Diablo 4 announces that there will be a campaign skip ... its time for POE to do the same

"

Xyel wrote:

"

Foreverhappychan wrote:

Innervation: a second campaign is an incredible thing to sell an expansion on. In fact, it's probably the only thing they COULD do to justify the designation of 'sequel'

Is it though? Or, better said, wouldn't something like:
1) Massive overhaul of the game's endgame with something innovatory like an atlas passive skill tree
2) A sweeping change to game's functional system(s), like gem-links instead of item-links
3) Introduced an alternative leveling system(s)
4) Added/reworked some extra ascendancy(ies), a bunch of new gems, and did some graphical updates

Wouldn't that qualify for 2?

"

bauermayers wrote:

"

Xyel wrote:

"

Foreverhappychan wrote:

Innervation: a second campaign is an incredible thing to sell an expansion on. In fact, it's probably the only thing they COULD do to justify the designation of 'sequel'

Is it though? Or, better said, wouldn't something like:
1) Massive overhaul of the game's endgame with something innovatory like an atlas passive skill tree
2) A sweeping change to game's functional system(s), like gem-links instead of item-links
3) Introduced an alternative leveling system(s)
4) Added/reworked some extra ascendancy(ies), a bunch of new gems, and did some graphical updates

Wouldn't that qualify for 2?

No.

Where does that "alternative leveling' come from?

"

Foreverhappychan wrote:

"

Xyel wrote:

"

Foreverhappychan wrote:

No. None of those come even close to being enough for a sequel. I can't see anyone who isn't already an Exile even getting a slight flutter of interest over any of that.

Why did people get the flutter for no man's sky then?

Conceptually, that game's premise was exactly the same as PoE's mapping and the hype for it was incredible.

Excellent that you'd bring up No Man's Sky because it is quite possibly the perfect example to counter your argument re: what constitutes a sequel.

People 'got the flutter' for NMS because, as a proc-gen space exploration game, it was truly something new, not a mere content addition to an existing game trying to pass as a sequel (which is exactly what PoE '2' is to me). People ALSO got the flutter for Path of Exile before it 'released' as something new too (a more complex D2+FFVII gems+FFX skill grid+Torchlight 'treasure maps'+dead babies on a beach=!!!!) -- don't forget, I was there for that too. In both cases, the flutter was warranted. In both cases, it'd take years to really see that. And in both cases, the underlying motivation would reveal itself and show us who the developers really were and what they really wanted.

Now, I'm a Day One Traveller/Interloper. Still have my physical Ps4 copy, kept the faith, played all of No Man's Sky's iterations (pun intended), all that. I have over 20 PoE garments and they mostly occupy a drawer of shame these days (except the hoodie, which is thin enough to be comfy on a fairly warm day); I have only one NMS T-Shirt and I wear it proudly.

Because where I think Grinding Gear Games sold out and are now getting *way* ahead of themselves with this 'Path of Exile 2' business, Hello Games have only fairly recently gone from 'way ahead of themselves' to 'genuine success story delivering on what was promised'. GGG started as the underdog to Blizzard's supremacy; HG debuted as a golden child of Sony. Chris and Sean are both serious wunderkind, and both of them changed the landscape of the Live Service industry. PoE remains the gold standard for 'fair' free to play; No Man's Sky created its own style of service with many of the features of the GAAS but none of the free to play trappings (emphasis on 'trap').

Although NMS is neither f2p nor cursed with mtxes, there are some interesting parallels with PoE in its history. There have been over 20 significant updates/overhauls since its launch, all of them absolutely free. Two were basically version upgrades: Next and Beyond (although Next and Origins are 2.0 and 3.0 respectively). Similarly, PoE has had 2.0 (Awakening) and 3.0 (Fall of Oriath). Both have seasonal content, although the NMS version of a league (Expedition) is much more laid-back and structured to drive a certain short-form narrative each time -- and HG tend to rerun them so there's little to no FOMO involved, whereas PoE is sort of built on various flavours of FOMO. Being a game as product, NMS simply doesn't need to rely on that.

Conversely, PoE has been fuelled by a mixture of pay for convenience and pay to not look like a tin can on legs (for those who'd rather look like a christmas tree on legs instead). NMS is a one-off purchase. Such is the cost of its horrifically bad launch -- HG were so desperate to regain goodwill they gave and continue to give away content that pretty much anyone else would monetise, one way or another. The road back from a catastrophic launch after a literally unbelievable amount of hype is neither easy nor quick. So where PoE, which has done nothing but climb consistently from its humble roots and used incremental updates to sell mtxes and support packs, NMS has had to use them just to get back to zero. And it took years. Redemption is just that much harder to attain than simple ascension.

So -- some similarities, some differences.

But at no point would HG have the hubris or almost blatant desperation to rename their game 'No Man's Sky 2' as a result of an expansion. And that's why you bringing it up is so good: you're asking why people 'get a flutter' for it? Because it's a single game operating as such. Because while it might have some conceptual similarities to PoE (although that's not the word I'd use, not given the abovementioned factors -- 'operational' would be closer), it has been through hell to get where to where it is. PoE...not so much.

Hello Games have had their redemption arc, so to speak, while Grinding Gear Games have yet to even really struggle in comparison. They started as the underdogs but didn't so much have to struggle as simply wait for the competition to shit its own bed, repeatedly. PoE launched well, and has just grown since. NMS...well, Sean Murray celebrated once it finally made it to 'mostly positive' reviews on steam. Years after its release. Their studio was flooded in the middle of NMS' development, costing them a whole hell of a lot of resources (although as Sean points out in the article, most of their work was backed up). And even now they're giving shit away that, honestly, they really shouldn't have to. That is the price they paid (and continue to pay) for their terrible launch. For Murray's many missteps as an ill-conceived PR machine. I'm not saying it didn't pay off eventually (I figure sales for NMS are just fine now -- HG is hardly a charity) but they had to work on that one product, for years, with no real profit other than one-off sales.

I cannot conceive of any feasible addition to NMS that would justify it being called 'No Man's Sky 2'. It would just look silly. Why employ such a marketing ploy when the entire aim has been to get people to approve of and buy 'No Man's Sky' as it is, as it continues to be? Not a new campaign (they already did that), not a system overhaul (they've done that too), not different levelling systems (whether we're talking wealth, combat prowess, base expansion, space combat effectiveness...they've done all that too, and continue to do that), not even a new engine. Making 'No Man's Sky' better is far, far superior to somehow getting it to some arbitrary point of improvement 'justifying' calling it a sequel.

Technically Path of Exile 4.0 should be exempt PoE from 'evolving game' awards and accolades -- if GGG want to flog it as a sequel, traditionally a 'new game', let it be judged as such. A new thing. But of course that's where GGG get to have their cake and eat it too: they get to market 4.0 as a 'numbered sequel' but of course since it's not actually a new game, it can still be considered just another evolution of the core game.

Of course, I'd be perfectly happy if a certain other game came along and stole their cake away, forcing them to remember how to full-bake their content additions and not just half-bake, but eh, realistically I don't see that happening. There'll always be Exiles eager to pretzel their noodles to justify GGG's 'good enough'.

And that's enough good metaphors for one post, I think.

Also, there's some repetition in there as I added to various edits but I'm about 98% over writing this and 100% sure I've said enough on the matter, so eh, deal. I've got Inteceptor ships to salvage and claim, hilariously simple space economies to exploit, and a weird mech to finish tricking out.

"

bauermayers wrote:

"

CAPSLOCK_ON wrote:

"

bauermayers wrote:

Too bad, I'd like to see some form of story skip but the thing is what Blizzard is doing is nothing new since you can also story skip in D3 and that never influenced POE to do the same. Also, these devs have a reputation for being really stubborn when it comes to their design choices, so I wouldn't hold my breath.

it's being added to the new diablo so it's gained more attention and this topic is being brought up again

yes ggg are very stubborn for things that they have no reason to be other than to spite the playerbase

replying using early 2000s forums tech is awful tbh

"

Foreverhappychan wrote:

Here's my last post on the matter, because as I noted, better things to do: I would put *money* down that GGG are strongly considering a story-independent way of leveling alt new characters after players have finished either campaign in any one given state of the game with one character (i.e. a fresh league/'expansion' campaign playthrough). They want "PoE 2" to be relevant as a modern, competitive ARPG? That is a box they need to seriously consider checking.

"

Mikrotherion wrote:

However, I think they might keep the old campaign as is, no alternate way of levelling, but designed the new one in a way that it's easier to have that.