Jump to content

[nL] Reux

Junior Defender
  • Content Count

    10
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About [nL] Reux

  • Rank
    Defense Council
  1. Trading doesn't mean you get "everything handed to you" considering you still have to work for whatever is needed to make the trade. Being that shards are pure rng and gold/tokens are needed to level them up. Obviously you could trade your hard earned currency that you obtained in search of said item you are trading for. For example... the defense range shard is a highly sought after shard. Meaning it would be expensive to trade for. Meaning... you would be farming for it regardless.
  2. Ramsters stay releasing mixtape after mixtape.
  3. "Nobody complains in Diablo 3 about the 4-man leaderboards being 10+ Grift levels higher than solo leaderboards." That's incorrect otherwise (with the latest information as received from blizzcon) they wouldn't be tweaking the game for solo players.
  4. There's a lot of things from DD1 that I miss that aren't in DD2 but should be.
  5. Weighted RNG... The problems always lead back to that mechanic.
  6. This argument is advanced all the time, and it's completely erroneous. This game doesn't exist in a vacuum. It has the advantage of being the sequel to a popular game that has been released for years. It should be able to easily build upon the successes of the previous game, having learned from experience about what makes this kind of game fun. Rather than feeling like the sequel, if feels like the prequel. Weak heroes, inability to increase tower range, inability to increase tower speed, strict limits on the number of heroes you can access in a game... these are conscious and deliberate choices to walk away from what made the original game fun. It's no surprise that players can't fathom why the sequel is moving in the direction it is. If we can't compare this game to DD1, then it can't be compared to anything. It has to be treated as the first game of its kind to ever be created. And you know what, if it was the first of its kind, it would be amazing. But it isn't and, because it isn't, the only reasonable expectation is that they should learn from and improve upon what came before it. Now I agree some things they should have learned from DD1 but I think we can thank them for not making an easy copy-paste from DD1 and try something new. It's not about them making the choice of copy-paste. It's about taking what you have and expanding upon it in new ways that weren't possible during the original creation and of course making it better. That is what sequels are supposed to do. Currently it seems like the path trendy is taking with DD2 is regression through limitations as apposed to progression. As for the trying something new. Their original concept for DD2 was trying something new for dungeon defenders, and they scrapped that idea because it wasn't good for dungeon defenders. Thank goodness. Their current concept plays like dungeon defenders via the basics, but currently seems like they are trying to systematically limit the content you experience. Content as in the entirety of what dungeon defenders is.
  7. I love people who also don't have the realization to what alphas are for... Yes this is an alpha. This is one of the most CRUCIAL parts of development in a games lifetime. The true direction of the development of a game is solidified in it's alpha stages. Aka the what will work and what won't work stage. People voicing their opinions in something they are helping fund (Especially during development) whether they be positive or negative is nothing but a positive for the development process. If... the developers look into what is being brought up. Saying nothing, or only positive things would mean there are seemingly no problems as of current outside of bugs/glitches/etc. Just a reminder video game developers are human too. They make mistakes and also have the potential to miss things just like everyone else. Thus why early access funding was mainly pushed in the gaming industry. To enhance the development process in accordance to those whom are going to play the game. Also to of course fund the game without a money-grubbing publisher. There are of course other reasons, but these are two of the main ones. Why you felt the need to seemingly get upset over something practical is more annoying then what you tried to portray was, in your text. If players currently don't feel like DD2 is shaping to be a true DD1 sequel. That my friend is likely a developmental issue. Either through communication between developmental team and community or actual core data via the project being worked on. There could also be other reasons, but it's highly likely that it would be one of these two. Why? Because the direction of DD2 is still not clear to the community backing the project, and possibly the developmental team. Or questions like this would most likely never be posed. There is no argument here, you have none. Only your opinion, and I will not battle against something you are entitled to even if it's incorrect. So it's best not to try to "argue your point" with me.
  8. Yeah, it doesn't feel like it's going in the direction of being a sequel to me either. I just kinda expected DD2 to be DD1 on a whole new level of greatness. So far it's no where near that. It doesn't even look (to me) like it is headed in that direction either. I gotta keep my hopes up though.
  9. Or is the direction Trendy going lacking much needed features from it's original predecessor? I would really like to know how others feel on this topic.
×
×
  • Create New...