Hagar wrote: ↑Tue Jun 27, 2023 3:32 am
rodrigoxm49 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2023 1:18 pm
Kronzky wrote: ↑Thu Jun 01, 2023 1:54 pm
After having watched all the pre-release gameplay videos posted by those veterans, and seeing them fail left and right, I'm starting to worry about about the difficulty level of this game.
After all, these are trained and experienced pros. They survived the real thing, and they should be able to survive the game. But instead, they're dropping like flies.
This would be like handing a race game to Lewis Hamilton, and him wiping out at every other corner. If that happens there's something wrong with the game, not with Lewis Hamilton.
I mean, I'm all for hard games (there are way too few of them), but if you're going for realism then dying should be the exception, rather than the rule. (And should only happen if you really, really screwed up. The real numbers were about 2,000 troops involved, and having 27 deaths. In the game it seems to be the other way round...)
I don't have any problems to not die in this game (it doens't mean that I not die, but it's not too often). I think there's nothing to tweak, at the risk of making the game extremely easy. I haven't seen a single situation where I considered it unfair to have died or been shot. The difficulty is fine, in my opinion. The game is made to be absolutely brutal and have no mercy. US marines are good on real life, a videogame is extremely different even if you know the CQB concepts.
This is not a Mario Bros games, guys. Train, apply the concepts and you will be rewarded. That's the fun of though game, guys.
Dude, thats the point. Not everyone is like you that play so well, keep this lvl of difficulty, fine! Just add other lvls less difficult so more people can enjoy. No one wants to take your fun away, we just want to have fun ourselves. Yeah war is hard, but this a computer game, unless you want to make it just for veterans, and then hope most of them dont get frustrated because they cant succeed here like they did IRL...
I'm not a very good FPS player, man. I'm only decent, having a really bad reaction time compared to the good ones. But I do love CQB games and I play using some knowledge about it. And works really good on this game. Really really well.
Anyway, if it's something that would help the game sell more and devs have the data to prove this, they should put this in the game. I don't have any problem with people tweaking the experience. I have a brutal server on Insurgency Sandstorm and without it I would never play the game. So in a different direction (make the game much harder and tactical), I understand what you asking. But I see a big issue with that in this particularly game. People can think the game is lame depending on what settings you change.
Let's say they put some settings to tweak AI reaction, for example. Adding 100 or 200ms. It could make the game really dummy and game could flop because people on youtube will think the game have bad AI and they will not buy the game, you know? That's something that devs probably have in mind when they not allow to change much the game. There's a workaround for it like a watermark saying the gameplay is not using default settings recommended for the game and what changes was changed. But it could ruin the player experience by having a watermark in the game.
I know that games like these can be frustrating, but I think it's the concept of the game. It's hard, it's though, you will find absolutely no mercy, it's absolutely brutal. But the rewards? Oh, man, it's really amazing when you make it and things work well as planned. Once you start to get good at it, the reward is really satisfying.