Game has a bit of an identity crisis

I’ve been playing ARPGs since Diablo 1, and while the genre has evolved over the years, its core formula has remained largely unchanged: kill mobs, collect loot and XP, and repeat. Then along comes Path of Exile 2 (PoE 2), and it made me stop and question—what truly defines an ARPG?

If we compare ARPGs to games like Skyrim or The Witcher, the distinction becomes clearer. Those games are RPGs with action elements—they're not turn-based, but they focus on micro-management. In such games, facing a 1v3 encounter is significant; you manage blocks, parries, dodges, and skills carefully. By contrast, in traditional ARPGs, much of this is automated, and the focus is on dispatching large groups of enemies quickly. PoE 2 seems to be bridging the gap between these two styles, and I absolutely love it.

As someone who has played ARPGs for decades, experiencing a game that challenges the established formula is incredibly refreshing. The combat in PoE 2 feels more tactical, slower-paced, and deliberate, offering a new perspective on what an ARPG can be. Yet, this change has sparked a divide in the community. Some players prefer the fast-paced, "blaster" gameplay of PoE 1, while others, like me, appreciate the slower, methodical approach of PoE 2. This raises a critical question: can PoE 2 serve both audiences?

This reminds me of a concept from the book Crossing the Chasm, which discusses how companies often fail to innovate because they focus solely on their core customers. Successful companies, however, create separate initiatives to explore emerging markets and technologies. Applying this to PoE 2, PoE 1 represents the core business—a quintessential ARPG with innovative systems. PoE 2, on the other hand, is an ambitious attempt to redefine the genre and attract a new audience.

However, there’s a challenge here. In the first three acts, PoE 2 delivers on its promise of slow, tactical combat. But by the time we reach Cruel mode, the pacing shifts back toward the faster, more chaotic style of PoE 1. The same happens in the endgame maps, where the density and speed feel more like PoE 1 than the innovative gameplay of the early acts. While I understand these changes were implemented last-minute to meet deadlines, they create a sense of inconsistency in the game's identity.

My concern is this: many players want PoE 2 to retain the "blaster" playstyle where build and gear are the primary determinants of success. Meanwhile, players like me prefer the strategic combat of using 6+ skills as a toolbelt, staying engaged rather than relying on brain-off, two-button builds designed purely for efficiency. Can PoE 2 balance these two opposing visions?

Realistically, it’s difficult. Pleasing one group risks alienating the other, leading to constant tension over the game’s direction. My hope is that PoE 2 pivots toward the pacing and density of Acts 1–3 throughout the entire game, including endgame content. A system with fewer mobs that have more HP and grant better rewards would align better with the tactical style PoE 2 introduced.

One possible solution is to offer different gameplay modes similar to the idea of ruthless in POE 1. For example, there could be a "blaster mode" with higher mob density, smaller maps, and more loot for players who prefer faster gameplay. On the other hand, a "slow and methodical" mode could cater to players who enjoy the early-game experience. However, this approach would require significant resources, and it’s likely that one mode would receive more attention than the other.

In conclusion, I’m firmly in the camp that believes PoE 2’s slower, more tactical gameplay is a revolutionary step forward for the ARPG genre. After playing so many traditional ARPGs over the years, I deeply appreciate that PoE 2 is trying something new. I hope the developers remain committed to this innovative vision, even as they navigate the challenge of meeting diverse player expectations.