Personally I don’t mind running the story thousand times. I’m used to it for so many years.
It makes me sad that there are so many people that say “story is boring”. This is a very long thread already and I followed him ocasionally. And there are people that say “ARPGs need no story” @Shtrak .
I can’t say if I’d like to have an alternative way to level. If so, it should also be something completely different to the current endgame systems. First because its endgame. Second is because if I ran monolith on a character to level 85, I’ve no intention to go playing mono with a new character from lvl 1 on again. This will get boring and repetitive very soon.
Story in a game is very important for me. I need to be immersed into the world of a game to have a long term motivation to play. I think EHG have put a massive amount of ressources into creating the story and campaign, as have other developers on other games.
If it was so obvious that a forced story playthrough is tedious and boring, why don’t games ged rid of it completely these days?
I know, most people here are asking for “an option to not play campaign” so everybody who likes could skip it. But this feels to me like EHG wastes their time an effort to create the campaign if they allow people to skip it. The game might already have been out a year ago if they would not have developed a campaign. And if the majority of players dislikes the campaign, theres a fundamental flaw in the game design.
I’d like to see if a mmo, loot shooter or RPG really has that longevity if it would be developed without a story. Just raw game mechanics. No lore, no character design. Just a pure grind simulator. I wonder why this is not already the case with many games when the opinion on that is so absolutely clear like it is described in a lot of this posts.
My bet is that any rpg like game that doesn’t create lore and story content will only be an empty hull of a game.
The journey of a character from level 1 on is a key part of this kind of games. Earning the right to enter endgame by following the story campaign. Having a story that is completely different from endgame activities already provides diversity.
I don’t see how adding a grind mode (alternative leveling system) before entering another grind mode (endgame system) adds a lot of variety.
But maybe I just have the fear that this change in game design could be so successful, that in the future ARPGs are developed without story. Just 2, 3, 4 different mini games put together with some endgame activities after reaching a progression threshold. And the complaints that arise then: “My favourite game mode is 2. I hate game mode 1. But 1 is more effective. Why am I forced to play mode 1? Nerf! Buff!”
Peace!