits comfortably in the middle ground of not enough endgame versus extreme endgame.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Oct 2011
- Posts
- 8,617
I'm not talking about this thread or this game. It's not about D4 specifically or any other game specifically.
"It's a general point i'm making about reviewing games, it's nothing to do with POE or D4 really. What I'm saying is, I see a lot people saying "Got my money's worth" out a game which got me thinking that's not really a high bar to get over when discussing the relative merits of a game, and its quite shallow as a metric. It's nothing to do with having thousands of hours of content like FFXIV or being one of those little 6 hour story driven indie games that cost you a tenner, how much or how little content there is makes no difference."
Well, we're in the D4 thread for a start, and you're questioning people in the thread who supposedly said "I got my money's worth" when no one explained it in such a simple way.
You can't even really quantify the term "money's worth" anyway, as I said in my original reply to you, it's their perspective, not anyone else's.
People are just hung up on the fact that there are a lot of players who have enjoyed their time in D4 and it's not the garbage experience they had. I mean, you haven't even played it yet have you?
Last edited:
For some its not even as much as 30 hours ! I only got about 12 hours out of Alien Isolation for example, one of the best games I've played in the last several years
For some its not even as much as 30 hours ! I only got about 12 hours out of Alien Isolation for example, one of the best games I've played in the last several years
You need to be specific about why that 12 hours was one of your best gaming experiences, sir, otherwise that's a pretty superficial appreciation.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Oct 2011
- Posts
- 8,617
And?
I didn't question anyone, he replied to the point I made...so it's not me getting butt hurt because I made a general point about assessing video games.
Last edited:
And?
I didn't question anyone, he replied to the point I made...so it's not me getting butt hurt because I made a general point agaout assessing video games.
Your earlier posts in the thread in which the discussion initally stemmed from were clearly about "money's worth" comments and D4.
I'm not butthurt either, stop projecting again
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Oct 2011
- Posts
- 8,617
Your earlier posts in the thread in which the discussion initally stemmed from were clearly about "money's worth" comments and D4.
I'm not butthurt either, stop projecting again
No, not at all, it was a general point, and I made that clear several times. I didn't say you were butt hurt, but someone clearly was...
Last edited:
No, not at all, it was a general point, and I made that clear several times. I didn't say you were butt hurt, but someone clearly was...
Shame you couldn't make it clear which posters had used that phrase without further explanation
Come on then, who are you referring to, don't be shy.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Oct 2011
- Posts
- 8,617
Shame you couldn't make it clear which posters had used that phrase without further explanation
Come on then, who are you referring to, don't be shy.
I wasn't referring to any poster in particular when I made my intial post on this subject, someone replied and I think took it personally
I'm not going to name and shame!
I wasn't referring to any poster in particular when I made my intial post on this subject, someone replied and I think took it personally
I'm not going to name and shame!
They didn't appear to take it personally at all from my perspective. They gave a perfectly valid point of view and then you chose to essentially dismiss it as them just having a shallow appreciation of things.
The whole exchange could pretty much be boiled down to 'my standard of value is better than yours'.
Last edited:
I think theres a difference in meaning and terminology at times. I often use the "£ per hour" system, but I use that not as an indicator necessarily of the quality of a game, I use that purely as an indicator of value for money. I've got games which attained its £ per hour but ultimately I considered to be quite average games but games that nevertheless provided me with value for money (or moneys worth if you like) , equally I've played games which did not attain the £ per hour (such as Alien Isolation for example) which were phenomenal games imo. Quality and value for money are two seperate attributes imo, sometimes a game supplies both, sometimes it supplies one, but they are not necessarily tied hand in hand.
Agree with @Darujhistan that the cost-to-playtime metric isn't a useful metric for others to take insight from. Comes across as a defense mechanism from some (not all) "I didn't waste my money or time because I got £1 per hour out of it". Steam is full of games with much higher cost-to-playtime ratios if thats all people are interested in. Spend £1 and it'll do you a week.
Last edited: