Last Epoch Releases Runes of Power Update With 'The Most Versatile and Customizable Class in Any ARP

System

Last Epoch Releases Runes of Power Update With 'The Most Versatile and Customizable Class in Any ARPG' | MMORPG.com

Eleventh Hour Games isn't just any indie studio, with their epic ARPG, Last Epoch, they've been steadily carving a niche for themselves, which includes their latest update Runes of Power

Read the full story here

Kataal

Claiming you have the "most versatile and customizable class in any ARPG" when your classes are gender-locked, then directly comparing it to D4, is pretty bold. I get they're talking about the class/skills and not the character, but still.

Ginaz

It's a fun game but I probably won't go back until the official release. Looking good so far.

Akulas

I think I was a lightning mage or something but that was a long time ago. It's not hard to be better than D4 though which is basically a waste of time and money so it's easy to beat. (The cost is less and has more characters and skill options and doesn't pressure you to be max level)

FrodoFragins

System said:

The future for Last Epoch still looks great. The team is actively pitting their game against powerhouses like Diablo IV and throughout their early access the team has already garnered positive reviews on Steam, with over 800,000 units sold.

D4 currently serves as an excellent entry level game for (new) ARPG players. As new players experience what the game has too offer they may discover they want something more in terms of build diversity, itemization, crafting, a deeper endgame and eventually a full economy. 

Last Epoch is a strong choice got players looking for more out of their ARPG and more value for what they spend.  It will definitely be the game I suggest to players looking for more after D4.

I'm on a different end of the spectrum in that I've played about 1000 hours of POE and really want something less bloated with systems and something that offers more in terms of QoL.

PS: I'm likely waiting for the release of factions before returning to the game.

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Mensur

ZedTheRock said:

Try upping your production quality, aesthetics, game play, and feel and then come back and try to compare it to D4. Till I'd suggest 11th hour keep quiet cause LE looks and plays like a janky indie game.

Its stil far better than D4. If you are protecting the D4 garbage you deserve shit games to play. Also you must be new here... telling people to be quite in a forum and comment section...is quite stupid.

KnightFalz

Kataal said:

Claiming you have the "most versatile and customizable class in any ARPG" when your classes are gender-locked, then directly comparing it to D4, is pretty bold. I get they're talking about the class/skills and not the character, but still.

What difference does gender choice make in how versatile an ARPG class is? It's not as though games can recognize the varying capacity of men and women without enduring more condemnation than that accuracy is worth. It amounts to nothing more than a denied cosmetic option.

KnightFalz

ZedTheRock said:

Try upping your production quality, aesthetics, game play, and feel and then come back and try to compare it to D4. Till I'd suggest 11th hour keep quiet cause LE looks and plays like a janky indie game.

D4 is not seen by all as a pinnacle of achievement that other ARPGs will be judged against. Rather it has mixed reception. With blood in the water, now is the best time for any competitor to strike.

Talraekk

It's a great game, but ranged is still an issue, after all these years. Regardless of that, clicking doesn't feel right. When you click to attack (click to do anything) it should be rock solid. Again, ranged is my major issue with this (haven't played melee)... (EDIT) Better than D4 though....

Kothoses

The Genderlocked classes bother me.


Its a good game, but I wouldn't go around doing comparatives to D4 when you are a derivative of that Genre. We know D4 has problems, so did D3 at launch. I dont have faith in blizzard to turn it around, but its a poor look regardless.

I am a fan of the Genre not a specific game, and LE's end game is still very lacking. It is however a game with a huge amount of potential. The skill trees are amazing, but the gender locking of classes and the rather poor end game is jarring.

Also, you cant list features that are not in game yet as features in a comparative.

Overall its a poor attempt at relevance for a game that should focus on its own strengths because it has plenty.

Scot

KnightFalz said:

Kataal said:

Claiming you have the "most versatile and customizable class in any ARPG" when your classes are gender-locked, then directly comparing it to D4, is pretty bold. I get they're talking about the class/skills and not the character, but still.

What difference does gender choice make in how versatile an ARPG class is? It's not as though games can recognize the varying capacity of men and women without enduring more condemnation than that accuracy is worth. It amounts to nothing more than a denied cosmetic option.

I agree with you but the problem is that cosmetics are becoming more important than gameplay, that should not be so but there it is. Customization of class gameplay is being woven into what the class can look like, bizarre I know.

Aeander

Scot said:

KnightFalz said:

Kataal said:

Claiming you have the "most versatile and customizable class in any ARPG" when your classes are gender-locked, then directly comparing it to D4, is pretty bold. I get they're talking about the class/skills and not the character, but still.

What difference does gender choice make in how versatile an ARPG class is? It's not as though games can recognize the varying capacity of men and women without enduring more condemnation than that accuracy is worth. It amounts to nothing more than a denied cosmetic option.

I agree with you but the problem is that cosmetics are becoming more important than gameplay, that should not be so but there it is. Customization of class gameplay is being woven into what the class can look like, bizarre I know.

Or, you know, both cosmetics and gameplay are important. Cosmetics are a form of reward and immersion. They are an important form of roleplaying.

But more than that, gender locks were barely acceptable in the early 2000s with Diablo 2. They are not acceptable now. I for one am docking an automatic point from my review score of any game with all of its classes genderlocked. 

Scot

Aeander said:

Scot said:

KnightFalz said:

Kataal said:

Claiming you have the "most versatile and customizable class in any ARPG" when your classes are gender-locked, then directly comparing it to D4, is pretty bold. I get they're talking about the class/skills and not the character, but still.

What difference does gender choice make in how versatile an ARPG class is? It's not as though games can recognize the varying capacity of men and women without enduring more condemnation than that accuracy is worth. It amounts to nothing more than a denied cosmetic option.

I agree with you but the problem is that cosmetics are becoming more important than gameplay, that should not be so but there it is. Customization of class gameplay is being woven into what the class can look like, bizarre I know.

Or, you know, both cosmetics and gameplay are important. Cosmetics are a form of reward and immersion. They are an important form of roleplaying.

But more than that, gender locks were barely acceptable in the early 2000s with Diablo 2. They are not acceptable now. I for one am docking an automatic point from my review score of any game with all of its classes genderlocked. 

See what I mean? It is not as if we have no posters on here who in my mind overate the importance of cosmetics. But I do agree with your point on gender locks Aeander, that is something that has always baffled me; sure it speeds up development, but is having an extra class so important at launch that dropping gender locks is not the better choice?

TheIdealist

genderlock and no-pvp is no go for me.

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Aeander

templarga said:

Genderlocked classes are fine with me (if and only if) the game is grounded in lore (and I mean real lore not made up gaming lore).

Case in point: Dark Age of Camelot - Midgard classes pulled from Norse mythology. There is no record of a male Valkyrie so I am good with it.

And let's be real, many in these forums would complain if they did have make Valkyrie's too.

My argument to that is that there is almost always a better, non-gendered class they could have used instead?

The virgin Amazon? Hell no. Use the chad Hoplite/Phalanx.

KnightFalz

Aeander said:

Scot said:

KnightFalz said:

Kataal said:

Claiming you have the "most versatile and customizable class in any ARPG" when your classes are gender-locked, then directly comparing it to D4, is pretty bold. I get they're talking about the class/skills and not the character, but still.

What difference does gender choice make in how versatile an ARPG class is? It's not as though games can recognize the varying capacity of men and women without enduring more condemnation than that accuracy is worth. It amounts to nothing more than a denied cosmetic option.

I agree with you but the problem is that cosmetics are becoming more important than gameplay, that should not be so but there it is. Customization of class gameplay is being woven into what the class can look like, bizarre I know.

Or, you know, both cosmetics and gameplay are important. Cosmetics are a form of reward and immersion. They are an important form of roleplaying.

But more than that, gender locks were barely acceptable in the early 2000s with Diablo 2. They are not acceptable now. I for one am docking an automatic point from my review score of any game with all of its classes genderlocked. 

Games with genderlock are still being made and played today. So much for it not being acceptable.

DeskMonkey13

Kataal said:

Claiming you have the "most versatile and customizable class in any ARPG" when your classes are gender-locked, then directly comparing it to D4, is pretty bold. I get they're talking about the class/skills and not the character, but still.

Yea I never agreed with gender-locked classes but I hate the people who speak loud about that even more.

They just regurgitate something we already know over and over and over.

Ginaz

I think part of the reason the devs said they went with gender locked classes was related to the resources they had in the beginning. Having only one character model cuts down on time needed to fix issues, like if an armor or cosmetic doesn't fit properly because the differences in the character models. I think there's like vague background origin stories for each class so they are kind of set characters (I think the wizard/mage character was a mentor to the witch character before they had a falling out because she used forbidden magic). Once you're decked out in full armor and zoomed out during combat, it's hard to tell what gender you're playing, anyway. Also, comparing themselves to D4 and pointing out some of the things they have and D4 doesn't is a little cringe and makes them look desperate. Stop doing that, please. LE is a great game that should be able to stand on it's merits. Edit: I think a better word for cringe is tacky in this case.

Angrakhan

Ginaz said:

I think part of the reason the devs said they went with gender locked classes was related to the resources they had in the beginning. Having only one character model cuts down on time needed to fix issues, like if an armor or cosmetic doesn't fit properly because the differences in the character models. I think there's like vague background origin stories for each class so they are kind of set characters (I think the wizard/mage character was a mentor to the witch character before they had a falling out because she used forbidden magic). Once you're decked out in full armor and zoomed out during combat, it's hard to tell what gender you're playing, anyway.


Also, comparing themselves to D4 and pointing out some of the things they have and D4 doesn't is a little cringe and makes them look desperate. Stop doing that, please. LE is a great game that should be able to stand on it's merits.

While the lore bit is true, there's nothing about a teacher/student relationship that would lock genders. It would be a flimsy excuse, but not one they're making. I'm sure it is easier to only create one set of armor models for one gender as opposed to two, but given how many units they sold it seems like they could afford to outsource the tedium of retrofitting everything to an additional gender per class. The engine exists, the assets exist, they could ramp up some entry level 3d modelers to get the job done in a reasonable amount of time.

The only reasonable reason they wouldn't do that is if they planned on updated all the models and animations down the road (not a bad idea, btw, because they current ones look like amateur hour level stuff) and had planned on doing it anyway. Short of that they're just lazy.

Also, I think the little D4 vs LE comparison is a bit of a cheap shot because it's not a this game vs that game thing since you can own both. I do. I'm not living under a bridge in a cardboard box because of it.

cheyane

They could solve it as some game did but for the life of me I cannot recall the name off. Make the male and female body the same then they won't have issues to having to spend resources on varying armour and weapon sizes. Then give hair and facial hair and other ways to differentiate them. The issue has always been the problem of fitting of gear on different types of bodies. Boobs also no need so no worries.

Scot

Aeander said:

templarga said:

Genderlocked classes are fine with me (if and only if) the game is grounded in lore (and I mean real lore not made up gaming lore).

Case in point: Dark Age of Camelot - Midgard classes pulled from Norse mythology. There is no record of a male Valkyrie so I am good with it.

And let's be real, many in these forums would complain if they did have make Valkyrie's too.

My argument to that is that there is almost always a better, non-gendered class they could have used instead?

The virgin Amazon? Hell no. Use the chad Hoplite/Phalanx.

As we are talking Norse, Greek would not do. But there is a possible option for a male "Valkyrie". That is a "man" (more a sort of male spirit) who does the same role, just not for Odin and Asgard. Norse lore is scanty here but agents of the "Giants" could take warriors  who saw the giants as their "gods" to their own Valhalla, but it is rather tenuous. A better lore sourced counterpart would be the one of Hel's undead who until Ragnarok could well fight alongside MIdgard Heroes against glorious Camelot and Hibernia (guess where I had my two characters on separate serves?)  

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Scot

templarga said:

Scot said:

Aeander said:

templarga said:

Genderlocked classes are fine with me (if and only if) the game is grounded in lore (and I mean real lore not made up gaming lore).

Case in point: Dark Age of Camelot - Midgard classes pulled from Norse mythology. There is no record of a male Valkyrie so I am good with it.

And let's be real, many in these forums would complain if they did have make Valkyrie's too.

My argument to that is that there is almost always a better, non-gendered class they could have used instead?

The virgin Amazon? Hell no. Use the chad Hoplite/Phalanx.

As we are talking Norse, Greek would not do. But there is a possible option for a male "Valkyrie". That is a "man" (more a sort of male spirit) who does the same role, just not for Odin and Asgard. Norse lore is scanty here but agents of the "Giants" could take warriors  who saw the giants as their "gods" to their own Valhalla, but it is rather tenuous. A better lore sourced counterpart would be the one of Hel's undead who until Ragnarok could well fight alongside MIdgard Heroes against glorious Camelot and Hibernia (guess where I had my two characters on separate serves?)  

I was trying to remember if the Zerker class in DAOC was gender locked (males) but I cannot remember.

I didn't think any were? Gender was chosen with race and class was selected after that.

Sensai

templarga said:

Scot said:

Aeander said:

templarga said:

Genderlocked classes are fine with me (if and only if) the game is grounded in lore (and I mean real lore not made up gaming lore).

Case in point: Dark Age of Camelot - Midgard classes pulled from Norse mythology. There is no record of a male Valkyrie so I am good with it.

And let's be real, many in these forums would complain if they did have make Valkyrie's too.

My argument to that is that there is almost always a better, non-gendered class they could have used instead?

The virgin Amazon? Hell no. Use the chad Hoplite/Phalanx.

As we are talking Norse, Greek would not do. But there is a possible option for a male "Valkyrie". That is a "man" (more a sort of male spirit) who does the same role, just not for Odin and Asgard. Norse lore is scanty here but agents of the "Giants" could take warriors  who saw the giants as their "gods" to their own Valhalla, but it is rather tenuous. A better lore sourced counterpart would be the one of Hel's undead who until Ragnarok could well fight alongside MIdgard Heroes against glorious Camelot and Hibernia (guess where I had my two characters on separate serves?)  

I was trying to remember if the Zerker class in DAOC was gender locked (males) but I cannot remember.

The Valk and Banshee were gender locked.  I don't think Vampiir was but could have been.  Otherwise, all classes were open.