RPG Thread XV Will Hunt and Kill His Brothers and Absorb Their Essence
- Thread starter The Crotch
- Start date
- Status
So I played Torchlight as I got it free from a friend. My first ARPG. Not sure where to share this, Diablo 3 thread would be interpreted as trolling and Gaming OT is gif-tastic, so it goes here.
On loot driven games in general, it's wearying. I feel that impulse to always-be-upgrading-gear a little, but unlike others (who are probably shoulders deep in D3), I can pull back and objectively assess how stupid the situation is. So right off the bat, the game experience was especially valuable to me. It helped me learn definitively that, yup, crawling is not my bag.
On Torchlight specifically, the story is dumb. I realize that's not the point -- it's about dungeon crawling and amassing gear with amazing DPS or +crit -- but if they would have put a little more into the throwaway story, I certainly would have played more to learn about it.
However, that's not my main gripe with Torchlight. My main problem is the stats on gear/skills, or rather the stats system in general. I've played enough RPGs to know how this shit goes down, and I'm convinced that half the stats on Torchlight gear are utter bullshit. The game *still* has typos and grammatical errors in the latest patch for player tips, and I think that lack of attention extends to how they assigned stats on gear.
I've searched online (with special emphasis on material from the official Runic forums), and I can't find anything beyond the basics. When pushed by gamers in their forums, their employees admit that they're not entirely sure how the calculations work, that they'd have to consult the lead developers who are otherwise occupied at the moment.
A big part of the problem is that the game doesn't show you a full assessment of your stats. (I'm talking about everything in aggregate, +Armor, +Def, +Elem Damage, so on, not just STR, DEX, DEF, MAG and a few resistances). Hence, for instance, there's really no way to know how or what +Armor vs. +Defense does for your character. And the stats assigned to gear constantly muddles the stat base, there's +Damage, +% Phys/Elem damage, +Elem Damage, +Ranged Damage. Or +Damage Reflected and +% Damage Reflected on X% of Missiles. The resistances are just some arbitrary number -- is it HP reduction on a specific elemental damage taken by my toon?
It's not that I want to min/max, but if I do find a nice drop, the game should allow me to assess whether or not I want to swap out a piece of equipped gear. You really can't do that honestly in this game. It's surprising to me, because it's a tonal difference from the rest of the game (as I understand it): Runic wanted the dungeon crawling experience, but simplified/streamlined. However, the stats are a clusterfrak.
(As an aside, this is not a standard. I don't know anything about Diablo, but there's no way Blizzard would let their stats get that messy -- I've played enough WoW to know that while stats were complicated, I knew exactly what my total +Armor was because the game told me explicitly, and then Blizzard told people online what the forumlas were (more or less) to understand the damage mitigation.)
Overall, it was a fun game to play for free, and Runic definitely put a lot of value into this game. However, I wouldn't recommend it as I can't get past the stats thing. I know most players just look at DPS, +crit, or +def, but that doesn't mean you build a library of gear with stats you cannot explain to the letter. I would guess if you go to the developers you would get a lot of hand waving about one stat vs. the other. In a game that is gear driven, I think it's almost unforgivable to have a flawed stats system like that.
On loot driven games in general, it's wearying. I feel that impulse to always-be-upgrading-gear a little, but unlike others (who are probably shoulders deep in D3), I can pull back and objectively assess how stupid the situation is. So right off the bat, the game experience was especially valuable to me. It helped me learn definitively that, yup, crawling is not my bag.
On Torchlight specifically, the story is dumb. I realize that's not the point -- it's about dungeon crawling and amassing gear with amazing DPS or +crit -- but if they would have put a little more into the throwaway story, I certainly would have played more to learn about it.
However, that's not my main gripe with Torchlight. My main problem is the stats on gear/skills, or rather the stats system in general. I've played enough RPGs to know how this shit goes down, and I'm convinced that half the stats on Torchlight gear are utter bullshit. The game *still* has typos and grammatical errors in the latest patch for player tips, and I think that lack of attention extends to how they assigned stats on gear.
I've searched online (with special emphasis on material from the official Runic forums), and I can't find anything beyond the basics. When pushed by gamers in their forums, their employees admit that they're not entirely sure how the calculations work, that they'd have to consult the lead developers who are otherwise occupied at the moment.
A big part of the problem is that the game doesn't show you a full assessment of your stats. (I'm talking about everything in aggregate, +Armor, +Def, +Elem Damage, so on, not just STR, DEX, DEF, MAG and a few resistances). Hence, for instance, there's really no way to know how or what +Armor vs. +Defense does for your character. And the stats assigned to gear constantly muddles the stat base, there's +Damage, +% Phys/Elem damage, +Elem Damage, +Ranged Damage. Or +Damage Reflected and +% Damage Reflected on X% of Missiles. The resistances are just some arbitrary number -- is it HP reduction on a specific elemental damage taken by my toon?
It's not that I want to min/max, but if I do find a nice drop, the game should allow me to assess whether or not I want to swap out a piece of equipped gear. You really can't do that honestly in this game. It's surprising to me, because it's a tonal difference from the rest of the game (as I understand it): Runic wanted the dungeon crawling experience, but simplified/streamlined. However, the stats are a clusterfrak.
(As an aside, this is not a standard. I don't know anything about Diablo, but there's no way Blizzard would let their stats get that messy -- I've played enough WoW to know that while stats were complicated, I knew exactly what my total +Armor was because the game told me explicitly, and then Blizzard told people online what the forumlas were (more or less) to understand the damage mitigation.)
Overall, it was a fun game to play for free, and Runic definitely put a lot of value into this game. However, I wouldn't recommend it as I can't get past the stats thing. I know most players just look at DPS, +crit, or +def, but that doesn't mean you build a library of gear with stats you cannot explain to the letter. I would guess if you go to the developers you would get a lot of hand waving about one stat vs. the other. In a game that is gear driven, I think it's almost unforgivable to have a flawed stats system like that.
panzerfaust
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
Torchlight isn't a good representation of the genre. It's praised for the player made mods and the fact that it isn't made by Blizzard. Otherwise it's a super dry game. Boring dungeons, boring enemies, boring skill progression. Hopefully TL2 will be the real deal, but I'm still unconvinced.
It's actually a good gist of why Diablo 3 is awful as well. Both it and Torchlight lack any sort of personality or drive behind their gameplay. I recommend you play Diablo II so you don't become jaded to the entire genre.
It's actually a good gist of why Diablo 3 is awful as well. Both it and Torchlight lack any sort of personality or drive behind their gameplay. I recommend you play Diablo II so you don't become jaded to the entire genre.
[quote name='panzerfaust']Torchlight isn't a good representation of the genre. It's praised for the player made mods and the fact that it isn't made by Blizzard. Otherwise it's a super dry game. Boring dungeons, boring enemies, boring skill progression. Hopefully TL2 will be the real deal, but I'm still unconvinced.
It's actually a good gist of why Diablo 3 is awful as well. Both it and Torchlight lack any sort of personality or drive behind their gameplay. I recommend you play Diablo II so you don't become jaded to the entire genre.[/QUOTE]
I'm curious, am I right about the stats on gear in Torchlight (to your recollection)? Did I miss something? Because that annoyed the shit out of me.
And I appreciate the recommendation on D2, but honestly, gear grinds are gear grinds. Doesn't it come down to that? I'm not taking anything away from people who dig the genre, it's just not for me.
It's actually a good gist of why Diablo 3 is awful as well. Both it and Torchlight lack any sort of personality or drive behind their gameplay. I recommend you play Diablo II so you don't become jaded to the entire genre.[/QUOTE]
I'm curious, am I right about the stats on gear in Torchlight (to your recollection)? Did I miss something? Because that annoyed the shit out of me.
And I appreciate the recommendation on D2, but honestly, gear grinds are gear grinds. Doesn't it come down to that? I'm not taking anything away from people who dig the genre, it's just not for me.
panzerfaust
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
I forget the specifics it has been so long, but yeah, a lot of the stats on gear are pretty much filler. The randomization of it all is the appealing aspect of loot, but as I said, I don't think Torchlight performed any particular aspect well.
It's hard to explain what makes D2 different without going all abstract on you. Put simply, killing shit feels good. It's only a gear grind if you strip it of all the other wonderful ways it attacks the senses. It's got atmosphere, foreboding environments and lighting, great art direction on enemies and animation, and exciting loot no matter what stage of the game you're at. It has pretty sloppy and unbalanced end game problems, for sure, but that's something only a small portion of hardcore followers have to mess with, and most enjoy doing so. Basically, it's an actual game, and not just a disguised version of farmville.
Silly that the game chest still costs $30, I would find other means. *ahem*
It's hard to explain what makes D2 different without going all abstract on you. Put simply, killing shit feels good. It's only a gear grind if you strip it of all the other wonderful ways it attacks the senses. It's got atmosphere, foreboding environments and lighting, great art direction on enemies and animation, and exciting loot no matter what stage of the game you're at. It has pretty sloppy and unbalanced end game problems, for sure, but that's something only a small portion of hardcore followers have to mess with, and most enjoy doing so. Basically, it's an actual game, and not just a disguised version of farmville.
Silly that the game chest still costs $30, I would find other means. *ahem*
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, I appreciate the recommendation and confirmation that I wasn't completely off on the stats in Torchlight.
I did some "look over the shoulder" gaming on the first Diablo with my then-roommate, who played the hell out of it and spent half his waking hours bitching about trainers and dupers and whatever the hell. My meager PC playtime in that era (1997-1998?) went into Ultima Online, IIRC, and Diablo just didn't appeal to me enough to get me to put anything else down. Part of what I liked about Torchlight was that the atmosphere wasn't as depressing and dark as what I saw of Diablo. And I know people love Diablo for the atmosphere (I recall reading about the "unicorns and rainbows" outcry when early D3 screens came out).
I just don't think the Diablo series is manufactured for me. There's the typically odd Blizzard take on fantasy themes that I know doesn't appeal to me after trying to care about WoW lore; there's the depressing, creepy atmosphere; and there's the general gear grind which I know -- from the recent TL experience -- isn't for me. I know Diablo is a quality series, I just think it's a miss for me the same way that I dig DDR but know that DDR will be a miss for most right-minded people because they think DDR is a pile of shit.
And I admit that I can see the inherent contradiction in stating that Diablo is not my bag, yet also acknowledging that I played WoW for a while (i.e. it wasn't a casual one-off the way Torchlight has been). In my defense, I think WoW could be interpreted as a gear grind but for me was more of an exploration/social game. Though I was definitely involved in some painful grinding in vanilla. I should take that discussion to the Diablo thread, though.
I did some "look over the shoulder" gaming on the first Diablo with my then-roommate, who played the hell out of it and spent half his waking hours bitching about trainers and dupers and whatever the hell. My meager PC playtime in that era (1997-1998?) went into Ultima Online, IIRC, and Diablo just didn't appeal to me enough to get me to put anything else down. Part of what I liked about Torchlight was that the atmosphere wasn't as depressing and dark as what I saw of Diablo. And I know people love Diablo for the atmosphere (I recall reading about the "unicorns and rainbows" outcry when early D3 screens came out).
I just don't think the Diablo series is manufactured for me. There's the typically odd Blizzard take on fantasy themes that I know doesn't appeal to me after trying to care about WoW lore; there's the depressing, creepy atmosphere; and there's the general gear grind which I know -- from the recent TL experience -- isn't for me. I know Diablo is a quality series, I just think it's a miss for me the same way that I dig DDR but know that DDR will be a miss for most right-minded people because they think DDR is a pile of shit.
And I admit that I can see the inherent contradiction in stating that Diablo is not my bag, yet also acknowledging that I played WoW for a while (i.e. it wasn't a casual one-off the way Torchlight has been). In my defense, I think WoW could be interpreted as a gear grind but for me was more of an exploration/social game. Though I was definitely involved in some painful grinding in vanilla. I should take that discussion to the Diablo thread, though.
blueshinra
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 14 (100%)
[quote name='panzerfaust']Silly that the game chest still costs $30, I would find other means. *ahem*[/QUOTE]
It does? Blizzard themselves has it for $20. Or rather "had", since t's currently sold out, but they also have the game and expansion for $10 each, digital or boxed. The strategy guides aren't included when buying them separately though, if anyone cares about that.
It does? Blizzard themselves has it for $20. Or rather "had", since t's currently sold out, but they also have the game and expansion for $10 each, digital or boxed. The strategy guides aren't included when buying them separately though, if anyone cares about that.
kainzero
CAGiversary!
i thought diablo 1 was fun for its time because i think it was sort of the first of its kind. randomly generated dungeons, easy clicky gameplay (nothing like, say, nethack), battle.net, etc.
d2 just blew the whole genre open. instead of one dungeon that you go through, there was a whole world out there. it was really cool when it first debuted. moar gear, moar stuff to kill, etc. i don't even know what the story is but yeah it was just fun. and d2 never felt as clicky because you were always trying to use your skills properly, it felt more alive than the original diablo.
i don't know if i can say that it aged well but if it has, it's because blizzard kept updating it for some reason. i was never that big of a d2 player but it was definitely fun for me.
d2 just blew the whole genre open. instead of one dungeon that you go through, there was a whole world out there. it was really cool when it first debuted. moar gear, moar stuff to kill, etc. i don't even know what the story is but yeah it was just fun. and d2 never felt as clicky because you were always trying to use your skills properly, it felt more alive than the original diablo.
i don't know if i can say that it aged well but if it has, it's because blizzard kept updating it for some reason. i was never that big of a d2 player but it was definitely fun for me.
elessar123
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 196 (100%)
[quote name='kainzero']i thought diablo 1 was fun for its time because i think it was sort of the first of its kind. randomly generated dungeons, easy clicky gameplay (nothing like, say, nethack), battle.net, etc.[/QUOTE]
Funny thing is, I hated Nethack. Played Zangband in ASCII mode on and off for at least a decade though.
Funny thing is, I hated Nethack. Played Zangband in ASCII mode on and off for at least a decade though.
TheLongshot
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 10 (100%)
Torchlight is kinda boring. I played it for (checking) 6 hours before I got bored with it. No real challenge there. It gets a lot of attention for being a Diablo-like game at a time when there was no Diablo III anytime soon.
If you are going to play any of these games, it would be Diablo II, but personally I wonder if I've grown out of such games. I've had no interest in buying Diablo III.
If you are going to play any of these games, it would be Diablo II, but personally I wonder if I've grown out of such games. I've had no interest in buying Diablo III.
Apparently the first run copies of The Last Story will come with a 44-page art book and an outer box.
http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/06/02/previewpreview?p=305095&preview=true
Can't wait!
http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/06/02/previewpreview?p=305095&preview=true
Can't wait!
panzerfaust
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
That's for the regular edition? Wahhh day 1 for me
blueshinra
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 14 (100%)
Damn, that's nice. Hmm...
elessar123
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 196 (100%)
I wasn't going to get it, since I have the EU CE, but it is tempting now...
thelonepig
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 530 (100%)
[quote name='ihadFG']Apparently the first run copies of The Last Story will come with a 44-page art book and an outer box.
http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/06/02/previewpreview?p=305095&preview=true
Can't wait![/QUOTE]
The guys who put together that "Project Rainfall" collectors box didn't see this coming.
http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/06/02/previewpreview?p=305095&preview=true
Can't wait![/QUOTE]
The guys who put together that "Project Rainfall" collectors box didn't see this coming.
willardhaven
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 12 (100%)
I dig the art but I hear the game sucks.
panzerfaust
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
I've heard it's more divisive amongst people, so opinions seem to go either way. I don't want to read too much about it before playing it myself, though.
Mistwalker's last story was very bland, and I'm hoping this will stay on track with the characters more (especially since it doesn't seem to contain children in the main cast?). Is the cast any good, Indignate, or is all the writing pretty forgettable?
Mistwalker's last story was very bland, and I'm hoping this will stay on track with the characters more (especially since it doesn't seem to contain children in the main cast?). Is the cast any good, Indignate, or is all the writing pretty forgettable?
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='panzerfaust']Mistwalker's last story was very bland, and I'm hoping this will stay on track with the characters more (especially since it doesn't seem to contain children in the main cast?).[/QUOTE]
This was one of the most (unintentionally?) confusing sentences I've read recently.
This was one of the most (unintentionally?) confusing sentences I've read recently.
panzerfaust
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
I think I just created a black hole somewhere.
But yeah I meant Lost Odyssey.
But yeah I meant Lost Odyssey.
Lost Odyssey's story was bland, but that's cuz I don't consider the memory sequences to be apart of the story.
The main cast of Last Story is there from the get-go save for one character so getting to know them and finding likable things about them is pretty easy, even if they are at times cliched. There are definitely roll your eyes moments in the writing though, it is after all a love story.
The main cast of Last Story is there from the get-go save for one character so getting to know them and finding likable things about them is pretty easy, even if they are at times cliched. There are definitely roll your eyes moments in the writing though, it is after all a love story.
panzerfaust
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
[quote name='Indignate']Lost Odyssey's story was bland, but that's cuz I don't consider the memory sequences to be apart of the story.[/quote]
The author of the memory sequences put that whole development team to shame. First 10 hours of LO were awesome because nothing was allowed to happen but dreams
Sounds doable.
The author of the memory sequences put that whole development team to shame. First 10 hours of LO were awesome because nothing was allowed to happen but dreams
Sounds doable.
[quote name='icebeast']This was one of the most (unintentionally?) confusing sentences I've read recently.[/QUOTE]
Haha, I didn't recognize panzerfaust's new avatar either, so I was thinking "great, someone from gamefaqs popped in for a chat..."
Definitely glad I didn't import The Last Story now though. That art book looks pretty sweet.
Haha, I didn't recognize panzerfaust's new avatar either, so I was thinking "great, someone from gamefaqs popped in for a chat..."
Definitely glad I didn't import The Last Story now though. That art book looks pretty sweet.
panzerfaust
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
Square Enix tech demo for their alleged new graphics engine. FF15+16 maybe...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nv4Boq4HLKU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nv4Boq4HLKU
I don't believe that to be actual real-time gameplay. Pre-rendered stuff from the engine, sure, but not real-time gameplay. Any company can design an engine and put a powerhouse of a computer behind it and call it real-time graphics. Easiest example being Final Fantasy XIII where the first real-time gameplay trailers looked really god damn fantastic, however what we got wasn't as good. That's not to say it didn't look damn good, but there's an obvious gap between what they showed as real-time and what we actually got.
blueshinra
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 14 (100%)
[quote name='Draekon']I don't believe that to be actual real-time gameplay. Pre-rendered stuff from the engine, sure, but not real-time gameplay. Any company can design an engine and put a powerhouse of a computer behind it and call it real-time graphics. Easiest example being Final Fantasy XIII where the first real-time gameplay trailers looked really god damn fantastic, however what we got wasn't as good. That's not to say it didn't look damn good, but there's an obvious gap between what they showed as real-time and what we actually got.[/QUOTE]
I think they are real-time graphics-- not pre-rendered-- but not necessarily real-time gameplay. The thing to remember is how much resources are being consumed just to do the tech demo. Graphics and animation code alone would hog up so much processing power and RAM on their own; there'd be no room for gameplay. Then there's the issue of how much space is consumed on whatever piece of media would be used, etc.
For these tech demos, Square seems to go with a bleeding edge approach, getting as much power out of consumer hardware as they can, which is then pared down into something more practical for their games. Makes 'em look good, so who can blame them?
I think they are real-time graphics-- not pre-rendered-- but not necessarily real-time gameplay. The thing to remember is how much resources are being consumed just to do the tech demo. Graphics and animation code alone would hog up so much processing power and RAM on their own; there'd be no room for gameplay. Then there's the issue of how much space is consumed on whatever piece of media would be used, etc.
For these tech demos, Square seems to go with a bleeding edge approach, getting as much power out of consumer hardware as they can, which is then pared down into something more practical for their games. Makes 'em look good, so who can blame them?
- Status
bread's done