Instalar Steam
iniciar sesión
|
idioma
简体中文 (Chino simplificado)
繁體中文 (Chino tradicional)
日本語 (Japonés)
한국어 (Coreano)
ไทย (Tailandés)
български (Búlgaro)
Čeština (Checo)
Dansk (Danés)
Deutsch (Alemán)
English (Inglés)
Español - España
Ελληνικά (Griego)
Français (Francés)
Italiano
Bahasa Indonesia (indonesio)
Magyar (Húngaro)
Nederlands (Holandés)
Norsk (Noruego)
Polski (Polaco)
Português (Portugués de Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portugués - Brasil)
Română (Rumano)
Русский (Ruso)
Suomi (Finés)
Svenska (Sueco)
Türkçe (Turco)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamita)
Українська (Ucraniano)
Informar de un error de traducción
In terms of overall content as well as endgame, GD wins by a large margin.
Personally, I really like Darkest Dungeon.
I like Chris Bourassa’s artwork (which is heavily inspired by Mike Mignola’s). It was one of the main things that drew me to the game. Mignola’s art also has a similar darkness to it. Bourassa has written about the work he did for DD at length, and that’s not his normal style. It was a style he chose specifically because it fitted the themes they were trying to present and because it was a style he could produce quickly (and the game has a whole lot of art).
I don’t think it’s really fair compare the play-styles of the two games quite that directly since they’re very different games. GD is a real-time combat game, with a focus on action and building the loadout of an individual character (skills, gear, devotions, etc). DD is a much more abstracted, strategic and psychological game (that uses a turn-based model). Certainly it’s fair for you to prefer GD, but Darkest Dungeon is actually a superb design that handles bringing fear and stress (and a strong sense of personal attachment to individual heroes) to the player quite well. (Mind you, that’s not to say DD is without flaw, the better you know the system, the easier the game becomes).
I’ve looked at Warsaw. It didn’t really grab me the way Darkest Dungeon did. I’ve spent most of my life studying WWII (as an amateur historian), and … the abstractions that the DD style game requires don’t really work for me when considering the historical situations. There are other games that use similar concepts which I generally preferred, (the XCOM series Deep Sky Derelicts (which I haven’t played), and Vambrace: Cold Soul (which I have) to name a few). Those (like DD itself) are more abstracted in terms of their situations. I think that works a little better for the style of game.
Of the games that are available right now … I think Hearts of Iron (IV) is probably one of the best simulators for WWII (although it has its flaws as well, notably it isn’t very good at handling Naval or Air combat). It’s pretty good at the political and industrial aspects though. Although if we’re going to get off into a discussion of the Clausewitz Game Engine, I think Crusader Kings II is probably one of the best iterations Paradox has produced.
But maybe I just prefer Fantasy style settings.
Anyway, that’s kind of a long digression.
I think GD is an excellent ARPG with a complex build system. I think DD is an excellent turn-based, psychological thriller. I think they’re both good games, and interestingly, they’re both products of quite small indie studios. I think Red Hook has expanded a bit for DD2, but at the time they made DD1, Red Hook was about the same size Crate is now. It’s certainly fair to prefer one over the other, but I think they’re both well designed for what they are.
For me … sometimes my wrists and hands hurt (cumulative RSI), and spending awhile playing a Turn-based game gives them time to rest that ARPGs tend not to provide.
Yeah ... the TL IP is owned by THQ Nordic/Embracer Group now (I believe).
They're not actually doing anything with the game, they're just porting the existing game to a mobile format. They're slapping a new UI onto an existing product, they're not actually working on the art or the game that Runic built. (AFAIK).
It doesn't make sense.
The only thing they have in common is they are ARPGs.
That's it.
It's like comparing a banana to an apple.
They're both fruits. That's it. :P
Also, while TL 2's graphics are cartoony in mature, that makes it more accessable to people who wouldn't want a grim dark game like this. :P
There's nothing wrong with the graphics of it, it's just a different style.
Actually, they are both isometric diablo-like arpgs that, while there are some differences in how they handle it they still are doing mostly the same things. So they can very much be compared because they both belong to the same sub-genre of arpgs.
Skyrim is also an arpg but what it is not is a diablo. Your fruit comparison would be more apt between Skyrim and GD (they are both "fruit" in this case) than between GD and TL (where here they are both closely related, like cousins).
Kinda hard to miss if you understand the hallmarks of what makes a diablo-like.
Oh. I see what you meant. Sorry, my bad.
I was not 100% all there at the time of writing that.
Yeah. I totally forgot about all that.
That's my bad.
Enh ... no worries (as they say).
However, there are some seriously deep flaws in Torchlight 2 that always prevented it from achieving greatness. Itemization was sorely lacking, and certain stats (+health and +% damage reduction in particular) were always 100% better than any other item mod. In Hardcore, especially on Elite, you were pretty much required to have farmed the Eye of Grell (+2 or 3% damage redux, can't remember which) socket for every item or you didn't stand a prayer. One shot crit kills were extremely common in Torchlight on higher difficulties and could happen from off screen sources with ease. If you played anything lower than Veteran, however, the game was just too easy.
I had no issue with the art style. As someone else mentioned, it was kind of reminiscent of WoW/WC3 so I had no trouble with it. I had a much bigger issue with the lack of interesting and diverse class builds when compared to even Diablo 2, and it would be downright unfair to compare it to Grim Dawn, as GD is technically superior in every measurable way from itemization to balance to class builds, enemy diversity and everything inbetween.
I had my fun with it. I have around 400 or so hours (382 logged on Steam and another 20-40 or so on GoG) on Torchlight 2 and I definitely got my money's worth. Once I had a PC capable of running Grim Dawn, however, there really was no turning back. I doubt I'll ever play Torchlight again, even for nostalgia, as it just feels inferior in every way.
TLDR: Torchlight is super casual, moddable and can run on virtually any computer with no issues whatsoever. Easy to learn, easy to master. It can be an enjoyable diversion and if you find yourself curious, it's probably worth paying the small asking price. Just don't expect to be blown away.
I know that's not why most people play the game but personally, it's what makes the game feel like a slog. Keep asking myself, "Why do I care about the people in this game or even my character?"
Well said. These days If I want story I'll read some classic literature or a good novel. If I'm gonna game I want tight mechanics, healthy challenge, control and agency at all or almost all times (I cannot tolerate the unskippable cutscene crap anymore) and ultimately a game that will respect my time because that is one resource you can never replenish.
The older I get the less patient I am for flaws that I would've been much more willing to overlook 10 or 15 years ago. Life goes by so quickly and all those little cutscenes/unskippable dialogues add up - I just can't stand to have my time wasted anymore, even in my hobbies.
I would say GD has the edge for depth and long time commitment, but don't bring your knife to the gunfight. This game is finely tuned for elite gamers, and boss fights will end your enjoyment quickly for any mistakes in your complicated build. This is not the casual fun arcade style TL2 .