What happened?

there is truth in the OP but at least we have POE!

for those RTS hungry dudes there is also
https://store.steampowered.com/app/1486920/Tempest_Rising/
...soon

It also seems that MS is getting their head out of their ass concerning AOE4 as there is finally more content.

edit: older games being better: hahaahahahahahahahaha. no. Well maybe jagged alliance 2. number 3 was fine, but still no chance against JA2 1.13

"

Pashid wrote:

"

Aynix wrote:

MMORPGs being dead? We are getting more new MMOs in next few years that we were getting in "golden era" my dude.

Yea but name a single good MMORPG. Pretty much all of them lack content, are straight up some china mtx cash grab junk, or are just pay2win in general.
The days of really good mmorpgs are just over and even games like final fantasy 14 or wow got gutted down to shit over the past years. Older other good existing mmorpgs got patched into shit as well, turned p2w or simply died out because of the two reasons.

No. If any of those "oh so great" old MMOs would release nowadays, NO ONE would play them. They were even worse than those "cash grabs" we get now. You just were too young and inexperienced to notice it.

Let me list some of great features those Good 'ol MMOs had:
- Most of those games had system where during enchanting ur item could break. Only way to prevent it was to buy specific item from cash shop
- You had some items that were giving you passive stats (like etra crit, dmg etc) but as a free user you only could equipp certain amount of them. Ofc you could buy extra slots for those in cash shop
- You could buy potions that will instantly heal ur max hp, scrolls that were giving you dmg buffs for certain amount of time etc.
- You could raise max lvl of ur skills beyond "max" using items from cash shop, increasing ur dmg by a lot
- You could buy BiS gear or even items better than anything in the game in cash shop
- Premium outfits were giving stats, usually quite a lot.

People like to call modern MMOs P2W but they forget old MMOs were REAL P2W games. Nowadays the best (or worst) you will see in game is "pay to progress faster", you wont be able to buy extra power from cash shop.

well, they removed my post I'll leave this here for you to decide and see for yourself what happened.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-G3j00RQ1U

"

auspexa wrote:

well, they removed my post I'll leave this here for you to decide and see for yourself what happened.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-G3j00RQ1U

Thats just a stupid take. Lets take that bait and use it as example D4 vs D2.

D4 by any metric is better game than D2. It has better graphics, better animations, better storytylling, better build diversity, more builds, more diverse monsters, bigger map , more endgame activities, better boss design with better mechanics, better feel of combat , better sound design and we could go on and on. On top of that it sold better.

Some of those things are subjective sure but you cant dispute even half. So why D2 is considered better game? The answer is simple, you are more lenient with it because its old. Now you developed something you didnt have back than, its called EXPECTATIONS, and since nothing can match or even come close to them you will always find new games lacking in some aspect. Thats the harsh reality of things.

The same applies to indie games. You are more forgiving because they are made by small devs. Do you know what would happen if Ubisoft was the ones that made Vampire Survivors? Everyone would be bitching about graphics, animations, bugs etc. Dont even try to act like it wouldnt be the case. [Removed by Support]

"

kuciol wrote:

The same applies to indie games. You are more forgiving because they are made by small devs. Do you know what would happen if Ubisoft was the ones that made Vampire Survivors? Everyone would be bitching about graphics, animations, bugs etc. Dont even try to act like it wouldnt be the case. [Removed by Support]

Because Ubisoft would charge 70-80$ for it, not 5$. With price comes expectations. If I pay 80$ for game, I expect it to be good. If I pay 5$ I expect it to be fun for few hours max. VS was praised because you get so much more than you expect from game with such price.

Yes, if you compare D4 and D2, Diablo 4 will look much better. However if you compare D4 to modern games, now you can see how much problems it has.
Why people praise Diablo 2 and not Diablo 4? Because when Diablo 2 came out, it was greatest game on the market. Compared to games that came out at the same time, Diablo 2 was "next level".

"

Aynix wrote:

Because Ubisoft would charge 70-80$ for it, not 5$. With price comes expectations. If I pay 80$ for game, I expect it to be good. If I pay 5$ I expect it to be fun for few hours max. VS was praised because you get so much more than you expect from game with such price.

Yes, if you compare D4 and D2, Diablo 4 will look much better. However if you compare D4 to modern games, now you can see how much problems it has.
Why people praise Diablo 2 and not Diablo 4? Because when Diablo 2 came out, it was greatest game on the market. Compared to games that came out at the same time, Diablo 2 was "next level".

No, even if you kept the price tag as is it would be the same. And as for diablo 2 people still call it better when its clearly not. It lacks in content, combat feel and animations even compared to diablo 3. I dont care when it came out when its still hailed as the best and gold standard when other products are superior in very aspect.

"

kuciol wrote:

"

auspexa wrote:

well, they removed my post I'll leave this here for you to decide and see for yourself what happened.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-G3j00RQ1U

Thats just a stupid take. Lets take that bait and use it as example D4 vs D2.

D4 by any metric is better game than D2. It has better graphics, better animations, better storytylling, better build diversity, more builds, more diverse monsters, bigger map , more endgame activities, better boss design with better mechanics, better feel of combat , better sound design and we could go on and on. On top of that it sold better.

Some of those things are subjective sure but you cant dispute even half. So why D2 is considered better game? The answer is simple, you are more lenient with it because its old. Now you developed something you didnt have back than, its called EXPECTATIONS, and since nothing can match or even come close to them you will always find new games lacking in some aspect. Thats the harsh reality of things.

The same applies to indie games. You are more forgiving because they are made by small devs. Do you know what would happen if Ubisoft was the ones that made Vampire Survivors? Everyone would be bitching about graphics, animations, bugs etc. Dont even try to act like it wouldnt be the case. [Removed by Support]

I would explain why the modern games suck, but they'll remove my post again so I won't bother.

"

kuciol wrote:

"

Aynix wrote:

Because Ubisoft would charge 70-80$ for it, not 5$. With price comes expectations. If I pay 80$ for game, I expect it to be good. If I pay 5$ I expect it to be fun for few hours max. VS was praised because you get so much more than you expect from game with such price.

Yes, if you compare D4 and D2, Diablo 4 will look much better. However if you compare D4 to modern games, now you can see how much problems it has.
Why people praise Diablo 2 and not Diablo 4? Because when Diablo 2 came out, it was greatest game on the market. Compared to games that came out at the same time, Diablo 2 was "next level".

No, even if you kept the price tag as is it would be the same. And as for diablo 2 people still call it better when its clearly not. It lacks in content, combat feel and animations even compared to diablo 3. I dont care when it came out when its still hailed as the best and gold standard when other products are superior in very aspect.

No, they would not. Some vocal minority would, some people will always hate but that doesnt rly count. Thats just ur assumptions based on a situation that never happened. I dont follow Ubisoft (nor any AAA studio tbh) but from what I know they never made "small scale game". They are well known for same thong as almost every AAA studio nowadays - releasing copy paste bugged, unfinished games and charging full price for it.
Same situation with Diablo 2 - those people who say that Diablo 2 is still great game are vocal minority that usually didnt play the game for past 10 years or more and just remember it being good when they played it last time.

"

Aynix wrote:

No, they would not. Some vocal minority would, some people will always hate but that doesnt rly count. Thats just ur assumptions based on a situation that never happened. I dont follow Ubisoft (nor any AAA studio tbh) but from what I know they never made "small scale game". They are well known for same thong as almost every AAA studio nowadays - releasing copy paste bugged, unfinished games and charging full price for it.
Same situation with Diablo 2 - those people who say that Diablo 2 is still great game are vocal minority that usually didnt play the game for past 10 years or more and just remember it being good when they played it last time.

Every D2 resurrected topic on any forums begs to differ. Poeple recommend it instead of D3 and D4, and thats not issolated issue when the game for today is lacking in every aspect.

I dont deny that games are a lot of times bugged as hell , unfinished etc but my point is THEY ALWAYS WERE. We just tend to remember the good ones. Games in old days had even less of everything and players are just blinded by nostalgia.