poe is more like malazan lol

I feel like I’m way more hyped then most of the community

yes

Kinda I’m only familiar with the pathfinder system rather than d&d

The amount of times Diablo 4 has been a laggy mess and I've thought to myself 'Let me play offline'

i wish that PoE had this feature

Not only that but they also give you a bonus loot with a faction mechanic you join in-game to help balance the game experience for you when you have no access to trade ! It isn't perfect of course trade will always be OP but at least you get a little bit of help and they improve it with each update

pace

As a necro main I'm excited for the crab. Let me get one of those!

u can on handhelds if u own a steam deck or rog ally

Someday they will probably release a console port.

Same here man, same here. 6 more days to 1.1 🎉🎉🎉

Officially the devs said they want to and will do if they can. The console companies may or may not allow it though. It could be viewed as losing money for the console companies because its a transaction they otherwise would have taken a fee of.

Rocco is right. They would like to do it if certain companies allow.

@@roccoheat8662 thanks a lot

There will be balance changes, but we don't have any patch notes yet so we don't know what they are. All we know is that they've queued up hundreds of balance changes for 1.1, and that high ward builds will be hit with the nerf hammer.

For just the story alone? It took me about 18 hours the first time through. It's an ARPG, though, a lot of it is the item hunt and endgame bossing and the like.

30$ is nothing for a game today, especially if the game provides hundreds of hours. But yeah, after reading the second part of your comment, i can understand why you would say 30$ is expensive if you play games for one story playthrough :D That's not what ARPGs are about.

You're right on that second point. Also, some of its splat books were AMAZING.

This is 95% about 4E, not ARPGs, so for anyone not interested in that, you can stop reading now. I think it is interesting from a meta game design perspective though and I do tie back to ARPGs at the end, but I think the actual 4E background needs to be explained to understand the final point of how the 4E to D4 comparison can be both true and misleading at the same time. ------------------------------------------------------ The origin of why D&D 4E is like it is actually has less to do with being an MMO-clone trying to appeal to the masses than people tend to ascribe to it. In reality, it was much more a direct reaction to the D&D 3.5 internet discourse that preceded it. D&D 4E was designed to fit what it seemed like that crowd wanted based on what they talked about online. 99% of discussion was based around pushing combat systems as far as they could go, and counterpoints complaining when something like Pun-Pun was too powerful. The reaction to this is to have lots of intricate interlocking options, while being very strict about what is theoretically allowed so there was a hard ceiling on how crazy you could make something. There were a few HUGE issues with going this way though. Firstly, WotC was misunderstanding the internet and thinking that its most engaged and internet plugged in audience was 100% representative of the entire audience. 20 years later, we more understand that the internet is different than the real world. Its not entirely wrong, but its a microcosm. The same way today you can reference the hot topic of twitter in your day to day life, and someone that is not habitually online will give you a blank look. Back then, it was a common mistake to think things online were roughly representational, when often they were very much not. Secondly, it was a misrepresentation to think that the discussions online by that crowd aligned perfectly with how even those folks actually played the game. Often the topics discussed were chosen because it was a fun way to interface with the metagame of D&D while you were alone at your keyboard that had nothing to do with how you actually played. Most of the builds that were the locus of discussions started with the sentiment "Look at this crazy thing the rules allow you to do, isn't it awesome, but like seriously, no one should do this" and then eventually the discussion would turn when someone either didn't listen to that last bit and ruined their game, or pretended that such a thing happened at their table just to troll (which was a lot of internet culture at the time). It was a lot harder to make a meaningful and engaging post related to roleplay elements of the game, as when its just text it is often equivalent to having someone tell you about a dream they had. You need the depth of video to really make that kind of content engaging. Thirdly, even for people who would have said the online discussion did align with what they wanted from the game, we have to consider that people are often terrible at understanding what they want and what tradeoffs are required to get it. I will admit I was and still am someone who really likes mechanical options, and I am sure I would have said at the time "they should make 4E D&D more balanced". But what was missed in that was the ways you can get there can reduce some of the fun (or kill it entirely for other people). The focus on combat balance meant that close to all the text of the book was focused on combat. The intricate positioning based combat was cool, but having the new technology to add push/pull/slide elements to abilities meant they overused it and made it a rider too often. That plus the uniform At-Will/Encounter/Daily structure gave the feeling of sameness. When you dug in deeper, that broke down a bit, but it was also an unforced error as even being a little more asymmetric in how many of each type a class got (like later in the essentials line) goes a long way to breaking the samey feeling. Lastly, the focus on balance also crept into the way the game was presented. Everything was very well codified and was laid out in a very readable but kind of sterile way. Because of this, even changes that people would like with a bit more set dressing and fluffier language got decried as terrible design. For someone who played a lot of 4E, its often funny to see something that people said was awful in 4E be universally accepted and praised when it was taken completely into another game like 5E or the MCDM game and just given a good paint job. People loved to hate Healing Surges...but then 5E's Hit Dice serve the same function and are entirely accepted. A lot of people have written off 4E as bad from a cursory reading, or even just from hearsay. It was a good game, but it was just optimized for a subsection of the audience. It made mistakes for sure, but it also made a lot of changes that persist today. There is a perception that 5E was throwing out 4E entirely and making a new branch off of 3E, but for someone familiar with all those systems, 5E actually took a lot more from 4E than people expect. So for one last thought back to ARPGs, it could be fair to lump together 4E in Diablo 4 as they both made a mistake on the same axis of designing to only part of their audience without understanding how the different parts of the audience created feedback loops into each other. The part of audience they catered to was wildly opposite though. 4E hyperfocused its design on a subset of the most hardcore of its playerbase and lost track of what the rest of its audience wanted. Diablo 4 hyperfocused its design on a subset that was the most casual of its playerbase and lost track of what the rest of its audience wanted. When a game is designed to support its whole playerbase, individual decisions that lean one way or the other tend to be much more forgiven. When a design is hyperfocused like these examples while still marketing itself as for everyone, its a surefire way to get toxic after effects. Buying something because you have been told its for you, only for it to be very much not naturally leads to feelings of betrayal and being lied to. And in the worst cases it leads to players from the different groups turning on each other and creating a war between the sides. One of the things that I find most admirable about PoE & GGG, is while they have been very specific with their design, they are also honest about what that design is. PoE marketing is clear they are a game for hardcore ARPG enjoyers, they do not pretend to be something else. Since this is an LE video, I will say that EHG is also great, but their design is aimed more solidly at the middle of the playerbase so it doesn't serve as an example of hyperspecific design with bad marketing (D4) or hyperspecific design with clear marketing (PoE). It is a broad appeal design with broad appeal marketing.

Give them some time, they are an indie company.

I really like the poe ones and you only hear them every now and then.

What?

From what I've heard comparing D4, last epoch, and POE... You should not play D4 if you feel this way

@@MrGoodxLuck Very much true. Last season D4 made the game basically a joke.

It is a game not so complex at Poe and not so simpler as diablo 4 , it is a game casual friendly but still has a lot to try out , the devs are open with the community and the games it s at his start as a complete game , so is a lot of room to grow , I have 100 hours and I lol recomand . But the tastes difference depend from person to person .

My bad. I definitely didn't mean to bash D4 - I've actually been playing it a bit. I'm just using the other 2 big ARPGs in the scene as a gauge here, as many ppl have likely tried either D4 or PoE, but may not have touched Last Epoch. It can stand on its own AND it's not too expensive. I think it is definitely worthwhile.

@@TalkativeTri I went and looked around. Decided to get it in the end, as I did watch the video to the end and was interested. I do get the "Diablo is simplified" stuff, even though the ironic thing is Last Epoch pretty much takes everything it has for the most part from Diablo 2. I don't mind that. The genre has a lot of depth in what it does. Diablo is more a popcorn movie now. I can play its season for a few weeks. Finish the season pass, move on. PoE is the crunchy stuff. Systems on Systems on Systems. You play that when you want to min-max the living hell out of a class and feel proud of the time space ending damage you do. So far, Lat Epoch is the interesting middle ground. It's chunky. I like the specialist system and the ability to pick classes I really enjoy, but it's also surprisingly hard early on. I didn't expect to be caught dying so early into the game but stuff does some pretty high damage and you need to be on your feet, which I am thankful for as Diablo isn't about dying earlyt on. Thank you for replying though. :) Sorry if I was blunt or rude. Just...it's weird to have people be like that in videos nowadays.

I've watched a ton of his videos and I can tell you that's not what he was going for, if you like ARPG's LE is an absolute blast.

You weren't bashing d4 at all. It's far simpler than the other options objectively ​@@TalkativeTri

Time for a follow-up video. Why do you say this (as someone who has played 2e, 3e, 3.5e, 4e, 5e, and whatever this new edition of dnd is called).

Bruh you don't need a 2k PC. 😂

You do NOOOOOOOOOOOT need a $2k PC to run Last Epoch. Not even close.

i sold my ps1 24 years ago and never again, there is no reason to have a console.

​@@banishedbrdumb statement

@@FreeFlow__ my reasoning is pc make games, pc make CONSOLES, why not have only PC, just a fictional market, made to sell there is no reason to have a console if you can do all that in a PC. Does this "FEEL" dumb ? give me a reason then