Patience has nothing to do with it, it’s all RNG. If it will happen, not when it will happen.
Worse than a lottery as stated by devs.
1 Like
I know, i know.
Then its fatfull and humble.
In RNGod Emperor wer trust 
No, read our conversation.
- You claimed the game “doesn’t have much outside progression”
- Well I listed the many ways that the core gameplay itself is deep and fun.
- And pay attention to how you responded: like how when we established pushing was different, but not necessarily deeper/shallower, your takeaway was that meant it was “irrelevant” rather than admit it was an example of a game of comparable depth (to V2) just being slightly different.
That’s not “being obtuse”, that’s me constantly pointing you to reality and hoping that you care enough about truth to look past your weird attitude and simply agree with the facts.
2 Likes
Just want to throw this out there: I think notions like whether a game is “deep”, “fun”, etc are fundamentally subjective. For example, I think Slay the Spire’s gameplay is incredibly deep and fun, but other people think it’s slow and boring. Neither of us is wrong because “deep and fun” isn’t a question of fact.
1 Like
It’s like you immediately forget that we’re discussing, "doesn’t have much outside progression”.
So we aren’t talking about whether it’s better, only whether it has content/depth outside progression. And it does.
The fact that you constantly try to switch topics like that (from whether the game has anything outside progression to whether it’s “better” or “different”) should be a huge red flag that you’re just wrong. Why aren’t you willing to admit it?
2 Likes
Fun, sure.
Depth? No. Deep games are deep regardless of whether one explores that depth, understands it, or finds it fun.
Smash Bros is a deep fighting game. I find it’s uninteresting (not fun) compared with more serious fighting games, but I can’t say it isn’t deep. Depth is a measure of whether the game is still strategically interesting after experts have studied it for years, and that’s definitely true of Smash.
It’s also true of all 'Tide games. (And StS.)
Whether your friends find it boring doesn’t change that.
1 Like
It’s like you immediately forgot the meaning of words.
“doesn’t have much” doesn’t mean “it has absolutely nothing.”
The fact that you’re the one who constantly tried to switch topic and ignore points you couldn’t address(again, uncanny remember? you got nothing) should be a huge red flag that you’re simply irrelevant. Why aren’t you willing to admit it?
I know why, you’ve been asked to prove it time and time again yet you kept conceding by avoiding burden of proof.
Depth is a measure of whether the game is still strategically interesting after experts have studied it for years, and that’s definitely true of Smash.
I think the root of your disagreement is that you’re defining “depth” in an idiosyncratic way that is different than how the word is used colloquially. Your definition has the subjective notion of “interesting” embedded in it, so I’m having a hard time seeing how your notion of depth isn’t itself subjective. What does “strategically interesting” mean to you? What sort of games aren’t “deep” by your definition? Can you give a few examples of games that aren’t deep? (Would you say Pong is deep? Super Mario Bros? Final Fantasy 7? Disco Elysium?)
A game being strategically interesting doesn’t relate to subjective interest. It relates to whether that game has a deep decision-matrix that’s hard to completely solve.
It’s an established definition that’s been around for decades…
“A multiplayer game is balanced if a reasonably large number of options available to the player are viable–especially, but not limited to, during high-level play by expert players.” -David Sirlin, 2001
When people call Chess “deep”, that’s exactly what they mean, and it has nothing to do with personal interest, just whether it’s strategically interesting.
So it’s not “my” definition and it isn’t subjective.
The games you list aren’t particularly deep, no. After all, how often could you play Disco Elysium and find its strategic choices compelling? Not often, especially given certain choices towards the end of the game which strongly rely on a single RNG point (based around just one single skill, as I recall). You can still get a reasonable ending without hitting that skillcheck, but the fact that so much of the game’s result is tied up in that one check is why we can say rather conclusively it’s not going to be strategically interesting for years.
No, deep games are like Street Fighter 2, Starcraft Brood War, and Civilization. Games where even after experts have studied them for years, they’re still strategically interesting.
1 Like
The game has all of the depth of Vermintide 2. That’s what it has. A lot more than “not much”. On every individual point we examined, it had roughly equal depth to V2; sometimes identical; sometimes just different; sometimes slightly better, and sometimes slightly worse. So for you to pretend that huge depth of play is “not much” compared with progression is a joke, and I think you understand that.
1 Like
I think any game with a nontrivial combat system qualifies as “deep” by this definition, so imo it doesn’t mean much to say that DT and VT2 are deep – although yes they certainly qualify. Fwiw I suspect the guy you’re arguing with is using the colloquial sense of “deep” (and that’s why you two are talking past each other).
There’s a reason the word “depth” is used and it’s because we aren’t talking about a binary thing.
- A kiddie pool has depth.
- That doesn’t mean it’s deep.
With game depth it’s the same. We wouldn’t call shallower games “deep” even though they have depth.
DT and V2 aren’t just games with depth. They’re very deep games where the game’s very best players are far beyond even high-level players, due to a ton of subtle decision-making and twitch skill (all of which contributes to depth).
1 Like
Darktide doesn’t have a solo-play mode. It doesn’t have a linear story. It doesn’t have a full crafting system. It doesn’t have unique bosses. It doesn’t have bots that can pick stuff up. VT2 has all of them. VT2 had all of them since launch
I got VT2 on launch and had 0 complaints about it. I was able to play co-op with a friend and 2 bots. The storyline was rich enough. The world and maps were beautiful and varied. The bosses (not monstrosities) were unique, frustrating, and fun. I never fell through the map. I never got thrown OOB. I was able to pick up every grimoire and scripture I found.
And to make this relevant back to the original post and title, I never found myself woefully low on crafting materials.
Edited to remove accidental double quotes
1 Like
Describing any fps game as deep sounds pretty funny to me. I’ve always considered fps games to be basic and simple.
Shoot stuff - don’t get shot.
This game since its co-op has one extra - Be a good team mate.
Describing smash bros as strategic makes me laugh a bit ngl. Some kid mashing buttons on a joypad smh
This also made me laugh
There are limited levels and limited enemy types controlled by a computer. They can only react and behave in a limited number of ways even with the amazing dog behaviour we have right now. Having human team mates adds some variety but not a huge amount.
Dwarf Fortress , dont dig to deep 
Distant Worlds
…
1 Like
After many years secluded in the monastery of capcom high in the mountains wise men study and meditate on the depths of street fighter 2.
After much deliberation they all concurred drumroll You just press A really really fast lol
1 Like
If we talk about beat em up’s Samurai Showdown by SNK is my measure.
I used a MadCatz Tournament for this.
There is some deep tactics and skill requirements in SF too, but you can hardly compare to other genres
Slightly related, is there any consistency in getting a bulwark to open up after blocking its melee attack? I’ve noticed when you block, it sometimes recoils back leaving itself open, but other times it just follows through with the melee.
I was talking to a friend about melee counterplay and bulwarks came up and we were comparing them to shield stormvermin and how the counterplay with melee was a bit weaker since there was very little you could do against bulwarks (targeting you) in melee apart from waiting for them to attack you (you can’t push at them a few times to open them up). Similarly with ragers compared with plague monks/berserkers as ragers seem to hit a lot fast and recover faster. Like yes, there are non-melee counters for both enemy types in both games (shooting, bombs/grenades, etc.), but V2 seemed to give you a few more options in melee. Maybe it was a design shift where even elites are meant to be more team orientated, but it feels kinda arse at times to deal with.
Simple. We try to get correct blessing on weapons. So you craft a weapon, you get garbage and so you try again.
That’s how you spend so many plasteel.
And why so much diamantine left? Cause in damnation you get same amount of plasteel and diamantine. However, you need a lot more plasteel than diamantine.
Actually, I try to get a curio with +1 wound and perks I want. Yesterday, I have spent 1200 plasteel to try to get a curio I could use.
However I ended with 2 useless perks, one is resist 15% against pox hound (totally useless) and second is +x % experience (lol, why did they put such perk?).
So I have to retrieve 1200 plasteel and try again…
1 Like
The forgotten beast Axehilt has come!
A long winded humanoid. It has elongated posts and it has dictionary definitions. Its avatar shows nostalgic characters. Its elongated posts have pedantry. Beware the time wasted!