I understand that decision, though. It's a Tom Clancy game, after all. They always went for as much realism as possible. One headshot with any weapon was always an instant kill. They had pre-match planning screens and orders to fire off to squadmates. Sure, Ubisoft bought the rights to the name and now they're getting further and further away from the books, but they need to be careful they don't go too far and alienate the Tom Clancy fanbase.
Not at all, actually. Division is very much a traditional RPG-based looter shooter, it's just set in a modern Tom Clancy world for the sake of appealing wide.
It's a very neat concept, I think.
But it's not anything like a traditional Tom Clancy shooter like Rainbow Six - and you'll find enemies that won't go down even after an entire clip of headshots.
Having powerful "skills" isn't really "Tom Clancy" at all. It sounds to me like you're hoping they add Wizards that can be viable in combat without using a gun at all but that's really pretty laughable when you consider the source material.
Well, it sounds to me like you're making snap judgments about what I want - probably based on your ego-driven nature.
As in, underestimating my thought process - and vastly overestimating your own insight when it comes to Division 2.
It's nothing new - and I find it amusing, so it's ok
Skills are intended to be a major source of power - just like they were in the first Division, where several builds centered around them and guns were secondary.
Sure, you can consider that "Wizards" - if you think dropping seeker mines or turrets are magic. But to modern man, those are plausible and viable tools.
Only, before the recent patch, they weren't of much use at all - because they did minimal damage.
Maybe you think it's more "Tom Clancy" that people being set on fire or having a mine explode in their face is something they should be laughing at.
I'm afraid I can't agree.
This is not a design decision as much as it's a design flaw.
Thankfully, the developers understand this - and that's why they've made so many significant changes to bring skill-builds in line with weapon-based DPS builds.
If you actually want to know something about the game, you need only check out their state of the game videos. Last time, they were very open and honest about this being a mistake - and how they're deliberately making the skills perform on-par with weapons.
Yeah, but sneaking around is Deus Ex. If you recall starting out in Deus Ex 1 it takes like 6 seconds for your crosshairs to become accurate which makes the run-and-gun gameplay not really viable. The game is far closer to Hitman than it is to Half-life, but the worlds in Hitman are much more dynamic and alive. Both games blew me away with the first entries but the Hitman games seem to have a better understanding of themselves and what they're trying to achieve while the future iterations of Deus Ex seem a little confused.
Well, Deus Ex is an RPG - so your skills matter here. Once you're a master in a skill - you don't need to wait for accuracy.
But the original DE was a clumsy game when it comes to combat. It did a million things with an engine that was never designed for them.
It was very ambitious, in my opinion - and they got a lot of it right on the first try.
Still, combat is shit in Deus Ex - no doubt about it.
It was never intended as a shooter - but as a freeform RPG where you're free to approach problems and encounters as per your desire.
I kinda think Spector underestimated the shooter-gameplay, because he was so focused on options and stuff like stealth and exploration. It's hard to get everything right with a new concept.
Of course, one of the main sources of inspiration for DE was System Shock and System Shock 2. Hardly surprising - given Spector's history.
Hitman is a lot more narrow than that. Some of the Hitman games are very good for what they are, but I think Deus Ex is on another level entirely in terms of innovation and game design.
Now, Half-Life was just a straight-up shooter - doing something that everyone thought was new at the time.
To me, it was doing System Shock things way worse than System Shock did 4 years before.
Still, you can't really argue with the ignorant masses - and it was certainly a better shooter than Shock ever was.
Control could be cool, but my least favourite part of Max Payne were the boring dream sequences and it looks, from the trailer, that there's a lot of trippy dreamland going on in Control. Plus, I didn't really like Quantum Break and never finished it. I do hope it's a return to form but they need to focus more on the moment-to-moment gameplay than the cinematic story bits and I know they won't.
I always felt Remedy could do a lot more with their excellent gameplay and aesthetics. This game looks interesting to me - and I'm definitely going to check it out.
I'm not convinced it's great or anything - but I remain hopeful.
Well, when you've explored everything already any walking is just legwork I can do without. Even if I have a fast mount. It's really more of an endgame convenience.
You can fast mount to most places in LotRO.
Still, it's very much a game built for world exploration and travelling - much in the spirit of Tolkien.
I definitely wouldn't recommend it as an instant gratification fix.
I've heard you mention Molten Core. If you remember originally wow didn't have summoning stones or a group finder and it took a long time to get a group going for an instance. It made things very difficult if you only had a limited amount of time to play. The dungeon finder is just an evolution of the summoning stone and extremely useful if you don't want to waste time.
Well, it was all part of the social raiding experience. I don't mind convenience - but it needs to fit the game and aid the experience.
The summoning stone isn't a dungeon finder - it's a convenient mechanic that fits the game and doesn't break immersion or ruin the exploration.
Dungeon finders are too convenient for most MMOs - but of course you're going to use them, because human beings are all about the short term pleasure.
But the reason I rarely use them is that they put you in instances with strangers - even when you have a group of friends.
I don't enjoy playing MMOs with faceless strangers.
I do use it in Division, though - because there's no alternative if you want to experience instances non-solo. They're a lot easier to do in a group and I haven't persuaded any friends to play it - and so the loot-hunt takes over, and the game becomes the treadmill that I really don't enjoy. Well, I do enjoy it - but not the gamey way of acquiring loot.
I was always about the exploration and the immersion - and Division is great for that once you've actually got a decent build.
You have to understand that I play MMORPGs for the multiplayer aspects. That's pretty much limited to the instances/raids/PVP. A lot of people play these games in singleplayer and just want to efficiantly solo quests rather than mess around trying to quest with others. Co-op questing can work if you have a very dedicated couple or group. Maybe a girlfriend where you only ever play at the same time. But it's hard to find random people who need to do exactly the same quests as you so solo questing is optimal, in most cases.
I'm not trying to say you should play games differently.
Again, not everything has to be a competition. You like what you like - and that's cool.
I like what I like.
There's really not a lot more to it than that.
I suppose that's why I like Monster Hunter World so much. It's very much like wow endgame where you just hang around in town then teleport off to the dungeon. With all the saved loadouts for equipment AND inventory there's very little wasted time so it's just fantastic for short sessions but also gets you hooked in a just-one-more loop for hours at a time. Fantastic game, really.
I haven't played it. But, yeah, it definitely does seem like the ultimate instant gratification gamey game in that way.
Based on the UI alone, it reeks of Asian game design - which was always about grinding - but in a very gamey way. It's hardly a surprise, given that their culture is pretty much based on hard work being its own reward.
But the gamey cartoon-like approach is probably why it's so appealing to many people.
I don't doubt it's a great game underneath all that - but I can't get past it.
