[Zaxx]

Commando Nukem, on 31 August 2019 - 08:42 PM, said:

Limited saves have no place in an FPS of this sort.

Yet somehow I've never seen people complain about stuff like Doom 2016 having a checkpoint system because it's a good checkpoint system instead of being garbage like what RoTT 2013 had before they patched in quick saves. That's why I don't like generalized statements like that: if it's good it then it can be a unique thing that sets the game apart from other shooters (like how Prey had a unique player death mechanic instead of a game over screen and save scumming), if it sucks then it sucks.

One thing is for sure: it's going to be easy to make secret hunting rewarding with soul tethers so it seems like a great idea to encourage finding secrets (I just hope secrets won't be overcomplicated like in IF).

[OpenMaw]

Your argument makes no sense.

Prey and Doom 2016 allow you to save. Prey's "mechanic" is strictly to avoid loading screens. It doesn't stop you from saving whenever you want.

ROTT didn't allow you to save anywhere. That's why it sucked.

This, though it lets you save anywhere, limits your amount of saves.


A checkpoint/autosave system is fine. Having ONLY checkpoints, or limiting the players ability to save is a bad idea.

[Zaxx]

Commando Nukem, on 01 September 2019 - 11:41 AM, said:

Doom 2016 allow you to save.

Nope. Didn't even notice that, did ya?



Edit: Also: Eternal will introduce a life system complimented by less checkpoints... because they don't want you to save scum.

[Sledgehammer]

Commando Nukem, on 31 August 2019 - 08:42 PM, said:

Limited saves have no place in an FPS of this sort.

But otherwise it looks very slick. The art style really appeals to me.

ThougH i think the early game demonstrations really fail to make the game shine in any way. Those cavernous areas filled with mostly Zombies made it seem INCREDIBLY BORING.

Especially considering that even System Shock had quick save mechanic.

But yeah, the artstyle is what makes me more interested in this game too, although some things look off to me at the same time. I really want a FPS game inspired by Castlevania but with more westernized approach, something like Zombies Ate My Neighbor even, a FPS inspired by classical western horror movies or at least just a game about classical supernaturals like vampires, witches, werewolves, ghosts, etc.

[Altered Reality]

Commando Nukem, on 01 September 2019 - 11:41 AM, said:

Prey and Doom 2016 allow you to save. Prey's "mechanic" is strictly to avoid loading screens. It doesn't stop you from saving whenever you want.

You're right about Prey. However, Doom 2016 UNFORTUNATELY forces you to use checkpoints, which is one of the reasons why I find more replayability value in Doom 3 (the other is the editor).

Zaxx, on 01 September 2019 - 12:07 PM, said:

Edit: Also: Eternal will introduce a life system complimented by less checkpoints... because they don't want you to save scum.

Oh well. There's always refunds. Just imagine if Microsoft replaced the Save button with checkpoints in Word.

[Kristian Joensen]

I wonder how hard it would be for someone in the community to add a save anywhere feature to Wrath.

[NightFright]

That depends on how moddable it will be. Anyway, if the community wants an important feature like that so badly, the devs can implement it by themselves just as well.

[Kristian Joensen]

NightFright, on 02 September 2019 - 05:47 AM, said:

That depends on how moddable it will be. Anyway, if the community wants an important feature like that so badly, the devs can implement it by themselves just as well.

It is is based on GPL code and they seemingly haven't bought any exceptions/seperate licenses. See this: "YES! WRATH will be released with full supports for user mods and maps, and will be released with the same tools we used to develop the game. The source-code will also be released fully at launch (GPL)." Source: https://steamcommuni...85838066712893/

So my question was more a technical/practical question. Everything needed to do it will be released. But how hard is it to do such a mod?

[Zaxx]

It's Darkplaces so it will be easy: the engine already has that feature, you just have to open it up and since it's a small indie game I'm sure they won't implement anything to stop you from doing just that.

The thing is though that if you look at the what we've seen so far it really looks like you won't have to do that. From the menu it seems like that you can always go back to your latest soul tether + you have the option to go back to a place called the "shrine" or whatever (it may be the hub world if they'll have something like that or the level start). On top of this there seems to be a pretty big emphasis on inventory items: you'll be able to pick up powerups and use them whenever you want to. These include recharging health after every enemy you kill and invulnerability at the cost of your health falling down to 5 HP. And you've seen how powerful the weapons will be and just much manueverability you'll have while I've yet to spot ONE hitscan enemy type.

"On demand" powerups are super fucking powerful in any game so it really seems like that you'll have to suck a lot in order to need something like unlimited saves to keep you alive. There's a meta there, they don't want to take away unlimited saves just to make your life miserable. I'm not saying it's going to be a walk in the park because there would be no point in making an FPS for babies on the engine that gave birth to the true hardcore shooter but it's going to be fair.

[Player Lin]

Zaxx, on 31 August 2019 - 09:29 PM, said:

Yet somehow I've never seen people complain about stuff like Doom 2016 having a checkpoint system because it's a good checkpoint system......

I guess I'm the only one who complain about that checkpoint system in DooM 2016. Good or not, I'm just sick at it already after 10+ times of tries to climb the damn tower then fall down for no reasons in make progress (and when try to get the secrets goodies) in Mission 05, and ultimately, give up on near end of next mission and never played it anymore, "shame on me", you can say that to me, I know. But I would never changed my mind : That checkpoint systems in DooM 2016 sucks.

Not sure why, maybe bad experiences with RotT 2013 ruined me a lot...but I feel okay with Wolfenstein:TNO and TOB's checkpoint system, weird. Or maybe because in DooM 2016, it only save your the current state when triggers, and you can't let the game save again if you collected some secrets goodies and go to the trigger point again, no you can only save the game again on next trigger point or end of level, and you would know if you made mistakes...you'll have to re-collected your goodies again if got them after your last checkpoint, and it always be sucks that like in failed jumppad run then fall to dead in RotT 2013, at least to me.

Maybe I just too old for such challenge...

[Zaxx]

Eternal will have a lot more platforming so buckle up... but they also implemented a system that just drops you on the nearest solid platform if you'd fall to your death.

Anyway I find it weird that you're comparing Doom's platforming to what ROTT 2013 had because I think the difference is night and day between those two games in that regard. Doom's platforming is fairly simple thanks to the great mantling mechanic and the double jump while ROTT was very punishing. You could learn how to platform effecticely (and safely) in ROTT but getting there was just a pain in the ass.

[Player Lin]

Zaxx, on 07 September 2019 - 11:31 AM, said:

Anyway I find it weird that you're comparing Doom's platforming to what ROTT 2013 had because I think the difference is night and day between those two games in that regard. Doom's platforming is fairly simple thanks to the great mantling mechanic and the double jump while ROTT was very punishing. You could learn how to platform effecticely (and safely) in ROTT but getting there was just a pain in the ass.

Nah, what I say about DooM 2016 problem is NOT platforming but the checkpoint system...anyway I guess it doesn't matter since I still have no time to play new games...I don't even sure if I want to play DooM Eternal because lack of free time for that.

[Jim]

This could all be resolved by having a cheat code for unlimited soul tethers

[VGA]

What about difficulty modes? All proper FPS games have those!

[Tea Monster]

A Quake game with a checkpoint system? WTF? Why?

Seriously, they make a conscious decision to use an old engine because they want a retro gaming experience, then they chonk it up with all the worst aspects of modern shooters?

Just waiting now for weapons limits.

[Zaxx]

Tea Monster, on 10 September 2019 - 01:58 AM, said:

A Quake game with a checkpoint system? WTF? Why?

It's not a fucking checkpoint system: you decide when and where to save, it's just handled through an inventory item so it will be a game mechanic where you have to mind your resources.

[Altered Reality]

Zaxx, on 10 September 2019 - 02:30 AM, said:

It's not a fucking checkpoint system: you decide when and where to save, it's just handled through an inventory item so it will be a game mechanic where you have to mind your resources.

As in "no, except yes".

[Zaxx]

No, the point of a checkpoint system is that you don't save your player state but the game does at fixed points. This is not that at all so calling it a checkpoint system is not only misleading but also dumb.

The weird thing is that as much as you want to see this as a console limitation this is actually a very PC game thing to do. For example in Project IGI 2 (also called IGI 2: Covert Strike in other places) you could only save a certain number of times per mission. Why? Because it was a tactical FPS so they wanted to eliminate save scumming. Remedy did the same thing on Max Payne 2's highest difficulty. It was also a pretty common thing that a game didn't let you to save when enemies were nearby (again: anti save scumming) so just stop the hissy fit and instead learn to properly play videogames without abusing the save system (or if you're that desperate: we've already discussed that the game is using Darkplaces so modding unlimited saves in will be easy).

[Sledgehammer]

"Stop being a save scumming addict and learn how to handle yourself" argument applies to this just as well, you know. This problem can be handled easily (although requires some work), they could just add classical saving system but encourage people to save less by giving them something, kinda like what Biohazard games did in the past.

Making such limitation is a lazy design.

[Putrid Pete]

Zaxx, on 10 September 2019 - 05:38 AM, said:

No, the point of a checkpoint system is that you don't save your player state but the game does at fixed points.

Technically yes, but I think the bigger point is that a checkpoint system regulates how many times you can save. In this sense, soul tethers act as a checkpoint system. A longer leash is still a leash.

Zaxx, on 10 September 2019 - 05:38 AM, said:

instead learn to properly play videogames without abusing the save system

This type of gate-keeping for a single player fps really mystifies me. I mean, what next? Should I learn to 360 no scope? Maybe get some Doritos and Gamer Fuel to up my gamer cred? And who determines what counts as abusing the save system, anyway? I mean, how many saves are too many and what basis should we use to reach a consensus on this? I can beat Ultimate Doom without saving a single time. So should I frown upon players that saved once during their playthrough now?

Zaxx, on 10 September 2019 - 05:38 AM, said:

so just stop the hissy fit

I think the only one having a hissy fit here is you over people being able to save freely, bizarrely. I guess my point is, why care? Why care if other people save scum as long as you don't do it? I'm sure there are people out there that play every single game with god mode on or some sort of god mode mod in their games. So what? I wouldn't lose sleep over it nor celebrate the removal of a god mode cheat in an upcoming game while telling people to git gud at it. It matters fuck zero to me if everybody and their mother cheat or save scum while playing whatever (singleplayer) game I play or played, as long as I can play without god mode and saving at whatever challenging amount that I want.

Besides, I feel that you are missing the point as to why people consider this a problem. People are pointing out that it seems like an arbitrary limitation. Wrath is not a survival horror game, and I really see nothing that it stands to gain from giving you limited saves, specially when people will look at it in the same light as Quake. The worst case scenario is that it's either unnecessary to have soul tethers because you will have so many that you might as well have a save system, or so little that the game will be artificially hard, and therefore annoying and frustrating. Sure, it may work out just fine and fit well with Wrath but a simple save system was already good enough in Quake, why take a gamble with this?

Not everybody wants an unrestricted save system just so they can cheese their way through the game, mind you. I like saving whenever I like without limitations because I tend to get fatigued when going through large maps. If I don't have a soul tether and the map keeps going on and on and on and I don't find one, that would make me not want to play the game because I am being forced to continue playing when I just want to take a break. Now after watching more of the gameplay vids I'll concede that Wrath's implementation of soul tethers don't look outrageous. But the precedent that it sets is why a lot of people complain about it. It invites more of this hand held "let the game handle everything for you" mentality that a lot of modern games have adopted for better or worse. If your game is marketed as a retro experience and it's on the Quake engine, then it's no surprise players will expect Quake's saving system as well.

[Zaxx]

Putrid Pete, on 10 September 2019 - 07:00 AM, said:

I guess my point is, why care?

Because:

- Even the preview or what it will be called is not out yet. So we don't know shit. So complaining about something you haven't experienced (so you don't know if it's actually going to be a problem or not) is stupid.
- I like the idea but seeing what happened with IF's soap controversy 3DR are a bunch of cowards, cowards who might just end up changing a game if there are complaints about something. One day it could be a soap battle, the next day it could be a game design decision. I very much support the idea of letting a developer make a game how he wants to make it and I think KillPixel and the rest of the team are experienced enough modders to decide what's the best for me.
- I think that save scumming hurts the player experience because the action is supposed to be continous, you should get into the flow of things etc.

As for what I consider to be abusing the save system, that's easy: getting through a hard combat encounter by quicksaving and quickloading continously so you segment up a difficult part by let's say killing an enemy - save - another one kills you - load - you kill that now - save etc. I'm against that because if you do that you basically fuck yourself over: you pass a part that you shouldn't have passed so you'll have more difficulties later down the line because you failed to learn the lesson the game was trying to teach you. And no, I don't think that not letting the player to rid himself of opportunities to learn the game is gatekeeping because it's not about being amazing at a game.

If you're having difficulties in an old school single player FPS it's usually because you were a bit "lazy": you didn't experiment with that weapon you're not using, you didn't explore the map properly or you just failed to pay attention to an enemy pattern. That's why that hard part was put there: so that you could reflect on your mistakes, learn from them and "pass the test" a few minutes later. Nobody comes out of the womb being great at every FPS out there, people "git gud" at a game by letting themselves fail and learn. The problem is very rarely a lack of mechanical skill, that's just what people like to say because it's the easiest excuse to come up with: "I couldn't do anything, I can't aim that well."

And on top of that I think that connecting the save system to exploration in an old school FPS is a really cool way to encourage players to explore. It makes finding secrets a lot more rewarding than in most games if it's designed well (even in IF it's a pretty regular problem that you spend 10 minutes figuring out a secret, you finally get it and all you get is a radar... I hate it if a very significant portion of a game's secrets is just filler).

Quote

a simple save system was already good enough in Quake, why take a gamble with this?

Because trying out different and new things is what moves game design forward? I don't want to play a Quake clone, I want to play Wrath being Wrath so yeah, I prefer them trying and failing instead of just taking the beaten path in every single aspect.

[Putrid Pete]

But you didn't answer my question: why care that other players play in whatever way they want as long as you are free to play as you see fit? Why care if other players fuck themselves over? Even if 3DR change the saving system and demand that the game allows you to save without limits, nothing is stopping you from not saving.

Zaxx, on 10 September 2019 - 07:40 AM, said:

Because trying out different and new things is what moves game design forward?

I don't think a half-baked limitation on saves is anything new nor moving game design forward.

[Zaxx]

Putrid Pete, on 10 September 2019 - 07:45 AM, said:

But you didn't answer my question: why care that other players play in whatever way they want as long as you are free to play as you see fit? Why care if other players fuck themselves over? Even if 3DR change the saving system and demand that the game allows you to save without limits, nothing is stopping you from not saving.

Yet the original design intention would be altered and that's what I have problems with. Modding it in is fine but altering stuff that works but didn't fit the taste of a part of the playerbase is not because it compromises what the devs wanted to do. And really you don't have to like every game you play or like every part of a game you like overall.

For example I really hate the final "bossfight" of IF, I think it's the worst part of the game by far and I think that a standard bossfight would have been a million times better. That seems to be the general opinion on it yet some people like it, hell, VoidPoint tried and failed but they TRIED to come up with something interesting. If they added a secret button that just instakills the dome if you manage to find it then I'd use the crap out of that thing but overall that would be altering the original design so changes like that shouldn't really happen and overall it's still a wonderful game.

It's like how a lot of people demand easy modes for From Software games but they are like "fuck that, if you want it you can mod it in but we're not altering our design."

[Putrid Pete]

Zaxx, on 10 September 2019 - 07:58 AM, said:

Yet the original design intention would be altered and that's what I have problems with. Modding it in is fine but altering stuff that works but didn't fit the taste of a part of the playerbase is not because it compromises what the devs wanted to do. And really you don't have to like every game you play or like every part of a game you like overall.

For example I really hate the final "bossfight" of IF, I think it's the worst part of the game by far and I think that a standard bossfight would have been a million times better. That seems to be the general opinion on it yet some people like it, hell, VoidPoint tried and failed but they TRIED to come up with something interesting. If they added a secret button that just instakills the dome if you manage to find it then I'd use the crap out of that thing but overall that would be altering the original design so changes like that shouldn't really happen.

It's like how a lot of people demand easy modes for From Software games but they are like "fuck that, if you want it you can mod it in but we're not altering our design."

I think we just see things differently and I am happy to concede that we have different outlooks on what game design should be that are probably irreconcilable. I can respect that you have a certain philosophy to how game design should be implemented and I don't think there's a problem with me begging to differ on it. My only problem is that you seem to suggest that other people should modify their approach at gaming on the account of what you consider is the "right way to play", hence the gate-keeping comment.

Much like in real life, I value freedom in gaming; the players' freedom matter as much if not more than a developer's to me, and it bothers me to no end when somebody wants to tell others what to do and how, be it in gaming or otherwise. I believe a responsible adult that paid for a game should be allowed to suck, save scum, mod, cheese, cheat, exploit and otherwise do whatever the fuck he wants with a game he purchased so long as he doesn't interfere with other people's way of playing, so usually I'm against all I just listed in competitive/multiplayer games. In granting the player this freedom, I prefer game design to be less restrictive than not. I don't like a game that hand holds me telling me what to do. This is why I often gravitate to more open ended and sandboxy games such as Elite: Dangerous and EVE (I have 2,600 hours played in Elite and about 2000 something in EVE).

I guess hilariously, despite not being a libertarian in real life, I am a libertarian in gaming: I prefer less intervention from the developer and more freedom to the buyer, with the developer acting as the state and the buyer as the individual.

[Zaxx]

Putrid Pete, on 10 September 2019 - 08:14 AM, said:

I believe a responsible adult that paid for a game should be allowed to suck, save scum, mod, cheese, cheat, exploit and otherwise do whatever the fuck he wants with a game he purchased so long as he doesn't interfere with other people's way of playing, so usually I'm against all I just listed in competitive/multiplayer games.

I do agree with that, I just think it's not the developer's responsibility to cater to all of those needs, especially when it comes to the indie sector where money is tight and especially when it comes to a PC game. So you know, for a game like Wrath that's already on an open source engine you can mod the crap out of I say the devs should do what they want, they should use their limited resources on stuff they think of as important and then the community will take care of what the loud people want. I guarantee you that one day from release there will be a mod that lets you save anywhere and anytime or maybe even the game will have a cheat code that will give you unlimited tethers.

As for why I believe that fan / player feedback should not be listened to all the damn time my resoning is fairly straight forward: I don't like how the AAA industry has standardized itself in the last decade. For example these days every single third person game feels and controls the same way because the players decided that Uncharted and Gears of War had great controls so now they complain about everything that's different because "UC / GoW did it better". Resident Evil 4 had limited movement controls and different aiming mechanics because that's how Capcom wanted it? "Fuck that, that kind of tension is artifical and shit now, make it control like UC!" And then you get something like The Evil Within, a survival horror game that controls like Uncharted. That control scheme really didn't fit that game, honestly I was very surprised that Capcom could find a good compromise between that and the classic RE4 controls for the RE2 remake but even there some of the uniqueness of RE was just lost in the process. You no longer have to learn the controls of a third person game because everything just controls like Uncharted and that's boring.

Hell, nowadays people started to complain about fucking Rockstar's control scheme because they are basically the last AAA developers who stick to their guns and implement their own movement controls where sometimes the animations are more important than direct feedback so their characters have weight to them and they really feel like as if they were part of the game world, plus you have to keep tapping a button to sprint so it feels like an effort etc.. "But no, that's shit now because it's just not direct enough, we want UC now, let me hold the button to sprint, you outdated idiots who can't do game design!" And then you look at something like Sony's exclusive lineup these days and basically every single one of them are third person action games. You liked the variety that God of War offered by being a fixed camera spectacle fighter? Fuck that, it's an over the shoulder perspective action game now because the UC games sell more!

So you know, just let KillPixel experiment, maybe they'll stumble upon something fresh even if you think that it's a bad idea or that it's not looking fresh enough. Give yourself a chance to leave your comfort zone a bit, see how the save system feels and allow yourself to be wrong if you end up liking it better than what you're used to.

[Putrid Pete]

I think the truth is somewhere in between. I agree that most of the time players don't know what they want and will clearly suggest stupid and horrible things to be implemented. Every single shitty early access survival game out there is a testament to that. That said, developers don't make the games in a vacuum for other developers; they make them for gamers. To ignore player feedback would be foolish. Personally I don't see a developer's original design intent as sacred. I enjoy playing with those limitations and challenging myself for sure, but I see no problem in them being removed by the community through modding or later optionally as part of community feedback.

Also there's the possibility that what you fear can happen by listening to the community also happens by not listening to it. What if the indy dev scene start gravitating towards game design choices you abhor and when you let them know about what features you dislike, they decide simply to not listen to much player feedback, including yours and others that feel the same way because they adopt an attitude of 'its our game and here's how we intended it'? Suddenly you'd have games repeating the same trends you dislike and you'll find yourself with less say on their implementation.

Earlier you mentioned that sometimes there will be games you won't like or that have things you don't like and that's okay. Well that goes both ways: sometimes a game will be altered in ways you don't like because other people complained, and I'm guessing if people can make Doom 4 Vanilla run on DOS, somebody will also mod back the 'original game intent'.

But let's talk solutions so we don't go in circles. I'm reminded of when Blizzard wanted players to play less hours of WoW, so they added a restrictive element to their game: if you played too long, your EXP gain rate would decrease. This angered many players and caused Blizzard to rethink their approach. By rewarding the player, instead of restricting them, they were able to achieve what they wanted originally, and not compromise their vision. They reversed the system and instead granted an EXP bonus to players that logged off for several hours. Wrath could do the same thing by adding to the gameplay instead of taking away. Here's a possible compromise:

Keep the game as is, so that when you hit new game without changing settings, it starts with soul tethers and 'as intended originally by devs'. Have an option to select between the soul tether system or a regular saving system only before you start a new game. If you started the game with tethers then you can't change save systems midway into the game, and viceversa. Perhaps disable turning soul tethers off while playing in hard/nightmare difficulties. Make achievements available only if soul tethers are on. I think the recompense of achievement hunting and a mandatory harder saving mechanic that would make sense in harder difficulties would be way better implementation of their current soul tether system. Just a thought.

[Zaxx]

WoW is an interesting example now that you mention it: there they listened to player feedback so much that now you have a different game there so another segment of the playerbase formed that campaigned for years to get back to the original vision... and bam, WoW Classic is a huge hit. Maybe all of those cumbersome and time consuming limitations were part of what made the game so special? It clearly was to a lot of people while regular WoW is just a shadow of its former glory now.

And just to reiterate I'm not against listening to player feedback, I'm against listening to it "too much" so to speak. Player feedback is very important: it can lead to genuine improvements, a better realization of what the developer originally intended (like you know, if the developer's intention clearly came off as something else to a lot of players then that could warrant an alteration) and when it comes to online games there always comes a point when the playerbase takes over the game. As the players know more and more about the game they can do stuff the developer never intended and then those things should be taken into consideration for the future balance or the next installment. For example Quake's bunny hopping and Quake 2's strafe jumping were engine quirks players used so much that for Q3 the devs looked at it as a game mechanic (and Carmack wanted it removed because it didn't fit his vision of Quake but that's a different story ) and really these days it's very much a part of Quake's unique identity. Another thing is remasters / remakes: there I think the player feedback is matured to a point over the years where genuine improvements could be made to an old game with simple changes or new tech.

But it can happen (and lots of times it does) that there is a strong clash between the player feedback and the developer intention and I think that's when a developer has to be very careful on what to listen to.

[Putrid Pete]

Irrespective of WoW's failures, the point was to highlight that its better to reward the player than to restrict them if you will introduce a new game mechanic. In other words, have the game mechanic play a significant part in the player experience and truly enhance the game rather than just having it there as a roadblock. What I mean by this is, why remove saving for soul tethers when you can have both and still keep the original vision intact?

[Zaxx]

Yeah, why I didn't react to your suggestion on Wrath is because I feel we have different expectations. You expect something that will stop you from saving at the end of a game session while I expect nothing more than a mechanic that will make you somewhat more aware and cautious without holding your time hostage. But then again I'm not against the idea of an FPS that you can't play in 30 minute long sessions because you wouldn't watch a 3 hour long movie in six 30 minute long sessions either, there would be no point.

[Putrid Pete]

And that is, I believe, where we differ. I can always pause my movies and continue later and watch them in short bits. Where you see no point in that, I see pretty much what I do for living. Maybe it's because I studied literature and I always like to carefully analyze and decompose all the elements of the movie I'm watching (after all, a script is literature), so I end up replaying scenes, and watching them in whatever order I feel like, usually to write an essay for a student class I might give or something like that. Maybe I'm just dense and need to watch things at my own pace. But I have the same approach with games. I hate being held hostage by them and this is my main objection to checkpoints: I hate feeling anxious not knowing when its safe to turn off my game because I will lose my progress. Completely burns me out and takes my desire away to play when I am forced to continue if I'm tired.

I am happy to mod Wrath if it means it lets me play how I want. I also don't care if developers intended it that way or not. Still, I think there's a more robust way of going about soul tethers from what I've seen so far, but I'll reserve my full judgement until I play. I do hope they are inconsequential more than I hope they are frustrating and poorly implemented. One of my biggest faults is that I always expect the worse out of things. So to combat that, like I said in the Quake thread, I'll remain cautiously optimistic about Wrath.