Diablo IV, for me. I love the Diablo series and just a bit ago, I sank 2 hours down to get my necromancer character up and set in Diablo II Resurrection. I have Diablo III and its expansion too, but they’re online only and I almost can’t be bothered to go through that. I’ve beaten it a long time ago.

And I really do want to get Diablo IV, but they’ve made that online-only as well. Like, I know I’m always online and everything but I do like to have that fallback where if I am without internet or I can’t afford internet for a time, I can play or watch things to bide the time over. I can’t do that with online-only games because it’s like being gated away from something you bought.

So everytime I look at Diablo IV, I just get a little depressed at times. Blizzard should do what D2R did, have an online character and have an offline character.

  • PlzGivHugs@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 hours ago

    Fallout 1 or 3, is not 99% combat

    By time spent, I wouldn’t be suprised if nearing that (99%) is either going to be walking to the next location (quest or not) and fighting enemies to clear the path. Yes, you’ll spend a bit of time talking to NPCs to retrieve the quest, and on some of the better designed quests, there might be some alternative routes, but traversal and combat are still usually the focus and/or the default. When you do have a reason to use other mechanics, or make meaningful story decisions, its good - but those chances are rare.

    Pokemon is a strange one here too, because that series is built around a rock paper scissors system such that you should be regularly be switching up which attacks you’re using.

    I did oversimplify, but I still find it, and other JRPGs I’ve tried way too shallow. In Pokemon’s case, while there is the typing, theres is still usually an one obvious best move at any given point. I do find Pokemon better than many others, in that there is much more ability and reason to customize your party on an ongoing basis, although they largely negate this benifit by making the games so easy.

    I’d love to see if your complaints hold up to Larian’s games on tactician difficulty.

    Honestly, I would be interested too. The format with a larger party does interest me, and like I said, I do like a lot of tactics games like XCom and Fire Emblem, which are bordering on RPGs mechanically. I just don’t have the money to spend on new games for the time being, so I probably won’t be trying it until its price goes way down.

    • ampersandrew@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 hours ago

      Larian’s party size is only 4, so it’s not much larger. Your breakdown of your spent time in Fallout sounds a lot like you’re trying to speedrun it compared to how I play it (I’d be surprised if you stood much of a chance in late game Fallout without giving combat more thought), so the differences in how we play it is probably somewhere there, and I think Larian’s games will probably force you to engage in more of those aspects in order to get through them. Divinity: Original Sin II regularly goes on sale for quite cheap these days, but I’d be lying if I told you it was anywhere near as good as Baldur’s Gate 3 despite having a lot of the same DNA. For one, the D:OS games just about encourage the genocide of every monster on the map in a way that BG3 doesn’t, but at least I’d strongly doubt your ability to play through the combat thoughtlessly.