Recent reviews by P.Q.E.D.

An alpha for 11-12 years, with a very limited and month-long beta (just people promoting it.

During all those years they did nothing more than redevelop sustems that didn't need it - and we got a _worse_ game than it should have been.

It doesn't scale with players, neither in xp/gear/difficulty, nor in performance (the best gaming parts in existence is 10-30fps (yes, varies that much) during hörde night, and that is not on ultra settings.

The game is COMPLETELY CPU LIMITED, because the devs couldn't code any semblance of multithreading - instead redeveloping systems (always making them dumbed down and a shadow of what they once were.

They've wasted everyones' time, money, and energy, instead of hiring skilled coders - instead replacing advanced systems because they couldn't handle the complexity.

And STILL it runs like ♥♥♥♥.

The "performance improvement" announced with 1.0?

Runs worse than the previous version, despite dumbed down AI.

And they never figured out how to do buildings without tanking everything.

Skill systems that were intuitive? Now all magazines.

Armor that was different, more pieces, more functions?
Dumbed down to 4 pieces and 4 classes (where have you heard that before?


There's no doubt that 1.0 was rushed out like hell being chased by ice (they're still CHANGING STUFF, for crying out loud.
That's what you do in pre-alpha/alpha, then feature freeze (nothing added or removed) for beta - then release.


The Fun Pimps are completely incompetent - and the problem is probably systemic; meaning it can't change with the people they have now.


This game broke long ago.


DO NOT BUY.

Avoid. Buy something actually good instead.

EDIT (2024-05-07, UTC): So Sony finally got enough pressure on them to make a change (will it be permanent? guess we'll see.)
I changed my review to positive on the grounds that the correct action has been taken.


There is still the issue of their horribly invasive nProtect anti-cheat (this is a PvE game, the block function in-game is more than good enough).

This too should they should/need to change. Do I think they will? Probably not.


Below is my original (negative) review when PSN was changed from optiional to require, MONTHS after release. Completely unnecessarily too, since everyone was happy to play before that, and Valve has tools they can use for what they claimed it was needed for.

I don't care why they thought it was necessary - because it was already proven NOT necessary.

----------------------------
Old Review Below (2024-05-04, UTC)
----------------------------

"Due to technical issues … we allowed the linking requirements for Steam accounts to a PlayStation Network account to be temporarily optional. That grace period will now expire."

Source: Ars Technica


Sony pulled a fast one, and are now expecting us to bow.

NO.

Version 2.0 made it from an entertaining (but ever (very) buggy) roguelite, into a terrible Diablo 2 clone (the only thing that improved was the art; but mechanics are junk - and of course, it's not at all similar to the original game, aside from some graphics).

The creator has no respect for their community either.

Don't buy, you won't enjoy it. Especially when you lose all your characters and progress when the creator gets their next whim. Because they very likely will.


Play Diablo 2 with mods, Resurrected, or some other roguelite instead.


Edit: and the monetization (DLC) has absolitely exploded since last i played (there only used to be a few class unlocks!).
So add predatory to the list.

Incremental improvement over previous installments.

Too confusing purchasing-process when attempting to get all available content, which can turn excessively expensive than it needs to be because of how unclear it is. Make it simpler, please.

Somewhat clunky keyboard controls.

Annoying (and somwhat unrealiable) online connectivity for some content; like community made challenges.

Highly enjoyable gameplay; there's just nothing else quite like it. This is why it gets my recommendation.

Edit: As of 0.147.3 a compromise has been made whereas dedicated LAN servers will always use direct connections, and if you want to use direct connections for remote players you will have to add -public 0 to your servers' .bat/.sh-file (or just log out of steam).

This means your server will no longer be visible in the server list, and the only way to connect will be by IP or possibly a hostname.

Whilst I don't consider this the optimal solution - and who knows, it may change once more in the future - it does enable us to play the game without horrendous lag and desync once more.

So, for the time being I have decided to change this review to a postive one instead.
If you're interested in what spurred this on, I will leave the rest of my review untounched as it was down below.

---
I like the game, and I've had a great deal of fun with it, but what I type below is what unfortunately must shift my recommendation to the negative. At least for now.


First off: As I write this, local (LAN), as well as direct connections are either broken or rendered non-functional. Just a couple of patches back these worked fine.
All of the below is written in hope of heralding change.


I spoke briefly with Dvoid (a dev) on Discord yesterday, and according to him it's working "as intended". This was done to protect the users IP (not making it visible to outsiders).
A side effect of this (other than mentioned above) is that now there is a much heavier burden on the upload capacity rather than putting it on the download capacity of the server (completely bizarre to me).
This was done to lessen the desync; something it has not, and on top of that worsened both connection and disconnection issues.

He also said that this is the way other *insert big titles he mentioned here* works, which I know for a fact that at least a couple don't, and that a few of them run on a centralized server, rather than on user hosted ones (Destiny 2 was one example given). I didn't have time to bring this part up unfortunately, thus I'm jotting it down here, and that other games only use Steam proxies (that's what all this is about) for the handshake process, only to then move on to a more traditional direct connection.

Furthermore he had no idea that this affected local (LAN) connections as well, and agreed that this shouldn't be the case, and went on to say that he would speak to his contact at valve about both LAN and "increasing capacity" (this second part makes little sense to me, as it does nothing to help people with limited connections).

I asked for a choice to revert to the old way (direct connections) since we - the users - are the ones taking the risk anyway and that if you only play with people you trust there's no issue anyway. Unfortunately I got little to no response to this, but told him that until an alternative or fix pops up, I will no longer be able to play with my friends.

As a side note (as you might glean from the above) I also made him aware of is that for those of use with weak internet connections (say, DSL, where you ay have 8Mbit down and 1Mbit up) it is now completely and utterly unplayable, and that this playbase would be completely alienated by the current now current structure.


An example would be that I now after the change I use 50kB/s upstream (on my internet connection, as local connections can no longer be made) on a dedicated server of my own, just standing still in my small homestead with no-one else on the server.
For me this is about half of what my connection is capable of at most. If someone else connects everything starts lagging badly. If a third person connects, they never load in properly and only see a barren landscape (no trees, no rocks, just ground).

Before this change It barely used any upload at all, and when other people where around it put load on my Internet connections' downstream instead, which is about 7 times faster than my upload, and yet could it could at most handle 1-2 remote players when a lot was going on.


I'm not sure why they saw it fit to release something so paramount to function to the greater masses without prior rigorous testing.


I hope they find a way to fix this; or at least do the decent thing and give us the choice as to what we want to use.
Either way I'm highly critical of how this has been handled, and how it's being received when critiqued.

Take my recommendtion (No), as "not currently", because I hope the landscape changes sooner rather than later.

The developer treats the community with complete disrespect and only wants what's in your wallet.
They have no qualms whatsoever in breaking their promises as long as it suits them.

Game balance has been broken with microtransactions and weapon changes, with no official way to opt out and return to a previous version.

Avoid at all costs.