Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
You should seek a job in a marketing department. Because it's the only I place I can conceive where bugs are sold as features. The problem isn't the punishment of failing, but that the system is too buggy. The game doesn't warn you that you have to stay within a certain area, just out of nowhere comes a "mission failed". That is bad design.
There is a difference between something being challenging or requiring skill, and something simply being frustrating. When you fail you should be able to look back and realize where you made a mistake. But when the game makes a mistake and punishes the player for it, it's bad design.
The same way challenge mode doesn't require tactics or teamplay but instead gear and grind. The enemies don't become better organized or use more proficient tactics but just do more damage and become more spongy. That simply shows a lack of creativity or skill on behave of the dev team. The new incursion is the best example. If you want to beat it, rush it. Play the game as a cover based shooter and work methodically and you get punished for it. But if you exploit a flaw in design you win. That's just stupid and not worthy of a AAA title.
Yea, am just waiting on a dominoes the now
Are you saying games like DayZ or Diablo2 & 3's Hardcore mode are examples of bad design? These games are just two of many that have a much harsh penalty from dying. And there are plenty more worse than Division. It's not the end of the world to retry and earn back you're oppertunity to run the mission again.
I just don't get it, If anything Division is on much easier side of the scale when comparing it to other games. Even the crafting which is a total other topic is much easier compared to most games. - People complain that the game is too easy so the Devs implament something slightly more challanging than usual and when people don't complete it on their first try they complain.
The devs didn't make the game more challenging, they just simply made it take longer to do things. Longer to gather materials, Longer to kill enemies, Longer to obtain gear (Which was quasi-fixed this update), Longer to level up /gain cash in PVP...
It is a self-created grind, and that grind in of itself isn't a challenge. There is very little variation in how you approach situations inside missions - You shoot it until it dies, and spam skills. There aren't many different ways you can do that. Then you throw in a hardcore 1-life survival game like DayZ, and the challenge becomes more obvious. Thanks to a whole realism factor though, the different ways you can approach situations is more evident, and your enemie's mortality is also as evident as your own. Not always the case when trying to fend off four LMB "challenging" shotgunners who think your bullets are butterflies.
The most creative fight that I felt ended up occurring was the Helicopter ati the U.N. building because of the vast array of attacks it had, and then when I was better geared and doing it on hard mode, I just loaded explosive rounds into my SAW, and just swatted it out of the air like it didn't matter. And among gaming bosses the Helicopter boss is one of the LEAST creative.
In Moose's case, he was veritably screwed. The game does an AWFUL job at giving boundaries to a mission objective, and it happened during the regular sidemissions all the time to me where a bugged enemy would be around a corner outside the mission zone and I would end up losing it when I went to go kill him. It's actions like that that are frustrating.
He was punished after dumping sevaral hours into his game trying to grind intel, and didn't necessarily lose it to a bad death as much as he did to a bad map and unspecified game bounds. That is annoying. There is no sense of satisfaction of repeatedly hunting and killing groups of randoms - We do that in the streets and DZ anyways already. At least in other games there's a chance to get some satisfaction along the way, and constellation prizes so you don't feel that you got entirely screwed and left empty-handed.
Nope; You lose, you lose. And that really irks people the wrong way because they wasted time in a fruitless endeavor that doesn't even so much as at least acknowledge the fact you took significant amounts of time and effort out of your day or gametime when you could have instead been delving into the DZ or an Incursion where the payout is SUBSTANTIALLY higher, and you can still walk away with stuff be it credits, XP, or random items dropped on your way to the big cookie.
+1
You entierely missed by point or purpusefully misrepresented it. Did you even read my post?
I played the witcher on NG+ deathmarch. I like punishing experiences. But the difference in the witcher is that the game mechanics work well and if you die it's because you messed up.
My point isn't that the division is too punishing. But that the game punishes you for the game's own flaws. If you mess up and get punished: Fine. But if the game messes up(e.g. not communicating mission boundries, badly designed cover or enemy spawns) and still punishes you for it, then that is messed up. Imagine a game where you get harshly punished and the only deciding factor was pure luck. That wouldn't be fun. DayZ punishes you hard, but if you didn't spot the sniper that shot you: Your fault. If you walk into an ambush because you didn't pay attention: Your fault. That is fine. If you can't see the difference between the player being punished for his own faults and the player being punished as a consequence of bad game design then I can't help you.
Currently in HVT missions there is no worning about leaving mission area, but if you do get back behind the gate you lose the mission. It's like if battlefield had no 10 second timer when you go out of bounds but instead just killed you instantly without even showing the boundry on the map. Seriously if you can't understand that then I don't know what's wrong with you, but something is
#failgameoftheyear
Man, the Night Shift one - one of the waves of tank flamers spawned in a circle around me. Even with defense sig up I died almost instantly ...
You are definitely not supposed to be doing any of the HVT's solo.
It sucks though. The matchmaking is still broken - supposed to match only with lvl 30, but it doesn't work. So it's not that easy finding a group.
Then when you do find a group, you're screwed if you have no mic, since the chat is broken. If you get the UI bug, start all over again, because logging back in won't keep you in the group.
To do HVT without friends online, you have to get lucky and find a group that rolls forward - takes me about 20 minutes everytime.
Would be so much easier with a ''HVT'' matchmaker option that ACTUALLY groups you with people lvl 30, preferably close to you in GS - no offense, but playing with 3 guys between 140-160 sucks. I just run out of bullets.
It's bloody PvE - why not scale it so it's possible to run it solo ... I don't mind it being hard, but I keep running out of bullets there's so much waves !